Help me out to figure if One Ring is a game for us

[Rich H]

Hope this helps you, Mordjinn.

Thanks mate, this helped a lot. Especially your examples are very enlightening and give me clear ideas how to prepare for encounters. I'd love to hear how you handle combat and travel too as a GM. Or even better what are your tips when we're playing through our next adventure Don't leave the Path from Tales from the Wilderland.

Always a pleasure, and my group is not perfect by any means - for instance, we often crack jokes or don't take things seriously when we should; therefore killing the mood sometimes. We aren't perfect creatures. Any of us!

I'm going to need a little more from you regarding what you find difficult (or lacking) with regard to Journeys and Combat if possible. Is it okay if you explain some specific problems? That way people like myself and Sir Kicley can offer more specific advice. I could outline what I do but I'm conscious that it's better to tackle core personal problems with the game rather than you trying to emulate my way of playing. Does that make sense?

EDIT/NOTE: And I haven't GM'd Don't Leave the Path for my group so I can't really help. I used a lot of its ideas in an adventure when the PCs travelled from west to east along the Elf Path but that's about it. Sorry!

[SirKicley]

After reading the last several posts (mostly from Rich), I wish to add the following which kinda dog-&-ponies with him....


1 - there is nothing wrong in the roleplaying in the third person example that was given. "I throw my cloak back and look menacingly" type commentary is no less appropriate than someone who can rattle off in first person ad-libbled thespian style. Usually we toggle between the two - if we can think of something wonder to say in first person we'll do so, and if the words are not coming, or uncomfortable to say in first person (a romantic encounter for example), then using the third person is a great way of communicating and keeping the flavor/style alive.

And oh yes, it always beats "I use my intimidate skill" "I bluff him."

2 - Have the players express intent. Not express what skill to use. Have the LM assign the test to roll after players intent is stated. Not the other way around.

FOR EXAMPLE - instead of the following two.....
PLAYER: I use my athletic skill and climb up the wall, here's my check
PLAYER: I use my AWE skill and tell him that I will turn him over to the authorities if he doesn't cooperate.

TRY these....
PLAYER: I try to scramble up the cliff using the brush and boulders as aid and cover from the eyes on the other bank.
LM: (can at this point choose to force a check, OR ask for a roll for Athletics, or Stealth or both, or something else entirely, or just as easily assume it’s not much of a contest and ask for nothing).

PLAYER: I look menacingly at the bandit that we've just captured. I warn him to cooperate or else I will turn him over to the authority.
LM: (again can at this point choose to force a check, could ask for an AWE, or a PERSUADE, maybe even a RIDDLE if it’s known that the player really has no intention of doing this and it’s just a bluff; or could tell the player to do either one; or perhaps the LM feels an INSIGHT roll is needed instead to have the player notice something about the bandit.)

The important thing to remember is NOT to force a player to make a check for everything. The rules in the book actually specifically indicate that checks are made for times when there's truly something important to contest, or there's a true penalty to failing. Furthermore, by the player just announcing intent allows the LM to direct the flow of the game and judging when an appropriate and what the appropriate check is needed. After the LM calls for a test, the player can respond with the use of a trait or something if he has an appropriate use, and reap a standard success.

By making the game more fluid, and not using a lot of dice rolls when unnecessary, it removes a lot of the crunchy didactic feel to it.


3 - Journeys. I've stated before in other threads, that I break them down into "legs of the journey". Each LEG I have the Travel checks done. This removes the need to do lots of boring repetitive dice-rolling at the beginning of a journey. The LORE checks to know something of the upcoming journey is done at the beginning; but each Travel test after that is done intermittently.

At each leg of the journey, I use that time to break up the monotony of it, and interject some important aspect. LMs narration of the area, introducing topographical or geographical commentary. Throw in a hook or two along the way for future adventures in that area. At each TRAVEL roll forced upon the players, is a “cut-scene” for player and their characters to interact, mingle, or narrate something they wish to do or are doing along their travels (working on a craft, writing a journal, talking with their fellowship focus, or other companion, or NPC or surveying an area….whatever it is they wish to do that is personal to them along the way; chart a map, pick local flora, smoke, cook, etc).

