# A Brief History of Tolkien RPGs



## freyar (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm a bit surprised no one's posted these links yet, but they would seem to be of interest.  4 parts of an essay by John Rateliff on, as the title says, the history of Tolkien-based RPGs:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

I found TSR/WotC's attitude as presented here to be quite interesting. 

(Found through the Monkey King's blog.)


----------



## billd91 (Dec 1, 2008)

Wow. You just can't see the name Saul Zaentz anywhere without it having negative connotations these days.


----------



## jdsivyer (Dec 1, 2008)

Good and interesting read, thanks


----------



## Mark (Dec 1, 2008)

Less detail than I expected but certainly worth reading if only to ensure clearing up some common misconceptions.  Thanks!


----------



## jeffh (Dec 1, 2008)

Does anybody know what the "wrong kind of money" remark in section VIII (near the end of part 3) is about?


----------



## NN (Dec 1, 2008)

Interesting, but I cant agree with much of it. 

The elephant in the room,  is that while Lotr and the Hobbit are brilliant fantasy stories, Middle Earth is not a very suitable setting for _any_ kind of roleplaying game.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 1, 2008)

NN said:


> Interesting, but I cant agree with much of it.
> 
> The elephant in the room,  is that while Lotr and the Hobbit are brilliant fantasy stories, Middle Earth is not a very suitable setting for _any_ kind of roleplaying game.




I don't think so. The stories aren't great settings to role play within because they're already set and either PCs playing in them have to be the main characters and have to stick to the plot, or they have to be secondary characters and play second fiddle to the NPCs. But the setting itself has plenty of opportunity for interesting things to do and, more importantly, has plenty of interesting races easily transported to other campaigns.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Dec 1, 2008)

Middle Earth suffers from the same problem of all literary fantasy settings (Wheel of Time and Dragonlance included)- there just isn't enough room for the PC's to do anything very interesting- they're completely overshadowed by the plot of the main stories.

Sure, you can go to an earlier or later era- but you can't create a greater enemy than Sauron or Melkor.  You can't create a greater dragon than Glaurung or Smaug.  If great and terrible events happen during the halcyon of the Second Age, it's not the same anymore.  There just isn't really enough of a canvas to work with, when it comes down to it, without making it no longer really feel like Middle Earth.  Which makes Middle Earth a great place to steal flavor and ideas from (and have I ever!)... but not such a great place to play.

Star Wars is different, because Star Wars is a vast universe to work with- a million worlds (so you can easily insert your own), 100,000 years of history, and only a few basic concepts that need to be hewed to to "keep it Star Wars"- Jedi, the Force, the Dark Side, spaceships, aliens.  Done.  You could set it 10,000 years before the movies and have the heroes perform feats undreamed of by the Jedi we saw in official materials- and it would still be Star Wars, and hardly touch canon.

Fantasy settings, bound to a much smaller canvas, aren't so malleable, without "losing the plot".

(This, too, is what killed Dragonlance for me.  I always liked reading the modules and pilfering material from the setting- but actually play there?  Check, please.  The Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, while they have some pretty epic novels connected to them, are much easier to play with.  A big part of this is because, in general, your players probably haven't read them (and if they have, it's typically the Salvatore novels- Cadderly and Drizz't- which are minor enough not to have much impact on the setting itself.  They're not world-shaking epics.).)

So I don't think there ever will be a really good Middle Earth RPG, and I don't think there can be.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 1, 2008)

What comes to head now as a reply here...
The problem, I think, lies in the existance of certain prominent roles and relations of a setting that can stagnate the desire for action in the long term. D&D OTOH is an action focused toolset, nonsensical  in its wholeness that begs people to customize and improvize the material it provides, to grab and cut and modify to their need. It has been successful because it has managed till now this to be done without too much pain.


----------



## dm4hire (Dec 1, 2008)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Middle Earth suffers from the same problem of all literary fantasy settings (Wheel of Time and Dragonlance included)- there just isn't enough room for the PC's to do anything very interesting- they're completely overshadowed by the plot of the main stories.




I can agree to some extent with most of this but not Wheel of Time.  Its escape from the flaw is that everything repeats itself to some extent.  Effectively you could play WoT as if it is almost an exact replica of a previous age long since past.  Not to mention you can play during, after, or before an age ends due to the Dragon.  I concur with another poster in a different thread in that WoT should be revamped, but after the final book releases and not till then.  We're looking around 2009-2011 time period give or take a couple of months.

As for LotR I think most of the problem with any IP is that they tend to focus on the events of the story instead of mining the world.  There is so much that could be mined from the stories to flush out and create an effective RPG surrounding the world of Middle Earth.  I think another flaw in the past has been the systems used.  I think the best system would actually be a modified M&M in that the heroes in LotR really don't advance in power as much as they develop in personality and character.


----------



## Ulrick (Dec 1, 2008)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Middle Earth suffers from the same problem of all literary fantasy settings (Wheel of Time and Dragonlance included)- there just isn't enough room for the PC's to do anything very interesting- they're completely overshadowed by the plot of the main stories.




I've played MERP and it turns out that there is still plenty to do before or after the fall of Sauron. The sourcebooks offered a plethora of information of adventures and hooks.  Characters in MERP can't take on Sauron anyway and expect to win. But they can explore Moria and all get killed (which happened in a campaign I was in). The plot of the main stories didn't overshadow the campaigns I was in.

