New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:36 am
Apologies in advance for the length of this post...
I've been looking over the AiMe journey rules and I like what they've done with them. The three main elements I really like are:
1) They've removed the repetition of Fatigue Tests. These are integrated into a couple of new stages of the journey (the embarkation roll and the arrival roll) where it's possible to gain levels of fatigue as per the 5e rules along with other interesting penalities/bonuses.
2) Because they've removed fatigue tests then there's no need for any calculation of journey time/duration and no need to remember to make Travel tests per x days. So a fair amount of labour with regard to such maths has also been removed. Journey duration can be calculated if the LM wishes to but this doesn't really have any bearing on the rolls being made within the journey, it's just a non-mechanical option to support the narrative of the journey and the wider story being told.
3) They've removed the random nature of Hazards (called challenges in AiMe). A fixed number of challenges is now set based on the length of the journey and modified by the general terrain type being navigated. The challenges are then defined by the LM rolling on a small table and then played out very similar to how Hazards work in TOR.
Regarding the above, and the subsystem as a whole, I really like what they've done as they've removed the repetitive nature of Travel/fatigue tests and also removed the random nature of Hazards which has always been a little frustrating from my perspective as it's a great part of the rules and yet doesn't always happen as it's reliant on players rolling EYE results. Also, by setting a fixed number of such tests, and then being able to determine what this fixed number is, it feels like the LM can plan these in advance and they are far easier to drop into the naturally occurring narrative of the journey - ie, the LM won't be waiting for a Hazard to randomly occur and so he can plan at what point in the journey they happen as they know exactly how many there will be.
Assuming people agree, and I don't want this to be a thread to discuss whether the above are issues or not, I think these changes would be an improvement if they were adopted into the TOR rules.
As an additional discussion I also really like the ideas of the Embarkation roll and the Arrival Roll and think they could be included within these house rules without too much trouble. For those who don’t have access to AiMe, the two elements effectively do the following:
Embarkation Roll - this sets the 'tone' of the journey based on a peril rating of the journey which is derived from the terrain, region, and season (just winter). There are various results which I could see converting to TOR: affecting who a Hazard targets, having to roll a Corruption test due to dark portents, rolling a fatigue/Travel test due to scarcity of food or bad weather, etc. And then there are benefits which could be converted accrossto TOR: increase the Fellowship Pool by 1 due to fine weather, etc.
Arrival Roll - this is a fun idea. It sets the mood of the company upon their arrival based on what has happened during the journey. There's some particularly nice conditions that get applied, one especially where the companions arrive in something of a 'mood' and this affects any social encounters negatively but they are so up for a fight that they get initiative bonuses if the end of the journey leads into combat. Again, looking at the table most could convert easily to TOR or new ones could be created.
I think both these could convert over to TOR; the embarkation roll could result from the players preliminary rolls in some way - ie, not just producing bonus success dice for the characters. I'm thinking that EYE or G results could be counted up (offsetting each other) and used as a penalty/bonus on the embarkation roll/table. The arrival roll could be the same; EYE and G results rolled as part of overcoming hazards affecting the roll/table result.
So, a rough outline of the new Journey Rules would be:
1) Players map out the route of the journey and pick their character's journey roles and travel gear.
2) LM assigns the peril rating and TN for the preliminary rolls based on the terrain, region, season, etc.
3) Players roll Lore (maybe can also use Travel instead) for preliminary rolls. LM notes any EYE/G results for each Hazard as these will be used in (4).
4) LM determines the embarkation result, modified by any EYE/G results from (3) above. The result is noted for future reference as may have an ongoing effect or is applied at the outset of the journey if more appropriate.
5) LM determines the number of Hazards that will occur during the journey; this is based on the length of the journey (short, medium, long) and modified by the difficulty of the terrain. Working from memory, journey lengths are short (1 to 15 hexes), medium (16 to 39 hexes), and long (40+ hexes).
6) For each Hazard, the LM determines whether it affects all companions or just one role. He then determines the type of Hazard and any associated tests, etc. The LM notes any EYE/G results for each Hazard as these will be used in (7).
7) LM determines the Arrival result, modified by any EYE/G results from (6) above. The result is noted and applied, where relevant, during the following Adventuring Phase.
Immediate thoughts on the above:
a) I see (6) as being much like what we already use although I'm thinking a bias to Fatigue/Travel tests would be the way to go so that such tests are more common - this maintains the application and usefulness of various Cultural abilities - eg, twice-baked honey cakes, the Ranger's ability to help companions on such rolls, etc. Obviously, if that wasn't maintained then such virtues, etc would need to be amended.
b) Do the journey lengths seem okay or do we need to tweak for TOR?
c) The number of hazards are 1d2, 1d2 +1, and 1d3 +2 for each category of journey length respectively and they are modified further by the nature of the terrain - eg, +0, +1, +2., +3. I think arriving at a range that fits TOR will be critical and should consider both the number of old fatigue/travel tests that existed in the rules as well as the probability of a Hazard occurring. I'm tempted to just keep the amounts AiMe use but not sure.
Thoughts?
EDIT
Okay, here's a heavily edited version of the supplement to the one I use:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/795 ... dit%29.pdf
And accompanying tracker/sheet:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/795 ... racker.pdf
To get the most value from it you'll really need AiMe as well as the TOR revised rules as I've removed any mechanics and supporting text that doesn't relate to the changes I've made. Like I said in the author's note at the beginning of the document, you will not find the complete version online.
I've been looking over the AiMe journey rules and I like what they've done with them. The three main elements I really like are:
1) They've removed the repetition of Fatigue Tests. These are integrated into a couple of new stages of the journey (the embarkation roll and the arrival roll) where it's possible to gain levels of fatigue as per the 5e rules along with other interesting penalities/bonuses.
2) Because they've removed fatigue tests then there's no need for any calculation of journey time/duration and no need to remember to make Travel tests per x days. So a fair amount of labour with regard to such maths has also been removed. Journey duration can be calculated if the LM wishes to but this doesn't really have any bearing on the rolls being made within the journey, it's just a non-mechanical option to support the narrative of the journey and the wider story being told.
3) They've removed the random nature of Hazards (called challenges in AiMe). A fixed number of challenges is now set based on the length of the journey and modified by the general terrain type being navigated. The challenges are then defined by the LM rolling on a small table and then played out very similar to how Hazards work in TOR.
Regarding the above, and the subsystem as a whole, I really like what they've done as they've removed the repetitive nature of Travel/fatigue tests and also removed the random nature of Hazards which has always been a little frustrating from my perspective as it's a great part of the rules and yet doesn't always happen as it's reliant on players rolling EYE results. Also, by setting a fixed number of such tests, and then being able to determine what this fixed number is, it feels like the LM can plan these in advance and they are far easier to drop into the naturally occurring narrative of the journey - ie, the LM won't be waiting for a Hazard to randomly occur and so he can plan at what point in the journey they happen as they know exactly how many there will be.
Assuming people agree, and I don't want this to be a thread to discuss whether the above are issues or not, I think these changes would be an improvement if they were adopted into the TOR rules.
As an additional discussion I also really like the ideas of the Embarkation roll and the Arrival Roll and think they could be included within these house rules without too much trouble. For those who don’t have access to AiMe, the two elements effectively do the following:
Embarkation Roll - this sets the 'tone' of the journey based on a peril rating of the journey which is derived from the terrain, region, and season (just winter). There are various results which I could see converting to TOR: affecting who a Hazard targets, having to roll a Corruption test due to dark portents, rolling a fatigue/Travel test due to scarcity of food or bad weather, etc. And then there are benefits which could be converted accrossto TOR: increase the Fellowship Pool by 1 due to fine weather, etc.
Arrival Roll - this is a fun idea. It sets the mood of the company upon their arrival based on what has happened during the journey. There's some particularly nice conditions that get applied, one especially where the companions arrive in something of a 'mood' and this affects any social encounters negatively but they are so up for a fight that they get initiative bonuses if the end of the journey leads into combat. Again, looking at the table most could convert easily to TOR or new ones could be created.
I think both these could convert over to TOR; the embarkation roll could result from the players preliminary rolls in some way - ie, not just producing bonus success dice for the characters. I'm thinking that EYE or G results could be counted up (offsetting each other) and used as a penalty/bonus on the embarkation roll/table. The arrival roll could be the same; EYE and G results rolled as part of overcoming hazards affecting the roll/table result.
So, a rough outline of the new Journey Rules would be:
1) Players map out the route of the journey and pick their character's journey roles and travel gear.
2) LM assigns the peril rating and TN for the preliminary rolls based on the terrain, region, season, etc.
3) Players roll Lore (maybe can also use Travel instead) for preliminary rolls. LM notes any EYE/G results for each Hazard as these will be used in (4).
4) LM determines the embarkation result, modified by any EYE/G results from (3) above. The result is noted for future reference as may have an ongoing effect or is applied at the outset of the journey if more appropriate.
5) LM determines the number of Hazards that will occur during the journey; this is based on the length of the journey (short, medium, long) and modified by the difficulty of the terrain. Working from memory, journey lengths are short (1 to 15 hexes), medium (16 to 39 hexes), and long (40+ hexes).
6) For each Hazard, the LM determines whether it affects all companions or just one role. He then determines the type of Hazard and any associated tests, etc. The LM notes any EYE/G results for each Hazard as these will be used in (7).
7) LM determines the Arrival result, modified by any EYE/G results from (6) above. The result is noted and applied, where relevant, during the following Adventuring Phase.
Immediate thoughts on the above:
a) I see (6) as being much like what we already use although I'm thinking a bias to Fatigue/Travel tests would be the way to go so that such tests are more common - this maintains the application and usefulness of various Cultural abilities - eg, twice-baked honey cakes, the Ranger's ability to help companions on such rolls, etc. Obviously, if that wasn't maintained then such virtues, etc would need to be amended.
b) Do the journey lengths seem okay or do we need to tweak for TOR?
c) The number of hazards are 1d2, 1d2 +1, and 1d3 +2 for each category of journey length respectively and they are modified further by the nature of the terrain - eg, +0, +1, +2., +3. I think arriving at a range that fits TOR will be critical and should consider both the number of old fatigue/travel tests that existed in the rules as well as the probability of a Hazard occurring. I'm tempted to just keep the amounts AiMe use but not sure.
Thoughts?
EDIT
Okay, here's a heavily edited version of the supplement to the one I use:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/795 ... dit%29.pdf
And accompanying tracker/sheet:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/795 ... racker.pdf
To get the most value from it you'll really need AiMe as well as the TOR revised rules as I've removed any mechanics and supporting text that doesn't relate to the changes I've made. Like I said in the author's note at the beginning of the document, you will not find the complete version online.
