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.

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?