The One Ring - Cubicle 7

[pemerton]

How does it approach adventure/scenario design?

 

[Wightbred]

Interesting question. I only have the PDF which I find a little hard to read compared to a book, so I might have missed something skimming through. The whole campaign is kind of a big sandbox and there is plenty of sage advice and details on approaches to Journey, Encounter and Combat. And also a sample adventure. So I had no problem coming up with my own adventure that went well when we played it.

But there is no guidance on things like how many Orcs to put in a combat encounter that I could see, so not sure how a less experienced GM would go. (Mind you we saw this as a feature in my group as sometimes the monsters will be too tough and the players might actually have to flee. This game feels like Middle Earth to me, and this is one of the elements that is improtant to that for me.)

 

[IronWolf]

Logan Bonner and Chris Tulach (and others) were creating characters for a One Ring game last night... as evidenced by their posting on twitter.

Awesome! I've seen several tweets from various people checking the game out.

 

[IronWolf]

How does it approach adventure/scenario design?

I am not sure how to answer this question. Like Wightbred said the books have several things on combat, encounters, journeys and hazards as well as a Fellowship Phase that comes after the completion of an adventure.

There is a section on "Structure of the Game" which puts phases to the course of an adventure. Each adventure has a phase - an Adventuring phase and a closing Fellowship phase.

The Adventuring phase is what we would typically think of a traditional adventure with travel, encounters and a goal. Then once that phase is complete there is a Fellowship phase which is akin to an extended rest after the adventure. The adventure phase is essentially a mini-campaign arc which is generally a larger part of a whole in an extended campaign.

Not sure I have answered your question though - feel free to ask for more.

 

[Wicht]

How does it approach adventure/scenario design?

As I read through it, and begin working with it, I think I would have to say that it approaches the whole thing from the perspective of the 10-year campaign, not the 1 day scenario. This is not to say you could not design a one-shot (I've run 2 different one-shots thus far; one at Gencon and the one out of the book) but the game, as designed, is intended to tell longer stories. The in-game time, however, can pass extremely quickly as the party travels. The scenario we were given to run at Gen-con covered nearly two months worth of in-game time in three to three and a half hours as the party traveled from southern mirkwood, up to northern mirkwood, back down and then half-way up again.

It seems to me the best method for campaign design, and this is suggested in the book, is for the Loremaster to decide what story he wants to tell. Once this is done, he can then fill in the events, as they happen from year to year, taking into account different player responses. Then, once the broad time-line is established, he can create smaller quests to fill it in. As the quests are designed, the Loremaster can also create individual encounters, both combat events and social encounters. Finally, individual locations, for exploring can be filled in and stocked with creatures.

As for individual threat levels, and how tough to make them, some of it, I think is going to be learned on the fly. Even at "1st level" however, the PCs can handle themselves pretty well so long as they are not weary.

 

[pemerton]

I am not sure how to answer this question. Like Wightbred said the books have several things on combat, encounters, journeys and hazards as well as a Fellowship Phase that comes after the completion of an adventure.

<snip>

Not sure I have answered your question though - feel free to ask for more.

I was wondering if it was a traditional "GM designs scenario/encounter areas, places hooks" approach, or a more indie "Player build hooks into their PCs which the GM then frames nto situations" approach, or some sort of collaborative approach, or . . .

(Some people upthread compared it to Burning Wheel - I guess I'm curious as to how much it resembles BW in the adventure-design stakes.)

It seems to me the best method for campaign design, and this is suggested in the book, is for the Loremaster to decide what story he wants to tell.

This makes it sound fairly traditional, with the GM having a lot of control over the way the game unfolds. Am I getting that right?

 

[MerricB]

Incidentally, I'm looking to the Lord of the Rings LCG by FFG to get scenario ideas.

Cheers!

 

[Wicht]

This makes it sound fairly traditional, with the GM having a lot of control over the way the game unfolds. Am I getting that right?

I would say its traditional in that sense, yes. The adventure phase of the campaign is entirely up to the Loremaster. However, during the fellowship phase, the players get to determine where their characters go (within limits) and who they meet (again within limits and somewhat at the discretion of the Loremaster).

Outside the fellowship phase, one interesting power vested in the players is the option of how their own character's weapons and armor improve (simulating the finding of magical gear, etc.) Basically as the character increases in valor, he can choose weapon qualities and then work with the Loremaster to determine how his weapon obtained those qualities.

 

[pemerton]

during the fellowship phase, the players get to determine where their characters go (within limits) and who they meet (again within limits and somewhat at the discretion of the Loremaster).

OK, that's interesting. Do those choices in the fellowship phase then factor into the next adventure phase? Eg if we meet Elrond in the fellowship phase, does that affect the way we might be able to tackle encounters in the next adventure phase?

Outside the fellowship phase, one interesting power vested in the players is the option of how their own character's weapons and armor improve (simulating the finding of magical gear, etc.) Basically as the character increases in valor, he can choose weapon qualities and then work with the Loremaster to determine how his weapon obtained those qualities.

I saw this idea mentioned on the Cubicle7 website. It reminded me of some of the ideas [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] has been floating on some threads here over the past few months - that fighters might gain magic items as a parallel to how wizard's gain new spells.

 

[Wicht]

OK, that's interesting. Do those choices in the fellowship phase then factor into the next adventure phase? Eg if we meet Elrond in the fellowship phase, does that affect the way we might be able to tackle encounters in the next adventure phase?

During the fellowship phase, the party, as a whole, can choose to make a place, such as Rivendell, a sanctuary. The advantage of a sanctuary is that during the fellowship phase, an individual character can also choose to work on getting rid of shadow and in a sanctuary, two attempts per fellowship phase can be made to do so, as opposed to just one elsewhere.

When a fellowship phase is spent in an area where a powerful individual, such as Elrond, can be met, the player can choose to have their character meet this individual and adopt them as a patron. A patron can be used by the loremaster in the adventure phase to give out adventures, offering support and counsel at the same time. (The two patrons introduced in the first core set are Radagast and Beorn.) Part of the fun of Patrons is learning more about them, from an in-game perspective, and if my players chose to adopt a Patron, I would certainly take it as a sign they wanted more interaction with those individuals.