Quote from: jhkim on May 26, 2023, 01:40:54 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on May 25, 2023, 04:59:15 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 25, 2023, 11:31:10 AM

Quote from: Aglondir on May 23, 2023, 10:08:41 PM
Aragorn and Arwen, and Sam and Rosie.

You forgot Eowyn and Faramir.

I left them out (as well as Galadriel/Celeborn, Tom Bombadil/Goldberry, Beren/Luhtien, et.al.) since we never see the sexual or romantic elements to the relationship. In the movies, we see Aragon and Arwen kiss, and we also see Sam and Rosie get married and have kids. But the rest? They may as well be platonic relationships for all we see.

Ah, you're thinking of the movies. In the books, there is a whole chapter focused mostly on the Eowyn/Faramir romance. I think there's more detailed romance than we get with Aragorn/Arwen or Sam/Rosie - though it's still pretty chaste. There's nothing close to sexual in Tolkien's writing that I recall.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 25, 2023, 06:09:01 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on May 24, 2023, 07:46:21 AM
FWIW I think that's a limitation of most settings based on well-known books/IPs.  How do you strike the balance between kick ass gaming in X and just replaying the book/movie, etc.?

I think The Mandalorian got that mostly right. You focus on the characters as the main protagonists, and use the existing fiction as background lore. Ideally, they should be more interested in the game events than the book/movie stuff, because it involves them directly.

I think particularly with some settings, there's a problem of being overshadowed by the main events of the original story. This goes for sequels like The Mandalorian as well as RPGs. If you're set before the main world-changing story, then you can't change the main outcome. If you're set after the world-changing story, then it can often seem like undoing the original ending.

Luckily I've never had this problem, and I've played and GMed in a lot of established settings. I pity the players who are so locked into just the events of the films that they can't have fun in the setting.

Quote
The Mandalorian I think does well by being after the original story but smaller-scale so it isn't undoing the Empire's defeat.

Especially in the first season, where a single scout walker or a single TIE fighter were a big deal. Later episodes fell into the "Bigger is Better" trap though.

Quote from: Aglondir on May 25, 2023, 05:32:22 PM

Quote from: S'mon on May 24, 2023, 03:44:30 AM
...The complete lack of organised religion is also very striking. Taken together, I find this creates something very alien to real-world experience, which I think does limit appeal. It's far easier to GM & play in something resembling Westeros or the Hyborean Age.

I never noticed the lack of organized religion! But you are right. That is very unusual, given the immanent presence of the divine in the natural world of Middle Earth, as well as the meta-elements of (mild) Christian symbolism.

This is also very realistic, considering the conceits of the world.  Religions aren't built on faith in ME.  God is real, angels are real (Maiar), and people have met them.  There is no question of whether Eru was the creator, what he wants from his creation, when he or his angels will intervene (or when you are on your own).  All that is known.  With certainty.  Often from direct experience.  So there is no need for imploring prayer or sacrifice, no need for doctrine or denominations, and no need for worship.  Once again, Tolkien has a surprisingly well though out approach that fits his setting well.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 27, 2023, 01:11:22 AM
Luckily I've never had this problem, and I've played and GMed in a lot of established settings. I pity the players who are so locked into just the events of the films that they can't have fun in the setting.

Whenever I see or hear someone write/say "have fun in the setting" I always wonder if what they actually mean is "rewrite the setting".

Quote from: Corolinth on May 27, 2023, 07:52:35 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 27, 2023, 01:11:22 AM
Luckily I've never had this problem, and I've played and GMed in a lot of established settings. I pity the players who are so locked into just the events of the films that they can't have fun in the setting.

Whenever I see or hear someone write/say "have fun in the setting" I always wonder if what they actually mean is "rewrite the setting".

Plot and setting are two different things.

The Aragorn and Arwen thing is a big secret with a reveal at the end of the books with lots of little hints scattered throughout, as is the Rosie and Sam thing that's where he went right before they left the Shire.  There's a more complete tale of Aragorn and Arwen's relationship in the Appendicies.  Faramir and Eowyn get a whole chapter of classically medival sighing and longing.  Go read the chapter on Mimbrate romances in The Belgariad and you'll discover it's exactly the same sort of thing.

The family trees might hint at the existance of some sex but they also might indicate some very busy storks.

Quote from: Corolinth on May 27, 2023, 07:52:35 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 27, 2023, 01:11:22 AM
Luckily I've never had this problem, and I've played and GMed in a lot of established settings. I pity the players who are so locked into just the events of the films that they can't have fun in the setting.

Whenever I see or hear someone write/say "have fun in the setting" I always wonder if what they actually mean is "rewrite the setting".

No, no, "it's BLOW UP THE SETTING!!!"

Honestly though, my main beef with licensed seittings is the "meet/fuck/kill" attitude players seem to take to them.

QuoteThis is also very realistic, considering the conceits of the world.  Religions aren't built on faith in ME.  God is real, angels are real (Maiar), and people have met them.  There is no question of whether Eru was the creator, what he wants from his creation, when he or his angels will intervene (or when you are on your own).  All that is known.  With certainty.  Often from direct experience.  So there is no need for imploring prayer or sacrifice, no need for doctrine or denominations, and no need for worship.  Once again, Tolkien has a surprisingly well though out approach that fits his setting well.

I'm not really sure that's case. A) the fact that Ainur met Eru, and elves heard his voice in early days - does not have to mean much for later generations. In Old Testament prophets also directly talked with God - does everyone believes it - no they don't. As Sauron showed with Melkoric religion of Numenor this generation-distanced knowledge can be easily twisted or forgotten.
Also direct contact with God does not mean lack of prayer, sacrifice, doctrine or worship. God directly talked to Moses and told him to do all those things. Like what act of worship even has to do with knowledge - worship is no dervied from blind faith, but from worthiness of object of worship (that's why both elves and Numenoreans had very simplistic prayers to Eru).

The reason Tolkien did not want to create more advanced religon is simple - because his world was meant to be ancient past of our world. Eru was meant to be Yahweh.
So as both faith of Moses and revelation of Christ are foundation of organised religion he believed in, and both are dervied from God making foundations to it - he did not want to create any ritualistic organised religion that would be unfounded into direct Revelation. He considered making any pre-Abrahamic true faith to be very problematic.

Quote from: Baron on May 27, 2023, 07:55:01 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on May 27, 2023, 07:52:35 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 27, 2023, 01:11:22 AM
Luckily I've never had this problem, and I've played and GMed in a lot of established settings. I pity the players who are so locked into just the events of the films that they can't have fun in the setting.

Whenever I see or hear someone write/say "have fun in the setting" I always wonder if what they actually mean is "rewrite the setting".

Plot and setting are two different things.

This is perhaps technically true in the strictest sense. They are "different things", but they aren't orthogonal to one another. History is part of a setting. Philip K. Dick rewrites the plot of World War II and arrives at a completely different setting for The Man in the High Castle.

As much as someone with a clever idea for how to shake things up and really have fun with an established setting might wish otherwise, they actually don't have carte blanche to change whatever they want about the plot of a book or movie and still expect their players are supposed to like it. Especially if Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or some other fandom is ostensibly the selling point. It turns out you can only reimagine so much before fans reject the new thing.

The fundamental problem of using Middle Earth as a game setting whether with D&D, its own system, or another system is that it has an established story and was created for the express purpose of telling that particular story. Letting PC's run around doing what they always do is jarring and just feels wrong for the setting. This is why Middle Earth is best left to the stories it was created for.

I'm actually surprised I don't see anything from Alex Macris in this thread.  I seem to remember him posting some game sessions in Middle Earth that I felt would have been awesome to participate in.  Maybe I'll reach out and see if he has anything to contribute.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 14, 2023, 02:58:01 PM
The fundamental problem of using Middle Earth as a game setting whether with D&D, its own system, or another system is that it has an established story and was created for the express purpose of telling that particular story. Letting PC's run around doing what they always do is jarring and just feels wrong for the setting. This is why Middle Earth is best left to the stories it was created for.

The bolded claim is completely wrong. Tolkien started creating Middle Earth in 1917 as a project for what he called "The Book of Lost Tales" -- which was two decades before he even started the plotline for The Lord of the Rings in 1937. During those two decades, he created vast hoards of unpublished notes and stories about Middle Earth, not to mention writing and publishing The Hobbit -- all long before he had decided on the plot for The Lord of the Rings.

His approach is why his work is a model for role-players. He created the world first, and then created stories to go in it.

Quote from: Aglondir on May 23, 2023, 09:02:53 PM
Over the years, I've wondered if Middle Earth role-playing seems a bit.... dry? dull? unexciting? But I've never been able to put my finger on it until SHARK's Three Pillars. 

Yes it is dull.  ICE's MERP tries to try and make it fun, and we played it so it felt more like a D&D setting.
If you want a setting that hits high on the fighting, booty and gold, nothing beats a sword and sorcery setting like Hyperborea or Lankhmar.

Quote from: DocJones on June 14, 2023, 04:29:49 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on May 23, 2023, 09:02:53 PM
Over the years, I've wondered if Middle Earth role-playing seems a bit.... dry? dull? unexciting? But I've never been able to put my finger on it until SHARK's Three Pillars. 

Yes it is dull.  ICE's MERP tries to try and make it fun, and we played it so it felt more like a D&D setting.
If you want a setting that hits high on the fighting, booty and gold, nothing beats a sword and sorcery setting like Hyperborea or Lankhmar.

This is why I think MERP's iteration of Middle Earth is the best pure game of the various RPGs for Middle Earth.  They add tons of stuff and choose locations and times that aren't well-known or filled out to set most of their products.  So you can have a lot more freedom than in the late Third Age where the other games are set.

Seems to me like a lot of the Middle-earth fiction revolves around travel, or at least The Hobbit and LotR do. The new 5E LotRR and The One Ring both focus on this aspect of the adventure. If you look at the Silmarillion there is a lot more intrigue in court, but that it harder to pull off. My adventures in Middle-earth typically have short quests to defeat monsters and take their stuff, a lot like a D&D game.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 25, 2023, 12:10:44 PM
The things that drive my enjoyment of RPGs are, in no particular order,
     1)  Fighting, the whole adrenaline thing
     2)  Exploration - seeing what's in the world, what's around the corner, what people are like, what cultures are like, etc
     3)  Puzzle solving - any intellectual challenge - tactical puzzles, detective work, riddles, mechanical puzzles, whatever
     4)  Method acting - acting according to my character's personality, first person conversation
     5)  Spy stuff - stealth in the dark, recon, surveillance, big elaborate plans to catch the bad guy, whatever

This is a great list, and I think that all of these five ideas fit a Middle-earth campaign.

Quote from: jhkim on June 14, 2023, 03:57:55 PM

The bolded claim is completely wrong. Tolkien started creating Middle Earth in 1917 as a project for what he called "The Book of Lost Tales" -- which was two decades before he even started the plotline for The Lord of the Rings in 1937. During those two decades, he created vast hoards of unpublished notes and stories about Middle Earth, not to mention writing and publishing The Hobbit -- all long before he had decided on the plot for The Lord of the Rings.

His approach is why his work is a model for role-players. He created the world first, and then created stories to go in it.

What does the Book of Lost Tales contain? Stories. The world was designed to tell stories, not for active players to explore and create their own stories. Middle Earth works great for a story game where a particular plotline is developed and the players play through it. This is an entirely different thing from open sandbox play. Tolkien put a lot of effort and love into the setting as a rich backdrop to stories he wanted to tell. With a richly developed setting, that development provided inspiration and structure to stories that he would create. I find that an rpg setting is better being more loosely designed and defined more by the play that takes place within it than established canon lore. This also gives the players more satisfaction that they are an actual influence in the setting. Middle Earth is so well developed and defined that players can feel like they have little to no effect on the setting. I love Middle Earth and the stories set within it but that is different than using it as an rpg setting. I am sure that there are groups that play in the setting and have a great time and there is nothing wrong with that if they can make it work. It just isn't my cup of tea as a play setting.