The Forge Archives

Another thread describing Eric's gaming group.

This time Cody's picked up tLotR Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook.  It's the new one.  Anyway, it's set in the first age, during the reign of Morgoth.  I have always found it problematic to play Tolkein RPG for several reasons.

First- No one can compare to Tolkein's depth.  That includes GMs who spend less than 40 years to prepare.

Second- It's about epic heros.  If you make it to the contrary, it doesn't capture the same feel.

Third- It tries to capture an element of fiction that has long past.  Its language use is comperable to Shakesphere.

Four-  I have yet to figure out what the PCs are supposed to do.

Another thing is that I dissagree with Cody's  interpretation on what the premise of play is.  His experience has consisted almost exclusivelley of D&D, which is about killing monsters and getting gold.  It's about adventureres, Dragons, and abusing rules.  tLotR is not.  It's about fantasic quests with characters with real motives, that are scared when they see a fantastic monster.  Frodo never once stated 'Whoa Sam, stop running.  I can just read the xp. by its expression...'

I'm sorry for my little rant, but my experience tells me that unless you stay true to Tolkien's motives, you can't capture the LotR feel, which is an awsome thing.

Hi Eric,

hum...a bit ranty indeed, no ?

From your post it isn't clear if you are part of the playing group, if you already had a character's creation session, and so on. So, what's up ?

Beside the observations of potential problems, what do you suggest ?

What step did (will) you take toward Cody to help him ?

Fabrice.

Uhh, no creation session yet.  I am part of the group, presumably.  I've been trying to advise him, but I don't think that I can (or that I should) change the style of play to fit my needs.  I don't think that I will be a part of it however.

Quote from: Eric J.Uhh, no creation session yet.  I am part of the group, presumably.  I've been trying to advise him, but I don't think that I can (or that I should) change the style of play to fit my needs.  I don't think that I will be a part of it however.

Remember how I said before that you were a bit too controlling?  Look at the first post here.  Why are you posting it?  It isn't Actual Play.  It isn't helpful.  It doesn't ask any questions and now you say it's a game you won't even be playing in.  Please examine yourself to see why you do these things.  It will not only help you get along with your gaming buddies better.  It will help you a lot in life.

I'm sorry if this seems a little harsh but please trust me when I say I'm trying to help.  I hope this does help.

::Rant::

I know that I can be controlling.  This is simply an attribute of my character, a negative one perhaps, but still an attribute.  In any case, I don't see how it applies here.

QuoteIt isn't helpful. It doesn't ask any questions and now you say it's a game you won't even be playing in.

I dissagree on the first part.  Dispite the fact that it is a rant.  It is meant to ask about how others feel about the use of a specific world in RPGs.

It may be better suited to RPG theory, but one premise was to create a thread for the play sessions for the game.  It was also meant to generate discussion among the other players as to how the game will go and what style to do it in.

I only decided to not play after substantial time had elapsed from my initial posting in this thread.

It is a crappy post (the first one).  I made it while talking to Cody over instant messenger.  However, I doubt that it will do much besides alter others' opinions of me.  It isn't the style on the Forge to change posts once they've been made, so here it will stay.  The bests rants have something about that fact before it begins and mine does not.  I should have done so and I acknoledge that.

And I'm sorry if this next statement is critical:  Analysis of my character and motives for posting isn't "Actual Play" either, and is better suited for PMs.  Thank you.

::De-Rant::

Quote from: Eric J.And I'm sorry if this next statement is critical:  Analysis of my character and motives for posting isn't "Actual Play" either, and is better suited for PMs.  Thank you.

I understand.  I apologize for the public posting.

Eric,

Jonathon's first post seemed to hit a sore spot with you.  If you really want to improve your gaming, ask yourself why and really listen to the answers you get.  Don't just blow it off as Jonathon being rude; I don't think he was.

I know when I first came to the Forge, I felt as though a couple of people really slammed me in their posts.  But that wasn't what they were doing.  I got defensive about certain responses because they had a point and stripped away my self-illusions concerning them.  Self-discovery is seldom comfortable, but it really can improve your gaming ... and your relationships in life.

