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. :D
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! :D
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. :D 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. :D 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.
...which is a triviality. Obviously a person is defined by her preferences.
I think there's a distinct difference between a game emulating serial fiction such as a television or comic book series -- which often have a distinct episodic formula, and emulating a single work or short series (i.e. a novel, movie, or trilogy).
That is, I think it is a bit clearer what we should expect from a Star Trek or Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG. It's a lot harder to say what a Lord of the Rings RPG should be like.
One thing that strikes me about the narrative of LotR compared to most RPGs is that a lot of it is spent in traveling -- as opposed to just jumping to action.
Quote from: Settembrini...which is a triviality. Obviously a person is defined by her preferences.
I'll come back to you when you have something interesting (and hopefully not inconsistent with your own posts) to say.
In the meantime, I think it's worth exploring why questions of "what game-system would work best for Setting X" come up at all, let alone as often as they do. Why is this?
Based upon my own experience, I would expect most people to just use their favored system perhaps with house rules and run with it. I would expect a much smaller number to design their own system to match their taste. I would expect another small number to wait upon their favored designer in the hopes that he would make it.
Instead the common model seems to be "wish for someone else to publish it and then complain about how it fails" followed by the 'fav designer' approach.
Some of this I understand. Maps and collected history are hard work and unless one is gifted with impressive recall they are needed for a rpg campaign. The thing here is that many settings (Middle Earth especially) already have these collected in published works. All that is missing is game stats, are they that critical?
Even so, perhaps avoiding the work is the key component. Most campaigns don't last long according to WotC's research, and that implies a low upfront committment. And that implies a desire for already 'cooked' game systems.
And I think some of the questions of this type are a poorly concealed attempt to pitch one's own favored systems...
Other opinions?
Aren't gamers divided into those who homebrew LoTR and those who use a variety of published systems....but they all use ICE supplements for background info ?
Regards,
David R
Quote from: jhkimThat is, I think it is a bit clearer what we should expect from a Star Trek or Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG. It's a lot harder to say what a Lord of the Rings RPG should be like.
Even here I think there is a wide range of disagreement about what parts are worthly of game simulation.
First season Buffy or last? They are very different things in my mind.
Another example comes from Pundits rants about superhero games. He IMO gets them completely off track by focusing on the wrong elements of a serial medium and storyline- indeed he focuses on what I consider the worse elements and ignores all the good.
Thus I think HERO System is perfect for the setting and he hates it.
Quote from: jhkimOne thing that strikes me about the narrative of LotR compared to most RPGs is that a lot of it is spent in traveling -- as opposed to just jumping to action.
Thus from your PoV, how would you invoke that in a game design? Extensive rules for traveling (mechanics based) or by Player interaction with the world they encounter along the way (role-play based without rules)? That is (to use my old terms), what Design Layer is that element invoked at?
It's a interesting question subject to different answers.
Thus IMO Pundit gets the starting question all wrong. He's jumping to end and then wanting people to explain why when they likely never considered the reasons before making their choice.
When I did the rule design for my Middle Earth campaign, I listed out bulleted items of what I considered the important and meaningful elements of Middle Earth. And used those to not only select/design rules- but to pick a place in time in a setting far larger than most people think.
And I listed with them if they were to be mechanically driven or not.
Thus (to use your one bullet item and my answer to mechanics):
1. Long trips through the world. No Mechanics, RP with place names & encounters
Quote from: gleichmanI'll come back to you when you have something interesting (and hopefully not inconsistent with your own posts) to say.
Well, you were making a specific argument:
QuoteWhat 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.
When you take out the fiction in that statement, it becomes trivial. [insert your own thinking, then proceed to...]: Of course, preferences exist.
But to base the understanding of RPG design preferences on the assumption they would be a function of the fiction preferences of said person is dead wrong. Actually it´s the single biggest fuckup in RPG history, because it caused so much grief and bad games.
There is nothing inconsistent in my post, just sloppy thinking on your part.
Quote from: SettembriniBut to base the understanding of RPG design preferences on the assumption they would be a function of the fiction preferences of said person is dead wrong.
That's what you got out of my post?
Sorry, made it without thinking about what sacred cow you'd wrongly (almost by 180 degrees) leap to the defense of. Try again and if you still think that's the meaning I was shooting at, please don't bother reading more of my posts. It will be impossible for us to communicate successfully. We've been down this road before if I'm recalling correctly.
For what it's worth, I think the fault is more mine than yours viewed as a strict matter of english usage.
Welcome back, Brian!
Really, I was fond of MERP, if not the sometimes puzzling power levels for the Middle Earth I knew, but if anyone could give it another run, I'd give it to I.C.E. Perhaps something close to HARP. If not I.C.E., honestly, the way the Epic RPG (http://epicrpg.com/) is set up and plays, I just think it'd be a very good fit for it.
I began buying MERP supplements way back when, soon after ICE started making them. We tried the game itself, and found it to not be very much in keeping with the "feel" of the setting. The magic system, the combat system, none of it felt right. Decipher's game, which I actually ran for a campaign, fits the feel of the setting much, much better. Plus, the research into the setting is much better and more in-depth than that of MERP. Sure, I use MERP sourcebooks, but they can be pretty wonky, with weirdness that I could never imagine Tolkien including - such as a flying castle built by elves, one of whom creates human/animal hybrids by way of surgery and magic. Huh?
I think running a campaign in the 4th age is probably best. There is as much to do in Middle-earth after the fall of Sauron as in most D&D settings.
Of course, on the other end of things you could always run Exalted for the first age and early second. But it might not handle the power level all that well...
Another way I wouldn't mind seeing Middle Earth done is GURPS but not with the core GURPS magic system of course. Boy, and people complained that Rolemaster didn't do Middle Earth magic right.
Lastly and perhaps most properly one could adapt Pendragon for it.
Quote from: David JohansenLastly and perhaps most properly one could adapt Pendragon for it.
Okay, now
there's an intriguing idea. It'd be a heap-load o' work, but it could suit the power scale nicely, and place an interesting emphasis on the
fin de l'ère ideals and sensibilities of the races of Middle Earth.
!i!
We all played many different RPGs.
What would make up the elements an ideal LOTR RPG?
We know that it is low or studle magic, and has disparate levels of powers. Much of the supernatural effects seems to effect morale and will as opposed to blasting them out of their shoes. Magic also seems to work like MMORPG buff spells where attributes and skills are enhanced or degraded as opposed to direct attacks. The few exceptions are the Bruinen Fords and the Gandalf driving off the Nazgul outside of Minas Tirith. From the Simarillion there are example of shapeshifting
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOkay, now there's an intriguing idea.
Totally. Especially the alignment system.
How about Jeffrey Schecter's Legends of Middle-earth (http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/Legends_of_Middle_Earth_Free_RPG.php)?
Quote from: James McMurray...
I like ICE's version, including the mechanics. Or at least the Rolemaster mechanics, I never played much MERP.
....
I loved MERP! (See sig.)
And I agree that, for the most part, the mechanics were well suited to Middle-earth, at least in the Third Age. MERP kept combat deadly and grim. That's how I understand Middle-earth, from the LotR books (as opposed to the movies). It's a place where an orc can fell a great warrior with a lucky strike (e.g. Isildur). It's a place where a single critical hit can make a difference in battle (e.g. Bard's slaying of Smaug; Isildur's hit on Sauran; etc.).
And the 'cultural/racial backgrounds' provided in the core MERP book were great (well researched, etc.).
The magic system was not appropriate (mages flinging fire balls was not really 'Tolkienesque'), but otherwise I think that MERP did a great job.
However, ICE has made it very clear that they have
zero interest in ever touching anything involving Tolkien again. (And they couldn't afford it anyway.)
The only companies that could afford the licensing fees, I suspect, are WotC, WW, and GW (possibly Mongoose).
Quote from: ColonelHardisson... Plus, the research into the setting is much better and more in-depth than that of MERP. Sure, I use MERP sourcebooks, but they can be pretty wonky, with weirdness that I could never imagine Tolkien including - such as a flying castle built by elves, one of whom creates human/animal hybrids by way of surgery and magic. Huh?
:confused:
For the
most part MERP was far, far, better researched and far more detailed than Deciphers' LotR RPG!
Many MERP supplements made use of material from
The Silmarillion and
Unfinished Tales, whereas Decipher was limited to
The Hobbit and
Lord of the Rings (which led to weirdness, like not being able to use terms like 'Maiar', refer to the names of the other Istari, etc.).
The MERP 'uber modules' provided a wealth of information -- for the most part consistent with Tolkien's writings -- and tons of adventures and adventure ideas (e.g.
Arnor,
Gondor,
Mirkwood, etc.). Some of the 'campaign modules' (or 'adventure paths' as we would call them today) were well researched and innovative (e.g.
Palantir Quest,
The Kin-Strife, etc.).
Granted, there were some exceptions in terms of fidelity to Middle-earth in
some MERP modules. The biggest offenders were probably
Ardor and
Dunland. The latter seems to be the focus of your ire (although it didn't have a 'flying castle' btw -- the castle you're referring to was on the edge of a mountain -- but 'flying boats').
Personally, I'd take MERP, warts and all, over Decipher's LotR game any day.
And the MERP maps! Works of
art!
:cool:
Quote from: Zachary The FirstWelcome back, Brian!
Really, I was fond of MERP, if not the sometimes puzzling power levels for the Middle Earth I knew, but if anyone could give it another run, I'd give it to I.C.E.
It wasn't a bad system for it all in all, at least compared to other published options. And I.C.E did pick a period nearly two thousand years before the War of the Ring when magic was more common place. This gave them more freedom by far.
The maps were wonderful, although they didn't fit together cleanly due to them being designed to cover a specific campaign area instead of being designed to slide up against each other edge to edge. A nit all things considered.
When most people speak of MERP with respect to Middle Earth, they always kick its power levels which I consider the common mistake of someone who doesn't really know the setting and its history.
I however had issues with the system beyond those mostly in that much of the complexity served little purpose other than adding Complexity of Mass. much of the system effects were difficult to determine except in board general terms thus making me seriously question balance and niche. And finally there was the walking mass of criticals issue (i.e. any combat of any length would result in the PCs becoming walking wounded or worse).
My use of the system lasted but two or three attempts, afterwards I bought their products for the maps. Never really used much in the way of their adventure ideas either.
Quote from: AkrasiaPersonally, I'd take MERP, warts and all, over Decipher's LotR game any day.
And the MERP maps! Works of art!
:cool:
Never looked at Decipher's work on the subject, everything I heard about their game from their fans put me completely off as did the game's highly limited focus. The end of the Third Age is IMO the worse period behind the Fourth Age for an rpg campaign.
Oh, and Middle Earth did in the source works have at least one flying Ship- Vingilot. It all depends upon the era. Now I wouldn't put something like that in the middle of the Third Age myself, but I can see other people doing it as a relic of the Elder days.
One of the nice things about MERPs work was that it was easy to ignore sections or even entire modules if you didn't feel they fit.
If I were to do Middle-Earth — and most likely I never would — I would use HeroQuest; because it seems most likely to support a broad variety of conflicts.
Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeHow about Jeffrey Schecter's Legends of Middle-earth (http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/Legends_of_Middle_Earth_Free_RPG.php)?
It absolutely rocks.
I loved both MERP and Decipher's LOTR, and think that they both have merits. Said that, both Pendragon and HeroQuest would be excellent choices.
Quote from: AkrasiaI loved MERP! (See sig.)
The magic system was not appropriate (mages flinging fire balls was not really 'Tolkienesque'), but otherwise I think that MERP did a great job.
Using the experience system as presented it would take a long long time to make eighth level, especially in Mage. Also a Rolemaster fireball isn't the screaming sphere of death a D&D fireball is. The survival rate is much higher. Also, in MERP, throwing one will run your PP down really really fast. Never mind how much attention from the forces of evil it will draw.
A bigger part of the problem is that MERP and RM are more structured than D&D and don't always work quite how you expect when you house rule things away. For instance just handing out experience points by DM fiat tends to produce much quicker advancement than the actual system. In my RMSS campaigns it takes around five sessions to level and RMSS has first time x5 multipliers for skill use and spells which MERP didn't
Nope, not WotC.
Not ICE, either. The rolemaster/MERP basics could work, but I am really not fond of their magic system. Further, less about the existing systems and more about the company: I don't think they have nearly the quality of writers now that they once did. I sort of feel like they are just running off of residual goodness from the era where they had awesome writers.
I could throw darts at a board and try to pick out a current company that I think might fit the bill, but I think I might pick one with proven performance of a sort. Have FFG dig up all the discarded serial numbers that distinguish Midnight from LotR.
Quote from: Akrasia:confused:
For the most part MERP was far, far, better researched and far more detailed than Deciphers' LotR RPG!
Many MERP supplements made use of material from The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, whereas Decipher was limited to The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings (which led to weirdness, like not being able to use terms like 'Maiar', refer to the names of the other Istari, etc.).
Given that limitation, Decipher's RPG was still better researched, as it maximized what was actually in the original trilogy and the Hobbit. The various order and racial abilities and flaws and edges really dug into the books for inspiration, rather than the rather facile way MERP did it.
Quote from: AkrasiaThe MERP 'uber modules' provided a wealth of information -- for the most part consistent with Tolkien's writings -- and tons of adventures and adventure ideas (e.g. Arnor, Gondor, Mirkwood, etc.). Some of the 'campaign modules' (or 'adventure paths' as we would call them today) were well researched and innovative (e.g. Palantir Quest, The Kin-Strife, etc.).
Some of them were OK; I have almost all of them. Like you said, they're fairly well-researched
for the most part, but there still is quite a bit that just doesn't fit the setting. Palantir Quest was almost great, but I simply dislike the whole "juggler" element, which just wasn't in anything Tolkien wrote - as far as I know. If there is a reference somewhere, enlighten me.
Quote from: AkrasiaGranted, there were some exceptions in terms of fidelity to Middle-earth in some MERP modules. The biggest offenders were probably Ardor and Dunland. The latter seems to be the focus of your ire (although it didn't have a 'flying castle' btw -- the castle you're referring to was on the edge of a mountain -- but 'flying boats').
OK, so I misremembered; flying boats. How about the "mad scientist" elf grafting animals and men together?
Quote from: AkrasiaPersonally, I'd take MERP, warts and all, over Decipher's LotR game any day.
And you can keep it. The game system just doesn't work for Tolkien's books, in my opinion.
Quote from: gleichmanIt wasn't a bad system for it all in all, at least compared to other published options. And I.C.E did pick a period nearly two thousand years before the War of the Ring when magic was more common place. This gave them more freedom by far.
I didn't like the ICE setting time period. Way too far in the past, making it unfamiliar to anyone who hasn't devoted large chunks of time to reading Tolkien. I have, but most of my players haven't. The end of the Third Age could be a good period, but I like the Fourth Age. Here's a post I made a long while ago as to why:
A Fourth Age Middle-earth campaign is a great way to use Tolkien's world as a game setting without having to worry about, or change, canon. Tolkien himself provides a lot of interesting detail about his world after the time of the Lord of the Rings, detail that provides a wealth of campaign hooks and ideas. I'll quote some of this material to show how relevant it is to a gamemaster wanting to run a campaign in Middle-earth.
"For though Sauron had passed, the hatreds and evils that he bred had not died, and the King of the West had many enemies to subdue before the White Tree could grow in peace. And wherever King Elessar went with war King Eomer went with him; and beyond the Sea of Rhun and on the far fields of the South the thunder of the cavalry of the Mark was heard, and the White Horse upon Green flew in many winds until Eomer grew old."
- The Return of the King, Apendix A, part II, The House of Eorl
This paragraph sets the premise for decades of Fourth Age adventure. It doesn't involve just Men, either. Even though Tolkien makes much of how the Fourth Age is a time of fading for all the peoples of Middle-earth except Men, it is apparent that many of the other races are actually becoming much more gregarious in the Fourth Age. Here are some examples:
"After the fall of Sauron, Gimli brought south a part of the Dwarf-folk of Erebor, and he became Lord of the Glittering Caves. He and his people did great works in Gondor and Rohan. For Minas Tirith they forged gates of mithril and steel to replace those broken by the Witch-king. Legolas his friend brought south Elves out of Greenwood, and they dwelt in Ithilien,
and it became once again the fairest country in all the westlands."
- The Return of the King, Appendix A, part III, Durin's Folk
"Three times Lorien had been assailed from Dol Guldur, but besides the valour of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come there himself. Though grievous harm was done to the fair woods on the borders, the assaults were driven back; and when the Shadow had passed, Celeborn came forth and led the host of Lorien over Anduin in many boats. They took Dol Guldur, and Galadriel threw down its walls and laid bare its pits, and the forest was cleansed.
In the North also there had been war and evil. The realm of Thranduil was invaded, and there was long battle under the trees and great ruin of fire; but in the end Thranduil had the victory. And on the day of the New Year of the Elves, Celeborn and Thranduil met in the midst of the forest; and they renamed Mirkwood Eryn Lasgalen, The Wood of Greenleaves. Thranduil took all the northern region as far as the mountains that rise in the forest for his realm; and Celeborn took all the southern wood below the Narrows, and named it East Lorien; all the wide forest between was given to the Beornings and the Woodmen. But after the passing of Galadriel in a few years Celeborn grew weary of his realm and went to Imladris to dwell with the sons of Elrond. In the Greenwood the Silvan Elves remained untroubled, but in Lorien there lingered sadly only a few of its former people, and there was no longer light or song in Caras Galadon."
- The Return of the King, Appendix B, The Tale of Years
In addition, it seems that the Fourth Age is a time of renewal and rebuilding. A few brief but significant passages suggest that Elessar seeks to reinvigorate the entire northwestern part of Middle-earth, something which will take a number of hardy individuals performing countless heroic deeds. Here are some examples:
"King Elessar rides north, and dwells for a while by Lake Evendim."
[Fourth Age 14]
- The Return of the King, Appendix B, The Tale of Years
"And Aragorn gave to Faramir Ithilien to be his princedom, and bade him dwell in the hills of Emyn Arnen within sight of the City.'For,' said he, 'Minas Ithil in Morgul Vale shall be utterly destroyed, and though it may in time to come be made clean, no man may dwell there for many long years.'"
- The Return of the King, Book VI, Chapter V: The Steward and the King
As simple as these passages seem, the actual doing of the deeds required to accomplish them is rather difficult. Elessar not only travels to, but actually lives at Annuminas for a while. Seeing that the city was a ruin at the end of the Third Age, abandoned for centuries, and surrounded by wilderness, this implies an enormous effort was made by Gondor. It seems clear that Annuminas is restored, and becomes the chief city of the northern kingdom. It is not difficult to picture that King Elessar also rebuilt Fornost Erain and Tharbad. It is also highly likely, even though unmentioned, that Osgiliath was cleared and rebuilt; given Elessar's desire to rebuild the Dunedain kingdoms, this seems a natural assumption to make.
In addition, the destruction of Minas Ithil, an entire fortress-city the size of Minas Tirith (at least), held by the chief of the Nazgul for centuries and used as a base for a large part of the strength of Mordor, is a task which would have to involve thousands of troops. This is especially true if the city was used as a rallying point and base for some of the remnants of Sauron's armies. It is not hard to imagine that the interior of the city is filled with all manner of evil things - Men, beasts, traps, and a generally unwholesome atmosphere. Very much like a D&D adventure. And speaking of D&D adventures...
"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he. Now I have walked there, but I will bring no report to darken the light of day."
- The Two Towers, Book III, Chapter V: The White Rider
With the Balrog defeated, Sauron gone, and a huge part of the strength of the orcs in the region destroyed, it is quite likely that the Dwarves would at least begin to explore and clean out Moria. This would provide the archetypal dungeon adventure. Especially given that tantalizing glimpse Gandalf gives into a world of darkness and horror far beneath even where the Kings of the Dwarves once dwelled.
Here are a few random, and final, thoughts about possibilities for Fourth Age campaigns:
Mirkwood (renamed Eryn Lasgalen) and Ithilien would likely also remain havens for a time for evil creatures, such as spiders and orcs, until the Elves, woodmen, and Beornings finally rid the forest of them. Shelob still dwells near Cirth Ungol, and the Watcher in the Water still haunts the lake near the west gate of Moria.
Veterans of Celeborn's taking of Dol Guldur would be good candidates for duty in Mordor itself, or any place wherein darkness still holds sway. After Sauron's defeat at the end of the Second Age, Gondor built fortresses and watchtowers in Mordor itself - in fact, the great gates of Mordor, Cirith Ungol, and Minas Morgul were all built by the Kings of Gondor to keep watch on Mordor and ensure Sauron couldn't return. There is no reason to assume that the new king would not also build fortresses to provide a forward military presence in Mordor. Sauron is gone, and so are his most powerful lieutenants, but there were certainly other figures of great power who would like to make Mordor their base.
There are at least two great Elves still unaccounted for in the 4th Age: Daeron and Maglor. Perhaps one or the other is encountered in the East, or perhaps one or the other returns to western Middle-earth, finally weary of wandering, their pain and sorrow driving them towards the west at last. Perhaps one of them could take up residence in fading Lorien, or even in Rivendell for a time, or take up the kingship of East Lorien once Celeborn leaves. In addition, the only other wizard named in the Lord of the Rings books and unaccounted for at the end of the story, Radagast the Brown, is also still present, as are the two mysterious "Blue Wizards" - mentioned in notes and essays Tolkien wrote and never published in his lifetime, but which can be found in books like Unfinished Tales - who went far into the East and were never heard from again.
All in all, Middle-earth of the Fourth Age is a vital, interesting setting. The gloom of Sauron's presence has been replaced by an atmosphere of beginnings, but remnants of the Shadow and the things it wrought are still in Middle-earth, awaiting heroes to root them out and vanquish them. Just because the One Ring and its master are gone doesn't mean their legacy has vanished.
Quote from: gleichmanWhen most people speak of MERP with respect to Middle Earth, they always kick its power levels which I consider the common mistake of someone who doesn't really know the setting and its history.
Well, to be fair, I don't consider myself a Tolkien scholar by any means, just a fan who read the books a few times and had the Tolkien Companion. That's just the impression I was left with--really, a minor issue for me overall. Don't get me wrong--I loved MERP--loved Pete Fenlon's maps, especially!
Quote from: ColonelHardissonGiven that limitation, Decipher's RPG was still better researched, as it maximized what was actually in the original trilogy and the Hobbit. The various order and racial abilities and flaws and edges really dug into the books for inspiration, rather than the rather facile way MERP did it..
This is what asking up front "What system for" questions do, conceal real reasons for the choice that one has to dig backwards to get.
The interesting thing here is that you desire mechanical rules for different races and what you think those rules should do. What's not really interesting is that you think Decipher is a better choice than MERP for it, that's only meaningful (and not very at that) to those who have solid knowledge of both systems.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonOK, so I misremembered; flying boats. How about the "mad scientist" elf grafting animals and men together?
A common concept of the setting I'm afraid, expressed even as late as the third age with Half-Orcs. In one version of JRRT's take on it, all the creatues of evil (with the possible exception of spiders) were products of corruption and/or combinations (by undefined means) of the pure creations.
Given how some think (wrongly IMO) that LotRO was an example of technology vs nature- the mad science angle would even fit for them.
I like how you're quick to jump to judgement saying this doesn't fit and that doesn't fit without defining up front your reasons. Do you feel you don't have to give them? Or should we consider them unimportant?
Quote from: ColonelHardissonGiven that limitation, Decipher's RPG was still better researched, as it maximized what was actually in the original trilogy and the Hobbit. The various order and racial abilities and flaws and edges really dug into the books for inspiration, rather than the rather facile way MERP did it...
:confused:
I don't think that the write ups on the different Middle-earth cultures and races in MERP (especially second edition) were 'facile'. I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonPalantir Quest was almost great, but I simply dislike the whole "juggler" element, which just wasn't in anything Tolkien wrote - as far as I know. If there is a reference somewhere, enlighten me.
The 'juggler' element is a very minor, easily ignored part of the campaign. (And it doesn't seem radically out of place, IMO, since obviously any module is going to have to 'fill in' some things from Tolkien's work.)
Quote from: ColonelHardissonOK, so I misremembered; flying boats. How about the "mad scientist" elf grafting animals and men together?
Sure, as I said,
Dunland contains some rather unfortunate non-Tolkien elements, as do a small number of other modules.
But I think that you're not seeing the forest for the trees here. Overall, the ICE modules did an excellent job IMO in extended Tolkien's work by drawing on sound cultural and historical ideas, as well as providing lots of intriguing adventure ideas.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonAnd you can keep it. The game system just doesn't work for Tolkien's books, in my opinion.
It needs some tweaking, but IME it does a good job.
