I stand by the “scrounging for dice” comment though. The way things work now, the dice pool is deliberately expandable via Hope, via Useful Items, and I think you all are right that the game is encouraging players to interact that way with every roll. This isn’t a radical departure from 1e where you could assist others by granting them d6s from successful rolls or other creative forms of aid, but it does seem slightly out of control now.
This is a feature I’d expect to see on big important rolls, but because TNs are a little higher on average now, I suspect we will see it chronically and I am not sure it’s a good thing. After all, the whole point of many of these changes was to speed and streamline the game - not prompt players to exercise their creativity in finding ways to generate bonuses for themselves constantly. That’s not roleplaying - it’s meta-gaming the rules. A player who is puffing away on their pipe in every single scene to gain its +1d6 is not doing a fabulous job playing their character. But I think this may be a stylistic difference best tabled for now.
I am deliberately overstating the issue, and I think you’re right to emphasize that a slightly higher TN does NOT cripple a character forever. Skill ratings may not be purely apples-to-apples anymore, but the average of +1d6 is better than the straight Attribute value when determining TN.I really don't understand where you draw such conclusions from. How is that supposed to happen? A steeper learning curve doesn't mean that characters can't become very proficient in many different fields sooner or later during their adventuring career. They can take Prowess and Mastery, they can invest Skill points, they can do a lot of things. You want to play a jack of all trades? Choose the 5 5 4 Attribute distribution. You want to play a very specialized character? Choose the 7 5 2 Attribute distribution. Something in-between? Choose the Attribute distribution best suited to your needs. They're not such strange concepts (to me, at least!), but you make them sound like they've ruined the game for some reason that I still fail to figure out.
If I can unpack a bit what I’m trying to say: because some characters will have a higher variance between their Attributes, certain character builds will be less viable than others. On the face of it, no problem: simply don’t min/max the character when selecting stat packages. However, I think what it reveals is that there is a weakness in the division of the skill sets whereby characters who SHOULD be excellent at cross-cutting skills as a result of their primary profession and role in the world, will be at a disadvantage which is entirely the result of that artificial / arbitrary Skill clustering.
Lots of characters we see explicitly in Middle-earth should have excellent skills across multiple Attributes. Again, not “good at ALL” the Skills, but good at cross-cutting skills. Those characters will be harder to build - a balanced Attribute approach still leaves them mediocre (high TN) across all of their specialized “focus” areas; areas they should shine in, not be average at.
If you have made a Rohirrim scholar whose primary role is as a traveling minstrel, your focus areas were Travel, Song, and Riddle. That’s now going to be a tougher character to play in practice and still be good at all three of the things core to the concept because the TN of those main things will be higher than they were before, assuming a balanced Attribute build. Not impossible, but it certainly isn’t optimized under the way the system works now. That leads me to the conclusion that the system is a little less flexible than before.
Nothing I’ve said should imply that Merry and Pippin deserved to be in equal footing with the warriors in battle. (Although as a game, there needs to be closer parity than the reality of the books simply because players will not find it fun to never contribute to battles). What I mean is that by establishing Attributes as more significant than they were before, the game begins to run slightly counter to the theme of its own source material that the importance of individuals derives from their prowess.
Now again, in practice that is a hard argument to make. Obviously the physical strength of warriors and the skill of the riders, the wits of the wizards and the burglars all matter. But specifically, if we were to increase the role of Attributes in accordance with what Tolkien writes about as being important, Heart would be an exalted stat and the others would be less so.
This is a game, it needs balance, but I did prefer it when who you are (Attributes) were less significant in determining what you are (your Skills: professions or areas of strength). It’s not to say you can’t or shouldn’t play a highly specialized Lore character- actually, that’s a lot easier to do in the new rules, but you would likely pay a price in another Attribute area. I have no problem with that, it’s a choice. But for those whose concept by nature were divided between skill areas, they are now “like butter spread over too much bread.” One can only be a Jack of all trades, master of none - not a master of quiet arts which span the arbitrary division between skill areas.
I hope that somewhat explains my chagrin. It’s not that the game is ruined, but that certain characters previously perfectly viable are less capable now, at a loss of some richness to the setting.
