The One Ring

[darkillumine]

ANyone have experience with The One Ring (http://www.cubicle7.co.uk/our-games/the-one-ring/) system?

I've been browsing a copy I borrowed from a friend and can't quite decide how I feel about it. I like the extra D6s atop a d10 (well, technically a d12) instead of flat bonuses as a character's skill progresses, but the DC table seems a little odd.

I'll post more of my own thoughts later as I read more, just wanted to get some discussion going if anyone else has looked into this.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I really like this system a lot, but haven't gotten to play it yet. Maybe I should rectify that.

What's odd about the DCs? I checked my Loremaster's Screen, and it's just 10-20 in increments of 2.

[Rhynn]

I love the system, but it's unlikely I'll get to play or run it - and if I did run it, I'd have to hack it quite a bit, because my preferred period of play is the early 1400s Third Age and the war between Arnor's successor realms and Angmar (plus the Kinstrife of Gondor and Umbar a little later). Adding races/cultures to the game is a bit work-intensive, and my conception of early-to-mid T.A. Dúnedain pretty much includes magic-users (their construction of Orthanc and the Argonath are strongly implied to have been magical).

The dual approach to combat endurance (Fatigue instead of Hit Points, and wounds as a stacking condition) is great, as is the Hope system; both fatigue and hope feature strongly in LotR (really, the second half of FotR is pretty much all about the Company's fluctuating Hope Levels!), so it's very thematically appropriate.

I can't quite say if I like it better than Decipher's Lord of the Rings overall, but I think the combat system and many other elements are definitely better. Some parts of the rules, like the rewards, are very tied to the setting and style (you only get your own cultural items!), but I don't doubt they work great if you play it in the intended setting and time.

[darkillumine]

What's odd about the DCs? I checked my Loremaster's Screen, and it's just 10-20 in increments of 2.

I just looked again and I had missed the line about target numbers being weighted for a character who has 3 ranks in a skill. Guess I've just been spending too much time looking at Numenera recently, so the chart not starting at 1 looked odd.


Rhynn: Love the detail of your response. That was a really neat time in Middle Earth. Also, I've always wanted to read more stories / play games set during the fall of Númenor. High magic, long lives, corrupting influence...

[Rhynn]

Oh, also: I really like the structured play, with winter being (by default, but not by mandate!) a "rest period" where the PCs return home (whatever it is they call home) to do less-adventurous things. It reminds me of both Pendragon with its Winter Phase (where "maintenance," domain management, family stuff, and character advancement & improvement takes place), and of Mouse Guard (which is based on Burning Wheel, which was made to support Middle-Earth style fantasy). It's a concept I have great love for, and find especially fitting for Middle-Earth (in LotR, after all, the Company spends a lot of time both at Rivendell and in Lorien).

I also like the concept of sanctuaries, etc., in general, and of dividing regions into Safe, Free, Wild, Shadowed, etc. This is actually an element already present in, say, the later edition of MERP (Middle-Earth Role-Play), where it was part of the dangers of spellcasting (casting spells in Angmar is a fairly terrible idea, but casting spells in Rivendell is quite safe).

On a game level, I really can't over-emphasize how much I like the "resource management" aspects of fatigue, wounds, and hope, and the way they tie into story.

And I also like the combat "stances" a lot. Very nice approach to combat positioning without needing miniatures or other physical representations.

Overall, even if I never get to play/run TOR, it's full of ideas to steal. If I wasn't working on so many things already (including a MERP/Rolemaster homebrew to better match my vision of old-school roleplay in Middle-Earth), I'd definitely be converting it for the 1400s TA...

[Airk]

I'm running game of this right now (as in "tonight") - we've had a few sessions, and there are a bunch of things I like about it, and though Rhynn has mostly summarized those, I'll reiterate a few:

Hope economy - this is super interesting, though it needs a long time to play out, because characters start with a pretty good pile of hope, and will usually be regaining at least 1 per session.
Combat - really fast, but feels tactical, with the exception of ranged combat, which is a little bit bland unless things are actively getting messy with melee enemies getting around the 'frontline'.
"Feel" - the skills are very thematically appropriate, and do a good job of encouraging players to take "Middle Earth-y" types of actions.