But you're right about Dragonlance. Cool setting, but the gods seemed to interfere (or not, depending on the era).  The problem with Dragonlance is that they keep coming out with books with world-shattering events that redefine everything. 

At least with Middle Earth, world-shattering events happen once every couple thousand years and end with the dawn of the 4th age.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 1, 2008)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Middle Earth suffers from the same problem of all literary fantasy settings (Wheel of Time and Dragonlance included)- there just isn't enough room for the PC's to do anything very interesting- they're completely overshadowed by the plot of the main stories.
> 
> Sure, you can go to an earlier or later era- but you can't create a greater enemy than Sauron or Melkor.




However, people have had quite a bit of fun with WW2 games without having them kill Hitler, right?

I think that Middle Earth provides an interesting enough setting that you could have dozens of interesting stories (even during the time of the book) with the opportunity for personal triumph or disaster. I've not run anything in that milieu, but I'm pretty sure I could come up with engaging adventures against the backdrop either of the war of the ring, or before it, or after it.

Just 2cp.


----------



## Mark (Dec 1, 2008)

Middle Earth needs cleaning up in a post-Sauron world and many factions are jockeying for power.  Plenty to do for everyone.


----------



## Eridanis (Dec 1, 2008)

Very interesting to think about what would have happened if TSR had gone with the Tolkien RPG in '92 - would TSR have been able to hold off its financial problems a few years later? Probably not, but who knows.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 1, 2008)

Eridanis said:


> Very interesting to think about what would have happened if TSR had gone with the Tolkien RPG in '92 - would TSR have been able to hold off its financial problems a few years later? Probably not, but who knows.




Btw, the revelation of this article and its revelations make me curious if threre is actually something in the air right now.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 1, 2008)

Well, that was a bit depressing. 

As for Middle Earth's suitability as a RPG setting. . . _of course_ it is suitable. So much opportunity for adventure and discovery and heroism, the mind boggles! OK, no, it goes into overdrive thinking about characters and events and places, etc.


----------



## Drowbane (Dec 1, 2008)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> "...Uou can't create a greater dragon than Glaurung or Smaug..."




Smaug? Really? He got one-shotted... by an NPC!!!


----------



## darjr (Dec 1, 2008)

The pig snouted orc came from TSR trying to get out from under? From claiming that it was an Irish term for pig? Not a word coined by Tolkien?

Is this true?


----------



## darjr (Dec 1, 2008)

Thanks for posting this, very interesting.


----------



## Betote (Dec 2, 2008)

Drowbane said:


> Smaug? Really? He got one-shotted... by an NPC!!!




Well if Smaug was a minion, that was bound to happen... 1 out of 20 times


----------



## dm4hire (Dec 2, 2008)

Drowbane said:


> Smaug? Really? He got one-shotted... by an NPC!!!




I've never seen it as one shotted as much as he got nailed by an arrow of slaying.  That would make a big difference in getting hit once.


----------



## cildarith (Dec 2, 2008)

darjr said:


> The pig snouted orc came from TSR trying to get out from under? From claiming that it was an Irish term for pig? Not a word coined by Tolkien?
> 
> Is this true?




As far as I can tell, the Pig-Snouted Orc originated from the Brothers Hildebrandt and the 1976 Tolkien Calendar...

http://www.timefold.com/brosimages/captured.jpg

...and was subsequently copied by Sutherland for use in the AD&D monster manual (1977).


----------



## NN (Dec 2, 2008)

For me, Middle Earth is a boring setting, because it is cosmologically simplistic.


Theres Sauron and co. 

And theres the Good Guys. 

And thats it.


No mystery.
No gray areas
No moral triage.


And, because Tolkein was so erudite and thorough, any new idea feels like an abomination. 

If I was playing a game set in, say, Newhon, id quite happily invent fantastical new cultures or races for adventure. It seems entirely plausible that theres vast realsm of weird stuff Fafhrd and Grey Mouser never found.

For Middle Earth, itd feel like cheating. Id feel a lot better porting over bits of Middle Earth into a "D&D-world" than vice versa.


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 2, 2008)

NN said:


> For me, Middle Earth is a boring setting, because it is cosmologically simplistic.
> 
> 
> Theres Sauron and co.
> ...



I've never read it that the Easterlings or the Southrons were all evil, rather they were allied with Sauron who was considered evil. Further, Denethor was on the "side of the angels," as was Saruman for some time.

I think there's room for moral ambiguity in ME, but only if one moves away from the central story and seeing it with "Westron" eyes. I wish I had a link for the article that postulated that Sauron was actually an anti-imperialist revolutionary and Gondor and its allies were imperialist powers attempting to reassert authority. That puts a whole different spin on it.



NN said:


> And, because Tolkein was so erudite and thorough, any new idea feels like an abomination.



To each their own, but I have had no problem grafting on whatever elements I felt were necessary when playing in ME care of the ICE modules back in the day. Granted, we played 100 years after Aragorn's death, so things were a bit different.



NN said:


> If I was playing a game set in, say, Newhon, id quite happily invent fantastical new cultures or races for adventure. It seems entirely plausible that theres vast realsm of weird stuff Fafhrd and Grey Mouser never found.
> 
> For Middle Earth, itd feel like cheating. Id feel a lot better porting over bits of Middle Earth into a "D&D-world" than vice versa.



I got the ME map poster from ICE that showed the area involved in the LotR to be a very small section of the continent. We had a LOT of fun filling in the blanks!

I think there are a few ways to approach an ME game. You can play in one of the pre-LotR eras where lots of stuff must have been happened that couldn't be recorded, you can play during the Hobbit or LotR, either in another area that faced different challenges OR as the troops on the ground--maybe a group of Rohirrim that fight the good fight from Helm's Deep to the Black Gate, and end up both in famous moments and perhaps not so famous ones.

I don't know, my co-DMs and I found lots of fodder both during the LotR era and our "Many Years Later" campaign.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Dec 2, 2008)

dm4hire said:


> As for LotR I think most of the problem with any IP is that they tend to focus on the events of the story instead of mining the world.  There is so much that could be mined from the stories to flush out and create an effective RPG surrounding the world of Middle Earth.  I think another flaw in the past has been the systems used.  I think the best system would actually be a modified M&M in that the heroes in LotR really don't advance in power as much as they develop in personality and character.




Good point, dm4hire.  I'm probably thinking in too much of a D&D-centric mode, where character advancement is dependent on a kind of Nietzschean power-acquisition- this doesn't go well with Lord of the Rings.  A Middle Earth RPG would probably have to take a different tack than level-ups, gaining loot and power, and running roughshod over the countryside; while this is my favorite kind of gaming, doing it in Middle Earth just feels wrong.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 2, 2008)

Having worked for a licensee, I generally think licenses are predisposed towards not creating quality products. I’d generally rather pick a close-enough system and do the adaption myself.

That said, although the Decipher game has lots of problems, it worked fairly well for my group. I’m debating whether to switch systems whenever we pick the campaign back up, however.



NN said:


> The elephant in the room,  is that while Lotr and the Hobbit are brilliant fantasy stories, Middle Earth is not a very suitable setting for _any_ kind of roleplaying game.




I think the campaign I’m most proud of is the one I ran set in Middle-earth.



Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Middle Earth suffers from the same problem of all literary fantasy settings (Wheel of Time and Dragonlance included)- there just isn't enough room for the PC's to do anything very interesting- they're completely overshadowed by the plot of the main stories.




Well, I did set my campaign in the fourth age. Sure, my bad guys don’t really rival Sauron. (But then, I would assume that Sauron didn’t really rival Melkor.) They’re still the biggest threats of their age. Just as the second age was different from the first age and the third age was different from the second age, my fourth age was different from the third age. But I did my best to continue the themes only slightly altered based on the current state of the world.

I’m proud (and a bit surprised) to say that the biggest Tolkien fan in the group did say that my campaign felt like Middle-earth.

That said, I think there are plenty of possibilities for third age (or even first or second age) tales between those that JRRT told.



NN said:


> For me, Middle Earth is a boring setting, because it is cosmologically simplistic.




I don’t know. He did stick Bombadil in there in order to have at least one enigma. You have characters—even angelic characters—who fall. (Sauron, Saruman, and the Balrogs were all Maia.) You have characters who get too caught up in mundane matters. You have characters whose greed or fear or short-sightedness or pride cause problems.


----------



## andozane (Dec 2, 2008)

I'm surprised that the license that went to Games Workshop doesn't factor into any of this as well...


----------



## Mark (Dec 2, 2008)

RFisher said:


> You have characters whose greed or fear or short-sightedness or pride cause problems.





Sometimes known as a Butterburism.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Dec 2, 2008)

I'd have more respect for this article if I felt the guy didn't have his own prejudices.  Since he's a die-hard Tolkien fan, he's very dismissive of other opinions, particular Gygax's.  (The "brain addled by drugs" comment was pretty damn unfair).  I also think it was kind of smart for TSR/WoTC to stay focused on D&D and not licensing.   No matter how much of a fan you are, licensed works are always harder than stuff you own outright.

I do think there's an undeniable influence of JRRT on the genre, especially a few of the races.  However, I also believe that a lot of ideas also came from elsewhere--the other influences.  I think in many cases the perceptions of the fans have added to this since LoTR was the most popular fantasy book at the time and colored influences, which affected all subsequent authors.

The great irony here is that D&D, as the pastiche of all the fantasy authors of the past, has now surpassed and become the primary influence on fantasy culture.  Even Tolkien's influence has waned, despite the movies.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 2, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:


> The great irony here is that D&D, as the pastiche of all the fantasy authors of the past, has now surpassed and become the primary influence on fantasy culture.  Even Tolkien's influence has waned, despite the movies.



Interesting theory. What facts and/or figures is it based on?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Dec 2, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:


> Interesting theory. What facts and/or figures is it based on?




It's pretty obvious the influence of today's fiction has been influenced by the presence of gaming in general, especially the effect RPGs and video games have had.  Take a look at all the D&D clones out there, and how the D&D game has affected just about all the Video RPGs out there.  Record of Lodoss War was a D&D campaign, or how books like the Economist covered the death of Gary Gygax and the influence on the culture.  Authors who started in gaming have mass followings, etc.  Just look at the Wikipedia articles and references.

This is pretty much the circle of life.  At one time for instance, Lil' Abner was the most popular comic strip and had an impact on the culture.  You couldn't go anywhere without finding LA merchandise such as Shmoo figures.  Then Charles Schulz with Peanuts ended up replacing this in pop culture.  I see D&D as the Peanuts that eclipsed Lil' Abner.  Something too will replace D&D as the major influence on fantasy, just give it time...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 2, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:


> It's pretty obvious the influence of today's fiction has been influenced by the presence of gaming in general, especially the effect RPGs and video games have had.  Take a look at all the D&D clones out there, and how the D&D game has affected just about all the Video RPGs out there.  Record of Lodoss War was a D&D campaign, or how books like the Economist covered the death of Gary Gygax and the influence on the culture.  Authors who started in gaming have mass followings, etc.  Just look at the Wikipedia articles and references.



Sure, hey, I would never deny that RPGs (and roleplayers) have crept into certain other areas of business and popular culture, to some degree. Not sure to _what_ degree, though.

It was just a heck of a claim. Well OK, it seemed that way to me. I'm actually willing to believe it, but I still haven't really heard or read anything that I've found compelling enough, so that I do. Not so far, anyhow.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 2, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:


> (The "brain addled by drugs" comment was pretty damn unfair).




I read that as the writer making fun of an improbable theory. Basically he dismissed it as an improbable rumour, insteda arriving at the "lawyer" explantion.

At least that's how I read it at my first read through, and how I read it now that I went back to the text.

/M


----------



## Grimstaff (Dec 2, 2008)

Maggan said:


> I read that as the writer making fun of an improbable theory. Basically he dismissed it as an improbable rumour, insteda arriving at the "lawyer" explantion.
> 
> At least that's how I read it at my first read through, and how I read it now that I went back to the text.
> 
> /M




That is a bizaare statement: "the cocaine theory, the widespread belief that years of rumored drug abuse during E. Gary Gygax's time heading up TSR's Hollywood branch had addled his brain."

Is that a joke, or an actual rumor - I'd certainly never heard it before...


----------



## crash_beedo (Dec 2, 2008)

Interesting read - I was definitely a MERPs and Rolemaster collector, we played some but it was a bear at the table and 1E D&D was so easy to run and homebrew.  The article makes sense why MERPS/RM either involved the early Third Age or the Fourth Age for placing adventures.

Funny that 4E could be an ideal Tolkien system - you could play a Martial-only campaign, either introducing new classes for things like Istari (wizards) with toned down spells, or relegate magic to ritual casting.  Herbalism, which plays a part via Athelas (and MERP went crazy with the herbalism), could be handled similar to Alchemy or Rituals, too.

Dunno if WOTC will seek out any licenses for a 4E setting book, but the 4E class structure and revisions to healing supports low-magic, high-cinematic action much like the LOTR movies.


----------



## Elphilm (Dec 2, 2008)

FraserRonald said:


> I got the ME map poster from ICE that showed the area involved in the LotR to be a very small section of the continent. We had a LOT of fun filling in the blanks!



Is it something like this map?

I mean, when you look at where the familiar parts of Middle-earth are on that map, the sheer vastness of the unexplored lands boggles the mind. Whatever happened to the Blue Wizards, Alatar and Pallando, who went to those eastern and southern parts of the world? According to the Encyclopedia of Arda, "Tolkien hints that they were responsible for the founding of strange cults in distant lands." Sounds like a great plot hook to me!


----------



## FraserRonald (Dec 2, 2008)

Elphilm said:


> Is it something like this map?



That would be the one! It was, of course, larger and designed in the Tolkienesque map style we all remember from LotR.



Elphilm said:


> I mean, when you look at where the familiar parts of Middle-earth are on that map, the sheer vastness of the unexplored lands boggles the mind. Whatever happened to the Blue Wizards, Alatar and Pallando, who went to those eastern and southern parts of the world? According to the Encyclopedia of Arda, "Tolkien hints that they were responsible for the founding of strange cults in distant lands." Sounds like a great plot hook to me!



Odd you should you mention that . . .

Yes, that was one of the hooks, also the basis for the Big Bad in our Fourth Age campaign.


----------



## Ydars (Dec 3, 2008)

I always wanted to run an adventure where the PCs were one of the parties sent out ahead of the Fellowship to draw off the eye of Sauron and his minions. 

In LoTR it mentions that in the days before the council, Elrond's sons Elladan and Elrohir went out into the land and checked many passes including Caradhras and passed on into Lorien. It also hints at attempts to confuse or decieve the eye and his spies.

It would be great if a party, including some dwarves disguised as hobbits, set out from Rivendell pursued by Sauron's agents. I would have had them head away from the route of the Fellowship towards where Tharbad once stood (in Cardolan) and then head south to Gondor, since that is what Sauron would expect; ie he expected someone to take up the ring and try to master it and challenge him for its power, not try to destroy it.

That way the party could be part of that great tale without actually having to alter history. They could even carry something (a lesser ring) to convince the eye they had his prize.


----------



## Daztur (Dec 3, 2008)

The problem with playing an RPG in a setting that is created in books about epic adventure is often the PCs end up playing very minor roles compared to what happened in the books (relegating PCs to "cleaning up" after the defeat of the real big bad or the common Star Wars RPG trope of "while Luke saves the galaxy, you get to play Traveler!"). Or playing in such a different time or place that it doesn't really feel like you're part of the books.

