Thord of Relings

[Zak Arntson]

Okay, so that's a lousy name for my game, but it's still in development. I'll come up with a good name later. It's a fantasy game inspired by a certain trilogy. I'm trying to emphasize the following themes:
- Camaraderie among your fellowship overcomes struggles
- Helping yourself comes at the cost of increasing evil

You can find the first rules draft here: Thord of Relings

The mechanic is a combination of my own Shadows and Dying Earth. Here's key points:

- You state two outcomes, one for the Fellowship, the other for the Bane. Then roll the Fellowship and Bane dice. Whichever is higher dictates the outcome.

- Your character is defined by biographical notes, called Keys. If you want a set of armor that affects gameplay, it has to have a Key, like Discovered a mysterious suit of armor in the Grigora Warrens.

- Each Key has points. These points are spent by the player to help herself or another player. As a player, if you help yourself, you spend 2 points, one going to the GM to use to augment the Bane roll (when he wants). If you help another player with their roll you give them a point and have them reroll a die (just like in Shadows).

---

So, with that short introduction, here're my questions:
- Currently, I have two different ways to handle spending Key points on yourself. Both requires spending two points. One method is to simply allow a reroll like Shadows. The other method gives you another Fellowship die to roll (and take the highest). Would you find this second method disruptive to the flow of the mechanics?

- Are there any glaring holes in the rules? The single mechanic covers combat, social interaction, studious learning, etc etc. I'm wondering what I may have missed.

[Valamir]

What is the scope of the bane roll.  Do they represent some ephemeral force of the universe which always opposes the will of the fellowship?  In otherwords...if I'm in a conflict situation that deserves a die roll, do I roll a bane die even when the bane themselves are not in the least bit involved.  If so does this represent just fate with a colorful name, or does it actually involve being opposed by the bane on some metaphysical level.  Or are there no such conflicts.  Are the only conflicts that are ever rolled ones that the bane are specifically involved in and the rest are just handled dramatically.

One of the things that made Shadows work, was that the Shadow was a completely personal thing.  It could be a particular force or simply represent that little voice that whispers like a devil on our shoulder.  In any case it is always interested in "opposing" anything the character does because its scope is specifically personal and focused on getting that character into trouble...thus its easy to come up with the "What the Shadow wants" simply by figuring "how could this blow up in my face".

However if the Bane represents some outside macro force, than there are several things that most likely the bane themselves have absolutely no knowledge of / interest in / or power to effect

Did that make sense...

[Blake Hutchins]

I like the idea of having Setting Keys available for GM or player, Bane or Fellowship.  Thus, using a LotR example, Rivendell might have a Place of Healing Key that can be invoked by players.  Darker places like Mirkwood might have more Bane points available for the GM to use to complicate things.

Best,

Blake

[szilard]

I must say that I really like the way you differentiate between scopes. That's an issue that I've been giving some thought to lately.

~szilard

[Tony Irwin]

Alternate self-spending rule, I'm not sure about this one: You cannot spend points to reroll dice, but if you spend 2 points (one given to the GM, the other lost), you get to grab another Fellowship or Bane die (your choice), roll it, and use the highest-rolled die. If you roll F4 and B6, you can spend two points to roll ANOTHER F die and take the highest. So even if your new die rolls a 2, you keep the 4. As opposed to rerolling which replaces your old die.

Well if I roll F4 and B6, I obviously want to spend points because currently I've got a failure. Because there's no margin of failure Im not worried if I roll F2 with my new dice and am forced to keep that over my orgininal F4. I can't get "worse" failures, so there's no real impetus to use a roll-and-compare method instead of just a straight reroll.

With successes, if I roll F7 and B4 I've got no reason to roll another dice because there're no rules for margin of success. There is nothing to be gained by rolling F9 on the other dice (or by a reroll). So although roll-and-compare would let keep my highest dice even if I roll F1 on my bought dice, I've got no real reason to buy another dice anyway.

If you do introduce rules for interpreting margin of success and failure then the roll-and-compare method is much easier on the players than the reroll method. Just now I guess its handling time - rerolling a single dice is easier than taking another dice and comparing two values. So my answer to...

- Currently, I have two different ways to handle spending Key points on yourself. Both requires spending two points. One method is to simply allow a reroll like Shadows. The other method gives you another Fellowship die to roll (and take the highest). Would you find this second method disruptive to the flow of the mechanics?

Is yeah it seems slightly more disruptive, because it requires more dice, requires keeping track of dice you've already rolled, and there are no success/failure margins to make it really useful for players.

By the way I love Shadows :-) and the Scope mechanic looks really interesting.

Tony

[Zak Arntson]

What is the scope of the bane roll.
...
If so does this represent just fate with a colorful name, or does it actually involve being opposed by the bane on some metaphysical level.  Or are there no such conflicts.

That's a very good question. I hadn't considered the personal impact of the Shadow (in Shadows, natch) and carrying that over into this game. Now, should I keep a group-level Bane, only? I'm leaning towards two Banes - group level and personal level, you can use either when narrating. Since the Keys are already biographical, I would make the Bane some sort of personal, biographical note, too.

Or! Your Bane outcome is tied to your actual Keys, somehow.

And, about when to roll ... I would require a roll whenever the outcome is dramatic and/or ties into the Bane. Bluffing a guard or a grand fight would require a roll, for example.

I'll think more on this and respond to the other replies in a bit. Thanks, all!

[Zak Arntson]

I like the idea of having Setting Keys available for GM or player, Bane or Fellowship.

The issue here is that most of the point-spending should be done on the part of the players. I'm still wondering if the GM should at all get to spend points. I do like the thought of Setting Keys, though. Perhaps they would be Keys created by the GM and accessible by the players? Even if it's a scary note, like "Giant spiders drove out the elves during Ariella's reign: 5" it could be used to augment a reroll.

---

szilard,
Thanks! I think too much emphasis is placed on a) combat vs. everything else, and b) a roll has a single, "60-second"-type scope. Hence the scope & single mechanic.

---

Okay, Tony, I'll get to you with next reply. Promise!

[Zak Arntson]

Well if I roll F4 and B6, I obviously want to spend points because currently I've got a failure.

You may not want to spend any points. Spending points on your own roll would give the GM a point and burn one of your points entirely. Your better bet would be to rely on a companion to give you a point.

As for margins-of-success, that's decidedly not part of the mechanic. If your Fellowship die wins, then there you go! Unless another player really wants to see the Bane outcome.

Is yeah it [rolling additional dice] seems slightly more disruptive, because it requires more dice, requires keeping track of dice you've already rolled, and there are no success/failure margins to make it really useful for players.

I'm thinking that the handling time isn't increased too much. Especially if adding a Fellowship die means you roll another die, and drop the lowest. This way, your final dice are still a pair. When the GM spends a point, he rolls another Bane die and drops the lowest. That way the outcome always boils down to a pair of dice.

Oh, and thanks for the kind word on Shadows. This may be the next game our group tries, so we'll find out and see how scope works. To be fair, I've been thinking of scope ever since reading Trollbabe, though I can't remember Ron's mechanic for it.

[szilard]

szilard,
Thanks! I think too much emphasis is placed on a) combat vs. everything else, and b) a roll has a single, "60-second"-type scope. Hence the scope & single mechanic.

::nod::

Particularly with the sort of epic feel you are trying to emulate. If someone like Aragorn wants to wade through a mob of orcs, killing those in his path, to reach some goal on the other side of them, it hardly makes sense to even make a single roll for each orc he has to bash.

~szilard