forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

DerKastellan wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:11 pm

So, I have to wonder: Is it really all that great playing a Ranger? Having a high attribute and then not using it... meh. A high Wits score will then mostly matter for the Parry, a high Heart for the added Endurance and Hope, and a high Body will increase the Damage rating. Nothing to sneeze at, given that on average will be 1 harder to hit, do 1 more point of damage for each a great and extraordinary success, and generally being a bit more sturdy...

Is it really all that great playing a Ranger? Being the last remnant of the ancient Numenoreans and being the secret guardians of Eriador, awaiting the return of the King, having ties to both elvish and mannish civilizations, being charged with the protection of those under your care... Play it because it's cool, not because of a cost/benefit analysis!

When the Decipher Lord of the Rings game came out, hobbits were clearly the least powerful characters you could play, by far. Yet every party had hobbits in it! Because people want to play hobbits, regardless of the fact that they are mostly inferior in adventuring activities to other races. You play a character because you WANT to, not because it will produce the highest yield.

Well, you want it to be that way, but sometimes playing a character because you want to, despite significant mechanical disadvantages, doesn't work that well because you quickly find yourself useless with nothing to contribute except a chance to be the damsel-in-distress, which maybe doesn't fit the intent of the character that made you want to play it in the first place. (I've recently run into this situation in a TOR play-by-post, in fact.) It's still a valid question to ask if the game rules are doing what they intend to be doing, if playing a Ranger does turn out to be "because it's cool" and then it turns out you don't get to be all that cool after all. A tweak to the rules might be in order if it makes them help, not go against, that "be cool" intent.

(Aside to Stormcrow: just noticed Ronkonkoma -- I grew up in the same area, in Centereach.)

Being slightly less mechanically effective does not equal being useless. In the case of Rangers and High Elves, it means you have to more carefully conserve your Hope, and your activities get channeled into culture-appropriate actions. It's a feature, not a bug. It makes you more like those cultures, instead of a general ubermensch. We are also explicitly warned that these cultures are meant for advanced players, that they are not easy. You know what you're getting into when you choose one of them.

This modern idea of "everyone has to be equally good at game mechanics in order to have fun" drives me bonkers. It's just not true. You can have lots of fun when you're not at the top. Back in the early days of D&D, high-level characters would take low-level characters into deeper dungeons so the low-levels would level up faster. This wasn't boring for the player of the low-level character—he got to encounter exciting monsters and puzzles rather than wandering around the first level of the dungeon encountering Yet Another Orc. He just couldn't slaughter as many monsters as the high-levels taking him through the dungeon. If, in The One Ring, you were playing a character which is significantly inferior to the others in the party—a situation that doesn't really happen, but let's pretend—then the interest lies in doing your best not to be a liability to the party, and to leverage what strengths you DO have. And that is more interesting overall than a party in which everyone is equally effective all the time.

Tolkien didn't write stories in which his protagonists were all equal. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are all about protagonists who aren't as good at adventures as their companions. But stories about hobbits who aren't quite prepared for the dangers that await are far more interesting than stories about the party of Heroes who handily vanquish every challenge they face. And The One Ring is written to support this. You're generally assumed to be adventurers who go home after the adventure is over, back to your real lives, and you're encouraged to make up the story of that real life. You don't wander the land stumbling across adventure after adventure. You may be just a lowly hobbit on an adventure, but back home you may become a renowned hero, or an odd but respected host of strange guests. Stories grow up around you, whether or not you were the star of the adventure.

Likewise with being a Ranger or a High Elf. If you can't enjoy the game without spending as much Hope as your companions, you've got to learn to focus on something other than comparing your success levels with those of your party members. The game is about more than just rolling the dice.

P.S.: I moved to Ronkonkoma last year from elsewhere on the island, on which I've lived my whole life, not counting some time at college upstate.

I did develop a couple of Undertakings as House Rules for Rangers and High Elves that relate to this topic:

New Fellowship Phase Undertaking: Visit Annúminas
(Rangers of the North only)

A Ranger of the North who spends a Fellowship phase to visit Annúminas on the shore of Lake Nenuial will find a degree of peace, allowing him to heal one point of permanent Shadow.

This could be nerfed to healing a number of points of Shadow equal to the character's Wisdom. Or would that be too much?

New Fellowship Phase Undertaking: Pilgrimage to the Tower Hills
(High Elves only)

Any High Elves spending a Fellowship phase in the Grey Havens or anywhere else in western Eriador may use it to visit the White Towers at Emyn Beraid and gaze into the palantír kept at Elostirion to look upon the Undying Lands. Any High Elf who does this recovers one point of Hope.

Note to Loremasters: The Seeing-stone of Elostirion was placed by Círdan aboard the white ship of the Last Riding of the Keepers of the Ring in TA 3012 and returned to Eldamar.

Would it be better to make the recovery of Hope equal to the character's Wisdom score? It might be better to make this a single-use Undertaking.

I also came up with this:

New Fellowship Phase Undertaking: Pilgrimage to Mount Dolmed
(Dwarves only)

Dwarves of the Blue Mountains, or their descendants, who spend a Fellowship phase in the Blue Mountains or elsewhere in western Eriador may journey to the sacred site of Mount Dolmed in the Northern Ered Luin and may remove one point of permanent Shadow. The hero may only gain this benefit once.

Again, the healing could be changed to equal the character's Wisdom (or Valour?) score.

There was a (long) thread in the house-rules subforum about this.
Maybe you can find some of the ideas there useful.

viewtopic.php?f=56&t=6556&hilit=rangers+of+the+north

I don’t think being willing to play a weaker character is mutually exclusive with believing that some specific weaknesses are just not fun.

I for one wish Hobbits were weaker, especially in combat but even in common skills. And the Noldor shadow thing is great. But I found the Hope restriction on Rangers, however narratively appropriate, to be un-fun. The mechanic it affects is too central to the game.

Glorelendil wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:34 pm

I for one wish Hobbits were weaker, especially in combat bit ...

...we also have house rules for that!