forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I don't really use the encouter system. I let the players roleplay, add some successes in my head, then have them do one or two rolls to judge how good their characters were, and add those successes to judge the outcome.

I'll just add that Sir Kicley/Robert, as always, provides some excellent and detailed examples of play!

ThrorII wrote:Now, we are 6 guys, with rpg experience between 3 and 30 years. We've played straight D&D type games, as well as more 'cinematic' or 'story teller' games (FATE-types).

There are 5 in my group and we have, collectively, over 100 years of RPing various different games - from high crunch like D&D4 to GM-fiat based (and diceless) like Amber. I've not really encountered the same problems you have with TOR which goes to show why multiple systems are out there on the market - some people just can't grok a system. I'm the same with D&D3/Pathfinder.

ThrorII wrote:Encounters are a perfect example: Company wants to accomplish A or B. They must roll X+ number of successes while 'roleplaying' the interaction to succeed. Regardless of their roleplaying involvement, if the dice say they fail, they fail. How is that 'story-teller'? TOR would have been better off to just minimalize the Encounter mechanics. The reality is that how much the players try to be in character or try to 'collaborate', it is the dice that dictate outcomes.

Like in all RPGs with any kind of social skills/mechanics, however small or significant, the Players and GM should define what's at stake, set out what they want to do, roll the dice, and then role-play the results. That's how RPGs work wholesale and in the best way; role-playing and then rolling the dice can lead to weird situations in any game where the player RPs the scene perfectly and then a goofy die roll causes him to fail. The alternative, in order to avoid this, is to award bonuses that guarantee success but then I'd argue why bother rolling the dice or if you only award a small bonus then the result could still be a failure which is also not addressing the issue. The way you, and others, are playing encounters causes no more issues than doing the same in any other game with any kind of social mechanics - be that a one off diplomacy or charisma roll or an extended mechanic like TOR. If that's not the case then you're going to have to describe how TOR differs.

ThrorII wrote:Journeys are another one. Asking players to roll over and over, just to travel across country is monotonous and not fun. The theory is good and thematic--travel is arduous. The implementation is poor. Hazards, while a great concept, are relegated to the whims of the dice instead of LM fiat or 'hazard points' created by the LM.

I've not found this issue at all. It's been discussed at length that travel rolls should be sprinkled throughout a Journey as the characters travel and the LM and players narrate what takes place. Any significant journey from one point to another should also have interesting things that the LM wants to introduce in order drive the narrative but also to break up any kind of monotony. Granted inexperienced LMs may not realise that they can/should do this but I'm surprised that anyone with any experience in RPing/GMing is facing the same issues.

The bit regarding Hazards is what many would call a feature of the design but if it isn't to your taste then it's so easy to house rule away that it's hardly worth mentioning. Personally, I'm like you, I use Hazards to introduce interesting elements to a journey and don't rely on the players rolling an 'eye' in order for them to occur.

ThrorII wrote:Combat worked out ok, but is VERY abstract (again, within a boardgame framework), and was hard for my players to picture. The concept of Battle rolls and success die are innovative, but wonky in actual play (if you get your battle roll, you might get that bonus when using your bow from the 2nd floor of the tower, but if you blow that roll, being on the 2nd floor does no good).

The rules are there to apply such a circumstance without the need of bonus Battle dice - page 48 of the LM book (Complications table).

ThrorII wrote:Standards of Living is a good concept, but frankly, True20's Wealth check does it better.

You'd have to provide more explanation on this as I really like the approach. I think it could be developed further but for my game no more detail has really been needed so I'm happy with the rules as they are.

.
.
.

Firstly, and I've said it before, but I think a lot of the issue with TOR and understanding the rules and how they play is related to how they've been organised within the book - I'd wholeheartedly support a revised edition that just addressed this problem. The issue with that now would be the references in the other books and supplements to pages within the Loremaster and Adventurer books - so, it's realistically a no-go, unless you're happy to ignore all those references as the rules and content would need to be shifted around by quite a bit in my opinion.

Secondly, I do think TOR is written for an experienced RPer to run and play - or should I say, a more specific type of RPer. Many RPers require/expect rules for (almost) everything whereas others are okay running with a basic framework of rules that require further development by the GM in order to apply rulings as and when they occur within the game. It's the old "Rules vs Rulings", and the balance between the two, and RPGs have moved between these two design philosophies since they were first created. The challenge with TOR, in my opinion, is that it provides quite specific rules (Encounters - eg, structured) in some situations but then doesn't do the same in others (Combat - eg, little with regard to movement rules) so readers may be confused regarding what to expect and when they should step in with rulings (and therefore use their experience as role-players). If you don't have a lot of experience of this then it is an issue - and it's why forums like this exist to discuss it.

Beyond that, sometimes people just have to accept that if a system doesn't work for them but it does for others then they are the problem and should really go and play something else. I'm not trying to be dismissive of *anyone* saying this but rather helpful. I've wasted so much time trying to work with and understand various RPGs and then given up with them or not enjoyed them like others have - often its best to have a good understanding of what you want from a game and a system and accept that not all RPGs will deliver on your needs. Not saying this is necessarily the case here, at this moment in time, but it's good to know when to cut your losses and walk away from something.

Mordjinn wrote:At least in our game we ended up in a situation where the players already had all the info, but still needed two more successes in order to get the maximum benefit out of the encounter. This made the whole encounter feel very gamey and artificial instead of supporting the in character roleplay.

It looks like what has happened there is that the GM has provided more information earlier on than he should have done. If that's the case it's easy to get around... When I structure an encounter I look at how many successes are needed and what's at stake. So it may be that 3 successes are needed to get all the pertinent information from an NPC. Breaking the information up into three distinct elements allows me to disclose that in the scene once the PCs achieve those successes. You've naturally done something similar to that in the example of the guard that you described - just rather than information gathering the guard was an obstacle to progress.

To bring Tolerance into the equation , I RP this through an NPCs behaviour and responses - as Tolerance is used up in an encounter I play the responses of the NPC as more obstructive, dismissive, aggressive, dissatisfied; whatever seems most appropriate to the NPC and situation. That way the players and their character get a good idea as to how close they are to the Encounter ending due to all an NPCs Tolerance being used up. If the encounter is particularly important that I map out at each level of Tolerance how the NPC behaves - that way, as LM, I have a good handle on the NPC and play him correctly and consistently based on the actions and dice results of the PCs.

The structure of an encounter does appear to be stop/start in nature but with a little common sense this can be easily navigated. For example, most encounters begin with a series of introductions - usually Courtesy rolls. An LM can use the NPC in question to prompt this:

"Hail strangers! As you have entered my home, I would request you tell me who you are and from whence you have come..."

[This will prompt your players to naturally introduce their characters - Courtesy, Awe, etc]

The you can move onto other parts of the encounter using the NPC:

"Well met indeed. You have travelled far but, I suspect, not without purpose. Come, tell me. Why is it you have travelled to my lands and stand before me?"

[This will prompt your players to make further rolls to explain their circumstances - Persuade, etc]

And so on...

Using the NPCs within the encounter is a great and easy way to prompt what you're looking for out of the players and their PCs for those more complicated negotiations/discussions.

Also, the Encounter rules shouldn't really be used all the time - you've already realised that though based upon your example of the guard. No need to use the Encounter rules there, just set the number of required successes and any failure means the guard is not interested in their request and needs to be approached in a different way, etc. That's no different to most other games systems.

Bottom line, if the Encounter Rules/Structure doesn't always work for you then don't use them except when they do. If they never work, then toss them out altogether or use bits that do. I like the idea of Tolerance but I've altered how it's derived in my game and how interactions work based on who is speaking at the time. I don't always apply the Encounter structure either - generally only using it when the PCs present themselves in some formal way to a leader. Other times I go with a looser approach to interactions, which I think is how it should be.

Hope this helps you, Mordjinn.

ThrorII wrote:Mordjinn & Aiwendel:
Encounters are a perfect example: Company wants to accomplish A or B. They must roll X+ number of successes while 'roleplaying' the interaction to succeed. Regardless of their roleplaying involvement, if the dice say they fail, they fail. How is that 'story-teller'? TOR would have been better off to just minimalize the Encounter mechanics. The reality is that how much the players try to be in character or try to 'collaborate', it is the dice that dictate outcomes.

This is one of the paradoxes of role-playing games:
We can accept that players want to play characters that are grizzled veterans-of-a-thousand-battles, or super-sneaky stealth-ninjas or wizened elven sages that carry the lore of countless generations in their heads. We don't demand that the player can actually dual-wield a sword and axe, or open a lock with a toothpick or cast a fire-ball spell in real life.
The game system provides mechanics that describes how the character can do these things. So even if the player couldn't push a sick child off a chair, or balance on one foot or know the capital of his country, they are in no way penalized for this by the game mechanics.
Yet when it comes to social interaction within the game the expectations seem to change. Now you have "role-play" it out, so if you're a quiet, slightly socially awkward person in real life your character will suck as the "suave charming gambler who can sell snow to an Eskimo" you had envisaged.

I personally love social mechanics... they give players the freedom to successfully play any kind of character concept regardless of their personal abilities or limitations. And just like I give a +2 bonus for a cool description of a sneak attack, I give a +2 bonus to a funny snide remark uttered in a social engagement.

There is one caveat to this: social mechanics cut both ways: So if a NPC successfully Intimidates a character, I expect the player to play their charge appropriately. Does this reduce player agency? Absolutely, but my players and I get a lot of enjoyment out of the challenge and unpredictability that comes along with that.

HorusZA wrote: The game system provides mechanics that describes how the character can do these things. So even if the player couldn't push a sick child off a chair, or balance on one foot or know the capital of his country, they are in no way penalized for this by the game mechanics.
Yet when it comes to social interaction within the game the expectations seem to change. Now you have "role-play" it out, so if you're a quiet, slightly socially awkward person in real life your character will suck as the "suave charming gambler who can sell snow to an Eskimo" you had envisaged.

I'm not sure I agree that you have to be charming to role play charming. "Role-playing" can be either acting or describing. The following two are, at least in my mind (and my games) identical:

"I throw back my cloak and, trying to look fearless, recite my lineage, the name of my sword, and exaggerate some of my achievements."

and:

"I bow before no man, Balanor of Toth. I am Gravin, son of Gavin, son of Gain (son of Gan, if you must know), slayer of the Demon Ngzzt, wielder of the Sword of 999 Truths, savior of Gondwanaland, seducer of Hera, father of a thousand bastards between the Great Sea and the Great Sands (and several beyond that), and, not least, baker of a really great croissant...super flaky and tender."

The latter can be more fun for the table, but its not necessary. And either is more fun than, "I use my Awe skill..."

Rich: good analysis of the spectrum (multivariate?) of RPGs and players. Example: I am impressed with the game Dungeon World and was excited to play it, but when we tried it kind of fell flat. I remain convinced, however, that it was us, not the game. We want to play like that, but it takes practice.

Elfcrusher wrote:I'm not sure I agree that you have to be charming to role play charming. "Role-playing" can be either acting or describing. The following two are, at least in my mind (and my games) identical:

"I throw back my cloak and, trying to look fearless, recite my lineage, the name of my sword, and exaggerate some of my achievements."

and:

"I bow before no man, Balanor of Toth. I am Gravin, son of Gavin, son of Gain (son of Gan, if you must know), slayer of the Demon Ngzzt, wielder of the Sword of 999 Truths, savior of Gondwanaland, seducer of Hera, father of a thousand bastards between the Great Sea and the Great Sands (and several beyond that), and, not least, baker of a really great croissant...super flaky and tender."

The latter can be more fun for the table, but its not necessary. And either is more fun than, "I use my Awe skill..."

Yep, that's a very important point to make!

RPing can be describing stuff in first person, third person, or acting it out with voices, altered accents, etc. I tend to shift through all types depending on what I want to get out of a scene, how I feel the game is going, and (in all serious) how I personally feel and how much energy I have. All are perfectly valid and acceptable at my table. In fact, if you can't do the amateur thespian type stuff then please steer clear of it!

Elfcrusher wrote:Rich: good analysis of the spectrum (multivariate?) of RPGs and players. Example: I am impressed with the game Dungeon World and was excited to play it, but when we tried it kind of fell flat. I remain convinced, however, that it was us, not the game. We want to play like that, but it takes practice.

Thanks.

I was actually going to mention some games specifically and Dungeon World would have been one of them. I've read it and it's an awesome game. I've read actual play transcripts and it just reinforces what I think about how good it sounds. Can I play it? Could I f***! I could not get into the game and nor could my players. It was an absolute disaster. I think a lot of the games that are part of, have come out of, or have been inspired by, the indie RPG scene can be really difficult for many gamers to 'get' and I'm certainly one of them - my hit rate is about 50/50. I think TOR has a lot of indie elements - the structure of Encounters, etc certainly point to some indie(ish) elements but I like how Francesco has blended them with other more traditional RPG elements.

For me, the balance is just right, and what we have in the RAW gives me enough room to tweak and develop further - which is largely what the Additional Rules pdf is; expanding the rules and adding rulings that others, as well as myself, have written down.

Rich H wrote:Hope this helps you, Mordjinn.

Thanks mate, this helped a lot. Especially your examples are very enlightening and give me clear ideas how to prepare for encounters. I'd love to hear how you handle combat and travel too as a GM. Or even better what are your tips when we're playing through our next adventure Don't leave the Path from Tales from the Wilderland.

Rich H wrote:I'll just add that Sir Kicley/Robert, as always, provides some excellent and detailed examples of play!

Thank you Rich.

Rich H wrote: It's the old "Rules vs Rulings", and the balance between the two, and RPGs have moved between these two design philosophies since they were first created. The challenge with TOR, in my opinion, is that it provides quite specific rules (Encounters - eg, structured) in some situations but then doesn't do the same in others (Combat - eg, little with regard to movement rules) so readers may be confused regarding what to expect and when they should step in with rulings (and therefore use their experience as role-players).

Perfectly stated! To which I must add - I'm sure this was by design, based on what the game's goal is on priority/importance.

D&D / Pathfinder finds combat to be of significant importance to the game. Most scenarios/adventures/modules have many combat encounters in order to be completed. Due to the importance of combat within the scope of the game, MOST of the rules focus on combat. (Movement, attacks, attacks of opportunity, initiative, action economy, flat-footed, modifiers, illumination levels, miss chances, combat maneuvers, grappling, condition summary and modifiers, saving throws, casting spells, concentration, special weapon types, special materials, energy resistance, damage reduction, special abilities, healing, etc. etc etc.)

The next most important part of the game is character building/advancing. Thus there are pages and pages of crunch to outfit a character sheet with new fancy feats, skills, spells, etc. Magic items and spells are probably tied for third and thus a lot of the core rules are spent on those. In contrast, "journeys", social encounters, and things like cultural backgrounds and like are of very little importance to the rules of the game. While it is true that a supplemental book based on a particular campaign setting may focus a great deal on backgrounds and cultural aspects to better assist the GM in creating a campaign in which to tell his story - the rules for the game play do not include such aspects aside from a paragraph to describe each generic race.

When looking at TOR - the rules for "Encounters" (which are effectively a 'social combat' resolved to achieve a goal much like combat is in other games) and Journeys are probably the most crunchy mechanic-heavy aspect of the game, while combat rules are fairly generic. This is because in effect, social encounters, and Journeys ARE in actuality the most important aspect of the game. Combat is actually far less important to the game. In fact, it's usually a better option to avoid combat when at all possible.

If you take into consideration the LotR movies - often times the social encounters (those with a true goal) are some of the most intense and riveting scenes:

Aragorn convincing Theodan
The council at Rivendell to discuss the ring
Frodo and Sam questioned by Farimir
Pippin in the audience of Steward of Gondor
Gandalf in the audience of possessed Theodan and Greamer Wyrmtongue
The oath-breakers of the Dihmolt Road
Gandalf and Saruman in the tower

etc.

Like you said Rich - sometimes it's as simple as trying to put a square peg in a round hole. If you're a group looking for a hack-n-slash game, TOR is not going to ever be that game. There is no "wrong way" to play an RPG, and there's no one way that is inherently better than another. It's art. It comes down to personal preference of style and entertainment.

The question comes down to - can a group who typically does a more hack-n-slash game (even when using a modicum of roleplaying within it) come to enjoy TOR? My group has. We still play alot of Pathfinder; but most of us also really love TOR. It helps of course that we are all very big Middle-earth enthusiasts; so it's the notion of roleplaying in that setting that really draws us in - especially those that would prefer to do a more combat-oriented game.

Robert

Mordjinn wrote: A couple of words about our group to give you an idea where we come from. We consider ourselves to be veteran (role)gamers and been playing since Dungeons & Dragons. We also play a lot of board games. This is a bit of a problem, since because of our experiences we need very solid rules systems (board games) and we have a tendency to optimize and try to "win". Storytelling is not our forte and many times we tent to play "ourselves" instead of acting as our characters. Most of the times the reason is that the characters don't really have character in the beginning. I guess often we think that "once we play long enough the character will come" (and we never get that far...). We are also the kind of group of grumpy old men who feel that in order to play storytelling/improvised acting/character&story driven games (like Fiasco) we have to have a couple of beers so we won't feel ashamed (this in not completely true, but it seems that on some level we are wary of taking "the dive" and making a "fool" of ourselves).

Ok, see if I can pull this off without sounding like an RP snob. A couple of things are kind of hard for me to reconcile in my head in regard to the types of games being referred to here.

1) Which edition of D&D are you referring to? IMO 4th Ed is no longer an RPG, but a wargame with minimal RP opportunities.

2) Fiasco is an extreme example to use. You can run a good story based game with most rpgs, even os D&D, that is what they are designed for. Aforementioned 4th Ed being the exception of course.

Why would any of your group be ashamed? This is a great hobby to be apart of. Besides you are sitting around the table with a group of friends, no one else around. I am not the best RPer in the world, but that is because I have never had the skill in improve to completely drop myself into a character. But, I still try to use the characters voice when it is appropriate.

Going on what I see in the above quote, unfortunately, I would have to say my answer to your question is that TOR probably isn't for your group. TOR is a storytelling game where not all problems can be solved with a well placed sword swing.

Beran wrote:1) Which edition of D&D are you referring to? IMO 4th Ed is no longer an RPG, but a wargame with minimal RP opportunities.

2) Fiasco is an extreme example to use. You can run a good story based game with most rpgs, even os D&D, that is what they are designed for. Aforementioned 4th Ed being the exception of course.

Okay, that's simply not true. D&D4e doesn't have less rules for RPing than other versions of D&D; in fact it has more than many of them. What it does have is, at last for D&D, a version of the rules that explicitly supports tactical miniature based combat - something D&D has been crying out for since it was created. This set of rules may make people think that rules for RPing don't exist in the system or that for some reason they cannot RP but that is not a fault of the system, it's a fault of those playing it who draw such a conclusion.

Beran wrote:Why would any of your group be ashamed? This is a great hobby to be apart of. Besides you are sitting around the table with a group of friends, no one else around. I am not the best RPer in the world, but that is because I have never had the skill in improve to completely drop myself into a character. But, I still try to use the characters voice when it is appropriate.

Yeah, if this is a problem for your group Mordjinn then its going to be an issue for any RPG you play that is outside your comfort zone in this respect. It sounds like even though your group has played a lot of RPGs you may not have explored all that the hobby has to explore.

But, all is not lost though!

RPing is a learning curve and is never mastered. People progress at different speeds and find different ways to RP (I refer back to what I said earlier about speaking in first and third person as an example). My suggestion would be that the Loremaster needs to be a bit of a trailblazer for the group. If they play in-character in a certain way then, in my experience, others will naturally step up to the plate. If the LM then responds to this positively then your group may develop as a whole. Sure, some will still struggle, but others will respond; and its perfectly okay for people to find 'different voices' within an RPG group. I have my personal favourites regard style of RPing but above all else I want the players to enjoy themselves and not feel uncomfortable. If a game is doing that then it is time to walk away from it - unless you deliberately want to feel uncomfortable as some kind of cathartic experience!