Maetharim
Topic Author
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 04 Jul 2021, 16:56

Rules-lite vs simulationist

Thu 14 Oct 2021, 16:17

I have read through the pdf of the 2e TOR and I will start off saying I'm very impressed with the team's dedication to the lore and themes of Middle-Earth. It's obvious that they have a lot of love for Tolkien's work and in many places there are excellent adaptations of the legendarium to the game. The elves grow weary over time, weariness and fatigue itself are big parts of the game, travel is a major component, there's an emphasis on quiet heroics instead of murder-hoboing, all that good stuff.

I am, however, disappointed in the overall lightness of the mechanical side of the game. The first edition of TOR had flaws for sure and it wasn't as complete as it could have been. Some parts of it don't really work without supplementary materials. But it had more mechanical depth and meaningful choices for players to make. It was verging more towards the simulation end of the RPG spectrum if you will, aiming at the D&D and Pathfinder side of things. It wasn't totally on that end at all and that's ok. It's a spectrum for a reason.

This edition of TOR seems to be going towards the rules-lite side, the area where PBTA and Blades in the Dark and other narrative focused games hang out. There are many elements of 2e TOR that are left for the individual LM to decide and house-rule and there are lots of areas where the RAW text is just lacking. The descriptions for journey events are vague at best and councils are really anemic. To me, this is an issue of presentation. Games like PBTA and Blades know that they are narrative focused and so present themselves that way. Dice-rolling is secondary to roleplay and the tools for players and GM focus on narrative permission and control. Things like flashbacks and the push-pull of the moves system really assist the 'yes and' approach to RPGs.

That's totally fine and good and I'd be up for a TOR in that style. But 2e TOR isn't that. It's still aiming at D&D land, but the tools given are woefully inadequate. As a player or LM, no matter how well I RP or how inventive the players are, the most I can do is give them +1 or 2d. Or maybe make the roll favored. That's it. There's nothing else.

Even hope is rendered toothless by this. In Middle-Earth, hope is the beating heart of the free peoples. It's a shining light in the darkness, a stand taken against the void. Where's the option to use hope to avoid being wounded? Or to act when you'd be unconscious? What about and option to spend hope to negate weariness for a roll? What about cultural virtues that use hope for a wide variety of things? In some ways, its difficult to think of other options for using hope because the 2e rules are so light. There's just not that many buttons and knobs to press.

I appreciate the time and dedication taken by the creative team. And I don't regret backing the kickstarter. I'm just glad I didn't pledge at a higher level.
 
gyrovague
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Thu 14 Oct 2021, 17:30

I have read through the pdf of the 2e TOR and I will start off saying I'm very impressed with the team's dedication to the lore and themes of Middle-Earth. It's obvious that they have a lot of love for Tolkien's work and in many places there are excellent adaptations of the legendarium to the game. The elves grow weary over time, weariness and fatigue itself are big parts of the game, travel is a major component, there's an emphasis on quiet heroics instead of murder-hoboing, all that good stuff.

I am, however, disappointed in the overall lightness of the mechanical side of the game. The first edition of TOR had flaws for sure and it wasn't as complete as it could have been. Some parts of it don't really work without supplementary materials. But it had more mechanical depth and meaningful choices for players to make. It was verging more towards the simulation end of the RPG spectrum if you will, aiming at the D&D and Pathfinder side of things. It wasn't totally on that end at all and that's ok. It's a spectrum for a reason.

This edition of TOR seems to be going towards the rules-lite side, the area where PBTA and Blades in the Dark and other narrative focused games hang out. There are many elements of 2e TOR that are left for the individual LM to decide and house-rule and there are lots of areas where the RAW text is just lacking. The descriptions for journey events are vague at best and councils are really anemic. To me, this is an issue of presentation. Games like PBTA and Blades know that they are narrative focused and so present themselves that way. Dice-rolling is secondary to roleplay and the tools for players and GM focus on narrative permission and control. Things like flashbacks and the push-pull of the moves system really assist the 'yes and' approach to RPGs.

That's totally fine and good and I'd be up for a TOR in that style. But 2e TOR isn't that. It's still aiming at D&D land, but the tools given are woefully inadequate. As a player or LM, no matter how well I RP or how inventive the players are, the most I can do is give them +1 or 2d. Or maybe make the roll favored. That's it. There's nothing else.

Even hope is rendered toothless by this. In Middle-Earth, hope is the beating heart of the free peoples. It's a shining light in the darkness, a stand taken against the void. Where's the option to use hope to avoid being wounded? Or to act when you'd be unconscious? What about and option to spend hope to negate weariness for a roll? What about cultural virtues that use hope for a wide variety of things? In some ways, its difficult to think of other options for using hope because the 2e rules are so light. There's just not that many buttons and knobs to press.

I appreciate the time and dedication taken by the creative team. And I don't regret backing the kickstarter. I'm just glad I didn't pledge at a higher level.
I had some of the same reactions (especially about Hope), although I don't think of what I'm looking for as "simulationist". The "meaningful choices" you mentioned don't have to be simulationist, they just have to be...meaningful. That is, player choices should be difficult and should matter. (It's possible we mean different things by "simulationist".)

As I've said in other threads, I don't like that the Council rules don't require any hard decisions. When it's your turn, you just pick the highest rank skill you are able to use and roll the dice. There's no wondering if Riddle or Persuade would be the better choice here, or if maybe instead of using your turn to try for successes. There are no trade-offs that lead to impactful decisions.

The response I've gotten to that critique is that the roleplaying...that is, how you narrate your action, and your success/failure on the dice...is a kind of decision-making. E.g., "How shall I roleplay this?" Which is both valid, and misses the point.
 
Maetharim
Topic Author
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 04 Jul 2021, 16:56

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Thu 14 Oct 2021, 18:28

Yes I agree with your points about hope and councils very much. Simulationist may have been the wrong word to use, but I didn't want to just put "I hate this gaem" in the title. It's absolutely ok to have a game that focuses on narrative choice, on role-playing decisions, and on these less numerically inclined ideas, but they have to be supported. Councils need some help for sure and just in general I'd like better support for a more narrative style of play.

Consider journeys; what if instead of gaining a set amount of fatigue for each event, players could encounter an event and then narrate a flash-back of how the prepared or the present moment of how they are overcoming the obstacle? A player can choose to spend hope to take control of narrative (with player agreement of course) and join the discussion. Once the scene is narrated, the LM could assign a difficult or a requisite number of successes. Then a roll by the last narrator could determine how many fatigue points the company gets.

That's just spit-balling and probably needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but it would seem to make journeys a bit more dynamic than what is presented.
 
gull2112
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu 26 Aug 2021, 19:11

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Thu 14 Oct 2021, 19:53

I get the concern. I really do, but let me respectfully disagree. What I am looking for is the most authentic experience. By authentic, I mean immersive. The rules need tp provide a framework to allow players to feel like they really are in the world. You need enough "skin" in the game to make it feel, in this case, like you're in Middle Earth.

Every time you break the enchantment of the interactive narrative to look up a rule or consult a table, that is undesirable in my book.

In a perfect Roleplaying game there would be no need for character sheets, dice, or reference books. Each LM and PH would engage in lively discourse as the adventure unfolded. In the real world, the purpose of the rules is to facilitate people reaching that ideal. TOR 2E does an amazing job of that.

For some, the completeness of the rules and detailed combat system with charts and tables that people can rely on to create the world with which they must interface, is the key thing. I was very much in that camp, but that is no longer my desire.
 
