By "balanced," you really mean "symmetrical."

Why does anything need to be balanced? As long as it "feels" right, what difference does it make?

Stormcrow
Posted: Jul 2 2012, 08:03 PM
Report Post

By "balanced," you really mean "symmetrical."

Why does anything need to be balanced? As long as it "feels" right, what difference does it make?

------

No, I don't mean "symmetrical" with or without the quotes. By balanced, I mean balanced in the way you meant it and in the way Francesco meant it. If I meant symmetrical, I would've said symmetrical.

Why does anything need to be balanced? Game mechanics should try to aim for balance. That's just good game design. And Francesco not only does an excellent job at balancing the mechanics, he makes the mechanics seamless. That is to say, they disappear into the background. They don't feel intrusive. This is his talent and his genius.

Imbalance would be like D&D3.5 at super high character levels. That game suffers from mechanic bloat.

Do I think playing it where the Eye is not an automatic failure a game-killing imbalance. Clearly not. I posed a question about it. I'm knee-deep in running the game, and we've been playing it one way and I realized (from reading the boards) that the way we've been playing it was not "in the rules" per say. So I was curious to know about it.

Regardless, there is no right or wrong way to play a role playing game in my opinion. I was just curious. Francesco made a good case for why he removed the EYE as auto failure. I was merely interested in your thought process on the same. That is all. I was not making a judgement.

Clearly, my group plays it as the EYE is an auto failure and I've had no complaints. No one feels upset that they have four ranks in Courtesy but failed because they rolled an EYE. They enjoy this about the game. They don't see it as a punishment. It's a narrative tool in the same way that rolling a Gandalf is a narrative tool. However, the fact is that the Gandalf rune as an auto success is a power that benefits the players. I believe that power should be tempered by the power of the Eye. That's just my opinion. They are the narrative opposites of one another in more ways then just mechanics. Thematically, in Middle Earth, they are opposed to one another. In the game, when you roll these icons, they are a narrative device that triggers something in the story you are collectively telling, just as something unexpected in the story happens when you get one or more tengwar runes.

That all points to what you said: As long as it feels right, what difference does it make.

No aspersions being cast here either, I've played and enjoyed "fumble" types of games, which is what I see the Eye as being if implemented as an autofailure. Although in fumble games I don't recall there being that failure floor, you still could lower your chance below what it would be here.

But if nothing else I'd bet that the auto fail results in far more "remember when" stories, and that's a good thing!



For me it was far more about that failure floor than anything else. I want that floor to be lower as a reward for points spent whether in weapons, social, or other skills.

I think balance is a difficult thing, and I probably should have said "symmetry". I guess I think if you look at most RPG's the "balance" between NPC's/foes and the PC's, which is what we're talking about here, is usually in the players' favor.

Hey, Matchstick. No aspersions intended on my end either. Also, I didn't think you were casting any aspersions. We're having a discussion. To that end, I'm curious though: You call the auto failure of the EYE a floor and you "want that floor to be lower as a reward for points spent whether in weapons, social, or other skills."

The higher skills ranks make a player's chances of rolling high and beating that TN greater. The floor, as you put it, is there to remind them of the stakes in this drama you are playing out.

That's how I see it, anyway.

One idea I had regarding Gandalfs and Eyes was to have them alter the degree of success by one step. A Gandalf bumps a failure to a success, a success to a great success, a great success to an extraordinary success. An Eye bumps an extraordinary success to a great success, a great success to a success, a success to a failure, a failure to an extreme failure. Keep in mind the notion that failure can alternatively mean that some form of complication occurs. It doesn't have to me you don't achieve the goal of whatever task or test you were rolling.

Hello UndeadTrout. That feels a little too "gamey" for my tastes. One of the things I love about this game (and there are many) is its simplicity. No rules bloat here. There aren't a million little bits of mechanic that must be considered before you continue with the story you are collaboratively telling around the table. But that's just my opinion. I do like how you wove this into the existing structure of the rules though. So nice touch there.

I've read the entire thread and want to post the following:

1) Thank you Francesco for your time and efforts on this project

2) I agree that not all Fatigue Tests should be done before the Journey begins. They should occur at natural time instances throughout a journey - appropriately timed of course. If a Fatigue test is called for after 6 days - then roll a Fatigue test after each 6 days.

