Hallo dear forum,

I am passionate 30 year old Gamer from Germany - so please excuse my spelling errors!


Yesterday I bought the Mirkwood campaign book for "The One Ring". The book gives me chills - I'd like to play it right away, but I don't own the basic rules book.
Note that I am used to play "The dark eye", which is a very complex (pretty popular though) system and it seems to me that TOR is a pretty narrowed down system, which also limits you somewhat in terms of actual "roleplay". Erm... By roleplay I mean... The rules of "TOR" really seem to force you to stick to the game mechanics as the campaigns are woven around it. In "The dark Eye" you can do pretty much anything as there is such a wide range of talents for anything (even to wash your clothes...). From what I have noticed "TOR" has skill checks for "riddle", "travel" and "song" (?), which pretty much seems to force you to stick to certain game mechanics then actual roleplay - do you know what I mean? What would I roll if I actually wanted to wash my clothes in "TOR" and had to roll for it? (I don't want to use these complex "Dark Eye" rules for the campaign)

My Question is: Does anyone play "TOR" with an alternate System? Something simple, still flexible?
I'd be so glad if somebody could suggest some 3d6 or 2d6 house rules.

Or are the "TOR"-rules any good? Is it worth buying? Notice I already own a D&D Rulebook (2nd ed.), Tons of "The dark Eye" Rulebooks, "Midgard" and "Harnworld".
Do I really need another Rulebook just to play "The One Ring"?

I am looking forward to your responses!

As someone who has only read The One Ring, but not played it (due to know one else being interested, sadly), the corebook has a lot of good stuff in it, and the rule set looks pretty solid, although how it plays is practice I couldn't say.

Regardless, welcome to the Board.

Quote from: MES;897153My Question is: Does anyone play "TOR" with an alternate System? Something simple, still flexible?
I'd be so glad if somebody could suggest some 3d6 or 2d6 house rules.

Herzlich willkommen bei unserer kleinen aber feinen PunditSchloss.

Anyway.

- Back in old days when RPGs were still underground and quite fresh hobby, we've been playing The One Ring (or more precisely "Tolkien's World" with AD&D. We lacked material for both, so whatever wasn't there, we invented it on our own. It was crap, but fun.
- If you're asking about TOR by Cubicle 7, then it's an awesome game, beautifully illustrated and very well written. It contains plenty of material, so even if you wouldn't like the mechanics itself, you might still find plethora of useful information and inspiration.
- No, you don't need to buy any "Tolkien"-inspired game, but if you're planning to play detailed adventures/campaigns then you'll have plenty of work attempting to organize lore into one coherent setting, EVEN if you're great Tolkien's fan. Products that address this issue might be worth their money then.
- If you're looking for something easy, then how about Warrior, Rogue, Mage? It's lacking plenty of options, but it's very easy to learn and run + it's free. Another option are Beyond the Wall... and Dragon Warriors, unfortunately, while easy and quite suitable for Tolkien's vision (in my humble opinion), they aren't free.

I suggest that you take a look at a few Actual Play podcasts if you want to see how the game plays. I've been running a game for nearly three years and The One Ring rulesystem provides an exceptional Tolkien-like feel to the game.

I'd also suggest that you take a look at Cubicle 7's own One Ring forums where it's the most active of the boards.

It may be that your non-native command of English leads you to believe that the One Ring is somehow restricted in the ability of  the characters to role play. That isn't the case in any way. In place of many skills the One Ring system groups the tasks into a smaller subset of skills so doing your laundry is perfectly possible using a character's Craft skill.

I don't know about Dark Eye, but yes TOR is definitely a bit more involved* than previous "generic" fantasy systems used for Middle-Earth. However, I still think it is more flexible than many editions of D&D. You can indeed come up with new actions not mentioned in the rules; the guidlines of the rules suggest that you cross reference the abilities and skills on your sheet that fit best.

I also have to ask: why would you need to roll for washing clothes?

*and I used to run Rolemaster!

Quote from: Trond;897198I don't know about Dark Eye, but yes TOR is definitely a bit more involved* than previous "generic" fantasy systems used for Middle-Earth. However, I still think it is more flexible than many editions of D&D. You can indeed come up with new actions not mentioned in the rules; the guidlines of the rules suggest that you cross reference the abilities and skills on your sheet that fit best.

