Another "New Journey Rules", inspired by 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'.
User avatar
Rich H
Posts: 3530
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 8:19 pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Another "New Journey Rules", inspired by AiMe

Post by Rich H » Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:49 pm

Falenthal wrote:Any thoughts? This rule is, of course, related to the Travel house rules proposed in the first post.
What was the design idea for adding this, F? Any specific reason?

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:46 am
Location: Girona (Spain)
Contact:

Re: Another "New Journey Rules", inspired by AiMe

Post by Falenthal » Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:47 pm

Rich H wrote:
Falenthal wrote:Any thoughts? This rule is, of course, related to the Travel house rules proposed in the first post.
What was the design idea for adding this, F? Any specific reason?
I felt that it was much in the spirit of the setting to include a rule that allow for more experienced travellers to aid newbies on the road. Strider helping the hobbits as they escape Bree, or Boromir helping the hobbits through the snow of Caradhras. Even Dernhelm/Eowyn taking Merry with her could apply.
It also helps the "fellowship approach" to give mechanical options to the players of sacrificing some of the personal benefits so that other companions don't suffer so much: the main point of this rule is that, to give a companion one level of success, you have to lose it yourself.
"I'll do your watch tonight, so you can rest a little more".
"Let me carry your backpack, Mr. Frodo. You already have enough to carry yourself".
All these situations can be represented by this rule.

It is, of course, based in the rules that allow to warn a companion of an ambush for each extra level of success, or to compensate for Stealth failures when ambushing the enemy yourself, and the Ranger's Virtue "Endurance of the Ranger".
But, in all of those, you don't need to lose a level of success yourself.

For any of this to work, of course, the Journey rules need to take into consideration extra benefits form rolling a Great or Extraordinary Success when testing the Fatigue.

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:46 am
Location: Girona (Spain)
Contact:

Re: Another "New Journey Rules", inspired by AiMe

Post by Falenthal » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:45 pm

Rich, does that answer your question? I did I misunderstood it? ;)

User avatar
Yepesnopes
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 4:55 pm

Re: Another "New Journey Rules", inspired by AiMe

Post by Yepesnopes » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:37 am

I like these rules a lot Falenthal, especially the option of passing a success to a fellowship member, it fits so good with the mood of the books...!

I will give them a try, but for the moment I won't use the option of skiping a hazard by rising the fatigue by 1.

Thanks for sharing!

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:46 am
Location: Girona (Spain)
Contact:

Re: Another "New Journey Rules", inspired by AiMe

Post by Falenthal » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:05 am

Yepesnopes wrote:
Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:37 am
I like these rules a lot Falenthal, especially the option of passing a success to a fellowship member, it fits so good with the mood of the books...!

I will give them a try, but for the moment I won't use the option of skiping a hazard by rising the fatigue by 1.

Thanks for sharing!
Thanks to you for taking a look at them, and even more if you're goint to put them to test!

You know I'll be eager to know how it went, and any comments or amends you might have.

Let me ask, out of curiosity, if the decision to not use of skiping a Hazard is because you feel there might be something wrong with it, or simply because you don't like it (a Hazard is something that has to be faced, no matter what, for example)?
There might be something that escaped me, or you can have a concept of Hazards that doesn't fit my own idea (and can give me a new view on them, too).
All in all, it is a very optional rule that I like because it gives more choices to the players, but it's not an important one whatsoever.

User avatar
Yepesnopes
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 4:55 pm

Re: Another "New Journey Rules", inspired by AiMe

Post by Yepesnopes » Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:09 am

Falenthal wrote:
Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:05 am
Let me ask, out of curiosity, if the decision to not use of skiping a Hazard is because you feel there might be something wrong with it, or simply because you don't like it (a Hazard is something that has to be faced, no matter what, for example)?
There might be something that escaped me, or you can have a concept of Hazards that doesn't fit my own idea (and can give me a new view on them, too).
All in all, it is a very optional rule that I like because it gives more choices to the players, but it's not an important one whatsoever.
No, I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

I decide it because I like narrating hazards and I like that my players have to find a way to deal with them.

Said that, it is a good optional rule. I imagine that there may be times that I may be in a hurry to speed up the main plot. In that situation, having the option to skip a hazard yet with feeling it taxed the characters seems good to me.

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:46 am
Location: Girona (Spain)
Contact:

Re: Another "New Journey Rules", inspired by AiMe

Post by Falenthal » Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:13 pm

Yepesnopes wrote:
Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:09 am
I like narrating hazards and I like that my players have to find a way to deal with them.
Sounds good to me.

Just remember that, the way I propose it, the Hazard is first narrated, and afterwards do the players that cover the affected role decide if they face it or not. It asks for an unanimous decission among all of them, and can lead to an interesting conversation among the players:
B) Once a Hazard has been described, all of the Heroes in the affected role can decide to avoid facing the Hazard:
The characters in the affected role don't test their skill, the Hazard is considered passed (the consequences of failing the Hazard are not applied), but the whole fellowship (not only those in the affected role) gains automatically 1 Fatigue point.
If at least one of the Heroes in the affected role decides to take the test, then proceed to step C (test Skill).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest