I have been contemplating how to use this game as an RPG for a few years now. There were a few rules I made myself adhere to as well. The RPG profile must be 100% compatible with the SBG. This means, no new stats, no changing the system to use a different dice mechanics and things like that.

After reading the Hobbit rule book I finally realized that the game already had an action resolution system in place. In its simplest form it was roll a d6. 1=fail, 2-5=success, and 6=superior success (This would be your default task resolution system). The other task resolution system for tougher tasks is to resolve them like magic spells. Assign a difficulty to the task and roll a D6 (modify with might as usual).

Stat recovery would be resolved much like the campaign rules located in the journey books. At the end of each scenario/encounter the player would roll 1d6 for each point they lost (point meaing: wounds, m/w/f, or anything else) and recover the lost point on a 4+.

Progression would be a cinch as well. Instead of handing out XP and trying to translate XP tables, the GM would award XP (called training points [TP]) in single unit increments. When the PC's have an opportunity to train/reflect (such as when the fellowship rested at Imlahdras or Lorien) the PC's would be allowed to spend their TP in an attempt to improve their stats. To improve a stat one declares they would spend a point on a stat then roll 1d6. If the result is greater than their current stat number, the stat increases (might my *not* be used to modify this roll). For example, while at a sanctuary the intrepid ranger decides to spend an TP point and improve his fight value from a 4 to a 5. He decreases his TP pool by 1, then rolls a d6. on a 5+ the stat improves.

The PC may only attempt to improve a single stat one time per training/reflection period. In order to increase their odds of successfully improving a stat, a PC may elect to spend an additional TP to garner a +1 bonus to his TP check (this must be done before dice are rolled). Only 1 additional TP may be spent in this manner. IE: the Intrepid Ranger wants to improve his courage from 3 to 4. In order to do this he spends 1 TP which allows him to roll the Training check, then, in order to improve his odds of succeeding he spends 1 additional TP to gain the +1 bonus. The Ranger rolls his d6 then adds a +1 to the total. If the result is 4+, his courage will increase.

Optional: A PC may elect to spend 5 TP to automatically increase a stat by one.

Note: Improving the archery stat is means you must roll lower than the current score. IE: for the ranger to improve his archery score of 3+ when he spends his TP he must roll a 2 or lower.

Starting characters, select an existing *warrior* profile (that is right, you start off as a nameless nobody). It's that easy! Alternatively, your GM may allow you to play heroes. Ensure the profile to select makes sense with the story (electing to play as a numenorian warrior when the story takes place in Harad during the 3rd age doesn't make sense).

In summary,
Select a warrior profile to represent your PC
use a default 2+ to resolve non combat checks (or X+ for harder tasks)
Use TP to increase stats (D6 result > current stat score)
use Journey book campaign rules to recover lost points between scenarios (a 4+ means you recover the lost point)
GM award TP based on RP and combat

Have you taken a look at the Battle Company rules? They are one step from the SBG towards smaller scale with some details added for character development. Even if you don't take them as is, you might get some inspiration from them.

One thing that may be an issue with these rules is that with only one wound, a character is going to be out of the game very quickly if he ever gets into a fight. Maybe give player characters a second wound or a fate point? Since the SBG rules are primarily about fighting, that's probably the main game activity for a GM choosing to use them (always choose rules that reflect what your game is about).

Otherwise, go for it, playtest, and let us know how it works. It's always interesting to see how people develop new variations and uses for existing rules.



-- Pasi

I'm a fan of lethal rpg's. If a pc is foolish enough to engage in a combat where they are clearly overpowered, well, then i hope they can perform some great feat before they run out of wounds.

If someone does run out of wounds they arent dead, per se. Much like the journey book campaign rules, after the battle they have a chance to recover the lost wound.

The other option is to allow the pc's to begin with 1 m/w/f much like beregorn or damrod.

In the end it would be up to the gm. Gritty feel, or heroic feel?

Thanks for the referral to battle hosts

Must admit I had hoped to try out the One Ring - Adventures... by Cubicle 7, but my inquiries seem to find that that game system doesnt really need miniatures a la floor plans etc to work, which was always one aspect of RPGS I liked...

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

I have cubicle 7's the one ring. First off, it is a fantastic game. The only one which cured me of my aversion to hit points. Their approach was refreshing. The game does not require any minis. One can use minis to "mark" which stance they are in during combat and where they stand in the marching order, but only if they use the tracking sheet offered as a free download from their website. Other than that, there are no need for minis in cubicle 7's game.

I must admit I am puzzled how that then works when a fight breaks out in any given situation, as presumably you need to know who is where and doing what as the encounter unfolds...?

There again I am used to miniatures focused games , and when I did RPG back in the day with D&D, floor plans and minis were a must... to do it without them seems, well, half-arsed!

Sorry to be crude.

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

That's funny, because I started the exact opposite, and graduated to the use of minis. I highly recommend you do some rpg without minis. Just for the experience. I prefer the use of minis, but there is something to be said for sitting around the table with nothing but your dice and a character sheet.

There is a lot more pressure placed on the GM to communicate what the PC's are seeing, and there is also a lot more GM fiat. "Sorry dude, that is too far away. It will take 2 rounds for you to move that far." That sort of stuff. It isn't as bad as one may think.

No worries.

I may pick up TOR anyway and give it a look over...

Cheers
Scott

_________________
www.scottswargaming.blogspot.com

It is well worth it. It is a very crunchy rpg

I'm not sure if I'd agree with you regarding its 'crunchiness'; it's actually mostly fluff.

My benchmark for crunch here is D&D 5th, here, with the two previous editions being dramatically crunchier than it.
tOR is quite free-form and general, and it steers clear of numerical categorisation for the most part, too.

Sure, compared to dnd its less crunchy. I'm a fan of rules light rpg's such as castles and crusades or savage worlds. Compared to those, tor is pretty crunchy. I would argue it is about as crunchy as dnd 3rd edition, not as crunchy as 4th edition, and I have not played 5 editions final form yet so I cant speak to its crunchiness.

There are some new-fangled rpgs that don't even bother with mechanics for determining whether you hit or how much damage it takes to kill you. Using minis for rpgs is very rare, and when WotC tried to make minis-focused combat a greater part of the game with D&D 4th ed it wasn't well received. I personally find it the worst of both worlds to do it that way. I'd rather play a minis game if I want to use minis as they do it much better than an rpg.

I was an early playtester of "the one ring" RPG. The game, like 13th age and a few others, abstracts where the heroes are when a fight breaks out. Instead of showing, precisely, where everyone is, characters are deemed to be "forward" "unengaged" and "back." Each of these placings means you can do different things. The people at the back can get some arrows ready, the people in the middle can get their shields out, the people in front can start stabbing, or react to being stabbed. As the fight goes on, people can move between the different states.

Older Dungeons and Dragons had way more variety in positioning and so on, but while you didn't have to use miniatures to mark what it all meant...you still kinda did. With The One Ring, people have created sort of visualising charts you can print out.

The game probably could be hacked to support miniatures. It doesn't need to go all D+D 4E, but a few quick and dirty positioning rules (ie, how to apply those combat statuses to miniatures) would work nicely. I am currently hacking the AGE system to run Hobbit-esque RPG adventures, though having seen BOFA I am half convinced its a perfect D+D 4E game, positioning powers and minion rules and all...

_________________
Dreaming of getting back to painting...any month now.

I wouldnt hack tor for mini use. The game is great as is.