3) Fatigue loss should occur at the time of the failed roll. It's not hard to fathom even on the 2nd or 3rd day of a long journey of someone losing fatigue - (They slept on a rock - Samwise, they came down with a cold, got a blister on their feet, twisted an ankle on some rocks, contact w/ poison oak/ivy, attracted the wrong sort of vermin (insect bites, leeches, etc).

This is the way I have done Fatigue tests since I started playing. When done this way - it doesn't seem like "there's an excessive" amount of rolling - because at the beginning of each 6 day period (or whatever that amount is), the whole party rolls. Having 5 players roll once simultaneously isn't really any longer than one person rolling and everyone watching.

This also continues to allow High Travel skills to stay prominent in the game-play - and help out those who fail.

That all being said - IF the change is to have only one player roll the fatigue tests at a time, then I vote/suggest having an "all-roll" the first one, and then start the merry-go-round of dice-rollers upon each subsequent test.

4) Whichever way number 3 above is done going forwards, I strongly feel that an EYE still causes a hazard even if it garners success. If there are two PCs that are the same role, and only one rolls an EYE and both succeed, then there's a success - but there's still a Hazard. Thus when there are Multiple "Hunters" per se - having the players opt to have both participate increases their changes of good success.....but like real life, the more people involved in a project, the more chance of someone messing up occurs.

For instance (assuming proposal of only one role of the fellowship rolls for Fatigue at a time) - Fellowship has 2 Huntsmen - the time for THEIR fatigue test comes up, and the players decide to have both Huntsmen get busy on their tasks. They both succeed, but player 2 rolls an EYE - they come back with a big-tasty boar that will serve the fellowship for a week....but Player Two was incidentally hurt by the boar before they were able to put it down. He's got a gash on calf-muscle that slows the party down - everyone gains fatigue by having to help him.

On the other hand - if using the old version of all players rolling at the same time, then the hazard isn't necessarily have to be keyed towards the Huntsman - since the EYE could have come from any one of the roles and should be applied then appropriately that player.

5) Game balance I agree is needed and is good game design. So far I'm very impressed with the balance and game design that has been provided for TOR.

6) I have played all along that EYE is auto-fail - and never had a complaint. I only recently learned of that misnomer. I have yet to play since discovering our error so I can't speak as to whether we like it better one way or the other. My guess is that it'll be too easy without the auto-fail - simply because auto fails only affect the LM during combat. Under most circumstances, the players are the only persons rolling dice.

I think we're both being careful in discussing, which is good on the internet.



I present the stakes in the situations and descriptions and other ways not involving the auto failure roll. Pretty much the way any non-fumble game would do it. And of course the players certainly still fail with regular rolls, and will always have the possibility of failure. I just want them to be able to move their failure level below where an auto fail would allow them to go.

I honestly haven't put a lot of thought into it in terms of game design. I will say that I tend to make experts when I make characters; characters that choose very specific areas and try to become as expert as possible in those areas. So that probably colors my attitudes here.

One more thought on this subject:

How bout an additional/house/optional rule about Force Marching.

Increase Fatigue Test TN by 2. Success = shaved off a day from their travels for that leg. (leg meaning time consisting from one Fatigue test to the next).

With this option - ALL players need to roll when attempting this even if you're using the new proposed - "1 role of the fellowship makes a Fatigue Test at a time".


The very fact that the Fellowship is trying to push themselves sets the whole group up for more possibilities of gaining fatigue and running into Hazards as they're being a little less cautious in order to speed up their pace.

A thought on the use of Lore before a Journey: everyone can attempt Battle to earn Combat Advantages, so why not tally up something similar (call them Travel Aids) that allow players to roll bonus dice in a pinch or help a companion? There's already something comparable in place, just not utilized in quite this way.

But you're already giving them a chance at an auto success and that ceiling, if you will, never moves the way you want the chance of auto failure (the floor) to move. Just food for thought.

The stakes I mentioned were about no matter how good you are -- or how good you think you are -- no matter how many ranks in a skill you have (this isn't a game) and the life of an adventurer is a tricky thing, it stands on the edge of a knife (to mangle a quote from JRRT). Anything is possible. The power of the Shadow versus the Will of the West (Gandalf).

I'm with Sir Kicley on this one.

I may be wrong but based on your comment about making experts it sounds like you're more of a gamist so I see where you're coming from on this topic if that assumption is correct. I'm somewhere between Narrativist and Simulationist.

JamesRBrown and SirKicley have summed up my preferences where they overlap. Not so sure about their separate points of interests.


Since there seems to be a split among the forum members with regards to Eye=Hazard, why not create an optional ruling for this? In this manner no LM is wrong and whichever way an LM chooses to implement things is right.

Perhaps include a sidebar stating the following: "Any Eye result can, at the LM's option, be construed to mean a Hazard results regardless of the general success or failure of the test. The resulting Hazard may be related to the test itself, or something completely different, depending on the needs of the campaign."

I'm suggesting specifically including a printed optional ruling to prevent argument on which is correct, particularly when Original vs Revised rules are under dispute.

Just a gentle reminder: the Eye as a zero is not under discussion at all - it won't be equalled to a auto-failure under any 'revision'. Of course everyone is entitled to consider it such in their games.

The capability of an Eye to trigger a Hazard regardless of success/failure might be a possibility under the alternate version we're discussing. Still thinking about it!

Thanks to everyone for the contributions given so far.

Francesco

I LIKE this.
Same mechanic, similar ends. Should think about something similar for Encounters, and we're set for another 'optional rule'... thanks!

Francesco

Getting Advantages before a social Encounter would be a job for Insight, surely?

Yes! Lore and Insight were the skills already suggested in the rules as useful to evaluate an encounter prior to its start.

Francesco

I also do like the idea of reducing the number of rolls.

I don't know if this makes sense, but what if everybody has a saving throw against the fatigue increase? Let's say the huntsman fails his travel roll. Instead of increasing everybody's fatigue now, each player could make kind of a saving throw against travel TN 14. I know that this way we will increase the number of rolls again, but I think it will still be less than with the old system?! Does this make any sense?

Sorry, we got off topic with my little question. It certainly started a lively discussion--it should've been its own post though and not here hijacking your journey post.

About the new journey rules in the works, are they intended as an alternate rules set that one can choose to use or ignore? Or are we're talking about a revised journey rules set meant to replace, update, "upgrade" the journey rules in the core books? Is a new edition of the core set in the works already?

And because I can't let it go easily (Sicilians are a stubborn people), I don't see why the Eye as Auto Fail can't have a place in an "official" set of alternate rules that one can choose to use or not use.

That is all. I'm done here. Still not a total convert to the new journey rules. But my mind is open and willing to accept when a rewrite becomes available. As always, thanks, Francesco, for a great game and for the work and love you put into it.

Forced Marches are covered in Tales of Wilderland.

Half the time to travel, but have to make Travel and Athletics checks to avoid fatigue.

@Francesco: Thanks for the update on your blog and the time spent to offer an alternate rule mechanic! On the side, I hope that is an expansion to the War of the Ring! As a first edition player, it's been a VERY long time since Battles. (Although, the larger text cards were REALLY nice to have this last time around!)

Anyway, on to the current post.

@Becket concerning the Eye: My campaign is in year 2849 and the second of three story arcs intended as a prelude to Darkening. For the first story arc I used the rules as written. In the second arc as the Terrifying Presence of the Secret Shadow (my main Adversary and campaign antagonist hidden in the background) has moved to a more prominent place in the story, the Eye has started to turn from an Auto ZERO to an Auto FAILURE with more frequency. (This is my only house rule at the moment, primarily used as a plot device.) This transition from Auto-zero to Auto-failure can be used to great affect by the LM to provide a visceral feel for the player-heroes that all is not well, and maybe, just maybe the Shadow's flight was not the hoped for victory by the Free Peoples. In that sense, if you change the rules with regard to the Eye, don't waste the opportunity to impact the story with the implications of the change! Just a suggestion of course...!

@Orignal Topic: Let me first say that after two-and-a-half years of adventuring (game time of course!) using the Journey rules as written, they have worked for me in re-creating a Tolkien-style play. That said, I haven't seen too much need to change them although the numerous suggestions and few clarifications have helped at a number of places. So in looking at the 'alternate' mechanic, this is more hypothetical for me than a serious attempt at integration into my ongoing campaign offered as a thinking out loud of sorts...

How do the new rules facilitate creating a gaming experience similar to The Hobbit and The LotR? That's one question I've been pondering since reading them. The progress of responsibility for the Fatigue test beginning with Guide makes narrative sense. On short trips, how well the journey progresses should be more determinative by the Guide's wisdom and skill. As a journey becomes progressively longer, and more overnight stays are required in the wild, the role of the Scout starts to affect the Fellowship. I like that. At the point where the one-week of travel food begins to diminish, the Huntsman now impacts the quality of the Journey. I like that as well. For my style, the new 'Who Rolls' method still offers great narrative potential.

The distribution of Fatigue points to all the Fellowship does not sit well with me and the way I read the books. It seems that in both The Hobbit and The LotR, the quality of fatigue experienced by Tolkien's characters varies based upon plot, setting, and individual character. This leads me to question such an egalitarian distribution of Faitgue among the Fellowship. From a purely gaming standpoint, though, this can be a nice rule addition and it definitely supports the overall goal to minimize Journey rolls should those rolls all be tackled at once.

The definition of ending a Journey based on a Hazard or prolonged action seems more like a clarification to me than an alternate rule. I always saw Journey Narrative Time where the rolls are made for Fatigue tests and Corruption tests (if required) interrupted by hazards, and this Hazard mechanic switched my story from its Narrative Time to an Episode. Since we were playing at this point in an Episode, I always brought into affect the Fatigue and Corruption failed tests. So I like this being spelled out!

The use of a Task once a day during Narrative Time I treated less as an interruption of the story and more as the means for the player-heroes to collaborate in "tweaking" my narrative description of the Journey. So never really thought to treat those oncea day actions as an interruption or 'end of journey' situation. However, I have one player-hero who tends to draw out his contribution and, in one sense, derails the story. This provides for a new way to deal with this: He took us out of Narrative Time and in affect created an 'end of journey' situation that causes the fellowship to accumulate the consequences of its failed tests. That makes for a great addition to my campaign.

This has been a great to follow so far...!

Regards,
E

I'm in favour of unified rules.

This would reinforce the instinctive nature of the system; as you said, same rule mechanics, different context.

Besides, players like to contribute to the success of the group.

Could this maybe be worked into the existing Introduction phase? Or should we view that as a companion to "opening volleys?"


I'm liking this a lot. I may try this out my next game. Make an Intuition check and successes give dice that can either:

1. Add to a roll during the encounter

2. Spend to find out the difficulty for using a particular skill/approach would be (this is especially useful in those instances where using a skill automatically fails).


Travel works somewhat like this already. Right now you get "dice" which can be spent to:

1. lower travel time by 1 day (once per journey)

2. Lower difficulty of fatigue rolls for the journey.

3. Automatically succeed at a Fatigue roll

For consistency, I would just change #2 to "Add a die to all fatigue rolls for one character." I might be tempted to get rid of #3.

I would have to agree with others that this is a good idea. The feedback from my players has been great. But, most of all, they have appreciated the common underlying mechanic for the different rules. As most of them were new to roleplaying, this helped them immensely. With new and alternate 'offical' rules under consideration, maintaining this unifying theme in design and practice most often always wins with players.

Keep up the great work!

Regards,
E

Hey, this thread has peaked my interest and i had a thought of my own, not completely related but with much of the same range so as to cause me to wish to supply something of my own thoughts on the subject as well.

So far, many different rules have been proposed for use for traveling, and yet i have not seen anything related to the relationship between members of a fellowship, particularly a characters fellowship focus.

My thoughts on this so far have made me think that it should be able to lessen their burden by carrying some of their gear or some other form of aid. Thoughts on how this may be accomplished would be greatly welcome, and my idea was to provide a slightly lower tn for travel checks for the character receiving the aid, and an equal gain of tn for the character providing the aid (indicative of the extra load being carried).

