First off, after reading the Adventurer's Book several times now to make sure the mechanics are understood without taking into account the rare oddity not worth mentioning so as to not bother you guys...

Very nicely done.
One of the things that really struck me as particularly clever was Night-Goer.
That solves several problems concerning skin-changing as a lycanthropic situation and is also useful to explain the Spirit-werewolves near moria-gate for the enemy. Slick.
Gives a whole new explanation for Beorn at the Battle of Five Armies however, but hey... I can hand-wave that.

One thing struck me as a bit odd was Weary.
The rules state that the lower numbers 1,2,3 (un-bolded) on the dice, are treated as 0 and 4,5,6 are retained. That seems a bit... backward.
I would think being Weary that a character would disregard 4,5,6 as 0 and only be allowed to keep 1,2,3 rolls to represent the Weary condition. Am I missing something here?

Now if that were true for "Hardy" characters then I could see it as presented.
They would still be Weary, but being "Hardy" they would be less affected.

Another thing struck me as odd... Hope.
Now I've seen this concept before, Fate, Luck, Hero Points call it what you will. It's nothing really new.

Hope as an already known number seems a bit contradictory.
If you are 6 points from a success, spending a Hope Point really is being hopeful--unless you already know you can get those 6 points by spending a Hope Point. Then it's petty much a situation of Popeye opening a can of Spinach and yelling "Yowzah!"--cue music.
Am I missing the concept here? I can see this being abused by crafty players who might keep some scores lower knowing they already have a reliable "bonus" to make up the difference.

Wouldn't it be more along the lines of what the intent is to simply be able to roll and additonal die and let "Chance" also have it's way? Otherwise you might as well rename it to "Fate" instead of "Hope".



Now regarding Culture creation...

In trying to understand how they are relatively "balanced" I found the following:

84 points divided by 6 backgrounds gave each background a 14 score to be divided by Body, Heart and Wits. No problem, those all worked out.

Bardings have 20 common skill points and 30 points in Endurance and Hope.
50 Points total.

Beornings have 18 common skill points and 32 points in Endurance and Hope.
50 points total.

Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain have 17 common skill points and 34 points in Endurance and Hope.
51 points total. Hmmm.

Elves of Mirkwood have 18 common skill points and 30 points in Endurance and Hope.
48 points total. Curious.

Hobbits of the Shire have 18 common skill points and 28 points in Endurance and Hope.
46 points total. Curiouser.

Woodmen of Wilderland have 19 common skills and 30 points in Endurance and Hope.
49 points total. Curiouser and curiouser.

While I understand that not all Cultures need to be exacly "balanced" there does seem to be a leaning towards dwarves having a slight edge as being the hardiest of all the free-folk and hobbits as the "underdog".

That I could accept with men at 50 points and elves slightly less to represent their "fading". But the Woodmen seem to break that thinking a bit with 49 instead of 50. Was there a purpose to this?

Am I close in understanding how these are being "balanced"?

Of course I am not taking into account prosperity levels for each culture, but that throws things a bit more out of "balance" with scores of 54, 53, 56, 51, 50 and 51 for each respectively--presuming Rich = 5, Propserous = 4, etc.

That it so far for the Adventurrer's Book.
Next will be the Loremaster's Book after a few readings.

All-in-All, nicely done. I like it.
Thank you for the effort done in creating this game and having the courage to even pick up the license considering its somewhat sketchy history in gaming.
This does indeed feel like "not another D&D clone".

I did give a chuckle at someone wanting to be a dual-wielding character in an earlier thread...

FWIW Beorn can actually shape change, see page 114 of the LM Book. His followers are more limited.

I am not sure why it's odd. Each dice still adds its result to the total. Weary is roughly a 25% decrease in Skill. So ignoring the 1 to 3s makes sense mathematically. Ignoring the 4 to 6s would mean a 75% decrease in Skill which would be debilitating.

I don't really see your issue on Hope. Anyone who relies on using Hope is exposing themselves to Shadow. It's a powerful but limited resource. I think you may be reading too much into it before seeing it in play.

FWIW I don't think Hope is "I hope I will succeed in this task". It deals with the much broader concept of how hopeful a person in and the effects of ongoing despair. As such, the process of a person relying on hope to succeed in a broad sense, but opening themselves to despair in doing so, seems more in line with Tolkiens work and is pretty much how TOR operates.

We have not seen any official behind the scenes balancing insights. However, people have made similar conclusions to yourself. As you conclude, the Cultures are pretty closely balanced even if the exact details are unknown.

Yes...counting 1/2/3 as zero already hurts the probability of success by a very large amount - see this post: http://cubicle7.clicdev.com/f/index.php?tr...&showtopic=2532 . Just for example, a 3D roll again tn 14 (i.e. a normal roll) goes from 70% chance to 48% chance.

I think it represents weariness well, in that you lose a percentage but your greatest hits (think adrenaline) remain untouched. You can still get your string of 6s.


Hope is a difference beast. You seem to be thinking of it as "chance"...which isn't quite how it came across to me. One thing to notice is that you can only replenish your hope points from your fellowship pool, basically limiting the party to an average of 1-2 points each per session (depends on the number of hobbits you have). Hope is an extremely limited supply, so making it certain is important mechanically.

Having said that, I think it does fit thematically. Your hope points are the soul of your character that you expend doing great deeds.

My 2c,

-Jeff

"FWIW Beorn can actually shape change, see page 114 of the LM Book"

Haven't read that book yet, as I stated. But thanks for the heads-up.
Didn't really matter much anyway since Beorn showed up at the last hour and the battle was over as night fell, so last hour = twilight. Hand-wavey thing.

"Ignoring the 4 to 6s would mean a 75% decrease in Skill which would be debilitating."

So... you mean they would be "Weary"?
Maybe that might be better for "Miserable" then. Dunno.
Kind of why I'm asking.

"You can still get your string of 6s."

Well, that doesn't seem right somehow.

"I think you may be reading too much into it before seeing it in play."

Possibly, since this is without having had the ability to play or even seen it in play yet. I guess I'll see then.

"As you conclude, the Cultures are pretty closely balanced even if the exact details are unknown."

Yeah, I think I got it. The odd-man out/one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other was Woodmen in the rationalization; with 49 instead of 50 for mannish cultures.

I'm not concerned about prosperity levels and what-not balancing so much. That's a bit of the "flavor" of the culture seeping though.

Just the points "balancing".

"see this post"

Gah! Charts!
Foul Dwimmerlaik of Rolemaster/MERP begone!

ETA: I do have a theory concerning the 49 point Woodmen, but not too sure how I feel about it. I'm hoping I'm kind of wrong on it. That being: 50 points for mannish cultures, 48 points for elvish cultures and there's the 49 pointer Woodmen giving an impression of some form of half-elf culture.
The "Fairy Heritage" background isn't exactly dismissing the idea either.

If that was indeed the goal, it was done with some masterful subtlety.

In any other fantasy setting it makes perfect sense. Not sure how exactly I feel about it, but it could work.

A 25% penalty for being Weary makes sense to me. Weary isn't meant to be a serious disability, just noticeable and a hindrance. Once you get to actually play the game, you will find that Weary is bad enough as it is. A 75% penalty is closer to being debilitated, which is something quite different.

FWIW the reason they went with 1 to 3s rather than ignore 6s is that that would interfere with the success rules creating a dire death spiral that are generally considered poor game design. Remember that the ignore 1 to 3s does reduce chance if great success as you actually need to succeed and get 6s. The current design is very elegant in how it shoepws understanding of the wider system.

So 75% would be a closer match for "miserable".
Or something akin to Frodo and Sam's march to Orodruin as example.
Tired, completely worn-out, little progress daily travel-wise and near death's door.

As for the elegance, yeah. I see it.
Just wondering is all.
As I said, it just somehow seemed backward.

But thanks!
Just making sure I understood what was going on properly before tackling the Loremaster's Book. I'll undoubtably have a few notes there as well.

As for gameplay vs just the read-through first, I'm sure you're right.

Not really. I see Miserable less as merely a debilitating effect and something more spiritual. Much like currently represented in the rules with Hope and Shadow.

FWIW I see Frodo and Sam crossing Gorgoroth more about neither having any more Hope to risk, due to high Shadow. So everything becomes so much harder and riskier, but not from a reduction in Skill. In TOR, Hope is a very important fallback. When that has gone or falls below Shadow, the temptation is great but the risks even higher. This is bang on the money.

Just a quick FYI about Beorn: As a skinchanger he is noted in The Hobbit as the last of his kind. The Beornings whilst his followers are not actually skinchangers, merely like minded normal men who have joined him. Perhaps they are learning some of the skinchangers' ways. No hand waives needed!

Back to the rules discussion!

Was Grimbeorn, Beorn's son, a shape changer too? I cant recall.

Otherwise, yes, you are dead right

To the books!

The Common Skill points may vary when you just count the total skill levels; but if you count the customizations points spent to achieve the Common Skill levels (see page 75) they all add up to 29 Customization Points.

So each Level 1 = 1 point, Level 2 = 3 points (1 + 2) and each Level 3 = 6 points (1 + 2 + 3).

So all are truly balanced.

So aye, Grimbeorn is a skinchanger too. It seems there's one of those quirks of untold chronology where Beorn dies and his son appears between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Anyone out there know anything about Beorn's wife?

There's a discussion of Beorn's skinchanging ability in the Loremaster's Book, with suggestions on how to exploit the 'mystery' surrounding the enigmatic character.

Grimbeorn might have been a skinchanger too, but we don't really know. The Hobbit has that his descendants are said to have retained the ability to change into a bear, bit it's not really clear, IIRC. The Beornings are not his descendants, though, only his followers.

Francesco

The way I interpret Hope is rather different from "Hero Points" in other games. In FATE, for example the ebb and flow of FATE points is a fairly crucial part of the game's economy, and if players "save them for a rainy day" the game won't work very well at all. In TOR, so long as the PC survives, it won't create any big problems, although mechanically they may be missing out slightly.

In TOR, my interpretation of Hope is that it's "spent" in the sense that you get something for it, but that's not how the character feels about it - they just "lose" it. From the PC's point of view, something disastrous *almost* happens that they are just not willing to allow. So they make a huge effort, throw their heart and soul into it, and *just* succeed (you always succeed when you spend a Hope point, because otherwise you wouldn't be spending it). Cue short-term relief at avoiding disaster, tempered by the knowledge that it was as close as things get.

But you can't keep pulling victory from the jaws of disaster by supreme effort. Sooner or later you will burn out and become Miserable (demoralised) and vulnerable to the Enemy's will. I agree that Sam and Frodo in Mordor is an excellent example. Clearly Sam is spamming Hope left, right and centre!

Thriddle,

Your comment about Sam crackes me up with a much needed laugh.

Francesco,

I was reading your passages about Grimbeorn the Old just last night (!) & I like how you've opened the possibilities for heroes to connect with him & his people/timeline. A nice twist while remaining within canon, as it were .

It opens up a unique glimpse into the Beornings as the time of the War of the Ring approaches, especially in light of Gloin's subsequent comments at Rivendell.

Close, but you did the Common Skill math wrong - points are not one to one. Rank 1 is worth 1 point, rank 2 is worth two points plus the one point that's in rank one, rank 3 is worth three points plus two points for the cost of rank 2, and plus another 1 point for the cost of rank 1.

Re-do the math that way, exactly as if you were starting out with zero ranks in all skills and buying them with "character customization XP", and each set of Common Skills totals out to 29.

Endurance and Hope don't balence out, but they don't have to; for instance, Bardings get a little less endurance, and their cultural blessing is significantly less useful most of the time, but their virtues are better, and when their cultural blessing does come up it can save your butt.

Personally, I think the six cultures rate thusly:

1) Hobbits.

Freaking Hax Hobbits, with their Small Folk Virtue (+3 parry if you build right and a bonus trait; no other culture can get a bonus trait) and their King's Blade (with a weapon skill of three, it threatens a Piercing Blow 51% of the time), and especially their massive Hope Pool combined with one of the two best Cultural Blessings out there, meaning they can actually afford to spend 6 or 8 or 10 points of hope in a single session if things are really messy, and not have to worry about corruption.

2-2) Bardings and Beornings.

Bardings make the best overall archers, and make fine defensive characters as well, and have probably the best set of virtues overall (reduce cost of weapon skills, +3 parry if turtle, significant boost to ranged damage, and a pair of tricks - "ha I'm not dead" and "tell me your secret plans or give me 50% more XP")

Beornings, on the other hand, are absolute monsters in forward stance. Only culture in the game with favored Greatspear 2, the best melee weapon, plus an actually useful valor reward to match up. Their set of virtues, while not the best overall, are quite solid and do a great job of supporting their role - honeycakes are just great (it's like being half-hobbit), their +3 parry trait is easy to have active all the time, and they get a virtue that's perfectly designed to compensate for main weakness (not much armor, but can soak more endurance to reduce check TN and then roll with it to half the endurance).

The two cultures pair especially well with one another, and having one of each in a group creates all sorts of interesting roleplaying opportunities (almost like yhey were designed that way).

4) Dwarves.

Dwarves are an absolutely amazing culture, with one of the two best Blessings in the game (why yes, I would like to wear mail and carry the second best melee weapon and only have a fatigue of ten, thank you). Their Common Skill selection is quite solid and is probably the only one that has no "required customization". Thier virtues are somewhat lackluster - the raven is quite handy, the "flat bonus to all common skills" is nice enough, and the spells are useful, but they don't have any that really jump out, the way "Small Folk" or "Kings Men" or "Honeycakes" do.

The biggest flaw with Dwarves is their horrible vulnerability to Shadow. They get the lowest starting base value (6) and have the lowest possible Heart range (2-4), meaning a starting Dwarf has a Hope score in the 8-10 range. None of their virtues or rewards add Hope, or add any ability to resist corruption - in fact, one rather greatly encourages it. This is especially brutal if a starting Dwarf is foolish enough to begin with a Wisdom of 1 (which no character should do, and especially not a dwarf). Fortunately, they begin with 3 ranks in a "get rid of shadow" skill, and have it favored, which can help.

5) Elves

Elves have a problem, and that problem is Corruption. They make fine spearmen (less lethal than a Beorning, but significantly higher Parry, and have two solid Rewards and one virtue to support that role). They also make fine archers, but Bardings are better (Greatbow is better weapon and archers don't care about fatigue, plus Bardings have a better archery virtue).

Unfortunately, Elves have the same problem as dwarves - they have a base Hope of 8 (better than the dwarves's 6, but not by much) and more importantly, they have the same minimum Heart attribute range (2-4), so an elf cannot manage more than 12 hope, still below the minimum of any of the Man or Hobbit cultures. Worse, their archery virtue requires spending Hope (making it almost useless), and their "against the Shadow" virtue encourages a high valor, which they cannot really afford (at least not before their 20ith session or so).

6) Woodmen

I do not understand woodmen. They are supposed to be healers - effectively, they are the "cleric culture". They get three virtues related to healing; one of which allows them to use Song to heal themselves or others (which they only have one rank in), another that grants the ability to self-heal with Hope (which is nice, I'll grant, but would be much better if they could actually fight), and a third that grants a mostly useless ability (and allows for extra XP to be spent on gaining another mostly useless ability). Meanwhile, they begin with Healing of 3 (and favored), yet not one of their virtues interacts with this skill, which is really annoying, because the skill is useless (outside of treating wounds, which a Hobbit with one rank in healing can do by spending fellowship).

Their cultural skills are a mish-mash; they can support several different Party roles (except for Guide, since they have zero ranks in travel, the most important common skill). Their "bonus to explore and auto-great success on awareness" virtue is amazing, I'll grant, but the only thing Hobbits are good for in Fellowship is lookout man, so a Woodman doesn't get as much from that virtue as one would expect - unless the fellowship doesn't have a Hobbit, which seems unlikely to me.

Meanwhile, they've got the second lowest Endurance (and the second highest Hope), and (unlike Hobbits) have no virtues or actually useful rewards related to combat, with the exception of the Hound. They make fine Turtles (especially in the woods and with a Harassing Hound), and don't take up much space as archers (again, thanks to the Hound), but they aren't especially good at either of those roles.

For me, the biggest problem with Woodmen is the fundamental lack of focus; they feel like a less-functional backup of most of the cultures (but mostly Hobbit), only instead of being focused even at this role (serving as a backup for each other member of the party is a useful thing to have in a five-man group) they've got a massive yet utterly unfocused (and thus useless) "non-specialty" in healing (as a concept, but unfortunately not as a skill, since their traits do not significantly expand on what the Healing skill can do, and what it currently does requires only one rank and a decent Heart.)

I'd actually like to hear from people playing Woodmen; I'd like to understand what they do with the culture.

one more thing: All of the cultures are absolutely amazing fits; each seems to perfectly match and model what they represent. It's just that some managed to do that and be functional, others managed to do that and be, well, not.

EDIT: now, if I were using the wonderful "Paths of the Wise" wizard trainee rules that are floating around these forums, I'd definitely go with a Woodmen, start with "a Wizards Pupil" background, Wisdom of 2, and Staunching Song - use customization XP to raise Song to 3 and put a point or two into Lore (and sink the required 3 points into travel; seriously, People Who Designed the Game: why doesn't every culture have this already? I get the flavor, but it's practically required by game mechanics).

I've been thinking about this one a lot:

Remember that Tolkien was part of the WWI generation. He experienced it, and experienced the aftermath of dead friends and shell-shock and broken lives. His views of the shadow were shaped by this experience.

• So spend a hope point to avoid a wound? Sure, but now you start pondering what might have been if you hadn't been fast enough.
  
• Spend a point while hunting to narrowly avoid an encounter? Now you realize just how close you came to disaster, and have nightmares about it.

...and so on. Now do this only once or twice an adventure and you'll get past it. Stuff happens, we all deal with it. But if happens a lot more, and at the same time you witness horrors, it will break you eventually. You will finally become miserable, and eventually succumb to madness if the bad things keep happening.

If you want to understand the lose hope mechanic, read more WWI books. You'll understand where tolkien was coming from.

-Jeff

Jeff,
I dig your thought process on that one.