The One Ring - Cubicle 7

[Peraion Graufalke]

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.

I got to test the TOR combat system with my group last weekend, and combats are pretty fast in my experience once you've grokked the rules (in our case: after the first combat).

Off the top of my head, the order of combat goes like this (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong):

- The Loremaster's Book has the rules to determine the combat setup, e.g. is it an ambush or an open battle. (We skipped those for our testing.)

- The larger force goes first; if the number of combatants on each side is even then the fellowship goes first.

- Depending on the combat setup, the opening volleys are resolved, e.g. if you're ambushed and surprised you can't act in this phase of the combat.

- Depending on the combat setup, one member of the fellowship can attempt a Battle test to grant a number of additional success dice for the fellowship's use. (These represent battlefield tactics, terrain advantages etc.)

- Melee begins. Combatants choose their stances, and the side that won initiative chooses who is engaged by whom. Combatants in Defensive stance can, to a limited extent, override engagements for those they are defending.

- The side that won initiative takes its turn, with their members' individual initiative depending on their chosen stances. First to last: Forward, Open, Defensive, Rearward. After that, the side that lost initiative takes its turn. Rinse, repeat.


My impression, based upon the three test combats we did under open battlefield conditions (no ambushes, one opening volley per side) with three starting characters, is that the combat system is very dependent on luck (or in other words, inflicting wounds against tough monsters).

[sblock="The test combats"]Fellowship composition:
Barding Scholar, Dwarf Warden, Elf Slayer.
Note: They were not optimized for combat; the Dwarf and the Elf chose Valour 2 to receive good equipment, but no one increased any weapon skills.

1st test combat:
1 Orc Soldier, 1 Goblin Archer, 2 Wild Wolves.
Result: Fellowship victory after one round, Barding Scholar wounded & poisoned by the Goblin before the Elf shot him.
This was pretty easy for the fellowship, so I chose a more challenging opponent.

2nd test combat:
1 Stone Troll.
Result: Fellowship victory after two rounds, no injuries. The Elf's arrows inflicted two wounds which were enough to kill the Stone Troll.
The Stone Troll's performance disappointed me greatly. His Armour rating is too low IMO. (And yes, I did spend Hate points whenever I could.)

3rd test combat, at the players' request:
1 Mountain Troll (at night).
Result: Fellowship victory after four rounds, Dwarf Warden unconscious. Again the Elf inflicted two wounds (the first with his bow, the second with his sword); the Troll managed to resist one wound while the Dwarf was still standing.
The Mountain Troll was quite a challenge with his fear aura, damage reduction and high damage output, but his Armour rating proved to be too low to survive.

Hint: Every fellowship should have an Elf (or two) with a Fell Bow who uses Precise Shot over and over. Just make sure he has enough "tanks" in front of him, preferably heavily-armored Dwarves. [/sblock]

All in all my group was disappointed with the combat system. Apart from the "swinginess" they complained about the requirements for the Rearward stance and wished for an option to spend Hope to increase one's Parry rating against an enemy attack. Also, there is a definite lack of thrown axes in the weapons list.

From my Loremaster point of view, a starting fellowship can defeat pretty much every monster in the book (except for the Werewolf of Mirkwood) in an open battle, and there aren't enough monsters in the book.
(Seriously, there are no Dragons and Drakes from the Withered Heath, no Giants and Giant Eagles from the Misty Mountains, and no "normal" opponents like Bandits? In the wilds of Rhovanion?? )
Sorry, I got carried away there.

Of course it's possible that we missed or misunderstood some rules, but my group's consensus is that TOR is not to their tastes. I'm divided in my opinion on the game; it does have potential despite being limited in the permitted source material (which is what I perceive to be its greatest flaw). The Hope and Corruption mechanics are great IMO. The lack of guidelines for monster creation & adjustment, and for building appropriately challenging combat encounters, on the other hand, is a pity.

Well, I suspect we're just too spoiled by D&D.

 

[Iron Sky]

It's already full on players, but we are playing a PbP game of The One Ring here on ENWorld if anyone wants to see what it looks like in play. We're just at character creation at the moment.

 

[Wightbred]

All in all my group was disappointed with the combat system. Apart from the "swinginess" they complained about the requirements for the Rearward stance and wished for an option to spend Hope to increase one's Parry rating against an enemy attack. Also, there is a definite lack of thrown axes in the weapons list.

Of course it's possible that we missed or misunderstood some rules, but my group's consensus is that TOR is not to their tastes. ... The lack of guidelines for monster creation & adjustment...

Well, I suspect we're just too spoiled by D&D.

Funny, our group thought the reverse. We liked the tension of combat, especially as it was connected to the story. The fatigue from travel swings combat away from the PCs favor, so I wouldn't recommend running trial combats like this.

Our first combat was 12 Orcs of various breeds which they fougt at a river crossing. A long battle, which they only survived by controlling the crossing.

Our second was a Stone Troll which the PCs tried to Riddle first, but ultimately fought and defeated fairly easily because of their prepared position and some bad rolls by the Troll.

Overall we liked the lack of balance (sometimes you might have to flee!), the stances (which can increase your Parry) and the tactical flow of combat. We thought D&D combat was a little boring in comparison.

A couple of minor errors in your summary, but nothing that would have changed the feel for you.

I didn't miss the number of monsters after I played it. There are plenty of Orc varieties and all the monsters except the they fought in the Hobbit are in here.

However, like I said above, this is a game which some people will love and others will not, so just go in with a good understanding.

 

[fireinthedust]

One post above talked about the phases of the game. I like that the adventure phase is basically a mini-adventure, or a section of adventure. One plot in a series of plots.

Monster-maker rules are important, but they may simply wish groups to wait until the next publications before showing their cards. Knowing how to make them yourself means they lose an important draw: if I can make everything I need to, why buy more? Sort of the M&M conundrum.

Lack of human foes, sounds like. There isn't a generic human warrior? Elf archer? Dwarf... fighty-guy? That's too bad, for sure.

I hope they have some kind of ruleset for mass combat at some point.


Mages: I'm thinking that eventually a sourcebook for the Silmarillion wouldn't be amiss. Valinor elves and Maiar, fighting vampires, balrogs and others. Meh.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

The fatigue from travel swings combat away from the PCs favor, so I wouldn't recommend running trial combats like this.

I'm aware of that. The setup we used was a conscious decision on my part to get a feel for what a starting fellowship can handle under fair and rested circumstances. I was basically looking to establish a set of guidelines for the Loremaster that the book sadly lacks.

Mages: I'm thinking that eventually a sourcebook for the Silmarillion wouldn't be amiss. Valinor elves and Maiar, fighting vampires, balrogs and others. Meh.

One of Cubicle 7's developers stated that due to their license they're only allowed to use The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings as source material.

Vampires are in TOR, though, and I'd be very surprised if they didn't publish stats for the Balrog of Moria at some point.

 

[Wightbred]

I'm aware of that. The setup we used was a conscious decision on my part to get a feel for what a starting fellowship can handle under fair and rested circumstances. I was basically looking to establish a set of guidelines for the Loremaster that the book sadly lacks.

Sorry, misunderstood your intention. Definitely a gap in the book, but one as I said above that makes me like the system more as I'm bored with balanced combats. However, like much of this game one person's feature is another's bug.

 

[Wicht]

Lack of human foes, sounds like. There isn't a generic human warrior? Elf archer? Dwarf... fighty-guy? That's too bad, for sure.

There are guidelines for how to stat out an opponent. The Loremaster can, if he thinks he needs an opponent, create one fairly easily. There's not really much to it. Give them a body score, a weapon, armor and a set number of endurance points and you are basically good to go.

 

[fireinthedust]

One of Cubicle 7's developers stated that due to their license they're only allowed to use The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings as source material.

Vampires are in TOR, though, and I'd be very surprised if they didn't publish stats for the Balrog of Moria at some point.

I didn't know werewolves and vampires were mentioned at some point, right? I think in the battle of five armies.

I imagine vampires to be not unlike the ones in Underworld 2 or Van Helsing, in terms of shapeshifting. Not too much like them, obviously, but there is discussion of turning into bats and such.

If the game does well enough, perhaps another contract could be done?


