Do you think a new edition would help?

[Glorfindel18]

First of I'm aware that this is the house rules section. I just want to know if you think a new edition could help? I've been doing a lot of thinking on this and I think if D&D could evolve from Basic and Advanced to 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e (although that one wasn't so well received apparently) and eventually 5e, then maybe The One Ring could do the same. I think that borrowing from AiME (at least the Journey rules) maybe isn't such a bad thing after all. But enough out of me for now. What are your thoughts?

[Rich H]

I'm not sure. I mean, I do lots of house rules for TOR but it isn't because the game is broken in any shape or form; I just like fiddling. I could quite happily run the game as per RAW, I just choose not to.

[Corvo]

I'm not sure. I mean, I do lots of house rules for TOR but it isn't because the game is broken in any shape or form; I just like fiddling. I could quite happily run the game as per RAW, I just choose not to.

Same for me.
I do a lot of fine-tuning, with any game.

[Otaku-sempai]

Don't we already have essentially an edition 1.5 in the combined rulebook?

[Earendil]

What is it you think a new edition would help with? I mean, do you think there are problems with the current edition that need fixing?

Edition changes often cause issues with supplements, i.e. rules and references in a supplement published for an older edition no longer match up with those in the newer edition, creating extra work for the LM. We've already had that in a minor way with Tales From Wilderland and the Loremaster's Screen, and I don't think it's a good idea to make all the other supplements outdated as well without a good reason for doing so.

At some point (if C7 keep the licence long enough) there probably will be a new edition, and something a bit more like the AIME journey rules might be in that, but I can't see any reason for that to happen any time soon.

I don't think comparisons with D&D are necessarily valid: TOR is much more niche than D&D and therefore it needs a lot more to justify a new edition. It's only been 2 years since the revised core rulebook came out, and that was only 3 years after the slipcase edition!

Anyway, the shortest gap between different editions of D&D is 3 years between 3rd and 3.5, if they even count as different editions. It was then another 5 years before 4th came out, and although it was received poorly it was still another 6 years before 5th came out.

[Majestic]

Though I'm eager to try out the Journey rules for AIME, to see if they're better and worth incorporating, I think otherwise TOR (the Revised version) works great as written. Unlike just about every other RPG, I don't really have any house rules for the game, as it already excellently captures and mood and feel of Middle-earth so well!

[Glorelendil]

I look forward to TOR 2nd Edition, but I don't think it's time yet. We need to "finish" 1st edition in the sense of getting the Shire and Gondor officially taken care of, and also I think it's worth getting at least a year's worth of feedback from AiMe.

But when it comes, the stuff I would like to see tweaked:
1) All the virtues and rewards revisited, and the most problematic ones adjusted.
2) Perhaps new Journey rules based on lessons learned from AiMe
3) Eye of Mordor rules reassessed. Concept is great; the math could be adjusted.
4) I would like to see hero survivability scale more.
5) More combat tasks.
6) Penalties of heroic cultures, especially Rangers, reassessed
7) Options for multiple attacks (that don't cost Hope). I'm not proposing this become the PJ version of Middle-earth, but under current rules it's inconceivable for a Boromir hero to kill as many orcs as he did, against such great numbers. There needs to be some option for high "level" heroes to kill more than one orc per turn, while having increased survivability (see point #4) above.

That's all I can think of offhand.

It would be important for all changes to be backwards compatible with adventures.

[Stormcrow]

if D&D could evolve from Basic and Advanced to 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e [...] and eventually 5e, then maybe The One Ring could do the same.

This "evolution" was mostly just marketing. AD&D Second Edition was originally going to be a simple incorporation of new stuff Gygax liked and jettisoning cumbersome rules, but he was maneuvered out of the company and AD&D Second Edition was as much about erasing Gygax as it was simplifying and becoming "up to date." D&D Third Edition was about Wizards of the Coast buying TSR and saving D&D from oblivion much more than its "back to the dungeon" slogans and reliance on heavy rules. D&D Fourth Edition was almost purely about marketing, fueled by the failure of the OGL to unify RPGing. Most existing players resented this move and disliked D&D Fourth Edition, and D&D Fifth Edition is move back to concepts that more players favor (marketing in that the implied slogan is "It's not D&D Fourth Edition!"; but this was one of the most game-driven updates in a long time.

And starting with the gulf between AD&D Second Edition and D&D Third Edition, the games aren't even compatible with each other anymore.

Do we really want to see The One Ring go through the same process? Do you want to have to buy a new version every few years? Do you want to split the already niche-within-a-niche market for TOR between people who like one version and the heretics who dare like something else?

Cubicle7 has been very good about "editions." I bought the 10th Doctor version of Doctor Who, and I haven't had any need to update to the various other editions they've put out. Minor revisions and updates aside, the game is the same. They've already done this with TOR: a new edition of the rules came out, but the biggest changes were simply layout and presentation.

I don't expect Cubicle7 to try to make me buy everything all over again.

[Glorelendil]

Do you want to have to buy a new version every few years?

No, of course not. But that's like asking if I had kids because I "want to" change diapers and pay for college.

I'm perfectly willing to buy a new edition if it's a significantly improved game.

[Stormcrow]

As with D&D, whether a new version is improved is largely a matter of taste, and new, significantly different versions tend to create schisms in the player-base.

I can certainly see improvements that could be made to The One Ring, but I don't think significantly changed rules would be universally acknowledged to be improvements. You'd just fracture the player-base.