What I'd do if I ever ran a game in the Middle Earth is start it off like this:

"Frodo just got ran over by a horse cart and the Sacksville Baggins have finally got their hands on the inheritance. While playing in their new house a few young hobbits come across a golden ring with strange writing on it."

Your characters are those young hobbits. And go! I think that would be a hell of a lot more fun than playing as a cleaning detail for the cannon characters.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Dec 3, 2008)

Certainly an interesting read.

As for Middle-Earth as a "viable setting for an RPG," I think that ultimately depends on when you set it.

I remember seeing, quite a while back, a campaign series an online supplement for the Decipher version that took place towards Witch-King's campaign against the Northern Dunedain before their fall, and allowed for the PCs to have their share of heroics.  So it's not impossible.

Also, there is the Fourth Age, and while magic and mysticism is slowly fading, it's not going to vanish entirely, nor are the elves and the dwarves going to simply blink out of existence, though they will be much less common as time marches onward.  Not to mention that the Decipher core book there was a fair amount of talk of the work that Aragorn had cut out for him and his kingdom and creating a world of peace.  Having played in a short-lived campaign set several decades after the crowning of Elessar, there's plenty to do, such as _preventing_ some two-bit despot from garnering enough power/influence to become another Sauron in terms of causing strife and suffering, which can be just as heroic since you've prevented such a monster from wreaking havoc.


----------



## garyh (Dec 3, 2008)

Ydars said:


> I always wanted to run an adventure where the PCs were one of the parties sent out ahead of the Fellowship to draw off the eye of Sauron and his minions.
> 
> In LoTR it mentions that in the days before the council, Elrond's sons Elladan and Elrohir went out into the land and checked many passes including Caradhras and passed on into Lorien. It also hints at attempts to confuse or decieve the eye and his spies.
> 
> ...




I really, really like this idea.


----------



## scourger (Dec 4, 2008)

Daztur said:


> What I'd do if I ever ran a game in the Middle Earth is start it off like this:
> 
> "Frodo just got ran over by a horse cart and the Sacksville Baggins have finally got their hands on the inheritance. While playing in their new house a few young hobbits come across a golden ring with strange writing on it."
> 
> Your characters are those young hobbits. And go! I think that would be a hell of a lot more fun than playing as a cleaning detail for the cannon characters.




Yeah, the "what if" game.  Sounds fun.  Same for Star Wars: "what of there was no Luke Skywalker?"


----------



## Daztur (Dec 4, 2008)

scourger said:


> Yeah, the "what if" game.  Sounds fun.  Same for Star Wars: "what of there was no Luke Skywalker?"




"Well, you've arrived at Tatooine but you don't see it anywhere, just an asteroid field that isn't on any of the charts. There also seems to be something that looks like a small moon. No, nothing interesting has happened to Alderan recently. Why do you ask?"


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 4, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Wow. You just can't see the name Saul Zaentz anywhere without it having negative connotations these days.




Was there a time when you didn't?  He's produced some great movies, but few people attribute their success to him.  Ask John Fogarty exactly how much he like Saul Zaentz.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 4, 2008)

WizarDru said:


> Ask John Fogarty exactly how much he like Saul Zaentz.




That is, in fact, one of the very things I was thinking about when I posted.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 4, 2008)

darjr said:


> The pig snouted orc came from TSR trying to get out from under? From claiming that it was an Irish term for pig? Not a word coined by Tolkien?
> 
> Is this true?




For the record, Tolkien didn't coin the term orc.  He made it mainstream, but he took it from mythology, right along with goblin, ogre and others.  There is similar word in Celtic that does mean 'young pig', so there is plenty of wiggle room in the whole discussion.

Discussion here.  On a related note that Orcus also had historical mythical origins.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 7, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:


> I'd have more respect for this article if I felt the guy didn't have his own prejudices.  Since he's a die-hard Tolkien fan, he's very dismissive of other opinions, particular Gygax's.  (The "brain addled by drugs" comment was pretty damn unfair).




John isn't just some Tolkien fan--he's one of the world's leading Tolkien scholars. ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/History-Hobbit-John-D-Rateliff/dp/0618964401/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228608087&sr=8-1"]Here's[/ame] one of his recent contributions to the field.) He was also a TSR and WotC employee for a long time. While it doesn't make him infallible, he speaks as a true insider both on the Tolkien front and the TSR front.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Dec 7, 2008)

The "Gygax on cocaine" rumor was started at TSR by a certain individual, and was once spread to usenet by another who worked at TSR.  It was the only time I saw Gary's lawyers threaten a libel suit against them.  I don't want to identify the individuals who stated it, because one apologized and the other (which the other guy got it from) patching things up and resumed his friendship with Gary.  I assume Mr. Ratcliffe got it from conversations at time, and he's not speaking from experience because he joined TSR 6 years after EGG left.  (And I think it was just a cheap shot by the author--otherwise why even mention it now, it just seems like an ad hominem, he could have stuck with the second and third points without mentioning the first).

I agree he's well-knowledged, but I still have a problem with a few statements like this.



> First, there's the simple fact that Tolkien's innovations are so great that they have, ironically, come to be considered "generic". In fact, they only appear that way because the genre of Modern Fantasy is something Tolkien himself largely created: he is the exemplar that defines the category. The very idea of a player character party—a group of diverse individuals of differing races with differing talents and specialties who set off on an adventure together—is a uniquely Tolkien innovation, unprecedented in earlier fantasy, where we either have a hero, or a hero & a sidekick.




Saying JRRT innovations are "so great" ignores the other great Fantasy authors, and you should also count Science Fiction among them, since the genres are tied at the hip.  If we count pulps and comic books, the "differing races and different specialties" could have been found since the Golden Age of Science Fiction and a comic book team like the JLA or Fantastic Four.

I mean, some of his stuff is spot on.  But as people would (rightly) accuse me of an EGG bias, so this author would likely see Tolkien as being more important than other influences.  

And I agree with EGG's essays about how Middle Earth would be weaker for an RPG than other settings.  As rich as JRRT created his world mythology, and as successful as ICE was with their license, as correctly stated above there are limits to what can be done with it, compared to those D&D campaign settings that have a lot more factions, countries, and plot hooks.  JRRT wasn't trying to create a shared world or anything like that.


----------



## Faraer (Dec 7, 2008)

I'd love to see a ruleset that really fits Middle-earth -- something more freeform than the Rolemaster-derived MERP and the d20like Coda system. HeroQuest would work well.

I think the idea that Gary substantially derived D&D from Tolkien is a popular assumption that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You could argue that he downplayed Tolkien's role somewhat, but dismissing his accounts as lies or delusions is outrageous.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 7, 2008)

Faraer said:


> I'd love to see a ruleset that really fits Middle-earth -- something more freeform than the Rolemaster-derived MERP and the d20like Coda system. HeroQuest would work well.




I’ve heard good things about Legends of Middle-earth but haven’t gotten around to investigating it further.


----------



## daddystabz (Nov 28, 2010)

I just saw all this and read it all just now.  I am starting to play in an online MERP 2e campaign and I am an AVID Tolkien fan, as well as a D&D fan.  I have heard of Legends of Middle Earth but have no experience with it.  

What do you all think of Legends of Middle Earth, especially in comparison to MERP, Decipher (CODA) LotR, and LotR Unisystem?


----------



## jonesy (Nov 28, 2010)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Middle Earth suffers from the same problem of all literary fantasy settings (Wheel of Time and Dragonlance included)- there just isn't enough room for the PC's to do anything very interesting- they're completely overshadowed by the plot of the main stories.



You haven't played Dragonlance recently then? The old modules are exactly that. Old. The latest ones by Sovereign Press are fantastic.

The 'main stories' only overshadow the characters if the DM allows them to. And I really don't understand why anyone would expect it to play like that. I don't start a campaign with a fixed idea of how everything is going to go regardless of what the players do.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 28, 2010)

The One Ring (a box set RPG from Cubicle 7) will be coming out... some time. 

If I knew when, I'd be all over it already. As in, pre-ordering.

Haven't tried LoME, but OMG am I keen to see how this puppy turns out.


----------



## daddystabz (Nov 28, 2010)

I am aware of Cubicle 7's efforts with the One Ring.  I got messed over in play testing it with some of my oldest players.  However, I read recently an article translated from its original Italian that made me VERY worried that this new Tolkien RPG might have some inherent issues.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 28, 2010)

I contend there's been a Middle Earth roleplaying game in continuous publication since 1974.  It's called D&D.  And while it may not have been purpose-designed to strictly play in Middle Earth as Tolkien envisioned it, it is close enough that it is the reason subsequent ME RPGs were not successful.  Why play a poor, dedicated one-off when you can use a widely known and flexible game system?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 28, 2010)

daddystabz said:


> I am aware of Cubicle 7's efforts with the One Ring.  I got messed over in play testing it with some of my oldest players.  However, I read recently an article translated from its original Italian that made me VERY worried that this new Tolkien RPG might have some inherent issues.



Hm. :/

Is there any more that you can say, and if so, wozzit?




Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I contend there's been a Middle Earth roleplaying game in continuous publication since 1974.  It's called D&D.  And while it may not have been purpose-designed to strictly play in Middle Earth as Tolkien envisioned it, it is close enough that it is the reason subsequent ME RPGs were not successful.  Why play a poor, dedicated one-off when you can use a widely known and flexible game system?



Um, right. D&D is about as suitable for playing Tolkien as it is for playing Conan.

IOW, not at all. There are some truly flexible systems out there. D&D is not one of them. At least, not to _anywhere near_ the same extent.

D&D is very much its own type of fantasy. No other is like it, and it is like no other. _Embracing_ that, instead of denying it or being unhappy about it, is - I believe - the key to actually _enjoying_ D&D.


----------



## daddystabz (Nov 28, 2010)

I'm in agreement with Aus_Snow about D&D's inappropriateness for Middle Earth Role-playing.

This thread over at RPG.net links to the article and people describe what it says inside.  What do you think based on this info?

"Gentleman of the Rings" - RPGnet Forums


----------



## daddystabz (Nov 28, 2010)

I just read this over at Cubicle 7's forum in regard to the development stage of The One Ring RPG and I thought you all would be interested to see it here as well: 




> The Lord of the Rings RPG is still being wrapped up, and the rest of the art commissioned and submitted to us, etc, so it’s development process is coming close to completion and then the actual final editing and layout commences. We’re currently looking at an August 2011 release to tie-ion with Gen Con over in Indianapolis.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 28, 2010)

daddystabz said:


> This thread over at RPG.net links to the article and people describe what it says inside.  What do you think based on this info?



