forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Hey guys,I've been looking for a middle-earth tabletop game and I recently got hold of the core set, and I've been ravenously reading the adventurer's and loremaster's books. I'm coming from a 3.5/pathfinder background but there never seemed to be enough flexibility in the rules for really good roleplay. I'm extraordinarily excited to run the scenario included soon, and just have to ask, what are some common habits that I might accidentally carry over, rules I might forget or things to avoid/do generally in TOR compared to pathfinder/3.5?

Thanks in advance, and thanks cubicle7 for making an extraordinary-looking game

Welcome!

You're going to love this game.

They've done an incredible job bringing Middle-earth to the table top.

In addition, these Forums are a great place to share ideas & get inspired.

I'd suggest investigating the "TOR Resources" sticky thread; it includes a ton of good references, add-ons, aides-memoires, and so on, including a few key rules clarifications issued after the core set's release.

Beyond that, I'd strongly recommend getting the various supplements: Tales from Wilderland is a fantastic starting point IMO, but if you like the game, the Loremaster's Screen and Lake-town Supplement, The Heart of the Wild, and The Darkening of Mirkwood are all great expansions.

Hang out on the forums, too: there are a number of posters here who are effectively TOR resources unto themselves. I'm thinking of Rich H and James R. Brown on the rules front, and Tolwen on the Middle-earth legendarium, but there are many others whose posts give me ideas or clarify questions for me.

And last but not least, enjoy yourself; you're picking up a brilliant game set in a brilliant fantasy world. Have a blast.

Thanks! I actually lurked the forums for about a week before purchasing so I could kinda get a feel for it before I sank the money into it, and the resource thread and rich's posts in particular shed a lot of light on how the game works. This is by far one of the nicest, most cohesive online communities I've ever seen, hat's off to you all!

Hello and welcome.

Key Differences between D&D 3.5 and one Ring, not necessarily in any specific order:

D&D has actions, and grid.

In One Ring, the characters action is more or less like typing a line in a novel. How is that described? How does it play? What does that give to others playing off of that. It helps to understand techniques of storytelling and screenwriting. Implied dialogue, rather than "on the Nose" dialogue.

Lines like "One does not simply walk into Mordor." great stuff.

Cutscenes are great.

The way I run it the actions go at the speed of the plot.

So sometimes for a mass battle I won't use all the specific rules.

More or less if they did any sort of wound on the enemy, or even a solid hit, it's a kill.

I once did a battle of 200 orcs against the heroes plus 90 dwarves this way.

It took about an hour. I did not rule for the other Dwarves.

I used that cinematic Star Wars D6 style that says "however the heroes go, so goes the battle."

There are classes, (sort of) called Callings, but it's not as highly defined as it is in say D&D.

Everyone can do Ranger-y stuff. Everyone can be fighting. Everyone can do stealth like a thief.

There are not really any wizards although there is a progression for dwarves and elves to learn secrets of spells but it's not set up like D&D at all.

The real key is that the challenges are not from monster splat books that have a thousand creatures each to fight, to make it different withing the fights. It's not about battles. It's about why are you fighting and what does this battle mean for the story which occurs around it. IF you fail this, THEN X. If you win this, Then Y.

Not Battle just to have one, and "combat-as-Drama."

I really think you must study the books, because the rules are written in a paragraph style not a chart style. There are charts, but it does take a few readings to get it all as a cohesive whole.

The art I thank to writing adventures of One Ring lies in

"How can you describe a situation that is both unique and yet is still plausible within the Lord of the Rings setting?"

The game lends itself more towards long-term arcs for example in D&D the evil bad guy Lord takes up with his evil bad guy minions in yon keep and use take out his castle and he's dead and you move on to next evil bad guy.

In Lord of the Rings, Sauron reestablishes his command post in southern Merkwood in TA 2951 or so (forget the exact date), but essentially he's there for another 70 years.

So if they go to Dol Guldur and try to take out the fortress..it's not gonna happen (if you want to stay close to the books)

Of course, do what you want but it's the idea of having to have dark insurmountabvle evil and oppression that's just too strong to face, and so you fight the minions of these iconic bad guy. You don't kill Vader himself. IOn this way it is a lot like Star Wars.

Any game that plays a license like Star Trek, Star Wars you know that's the real trick; You don't want to have canon-breaking stuff but you don't want to do Star Trek rehashed wuith exact copies of the shows.

At least I don't.

The system is a lot different.

It's like a pool of hit points relatively soon makes you tired while you lose them.

But your player's characters can die from a few lucky blows. Combat is a dire choice and Not to be engaged in lightly.

The combat chart takes a little bit of getting used to.

The analysis is more of...story factors... Are they outnumbered? Are they surrounded?
Are they being ambushed? or ambushing?

A great idea is to look at some of the Rich H and Brown resources pages./ Especially the cheat sheets which are excellent.

I can run the game just from the cheat sheets and without them i'd feel lost.

Keep track of how their traits can be used.

Little cultural factors like fair shot which allows an archer roll two dice, taking the best.

Things like that are going to be missed.

I really really like it, as

I often have scene where there is no combat.

Just for example: a hobbit is sitting there and he's trying to cheer up a dwarf who has ahad a lot of comrades killed. Then the hobbits talk, then someone else talkjs to the dwarf. Each one scene revelaing character by word choice, topic choice.

And then they're packing their gear in the morning and they figure out who's the leader for this?

It just feels like a TV show.

One thing I always say to myself when writing this is:

"Completely imagine the scene in your mind as best you can before you describe it."

Is that a grassy field, or nearly harvest time, with grain still growing?

Is it a lightly wooded area with sunlight coming between the branches in late fall? Can you hear crickets?
Are there leaves on the ground? Will leaves be swishing and crunching as they walk?

All of this adds to it.

Its strength is in the narration. If you say, "Oh your party "walks in the woods" and then they meet orcs. Roll for initiative." That to me is flat and those a lazy D&D style.

I try to describe it in as brief but yet impactful sentences that I can.

I read Lord of the Rings passages at random pre-game...Flip a novel open and get an idea of the scene, then rewrite that dialogue or words or whatever the flavor is and then present that so that's really what is most flavorful for me. I do a lot of things.

I have the profantasy Campaign Cartographer 3 software with the Pete Fenlon maps plugins. I also use old ICE MERP scenarios for ideas, then custom write it out for players.

Women that I played with (3 in my offline group) love this game because its story and it's not about Hit Points or AC, and it's not about "kill the bad guy for XP". It's about ARWEN and ARAGRON, and she can't sleep and dreams of him in battle and his death. And their reunion.

It's about giant eagles coming to save the day and "do the heroes go off to battle because their father is and lost?

It's about young hobbits struggling against the most vile darkness anyone can imagine and making it across all sorts of nasty places with friendship and honor and camaraderie.

To me it's not about "What's my DC I need to hit", and that is one of the best thing about having to be a 14 TN Semi-constantly.

You know it doesn't normally change. Generally you can change it, sure, if you want.

characters that don't have three skill are gonna be spending hope.

I guess it can't be optimized like it's not been a workout to the point where people are going to be combat monsters not really.

You can stack cultural virtues and rewards but in the end your character who is adventuring can be wounded a couple times and is then dead.

I love it, it's good stuff.

I'm basically gonna sell off my 3.5 books, so there it is.

Etarnon wrote:LOTS OF OPINIONS

First, you've gotten a lot of feedback, much of it is useful and accurate. However, RPGs are a form of art and entertainment. Which means it subjective, depending on one's own perceptions, and preferences of taste and style. With that in mind - no RPG is perfect - not even TOR.

Its strength is in the narration. If you say, "Oh your party "walks in the woods" and then they meet orcs. Roll for initiative." That to me is flat and those a lazy D&D style.

***SIGH***

I grow Weary (yes I checked the box on my sheet) from people who espouse this sentiment. There is nothing inherent in D&D's rules or game that makes this "lazy" narration the status quo. I will admit that much of the published games by WotC for D&D 4th did lend itself to mostly glorified miniatures encounters. Pathfinder, and its ancestor 3.5 has excellent published material. Earlier editions were fantastic; in fact TOR is quite reminiscent of old school D&D. Furthermore, Pathfinder's adventures as written have never been dull or lazy. They are by far some of the great written material and adventures that D&D RPG has ever had published. Regardless, no matter what RPG or edition in all the thousands of games I've ran for D&D/Pathfinder have never been that dull or lazy. To assume such is simply erroneous.

