The One Ring (and ME RPGs in general)

[Micah Sweet]

2e improves some things, but they also made some changes that really perplex me and make me not want to play it.

If I were to run, I'd likely use 1e and convert new material I wanted from 2e. They're not so different that it can't be done.

 

[Reynard]

2e improves some things, but they also made some changes that really perplex me and make me not want to play it.

I owned 1E but only ever got to run a one shot of it, so I never deeply understood its mechanics. What about 2E do people dislike?

 

[DarkCrisis]

I played in a TOR2E game back when it came out. I tried to make a "Bad at fighting but good at talking and knowing lore" Hobbit.

We had 4 other players and I was outclassed in pretty much everything. This isn't a slight against the game just I think it really needs a session 0. Also, pretty much not being able to fight like at all REALLY made combat time unfun for me.

Also, combat system was kind of weird IMO (the positioning stuff) but we got used to it.

Aside from that, Loved it. Had a great time though I think the GM kitted us out to quickly. IDK. Be interesting to see how an official adventure sorts of rewards.

Looking forward to playing in or running the Moria adventure.

 

[Reynard]

Here's a question: What game would you use if you were going to run a wars of Beleriand game with lots of dragons and balrogs and stuff?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here's a question: What game would you use if you were going to run a wars of Beleriand game with lots of dragons and balrogs and stuff?

TOR 1e if it was set in Middle-Earth, Level Up or ACKS otherwise.

 

[Hatmatter]

I am not able to directly answer your question, Reynard. I can just chime in that I had fun back with MERP back in the 1980s and I had a blast with Cubicle 7's Adventures in Middle Earth. I have not checked out Free League's The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying yet, although I have read some reviews. I absolutely love the tone Adventures in Middle Earth set. Can anyone tell me how different The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying is from Adventures in Middle Earth? Are the classes entirely different? If so, how? Thanks!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not able to directly answer your question, Reynard. I can just chime in that I had fun back with MERP back in the 1980s and I had a blast with Cubicle 7's Adventures in Middle Earth. I have not checked out Free League's The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying yet, although I have read some reviews. I absolutely love the tone Adventures in Middle Earth set. Can anyone tell me how different The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying is from Adventures in Middle Earth? Are the classes entirely different? If so, how? Thanks!

MERP was one of the first non-D&D games I ever read. Still love those crit tables! I'd go so far as to say they were formative for me.

 

[Reynard]

TOR 1e if it was set in Middle-Earth, Level Up or ACKS otherwise.

I didn't get the impression TOR did high powered stuff well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't get the impression TOR did high powered stuff well.

Good point, though I'm sure it could work if you focus on High Elves and Dunedain [sic] from the Rivendell supplement. That's the closest thing you're going to find to 1st Age Elves and Men anyway.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I owned 1E but only ever got to run a one shot of it, so I never deeply understood its mechanics. What about 2E do people dislike?

I'm not usually one to complain about "dumbing down" games or "catering to casuals" and in general like simpler games with fewer rules, but....

1. The biggest (worst) change was to Hope. It wasn't perfect before, but it was unique distinct* in that it was, for the most part, a finite resource that didn't replenish over the life of your character, and it had the power to turn a failure into an automatic success, after the roll. Now it's just one of many identical contributors to the dice pool. All the "specialness" is gone from it.
2. They also changed how Hope interplays with Shadow and your chance of going mad and losing your character. It was a real risk before.
3. TNs (a.k.a. DCs) are fixed, according to your character's stats. The LM (GM) can assign +/- dice to your pool, but the TNs are invariant. It's sort of like saying that all DCs in D&D are 12, and all the DM can do is give advantage or disadvantage. I truly do not understand the point of this. Not only is there less granularity (which I agree one could argue is unnecessary) but thematically a change in how many dice the player rolls is different from a change in the difficulty level.
4. And, of course, the above change doesn't apply in all cases. Attack rolls are of course different. And, worst of all, it's not symmetric with monsters. They use different math because they don't have fixed TNs. They go and "simplify" the rules, but then don't make them apply to NPCs?
5. There was other stuff but I haven't paid attention in a while.

*I'm sure that if I called it "unique" some of you would cite prior art from some obscure 80s RPG.