forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

It's odd that we are discussing how the rules handle Traits — and strictly adhering to them — when the discussion started with a solution that was completely outside the RAW and purely a GM ruling.

If we can rule that sneaking up on a guard allows a one-roll-kill and not a full ambush and combat, then why can't we just as easily rule a given use of Traits does or doesn't work based on the scenario, regardless of how the rules are presented?

Elmoth wrote:Depends. If the unfolding events would be dramatic no, he is not. These are descriptors more than anything. It is about speeding up play, not "gaming the system" to total win. Not for me, at least. YMMV and there is no problem at all about this I would allow for sneaking up to a single sentry. But doing that 10 times around an orc encampment? no. Too much.

If you can do something once, why can't you do it again? What if you only want to do it twice? Will someone please explain to me why you stop being effective at your trait as soon as it becomes important?

Traits are not just descriptors. They also perform three distinct and implicit mechanical effects: they provide automatic actions, they allow unforeseen actions, and they help grant advancement points. There is a middle-ground between speeding up play and gaming the system: using your traits as things that your character can actually use.

DavetheLost wrote:

Stormcrow wrote: Sure. If the link between the trait and the situation were not substantial, I'd veto it. Say, a player wants to put a sleeping draught in a guard's mug and says, "I have Cooking, so I spice the wine so wonderfully that the guard can't resist drinking it." That's a bogus line of reasoning, and I'd say no.

I would agree and veto. However if the same player were to say "I have Cooking, so I spic the wine so wonderfully that the guard doesn't notice the sleeping draught." That I would allow.

Likewise I would allow the player to invoke Merry "I will offer the guard a drink and because I am such a Merry fellow he will join me in a mug."

If I had decided that the guard was a strict by the book, suspicious type who would not under any normal circumstance accept a drink while on duty I would be willing accept either Cooking or Merry as justification for allowing the player to make a Persuade check to convince the guard to have a drink.
I concur with all of these.

Similarly, in the case of trying to sneak through the Orc camp and take out the chief before he can alert his guards, I probably would not allow an Elusive character to just do it with automatic success, but I would allow invoking Elusive to allow them to make a Stealthy check to successfully sneak through the camp without raising the alarm.

I concur with all of these.

Under normal circumstances I would assume the camp to have enough orcs awake and moving about that a simple Stealth check would not suffice to sneak through it.

Wouldn't that be a good instance for invoking an unforeseen action with a high TN? Only the Elusive character could try it, and he'd have to roll very high.

Shieldmaiden wrote:All a trait does is allow an automatic success on a skill roll. The actual outcome is still the same as if dice had been rolled, so the only thing being removed is a brief moment of suspense and the thrill of luck being on your side. If removing that removes the fun from your game, your problem isn't with traits.

It removes some of the fun from it for many RPGers, what do you think the problem is?

Stormcrow wrote:You misunderstand. I don't mean I think the journey rules are "a grind"; I mean I don't feel obligated to use a rule when a character has a perfectly reasonable way to avoid it. Becoming fatigued is not something that has to happen to each and every character to make journeys a worthwhile part of the game.

Thanks for clarifying that, your initial post was lacking for me so that helps.

Stormcrow wrote:Consider this situation: a party of four is journeying through the Wild. One of them is Hardy. For each fatigue test along the journey, three players roll; the fourth invokes his Hardy trait. Hazards still occur, characters still tire, but the Hardy character is, well, hardy, and doesn't become fatigued by the journey. How is this unbalanced?

I think it's pretty boring that one character gets to avoid a whole section of the rules which come up in pretty much every adventure if all they are doing is invoking the trait without any imaginative/interesting/entertaining variations. I'd allow the first test to be passed but if the others were the same invocations, with little or no variation in how they are being applied, then to me that's dull and I'd veto further invocations.

Stormcrow wrote:Similarly, I would allow Merry characters to invoke an automatic action in cases of corruption tests due to oppressive places. It only makes sense: the character is naturally predisposed to avoiding being brought low by depressing situations.

Trait invocations only apply to Common Skills so things like Wisdom, Valour, and Weapon Skills are not subject to them as far as I'm aware.

Stormcrow wrote:I don't understand why you'd want to veto a player who wanted to handle the threat of Weariness by being Hardy.

In the same way that I wouldn't want someone avoiding it in combat by invoking a trait, but we don't have that problem as traits can't be invoked for Weapon Skills and other non-Common Skill tests.

Stormcrow wrote:They're as frequent as the referee makes them. You should examine further why this one seems different to you.

I think it's fair to say the Travel tests occur more than ambushes do for every RPG group playing TOR. You just have to look at all the official adventures, fan created ones, and AP reports to see that so I don't need to further examine this as it's evident through experiences of all the above.

Stormcrow wrote:It is indeed! And since you're not the loremaster for other gamers posting here, you shouldn't be judging their trait invocations.

I've never said I was [the Loremaster for other gamers here]. I thought we were stating what we do in our games as options for other posters, discussing issues, saying how we interpret the rules and what we thing they state, and so on. Perhaps you can take some of your own advice though, methinks.

Stormcrow wrote:Automatic actions describe two uses: when the player wants to automatically succeed at an action and when the loremaster wants to find a way to skip past an action because it's inconsequential. You've eliminated the first use and you're telling people that the second use is the only correct one.

I've never stated I'd eliminate it. I still use it but I apply the conditions as previously mentioned.

Stormcrow wrote:You seem to consider fights to be dramatic and everything else to be inconsequential. I assure you this is not the focus of the game.

That's a misinformed conclusion and I don't know how you've arrived at it as the majority of our discussion has been about how Hardy applies to Travel rolls. That's hardly combat.

Stormcrow wrote:We don't know much about that social gathering. Trotter has some reason to be unobserved; we just don't know what it is. It would be unfair and somewhat ridiculous to say that, depending on how dramatic the reason, the action either succeeds or doesn't succeed. The player would be quite justified in complaining that, in last week's social gathering when he decided to go for a Smoke, you let him slip away automatically because you didn't think he was doing something important, but now that he has a good reason you're making him roll.

That's getting into whether traits are meant to be consistent with regard to what can be done based on the realworld environment within the game or whether you also think that they should be used/not used during when things are of narrative importance or not. I personally don't have an issue with veto'ing a trait that was previously used for the same thing as it is now being used for on the grounds that the narrative of the game has changed or that the player is invoking the trait using the same description/reason as on the previous occasion.

Stormcrow wrote:Naturally, since you rule them to be that way.

They expressed this after reading the RAW and we came up with the interpretation of the ruling mutually. We could foresee the issues we'd have as a group, we tried it out, and agreed to what we'd proposed. We were happy with that as we all felt this was a correct interpretation of the book and what it was trying to describe with regards to trait usage. I still am.

Stormcrow wrote: They're there to give players a role-playing hook into the mechanics of the game, not just to create narrative decorations. As a player if I were told that Smoking only enhanced the atmosphere of the game I wouldn't bother taking it—I'd want something practical. But if I were told that Smoking could be as useful as anything else, as in the example with Trotter, then I'd be interested in taking it. And that's how the game works: all the traits are useful, because when you use them they're not just pretty effects for "atmosphere."

Previously I said that if the trait was imaginatively described, or was entertaining, or added atmosphere then I'd allow the invocation. That was my whole point when I wished that all the traits (like Smoking) required more imaginative options rather than obvious ones. I don't see how you've jumped to me just saying that it's for narrative decoration. I've stated that I like the Smoking trait because it has to be applied imaginatively (hence it's entertaining) and also that I like traits that add atmosphere (also entertaining). Such applications would mean that I'd be more than likely to allow such auto. success invocations.

Stormcrow wrote:If you require players to compose literary passages on the spot whenever they invoke a trait, no wonder that gets boring.

I don't but that's all that seems to happen for traits like Hardy (when being applied to Travel rolls), which is why they get veto'd more often than not - ie, they just become boring descriptions like you've described rather than interactions with the environment/scene like the example we have for Smoking.

Stormcrow wrote:I would be quite satisfied with "I have the Smoking trait, so I will use it for an automatic action. Trotter heads to the door as if he were going to light his pipe from the torch hanging there, but then he'll slip out unnoticed." Players shouldn't have to be poesy, they should just be inventive.

That's an imaginative description so I'd allow it. Just to reiterate - I wouldn't veto all the time; I'm okay with traits being used in an entertaining/imaginative way but my experiences of Hardy being applied ad nauseum to Travel checks is boring so it gets veto'd. If a player could invoke it with originality on every Travel check then I think I'd be okay with that as they'd be making things fun, making things atmospheric, being imaginative, and not just pressing the metaphorical "I win" button in what would appear to be a lazy way.

Stormcrow wrote:But "It's too central to the plot" is not a good reason to do so.

Try not to be my Loremaster thanks, you aren't.

Stormcrow wrote:If you're interested in how I'd rule, why not come up with a concrete example of what a player might try?

Honestly, I've had a rotten day at work so I can't think of anything off hand, sorry.

However, as we've been centering our discussion around the Hardy trait, why not give me 4 trait invocations to auto success on 4 consecutive Travel tests that you'd allow - ie, would you allow the same description four times and if not what would they be?

Rich H wrote:It removes some of the fun from it for many RPGers, what do you think the problem is?

I totally understand the fun that can be derived from such moments and I wasn't trying to suggest anyone was doing things wrong. (Yes, I saw your post pre-edit, Mr Grumpypants! ) I was trying to helpfully suggest ways in which a game might be made more exciting, so that it was still fun and entertaining when players were able to automatically succeed on die rolls through the use of traits.

Shieldmaiden wrote:I totally understand the fun that can be derived from such moments and I wasn't trying to suggest anyone was doing things wrong. (Yes, I saw your post pre-edit, Mr Grumpypants! )

Cool, it left me wondering what you meant by "If removing that removes the fun from your game, your problem isn't with traits". I removed the badwrongfun question as I didn't want to be antagonistic, sorry that you saw it, but glad that we can both laugh about it - my partner calls me "Mr Grumpypants" a lot so you're in excellent company doing the same!

Rich H wrote:

Stormcrow wrote:Consider this situation: a party of four is journeying through the Wild. One of them is Hardy. For each fatigue test along the journey, three players roll; the fourth invokes his Hardy trait. Hazards still occur, characters still tire, but the Hardy character is, well, hardy, and doesn't become fatigued by the journey. How is this unbalanced?

I think it's pretty boring that one character gets to avoid a whole section of the rules which come up in pretty much every adventure if all they are doing is invoking the trait without any imaginative/interesting/entertaining variations. I'd allow the first test to be passed but if the others were the same invocations, with little or no variation in how they are being applied, then to me that's dull and I'd veto further invocations.

So you don't think it's unbalanced to for a Hardy character to Hardily pass all his fatigue tests on a journey; you just think it's boring. Is that right?

Where in the rules does it say your invocation has to be unique, interesting, or entertaining?

Stormcrow wrote:Similarly, I would allow Merry characters to invoke an automatic action in cases of corruption tests due to oppressive places. It only makes sense: the character is naturally predisposed to avoiding being brought low by depressing situations.

Trait invocations only apply to Common Skills so things like Wisdom, Valour, and Weapon Skills are not subject to them as far as I'm aware.

You're right; I was in error.

Stormcrow wrote:They're as frequent as the referee makes them. You should examine further why this one seems different to you.

