How do you actually use the Encounter rules

[PencilBoy99]

My group is finding the encounter rules very challenging. When do you roll? After each thing people say? Do you rollplay the entire Encounter then roll to determine what the target does? Do you allow multiple iterations of the same roll (like attacking each round in combat) and if so how do you work hat into the roleplay?

[Glorelendil]

There are lots of ways to handle it.

You could "roll then narrate": let players propose skill use, make the roll, and then let them narrate their success or failure.

You could just engage in a free-form RP conversation (either 1st or 3rd person, depending on the confidence of your players) and when it seems appropriate ask for skill rolls. Or just let the conversation go for a while, then pause and assign skill tests to participants based on how they have been contributing.

[PencilBoy99]

Hmm... Thanks for the advice but it's still kind of vague. The encounter rules are very structured but I can't figure out how to map them to roleplay at the table.

[zedturtle]

My group is finding the encounter rules very challenging. When do you roll? After each thing people say? Do you rollplay the entire Encounter then roll to determine what the target does? Do you allow multiple iterations of the same roll (like attacking each round in combat) and if so how do you work hat into the roleplay?

Depending on the situation, I usually have the players roleplay out a bit, so that I get a handle on how they're trying to approach the situation. Then I'll come back with "That sounds like Courtesy" (or whatever appropriate skill) and have them roll. The outcome of that roll then determines what happens next. Depending on the player's approach, some might want to play out a failure, others will need the failure to be represented by the NPC's reaction to the player's words. For successes, again it depends on comfort level.

I don't think that everything needs to be rolled for, however. If it's just small-talk, then there's no need for a roll. What you roll for is when something significant might happen as a result of the conversation. So if the players are asking for aid, that gets a roll. If they're trying to convince the NPC that they can take on the "job" (whatever problem the NPC wants solved but isn't sure that the heroes are up to the task) then that's worth a roll.

And there are times where success might be assumed... in which case narrate over the meeting, or let the heroes play it out without mechanics. Also, there might be times when there's no chance of success (brand new heroes trying to approach King Bard without invitation) and you can just play out the failure without needing to roll.

[Angelalex242]

Oh, there's always a slim chance of Success. It might take an extraordinary success in your opinion, but you should never say 'meeting the king's impossible.' Rather, let them roll and see if those double tengwars show up.

[zedturtle]

Oh, there's always a slim chance of Success. It might take an extraordinary success in your opinion, but you should never say 'meeting the king's impossible.' Rather, let them roll and see if those double tengwars show up.

There is something to be said for that... requiring an Epic Feat or what-not. But I do worry sometimes about the dice confounding common sense, and how to react to that.

[bfl]

Inspired / tormented by the "Evaluating the Outcome of an Encounter" table, for major encounters I've had the players break up their roleplaying along the lines of classical oration, followed by a roll. It makes it easier for me to justify continued rolls for higher degree of success, where things broke down if they exceed tolerance, and what possible complications or positive consequences are. I am not an expert in this arena, just another LM scouring the internet for some way of fleshing out encounters.
Introduction Stage = Exordium
The introduction of a speech, where one announces the subject and purpose of the discourse, and where one usually employs the persuasive appeal of ethos [the persuasive appeal of one's character, read Awe/Courtesy/Riddle test] in order to establish credibility with the audience.
The Interaction Stage:
Narratio
The second part of a classical oration, following the introduction or exordium. The speaker here provides a narrative account of what has happened and generally explains the nature of the case. Quintilian adds that the narratio is followed by the propositio, a kind of summary of the issues or a statement of the charge.
Propositio
Coming between the narratio and the partitio of a classical oration, the propositio provides a brief summary of what one is about to speak on, or concisely puts forth the charges or accusation.
Partitio
Following the statement of facts, or narratio, comes the partitio or divisio. In this section of the oration, the speaker outlines what will follow, in accordance with what's been stated as the status, or point at issue in the case. Quintilian suggests the partitio is blended with the propositio and also assists memory.
Further argumentative strategies in the invention process would depend on which of these was determined upon, as would the number and arrangement of the parts of an oration to be followed.
Confirmatio
Following the division / outline or partitio comes the main body of the speech where one offers logical arguments as proof. The appeal to logos is emphasized here.
Refutatio
Following the the confirmatio or section on proof in a classical oration, comes the refutation. As the name connotes, this section of a speech was devoted to answering the counterarguments of one's opponent.
Peroratio
Following the refutatio and concluding the classical oration, the peroratio conventionally employed appeals through pathos [appeal to emotion], and often included a summing up.

[PencilBoy99]

Wow!

[Glorelendil]

Hmm... Thanks for the advice but it's still kind of vague. The encounter rules are very structured but I can't figure out how to map them to roleplay at the table.

Could you be more specific about where you get stuck? Maybe give us a scenario, and tell us what happened or didn't happen at the table?

[Falenthal]

One underused (AFAIK) thread in this forum is zedturtle's FAQ, that's sticked up front. You can find it here:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6618

It gathers some of the best discussion threads over the history of this forum, where some of the clearest answers to the most commnon questions can be found.

Regarding Encounters, and following one of the threads linked in zedturtle's FAQ, I think one of the clearest is this answer by Hermes Serpent:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=439#p3734

I hope that's what you were looking for!