|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jun 11, 2010 20:15:14 GMT -6
I know this is something every DM tried once in a while, and it usually fails. However, my wife has wanted to play our game in Middle-Earth. When I explained to her that this usually never works and everyone that I know who has tried has given up. Her request did get me to thinking about how Middle-Earth could be approached as a setting.
Then I hit on a thought; the setting should reflect the rules. So, if I adapted Middle-Earth to the D&D rules it may be an easier undertaking. So, I began breaking down some elements of the setting and decided how I would approach it. I also used the classic MERP as a guideline for how I would do this.
From what I read and the philosophy of making the Middle-Earth fit the rules I decided that magic will work just as it does in D&D, the Istari would be a supernatural entity that works off a different magical paradigm and that most D&D monster would be present as Morgoth's foul creations. With that most of the setting work is finished.
In the matter of when in Middle-Earth's history the campaign would tale place I had a small issue. I could go the route of MERP and set the game a thousand or so years earlier or I could set it in the fourth age. Though both seemed like good ideas I decided on an alternate universe where the PC's could be the ones that led the strike on Smaug or be placed in the forefront of the war against Sauron. As for the ring, well, I am thinking of just removing that part for the game.
In a nutshell that is how I am approaching it. I have a couple issues; I really want to use Beornings but don't know how to create them as a PC race and if clerics are even going to fit in. ( One thought is use the Valar as proxy's for Iluvatar)
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 11, 2010 21:19:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jun 12, 2010 7:31:09 GMT -6
That is some good stuff. I may borrow some ideas. BTW did Beornings as druids work out? I still see them as a race.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 12, 2010 8:45:17 GMT -6
Yeah, it worked fine. I went the race=class route à la Moldvay, since race is all-important in Middle-earth. So a Wizard is a Wizard (both a race and a profession). Same for Beorning and Ranger (Dunadan), although I think of them as special subraces of humanity, whereas a Warrior is a regular man.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 12, 2010 9:15:50 GMT -6
Indeed, Middle-earth may be the best example of race=class of any fiction out there!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jun 12, 2010 9:29:18 GMT -6
This is true but, I am using race and class separately. But, I think I can make a race/class by using druids. If I have druids as an order created by Radagast the Brown and that class be limited to just those of Beorning tribe with a limit on the shape-shifting to bears, I think this will make them viable as a class and race in the game. This is just off the top of my head but I think it will work.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jun 12, 2010 10:01:12 GMT -6
I did notice some rules changes I wanted to make. Raise Dead and Resurrection would have to go; I never liked them anyway and I feel it ruins the tone of what would be a more gritty game when the characters are coming back all the time. Also I am letting wizards use swords and may just nix clerics all together.
As for the world I am adding in about three more Istari for various reasons ( one being that the campaign is set before the expedition to remove Smaug and I have an idea involving the Istari). I also decided to keep the rings but in a changed form. I am hoping this works.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 12, 2010 15:46:21 GMT -6
Another thing I did was to force all magic using classes to advance in two classes at the same time. (Multi-class? Dual-class? Who can keep the rules straight?) What this did was to help control the rate of spell gain in my campaign. So, Gandalf really could have been a 5th level Magic-user! (Assuming he had 10 total levels, which isn't too much of a stretch if you assume that 4 levels = hero and 8 levels = super hero, so 10 levels would max out my campaign....)
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jun 12, 2010 16:16:14 GMT -6
Not a bad idea. I am sketching out the first adventure and I am beginning to wonder if the "take elements from M-E" approach is not a better option. Go with similar names and similar maps but forgo M-E and it's history and do more borrowing.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 12, 2010 21:29:49 GMT -6
Ultimately, yeah, that’s a great way to go. Borrow liberally from Tolkien and don’t bother trying to re-rationalize them. Hobbits, Balrogs, Ents, Nazgûl, etc. are what they are. I like to vaguely imagine my campaigns (when they are not explicitly Middle-earth) could be on the same world as Middle-earth but in an obscure and distant land. So Hobbit PCs in my games tend to be distantly related to Bilbo (on the Took side, of course), Nazgûl are servants of Sauron the Dark Lord, etc. Now, I also borrow heavily from the Hyborean Age and others. Of course, both Middle-earth and the Hyborean Age don’t take place on imaginary worlds but in imaginary times. So all I’m doing ultimately is creating my own imaginary time that incorporates them!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jun 12, 2010 22:16:07 GMT -6
I like how Arneson handled his orcs; they were split into the white hand and red eye tribes. As well with OD&D in it's original form having ents, balrogs, nazgul you have many of the elements of Tolkien already there. All that is left is just placing names and such for places. I sketched a map that has names influenced by Tolkien and I feel much better about this rather than trying to get D&D and M-E to agree.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jun 12, 2010 22:31:35 GMT -6
An alternate thought came to me. At Utumno Morgoth created many unnamed creatures along with the likes of orcs and dragons. My first deviation from the standard Middle-Earth lore could be that these creatures are still very prolific and/or Morgoth is still active along with Sauron. While this may be a stretch it does seem to work in regard to how many of the D&D type creatures are in Middle-Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 13, 2010 11:41:03 GMT -6
How about a campaign in and around the Ruins of Utumno?
