Advancement and Scaling of Challenges

[Tûvo ‘the fay’]

How does the scaling of challenges play out in this system? Am I in too much of a d20 mindset? How do you judge when a challenge is appropriate - i.e. not impossible or too easy, with room for error/death and fun as well?

[Etarnon]

For me, I see it like this:
No single character can ever have all the skills that they need.
They need each other, and particularly combat skills take some time to develop.

Since the game is all about the narrative, it's as challenging as you want to make it.

What is challenging to 1 Character, as a novice, veteran, Expert, Hero?

Same thing here.

Even with the best armor, a character can still be hit multiple times, and take endurance damage and get knocked unconscious.

The heroes of Lord of the Rings stand upon a wall and scream to each other "21 is my tally!"

The way I run it, It's not designed to be all about combat since a piercing blow can kill a character pretty easy. it's more designed for what is the story, and the relationships between the characters and how they rely on each other to get through everything, and look cool doing it.

[Tûvo ‘the fay’]

Etarnon - that makes a lot of sense. I guess I wonder how the campaign books are put together. For example, you couldn't create a fellowship and start them on "The Watch on the Heath." There must have been a good deal of thought that went into the Tales from Wilderland scenarios and how they get more epic/difficult as you progress through them. The nerfing of the Troll in the Marsh Bell seems to also indicate some sort of "appropriateness of challenge" norming. I was wondering how folks in general design scenarios as the players advance.

[Etarnon]

In truth, I've run One Ring campaigns for three different groups of people.

It's completely different from how I would design a 2nd Edition AD&D, or 3.5 Adventure.

In those games, Because there was so much combat, I'd have a dungeon or an adventure:

Room # 1 2 Orcs, 8 HP each, THACO 19. Treasure (Whatever.)
For 3.5 it would be a stat block and a hex map.

When I do something for One Ring, It's more like designing something for Dragon Age RPG, or Star Trek RPG.
A plot especially as seen in Star Trek RPG by last unicorn or Star trek Narrator's Guide by Decipher: A Plot, B plot
Those books are really good for showing how to design those adventures.

I design it so that it's not a Challenge Rating of combat obstacles to confront, but more like:

A PLOT
The Elven soldier had a leader, but that leader made a bad decision, and half the group died.
Now it falls to him to lead, but he lacks charisma, and decisiveness. Not many of the others have leadership skills beyond being good with an axe or a bow.

What challenges can he face, that both challenge his core need to be a leader, and also develop his abilities and relationships with the others in the fellowship?

B PLOT
The Evil in the South of Mirkwood is Growing. A Nazgul has been sighted there along with other evil omens.
A Legendary Elven artifact has fallen into the Hands of the Necromancer. The Fortress is too tough to assault.
Perhaps some type of magic is needed, whether from an Elven Ruin, or Gandalf, or Ancient Dwarven Runes, os some other source.

And that's it. There's combat, but I don't worry about it. It's dangerous enough that anyone can get hurt, killed or wounded.

Over time, it doesn't need to scale because it's just people doing things.

As the adventurers learn, and grow and get better at crossing streams, and rivers and cliffs, and deep forest, they just "Get better at it."

Meanwhile the armies of the Enemy grow.

They are just holding back the tide of shadow, until it breaks 70 years later in the war of the Ring, when their grandchildren will fight it.

[Stormcrow]

There is no mechanical way to judge this. It takes a bit of experience to get it right.

Attribute is the main "monster stat" that you can use to judge relative ability. It ranges from 1 to 12. But this is a limited description, and it's hard to compare player characters to it because they're so much more detailed.

[HorusZA]

I don't worry about scaling and Challenge Ratings and stuff like that. The adversaries are what they are... the game world does not adapt itself to the capabilities of the group.
I try to maximize player agency so striving to make every encounter "fair" or "balanced" undermines that ideal. If they find themselves in over their heads (whether by bad luck or their own actions) they always have the option to disengage and run away to live another day. This also helps to create the sense that the world is greater than the immediate concerns of the characters (or players for that matter).