User avatar
eternalsage
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue 31 Aug 2021, 19:41
Location: Bree

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Thu 14 Oct 2021, 21:03

Yes I agree with your points about hope and councils very much. Simulationist may have been the wrong word to use, but I didn't want to just put "I hate this gaem" in the title. It's absolutely ok to have a game that focuses on narrative choice, on role-playing decisions, and on these less numerically inclined ideas, but they have to be supported. Councils need some help for sure and just in general I'd like better support for a more narrative style of play.

Consider journeys; what if instead of gaining a set amount of fatigue for each event, players could encounter an event and then narrate a flash-back of how the prepared or the present moment of how they are overcoming the obstacle? A player can choose to spend hope to take control of narrative (with player agreement of course) and join the discussion. Once the scene is narrated, the LM could assign a difficult or a requisite number of successes. Then a roll by the last narrator could determine how many fatigue points the company gets.

That's just spit-balling and probably needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but it would seem to make journeys a bit more dynamic than what is presented.
So, that's what I've basically done with journeys since day one in 1st ed, minus all the rolling. I setup a brief situation, based on the type of event ("oh no! A flash flood has happened overnight! Hunter, what are you going to do?" And then we play it out, or maybe we flash back to show how he prepared in some way.) If fatigue is lost, cool, if it's not, cool. Losing half the food because the hunter couldn't think of a way to fix it or prevent it means everyone is going to take fatigue, etc.

My personal problem with both Councils and Journeys is that there are too many rules. At least we can now only have a council when it makes sense, whereas in 1e you ask your neighbor about the weather and the rules want to to break out a minigame that restricts all your actions down to the handful that the writer could think of or (worse yet) had word count for.

But I have a very narrative based approach anyway, so that's why I move away from games like D&D/Pathfinder and Hero System. Most game rules get tweaked before hitting my table to strip out "do this or do that" to make way for players to do what comes naturally
“It is useless to meet revenge with revenge; it will heal nothing.” - Frodo Baggins, Return of the King
 
Maetharim
Topic Author
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 04 Jul 2021, 16:56

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Thu 14 Oct 2021, 21:30

I understand what you and the poster above are saying but I have to say that at that point I'd almost question why you are buying the RPG in the first place. If 1e TOR had too many rules and with 2e you are still paring things down, you could just run a game that is entirely narrative and just use the LOTR books themselves. There is scads of content out there for LOTR and you don't need the RPG to run a game in the setting. If you and your group comfortable with an almost diceless system, then why buy the RPG at all?

My point is that RPGs should be games where the mechanics are meaningful and interesting, the setting is meaningful and interesting, and both the mechanics and the setting inform each other. Elements of the setting driving mechanical design choices (like Shadow and hope and journeys) and elements of the mechanics drive parts of the setting (like councils and fellowship phases and the tale of years). 2e TOR doesn't do enough to provide meaningful and engaging mechanics.

I get that people enjoy games with few rules and are ok with that. I've played games like that and had a great time. But at that point, why are you buying this RPG? Just get the LOTR books and go for it. You can find a generic resolution system if you want a bit of dice rolling.
 
Asgo
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 12:18

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Thu 14 Oct 2021, 22:03

personally, I think calling 1ed out for having "too many rules" is a stretch. ;) 1ed is still a comparably light system - having instances of clunky rules doesn't necessarily equate to "too many".
Although in 2ed, in many instances resolving some of the clunckyness seem to have been resolved by removing the instance and replace it by "let's do it narratively", because that in the end can fill any holes. :)

for my own taste a tad too light in the end.

My general position on light vs complex rules systems.
- both can work well if they are done well (which means understandable and consistent for the most part)
- the rest is a matter of taste
- I find it easier to find houserulings in a more complex system - i.e. reducing the complexity on the spot. Generally because it is easier to find a fitting or average choice if you already have a reference that fit into the system. Also they tend to provide more mechanics for out of place uses as a reference for mechanical behavior with some idea of balancing.
Light systems on the other hand give you more freedom to fill the holes because there is less framework around it, but that generally takes more time to make it consistent (unless that isn't important to you). For example it is generally easier to reduce the complexity of an economy system to make less of an overhead than to reintroduce actual money at all in any usable way. ...

