Schrödinger's Well

[Glorelendil]

I actually would probably roll the die (1-3 bad, 4-6 good) in front of them to find if the water was good, after a successful skill test. As far as what the Hazard was, it could have just been the resources (Hope, etc) expended, or maybe on a Sauron the heroes encounter another complication (their futzing around has attracted attention).

Oh Zed you are a genius...

Dubious Pool (Huntsman)
With canteens low, you find a source of water that smells a little off. Is it potable? If you drink it, roll 1 Success Die: on a 0 to 3 it is contaminated and drinking it will cause you to lose 2 Endurance, on a 4 to 6 it is foul tasting but safe. However, if you make a successful Hunting test beforehand, you may roll the die before you drink.

There...totally in the hands of the player!

EDIT: Another variant would allow two skill tests, possibly of different skills:
1) The first skill test is the Search for water and determines the odds of the water being good: it starts off at any roll below 5 is tainted, and that threshold goes down by 1 for each Success (e.g. 1 in 6 on an Extraordinay Success)
2) The second skill test (Hunting? Healing? Awareness?) determines whether you roll for contamination before or after you drink it. If you fail you can decide to not risk it.

So maybe you get a Great Success on the first roll, and fail the second roll. You won't know till you drink it, but there's a 2/3 chance it will be fine.

[Glorelendil]

But I think that is inescapable: as a player, I know exactly where the Ruling Ring is hidden...Both of us (hero and player) would benefit from an information exchange, but that's not possible.

This is another flavor of the fire vs. trolls or silver vs. werewolves debate. Rather than force players to pretend to be ignorant and wonder when it's realistic to decide that their characters will "try" the right solution ("I have an idea, guys! Let's try fire!" "C'mon, Eugene, your character has a 7 Intelligence...you wouldn't have guessed that.") it's easier to just change the truth in your game. Make your D&D trolls look different then canonical trolls, and don't use the word "troll" when they first appear. Or make trolls vulnerable to silver and werewolves to fire. Whatever.

Similarly, if a group of players decided to raid a certain Hobbit's mantlepiece...the ring simply wouldn't be there. And hopefully, after the trolls/werewolves fiasco, the players would know that to be likely, so wouldn't bother (even if they were the sort to do such a thing).

Another example, that we've discussed before, might be Saruman's treachery. But even that could be a lot of fun. Imagine the trouble you'd get into if in T.A. 2960 you ran around trying to convince Elrond and Gandalf that Saruman was evil. Who would be believed? Especially when Saruman so kindly and patiently forgives you...

[zedturtle]

Oh Zed you are a genius...

I roll to disbelieve.

EDIT: Another variant would allow two skill tests, possibly of different skills:
1) The first skill test is the Search for water and determines the odds of the water being good: it starts off at any roll below 5 is tainted, and that threshold goes down by 1 for each Success (e.g. 1 in 6 on an Extraordinary Success)
2) The second skill test (Hunting? Healing? Awareness?) determines whether you roll for contamination before or after you drink it. If you fail you can decide to not risk it.

So maybe you get a Great Success on the first roll, and fail the second roll. You won't know till you drink it, but there's a 2/3 chance it will be fine.

Eh, I liked your simpler version better.

This is another flavor of the fire vs. trolls or silver vs. werewolves debate. Rather than force players to pretend to be ignorant and wonder when it's realistic to decide that their characters will "try" the right solution ("I have an idea, guys! Let's try fire!" "C'mon, Eugene, your character has a 7 Intelligence...you wouldn't have guessed that.") it's easier to just change the truth in your game. Make your D&D trolls look different then canonical trolls, and don't use the word "troll" when they first appear. Or make trolls vulnerable to silver and werewolves to fire. Whatever.

Or make it common knowledge, at least among folks that are subject to their deprivations.

Similarly, if a group of players decided to raid a certain Hobbit's mantlepiece...the ring simply wouldn't be there. And hopefully, after the trolls/werewolves fiasco, the players would know that to be likely, so wouldn't bother (even if they were the sort to do such a thing).

Hmmm... The way I like to think about it is that when the game starts, everything in the books is true. (I mean Tolkien's books but also C7's game materials.) But the players' choices might impact the story, perhaps in drastic ways.

