Suggested Rule Changes for 2 Players

[Greenwolf]

Hi fellow one ring fans!

I wanted to get your opinion on what rules could be changed to better adapt to running a game for 1 player character(Me as LM, another as player). My change is to the travel rules, in that instead of having to spend a point of hope to change role(guide, hunter, scout, lookout) they can take on all these roles at once.

What do you guys think would be some good changes to adapt them for a 2 person game?

Looking forward to all of your ideas and replies!

Greenwolf

[Rocmistro]

What about letting him play multiple characters?

[zedturtle]

Hmmm.... As great a game as TOR is, it's not really suited for Duet play. That said, I might actually try to encourage the player (especially if they are an experience roleplayer) to engage with the game in a troupe style. That means that you'd make a normal Company (or close to it, probably 3 or 4 characters) but only one character would be active at a time. Scenes would begin with the player nominating the active character and that's the only one that they'd make rolls for... the others are rolled by the LM or abstracted in the scene by the use of traits or whatever. The LM would have to craft scenes appropriately... it'd kind of be like an 80's cartoon show where somebody was always the focus character for a certain episode.

[Glorelendil]

I like Zed's approach. I think I'd make the player decide which character he/she is "role playing" during any kind of encounter or interaction, with the others (I wouldn't go for more than 3 total) playing passive roles.

During combat, let the player roll for all three characters, and make choices for spending XP/AP.

It actually kinda sounds like fun.

[Dankers]

Hi fellow one ring fans!

I wanted to get your opinion on what rules could be changed to better adapt to running a game for 1 player character(Me as LM, another as player). My change is to the travel rules, in that instead of having to spend a point of hope to change role(guide, hunter, scout, lookout) they can take on all these roles at once.

What do you guys think would be some good changes to adapt them for a 2 person game?

Looking forward to all of your ideas and replies!

Greenwolf

Hi Greenwolf,

I've been running a campaign for 1 player since the game came out. Your suggestion is pretty much what we've settled on as well. It works great for us. We're unlikely to increase our group and equally unlikely to start a new campaign with a Ranger player (they have a virtue that allows them to fill all vacant roles) so I'm not worried about any perceived balancing issues in our game. The journeys are just as fun as they are when I play with a group (and very challenging!). After all, the player character will still have skill gaps when facing certain hazards.

You'll also need to work around the fact that there will not be a fellowship pool of Hope to draw from. See the link in my signature (or Rich H's most excellent Additional House Rules) for an alternate Hope refresh mechanic. Basic premise being to allow "inspiration tests" at appropriate moments... kinda like a reverse corruption test.

As an aside, we briefly toyed with the multiple-characters-thing and it didn't feel right for us. It was like we were bending our story/game to fit the system as opposed to finding a simple way to let system support our story.

Or you could just have thirteen dwarves show up on the character's doorstep and hire him for a mission.

[Stormcrow]

Shouldn't facing the wild alone be much more difficult than in a group? You should HAVE to spend a lot of Hope to cover all those roles.

Adventuring solo should be HARD. Don't go on those published adventures designed for a full company of characters. The Loremaster should come up with adventures that the solo adventurer can handle.

[Glorelendil]

Shouldn't facing the wild alone be much more difficult than in a group? You should HAVE to spend a lot of Hope to cover all those roles.

You are right in a logical or real-world sense, but if the game as written is hard enough to be interesting (read: fun) when playing with a group then making it significantly harder for a solo player would make it effectively impossible and therefore not fun.

I don't think the goal here is to realistically model solo adventuring, it's to figure out how two people can enjoy the game.

As you suggest, writing new adventures designed to be soloable are one option, but there's certainly nothing heretical about tweaking the rules to make existing adventures fun, too.

I would advise, however, against making Hope too "cheap" (in the sense of being too replenishable), as the preciousness of Hope is not just a mechanical but a philosophical underpinning of the game.

[Beleg]

I've done a few little campaigns with one of my friends, and I pretty much just ignored the travel role aspect, and just resolved hazards as effecting him. He did have 2 characters, and just roleplayed one or the other, but besides that I played it just the same as with a full party

[Greenwolf]

Hey all, thanks for your advice, I think I figured out how I'm going to solve it:

She's on her way out of Lake Town on the Marsh Bell adventure, she just talked to Gloin and did really well(Got herself a boat for her and her trusty hound of Mirkwood), I think on the first or second night i'll have a scream shatter the silence of the night, and once she goes to investigate finds two goblins torturing a man. She can then save him and heal him, only the find they've cut out his tongue. Then when he wakes up in the morning she can tell him what happened and can be so overcome with gratitude that he swears fealty to her(Gestures fealty, he can't speak!). Then he can help out with Fighting and baking honey cakes, ill control him. This lets her take the lead with encounters and most of the plat still.

Something along those lines anyway

[Majestic]

Yeah, while the game is definitely built for a party or group (there are a few pages devoted to 'Company Creation'), I think it could be made to work with minor changes (like what you've suggested). Giving her an ally or two isn't a bad idea, as it will let you explore concepts (like Fellowship Focus and Fellowship pool) you wouldn't otherwise be able to.