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jun 13, 2010 19:32:55 GMT -6
I hadn't thought of that.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jun 17, 2010 0:44:59 GMT -6
I did notice some rules changes I wanted to make. Raise Dead and Resurrection would have to go I suggest carefully examining "travel" spells like levitation, flight, feather fall, teleport, et cetera. Such magic didn't seem to exist in Middle Earth (or at least not in the west where the books were set). Another thing to consider is whether or not you will use the concept of corruption from "bad" magic (e.g. dominating of another's free will). If so, spells like charm person would certainly be considered evil. Your categorization of Maiar magic as "different" actually has a lot of "Tolkien validity." See the following Tolkien letter (#155), emphasis added: I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and others show by the criticism of the 'mortal' use of the word, that the thought about it is not altogether casual. But it is a v. large question, and difficult; and a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely about motives (choice, temptations etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world, could hardly be burdened with a pseudo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is a latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia. Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy'. Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet f*g**t) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life'. Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' – with destructive and evil effects — because 'magicians', who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so). The basic motive for magia – quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work – is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect. But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological one: the tyrants lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills; but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them. Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but is in an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such. Aragorn's 'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes. But it is (in theory) reported by hobbits who have very little notions of philosophy and science; while A. is not a pure 'Man', but at long remove one of the 'children of Luthien'. You might also find the following useful:
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 17, 2010 7:57:45 GMT -6
To me, the interest in using Middle-earth in a RPG is mainly for the history, geography, and characters. These act as familiar landmarks for the players and therefore come with built-in emotional investment. For example, if you are off to adventure in Moria, then you might automatically feel both fear at the dangers and awe at the treasures and mysteries you might uncover. Similarly, if you heard Hobbiton was about to be destroyed, or there was a rumor of Entwives, or if you saw a Black Rider, you would have a reaction that builds on your experience of the books. Creating a homebrew world might be just as cool or cooler in many ways, but you probably wouldn’t “know” or “care” as much about it, at least not initially.
But, given Middle-earth as a backdrop, I am content for the Laws of the Universe (magic, classes, monsters, etc.) within the context of an OD&D campaign to work basically just like they do in OD&D. Adapting things to where they make sense is nice, but things like “how come we never saw X monster/spell in the books?” don’t bother me.
Another idea I had long ago was to place Blackmoor north of the main Middle-earth map. The “Great Kingdom” would be Elessar’s Reunited Kingdom, and of course, as FFC says, Marfeldt the Barbarian traveled in Rhûn, the different kinds of Orcs are Middle-earth themed, etc., so it’s not too jarring (unless the thought of Blackmoorian weird tech in Middle-earth really horrifies you...but that would mean you’ve never read The Fall of Gondolin!).
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 17, 2010 18:51:12 GMT -6
I swear I had a thread where I posted Gandalf's spells from the books, but I couldn't find it so I created a new one with the information in it.
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Jun 17, 2010 23:01:52 GMT -6
Hey Falconer, are you limiting acces to any kinds of weapons or armor? The reason I ask is that most of the heroes in Tolkiens works don't seem to wear much armor, unless going into a major battle. Weapons seem fairly medieval overall, but I don't remember much mention of polearms or crossbows. Just curious. Love the thread by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 18, 2010 1:49:05 GMT -6
My campaigns tend to be pretty standard D&D fare, emphasizing exploration of a local area, with lots of time spent at a home base town and the core activity being dungeoneering. In this case, the PCs *are* expecting to go into battle, and therefore would be foolhardy to not wear armor. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings both emphasize large and long voyages—world-spanning, really—during which as you say they wouldn’t be carrying armor around the whole trip (they do don it when they reach their destination and expect a fight). I’m sure if I were running a campaign like that, I might make sure the game rewards players for not carrying armor with them on long journeys but instead buying it when they need it.
So, I don’t really sweat it. Tolkien stuck with swords and axes and chainmail because it was ambiguous what time period it could be, whereas polearms and crossbows suggest a specific civilization. I don’t care to ban them, but my players tend not to use them anyway. I definitely keep Plate Mail as expensive as possible (at least 400 g.p. per AD&D even if I’m otherwise using the OD&D price list!).
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 18, 2010 11:20:17 GMT -6
I think I mentioned this in Falconer's previous thread on this topic, but I was set to play in a campaign (which unfortunately fizzled before it started) that was set in the 4th Age. Characters were going to be approached by a character from the Silmarillion, who would reveal to them that Beleriand hadn't sank, but had instead been hidden by a might glamor. We would've ended up adventuring through the long-abandoned ruins of Beleriand, looking for something specific (never heard what). I still think that's a great idea. Also this quote: about Tom Bombadil, in this essay got me thinking about how Bombadil could be an interesting, more active, 4th Age protagonist.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jun 18, 2010 13:32:12 GMT -6
Hm. I'd be inclined, instead of the book as it is, to have the three classes be Fighting-Man, Cleric, and Thief (but using Philotomy's model of the Thief), as I think the Clerical model suits Middle Earth magic better than the D&D Magic User model. Elves are Fighting Men and Clerics instead of Magic Users, and Hobbits are Fighting Men or Thieves.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jun 23, 2010 21:54:37 GMT -6
I am thinking, that if I do this, I will focus on places like Arnor and Angmar. Places that are going to be ripe for adventuring but not really touched on in the main texts. I have also thought long and hard about this and I see no need to change any D&D conventions. Especially given how the MERP system ran with Middle Earth.
I also finished The Children of Hurin this week and could see how easily M-E can move away from the typical non-dark fantasy. CoH really reminded me of an Elric book in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 24, 2010 14:12:46 GMT -6
Nothing to add except that I strongly approve and agree with all three of your points in your last post!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jun 24, 2010 14:54:57 GMT -6
Did some digging on the intertubes and found the following: Link 1Link 2 Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 24, 2010 15:51:50 GMT -6
Yeah, the MERP maps are so great, there’s no good reason to go without them! I recently made myself a list of their MERP (1e) Arnor/Angmar area products: 1982 | Campaign | ANGMAR Land of the Witch King | Heike Kubasch | 1984 | Adventure | BREE and the Barrow-Downs | Heike Kubasch | 1984 | Campaign | RANGERS of the North: The Kingdom of Arthedain | John Ruemmler | 1984 | Adventure | HILLMEN of the Trollshaws | Jeff McKeage | 1985 | Adventure | THIEVES of THARBAD | Lisa Evans, Walter Hunt, Evan Jamieson, Richard Meyer, Robert Traynor | 1985 | Adventure | GOBLIN-GATE and Eagle’s Eyrie | Carl Willner | 1986 | Ready-to-Run Adventure | PHANTOM of the Northern Marches | Graham Staplehurst | 1986 | Ready-to-Run Adventure | TROLLS of the Misty Mountains | John Cresswell, Mike Cresswell | 1987 | Adventure | RIVENDELL the House of Elrond | Terry Amthor | 1987 | Fortress | WEATHERTOP Tower of the Wind | Pete Fenlon | 1987 | Campaign | Lost Realm of CARDOLAN | Jeff McKeage | 1988 | Ready-to-Run Adventure | RAIDERS of Cardolan | Jeff McKeage | 1989 | Campaign | EMPIRE of the Witch-King | Graham Staplehurst, Heike Kubasch | 1989 | Campaign | MOUNT GUNDABAD | Carl Willner | 1989 | Adventure | DARK MAGE of Rhudaur | Jeff McKeage | 1990 | Adventure | ROGUES of the Borderlands | John Crowdis |
I can’t vouch for all the products, but I do have the original Angmar. It was ICE’s first Middle-earth product, and it is absolutely fantastic and I totally recommend it as a starting point. Lots of maps, not just wilderness but also plenty of castles and such. If anything, its problem is that it takes itself too seriously. The dungeons need to be Gygaxed up with unique wandering monsters, tricks & traps & puzzles & dungeon dressing! Anyway, I would definitely get at least Angmar, and probably Arthedain as well.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jun 25, 2010 19:14:16 GMT -6
I um...found Angmar and thought I had the others pinned down but they were Spanish language. I will keep looking for them though.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jul 11, 2010 13:38:20 GMT -6
Some other thoughts on this concerning monsters.
Some of Tolkien's monsters are easy; Orcs are orcs, Goblins are Moria/Misty Mountain Orcs, Hobgoblins are big Goblins and Bugbears are Uriks. Ogres could be a base Troll or the Troll's look changed to reflect M-E and sunlight weaknesses added. Ents and basic wraiths are in the game and there is no issue there.
However, creatures like Nazgul, become problematic. I had thought of a re-skinned AD&D Death-Knight but that doesn't seem to fit either. Though I have said I do see no reason to change any D&D conventions I do want some things to fit so monsters become very important to me at this point.
|
|
|
Post by apeloverage on Jul 11, 2010 16:22:13 GMT -6
However, creatures like Nazgul, become problematic. I had thought of a re-skinned AD&D Death-Knight but that doesn't seem to fit either. Though I have said I do see no reason to change any D&D conventions I do want some things to fit so monsters become very important to me at this point. I read somewhere that the level-draining of undead creatures is like the 'Black Breath' of the Nazgul. Some undead cause those who they kill to rise as one of them, which I think the Morgul-blade can do. Also they seem to cause fear.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 6, 2010 6:03:11 GMT -6
I played in a long-running (most of the characters made it to level 9) D&D 3.0 campaign which the DM set loosely in Middle Earth.
All the players had read the books (loved 'em) and seen the movies (not bad) but weren't married to the source material - there was no arguments about what would or wouldn't be the case in Middle Earth, it was still the DM's game.
The game had all the D&D classes, races and magic (et cetera) that were just set in Middle Earth.
It only becomes difficult when you start wringing your hands over authenticity and adherence to the source material. It has to be a game of D&D first.
My dwarf Cleric worshiped a Greyhawk god - no one had any issues with it.
Give it a whirl and don't lose any sleep over it.
That's my 2 cents worth.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Sept 6, 2010 9:16:45 GMT -6
Give it a whirl and don't lose any sleep over it. Always good advice!
|
|