Certainly, heroes that decide to call upon Mister Bilbo Baggins of Bag End, Hobbiton, The Shire, might find themselves stymied. But not entirely by LM fiat, instead by the fact that even before Gandalf suspects much about the Ring, he's eager to protect the Shire and its inhabitants. So Rangers might very well take an interest in folks trying to get to the Shire and he might even have some agent within (or passing through) the Shire that would also be interested in our heroes.

But ultimately, the heroes have free will. They can do what they want. Eru is going to try to make things work out for the best, but he can only nudge NPCs around, not control the heroes. So maybe the heroes do get the Ring, then what? It could be a very interesting question to answer (or it might be a really short game).

Another example, that we've discussed before, might be Saruman's treachery. But even that could be a lot of fun. Imagine the trouble you'd get into if in T.A. 2960 you ran around trying to convince Elrond and Gandalf that Saruman was evil. Who would be believed? Especially when Saruman so kindly and patiently forgives you...

Yep. As great a creator as Tolkien was, I actually think his continual revising of Saruman (and Galadriel, in a different way) weakens his presentation. This is one case where going by The Lord of the Rings alone is probably a really good choice... again, in my mind, the facts are established and the scene is set, but once the heroes enter the stage, then anything can happen. But you're right, it'd be very hard to accuse Saruman of evil in 2960... even with Detect Evil, because it's just not true. The heroes might push Saruman to his downfall (figuratively, or possibly literally) or they might redeem him. It all depends on their actions, which means that the players get to make interesting choices.

[Glorelendil]

Ok, I started trying to write this up as a nice, concise Hazard...and ran into the same paradox I mentioned before: it doesn't work if there isn't a consequence for not finding water. Otherwise the player can just say, "Eh, I guess I won't drink it then." There needs to be a reason he/she feels pressure to taste the water.

But then, if there's a penalty for failing to find water, and the water is poisoned, he's double screwed: now he's poisoned AND he didn't find water.

Curiously enough, this would work just fine if it were a repeated occurrence throughout the journey. If the player knew that he was going to have to play this game once for each day of travel, and that if skipped too many of them his whole fellowship would be Weary of whatever, then it would become an interested calculated risk. "Ok, as long as I find water at least once in the next two days, we'll be fine. So I'll leave this one alone."

[Finrod Felagund]

Edit: Misunderstood the OP

[Earendil]

I actually would probably roll the die (1-3 bad, 4-6 good) in front of them to find if the water was good, after a successful skill test. As far as what the Hazard was, it could have just been the resources (Hope, etc) expended, or maybe on a Sauron the heroes encounter another complication (their futzing around has attracted attention).

Oh Zed you are a genius...

Dubious Pool (Huntsman)
With canteens low, you find a source of water that smells a little off. Is it potable? If you drink it, roll 1 Success Die: on a 0 to 3 it is contaminated and drinking it will cause you to lose 2 Endurance, on a 4 to 6 it is foul tasting but safe. However, if you make a successful Hunting test beforehand, you may roll the die before you drink.

There...totally in the hands of the player!

Beautiful. I might well nick that for my own game, it's a lovely idea. I might make it more harmful than just 2 Endurance, though. Maybe temporarily Weary? Or maybe that's too much.

Usually in this sort of situation I would either roll for the player (but that only works if I regularly do so on rolls like this, and in TOR it's complicated by the possibility of gaining Advancement points) or just ask the player to roleplay what their character knows, not what they know. I understand that wouldn't work for everyone, but some separation of player and character knowledge is necessary: if my players decided to go to Bilbo's house and steal the One Ring because they as players know it's there, I would give them a piece of my mind. And quite possibly refuse to run anything for them ever again.

[Glorelendil]

Usually in this sort of situation I would either roll for the player (but that only works if I regularly do so on rolls like this, and in TOR it's complicated by the possibility of gaining Advancement points) or just ask the player to roleplay what their character knows, not what they know. I understand that wouldn't work for everyone, but some separation of player and character knowledge is necessary: if my players decided to go to Bilbo's house and steal the One Ring because they as players know it's there, I would give them a piece of my mind. And quite possibly refuse to run anything for them ever again.

Sure, but in the case of deciding whether or not to drink water that my be poison, the entire fun of it is the suspense of wondering. If everybody at the table knows that it's poisoned (because otherwise the LM wouldn't have paused the game and rolled some dice) then I personally don't find it very fun to pretend to be in suspense. Unless, maybe, there's an opportunity to do something that is both evocative of my character's personality and at the same time surprising/interesting to others at the table.

