# D&D comes to Middle Earth (from Cubicle 7)



## gweinel (Mar 14, 2016)

Here some news that I didn't foresee. Cubicle 7, the company of The One Ring, the best adaptation of Tolkien's Middle Earth plans to bring D&D to Middle Earth.  Bearing in mind the high quality books that they produced for the _The One Ring_ roleplaying game (they're at the top of the review section), it'll be very interesting to see. There's not much information yet, other than a short announcement.






Here is Cubicle's 7 news.  The image above is of the existing _The One Ring_ RPG from Cubicle 7.

"Cubicle 7 Entertainment and Sophisticated Games have announced plans to make a Dungeons & Dragons® compatible roleplaying series for J R R Tolkien’s legendary fantasy world of Middle-earth, the setting for The Lord of the Rings® and The Hobbit®.

Cubicle 7’s CEO Dominic McDowall said, “We’re all very excited to be building on the success of The One Ring Roleplaying Game and bringing Middle-earth to D&D® players. Uniting two things very close to the hearts of gamers, me included, is very cool – I can't wait for the summer."

The best selling The One Ring Roleplaying Game will continue as a separate and independent line, with some very exciting announcements coming this week. The new series will be based upon Francesco Nepitello’s highly praised work in The One Ring®, with Francesco acting as creative consultant.

Further details will be released in the coming months, with the release set for Summer 2016."​
A release in Summer 2016 really isn't far away at all. _Lord of the Rings_ and D&D really is an exciting combination (was Gandalf really just a 5th level magic-user?) 

Sophisticated Games is a British board game company which develops book-based JRR Tolkien games under license from Middle-earth Enterprises, and has published many titles in this area: Reiner Knizia's Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, the award winning War of the Ring series and, of course, in conjunction with Cubicle 7, The One Ring RPG. Cubicle 7, on the other hand, is reposible for not just The One Ring, but also other licensed RPGs like Doctor Who.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 14, 2016)

I have purchased a small number of products in The One Ring line with the understanding that at some point I'd convince my group to actually play it. The books are of such quality and my loyalty to Lord of the Rings as an IP made owning them almost a necessity even if I wasn't going to play the system right away. 

However, my reaction to this is a decided "meh," with a hint of disgruntled mumbling in the background. Because production and release of material for the One Ring product line has already been glacially slow at best. Adding a separate, "D&D 5e" compatible line to go with it just means it's going to take that much longer to get actual sourcebooks for Noldor and Gondor cultures. When was that super-duper One Ring "Advanced Player's Guide" supposed to have been released already? Oh, wait, back in the fall of 2015? And now it's Spring 2016? Not building up the confidence here. 

My prediction that I'd quickly move on to other things if they dragged out the release cycle was correct. I've moved on. And the corporate-game-playing, delayed-release, transparent money-grab of deliberately keeping the stuff I really want just out of reach doesn't sit well with me. I'm to the point with Cubicle 7 where I'd say to them point blank, "Give me my friggin' One Ring Noldor and Gondor cultures so I can buy whatever it is I need to buy, and then never have to do business with you again."

Same thing with Fantasy Flight. I made the decision in 2013 that I'd never consider buying Fantasy Flight's Star Wars until as a player I at least had the OPTION of playing a full Jedi if I wanted to, and not a moment before. And, well, guess what? Now I have the option of playing a Jedi in FF's Force and Destiny, but I simply don't even care.

Anyone want to place bets on whether Gondor and Noldor elf characters are playable classes/races in the "D&D 5e Lord of the Rings" release right from the get go? Because my inner cynic is whispering that the D&D version will have them from Day 1.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Mar 14, 2016)

This is all kinds of awesome!!!!!


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2016)

It is probably a pretty safe bet that the number of sales lost to release schedule slow down will be completely insignificant compared to sales gained by producing a 5E compatible game.


----------



## Von Ether (Mar 14, 2016)

I smell another $1M kickstarter.


----------



## darjr (Mar 14, 2016)

I am a HUGE fan of the one ring and if they do this right I'll be a huge fan of this too.


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 14, 2016)

Wow - that's great news! Their books are beautiful, and while I've heard good things about the system, I'm not interested in switching from 5e for fantasy. I've thought about picking up some of those books just for reading purposes...but this makes a ton of sense, and I imagine will make for some big sales numbers. Very good, indeed.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 14, 2016)

Von Ether said:


> I smell another $1M kickstarter.




if anything could do it, this could! Then again, they say it's coming out this summer, so it sounds like it's well underway already.


----------



## Rhineglade (Mar 14, 2016)

I think the idea behind this is cool but something about Middle Earth just never translated well to RPG in my opinion.  This was the problem with the MERP and Rolemaster versions.  For one thing, the story line is so well established it is not easy to bend the canon.  Furthermore, the use of magic was always poorly defined.  Even Gandalf the Wizard used magic very sparingly and never showy.  To me, the magic is the whole point of a fantasy game world and to limit it seems to be missing out on a large element.  Of course there are folks that enjoy very low magic worlds.  I just happen to NOT be one of them.  Finally, what would be the monster population? Previous game versions of LotR limited themselves to only what was found in the books.  This basically meant orcs.  Period.  Of course there were also the occasional dragon, troll, spider, giant eagle, worg, ent, etc. but by and large these were few and far between.  Coming across orcs over and over again gets redundant after a while.


----------



## Curmudjinn (Mar 14, 2016)

Cubicle 7 products are like magic in a bottle. So much effort, love and refinement go into each release. Dominic McDowall is all class with a good head on his shoulders.

This great news!


----------



## Desrimal (Mar 14, 2016)

Good news indeed. I like both d&d 5e and The One Ring. If anyone can pull off a succesfull Middle Earth/D&d game, I can't imagine anyone better suited for the task than Cubicle 7. I don't believe a low magic setting with relative few monsters is a problem for a fantasy rpg campaign, though I agree with Rhineglade that Middle Earth canon is certainly an issue.


----------



## Zhern (Mar 14, 2016)

So excited for this!  WotC opening up 5E via OGL was a fantastic move because it enables things like this.  Can't wait to see what other awesome stuff hits the gaming world because of that.


----------



## IgnatiusJ.Reilly (Mar 14, 2016)

Shoehorning the D&D magic system into Middle Earth would be quite a task, if that's what they intend to do.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Mar 14, 2016)

Agreed. The Lord of the Rings is a tough act to follow. But really, these problems are present to a degree or another in any licensed property. But I’m pretty excited to see how this turns out. I feel like we’re coming full-circle to the days when D&D had Ents, Hobbits, and Balrogs.



Rhineglade said:


> I think the idea behind this is cool but something about Middle Earth just never translated well to RPG in my opinion.  This was the problem with the MERP and Rolemaster versions.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 14, 2016)

This is absolutely fascinating to me for two reasons:

First, The One Ring has an excellent Exploration system (which the one presented in the 5E playtest drew inspiration from) so that pillar of the game is likely to get some excellent attention. This makes me happy.

Second, there aren't any spellcasters in The One Ring, yet the game is a lot of fun and has characters who are still varied from one another. This gives me hope for an expansion of what non-magical characters can accomplish. This also makes me happy.

Third (a bonus!) if the designers carry over what they did with Elves to D&D this will make me exceptionally happy, since the game does a ... magical job of representing them.

Excited by the possibilities.


----------



## BMaC (Mar 14, 2016)

I wonder what timeline they'll use.


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 14, 2016)

BMaC said:


> I wonder what timeline they'll use.




Great question. My guess? Multiple books.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2016)

IgnatiusJ.Reilly said:


> Shoehorning the D&D magic system into Middle Earth would be quite a task, if that's what they intend to do.




I'll be curious to see if they essentially rewrite the game to fit ME, using only the core of D&D 5E for mechanics, or if they try and accommodate the many D&Disms that don't really fit. I think the best we can hope for is the former but with strongly maintained compatibility so that people who want to add dragonborn warlocks to ME can do so seamlessly (though not likely without consequences!).


----------



## Gadget (Mar 14, 2016)

I'm hopeful they can keep their current RPG system as the one that adheres closely to cannon, and have this new D&D version be more of a Lord of the Rings-_ish_ take on D&D.   As a huge fan of both properties, this is the only way I can see it working well; all while introducing some new concepts to traditional D&D play to enrich our gaming experience.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 14, 2016)

Reynard said:


> I'll be curious to see if they essentially rewrite the game to fit ME, using only the core of D&D 5E for mechanics, or if they try and accommodate the many D&Disms that don't really fit. I think the best we can hope for is the former but with strongly maintained compatibility so that people who want to add dragonborn warlocks to ME can do so seamlessly (though not likely without consequences!).



"You will have my sword..."
"you will have my bow..."
"and my _eldritch blast_."


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 14, 2016)

BMaC said:


> I wonder what timeline they'll use.




If they re-use the background material they have already written, it will be set in the 70+ years between The Hobbit and LotR, same as The One Ring game.


----------



## RotGrub (Mar 14, 2016)

this means non-bobble-headed-tiny-shoe halflings.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 14, 2016)

I have to wonder if they will have a unique set of races/classes/sub-classes.  The One Ring is a very, very low-magic world.

I've heard that Mike Mearls spent a fair amount of time at the C7 booth when 5e was just a twinkle in his eye, and several of the mechanics (e.g. Inspiration) result from that.


----------



## darjr (Mar 14, 2016)

I want the game to be the "One Ring" and compatible with 5e. I hope they can pull it off.


----------



## mrm1138 (Mar 14, 2016)

Rhineglade said:


> I think the idea behind this is cool but something about Middle Earth just never translated well to RPG in my opinion.  This was the problem with the MERP and Rolemaster versions.  For one thing, the story line is so well established it is not easy to bend the canon.





I feel like, in order to run any Middle Earth RPG effectively, the GM would either A) need to have read every single bit of lore available and internalized it, or B) have a group that doesn't know too much about the history of the world and won't cry foul if he deviates from the established canon. It's for that reason that I will never run a game in this setting. I've read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings maybe two times each, but that's about it. The Silmarillion looks like a history textbook, and I can't imagine finding it anything but dry and tedious.


----------



## Stan Shinn (Mar 14, 2016)

I'm guessing Cuble 7 will reskin a lot of their The One Ring material and have the adventures be set between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (roughly Third Age 2941-3018).

However, there's lots of other timelines in which to adventure. My favorite is the Third Age 1300-1974 era, over a thousand years before Lord of the Rings events, set in the lost kingdom of Arnor.

See my Chronicles of Arnor Trailer to get the vibe of adventuring in that era:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-uYKpcebGY.

Lots of great old MERP adventure materials available for that era.

Fourth Age is also great time -- Palantir Quest is an old MERP module you can run for months during the Fourth Age.


----------



## benensky (Mar 14, 2016)

*Middle-Earth for 5e*

If you are interested in middle earth [DND] 5e you may want to look at zero hit points page: [[DND]url]http://www.zerohitpoints.com/Middle-Earth-for-DnD-5[/url]


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Mar 14, 2016)

*I...told...you...so!*

I called this back in 2014:

_"Cubicle Seven would be welcome to use our license to produce a D&D COMPATIBLE worldbook for Middle-earth and Doctor Who alongside their house-rule product lines. They would however, need to refer back to the PHB for all basic rules, such as movement and action resolution, and pick an array of most fitting rules modules from the DMG (along with their own original rules modules specific to that setting), and refer back to them, rather than re-printing it all in their product. Any Middle-earth specific classes, or versions of classes (such as a "Warrior" of Middle-earth serving as a rebadged Fighter) would need to be theoretically fully multiclassible with 5e PHB classes."_

When I posted this at ENWorld, nearly everyone rolled their eyes, and said I was wishing for a pony. The thread was even shut down.

And here we are my friends. Goes to show that expressing what we really desire is a worthwhile exercise, even if nearly the entire community is opposed.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Mar 14, 2016)

TraverseTravis said:


> I called this...



Have you made any other predictions that haven't (yet) come true, Nostradamus?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 14, 2016)

TraverseTravis said:


> And here we are my friends. Goes to show that expressing what we really desire is a worthwhile exercise, even if nearly the entire community is opposed.




Must...resist....urge....to....mention...Warlord....


----------



## AriochQ (Mar 14, 2016)

You want to play a hobbit? OK, but you don't get to leave your starting village.  Everyone knows hobbits don't like to travel.
You want to play a wizard?  OK, as soon as one of the current 5 wizards in the world dies off (assuming they don't come back a different color of course)
Etc.

Loved the books, haven't been impressed by RPG conversions (I have similar feelings about Conan's Hyborean Age).


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Mar 14, 2016)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Have you made any other predictions that haven't (yet) come true, Nostradamus?




A hobbit-blessing and prediction at the same time: may the hair on your toes never fall out!


----------



## CrusaderX (Mar 14, 2016)

Now maybe we'll finally get a decent Ranger class!


----------



## BookBarbarian (Mar 14, 2016)

As a long Time LoTR fan and new D&Der I find this very interesting. All I knew about The One Ring was from reading a few posts here. What I've seen intrigues me.


----------



## Pseudonym (Mar 14, 2016)

I am cautiously optimistic and a bit intrigued, but I don't know if it will come out feeling like Tolkien in the end. The One Ring is great and the system fits the world. I don't think 5E D&D can do that and remain recognizably D&D. I'll most likely buy it anyway, but I hope the effort towards this doesn't cause a stoppage in TOR or Cubicle 7's other properties. Looking at you, Yggdrasil.


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Mar 14, 2016)

TerraDave said:


> I have high hopes that the 5E OGL will really start to open up the game...and this would seem to qualify! Very excited for this.





			
				Cubical 7 said:
			
		

> a Dungeons & Dragons® compatible roleplaying series





			
				OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a said:
			
		

> You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark.



What I think is interesting is that this doesn't appear to be an OGL game, but rather done with a direct license from WotC.  Which I think is still good sign that WotC is willing to be more open in general.


----------



## ShadoWWW (Mar 14, 2016)

It is my dream come true - mix of _D&D 5e_ and _The One Ring_ (Middle Earth)!


----------



## Morrus (Mar 14, 2016)

RedShirtNo5.1 said:


> What I think is interesting is that this doesn't appear to be an OGL game, but rather done with a direct license from WotC.  Which I think is still good sign that WotC is willing to be more open in general.




Yeah, I noticed that. Interesting.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2016)

It occurs to me that the over the top aspects of the Hobbit film trilogy actually track pretty well with D&D 5E (regardless of whether those films were a good adaptation or not). I wonder if perhaps rather than producing a 5E version of The One Ring they are looking to create a game that is tonally different -- more fun and adventurous, leaning on a lot of the lore but turning it up to 11 just like Jackson did.


----------



## gweinel (Mar 14, 2016)

ShadoWWW said:


> It is my dream come true - mix of _D&D 5e_ and _The One Ring_ (Middle Earth)!




The same goes for me! 
I would love to see in dnd terms rules for corruption. hope points, full fleshed travel rules, wide span of downtime and ofc as [MENTION=808]CrusaderX[/MENTION] said a decent Ranger. 

Also to note that  Francesco Nepitello is behind the game. I consider this great news since he is the one behind the rules of The One Ring.

All i can say amazing news!


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 14, 2016)

ShadoWWW said:


> It is my dream come true - mix of _D&D 5e_ and _The One Ring_ (Middle Earth)!




My dream is The One Ring exactly as it is, but with 5% of the D&D player base. Which would be about 4 orders of magnitude growth.

So my hope is that this product line gets D&D players interested and excited about Middle Earth, and from there maybe they'll try TOR.  And maybe just bring more Tolkien fans into RPGing, some of whom will then discover TOR.


----------



## fjw70 (Mar 14, 2016)

RedShirtNo5.1 said:


> What I think is interesting is that this doesn't appear to be an OGL game, but rather done with a direct license from WotC.  Which I think is still good sign that WotC is willing to be more open in general.




I didn't noticed that.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 14, 2016)

So what aspects of D&D do people feel would not fit well with Middle Earth, besides overt, flashy magic? For me it would be any kind of multi-classing, especially using the D&D classes.


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Mar 14, 2016)

TwoSix said:


> "You will have my sword..."
> "you will have my bow..."
> "and my _eldritch blast_."




I just cringed and shuddered.  I absolutely love The One Ring RPG and huge fan of 5E but this makes me so nervous.  I will trust C7 on this and see how this turns out.  They have the best Journey/Traveling system and hopefully we get a real Ranger (no spells!).


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Mar 15, 2016)

AriochQ said:


> You want to play a hobbit? OK, but you don't get to leave your starting village.  Everyone knows hobbits don't like to travel.




Unless you're a Took, have a smidgen of Took ancestry, or are friend of a Took who drags you into an adventure. Or a young lad or lass, from any family, who happens to be inspired by a passing firecracker salesman. 

...or unless you're a Outsider tramp-hobbit from the West of the World:

_"The Shire-hobbits referred to those of Bree, and to any others that  lived beyond the borders, as Outsiders, and took very little interest in  them, considering them dull and uncouth. There were probably* many more  Outsiders scattered about in the West of the World in those days *than  the people of the Shire imagined. *Some, doubtless, were no better than  tramps, ready to dig a hole in any bank and stay only as long as it  suited them.*_*"
*


> You want to play a wizard?  OK, as soon as one of the current 5 wizards in the world dies off (assuming they don't come back a different color of course)




The Five Wizards were only those who landed in the Grey Havens in the North-western continent of the Old World (i.e. Europe). Others of their Order presumably sailed to other continents. 

"_*Of this Order the number is unknown*; but of _*those that came to the North of Middle-earth*_, where there was most hope (because of the remnant of the Dúnedain and of the Eldar that abode there), _*the chiefs were five*_._"

That statement could even imply there are more than Five Wizards even in the North of Middle-earth, since the Five are only the "chiefs" of those that came to the North. I think this one statement could allow wiggle-room for mannish apprentices of the Order of Istari.

In the esoteric tradition of Tolkien's day (e.g. Owen Barfield's  Anthroposophy), there are said to be twelve Bodhisattvas, of whom five  are enfleshed at any one time.

The _Roverandom _story is set in the same legendarium as Middle-earth (though in modern times), and there is a wizard name Artaxerxes (from Persia), and a sand-sorcerer named Psamathos Psamathides. Though these are not Istari._

"[The] "Order of Wizards" was *quite distinct from "wizards" and "magicians"  of later legend*; they belonged solely to the Third Age and then  departed [...]" (UT)

_JRRT says the Blue Wizards of the East probably founded magic traditions:_

 "I suspect they were founders or beginners of secret cults and 'magic' traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron."_

One could play a mannish Magician in the Third Age, no problem. (This is not a prompt for the usual "Are/is there magicians/magic in Middle-earth?" flamewar.)


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 15, 2016)

I think, creatively and academically, it's a bad fit... but it's also likely to sell like hotcakes on a sunday morning in winter, unless it smells as bad as a dog owner's lawn in the thaw of spring...

See, Tolkien's a bad fit for D&D in general, and 5e pretty specifically, so unless it's an alternate core class set, it's going to be about like MERP was - great fluff, and totally unrelated game mechanics which don't support the setting nor the specific fluff.

And it isn't going to be easy to do straight ports... the power growth in 5E is majorly exponential, while it tapers off quite handlily in TOR...


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Mar 15, 2016)

YES!!! As long as its 5e consider me interested.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Mar 15, 2016)

double post


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Mar 15, 2016)

I'm looking forward to this. Cubicle 7 does a pretty good job. And I'm glad it'll be rendered in D&D rules - I don't relish learning new systems.

Still, it could be even better. C7's conception of Middle-earth doesn't include many of the insights that can be gleaned from a close reading of JRRT texts. For example, here's a list of Hobbit Traits that come straight from the text:

https://sites.google.com/site/thereandbackadventure/hobbit-traits

Here are the "language flavors" and "language families" which, I am confident, align with the 900 AD-era ethnology which JRRT implies:
https://sites.google.com/site/endorenya/language-flavors
https://sites.google.com/site/endorenya/language-families

And here is a hodgepodge of other secrets:

https://sites.google.com/site/endorenya/secrets-of-middle-earth

C7, shoot me an email if you want another cook (consultant) in the kitchen. ;-)


----------



## JoeCrow (Mar 15, 2016)

Now this has serious potential for my crew. We ran through The Marsh Bell a couple of years ago, and what made most of my players bounce off the One Ring system was the combat system. Too far from their gaming preferences, really; so if I can run TOR with a combat system they're more comfortable with, I'll be all kinds of down with this.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 15, 2016)

aramis erak said:


> See, Tolkien's a bad fit for D&D in general, and 5e pretty specifically,




I agree that Middle Earth is a bad fit for D&D in general for all the obvious reasons.  But I'm curious why you say "5e pretty specifically".  How is 5e a worse fit than, say, 4e?


----------



## Rune (Mar 15, 2016)

I think it'll (potentially) be great (love TOR), but it'll definitely need distinct classes, possibly a lower level-cap, subtle magic (and healing) and NO Raise Dead or Ressurection. Death is a big deal in Middle Earth.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2016)

Rune said:


> I think it'll (potentially) be great (love TOR), but it'll definitely need distinct classes, possibly a lower level-cap, subtle magic (and healing) and NO Raise Dead or Ressurection. Death is a big deal in Middle Earth.




Unless you're Gandalf, obviously


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 15, 2016)

Excellent news


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 15, 2016)

I must admit when I saw this I wasn't aware of the "one ring" system and instead I thought it was the one published by Decipher (using the CODA system, *not* the card game).  The fluff, art etc in the book was excellent, as was the production value.

However, when I started playing with the system in my mind, it fell appart.   I never ended up using the book at all 

So I'm rather intrigued by this!


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 15, 2016)

Ancalagon said:


> I must admit when I saw this I wasn't aware of the "one ring" system and instead I thought it was the one published by Decipher (using the CODA system, *not* the card game).  The fluff, art etc in the book was excellent, as was the production value.
> 
> However, when I started playing with the system in my mind, it fell appart.   I never ended up using the book at all
> 
> So I'm rather intrigued by this!




The One Ring has been my favorite RPG for the last few years.  It's a thing of beauty...not just the mechanics but the writing and the art and the overall presentation.  More than any game system I've seen...even Pendragon...the mechanics truly reflect the uniqueness of the source text.  

Which makes me really curious how they're going to do it with 5e rules.  But I have a lot of faith in Andrew and Jon and Francesco.


----------



## pming (Mar 15, 2016)

Hiya!

 To all those poo-poo'ing and claiming "D&D isn't a good fit for Middle Earth"...I believe you are all failing to see something that I find obvious: _You_, the person who has read all the books four times, watched the movies 19 times, and written your own notes and study pages about all the ages, the characters, who did what to whom and when, what effect that had on the trade routes between those living around Bree, and all that other stuff?...you _are not the target audience._

The VAST majority of people who will be interested in picking up a "D&D Middle Earth" book are going to be those moms and dads who watched the movies with their kids...and had their kids pretending to be hobbits for the entire summer (even going so far as to refuse wearing shoes). The people who may have read one of the books, or all of them, back when they 'were in high school'. The people who watched part of the _Return of the King_ because it happened to be on TV that one night they were over at a friends place and they thought "it looked like a neat movie". _Those_ are the people it's going to target.

Oh, and the Roleplayer who has seen the movies, but not read the books (...raises hand...reading the books is one of those things I always planned on 'getting around to doing', but still haven't). Those are who it's going to be focusing on.

Me? I know what was in the movies, as well as a few other tid bits of info I have picked up here and there from reading various LotR RPG supplements, games (MERP, LotR RPG, etc), and just hearing others talk about it. I had, for example, know idea there were "colors of wizard-magic" in LotR. I also didn't know there may only be five "wizards" in/around where the books take place. No clue at all. Hobbits? Er...yeah, I know they like the Shire and hanging out there, smoking pipeweed, drinking and tending their gardens. I didn't know there even _were_ hobbits elsewhere in ME...are there? 

Anyway...I'm looking forward to it!  The key thing I think they need to keep "toned down" however, is HP inflation. When major heroes can get felled, or seriously wounded from a light scratch or two, then a sword to the gut...well, having 65hps and being told you take 2, 3, and 11 points is....well, not "grievous" in any way. They need to keep the "danger" factor HIGH, at ALL TIMES. A complete re-work of HP's wouldn't be out of the question.

In Short: Uber-Fans...prepare to be disappointed. Fans...prepare to be delighted. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2016)

I reckon, too, it will be lighter on ME purity (we've got TOR which is utter JRR Tolkien book awesomeness) and higher on the D&D-ism. I'm fine with that, if I want to play ME with all the ME knowledge I have (all the books) I can get the magnificent, best ever RPG to fit it's licence TOR. But if I want to do a bit more crazy, lighter on the lore (maybe more like the movies - which I also love*) D&D in ME, hopefully this will scratch the itch with my current fave fantasy RPG ruleset.

It's a win win IMO.

*LotR  movies, not Hobbit abominations - blech


----------



## SirGalrim (Mar 15, 2016)

This was the most surprising gaming news I have seen a long long time. I had to double check that it as still March.  And at first I just thought that some mistake had made this years April's Fools news be posted way early. But then it turned out to be true...

This may be a great success for Cubicle 7 and I am happy for this little company that produces excellent quality games. But I am quite sceptical on behalf on the two games.  While I enjoy both TOR and D&D 5e, they have quite different feel, themes and play flow to them. I play both regularly but it's quite different games. While I think TOR is a shining example of what an RPG can be. D&D 5e is a more general system and has more flexibility for play style. It is perhaps the best iteration of D&D. But still has many limitations when trying to fit it with non general fantasy settings. As was proven in the d20 era adapting D&D to other settings has its limitations. There can be good adoptions when the setting isn't to far way from FR/Greyhawk etc. But they only managed to budge the system so far. Most of the time the system didn't support the story/setting. I think the same is very much true for 5e. I agree as many have said other places that if there are someone who can get it right it is C7. But I am still sceptical to that even they can get it right _enough_. I speculate that D&D ME will be "setting-light system" compared to TOR. A game for all those people who like ME but who don't know so much more about it than that they've watched the movies and/or read The Hobbit and LotR once or twice years ago. For them it can be a good taste of gaming in ME, and if they want a more "authentic" experience they can come over to TOR. ;-)


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 15, 2016)

Eh. As a long time player of Lord of the Rings Online, I live with Loremasters who are pretty close to D&D MUs (they can cause earthquakes and throw fire) and then Rune-Keepers, who are basically Sith, shooting lightning around.

Then you have Champions which are close to being Clerics (or maybe like Warlords, they heal by shouting) and Minstrels who do all sorts of magic stuff with magic music.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 15, 2016)

BrockBallingdark said:


> I just cringed and shuddered.  I absolutely love The One Ring RPG and huge fan of 5E but this makes me so nervous.  I will trust C7 on this and see how this turns out.



My reaction is similar. I love the TOR RPG because the rules support a Tolkienesque theme and stories so well. 5e? Not so much. It should be good for Cubicle7, though, since I expect this to be quite popular among D&D players. If it helps to fund the further development of TOR, it might actually be a great thing.


----------



## Consona (Mar 15, 2016)

Feels weird and more like an economic strategy than anything else (I can understand that, they are a company after all), but yeah, TOR feels so Tolkienesque, 5e does not.


----------



## fritsk (Mar 15, 2016)

I am curious to see how this will pan out.
I have a lot of 'The One Ring' so they would to make a good effort at selling this to me.
Does it cover the same ground as the One Ring?
Does it cover new ground/fluff? If so, how rules light will the books be so I'd be tempted to buy them for the fluff alone?
Systemless books for use with both D&D and The One Ring?


----------



## fritsk (Mar 15, 2016)

I am curious to see how this will pan out.
I have a lot of 'The One Ring' so they would to make a good effort at selling this to me.
Does it cover the same ground as the One Ring?
Does it cover new ground/fluff? If so, how rules light will the books be so I'd be tempted to buy them for the fluff alone?
Systemless books for use with both D&D and The One Ring?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 15, 2016)

fjw70 said:


> I didn't noticed that.



I did.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 15, 2016)

RedShirtNo5.1 said:


> What I think is interesting is that this doesn't appear to be an OGL game, but rather done with a direct license from WotC.  Which I think is still good sign that WotC is willing to be more open in general.




That would be a very smart move by WotC...

...even now, I am still trying to get use to the company that makes D&D actually making one good decision after another. Its somewhat unprecedented.


----------



## Wulfang (Mar 15, 2016)

My problem with D&D in Middle Earth is that D&D's high magic system and Hit Point inflation doesn't translate well to Middle Earth. It will feel completely out of place.

The whole ideology behind 'Hit Points' needs to be re-worked. Afterall, a high level D&D character can survive 20 sword cuts and a 100 foot fall. That doesn't sound like LOTR to me. Magic as well is problematic, you don't see Gandalf going around launching fireballs.

I should be excited, but over the years, I've come to leave D&D in Forgotten Realms camp, because that setting embraces D&D's mechanics rather then trying to shoe-horn them in. 

In short, I can see this working only if they re-work the mechanics from the ground up, rather then just change a few things here an there from the OGL.

That being said, I can't say that I am fond of The One Ring roleplaying game either. You should have the option of playing whatever culture you desire without having to wait 5 years for the supplement to come out. You should be able to play one of the five wizards should you so choose. Most of all though, its The One Ring's combat system that is the least attractive to me. I like theater of mind, and I also like miniatures - and The One Ring is neither.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 15, 2016)

pming said:


> _You_, the person who has read all the books four times, watched the movies 19 times,




Anybody who has watched the movies more times than they've read the books is not actually a Tolkien fan.  That's a Peter Jackson fan you're describing.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 15, 2016)

Sylvain_L said:


> That being said, I can't say that I am fond of The One Ring roleplaying game either. You should have the option of playing whatever culture you desire without having to wait 5 years for the supplement to come out. You should be able to play one of the five wizards should you so choose. Most of all though, its The One Ring's combat system that is the least attractive to me. I like theater of mind, and I also like miniatures - and The One Ring is neither.




You can BitTorrent all the MERP stuff if that's what you want.


----------



## Wulfang (Mar 15, 2016)

Elfcrusher said:


> Anybody who has watched the movies more times than they've read the books is not actually a Tolkien fan.  That's a Peter Jackson fan you're describing.




Watching the movies takes allot less time then reading the books, especially if you are a slow reader like me. So I disagree. 

Anyone that has read a book more then once is a Tolkien fan, those books are not an easy read nor a quick read by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## pming (Mar 15, 2016)

Hiya!



Elfcrusher said:


> Anybody who has watched the movies more times than they've read the books is not actually a Tolkien fan.  That's a Peter Jackson fan you're describing.




