Ghost, Ive just read The Hobbit and I think the setting is pretty much sparse content-wise as shown in the book. So, I think its just logical that a game based on such a setting is also "simple" setting-wise. And frankly, the content present - a detailed description of each culture (Hobbits, Beornings, Dwarves, Mirkwood elves, Bardings, etc), creatures and potential enemies - feels totally enough for me.

Dont you think that a game of The Hobbit (which is clearly the case of TOR), shouldnt be about fightin Nasgulz or  Wights , but fighting goblins and giant spiders and mountain trolls, AND about travels and downtimes, just like in the book ? Dont you think you may be condenming the game for being faithful to its source ?

Quote from: silva;511881Ghost, Ive just read The Hobbit and I think the setting is pretty much sparse content-wise as shown in the book. So, I think its just logical that a game based on such a setting is also "simple" setting-wise. And frankly, the content present - a detailed description of each culture (Hobbits, Beornings, Dwarves, Mirkwood elves, Bardings, etc), creatures and potential enemies - feels totally enough for me.

Dont you think that a game of The Hobbit (which is clearly the case of TOR), shouldnt be about fightin Nasgulz or  Wights , but fighting goblins and giant spiders and mountain trolls, AND about travels and downtimes, just like in the book ? Dont you think you may be condenming the game for being faithful to its source ?

I'm not. I'm saying that a game with a sparse setting - even if the source material is likewise sparse as you say (and i don't disagree) - just doesn't appeal to me.

I'll be honest, getting a 2nd hand copu of the Decipher game is more appealing.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;511972I'm not. I'm saying that a game with a sparse setting - even if the source material is likewise sparse as you say (and i don't disagree) - just doesn't appeal to me.

I'll be honest, getting a 2nd hand copu of the Decipher game is more appealing.

If quantity of setting is what works for you, check out MERP over Decipher. It beats Decipher's go hands down.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;511972I'm not. I'm saying that a game with a sparse setting - even if the source material is likewise sparse as you say (and i don't disagree) - just doesn't appeal to me.

I'll be honest, getting a 2nd hand copu of the Decipher game is more appealing.

If quantity of setting is what works for you, you should definitely check out MERP over Decipher. Also, I am pretty sure that no matter how successful T1R will be, it will never be able to compete with the freedom of licence or release schedule that MERP exploited to produce its massive setting volume.

Quote from: Skywalker;503810It's actually pretty good IME and more than covers the Wilderlands. At least, I haven't found any glaring omissions when running it (which ones do you see as missing?).

Stone-giants!

When I first read The Hobbit I got the impression that the Wilderlands were full of a multitude of critters and magical beings, and that what you see in the book is only the bit that Bilbo and co run in to. However, this impression faded once I read LoTR and everything was over explained.

Quote from: silva;504235If you want Hobbit the Roleplaying game, its the game.

If you want The Hobbit: The Storytelling Game, it's the game.
If you want an immersive simulation game in the world of JRR Tolkien, this is not it.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;512051Stone-giants!

I would have liked stone giants but I don't see them as glaring ommission. First, they resided in the Misty Mountains rather than the Wilderlands per se. It's not so obvious a matter as say Rivendell, which is also omitted, no doubt in favour of Erratries of the King. But they are an edge case.

On saying that, I suspect they were actually omitted as they are only briefly presented by Tolkien as part of the scenery and not as opponents to fight or overcome. They are beyond PCs in terms of fighting, much like a cold drakes, Nazgul or Balrogs.

I also note that Tolkien had some difficulty in explaining the stone giants once he went on to exploring the rest of the setting, especially given their size and number.

But yeah, I would have liked to see them. Perhaps Tales of the Wilderland will cover them given it includes a number of adventures in the Misty Mountains.

Quote from: Benoist;512056If you want The Hobbit: The Storytelling Game, it's the game.
If you want an immersive simulation game in the world of JRR Tolkien, this is not it.

There are storytelling game elements in T1R but they are a light touch IME. Most of the system is what you see in roleplaying games.

IMO if you wanted a pure storytelling game for the Hobbit, I think you would be as disappointed as those wanting a pure simulation game in the world of JRR Tolkien. The target audience seems to me to be somewhere between those two extremes.

I think it's like porn: gamers know it when they see it. I can tell you right now that the structures of game play and the underlying logic of T1R will not please people who are searching for a simulation role playing game set in Middle-Earth.

Take a step back from your enthusiasm about the game and look at it objectively.
You'll see I'm right.

Quote from: Benoist;512063I think it's like porn: gamers know it when they see it. I can tell you right now that the structures of game play and the underlying logic of T1R will not please people who are searching for a simulation role playing game set in Middle-Earth.

Take a step back from your enthusiasm about the game and look at it objectively.
You'll see I'm right.

:confused: I agreed with you.

My comment is that I don't think T1R would not please someone searching for a story game either. It aims for a middle ground.

Quote from: Skywalker;512068:confused: I agreed with you.

My comment is that I don't think T1R would not please someone searching for a story game either. It aims for a middle ground.

I must have misunderstood then. Sorry.

I'm not qualified to talk about what storygamers are searching for in a game, in all honesty. But if you are right, what then? What is the audience for the One Ring? People who are just attracted by the general vibe of the game and the pretty illos? I wonder.

I have a few hard core storygaming friends who found that there were too many elements added not focussed on creating a specific story (list of weapons and armour WTF?! ) and too much need for GM to exercise their discretion for their tastes.

Then again they are admittedly hardcore storygamers, so they are generally unsatisfied with anything out of their corner of the hobby.

Quote from: Benoist;512069But if you are right, what then? What is the audience for the One Ring? People who are just attracted by the general vibe of the game and the pretty illos? I wonder.

Sorry, didn't see your edit.

T1R is flexible. As said, it aims for a middle ground, combining elements from different approaches. I know RPGers who like story games, who enjoy it, and I know RPGers who like simulationist games, who enjoy it. Its one of the few RPGs that does this as well as it does, and only cuts off a few RPGers I know off either end.

It's easy to make of the game what you want IME, rather than being given just a single set of tools. I think this actually makes its audience much bigger than had it gone with a single approach. Its certainly good for me these days as I have gaming friends with such a wide spectrum of tastes.

This also matches my observations of T1R. It's one of the only RPGs to be discussed in every RPG forum I attend. In the more extreme forums, it has some vocal detractors and in the more middle of the road forums, it is generally welcomed.

In many ways, it reminds me of Pendragon and Prince Valiant, as RPGs that I know get played from both ends of the spectrum.

"I'll take Your Target Audience for 100."

"People who would play The One Ring."

*bzzt*

"People who like games or Lord of the Rings?"

"That is correct."

Also, sorta related, I didn't like RTS games until I played Company of Heroes.