Forum

This probably should have gone in the Loremaster section, to keep away from players.

You have to use the Hate/Resolve on your adversaries to make them a threat, though an argument to leave a point for a protection test or to stave off the weary condition is certainly a viable tactic.

This might seem like a bit of a "spoiler" since I'm part of the developing team, but... my advice is to use Hate/Resolve points only as a balancing factor in combat.

Are players having too much luck with rolls? Or, is the Company a little too combat-oriented? Or again, is the session going far too smoothly for the players?
If so, go all out. Make weak opponents spend Hate/Resolve points on attack rolls, to make even a lowly Goblin Archer's arrow very dangerous. And make more massive opponents spend Hate/Resolve on Protection rolls, to prevent them from being killed immediately by a lucky Piercing Blow from a player's axe.

Are the players having too much bad luck instead? Is the Company not very combative? Or is the adventure going rather badly for them?
Then take it easy. Spend Hate/Resolve rarely, and only to activate Fell Abilities with a scenic effect, or to get a cathartic narrative moment. Or don't spend any at all, if things are going really badly for the players.

Hate/Resolve points are meant to be a tool entirely in the hands of the Loremaster, to make each combat encounter unique and balanced (or even unbalanced, if that is the intention). There is no single rule on how to use them: rather, it will be necessary to evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether and how to spend them, in order to achieve the desired effect.

For me it's the very weak adversary, that PC s might ignore otherwise. Goblin archers are very weak. But a poisoned arrow will remind the party that life an be very short sometimes!

As a pseudo house rule, I have used Hate as a trade off - swopping one or two points of Hate to 'add' an extra surprise ability to a foe. How do you fancy some of these?

E.g. An orc soldier whose sword is a bit keener than normal (give it a name too, Nargrab the Nasty!)
E.g. A goblin with a larger bow, damage increased by one (Magtuc the Long Armed)
E.g. The Red Captain, (an Orc with a red topcoat) any orc or goblin next to it is not Craven.

Each of these adversaries might have 1 less Hate (or Resolve for non- Shadow adversaries) to permit this variation.

Actually, I will often not let the PCs know this until it happens, but in fairness, I will narrate some pointers
E.g. one goblin will yell out "Nargrab, you take the leader! Slice his head off!" And Nargrab will push his way forward.

Only played one session so far, but I mostly found myself using Hate/Resolve to bolster Protection tests ... lowly adversaries are clad in wet paper and it is easier to score Piercing Blows. It did not help all that much, but announcing it and still failing the roll actually made my players happy so all is well!

They've also spent tons of Hope despite using the easier rules for one-shots (TNs are 18 minus Attribute Rating); I guess that being 1e veterans, they felt that they can do so more often with the ways Hope is regained.

All in all, it worked fairly well and helped produce some fine epic moments.

Hate/Resolve seems really overpowered if used all the time. One suggestion we made recently was to apply the following house rule:

Hate points used per round cannot exceed the number of conscious player characters.

Just sharing and would like to see if anyone uses alternate rules for hate/resolve that take a similar approach. ​

I use Hate/Resolve contextually and based on the importance of the scene but also on how the players are doing. The "marsh dweller" example above is a relevant one as my players are new and this adventure has not only a shadow test for entering the flooded chamber but also likely when facing the fell wraith later. As such "machinegunning" players with the strike fear ability by all marsh dwellers seemed like overkill but also as not conducive to good drama and a good game.

As such I (did the same with 1E) use hate points for dramatic effect or to add drama to a scene that matters a lot. This has served me well. I also tell players I am using a point and what fell ability it is. I will also lean on player distinctive features (used to be traits) like enemy-lore if relevant. In that sense a player facing a group of undead with the DF Enemy-lore: undead, gets a 1d boon on his or her Lore or Battle roll to know that this enemy has some fell abilities or weaknesses. This brings the enemies alive for players I find.

I use Hate/Resolve contextually and based on the importance of the scene but also on how the players are doing. The "marsh dweller" example above is a relevant one as my players are new and this adventure has not only a shadow test for entering the flooded chamber but also likely when facing the fell wraith later. As such "machinegunning" players with the strike fear ability by all marsh dwellers seemed like overkill but also as not conducive to good drama and a good game.

As such I (did the same with 1E) use hate points for dramatic effect or to add drama to a scene that matters a lot. This has served me well. I also tell players I am using a point and what fell ability it is. I will also lean on player distinctive features (used to be traits) like enemy-lore if relevant. In that sense a player facing a group of undead with the DF Enemy-lore: undead, gets a 1d boon on his or her Lore or Battle roll to know that this enemy has some fell abilities or weaknesses. This brings the enemies alive for players I find.

This is a good approach! Sensible and keeps the game fun rather than burying the players under hate.

Although their Machine Gunning potential has gone down a bit post FAQ/errata as they're now "Thing of Terror" instead of having "Strike Fear".

I like your use of the appropriate Calling to feed the PCs information. I'm a bit more generous here, giving the information for free and just requiring the roll for extra info:

"the Loremaster should rarely require a player to make a LORE roll for information regarding their own character’s Culture, Background, or the area they originally came from." (p64) Particularly as the FAQ replaces "Background" with "Calling".

I agree its is a great way to bring foes alive and to make use of the Callings. I'll often let "Shadow-lore" be broad and then the Specific "Enemy Lore" give more precision, with both getting extra info via rolls.

I was not clear! I do not require rolls for knowing the fell abilities, I encourage players to invoke the distinctive feature to get the information without a roll for say more "common" enemies that are from their region. For enemies from afar the roll is sometimes included.

I also like to dig (as you saw) into the callings of my adventurers as I find this is a good way to bring out their individuality and personalities in play!

I was not aware of the change between strike fear and thing of terror as I am only using the hardcopy to run my games. I also used Bog Soldiers (converted) from 1E instead of Marsh Dwellers as I found those were more fitting as long dead dunadain soldiers trapped in the flooded halls, in 1E they had strike fear but I will look up thing of terror in the FAQ!

In terms of general LMing of these things, I like to encourage players to use their distinctive features to be inspired and to also make use of their interesting objects to support key skills. This creates an immersive environment of sorts during key scenes. I also borrowed from Forbidden Lands RPG here in terms of really letting the players drive the story, they provide me ample story hooks during a session, I note some of them and then weave a campaign around that. This worked super well with 1E where we had a great 3 year (real time) campaign.

That all sounds great. And I with you on letting players drive things: I like setting up a sandbox and then seeing what the players are interested in, so I'm excited that 2e is embracing this philosophy.