Forum

I don’t want to be absolutist about it, but I probably won’t use the Attribute TN mechanic. This one really needs some explaining beyond “it makes a solo play mode possible.” Because I just don’t get it.

Let's say you play in a system where players roll Attribute + Skill and try to match or exceed a target number set by the GM based on his evaluation of the difficulty of the task.

Let's call this game BE&E.

For two players with the same skill level but different attributes, one will have an easier time than the other because of a higher attribute.

How is that any different than what TOR 2nd proposes?

In other words, for two persons with the same training (i.e. skill), the one with more natural talent (i.e. attribute) will have an easier time of succeeding.

Now, that might be something that you don't want in your game, and that's perfectly fine. To each their own.

But I don't think it's THAT revolutionary of a game mechanic. The only real difference with countless other RPGs is that instead of adding your attribute to your skill, you substract it from the target number.

Mathematically, it's exactly the same thing.

Well I mean… yes that’s exactly how D&D works, and it’s also kind of the weakest part of D&D. But leaving aside that there are twice as many attributes in D&D and therefore more variance in skill applicability, D&D also doesn’t encourage characters to be jack-of-all trades and have ranks in every skill unless they are specifically a high INT character. Most players find it better simply to play to their strengths and one or two “out of area” skills which they think their party needs.

This emphatically had not been the same philosophy in TOR. Characters were encouraged to all invest in Travel, and Battle, but Hunting and Song could be just as valuable - not just to a character playing one narrow specific role in the group, but potentially to all.

The other difference is obviously on the back end - the TN for two players wouldn’t actually be different even though the math would be harder for one of the two to reach - therefore their total ranks + bonus score would still be an apples-to-apples comparison. That’s not true for skill investments between characters in TOR 2e; now your Hunting 2 is actually something quite different than my Hunting 2 score based on our attribute TN. Easier for one player to track their odds, but actually a bit harder to compare multiple characters relative to one another.

Well, to be honest attribute + skill was used on almost all other major RPG before D&D 3e. AD&D had some optional rules to use something akin to skills.

WoD, GURPs, Warhammer Fantasy, many more I don't know use this structure.

TOR 1e was one of the few RPG I have played where you only had skills, but it was definitely the only one your attributes were relevante only when you used Hope or some other limited resource. My strength is impressive, but it only impresses my enemies when I fail a test to impress them with my strength and use my Hope to really flex that muscle. Joking

My understand was that attributes were more related to personality/inner strength in 1e, and therefore would only be used with hope (bringing those inner strength s to the surface).

This has change is in 2e design

Well, to be honest attribute + skill was used on almost all other major RPG before D&D 3e. AD&D had some optional rules to use something akin to skills.

WoD, GURPs, Warhammer Fantasy, many more I don't know use this structure.

TOR 1e was one of the few RPG I have played where you only had skills, but it was definitely the only one your attributes were relevante only when you used Hope or some other limited resource. My strength is impressive, but it only impresses my enemies when I fail a test to impress them with my strength and use my Hope to really flex that muscle. Joking

My understand was that attributes were more related to personality/inner strength in 1e, and therefore would only be used with hope (bringing those inner strength s to the surface).

This has change is in 2e design

I'd have no problem with Attributes having no direct influence on checks.

What I had a problem with, while playing 1st ed, was that Attributes had almost no game effect after character creation, the sole exception out the top of my head being the bonus to a check when spending a point of Hope.

What I had a problem with, while playing 1st ed, was that Attributes had almost no game effect after character creation, the sole exception out the top of my head being the bonus to a check when spending a point of Hope.

And because of that general irrelevance, at least outside of combat, certain cultural blessings -- like the Mirkwood Elves' Folk of the Dusk -- very rarely came into play, despite being really evocative. It's something I imagined would be much more important in character creation when I started playing than it turned out to be.

Favored skills did not feel favored at all, and choosing favored attributes was basically a utilitarian maximization problem, which in general meant to place 3 favored.bonus on the group with the most favored skill.

I just finished my first playtest today, I said all this on the discord, but I'll repeat it here:

Target numbers for starting player-heroes feel way too high

Especially for combat, with people generally having 1/2 in their combat prof, and stength target numbers being increased by enemy parry, and my players getting weary from a travel, it feels like everything is just a bit of a whiff fest

My players were burning hope like it's anyone's business and everything was still a slog

Was the same for the wolves attacking them too, player parry felt super high the same way that player target numbers feel super high

From what I'd heard of old school influences, and the ability to spend hope and go forward stance, and for monsters to spend hate, for combat to feel a lot more high risk and less of a festival of not rolling high

The players with 3 had it in bows, they feairly quickly got rid of the enemy archers, and then joined an absolute slog of melee with their one dice. And they were spending hope constantly. The combat only ended from a run of lucky rolls from our dwarf axing his way one shotting the enemy endurance with heavy blows. And those were achieved with hope spends and forward stance

For those who have already run a playtest game, someone mentioned lowering the base to 18 from 20, do you think this may be the easiest fix?

Thanks in advance.

For those who have already run a playtest game, someone mentioned lowering the base to 18 from 20, do you think this may be the easiest fix?

Thanks in advance.

That's probably what I'm going to do next session

Honestly, my first reaction when reading the probability summary in the OP was, "well, yes if your low stat is the minimum stat value, then hell yes you should fail on average"

I haven't played 1e so, my reading of the rules was through the lens of other systems.
complication for the situation here that I missed on my first reaction:
- with notable fewer stats (skill groups) than others systems, having a dump stat means you are bad at a 3rd of your skills
- a single combat stat means that a low value there leads to being bad at combat in general (or having to invest way more in skills to compensate)
- as far as I can see, the combat rules contain too few choices from other stat skill groups to make an useful and interesting contribution to combat, if fighting is barely a secondary action choice for your character (at least for longer lasting encounters)
I am not sure if that is necessarily a problem for other type of occasions beyond combat, because in most other situations contributions from various chars with various strengths and weaknesses help engaging everyone. But in combat it looks like it might lead to some frustrations at low levels.
Aside from changing the TN my simple recommendation would be: Don't allow strength 2 in your characters, an adventurer should be able to take care of himself.