• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
MDuckworth83
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2021, 03:32

Re: Councils too simple?

Tue 27 Jul 2021, 00:13



Anyway, as Francesco said, there is no "The One Ring Police", so everyone is able to implement what they want
I always hate when designers make these type of pithy responses. Homeruling should be a last option because the instant you change the game's mechanics, you set off a ripple effect on the game's balance. I'd much rather pay good money for a game that is carefully balanced, optimized, and internally consistent with the most fun mechanics. I pay money "not" to have to be my own game designer.
 
Themadviolinist
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2021, 16:01

Re: Councils too simple?

Tue 27 Jul 2021, 02:13

I agree with the wish not to have to create game subsystems without access to the entire design philosophy to have a sense how change X might affect seemingly unrelated subsystem Y. This wish is in eternal conflict with the tinkerer in my soul, so a couple of thoughts to get some feedback on, and if this is making things like 1E, that's accidental.
There's been concern that skills aren't differentiated for effect. To me, it seems there are two basic sorts of skills that might come to bear in a social conflict situation, skills that provide information, and skills that actively seek to change the mind of your interlocutor.
The first sort might include awareness, insight, riddle off the top of my head, (not looking at the skill list.) Successes on these would perhaps generate either extra dice to be used in the active phase of mind-changing, or perhaps make those rolls favored, though my experience suggests that players are going to look for favored skills to use, so extra dice is likely more useful, and I think closer to the design they're using for other advantages. If I'm not mistaken, this is similar to what some of you refer to as preliminary rolls in 1E. Perhaps, make a direct connection between say, riddle and persuade, or insight and enhearten, or something like that, making use of the attribute groups. The extra dice would be usable for the active skill paired with the informational skill you used. Note: failure on the informational roll would, perhaps, make things harder, perhaps making the paired roll ill-favored, or subtracting a die.
This doesn't seem like it would screw up the basic frame of councils, but might provide some more mechanical support for the rp.
 
gyrovague
Topic Author
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: Councils too simple?

Tue 27 Jul 2021, 02:19

You know, I think I’ve done a 180 on Councils. I was hoping for more, but 5e (for example) gives us even less, and I’m not whining and crying about that.

Whenever possible I will set up a Council to be more involved and thoughtful than official Councils, but if I need to improvise, these rules are vastly better than nothing.

I’m thinking the same thing about Journeys, too. I’ll design my own events, but if I’m caught unprepared it’s ok to roll a few dice.
 
Dorjcal
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun 11 Jul 2021, 10:22

Re: Councils too simple?

Tue 27 Jul 2021, 09:00



Anyway, as Francesco said, there is no "The One Ring Police", so everyone is able to implement what they want
I always hate when designers make these type of pithy responses. Homeruling should be a last option because the instant you change the game's mechanics, you set off a ripple effect on the game's balance. I'd much rather pay good money for a game that is carefully balanced, optimized, and internally consistent with the most fun mechanics. I pay money "not" to have to be my own game designer.
Well, that is what you will get from them. But do you think that 100% of the people will think that?
Every tabletop game comes with the possibility to house rule. It is nothing new
 
Mythicos
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue 16 Jun 2020, 03:46

Re: Councils too simple?

Tue 27 Jul 2021, 14:29



Anyway, as Francesco said, there is no "The One Ring Police", so everyone is able to implement what they want
I always hate when designers make these type of pithy responses. Homeruling should be a last option because the instant you change the game's mechanics, you set off a ripple effect on the game's balance. I'd much rather pay good money for a game that is carefully balanced, optimized, and internally consistent with the most fun mechanics. I pay money "not" to have to be my own game designer.

There's a difference between "Here's the rules; if you want you can modify them" and "These rules don't cover (some important aspect of the game), you should make your own rules for it".

The first is perfectly fine, and is Francesco's and Free League's stance.

The second is despicable; fortunately it's something IME that's more prevalent in tabletop board games than in RPGs.
 
MDuckworth83
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2021, 03:32

Re: Councils too simple?

Wed 28 Jul 2021, 00:46

You know, I think I’ve done a 180 on Councils. I was hoping for more, but 5e (for example) gives us even less, and I’m not whining and crying about that.

Whenever possible I will set up a Council to be more involved and thoughtful than official Councils, but if I need to improvise, these rules are vastly better than nothing.

I’m thinking the same thing about Journeys, too. I’ll design my own events, but if I’m caught unprepared it’s ok to roll a few dice.
That's a fair point, but I've stopped thinking about D&D as a roleplaying game. D&D is a dungeon crawl themed table top miniatures wargame. I enjoy D&D way more ever since I came to terms with what it is and what it's not. It's a generic, kitchen sink RPG with 90% of the mechanics tied to combat. But yeah, I get it, most of us have worked to try and create something for social encounters out of the giant void for such a thing in D&D.

I guess what bothers me most about councils is they seem to have had it about right in 1e. All they had to do was not change things on that one. They managed to find a way to make a robust system into a pretty underwhelming one. Yeah, I'm thrilled with ANYTHING I get with D&D social encounters but I expect more from proper RPGs.
 
Dunheved
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed 11 Mar 2020, 02:07
Location: UK

Re: Councils too simple?

Wed 28 Jul 2021, 14:55

Actually I am more than OK with making my own house rules: or using those designed by others. If my gaming produces a situation that needs a house rule (or in fact a new rule for a situation not covered by the designers) then it is a sign that I am using the game a lot. With Councils I like that they are more specific. I will in fact use the style of the Encounters rules from TOR1e for non-Council meeting events. (Maybe even house-ruling Skill points to be played as if they were APs in TOR1e.)

As I am in a positive mood today*, I am going to take the viewpoint that Francesco/Free League are in fact supplying a collection of their own House Rules for a superb game called TOR1e. For a price I am happy to pay, they are printing these rules and supplying a lot of work and ideas instead of me doing it. I am already reconciled to the idea that TOR2e will not be perfect, and that some of "Francesco's House Rules" seem to be merely a variation and not an improvement. But the Alpha version does not make me regret paying for the resource (THAT, btw, is a serious understatement. I am drooling to receive the hard copies!) And if the Cubicle 7 experience is anything to go by, the refinements in future supplements will soon make up any lost ground that might be in my mind.

My real ambition here is to collect all those beautiful Resources over the next few years to expand my TOR1e world (even if I use Francesco's House Rules... well, most of them!).

Moria. Gondor.

*new printer worked first time
 
User avatar
aramis
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2019, 20:34
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Councils too simple?

Thu 29 Jul 2021, 03:11

I like the new approach. Councils were a bit clumsy in 1e. Never used the rules as written. Now it is more about actual roleplaying. You even get a bonus success, if your tactic fits. Theoretically you could skip the die rolls and just give every player one success if they played it out really good.

For the outcome I don’t need a list. It all depends on what was actually talked about during the council.
Except that it wasn't explicitly for councils, where it's a gathering of (near) equals...

it was for non-combat encounters of all kinds. (1RE, p 185)
Tolerance was the number of skill failures before the encounter ends. Not just social actions.
I found it just as useful for "entering town" as for "the court of ___"

It accounts for alienness and even racism.

2E changes,
No preliminary dice
Only one introduction
only one level of positive outcome
No more general use, only for attempts to influence
Number of attempts limit instead of number of failures limit
No modifications for status, valor, wisdom, or cultures.
Introduction determines attempts limit, rather than participation (which is sonorous with the change to only one introduction)

Things I much prefer about 1E:
Valor, Wisdom, Status determine tolerance, not rolls.
General use.

I plan to hang onto 1E's enounters, as it better fits the paranoia and xeophobia of the late Third Age, as well as the use of Valor or Wisdom to represent reputation.
I also much prefer the graded outcomes of 1e.

I may be unusual, in that I've always found the 1E Encounters flavorful, easily used, and intelligible, and literally do not understand how people can find it vague. And suitable for multi-goal encounters even.

I find "councils" to be redundant with the "Prolonged Actions" rules; IMO, the two should be combined, as councils literally is just a special case of the prolonged actions.

.
—————————————————————————
Smith & Wesson: the original point and click interface...
 
MDuckworth83
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2021, 03:32

Re: Councils too simple?

Thu 29 Jul 2021, 23:12


I plan to hang onto 1E's enounters, as it better fits the paranoia and xeophobia of the late Third Age, as well as the use of Valor or Wisdom to represent reputation.
I also much prefer the graded outcomes of 1e.

I may be unusual, in that I've always found the 1E Encounters flavorful, easily used, and intelligible, and literally do not understand how people can find it vague. And suitable for multi-goal encounters even.

I find "councils" to be redundant with the "Prolonged Actions" rules; IMO, the two should be combined, as councils literally is just a special case of the prolonged actions.

.
I don't think you are very unusual at all in this, as this is exactly how I feel.... and seems to be a dominant position given this thread. I think a lot of us are scratching our heads wondering why they stripped such a rich, workable system so bare in 2e.

In the back of my mind there is always that specter of the "simplify a game to make it more accessible to casual players and thus greater sales" incentive that dominates gaming today, but I am really hoping that this is enough of a passion project that it doesn't go that route. Changes like the councils really make me wonder.
 
edufernandes
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed 17 Feb 2021, 21:28

Re: Councils too simple?

Fri 30 Jul 2021, 03:26

To be honest, I'never never liked the intent to rule the narrative of social interaction as Council rules do. I didn't like it on 1ed. and I don't even give the chance to read them now on this aplha 2ed.
I just let the players do the talk, create narrative strategy and then call for rolls when needed, just it, I think rolls always get in the way of the narrative, specially on social interaction as intended by the Council rules.
I hate to face a situation where the player doesn't have anything to bargain, or the roleplay is so bad, but your roll is so good that the NPC is forced to give you what you're claiming for just because the rule say so.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests