Dorjcal
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun 11 Jul 2021, 10:22

Re: Feedback from Play

Wed 28 Jul 2021, 11:00

Yeah the Might being the number of actions really should be a little more prominent.

Not related to this fight, as it was a successful ambush, but if the orcs had been aware they would have doubled their shield bonus to parry against opening volleys..... except it doesn't say when adversaries have shields any more... with a +3 parry they obviously do, but how much of that is a shield???

Yes. That is something that should made clear.
 
User avatar
aramis
Topic Author
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2019, 20:34
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Feedback from Play

Wed 28 Jul 2021, 22:43

Yeah the Might being the number of actions really should be a little more prominent.

Not related to this fight, as it was a successful ambush, but if the orcs had been aware they would have doubled their shield bonus to parry against opening volleys..... except it doesn't say when adversaries have shields any more... with a +3 parry they obviously do, but how much of that is a shield???
Since it didn't list a shield, I didn't assume it was from shield. I assumed it was all from superior wits... ;)
—————————————————————————
Smith & Wesson: the original point and click interface...
 
User avatar
aramis
Topic Author
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2019, 20:34
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Feedback from Play

Wed 28 Jul 2021, 23:08

Yeah the Might being the number of actions really should be a little more prominent.

Not related to this fight, as it was a successful ambush, but if the orcs had been aware they would have doubled their shield bonus to parry against opening volleys..... except it doesn't say when adversaries have shields any more... with a +3 parry they obviously do, but how much of that is a shield???
Yes. That is something that should made clear.
It is, if one reads the whole paragraph while awake enough to process...
Instead, I think it should be eliminated as a really bad conflation of functions.
There are a number of elements I don't like about the presentation of adversary LMCs
  • The presence of various factors is inherently inconsistent: some are listed in the header, some are listed in the entry.
  • The lack of non-combat abilities
  • Lack of indication of shields
  • Lack of label for armor type (how much of the armor is natural, how much is worn?)
A few items I understand but dislike, and they go back to 1E
  • unified att level
  • lack of illustrations for each entry
  • Adversary weapons not in a consolidated table (1E was table per category of adversary)
The rather high PH (=PC) parry scores I find just as much an issue as the too high target numbers for the labeled meaning of skills.
—————————————————————————
Smith & Wesson: the original point and click interface...
 
User avatar
aramis
Topic Author
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2019, 20:34
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Feedback from Play

Thu 05 Aug 2021, 05:18

because we dislike the 2E TNs...We houseruked
No hope spend: (16-(Att/2))round final up.
Hope Spend (16-Att)
Hope no longer gets a die. Inspiration when relevant gets a die, no hope needed.
Hope spend after rolling.
1E Encounters

Hope spends went way up. And so did success rates...I;kk be using 1E protection scores.

I'm just finding that what I liked in 1E is what the designers seem to dislike. It's not at all helpping with a tolkien feel RAW.
—————————————————————————
Smith & Wesson: the original point and click interface...
 
User avatar
aramis
Topic Author
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2019, 20:34
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Feedback from Play

Wed 18 Aug 2021, 08:24

After a couple weeks of playing with the house rules above, I can honestly say that I really do not think most of the changes from 1E to 2E are for the better.

What I do like:
difficulty changes now affect quality of success. That almost makes up for the pain of difficulty as pool side adjustment.
all weapon skills broad.
The triggering of travel events changes.
change to favored making whether a skill is favored or not relevant in almost all uses.
—————————————————————————
Smith & Wesson: the original point and click interface...
 
nobble
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue 13 Jul 2021, 06:34

Re: Feedback from Play

Thu 19 Aug 2021, 06:43

I'm 4 sessions into the 2ed now, and I'm playing RAW. Not noticing any problems from failures.. some players are burning through hope others not so much, but it all seems well balanced, they have played the Marsh Bell (in first ed) and the first Tale from the Wilderland (in 2ed)

I think the travel fatigue fatigue is punishing but matches the books so I'm happy.. combat works well, and most important the players are happy.
 
User avatar
aramis
Topic Author
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2019, 20:34
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Feedback from Play

Thu 19 Aug 2021, 23:27

I'm 4 sessions into the 2ed now, and I'm playing RAW. Not noticing any problems from failures.. some players are burning through hope others not so much, but it all seems well balanced, they have played the Marsh Bell (in first ed) and the first Tale from the Wilderland (in 2ed)

I think the travel fatigue fatigue is punishing but matches the books so I'm happy.. combat works well, and most important the players are happy.
Mine were not. It boils down to that. The ones most annoyed by the TNs weren't the ones with prior TOR 1E experience, either.
—————————————————————————
Smith & Wesson: the original point and click interface...
 
Nicklongshanks
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2021, 15:30

Re: Feedback from Play

Sun 29 Aug 2021, 16:17

I appreciate reading your feedback Aramis, and thanks for taking the time to write it up. I especially think the TN feedback is interesting, and was surprised when 2e set it at 20 instead of 18. That said, I think making it harder has some advantages: (1) makes skill rolls only called for in extremely situations (not roll for everything), (2) encourages players to seek advantages in both battle and non combat (the suggestions for acquiring bonuses and penalty dice throughout the book), and (3) encourages specialization because as you say, really only want the PH best at the skill to try (that said, spending hope yo help is dumb and should be removed).

Also, I disagree on your overall take on the system. We found 1e overly complicated and I am extremely pleased at most of the changes in this revision: 10 for weapons, etc. Much more playable for my group which likes to see the rules be simple and intuitive.

Back to agreement however, I hate (haha) the failure to list shields and what armor the enemies have; it’s not that hard to notate Parry +1s or Armor 2d (natural) is it?
 
Nicklongshanks
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2021, 15:30

Re: Feedback from Play

Sun 29 Aug 2021, 16:37

Also forgot to mention my strong agreement that the travel encounters need many more specific examples. While I appreciate the streamlining of the travel rules and their presentation, I hope there’s an appendix or something with enough encounter examples to actually make the travel rules playable just with the core rule book.
 
User avatar
aramis
Topic Author
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2019, 20:34
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Feedback from Play

Mon 30 Aug 2021, 11:45

Fundamentally, I found 1E just right for most things, but I also often set difficulties in the 10 to 14 range, and found the travel system unsatisfying.

Unless there are serious reworks, I'm unlikely to run nor recommend TOR 2E. It's a very different beastie, especially at the resource management level, than 1E, and doesn't help with maintaining that Tolkien feel, which 1E does.

I'm finding that the difficulty as pool size mods is really slowing play down. Annoyingly so.
—————————————————————————
Smith & Wesson: the original point and click interface...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Marcello and 3 guests