Hello

As my acceptance to the forum, I would like to greet you all with an idea for a rules lite TOR. The objective is to make the rolling faster and simplify some rules to make it easier to teach and maybe play on conventions.

Although not finished, most of the ideas are written in the document. I will be updating it when I'm back later. I would like to know what do you think, as suggestions are always welcome.

Cheers,

Victor Gaigaia

Ps: English is not my mother tongue, so I ask you to bare with my mistakes.

Here's the link for the document on google docs

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_h14BTI...dit?usp=sharing

Welcome Gaigia

One thing I have found running TOR is that the TN of 14 is quite hard to achieve for beginning characters and whilst your hope rules would potentially fix that I can't see a good enough reason to change them myself.

The idea about altered difficulties being great or better success I think is a very good one.

With initiative I have to be honest and say that I don't see where the current initiative system fails to give everyone a chance in the limelight since the only thing it does differently to conventional initiative systems is to have those adventurers who attack aggresively and with less thought to defence go first. Another more unusual initiative system I have found is Airship Pirates (also on this board) where your initiative roll only means that if you have a higher initiative than your opponent. No-one goes before anyone else as such is is simply whether you have an advantage over your target. I suppose you could introduce that to TOR with possibly a Battle roll giving you or your opponent comb at advantage die for that round.

Though I don't agree with all of your ideas so far, good luck and I look forward to seeing what else you come up with.
E

E

I am very intrigued by this, and I can definitely see the potential. However, I have to agree with Eldath about the initiative, I don't understand why you changed it. Equally, I disagree with the removal of attributes. To me, the attributes are integral, since they allow for a differentiation between races and backgrounds, though of course, YMMV. Also, I feel that the weight thing for the adversaries in regards to damage seems for too complicated. I also don't know the weight of... well, anything in Middle Earth

I sound rather negative there, but I was merely pointing out the things I disagree with. Everything else seems perfectly sensible. I also like your dual wielding idea. It's one I haven't seen before

I think I get where he is coming from with the combat dynamic of alternation... it's something I have been experimenting with recently myself.

The way I understand the game I have to ask everyone what their stance is, then figure out who goes first then resolve the actions of those in forward stance then open, and so on. It is kinda complicated and does take a little extra time to figure out what stance everyone is in.... I've been finding it's a little faster to just go around the circle from where one player is to the next and resolve actions in that order, then do the bad guys who are arrayed agianst them.... what he's suggesting just breaks up what I'm doing.... anyway I think thsi idea has merit

Question 1: does a sheild effect the TN for an adversary to hit your player? or do they only factor in when you parry? i kinda feel that they should always be "on"

Queston 2: so can you only use a short sword for 2 weapon fighting? why not use 2 axes for more damage and to keep the higher skill for the attack roll?

@Gaigaia - I certainly understand and appreciate where you're coming from, although, I do wonder if your first pass here has really only replaced fiddly rules with other fiddly rules (and, please understand, I realize you didn't called RAW "fiddly" - that's my (over?)simplification).

Maybe it would help us to understand what parts of the system you'd like to do away with first (i.e. those parts you find too cumbersome or "fiddly") and we can suggest simplifications.

With regard to the doc:

1.) TN and great/extraordinary success - I guess I'd like to understand the math here.

2.) No attributes - I'm guessing you're wanting to cut down on the math with applying attribute bonuses but, simply from a role-playing perspective, is my character as smart as he is strong? How do I visualize him without reference to basic attributes?

3.) Initiative - I often resolve combat similarly to Cynan, i.e. often without reference to stance, generally with melee then ranged. I haven't experienced that when a PC acts during combat has all that much impact other than PCs going first often have more opportunities to act. If your players feel they're captive to stance, then absolutely change it. The idea of "defenders go first," I think is a setting flavor, favoring defenders over aggressors, that I might keep, however.

The One Ring Lite looks like a good idea to me - the original game is pretty crunchy when compared to, say, Microlite 20, so there's lots of room for simplification. I've got some comments about your rules, Victor:

1. If I was to get rid of varied TN, I would do it in Apocalypse World style: TN 14 is always a success, no matter how hard the task is, and 6's on the dice only provide additional effects. Still, the PCs would have to come up with a plan to stand a chance of defeating the adversity, or the LM could not allow a test at all.

