Fellowship phase - minimum length

[Majestic]

If there are no interesting effects of the potential failure, there should be no roll.

I agree. And in this case there is no need to invoke a character's traits to skip a roll, as I said.

The rules are explicit that the LM calls for rolls in response to actions, NOT THE PLAYER.

That's not true. "A player may initiate a task when he wants something and already knows that he has to make a roll to get it, or when a player is describing what his character is going to do and the Loremaster informs him that to pull it off he has to make a roll." Furthermore, "it is up to the acting player to pick the ability that his character is going to use," and "their judgement is subject to the approval of the other players; in case of any objection, the Loremaster will be called upon to select the ability he deems to be most appropriate."

In other words, what and when a player rolls is up to the players. Objecting players can call upon the Loremaster to arbitrate. The Loremaster should himself be considered a player, so he can take control of the process if he needs to. But the calling for of rolls is generally up to the players, not the Loremaster.

But your statement is not entirely true either, Stormcrow. In TOR there are both tasks (which the player calls for, p. 139) and tests (which the LM calls for, p. 144). When I've queried LMs about it before (and I think I did so both here and over on rpg.net) it seems that they mostly do tests.

But either way, per RAW, there are situations for both (the LM to call for rolls, and for the players to do so).

[Stormcrow]

But your statement is not entirely true either, Stormcrow. In TOR there are both tasks (which the player calls for, p. 139) and tests (which the LM calls for, p. 144).

Yes, yes, yes. I'm talking about tasks. Obviously.

When I've queried LMs about it before (and I think I did so both here and over on rpg.net) it seems that they mostly do tests.

The difference between tasks and test is not just who "calls for" a roll. It's whether a player wants to achieve something or whether the Loremaster requires something of the player regardless of what the player wants to do.

"When a player is describing what his character is going to do and the Loremaster informs him that to pull it off he has to make a roll." In other words, the player says, "I do such-and-such" and the Loremaster says, "You need to roll for that." This is one way in which tasks come up. I'll bet in those queries you made the Loremasters thought that if the Loremaster said you had to roll, that was a test. This is not the case. Either that or they WAAYY overuse Perception tests, which is a common problem I've encountered in role-playing games.

"The Loremaster calls for a test when he needs to resolve a situation that directly challenges the abilities of the adventurers." The players aren't trying to achieve something; the Loremaster has to resolve a situation the player is in. That's a test. I wasn't talking about tests. Players can't go fishing for advancement points with tests, which is what the objection was about. If they can't fish for points, they can't use tests to change the pace of the adventuring phase, which was the whole point of this topic.

Anybody else want to try to derail this?

[Glorelendil]

Anybody else want to try to derail this?

So...Han Solo. Discuss.

[Majestic]

When I've queried LMs about it before (and I think I did so both here and over on rpg.net) it seems that they mostly do tests.

I'll bet in those queries you made the Loremasters thought that if the Loremaster said you had to roll, that was a test. This is not the case. Either that or they WAAYY overuse Perception tests, which is a common problem I've encountered in role-playing games.

I think you're assuming quite a bit, as I simply pointed out the relevant sections of texts (Tasks and Tests) and asked whether LMs tended to do like most RPGs (where the GM comes up with when to roll), or if they had their players calling for rolls (using the Task rules). It turned out the Task resolution mechanics from TOR don't seem to be used much by many LMs.

And I was not attempting to 'derail' the conversation, but to add to it.

[Stormcrow]

I think you're assuming quite a bit, as I simply pointed out the relevant sections of texts (Tasks and Tests) and asked whether LMs tended to do like most RPGs (where the GM comes up with when to roll), or if they had their players calling for rolls (using the Task rules). It turned out the Task resolution mechanics from TOR don't seem to be used much by many LMs.

That's not the distinction between tasks and tests. Read my previous post in full; don't skim.

[Majestic]

I think you're assuming quite a bit, as I simply pointed out the relevant sections of texts (Tasks and Tests) and asked whether LMs tended to do like most RPGs (where the GM comes up with when to roll), or if they had their players calling for rolls (using the Task rules). It turned out the Task resolution mechanics from TOR don't seem to be used much by many LMs.

That's not the distinction between tasks and tests. Read my previous post in full; don't skim.

I think there's some serious irony here, as you clearly skimmed my post (and didn't read it). I'll try to be more clear:

I posted before - both here on this site and on rpg.net - asking The One Ring Loremasters whether they used both (Tests and Tasks), or if they tended to do like more conventional RPGs, using Tests pretty much exclusively, and not using Tasks at all (or allowing Tasks, but finding that their players rarely instigated them). I found that Tasks - while you might find it a wonderful and brilliant mechanic - are not used all that often.

