I'm of the mind that Tolkien's world is fine for his stories, but not so great for running games in.

Drunk Scottish Dwarves may be annoying and overdone, but Tolkien's Dwarves as-written never seemed to have much of a personality of their own. They were an outlier, or an in-between of Men and Elves that acted like both but weren't quite like either of them, and they had nothing particularly unique about them overall. Maybe that was intentional because of how they were created in his world.

The Elves being mythical, demigodlike creatures would certainly throw game balance off, just like they throw the narrative off in the story itself somewhat, in my opinion. There's hardly any reason to fear the Ringwraiths when you know that Glorfindel is more than a match for them all on his own. It's a world where Elves are simply better than anyone or anything else at everything, and their haughtiness is completely justified and morally right.

I do prefer lower-magic worlds though, or at least worlds where magic is difficult or dangerous to use effectively.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 12, 2023, 06:44:47 PM
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that one is a game and the other a story.  The factors that make a game good are very different than those that make a story good.  Adopting Sanderson's view on magic, IMO hard magic makes for a better game and soft for a better story.  Equal characters makes running a good game easier.  It's not necessary certainly:  I've played plenty of great game sessions with vastly unequal characters, but if you take a look at all the "game balance" fanatics out there, you can see it's at least important to some people.  Variety of languages adds a lot of depth to a story, but can really slow down the action in a game.  And so on...

In my experience of other genres like superhero RPGs or horror RPGs, I find that taking more from the inspirational fiction tends to improve the game. I think Baron's point is a good one. I don't think that D&D was trying to emulate Tolkien much at all. Rather, it used Tolkien elements like dwarves, elves, and wizards - but put them together in an ethos that was much more from authors like Lieber, Vance, and Howard - plus elements of historical wargaming.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 12, 2023, 07:00:10 PM
Counter question: why should something not set in Tolkien's world want to slavishly copy his notes? Much better to let Tolkien be Tolkien, and let other people be inspired to create their own works which may even (in one sense or another) create something more interesting/popular.

It's funny how fantasy writers are both mocked for 'ripping off' Tolkien, AND constantly found wanting when measured against him by purists. Not a slight against the OP, just a thought in general.

Is your counter-question to me? Because I agree. I'm frequently annoyed at the slavish copying of Tolkien in RPG worlds. In this case, though, I'm considering a campaign that is set in Middle Earth, so there I want to emulate his material and style.

For games not set in Middle Earth, I tend to depart a lot from the standards. For example, I'm currently running D&D campaign - so it has elements that are Tolkienesque - but I've departed pretty far by having a setting that is all based on Incan history and culture. The previous time I ran a D&D campaign, it was in a mirror universe where the PCs were all good-aligned humanoid races like orcs, kobolds, goblins, etc. Most of the other times, I'm running other RPGs unrelated to Tolkien, like Call of Cthulhu, Monster of the Week, etc.

You know, there's a lot to be said for playing humans if you want a Middle Earth game. No mages or clerics, just fighters and thieves and whatever else is non-magical in your game.

Elves remain reclusive demi-gods. The only real mages are angels (maybe with the exception of a few hedge-wizards or some sort of evil witch-type). You might include PC dwarves, hobbits and Dunedain (ie half-elves) if you want to allow the exotic, but you might have to dilute them somewhat to make them on a par with the humans (depending on how your rules work).

Where D&D and other games get into trouble with the Tolkien vibe is by allowing PC elves and etc that skew the range of power.

Quote from: Validin on April 12, 2023, 07:16:17 PM
The Elves being mythical, demigodlike creatures would certainly throw game balance off, just like they throw the narrative off in the story itself somewhat, in my opinion. There's hardly any reason to fear the Ringwraiths when you know that Glorfindel is more than a match for them all on his own. It's a world where Elves are simply better than anyone or anything else at everything, and their haughtiness is completely justified and morally right.

I do prefer lower-magic worlds though, or at least worlds where magic is difficult or dangerous to use effectively.

Quote from: Baron on April 12, 2023, 07:52:16 PM
You know, there's a lot to be said for playing humans if you want a Middle Earth game. No mages or clerics, just fighters and thieves and whatever else is non-magical in your game.

Elves remain reclusive demi-gods. The only real mages are angels (maybe with the exception of a few hedge-wizards or some sort of evil witch-type). You might include PC dwarves, hobbits and Dunedain (ie half-elves) if you want to allow the exotic, but you might have to dilute them somewhat to make them on a par with the humans (depending on how your rules work).

I wouldn't want an Istari or a Noldor like Glorfindel as a PC. But characters like Legolas, Arwen, Elladan, or Elrohir aren't demigods. They're powerful and have abilities that humans don't, but in the books, they overall seem roughly on par with Aragorn or Boromir.

I feel like a party like the Fellowship (sans Gandalf) are very special, but still much less magical than a typical D&D party. That's roughly the feeling that I'd try for. Many of the characters are high power, but not spell-slinging.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 12, 2023, 06:46:22 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 12, 2023, 06:44:47 PM
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that one is a game and the other a story.  The factors that make a game good are very different than those that make a story good.  Adopting Sanderson's view on magic, IMO hard magic makes for a better game and soft for a better story.  Equal characters makes running a good game easier.  It's not necessary certainly:  I've played plenty of great game sessions with vastly unequal characters, but if you take a look at all the "game balance" fanatics out there, you can see it's at least important to some people.  Variety of languages adds a lot of depth to a story, but can really slow down the action in a game.  And so on...

All of that's true up to a point.  However, I think all of it pushed too far destroys the setting.  Then you have perfectly balanced characters in a sterile world.

You'll note I call them "game balance fanatics."  I don't share that POV at all, it was just an example.  IMO making characters equal at the expense of variety is really bad for a game.  I strive for spotlight balance in my games, but I'm not too worried about the rest of the things folks call "balance."

Quote from: jhkim on April 12, 2023, 08:27:35 PM

Quote from: Validin on April 12, 2023, 07:16:17 PM
The Elves being mythical, demigodlike creatures would certainly throw game balance off, just like they throw the narrative off in the story itself somewhat, in my opinion. There's hardly any reason to fear the Ringwraiths when you know that Glorfindel is more than a match for them all on his own. It's a world where Elves are simply better than anyone or anything else at everything, and their haughtiness is completely justified and morally right.

I do prefer lower-magic worlds though, or at least worlds where magic is difficult or dangerous to use effectively.

Quote from: Baron on April 12, 2023, 07:52:16 PM
You know, there's a lot to be said for playing humans if you want a Middle Earth game. No mages or clerics, just fighters and thieves and whatever else is non-magical in your game.

Elves remain reclusive demi-gods. The only real mages are angels (maybe with the exception of a few hedge-wizards or some sort of evil witch-type). You might include PC dwarves, hobbits and Dunedain (ie half-elves) if you want to allow the exotic, but you might have to dilute them somewhat to make them on a par with the humans (depending on how your rules work).

I wouldn't want an Istari or a Noldor like Glorfindel as a PC. But characters like Legolas, Arwen, Elladan, or Elrohir aren't demigods. They're powerful and have abilities that humans don't, but in the books, they overall seem roughly on par with Aragorn or Boromir.

I feel like a party like the Fellowship (sans Gandalf) are very special, but still much less magical than a typical D&D party. That's roughly the feeling that I'd try for. Many of the characters are high power, but not spell-slinging.

Have you tried Low Fantasy Gaming? Sounds like you want something like it. https://lowfantasygaming.com/

Personally, I have no interest in playing Robin while another party member plays Batman. Everyone should balance out in the greater scheme.

If the Elves are great at everything, give some sort of metamechanic to Humans similar to luck or destiny pools/chips, to simulate Humans being vital and still having great roles to play, whereas the world is largely done with Elves.

A Hobbit that gets a foot stab in while the other characters are scything through Orcs is fine in a narrative, but it sucks in a game. Unless the Hobbit is a trained thief or something, he's likely to get sick of playing 4th fiddle.

If a creator can't have a vibrant world, with people of different capabilities, but still balance things, then he's not very good.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 12, 2023, 08:50:14 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 12, 2023, 06:46:22 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 12, 2023, 06:44:47 PM
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that one is a game and the other a story.  The factors that make a game good are very different than those that make a story good.  Adopting Sanderson's view on magic, IMO hard magic makes for a better game and soft for a better story.  Equal characters makes running a good game easier.  It's not necessary certainly:  I've played plenty of great game sessions with vastly unequal characters, but if you take a look at all the "game balance" fanatics out there, you can see it's at least important to some people.  Variety of languages adds a lot of depth to a story, but can really slow down the action in a game.  And so on...

All of that's true up to a point.  However, I think all of it pushed too far destroys the setting.  Then you have perfectly balanced characters in a sterile world.

You'll note I call them "game balance fanatics."  I don't share that POV at all, it was just an example.  IMO making characters equal at the expense of variety is really bad for a game.  I strive for spotlight balance in my games, but I'm not too worried about the rest of the things folks call "balance."

Yes.  I was also referring to Sanderson is a bad guide to RPG development--when pushed too far.  I may even be more on the balance side than you are, in that I want balance in certain things mechanical, or rather want to carefully choose my imbalance. 

To put another slant on it, I would say that having languages mean something, and soft magic, and having asymmetrical balance, and having some select, deliberate imbalance--all make the game harder to design well, but have a huge payoff when it is done well.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 12, 2023, 04:54:27 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 12, 2023, 03:32:28 PM
EDITED TO ADD: I'm specifically interested in RPGs that are trying to do Tolkien or close to Tolkien. So to some degree early D&D, but especially games like:

• Middle-earth Role Playing (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1982)
• Lord of the Rings Adventure Game (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1991)
• The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game (Decipher, Inc., 2002)
• The One Ring: Adventures over the Edge of the Wild (Cubicle 7, 2011)
• Adventures in Middle-earth (OGL supplement by Cubicle 7, 2016)

I'm not familiar with The One Ring, but I've gone over the others, and played the Decipher game.

Have you looked at Free League's The One Ring? I've only skimmed it, but I've heard the Journey and Fellowship mechanics are pretty good attempts to capture aspects of the source material that have been glossed over in other games. Also, the introductory adventures (from the starter set) are very "cozy" for lack of a better word. They have small goals as you would expect if you're a hobbit starting a life of adventure.

The HUGE problem with TOR in my opinion is that it tries to slavishly copy the books with intrusive mechanics that essentially turn it into a board game.  All that journey crap, audiences, etc., boil down to a bunch of dice rolls predetermining outcomes that could easily be roleplayed.  We tried playing it a couple times and couldn't stand the limitations imposed by the game mechanics.  Personally I've read enough Tolkien to be able to convey the feel of Middle Earth without that stuff.  There are other mechanics we found similarly intrusive.  So if we decide to go back to a Middle Earth game, it will be MERP.

But to return to the original question, I agree with both the idea that the early RPGs were more Howard (fine, if a bit overrated) and Leiber (whose writing I personally strongly dislike) than Tolkien (whose writing I like a lot).  But one could presume that a lot of gamers had read all these writers and others in part because the field was smaller back then and there were far fewer fantasy media options for consumption.  Starting in the 80s, fantasy fiction exploded, along with tabletop rpgs, and later CCGs, video games, etc., all of which saturated the market with new archetypes or fusions of older ones.  So that's certainly transformed popular images of dwarves, wizards, vampires, etc.  Hell, the average modern D&D player probably has no idea there are vampires & werewolves in Tolkien, for example.

Quote from: jhkim on April 12, 2023, 08:27:35 PM

Quote from: Validin on April 12, 2023, 07:16:17 PM
The Elves being mythical, demigodlike creatures would certainly throw game balance off, just like they throw the narrative off in the story itself somewhat, in my opinion. There's hardly any reason to fear the Ringwraiths when you know that Glorfindel is more than a match for them all on his own. It's a world where Elves are simply better than anyone or anything else at everything, and their haughtiness is completely justified and morally right.

I do prefer lower-magic worlds though, or at least worlds where magic is difficult or dangerous to use effectively.

Quote from: Baron on April 12, 2023, 07:52:16 PM
You know, there's a lot to be said for playing humans if you want a Middle Earth game. No mages or clerics, just fighters and thieves and whatever else is non-magical in your game.

Elves remain reclusive demi-gods. The only real mages are angels (maybe with the exception of a few hedge-wizards or some sort of evil witch-type). You might include PC dwarves, hobbits and Dunedain (ie half-elves) if you want to allow the exotic, but you might have to dilute them somewhat to make them on a par with the humans (depending on how your rules work).

I wouldn't want an Istari or a Noldor like Glorfindel as a PC. But characters like Legolas, Arwen, Elladan, or Elrohir aren't demigods. They're powerful and have abilities that humans don't, but in the books, they overall seem roughly on par with Aragorn or Boromir.

I feel like a party like the Fellowship (sans Gandalf) are very special, but still much less magical than a typical D&D party. That's roughly the feeling that I'd try for. Many of the characters are high power, but not spell-slinging.

You know, you could easily run a Middle Earth game using OSE Advanced and limiting the classes.  They have racial classes for all the demi-humans and you could adjust spell lists for elves if you're worried about power level.  [They also have a wood elf class that uses druid spells]. And in the Carcass Crawler zine there's a Mage class specifically created to emulate Gandalf.  It has a few magic powers, but can use swords, gets d6 for hit dice and doesn't cast spells, though it can use scrolls & magic items usable by standard magic-users.  For fun, I literally rolled up the Fellowship of the Ring party, though we never played with them.

• Middle-earth Role Playing (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1982)
• Lord of the Rings Adventure Game (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1991)
• The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game (Decipher, Inc., 2002)
• The One Ring: Adventures over the Edge of the Wild (Cubicle 7, 2011)
• Adventures in Middle-earth (OGL supplement by Cubicle 7, 2016)

I'm not familiar with The One Ring, but I've gone over the others, and played the Decipher game.
[/quote]


There's another game that does ME and other types of classical fantasy. It's a The Black Hack derivative called There and Hack Again. I read it and looks good as well.

Quote from: Persimmon on April 12, 2023, 11:10:14 PM
So if we decide to go back to a Middle Earth game, it will be MERP.

Same. This is entirely meta... but the coolest thing about reading LOTR for the first time is encountering this hugely detailed, immersive, unfamiliar, and mysterious thing for the first time.

Kinda like the feeling when D&D players try MERP. No more comfort zone of their favorite feats, spells, builds, etc. It's the same meta logic with DCC and the weird dice (they want to evoke the feeling of wonder you experienced when you bought your first set of dice.)

Sure, you don't need MERP for that feeling. Any rules-medium/heavy unfamiliar system will work. But MERP has already done the work for you.

Well if we're going to make lists...

Here are a few that haven't been mentioned in this thread:

Against the Darkmaster a MERP alternative fr 2016 Open Ended Games
Age of Shadow based on OpenQuest fr 2011 by Kristian Richards
Balrogs & Bagginses a D&D-derivative fr 2012 by Lars Dangly
BECMI Middle Earth incorporates some MERP concepts fr 2022 by Paulo Frota
BRP LOTR influenced by Decipher as well as Stormbringer fr 2002 by Colin Brett
ME BRP (incomplete: Ch 7 Magic, Ch 9 The Free Peoples, Ch 10 Creatures) by Fergo113

As for grading lists or options: I agree with the assessment of TOR (and AiME to a lesser extent) as rules slavishly attempting to achieve an outcome, rather than play attempting to achieve an outcome. I'd recommend Age of Shadow over both MERP (which I have, but haven't played, only it's big brother Rolemaster) and Against the Darkmaster. Age of Shadow achieves a similar feel with far less overhead than either.

There's also a 2d6 game called Tales & Legends, which is an obvious Middle-Earth inspired ruleset: the familiar races, three professions (scout, warrior, mage) and skill-based.

I've often wanted to run a ME game, and having read most of Tolkien's works set in ME (the exceptions being the History of Middle Earth) I think the most important decision is tone: do you want a First or Second Age game where the heroes and tales are legendary (Battle of Unnumbered Tears, Fall of Gondolin, Fall of Numenor, Balrogs, Dragons, etc.), or a Third or Fourth Age game, where the magic and mystery are slowly slipping away? That decision would drive the rule set chosen, obviously IMO only.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 12, 2023, 09:19:56 PM
Personally, I have no interest in playing Robin while another party member plays Batman. Everyone should balance out in the greater scheme.

If the Elves are great at everything, give some sort of metamechanic to Humans similar to luck or destiny pools/chips, to simulate Humans being vital and still having great roles to play, whereas the world is largely done with Elves.

A Hobbit that gets a foot stab in while the other characters are scything through Orcs is fine in a narrative, but it sucks in a game. Unless the Hobbit is a trained thief or something, he's likely to get sick of playing 4th fiddle.

If a creator can't have a vibrant world, with people of different capabilities, but still balance things, then he's not very good.

Yeah, what you need to look at is spotlight balance. If characters aren't balanced against each other, they need a niche, and encounters that allow that niche to be exploited need to be balanced.

The default in D&D is combat, so all characters do need to be balanced in combat. If you're not going to balance combat, you need to make sure other types of encounters are guaranteed and common. That also creates a problem the other way - if you've got a fighter in the party and they're not good at much else, it sucks for them if there aren't any fights.

Then you need to look at what kind of encounters are fun. Role playing combat is fun. It's something we can't do in real life.

Investigations are also fun, but then you need to balance the system for investigation, and make sure everyone has something to contribute as well.