Great post on the Fourth Age, by the way! :cool:
Quote from: ColonelHardissonI didn't like the ICE setting time period. Way too far in the past, making it unfamiliar to anyone who hasn't devoted large chunks of time to reading Tolkien. I have, but most of my players haven't.
And in most cases, the player lack of knowledge of the world beyond their immediate setting would differ from their character's how?
That was a major element of the LotR IMO, the hobbits knew nothing but distant and incorrect legends of the world outside the Shire. Even the son of the Steward knew little of the world beyond his own borders ("Then Gondor knows nothing!" if I remember the quote correctly).
And I find it interesting that you consider knowledge of Middle Earth the most important factor in playing in it- not the themes. Is yours to be a trival based campaign perhaps?
Quote from: ColonelHardissonThe end of the Third Age could be a good period, but I like the Fourth Age. Here's a post I made a long while ago as to why:.
To each his own, but here you disagree with Tolkien himself who set out to write a novel of the Fourth Age.
He gave up, deciding that it was upon reflection that it was very uninteresting and not worth examining. Thus, by making it interestingin any way- you change canon which is the first reason you give for doing a Fourth Age campaign :)
Or you could go just a bit further ahead and time. A modern day cop campaign for example would be set in Tolkien's Sixth Age or so. Some people like that too :)
Quote from: David JohansenUsing the experience system as presented it would take a long long time to make eighth level, especially in Mage. Also a Rolemaster fireball isn't the screaming sphere of death a D&D fireball is. The survival rate is much higher. Also, in MERP, throwing one will run your PP down really really fast. Never mind how much attention from the forces of evil it will draw...
Good points. MERP did only include rules for character levels 1-10, and I think that's appropriate for most Third Age Campaigns. And the rules governing the use of magic -- corruption and the possibility of attracting the attention of the 'forces of evil -- included in the second edition did a reasonable job of forcing the magic system to be somewhat more 'Tokienesque' in nature...
Hmm ... I may have to run some MERP again ... :haw:
Quote from: Zachary The FirstWell, to be fair, I don't consider myself a Tolkien scholar by any means, just a fan who read the books a few times and had the Tolkien Companion. That's just the impression I was left with--really, a minor issue for me overall. Don't get me wrong--I loved MERP--loved Pete Fenlon's maps, especially!
I don't actually think there's anything wrong with a low-magic late Third Age campaign itself, other than it's highly limited by nature. It's just not my choice and I object somewhat when people incorrectly assume that low-magic is the only valid choice.
It's like people saying you can't run a Jedi in a Star Wars campaign (I hate Star Wars, but the example works here). That's a very limited statement made for what in the end is a very limited peroid.
For what it worth Lord of the Rings Online has a pretty nice setting for a game. It does a nice job allowing players to adventure during the War of the Ring without interfering with the quest itself. It does this partly by taking advantage of the fact that Frodo journey and stay from the Shire to Rivendell takes a number of months.
Quote from: gleichmanTo each his own, but here you disagree with Tolkien himself who set out to write a novel of the Fourth Age.
He gave up, deciding that it was upon reflection that it was very uninteresting and not worth examining. Thus, by making it interestingin any way- you change canon which is the first reason you give for doing a Fourth Age campaign :)
On the other hand, Tolkein gave up on the Fourth Age because he found that it wasn't good fodder for another novel. However, as we've been discussing previously, novels and RPGs are very different beasts. I suspect that Tolkein may have had a problem with the fact that there was no great, over-arching threat that could be invoked that wouldn't render the prior novels trite and inconsequential (c.f. Donaldson's
Thomas Covenant various sequel series, or Brooks' many
Shannara series). There were, however, many little brush-wars that followed the War of the Rings, regional conflicts in which a group of RPG player characters could figure prominently. It's all a matter of scale and preference, but this is great stuff for an RPG, while not-such-great stuff for reading material.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIt's all a matter of scale and preference, but this is great stuff for an RPG, while not-such-great stuff for reading material.
I've heard that point of view expressed before in a slightly different area (but one I well recall). Many players of Star Wars Galaxies expressed that they specifically wanted to play unimportant day to day people without any connection to the themes or events of the movies.
I've never understood such a stance. If one isn't willing to engage in the core concepts of a setting why use it at all? I almost get the idea of playing in a sandbox with nice scenery... but not quite.
However my understanding isn't required on this point, so I have to admit that such an taste exists and leave it at that. I do think people descibing such a campaign as "Star Wars" or "Middle Earth" is misleading at best.
Quote from: estarFor what it worth Lord of the Rings Online has a pretty nice setting for a game. It does a nice job allowing players to adventure during the War of the Ring without interfering with the quest itself. It does this partly by taking advantage of the fact that Frodo journey and stay from the Shire to Rivendell takes a number of months.
I play that game and enjoy it.
It is however a very poor version of Middle Earth in ways basically unavoidable to the current state of the art MMORPG design but easily dealt with on the table top.
QuoteI've heard that point of view expressed before in a slightly different area (but one I well recall). Many players of Star Wars Galaxies expressed that they specifically wanted to play unimportant day to day people without any connection to the themes or events of the movies.
I've never understood such a stance. If one isn't willing to engage in the core concepts of a setting why use it at all? I almost get the idea of playing in a sandbox with nice scenery... but not quite.
q.e.d.
No further questions your honours.
I thought I might have misread you (you implied that), but I didn´t.
Settembrini, he's simply saying it's a bit odd to play regular schmoes in SW (you have Traveller for that), or potato farmers in D&D (you have Harnmaster for that) That's not the same as embracing movie gaming necessarily.
Quote from: gleichmanIf one isn't willing to engage in the core concepts of a setting why use it at all? I almost get the idea of playing in a sandbox with nice scenery... but not quite.
[...snip...]
I do think people descibing such a campaign as "Star Wars" or "Middle Earth" is misleading at best.
Perhaps tellingly, I've heard this sort of response from people just don't understand the appeal of roleplaying games, especially those based on popular novels or movies. To these people, diverging from the plot described in the books or films detracts from what the author or director created -- it's a derivative, and fundamentally corrupted, product. Just read the book or watch the movie and leave it at that. This is, of course, a matter of
their taste.
That said, the "core concepts" of Middle Earth covers a spectrum broader than the War of the Rings. The fact that Tolkein addressed the Fourth Age at all in his extensive appendices to
Lord of the Rings suggests that. Roleplaying in that setting is just as valid as playing against the backdrop of the events described in greater detail in the preceding books.
!i!
Quote from: Settembriniq.e.d.
No further questions your honours.
I thought I might have misread you (you implied that), but I didn´t.
I have no idea what you're getting at other than snark.
It's one thing to claim that one's taste in fiction drives one's taste in rpgs (something I haven't done that you said I did), and another to wonder why one would pick a existing fictional setting up front and then specifically not engage any of it in play will still saying they are playing "X the RPG".
I'm begining to think you can only react in terms of extremes.
@pierce:
Correct, not necessarily.
But it reeks strongly like "XY is RILLY about...", you know the drill.
And from gleichman´s tone, I could at least gets hints of the implication that he "rilly knows what LotR is about."
Re Star Wars: A point could be made that the main appeal of the franchise is the illusion of a huge galaxy in which adventurous stuff happens.
"Mos Eysley cantina scene" >> "I´m your father!"
etc. pp. connect the dots, it´s all in this thread yada yadayada, I´m done.
Have fun.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaPerhaps tellingly, I've heard this sort of response from people just don't understand the appeal of roleplaying games, especially those based on popular novels or movies.
That's about as strange of a response directed to me as it would be from me to you I think. Perhaps you've read too much into my statement.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThat said, the "core concepts" of Middle Earth covers a spectrum broader than the War of the Rings.
I would never consider the "War of the Ring" to be anything other than detail that frames what I was calling 'core concepts', given of course that the work has a number of those that in turn can be selected by taste- but which still to most readers can be seen and applied.
For one, it is perhaps the defining novel of the High Fantasy genre. For someone to pick that setting and specifically ignore all the characteristics of High Fantasy is... an odd choice and one perhaps more driven by deconstructist drives than anything connected to the setting itself. Or perhaps the desire to run a different genre combined with a failure to understand the differences- ignorance or willful misuse.
Not that I saying that any of that should be off limits (I do it myself with some settings in fact), but I consider it somewhat dishonest to say you're playing in Middle Earth when in point of fact you're in a completely different place that just happens to share some landscape and names.
Thus I take pains to say that I run a weird west campaign that uses modified Deadlands rules if the subject should come up. I would be basically lying to claim that I was playing Deadlands: The Weird West and leave it at that.
Quote from: Settembrini"Mos Eysley cantina scene" >> "I´m your father!"
That's a remarkably succinct argument in support of boots-on-the-ground gaming versus epic narrative gaming. I like it.
Sett does react in extremes but I think this time he's right. After all he would know a "purist" argument when he sees it.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RSett does react in extremes but I think this time he's right. After all he would know a "purist" argument when he sees it.
I find that amusing since my position from the beginning on this is that there are more ways than the obvious (War of the Ring, Low Magic, etc) of playing a Middle Earth game.
"Hey people- the sky can be different colors than blue, like reds and oranges at times..."
Sett/David R: "one way purist bastard"
I am sort of a second age kind of guy myself. Some find it boring but I think there are some good adventures in there. Early third age can be good too.
As to who could do it justice, hmmm, I sure liked ICE's material. Well done and presented (and I have most of it). As to modern, as Mike pointed out, licensing would be difficult. I think it would have to be a relatively small dedicated company. I think Green Ronin or XRP could do it justice. Joe really has some incredible research skills. I would put a mention in for Brett at PIG as a "I would love to see what he does with it" kind of thing.
For me though, over the years I have more or less had to go with my own systems. I had a kind of sweet system for Numenorean sorcerers and their Black Numenorean enemies involving a lot of artifact/weather/mental combinations. Fun times.
Bill
Quote from: gleichmanI find that amusing since my position from the beginning on this is that there are more ways than the obvious (War of the Ring, Low Magic, etc) of playing a Middle Earth game.
"Hey people- the sky can be different colors than blue, like reds and oranges at times..."
Sett/David R: "one way purist bastard"
Quotegleichman:
For someone to pick that setting and specifically ignore all the characteristics of High Fantasy is... an odd choice and one perhaps more driven by deconstructist drives than anything connected to the setting itself. Or perhaps the desire to run a different genre combined with a failure to understand the differences- ignorance or willful misuse.
Not that I saying that any of that should be off limits (I do it myself with some settings in fact), but I consider it somewhat dishonest to say you're playing in Middle Earth when in point of fact you're in a completely different place that just happens to share some landscape and names.
Engaging in a little Settire....how interesting.
Regards,
David R
The big problem seems to me is what do you use for ME source material? Tolkien only published the two ME books in his lifetime - Hobbit and LOTR.
But his kid has unloaded all his notes for all the money he can milk them for, and 'edited' them.
So if you are going to have a ME RPG you must first decide what is CANON?
.
Quote from: gleichmanAnd in most cases, the player lack of knowledge of the world beyond their immediate setting would differ from their character's how?
The players I'm referring to are people who are passingly familiar with LotR, much of it just from the movies, want to game in the setting, and want to interact with things they are familiar with. A late Third Age or early Fourth Age campaign appealed to them.
As to why I think this or that fits, my only reasoning comes from reading LotR about 20 times (literally) since I was ten years old. I'm no expert because of that, but I do have very ingrained impressions of the setting. Corrupting/breeding evil is one thing that fits; stitching them together like some weird magical Frankenstein doesn't, in my opinion. Your Mileage May Vary, as they say.
As for comparing MERP and Decipher's LotR and it being irrelevant to those unfamiliar with either...well, all I can say is that a lot of the systems I've seen mentioned are ones with which I'm not familiar, and in some cases not enough of any of them are detailed for me to get a good grasp on why this or that person suggested them. :shrug: If any part of what they posted piques my interest, or the poster is someone with whom I'm familiar and whose views I agree with consistently makes a suggestion, I may do more research. Plus, if you wanna know exactly why I like Decipher's game, check out my very detailed review of it right here on this site from a year and a half ago:
http://www.therpgsite.com/node/412
Quote from: RPGPunditJust 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
Well lets take a look at LotR. You have a group of princes (Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn), the son of the steward of the largest human kingdom/city (Bormir), a group of aristocrats (Frodo, Merry, Pippin), one servant (Samwise), and an angel/demigod level being sent to Middle Earth to watch over the place after the gods were pissed off and withdrew from the world (Gandalf).
This group is charged by a council of the rulers of the greatest kingdoms in Middle Earth to take an artifact of great power, that was created by the most powerful evil being left in the physical world, to its place of creation to destroy it. This place if of course located in the heart of the powerful evil being's territory. Said evil being commands an army of untiring/cranky/sadistic creatures that outnumber the forces of good many times over.
On the trip to dispose of the artifact they travel through a dwarven underground kingdom filled with thousands of orcs, goblins, and trolls. Oh there is also a powerful demon from ancient times that still lurks in said underground kingdom.
After they work their way through that they spend some time with the rulers of an ancient and powerful elven kingdom. These rulers give gifts of great magic power to members of the adventure party.
The party then splits up because the evil artifact has the power to corrupt almost anyone near it into thinking they can wield its power to take over the world. All while the artifact is acting like a homing beckon to the force of evil.
So one group goes to the lands of evil while the second group tries to help as best they can.
Other incidents include a couple of hundred of humans hold up in an old keep being attacked by an evil army of thousands of evil minions. A few thousand humans holding off an evil army of hundreds of thousands of evil minions. This is accomplished with the help of an undead army that is beholden to one of the princes. Some of the aristocrats convince a group of ancient tree people to lay siege to an evil kingdom.
After the good guys dispose of the evil artifact one of the aristocrats gets to join an ancient and powerful race on their return trip to the home of the gods.
One of the princes gets crowned king of the strongest human kingdom and gets to marry an attractive elven princess.
Lord of the Rings done in a RPG? This sounds like a job for RIFTs!
I am only half kidding. LotR is pretty much the scenario that Pundit and Sett rail against on a daily basis. A bunch of powerful "unique snowflake" type characters take on ridiculously impossible odds on an epic journey. Of the Fellowship only Boromir dies. He dies heroically making up for his own mistake and buys time for the hobbits to escape. Gandalf has a quasi-near death experience, but comes back even more powerful.
This is all from the books. I am not even including the over the top action and stunts shown in the movie version.
It sounds to me that 4E D&D is exactly the sort of experience that LotR depicts.
Apparently some of you were paying attention to the hobbit farmers or some of the human peasants in Bree instead of the main protagonists of The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, etc. Honestly I don't think you would like a real LotR RPG Pundit. It is not the style of game you say you prefer.
You would be happier with "Middle Earth Peasant the RPG". That way you could play a farmer who has his farm burned down by orcs while his children get eaten by worgs. If you are lucky enough to roll "00" on your starting background you get to play a soldier of Gondor. You get to choose if you are one of the troops that gets trampled by a troll or scooped up and dropped by one of the Dark Rider's flying mounts.
Why do you persist on taking out the "over the top" from settings that are by their nature over the top? LotR was NOT a story about common farmers or peasants. It is not about that the third soldier to the left on the wall of Helms Deep that promptly gets shot by a random orc arrow.
Good grief "epic" is like a flippin' four letter to Pundit and Sett. If you guys want to play a game of random shmucks, that have the odds stacked against them, and could die at any moment to any particular attack go play Call of Chuthulu or the War Hammer RPG. Middle Earth and Star Wars are not your cup of tea. For goodness sake you would be whining that you can't play a conscripted peasant in the defense of Troy in an Iliad RPG instead of a Greek or Trojan Hero. No Achilles did not die to a random critical hit. He died to a well placed shot from one of the best archers in Troy. He did not get a random shot in his ankle in ten years of daily fighting.
So anyway I think Kevin Siembieda or Mike Merls are the guys you'll want to be asking about a LotR RPG that actually resembles LotR. Maybe even who ever wrote Exalted too.
P.S. I have no problem with games where you play random schmuks. I have played and have enjoyed such games. I just have a problem with people who want all RPGs to be about that.
Quote from: David REngaging in a little Settire....how interesting.
Regards,
David R
No idea what the word means, doesn't seem to be english.
However if you're trying to indicate some conflict in the two quotes- you're wrong. They aren't directly speaking to the same point.
Quote from: JaegerThe big problem seems to me is what do you use for ME source material? Tolkien only published the two ME books in his lifetime - Hobbit and LOTR.
But his kid has unloaded all his notes for all the money he can milk them for, and 'edited' them.
So if you are going to have a ME RPG you must first decide what is CANON?
.
And even those books weren't even in agreement. His son makes that point that CANON in Middle Earth is effectively impossible and I agree with him.
You have to decide yourself what to use. It makes it a wide field to say the least although there are some things that would be difficult to exclude and still claim it's anything like a campaign based upon that setting.
Quote from: gleichmanNo idea what the word means, doesn't seem to be english.
However if you're trying to indicate some conflict in the two quotes- you're wrong. They aren't directly speaking to the same point.
I think it is a german word. :D
Quote from: ColonelHardissonAs for comparing MERP and Decipher's LotR and it being irrelevant to those unfamiliar with either...well, all I can say is that a lot of the systems I've seen mentioned are ones with which I'm not familiar
Which doesn't IMO make their posts of any more use than yours. From the start of this thread I was interested in finding out what elements of the setting the various individuals thought important to see reflected in the rules and how their chosen rules did so.
So far basically only the MERP supporter did that to any significant extent- and that may be only because I knew what he was talking about having played and read MERP (so I was likely reading more than what he wrote).
Thanks for the link, however a quick browse of it doesn't really answer the questions I was hoping to see answered. It's more a general review.
I did however note with some interest the following quote which seems in conflict with your desire for what JRRT basically defined as a non-epic Fourth Age "I feel this chapter is very necessary for a game of epic fantasy, especially the Lord of the Rings."
Or perhaps it wasn't in conflict, you never answered if you intend to keep with JRRT's intent for the Fourth Age or not- you may simple chose to break with him on that point.
Quote from: gleichmanNo idea what the word means, doesn't seem to be english.
However if you're trying to indicate some conflict in the two quotes- you're wrong. They aren't directly speaking to the same point.
Settire loosely translated - yes, no, you misunderstand me, I'm right, you're wrong - used simultaneously. It's right up there with
adventure vs
thematic gaming.
No conflict, merely shining a light on where you're coming from.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RSettire loosely translated - yes, no, you misunderstand me, I'm right, you're wrong - used simultaneously. It's right up there with adventure vs thematic gaming.
That sums it up brilliantly. :win:
Quote from: jedimastertLord of the Rings done in a RPG? This sounds like a job for RIFTs!
Except for the fact that I think RIFTs is a poor choice, It's rather difficult to really disagree with jedimstert here. Heck, given that RIFTs is an over the top example to make a point- I can't even disagree there.
About the only thing I can point out is that the "one servant (Samwise)" is considered to be the main character of the book. Well that and the fact that the rest of the post is the really simplified and water down version created to shine the poorest light possible on the subject.
But yes, it's High Fantasy and has all the elements there of for good (or ill for those who's viewpoint is so inclined).
And yes, it doesn't seem to be to be something a consistent and logical Pundit would like- but that assumes a consistent and logical Pundit now doesn't it?
Quote from: David RSettire loosely translated - yes, no, you misunderstand me, I'm right, you're wrong - used simultaneously. It's right up there with adventure vs thematic gaming.
No conflict, merely shining a light on where you're coming from.
Regards,
David R
I'm remembering why I had you on my ignore list. No reasoning given ever given, no desire to really explore what I'm trying to say.
Just pure Ad-Hominid assertions.
Sorry, not interested. Let me know when you actually want a conversation.
My post is to highlight that several people on these boards, including the Pundit, only approve of RPGs if you are playing barely competent, lowly schmucks that could get killed on any particular attack in combat. [hyperbole] Playing anything besides an illiterate peasant farmer is power gaming to some around here. [/hyperbole] This is regardless of setting or genre. In an Iliad RPG they would be belly aching about Achilles wading through countless trojan soldiers.
Well Brian let's try it another way:
I think that Lord of the Rings is best approached in an atlas and gazateer fashion that maps and describes the setting and locales. I'd probably do it much like the Penguin Atlas Of History. Page after page of maps ordered from the beginning to the end and we do know a little about the end which should probably be in there so people can say "I'll see you next when the world is renewed." and stuff.
For rules I've got a strong preference for the direct approach and open ended systems. ICE's old Lord of the Rings Adventure game was very good mechanically and very bad in the presentation and support areas, but something as simple as that 2d6+bonus over target number game could work quite well for Middle Earth.
I tend to stick up for MERP because I think a lot of people came to it from D&D and couldn't really wrap their heads around how it all fit together. But honestly, for the majority of gamers I'd think a simpler and less brutal game would be in order.
You'd want competent characters. It's not much fun trying a roleplaying game for the first time as a peasant with the gout. Warhammer frp really only works as a reaction against D&D much as Elric only works as a reaction against Conan. Lacking knowledge of the original, the distorted reflection loses a great deal of its meaning.
Ideally, magic would be subtle but decisive. Rather than allowing absolutely unrealistic acts it should enhance natural capacity. I'd probably allow magic items a maximum bonus of the character's normal bonus.
Quote from: gleichmanWhich doesn't IMO make their posts of any more use than yours. From the start of this thread I was interested in finding out what elements of the setting the various individuals thought important to see reflected in the rules and how their chosen rules did so.
So far basically only the MERP supporter did that to any significant extent- and that may be only because I knew what he was talking about having played and read MERP (so I was likely reading more than what he wrote).
Thanks for the link, however a quick browse of it doesn't really answer the questions I was hoping to see answered. It's more a general review.
I did however note with some interest the following quote which seems in conflict with your desire for what JRRT basically defined as a non-epic Fourth Age "I feel this chapter is very necessary for a game of epic fantasy, especially the Lord of the Rings."
Or perhaps it wasn't in conflict, you never answered if you intend to keep with JRRT's intent for the Fourth Age or not- you may simple chose to break with him on that point.
See, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "epic" nomenclature. In the post above where I detail out the various events that happen in the Fourth Age that could be fodder for a game, I consider all that to be "epic." Maybe "epic" fantasy means something different between us, and we're just not grokking each other. Anyway, beyond what Tolkien laid out in the LotR appendices, I haven't read anything about his plans for a possible Fourth Age novel. Again, all the stuff he did mention in the appendices seems "epic" to me - rebuilding the northern kingdom, pacifying the south and east, dealing with the remnants of Sauron's armies, etc. YMMV and all that.
As for why I think Decipher's game specifically works well for Middle-earth, it's in two main areas: character creation/advancement, and the magic system.
The character creation/advancement system takes specific quotes from the book or pervasive traits that are fairly obvious from Tolkien's writing that pertain to the various races and "orders" and translates them directly into game terms, which are usually bonuses or abilities/powers triggered in specific situations or which are always "on." I feel that Decipher's crew were much more meticulous in this than the equivalent sections of MERP. You'd have to look at the game itself for specific examples - the Edges/Flaws section is a good overall example - and then compare them to MERP.
The magic system in Decipher's game is also very well-researched, and cleaves very closely to what magic is seen or implied in the source material. Each spell or instance of magic can be seen to be drawn directly from the book. MERPS' magic system seemed too much like a pre-existing magic system boilerplated onto the setting. It just didn't seem to have grown organically, so to speak, from the setting, while I felt Decipher's system did.
None of it roams very far afield from familiar territory game-wise, but that may be because Tolkien influenced so much in fantasy RPGs. The difference, in my opinion, is that Decipher's game often can point out specific passages wherein the elements of their game can be seen to have been drawn from. If that makes any sense, which I admit it may not. It's been a long fuckin' week at work, y'know...
Quote from: gleichmanJust pure Ad-Hominid assertions.
Now that´s funny.
That was on purpose, right?
Quote from: jedimastertMy post is to highlight that several people on these boards, including the Pundit, only approve of RPGs if you are playing barely competent, lowly schmucks that could get killed on any particular attack in combat. [hyperbole] Playing anything besides an illiterate peasant farmer is power gaming to some around here. [/hyperbole] This is regardless of setting or genre. In an Iliad RPG they would be belly aching about Achilles wading through countless trojan soldiers.
I'm trying to figure out why you bothered to only put the "hyperbole" tags around the one sentence when it really fits the entire post...
Quote from: jedimastertIf you guys want to play a game of random shmucks, that have the odds stacked against them, and could die at any moment to any particular attack go play Call of Chuthulu or the War Hammer RPG. Middle Earth and Star Wars are not your cup of tea. For goodness sake you would be whining that you can't play a conscripted peasant in the defense of Troy in an Iliad RPG instead of a Greek or Trojan Hero.
Surely there's a middle ground between random shmuck and epic hero with a destiny.
