Player knowledge of adversaries

[Indur Dawndeath]

That could be done for Insight, Search or Awareness rolls that I think of.

Yes, these are the tests I have usually used hidden rolls for in D&D (+ Stealth). For example, it adds an additional level of tension when the player doesn't know whether the innkeeper they are talking to is telling the truth or they just cannot tell...

Anyway, thanks for your input.

Hope you can use this:
It is not necessary to make any hidden rolls, because there are no free rolls.
So when a player asks to test his Insight to tell if the inn keeper is lying, then, as per the rules, he will get the disired result on a success (he will learn if the inn keeper is honest or hiding something. Great success is needed for more information)
On a failure the Tolerence will drop one level, if it is during an encounter, or something unfortunate will happen, like someone noticing the playes interest and confronting him with it...
You'll have to do it this way, how else invoke traits or spend Hope.
All tests that result in an Eye increases Eye Awareness, so no tests are for free!
Anyway, it works very well this way

[Majestic]

I don't think I've done any with TOR either, but when playing AME (or D&D), I occasionally have the player roll behind a barrier, where they can't see the result. It does increase the tension, as they don't really have any idea of how they did (other than information I give them) with the roll.

With The One Ring, tension can be built in a different way. For example, the party might not know the Tolerance of the Encounter, so when they fail, they really have to decide whether to spend Hope or not, but they still don't really know when that encounter will begin to go sideways.

[bveld]

Indeed, there are other ways to keep the tension in Encounters.

By the way, after playing through adventures as per my first post, the player(s) has never come close to failing any Encounters. Actually, she usually has the max number of successes when evaluating the outcome of the Encounter. Maybe she is just one lucky silver tongued Hobbit.

[Majestic]

Honestly, I don't believe my players ever failed a single Encounter with TOR either, even the (exceptionally harsh) one in Tales from Wilderland with a Tolerance of 1 (I think it was). And that was with dozens of sessions.

For that one extremely low Tolerance Encounter, I let them know it was extremely low going in, so they probably spent Hope to avoid any failures.

My group usually has the maximum number of successes possible by the time the scene ends as well.

[Indur Dawndeath]

Indeed, there are other ways to keep the tension in Encounters.

By the way, after playing through adventures as per my first post, the player(s) has never come close to failing any Encounters. Actually, she usually has the max number of successes when evaluating the outcome of the Encounter. Maybe she is just one lucky silver tongued Hobbit.

I've tweeked the way I count successes for this reason.
I'm not counting any introduction successes, they only determine who is allowed to chip in. Failure still reduce tolerance.
Only the guys that are introduced get to determine tolerance.
Only successes that are achieved with the subject in mind count toward the final number of successes.
And I always determine a skill that will autofail. Ex. Beorn will tolerate anyone using Awe or Thranduil cannot stand listening to humans singing in his hall. Any attempt will reduce tolerance.
I set TN's high...
And still they manage most encounters, but Hope is spend on the important ones And that is all I hope for

[Winterwolf]

I've tweeked the way I count successes for this reason.
I'm not counting any introduction successes, they only determine who is allowed to chip in. Failure still reduce tolerance.
Only the guys that are introduced get to determine tolerance.
Only successes that are achieved with the subject in mind count toward the final number of successes.
And I always determine a skill that will autofail. Ex. Beorn will tolerate anyone using Awe or Thranduil cannot stand listening to humans singing in his hall. Any attempt will reduce tolerance.
I set TN's high...
And still they manage most encounters, but Hope is spend on the important ones And that is all I hope for

I like these tweaks - might use them myself. I don't think my players have ever exceeded Tolerance before achieving their desired objectives.

[bveld]

I've tweeked the way I count successes for this reason.
I'm not counting any introduction successes, they only determine who is allowed to chip in. Failure still reduce tolerance.
Only the guys that are introduced get to determine tolerance.
Only successes that are achieved with the subject in mind count toward the final number of successes.
And I always determine a skill that will autofail. Ex. Beorn will tolerate anyone using Awe or Thranduil cannot stand listening to humans singing in his hall. Any attempt will reduce tolerance.
I set TN's high...
And still they manage most encounters, but Hope is spend on the important ones And that is all I hope for

These are good suggestions indeed. However, I wonder whether Encounters were made easy to succeed on purpose. At least in the published adventures I played, they are often key for the story to proceed. So they often come down to how well the player succeed not 'whether they succeed'.

[Indur Dawndeath]

These are good suggestions indeed. However, I wonder whether Encounters were made easy to succeed on purpose. At least in the published adventures I played, they are often key for the story to proceed. So they often come down to how well the player succeed not 'whether they succeed'.

I think that the system works best if the players are challenged in all three pillars of the game. Combat, journeys and encounters.
So if they feel that encounters are a walk in the park, then something is missing.
On the other hand, I think that the level of difficulty should be such, that Hope can change the outcome. So if they really need to succeed, then they can!
And remember, that no roll is needed for an NPC to explain something he wants to explain.