I've been toying with the following alternative Time Limit:
Resistance is set as normal, and then the Introduction is rolled as normal. The Time Limit is not based on the Resistance, but rather on the party and the audience. It is 2 + the highest Valour/Wisdom (audience's preference) among the party members introduced + 1 per tengwar in successful Introduction. This is a throwback to 1e's rules for Tolerance, where the baseline Tolerance was based on the highest Valour or Wisdom depending on the culture/outlook of the audience.
A beginning party's Time Limit, then, is 3(+tengwar). The Time Limit grows as the party advances, such that later Councils have up to 8(+tengwar). An inexperienced party simply cannot demand of Elu Thingol his only daughter's hand in marriage and expect it to go well. But a renowned hero gets special deference in council among the Free Peoples of Middle-earth, and folk will treat with them far longer than a company of lesser reputation. A starting out party will simply not be able to confidently make large requests of people and should aim for lesser asks (though a Loremaster should generously use the Success with Woe option in those cases where a bigger ask is necessary but just barely doesn't succeed). I do recommend generous use of gifts to sweeten the Introduction roll (+1d for a decent gift, +2d for something exquisite or culturally meaningful) as another mitigation measure.
I need to run the numbers (and I'm honestly not sure how to do so, since I've no programming ability and I haven't figured out how to calculate TOR probabilities in anydice or Excel yet). I do fear that it's double dipping a little bit to get both a higher Time Limit and more skill dice as you gain experience, but I want to see the math before I decide how much that bothers me, because the Time Limit reflecting the values of the audience is a good flourish that I like.
The other issue I have/see with Councils is the prospect of 9+ skill checks with little to no guidance on how to keep those checks fresh or interesting. From the outset, there are easily optimized solutions to a static game where the Resistance and all the TNs are known in advance. Disallowing/penalizing repeated checks might nominally increase the diversity of skills used, but it doesn't make it much more interesting, it just means you have to calculate the next best choice, as well. There just has to be some hidden information, or at least something that delays or changes the optimal approach and ways to discover it in the game's abstraction.
My answer to that is Objections. An Objection is a reason why the audience is resisting, and certain appeals will work better or worse against certain Objections. For an Objection to be fully resolved it takes 3 successes, enough time and persuasion for the audience to consider, synthesize, and accept your points. Think about the audience and what drives them, and then pick an Objection (or 2 or 3 in the case of bold or outrageous requests, respectivey):
- Proud: The audience resents that the player-heroes have, at least in the audience's mind, undermined their position or decision making. Attempts to Enhearten come off as patronizing and take -1d, while attempts to flatter using Riddle take +1d
- Cowardly: The audience greatly fears the physical consequences to themselves or others of the requested action. Attempts at subtlety using Riddle take -1d, while attempts to encourage using Enhearten take +1d.
- Covetous: The audience covets their possessions or power and grasps for more. Attempts to build understanding through Insight take -1d, while attempts to Persuade them of the gain that will come to them take +1d.
- Despairing: The audience is convinced that all efforts will come to naught and whatever opportunity may have existed is now passed. Attempts to logically change their reasoning by Persuade take -1d, while attempts to rekindle hope through Song take +1d.
- Mistrusting: The audience feels isolated, that none should be trusted, most especially the player-heroes. Attempts to reason with Persuade take -1d, while attempts to build rapport with Insight gain +1d.
- Aloof: The audience feels nothing the player-heroes have to say is much of their concern, they are content that they will be unaffected by whatever the trouble is. Attempts to draw parallels to ancient tales in Song take -1d, while attempts to emphasize the connection of the party's errand to the audience using Persuade take +1d.
This list isn't exhaustive, but just examples of the kinds of Objections, you could spin out many more. "But stubbazubba," you say, "won't bold and especially outrageous request Councils have conflicting Objections that cancel each other out or double up?" The easiest way to avoid that is to just do them sequentially: Have the audience resist based on one Objection first, then their second, then, if applicable, their third. These Objections may not always be obvious, and I would definitely allow a successful Insight check with a tengwar to hint at their current motivation to oppose and what may or may not help currently.
But these are also good role-play prompts for the LM: Chiding the player-heroes for their disrespect indicates a different Objection than doing so for their hubris or their foolhardiness. And when they have resolved 1, either the Council ends or the next one takes over. The players have to try to figure out what their new Objection is and what strategies would be more or less effective in addressing it. And when the Time Limit is run out, the LM knows which Objection ended up overruling the party's arguments and can have the audience offer a Success w/ Woe like a steep counter-offer that is appropriate.
I don't think this is really changing anything in the RAW, it's just systematizing what LMs will have to do anyway, and just so happens to encourage a wider variety of skills.
