New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

[Rich H]

I'm still mulling over your recommendations Rich but they certainly seem to simplify and speed the process.

I suppose my question to you and others, after you've had a closer look, would be does it lose anything in doing it like this? Simple and quick is nice to have but not at the expense of options and/or interesting mechanics.

[Wbweather]

So what if fatigue tests were used for Embarkation rolls as you suggest and Arrival rolls as well. Then TBHC and the Endurance of the Ranger virtue would still be useful. You could determine the number of hazards in a similar manner to the AiMe rules. I might even offer benefits for passing hazard tests with great or extraordinary rolls.

[Rich H]

Would be interested in getting peoples' input as to defining each joruney length and how many Hazard there should be. I'm currently going with the following...

The number of hazards to be faced is determined as follows:

• Short Journey (1-15 hexes on the Loremaster’s Map): 1d2 for number of hazards
• Medium Journey (16-40 hexes on the Loremaster’s Map): 1d2+1 for number of hazards
• Long Journey (41+ hexes on the Loremaster’s Map): 1d3+2 for number of hazards

The number of hazards obtained in the above roll is modified further:

• Journeys through predominantly Easy terrain result in a -1 modifier to this roll, to a minimum of 1
• Journeys through predominantly Hard or Severe terrain result in a +1 modifier to this roll
• Journeys through predominantly Daunting Terrain result in a +2 modifier to this roll

These are from AiMe. Do we need to tweak them for TOR?

[Rich H]

So what if fatigue tests were used for Embarkation rolls as you suggest and Arrival rolls as well. Then TBHC and the Endurance of the Ranger virtue would still be useful. You could determine the number of hazards in a similar manner to the AiMe rules. I might even offer benefits for passing hazard tests with great or extraordinary rolls.

Interesting...

If each player rolled Travel/fatigue tests then successes would count towards a +1 bonus each on the Embarkation table with each failure counting as a -1 penalty against the table? What about EYEs - ie, with a failed roll and/or with a successful roll?

I currently use the preliminary rolls in this way which seems to fit better.

Remember that, I'd be trying to bias Hazards to include a greater probability of Fatigue/Travel tests so thos cultural Virtues would still get usage there.

[Wbweather]

Perhaps add one additional challenge for each Eye rolled in the Embarkation phase?
One test for each player on short journeys, 2 on medium, 3 on long?

[Rich H]

Perhaps add one additional challenge for each Eye rolled in the Embarkation phase?
One test for each player on short journeys, 2 on medium, 3 on long?

I think I'm just going to keep with preliminary rolls affecting the Embarkation result. That way there's only the random result of the dice roll with regard to the total number of Hazards.

[Wbweather]

Well, post what you come up with. I'm really thinking about doing something like this in my weekly game.

[Wbweather]

My thought was that rather than rolling a d2 or d3, there would be a minimum number of hazards for each terrain difficulty and any Eyes would add additional hazards. There is still some implicit randomness (as to whether or not Eyes are rolled).

How do you propose using preliminary rolls for all party members, since in AiMe only the guide rolls for Embarkation?

Same question for Arrival. Does everyone roll on Arrival, or just the guide? Is this a test or just a roll of a feat or success die?

[Rich H]

My thought was that rather than rolling a d2 or d3

Yeah, having a fixed number is an option.

How do you propose using preliminary rolls for all party members, since in AiMe only the guide rolls for Embarkation?

Exactly as in TOR currently; they give the players bonus success dice to use during their journey. However, if any EYE or G results are rolled then these are tallied up and used as a plus/minus to the embarkation roll.

Same question for Arrival. Does everyone roll on Arrival, or just the guide? Is this a test or just a roll of a feat or success die?

As with embarkation except the tally of EYE or G results is from when the players are rolling to overcome hazards.

With the above, these results affect the start and end of the journey but don't add more Hazards. I want to avoid EYE results rolled when testing to overcome a hazard creating another hazard as this is just the same problem I have with the RAW except here the EYE would result in another Hazard. My way above means that these EYE and G results do effect a part of the journey (and equally) but not the number of hazards.

[Rich H]

Do we need to tweak them for TOR?

From the TOR revised book, a journey from the Lonely Mountain to Beorn’s House is 39 hexes which would be classed as a medium journey using the new rules. That feels like it should be more of a long journey; thinking being that in my games there are very few journeys that would be longer so to use that category the min/max amounts could do with revising.

Using this same journey, the revised TOR book quotes a total of the following fatigue tests during each season:

• Summer: 6
• Autumn: 9
• Winter: 11
• Spring: 7

Assuming 4 PCs this would generate the following number of Hazards from the above fatigue tests with the current TOR rules:

• Summer: 2
• Autumn: 3
• Winter: 4 (rounded up)
• Spring: 2 (rounded down)

This journey, using the new rules, as per AiMe, is going to generate approximately 3 Hazards (depending on how you weight the varied terrain) which feels a little low if it's going to also encompass some fatigue tests (although the embarkation roll can produce those too) and taking into account the length of the journey.

Maybe the number of hazards could be modified with the following alteration to the rules:

• Short Journey (1-10 hexes on the Loremaster’s Map): 1d3 for number of hazards
• Medium Journey (11-30 hexes on the Loremaster’s Map): 1d3+2 for number of hazards
• Long Journey (31+ hexes on the Loremaster’s Map): 1d3+4 for number of hazards

Modified further using the following:

• Journeys through predominantly Easy terrain result in a -1 modifier to this roll, to a minimum of 1
• Journeys through predominantly Hard results in a +1 modifier to this roll
• Journeys through predominantly Severe terrain results in a +2 modifier to this roll
• Journeys through predominantly Daunting Terrain results in a +3 modifier to this roll
• Journeys taken predominantly during Autumn or Winter result in a +1 modifier to this roll

This would mean that the above journey would result in 6 hazards if taken during Spring or Summer for a 390 mile journey.

Too much? About right? Remember this number would now be the only way of risking fatigue as well as the other things Hazards impact...