I think it's fair to say the Travel tests occur more than ambushes do for every RPG group playing TOR. You just have to look at all the official adventures, fan created ones, and AP reports to see that so I don't need to further examine this as it's evident through experiences of all the above.

You're the one making the claim; you're the one who needs to provide the evidence.

Stormcrow wrote:It is indeed! And since you're not the loremaster for other gamers posting here, you shouldn't be judging their trait invocations.

I've never said I was [the Loremaster for other gamers here]. I thought we were stating what we do in our games as options for other posters, discussing issues, saying how we interpret the rules and what we thing they state, and so on.

No, you were making claims about what the rules say:

"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."

and

"The rules also state that advantages conferred by Traits aren't powerful enough to unbalance the game"

and

"'... players and Lormasters are advised to avoid discussing the validity of a Trait at length.' (because they aren't unbalancing)"

None of which are what the books say.

Later you begin to admit that this is only your interpretation. I must assume that when you say "the books say," you actually mean what the books mean by what they say.

Stormcrow wrote:Automatic actions describe two uses: when the player wants to automatically succeed at an action and when the loremaster wants to find a way to skip past an action because it's inconsequential. You've eliminated the first use and you're telling people that the second use is the only correct one.

I've never stated I'd eliminate it.

Yes you did. Assuming you're following the rules presented in the books, you believe "this rule can only be invoked when the Loremaster agrees with the invocation to speed up play." The other kind of automatic action, where the player wants to automatically succeed at an action with a significant consequence, you said is unbalanced. I think you've changed your tune a little now, and you're saying it's a valid way to invoke the rule, but for some reason you're claiming that the invocation has to be unique and entertaining every time.

That's getting into whether traits are meant to be consistent with regard to what can be done based on the realworld environment within the game or whether you also think that they should be used/not used during when things are of narrative importance or not. I personally don't have an issue with veto'ing a trait that was previously used for the same thing as it is now being used for on the grounds that the narrative of the game has changed or that the player is invoking the trait using the same description/reason as on the previous occasion.

As long as it's you personally speaking to me, I have no problem with that. I don't agree with your choice, but I'm perfectly content for you to play your game the way you like.

Stormcrow wrote:Naturally, since you rule them to be that way.

They expressed this after reading the RAW and we came up with the interpretation of the ruling mutually. We could foresee the issues we'd have as a group, we tried it out, and agreed to what we'd proposed. We were happy with that as we all felt this was a correct interpretation of the book and what it was trying to describe with regards to trait usage. I still am.

Yeaaaahhh... I have no way to verify that this decision was made without your interpretative bias.

That's an imaginative description so I'd allow it. Just to reiterate - I wouldn't veto all the time; I'm okay with traits being used in an entertaining/imaginative way but my experiences of Hardy being applied ad nauseum to Travel checks is boring so it gets veto'd.

How is it boring for a player, once per journey, to say, "I won't have to roll because I'm Hardy." Does that one little sentence really bore you so easily?

If a player could invoke it with originality on every Travel check then I think I'd be okay with that as they'd be making things fun, making things atmospheric, being imaginative, and not just pressing the metaphorical "I win" button in what would appear to be a lazy way.

Personally, I'd get bored waiting for the Hardy player to come up with yet another reason why his Hardiness saves him from rolling, because goshdarnit he wants that freebie. Your way encourages this kind of abuse. If you just agreed, "Okay, you're Hardy, you don't have to roll," you can just get on with the game.

Stormcrow wrote:If you're interested in how I'd rule, why not come up with a concrete example of what a player might try?

Honestly, I've had a rotten day at work so I can't think of anything off hand, sorry.

However, as we've been centering our discussion around the Hardy trait, why not give me 4 trait invocations to auto success on 4 consecutive Travel tests that you'd allow - ie, would you allow the same description four times and if not what would they be?

Journey 1: The company travels from Laketown to the Elvenking's halls. The Hardy player says, "I'll take the auto-success for being Hardy." The referee says, "Okay." The other players roll.

