Printable View
I've run a few games now and was wondering how many Narrators are using the one-, two-, or three-success opponents option? I've tried both ways and would like to hear what everyone else thinks about this option and any other things they might be doing to keep things moving fast and furious.
Thanks,
Tharkun
:D
The combat I ran last session involved three PCs, an NPC hero, and 14 Uruks, with assorted non-combatants thrown in for confusion/good measure.
The combat took approximately 40 minutes of real time, but would have been shorter had the entire group known the combat rules cold. As it is, there was a little book flipping and page turning, but overall the combat was fast.
I used a mix of opponents. Some of the Uruks were 1, 2, 3, or 4 success opponents, and one (the leader) was a normal Wound Point/Wound Level opponent.
The players never knew the difference. They rolled to hit and rolled damage for all attacks, and I kept the combat moving and flavourful.
Critical successes on the heroes' parts generally killed opponents faster. When they managed to hit the leader, and he didn't drop after the first shot or two suffered, the players took on the attitude of "Uh, oh, this is a tough guy...," which was exactly what I hoped for.
All in all, it was a lot of fun, and I made it exciting with description. The heroes were fighting their way out of the second floor of a burning inn, and the civilians were running left and right and the timbers were falling here and there.
It was great. :) I hope all my combats can be as quick-moving and exciting. The players helped a lot in making it as good as it was.
Ineti,
Sounds like it was a great battle!
Did you have Uruks cutting civi's down and burning things actually hit the PCs?
If/When I run my LOTR game (if ever I get the chance;)) I want to do the damage thing just as you. I may not ever tell my players about the 1-4 hit opponents if I can. ;)
There was an option for the Uruks to cut down civvies, but the heroes got to the Uruks before the mayhem could truly commence. The barkeep did get knocked down and out, but the heroes avenged him, then managed to heal the worst of his hurts.Quote:
Originally posted by Markraven
Did you have Uruks cutting civi's down and burning things actually hit the PCs?
Burning things could have hit the PCs, but those that were threatened managed to dodge or otherwise avoid the debris. :)
I think there is one big problem with the accelerated combat pacing suggested in the rulebook: it revolves entirely around degree of success, completely ignoring weapon type and potential for damage. For example, consider a very weak Hobbit rogue with a dagger and a very strong Gondorian warrior with a great ax battling a horde of goblins. The Hobbit with a high DEX and high ranks in his dagger skill will actually be more effective at hewing down Orcs than the warrior with low DEX and an equal number of ranks in his ax skill. Furthermore, the potential toughness of the opponents is ignored using these rules: the Hobbit rogue would actually be even more effective at hewing down a horde of trolls rather than goblins, because the trolls are bigger and easier for him to hit.
My group came up with a variant that keeps the basic idea of the core book's "mook" rules while integrating the issues raised above. I've pasted it below for anybody who is interested to try out. I'd love to hear how other people feel it works out in play:
Optional – Horde Creatures: This optional rule manages large groups of creatures in combat more easily. If a creature in a horde takes damage equaling half or more of its Health Levels (round up) in a single blow, it falls mortally wounded (removed from combat). If it takes damage equaling at least two Health Levels in a single blow, it is seriously wounded (and will flee the battle on its next action). If it takes damage equaling at least half of its Health score (round up) in a single blow, it is lightly wounded. Any attack that inflicts less damage than half its Health score is a glancing blow that is ignored. A horde creature lightly wounded twice becomes seriously wounded, and a lightly wounded creature that is seriously wounded becomes mortally wounded. A horde creature seriously wounded twice, or that is seriously wounded and then lightly wounded, becomes mortally wounded. Horde creatures do not track Health boxes individually and do not suffer penalties for losing Health Levels. (For example, in a fight against a horde of wild brigands with 9 Health and 6 total Health Levels each, a brigand is lightly wounded by a blow that inflicts 5-17 damage, seriously wounded by a blow that inflicts 18-26 damage, and mortally wounded by a blow that inflicts 27 or more damage; a blow that does 4 or less damage is ignored.)
To the first point, yes, this game is more about how well you hit something than what you hit it with. LOTR (the novels) aren't so much concerned with the comparative differences in damage a sword or an axe can do, but more about killing the foes and moving on. Whether you're a hero with an axe or a hero with a sword, you're still a hero slaying your foes.Quote:
Originally posted by Scottomir
it revolves entirely around degree of success, completely ignoring weapon type and potential for damage.
Furthermore, the potential toughness of the opponents is ignored using these rules: the Hobbit rogue would actually be even more effective at hewing down a horde of trolls rather than goblins, because the trolls are bigger and easier for him to hit.
I can see where some would prefer to have a more granular system, though.
To the second point, the toughness of the opponents is based on how many successes you need to drop them. A weak opponent would be a 1 success opponent, a tougher one would be a 4 success opponent. If the hero scores a high level of success, he may drop a powerful foe with one blow. That's heroic.
Incidentally, I would not use the mook rules with trolls. Orcs and Uruks, maybe, but not trolls.
Thanks for the inputs folks. Please keep those ideas coming. My players don't know about the 1, 2, 3-success rule either, and it does make things faster for the "weaker" opponents.
One of the earlier posts mentioned the system doesn't take into account weapon damage. Further, it doesn't take into account Health values or "size" adjustments either.
Here's a general idea I've been experimenting with in this regard:
Health Value / # of "Successful" Hits it Takes to Defeat
1-10 / 1
11-15 / 2
16-20 / 3
21-25 / 4
25+ / 5
Health value is the printed norm +/- extra wound levels for size.
Now to the Weapon Side of this:
Weapon Base Die / Level of Success (#of hits): Complete / Superior / Extraordinary
1d = 1 / 2 / 3
2d = 2 / 3 / 4
3d = 3 / 4 / 5
It's a bit rough at the moment and I've haven't had time to try it out. Fill free to offer suggestions...
v/r
Tharkun
:)
Interesting idea, Tharkun. A good idea might be to account for armor in some way. Here are two simple fixes:
1) Light Armor (one to three damage absorbed?) adds one level of success, Heavy Armor (four and higher damage absorbed?) adds two levels of success.
2) Add the amount of damage that the armor absorbs into the Health Value on your first scale.
Example of the first option: an Orc (9 health, 1 damage absorbed from heavy skin) with Orc chainmail (6 damage absorbed, unless I'm wrong), would be on the 16-20 section of the scale, and would thus be a 3-success minion.
Example of the second option: an Orc has 9 health, and so is on the 1-10 scale, and is a 1-success minion. However, he has a total of 7 armor (1 natural, 6 from Orc chainmail), which counts as Heavy Armor, adding two successes, meaning he is now a 3-success minion.
Now of course, these two methods won't always come out with the same answer, but this particular example did.
To tell you the truth, I usually go with the way Ineti does it. I'll think "Hmmm, let's go with 2-success Orcs, since they have a good bit of armor" and when they really beat them up I throw in something tougher... like a 6-success Orc, or normal wound-levels Uruk, or just upgrade the entire pack to 3- or 4-success. Flexibility reigns supreme.
I also am a huge fan of burning houses. :D They are just so fun, and have lots of opportunities for distractions and complications.
I've found that, in my games, if it's just a clean fight of characters against enemies, the whole fight degenerates into slow, boring power-gaming. Because, basically, if the aim of the scene seems to be "Kill Enemies, Don't Let Self Die", it's just a unfun mass of calculations. But if it's cinematic, with complications (falling timbers, gouts of flame, etc), distractions (allies or other PCs need help, enemies are trying to steal/break/prepare something, etc), and extra modifiers (smoke in eyes, heat from the fire, etc), it becomes the most fun and energizing game ever. :)
Because really, LotR is not designed to be something realistic or full of math. It's supposed to let you have fun in Middle-earth. :D
Veering from the rules (and/or from canon) is not a sin in itself; you just have to make sure that the game still plays (and/or the atmosphere still seems Tolkienish). :)
Thanks for the suggestions. Most of my games are run with this method (Ineti's style). I thought some of our group would enjoy having a "middle" ground. I like Ben Hur's ideas and will give them a shot during the next game...
For those using the 1,2,3 option, is there a point where you transition to the normal mode? Is it a function of how many creatures are involved?
Tharkun
One thing I would like to try (it is based on an inexperienced group of Breemen/Hobbits/ Craftsmen who don't have much combat experience) is the following:
The first time my PC's encounter an enemy of any kind I play out the entire encounter, with full wound levels.
As their characters grow, fight more enemies and get more skilled with sword and bow I switch to mook rules, to indicate that they are getting used to this sort of enemy and they are better prepared to deal with them. So the second encounter the enemy will be a 4-success guy, then a 3-success, etc.
For example: a stout Breeland farmer's son armed with a quarterstaff, together with a experienced Dwarven warrior armed with an axe, come across a small group of orcs. The Breelander may have some trouble in killing his first orc, while the Dwarf just slashes through them.
This way starting characters 'grow' faster than normal, since both their AC skill will grow and the enemies are easier to kill.
