Forum

Dunheved · Mon 26 Jul 2021, 16:26

I have to declare an urgent Interest in this thread:

I have already booked a separate room at the back of the Prancing Pony: my NPC is setting out the snacks and pipeweed, while Butterbur is taking the orders of the guests (the company) in the taproom ... the important extra NPC (patron) will also appear amidst the smoke rings.

So I am planning on a Council rule: PCs who have had a Successful Roll when fact finding an incident just outside of Bree in the previous chapter will gain an auto success by introducing their fact or logical deduction.

Mythicos · Mon 26 Jul 2021, 16:58

Imagine the goal is to support a character to become the new leader of a faction. At the end of the day if he loses of 1 vote of 1.000 he still won´t be elected

So, in this example any one fail (negative vote) loses the arguement? (even with 999 to 1?) By logical extension, no other leader will be elected; as the Company vote against any other candidate.

If you know about this : how might this rule work if we were adapting 'The Folk Moot' in the Darkening of Mirkwood campaign? (Apologies to anyone who has not seen this - it is a scenario where there are several options under debate in a Woodman Council. The options in the Folk Moot carry some degrees of conflict or contradiction for the Council to decide. )

Anyway from your reply you are saying that one Fail = Total Fail. Not sure how satisfying a group of Players might take that after a session of RP. The RAW seems too simplistic. So each and every Fail HAS to be compensated for by Greater Success somewhere, and my understanding of the rule is correct?

This comes back to the quasi-philosophical debate about Social mechanics in RPGs vs roleplay.

If a player is convincing, should a bad test result cancel that out?

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here. It's a matter of taste of the players involved.

Personally (and that's just me), I have difficulties with the fact that a character is beholden to his stats when performing a physical task, but is somehow immune to his mental/social stats when going through a social interaction.

I'd prefer for the player to roleplay the result of the mechanical test.

You fail the Test? Roleplay why it happens.
You succeed? Same thing.

But that's just me. And even within my own group and even with me as LM, we don't play like that because some of my players are vehemently opposed to such a stance.

Dorjcal · Mon 26 Jul 2021, 17:03

If you know about this : how might this rule work if we were adapting 'The Folk Moot' in the Darkening of Mirkwood campaign? (Apologies to anyone who has not seen this - it is a scenario where there are several options under debate in a Woodman Council. The options in the Folk Moot carry some degrees of conflict or contradiction for the Council to decide. )

What would have happened without the company occurs: Caewin and Amaleoda get their request accepted. Mogdred request is refused.
Thematically, convincing the crowd to change their opinion it would have been a separate council for each request. If the company don´t want to influence one of the request it just happens.

Anyway from your reply you are saying that one Fail = Total Fail. Not sure how satisfying a group of Players might take that after a session of RP. The RAW seems too simplistic. So each and every Fail HAS to be compensated for by Greater Success somewhere, and my understanding of the rule is correct?

No. If your time limit is greater than the resistance, then not each fail has to be compensated. E.g. If resitance is 3 and time limit 5, then you can fail twice without need of greater successes.
Also remember that according to RAW good RP can be scored as an additional success. (Page 107 Box: AWARDING EFFECTIVE ROLEPLAYING)

Dunheved · Mon 26 Jul 2021, 17:13

@Dorjcal.
Yeah. Got that last post. "Increase the time limit with a previous Success, at an Introductory Roll." P104
Thanks.

gyrovague · Mon 26 Jul 2021, 17:33

Also remember that according to RAW good RP can be scored as an additional success. (Page 107 Box: AWARDING EFFECTIVE ROLEPLAYING)

Yeah...well, I guess if I had to sum up my initial impressions of 2E it would be "mechanics that don't offer interesting decision-making, but it's ok because we can embellish with great roleplaying."

I want both interesting mechanics and great storytelling.

MDuckworth83 · Mon 26 Jul 2021, 19:17

Imagine the goal is to support a character to become the new leader of a faction. At the end of the day if he loses of 1 vote of 1.000 he still won´t be elected

So, in this example any one fail (negative vote) loses the arguement? (even with 999 to 1?) By logical extension, no other leader will be elected; as the Company vote against any other candidate.

If you know about this : how might this rule work if we were adapting 'The Folk Moot' in the Darkening of Mirkwood campaign? (Apologies to anyone who has not seen this - it is a scenario where there are several options under debate in a Woodman Council. The options in the Folk Moot carry some degrees of conflict or contradiction for the Council to decide. )

Anyway from your reply you are saying that one Fail = Total Fail. Not sure how satisfying a group of Players might take that after a session of RP. The RAW seems too simplistic. So each and every Fail HAS to be compensated for by Greater Success somewhere, and my understanding of the rule is correct?

I'm glad you brought this up because I've had a similar experience in adapting 1st ed. encounters (although I'm glad they changed that name thank God - triggered my D&D DM side). It's really jarring to see how rich these "councils" were in first edition with multiple outcomes and differing skill use impacts - and then having to reduce the multiple outcomes to a binary and basically "run the social skill algorithm" for the party.

All the reservations I've had about TNs, Travel, loss of Cultural Rewards, loss of preliminary rolls etc., I've kind of come to peace with and am slowly embracing and looking forward to how this all plays out in a published adventure. The Councils are my last major holdout... I just cannot find many silver linings with this new system that is replacing a great system that worked just fine.

Dorjcal · Mon 26 Jul 2021, 19:53

Imagine the goal is to support a character to become the new leader of a faction. At the end of the day if he loses of 1 vote of 1.000 he still won´t be elected

So, in this example any one fail (negative vote) loses the arguement? (even with 999 to 1?) By logical extension, no other leader will be elected; as the Company vote against any other candidate.

If you know about this : how might this rule work if we were adapting 'The Folk Moot' in the Darkening of Mirkwood campaign? (Apologies to anyone who has not seen this - it is a scenario where there are several options under debate in a Woodman Council. The options in the Folk Moot carry some degrees of conflict or contradiction for the Council to decide. )

Anyway from your reply you are saying that one Fail = Total Fail. Not sure how satisfying a group of Players might take that after a session of RP. The RAW seems too simplistic. So each and every Fail HAS to be compensated for by Greater Success somewhere, and my understanding of the rule is correct?
I'm glad you brought this up because I've had a similar experience in adapting 1st ed. encounters (although I'm glad they changed that name thank God - triggered my D&D DM side). It's really jarring to see how rich these "councils" were in first edition with multiple outcomes and differing skill use impacts - and then having to reduce the multiple outcomes to a binary and basically "run the social skill algorithm" for the party.

All the reservations I've had about TNs, Travel, loss of Cultural Rewards, loss of preliminary rolls etc., I've kind of come to peace with and am slowly embracing and looking forward to how this all plays out in a published adventure. The Councils are my last major holdout... I just cannot find many silver linings with this new system that is replacing a great system that worked just fine.

I think the confusion here is that most of the encounters in 1E are NOT to be translated in councils. Now they pan out as regular interactions [Not my words.. but the designers]
Council are more important events. For example the Folk moot reported above, for which even the supplements did not offer a different outcome depending from the "success" but just a binary outcome.

Mythicos · Mon 26 Jul 2021, 20:20

All the reservations I've had about TNs, Travel, loss of Cultural Rewards, loss of preliminary rolls etc., I've kind of come to peace with and am slowly embracing and looking forward to how this all plays out in a published adventure. The Councils are my last major holdout... I just cannot find many silver linings with this new system that is replacing a great system that worked just fine.

As someone said upthread, some of the rules and innovations re: Councils in 1st edition came in other books than the core rules.

So I suspect that, as with many other things, the Core books is designed to be as slick, bloat-free and efficient as possible, so that no unnecessary mechanics have to be dealt with afterwards.

There will be plenty of time after the Core book publication to publish extra rules, mechanics and possibilities that will add to the core rules.

I know some people might be frustrated to not get the full experience right from the start, but I think it's a wise move personally, even if I'll be as impatient as the others to get the advanced rules.

Same thing with Journeys, Traits, etc.

You weren't expecting to get everything all at once now, did you?

MDuckworth83 · Mon 26 Jul 2021, 20:25

All the reservations I've had about TNs, Travel, loss of Cultural Rewards, loss of preliminary rolls etc., I've kind of come to peace with and am slowly embracing and looking forward to how this all plays out in a published adventure. The Councils are my last major holdout... I just cannot find many silver linings with this new system that is replacing a great system that worked just fine.

As someone said upthread, some of the rules and innovations re: Councils in 1st edition came in other books than the core rules.

So I suspect that, as with many other things, the Core books is designed to be as slick, bloat-free and efficient as possible, so that no unnecessary mechanics have to be dealt with afterwards.

There will be plenty of time after the Core book publication to publish extra rules, mechanics and possibilities that will add to the core rules.

I know some people might be frustrated to not get the full experience right from the start, but I think it's a wise move personally, even if I'll be as impatient as the others to get the advanced rules.

Same thing with Journeys, Traits, etc.

You weren't expecting to get everything all at once now, did you?

I can certainly buy this explanation as long as it is actually the case! That's why I've chilled out on things like the Journeys event table, because I realize they can easily flesh this out into a much more interesting product. Having a tough time seeing how to "finesse" or "expand" councils without straight up errata though. The mechanic as it stands seems pretty limiting.

Dorjcal · Mon 26 Jul 2021, 21:11

All the reservations I've had about TNs, Travel, loss of Cultural Rewards, loss of preliminary rolls etc., I've kind of come to peace with and am slowly embracing and looking forward to how this all plays out in a published adventure. The Councils are my last major holdout... I just cannot find many silver linings with this new system that is replacing a great system that worked just fine.

As someone said upthread, some of the rules and innovations re: Councils in 1st edition came in other books than the core rules.

So I suspect that, as with many other things, the Core books is designed to be as slick, bloat-free and efficient as possible, so that no unnecessary mechanics have to be dealt with afterwards.

There will be plenty of time after the Core book publication to publish extra rules, mechanics and possibilities that will add to the core rules.

I know some people might be frustrated to not get the full experience right from the start, but I think it's a wise move personally, even if I'll be as impatient as the others to get the advanced rules.

Same thing with Journeys, Traits, etc.

You weren't expecting to get everything all at once now, did you?
I can certainly buy this explanation as long as it is actually the case! That's why I've chilled out on things like the Journeys event table, because I realize they can easily flesh this out into a much more interesting product. Having a tough time seeing how to "finesse" or "expand" councils without straight up errata though. The mechanic as it stands seems pretty limiting.

I think it is also a way to make it more accessible for new DMs. Having to think about of different degree of success for each and every encounter might not be straightforward for everyone. They also have a lot of experience and saw many people playing.. and from that they decided to cut what people did not really made use of. So, I guess it might have been the case.

Anyway, as Francesco said, there is no "The One Ring Police", so everyone is able to implement what they want

Forum

Councils too simple?

Re: Councils too simple?

Re: Councils too simple?

Re: Councils too simple?

Re: Councils too simple?

Re: Councils too simple?

Re: Councils too simple?

Re: Councils too simple?

Re: Councils too simple?

Re: Councils too simple?

Re: Councils too simple?

Who is online