Hi, I just picked up both the Adventures in Middle Earth and The One Ring core books and have read though them. I have to say I am more interested in playing TOR but I am planning to run a game for my boys who are around age 9. We have played D&D a few times before and they have been asking me to play again. We all watched the lord of the rings movies so I suggested we play an RPG based on middle-earth and they are all excited as they liked the movies. When we play D&D they really like the tactical aspect with terrain and miniatures for combat. Looking through TOR it appears designed more as a story telling system with no tactical options I can see outside of combat. The tactical stuff is in Adventures in Middle Earth, so I think AIME will be a better fit for us right now. I am hoping they will like it and when they get a bit older I will try out the TOR with them. The system of TOR also sounds more abstract and a bit harder to grasp for 9 year olds then D&D 5E rules.
What I am curious about is if the 2nd edition of TOR might include some tactical options for miniatures combat? Or is there any plans to make a D&D 5E port of TOR 2E into AIME like was done in TOR 1st edition?
Thanks very much, glad to hear these have been picked up and are being supported again.
Cheers
Steven P
-
- HunterGreen
- Posts: 183
- Joined:
Re: TOR 2E tactical options?
While I'm not sure what you mean about "tactical options outside of combat" I can say that:
a) TOR 2e is planned to be similar to, and am improvement on, TOR 1e, and it will still use theater of the mind stance-driven combat rather than miniatures.
b) There will be a new edition of Adventures in Middle-earth, though we're not sure when; TOR 2e is due next year sometime and AiME 2e is farther out than that. (It may not end up having the same name, but it's going to be the same D&D core approach, complete with crunchy combat based on miniatures and more like D&D than Tolkien.)
If you like the crunch of D&D and its combat-map-driven combat system, you're probably going to want to stick to AiME and its successor.
a) TOR 2e is planned to be similar to, and am improvement on, TOR 1e, and it will still use theater of the mind stance-driven combat rather than miniatures.
b) There will be a new edition of Adventures in Middle-earth, though we're not sure when; TOR 2e is due next year sometime and AiME 2e is farther out than that. (It may not end up having the same name, but it's going to be the same D&D core approach, complete with crunchy combat based on miniatures and more like D&D than Tolkien.)
If you like the crunch of D&D and its combat-map-driven combat system, you're probably going to want to stick to AiME and its successor.
TOR/AiME Discord: https://discord.me/theonering
Narvi, the TOR bot for Discord: https://bitbucket.org/HawthornThistleberry/narvi/
Narvi, the TOR bot for Discord: https://bitbucket.org/HawthornThistleberry/narvi/
Re: TOR 2E tactical options?
AiMe does a good job in enforcing the influence of terrain in combats. That can also be done in TOR. I'll try to explain how I run combats in TOR, to see if it can help.
First of all, I don't use meters/feet when moving minis around the map. It is not a tactical/wargame-y approach. I simply think of "zones" based on the map, that I tell the players beforehand (at least those that are visible to them). Let me use a map example:
Let's say I've prepared that scenario. The company is approaching from the south (lower border of the image), and I tell them some goblins are around the southern wall ruins, and have spotted them. The minis from the companions are deployed in the path that comes from the forest, and those of the goblins inside the "rectangle" of the walls. Then, I tell them that the terrain grants the goblin archers some cover. So, until the companions engage them inside the ruins (during opening volleys, for example), the goblins will get a bonus to their Parry against missiles. Once the heroes decide to run towards them in melee, the combat will be resolved as usual (Stances, Combat Actions, etc.). So, the terrain has just added a thematic modifier to an otherwise normal situation (volleys and Rearward heroes have a penalty when firing to the goblins).
While fighting, I tell them that they see movement in the interior of the tower: a great spider is climbing to the top! If a hero wants to engage it before the beast is out of reach, he will have to spend one turn moving there. We don't need to know how many meters he can run in a single turn, just that he has to "change zone". I might ask for an Athletics test so he can reach the ruined tower before the spider gets out of reach, thus introducing different tests and situations mid-combat that are not always combat-related.