Like I said above, it will only be usefull if their are several combat-inexperienced characters in your group. If the characters all start as Rohir/Gondorian warriors with +6 ranks in AC you probably don't need it.
I must respectfully disagree, Ineti. Tolkien bothered to mention that some characters were mighty warriors with swords, or long lances, or great axes, others were humbler hill folk with spears or bows, and then there were hobbits with their little barrow-blades. Though Tolkien doesn't devote much text to technical battle descriptions (he was writing literature, after all, not designing a RPG), there are clear differences among his combatants. Merry and Pippin are not Boromir's equal in hewing down Orcs. Using the core book's "mook" rules, Merry and Pippin should be better than Boromir, if they had equal ranks in their Armed Combat skill (because they likely have higher NIM and gain the hitting advantage of smaller size).Quote:
Originally posted by Ineti
LOTR (the novels) aren't so much concerned with the comparative differences in damage a sword or an axe can do, but more about killing the foes and moving on.
I agree that's heroic, and I don't think the problem is with having some kind of "mook" rule that makes it possible. While your variable-success point above does provide a very generalized way to incorporate the relative toughness of the foe, it doesn't address the issue that the character's own Strength doesn't matter. Such a system rewards only high Nimbleness and Combat ranks, and makes being small in size far better than being large. Your tiny hobbit with a dagger will be far better that hewing down ranks of Orcs than a burly warrior with a great-ax. That's not heroic.Quote:
the toughness of the opponents is based on how many successes you need to drop them. A weak opponent would be a 1 success opponent, a tougher one would be a 4 success opponent. If the hero scores a high level of success, he may drop a powerful foe with one blow. That's heroic.
First of all, he said "aren't so much concerned with", he didn't say "aren't concerned with". I think you might have taken his point too harshly. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Scottomir
I must respectfully disagree, Ineti. Tolkien bothered to mention that some characters were mighty warriors with swords, or long lances, or great axes, others were humbler hill folk with spears or bows, and then there were hobbits with their little barrow-blades. Though Tolkien doesn't devote much text to technical battle descriptions (he was writing literature, after all, not designing a RPG), there are clear differences among his combatants. Merry and Pippin are not Boromir's equal in hewing down Orcs. Using the core book's "mook" rules, Merry and Pippin should be better than Boromir, if they had equal ranks in their Armed Combat skill (because they likely have higher NIM and gain the hitting advantage of smaller size).
Also, I would like to say... even if Pippin and Merry, adding their Nimbleness bonuses and size modifiers, get as good an Armed Combat score as Boromir, they still wouldn't be his equal when fighting x-success minions, for several reasons:
1) Courage: I don't have the FotR SB, but I've got to imagine that Boromir has something like 6 Courage and is possibly Bold and/or Valiant, compared to only a few Courage in the cases of Merry and Pippin.
2) Defense: Boromir has a shield, armor, and a bunch more health, so minions are going to have a tough time taking him down, while Merry and Pippin will most likely drop like flies once surrounded.
3) Non-x-success Minions: There are probably going to be a few non-x-success minions mixed in with x-success minions, such as a Troll, a captain, or just a toughie. Boromir's superior weapon will really shine against them, since his 2d6+5 and a heafy Strenth mod is going to do a whole lot more versus them than Merry and Pippin's puny 1d6+2 and tiny Strength mods (in fact, their daggers probably won't even pierce the thick armor of some bad guys).
I might have been taking you too literally, but really, Merry and Pippin aren't going to size up with Boromir in combat. :D
I do see several problems with the x-success rules, but none of them are too serious or can't be handled with simple fixes. I think it makes the game interesting to switch between systems of calculating health. One fun way is to just have the minions use x-wound levels, I usually use it when I'm in my Not Too Simple But Not Too Complicated mood. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Scottomir
I agree that's heroic, and I don't think the problem is with having some kind of "mook" rule that makes it possible. While your variable-success point above does provide a very generalized way to incorporate the relative toughness of the foe, it doesn't address the issue that the character's own Strength doesn't matter. Such a system rewards only high Nimbleness and Combat ranks, and makes being small in size far better than being large. Your tiny hobbit with a dagger will be far better that hewing down ranks of Orcs than a burly warrior with a great-ax. That's not heroic.
Fortunately the LOTR RPG is flexible enough that any Narrator can modify the system to do what he wants with it.
You can do it your way, I can do it my way, and as long as we're all having fun playing the game, that's the bottom line. :)
First off, please let me apologize if the tone in my last post made it seem like I was taking disagreement personally. I think this is just a good mechanics discussion.
