Quote from: Willie the Duck;972177What are these tastes? So far, we know you aren't looking for settings (or at least LotR), and aren't looking for hardback adventures. What are you looking for? Individual dungeon modules? New races or classes to play? campaign builders?

On most of the boards, people seem to bemoan the lack of 1) a specific campaign setting, 2) more 'player's options' style crunch, or 3) just the total output.

Either or both of these two things:

A. New sub systems done well, not more items in the existing sub systems.  No to new classes, spells, etc.  Yes to modules for sailing, domain management, optional inventory systems somewhere between current encumbrance and "make it up".  That sort of thing.  By modules there I mean a packaged set of guidelines, rules, widgets, and so forth to make something that more or less is understandable and works as a starting point, if nothing else.  Similar to the BECMI/RC War Machine rules. (If we need a few new spells or such to support the module, well OK I guess, but color me skeptical.)  Yeah, I know, I should do these myself to suit me.  My time is limited, and I'd really like several such options.  And I'm annoyed that the 5E framework could easily support it, but what we get is the splat books.

B.  (Apologies in advance if I don't explain this very well.)  For adventures or source material, I want something at least trying to approach Maze of the Blue Medusa or Deep Carbon Observatory quality, but without the edgy or dark attitude.  I like typical high fantasy that D&D so often aims for, and in published modules so often fails to deliver.   I haven't picked up either of those modules yet--despite the favorable reviews--because I'd spend too much time translating the content into what my groups would enjoy.   Or to look on the other end, I've got Dark Albion.  I enjoyed reading it.  But the chances that I'm going to run it are remote, well, because it accomplishes what it sets out to do with the historical, low-key fantasy parts, and I want more day-to-day fantasy than that.  If you ever read any of the Willie Walsh adventures in Dungeon magazine, those probably hit the closest to the vibe I enjoy and find useful.  It's old school geared material for characters that probably are going to try to be the heroes.

Quote from: tenbones;972169Oh you don't have to sell me on it. As soon as I heard they removed all that stuff I KNEW it would be better than the core rules. heh

Edit: or at the very least, I knew it would be pretty popular with a certain stripe of player/GM.

I have TOR rules set and would rather play Middle Earth using that than a rejigged 5e.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;972204Either or both of these two things:

A. New sub systems done well, not more items in the existing sub systems.  No to new classes, spells, etc... Similar to the BECMI/RC War Machine rules. (If we need a few new spells or such to support the module, well OK I guess, but color me skeptical.)  Yeah, I know, I should do these myself to suit me.  My time is limited, and I'd really like several such options.  And I'm annoyed that the 5E framework could easily support it, but what we get is the splat books.

B.  (Apologies in advance if I don't explain this very well.)  For adventures or source material, I want something at least trying to approach Maze of the Blue Medusa or Deep Carbon Observatory quality, but without the edgy or dark attitude.  ...  It's old school geared material for characters that probably are going to try to be the heroes.

For the first, they put out some good RCish mass combat rules in UA that should be in  Xanathar's Guide to Everything unless they're still tweaking them.

For the second, Out of the Abyss and Curse of Strahd both manage to be sandboxy and creative and even weird on occasion, particularly parts of OotA. A good mix of high fantasy and the unusual.

Quote from: Voros;972218I have TOR rules set and would rather play Middle Earth using that than a rejigged 5e.

Have you read it?

Quote from: Voros;972078WoTC or third party?

Curse of Strahd is great I think: a sandboxy expansion of the original Ravenloft.

   Verb. sap.--if you're looking for something that fits in with the 2E/3E campaign setting, you're going to be sorely disappointed. There are a couple of Easter eggs, but a whole lot more discontinuities and ruptures.

  This is not a reflection on the product's overall quality; just be aware what you're getting. It's arguably more discontinuous with the setting that Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.

So far I think Sword Coast Adventure Guide is my favorite supplement. I, admittedly, run a LOT of Forgotten Realms and it's been very useful in fleshing out areas and details for my campaigns. I just started the converted Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh in the Forgotten Realms and the book has been helpful there.

Quote from: estar;972298Have you read it?

No, it is a stripped down 5e with TOR rules bolted on? No doubt a fine system but can't see the point honestly, how is it superior to TOR's core rules?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;972311Verb. sap.--if you're looking for something that fits in with the 2E/3E campaign setting, you're going to be sorely disappointed. There are a couple of Easter eggs, but a whole lot more discontinuities and ruptures.

  This is not a reflection on the product's overall quality; just be aware what you're getting. It's arguably more discontinuous with the setting that Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.

No offense but who gives a shit that it doesn't match the 2e/3e setting? Most would start a 5e CoS campaign from scratch anyway.

Quote from: Voros;972455No, it is a stripped down 5e with TOR rules bolted on?

Unfortunately it hard to take a statement like this seriously if you haven't read the book and just read the market blurb.

Quote from: Voros;972455No doubt a fine system but can't see the point honestly, how is it superior to TOR's core rules?

As for superiority, I think trying to judge the superiority of RPGs is horseshit. Rather I focus on how much work does it save me to run a campaign in a given genre or setting in this case Middle Earth. Both ToR and AiME do a equally good job. ToR is more focused on story creation while AiME more traditional and focuses on Adventuring.

What AiME is not is just 5e on top of Middle Earth. Instead it is a reworking of the stuff (classes, items, monsters, etc) and add additional rules to make the whole thing work as a Middle Earth RPG. For example magic items have been considerably reworked. There are no spell slots or anything of the like. Magic come off as enhanced skills and uncanny insight like in the books. Overall AiME is not just a good RPG for Middle Earth but for low fantasy settings in general.

But you wouldn't know that having not read it. If TOR works with the way you think about Middle Earth great, but I am not buying that you having an informed opinion just because AiME has 5e on the cover.

Actually I do know all that. I listened and read a lot of positive and extensive reviews since I already owned TOR and wanted to see if AiME offered anything that I didn't get already with TOR. After some consideration I couldn't see the point of purchasing AiME as I like TOR just fine and couldn't see what AiME would give me that TOR didn't already have.  

Maybe if I had enough disposable income I'd splurge on AiME just to read the rules but I don't and didn't want to waste the money on books I'd never play. Your point about using the rules for a low magic setting is an interesting one.

Could you explain what mechanics make TOR more focused on story creation and AiME more traditional and focused on Adventuring?

I can't see using D&D mechanics for Tolkien at all, but I haven't read the book so maybe they pulled off a miracle. I'm afraid I shall never know as I'm not in the market for D&D products and haven't the extra money to buy something just to satisfy my curiosity.

Quote from: Voros;972535Could you explain what mechanics make TOR more focused on story creation and AiME more traditional and focused on Adventuring?

It more about tone and advice than rules, but one specific example is how both deal with Fellowships. Basically AiME has a Fellowship but no specific mechanics Fellowship Rating or Relationship. A "fellowship" in AiME is whatever group happen to be together during the session.

But the truth is that while there is a difference in focus, both are written by the same company with the same broad outlook on what constitute a Middle Earth Campaign. For me AiME is far more approachable than ToR, I know D&D 5e so I can focus on what different like Journey rules, vastly different style of magic, Audiences, etc rather than learn a whole new RPG from the ground up.

Cool thanks. I would like to read AiME to see the difference but just can't justify dropping that amount of money out of curiousity. It may eventually show up on Bundle of Holding though.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;972065Tome of Beasts by Kobold Press is pretty cool. Not official, of course, but several of the artists who worked on the official stuff illustrated it, and KP worked with WotC pretty heavily when 5e was in production.

I like Goodman Games' modules. They just have a cool attitude, like, "Fuck you, players! Surviving is for babies!"

Is Goodman doing 5e stuff?  I hadn't paid any attention, and assumed they were all-in for DCC.

Quote from: estar;972165It is however the best 5e supplement. And as for being un-5e that true only you feel that the bag of class powers, items, monsters, and spells are rules of the game as opposed to being details of a sub-genre or setting.  What makes Adventures in Middle Earth brilliant is that combat, leveling, proficiency, skills, and the mechanics behind abilities work just like in the core rules. But by re-arranging the table on classes, spells, monsters, etc, it results in something that make you go, "Yeah that is Middle Earth".

Opposed to the MERP adaptation which was Rolemaster lite shoehorned into Middle Earth.

And because Cubicle didn't tamper with the core mechanics you can use any of the core 5e stuff you want to use.

I wonder if including half casters as an option would ruin it? As is I'm not particularly interested in it because unless you're an angel there's no real option to use straightforward magic of any kind. Then again I'm not a big LotR fan. I would prefer an option to allow in the Silmarillion or the Unfinished Tales and History of Middle Earth but it will never happen because of the utter bastard in control of the Tolkien estate. To me LotR is just a tiny part and/or particular story taking place inside the actual setting. It has the same issue Dragonlance does in that it's makes a particular story about a specific group and era into an entire setting. It's doesn't work for me and ridiculously limited. At least Dragonlance could be played in different eras and was completely updated in 3e and can be easily updated in any direction preferred in 5e by WotC. Then again LotR is low magic which is something I rarely like and never like in a fantasy setting though the movies were awesome but not a setting I'm particularly interested to play in just not the target audience obviously.

The book, production values and setting? Top notch because C7 always does stellar stuff like Goodman Games. C7 does the books(and setting such as it is)pure justice.