When the hero reaches the spider, and if he enters combat there, we will have two different combat zones: the goblins in the ruined house, and the spider in the ruined tower. Both combats are resolved normally, using tokens on our battle mat. But we know that the heroes in one zone cannot help those from the other: there has to be a movement action to reach one another.
Usually I don't prepare more than 2 so maps per adventure. Many "normal" combats are resolved without maps. But doing a preparation before the session of maps that can fit a battle, and thinking of how the terrain can be an influence (a river crossing that splits the group, or forces to use missile weapons while a small group tries to swimm to the other shore, etc.), is fun and makes the most important fight become more vivid and thematic.
You can find some pictures of actual gameplay using minis (Legos!) and different maps here: https://rpggeek.com/thread/2131178/oath ... -additions
Also, I usually plan for 2 or three special actions that the terrain imposes/allow the characters (Athletics to climb on a wall, Search to look for a way to surround an ambush, Craft to take down a bridge after your allies have passed,...). While they might require a succesful test, I also allow to spend a bonus die from the preliminary test to autosucceed. A narrative is needed to justify it. Always remember that these additions should help fleshen out and bring colour to the battle, not drag it with additonal mechanics.
I try to change the benefits of a certain position by thinking of the scenario's terrain and the dynamics I want to introduce regarding the enemies (waves, reinforcements, ambushes mid-combat,...). A bowman in an eleveated positions for example, might shoot his arrows at two of the "fighting zones" without needing to move, thus deciding each round which companions to help. Or simply give him a +2 to Parry when being shot at by enemies. Or he can roll for Awarenes before the enemies' reinforcements reach the scene, and warn his companions on the direction the new threat is coming from.
And of course, always have an open mind for the players' inventive. Some maps are really so detailed that players might come up with their own ideas of how to use the terrain. Always enjoy their involvement, and be soft handed with their plans, so they get motivated to bring their initiative to the table.
First of all, I don't use meters/feet when moving minis around the map. It is not a tactical/wargame-y approach. I simply think of "zones" based on the map, that I tell the players beforehand (at least those that are visible to them). Let me use a map example:
Let's say I've prepared that scenario. The company is approaching from the south (lower border of the image), and I tell them some goblins are around the southern wall ruins, and have spotted them. The minis from the companions are deployed in the path that comes from the forest, and those of the goblins inside the "rectangle" of the walls. Then, I tell them that the terrain grants the goblin archers some cover. So, until the companions engage them inside the ruins (during opening volleys, for example), the goblins will get a bonus to their Parry against missiles. Once the heroes decide to run towards them in melee, the combat will be resolved as usual (Stances, Combat Actions, etc.). So, the terrain has just added a thematic modifier to an otherwise normal situation (volleys and Rearward heroes have a penalty when firing to the goblins).
While fighting, I tell them that they see movement in the interior of the tower: a great spider is climbing to the top! If a hero wants to engage it before the beast is out of reach, he will have to spend one turn moving there. We don't need to know how many meters he can run in a single turn, just that he has to "change zone". I might ask for an Athletics test so he can reach the ruined tower before the spider gets out of reach, thus introducing different tests and situations mid-combat that are not always combat-related.
When the hero reaches the spider, and if he enters combat there, we will have two different combat zones: the goblins in the ruined house, and the spider in the ruined tower. Both combats are resolved normally, using tokens on our battle mat. But we know that the heroes in one zone cannot help those from the other: there has to be a movement action to reach one another.
Usually I don't prepare more than 2 so maps per adventure. Many "normal" combats are resolved without maps. But doing a preparation before the session of maps that can fit a battle, and thinking of how the terrain can be an influence (a river crossing that splits the group, or forces to use missile weapons while a small group tries to swimm to the other shore, etc.), is fun and makes the most important fight become more vivid and thematic.
You can find some pictures of actual gameplay using minis (Legos!) and different maps here: https://rpggeek.com/thread/2131178/oath ... -additions
Also, I usually plan for 2 or three special actions that the terrain imposes/allow the characters (Athletics to climb on a wall, Search to look for a way to surround an ambush, Craft to take down a bridge after your allies have passed,...). While they might require a succesful test, I also allow to spend a bonus die from the preliminary test to autosucceed. A narrative is needed to justify it. Always remember that these additions should help fleshen out and bring colour to the battle, not drag it with additonal mechanics.
