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: 3828
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?
TOR resources thread: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=62
TOR miniatures thread: viewtopic.php?t=885

Fellowship of the Free Tale of Years: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8318

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 2144
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: 2144
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: 258
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: 2144
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: 258
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: 2144
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).

User avatar
Ecorce
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:36 am
Contact:

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

Post by Ecorce » Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:47 am

First I wanted to thank you for sharing your ideas.
I was disappointed by the Journey Rules in RAW, and wish I could find simpler rules.

I won't talk about your rules for now, but about thoughts I had...
Thoughts about Travels in RPG and as a main theme in high fantasy books.

Rules aim at resolving the whole journey at once.
It means to me that a journey is just an "ellipse" between two scenes, and rules try to simulate the effect of that journey on characters, while starting the new scene.

However...

In the LotR, even though each kilometer isn't told, the journey itself IS the main part of the story. We're stopping the ellipse while reaching a place where something important is about to happen to the characters. However the journey isn't finished, we're not in Mordor.

Furthermore, the "long" journey is divided into many "medium" or "small" journeys.

Some of those medium/small journeys end up in a sanctuary (they stop the journey for some days or weeks and rest), or start quickly the next step of the long journey.

This being, in TOR, shouldn't we divide our travels (at least long travels) into small pieces and think about integrating parts of the main story/scenario when ending up a part of the travel?

Shouldn't we use this to tell the characters what's going on in the place they rest, or the rumors from far lands?

Why should the story be stopped during the journey, to go on only when ending up the journey?

Edit: to say more... when I talk about the story that should exists during the journeys, I mean at least to things :
  • the mission could progress (no need to do that every journey)
  • the mental evolution of the characters should progress, because a travel can be a good moment (to me) to think about the mission, its obstacles, its dangers, what they've done, the way they've done it, etc. There should be a moment for role-play, like for the Fellowship's phase?
Ecorce French TOR community

Thoughts about The One Ring : Les Carnets d'Imladris / Notes from Imladris

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:46 am
Location: Girona (Spain)
Contact:

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

Post by Falenthal » Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:21 am

Thanks for your comment, Ecorce.

As much as I share your consideration about journeys being a part of the plot/adventure, not just a mechanical link between them, I have to say I disagree on how TOR approaches that statement (as far as I understand your post).

I think TOR gives the LM a wide range of options to play out a travel during an adventure. The first adventure from Tales from Wilderland, "Don't Leave the Path", shows that the travel can be the adventure. NPCs take actions as time advances, places and situations are presented to the players so that they feel the region they're travelling through (spiders, the forest river, straying from the path,...). The Fatigue tests in this adventure just solve what happens during the "unplayed days" of the travel, but the journey has still to be played by the heroes. It also shows how the fellowship can roll Fatigue for a few days of travel and then face a situation; then roll for another few days and solve some other twist; etc. A long journey doesn't need to be rolled and solved as a whole at once.

On the other hand, sometimes the adventure requires travels that aren't important for the plot. Then, the rules for Journeys can be used to handwave that part, with a quick and simple description of the region travelled and, if possible, using some Hazards to present the heroes with situations associated with it.

Regarding your idea about the character's progress during travels, I think that weight falls over the player's shoulders. We usually consider that it is during the travel that the heroes share they're thoughts on what is happening in the adventure, they sometimes roleplay a bit how they feel when leaving the Elven kingdom's territories, or when reaching again a place where they had a previous bad eperience, etc. But other times they just say: "Ok, we go to Beorn's House. What should be roll?". And that's ok, too.

Personally, regarding the RAW for Journeys, I am (was) more concerned about the sheer amount of rolls needed, the overpowered use of Traits (or the need to say "no" without a good reason), the in-game time needed to calculate the numbers, the lack of difference between qualities of success, and also the lack of player decissions when facing Hazards.

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:46 am
Location: Girona (Spain)
Contact:

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

Post by Falenthal » Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:22 am

Ecorce wrote:
Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:47 am
I won't talk about your rules for now, [...]
Eager to know if you'd like to talk about them in the future?? :lol:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests