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

[innerdude]

So, I'm somewhat hesitant to throw this out here, for reasons I'll explain in a minute, but in a nutshell:

If you were trying to create the best possible Lord of the Rings game for a group that is primarily "gamist" with touches of "narrativist" as its main modes of play, what system would you use?

Now with that question in mind, let me set the boundaries:

1. The basic setup will be highly specific, and I assume that my players will have buy-in to the scenario. If you yourself wouldn't buy in to my proposed scenario, I'm not particularly interested in that opinion; what I am interested in is your opinion of what system would work best.
2. Systems I am currently seriously considering include: Fate Core, Dungeon World, The One Ring, 5e with the Middle-Earth source books, and Savage Worlds.
3. Systems I will absolutely NOT consider for this game: GURPS, Runequest, HERO, so please don't recommend them.
4. Systems I am not seriously considering, but could be persuaded to consider if someone convinced me: Pendragon, Burning Wheel.
5. If you're just ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there's some other system I should be considering but am not currently, please note it in your post.

The Setup:

The game will be set post-Third Age, twenty-five years following the downfall of Sauron. I'm not going to bore you with all of the details, because I always hate it when people do it, but to give you some idea of the basic concept, all of the PCs will be children/heirs of the heroes of the War of the Ring. This will not be optional to the players. I will give them options as to who their parents will be--Eomer and Lothiriel, Imrahil and his wife of unknown appellation, Faramir and Eowyn, Erkenbrand and his unknown wife, a sibling of Eldarion (son of Arwen and Aragorn). If they want to be elves, they can be a child of Elladan or Elrohir (I'm retconning that they haven't left Rivendell yet). If they want to be a dwarf, they can be a descendant of Gimli or any of the companions of Thorin Oakenshield, or a descendant of Dain Ironfoot. If they want to be a hobbit, they are a child of Sam, Merry, or Pippin (though frankly I'm debating allowing hobbit PCs at all. I've always been a Gondor and Noldor guy myself).

I realize this setup is purely an exercise in vanity and self-gratification, and I don't particularly care.

What it does for me, however, is sort of set this backdrop of, "You are NOT the greatest heroes of your age. In fact, you're not even close. There's almost nothing you can do that will outshine the deeds of your parents . . . so what kind of person are you? What drives your motivations if there's no glory in the world you can attain that will be greater than your parents?"

I really want this game to be character-driven---meaning, I want events to unfold based on how the characters view themselves within their place in the world. Their parents are pushing them into "greatness," expecting their children to do great things of their own accord, but how does that fit within the PCs' need to maintain their family's honor, traditions, while continuing to fight for what their parents fought for?

Okay, enough of the setup. I'm almost boring myself here.


So, the real meat of my post:

• Which of my current systems under consideration would best suit this sort of setup and desired feel?
• If my players are very much into the tactical combat aspect of RPGs, can any of the more "narrative" style systems still work for them?
• Understand too, if I don't get buy-in to the basic premise, I'm totally willing to scrap it and do something else. If we try it and after 2-3 sessions it doesn't work, I have no qualms saying, "Yeah, I can see this isn't quite what we want. Let's try something else" and move on.
• I'm most curious about Dungeon World and Fate, specifically, A) is there enough "meat" in Dungeon World do to an extended campaign of broad scope using its rules, and B) are there enough tactical combat elements in Fate to make it worth considering?
• I know nothing of Pendragon, but have heard that it might be uniquely suited to this kind of game.
• Burning Wheel might be a very good fit, but I just know that it will be very, very hard to get buy in from my players on a system that's so complex. Understand, they're fully embedded in Savage Worlds right now, and going to anything more "crunchy" could be a turn off for several of the players.
• I'm totally confident in my ability to GM Savage Worlds in a certain "style," but would want to find ways to turn and twist some dials to get the right feel. For example, I'd absolutely incorporate some kind of stat for "family honor" and "shadow influence" if I were to use Savage Worlds. But frankly, I'm ready to try something besides Savage Worlds.
• My hesitation for using the One Ring is the opposite of Burning Wheel---I'm worried it's not crunchy enough. I know one player who would certainly balk at using a system with only 3 core stats. I'm also worried combat won't be satisfying to this group.
• With D&D 5e, I pretty much know what I'm getting . . . and while there's some comfort in the "consistency" of what I'll get, I'm not really sure D&D is the right fit for what I'm really trying to get at.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you were trying to create the best possible Lord of the Rings game for a group that is primarily "gamist" with touches of "narrativist" as its main modes of play, what system would you use?
...
Systems I am currently seriously considering include: Fate Core, Dungeon World, The One Ring, 5e with the Middle-Earth source books, and Savage Worlds.

