forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I'm not Rich, but I'll add my thoughts regardless. I'm sure Rich will do as well, and you can cherrypick from there.

Mordjinn wrote:Maybe using the word ashamed was too strong of a one, but although we've been playing 30 years now there's some imaginary line in our gaming which some of our group's people feel uncomfortable to cross.

Here as well. There are definitely times when speaking in 3rd person is easier to swallow. As I said upthread this is especially true in amorous interactions and sometimes in really venomous hateful threatening things as well. There's nothing inherently wrong in roleplaying in the third person. The trick is to at least make it more entertaining that just "I tumble" or "I bluff him".

Or maybe they just are happy with how we've been doing things and wish to keep them the same. Lately we have been playing a lot of Board Games and I desperately want to have something more than just tactical thinking, point calculation and confrontational winner takes it all approach. In other words stories.

I believe you will eventually be quite impressed and surprised how much your players get into the action when they begin to realize just how much of a center stage impact they can make by describing their characters successes etc. It's liberating and it's ego-gratifying.

Oh, we've played D&D 1st edition (the Red Box), AD&D, Pathfinder (3,5?) and tried 4th edition too. And tons of other roleplaying games like Warhammer FRPG (1st, 2nd, 3rd), MERP and probably 100 more. The problem is that I feel we always end up playing the "same game" regardless of the system. The only different experience was Fiasco, which I loved.

I hear what you're saying in the "same game". It's hard to change focus. It took a lot of struggling through the rules together as a group to realize TOR is different. Luckily I had 2 (of my 6) players who were reared with a more narrative style roleplaying games in their past and they helped champion the movement.

Journeys: When we played the intro scenario from the Loremaster's book I felt the journey to be lots of dice rolling that in the end didn't really support the story. Maybe it was bad preparation from my part, but the hazard presented in the book didn't really feel to be suitable for the situation. Our group doesn't like rolling a lot of dice so what I'm looking for is making less rolls in a way that they don't interrupt the story. Also if the players need to roll while travelling I would like to find a way how to get to do this without saying "Make a travel roll". And how do you incorporate player storytelling to the journeys?

First, look up-thread at my commentary on how to break up the Travel checks throughout the course of a journey. Think of Travel checks as "saving throws". Especially those that need to be made recurringly - like again the presence of overwhelming evil or be "feared" or endurance type in harsh elements to avoid "non-lethal" (or in TOR - Fatigue) damage. You don't have the PCs roll all saving throws that are meant for the whole module as soon as they enter Ravenloft, or in the Desert of Anarauch in Forgotten Realms against the heat......you have them do this throughout intermittently when it's necessary.

As for stroytelling and players interjecting during journeys, again see up-thread about the cutscenes. In D&D you have a module with "grey-boxed text" that is read to the players, to give them a good description of what is going on, what is around them. Do the same thing during the cut scene of a journey. Be sure to focus on what they "hear" what they "feel" what they "Smell", and most importantly, what they may be worried about.....

As for how do you have them roll without asking for it - I'm not sure I understand. They can't possibly know you need them to make a test if you don't indicate it. You can flower it up by detailing the area, and then saying something of....It's been 6 days since you stood atop Carrock (the last cut-scene), you stand at the elf-gate entrance of Mirkwood. You already miss home, and you realize there is still the hardest part of your journey yet to be endured. the journey is begging to take its toll on you.......Fatigue is setting in.....(cue the Travel check).

During these cut scenes let the players interact - this allows them to "narrate and storytell" during the journey. Below is a standard "Grey box text" from a D&D area/encounter.

"You stand staring into a massive cave. Phosphorescent moss clings to the walls illuminating the cave slightly. The ceiling stretches far over your head. Stalactites hang dangerously overhead while ribbons of colorful rock can be seen snaking their way haphazzardly throughout. The air is musty. The sound of running water can be heard in the distance. It appears that some shelf and ledge exists high on the wall to the left - it appears that there is a small tunnel leaving this cavern on that ledge. The ground is slippery and rocky, and cluttered by stalagmites and columns that stretch from ceiling to floor"

Now - as GM, you can read this entire narration at once while the players listen. Instead you can allow the players to interact with it - each time they do, you may reveal a little more. Think of the Journey rules as the latter. During a cut-scene describe one thing - allow the heroes to interact with what you mentioned. As they do - you reveal more.

"You stand starting into a massive cave"
Player1: Is it illuminated in any way? If not, I will pull out a lantern....."
"Phosphorescent moss clings to the walls illuminating the cave slightly. "
Player2: Can we see anything moving? Can we hear anything moving?
Player3: I Make sure to look up.
"The ceiling stretches far over your head. Stalactites hang dangerously overhead while ribbons of colorful rock can be seen snaking their way haphazzardly throughout. You do not see anything moving in the cavern, but the sound of running water can be heard in the distance.
Player4: I quietly enter the cavern making sure of my footing.
Player1: I follow, but I make sure not to stand under any of the stalactites if possible.
Player2: I will remain here and cover my companions with my crossbow.
Player3: I cast detect evil and begin surveying the area.
"(to player 4) As you make your way into the cavern, you turn your nose up at the musty air. It is heavy and causes you to breath hard. The ground is slippery and rocky, and cluttered by stalagmites and columns that stretch from ceiling to floor"
Player4: "Be mindful of your step - it is slippery" I walk slowly and carefully.
Player1: Is there no way out of here? I hide behind a stalagmite.
"It appears that some shelf and ledge exists high on the wall to the left of where you entered; It looks as though there may be a small tunnel leaving this cavern on that ledge."
Player4: I point to the ledge - "I believe we can continue up there. Can you get your grappling hook up there?"

When thinking of Journey interaction in this regard, describe a little, allow the players to respond, make questions, and respond based on what you know, and make up that which you don't.

During a cut-scene:

It's been nearly a week since you set foot from the Beorning's camp. The travel has been easy, but your feet could use a rest nonetheless (cue travel checks). You come upon a small stream. It seem cold and swift. You can see trout through the clear water.
Player 1: how wide is it?
Player 2: is there a way across?
It's no more than 10 meters across. You believe there is a ford of sorts down stream that you can see - large boulders. It may be slippery, but it could help.
Player 3: I'll check out the boulders - I'm fairly sure-footed.
Player 1: I think It' s a perfect spot for a little fishing. I dig out my gear. I have the fishing trait even amongst others in Esgaroth, I could catch a fish - even without bait! (invoking trait)
(to player 3) Inspecting the rocks you see that they are indeed dangerous and slippery looking you feel confident in your ability to navigate them, but you look upstream to your companions and you fear for you dwarven friend who would never be mistaken for graceful. You do see that a little further downstream that it curves in the direction you wish to travel, you may be able to follow it that way and see if it allows you to continue on your direction or another way to pass. Alternatively, you could travel back a bit to a hill you remember seeing that should take you around the stream though perhaps cost you an extra half day of travel - or risk the rocks or cold strong current

[this is a way to break up the monotony of travel checks ever 5-6 days]

Remember also the roles in the followship journey (Guide, Look-out, Scout, Huntsman). In D&D it's customary for one player to say "I try to track" and suddenly everyone wants to do the same thing. Or search a room, or scout ahead or whatever.

In TOR it helps give a little more balance, and customized center-stage in the limelight feel to a character as he embodies a role for the fellowship. Different hazards, encounters, potential combats etc can be mitigated by a person in one of those important roles. This is not to say that only 1 person is on watch at night or only 1 person can search the river bed for something - but it can be abstracted that the person in that role "directs" the others and thus is responsible for that roll of the dice. This eliminate six players all rolling for Search skills or Knowledge skills, or whatever. Remember again, traits, and distinctive features play a huge roll in these successes for the group.

I also allow great/extraordinary skill checks to offer a bonus d6 to another companion (for more than just Battle rolls), instead of giving additional rewards of the success. In other words someone swimming across a river with a great success may get across faster - OR offer to assist another offering a d6 to their skill check. This is completely within the tone and flavor of a fellowship that the game tries to replicate.

The abstract combat is tricky, because in order to know what is possible you need to know exactly how the surroundings are, where the others are related to you etc. How do you describe the scene before the battle starts and how do you make sure everybody knows if they can interact with something.

The beauty of it being an interactive game is that yo as LM don't have to provide all details. Unlike other games that players must be led by the nose to much detail (battle grids with drawn trees, rocks, hills, or broken wagons or fallen logs, or old ruined rock, etc), allow the players to describe their own actions and imagine the battlefield as they see it.

