Yeah, its utter shit.

Someday, someone will release a LoTR game that gets both system and setting right, and, you know, isn't designed by Swine fuckups.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;504443Yeah, its utter shit.

Someday, someone will release a LoTR game that gets both system and setting right, and, you know, isn't designed by Swine fuckups.

RPGPundit

For me the game is, like WFRP3, a "Narrative Heartbreaker".  Tons of cool ideas, fun dice mechanics, obvious love of the source material, all laid on a foundation where World Immersion is not the First Principle.

Unlike WFRP3 however, this is a game I'll actually play because it succeeds so well in Literary Immersion.

Quote from: CRKrueger;504449For me the game is, like WFRP3, a "Narrative Heartbreaker".  Tons of cool ideas, fun dice mechanics, obvious love of the source material, all laid on a foundation where World Immersion is not the First Principle.

Unlike WFRP3 however, this is a game I'll actually play because it succeeds so well in Literary Immersion.

Yeah, I agree with that. I guess it's good to check it out to see all these neat ideas and whatnot. Even if you end up going "ewww icky story gaming" on it, chances are, there'll be something that'll catch your interest in there.

Quote from: Benoist;504462Yeah, I agree with that. I guess it's good to check it out to see all these neat ideas and whatnot. Even if you end up going "ewww icky story gaming" on it, chances are, there'll be something that'll catch your interest in there.

It's not like story games are all spawn of Ronomeleus, Lord of Flies, Master of the Pit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;504443Yeah, its utter shit.

Yeah, thats fair warning. If you feel story games have touched you in your bikini region, then you will have moments of struggle with TOR.

I tend to dislike story games but I found TOR less offensive than most as its a light touch in this regard, but it's good going in with eyes open.

Quote from: RPGPundit;504443Yeah, its utter shit.

Someday, someone will release a LoTR game that gets both system and setting right, and, you know, isn't designed by Swine fuckups.

RPGPundit

You've read it then?

Hmmm, interesting.

The One Ring seemed very much a traditional game for me, with just a detail or another inspired by the indie "school", but pretty much traditional overall.

Quote from: silva;504618Hmmm, interesting.

The One Ring seemed very much a traditional game for me, with just a detail or another inspired by the indie "school", but pretty much traditional overall.

I agree. Then again Pendragon and Prince Valiant are both traditional RPGs that influence TOR and contain what some people would consider to be similar mechanics to those taken issue above. It's a fuzzy line that few people agree on, but its worth knowing about in advance.

I am coming very close to buying this, despite what i've said before. I like what I see mechanically and it seems that from the point of view of a 'student of game design' it's worth reading.

But from having looked at the actual content there seems to be very little in terms of setting. I don't mean the actual fact it's restricted to the Wilderlands. I can make peace with that, but there's really not much to work with. The adversaries are very very limited: some orcs, goblins, a couple of trolls, spiders, a werewolf and some wargs. No info on wildmen of Dunland types, no wights, very little variety, no info on using ordariny people as enemies (ala the wildmen). No info on creating treasures or relics to work with and not much actual geographical info whatsoever.
It also seems to require, at best, about 4 players. This is because of the stances/travel mechanisms. These sorts of rules seem to work best, if at all, with the right number of players. i'm sure the game isn't dysfunctional without them, but you'd be missing out on an awful lot of the flavour.

So i think i really will pass.

I am not trying to convince you, but just to clarify some of your points:

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;510440no info on using ordariny people as enemies (ala the wildmen).

There is 3 and 1/2 pages on using ordinary people as Loremaster Characters. Though these still use the 6 Cultures covered in the game it would not be hard to extend them to other cultures as the rules are relatively simple.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;510440No info on creating treasures or relics to work

There are 5 and 1/2 pages on Rewards which cover a variety of treasures, mundane and magical. The system is player initiated, but that's another issue.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;510440with and not much actual geographical info whatsoever.

There is 12 pages dedicated to the Wilderland.

The rewards are not really treasures, they are just things like a bow made by elves of mirkwood. They are intended as quest rewards, not found delving too deeply or rooting around barrows. I don't see much for that.
I didn't see anything that allowed loremaster characters to use special Hate abilities like regular monsters. I thought that might have been a good idea, though I might be missing the point.
I stand by what else I've said however. For example, in a 2 player game, it would be impossible to be an archer in combat since there wouldn't be enough players to asume the requisite stance.

That is one of the cases where abstraction and narrative focus actually hurts instead of helps I think.  The range and stance rules start off with a good idea, namely that of having tactics without the tactical mat and minis.  But to do that you basically need to learn a set of rules as to who can take what stance when based on number of opponents, etc.  It's easier to just put minis down and let that determine who can attack who.  However, the base assumption really is that minis won't be used.

It's a new-school case of designing for one experience and needlessly eliminating others, and it's so hard-coded into the combat system it's hard to get rid of if you wanted to.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;510524The rewards are not really treasures, they are just things like a bow made by elves of mirkwood. They are intended as quest rewards, not found delving too deeply or rooting around barrows. I don't see much for that.

Rewards can cover many magic items in Tolkien's work. Admittedly no truly wondrous items, but it covers the Barrow blades, Orcrist, Sting etc. As said, I suspect that the real issue here is that the players have a greater say in these items.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;510524I didn't see anything that allowed loremaster characters to use special Hate abilities like regular monsters. I thought that might have been a good idea, though I might be missing the point.

Most of the Special Abilities listed relate to inhuman abilities. So, its not a big issue IME.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;510524I stand by what else I've said however. For example, in a 2 player game, it would be impossible to be an archer in combat since there wouldn't be enough players to asume the requisite stance.

It would be tough for a ranged combatant. The GM does have the discretion to change or remove the 2 Close Stance PCs per 1 Rearward Stance PC based on the situation.

Quote from: CRKrueger;510531That is one of the cases where abstraction and narrative focus actually hurts instead of helps I think.  The range and stance rules start off with a good idea, namely that of having tactics without the tactical mat and minis.  But to do that you basically need to learn a set of rules as to who can take what stance when based on number of opponents, etc.  It's easier to just put minis down and let that determine who can attack who.  However, the base assumption really is that minis won't be used.

It's a new-school case of designing for one experience and needlessly eliminating others, and it's so hard-coded into the combat system it's hard to get rid of if you wanted to.

Because, y'know, miniatures are only good for rollplaying, not roleplaying.

I don't think this issue is necessarily solved with miniatures, the system seems to really require the optimum number of players to get the experience it promotes (otherwise is there any point)?
But I stand by what i've said as regards content for even the setting it does use. It might have 12 pages devoted to it, but it gives very little to work with and the whole thing seems to really be aimed at the Tolkien fan of the mindset to do a lot of the work himself. If that's you, great. Its not me.
The adversary section is disappointingly thin. I didn't see any into on encountering Nazgul/agents of the Shadow within the section on corruption, it's all a bit vague. NO Wights, no dragons or balrogs .

Ok, come on, it's a setting where Hobbits from the Shire are involved (ie Bilbo isn't the exception), but they can't add more than a few orcs, trolls and goblins. No real info on what to do in the Wilderlands other than travel. To where? And do what? Fight some more orcs? The MMO had way more than this and was still pretty credible.

And why shouldn't Men, as adversaries, have access to Hate abilities? the Dunlendings were pretty hateful.