Undertaking Frequency

[MasterSmithwise]

The core book says that fellowship phases last between a week and a full season. My players almost immediately took issue with this arguing that they could could just take 12 fellowship phases a season at 1 week each (Or maybe it says 2 weeks; same idea either way).

I "house ruled" that a fellowship phase takes a full season to help the players' immersion. However there's now a chance for a mid year fellowship phase and I don't want to tell them they have to spend the rest of summer there. On the other hand if I let them take a two week fellowship phase they'll wonder why they can't do that at year's end.

I'm in a pickle! Any clarification on rules, or just some opinions on this would be super helpful. Mainly because I've wondered the same thing as my players and just don't have an answer for them. It would be the MOST helpful if undertakings just specified how much time they took.

[Hermes Serpent]

Tell them they have to gather in the harvest and that will take them several weeks. That way you are calling it an undertaking.

[Feanor]

Im going to be a bit blunt here. And there is no pun intended, please remember that.

If im a player: I would seriously not want to be a player with a group that has that type of reactions and discussions. Paragraph rider we call it in Sweden. Abusing the rules because something is stated in a certain way. Please look into what role the rule fills, and meaning. It helps you to understand why it is created in the first place, and leads to understanding how its to be used, and in how much frequency.

If im a GM: I would seriously reconsider who i am GMing for if this would ever become an issue. SERIOUSLY ?!
Talk with your group and tell them about what i said here. Ask them how they feel about their reasons to roleplaying. If they are not aligned with your own, then stop playing with them and get yourself another group to play with.

As a tip: a Fellowship phase would consist of 1 or 2 undertakings. No more than 2 per year. More than so and it would be too easy for the players. It should probably at least sometimes be a kind of hard choice what to pick as undertaking.
The undertakings loose their worth otherwise.

Im really upset about your groups argument. REALLY. An rpg is NOT a board game

The rules in ALL roleplaying games, are merely guidelines anyway. The GM decides how he will use the contents to best reflect the experience he wants the players to have.

[Glorelendil]

/agree with everything Feanor said. Tell them to get into the spirit of storytelling, or perhaps try Call of Duty.

[Falenthal]

Tell them they have to gather in the harvest and that will take them several weeks. That way you are calling it an undertaking.

As Hermes says, Undertakings are special things the characters can acomplish during their retreat time. But most of their time, they're just normal citizens that have to go hunting/harvesting/shepherding/milling/... during looong and boring hours. Help your father chopping the lumber for the winter. Bring buckets of water everyday to your sister so she can cook and wash the dishes. Tend the hounds in the kennels come rain or come shine.
And, in the meantime, during 10 minutes some nights, you can sit by the fire with Radagast to comment a thing or two and do a Meet Patron Undertaking.

If youre players want to roleplay every week of their lives, it's going to be a very boring sim-game.

P.D.: Wait until their characters have children to have a good laugh...

[MasterSmithwise]

Wow that seemed like it got out of hand fast.

Thanks for the replies. I like my group, they enjoy roleplaying and do it well. They just didn't understand how it worked and neither did I. If the rules require you to "make it up" for the mechanics to make sense it should say so. Most people expect a game system to be fairly explicit. This wasn't.

[Glorelendil]

Wow that seemed like it got out of hand fast.

Thanks for the replies. I like my group, they enjoy roleplaying and do it well. They just didn't understand how it worked and neither did I. If the rules require you to "make it up" for the mechanics to make sense it should say so. Most people expect a game system to be fairly explicit. This wasn't.

Ok, maybe we were a little harsh but the way you described the situation it sounded like they were rules lawyering to exploit the system. Just a couple of seconds of thought would have suggested, "Wait, this doesn't sound right." Which should have ended the debate.

[Hermes Serpent]

Did you do Step One before starting the game? It sounds as if you didn't.

Step One: Sit down and discuss what sort of game you want and how it's going to run. This sets expectations for both the players and the referee.

If they want a min max game style where it's all about ensuring your character is the biggest meanest SOB then TOR is not the game for your players. A quick read through of some of the forum threads would tell you that is not the style of the majority of One Ring games. Don't be concerned if this is the style for your players as a good many players just want to hit things with no thought of tomorrow beyond XP to the next level. The One Ring is a game for thoughtful, considered players who might want to spend a whole session discussing the weather, the scenery and the local political situation with some Loremaster characters to really get into the setting.

If they want a game where they play in the style of the Hobbit and LoTR then you are right to select playing TOR over a generic fantasy rpg.

[farinal]

I always play as Adventure - coming back home after finishing an adventure - Fellowship phase undertaking - Adventure - in this cycle. So my players get one undertaking after each adventure they finish.

[Angelalex242]

In the game I play in, it's one per fellowship phase, and 2 per winter phase. The per year fellowship phase undertakings are limited by location for the non winter phase.