Just that.  I mean, ICE's version was the best thus far, but it really wasn't all that great mechanics wise, and even made a few dodgy setting decisions.  Decipher's sucked, in my opinion.

I used to believe strongly that WoTC were the ones to do this and to do it right, but I wouldn't trust the current gang there to get this right at all, its precisely the type of fantasy they seem averse to.

RPGPundit

BI/GW?

GW already has the LotR minis game, so a LotR RPG could be tied to it.  And Middle-earth could do worse than using WFRP as a base (of course, the career system and magic system would have to be modified quite a bit, but the overall 'low powered' nature of the rules would suit ME quite well IMO).

White Wolf, no question about it.

They're really stepping it up in the "cinematic fantasy" department. They could do some stuff with stunting to really capture the feel of the movies and give the players a true LotR experience.

Just kidding.

I like ICE's version, including the mechanics. Or at least the Rolemaster mechanics, I never played much MERP.

Barring that, the Warhammer guys could probably do it well. Career + Skills + Talents + Attributes could pretty easily model the characters from the four main books at any point (and power level) in their career. Their magic system already includes the ability to call on dark powers for bonuses, at increased risk.

It wouldn't be a straight port of the Warhammer system, but it might make for a good starting point.

Mechanicswise, I think there are several systems that would be equally good but I'll mention that HARP seems to be a natural fit.

Settingwise, nobody. The way the licensing works, it will be impossible for anyone to do it right even if they had the know-how.

Quote from: McrowSettingwise, nobody. The way the licensing works, it will be impossible for anyone to do it right even if they had the know-how.

How so?

Quote from: James McMurrayHow so?

From what I understand the people who own the rights generally are only willing to license out the movie material. You can't use any info from the Hobbit or any other ME books. IMO, that makes it pretty hard to do a LotR RPG properly since so much of it seems to fallback on the other books.

Bored here with excess time on my hands and I thought about commenting on this...

...then recalled that I'd be whined at for only spending a week or two and here and then leaving when I had other things to do...

...and then decided I don't give a damn what anyone thinks.


To the original question:

There are any number of answers depending upon what exactly the answering person 'saw' in the source works. RPGPundit for example has made posts about what he saw as elements of the books- and they were about as alien from what I saw in them as one could get (which one should expect in that example of course).

It difficult to get agreement from anyone on what exactly is even in the books at times, and in fact impossible to get agreement from the source works themselves on some things.

Games are never a simulation of the source material, rather they are simulations of those elements the designer thought important enough to simulate. And they may well not be all of those, much may be left to layers of design outside of the game mechanics, much like D&D left much of the role-playing outside of its rules.

From my own PoV, I've ran a Middle Earth Campaign for 28 years succcessfully and never had anyone say to me that it failed to capture the nature of that setting.

But then again, I would have kicked anyone out who had a seriously different view of what Middle Earth was like so no real proof there

To do it, I had to create my own game system. Nothing anyone else did before or since approached what I saw as key elements of the setting.

Quote from: gleichmanBored here with excess time on my hands and I thought about commenting on this...

...then recalled that I'd be whined at for only spending a week or two and here and then leaving when I had other things to do...

...and then decided I don't give a damn what anyone thinks.

:melodramatic:

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia:melodramatic:

!i!

Less than two minutes and I have my first whiner.

You'd think one day people would wise up and not fall for the bait and thus prove me wrong.

Will never happen.

Me, Marc Miller, and Gary Gygax are gonna nail it!

Anyhow, I'm thinking that ICE was really pretty damn close, people whine about the amount of magic treasure and stuff but I don't think they ever quite groked Rolemaster's magic.  See in Rolemaster magic is common and weak while in D&D it's rare and powerful.  Much as Tolkien denied in later years that it was really magic, the things people could do with "skill" well let's just say if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and isn't full of wires and high explosives it's probably a duck.  He was quibbling over his own definition of the word not what other people use it for.

Look at what the Dwarves and Gandalf pulled out of the hole of three large if rather common trolls, buckets of gold and jewels and three POWERFUL magic swords.

A +10 sword in Rolemaster is what you get when the village witch puts a charm on the thing for sexual favours, a +20 sword is what you get when you've got a sword that's been in the family for generations and blessed at the start of every campaign by the local priest.  Beater and Biter are sitting at around +30 / +50 vs goblins.  It is ASSUMED in the master character tables that the characters in question have +10 gear because it's weak but not uncommon.

Anyhow, Rolemaster rants aside, I think I'd want a D&D varient for the rules with subtler magic.  Yes really, I'd like Dungeons and Dragons: Lord of the Rings.  Why?  Because it'd be really really good for the hobby.  Though MongRQ might be okay too.  Hmmm...open source LotR...the mind boggles.

Glad to be of service, Brian.  The fact that you whine about people whining about you whining is deliciously ironic. Now you can whine about me whining about you whining about me whining about you whining about us whining.  And the best part is, you win every time, because you say so.  You're a whining winner!

For what it's worth (you big whiner), I think you're onto something with the notion of having to almost scratch-build a system/setting combination for any licensed property, one that suits the tastes and style of the GM and players in the campaign.  I suggested something of the like not long ago when the possibility of a Harry Potter RPG came up, I likened the problem to creating a Matrix RPG -- everyone's internal vision of the movies/books/whatever is different.  Licensed games capture some of that -- usually the more superficial elements -- but invariably they fail to please everyone on all counts.  The more specific the source material is, the less likely it seems that the game will please any of the fans.

!i!

Quote from: David JohansenMuch as Tolkien denied in later years that it was really magic .

One has to remember when dealing with Tolkien's world that it was in a constant state of change in Tolkien's mind. There is no one point where it is consistent and complete. Towards the end of his life he was planning and making changes that would have altered a large number of things.

Thus one must pick and choose on certain things.

Quote from: David JohansenLook at what the Dwarves and Gandalf pulled out of the hole of three large if rather common trolls, buckets of gold and jewels and three POWERFUL magic swords.

Here for example is the fact that the Hobbit wasn't actually originally set in Middle Earth, but instead a different story hastily (for Tolkien) edited to fit that just happened to use the same names (something I do in my campaigns in fact, pity I don't seem to match the professor in other areas as well...).



Despite all this (in fact because of it) one could easily make the case that not only was Middle Earth more magic rich than commonly thought- at various times before the end of the Third Age it was more magically powerful (if in different ways) than your typical D&D setting.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaGlad to be of service, Brian.  The fact that you whine about people whining about you is deliciously ironic. Now you can whine about me whining about you whining about us whining.  And the best part is, you win every time, because you say so.  You're a whining winner! !

Of course, the terms of engagement are after all mine.

As yours are yours. Everybody wins.

I seek only to entertain.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaFor what it's worth (you big whiner), I think you're onto something with the notion of having to almost scratch-build a system/setting combination for any licensed property, one that suits the tastes and style of the GM and players in the campaign.  I suggested something of the like not long ago when the possibility of a Harry Potter RPG came up, I likened the problem to creating a Matrix RPG -- everyone's internal vision of the movies/books/whatever is different.  Licensed games capture some of that -- usually the more superficial elements -- but invariably they fail to please everyone on all counts.  The more specific the source material is, the less likely it seems that the game will please any of the fans.

!i!

Indeed, in fact your example of the Matrix contains the same forces in play in how various people reacted to the 2nd and 3rd movies. Many considered them to be a serious let down because they conflicted with they considered the fun and important parts of the first movie.

Is it any wonder then that the same differences in viewpoints would carry over to rpg design?


Nor do I think it's a disconnected data point that Pundit picked his favored widely published systems in his post. What one sees and likes in rpg design for a significant number of people tends to project its shadow on to what one likes in fiction. And it should, after all the projection is coming from the same source isn't it?

Quote from: gleichmanWhat one sees and likes in rpg design for a significant number of people tends to project its shadow on to what one likes in fiction.

Therein lies a huge fallacy.
Not everybody likes fiction, or defines himself through his interests in fiction.

Quote from: SettembriniTherein lies a huge fallacy.
Not everybody likes fiction, or defines himself through his interests in fiction.

And that in itself is likely just as telling Settembrini.