LotR Roleplaying: Best Systems and Required Knowledge?

I've got The Lord of the Rings on my mind right now, and I'm wondering about roleplaying in Middle-Earth. I know there's at least one system specifically designed for the setting, but I don't really know anything about how good it is. In addition, although I'm familiar with The Hobbit and the full main series, I have only a cursory knowledge of the canon beyond those sources, having never read The Silmarillion or anything by Christopher. So, for the more knowledgeable: what systems would you recommend for recreating the setting, and how much of the lore does one have to be familiar with to enjoy such a game?

I have not heard many good things about The One Ring RPG (but then again, I've never played it, so I can't say anything for certain). Outside of RPGs designed specifically for LotR . . . I'm a big advocate of Fate, which would work pretty well for the epic and sometimes desperate action you get in LotR, as well as the mental struggles between good and evil which are so common in it.

As far as knowledge needed: you need however much you have. Your only real problem is if you have a big Tolkien fan as a player. In that case, either figure out the canon if you really want to, or just fly off the rails. Your call. In established worlds, I usually run with the understanding that canon is presumed to exist, unless something directly contradicts it.

I would recommend MERP (Middle-earth Roleplaying), which is an offshoot of Rolemaster. It is specifically designed for Middle-earth (obviously), but even so, it needs a few house rules to be strictly accurate -- the baseline assumption of magic use does not fit in very well with how it appears in Middle-earth. Although, of course, if you don't care so much about that then you don't need to worry about it, and it will still be fun, if less accurate. The only downside is that it's slightly hard to get your hands on these days, having been discontinued for many years now. Rolemaster itself can be pretty easily adapated; that's most of what MERP is, after all.

I'd definitely stay away from the newest official RPG they came out with. It's got movie pictures all over it, and that's a bad sign. The mechanics are also rather uninspiring, from what I've heard. Other than that, if you work hard enough, most RPGs could be made to fit. One would have more difficulty with D&D, I believe, as its assumptions of magic are tied rather strongly into everything, and do not fit in with magic in Middle-earth. Any generic system could probably be adapted to it.

As to the rest? I would certainly recommend reading The Silmarillion -- if for no other reason than that I'm extremely fond of it -- but you wouldn't really need to do more than that (since you say you've already read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit). I suppose one probably doesn't need to know particularly much lore simply to enjoy the game, but whoever is GMing at least ought to be quite familiar, and if you are the GM reading The Silmarillion will give you a more solid background understanding of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remmirath

I would recommend MERP (Middle-earth Roleplaying), which is an offshoot of Rolemaster. It is specifically designed for Middle-earth (obviously), but even so, it needs a few house rules to be strictly accurate -- the baseline assumption of magic use does not fit in very well with how it appears in Middle-earth. Although, of course, if you don't care so much about that then you don't need to worry about it, and it will still be fun, if less accurate. The only downside is that it's slightly hard to get your hands on these days, having been discontinued for many years now. Rolemaster itself can be pretty easily adapated; that's most of what MERP is, after all.

I'd definitely stay away from the newest official RPG they came out with. It's got movie pictures all over it, and that's a bad sign. The mechanics are also rather uninspiring, from what I've heard. Other than that, if you work hard enough, most RPGs could be made to fit. One would have more difficulty with D&D, I believe, as its assumptions of magic are tied rather strongly into everything, and do not fit in with magic in Middle-earth. Any generic system could probably be adapted to it.

As to the rest? I would certainly recommend reading The Silmarillion -- if for no other reason than that I'm extremely fond of it -- but you wouldn't really need to do more than that (since you say you've already read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit). I suppose one probably doesn't need to know particularly much lore simply to enjoy the game, but whoever is GMing at least ought to be quite familiar, and if you are the GM reading The Silmarillion will give you a more solid background understanding of the world.

---

MERP is the one I've heard of most often. I've gotten the sense it's pretty complex, but that doesn't necessarily bother me. I'd prefer it over FATE on principle, at least--nothing against FATE, it's a great game, but I generally like to use setting-tailored systems if a decent one is available. No way in hell I'd try to do LotR with D&D, of course.

I've long thought about reading The Silmarillion, but I've been deterred by how dry I've heard it is. I'll get around to it at some point, really :smalltongue:

Edit: By the way, do you know of anywhere in particular where one could still get a hold of MERP? On an extremely cursory search, it does seem to be a bit tricky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amaril

MERP is the one I've heard of most often. I've gotten the sense it's pretty complex, but that doesn't necessarily bother me. I'd prefer it over FATE on principle, at least--nothing against FATE, it's a great game, but I generally like to use setting-tailored systems if a decent one is available. No way in hell I'd try to do LotR with D&D, of course.

---

It's complex compared to some systems, but I wouldn't say that it's necessarily more complex than D&D (1st-to-3rd editions, that is). It is fairly different, using percentile rolls for everything, and it is more table-heavy than most RPGs that have come out recently. I am quite used to it at this point, but I would say that its reputation for complexity is somewhat overstated by many.

Quote:

---

I've long thought about reading The Silmarillion, but I've been deterred by how dry I've heard it is. I'll get around to it at some point, really :smalltongue:

---

Opinions vary, of course, but I don't find it dry at all. It goes into much less depth of most individual stories and scenes than The Lord of the Rings does, but nonetheless it's all quite interesting. I can, myself, never quite decide for certain which is my favourite between the two.

Quote:

---

Edit: By the way, do you know of anywhere in particular where one could still get a hold of MERP? On an extremely cursory search, it does seem to be a bit tricky.

---

A quick search on Amazon.com shows that one can currently get a used paperback for $34.40 or a used hardcover for $29.82 (it is a mystery to me why the hardcovers are selling for less right now). The new copies are all outrageously expensive, but used copies are mostly in decent condition and certainly adequate. You only need the one book -- Middle-earth Roleplaying, Second Edition is how it'll usually be titled, more or less. That's how I've acquired additional books ever since they went out of print, but you might be able to find used copies elsewhere, as well.

MERP is indeed a good game

But having played The One Ring I can say its a GREAT game.

the mechanics are nice and simple and really bring out the 'feel' of middle earth, ya know that 'old style low magic world'
Yeah if you take a glance at it and never actually read it you are going to come up with such ignorant sayings like remmirath said. You gotta imagine they (the company) thought ' hey lets cash in on the super successful movie and that will dramatically increase our game's presence)

here is a quote that sums up a lot of it my JellyPooga

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JellyPooga

I've been playing in a regular TOR game for almost a year now and I can quite honestly say that it has been one of the best roleplaying experiences of my roleplaying career. The rules complement the Middle Earth setting so elegantly and actively encourage you to play in a way that evokes the "feel" of the Lord of the Rings. From the dwindling Hope pool and rising Shadow of your character, risking a Bout of Madness, to the Fatigue vs. Wounded health mechanic and setting-appropriate skills like Song and Riddle, the system just works for me.

The biggest complaint I have about the game is that the rulebooks themselves are poorly laid-out and referencing or looking up rules is a nightmare. The rules aren't too complex; there's very little in the way of character-specific "special rules" to remember and there's a certain overlap in the way things work (e.g. Endurance vs. Fatigue works in exactly the same way as Hope vs. Shadow for determining the Weary and Miserable conditions). The elegance of the rules means that focusing on your character and his or her role within the story comes to the forefront more.

With the Traits and Specialities, your character can feel like the character you want to play. There's nothing worse, in my mind, than wanting to play a character that the game doesn't let you. For instance, if I want to play a sneaky elf, in d&d I can pump my Dex and stealth skills, but am still beholden to the whims of the dice. If I consistently roll low, then I'm not a sneaky elf, but a clumsy one! In TOR, I simply choose the "Elusive" trait, which I can invoke at any time to automatically pass a stealth check if I don't want to risk bad dice (or I can use it to gain extra "xp" if I do risk the dice). What I really like about Traits and Specialities is that they give a mechanical benefit for playing "in character", rather than virtually penalising you for doing so, as so many games seem to do.

---

For me, just a basic grasp on the 'lore' of the middle earth setting is good enough, you don't need for example the 23 or so books like I do to start playing the game or what not.

While I think The One Ring is a bit too unneccessarily complex, it does certainly do an amazing job of having a rules system that ties in very closely with the world.

TOR sounds okay to me as well--that one's easier to come by, no? I might take a look into it. I know Remmirath did mention that MERP could be better at staying true to the feeling of magic in Middle-Earth, and looking at that further, it really does kind of bother me, since the style of the magic is one of my favorite things about Middle-Earth as a setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ngilop

the mechanics are nice and simple and really bring out the 'feel' of middle earth, ya know that 'old style low magic world'
Yeah if you take a glance at it and never actually read it you are going to come up with such ignorant sayings like remmirath said. You gotta imagine they (the company) thought ' hey lets cash in on the super successful movie and that will dramatically increase our game's presence)

---

A look online tells me that the game you are talking about isn't even the one I was talking about, which was The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game which came out in 2002 (which I never read further than noticing that it had movie pictures all over it, so I didn't recall its name exactly until I looked it up just now; I can't stand the movie adaptations, and I wouldn't've been able to get through reading the thing). The One Ring doesn't look familiar to me at all. Apparently, it is new enough that I hadn't actually heard of it, and was talking about the newest one prior to its release. Since the one I was speaking of had pictures of the films on the covers as well as in the books, and The One Ring appears to have paintings on the covers and some manner of artwork inside from what I can tell with an internet search, that might've been a hint we weren't actually talking about the same system.