These cut-scenes are things like in the LOTR movies:
They’re travelling, travelling, travelling……cut-scene (TRAVEL CHECKS),
GIMLI: If anyone were to bother asking me, I would say we were going the LONG way around.
(Conversation ensues).

They’re travelling, travelling, travelling…..cut-scene (TRAVEL CHECK),
PIPPIN: We’ve had one breakfast, yes; but what about SECOND breakfast….
(Conversation ensues).

They’re travelling, travelling, travelling….cut-scene (TRAVEL CHECK),
Encounter with the Riders of Rohan on the Riddermark. (which was a planned encounter by the LM who uses that cut-scene to introduce; or explained differently, it’s literary use of breaking up all the dice rolls between narrated important events to not make the game repetitively monotonous).

4 – That brings us to Encounters. There’s no right/wrong answer as to whether an LM should indicate how many successful rolls are needed. I typically do not. Encounters should be ONLY used when it’s an important meeting (like the Riders above), and there is something to be GAINED from the interaction. Aragorn needed info on the whereabouts of orcs/hobbits. They had to prove to Theodred that they were not enemies of Rohan.

Once the “INSIGHT” is done to determine how best to proceed, then determine who all is going to proceed. Someone may choose NOT to be involved, or they may fail their initial COURTESY/AWE/INSPIRE etc roll and be unable to assist. As a side note – If a player chooses initially to not be involved, and later wishes to add something, I allow them cut in and increase the TN by 2 for whatever effect they are trying to illicit.

The initial introduction roll is followed by the player either a) successfully introducing themselves, or b) a failure has the player indicate he didn’t bother, or can roleplay bungling it up. The LM can always wing it and off the cuff make any sort of explanation why an NPC is impressed or not (based on a failed roll).
In the exchange suggested up thread with the guard of the town, say the hero failed his initial introduction
PLAYER: I am Skaldorn from Erebor (failed roll)
The LM can just as easily indicate that the TOWN GUARD is predisposed to not liking dwarves. Or just as easily say “you failed to impress him” or “He looks at you with suspicion” OR:
TOWN GUARD: I hope you’re not as offensive to the nose as the last dwarf I let past this gate.

In any case, allow the social encounter to continue in a fluid form. Roll dice whenever there’s something important being asked AND the LM wishes to contest it. If a person talks about the weather, there’s not necessarily anything to roll for. If, afterwards, the character asks for permission to stay within the protected confines of a camp, and the LM feels the NPC is not necessarily agreeable, then call for a test.
This continues until a) the Tolerance of failures is reached, and at this point the NPC abruptly calls for an end to the conversation. Or b) the # of successes is met and the NPC can wrap it up with agreeing to all the terms that are (reasonably) requested. Or c) the players have nothing further to ask/discuss. At which time the LM counts the number of successes that have been done, and rewards them based on that. (the Tales from Wilderland makes great use of this tactic – with a tier system of X# of successes results in Y Reward, and rewards increase in their aesthetic value with each tier of successes during the encounter).


REMEMBER the social encounters, and Journey rules are the crunchy aspect of the game and are just as rules oriented to resolve as combat is with D&D because in their respective games, they are the root of the resolution to challenges that the heroes are meant to face. Just as you can use flowery and flavorful narration to describe a D&D combat between all the rulespeak and movement adjudication and dice rolls, so too can you do the same for TORs social and journey resolutions. Then when it comes to Combat in TOR, it’s easy to adjudicate, some fun moments to narrate just how cool your character shines in combat describing himself rolling, dodging, jumping off things, swinging from vines, riding on the head of a dwarf stuck in a barrel going down-river, climbing up the side of an Olyphaunt, riding down a flight of stairs on a shield while firing a bow, running along a weapon-chain to get to a trolls shoulders, ducking underneath a steed and running into the protection of the woods etc. Most of these would be interrupted in D&D by “Make a Strength check” “Make a CMB roll”. “Uh, I get an attack of opportunity now.” “You don’t have a move action left”. Etc. These are the “crunchy” aspects that didactically interrupt the flow of combat in D&D and also sometimes interrupt Social Encounters, and Journey adjudication. It exists because it’s a prime focus of the game. But you can still make it all entertaining and fun and descriptive with the right mindset. One just must retrain their brain to shift focus of the game from combat to other areas, that they’re not used to having to resolve in D&D rules.

I hope this helps.
Robert

[Mordjinn]

Maybe using the word ashamed was too strong of a one, but although we've been playing 30 years now there's some imaginary line in our gaming which some of our group's people feel uncomfortable to cross. Or maybe they just are happy with how we've been doing things and wish to keep them the same. Lately we have been playing a lot of Board Games and I desperately want to have something more than just tactical thinking, point calculation and confrontational winner takes it all approach. In other words stories.

Oh, we've played D&D 1st edition (the Red Box), AD&D, Pathfinder (3,5?) and tried 4th edition too. And tons of other roleplaying games like Warhammer FRPG (1st, 2nd, 3rd), MERP and probably 100 more. The problem is that I feel we always end up playing the "same game" regardless of the system. The only different experience was Fiasco, which I loved.

I'm going to need a little more from you regarding what you find difficult (or lacking) with regard to Journeys and Combat if possible. Is it okay if you explain some specific problems? That way people like myself and Sir Kicley can offer more specific advice. I could outline what I do but I'm conscious that it's better to tackle core personal problems with the game rather than you trying to emulate my way of playing. Does that make sense?

Ok I'll try, I hope this makes sense. Thank you so much for your help.

Journeys: When we played the intro scenario from the Loremaster's book I felt the journey to be lots of dice rolling that in the end didn't really support the story. Maybe it was bad preparation from my part, but the hazard presented in the book didn't really feel to be suitable for the situation. Our group doesn't like rolling a lot of dice so what I'm looking for is making less rolls in a way that they don't interrupt the story. Also if the players need to roll while travelling I would like to find a way how to get to do this without saying "Make a travel roll". And how do you incorporate player storytelling to the journeys?

The abstract combat is tricky, because in order to know what is possible you need to know exactly how the surroundings are, where the others are related to you etc. How do you describe the scene before the battle starts and how do you make sure everybody knows if they can interact with something. How much story are the players expected to tell with every blow/dice roll and are they allowed to come up with helpful things such as big stones to stand on to gain +2/-2 to the target number? Do the players also tell the story when they miss a swing? My worry is that in long battles (which the system can boil down to) the players get weary of telling how their amazing swing cuts off another orc head. How do you make things interesting?

With encounters your previous example was golden, but it still seems to me that I really need to make a in depth chart of the encounter that shows how much to reveal and how to change my tone of voice and attitude with successes/failures. It is very hard to "wing" an encounter in TOR.

We also found that trait invoking created unwanted and awkward funny moments, when the character always pushed to invoke the trait even if it didn't really fit the current moment. For example we have a Dwarf who is both Vengeful and Wrathful, in other words a very pleasant chap. So the player constantly has to play the character as being angry or getting angry or doing something in anger. Since we tend to be quite exploitative when it comes to rules systems I'm thinking of changing the advancement system to reward good roleplaying/storytelling rather than invoking the trait all the time. Do you have any thoughts on this?

All in all I feel that when played "by the rules" TOR has quite a lot of dice rolling to be a storytelling game. Since we're not comfortable with the system the rolls interrupt the game awkwardly. The learning curve for TOR is quite steep and it is hard to figure out how much storytelling and how much mechanics are involved. How would you explain the mechanics and meaning of Journey, Encounters and Combat to new TOR players coming from D&D?

Finally is there any ready made adventure that you can recommend for our next session? I felt that the introductionary scenario in the Loremaster's book was very lacking, didn't offer interesting NPC's, interesting tactical fights and it left a newbie Loremaster pretty much in the dark in many ways (which is one of the reason for this thread).

Whoa, I had many more questions I even thought I had. Thanks for each and every participant for your advice, discussion and opinions. I can't believe how much time and effort you're using to help us out. I really appreciate it.

(And I still would LOVE to see a gameplay video of the game. I had the same problem with Warhammer 3rd edition when it came out. All big board games have tutorial or gameplay videos, why don't RPG companies do the same??? Why????)