[Etarnon]

I'd also like to add:

D&D Especially 3.5 assumes that character progression is tied more or less to beating things in combat. Not completely, that's an over-simplification. But you need XP to gain skills. and XP in early editions game from killing and gaining treasure. Later editions it came from killing. So you start with Orcs and end with Dragons.

In that way, each combat is a test of skill, luck and hit point endurance where the outcome is in doubt. As characters level, they get better at killing so you need to make killing more difficult or the things bigger or more powerful.

One Ring ties XP for weapons, and valour and wisdom to XP, just for Showing up for the session, and completing a goal. Even if that goal was find the lost scroll of the Elves, with no combat.
Skills are gained by Adventure points which are given for "Doing Skills, in inventive ways tied to your character's personality traits, or doing dangerous skills that the party needs to survive so you are peically risking your life." Even if there's no combat.

So One Ring the story is about the actions of the characters. Similar to D&D, but a good game consists more of great narrative and events by all, which Happens in D&D but D&D is not Driven by narrative. One Ring is.

In combat you don't gain by fighting, except (and especially in James R. Breowns, Mass battles) maybe some treasure, respect and renown.

So it's like to me, trying to convey "I am making a house with Bricks. How many bricks do you need for the walls of this house?"

When the answer I want to give is.. "I am going to rent a house. But I need 50 bricks to make a decorative fireplace. If you have spare bricks. But before you try and build it for me, Describe it. Describe what you will build, that will look good in my living room, of this house I will rent."

Not exactly. But they are like the difference between board game of Monopoly, and a stock market trader simulation game on a PC. Games, fun, involving money, and chance, but two different worlds. Neither better, just different. But again, not exactly.

[Tûvo ‘the fay’]

I try to maximize player agency so striving to make every encounter "fair" or "balanced" undermines that ideal. If they find themselves in over their heads (whether by bad luck or their own actions) they always have the option to disengage and run away to live another day. This also helps to create the sense that the world is greater than the immediate concerns of the characters (or players for that matter).

This makes a lot of sense if you are running a more immersive - and to use a gaming term - "sandboxy" affair. I think the key here is not to purposefully "railroad" the players into a situation they can't handle (hence the weakened Troll in the Marsh Bell). However, you can always run. In fact, later is it assumed the players will choose to run from the "Mewlips'" treasure. As you say, the world is more or less dangerous depending on where you go or what you do; not how many ranks you have - although the more powerful you feel you are the more confident you may be in going to dangerous places and attempting difficult things.

Its interesting I think that most of the responses focus on combat. The concept is similar in journeys and encounters - TNs don't scale as you get more ranks, but you may feel more inclined to attempt to sell wood to to wood elf or climb the rocks up a freezing waterfall with no rope if you've been doing that sort of thing for a while and feel more confident (expressed in the mechanic of gaining more ranks).

[Beleg]

TNs don't scale as you get more ranks, but you may feel more inclined to attempt to sell wood to to wood elf or climb the rocks up a freezing waterfall with no rope if you've been doing that sort of thing for a while and feel more confident (expressed in the mechanic of gaining more ranks).

I feel this is the main point. Middle Earth doesn't scale, your players just get better at dealing with the challenges. A Hobbit who just set off from the Shire and finds herself outside the gates of Dol Guldur is going to have a much harder time of avoiding the Shadow than a Hobbit who has spent 10 years roaming Mirkwood with their companions, dealing with the smaller stuff first. Mirkwood is not a nice place, for anybody

[Yusei]

A Hobbit who just set off from the Shire and finds herself outside the gates of Dol Guldur is going to have a much harder time of avoiding the Shadow than a Hobbit who has spent 10 years roaming Mirkwood with their companions, dealing with the smaller stuff first. Mirkwood is not a nice place, for anybody

On the other hand, as a Loremaster, you'd probably want to provide your hobbit with adventures that don't involve Dol Guldur, and this is where the scaling comes into play. Unless you're playing a sandbox game and the characters decide where they go and what they do, of course, in that case you don't have to provide anything.