Forum

I had a few hours in the car yesterday to ponder things (in the mountains this weekend...beautiful) and I think there's one aspect here that's being miscommunicated or misunderstood. I honestly don't think it's important in a discussion about mechanics, because it's about interpretation and theme, and that's entirely subjective. But I do think it's interesting, and maybe others agree.

First of all, I have not been arguing that spending Hope represents "invoking the power of Eru", which sounds to me like a high level D&D cleric casting a spell. But neither is it mundane "inner strength" or determination or "the power of positive thinking".

The analogue that occurs to me is faith/prayer among many real world people with strong religious belief. I can imagine the following conversation:
"I've been unemployed for a long time, and have been tempted to just (insert low-paying temporary work), but God had a plan for me and I prayed and trusted in God, which helped me overcome my self-doubt and fear. And when I got there, when I overcame those fears, I felt closer to God. And that's when this perfect job appeared! Isn't it miraculous!"

And the atheist friend replies, "Well, I guess that's the power of positive thinking. Finding that job had nothing to do with your faith, but...sure...without your faith you might have given up earlier."

Was the appearance of the job actually tied to Faith, or was the friend right that the faith just gave the person confidence to keep looking? In other words, is the Faith delusional?

I don't know. The answer to that question is above my pay grade. But I do know that if I were writing, or playing, an RPG that is basically about that person's religion, I would expect the Faith mechanic to be more than just delusional self-confidence. It would be tied to the mystical/magical/divine/whatever powers that lie beyond the veil in that world.

Given not only the themes that reappear throughout Tolkien's writing, not to mention his real life religious faith, my interpretation is that Hope is a similar thing. Basically the same thing as Faith, but a better word choice for Tolkien's setting. When Sam stabbed Shelob, it wasn't just his determination, and it wasn't just lucky bodily kinesthetics/physics. But neither was it Sam saying, "Eru, save me!" and being visited by a supernatural being. It was something in between; something more subtle. Sam's goodness, and his love for Frodo, and the value he places on gardens over gold, resulted in him doing something that a selfish, petty person would not have been able to do. Because that's how things work in Arda.

Now, I think the books are infused with evidence that this is all thematically appropriate. You may feel differently. I don't want to argue about how to interpret Tolkien. And I certainly don't think that my interpretation points definitively to a specific Hope mechanic. (I mean, obviously I think it points more toward the 1e version, but that's just my opinion.).

But it's been bugging me that what I've been saying gets interpreted as "intervention by Eru" or whatever.

But it's been bugging me that what I've been saying gets interpreted as "intervention by Eru" or whatever.

I sort of look at it more like the Stoic Philosophers viewed the concept of "providence". Things in the universe basically are happening because they are "meant" to happen that way. Doesnt necessarily require the direct intervention of a deity.

I really do get what it is that you guys like about that mechanic, it's very unique and distinctive to TOR. I can't think of another system that does that (or is as comfortable with auto successes). I can see the appeal... especially when you can use it to reverse a "bad feeling" unlucky dice roll at a clutch, dramatic, narrative moment.

I will say though, the new system is growing on me quite a bit because I like the way Hope and Distinctive Features are blended together. I hated traits in 1e. It seemed like there were always players who could take a trait like "brave" and make an argument to make it apply to nearly every roll in combat, since fighting benefits from bravery. Of course I'd have to be the evil GM and say no, but not for any principled reason, just mechanical necessity. Automatic successes combined with subjective, interpretive mechanics are just no bueno IMHO.

Now in 2e, I'm far more generous towards granting distinctive feature invocations, because I know it's costing them a point of hope AND it's not an automatic success (although fairly close). Basically now if they can roleplay it, I'll probably let them have it. I think this change is actually quite beneficial to roleplay and certainly makes the trait system more manageable to the LM.

...because I like the way Hope and Distinctive Features are blended together.

I don't disagree with you there. For me, an ideal solution would keep that aspect. "Hope" should be most powerful when it's somehow about who you are.

Sorry to have oversimplified and/or misinterpreted your view, I felt the main aspect I the rule on 1e you liked was that because it was used after having initially failed, so the Hope spent would feel more like an intervention, a turn of tides.

The way I read your explanation on hope as something akin to faith, I don't see how spending it before the roll would represent it less than after the roll. When I understood something related to an intervention it made sense to me, but from you explanation now, I don't feel like 1e Hope rules were better to represent this "faith" than 2e. I think I understand when you exemplify the Sam and Shelob fight, I think this new interpretation of Hope as Faith is very cool and could be used in the book, but I don't see a clear reason why this Faith aspect cannot or should not work mechanically as Hope written on 2e.

Again, sorry to misread your view on the Hope rules, but what best to way to see if other people understood your point of view than having them explaining what they understood back to you, now we can better understand where I have failed in the communication.

