forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

gazery wrote:I may have to limit how often I allow refreshes and Fellowship Focus points in my game. They did happen too often anyway, as we play online and so a session of play doesn't always get very far. Perhaps I'll start by limiting it to every other session of play and see how it goes from there. It does seem like it will be a real killer for the Ranger in my party, as they already struggle for Hope. I suppose the Dwarf might suffer too, with only 8 Hope?

Well, your Ranger doesn't have access to the FP anyway so he won't even notice that bit. I've not had much of an issue in my campaign. In fact I'd say it brings the mechanics in line to the desired feel of the game - that Hope (Fellowship or perosnal) should be a precious resource. Previously we didn't get that from the RAW.

Hmmm, only one refresh of the Fellowship Pool and only one Hope recovery from the Fellowship Focus per Adventuring Phase is most definitely not RAW. Pages 212 and 213 of TOR makes it plain per adventure that a 'gaming/game session' is not synonymous with an Adventuring Phase and give specific examples of an Adventuring Phase comprising 3 or 4 such gaming/game sessions. The RAW at pages 133-134 are also pretty specific and clear as to the Fellowship Pool replenishing at the start of each 'gaming/game session', and the Hope recovery/Shadow gain from a hale or injured Fellowship Focus at the end of each 'gaming/game session'. I can understand and totally respect individual LM's and their groups house ruling such matters to suit their preferred own play style but the present discussion is well and truly drifting from RAW .

I personally have some sympathy with the suggestion that if a session ends without the adventure reaching an appropriate dramatic point, then why should the Hope Pool auto replenish, particularly if there is a dispiriting gaming type grab by the players to exhaust it before the death knock of the session. And in some circumstances it may well be more dramatically and thematically satisfying to delay the Hope Pool/Fellowship Focus replenish until an appropriate juncture, even if only to keep your players guessing.

However, I generally think the Hope mechanism works pretty well with the TOR rules as written, as long as you as LM try to keep the challenge level up so that your players are spending, or at least sorely tempted to spend, more Hope than they stand to replenish from the Fellowship Pool and from an uninjured Fellowship Focus each session. So I think new LM's and less experienced groups of TOR players would be wise to stick to the rules as written, at least until they feel confident at house-ruling the level of Hope replenishment to a degree that they feel comfortable with.

cheers
Mark

PS Of course, I also note at page 213 that the RAW do contemplate that things might require adjustment if your group's sessions are taking more or less than 4 hours

Cawdorthane wrote:Hmmm, only one refresh of the Fellowship Pool and only one Hope recovery from the Fellowship Focus per Adventuring Phase is most definitely not RAW. Pages 212 and 213 of TOR makes it plain per adventure that a 'gaming/game session' is not synonymous with an Adventuring Phase and give specific examples of an Adventuring Phase comprising 3 or 4 such gaming/game sessions. ... I can understand and totally respect individual LM's and their groups house ruling such matters to suit their preferred own play style but the present discussion is well and truly drifting from RAW

As a note James and I were both the drivers behind those new sections being added to the revised rules as I mentioned in a previous post on this thread; I wasn't happy with the lack of definition of what a game session was, etc.

It's stating the obvious but discussions do move on and develop naturally as people ask questions and I think posters know we're discussing non-RAW elements (seeing as though we mentioned them as such); it's a shame but house rules can't always neatly be kept in their own threads and sub-forum, this is one of those cases. I think it's fine to discuss as part of a natural discussion.

Cawdorthane wrote:I personally have some sympathy with the suggestion that if a session ends without the adventure reaching an appropriate dramatic point, then why should the Hope Pool auto replenish, particularly if there is a dispiriting gaming type grab by the players to exhaust it before the death knock of the session. And in some circumstances it may well be more dramatically and thematically satisfying to delay the Hope Pool/Fellowship Focus replenish until an appropriate juncture, even if only to keep your players guessing.

Yep, very true, and its why I've previously suggested my house rule of refreshing it at narratively appropriate points within an adventure.

Cawdorthane wrote:However, I generally think the Hope mechanism works pretty well with the TOR rules as written, as long as you as LM try to keep the challenge level up so that your players are spending, or at least sorely tempted to spend, more Hope than they stand to replenish from the Fellowship Pool and from an uninjured Fellowship Focus each session. So I think new LM's and less experienced groups of TOR players would be wise to stick to the rules as written, at least until they feel confident at house-ruling the level of Hope replenishment to a degree that they feel comfortable with.

It's a good point but I think its also a given considering how the discussion on this thread has evolved and questions have naturally been asked.

