[Middle Earth] choice of system

[Joel P. Shempert]

OK, I'm not sure exactly where I should post this, but I picked AP because my questions are at least about preparing to play. So I've been wanting to run a Middle Earth game since like forever, and I've been planning on either taking a break from, or ending, my Over the Edge game to do so. When I first started l planning this about 3 years ago, I purchased Decipher's then-new Lord of the Rings Movie Tie-In, I mean Roleplaying Game, based on some features that seemed to indicate it would be good for capturing Middle Earth's unique attributes.

Well, three years later I've (A) discovered the Forge and a wealth of diverse Indie games, plus plain new ways of gaming, and (B) realized that the spiffyness of said game features don't change the fact that they're rather superficially tacked on to a clunkier version of D&D. Also, I've realized that the game I had planned, much as I kept telling myself it wouldn't come out that way, was looking pretty railroad-y. I planned on setting it a ways before the War of the Ring, about Third Age 16-something, taking a 1-or-2 sentence entry from the Historical Annals in the Appendices that seemed to promise a dramatic story to play out, but was sketchy enough to allow a lot of player freedom. But still the fact was that I had this Prince, run preferably as a PC, and however loose I tried to envision it, he still had to mature into a valiant war-leader over two years, then lead a decisive victory over enemy forces after his father fell in battle. Yeah, pret-t-ty railroad-y.

So what to do. . .I determined that to have really satisfying play I needed to reevaluate the parameters under which the players could affect the world. . .to star with while I could still set all the same events into motion as I planned, I need to be open to results other even the barest sketch recorded in the "History."

Well, anyway, that's just the preamble. The matter at hand is now: I've determined that I want to run a Middle Earth game where player characters have real Choice, and by their choices can have a real impact on events in the world. I want to address real issues in a manner consistent with Tolkien's writings (consistent as in "fits the tone and themes of the writings," not as in "always comes to the same conclusions"). So I need a system to do that. I've looked into several indy games for ideas; one option is to use a published game either as written or appropriately modified. Another would be to borrow from different systems until I get a patchwork of mechanics that does what I want them to. Another would be to design a new game entire. But being inexperienced in that, I'm exploring the other options first. I'm keeping the possibility open, though, if that's what it takes to get a Middle Earth game "just right" for me, and i'll move over to First Thoughts if I go that route.

My research so far: I checked out The Pool and fell in love with it--the paragraph character creation is too Tolkien for words, ditto the add-a-sentence character progression. The trait system would allow all manner of character to be effective as what- or who-ever they are, de-emphasizing combat for its own sake; the dice-wagering mechanics would seem to facilitate the dramatic upsets from seemingly weak characters that a Tolkien game demands. My only reservation is that the simplicity of resolution with no difficulty range or success degrees, and for that matter little guidance on what scale of events a single roll can accomplish, might not give me the range of resolution options I want.

Which brings me to Trollbabe; I purchased Trollbabe recently and I was just thinking to myself, "You know, what I want that the Pool hasn't got is a scalable resolution system," and i read TB and lo! a scalable resolution system. For my purposes, though, I would want it to scale for dramatic reasons, focusing in and slowing down to say "THIS is the Big One," the climactic battle or crucial debate. I also LOVE the relationship system, which combined with the ever-increasing Scale of conflict, provides a very Tolkien engine of plot causality. My reservation wrt Trollbabe is that the single-number Chargen system, while elegant, doesn't give me quite the range of character parameters I want, even with changing the "Magic" end of the spectrum to something appropriate like "Hobbity Stealth" or "Elven grace" or whatever.

That's it as far as systems I've actually read. With my limited resources I'm acquiring indy games slowly and selectively. I had heard that Burning Wheel is many people's preferred choice for Middle Earth Gaming, so I read up on that a bit; it's more combat-focused than I was thinking for my game, though I like the philosophy that the combat is brutal to keep you picking fights based on your character's purpose, rather than battle for battle's sake. And it looks like a way fun system to try sometime in its own right. I just don't know about for THIS game. I also researched the Riddle of Steel. . .the Spiritual Attributes seem right up my alley for Middle Earth, but the game overall seems too focused in a RE Howard direction to work for ME. Another try-some-other-time choice, I think.

So anyway, I'd just like to solicit advice, other systems to check out, thoughts on the games mentioned and their suitability, opinions on the feasibility of hybridizing, anything that'll help inform my eventual choice. I'd appreciate the help.

Peace,

[Nathan P.]

Hi Joel,

Your notes about Trollbabe made me think that you may want to check out The Shadow of Yesterday. The game text is available for free here, and it's also available for purchase in hard copy. The "Bringing Down The Pain" system is basically "zooming in" to hilight important conflicts, and the Keys and Secrets allow for very distinct and customizable characters. I haven't played it, yet, but it's definitely worth giving a look-see.

Hope that helps.

[Joel P. Shempert]

Nathan,

You know, I did check out Shadow of Yesterday not too long ago; I completely forgot to account for it in my deliberations. I guess my reservation on that one is that it's skewed a bit toward the lusty side, what with the Instinct attribute and such, which is in keeping with its RE Howard/Fritz Lieber inspiration. In fact, since Lieber is pretty much the Anti-Toliien, it's not surprosing that a game in homage to him would seem a little off for Middle Earth. Still, that factor could possibly be adjusted for. I definitely liked the Key system. Forgot about Bringing Down the Pain.

Thanks, I'll have to give Shadows a second look.

Peace,

[Rob Carriere]

Hi Melinglor,
I don't have system-suggestion for you, but I do have some older stuff that relates to the problem of not-railroading in a setting like Middle Earth. Maybe you've already seen these, if not, they make excellent reading.

The Forge :: The Provisional Glossary (Look for 'underbelly'.)
Meta-plots, Railroading and Settings
Open/Closed Setting(Pyron's Woe's Take 165)

Hope that helps,
SR
--

[Ron Edwards]

I'm not 100% comfy with "prep to play" posting. Let's see how constructive we can make it.

Is this all totally armchair speculation about what you might like to run someday, with some people you might eventually meet? Or are you talking about a real group with real concerns and preferences that you're familiar with? Or in between, and if so, how?

Best, Ron

[Jasper the Mimbo]

So that you don't have to toss out your original concept, you might try getting your prospective group together and simply saying "this is the kind of story I want to tell, and this is the feel I'm going for.." The players should be able to make their characters to suit. One of them will make a warrior-y type who could work for your prince. It always happens. Someone plays the fighter. All you have to do is ask the player if they would mind your help in putting together a back story to facilitate the progression of the game in the direction you had in mind. Most players won't mind. This kind of conceptualizing and collaborative character generation really helps create and enforce the social contract of the game (in my experience).

If you are using any system that has a "Spiritual Attributes" type mechanic, your concept could simply be a Destiny or some such. All of a sudden it stops being railroading and becomes character driven, goal oriented play. They can fight their destiny, which is cool, or they can choose to follow the path of destiny, which is also cool. Either way develops the character and drives the story.

Don't be afraid to tell your players a bit about the story you want to tell. It might spoil some of the surprise, but having the characters fit in to the events and have a connection to what is a stake is well worth that.

[Joel P. Shempert]

Ron,

Your questions are pertinent and valuable ones, and I don't have any problem answering them. But I have to wonder, if this thread helps me accomplish what I'm trying to do with my game, how much more "constructive" could it be? Not sure I understand your trepidation.

So. I am talking about concrete plans to run this game, probably within the next few months, with people that I currently game with. I'm not planning on running it with everyone in my play group. To begin with, our group is rather large, like 8-10 people, and we have a lot of headaches from that which I would like to avoid. Plus, not all play preferences are in line with what I would like to do. A lot of folks are very combat-oriented, working most comfortably in a D&D tactical environment. I know that at least a couple of them are less than jazzed about the Over the Edge mechanics I'm running with now, and so starting up another kind of "abstract" system would probably turn them off. Plus, while there are a fare number of LotR fans in the group, a lot of them don't seem to enjoy Tolkien in the way I do. . .where I'm all like, "powerful themes," they're all like "OMG that Balrog is so wicked cool!" Basically, I think there are probably a handful of players who would enjoy playing in the kind of Rings game I want, and that I would enjoy having in there. So I want to present it up-front as a "this is the kind of game I want to run, it's definitely not for everybody, anyone who's interested, apply within" kind of thing.

Rob,

interesting links regarding "Underbelly Play." It's certainly a better solution than the crappy ones Ron outlined in there. But I'm not sure I really dig it. When I frequented the boards for Decipher LotR, there were many, many posts detailing their campaigns where the PCs were scouts sent to guide Boromir to Rivendell, or bodyguards on Legolas and Gimli's journey to same, or bearers of a crucial message to whoever. It just sounded so unfun to me. Precisely because they weren't the protagonists. They were like quaint little sidekicks being given essentially busywork, jumping up and down and beaming, "I'm helping!" Now, I do understand how Underbelly can work quite well, for instance in the WWII or Titanic examples, or in Ron's B5 game, where the relationship-story potential is potent enough that a compelling tale can be told in and around the "main plot." Jack and Rose ARE the protags of Titanic, even though they have no control over the big Event. Likewise a gazillion war stories, likewise Gone with the Wind, etc. However, for something like LotR, or StarWars, where the billing is "epic, heroic fantasy!" it's kind of a bait and switch to only get to play "behind-the-scenes" players. Not that you could never do a "life in the trenches" story for Middle Earth or SW, but it wouldn't be my primary interest.

The reason I picked the time and place I did was because I wanted a game where the PCs are the capital-H Heroes. So I picked a time where there's a big nasty war on (The Witch-King vs. the North Kingdom), but little is said about it, i.e. there's a war, there's this battle and this battle, there's some victories, some defeats. I planned to start a couple of years before the really major events and build up to them.

Jasper,

Yeah, I still was planning on rolling with the original concept, with a bull session pretty much as you describe. In fact I talked to people a bit when I first bought my LotR book a couple years back, and now I'm planning on reviving the idea, first bringing the current game I'm running to a close. Anyway, my rough plan is to still start from the same starting point of relationships, political factors in place, events in motion, etc. My inquiry here is about how to best avoid railroady-ness once its wound up and set loose.

I remember reading a few threads on Destiny Mechanics here and there, but they always seemed pretty vague or inconclusive regarding how sucha mechanic would look in actual play. I'd be interested in any reading that might giveme a more concrete idea on how to use Destiny.

peace,

[Lamorak33]

Hi Joel

To go along with Ron, you need to tell us about the players out of the large group that you intend to invite, and what THEIR gaming proclivities are. This makes it easier to suggest possible systems.

I would suggest the game 'Heroquest' by Issaries as an excellent vehicle for the type of game you suggest, but I am sure there are others. Maybe even the Hero system, if you want crunch. Whatever, you are astute that the current systems available for that setting are nothing short of fantasy heartbreakers.

With respect to 'underbelly play', this is something that I have used succesfully in my own campaign, which is set in Glorantha. My players heroes were central to the story, and drove it on,l but against the backdrop of the great events from the established metaplot for the setting. So it can work very well.

http://www.runegate.org/whitewall/wiki/Rob%27s%20campaign?PHPSESSID=96602e3b922948f0a51f323984bd1888

The key I think is to have a set of generic relationships that inform the players of their characters to a certain degree. They can then play into, or against that and establish the motif themselves, with you throwing in bangs when they slack off driving the game forward. Do they lead their army into the field - or take off with their chosen men to rescue their mother who has been kidnapped by the dunlendings? That sort of thing.

Hope that helps?

[khelek]

Can't help you too much with system choices, but I wanted to offer my two cents: When I set a game in ME, I am careful to set it in the past normally during the fall of Arnor or the Kin Strife of Gondor. I found that by setting it away from the main events freed the players. They could act, and be major heroes, and not feel constrained by the powerful story that Tolkien wrote.

When closing the game, I would often discuss how their actions affected the future, and tied in the the Plot of LOTR. For example one game ended with the players being buried in a Caern (which was later where the hobbits were almost killed by the Wraith), another was retired and married into the Royal line of Rohan, and therefore his great great..... grandson was Theoden.

Anyways, the players alsways seemed to like it when it linked. but gave them freedom in concept and to drve the story as they will.. no place is 'off limits' because the Fellowship is there.

[Joel P. Shempert]

Khelek:

Yeah, it's Fall of Arnor for my money, because the Witch-King rocks. And ifthe campaign ends up following canon, the aforementioned prince will endup being an anscestor to Aragorn.

[Joel P. Shempert]

Khelek:

Yeah, it's Fall of Arnor for my money, because the Witch-King rocks. And ifthe campaign ends up following canon, the aforementioned prince will endup being an anscestor to Aragorn.

Lamorak,

Well, I checked out the Forge Review of Hero Wars, and it looks very exciting, andpossibly a great fit for what I want. And I understand that Heroquest is a streamlined update of the same game? It's kind of hard to get information that.

Regarding the player group inquiry, it's hard to be exact because as I said I don't know who exactly is going to "bite"on my Middle Earth proposal. But I can guess. I can think of about three to five folks that would enjoy what I envision, and who I would particularly like to see playing. One is also a GM in our group, and she has a gift for crafting elaborate interwoven plotlines with complex webs of character relationships for PCs to ineract dynamically with, and as a non-gm has a knack for effortlessly plunging into awesome dynamic relationships with NPCs. She also really loves (as GM) working with a player in turning his character inside out witha lot of potent drama and challenge to the character's motivatiojns/ideals, and as a Player is reallygreat at crafting really story-potent characters. My concerns are that she may over-elaborate, and she's not really that Tolkien-savvy, so maintaining a consistent vision may be tough.

Another player, my brother, has a distaste for a lot of the Forge-think I've run by him (director stance, much of of Narrativism as explained in the articles), being a pretty strong "get into the mindset of your guy" purist, but nonetheless is great at building a lot of that premise-addressing oomph into his characters, withappropriate payoffs in play. He does tend to like a bit more crunch than I do, but he's on board the Tolkien train and interested in exploring much pf the same themes in Middle Earth as I am. He's the only one I've talked to in any great detail about the proposed ME game.