[Beran]

Okay, that's simply not true. D&D4e doesn't have less rules for RPing than other versions of D&D; in fact it has more than many of them. What it does have is, at last for D&D, a version of the rules that explicitly supports tactical miniature based combat - something D&D has been crying out for since it was created. This set of rules may make people think that rules for RPing don't exist in the system or that for some reason they cannot RP but that is not a fault of the system, it's a fault of those playing it who draw such a conclusion.

Not to get too far off track, but that is not my experience. The one game I've played of 4th Ed was all tactical no RPing at all and that one fight lasted about 3 hours.. I didn't even see the end because I had to leave. People probably get the feeling it lacks RP ability because it does. I've spoken with people who have played for some time and even they complain that you can't do certain things in combat because there are no rules for it. On example I was given a creature had a soft spot on it's back. One of the players gave this really good description of how he was going to maneuver himself to get on its back and stab the target area with his sword. The "GM said sorry you can't do that. Not in the rules." The only use battle maps and figures have in RPing to give a general idea of what and where your character is/doing. If you have to worry about how many 5 foot squares you can move...well, let's just say that is pretty silly.

" The problem is that I feel we always end up playing the "same game" regardless of the system. The only different experience was Fiasco, which I loved."

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. What do you do differently when you play Fiasco then when you play something else?

[Rich H]

Not to get too far off track, but that is not my experience. The one game I've played of 4th Ed was all tactical no RPing at all and that one fight lasted about 3 hours.. I didn't even see the end because I had to leave. People probably get the feeling it lacks RP ability because it does. I've spoken with people who have played for some time and even they complain that you can't do certain things in combat because there are no rules for it. On example I was given a creature had a soft spot on it's back. One of the players gave this really good description of how he was going to maneuver himself to get on its back and stab the target area with his sword. The "GM said sorry you can't do that. Not in the rules."

That's simply just wrong. There's a set of rules and a table on page 42 of the DMG that allows for that type of thing. Afraid to say it but an RPG can't do much for GMs and players that don't read the rules properly. Simple as that.

The only use battle maps and figures have in RPing to give a general idea of what and where your character is/doing. If you have to worry about how many 5 foot squares you can move...well, let's just say that is pretty silly.

Not at all. Works fine for me, in the right kind of RPG.

YMMV and you may have opinions like we all do but some of your assertions are factually incorrect.

[Beran]

Well, can't say about the GMs knowledge of the game; since it was run at a Con I am assuming he knew the rules well enough, but I could be wrong. Personally, I haven't heard or seen anything that makes me want to play it again. When my group ran its D&D 2nd Edition campaign back in high school we'd have about 3-4 dust ups a game plus a goodly amount of roleplaying in one evening. From what I've heard from people who have played more then I you can get 2 good fights in a night with the 4th ed rules...if you are lucky with no real rping. As you say...you like it, I don't.

To me if you need a map a quick hand drawn one that describes the terrain is good enough and all the figures are for is general location of characters. D&D is a role playing game it should be about the theater of the mind...not 5 foot squares on a battle map. Again, my opinion.

[Glorelendil]

I'm loving the discussion about how to play TOR. I'm new to the game also, and optimistic, but I'm picking up lots of tips.

Not loving the "does D&D 4e support RP" nearly as much. There are gigabytes of discussion on that topic over at the WotC forums.

[Rich H]

Well, can't say about the GMs knowledge of the game; since it was run at a Con I am assuming he knew the rules well enough, but I could be wrong. Personally, I haven't heard or seen anything that makes me want to play it again. When my group ran its D&D 2nd Edition campaign back in high school we'd have about 3-4 dust ups a game plus a goodly amount of roleplaying in one evening. From what I've heard from people who have played more then I you can get 2 good fights in a night with the 4th ed rules...if you are lucky with no real rping. As you say...you like it, I don't.

Your GM didn't know the rules, trust me.

