Quote from: Skywalker;511248I 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.

That's true; some things did change quite a lot, and some of my problems had disappeared long before publication.

But we had still seen enough to know we wouldn't like the final product, although we did still put in a lot of testing work.

ITT: We ignore the merits of the game in favor of FUKKEN SWINE.

Quote from: Ladybird;511275But we had still seen enough to know we wouldn't like the final product, although we did still put in a lot of testing work.

Well you have my thanks for that.

Quote from: Ladybird;511192Vivisage, 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.

I don't think being a fanboy invalidates him as a reviewer. Here's the thing, I don't care if a reviewer likes a game or not, what I need is to know if I will like the game, and for that I need factual information about the game. For example, this thread about Fantasycraft is what I consider a good review. I don't care whether B.T. hates Fantasycraft or not, I don't give a damn. The point is, that both haters and lovers of Fantasycraft drove the point home that you have a lot of things to track, so this game is not for me. See?

I've seen only a couple of TOR reviews, and they have been positive.

It is likely that the people reviewing it are the people that are predisposed to liking it because I doubt anyone else will get it. That's not to say they aren't fair reviews or that the game is deserving of criticism, but that it's really only been marketed to people that are going to grok how it plays.

If the game had more content, I'd probably take a punt. But it's way too thin on the ground in key areas for me: specifically the wilderlands themselves and actual monsters and adversaries to face.

I wanted to play TOR for some time now, but I always get scared by the number of different sub-systems in place (we almost played it last time, but ended playing Apocalypse World instead).

Anyway, how is it in play? Is it really necessary to consult tables all time during play ? Or is it just in key moments or somthing (like in Pendragon´ winters) ?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;504512You've read it then?

Can you run it BTB somewhere other than one part of a forest? If not, I don't need to read it to know they fucked up the entire idea of an LoTR RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;511510Can you run it BTB somewhere other than one part of a forest? If not, I don't need to read it to know they fucked up the entire idea of an LoTR RPG.

RPGPundit

The intention wasn't for T1R to be a complete ME RPG in one book, though; it was always intended for each release to focus on one part of the LOTR storyline. It's more akin to, say, the GPC being released as three separate "core sets", each focussing on the cultures around at that period of the campaign.

As to the actual utility of that design, I agree with you. The need to repeat sizeable chunks of basic rules in each core set (And it's not a rules-light game) drastically reduces the amount of "new" content that can be fitted in each box, and it's focus on the campaign, "this area is only interesting storywise for so long, then the action should move on" would be fine if releases were guaranteed to be on time ("We intend this box to last players a year, by which time the next box will be out"); but C7 aren't great at release dates (Although in this case, they also have licensee approval, which plays hell with scheduling), and look to Dragon Age for another game line that's tried the same concept and failed.

It's an ambitious product in some ways, but I think it's a stretch too far.

Quote from: RPGPundit;511510Can you run it BTB somewhere other than one part of a forest? If not, I don't need to read it to know they fucked up the entire idea of an LoTR RPG.

RPGPundit

They may well have done, but that doesn't mean it's a story, and thus a 'swine', game, does it?

Of course no core book will cover the entire setting (not that there's much to cover - i don't think). But waiting over a year for Errantries of the King is bonkers I'm afraid.

despite having shoddy editing, the Decipher book was actually pretty decent.

Quote from: RPGPundit;511510Can you run it BTB somewhere other than one part of a forest? If not, I don't need to read it to know they fucked up the entire idea of an LoTR RPG.

FWIW The One Ring is a Hobbit and LotR RPG. TOR's first release focusses on the Hobbit.

Quote from: Ladybird;511523As to the actual utility of that design, I agree with you. The need to repeat sizeable chunks of basic rules in each core set (And it's not a rules-light game) drastically reduces the amount of "new" content that can be fitted in each box, ...

FWIW its not been announced whether the other core sets will repeat the base rules information or whether they will act instead as expansions.

As to the overall reaction to The One Ring, here was a poll over at RPGnet of 141 posters. Its nothing more than anecdotal but I found the 80% scoring it 4+ (and 90% scoring it 3+) to be impressive given how much that site can really turn the hate on.

Quote from: Skywalker;511528
FWIW its not been announced whether the other core sets will repeat the base rules information or whether they will act instead as expansions.
[/QUOTEIf they don't repeat the rules, the other sets won't be "core", because they will just be supplements to the first set.

In terms of the area covered by The One Ring's first release, I found this to be an interesting graphic.

Quote from: danbuter;511530If they don't repeat the rules, the other sets won't be "core", because they will just be supplements to the first set.

That's right.

Nothing has yet been confirmed regarding the two other releases (whatever you call them). I could also see some of the mechanics changing in each set. For example mass combat could replace journeying in the War of the Ring. With almost the entirety of PC creation being different in each set based on cultures, even if the core rules were repeated I think the amount would be less than many would suspect.

Quote from: danbuter;511530If they don't repeat the rules, the other sets won't be "core", because they will just be supplements to the first set.

I've been under the assumption that the core sets will repeat rules - ore more likley they will feature new/different moves/stances/travel/rules. Perhaps more pertinent to dunedain rangers, bree scumbags, hobbit burglars

Quote from: Skywalker;511533In terms of the area covered by The One Ring's first release, I found this to be an interesting graphic.

There's no way that area is the size of GB, more like the size of Sherwood fores/nottingham.