For LotR, you could be a man of Dale who starts as a guard on a trade mission to the Halls of Thranduil, gets caught up on some intrigue over a lost Elven crown, joins a band hunting orcs in the Mirkwood, heads to the Iron Mountains to the site of a fallen Dwarven army to recover a great axe for to kill orcs better, explores a cave complex abandoned by dragons eons ago, helps the Beornlings hunt a werewolf, and eventually, after many years of adventure and steadily increasing in power, sneaks into Dol Goldur to free a prisoner. And maybe dies there.
No destiny. No starting off as an awesome hero already. Nothing in any of the adventures that required you to succeed - or survive - to drive a greater plot. Still a fun character to play (IMHO), with vivid and memorable adventures.
Quote from: James J SkachI'm trying to figure out why you bothered to only put the "hyperbole" tags around the one sentence when it really fits the entire post...
I am trying to keep you guessing...
Quote from: HaffrungSurely there's a middle ground between random shmuck and epic hero with a destiny.
For LotR, you could be a man of Dale who starts as a guard on a trade mission to the Halls of Thranduil, gets caught up on some intrigue over a lost Elven crown, joins a band hunting orcs in the Mirkwood, heads to the Iron Mountains to the site of a fallen Dwarven army to recover a great axe for to kill orcs better, explores a cave complex abandoned by dragons eons ago, helps the Beornlings hunt a werewolf, and eventually, after many years of adventure and steadily increasing in power, sneaks into Dol Goldur to free a prisoner. And maybe dies there.
No destiny. No starting off as an awesome hero already. Nothing in any of the adventures that required you to succeed - or survive - to drive a greater plot. Still a fun character to play (IMHO), with vivid and memorable adventures.
There is nothing wrong with that scenario. My hyperbole is aimed more at the people who espouse the extreme views around here. Some people would have a problem with an epic campaign even in settings that are home to epic stories (like Middle Earth or the Star Wars Universe). Nothing precludes a fun game in these settings with no "epicness".
I am just getting the vibe that Pundit, Sett, and a few other people have a view that any sort of epic, over the top campaign is somehow an invalid form of playing RPGs.
Am I the only one who liked Lord of the Rings Coda? I think it was a rough diamond, sure it had some defects (which RPG doesn't?), but it felt very right to Tolkien's work. A second edition would have rocked, a pity we won't see it.
I could never like MERP as a Middle Earth game. But it was a fine game, once you ignore the Middle Earth connection. I would love to see a MERP new edition, but stripping all the references to Middle Earth, a sort of Rolemaster lite (which HARP is not), but there's even smaller chance of that than of a new edition by Decipher.
Quote from: HaffrungSurely there's a middle ground between random shmuck and epic hero with a destiny.
For LotR, you could be a man of Dale who starts as a guard on a trade mission to the Halls of Thranduil, gets caught up on some intrigue over a lost Elven crown, joins a band hunting orcs in the Mirkwood, heads to the Iron Mountains to the site of a fallen Dwarven army to recover a great axe for to kill orcs better, explores a cave complex abandoned by dragons eons ago, helps the Beornlings hunt a werewolf, and eventually, after many years of adventure and steadily increasing in power, sneaks into Dol Goldur to free a prisoner. And maybe dies there.
No destiny. No starting off as an awesome hero already. Nothing in any of the adventures that required you to succeed - or survive - to drive a greater plot. Still a fun character to play (IMHO), with vivid and memorable adventures.
Excellent post! That's exactly how a Middle-earth campaign should go, IMO (and reflects the kinds of things that happened in the MERP campaigns that I ran years ago).
The truly 'epic' events are covered by the novels and historical summaries (in the appendices and
Unfinished Tales). But Middle-earth is a big place, and the writings can only cover so much. There's a lot for heroes to do, even if it's not always 'saving the world'. The PCs can still be heroes, doing important things.
Quote from: ClaudiusAm I the only one who liked Lord of the Rings Coda?
The Colonel seems to have been defending it quite strongly in this thread.
Quote from: Claudius... I would love to see a MERP new edition, but stripping all the references to Middle Earth, a sort of Rolemaster lite (which HARP is not), but there's even smaller chance of that than of a new edition by Decipher.
Actually, your wish has been granted (http://store.ironcrown.com/detail.jsp?itemId=3240341&category=162529)!
:D
Seriously,
Rolemaster Express is pretty much 'generic' MERP (the only significant difference is that RMX keeps a simplified version of RMC's skill point system, instead of the alternative skill point system that MERP used).
Quote from: jedimastertIt sounds to me that 4E D&D is exactly the sort of experience that LotR depicts.
It doesn't sound like that to me. At all.
Just because the characters are all princes, or "aristocrats" and the story deals with major wars and ancient beings -- that's all things a group of players could create with
ANY version of D&D.
The Dragonborn, Tieflings, Christmas Trees of Magic Items, "Howling Gelatinous Cube Power Strike" feats, and general Kewl Powerz... that doesn't seem like a good fit. ;)
D&D is a reasonably good RPG for creating LotR type adventures. I'd have to wait and see what 4e looks like when it's finally released... but everything the designers have released so far suggests other editions would be better choices for a LotR style game.
Quote from: HaffrungNo destiny. No starting off as an awesome hero already. Nothing in any of the adventures that required you to succeed - or survive - to drive a greater plot. Still a fun character to play (IMHO), with vivid and memorable adventures.
I esp like this part. A lot of the folks I know who set their games after the
War of the Rings - the Fourth age - were more interested in the immersive appeal of Middle Earth rather than grand narratives. Sure there was an elegiac quality to their games....but hey, it's Middle Earth.
Regards,
David R
Here's a very basic rpg that I think would do LotR well. It really wouldn't get more that twice the size it is if I developed it. The objective is a simple and direct game that scales up well. It draws heavily on ICE's Lord of the Rings Adventure game but dispenses with all the charts.
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=171907#post171907
Quote from: David JohansenWell Brian let's try it another way:
Yes, this is much better than anyone else has done so far- it's missing some important "why?" for some choices meaning that I have to infer them- but at least it speaks to some details of what exactly is being selected for.
Quote from: David JohansenI think that Lord of the Rings is best approached in an atlas and gazateer fashion that maps and describes the setting and locales.
This in an interesting choice, one that I'd like to know the drive behind.
Attempting to infer the reason...
1. You consider a key element of Middle Earth to be the nuts and bolts setting details. The places, the maps, the history. And thus want to keep that in focus in the published materials.
2. Or maybe this reflects an approach to licensed settings that I've seen elsewhere. One isn't really interested in themes or genre, but world creation details. I typically see this in historical gaming or sci-fi campaigns where the nuts and bolts of the technological and/or culture is front and center with no greater goal than that.
3. Or something else.
I'd like you to expand on this as I think it's interesting of and by itself.
Quote from: David JohansenFor rules I've got a strong preference for the direct approach and open ended systems. ICE's old Lord of the Rings Adventure game was very good mechanically and very bad in the presentation and support areas, but something as simple as that 2d6+bonus over target number game could work quite well for Middle Earth.
I tend to stick up for MERP because I think a lot of people came to it from D&D and couldn't really wrap their heads around how it all fit together. But honestly, for the majority of gamers I'd think a simpler and less brutal game would be in order.
You'd want competent characters. It's not much fun trying a roleplaying game for the first time as a peasant with the gout. Warhammer frp really only works as a reaction against D&D much as Elric only works as a reaction against Conan. Lacking knowledge of the original, the distorted reflection loses a great deal of its meaning.
These seem driven more by player appeal concerns than setting concerns. Am I corrrect in inferring that?
Quote from: David JohansenIdeally, magic would be subtle but decisive. Rather than allowing absolutely unrealistic acts it should enhance natural capacity. I'd probably allow magic items a maximum bonus of the character's normal bonus.
This seems intended to reflect your view of Middle Earth magic, likely only from a late Third Age PoV. Correct?
Quote from: ColonelHardissonSee, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "epic" nomenclature.
Likely not, it's very difficult to agree upon terms online even when they are common ones. And here I may or may not have made an error in that epic might have significant differences from "High Fantasy".
For High Fantasy, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fantasy
It's seems clear to me that your desired campaign isn't High Fantasy, so my first reaction is that it isn't really LotR- but something else.
But what? That's what I'd like to know.
Does it by focusing on smaller elements and lesser events drift into more of a Swords & Sorcery campaign? Has it by focusing on place and history become more an Alternative History (if for a fictional setting)? Etc.
Currently, based upon my understanding of your posts- it's Sword & Sorcery. And that makes me want to ask why would you pick a High Fantasy setting for it instead of a S&S one in the first place. Not just for yourself, but for the concept of the thread: A general published release of a Middle Earth licensed game...
Quote from: ColonelHardissonI feel that Decipher's crew were much more meticulous in this than the equivalent sections of MERP. You'd have to look at the game itself for specific examples - the Edges/Flaws section is a good overall example - and then compare them to MERP. .
One or two examples here would be wonderful.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonIt's been a long fuckin' week at work, y'know...
Indeed, if that hadn't be the case for me as well I likely wouldn't have been posting here or reading the thread.
Quote from: SettembriniNow that´s funny.
That was on purpose, right?
No, it was a simple typo.
Quote from: HaffrungSurely there's a middle ground between random shmuck and epic hero with a destiny.
Certainly. Lots of people enjoy such campaigns.
But why would you want that set in Middle Earth instead of a setting and background that more closely follows that? As Pierce put it, Traveller instead of Star Wars?
And of course, why would anyone want that to be the primary face of a new published Middle Earth role-playing game?
Quote from: gleichman...
But why would you want that set in Middle Earth instead of a setting and background that more closely follows that?
:confused:
Isn't the answer obvious? Because Middle-earth has a rich, interesting history, with interesting locations, etc. It provides plenty of 'heroic' campaign possibilities short of saving the world.
Tolkien himself described all kinds of interesting events that were less significant than the 'War of the Rings'. Why doesn't it make sense for someone to want to run a campaign based on, say, Gondor's conflict with the corsairs of Umbar, the Kin-Strife, the war between Arthedain and Angmar, combatting the Necromancer's forces in Mirkwood, slaying a dragon of the Withered Heath, liberating the slaves of Mount Gundabad, etc?
There are all kinds of adventure possibilities in Middle-earth between the extremes of 'farmers eaten by wargs' and the 'War of the Rings'.
Quote from: gleichman...
And of course, why would anyone want that to be the primary face of a new published Middle Earth role-playing game?
Because world-shattering events typically change history, whereas one could have all kinds of 'middle range' heroic campaigns that don't conflict with Tolkien's 'official history' at all. Maintaining Middle-earth's history would probably be an important design goal for any Middle-earth RPG. (I'm happy to let PCs 'change history' myself, but I can see why such a premise would limit the appeal of a Middle-earth RPG.)
Quote from: gleichmanIt is however a very poor version of Middle Earth in ways basically unavoidable to the current state of the art MMORPG design but easily dealt with on the table top.
I think the world feels like "where did all these people come from?" But toned down I think much of what they did would work for a tabletop RPG. Some of even makes better sense then what you saw in the novels.
Rather the novel focused, rightly, on Frodo and the Fellowship. You didn't see much outside of that point of view. When Aragon reestablished Arnor, I always wondered, "Where is he getting his people from? Bree folk suddenly have dozens of kids?". When you play Lord of the Ring Online you can see how it could happen.
Quote from: Akrasia:confused:
Isn't the answer obvious? Because Middle-earth has a rich, interesting history, with interesting locations, etc. It provides plenty of 'heroic' campaign possibilities short of saving the world.
So, what you're basically saying in your post is that the best option for a future published Middle Earth RPG is to treat it not as a High Fantasy game/campaign, but rather as a Historical RPG.
So much like WWII, Middle Earth is a known set of places and events, one which would fit the characters in as small players who's ability to affect things is limited to that which the history books missed.
That that basically correct?
Quote from: estarBree folk suddenly have dozens of kids?". When you play Lord of the Ring Online you can see how it could happen.
In LotRO, the only child in Bree is lost in the Barrow Downs...
:)
Note: I may have missed noticing another, however one of the first things that hit me upon logging into the game was that Gandalf would never attract a train of children upon his arrival anywhere. They don't exist. This is true for a simple reason- children mean more objects (in motion at that), more objects mean poorer performance and lag. Poorer performance and lag mean a worst game experience. And that killed the children of Bree.
Quote from: gleichmanFor one, it is perhaps the defining novel of the High Fantasy genre. For someone to pick that setting and specifically ignore all the characteristics of High Fantasy is... an odd choice and one perhaps more driven by deconstructist drives than anything connected to the setting itself. Or perhaps the desire to run a different genre combined with a failure to understand the differences- ignorance or willful misuse.
LOTR may be the defining novel of High Fantasy but it is also the defining example of an author created world. It has depth, and history dripping everywhere and as world it would have the mundane and the fantastic.
Most people don't want to be just Frodo and the Fellowship, they want to make their own adventures in Middle Earth. For some starting out as a pig farmer has appeal. The point is that it is a pig farmer in Middle Earth.
If you still don't understand look at Star Trek RPGs and fans. Most players and hard core fans are not pretending to be Kirk, McCoy, and Spock. They make up new characters and situation in the Star Trek universe.
The same way with other licensed properties I played when I was growing. People find that playing the original character or even new character doing the same thing wasn't as satisfying as heading off in a different direction. The best game came when GM was handle the new direction yet still worked in the traditional elements of whatever property they were using. Like in Star Wars playing an entertainment troupe but yet still get caught up in the rebellion and working against the empire.
Quote from: gleichmanIn LotRO, the only child in Bree is lost in the Barrow Downs...
You are right about Bree and other areas of Man, there should be more kids. But I seen them in the Shire.
Maybe all the cats ate them.*
Rob Conley
*You have seen the cat room right?
Quote from: estarIf you still don't understand look at Star Trek RPGs and fans. Most players and hard core fans are not pretending to be Kirk, McCoy, and Spock. They make up new characters and situation in the Star Trek universe.
Yes, but I would argue that they are still (in the common case) engaging the themes of Star Trek. How many fan for example do you hear calling for "Law & Order- Star Trek"? Not many.
One doesn't have to play the followship to have an High Fantasy campaign in Middle Earth. One just has to engage the High Fantasy themes.
Edit: Oh, and you get the same question I presented Akrasia above.
Quote from: estar*You have seen the cat room right?
Yes. Love the cat room.
Of course it's a cat
room in order to avoid the lag caused by having that many cats in the general instance...
MMORPGs have serious limits. They can be fun however and there are elements that LotRO does well. It's a good game.
Quote from: estarLOTOR may be the defining novel of High Fantasy
Huh?
Lord Of The Old Republic? ;)
RPGPundit
Quote from: gleichmanSo, what you're basically saying in your post is that the best option for a future published Middle Earth RPG is to treat it not as a High Fantasy game/campaign, but rather as a Historical RPG.
Yes, presentation of LOTRO as a historical setting would be the best way to go. As for high fantasy I would make sure that referees have the support and hooks to do the type of backstory we see on LOTR online.
I.e. In Rivendell they stayed for three month and did X,Y, and the reforging of Narsil. This reforging of Narsil can serve as a basis of an epic quest. Here are some details...
Quote from: gleichmanSo much like WWII, Middle Earth is a known set of places and events, one which would fit the characters in as small players who's ability to affect things is limited to that which the history books missed.
That that basically correct?
Yes to a point. That point being that despite Frodo and the Fellowship central role it was a narrow slice of a larger picture. Which makes it easy to allow player to have an impact on wider events.
LOTR Online opened my eyes to the possibilities of playing during the War of the Rings. When I heard it announced I couldn't believe it would work and not suck. But they have done an excellent job within the limits of MMORPG.
And like GURPS WW2 there could be support for designing an alternate history of events.
Quote from: RPGPunditHuh?
Lord Of The Old Republic? ;)
RPGPundit
Yeah yeah, got the edit. LOL
Rob Conley
Quote from: gleichmanBut why would you want that set in Middle Earth instead of a setting and background that more closely follows that? As Pierce put it, Traveller instead of Star Wars?
Because I find the setting of Middle Earth more interesting and inspiring for gaming than the epic themes of Lord of the Rings. My players like to explore worlds. They would probably like to explore Middle Earth. They don't necessarily like to play epic heroes.
And if we want to put our Tolkien nerd hats on, the good professor used the Lord of Rings primarily as a exercise in world and language building. You may think the whole point of Tolkien's work is the epic Northern European saga retold. I happen to think the whole point of Tolkien's work is Middle Earth itself. Which makes a campaign and game built around wandering and exploring across dozens of detailed map areas perfectly suitable for a Middle Earth game.
And even if you do find your inspiration from the tales in the novels themselves, the Hobbit and LotR have entirely different scope, tones and themes. The Hobbit is a little adventure story. Sure, it climaxes with a clash between armies, but the bulk of the book is about a fairly normal person getting into all sorts of boots-on-the-ground adventures while he travels across Middle Earth. I mean, Bilbo and the Dwarves don't carve the trolls into pieces, and then charge into the caves of the goblin king and put everyone to the sword. They scout and flee and hide, because they know they'll get their asses kicked if they have a stand-up fight against most of the creatures in the wilds of Middle Earth. And really, their epic quest is simply to loot a dragon hoard (by sneaking in, not killing the dragon). Sounds like a fun game.
Quote from: HaffrungBecause I find the setting of Middle Earth more interesting and inspiring for gaming than the epic themes of Lord of the Rings.
So, like estar you think any Middle Earth game is better done as a Historical RPG instead of a High Fantasy RPG?
Quote from: HaffrungYou may think the whole point of Tolkien's work is the epic Northern European saga retold. I happen to think the whole point of Tolkien's work is Middle Earth itself.
Actually I think it can have a number of different points that one must select from, I used the High Fantasy example because it specifically is one that I often see missing in online exchanges like this- I find that interesting and wonder why.
Tolkien himself would likely disagree here although not perhaps in the way one would first think. That however while vaguely interesting can't be determined well with the man dead, nor should it really alter your viewpoint in any case.
Quote from: HaffrungAnd even if you do find your inspiration from the tales in the novels themselves, the Hobbit and LotR have entirely different scope, tones and themes.
You know of course that the Hobbit wasn't really connected to Middle Earth until after JRRT failed to published the work he intended for that setting. It was later edited to fit.
Thus it makes sense that it has somewhat different scope, tones, and themes- ones that were edited to tie into the larger story into the background.
However by typical measure, the Hobbit is still High Fantasy if weaker High Fantasy than LotR itself as it contains most of the themes. This is especially true if one knows the nature of the Ring.
Quote from: estarYes, presentation of LOTRO as a historical setting would be the best way to go. As for high fantasy I would make sure that referees have the support and hooks to do the type of backstory we see on LOTR online.
Excellent.
Here I think we're finally seeing what I would consider a good answer to Pundit's original question. A fine starting line in many ways. If one was interested in completing the design, there would be more questions and details of course.
I'm wondering if there is anyone here who would champion a different starting approach? I gather that some would remove support for High Fantasy completely, other than that most here seem to share your viewpoint...
For those supporters of MERP and Decipher, do you consider this the approach taken them in their versions of the game? Did they offer support for High Fantasy in your opinion?
Quote from: estarLOTR Online opened my eyes to the possibilities of playing during the War of the Rings. When I heard it announced I couldn't believe it would work and not suck. But they have done an excellent job within the limits of MMORPG.
I like the qualifier at the end. This is interesting subject of its own, but rather off topic here. Perhaps another time.
Quote from: gleichmanSo, like estar you think any Middle Earth game is better done as a Historical RPG instead of a High Fantasy RPG?
No. I think the setting is more important than the theme. Setting =/= history.
Quote from: gleichmanYou know of course that the Hobbit wasn't really connected to Middle Earth until after JRRT failed to published the work he intended for that setting. It was later edited to fit.
Of course, most people who would be interested in playing a Middle Earth RPG don't know or care about what JRRT failed to publish. They think of Middle Earth and they think of Mirkwood and the Misty Mountains.
Quote from: gleichmanHowever by typical measure, the Hobbit is still High Fantasy if weaker High Fantasy than LotR itself as it contains most of the themes. This is especially true if one knows the nature of the Ring.
The nature of the ring was incorporated into Tolkien's setting after the fact. In the Hobbit, it's just a cool ring that makes you invisible. And I happen to think a cool ring that makes you invisible is a funner artifact in a game than an enormously powerful, but largely undefined One Ring to Rule Them All.
Quote from: jedimastertMy post is to highlight that several people on these boards, including the Pundit, only approve of RPGs if you are playing barely competent, lowly schmucks that could get killed on any particular attack in combat. [hyperbole] Playing anything besides an illiterate peasant farmer is power gaming to some around here. [/hyperbole] This is regardless of setting or genre. In an Iliad RPG they would be belly aching about Achilles wading through countless trojan soldiers.
I think this is an unfair characterization of Pundit's viewpoint.
It's dangerous to speak for others (especially a created jerk persona like Pundit), but I thought that he didn't have any problem with a PC named Achilles wading through trojan soldiers as such- but rather objected to game systems that made that automatic without any work, skill, and/or luck on the part of his player.
Quote from: HaffrungThe nature of the ring was incorporated into Tolkien's setting after the fact. In the Hobbit, it's just a cool ring that makes you invisible. And I happen to think a cool ring that makes you invisible is a funner artifact in a game than an enormously powerful, but largely undefined One Ring to Rule Them All.
I agree with this point a lot. For my game design I think The Hobbit is a better inspiration than The Lord of the Rings. :)
Quote from: gleichmanYes, this is much better than anyone else has done so far- it's missing some important "why?" for some choices meaning that I have to infer them- but at least it speaks to some details of what exactly is being selected for.
Well, because I want it that way and I'm always right about everything of course! :D
The problem with Middle Earth as a setting is that like history the current situation in any given era derives heavily from the situation in the previous era. Thus presenting it as a whole would be the only way to truely escape the limitations of a set of maps and gazetters of a single era. Also a book like this would be very likely to sell well outside of the gaming industry and more sales equals stability.
As far as the rules go, I'm much in favour of competent characters over incompetent ones. WFRP drives me buggy. Since LotR is significantly more recognizable than D&D as a brand name I'd want a game with rules that are brief and easy to learn instead of a big scary book.
The low magic aproach comes more from a recognition of the limitations of a ten page rulebook than a setting driven concern. I'd probably expand it out a bit but it'd be much more in keeping with lighting pine cones than pushing old men around with bolts of force.
Quote from: HaffrungNo. I think the setting is more important than the theme. Setting =/= history.
So you consider Middle Earth to be nothing more than maps and place names?
Or at the least that the Maps and Names are more important than the history of the events that took place upon those maps and gave them those names- let alone the themes the work was intended to invoke?
Quote from: HaffrungOf course, most people who would be interested in playing a Middle Earth RPG don't know or care about what JRRT failed to publish. They think of Middle Earth and they think of Mirkwood and the Misty Mountains.
Most? How do you come to make this claim? Do you have anything other than your personal experience to back this up?
Granting most, does this make them different than the posters in the Star Trek thread who with respect to that setting didn't mention Alpha Ceti III, but instead spoke of such things as Hopefully Futures, conflicts between ideas and reality. Why the difference?
Quote from: HaffrungThe nature of the ring was incorporated into Tolkien's setting after the fact. In the Hobbit, it's just a cool ring that makes you invisible. And I happen to think a cool ring that makes you invisible is a funner artifact in a game than an enormously powerful, but largely undefined One Ring to Rule Them All.
So you consider any attempt of invoke a theme, even one JRRT himself worked to put in- something that should be completely avoided in a Middle Earth RPG game (or at least a published one)?
Quote from: StuartI agree with this point a lot. For my game design I think The Hobbit is a better inspiration than The Lord of the Rings. :)
So your answer to Pundits question is that one shouldn't make a Lord of the Rings game at all?
Quote from: gleichmanSo you consider Middle Earth to be nothing more than maps and place names?
Or at the least that the Maps and Names are more important than the history of the events that took place upon those maps and gave them those names- let alone the themes the work was intended to invoke?
I find the locales and inhabitants of Middle Earth, as described in the Hobbit, LotR, and various other works, more inspiring to gaming than the themes of LotR. That's because my group likes to explore
places in our RPGs, not
themes. In fact, we don't really have themes at all in our games.
But I'll turn the question around on you: If it's all about the Northern European High Fantasy theme, why does it have to be set in Middle Earth? Why can't you get your Northern European High Fantasy thematic gaming by playing a game based on Beowulf, the Nibelung, or the Arthurian legend?
But looking back on Pundit's original post, I suppose I should make it clear that I don't have much interest in playing a LotR RPG, but I have a lot of interest in playing in a Middle Earth RPG. The fact that ICE chose to do the latter suggests there's a significant market that shares my preference.
