Hi everyone!

I just updated my blog, found at:

http://cohorsarcana.blogspot.it/

There, you can find a document containing a tweak of journey resolution, aimed to reduce the amount of die rolling involved... take a look if you are interested, and please let me know what you think about it!

Cheers,

Francesco

This seems pretty good. I like how you have clearly defined the rules for the end of a journey, as increasing fatigue from failed travel rolls before was a little ambiguous.

1. Not sure about every character increasing their fatigue for a failed roll. but I suppose it could reflect that they are taking more time to help the person who failed, or that there is a bigger issue for the failure, not simply down to one person but applying some sort of 'natural' event based on the role the failed person was carrying out, scout, guide etc.

2. I take it from the document that you roll ALL the fatigue tests for the journey at once, so if I calculate the journey would need three rolls, then everyone goes down the marching order three times each, then you calculate the increased fatigue.
Of course if you plan an encounter, at least one that will take 3 days or more, then you would have to break up the fatigue rolls accordingly.

3. How does this factor in to players wanting to make other rolls during the journey? If the journey will take a long time then the Huntsman needs to make rolls to see if they can get enough food, the scout needs to roll to see if they can find a suitable camp for the night. For instance, if you were going to travel from one side of the Mirkwood to the other, the journey could take a month, so non fatigue rolling could really bog the journey down.

So far my journeys have been OK, but I am running a game this Friday and I will show this to my players and see what they think. I will report back with what they think about the revised rules.

Cheers,

Chris.

The idea is that every roll doesn't reflect a difficulty at a 'personal' level, but a 'group-level' issue that the role challenged is called to solve.

Let me get this straight: if you need three rolls, then only the guide, the scout and the huntsman will make a roll each.

Francesco

Ahhh. Actually I like the idea of each role getting a...roll. Makes sense and spreads the love around to each player individually. But am I to understand that the fatigue piles up all at once and the end of the journey? I rather like the way that Fatigue slowly accumulates so that the players start to worry about Endurance loss.

I do like the definition of a journey's end. I might try this at the next game I run.

These new rules state the journey ends when "the company reaches its intended destination, when the gameplay definitely leaves narrative time and the players take part in a full-fledged episode, or when some change of plan or unexpected occurrence interrupts the journey to engage the company in a different activity for a significant amount of time."

What happens when they pick up the journey again? For example: The Fellowship are journeying in Spring across Mirkwood on the Elf-path from the Enchanted Stream to the Forest Gate (in the adventure Don't Leave the Path).

The adventure states this will take 24 days and it calls for 5 Fatigue tests. So the Guide, the Scout, the Huntsman, and the Lookout Man all roll. Then Guide rolls the last test (making 5 tests). Then, let's say they encounter spiders and have an episode. The journey is considered at an end so they increase their fatigue from any failed rolls. Once the episode is over and they continue the journey, do you recalculate the distance, effectively starting the journey process all over again including new fatigue tests? If not, how is that journey "picked up" again?

Also, what if there is more than one Huntsman, or Lookout? How do you determine which one rolls the Fatigue test?

Thanks Beckett, this needs clarifying.

Basically, the idea is that if for example there is more than one Huntsman, they all roll and the fellowship needs only one success to avoid accumulating fatigue at the end of the journey (so, the more hunters, the better).

But, if more than one companion rolls and someone fails rolling an Eye, what happens? A hazard is triggered, whether or not someone else passed the test? I think not, the Fatigue test should be considered as a 'single' test, with more than one chance to pass it if there are multiple companions covering the same role.

What do you think?

Francesco

I like where it's going but I think I'm confused about how to apply the mechanic in-game. What you've written here appears to contradict the PDF of the revised rules concerning triggering a hazard, no?

From the revised rules:

"If one or more heroes fail at a Travel test and produce an Eye icon, all companions in the group see their Fatigue rating immediately go up by one point for every Eye icon rolled. Then, an Hazard must be resolved."

