Quote from: jibbajibbaI reckon the tough desicions will be
i) Magic - in LotR (and we have to assume from the One Ring name its set in the 3rd Age) only a few people have magic and they are very powerful, so not a lot of space for wizard apprentices and the like
ii) Canon - what do you do about the ongoing backstory. ICE did this really well or really badly depending on the setting book in question. You don't want to have to be drawn into the Fellowship story arc but you don't want to be wandering round Dol Amroth if its just another generic fantasy city
iii) Races - there are no young elves in the 3rd age. Therefore by definition no elves can be 'starting' characters

I think you can fix i and iii by not having a fantasy progression system ie you can start the game as Maiar or a High Elf Lord, however if they do that then there has to be a mechanic to allow the young hobbit to compete on the same level that means
either
a) some sort of story point mechanic where the less powerful character gets an advantage
or
b) some sort of corruption mechanic where the powerful character is in a constant battle not to use their powers. Of course this means that the PCs will have to be on the side of the good guys but my guess would be that is a given.

Of course all just speculation but hey its a web forum so what ya going to do?

It can be done.  Unisystem is based around that concept where you have extremely capable characters and less characters working together.  Each being mechanically powerful in different ways.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;356646No, where the Decipher game failed (if, in fact, you can really say that it "failed"), was that it was tied to a movie license, not the books themselves. The game was geared to recreate the movie action, not the literary world as a whole. I hope that the forthcoming C7 game will be focusing on the latter, and not the former. Now that the Peter Jackson movies have all come and gone, though, I think that's a safer bet.
 
!i!

I'm not a big fan of MERP or Rolemaster.  Many of the books that I browsed also didn't seem to have much to do with LOTR.  
 
The movie thing is an interesting point.  Decipher seemed to vastly prefer screen captures over art.  That's how they did it in the Trek and Star Wars card games as well.  It was obviously simpler/chearp.  It was also gave a different feel due to the higher resolution and contrast of most photos over drawings.  But it limited the feel they could achieve, especially for something predominately high fantasy like LOTR.  It also limited their art and game coverage to things specifically from the movies.

Quote from: estar;356596The key to success and where Iron Crown succeeded and Dephicer failed is bringing the world to life.  People want to play Lotr because they want to be in Middle Earth. Not because of the nifty game you created and tacked the brand name too.

Something like this could probably preclude LotR from being written for 4E D&D or Pathfinder.

Other than the LotR brand name, there isn't a whole lot else to differentiate it from other D&D settings like Forgotten Realms, Mystara, etc ...

Quote from: Ian Absentia;356646No, where the Decipher game failed (if, in fact, you can really say that it "failed"), was that it was tied to a movie license, not the books themselves.  The game was geared to recreate the movie action, not the literary world as a whole.  

That's a common misconception, and it's untrue. Stephen Long, the author of the game, is a huge fan of the novels, and the core rulebook barely addresses the films as a distinct entity.

The artistic choice to rely almost exclusively on movie stills for art made the game seem like it was an adaptation of the films rather than the books, but nothing is further from correct.

I was highly active in the playtest for the line from immediately after the core rulebook was released, wrote a section of Isengard, and was slated to write The Hobbit sourcebook, and lore from the books suffused all of the material that was written.

Quote from: Claudius;356642I don't get why Lord of the Rings Coda gets such a bad rap. I've played both LotR Coda and MERP and frankly, it's LotR Coda which brings the world to life, whereas MERP is just Rolemaster Light dropped in Middle Earth. MERP is a fine fantasy RPG, but not a good Middle Earth RPG. In LotR Coda the PCs really feel like Tolkien characters.

I agree about MERP. It was Rolemaster lite and it never felt right for Middle Earth. Although I do credit them for not trying to inflict the full Rolemaster system on Middle Earth fans.

It is the sourcebooks that set ICE's version apart from Decipher.  I know they are not all of the highest quality. But in combination it gave the Middle Earth a ton stuff to use.  I never got that impression from the Decipher material.

Again my opinion that the focus of a Middle Earth RPG should be on playing in Middle Earth and to help the referee and players flesh out the details in Tolkien's work.  Because the big problem of Tolkien's writing is that they contain little useful detail for running a roleplaying game in Middle Earth.  Large areas of the world are only described in brief detail.

It takes a lot of work for a person to make a RPG Campaign out of Middle Earth and that is the value of a licensed RPG. That you have ready made locales and adventures that ease the work a referee needs to do.

This gets a big fat meh from me.  LOTR is definitely my favorite fantasy book ever, but it's rubbish for a roleplaying game.  The universe just doesn't give PCs any room to move around without winding up playing second fiddle to the big movers in the stories.  

LOTRO was a fun MMO, probably one of my favorites ever, but it was mostly for the travelogue angle and the twist on the class system.  The actual stories were mostly best ignored, because they were terrible, nothing more than playing mop up behind the fellowship for 50+ levels.  Even the designers have acknowledged this in a way, by introducing special scenarios where you take control of some figure from LOTR's past instead of your own.  

They've got a lot of convincing to do before I'd even consider this a worthy license for a RPG.

Quote from: flyingmice;356614dOne!The Politically Correct System!  Everyone wins, all the time!

-clash

Isn't that 4E?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Given how they did with Dr Who, I'm reasonably confident this will be worth looking into, when it arrives many months if not longer from now.

Anyway, go Cubicle 7, I wish them every success.

Quote from: jdurall;356658That's a common misconception, and it's untrue.

Then, given that it generated such a common misconception, it was a staggeringly bad choice in art and marketing.  It came out during the movie trilogy hoo-hah, and it had every appearance of being a movie tie-in, and its brief-lived popularity probably traded heavily on that fact.  I won't speak for the hobby as a whole, but I can say that I passed on it because it looked like a commercial tie-in to a movie franchise that I didn't enjoy very much.

All that said, I'll reiterate that it's probably a very good thing that the fuss over Jackson's movies is largely over, and C7 can create a game without that sort of commercial confusion.  Go Team C7!

!i!

Quote from: jdurall;356658That's a common misconception, and it's untrue. Stephen Long, the author of the game, is a huge fan of the novels, and the core rulebook barely addresses the films as a distinct entity.

The artistic choice to rely almost exclusively on movie stills for art made the game seem like it was an adaptation of the films rather than the books, but nothing is further from correct.

I was highly active in the playtest for the line from immediately after the core rulebook was released, wrote a section of Isengard, and was slated to write The Hobbit sourcebook, and lore from the books suffused all of the material that was written.

What he said.

In fact, the LotR Coda corebook is chocked with citations from the books, all of them relevant to the text. If this is not proof enough that the authors were familiar with the novels, I don't know what it is.

I hope this doesn't kill them, cause I like some of their products.

But that license is fraught with landmines.

Quote from: estar;356662It is the sourcebooks that set ICE's version apart from Decipher.  I know they are not all of the highest quality. But in combination it gave the Middle Earth a ton stuff to use.  I never got that impression from the Decipher material.

Again my opinion that the focus of a Middle Earth RPG should be on playing in Middle Earth and to help the referee and players flesh out the details in Tolkien's work.  Because the big problem of Tolkien's writing is that they contain little useful detail for running a roleplaying game in Middle Earth.  Large areas of the world are only described in brief detail.

It takes a lot of work for a person to make a RPG Campaign out of Middle Earth and that is the value of a licensed RPG. That you have ready made locales and adventures that ease the work a referee needs to do.

Very often, those MERP supplements didn't feel like Middle Earth at all. Like I said about the corebook, those supplements were great if you wanted a generic fantasy setting, but if what you wanted was the real Middle Earth, then those supplements weren't that great.

I will never forget Celeborn's long list of magical objects, he looked like a D&D3 character!

Quote from: Silverlion;356679I hope this doesn't kill them, cause I like some of their products.

But that license is fraught with landmines.

Naysayer!  Get thee behind me!

!i!

Wow.
I'm trully impressed...

NOT.



How underwhelming.

I was actually expecting something new or ORIGINAl.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;356675Then, given that it generated such a common misconception, it was a staggeringly bad choice in art and marketing.  It came out during the movie trilogy hoo-hah, and it had every appearance of being a movie tie-in, and its brief-lived popularity probably traded heavily on that fact.  I won't speak for the hobby as a whole, but I can say that I passed on it because it looked like a commercial tie-in to a movie franchise that I didn't enjoy very much.

All that said, I'll reiterate that it's probably a very good thing that the fuss over Jackson's movies is largely over, and C7 can create a game without that sort of commercial confusion.  Go Team C7!

!i!

In this regard you might be right, I've heard a lot of people state that LotR Coda is based on the films and not the books. When I ask them if they have played or read the corebook, you can imagine the answer. Yes, maybe the movie pics did more harm than good.

Believe me, I own and have played it, and it impressed me how faithful to Tolkien it was. No, the problem with LotR Coda is that it was in dire need of some playtesting. A well done second edition would have done wonders for this game. Alas, we'll never see that. I hope the Cubicle 7 people will do an even better work.