I feel that this type of action should be free for your fellowship focus, and of a small cost to a character whom is not your chosen focus. (adding to your fatigue rating if a travel roll is failed). I feel this would allow for a decent mechanic for introducing more inter-fellowship roleplaying between players

thanks for allowing me to add to this discussion i hope i have provided something of value and decent merit.

I will add my voice to the others in support of a unified approach to different sub-systems, if possible. It reduces the learning curve, and for a non-D&D game, that's important, because the higher the barrier to entry to a new game, the more incentive they have to stay with what's familiar.

Edit: Re: llamalipbalm's idea

I think that's a good thought, too. The potential for RP opportunities like Sam carefully aiding Mr. Frodo through their many obstacles, cooking his meals and watching out for him wherever they were traveling could be reflected.

My first thought is to keep the spirit of unified mechanics and base it around how Fellowship Foci already work: When you spend a point of Hope to join your Fellowship Focus in their Travel Role and succeed, that Hope point is automatically replenished. Too OP?

i like the idea of spending a hope point to be able to aid someone, yet we must also work out the period of time that a hope point would allow you to aid a member of your fellowship and or fellowship focus, maybe the period up to the next fatigue test?

Oookay, so the discussion has become interesting indeed!

The problem? I am leaving tomorrow morning to go on vacation... So, a big thank you to everyone on this forum - I'll think about this, and other things, while away.

In the meantime, take care!

Francesco

Enjoy your trip, Francesco!

We used the modified journey rules this weekend.

I have to say, splitting 9 rolls amongst the whole party is far superior to requiring every party member to make 9 rolls.

Also, I threw in a house rule that if someone rolled a great or extraordinary success on a travel roll, it offset previously earned--but not yet tallied up--fatigue.

For story's sake, you could say that while the first leg of the journey went badly, and they were all getting weary, the second leg went well and helped to raise everyone's spirits.

Thanks for the mods, Francesco!

Just chiming in to say that it's a great idea.
And I'm keen to see something similar applied to social encounter too.

Thanks to Undeadtrout for the idea, and to Francesco, that keep tuning his beloved creation.
Now, back to lurking mode...

If the problem with the current Journey rules is an excessive amount of rolling, how about this hack? -

1. Calculate the number of rolls required as usual, but instead the number reflects how many successful rolls you need to get to your destination (like a prolonged action).

2. The companions attempt to make the rolls in marching order.

3. Every failed roll causes Fatigue to everyone as normal, but an extra point to the person who failed the roll.

4. An Eye triggers a Hazard, whether the roll was successful or not.

5. A great success counts as two successes, an extraordinary one as three, to be allocated as the companion who rolled them sees fit (so a Guide could use a great success to let the Scout automatically succeed, or let him roll and use it to help the Hunter instead).

I'm just spitballing, but does that sound workable at all?

At the risk of derailing the thread slightly, and as one very interested in the game, can I ask what is wrong with the core journey rules that they need a revision?

Thank you.

If you ask me, there is nothing wrong.

Simply, being an endless tinkerer, I tried to address the issues that someone has with the current rules. Basically, they find that journeys require too many die rolls to be resolved. I hope to be able to revisit my set of options in the light of what has been discussed here.

Francesco

Thanks for the reply.

How many dice rolls on average are we talking about?

It depends on the length of the journey. Check out this excellent online journey calculator for some custom examples:

http://www.arcdream.com/tor/journeys/

Francesco

Thanks for that.

Yes, using the calculator I can see there can be a lot of rolls on a journey.

I resurrected this thread as I have prepared a small document about preliminary rolls for journeys, combat and encounters and posted in over at my blog. See what you think of it!

Francesco

ooooh, unified mechanic! I like it!

(also, link to Francesco's blog)

Francesco, thanks for your post and these preliminary rolls rules.

About your final disclamer: this is not my attempt at 'officially' revising the rules of the game. These are just my 'house rules' let me tell you, I will ignore it, because your house rules are official to me... well, that doesn't change anything in the rest of the world, but it's better to my extra-purist-officialist-mind.

I like this too, although I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be better to use a successful Insight roll to give the players hints as to which skills it would be best to use.