Detailed and interesting fights are more the focus of D&D4 not quantity. And why gaming groups are just running a session with 2 fights and no RPing and not 1 fight and some RPing is their choice not the rules. Again, sounds like the players and GM are the fault and not the rules. The players I game with RP just fine with it but then we don't crowd out the game session with combat all the time.

To me if you need a map a quick hand drawn one that describes the terrain is good enough and all the figures are for is general location of characters. D&D is a role playing game it should be about the theater of the mind...not 5 foot squares on a battle map. Again, my opinion.

I play different games to scratch different itches. D&D4 certainly provides enjoyment that most other RPGs can't provide. You don't have that particular itch to scratch and that is fine.

Let's leave it at that. Thanks.

[Rich H]

Journeys: When we played the intro scenario from the Loremaster's book I felt the journey to be lots of dice rolling that in the end didn't really support the story. Maybe it was bad preparation from my part, but the hazard presented in the book didn't really feel to be suitable for the situation. Our group doesn't like rolling a lot of dice so what I'm looking for is making less rolls in a way that they don't interrupt the story. Also if the players need to roll while travelling I would like to find a way how to get to do this without saying "Make a travel roll". And how do you incorporate player storytelling to the journeys?

Sir Kicley has provided some great advice above regarding journeys and if you check out my additional rules supplement there are various chapters there which may help you out. If you find that there is too much dice rolling in the game then Francesco, the designer of TOR, has produced some revised journey rules (where there are less rolls but journeys are far less taxing) that can be used instead of those within the book and the ones in my additional rules pdf are also another option.

Whatever option of rules you go with, the main elements I'd adopt to Journeys are as follows:

1) Break the journey up into distinct legs which will therefore mean that the number of rolls can be grouped up far easier.

2) Apply fatigue as it's accrued, and not at the end of the journey (as per the RAW). I found this provided much needed feedback for my players as to how their characters were experiencing the journey and allowed them to narrate and RP their characters far easier.

3) As previously discussed, use the idea of Hazards and make them an active part of your game rather than waiting to use them only when an Eye of Sauron is rolled on your feat die. By adding hazards as and when you, the LM, feel it's appropriate means you can naturally provide breaks between the journey rolls that your players are making. Again, there are loads of hazards to use in my Additional Rules pdf. In other words you get narrative control of Hazards rather than relying on random dice results.

4) Perhaps most importantly, if at all possible, make the journey a part of the adventure not just as a means of getting from A to B. A current adventure I'm running relates to the characters, along with a company of Dwarves, returning to the site of the Marsh Bell in order to explore it further. During the journey the PCs are roleplaying and building up relationships with the Dwarves (ie, mini-Encounters with them), building up an understanding of the folklore of the sunken city and the Long Marshes in general, and also discussing possible tactics, etc. This makes the journey and its rules pass quicker, even though more time is spent on it; if you take my meaning.

Players can narrate and describe their actions throughout all the above. But, you know, they don't have to. It's okay for an LM to ask for Travel roles explaining why - ie, arduous terrain, tired limbs, etc. It's not a problem to be 'traditional' and let the LM push the game and maintain narrative authority of it. In fact, you know, I prefer that actually.

The abstract combat is tricky, because in order to know what is possible you need to know exactly how the surroundings are, where the others are related to you etc. How do you describe the scene before the battle starts and how do you make sure everybody knows if they can interact with something.

Just like you would with any other game! For instance:

1) Just because there aren't specific rules for movement, you have a good idea how far a person can run. Allow a PC to do it. If they are pushing it, then they're going to need to roll on their Athletics. Apply a ruling and then stick to it in the future so you're consistent.

2) Positions on the battlefield change all the time. If you describe the surroundings where the battle is taking place then players will naturally interact or use those surrounding in the battle, or if they don't their opponents will!

3) If your players are struggling with options then remind them what their options could be. Not all the time, but do it the first few times and your players will then pick up on the habit of exploring and asking about what possibilities exist. Design battles that are interesting - that take place in different types of locations, that have different objectives (eg, stand ground, fighting withdrawal, protect a merchant, etc). One thing I do all the time is that for PCs with Battle of 3+ I'm always providing them with additional options during combat - using the logic that their characters see opportunities to exploit that the player wouldn't.