That was kind of my point. "True Tolkien Fans" are likely to be disappointed, as using the D&D system pretty much guarantees a large degree of "D&D'isms". Anyone will be able to play a wizard, for example. So a group of 5 PC's, you could have a fighter, a thief, and three wizards. They could also be a high elf, wood elf, halfling, dwarf and half-orc. Now, I'm sure that the races will get a good work out, and the classes will likely also be 'altered' to more easily fit into ME...but, if you take away levels, reduce HP's, introduce critical hits, place limits on race and classes, remove 90% of the monsters in the MM, and swtich "memorization" with "spell points"...well...the game may as well just have it's own system that does all that. ... ... er...wait...there is...I think it's called _The One Ring_. 

I think the bottom line will be, as I said..."Tolkien Fans" are going to be annoyed. "Movie Fans" are going to be rather excited. I'm in the later camp, with a couple toes into the former. I don't want to see a completely "D&D'ized" ME...but I do want to run around in Gondor, The Shire, and Mordor. I want to kill orcs and take their stuff. I want to visit all the cool locations I read about in the RPG, as well as have seen in the movies. I want to cast _lightning bolt_ multiple times a day, and I want to be able to get bashed, hacked and stabbed a dozen times by goblins before I go down for the count. Yeah...I want to play D&D in Middle Earth. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Reynard (Mar 15, 2016)

Sylvain_L said:


> The whole ideology behind 'Hit Points' needs to be re-worked. Afterall, a high level D&D character can survive 20 sword cuts and a 100 foot fall. That doesn't sound like LOTR to me.




That's not what hit points represent. hit points represent skill and endurance until that one shot that drops you. You know, like Boromir wading through orcs getting multiple arrows right to the chest until he finally goes down.



> Magic as well is problematic, you don't see Gandalf going around launching fireballs.




Except when he does exactly that at the worg riding goblins in the Hobbit. Granted, Gandalf is actually closer to a (non shapeshifting) druid than a traditional D&D wizard, but he casts plenty of high powered spells when the need arises. Re-read the battle at the bridge for another example.

Because Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are so beloved by fans, those same fans tend to create their own version of the books and Middle Earth in general in their heads that don't really match the text. unlike movie or TV fandom which has concrete visualizations to go by, prose demands you construct the novel in your mind's eye and so it becomes very personal. But arguing that the parts of ME PC types are going to engage with is low magic is sort of missing the point: in the late third age, most of the world has a low magic feel but it is still a world filled with wraiths and giant spiders and intelligent evil wolves and trolls and dark powers and aloof elves. It even talks about human sorcerers and conjurers. One of the main features of both the Hobbit and LotR was characters realizing just how magical their world really was.


----------



## inkhorn (Mar 15, 2016)

I like how they have not even released it yet and people are already whining about the magic system and how Gandalf is stated up.  Good thing they gave me fair warning.  I have to save up for this purchase.


----------



## Xavian Starsider (Mar 15, 2016)

inkhorn said:


> I like how they have not even released it yet and people are already whining about the magic system and how Gandalf is stated up.  Good thing they gave me fair warning.  I have to save up for this purchase.




That didn't start with the one ring. D&D fans have been arguing over Gandalf's stats as long as there's been a forum to argue them in.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 15, 2016)

Sylvain_L said:


> Anyone that has read a book more then once is a Tolkien fan, those books are not an easy read nor a quick read by any stretch of the imagination.




I'm currently reading Lord of the Rings for the 28th time; what does that make me?


----------



## Wulfang (Mar 15, 2016)

innerdude said:


> I'm currently reading Lord of the Rings for the 28th time; what does that make me?




Unemployed? Retired?

lol


----------



## innerdude (Mar 15, 2016)

Sylvain_L said:


> Unemployed? Retired?
> 
> lol




Neither, thank goodness. LOL

Well, "thank goodness" for not being unemployed. If I could retire at my current age, though . . . man, wouldn't that be nice?


----------



## Wulfang (Mar 15, 2016)

innerdude said:


> Neither, thank goodness. LOL




I was just kidding, I can't imagine reading or watching anything 28 times. Yes, you are a true fan.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 15, 2016)

pming said:


> That was kind of my point. "True Tolkien Fans" are likely to be disappointed, as using the D&D system pretty much guarantees a large degree of "D&D'isms". Anyone will be able to play a wizard, for example. So a group of 5 PC's, you could have a fighter, a thief, and three wizards. They could also be a high elf, wood elf, halfling, dwarf and half-orc. Now, I'm sure that the races will get a good work out, and the classes will likely also be 'altered' to more easily fit into ME...but, if you take away levels, reduce HP's, introduce critical hits, place limits on race and classes, remove 90% of the monsters in the MM, and swtich "memorization" with "spell points"...well...the game may as well just have it's own system that does all that. ... ... er...wait...there is...I think it's called _The One Ring_.
> 
> I think the bottom line will be, as I said..."Tolkien Fans" are going to be annoyed. "Movie Fans" are going to be rather excited. I'm in the later camp, with a couple toes into the former. I don't want to see a completely "D&D'ized" ME...but I do want to run around in Gondor, The Shire, and Mordor. I want to kill orcs and take their stuff. I want to visit all the cool locations I read about in the RPG, as well as have seen in the movies. I want to cast _lightning bolt_ multiple times a day, and I want to be able to get bashed, hacked and stabbed a dozen times by goblins before I go down for the count. Yeah...I want to play D&D in Middle Earth.




I'm as big a Tolkien fan as you'll find, and I have no problem with the conversion of Middle-Earth to D&D 5e. The more nice things everyone has, the more fun we all get to have.

The problem I have is, if you've already invested in The One Ring line, this is kind of a slap in the face. "Yeah, all your loyalty to our original product line? Yeah, sorry, we've got a business to run, so we're jumping on the new hotness of 5e 'cause we can actually make money on it." 

Fine, I have no problem with that. Other than it means that if you LIKED The One Ring, you're basically getting pre-empted. 

You think the D&D 5e release cycle is slow? You think 5e is lacking in "official support?" Well my friends, you haven't been waiting around for FIVE FREAKING YEARS just to get a playable version of the Gondor culture. 

Folks, understand: not having a Gondor culture in the One Ring is the equivalent of 5e being published without a ranger class, and five years later Wizards saying, "Yeah, we know people want rangers, we're getting around to it, eventually." 

My disgruntlement isn't with the conversion, it's that _they never even finished the system they already have._ Since pretty much Day 1 of the One Ring people have been asking for Noldor and Gondor as a playable "culture" (which is basically The One Ring's version of a "class"; it's basically a race + class melded into a single identity).

For comparison, The One Ring first hit shelves in October 2011. It's been 4.5, going on 5 years now. Good grief, in 4.5 years, how much stuff did Wizards put out for D&D 4e? Shoot, in four and a half years, they'd released the entire system PLUS an entire ".5" revision with Essentials.

It took Cubicle 7 four years to give us Noldor and Dunedain cultures in the Rivendell expansion. They STILL haven't given us a Gondor culture, and are just BARELY getting around to Rohan five years post-release. 

If they'd just stopped farting around and given us Dunedain, Noldor, Gondor, and Rohan say, a year post-release, I'd have gone on my merry way and wished Cubicle 7 all the success in the world. I'm sure the two "plot point" campaigns they released were really groovy, and sure, the Laketown supplement and GM screen were nice. But in my mind, the lack of Gondor and Rohan as playable cultures continues to be a giant gaping hole in the system. Frankly, I haven't pushed my group to play The One Ring more because it's such an obvious, glaring absence. Why would I push my players to try out this system, when they can't even currently play as two of the most iconic archetypes of the entire Lord of the Rings fiction?

Imrahil, Faramir, Dol Amroth, Minas Tirith, Osgiliath, Ithilien, The Stone of Erech . . . . These are some of the most critical players and locations in the Lord of the Rings fiction . . . . aaaaand they're basically unplayable in The One Ring as currently constituted.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 15, 2016)

innerdude said:


> Well my friends, you haven't been waiting around for FIVE FREAKING YEARS just to get a playable version of the Gondor culture.
> (snip)
> Imrahil, Faramir, Dol Amroth, Minas Tirith, Osgiliath, Ithilien, The Stone of Erech . . . . These are some of the most critical players and locations in the Lord of the Rings fiction . . . . aaaaand they're basically unplayable in The One Ring as currently constituted.




This comes off as very entitled. From the official website for The One Ring:



> Middle-earth is a huge place, stretching thousands of miles from the Lonely Mountain in the north to Far Harad in the south, and beyond. It’s an ancient land too, with a richly detailed history going back thousands of years to the dawn of the First Age.
> 
> But The One Ring Roleplaying Game is set in a very particular place, in a very specific time: Wilderland, 5 years after the Battle of Five Armies. Wilderland is at once familiar to fans of the novels, as it's the region both Thorin’s Company and the Fellowship (once broken) traverse on their journeys.
> 
> This land is filled with instantly recognisable locations from the novels: Mirkwood, Thranduil’s Halls, Lake-town, Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, Dol Guldur. All are locations ripe for exploration and adventure. Its also home to some of the best-loved characters from the novels too, from Radagast the Brown and the Elvenking Thranduil to King Bard of Dale and King Dáin of Erebor.




So whether the larger part of Middle Earth is "unplayable" without Gondor, the fact is that The One Ring was never intended to be a complete Middle Earth rpg.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 15, 2016)

Yeah, there have been a few people like that hanging around the Cubicle 7 forums for a while.  Very entitled, very personally offended that C7 doesn't crank out splatbooks fast enough for them.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 15, 2016)

innerdude said:


> The problem I have is, if you've already invested in The One Ring line, this is kind of a slap in the face. "Yeah, all your loyalty to our original product line? Yeah, sorry, we've got a business to run, so we're jumping on the new hotness of 5e 'cause we can actually make money on it."




This from the C7 website yesterday: "But we are absolutely not joking, or spinning you a line, when we say The One Ring Roleplaying Game will continue as an independent, fully supported line. You guys are at the heart of what we do. True story. And heck, I didn't shed this much blood sweat and tears to then throw The One Ring away, and I know the rest of the team feel the same, from the bottom to the top. We have some good stuff for you this week."

So maybe do your research before jumping to conclusions and spewing bitterness and nerdrage around the internet?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 15, 2016)

Elfcrusher said:


> This from the C7 website yesterday: "But we are absolutely not joking, or spinning you a line, when we say The One Ring Roleplaying Game will continue as an independent, fully supported line. You guys are at the heart of what we do. True story. And heck, I didn't shed this much blood sweat and tears to then throw The One Ring away, and I know the rest of the team feel the same, from the bottom to the top. We have some good stuff for you this week."




Blood?!?! I hope not!


----------



## Reynard (Mar 15, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Blood?!?! I hope not!




Paper cuts, man, paper cuts.


----------



## Rune (Mar 15, 2016)

Elfcrusher said:


> This from the C7 website yesterday: "But we are absolutely not joking, or spinning you a line, when we say The One Ring Roleplaying Game will continue as an independent, fully supported line. You guys are at the heart of what we do. True story. And heck, I didn't shed this much blood sweat and tears to then throw The One Ring away, and I know the rest of the team feel the same, from the bottom to the top. We have some good stuff for you this week."






Morrus said:


> Blood?!?! I hope not!






Reynard said:


> Paper cuts, man, paper cuts.




They could probably cut down on the sweat if they just get that AC fixed.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 15, 2016)

Elfcrusher said:


> This from the C7 website yesterday: "But we are absolutely not joking, or spinning you a line, when we say The One Ring Roleplaying Game will continue as an independent, fully supported line. You guys are at the heart of what we do. True story. And heck, I didn't shed this much blood sweat and tears to then throw The One Ring away, and I know the rest of the team feel the same, from the bottom to the top. We have some good stuff for you this week."
> 
> So maybe do your research before jumping to conclusions and spewing bitterness and nerdrage around the internet?






Reynard said:


> This comes off as very entitled. From the official website for The One Ring:
> 
> Middle-earth is a huge place, stretching thousands of miles from the Lonely Mountain in the north to Far Harad in the south, and beyond. It’s an ancient land too, with a richly detailed history going back thousands of years to the dawn of the First Age.
> 
> ...




First of all, perhaps my comments came off more inflammatory in writing than in actuality. Yes, I find it annoying, but in terms of generating actual "nerd rage," this is maybe a 2 on a scale of 10. Cubicle 7 has chosen not to produce the kind of product I want; I've chosen not to purchase much of what they have produced. **shrugs** Seems like a pretty straightforward consequence of product supply / consumer demand. 

It is ironic, though, that griping about the 5e release schedule seems to be a generally accepted thing around here, but leveling the same criticism at another company is somehow taboo. To say nothing about how we hear the mantra constantly on these forums, "Play what you like! It's okay to have your own preferences! No one has to tell you you're having badwrongfun!" 

But as soon as I talk about my dissatisfaction with the current One Ring product line, because I have personal preferences of what I enjoy in the Lord of the Rings fiction, somehow I'm now a bitter nerd-rager?

To give some context: Faramir is BY FAR my favorite character in the Lord of the Rings fiction. (Peter Jackson's deplorable treatment of Faramir in the movies is worthy of much more nerd rage than Cubicle 7, but that's another debate entirely. ) The entire backstory of Gondor, Numenor, Isildur and Anarion, the North and South Kingdoms of the Men of the West, etc., are by far my favorite parts of the Lord of the Rings lore, closely followed by the history of the Silmarils. I don't currently have any tattoos, but if I ever got one, it would be of exactly one thing --- the White Tree of Gondor.

So yeah, I'm partial to Gondor. And @_*Reynard*_ might be right; The One Ring isn't "made" just for me. They made a design decision to stick to one particular time period and locales for the system. And because of those choices, I have been unwilling to promote the system more, because that's not the Lord of the Rings RPG play experience I want. To me, The One Ring is missing what I consider to be some crucial, nay, vital pieces.

Why the need to jump to Cubicle 7's defense? Do you work for them, or have some business interest? They made a choice to focus on what I see as particularly uninteresting aspects of Middle-Earth's Third Age. I'm not denigrating anyone who prefers what they've already produced; I'm simply saying I will be dissatisfied as a customer until I see support for Gondor characters. And this is somehow . . . offensive?

As far as what Cubicle 7 posted on their web site, it's a lovely sentiment. Truly, I'm sure they mean it from the bottom of their hearts, and I'm sure they feel it when they say it. But the harsh reality of business is that there is going to be an opportunity cost to produce a D&D 5e "setting" or "imagining" of the Lord of the Rings for them. The fact that their release schedule for the product line has already been brutally slow isn't going to suddenly change by them taking on a new project of significant scope. My best hope is that they'll get a massive influx of cash from their D&D 5e efforts, and maybe sometime in 2018 I'll finally get my Gondorians.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 15, 2016)

innerdude said:


> I'm simply saying I will be dissatisfied as a customer until I see support for Gondor characters. And this is somehow . . . offensive?




I think if you look back at what you wrote it does not come off as merely an expression of preference but a castigation of the game for not being something it wasn't intended to be in the first place. What's more, you initial post strongly suggests C7 is betraying its customers and  slapping them in the face. I really wasn't white knighting Cubicle 7 so much as I was pointing out what I thought was an unnecessarily negative reaction. if that is not what you intended, I apologize.

