forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

This entire area could do with something of refresh as at the moment it doesn't seem to quite work.

Interactions
Currently standing adds to Interaction limit, which when you consider there is generally a character with at least 3 in wisdom or valour and a point or 2 in appropriate standing means that racking up 7+ successes long before getting more than four or so failures is pretty much a given. I have found some of the interactions start to feel cumbersome/awkward as the various characters have almost moved into the 'go on, go on, go on...' realm, testing a persuade/inspire/riddle checks from all angles. It also seems something of a double whammy to me - better skills and more chances.

Personally I think it should simply be Standing with a single bonus if either Valour or Wisdom are equal to either an amount specified in the encounter or the attribute of the encountered NPC. This would both enhance the importance of Standing and give a bloody good reason to chase down those titles.

I would even argue that a wisdom or valour interaction bonus could only be added to the interaction limit if the appropriate character successfully introduced themselves using an appropriate skill.

I might even argue that attempting more than a couple of checks is considered an extended action spread over days or with increasing penalties if attempted during the same day. This would encourage players in a rush to settle for one or 2 successes rather than keep pushing until 7+ successes just because they know they have a limit of at least 5.

Holdings
So, let's get this right - your hobbit with Valour of 3 buys a small building in Woodmen Town which he develops into a rather nice Pipe Shop and Inn (rating 3). He then saves a baby from Gollum is awarded the Hero of the Woodmen title (undertaking) giving him a standing of 1. Sorry mate, now you have to give up the inn thanks to the RAW?
Worse you can be a valiant hero in your own area but still not have any standing...

I think that each culture should have a standing modifier (bonus) based on its martial/social nature. A wise hobbit for example should get a +1 bonus to standing if his wisdom is greater than 3. In the above scenario the hobbit can have a Modest holding (valour of 3 which gives +1 standing in Woodmen culture) which he could develop into an Adequate holding by gaining the title and standing of 1.

Hmmm . . . I'm a bit confused, because I know lots of people like the Encounter rules. Perhaps the tests the companions are making need to be harder? And I suppose, as LM, if they are totally out of character and just trolling for information, you can always just put the kibosh on things, no?

And, as for Holdings, 3 isn't even an option for ratings---they go from 4--9. Not totally following the example, but I wouldn't think the Hobbit would lose the holding in the case you're describing.

In either case, this probably ought to go into house rules?

mica wrote:Interactions
Currently standing adds to Interaction limit, which when you consider there is generally a character with at least 3 in wisdom or valour and a point or 2 in appropriate standing means that racking up 7+ successes long before getting more than four or so failures is pretty much a given. I have found some of the interactions start to feel cumbersome/awkward as the various characters have almost moved into the 'go on, go on, go on...' realm, testing a persuade/inspire/riddle checks from all angles. It also seems something of a double whammy to me - better skills and more chances.

By "Interaction limit," I think you mean Tolerance. The Standing of only one character adds to Tolerance ONLY if that character is of the same culture. A dwarf of the Lonely Mountain won't care one whit if So-and-So the hobbit is the Thain of the whole Shire.

The Loremaster should only allow one roll per issue. Any further rolls about the same narrow topic are disallowed by the rules under "Repeating an Action." A single roll covers more than just a single statement by the Loremaster character, so any "go on, go on" has already been covered by the roll. You might try a different skill to get the same information, but what you're doing is a completely different task. If you fail to Persuade a character with reason, you might get angry and try to Awe the information out of him. But you can't try to Persuade again for that information, and if you don't get as much information as you wanted out of a normal success of Persuade, you can't try again to get a better success.

I might even argue that attempting more than a couple of checks is considered an extended action spread over days or with increasing penalties if attempted during the same day. This would encourage players in a rush to settle for one or 2 successes rather than keep pushing until 7+ successes just because they know they have a limit of at least 5.

Chasing successes just for the sake of getting successes is the great failing of giving rewards for successes, I feel. Before that (optional) rule was introduced, the point of an encounter was to achieve your encounter goal DURING the interaction stage. After the rule was introduced the interaction seem to become merely the period in which you could achieve successes, so you'd be rewarded AFTER the interaction.

At most, the success-reward should govern any special BONUS offered to you beyond what you achieved in the interaction. You encounter Gloin, get him to hire you for an adventure, and undoubtedly the matter of payment will come up as part of the interaction. The fee is part of the goal. So when it comes time to give an award for successes racked up, at most it should be a promise by Gloin for extra money beyond what was promised, or perhaps the gift of resources to use on the adventure that weren't negotiated during the encounter. But it should NOT be that the number of your successes determine the fee he'll pay you for the adventure. You negotiated that yourselves during the interaction.

Holdings
So, let's get this right - your hobbit with Valour of 3 buys a small building in Woodmen Town which he develops into a rather nice Pipe Shop and Inn (rating 3). He then saves a baby from Gollum is awarded the Hero of the Woodmen title (undertaking) giving him a standing of 1. Sorry mate, now you have to give up the inn thanks to the RAW?

Being a Hero of the Woodmen doesn't turn the Woodmen's lands into your home. Holdings are only limited by Standing if the holding is in your homeland. Your hobbit will continue to own his holding with his Valour of 3.

Worse you can be a valiant hero in your own area but still not have any standing...

This is intentional. The idea is that each hero's culture disapproves of his going off and having adventures rather than staying home and doing his job or keeping in his place. From the viewpoint of one's homeland, an adventurer is a pariah. The only cure to this is Standing, wherein your kindred are willing to overlook your foolish adventuring ways since you're so important.

