HQ and LotR

[Der_Renegat]

Maybe some variation would be:

lightfooted (mundane skill)

walks on snow without a trace (special skill only available for elves)

magic: walking without a trace (spell like power with resistance of 14)

[simon_hibbs]

I think there's a default assumption in the fantasy genre that the basic laws of nature are the same as in our world, except for the existence of magic. Magic can break or bypass almost any rule, but requires some kind of active power source. Magic can be more or less unambiguously detected as such by fairly simple magic - both RQ and D&D have a detect magic spell.

buy that assumption, then anything that would break the laws of nature in our world, such as an eagle talking, or a wind child flying, must be magic.

This is a matter of opinion. For example, it was the opinion of Prof. Tolkien that his stories were set in our world. He was very explicit about this. Middle Earth is set in an imaginary era, and with imaginary geography and characters but actualy in our world. Tolkien was a religious person, and believed in divine miracles so he wasn't writing from the point of view of atheist materialism.

I can't speak for him, but if you believe in the miracles in the Bble, then magic portrayed in Middle Earth isn't that much of a stretch. That doesn't mean that Moses must have had a Detect Magic spell. Magic in D&D and Glorantha have nothing to do with this, and nor do 'default assumptions in the fantasy genre'. There are plenty of instances of magic in the Middle Earth books from which to draw an understanding of how Tolkien imagined it to be, on his terms.


Simon Hibbs

[Calithena]

This is also part of the underappreciated brilliance of Tolkien's work, actually. For all people like to point to Dunsany and the faerie story tradition before him, the fact is that Tolkien presents a unique synthesis of pagan and Christian cosmology as part of the background mythology of his world. This is a deeply original piece of creativity, and while Tolkien can't hold Yeats' jock in terms of poetry of language, it's more powerful than anything Yeats ever came up with in his masturbatory descent into personal cosmologizing. Because Tolkien's mythology isn't masturbatory - it's a creative transformation of European mythology, as in, the rapidly disappearing mythology of the world most of us on these boards inhabit. One function of fantasy in general is to be a kind of cultural ark in which this mythology is preserved, and Tolkien's is one of the most brilliant contributions to that project.

Aside from this, the other reason that Tolkien was able to produce genuine literature despite being a mediocre writer is that his stories address powerful moral issues. The Hobbit is about Greed, and the LoTR cycle is about Power, both treated from a recognizably Christian point of view - with which I have some sympathy, despite not being a Christian.

Hope this isn't too OT but there aren't a lot of places one can talk about this stuff and it seemed relevant to Simon's post above.

[Mac Logo]

The really big question is do you allow players to play elves, or, worse, wizards? Because there will be a large power gap. It's an important question, IMO.
Mike

Very important. This is the difficulty I'm having in my own rules adaption. I'm trying for the feel of The Silmarillion and that means elves in their full glory, but with exceptional humans being allowed (towards the end). That's why I like Simon's suggestion about learning costs increasing at a higher than linear rate for elves.

So yes, I'd allow elves as heroes. They'd be essential for the atmosphere, but in the 1st age I'd load them down with all sorts of flaws and disadvantages appropriate to the era. The Oath of Feanor, The Doom of Mandos, inter-house rivalries between the Noldorin princes and so on. All good roleplaying stuff that get's in the way of munchkinism. Unfortunately, most of those have vanished by the 3rd age.

Wizards on the other hand... I'd be unlikely to allow minor deities as beginning characters. Heroes and Superheroes, yes, but the Istari have no real path for advancement as characters (other than to fall to the dark side... Oh. That could be interesting for a short run or one-shot).

In the 1st age, I don't have to worry about Wizards (capital W), but I'd like to point out that, even in the 3rd age, there were only five, of which only three were in North Western Middle-earth. There were none in the 2nd age and early 3rd age.

Graeme

[Mac Logo]

Middle Earth is set in an imaginary era, and with imaginary geography and characters but actualy in our world. Tolkien was a religious person, and believed in divine miracles so he wasn't writing from the point of view of atheist materialism.

Anyone here read the History of Middle-earth books? In one of the later ones, there are the good Professor's notes for a version of the Middle-earth cosmology that is consonent with our world. A sphere circling the Sun, Venus as a planet, stars as extremely distant balls of fusing hydrogen. i.e. Middle-earth as Earth. Needless to say he struggled somewhat, but it makes for fascinating reading.

