Forum

Why are people saying it become easier to replenish hope? In 1e you replanished fellowship points every session and now it is by adventure and fellowship focus no longer grants hope, so for my groups, in which each adventure normally took 3-5 sessions, it is much harder to replenish hope.

Oh, now I see. I didn't even realise, that the Fellowship Pool works differently now. I assumed, it is replenished every game and not every adventuring phase. Maybe we just have to change that one back to 1e? My adventures easily take 3-4 game meetings.

Oh, now I see. I didn't even realise, that the Fellowship Pool works differently now. I assumed, it is replenished every game and not every adventuring phase. Maybe we just have to change that one back to 1e? My adventures easily take 3-4 game meetings.

I personally did not like the rules before because on every failed rolled I first had to check the amount required to get a success. This was the only annoying part, since many times the difference between a hope granting or not grating a success was marginal, I could not roll eyes the rolls.

As discussed up-thread, it's a valid criticism that under 1e, with a fixed bonus, there was limited decision-making to Hope expenditure: you had to decide whether the current situation was important enough to warrant a point, but there was no uncertainty about whether or not it would work. (On the other hand, it's also valid to like that design. No judgment here.). However, although the new system addresses that, it doesn't have to be a binary choice. There are designs that can preserve much of the old feel, while adding in uncertainty.

I never heard about this criticism when it comes to the 1e Hope mechanic. I always thougth about that more of one of the best parts of the game. It fits to Middle-earth because it gives narrative control to the player. That's exactly what I want from a Middle-earth game, because otherwise you couldn't explain all the things happening in the books. It gives the power to the players to actually be their own narrators and to form their legend. They decide for themselves, when to step up to certain death and defeat it. In 2e it is really a gamble. Think about when you are already weary and you roll 2 extra d6 (Hope + being inspired) and you get two 3s. Great, that's a straight 0. In 1e you know exactly what you get and you can safe the day. That's what I liked about TOR.

But don't get me wrong. 2e is a great game! I love it! This is the only thing I'm worried about.

If I understand everyone well, it seems the matter of Hope comes down to whether people like using it as a way to gamble on saving the day or a way to definitely save the day.

If I understand everyone well, it seems the matter of Hope comes down to whether people like using it as a way to gamble on saving the day or a way to definitely save the day.

I think there's some nuance in there, because "gamble" could be broken down to "low probability" and "high probability".

If I understand everyone well, it seems the matter of Hope comes down to whether people like using it as a way to gamble on saving the day or a way to definitely save the day.

I think there's some nuance in there, because "gamble" could be broken down to "low probability" and "high probability".

Good point. I forgot you're some kind o' numbery wizard. I'm more of an artistic bent. Numbers are: a) a book in the Hebrew scriptures, b) sinister glyphs that haunt my dreams.

I never heard about this criticism when it comes to the 1e Hope mechanic. I always thougth about that more of one of the best parts of the game. It fits to Middle-earth because it gives narrative control to the player. That's exactly what I want from a Middle-earth game, because otherwise you couldn't explain all the things happening in the books. It gives the power to the players to actually be their own narrators and to form their legend. They decide for themselves, when to step up to certain death and defeat it. In 2e it is really a gamble. Think about when you are already weary and you roll 2 extra d6 (Hope + being inspired) and you get two 3s. Great, that's a straight 0. In 1e you know exactly what you get and you can safe the day. That's what I liked about TOR.

But don't get me wrong. 2e is a great game! I love it! This is the only thing I'm worried about.

I happen to agree with you. I was totally happy with the old mechanic. But...I hear a lot of complaints. Whereas you and I see it as the player now and then getting to step in to change the narrative with GM-like powers, other people seem to see that sort of thing as against the spirit of RPGs. Oh, well.

For the past few hours what I've been thinking is that I *really* like the "Magical Result" mechanic that some cultures get, in some circumstances. Yes, it's an auto-success, before you even roll, but:
1. By making it before the roll, you don't know yet if you have any Tengwars, so there's still some excitement, and also you can't game the system by waiting until you get the Tengwars before spending Hope (like Paladins in 5e waiting for crits before using Divine Smite.)
2. By explicitly making it a magical effect, and not just autosuccess, it feels even more like Hope.

So I guess where I wish Francesco had gone with this is:
1. Making "Magical Result" more common, maybe by giving each culture and each calling different conditions under which they can use it, and perhaps also with Virtues/Rewards, but make that the ONLY way to spend Hope in the game.
2. Sprinkle more bonus d6's around, the sort you declare before the roll, in various ways. Just don't call them Hope.

EDIT: Latest thought:
- For 1 Hope you can get a Magical Result on any Favoured skill.
- For 2 Hope you can get a Magical Result on any roll.