User avatar
Michele
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 16:58

Re: The Problem With Hope

Sat 17 Jul 2021, 13:18

To clarify what the words mean we therefore have to look at all the evidence in the rules, and see how the designers put it into practice.  The description is nearly the same in both editions, but in the first edition it's used not only to "magically" turn a failure into a success, but also to fuel some blatantly magical abilities.  Which doesn't really mesh with the idea that 'Hope' is just your own inner strength.  And even in 2e it's used to power the new "Magical success" mechanic.  How is that explained, if the designers were intentionally downgrading Hope to mundane positivity in 2e?


I actually don't see any contradiction in this. Hope is your inner strength, which for most heroes has the mundane effect of making them more likely to succeed ("I really believe I can do this"). If you possess a magic item or an inherent magical talent, then you can channel that very same inner strength into more blatantly magical result (they "unlock" your spirit's potential: the Fëa, or the Ainur's music, whatever you want to call it). This is true for both editions, they simply do the same thing in two different ways.
Personally I see a lot of consistency in the new Hope system, and in how it has been almost seamlessly embroidered with the Inspiration rules, Distinctive Feature usage and the new Shadow mechanics; and I must admit that I struggle to understand the whole "designers must explain their choices" approach of certain discussions, especially when there is no evident flaw in the mechanics (ex. the math is off, no-brainer choices, unclear wording, etc.) unlike in other areas of the game. I can understand that there may be divergent "creative" opinions about almost every authorial choice, but saying that a rule has a problem simply because it doesn't match one's vision is quite a different approach.
Still, it's absolutely worth being debated, because the ideas emerging from such discussions are always precious (for the authors as well). For instance, my only concern about Hope at this point is that its recovery is still a bit too slow for it to work properly, but Francesco has already given encouraging signs on the matter (hence, always remember the mantra: trust Francesco ;) ).

(And I hope :) that this better explains and settles my previous argument, which I acknowledge was put too bluntly; I didn't want to shut down any discussion, but simply say that theorycrafting may be interesting - and man, do I love theorycrafting - but actual play is where the real truth about a game usually is)
It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.
 
gyrovague
Topic Author
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: The Problem With Hope

Sat 17 Jul 2021, 17:51

…and I must admit that I struggle to understand the whole "designers must explain their choices" approach of certain discussions…

Which “certain discussions” are you referring to? I haven’t noticed a demanding tone, only curiosity.
 
edufernandes
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed 17 Feb 2021, 21:28

Re: The Problem With Hope

Sat 17 Jul 2021, 19:10

I actually don't see any contradiction in this. Hope is your inner strength, which for most heroes has the mundane effect of making them more likely to succeed ("I really believe I can do this"). If you possess a magic item or an inherent magical talent, then you can channel that very same inner strength into more blatantly magical result (they "unlock" your spirit's potential: the Fëa, or the Ainur's music, whatever you want to call it). This is true for both editions, they simply do the same thing in two different ways.
Personally I see a lot of consistency in the new Hope system, and in how it has been almost seamlessly embroidered with the Inspiration rules, Distinctive Feature usage and the new Shadow mechanics; and I must admit that I struggle to understand the whole "designers must explain their choices" approach of certain discussions, especially when there is no evident flaw in the mechanics (ex. the math is off, no-brainer choices, unclear wording, etc.) unlike in other areas of the game. I can understand that there may be divergent "creative" opinions about almost every authorial choice, but saying that a rule has a problem simply because it doesn't match one's vision is quite a different approach.
Still, it's absolutely worth being debated, because the ideas emerging from such discussions are always precious (for the authors as well). For instance, my only concern about Hope at this point is that its recovery is still a bit too slow for it to work properly, but Francesco has already given encouraging signs on the matter (hence, always remember the mantra: trust Francesco ;) ).
You nailed it! This is exactly how I think about this new Hope system.
 
RichKarp
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 19:37

Re: The Problem With Hope

Sat 17 Jul 2021, 19:59

Personally I see a lot of consistency in the new Hope system, and in how it has been almost seamlessly embroidered with the Inspiration rules, Distinctive Feature usage and the new Shadow mechanics; and I must admit that I struggle to understand the whole "designers must explain their choices" approach of certain discussions, especially when there is no evident flaw in the mechanics (ex. the math is off, no-brainer choices, unclear wording, etc.) unlike in other areas of the game. I can understand that there may be divergent "creative" opinions about almost every authorial choice, but saying that a rule has a problem simply because it doesn't match one's vision is quite a different approach.
I don’t think it’s terribly consistent that it used to allow you to reverse failure (within limits) but now just gives a bonus toward success. They are distinct concepts. For the record I like the Inspiration stuff, I’d actually like the mechanic to be stronger than an extra d6. I like systems that evoke themes and reward players for role playing.

Hence why I have said “not sure what they were thinking with this” or praised the old edition. Not because I don’t “trust Francesco” or something, that is more than a little ridiculous. I greatly admire the writers who brought this game to life. What I don’t like is any inherent criticism of the game’s new mechanics being deflected by implying that somehow I’m not a big enough fan or something. Or the equally weak argument that because I haven’t sat in a playtest of the new version, that the changes in incentive structure are therefore 100% theoretical and I cannot understand how they alter the game.

I mean… come on. I’ve got decades of experience playing games. Whether I get to try out the rules next Saturday or not, I can still speculate about how and why things are different.

Re: the creative vision in the game, I totally see your point. I’ve tried to be careful in this discussion not to tell anyone they’re doing it wrong. This is absolutely a difference of interpretation and subjective by nature. But it’s also one of the things that really matters to me. I tend to judge the games I love most by how well they put the players into a specific world or situation. I love narrative games. My favorite is Dogs in the Vineyard if that means anything to you; every action in that game is narrative. There is nothing you do - swinging a punch or shooting a gun - that doesn’t have a mechanical AND story impact. So I love elegant mechanics like Hope and Corruption that force me and other players to go - yes, this is Middle-earth.

I don’t think it’s disrespectful to observe that the 2e Hope dice bonus is pretty standard. There are lots of games that let you boost your dice pool a little. Like Gyrovague mentioned earlier, if that’s how the Force were handled in a Star Wars game I’d be disappointed; fate itself isn’t supposed to (and statistically often doesn’t) hinge on an extra d6.

If the mechanics are doing their job, they’re putting you in that story and immersing you so that the game itself begins to fall away because the narrative is dominating. So seeing mechanics that did (IMHO) accomplish that being replaced by simplified and sort of more generic ones is the very definition of a “problem” to me, though of course not everyone agrees. There have been some interesting alternatives proposed though that are worth a little more time exploring rather than beating this dead horse about whether different perceptions of the rules are legitimate or not.
 
gyrovague
Topic Author
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: The Problem With Hope

Sun 18 Jul 2021, 03:26

There's an old saying in arms control, "Trust, and verify."
 
RichKarp
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 19:37

Re: The Problem With Hope

Sun 18 Jul 2021, 04:26

Some potential redress to the new Hope mechanics I rather like (these are separate, discrete ideas that might be combined but might not):

1. Making Inspiration worth a lot more than 1d6; if it offered +3d6 we might start approaching statistical probability of a great success or better.

2. Make it so that players can choose to spend Hope after, not before the roll, so the precious resource can never be “wasted” on an attempt you’d pass without it.

3. Introduce a mechanic whereby there is a complication or an increase in Shadow when Hope is spent, but an Eye of Sauron is rolled. Linking back to earlier ideas that Hope represented trade offs now for consequences later.

4. Introduce a rule for “partial” failure, such that even when a player who spends Hope fails their roll, it happens in such a manner that either they still achieve a part of their intent or else they benefit from a chance circumstance in their favor. (IE If the players are hoping to track down a lost friend, they fail, but spending Hope are diverted to a town where they encounter a helpful ally or receive a sign that their quarry is still alive).

5. Allow a special use of Hope whereby a Tengwar can be spent to lower the TN of the roll by some meaningful interval (-4 perhaps). It won’t help the player automatically succeed unless they’re close to the threshold, but it would essentially bring back that narrative control element from 1e.

6. Give Inspired players the chance to use Hope twice. Not sure exactly how this would work, but I think it’s a potentially interesting idea; would give a bigger bonus, at the cost of another Hope point.

7. Instead of having Hope reach for extra dice, let them flip a d6 (or two, if Inspired) into a Tengwar.

8. Change a function of Hope to spend a Tengwar to reroll the Feat die if an Eye of Sauron is showing.

Please feel free to critique these, poke holes, or expound on how they could be made better as you wish. Thanks again for the productive discussion.
 
Davi
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon 15 Feb 2021, 04:16

Re: The Problem With Hope

Sun 18 Jul 2021, 04:51

7. Instead of having Hope reach for extra dice, let them flip a d6 (or two, if Inspired) into a Tengwar.
I liked this idea that hope is spent to flip a skill dice to any result desired, basically 6's. It would be easy to eye roll the result and see if you would make it a success, and you would also increase the level of success.

I have no problem with it being before the roll (just roll one dice less and leave it showing the six, as if Eru had rolled it), or after the roll for turning that low 1-3 into a nice 6.
 
Dunheved
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed 11 Mar 2020, 02:07
Location: UK

Re: The Problem With Hope

Sun 18 Jul 2021, 18:41

(WOW. This thread takes time to keep up with.)
Gyrovague has made the key point for me. TOR1e = the Control to change some Failures into some Successes, and that this is a unique thing to this game. TOR2e = another way to influence the gambling: and not a unique way. Bad luck early on might well be so fatal that the dead characters don't survive long enough to even get a chance to roll again later and pick up the average with later success. (And that isn't Tolkien to me )

There is one further thing that Tor1e Hope allows. It's a known bonus. With a high TN for a task (e.g. travelling in blighted lands) characters with poor Heart values would know in advance that they going to have a tougher time than characters with high Heart. Elrond sending elves to Mordor? Forget it, when the dice go bad, there's no way left with their lower Heart values to overcome that misfortune. Send hobbits - good move, when the dice go bad with them, the guaranteed higher hope-driven bonus means they can face the misfortunes of travel and corruption. Notice that, of course, Success overall is NOT guaranteed: even a bunch of Frodos can still fail. But over several rolls of the dice, ultimate complete failure is significantly less likely than a 'host of elves in shining armour'. A different challenge might need the Strength or Wits members to step up to those extremes.
So in the early stages when a PC is weak, hope may well get them through failures (but not catastrophes!). **They stay in the game long enough to benefit from development**

In this way, sending four hobbits with all their inner seeds of courage, was needed for the FELLOWSHIP. Elrond and Gandalf needed all that guaranteed reserve. If hope TOR2e was used, then sending an army of elves would do the trick: because that many elves - by the rules of statistics - would lead to a high probability of ultimate success. Some of them would get through, even if the slaughter mirrored the bloodbath of the first world war...

Gandalf knew this earlier when he was foresighted to send Bilbo with Thorin. Bilbo was Thorin's automatic success, changing Failures into Successes. 1. The secret of the moon letters. 2. The weak spot in Smaug's armour. 3. Stealing the Arkenstone. 4. Saving the dwarves from the spiders. 5. The barrel episode. All of these HAD to succeed. Even if not all of Thorin's company had to survive.
Without Bilbo, Thranduil would still be holding Thorin underground. No Erebor. Smaug burns the North, Rivendell and then Eriador. No LOTR.

These are the magic key points in the Hobbit. Bilbo had to succeed at each point: or game over.
Bard had to succeed with the Black Arrow: or game over. Smaug would return to Erebor and fall to the lure of the Ring.
These are all required Successes. If they can be achieved, they have to be. Accidental Failure must be changed to Success.

Well. That's how I read Tolkien.
 
Mattcapiche
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:25

Re: The Problem With Hope

Sun 18 Jul 2021, 22:15

So I haven’t chipped in on this conversation for a bit, but I have been mulling over it while I take thoughts away from my feelings about the new TN system:

As much as a (greatly) preferred the feel of 1e hope, I think it would be pretty easy for me to get onboard with the new rules with a single mitigation included- let me spend hope to roll after the initial roll.

Being a roll rather than a flat bonus is still a gamble, but being after the initial roll removes so many instances of feel bad potential. It also feels more thematic to me, that with my character staring failure in the face, the dig deep and summon that one extra ounce of strength/will/etc to try and overcome the obstacle. I might still get pierced by another Uruk arrow, but I might also keep myself standing just long enough to protect the little ones. I’m good with that gamble. Less so if it wouldn’t have made a difference (either because of massive fail, or overwhelming success).

TLDR: I’m gonna run as written initially, but will likely homebrew to allow the spend after the roll.
 
User avatar
Warduke
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon 28 Jan 2019, 18:22

Re: The Problem With Hope

Mon 19 Jul 2021, 00:48

As pointed out earlier, Hope is not fate but an inner reserve. If you wish to run it as fate in your game that's great, I'm sure I will have table rules also, but that isn't what is intended by the designers.

Bilbo getting the ring and many other examples from the books that Gandalf points out aren't a hope mechanic in action but the will of the Song or fate. Poor Sauron never had a chance. This isn't something that can be represented by a mechanic. It's plot. Loremasters out there want to run an epic, place the One Ring in your treasure tables, as you manipulate the Song for your own evil purposes.

Not sending Elves into Mordor is an excellent example of the Shadow mechanic not a 1e Hope mechanic. 1e Hope would have run out long before they reached Mt. Doom. Hobbits get Favored Wisdom rolls in 2e. Wisdom is used against Sorcery.

There are reasons for new editions of games, to improve them, and I like what I see so far of this one. I tend to be fairly optimistic about edition changes, with the exception of 4e D&D. I have a high Heart to make up for my low Wits.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests