Forum

Hello Forum! Free League sent me here when I asked them this question…

I got into D&D last year and have been actively playing both as DM and player in two separate groups. In the group that I'm a player in they want me to DM after the current D&D campaign and right away I thought of Free League's LOTR RPG adaptions.

I'm not opposed to learning and teaching TOR 2e over LOTR 5e and know that among the purists, TOR 2e is the only way to go. But I would love to hear from people who have played both and actually have given LOTR 5e a fair chance how well of an adaption it is from TOR 2e since it is my understanding that Free League tried to avoid simply making it just D&D in Middle-Earth. Are the nuances of TOR 2e really lost in LOTR 5e?

I own both the 2e and 5e books and noticed that in the latter there seems to be additional information for items, let's say the three Elven rings where the 5e version makes it seem like it wants to be prepared for players or the DM to wield these rings and hence there are attacks and characteristics to go with it, whereas in 2e there is just a basic description and the lack of additional attack info makes it seem like 2e doesn't want you to be able to use these rings. I wanted to inquire more about the meaning behind this. I understand that magic in the Tolkien world is really special and uncommon, and for non-Istari, common adventurers, magic mostly comes through items vs learned abilities which is why magic is toned down. I guess what I'm trying to get at is does playing LOTR 5e have the potential to be more magic heavy than TOR 2e, even though Free League tried to make their 5e adaption less magic heavy than D&D?

I have months before I will be DM'ing either TOR 2e or LOTR 5e so I will be focusing on story for now (which to me is the most enjoyable and important part of any RPG anyway), but I'm hoping to get nudged toward 2e or 5e. Or maybe the two can truly stand side by side as equals? The collector in me does like that 5e seems to have additional information on things, but maybe I could also lift that info (such as the Elven-rings) and adapt it to TOR 2e… but then again, why didn't Free League include that info in the 2e version… there must be a thematic reason for that, right?

Last, but not least, I am a pretty visual person and so have come to love top down battle maps. The Free League ones are beautiful, but I'm not sure yet how to handle them? How do people use these maps or do you just mostly go theater of the mind and take a more old school pen and paper approach for the players?

Thanks so much!

I prefer TOR to 5e, but the TOR Discord tends to encourage both games rather than "among the purists, TOR 2e is the only way to go". From what I've read it is well regarded as an attempt to capture the feeling of Middle Earth in the 5e system, rather than TOR 2e's bespoke system. If you like 5e and/or battle maps, go with the 5e version. If you and your players pick up new systems well and enjoy learning new systems, I'd give TOR 2e a go.

Magic: both TOR and the 5e game have magic available via items and where appropriate via particular cultural virtues.

Battle Maps: TOR doesn't go in for top down Battle Maps, but provides excellent illustrations of locations that can help inform use of complications/advantages to provide penalties/bonuses in combat.

Magic items (and indeed NPC stats): 5e game provides a little bit more in the way of stats, but they're for things I've never missed and can't see myself ever needing in an RPG. I don't want/need stats for Glorfindel or one of the three Elven rings.

I haven't actually played LotRRP, but I have played D&D5e a lot and TOR2e. Take what I say as you will.

In TOR, combat is encouraged to be abstract. You think in terms of stances first, and physical location second (it does matter...but you're thinking about whether you're being aggressive, defensive, etc first). So battlemaps aren't really all that important, it's largely theatre of mind for that kind of thing. If you really like battlemaps, tracking the minutiae of movement etc, then LotRRP is probably better for you - though TOR can handle it...just not as well. The maps provided are more for helping the LM keep things straight in their head as the Company navigates the Landmark.

Personally, I made conscious choice to go to TOR over LotRRP. There was an aspect of creating a mental wall between the two, but more importantly I felt that the mechanics communicated the atmosphere and the feel of the Tolkien world better. The impression I get is that TOR also has a flatter progression than LotRRP - I could be wrong about that, but it's the impression that I got from scanning the rules - which I think really helps keep the world open and off of the railroads because you can set up encounters ahead of time without worrying about power levels. It's certainly far better than D&D in that regard.

I'm not sure what you mean about the Elven Rings. Without seeing what you mean by them having stats, I can't judge, really. Given that they mostly have long term and rather subtle effects (making Lorien seem timeless and preserved, as opposed to a Fireball to the face), I find it hard to imagine how they'd be statted. Furthermore, it's not really something that would feel Tolkienesque, slaying Elrond (or Orcs doing that for you), picking it up and becoming the next Ring Bearer and doing stuff with it to defeat foes. Maybe an NPC, but the stories are meant to be more about the Frodos, Gimlis and Barliman Butterburs, not the Isildurs. I'm not sure it's intended that you take the Ring for yourself. Perhaps more to aid RP'ing Elrond or Galadriel or something. Regardless, TOR gets pretty much everything LotRRP does. There were a few small things (LotRRP lacked Rivendell for a while, I believe), but most things are brought to par now.

My recommendation is to play a game of TOR. Give it a go. See if it takes. If you like it, get TOR. If not, then LotRRP is likely to appeal, because you're already familiar with D&D.

Hope something I've said has helped.

In TOR, combat is encouraged to be abstract. You think in terms of stances first, and physical location second (it does matter...but you're thinking about whether you're being aggressive, defensive, etc first). So battlemaps aren't really all that important, it's largely theatre of mind for that kind of thing. If you really like battlemaps, tracking the minutiae of movement etc, then LotRRP is probably better for you - though TOR can handle it...just not as well. The maps provided are more for helping the LM keep things straight in their head as the Company navigates the Landmark.

The rulebook still encourages thinking about location, as this will drive complication/advantage, engagement limits, and the availability of the Rearward stance (ranged attacks).

Using terrain/positioning rewards player creativity and helps combats feel different from one another, and is fast and straightforward in TOR.

"Is the Company fleeing from a greater threat and needs to open a way through their enemies’ ranks? Are they fighting to protect a place — or a person? Are they following a dangerous
mountain path, or were they encamped among thick trees? Is it raining, or is the battlefield rough and snow-covered? Whenever possible, the descriptive details employed by the Loremaster should have repercussions on how combat will be resolved; for example, influencing how many opening volleys to allow, if any, or whether any combatants should be made unavailable as eligible targets for engagement (see page 96)." p94

"Certain circumstances may result in the Loremaster allowing more Player-heroes to assume a Rearward stance than would normally be possible — for example, if the Company is fighting on a narrow ledge, a mountain path, or other similar features which makes ranged attacks easier. The same reasoning applies to situations where the Company outnumbers the opposition by at least two adventurers to one human-sized enemy fighter (or four adventurers to one greater than human-sized opponent)." p95

"Complications & Advantages
The difficulty of an attack can be affected negatively by a range of factors — such as shooting an arrow or throwing a spear at long range, in the dark, fighting during a rainstorm, or while knee-deep in icy water, mud, or in other difficult terrain.
On the contrary, combatants may find themselves enjoying an advantage — such as having the high ground, standing on a vantage position allowing them to pepper the enemy with arrows, or fighting with their flanks protected by natural barriers.
Using the examples provided by the tables overleaf, the Loremaster can set a level of complication or advantage, imposing a bonus or a penalty to the attack rolls made by a combatant involved in the fight (either a Player-hero or an adversary)." p101

Yes, if you'd read on, you'd have noticed that I did acknowledge that physical positioning mattered.

Thanks so much for sharing your experiences, Harlath and Linklite, it sounds like both have their pros and cons for what I’m looking for. I think I’ll try to embrace TOR and go from there. A theater of the mind approach instead of using maps for everything is actually a very freeing thought since there is less prep involved haha. And if push comes to shove I could always create player facing, isometric TOR ‘maps’ based on the illustrations. I’m not sure yet how I feel about the stance rules, but I think it’s because I don’t really understand them yet, so it’s too soon to judge for real.

Btw, Linklite, here's a screenshot of what I meant in regards to Item description TOR vs 5e. The 5e version has a lot more, but I think you are right that it’s probably just for roleplaying the ring bearers. I doubt Gandalf would lend Narya to my newbie company lol. I just thought it was interesting that they omitted this for 2e, or rather, that they created the extra info for 5e.



Thanks again for both of your inputs!

Interesting.
TOR is more narrative and players focused than 5e - which is more simulationist in nature as well as having more focus on the GM. Whereas 5e gives you stats and tells you to roll dice, TOR, particularly when it comes to NPCs, has the LM just decide what they do, and maybe the players will roll dice if appropriate. I suppose that's why the 5e version has stats while TOR doesn't - the stats don't really work for NPCs like that.

In some ways, I'm kind of glad. The stats demonstrate one of the problems - the Rings are meant to be very powerful, but the game can't accept that because otherwise it breaks. As a result, we have this ostensibly very powerful object that doesn't have very high stats (it does for 5e, sure, but it's not what you'd expect from a Ring of Power). Usually, I'd like extra stats etc, but in a way, they're detracting from the image.

Personal opinion though. Others may validly disagree.

TOR is more narrative and players focused than 5e - which is more simulationist in nature as well as having more focus on the GM. Whereas 5e gives you stats and tells you to roll dice, TOR, particularly when it comes to NPCs, has the LM just decide what they do, and maybe the players will roll dice if appropriate.

I love that it's more narrative based and focuses more on roleplaying! I definitely have caught myself turning into a power-player with D&D even though it wasn't in line with who my character was supposed to be. It sounds like TOR rules keep it more focused on the roleplaying so not everybody is strong. Very excited to jump into the TOR Core Rules. Thanks for all your input!