[Earendil]

Ok, I started trying to write this up as a nice, concise Hazard...and ran into the same paradox I mentioned before: it doesn't work if there isn't a consequence for not finding water. Otherwise the player can just say, "Eh, I guess I won't drink it then." There needs to be a reason he/she feels pressure to taste the water.

But then, if there's a penalty for failing to find water, and the water is poisoned, he's double screwed: now he's poisoned AND he didn't find water.

Curiously enough, this would work just fine if it were a repeated occurrence throughout the journey. If the player knew that he was going to have to play this game once for each day of travel, and that if skipped too many of them his whole fellowship would be Weary of whatever, then it would become an interested calculated risk. "Ok, as long as I find water at least once in the next two days, we'll be fine. So I'll leave this one alone."

Yeah, it probably works better as a predefined element in an adventure rather than a hazard, maybe happening two or three days in a row.

One possibility is to say that thirst is bad, but drinking poisoned water is worse. Maybe they lose 2 Endurance if they go without water, but become temporarily Weary due to illness if they drink poisoned water.

Obviously they will need to have safe water available at some point, but they should encounter some danger before they get to it. A few goblins that would normally be no real threat could suddenly be quite dangerous if the group are all Weary.

[Glorelendil]

Ok, I started trying to write this up as a nice, concise Hazard...and ran into the same paradox I mentioned before: it doesn't work if there isn't a consequence for not finding water. Otherwise the player can just say, "Eh, I guess I won't drink it then." There needs to be a reason he/she feels pressure to taste the water.

But then, if there's a penalty for failing to find water, and the water is poisoned, he's double screwed: now he's poisoned AND he didn't find water.

Curiously enough, this would work just fine if it were a repeated occurrence throughout the journey. If the player knew that he was going to have to play this game once for each day of travel, and that if skipped too many of them his whole fellowship would be Weary of whatever, then it would become an interested calculated risk. "Ok, as long as I find water at least once in the next two days, we'll be fine. So I'll leave this one alone."

Yeah, it probably works better as a predefined element in an adventure rather than a hazard, maybe happening two or three days in a row.

One possibility is to say that thirst is bad, but drinking poisoned water is worse. Maybe they lose 2 Endurance if they go without water, but become temporarily Weary due to illness if they drink poisoned water.

Obviously they will need to have safe water available at some point, but they should encounter some danger before they get to it. A few goblins that would normally be no real threat could suddenly be quite dangerous if the group are all Weary.

Yeah it could be a prisoner's dilemma sort of situation: the possible outcomes are thirsty, poisoned, thirsty and poisoned, none of the above.

So how about this: your fellowship is dangerously low on water and if some is not found soon you will all gain 1 point of Fatigue. You find some water with an odd color...is it safe to drink? If you passed your skill test you can roll to find out if it's poisoned before you drink it; otherwise you'll just have to drink it to find out. Or not, if you so choose.

[Earendil]

Usually in this sort of situation I would either roll for the player (but that only works if I regularly do so on rolls like this, and in TOR it's complicated by the possibility of gaining Advancement points) or just ask the player to roleplay what their character knows, not what they know. I understand that wouldn't work for everyone, but some separation of player and character knowledge is necessary: if my players decided to go to Bilbo's house and steal the One Ring because they as players know it's there, I would give them a piece of my mind. And quite possibly refuse to run anything for them ever again.

Sure, but in the case of deciding whether or not to drink water that my be poison, the entire fun of it is the suspense of wondering. If everybody at the table knows that it's poisoned (because otherwise the LM wouldn't have paused the game and rolled some dice) then I personally don't find it very fun to pretend to be in suspense. Unless, maybe, there's an opportunity to do something that is both evocative of my character's personality and at the same time surprising/interesting to others at the table.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. That's why i said it wouldn't work for everyone. But one possibility is for the LM to sometimes pause and roll dice for no reason, just to keep the players guessing. If you do that, the fact that you roll some dice is not a dead giveaway.

For me, I sometimes want the players to genuinely not know what's going to happen, to create a real tension at the table. But I don't mind if sometimes they know something that their characters don't, and just have to roleplay it - like the example of Bilbo having the Ring, it can actually be enjoyable for the players to know about bad stuff and have to roleplay their characters' innocence.

I'm not saying I would do that in this case. I just don't think it would suck all the fun out of the game if I did. But of course that doesn't mean you're doing it wrong, it just means we enjoy different things.