The One Ring - Cubicle 7

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not exactly a huge LotR wonk, but this sounds pretty sweet. The idea of getting the feeling of increasing fatigue and hopelessness, the possibility of madness, the use of journeying and the "down time" phase sound like it emulates the feel of the books really well.

It reminded me of some of the ideas [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] has been floating on some threads here over the past few months - that fighters might gain magic items as a parallel to how wizard's gain new spells.

It sounds like this would be a little less fanfare than it might be in a more WAHOO D&D game, but yeah, the idea that, as a warrior, you naturally gain better stuff, just makes a lot of sense!

 

[Wightbred]

Incidentally, I'm looking to the Lord of the Rings LCG by FFG to get scenario ideas.

Cheers!

Merric - Was thinking of this too but I don't yet own the LotR LCG so not sure how it would work. Could you actually just pull cards and get a random adventure ideas via this? What about a Radom hazard? Cheers.

 

[IronWolf]

I'm not exactly a huge LotR wonk, but this sounds pretty sweet. The idea of getting the feeling of increasing fatigue and hopelessness, the possibility of madness, the use of journeying and the "down time" phase sound like it emulates the feel of the books really well.

From what I have read so far, these seems to be what the game is good at - depicting the feel of adventuring in Middle Earth. Looking forward to trying to run this and see how things play out.

 

[MerricB]

Merric - Was thinking of this too but I don't yet own the LotR LCG so not sure how it would work. Could you actually just pull cards and get a random adventure ideas via this? What about a Radom hazard? Cheers.

You *might* be able to, but I was thinking more of the overall structure of the scenarios for the game.

 

[Wightbred]

Ah OK. Thanks.

 

[fireinthedust]

Sorry if I seem "like the Necromancer of Dol Guldur" when I post in this thread, but I have a few concerns about the game, actually. Granted, I don't have the book, I'm just going off what's been posted here.

1) It sounds fairly gamist, which isn't a bad thing, but certain rules (like defenders getting initiative) sounds less like a simulation and more like an extended boardgame. The patron rules sound interesting, but if the patron merely gives quests, what's the point? That's merely exposition.

This may be due to me knowing that the author did an lotr boardgame before doing this. Neither boardgames nor gamist rpgs are bad, per se, but it is something I'm wondering about.

2) Combat sounds reeeeeeally slow, but due to complexity rather than game time. I'm not even sure how it works: you get an opening volley, then pick whether you're forward, defending or rearward; then each monster picks a character and you roll dice? I sort of get it, but it's really different than D&D (which lets multiple creatures attack the same target). I dunno, but how much weighing of options is there for each player? I worry due to players who are exceptionally indecisive, thus making combat really undesirable.

3) The above-noted concerns about barring players from "being a mage" I understand, but I was hoping that rather than D&D mages there would be a background (just like Hobbit and Dwarf and Daleling) specifically for Wizards (Mayar). It should be obvious that game rules could be invented allowing for such characters without the magic being flashy or even really powerful: light the occasional staff, use lightening from said staff to roast a few orcs, but the mechanics could be identical to those for swords (ie: you need your staff to make a reasonably-melee-closeness lightning attack), so it isn't a mechanical advantage so much as a thematic re-skinning.

Granted, it isn't strictly-speaking from the books to have more than the handful of wizards who did come from the West (gandalf, saruman, etc.), and certainly not low-power ones like PCs... but hey, who knows? I'm not saying populate the world with more wizards than were in the books, I just think it would be handy to have the rules available for that one PC who can do that stuff.
If it's a Hobbit game, there should be allowed one Gandalf in the party (or per 14 non-wizard PCs).


Don't get me wrong, when I get the cash I'm getting this game. I'd like to get a group together, though it may simply be a pbp pipedream (ie: meet on ENworld, make up PCs, talk about the game, and never start... sigh, love pbp).

 

[Wightbred]

1) I don't find it gamist, I find it interesting and accurate in portraying middle earth. An example, I had my players meet Radagast and a Giant Eagle in the first adventure. They we reverential to both, making this more than a simple Patron opportunity and a passing NPC. The lore of the books lends power to the environment.

2) Amoungst the fastest combat systems I've played lately. Much faster than 4e or Rogue Trader. We found it almost as fast as 3:16. The initiative is based on how you are attacking, so people know when they are acting and can jump in. One roll usually resolves an attack (except the occassional piercing).

3) I like not having mages as an option, but I understand where you are coming from. The magic in this game is subtle and everyday, like in the books, which is exactly what I want from Middle Earth.

The bottom line is I think this is a brilliant game for simulating the Middle Earth I want, but a good call asking questions before you get into it because I'm sure this game will not suit everyone's style.

 

[IronWolf]

1) It sounds fairly gamist, which isn't a bad thing, but certain rules (like defenders getting initiative) sounds less like a simulation and more like an extended boardgame. The patron rules sound interesting, but if the patron merely gives quests, what's the point? That's merely exposition.

The impression I got from reading the rules was that it was written both for us veterans of RPGs and for those new to RPGs. There were several things that felt to me like "well, duh" like I didn't really need certain things defined for me as they seemed natural.

They even include a sidebar in the Adventurer's Book that addresses the structure presented in the book and the experienced gamer. They note that they defined the structure to help the new Loremaster and that experienced Loremasters could make the structure as obvious or invisible as they wanted.

That doesn't lessen all of your concerns, but it did help me better understand why they were defining pacing and such so formally when it seemed more obvious to me.

2) Combat sounds reeeeeeally slow, but due to complexity rather than game time. I'm not even sure how it works: you get an opening volley, then pick whether you're forward, defending or rearward; then each monster picks a character and you roll dice? I sort of get it, but it's really different than D&D (which lets multiple creatures attack the same target). I dunno, but how much weighing of options is there for each player? I worry due to players who are exceptionally indecisive, thus making combat really undesirable.

Yeah - I need to play through a few sample combats to smooth things out. I think my first few combats will be a bit slow as I learn to apply the rules. Once I get through a few I think they will run quite quickly. They are really sort of rules-lite, just they are new rules to me so they don't feel like combat I am used to from the d20 games I play.

Critters can gang up on targets if they want, though there is a stated limit as to how many can feasibly have room to attack a single combatant. I believe that number is 3 for human sized enemies and 2 for large sized enemies like Trolls.

Combat definitely has a different feel than D&D though.

3) The above-noted concerns about barring players from "being a mage" I understand, but I was hoping that rather than D&D mages there would be a background (just like Hobbit and Dwarf and Daleling) specifically for Wizards (Mayar). It should be obvious that game rules could be invented allowing for such characters without the magic being flashy or even really powerful: light the occasional staff, use lightening from said staff to roast a few orcs, but the mechanics could be identical to those for swords (ie: you need your staff to make a reasonably-melee-closeness lightning attack), so it isn't a mechanical advantage so much as a thematic re-skinning.

There is just a little bit of magic touched upon in the book - both dwarves and elves have a very limited selection through cultural virtue option. Nothing overly powerful though. This area might be expanded as they expand geographically.

though it may simply be a pbp pipedream (ie: meet on ENworld, make up PCs, talk about the game, and never start... sigh, love pbp).

Ah! The glories of PbP!

 

[fireinthedust]

1) I don't find it gamist, I find it interesting and accurate in portraying middle earth. An example, I had my players meet Radagast and a Giant Eagle in the first adventure. They we reverential to both, making this more than a simple Patron opportunity and a passing NPC. The lore of the books lends power to the environment.

Oooh, that sounds nice. Are there... stats for Radagast? Not that they'd ever come up, but what if orcs attacked his forest home, and some fell creature carried him away?

And do the eagles look powerful statistically, such that they could contend with a future nazgul?

Are monster stats fundamentally different from player stats? Do they have basic skills or options for more than just attacking, like if both groups (PCs and monsters) are in a race or test of skill to reach the same goal?

3) I like not having mages as an option, but I understand where you are coming from. The magic in this game is subtle and everyday, like in the books, which is exactly what I want from Middle Earth.

The bottom line is I think this is a brilliant game for simulating the Middle Earth I want, but a good call asking questions before you get into it because I'm sure this game will not suit everyone's style.

