(LOTR) I don't normally ask for system recommendations, but when I do, it certainly doesn't involve Dos Equis

Rune · Feb 15, 2017

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION], I'm not sure Dungeon World would satisfy your players' itch for tactical play, but I think it would be plenty robust enough otherwise. The "draw maps, leave blanks" principle can pretty easily be switched out with "paint a picture, leave room for discovery." Fronts, as usual, can do the heavy lifting from the GM side.

The tricky part is coming up with playbooks and setting-specific moves.

I've actually been working on a TOR/Dungeon World Hack, so, if you do decide to go this route, I could save you a lot of work. I've been keeping the tone of TOR as much as possible, including the assumed time-frame, so you'd still have to fill in some blanks, but it would be a starting point.

innerdude · Feb 21, 2017

Manbearcat said:
Honestly, I think you should probably give Strike! a look. I'm currently running it for Star Wars. It is very much a hybrid of D&D 4e and Powered By the Apocalypse. It has a powerful "snowballing" basic resolution scheme with considerable narrative authority vested in the players and lots of coherent feedbacks (I know you like Savage Worlds so think Bennies +). This is a unified resolution system that functionally services all conflict types. Then it has some specific conflict resolution subsystems (including dogfighting, chases, social, journey, and tactical combat). It has deep character building featuring several components. The "Background", "Kit", and "Relationship" components can easily serve as the Fellowship role and Backstory material that propels the character into classic archetypal LotR plays. Finally, again, the tactical combat system has less overhead than 4e D&D but a generous portion of the depth remains (and Combat Roles are decoupled from Class which is something you may like).

Okay, so I looked at Strike! on DriveThru last week, and I was intrigued . . . but (and this is going to sound seriously shallow) I could barely get over the cover art!

I think I need to tell the creator of the game, instead of the cartoony cover art he has on there currently, just go a straight black page with the text of Strike! on the cover, and I would probably like it better. I just know my group, and showing them a book with that cover on it would not go over well, no matter how well the game is written.
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], did your group throw any static your direction when they saw the book?

Ratskinner · Feb 21, 2017

Manbearcat said:
2) Honestly, I think you should probably give Strike! a look. I'm currently running it for Star Wars. It is very much a hybrid of D&D 4e and Powered By the Apocalypse. It has a powerful "snowballing" basic resolution scheme with considerable narrative authority vested in the players and lots of coherent feedbacks (I know you like Savage Worlds so think Bennies +). This is a unified resolution system that functionally services all conflict types. Then it has some specific conflict resolution subsystems (including dogfighting, chases, social, journey, and tactical combat). It has deep character building featuring several components. The "Background", "Kit", and "Relationship" components can easily serve as the Fellowship role and Backstory material that propels the character into classic archetypal LotR plays. Finally, again, the tactical combat system has less overhead than 4e D&D but a generous portion of the depth remains (and Combat Roles are decoupled from Class which is something you may like).

I haven't actually gotten a chance to run or play Strike!, but it does look very intriguing.

Manbearcat · Feb 22, 2017

innerdude said:
Okay, so I looked at Strike! on DriveThru last week, and I was intrigued . . . but (and this is going to sound seriously shallow) I could barely get over the cover art!

I think I need to tell the creator of the game, instead of the cartoony cover art he has on there currently, just go a straight black page with the text of Strike! on the cover, and I would probably like it better. I just know my group, and showing them a book with that cover on it would not go over well, no matter how well the game is written.

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], did your group throw any static your direction when they saw the book?

In fairness to you and the folks in your group, I don't think that is shallow. "You first eat with your eyes" is definitely a thing, and we see the whole art/format thing being a big deal for plenty (most?) TTRPGers. I run various games for other folks, and Strike! 's art would definitely turn them off.

As far as my group goes, nope, no static. System (does it say what it does and does it do what it says) is really the only thing that matters to the four of us.

As an aside, I find the artwork charming

If you can get beyond the "charming" artwork, you may dig it!

Ratskinner said:
I haven't actually gotten a chance to run or play Strike!, but it does look very intriguing.

Given what I know if you're tastes, you'll either love it or hate it

Ratskinner · Feb 22, 2017

Manbearcat said:
Given what I know if you're tastes, you'll either love it or hate it

As with all things 4e-ish, I suppose.

How fast does the combat resolve in Strike! compared to 4e?

Manbearcat · Feb 22, 2017

Ratskinner said:
As with all things 4e-ish, I suppose.

How fast does the combat resolve in Strike! compared to 4e?

Well, I'm going to put this at a percentage rather than numbers.

I'd say (if you're using tactical combat rather than just the basic resolution or team conflict mechanics), probably 60-75 % of the time it takes to do 4e.

The order of operations and general dynamic is still pretty much the same (with some subtle differences related to build and Strikes/Action Points vs Daily Resources and Recharge). Math is pretty much the same (except scaled down dramatically). However, no Dailies, no Surges, HP refresh automatically each scene, less off turn actions, Minor Action is now Role Action, Strikes (and cross-scene spanning conditions) and Action Points (earned similar to interacting with Fate Aspects or Cortex+ Distinctions and spent for auto-success + bonus) are a new source of mental overhead.

Overall, cognitive workload and book-keeping are down while still having plenty (though not quite as deep as 4e) of tactical depth. And hacking it for vehicles, armies, etc is trivial.

Ratskinner · Feb 22, 2017

Manbearcat said:
Overall, cognitive workload and book-keeping are down while still having plenty (though not quite as deep as 4e) of tactical depth. And hacking it for vehicles, armies, etc is trivial.

That's why I find it so intriguing. 4e's combat calculations kept dragging me out of the moment and into the land of X's and O's, especially as it went so slowly. (To be fair, most of that was happening in 3e, too.)

Thanks for the post.

Manbearcat · Feb 23, 2017

Ratskinner said:
That's why I find it so intriguing. 4e's combat calculations kept dragging me out of the moment and into the land of X's and O's, especially as it went so slowly. (To be fair, most of that was happening in 3e, too.)

Thanks for the post.

You bet.

I know you like Fate and he likes Savage Worlds so I figured it was worth the look (and glad to give the authors the deserved exposure). My guess is there is more of a chance of you digging it than innerdude.

(LOTR) I don't normally ask for system recommendations, but when I do, it certainly doesn't involve Dos Equis

Rune

Once A Fool

innerdude

Legend

Ratskinner

Adventurer

Manbearcat

Legend

Ratskinner

Adventurer

Manbearcat

Legend

Ratskinner

Adventurer

Manbearcat

Legend

Similar Threads