From the research I've just now done on it online, it sounds like it would indeed be a reasonable alternative. I don't think it would be to my taste as a system, personally; I've never yet met a dice pool/point levelling system I've liked, and I tend to feel that -- regardless of atmosphere or feeling -- a system needs to have more robust combat rules and that social rules tend to get in the way of roleplaying more than they aid it. From what I've read, I don't really like the idea of the Traits system, but that could actually work better than it sounds like from the articles I've found. I do appreciate that it seems to take the feel of the setting seriously, though.

How well does it do as for general adventuring in Middle-earth through the ages? It sounds like it's geared fairly specifically towards the late Third Age, but as I tend to think that it works best to set adventures far enough into the Fourth Age that one isn't directly conflicting with anything already established, I'm curious how well The One Ring would work for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amaril

TOR sounds okay to me as well--that one's easier to come by, no? I might take a look into it. I know Remmirath did mention that MERP could be better at staying true to the feeling of magic in Middle-Earth, and looking at that further, it really does kind of bother me, since the style of the magic is one of my favorite things about Middle-Earth as a setting.

---

That is, indeed, the one large problem with MERP. I run it with a few house rules for the magic, but that is cutting out a chunk of the system, albeit a chunk that comes free fairly easily and leaves the rest intact. Bards are the only casting class allowed, and they are heavily restricted in their lists, as well as assumed to be rare. I remove spell lists from every other class, and any spell casting specific class (aside from bards) are removed. The rather odd corruption point system is gone, and we also have implemented a system for words of power, which are themselves quite rare, and I've given a little bit more attention to the first aid type skills to compensate for complete lack of magical healing (save through some herbs, but some of those herbs are also out).

It does take a bit of doing to get the magic system to completely match the right feel for Middle-earth, but as I like the mechanics of the rest of the game, I consider it a reasonable trade off -- although it would be nice if it had come with a more appropriate magic system to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remmirath

From the research I've just now done on it online, it sounds like it would indeed be a reasonable alternative. I don't think it would be to my taste as a system, personally; I've never yet met a dice pool/point levelling system I've liked, and I tend to feel that -- regardless of atmosphere or feeling -- a system needs to have more robust combat rules and that social rules tend to get in the way of roleplaying more than they aid it. From what I've read, I don't really like the idea of the Traits system, but that could actually work better than it sounds like from the articles I've found. I do appreciate that it seems to take the feel of the setting seriously, though.

---

Sounds like you've found a lot more detailed info on it than I've managed to turn up--my Google-fu must be lacking. What kind of stuff have you read about it? Any idea how character creation or some of the specific mechanics work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amaril

Sounds like you've found a lot more detailed info on it than I've managed to turn up--my Google-fu must be lacking. What kind of stuff have you read about it? Any idea how character creation or some of the specific mechanics work?

---

I haven't turned up anything very specific. ngilop would probably be better to ask for this purpose, having actually played the game.

That said, here's what I found:

This article heavily implies, to me, that the Traits and social mechanics would end up being more restrictive, and tie more into the mechanics of the game, than I like them to. It also mentions a number of dice based on skill level, so it's a dice pool system. The "Fellowship Focus" it mentions is also something that strikes me as very odd to select at character creation; that's the sort of thing I'd expect to develop during play. Otherwise, the article is reasonably positive.

This article certainly makes it sound like the combat rules are what I would consider insufficient, and might have too much of a pick-an-action feel (that's only an assumption from the sentence about range brackets and special actions). The weariness sounds like a nice touch, but I'd be iffy about Hope being a mechanical thing; it could work well, though, depending on how it's handled. That's very hard to tell from not having actually read the rules. There's also apparently fairly little guidance for GMs in the system rules, but that is probably not a problem for people experienced with GMing in general.

This supplies more detail on some things, which further leads me to believe that it would be too rules-light for me, but that there is nothing inherently wrong with the system. One can also see a character sheet here, which shows what sort of attributes and all make it onto the sheet. It looks to be closest kin to World of Darkness of the common systems I can think of at the moment, and I'm not very fond of that system's mechanics, so that inclines me to believe I'm unlikely to be fond of The One Ring's mechanics. (As an aside, it also makes clear that at least one of these article writers is mixed up on the difference between Angerthas and Tengwar, based on their desriptions of the rune for success, but that's just a point of curiousity.)

My personal conclusion -- based solely on those articles, and a couple other less useful ones that I found first -- is that it is a system with an admirable goal, and may work well for those who enjoy similar mechanics, but it probably wouldn't be for me.

Did you know that someone made a mod of Burning Wheel where everyone plays as Rangers?

There is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remmirath

Opinions vary, of course, but I don't find it dry at all. It goes into much less depth of most individual stories and scenes than The Lord of the Rings does, but nonetheless it's all quite interesting. I can, myself, never quite decide for certain which is my favourite between the two.

---

I wouldn't say it's "dry", rather that - whereas The Hobbit reads like a children's fairytale, and LotR reads like deliberatly archaic novel - the Silmarillion reads like mythology. (Or in the case of the first part, The Music of the Ainur, more like scripture).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardog

I wouldn't say it's "dry", rather that - whereas The Hobbit reads like a children's fairytale, and LotR reads like deliberatly archaic novel - the Silmarillion reads like mythology. (Or in the case of the first part, The Music of the Ainur, more like scripture).

---

That doesn't sound so bad, then. Guess it's going on my reading list. Thanks for all the help, folks :smallsmile:

I've played both the Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game and The One Ring and they are nothing alike. The old Decipher game was D&D with some names changed around and a d20 replaced with 2d6. You really need to tweak all of the math if you're going to make that switch, but by and large they didn't, the classes were terrible, and magic was a complete non sequitur.

TOR is a different beast entirely. It's no clone of anything; it was built from the ground up to be a Middle-earth experience, and I say I have never seen a game that marries itself to its source material or themes so well. I highly recommend this system, even if it has its rough edges, just because it's a fantastic entry in the genre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remmirath

From the research I've just now done on it online, it sounds like it would indeed be a reasonable alternative. I don't think it would be to my taste as a system, personally; I've never yet met a dice pool/point levelling system I've liked,

---

This isn't really a dicepool system, and it's not really point-buy, either. Your starting skills are almost entirely determined by your Culture and Calling. The dice are a custom 1d12+Nd6, where N = your skill level, and you sum the total. Rolling a "Rune of Gandalf" (natural 12) on the d12 gives you an automatic success, while rolling an "Eye of Sauron" (natural 11) on the d12 makes you automatically fail. Rolling a "Tengwar" (natural 6) on a d6 gives you an extra success, which can do more damage, make up for someone else's failure, or do other more context-based things.

Quote:

---

and I tend to feel that -- regardless of atmosphere or feeling -- a system needs to have more robust combat rules

---

This is a fair criticism. The combat system is pretty stripped down: if both sides are aware of the other's approach, you do a round of opening volleys, and then all positioning is handled by "stances" that also determine part of your defense and turn order. It's an interesting mechanic, not super deep, but unique, and there are a few special things you can do in combat based on stance. But it's nothing like a traditional D&D-style RPG; battles are relatively straightforward, relatively quick, and don't entail half the tactical thinking D&D does.

Quote:

---

and that social rules tend to get in the way of roleplaying more than they aid it.

---

This is quite true here; the social rules are everything bad about 4e skill challenges only slightly worse. You only get so many failures, but the number of successes you need before you fill up your failures is set by the DM with no guidance from the book. To shoe-horn in all the social skills they make a formal Introduction necessary for each character to participate. Because participation is voluntary and every failure moves everyone towards group failure, the optimal strategy is "just let the bard hobbit do it."

The easiest house rule to fix that with the least amount of work is to simply say instead of needing X successes before Y failures, you need Z successes in Y rounds. Keep the failure number (based on the highest Wisdom or Valor in the party, depending on the NPC, plus mods like racial differences) the same, but make it a number of rounds instead of a number of failures. That way everyone should just give it their best shot; there's no penalty for trying. Then require a few more successes than you normally would (which is entirely up to the DM in the first place). I've said if the interaction is "easy" then Z = Y, if it's "medium" then Z = 1.5 * Y, and if it's "hard" then Z = 2Y. But I haven't run this house rule enough to see how well that shakes out.

Quote:

---

From what I've read, I don't really like the idea of the Traits system, but that could actually work better than it sounds like from the articles I've found.

---

Traits just give you an auto-success on a sub-set of checks, and are one of the ways to earn XP otherwise. What did you see that was controversial?

Quote:

---

I do appreciate that it seems to take the feel of the setting seriously, though.

How well does it do as for general adventuring in Middle-earth through the ages? It sounds like it's geared fairly specifically towards the late Third Age, but as I tend to think that it works best to set adventures far enough into the Fourth Age that one isn't directly conflicting with anything already established, I'm curious how well The One Ring would work for that.

---

This is an important point; the game as it stands today is very precisely aimed at The Hobbit time period and geography. The included map only covers Rhovanion including the Misty Mountains. The Cultures to choose from are all from Rhovanion (except hobbits, gotta throw those in anyway). The Journey system is specifically designed to create a Hobbit or LotR-style trek, which works pretty well. OP, if you do look into TOR, there is a Journey calculator that makes Journey math more manageable (it's the only part of the game that really requires you to do any math, though the revised core book looks like it streamlined it a bit).

Actually, I just double-checked and Cubicle 7 has already released the PDF of the first major expansion, Rivendell, that covers eastern Eriador generally, including Angmar and the Orc strongholds in the Misty Mountains. I think the next one scheduled is Rohan. So, it's growing bit by bit, but it is very focused on the late Third Age.

That being said, I did run a Fourth Age game in it. Again, you either have to keep it in Wilderland or make up your own map, and there are only so many Cultures currently written up (though Rivendell adds Rangers of the North and High Elves of Rivendell, and there's a "Player's Options" sort of book on the schedule that promises Lorien Elves, Blue Mountain Dwarves, Riders of Rohan and Men of Gondor, so there's something). It's fairly homebrew-friendly, though; there's nothing that complex about making up new Cultures. It's new maps that take real effort.

Anyways, TOR is far from a perfect game, even if you don't count it's limited focus against it. That being said, it is one of the better designed RPGs out there today. It's got a laser-focused vision and it delivers on it in significant ways. I can't really describe it, but the synergy of several different mechanics, from Hope to Fellowship points to throwing off your Helm to stave off Weariness to grumbling as your Guide runs you into a dead end as you make your way through Mirkwood, it's all very evocative and feels like a Middle-earth experience, not a generic fantasy experience with a Middle-earth paint job. It's a fantastic game just in how well it's put together to create that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter

Did you know that someone made a mod of Burning Wheel where everyone plays as Rangers?

There is

---

Technically, that's a mod of Mouse Guard, which is kinda like 'burning wheel lite'. I was going to mention that anyway, but I'd add that the original Burning Wheel is probably the best Tolkien Simulator RPG you're ever going to find, particularly in the nuanced depiction of non-human races, and a damn fine RPG in general. Unfortunately, the rules are pretty hefty.

Well, not sure how interested I'd be in that Mouse Guard mod if all it supports is rangers--nothing against them, but it seems a little restrictive. I'm pretty sure at this point that I'll be picking up The One Ring RPG, though--none of the problems people have cited having with it are things that bother me (except for the restrictions on location and time period, but those seem easy to work around), and I really love some of the ideas it has. I'll probably go looking for a PbP game of it around here too, once I get my hands on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amaril

Well, not sure how interested I'd be in that Mouse Guard mod if all it supports is rangers--nothing against them, but it seems a little restrictive. I'm pretty sure at this point that I'll be picking up The One Ring RPG, though--none of the problems people have cited having with it are things that bother me (except for the restrictions on location and time period, but those seem easy to work around), and I really love some of the ideas it has. I'll probably go looking for a PbP game of it around here too, once I get my hands on it.

---

Burning Wheel covers everything. It's also 600 pages, and that's with Luke Crane probably being the best RPG author in the industry at writing rules concisely. If you're good with a seriously rules heavy game, Burning Wheel is probably the best choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knaight

Burning Wheel covers everything. It's also 600 pages, and that's with Luke Crane probably being the best RPG author in the industry at writing rules concisely. If you're good with a seriously rules heavy game, Burning Wheel is probably the best choice.

---

Well I know everyone has different standards for what constitutes a rules-heavy game, but most of the time, systems that are commonly described that way aren't really that fun for me. D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are about as complex as I like to get. The One Ring's mechanics sound like just the right balance of simplicity and complexity to me. More importantly, as I said earlier, if I'm going to play a game in an existing setting, I'd rather do it with a system designed specifically for that setting (as long as there's a serviceable one, which The One Ring seems to be) than with something more generic, even if the generic one can be made to fit well. It's just been my experience that setting-tailored systems usually get better results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amaril

Well I know everyone has different standards for what constitutes a rules-heavy game, but most of the time, systems that are commonly described that way aren't really that fun for me. D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are about as complex as I like to get. The One Ring's mechanics sound like just the right balance of simplicity and complexity to me. More importantly, as I said earlier, if I'm going to play a game in an existing setting, I'd rather do it with a system designed specifically for that setting (as long as there's a serviceable one, which The One Ring seems to be) than with something more generic, even if the generic one can be made to fit well. It's just been my experience that setting-tailored systems usually get better results.

---

Burning Wheel is setting tailored. It's deliberately very Tolkenien, and it does that well. With that said, it looks like it's past your rules tolerance - I'd consider it significantly heavier than D&D 3.5.

Well, I can't blame you for shying away from BW on the basis of rules-density. (I did make an abortive effort at marrying the BW-classic lifepaths and skill system with Mouse Guard rules at some point, though, so I might post the sheets for those later.)

However, there's an important point that I don't think's been covered- What kind of campaign style are you most comfortable with? Do you prefer that the GM come up with story events and locations and encounters in great detail beforehand, and then runs you through the experience in a more-or-less linear way? Or do you prefer something more improvised/spontaneous, where there's no hard guarantee about how the story ends?

I can't speak for One Ring or MREP, but I would say the BW/Mouse Guard provides a lot of support for the latter type of play, so it might be worth looking at on those grounds alone.

(Knaight is both right and wrong about BW being setting-tailored- it does a fabulous job at representing the social structure of Tolkien's world and the flavour of its cultures- particularly if you wanted to all play Elves in 2nd-age Gondolin, say- but there are no explicit maps attached to go with it. In certain ways, the improvisational play-style means that you wind up making the map as you go along- or at least filling in a lot of the details. Which is actually part of the fun.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remmirath

From the research I've just now done on it online, it sounds like it would indeed be a reasonable alternative. I don't think it would be to my taste as a system, personally; I've never yet met a dice pool/point levelling system I've liked, and I tend to feel that -- regardless of atmosphere or feeling -- a system needs to have more robust combat rules and that social rules tend to get in the way of roleplaying more than they aid it. From what I've read, I don't really like the idea of the Traits system, but that could actually work better than it sounds like from the articles I've found. I do appreciate that it seems to take the feel of the setting seriously, though.

---

Speaking personally, I love well-written social rules in a game, (partly because pausing for the dice actually gives me time to think about what to say, which vastly increases my odds of sounding eloquent. :P) They are pretty easy to foul up, though.

(I would just point that many RPG 'reviews' are written by reviewers who have only read the text and never actually played the game in a cursory, let alone committed fashion. Don't rely on those too heavily.)

I find there are two aspects of social mechanics that determine whether I like them or not. The One Ring is fine for both, far as I can tell. The first is how often they come up in any given scene; if most social interaction can be done without dice, but certain special actions require them, that's fine, whereas when I tried Exalted a while back, it really bothered me how pretty much everything you say in conversation is tied to a die roll. The other thing I don't like is when die rolls determine a character's reaction to something, rather than just the action of the speaker. D&D's Diplomacy rules, at least as I've always used and understood them, determine nothing but how eloquently and persuasively the speaker makes their point, leaving the listener still technically free to react however is appropriate, though they're more likely to respond well. Exalted also rubbed me the wrong way by having die rolls force characters to react a specific way to social attacks with no room for variation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amaril

Well I know everyone has different standards for what constitutes a rules-heavy game, but most of the time, systems that are commonly described that way aren't really that fun for me.

---

Ah, here we go:

http://www.filedropper.com/bwdemo

(...turns out I based this pretty heavily on the Dwarven lifepaths, and I can't guarantee those rules are 100% trustworthy, but they are at least short. You'd probably need the MG and/or BW core rules as a reference to be safe.)

That said, for all I know One Ring and MREP are fabulous system in their own right, so by all means take a gander in those directions instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amaril

I find there are two aspects of social mechanics that determine whether I like them or not. The One Ring is fine for both, far as I can tell. The first is how often they come up in any given scene; if most social interaction can be done without dice, but certain special actions require them, that's fine, whereas when I tried Exalted a while back, it really bothered me how pretty much everything you say in conversation is tied to a die roll. The other thing I don't like is when die rolls determine a character's reaction to something, rather than just the action of the speaker. D&D's Diplomacy rules, at least as I've always used and understood them, determine nothing but how eloquently and persuasively the speaker makes their point, leaving the listener still technically free to react however is appropriate, though they're more likely to respond well. Exalted also rubbed me the wrong way by having die rolls force characters to react a specific way to social attacks with no room for variation.