Yup, tolerance, I didn't have my book to hand when I wrote the message and forgot the terminology.

Standing adds to tolerance if same culture or treated as same culture, i.e. received a title. Ranger with 3 valour/wisdom, 2 standing (Hero of the Woodmen title) - initial tolerance of 5 for all encounters with woodmen, i.e. 6 failed rolled before the interaction is called to a halt. With a mixed bag of adventurers it is not uncommon to have tolerances in excess of 4, i.e. 5 failures so something like 8-12 skill tests for the encounter.

I tend to find that the characters will run out of angles before they run out of tolerance or be forced to burn hope in the interaction due to not being able to 'repeat the same action' and occasionally turn to specious logic to justify another skill check through a different tact, "I see Beorn is shaking his head at the ranger's entreaty(failed persuade check) so will chuck in a comment about how it will reduce hostility with Viglundings (inspire or another persuade?)."

I do the encounters with glass beads - green for successes, red for failures - there is generally a small heap of greens with only one or 2 reds (players do not know the tolerance but it is rarely less than 4) by the end of the encounter. As for difficulty, 14 is considered standard while giving a difficulty of 18 should be quite unusual.

This is intentional. The idea is that each hero's culture disapproves of his going off and having adventures rather than staying home and doing his job or keeping in his place. From the viewpoint of one's homeland, an adventurer is a pariah. The only cure to this is Standing, wherein your kindred are willing to overlook your foolish adventuring ways since you're so important.

It seems somewhat odd that a culture will give more tolerance to an outsider with the same wisdom/valour as one of their own even if both are vagabonds. It seems more sensible to have local standing as tolerance, i.e. zero for outsiders, with a modifier based on their wisdom/valour.

Take Aragorn - he could not convince Butterbur to let him into the back of the Prancing Pony to see the hobbits (let's assume Aragorn has a wisdom of at least 5 so tolerance of at worst 4). The alternative approach is that it is suggesting that Bree is part of Aragorn's culture and the Heir of Isuldur has zero standing in his own culture...
This however works if Aragorn has a standing (Bree) of zero with a +1 for high Wisdom, i.e. very low tolerance.

mica wrote:I tend to find that the characters will run out of angles before they run out of tolerance or be forced to burn hope in the interaction due to not being able to 'repeat the same action' and occasionally turn to specious logic to justify another skill check through a different tact,

Then they've achieved the encounter goal, and the encounter is over! You don't keep up an encounter once the goal has been achieved.

"I see Beorn is shaking his head at the ranger's entreaty(failed persuade check) so will chuck in a comment about how it will reduce hostility with Viglundings (inspire or another persuade?)."

You can't just "chuck in a comment" and get to redo a roll. Whatever you were trying to Persuade Beorn of, the Ranger made his best attempt. A slight prod by you after Beorn says no isn't going to change anything. You have to come up with a completely new thing to Persuade him of before you can try your own Persuade roll.

I do the encounters with glass beads - green for successes, red for failures - there is generally a small heap of greens with only one or 2 reds (players do not know the tolerance but it is rarely less than 4) by the end of the encounter.

Why is this a problem? Encounters aren't zero-sum games with absolute winners and losers. You get as much out of an encounter as you can. Hitting the Tolerance isn't "losing"; it's just the point at which you have to stop rolling, and take whatever you've already achieved. You can achieve limited success, never hit the Tolerance, and still the encounter ends.

mica wrote:It seems somewhat odd that a culture will give more tolerance to an outsider with the same wisdom/valour as one of their own even if both are vagabonds.

The locals don't know the outsiders are vagabonds. They don't know anything about them except their adventuring exploits. They don't judge outsiders by the same standards as their own.

Take Aragorn - he could not convince Butterbur to let him into the back of the Prancing Pony to see the hobbits (let's assume Aragorn has a wisdom of at least 5 so tolerance of at worst 4).

Except Aragorn was intentionally disguising himself as the mysterious Strider. If he had revealed himself to Butterbur it would have been a whole other story—literally! The Rangers don't let the Bree- or Shire-folk know anything about their adventures, so the reputation of Wisdom or Valour are meaningless. This probably should have been added to the Rangers' write-up.

Why is this a problem? Encounters aren't zero-sum games with absolute winners and losers. You get as much out of an encounter as you can.

The problem is that players, if not allowed to repeat a skill check with a slight change of tack will often run out of angles before they run out of tolerance so either have to chuck in hope to get successes even though they have plenty of tolerance and end an encounter knowing they haven't got everything they came for. I don't know about your players but mine try to squeeze the last drop from an encounter - anything less if for newbs

The Rangers don't let the Bree- or Shire-folk know anything about their adventures, so the reputation of Wisdom or Valour are meaningless. This probably should have been added to the Rangers' write-up.

What do you mean Wisdom and Valour are meaningless? Have you ignored players' standing/valour/wisdom when setting Tolerance?

We thought of the Incognito fellowship undertaking - character adds less or no points to the hunt at the start of the next adventuring phase. This ends if there is a revelation phase or the character is revealed (in the case of the latter increase the current hunt track appropriately). I could see how this could be used to limit any contributions to Tolerance.

In either case, this probably ought to go into house rules?

Agreed - Could this thread be moved to House Rules by the powers that be?

If Strider the Ranger hides his Wisdom and Valour from the Bree-folk, then any encounters he has with them will be based on the very low score (1) that he appears to be.

The moment he says, "I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn, heir of Isildur, Lord of the Dunedain," he gets his full score.