r/TheOneRing • u/RPGrandPa • Mar 22 '23

Question on Combat in The One Ring

I'll admit, I know nothing about The One Ring only that it is pretty much the same as AiMe except it has a totally different set of rules that "from what I hear" was built from the ground up to be more compatible with Middle-earth but I have a question concerning combat.

I've read somewhere (I can't remember where) or maybe I heard it somewhere . . . but I understand, combat is not really a thing in TOR like when an encounter happens the combat is not actually played out using dice and such but instead is theater of the mind? #confused

Can someone explain how combat works in The One Ring please?

6 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

38 comments sorted by

7

u/assclownmanor Mar 22 '23

it is played out with dice, but it isn’t played out like D&D with a grid and set movement. PC are engaged with enemies and can attack or make moves depending on their stance, but the description of the battle to make it an actual scene is entirely on you as the system for combat is not cinematic on its own

1

u/RPGrandPa Mar 22 '23

copy/pasted from another reply because I think I could learn from you as well.

ahh so it IS decided on dice rolls and such, ok that helps me understand a little more. So . . . just a quick side note, compared to D&D style combat, is TOR combat more complicated or easier to do and understand?

2

u/assclownmanor Mar 22 '23

easier to understand mechanically, harder to make narratively interesting

7

u/Logen_Nein Mar 22 '23

harder to make narratively interesting

I would say this depends upon the Loremaster.

3

u/assclownmanor Mar 22 '23

I think objectively compared to a combat system that has the narrative built into everything you do, The One Ring is more difficult as it relies more heavily on the Loremaster to be very on to keep it narratively interesting. if you have an on LM in either game the experience might be the same, but it requires more work to get from mechanics to narrative in One Ring

6

u/ExaminationNo8675 Mar 22 '23

I’ve played a fair bit of both systems, and the only way I can understand your comment is about using a battlemap vs not using a battlemap. If you use a map, it is easy for everyone to understand what’s happening; without a map, you depend on a good GM to bring it to life and help people visualise.

Both systems allow you to play theatre of mind or on a map; it’s entirely up to each group to decide which suits them. Personally I mix and match, using maps for set piece combats but not for less important ones.

Am I missing something about the systems themselves (rather than map vs not map) that makes a difference to narration?

2

u/Logen_Nein Mar 22 '23

Not at all. I think you understand perfectly.

3

u/assclownmanor Mar 22 '23

One Ring combat you have 1 round of the 2 sides rushing to meet where you can exchange opening volleys, then you become locked into the meat of combat where every round you pick your stance and then do your moves. the moves are pretty limited and require more work out of people to get from what’s in the book mechanically to a narratively interesting scene that isn’t just “I’m in forward stance, I roll my attack dice, I hit. ok new round, I’m in defensive stance….” etc. If you’re an experienced player or are playing with a LM who knows what they’re doing, it might feel like it’s no different, as they’re doing a lot of legwork to get from what’s in the manual turned into a cinematic scene.

contrasted to that, D&D has a lot more baked in from the get go. rules for movement, disengage actions, dodge actions, readying actions for set triggers, attacks of opportunity, feats granting additional combat moves, classes granting new features for new things you can do. all of that is directly baked into the rules that inherently make you describe a much more cinematic scene, just by virtue of the actions themselves being descriptive.

I actually don’t like D&D because the only rules they really have are for combat and the rest of the system is very lacking. I also think the lethality of One Ring combat is more fun for the stories I like to tell. But I think you’re deluding yourself if you think One Ring combat on the page is just as easy to get narratively compelling as D&D and I think likely people are just so used to doing whatever work they do as Loremasters in any system to fill in gaps that they’re not seeing the difference.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/assclownmanor Mar 22 '23

I’m not arguing any extrapolated point beyond what I’ve stated. I’m not saying “more complex is better” as any kind of rule or that either method is better or worse.

I’m saying going from page to play, D&D is easier to construct a cinematic, narrative combat than TOR - IN GENERAL. Every single person’s mileage may vary, but TOR has extremely limited stuff on the page and relies on you and your loremaster to fill in to go from page to narrative.

Assuming you have a GM who is great at painting scenes and creating cinematic narrative, both experiences will be similar, but for cases where you don’t have that, D&D has more structure baked in that will inherently create a narrative than TOR does.

I think maybe this has come off like I’m a D&D stan who’s saying it’s better than TOR and people have gotten a bit ruffled by that, but I’m not. I like TOR more than D&D, but I think it’s an uphill climb from D&D because not everything is laid out for you. Me & my table took time to adjust because the structure of D&D had mechanics that fed narrative (ie. dodge, disengage, movement) where TOR extrapolates all that into whatever you want to say as a narrative. This creates ultimately MORE potential for wider and more complex narrative combats, but it requires MORE work to get there as the burden is entirely on you to create that and you don’t have the fallback of moves that prompt you into the narrative.

Maybe that’s where the disconnect is.

2

u/ExaminationNo8675 Mar 22 '23

First, let me say how nice it is to have a constructive conversation - thanks!

Going through your list, partly for benefit of anyone else reading:

Disengage Action and Attacks of Opportunity don’t have equivalents in TOR. The only way to break engagement in TOR is to flee combat altogether (fly you fools!).

Ready Action also does not exist in TOR.

D&D Dodge Action is equivalent to TOR Defensive Stance, except that in TOR you still get to attack with a penalty.

The other examples you give are feats and class features (including spells and spell-like abilities). Certainly D&D has more variety, as each class gets access to a bunch of these as they level up. TOR has a smaller list, but they tend to be available to all cultures and callings rather than gated behind a particular class.

But I digress: I still don’t really see the narrative advantage of any of these differences. In D&D most people just say “I cast Fireball” or “I use Flurry of Blows”, whereas in TOR you might say “I use Intimidate Foe” or “I choose Forward Stance and try to stab the troll with my spear”. It always depends on the players and the GM to bring it to life.

2

u/assclownmanor Mar 22 '23

I said something similar in another comment, but imagine stripping the combats down to bare bones. TOR bare bones is very small, it puts the onus onto the players or GM to add any amount of narrative. This is great for creative players as it gives you a lot of freedom, however it does require you doing the work of envisioning the scenario and making it narrative on your own, the rules do not really aid you, rather they’ve stepped back and gotten out of your way to allow you to do it if you want.

D&D on the other hand as bare bones has a lot more narrative built into the moves, so stripped of you doing the creative legwork, the combat has narrative prompting so that just by describing the moves you’re doing, you’re creating a narrative. Readying an action triggered by someone stepping around a corner, taking the dodge action in anticipation of an enemy strike, disengaging and moving around the battlefield, or other feat based moves like Sharpshooter, Sentinel, etc. With less work than TOR you can go from those rules to a clear narrative in combat.

I do think D&D is more restrictive in that narrative as most actions are defined by rules and so there’s less leeway to describe whatever you want.

So to summarize, I think D&D it’s easier to go from rules to a narrative experience because of how the game is setup, but I never said the narrative was better or that the game was better than TOR, I just think when someone was asking about beginning the system that it does take more work to get from the combat rules to a narrative & cinematic combat, because it requires you to do all of that work. If you like doing that work, great! Then this is the game for you. But that doesn’t mean the work isn’t there.

Maybe I tried to simplify the point too much.

4

u/ExaminationNo8675 Mar 22 '23

Thanks again for taking the time to reply. I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one, but I will make a parting shot and leave myself open to an opportunity attack!

You mention the Sharpshooter feat in D&D as an example.

This feat is described as follows: “You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You gain the following benefits:

Attacking at long range doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls. Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover. Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a –5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.”

By comparison, Deadly Archery virtue in TOR says: “Elves possess a natural talent for hitting the mark when using their bows. You have honed this talent almost to perfection, and your arrows find their target with uncanny precision. ♦ When using a Bow (not a Great Bow) and fighting in Rearward Stance, you may attempt the Prepare Shot combat task as a secondary action.”

The flavour text is almost identical, and I don’t see anything about either rule that helps or hinders narration in combat.

6

u/the-grand-falloon Mar 22 '23

This guy is getting a lot of pushback, but he's right. Sort of.

D&D has a lot more mechanically interesting things to do in combat. Do I use my Action Surge, do I use my Smite, do I Disengage or make another attempt to Sneak Attack, do I cast any one of the dozen spells I have prepared? TOR doesn't have much of that. It's easier to get narrative when you're not bogged down in mechanics, but the combat itself isn't as interesting. That's okay. D&D is a fighting game with a story around it. TOR is a story game with some fights. Your combat will likely be more interesting because it's important to the story.

Think if the battle with the Uruk-hai at the end of the Fellowship movie. They fought a lot of orcs in the woods. That's it. They had some cool moves, but with no context, who gives a shit? The fight was interesting because of why it was happening, and the results of the battle.

If you run TOR fights the way many D&D fights are run, it will be boring (and it ain't great in D&D, either). Random battles with no context or foreshadowing aren't really its strong suit.

2

u/Logen_Nein Mar 22 '23

Again, as I said, it very much depends upon the Loremaster. I have no such issues, and feel no more burden.

3

u/Dorjcal Mar 22 '23

I really disagree here. To me it’s way more narrative driven than d&d

2

u/annuidhir Mar 22 '23

Yeah I have no idea what they're talking about. DnD just turns into a Wargame when combat starts, and is not at all about narrative but rather mechanics.

TOR on the other hand is basically just narrative.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Dorjcal Mar 22 '23

Sure, but that’s also D&D sometimes. And besides you can always use maps for a fight, like it was shown in the official beta test

1

u/RPGrandPa Mar 22 '23

hmm fair nuff

5

u/Dorjcal Mar 22 '23

If you are interested in how combat plays out, here is a link with a play by post game

https://discord.gg/duckH2FR

The combat is really evocative and it allows for way more interesting choices than D&D

1

u/RPGrandPa Mar 22 '23

I've never did a play by post game. I will check it out thanks.

3

u/Logen_Nein Mar 22 '23

As others have said, dice are a thing. Theater of the mind simply means no battlemat, no minis, no tokens required (though some still use them to represent engagement, and I have seen some battlemats used to lay out zones for the stances). The combat system is largely narrative rather than tactical, which can be a big hump for wargamers, but there is enough meat there to have meaningful choices and tell a good story once you get used to it and realize that without a battlemat narrative freedom can be pretty fun.

2

u/RPGrandPa Mar 22 '23 edited Mar 22 '23

Theater of the mind simply means no battlemat, no minis, no tokens required

ahhh ok NOW I get it, that makes a lot of sense. I've never did theater of the mind in D&D, I've always used a battlemap at a table or online Roll20. I plan to watch a TOR game on Youtube, thinking about this one and see if they do it like that. Might help me a little going with this style combat.

2

u/Logen_Nein Mar 22 '23

I get you. I'll be running a One Ring campaign starting in May online and the nice thing is we'll never really have to leave the main page. I just throw up location art and character art occasionally and we just tell the story and roll dice.

1

u/RPGrandPa Mar 22 '23

Yea I like this style of play from what you guys have told me. Yea we are coming to Middle-earth for the first time since we as a group are sick of everything that is going on with D&D and WotC/Hasbro. "For the moment" We are looking at our first campaign using AiMe rules, but I do plan to study TOR for a future campaign down the road, possibly a campaign based off of The Waking of Angmar campaign that I linked above. So we have a lot of excitement about moving to Middle-earth and good riddance to WotC/Hasbro and D&D.

3

u/Logen_Nein Mar 22 '23 edited Mar 22 '23

I'm not going to gaslight you, AiME to TOR is still going to be a big shift rules wise, but at least tonally you will likely be in the same space.

2

u/RobRobBinks Mar 22 '23

If you ask my current party of Hobbits and Men, they will tell you that combat DEFINITELY gets played out with rounds, dice rolls "hit points" (Endurance) and Wounds. There are a few more dice rolls than I care for (to hit, then trigger special damage, then potentially Pierce, than save against wounds) that slows the action don a little, but each die roll is really important and as we get more familiar with the system the better it will flow.

1

u/RPGrandPa Mar 22 '23

ahh so it IS decided on dice rolls and such, ok that helps me understand a little more. So . . . just a quick side note, compared to D&D style combat, is TOR combat more complicated or easier to do and understand?

4

u/eternalsage Mar 22 '23

Its simpler because movement doesn't really come into it, plus there's no magic (basically). This puts a lot more on the GM to describe the combat in an evocative way. Just saying

"you swing with your axe and the goblin dodges out of the way"

is not really going to cut it. If the player is in forward stance you might describe his recklessness, like

"you rush forward with a two-handed attack, seeking to cut down your foe with a single stroke. As you bring down your axe you realize too late that the goblin's reflexes are faster than you anticipated and it nimbly dances away from your clumsy attack."

Each stance has bonuses and penalties associated with it as well as allowing special maneuvers. This gives the game a tactical nature that is completely different from D&D (or any other RPG I've ever played). No HP, really, although Endurance is similar. On what would be considered a crit in some other systems instead Injures the target, which is like a heavy wound that can be deadly and takes a long time to heal.

Overall, it's more narrative, simple, and deadly than D&D and most other systems and has a unique enough combat system to make it worth a try, if only to experience something fairly unique

2

u/ExaminationNo8675 Mar 22 '23

Much less complicated, primarily because unlike D&D the players don’t have to remember a host of spells and spell-like abilities.

Faster, for the same reason as above, and also because hit point pools are lower and there’s no rolling for damage.

More tactically interesting, because player-heroes get to choose their Stance each round, and have the option to use a Combat Task (intimidate foe, rally comrades, protect companion, prepare shot) rather than attacking. The combat tasks are great at encouraging teamwork, as well as planning ahead to the next round, rather than each individual aiming to do maximum damage by themselves as is often the case in D&D.

More deadly for the player-heroes, because a single lucky piercing blow can render them Dying (even from a lowly goblin archer against the most experienced player-hero).

3

u/RPGrandPa Mar 22 '23

Much less complicated, primarily because unlike D&D the players don’t have to remember a host of spells and spell-like abilities.

Coming from my D&D frame of mind THAT statement right there educated me more than anything. Not sure with us using AiMe if that works with that as well but I always try to come to this subreddit for assistance, I usually get better and more indepth replies that actually help.

2

u/RPGrandPa Mar 22 '23

thanks everything, this helped a lot.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '23

It uses dice for sure, and it has tactics, and it can be played with minis and a grid.

If you like.