Hello, everyone. My gaming group is currently preparing for a campaign...but we only have 3 players and 1 gamemaster. As written, the journey rules seem very harsh for groups of less than 4, which doesn't seem to reflect the books (Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas seemed to do fine). Does anyone have suggestions for how to handle journeys for a small group (besides getting more players)?

You can spend hope to take on the 'vacant' role in the party if need be, but that may cost them in the long run.

Perhaps fill out the numbers with an NPC, but rather than make a full character, have a dog or animal companion. This could take the Lookout or Huntsman role in the group.

Using a dog means it does not get involved in social encounters and can be an aid in combat (treat as Moderately Hindered for attacks against the dogs' 'Master', see LB p48).

That could work...though I'm concerned that two of the most iconic journeys in the game (Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas, and Frodo/Sam) aren't very feasible under the current rules.

They had Aragorn, a Ranger of the North!

And Frodo and Sam had Gollum...

Francesco

I'm likely to run into a similar issue, and am considering allowing 1 character to occupy two positions at a +2 TN each.

Maybe if you can fill Guide, Scout and Look-out, the Huntsman position can be adequately covered by all three characters as more of an "attack of opportunity". By this I mean that the characters will gather plant foodstuffs while moving and take a shot at small to mid-sized game as available during their travels. Rather than having a character actively hunting down game.

However, maybe after a week of traveling in this manner, the company must stop and actively hunt for larger game. Otherwise they lack adequate nutrition, operating at a -1 TN?

Having it pointed out though, it is an interesting discrepancy that the game cannot support the book's use of a three member party. It is something that I had not noticed.

That's a great idea! I think I'm going to borrow that....

I say just try it with the rules as written or the Journeys Rules Revision that Francesco just put out on his blog here. I very rarely play with more than 3-4 players (usually I have 2-3) and so far, journeys have not been as hard on the heroes as one might have expected (except that one time when they decided to travel through the heart of Mirkwood! They're pretty smart though, they only tried that route once).

The most taxing thing I have seen on a hero is recovering from a Wound. Even with a treated injury, heroes only recover 2 Endurance per prolonged rest and their Wound does not go away until they recover enough Endurance to bring them back to their starting amount. During a time-sensitive mission (or in the middle of a journey) where they do not have days to recover, they could find themselves knocked unconscious easily and they are at greater risk of a killing blow.

Wait, wait. Are you saying that under the rules, two heroes (Hobbits, let's say) going into Mordor might actually end their trip completely devoid of hope and tainted by the Shadow?

Its not harsh for 3 PCs and they can do fine under the rules as written. It only becomes an issue when you get a Hazard (1 out of every 3 rolls) and then only if the missing role is called upon.

Honestly, don't stress it.

Actually, I don't think they're get as far as Mordor...and the Ring is more than enough of a challenge by itself.

They definitely get to Mordor: that's wher Orodruin is (Mount Doom).
Just saying

NPC henchman could also work.

*Thinking out loud here*

Could it be that we see this as a problem because Journey rules are new to us?

I mean the same thing would be true for combat or any other Encounter, right? I mean the fewer players you have in your group the more likely they are to NOT have the skills needed to cope with Threats you send their way.

We have been taught by experience how to handle stuff like this when it comes to combat and other situations that normally appear in RPGs. So we say it's 3 Orc instead of 5 and we hide the clue somewhere else if the players can't break into the safe, etc. etc.

We change and adapt the situation to make it challenging to our group instead of simply impossible. That is the usual case at least.

So it should come as no surprise to us that Journeys might require some tweaking as well. The question is; How to tweak?

Options:

1. Allow multiple roles without penalty / cost.

If the party is only 3 PCs I think this could be done without any real "break" in the game. I would apply the "Hope Cost" if the party split however. Let's say you have a 5 PC party and three of them want to travel alone... that would cost Hope to fill the roles that their fellows usually would take. I don't see a problem with this.

2. Allow the Fellowship to hire guides.

Henchmens, Guides, Extra muscle... whatever. Alot of other game handle it well. Could be done here as well, even though I realise it probably doesn't really "feel" like LOTR... then again, why shouldn't you be able to join company with a band of travelling woodsmen if you are going in the same direction?

3. Simply discount Hazzards requiring "un-manned" Roles.

Roll another one, till you get one that is "Filled". Why not?

I'm sure we can come up with more.

/wolf

Well... lets see!

They got lost in the Emyn Muil, were attacked by gollum, ran into spirits in the dead marshes, had a Nazgul 'flyover', were captured by rangers, met shelob, force marched through mordor by orcs, ran out of supplies, 'poor lodging', attacked by gollum and were at ground zero when a volcano erupted.

True, some of the above would be set encounters, but I'm thinking the two hobbits rolled an eye or two

Fedifensor,
if you got only 3 players, the new revised (III) rules are maybe more unforgiving then the original ones.
In the revised rules, if the journey is long enough to take 5 challenges, you need to fill all the positions (or spend hope to cover the missing role).
In the original rules, you only need a position (any position) if you fail a fatigue roll (or am I wrong?). In other words, first you make fatigue rolls for everyone, then, if someone fails AND roll an eye, a random position is selected for a test. With a bit of luck you can make a whole travel without ever rolling for, say, the huntsman.

I agree with Corvo.

Then again I would always advise against rules changes until you had a chance to play the game as written first.

Ghostwolf69 & Garbar,
Really, I don't see the big deal. It's not like Frodo was ever really in danger. As events in the Tower of Citith Ungol proved, and some wise person online already postulated, "Sam will kill them if they try anything."

http://www.ealasaid.com/misc/vsd/

Normally, I would agree with you. However, with a group that is brand-new to the game, I want to make sure the first experience is a positive one. If their first journey is a mess of rolls that leaves them all Weary and beset by foes generated from hazards, then it's not going to endear them to the game.

The problem with that though is that without some experience with the system first, your alternative may just as easily have that effect as well.

As said, IME the Journey rules as written work fine for 3 PCs.

Setting expectations is important, too.

Make sure players know that fatigue, weariness, and even bouts of madness are not "losing" or somehow "bad" in game terms. They should be expected consequences and motivations for roleplaying, not reasons to quit or reroll characters.

Hmm could this mean Rangers of the North culture can fill maybe more than one journey role in the Rivendell book?

Hey! Leave me out of that one will you.

I never compared to, or commented on, anything in the Books.

I simply reflected that we adapt the game all the time to fit our Players and make it just challenging enough. Why should Journey be any different?

That's all I wanted to say really.

/wolf