Ben-hur, I'll grant you all your points. However, the "problem" still remains that using the core book's "mook" rules Boromir would be an even better Orc-slayer were he a hobbit. Boromir would greatly improve by getting hit with a shrink-ray and dropping down to hobbit size: he would hit even more easily, he would be harder to hit, and his loss of Strength would be irrelevant. I suppose the only true drawback he'd suffer is the loss of Health points...but a small price to pay for not getting hit as often.Quote:
Also, I would like to say... even if Pippin and Merry, adding their Nimbleness bonuses and size modifiers, get as good an Armed Combat score as Boromir, they still wouldn't be his equal when fighting x-success minions, for several reasons:
Ultimately, you're spot-on as always, Ineti. :)Quote:
You can do it your way, I can do it my way, and as long as we're all having fun playing the game, that's the bottom line. :)
However, the reason I am interested in wrangling over this part of the rules is because, to my mind, it represents a problem endemic in CODA: unbalanced rules with end effects not thought all the way through when designed, leaving a lot up to GM discretion. Now, I know a lot of gamers like this "broad discretion"...and if Decipher sells more products this way, more power to them. Give the customers what they want. But, to my mind, "broad discretion" equals lazy rules-writing that is closer to free-form simulation than dice-gaming. If I wanted to play a sim, I'd just make everything up, toss a coin to resolve disputes, and save myself the cost of buying game books. ;)
No, you didn't sound harsh, it just seemed like you were taking it a bit too literally. Friendly mechanics discussion is probably my favorite discussion. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Scottomir
First off, please let me apologize if the tone in my last post made it seem like I was taking disagreement personally. I think this is just a good mechanics discussion.
Ah, I get you. Good point. :cool:Quote:
Ben-hur, I'll grant you all your points. However, the "problem" still remains that using the core book's "mook" rules Boromir would be an even better Orc-slayer were he a hobbit. Boromir would greatly improve by getting hit with a shrink-ray and dropping down to hobbit size: he would hit even more easily, he would be harder to hit, and his loss of Strength would be irrelevant. I suppose the only true drawback he'd suffer is the loss of Health points...but a small price to pay for not getting hit as often.
I concur. :)Quote:
Ultimately, you're spot-on as always, Ineti. :)
I'm enjoying this conversation too. No offense taken or intended in any comments given or received. :)
I think that's a very risky assumption to make. :) One person's 'broken' is another person's 'What? That works just fine!'Quote:
Originally posted by Scottomir
unbalanced rules with end effects not thought all the way through when designed
I don't know what the designers had in mind for the ideal goal when designing the game, and may never know since a look at the credits page of the core book shows me that the majority of the designers, developers, and authors of the core book are no longer with Decipher, for one reason or another.
It's entirely possible they purposely developed a flexible, open-ended system that relies on significant Narrator discretion. Based on what I've read in the core book, I think that's pretty much where they were going. I don't know for certain, though.
Is the system as 'crunchy' as some would like? No. Is it as free-form and dice-free as others would like? No. I think it does make an effort to find a middle ground, with enough flexibility built in to allow a Narrator to go into deeper detail, or to drop the majority of the rules and go with a more storytelling, narrative driven approach that all but ignores die rolling.
Was every rule and option in the core book playtested to the nth degree? I have no idea. :) All I know is that 99 percent of the rules in the book have worked for me, as written, for over a year. I also know that there have been a lot of people online who have creatively disagreed with the rules.
What I'm still trying to figure out is whether a) the rules are in fact broken and I'm doing something horribly wrong in my game, or b) the rules are fine as written but gamers are finding the rules not to their liking and alternately changing them to suit or falling back on the 'this doesn't work for me so it must be broken' idea.
*shrug* All I know is that it works for me. If you don't like the mook rules, change them. I did. :)
That's the point of the mook rules, though. It doesn't matter if the hero is a warrior or a Hobbit or a woman or a one-eyed Dunlending with a limp. The point is that the character is a hero doing heroic things like dropping a dozen Orcs.Quote:
Originally posted by Scottomir
While your variable-success point above does provide a very generalized way to incorporate the relative toughness of the foe, it doesn't address the issue that the character's own Strength doesn't matter.
Whether the hero does it with a sword or an axe or a dagger, they're still being heroic. If you want more detail than that, either modify the mook rules to taste, or use the standard method of resolving combat.
I can envision a mook system that realistically handled combat so that a powerful warrior like Boromir does more damage than say Pippin, but the paperwork involved doesn't interest me. Heroic combat shouldn't be concerned with how much damage one did and with what weapon against what armor. The bottom line is did the hero get the job done?
YMMV and all that. :) I think this is bordering on a philosophical discussion, but what do I know? I sucked at Philosophy 100.