If you had a party that did not have the full number of members to divide between guide, scout, look out and hunter what are suggestions aside from highest skill for dividing the task? I think scout and lookout can be combined and anyone can hunt once is set. Any other thoughts?

Good question.

I was wondering if there should be a (small) penalty for pulling double duty like that? Perhaps Fatigue-based rather than making the actual tasks more difficult.

Well, with my group of three players, they've each just taken one role, and hoped that the role not covered wouldn't get hit with hazards! When a hazard hits a role not covered, it's considered an automatic failure (unless someone spends a Hope point to jump in to take the test). Since hazard failures usually lead to gaining fatigue, it simulates the extra wear and tear on the group pretty well. Nice and simple, no extra rules needed.

There is that.

Both of my groups also have 3 players each (if it weren't for scheduling conflicts I'd combine the groups). Basically what Nolmir said. They pick the role that they're best at, with special care taken to ensure that there's a Guide. Even if a hazard is triggered, there's only a 25% chance that the missing role will be the one affected (unless the missing role is Guide, in which case that gets bumped up to 33%). If they're not too low on Hope someone will probably cover the missing role anyways.

Ultimately I'm not sure if I like the idea of one person covering 2 roles. It's assumed that all available time is spent focusing on performing your role, and I can't imagine it being easy to multi-task. The guide and lookout will be sticking to the main route, and since I don't see the guide as being quite as "busy" that's the only character who could maybe perform double duty (and only as lookout). The hunter is going to go off by himself and is mostly going to be intensely focused on following signs of game. The scout is also going to frequently go off by himself, but in his case he'll be trying to cover as much ground as quickly as possible and be much more concerned with the terrain; a perfect recipe for missing all but the most obvious signs of game. If he happens upon a trail and decides to follow that instead then he's essentially forsaking his mission as a scout, which is to gather as much information as quickly as possible and report back.

I do think it would be interesting to add decision points like this (even if all of the roles are covered). If the hunstman has been failing in his attempts and provisions are getting really low, giving the scout an opportunity to get food by not scouting adds some decision-making into a normally straightforward task. Either of those 2 roles can be called on to make an Awareness test while they're out doing their thing; if they spot something of interest they can abandon their original mission to report back to the main group, essentially becoming the lookout.

In short, I see the travel roles as being very mutable, but nobody should ever be pulling double-duty. Likewise the examples above shouldn't require Hope expenditure; that is reserved for hazards, when there's an immediately perilous situation at hand. I see it as a difference between having the time to pause and think things through vs needing to react right away.

Thanks for the replies.
HN

As I pointed out to my players yesterday, the roles of 'guide' etc. are (as mentioned in the rulebook) suggestions for the players when they are planning & preparing the journey - no one has to be 'guide' or 'huntsman' etc.

In regards to what happens if the GM rolls up a 'hazard' for an 'absentee', I am fairly sure it says in the Loremaster's book that the GM should use common-sense in assigning hazards - is one character responsible for the overall journey? Is one character 'scouting ahead' of the party?

FWIW, in my games I never do random hazard rolls - once a hazard has been rolled, I pick one that I think makes the most sense for the current story & situation.

Robin S.

Nolmir that is a great idea.

I was also thinking that hunting and/or explore could be done after the party made camp thus freeing up two spots.

HN

Although there is nothing wrong with playing the game however you wish, I think the RAW is not as ambiguous as you make it out to be. The way I see it is that everyone should choose a role so that the Hazard mechanic means something. Now, for narrative purposes, it can be said, if the company does not choose a scout or huntsman, it doesn't mean that they literally never scout or hunt. But, in general, that is an area they are weak and therefore subject to Hazards in.

Of course, there are exceptions at times and the Loremaster is the referee. So, any discussion about the RAW can boil down to "the Loremaster decides."

I'd like to add that I don't think that choosing a role before the journey is meant to "lock" you into that role. I do think that you need to actively state what role you're filling, and that it's assumed you're doing that until you actively pursue another role.

For example, on longer journeys I can see many groups going without a Huntsman either at the beginning of their journey (relying on provisions instead), or saving up their provisions for times when they're in a particularly dangerous area where they'd rather go without a Huntsman and instead have an extra Scout or Lookout.

In other words, roles are chosen on any given day during the journey based on the company's needs, and hazards affect whatever the current arrangement of roles is.

I've been thinking about this, since my upcoming party will likely have 3 players. I'm thinking that I'll allow someone to handle an unassigned role with a small penalty.

Saying it's an automatic failure seems a little too far. It's punishing the group for not having enough members, which isn't really in their control. I'd rather the game be about the choices the characters make rather than how many people they can get to the table.

I'd suggest running the rules as written for at least one journey before you make your decision, doc. From my own experience running the rules this way with a 3-player group, the penalty sounds worse than it is, as there's (very roughly) a one-in-four chance of the vacant role being targeted by a hazard, and hazards are only triggered with a failed travel roll that includes an eye, which shouldn't happen more than a handful of times in a journey, unless they're biting off more than they can chew (ie, Mirkwood).

How about a related question--

The question was:
"If two members of the fellowship are assigned to a travel role, how is a Hazard Test handled?"
Well the rules are quite clear that only one member may serve as Guide, but that the other roles are not constrained by number of assignments. So the fact remains that by the rules, Gelhan and Rathsvin were both serving as Scouts, but the rules seem to be completely void of any description beyond this.

So here is my current ruling (which is borrowed directly from the "Prolonged Action" rule.) The basic gist of prolonged actions is that you can increase the number of rolls needed to succeed whilst decreasing the target number. [So as an example, if we require three successful Athletics rolls to run across a log for instance, we would take the original target number and reduce by two. Therefore a TN 12 becomes 3 successful rolls @ TN 10 instead.]

By this rationale, we could extrapolate that 1 of three things could happen...
1) Rathsvin bows out to Gelhan and Gelhan makes a single roll at the given TN. (Representing Rathsvin's acceptance of Gelhan's leadership in this matter.)
2) Gelhan bows out to Rathsvin and Rathsvin makes a single roll at the given TN. (Representing Gelhan's acceptance of Rathsvin's leadership in this matter.)
3) Both characters work together and each roll against a modified TN of 1 less than the given TN. In this case, 0 or 1 success between the two scouts is failure. 2 successes counts as a success. I guess in thematic terms this could model one person going with the other person's leadership in said matter or else working at the same problem by exploring different routes and then conferring or cooperating to determine the best path by agreement. 1 success would then model a slight disagreement as to the best course of action, whereas 2 successes would then represent total confidence in the decided course of action.

It is a bit strange that the rules expressly allow multiple fellows in certain travel roles but then fails to fully explain the procedure if this happens (which would be quite often, actually.) Unless of course I have missed the rule somewhere...

Anyone have any other methods that they have used? Thoughts?

Most faithful Tolkien RPG yet btw (from the perspective of this 30 year veteran gamer)... we have been digitally recording our sessions and we are all having a wonderful time

The Adventurer's Book is quite clear that if no player is currently filling the role required by a hazard then each character has the option of spending a point of Hope to temporarily step into that role. In the Loremaster's Book this is expanded to allow any hero who wishes to do so to spend a point of Hope to assist any role (except Guide) in facing a hazard.

The role of Guide may only be assumed by one hero at a time. All other roles may be assumed by multiple heroes, although typically each hero will only take on one role at a time. The exception would be if a hero spends the point of Hope to assist in facing a Hazard.


The rules on Hazard resolution actually do state how to handle multiple heroes attempting to resolve the same Hazard. The rule is given in the descriptions of the resolution results for the individual hazards. The format is "if no one succeeds then ...", "if at least one success is gained then ...", each hero who is taking on the relevant role makes a test. Some hazards require each individual in the company to make a test or inflict consequences of a failed test on the whole company.

Let us assume the situation that Gelhan and Rathsvin are both serving as Scouts. The LoreMaster declares that a "No Way Forward" hazard is faced by the company. Gelhan and Rathsvin each make an Explore test. If both fail then the company lose a day of traveling and the Scouts must repeat the test on the next day. If either passes the test then a way forward has been found and the hazard successfully resolved.

Note that any other members of the company could also chose to spend a point of Hope to temporarily assume the role of Scout and also make an Explore test. As long as at least one member of the company succeeds in the test the hazard is successfully avoided.

Thus in cases where a company is short handed (or short skilled) and decides to leave one or more roles unfilled they will not automatically fail any hazard for the unfilled role. The members of the company will have option of spending Hope to temporarily take on the role and make the test. Only if no one steps into the role or if the heroes stepping into the role fail the test is the hazard failed and the negative consequences inflicted on the company.

A lone hero could adventure by himself, but would potentially have to spend a lot of Hope points to meet hazard tests along the way. The hero would only be able to fill one role, probably Guide, and would have to spend a Hope point to temporalrilly assume other roles if faced with hazards.

Hazards should not be triggered by every journey stage and it is quite likely that many journeys will be successfully concluded without facing a single hazard.

A hazard occurs as a result of a failed travel roll including an eye. The hero in the relevant role makes a test. Any other member of the company can spend a point of Hope to also take the test. If no successes on the hazard test are generated, then the hazard is failed and consequences ensue.

There does not appear to be any bonus for extra successes on hazard tests. If a company of 14 generated six successes on a hazard test it is the same as if they had generate one success.