Demo and Con scenarios

[Hermes Serpent]

I'm just back from UK Games Expo (a much smaller version of Origins for our US readers) where I ran two scenarios on Saturday to show off The One Ring. Both scenarios I've run before at cons and they work well enough and run close to four hours, filling the normally available time slot. My purpose is posting this note is start a discussion on not just the features that should be played up or shown off in the game system but to provide some thoughts on the abilities of the pregen characters that are normal for such scenarios.

Now my two scenarios are based around a group of dwarves having passed along the Old Forest Road and rested in Rhosgobel or Woodman-town before starting a trek to Moria to investigate the possibility of reclaiming their ancestral halls. The first goes from the eaves of Mirkwood to Dwarrowhall and Dimrill Watch and the second from there to Moria and involves a poem and a secret door, (not very original I'm afraid). I have a pair of Woodmen Spear-maidens for any female players that would rather not play male characters, but the main pregens are six dwarfs. Now they all have 3 ranks in travel but are a bit shaky in other skills that are usually helpful to fill some Travel roles. I've added some ranks in other skills i.e. Hunting (and made the pregens a little above raw new characters because of crossing Mirkwood and having a FP under the eaves) but would appreciate some comment and insight to make this a better experience for new players.

[Rocmistro]

Hermes:

Are you finding that the people who are playing in your demo games are experienced role players or are new to it? Because I think my suggestions would differ depending on that.

If they are experienced role-players, I think I would focus on the things that are different about TOR, such as:

-The Fellowship and Fellowship Focus mechanism
-Using traits for auto-successes and/or claiming AP (I think the AP claiming dynamic is BRILLIANT for getting players engaged; sadly, the paradigms of traditional RPing puts this awarding squarely on the shoulders of the Loremaster, and I think it's been tough for players to break out of that).
-The abstract, non-miniature nature of combat.
-The journey and travel rules/systems.
-this one is a challenge: THE FELLOWSHIP PHASE!!!! (this of course means you have to get them through an adventure; also, can I suggest giving each pre-gen character a starting allotment of XP and AP to spend so they can see how it works).
-Hope and Shadow points.
-Social encounters

If they are new to Role-playing, I would probably hit up most of the things above, (although I would leave out the Fellowship Phase and "leveling"), but I would leave out some of the crunchiness and emphasize more of the narrative parts of that.

I *do* think it's probably a mistake to use a group of 6 dwarves as pre-gen characters. I understand why you're doing it and I personally like it, and I like the adventure (I'd like to play it!), but I don't think it will necessarily appeal to everyone. (there are a lot of pre-conceived notions about dwarves, especially among more experienced players, and the stereotypes run more like Gimli and less like Balin, which is unfortunate) Might I suggest having a LOT of pre-made characters (like, maybe around 10-20 characters) and let the players assemble their own party? If it just so happens that they build a group of 4-6 dwarves, cool!

[Glorelendil]

I'd add that the Hope mechanism...modifying a roll by a given amount after the roll...is distinct from most RPGs and is worth highlighting. Then when they overspend Hope they get to experience the Shadow mechanic.

Mwuhahahahahahaha.....

[Hermes Serpent]

The two groups at the weekend were mostly experienced RPers so I'm trying to show off the Travel, Encounter and Combat subsystems. Some had even run/played One Ring games so I didn't have to sell those too hard.

The issues with a con game are that the AP's for Trait usage never enter into it unless I'm going to give an award for best use of a character which is a bit unbalanced as I usually have no knowledge of the players levels of skill or preference for RP over roll play. I try to mention this aspect of game play when doing the run down on the system at the start (I now keep that very short after an infodump in a game early on last year went down like a lead zeppelin).

I usually start with an Encounter then try to do a bit of Travel (explaining the roles) and have a Hazard prepared to demo that when someone fails (there's always someone) and a small fight (usually a one person combat to keep it simple). There's more Travel and then a full-on combat involving everyone. That usually fills most of a four-hour slot.

This situation is completely different if I'm running say CoC or a D100/BRP/RQ scenario where I can be fairly sure everyone signed up has a good idea of what they are in for and pretty much know the rules. With those it's never a demo game but always a full-blown scenario.

[zedturtle]

The two groups at the weekend were mostly experienced RPers so I'm trying to show off the Travel, Encounter and Combat subsystems. Some had even run/played One Ring games so I didn't have to sell those too hard.

The issues with a con game are that the AP's for Trait usage never enter into it unless I'm going to give an award for best use of a character which is a bit unbalanced as I usually have no knowledge of the players levels of skill or preference for RP over roll play. I try to mention this aspect of game play when doing the run down on the system at the start (I now keep that very short after an infodump in a game early on last year went down like a lead zeppelin).

I usually start with an Encounter then try to do a bit of Travel (explaining the roles) and have a Hazard prepared to demo that when someone fails (there's always someone) and a small fight (usually a one person combat to keep it simple). There's more Travel and then a full-on combat involving everyone. That usually fills most of a four-hour slot.

This situation is completely different if I'm running say CoC or a D100/BRP/RQ scenario where I can be fairly sure everyone signed up has a good idea of what they are in for and pretty much know the rules. With those it's never a demo game but always a full-blown scenario.

For the bolded bit, this brings out a question that I've been wrestling with. For Fatigue tests which way do you work it:

A. Every player rolls their own Feat die and Success die. An failure with an Eye showing on any of the Feat dice means a Hazard.

B. A single Feat die is rolled by the Loremaster. Then each player rolls the appropriate number of Success dice. If an Eye is rolled on the single Feat die and at least one player does not pass the Fatigue test then a Hazard is triggered.