One can be just as blah running a TOR game. It comes down to individual's attention to details. The narrated portion of the adventures are no better than Pathfinder. It is more simpler to run, however, and prep/plan for, and it's simpler and quicker to adjudicate. If there's one defining feature of TOR vs D&D/Pathfinder, it would be that the RPG game mechanics as designed captures the spirit and flavor of the campaign world and source material better or as well as any RPG ever written. That is what stands out. So do did specific settings in D&D -- such as Ravenloft, and Planescape, as well as D20 settings like Midnight Campaign by Fantasy Flight Games.

TOR effectively makes the adventures and stories as good as Pathfinder does, without as much complication IMO, and captures the spirit better. It's why I prefer running TOR; but I still love my Pathfinder adventures, and they are no way dull or lazy.

The result of having less complicated rule systems to worry about (500 spells, 200 feats, complicated combat resolutions and ubiquitous modifiers, several classes, races, prestige classes, 50 different "Conditions", and tons of magical items and effects), is that it allows more time to focus on more narrative play - whether it's spent on roleplaying interaction, story development, character integration to the story (the arwen/aragorn comment for instance), etc. These things can be and are present in Pathfinder as well, but I will admit it's often times set aside because the mechanics tend to bog down at times, and takes a while to adjudicate and by the time you're moving forward, many just skip the formalities and move on, robbing the story. I personally don't, but then my campaigns advance far slower than another group would playing the same adventure as a result.



To answer the question of the OP, one of the biggest pitfalls from D&D/Pathfinder crossover would be not paying attention to the details. The game of TOR captures Tolkien's flavor masterfully, and it's important to capture that in your games, whether it's the narrations, the descriptions of the area, or the mood of the people (NPCs) and places they travel to. To prepare yourself, watch the movies, read the books again, or read various Tolkien Lore, and try to capture the poetic and passionate way that they speak and present themselves.

King Theodan didn't say "we will die fighting!" he said "If this is to be our end, then I would have it be SUCH an end, worthy of remembrance!"

That is the key to making the game truly magnificent. The passionate way that people express themselves. Learning to convey that in not just your NPCs dialogue, but also in your narrated story, you will notice an amazing difference in the enjoyment level between the two games and how much fun it is to run, and share the experience with your players. That's what I look forward to the most each TOR game I run - sharing the experience with my players and seeing them truly soak in the atmosphere and are amazed at the genius of the world. Much of the published adventure material already has this - but learning to add your own when off-script will make a huge difference.

Robert

Grow Weary, you know what I'm saying. Sure it's all opinion, but that's what we're here for.

And Pathfinder is better than D&D. But Pathfinder is not D&D. It's very close, but there's more push there.

We all know what I'm talking about when I say "Lazy D&D."
"Orc # 3 steps up. Swing. Hit! For 7!"
"PC # 4 do your move."
"Okay, I swing. I miss."

Those who have played even a little see this All. The. Time.

D&D does not have the narrative traits that One Ring has, that players need to use at times to gain AP.

That's what I'm saying here. Not all DMs are lazy. But Many are.

That's what I'm saying here. Not all DMs are lazy. But Many are.

That is not lazy, that is the way it was done it original D&D because the "excitement" was from the quickness of the battle (often over in minutes NOT hours), not the flowery descriptions of bad impromptu prose.

And the fact that an activity that is a hobby being described at any level as "lazy" boggles my mind. Until my players start handing me cash, I will put exactly as much effort into my hobby as I want, and refuse to feel bad about it. I am just one of a group of players, and I refuse to have more energy output demanded of me than them.

The idea of "laziness" in a hobby needs to be murdered.

d

Etarnon wrote:Grow Weary, you know what I'm saying. Sure it's all opinion, but that's what we're here for.

We all know what I'm talking about when I say "Lazy D&D."
"Orc # 3 steps up. Swing. Hit! For 7!"
"PC # 4 do your move."
"Okay, I swing. I miss."

Those who have played even a little see this All. The. Time.

That's what I'm saying here. Not all DMs are lazy. But Many are.

I know what you're saying. I do not agree with your assessment. Your assessment is in my opinion merely a lazy stereotype and assigning it as if it was a problem created by D&D itself. It isn't. Though it can be played by such "lazy" people.


Allow me to retort:

D&D:
"You have no doubt that large muscled hairy mass that scowls your direction with contemptuous villainy is none other than the Kurkzug, the orc lieutenant that raided your home and killed your sister....."
"Scowling back, i fix my eyes on him with a look of wrath that would stop an ogre in his tracks. I pull forth, Bjordesgaard, my claymore handed down to me by my father when he asked me to avenge my sister's death. Forged to kill orcs, i deliberately show him the blade. With a sudden ferocious howl, I smash the flat side of the blade against my head as I let go of my inhibitions and allow my rage to consume me. I charge headlong at the orc ignoring everything else but my prey. With a powerful grip I give it all the might I can muster and leap through the air with the only goal of cleaving him in two!"
::rolls dice, adds bonuses:: "with my charge bonus and my barbarian rage ability it offsets my power attack modifier and I hit AC 23! I would do 28 points of damage with all bonuses!
"The orc lifts his small wooden shield in an attempt to save his life. The wood splinters in pieces, your powerful lunge destroying the shield and cleaving right into the shoulder of the orc. The look on his face changes from evil gloat to fear and pain. Your blade sinks deep into his chest which explodes in blood as Kurkzug exhales for the last time before falling lifeless to the ground, his deadening eyes having seen your satisfied look as the last thing he'll know."

TOR
"I'm in forward...uh TN 6. I rolled a total of 12. I hit for 5 damage."
"Ok. The orc is hit but didn't die. Who's next?"


"Lazy DM" can be a Lazy Loremaster, GameMaster, GameLeader, Narrator, storyteller, Watchtower, Judge, or
whatever other moniker a game calls him/her. It is not game specific.

In defense of your position, i do see your illustrations more regularly in newer gamers and younger players than in previous editions of D&D; this is because I believe for the most part many of the newer gamers who have flocked to these games come from an instant gratification arena of videogames, MMOs, etc, and do not have the influence of old school roleplayers who do not come from that arena.

TOR attracts older school roleplayers (as evidenced by the other thread that asked our gaming history), due much in part by the source material, but also that it reminds us of an earlier rule-light D&D-esque game. Thus it is inherent in us as roleplayers to not fall into the trappings of being 'lazy' that you espouse.

So my point is that the person - not the system - is the culprit. The newer D&D game systems targeted the audience of those younger gamers on purpose - to assure the rebirth of the RPG in the first place when Wizards of the Coast took over D&D: to assure it's longevity as the older RPGers have grown up and out of the hobby, or more likely lessened their allocated time to it due to life/jobs/family, etc. However, it in no way inherently removes the ability to not be lazy. Just as TOR does not eliminate the ability to be lazy.

D&D does not have the narrative traits that One Ring has, that players need to use at times to gain AP.

D&D:
"You need to get by the guard"
"I bluff him."


TOR
"You need to get by the guard"
"I use my stealthy trait"

There's really no difference. The difference is in the adjudication of the game based on the preferences and styles and expectations of the game and its DM or LM. My point being that giving up D&D because of lazy DMs, is not a fair assessment of the game itself. Luckily TOR doesn't present a great deal of min/maxing and "Build" mentalities of characters that is rampant in video-games/MMOs, so those players who are looking for a RPG that mirrors that will probably stick with games more akin to D&D 4th edition, where they (not the system) can remain lazy in their descriptions and compare their penis sizes of their characters of which one can out dps and pwn the other - but so long as they're having fun, that's what matters.

Robert

Ha. Seems like you guys set me straight.

Striking some kind of nerve here I am not seeing, other than by the fierce responses.

If I'm running a game, I want to run it well, not "to the minimum because I'm not being paid."

On Roll20 this week, there's a guy volunteering his services to be paid as a GM. Most of the people are blasting him for something that's "normally free." SO I think he'll put more work into it than the average.

And again the average is not lazy. But there is a lot of that in the hobby in general.