Detailed Encounter Example

[Falenthal]

Don't forget to allow them to use their Traits for automatic successes! It will only give them a single success per usage (i.e., no chance of getting two or three successes with a great or extraordinary roll), but Traits like Fair-Spoken are perfect for Encounters.

Right! I left that out of the example because: a) I forgot about them!
b) They are used during Encounters as any other time, so there's no need to specify how Traits are played during Encounters.

But Majestic raises a good point here: Encounters seem to be designed so that they can never be "losed".
By "losing an Encounter" I mean surpassing 0 Tolerance without having obtained not a single success.
ANY Trait that can be related to social interaction (Fair-spoken, Beautiful, Honorable, Fair,... [sorry, I don't recall the names in english]) can be used by the first hero to introduce himself or the group for an automatic success. That way, even if the group screws it up for the rest of the tests, they will have obtained 1 success at least. The introduction of the Optional Rule for Level of Success makes it meaningful, but remember that the original rules simply considered that, with 1 success before running out of Tolerance, the group had already achieved their goal.
That may be an intentional effect of the rules (no adventure will be cancelled because of a few bad dice rolls) or there could be some mistakes in the rules or in how we play them.

As Majestic, I've never had the situation where my group "failed" an Encounter. Not near.

[Glorelendil]

I started writing a response about this "failing" an encounter thing but ended up not posting it.

But, in the same vein as the last couple of posts, what exactly does it mean to "fail" an encounter? That makes as much sense to me as "failing a Journey".

Maybe it means getting zero successes? If so, that should be rare (like passing no fatigue tests) and wouldn't find it surprising if a given table had never experienced it. Especially with trait invocation.

Encounters aren't binary; they're about degree of success.

On the other hand, if groups are regularly racking up 7+ successes before hitting Tolerance, then something needs to be harder.

[MasterSmithwise]

Ahaa! I am understanding now. We were interpreting "fail" differently. In my opinion, reaching tolerance is a failure. Anyone can get into an argument or anger someone and still walk away with useful information, but you're no longer on good terms with that person and that to me is a failed encounter. The goal at my table is to walk away with as much information as possible without upsetting or annoying, or driving to anger, the NPC. Obviously getting zero successes would be a catastrophic, and rare, failure. I can't imagine an encounter going that badly. So, I too can say that my players have never failed an encounter.

Have they pissed some people off though? Oh ya...

[Glorelendil]

Ahaa! I am understanding now. We were interpreting "fail" differently. In my opinion, reaching tolerance is a failure. Anyone can get into an argument or anger someone and still walk away with useful information, but you're no longer on good terms with that person and that to me is a failed encounter. The goal at my table is to walk away with as much information as possible without upsetting or annoying, or driving to anger, the NPC. Obviously getting zero successes would be a catastrophic, and rare, failure. I can't imagine an encounter going that badly. So, I too can say that my players have never failed an encounter.

Have they pissed some people off though? Oh ya...

Oh! As Stormcrow alluded above, reaching Tolerance doesn't mean you've pissed somebody off. Reaching Tolerance can mean many different things, with the only universality being "continued attempts to use social skills are not going to change the outcome of the goal stated by the players as the reason for engaging in the Encounter." Nothing more, nothing less.

In terms of specific scenarios, reaching Tolerance might mean:
- The NPC attacks you
- The NPC has allocated enough time to this business and needs to get back to smithing/sleeping/kinging/etc.
- The NPC won't increase the reward any higher
- The NPC won't reduce prices any lower
- The NPC won't give you any more information
- The NPC thinks you should be more grateful that he's letting you sleep in his barn. ("Pillows!?!?!")

Etc.

[Falenthal]

Encounters aren't binary; they're about degree of success.

As usual, I agree with everything you say, Glorelendil.
Just wanted to notice that, in the slipcase version of the rules, Encounter were binary. Does that mean something? Even now, the degrees of success are just optional. I find them mandatory, not optional, but that's what leads me to think that reaching Tolerance without getting any success was thought like happening once in a while in the beginning of the game.

[MasterSmithwise]

Just to save a little face, I gave a few other examples of what hitting tolerance might mean. Saying the NPC is pissed was just my "sign off sarcasm".

Getting a little more back on topic with encounter details...

Do you guys run encounters for every conversation or just major ones? Obviously the random passerby on the street doesn't really count. But for NPCs that don't really have anything to offer? I generally only do Encounters when it's obvious the NPC is a vital player in the story. The other situation is if the players aren't really roleplaying effectively. If my group is having a lot of fun in character and we're dodging and weaving conversationally I don't often burden the players with rolls, unless of course they want to attempt something extraordinary, unlikely, or complicated.

Thoughts on this?

[Stormcrow]

Just wanted to notice that, in the slipcase version of the rules, Encounter were binary.

