At first glance that looks pretty great!

Hi Francesco,
Last page under "Recovering from Fatigue"

Emphasis mine

typo, or is reduction increased by one?

Complicated choice of words. Increase is a noun here, so by "Fatigue increase" we mean the Fatigue that increases for each failed Travel roll, not your starting Fatigue. So, a hero reduces his "Fatigue increase" by one point, meaning that you can never reduce your "normal" Fatigue in this way.

Amado A.

The one thing I would suggest comes from the other thread on this board, about journeying with less than 4 characters. I cited the Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas and Frodo/Sam journeys, but afterwards I remembered that there are solo journeys implied in the books as well (specifically the Rangers of the North). As an alternative to spending Hope when there are less than 4 characters, I would suggest letting a character take on multiple roles by taking a +2 TN for each additional role. It would make it very hard to succeed...but someone with sufficient skill could do it.

At least as far as the Rangers of the North are concerned, who knows what their in-game capabilities will be?

Francesco

Hehe, you 'd me

Amado A.

I'm liking the new system. I think I'll give it a whirl this weekend.

Remember that not all Journeys are equally important. Journeys home and back during the Fellowship Phase are hand-waved, for example. You only roll when the Journey's dramatically significant.

Well, I am going to be trying this out tonight with my players. I think I will give them a vote as to which version they want to play with.

But, I already see the question they will ask. Since there is a predetermined order to the tests, can they switch roles at the start of each day? In essence preparing ahead of time for the next fatigue test by placing the best party member in the needed role. I know this since 2 of the characters have a great spattering of travel skills, while the rest really don't.

I am inclined to say fine. But it does seem a touch unrealistic that they know what the next potential hazard is going to be days ahead of time. Has anyone else had this come up yet? How did you deal with it.

The rolls are taken in that order, but it doesn't have to reflect an order in time. When the Guide rolls, that's his guiding for several days. When the Hunter rolls, that's his hunting for the same period, etc. The order just reflects the fact that everyone can get tired even on a short journey, whereas hunting for food only becomes a significant factor on longer trips. That's how I understand it, anyway, so I definitely wouldn't allow people to switch roles.

I would not allow it under the rules as written. The journey sequence is basically a 'contraction' of a journey, made to give you some practical consequences with the minimum amount of fuss. It is not a 'simulation', so there is really no point in breaking a journey down to single days.

Francesco
Edit: Ovid's answer is also spot on.

Francesco, you ARE the authority on the matter and have explained it well! So, pardon me for adding to your comments, but perhaps another way to look at it would be through the mode of storytelling. Journeys are meant to be played in narrative time mode with brief episode interruptions. So, all the rolling assists in telling the story of the journey in overview, rather than detail. Changing roles then, becomes unnecessary.

Maybe players could change roles after each leg of a journey or after a significant pause for an episode, in which case, the Marching Order is reset. It's as if the companions have begun a brand new journey. Just a thought...

This is perfectly feasible, the party may change the assigned roles with every different Journey.

Amado A.

Yes, I also think that this is perfectly reasonable. Think of what might happen if the guide of the company is forced to leave the group before it reaches its final destination - like when Gandalf left the Dwarves before they entered Mirkwood (a new leg of the same journey).

Francesco

The potential Hazard is the same for everyone, since the 'revised rules' just need an Eye (it doesn't matter if it's a failure or not) to trigger a Hazard. That's 8.33% for 1 player. Now, when everyone is rolling (eg. 1st try), odds are higher when company is bigger. Number of Adventurers: 2=15.97%, 3=22.97%, 4=29.39%, 5=35.28%.

When a company is bigger their probabilities of face a hazard is higher. That's not what common sense says to me, at least. Nor literature: Thorin & Co. in Eriador vs Ring Bearers in Mordor. It seems to be an ambiental factor too. And my mind resolve it this way: frequency is not the same than 'quality', so Thorin & Co. could find many things like bugs, a broken bridge, thieves and Ring Bearers just a few, but: orcs, Nazgûl or a dark cliff.


Sorry (as always) for my strange english.

It's the same way in the original system; Every roll is another chance for a failed roll with an eye.

To pick up on an issue mentioned on Francesco's blog, I think I'd have the Hazard correspond to whoever rolled the Eye. If the roll also failed, he doesn't get another roll. So if the Scout rolls an Eye but passes, he gets to roll against Explore to avoid the Hazard. If he fails, it's automatically triggered.

As for when all the companions roll, there are two possibilities:

1) any Eye triggers an All Companions Hazard, or

2) an Eye triggers a Hazard appropriate to the role of the companion that rolled it, but he is allowed a specialist roll to avoid it, and an All Companions Hazard is only triggered if multiple Eyes are rolled.

I asked Francesco on his blog about whether or not the hazard triggered should correspond to the person who rolled it. He seemed to indicate that you should "disconnect" the hazard from the roll that caused it.

I just asked a follow-up question, but if I'm understanding correctly, the logic is that when an Eye is rolled, it simply indicates that something has gone awry during the journey. The hazard should be generated randomly to test any one of the roles.

I think this is because there should always be a chance to generate a hazard that tests a role that no companion has chosen. If the hazard always corresponds with the role that generated an Eye on the Fatigue test, then no one would ever need to spend a point of Hope to cover it.

I just realized that a randomly generated hazard may be redundant now under the new rules. The Marching Order requires all the roles to be tested as is.

Yeah, it was your comment there that got me thinking about this. I'm leaning towards option 2 of my suggestions.

...and I just answered there!

But if you guys like the answer we might elaborate here...

Francesco

Is this a subtle way of telling us there's a version IV forthcoming?

Oh and... challenge and test (AB 148) are synonymous, correct?

I guess what I'm asking is, are there plans to streamline 'task', 'test' and 'challenge' (which essentially mean the same thing ), using one term? We could just use challenge from here on out, if you're partial to that word.

They're not synonymous. A task is roll that players choose to make to accomplish something. A test is a roll the Loremaster requires of the players in certain circumstances, whether they want to roll or not.

There is no "official" terminology for a roll that does not distinguish between a task and a test. Francesco is using challenge here, though he mostly uses action in the books.

Not exactly. I'm using 'challenge' because it is something that might involve more than one companion (and so more than one roll). So, you may have a companion fail his test, only to see the challenge passed anyway because another character covering the same role succeeds in his roll.

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Francesco

Yes, I'm well aware of the semantics.

fair enough.



So... version IV? (this is in reference to JRB's comment I just think that it is smoother narratively to assume that if a hazard episode is triggered by a roll that a Scout made, for example, that the hazard should be related to the Scout's performance in some way. It can be confusing for players to think that the Scout rolled a hazard and now another roll needs to be made to see who actually messed up.)

My own feeling is that it should be like this:

1st Challenge:

If more than one Eye is rolled, an All Companions Hazard is triggered, but if only one companion rolls an Eye, then the Hazard matches that companion's role. In that case, the companion then gets a test against his role's specialist skill to avoid the Hazard.

2nd - 5th Challenges:

A Hazard is automatically triggered on an Eye, matching the role of the companion who triggered it - no extra roll.




P.S. Anyone else getting dizzy between roles and rolls?

Yep.

So I've been thinking about how Encounters are handled in the revised system, and I think I found a better way to handle them: Whoever makes the roll for with the eye causes the problem, and someone in another role has to fix it.

So the Guide rolls an eye, and leads the group off course. The Scout needs to find a clear way back.
or
The Lookout spots a nasty ambush ahead, and the Guide needs to find a new path around it.
or
The Scout is careless in forging the path (making noise, etc) and spooking game making the hunter have to head farther out to find food.


This is how failed rolls are handled in Leverage RPG and in that game it really reinforces the interplay between team members. Maybe who fixes the situation is predetermined, or maybe the players have to find a solution themselves (I'd prefer the latter). Failure on this second task would mean a penalty of some sort (Fatigue/Loss of Endurance/Corruption Check/etc).

What do you guys think?

I like that ... a lot. Although I'm not using the revised journey rules in my game, I think I'll look to use this when a hazard is triggered.

I like your idea quite a bit. In my sessions, I often stress how important fellowship is over any other aspect of the game, and this mechanic would just emphasize that perfectly, and help strengthen the bond between characters.

I just realized that James R Brown suggested something very similar for Encounters. I give him credit for infecting my unconscious on this one.

It also makes a nice parallel between Journeys and Encounters if you run both that way.

I would like to know, are these "revised" journey rules now the official way of resolving journeys, or merely a suggested alternative?

To summarise the difference between these rules and the ones in the published core rules:

• Instead of every character making a standard Fatigue (Travel) test each time a Fatigue test is required, the test is based on the relevant skill, e.g. Fatigue (Awareness) for Look-Outs.
• Instead of every character making a Fatigue test for the number of tests of the journey, the first is taken by the company as a whole, the second by the Guide, the third by the Scout, etc.
• Instead of failed Fatigue tests which roll an "Eye" (11) requiring a Hazard test for a randomly selected journey role, the Fatigue test is effectively the Hazard test as well, resulting in a Hazard if an "Eye" (11) is rolled.

I can see that this would speed up play but is this the only reason? Is the published Journey game-mechanic considered to be "broken" in some way? I'm just trying to get my head around what the reasoning is behind the changes so I can decide if I will use the revised rules instead of the officially published ones.

One more clarification needed. If the whole company is tested (first test of journey), and someone gets an "Eye" (11) result, what sort of Hazard should occur? I would think it should not be related to a specific Journey Role as the first test is supposed to represent general wear and tear on all members of the company.

It's just a suggested alternative, for the moment. I put the new rules out to see how people like them. They are not complete yet, and certainly need to be tested fully.

