forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Every rule in every RPG ever written is limiting. It is the nature of rules. They all state what can or cannot be done under a given set of circumstances. In cases where the outcome is uncertain a model, usually involving random chance, is employed to determine the outcome.

The lack of a rule in TOR allowing player character to become a Wraith and continue playing is a limitation. Just as the rules for when a character may or may not employ rearward stance in a combat.

At the end of the day, I would apply Rule Zero: "Never let the rules get in the way of a fun game." It's not as if the C7 crew is going to show up and tell you that you are playing it wrong.

DavetheLost wrote: At the end of the day, I would apply Rule Zero: "Never let the rules get in the way of a fun game." It's not as if the C7 crew is going to show up and tell you that you are playing it wrong.

Nobody expects the Cubicle 7 Inquisition!

I'm fairly certain, although I don't have my books to hand, that there is a requirement for the LM to have at least one of the Orcs attack each of the three heroes.
Therefore, none of the heroes could choose Rearward and eight of the Orcs could attack the aforementioned Dwarf, if the LM found that to be reasonable and appropriate,story wise. It would be fairly unreasonable to most LMs, I would imagine.

Also, why do you think my numbers are off?

Halbarad wrote: Also, why do you think my numbers are off?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the threshold is 2:1 so the break point would be 8, not 7.

My reading was that the 2:1 threshold is based on the number of characters in Forward, Open or Defensive stances only. (I could be wrong though.)

This thread has been through the ringer. So many erroneous statements have made it very hard to truly "know" what is and isn't correct. I'm going to try and clear up some of what I think are misstated comments.

Curulon wrote: Players never decide who the enemy attacks.

Yes they do. When the Heroes are equal the number or outnumber the enemies, the players choose the engagement.

The Engagement means that the hero attacks that foe. And the foe is forced to attack that hero (or not attack at all) - barring any special maneuver or ability of that enemy.

Halbarad wrote:
Three characters choose Forward, Open and Defensive. Because the Orc attackers do not outnumber the characters in these stances by more than two to one, the fourth character can choose to be in Rearward stance.
Because they outnumber the characters, the LM now gets to choose who the Orcs attack. He could place them as he wishes as long as each character has at least one opponent. He cannot place any in combat with the player in Rearward. If there were a seventh Orc, the fourth character could not choose Rearward.

If the number of total enemies is more than double the total number of allies one cannot be in Rear Stance. It's not more than two-to-one in melee stance. So the seventh orc still could not attack the archer. A 9th orc could.

Elfcrusher wrote: But I don't think the OP was asking how the rule works, he was saying the rule was limiting (or even dumb). E.g., what if 10 orcs were attacking three heroes, but all 10 of the orcs went for the dwarf because they recognize him? Why can't the other characters choose Rearward if they aren't being attacked?

Again, my answer is that too many exceptions to the rule is a slippery slope to miniatures and a grid. The rules already give the LM some leeway for terrain situations; opening it up even more would (in my opinion) beg for the players to start rules lawyering.

This is already disallowed by the rules. The engagement rules specifically state that ALL combatants must be assigned an engagement before surplus are doubled onto an opponent.

So if there were 10 orcs in the case of the four heroes (each hero in one of the four different stances), the rearward would be impossible, (since the orcs outnumber the heroes more than 2:1, not just outnumber those in melee stance), the orcs are allowed to select engagements (since they outnumber the heroes) and the first four orcs to approach the heroes must distribute themselves to one against each hero. The last six can then distribute their engagements as they wish with the following caveat: No more than (i think it's 4) man-sized targets can attack a single target. So of the last six orcs, they can go anywhere they want, but no more than 3 of those surplus orcs can opt to face off any one of the already engaged heroes. They could instead fire ranged weapons.

Every round thereafter, the heroes select a stance, and the orcs assign the engagements; so long as 9 or more are present, the hero's can have no rearward stance. After the heroes (assuming they do) thin the ranks of orcs from 10 to 8, the hero's can now upon selection of stances, opt to have one switch to their bow, the orc then still assign engagements (so long as there's more than five orcs remaining) but cannot assign any one to the archer/rearwards stance hero - and each other three heroes have to be assigned at least one orc by the LM. After the heroes drop the ranks of the orcs to 4 (assuming they do), then the heroes can choose their stance, including a rearward, AND selects their engagements - assuring that each hero in a forward stance assigns himself to an orc that is not already engaged, and THEN in effect, the heroes are choosing who the orcs attack. Once the heroes drop the orcs to 2 or less (assuming they do) the heroes can select their stance - including a rearward, assign their melee stance engagements, and then due to surplus of hero vs orcs, they can double up on one of the orcs so long as each are assigned to an engagement. IN this case - since there are two heroes engaged on a single orc, the LM can choose which of those two heroes it attacks; but in the case of the one hero vs one orc, the player has in effect selected who that orc will be attacking; that player character.


As for the "rules governing rearward stance" being restrictive; not wanting to sound like a ass, but all rules are restrictive. That's what rules are. If a particular rule in an RPG is too restrictive for your taste, by all means, change it, morph it, ignore, whatever. There's nothing wrong in having a different preference. But as written it is a rule and thus it is restrictive. There are valid reasons for that rule to exist. My advice is to understand all the previously hashed rules well enough to apply them, and then see if it really creates a sore-spot during a game. What I would caution however is to off-handedly (fob off???) any rule and change it because you don't like it - but not liking it is because you're doing other things wrong that make the rule more wonky. When all are applied accurately, it's actually a very well-thought out and balanced rule, and easy to employ.

If after a test-run using it, and doing everything else correctly, you conclude that it still is too restrictive for your preference, there's nothing saying you can't change it for your game.

Good luck.
Robert

not wanting to sound like a ass, but all rules are restrictive

That doesn't address the real issue, which is that the rule seems arbitrary because it isn't supported by how the real world actually works. Just because it would balance the rule system if anyone going into an open stance would also automatically float three feet off the ground and sprout oranges from their ears doesn't mean it should be a rule, because it obviously breaks the fictional fabric of the world.

The same is true for the case of the rearward stance; it feels like a rule meant to balance a system, not one that models real world behavior.

It's not the end of the world, but it feels forced and artificial.

Heilemann wrote:...the rule seems arbitrary because it isn't supported by how the real world actually works. Just because it would balance the rule system if anyone going into an open stance would also automatically float three feet off the ground and sprout oranges from their ears doesn't mean it should be a rule, because it obviously breaks the fictional fabric of the world.

The same is true for the case of the rearward stance; it feels like a rule meant to balance a system, not one that models real world behavior.

It's not the end of the world, but it feels forced and artificial.

Have you tried these rules in actual gameplay yet? I have been playing since August 2011 with a variety of player-types and I have never had complaints about restrictiveness or the rules feeling forced or artificial. On the contrary, the combat system is usually praised as one of the most fun things about The One Ring.

Remember, the rules are there to help you run a fun game. Sometimes the rules need to be bent to accommodate specific actions (there's even guidelines for this in the rules), but the rules serve as a solid foundation for all other situations. As written, the rules assume that when the companions join in combat with their adversaries, there are certain advantages that the defenders should have (namely initiative, unless they have been successfully ambushed; I believe Francesco once said this mimics real-life swordplay) and certain advantages that the side with the greater numbers should have (the right to choose close combat engagements). The game really gives control to the player-heroes, however, by letting them choose a combat stance, and in-so-doing, letting them choose the attack TNs. In my opinion, these rules are great as defaults. As far as restrictions go, TOR restricts the number of opponents a character can be engaged with in close combat (to make it realistic and reasonable), and it restricts a player-hero from choosing a rearward stance if there isn't at least two companions fighting in close combat to cover him or if the number of adversaries is twice the number of companions or more. Ok. I'm starting to ramble...

Well, my group did play a campaign for about a year and even though I won't say the rules seem arbitrary and forced they do sometimes feel a little strange. For one how do you do a ranged ambush? Though I do see where the Rearward stance rules are coming from they are restrictive in the number of bow armed characters there are in a party. In our game I changed characters near the end from a Dwarf to a Woodman, and I wanted him to be a bow armed ranger type, but we already had a PC who used a bow in a party of five so there went that idea. Though on further reading of the rules I could have had my Hound trained so that it could act as covering "character"; but then that is rule to cover a rule. Considering how many characters were bow armed in Tolkien's works I do find these restrictions weird to say the least.