Another thought: We just finished Riddles in the Dark as a chapter, over here, and Bilbo fails to light a pipe in the dark. I'm thinking that to encourage GMs and groups to use more than just armour as treasure, it wouldn't be off to have a mechanic of some sort to reduce hopelessness. (despire my loathing of smoking as a habit and lifestyle choice) perhaps a pouch of tobacco could reduce despair/madness. Ditto chocolate, a pint, a pocket handkerchief, and other creature comforts.

These could also have a shelf life, like you can only benefit from a pocket kerchief for a short while before it becomes less helpful; you run out of longbottom leaf; and food eventually becomes stale, and therefore merely edible sustainence.

I'm also guessing rules for shadow items, like the One Ring, would cause the entire fellowship to get closer to weariness. Maybe a penalty, maybe just constant rolls for group members, so they end up like Boromir perhaps (though was Boromir just a problem waiting to happen from the start? Dunno, there was some talk that the others wouldn't have made it to Mordor, thus Frodo leaving).

Combat: I think the rested party should be able to handle tougher opponents. You leave Rivendell, charged for action, you're going to get yourself a Troll. Trudge through Moria for a while, though, and you're asking for a world of hurt. The felllowship didn't have time to rest after that first battle, and then along came the Balrog.

I wonder if you'd want to run a campaign assuming the group was exhausted. That would be handy, I think.


Gosh, I gotta get this book, if only to find this stuff out!

 

[Wightbred]

...it wouldn't be off to have a mechanic of some sort to reduce hopelessness. (despire my loathing of smoking as a habit and lifestyle choice) perhaps a pouch of tobacco could reduce despair/madness...

I'm also guessing rules for shadow items, like the One Ring, would cause the entire fellowship to get closer to weariness. ...

Combat: I think the rested party should be able to handle tougher opponents. ... I wonder if you'd want to run a campaign assuming the group was exhausted. ...

Gosh, I gotta get this book, if only to find this stuff out!

All three of these are allready in the rules, but implemented in very different ways:
- Smoking is a Trait which calms etc. (Items are more likely to be closely linked to your cultural heritage, and you don't track specific bits of gear as closely as in D&D.)
- There is a core mechanic for being affected by Shadow which effectively reduces a character's Hope.
- Fatigue from travel effectively reduces your Endurance which is sort of like Hit Points only more interesting.

Sounds like you will like this game as you get the feel of the world. But fair warning it has more similarities mechanically to Mouse Guard than D&D. When I read how some people's views of the rules I think they are looking for a version of D&D in Middle Earth. Its like going to a movie with strong expectations: if you are looking for a D&D clone you may be disappointed.

 

[fireinthedust]

All three of these are allready in the rules, but implemented in very different ways:
- Smoking is a Trait which calms etc. (Items are more likely to be closely linked to your cultural heritage, and you don't track specific bits of gear as closely as in D&D.)
- There is a core mechanic for being affected by Shadow which effectively reduces a character's Hope.
- Fatigue from travel effectively reduces your Endurance which is sort of like Hit Points only more interesting.

Sounds like you will like this game as you get the feel of the world. But fair warning it has more similarities mechanically to Mouse Guard than D&D. When I read how some people's views of the rules I think they are looking for a version of D&D in Middle Earth. Its like going to a movie with strong expectations: if you are looking for a D&D clone you may be disappointed.

In what way re: D&D? Do you mean the encounters are different?

I'm wondering in terms of acting like a Hobbit or Wood elf, talking to other characters, and discussing what's going on; problemsolving through situations, like how to get around the boulder some giant blocked the mountain pass with, while carrying a cauldron (say); and roleplaying with NPCs, etc.

Granted, the emphasis seems to be less room-by-room and more descriptive of an overall scheme?


Speaking of which, the game needs a calender with events on it, like full moons on certain dates. The reason is the game assumes it's within the setting of Middle Earth, and I recall Tolkien had to re-write entire sections when he realized he'd gotten little details like that miscalculated. He had a calender, and that means a game like this should use it. I wonder if anyone's found his copy? I mean it's needed simply because the characters are supposed to be doing lots of overland/over time travelling, and it might be handy to know what's happening when.


I've always wanted to do that, btw: plan a game using a computer-generated calender to track the time that's passed. How old are the characters, birthdays, holidays, and even a full-moon for the classic infected-werewolf-player character plot: in-between adventures they might forget what's going on!