I've yet to see a good licensed take on Tolkien. 5e wouldn't fit the style you describe so well.
I've played Savage Worlds and FATE and either could handle it quite easily. FATE is obviously the more narrativist option, Savage Worlds might be more amenable to their gamist side.

Savage Worlds also strikes me as the easier system, so I'd say go with that.

Understand, they're fully embedded in Savage Worlds right now, and going to anything more "crunchy" could be a turn off for several of the players.

Definitely the path of least resistance, as well. Seems a no-brainer.

Systems I will absolutely NOT consider for this game: GURPS, Runequest, HERO, so please don't recommend them.

GURPS worldbooks are so well researched, though, if there's a Middle Earth one it could be worth it as a resource for use with another system. Runequest was wildly innovative in '78. But, yeah, RQ is decidedly simulationist, and GURPS has pretensions to the same with all it's 'reality checks.' While Hero would fit your groups creative agendas, it, like GURPS is just too much system for the setting. That'd be a Cray solution to an abacus problem.

Systems I am not seriously considering, but could be persuaded to consider if someone convinced me: Pendragon, Burning Wheel.

Unless it's changed radically in the last 20 years I can't imagine you'd find Pendragon a lot more acceptable than RQ.

are there enough tactical combat elements in Fate to make it worth considering?

FATE is a lovely narrative/cinematic system that can hit genre trope after genre trope right on the nose if you want it to, and that includes exciting action scenes and their improbable resolutions & consequences. But 'tactical combat elements?' Not so much. Storyboarding & fight choreography, more like.

I really want this game to be character-driven---meaning, I want events to unfold based on how the characters view themselves within their place in the world.
...If my players are very much into the tactical combat aspect of RPGs, can any of the more "narrative" style systems still work for them?
...I'm not really sure D&D is the right fit for what I'm really trying to get at.

'Gamist,' very much into the tactical combat aspect, and character-driven 'narrativist' describes one version of D&D I can think of.


But, seriously, go with Savage Worlds.

 

[aramis erak]

The best I've seen for Tolkien is The One Ring - but for a gamist group it's likely to fall flat.

Fortunately, the design staff at C7 realized this and had a team rework it to the D&D 5 compatible Adventures In Middle Earth...

 

[Ratskinner]

So, I'm somewhat hesitant to throw this out here, for reasons I'll explain in a minute, but in a nutshell:

After reading the rest of your post, I can understand the hesitation.

[*]Which of my current systems under consideration would best suit this sort of setup and desired feel?

I believe several of them can, but with modifications. I'm familiar with:

• Fate Core - Doesn't have detailed tactics by default, but you can add them in with however much detail/effort you'd like. Getting to something similar to 5e shouldn't be hard. There have even been suggestions for doing 4e on the fly.
• Dungeon World - Somewhat similar, but the system doesn't really thrive on gamist-style combat. I feel like it would be far more awkward fit than Fate.
• 5e with the Middle-Earth source books, Savage Worlds - I would think the key to either of these would be adding in some kind of narrativist "drive" system for the characters. Probably less tedious a task than adding tactics to Fate

[*]If my players are very much into the tactical combat aspect of RPGs, can any of the more "narrative" style systems still work for them?
[*]Understand too, if I don't get buy-in to the basic premise, I'm totally willing to scrap it and do something else. If we try it and after 2-3 sessions it doesn't work, I have no qualms saying, "Yeah, I can see this isn't quite what we want. Let's try something else" and move on.

Generally, you'd have to add it in to the "narrative" systems. Depending on the breadth of the tactical options they want, that might not be hard. A Google search for "Fate tactical combat" pops up several options for me. Heck, if you use a version of Fate Accelerated, you could import a lot of options from D&D fairly easily, I would think. It would take a bit of "cleanup" that might get tedious. However, you would get some fairly fine control over what you'd get from the game. (one of the things I like about Fate.)

I would point out that there is a lot of variability amongst the "narrative" systems. I'm honestly not even sure that that's the best descriptor for Fate. I mean, there are systems our there that are true-blue story games with mechanics that barely resemble traditional rpgs and tactical play wouldn't even make sense! Fate hews fairly close to rpg tradition, just with some neat tech, IMO.

[*]I'm most curious about Dungeon World and Fate, specifically, A) is there enough "meat" in Dungeon World do to an extended campaign of broad scope using its rules, and B) are there enough tactical combat elements in Fate to make it worth considering?

A) I ran a Dungeon World campaign for almost 10 sessions, and my answer is mixed. I don't think I'd recommend it given the parameters you've set out. Firstly, part of DW design is that you don't actually know much about the world and you "Fill in the blanks" as you play. Using it for a campaign world that is already well-defined would get claustrophobic fairly quickly. In fact, even in my brief campaign, because they stayed in a relatively confined area, the established fiction kept bumping up against move options towards the end. It also requires a very different response set from the DM and more narrative authority from the players than D&D does. However, I don't really think there's any particular limitation due to lack of "meat".

B) Fate Core doesn't include a great deal of tactical combat elements by default. However, if you're considering 5e and Savage Worlds, it shouldn't be hard to add that level of tactics in through a selection of stunts and refined movement rules. This is especially true if you won't be having a lot of magic users. Also, take a look at the Fate:Freeport pdf. I might also suggest that you consult your players for help, these kind of tactical elements can even be added or adjusted piecemeal as play goes on. Its probably easier to recognize and fix problems with a tactical system than a narrative one.

[*]With D&D 5e, I pretty much know what I'm getting . . . and while there's some comfort in the "consistency" of what I'll get, I'm not really sure D&D is the right fit for what I'm really trying to get at.

Consider the "Sweet20 Experience System", or stealing a version of the experience rules from Dungeon World for either Savage Worlds or D&D, possibly also from "The Bureau" a very stripped down PbtA game. From what I've seen, the key to bringing more Narrative flair to play with a system like D&D or Savage Worlds is adding non-traditional motivation systems.

I guess my short answer is: I think many of your needs would be most easily be met by adding a narrative subsystem to D&D or Savage Worlds. However, if/since you're tiring of those systems, give modifying Fate a try.

I hope that's helpful.

 

[aramis erak]

On the big scheme of things, Fate is not really very far into the narrative games space, and is about on par with The One Ring...
neither will give you terribly gamist combats as written.

It's not like any of John Wicks *Blooded games, where you don't roll for success, but for the right to choose who succeeds.

 

[innerdude]

Thanks [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]. Well reasoned responses from both of you. Already XP'd you both, but just wanted to give a shoutout.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] , a few things:

1) On Dungeon World, I would say [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] has the right of it in that it is fundamentally anti-metaplot and anti-setting-tourism. Make a map, have some (very loose) backstory, a premise and fill in the blanks and let play snowball. In that vein, heavily defined canon and geography will be problematic for the game's basic agenda (which intersects with the narrative authority of moves and the expectation of freeform "just in time" content generation as the result of moves).

