Fellowship phase - minimum length

[Streicher]

Hello everybody,

here is a situation I would like to discuss with you:
We have just finished our fourth session of playing through "Kinstrife & Dark Tidings" and will probably need another long session to finish the adventure up. The player characters have problems getting advancement points as most boxes have been checked already. It feels that really 5-6 sessions are too long for an adventure (I know the adventures are mostly designed for 3 sessions). My players are not slow in decision-making or getting through the encounters etc., but rolling eyes on journeys lead to some extra encounters/combats this time, we had some nice individual side actions of the characters, and I don't want to "railroad" them too much either. Everybody is fine with the course of the adventure - only the fact of full advancement point boxes is annoying us.

Has anyone had a similar experience so far?
The characters currently don't really have time to spend days of fellowshipping, actually they can't afford to lose any time in their current situation. What would you do? Should I just throw in 3 hours of Fellowship Phase somewhere at an inn or a campfire on the road? Seems too short to me (I'd say undertakings should not be allowed).

Thanks in advance for your input.
Merry Christmas,


Streicher

[aramis]

Realize that, in some cases, you're essentially trading AP for EP... the longer between fellowships, the more EP the adventure grants.

You might also want to encourage more use of traits - including, occasionally saying, "No, you may not roll, because you have the ___ trait, and succeed automatically."

[zedturtle]

I tend to award XP only at the end of an Adventuring Phase, so that may colour the following advice...

I would really, really shy away from establishing the precedent of micro-Fellowship Phases. If you do allow it, then the players will want to do that all the time and the sense of time and scale will be destroyed.

I assume that time is of the essence because either the attack is yet to be dealt with, or the trial. If the attack hasn't been dealt with, then I think one more session might be ambitious. BUT... my suggestion would be to take narrative control as soon as the trial is introduced and suggest that it will take some time for Beorn to be ready to stand as judge (he's more worried about scouting out the remaining bandits and rebuilding whatever got destroyed by the attack). The heroes are invited to remain at Beorn's house and prepare themselves for their part in the trial. Voila! Instant Fellowship Phase (maybe still not allowing Undertakings, or at least limiting them).

Now, if Oderic won't be judged, that's not a problem either... just launch into a Fellowship Phase, since the matter's settled anyways.

[Stormcrow]

You might also want to encourage more use of traits - including, occasionally saying, "No, you may not roll, because you have the ___ trait, and succeed automatically."

Ooh, no, don't do that. The Loremaster should not be telling players how to run their characters. What if they want a superior level of success?

The only time the Loremaster should block a roll is when the action would be an automatic success WITHOUT a trait.

[Stormcrow]

In general, players should be more interested in the things that their characters do, rather than how they're going to "level up." The One Ring doesn't really cater to the notion of ever-improving "character builds." The very nature of fellowship phase leads to narrative development rather than ability improvement.

[Streicher]

Thanks for your feedback!
I agree, telling the players "Don't roll, as you have the specific trait" will not really work (at least not in my group).
I probably need to set up a backup plan for the next adventure featuring fellowship phase possibilities within the story - in case the adventure takes longer than expected. Yes, The One Ring is not about character improvement, but still, if the warrior character has all 3 movement boxes checked since two sessions, it's a bit annoying that he has no motivation to focus on that character aspect anymore, respectively will not see the use of a trait for the aspect ...
Inserting a Fellowship phase before the trial scene in KADT is a good idea.

Cheers,

Streicher

[aramis]

You might also want to encourage more use of traits - including, occasionally saying, "No, you may not roll, because you have the ___ trait, and succeed automatically."

Ooh, no, don't do that. The Loremaster should not be telling players how to run their characters. What if they want a superior level of success?

The only time the Loremaster should block a roll is when the action would be an automatic success WITHOUT a trait.

I disagree.
If a roll is a clear attempt to make a roll that is merely fishing for AP, and has a relevant trait, the player is hurting the ENTIRE group. Especially once you add the rules for the Eye of the Enemy from Rivendell.

How? Wasting time upon the roll and interpretation. Risking a critical failure in their greed for AP. And in the case of the Eye of the Enemy rules, potentially bringing down extra attention when it's least capable of being dealt with.

It is explicitly the LM's call when to allow a roll and/or require a roll (1E LM p.18). If they have an obvious trait to use, and don't invoke it, they are wasting time. Their time, the LM's time, and everyone else's time. It's also the duty of the LM to keep things moving.

I've made a long habit of responses like "No roll, since you have X, you find this," and moving on.

It's clear the OP's players are manipulating him into allowing extra rolls just for the chance to gain AP. That shouldn't be allowed.

[Stormcrow]

If a roll is a clear attempt to make a roll that is merely fishing for AP, and has a relevant trait, the player is hurting the ENTIRE group. Especially once you add the rules for the Eye of the Enemy from Rivendell.

If the roll is really just fishing for advancement points, then there are no serious consequences for failure, so the character could try over and over again until he succeeds—i.e., it's already an automatic action. It doesn't need you to invoke a character's trait for him.

If there are serious consequences for failure, the player should be in full control of the task. If the player is fishing for advancement points by taking unnecessary risks, let him—the other players will soon put a stop to that. If Boromir had tried to get advancement points during his time in the Fellowship of the Ring by attracting orcs and trying various tasks on them, you can bet that the other members of the Company would have stopped him.

The Loremaster should be fairly generous in granting advancement points. They have a built-in mechanism for making them harder and harder to obtain, and they are capped. This is a good thing: it discourages AP-fishing and controls the rate of character-improvement so players can focus on something other than getting points.

[aramis]

If a roll is a clear attempt to make a roll that is merely fishing for AP, and has a relevant trait, the player is hurting the ENTIRE group. Especially once you add the rules for the Eye of the Enemy from Rivendell.

If the roll is really just fishing for advancement points, then there are no serious consequences for failure, so the character could try over and over again until he succeeds—i.e., it's already an automatic action. It doesn't need you to invoke a character's trait for him.

If there are no interesting effects of the potential failure, there should be no roll. The rules are explicit that the LM calls for rolls in response to actions, NOT THE PLAYER.

[Stormcrow]

If there are no interesting effects of the potential failure, there should be no roll.

I agree. And in this case there is no need to invoke a character's traits to skip a roll, as I said.

The rules are explicit that the LM calls for rolls in response to actions, NOT THE PLAYER.

That's not true. "A player may initiate a task when he wants something and already knows that he has to make a roll to get it, or when a player is describing what his character is going to do and the Loremaster informs him that to pull it off he has to make a roll." Furthermore, "it is up to the acting player to pick the ability that his character is going to use," and "their judgement is subject to the approval of the other players; in case of any objection, the Loremaster will be called upon to select the ability he deems to be most appropriate."

In other words, what and when a player rolls is up to the players. Objecting players can call upon the Loremaster to arbitrate. The Loremaster should himself be considered a player, so he can take control of the process if he needs to. But the calling for of rolls is generally up to the players, not the Loremaster.