Cawdorthane wrote:Of course, I also note at page 213 that the RAW do contemplate that things might require adjustment if your group's sessions are taking more or less than 4 hours

Which really means that people need to create house rules to handle it; as you said earlier, it doesn't feel right to simply have an FP refresh every 4 hours - do it when it matters to the adventure/story. Which is what I've been suggesting/talking about in my posts.

And I'll point out that in some situations, such as Play-by-Post, there really isn't any such thing as a "session".

For the record, I don't generally find the idea of exhausting the Fellowship Pool at the end of the session immersion breaking or unrealistic. The Fellowship Pool as a whole is an abstraction of the general mood (or at least collective camaraderie) of the Company, not something that exists in-universe, and as such I'd find it weird if you didn't get the chance to empty it before you refilled it. What does that represent in-character. after all? "Oh, we suddenly feel more hopeful, therefore all that hope and camaraderie we were feeling before is gone now." That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

It'd also have the weird side effect of making two refills that occurred in more rapid than usual succession an actively bad thing for the players (as opposed to the same number spaced more normally), since they'd likely have points left in the pool that'd just go away. Which is one of the most counter-thematic mechanical side-effects I can think of off the top of my head. Two refreshes in rapid succession being bad is just weird and counterintuitive in an unpleasant fashion.

Now, that's not to say I disagree with the idea of doing the refresh at dramatically appropriate times rather than session ends, especially in PBP, where session is a pretty irrelevant concept (though only one refresh an adventure seems slightly harsh, unless you doubled the pool or something). But I definitely think that, if doing that, any remaining in the pool when that happens should get distributed immediately rather than lost. For thematic as well as mechanical reasons.

Oh, and on an out-of-game level, we usually just do it when we get Experience, too, so we're already talking mechanics when this gets brought up. Keeps it from being too immersion-breaking in the sense of shifting focus from story to mechanics. Which I'd imagine would be the standard time to do this.

Deadmanwalking wrote:That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

To you, maybe not, and that's fine. I don't like it; people start discussing how it should be shared and this gets in the way of things. Especially if you run a game session longer or shorter than what the expectation is in the rules, then you're putting these refreshes in somewhere other than the end of the session. It's that which breaks immersion for me and my players. I had to make those changes as our session lengths are only around 3 hours at best, sometimes even less. The game was just too easy as Hope was in abundance.

Deadmanwalking wrote:It'd also have the weird side effect of making two refills that occurred in more rapid than usual succession an actively bad thing for the players (as opposed to the same number spaced more normally), since they'd likely have points left in the pool that'd just go away. Which is one of the most counter-thematic mechanical side-effects I can think of off the top of my head. Two refreshes in rapid succession being bad is just weird and counterintuitive in an unpleasant fashion.

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that but I've never come across it running my house rules in the way that I do. Players are pretty clever as well, they can see when a narrative 'beat' is coming and that's when they start to drain the FP when involved in the dramatic part leading up to such. Sure, they've not always got it bang-on-the-nose correct and there's maybe one point left in the pool when it gets refreshed so its 'lost'. It's not proven to be a big deal. And my players like the tension it creates.

Deadmanwalking wrote:Now, that's not to say I disagree with the idea of doing the refresh at dramatically appropriate times rather than session ends, especially in PBP, where session is a pretty irrelevant concept (though only one refresh an adventure seems slightly harsh, unless you doubled the pool or something). But I definitely think that, if doing that, any remaining in the pool when that happens should get distributed immediately rather than lost. For thematic as well as mechanical reasons.

Use 'em or lose 'em. It hasn't affected the mechanics at all doing it that way in my campaign. I actually think that the idea of Hope diminishing in campaigns doesn't exist as much as what people think it does within the RAW. I've run two games nearly side-by-side, one as per the RAW and Hope use was never really a concern and one with my house rules and Hope has become more of a precious resource. I therefore prefer to run it that way as it feel more in keeping with the themes of the game and material as presented. That's just personal taste really though and what each of us want to make important in our games. I'm really not a fan of having a game resource refreshing based upon an arbitrary time allotment; I don't think it's a good thing. It's not my biggest bugbear, bennies that get cashed in as XPs if they are not spent during the adventure hold that accolade, but it isn't far off.

Deadmanwalking wrote:Oh, and on an out-of-game level, we usually just do it when we get Experience, too, so we're already talking mechanics when this gets brought up. Keeps it from being too immersion-breaking in the sense of shifting focus from story to mechanics. Which I'd imagine would be the standard time to do this.

Only if you have a session length matching up with that which the rules have an expectation of, otherwise you're having them at some other set time, within the game session, or setting it at dramatically appropriate times.

I quite like James' idea of only having a refresh at the beginning of an Adventuring Phase. Keeps it clean and makes it tougher.

