Hi. First I’d like to mention that I hate houserules and 99.9% times I play RAW. But I’m thinking of stealing this little bit – or rather BIT – from Burning Wheel to enhance our ToR experience. Our group loves roleplaying challenges and tough choices but after two sessions they complained that ToR doesn’t reward players when they go extra mile in playing their characters.

BIT – or Beliefs/Instincts/Traits is concept of describing characters in Burning Wheel and rewarding players for playing them specially if this brings some trouble or complications.

Traits are easy. They already in ToR so I’m not changing them. All stay the same.

Instincts could be similar to Traits. They could guarantee automatic success and could be source of extra Advancement points if create trouble or bring problematic outcome. That’s ok. We like quicker character development. And you still can gain only up to three points in each category so it doesn’t look to powerful to me. Players can count on few extra points per session what is all right with me.

Beliefs are more complicated. Following them could probably give player point of Hope at the end of session. Three Beliefs means up to three points of Hope per session. More likely one or two. To balance it out I would rid off Fellowship Points and Fellowship Focus. Only thing I’m worried is that heroes become more selfish and focused on personal goals than teamplay and fellowship. It’s all right for some game but it isn’t very “tolkienish”. Aha, rejecting your Beliefs could give Shadow points as well.
For those who like Fellowship Focus I would encourage them to write one of their Beliefs as one so effect would be more or less the same.

What you guys think? Is it good idea? Bad? Is it against Tolkien feel?

As much as I love BITs, they are tied quite close to Artha and how PC grow and evolve in BW, which in turn feeds back into BITs (hence the use of the term Wheel). Adopting BITs without the other part of the Wheel means that it will lack a the purpose for those mechanics IMO.

FWIW TOR already has its own kind of Wheel around Traits, as these feed directly into Advancement Points.

I like the idea of taking some parts of Mouse Guard (MG) into TOR including BIG (Belief, Instinct and Goals). I think more of a MG approach would be easier, with only a single Belief (plus / like Fellowship Focus) Instinct (as Trait just like you) and Goal (Experience) to work in. I've seen Luke advise against trying to add BIT / BIG to games before, but Given the existing TOR rules I really think BIT / BIG could work.

FWIW I think they would be good if added. But they need the full system to be added in some way. Just adding BITs is like adding half the system, so it pays to be cautious.

I side on the keep the rules minimal for TOR. The original poster stated that the desire to add more bits to the system was to provide a facility to reward players for going the extra mile in playing their characters.

As Loremaster I would be much more inclinded to reward good roleplaying with the means TOR does provide me. Likely advancement points or possibly even rewarding a hope point similar as how I might reward "hero" points in a game like Pathfinder.

@Skywalker: Definitely pays to be cautious when adding house rules to a system, but I think this can be introduced slowly and integrated well enough so that it could be seamless. I see what is being proposed here as integrated solutions that close the reward loop. In the past I've simply added the BIG bit to 4e, and whilst without the full loop didn't work as well as MG it did improve play experience so I think this will work for me.

@Iron Wolf: I see what you are saying but I'm not sure that adding a system for rewarding Hope based on LM judgments of actions (as I understand the Pathfinder approach) is any better than one based on getting the players to define beliefs and rewarding Hope for that.

Anyway, to each their own game approach as it should be. But after playing RAW I'm ready to customize the rules to the game to better fit my group.

Definitely agree! My preferences certainly might not match yours.

I guess I see my side as slightly less of adding a system to the game and more advancing an already written award for excellent roleplaying. Probably requires more trust in the Loremaster as this method is very subjective.

And probably the other side is that I hope to see TOR be my less on rules system compared to my normal regular play Pathfinder games. So anything that adds more mechanics or systems on top of it are apt to be starting of on the wrong foot for me.

As you said earlier though, each has their own approach to the game - so we can both choose the options that make us the happiest with our gaming!

I plan to keep changes to minimum. As states Traits stay the same, Instincts behave like Traits as well. Beliefs give one point of Hope each if engaged by player or challenged by LM. We will test it next sunday and see how it works.

To stay close to original ToR mechanics thinking of making one Belief as kind of Fellowship Focus, one sa some kind of Fellowship goal or related to it and only one as personal stuff.

if i was going to add anything to any game (keeping in mind i dont have my copy of TOR yet) it would be the Traits & Passions from Pendragon.

there are 12 traits (iirc) where one side is, for example, cowardly and the other side is valourous. you character rests somewhere between and, depending on his actions, that shifts one way or the other. Its really good at keeping minimaxers and warmongerers in check and encourages you to play an Arthrian romance type character. ive always thought the Pendragon rules would fit Middle-Earth quite well... actually Star Wars using Pendragon rules (with the possibility of falling to the dark side) would be awesome too.

I am a BIG fan of Pendragon (check my nickname), but the world described by Malory has many dark sides which do not appear in TOR.
There is not a single "negative" trait, for instance; this, and the Shadow points gain for misdeeds, lead, in my opinion, to very "hero-like" characters.
It is strongly tolkienesque, I think, and it sets a precise conflict between the "bright" PCs (bright but still prone to mistakes and misdeeds) and the Dark Lord (and his minions).

Heh. My first The One Ring has been a Pendragon adaptation from many years back...
Looking at an old character sheet I see we stuck pretty much to the original with Personality traits (we eliminated Chaste/Lustful, added Resolute/Indecisive, and changed some terms - like in Compassionate/Cruel, instead of Merciful/Cruel)...

Francesco

Right. The Flaws you can acquire through bouts of madness are close to this though, and I'm anxious to see how play is affected by these Flaws in the later stages of the campaign, as the story turns a bit darker and desperate.

Well after I've played around in Wilderland (and have determined if the game is right for us), I'm toying with the idea of adapting the MERP Harad campaign materials (and the Ardor module) into the One Ring rule system as a darker campaign setting for my players.

I've only been jotting down notes. I'm still vacillating on playable cultures (Corsairs, Haradrim, Half-orcs, etc.) and altering only some of the characteristics (ie changing Valour into Wrath, and Wisdom into Cunning). My working title is Slaves to Shadow, and it's a long way off from getting a test run. I plan on seeing how well the MERP Mirkwood materials adapt before I attempt anything like this.

Pendragon's Personality could be good choice as well. How would you use it as a circle of roleplaying and reward? Experience od Advancement points are solid choice but why and when? As far as I remember Pendragon doesn't reward for playing your character, but I might be wrong.