forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

First let me say, that I think the books really are top notch. They are made with passion and are very interesting to read, but some parts of the game just doesn't appeal to me. Now, I haven't read the rules for TOR in a while so bear with me.

With the announcement of the new 5e Middle Earth, I want to give TOR another go. ( I just purchased Revised edition, Rivendell) My main problem with TOR is the storytelling aspects. ( and apparent lack of mystery) The lack of finding interesting items and treasure along the way seems "boring" to my sentiments. The treasure ( wealth) system feels too abstract and unrewarding. I have to wait till the Fellowship phase to upgrade my weapons in the most unadventurous way possible. In the end, this leads to the feeling that the player has complete control of what he's going to find in ME. What's the fun in that? Did Bilbo know what he found in the Goblin caves? Or Frodo in the Troll's cave?

Also the storytelling aspect is just something I can't get used to. I grew up playing RPGs where the DM was in control of the story and it made the games mysterious and interesting. The trait "whoring" in the few games I played in were distracting and silly. I want to reward my players ( and be rewarded as a player) by being clever and coming up with interesting plans or ideas, not by narrating a solution because of a die roll, or a trait they have on their sheet. Auto-success should never be an option. My main gripe has been with traits, like bold, cautious, etc .. .I reward cautious "players" because they are cautious

The example on page 96 ( of the Adventurer's book) tells us a Goblin is sneaking away, after being left for dead and ignored. The dwarf chimes in, saying that he's "cautious" and should get a chance to notice him. I have two problems with this scenario. First, why would anyone need to have the word cautious written on the character sheet to notice someone? We use to do stuff like this, when playing D&D and the likes, and normally the DM would just laugh it off or if the player gave an extremely compelling reason, actually consider it. No rules needed.

SO:
After fierce battle"

Lm: OK, What are you guys doing?
Dwarf: I'm checking the body of the big guy, see if I can figure out which tribe he's from.
Woodmen: I'm going to check for tracks, see which way they came from, and maybe where they're going.
Hobbit: I'm going to sit down and have a few puffs!!! Longbottom. . .hmmm. ..
LM" Ok while you guys are busy, unfortunately, a sneaky Goblin is escaping the battlefield after being left for dead and "ignored".
Dwarf: Wait, I'm cautious remember? Shouldn't I get a chance to catch him before he flees?
LM: Well....
The rest of the party: Yeah sounds about right, he's cautious aint he? They all vote to allow the dwarf an awareness check...

Anyways, this type of RPing doesn't feel right to me. A player shouldn't be rewarded for being cautious when he wasn't being cautious. This type of storytelling seems too convenient and coincidental, all the time. It makes the game very blase and self-fulfilling. ( everyone gets what they want)

There are some aspects of TOR that I really like, like Hope and Shadow, the travel rules, etc. . .

So, anyone try to tone down these "storytelling" elements with TOR and were you successful?

ps- I'm not saying that this game is broken or whatever, just for me, some aspects of the game don't jibe.

The thing that rubs me wrong about your example dialog is the idea that the LM would be hesitant to allow it, and the other players would have to "vote". That just feels to me like a table that isn't really cooperating to play the game. As an LM my reaction would have been, "Oh, good call...roll Awareness to see if you were keeping an eye on the "bodies", just in case."

(Besides that, I've never once in my own games actually seen that third use of traits...being allowed to roll when otherwise the LM wasn't going to allow a roll...get invoked.)

In generally I'm having trouble equating trait usage with lack of mystery and suspense. Is it because you think players will just always try to invoke a trait ("trait whoring") to avoid rolling on anything? Remember that you can't earn Advancement Points if you don't roll.

As for the lack of treasure along the way, to some extent I share that criticism with the original game. However, two observations:
1) You said you just bought Rivendell, and inside that book you'll find rules for magical treasure, which is found semi-randomly.
2) That said, TOR breaks philosophically from many/most other RPGs in which the reward system is the steady accrual of increasingly potent magic items and personal power (HP, spell slots, whatever). In TOR the 'reward' really should be about solving mysteries, savoring small victories over the shadow, and exploring the world. It's probably true that this might be insufficient for some.

As Glorlendil indicates, there are ways around the rules issues. In any case you're the LM so it's your roolz - change what you don't like!

