Mike Johnstone (Fiery Dragon) hat seinen ersten Eindruck in den ENWorld-Boards bekannt gegeben:
Well, if you wish . . . . Sadly, the game (and book) is getting an initially rough reception over at the Decipher LotR RPG board. Go here to take a look. On my first read through, I liked Decipher's CODA system quite a lot: it seemed perfect for a low- magic, heroic, slightly grittier game than, say, "default" D&D. The writing in the book does a fabulous job of emphasising the feel of playing in a Tolkinesque world -- keeping the heroism of the PCs on centre stage, so to speak, and maintaining the atmosphere and even (for lack of better phrasing) the ideological underpinnings of Middle-Earth. After spending some time this week reading and posting to Decipher's LotR RPG boards, however, I want to go through the book again, particularly Chapter 9, which lays out the CODA system. You've guessed it, a lot of early responses are of the "broken" and "shafted" nature. Primarily, a major issue seems to be that Decipher did not playtest the rules vigorously enough . . . if at all (i.e., no playtesters are listed in the credits). I don't want to pass any "final" judgements just yet, though; I need to read the rules again and maybe give them a few "tests" of my own. For me, the more I think about the book, it does have a rushed feeling: beyond the several typos, I've found clear rules inconsistencies and/or errors between different sections, a couple blocks of missing text, and a lot of stuff that's not there but really should be if this book is to constitute the essential reference for the game (I think especially of people perhaps new to RPGs owing to the film, and of beginning GMs in particular). I like the character generation system a lot. I know that D&D 3E has certainly increased the flexibility and customizability of character generation, but the LotR RPG system seems to encourage this to an even greater degree. You'll recognize several similarities between CODA and d20, in fact: for instance, characters choose a race and an order (i.e., class), assign ability scores (although it's a bit more involved ), then choose skills and special "order abilities" that work very much like feats; there is "multiclassing," which basically means that a character chooses to advance in another order at some point. The key for customizability is that CODA is essentially a skill based system (i.e., melee combat relies upon your Armed Combat skill modifier with a specific weapon group and weapon, rolled against the opponent's defense score, and so on). When you "level up," which entails earning 1000 xp and then spending 5 advancement "picks," you really have to consider carefully how to improve your character. A Warrior, for instance, may not necessarily improve his Armed Combat skill at every advancement, as there are order abilities to choose and enhance, attributes to improve, "elite orders" (i.e., prestige classes) to qualify for, and more. So, one Warrior will look quite distinct from another, depending on a number of factors decided upon during advancement picks. The CODA system overall is very easy to pick up and use almost immediately, particularly if one is familiar with d20, as several basic mechanics are similar. I can't comment too much on the magic system, as I've yet to try it out, but the book looks to have captured the feel and mystery of magic in Tolkien's Middle-Earth. Perhaps my favourite section in the entire book involves a discussion of Middle-Earth's "subtle magic," which can work in the GM's hands much like fate or coincidence. For example, the PCs will arrive to a battle just at the right time in order to save the day . . . . As I mentioned above, the writing captures and reinforces wonderfully the atmosphere of playing in a Middle-Earth setting. Hmm, that's likely enough for now! In summary, many first reactions (over at the Decipher boards) are sceptical and even outright disappointed; however, I think there's much of value in the book and the game, though some extensive errata may be needed in order actually to "fix" the game. We'll see, I guess.
