My gaming group is planning on starting a One Ring campaign soon. While I plan to be the primary Loremaster, on occasion a few of the other players want to take a turn behind the screen. The concern is that some of the characters (particularly mine) will lag behind the rest. While we've decided to give everyone Experience Points equally, even if they're acting as Loremaster instead of a player for the session, we're not sure how to handle Advancement Points. Since they're awarded on use, there's no easy way to compensate the Loremaster so his character doesn't fall behind the rest of the group in skills.

If anyone has ideas on how to handle this, please let me know. We're like to have something agreed on before we start our first session.

On the one hand, you could just accumulate a set amount. Maybe 1 less than the lowest player.

On the other, I don't think there would be too much of an issue if you just didn't award AP for the LM. I don't think discrepancies in Common Skills are such that characters get completely outshone by others with more AP.

That's one of the things I like about this game is that you can have "imbalanced" characters, but with common XP awards, they are all on even footing when it comes to combat/survivability.

If you are all taking turns being the LM, it will all balance out! No worries.

You could attribute as much AP as XP, to keep it simple. It will be as if the character hadn't been very active, but was here anyway (assuming active characters gain between 1.5 and 2 times more AP than XP).

That's the issue. I will be the LM at least half the time, and one person is just going to play.

I suppose we could just deal with the skill imbalance. However, we're all coming from game systems that emphasize equal advancement (Dresden Files, for example), so it throws us off when we come across a system where people don't advance equally (and can even take Virtues that give them permanent discounts on spending Experience).

Assuming you trust the players, you could share control of the LM's character, running it like a semi-NPC. By this I mean allow a player to control the LM's character as far as actions and other mechanics related issues (combat, skill checks, etc). But the LM does any roleplaying. In general, play the character as though he's acting quiet/reserved. He's a side-kick, not a hero (in this situation) for this session of play.

This means you don't need to come up with any strange situational stories of why NPCs keep getting swapped out. Everyone gets about the same XP and AP - or at least they get what they've earned. The LM doesn't have another character to run completely, but he also gets to veto any insanity by the controlling player.

It's a limited form of "the best of both worlds". It is not optimal by any sense of the word, but it seems to address your concerns.

Another alternative that I have used effectively in past campaigns where I was the predominant GM was to simply play the character of the 'guest' GM. In this case you (primary LM) don't have the concern of maintaining an NPH (Non-Player Hero) for the majority of the campaign - who would generally be under-played/under-experienced whilst you run the game.
The 'guest' LM's character remains fully active as well, so no-one is discouraged from giving LMing a go.
Obviously this only works when the player is happy to have their regular LM assume their Hero for an adventure. My players have had no issue here. Another positive is that in the event that you really mess up a Hero you were temporarily playing, then you have the opportunity (& means) to remedy things when you put your LM hat back on.