The One Ring

Please use carefully and respect the copyrights of the works you convert by placing the appropriate information on your documents.

Moderators: PEG Jodi, The Moderators

Message
Author
The Warlord
Seasoned
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:17 am
Location: Austin, TX

The One Ring

#1 Postby The Warlord » Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:29 am

Has anyone savaged ToR?

Thinking about giving it a look for the campaign this fall, but am interested to see how folks have handled corruption, traveling, etc.

Thunderforge
Veteran
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:13 am

#2 Postby Thunderforge » Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:41 pm

Well, the mantra for conversions is "Convert the setting, not the mechanics." So I imagine that a specific conversion of The One Ring isn't really the best way to approach it. By the way, the Travel rules in Savage Worlds Deluxe should fit the bill well enough for the Traveling rules you're looking for.

There is a Savage Middle-Earth. It seems a few of the powers are similar to those added in SWD, but otherwise it should be fully compatible with it.
Wild Card Creator: Any PDF, Any Setting, No Extra Cost.

The Elder Scrolls conversion and other fun creations.

The Warlord
Seasoned
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:17 am
Location: Austin, TX

#3 Postby The Warlord » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:53 pm

Right but some setting rules to match ToR would be fantastic. Afterall, I'd need more differentiation between ToR and my Conan game than just names and places.

For example, I use Blood and Guts in my Conan game,but I won't in ToR. I'm thinking something like only using bennies in a shared pool for 'fellowship'. But what would be some good setting rules for corruption or the four ToR roles for travelling (which is different then the interlude rules in SW deluxe.) Maybe heavily modified interlude rules?

User avatar
VonDan
Legendary
Posts: 4059
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:36 am
Contact:

#4 Postby VonDan » Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:09 pm

I have a LOTR campaign in the works for savage worlds

The Ring Chicks


http://www.peginc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26011

farik
Seasoned
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:45 pm

#5 Postby farik » Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:36 pm

The Warlord wrote:Right but some setting rules to match ToR would be fantastic. Afterall, I'd need more differentiation between ToR and my Conan game than just names and places.

For example, I use Blood and Guts in my Conan game,but I won't in ToR. I'm thinking something like only using bennies in a shared pool for 'fellowship'. But what would be some good setting rules for corruption or the four ToR roles for travelling (which is different then the interlude rules in SW deluxe.) Maybe heavily modified interlude rules?


Rather than a shared pool to represent Fellowship perhaps you only allow people to spend bennies on other players.

Thunderforge
Veteran
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:13 am

#6 Postby Thunderforge » Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:22 pm

farik wrote:Rather than a shared pool to represent Fellowship perhaps you only allow people to spend bennies on other players.

Or you could just say that everyone gets the Common Bond Edge for free. Seems fitting.

For corruption, you could do something like the Dominion rules for Harrowed in Deadlands Reloaded. You're corruption ranges from -4 to +4 and when you're in a particularly corrupting situation (e.g. you put on The One Ring, someone tries to take the Ring from you), you have to make a Spirit roll modified by your Corruption. Failure means the GM gets to let something nasty happen to you and your corruption modifier decreases by one. Success means you're fine for now and your corruption modifier goes up by one. If it gets to –4 and you fail again, you're corrupted for good and the GM gets to control your character.
Wild Card Creator: Any PDF, Any Setting, No Extra Cost.



The Elder Scrolls conversion and other fun creations.

The Warlord
Seasoned
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:17 am
Location: Austin, TX

#7 Postby The Warlord » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:45 am

Those Dominion rules sound perfect! So, I would guess that characters start with 0 corruption.

Regarding the 'Fellowship' rule, I'm liking the idea of using the Common Bond edge or loaning bennies, but I want to think a bit more about the shared pool.

Thinking back to Boromir and how his actions were pretty disastrous for the fellowship, I'm thinking to represent something like that the characters would have all of their bennies in a shared pool. In order for one to be used, the entire party has to come to an agreement. Naturally, they would have a brief timelimit on this decision so that it doesn't drag on all night. However, if a player uses a benny from the pool and the group hasn't come to a consensus, then an additional benny is discarded from the pool and that character has to make a corruption role. Too much?

I like the idea of individual bennies for my Conan game. There the players are each sorta looking out for their own skin. I'm also a bit more free with the bennies to encourage high adventure and good pulp action. With ToR, I really like the idea of the characters needing to work together and possibly even using less bennies then the standard game suggests so that the players really have a fellowship going...even if forced through mechanics. I think these would make the two fantasy games feel vastly different.

