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!


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.)