I like that it is considered a single test and the players must confront the test as a group. But does this

"But, if more than one companion rolls and someone fails rolling an Eye, what happens? A hazard is triggered, whether or not someone else passed the test? I think not"

weaken considerably the dangers involved in traveling? I sometimes use hazards to trigger an "episode." I find them useful in a narrative way. They stumble on some ruins, or a pack of wolves follow the huntsman back to their camp, so on and so forth.

I do like the idea of reducing the number of rolls made for Fatigue, as long journeys can get tiresome...

However, using the 'Revised Journey Rules' means that at the end of the journey, everyone will have the same level of fatigue, as they all fail or succeed together.

This doesn't feel quite right to me.

I would suggest a 5th position in the 'Marching Order'... 'All Companions'.

So when every 5th Fatigue test is made, everyone rolls. That way, at the end of the Journey, the companions with the best Travel skills will be less fatigued than those with the worst Travel skills (subject to the quirk of fate known as bad dice rolls!)

True. I don't like that either. Back to the drawing board!

Please keep commenting if you have other opinions...

Francesco

Alright, trying to wrap my head around this. Fatigue is tallied at the end of a journey, but an episode (including unexpected occurrence) is considered to "end" a journey.

Why not just increase Fatigue immediately after the failed roll? This way the players are keeping track of it, immediately after it comes up, which is a good thing because the LM already has a lot to juggle. It also ensures that Fatigue is affecting all rolls during the journey, which is as it should be.

For example, say the Huntsman is rolling to find food pretty much every day. If his Endurance is exactly at his Fatigue score starting out, shouldn't a failed roll (indicating that he's having a physically difficult time coping with the rigors of the journey) affect his Hunting rolls? If Fatigue is only tallied at journey's end then he's "fine" until a "significant episode" occurs. I'd rather see his weariness affect his ability to bring home dinner (whether it's because he simply can't cover enough ground to find game, or because he's too tired to pursue game, etc.).

Hi Francesco, thanks for the updates, much appreciated.

Could I ask for a clarification, think I am reading it right, just want to make sure:

Regarding the Fatigue Increase (at the end of the journey) - the "travelling gear" in the update (as well as described on page 76 of the Adventurer's book) includes winter/autumn/summer/spring travelling gear (encumbrance ratings of 1 or 2 depending upon the season) plus encumbrance of all gear of war (weapons and armour). Is that correct?

If the pre-made character Trotter for example was part of a fellowship who failed at least one fatigue test, that would increase his Fatigue by 11 plus his seasonal gear encumbrance (his weapons + armour encumbrance is 11, excluding travelling gear for the season), which would take him above his endurance (21) with whatever travelling gear he was using - 11 + 11 + (1 or 2) = 23 or 24.

+1 on this. Actually I'd make it the first spot in the order.

I too like the idea of an "All Companions" slot in the marching order, although it's not that off for the company's Fatigue increases to be roughly uniform. A good (i.e., skilled) traveling companion can help his less hardy comrades, even as those less hardy can be a burden to those familiar with the rigors of the road.

Yeesh, you guys are prolific. I had this open when there was only one reply, come back, refresh my browser and there's 13!

Did I miss it? Or has nobody commented on the fact that Francesco appears to have been putting time in on a Battle of the Five Armies game?

But anyway, about the alternative dice-mechanic...

I cautiously like the principle that rolls and Fatigue-consequences are shared. This is a very bonding thing -- like in all those boot camp movies where one person's shortcoming drags down the whole unit until they work as a team to help each other out. I think it's fine to say that Strider works really hard -- and gets tired accordingly -- to help the hobbits through the Lone Lands, effectively equalising the Fatigue accrued (though Strider has far more Endurance, and can take it). Equally, from the other angle, if a hobbit sprains his ankle or something, everyone will have to work harder to help him along.
But I say I "cautiously" like it because some groups (i.e. mine), despite gaming together for 20-odd years, are still only in the first half of that movie! In our sessions, if someone fails a roll it's often a cause of cruel laughter. If that fail impacted other people, it might be a source of bickering recriminations for weeks! (And they think they're too good for D&D?!)
But don't rewrite the rules to cater to the dysfunctional! For good groups, I like it.