Quote from: HaffrungI find the locales and inhabitants of Middle Earth, as described in the Hobbit, LotR, and various other works, more inspiring to gaming than the themes of LotR. That's because my group likes to explore places in our RPGs, not themes. In fact, we don't really have themes at all in our games.
From this, I would draw the conculsion that you don't want a full RPG system for any setting whatever, nor adentures or adventure advice. Just maps and names that you could explore. As even simple NPC character motives can instill the dreaded elements of 'theme', you'd like them gone as well leaving you to free to explore the map using whatever game system you favor in general.
So... the Atlas of Middle Earth is all that you think should be included in a LotR or Middle Earth RPG?
Quote from: HaffrungBut I'll turn the question around on you: If it's all about the Northern European High Fantasy theme, why does it have to be set in Middle Earth? Why can't you get your Northern European High Fantasy thematic gaming by playing a game based on Beowulf, the Nibelung, or the Arthurian legend?.
Because Middle Earth is the definitived example of the High Fantasy genre, not the others you list even if they have elements. Middle Earth was a new creation and while it barrowed elements from past myths it also changed and added to them.
It's that combinations with additions that those desiring a High Fantasy version of Middle Earth would seek.
Quote from: HaffrungBut looking back on Pundit's original post, I suppose I should make it clear that I don't have much interest in playing a LotR RPG, but I have a lot of interest in playing in a Middle Earth RPG. The fact that ICE chose to do the latter suggests there's a significant market that shares my preference.
ICE did no such thing, their setting (like my own) is around 2000 years before the War of the Ring. IME they attempted to do a Middle Earth game- with the High Fantasy themes as a possible option.
Their success can be debated on various points.
I think this applies to the broader world of fantasy RPGs. Setting products that focus on the place work better than those based on a theme. Give plenty of conflict and info for GM to develop adventures off of. But leave the "theme" up to the GM and his group.
Note that theme is not equivalent to genre. A genre can have many different themes. I think a setting has to fit its genre (or whatever mishmash the author is going for) but drilling down to the theme level will make it too specific.
I guess you can argue that High Fantasy is a genre in of itself like Swords and Sorcery. I think Tolkien High Fantasy is not the same as D&D High Fantasy. Due to his history and language work Tolkein's High Fantasy is more akin to Harnmaster than D&D.
Quote from: David JohansenSince LotR is significantly more recognizable than D&D as a brand name I'd want a game with rules that are brief and easy to learn instead of a big scary book.
Interesting that much of your post (that I didn't quote) seem focused on the game being designed with new players in mind.
You don't see a LotR game being suitable for experienced players?
Quote from: gleichmanSo your answer to Pundits question is that one shouldn't make a Lord of the Rings game at all?
Try reading what I actually wrote. ;)
Quote from: estarNote that theme is not equivalent to genre. A genre can have many different themes. I think a setting has to fit its genre (or whatever mishmash the author is going for) but drilling down to the theme level will make it too specific.
Genre is often defined as a collection of common themes and elements. The Wiki entry for High Fantasy that I linked earlier certainly does this and I consider it the common man's use of the term.
So you're going to have be more specific for me to understand what you're saying here. Perhaps you consider High Fantasy not a genre, but rather a theme within the genre of Fantasy? This seems to be where your last paragraph was heading. I think many would disagree.
Quote from: StuartTry reading what I actually wrote. ;)
I did. You in effect said that one should make a (I assume back edited ) Hobbit RPG, not a LotR RPG.
Or at least that's how it came across to me.
Quote from: jedimastertthousands of orcs, goblins, and trolls.
Hey can someone answer me this - what the heck is the difference between a "goblin" and an "orc" in the Tolkein-verse?
I've read the LotR and the Hobbit, watched the movies, and looked through the Decipher and ICE RPGs. But in each one, I would swear that "goblin" and "orc" are used to refer to the exact same species.
Can anyone more scholarly on the works of Tolkein clear that up for me?
Quote from: jgantsI've read the LotR and the Hobbit, watched the movies, and looked through the Decipher and ICE RPGs. But in each one, I would swear that "goblin" and "orc" are used to refer to the exact same species.
Can anyone more scholarly on the works of Tolkein clear that up for me?
They basically are identical, but come from different cultures.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_%28Middle-earth%29#Orcs.2C_Goblins.2C_and_Uruks
Quote from: gleichmanThey basically are identical, but come from different cultures.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_%28Middle-earth%29#Orcs.2C_Goblins.2C_and_Uruks
I should have known that Wikipedia had the answer.
Quote from: jgantsI should have known that Wikipedia had the answer.
What's even better for some of the Middle Earth entries is that it also has many of the unanswered questions.
Wiki has its problems. But it's not a bad first place to hit.
Quote from: gleichmanSo, what you're basically saying in your post is that the best option for a future published Middle Earth RPG is to treat it not as a High Fantasy game/campaign, but rather as a Historical RPG.
...
That that basically correct?
Um no, not exactly.
I don't understand how anything in my post could be construed as incompatible with viewing a Middle-earth RPG as a 'high fantasy' game or campaign -- unless you think that all 'high fantasy' campaigns
must be about saving the world (which would be a very strange thing to think).
Honestly, I can't figure out whether you're deliberately being obtuse, or just don't understand why people might be happy to run 'high fantasy' campaigns set in Middle-earth that involve events that are significant, but not as 'world changing' as the War of the Ring. It's really a simple point.
Quote from: AkrasiaHonestly, I can't figure out whether you're deliberately being obtuse, or just don't understand why people might be happy to run 'high fantasy' campaigns set in Middle-earth that involve events that are significant, but not as 'world changing' as the War of the Ring. It's really a simple point.
Deliberately obtuse, no. I'm actually rather interested in what people seriously think on the subject. Finding that out isn't easy and becomes even more difficult when the only communication is short written exchanges.
Thus I'm only responding to people who make the claim up front that they don't want a High Fantasy campaign. I thought this included you.
Now you're telling me you do in fact want such things in a Middle Earth RPG.
Which is it?
And you do realize that if the importance of the events drops too low, it is no longer High Fantays don't you? Again from Wiki: "When the scope is less than epic, dealing with the hero's personal fight for personal stakes against evil forces, the epic fantasy may shade into sword and sorcery."
Quote from: gleichmanFrom this, I would draw the conculsion that you don't want a full RPG system for any setting whatever, nor adentures or adventure advice. Just maps and names that you could explore. As even simple NPC character motives can instill the dreaded elements of 'theme', you'd like them gone as well leaving you to free to explore the map using whatever game system you favor in general.
So... the Atlas of Middle Earth is all that you think should be included in a LotR or Middle Earth RPG?
. Are you obtuse, or just being combative?
I like my systems to support gaming and exploration. I don't find theme to be necessary in my RPG products. Thankfully, very few of the gaming products I own have theme. They have places and people and motivations and storyhooks. But no overarching theme or great struggle that the PCs play a central role in. I don't 'dread' theme; my players and I just have no interest in exploring it in our games.
Quote from: gleichmanBecause Middle Earth is the definitived example of the High Fantasy genre, not the others you list even if they have elements. Middle Earth was a new creation and while it barrowed elements from past myths it also changed and added to them.
So you dig the themes of LotR? Can't find them in other settings? Cool. I dig the locations and inhabitants. Other settings don't have them. That's why I'd prefer a game that put the settings and inhabitants of Middle Earth at the forefront of the game. See how it works? We each have our preferences.
Or to paraphrase Sett:
The Pits of Dol Goldur >> ""I will diminish, and go into the West and remain Galadriel"
Quote from: gleichmanI did. You in effect said that one should make a (I assume back edited ) Hobbit RPG, not a LotR RPG.
Or at least that's how it came across to me.
Lot's of "in effect" and "I assume" there. ;)
I said:
"For
my game design I think The Hobbit is a better
inspiration than The Lord of the Rings."
My game isn't an RPG either. It just shares a common lineage. :)
Quote from: gleichman...
Thus I'm only responding to people who make the claim up front that they don't want a High Fantasy campaign. I thought this included you.
Now you're telling me you do in fact want such things in a Middle Earth RPG.
Which is it?
...
Well, you seem to have a specific idea of what you mean by 'high fantasy', so perhaps we are talking past each other.
IMO, 'high fantasy' means, roughly, a game in which the characters are clearly 'heroic' (they don't constantly die) and concerned with 'doing the right thing' (fighting evil, etc.). They're engaged in quests, overthrowing oppression, and so forth. The tone is not 'grim and gritty' in nature (that would be 'low fantasy'). The scale of the events themselves can vary quite a bit -- a high fantasy campaign can involve 'saving the world' or simply liberating a small city from a tyrant. (In contrast, a 'sword and sorcery' campaign would be one in which characters can be somewhat amoral and not 'heroic' in the traditional sense, e.g. Conan).
Based on that view, I think that a Middle-earth campaign can be 'high fantasy' in nature, even if the events fall far short of the War of the Ring. I'm surprised that this possibility is not obvious.
Quote from: AkrasiaWell, you seem to have a specific idea of what you mean by 'high fantasy', so perhaps we are talking past each other.
I've already provided the link for how I'm using the term in this exchange and have at least attempted to keep to it.
Here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy
It doesn't match yours, at least not in all details. I grant no recognition to your personal definition I'm afraid.
Quote from: StuartLot's of "in effect" and "I assume" there. ;)
I said:
"For my game design I think The Hobbit is a better inspiration than The Lord of the Rings."
My game isn't an RPG either. It just shares a common lineage. :)
Sounds to me that you're not only nitpicking, but are in the wrong thread.
Quote from: gleichmanSounds to me that you're not only nitpicking, but are in the wrong thread.
I popped in to agree with Haffrung:
Quote from: HaffrungThe nature of the ring was incorporated into Tolkien's setting after the fact. In the Hobbit, it's just a cool ring that makes you invisible. And I happen to think a cool ring that makes you invisible is a funner artifact in a game than an enormously powerful, but largely undefined One Ring to Rule Them All.
Who's the one nitpicking?
Quote from: gleichman...
It doesn't match yours, at least not in all details...
:confused:
Huh? It seems to match it pretty damn closely (aside from the stuff about the main protagonist, which isn't relevant for RPGs anyway).
How exactly does that wiki definition
differ from mine?
Quote from: StuartI popped in to agree with Haffrung:
Yes you did
Quote from: StuartWho's the one nitpicking?
You are. And trying to do so in the most evasion way possible I might add.
Quote from: Akrasia:confused:
Huh? It seems to match it pretty damn closely (aside from the stuff about the main protagonist, which isn't relevant for RPGs anyway).
How exactly does that wiki definition differ from mine?
The wiki definition doesn't specify that the main characters live (you do). And it places a great deal of focus on the epic nature and grand scope of the conflict between good and evil. And it further notes that when the stakes drop too low, it shades into other genres.
Here we come to a judgement call, at what point does the stakes drop too low and personal for it to no longer be High Fantasy but becomes a mix of other genres or even something completely different. Reasonable people can disagree. I think anything Fourth Age based has reached that break away point for example.
Also one can't really drop the character elements completely and still call it High Fantasy, it's part of the genre. And I do consider it highly relevant for any RPG that attempts High Fantasy. It must be there in some form to claim the name.
Quote from: gleichmanThe wiki definition doesn't specify that the main characters live (you do).
No I don't. I only specify that they don't die easily (or as easily as in, say, 'low fantasy'). That's certainly true for LotR.
Quote from: gleichmanAnd it places a great deal of focus on the epic nature and grand scope of the conflict between good and evil.
The conflict between good and evil may be 'grand' -- I certainly would not deny that, as it distinguishes 'high fantasy' from other genres of fantasy -- but there are many parts to that conflict, not every one need individually concern the fate of the world.
Quote from: gleichmanHere we come to a judgement call, at what point does the stakes drop too low and personal for it to no longer be High Fantasy...
Right, and I guess that we just disagree on this.
Quote from: gleichmanI think this is an unfair characterization of Pundit's viewpoint.
It's dangerous to speak for others (especially a created jerk persona like Pundit), but I thought that he didn't have any problem with a PC named Achilles wading through trojan soldiers as such- but rather objected to game systems that made that automatic without any work, skill, and/or luck on the part of his player.
I have read enough of Pundit's posts to have a good idea of what his views are. If I am getting them wrong then he can correct me. You sum up my problem with Pundit and some others here. Starting a game off with a powerful character is seen as a bad thing. The view is EVERY character, regardless of genre or situation, needs to claw their way out of the muck or else you are on a power gaming trip.