The party continues the adventuring phase, then has a fellowship phase.

Journey 2: The company travels from the Elvenking's halls to Beorn's house. The Hardy player says, "I'll take the auto-success for being Hardy." The referee says, "Okay." The other players roll.

The party continues the adventuring phase, then has a fellowship phase.

Journey 3: The company travels from Beorn's house to Rhosgobel. The Hardy player says, "I'll take the auto-success for being Hardy." The referee says, "Okay." The other players roll.

The party continues the adventuring phase, then has a fellowship phase.

Journey 4: The company travels from Rhosgobel to Rivendell. The Hardy player says, "I'll take the auto-success for being Hardy." The referee says, "Okay." The other players roll.

The party continues the adventuring phase.

Stormcrow wrote:So you don't think it's unbalanced to for a Hardy character to Hardily pass all his fatigue tests on a journey; you just think it's boring. Is that right?

No, I think it's unbalancing as well due to the fact that Fatigue tests are incredibly common as part of the Journey rules which occur in pretty much every adventure and AP I've read for this game. If Hardy is applied in the way that you describe then I'd expect every player to want it for their PC as it makes things so much easier for them. That, for me, is therefore unbalancing.

Stormcrow wrote:Where in the rules does it say your invocation has to be unique, interesting, or entertaining?

It doesn't say that it has to, but it states that a trait should be described ("The description of the Trait is essential") and then later states "A well-detailed or entertaining explanation adds to the enjoyment of the game, and should earn the player the benefit of the doubt. In all cases the Loremaster's word is final". I'd say if you're not providing an explanation that's detailed or entertaining then it's not adding enjoyment to the game, therefore you don't earn the benefit of the doubt, so the Loremaster can say 'no' as his word is final.

Stormcrow wrote:You're right; I was in error.

I wasn't sure so thanks for taking the time to confirm. I do think that it's strange why such traits that would obviously lend themselves to Corruption of Valour tests can't be applied though, yet they can to Common Skills. It's why I'd have liked to have seen more development in the rules for Trait Usage across all tests.

Stormcrow wrote:You're the one making the claim; you're the one who needs to provide the evidence.

For me, I have, using the official adventures, fan ones, and APs that I've read as a guide. These show that Journeys occur more than Ambushes and this is compounded by the fact that there are numerous Fatigue Tests within a Journey.

Stormcrow wrote:No, you were making claims about what the rules say:

"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."

I'm quoting this from the 5th paragraph of the 2nd column on page 95. That's under a section called Automatic Success. Granted, the words aren't exact but it's there.

Stormcrow wrote:and

"The rules also state that advantages conferred by Traits aren't powerful enough to unbalance the game"

That's on page 95 too, in the brown text box.

Stormcrow wrote:and

"'... players and Lormasters are advised to avoid discussing the validity of a Trait at length.' (because they aren't unbalancing)"

Page 95, again, in the brown text box.

Stormcrow wrote:None of which are what the books say.

Page references above.

Stormcrow wrote:Later you begin to admit that this is only your interpretation. I must assume that when you say "the books say," you actually mean what the books mean by what they say.

You only stepped into the conversation after I had made both those posts so I really think the second post I made clarified the first and was in response to Marko's post from my first one. I don't see how you couldn't have read one and not the other, so my position within it of being my interpretation of the rules was pretty clear once you posted in the thread, surely?

Stormcrow wrote:Yes you did. Assuming you're following the rules presented in the books, you believe "this rule can only be invoked when the Loremaster agrees with the invocation to speed up play." The other kind of automatic action, where the player wants to automatically succeed at an action with a significant consequence, you said is unbalanced. I think you've changed your tune a little now, and you're saying it's a valid way to invoke the rule, but for some reason you're claiming that the invocation has to be unique and entertaining every time.