2. If you want to make the rules really easy, isn't it simpler to compare the total results on the dice during a resisted test instead of following the quite elaborate procedure you described?

3. I like that you remove the attributes. The differences between races that the attributes provide are really minor, and the attributes themselves rarely come into play. I think that skills can provide enough support for role-playing - someone with high Athletics would be burly, someone with high Lore - witty etc. However, I think that a non-variable bonus, like 5 to 7, would make Hope points more meaningful than adding a success die.

4. For a rules-lite game, I would skip buying Hope, Endurance, etc. for points, and stick to basic racial values increased by a non-variable number.

5. I'm afraid that your rules for pacing actually make it harder to give spotlight to everyone. Even in your example, Caranthir could simply shoot all the time (alternating with spiders), and other players would do nothing. Also, the combat would feel less probable in terms of game world: it matters less whether the party fights one troll or five, as they still attack the same number of times. You could get rid of individual initiative, though, and alternate the party's and opponents' turns.

6. For a rules-lite game, all the weapons could work the same way - with the same damage, Edge, etc. I think that these are the journeys, Hope, and Shadow that are the core elements of the game. The specifics of medieval weaponry aren't.

7. Parrying: actually, I prefer the original Knockback rules. In your variant, you get an additional roll, and this can slow the game IMO.

8. Damage reduction: it is cool in terms of realism, but reducing the damage may, I think, make the battles too long. Also, the need to know the weight of every creature in Middle-Earth wouldn't make the game more approachable. If I were to use the reduction, I would go for it only for mumakils and dragons - and only in my own adventure scenarios, since it would be easier to just follow the original stat blocks in published ones.

Squid makes some good points:

I agree whole heartedly on not having to buy hope and endurance for example.

Also I find the bonuses you put in instead of attributes are on the low end, rolling a d6 is not as sure as having a fixed attribute bonus (between 2 and 7), Not only are teh attributes slightly higher but when you realize you missed your roll by 3 you'll know if your attribute is enough to bump you over the threshold to succeed versus rolling a dice you might roll a 1 and fail anyway, then the question becomes do i lose the point of hope?. Also since the average attribute for player heroes in the one ring is just over 4, (4 and one third) you might want to incease the fixed bonuses you've put in to 4 (or 5 if you want to round up). This would apply to damage bonuses for great successes on weapon skill rolls for example.

I kinda like the idea of getting rid of the weapon list and have very generic weapons.... but make a few broad categories: one handed weaopns, two handed weapons, and small weapons. Maybe for one handed weapon, give it 5 damage an injury rating of say 14 and an edge of 10, and 2 endurance. or something like that, For a weapon used in two hands maybe 9 damage, same edje, injury 16 endurance 4. Maybe make a thrid one for daggers or other small, inferior or makeshift weapons damage 3 same edge, injury 14 encumberance 1. I'd probably make bows and other 2 handed ranged weapons have the stats of the one handed weapons though... especailly if the Tn is not higher for ranged weapons.

Thanks for the feedback! I'm twinking with it to see how I can improve.

Answering questions:

Cynan:
1) I'm yet not sure of how to handle parry in the lite version. I, personally, dislike the 'active parry' action, but that's one idea one of my players suggested. I will write in the document other idea. On that note, Shields would be damage reduction.

2) You can use any one handed weapon for dual wielding. You can use a spear and an axe, for example, having 10 total damage, with edge 9 and 12 and injury 16 and 14. The idea behind dual wielding is that you would cause more damage and have better chances for perfurating hits, but they would have a lesser injury rating.

Evocatus (Evocati, Evocatos,, Evocatum, Evocatis - just a latin exercicse) =)
1) I didn't get what you would like to know about the math. Could you reformulate the question?

2) I find the attributes very...irrelevant for the game. You can see, for example, a Woodmen with 2 body being outmatched by a hobbit with body 3? They are very abstract and, for me, you visualise your character through his skills and aspects. If you character is smart, he has Lore and Enigmas? That's how I see that matter.

3) My idea with combat is inspired by Apocalypse World. I really like having things go wild and don't care about order and stuff. Basically, PC goes, then monster reacts, then other PC goes, then monster reacts. It's hard to explain that if you don't know the Apocalypse World idea behind combat, and even Dungeon World. It's confusing to explain, I'm sorry if I'm incapable to do so.

Squid:

1) Yes. Thats how I do in my games. Apocalypse World (and it's hacks) is my favorite rpg system, and I never go astray of it.

2) I've added another possible resolution, where I equate the mean values of rollings. TN 10 = 1 die; TN 13 = 2 dice; TN 17 = 3 dice; TN 20 = 4 dice; TN 24 = 5 dice and TN 27 = 6 dice. You may read it on the document.

3) I agree with you. I added a new rule for hope spent on the document. Now, instead of +1 die, it would be +4, +6 if it was favored.

4) You are probably right. For a convention game, I would go withouth the 'point buy' system. But, for a lite game with my group, I find that they like to have more freedom of choice.

5) I added some rules for groups of monsters. You are right, though. My combat resolution is similar to AW. When I say 'Player then monster' I say like that: Caranthir swings his spear on a group of 3 orcs. Then, the orcs attack him (the three). Then, other PC acts. Did I make myself clear? Somehow, I feel that I just made things more complicated...

6) Weapons work the same way. I only altered the damage of Short Swords.

7) I will add another variant for parrying and would like you to rate it.

8) The idea is not, really, realism. It's to make things faster. Instead of having a troll with 80 endurance, having a troll with 30 and 6 damage reduction means less booking, in my opinion. Also, it makes easier for escalation on mythical battles.

Changes on the document:

. Third clause for exceptional successes
. Explanation on scale
. Added a section for TOR rules that I use in my games, insted of just Lite rules.

I will continue writting the document

so as far as the turns goes is this what you meant:

say three players encounter 5 orcs,

player 1 attacks an orc
an orc attacks him
player 2 attacks a different orc
the second orc attacks him
player 3 attacks and kills an orc
the third orc is dead therefore he does not attack
there are 2 orcs unaccounted for so the fourth orc attacks player 3 so he has an opponent
The fifth orc attacks player 1 and player 1 is now facing two opponants.

is that the gist you are aiming for?

3 Players vs 5 orcs

First, the scene will be described. Are the orcs attacking on a singular assault? How are the players holding their positions? Who is on front, who is not? Considering that the melee would go on front, let's say 2 Pcs are melee and 1 is range.

The five orcs are all warriors, no snaga archers, and they go mindlessly against the two on front.

One Pc attacks one orc. Then, the GM may answer as he likes. What I do is to use the rule for pilling in. I consider 2 or 3 orcs attacking 1 Pc and roll +1d or +2d for them. So, I say that 3 orcs pile on one of the Pcs and roll 4d for them. For the other, the 2 orcs attack him, getting +1d for a total of 3d.

You can also have each one attack individually (every one having 2d). But the idea is not having a 'linear' initiative.

Player attack orc. A group of the orcs respond. Then, the other PC acts, and the other orcs too. The one PC behind may shoot an arrow, and then the action goes back for the first PC

Is back and forth action, instead of 'All Pcs' followed by 'All Monsters', followed by All Pcs.

@Gaigaia

1.) With regard to the math, I was just wondering how the probabilities scale, i.e. is TN 16 RAW more or less difficult than TN 14 with a great success. I'll caveat this by saying, honestly, this is all academic because I'm not a huge stickler for rules, in general - if you've used your rules and they work for your group, carry on. I was really just wondering aloud about how the TNs interact with skill dice and what impact a change might have as the PC gains in power.

2.) I can see how skill levels, specialties, defining features, calling, background all work to define a PC. I guess my thought was, if you were aiming for reducing the math involved in calculating an attribute bonus, you'll still have the +4 to add in so, have you accomplished your goal? I kind of like having the attributes as an additional referent for my PC, something that distinguishes him/her further, e.g. I have a Heart of 7, I feel much more confident about my ability to Inspire, so I might take on Heart-related tasks more than others in the Company vs. a generic +4. Again, YMMV.

3.) I see what you're going for now with regard to combat - I like the change and definitely see where yours PCs get an immediate sense of resolution by following the action blow-for-blow, rather than "Team Good Guys attack, then Team Bad Guys. So, initiative order is determined by the PCs as a team? Visceral, gritty as I wonder if you might end up with higher Endurance losses and Wounds.

Cool, I do like what you are doign for turns :-)

One thing I will do if were to run a rules lite TOR would be to simply use the LM character info on pg 24(?) of the LM book for the PC's.

There you all go. That's the answer. Right there.