---

BW's approach here is interesting, but I can basically say that if there's no major conflict of interest between parties, you don't generally bother to roll. (A lot of RPG groups seem to have a problem with players' needing to roll for each and every inconsequential things, but the roots of that are a big discussion in itself.)

In essence, if you and another character (could be PC, could be an NPC), have some major disagreement that you want to hash out with words, not swords, then OOC you negotiate what each party will get if they win. (Both sides have to offer *something*- it can't just be mind control.)

The side that wins gets the other side to agree to their terms for the time being, but depending on how narrow the victory was, may get some form of compromise in return. (The full rules are here, so you can peruse them yourself. Mouse Guard's version is simpler, and actually uses the same mechanics as all other conflict types.)

The mechanics are very binding in some ways, but allow for a good deal of wiggle room in others, but you'd have to be comfortable with a certain amount of sanctioned 'metagame' at the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stubbazubba

This is a fair criticism. The combat system is pretty stripped down: if both sides are aware of the other's approach, you do a round of opening volleys, and then all positioning is handled by "stances" that also determine part of your defense and turn order. It's an interesting mechanic, not super deep, but unique, and there are a few special things you can do in combat based on stance. But it's nothing like a traditional D&D-style RPG; battles are relatively straightforward, relatively quick, and don't entail half the tactical thinking D&D does.

---

It sounds as though that would be my main problem with the system, really. I'm very fond of tactical thinking in combat, and don't believe that D&D goes far enough with that, so systems lighter on it than D&D are almost never to my taste.

Quote:

---

Traits just give you an auto-success on a sub-set of checks, and are one of the ways to earn XP otherwise. What did you see that was controversial?

---

Nothing in particular that I saw, really, although one person said there weren't enough of them in the base game. I like rewarding people for roleplaying their characters, but I don't like that to equate directly to mechanical advantages simply from doing so, and I dislike anything that gives an automatic success in general. I would also be concerned that they might end up pigoen-holing characters too much and not allowing for character growth or change, but that's more of a long-range issue, and if you can change them later it wouldn't be a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster

However, there's an important point that I don't think's been covered- What kind of campaign style are you most comfortable with? Do you prefer that the GM come up with story events and locations and encounters in great detail beforehand, and then runs you through the experience in a more-or-less linear way? Or do you prefer something more improvised/spontaneous, where there's no hard guarantee about how the story ends?

I can't speak for One Ring or MREP, but I would say the BW/Mouse Guard provides a lot of support for the latter type of play, so it might be worth looking at on those grounds alone.

---

MERP tends to be somewhere in between in its official adventures, providing locations and people and the beginning of a story but leaving it up in the air how it ends. That aside, it doesn't have any specific support for either style. I've run campaigns both ways. I also, I admit, have been GMing long enough that I rarely look at the how-to-GM suggestions in rulebooks any more, and tend to plan my campaigns in the same general way no matter what system I'm using.

Quote:

---

(I would just point that many RPG 'reviews' are written by reviewers who have only read the text and never actually played the game in a cursory, let alone committed fashion. Don't rely on those too heavily.)

---

I don't prefer to, but ever since the better two of my local gaming shops closed down, I haven't had anywhere to actually page through the rulebooks and see what they're like for myself. It's more informative than nothing, at least. I try to ignore anything that sounds like opinion and glean only the facts from it, but that's difficult to be certain of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amaril

I find there are two aspects of social mechanics that determine whether I like them or not. The One Ring is fine for both, far as I can tell. The first is how often they come up in any given scene; if most social interaction can be done without dice, but certain special actions require them, that's fine, whereas when I tried Exalted a while back, it really bothered me how pretty much everything you say in conversation is tied to a die roll. The other thing I don't like is when die rolls determine a character's reaction to something, rather than just the action of the speaker. D&D's Diplomacy rules, at least as I've always used and understood them, determine nothing but how eloquently and persuasively the speaker makes their point, leaving the listener still technically free to react however is appropriate, though they're more likely to respond well. Exalted also rubbed me the wrong way by having die rolls force characters to react a specific way to social attacks with no room for variation.

---

Yeah, the one time I tried to play Exalted I became quite annoyed with that. I didn't really like anything else about the system either, personally, but that was what bothered me the most.

That's not technically how Diplomacy is supposed to work in D&D, but it's what I do as well. I think it works better that way.

Generally, what I want out of social rules is one thing: make provision for the characters having much better skills in that regard than the players, without rending social interaction a purely dice-throwing contest. It sounds like we mostly agree on what makes good social rules, really. I don't recall now what it was that I read which made me think I wouldn't like TOR's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster

That said, for all I know One Ring and MREP are fabulous system in their own right, so by all means take a gander in those directions instead.

---

I think the conclusion most easily drawn is that they are all three very different systems. Between The One Ring and MERP, MERP has far more support for what I want the rules for the most (combat) and doesn't get in the way where I don't want too many rules (social). For somebody who prefers it the other way, The One Ring would clearly be better. From what it sounds like, Burning Wheel probably has a fairly robust ruleset for both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lacuna Caster

The side that wins gets the other side to agree to their terms for the time being, but depending on how narrow the victory was, may get some form of compromise in return. (The full rules are here, so you can peruse them yourself. Mouse Guard's version is simpler, and actually uses the same mechanics as all other conflict types.)

The mechanics are very binding in some ways, but allow for a good deal of wiggle room in others, but you'd have to be comfortable with a certain amount of sanctioned 'metagame' at the table.

---

That's certainly an interesting approach.

While I agree with Stubbazubba that Decipher's LotR RPG is sort of d20-lite, it's a pretty robust system and while the rules for magic leave a lot to be desired, the narrator instructions in the book as a whole are a pretty good help in using the system as a whole to capture the feel of the books.

Having also playd MERP, I'd say that given the choise between that and Decipher's system, I'd choose the latter. Better presentation aside (seriously, don't diss the movie pictures, the pictures are pretty), Decipher's system doesn't need a separate book of charts and tables to use. MERP and Rolemaster are awful about those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remmirath

It sounds as though that would be my main problem with the system, really. I'm very fond of tactical thinking in combat, and don't believe that D&D goes far enough with that, so systems lighter on it than D&D are almost never to my taste.

---

You might want to consider Burning Wheel again then. It has a seriously good combat system, and you can use it with a stripped down social system easily enough. Use the Fight! subsystem, don't use Duel of Wits (instead using the standard skill system) and you're pretty much there. At that point it's also not necessarily all that crunchy - I think it's best with every subsystem employed, at which point it gets heavier than D&D, but if you start cutting them it gets lighter quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet

Having also playd MERP, I'd say that given the choise between that and Decipher's system, I'd choose the latter. Better presentation aside (seriously, don't diss the movie pictures, the pictures are pretty), Decipher's system doesn't need a separate book of charts and tables to use. MERP and Rolemaster are awful about those.

---

I'm not sure that loathing is even too strong of a word for how I feel about the movie adaptations, so regardless of their theoretical aesthetic value, they detract massively from any experience for me. Also, I like charts and tables. They allow for complexity but are easier to deal with (for me) than equations that allow for equal complexity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knaight

You might want to consider Burning Wheel again then. It has a seriously good combat system, and you can use it with a stripped down social system easily enough. Use the Fight! subsystem, don't use Duel of Wits (instead using the standard skill system) and you're pretty much there. At that point it's also not necessarily all that crunchy - I think it's best with every subsystem employed, at which point it gets heavier than D&D, but if you start cutting them it gets lighter quickly.

---

I have been interested in trying Burning Wheel, but I've never been able to find it in a store. I prefer to be able to actually look through things before I purchase them, but at some point I may accept that there just aren't any stores around here any more that carry any gaming books beyond the newest edition of D&D and World of Darkness, and look into ordering it. It certainly sounds good from your description, as well as from some other things I've read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remmirath

I have been interested in trying Burning Wheel, but I've never been able to find it in a store. I prefer to be able to actually look through things before I purchase them, but at some point I may accept that there just aren't any stores around here any more that carry any gaming books beyond the newest edition of D&D and World of Darkness, and look into ordering it. It certainly sounds good from your description, as well as from some other things I've read.

---

Well, if you want a preview, there are a bunch of free downloads that can give you a good taste of the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remmirath

That's certainly an interesting approach.

---

In Mouse Guard, something pretty similar is used to resolve *all* conflicts, which makes it a lot simpler to learn. But yeah, if you're okay with charts and tables, Burning Wheel is great.

Do try out the Duel of Wits, though. It's too good to skip.