forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I know about the various maps but feel that putting a map down for players results in them focussing on the map and tracing the route rather than evoking the feeling of not knowing where you are really located or where you are heading.

I have a sort of flowchart and know what area is linked to where and how the named areas link together and work off that in a very narrative style.

The TfW Leaves scenario provides a note that a successful Explore roll determines the direction that is East for example. It also suggests that there is a great difference between travelling in Moria and some un-named and uncharted natural caves.

What really kicked off this thread was the thought that I don't have a mechanism that provides an effective series of tests to represent travelling through a series of caverns, halls and tunnels. In fact calling for a Search test at a crossroads feels rather insipid and barely generates any feeling of dread or excitement hence my posting the thread.

Certainly Elfcrusher and I seem to be on a similar route in our need for some sort of exploration mechanism.

Elfcrusher wrote:I wanted to track not only absolute lostness, but also the heroes perception of lostness. I.e., they could be on the right path but convinced they are lost, or they could be completely lost but convinced they are on the right path. I'd love to encapsulate both of those extremes in a single variable, that goes up or down based on various rolls, but I'm not quite sure how to do it.

I don't think you could do this in with one variable. Seems like you'd need at least 2: lostness and perception of lostness. I guess you could just put them in order of severity. 1) on track, 2) on track but think you're lost, 3) lost and know you're lost, 4) lost and think you're on track. But I think two variables would work better.

Hermes:

Roll their Travel tests for them, and don't let them see the results. Whatever the *actual* numbers show, don't necessarily let them know they are correct. Here are a few options:

-if an individual player rolls a "G" rune, you can show them their die result.
-if a player rolls an "Eye" inform them that they are successful, but in fact give them false information.
-give different players different information. "Grimfast, you are quite certain that this way is East" (points pencil to the left). "Feanomor, however, you believe he is wrong, and you think that this way is East" (points pencil to the right).

That way, if 2 players rolls a G and an Eye (for the same travel test) they will know something is up.

Don't necessarily tell them what the mechanical rules you are following are going to be!

I agree with H.S.: actual maps (as much as we all love them) distract from the experience.

As for the one vs. two variables, a way to support it with one roll is for players to not actually be sure about their rolls. For example, the rule could require a Great (or even Extraordinary) success for the player to sure that their intuition/guess was correct.

So the "perception" variable would really be that: player perception.

Or...this is just off the top of my head...just now, maybe it works as follows:
- "Lost-ness" is measured on a numeric scale, starting at some value chosen by the LM, which is hidden from the players.
- When they come to a decision point, players make an appropriate roll (Lore, Travel, etc.). If successful, the lost-ness variable goes down. But the roll also applies against the secret Lost-ness variable. If unsuccessful, their guess/intuition/information was wrong, and the lostness variable goes up.
- On a Great or Extraordinary success, Lost-ness decreases by an extra point per success. On a failure with a sauron, it goes up by an extra two.

With this system the players would have a general sense of how lost (or not) they are, but they can never be absolutely completely sure. And there's still only one roll to make per decision point, and one variable for the LM to track.

Just an idea; needs refinement.

The decision points could either be landmarks like I described above, or events that lead to disorientation, like fleeing from combat.

(Rocmistro posted while I was typing; similar idea. FWIW, Grimfast pretends NO expertise underground and defers to Jakk's judgment over Feanomor's.)

Got it!

How's this for a system:
- Party starts off at zero "Lostness"; this number is a penalty to navigation TN rolls (not to the TN itself..subtle difference).
- Each navigation hazard has its own secret TN
- The players nominate a member for each hazard roll, depending on type of hazard (e.g. whether Lore or Insight or Travel or whatever seems most appropriate to the situation).
- If the players fail the hazard, Lostness increases by 1
- If they fail the hazard, but exceed (TN - Lostness) on the raw roll, they THINK they have succeeded.
- If they beat the secret TN + Lostness, they have succeeded...for now.
- For each extra success, Lostness decreases by 1, applied before the result is determined.

Example:
After running away from an encounter with orcs, the players finally get a chance to rest and try to get their bearings. Their Lostness was 4 before the encounter, and the LM rules (based on how long it took them to lose the orcs) that the new TN is 18. So...
- Below 14: They fail and know they have failed. Lostness increases by 1.
- Below 14 + Eye: Fail, and Lostness increases by 2 (or more?)
- 14 to 21: They fail, but LM tells them they have succeeded. Lostness increases by 1.
- 22+ They succeed. Lostness decreases by 1, minus another point for each Tengwar.
(Note that an Extraordinary Success on a 20 would also succeed, as Lostness is decreased BEFORE resolution.)

Anybody have a better word than "Lostness"?

How about Orientation or better Disorientation?

Hermes Serpent wrote:How about Orientation or better Disorientation?

+1 for being a real word, -1 for syllable count.

Possibly confusion?

So a couple questions/comments:

Is what you are calling a "navigation" check equal to a Travel role? I need a more precise definition there...

The "margin of error" between knowing one is lost and not knowing seems off to me; I believe it should be flipped.

In other words if a player rolls within the margin of "lostness" shouldn't that be that they have failed but they know about? Otherwise players get a worse result from rolling higher (and presumably having more skill).

What if, instead, you set the "lostness" value as a number equal to like, let's say, 6 or 8 or 10. That number is the value that, if players roll, they fail and don't know about it. So if a group has a current lostness of 8, and they roll "navigation" checks of 8 or less, they fail but think they succeed. This synergizes better, also, with weariness, as it will produce lower results which reflect properly how the body's fatigue is affectng the mind and so forth.

Additionally, Lostness could be applied to other TNs related to Traveling in Moria. As TNs creep higher and higher the party begins to realize they are truly screwed.

How about "Screwedness"?

Gandalf: [pointing to a tunnel] There!
Merry: He remembered!
Gandalf: No, but the air doesn't smell so foul here. In times of great screwedness, Meriadoc, always follow your nose.