New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

[Rich H]

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.

[Yepesnopes]

Thanks for posting this Rich.
I share your opinion regarding the Journey rules of TOR, and from what I have been able to follow from your post, it seems to me it would be great for players and loremasters to have an adaptation of AiME journey rules.

[HorusZA]

I wonder what the chance is of an alternative set of Journey Rules based on AiME appearing in the Adventurer Companion? I think it might be too much to hope for, but it would be cool

[Wbweather]

I thought the exact same thing when I read the Journey rules in AiMe. I would love to see them adapted for TOR as an alternative to the current rules. In addition to the things you have listed, I particularly liked that not all challenges has negative effects, some could actually benefit the company. Not having to calculate travel times and knowing how many challenges the players will face is a huge benefit to the LM.

[Otaku-sempai]

It's an interesting suggestion, Rich, although from your description, the Loremaster still needs to calculate the length of the journey--in this case to determine the number of Hazards/Challenges that the party must deal with. I still like the idea of a larger number of potential Hazards/Challenges instead of relying solely on a single table.

[Rich H]

It's an interesting suggestion, Rich, although from your description, the Loremaster still needs to calculate the length of the journey--in this case to determine the number of Hazards/Challenges that the party must deal with.

Just the hexes rather than everything else and then having to work out how many fatigue tests that equates to and then not having to avoid repetition. Seems like a far simpler resolution.

I still like the idea of a larger number of potential Hazards/Challenges instead of relying solely on a single table.

Me too. That's why I'd still use the Hazards as per the TOR rules, like I said in the OP, rather than the one table from AiMe. Seems like combining the two would get the best out of both systems.

[Otaku-sempai]

It's an interesting suggestion, Rich, although from your description, the Loremaster still needs to calculate the length of the journey--in this case to determine the number of Hazards/Challenges that the party must deal with.

Just the hexes rather than everything else and then having to work out how many fatigue tests that equates to and then not having to avoid repetition. Seems like a far simpler resolution.

True. I do like to know how long the journey takes, if only for purely book-keeping purposes.

[Rich H]

True. I do like to know how long the journey takes, if only for purely book-keeping purposes.

That's a completely optional rule now with these rules. LM's can make it up, estimate, or calculate it accurately depending on their requirements.

[Valarian]

I think the AiMe journey rules are a logical progression, it's pretty much what I'm currently doing for my own games - based on Francesco's optional Journey rules. The hazard type rolls for each fellowship role on the journey having consequences if failed, which are worse if an Eye is rolled. I'm using the number of Fatigue rolls calculated as a guide as to the number of challenges/hazards to add.

I use the online Journey Calculator to get the number of rolls based on hexes and terrain:
http://www.arcdream.com/tor/journeys/

[Mim]

I'm still mulling over your recommendations Rich but they certainly seem to simplify and speed the process.