forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I recently introduced three of my Tolkien-savvy friends to TOR and we spent a night discussing the rules and rolling characters a few weeks ago. We finally played Saturday night and it was, in their words, one of the best sessions we'd ever had.

There is a Beorning who loves exaggerating his accomplishments (I slew 30 orcs from the back of a trill which I also singlehandedly killed) and who really loves his ale; a Barding who was a battle medic at Five a armies who wants to travel and help the sick; and a woodwoman who wants to prove women are equal to men in all matters, including when braving the unknown. They came separately to Esgaroth for the gathering of five armies. There were competitions, feasting, races, song, etcetera.

The Beorning was knocked unconscious by a dwarf named Gulag Ironbeard in a friendly public arena brawl; the Barding set his broken face aright while waiting for his turn in a duel of wooden swords. The woodwoman exchanged tales from the edge of Mirkwood for free lodgings and food at a bed and breakfast, later beating two dwarves and a lake man in a drinking contest; the Barding accidentally insulted an emissary of the Elvenking by offering to set his broken nose after beating him in the sword duel (rolled an eye); they met organically. Absolutely nothing felt forced they and were later summoned by Balin, and the next session will begin with their decision to aid him and start the marsh bell or not. Session ended with a gandalf-worthy fireworks display in which a dragon flew out of a mountain and was shot with a flaming arrow, the sparks crashing and hissing into the lake at midnight.

This game is a blast to run and I love how much agency it gives the players. This is the beginning of a beautiful new obsession.

Awesome! Sounds like your group has some fun role-players.

I was about to make a similar post: after playing a couple games with a great group from the UK, I LM'd a session for 3 of my D&D friends, using roll20. None of them have the rules yet, so I spent a lot of time explaining the game. But the response was enthusiastic: we are planning a next session, and at least one of them already bought the game.

My group likes it when the LM (DM, GM, etc.) asks the players to describe their own plot hooks. E.g., "Why are you in Woodland Hall?" For example, as the Attercops were closing the the elf asked "Does my Spider-lore speciality tell me anything about how to fight spiders? I let him make a lore role, with attribute bonus, in place of a Battle roll. He succeeded, but instead of telling him what that meant I asked, "Ok, what did your spider lore tell you?" He love that.

It also just makes it easier to run a game when you let the players help out with the creativity.

Oh, and everybody loved the dice system. A lot of depth/complexity in one fairly simple mechanic.

Exactly! When the doctor was treating the other players injuries, he asked what he was fixing. I asked ''what does your medical knowledge tell you?' And he jumped right in. There were several such light bulb moments as they realized how much control they have over the narrative, which is one of the more awesome parts of the system.

Sprigg wrote:Exactly! When the doctor was treating the other players injuries, he asked what he was fixing. I asked ''what does your medical knowledge tell you?' And he jumped right in. There were several such light bulb moments as they realized how much control they have over the narrative, which is one of the more awesome parts of the system.

Agree completely.

This is why I get so annoyed with the D&D 4e crowd and their "Stormwind Fallacy"*

Some game mechanics encourage storytelling, some encourage minmaxing and "character builds". No, there doesn't have to be a trade-off...but there almost invariably is.

*My translation of the Stormwind Fallacy: "Because the trade-off between role-playing and powergaming doesn't have to exist, it never does." Or something like that. (I counter with my Orgrimmar Fallacy**: "A silly tautology with a fancy name is still just a silly tautology.")

**The best thing about the Orgrimmar Fallacy is that it provokes a knee-jerk "Not THAT Stormwind!"

Exactly. It can be done in other systems, but I'd rather my second thread on the board not turn into another system vs system debate or pathfinder punching session

I also really like the chaos and entertainment the gandalf and eye symbols create. Doc rolled a G, fancy fencing sword master rolled an eye. Instant broken nose, duel over in one round. Beorning throws an outlandish story at strangers, rolls awe, gets a G to impress them, he gets free drinks from the nearby ale house.

Next session I'm hoping to introduce them to the travel mechanics and jump on some of the already very personal story threads they've given.

Sprigg wrote:Exactly. It can be done in other systems, but I'd rather my second thread on the board not turn into another system vs system debate or pathfinder punching session

My bad. The last thing this forum needs is imported toxicity.

Sprigg wrote: There is a Beorning who loves exaggerating his accomplishments (I slew 30 orcs from the back of a trill which I also singlehandedly killed)

Haha that's pretty much how it went down. He was attempting to convince the burly fight organizer to let him, a nobody, into the competition. He failed the roll, the man doubled over in laughter and let him through just because he liked Relen's (Beorning's) spunk, even if he was full of it.

Congratulations on what sounds like a great game!

Elfcrusher wrote:
*My translation of the Stormwind Fallacy: "Because the trade-off between role-playing and powergaming doesn't have to exist, it never does." Or something like that. (I counter with my Orgrimmar Fallacy**: "A silly tautology with a fancy name is still just a silly tautology.")

I really don't think that was the intended idea that was meant to be conveyed by this. It did address many people's judgementalism about the notion of optimization vs role-playing. But like all good things, it definitely was abused or used erroneously, too and became a crutch, cop-out, for many whom it did not apply to just to save face. There's a lot of truth to the ideal. Much like most religions; it's great in theory and has a good intention, the practitioners just screw it all up and make it unbearable to many others.

(I counter with my Orgrimmar Fallacy**: "A silly tautology with a fancy name is still just a silly tautology.")

That's funny.

Robert