Sorry to have oversimplified and/or misinterpreted your view, I felt the main aspect I the rule on 1e you liked was that because it was used after having initially failed, so the Hope spent would feel more like an intervention, a turn of tides.

The way I read your explanation on hope as something akin to faith, I don't see how spending it before the roll would represent it less than after the roll. When I understood something related to an intervention it made sense to me, but from you explanation now, I don't feel like 1e Hope rules were better to represent this "faith" than 2e. I think I understand when you exemplify the Sam and Shelob fight, I think this new interpretation of Hope as Faith is very cool and could be used in the book, but I don't see a clear reason why this Faith aspect cannot or should not work mechanically as Hope written on 2e.

Again, sorry to misread your view on the Hope rules, but what best to way to see if other people understood your point of view than having them explaining what they understood back to you, now we can better understand where I have failed in the communication.

My beef with 2.0 Hope is mostly about my general dislike of "finite resources spent before the roll to improve chances" regardless of setting/system. But what I do like thematically about after-the-roll is:
1) It gives the player narrative power. They get to decide when their Hope (Faith) makes a difference, not just when it might make a difference.
2) It's 100% clear when it does, not buried in a handful of dice.
3) 2.0 has many different ways to add dice to the dice pool, so it makes Hope feel less like the unique thematic underpinning to the setting, and more like just another way to add dice to the pool. (EDIT: And not even the mechanic that necessarily adds the *most* dice. Over the course of an adventure a Useful Item, or even a Pony, might be more impactful.)

I did not see the 1e Hope mechanic as being religious. To me it was simply that inner reserve of strength, heart and wits we all draw upon in desperate times. To quote Kipling, another great Englishman, "If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew to serve your turn long after they are gone, and so hold on when there is nothing in you except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’". And to quote a line from Interstellar, "It's impossible! No, It's necessary". Invoking Hope to me means, failure is not an option.

Interstellar Docking Scene. He didn't roll an extra 2 success dice! He did what was necessary...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lcGnMhvsA

I did not see the 1e Hope mechanic as being religious. To me it was simply that inner reserve of strength, heart and wits we all draw upon in desperate times. To quote Kipling, another great Englishman, "If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew to serve your turn long after they are gone, and so hold on when there is nothing in you except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’". And to quote a line from Interstellar, "It's impossible! No, It's necessary". Invoking Hope to me means, failure is not an option.

Interstellar Docking Scene. He didn't roll an extra 2 success dice! He did what was necessary...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lcGnMhvsA

To me that's like saying The Shadow is just clinical depression.

To me that's like saying The Shadow is just clinical depression.

Well, there's a hell of a lot of religious church organ type music going on in that great Hans Zimmer soundtrack so, I take your point. If you want some Divine intervention to be a part of it, you can have that too. The point is still that, failure is not an option. It's a hell of a bigger statement than, here's a boost to your success chance.

3) 2.0 has many different ways to add dice to the dice pool, so it makes Hope feel less like the unique thematic underpinning to the setting, and more like just another way to add dice to the pool. (EDIT: And not even the mechanic that necessarily adds the *most* dice. Over the course of an adventure a Useful Item, or even a Pony, might be more impactful.)

I would still make the argument hope is the most powerful difference maker. First of all, it's more flexible and universal than those other options and secondly, it adds +2d instead of +1d! You weren't planning on using hope without being inspired now were you? lol. I rolled up a few characters and have been running them through converted 1e adventures to test the system, and after a little bit of play, I can't even really imagine wasting a hope point without being inspired.. that's just inefficient.

As far as those other dice pool modifiers, useful items are harder to use. They are only attached to one skill, and even at that, I as LM will only allow there use when they make sense while using that skill. A map of Eriador that gives bonus to explore won't be very helpful in Rohan. A Dwarven lantern that gives a bonus to scan won't be that useful in broad daylight, etc. An item's use is typically more narrow than even the range of tests one skill covers. As far as ponies, their uses are even more limited. They really only help you move a hex or two farther before hitting an event in a journey.

And btw... if you are really married to the idea of points of hope automatically succeeding, just play an elf! I've been blown away by how powerful the elven cultural blessing is (which I'm happy about, the Firstborn of Illuvatar should be powerful). It's almost broken... the real limitation being that elves tend to have low hope pools. If anything, the biggest problem with elves is their distinctive features are almost meaningless!

How do you think a rule along the lines of the following would work out.

Spend 1 hope to add 1d6 before the roll (2d6 if inspired).
Spend 2 hope to add 1d6 after the roll (2d6 if inspired).

Not quite the same as adding you attribute after the roll, but still... it does give that narrative control back to the player occasionally.

I suppose you could even have:

Spend 3 hope to add your attribute score to the total after the roll.

This would really give the player's that narrative control, though at a steep price.

Food for thought.