Right, I see where the confusion is and in that respect I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I didn't lay out all my thoughts about Trait usage but have left it to the development of the discussion we're having. This was partly because the initial question differs to what we're now discussing. I'll attempt to explain my point of view better and so it's complete in one place:

1) I would allow auto success invocation if the trait was appropriate but I'd apply the Trait Etiquette guidelines to it which is why I'd veto invocations that unbalanced the game, that weren't detailed, or that weren't entertaining. Francesco doesn't describe further what he considers to be unbalancing, detailed, or entertaining - rightly leaving that to the LM. Which I have done for my game.

2) I would allow auto success invocation to speed up play again applying the Trait Etiquette guidelines as described above.

I'd also apply to the above points the section of the book that states "failing a roll would lead to dramatically relevant consequences, or if the action wasn't difficult". Now, looking at the way the book is written, this appears to apply only to point (2) whereas I'm applying it to both which is what I thought the rules were attempting to say as they seem to fit both kinds of invocation. I would allow a particularly well detailed and/or entertaining (of which both could include an imaginative use) to still lead to an auto success even if failure would lead to dramatic consequences or the action was difficult.

Stormcrow wrote:Yeaaaahhh... I have no way to verify that this decision was made without your interpretative bias.

Okay, I'd appreciate it if you did at least trust that I was being honest with you. I'm sure you do but I'm starting to think that you don't. At least give me that courtesy as I've always done the same for you.

Stormcrow wrote:How is it boring for a player, once per journey, to say, "I won't have to roll because I'm Hardy." Does that one little sentence really bore you so easily?

I think its boring because its not detailed or entertaining (as per the notes on Trait Etiquette). I'd therefore veto it on those grounds.

Stormcrow wrote:Personally, I'd get bored waiting for the Hardy player to come up with yet another reason why his Hardiness saves him from rolling, because goshdarnit he wants that freebie. Your way encourages this kind of abuse. If you just agreed, "Okay, you're Hardy, you don't have to roll," you can just get on with the game.

That's fine. Just to clarify, I wouldn't slow up the game waiting for him to think of something. If he couldn't then I'd move on.

Stormcrow wrote:Journey 1: The company travels from Laketown to the Elvenking's halls. The Hardy player says, "I'll take the auto-success for being Hardy." The referee says, "Okay." The other players roll.

The party continues the adventuring phase, then has a fellowship phase.

Journey 2: The company travels from the Elvenking's halls to Beorn's house. The Hardy player says, "I'll take the auto-success for being Hardy." The referee says, "Okay." The other players roll.

The party continues the adventuring phase, then has a fellowship phase.

Journey 3: The company travels from Beorn's house to Rhosgobel. The Hardy player says, "I'll take the auto-success for being Hardy." The referee says, "Okay." The other players roll.

The party continues the adventuring phase, then has a fellowship phase.

Journey 4: The company travels from Rhosgobel to Rivendell. The Hardy player says, "I'll take the auto-success for being Hardy." The referee says, "Okay." The other players roll.

The party continues the adventuring phase.

Thanks. Okay, that clarifies that I'm not misunderstanding you. Yeah, I'd veto those as previously described. Just a quick clarification though - would you allow a player to use this same description on 4 consecutive Fatigue Tests within the same journey rather than across 4 different ones? I suspect you would but just wanted to make sure as that was also a significant part of my question.

Wow. Man, I see it now, the Epiphany.

The whole group takes Hardy, and Fearless and Incorruptible and the game goes really, I mean really fast now. thanks.

I'm off to advise my group that we can play a game in five minutes instead of 3 to 4 hours, because there are no challenges that aren't instantly solved, no need to have any difficulty, no loss of endurance, or gains in shadow!

I mean hell it's No Roleplayer (as long as you aren't acting) Left Behind for RPGs right here. Revolutionary, brilliant.

One Ring has surpassed 3.5 now for sure, it gets it's own "Fallacy."