I would imagine that TOR wanted to move away from endless "pick lock, kill kobold, steal treasure, repeat" and develop some more sophisticated stories. There's a bit more maturity and meaning to Tolkien if you know what I mean, and TOR faithfully reproduces that. As Glorlendil states the Rivendell module introduces treasure rules and there's no reason why you can't occasionally create a story which gives the Adventurers the opportunity to do some good old fashioned looting! Only occasionally though, because there's so much else.

Blustar wrote:First let me say, that I think the books really are top notch. They are made with passion and are very interesting to read, but some parts of the game just doesn't appeal to me. Now, I haven't read the rules for TOR in a while so bear with me.

Cool, that is evident in some of your opinions so everyone needs to bear that in mind in their response and the same goes for you when you read the replies!

Blustar wrote:My main problem with TOR is the storytelling aspects. ( and apparent lack of mystery) The lack of finding interesting items and treasure along the way seems "boring" to my sentiments. The treasure ( wealth) system feels too abstract and unrewarding. I have to wait till the Fellowship phase to upgrade my weapons in the most unadventurous way possible. In the end, this leads to the feeling that the player has complete control of what he's going to find in ME.

The Rivendell supplement contains Treasure rules which do have a lot of randomness to gaining treasure or magic items combined with the LM tailoring the content for his own campaign. I personally think it works pretty well but for my own campaign I've actually removed the random mechanics of when treasure can be found and simply decide where it goes in an adventure - whether that be a treasure hoard or gifted by some NPC. Seems like you would prefer the rules-as-written though so you could find "interesting items and treasure" along the way.

Blustar wrote:What's the fun in that? Did Bilbo know what he found in the Goblin caves? Or Frodo in the Troll's cave?

No, but by the RAW (or even my altered way), neither does the player in TOR so you're going to have to explain that one.

Blustar wrote:Also the storytelling aspect is just something I can't get used to. I grew up playing RPGs where the DM was in control of the story and it made the games mysterious and interesting.

I've been LMing TOR since its release and as the GM I feel in control. If you mean the players also have some control then I agree, but I don't automatically see that as me losing control. I suppose an adversarial style of GMing could think that but I'm not sure that is the norm except in the old school organised or competive play.

Blustar wrote:The trait "whoring" in the few games I played in were distracting and silly.

There are elements in the TOR system that can be abused. Some players coming to such a game that are perhaps used to finding loopholes within the system can take advantage of this. I think as in all RPGs, assuming you don't just want to play at exploiting the rules, players and GMs alike need to engage honestly with the system.

With regard to 'trait whoring' I'm assuming you mean players invoking a trait constantly to succeed at a repeated action. I've experienced this potential issue in my games but only in relation to the Hardy trait in order to auto-succeed at Travel rolls. As that particular test is often repeated due to TOR's journey rules it can become repetitive but the rules do give guidelines on how this works and a LM always has the power to veto an invocation, even on the grounds of it not adding to the game (eg, and being boring and repetitive *is* a good enough reason). Also, auto-succeeding with a trait again and again means that the PC cannot get APs for the actions in question which is something significant enough for players to seriously consider.

Blustar wrote:I want to reward my players ( and be rewarded as a player) by being clever and coming up with interesting plans or ideas, not by narrating a solution because of a die roll, or a trait they have on their sheet. Auto-success should never be an option. My main gripe has been with traits, like bold, cautious, etc .. .I reward cautious "players" because they are cautious

I'd reward players for being bold, cautious etc as well but only if his character was defined as being such as well, otherwise a player being cautious when their character isn't is not being a particularly good roleplayer. The traits in TOR describe a character in such ways so this supports players in how they role-play their character.

I don't see anything in TOR that stops this from occuring. The traits are there to aid in role-playing and to help players think about their character by defining them in more than just numbers for attributes and skills. By making it so that each player has a limited number of traits to select for their character it gives them focus without being overawed by too many options.

Blustar wrote:The example on page 96 ( of the Adventurer's book) tells us a Goblin is sneaking away, after being left for dead and ignored. The dwarf chimes in, saying that he's "cautious" and should get a chance to notice him. I have two problems with this scenario. First, why would anyone need to have the word cautious written on the character sheet to notice someone?

