Forum

1. Council of Elrond: I can't use this. The author has the rest of the story hinging on this one. If Elrond had not rolled nine Gandalfs to get this Outrageous decision through, this forum wouldn't exist.

2. Strider meeting the hobbits in Bree: His aim was to be their guide. Aragorn had a Success. 'Could this have 'gone wrong?' Could Aragorn have had a partial Success?

3. The Fellowship meet Galadriel & Celeborn: In this they wanted (needed) shelter. They got that. Yet they also had three major extras (a) their individual gifts (Really Useful Items!) (b) the advice of the elf lords, Celeborn and Galadriel - including the Mirror for Frodo & Sam and (c) the collective gifts of the boats and Lorien Cloaks.

4. Gandalf meets Theoden after escaping Isengard: A Failure as Gandalf did not persuade Theoden of his danger. But with this Failure, Gandalf had an excuse to take Shadowfax.

5. Gandalf returns to Edoras: A Success, because a defence against Saruman was raised. But More than a Success, because Theoden himself went to war. Gandalf could not have been expecting (or ASKING FOR) such a strong result.

6. Meeting with Saruman after Helm's Deep: A Failure. Saruman did not turn back to the path of Wisdom. His Lore and Skill was denied to the Powers of Light, and Isengard, though nullified, was of no use to Rohan or Gondor. Yet, not a total failure. His staff was broken, and a palantir was recovered.

For the ones that may well be Councils - would RAW realise their narratives? Does the framing of the Council Rules suggest and encourage such narratives strongly enough that new players and a new LM would produce interactions like this? Is so, then the rules are explicit enough. If not then they may be too simple.

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.

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.

I'm of the opposite mind. I don't like "in character dialogue" roleplay, because it always feels to me like low budget 80s Fantasy B film tier acting (at best) and can't stand the dumb voices and accents. I let me characters do it if they want, but I always narrate everything third person. (i.e. "The king furrows his brow, and responds with a tone of authority why he does not see your terms as acceptable"). Also, what if somebody really bad at voice acting and roleplay wants to play a persuasive, silver tongued character?

I tend to think it kind of has to be all or nothing. Either design an RPG that is all based on the player's roleplay and doesn't include mechanical social skills, or include mechanical social skills and give them an objective, mechanical framework to be meaningful in. I've always hated the way D&D handwaves this and D&D isn't even really a true roleplaying game.

@ Gyrovague Ah. You saw through my subterfuge. I am trying to present information about a way of using the novels as bedrock for the development of rules during the feedback period.

Since someone else can see that these examples do have levels of Sucess, I am happier to argue that the novels (rather than simply my opinion) mean that rules on Councils should be explicitly embracing a wider range of outcomes.

“Thankfully we passed those rolls everyone so now we can get started on the first leg of this journey to Mount Doom. OK what’s the marching order?”

"Too bad we burned all our Hope on that Council. I heard Mordor is a rough zone to adventure in."

I'm of the opposite mind. I don't like in character roleplay, because it always feels to me like low budget 80s Fantasy B film tier acting (at best) and can't stand the dumb voices and accents. I let me characters do it if they want, but I always narrate everything third person. (i.e. "The king furrows his brow, and responds with a tone of authority why he does not see your terms as acceptable"). Also, what if somebody really bad at voice acting and roleplay wants to play a persuasive, silver tongued character?

I tend to think it kind of has to be all or nothing. Either design an RPG that is all based on the player's roleplay and doesn't include mechanical social skills, or include mechanical social skills and give them an objective, mechanical framework to be meaningful in. I've always hated the way D&D handwaves this and D&D isn't even really a true roleplaying game.

While this all an nice theoretically, I don´t see how you can come up with a "one-size-fits-all" rule that is robust and offers fun gameplay reliably