Original or revised journey rules?

[Mordjinn]

The first session is getting closer and on my adventure through the One Ring ruleset I'm now at the Journey rules crossroads. I've read both the original rules and the revised rules and kind of like them both. The original rules are a dicefest on longer journeys, but to me it emphasizes the long road. Then again revised rules focus on travelling roles make it sound like great fun.

Which one do you prefer and are there some pitfalls on either I should be aware of when choosing which ruleset to use?

[jamesrbrown]

I prefer the original rules because it makes each player-hero responsible for his own Fatigue tests, which means more rolls overall, leading to more chances for a Hazard episode. It also keeps Travel as the official skill to use when making Fatigue tests. Heroes with lower Travel ratings will suffer more Fatigue increases, but I think that makes sense.

'Journeys Revisited 3.0' definitely reduces the number of rolls and chaos around the table. But, while the first Fatigue challenge includes everyone (and affects everyone individually), the subsequent rolls are made by only one player-hero each time and the outcome affects all companions. Some players with great Travel skill might still gain Fatigue points when they probably wouldn't have otherwise and vise versa. Player-heroes are also permitted to use a signature skill for a Fatigue challenge instead of Travel. This option lessens the value of the Travel skill, even if only slightly.

Personally, I have not found the original journey rules to be too much dice rolling at my table. I usually break up a journey into legs and each player keeps busy by making a few rolls at a time. It has been very manageable and everyone enjoys rolling dice anyway. I like the way it makes them feel as if they really did go on a journey

[Mordjinn]

Thank you for your insight. I think follow your advice. There's not really that much rolling in the Marsh Bell to begin with and using the core ruleset instead of extras will just keep things simple.

Or does someone have a very strong opinion that the Revised rules are the way to go?

[doctheweasel]

I've used both and I'm torn.

What I do like about the new system is that:

1. It makes better use of roles. If you don't roll a Scout Hazard, then it doesn't matter how good your Scout is.
2. Hazards come up more often – at least for our group (5 people) they did. Most of this is because we run it where any eyes rolled, failure or not, trigger a Hazard. Sure, you could do that with the standard method, but then Hazards would come up all the time.

That said, I'm not sure which I like better. I like the original system's way that it involves everyone. It also feels more substantial on short journeys.

[Corvo]

I've used both and I'm torn.

What I do like about the new system is that:

1. It makes better use of roles. If you don't roll a Scout Hazard, then it doesn't matter how good your Scout is.
2. Hazards come up more often – at least for our group (5 people) they did. Most of this is because we run it where any eyes rolled, failure or not, trigger a Hazard. Sure, you could do that with the standard method, but then Hazards would come up all the time.

That said, I'm not sure which I like better. I like the original system's way that it involves everyone. It also feels more substantial on short journeys.

I like the original rules for the reasons Jamesrbrown exposed.
Then again, your house rule at point 2 is interesting: maybe we can (house)rule that every Eye rune on the Guide's roll is an hazard? The Guide's role is the easier one, till now (just one core skill to raise).

[doctheweasel]

[quote="doctheweasel"
2. Hazards come up more often – at least for our group (5 people) they did. Most of this is because we run it where any eyes rolled, failure or not, trigger a Hazard. Sure, you could do that with the standard method, but then Hazards would come up all the time.

Then again, your house rule at point 2 is interesting[/quote]

It's not a house rule, it's in revised rules III. (I wasn't sure if it made it in, and just checked. I suggested it during the discussions and just decided to run it that way regardless.)

[Mordjinn]

It's not a house rule, it's in revised rules III. (I wasn't sure if it made it in, and just checked. I suggested it during the discussions and just decided to run it that way regardless.)

Yes, Doc is right. In the revised rules you get a Hazard if you roll an eye. It doesn't matter if you pass the test or not.

[Robin Smallburrow]

The only problem with the original journey rules is when the Fellowship is going on a long journey, such as crossing Mirkwood etc., then the dice rolling gets a bit much. It makes sense then for the LM to have a look at the map and divide the journey up into 'legs', do dice rolls for each leg and then roleplay each leg of the journey as per others suggestions.

Robin S.

[Corvo]

Thanks for the heads-up about the Alternate Rules

The only problem with the original journey rules is when the Fellowship is going on a long journey, such as crossing Mirkwood etc., then the dice rolling gets a bit much. It makes sense then for the LM to have a look at the map and divide the journey up into 'legs', do dice rolls for each leg and then roleplay each leg of the journey as per others suggestions.

Robin S.

This is what I'm doing. My all-Barding group is crossing Mirkwood for the first time (Don't Leave the Path), and I have some small thing happen at every roll. It's Spring, and 5-6 rolls don't seem a lot to them: Mirkwood got a fearsome status in their mind

[skywalker]

I prefer the original rules too.