On the use (or not) of Valour

[Robin Smallburrow]

So one of the (minor) concerns I have had with TOR over my time playing this wonderful game is the lack of structured advice for LM about how to handle Valour, as it seems to me that Wisdom gets used a lot (often too much) in Tests, whereas Valour is often disregarded.

To give a recent example, I have just read the 'Search the Deep Tunnels' Undertaking on p.26 of the new Erebor supplement. My first reaction to reading this, especially when I read: "the adventurers must spend days and nights in total darkness..." was that a Valour test should definitely be called for here, but no mention at all of Valour (Plenty of Corruption tests instead).

Now I know how I would react to being down a darkened hole for even a few minutes - scared witless! This seems to me to be yet another example of where the LM should be replacing Wisdom tests with Valour. So I will be modifying this particular Undertaking as follows:

"First, make a Valour test. Failure with an eye means you suffer from Claustrophobia and cannot attempt this Undertaking", or something like that.

Why is this important? Because the brave are valued in the world of The One Ring because they achieve brave things and act heroically, so lets not undersell Valour please!

Robin S.

[Falenthal]

I agree completely with your observation.
My option so far has been to make the effort of introducing a Valour test in nearly every adventure, not always related to enemies and Strike Fear. But it's an extra effort, as the published adventures mostly ask for Corruption tests.

[Falenthal]

By the way, do you consider the effects of a failure (being daunted and unable to spend Hope points) bad enough? I've never touched this rule, but always felt like swapping the effects with the Foul Reek sprcial ability. As Corruption tests force you to gain Shadow, Fear tests could force you to spend Hope. Just a thought.

[uhu79]

Good point! I also feel we should value Valour a little more.

Instead of a failed Valour-test eating up a Hope-point, why not stick to the Strike Fear mechanic in Combat and rule that you cannot spend Hope in the following scene.

Journey: So before you enter a dark dungeon, a haunted forest path, a cursed swamp, make a Valour-test and you can't spend Hope down there if you fail (introduce a time limit for this effect if the company spends a lot of time there or allow a repitition after a certain period of time).

Encounter: Same for dangerous meetings with folk that can scare you to the bone and/or threaten to start a fight. Valour-test first and you can't spend Hope in the conversation if you are too scared.

[Kurt]

Another interesting twist on Valour tests would be a determine a compulsion to do what that hero considers morally and ethically the right thing to do, even if this is against all reason. For example: a test may be required to attempt to save a helpless villager from a band of orcs, despite the odds being stacked in the orcs favour. A success means the hero is compelled to act (courage and conscience overcome fear) and a failure means there is scope for continuing down the path (and perhaps earning a shadow point). This is different from what the player wants to do. In a sense its a forced play for the hero according to how valorous the hero is.

[zedturtle]

Another interesting twist on Valour tests would be a determine a compulsion to do what that hero considers morally and ethically the right thing to do, even if this is against all reason. For example: a test may be required to attempt to save a helpless villager from a band of orcs, despite the odds being stacked in the orcs favour. A success means the hero is compelled to act (courage and conscience overcome fear) and a failure means there is scope for continuing down the path (and perhaps earning a shadow point). This is different from what the player wants to do. In a sense its a forced play for the hero according to how valorous the hero is.

Huh. I'm thinking that you're wanting something similar to Passions from Pendragon, but I'm not sure if your example is the best... the RAW certain would support a Corruption Test or even outright Shadow gain for ignoring the villager. So the hero would already be punished for not acting in a heroic way, and the player would not lose control of the character. I think Bouts of Madness are such an effective scare tactic because players don't want to lose control of their characters; if you make that happen too often then they'll become inured to it.

[Dunkelbrink]

I agree with Robin that Valour test are (too) scarce. Your examples of additional uses (before entering a dangerous conversation with a dragon or a spider colony for example). I've also used Valour tests as "test of the Heroic body". For example, the company was poisoned on an occasion in Dale after drinking poisoned wine. I called for a Valour test (adding Body on a Hope spend) to see if the could resist the poison enough to be able to carry on. This is the closest this game comes to "saving throws" (Protection rolls aside) but I'd say it worked very well.

[Kurt]

I'm thinking that you're wanting something similar to Passions from Pendragon, but I'm not sure if your example is the best... the RAW certain would support a Corruption Test or even outright Shadow gain for ignoring the villager. So the hero would already be punished for not acting in a heroic way, and the player would not lose control of the character. I think Bouts of Madness are such an effective scare tactic because players don't want to lose control of their characters; if you make that happen too often then they'll become inured to it.

Yes, I did remember that this was an interesting mechanic in Pendragon and thought it relevant to the discussion. I was just providing food for thought, not suggesting that I would use it in my game.

Another thought that I had on this topic was the relationship between Valour, Reputation and The Eye. Would not a particularly Valourous hero gain a reputation that is both acclaimed (by friends) and condemned (by foes)? I wonder how this will impact the rules for the ever watchful Eye of Mordor and the hunt. Would a moderate Valour score mean the heroes reputation is confined to the region, whereas a high Valour score would ensure that the heroes reputation has extended much farther into other lands? Would a hero with a high reputation be easier to find?

[Kurt]

Actually after further thought my comment above is not really applicable to only Valour because for the most part reputation (good or bad) would be earned through actions and deeds. So someone could gain a reputation for being wise as well as valorous. Additionally, members of the company are likely to gain a similar "level" of reputation together because they are all involved in the same quests, but possibly for different reasons as they have different roles to play.

[Glorelendil]

Another interesting twist on Valour tests would be a determine a compulsion to do what that hero considers morally and ethically the right thing to do, even if this is against all reason. For example: a test may be required to attempt to save a helpless villager from a band of orcs, despite the odds being stacked in the orcs favour. A success means the hero is compelled to act (courage and conscience overcome fear) and a failure means there is scope for continuing down the path (and perhaps earning a shadow point). This is different from what the player wants to do. In a sense its a forced play for the hero according to how valorous the hero is.

For me this crosses the player agency line. In general I believe RPGs should consist of the GM describing the scene, the player declaring what their characters do (and think), and the GM adjudicating the outcome, perhaps calling for dice rolls. Telling a player what his character thinks or does is taboo, with rare, specific exceptions such as bouts of Madness, Charm magic, etc. The player is either 100% in control, or 0%. (Even if the GM grants the player the privilege of roleplaying the charmed state or the madness, it is still effectively an NPC for the duration.)

This assertion sometimes starts huge wars, so let me offer the caveat that this is simply how I like to play. You are absolutely entitled to play any way you like. I am just expressing my opinion and preference.