forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Our group had our first session a while back. Now we're discussing whether to continue or not. I would need your help to figure out if I did everything right during the first session so we don't ditch a great game because of my bad game mastering. Sorry that this comes out as a complete ramble, but I'm really lost here...

A couple of words about our group to give you an idea where we come from. We consider ourselves to be veteran (role)gamers and been playing since Dungeons & Dragons. We also play a lot of board games. This is a bit of a problem, since because of our experiences we need very solid rules systems (board games) and we have a tendency to optimize and try to "win". Storytelling is not our forte and many times we tent to play "ourselves" instead of acting as our characters. Most of the times the reason is that the characters don't really have character in the beginning. I guess often we think that "once we play long enough the character will come" (and we never get that far...). We are also the kind of group of grumpy old men who feel that in order to play storytelling/improvised acting/character&story driven games (like Fiasco) we have to have a couple of beers so we won't feel ashamed (this in not completely true, but it seems that on some level we are wary of taking "the dive" and making a "fool" of ourselves).

Question 1:
During our first session we concentrated heavily on dice rolls and "played the mechanics". The game felt very heavy and the story didn't really move on. We just rolled and rolled and in between I decribed what happened next and then we rolled again. Now when I think of it I feel that the dice rolls should be somewhere in the background and the fun should come out of telling the story together?

One of the players said that he felt that the system didn't support storytelling. I guess what that means is that the system doesn't give you mechanical bonuses from storytelling, so you are not rewarded for it. This kind of thinking might be our biggest pitfall. Or what do you think? If the point of playing One Ring should be storytelling then the reward is a good story, not some +1 to a roll. Or is it? I'm confused...

Question 2: We also play miniature wargames (Warmachine, Malifaux etc.) and two players of our group have expressed worry that the combat system is very thin and doesn't really offer interesting tactical choices to the players. I understand that, but again I'm a bit lost if the idea in One Ring is more about enjoying the story about the battle than tactically interesting choices?

Question 3: Can you point me towards some (preferably video) podcast where I could see an example of play. I'm a bit lost what is a good ratio of "dice rolling and mechanics" and "storytelling".


When I read the One Ring books I feel there's A LOT of potential in this game. But is it really so? Help.

TOR is definitely a story-telling system. Reducing it to game mechanics and dice-rolling doesn't work, as you have already found out.
The point is in roleplaying-heavy systems (not only in TOR), the the GM has to reward the players with a rich story, rewards in some sort of countable measurements (+1 sword) don't make much sense here (although they exist as valors). The same is true for tactical combat. TOR isn't about looking at a map and make decisions but to describe actions which the GM can reward with a bonus (maybe after letting the player make an additional roll). So, the style of playing is very different from D&D. Unless you feel able to adapt to this you will face the problems you described again and again.
This is not to say TOR is not for you, I just want to point out that you need a certain kind of approach which is different from what you have done in D&D.

Indeed, TOR does not mechanically reward players for roleplaying (even though you can still reward good initiatives with a bonus die) but, on the other hand, it encourages roleplay because the system is too vague to accurately describe events. In a way, you have to roleplay or it becomes boring. For example, the system offers limited strategic options for combat, so if you want a good combat, you have to be creative in your description.

Thanks for you swift replies. As you probably noticed I'm at loss what this game is on paper, what it was for us and how can we make it shine. The point that we need to tell the story of a combat or it becomes boring is a very eye opening. Especially the fact that the system is very vague and isn't even trying to be exact and tactically tight.

So in order to write this to the other members of our group, does the following sound right?

- In games like D&D the player gets bonuses for the character (tactically moving in the back arc of the enemy etc.). The fun comes from playing so well that you get the bonuses (and win).

- In One Ring the character gets the bonus because of his skills (battle roll gives you advantages). The fun comes from describing how things happen and telling the story together.

If you don't enjoy collaborative storytelling One Ring is not for you?

Your description sounds right. I'd add one thing:

- In games like D&D, you can be clever, gain bonuses, and fail because of a bad roll. That's part of the fun, but it can be frustrating
- In storytelling oriented games, you roll first, and then get to be clever in describing what you're doing.
- However, in TOR, you get a blend of both. There are options to gain bonus dice (or change the TN) to your rolls by being smart, and then you get to describe the outcome creatively. It's exactly the right amount of detail for me, but probably not for everyone.

I suspect that your players have a mindset that (without alcohol) is not suited to a story-telling game.

Let's take an example to see if I can help; the Encounter in Laketown at the start of Marsh Bell.
The heroes introduce themselves - each player, or just the spokesperson, speaks, in character, to Gloin.
After listening and responding, in character as Gloin, the LM asks for die rolls (awarding any benefits for particularly good narration or ideas). Any Traits can be invoked for automatic successes. All rolls meeting the TN14 target count as a success, all rolls failing count as a failure against the Tolerance level of the Encounter.
Depending upon the Tolerance the LM can initiate another round of in character discussion or end the Encounter.
At the end the LM can sum up the facts gained by the heroes (basically to make sure they have missed nothing important).

Another one; The Elves
Play the chief elf as a grumpy person who doesn't want to be out in the cold, dark, wet, woods as he addresses the heroes, make sure he targets any hated dwarves specifically with rudeness.
The heroes/spokesman respond and tell him what they are doing or not.
After listening and responding the LM calls for die rolls etc. etc.

A Journey
The players choose the path they will take and the LM works out how many die rolls for Travel that will be.
Now I tend to narrate journey's with input if there is something the heroes want to bring out. So I tell the heroes, in my LM voice, the time of day, the weather and the terrain. I talk through the day or days and, at times, call for a roll (a Travel roll if that is required, a Hunting roll if they have run out of food, a roll to see anything if I have made a specific Encounter of a combat Episode). Failing a Travel roll with an Eye requires an Episode and I tend to make those non-combat and something to help or hinder them or advance the plot. An Episode is narrated and either goes into an Encounter, if there is talking to do, or is just an interlude. If the Episode requires skill checks then I ask each Hero what they do and they, in character, respond before I ask for a skill test roll (so I can award any bonuses for good roleplay).

HTH in your quest for the way to play a session in Middle-earth.

Yusei wrote:Indeed, TOR does not mechanically reward players for roleplaying (even though you can still reward good initiatives with a bonus die)

With this point, I actually disagree completely. I think more than D&D and most other games it rewards for roleplaying significantly.

However, I will admit it depends on what your definition of "roleplaying" is. If your definition of "roleplaying" is (excuse any exaggeration or hyperbole) "speaking in a non-traditional manner, and accent so as to make you sound more british-hobbit than one typically is and using poetic sentences in sing songy voices as elves." Then okay you're correct.

However, I define roleplaying not only in that way, but by truly playing the part of a role within the confines of a "fellowship" group-based teamwork game. The role of the wizard. The role of the fighter, etc etc etc, and narrating the actions/activity taken by someone in that role.

In TOR you can invoke traits (the coolest aspect of the game IMO) to automatically garner success at something your character's role is meant to achieve. The very nature of being expected to narrate and explain an in game analogy of how your trait/distinctive feature played a role in the success of an action done is by the very core "roleplaying". Few other games if any actually do that - or nearly as well.

The only thing I'll add to these excellent comments is to agree that this is a game that emphasizes role-playing & storytelling over action & crunch. You'll still have plenty of battles, but they generally fit the story.

It's thus very different from most D&D games (many of us on here likely play or have played D&D as well). They're both fine games, but with very different approaches.

Have you seen this yet?

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?592 ... king-River

How is the combat system in TOR any "thinner' then any other RPG (not associated with an existing wargame) out there?

Beran wrote:How is the combat system in TOR any "thinner' then any other RPG (not associated with an existing wargame) out there?

I haven't played D&D in a long while but I assume the combat rules are much more 'crunchy' (more rules / more options), hence the comment.

I think TOR's stance system is interesting and greatly simplifies combat; but I could see how, for people used to hexes and miniatures, TOR combat would appear quite 'thin'...