4) Allow your player to be creative with their bonus Battle dice - helping out another character by protecting his back, narrating that they are forcing the battle and providing a distraction for the other player, etc.

How much story are the players expected to tell with every blow/dice roll and are they allowed to come up with helpful things such as big stones to stand on to gain +2/-2 to the target number?

As much as they're comfortable with. And yes, if the LM had described the landscape as rocky then I'd love to see a player using that to gain an advantage. As per the Complications table, this is available to anyone not just those with bonus Battle dice.

Do the players also tell the story when they miss a swing? My worry is that in long battles (which the system can boil down to) the players get weary of telling how their amazing swing cuts off another orc head. How do you make things interesting?

Like any other game. We don't always narrate every blow, just those that are particularly interesting or narratively important. You just have to use your own judgement on this one and different players will have different points when they become tired of narrating every blow. It doesn't matter if you don't narrate everything though - no need to worry if you gloss over a few deaths of lesser goblins and the like, particularly if your heroes have slain many in the past!

With encounters your previous example was golden, but it still seems to me that I really need to make a in depth chart of the encounter that shows how much to reveal and how to change my tone of voice and attitude with successes/failures. It is very hard to "wing" an encounter in TOR.

It is hard, yes; the Encounter Rules are not to be used all the time. I see these rules as being used at key points in an adventure - Sir Kicley gives some great examples above and previously you've naturally used your RP experience to know when they should be applied - ie, not using them for the guard.

We also found that trait invoking created unwanted and awkward funny moments, when the character always pushed to invoke the trait even if it didn't really fit the current moment. For example we have a Dwarf who is both Vengeful and Wrathful, in other words a very pleasant chap. So the player constantly has to play the character as being angry or getting angry or doing something in anger. Since we tend to be quite exploitative when it comes to rules systems I'm thinking of changing the advancement system to reward good roleplaying/storytelling rather than invoking the trait all the time. Do you have any thoughts on this?

I have a Guide to Trait Usage document that, like the Additional Rules pdf, can be found in my signature link. This should hopefully help you. If you have questions after reading that then just ask away... Others will give advice as well as me.

All in all I feel that when played "by the rules" TOR has quite a lot of dice rolling to be a storytelling game. Since we're not comfortable with the system the rolls interrupt the game awkwardly. The learning curve for TOR is quite steep and it is hard to figure out how much storytelling and how much mechanics are involved. How would you explain the mechanics and meaning of Journey, Encounters and Combat to new TOR players coming from D&D?

Cripes, that's a tough question and I'm not sure I'm clear headed enough to answer it at the moment... I'll turn on the Sir Kicley / James R Brown 'bat signal' for aid on this one!

Finally is there any ready made adventure that you can recommend for our next session? I felt that the introductionary scenario in the Loremaster's book was very lacking, didn't offer interesting NPC's, interesting tactical fights and it left a newbie Loremaster pretty much in the dark in many ways (which is one of the reason for this thread).

I wrote an adventure to be used instead of the Marsh Bell; To Journey's End and the Eagles' Eyrie. Again, you can find it in my signature link. It has a very long journey in it though - all the way across Mirkwood and beyond, but see what you think. I'm sure other posters will recommend other adventures. For instance, Don't Leave the Path is a perfectly serviceable starting adventure which may be more to your liking.

Whoa, I had many more questions I even thought I had. Thanks for each and every participant for your advice, discussion and opinions. I can't believe how much time and effort you're using to help us out. I really appreciate it.

It's a pleasure and no problem. We have a great community here; occasionally it gets a bit heated but nothing like other RPG sites I've frequented. Don't be afraid to ask questions at all - everyone is here to help each other and enjoy TOR. Hopefully you will too.

Is this working things through for you? Can you see a light at the end of the (goblin) tunnel and I've not rambled too much?

[Elmoth]

The initiat escenario is a walkthrough: this is a journey. This is a combat vs a big enemy and this is a combat vs lots of small cannon fodder. No more no less. It does not require much more than that. Just an adventure to get your feet wet and nothing more. IMO it fits the walkthrough role quite OK.

For your comments, I will leave more experienced players answer you