So I'm considering a Middle Earth based game again, and considering using Savage Worlds for it. I tried a Middle Earth campaign back in 2009 but it was cut short by problems in the group. Back then, I used the Action! System, but that has no support and I was never thrilled with it. Thus far, I've played Savage Worlds, but never GMed it. Here's my initial thoughts:

1) I'm not going with a D&D-esque "zero to hero" approach. Nothing wrong with that in D&D, but I don't want to adopt D&D-isms just because of superficial similarity. Playing Marvel Superheroes one doesn't necessarily start as minor level characters who eventually become super. In the campaign, PCs might start off as ordinary hobbits, but they might also start off similar to other members of the Fellowship who are already heroes in their own right.

2) I don't see a need to insert in human spellcasters. There is magic in the world, but I'd keep it as Tolkien wrote. I would expect no PC who is like a D&D wizard.

3) I'm considering if I should handle a mechanism to handle PCs like Legolas and Samwise in the same party. In Cinematic Unisystem, it was assumed that there could be a mix of high-power PCs and low-power PCs, like Buffy and Xander. It was expected that there could be a PC Slayer and much less powerful PC in the same party. Savage Worlds seems like it could have similar based on the benny economy, but it isn't laid out.

4) Regarding bennies, I especially hate using GM bennies. I play my NPC opponents as if they are trying to beat the PCs (as they should), but I don't like using a metagame resource to beat the PCs. Can they just be dropped?


From search I've found two resources.

1) This is just most characters and monsters of the Lord of the Rings statted up in Savage Worlds.

http://www.merp.com/downloads/swme

2) This is a 25-page writeup on SW characters and gear for Middle Earth, but it uses assumptions I wouldn't including human spellcasters and balanced races.

https://dokumen.tips/documents/savage-middle-earth-the-trove-worldsfansavage-2018-12-27-savage-middle-earth.html

Savage Worlds is a very good system.

I would suggest using Savage Worlds Adventure Edition and the new Fantasy Companion to run the game.

I download both of the items and they both look like they are set up for Savage Worlds Deluxe so you would need to convert it a bit but that wouldn't be much trouble.  I am considering maybe using this material myself.

Just my 2 cents?

Hmm. May I ask why SW? You just like the system, or do you think it will be a good fit somehow?

A pulp adventure system kinda seems an odd choice for Middle Earth.

Bennies - hm, I agree about GM bennies, never liked it. You could give Hobbit level characters full Bennies, Legolas/Gimli/Aragorn level characters half. Or just let everyone play Legolas/Gimli/Aragorn.

Savage Worlds could work well for a more action-orientated MERP game.

Not a million miles away from Hellfrost in some respects.

I've been a player/GM of Savage Worlds for about 12 years or so. It's an extremely versitile system, but it's not a good fit for all styles of play. It does pulp very well, and can handle traditional fantasy, but something with the tone of Tolkien's world would require knowing how to finesse the nuances of the system. For what it's worth, here's my advice:

Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2023, 06:58:44 PM1) I'm not going with a D&D-esque "zero to hero" approach. Nothing wrong with that in D&D, but I don't want to adopt D&D-isms just because of superficial similarity. Playing Marvel Superheroes one doesn't necessarily start as minor level characters who eventually become super. In the campaign, PCs might start off as ordinary hobbits, but they might also start off similar to other members of the Fellowship who are already heroes in their own right.

Savage Worlds has very lateral progression. The PCs are already assumed to be "heroes", capable of over-the-top stunts right from the beginning, and Advancement just makes them better at whatever they are already built to do at CharGen. This can make SW a decent fit for a ME campaign: Aragorn, Boromir, and Legolas are all peak combatants, Gandalf is a literal deity in human form, and the hobbits all have plot-armor.

The generic fantasy races from the core SWADE book are pretty good for a Tolkien universe. They are simple and concise. The DnD-ism of just front-loading mountains of shit onto a race is not necessary at all in Savage Worlds (people try it, and it's stupid). This is part of the nuance of the system. Every character get a free die type in the Common Knowledge skill. Skills in SW are intentional broad and somewhat nebulous. What "Common Knowledge" represents for one character is not exactly what is means for another. So a dwarf doesn't need a "Stonecraft" ability because that's already covered by a dwarf's Common Knowledge. The GM needs to be quite flexible with how players choose to use certain skills. But this also means the GM has the authority to limit those skills too. Legolas is an expert at using a bow and has a high Shooting skill. If he picks up an Uruk crossbow, however, the GM is well within his rights to evoke a "familiarization" penalty, since Legolas has likely never used a crossbow before so his high Shooting skill won't be fully applicable.

Quote2) I don't see a need to insert in human spellcasters. There is magic in the world, but I'd keep it as Tolkien wrote. I would expect no PC who is like a D&D wizard.

Well, humans (and certainly elves) can learn "magic." It's just always very sublte and rarely flashy. Only supernatural beings, like the Istari or the Witch King, generally show any form of "outward" magic. To Tolkien, words held immense power, and things like curses and bonds, even spoken by normal people, carried weight. When Frodo bound Gollum to serve him, he swore on the Ring. When Gollum broke that bond, the fates twisted to cause him to fall to his death. There are other instances of real curses. Isildur cursed the men of Dunharrow to never know peace until they fulfil their allegience, and Aragorn, through word, released the curse.

This may be something you wish to implement through the use of Setting Rules.

Another one of the principles of Savage Worlds is the idea of assigning "trappings" to your abilities. There are countless little tweaks you can make to the game that don't fundamentally change anything, but do make things more interesting. For instance, there is no "knock" spell in the core rules, but through trappings, a mage can claim their Thievery skill (i.e.- lock picking) is magic-based. In lieu of tools, a GM might require a small expendature of Power Points to use the skill instead. "Elf magic" can function in much the same way. Succeed at a Stealth roll? Well, maybe you walk on top of the snow leaving very little trace. Real sorceresses like Galadriel, or the Istari (wizards), however, probably have actual Arcane Backgrounds and powers. Whether you want them as PCs is another matter.

Quote3) I'm considering if I should handle a mechanism to handle PCs like Legolas and Samwise in the same party. In Cinematic Unisystem, it was assumed that there could be a mix of high-power PCs and low-power PCs, like Buffy and Xander. It was expected that there could be a PC Slayer and much less powerful PC in the same party. Savage Worlds seems like it could have similar based on the benny economy, but it isn't laid out.

Characters will naturally vary in "power level" based on the player's choices made while building them. As a pulp system, SW puts a good deal of emphasis on combat. Non-combat-oriented characters will kind of be sidelined, but the system is robust enough that they aren't useless. The mechanics of Support and Tests are quite powerful if used correctly, and make even pacifists useful in combat.

Bennies probably aren't a good metric for delineating character power since they are a metacurrency designed to address and mitigate certain idiosynchrasies of the mechanics. If you want to create a power-disparity between characters, simply give some more Advancements.

Quote4) Regarding bennies, I especially hate using GM bennies. I play my NPC opponents as if they are trying to beat the PCs (as they should), but I don't like using a metagame resource to beat the PCs. Can they just be dropped?

Can they? Sure.
Should they? Probably not.

As mentioned, Bennies have an application as story-telling device, but they also serve as a means to fix some issues that arise from the swinginess of the dice. You absolutely don't need to use Bennies if you don't want to, but when your BBEG gets one-shot by a lucky roll, you might want to reconsider.

There are Setting Rules (like Hard Choices) that change the Benny economy you might want to look into. Or just create one of your own. Setting Rules are a crucial design decision to crafting the tone and style of the campaign you want to run.

QuoteFrom search I've found two resources.

Haven't looked at these at the time of writing. Might respond to them later.

Quote from: Trond on February 24, 2023, 11:26:33 PM
Hmm. May I ask why SW? You just like the system, or do you think it will be a good fit somehow?

Who was the question for?

Quote from: Effete on February 25, 2023, 08:16:37 AM
You absolutely don't need to use Bennies if you don't want to, but when your BBEG gets one-shot by a lucky roll, you might want to reconsider

I remember how much I hated playing Savage Worlds War of the Dead and realising that major bad guys could not be killed by a lucky shot. The Witch King spending a bennie to not be killed by a hobbit doesn't seem very ME either. The combat system is designed for pulp action, with the conceit that mooks drop like flies while BBEGs have lengthy combat scenes. Fine within its genre. Terrible for serious zombie horror, for Middle Earth, or even for Conan-esque pulp - Conan typically kills enemies with one blow; REH was never in to fight scenes.

Quote from: S'mon on February 25, 2023, 10:21:33 AM
I remember how much I hated playing Savage Worlds War of the Dead and realising that major bad guys could not be killed by a lucky shot. The Witch King spending a bennie to not be killed by a hobbit doesn't seem very ME either. The combat system is designed for pulp action, with the conceit that mooks drop like flies while BBEGs have lengthy combat scenes. Fine within its genre. Terrible for serious zombie horror, for Middle Earth, or even for Conan-esque pulp - Conan typically kills enemies with one blow; REH was never in to fight scenes.

Well the War of the Dead had all kinds of problems including being very railroady and other issues.  If you try other settings it works better.

I tried War of the Dead, hated it and then cobbled something else together for a zombie game.

How much work are you looking to put into this?

I'm sure there are some Tolkien purists who would be horrified at the prospect of using Savage Worlds to run Middle Earth, but I think it's a fine choice to try to run the game provided you understand what Savage Worlds offers. Savage Worlds probably isn't the best system to run anything, but it's a good system to run pretty much everything. So if you're looking to make this the perfect Middle Earth experience for your players, you're barking up the wrong tree with Savage Worlds. On the other hand, if you want to just crack open a book and be 80% of the way there, Savage Worlds is your system.

Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2023, 06:58:44 PM
1) I'm not going with a D&D-esque "zero to hero" approach. Nothing wrong with that in D&D, but I don't want to adopt D&D-isms just because of superficial similarity. Playing Marvel Superheroes one doesn't necessarily start as minor level characters who eventually become super. In the campaign, PCs might start off as ordinary hobbits, but they might also start off similar to other members of the Fellowship who are already heroes in their own right.

The wild die goes a long way towards making PCs highly competent at the skills they're trained for. The biggest boost in competence is that very first skill point to give your character their base level of proficiency, and it's all diminishing returns after that.

Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2023, 06:58:44 PM
2) I don't see a need to insert in human spellcasters. There is magic in the world, but I'd keep it as Tolkien wrote. I would expect no PC who is like a D&D wizard.

PCs aren't allowed to take Arcane Background. Simple as.

Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2023, 06:58:44 PM
3) I'm considering if I should handle a mechanism to handle PCs like Legolas and Samwise in the same party. In Cinematic Unisystem, it was assumed that there could be a mix of high-power PCs and low-power PCs, like Buffy and Xander. It was expected that there could be a PC Slayer and much less powerful PC in the same party. Savage Worlds seems like it could have similar based on the benny economy, but it isn't laid out.

Samwise doesn't take any Fighting or Shooting. Done. The d4 in Athletics that all characters get for free allows him to throw rocks at orcs. The fact that Samwise hasn't spent any points on combat skills does mean he'd have a few skill points to toss elsewhere. Like gardening.

The Support and Test mechanics in SWADE allow noncombatant characters to contribute to battle. Hobbits distracting orcs while Gimli does dwarf things. You can easily get the results you're looking for without doing anything fancy.

Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2023, 06:58:44 PM
4) Regarding bennies, I especially hate using GM bennies. I play my NPC opponents as if they are trying to beat the PCs (as they should), but I don't like using a metagame resource to beat the PCs. Can they just be dropped?

Savage Worlds is a very versatile system. You can tweak it to do pretty much anything. Bennies are more for the players than the GM. You could easily just not give yourself Bennies. I regularly forget I have Bennies when I'm running the game, and that's not much different.

Although, my initial reaction was that you don't want to run Savage Worlds. Bennies are a pretty important part of the system.

Quote from: Trond on February 24, 2023, 11:26:33 PM
Hmm. May I ask why SW? You just like the system, or do you think it will be a good fit somehow?

Quote from: S'mon on February 25, 2023, 03:28:16 AM
A pulp adventure system kinda seems an odd choice for Middle Earth.

1) I don't want pure pulp action, but I want to try for something similar in tone to the Peter Jackson films. So cinematic but not pulp per se. I'm thinking of Helm's Deep as Legolas and Gimli chat over killing dozens of orcs, in both the books and the film. I want combat to move fast and feel cinematic, rather than too tactical or slogging.

2) I'd like it possible for powerful PCs to be relatively simple to play, rather than loaded down with special abilities, maneuvers, etc.

Of systems that I have more experience with, I think Cinematic Unisystem would be a close fit for what I'm doing. I used it for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and it seemed fine. But it was never widely supported, and is now completely defunct. I've enjoyed Savage Worlds some already, and for future campaigns, I'd prefer to go with something that has more community and support today.

Savage Worlds for Middle Earth? Can be done as long as you're not trying to capture the grandeur of the entire narrative of Tolkien in one gulp. If you are - then Savage Worlds *can* do it, but it would take work because you're going to be using Savage Rifts-level mechanics to emulate Balrogs and big nasty Tolkien-dragons which generally are named creatures (and therefore probably not bog standard "dragons" from D&D). It *can* totally do it, otherwise you're going to lower the resolution of that narrative as in the Savage Middle Earth link you put in your first post.

A Noldor is *not* just those 4-point qualities and therefore a "playable race". They effectively made a D&D Elf with a Tolkien skin.

Your baseline should be SWADE Core and the Fantasy Companion. With those you can tweak up/down the resolution of "Tolkien" you want. Out of the box with very little effort you can emulate the cinematic movies pretty easy.

Quote1) I don't want pure pulp action, but I want to try for something similar in tone to the Peter Jackson films. So cinematic but not pulp per se. I'm thinking of Helm's Deep as Legolas and Gimli chat over killing dozens of orcs, in both the books and the film. I want combat to move fast and feel cinematic, rather than too tactical or slogging.

The standard combat rules will easily encompass this. Remember that PC's are Wildcards and most NPC's are Minions. Standard PC's will *generally* mow down Minions, and can have all the snappy banter they want. But understand Minions *are* dangerous if you leverage all the possible options. A whole bunch of Minions can  drag down a PC that underesitmates them - Gang Up tactics, Ranged attacks, sheer numbers can definitely even the playing field with much more heroic fidelity than D&D with far less mechanical overhead. You can modulate that in-play pretty easy.

Quote2) I'd like it possible for powerful PCs to be relatively simple to play, rather than loaded down with special abilities, maneuvers, etc.

Savage Worlds combat does have its own combat modalities. Nothing you haven't seen before, Dual Wielding, Sword and Board, unarmed. etc. etc. but the mechanics are pretty tight so once you do a couple of rounds it's EASY. The trick comes when PC's have earned a lot of Advances and they'll have a lot of options opened to them that plugs into standard combat. As long as you've paced your game accordingly these options will be very organic and a non-issue.

Let's talk about your real concerns: Bennies.

I'm not a general fan of Bennies, but the way they're used in SW makes sense after you get into it. Most people see Bennies as "Lets Never Fail" chips. They're *not*. They have a lot of uses that plug directly into the mechanics in very specific ways (and if misunderstood - can actually trap the focus of the game).

First and foremost Bennies should ideally be used to do "Cool Stuff" - yes that means making sure an action succeeds. But the reality is PC's should be taking chances like "Called shots to the Head" (Legolas taking out that Goblin while making their way to the bridge of Khazad Dum) or Tossing Gimili over (Athletics check). Or other fun cinematic things.

Arguably the most mechanical necessary use for Bennies is to Soak. When you get hit, unlike in D&D, if damage gets through your Armor/Toughness, you can Soak the damage. It costs a precious Benny, so the natural instinct for Players is to HOARD THEM. Which of course makes them not use them for "Cool Stuff". This requires you as a GM to incentivize the Benny economy in accordance to the style of your game.

Not Handing Out Bennies Enough: PC's should be getting Bennies for roleplaying their characters according to their Hindrances (when it really matters) and doing pro-active stuff you as the GM want to see more of in your game. You'll find your players stop hoarding Bennies for combat.

GM Bennies - well these are completely in your control to use as you see fit to create tension and pace combat with your NPC's. One of the chronic issues is Players complaining about not "one shotting" NPCs. Well if the NPC is a Wildcard, they probably shouldn't be one-shot, but it *CAN* happen. I've seen it literally dozens of times where despite the Bennies thrown up to save an NPC - they get waxed by the PC's. But again, this is not normal. And you can let the dice do all the talking - nothing says you HAVE to spend your Bennies to attempt to avoid the fate of the dice. That's on you as the GM.

The Combat system has a LOT of options to let less "combat oriented" characters be very useful in combat. As mentioned upthread - the Support and Tests mechanics are brilliant. They allow for the creative input of all players to use their PC's in novel ways based on skills they actually have, vs. skills the system assumes they have.

As far as races - I'd custom make Humans, Dwarves, and Elves as specific regional varieties. I would disallow Noldor and probably only allow Sindar. But that's up to you. There are rules for Race creation that you can tune up or down as you see fit to get the version you want represented.

I'd disallow Arcane Backgrounds - this takes care of wizards. But if you use the SW Fantasy Companion you have tons of options for "magic" like knowledge. You might want to allow Alchemy or something and trim the powerlist down in terms of what you want PC's to be able to do. You have endless options in this regard.

Beyond that - SWADE+Fantasy Companion with specific adjustments should be more than enough to do cinematic LotR.

Quote from: GhostNinja on February 25, 2023, 10:19:58 AM

Quote from: Trond on February 24, 2023, 11:26:33 PM
Hmm. May I ask why SW? You just like the system, or do you think it will be a good fit somehow?

Who was the question for?

OP. I just thought Middle-Earth and SW was an odd combo

Quote from: Trond on February 25, 2023, 04:55:11 PM

OP. I just thought Middle-Earth and SW was an odd combo

Actually with SWADE and the new fantasy companion it really wouldn't be that odd.

  Seeing how many times characters survive insane situations through luck or fate (bennies) I do not think SW is out of line in running Middle Earth.   I do think some things can be used to make it a bit further from the pulp feel though (gritty wounds) and maybe bennies are a bit harder to come by and earn.