OOC THREAD

[GandalfOfBorg]

  @tomcat - sure, you can use my new avatar picture.

[Telcontar]

So we have been playing TOR for awhile now. Anyone have any thoughts or observations on the system as a whole? I have been playing Modephius 2d20 lately so digging into a new system has been fun as well as a forcing function to shine a light on others.

So, to the masses, thoughts on TOR in general, 1e or 2e specifically? 

[tomcat]

Having delved into the TOR 2e system more and putting it into function on Roll20, I can say that TOR 1e is better for PbP gaming. The mechanic is simpler and there is not as much GM fiat necessary, as in 2e.

What I mean by that is in most situations, when we have to throw dice, the TN is a constant 14. Any modifiers come from defined variables, whether that is cultural bonuses, weapon bonuses, etc. When a character needs to perform an action, the most Paul needs to let us know is if the TN is greater or lower. The rest is on our character sheets.

Second edition throws a wrinkle in all of that - yes, TN's are a constant based on the attribute, but the Loremaster now has to let the player-hero know each time there is a bonus or penalty die, and if the roll will be favoured or ill. This requires the Loremaster to preface each encounter with a modifier post - OR - throw the modifier to the player after he has rolled, if they wanted to try something out of the box.

All the above said, first edition accommodates our play style on here. On Roll20, or a real tabletop, I would happily play either and second edition is fun.

My only complaint is that like with any game system new edition - all the material you have already purchased is not in the new released product, which means if you want it later you'll be buying it again. With TOR, the primary problem is first edition had a good supply of monsters and enemies in the ten books. Second edition has wolves, a few undead, orcs, trolls, and evil men. So... to use the Nazgûl will require a re-engineering of the previous version to the new mechanic. I know that they can't throw every bad guy in a new book, but give us the most prominent villains we will see (and that we have previously purchased in a version NOT so different than its new iteration).

As for other games - I am trying to get something going with my Twilight 2000 stuff, and looking at a Halloween sitting for Call of Cthulhu.

[Eclecticon]

From my experiences trying to provide a variety of different kinds of stories, especially ones that don't end with a big, climactic fight, I get a bit frustrated at times with TOR's skills.  As a design feature, I kind of admire the way that they all tie into the three main adventuring phase activities (combat, travel and serious social encounters) - many in more than one.  On the other hand, the reason that the current story is progressing so slowly is that I find myself wracking my brain trying to figure out how not to make it, as someone offhandedly said, 'a long series of Athletics tests'. 

I suspect that part of the issue is that I'm comparing it to the much more loosey-goosey, freeform system in Numenera (which I'm running for my daughter at the moment) which has about nine skills that the game requires, and for everything else basically says 'I don't know, man.  Make up something and say you're good at it'.  It also, importantly, has a system that defaults to rolls based on its three core stats, so I don't need to figure out how to kitbash the system to figure out how to model characters trying to suddenly move in zero-gravity, or whatever, I just ask for a Speed roll.  TOR doesn't do that, which meant that toppling the Shadow stone defaulted to Craft because nothing else seemed in any way appropriate. 

[Eclecticon]

Sorry once again.  Expect a post moving the story on today.

EDIT: Christ, why do I keep opening my mouth?  I now have urgent legislative stuff to draft.  I'll try and get something up tonight, if I'm not too knackered.  I'm going to finish this adventure, though, if it kills me. 

[GandalfOfBorg]

Seems like the DM is talking to himself again.

[Telcontar]

I havent played either of them at the table so my thoughts are limited to pbp and reading the books.

I was really impressed with TOR when it first came out. I thought it was a huge upgrade from MERP/ Rolemaster and Decipher. I believed that the game really did a better job of capturing the source material and was something other than a d20 clone. I thought the Feat Die a cool idea, but the attributes really seemed flat to me. I liked the more theater of the mind approach to combat, but the action economy has often left me feeling less heroic and more mechanical. Not to the extent of feats and five foot adjustments on a grid map, but more so anything other than a basic attack seemed to have diminishing returns and fights were better off ending quickly than doing anything fancy.

The journey rules were a novel way of trying to put the journey back into the narrative as something special, but the mechanics were Byzantine. The three systems of action, journey, combat, and counsel were not integrated but more like three separate systems. ( I dont know if we as a group have ever looked at specializing characters towards facets of those three sub systems)

The skill system also suffers from something I cant put my finger on. Every roll has a 1:12 chance of success so the characters can try anything, but the accumulation of points to spend on skills is slow so there is a tendency to focus on critical skills, with one or two supporting and then ignoring the rest. Or by spreading them across the board the character is okay at many things, but good at none of them. I think maybe the bonus d6 and items from 2e were a way to change this, but in practice I think the meta is to double down and add it to a skill the character is already good at. Since characters don't really increase stats or health the character can be pretty powerful in a couple of areas right out of the gate in 2e.

I also like the narrative Pendragon approach of the game. The tale of years is a neat approach and I think helps nudge the LM and Players away from dungeon crawls on the one hand, or micro management of days and weeks on the other. I think it provides a great framework and wish there were more supplements supporting the fellowship phase. I'd like to see Free League do expanded holdings, more undertakings, and perhaps improved successor rules. Something like that would have more lasting appeal than say Moria.

Second edition I feel has blended the three systems better and I absolutely love what they did with the journey rules. As Doug mentioned earlier I am also not too keen on the new Hope system. I enjoy the narrative device of the characters struggling to maintain their spirits over the ravages of time and experiences.

In terms of the TN's I think that Doug's comments are also spot on. The 2e requires more input from the LM and the manipulation of items and what not to get to the TN and number of dice. I'm not sure this is an improvement overall, but I think it does make attributes impact play more than they did. Jury is out on that one.

In the end I think the system works for our group and especially the narrative style we use. The small amount of house rules we have I think means that we are comfortable with the internal conistency.

[tomcat]

Well like you said earlier in your post, Tom - either a character is going to be great at one thing or spread thin across the lot. That is what I feel about the new attributes. Why would anyone want to take a 7-5-2 attribute spread ever? The only benefit you get is to have the TN for the particular attribute skill set minimized - but the alternate skill set will be nigh impossible to achieve at low skill levels.

My point in this is I have never cared for the attribute system of 1e OR now with 2e.

Like you, I am also unhappy with the action allowances in combat. They do not lend themself to anything more than attack. Even our house ruled combat maneuvers leave me blah and I never even go to them. I have pushed my PC to higher skill ranks and more perks to the weapon to achieve the best combat results. The latter is actually something I really like about this game. The idea of heroic, named weapons is a big win for me. For me, it carries forward from Stormbringer and it is what I do in D&D 5e now.

As for Journeys - 2nd edition did get that worked out. As for Councils (Encounters), I am fine with how both rulesets work.

One overarching problem that needs to be spoken about, too, is the world in which this game sits. Middle-earth does not lend itself easily to characters outside the hero path. Rogues and assassins do not work in ME, and wizards and sorcerers are an unlikely find. To treasure hunt gets into the potential danger of shadow points from tomb raiding and theft. So to remain within the tone of ME - the characters are truly limited to one character nature, and that can be dull at times.

In the end, for me, as long as there is a really good Loremaster story-teller that is willing to stretch rules and expand on the basic premise of the game's mechanics, any game can be fun. I think we have that here and that is why we keep coming back. 

[Eclecticon]

I agree with you on the 'every character is a warrior-hero' matter.  I don't necessarily see that as a problem, just that the game is focused on telling that kind of story.  Fair enough - if I really wanted to play an amoral assassin, an up-and-coming wizard or what have you, I'd probably want to play a different game in any case.  I will also second Tom in saying that our house rules continue to sand a lot of the rough edges off the game and have made it more what we want to use to tell the stories we want to tell.  I'm interested in seeing how our new approach to bonus dice and combat actions changes things up (though not quite interested enough to throw a completely gratuitous fight at you). 

[GandalfOfBorg]

For me who hasn't paid much attention to the system as I haven't much cared for either over Decipher.
There are aspects which are thematic that I like but on the whole, I find the system overly cumbersome, especially if I were a n00b to RPGs (I would never suggest this game as one to start with).  The point of having all sorts of different systems to for the different aspects of running a campaign seems like a lot of work on the side of the GM compared to other gaming systems but the statement about characters specialized around those different aspects seems too meta for me, is kind of annoying to me, thus leading to min/max characters.

Yes this game revolves around skill checks, weapon checks, and V/W checks.  There are no spells therefore no mage/magical characters outside of the subtle effects of elves and/or other racial makeup.  You can min/max in this system but yes that sacrifices the ability to survive in other aspects but that's no different than other games.

You could do amoral assassin but you wouldn't be doing it here in the middle of the wilderness but in city areas likely surrounding an espionage/military campaign at different times of history and locations (Numenor, Umbar, the East, etc.).  Up-and-coming wizard, well ya that's true because that's not this world per se outside of maybe playing in the South or East in a canon-adjacent story with the Blue Wizards maybe or Black Numenoreans, etc. but also there are no rules around any sort of magic/spells.

If we wanted more access to options that allow for more character variety, what about the 5E system for ME?

The key element of executing a Middle-earth game is the storytelling by the players and acting within the bounds/tropes of the world; you do that because you love the world and the challenge to playing within it.  That is irrespective of the system you use.

[Eclecticon]

We're back on the air!  Apologies for the wait.  As I said before, I'll finish this adventure but I think it's obvious to everyone by now that I'm not really holding up my end very well at the moment.  Is anyone else maybe capable of taking over as GM, at least for a little while?

[tomcat]

Is anyone else maybe capable of taking over as GM, at least for a little while?

Let me see where I am at. I am running two VTT games weekly, but I might be able to pick back up the story here.

I will know more as we approach the chapter end.

[Eclecticon]

Well, it was a slog at times but we got there!  I'll start up a Fellowship Phase thread sometime tomorrow.   

[Telcontar]

Paul that was an interesting adventure and approached the system in a way that used skills and challenges in a new way.

I'd like to hear some background on what was going on with Beorn. You gave us the opportunity in character and I think we failed you there.

[tomcat]

That was a good one, Paul!

I have not been 'reading along or ahead' in the Darkening book, but does this put at T.A. 2975 now? Or were you rolling through the different Adventure phases as you saw fit? Let me know.

If you are still needing to take leave as Loremaster, I can resume the mantle. I will not do anything until after you and I discuss where you leave the story off and this Fellowship phase is over.