I also have to ask: why would you need to roll for washing clothes?

*and I used to run Rolemaster!

Doing laundry was just something I made up. Don't get me wrong, I don't want the game to become ultra complex. I was just wondering if an extra set of rules is its money worth. To tell you the truth: I am a bit annoyed by the Mirkwood campaign book as it constantly references to look up mechanics in other books to play out certain encounters. I feel pushed plus it's really inconvenient if you constantly have to look stuff up elsewhere...

PS: The map at the end lacks a key, too.

Like some others here, I've read TOR but not yet played it. However, I watched several podcasts about the game and they universally seem to be telling me that TOR creates characters and situations which mirror Tolkien's worlds better than any other Middle-earth game out there so far. (MERP, Decipher, etc.)

I just ordered a whole bunch of sourcebooks for TOR and can't wait for them to arrive. The core rulebook has a half dozen character options (each culture does different things, so think race=class from early D&D) and the supplements each add in another one or two choices for characters. The rules are designed so that characters act the way Tolkien's characters act, or they can attract the attention of the bad guys. All very full of role-play and seems to be fun to experience.

Quote from: finarvyn;897346Like some others here, I've read TOR but not yet played it. However, I watched several podcasts about the game and they universally seem to be telling me that TOR creates characters and situations which mirror Tolkien's worlds better than any other Middle-earth game out there so far. (MERP, Decipher, etc.)

I just ordered a whole bunch of sourcebooks for TOR and can't wait for them to arrive. The core rulebook has a half dozen character options (each culture does different things, so think race=class from early D&D) and the supplements each add in another one or two choices for characters. The rules are designed so that characters act the way Tolkien's characters act, or they can attract the attention of the bad guys. All very full of role-play and seems to be fun to experience.

Sounds like it creates characters and situations which mirror Tolkien's writing rather than his worlds. If you like that sort of "emulation of literary sources through narrative handholding" this is probably a serviceable rules set. Cubicle 7 usually deliver solid products. OP might be interested in knowing that they're currently working on a version of TOR that runs on the D&D 5E rules.

Quote from: MES;897342Doing laundry was just something I made up. Don't get me wrong, I don't want the game to become ultra complex. I was just wondering if an extra set of rules is its money worth. To tell you the truth: I am a bit annoyed by the Mirkwood campaign book as it constantly references to look up mechanics in other books to play out certain encounters. I feel pushed plus it's really inconvenient if you constantly have to look stuff up elsewhere...

PS: The map at the end lacks a key, too.

Judging a supplement because it refers to the core rules or other material in the line seems disingenuous to me. Pick any game supplement and show me that it doesn't refer back to the core rules and other supplements in some way.

The map is keyed in the core rules regarding the various features and as DoM is not a standalone book that doesn't make it a bad thing. It almost seems you bought the book without doing any research and are now peeved that it isn't what you thought it was.

Quote from: 3rik;897350Sounds like it creates characters and situations which mirror Tolkien's writing rather than his worlds. If you like that sort of "emulation of literary sources through narrative handholding" this is probably a serviceable rules set. Cubicle 7 usually deliver solid products. OP might be interested in knowing that they're currently working on a version of TOR that runs on the D&D 5E rules.

Correctamundo.  The authors have a very strong knowledge of the lore and their love of Middle Earth is obvious, but the mechanical framework is that of literary emulation, and there's a lot of odd abstractions.  For example, ranges and positioning in combat decide to not use actual human movement and measurements, replacing them with a system more awkward.  Also you'vs got little things like a hunting dog companion not actually being a hunting dog companion, but a special ability (typical abstract eurogame mechanic given some name to mimic setting association).

You're playing in a Middle-Earth novel as opposed to Middle -Earth.  Some people love it. For me, there's a lot of cool things in there, but the rule system is definitely a "look how clever I am" system that doesn't't ever get out of your way.

Threadjacking ahead. Feel free to split if we move too far away from the opening poster's request.

Quote from: CRKrueger;897374You're playing in a Middle-Earth novel as opposed to Middle -Earth.

Given that Middle Earth does not exist outside of those novels, I feel entitled to ask: are you sure there is any difference?

Because Tolkien's Middle Earth - which is not Peter Jackson's, or Ralph Bakshi's - cannot be separated from Tolkien's peculiar style of writing and telling tales. It is not a self-consistent world outside of Tolkien's "colored lens" that made him describe the world as he did in its tales. What you advocate here - and nobody is questioning your right to advocate it - is a world that is defined by its internal self-consistence ("authenticity") while still retaining all the information JRR and Christopher Tolkien provided in the books, but not a strict adherence to JRRT narration tropes and clichés.

The point is that this Middle Earth wouldn't be Tolkien's. It would be yours. A sort of "Your Middle Earth Will Vary" version of Beleriand. Which is perfectly fine and legit. Your game is supposed to leverage what pleases your aesthetics, not what satifies mine or Nepitello's.

But in this specific case, I disagree with the split between "playing in Middle Earth" and "playing in a novel set in ME". If it does not work like a Tolkien novel, it is not ME. Not Tolkien's ME, at least.

Please note also that I say this only as a consequence of Tolkien's particular writing style. With other authors, I would not be so strict in my judgement. Just to quote a subject that has seen a lot of debate on these boards, Conan's world would be a totally different story. In this, I share some of the negative remarks you have postulated about the new Conan: for Hyboria, using that much "genre emulation" mechanics is definitely unnnecessary. Considering Howard's style and prose, and the fact that many other authors have written fiction in Hyboria without any "denaturation" of the setting (while no one dared do this with Middle Earth...), it sounds much more acceptable to me to say that a game can be set "in Hyboria" without being also set "in a REH novel".

Nah, there's lot's of stuff you can do to emulate Tolkien's novels.  You can have hope and despair represented without Hope points for the player to spend.  You can have effects of travelling in areas under the Shadow without having mechanics like "Journeys", and effects like "Weary", and "Miserable".  You can have time pass and detail advancement without a delineated "Adventuring Phase" and "Fellowship Phase".  You can play in a Tolkien game just fine without having "Storytelling Initiative" alternate between GM and Player.  Having numbers for Valor, Wisdom, Hope, Heart and Wits, and have all physical attributes rolled into Body isn't a necessity to be "Tolkien's ME", it's a design choice.

You can hit tropes without mechanical enforcement.  "Mechanics to make sure your game is Tolkien enough" are not needed by those who have been hitting the major tropes of Middle Earth organically, through roleplay, proper handling of the setting and simple mechanical bonuses/penalties when needed without breaking the 4th wall and having genre-aware mechanics for genre-aware players.

I might agree with you that there are certain elements of Middle-Earth that cannot and should not be ignored (like the Shadow/corruption for example), but I'm not convinced that the TOR method of being genre and novel-aware is the only way to do it.

TOR is definitely a game for those who want to play in the mode of Tolkien. The mechanics very much enforce Tolkienesque characters doing Tolkienesque things. I think it is quite possible to have a successful game in Middle Earth, and even a game that emulates Tolkien, without the mechanical enforcement of TOR.

TOR is the Middle Earth vesrion of what King Arthur Pendragon is for Arthurian Romance. It is a rule set designed to emulate one particular literary genre in a particular way. I enjoy TOR for what it does and think it does it very well. The game is also beautifully presented and writen by people who are very much Tolkien fans.

All of that being said, the mechanics are not going to appeal to every one. I had to give up my TOR game because my players did not want to play in the style the game is written for.

A beautiful game, with a couple of mechanical quirks that give me the shits. The one I least like is the notion that initiative and positioning in combat is different for PC's vs. their opponents, and doesn't seem to provide any obvious way to handle situations with three or more mutually opposed sides. I understand there is some sort of narrative angle they are trying to express with these rules, but I consider them extremely misguided.

Quote from: CRKrueger;897461I might agree with you that there are certain elements of Middle-Earth that cannot and should not be ignored (like the Shadow/corruption for example), but I'm not convinced that the TOR method of being genre and novel-aware is the only way to do it.

But I never advocated that

I have just said that it is difficult to separate Middle Earth from Tolkien's way of presenting it. I never said that TOR's way is the only way to re-create that peculiar atmosphere. You can do it with any ruleset, it is just that a generic fantasy game puts that burden on your shoulders, while TOR enforces it mechanically.