New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

The unique One Ring rules set invites tinkering and secondary creation. Whilst The One Ring works brilliantly as written, we provide this forum for those who want to make their own home-brewed versions of the rules. Note that none of these should be taken as 'official'.
Summerhawk
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:31 am

Re: New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

Post by Summerhawk » Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:45 am

Any thoughts on how to use the required periodic corruption rollso in certain places? For instance, the trek a cross the Wastes in "A Watch on the Heath" is an 8 day journey with daily corruption checks. The new rules seem to place a high value on avoiding this kind of repetitive mechanic aso well as tracking days. Would it just be in the selection of hazards, or perhaps a modifier to the arrival Phase? Also if I just missed this in the document, I apologize.

User avatar
Rich H
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 8:19 pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

Post by Rich H » Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:53 am

No worries, any rules on Blighted Places aren't included in these rules as they are purely Journey mechanics. Corruption checks due to travelling through a blighted area are something that can happen while travelling but are not strictly part of the Journey rules.

You're dead right about the repetitive nature of such rolls though... Even before I picked up AiMe I wouldn't resolve Corruption checks in such a way. If you know as LM that the company will be travelling through a blighted land for so many days then I'd simply reduce the number of rolls but increase the potential shadow point gain for each roll. So, taking your example, lets says that there are 8 rolls to make and each failed roll would normally result in 1 point of Shadow gain. In my campaign I'd group that into two rolls with 4 points of Shadow gain associated to each roll; a success on each roll would reduce this total by one point per success, so if someone rolled an Extraordinary success then they could reduce the amount by three. This does likely mean that the players, even with the best result, cannot reduce the Shadow gained to zero (ie, it would be one point gained for each of the two rolls even if they achieved an extraordinary success on both rolls) but it does cut down on the number of tests and it makes those extra successes count for something. I also like the idea of not being able to avoid Shadow gain completely - which fits into my view of the rules and world in this regard.

Does that make sense?

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:46 am
Location: Girona (Spain)
Contact:

Re: New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

Post by Falenthal » Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:26 am

Rich H wrote:In my campaign I'd group that into two rolls with 4 points of Shadow gain associated to each roll; a success on each roll would reduce this total by one point per success, so if someone rolled an Extraordinary success then they could reduce the amount by three. This does likely mean that the players, even with the best result, cannot reduce the Shadow gained to zero (ie, it would be one point gained for each of the two rolls even if they achieved an extraordinary success on both rolls) but it does cut down on the number of tests and it makes those extra successes count for something. I also like the idea of not being able to avoid Shadow gain completely - which fits into my view of the rules and world in this regard.

Does that make sense?
Absolutely my point of view, too. And this idea and mechanic should apply to Fatigue test, too. Travelling, specially through difficult terrains or dangerous lands, should result in at least a minimum of Fatigue being gained, however high your skill ranks or however cool your Traits are.
Also, travelling through Angmar, Dol Guldur, etc must bring some Corruption to even the hardiest of hearts.

And, mechanically, it avoids LOTS of rolls AND makes the different quality of successes count for something.

Summerhawk
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:31 am

Re: New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

Post by Summerhawk » Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:11 pm

That is an excellent suggestion, and could easily be fitted into an in-journey episode. I too like the idea of degrees of success counting for something. Thanks.

User avatar
Rich H
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 8:19 pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

Post by Rich H » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:04 am

Agreed and glad it makes sense.

Has anyone had chance to review the rules I posted in the pdf?

Ghorin
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 9:20 pm
Location: France, near Paris

Re: New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

Post by Ghorin » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:54 pm

Hi,

I made a first test today, outside a real session. My test was about 5 characters doing 2 different travels :
- From Dale to Iron Hills through Upper Marches ==> 14 hex, Moderate (TN 14), Wild Lands
- Crossing Mirkwood by the Old Forest Road = 21 hex, Daunting (TN 20), Dark Lands.

Notes :
- For Mirkwood travel, i didn't cut that path into 2 steps (the west part is only Severe /Wild Lands) as I didn't had time for longer test
- I considered that all travelers had light gear, no animal, no treasure

1st Test : from Dale to Iron Hills
That travel wasn't difficult. Results are :
+1pt of fatigue to all characters but 1
4 hazards resolved
Eye Awareness didn't changed
End of travel : Bonus for next encounter after arrival

2nd test : Crossing of Mirkwood
This travel is far more dangerous. Results are :
+1 to 3 Fatigue points to each character
7 hazards with 3 resolved, 1 combat encounter, more Fatigue points
Eye awareness +4
End of travel : +2 Fatigue points ==> 3 to 5 Fatigue points for each character


My first conclusions and questions :
- The difficulty of the travel impacts much the number of hazards than the Fatigue. I would have thought that travelling through Mirkwood would be much more tiresome. But maybe i'm worng and maybe 3 to 5 fatigue points loss is a lot (my experience on TOR is recent).
- Chapter 6 : Journey dispositon table, result 9 : do you confirm that the TN is modified for all further tests (tasks, travel,hazards) ?
- Chapter Hazards 11 Determine the number of hazards : the last 2 modifiers concern the size of the company. But isn't it already taken care in the Eye Awareness raw rule ?
- Chapter 14 Resolve the hazards Table : result 1-3 says "Add Fatigue" but which Fatigue is it ? The usual Fatigue coming from encumbrance or from the Fatigue calculated in chapter 9 ?
- Chapter Journey's End resolution : result 9 (bonus on next encounter at travel arrival), this result is interesting only if there is an encounter at arrival, but it coult not be the case. My suggestion : add a note saying that the Loremaster may choose the next upper result if the current is not appropriate.
- Chapter Journey's End resolution : What about adding a "-1" for each failed hazard ? I feel strange that a company would finish their travel without impact from failed hazards