They don't, it's an example, but in other circumstances an Awareness check could suffice. In this case the GM has created the situation where 99% of the time he wants the goblin to be able to escape for whatever reason is important to the adventure - perhaps he'd like him to escape in order to set off another plot point. However, someone with the Cautious trait for their character is basically saying "Mr GM and everyone else, my character is *really* Cautious and it's incredibly important to me as it's one of the few things that really defines my character so when others don't get a chance to spot something my character likely does".

The example of the goblin and the Cautious Dwarf could also have gone another way. The GM being aware of the character's trait could really have just said "Fred, your Dwarf has the Cautious trait doesn't he? Okay, make me an Awareness roll...". Fred's character gets special treatment and offered a roll in this situation as he's picked the Cautious trait where others haven't.

Blustar wrote:We use to do stuff like this, when playing D&D and the likes, and normally the DM would just laugh it off or if the player gave an extremely compelling reason, actually consider it. No rules needed.

Again, as long as your characters are cautious or do you do it all the time whatever the characters you are playing? And when invoking a trait a player does have to give a reasonable usage of why the trait applies in the given situation for the LM to consider. So no difference to what you've described above.

Blustar wrote:Anyways, this type of RPing doesn't feel right to me. A player shouldn't be rewarded for being cautious when he wasn't being cautious. This type of storytelling seems too convenient and coincidental, all the time. It makes the game very blase and self-fulfilling. ( everyone gets what they want)

I'm not sure I'd ever play out that scene the way you describe - looks like bad GMing to me, but TOR's probably a bit more forgiving than some games in that it does allow players to take a bit of control and be creative and interesting by describing their characters within the contect that they've described. You seem to see these things as too convenient but my experience is that such elements empower players and get them thinking about their characters beyond 'just the numbers'.

Blustar wrote:So, anyone try to tone down these "storytelling" elements with TOR and were you successful?

So saying all that, you could easily houserule traits so that instead of providing an auto-success they give the character a +2 bonus to any applicable roll. The player still has to invoke the trait in question but it isn't a sure fire thing and players still get to roll the dice.

Rich H wrote:The example of the goblin and the Cautious Dwarf could also have gone another way. The GM being aware of the character's trait could really have just said "Fred, your Dwarf has the Cautious trait doesn't he? Okay, make me an Awareness roll...". Fred's character gets special treatment and offered a roll in this situation as he's picked the Cautious trait where others haven't.

I'd argue that this is, in fact, an instance of invoking an unforeseen action, with the addition that the Loremaster had to remind the player that he can do it. The effect is the same: only the player-hero with the appropriate trait gets to make a roll. (But then note that in such cases the player can't ask for an automatic action or an advancement point.)

Rich H, thanks for the very detailed response and candor.

Anyways, maybe what I'm really asking is I can scrap traits all together without damaging the game too much. Personality traits before my PC's have even had one session of roleplaying feels off. Maybe I'll have them earn their traits. So after 4-5 sessions, if I see that one PC is constantly charging into battle, well they would earn the Bold trait. I would probably have to tweak what they can do with that trait. ( or maybe not)

I guess the whole idea ( not doing a very good job of it) I'm trying to explain is that PCs should live and die by their decisions. I'll describe the situation to them and leave hints as to possible circumstances but if they want to be cautious in their approach ( or extra cautious) they need to tell me how they are doing it, before the danger surfaces. I want the stories to be generated organically, not being narrated out of a pickle.


Also, "There's a bit more maturity and meaning to Tolkien "- I don't know about all that, it's just different. I would like to think that I'm more mature because I've read LOTR, the HObbit, Silmarillion, The Histories, etc. .. but I think it's just a world where you can lose yourselfin and have a sense of wonder. Another problem I have is that the people I play with don't "know" Tolkien anywhere close to my investiture. I've spent countless hours pouring over the professor's tomes. Most other people I game with, not so much. They love the movies, or maybe read the books once, so I can see the group narrative approach being a little grating. ( to me)

anyways, thanks for the advice, I'm definitely going to try the game again either way, maybe with some tweaks this time.

The game will work just fine mechanically scrapping traits (although it may be hard to earn AP) but the other reason I'd advise against do it is that mechanically it's just not as complex as some other games, which means that without the traits it might feel repetitive.

I think maybe you're not 100% understanding how traits are supposed to be used. In most circumstances they don't let you do anything better than other people; they are there to encourage you to describe *how* you do things.

A couple of things to keep in mind:
1) You (the LM) don't have to allow trait invocations to auto-succeed on rolls that are critical to the story. Using Hardy to skip a Fatigue test now and then? Whatever. But using Hardy to avoid rolling against the effects of a poison that agent of the Nazgul has slipped into your mead? Nope...you gotta roll that one. And it's up to the LM which is which.
2) The example of the goblin escaping is not saying that any time Awareness is needed only the player who chose "Cautious" gets to roll. That example was a very specific event that the LM, in planning the adventure (or the author in writing it), did not intend for players to roll on. And that sort of thing is by far the exception.

Maybe you could describe some scenarios you think might occur and we could give you some feedback on how likely that is, and how to handle it with TOR rules?

Stormcrow wrote:

Rich H wrote:The example of the goblin and the Cautious Dwarf could also have gone another way. The GM being aware of the character's trait could really have just said "Fred, your Dwarf has the Cautious trait doesn't he? Okay, make me an Awareness roll...". Fred's character gets special treatment and offered a roll in this situation as he's picked the Cautious trait where others haven't.

I'd argue that this is, in fact, an instance of invoking an unforeseen action, with the addition that the Loremaster had to remind the player that he can do it. The effect is the same: only the player-hero with the appropriate trait gets to make a roll. (But then note that in such cases the player can't ask for an automatic action or an advancement point.)

Yep, agreed.

Oh, yeah, Stormcrow and Rich raise an important point, that I want to make sure Blustar understands: all that the Cautious trait does in that story is allow the character to make an Awareness test on something that the LM had not planned on allowing anybody to roll for (and he can set the TN as high as he wants). The player can't also invoke Cautious to get an auto-success on that test, nor can he invoke Cautious to get an AP if he succeeds on the roll.

Blustar wrote:Rich H, thanks for the very detailed response and candor.

No worries, it's a pretty healthy and friendly community here. Sometimes we get a bit hot under the collar, and I'll be the first to admit it's likely to be me doing that, but we do generally engage honestly in discussions and try to be as helpful as possible.

Blustar wrote:Anyways, maybe what I'm really asking is I can scrap traits all together without damaging the game too much. Personality traits before my PC's have even had one session of roleplaying feels off. Maybe I'll have them earn their traits. So after 4-5 sessions, if I see that one PC is constantly charging into battle, well they would earn the Bold trait. I would probably have to tweak what they can do with that trait. ( or maybe not)

This is probably an approach to the way we both play games but I come to this with the point of view that players know what they want to play and that the character is already an existing person that has a history and therefore a personality and characteristics to boot. Also, those traits help players role-playing in my experience, and support them 'getting into character'.

Note also that the rules allow a player to swap out a trait during each Fellowship Phase should they wish to, so that allow players to change their characters over time for whatever reason - eg, simply wanting to tweak or there being real in-game reasons.

Blustar wrote:I guess the whole idea (not doing a very good job of it) I'm trying to explain is that PCs should live and die by their decisions. I'll describe the situation to them and leave hints as to possible circumstances but if they want to be cautious in their approach ( or extra cautious) they need to tell me how they are doing it, before the danger surfaces. I want the stories to be generated organically, not being narrated out of a pickle.

But what if the player isn't Cautious, how do they play a character as such? Or how do you play a character who is cleverer than you, the player? Or what if someone is more of a smooth talker than you? Or stronger?

I mean I get that you want the players to be cautious but one of the great things about RPGs is that you can often get to play characters that you could never hope to be and for me that doesn't just mean physical or magical capabilities but also ones that experience and interact with the world differently than I do. Traits in TOR, and things like it in other games, allow us to do that.

Blustar wrote:Another problem I have is that the people I play with don't "know" Tolkien anywhere close to my investiture. I've spent countless hours pouring over the professor's tomes. Most other people I game with, not so much. They love the movies, or maybe read the books once, so I can see the group narrative approach being a little grating. ( to me)

Well, that's going to be a problem/challenge, yes. I mean, any source material with really strong themes and elements is going to be a challenge to run for players that don't get the source material, whatever that may be.

Blustar wrote:anyways, thanks for the advice, I'm definitely going to try the game again either way, maybe with some tweaks this time.

Cool and no problem. Feel free to ask more questions as well - everyone is here to share their enthusiasm and experiences.