(just don't ask about the flying numenoreans...)

He didn't want it to be fantasy, he wanted it to be a mythic history. That's the mood I want to capture in a Middle-earth game.

Prof. tolkien's deep religious convictions are indeed relevent. It's what enabled him to have a real sense of the world (our world!) as an innately magical place - in the literal sense of "magical".

I have to agree with Calithena. Lousy writing, great imagery. Strangely enough, I had a discussion about this in the pub last night. We agreed that the first half of FotR is just about unreadable. And I rashly promised to lend out my (local) copy of The Silmarillion. The writing in that is much nicer (compiled by Tolkien's son with the aid of Guy Gavriel Kay).
:)

Graeme

[simon_hibbs]

Hope this isn't too OT but there aren't a lot of places one can talk about this stuff and it seemed relevant to Simon's post above.

I think it is relevent, because we can't create rules for magic in Middle earth untill we can get an undertsanding of what Tolkien thought about it. If Tolkien thought it was basicaly the same as the 'magic' in the Bible and perhaps also in north european folklore and mythology, then we can add those sources to our corpus of material on which to base that understanding.

Regarding the kinds of characters we can play in Middle Earth, I have the same attitude on this as I do for Glorantha.

In freeform games you can quite easily play a hero or even a demigod, and in fact many people have done so in Life of Moonson or other Gloranthan freeforms. I think one of the strengths of HeroQuest is that it scales to such levels much better than other roleplaying games, so why not take advantage of that?

Of course it requires a fairly structured game for this to work. The GM needs to have a fairly good handle on what the themes and main events of the campaign are going to be, but for example why can't I run a agme in which the player characters are all members of the White Council, or Noldorin princes mixed up in the politics of the wars of the Silmarils? Roleplaying games don't all have to start with a bunch of missfits meeting in a pub (er, even if that is how the hobbits met Aragorn in the first place).


Simon Hibbs

[HMT]

Maybe some variation would be:

lightfooted (mundane skill)

walks on snow without a trace (special skill only available for elves)

magic: walking without a trace (spell like power with resistance of 14)

OK. Perhaps the thing to do is design the racial keywords for the free peoples of Middle-earth (distnguishing between mundane and special/exclusive skills). By the way, what rating would you put on "walks on snow without a trace" for the typical elf? What about sample resistances for  "walks on snow without a trace" ?

[Der_Renegat]

By the way, what rating would you put on "walks on snow without a trace" for the typical elf? What about sample resistances for "walks on snow without a trace" ?

Well thats the trick i had on my mind:
in ME every elf has the skill "walks on snow without a trace", for them its a normal, mundane, "non-magical" ability. No human can achieve the same without a kind of magic, that is not found in ME. So they are all normal skills, starting with 13 or the racial keywordrating.
The point is, its hard to say what the resistance for walking on snow might be - no ordinary human being can do it, thus you don t even need to think about a resistance.
So my post was really meant to show how you can shift the laws of "nature" working with a given skill:
mundane/alternate racial laws for a universe/magic.
The only problem i see is when you want to compare a mundane "walk" with the elven "walk on snow without a trace"...but then again these abilities might be the same in terms of usefulness, except that the elven one has a special effect also.
all the best
Christian

[simon_hibbs]

By the way, what rating would you put on "walks on snow without a trace" for the typical elf? What about sample resistances for  "walks on snow without a trace" ?

This suffers from the pompous ability name problem. Whether traces of the elf's passage can be spotted also depends on the perceptiveness of the person looking for them - for example another elf perhaps.

I'd just give Elves a racial ability of Light Footed starting at quite a decent level. After all, they aren't only stealthy on snow.


Simon Hibbs

[Der_Renegat]

After all, they aren't only stealthy on snow.

Dont forget that you can always improvise from your ability, as long as it makes sense for your group/narrator.

After all i think its very difficult to assign a reasonable high rating, because its always debatable.
For me the crucial thing is the meaning of the thing, not the number.

best
Christian

[HMT]

... This suffers from the pompous ability name problem ... I'd just give Elves a racial ability of Light Footed starting at quite a decent level ...

Your point is well taken.  But, the core issue is still unaddressed. We need sample resistances for these various things that can be done by the free peoples of Middle-earth that we cannot do here.

How big is "quite a decent level" and what's the resistance to big folk walking on top of a snow bank that can't even support the weight of a hobbit?

What about the ability to see into the wraith-world (as I think Leglas does at the first meeting with Eomer)?

What's the resistance to making a door that's invisible when shut?

What's the resistance to making a door that opens with a word of command?

What's the resistance for making a stone door that only opens if you use the appropriate key during the last light of the setting sun on Durin's Day after the thrust knocks?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Edited to clear up the table a little.

Your point is well taken.  But, the core issue is still unaddressed. We need sample resistances for these various things that can be done by the free peoples of Middle-earth that we cannot do here.

I hadn't meant to participate in hashing out the details, didn't seem too hard. But while I have some time, let's see...

How big is "quite a decent level" and what's the resistance to big folk walking on top of a snow bank that can't even support the weight of a hobbit?

Assuming we go with one mastery being the social norm of competency (like in vanilla HQ), these shouldn't be too hard to hash out. The key is in simply anticipating the results we want:

In this case, the suitable ability would be either "Walking on snow banks" or "Being light (of touch/foot)", or any name that reduces to one or the other. I myself have the impression from the passage that the elven ability comes from their being light, so that's what I'd take. Now, to ensure humans can do it almost never and elves almost always will, just give it a legendary resistance of (X)w3. Humans probably cannot take this at all without a good reason, while hobbits are probably clearly under two masteries. Give elves some three masteries, and there you are (although I myself simply wouldn't try to enumerate these beforehand: walking on snowbanks is simply one instance of elven ability). Of course snow banks can easily be strong enough for humans, so the resistance for hard snow is X to Xw1 and new powder snow would be even w4, giving those elves still quite a good chance.

What about the ability to see into the wraith-world (as I think Legolas does at the first meeting with Eomer)?

With instinctual ability whatever is there to see resists. Seems to me that power is easier to see, so appropriate stat is augmented with the suitable stat of the perceived object. Default resistance w2 if object doesn't have any camouflage for this, so that untrained observer sees only the most powerful manifestations.

With an active ability (like donning the One ring) where you just see everything on that plane it's automatic when the situation warrants. If you want to have a spell to do it (YMMW with what you can do in the Middle-Earth), there's conseivably a difficulty based on the magic system you adopt.

What's the resistance to making a door that's invisible when shut?

If we assume that human smiths perform at w1-2 (to downplay the differences amongst them) and dwarven smiths go up to w6 (so their work won't withstand the might of the Valar but humbles at it's peak the strength of anything lesser; that's before rise of Sauron, during the war of the ring it's more like w4 due to organisational issues and general decay), it's quite safe to suggest w2 for small secret doors and w3 for big ones, like the Moria one. Add in other magics like it opening with a password and such, and I'd say the door of Moria would be w4. Practically impossible for humans, but not the best work of the dwarves by any reach.

What's the resistance to making a door that opens with a word of command?

I'd put that at w2, like the secret door. In general these aren't that hard, and I would almost leave them for deciding during play. I wouldn't be losing that much consistency by doing so.

What's the resistance for making a stone door that only opens if you use the appropriate key during the last light of the setting sun on Durin's Day after the thrust knocks?

If it's unbreakable and possibly unseeable otherwise it'd be w4. Else I'd put it at the difficulty of forcing it, augmented by w2 (the difficulty of the opening condition).

I would just make rough guidelines based on my understanding of the setting and the rules for most of this stuff. For that I'd build a simple table of equivalensies, like so:

Code Select Expand


ability     meaning                               feats
X           human skill level                     what you and me are capable of
w1          human in his field of expertice       what you'd expect from a professional
w2          heroic mortal                         master work, e.g. hobbit handycraft
w3          mortals of former ages,               elf cloaks, orc draughts
           non-human standard                    battlements of Minas Tirith
w4          unreachable by mortals,               numenorian wonders,
           non-human masterwork                  Sting, mithril-work
w5          first age of man,                     first age heroes, lesser rings of power,
           peak of achievement in M-E            Palantiri, Rivendell?
w6          elves who saw the Trees               Galadriel, elven kingdoms of the first age
                                                 The One ring, the wizards
w7          legends of the Silmarillion,          Feanor, the Crossing,
           elven limits of achievement           Sauron in the second age
w8          Maiar
w9          Valar


I haven't thought about this at all, it's what came to mind first. With a suitably constructed table like this I don't see any need for anything more exact. Gamers are used to nitpicking, but the statistical fact is that without playing for decades you won't notice any differences smaller than, say, half a mastery. Just pick the rough level a given feat belongs to and put in some +5s and +10s for especially great feats.