One reason it's hard to describe play preferences, is that nobody in our group has really experienced play outside a pretty narrow spectrum, in Forge terms I'd call it a Gamist-Simulationist hybrid with the Gam and Sim eternally struggling for dominance. I'm pretty much a pioneer here in trying to explore other kinds of gaming at all. The two players I mention above I'm pretty close friends with and can guage a bitbetter, but everyone else is people I've gotten to know through gaming, with little interaction otherwise. So I'm basically going on my instincts, regarding who I think might like a different style of play, if they had a cance to try it. One guy is pretty clever with the gamist stuff, but he also tends to create characters with a little something deeper going on underneath, and that and his personality lead meto believe he might like a premise-based, rather than competition-based, game. Another guy seems to be a pretty single-minded combat monster-focused player, but he's surprised me with what look like attempts, however clumsy, to do that "something deeper" with a character and address something meaningful. He seems to be wanting to address premise, if you will, but not quite know how.

Things get a mite hairy when the set of players who are into Tolkien intersect the set of players that probably wouldn't enjoy my game and who I'm not sure I'd enjoy having in it. I anticipate a possible problem with the two biggest tactically oriented, D&D-heavy players in the group, who are also both big Tolkien fans, wanting to play because of the Middle Earth thing, and me not being sure how to explain to them how the game really wouldn't work for them, as diplomatically as possible. I guess the best approach would be to lay out as clearly and concisely as possible, the features of the game system I eventually use, and let them see how unamenable to their playing style it is, without belaboring the point.

I think that about covers it. I hope I wasn't too rambly or unfocused. Maybe I should sum up with a stab at describing what features, mechanically, I think would appeal to the players. I think that overall loose is fine, as long as it provides some crunch for character customization, and different options during play. I think that the overt Director stance of, say, the Pool, may take a lot of getting used to, and be a hard sell, at least to my brother. Also, the Pool is a bit unfocused as to what direction play should take. Though character motivation is implicitly a part of the trait system, it's not as explicitly delineated a part as in say, the Riddle of Steel or Shadow of Yesterday. And I think explicit delineation is going to be important for this player group to be able to get into the flow of things and counteract old habits. Neither TRoS or tSoY, hiowever, have quite the focus I want. . .I may end up homebrewing something that makes use of the Spiritual Attribute concept or something similar.

Well, thanks for all the comments so far, andfor bearing with my long-windedness. Hope this serves to focus the discussion.

Peace,

[Lamorak33]

Hi

I would suggest you inform the players of the type of game that you want to achieve through play, rather than engaging in long discussions trying to 'win people over' to this funky new style of play 'narratavism'. It wont happen. People want to play the way they want, without reference to whether they are doing it 'right'.

As others say, 'show, don't tell.' This is not the same as trying to introdice narratavism through the back door; yours is a new game. Just by using narratavism techniques you can develop that kind of play. It by far the most intuitive wayof playing.

As an aside, if you do get into Heroquest, there is a new 'generic' edition of the rules in the process of being assembled. I know a lot of people would be very interested on your work to make Heroquest middle earth specific.

Regards
Rob

Regards
Rob

[Silmenume]

Hi Joel!

I've been following this thread with great interest, yet have hung back and a bit because I am such a diehard Tolkien enthusiast with a nearly rabid devotion to Simulationism.  I wanted to stay clear and see what you were looking for before I came stampeding with all sorts of misconceptions.  From what I can gather it appears that you do have an interest in "simulating" Middle Earth.  The rest of this post will operate under that assumption, so if that isn't an accurate understanding of your interests I wouldn't read too much farther than this!

You stated that you would like the system to able to "capture Middle Earth's unique attributes" and also that there is some sort of  "focus" that you would like the mechanics to support.  Could you expand on that?  Please include those items that you feel are unique or are indicative to ME be they themes, world traits, "plot elements", etc.

Reading through your posts I have "surmised" the following –

• You want to capture the feeling/tone/themes of Middle Earth.
• You want an "epic/heroic" style of game.
• You want to diminish Gamist tendencies.
• You want the combat to be "deadly/brutal."
• You want the players to have an "effect" on the "world."
• You wish the game to take place at a fairly specific location, time and under a fairly tight set of circumstances.
• You chose all the above precisely because it is period of time loaded with conflict while still sketchy enough for the players/game to fill in lots of "holes."
• You want a flexible/scalable "resolution system."
• You want a system that allows the players a reasonable degree of freedom to customize their characters.
• You want the system to allow the players to have "options" during play.

I'll start with a little theory and move into some concrete manifestations of that theory.

Much of what you are looking to accomplish is strongly of the Simulationist aesthetic.  I believe that the process of Simulationism is one of "disambiguation."  What I mean is that the game/campaign ought to begin with NPC's and Player Characters who are not fully fleshed out – i.e., the NPC's and Characters "grow," become more "known" or "vibrant" through the course of play.  It is also true that the relationships of the Characters with other Characters, NPC's, social institutions and whatnot should also be ambiguous, i.e., not fully fleshed out or completely understood.  The idea being that the players decisions and actions create more of the Dream.  I believe that the Dream itself is a vastly comples interlocking set of "rules of behavior."  By "rules of behavior" I mean anything that the players can use to "project into the future."  These "rules of behavior" should not be treated as fixed and immutable but as loosely normative.  So in other words NPC's tend to act with a certain predictability but should not be automatons.

In fact I believe that inducing the "rules of behavior" is the heart of Sim play.  This can again be found in the expanding of the understanding of one's own Character, NPC's, social institutions (friendships, social mores, cultural norms, forms of governance, etc.) determining how the world works and filling in gaps of knowledge about the physical world (be that geography, physics, etc.)  IOW the mechanics should not only be entirely inclusive but actually be open to modification through play.  More so the mechanics should be thought of as "following" play and not "leading" play.  IOW mechanics should grow and reflect the game world in all its manifestations as it is "created" during play.  So for example skills on the character sheet should not be thought of a as a limiting list of what the character can but rather a reflection of what the players have "discovered" about their character through the course of the game.  Conversely the "value" of a skill should act more as a governor of how much the player can bring to bear on a situation rather than a means by which situations resolved.  IOW a "fast talk" skill should indicate how much BSing a player can reasonably expect to accomplish rather than being something a player just says, "I use BSing at rank 5 to bamboozle the barbarian chieftain that flaying me alive would be bad for him."

Players who are creative should be rewarded.  The key here is that player creativity should be tempered by the tone/feel/themes of Middle Earth.  Over time a body of "knowledge" will build up around such actions.  Frex - we "learn" that the Dunedain are capable of great acts of leadership while they are not known for their general lack of pride.  We also "learn" though play that Dunlandings tend to be fairly treacherous as a people and are not particularly sophisticated – IOW strength rules and that conflicts within their tribes are resolved by ordeal and not by law.  By now you should have noticed that I have used terms such as "tends," "generally," "not particularly" and "fairly."  These are normative traits (rules of behavior), but like all things where humans are involved there are bell curves (norms) of behavior and not strict-hard cut offs.  This is reflected in the PC's as well.  They should not be strictly fixed in their behaviors by mechanics yet they should be reasonably consistent.  This is how characters develop over time.  Yet the farther a player has his character acts from his established norms the more that is required by the player to justify such an act.  And yet I do not mean this "justification" should be OOC.

On the other hand there must always be a reaction to a players actions.  These reactions are a powerful place where the tone/feel/themes can be made manifest in the game world.  This not limited to the GM by the way.  PC's, NPC's as well as physical events provide the many and necessary opportunities for the players to react in ways that help define who their characters are.  The mechanics as a whole should also reflect the tone and nature of the game world that you and the players think are representative and important.

In getting back to "norms" of behavior, the resolution mechanics should reflect that fuzziness inherent in the fictional world, like our own world; as opposed to a absolutely definitive binary pass/fail succeed/don't succeed resolution.  Keeping in mind that everything a player does should have a reaction from the world failures could also mean a nominal success but with a powerful negative consequence.  Using the "BSing" example above a "failure" could mean that the chieftain considers the players threat but then has his champion fight the player character in an trial by ordeal (combat) whereby the chieftain protects himself from the potential truth of the PC's statements (protecting his family line) while at the same time preventing the PC to so easily wriggle out of his fate.  Again you'll notice I used such terms as "trial by ordeal" and "potential."  Neither are fixed results but further instances of "ambiguity."  As play continues we find if the PC is stalwart, brave, cunning, sniveling, etc. and we also learn if the chieftain is superstitious, ruthless, treacherous, yielding, grand of heart, etc.  None of these traits need be known by the GM prior to play nor is it necessary – it is all part of the creative process during play.  There are general starting points but how events work out is not known to anyone from the beginning.

Ultimately the process of play is one of "logic" which requires the world to be reasonably consistent.  However, if the world is hard and fast the room for player input dwindles quickly.  By logic I mean the means by which the world is "discovered" through induction.  The player is faced with an ambiguous situation.  He must draw upon his knowledge of the world as he attempts to achieve a desires goal/result.  However inorder to achieve that result he needs to figure out the "rules of the world" through induction – the determination of rules.  By these very "rules" the player attempts to project forward the potential consequences of his actions.  If he is correct then he can surmise that the "rule of behavior" that he used is reasonably sound – he has induced a "rule of behavior" and thereby added to the whole of the "Dream" (disambiguation.)  If he fails in his induction and gets a result that he didn't intend (the world did not respond as expected/hoped) then he is sent scrambling to determine just what "rule of behavior" (induce) will result (deduce) in him achieving his desired end.

