'revised' Journey Resolution

Hi everyone!

I just updated my blog, found at:

http://cohorsarcana.blogspot.it/

There, you can find a document containing a tweak of journey resolution, aimed to reduce the amount of die rolling involved... take a look if you are interested, and please let me know what you think about it!

Cheers,

Francesco

This seems pretty good. I like how you have clearly defined the rules for the end of a journey, as increasing fatigue from failed travel rolls before was a little ambiguous.

1. Not sure about every character increasing their fatigue for a failed roll. but I suppose it could reflect that they are taking more time to help the person who failed, or that there is a bigger issue for the failure, not simply down to one person but applying some sort of 'natural' event based on the role the failed person was carrying out, scout, guide etc.

2. I take it from the document that you roll ALL the fatigue tests for the journey at once, so if I calculate the journey would need three rolls, then everyone goes down the marching order three times each, then you calculate the increased fatigue.
Of course if you plan an encounter, at least one that will take 3 days or more, then you would have to break up the fatigue rolls accordingly.

3. How does this factor in to players wanting to make other rolls during the journey? If the journey will take a long time then the Huntsman needs to make rolls to see if they can get enough food, the scout needs to roll to see if they can find a suitable camp for the night. For instance, if you were going to travel from one side of the Mirkwood to the other, the journey could take a month, so non fatigue rolling could really bog the journey down.

So far my journeys have been OK, but I am running a game this Friday and I will show this to my players and see what they think. I will report back with what they think about the revised rules.

Cheers,

Chris.

The idea is that every roll doesn't reflect a difficulty at a 'personal' level, but a 'group-level' issue that the role challenged is called to solve.

Let me get this straight: if you need three rolls, then only the guide, the scout and the huntsman will make a roll each.

Francesco

Ahhh. Actually I like the idea of each role getting a...roll. Makes sense and spreads the love around to each player individually. But am I to understand that the fatigue piles up all at once and the end of the journey? I rather like the way that Fatigue slowly accumulates so that the players start to worry about Endurance loss.

I do like the definition of a journey's end. I might try this at the next game I run.

These new rules state the journey ends when "the company reaches its intended destination, when the gameplay definitely leaves narrative time and the players take part in a full-fledged episode, or when some change of plan or unexpected occurrence interrupts the journey to engage the company in a different activity for a significant amount of time."

What happens when they pick up the journey again? For example: The Fellowship are journeying in Spring across Mirkwood on the Elf-path from the Enchanted Stream to the Forest Gate (in the adventure Don't Leave the Path).

The adventure states this will take 24 days and it calls for 5 Fatigue tests. So the Guide, the Scout, the Huntsman, and the Lookout Man all roll. Then Guide rolls the last test (making 5 tests). Then, let's say they encounter spiders and have an episode. The journey is considered at an end so they increase their fatigue from any failed rolls. Once the episode is over and they continue the journey, do you recalculate the distance, effectively starting the journey process all over again including new fatigue tests? If not, how is that journey "picked up" again?

Also, what if there is more than one Huntsman, or Lookout? How do you determine which one rolls the Fatigue test?

Thanks Beckett, this needs clarifying.

Basically, the idea is that if for example there is more than one Huntsman, they all roll and the fellowship needs only one success to avoid accumulating fatigue at the end of the journey (so, the more hunters, the better).

But, if more than one companion rolls and someone fails rolling an Eye, what happens? A hazard is triggered, whether or not someone else passed the test? I think not, the Fatigue test should be considered as a 'single' test, with more than one chance to pass it if there are multiple companions covering the same role.

What do you think?

Francesco

Thanks Beckett, this needs clarifying.

Basically, the idea is that if for example there is more than one Huntsman, they all roll and the fellowship needs only one success to avoid accumulating fatigue at the end of the journey (so, the more hunters, the better).

But, if more than one companion rolls and someone fails rolling an Eye, what happens? A hazard is triggered, whether or not someone else passed the test? I think not, the Fatigue test should be considered as a 'single' test, with more than one chance to pass it if there are multiple companions covering the same role.

What do you think?

Francesco

I like where it's going but I think I'm confused about how to apply the mechanic in-game. What you've written here appears to contradict the PDF of the revised rules concerning triggering a hazard, no?

From the revised rules:

"If one or more heroes fail at a Travel test and produce an Eye icon, all companions in the group see their Fatigue rating immediately go up by one point for every Eye icon rolled. Then, an Hazard must be resolved."

I like that it is considered a single test and the players must confront the test as a group. But does this

"But, if more than one companion rolls and someone fails rolling an Eye, what happens? A hazard is triggered, whether or not someone else passed the test? I think not"

weaken considerably the dangers involved in traveling? I sometimes use hazards to trigger an "episode." I find them useful in a narrative way. They stumble on some ruins, or a pack of wolves follow the huntsman back to their camp, so on and so forth.

I do like the idea of reducing the number of rolls made for Fatigue, as long journeys can get tiresome...

However, using the 'Revised Journey Rules' means that at the end of the journey, everyone will have the same level of fatigue, as they all fail or succeed together.

This doesn't feel quite right to me.

I would suggest a 5th position in the 'Marching Order'... 'All Companions'.

So when every 5th Fatigue test is made, everyone rolls. That way, at the end of the Journey, the companions with the best Travel skills will be less fatigued than those with the worst Travel skills (subject to the quirk of fate known as bad dice rolls!)

True. I don't like that either. Back to the drawing board!

Please keep commenting if you have other opinions...

Francesco

Alright, trying to wrap my head around this. Fatigue is tallied at the end of a journey, but an episode (including unexpected occurrence) is considered to "end" a journey.

Why not just increase Fatigue immediately after the failed roll? This way the players are keeping track of it, immediately after it comes up, which is a good thing because the LM already has a lot to juggle. It also ensures that Fatigue is affecting all rolls during the journey, which is as it should be.

For example, say the Huntsman is rolling to find food pretty much every day. If his Endurance is exactly at his Fatigue score starting out, shouldn't a failed roll (indicating that he's having a physically difficult time coping with the rigors of the journey) affect his Hunting rolls? If Fatigue is only tallied at journey's end then he's "fine" until a "significant episode" occurs. I'd rather see his weariness affect his ability to bring home dinner (whether it's because he simply can't cover enough ground to find game, or because he's too tired to pursue game, etc.).

Hi Francesco, thanks for the updates, much appreciated.

Could I ask for a clarification, think I am reading it right, just want to make sure:

Regarding the Fatigue Increase (at the end of the journey) - the "travelling gear" in the update (as well as described on page 76 of the Adventurer's book) includes winter/autumn/summer/spring travelling gear (encumbrance ratings of 1 or 2 depending upon the season) plus encumbrance of all gear of war (weapons and armour). Is that correct?

If the pre-made character Trotter for example was part of a fellowship who failed at least one fatigue test, that would increase his Fatigue by 11 plus his seasonal gear encumbrance (his weapons + armour encumbrance is 11, excluding travelling gear for the season), which would take him above his endurance (21) with whatever travelling gear he was using - 11 + 11 + (1 or 2) = 23 or 24.

+1 on this. Actually I'd make it the first spot in the order.

I too like the idea of an "All Companions" slot in the marching order, although it's not that off for the company's Fatigue increases to be roughly uniform. A good (i.e., skilled) traveling companion can help his less hardy comrades, even as those less hardy can be a burden to those familiar with the rigors of the road.

Yeesh, you guys are prolific. I had this open when there was only one reply, come back, refresh my browser and there's 13!

Did I miss it? Or has nobody commented on the fact that Francesco appears to have been putting time in on a Battle of the Five Armies game?

But anyway, about the alternative dice-mechanic...

I cautiously like the principle that rolls and Fatigue-consequences are shared. This is a very bonding thing -- like in all those boot camp movies where one person's shortcoming drags down the whole unit until they work as a team to help each other out. I think it's fine to say that Strider works really hard -- and gets tired accordingly -- to help the hobbits through the Lone Lands, effectively equalising the Fatigue accrued (though Strider has far more Endurance, and can take it). Equally, from the other angle, if a hobbit sprains his ankle or something, everyone will have to work harder to help him along.
But I say I "cautiously" like it because some groups (i.e. mine), despite gaming together for 20-odd years, are still only in the first half of that movie! In our sessions, if someone fails a roll it's often a cause of cruel laughter. If that fail impacted other people, it might be a source of bickering recriminations for weeks! (And they think they're too good for D&D?!)
But don't rewrite the rules to cater to the dysfunctional! For good groups, I like it.

[...]Basically, the idea is that if for example there is more than one Huntsman, they all roll and the fellowship needs only one success to avoid accumulating fatigue at the end of the journey (so, the more hunters, the better).

But, if more than one companion rolls and someone fails rolling an Eye, what happens? A hazard is triggered, whether or not someone else passed the test? I think not, the Fatigue test should be considered as a 'single' test, with more than one chance to pass it if there are multiple companions covering the same role.

I think if someone succeeds the roll, the 'role' is fulfilled successfully, and there are no negative consequences. As long as one of the huntsmen brings home the venison, everyone gets to eat.
If someone fails when someone else succeeds, there may not be double rations of venison, but no one goes hungry -- so there are no negatives consequences. But if someone fails with an Eye something bad has happened, and the other success shouldn't affect that. A Hazard should still be generated.

That means that when a role has to be tested, the members of the Fellowship acting in that role should be allowed to choose whether they want just one person to roll, or whether they want multiple rolls, increasing the chance of someone succeeding, but also increasing the risk of someone rolling an Eye-fail and generating a Hazard.

The Lookout-man role should probably be an exception to this. It's essentially a passive role and the default to which any 'spare' members of the Fellowship are assigned -- and if any Lookout-man succeeds the alarm will be raised regardless of whether the other Lookout-men were blunderingly unaware of any dangers.

Cheers!
--Os.