Thoughts?

Thunderforge
Veteran
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:13 am

#8 Postby Thunderforge » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:12 am

Yeah, using the Corruption system I described, they would start at +0 Corruption. It just occurred to me, you could change the range from -4 to +2 (or even -4 to +0) if you wanted Corruption to be a bit more of a downward spiral as it is in the books. Whatever the range is, I think it would work out great for Lord of the Rings.

Having a pool of bennies would slow down the game; just something to be aware of if you're going down that route. Otherwise, your idea seems to work out just fine.
Wild Card Creator: Any PDF, Any Setting, No Extra Cost.



The Elder Scrolls conversion and other fun creations.

The Warlord
Seasoned
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:17 am
Location: Austin, TX

#9 Postby The Warlord » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:18 am

Thunderforge wrote:Having a pool of bennies would slow down the game; just something to be aware of if you're going down that route. Otherwise, your idea seems to work out just fine.


Do you mean slow down the game as in slowing down the speed of character advancement, story progression, the number of risks the party will take, or something else?

Thanks for your help with the corruption!

GranFalloon
Veteran
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:53 am
Contact:

#10 Postby GranFalloon » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:11 pm

I think it would slow things down by causing a discussion every time someone wanted to spend a benny. Perhaps each character begins with one or two of their own, then puts the rest into the pool. That way they at least have some of their own resources to burn through before causing a debate.

I do kind of like that general idea though. I have a couple players who behave like total idiots sometimes, and I think the group being able to withhold their bennies would keep them from getting away with it.

I read through The One Ring (solid game, for anyone here who hasn't read it. In my mind there are three "What were they thinking?!" points in the whole book, and the rest is pretty great), and of course immediately began pondering how to Savage it. The Journey rules could be adopted, and I also like how Fear works. I'm not much of a fan of my big, bad heroes just losing it and running off into the night, but taking a painful penalty because of Fear seems appropriate.

I might also saddle Elves with the Bad Luck Hindrance, but call it Bound by Fate or something. The idea is that Men are mortal, and thus have free will. Elves, being immortal beings, are more closely bound to destiny, and also vengeful dice.

By the way, were you asking the same question on The One Ring's Facebook page? 'Cause somebody was.

User avatar
Trotter
Novice
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:00 pm

#11 Postby Trotter » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:12 pm

GranFalloon wrote:By the way, were you asking the same question on The One Ring's Facebook page? 'Cause somebody was.


That was me. :)

GranFalloon
Veteran
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:53 am
Contact:

#12 Postby GranFalloon » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:27 am

Small world, eh?

The Warlord
Seasoned
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:17 am
Location: Austin, TX

#13 Postby The Warlord » Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:34 pm

Which 'The One Ring' FB page are y'all referring to? There's at least a dozen.

User avatar
Trotter
Novice
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:00 pm

#14 Postby Trotter » Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:46 pm

GranFalloon wrote:Small world, eh?


And getting smaller!

The Warlord wrote:Which 'The One Ring' FB page are y'all referring to?


This one....
http://www.facebook.com/groups/222560297824158/

User avatar
Orangataur
Novice
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:13 pm

#15 Postby Orangataur » Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:31 pm

Consider the following modifiers to Corruption?:
- Hobbits gain a +2 Modifier to corruption Rolls, and the Strength of Will edge also applies to corruption checks.

- Characters with an Arcane Background or the Greedy hindrance suffer a -2 penalty to corruption rolls.

You may want to consider offering players some in-game advantage if they voluntarily fail a corruption check - Signing a Faustian pact should be a tempting choice!

User avatar
Takeda
Heroic
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:05 pm

#16 Postby Takeda » Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:37 pm

I've played TOR a bit and it's pretty good. I did find that there was a lot of rolling to resolve abstract things that was short-hand but was so contrived it broke the rhythm for me.

I liked the roles we assigned our characters ... but I dunno ... just felt like it was more board-game then RPG. The designer is a board-game designer so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It was just a little too abstract ... trying to gloss over potentially boring bits ... but it left me feeling like I should just be drawing my cards and moving my piece around the Talisman board or something like that.