Regarding your summary, the option has individual characters roll either Travel or their role's signature skill. The Hazard procedure is still in flux.

The only reason the optional mechanic has been created is to speed up play. Some people find the number of rolls required by the original rule to be excessive. I find this to be a problem only with very long journeys, things adventurers should not face on a regular basis.

Francesco

Hey guys,

I like the revised rules, but I have one question. In the original rules, it was possible for one character to ride a horse and receive its benefits of halving the Fatigue increase due to travels.

In the revised rules, if the company travels via horses the challenges are halved, but how does this work if only one character is riding a pony?

Thanks a lot!

Necro'ing this to ask another couple of questions and realised no one's answered this one!

In this case, I'd give that character -2TN to their All Companions roll.

And to my questions/issues:

The original Lore rules allow one character to have -2TN to all their Fatigue tests. In the new rules, would you only apply that to the Travel rolls or to all the Challenges (so that it potentially helps a Hunter with his Hunting, for example)?

And, while on the subject of Lore rolls, if you use the Preliminary Rolls document, do you have failed rolls subtract successes, to reflect the bad advice aspect from the original rules?

Lastly, I've noticed that my players are rarely having to roll Hunting or Awareness because the journeys just haven't been long enough. It's made the last two roles pretty much redundant. My suggestion, picking up from something doctheweasel mentioned, is to have a failed role roll automatically trigger the next one. Thus the journey length, speed, terrain, etc. determine the minimum number of Fatigue Challenges, but character failure can make things much more strenuous.

I do. A failure adds an Extra Day to that leg of the journey (I resolve all Travel Checks before each leg of the Journey - either by separating terrain types or per Hazard check needed - every 5 days or whatever the breakdown is).

And with an EYE/Failure, I increase that persons TN by 2 for his/her Travel checks.

Verisimilitude comes out of this; players who don't feel their characters are knowledgeable enough to provide meaningful advice typically decide not to put in their two coppers.

I mean everyone can possibly roll and EYE but if you have only 1 die or 0 to add to the total, they know an EYE could result in catastrophe and just failing will be detrimental to the party, and thus may choose not to chance making a "guess" during the discussion of what the road will present.

Interesting. So that's an extra day in addition to subtracting successes? And why raise the TN for that one person only if it simulates the results of bad advice?

And do you make a Lore roll for each leg?

I'm not sure what that means "In addition to subtracting successes."

But essentially a failure will add an extra day to the journey, but successes from another can counter that.

Mostly that's just a game balance issue. The journey is already lengthened by a day that costs the whole party, so the EYE can just be a personal making the wrong personal choice - didn't bring the right kind of gear, bringing too little or easily spoiled food, didn't dress accordingly etc.

Regardless, a good success by another can mitigate that penalty by correcting his through processes.

JIM w/ (failed/EYE - LM has assigned a +2 TN for this leg for Jim): "Hmmm, it appears we will be have ample means of foraging for food ahead - I will lighten my load a bit and not worry about these extra rations."

JOHN (w/ great success and spends it to reduce Jim's penalty back to normal): "I believe that is an unfair assessment. I would not be so quick to abandon your provisions. The road ahead may be devoid of edible fruit due to the taint of the Shadow in these parts. Better to be prepared in case this is so."

Yes. The way our games flow is that each Travel Check is a "cut-scene". Its a moment taken away from the drudgery part of journeying to cue in on the characters and allow them to interact for a moment. So that it's not all the LM talking or narrating. It allows the players a moment to be on stage and roleplay in character with one another. It also allows players to discuss some personal things that their characters are doing: Crafting a bow, practicing a song, writing a journal/story/poem, fishing, smoking, eating, cooking, drinking, etc.

It is at these times that the characters share things about themselves, talk about the encounter they just had, discuss what has been ailing them (fatigue, injuries, how good the healing is going) and to discuss goals, ambitions, or fears of their current predicament. It is also during this time that they begin to discuss the road ahead and what to expect over the next several days (Lore rolls)

For instance the "second breakfast" conversation.

"That's the watchtower of Amon Sul."

The conversation of Frodo and Sam discussion the stories of Frodo's brave companion for the stories to be told "Frodo would be nothing without Sam."

"Many believe there ARE no Dwarven women and they just spring out of the ground!"


These are scenes that break up the monotony of travels and add substance to the story with characters sharing bits and pieces of themselves, and their thoughts. So these happen at the same time a new Travel roll is required. They begin conversing and comparing their Lore which could or could not assist them on the next leg, and they also make their Travel skill checks to see who will be affected by them. By the way Greater Successes on Travel skills I allow the player to afford a bonus success die to a fellow companion should they fail their check - playing on the idea that they are collaborating for overall success.

I'd asked if you let failed rolls subtract successes (i.e. those gained from others' successful rolls), and you wrote, "I do" and then described adding +1 day, as per RAW. I wasn't sure whether you meant both.

I like the idea of making a Lore roll for each leg.