So we come to the "role" of mechanics is Sim.  The role of mechanics is Sim is not in task resolution but rather two fold.  The first is the vital and necessary establishment and maintenance of the norms of the world, i.e. the likely will indeed come to pass most of the time while the unlikely will remain rare (the "rules of behavior" are demonstrated to be reasonably sound.)  However the other role of the resolution mechanics is to introduce wrinkles into those rules of behavior when on those rare occasion the unlikely does comes to pass thus reintroducing a certain level of ambiguity back into the world.  All of this can only happen if everything is not mapped out or know aforetime.

Does this mean there cannot be mechanics in place before the campaign begins?  No.  There needs to be some sort of starting point.  But the central idea that must be kept in mind is that the "rules of behavior" are not sacrosanct because they are precisely what the players are creating and altering through the course of play.  Under what self-imposed restraints the players limit their choices reflects the themes of the world.  Does this mean the players are literally saying, "I think that the 'rule' for this situation should be X?"  No.  As role-play floats on a sea of Exploration this means all this "logic is worked out," in proxy, via the shared imaginary space.  So - start with a system that "reasonably" approximates what you are looking for making whatever few, if any, modifications you feel are necessary before the campaign begins and then let them evolve and grow through and reflecting play.

So the how the players limit themselves, how the NPC's act and respond, what is and just as importantly what isn't allowed into the game space as well as the functioning of the physical fictional world all work to create the tone/feeling/themes that you are looking for.  Whatever you and your players deem them to be.

To both allow the players to have an "effect on the world" and have "brutal combat" the game I play in has solved that problem by the players having a folio of characters within that world at the same time.  Thus if one gets his character killed off during brutal combat the player is not entirely out of the game but might be out of the current thread.  This also allows the players to pursue whatever "effect on the world" they would like.  Does this mean you have no say in those choices?  No.  But you mustn't remove player choice either.  What happens in our game is that if a player starts to shoot off in a wild direction the GM has introduces "reactions" to the player choices that he must contend with.  FREX – if a PC decides that he wants to break off from a party he quickly finds fresh Orc tracks not too far away.  Does this seem contrived?  Depends.  Does this happen all the time or never at all?  Then this instance might seem contrived.  However, if we know that the area is rotten with Orcs then you are merely reminding the player of the potential consequences of his choices.  Every important decision a player makes ought to carry some sort of trade off. 

I should also note that the various non-human races are most definitely more powerful than the human races – there is no "equality" among the non-human races.  So how does a GM keep from having all the players stampede off and create nothing but Elves, Dwarves or Dunedain?  Simple, you let them know that in the whole of the campaign they can only have one of each and if that special race character dies they will never have another.  Also having a powerful special race character is not carte blanche for them to run around stomping everything in sight.  There are cultural norms of each race that the players ought to respect.  The Elves by the third age have pretty much withdrawn from the world and were mostly content to live in protected and self-imposed seclusion  (The reason Elrond sent Elves was probably due to his common lineage with the Dunedain.)  The Dwarves, after the disaster of the Gwaith-i-Mirdain with the creation of the rings of power especially the One Ring, Sauron's attack and the shutting of the Gates of Moria on the Elves worked to make them extremely insular and thus they have exceedingly little interest in the affairs of other peoples of Middle Earth.

By having many characters running around in the world some can be directly involved in the unfolding of the events while others are only more peripherally involved.  This allows for multiple perspectives, some mighty some humble, and helps flesh out the "Dream" over all.

We use a skills based system to allow for a reasonable degree of character personalization, but again most skills should follow a norm while a few skills could be significantly outside that norm.  These special skills should be "explained" to some extent (but not completely – ambiguity!) but should also form the foundation for some (not all!) of the uniqueness of the character.  Just as important are the "relationships" of the characters.  You say you want to move the game away from "combat for its own sake" then this is where you make that happen.  Now you can start saddling the characters with responsibilities and burdens that make many decisions weighty and important.  If a player wishes to play a "captain of war" then saddle him with the responsibility for holding a pass that should he fail will allow the forces of the Witch King to over run Fornost and destroy the Northern Kingdom.  IOW being a "captain" has its responsibilities as well as power.  It also allows the player's choices to "effect" the world.  His success or failure (FREX his death could result in the collapse of the unit) will have tremendous impact on the unfolding of events.  Binding a character into many interwoven personal relationships, some that are at cross purposes with each other, can make for a much more complicated game than just "bashing in the heads of orcs."

Since the "role" of resolution mechanics in Sim is not really to resolve per say but to tend to the "norms" of the fictional world, the mechanics can be scaled up or down as needed.  FREX in our game combat is typically played pretty much blow by blow, however in our 4th of July retreat two years ago the GM had three players, who basically volunteered themselves, roll percentile dice for the general outcome of the entire war between Gondor and the Haradrim.  Wildly enough all three rolled in the mid to high 90's and thus it was determined that Gondor basically routed the Haradrim.  Made up on the spot.

Another note is that we have no "published" game rules.  This makes severely limits the number of easily accessible and convertible tools that might be turned to Gamist interests.  Also we have a system whereby "role-play" checks are needed in addition to combat "kills" before a character is eligible for leveling.  IOW a player may "kill" enormous amounts of foes, but if he isn't "role-playing" as defined locally he isn't going to go up levels.

I know I have rambled much and I haven't the time to redact this post to make it more readable so I will cut off here.  Whatever you do get from this, please don't read this as a "you must do this" post but rather a series of possibilities or food for thought only.

[Joel P. Shempert]

OK, I've been sitting on this for a while, but I want get back to it and sort out a few issues.

First, Rob:

I'm down with what you're saying about presenting the game to my players. Tha't pretty much what I'vebeen thinking wrt that. What I'm hoping to get out of this thread is a refined idea of what will eventually be my game proposal to the group, both in terms of the actual (i.e. published) system and what I hope to get out of play. I think things are starting to come into focus.

The more I consider Heroquest, the more it looks like a perfect choice for this endeavor--not only does it have every systemic feature I'm looking for (motivation mechanics, relationship mechanics, story-based chargen, conflict res, spendable effectiveness currency, scalable resolution. . .really, was Robin Laws reading my effing MIND?! I wouldn't put it past the scurvy bastard.), but it sounds like so focused a system that it can't help but engender the play I'm looking for. Which should serve to eliminate a lot of ambiguity. . .the players will all either grok it and have a great time with it, or it just won't work. Which is cool.

The downside, but one that I can live with, Tolkien geek that I am, is that all the setting stuff will need converting to Middle Earth, which sounds like a lot of busywork, coming up with alternate keyword lists and all. But that's cool. I was wondering though, how difficult is it to separate out the "core," non-setting-specific stuff from the game text. Because you mentioned a "generic" version of the rules in the works; does thatmena there will soon be a non-Glorantha Heroquest rulebook for purchase soon? I'd appreciate clarification as this could affect my imminent purchasing decisions. :)

Now, Silmenume:

You're a diehard Tolkien fan? I can't imagine, with a signature like that. ;) Anyway, I wanted to clarify some of your surmises and answer your questions. First, I have avoided using the G, N, or S words as much as I could in this discussion, because I wanted to be able to describe my preference in as natural a wording as possible, to ensure that I understood my own preference and could convey it successfully to others. That said, I would have said "Narrativist" if asked to put a name to it. Now that either means I was unsuccessful in conveying my preference to you, OR that my intention is really Sim without me realizing it. I can accept thatasa possibility, but I must say that everything I've ever read about "addressing premise" around here sounds like exactly what I want.

I have one flat-out correction and one refinement or your list of surmises: 1) I do NOT want combat to be "deadly/brutal." I've scanned my posts for anything that could have come across that way and found nothing, so I'm not sure where you're getting it. But in any case, I'm looking for something more like, say, Trollbabe or DitV, where you only die, or risk death, when you choose to. And at the least I want a system where death is a matter of dramatic appropriateness, rather than the logical outcome of combat actions and such. If I was OK withharsh and deadly combat, I'd probably go with Riddle of Steel for a system. Also, 2) the refinement: I just want to make it clear that "a fairly specifc location, time and under a fairly tight set of circumstances" means, as I've come to think about it, that the players still have a healthy amount of choice about how to proceed, even to the point of diverging radically from canon. My original concept was more rigid, but this whole thread is born of my realization of how railroad-y and unfun that would be.

As for the rest of your post. . .it's all fascinating stuff, but I have to be blunt and say that I'm not sure what it has to do with the thread topic. Unless maybe you believe that I am desiring Sim without realizing it and you're trying to show me how my particular goals can be accommodated by a Sim esthetic. Which I've said is possible, I suppose, but I'm not sure how likely. In any case, what you're describing seems to be a particular (perhaps heretofore unarticulated in the field) variety of Sim, which you are presenting as the whole of Sim philosophy. It's a very interesting way of looking at it, but I don't think you can say all Sim gaming folows this model; it's certainly not Purist for System, for instance.In any case, this seems like a pure theory topic, only tangentially related to this thread's goal. Though I do understand that there's no place FOR pure theory on the forums right now.

Anyway, if you can help me understand how it's all related to my situation, or perhaps tell me if your assessment is changed at all by my new information, I'd appreciate it.

Peace,

[Silmenume]

Hi Joel,

I apologize if I misinterpreted your implied interests, but as you had indicated you very successfully avoided GNS terms.  Reading the few tells I could see I (apparently mis-) interpreted your interests yet I would like to share with you why I thought you were "showing" what I thought were Sim interests.

While I fully admit I could have been misreading these "tells" I would like to share why I thought they are Sim indicative –

1.   The Historical Annals in the Appendices that seemed to promise a dramatic story to play out.
2.   Sketchy enough to allow a lot of player freedom
3.   I've determined that I want to run a Middle Earth game where player characters have real Choice and by their choices can have a real impact on events in the world.
4.   The ever-increasing Scale of conflict, provides a very Tolkien engine of plot causality.
5.   Burning Wheel...though I like the philosophy that the combat is brutal to keep you from picking fights based on your character's purpose, rather than for battle's sake.
6.   So I picked a time where there's a big nasty war on (The Witch-King vs. the North Kingdom), but little is said about it, i.e., there's a war, there's this battle and this battle, there's some victories, some defeats.
7.   ...my rough plan is to start from the same starting point of relationships, political factors in place, events in motion...how to best avoid rail-roady-ness once its wound up and set loose

1.   The desire to play out something upon an existing work is usually indicative of Sim, but not exclusively.  IOW what was indicated here was events, not premise-y ideas.

2.   "Sketchy" is to Sim as "question" is to Premise in Nar.

3.   Again this is Sim.  The process of Disambiguation means that players must have real choices that have a real impact on the events of the world.

4.   I'm not absolutely certain about this, but "causality" of any sort has historically been associated with the Sim aesthetic.  I keying in on the world "causality" and may very well be pulling it out of context, but given there are so many other Sim "tells" floating out there I felt it reasonable to include this in the "glass half full" category.

5.   This is where I saw the reference to Brutal Combat.  However, that combat can be for a purpose other than its own sake is also a Sim trait.  The question that arises is – is this combat being pursued in service of Addressing a Premise or is the player motivated to fight based entirely on the events of the SIS (an unbroken chain of causality - as it were)?

6.   Again we have talk of incomplete elements being worked though to greater completion.  (Ambiguity -> more Dream)

7.   Again this is essential Sim.  Put your pieces in play, give them motivations, drop in the PC's, stir vigorously – see what comes out!

So, all the above suggested to me, that you were expressing at least some Sim inclinations.  I'm not trying to nit-pick but to provide the data points my analysis.  It was in bullet number 5 that I mistook your interest in so called "brutal combat."  I now see how I misinterpreted you and offer my apologies.  You may now rend as you see fit!

In any case, what you're describing seems to be a particular (perhaps heretofore unarticulated in the field) variety of Sim, which you are presenting as the whole of Sim philosophy. It's a very interesting way of looking at it, but I don't think you can say all Sim gaming folows this model; it's certainly not Purist for System, for instance.

I'll keep this short as this is your thread on top of this not being a general theory forum.  Purist for System is Zilchplay.  Nothing new is created with regards to the Dream through this style of play.  In essence it is completely deprotagonized play with reference to the extension of the CA goal of the extension of and proof of knowledge about the Dream as demonstrated though actions taken in and the reactions coming from within the SIS.  Purist for System is to Sim as walking though a pre-established Theme in Nar or walking through an already solved Challenge – again.  If the totality of system is fixed in Sim then there is nothing left for the players to add to.  If the players of "Sim" get all googly eyed about using and re-using system elements as the priority of play that is the equivalent to the Gamist who keeps coming back to the same Challenge over and over again because he's already figured out how to solve the Challenge.

Purist for System is a completely deprotagonized mode of play – don't fall into the trap that its somehow indicative of what Sim is.  It came into conversation explicitly as a rebuttal to my claim that Sim play is protagonized – as all role-play ought to be.  Don't be led astray – Sim is just as open to player protagonization as G/N.  Not one proponent of G/N would stand still while another poster claimed, "Hey!  A big part of your mode of play is players using system – to facilitate the creation of nothing!"  Do yourself a favor and think of ALL role-play defined in part by player protagonization with regards to effecting the CA being expressed.  Works fine and is aggressively supported by G/N theorists and game designers.  Sim is no different.  Purist for System is inert with regards to the CA process and product – it is Zilchplay and should not be thought of as indicative of what Sim is or its potentialities.

Anyway, if you can help me understand how it's all related to my situation, or perhaps tell me if your assessment is changed at all by my new information, I'd appreciate it.

I hope that by now that I have at least demonstrated the relevance of my arguments, even if in the end you have already decided that you are truly looking for good solid and fun Narrativist play.  IOW make your choices that suit your interests best, but make them based upon the best information available.  Much of what you had indicated in your original post was bog standard Sim.  I just wanted to make sure that you were at least aware of that fact.

Remember Sim can have Themes in it – in fact I think the best Sim possible has Themes running all through it.  The key here is that we are not "making" theme in Sim nor is Sim focused on Theme.  Theme is color in Simulationism.  It permeates the world, it colors everything, acts as a multiplier to the whole game experience, but in the end it is just that Color.  It is a tool sometimes used in Sim play, but it is most certainly not created in play.  On one level it could be argued that Theme is but one of the many things that are "celebrated" during Sim play.  I think that Themes make for some the most interesting things to celebrate in Sim play, but that is just MHO.

Have I answered any of your questions?