No, they weren't. The point of an encounter is not just to achieve the reward at the end. You're not after one simple thing—if you were, you could just resolve it with a single action and move on. An encounter is a complex interaction with a Loremaster character, in which you want multiple related things. The reward at the end is just an endcap.

Let's take the meeting with Gloin at the beginning of "The Marsh Bell." The goal of the encounter is stated in the text: "to get officially involved in the search for Balin and Oin." But the players still need to arrange the details of this. The text suggests several tasks the players may attempt for more information or benefits. Gloin is hiding his concern for Oin. He is also not quite ready to admit his foresighted dream. Before he agrees to hire the heroes, he has to be persuaded to tell of his sending Hraf to investigate. These are all points you can learn during the encounter. They are valuable in themselves, not just as a way to Gloin pay you more.

I can think of other points of contention. The player-heroes might want Gloin to provide special equipment or help. They might think of a better plan and present it to Gloin. They might try to persuade Gloin himself to accompany them. Any of these would be individual tasks during an encounter.

Yes, if you "fail" the encounter by exceeding the Tolerance, Gloin won't hire you, or he'll hire you but not let you make any further demands of him. But by then you have had the chance to find out all sorts of details about the adventure; you might decide to go looking for the expedition anyway.

[Stormcrow]

Do you guys run encounters for every conversation or just major ones?

You should run an encounter anytime the player-heroes want something socially from a Loremaster character they meet that is more complicated than just a single action, and if that character is in some way resistant to giving it to them (or vice versa).

If all you need to accomplish your goal is a single action, you just roll for that action and move on.

If the Loremaster character isn't resisting, then all your actions are automatic actions, and there's no point in imposing the encounter structure onto your conversation.

The encounter doesn't have to be central to the "plot" of the game. For example, if the player-heroes want to buy stuff from a merchant, but they want to haggle, cajole, or awe him to lower his price, and they also want to learn information about the items for sale that the merchant might not be willing to admit (e.g., "This thingamabob is not actually brand new like I said."), then you run an encounter. A shopping scene isn't central to events happening in Middle-earth, but the players felt it was important enough to spend effort on, so it's an encounter. On the other hand, the players could simply have decided to buy the stuff at whatever price the merchant was asking for it, and not try to get information about the goods, in which case there's no resistance and hence no encounter.

[Majestic]

I didn't realize that 0 tolerance wasn't the end either. But, I also don't count riddle or insight rolls against tolerance as those are often "listening" skills. You can use Riddle to phrase a statement and essentially bluff, or as the rules state, you can use it to decipher something someone says. So failing a "thinking" check shouldn't affect tolerance in the slightest. This being the case, having the conversation end at 0 balances well with my group since they often only attempt things they are highly skilled at, and can roll riddles and insights all day without penalty. When they fail I simply give them either nothing, or an incorrect piece of information.

While you're of course welcome to do things however you want, I'll just add that I'm pretty sure my group has never once failed an Encounter (even the one with the teensy-weensy Tolerance: the Dragon in Tales).

Personally I feel like that's not a good thing. If this was the case for my players they just wouldn't care anymore. There's no tension or fear of failure. A false safety net. Likewise, my group isn't ever spending hope and will likely never suffer from a bout of madness. To me this means that I'm potentially making things too easy. The whole point of hope is to signify the hopelessness of the current age in the game. Heroes more hopeful accomplish greater tasks. Instead my players just opt for failure, likely because the consequences don't matter to them for whatever reason.

So, I really think that players should, and need, to fail encounters at times. It's a part of the experience, and shows that the heroes won't always get what they want and have to improvise from time to time when things to go according to plan. Sure, players can be cautious and calculated and avoid the vast majority of failures, but they really need to fail at least a few times.

That's just my opinion, of course.

Well, even if they've never technically failed an Encounter, they've at least come very close. And there have still been very tense situations, and expenditure of Hope to prevent things. Not to mention characters that blundered along the way and may have been dismissed (by the person they're talking with) or have chosen to clam up to not hurt the party further. I may have given the wrong impression; it's not like it's such a cake-walk that there's no tension. They've never truly lost a fight either, I suppose; at least there's never been a TPK. But there has been a PC death, and they've not fought all the way until the death every time.

And it's also worth noting that "success" is relative, in that the players determine what their goals are. So - just for an example - in a recent Encounter they worked out a "deal" by persuading Mogdred to ally with the Woodmen. If you've read Darknening, or played through it, then you know they've actually just played perfectly into his hands. They didn't "fail" this Encounter, in that they accomplished what they set out to do, but in the long run it may not be that positive of a result for the Free Peoples.

[Edited to add: I responded before reading other responses, and it seems we all are pretty much in agreement]