I HAVE IT!! AT LAST, IT IS MINE!!! MINE, I TELL YOU!! MIIIIIINE!!! (LotR)

[Mortaneus]

I think the thing I like best about the system is how it handles combat. It's sort of like Spycraft's half/full action system, but even more streamlined, with active defenses and the ability to push yourself for extra actions.

 

[shadoe]

I agree, it looks like it would be very interesting to convert to D20, but I would like to try and play it using the Coda system at least to try it with before I decide on doing that work.

I also have thought about trying to convert D20 to the Coda system as well, but I want to see how the rest of my group likes it.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Re: This book rocks!

I've wanted to run a fantasy game, but I wanted subtle magic, a fatigue system, and a way to tie magic use into fatigue much like SW d20 has Vitality and Wounds. I also wanted to get away from the hack and slash mindset of D&D. LOTR Coda fits what I wanted almost exactly. I would have had to tinker with d20 to get it to where I wanted that it wouldn't have resembled d20 all that much.

I can understand wanting to run LotR's Coda system, but it doesn't take much to run a d20 game with subtle, fatiguing magic. In fact, as you point out, you could use SW d20's Vitality mechanics for a start.

 

[mirzabah]

What about something along the lines of Call of Cthulhu d20's magic, in which spells cost Ability points to cast? Does that seem to fit with Decipher's LotR magic system?

I've only skimmed through the system, but I don't really think so. It's certainly not "you have x number of spell slots" and it's not really "you have this much magical 'energy' to spend". It's more "if you cast this spell you'll probably feel buggered* afterwards". There's no set number of spells you can cast or magical energy to expend.

*buggered: As in the Australian sense of "really tired"

 

[ColonelHardisson]

There are no spell slots in CoCd20. You lose sanity and, more importantly, ability points - Con, Str, etc. - when casting a spell. You're only limited by how many ability points and sanity points you have. This sounds something like Decipher's system, as described, to me.

 

[mirzabah]

Actually, there is nothing that says you can't play a female dwarf ...

No?

From The LotR Roleplaying Game Core Book, page 62

Gender: Dwarf characters must be male.

(my italics)

Seems pretty damned clear to me...

 

[mirzabah]

There are no spell slots in CoCd20. You lose sanity and, more importantly, ability points - Con, Str, etc. - when casting a spell. You're only limited by how many ability points and sanity points you have. This sounds something like Decipher's system, as described, to me.

As I understand it, LotR system is not a "points" system like CoC. Each time you cast a spell, you make a weariness check. If you succeed, then there's no problem, if you fail, then the spell doesn't work and you get tired. In theory, then, you could cast spells all day with no ill effects. In practice, you'll only be able to cast so many spells before you need to have a little lie down.

One thing that disturbs me about this system is the fact that there is one good outcome and a number of bad outcomes that differ only in degree: either the spell works and you don't suffer any tiredness; or it fails and you either get a little bit tired or a lot tired. I would have liked to see outcomes where the spell succeeds and you get tired ... and one where the spell fails, but you don't get tired.

 

[mirzabah]

Is it just me, or does the Corruption mechanic suck? The bits about exposure to The One Ring and learning/casting Sorcerous spells all seems reasonable, as does the game effects. What really sticks in my craw is making Corruption checks to determine whether a character succumbs to temptation or not. Taking decisions out of the players' hands is always a bad idea IMNSHO, but putting their moral decisions to the dice seems like pure insanity.

For those that don't have the book, LotR corruption works like this:

• Exposure to The One Ring increases Corruption.
• Learning and casting Sorcerous spells (bad mojo) increases Corruption.
• At the GM's discretion, good deeds decrease Corruption.
• Corruption has a deleterious effect on social skill checks.
• When Corruption exceeds Bearing, the character is truly Corrupt and becomes beholden to the forces of Evil - ie. becomes an NPC.
• Whenever a PC is faced with a potentially 'corrupting circumstance', a Corruption check is made. If the check succeeds, the character does the 'right' thing (and may lose corruption). If the check fails, the character succumbs and gains corruption.

The example given of a corrupting circumstance is a PC being offered a bribe by a servant of the enemy to spy on his companions.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I'm not sure I follow. I don't have the game, but wouldn't corruption have to be something imposed on the PC from without? Otherwise the character could use magic or even the One Ring without having to worry about it. And in the Lord of the Rings (I'm referring mostly to the books), these things definitely cause corruption, even (or perhaps most especially) upon the strong-willed, and it doen't seem to be a voluntary thing. Maybe you could explain the game mechanic a bit more?

 

[mirzabah]

I'm not sure I follow. I don't have the game, but wouldn't corruption have to be something imposed on the PC from without? Otherwise the character could use magic or even the One Ring without having to worry about it. And in the Lord of the Rings (I'm referring mostly to the books), these things definitely cause corruption, even (or perhaps most especially) upon the strong-willed, and it doen't seem to be a voluntary thing. Maybe you could explain the game mechanic a bit more?

I think I've explained the mechanic well enough. As I said at the outset, most parts of the whole Corruption mechanic I don't have a problem with. It's the bit where moral decisions are taken away from the player that upsets me. Corruption due to exposure to The One Ring is reasonable and captures the spirit of the books quite well. The same with Sorcery. In the latter case, the player has made a moral decision to expose herself to a corrupting influence. The same generally applies to exposure to The One Ring, though there is scope there for "accidental" exposure.

But I don't like the idea of a GM telling a player that "an unsavoury character is offering you a bribe to spy on your friends, and ... [rolls] ... you accept! Take 2 points of Corruption. From now on you will report any plans your group makes to Shifty Badbreath." If the offer is genuinely tempting, the player should be given the choice of accepting or refusing.