RuneQuest with the Middle-earth/Lord of the Rings setting

[Cleombrotus]

I used to play MERP and I can tell you that it wasn't much like tokien.

Sorry, but such a statement is going to need more than one line to justify itself. There is absolutely loads about MERP that captured Middle Earth really well as I think I've stated earlier in the thread, and that's only touching the surface.

I play more, much more, RQ than MERP, love RQ and support RQ, but I still think that MERP captured Middle Earth better than I could see Runequest doing it.

Ultimately it's just a system, and either will work, but when I see a RQ character, they don't seem to have the nobility and poise of a MERP character. They're too rough and brutal (I know that sounds weird) but I just don't see the might and majesty of the Dunedain encapsulated in a SIZ stat, and I don't get the Light of Valinor in a POW stat. RQ is for '300', and MERP is for LOTR (visual style, not comparative cinematic quality of either film).

Of course, Tolkien has been visualised in multiple ways as well, so it's only my opinion, but I stand by it.

 

[tete]

The main thing that felt un 3rd Age in MERPS was the fact that Mage and Bards both cast spells more along the D&D line of thinking than the rarity that spells were slung in the 3rd Age. Decipers CODA version was more true (while still having silly human wizards!) to Tolkien style magic. The CODA version is actually quite decent. It needed more playtesting (not deadly at all)I think, but there is a good fanzine and a ton of good fan material for both MERPS and CODA on the web. The GURPS fan version is frankly brilliant! However I wont fault anyone for choosing another version as it can feel very restrictive and crunchy. MRQ would only take coming up with a magic system and a reasonable conversion of MERPS (not tough, fairly similar). Comming up with a reasonable magic system is a pain though. You could just throw out magic for PC but then you could do that with MERPS and it works fine. Lastly there is Ea d20 and the BRP conversions, the Ea one has come along way and the BRP one looks promising. I would hit up the MERP.COM downloads for more ideas as there are several good fan papers. Personally I'll use CODA with my own version of the MERPS crit tables converted over. It gives me a close enough feel though if I didn't own CODA some mixing of MRQ and MERPS would be my next choice.

 

[AKAramis]

Middle Earth can only be expensive to secure rights to...

 

[Balgin Stondraeg]

Lord of the Rings yes, in runequest no.

I agree. While I'd love to see another RPG set in Middle-earth, I'm not sure that RQ is the right fit for that particular setting.

The whole "everyone knows magic" bit makes Runequest completely unsuitable for Middle Earth. Unless Mongoose actualy realised how high magic that concept was and how it could limmit the rules set's being used in low magic settings like the Warhammer World or Middle Earth.

 

[tarkhan bey]

For my tuppence worth on this, the Magic system in Elric is completely different to the standard MRQ magic system. The Slaine Earth Magic and Hawkmoon sorcery are variations on the normal MRQ sorcery rules.
I think my point is that if Mongoose ever did do MRQ LOTR it would be no problem to fit in a new magic system as required.
I loved MERP in the late eighties, but I reckon that Decipher nailed the feel a lot better. It's just a pity that they let the license expire.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Interesting discussion.

Ive played Rolemaster/Merp quite a bit, it doesnt particularly describe Tolkiens worlds very well, although lots of the character classes did have a Tolkienesque feel, it seemed caught between two stools, one the one hand, Middle-earth, on the other, D&D. And I can tell you, theres no feeling of 'ambient magic' when youre playing Merp or RM, firebolts go off all of the time.

I see Middle-earth as being magic rare, rather than magic weak. And to my knowledge, no game system has portrayed the idea that using magic is problematic for the Istari and elves, partly because they become tied to their pphysical forms if they use it too much, (RM/Merp alluded to this in their fluff, but not the game system), and that, Sauron, or any of the 'black enemies' could sense the power being ultilised from some distance. This aspect could easily be used in any game system, but never was. You could rule every time there was a fumbled roll, Sauron could see into your soul, etc..

Combat is pretty deadly in Middle-earth, its what makes life seem precious (precious!). Old school tropes like levels and character classes arent really that helpful in describing Saruman or Grima. It would take a bit of work to use any system engine for Middle-earth. I havent seen one yet that fits particularly well. Id have high hopes for RQ, but it would need a fair bit of tinkering. D20, absolutely not, Savage Worlds, too pulpy, Rolemaster/Merp, too much like a complex D&D. GURPS, yuck.

As for the cost of the license, if Iron Crown could afford it, anyone can. Jeez, West End Games got the license for Star Wars, and Leading Edge had the license for Aliens! You got to think big Mongoose!

 

[The King]

Ive played Rolemaster/Merp quite a bit, it doesnt particularly describe Tolkiens worlds very well ...

That's what I always told. These supplement were excellent to summarize the history of ME through the ages but that's all.

Considering all the subtleties done with D20 rules, I think Mongoose should extrapolate the same way to make RQ "Middle-Eath-Compatible", but that shouldn't be an impossible or even too a difficult task.

On the other way, perhaps ME deserves its own game system, as WEG did for Star wars of ICE for Merp. Only problem is that Mongoose don't create rules systems.

 

[Shottglazz]

I've played RM for about 20 years now, with several campaigns being based in Middle-Earth (most 4th Age, some 3rd)...we (my group and I) usually found that the system meant very little to the "feel" of the world - it was more how the GM represented the world and how the players' participated...if everyone treats it as just another map/series of locations, then that's all it'll ever be...if the group as a whole is trying to be faithful to the spirit of Tolkien's works, then any system should work...

 

[The King]

You're right Shottglazz: the DM and then the players play indeed a big part (the major part).
But some people (to whom I do belong) actually need to feel the ambiance before to play the game. this is why I just hate these (old) awful layout which are more akin to a military manuel then to a gaming book.
As a comparison, AD&D (to take an example) had good and excellent adventures but when the 2nd edition came, with beautiful maps and plans, great pictures (Easley, Field, Moore, etc.), an improved layout and - we have to admit it - an other way to present and play adventures, it was like day and night.
I mean when you can't concentrate on what you read (or take too much time) because the material is badly presented (be it layout or how the thing is done) a big part of the pleasure is gone whatever the feel.

Merp proposed great maps but the whole quality of the text was undermined (I don't even talk of the adventures and the game system).

Again, may be it only concerns a minority of players but I still consider the material (ans the rules mechanics as well) as a essential part of the feel.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I've played RM for about 20 years now, with several campaigns being based in Middle-Earth (most 4th Age, some 3rd)...we (my group and I) usually found that the system meant very little to the "feel" of the world - it was more how the GM represented the world and how the players' participated...if everyone treats it as just another map/series of locations, then that's all it'll ever be...if the group as a whole is trying to be faithful to the spirit of Tolkien's works, then any system should work...

Yes, as with any rpg, its down to the GM and players to create a large part of the atmosphere, though some games are going to be inherently more suited to the task. I dont think any game has come particularly close to helping the players or GM describe that Middle-earth feel in terms of game mechanics.

 

[WoeRie]

Merp proposed great maps but the whole quality of the text was undermined (I don't even talk of the adventures and the game system).

Wow, now I'm impressed how much taste can vary. I still consider the old MERP stuff the best modules I ever read. Sometimes I only bought them to read them (I mean I did not want to play them). On the other hand I don't like the look and feel of the new school products, which look like a Manga instead of a old fashined fantasy book.
IMO the MERP modules simply catch the feeling of Tolkien.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

The MERP modules (or at least the ones I bought back in the day), IMO, suffered a lot by the fairly heavy inclusion of dungeon crawls. Now, dungeon crawling is quintessentially Tolkien (Mines of Moria/Shelobs Lair/etc) but I mean D&D style dungeon crawls with rooms full of traps, monsters and treasure.

Some more thoughts:

The "everyone uses magic" aspect of RQ is actually a function of the primary setting (Glorantha) rather than of the system (which is perfectly capable or working in either a low-magic or no-magic setting).

The comments a few pages back about MERP spells reflecting exotic capabilities rather than actual casting of spells seems fair, but on re-reading the old MERP rulebooks it seems as though the intention of the rules is actually that one does cast spells in the trad D&D sense. There are even explicit references to "casting spells" in the Realm descriptions.

Doing a side-by-side comparison of 1st Ed and 2nd Ed MERP is both curious and interesting. 1st Ed MERP was certainly crude and primitive, and was obviously a slimmed down RM with Middle-Earth elements roughly hacked in. 2nd Ed went much further in capturing the right feel, and even made a decent attempt at resolving some of the issues around magic. I might hazard the theory that those who feel MERP did well were using 2nd Ed, whereas those who feel it didn't were using 1st Ed.

Anyway, back to RQ. I could see it working well with a certain type of game set in Middle Earth, but then again the same could be said of almost any system. I'd see something like HQ doing a much more accurate job of really capturing the feel of the novels though.

 

[The King]

Wow, now I'm impressed how much taste can vary. I still consider the old MERP stuff the best modules I ever read. Sometimes I only bought them to read them (I mean I did not want to play them). On the other hand I don't like the look and feel of the new school products, which look like a Manga instead of a old fashined fantasy book.
IMO the MERP modules simply catch the feeling of Tolkien.

Sorry, I only reply now.
Do you include the layout in your comment? Moreover, the scenarios were never developped enough. But indeed if you consider them to be the best module, then it's a great thing for you.

 

[Deleriad]

Running Middle Earth in RQ?

Physically easy. RQ assumes that the physical capabilities of characters are much like they would be in the real world and that's the basic premise of the movies. In the books, movies and in RQ, if you hit Gimli on the head with an axe he'll probably die.

Dealing with the magic in Middle Earth is difficult in any system. Certainly, RQ Middle Earth would have a big sign on it saying "normal RQ magic does not exist here." You would write something particular to the setting.

Modeling the different species is not difficult. You give them stats and off they go. As with all Middle Earth settings, however, some species are simply bigger, stronger, faster, smarter and generally more uber than others. You just have to accept that. It's not balanced.

