It is really early in the process for us players to give proper feedback, but since this is a very similar mechanic to one used in the 5th edition of a certain-game-that-shall-remain-nameless...:
This is about the boxed text from page 20:
FAVOURED VS ILL- FAVOURED: It is possible for
a roll to be both Favoured and Ill- favoured for
different, conflicting reasons — when this hap-
pens, the roll is resolved normally (roll one Feat
Die only), even if multiple sources would make
a roll Favoured and only one would make it Ill-
favoured (or vice versa).
We (me and almost all players who I've played with) have always felt that, when multiple sources can favourably or unfavourable influence a PC's roll, the fact that they all cancel out really ruins the immersion.
"[...] OK Emily, your character has a magic artefact, you have surprised the sentinel, and the sentinel is half asleep from boredom... But the lighting is poor, so that cancels everything else out: make a normal roll to see if you succeed [...]"
Blargh!
If there are mechanical balance issues, I'd understand; but besides the fact that there would be more favoured- and ill-favoured rolls if considering the respective number of sources, I don't see what the issue would really be...
Have you considered and rejected taking into account how many sources, or was it decided right away to go with the "normal resolution" rule because players would already be familiar with the concept?
-
- Buscardieux
- Posts: 2
- Joined:
Re: Favoured vs Ill-favouored rolls
Just my opinion of course, but I think as a general rule, Favoured and Ill-favoured cancelling each other out is a good idea - keeping in mind that both Favoured and Ill-favoured do not stack. To avoid the type of situation described in your example, I think Lore-masters will need to err on the side of caution when applying both Favoured and Ill-favoured, possibly applying it only when called for in the rules as written rather than by circumstance.
For instance, I think most players would consider it fair for Ill-favoured to cancel out a Favoured attack roll if Ill-favoured had been applied by an enemy's special ability, like a Great Orc Chief's Snake-like Speed. This is also stated to be one of the most common source of Ill-favoured at present (p.20). I think for more circumstantial effects like poor lighting conditions or being outflanked, it would be better to apply the rules for Complications/Advantages (p. 101-102) and reducing the player's dice pool by 1-2 dice based on the severity of the Complication. This would also allow the player to counter the effect by spending Hope points (if I've understood the rules correctly, I'm still on my first read-through).
For instance, I think most players would consider it fair for Ill-favoured to cancel out a Favoured attack roll if Ill-favoured had been applied by an enemy's special ability, like a Great Orc Chief's Snake-like Speed. This is also stated to be one of the most common source of Ill-favoured at present (p.20). I think for more circumstantial effects like poor lighting conditions or being outflanked, it would be better to apply the rules for Complications/Advantages (p. 101-102) and reducing the player's dice pool by 1-2 dice based on the severity of the Complication. This would also allow the player to counter the effect by spending Hope points (if I've understood the rules correctly, I'm still on my first read-through).
Re: Favoured vs Ill-favouored rolls
I think you raise an interesting point, but I would suggest that the solution to your problem can be narrative, not mechanical.
"OK Emily, the lighting is poor, and it's very difficult to see the sentinel, but your character has a magic artefact, so you have surprised them, and they are half asleep from boredom"
In other words, when favoured and ill-favoured factors cancel each other out, don't present it as such. Present both circumstances in the story, and ask the player to roll normally. If Emily didn't have the magic artifact, she wouldn't be able to get the jump on the Sentinel in the first place, and she'd be dealing with an ill-favoured roll. Her artifact negated the ill-favoured circumstance. I think it's about presentation.
I'm not sure otherwise how you would do it, with Favoured/Ill-favoured working how it does.
Unless you are suggesting that the player would roll the Feat die twice, keep BOTH results, and play them out separately, which would be interesting, but maybe slower and more complex?
"OK Emily, the lighting is poor, and it's very difficult to see the sentinel, but your character has a magic artefact, so you have surprised them, and they are half asleep from boredom"
In other words, when favoured and ill-favoured factors cancel each other out, don't present it as such. Present both circumstances in the story, and ask the player to roll normally. If Emily didn't have the magic artifact, she wouldn't be able to get the jump on the Sentinel in the first place, and she'd be dealing with an ill-favoured roll. Her artifact negated the ill-favoured circumstance. I think it's about presentation.
I'm not sure otherwise how you would do it, with Favoured/Ill-favoured working how it does.
Unless you are suggesting that the player would roll the Feat die twice, keep BOTH results, and play them out separately, which would be interesting, but maybe slower and more complex?
Re: Favoured vs Ill-favouored rolls
From a purely narrative standpoint, it should really be one or the other. Either favoured, or ill-favoured. I understand the practicalities of gameplay, but I’m having a hard time imagining Tolkien writing scenes with on-the-one-hand / on-the-other constructions. It’s certainly possible there are some key examples in forgetting, but it seems like those kind of balancing calculations probably don’t usually belong in the story.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests