Powered by Invision Power Board


  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Ideas When Only Have Two Players, Require feedback how TOR works with 3.
Damou66
Posted: Sep 16 2011, 08:31 AM
Report PostQuote Post





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Member No.: 1915
Joined: 12-September 11



Hi All,

I don't own the TOR pdfs (I like physical books) and am waiting on my Amazon order to arrive (Nov/Dec in Oz?) but wondered how TOR works if you only have two players and one GM. I ask because from reviews and this forum I have picked up that in combat you need at least two guys in close combat before a third guy can hang back and used ranged attacks. So I am concerned combat options would be limited.
In addition I believe during the travel phase there are several roles available to each character but if you only have two characters - not all the roles will be filled - will this be an issue?

Currently we are playing 4th Edition with two characters per player. Recently we started using the companion character rules for the second character which makes things much easier to manage for the players. So I am thinking that TOR would allow companion characters so each player has one main character and a side kick. Not sure what the issues with this might be so has anyone had any experience playing with just 2 players and what do you guys recommend.

I could always use a NPC or two (DM controlled) but I am not as fond of that idea as the companion (player controlled) sidekick. Just don't know what rules are in place to allow such options. Having two main characters each takes the limelight away from being a hero - unless you happened to have a split personality I suppose ...

Really looking forward to giving this a go, I have some old MERP modules that I plan to steal ideas from. At this point TOR will probably be run as short breaks between 4th edition campaigns. The two other guys are very happy with 4th edition and it certainly makes the DMs job much easier as far as putting encounters together.

Anyhow, experience/thoughts on playing with just two players would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

D
Mini ProfilePMEmail Poster
Top
IronWolf
Posted: Sep 16 2011, 09:14 AM
Report PostQuote Post





Group: Members
Posts: 63
Member No.: 1834
Joined: 19-August 11




I typically dislike players running two characters at a time in nearly any system. It always seems to draw away from their main character or turn the game into more of an exercise of simply rolling dice for each character instead of roleplaying the character.

My inclination would be to "tweak" the rules just a bit and encounters to take into account that there are only going to be two characters playing. Let terrain play a slightly larger advantage to get them an extra ranged attack before things can close to melee if they characters are smart about it. Tweak it so that they only need one in melee and the other can do ranged, bypassing the two in close combat rule as stated.

For traveling I would let them each take on two of the roles. Maybe slow their travel rate down a bit as a penalty for needing to do that if you feel it is necessary.

Really - TOR seems rules light enough once you get used to the system to be fine with the Loremaster tweaking things to work for a smaller group.


--------------------
Mini ProfilePMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Sir Gawain
Posted: Sep 16 2011, 09:36 AM
Report PostQuote Post





Group: Members
Posts: 29
Member No.: 1734
Joined: 2-August 11



What about adding a grog?
A simplified NPC, tipically a man-at-arms or a servant, managed by both players like a common good, whose demeanor and attitudes are decided by the whole group (players + LM).

The idea isn't mine, I owe it to Ars Magica, but I've tried it in different ways using different systems, and it helps.


--------------------
Your humble servant,

Sir Gawain
Mini ProfilePMEmail Poster
Top
voidstate
Posted: Sep 16 2011, 10:45 AM
Report PostQuote Post





Group: Members
Posts: 94
Member No.: 1904
Joined: 9-September 11



Frodo and Sam?
Mini ProfilePMEmail Poster
Top
Francesco
Posted: Sep 16 2011, 10:46 AM
Report PostQuote Post





Group: Playtesters
Posts: 256
Member No.: 864
Joined: 22-January 10



QUOTE (Sir Gawain @ Sep 16 2011, 01:36 PM)
What about adding a grog?
A simplified NPC, tipically a man-at-arms or a servant, managed by both players like a common good, whose demeanor and attitudes are decided by the whole group (players + LM).

The idea isn't mine, I owe it to Ars Magica, but I've tried it in different ways using different systems, and it helps.

That's a very nice idea. A shared character (or two?) certainly makes the inter-company relations much more interesting when playing with just two characters.

Francesco
Mini ProfilePMEmail Poster
Top
Francesco
Posted: Sep 16 2011, 10:46 AM
Report PostQuote Post





Group: Playtesters
Posts: 256
Member No.: 864
Joined: 22-January 10



QUOTE (voidstate @ Sep 16 2011, 02:45 PM)
Frodo and Sam?

...and Gollum!

smile.gif

Francesco
Mini ProfilePMEmail Poster
Top
Doc_Nova
Posted: Sep 16 2011, 03:58 PM
Report PostQuote Post





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Member No.: 1776
Joined: 8-August 11



This problem can also be avoided if one of the player-heroes has a Hound (a virtue available to Woodmen). One of the selectable abilities of the Hound is to act like another guarding meleer; in this case it would eliminate the need for an extra character while simultaneously solving the issue of enabling rearward stance and with zero modification of existing rules. That said, the rules are light and thematic enough that modifying them is a breeze -- simply eliminate the needed "wall" and just require one blockading character, or allow point-blank bow attacks (Legolas did this regularly in the films, as I recall).

Doc
Mini ProfilePMEmail Poster
Top
JamesRBrown
Posted: Sep 18 2011, 08:50 PM
Report PostQuote Post





Group: TOR index group
Posts: 616
Member No.: 1729
Joined: 31-July 11



I personally like smaller companies. Two players would be a dream for me. I don't think I would tweak the rules at all. I personally would keep them the way they are. Things would be a bit more dangerous, but then...wouldn't they be anyway?

I like the decisions it forces players to make. If there were only two heroes, neither one of them would be able to hang back for ranged attacks, unless they only faced one enemy, or the enemies they were facing decided to only attack one hero. Most of the time though, they would both need to fight or run away together.

Speaking of which, running away isn't something most players choose to do while roleplaying, but it is something we see a lot of in stories and movies and real life. It's called SURVIVAL mode. I can't remember any specific rules for chases, etc. in TOR, but a chase could easily be simulated by making a series of opposed Athletics rolls. And this would likely be necessary in two-player adventures.


--------------------
Please visit my blog, Advancement Points: The One Ring Files, for my TOR Resources
Mini ProfilePMEmail Poster
Top
Damou66
Posted: Sep 19 2011, 02:24 AM
Report PostQuote Post





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Member No.: 1915
Joined: 12-September 11



Thanks for the suggestions guys. Coming from a D&D -> Rolemaster -> 3.5 -> 4E background we tend not to run away too often so keeping two heroes alive may be an issue smile.gif

I do like the idea of grogs, especially if it can add to the story.

In the end I will probably ask what the players want and we may mix and match between episodes - sometimes have just the players and other times add some grogs as required. Over time we'll work out what works best for us.

From the forums it is obvious the system is flexible but I don't want to tweak rules until we have sessions under our belts, even then I prefer to play things as written.
Mini ProfilePMEmail Poster
Top
Osric
Posted: Sep 25 2011, 07:59 PM
Report PostQuote Post





Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 1544
Joined: 30-April 11



QUOTE (voidstate @ Sep 16 2011, 02:45 PM)
Frodo and Sam?

Well now we know why Frodo and Sam didn't carry bows and didn't so much as throw a rock at a goblin in their whole adventure! biggrin.gif

--Os.
Mini ProfilePMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Matchstick
Posted: Sep 27 2011, 08:57 PM
Report PostQuote Post





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Member No.: 1952
Joined: 21-September 11



QUOTE (Doc_Nova @ Sep 16 2011, 07:58 PM)
This problem can also be avoided if one of the player-heroes has a Hound (a virtue available to Woodmen). One of the selectable abilities of the Hound is to act like another guarding meleer; in this case it would eliminate the need for an extra character while simultaneously solving the issue of enabling rearward stance and with zero modification of existing rules. That said, the rules are light and thematic enough that modifying them is a breeze -- simply eliminate the needed "wall" and just require one blockading character, or allow point-blank bow attacks (Legolas did this regularly in the films, as I recall).

Doc

I really like the Hound or something similar as a suggestion. It makes good sense and it doesn't mean someone has to play more than one character, something I don't like players to do.

The Loremaster could make that virtue available to more than just Woodmen if he/she wanted. Farmer Maggot had three hounds, and he was a hobbit.
Mini ProfilePMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: Garn

Topic Options Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 


Google
 
Web cubicle7.clicdev.com


[ Script Execution time: 0.0776 ]   [ 15 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]   [ Server Load: 5.51 ]

Web Statistics