LOTR - the books not the movies - is the hobbits' story. Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir are all NPCs. The party is thus quite balanced as far as the characters' native abilities are concerned. The big difference is Frodo has the Ring, mithril mail, and Sting.

Which means that from Bree to the breaking of the Fellowship it's a pretty crummy game where the PCs are constantly having to be saved by powerful NPCs. And after that the party is split for most of the campaign.

My Tolkien professor stressed to us that the hobbits are our eyes in ME. Nothing of significance can happen without a hobbit present to observe and react for us.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2023, 03:51:36 PM
The shift was already there in 0D&D, how much fun would it be to play as something as fragile (and paradoxically unwilling to relent) as a hobbit?

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.

Quote from: Festus on April 13, 2023, 03:08:15 PM
LOTR - the books not the movies - is the hobbits' story. Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir are all NPCs. The party is thus quite balanced as far as the characters' native abilities are concerned. The big difference is Frodo has the Ring, mithril mail, and Sting.

I think this is a core issue. To me, the hobbits are not a minor, skippable part of Tolkien. If I'm going to try to do something in Tolkien's style, it's important that hobbit PCs be workable. On the other hand, I think big heroes like Legolas are also suitable as PCs. In my experience, there are two main approaches to having both little heroes like the hobbits alongside big heroes like Aragorn, Lancelot, Conan, etc.:

1) The Ars Magica approach is for every player to have both a high-power PC and a lower-power PC. So the Fellowship might have 4 players - each taking one big hero (Aragorn/ Boromir/ Legolas/ Gimli) and one little hero (Frodo, Samwise, Merry, Pippin). I did something similar 15ish years ago when I did my "Dragons of the Yellow Sea" game where each player had one dragon PC and one human PC.

2) The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG approach is that the little heroes get special mechanical advantages as luck / fate / etc. In Unisystem, these are in drama points. In Savage Worlds, it would be bennies. In a fight, the hobbits can provide luck and aid to the primary fighters. Savage Worlds is pretty good about having combat options besides doing damage.

Though if anyone has tried other approaches, I'd be curious.

I am dismayed by the lack of blood and souls for Arioch.

Like others have mentioned, I think it is pretty well documented that Gygax wasn't the biggest fan and Tolkien stuff was a bit of a late addition - and even having Balrog PCs (despite proving the obvious influence) in the original book isn't exactly in the spirit of Tolkien!

D&D elves are not Tolkien elves (they remind me of Poul Anderson, despite being Lawful).

I haven't played it, but both TOR and the 5e version seem to have mechanics that are closer to the spirit of the books.

Quote from: Persimmon on April 12, 2023, 11:10:14 PM
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.

This is what took me out of TOR completely, and if you scrap the needlessly intrusive and clunky Journeys and Audiences, you're left with a system that has pretty much nothing going on in it. It feels hollow and the only filling is from mechanics that make the game worse to play and hinder roleplaying or mechanical creativity.

Quote from: jhkim on April 13, 2023, 03:13:27 PM
2) The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG approach is that the little heroes get special mechanical advantages as luck / fate / etc. In Unisystem, these are in drama points. In Savage Worlds, it would be bennies. In a fight, the hobbits can provide luck and aid to the primary fighters. Savage Worlds is pretty good about having combat options besides doing damage.

Halflings in DCC can share Luck as well. If you're not familiar, they regen luck faster than other classes, have innate stealth, and dual-weapon fighting. They're a pretty solid class in a game that does pretty good with making classes distinct.

Quote from: Persimmon on April 12, 2023, 11:10:14 PM
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.

Interesting. Thanks for the insight.

Quote from: rhialto on April 13, 2023, 06:03:57 AM
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.

Age of Shadow is so well done. It's a heavily underrated game.

Quote from: Pen on April 13, 2023, 05:19:58 PM

Quote from: rhialto on April 13, 2023, 06:03:57 AM
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.

Age of Shadow is so well done. It's a heavily underrated game.

Thanks, rhialto. I've checked out Age of Shadows (AoS) now. It is the closest that I've seen to what I'd be looking for. I note how elves have superior attributes to humans, which is balanced by fewer background points and fate points. The same is true to a lesser degree for dwarves.

I like how magic is divided into Innate Magic that is only for elves and elf-blooded humans. Sorcery seems like a stretch, but it is at least connected to the setting by the risk of shadow.

For my own campaign, I'd still lean towards Savage Worlds as a base -- mostly because I'm concerned that the OpenQuest combat works less well for high-power fighters. I feel like Savage Worlds is better at base than RQ/BRP for cinematic action like taking down dozens of orcs. Also, my plan had been for no PCs to cast any spells, so that would sidestep the magic. Also, AoS has no hobbits, not even renamed as halflings, though one could add that.

Quote from: Pen on April 13, 2023, 05:19:58 PM
Age of Shadow is so well done. It's a heavily underrated game.

And free to boot.

Quote from: jhkim on April 13, 2023, 03:13:27 PM
2) The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG approach is that the little heroes get special mechanical advantages as luck / fate / etc. In Unisystem, these are in drama points. In Savage Worlds, it would be bennies. In a fight, the hobbits can provide luck and aid to the primary fighters. Savage Worlds is pretty good about having combat options besides doing damage.

Unisystem would be perfect for a LOTR game.

Has anyone mentioned Adventures in Middle Earth (5E) yet? I've heard good things about it, but never played it.

Quote from: jhkim on April 13, 2023, 06:20:27 PM
Thanks, rhialto. I've checked out Age of Shadows (AoS) now. It is the closest that I've seen to what I'd be looking for. I note how elves have superior attributes to humans, which is balanced by fewer background points and fate points. The same is true to a lesser degree for dwarves.

I like how magic is divided into Innate Magic that is only for elves and elf-blooded humans. Sorcery seems like a stretch, but it is at least connected to the setting by the risk of shadow.

For my own campaign, I'd still lean towards Savage Worlds as a base -- mostly because I'm concerned that the OpenQuest combat works less well for high-power fighters. I feel like Savage Worlds is better at base than RQ/BRP for cinematic action like taking down dozens of orcs. Also, my plan had been for no PCs to cast any spells, so that would sidestep the magic. Also, AoS has no hobbits, not even renamed as halflings, though one could add that.

I have no experience with playing SW, so can't comment. The BRP fora have a BRP for Middle Earth write-up for hobbits: https://basicroleplaying.org/files/file/153-middle-earth-brp-chapter-9-free-peoples/.

Blackmoor opens with an alien invasion.

The original box had stats for martians and other creatures from various fiction.

Better question might be how far has D&D strayed from Leiber or Burroughs or any of the other sources. It was set up from the start to cover alot of different source material.

Quote from: Omega on April 13, 2023, 07:35:27 PM
Better question might be how far has D&D strayed from Leiber or Burroughs or any of the other sources. It was set up from the start to cover alot of different source material.

Yeah. Sorry, I agreed with Baron back in reply #6 that it's a poorly phrased question.

What meant to say is about how Tolkien-derived elements like elves and dwarves (among others) became quite different, to the point that even games set in Middle Earth often look different than the Tolkien originals - like human spellcasters.

While Age of Shadow doesn't directly include halflings, the author posted stats for them on his blog.

https://www.crookedstaff.co.uk/2010/12/halflings-in-aos.html?m=0

I'd have halflings exist in the setting, just in smaller communities where they stick to themselves and don't get involved in world events. They could also exist in the west, which isn't really detailed and thus open for GMs to use as they wish.