forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Good idea.

daddystabz wrote:I can hardly believe that after all this time the game has been out we do not have an official clarification on this. Harm means what, exactly in terms of recovering Hope?

Why does it need clear clarification to what exactly this entails?

It means precisely what the Loremaster wants it to. So long as he/she is consistent with his/her decision, it matters not. By not making a strict criteria, it allows various degrees of restrictiveness or leniency. Once a rule is hard-fast, it's much harder for one to get everyone to agree to 'change it' for his preferences, because an LM may get push-back from certain players that don't like that it's being changed.

Without a hard-fast ruling, it removes this hurdle for the most part, and allows the LM to explain his interpretation and there's no legitimate argument that he's doing it "wrong" because it's vague application is up for personal interpretation. If a strict ruling was made now, it would disrupt what many are doing now, as they would need to either adjust to appease rules lawyers, or continue to break it and cause commotion with rules lawyers.

I personally like that it's up to an individual's preferences. My way of doing it is certainly different from another and that's okay. It works for our group - and hasn't been a problem, so why "fix" it?

If and when there are such vague applications of a rule (such as this one), these messageboards and others are the perfect place to obtain ideas, and opinions as to how to adjudicate it when someone is uncertain about things - but in the end, it's completely up to you and your group just how harsh of a criteria you wish to set.

I guess my point is - so long as you're enjoying the way you are doing it - there's no need to do it any other way.

Of course - my opinion and $1.50 will get you a polish dog and medium pepsi from COSTCO.

Robert

Because I and many of my gaming counterparts prefer clearly defined rules and in a game such as TOR where nearly every other part of the game is clearly defined, to have a rule that is this ambiguous seems almost like an oversight. Even Francesco himself mentioned previously that he should have explained it better/differently.

SirKicley wrote:

daddystabz wrote:I can hardly believe that after all this time the game has been out we do not have an official clarification on this. Harm means what, exactly in terms of recovering Hope?

Why does it need clear clarification to what exactly this entails?

It means precisely what the Loremaster wants it to. So long as he/she is consistent with his/her decision, it matters not. By not making a strict criteria, it allows various degrees of restrictiveness or leniency. Once a rule is hard-fast, it's much harder for one to get everyone to agree to 'change it' for his preferences, because an LM may get push-back from certain players that don't like that it's being changed.

Without a hard-fast ruling, it removes this hurdle for the most part, and allows the LM to explain his interpretation and there's no legitimate argument that he's doing it "wrong" because it's vague application is up for personal interpretation. If a strict ruling was made now, it would disrupt what many are doing now, as they would need to either adjust to appease rules lawyers, or continue to break it and cause commotion with rules lawyers.

I personally like that it's up to an individual's preferences. My way of doing it is certainly different from another and that's okay. It works for our group - and hasn't been a problem, so why "fix" it?

If and when there are such vague applications of a rule (such as this one), these messageboards and others are the perfect place to obtain ideas, and opinions as to how to adjudicate it when someone is uncertain about things - but in the end, it's completely up to you and your group just how harsh of a criteria you wish to set.

I guess my point is - so long as you're enjoying the way you are doing it - there's no need to do it any other way.

Of course - my opinion and $1.50 will get you a polish dog and medium pepsi from COSTCO.

Robert

SirKicley, I agree with your thoughts generally. I like that TOR has a certain flexibility to it. It helps groups of varying styles to breath and adjust the game to their liking. However, sometimes players (like myself) need a bit more advice and clarification to help us process how we're going to adjudicate the rules. It's nice to hear other people's opinions about the rules. I want to be as fair and consistent as possible with the players. I have found that judging each situation differently sometimes causes questions. For example, if I don't define what "or otherwise harmed" means for the players and leave it open-ended, it leads to questions. The players want a definition so they can understand in advance what will cause them to gain Shadow points or restore Hope. Therefore, I am open to hear the rulings of other Loremasters. It doesn't mean the rules as written need to change necessarily, but sharing ideas can certainly lead to better ways of explaining possible application of the rules.

I certainly never want to fall into the category of 'rules lawyer,' where the implication is negative and doesn't leave any room for players to tweak, re-interpret, or completely change things to suite their own preferences. The main purpose of any game is to have fun, and that's what most game designers really care about in the end. However, I also don't want to fall into the trap of correcting those who seek clarifications and suggestions. The game designer created a set of rules to make the game enjoyable and unique. I think it is a noble thing to understand the rules as intended. So, there's my $1.50 to add to yours. Together we've got $3.00 to spend!

daddystabz wrote:Because I and many of my gaming counterparts prefer clearly defined rules and in a game such as TOR where nearly every other part of the game is clearly defined, to have a rule that is this ambiguous seems almost like an oversight. Even Francesco himself mentioned previously that he should have explained it better/differently.