I think if someone succeeds the roll, the 'role' is fulfilled successfully, and there are no negative consequences. As long as one of the huntsmen brings home the venison, everyone gets to eat.
If someone fails when someone else succeeds, there may not be double rations of venison, but no one goes hungry -- so there are no negatives consequences. But if someone fails with an Eye something bad has happened, and the other success shouldn't affect that. A Hazard should still be generated.

That means that when a role has to be tested, the members of the Fellowship acting in that role should be allowed to choose whether they want just one person to roll, or whether they want multiple rolls, increasing the chance of someone succeeding, but also increasing the risk of someone rolling an Eye-fail and generating a Hazard.

The Lookout-man role should probably be an exception to this. It's essentially a passive role and the default to which any 'spare' members of the Fellowship are assigned -- and if any Lookout-man succeeds the alarm will be raised regardless of whether the other Lookout-men were blunderingly unaware of any dangers.

Cheers!
--Os.

Read this a second time and now I understand. I like it. So if there are two huntsman during the journey they both role for the same test. Question: how would you determine which of the two rolls to apply? The best out of the two? If the first huntsman rolls and fails but the second succeeds you count the success. What if the first succeeds and the second fails?

I'm not commenting on the Revision itself because I want to re-read Journeys and Hazards in context to make sure I understand both the mechanics and intent. But I did want to add a comment...


Beckett,
Regarding "picking up" the rest of a Journey. Just wanted to say that I think we would have to continue as though there were no break. Otherwise some of the already published Hazards would be invalidated because they affect the total distance or time the initially planned leg of the Journey requires. The only exceptions are narrative / storytelling events which intentionally move the story into a new or direction.

Yeah, this one doesn't sit well with me, either; it means that having a really high Travel is significantly less valuable since if anyone in the company has a low one, you'll get Fatigue anyway.

Francesco, I like the basic parts of your new idea: A journey requires X amount of Fatigue tests based on the duration of the trip; marching order determines who makes each test.

Here is what I would change, however:

1. I would apply Fatigue increases immediately when a roll is failed instead of waiting until journey's end.

2. When an Eye result is rolled on a Fatigue test, I would have a hazard episode triggered (regardless of whether or not the roll failed).

3. If a Gandalf rune is rolled on a Fatigue test, I would have ALL companions shake off any Fatigue increases gained in the journey so far OR require one less Fatigue test.

If you are concerned about Fatigue increases now being equal among all companions, then just have the players that fail their rolls take the increases. I don't see this as a big deal, however. After all, Fatigue increases only lead to possible Weariness. They do not lead to Unconsciousness or death. If this is a big deal to you, however, I would change the Marching Order to include ALL players so that everyone makes a roll and no one gets skipped. For example, the Marching Order for a party of six companions might look like this: Guide, Scout 1, Scout 2, Huntsman, Look-out Man 1, Look-out Man 2.

The other night, we took a 32 day journey through southern Mirkwood in winter that required 11 Fatigue tests each at TN 18. Some of us increased our Fatigue by 22 points! I had 27 Endurance...but 37 Fatigue! With a recovery rate of 1 Fatigue per prolonged rest, it would take me 11 of them just to uncheck my Weary box.

With the new rules, my chances of increasing Fatigue by 22 points are slimmer. There would still be 11 rolls, but I wouldn't be making all of them. Other players with better Travel ratings (or multiple Scouts attempting the same roll, etc.) would likely pass some of them. If I went with the idea that only the hero that fails a Fatigue test increases Fatigue, I would be even safer, as I would only have to make a few rolls out of the 11.

Aaargh! I was just putting the finishing touches to some Hazard tables according to the old rules. *sigh* I'll need to take a look at these new rules in context, but first impressions are that I like the marching order idea, but think Fatigue loss should be spaced throughout the journey - the journey isn't just a trial to tire you out before the 'real' adventuring begins, IMO. It should be a mini-adventure in itself.

I agree with this and apply the fatigue throughout the journey. I will break the journey down in to scenes, perhaps skipping over a number of days if only one roll is needed. In areas where multiple rolls are needed for a day, the scene will describe the day or the period of day: morning, afternoon, night-time.

