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.

Eric J. wrote: 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.

::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.

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.

Eric J. wrote: 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.

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.

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

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.

Sage of Shadowdale wrote:
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Scratchware wrote: 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.

Hi there,

I'm with Simon on this one. Check out these two threads: Open/closed setting and Metaplots, railroading, and setting, with attention to my term "underbelly."

Best,
Ron

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,

simon_hibbs wrote:
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

Tony Irwin wrote:

simon_hibbs wrote:
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!

"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.

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.

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