How much story are the players expected to tell with every blow/dice roll and are they allowed to come up with helpful things such as big stones to stand on to gain +2/-2 to the target number?

That's the biggest difference in D&D combat vs TOR. In D&D you have to have an existence of something to get a "bonus". In TOR, your have a bonus - narrate the existence.

D&D:
"Ah there's a table - I jump on the Table now I have higher ground and I get a +1"

TOR:
"(announcing the use of a bonus battle dice after missing narrowly); "I leap onto a large fallen log gaining the advantage of higher ground I leap out at the goblin" (now he hits) "My spear drives home"
LM: the goblin's eye widen in fear as you leap at him. He stumbles backward dead before he even hit the ground, your spear impaling him through the chest.

D&D
"I move to a flank - I now give you a +2 to your attack roll, Rob."

TOR:
(seeing Rob miss with his attack roll), "Seeing Rob struggle with the warg, I run and slide in behind it distracting it for a moment" (handing a bonus d6 from his great Battle roll to Robb to assist him in hitting the Warg)
LM: The warg immiatdely snarls at you, looking over it's shoulder as you slide behind it. It exposes its neck and Rob's axe cuts deeply. The warg howls in pain as blood erupts from the wound.


D&D:
I charge the orc, my great axe +1 high over head for a powerful swing. I get a +2 to my attack roll and a -2 to my AC.

TOR:
(in forward stance) Gripping the axe gifted to me by my father Dorin the Orc-slayer, I charge recklessly at the orc. Baruk-Khazad! (by being in "forward stance" you are effectively "charging". The bonus for charging and the penalty to AC is already calculated in the TN 6 vs 9 in the standard "open" stance).

D&D:
This ogre is only interested in smashing as hard as it can. I will fight defensively getting a +2 to my AC, and -4 to my attack rolls, cuz I can't take another Power Attack swing from it. I continue to back away from it, I move behind a tree stump for cover.
GM: It gets an attack of opportunity as you move out of its reached threat-range. He swings, but due to your defensive posture you bring parry aside it with your axe. The tree stump is too far for your movement in this round, though (pointing to the drawn tree stump on the battle grid)

TOR:
(defensive stance) This ogre is interested in smashing as hard as it can. I back away putting distance between me and his mighty club, i move around a tree stump giving me some cover.
LM: The ogre swings wildly (the TN is already adjusted to 12 to hit the dwarf due to defensive stance - no modifiers are needed), but your quick defensive stance moves you just out of reach. The ogre looks frustrated as you duck behind the tree stump, he seems intent on following trying to go around the tree he chases you.


D&D:
I move up and duck behind the orc allowing Tom to push him over me.
GM: The orc gets an attack of opportunity, you're prone so I get a +4 to hit you.
Nevermind, I just stand there and swing my sword.

TOR
(handing battle dice to Tom attacking the orc) I crouch down behind the orc, perfectly setting him up to be taken down. (battle dice scores the hit that previously missed)
LM: As Bill couches behind the orc, your mattock slams into the orcs chest, shattering his ribs. The orc tumbles backwards over Tom and lands on the grass trying to gasp for air (LM notates that the orc is already dead), Tom ensures he's dead and finishes him off with a quick thrust to the throat from his trusty shortsword.

[The biggest difference is - there are no modifiers needed. The terrain is as it needs to be. As LM you don't have to narrate every rock, tree, stump, stalagmite, vine, low-hanging branch, stream to jump across. Players are encouraged to be creative themselves. Most will learn to love it when they realize they have this freedom to move about and narrate without consequences of things like attacks of opportunity, not enough movement etc. Yes I'm aware that you CAN make D&D combat more fluid like this and CAN make it more flowery, BUT by the rules in the Players Handbook, I was espousing how it is detailed to be adjudicated in accordance with RAW. In TOR you don't need any of that - you allow the narration to explain the modifiers or bonuses in combat - not the other way around]

Do the players also tell the story when they miss a swing? My worry is that in long battles (which the system can boil down to) the players get weary of telling how their amazing swing cuts off another orc head. How do you make things interesting?

What I do is:
1)Repeated each round: Assign engagements (who is attack who)
2)Repeated each round: Call for stances
3)All persons in Forward stance roll attacks. Go around the table to those who just rolled. Each player describes their characters action - using the dice as the motivation. On greater/extraordinary successes, I allow them a moment to describe how compellingly successful their attack was. Could be as simple as cutting off the creatures head, to something more elaborate as running up the stairs, leaping off the side, and driving the spear down on the creature through its back. Since combat is abstract there's no worry on five foot steps, movement, attacks of opportunity, threat reach, etc. Let their imaginations flourish. They should already know the general layout and make-up of the terrain. On a miss I'll narrate something like it being parried, or ducked under, or slammed into a tree, or overhanging branch, etc.
4) All persons in Open Stance - repeat #3
5) All persons in Defensive Stance - repeat #3
6) All persons in Rear stance - repeat #3
7) Baddies attack based on assigned engagements. Roll dice, narrate outcome. If I miss, the players are free to use similar verbiage - Used shield to deflect, used weapon to parry. etc. On my great successes, I in turn describe something horrible to the PC.

Combat goes by quickly cuz you're just allowing them all to roll dice almost simultaneously and then just adjudicating it appropriately. In D&D combat is much longer to adjudicate a round because each person go individually moving their mini square by square resolving each issue as they come up.

With encounters your previous example was golden, but it still seems to me that I really need to make a in depth chart of the encounter that shows how much to reveal and how to change my tone of voice and attitude with successes/failures. It is very hard to "wing" an encounter in TOR.

It's no more difficult than any other RPG. The more you do it, the most second nature it will become. The important part to remember is use an encounter rules ONLY for important social encounters, and usually if/when there's a goal of the encounter. Once you know the goal and the general reluctance of the NPC to immediate reward it, you can go from there.

We also found that trait invoking created unwanted and awkward funny moments, when the character always pushed to invoke the trait even if it didn't really fit the current moment. For example we have a Dwarf who is both Vengeful and Wrathful, in other words a very pleasant chap. So the player constantly has to play the character as being angry or getting angry or doing something in anger. Since we tend to be quite exploitative when it comes to rules systems I'm thinking of changing the advancement system to reward good roleplaying/storytelling rather than invoking the trait all the time. Do you have any thoughts on this?

You get one advancement point IF you succeed at a skill check AND then you invoke a trait to explain why being notorious for that trait played a key roll in the success. You do NOT get an advancement point by invoking a trait for an auto-success.

In the example of the hobbit crawling along the underside of the bridge, I did not award an Advancement Point to the hobbit when he explained he is very stealthy compared to hobbits and wanted to invoke the trait for an auto-success. If on the other hand, he rolled, succeeded, and then defined his trait of being stealthy to the point of legendary stealth like Bilbo Baggins, I would award him an advancement point - the FIRST advancement point in that set of skills. If he already had one, I would not. (according to the rules). However on his Greater Success later for his Acrobatics roll, I would have awarded him one - even a second one if he had previously earned one due to the nature of how difficult and how precarious a situation he was in.

Used in this way, the dwarf player and others shouldn't be able to exploit the rules. The second and third Advancement points should only be awarded in very extreme situations. (each one in a set becomes more difficult to achieve). The Dwarf character can invoke the trait all he wants to get an auto-success on say AWE checks - but it will only ever be a standard success and will never earn an Advancement point for it.

All in all I feel that when played "by the rules" TOR has quite a lot of dice rolling to be a storytelling game. Since we're not comfortable with the system the rolls interrupt the game awkwardly. The learning curve for TOR is quite steep and it is hard to figure out how much storytelling and how much mechanics are involved.

On the contrary I feel it's much less compared to D&D. I recently played our Rise of the Runelords Pathfinder game, we are 12 level. We had a combat that lasted nearly 2 hours, and was only against 2 combatants. People have like 4 attacks per round with Haste and Rapid Shot, etc. Ive got two weapon fighting and sneak attack. The cleric kept channeling and wizard kept lightning bolting or magic missling, and there was hundreds and hundreds of dice being rolled. Add in saving throws, acrobatics rolls, concentration rolls, spell resistance, Knowledge skill checks, and stealth checks during the combat...... hundreds. I much prefer TOR in that regards. I play Pathfinder now because they awesome adventures, and my friends are all into it very much. But as a GM, i much prefer running TOR. I am trying to incorporate some of the TOR aspects into my Pathfinder world to try them out (especially the traits for skill checks).

The key is learning when you need to roll dice in TOR, and when something is easier to narrate and hand-wave. Again if it's truly unimportant to the storyline and failure wont really be detrimental - then don't call for a test.

It's worth noting that THE MARSH BELL was particularly crunchy to get through because it was a tutorial as well as an adventure. The first several times you play the game it is hard to swallow and the dice do interrupt, and you do have to refer to the guide etc often until you're comfortable with a pace to play at. This is true I would presume for all new games. I remember when we first tried learning 3rd edition; all of us very experienced roleplayers; it was a different animal altogether. Oh the nightmare conversations about Flat-Footed, and Uncanny Dodge!

Now we just know it intrinsically. As for TOR we're quite comfortable with it as well but we only play it once per month or so, and thus we do spend some time looking through it again to assure we're adjudicating things properly. In the end - practice makes perfect. I believe that the more you play it, the easier it will become just like anything else. The learning curve is high because there isn't a rule for everything and you are forced to abstract and think outside the box so much more than you're accustomed to in other games.

How would you explain the mechanics and meaning of Journey, Encounters and Combat to new TOR players coming from D&D?

Hopefully we already have by now.

Finally is there any ready made adventure that you can recommend for our next session? I felt that the introductionary scenario in the Loremaster's book was very lacking, didn't offer interesting NPC's, interesting tactical fights and it left a newbie Loremaster pretty much in the dark in many ways (which is one of the reason for this thread).

Don't Leave the Path in Tales of the Wild was an amazingly well-written adventure. I loved it. I ran it recently for my group and they thoroughly enjoyed it. It allowed pretty much all of the aspects of TOR to be enacted.

Whoa, I had many more questions I even thought I had. Thanks for each and every participant for your advice, discussion and opinions. I can't believe how much time and effort you're using to help us out. I really appreciate it.

You're very welcome. It's worth it to the hobby and all if it can attract a bunch of new players that find it thoroughly enjoyable.

(And I still would LOVE to see a gameplay video of the game. I had the same problem with Warhammer 3rd edition when it came out. All big board games have tutorial or gameplay videos, why don't RPG companies do the same??? Why????)

I'm fairly certain I saw post of a YouTube link up-thread (or perhaps in a different thread).


Robert

Awesome post, Robert, nice one!

Out of all the people that post here, your TOR game is the one I'd want to play in the most.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

[My cheque's in the post for that last compliment, yes?]

The important thing to keep in mind about Journeys is that you need to be in the mindset that the Journey itself is the adventure. What comes afterwards will likely be another adventure. If you're eager to just get the journey over with and rush through it as fast as possible, then yes the Journey rules will fight you. The solution: only use them when you want the Journey to be significant! Some minor journeys will be handled just like you would in D&D, with a quick narrative summary before moving on to the main adventure.

Also, if the Journey rules seem to have too much dice rolling for you, the alternative Journey rules posted by Francesco were mentioned above, but as far as I could see nobody provided a link:

http://cohorsarcana.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... rneys.html

Scroll down to the bottom for Revision III. In short, for Fatigue rolls you first have everyone make Travel tests as normal, then you alternate between the roles making a check for the whole group.


On Encounters, I love that TOR places emphasis on social scenes as it's appropriate to the setting, but thinking of the Encounter structure as rigid will cause your game to suffer from the problem that any universal "skill challenge" system has. Namely, generalizing situations that may be very different in practice.

If a couple of rolls achieves the goals of the Encounter due to clever player RPing (or maybe because the actual stakes were less complex than the defined structure), by all means count that as a success! No need to let "2 more successes" hang their if the fiction has established that you've done what needed to be done! For this reason, I'm much more likely to use the Tolerance rules but keep the rest of the encounter more free-form. Depending on what needs to be accomplished I'll estimate how many rolls the PCs will likely need to make, but I won't hold that as the be-all, end-all. Because each Encounter will have different objectives, PCs may go about solving those objectives in different (and often unpredictable!) ways. Tolerance is a much more reliable indicator to glom on to. The Elf warden that hates Dwarves will be very short with a party of Dwarves stomping through Mirkwood, and it makes sense that a single failure will set him off. Give players ample clues in the way you describe the NPC, and in some cases you might want to outright tell them of the Tolerance. This will inform how they go about dealing with them. They should get straight to the point, minimizing rolls, and this reflects really well what that NPC would WANT them to do (he doesn't want these Dwarves to blabber on too much).


Finally, with regard to the D&D 4E comments, IME it supports RPing very well, with a streamlined skill system, transparent math, and an easy GM workload. Like my advice about TOR Encounters above I don't think the Skill Challenge system works so well if you adhere strictly to it, but experienced 4E GMs will figure that out. Big, tactical set-piece battles is arguably the biggest strength of the game, yes. That doesn't mean that you should include a LOT of fights (necessarily), but those that you do run had better be important. Yes they take long (~1 hour), but IME 3.x/PF fights take longer with all of the rules-referencing, the more convoluted list of conditions, spellcasters that can summon things and get 5 actions on a turn, etc. Not to mention those tactical, war-gamey rules make combat more dynamic and interesting. And for winging it, yeah that's what pg. 42 is for, along with a healthy dose of GM rulings (there are a TON of powers that the GM can use as a baseline for improvised effects).

I tend to view 4E as a niche RPG, much like TOR (but with very different goals). You have to want big, tactical set-piece battles and it does those VERY well, while also supporting streamlined rules for out of combat stuff to allow for flexibility. The standard DC table as opposed to having a unique DC for every specific task goes a long way toward keeping the narrative flowing. Ditto having all skills scale, so everyone can attempt anything even if the odds of success aren't in your favor (in contrast, in the PF game I play almost every session the GM will ask for skill rolls that I don't even need to roll because I can't even succeed with a natural 20).

For a more "universal" version of D&D that can handle a wider variety of campaign styles, I'm much more likely to use 13th Age. But anyways, that 4E comment went on longer than I intended, so I'll drop it now. While it's not my favorite RPG, it's a good one and the amount of exaggerated flak it gets annoys me.

Regarding encounters: I recommend against using the number-of-successes rule introduced in the Lake-town book. Your tasks will get you the success you want; you don't need to "win" an encounter. If an extended action is appropriate, then use one, but don't make it the default for encounters.

Using just Adventures Over the Edge of the Wild, Tolerance in an encounter simply determines how long the party you're encountering is willing to talk to you. You have to introduce yourself to get the other party to listen, then you just have to avoid annoying them. That's it! There's really no other game mechanics at work here.

Stormcrow wrote:Regarding encounters: I recommend against using the number-of-successes rule introduced in the Lake-town book.

What page Stormcrow, I can't recall what you're referring to here?

Stormcrow wrote:Using just Adventures Over the Edge of the Wild, Tolerance in an encounter simply determines how long the party you're encountering is willing to talk to you.

Well, not always; a conversation can naturally reach a conclusion before Tolerance is used up and before the maximum number of successes are achieved.

Stormcrow wrote: You have to introduce yourself to get the other party to listen, then you just have to avoid annoying them. That's it! There's really no other game mechanics at work here.

Let's be clear here, for people just getting to know the rules, Tolerance is reduced when failing an action (not meeting a TN) so it is directly tied to that game mechanic rather than just deciding whether the NPC has been annoyed or not.

IIRC the number of successes rule is introduced in Tales not the Laketown sourcebook and is based off a thread in the old forums as noted in the acknowledgements.

Hermes Serpent wrote:IIRC the number of successes rule is introduced in Tales not the Laketown sourcebook and is based off a thread in the old forums as noted in the acknowledgements.

Cheers Hermes, was getting confused as to what Stormcrow was on about there - thought I'd missed something!

I don't agree with him though. I like how the number of successes accrued in an Encounter can lead to different outcomes and greater rewards.

Rich H wrote:

Stormcrow wrote:Regarding encounters: I recommend against using the number-of-successes rule introduced in the Lake-town book.

What page Stormcrow, I can't recall what you're referring to here?

My mistake; it's in Tales from Wilderland, p. 6.

Stormcrow wrote:Using just Adventures Over the Edge of the Wild, Tolerance in an encounter simply determines how long the party you're encountering is willing to talk to you.

Well, not always; a conversation can naturally reach a conclusion before Tolerance is used up and before the maximum number of successes are achieved.

I didn't say it is when an encounter ends; I said it is the willingness of someone to talk.

Strictly speaking, Tolerance is not "used up"; you accumulate a number of failures up to Tolerance.

Stormcrow wrote: You have to introduce yourself to get the other party to listen, then you just have to avoid annoying them. That's it! There's really no other game mechanics at work here.

Let's be clear here, for people just getting to know the rules, Tolerance is reduced when failing an action (not meeting a TN) so it is directly tied to that game mechanic rather than just deciding whether the NPC has been annoyed or not.

I fail to see the distinction. Your failures during an encounter directly affect a person's willingness to talk to you.

Stormcrow wrote:I fail to see the distinction. Your failures during an encounter directly affect a person's willingness to talk to you.

Okay, will try and explain this more clearly... Taking all your initial post in its entirety, I think there's a significant distinction between that and the successes you accrue during an encounter which your post is proposing to ignore. That's what I was calling out. I think there are two mechanics at work here, that are both valid and valuable; the use of Tolerance and the accrual of Successes. I wouldn't get rid of either, personally.

There's a distinction if you naturally bring the conversation to a close (ie, run out of things to talk about) before Tolerance is exhausted (ie, NPC is 'annoyed' and no longer wants to talk to you). That's the point I was attempting to make and why I think the success mechanic is useful - ie, if you need to differentiate between adequate success and more impressive degrees.

I'd like to briefly add in here what others have said in the flavor of:

The Travel rolls to the adventure are not rolls holding you back, get them over with.

They are in fact, part of it.

"You know, Ed, yeah get me another cold one, eh? Yeah before me and Nora got married, we had this old car I'd bought from her dad. The Main thing was the get to the church, but see this old car, we got to where it was smoking, lots of problems, but no time to get it fixed. It tended to stall and the battery was near dead. Yeah, hell yeah, I'm a good mechanic now...This thing Broke down on some railroad tracks, now I was wearing a suit, and she had a dress, and so I can't get the thing to start, but so I had her sit inside and work the controls while I pushed. We caught it in gear, and got it going. Yeah we made it to the church, but we didn't have the hundred dollars to pay the pastor. She wanted to ask her dad, but I figured, no I'm gonna do it, so I paid him back with interest, and well that thing after the wedding, that's another story."

Replace Ed with Dwarf and Mead, and Car with cart and horse and wife with adventurers, and church with enemy fortress, that's One Ring.

D&D you flank to get +2. One Ring you roll a gandalf, and "I manged to sneak up on him and as the Elf hit him with the arrow, he looked at my elf-friend, and I slid my blade into his guts from his blind side."

The game is plain die rolls without description. Wargames you stack on tobruck and take the 2:1 and roll the dice. Hits result. Refer to CRT. In the boardgames we play we describe it. Not just counters lost but smoke and flames as the 1-1-8 Japanese cruiser in Victory in the Pacific by AH, the ship is trying to get a hit, on an American cruiser. A miss is "a splash of water as the shot straddles the port side, near the bridge!"

How do you describe "I cut off the orc's head?"

As much as you want. Key being if you don't WANT, then you are probably in it for the mechanics of combat and the statistical analysis. Not much there.

"I cut off his head."
"Blood sprays and he gurgles his last breath."
"I cut into him, and his friend will be next, all the while thinking of my dead dwarf ally."

You and your players are the writers of the Novel in your mind.

Each thing you do, each die roll is or spurs a sentence.

Each line of dialogue is a move in the game, a line in the novel of your mind, the same.

The GM narrates a plain full of rocks. Ask is there a tree? if yes, then make a move on it.

Yes, a tree, but it's "a small crumbling thing, well eaten by termites."

The game is not about the manuevers, but the novel you are telling to yourselves as you go. epic heroes in an epic adventure, set in Middle Earth.

Journeys:

It's Dead of winter, you will travel 20 miles in two days. Everyone make travel rolls.

all make it.

"you trudge through snow that is hard and crunchy, a crust of ice where the elf can easily walk. The sky is birght, and the wind low."

Or all fail, and take fatigue:

"The hobbits are in snow up to their hips and are struggling and freezing." "I help a hobbit." (Gives him the
travel bonus check result.) "The Dunedain ranger lifts the hobbit onto his shoulders, carrying him. The other hobbit trudges alongside, (spend hope? No?) It's freezing and the walking hobbit seems forlorn, and cold."

Hobbit 1 takes no fatigue.
Hobbit 2 takes a fatigue.

It's not adventure prep, it's the adventure. As much as orc fighting.

Narrating all the time. GM or players narrating.

Good luck.





There could be a chart, but the chart is the GM and each player.