I think the 'apply Fatigue at end of journey' thing is a leftover from before we established that you recover from travelling Fatigue only at the end of a journey.

So, I think we might safely apply any Fatigue increase immediately (but still recover from it only at the end of the journey).

I wouldn't have an exception to the general rule that an Eye spells something bad only when a roll is failed.
As someone else pointed out already, we can have the 'role test' passed if at least one companion succeeds, and a hazard triggered if anyone entitled to roll fails rolling an Eye.

Francesco

I'm trying to have the revision integrate as seamlessly as possible with the old rules. Let's see how the final tweak appears - I hope your tables won't need much revision.

Francesco

...but you'll have less Fatigue as a group, and everyone will love you for your high Travel skill and make you the guide!

Still pondering what's best...

Francesco

Yes, I think this is the way to go.

Francesco

Yep, as previously stated, the 'apply Fatigue later' is probably a leftover rule. Does anyone see good reasons to apply it at the end of the journey?

Francesco

No! The Fatigue increase is equal only to the travelling gear Encumbrance, not the total Encumbrance carried by the characters.

Francesco

One thing I'm not sure about is how the revised rules will reduce the amount of dice rolls for fatigue tests. Yes, reducing rolls is usually a good thing. But I don't make my players roll all the fatigue tests upfront. I space them out along the journey, usually one fatigue test per week (if it's an exceptionally long journey). And I use any hazards triggered as episodes along the way. I liked this about the journey rules as it fostered a narrative style of play that I love.

With these revised rules, the players roll upfront. I'm not sure that makes the journey interesting to play out. I'm concerned now that the revised rules make it feel more static (gamey) like D&D, less narrative: Roll, you failed increase fatigue, you rolled an eye, here's your hazard. Journey over. It feels too mechanical, less narrative.

I'm just concerned about breaking an elegant rules system. You know, if it isn't broken why fix it?

Also, I agree with the others on this post that fatigue increases should be applied immediately, not at the end of the journey. I see no good reasons to apply it at the end of the journey.

Another question popped up while reading these posts: A Gandalf rune is considered an automatic success regardless of the roll matching the TN, correct? Is that not the same in the reverse for the Eye icon? My group has been playing the game with the Gandalf rune an automatic success and the Eye icon an automatic failure (the Eye also triggers something bad during certain rolls like in combat or Fatigue Tests). Is this not the correct way to play? It seems to me if the Gandalf rune is considered an automatic success there should be, for balance purposes, its opposite in the Eye icon.

The Gandalf rune adds 10 to a roll, counting against the TN for a roll that succeeds, but is also an automatic success in the event of a failure. I interpret this as a marginal success, the character succeeds by an act of sheer luck rather than skill.

The Eye of Sauron counts as zero on a roll, but may not cause a failure. I interpret the presence of the Eye as potentially adding complications, so a character may succeed but with unintended consequences or a complication leading to a further roll or situation.

This is how I also run the current journey rules. Work out journey rolls required by time period (day/week), roll the dice for the time period, work out any triggered hazards, narrate the events of the journey and allow player interaction. Then on to the next time period.

The proposed tweak doesn't mean to change any of that. You don't have to make all the rolls up front, you just have less rolls to make.

There's nothing to fear if you like the rules as written, my idea is to propose an alternate way to solve journeys for those who find the number of rolls to be excessive.

Yes!

No, the Eye icon is equal to a zero. If your final roll total stil matches or beats the TN, you made it regardless of the presence of the Eye.

The die roll mechanic worked like this in a very early version. Then, playtest amply demonstrated that people didn't like to have more than 16% of their rolls result in an automatic outcome (either a failure or a success) - and in the end it didn't sit well by me too - as that way of reading the results is 'punishing' for players who acquire ranks in skills to get better.

The 'balance' of the Eye and Gandalf rune is there anyway though, if you consider that opponents score an automatic success when they roll an Eye...

Francesco

QUOTE
Is that not the same in the reverse for the Eye icon?