Now, i am happy for C7's take on a 5E ME game for a very simple, practical reason: if it says D&D on the tin, no matter how much or little it is like vanilla D&D, I can actually get people to play a ME game. Most people I encounter who want to play fantasy want to play D&D. it is a sad truth.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 15, 2016)

No, I quite understand; my initial reply was very much coming from a well of cynicism. Truly, I don't think about it much unless I'm downstairs looking at my (sadly miniscule) RPG book shelf and see my original One Ring set and Rivendell guide and think, "Sigh, when am I gonna actually get to play this?" Again, the easiest comparison would be, what if Wizards of the Coast excluded rangers, paladins, sorcerers, and druids from the initial 5e Players Handbook, then waited 5 years to release the Player's Handbook 2 that actually included them. How much angst has the absence of a 5e warlord caused, a class that appeared in exactly one edition of D&D in history?

On a certain level it almost feels like Cubicle 7 is kind of being stubborn about it, like they're rebelling. Sort of like refusing to see that popular summer movie just because everyone and their mother is telling you that you should.  LOL 

Another irony about @_*Elfcrusher*_'s comment---"There's people all over the Cubicle 7 forums saying the same things, wanting more stuff. Gosh, why don't they just give it up already?" 

Umm . . . and this is somehow _bad_ for Cubicle 7? That people are _asking_ for more product? If a lot of people are asking for Noldor, Gondor, Rohan, etc., why not just give it to them?

It's like what Malcolm Gladwell said about spaghetti sauce. If all you want is straight "meat primavera" Lord of the Rings, go ahead and serve those customers. But why stop yourself from also serving customers that want mushroom and vegetable sauce Lord of the Rings, garlic herb Lord of the Rings, or sun-dried tomato and basil Lord of the Rings?

More than anything my response was motivated because I just don't get it. What possible business justification could they have over a period of 5 years to not add those cultures to the One Ring product line?

Jumping to 5e to make more money? That I TOTALLY understand.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 15, 2016)

innerdude said:


> It's like what Malcolm Gladwell said about spaghetti sauce. If all you want is straight "meat primavera" Lord of the Rings, go ahead and serve those customers. But why stop yourself from also serving customers that want mushroom and vegetable sauce Lord of the Rings, garlic herb Lord of the Rings, or sun-dried tomato and basil Lord of the Rings?




Not only do all of those thing take extra effort (and C7 is a small studio) but there is the artist's preferences and interests. maybe the guys being TOR don't give a flip about Gondor. That is what I meant by "entitled": customers get to choose whether or not to support what an artist makes, not demand what tey should make. Only (true) patrons can do that and being a patron is expensive.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 15, 2016)

Reynard said:


> Not only do all of those thing take extra effort (and C7 is a small studio) but there is the artist's preferences and interests. maybe the guys being TOR don't give a flip about Gondor.




Hmpf. Those ignorant Men of the Northlands have never appreciated how much the Might of Gondor has kept the Enemy at bay.


----------



## Delazar (Mar 15, 2016)

I'm surely going to buy this! I just hope that the "geographical" focus will be someplace different than what is already published for TOR. I've got all the TOR books, but I bought them mostly for the lore, so I'd prefer if the DnD version gave me new lore.

Also hoping this will open the way for other settings... Would love to have a Malazan Book of the Fallen setting for 5e!


----------



## CM (Mar 15, 2016)

Maybe now we'll get a proper warlord class to steal for everyday use. Looking forward to the adaptation, regardless.


----------



## Wulfang (Mar 15, 2016)

Elfcrusher said:


> Yeah, there have been a few people like that hanging around the Cubicle 7 forums for a while.  Very entitled, very personally offended that C7 doesn't crank out splatbooks fast enough for them.




Not that I am defending these 'entitled' LOTR fans. I don't post in these forums, and I'm sure the people you speak of have been quite vocal in often un-productive ways.


But in this case, asking for a product that supports the whole of Middle Earth rather then the narrow vision/approach of the designer isn't exactly a far-fetched request. In fact its the sort of thing you'd expect an organization to ask their fans about prior to releasing a product.

And that's just the thing with The One Ring. Its a great product in its own right, the reviews and ratings out there is testament to that. but it has a very niche target. In fact, from reading posts, its my understanding that the designer never really intended for The One Ring to go as far as they are going, but customer feedback has lead them that direction. 


I just don't feel complaining that a product doesn't support the areas and characters you want to cover is something 'entitled'. That's very important feedback in fact. Something Cubicle 7 should pay close attention to when the take a stab at the 'D&D' version.


----------



## Matchstick (Mar 15, 2016)

Maybe I'm weird, but my first thought when I read about this was how much it would benefit TOR.  I think this will be a great way for Cubicle 7 to increase their resources as a company, and then put some of those resources into developing Middle Earth, in both rulesets.  I honestly think that if this comes out and sells well the release date of the next TOR books will move up, not back.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Mar 15, 2016)

CM said:


> Maybe now we'll get a proper warlord class to steal for everyday use.



Agreed! And with that new warlord class, I expect to see most of the iconic character write-ups having at least some multiclassing into it...

What?!?


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Mar 15, 2016)

<Double post>

Is it me, or is this happening a lot around here? Feels like I'm seeing more of these than usual from others lately.


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Mar 15, 2016)

Well I'm not a Forgotten Realms fan at all and was going to just sit pretty until Eberron was released some day for 5E... looks like Middle Earth will be my 5E setting, just want to see how its handled so it feels like Middle Earth. 

I agree with others, if this goes well for C7, it will be awesome and will help the TOR line as well.  I want this to rock our world!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2016)

As long as C7 get some 5Experts in to help with the mechanics I can't see thus being anything but good for the TOR line as well. TOR is obviously a work of love, and with more money the release schedule may well increase not slow down. Money = staff = product?

I hope so! I'll be continuing my TOR colection and jumping on board with this for sure.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Mar 16, 2016)

I will buy this for sure, and if there are good rules for converting existing TOR material to 5e I could see myself buy a lot of TOR products. And I've never even played it!

There are some of us that have only played D&D and no other TTRPGs. Some of us who have only played 5e. You'll see us pop up from time to time asking how to set a campaign in Middle Earth or Westeros or Thedas. Or how to build classes, subclasses, or characters based on things we've seen form fantasy books, movies, and video games. 

We're often told "That's a bad fit for D&D" or a "bad fit for 5e" or "There's already an RPG for that. Go buy that". But some of us had to introduce our friends to D&D or to just 5e and that introduction took a lot of effort and growing pains. And getting our group to buy into new rules and new mechanics is a seemingly insurmountable challenge. 

So we try to adapt our beloved classics to the rules we've already bought and are familiar with. This product is for us. I hope to see more like it.


----------



## zedturtle (Mar 16, 2016)

BookBarbarian said:


> I will buy this for sure, and if there are good rules for converting existing TOR material to 5e I could see myself buy a lot of TOR products. And I've never even played it!
> 
> There are some of us that have only played D&D and no other TTRPGs. Some of us who have only played 5e. You'll see us pop up from time to time asking how to set a campaign in Middle Earth or Westeros or Thedas. Or how to build classes, subclasses, or characters based on things we've seen form fantasy books, movies, and video games.
> 
> ...




That's an excellent point, well made. Mind if I copy it over to the C7 forum?


----------



## Ampolitor (Mar 16, 2016)

Rhineglade said:


> I think the idea behind this is cool but something about Middle Earth just never translated well to RPG in my opinion.  This was the problem with the MERP and Rolemaster versions.  For one thing, the story line is so well established it is not easy to bend the canon.  Furthermore, the use of magic was always poorly defined.  Even Gandalf the Wizard used magic very sparingly and never showy.  To me, the magic is the whole point of a fantasy game world and to limit it seems to be missing out on a large element.  Of course there are folks that enjoy very low magic worlds.  I just happen to NOT be one of them.  Finally, what would be the monster population? Previous game versions of LotR limited themselves to only what was found in the books.  This basically meant orcs.  Period.  Of course there were also the occasional dragon, troll, spider, giant eagle, worg, ent, etc. but by and large these were few and far between.  Coming across orcs over and over again gets redundant after a while.




Have you even played the one ring? This is a GREAT game, and there is plenty to do, it is far from repetitive. It has become one of my favorite setting, nobody has ever done middle earth as good as cubicle 7 has.


----------



## Mike D (Mar 16, 2016)

This is going to be awesome. I'm a huge fan of TOR; yes, the releases are slow, but they are excellent when they do come out. As 5E and TOR are the only two games I play right now, this will be perfect for me.

I believe the conversion will be fine. I took the Scales of War adventures in 4E and converted them to a 4th age Middle-earth setting, and did so without too much difficulty. And because I did not want to limit my players in any way, I did not exclude any race or class, including Warforged (leftover machines from an army Saruman was creating) and Tieflings (Easterners, trained in magic by the Blue Wizards). 

Remember, the very core of D&D was taken right out of the LOTR. They share the same DNA. For instance:

Elves come in two varieties, wood (sylvan) and high (noldor).
Dwarves are swarthy bearded folk that mine the earth.
Halflings used to be officially named Hobbits until the Tolkien estate sued.
Orcs were invented by Tolkien. 
The ranger class is entirely based on Strider.

And so on and so forth.

It will be interesting to see how they handle the magic issue, but I'm sure they will do so brilliantly. The easiest way would be to do what I did - put in the fourth age, and give magic as D&D knows it an origin story. That would also solve the canon problems that some DM's are intimidated by.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 16, 2016)

Yes, hopefully this will provide good vetted crunch for fans of low power D&D.

That is in itself enough to justify the game, even if you would never run an actual middle earth game with D&D rules!


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Mar 16, 2016)

Ampolitor said:


> Have you even played the one ring? This is a GREAT game, and there is plenty to do, it is far from repetitive. It has become one of my favorite setting, nobody has ever done middle earth as good as cubicle 7 has.



That being the case, I'd find it odd _not_ to put some faith into a company that has thus far given you nothing but confidence in their work.


----------



## SerHogan (Mar 16, 2016)

I was always surprised TSR/WOTC never licensed LOTR at some point.  Seemed like an ideal marriage.  Although, it could have overshadowed all the other D&D worlds.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 16, 2016)

For the people worrying about TOR getting less priority, this was announced today:

http://cubicle7.co.uk/the-one-ring-journeys-and-maps-coming-soon/

Also, WotC needs to do one of these for each of their worlds.


----------



## phantomK9 (Mar 16, 2016)

I find this to be very good news. I have both the Adventurer's Book and the Loremaster's Book and I love nearly everything about The One Ring. The books themselves are beautiful, the art just amazing. It really brings the world to life in the mind. If they can bring that over, it would be fantastic (not that the D&D art is bad or anything).

There are so many great specific mechanics in the TOR, especially the the Exploration rolls (or roles even). I've thought of ways to translate the exploration rules into D&D many times. Likewise I'm a big fan of how character advancement is done and how experience is earned. Even the "downtime" rules are something that I might be willing to convert over given more time. Although the DMG 1 day = short rest, 1 week = long rest optional rule could cover this easily.

The thing that has kept TOR from becoming my favorite is the core dice mechanic. It just seems too odd and wonky for me to really enjoy. I was part of the playtest for TOR and my groups largest complaint was about how weird the core mechanic was, they made some great fixes, but didn't change it enough so that my group would be willing to play the game.

Now if they convert TOR to use the 5e game mechanics, that would fix my only big complaint. Especially if they keep the things that make TOR...well TOR. I'm looking at the exploration rules of course along with journeys, but also the rules for Valor and Wisdom, and even Corruption. All really great things. If they can marry all the great story-based specific mechanics from TOR with the much improved core mechanic of D&D 5e, I have a feeling this might find its way into regular play at my table.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Mar 16, 2016)

zedturtle said:


> That's an excellent point, well made. Mind if I copy it over to the C7 forum?




Go right ahead!


----------



## CM (Mar 16, 2016)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Agreed! And with that new warlord class, I expect to see most of the iconic character write-ups having at least some multiclassing into it...
> 
> What?!?




It really does pain you to see people still might like the class, doesn't it.


----------



## Ampolitor (Mar 16, 2016)

umm when did I say otherwise, I can't wait for it,


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Mar 17, 2016)

CM said:


> It really does pain you to see people still might like the class, doesn't it.



Are you serious?


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Mar 17, 2016)

What pains me... getting more info on how this will look for 5E!


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Mar 17, 2016)

*Canonical peoples, plus close inferences based on 900AD-era ethnology (and 1897-era for Eriador)*

Peoples:

Hobbits:


Shire-hobbit [=1897-era Warwickshire geographically, but culturally all  counties of England; for example, Yorkshire in the Hills of Scary, the West Midlands and  Welsh Marches in the East Farthing and the Marish, and Warwickshire (specifically) around  Hobbiton.] 
Buckland-hobbit [=1897-era Monmouthshire, Wales] 
Bree-hobbit [=1897-era Buckinghamshire, the location of the real world "Brill/Bree-hill" and "Coombe"] 
Outsider-hobbit from the West of the World [=Remnants of other counties of 1897-era England] 
Wild-hobbit of the River Gladden [=900-era West Saxons] 
 
Elves:


High Elf (Noldo) from Lindon, from Rivendell, from Lorien, or in Aman
Grey Elf (Sinda) from Lindon, from Rivendell, from Lorien, from the Woodland Realm, or in Aman
Wood Elf (Nando Silvan Elf) from Lorien, from the Woodland Realm, from the Wandering Companies of Eriador, or in Aman. These are the native elves of Eriador and of Rhovanion (along with the Penni Avari). The Wood Elves of Dol Amroth sailed to Aman. The language (to the extent it survives) is, or was, Leikvian (East-Danian), an Old Norse-flavored Elvish. In one place JRRT says the language is no longer spoken, but in another place he says that it is the main language of Thranduil's Realm. So for diversity's sake, it might as well still exist in the Woodland Realm.
Sea Elf (Teleri/Falmari) from Alqualonde, or from Tol Eressëa
Fair Elf (Vanya) of the Blessed Realm
Green Elf (Cwenda Nando, West-Danian, Ossiriandic) of Lindon. Possibly merged with the Grey-elves of Lindon by the late Third Age. Or possibly not. Either way, there are families of that ancestry. (The Cwenda language is Old English-style Quendian.)
Penni (Avari Silvan Elf) from Lorien, or from the Woodland Realm. The Penni and Nando are both called "Silvan/Wood Elves", and they are probably merged by the late Third Age, though families would be aware of their Penni ancestry. They are native elves of Rhovanion/Wilderland, along with the Nandor. (The Penni language is Gaulish-style Quendian.)


Hill Elf (Cuind) of the West of East? (Old Irish-style Quendian) 
Windan of the the North of East? (Old English?-style Quendian) 
Twilight  Elf (Hwenti/Hisildi) of the Midmost Regions (Palisor) (Hwenti = Gothic-style Quendian; the  Hisildi of Palisor are the ones who first spoke to Ermon and Elmir, thereby imparting the quasi-Germanic phonaesthetic flavor to the first Mannish language.) 
Kindi of the South of East? (Hindi-style Quendian) 
Kinn-lai of the East of East? (Chinese-style Quendian) 
 
Dwarves:


Longbeard Dwarf of the Blue Mountains, of the Grey Mountains, of the Iron Hills, or of the Lonely Mountain (after the War of the Ring: of the Glittering Caverns) 
Firebeard Dwarf of the Blue Mountains, of the Grey Mountains, of the Iron Hills, or of the Lonely Mountain 
Broadbeam Dwarf of the Blue Mountains, of the Grey Mountains, of the Iron Hills, or of the Lonely Mountain 
Ironfist Dwarf of the East 
Stiffbeard Dwarf of the East 
Blacklock Dwarf of the East 
Stonefoot Dwarf of the East 
 (_The Hobbit_ mentions "Wicked Dwarves of the East"; so at least one of these houses is under the shadow.)

Mannish cultures are reminiscent of 900-AD, except for those of Eriador (minus the Dunedain), which are 1897-era.



Dunadan of the North [=remnants of the Arthurian, Carolingian, and Holy Roman realms] 
Bree-man [=1897-era Buckinghamshire] 
Man of the Hunter-folk of Eryn Vorn [=1897-era Cornishmen] 
Beorning of the Upper Vales [=Bernicians of Northumbria] 
Horse-lord of Rohan [=Mercians] 
Lake-man of Esgaroth [=Geats of Lake Vättern] 
Dale-man [=Svear of Dalecarlia] 
Northman from West of Dale, or from South of Dale [=Norwegians or Danes] 
Woodman of Western Mirkwood, of the Middle Vales, or of the Lower Vales [=Germans; Old Saxons in the northern town, Old Franconians in the southern town; Middle Vales =Mercian remnants + newly arrived Saxons and Franks; Lower Vales = Franks of West Francia] 
Man of Dorwinion [=Georgians, the land of wine and youth] 
Man of Gondor [=Byzantines] 
Snowman of Forochel [=Skridfinns/Saami] 
Man of the Fisher-folk of Western Enedwaith [=Cruithne of Ireland] 
Wose of Druadan Forest [=Picts of Thrace/Agathrysi] 
Pukel-man of Druwaith Iaur [=Picts of France/Aquitani] 
Dunlending [=Old Irish] 
Man of Nurn [=Armenian] 
Corsair of Umbar, or from other Havens [=Arab/Saracen of Tripoli and the other Barbary Coast kingdoms] 
Variag from Khand, or from the Wide East [=Varangian Northman] 
Man of Khand [=Khazar] 
Black Numenorean from Umbar, from Near Harad, or from Far Harad [=Copt] 
Vinith of Eastern Mirkwood, of Southern Mirkwood, of the Bight, or of  Northern Rhovanion [=Western Slav: Wend/Polabian/Lusatian, Slovene,  Czech/Moravian, or Pole] 
Near Southron [=Arab/Saracen] 
Easterling from the Horse Plain [=Hungarian/Magyar] 
Easterling from the Kine Plain [=Cuman] 
Far Southron (Troll-man, Silharrow, or Elephant-lord) [=Fur, Ethiopian, or Ghanaian] 
Man of Angmar (Kern, Gallowglass, Redshank, Hillman, or Reiver) [=Scots: Highland Gael, Norn, Pict, Cumbrian, or Lowland Scot] 
Man of the Balchoth of Southern Rhovanion [=Bulgars] 
Axe-Easterling from the Wide East [=Rus] 
Worm-Easterling from the East of East [=Chinese] 
Strange Men of the Land of Magic (New Lands, Lands of the Sun, the Burnt Lands, Easternesse) [=Indigenous Americans] 
Men of the Dark Land (Southland) [=Australian Aborigines, Melanesians, and other peoples of "Lemuria."]


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 17, 2016)

TraverseTravis said:


> High Elf from Lindon, from Rivendell, or from Lorien
> Grey Elf from Rivendell, from Lorien, from Lindon, or from the Woodland Realm
> Wood Elf from Lorien, or from the Woodland Realm
> Dark Elf (Penni) from the Woodland Realm
> ...




Let's not forget 

Sea Elf (sailors, not the kind that live underwater) from the Grey Havens

Fair Elf (also known as Vanyar) from Valinor


----------



## SilentWolf (Mar 17, 2016)

On Twitter, Mike Mearls has definitively clarified the Cubicle 7 license question: it's an OGL. 

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/710340192738017281


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 17, 2016)

Interesting


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2016)

SilentWolf said:


> On Twitter, Mike Mearls has definitively clarified the Cubicle 7 license question: it's an OGL.
> 
> https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/710340192738017281




No "D&D" on the cover, then!


----------



## JPL (Mar 17, 2016)

I feel like this needs an "Adventurer" class . . . something to cover the guys like Frodo and company who aren't really fighters, rogues, or rangers (much less wizards), but nevertheless have some combination of heart, luck, and courage which enables them to survive giant spiders, orc hordes, etc.  Actually, I'd love to use that in a regular D&D game, too . . . someone who has few or none of the tangibles we associate with heroism (extraordinary martial skill or physical attributes, or specials powers like spellcasting), but discovers that he or she has the intangible qualities --- heart, luck, courage.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 17, 2016)

phantomK9 said:


> The thing that has kept TOR from becoming my favorite is the core dice mechanic. It just seems too odd and wonky for me to really enjoy. I was part of the playtest for TOR and my groups largest complaint was about how weird the core mechanic was, they made some great fixes, but didn't change it enough so that my group would be willing to play the game.




Oh, that really surprises me.  I love the TOR dice mechanic.  I really _don't_ like rolling a single d20 for success...I hate the flat probability. Nor do I like the fiddly wonkiness of Star Wars. TOR strikes a nice balance for me of richness and variability in a clean, easy to understand system. 

For the uninitiated, here's how TOR works:
 - You have a relevant skill or (sometimes) attribute, rated 0 to 6. 
 - You roll a d12 and as many d6 as the relevant skill/attribute, and total the numbers versus a Target Number
 - In most circumstances you do NOT add +'s or -'s due to stats, gear, etc.
On the d12:
 - A 12 (the Gandalf rune on the official dice) is an autosuccess
 - The 11 (the Eye of Sauron rune) counts as 0, and sometimes means Bad Stuff
On the d6's:
 - Each 6 counts as an extra success.  E.g. bonus damage on an attack roll. (You don't roll damage separately.)
 - If you are Weary, 1's, 2's, and 3's count as zero.

On attack rolls, your weapon type has an "Edge" rating.  If the Feat die is equal to or higher than Edge, your opponent must make a Protection test, which works just like any other roll but "skill" is determined by the armor worn.  E.g. 5 dice for a a Mail Hauberk.

And that's it.  Pretty much every roll in the game works this way. It's very rare that you you make any roll other than d12 + Nd6.

EDIT: Sure, I suppose you can describe d20 as "You just roll a single die and that's it."  But that leaves out adding up bonuses, with vary depending on what ability you are using, and figuring out how many damage dice of which sort to roll, and whether or not you include an ability modifier, etc. etc.  By the time you include all the fiddly bits you need to know, I actually think that TOR is simpler.


----------



## SilentWolf (Mar 17, 2016)

Morrus said:


> No "D&D" on the cover, then!




I'm a little sorry about that. 
Not only with a regular OGL they cannot use some of the most interesting D&D 5e rules (Fighter's Maneuvers and the various Optional Rules and Variants provided by PHB, MM and DMG), but an official D&D license given to Third Parties would have meant an extraordinary opportunity to have some good quality, non-iconic D&D materials.

A practical demonstration of the D&D 5e modular potential...
The OGL products are also able to show that potential, but there's a difference when a book has the brand "D&D" written on it.

Anyhow, a Lord of the Ring 5e OGL remains a remarkable news.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2016)

SilentWolf said:


> I'm a little sorry about that.
> Not only with a regular OGL they cannot use some of the most interesting D&D 5e rules (Fighter's Maneuvers and the various Optional Rules and Variants provided by PHB, MM and DMG),




To be honest, I would hope that a setting book wouldn't waste time reprinting material from the core rule books. The players use those rules, not the setting designer.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Mar 17, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> Let's not forget
> 
> Sea Elf (sailors, not the kind that live underwater) from the Grey Havens
> 
> Fair Elf (also known as Vanyar) from Valinor




Yes, thanks - I just added them to the list. I was in a hurry and forgot to include the peoples of Aman.

Also, I updated the list to include the other Avari, the Men of Nurn, the seven houses of the Dwarves, the Men of the New Lands, and of the Dark Land (i.e. Australia).


----------



## SilentWolf (Mar 17, 2016)

Morrus said:


> To be honest, I would hope that a setting book wouldn't waste time reprinting material from the core rule books. The players use those rules, not the setting designer.




Yes, I firmly agree with that.
But look at the other side of the coin....

With the actual SRD Third Parties cannot experiment with a lot of D&D 5e rules, in order to build new game opportunities. They cannot design a new Class using Maneuvers, they cannot design a new Fighter's subclass that uses Superiority Dice in a new way. Third Parties cannot design an OGL book focused on Madness and Sanity rules or where this rules are used in a new experimental way. They cannot  release an OGL Book where the DMG Downtime Activities are fundamental for the game purpouse (just think about a setting based on feudal management or another based on city building).

The Third Party companies cannot, also, mention the D&D books to save space and refer to specific D&D 5e rules.

I'm not complaining about the new SRD: I understand the reasons for which it was created and I agree with them.
An official license, however, it would have allowed some selected Thir Party company to design some new experimental D&D material, with the freedom to take inspiration from all the D&D 5e rules. A LotR D&D? A D&D 5e Modern? A Science Fantasy D&D? Just thinking....

I'm ok also with good 5e OGL products. As long as they will be of good quality, I've nothing to complain and, instead, I'm really happy for having them. 
I'm only a little sorry about what an official license could have been and what would have allowed.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 17, 2016)

Well it hasn't been published yet!  Maybe enough clamoring and yammering from the peanut gallery will encourage MM to reach out to Dom and make a deal.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 17, 2016)

Morrus said:


> To be honest, I would hope that a setting book wouldn't waste time reprinting material from the core rule books. The players use those rules, not the setting designer.




I think an OGL 5th Edition ME game has a greater potential to do interesting, "Tolkienesque" things with the rules, so that's good. But I have to admit to being a little disappointed that it is not in fact an official D&D Middle Earth game/setting, because that was just plain more exciting.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2016)

Reynard said:


> I think an OGL 5th Edition ME game has a greater potential to do interesting, "Tolkienesque" things with the rules, so that's good. But I have to admit to being a little disappointed that it is not in fact an official D&D Middle Earth game/setting, because that was just plain more exciting.




I don't really care whether there's a D&D logo on the cover or not. It doesn't affect my excitement one jot! I think there is a greater than 50% chance that this is going to be my default D&D setting going forward.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 17, 2016)

Morrus said:


> I literally don't care whether there's a D&D logo on the cover or not. It doesn't affect my excitement one jot! I think there is a greater than 50% chance that this is going to be my default D&D setting going forward.




I think that D&D on the cover would have brought an order of magnitude greater number of players to it, is all. I will still enjoy it as much I am sure, but I don't think it will be much of a game changer as an OGL product. The D&D brand has power, still.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2016)

Reynard said:


> I think that D&D on the cover would have brought an order of magnitude greater number of players to it, is all. I will still enjoy it as much I am sure, but I don't think it will be much of a game changer as an OGL product. The D&D brand has power, still.




I don't need it to be a game changer to enjoy it. I'm sure it would benefit Cubicle 7, but I just need the book!


----------



## SilentWolf (Mar 17, 2016)

Morrus said:


> I literally don't care whether there's a D&D logo on the cover or not. It doesn't affect my excitement one jot! I think there is a greater than 50% chance that this is going to be my default D&D setting going forward.




It's not merely a logo issue. 
I think the questions are:

- how much the 5e SRD will limit their work or how much it will force them to work more, only to design something already existing?

- Can they omit some rules from their book, implying that players can find them in the original D&D (without quote directly the D&D books, because OGL does not allow it), or must they rewrite all the missing rules only to give players a whole standalone book?

A limited SRD imposes some hard questions.
The bad thing is maybe they must work more to obtain something already existing in D&D rules. The good thing is, trough this way, maybe they will obtain something better than the rules designed from D&D team (creative work generates new ideas and solutions).


That said, I totally agree with you: the Cubicle 7 announcement is one of the most exciting news since the D&D 5e books came out.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2016)

SilentWolf said:


> It's not merely a logo issue.
> I think the questions are:
> 
> - how much the 5e SRD will limit their work or how much it will force them to work more, only to design something already existing?
> ...




If it's a setting book, it won't have rules from the PHB in it - it will require the use of the PHB. I'm not expecting a standalone game here. The PHB has the core rules; this will be a setting for D&D.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 17, 2016)

Morrus said:


> If it's a setting book, it won't have rules from the PHB in it - it will require the use of the PHB. I'm not expecting a standalone game here. The PHB has the core rules; this will be a setting for D&D.




It will be interesting to see which they go with. A setting books with a little crunch here and there will produce a very different ME experience than a ground up 5E powered/compatible full game design.


----------



## SilentWolf (Mar 17, 2016)

Morrus said:


> If it's a setting book, it won't have rules from the PHB in it - it will require the use of the PHB. I'm not expecting a standalone game here. The PHB has the core rules; this will be a setting for D&D.




That's really interesting. 
I really hope that's possibile!! 

I'm really curious, however, to see how they manage to refer their books to the D&D ones, without writing in any place the D&D name and without using sentences like "_Read Dungeon Master Guide, page **, section Example_".
OGL don't allow neither. That's the problem, as you maybe know better than me.

In addiction, they can't also declare officially that their books are compatible or co-adaptable to D&D IP (section 7 of the license).

It means they need to only imply the D&D rules references, without directly mention them.
I really hope that they manage to find a way! 
A direct D&D LotR setting would be wonderful.

I'm really curious to read more news about this!


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2016)

SilentWolf said:


> That's really interesting.
> I really hope that's possibile!!
> 
> I'm really curious, however, to see how they manage to refer their books to the D&D ones, without writing in any place the D&D name and without using sentences like "_Read Dungeon Master Guide, page **, section Example_".
> ...




OGL publishers have been doing it for 16 years now. It's really not a problem.


----------



## Gadget (Mar 17, 2016)

I can't say I'm so cavalier as Morris is about this.  OGL publishers have been doing it for sixteen years, but not under this particular OGL and not with this SRD.  I was hoping for a bit of mechanics to go along with this book to make it more Tolkienesque, not merely 'Just another setting book'.  Not being able to tweak the game rules much (or having to reinvent the wheel) does lesson my initial enthusiasm a bit.


----------



## SilentWolf (Mar 17, 2016)

Morrus said:


> OGL publishers have been doing it for 16 years now. It's really not a problem.




Thank you for the clarification. 
I was not completly aware of that.



Gadget said:


> Not being able to tweak the game rules much (or having to reinvent the wheel) does lesson my initial enthusiasm a bit.




With the 5e SRD they can freely tweek the game, but they must "reinvent the wheel" when they need to use rules that are not covered in the SRD. Or they need to know how to refer to the original D&D 5e rules, without mention the D&D trademark, the D&D books and/or the compatibility with this last ones.

That means they can freely give players new rules (and a 5e LotR conversion needs much of them), tweek the SRD ones and that they must only imply the product compatibility, informing the players only indirectly about that they can use D&D books to find other rules.
The biggest limit is about experimenting with the rules not covered in the SRD. In this case, they need to reinvent the wheel. They can only imply - without clearly writing it - that their rule can be played with the already existing D&D 5e Rules. But if they need to reuse some rule not covered in the SRD to build new ones, they cannot.

In the case of a LotR setting, I think this will not represent a big problem. Cubicle 7, however, need to know very well how to move trough the legal issues represented by the 5e SRD and the new OGL.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2016)

Gadget said:


> I can't say I'm so cavalier as Morris is about this.  OGL publishers have been doing it for sixteen years, but not under this particular OGL and not with this SRD.




Yes, under this particular OGL. It's the exact same OGL.  



> I was hoping for a bit of mechanics to go along with this book to make it more Tolkienesque, not merely 'Just another setting book'.  Not being able to tweak the game rules much (or having to reinvent the wheel) does lesson my initial enthusiasm a bit.




The OGL is designed to tweak the game rules.  There is no part of the OGL which says you can't tweak the game rules. _Mutants & Masterminds_ used the OGL to 'tweak' the 3.5 game rules; result: totally different game. Heck, Fate uses the OGL; the license doesn't even _mention_ game rules. If your worry is about them not being able to make new game rules or tweak existing ones, don't worry.  That's _exactly_ the primary purpose of the OGL.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 17, 2016)

SilentWolf said:


> Thank you for the clarification.
> I was not completly aware of that.




Assuming you're being sarcastic, then you know it's a trivial barrier, and won't present even the slightest obstacle to this project. Those 16 years have oiled that process to a fine-tuned legally-perfect mechanism. The OGL and various SRDs are so familiar to people that they're putty in their hands.

Don't worry. There's not even minor speed bump here.


----------



## SilentWolf (Mar 18, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Assuming you're being sarcastic, then you know it's a trivial barrier, and won't present even the slightest obstacle to this project. Those 16 years have oiled that process to a fine-tuned legally-perfect mechanism. The OGL and various SRDs are so familiar to people that they're putty in their hands.
> 
> Don't worry. There's not even minor speed bump here.




No, I'm not sarcastic. 

Only in this last two years I've started to dig seriously into the OGL and SRD question. Until a few years ago, I've never considered this topic. Now I can say I have learned something about the legal issues, but I'm unaware about how companies have managed the legal limits until now.
That's why I thought it would be more difficult for Cubicle 7 to design a D&D setting without directly refer to D&D material. Especially considering the difference between the D&D 3.x SRD and the 5e one.

Happy to know the problem it's smaller that I thought.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 18, 2016)

To game this out a little, I think an OGL version will look like this:

Characters: a discussion of appropriate SRD character races and classes and some new setting specific subclasses, subraces and background.

Magic: an overhaul.

Equipment: a brief discussion regardibg money systems and equipment that is not available.

Inspiration: how to makes goals, flaws etc... fit the setting.

Monsters: a list of what fits from the SRD and a few new/restatted creatures.

Magic Items: similar to monstrs since there are a fair number of them in the books.

New Rules: we will see a portof some of the most interesting and ground breaking TOR rules. It will also directly address the core D&D daily action economy.

Thoughts?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 18, 2016)

SilentWolf said:


> No, I'm not sarcastic.
> 
> Only in this last two years I've started to dig seriously into the OGL and SRD question. Until a few years ago, I've never considered this topic. Now I can say I have learned something about the legal issues, but I'm unaware about how companies have managed the legal limits until now.
> That's why I thought it would be more difficult for Cubicle 7 to design a D&D setting without directly refer to D&D material. Especially considering the difference between the D&D 3.x SRD and the 5e one.
> ...




If it's any help, there are thousands of OGL games, settings, and supplements which use the OGL. Thousands is probably an underestimate. An entire industry has been churning them out for nearly two decades. Head over to DTRPG or RPGNow  and pick up one or two. I suggest _Mutants & Masterminds_ for an example of how the system can be stretched beyond anything Middle Earth would require. Or, more selfishly, _Elements of Magic_ for how an entirely new magic system for D&D can be designed. These are pre-5E examples, of course, but it's the exact same license. 

More recently, Primeval Thule is a 5E setting using the OGL. The OGL doesn't mention any game mechanics.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Mar 18, 2016)

Reynard said:


> To game this out a little, I think an OGL version will look like this:
> 
> Characters: a discussion of appropriate SRD character races and classes and some new setting specific subclasses, subraces and background.
> 
> ...



That's basically the same outline I'd use were I heading up the project - not that such a statement means all that much.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 18, 2016)

If this is not a Kickstarter, it is on my Gen Con list


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Mar 18, 2016)

Hand of Evil said:


> If this is not a Kickstarter, it is on my Gen Con list




Not going to be a Kickstarter, so it seems you and I will be in that very, very long line at Gen Con to buy the book!


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Mar 18, 2016)

*Canonical Peoples in the late Third Age*

I prefer that C7 pack the book full, covering all the canonical peoples who exist in the late Third Age. Don't drag it out over a bunch of sourcebooks. Use the sourcebooks to detail _new_ peoples, places, and details in the West-lands, in Rhun, Harad, and beyond. And even though C7 can't refer to any name which isn't found in _The Hobbit_ or LotR, I prefer that all these peoples be included somehow - even if it's done by circumlocutions (like how Decipher referred to the seven houses of the Dwarves by another name, since the actual name is only found in _The History of Middle-earth_.)

Here is an updated list of all the canonical peoples who are known or supposed to exist in the late Third Age, along with some close extrapolations of canon (such as melding the various bits of info we have about the Avarin). Many people confuse and mix in peoples invented by Iron Crown Enterprises for MERP. But my list is straight from JRRT's books--though with some artistic and ethnological coherence applied. If I missed any let me know. If you want quotes for proof, let me know, and I'll post the quotes.

Peoples:

Hobbits:
•    Shire-hobbit [=1897-era Warwickshire geographically, but culturally all counties of England; for example, Yorkshire in the Hills of Scary, the West Midlands and Welsh Marches in the East Farthing and the Marish, and Warwickshire (specifically) around Hobbiton.] By the late Third Age, the three hobbit breeds of Harfoot, Stoor, and Fallohide are hardly more distinct than Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in 1897-era England.
•    Buckland-hobbit [=1897-era Monmouthshire, Wales]
•    Bree-hobbit [=1897-era Buckinghamshire, the location of the real world "Brill/Bree-hill" and "Coombe"]
•    Outsider-hobbit from the West of the World [=Remnants of other counties of 1897-era England]
•    Wild-hobbit of the River Gladden [=900-era West Saxons] 

Elves:
•    High Elf (Noldo) from Lindon, from Rivendell, from Lorien, or in Aman
•    Grey Elf (Sinda) from Lindon, from Rivendell, from Lorien, from the Woodland Realm, or in Aman (and after the War of the Ring: Ithilien)
•    Wood Elf (Nando Silvan Elf) from Lorien, from the Woodland Realm, from the Wandering Companies of Eriador, or in Aman (and after the War of the Ring: Ithilien). These are the native elves of Eriador and of Rhovanion (along with the Penni Avari). The Wood Elves of Dol Amroth sailed to Aman. The language (to the extent it survives) is, or was, Leikvian (East-Danian), an Old Norse-flavored Elvish. In one place JRRT says the language is no longer spoken, but in another place he says that it is the main language of Thranduil's Realm. So for diversity's sake, it might as well still exist in the Woodland Realm.
•    Sea Elf (Teleri/Falmari) from Alqualonde, or from Tol Eressëa
•    Fair Elf (Vanya) of the Blessed Realm
•    Green Elf of Lindon. (Cwenda Nando). Possibly merged with the Grey-elves of Lindon by the late Third Age. Or possibly not. Either way, there are families of that ancestry. (The Cwenda/West-Danian/Ossiriandic/Ossiriandeb) language is Old English-style Quendian.)
•    Red Elf of the North Pole. Though depicted in the _Father Christmas Letters_, they are perhaps are already there in the late Third Age. They will not have "diminished" in size yet.
•    Penni (Avari Silvan Elf) from Lorien, or from the Woodland Realm. The Penni and Nando are both called "Silvan/Wood Elves", and they are possibly, though not necessarily, merged by the late Third Age. They are the native elves of Rhovanion/Wilderland, along with the Nandor. (The Penni language is Gaulish-style Quendian.)
•    Hill Elf (Cuind) of the West of East? (The language is Old Irish-style Quendian. I equate them with the "Hill-elves" mentioned in The Hobbit because the Hill-men of Dunland are likewise the Old Irish-flavored Men. Though these Hill Elves would presumably live in some hills in Rhun--perhaps in the hills depicted by JRRT to the north of the Sea of Rhun.)
•    Twilight Elf (Hwenti/Hisildi) of the Midmost Regions (Palisor) (Hwenti = Gothic-style Quendian; the Hisildi of Palisor are the ones who first spoke to Ermon and Elmir, thereby imparting the quasi-Germanic phonaesthetic flavor to the first Mannish language.)
•    Windan of the the North of East? (Old English?-style Quendian)
•    Kindi of the South of East? (Hindi-style Quendian)
•    Kinn-lai of the East of East? (Chinese-style Quendian)
(_The Hobbit_ mentions "mountain-elves" -- they would be equated to one of these Avari peoples.)

Dwarves:
•    Longbeard Dwarf of the Blue Mountains, of the Grey Mountains, of the Iron Hills, or of the Lonely Mountain (after the War of the Ring: of Dwarrrowdelf, or of the Glittering Caverns)
•    Firebeard Dwarf of the Blue Mountains (or other Dwarf-holds of the West)
•    Broadbeam Dwarf of the Blue Mountains (or other Dwarf-holds of the West)
•    Ironfist Dwarf of the East
•    Stiffbeard Dwarf of the East
•    Blacklock Dwarf of the East
•    Stonefoot Dwarf of the East 
(The Hobbit mentions "Wicked Dwarves of the East"; so at least one of these houses is under the shadow. The Petty-dwarves of Beleriand are presumed extinct.)

Mannish cultures are reminiscent of 900-AD, except for those of Eriador (minus the Dunedain), which are 1897-era.
•    Dunadan of the North [=remnants of the Arthurian, Carolingian, and Holy Roman realms]
•    Bree-man [=1897-era Buckinghamshire]
•    Man of the Hunter-folk of Eryn Vorn [=1897-era Cornishmen, speak Westron by late Third Age]
•    Man of the Forsaken Inn [=remnant of 1897-era Hertfordshire]
•    Beorning of the Upper Vales [=Bernicians of Northumbria]
•    Horse-lord of Rohan [=Mercians]
•    Lake-man of Esgaroth [=Geats of Lake Vättern]
•    Dale-man [=Svear of Dalecarlia]
•    Northman from West of Dale, or from South of Dale [=Norwegians or Danes]
•    Woodman of Western Mirkwood, of the Middle Vales, or of the Lower Vales [Western Mirkwood=Germans: Old Saxons in the northern town, Old Franconians in the southern town; Middle Vales =Mercian remnants + newly arrived Saxons and Franks; Lower Vales = Westron-speaking Franks of West Francia]
•    Man of Dorwinion [=Georgians, the land of wine and youth]
•    Man of Gondor [=Byzantines]. The difference between High Men and other Gondorians is, by the late Third Age, of only slight distinction.
•    Snowman of Forochel [=Skridfinns/Saami]
•    Man of the Fisher-folk of Western Enedwaith [=Cruithne of Ireland]
•    Wose of Druadan Forest [=Picts of Thrace/Agathrysi]
•    Pukel-man of Druwaith Iaur [=Picts of France/Aquitani]
•    Dunlending [=Old Irish]
•    Man of Nurn [=Armenian]
•    Corsair of Umbar, or from the Havens of Harad [=Ottomon Arabs of Tripoli and the other Barbary Coast kingdoms+900-era Saracen Arab-Berber coastal realms]
•    Variag from Khand, or from the Wide East [=Varangian Northman from Khazaria, or from Rus]
•    Man of Khand [=Khazar]
•    Black Numenorean from Umbar, from Near Harad, or from Far Harad [=Copt]
•    Vinith of Eastern Mirkwood, of Southern Mirkwood, of the Bight, or of Northern Rhovanion [=Western Slav: Wend/Polabian/Lusatian, Slovene, Czech/Moravian, or Pole]
•    Near Southron [=Arab/Saracen]
•    Easterling from the Horse Plain, or from the Kine Plain [=Hungarian/Magyar or Cuman]
•    Far Southron (Troll-man, Silharrow, Elephant-lord, or Sun-dweller) [=Fur, Ethiopian, Ghanaian, or Kongo]
•    Man of Angmar (Kern, Gallowglass, Redshank, Hillman, or Reiver) [=Scots: Highland Gael, Norn, Pict, Cumbrian, or Lowland Scot. The Hillmen of Rhudaur (=Cumbrians of Rheged) wered totally destroyed, but there would still be akin Hillmen in southwestern Angmar proper, equivalent to the Cumbrians of Strathclyde.]
•    Man of the Balchoth of Southern Rhovanion [=Bulgars]
•    Axe-Easterling from the Wide East [=Rus]
•    Worm-Easterling from the East of East [=Chinese] In a draft of The Hobbit, JRRT referred to Were-worms from China! The Men who live among the Were-worms would be "Worm-men" or "Worm-Easterlings."
•    Man of “Greenland” [=Inuit] (yes, “Greenland” itself is visited by Earendil in a draft in the Book of Lost Tales.)
•    Man of the “Hindu Kush” or South of East [=Asian Indian] (In a draft of the Hobbit, the Hindu Kush mountains are mentioned]
•    Man of the New Lands (Wild Islands, Lands of the Sun, the Burnt Lands, Easternesse) [=Indigenous Americans]
•    Pygmy of the Great Forest of the South [=Twa]
•    Man of the Dark Land (Southland) [=Australian Aborigines, Melanesians, and other peoples of "Lemuria."]

Every kind of Man (including the notorious Black Numenoreans) should be a playable PC option, even in an "all-good" company._"_The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" attests to there being good men throughout Rhun and Harad, for Aragorn "_went alone far into the East and deep into the South, exploring the hearts of Men, both evil *and good*..."_

Other kindreds with role-playing potential, such as awakened Kelvar and Olvar and fays:

•    Ent of Fangorn
•    Ent-wife of the East
•    Tree-man of Far Harad
•    Stone-giant
•    Animals which are portrayed as speaking or understanding speech: Giant Eagle, Raven, Crow, Thrush, Horse/Pony, Cattle, Dog, Cat, Wolf, Badger, Fox, Polar Bear
•    Fays/Spirits/Sprites: Fire-fay, Sylph (Mánir "spirits of the air" and Súruli "spirits of the winds), Oarni "spirits of the sea"/"mermaid"), Falmaríni "spirits of the sea-foam", River Spirit (River-woman, River-daughter), Flower Fay, Brownie, Pixie, Leprawn, Nermir "fays of the meadows"; Tavari/Dryad "sprites of trees and woods", Nandini "fays of the valleys", Orossi "fays of the mountains"


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Mar 18, 2016)

double post


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 18, 2016)

Gadget said:


> I can't say I'm so cavalier as Morris is about this.  OGL publishers have been doing it for sixteen years, but not under this particular OGL and not with this SRD.  I was hoping for a bit of mechanics to go along with this book to make it more Tolkienesque, not merely 'Just another setting book'.  Not being able to tweak the game rules much (or having to reinvent the wheel) does lesson my initial enthusiasm a bit.




_The One Ring_ absolutely nails the Tolkien-esque feeling.  So going for the same thing would both be redundant and cannibalize their other line.

I also don't think they actually need to change the rules, just the character options including spells.  I'd like to see them create:

1) New races from the ground up.
2) One new sub-class for each class with appropriate class abilities. (Maybe exclude Warlock; the base class is a tough fit.)
3) Entirely new spell lists.  
4) Maybe tweak weapons and armor lists and introduce some Tolkien-esque feats.  

