forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

There are those on this forum who have discussed how they award a 'fixed' number of Advancement Points each adventure (varying by LM from 10 to 25 APs, as far as I can see).

I was wondering how having a fixed amount of APs each adventure affects player use of Traits, versus spending Hope on Attribute bonuses?

In RAW (as far as I understand and have played it) invoking a Trait for an auto-success means that you do not get an Advancement point, while actually rolling (and getting success Tengwars) are the means of earning APs.

If you are giving a fixed amount of APs, do your players 'abuse' their Traits, using them as often as possible? Obviously, they can't get great or extraordinary successes with Traits, so they can't help their companions with their roll.

Just wondering.

That was something that I pondered as well.

I think the trade off a player is forced with to either auto-succeed, or dazzle with a success role and invoke to gain their first AP in that skill set, is a good balancing aspect of character advancement.

As it settles, I usually run 3 sessions per "adventure", and each adventure gains them 9-12 APs. The first session has more usually as it's easier to get that first one in the line, but then it slows down.

They are on the tail end of their fourth major adventure since I started running TOR, so they've had a good 30 APs to distribute during Fellowship phases, so they've advanced their character nicely and good enough; well two characters have as only 2 are from the original batch. We've had a player come and go, and a couple have switched characters.

Right now I'm running in what you might call the flip-side of this argument. I've run two games so far and my group hasn't got into the whole Traits usage so far, making them tragicly "behind schedule" with the APs. Except for one who tend to abuse his Traits.
As far as I understand the logic behind Traits is that those are the fields were the character is gifted somehow, hence he can either wave past most of obstacles (auto-success) or squeeze more out of the experience (calling for an AP). So it's a kind of risk-reward idea, since you choose not to roll but sit comfortably in the field that you know best, you won't get much out it.

Woodclaw wrote: As far as I understand the logic behind Traits is that those are the fields were the character is gifted somehow, hence he can either wave past most of obstacles (auto-success) or squeeze more out of the experience (calling for an AP). So it's a kind of risk-reward idea, since you choose not to roll but sit comfortably in the field that you know best, you won't get much out it.

Gifted is way to consider it. How I like to consider it, is something that is so telling - so overwhelmingly inherent to that person that defines them. Alot of people are funny. Robin Williams is in a league of his own in that regard. He would have a "humorous trait". If you asked 100 people to say one word to describe him - 90 or more would say funny (or some synonym of). It's something that says not only can other describe you as such - but it's truly something that sets you apart and defines you as a person. George Burns may have had the Smoking Trait. Yao Ming the Tall trait. Mini-Me...would not. (Small Trait). Alot of people play guitar, but Eric Clapton is defined by his guitar prowess as is Joe Satriani. I may be overweight and often times can be loud - but I wouldn't say these define me. Sumo Wrestler would have the Obese trait, and I'd wager to say Samuel Jackson or Ray Lewis has the Loud trait.

So it's not to be taken lightly or a means to add some flair - it's something that is meant to really hammer home what they are renown or notorious for that sets them apart from everyone else that may have similar characteristics.

In that regard, yes you're spot on that one doesn't learn anything new out of a situation by simply taking the mediocre attempt at something, but still succeed if you're truly that gifted at it. Clapton could try and write a masterpiece song for his his guitar, or could invoke his trait and easily entertain a small venue of guest without even trying hard.

To get your group on board with this all - to guide them along, it usually falls on either the GM or veteran roleplayers to sort-of lead the way. If you're lacking the latter, then it does fall on your shoulders as GM to guide them into new game mechanics until they take hold. What I recommend is - write down each of the characters traits/distinctive features, be sure that they all understand them well, let all the other players know each others' so that they can visualize it, and explain them to try to portray these when possible. Once you have all of them on paper in front of you - keep it there as a reminder for you to see - when a player attempts a skill check, or succeeds at one and could invoke a trait - look at the traits a character has and ask them - "Do you have a trait here that you feel strongly applies to your task? If so, which one, and why does it apply?"

You're not telling them which trait and you're not telling them what to say, but you are pointing out that there may be a trait they have that may prove helpful. Also after the fact, if they fail to see what you see, explain "I can imagine your small trait could have helped in this situation - it was hard for everyone to find appropriate cover to hide in, but because you're so naturally small, I would have allowed you to use that to find a nook/cranny that another couldn't have fit into to hide".


After doing this for a few sessions, the players will follow suit - the veteran players will really take the lead, and coach the others etc, as all benefit from it, and you should see a much higher success rate at using them.


When I first started running games it was hard at first for many to grasp the concept. They did it well at times, and abandoned the idea by forgetting about it, or not thinking well enough outside the box to use it as good as they could. It wasn't until my buddy Brian opted to run his own TOR game that gave me a chance to play a hobbit Dornwise Cottonleaf, and I used my traits all the time as often as possible to get my auto-successes (not to abuse the system as I don't gain APs for that), and invoked them when I could after I succeeded - and it opened the eyes for many players and there was a definite A-HA moment for everyone. I only played twice as Dornwise. I went back to being a LM for my group after that - but the group as a whole now has a much more robust understanding of the mechanic and make much better use of it as a result. Not to mention it increases player involvement, clever roleplaying by applying them, and providing a better overall experience for us.

Robert

SirKicley wrote:

Woodclaw wrote: As far as I understand the logic behind Traits is that those are the fields were the character is gifted somehow, hence he can either wave past most of obstacles (auto-success) or squeeze more out of the experience (calling for an AP). So it's a kind of risk-reward idea, since you choose not to roll but sit comfortably in the field that you know best, you won't get much out it.

Gifted is way to consider it. How I like to consider it, is something that is so telling - so overwhelmingly inherent to that person that defines them. Alot of people are funny. Robin Williams is in a league of his own in that regard. He would have a "humorous trait". If you asked 100 people to say one word to describe him - 90 or more would say funny (or some synonym of). It's something that says not only can other describe you as such - but it's truly something that sets you apart and defines you as a person. George Burns may have had the Smoking Trait. Yao Ming the Tall trait. Mini-Me...would not. (Small Trait). Alot of people play guitar, but Eric Clapton is defined by his guitar prowess as is Joe Satriani. I may be overweight and often times can be loud - but I wouldn't say these define me. Sumo Wrestler would have the Obese trait, and I'd wager to say Samuel Jackson or Ray Lewis has the Loud trait.

So it's not to be taken lightly or a means to add some flair - it's something that is meant to really hammer home what they are renown or notorious for that sets them apart from everyone else that may have similar characteristics.

In that regard, yes you're spot on that one doesn't learn anything new out of a situation by simply taking the mediocre attempt at something, but still succeed if you're truly that gifted at it. Clapton could try and write a masterpiece song for his his guitar, or could invoke his trait and easily entertain a small venue of guest without even trying hard.

That's pretty much what I meant with 'gifted'.

SirKicley wrote:To get your group on board with this all - to guide them along, it usually falls on either the GM or veteran roleplayers to sort-of lead the way. If you're lacking the latter, then it does fall on your shoulders as GM to guide them into new game mechanics until they take hold. What I recommend is - write down each of the characters traits/distinctive features, be sure that they all understand them well, let all the other players know each others' so that they can visualize it, and explain them to try to portray these when possible. Once you have all of them on paper in front of you - keep it there as a reminder for you to see - when a player attempts a skill check, or succeeds at one and could invoke a trait - look at the traits a character has and ask them - "Do you have a trait here that you feel strongly applies to your task? If so, which one, and why does it apply?"

You're not telling them which trait and you're not telling them what to say, but you are pointing out that there may be a trait they have that may prove helpful. Also after the fact, if they fail to see what you see, explain "I can imagine your small trait could have helped in this situation - it was hard for everyone to find appropriate cover to hide in, but because you're so naturally small, I would have allowed you to use that to find a nook/cranny that another couldn't have fit into to hide".


After doing this for a few sessions, the players will follow suit - the veteran players will really take the lead, and coach the others etc, as all benefit from it, and you should see a much higher success rate at using them.


When I first started running games it was hard at first for many to grasp the concept. They did it well at times, and abandoned the idea by forgetting about it, or not thinking well enough outside the box to use it as good as they could. It wasn't until my buddy Brian opted to run his own TOR game that gave me a chance to play a hobbit Dornwise Cottonleaf, and I used my traits all the time as often as possible to get my auto-successes (not to abuse the system as I don't gain APs for that), and invoked them when I could after I succeeded - and it opened the eyes for many players and there was a definite A-HA moment for everyone. I only played twice as Dornwise. I went back to being a LM for my group after that - but the group as a whole now has a much more robust understanding of the mechanic and make much better use of it as a result. Not to mention it increases player involvement, clever roleplaying by applying them, and providing a better overall experience for us.

Robert

Thanks for the advice, I'll try it on my next game tomorrow.

I was thinking that one way to do fixed AP could be that you get X amount of AP per session but each time you invoke an trait for free success you lose one of them. That would encourage players to roll instead of using their freebies, but also it would still keep the trait automatic success in play if needed.

What do you think?

Mordjinn wrote:I was thinking that one way to do fixed AP could be that you get X amount of AP per session but each time you invoke an trait for free success you lose one of them. That would encourage players to roll instead of using their freebies, but also it would still keep the trait automatic success in play if needed.

What do you think?