Simply as a book product and for someone who generally enjoys seeing how authors find innovative rules to evoke a theme, in particular for well known IPs, I prefer more complexity because for that purpose more is simply more - in a greedy kind of way. :)
 
gyrovague
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Thu 14 Oct 2021, 22:51

What I am looking for is the most authentic experience. By authentic, I mean immersive. The rules need tp provide a framework to allow players to feel like they really are in the world. You need enough "skin" in the game to make it feel, in this case, like you're in Middle Earth.

Every time you break the enchantment of the interactive narrative to look up a rule or consult a table, that is undesirable in my book.

This nicely illustrates how "authentic" and "immersive" are entirely objective. I suspect what you find immersion-breaking and what I find immersion-breaking don't overlap very much.

Which is why I think it's more useful to talk about what sorts of game designs we prefer, instead of which are more "authentic" or "immersive".

In a perfect Roleplaying game there would be no need for character sheets, dice, or reference books.

Yeah, again...what you like and I want I like are very, very different.

I can see that it might be fun to play a rule-less, purely narrative-driven RPG. But if there are going to be rules, and there are going to be dice, I want the mechanics to be non-trivial. Not complicated to understand or remember, but non-trivial to implement. (E.g, the game of Go is an example.)
 
User avatar
eternalsage
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue 31 Aug 2021, 19:41
Location: Bree

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Thu 14 Oct 2021, 23:18

Look, I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I'm only stating my opinions for my group and our playstyle as its developed over 20+ years. You play your way, and I'll play mine. What I was attempting to say is that there are lots of options and one size does not and never has fit all. If a book has a table that is supposed to contain every possible permutation of a situation, that is a restriction, not an aide, because it's going to lack something. It always does, because no one can think of ev sswery possibility.

For example, in D&D 4th, a person I know was playing a rogue, and they were fighting some type of giant lizard creature. He wanted to jump on the creature and start stabbing it, but the gm didn't let him. See, there were no rules for that in the book. Or maybe they had to have a certain feat. I don't know, I wasn't there. Regardless, that to me is anathema to a fun time. Others may find the lists give them inspiration to do things they would not have thought of. As long as you're having fun, it's all good.

So maybe try not to police others fun, yea? If lots of rules and examples are what you need for fun, don't let me stop you. I'm certain you can add house rules to inject that into the rules.
“It is useless to meet revenge with revenge; it will heal nothing.” - Frodo Baggins, Return of the King
 
User avatar
eternalsage
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue 31 Aug 2021, 19:41
Location: Bree

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Thu 14 Oct 2021, 23:24

What I am looking for is the most authentic experience. By authentic, I mean immersive. The rules need tp provide a framework to allow players to feel like they really are in the world. You need enough "skin" in the game to make it feel, in this case, like you're in Middle Earth.

Every time you break the enchantment of the interactive narrative to look up a rule or consult a table, that is undesirable in my book.

This nicely illustrates how "authentic" and "immersive" are entirely objective. I suspect what you find immersion-breaking and what I find immersion-breaking don't overlap very much.

Which is why I think it's more useful to talk about what sorts of game designs we prefer, instead of which are more "authentic" or "immersive".

In a perfect Roleplaying game there would be no need for character sheets, dice, or reference books.

Yeah, again...what you like and I want I like are very, very different.

I can see that it might be fun to play a rule-less, purely narrative-driven RPG. But if there are going to be rules, and there are going to be dice, I want the mechanics to be non-trivial. Not complicated to understand or remember, but non-trivial to implement. (E.g, the game of Go is an example.)
That is pretty much where I fall, but as you mention, its ultimately subjective. And that is why there are so many games out there, tbh.
“It is useless to meet revenge with revenge; it will heal nothing.” - Frodo Baggins, Return of the King

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests