forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Ok, there's a lot there. In the spirit of my last post, this is going to be mostly stream of consciousness. (Though I did do a warm-up session before hitting the reply button.)

Fellowship size might need to be a factor, but perhaps a small one... after all, the more people you have, the more torches and other supplies as well.

We also probably want to distinguish between a party that has prepared themselves for the delve and one who is taking that route as a desperate measure. The second party should be in big trouble, unless they've got a Wizard (or at least someone who knows The Art of Light) with them.

So how about this?

For a prepared party, Light normally starts at 3. A party might spend 1 point of Treasure for every two members in order to have lanterns and raise their Light score to 4. Someone who has studied with a Lampmaker may make a Craft test instead, each success raises the Light level by one.

So prepared parties have a Light score from 3 to 6. Having prepared Light sources adds 3 to each member's Encumbrance.

Unprepared parties must make a Craft check. Multiple heroes may make the check, but only the best result is considered. The party's Light score is equal to the number of successes (i.e. 0-3) and their Encumbrance is increased by the amount of the Light score.

When facing an obstacle, the party must make a Light test (always a base of TN 14), using their current score. If successful, the Light score remains at its current level. If it is failed, the company has a choice. On the first failure, the company may elect to Conserve Fuel. If they do so, any further rolls for Common Skills or Light Tests are Moderately Hindered (+2 to TN).

On any other failure (or if the heroes elect not to Conserve Fuel), the Light score is reduced by one. If the Light score is zero, all tests are Severely Hindered (+4 to TN). While the Light score is zero, it does not decrease but Light tests must continue to be made, for any rolls of the Sauron icon add to the Eye Awareness.

A company may elect to spend Hope in order to pass a Light test. The Heart attribute of the individual spending the Hope is used to determine the attribute bonus.

- - - - - - -

Other than complexity (which a certain amount is unavoidable, in new rules), I think that does most of what you want. It doesn't unduly penalise large companies, but does make outfitting them optimally a bit more expensive. It also caps the Encumbrance penalty for Light at half its maximum value, which I think addresses issues we saw in previous versions of the rules.

Hopefully (pun intended) the spending of individual Hope for an abstract test (that doesn't produce APs) will mean that any Hope expenditures for Light tests get spread around.

Well, here's the thing about encumbrance: it seems fair for a player to ask, "How about if I add 4 Encumbrance, and the poor Hobbit who is already overloaded doesn't add any?" Forcing everybody to add the same Encumbrance eases bookkeeping, and I suppose it could be fluffed as "everybody takes a fair share", but I could see it causing a lot of grumbling.

It did occur to me that rather than roll throughout the Delve, we could generate some sort of starting number...for example, let every hero choose how much extra encumbrance they want to carry, then add up all those numbers...and then the rule would be "After that number of Delving tests, start rolling for Light on each test." At that point, a single failed test means you run out of light. There's still a number to track, but it's just counting tests, rather than tracking a resource.

If you conserve light before you reach the number it halves the consumption rate (i.e. count every other test or obstacle), and if you conserve after it lowers the TN of the Torch checks. In both cases, at the price of higher TN for some skill checks.

So let's say the party has a total of 12 Encumbrance worth of "supplies". After 10 Delving tests (and Obstacles?) they realize they have a long way to go, so they start conserving. After 4 more tests they have to start making a Torch Check on each additional test or obstacle, at a -2 TN because they are still conserving.

That makes it impossible to run out of torches via bad dice rolls for a known duration, and it adds in the "tension mechanic" only after being underground for a while.

The "supplies" (Encumbrance) rating might also be used for food & water, although I'm not sure how.

EDIT: Over course, the way you combine group Encumbrance and player choice could be to simply take the average. I.e., each player chooses how much Encumbrance they want, but the starting rating (using your proposal) is the average of the group. Seems like a lot of math for TOR, though.

Nah, I like your idea. Just say that there are Supplies (which add to Encumbrance, in whatever distribution the players wish), and any time you'd normally fail a Lighting test, you can reduce your Supplies by one in order to pass it instead. Get rid of the idea of Conserving Fuel, in this implementation the interesting choice is how much Encumbrance you're purposefully giving yourself, and Conserve Fuel is just too complex for TOR.

I'd still suggest my rules for determining starting Light score, though. Unprepared delvers could take a limited number of supplies (extra tree branches, a spare bit of rope, etc.).

Ok, totally fiendishly diabolical new model I'm toying with for Delving tests:

- Each test, roll a Success die to select 1 of the 6 possible orderings of Body (Explore), Heart (Inspire), and Wits (Riddle).
- The first result uses base TN, the second uses TN +2, the third uses TN +3. E.g., if the base TN is 16, in the above example Explore would have TN 16, Inspire would have TN 18, and Riddle would have TN 20.
- As many heroes as would like to may roll, representing their attempts to contribute to route-finding. The best roll counts, but bad rolls can have consequences (not sure exactly what those will be yet: combination of Eye Awareness, consuming torches, and maybe something else.) So there's a risk/cost to having too many people roll.
- If nobody succeeds, one or more heroes can try again with new skills (each hero may use each of the three skills once), but now all TNs are increased by 2. Repeat this step if needed, TNs increasing by 2 each time.
- If the party gives up, they face a Hazard ("Obstacle"), then a new Success die is rolled and the process is started over.

Example: A 4 comes up on the Success die, which we'll say is Heart / Wits / Body. The hero with Inspire: 4 and the hero with Inspire: 3 both roll...and they fail! The next best Inspire is only 2, and the TN is up to 16, so the guy with Riddle: 4 figures he'll take a shot at it; the Riddle TN is now up to 18, but the Explore TN is at 20. He fails, too! Rather than risk more failures, the groups gives up and faces a Hazard (and/or increases Plight?)

The fluff is that there is a Heart obstacle blocking their path, and despite repeated attempts they failed to find a way to avoid it, so now they have to face it.

Here's what I'm trying to achieve:
- Competing incentives to minimize the number of rolls (because bad rolls hurt) but to succeed in the fewest iterations because the odds get worse. In other words, the heroes have to gamble a little bit...which is exactly what Delving should feel like.
- Route-finding shouldn't be the job of one person; it's a team effort.
- Route-finding should be a combination of figuring out which way to go (Riddle), finding a safe route in that direction (Explore), and keeping spirits up, feet moving, and people together in a dark and scary place (Inspire). Different sections will emphasize different skills, but everybody can contribute.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Ooh....and here's how this new version relates to the old version:
1) First three steps above are the same.
2) If everybody fails, an obstacle is encountered, typically requiring the whole party to make a skill test.
3) If the party wishes to avoid the obstacle, they can look for another route: this is where the increasing TN rules kick in. They can give up anytime they want and face the obstacle.

Fiendishly diabolical seems to sum it up pretty well. I can't speak to the fairness of the mechanics, but it seems like they would make for some good tense sessions!! I do think they would be trickier in PbP (sort of like mass battle), because there is a fair amount of inter-player coordination that needs to take place and would be much easier in person.

Good observation. "Suitability to PbP" should perhaps be a criterion. Not in the sense of needing to support a market segment, but rather that it's a good test of whether proposed rules fit the TOR style (which does otherwise lend itself to PbP quite well).

Ever since my last update I've been beating my head on the wall trying to make all of this work. I think I'm ready to throw in the towel and wait for what Francesco & Co. come up with...some day. But I'll leave my latest thinking here in case somebody finds it of use.

First, some elements & themes that I think are key to "dungeoneering" that I was trying to support:

Some kind of preparation in the sense of stocking up on supplies, but in the spirit of TOR, not "2 Bullseye Lanterns, 200' of rope, 1 10' pole..."

A sense of being "lost", so it's not just more dice rolling, but that after some bad dice rolls you start to think, "Uh oh...how are we going to get out again?"

Light as a precious resource

Fear (and Doubt) itself as the enemy, as well as the role of the Fellowship in helping each other through it

Navigation that requires several skills, including Riddle, and the input of more than one player, both to simulate teamwork and to avoid having the person with the highest skill making all the rolls.

Obstacles that require everybody to roll in order to pass (stealth, awareness, athletics, valour, etc.)

Obstacles that can be avoided, at the cost of potentially getting yourselves more lost

The "What Have I Got in my Pocket" Hazard, in which a player finds something useful, and that if he's in really dire straits it might even allow a magical treasure roll. I just loved this bit.

Overall, the Delving experience should be as intense and interactive as, say, Combat.

In terms of design constraints, I was trying to:
- Minimize dice rolling
- Minimize tables to be rolled against
- Minimize new resources to track (e.g. "Light" score)
- Use existing new rules/mechanics as much as possible, instead of inventing new ones

Despite my best attempts, I failed in all those goals. But it did produce what I think are some good ideas, which is why I'm sharing.