That being said, I've run two long term Dungeon World games and a long term Apocalypse World game. Both can handle longterm play without a problem. The Powered By the Apocalypse system is extraordinarily robust and trivial to hack. You could easily hack:

a) LotR Playbooks (the Heart of the Fellowship, the Battle Captain, the Reluctant Hero, the Destined Scion, the Sage of Ages, et al)
b) Use LotR-themed Bonds and Alignment
c) the End of Session move to address specific LotR themes and tropes rather than D&D action/adventure.

As long as you're willing to keep only the most central components of the setting and keep the rest somewhat malleable (to fill it out and find out what happens during play), I don't see why that couldn't all work together. That being said, I'm uncertain if it would fulfill the Gamist itch you're wanting to scratch. Dungeon World definitely has a tactical component to play, but it isn't in the same precise vein as classic or modern D&D.

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).

 

[Campbell]

Burning Wheel lines up pretty well with the conceptual space you seem to be looking at. It is very much a game that is concerned with community and challenging players' perceptions of who their characters are. It also has a very Tolkien inspired take on Dwarves, Elves, and Orcs. There are no rules for playing Hobbits so that may be a stopping point. I would absolutely make certain that you have buy in and that brutal introspection is something your players are on board with.

As far as crunch goes, the primary stopping point will probably character creation. Life Paths will help create very organic characters that are tied into the fiction, but can be involving to choose between. If you end up playing Burning Wheel Charred will help make this significantly easier to deal with. With it I can make a BW character in about 15 minutes.

The primary thing to consider with Burning Wheel is to look at the rules in a layered way. Fight! and Duel of Wits are optional subsystems and should not be used until you get a good handle on the core system. I've personally played in games that never actually used either. Burning Wheel can be pretty easy in play if you are only using tests and Versus. It's definitely a game that you want to work your way into.

One of the things you should consider before playing Burning Wheel is that Burning Wheel is not a game that is very nice to players. Starting characters will fail a lot. The deck is very much stacked against you. You'll be failing forward, but the test math is working against you.

A word on Fate: Fate is a game that highlights who characters are. It is very well suited to stories about self-affirmation, but not is well suited to stories where the focus is on finding out who they are. Burning Wheel's reward structure is about resolving questions. With Fate we have a pretty good idea of who these characters are. Their narrative arc is more about outside adversity. They may change over time, but Fate is much more suited to adventure stories.

Fate is in many ways the polar opposite of Burning Wheel. In their areas of specialty Fate characters tend to be pretty boss, particularly if they get the compels going.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thanks [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]. Well reasoned responses from both of you. Already XP'd you both, but just wanted to give a shoutout.

Stay Roleplaying, my friend.

 

[Vaslov]

So many good replies here hard to add anything of value not already said. I myself use Savage Worlds and FATE as my go to systems for games I run. I have to agree with one of the above posters that Burning Wheel sounds like a dead ringer for what you want to do, but I completely get the problem of getting enough players to commit to learning it. That said, the system isn't so bad once you give it a go. Just don't try to do anything more than the hub for the first few games. Maybe try a one shot with the group? If your own comfort with the system is a bit off there is a guy on the Burning Wheel reddit who runs online one shots for new players online every few weeks.

At the moment I am more a FATE GM. With FATE for those who like the gaming side of things I have found throwing out a map with miniatures can help those who really like that side of things still get some of the gamist thrill. Keep the zones small. Takes a bit more GM prep. They will still squirm at points with the loose narrative rules, especially movement rules. Over time most seem to get over this and get into the benefits of the narrative system. Finding the sweet spot for everyone is the constantly moving target.

An idea I have been toying with is for the players have two sets of characters. The first are more the family/guild leaders who work in FATE, with a few stolen Burning Wheel rules like Beliefs and Contacts and Houses from Game of Thrones. The second are more the combat roles who get sent on missions by the first group using Savage World rules. Somehow what the FATE rule characters do would throw on different sets of SW setting rules. That's about as far as I have the concept fleshed out. More GM work there so ... yeah. Could be as useful as a dead parrot.

Best of luck to you with the new game.
V