One player, One Loremaster?

[Dankers]

Hi all,

Does anyone have experience playing The One Ring with a Loremaster and a single player?
If so, how well does the game work for that?

Thanks.

Hi Warduke,

I've been running TOR for a one player campaign pretty much since the game came out. Here's a link to a previous thread on the topic:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1076&p=9945#p9945

In short, the game works quite well with only a few tweaks to hope-refresh and journey rules (and a mindful eye on not over-exploiting the pc's starting weaknesses).

Your own solutions to whatever perceived obstacles you fear will quickly become evident as you play!

[Rocmistro]

Zed:

Yeah that's cool too, though the roll spamming is also a problem (or can be) due to AP.
The +5 hope was a reflection of a typical Fellowship containing 5 members, and the "Way point" idea as to signify the idea that they would be getting several "session resets" on FP per adventure.

[Stormcrow]

Why give more hope to a solitary adventurer? Adventuring alone is, well, lonely; you can't count on friends to boost your spirit. Hope should be ever-dwindling to the lone adventurer. This would also explain one reason why Rangers often operate alone: they can't draw from a fellowship pool anyway, and so work as well alone as with a company. A lone adventurer must be extremely careful of his resources at all times, and should not expect to be able to take on challenges that a company of three or four are able to take on.

[Glorelendil]

Why give more hope to a solitary adventurer? Adventuring alone is, well, lonely; you can't count on friends to boost your spirit. Hope should be ever-dwindling to the lone adventurer. This would also explain one reason why Rangers often operate alone: they can't draw from a fellowship pool anyway, and so work as well alone as with a company. A lone adventurer must be extremely careful of his resources at all times, and should not expect to be able to take on challenges that a company of three or four are able to take on.

I think the logic is simply to let the player have a better chance of surviving, not to model any sort of real world logic.

But the amount of Hope is arbitrary anyway, so it's only a "lot" of Hope when compared to the default rules, which have set our expectations. Francesco could have easily written in the original rules that the Fellowship Pool equals the size of the Fellowship times two, and none of us would have every said, "OMG that's so much Hope!"

[Stormcrow]

I think the logic is simply to let the player have a better chance of surviving, not to model any sort of real world logic.

I'm not modeling real-world logic; I'm modeling real-Tolkien fellowship.

Adventuring in the Wild alone is just plain harder. A lone adventurer should go on easier adventures than a company would.

[Glorelendil]

I think the logic is simply to let the player have a better chance of surviving, not to model any sort of real world logic.

I'm not modeling real-world logic; I'm modeling real-Tolkien fellowship.

Adventuring in the Wild alone is just plain harder. A lone adventurer should go on easier adventures than a company would.

Well, yeah, that's what I meant by "real world" in this case. (I don't know about your world, but I don't have Hope points or a Shadow score...)

But it's still a game, and the game might not be fun for those involved if the one Hero keeps dying.

[Stormcrow]

But it's still a game, and the game might not be fun for those involved if the one Hero keeps dying.

So why does this hypothetical player keep taking on challenges that are too great for him? Why not go after something a little more realistic?

[Glorelendil]

But it's still a game, and the game might not be fun for those involved if the one Hero keeps dying.

So why does this hypothetical player keep taking on challenges that are too great for him? Why not go after something a little more realistic?

How is scaling down the encounters any different/better than scaling up the character? (Because, after all, the player isn't choosing the challenges as much as the LM is presenting them.) Either way you're adjusting the game as written to fit the circumstances.

And I would argue that increasing the Hope pool is better than reducing the challenges because spending Hope is really intrinsic to the gameplay, whether it's done personally or by somebody else at the table. So if the Fellowship can only spend a single point per session (because it's a Fellowship of One) then that player is experiencing a lesser game, imo.

[Stormcrow]

How is scaling down the encounters any different/better than scaling up the character?

Because this character can still join a company later and not suddenly find the world changed or himself inexplicably superior to his fellows.

(Because, after all, the player isn't choosing the challenges as much as the LM is presenting them.)

Depends on how you play. Not every group relies on the referee telling them what adventures to go on. However, whether you frame it as the hero choosing an adventure or the Loremaster choosing it for them, my point is the same.

Either way you're adjusting the game as written to fit the circumstances.

You're not changing the game if you go on less-deadly adventures. You're just going on less-deadly adventures. You ARE changing the game if you give a lone player extra Hope because you want him to succeed more often that he would if he were backed up by companions.

I think you're viewing the published adventures as The Game as it must be played. This is not the case. There are other adventures to be had in Middle-earth, and some of them are suitable for a lone adventurer. I hear Gandalf's looking for a Ranger to track down a strange creature that escaped from the elves of Mirkwood...

And I would argue that increasing the Hope pool is better than reducing the challenges because spending Hope is really intrinsic to the gameplay, whether it's done personally or by somebody else at the table. So if the Fellowship can only spend a single point per session (because it's a Fellowship of One) then that player is experiencing a lesser game, imo.

And *I* would argue that RATIONING your Hope is intrinsic to the game, not spending it. Making the tough decision to use up Hope that isn't easily replaced is more interesting than casually spending it because it's near the end of the session and the fellowship pool hasn't been touched yet.

If having plenty of Hope to spend all the time were intrinsic to the game, Rangers wouldn't have the game mechanics they do. In fact, Rangers have already given us the rule as I have described it: even when in a company, they cannot draw strength from its fellowship. And they don't start with much Hope either. Spending Hope is intrinsic? I think not.

I probably wouldn't even include a fellowship pool of 1 point, because there's no FELLOWSHIP involved.

If the Loremaster REALLY wants to grant the hero extra Hope, let him do it as a reward for good play; e.g., the magic of Radagast in Words of the Wise. Now you've given the hero a little extra Hope without having to change a single blasted rule, you softie you.

[Glorelendil]

I'm not saying your way is wrong, by any means, I'm just surprised you feel so strongly about one way being better than another.