Delving

As has been the case with each version of this, Delving requires a form of "Prolonged Action" to achieve a fixed number of successes. For example, the LM might determine that the next objective in the Delve requires 8 successes at TN 16.

Instead of one hero rolling one skill, though, as many heroes as would like to may roll Explore, Inspire, or Riddle to try to contribute to success.

But there's a catch: before each roll a single Success die is rolled which determines the nature of the next attempt. I won't replicate the table, but each of the six results orders Body (Explore), Heart (Inspire), and Wits (Riddle) differently. Depending on order, one of those skills is at base TN, another is at +2, and the last is at +4. So, for example, if the TN is 16 then Inspire might require a TN 16 roll, Explore a TN 18, and Riddle a TN 20.

(I tried to base it on the Journey concept of "rolls" using the above skills, but for a variety of reasons it just doesn't work in this case; I think I explained why earlier in this thread.)

Actually, two catches: the heroes who have decided to roll must all roll at once. And the reason for that is that after every such group roll a Torch Check is made to see if their lighting supply dwindles.

And on more catch: if nobody succeeds, then everybody who didn't roll has to pass a Wisdom check (that I've been calling a "Baggage Check") to see how they handled stumbling along in the dark while others made all the decisions. On a failure you get 1 Fatigue; on a Fail with an Eye you do something truly foolish...like throw a rock in a well...and increase your party's Plight score. "Plight" is a measure both of how lost you are, as well as how lost you think you are.

So, just to recap, for each Delving Test until the required # of successes is reached:
1) Roll to determine priority of the three skills
2) As many heroes as want to roll using those three skills, with various TNs
3) Make a Torch Check

Despite the voluminous dice rolling, I'm actually rather fiendishly pleased with the result so far: there is an incentive to have more heroes participating, to rack up successes and minimize torch rolls. But there's also a risk of rolling too many failures, and in particular too many eyes. In narrative terms, if you have some useful input then by all means share it, but too many cooks spoil the soup, too.

But this is the point where I'm not sure exactly how to trigger obstacles/hazards/etc. I really liked the idea of replacing Hazards with Revelations, figuring they'd get triggered frequently, but as we've been discussing it's even more probable that a party powerful enough to venture into a place like this is going to be above Threshold 100% of the time. And somehow the idea of introducing Delving rules and new Eye of Mordor rules felt like too much.

And my Plight idea depended on a working EoM scheme, too (thanks to Zed's suggestion): as Plight went up, Revelations were supposed to happen more often. I suppose I could just discard the whole Plight mechanic but....I like it.

I'm also struggling with my Obstacles. The general idea is that once you discover an Obstacle (a kind of Hazard that can be overcome with common skill tests) you have a choice of braving it or not. If you try to go around, you increase Plight by 1 (because you're wandering off the most direct route) and increase the total number of successes required for this leg. And there's always a chance (I toyed with different mechanics) that you fail to find a detour.

But when to trigger Obstacles? One of my ideas was to count both success and failures in the Delving tests, and if failures reaches the target number (e.g. 8 in the earlier example) before successes do, you've encountered an obstacle. I'm not sure if that's too frequent or too rare, though.

(Honestly, the only really good scheme I've come up with to fix all these things is the deck of cards idea: the LM picks a few dozen cards representing his Delve, shuffles them, and then players draw cards as they explore.)

Oh, and Light: of all the different ideas discussed, in the end my favorite was that you have both a Supplies score (the amount of resources you have) and also a Light rating, which is on a 0 to 6 scale and is used like a skill for Torch Checks. Like the Eye of Mordor mechanic, a binary torch rule (such as "lose a torch with every eye") runs into all kinds of theorycraft problems. By combining events with probability the numbers can work out for large and small delves, large and small parties, and quality of light sources.

And the use of term "Supplies" means that you could, in theory, use it for other things, like food, water, ropes, etc.

One of my possible conclusions from all of this is that maybe the idea of random obstacles needs to be discarded: maybe in the diagram of the delve the LM simply places pre-planned obstacles, perhaps with one or two random decision points. I kind of like the idea that the heroes roll some unlucky dice and...bummer! "Dreadful Gaps" everybody make an Athletics check! But perhaps that just adds too much complexity, that Plight and Light are more fun mechanics, and so if something has to go it's random obstacles.

And that's about it. I can't promise I won't have another epiphany and clog the forums on a future date with "Delving 6", but for now I'm giving it a rest.