I try to change the benefits of a certain position by thinking of the scenario's terrain and the dynamics I want to introduce regarding the enemies (waves, reinforcements, ambushes mid-combat,...). A bowman in an eleveated positions for example, might shoot his arrows at two of the "fighting zones" without needing to move, thus deciding each round which companions to help. Or simply give him a +2 to Parry when being shot at by enemies. Or he can roll for Awarenes before the enemies' reinforcements reach the scene, and warn his companions on the direction the new threat is coming from.
And of course, always have an open mind for the players' inventive. Some maps are really so detailed that players might come up with their own ideas of how to use the terrain. Always enjoy their involvement, and be soft handed with their plans, so they get motivated to bring their initiative to the table.
Re: TOR 2E tactical options?
For what it's worth, we still use a battlemat when we play TOR. There's no tactical movement, but it helps us to visualize how many enemies there are (and how many of each type), which have been wounded, etc, and what stance each player is in. We represent the latter with concentric rings for each stance, with the PCs arranged in their appropriate circles and then enemies engaged onto them as they're assigned, etc. You can also still add terrain and the like as a reminder to the players and for immersion.
tl;dr there is still absolutely a way to use maps and a battlemat in TOR to enhance/streamline the experience.
tl;dr there is still absolutely a way to use maps and a battlemat in TOR to enhance/streamline the experience.
-
- mrdabakkle
- Posts: 75
- Joined:
Re: TOR 2E tactical options?
The Adventures Companion adds more options for tactical combat, it makes good use of someone focusing on forward stance, another in open and another in defensive. There are various called shots or tasks that can be used in that book that enhance player options.
The One Ring and Adventure's in Middle-earth Discord Server: https://discord.me/theonering
The One Ring Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/oneringrpg/
The One Ring Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/oneringrpg/
-
- Otaku-sempai
- Posts: 598
- Joined:
- Location: Western New York
Re: TOR 2E tactical options?
Good point! I would certainly recommend to Saxon to check out the Adventurer's Companion, at least in PDF form. It also includes all of the currently available official heroic cultures introduced after the core rules. That is thirteen new player cultures including the Men of the Lake, which should--arguably--been available from the start. A couple of the cultures are only found in this book (so far): The Dwarves of the Blue Mountains and the Elves of Lórien, while the Wayward Elves and the Wild Hobbits of the Anduin Vales get full work-ups here.The Adventures Companion adds more options for tactical combat, it makes good use of someone focusing on forward stance, another in open and another in defensive. There are various called shots or tasks that can be used in that book that enhance player options.
#FideltyToTolkien
-
- coniunctio
- Posts: 45
- Joined:
Re: TOR 2E tactical options?
In terms of tactical options it might be worth considering using a system like 'Five Leagues from Borderlands' (Nordic Weasel Games). Or maybe Rangers of Shadow Deep. I think you could easily use swap in the combat mechanics and travel rules etc from TOR to play a campaign involving a group of Dunedain patrolling the length and breadth of Eriador. Brigands around Tharbad, orcish raiders from Gundabad, increasing brigands from Sarumans Dunlendings and 'half-orcs' from the south/spies. You might easily add in a little rp specific narrative from the supplements of Bree or Ruins of the North etc. If you wanted an even darker mood then maybe the situation where the Edain are overrun in Beleriand?
Re: TOR 2E tactical options?
I think combats in TOR can be played out quite tactically. Falenthal made good examples.
The Combat Actions and Combat Roles described in the Adventures Companion additionally add another level of tactics. My group needed some time to discover those possibilities, but now they often use them. Some adversaries are so strong, they require the use of Combat Actions / Roles in order to survive the combat.
The Combat Actions and Combat Roles described in the Adventures Companion additionally add another level of tactics. My group needed some time to discover those possibilities, but now they often use them. Some adversaries are so strong, they require the use of Combat Actions / Roles in order to survive the combat.
Last edited by Asrath on Sun 12 Jul 2020, 22:15, edited 1 time in total.
Re: TOR 2E tactical options?
It depends of what you call tactical :
- managine precise ranges of weapons, precise location of all combat characters (PCs, NPCs, monsters ...), precise amount of arrows left, precise location of wounds ... ==> then TOR isn't the right system
- combat maneuvers, defensive or offensive stance, specific roles ==> then TOR system is the right one
- managine precise ranges of weapons, precise location of all combat characters (PCs, NPCs, monsters ...), precise amount of arrows left, precise location of wounds ... ==> then TOR isn't the right system
- combat maneuvers, defensive or offensive stance, specific roles ==> then TOR system is the right one
Re: TOR 2E tactical options?
This is great, thanks Falenthal! I think you have convinced me to go back to giving TOR a shot with my little boys! Actually think this might increase the narrative instead of spending time trying to figure out who can move where and when on a grid etc...exciting to try this system out.AiMe does a good job in enforcing the influence of terrain in combats. That can also be done in TOR. I'll try to explain how I run combats in TOR, to see if it can help.
First of all, I don't use meters/feet when moving minis around the map. It is not a tactical/wargame-y approach. I simply think of "zones" based on the map, that I tell the players beforehand (at least those that are visible to them). Let me use a map example:
Let's say I've prepared that scenario. The company is approaching from the south (lower border of the image), and I tell them some goblins are around the southern wall ruins, and have spotted them. The minis from the companions are deployed in the path that comes from the forest, and those of the goblins inside the "rectangle" of the walls. Then, I tell them that the terrain grants the goblin archers some cover. So, until the companions engage them inside the ruins (during opening volleys, for example), the goblins will get a bonus to their Parry against missiles. Once the heroes decide to run towards them in melee, the combat will be resolved as usual (Stances, Combat Actions, etc.). So, the terrain has just added a thematic modifier to an otherwise normal situation (volleys and Rearward heroes have a penalty when firing to the goblins).
While fighting, I tell them that they see movement in the interior of the tower: a great spider is climbing to the top! If a hero wants to engage it before the beast is out of reach, he will have to spend one turn moving there. We don't need to know how many meters he can run in a single turn, just that he has to "change zone". I might ask for an Athletics test so he can reach the ruined tower before the spider gets out of reach, thus introducing different tests and situations mid-combat that are not always combat-related.
When the hero reaches the spider, and if he enters combat there, we will have two different combat zones: the goblins in the ruined house, and the spider in the ruined tower. Both combats are resolved normally, using tokens on our battle mat. But we know that the heroes in one zone cannot help those from the other: there has to be a movement action to reach one another.
Usually I don't prepare more than 2 so maps per adventure. Many "normal" combats are resolved without maps. But doing a preparation before the session of maps that can fit a battle, and thinking of how the terrain can be an influence (a river crossing that splits the group, or forces to use missile weapons while a small group tries to swimm to the other shore, etc.), is fun and makes the most important fight become more vivid and thematic.
You can find some pictures of actual gameplay using minis (Legos!) and different maps here: https://rpggeek.com/thread/2131178/oath ... -additions
Also, I usually plan for 2 or three special actions that the terrain imposes/allow the characters (Athletics to climb on a wall, Search to look for a way to surround an ambush, Craft to take down a bridge after your allies have passed,...). While they might require a succesful test, I also allow to spend a bonus die from the preliminary test to autosucceed. A narrative is needed to justify it. Always remember that these additions should help fleshen out and bring colour to the battle, not drag it with additonal mechanics.
I try to change the benefits of a certain position by thinking of the scenario's terrain and the dynamics I want to introduce regarding the enemies (waves, reinforcements, ambushes mid-combat,...). A bowman in an eleveated positions for example, might shoot his arrows at two of the "fighting zones" without needing to move, thus deciding each round which companions to help. Or simply give him a +2 to Parry when being shot at by enemies. Or he can roll for Awarenes before the enemies' reinforcements reach the scene, and warn his companions on the direction the new threat is coming from.
And of course, always have an open mind for the players' inventive. Some maps are really so detailed that players might come up with their own ideas of how to use the terrain. Always enjoy their involvement, and be soft handed with their plans, so they get motivated to bring their initiative to the table.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests