TheRPGSite

We're on the verge of having an official Middle-Earth D&D supplement brought to us by Cubicle 7, so let's talk about the 900lb Troll in the room when it comes to Middle-Earth: Magic.  There have been a lot of Middle-Earth games, licensed and other, so what do you think fits your vision of Middle-Earth magic best?

I played a LotR campaign back in the AD&D 2e days and our class choices were fighter or thief. All magic came from NPCs. Interestingly enough, that campaign felt more LotR than my MERP experiences.

Looking back, do you really think it was the "No PC Magic" that was the main difference?

Cubicle 7 and TOR by a landslide. Magic in the hands of Middle-Earth player characters doesn't sit well with my view of Tolkien's realm. Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, and the rest of the Maiar were the only wizards and they didn't have apprentices hanging about causing problems. MERP is nostalgic to me simply because it was the only focused Middle-Earth RPG on the market when I started gaming; Decipher's attempt was pretty and that offset some of the unease I felt about having PC wizards in the setting. When TOR came out and I saw there were no PC wizards, I knew I had the Middle-Earth RPG for me.

Later!

Harl

The "Only the Istari Wield Magic" idea has one gigantic flaw - The Necromancer.

When Sauron rose as The Necromancer in Mirkwood, there was ambiguity as to whether or not it was Sauron.  Who or what else could it have possibly been?  If there's a handful of Noldor and 5 Istari who wield magic then how are The Wise not saying "Ah crap, not this Sauron shit again?"  There have to be beings who can wield magic who aren't Elf Lords, Ringwraiths, or Maiar - like the Mouth of Sauron.  Now I'm not saying Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, Teleports and Walls of Ice but Men who aren't the direct line of Isildur have to be able to work some form of magic - the texts themselves prove it.

Of course "Men" doesn't necessarily mean PCs, but if something is true about a setting, then it is true.  I'm not a big fan of metadata tags hanging over people's heads due to their narrative classification.

TOR doesn't say that only Istari wield magic though. PCs in TOR can have a range of magic. Just don't expect one to be like Gandalf, as he was one of a select group of powerful beings. Even the practitioners of dark magic of the like the Necromancer could have been confused for, are covered. In fact, the villain of Tales of Wilderland is a good example of a Mouth if Sauron like magic wielder.

See, I've always felt that the presence of magic in Middle Earth was a bit of a confused mess. It makes me wish Tolkien had been allowed to rewrite the Hobbit like he hoped to do, to bring it more into the Lord of the Rings style of storytelling.

There is no magic in Middle Earth the way most RPGs use Magic. There's invoking the power of the Song of Creation, like Gandalf, Tom Bombadil, and Luthien does. There's subverting the Song, like Sauron, Saruman, the Wights, the Witch King. And then there's powers of race, like the elves ability to sing things into truth, or Aragorn foresight. But the common person knows about Wizards, and we're lead to believe (based on the accusation of Frodo being a wandering conjurer in Book One) that there are more common magicians. The Mouth of Sauron is said to have powerful magic as well. So there must be some minor magicians who have either "decoded" some of the songs of creation and found ways to work magic through a bastardization of this (perhaps Tolkien's commentary on Hermetic magic?). It's never clear, since we never meet any other actual magician who wasn't either originally a Maiar or Numenorian in the first place.

The best option is to just restrict all magic classes in Middle Earth. Thinking of 5th D&D, allowing the kind of magic a Ranger gets might be worthwhile though, and you could use Warlocks for those who've communed with Melkor or Sauron for actual sorcery.

It seems to be me that if Gandalf and company are "only" considered wizards and not the gods/angels they supposedly are according to Tolkien, then wizards must be fairly commonplace.

Magic items seem to be quite common. Heck, if you go by The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien was the first Monty Haul, they really got a ton of loot for taking out 3 trolls.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;910399There is no magic in Middle Earth the way most RPGs use Magic. There's invoking the power of the Song of Creation, like Gandalf, Tom Bombadil, and Luthien does. There's subverting the Song, like Sauron, Saruman, the Wights, the Witch King. And then there's powers of race, like the elves ability to sing things into truth, or Aragorn foresight. But the common person knows about Wizards, and we're lead to believe (based on the accusation of Frodo being a wandering conjurer in Book One) that there are more common magicians. The Mouth of Sauron is said to have powerful magic as well. So there must be some minor magicians who have either "decoded" some of the songs of creation and found ways to work magic through a bastardization of this (perhaps Tolkien's commentary on Hermetic magic?). It's never clear, since we never meet any other actual magician who wasn't either originally a Maiar or Numenorian in the first place.

Yep. That's the approach in TOR. The magic item rules are also along these lines and very good.

As for the 5e iteration, I expect to see 6 new classes based on the 6 callings in TOR. None of which are magic users. Magic will be smaller and cultural specific. The rules will be compatible with 5e classes but if you want a closer to Tolkien experience, just use what is in the new 5e Players Guide.

It will be interesting to see how the 5E version changes the flavor of TOR. I mean, with a 5E rules set it's bound to fell different, right? Can't wait to buy a copy, however.....

Quote from: CRKrueger;910393Looking back, do you really think it was the "No PC Magic" that was the main difference?

Had a simmilar experience wayyyy back and personally Id say "Yes" keeping the magic out of the hands of the PCs and keeping it low when it did appear was vital to maintaining the feel of the books. In our case it was done with BX.

My one foray into MERP felt overall really good. But it also felt like there was too much magic just from that single experience. Could have been the DM? Could have been the system?

TOR magic is damn good and flavorful, even if perhaps a little restricted.  Tied to races, the magic feels a tad One Trick Ponyish.

I suspect this issue elicits more unjustified nerd rage than any other in the hobby. The source books can be used to justify several different takes on magic in the game, spanning everything from magic being subtle, beyond rules, and far out of reach of PC's (i.e., the original 'Pendragon' system of magic) to being quite common, flashy and accessible to everyone. As for the range of spells, item powers, etc., D&D is, and always has been, totally fine.

Decipher.

I think Decipher has the best Middle-earth books out (currently) and the magic system is very much by the books (as much as it can be)

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;910399See, I've always felt that the presence of magic in Middle Earth was a bit of a confused mess. It makes me wish Tolkien had been allowed to rewrite the Hobbit like he hoped to do, to bring it more into the Lord of the Rings style of storytelling.

There is no magic in Middle Earth the way most RPGs use Magic. There's invoking the power of the Song of Creation, like Gandalf, Tom Bombadil, and Luthien does. There's subverting the Song, like Sauron, Saruman, the Wights, the Witch King. And then there's powers of race, like the elves ability to sing things into truth, or Aragorn foresight. But the common person knows about Wizards, and we're lead to believe (based on the accusation of Frodo being a wandering conjurer in Book One) that there are more common magicians. The Mouth of Sauron is said to have powerful magic as well. So there must be some minor magicians who have either "decoded" some of the songs of creation and found ways to work magic through a bastardization of this (perhaps Tolkien's commentary on Hermetic magic?). It's never clear, since we never meet any other actual magician who wasn't either originally a Maiar or Numenorian in the first place.

The best option is to just restrict all magic classes in Middle Earth. Thinking of 5th D&D, allowing the kind of magic a Ranger gets might be worthwhile though, and you could use Warlocks for those who've communed with Melkor or Sauron for actual sorcery.

This.  Played a lot of MERP back in the day. My most authentic feeling MERP games were when there were no PC mages or animists.

That said, as a shorthand for the complexity and subtly of ME magic, as a group we came to the understanding that some magic was "sanctioned" and everything else was stolen, or corrupted.

I once had a player run a delusional Haradrim Mage (3rd age c. 1200 Kin Stife era) who believed that his magic was "sanctioned" because he had stolen it from the Dunadain, Castemer the Usurper's court mage to be precise, sorcerer's apprentice style.  He then took it upon himself to lead the Haradrim out of darkness by expunging their blasphemous sorcories in a witch-hunt of epic proportions. Of course, the player knew what his character did not, so it was an intentionally tragic character.  The character, in self-denial (and a bit of messiah complex) took the burden of corruption upon himself as a sort of twisted self-sacrifice as if he was absorbing the sins of his people with his campaign of magical theft and murder - all set against the back drop of the Gondorian civil war.  It was brilliant IC role-playing, and one of the most memorable characters I have ever had the pleasure of GMing.

I've only played MERP, and not very much, but here's my general take.

If I were to GM a LOTR type game, and wanted to make it "faithful" to the books, I would include lots of low power magic, and reserve the blantant spell-chucking for NPCs like Gandalf. And even then I wouldn't have him slinging around fireballs like some kind of magic artillery piece.

But really, I wouldn't be terribly interested in being that faithful to the books. I can handle some fudging for the sake of a fun game. A nice compromise, as many have already posted, is to say that there are D&D type casters in middle earth, but keep them rare and maybe shuffle the spells lists so that something like a fireball is a big deal 7th-8th level spell.

I voted D&D, but I'm thinking specifically OD&D with a very restrictive GM.

There was a Dragon article that's been circulating for ages about Gandalf being only 5th. If you go with that line of thinking and keep character levels very low, vancian magic turns out to be very effective in keeping magic to a minimum. If a magic-user can only do one or two spells per week at the start and high-level M-Us are so rare, they might be just legends, then magic in the sense of actual spell casting won't be something you see all the time.

I'm thinking the following restrictions in OD&D would work really well:

Magic-Users use spell research rules to prep spells. It takes a minimum of 1 week per spell level to prep 1 spell. The value of the library used counts towards research costs, so the few libraries that exist, such as in Isengard or Minas Tirith, are priceless.

Spell scrolls do not cast spells, they teach spells, and there are only one or two scrolls for each spell known, so if you want to cast fireballs, you'd better figure out where the Scroll of Fireball is, and ask to borrow it for five weeks.

Wands and staves for specific spells can be crafted to allow you to cast that spell repeatedly, as long as you know it and have it prepped. Roll 1d6 when used: if the result is equal to or less than the spell level, the wand/staff shatters from the strain. The length of the wand or staff, in feet, must be at least twice the spell level.

Elves are clerics, the only clerics. Their magic comes from nature, and they can only cast a spell in the location where they prepped it. That natural location becomes their "library", for the purpose of "research" and preparation. They can't make or use magic wands/staves, but can make other items that carry elven magic in them: healing lembas bread, globes that give off light, boots and cloaks of stealth.

To compensate for the extra limitations, Magic-Users and Elves can wear any armor and use any weapons without restriction.

I agree with the D&D shout out above. The books are actually filled with magical items, effects and people, and suggest the existence of much more. This is a magical world where PC spell casters and diverse, crazy items fit right in, and pretty much all of those effects can be represented by D&D magic. Look up the pdf of my fantasy heartbreaker, Balrogs and Bagginses for one take on this.

It's a bit of a tricky topic but as far as fireballs go, Gandalf makes or buys fireworks and a 10' radius non magic fire ball is well within his and likely many other people's reach.  If hobbits have other fireworks to compare his to, then really, petards aren't out of the question.

I would suspect that whoever's building the fireworks keeps the formulas pretty close to their chests.  Is a lightbulb, a battery, a flashlight magic?

So, here's the rub, magic in Middle Earth is largely craft and skill.  There's counter arguments like the spells laid on Sam and Frodo's staves by the rangers of Ithelain.

Really, while it's much maligned, MERP does a pretty good job and I wonder if the detractors have really played it by the book.  Fireball is an eighth level spell and you have to be eighth level to cast it.  Yes you can do it at lower levels in Rolemaster but we're talking specifically about MERP here.  The low level spells are minor, even laughable and they eat up power points, which are scarce in MERP.  Never mind the experience rules and how long it takes to level up.  No first time x5 in MERP for those of you who played Rolemaster.  And the treasures?  Well let's look at the troll lair in the core book.  It's guarded by half a dozen trolls.  Good luck with that.