The table is more compressed in the human end than the one in HQ to account for the style - M-E humans rarely differentiate that much, and when they do, they are both legendary and vulnerable - you never get the impression (in the books) that Aragorn is safe just because he's the best there is. On the other hand the hobbits, with little skill in arms, can do their part against competent opponents. All this points toward a compression where most of the ability levels you encounter are actually relatively close to each other.

The difference between valar and maiar is debatable; you could add a couple of masteries there, easily, mainly because we never hear that much about their relations towards each other. Definitely there is differences in strength between the valar, so one could assume that it is a continuum with no big gap between the lesser valar and greatest maiar.

The gap between maiar and elves seems sensible. I find it hard to believe that the utmost skill exhibited by Feanor is more than two masteries below general vala-level; the silmarils were items of cosmic power. On the other hand there is a sense of equality between the maiar and the elves when they come into contact in Silmarillion.

The extraordinariness of Feanor and certain others (like Elu Thingol; it's strange how one remembers these names after year(s)) compared to your run-of-the-mill ancient elf is clear, but even more so is the difference between the light elves and the dark ones, to which Silmarillion points more than once. The general theme is that power flows downward here. Sauron and the ring and the wizards are relatively easy to put to same level with each other, and from comparing Galadriel to Gandalf and the One ring to Silmarillions and Palantiri it's quite clear they all belong to the same general power level.

Going down, there is a clear divide between mortal and non-human achievements, evinced most clearly by the fall of Numenor. One mastery difference is about right there, when comparing later numenorians to their ancestors and on the other hand to their dunadan progeny. In both cases the lesser is in almost the same league with the greater.

I'd put almost everything originating in the third age humanity to w0-2, but some examples rise to the level of non-human standard. These are all somehow strongly attached to second age or earlier.

Any help?

[Mac Logo]

Edited to clear up the table a little.
--- snipped quite a lot ...
Any help?

Very nice. Only two  quibbles - and they are quibbles, not serious objections.

1) Galadriel's level of power should be much higher. This can be rationalised as her disinterest in "magic" and her serious love of politics. the only reason she stayed at the end of the 1st age was her desire to be Queen. Which is why her temptation by Frodo freed her. So it's a minor point. Galadriel is actually a very tough chick.

2) The Numenoreans surpassed the first men (assuming you mean the three houses of the atani) by such a stupendous margin. I'd swap those values for the general case. Individuals may vary, but the Numenoreans were as high as general humans ever got (but were pretty boring for most of the 2nd age - and mislead for the rest of it).

Other than that, the scale looks pretty good. I'd would be happier with the higher Valar being more powerful. Of course, if in a campaign where I had to worry about that, then Manwe's Lay Down My Personal Authority And Summon The Will Of Eru 10w9 augmented by all the other Valar and Maiar is always going to be a winner. :)

Fingolfin (half-brother to Feanor) gave Morgoth a wound that would never heal completely. I thinks that's more to do with Morgoth putting his personal power into Middle-earth than an escalation of the might of elves. OTOH that's still pretty impressive. There must have been some serious augments on both sides, but I guess Fingolfin had a whopper of a Now I'm pissed off... trait going for him.

I love HeroQuest: A one-mastery (or worse) difference can be cut to nothing - if the protagonists have the right relationships in their favour.

Which is why I thnk it should work for Middle-earth.

Graeme
(edited for case correction)

[HMT]

... Any help?

Yes. Thanks.

[simon_hibbs]

Any help?

Very much, I agrre with the principles you outlined, they provide a solid foundation for determining apropriate resistances and ability ratings in my view.

One way to square teh difference in ability ratings between Men and Elves might well be to require that human (and hobbit) characters invest their highest abilities in artifacts or relationships rather than skill-type abilities. Elves could do either making them much more flexible characters, but we'd need some story based way of restricting their scope of freedom. Perhaps by making them assume meaningful flaws or weaknesses?

That could be justified on the grounds that very old character are more likely to accumulate equaly long--lived enemies or develop very deep character flaws. This could itself be calculated using a tradeoff process so a player could geenrate a relatively young elf (lower best skill-type abilities) putting higher ratings into relationships and artifacts like a human character. That should provide enough flexibility.


Simon Hibbs