It feels more like punishing them for using their character traits.

Since you also don't have the invoke for an AP thing, if it drives players away from the auto-success, then that makes traits almost useless.

IMO it's up to the Loremaster to make it work well. When players invoke traits in good ways, that are good role playing and makes the game more fun for everyone, reward them with AP. When they try to abuse the system, let them succeed but then make things go wrong...the same way you would for mis-using Wish spells in other systems.

They'll figure it out eventually.

Elfcrusher wrote:...the same way you would for mis-using Wish spells in other systems.

They'll figure it out eventually.

Now THIS could have a topic all of it's own! My favorite was a D&D campaign game I ran called Shackled City. The PCs freed an Efreeti (genie) which spoke to the group (at first) in its native tongue of Ignan (language of fire-dwelling creatures). The wizard in the group was the only one who could understand it, the Efreeti told the wizard he would grant the group 3 wishes as "thanks" for freeing him. Another in the group said (in character) to the wizard, "what does this bizarre creature want from us?" The wizard addressed the Efreeti. "Do you know how to speak the common tongue?" To which it said yes. The wizard said, "Would you please speak in the common tongue to us all so that my companions can understand you, too." The Efreeti (me) said "You are asking me to speak in the common tongue?" [at this point the other players were GROANING!!! with obvious displeasure] The Wizard, completely ignorant as to the nature of the other players uncomfortable groans said "yes, please." The efreeti immediately addressed the rest of the group.....

"Thank you all for freeing me - as a gift I have awarded your collected group 3 wishes - there are two remaining, the first, your friend has used to ask that speak your common language."

[the wizard player did not find it so amusing....he actually threw a little bit of a tantrum]. The whole encounter was priceless.


The wizard player said, "Wait that's not fair! That's not how it works.....I didn't say WISH. I should have three still."

The Efreeti (Me said) "Hmmm....perhaps I miscounted.....would you like me to count again?"

Everyone shouted No!

The Efreeti said, "Would you like to ask me to explain in detail how exactly the wishes do work?"

NO!

(Efreeti): "We'll just call it two, then."

[FYI that was just 5 years ago, and the wizard player was 40+ years old. Not a kid. That was the last campaign he played with us.]
Robert

Mordjinn wrote:I was thinking that one way to do fixed AP could be that you get X amount of AP per session but each time you invoke an trait for free success you lose one of them. That would encourage players to roll instead of using their freebies, but also it would still keep the trait automatic success in play if needed.

What do you think?

NO. I think that would be a bad idea. not just bad, but the exact opposite of the intent of the system.

Allow me:
you play a rogue character (D&D or similar setting). All you do is rogue. All you know is rogue. you eat, sleep, drink, and dream about rogue. You have one job - rogue. You have a task at hand, a very dangerous tedious task that only a rogue - one such as you - could pull off with the finesse and skill inherit to your very rogue-like existence.

You as a player carefully plot, plan, strategize, narrate, describe, envision etc the the whole plan, you can taste success and will be lauded a hero....everyone is going to have a great time at the table cheering your success.....up until the DM says, "I need a stealth check" And your cocky smile fades when you see that single-digit straight up and down straight line looking number show up on your D20. All wasted. Rogue. All you ever do is rogue. And yet when you needed to rogue the most, you just couldn't rogue.


Enter the TRAITS system. This rogue is not just a rogue - he is renown for his stealth....his burglary....he can steal an hour of nighttime and give it to the day without the moon ever noticing. He has the stealth trait. He has a big job to pull off - but not too big for this rogue. He invokes his stealth trait. The player does all the same wonderful narration and build up - and the game rewards him with the ability to take a moderate success to guarantee he doesn't look like a fool because his character was MEANT to be a rogue.


The traits system is MEANT to allow you to have auto-successes. It's not abusing the system at all by using this mechanic. A player doesn't gain APs for it. Not one! They gain a moderate level of success - never a greater or extraordinary, and this is only IF you have a trait that warrants it, and IF the player can 'invoke' (read: verbally rationalize aka narrating and roleplaying the existence of the trait and how it applies) and IF the LM agrees and IF there's not some catastrophic reason that would befall them if it fails.....

I confidently say that it is well thought out and balanced mechanic with adequate trade-offs, and is the backdrop for a lot of great roleplaying moments in a gaming session. Don't mitigate that by minimizes its effectiveness or prevalence in your games. Just be sure to be judicious (such as not awarding AP with auto-success use of trait, and being sure you agree with a given trait's application) with them, and you'll all have more fun from it.

Let them have their fun. Let them have their successes. In the end, if they auto-success it all day, they'll have no APs to advance their other skills even after a few sessions. It's a trade-off. Like having a horrible sports season, and getting a high draft choice as compensation.

Robert