What I like :
- the impact of Eye and Gandalf dices on next results
- the impact of success level
- the impact of the terrain and darkness on the number of hazards

What I dislike :
- more difficult to prepare a travel before the session as several parts directly depends on players dices results

Note : if my testing is not answering your expectations, please consider that i'm no natural english-talking (i'm french) and thus i might misunderstand some points of your house-rule.

Hoping it helps

User avatar
Rich H
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 8:19 pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

Post by Rich H » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:52 am

Ghorin wrote:My first conclusions and questions :
Will try and break down my replies to the associated queries...
Ghorin wrote:- The difficulty of the travel impacts much the number of hazards than the Fatigue. I would have thought that travelling through Mirkwood would be much more tiresome. But maybe i'm worng and maybe 3 to 5 fatigue points loss is a lot (my experience on TOR is recent).
I think 3 to 5 points feels okay to me. There are more opportunities to gain fatigue as there are also hazards that target this as well so it could be higher and there's still a lot of exposure in the numbers you've provided. Considering you decked them out in light summer gear - this could be harder with heavier gear and also light gear wouldn't protect them from any Blighted Places they could easily travel through within Mirkwood so their Shadow could be higher as a result.
Ghorin wrote:- Chapter 6 : Journey dispositon table, result 9 : do you confirm that the TN is modified for all further tests (tasks, travel,hazards) ?
Yes, where it's a terrain type. Bear in mind that there are Region Types too (eg, Shadow Lands, Free Lands, etc) and these are not affected by this boon.
Ghorin wrote:- Chapter Hazards 11 Determine the number of hazards : the last 2 modifiers concern the size of the company. But isn't it already taken care in the Eye Awareness raw rule ?
Not exactly. These two modifiers are to simulate that larger or smaller groups would face slightly more or less hazards than a more standard sized group within the RAW (ie, they'd roll more EYE results). The Eye Awareness is separate to that.
Ghorin wrote:- Chapter 14 Resolve the hazards Table : result 1-3 says "Add Fatigue" but which Fatigue is it ? The usual Fatigue coming from encumbrance or from the Fatigue calculated in chapter 9 ?
Usual fatigue from encumbrance.
Ghorin wrote:- Chapter Journey's End resolution : result 9 (bonus on next encounter at travel arrival), this result is interesting only if there is an encounter at arrival, but it coult not be the case. My suggestion : add a note saying that the Loremaster may choose the next upper result if the current is not appropriate.
An encounter could read as any kind of social interaction really, not just a formal encounter. An LM could adjudicate a result of 8 instead though.
Ghorin wrote:- Chapter Journey's End resolution : What about adding a "-1" for each failed hazard ? I feel strange that a company would finish their travel without impact from failed hazards
No, I think the failure of a hazard already has its own penalties.
Ghorin wrote: What I like :
- the impact of Eye and Gandalf dices on next results
- the impact of success level
- the impact of the terrain and darkness on the number of hazards
Cool.
Ghorin wrote: What I dislike :
- more difficult to prepare a travel before the session as several parts directly depends on players dices results
Those dice results just impact on the Journey Disposition result which can be easily narrated during the outset so isn't really more difficult. In fact, I'd suggest it actually helps in getting the narrative of the journey going.

Where else do you see additional rolls impacting on the difficulty of preparing a journey? I can't see any...
Ghorin wrote:Note : if my testing is not answering your expectations, please consider that i'm no natural english-talking (i'm french) and thus i might misunderstand some points of your house-rule.
Nope, not at all! I really appreciate the time you've spent and hope you like the new rules!

Ghorin
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 9:20 pm
Location: France, near Paris

Re: New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

Post by Ghorin » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:53 pm

Hi Rich H,

Thank you for the answers and explanations, i agree with all of them.

I have a question : do you think that your house rule would be unbalanced if I use it without the light/heavy gear rule (thus it would be only normal gears as in raw) ? I'm very fond of the very simple raw rule for gear.

Now I will do some other testing & simulation (with narration) to appropriate the rule "in my head" and see if it comes "easy to use" for me as it is for you. Concerning your last question (what additional rolls impacting the difficulty or preparing a journey), i will answer it after this new testing.

Note : i will also check the other house rule inspired from AiMe and written by Falenthal.

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:46 am
Location: Girona (Spain)
Contact:

Re: New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

Post by Falenthal » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:37 pm

Ghorin wrote: Note : i will also check the other house rule inspired from AiMe and written by Falenthal.
Image

Ghorin
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 9:20 pm
Location: France, near Paris

Re: New Journey Rules - Ideas from AiMe

Post by Ghorin » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:41 pm

:lol:
Well this isn't a race for the "best house rule", this is a check for the "house rule that best meet my way of playing TOR"

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests