Things missing from the 1 Ring

[Glorelendil]

Oh, I agree it's missing and look forward to having it, I just don't think it's "key" in Eriador and Wilderland. At least, I haven't really noticed its absence. Eorl may have come from those parts, but he ain't there now.

[Angelalex242]

Well, it is useful to know how mounted combat works. Among other things, the 9 are mounted. While the witch king can't be bested unless there's some females in the party, the 9 can be...'kicked' I'll call it...back to Mordor for 'new shapes to wear and new beasts to ride.' Which is what happened to them at Rivendell's Ford.

Speaking of which, a good reason why you should know how mounted combat works is that killing the horse/other riding beast of the ringwraiths is a great idea. See, if they lose one, they can't exactly replace it without hiking clear back to Mordor. No other beast will bear them. That'd cripple their mobility.

[Glorelendil]

Well, it is useful to know how mounted combat works. Among other things, the 9 are mounted. While the witch king can't be bested unless there's some females in the party, the 9 can be...'kicked' I'll call it...back to Mordor for 'new shapes to wear and new beasts to ride.' Which is what happened to them at Rivendell's Ford.

Speaking of which, a good reason why you should know how mounted combat works is that killing the horse/other riding beast of the ringwraiths is a great idea. See, if they lose one, they can't exactly replace it without hiking clear back to Mordor. No other beast will bear them. That'd cripple their mobility.

I don't really think of Nazgul as performing cavalry charges, or otherwise resorting to combat very often, mounted or not.

[Angelalex242]

They don't have to. You just have to have someone...maybe an archer...shoot their horses out from under them.

Attacking a horse isn't exactly code of Chivalry, but it does slow the Nazgul WAY down.

[robert_pat]

Regardless of the instances of the Nine on horseback, rules for mounted combat would be nice to have. But even as is, the LM can decide how it would play out. Some sort of equine Fear test, to see if a horse is spooked, perhaps? With a number of success dice based on whether it's trained for / has seen combat?

[Glorelendil]

They don't have to. You just have to have someone...maybe an archer...shoot their horses out from under them.

Attacking a horse isn't exactly code of Chivalry, but it does slow the Nazgul WAY down.

Sometimes I wonder if we are playing the same game.

[Tolwen]

Regardless of the instances of the Nine on horseback, rules for mounted combat would be nice to have.

If you're happy with house/fan-made supplementary rules (until offivcial rules become available or even beyond that), you might try out those created by fellow user of this board Paul Kirk in Mounted Combat for The One Ring in Other Minds, Issue 14.

And concerning the basic question raised in this thread, I can only second the already-mentioned point that even though the game might not be perfect for everyone, it's everyone's job to alter things he deems not suitable. He may even make the results of that work available to share with others if he thinks it useful. And if he thinks the amount of work is too much, he should probably look for another game system better suited to his needs. As mentioned, TOR excels at what it aims to be. It never was designed to reflect or emulate the complexity of the whole of Middle-earth's societies or (pseudo-)historical situations. For example, whenever you're in a setting or time where there is no great evil overlord or powerful empire of evil (rather than just unfriendly mannish realms) threatening the Fee Peoples, some of the game's core mechanics (and assumptions) do not work very well (or at all).
But this is not the point, as the designers had their reasons to make it the way they did. And as already said, they reached their goal superbly. If that's not what you're looking for it is not the fault of the game.

Cheers
Tolwen

[Glorelendil]

it's everyone's job to alter things he deems not suitable. He may even make the results of that work available to share with others if he thinks it useful. And if he thinks the amount of work is too much, he should probably look for another game system better suited to his needs.

Yes, this. And I admire Tolwen for his restraint in phrasing.

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah, I have to agree with others. The One Ring is not a generic Tolkien RPG. It is not intended to be a generic Tolkien RPG, and if you expect it to be one, you'll be disappointed.

That doesn't make it a bad game though. Indeed, I think TOR benefits a great deal from being so very tightly focused on the area and power level it is. Many games do fine with a broader scope, but few manage the level of setting immersion that TOR has built into its rules, and those are necessarily very closely tied to a very particular group of setting assumptions.

On a side note, I too feel you can make the Fellowship as high level PCs. Or even not-so high level ones in the case of the Hobbits. Gandalf is an exception...and that's entirely reasonable. Playing one of the Istari is a whole different thing even from playing someone like Aragorn.

[Glorelendil]

But even if you gave characters all 6's in skills and 10's in attributes, and loaded them up with the best enchanted items one could design, you still wouldn't have Peter Jackon's version of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli. Nor Feanor or Fingolfin of the First Age.

So, yeah, you can build "high level" characters, but health pools and defenses never really increase by much. Even damage output levels off pretty early.