There are a few issues that I should share too:

#1: The layout of the books is F-ing terrible, and the indexes are basically useless. Good luck finding anything. It literally took me half an hour of flailing around to find the rules for what Fear tests DO (I found how to MAKE them easily enough, but the information about their effects was really hard to locatel.). This is not an isolated incident. As a reference book for rules, the rulebooks are AWFUL.

#2: The advancement rules (well, the rules for Advancement points. The XP rules are fine) are really kinda vague and messy. It's not REALLY clear how hard or easy it should be for characters to get AP using traits or even really how many they are expected to get. I realize that this is configurable to some extent, but giving us some guidelines as to what would be considered "a lot" versus "a little" wouldn't have been remiss.

#3: Traits. Traits are all over the place, with some being super easy to apply, and others being crazy specific ("Eager" or "Cautious" vs "Wood-wright"?)

#4: Travel can end up being a huge pile of dice rolls for no actual effect pretty easily. Admittedly, it does a pretty good job of simulating what it's supposed to be simulating, but it seems a little bit too easy, I think. Also, the list of Hazards presented in the book is REALLY SHORT, with only one example for many categories. Having a list of ideas here, especially to help folks understand the differences between a scout failure, a guide failure, and a look-out failure would be helpful.

Most of that is pretty nitpicky though, the only real big one is #1. Our continuing inability to find stuff in the books remains a thorn in my side even after running ~10 sessions.

[Raimun]

This game looks really interesting. The mechanics don't look that tough but they seem to do a terrific job at evoking the source material. :smallcool:

The Hope system looks really solid. In most games with luck/hero points/bennies you get re-rolls and might fail, even if you use that "dramatic stat". In this game, if you fail at a roll, you most likely know how short you fall off and if your attribute could raise you to success, you can spend a point of Hope and succeed. As a player, I'd say it would be extremely satisfying to succeed when it counts. You know, to call to a heroic reserve and beat the odds, just like in about 95% of the stories ever told. Yet, if I know anything about Arda, it's not very wise to over do it... :smalltongue:

I also like how much you can customise your character. It's a real achievement from a fantasy game with mostly mundane playable heroes. Even a warrior-type is not just a beat stick but will end up with a wide variety of skills.

It also has that right balance of grittiness and cinematic flair. Sure, you don't have to worry about money when you equip your starting character. Go nuts, take the heaviest armor, the hardest helm and the biggest shield if you feel that suits your character... but you do have to carry it all to an adventure. :smallamused:

[JellyPooga]

I very much like this system. I would tend to agree with all of the complaints Airk has, especially #1 (really can't stress that enough; the books are a terrible resource for reference!), but on the whole I have to say that it's one of the most elegantly designed systems I've ever encountered.

Sure, it's limited to one very specific era in a setting that is much much bigger and there are a few things that it kind of falls down on for being a little dull (e.g. travel, ranged combat). However, the feel of the game is impeccable and the mechanics do nothing but back that up from the Tolkein-esque skills, to the use of Hope, to the entire way combat works.

My biggest complaint, however? Hobbits. Why, oh why, did they have to make them balanced against the other playable races? The point of them is that they're rubbish; the underdog, not good at adventuring. Yet in this game they're as good, if not better (in some cases), in combat as the warlike Wood Elves, the doughty Dwarves or the powerful Beornings. That they were included as a playable race at all was disappointing enough, but to make them anything but a challenge to play just kicked it into touch for me.

One guy in the group I'm campaigning with at the moment decided to play a Hobbit and it's only because he's such an awesome roleplayer that he pulls it off (making out that his skill with a blade is just luck or that his eloquence or know-how is coincidental rather than conscious).