Rearward stance

[Elmoth]

The rules are designed for foot slogging frontal engagements. For other situations you use common sense: In your ambush example, you just do the logical thing and just shot the crap out of the enemies with it. When you shot you are in Oepn, so you hit easily. There, ambush in a pinch

Common sense and consensus in the group tends to address any problem like that fairly OK in my experience

Cheers,
Xavi

[Yusei]

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.

I have to disagree, the Hound is not there to fix a problem with the rule, it is there to fix a problem with a lot of archers and nobody to keep enemies at a distance. It is a rule that allows you to play what you want, despite the fact that in real life it would be problematic.

If most of the group plays ranged fighters then, if you're prepared, you might get two opening volleys. If you don't destroy the opposition by then, it seems fitting that some of you would drop your bows and take a sword. I don't see how it seems strange.

[Shieldmaiden]

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.

I couldn't disagree more. The basic combat round in TOR kicks in when the combatants are in melee range and it's damned near impossible to use a bow when someone is trying to whack you with a broadsword. It makes perfect sense that, in normal circumstances, an archer is going to need at least a couple of their allies to prevent the bad guys reaching them. No-one is going to ignore an archer if they can reach them; they're dangerous, but they're also easy targets.

Yes, there are exceptions to this, but they're already covered by the RAW. You're assumed to get at least one round of ranged attacks in before going into the combat sequence, but as people have already pointed out, the rules state that there may be more based on how long it takes for the two sides to close. Elmoth is absolutely right; for a ranged ambush, the LM just figures out how many rounds of ranged attacks the ambushers get before their opponents close to melee range, at which point the regular combat sequence kicks in.

If the heroes are fighting in a narrow passageway that can be held by two people, it stands to reason that only two of them can fight in a melee stance, while the others are restricted to ranged weapons. If two heroes are facing two orcs who both go for one hero, it makes perfect sense to allow the other hero to adopt a rearward stance. It's highly unlikely to happen; either the hero would need to have personally enraged the orcs beyond all reason, or they need to be absolutely confident that it's worth risking an arrow in the back to both rush the same person.

What TOR's combat rules don't do is provide pages and pages of information on how to deal with complications and exceptions. Generally speaking, that's what bulks out most RPGs combat rules; it's not that something like D&D 3.5 is massively complicated, it's just that the rules try and cover every situation. I reckon I could probably explain 3.5's combat to someone much quicker than I could TOR's. The difference is that with TOR, that's all they or I would ever need to know, common sense can do the rest. With 3.5, there'd be constant reference back to the book until every single one of those exceptions had been memorised. Some people prefer that level of detail and are horrified at the notion that they may have to adjudicate something themselves, but I prefer the flexibility of a system like TOR's.

[Rich H]

SirKicley and Shieldmaiden make some great points in their posts thus far which I'm in complete agreement with.

What TOR's combat rules don't do is provide pages and pages of information on how to deal with complications and exceptions. Generally speaking, that's what bulks out most RPGs combat rules; it's not that something like D&D 3.5 is massively complicated, it's just that the rules try and cover every situation... Some people prefer that level of detail and are horrified at the notion that they may have to adjudicate something themselves, but I prefer the flexibility of a system like TOR's.

Absolutely. I've mentioned this before in other threads and it boils down to some people wanting rules in the RPG for pretty much every possibility rather than having to adjudicate things themselves and apply rulings. It's not the TOR is 'rules lite'; it's that it provides a framework, a set of rules for normal conditions, and then expects the players and LM to develop them further when situations within the game arise.

[Etarnon]

I agree, and that's the strength of the system. And it is very subject to rulings, Old-Skool style.

People used to games like 3.5 and 4e, ONLY, might have a real problem with the looseness.

Personally I love it. It's not too tough, but as a LM you have to be decisive.

[jamesrbrown]

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.

Beran, I would never allow the rules to determine the makeup of your fellowship. I have had to train my players concerning this also. You don't need a 'balanced' group of player-heroes to make the game fun and interesting. What you need is a Loremaster who knows the characters and takes notes concerning their best Traits and Skills, etc., and is then willing to incorporate situations that will possibly highlight those during the game. How else will everyone find out that your bow armed ranger is really good with a bow unless he's given a chance to shine? In this case, I would narrate circumstances that did allow him opportunities to fire away before close combat is reached by incorporating terrain features, etc. I may also challenge him to declare a non-combat action to climb to a higher elevation so that he could prolong his opening volleys.

The story is about the player-heroes and their heroic development. I would let the story reveal who they are, rather than stats written on their character sheet.

[Sprigg]

That's actually the problem I'm about to run into. I love what I've read of the system, but I've been having a hard time explaining some of the rules about engagement and initiative and stances to my friends. This is probably a sign that I don't fully understand it myself yet, but it's been a hard system to wrap our heads around thus far, though we have yet to put it into practice.

[Angelalex242]

Alternatively, let the bowmen shoot point blank.

Legolas Archery:

You can shoot enemies at point blank range without penalty. Feel free to balance on the heads of dwarves flowing downstream as you do so.

[SirKicley]

As it has been addressed by others, the rules as written are intended as a 'framework' with which to apply to 'most status quo' situations. Meaning, that when traveling - fairly open terrain - encountering enemies on the field of battle, the archers need some meatshields to keep the enemy from destroying them. However, games such as TOR (and many others out there) that don't spend a great deal of pages dealing with combat rules, carry with it a presumption of flexibility via common sense and creative storytelling. D&D is a great combat system because it covers nearly every plausible scenario. For many this is helpful. For many others, this is a complicated burden to remember it all, adjudicate it all, lest you spend time rifling through books looking for the rule to apply. And often times the rules supersede common-sense (usually due to game balance and ease of play structure). Instead, TOR (and other games) expect that a LM can make a "ruling" that allows the game to continue when the rules don't specifically cover every situation and allows common sense to supersede rules.

For instance, in the event that heroes have a chance to set themselves in a position to not be reached (On high cliffs or ledges), or in a hallway or narrow cave. In such instances, the game carries the presumption that the LM will make a ruling that "we will overlook the 2 meatshield requirements here". I've done this many times and it works fine.

In general, however, out in the open, archers are not viable against a melee opponent. Otherwise the archers in a battle conflict wouldn't be at the rear of a battle-line while the two sides of infantry charged one another.

Take for instance the P.Jackson battle scene in the Chamber of Marzabul against the Cave Troll. When the goblins first came to break the door down, Boromir, Aragorn and Legolas all used bows, the hobbits may have thrown rocks (opening volley). Once the orcs got through the door, most of them switched to melee weapons. Legolas effectively had multiple melee allies so he was allowed to continue to use his bow. The cinematics was that he was leaping all over the place to avoid opponents, but the rules of TOR are just a structure; they can be abstractly described in a number of ways - in this case, Legolas was leaping up on ledges, etc. Once most of the orcs were dead, Gimli threw his axe at the troll; there were enough others in a melee-stance.

As for not understanding why it takes two meatshields to defend one archer against two orcs instead of letting one meatshield do it; the other orc would simply choose not to engage the lone swordsman and go after the unchallenged dude with the bow. Having two helps prevent this. True it can be conceived that an orc can still choose to disengage and run after the bowman, but the presumption is that the meatshield moves to intercept and prevent him from doing so; however as he moves one way to intercept orc#1, orc#2 will gladly step the other way to go get the easy prey of the archer. The meatshield can't be in two places at once.

Taking a page from football (sorry all my brothers across the pond I'm speaking of NFL) if you have a running back on a standard stretch play, he is taught to pick the first hole that opens along the line. If you imagine the running back as the archer - the running back waits to see if the would-be tackler (orc) is going to take the angle outside or inside. As soon as the would-be tackler makes his commitment to move outside or inside, the lineman (meatshield) moves to cut off that angle (if the tackler moves outside, the lineman pushes him outside further, and the running back goes inside behind his blocker using him as a shield and gets by; and vice versus); just as an archer would.

Robert

[trystero]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this in terms of American football: the archer is effectively a quarterback, and if he doesn't have people protecting him, he isn't going to be able to get a shot (throw) off.

(Mind you, that's very nearly exhausted my understanding of American football...)