There are many areas where the rules are vague, abstract, or open to interpretation. There are many more - especially with skill use, that allows a LM or player to choose one of three possible skills that may or may not apply. Then there are traits and distinctive features - they may or may not apply based on a LM decision. OR they may or may not be allowed to be used based on a LM who feels it's too important of an action at that moment or too difficult, etc etc. There are judgement calls all the time of how hard something should be made. There are no hard-fast rules for many of these. There are only plausibilities, and anecdotal evidence.

I understand the need to understand the rule as intended - I'm all for that. I wouldn't mind some "Developer's blog" to indicate that rationale that was originally construed. What I'm okay with, however is just being told - "This makes as much sense as anything and it was how I thought it may have worked originally" without necessarily having to make it some "official ruling errata."

Many players cry foul when a rule is one way if/when a LM wants to abandon it, or want justification why rule A is ignored, but not rule B. I like that much is vague and allows for a spectrum of rulings. But I certainly don't begrudge you for your preference.

Hopefully that makes sense.
Robert

jamesrbrown wrote: For example, if I don't define what "or otherwise harmed" means for the players and leave it open-ended, it leads to questions. The players want a definition so they can understand in advance what will cause them to gain Shadow points or restore Hope. Therefore, I am open to hear the rulings of other Loremasters. It doesn't mean the rules as written need to change necessarily, but sharing ideas can certainly lead to better ways of explaining possible application of the rules.

Fair enough JRB. Interestingly, the way i approach things like this is not to allow players to meta-game in that way. In other words, when one was wounded - I described the fellowship focus as feeling downtrodden and low-spirited. Later when he's poisoned, or diseased, or suffers from a bout of madness, and the same thing occurs, they will learn the extent that way. The Character learns at the same time as the player.

Again so long as i'm consistent, there's really no reason to take umbrage. The point being, the CHARACTER doesn't know the mechanics, so there's no reason to truly hash it all out specifically; if it happens, it happens. The character only understands that there's a special bond developing there, and would do whatever he can to protect his best friend instead of "Oh well he's only having Endurance loss, and the critter is unlikely to land a wound, so no need to worry about shadow yet...and not getting back hope points."

I think it is a noble thing to understand the rules as intended. So, there's my $1.50 to add to yours. Together we've got $3.00 to spend!

Again I have no problem understanding a developer's intent or musings or what is most plausible. What I am happy of though is that as it is left unspecified, I have room to allow it to take the form that works best for the game I'm running and not need to worry that a player may think I'm specifically breaking a rule just to thwart a particular character.

3 bucks and counting though! A couple more and we can get a whole lot more than a polish dog!

Robert

I'm with Robert on this one. I prefer having this rule a little bit vague; Loremasters need some wiggle room for storytelling. However, vague "with guidelines" is also good.

To a great extent in my experience this comes down to who is sitting around the gaming table. I have played with people for whom "roll a die and judge the results accordingly" would be sufficient as the total rules for an RPG. I have also played with people for whom a rulebook the size and depth of a law library would not be enough.

I tend to like looser rules and am comfortable with working things out on the fly. That being said, some kind of written guidelines that I can show to players to backup my rulings are appreciated.

"Wounded or otherwise harmed" is pretty vague. I take "harmed" to mean a more than passing condition. If it takes more than a night's rest to shake it off then I call it "harmed". Wounded, gaining points of Shadow, being poisoned, etc.

DavetheLost wrote: "Wounded or otherwise harmed" is pretty vague. I take "harmed" to mean a more than passing condition. If it takes more than a night's rest to shake it off then I call it "harmed". Wounded, gaining points of Shadow, being poisoned, etc.

Really? Gaining a point of Shadow?

This is why I prefer well defined rules. I am fine with making adjudications on the fly when needed but I like the rules that are there to be specific as to their intent/application.

Elfcrusher wrote:

DavetheLost wrote: "Wounded or otherwise harmed" is pretty vague. I take "harmed" to mean a more than passing condition. If it takes more than a night's rest to shake it off then I call it "harmed". Wounded, gaining points of Shadow, being poisoned, etc.

Really? Gaining a point of Shadow?