New Loremaster, Combat issues.

[zedturtle]

I also thought the "three dots = 1 AP" mechanic was unnecessarily confusing and cumbersome.

Of course, you're free to do it however it works best for you, but I just wanted to touch base on this... each dot next to the skills counts as an AP at the end of the adventure. The three dots for each block of skills just serves as a limiter... no one can constantly spam one skill to gain APs; each hero must have at least one good skill in each of the six categories in order to have a chance at getting the maximum reward for the adventure.

In fact, I'd say that's the one thing that you miss most when you switch to static APs... there's no longer an incentive for heroes to be generalists. They can specialise as much as they want, and they'll still get the same number of APs.

I find that (with the new revised rules) APs are relatively easy to earn... you get the first one in each category just for any success and the second one for either rolling a Tengwar or twisting my arm about a Trait (which I make really easy to do). Yeah, the third one is hard to get, but if you think about the amount you're rewarding, you're not giving out any third points either.

Again, totally your call (do what works for you!) but thought I'd clarify that point and put my .02 in at the same time.

[mirdanis]

I also thought the "three dots = 1 AP" mechanic was unnecessarily confusing and cumbersome.

... each dot next to the skills counts as an AP at the end of the adventure. The three dots for each block of skills just serves as a limiter... no one can constantly spam one skill to gain APs; each hero must have at least one good skill in each of the six categories in order to have a chance at getting the maximum reward for the adventure.

Oh man, really??? I must have misread, misunderstood, or misinterpreted that rule badly then! Maybe I'll take another look at it - now if only I can remember to reward APs consistently for successful rolls! Thanks, Zed!

In fact, I'd say that's the one thing that you miss most when you switch to static APs... there's no longer an incentive for heroes to be generalists. They can specialise as much as they want, and they'll still get the same number of APs.

When I was gearing up to run this game, I thought carefully about what type of gamers I wanted to play with, and made selective invitations accordingly. And even before we had the character creation session we had The Talk about how TOR is different from other RPGs. Thankfully, I chose well and ended up with a great team. They're not power-hungry system-exploiting min-maxing murder-hobos at all. They get the story. They care about the story as much as I do. And the way I play and the challenges I throw at them, they do have to be generalists. They are fairly frequently called on to make rolls in skills they're not great at - and then they face the consequences.

I was quite flattered - both for myself and on Cubicle Seven's behalf - when one of my players recently told me the game was "far and away the best role-playing experience of his life". He cited the "fantastic interactions among players and between players and NPCs...a real feeling of danger and a level of critical thinking I've rarely seen in such games." He went on to comment, "It's the cornerstone of my week. I can't stop thinking about it once the game ends." For a novice Lore-Master, and a woman in a hobby that's sometimes unkind to women, these words were very heartwarming to hear.

[Random221B]

Oh man, really??? I must have misread, misunderstood, or misinterpreted that rule badly then! Maybe I'll take another look at it - now if only I can remember to reward APs consistently for successful rolls! Thanks, Zed!

If I may make a suggestion here...I haven't run a lot of TOR yet--I ran The Marsh Bell/To Journey's End and Blood in the Water for a group, and am about to start a new campaign next week--but during the brief period I did run it, I found I didn't have to remember to reward APs too often, if I put it on the players. I explained to them how APs were earned, and they would mention it to me, i.e. "That's my first success on a Custom skill, can I get the AP for that?" or "Extraordinary success! That's my third AP!" I would need to remind players occasionally, but they also took the initiative to remind each other. Someone would have a really good role, and another player would say, "Do you have any APs in that category, yet?"

Because a) players tend to be invested in improving their characters, and b) each player really only has their own character to remember and keep track of (reminders to each other notwithstanding) instead of me having to remember and keep track of all of them, I find it works much more smoothly that way. One less thing for me to have to be on top of all the time.

[Glorelendil]

In terms of earning 2nd and 3rd AP, I suggest requiring players to narrate how their traits are used. Not just "can I invoke that trait", but tell a story about how it helps.

It's more fun for everyone else, and with some creativity you might convince the LM to let you make some otherwise dubious connections. I.e., invoke "Tall" on a Travel roll to describe how you can step easily over fallen logs in a blowdown, where your companions have to struggle over each one.

[Majestic]

I agree with Random: getting your players to help remind each other is a great way of keeping track. And as LM I find that - once you get the hang of how the APs work - it's pretty easy to remind the players, "You all succeeded at your Travel rolls, so everybody remember to mark a circle in your 'Movement' skill group!"

Glorelendil: that's a good idea; I'm going to try to remember to use that in my game. Sometimes my players get in the habit of asking "Can I invoke Nimble on that one, to get a third AP?" I think I'll respond next time with "Go ahead and describe how Nimble would work in this case", putting the onus back on the player.

I think once you try things out the RAW way, mirdanis, you'll find it works quite well. The first AP in each skill group is super easy (all it takes is a successful roll on any of those three skills) and the second isn't hard, either (simply getting a single tengwar on any roll). What is especially fun is when you start using the Eye Awareness rules from Rivendell. With the chance of bad things happening as the result of rolling an Eye, it makes players consider whether to simply invoke a Trait (for an auto success, but no AP) or take their chances. In any event, it sounds like you've got a great group and a fun game!

[aramis]

In Re Skills and AP...

It really helps to give players a cheat sheet with the Task/Test process
Gettin' pretty pedantic, here's what I'd put
Task
1. State objective
2. State Skill - if anyone objects, LM picks

Test
1. State trigger
2 state skill

Both
3. LM states difficulty
4. Player decides whether or not to invoke a trait to bypass step 5, 6, and 7.
5. Assemble dice pool - 1d12, (rating)d6's
6. Roll Pool. check for ...
6.1 Sauron or gandalf
6.2 if not gandalf, total on all dice (remembering weary makes 1,2,3=0); if >TN, success
6.2.1 if gandalf, success
6.3 if success, count number of dice which rolled 6's to get Success Level; 0 = basic, 1 = Great, 2+= Extraordinary
6.4 apply effects of Sauron.
7 If a common skill was used, and the dice roll succeeded, Check for experience, based upon the experience boxes ticked for the category
7.1 none yet - success by
7.2 one box ticked - success and trait —OR— Great/Extraordinary success
7.3 two boxes ticked - Great/Extraordinary success and trait

[zedturtle]

Oh man, really??? I must have misread, misunderstood, or misinterpreted that rule badly then! Maybe I'll take another look at it - now if only I can remember to reward APs consistently for successful rolls! Thanks, Zed!

No worries. Your thanks almost makes up for the fact that you called Glorelendil a celebrity and not me.

When I was gearing up to run this game, I thought carefully about what type of gamers I wanted to play with, and made selective invitations accordingly. And even before we had the character creation session we had The Talk about how TOR is different from other RPGs. Thankfully, I chose well and ended up with a great team. They're not power-hungry system-exploiting min-maxing murder-hobos at all. They get the story. They care about the story as much as I do. And the way I play and the challenges I throw at them, they do have to be generalists. They are fairly frequently called on to make rolls in skills they're not great at - and then they face the consequences.

I was quite flattered - both for myself and on Cubicle Seven's behalf - when one of my players recently told me the game was "far and away the best role-playing experience of his life". He cited the "fantastic interactions among players and between players and NPCs...a real feeling of danger and a level of critical thinking I've rarely seen in such games." He went on to comment, "It's the cornerstone of my week. I can't stop thinking about it once the game ends." For a novice Lore-Master, and a woman in a hobby that's sometimes unkind to women, these words were very heartwarming to hear.

That sounds awesome! I believe that the game can be fun for a lot of different kinds of players, but it does encourage a mindset that's a bit different than some other games.

I think I've had females in almost all my groups*, and I really appreciate the effort that C7 has made to make Middle-earth an inclusive place, for the most part (I use Hunter and Look-out in my games instead of the gendered versions, but that's a minor gripe).

- - - - -

* When one plays online, one can never be sure. The preponderance of evidence is that I'm not a super-evolved AI, but you never know...

[Random221B]

I think I've had females in almost all my groups*, and I really appreciate the effort that C7 has made to make Middle-earth an inclusive place, for the most part (I use Hunter and Look-out in my games instead of the gendered versions, but that's a minor gripe).

"Woodmen" is one of the ones that I have a little trouble with. Because both my last game and the one I'm about to start uses the pregens, the Bride is/was a PC in both. I started saying she is "one of the Woodmen folk" rather than "a Woodman" or "a Woodwoman." The former sounds wrong, and the latter sounds awkward. In fact, I have taken to use the phrase "Woodmen folk" more generally, and will often say that NPCs are "a man/woman of the Woodmen folk," rather than "a Woodman/woman."

As you said, it's a minor gripe, and I certainly don't think C7 should have used different terminology, as they used the terms Tolkien wrote. The gendered language issue is just more front-and-center when your Woodman PC is a Woodwoman.

[zedturtle]

Of course, one of the tricky bits is that Tolkien often used language in intentionally archaic ways.

A man ain't nothing but a male.

But...

When you're talking about Men, then he means 'the race of Men' aka the human species (as opposed to Elves, Dwarves, etc.).

So 'Woodmen' might well be the second type... in other words 'the humans that live in the woods' (differentiated from 'the elves that live in the woods') instead of 'people of male gender who live in the woods'.

[Random221B]

Of course, one of the tricky bits is that Tolkien often used language in intentionally archaic ways.

A man ain't nothing but a male.

But...

When you're talking about Men, then he means 'the race of Men' aka the human species (as opposed to Elves, Dwarves, etc.).

So 'Woodmen' might well be the second type... in other words 'the humans that live in the woods' (differentiated from 'the elves that live in the woods') instead of 'people of male gender who live in the woods'.

I actually assume that is the case. But it sounds trickier when it goes from general to specific. "The Woodmen" as a general term for "humans that live in the woods" works, and sounds natural. But calling the bride "a Woodman" sounds odd. "one of the Woodmen" sounds a little better. I'm not sure where I came up with the term "the Woodmen folk." I realize it's kind of redundant, but it just sort of came out, naturally, when I was speaking--as an NPC--about the Bride. I said, "She is one of the Woodmen folk," and it just sort of sounded natural.

Apparently, the word "Man" originally did just mean "human" or "person, and a male was a "werman (male human)" while a female was a "wifman (female human)" "Wifman" became woman, while "werman" was dropped in favor of the generic "man" being used for male humans--the unfortunately sexist idea that "male" is effectively the default human, and female is a variant.

In any case, I understand the term "Woodmen" to be generic, just as "Man" means human. It's only in practice, when having to refer to "female Woodmen" that it starts to sound a little awkward."