HQ and LotR

[HMT]

... we'd need some story based way of restricting their scope of freedom. Perhaps by making them assume meaningful flaws or weaknesses? ...

It seems that in Middle-earth the more powerful one is, the greater the danger of being corrupted. Perhaps this would be a ready source of such flaws/weaknesses.

[Jaif]

I'm not sure I agree with that.  Saruman & Denether were corrupted.  Boromir fell but redeemed himself.  Gandalf, Aragorn, etc, all resisted.  Gollum fell hard.

I think the key is that power offered no special resistance to corruption.  Just like the real world, intelligent, powerful people are just as prone to corruption as the low.

-Jeff

[Mike Holmes]

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.

Funny you should mention it, but this is how I'm balancing my RM elves, essentially, in my conversion (and RM elves were, theoretically based off of ME elves). I noted several interesting things. First, they don't have relationships with society. That is, elves have tend to have no family, no clans, and generally seem to ignore these things. This is cool, because it means that, despite Elves being powerful, they're also on their own. Good for players who want to try to play "island" characters. Apparently you just don't need social support when you've lived for centuries.

Perhaps by making them assume meaningful flaws or weaknesses?

One thing that I gave all my elves was "Undisciplined" at a high rate. I'm not sure that's quite the right term, but in RM elves have a huge penalty to Self-Discipline. The argument goes that, not that the elves are flightly, exactly, but that, if you had all the time in the world, would you rush? Think about it. If you were truely unaging, would you be worried about tomorrow other than making sure that you had the basics of food and shelter (which elves seem not to need too much of, nor have a want of). Basically the hardest thing that an elf has to overcome is the need to see the urgency in anything. May be why Galadriel does nothing for centuries knowing that something dark is growing in southern Mirkwood, and later in Mordor (everything is the damn elves fault for being vain and lacksidaisical).

OTOH, I think that Flaws make for more interesting characters, generally, not less. So giving elves more flaws seems to be rewarding them yet again. How about not allowing them to take any flaws (other than maybe the undisciplined, aloof, etc.). This penalizes them, IMO, and makes them seem more the paragons that they are in the literature.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

OTOH, I think that Flaws make for more interesting characters, generally, not less. So giving elves more flaws seems to be rewarding them yet again. How about not allowing them to take any flaws (other than maybe the undisciplined, aloof, etc.). This penalizes them, IMO, and makes them seem more the paragons that they are in the literature.

I´m not sure I entirely agree, but it´s certainly a very interesting bit of lateral thinking.

On a slight tangent, Elves often seem very serene - they´ve seen it all before, so they don´t get fazed as easily as humans. On the other hand, Dwarves have very long life spans too yet they can be very hot headed. Also if you compare historical elven behaviour back in the first age with later behaviour it hasn´t realy changed all that much over time, so there´s more than just immense age at work.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, I think that their placid demeanors are quite a bit about them being deeply inately magical, where the magic is all about timelessness, etc.

Yes, Dwarves are hotheaded, but that seems just to be part of their nature; and they only live a few centuries. Dunedain live nearly as long  as Dwarves as well (Aragorn is 88, IIRC, at the time of the events of the book), but one of their most important personality traits is that they have a powerful fear of death. I think the idea is that common men understand that life is short and then you die. Dunedain seem immortal for a while, and I think are deluded into the idea that they can live forever with the truth nagging at the back of their minds the whole time. It's like they can't forgive their sire Elros for making them mortal, when they could be like his brother Elrond. Numenoreans were even worse about this fear, part of the reason that Annatar so easily seduced them.

(I think its cool that Elrond is Aragorn's Great^37 Uncle and Arwen is his first cousin 37 times removed - note I can't remember the real number of generations between them, it might be more than that).

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, and following on the post above...

The way I've been explaining flaws to players (including three last night), is to say that players can take more free abilities after they finish with chargen, at any level they like. The "catch" is that they have to be able to convince me, the GM, that these are "Flaws" meaning things that will tend to get used against them lots. Otherwise they're just like any other Ability, and can be used positively or negatively whenever it's appropriate.

Using older descriptions of Flaws, I had to cajole players into taking them. Using this definition, I had players jumping all over Flaws. I had one player decide to have a 10w2 Love for some lost girlfriend. I told him that he'd never be able to mechanically resist it's pull when it came into play. He said that was perfectly the way it should be. Who am I to argue? My Favorite was the nomad character with the Dung Collector Occupation who decided that a Stench 18 (or something like that) was appropriate.

:-)

They're not "flaws", they're free abilities. With a catch. Players seem to love that idea.

OTOH, if you forced them on a player, or they could only be used "negatively" I suppose it might work as a balance. My point, however, is that elves are pretty cool just to start, and don't need any additional means by which to make protagonists of them.

Mike

[Ian Cooper]

IMO Tolkien's Evels draw a lot from the Celtic Sidhe. They are better than men in every way: more beautiful, immortal, more skilled, with better senses. But in the third age, as in many of the hero tales of Ireland, the elves are few in this world most having gone west across the ocean (i.e. The West = The Land of The Young). Men are just pale shadows of their glory. So to interact with elves is to enter Faerie. Indeed, as in Celtic myth, many monsters of Tolkien's world are from earlier ages and are thus also part of Faerie (such as orcs/goblins). This is clearest, I think, in the Hobbit where the entry into the realm of the wood elves has the hallmarks of interaction wtih Faerie in Celtic tales. Jackson's Lorien evokes this too I feel. To hamstring elves for play balance in third Age games misses this. In HW terms I would put elves at the HQ heroic level (w3 or above) at least with elvish heroes at w5 or w6 .

[FYI: In Glorantha anyone using an ability at w3 or above shines with a 'hero light' - again a concept with very celtic parallels]

In a mortal centered third age campaign 'average' characters will be nowhere near as good as elves. In fact in an average centered campaign elves and their like are rare, barely seen, and an event when you do. Sam certainly seems to have this sense of wonder at elves. Elves as just another humanoid race are really anathema to Tolkien.

If you want elven characters, and you want to balance them, better IMO to make the mortals heroes than to reduce the elves.

[Jaif]

If you want elven characters, and you want to balance them, better IMO to make the mortals heroes than to reduce the elves.

Over all I agree - Elves are in a league of their own, and if you want to mix humans in as something other than sidekicks you need Beren/Hurin or the like.

However, a player of mine did an interesting twist.  For background, I'm running a 4th age 250 years after campaign, with Gondor weakend by religious strife and pressed on all her borders by enemies.  It's the age of men, with all the quick changes and turmoil that brings.

The player, who will only be involved infrequently in the campaign, wanted to try an elf.  His proposal was an elf who had been captured and tortured in the dungeons of Sauron, freed in the decades after the fall of Mordor.  He plays a sadly diminished elf who doesn't enter cities or even villages, sometimes getting deeply involved with the player's current affairs and other times being very distant.

As I said, I still basically agree with.  Tolkien's elves are in a different league from mortals, and you either have to pump the humans to heroic levels or diminish the Elves beyond recognition to mix the two.   Anything else is just too big a stretch.

-Jeff

[Der_Renegat]

I really dont understand why people here are so concerned about balance. To me thats very much some kind of D&D concept. What do you need balance for? Its all about interesting stories!
In every story/group you have characters that are stronger than the others. All you have to do is adapt the adventure to your heroes! Something what you do anyways.
If you have a look at the fellowship-are they all equal in power ? No!

I think its quite a challenge to play a powerful character, you need to be an experienced player, not only ruleswise.
I had very often groups with roleplaying newbies and experienced veterans too. So its perfect to have beginner and herolevel characters in one adventure. And it comes quite naturally that a group has a leader.

all the best
Christian

[Jaif]

Gimli is no Legolas in terms of power and ability, but at least he's competant enough to participate alongside him.  Merry & Pippen, otoh, are just out of their league for the most part.  In a book that's ok, but a game by it's nature implies some form of competitive activity, and I think it's worthwhile keeping an eye on balance, at least in a gross sense (and more, if the group wants it that way).