Rich H wrote:And the issue with that is that players can, in my opinion, artificially game the system because they know when the end of a session is approaching and just divide up the remaining points in the Fellowship pool between them as they know it will be refreshing at the start of the next one. It also ruined our immersion.

To me that's not artificially gaming the system because the rules allow them to divide up the remaining Fellowship points after a session (for me an Adventuring phase) for the precise purpose of replenishing spent Hope. They are not finding a loophole in the rules. This is a benefit of friendship, along with having a Fellowship focus. Tension is built during the Adventuring phase when players are taking from the Fellowship pool and not everyone agrees. This requires a vote and could cost a player-hero Shadow gain. So, if they all agree, they could save enough to replenish at least 1 point after the session (Adventuring phase).

If your group is more immersed in the roleplaying than the mechanics, I kind of see how this can be a distraction. But, in my opinion, no more distracting than the Journey or Encounter rules. Spending Fellowship points can be played out by using dialogue between player-heroes. Encouraging words for "Yes, spend a point." Arguments when there is opposition. Selfish statements or speeches when a player wants to spend without approval, etc. In other words, make the Fellowship pool a mechanic that requires interaction between companions in some way.

jamesrbrown wrote:

Rich H wrote:And the issue with that is that players can, in my opinion, artificially game the system because they know when the end of a session is approaching and just divide up the remaining points in the Fellowship pool between them as they know it will be refreshing at the start of the next one. It also ruined our immersion.

To me that's not artificially gaming the system because the rules allow them to divide up the remaining Fellowship points after a session (for me an Adventuring phase) for the precise purpose of replenishing spent Hope. They are not finding a loophole in the rules. This is a benefit of friendship, along with having a Fellowship focus. Tension is built during the Adventuring phase when players are taking from the Fellowship pool and not everyone agrees. This requires a vote and could cost a player-hero Shadow gain. So, if they all agree, they could save enough to replenish at least 1 point after the session (Adventuring phase).

Yep, I should've chosen a better phrase! I wasn't trying to suggest that they are exploiting a loophole as the RAW is written to allow that, like you state. I simply don't like the rule, especially when it's based off of a session length. I much prefer your house rule and can see how achieving their goals (ie, completing the adventure) should allow for it to be shared out as it's confirmation of the group's success and togetherness based on a recognised (end) point in the narrative. That sits a lot better with me and would work. I may consider it, although it would mean the FP refreshes less. I think it'd be okay though.

jamesrbrown wrote:If your group is more immersed in the roleplaying than the mechanics, I kind of see how this can be a distraction. But, in my opinion, no more distracting than the Journey or Encounter rules. Spending Fellowship points can be played out by using dialogue between player-heroes. Encouraging words for "Yes, spend a point." Arguments when there is opposition. Selfish statements or speeches when a player wants to spend without approval, etc. In other words, make the Fellowship pool a mechanic that requires interaction between companions in some way.

Nice ideas, James. I'm not sure the way they are spent would always lend themselves to that but I think they'd work in a lot of circumstances.

Rich H wrote:To you, maybe not, and that's fine. I don't like it; people start discussing how it should be shared and this gets in the way of things. Especially if you run a game session longer or shorter than what the expectation is in the rules, then you're putting these refreshes in somewhere other than the end of the session. It's that which breaks immersion for me and my players. I had to make those changes as our session lengths are only around 3 hours at best, sometimes even less. The game was just too easy as Hope was in abundance.

To clarify: It's not breaking the 'every session' thing that doesn't make sense to me, it's losing unspent points when the pool refreshes, rather than getting to distribute them. Breaking the 'every session' guideline seems pretty reasonable.

Rich H wrote:I'm not sure anyone has suggested that but I've never come across it running my house rules in the way that I do. Players are pretty clever as well, they can see when a narrative 'beat' is coming and that's when they start to drain the FP when involved in the dramatic part leading up to such. Sure, they've not always got it bang-on-the-nose correct and there's maybe one point left in the pool when it gets refreshed so its 'lost'. It's not proven to be a big deal. And my players like the tension it creates.

Fair enough. I'm not really suggesting changing what works for you, just noting a potential issue with ruling things that way.

Rich H wrote:Use 'em or lose 'em. It hasn't affected the mechanics at all doing it that way in my campaign. I actually think that the idea of Hope diminishing in campaigns doesn't exist as much as what people think it does within the RAW. I've run two games nearly side-by-side, one as per the RAW and Hope use was never really a concern and one with my house rules and Hope has become more of a precious resource. I therefore prefer to run it that way as it feel more in keeping with the themes of the game and material as presented.

This really depends on a whole lot of factors, not just session length and Hope recovered alone. I know our group are using the song rules in Rivendell for 3-5 extra Fellowship Pool a session (for a pool of 12 or so on average for 6 characters, or 18 Hope total if nobody gets Wounded or the like)...and still usually only breaking even in terms of Hope. If that. This is due to a variety of factors (large numbers of nasty combat encounters recently being a prominent one) , but it shows that even really high Hope regain doesn't necessarily prevent that sort of thing if thew challenges faced are sufficiently dire.

Rich H wrote:That's just personal taste really though and what each of us want to make important in our games. I'm really not a fan of having a game resource refreshing based upon an arbitrary time allotment; I don't think it's a good thing. It's not my biggest bugbear, bennies that get cashed in as XPs if they are not spent during the adventure hold that accolade, but it isn't far off.

Like I said, decoupling them from session end seems totally reasonable to me. It's the not letting people spend the remainder when the pool refreshes I think is (debatably) an issue.

Rich H wrote:Only if you have a session length matching up with that which the rules have an expectation of, otherwise you're having them at some other set time, within the game session, or setting it at dramatically appropriate times.

Sure. But again, if you're refreshing the Pool, you're already fiddling with sheets and mechanics, defintionally, since that's what the Pool is. How difficult is it to say "How much Hope is everyone down?" and then divvy appropriately? I mean...my group usually does it in a minute or two at most. Just doesn't seem terribly immersion breaking compared to, well, any other mechanical system element.

Rich H wrote:I quite like James' idea of only having a refresh at the beginning of an Adventuring Phase. Keeps it clean and makes it tougher.

I'm with you on the 'keeps it clean', but have slight issues with the 'makes it tougher'. Of course, a fair bit of that of that depends on the difficulty and frequency of challenges that the PCs encounter (as mentioned above).

Rich H wrote:

jamesrbrown wrote:

Rich H wrote:And the issue with that is that players can, in my opinion, artificially game the system because they know when the end of a session is approaching and just divide up the remaining points in the Fellowship pool between them as they know it will be refreshing at the start of the next one. It also ruined our immersion.

To me that's not artificially gaming the system because the rules allow them to divide up the remaining Fellowship points after a session (for me an Adventuring phase) for the precise purpose of replenishing spent Hope. They are not finding a loophole in the rules. This is a benefit of friendship, along with having a Fellowship focus. Tension is built during the Adventuring phase when players are taking from the Fellowship pool and not everyone agrees. This requires a vote and could cost a player-hero Shadow gain. So, if they all agree, they could save enough to replenish at least 1 point after the session (Adventuring phase).

Yep, I should've chosen a better phrase! I wasn't trying to suggest that they are exploiting a loophole as the RAW is written to allow that, like you state. I simply don't like the rule, especially when it's based off of a session length. I much prefer your house rule and can see how achieving their goals (ie, completing the adventure) should allow for it to be shared out as it's confirmation of the group's success and togetherness based on a recognised (end) point in the narrative. That sits a lot better with me and would work. I may consider it, although it would mean the FP refreshes less. I think it'd be okay though.

The phrasing was bothering me a bit, too. Just for the record. But yeah, sharing out makes more sense if tied to an in-game event. Of course, I'm pretty sure it makes sense with any appropriate in-game event, not just adventure ends. Which is rather the whole point I was trying to make.

Rich H wrote:

jamesrbrown wrote:If your group is more immersed in the roleplaying than the mechanics, I kind of see how this can be a distraction. But, in my opinion, no more distracting than the Journey or Encounter rules. Spending Fellowship points can be played out by using dialogue between player-heroes. Encouraging words for "Yes, spend a point." Arguments when there is opposition. Selfish statements or speeches when a player wants to spend without approval, etc. In other words, make the Fellowship pool a mechanic that requires interaction between companions in some way.

Nice ideas, James. I'm not sure the way they are spent would always lend themselves to that but I think they'd work in a lot of circumstances.

This is indeed a very neat idea. Might have to talk people into trying it, at least for out of combat expenditures. Might be difficult for many combat related ones, though not impossible.

It's always awesome when folks can have a discussion of different viewpoints and also have everyone stay nice to each other.

For myself, I often use Rich's rule of breaking at a narratively appropriate moment. I do announce it in advance and we often use the FP to refresh personal Hope so no points are lost.

The one thing that might be lost is the idea that if you know the session will end soon, you can stretch out a roleplaying scene (the heroes at camp or what-not) in order to force the refresh. Fellowshipping in order to get Fellowship points, in other words. I like that possibility, as it's another brilliant example of the rules creating the expected behavior without dictating the actual desired behavior.