I've not read that thread in its entirety just yet, but here are my feelings about some of the points translated on the first page there (unsure how accurately...) -

    * Sophisticated Games liked Francesco Nepitello's work on the LotR boardgame, so they hired him to do a RPG, too, once the licence was free. Cubicle 7 will be publishing, obviously. _Not good._

    * The physical product MIGHT look something like Warhammer 3. _Not good._

    * For "doing one thing but one thing well" he cites D&D4 and WHFRP3 as examples. _Not good._

    * So what is it about? Historical Reconstruction. They went back to the source and researched Tolkien's texts extensively. The game tries to capture his specific stories, themes and characteristics. _Good._

    * This means the game won't include stuff like long histories of the world, maps of the whole Middle Earth or rules to play High Elves. It is their choice not to go the old way of making a book that has rules on how to "create any character or do anything". The focus is on the human themes of that period in Tolkien's history. _Not good._

    * These periods will go from after The Hobbit (base book) up to the "finale" at Mt. Doom. (so apparently no Silmarilion material) _Not good._

    * The game doesn't assume that Frodo or any of the other characters exist. It will be up to the players to tell the story. Maybe the PCs will take on the task of carrying the ring, maybe they won't. _Good._

    * What's important is the spirit, style and themes of Tolkien's stories. _Good._

    * All of the game's rules serve this purpose. _Good._

    * Characters are described by three base stats, taken from Gandalf's speech to Frodo about the trials ahead of him. _Not good._

    * Game time is hence divided into "seasons". After each adventure comes a period of rest. This will allow a character to develop both heroic traits and family and friendly ties. _Not good._

    * There will be a class/career system intended to respect Tolkien's tropes. (no point-buy jacks of all trades that don't fit in the world) _Good._

    * The design team paid a lot of attention to what people actually do at the table and influence player behaviour through game mechanics _Good._

    * So the point is social dynamics at the table, and not preoccupation with the physics of the world and questions whether a sword does +1 or +2 damage. _Not good._

    * Pendragon is cited as an influence. _Good._


The other points were either vague, ambiguous, irrelevant (to me), or such that I have no definite feelings about them, at this stage.

Really could with more detail, of course, but thanks for linking that. I'll see if the rest of the thread yields anything of value.


----------



## daddystabz (Nov 28, 2010)

It looks we are seeing it basically the same way so far.  I agree with most of your opinions there with just a few caveats.  I am a bit worried it will not be the game for me.  It seems WAY too limited in scope and too tied to boardgames for my tastes.  No option for high elves? Seriously?


----------



## JeffB (Nov 28, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> Um, right. D&D is about as suitable for playing Tolkien as it is for playing Conan.
> 
> IOW, not at all.




Gotta agree with this. And it's been argued to death since D&D's origins. While clearly there are some "borrowed" elements from Tolkien, so much of the D&D system would need to be re-written or completely thrown out (e.g. arcane & divine magic) to model middle earth, I don't see how anyone could come up with the conclusion that D&D works fine, but...

Personally while MERP did not model the world of ME in game mechanics all that well, I think ICE got the time period absolutely correct for best "play experience".


----------



## Haltherrion (Nov 28, 2010)

Enjoyed the blog posts; thanks for bringing this up.

I have to say, as a ref and a player, as much as I truly love LOTR, I'm not dying to play in a true LOTR world (as opposed to one inspired by Tolkien's works.)

Why is that? Well, partly because as a ref, what I appreciate about Tolkien is how he created a cool world and frankly, world creation is what I love to do. I.e., I'd rather create my own world.

As a player, I'm more open to it but where do you insert yourself into Tolkien's world? After the LOTR? A friend of ours tried that and I guess the reception from me and the rest of the group was tepid at best. "What? all the elves have left? WHo is in charge of Lothlorien? The janitor? Is he the janitor king?"

You could do the war of the ring itself and that could be cool if handled well but certainly could be quite problemmatic in many ways. You could set it in the first age and that could be great but requires a lot of work on the ref's part.


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 29, 2010)

I'm a little skeptical that Middle Earth would have been a better license then Star Wars. Star Wars D6 and MERPS were both good games, but in my limited experience I saw more Star Wars D6 for sale and most people playing it than MERPS. Both make good licenses, but neither are going to make your company super-stars or challenge D&D. As for TSR picking up the Middle Earth license, I bet it would have been an overall negative for TSR; as yet another AD&D 2E world, many of the books would have sold to people who were buying TSR books, without increasing sales to those people, and not enough sales outside their dedicated customer base would have been generated to cover the license.

Oh, and The Complete Book of Gnomes and Halflings didn't sell because it took the two least interesting core races, gave them half the space, and then wasted space by running through every iteration of the race in any D&D world instead of giving us something exciting, not because it wasn't titled The Complete Book of Halflings and Gnomes.


----------



## scourger (Nov 29, 2010)

daddystabz said:


> ...I got messed over in play testing it with some of my oldest players...




I had a similar experience playtesting a different game once upon a time.  It seemed like such a good idea at the time.  It wasn't.  

Anyway, if I ever do anything like a LOTR, I would use Savage Worlds.  I've thought of things as simple as playing out a skirmish with a hobbit, a dwarf, an elf, a ranger and a wizard as the hereos (using a certain box of prepainted minis) to a full campaign of "orcs of the ring" with the players taking on the roles of orcs hunting the ring (same adversaries as above).  

There just never seemed to me to be much to do that wasn't already a story told in the Tolkien world.  The last set of RPG books did have some good ideas for adventures seeds in the reign of King Aragorn--missions on which he might send the heroes.  Otherwise, the main story is already told.  Unless Sauron wins and there is a sort of Midnight-type game.


----------



## daddystabz (Nov 29, 2010)

Midnight is freaking awesome and I'd play in a campaign in a heartbeat.  Pathfinder or Legends of Anglerre (aka FATE 3.0) would work well for it I'd think.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 29, 2010)

jeffh said:


> Does anybody know what the "wrong kind of money" remark in section VIII (near the end of part 3) is about?




I can think of two possible answers.

The first is a licensing item. A company that wants to survive long term does not do so making all its money on license products, especially in a market where those costs can rapidly climb or be taken away from you. It can make for an unsteady business model.

The second is personal. TSR, as it was called before and even after the name change to a degree, was a rather rough place from some of the comments I have heard. Lots of big personalities and if what I read is true at one point a leader (or leadership) that did not even respect gamers. So the wrong money may have meant (depending on who said it) that the wrong credit would have to be given and the head of the company would rather not make the money as opposed to giving credit for sucess to someone he (or she) did not like. Basically your typical stab in the back approach to the political office environment.


----------



## kitsune9 (Nov 29, 2010)

Interesting read.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Nov 29, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> * The physical product MIGHT look something like Warhammer 3. _Not good._
> 
> * For "doing one thing but one thing well" he cites D&D4 and WHFRP3 as examples. _Not good._




I hope they realize that WFRP 3 did one thing so well they are re-releasing the core in a new format without all the cards, tokens etc and are making them completely optional.


----------



## Starman (Nov 30, 2010)

prosfilaes said:


> Oh, and The Complete Book of Gnomes and Halflings didn't sell because it took the two least interesting core races, gave them half the space, and then wasted space by running through every iteration of the race in any D&D world instead of giving us something exciting, not because it wasn't titled The Complete Book of Halflings and Gnomes.




That part of his post pinged pretty high on my Sarcasm Meter. I really doubt he was being serious there.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Nov 30, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think that Middle Earth provides an interesting enough setting that you could have dozens of interesting stories (even during the time of the book) with the opportunity for personal triumph or disaster.




There's an entire military campaign happening in the north which doesn't make it into LOTR at all (outside of vague references in the appendices). That's where I've always wanted to set an RPG campaign.

Other ME campaigns I've imagined include "The Cults of the Blue Wizards" (as alluded to elsewhere in the thread) and "The Other Fellowship" (in which we remove Gollum, generate a party of PCs, and then create a back-story in which the Ring comes into their possession -- immediately establishing that there is no canon and then seeing what happens).



NN said:


> For me, Middle Earth is a boring setting, because it is cosmologically simplistic.
> 
> Theres Sauron and co.
> And theres the Good Guys.
> And thats it.




Um... What?

Even if we ignore _The Hobbit_ and _The Silmarillion_, LOTR's factions are rather more complicated than that.



Starman said:


> That part of his post pinged pretty high on my  Sarcasm Meter. I really doubt he was being serious there.




The article appears to be a transcript. I suspect quite a few things that people are getting outraged about were probably delivered in a light-hearted manner.



Faraer said:


> I think the idea that Gary substantially derived  D&D from Tolkien is a popular assumption that doesn't stand up to  scrutiny. You could argue that he downplayed Tolkien's role somewhat,  but dismissing his accounts as lies or delusions is outrageous.




Two points:

(1) The original rulebooks are heavily inundated with Tolkien's creations.

(2) Every play report I've heard from people who gamed at Arneson's and Gygax's tables is _also_ inundated with Tolkien's creations.

Gygax's claims in Dragon #95 that the Tolkien influences are both "minimal" and nothing more than a "superficial" marketing attempting is, frankly, an absurd attempt to revise the known history of the game. And the core of his argument (that you can't recreate Tolkien's works by playin D&D out-of-the-box and, therefore, there is no Tolkien influence on the game) is just painfully insulting.

I also find the entire editorial distasteful for its hypocrisy. He starts by voicing outrage at those who would assert Tolkien's influence on D&D without asking him about it, and then goes on to attack LOTR as an allegory of World War II (which Tolkien had frequently denied). You can either be outraged when people assume things about a work that the creator denies or you can make assumptions about a work that the creator has denied... You don't get to do both without looking like a hypocritical idiot.

Is D&D's fantasy milieu the result of "kitchen sinking" vast swaths of fantasy literature? Of course. Does Tolkien make up a rather considerable portion of that kitchen sink? Absolutely.


----------



## DragonLancer (Nov 30, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Two points:
> 
> (1) The original rulebooks are heavily inundated with Tolkien's creations.
> 
> ...




I'm glad it's not just me who sees the huge influence that Tolkien obviously had on this game. I see the other fantasy references too so it's not just JRRT but saying that D&D is not based on LotR and the Hobbit is being intentionally blinkered. In fact, The Fellowship of the Ring just screams D&D to me far more than any other piece of fantasy literature.


----------