No, the Eye icon is equal to a zero. If your final roll total stil matches or beats the TN, you made it regardless of the presence of the Eye.[QUOTE]

This diminishes the Eye in my opinion. Also, if the players have a certain percentage to Always succeed (with a Gandalf) they should have the certain chance to always fail (with an Eye). My players have not complained and actually find this to be quite fun. If they fail with the Eye, I usually narrative a nasty failure.

For example, a player rolls Athletics to climb a rickety ladder to rescue a captured player from Orcs and rolls an Eye. Automatic failure. The player didn't just fail to the climb the ladder, one of the rungs broke from under their foot.

I see what you mean - and I agree to a degree - that's why I proposed the system as it was in the first place, after all.

But for many people G-runes and Eyes end up occurring too often, and end up not being fun after a while. But to each his own! I don't think you are going to break down the game if you keep using the Eye as an auto-failure.

Just keep an eye on the frustration level of your players, should they start to resent failing a roll on an Eye, especially when their Success dice ended up showing a lot of Tengwar runes!!

Francesco

Great Italian minds think alike!

So far the auto failure of rolling the Eye has added drama and enjoyment to the game. Cries of Oh, No! and laughter are usually heard. Along with nail-biting tense moments.

I would definitely propose this as an "official" alternate rule.

My players love it when they roll an Eye, because Something Bad Happening is always something interesting happening. But then, rolling an Eye is (to me) equivalent to rolling a Ghost in West End's Ghostbusters. Fun (in the form of narrative tension) should immediately ensue.

Thanks for the clarification, thought the method I mentioned above meant over-the-top fatigue, I just got mixed up with what travelling gear is and when points come into play!

This is exactly why I treat the eye as zero rather than auto failure. If my players spend points to become better at a skill there shouldn't be a floor below which their failure chance cannot fall. In my initial read-through I missed the eye being zero and that failure floor bugged me right away. I was very glad to figure out later that I had just mis-read.

I'm OK with other people treating it as auto fail, but personally I'm much happier with it being a zero.

I hadn't thought about the balance being that the bad guys get an auto success too, but it makes good sense to me.

"The 'balance' of the Eye and Gandalf rune is there anyway though, if you consider that opponents score an automatic success when they roll an Eye"

This only occurs in Combat so it is not completely balanced in my opinion. Outside of combat, a player has a chance to score an automatic success by rolling a Gandalf (no matter how terrible the dice roll actually is). There should be an equal chance for the opposite to happen. Making the Eye a zero in these cases, diminishes the power of the Eye. No matter how skilled or unskilled a player is, that player has a chance to succeed (Gandalf) or fail (Eye) with each roll. Everyone is equal at the table in that regard. This is balanced. It is not a punishment in my opinion or in my player's opinions. It's a narrative device, or tool. We all find it thematically appropriate to a game set in Middle Earth.

If you can accept the auto success why is impossible to accept the opposite? I'm curious.

Triggering a Hazard is acceptable to me when rolling an EYE result even if the Fatigue test succeeds. To me, this would be similar to the way that an EYE result is treated during The Battle of Woodland Hall in Words of the Wise: [E]very time that a companion rolls an EYE icon during the fight, another Orc-soldier joins the fray at the end of the round. Here, it would be a Hazard sequence that is triggered instead. Player-heroes would still have an opportunity to pass a test and avoid the "danger" once the Hazard has been triggered.

The Fatigue test itself is really about whether or not the hero is becoming more Weary carrying his travelling gear and it carries the penalty of increased Fatigue.

But, Francesco, I see that you are trying to avoid making too many general rules changes, so I could live with the way things are and just trigger Hazard sequences on failed rolls that show an EYE. But, my players LOVE hazards during journeys and the EYE just doesn't seem to come up enough!

I'm in favour of keeping the Eye as zero in general, but it could still trigger a Hazard on a success.

Fail a roll without an Eye: gain Fatigue.

Fail a roll with an Eye: gain Fatigue and trigger a Hazard.

Succeed a roll with an Eye: don't gain Fatigue, but still trigger a Hazard.

This would be restricted to Journeys and still allow Skill to count.