I asked because I wasn't having them come up that often in my games, and wondered if it was just my group (me and my players).

Note that nothing (in this post or my last one) was spelling out the "differences between tasks and tests".

[Stormcrow]

Note that nothing (in this post or my last one) was spelling out the "differences between tasks and tests".

You said, in multiple ways, "asked whether LMs tended to do like most RPGs (where the GM comes up with when to roll), or if they had their players calling for rolls (using the Task rules)."

If that's what you asked people, you asked it wrong, because that's not the difference between tasks and tests. "When you play, does the GM call for rolls more often than the players?" is not the same question as "When you play, does the GM require rolls of the player more often than the players propose actions that require rolls?" You asked who called for rolls, not who proposed actions that required rolls. Not the same thing.

P.S.: I read your post very closely.

[Majestic]

To be more clear: I pointed LMs at the relevant entries in the rules: for tests and then for tasks, as my players weren't calling for many tasks at all.

I then found that tasks seem to not only be rare for my group, but for most others as well.

[aramis]

To say I disagree with Stormcrow's interpretation of the rules is understatement - he reduces the LM's role in play almost to the level of *world games.

SKILLS
Most actions attempted by players during a game are affected by the abilities possessed by the acting hero. Based on the circumstances, one skill is generally judged to be more relevant than the others (Courtesy to impress an important personality, Awareness to notice the sound of approaching enemies, etc.).

(AB 26)(2E 28)

The Loremaster may agree with a Trait invocation to speed up play, especially if failing at the roll would not lead to dramatically relevant consequences, or if the action wasn’t difficult. In some occasions, the Loremaster may
ask his players whether they possess a pertinent Trait, in order to move the story on.

(AB 95)(Also on 2E, page 93)(Emphasis added)

Choose Ability
As the examples above show, it is up to the acting player
to pick the ability that his character is going to use. Players
are trusted to choose the ability most appropriate to their
purpose (the description of skills and their use is found
starting from page 85, and a series of examples can be
found below) but, as is the case with the use of Traits, their
judgement is subject to the approval of the other players;
in case of any objection, the Loremaster will be called
upon to select the ability he deems to be most appropriate.

(AB 149)(2E, page 40)(emphasis added)

The Test/Task distinction is artificial, and usually ignored in play, especially with novice TOR players who do not yet have a firm grip on the skills.

While "automatic" isn't on the list of difficulties, it is, combined with the AB 95/ 2E 93 quote, well within the LM's purview to invoke the trait and/or deny the roll for The LM need not leave it in the hands of the player. Explicitly.
Likewise, any objection includes the LM's objection, so if the player wants to use a skill that makes no sense to the LM, he can object and replace.

Essentially, the LM's explicit approval of an action is not required - strictest RAW, he can nuke any skill choice he disagrees with and demand something different; he cannot reject the action nor the intent, but can object to the skill, and then decide to require different skill or ability. Likewise, he can, explicitly, call for a trait to bypass a roll.

Further, the advice on when rolling happens requires that either gradations of success matter, or failure matters to the story. I would posit that if the only reason for rolling is to get an AP, that's not a story relevant roll, and it's fine for the GM to "Just Say Yes" - even tho' that wording is absent. Also note that the wording "as is the case with traits"... the literal text puts trait use at the LM's option.

I'll note as well - about 25% of the actions requiring dice rolls at my table are functionally tasks, not tests - certain regulated ones, such as combat, specifically allow limited choices - the player gets to pick, and I don't get to obect... Likewise, in town interactions - as long as the tolerance holds out, and the action merits a roll and makes sense, I'll pick a difficulty. If it doesn't, or if they are avoiding using a trait they have because they are stumping for more AP (My average TOR session is 6 hours - most players are walking away with 6-10 AP and 3-5 EP... because I count each 3 hours as another session for EP.) I'm not stingy about it, but I will call people on rolls just to get that third point in a category.

The rules explicitly allow calling for a trait to speed things up. Do that when players start wasting story time on excess rolls, and the problem soon self-corrects, as players realize that relevant rolls work, irrelevant ones don't. And, as far as I'm concerned, rolls that are made primarily to get AP are not relevant rolls.

Likewise, I've one player who has suddenly realized that his stumping for extra AP has cost the party dearly... his Sauron-6-6-5 got him that third dot, but also brought a murder of talking crows to follow them... Shooing them off wound up costing another hope, bringing misery and risking madness... In one session, they got themselves up to 18 visibility to sauron. And only 3 of those were travel roll failures, and 4 were party start. When they shot down one of the crows, it bore a white hand mark upon its back... (Borrowed the crows from the LOTR DS game.) And he could have avoided it with enemy lore (goblins)...

[Stormcrow]

To say I disagree with Stormcrow's interpretation of the rules is understatement - he reduces the LM's role in play almost to the level of *world games.

I have no idea what *world games are. But the Loremaster's role in The One Ring IS less of an arbitrator than in most other games: it is up to the PLAYERS to decide whether a task is being performed appropriately; the Loremaster only intervenes in cases of objection, including his own objection. TOR is more collaborative than most other games.

SKILLS
Most actions attempted by players during a game are affected by the abilities possessed by the acting hero. Based on the circumstances, one skill is generally judged to be more relevant than the others (Courtesy to impress an important personality, Awareness to notice the sound of approaching enemies, etc.).

(AB 26)(2E 28)

Judged by whom? By the book, it is judged by the players first; the Loremaster only intervenes for objections (including his own).

The Loremaster may agree with a Trait invocation to speed up play, especially if failing at the roll would not lead to dramatically relevant consequences, or if the action wasn’t difficult. In some occasions, the Loremaster may ask his players whether they possess a pertinent Trait, in order to move the story on.

(AB 95)(Also on 2E, page 93)(Emphasis added)

Which is a rather different story than PREVENTING a player from rolling because he has a trait. This is simply the Loremaster asking, "Do you want to use your trait to perform an automatic action?"

Choose Ability
As the examples above show, it is up to the acting player to pick the ability that his character is going to use. Players
are trusted to choose the ability most appropriate to their purpose (the description of skills and their use is found starting from page 85, and a series of examples can be found below) but, as is the case with the use of Traits, their judgement is subject to the approval of the other players; in case of any objection, the Loremaster will be called upon to select the ability he deems to be most appropriate.

(AB 149)(2E, page 40)(emphasis added)

Yup.

The Test/Task distinction is artificial, and usually ignored in play, especially with novice TOR players who do not yet have a firm grip on the skills.

If this is true then it's hardly useful to ask people whether they perform more tasks or tests, which is what brought this whole thing up.

And why, then, is the distinction made so carefully and clearly in the book?

While "automatic" isn't on the list of difficulties, it is, combined with the AB 95/ 2E 93 quote, well within the LM's purview to invoke the trait and/or deny the roll for The LM need not leave it in the hands of the player. Explicitly.

As shown above, the book does no such thing. In the text you quoted, the Loremaster ASKS the player if he wants to invoke a trait for an automatic action. There is never any whiff of the Loremaster denying the player a roll.

Likewise, any objection includes the LM's objection, so if the player wants to use a skill that makes no sense to the LM, he can object and replace.

Correct.

Essentially, the LM's explicit approval of an action is not required - strictest RAW, he can nuke any skill choice he disagrees with and demand something different; he cannot reject the action nor the intent, but can object to the skill, and then decide to require different skill or ability. Likewise, he can, explicitly, call for a trait to bypass a roll.

Yes to the objection, no to the trait bypass. He can say, "You're a skilled Boater; you don't need to roll"; the rules do not ever say or even imply he has the right to say, "You're a skilled Boater; you CAN'T roll and try for a superior success."

Further, the advice on when rolling happens requires that either gradations of success matter, or failure matters to the story. I would posit that if the only reason for rolling is to get an AP, that's not a story relevant roll, and it's fine for the GM to "Just Say Yes" - even tho' that wording is absent.

I have already said that if there is no serious consequence to failure, the character can try over and over until he gets it right—in which case this is an automatic action anyway, without a trait invocation. There is no roll because there never WAS a roll.

Also note that the wording "as is the case with traits"... the literal text puts trait use at the LM's option.

"as is the case with the use of Traits, their judgement is subject to the approval of the other players; in case of any objection, the Loremaster will be called upon to select the ability he deems to be most appropriate."

Again, no sign that the Loremaster can FORCE a player to invoke a trait, only that a trait invocation must be approved by players and the Loremaster.

The rules explicitly allow calling for a trait to speed things up.

No, they don't. They explicitly allow agreeing with a trait invocation to speed things up. "The Loremaster may agree with a Trait invocation to speed up play." The player invokes a trait, the Loremaster says, "Yeah, sure, you're real good at that, let's move on." NOT "No you can't roll because you're an expert at that."