True.  I think some of the "bad MERP memories" are what comes from mixing MERP with Rolemaster.  ICE had Rolemaster, they could have used it whole cloth.  They didn't.  I think a lot of people were in the Basic/Advanced D&D mindset and thought that you started with MERP and when you were ready to put on the Big Boy pants, you graduated to RM (of course, when you did, you bought more ICE products, so they always mentioned you could use both;)).

I always think a lot of MERP and RM hate comes from people who skimmed the rules, freaked out and gave up.  But frankly you need to play more than two or three sessions to get a real feel for it.  You can't just run it like D&D.  I've never understood why they used that particular starter adventure.  Half a dozen trolls is a really hard fight for a tenth level party.  A first level group is just dead.

The only thing I can think of that would make D&D Magic work in LoTR is removing most of the direct damage attack spells and leaving mostly spells from Enchantment and Divination.  There would be some Necromancy, yes, but those would best be left in the hands of the NPC's.

I want to stress that this is nothing more than a personal opinion and has no basis in fact or objectivity.

Quote from: Larsdangly;910432I suspect this issue elicits more unjustified nerd rage than any other in the hobby. The source books can be used to justify several different takes on magic in the game, spanning everything from magic being subtle, beyond rules, and far out of reach of PC's (i.e., the original 'Pendragon' system of magic) to being quite common, flashy and accessible to everyone.

No frigging kidding.  More than just about any SF&F work, Tolkien inspires a legion of rabid fanboys convinced to the marrow of their bones that their half-baked presumptions and shibboleths constitute realities.  I vividly remember when New Line Cinema started a fan forum -- when the movies were first in development, and even before casting had started -- there was a tong war involving hundreds of posters and something like five thousand posts over the release of an artist's conception of the Balrog having wings ... something that The Fellowship Of The Ring explicitly said that it had.  Didn't matter when people posted the passage ... there was a large faction that Knew What It Knew, and they Knew that the Balrog didn't have wings.

I've seen the same tong wars about PC mages, of course.  A lot of people seem very hung up over the term "wizard," feeling that you can't have "wizards" in Middle-Earth because of conflation with the Istari, or that you can't have PC magic in a Middle-Earth game because the viewpoint characters in Tolkien's narrative didn't see any, or that magic is inherently evil because Galadriel equating people's perception of it as much the same as the "arts of the Enemy."

This is arrant nonsense.  By that same bizarre anti-logic, are people willing to assert that children in Middle-Earth appear by spontaneous generation, because no one's depicted as having sex?  That no one in Gondor ever eats fish, because we never see a fishing boat?  Do we automatically presume that nothing that appears off-camera exists, that every character speaks the truth, and that no one is affected by his or her prejudices?  Of course not ... not if we aspire to something beyond idiocy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;910393Looking back, do you really think it was the "No PC Magic" that was the main difference?

Absolutely!

A big deal of the campaign was seeking out NPCs for magical items, or spells to be cast upon us, or divinations that we needed done. It wasn't just party member doing his thing. It was something precious, wonderful, rare and strange that we needed to seek out.

Quote from: Larsdangly;910471Look up the pdf of my fantasy heartbreaker, Balrogs and Bagginses for one take on this.

Linky linky! Drop some self promotion on us!!

Here's one I found; if it doesn't work well for you I can re-load the file somewhere accessible:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8azW7IbtcxzalBIRUl0VW5zY1k/view?pli=1

[Edited to provide an actually useful link!]

Well, I think we pretty much agree that there's textual evidence that the general populace of Middle Earth references and believes that there are more magic-users in Middle-Earth than 5, even though they use the terms sorcerers, conjurers, etc. perhaps instead of Wizard.

However, that Galadriel quote is very interesting because it shows that to her, the "magic" of the Elves and the "magic" of the Enemy are two completely different things.  Tolkien wrote in his letters about two types of magic "magia" and "goetia".  

Magia seems to be physical magic, magic that effects the physical world.  Gandalf making light or firing pinecones, the magic invested in magic items.  Manipulating the Essence locked in all things.

Goetia seems to be magic of the mind and spirit.  Fear, illusion, deceit, the breaking of wills, the poisoning of the soul.  Saruman's control of Theoden being a perfect example.

While it may be easy to point to Magia as good or neutral and Goetia as evil, IIRC, Tolkien considered neither to be Good or Evil, but it's the intent and reason behind the use of power that leads to corruption.  Goetia would be much more likely to be used by someone who desired power over others and even the Wise have to be careful in its usage.

Morgoth's corruption of the Elves and Ents into Orcs and Trolls would be an example of both Magia and Goetia used for evil ends.

One thing about magic in Middle-Earth is, it seems to be very Animist, meaning everything is alive, has a spirit and can communicate in some way, even the earth and stone.  Magic systems that have a strong spirit world component would seem to be a good fit.  D&D astral or ethereal planes might be of use here as would Mythras/RQ shamanic systems.

Also "evil" in a ME sense seems to be that which goes against the Natural Order of Things, essentially the Ainulindale, the Song of Creation.  Exerting one's own will to manipulate the world to dominate or control others creates dissonance, or evil.  A system which includes a method of some form of evil aftereffects or corruption would be appropriate too I think.

Quote from: David Johansen;910560I always think a lot of MERP and RM hate comes from people who skimmed the rules, freaked out and gave up.  But frankly you need to play more than two or three sessions to get a real feel for it.  You can't just run it like D&D.  I've never understood why they used that particular starter adventure.  Half a dozen trolls is a really hard fight for a tenth level party.  A first level group is just dead.

More than that, i think MERP/RM was a fine fit for middle earth magic until you reached 6th level or so. Most spell lists represent things that can easily be explained as 'natural magic' such as boiling water, finding shelter, starting fires, locating trails or mental tricks like calming people down or making them fall asleep. Stonerunning, limbrunning, all this stuff can easily represent ME magic. The trouble comes when you start increasing in level beyond those effects - which wasn't too much of a problem with MERP, because that only went up to 10th level.

Quote from: talysman;910454I voted D&D, but I'm thinking specifically OD&D with a very restrictive GM.

There was a Dragon article that's been circulating for ages about Gandalf being only 5th. If you go with that line of thinking and keep character levels very low, vancian magic turns out to be very effective in keeping magic to a minimum. If a magic-user can only do one or two spells per week at the start and high-level M-Us are so rare, they might be just legends, then magic in the sense of actual spell casting won't be something you see all the time.

I'm thinking the following restrictions in OD&D would work really well:

Magic-Users use spell research rules to prep spells. It takes a minimum of 1 week per spell level to prep 1 spell. The value of the library used counts towards research costs, so the few libraries that exist, such as in Isengard or Minas Tirith, are priceless.

Spell scrolls do not cast spells, they teach spells, and there are only one or two scrolls for each spell known, so if you want to cast fireballs, you'd better figure out where the Scroll of Fireball is, and ask to borrow it for five weeks.

Wands and staves for specific spells can be crafted to allow you to cast that spell repeatedly, as long as you know it and have it prepped. Roll 1d6 when used: if the result is equal to or less than the spell level, the wand/staff shatters from the strain. The length of the wand or staff, in feet, must be at least twice the spell level.

Elves are clerics, the only clerics. Their magic comes from nature, and they can only cast a spell in the location where they prepped it. That natural location becomes their "library", for the purpose of "research" and preparation. They can't make or use magic wands/staves, but can make other items that carry elven magic in them: healing lembas bread, globes that give off light, boots and cloaks of stealth.

To compensate for the extra limitations, Magic-Users and Elves can wear any armor and use any weapons without restriction.

This is a very concise and astute way of handling it.

Many years ago, when our group transitioned from Holmes to AD&D, our new magic-user rolled for his starting spells (read magic, plus one offensive, one defensive, one misc.) and he didn't get the usual suspects (shocking grasp, magic missile) at 1st level. Nor did he land the high octane spells as he advanced, thanks to bad rolls and a mediocre INT score. He used charms and divination and enchantments rather than fire and lightning in the adventures. In retrospect, he seems like a pretty lame magic-user but at the time he was the best we had and he pretty much functioned as Gandalf did in The Hobbit and LOTR*. Anyway, he must have done something right: he made it all the way to 7th level. That, plus a stingy DM made that campaign seem somewhat Middle Earth-ish, even though it wasn't by design and the setting wasn't very Tolkienesque in any other way.

* No, he didn't kill a demon in single combat, but he did hold one off by drawing a protective circle while rest of the party killed it.

The problem with that old "Gandalf is a 5th level M-U" article is that it's frankly idiotic.  We know for a fact Gandalf defeated a Balrog, in D&D terms a Type VI Demon, so in D&D terms, he's not really a 5th level Magic-User, now, is he?

The article makes a good point, in that "High Level" in ME or any setting doesn't have to be "High Level" in D&D.  Nevertheless, you shouldn't try to make a good point through idiocy, which is what that article did.

Quote from: CRKrueger;910875The problem with that old "Gandalf is a 5th level M-U" article is that it's frankly idiotic.  We know for a fact Gandalf defeated a Balrog, in D&D terms a Type VI Demon, so in D&D terms, he's not really a 5th level Magic-User, now, is he?

The article makes a good point, in that "High Level" in ME or any setting doesn't have to be "High Level" in D&D.  Nevertheless, you shouldn't try to make a good point through idiocy, which is what that article did.

The damn article was tongue in cheek, which has escaped an incredible number of people for 40 years.

Also, re Frodo as a 'conjurer' in Fellowship; You can very easily read 'conjuror' in that instance as the type of charlatan who pulls pennies out of peoples' ears and is a pickpocket on the side.

Quote from: CRKrueger;910875The problem with that old "Gandalf is a 5th level M-U" article is that it's frankly idiotic.  We know for a fact Gandalf defeated a Balrog, in D&D terms a Type VI Demon, so in D&D terms, he's not really a 5th level Magic-User, now, is he?

The article makes a good point, in that "High Level" in ME or any setting doesn't have to be "High Level" in D&D.  Nevertheless, you shouldn't try to make a good point through idiocy, which is what that article did.

The idiotic part, really, is expecting any class-based system to meaningfully replicate any fictional work for which it wasn't explicitly designed.  Hard enough for a point-buy system to do.

Quote from: CRKrueger;910875The problem with that old "Gandalf is a 5th level M-U" article is that it's frankly idiotic.  We know for a fact Gandalf defeated a Balrog, in D&D terms a Type VI Demon, so in D&D terms, he's not really a 5th level Magic-User, now, is he?

The article makes a good point, in that "High Level" in ME or any setting doesn't have to be "High Level" in D&D.  Nevertheless, you shouldn't try to make a good point through idiocy, which is what that article did.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910892The damn article was tongue in cheek, which has escaped an incredible number of people for 40 years.

Agreed. Don't take the article literally. Hell, we can't go by the level of the Fireball spell, anyways, because maybe Gandalf can't actually cast fire magic except with the aid of the ring of fire. But we do know that a D&D representation of Gandalf or the other Istari doesn't have to be all that powerful in terms of numbers. Most of the high numbers we see in literary character write-ups are based more on feelings than anything in the text. "I really like Gandalf, he ought to be 20th level!"

But very few of the effects we see in Lord of the Rings are what we would call high level spells, and we don't see Gandalf or Saruman casting a whole bunch of spells in one encounter, the way we'd see it in a modern fantasy movie or a comic book. Most of the magic we do see could be based on artifacts and other enchanted items, rather than spells: the rings of power, the palantir, the wizards' staves. We do see a weather control effect, which is 6th level in OD&D. If we go by the books, then, we could make a case for Saruman as 12th level. Gandalf confronting the Balrog could be construed as Hold Monster, a 5th level spell, so Gandalf could be as low as 9th level, but if we make him 11th level as Gandalf the Grey, he could come back as 12th level as Gandalf the White, and he becomes evenly matched with Saruman. That's all we need, in terms of numbers. And really, the lower end is better, to represent the rarity of spell casting compared to other magic in the books.

Both Gandelf and the elves are angels, (different interpretations of Christian Angels)  Their power comes from their essence not their experience.

Level donesnt make sense.

Quote from: David Johansen;910560I always think a lot of MERP and RM hate comes from people who skimmed the rules, freaked out and gave up.  But frankly you need to play more than two or three sessions to get a real feel for it.  You can't just run it like D&D.  I've never understood why they used that particular starter adventure.  Half a dozen trolls is a really hard fight for a tenth level party.  A first level group is just dead.

Is there a lot of MERP hate out there?  I always felt it was a solid RPG with bloody combat and a bit much (simple) arithmetic.  The most credible criticism I've heard is that it is hard to do all of the addition and subtraction after several hours of drinking.

QuoteOriginall posted by One Horse Town
More than that, i think MERP/RM was a fine fit for middle earth magic until you reached 6th level or so. Most spell lists represent things that can easily be explained as 'natural magic' such as boiling water, finding shelter, starting fires, locating trails or mental tricks like calming people down or making them fall asleep. Stonerunning, limbrunning, all this stuff can easily represent ME magic. The trouble comes when you start increasing in level beyond those effects - which wasn't too much of a problem with MERP, because that only went up to 10th level.

Right. MERP magic is pretty low key until you hit all of the bolt and ball spells that begin at 6th level.  Few of PCs ever made it that far.  

I'm not much for RoleMaster (MERP hit the sweet spot for complexity) but I did use Spell Law for optional spell lists because the Elemental lists for MERP mages didn't quite feel right, and because it was easy to swap lists for nuance and flavor.

Also in 1984, ICE was perhaps less restrained by canon than a modern game would be and there were some liberties taken in both the game and the setting (which probably annoys some people).  I think for the most part they did a fairly good job adhering to the spirit of Tolkien's ME with this new material, and like Tolkien there was remarkable detail and consistency within ICE's world, but the game (heavily influenced by Tolkien) existed before the license, and the setting material was new. For me, MERP was a pretty Middle Earth-y game in a highly detailed but slightly apocryphal setting.  Both were well crafted (I think I actually prefer ICE's ME to Tolkien's, at least for gaming - blaspheme I know) even if they weren't perfectly aligned with canon.  In any case, if we are talking about getting ME magic "right," then I am not sure it is fair to judge MERP by that standard as it wasn't exactly their intent.

I havent seen the latest iteration of LoTR RPG, but my gut feeling is, having non-magical classes is the best way to run a Middle Earth game.

I assume the magic using class would be able to use most weapons, wear light armour, and relies on spells only minimally, and those spells tend to be enchantment type magic, not obvious blasting spells.

Gandalf "beating" the balrog was CLEARLY GM fiat, just like many key events in The Hobbit and LotR. Tolkien was always one to roll behind the screen.

I'm going to say Burning Wheel. Note: I haven't looked at The One Ring, at all. Maybe not so much on the human magic side, but Elvish, Dwarfish, and Orcish magic in that system are all very Tolkienesque to me.

Quote from: Psikerlord;911466I havent seen the latest iteration of LoTR RPG, but my gut feeling is, having non-magical classes is the best way to run a Middle Earth game.

I assume the magic using class would be able to use most weapons, wear light armour, and relies on spells only minimally, and those spells tend to be enchantment type magic, not obvious blasting spells.

Unfortunaly at least in MERP you are just wrong.  I am playing a hybrid caster now.  I have to cast spells in combat cause that's all I can do.   It's too expensive for casters to get any kind of skill at arms.  9 points a level for the first weapon.  20 points after that.  Hit points côst 8? points per level.  A typical charcter will have between 30 and 40 points.  Most things cost 2-5 points.  Less if you are good at it.   Casters can't be fighters.

Quote from: Headless;911479Unfortunaly at least in MERP you are just wrong.  I am playing a hybrid caster now.  I have to cast spells in combat cause that's all I can do.   It's too expensive for casters to get any kind of skill at arms.  9 points a level for the first weapon.  20 points after that.  Hit points côst 8? points per level.  A typical charcter will have between 30 and 40 points.  Most things cost 2-5 points.  Less if you are good at it.   Casters can't be fighters.

ah. alas! thanks for the insight.

Quote from: Headless;911479Unfortunaly at least in MERP you are just wrong.  I am playing a hybrid caster now.  I have to cast spells in combat cause that's all I can do.   It's too expensive for casters to get any kind of skill at arms.  9 points a level for the first weapon.  20 points after that.  Hit points côst 8? points per level.  A typical charcter will have between 30 and 40 points.  Most things cost 2-5 points.  Less if you are good at it.   Casters can't be fighters.

hmm... I seem to remember some Mages in my old MERP games that had decent combat abilities, but I recall that these characters were built this way from chargen with the right stats (ST), racial bonuses or cultural skills, and background options geared towards combat.  I think it is quite possible to make a mage that has a fighting chance in melee (armor (MM) skills were the toughest part).  On the other hand, if you started your character with mage-like options, then yeah, I could see that it would difficult if not impossible to catch up.

Quote from: Manzanaro;911468Gandalf "beating" the balrog was CLEARLY GM fiat, just like many key events in The Hobbit and LotR. Tolkien was always one to roll behind the screen.

Right, either that or the whole thing was a story game and the GM didn't have authority to kill the PCs when they should have died.

Speaking of which, MERP is about as far away from a story game as you can get.  Not even a re-roll.  It would be nearly impossible to play the events of lotR or the Hobbit with MERP stats.  The guys at ICE never tried to explain how a bunch of mid-level Hobbits, with help, defeated the Dark Lord and all of his minions.  You would need to roll a lot of dice behind the screen to force that outcome.  However, I think the assumptions of MERP is that it is good enough to play a humble character in Middle Earth.  Such a character might be able to change the world, change history, but if he did, it wouldn't be because he was one of the great powers or that the world (game system) somehow artificially favored you.  In MERP you played a humble hero in a world full of great powers that you could never hope to confront directly, and as relatively weak and fragile PCs might be, there was always the hope against hope that you could make an difference (or at least a story worth dying for), and THAT made it feel like Middle Earth - at least it did to us.

Quote from: Madprofessor;911555Right, either that or the whole thing was a story game and the GM didn't have authority to kill the PCs when they should have died.

Am I the only guy that remembers that Gandelf was an angel?  Just like the Balrog?   He isn't and old man.  He isn't a Wisard.  He is just as much super natural power as the deamon he fights.  And he dies.

Quote from: Headless;911582Am I the only guy that remembers that Gandelf was an angel?  Just like the Balrog?   He isn't and old man.  He isn't a Wisard.  He is just as much super natural power as the deamon he fights.  And he dies.

No dude, you're not the only smart guy in the room.  I know my Tolkien and I assume that anybody responding to this thread does as well.  I was reacting to the spirit of Manzanaro's argument about how games or gamers reinforce Middle Earth flavor and story, not the specifics of Gandalf vs Balrog.  I thought the thread was "what games get ME magic right?" not "do you know your Tolkien celebrity death-match match-ups, or what's a Maiar?" My error was that I assumed we were beyond that.

...and to be fair, there is history to the conversation.  Manzanero hates fudging dice rolls especially by the GM, and I am no fan of narrative mechanics - we know this about each other from other threads - so if you missed those parts of the conversation and how it relates to Maiar vs Isatri or MERP stats, it's understandable.

Quote from: Madprofessor;911599No dude, you're not the only smart guy in the room.  I know my Tolkien and I assume that anybody responding to this thread does as well.  I was reacting to the spirit of Manzanaro's argument about how games or gamers reinforce Middle Earth flavor and story, not the specifics of Gandalf vs Balrog.  I thought the thread was "what games get ME magic right?" not "do you know your Tolkien celebrity death-match match-ups, or what's a Maiar?" My error was that I assumed we were beyond that.

...and to be fair, there is history to the conversation.  Manzanero hates fudging dice rolls especially by the GM, and I am no fan of narrative mechanics - we know this about each other from other threads - so if you missed those parts of the conversation and how it relates to Maiar vs Isatri or MERP stats, it's understandable.

The lines Manzanaro and you wrote above just look like you are both saying that if Tolkien were a GM playing a LOTR game and had Gandalf beat the Balrog, that it would mean either he was cheating as GM, using GM fiat, or it was a story game.

Seems to me that Headless is quite right to point out that this none of those conclusions are needed if you know (as we all seem to) that Gandalf actually was simply equal to the Balrog. Neither GM fiat, fudged rolls, nor story-gaming. Well, since it was a novel, it was story, but story wasn't needed to explain the result. It only looked improbable to the first-time reader and the other characters who didn't know that Gandalf was equal to the Balrog.

Did both of us miss a place where you said "If Tolkien were playing a LOTR RPG and had Gandalf be a human wizard..."? Maybe that's just such a common issue with the whole proposition of playing a LOTR RPG that it's just in the water?

Quote from: Skarg;911602The lines Manzanaro and you wrote above just look like you are both saying that if Tolkien were a GM playing a LOTR game and had Gandalf beat the Balrog, that it would mean either he was cheating as GM, using GM fiat, or it was a story game.

Seems to me that Headless is quite right to point out that this none of those conclusions are needed if you know (as we all seem to) that Gandalf actually was simply equal to the Balrog. Neither GM fiat, fudged rolls, nor story-gaming. Well, since it was a novel, it was story, but story wasn't needed to explain the result. It only looked improbable to the first-time reader and the other characters who didn't know that Gandalf was equal to the Balrog.

Did both of us miss a place where you said "If Tolkien were playing a LOTR RPG and had Gandalf be a human wizard..."? Maybe that's just such a common issue with the whole proposition of playing a LOTR RPG that it's just in the water?

Argh. OK. Fine.  There are some misunderstandings here, and I'll own my part.  I realize that Gandalf defeating the Balrog makes perfect sense within the literature and no mechanics or play-styles are needed to explain it.  It wasn't the point. I was commenting on the gaming approach to the literature, not to the specific match-up between the Balrog and Gandalf.
 
I should have prefaced my comments with "in that particular case events went exactly as expected, but you are right that in general, many of the heroes' victories seemed like they could only be accomplished through plot device." or something to that effect.

The point is that there are events in the stories that seemed unlikely and the heroes seem overwhelmed and succeeded anyway.  Manz suggested that, with a bit of snark, that J.R.R must have been the kind of DM who fudged rolls, I responded, with equal snark, that a story game would accomplish the same thing.  Despite the snark, both criticisms are valid if we are talking about how to approach ME as a game and understand how a bunch of hobbits and outmatched heroes triumphed against great odds and defeated the Dark Lord and his forces.

I wanted to explain the way MERP handles this, and used manzanaro's comment as a segue to explain why I liked MERPs approach to ME (I obviously did this poorly or we wouldn't have all of this confusion).

If you look at character stats in MERP (and they are all provided) there is no reasonable way that the events of the LotR or the Hobbit would have played out the way they did - the protagonists would end up dead - you would need GM fiat or story game player power to arrive at the story.  MERP is very traditional RPG without any story mechanics to fudge out the situation, and I don't like fudging die rolls any better than Manzanaro.  MERP takes the assumption that the PCs are not Gandalf, they are humble, heroes in a world that is contested by great powers largely beyond their ability as a PCs to confront.   This is an important theme in Tolkien, that even a humble hobbit can change the world, and MERP captures that very well.  In MERP, you get the feeling that you are in over your head, and whether you succeed in making a difference in the world, or die trying, it still feels like ME because of it.  If you have a game that assumes you have the right to change the world as a protagonist, either through GM fiat or story mechanics, then you would lose that critical Tolkien-y aspect of the common hero who struggles against great forces and impossible odds.

Thanks for providing the missing link there. I've never read MERP so that's interesting to know, that they stat out the fictional characters and then provide no explanation how they wouldn't all just have been slaughtered repeatedly. Do they stat out Gandalf too, and if so do they have him Balrog-worthy or...?

Quote from: Skarg;911606Thanks for providing the missing link there. I've never read MERP so that's interesting to know, that they stat out the fictional characters and then provide no explanation how they wouldn't all just have been slaughtered repeatedly. Do they stat out Gandalf too, and if so do they have him Balrog-worthy or...?

hmm.. MERP is a game you might like, considering your background and previous posts.  I'm surprised you're not more familiar. It is a bit dated, but it is a quite gritty game with bloody tactical combat, magic that isn't overpowered, and realism is a premise.  It assumes that ME is a world in motion, and that the PCs are nothing particularly special in terms of game mechanics.  It's only through deeds that they can really impact the world in a major way, and even then it is more butterfly effect or ripples in the pond as the game is primarily set 1500 years prior to LotR.  PCs aren't godlings and don't have any narrative power, but as I said, in Tolkien, it's really the little guy who matters and can tip the balance.

Don't have my books handy, but both Gandalf and the Balrog are about 50th level - neigh invincible as far as PCs are concerned, (the game only goes to level 10 without RM).  Although levels are not really equivalent to d&d type levels as it is a skill based game and just about any character, no matter how experienced, is vulnerable to cold steel, short of powerful magics.

Ok good.  I did miss something.  It's been provided, I am back on the same page.


Now as to the need for GM Fiat to save the Heros in Tolkin:  I disagree.  

He only does that when he has the Eagels rescue the dwarves in 'the Hobbit'

Other than that it's all cleaver choices on the PC's part.  Well the Wicth king is a Key Hole boss.  But they had the key, so as much as I don't like invincible bosses with specific weakness that was fair.

The idea that the Heros couldn't beat the enemy goes to something we were starting to talk about in the "niche protection " thread. Before it devolved into the number and tatictices of a goblin encounter and how to make armour.

My premise is that min maxing is caused by dm's who make their players fight the enemies strenth.

If your challenges are all nails and screws than the players are all going to be big fucking hammers and screw drivers.

Plus Tolkien was probably like, "And this is also the perfect chance to call the PCs 'fools' and act like it's coming from an NPC!"

Kidding aside though, when I am looking at an RPG that seeks to emulate a particular body of fiction, I don't worry about whether things would most likely play out the same under the game rules as they did in the source material. But I at least want it to be POSSIBLE that they would play out that way, or I feel like something is wrong.

So MERP as a game? Well I have my issues with it, but I can understand people liking it. But as far as emulating the feel of Tolkien in terms of magic and combat? I'd have to say it is pretty bad!

I wouldn't seriously judge by anything involving Gandalf though, because Gandalf is clearly a GMPC ;)

Quote from: Manzanaro;911614So MERP as a game? Well I have my issues with it, but I can understand people liking it. But as far as emulating the feel of Tolkien in terms of magic and combat? I'd have to say it is pretty bad!

Care to back that up? What is un-Tolkien about MERP's combat system? (we've already discussed the magic system some in this thread, but I wouldn't mind hearing why it is so "bad!")

...Or, do you just want to throw your unfounded dislike into the universe? If so, that's cool, just say so. I'm not really invested.

For starters? The Rolemaster style crits. The fact that a beginning PC will get his ass kicked by a dog, nevermind an orc. Etc.

And don't get offended. I said I can understand people liking it. I am not raging that the game was a piece of crap that no one should play. I'm just saying it doesn't emulate Tolkien well. And it doesn't. Not anymore than the Black Company book based on D&D rules emulates Glen Cook, for example.

Cool, no, I am not the least bit offended.  Not at all.  Sorry if I came off that way. It just seems like if you make a blanket statement that X game is bad or doesn't serve the genre or whatever - you should explain why you think so.

I gave a few reasons why I think MERP does well by ME.  I know there is a perception out there that MERP is crap and bad for Tolkien, but I think it is unjustified, and I have yet to see a meaningful or convincing criticism.

MERP combat is pretty brutal and a typical orc is an even 50/50 match for a typical 1st level character (a maxed out warrior could handle several with difficulty and risk of serious injury), but I don't see a problem with that as far as emulating Tolkien.

The valid criticisms of MERP that I know of are 1) the math is tedious 2) it's not a very complete game (it's basically chargen, a combat engine, and some low key magic tacked on. For example, there is no social combat or anything like that.  You actually have to role play - some see that as a feature rather than a bug) 3) there isn't really even an attempt at game balance (also could be a feature rather than a bug) 4) it's a traditional skill based game with very few skills, maybe 10-15 skills outside of combat (and if you don't like skill based traditional RPGs, it won't work for you) 5) It doesn't accommodate high level super hero play well so if you want to be Gandalf or Galadriel you should look elsewhere.

I mostly don't play it anymore because of #1 above, the others are mostly good qualities.

By the way, has anyone ever played the ICE Lord of the Rings Adventure Game?  Its basically MERP light using 2d6.

Oh man the Math!   And the fucking charts.  At first all the individual crits were cool but Two charts per hit every hit, on different pages!    Come on!

Quote from: Headless;911656Oh man the Math!   And the fucking charts.  At first all the individual crits were cool but Two charts per hit every hit, on different pages!    Come on!

They don't call it chart-master for nothing!  I played a lot of MERP in the '80s and 90's and it never bothered me.  The math is not hard, it's just constant (and gets fuzzy after a six pack or so).  I tried to run MERP again about 2 years ago after a decade and a half off - and, I found the math and charts just a little more tedious then I want to deal with.  I'm older, have less time and patience, and there are so many games out there now that can get you similar results with less work.

Use whatever magic system is the most fun for your game. Screw all the lore nazis.

Quote from: danbuter;911664Use whatever magic system is the most fun for your game. Screw all the lore nazis.

It's not always Lore, it's FEEL.  If the feel isn't right for your group, then it's not going to work.

But otherwise, I agree with you.

Quote from: Madprofessor;911610hmm.. MERP is a game you might like, considering your background and previous posts.  I'm surprised you're not more familiar. It is a bit dated, but it is a quite gritty game with bloody tactical combat, magic that isn't overpowered, and realism is a premise.  It assumes that ME is a world in motion, and that the PCs are nothing particularly special in terms of game mechanics.  It's only through deeds that they can really impact the world in a major way, and even then it is more butterfly effect or ripples in the pond as the game is primarily set 1500 years prior to LotR.  PCs aren't godlings and don't have any narrative power, but as I said, in Tolkien, it's really the little guy who matters and can tip the balance.

Don't have my books handy, but both Gandalf and the Balrog are about 50th level - neigh invincible as far as PCs are concerned, (the game only goes to level 10 without RM).  Although levels are not really equivalent to d&d type levels as it is a skill based game and just about any character, no matter how experienced, is vulnerable to cold steel, short of powerful magics.

Thanks for the summary. Those are the kinds of things I like. I like Tolkien too but the people I've gamed with have never expressed an interest in playing a Middle Earth campaign (though playing out some scenes such as the fighting in Moria using TFT & GURPS, I have done), and we tend to be pretty content with our TFT/GURPS + house rules. There are so many RPGs and so often they aren't what I'm looking for, that I've not looked at many of them. Like I picked up the Games Workshop Twin Towers miniatures book, and the crude miniatures combat system offered nothing but groan-inducement. I will probably look into MERP to check it out though, now that I know it's more likely to be my style. Maybe the magic system is interesting.

The magic system is interesting.  Of the magic systems I have found it is the most interesting.  I would like to steal it for a home brew game.  

Though the magic can be quite restrictive.  As I already said full casters really can't afford to learn weapons.  But most of the straight damage spells are in a class only list.  So only that class can use them, and that class can't do a lot of other stuff.  

For instance an achelmist is the only class that can make magic wands but can't lean any of the ball or bolt spells to put in it.  

It's definatly old school.  Not in the good way, I the arbitrary and restrictive way.   Except when's it's not. Which is what makes the hard rules so jaring.

Quote from: Skarg;911734Thanks for the summary. Those are the kinds of things I like. I like Tolkien too but the people I've gamed with have never expressed an interest in playing a Middle Earth campaign (though playing out some scenes such as the fighting in Moria using TFT & GURPS, I have done), and we tend to be pretty content with our TFT/GURPS + house rules. There are so many RPGs and so often they aren't what I'm looking for, that I've not looked at many of them. Like I picked up the Games Workshop Twin Towers miniatures book, and the crude miniatures combat system offered nothing but groan-inducement. I will probably look into MERP to check it out though, now that I know it's more likely to be my style. Maybe the magic system is interesting.

Well, I wouldn't go too far out of your way.  The game is collectible and quite expensive.  Also despite its' many good qualities, the core mechanics involve a quite a bit of arithmetic and chart flipping which can be a turn off.  It didn't used to bother me, and it's not that bad, but there a lot of games that can get you to the same place with less work (GURPS or BRP would be ideal I think).  I was just surprised that you hadn't messed with it, given what i know of your tastes and background.

Besides, you should count yourself lucky that you are content and so happy with with TFT/GURPS, especially since it is a universal system that you can do almost anything with.  I've never been completely happy with a system, and I think few of us are.  It's a pain in the ass constantly searching for the right game.  I am a little jealous!

I think the best take-aways from MERP are the approach to ME campaigns where you play minor characters in a world in motion set in an "empty" time as far as Tolkien canon.  I also think MERPs background, setting details and adventures are exceptional even though they are apocryphal.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Headless
The magic system is interesting. Of the magic systems I have found it is the most interesting. I would like to steal it for a home brew game.

Well, Spell Law was designed as a substitute for D&D magic.  I don't think it would be too tough.

QuoteThough the magic can be quite restrictive. As I already said full casters really can't afford to learn weapons. But most of the straight damage spells are in a class only list. So only that class can use them, and that class can't do a lot of other stuff.

For instance an achelmist is the only class that can make magic wands but can't lean any of the ball or bolt spells to put in it.

It's definatly old school. Not in the good way, I the arbitrary and restrictive way. Except when's it's not. Which is what makes the hard rules so jaring.

That's not my experience so I'll just agree to disagree. RM/MERP can be a pain in the ass, but it is pretty darn flexible.

Thanks for the information, guys! I'm not sure why MERP wasn't on my radar, except there are so many games out there and I rarely saw it, and our local shops had it in shrink-wrap, and I had no one telling me it was interesting so I assumed it was unlikely to have much content that I'd find useful.

ICE produced a very 'rules lite' Middle-earth game called "Lord of Rings Adventure Game." It was level-less, only used d6s, and the magic system was quite 'low powered' (I think there were only 15 spells in total). The RPG was developed from the solo Middle-earth Quest books that ICE published.

It captured the flavour of Middle-earth magic quite well, IMO, but was rather constrained in what you could do with it. A skilled GM could have developed it in promising ways, perhaps.

My fondest memories of role-playing in Middle-earth are with MERP. I think *if* the GM used the optional 'corruption' rules, and the 'detection-by-Sauron' chart, then PCs would be quite careful in their use of magic. Still, it didn't really fit well IMO.

I think that TOR does a good job in portraying 'Tolkien-ish' magic. But the few times I played the system it left a bad taste in my mouth. (I'm trying it again this weekend, so perhaps I'll like it this time.)

I'm hoping that the 5e D&D version rekindles the old MERP magic!