You might want to ask yourself why you really felt the need to post this topic in the first place.  

Roy

The Forge:  Tough Love for Roleplayers :-)

Hello, everyone. I am going to look at this from a purely theoretical point of view, and I would like anyone to post who has ever played a LotR RPG.

First of all, none of our group has yet actually played. At all. That is why this is still theoretical. However, I will probably at least try it once, (hey, I played Cody's MechWarrior,) to see how it works. From a theoretical standpoint, I do have to agree with Eric on some points, however.

This is Lord of The Rings. In my opinion, to be a good GM, you had better have read all of the books you can find, from The Hobbit to The Silmarillion to Unfinished Tales to the entire History of Middle Earth, etc. Not only that, I would personally say that the Third Age is not viable as a setting for play, unless you want to have been someone who died at Helm's Deep. Earlier could work, though. The First and Second Ages are possibilities, and I do say this with knowledge of those periods.

QuoteFirst- No one can compare to Tolkein's depth. That includes GMs who spend less than 40 years to prepare.

So far, Eric has not started the Return of the King, and hasn't touched anything in relation to the earlier ages, so his opinion is perfectly understandable, considering all he knows is the movies and the first two books. Eric knows not of Feanor and Earendil and all the other historial figures in LotR. As I said, there is no way I can see valid play in the Third Age at all, and of course, we don't know about the Fourth Age. :) The First and Second Ages would be very viable places for a campaign, as Tolkien really only gives us the major points and people in the Silmarillion. What about everyone else? There are plenty of possibilites.

QuoteThird- It tries to capture an element of fiction that has long past. Its language use is comperable to Shakesphere.

Shakespeare is a decent example of what Tolkien's language is like, but Shakespeare made it purposely old in its feel, while Tolkien just used dramatic Old English. How many people who play D&D always use Old English all the time? Not that many. Yes, this is a very different setting, but if some general Old English was used, roleplaying could be done correctly.

QuoteFour- I have yet to figure out what the PCs are supposed to do.

Eric, are you telling me that you've never though it would be cool to be Mithrandir and have a battle of the power of a Maia vs. another Maia? Wait - in your terms that comes down to "haven't you ever wanted to be a Wizard fighting a Balrog?" Well, you probably haven't, but you get the idea.

What do you want to do? Go fight Ungoliant or something? Go to Angband and tell Sauron to stuff it? Be the first guy to die in the War of the Sudden Flame?  A few Dark Elves are around in the Second Age, you can always go and make one of them some sort of evil villain, Elrond's around as well, and so is Rivendell. I'm sure they have quests that need to be done. It's a question of "What do you want to do?," not "What can I do?," for there is plenty to do.

No one can do Tolkien like Tolkien did Tolkien, but it CAN work for RPGing if done right. Does that mean I think Cody can do it right? No, but... :) That doesn't mean it can't be done.

Quote from: Sage of Shadowdale
This is Lord of The Rings. In my opinion, to be a good GM, you had better have read all of the books you can find, from The Hobbit to The Silmarillion to Unfinished Tales to the entire History of Middle Earth, etc. Not only that, I would personally say that the Third Age is not viable as a setting for play, unless you want to have been someone who died at Helm's Deep. Earlier could work, though. The First and Second Ages are possibilities, and I do say this with knowledge of those periods.

Hmmm...

I think the "default" suggested setting is in-between The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Rings. A lot of stuff was happening then, and it isn't entirely clear how it all happened... which leaves plenty of room for PCs.

Currently, I am (occaisionally) playing in a game set about 50 years before The Hobbit. It seems to work fine. I don't think our campaign is quite as earth-shaking as it might have been were it set at another time, but I am not entirely sure what the GM has planned, so...

QuoteThird- It tries to capture an element of fiction that has long past. Its language use is comperable to Shakesphere.

Except that Shakespeare could write decent dialogue.


Stuart

Sage,

I can understand Eric's hesitancy to play in Middle Earth.  The sheer depth of material that Tolkien produced, combined with the number of well-known characters, really stifled play when we tried to play in Middle Earth many years ago.

Given my current outlook on gaming, I would suggest your group take the elements that you really like from Tolkien and use those to inspire your group to create it's own unique setting through actual play.  I'd be glad to give you suggestions on this if your group decides to go this route.

Here are just a few of the advantages to this:
1)  The setting develops into the setting your group wants it to be through actual play.
2)  The player characters are the main characters of the setting, not Tolkien's characters.
3)  There is no canon to worry about contradicting.
4)  It's a hell of a lot of fun.

Roy

I suppose sometime around The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring could work, I overlooked that, thanks.

Doing our own "universe" could work well, after all, many settings have been developed that way... Depending, it might work.

Thanks for the responses, guys.

Anthony (Sage); most of what you say has validity, but I think that you're missing my point.

I'm not saying that it can't be done.  I'm saying that in the RPG that Cody got doesn't allow for the better aspects of Tolkien's work.

Cody isn't allowing us to be 'epic hero's.'  I think it's important to keep this in mind.  Role playing could be done correctly (and godly well BTW) but Cody is making us grunts.  

QuoteEric, are you telling me that you've never though it would be cool to be Mithrandir and have a battle of the power of a Maia vs. another Maia? Wait - in your terms that comes down to "haven't you ever wanted to be a Wizard fighting a Balrog?" Well, you probably haven't, but you get the idea.

I would appreciate it if you didn't insult me in such a manner, but anyway-
We aren't allowed to play thoes kinds of characters.  

QuoteWhat do you want to do? Go fight Ungoliant or something? Go to Angband and tell Sauron to stuff it? Be the first guy to die in the War of the Sudden Flame? A few Dark Elves are around in the Second Age, you can always go and make one of them some sort of evil villain, Elrond's around as well, and so is Rivendell. I'm sure they have quests that need to be done. It's a question of "What do you want to do?," not "What can I do?," for there is plenty to do.

Other than the "quests that need to be done" I don't see how any of thoes are achievable in the system without

A. Breaking the rules.

or

B.  Instant death.

I am open to RPG design, and would be willing to play a LotR campaign, but not with Cody as the GM.  I think that it has been firmly established that Cody's priorities are firmly different than mine, and that I can't enjoy the style that he uses.  I could give reasons or examples but they would serve little purpose as they would come off as insults and we've been over this several times.

Thank you and good night.

Ah. Eric, I think you're missing MY point as well. I have already stated that Cody can't be a good GM at all for LotR. I know and realize that. Many of my questions in asking what you want to do were sarcastic, except for Rivendell and even the Dark Elves. All of that was to emphasize my point of there being things to do.

If you can't do it in the system, make the system so you can do what you want it to do. Yes, I am an INTP. :) (Different topic.) But anyway, I'm sure all of the above could be done somehow or made to be done somehow. So... er... "What's your point?," is my question.

Let us know what actually happens once play starts.  If you decide to go with your own setting based on LoTR, let me know if you'd like some tips.  Good luck with your gaming, Eric and Sage.

Roy

Thanks, but I've learned (on the phone right now) that they would "never" play tLotR with Cody as the GM.

We're playtesting my 8-bit RPG instead.

Sorry.

Hello again.

I agree with Eric and Anthony. Cody has no ability at all to do this correctly. I will probably however play it just to see how it works.

I have read the Fellowship, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, and the Hobbit. Currently I am reading the Silmarillion. Considering I have read more than Eric, I would say that my opinions would be more so justified. Guess what? I have the EXACT same opinion. Lord of the Rings cannot be done very easily at all and as far as I am concerned, after reading the rule book partially, has not been done correctly as of yet.

An essential note about our group:

Cody and Avery are the lesser skilled roleplayers in our group. Avery's lack of roleplaying, however, is justified. Avery has been playing RPGs only recently (IE: less than 1 year) while Cody has been playing longer and, in my opinion, is a worse roleplayer than Avery. Jesse is comes in the middle. He is a pretty good roleplayer in most aspects. There isn't much I have to say about him other that he is one of my better friends. Eric, Anthony and I are at about the same level. We have been playing since about a year after we first met (7th grade?). I do believe, however, that Eric is a better GM than Anthony and I put together.

Another note: I have limited access to the internet. I am at my Dad's work currently. I have no internet at home at all. Therefore I cannot get on very often at all making it hard to get my ideas in.

Quote from: ScratchwareI agree with Eric and Anthony. Cody has no ability at all to do this correctly. I will probably however play it just to see how it works.

I'm not picking on you, you just were the last pwerson to post here although several others seem to broadly agree.

Firstly, my attitude to sacred cows varies from time to time. Soimetimes I'm very hidbound (No, how dare you consider running Amber with a randomising mechanic - argh!), other times I'm pretty laid back - slaughter the whole herd, what do I care? I think the latter attitude is probably the more desirable, especialy in this case. Obviously the guy hasn't got much experience of roleplaying, so why not cut him a little slack? Forget it's Tolkien and go with the flow, after all The Hobbit was basicaly just a case of 'trash the monsters, grab the treasure' anyway, albeit with some nice narative colour along the way.

QuoteI have read the Fellowship, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, and the Hobbit. Currently I am reading the Silmarillion. Considering I have read more than Eric, I would say that my opinions would be more so justified. Guess what? I have the EXACT same opinion. Lord of the Rings cannot be done very easily at all and as far as I am concerned, after reading the rule book partially, has not been done correctly as of yet.

I'd have said the same of Dune, untill one of the guys in my gaming group cracked it - the key is to find a suitable gap in the plot, such as the war which deposed the Witch king of Angmar, or the period in the Silmarilion immediately after the destruction of Beleriand. What was it like during the mass exodus eastwards, how did the natives of Eriador get along with the refugees? It must have been chaos. Who says Smaug and the Balrog deep under Moria were the only ones to get away from the destruction of Angband? Perhaps they were the last of a host of such monstrosities that plagued Middle Earth. Who opposed them, and how were the defeated?

Lots of scope, IMHO.


Simon Hibbs

Hi there,

I'm with Simon on this one. Check out these two threads: Open/closed setting (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4012) and Metaplots, railroading, and setting (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=972), with attention to my term "underbelly."

Best,
Ron

QuoteI'd have said the same of Dune, untill one of the guys in my gaming group cracked it - the key is to find a suitable gap in the plot, such as the war which deposed the Witch king of Angmar,

We've actually tried Dune with Jesse as the GM.  It was the worst campaign that I've ever been in.

I'm just stating that your allussion only reinforces the fact in my mind that we can't do it right.  Sorry.

Quote from: simon_hibbs
Forget it's Tolkien and go with the flow, after all The Hobbit was basicaly just a case of 'trash the monsters, grab the treasure' anyway, albeit with some nice narative colour along the way.
Simon Hibbs

Gasp! Its one of the best examples of a "fish out of water" character development story that I've read! Its also a stunning model of how to grow the maturity of a text - starts as fairy tale about a hobbit that lives in a hole, ends in the classical style with an epic world-ending battle that is recounted but not seen and the death of one of the heroes.

From a role playing point of view, whats interesting to me is how it deals with questions of scale (I was really impressed with how Troll Babe does this). Bilbo starts with having to make decisions about finding seed cakes and beer for his unexpected guests and whether or not to give up his bedroom. By the end of the book he's negotiating with generals of armies and his decisions affect hundreds of thousands of people. What's lovely about it is how smoothly this progression happens. Cool eh?

Tony

Quote from: Tony Irwin

Quote from: simon_hibbs
Forget it's Tolkien and go with the flow, after all The Hobbit was basicaly just a case of 'trash the monsters, grab the treasure' anyway, albeit with some nice narative colour along the way.
Simon Hibbs

Gasp! Its one of the best examples of a "fish out of water" character development story that I've read!

Perhaps I should have put a smiley at the end there, or something. I meant that to be tongue in cheek, but I realise it read as being literal.


Simon Hibbs

"This is Lord of The Rings. In my opinion, to be a good GM, you had better have read all of the books you can find, from The Hobbit to The Silmarillion to Unfinished Tales to the entire History of Middle Earth, etc."

I don't agree here.  I think the key is to tell the players what's canon, and what isn't.

I personally don't like going back in time, because the game world feels 'bounded' somehow.  I'm running a 4th age campaign 250 years after the war of the ring - the time of men.

If I were to run a campaign, I would probably set it in the first age.  Tolkien glosses over men, so I'd carve a bit of land and toss a few kingdoms in there.  Morgoth, Melian, etc would all be figures in stories, with the men dealing with personal rivalries, invasions from other kingdoms, random orc & elf encounters, etc.

For fun, I'd set it right before Morgoth overwhelms most of the land, but not tell the players the precise time.  After all, their characters don't know about such things.  Then, when their kingdoms get hit by orcs, and more orcs, and fleeing elves, it'll be a lot more exciting.  They don't know that the end of the world is nigh. :-)

-Jeff

P.S. Just remembered the other idea I had.  Amberesque system, players are the sons of Feanor, alternate history allowed.

There's a lot of concern here with "getting it right," which I find worrying.

First of all, let's set aside for a moment the alternate history kind of approach.  I happen to like it, but let's say Cody, Eric and the gang want to do "straight" LotR. Cool.

Now I'd say start by comparing the movies to the books.  They're not the same.  It's not just a question of a few tweaks and cuts here and there; there are significant differences in focus and narration.  So which one is the "right" version?  I doubt you want to chuck either; frankly I don't see why you would.  So clearly Tolkien leaves us some scope for interpretation.

Next, there's the question of "epic heroes," as opposed to "grunts."  My own sense of LotR is that the hobbits are precisely the counter to this division: they are epic heroes who are less skilled, knowledgeable, powerful, and everything else than the "epic heroes" --- in fact, than most of the grunts, too.  All they've got going for them is strength of character, which they have in nearly unlimited quantity.  So I don't think you need to worry about power level as such when you do "straight" LotR.

Third, there's the issue of language and narration style.

Quote

QuoteIt tries to capture an element of fiction that has long past. Its language use is comperable to Shakesphere.

Shakespeare is a decent example of what Tolkien's language is like, but Shakespeare made it purposely old in its feel, while Tolkien just used dramatic Old English. How many people who play D&D always use Old English all the time? Not that many. Yes, this is a very different setting, but if some general Old English was used, roleplaying could be done correctly.

Setting aside Shakespeare's reasons for writing in his contemporary English, Tolkien wrote in an English deliberately different from anything that had ever been used.  It derives from his professional knowledge of various old Anglo-Saxon languages, including Old English (the language in which Beowulf was written), and is intentionally evocative of a not-quite-historical epic time.

That said, the films very largely set aside this language, probably because they felt that the audience would not react well to people declaiming speeches rather than speaking lines.

So you have at least two options here: Tolkien's language and the LotR films' language.  There isn't a "right answer": it's a question of what your goals are.

1. Will it help your group to experience the world, to be immersed in it creatively, if you speak in Tolkien-esque prose?

2. Will you spend so much time trying to get the words right that it impedes your doing anything else?

I think you should ditch the question of "Tolkien done right."  Only Tolkien ever did Tolkien right, by definition.  Unless your game intends to follow the War of the Ring slavishly, with the players taking on the Fellowship as PCs and simply walking through the whole thing as a "let's read aloud" exercise, you're never going to "do it right."  Don't bother.  Try to figure out what it is about Middle Earth that you like, why you want to play in it, and set about capturing that.  The rest is gravy.

The only thing I would need happen if I played in Middle Earth, is to be an epic hero.  Not this D&D progression from grunt to hero, but to play a hero.  If this wansn't the intention of the GM, than I would have no interest in playing.  The language, I could stand, unless all of the NPCs were idiots or something.

-JMHO