I will have another chance to try it out though and maybe it will feel different?
Dean: "Ya' know she could be faking."
Sam: "Yeah, what do you wanna do, poke her with a stick?"
[Dean nods]
Sam: "Dude, you're not gonna poke her with a stick?"
Supernatural Quotes

ogbendog
Legendary
Posts: 2699
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:55 am

#17 Postby ogbendog » Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:28 pm

SoldierOfFortune wrote:Consider the following modifiers to Corruption?:
- Hobbits gain a +2 Modifier to corruption Rolls, and the Strength of Will edge also applies to corruption checks.

- Characters with an Arcane Background or the Greedy hindrance suffer a -2 penalty to corruption rolls.

You may want to consider offering players some in-game advantage if they voluntarily fail a corruption check - Signing a Faustian pact should be a tempting choice!


I'd add that anyone with "power" get's the -2. Arcane Backgrounds, Noble, etc. (Boromir wanted to make Gondor Great), etc.

Thunderforge
Veteran
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:13 am

#18 Postby Thunderforge » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:13 pm

ogbendog wrote:I'd add that anyone with "power" get's the -2. Arcane Backgrounds, Noble, etc. (Boromir wanted to make Gondor Great), etc.

I disagree. Aragorn after all was the true king, but he wanted no power for himself and I can't imagine he would be more susceptible after he was crowned. Arguably, Elrond was also in power, but was no more corrupted. I'm guessing that the Arcane Background is in consideration of Gandalf, who didn't dare to even touch the Ring lest it corrupt him, which I guess makes sense and warrants a –2 penalty.

I think in general, just apply a –2 modifier to any corruption rolls involving a Hindrance. Thus the Greedy character gets it for gold, Boromir with Vow (Defend the People of Gondor) gets it for the temptation of the power of the Ring to save his people, and a Vengeful character gets it when he's getting revenge. It could also be situational too: Theoden gets a –2 modifier to resist a corruption test to kill Wormtongue (and either he spent a Benny or Aragorn did a cooperative roll to keep him for doing it).

SoldierOfFortune wrote:Consider the following modifiers to Corruption?:
- Hobbits gain a +2 Modifier to corruption Rolls, and the Strength of Will edge also applies to corruption checks

Totally agree about the Hobbits getting a +2 vs. Corruption tests. With that in mind, though, you probably ought to make the scale something like –4 to +2/+0. We don't want them to be succeeding every single time.

I presume that by "Strength of Will" you mean "Strong Willed." I'm not quite sure that's an appropriate Edge, considering that Intimidate d6+ and Taunt d6+ are the requirements, which I interpret as meaning they get a +2 to resist Tests of Will because have a witty comeback when someone tries to taunt or intimidate them. I would argue for just creating a new Edge with a +2, maybe called "Pure of Heart", for someone like Aragorn who is pretty much incorruptible.

You may want to consider offering players some in-game advantage if they voluntarily fail a corruption check - Signing a Faustian pact should be a tempting choice!

Faustian bargains aren't really part of Lord of the Rings. If anything, I would imagine that corruption for Lord of the Rings is best summed up by the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." It's my opinion that Corruption tests should be made whenever there is a chance to do something wrong, but a benefit that comes from it (putting on the Ring, theft, killing "for the greater good", etc.). But it shouldn't be like Star Wars where unleashing your anger and hatred gives you more power for the moment, but you're growing closer to the Dark Side.
Wild Card Creator: Any PDF, Any Setting, No Extra Cost.



The Elder Scrolls conversion and other fun creations.

User avatar
Coffee Zombie
Novice
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:58 am

#19 Postby Coffee Zombie » Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:07 pm

I would not that Corruption tests in general are very unfun to play with. I'm a LOTR fan, and I grabbed the One Ring when it came out (as well as Decipher LOTR, and MERP before that). Corruption in the Lord of the Rings isn't as inevitable as most game systems make it out to be.

The One Ring, and all the Great Rings, are specifically noted by Gandalf as having this fell quality in terms of corrupting the bearers of said Rings. But he shows little concern for Sting, Orcrist, or most other magical wonders the Fellowship encounters. All those that do corrupt the bearers are touched by Sauron.

I don't think this means "throw out corruption", but link it to choices. If you give the characters meaningful stories where less-than-noble choices lead to personal gain that matters, you start getting close to the underlying messages regarding that corruption in Lord of the Rings.

My 2 cents.
I reserve the right to change my opinion the moment I am proven wrong; that's called learning


Return to “SW Home-brew Settings & Conversions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest