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.