I used to run the game as A. But a close reading of the rules (and various discussions here) have convinced me that B. is the way that the rules are intended. That way, it doesn't matter how many members the Fellowship has, the chance of a Hazard stays essentially the same.

Am I right?

[Hermes Serpent]

No. In no case can I see that the LM should take away the player's chance to fail his or her test.

A test is always resolved by a Feat die plus a number of Success dice equal to the rank of the skill. Having the LM roll the Feat die is going to leave a bad taste in every players mouth as they will inevitably feel that they have no control over the fate of their character. The LM rolling an Eye is going to affect every player who fails to roll sufficiently high on their Success dice to otherwise attain a total sufficient to meet the TN of the Travel test.

Having examined various sections of the rules I can find no statement that even leaves this open to interpretation.

[zedturtle]

No. In no case can I see that the LM should take away the player's chance to fail his or her test.

A test is always resolved by a Feat die plus a number of Success dice equal to the rank of the skill. Having the LM roll the Feat die is going to leave a bad taste in every players mouth as they will inevitably feel that they have no control over the fate of their character. The LM rolling an Eye is going to affect every player who fails to roll sufficiently high on their Success dice to otherwise attain a total sufficient to meet the TN of the Travel test.

Having examined various sections of the rules I can find no statement that even leaves this open to interpretation.

I used to think the same way as you do (and still think this way, for the most part). But it bothered me that as I added players I increased the chances of Hazards. So I reread the rules and fount this bit:

All tests are resolved at the same time for all characters.

When a player-hero fails a Fatigue test, he increases his Fatigue score by a number equal to the Encumbrance value of his Travelling gear (see below).

If at least one player fails the test and the Feat die ends up showing the 'Eye' icon, a Hazard sequence has been triggered (see below).

I've bolded the bits that stick out to me. The first just seems odd, do we have to time our throws ("3...2...1...Roll!")? But if the rules are trying to say something like 'A common Feat die is used for all characters when a test is made' then it makes a little more sense.

The second makes me think "hmmm... why does it say 'at least' one player? Why is what happens to one player related to other players?"

The third part and its use of the singular 'die' is where I'm getting my interpretation from. If my 'A' was the intended result, then I imagine the last sentence would read something like this:

• If any of the players fails their test and their Feat die shows the 'Eye' icon, a Hazard sequence has been triggered (see below).

I willing to be convinced that I'm wrong and reading things incorrectly. But it is very oddly phrased.

[Hermes Serpent]

All players are resolving a Travel test at the same time so are all rolling their rank in Travel of Success dice and a Feat die.

The phrase 'If at least one of these rolls is a failure' states that a failure must occur.
The phrase 'and the Feat die ends up showing an Eye' refers to the Feat die for the failed test for which their can only be one Feat die as each test only involves one Feat die.

The tests do not require simultaneous rolls, just simultaneous resolution. Example: In my games at the weekend I brought along three sets of dice, kept one and allowed the six players to share the other two sets (ignoring those who brought their own). There is no way for six players to simultaneously roll a Travel test on two sets of dice.

If the rules had meant that this test is different form all others I'm sure they would have said so.

[beckett]

No. In no case can I see that the LM should take away the player's chance to fail his or her test.

A test is always resolved by a Feat die plus a number of Success dice equal to the rank of the skill. Having the LM roll the Feat die is going to leave a bad taste in every players mouth as they will inevitably feel that they have no control over the fate of their character. The LM rolling an Eye is going to affect every player who fails to roll sufficiently high on their Success dice to otherwise attain a total sufficient to meet the TN of the Travel test.

Having examined various sections of the rules I can find no statement that even leaves this open to interpretation.

I used to think the same way as you do (and still think this way, for the most part). But it bothered me that as I added players I increased the chances of Hazards. So I reread the rules and fount this bit:

All tests are resolved at the same time for all characters.

When a player-hero fails a Fatigue test, he increases his Fatigue score by a number equal to the Encumbrance value of his Travelling gear (see below).

If at least one player fails the test and the Feat die ends up showing the 'Eye' icon, a Hazard sequence has been triggered (see below).

I've bolded the bits that stick out to me. The first just seems odd, do we have to time our throws ("3...2...1...Roll!")? But if the rules are trying to say something like 'A common Feat die is used for all characters when a test is made' then it makes a little more sense.

The second makes me think "hmmm... why does it say 'at least' one player? Why is what happens to one player related to other players?"

The third part and its use of the singular 'die' is where I'm getting my interpretation from. If my 'A' was the intended result, then I imagine the last sentence would read something like this:

• If any of the players fails their test and their Feat die shows the 'Eye' icon, a Hazard sequence has been triggered (see below).

I willing to be convinced that I'm wrong and reading things incorrectly. But it is very oddly phrased.

Look to the Loremaster's Book (page 35) and you will see that this interpretation is incorrect:

A Hazard episode is triggered when the players fail at one or more Fatigue tests and produce at least one EYE. When this happens, the Loremaster chooses a number of episodes among those provided as examples, equal to the number of EYEs produced (or improvises them, based on the company’s current circumstances).

Each player rolls their own Travel test, using the Feat Die and a number of Success die equal to their Travel skill. If any of the players roll an EYE, a Hazard is triggered. If more than one player produced an EYE, the Loremaster chooses a number of Hazard episodes equal to the number of EYEs produced.

If you end up with multiple Hazard episodes, you can space them out along the journey or combine them into a single more dangerous episode.

[zedturtle]

Note that under my 'B' system it would still be possible for multiple Eyes to be rolled on long journeys, just much less likely. So the LB text doesn't invalidate my idea, but does lend credence to the 'A' interpretation (aka how everyone else does it).