Hi All,

The subject of Journey rules have been debated quite alot over the months so I thought I'd spend some time putting together some alternate rules based upon how I run journeys in my TOR game.

These rules heavily use Francesco's Revised rules and Benoit Brault's (aka Glorfindel on here, I believe) own alternate house rules with a few tweaks of my own based upon my personal preferences. I've therefore credited them both on the front page of the following document but would like to make a point of thanking them both now. Thank you!!!

Anyway, here you go:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/79541775/Rules%20-...ney%20Rules.pdf

Ta,
Rich

Just keep this stuff coming, Sir. You are single-handedly keeping the copy department at my local Staples office-supply store in business.

Basically, the main differences from the revised rules are in the differentiation in travelling gear types (nice) and the way that you use a variation of the Hazard table to adjudicate who rolls?

I think there is an inconsistency in the effects of pack animals (in one instance you halve Enc, then they modify the TN of Fatigue rolls).

Nice medley, I might try it tonight!

Francesco

P.S.: one thing bugs me recently - I really would like to have failed hazards rolls result in consistent consequences. Right now you have to either pick from a list or improvise. How would you like a list of 'fixed' or 'typical' consequences?

First of all thanks for all your input and effort to the game.
I didn't read your journey rules all, but for what reasons did you remove the extra options during the "planing ahead" stage at the moment the players roll the Lore tests?

Cheers for the reply Francesco.

That's about the size of it, yes!

The differentiation in travel gear was lifted from Benoit's rules - I really liked the added variation though. Also, I have removed the rule in your alternate rules that stated when a role failed a specific Fatigue test everyone in the Company gained travel fatigue.

Good spot. I will remove that!

Thanks and would love to know how it goes! Like I said it's mostly your's and Benoit's work with some additions/subtractions from me. Major changes that I brought to the table were:

1) Variation of the Hazard table to randomly adjudicate who rolls so that on short journeys a look-out could have to make a test, for instance, rather that it working down the table in sequence every time.

2) Failed fatigue tests only affect the character directly and no one else.

3) I've also tied TNs for fatigue tests to terrain type rather than region type. Region type now just sets any TNs within Hazard descriptions. I think the RAW sets fatigue tests to region type so wanted to differentiate between terrain type for all traveling/fatigue test and region type for hazards.

That's true. I think we're trying to get to that in other rules. For instance, check out page 18 of my additional rules supplement in my signature. There it lists tables of hazards by role - ie, you use the appropriate table for the role that was being tested and caused the hazard. The problem here is that as people add more hazards through official supplements and other fan work then such tables would need to expand!

I think such structures could only help LMs. At the end of the day someone that wants to 'wing it' can ignore them but those that would like guidance get the information.

Heh, heh.

Good question.

It was personal taste really and also to align design elements within the rules. With this change the application of the Lore test during the planning stage now matches the Battle test at the beginning of combat. Francesco has also talked about an Insight test at the beginning of social encounters so that all three match up in style/design. I really like such consistency in design so I've aligned all three in my own game.

Now updated. Link in OP should now be up to date.

Hi Rich! I see that you also include 'Magical Path' in your doc. I had wondered if anyone actually used that idea or if it was forgotten since I took down my 'Rules Enhancements' document link. Now I see you like it!

I have it in my Additional Rules supplement as well and yes I do like it! It's a nice little option that adds a little variation to the rules and also provides ideas for plot, background, etc.