For example he has has stated that he has made fun of Rifts players who roll up Dragon Hatchlings. Now Dragon Hatchlings are pretty strong in relation to many starting options in Rifts. He neglects the fact that Rifts is full of opponents that can squash a Dragon Hatchling in seconds.
In some genres and situations powerful starting characters seem very appropriate to me. Certain types of super hero campaigns for example. As long as there are opponents and situtations to challenge the players and the risk of failure then I don't see any problem.
Now in this thread Pundit asked about a Lord of the Rings RPG. This evokes the LotR epic tale of saving the world from doom against overwhelming odds. He did not ask who could make a general Middle Earth RPG that could handle a variety of characters and situations, from mundane to epic.
Quote from: gleichmanI've already provided the link for how I'm using the term in this exchange and have at least attempted to keep to it.
Here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy
Quite frankly, that entry is boilerplate Campbellism of the blandest kind. We need specificity, not generic truisms.
Given how many people you've interrogated how many times in this thread about their take on Middle Earth, it would help advance the discussion quite a bit if you yourself stepped up to the plate.
What would be one to three concrete mini-campaign ideas for a Middle Earth High Fantasy game?
What would be the exact relation between the rules of that game and the High Fantasy theme as it emerges in those mini-campaign ideas? Complementary? Generative? How so?
Clearly you've given much thought to the matter. Do share.
Quote from: AkrasiaUm no, not exactly.
I don't understand how anything in my post could be construed as incompatible with viewing a Middle-earth RPG as a 'high fantasy' game or campaign -- unless you think that all 'high fantasy' campaigns must be about saving the world (which would be a very strange thing to think).
Honestly, I can't figure out whether you're deliberately being obtuse, or just don't understand why people might be happy to run 'high fantasy' campaigns set in Middle-earth that involve events that are significant, but not as 'world changing' as the War of the Ring. It's really a simple point.
I think gleichman's position is reasonable. High fantasy is about high stakes. Saving the world isn't the only possibility. Saving just a region could be high fantasy. Striving to defeat a great evil who's goal isn't necessarily world domination can be high fantasy.
The examples many people are giving on this thread as what they would want from a LotR RPG are certainly not High Fantasy. For example:
QuoteOriginally Posted by Haffrung
Surely there's a middle ground between random shmuck and epic hero with a destiny.
For LotR, you could be a man of Dale who starts as a guard on a trade mission to the Halls of Thranduil, gets caught up on some intrigue over a lost Elven crown, joins a band hunting orcs in the Mirkwood, heads to the Iron Mountains to the site of a fallen Dwarven army to recover a great axe for to kill orcs better, explores a cave complex abandoned by dragons eons ago, helps the Beornlings hunt a werewolf, and eventually, after many years of adventure and steadily increasing in power, sneaks into Dol Goldur to free a prisoner. And maybe dies there.
No destiny. No starting off as an awesome hero already. Nothing in any of the adventures that required you to succeed - or survive - to drive a greater plot. Still a fun character to play (IMHO), with vivid and memorable adventures.
This is not high fantasy. This is AD&D using Middle Earth as the setting. There is nothing wrong with wanting this experience. This is how many of my Star Wars campaign go. The characters don't have to rock the Star Wars Universe in order to have a great and memorable game. The same applies to Middle Earth. You can have a great game without being heir to a kingdom and returning Sauron's back up ring that no one knew about to Mt. Doom. But this sort of game is not epic enough in scope to be high fantasy.
Quote from: jedimastert... But this sort of game is not epic enough in scope to be high fantasy.
At this stage I fail to see what exactly rides on obsessing over the correct definition of 'high fantasy'.
A good Middle-earth RPG IMO requires a strong 'good-versus-evil' background and, ideally, rules to reinforce this feature (this is essential to the setting, and is certainly part of any definition of 'high fantasy'). But it should also allow for the heroes (the PCs) to engage in quests, struggles, etc., that can vary widely in scope.
If you and gleichman don't want to call that 'high fantasy', whatever.
Quote from: jedimastertI have read enough of Pundit's posts to have a good idea of what his views are. If I am getting them wrong then he can correct me.
Well, that would require him to be consistent, and he's really not. You are however correct that only he can answer the question.
For my part, I feel there is a difference between running a campaign where the characters are center to play the center role in epic adventures and one where they have the chance to if they play well. Both can be High Fantasy.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat would be one to three concrete mini-campaign ideas for a Middle Earth High Fantasy game?
Another powerful servant of Melkor has been hiding and brooding in one of the deep dark places of the world that has been overlooked for ages. His plan is to free Melkor from his exile now that the Valar have withdrawn from Middle Earth. He is creating an army from the remnants of Sauron's and Saruman's orc and uruk'hai forces as well as using some nasty creatures that have been forgotten in the bowels of the Earth. The freeing of Melkor could require a ritual and/or certain items scattered through out Middle Earth.
The PCs slowly stumble onto this plan and go out to thwart it.
This sort of thing is High Fantasy. Going on orc hunting parties so some farmers in the country side near Bree stop getting attacked is not.
Quote from: AkrasiaIf you and gleichman don't want to call that 'high fantasy', whatever.
I would agree that we've reached something of a impass. I'm going to continue to assume that epic adventures with high stakes are part of the High Fantasy setting and you won't.
It won't make communication very easy.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityGiven how many people you've interrogated how many times in this thread about their take on Middle Earth, it would help advance the discussion quite a bit if you yourself stepped up to the plate.
Ok, it will take a bit and I may need to do it later however.
I'll use some examples from my own campaign which generally bores people to death.
Quote from: AkrasiaAt this stage I fail to see what exactly rides on obsessing over the correct definition of 'high fantasy'.
A good Middle-earth RPG IMO requires a strong 'good-versus-evil' background and, ideally, rules to reinforce this feature (this is essential to the setting, and is certainly part of any definition of 'high fantasy'). But it should also allow for the heroes (the PCs) to engage in quests, struggles, etc., that can vary widely in scope.
If you and gleichman don't want to call that 'high fantasy', whatever.
I have no problem with that. A wide variety of scenarios from saving farmers from some orc raiders to returing the one ring to Mt.Doom can all be fun and memorable gaming experiences.
The arguments stem from expectations from a setting's source material. In the Hobbit a group of dwarves wants to kick a really powerful and nasty dragon out of their ancestral kingdom. The goal is to get back their underground kingdom and a massive stash of treasure as well. Several Armies show up to clame the loot after the dragon is slain. Again the themes are reclaiming a kingdom from evil against incredible odds. The treasure pay out makes most 20th level D&D players look like poppers. Many armies come to clash over the spoils. This is epic stuff. In Lord of the Rings we get into "saving the world" territory.
Two people can read the Hobbit and LotR and come away with much different feels. Some people want small scope adventures with Middle Earth as the backdrop. Others want to recreate the epic nature of the stories set in Middle Earth.
An open question here is to what degree you want the adventures to imitate the story of the Lord of the Rings -- as opposed to being set in Middle Earth. Tolkien's writings set in Middle Earth are different from each other. i.e. The Hobbit is different from the Lord of the Rings, and the Silmarillion is different from both of them. I think a Middle Earth game should be able to cover all of them, as well as being able to cover other approaches.
When I'm doing a game based on a licensed property, I often have some things that are similar to the original stories, but I also have some things that are quite distinct.
Quote from: gleichmanI would agree that we've reached something of a impass. I'm going to continue to assume that epic adventures with high stakes are part of the High Fantasy setting and you won't.
It won't make communication very easy.
I'm happy to include 'epic adventures' and 'high stakes' as part of 'High Fantasy'. I'm just more liberal with respect to what kinds of things those labels can cover. Thwarting a nefarious Umbarean plot against Minas Tirith, or taking part in the Kin-Strife by opposing the usurper, can be adequately 'high stakes' and 'epic' for me.
As for making communication easy, it hasn't been easy with you so far ...
:shrug:
Quote from: AkrasiaAs for making communication easy, it hasn't been easy with you so far ...
:shrug:
Given that you're quite willing to stretch the meaning of terms beyond any useful utility, and I'm not- I imagine that won't change.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityQuite frankly, that entry is boilerplate Campbellism of the blandest kind. We need specificity, not generic truisms.
Given how many people you've interrogated how many times in this thread about their take on Middle Earth, it would help advance the discussion quite a bit if you yourself stepped up to the plate.
What would be one to three concrete mini-campaign ideas for a Middle Earth High Fantasy game?
What would be the exact relation between the rules of that game and the High Fantasy theme as it emerges in those mini-campaign ideas? Complementary? Generative? How so?
Clearly you've given much thought to the matter. Do share.
Brian, clearly you've given much thought to the matter. Do share.
Quote from: gleichmanGiven that you're quite willing to stretch the meaning of terms beyond any useful utility, and I'm not- I imagine that won't change.
'Useful utility'? Nice pleonasm there. :p
Anyhow, I'm hardly "stretching the terms beyond any useful utility". You're the first person I've ever encountered for whom any kind of campaign short of 'world saving' quests fails to qualify as 'high fantasy'. That strikes me as absurdly restricting the term beyond any utility (at least for discussions of FRPGs).
The fact of the matter is that I've never had any problem communicating with others using the term 'high fantasy' as I've defined it, so it certainly has plenty of utility for me and my interlocutors. It is a term that meaningfully distinguishes certain kinds of fantasy campaigns from 'low fantasy', 'dark fantasy', 'sword and sorcery', and others. So it has plenty of utility for me.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat would be one to three concrete mini-campaign ideas for a Middle Earth High Fantasy game?
Here's a couple of examples from my campaign that shows two different approaches I've used. There's quite a number actually, the game has a long real world history. The second is les epic than the first, but within line with High Fantasy to my mind.
1. Various former servants of Morgoth (including Sauron and his minions) hit upon a plan to extinguish the light of the Sun and the Moon using recovered gems that Ungoliant belched back up in her feeding fenzy after the death of the two trees. The adventure ran the range from early hints that agents of darkness were looking for something (the gems of course, scattered across the world), to races against them to prevent elements of the plan, to a final battle at the ritual site against forces commanded in person by the Witch King.
2. A story line that ran throughout a number of years real time which chronicled the growth of a PC from the only survivor of an attack on a small village by the Witch King and elements of his army. The arc ended (as was intended) when our new hero confronted the Dragon ally the Witch King has brought under his control. In between was all the quest and events of growth one expect including those for gaining the tools and position necessary to actually contend with the Drake. If the player had failed, the North Kingdom would have fallen more than a couple of hundred years too soon and the Witch King would have owned the north. No Shire, no hobbit to find the Ring thousands of years hence, etc. etc. Redemption was actually a major part of this storyline, but in a foreshadowing way with respect to the "End Days" of Middle Earth. If we ever play that out, that would actually come up...
Now most of the time, it's individual adventures more like the Hobbit. Connected to the grand themes of Middle Earth yes, very much so. But only obviously so in hind sight or to those looking for it. Like the works, basically everything evil can be traced back to the same source (Morgoth).
Given that it's a RPG, many adventures are simply in the setting to provide flavor, context, back story, and growth into epic arcs like those above. Often the players have no idea what the actual importance of any specific thing would be. That was very much the case in the second example until the arc approach its end, less so in the first.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat would be the exact relation between the rules of that game and the High Fantasy theme as it emerges in those mini-campaign ideas? Complementary? Generative? How so?
I'm of the school that mechanic rules are highly unlikely to bring out the themes found in High Fantasy. People instead are needed for that. Thus control here is at the GM and player level.
Rather the rule design for the campaign focused on avoiding elements that would conflict with the themes and or the visible physics of the setting. Thus using an advancement system that prevented unrestrained power growth because in-game campaign lengths would cover generations of characters, a combat system that allowed for unarmored combatants as a reasonable choice as well as allow for the inexperienced new comer to battle alongside aged veteran PCs against evil hordes, etc.
A very non-Forge like approach.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityClearly you've given much thought to the matter. Do share.
I detect sarcasm, but I've answered anyway just in case it was a honest question. It's hard for me tell sometimes with just the written word.
Quote from: AkrasiaThe fact of the matter is that I've never had any problem communicating with others using the term 'high fantasy' as I've defined it, so it certainly has plenty of utility for me and my interlocutors.
I could say the same. Is there really any point in continuing this exchange between us? I currently don't see any likely positive outcome.
Quote from: gleichman... Is there really any point in continuing this exchange between us?...
Nope. :cheers:
Quote from: gleichmanI could say the same. Is there really any point in continuing this exchange between us? I currently don't see any likely positive outcome.
It's amusing me anyhow.