User avatar
Ebrim
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue 30 Jul 2019, 22:51

Re: Weight of the Resources

Wed 10 Jun 2020, 22:18

I also want to increase the logistical planning required in adventuring.

I think having all resource dice just take up a single encumbrance slot is too generous, especially for water. Have you ever tried to carry water? It's extremely heavy, and as the RAW read, an adventurer could potentially be carrying many days or weeks worth of water for a single encumbrance. IRL it's hard to actually carry enough water for a whole day, never mind several days or even a week.

My solo player so far has had no problems in making her d12 of water last. The drawback of the resource dice system is that there's no telling how long a die might last, and a d12 of supply could last for weeks. She has now acquired Maligarn, which drains resources from you (forcing you to make 2 rolls instead of 1).

I was thinking of something like this: For food, torches and arrows: D12, D10 = Heavy, D8, D6 = Normal. For water, each die takes up a slot. This might be too harsh, but the player does have a horse.

I'm also considering allowing D4 resources, which would be Light, and the equivalent of ½ rations - you would still deplete after rolling a D6, but you could deliberately pack a D4 to travel very light.
I’d suggest trying the resource system from Alien. I’ve changed my home FbL game to this. Basically you count resources as units 1-4 as a normal item, 5-8 is heavy, etc. Then when you test the resource you roll that number of d6’s. You lose a unit for every 1 rolled.

Additionally, have any sort of strenuous activity (hiking in the heat, forced march, combat, etc.) cause additional water checks. The effective water supply will be less while keeping the actual rules for tracking it just as easy.
 
rennarda
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri 20 Dec 2019, 15:28

Re: Weight of the Resources

Thu 11 Jun 2020, 10:29

Yeah, I know!

The problem I have is that my player has a very good survival dice pool, and to wilderness travel lacks challenge. She's able to cover huge amounts of ground, and we haven't once had to use the foraging rules as that d12 waterskin never seems to run dry. Even in a worst case scenario a d12 in water will last you 4 days.

I envisage wilderness travellers almost always requiring a pack animal to travel effectively, even if they are riding horseback. And when you reach an adventure site, deciding what equipment to take when you should be a tactical decision - I like making players make hard choices.
 
rennarda
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri 20 Dec 2019, 15:28

Re: Weight of the Resources

Thu 11 Jun 2020, 11:17

You are, of course, free to modify the game as you see fit. But the encumbrance is already pretty strict. 4 of 10 for the basics. +Weapons + armor. The players just won't have much left over.
Also, it's not 10. Its 2 x strength! Now you know why there are no 1 Strength adventurers - they literally can't carry enough gear to walk out of their house unaided!
 
Moinen
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu 14 Nov 2019, 21:43

Re: Weight of the Resources

Thu 11 Jun 2020, 23:43

I also want to increase the logistical planning required in adventuring.

I think having all resource dice just take up a single encumbrance slot is too generous, especially for water. Have you ever tried to carry water? It's extremely heavy, and as the RAW read, an adventurer could potentially be carrying many days or weeks worth of water for a single encumbrance. IRL it's hard to actually carry enough water for a whole day, never mind several days or even a week.

My solo player so far has had no problems in making her d12 of water last. The drawback of the resource dice system is that there's no telling how long a die might last, and a d12 of supply could last for weeks. She has now acquired Maligarn, which drains resources from you (forcing you to make 2 rolls instead of 1).

I was thinking of something like this: For food, torches and arrows: D12, D10 = Heavy, D8, D6 = Normal. For water, each die takes up a slot. This might be too harsh, but the player does have a horse.

I'm also considering allowing D4 resources, which would be Light, and the equivalent of ½ rations - you would still deplete after rolling a D6, but you could deliberately pack a D4 to travel very light.
I’d suggest trying the resource system from Alien. I’ve changed my home FbL game to this. Basically you count resources as units 1-4 as a normal item, 5-8 is heavy, etc. Then when you test the resource you roll that number of d6’s. You lose a unit for every 1 rolled.

Additionally, have any sort of strenuous activity (hiking in the heat, forced march, combat, etc.) cause additional water checks. The effective water supply will be less while keeping the actual rules for tracking it just as easy.
Good idea. Losing a unit for every 1 rolled while rolling all of the dice seems a bit too harsh though. Alien proposes to roll up to 6 dice at once, I'm thinking about going with up to 4 dice for a test. How are you doing it at your table?
 
User avatar
Ebrim
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue 30 Jul 2019, 22:51

Re: Weight of the Resources

Fri 12 Jun 2020, 04:49

Good idea. Losing a unit for every 1 rolled while rolling all of the dice seems a bit too harsh though. Alien proposes to roll up to 6 dice at once, I'm thinking about going with up to 4 dice for a test. How are you doing it at your table?
We do it exactly like that. Roll the number of consumables up to 6d6. While it's true that you could potentially lose a lot or everything in a single roll the chances of that are incredibly slim. It also leads to a cool (and intuitive) situation where the more supply you have, the more likely you are to lose more in a single roll whereas as you get down to your last consumables your chance of losing the rest (on a 1) is less than it would be in the standard FbL system (on a 1-2) - this could show rationing or supplementing supply with what can be found while hiking, etc. Even if you did lose it all a single roll that could be a pretty interesting result and frankly makes more sense in a world like FbL where spoilage, rodents, etc. is far more likely.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 7 guests