Btw, I'm not suggesting that everything must be about combat.  If someone is the talker, someone else the grunt, and another is the scholar (to paint a crude picture), than that's workable even if the talker is a far better talker than the grunt is a grunt.  At least everybody has some niche where they can grab the spotlight.

-Jeff

[Der_Renegat]

Defeating a foe, solving the riddle or whatever your current game is all about, to me its all about imagination, that what makes roleplaying fun.

Killing very strong foes is mostly a question of tactics not brute force alone.
Solving the riddle is all about being clever.
Your abilities give you options but most of the time good roleplaying is more in demand than high ratings, i think.
greets
Christian

[Jaif]

"Killing very strong foes is mostly a question of tactics not brute force alone."

I'm sorry, I can't agree with this statement.  Of course tactics are a factor, but when it comes down to someone sporting 10w3 skills contesting people with 10w or less, it's basically over before it began.

"Solving the riddle is all about being clever."

This is an age old debate from where I'm sitting.  Is it fair to make the player solve the riddle that his character can solve with a die roll?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no, IMO.  I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it.

"Your abilities give you options but most of the time good roleplaying is more in demand than high ratings, i think."

This, of course, varies with the group and their focus, and "more in demand" is an awfully flexible phrase (60-40? 99-1?).

In the end, we're talking about a game here, and one of the central facets is the extended contest (note "one of").  I haven't run the game, but I think I get the role of extend contests, and I think it's fair to say that every player should have a chance to participate in an extended contest that furthers the game every session, as a rule of thumb.  The problem is that this can be hard to do when one person is so overwhelmingly powerful that his efforts constantly overshadow's someone else's.  Imagine people trying to convince a town to aid their quest: "whimpy" goes to a bar, gets lucky, and convinces a couple of people to help; "slick" goes to the town council, and gets the city watch and the sons of of the council members to ride out in support.

This may be ok if "whimpy" has some other area where he shines, but in the end if he can't participate at the same level as everyone else, then his story tends to get overshadowed.

-Jeff

[Der_Renegat]

One problem about HQ is maybe that it neglects armour a lot. Or to put it differently, its not so obvious how to integrate powerful armour into the rules.
Think of Frodos mithril chainshirt for instance. It saved his life in Moria. Giving him a large bonus alone, doesnt justify the scene with the cavetroll.
One solution might be to give the shirt a powerful rating: Mithrilshirt 15W4 or whatever seems appropiate.
Any other ideas ?
greets
Christian

[Ian Cooper]

I really dont understand why people here are so concerned about balance. To me thats very much some kind of D&D concept. What do you need balance for? Its all about interesting stories!

While that is true, it does get harder to avoid de-protagonizing weaker characters. Even if you can set the important challenges, you have to avoid the feeling that thier challenges are less important than those of the characters who outstrip them in terms of ability.

However for LoTR heroism is more about rising to overcome personal fears than about a display of  might.

A speprate thread on how to keep weaker characters from feeling disempowered might be a valuable spin off.

[Jaif]

Something occured to me as I finished typing.  Let me try this again.

This is a thread about converting game mechanics to a new setting.  I submit that balance questions are certainly on topic for such a discussion.    Furthermore, there's nothing wrong even if it's a central concern to some people.  As long as the group involved is comfortable with a game where balance is a factor, than life is fine.

Regarding armor, I would treat Frodo's mithril as an active ability "resist harm 10w2" or something along those line.  At the end of a fight, roll a simple contest against the AP loss (e.g. -21 aps is 1w), with victory reducing the hurt by a level (e.g. from dying to major) and each extra mastery bumping it down further.  I would leave "hurt" as a minimum, though - a lost contest should always sting a little.

So, in the book the troll knocks frodo down to -35 aps, and he's dying.  At the end of the fight, everyone gathers around while the GM and Frodo roll dice.  10w2 vs 15w, so one bump from master and frodo is victorious as well so he's down to a minor wound and announces "I'm alright".

-Jeff