The Adventurer's Companion available now in PDF

[Dunheved]

...Just for the convenience sake of locating things all in one place, I really like the new book although as you said this will become obsolete again when more books come out. But that's a reason to have an Adventurer's Companion part two! I wish they would consolidate the monsters all in one book.

So, how long before a loose leaf folder is created to handle all the new Adventurer's Companion updates & inserts that arrive with new supplements? A loose leaf folder can take new or alternate LM screens; Monster consolidation sheets; weapons tables;.....??

Seriously the AC is looking great and matches the quality of the rest of the series, I haven't read any more than about 20 pages, like some of the other forum members I can list a few of those errata things (and only a few: super well done to the proofreading taem, team). There's a lot to absorb here and work is overloaded & busy this week.

Many Thanks for the addition to the family!

[zedturtle]

I can't find the Fellowship Undertakings from the Erebor sourcebook. Am I blind or are they left out?

I think a clue as to their fate is on page 5, where it says that "a comprehensive list of every undertaking published at the time of writing" was done. With the list compiled well in advance, there was perhaps not room for the Erebor undertakings, especially as I imagine that they were under parallel development for some time and thus there wouldn't even be a clear idea of how many undertakings Erebor would provide.

[Rich H]

I wish they would consolidate the monsters all in one book, but I can also see some good reasons why they might not want to do that.

I'm fine with them consolidating previously published material into one supplement, just don't put it with new material; that way people that don't see the need in the compilation can completely ignore such books, currently I can't do this as there is stuff in there that interests me, except I'm also paying (a premium) for content I already have.

[cuthalion]

Possibly. I'm not so sure they would have passed the tests with this effect in play. Then again, from a strictly rules/gameplay point of view there is really little reason why the Nazgul couldn't have just taken Frodo at Weathertop. Aragon might have put up a decent fight, but couldn't hold off multiple many wraiths. The hobbits were pretty much dead weight.

So, what you're saying is, what did happen, didn't happen? Don't forget, we don't have stats for Aragorn yet! Nor do we have them for the hand of Eru.

As for taking courage from multiple veterans, I think you gotta remember that it's an abstraction--it might not make perfect, one-to-one sense. And part of that is to keep things moving, and keep them fun. Why do multiple calculations when you can only figure out one?

In any event, probably worth playing the rules through before getting too worried about it.

[atgxtg]

So, what you're saying is, what did happen, didn't happen? Don't forget, we don't have stats for Aragorn yet! Nor do we have them for the hand of Eru.

LOL! What I am saying is that what happend in the books (let's leave the films out of this ), happened - with or without the new rules.

As for taking courage from multiple veterans, I think you gotta remember that it's an abstraction--it might not make perfect, one-to-one sense. And part of that is to keep things moving, and keep them fun. Why do multiple calculations when you can only figure out one?

For the same reason why you factor in the various modifiers instead of having just a flat TN - to better reflect the situation. I don't believe that factoring in for multiple experienced characters would be all that difficult or complicated, especially when courage points cap out at Heart. I'd say a flat +1 courage per additional experience character would work.

But what I am wondering is if experienced NPCs count? If and when they are actually considered to be part of the fellowship?

In any event, probably worth playing the rules through before getting too worried about it.

Certainly. I'm not worried, just concerned as to how this will impact the game. Having new character getting a few extra points of hope. experience or advancement each session. I could see some new players that join a group getting used to it, and then having to try and rein in on their use of Hope once the experience character retires.

[Rich H]

I think there's an interesting dynamic at work here with regard to these kind of rules and it appears quite often in modern game design - it can be a boon for some but quite limiting to others. It really stems from the design decision of taking certain in-game events or dynamics out of the hands of the GM and scripting them within the actual mechanics. This happens quite a lot in TOR and you either like it or don't - and depending on the rule this opinion may change! It's often cited by people that don't like such things, referring to them as "board game mechanics"; which is often meant as a disparaging remark.

The new Taking Courage rules are a great example of this... I can completely understand why some GMs/players see them as unnecessary as such GMs will automatically build a campaign and its challenges based upon the varying experience levels and competencies of the PCs involved; they therefore don't see any point in having rules that draw out, codify, and manage this kind of thing outside of the control of the GM. Others see it as a great addition and a way of supporting such disparities and also removing the need for GM interpretaion, handwaiving, and/or fiat from such an element of the game and creating an interesting and fun mechanic to boot.

An older example within the rules are the way Hazards are managed... The RAW only triggers Hazards when an EoS is rolled by a player. This creates an in-game variable outside of the decision making associated with the GM and what encounters they would build into a journey/adventure.

Some of us GMs don't mind this 'loss of control', others do, and some don't mind it in some parts of the game but do in others; for example, I'm one of those types - I like the Taking Courage rules but not how Hazards are triggered.

Hmmm... I'm not sure how useful saying all this is to people, I'm probably stating the bloody obvious, but I do think it explains why sometimes we don't feel the need for rules yet other times we completely accept and support them. Anyway, I'm bored at work so thought I'd share.

[Stormcrow]

The new Taking Courage rules are a great example of this... I can completely understand why some GMs/players see them as unnecessary as such GMs will automatically build a campaign and its challenges based upon the varying experience levels and competencies of the PCs involved; they therefore don't see any point in having rules that draw out, codify, and manage this kind of thing outside of the control of the GM. Others see it as a great addition and a way of supporting such disparities and also removing the need for GM interpretaion, handwaiving, and/or fiat from such an element of the game and creating an interesting and fun mechanic to boot.

I don't think it's meant to be either of those. It's not about "balancing" anything; it's about the verisimilitude of experienced heroes adventuring with untested wannabes. This happens all the time in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, so introducing a rule to reflect it simply makes thematic sense.

[Glorelendil]

Possibly. I'm not so sure they would have passed the tests with this effect in play. Then again, from a strictly rules/gameplay point of view there is really little reason why the Nazgul couldn't have just taken Frodo at Weathertop. Aragon might have put up a decent fight, but couldn't hold off multiple many wraiths. The hobbits were pretty much dead weight.

An illuminating exercise would be to stat out Aragorn and then recreate that battle, specifying what was rolled by whom, when Hate was spent, when Hope was spent, etc.

But back to the Taking Courage rule, if ONE experience character has such a dramatic effect on the newbies, then adventuring with several experienced characters should produce an even greater effect.

It *could* produce an even greater effect, but it wouldn't have to. It would depend on your underlying assumptions about what is modeled by Take Courage.

For my part, I think, "Let's see...so if a single newbie tagged along with 6 high-level characters, the newbie would have stupid amounts of Hope to spend. Ok, that's broken."

I tend to start with the gameplay I want and then work backward to (and retroactively rationalize) the mechanics, rather than start by trying to model "reality" and letting that determine gameplay.

It also raises the question as adventuring with an experienced NPC in the fellowship. Frankly, I'd feel a lot better to have Gandalf for a companion than any of the rest of the Fellowship. And I'd certainly Take Courage from having him with me. Seemed to work out that way in both books. I think that in such a situation, probably assume the rule would apply to Gandalf.

Actually, I think that's an excellent idea. One of the effects of having a powerful LMC along could be that heroes get Take Courage.

[Rich H]

The new Taking Courage rules are a great example of this... I can completely understand why some GMs/players see them as unnecessary as such GMs will automatically build a campaign and its challenges based upon the varying experience levels and competencies of the PCs involved; they therefore don't see any point in having rules that draw out, codify, and manage this kind of thing outside of the control of the GM. Others see it as a great addition and a way of supporting such disparities and also removing the need for GM interpretaion, handwaiving, and/or fiat from such an element of the game and creating an interesting and fun mechanic to boot.

I don't think it's meant to be either of those. It's not about "balancing" anything; it's about the verisimilitude of experienced heroes adventuring with untested wannabes. This happens all the time in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, so introducing a rule to reflect it simply makes thematic sense.

What you've stated there doesn't really invalidate what I've said previously... GM's could still do this without needing a rule, just be balancing the challenges and elements within a campaign. This really does relate to a lot of the criticisms I've heard about TOR*; that the rules make decisions that the GM used to make "in the old days" or "we used to be able to do this without needing a mechanic for it" or "we don't need a rule to support this theme of the source material".

* And other games with similarly modern design elements.

[Glorelendil]

I don't think it's meant to be either of those. It's not about "balancing" anything; it's about the verisimilitude of experienced heroes adventuring with untested wannabes. This happens all the time in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, so introducing a rule to reflect it simply makes thematic sense.

There are an infinite supply of "verisimilitudes" that could be modeled. Why this one? Because making it more fun to run a new character with an experienced fellowship (more fun in the sense of feeling less useless) is a good design goal.

So I suspect the motivation was very much about "balancing" and not, "Hey, we left something out of the model. Better add a rule."

Happily, it provides for both the verisimilitudists (©) and the balancers.