Thanks. I've been burned by games before, that I'm super interested in and then find they can't do what I want. I think you may understand, in that expectations differ from the end product; not that the product is bad, simply that it's not in form what I thought initially. (like the Star Trek next gen movies were fantastic, even Insurrection and Nemesis, but I didn't have an open mind when I saw them originally; or like having a great girlfriend, but since expecting a super model/millionaire/rhodes scholar means her natural traits are seen as "flaws" rather than, in fact, features: getting over those inborn personal deficiencies allows me to appreciate the truth that is the girlfriend/TNG films, rather than harp on them because I'm displeased with (ultimately) myself. Yeah, I went there )

Worst comes to worst, when I'm done my current RPG projects, I can delve into Tolkien and come up with some homebrew Maiar rules.

Heck, I have no idea who the two Blue wizards of the south are beyond some brief mention in the Silmarillion, so they could be either the two players who "just gotta" play wizards (including me), or they could be additional patrons! Or someone could play Gandalf the Grey, or something.

 

[Wicht]

Sorry if I seem "like the Necromancer of Dol Guldur" when I post in this thread, but I have a few concerns about the game, actually. Granted, I don't have the book, I'm just going off what's been posted here.

1) It sounds fairly gamist, which isn't a bad thing, but certain rules (like defenders getting initiative) sounds less like a simulation and more like an extended boardgame. The patron rules sound interesting, but if the patron merely gives quests, what's the point? That's merely exposition.

This may be due to me knowing that the author did an lotr boardgame before doing this. Neither boardgames nor gamist rpgs are bad, per se, but it is something I'm wondering about.

It is very much not like a board game. There are no minis and no grids. For me, the defenders getting initiative simulates the fact that they are the ones better prepared for the attack, readying their swings as the foes charge, etc.

2) Combat sounds reeeeeeally slow, but due to complexity rather than game time. I'm not even sure how it works: you get an opening volley, then pick whether you're forward, defending or rearward; then each monster picks a character and you roll dice? I sort of get it, but it's really different than D&D (which lets multiple creatures attack the same target). I dunno, but how much weighing of options is there for each player? I worry due to players who are exceptionally indecisive, thus making combat really undesirable.

Combat is really fast. There are, as mentioned above, no minis or grid to slow it down and the more common monsters, like orcs, can be taken out with a single good hit. For indecisive players, or non-narrative capable players, combat is a mere matter of rolling the dice to see if they hit. Others can be more creative if they want, seeking tactical advantages from terrain, threatening the monsters, inspiring comrades, etc. Its very flexible and very fast.

3) The above-noted concerns about barring players from "being a mage" I understand, but I was hoping that rather than D&D mages there would be a background (just like Hobbit and Dwarf and Daleling) specifically for Wizards (Mayar). It should be obvious that game rules could be invented allowing for such characters without the magic being flashy or even really powerful: light the occasional staff, use lightening from said staff to roast a few orcs, but the mechanics could be identical to those for swords (ie: you need your staff to make a reasonably-melee-closeness lightning attack), so it isn't a mechanical advantage so much as a thematic re-skinning.

Granted, it isn't strictly-speaking from the books to have more than the handful of wizards who did come from the West (gandalf, saruman, etc.), and certainly not low-power ones like PCs... but hey, who knows? I'm not saying populate the world with more wizards than were in the books, I just think it would be handy to have the rules available for that one PC who can do that stuff.
If it's a Hobbit game, there should be allowed one Gandalf in the party (or per 14 non-wizard PCs).


Don't get me wrong, when I get the cash I'm getting this game. I'd like to get a group together, though it may simply be a pbp pipedream (ie: meet on ENworld, make up PCs, talk about the game, and never start... sigh, love pbp).

The lack of wizards as players is a subjective like/dislike (I'm firmly in the loving it camp). Players can learn minor cultural specific magics (elf lights, dwarf runes, etc) but they aren't going to be flinging fireballs around.

While there is a discussion of using Radagast and some background, there are no stats for Radagast given (though there are stats for Beorn). The rest of the stats provided are for enemies and servants of the shadow.