Yeah, it sounds like its not the RPG for you.

Still toying with the idea of picking it up. Didn't know about the size of the party having an effect on what attacks can be made, but my regular group is 5 folks anyway - 4 players, one Ref, so maybe it'd work fine.

My regular group is just the 3 of us, to quote Bill Withers. The game seems predicated on the assumption that there are enough players, which seems to be around 4.

Quote from: Werekoala;510889Still toying with the idea of picking it up. Didn't know about the size of the party having an effect on what attacks can be made, but my regular group is 5 folks anyway - 4 players, one Ref, so maybe it'd work fine.

I have run TOR with 3 to 6 players and the game played fine. 4-5 players is perfect.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;510899My regular group is just the 3 of us, to quote Bill Withers. The game seems predicated on the assumption that there are enough players, which seems to be around 4.

FWIW one way to deal the 2 PC = no Rearward Stance issue is have a Woodsman with the Hound Virtue. The Protect ability allows it to act as a PC in Close Stance and it even allows you to take Rearward Stance if outnumbered.

Quote from: Skywalker;510905FWIW one way to deal the 2 PC = no Rearward Stance issue is have a Woodsman with the Hound Virtue. The Protect ability allows it to act as a PC in Close Stance and it even allows you to take Rearward Stance if outnumbered.

I only have two players likely to participate in a TOR session.  Would it be too much trouble simply to have them accompanied by 'henchmen' in order to fill out the ranks?  (Most of the dwarves in The Hobbit always struck me as 'extras'.)  I assume not, though I also understand that many players prefer simply to run one PC.

Quote from: Akrasia;510939I only have two players likely to participate in a TOR session.  Would it be too much trouble simply to have them accompanied by 'henchmen' in order to fill out the ranks?  (Most of the dwarves in The Hobbit always struck me as 'extras'.)  I assume not, though I also understand that many players prefer simply to run one PC.

Sure. TOR ultimately hands the flexbility to the GM to make the call, so you can take into account any surrounding circumstance. For example, I can see the 2:1 ratio not being applied where:

- there is only 1 or 2 bad guys
- where there is terrain to justify Rearward stance with only 1 PC in Close Stance
- where there is NPCs helping out the PCs

All the rule is really saying is that as a default when up close and personal with some people attacking you in open terrain, a ranged combatant is going to struggle to not be forced into melee. This makes a certain amount of sense as a default.

FWIW I think it would also be open to allow PCs use ranged attacks in Close Stances. The ranged attack still has a TN of 12 + Parry to represent the difficulty of using such a weapon, and bad guys could engage them with melee attacks at TN [base on Close Stance] + Parry.

The real purpose of Rearward Stance is that you can't be hit in melee, but if you give that up then ranged weapons are not really any more special than melee ones.

I'm assuming that "stance" indicates the range the character is engaging in combat at? From context that seems to be the case, so a ranged attacker would have to be "rearward" (back of the party), something like that?

Quote from: Werekoala;510958I'm assuming that "stance" indicates the range the character is engaging in combat at? From context that seems to be the case, so a ranged attacker would have to be "rearward" (back of the party), something like that?

In an abstract way, yes. There are four stances. Three are Close and deal with melee combat - Forward, Open and Defensive. These are less about range and more about tactics and posture.

The last is Rearward and deals with ranged combat. This indicate both a position which is at range and the enemy cannot get to.

so forward = pressing the attack, open = balanced, defensive = defensive (dur) with rearward = ranged. Got it.

Quote from: Werekoala;511012so forward = pressing the attack, open = balanced, defensive = defensive (dur) with rearward = ranged. Got it.

Yep. Each also determines your TN to hit and be hit and also opens up other actions.

So, in Forward your TN to hit is 6 + opponent's Parry. But your opponent's TN to hit you is 6 + your Parry. You use Intimidate in Forward stance.

Its a really simple system that is as almost abstract as playing AD&D without minis, but there is a good level of tactics added as a result.

I don't dislike the ideas in the game atll. I think they raise some very interesting design questions. But it is very abstract and intended for a particular ideal or optimum. In many ways it's like playing a computer rpg/mmo: you are, afaict, meant to play through these systems each time. So when you travel from a to b you're meant to whip out the travel rules, assign travel roles, determine an encounter (or not). Of course you don't have to, but then if you don't what are you left with? It's like in Dragon Age when you want to travel from quest point a to quest point b, you go through the process and perhaps get ambushed or come across some monsters, etc.

I'd also be concered regarding expansions: this set is focused not just on a specific place but a specific time. Each set covers a different time, so the compatibility is going to be a bit awkward: set 1 is just after the hobbit and the demise of smaug. Set 3 is the war of the ring.

Quote from: Skywalker;503206Vivisavage did an long review on RPGnet of The One Ring.

Vivisage, though, has been a huge fanboy of it, even before any details were released (I'm not sure if he was in the playtest pre-April 2010, though; I was). I don't think he is a valid reviewer.

Our test group did not like it (Please bear in mind that the last time I looked at the rules was well over a year ago). We didn't like the dice mechanics, the way that "Lore" seemed to be an uberskill; our story-focussed GM didn't like how the "year" mechanic limited the amount of game you could play; our mechanics-GM didn't like how limiting the winter phases were. None of us really liked how the travel mechanics forced us to spend our limited character resources minigames, rather than on other things that may have been more in-character.

I particularly "liked" my playtest Beorning diplomat, who got angrier when he got hurt, and got skill bonuses when he got hurt (So he would be starting any meeting by cutting himself, GETTING ANGRY, and this made him a nicer, more social, individual) - fortunately, this got fixed. One of the other testers made a Halfling who could simply hide away for the entire adventure, and then launch ambushes whenever he wanted... not sure if that one got fixed.

I actually liked the combat mechanics in theory, but they seemed too complex for what reward they offered. I liked how endurance encouraged not fighting to the death, rather collapsing in a heap - the winner would usually be visible long before anyone died.

None of us really liked how the reward / renown mechanics worked, nor how the lack of a monetary system meant you could just replace all your gear, for free, whenever you found a suitable settlement.

When it came out, we did not buy it.

I haven't looked into the downtime mechanics. Will further supplements advance these rules and tie them in to the subsequent core sets that are set during later years? I'm guessing Errantries of the King will be during the 17 years Gandalf took before returning to Frodo. That's a good few decades after the Hobbit.
This game more than any i've seen in a long time presumes a lot: optimum players, a desire to use downtime proactively, a desire to travel./set up wandering encounters thus. Without it, is there much left?
Are there any supplements planned at all? Its been out for a few months now.

Quote from: Ladybird;511192When it came out, we did not buy it.

I think some of those issues were addressed in the final product. I have heard it changed a lot through playtesting. But no RPG is for everyone.