Would it be exactly like Tolkien?  No.  You'd get to play elven wizards and dual-wielding Hobbit murderhobos, if that's what you like.  But I think that's fine.  Folks who want to be purists can play TOR.  

Then all they have to do is create a bunch of new monsters, and they're set to start cranking out sourcebooks and adventures.  

I would buy _all_ of it (as well as all the TOR stuff).


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 18, 2016)

TraverseTravis said:


> I prefer that C7 pack the book full, covering all the canonical peoples who exist in the late Third Age. Don't drag it out over a bunch of sourcebooks. Use the sourcebooks to detail _new_ peoples, places, and details in the West-lands, in Rhun, Harad, and beyond. And even though C7 can't refer to any name which isn't found in _The Hobbit_ or LotR, I prefer that all these peoples be included somehow - even if it's done by circumlocutions (like how Decipher referred to the seven houses of the Dwarves by another name, since the actual name is only found in _The History of Middle-earth_.)
> 
> Here is an updated list of all the canonical peoples who are known or supposed to exist in the late Third Age, along with some close extrapolations of canon (such as melding the various bits of info we have about the Avarin). Many people confuse and mix in peoples invented by Iron Crown Enterprises for MERP. But my list is straight from JRRT's books--though with some artistic and ethnological coherence applied. If I missed any let me know. If you want quotes for proof, let me know, and I'll post the quotes.
> 
> ...




Petty dwarves are a thing as well 

Edit:  I'm not sure how to delete a post and I see that you have petty dwarves mentioned after all.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 18, 2016)

SilentWolf said:


> I'm a little sorry about that.
> Not only with a regular OGL they cannot use some of the most interesting D&D 5e rules




Since I think a succesful book needs new classes anyway, I consider this good news rather than bad.

What I mean is: the more they build upon the existing PHB framework, the more like regular D&D the results will be. 

And the more like regular D&D the results are, the less successful the book will be in attaining the feel of LOTR.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 18, 2016)

By the way, for those unacquainted with The One Ring, here is a lovely introduction, showing off much Jon Hodgson's wonderful art: https://slate.adobe.com/cp/ENNV5/


----------



## SilentWolf (Mar 18, 2016)

CapnZapp said:


> Since I think a succesful book needs new classes anyway, I consider this good news rather than bad.
> 
> What I mean is: the more they build upon the existing PHB framework, the more like regular D&D the results will be.
> 
> And the more like regular D&D the results are, the less successful the book will be in attaining the feel of LOTR.




Yes, they need almost certainly design new Classes, as well as they probably need to design new sub-systems or introduce new Variants.
Based on what I've learned, though, they can't design new rules using the ones not covered in the 5e SRD. For example, they cannot design a Class that uses Maneuvers and Superiority Dice, or they cannot design a PC Option that allows a Charachter to cure the DMG Madness. Unless they find a way to bypass the license limits.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 18, 2016)

SilentWolf said:


> Yes, they need almost certainly design new Classes, as well as they probably need to design new sub-systems or introduce new Variants.
> Based on what I've learned, though, they can't design new rules using the ones not covered in the 5e SRD. For example, they cannot design a Class that uses Maneuvers and Superiority Dice, or they cannot design a PC Option that allows a Charachter to cure the DMG Madness. Unless they find a way to bypass the license limits.




That is not true at all. What the OGL does is open text in the SRD for re-use. Anything in the SRD can be copied verbatim in another book, as well as anything else released under the OGL. Wizards does not own a trademark on maneuvers and superiority dice, they merely own the copyright on that portion of the text in the PHB (along with everything else not released under the OGL). You can certainly include a battle master NPC with a full statblock in an adventure or supplement, you just can't cut and past the descriptions of that character's abilities from the PHB.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 18, 2016)

SilentWolf said:


> Yes, they need almost certainly design new Classes, as well as they probably need to design new sub-systems or introduce new Variants.
> Based on what I've learned, though, they can't design new rules using the ones not covered in the 5e SRD. For example, they cannot design a Class that uses Maneuvers and Superiority Dice, or they cannot design a PC Option that allows a Charachter to cure the DMG Madness. Unless they find a way to bypass the license limits.




Sure, but my point is that you need existing mechanics much less when you aim for something different than when you just want to add to the existing game.

I realize the Battlemaster would probably fit Dragon Lord of the Dungeons, but remember: the only thing you can't do in your game is modify that class. Nothing stops us from generating Battlemasters for the new game, after all.


----------



## SilentWolf (Mar 18, 2016)

Reynard said:


> That is not true at all. What the OGL does is open text in the SRD for re-use. Anything in the SRD can be copied verbatim in another book, as well as anything else released under the OGL. Wizards does not own a trademark on maneuvers and superiority dice, they merely own the copyright on that portion of the text in the PHB (along with everything else not released under the OGL). You can certainly include a battle master NPC with a full statblock in an adventure or supplement, you just can't cut and past the descriptions of that character's abilities from the PHB.




Essentially you're saying that, as long as Third Parties don't copy the exact words of the D&D books, they can use all the D&D 5e rules (regardless this rules are not covered in the SRD).
If it's true, it's something I didn't know. Interesting. 
Thank you for the explanation.

So, for example, Cubicle 7 can design a Class with maneuvers and Superiority Dice, as long as they don't use the exact words written in the PHB.
Is that correct?


----------



## Gadget (Mar 18, 2016)

Morrus said:


> Yes, under this particular OGL. It's the exact same OGL.
> 
> 
> 
> The OGL is designed to tweak the game rules.  There is no part of the OGL which says you can't tweak the game rules. _Mutants & Masterminds_ used the OGL to 'tweak' the 3.5 game rules; result: totally different game. Heck, Fate uses the OGL; the license doesn't even _mention_ game rules. If your worry is about them not being able to make new game rules or tweak existing ones, don't worry.  That's _exactly_ the primary purpose of the OGL.




The difference is that there is much less of the system that is OGL.  The SRD, as I understand it, is limited to about what is in the free basic rules, unlike what was in the SRD for 3.0/3.5.  So all the options, sub-classes, optional systems in the DMG, etc., are not open.  Now, one may say that most of that stuff is not going to be helpful in a Middle-earth D&D, and fair enough.  But I still think it would be somewhat helpful.  I'm not a lawyer, so it might be possible to use these rules even though they are not open, I'm thinking of early 5.0 OGL stuff that had the awkward 'tactical advantage' instead of 'advantage' here.  That was the basis of my concern, and, if it my concern proves to be, well, baseless, then so much the better.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 18, 2016)

This thread had already spin into the, there is a RIGHT way discussion. If I do pick this up, will have to pay close attention to who I play with. I find pedantic arguments over make believe worlds really annoying.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 18, 2016)

Gadget said:


> The difference is that there is much less of the system that is OGL.  The SRD, as I understand it, is limited to about what is in the free basic rules, unlike what was in the SRD for 3.0/3.5.  So all the options, sub-classes, optional systems in the DMG, etc., are not open.  Now, one may say that most of that stuff is not going to be helpful in a Middle-earth D&D, and fair enough.  But I still think it would be somewhat helpful.  I'm not a lawyer, so it might be possible to use these rules even though they are not open, I'm thinking of early 5.0 OGL stuff that had the awkward 'tactical advantage' instead of 'advantage' here.  That was the basis of my concern, and, if it my concern proves to be, well, baseless, then so much the better.




Not that I imagine C7 is looking here for legal advice, but it's the exact text which is made OGL not the underlying system. That tactical advantage example was overly cautious.


----------



## Lord Zack (Mar 18, 2016)

TraverseTravis said:


> I prefer that C7 pack the book full, covering all the canonical peoples who exist in the late Third Age. Don't drag it out over a bunch of sourcebooks. Use the sourcebooks to detail _new_ peoples, places, and details in the West-lands, in Rhun, Harad, and beyond. And even though C7 can't refer to any name which isn't found in _The Hobbit_ or LotR, I prefer that all these peoples be included somehow - even if it's done by circumlocutions (like how Decipher referred to the seven houses of the Dwarves by another name, since the actual name is only found in _The History of Middle-earth_.)
> 
> Here is an updated list of all the canonical peoples who are known or supposed to exist in the late Third Age, along with some close extrapolations of canon (such as melding the various bits of info we have about the Avarin). Many people confuse and mix in peoples invented by Iron Crown Enterprises for MERP. But my list is straight from JRRT's books--though with some artistic and ethnological coherence applied. If I missed any let me know. If you want quotes for proof, let me know, and I'll post the quotes.
> 
> ...




It seems like you might be including some elements from the Book of Lost Tales. The Book of Lost Tales is not set in Middle Earth. It's meant to be a mythology for England. While Middle-Earth shares some elements with that earlier effort they are not the same thing.

Of course there really is no such thing as canon when it comes to Middle Earth. The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion are not truly consistent with each other. The Silmariillion especially is specifically called out by Christopher Tolkien as being not consistent with his father's works. The Silmarillion consists of Tolkien's writings, at least in part, but was not something JRR Tolkien ever intended to put out, at least not in it's current form. This puts things better than I could.

As for what this means for Cubicle 7, well no doubt they have already made their own decisions on how to convert the works of Tolkien to rpg form, since they have already done so. But to create an rpg that is consistent with Tolkien's vision would require to input of the man himself. So I wouldn't work too much about 5e not being a good fit for Middle Earth.


----------



## Lord Zack (Mar 18, 2016)

Double post.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 19, 2016)

Elfcrusher said:


> By the way, for those unacquainted with The One Ring, here is a lovely introduction, showing off much Jon Hodgson's wonderful art: https://slate.adobe.com/cp/ENNV5/




That is some rather impressive art!


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 19, 2016)

double post :/   - it *has* been happening more often.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 19, 2016)

Ancalagon said:


> double post :/   - it *has* been happening more often.




Yeah, yeah you're just trying to upsize your post count!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 19, 2016)

This is awesome.

That is all ... move along.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Mar 19, 2016)

Lord Zack said:


> As for what this means for Cubicle 7, well no doubt they have already made their own decisions on how to convert the works of Tolkien to rpg form, since they have already done so.




I am a patron of Cubicle 7, and am totally free to voice my preferences on this open forum. I'd rather not be just a passive consumer who assumes the product line is chiseled in stone.



> But to create an rpg that is consistent with Tolkien's vision would require to input of the man himself.




Well then let's just give up. Burn the hundreds of post-Tolkien Middle-earth RPG books. Encase JRRT's writings in bronze. And delete this thread. 



> So I wouldn't work too much about 5e not being a good fit for Middle Earth.




None of my posts here have even mentioned the issue of whether 5e is a good fit for Middle-earth. Don’t worky, I'm sure C7 will do a fine job.



> Of course there really is no such thing as canon when it comes to Middle Earth.




I dislike the word "canon" as much as you do. Yet I want to make clear that my list of Peoples only includes cultures which are mentioned or implied by JRRT - not cultures which were created by MERP, New Line (e.g. the Abrelinds), or LOTRO. Perhaps the words "Tolkienian core" would be a fitting synonym.

Not that those conceptions of Middle-earth are bad - I just want to make clear what is the Tolkien core. Any Middle-earth RPG has to elaborate its own parallel version of Middle-earth. Actually, each GM creates their own version of Middle-earth too, even if the GM sticks closely to what is presented in the books. Yet since the Tolkien Enterprises license doesn’t include the earlier material, it would have to be referred to obliquely if C7 wishes to tap that lost lore.



> It seems like you might be including some elements from the Book of Lost Tales. The Book of Lost Tales is not set in Middle Earth.




Dude, I know all about the three stages of Tolkien's legendarium (Nascent = 1910s-1930, Intermediate = 1930 to 1950, and Mature = 1950s to 1974), and how JRRT didn't manage to update all of the earlier material to seamlessly match the Mature Legendarium before he died. Though he aimed to, and tried. Yet obviously, the Nascent and Intermediate stuff is "Middle-earth" - it's just not fully harmonized with the published LotR. I mean, just looking at the chapter titles of The Book of Lost Tales (vol 1 and 2) they are obviously relevant:

1.    The Cottage of Lost Play" — the "framework" story
2.    "The Music of the Ainur" — the first version of what would become the Ainulindalë
3.    "The Coming of the Valar and the Building of Valinor" — later Valaquenta and first chapters of Quenta Silmarillion
4.    "The Chaining of Melko" — Melko is an earlier name of Melkor
5.    "The Coming of the Elves and the Making of Kôr" — Kôr is the later Tirion and its hill Túna
6.    "The Theft of Melko and the Darkening of Valinor"
7.    "The Flight of the Noldoli" — "Noldoli" are the Elves later called Noldor
8.    "The Tale of the Sun and Moon"
9.    "The Hiding of Valinor"
10.    "Gilfanon's Tale: The Travail of the Noldoli and the Coming of Mankind"
Contents of Book 2
1.    "The Tale of Tinúviel" — first version of the tale of Beren and Lúthien
2.    "Turambar and the Foalókë" — first version of the Túrin saga
3.    "The Fall of Gondolin" — the only full narrative of the Fall of Gondolin
4.    "The Nauglafring" — a story which was "lost", in that it never was rewritten in full, and was mostly left out of the later Silmarillion.
5.    "The Tale of Eärendel" — the only full narrative of Eärendil's travels
6.    "The History of Eriol or Ælfwine and the End of the Tales" 

The Mature Legendarium is also a Mythology for England...and now the whole wide world.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 22, 2016)

Elfcrusher said:


> I agree that Middle Earth is a bad fit for D&D in general for all the obvious reasons.  But I'm curious why you say "5e pretty specifically".  How is 5e a worse fit than, say, 4e?




Worse than others? I didn't say that.

5E, however, up-powers characters VERY quickly; Middle Earth shows fairly middling start and very little growth over time.

5E shows lots of flashy but very short lived magics, and magic is a technology. Middle Earth has magic galore... but it's subtle, long term, and often corrupting and/or unreliable



Rune said:


> I think it'll (potentially) be great (love TOR), but it'll definitely need distinct classes, possibly a lower level-cap, subtle magic (and healing) and NO Raise Dead or Ressurection. Death is a big deal in Middle Earth.




6th level feels about right for the level cap...


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 22, 2016)

All (or just about all) of the concerns about OP magic can be addressed by creating replacement spell lists.  You'd then have to give casters some improved martial abilities to compensate, of course.  But that feels thematically appropriate.

Not sure what I think about the leveling up; not just the speed of it but also the power differential.  Feels a bit First Age, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 22, 2016)

aramis erak said:


> Worse than others? I didn't say that.
> 
> 5E, however, up-powers characters VERY quickly; Middle Earth shows fairly middling start and very little growth over time.




I disagree.  It starts with amazingly powerful personages in the first age and each successive age is less powerful.  There's no growth, only diminishment.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 22, 2016)

Elfcrusher said:


> I agree that Middle Earth is a bad fit for D&D in general for all the obvious reasons.  But I'm curious why you say "5e pretty specifically".  How is 5e a worse fit than, say, 4e?






Maxperson said:


> I disagree.  It starts with amazingly powerful personages in the first age and each successive age is less powerful.  There's no growth, only diminishment.




Given that we know who their license is from (Middle-Earth Entertainment, formerly known as the Saul Zaentz Company), the setting is forcibly constrained to the end of the 3rd age.

For all intents and purposes, nothing that Christopher Tolkien has rights to exists in the materials that C7 have rights to use. If it's not in the Hobbit Novel, and not in the LotR novels, it's not available to them, and is thus utterly irrelevant. *In Other Words, it's not the First Age RPG...* because they cannot legally pull that off.

And We do see character competence growth in LotR and in The Hobbit. Only by hobbits and Istari, but we do see it in Bilbo, Merry, Pip, and Sam. We see personal growth in Aragorn and Frodo, even as Frodo fades in power and competence. In D&D terms, Merry, Pip, and Sam clearly level up.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 22, 2016)

aramis erak said:


> Given that we know who their license is from (Middle-Earth Entertainment, formerly known as the Saul Zaentz Company), the setting is forcibly constrained to the end of the 3rd age.
> 
> For all intents and purposes, nothing that Christopher Tolkien has rights to exists in the materials that C7 have rights to use. If it's not in the Hobbit Novel, and not in the LotR novels, it's not available to them, and is thus utterly irrelevant. *In Other Words, it's not the First Age RPG...* because they cannot legally pull that off.
> 
> And We do see character competence growth in LotR and in The Hobbit. Only by hobbits and Istari, but we do see it in Bilbo, Merry, Pip, and Sam. We see personal growth in Aragorn and Frodo, even as Frodo fades in power and competence. In D&D terms, Merry, Pip, and Sam clearly level up.




Where is that license?  I'd like to look at it.


----------



## shadowdemon (Mar 22, 2016)

Perhaps like The One Ring supplements,the D&D series of books will follow the same style.
The supplements for The One Ring focused a lot on the setting and containing minimal mechanics.( at least from what i have seen/read).
I'm guessing we'll see plenty of setting material,with possibly new sub-races and new archetypes. (example: Halfling sub-race: Hobbits of the shire. ect)
Anyways,if not for actually running Middle Earth with D&D 5e rules,the reading alone will be superb as is in The One Ring.
And if there are to be mechanics therein,it will probably lean towards travel and the effects when the Shadow takes hold,The Eye of Sauron, ect.
Should be good.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 27, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> Where is that license?  I'd like to look at it.




You will notice that Cubicle 7 products for Middle Earth all list Middle Earth Entertainment, and MEE only has rights to The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. 

Everything else is under the Tolkien Estate. Not MEE. And CR Tolkien licensing ANYTHING makes news... especially since he's been unwilling to do so other than a few odd specific references for ICE... 

Securing a license to anything other than those two books would require CRT to sign off, and he's not been willing to do so.


----------



## PatriotofKarrnath (Mar 30, 2016)

why? what really does this bring to the table? the One Ring works fine as it is, and Tolkein is definately not a spell slinging barbarian rampaging rogue sneakin type of game, and clerics just dont belong at all. this sounds like a square peg in a much smaller round hole, it could be either a great hit or an abysmal fail and anything in between. not alot of monster variety in tolkein, not alot of room for things like warlocks. There is alot of tolkein influence in D&D, not so much in eberron, but FR seems to be pretty close. Gonna hold of judgement on this one.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 30, 2016)

PatriotofKarrnath said:


> why? what really does this bring to the table? the One Ring works fine as it is, and Tolkein is definately not a spell slinging barbarian rampaging rogue sneakin type of game, and clerics just dont belong at all. this sounds like a square peg in a much smaller round hole, it could be either a great hit or an abysmal fail and anything in between. not alot of monster variety in tolkein, not alot of room for things like warlocks. There is alot of tolkein influence in D&D, not so much in eberron, but FR seems to be pretty close. *Gonna hold of judgement on this one.*




Uhhh...too late?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 30, 2016)

PatriotofKarrnath said:


> why? what really does this bring to the table?




It brings the opportunity for D&D players to make their games more Tolkien-esque; not in a "perfect or even close model" sense, but simply a "Let's add some classic Tolkien sauce to our D&D campaign" sense.

And it brings the attention of D&D's LARGE player base to the much smaller company of Cubicle 7 and the much smaller game of The One Ring.

There's frankly no downside.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 30, 2016)

I like the idea, because Middle Earth wasn't created to be a D&D world, but it is easy to play a remake or mash-up of Middle Earth with d20 system.


----------



## PatriotofKarrnath (Mar 30, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> It brings the opportunity for D&D players to make their games more Tolkien-esque; not in a "perfect or even close model" sense, but simply a "Let's add some classic Tolkien sauce to our D&D campaign" sense.
> 
> And it brings the attention of D&D's LARGE player base to the much smaller company of Cubicle 7 and the much smaller game of The One Ring.
> 
> There's frankly no downside.




I see the potential downside of everything going d20 style and games getting stale with the same old system, D&D is undeniably popular, but its system is certainly not the best for every setting or even any good for every style of game/setting out there. D&D does its style of game as good or better than anyone (with the exception of Pathfinder, I see that game everywhere, in several of my FLGS thats the only game played, coincidentally I dont play games at those places) but that style was horrible for Fading Suns, and missed the mark badly for a setting like Black Company and Wheel of Time and it was terribad for Star Wars. Dont twist what I am saying here, this is not some hater rant, I would want no other style for Eberron or Dragonlance, I dont think anyone else could do those settings justice. But Tolkein would feel wrong like Stormbringer would feel wrong. I think maybe they should have tried their Lone Wolf setting first.


----------



## darjr (Mar 30, 2016)

Taste differs, for instance, in my opinion, the Black Company game is pretty fantastic.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2016)

People think "D&D is a chappy fit for Tolkien" and decry the game.

But I would never run a Tolkien game with levels and hit points and magic loot and the focus on combat prowess that is D&D.

I do see, however, how this game will be attractive to legions of D&D players (many MANY more than Cubicle's customer base), to add elements of Tolkien to their campaign worlds.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 30, 2016)

This is a clear business move by Cubicle 7, nothing more or less. 

Assuming the product ends up being even slightly better than mediocre, even a C+ / B- product will be a big seller and money maker for them. 

To me the downside is, as I've said earlier, that this WILL have a material effect and opportunity cost on the actual One Ring product line. I don't care what Cubicle 7 says, it's just a simple fact of business. They didn't have enough man-hours as it was to release a One Ring product more than once every 9 to 12 months. Adding another major product to their production schedule is absolutely going to affect down-the-line releases of One Ring product. 

If you're not into the One Ring product line, then yes, there's no downside to this at all.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 30, 2016)

Unless, of course, the money this brings in allows them more staff so they can do more on The One Ring at the same time as DnD ME


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 30, 2016)

PatriotofKarrnath said:


> I see the potential downside of everything going d20 style and games getting stale with the same old system, D&D is undeniably popular, but its system is certainly not the best for every setting or even any good for every style of game/setting out there.




Fortunately, C7 is doing this _in addition_ to their One Ring line, not _instead_ of it. So there's no danger of "everything going D20." TOR will still be there for all who want it, including (hopefully) new fans brought on board by the D20 books.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 31, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> Fortunately, C7 is doing this _in addition_ to their One Ring line, not _instead_ of it. So there's no danger of "everything going D20." TOR will still be there for all who want it, including (hopefully) new fans brought on board by the D20 books.




Unfortunately, no matter how many times this is pointed out to the pessimists, they just keep repeating the same "sky is falling" predictions.


----------



## Votan (Apr 3, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> Fortunately, C7 is doing this _in addition_ to their One Ring line, not _instead_ of it. So there's no danger of "everything going D20." TOR will still be there for all who want it, including (hopefully) new fans brought on board by the D20 books.




I agree.  I am quite looking forward to the Lord of the Rings interpretation of D&D.  The Fourth Age is a very interesting place for adventures, while still having a lot of the features of the movies.  The loss of ringwraiths is the biggest loss, but there may be other creatures of similar characteristics in the East


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 3, 2016)

Votan said:


> I agree.  I am quite looking forward to the Lord of the Rings interpretation of D&D.  The Fourth Age is a very interesting place for adventures, while still having a lot of the features of the movies.  The loss of ringwraiths is the biggest loss, but there may be other creatures of similar characteristics in the East




I suspect that C7's products will focus on the same era and locales as their The One Ring line; basically T.A. 2953 to T.A. 3018, in Gondor and Arnor.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 3, 2016)

Elfcrusher said:


> I suspect that C7's products will focus on the same era and locales as their The One Ring line; basically T.A. 2953 to T.A. 3018, in Gondor and Arnor.




I'm pretty sure they _have_ to. Do they even have the rights for anything outside the "core" Hobbit/LotR settings/stories?


----------



## fjw70 (Apr 3, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'm pretty sure they _have_ to. Do they even have the rights for anything outside the "core" Hobbit/LotR settings/stories?




I don't the no so, but that time period can be adapted to the 4th age pretty easily.

As far as Ringwraith type foes I have a couple ideas. First, I believe the blue wizards were said to have been corrupted by Sauron. Maybe they are now Ringwraith type creatures that aren't tied to the ring. 

Second, I have been playing around with a story for the witch-King. When he "died" in the War of the Ring it only destroyed his Ringwraith form and his remaining spirit was freed on the ring so he survives its destruction. 

Third, change the story so the Ringwraiths aren't destroyed with the ring and become free agents (so to speak) after the ring's destruction.


----------



## jayoungr (Apr 8, 2016)

innerdude said:


> The entire backstory of Gondor, Numenor, Isildur and Anarion, the North and South Kingdoms of the Men of the West, etc., are by far my favorite parts of the Lord of the Rings lore, closely followed by the history of the Silmarils. I don't currently have any tattoos, but if I ever got one, it would be of exactly one thing --- the White Tree of Gondor.
> 
> So yeah, I'm partial to Gondor. And Reynard might be right; The One Ring isn't "made" just for me. They made a design decision to stick to one particular time period and locales for the system.



Speaking as another fan of Gondor and the Stewards, I can say that I think I'd rather have them not support Gondor if they aren't interested.  Gondor done by people who don't grok Gondor tends to exaggerate its flaws and not do justice to what makes it cool.  (I kind of think the movies suffered from that problem.)  And in my experience, it's rare to find a Tolkien fan who likes _both_ the North and the South of M-E.

Just my 2 cents, for whatever consolation that might offer.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 8, 2016)

jayoungr said:


> Speaking as another fan of Gondor and the Stewards, I can say that I think I'd rather have them not support Gondor if they aren't interested.  Gondor done by people who don't grok Gondor tends to exaggerate its flaws and not do justice to what makes it cool.  (I kind of think the movies suffered from that problem.)  And in my experience, it's rare to find a Tolkien fan who likes _both_ the North and the South of M-E.
> 
> Just my 2 cents, for whatever consolation that might offer.




Out of curiosity, are you familiar with The One Ring?  

Tolkien fandom (and scholarship) runs deep over at C7.


----------



## jayoungr (Apr 8, 2016)

Elfcrusher said:


> Out of curiosity, are you familiar with The One Ring?
> 
> Tolkien fandom (and scholarship) runs deep over at C7.



I own it and would very much like to try it, but have never had a chance to play it.

I don't doubt C7's scholarship or their love for Tolkien's world.  But let's just say that I've seen a lot of scholarly and sincere fans of Aragorn and the Rangers of the North who have spoken extremely slightingly of Gondor and the Dúnedain of the South.  To the point that when someone proclaims a strong preference for the northern regions (as C7 has by focusing exclusively on them since the publication of TOR), I tend to assume they're "that type" of fan until and unless they prove otherwise.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 8, 2016)

jayoungr said:


> I own it and would very much like to try it, but have never had a chance to play it.
> 
> I don't doubt C7's scholarship or their love for Tolkien's world.  But let's just say that I've seen a lot of scholarly and sincere fans of Aragorn and the Rangers of the North who have spoken extremely slightingly of Gondor and the Dúnedain of the South.  To the point that when someone proclaims a strong preference for the northern regions (as C7 has by focusing exclusively on them since the publication of TOR), I tend to assume they're "that type" of fan until and unless they prove otherwise.




Fair enough.  We'll see.


----------



## zedturtle (Apr 8, 2016)

jayoungr said:


> I own it and would very much like to try it, but have never had a chance to play it.
> 
> I don't doubt C7's scholarship or their love for Tolkien's world.  But let's just say that I've seen a lot of scholarly and sincere fans of Aragorn and the Rangers of the North who have spoken extremely slightingly of Gondor and the Dúnedain of the South.  To the point that when someone proclaims a strong preference for the northern regions (as C7 has by focusing exclusively on them since the publication of TOR), I tend to assume they're "that type" of fan until and unless they prove otherwise.




Rhovanion was a brilliant choice for their initial focus... it has a lot of different cultures and the portion of the timeline they picked has a good reason for everyone to be coming together and new alliances formed (perhaps to be broken).

But then they had a decision to make... to go West or South. They picked West... Eriador it was, and that gave us a lot of good stuff that expanded the game. But I don't think it was decision made to slight Gondor. In fact, I think it shows respect... Gondor is the pinnacle of the game. It is the full might and power of Men standing in defiance of the Dark Lord. To do it justice, we need the rules in Rivendell, we need the rules in Rohan (come on Swan Knights) and we're going to need some other rules.

But I have full faith that Cubicle 7 will do a fantastic job with Gondor.


----------



## cainefhanks (May 10, 2017)

AYE


----------



## cainefhanks (May 10, 2017)

Agreed!


----------



## Stormdale (May 10, 2017)

We've been playing AiME for the last few weeks and thoroughly enjoying it. I'm adapting some of the ToR books (The Darkening of Mirkwood campaign) to it and also some 5E adventures of my own. My group is enjoying the change of pace and and the games ME mechanics (journey's, shadow points, fellowship phase etc) and I'm keen to port some of those ideas over to our regular D&D campaign. 

One of the guys noted on Tuesday night how much more role playing they are doing in this system mainly as they are all "forced" to be "good" least they gain more shadow points. They've role played themselves out of situations they'd have usually bludgeoned their way through in our regular D&D game and so has been a nice change of pace. 

It's early days yet and we are still getting used to the  AiME differences 
but we are about 5 sessions in and  I'm very impressed with the ruleset so far. 

Stormdale


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 10, 2017)

Stormdale said:


> "forced" to be "good" least they gain more shadow points.




I'm like that you put those keywords quotes. The game doesn't really force you to be good as much as it gives real interesting consequences for being not good. I totally plan to play a character that that through the best of intentions is going to rack up some shadow points, not because I want to be a murderhobo, but because I think it will make for a memorable story. After all, where would LotR be without Boromir, Wormtongue, and of course Smeagol.


----------



## zedturtle (May 10, 2017)

I've often said that the Shadow system is the best 'alignment' system that I've ever seen. Just personal opinion, but I love the feel that it creates.


----------



## Stormdale (May 11, 2017)

zedturtle said:


> I've often said that the Shadow system is the best 'alignment' system that I've ever seen. Just personal opinion, but I love the feel that it creates.




It seems to be working great so far, all my players have become "shadow point police" happy to dob in their companions when they say or do something they feel is worth of a shadow point check. Adds a lot of humour to our already crazy games. 

Stormdale


----------



## John R Davis (May 11, 2017)

4 sessions into a campaign I'm running set in Gondor. No hobbits or elven pcs
Going very well
Am using a few things tweaked over from TOR


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 11, 2017)

John R Davis said:


> 4 sessions into a campaign I'm running set in Gondor. No hobbits or elven pcs
> Going very well
> Am using a few things tweaked over from TOR




From what I've seen It's pretty easy to do conversions from TOR. They did a really good job of bring the concepts from that game to work with 5e so far.


----------