E.g. If were to stat an elf from the end of the third age it would look something like:
STR 3D6 CON 2D6+6 DEX 3D6+3 SIZ 2D6+6 INT 3D6+6, POW 3D6+6, CHA 3D6+6

Traits: State of Grace: Partially immune to weather conditions, can walk on surfaces as if weighing less than 1 Kg. Exceptional senses: ignores negative environmental modifiers for perception test.

It seems to me that that's the bones of all you need to do with the game engine.

 

[The King]

Playing an elf in Middle-Earth is a bit like playing a Melnibonéan in Elric. However it should be easy enough to limit this race.
In Lord of the Rings, Gandalf uses Hobbit because they're so small noone care about them, dwarves being too greedy and human too easily corruptible.

I also see some legendary abilities allow to reproduce the things done by the company of the ring.

As to magic, well Conan use D20 rules but has a totally different magic system. But granted, some spells and the use of magic in general should be limited in this setting.

 

[Deleriad]

Playing an elf in Middle-Earth is a bit like playing a Melnibonéan in Elric. However it should be easy enough to limit this race.
In Lord of the Rings, Gandalf uses Hobbit because they're so small noone care about them, dwarves being too greedy and human too easily corruptible.

I would introduce an attribute called Corruption - as per the old ICE ME card game. You would start with a small amount and become corrupted by power, magic, wealth etc. You would resist corruption through Persistence and different races would have modifiers to their check. E.g. Hobbits get +40% to all corruption test, dwarves get -40% to corruption tests for greed. Thus you could have a very strong willed dwarf who can buck the trend or a very weak-willed hobbit who becomes corrupted regardless. A corruption test would be an opposed test against the corrupting influence of certain items - the more powerful they are the more corrupting they are. Draw up a quick table with results of failure from minor to epic fail and you're good to go.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Playing an elf in Middle-Earth is a bit like playing a Melnibonéan in Elric. However it should be easy enough to limit this race.
In Lord of the Rings, Gandalf uses Hobbit because they're so small noone care about them, dwarves being too greedy and human too easily corruptible.

I would introduce an attribute called Corruption - as per the old ICE ME card game. You would start with a small amount and become corrupted by power, magic, wealth etc. You would resist corruption through Persistence and different races would have modifiers to their check. E.g. Hobbits get +40% to all corruption test, dwarves get -40% to corruption tests for greed. Thus you could have a very strong willed dwarf who can buck the trend or a very weak-willed hobbit who becomes corrupted regardless. A corruption test would be an opposed test against the corrupting influence of certain items - the more powerful they are the more corrupting they are. Draw up a quick table with results of failure from minor to epic fail and you're good to go.

Now THAT is a really neat idea. It could work like SAN in CoC.

 

[The King]

I would introduce an attribute called Corruption - as per the old ICE ME card game. You would start with a small amount and become corrupted by power, magic, wealth etc. You would resist corruption through Persistence and different races would have modifiers to their check. E.g. Hobbits get +40% to all corruption test, dwarves get -40% to corruption tests for greed. Thus you could have a very strong willed dwarf who can buck the trend or a very weak-willed hobbit who becomes corrupted regardless. A corruption test would be an opposed test against the corrupting influence of certain items - the more powerful they are the more corrupting they are. Draw up a quick table with results of failure from minor to epic fail and you're good to go.

Excellent beginning, though I would add a rule for dwarves: they can resist corruption by evil (as they did with Sauron because they kept the rings but didn't side with him) but can't resist the lure of gold and money.
Once again elves are difficult to assess though.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

I would introduce an attribute called Corruption - as per the old ICE ME card game. You would start with a small amount and become corrupted by power, magic, wealth etc. You would resist corruption through Persistence and different races would have modifiers to their check. E.g. Hobbits get +40% to all corruption test, dwarves get -40% to corruption tests for greed. Thus you could have a very strong willed dwarf who can buck the trend or a very weak-willed hobbit who becomes corrupted regardless. A corruption test would be an opposed test against the corrupting influence of certain items - the more powerful they are the more corrupting they are. Draw up a quick table with results of failure from minor to epic fail and you're good to go.

Excellent beginning, though I would add a rule for dwarves: they can resist corruption by evil (as they did with Sauron because they kept the rings but didn't side with him) but can't resist the lure of gold and money.
Once again elves are difficult to assess though.

Easy enough, it's a different kind of corruption: pride, love of their own works, wanting to order the world as they see fit, and wanting to preserve the world as it was in the Elder days.

 

[celmive]

Bit late joining in but YES I think LOTR RQ would work and work very well.

MERP/RM really put me off - I bought all the settings Sourcebooks but loathed the rules system alas. It just didn't work well for me and seemed kinda "thrown together". It wasn't just me... The others in the group at the time felt the same We had all bought the GW edition (Bar 1 who got the ICE version) and just felt so disillusioned with it... So we converted it to D&D (Yes, D&D not AD&D) and again felt it lacked the spirit.

RQ on balance I think would cover those disappointments and turn it into a heck of a setting/game