I picked up the 2 core books for Adventures in Middle Earth, but never went any further with the line. I don't really want more adventures, but the region guides do look cool. Anyone been using them? How is the fluff? Is there more info than what can be found in Tolkien's work or a WIKI? Do they have some good rules? Have you tried re-skinning stuff for another 5e setting or homebrew?

Thanks in advance.

Quote from: Robyo;1079168I picked up the 2 core books for Adventures in Middle Earth, but never went any further with the line. I don't really want more adventures, but the region guides do look cool. Anyone been using them? How is the fluff? Is there more info than what can be found in Tolkien's work or a WIKI? Do they have some good rules? Have you tried re-skinning stuff for another 5e setting or homebrew?

Thanks in advance.

It all good and useful stuff and I own them all.

What they do for you is supply a bountiful amount of local level details that is not found in Tolkien works. And does it in a way that is consistent with Tolkien.  All the adventures and supplements have useful and complimentary detail and rules that flesh out AiME particularly for the Wilderlands.

Middle Earth is a big place geographically with lots of gaps to fill for a campaign. The supplement and adventures flesh it out just enough. They give enough useful detail about each region to flesh it out but it not so encyclopedic that you have to memorize a done of trivia or don't have room for your own ideas.

As for re-skinning, I found 5th edition material not to be useful. Instead adventures made for other low-key fantasy setting like 100 bushels of Rye for Harn or some of the Ars Magica adventures to be far more useful.

I will say my own Scourge of the Demon Wolf (for Swords & Wizardry) worked well as a Middle Earth adventure. I subbed in the Werewolf, tweaked the demonic background stuff to be Sauron's shadow, subbed in visiting scholars from Gondor for a conclave of Wizards, subbed in one of the outcast groups of Wilderlands for the beggar tribe, and so on.

I don't dig Middle Earth as an RPG setting.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1079778I don't dig Middle Earth as an RPG setting.

Personal preferences aside, Cubicle 7 makes it work in a similar way Chaosium make Call of Cthulhu work. Or how Ars Magica made playing all mages work. Or even how the Amber RPG emulates the feel of the novels.

This is a podcast where Brendan, myself, and RPG Lab crew talk about Adventures in Middle Earth
https://bedrockgames.podbean.com/e/rpg-lab-adventures-in-middle-earth/

In Call of Cthulhu, one high level view is how long investigator can survive trying to avert disaster before being driven insane by the menace they are facing.

In Adventures in Middle Earth, one way to look at it how long one can do what needs to be done before succumbing to the Shadow or at least forced to retire before that happens.

And Cubicle does a good job of fleshing out the world while still keeping the vast wildernesses of the novels.

I can understand the whole "I don't want to play in a extremely popular IP universe" for RPG settings, for whatever reason.

One of the strengths of AiME is that it shows how to do a low-magic setting with 5e rules. I think there's plenty of room for Tolkein influence in a D&D game, even if you don't want to play in strictly Middle Earth setting.

Quote from: Robyo;1080532I can understand the whole "I don't want to play in a extremely popular IP universe" for RPG settings, for whatever reason.

One of the strengths of AiME is that it shows how to do a low-magic setting with 5e rules.

I will say I've heard a lot of good things about it in that particular respect.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1079778I don't dig Middle Earth as an RPG setting.

I actually picked up the Loremasters Guide this weekend, which is the book for GM's teaching how to run Adventures in Middle Earth. It's really good, and I'm enjoying it so far. Running a successful Middle Earth campaign using D&D has been the holy grail for gamers since, ...well, RPG gaming began. Everyone wanted their own fantasy world to be as immersive, and detailed as J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth, and a lot of gamers wanted to set a campaign there. Back before the millennium we used Iron Crown's Middle Earth Role Playing to scratch that itch, however I sold all my ICE books in 2000 after their bankruptcy proceedings.

I'm glad Cubicle 7 got a license for this, and they did a real good job putting these books together, I'll be picking up the Player's Guide with an eye towards starting a new Middle Earth campaign after I get paid again next week.

Cubicle 7 have done sterling work with the license.  The region books are very good.  They pack a wealth of detail that I find useful for writing campaigns and scenarios.  Local history, personalities, possible patrons, lurking monsters, interesting encounters and useful maps.  Some have adventures too.

I think the MERP books cover more and more creatively, but stray further from the source more often.  If Cubicle 7 keep the license for long enough to chart more of Middle-earth, AiME is likely to be my preferred reference material from now on.

The 1st edition MERP stuff is better. AIME has nice maps, though. I own everything for TOR and AIME, and while READING it is enlightening, I'd never play this stuff. MERP is a better game as the assumptions lead to better gaming.

Quote from: Brad;1082301The 1st edition MERP stuff is better. AIME has nice maps, though. I own everything for TOR and AIME, and while READING it is enlightening, I'd never play this stuff. MERP is a better game as the assumptions lead to better gaming.

Greetings!

Interesting, Brad! I own lots of Merp and Rolemaster stuff, from way back in the day. I don't own AIME, but I am of course a long-time fan of Tolkien and Middle Earth. What kind of "Gaming Assumptions" does AIME make, and how do those compare to what Merp established?

I've heard a lot of positive things about AIME, though I'm very curious as to a fellow Merp fan's criticisms of AIME would be, and a thorough comparison.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Brad;1082301The 1st edition MERP stuff is better. AIME has nice maps, though. I own everything for TOR and AIME, and while READING it is enlightening, I'd never play this stuff. MERP is a better game as the assumptions lead to better gaming.

Yes, I do like the TOR/AiME material, but MERP material was more fun. A large part of that was its change of focus to the mid third age, but most is due to the limited way C7 views the canon. Their stuff tends to be lower magic than the Hobbit book itself. However, C7's Middle Earth is not as low magic as some would like it to be, to C7's credit.
 The region guides are really good though. The adventures less so.

Quote from: SHARK;1082304What kind of "Gaming Assumptions" does AIME make, and how do those compare to what Merp established?

MERP assumes the PCs are inhabitants of Middle Earth with the purpose of gaming there, i.e. it's a game and plays like a traditional RPG insomuch you can play an RPG set in Middle Earth. By this I mean there's no expectation that the PCs will succeed, have adventures that affect the outcome of the War of the Ring (I think most of the books are set in SA 2700 or something if I remember right, so a good few thousand years before LotR), or do anything significant beyond killing orcs and trolls. This basically makes ME a backdrop for the game; you get the flavor without the baggage. TOR/AIME is the exact opposite: the PCs are in the thick of the LotR timeline, even if peripherally. Further, they're supposed to be emulating the actual LotR story, so there are mechanics in place to accomplish this. It's very metagamey, and TOR really fits the notion of what is called a storygame here. AIME is essentially D&D with a few of the TOR sensibilities thrown in, and it doesn't really seem to fit. As Third Age guidebooks, TOR/AIME is pretty awesome, but ehhh...it's not a good RPG. Maybe it's a good storygame, I dunno.

Quote from: KingofElfland;1082355Yes, I do like the TOR/AiME material, but MERP material was more fun. A large part of that was its change of focus to the mid third age, but most is due to the limited way C7 views the canon. Their stuff tends to be lower magic than the Hobbit book itself. However, C7's Middle Earth is not as low magic as some would like it to be, to C7's credit.
 The region guides are really good though. The adventures less so.

The whole "low magic" thing behind critiques of MERP are easily addressed when you put SA vs. TA in context. Second edition really drove the point home with getting attention from the Eye whenever you cast spells, and thus why super powerful elf lords and wizards weren't lobbing fireballs all over the place. Also, I think that's way overstated, anyway. There is a ton of magic in ME, but it's really woven into the substance of the world. Lorien and Rivendell, for instance, are super magical, but it's not flashy or overt. I think people seem to forget Elrond/Gandalf summoning the river to drown the black riders during LotR: they CAN do high level D&D wizard-like spells, but they're smart and reserve their power until needed. C&S wizards operate more similarly to the way you'd think Gandalf would, which makes sense to me after reading about how the original C&S campaign was pretty much a ME game.

But yes, I agree with the region guides. I am not a fan of the adventures for the reasons specified above.

Quote from: Brad;1082362TOR/AIME is the exact opposite: the PCs are in the thick of the LotR timeline, even if peripherally. Further, they're supposed to be emulating the actual LotR story, so there are mechanics in place to accomplish this.

I have refereed TOR but it not the case with AiME

The unique mechanics of AiME ar

Journeys
A system of generating random events over time

Shadow
Which represent the supernatural evil that pervades Middle Earth and has same relationship to characters and the setting as the insanity mechanic of Call of Cthulu. It not there to represent the story of the Lord of the Ring but rather the effect of Morgoth's marring of Arda and Sauron's ability to take advantage of it for his own evil purposes.

Roleplaying
Like CoC's insanity mechanism, Shadow and other abilities and feats only work if one is willing to act i.e. roleplaying. Roleplaying as an extension of oneself with the abilities of the character is not going to quite cut it with AiME (or TOR for that matter). For example

For example this Journey event

Quote6. The Wonders of Middle-earth
The company finds itself presented with a spectacular vista. A sunset, a forest glade, a mountain range. Each member of the company must make a Wisdom check or Intelligence (Investigation) check (their choice). If successful, they see the beauty of the scene and feel invigorated, recovering from 1 level of exhaustion.

If unsuccessful, they instead see brooding clouds, hard paths yet to be walked or steep and daunting hills to be climbed and suffer a level of exhaustion.

If all members of the company are successful, they receive a +1 bonus to the Guide's Arrival roll.

If all fail, the Guide's Arrival roll incurs a -1 penalty. Rolls made for this task are subject to disadvantage/ advantage if the Guide's Embarkation roll was either 5 or 8.

For a group that don't want to immerse themselves into their character, or speak with "funny" voices then above will be off putting. To the get the full use out of the mechanic you have to be willing to roleplay the effects described above. More than a few react negatively as it viewed as a form of in-game mind control or a threat to their agency over how to control their character.

What is not is metagamey. It not part of a narrative, there not slot within a story for Wonders of Middle Earth to slide into. It is a random encounter of a location within setting of Middle Earth with mechanics describing it effect on the emotions of the characters.

Quote from: Brad;1082362It's very metagamey, and TOR really fits the notion of what is called a storygame here.

In the past I would agree, but now I have two side by side, I see what the authors of TOR were getting at. The difference is that TOR is more abstract, and lite especially combat. TOR is also more of a skill based system than AiME's class and level. I still wouldn't run TOR but now I get what they were trying to do and it not a story game at all.

Wrapping it up

The central with AiME/TOR is the same issues that surrounding playing an OD&D character with a 6 charisma. Does one roleplay as an extension of oneself with the abilities of the character. With the 6 charisma not considered except for it impact on reaction rolls and hireling loyalty?

Or does one incorporate it into how they act in-game as the character. Deciding beforehand what causes the character to have a 6 charisma and act accordingly.

With OD&D either approach works equally well and can be varied to suit the taste and interest of the player.

In contrast AiME (and TOR) is designed around the idea that the player is willing to roleplay. To consider factors like walking through a recent battlefield and act as if they are emotionally effected by the carnage (if that what the dice rolls work out to be).

It also a similar issue to the application of morale rules to PCs. In general there is a similar negative reaction on the part of the player when the PC is called on to make a morale roll.

Middle Earth versus the Majestic Wilderlands
Back in the late 80s I was a bit of a snob about roleplaying in-character. However because I was in college and active in the gaming scene I quickly learned rewarding good roleplaying and bad roleplaying wasn't a viable approach. Many hobbyist either were not interested or reacted very negatively.

So my approached changed, I only insisted that they speak in first person and act as if they are there with the abilities of the character using only what they know as the character. They can be a version of themselves or do the funny voice or something in between. Either way it will work with how I run the Majestic Wilderlands.

However as said above AiME and TOR are not designed that way. So it doesn't surprise me how Brad feels about AiME/TOR. But again it not metagamey, it just another approach to how to pretended to be a character having adventures within a setting.

The Adventures
The Adventures of AiME/TOR are similar in style to those written for Pendragon. Both deal with an established setting with pre-ordained events happening the future. Like Pendragon, AiME/TOR wisely focuses on the world outside of the story. The choice of Wilderlands as the first region to be detailed is a deliberate one as the post-hobbit timeline of the region has only a few key events.

Dale and Erebor get attacked by Sauron's forces. The attack is beaten off. But we never learn the details of why that happen. What happen before those attack, and little about the intervening decades. Plus there are several decades between the end of the Hobbit and the beginning of the LoTR. Enough time that players starting up in TA 2952 will be old and dead by the time the LoTR rolls around in the 3020's. (Except for Elves and maybe Dwarves).

Like Pendragon adventures, AiME/TOR adventure paint a situation with a timeline of the events that are most likely to occur. The key to using the adventures, to understand the initial situation, the NPCs involved, their motivations, and their plans.

If the author is good it is highly likely that future events of the adventures represents the logical outcome of the players having success in dealing with the situation. However they should be taken as a guideline and altered in light of the PCs do or not do.

The above is not well explained as well I would like but that is the intention behind these adventures. It a similar style that has been used not only by Pendragon, but Call of Chtulu, Ars Magica, and Harn.

Quote from: estar;1082383The difference is that TOR is more abstract, and lite especially combat. TOR is also more of a skill based system than AiME's class and level. I still wouldn't run TOR but now I get what they were trying to do and it not a story game at all.

I agree, it's more abstract and that's killing it for me. Its stance-based combat reminded me too much of Bard's Tale and similar old-school CRPGs. MERP/Rolemaster continues to be my go-to system for Middle-Earth role-playing. (Let's wait and see what Against the Darkmaster RPG can do though.)

Quote from: estar;1082383What is not is metagamey.

...and maybe it should have been more than it is.

Quote from: estar;1082383It not part of a narrative, there not slot within a story for Wonders of Middle Earth to slide into. It is a random encounter of a location within setting of Middle Earth with mechanics describing it effect on the emotions of the characters.

What are the other encounters on that table like?

Quote from: estar;1082383It also a similar issue to the application of morale rules to PCs. In general there is a similar negative reaction on the part of the player when the PC is called on to make a morale roll.

Interesting. In a subtle shift, I have never experienced any troubles with players when their character had to flee after failing a Fear test (say, in Dark Heresy or so). I think the difference between a Fear test and a Morale test might be subtle but significant. Morale should be within player agency - according to many players. They consider it their job to assess whether a combat can still be won or is lost. Makes sense to me (except they rarely flee when they should).