One-Hit Kills

[DavetheLost]

As for your comment in the first post that axes not daggers are the weapon of choice for silent one hit kills, this is as it should be. If you aren't sure about this, experiment. Use a steak, a ham, a melon...

As for ambushing Mr. Big and taking him out before he can even alert his fellows, why is he in such a vulnerable location? Even wearing the One Ring Bilbo still cast a shadow enough for the goblins at the Back-door to see him.

If the villain is inside a building there may be doors to open or a crowd of people to walk through. Narratively no matter how good you are at sneaking there are going to be times and places where you just can't sneak by.

"...the LoreMaster may allow the acting player to score an automatic success..."
"The LoreMaster may agree with a Trait invocation to speed up play, especially if failing the roll would not lead to dramatically relevant consequences or if the action wasn't difficult.

Also from the sidebar, page 95 in the Adventurer's Book, "If anyone finds the argument for invoking the Trait questionable, the LoreMaster adjudicates. The advantages conferred by Traits aren't powerful enough to unbalance the game,... In all cases the Loremaster's word is final."

Don't let your players push you around on this. You are not required by the rules to let a character with Elusive always succeed on any stealth task without rolling. You are given the option of allowing an automatic success without a die roll, if and when you deem it appropriate.

Sneaking up behind a lone Orc sentry and quietly slitting his throat, absolutely give the player automatic success and move the game along. Most competent heroes should be able to do this. Sneak up on the Great Goblin in his Throne Room and assassinate him? Better hope you have mad skills and the dice are heavily in your favour or it ain't gonna happen.

I am sorry. The way you describe things the Hobbit would have been a considerably shorter novel. Bilbo wearing the Ring sneaks down the tunnel, sees the bare patch in Smaug's armour and stabs him in it, probably with Orcrist. Orcrist since he would have snuck around and stolen it back when they were in the Wood elves' caves. Smaug dies. Done in by a Hobbit with Elusive and some auto successes on sneaking about. In fact, Burglar Bilbo might not have needed the Ring at all, he is of Tookish Blood and so could choose Elusive as one of his starting Traits.

[Stormcrow]

Additionally, one of my players has the Elusive trait, so he basically can sneak up on everybody, every time, without rolling. Seems too anti climactic to me, and it might become a game breaker.

Invoking a trait for an automatic action only provides a normal success, and a normal success is a only just enough to accomplish the goal. The Elusive character may be able to sneak up on somebody, but with only a normal success he won't be able to dispatch him without the victim being able to raise an alarm. He's Elusive, not an Assassin.

[Stormcrow]

Also, on the same page, for Automatic successes the rulebook states that this rule can only be invoked when the Loremaster agrees with the invocation to speed up play, particularly if failing the roll would not lead to dramatically relevant consequences, or if the action wasn't difficult.

We've had this fight before. The rule book doesn't state that traits can only invoke an automatic action when the loremaster wants to speed up play; it says this is one of its uses. Another stated use is when a player wants to achieve an automatic normal success on any action, even if it is an important one. The given example is one in which a player invokes Keen-eyed to automatically discover signs of an ambush. Another example is an invocation of Smoking to surreptitiously leave a gathering, not something that was allowed just to speed play.

These aren't examples of glossing over inconsequential actions; they are examples of characters doing things automatically that other characters would have to roll for.

[DavetheLost]

Again, the rules say may. I firmly believe that it is up to the LoreMaster and the players working together to make a fun game for all. If a rule gets in the way of the fun, change it or disregard it. In this case the use of may instead of "must" gives plenty of leeway.

[Stormcrow]

Again, the rules say may.

They sure do. Did I suggest otherwise?

[Rich H]

Also, on the same page, for Automatic successes the rulebook states that this rule can only be invoked when the Loremaster agrees with the invocation to speed up play, particularly if failing the roll would not lead to dramatically relevant consequences, or if the action wasn't difficult.

We've had this fight before. The rule book doesn't state that traits can only invoke an automatic action when the loremaster wants to speed up play; it says this is one of its uses. Another stated use is when a player wants to achieve an automatic normal success on any action, even if it is an important one. The given example is one in which a player invokes Keen-eyed to automatically discover signs of an ambush. Another example is an invocation of Smoking to surreptitiously leave a gathering, not something that was allowed just to speed play.

These aren't examples of glossing over inconsequential actions; they are examples of characters doing things automatically that other characters would have to roll for.

It's hardly a fight, is it?

The rules also state that advantages conferred by Traits aren't powerful enough to unbalance the game yet, as we do keep having this discussion, it is evident that certain interpretations of the rules are leading to this imbalance and also an inequality in comparative trait usage - ie, some traits have broader application than others so are inherently *better*. We're also having this discussion because the rules are contradictory - ie, they state traits aren't powerful enough to unbalance the game, they say an LM may apply an auto success especially under certain conditions, and then do give some examples that unbalance the game and turn certain traits effectively into "I win" buttons (unless you use my interpretation, or similar, of the rules).

We get some suggestions to say that the PC won't get any APs if they invoke traits where possible. That's correct, but APs can be gained on other actions *and* APs gained in succeeding at one skill can be spent in other skills so the problem of not getting APs awarded for particularly tests is effectively circumnavigated. These don't really address the problems some player groups are having though and often sound more than a little wishy-washy.

My interpretation of the rules, through application that the LM may agree with a trait invocation to speed up play, especially if failing at the roll would not lead to dramatically relevant consequences or if the action wasn't difficult, avoids these issues as by inference they may often not agree if those secondary conditions (dramatically relevant and action wasn't difficult) are met.

I do think that Traits are one of the most interesting elements of TOR but are not clearly and consistently applied. I'd have preferred to see some rules around them being invoked to achieve auto successes on any standard difficulty (<= 14) and then to invoke them for higher difficulties you need to spend a point of Hope. That way, a player can still press the *I win* button but there is a cost associated with it.

[poosticks7]

Just remember we are trying to tell interesting stories not 'win'. Keep that in mind always.

Sounds simple but too often people seem to forget.

We want drama, we want suspense, that is why we play these games isn't it? Not to beat 'it'.

[Rich H]

Just remember we are trying to tell interesting stories not 'win'. Keep that in mind always.

Well, to be strict on this we are playing a role-playing game and for me, that last bit, is the most important. What you say is fine though, but...

We want drama, we want suspense, that is why we play these games isn't it? Not to beat 'it'.

... Then allowing traits to auto-succeed kills that suspense - whereas a dice roll enhances such suspense.

The "I win" button phrase I used is short hand and I assumed people like yourself, poosticks, would understand what I was getting at. Apologies if that isn't/wasn't the case.

[poosticks7]

I was typing my reply at the same time Rich. We are on the same page mate.

[Rich H]

I was typing my reply at the same time Rich. We are on the same page mate.

I'm not sure we are, because I don't always know what page I'm on with regards to Traits!

I really think this is a part of TOR that needed thinking through a lot more - the rulebook states that "... players and Lormasters are advised to avoid discussing the validity of a Trait at length." (because they aren't unbalancing); yet here we are, at what is effectively a virtual gaming table of players and LMs having this kind of discussion. Obviously, something isn't working as it should be.