[OSSR]The One Ring

[Ancient History]

Joseph Campbell's monomyth is, was, and always will be bullshit. It is terrible and his whole "Hero's Journey" should be left on the scrap heap of history with eugenics and The Golden Bough and Carl Jung's archetypes. They're all bullshit. But sometimes in his mystical fucking dodderings, Campbell occasionally manages to fall ass-backwards into a useful concept or turn of phrase.

I know I say this a lot in these OSSRs, but every game needs more than just a setting and a bunch of rules. It needs a premise. In D&D, you are adventurers and you go on an adventure. In Shadowrun, you are a shadowrunner and go on a shadowrun. It is not enough to say, "I want to be an Elf in Middle-Earth." You still need to have something to fucking do. There has to be some goal to obtain, and the goal should in some way relate to who you are and why you're playing the fucking game. The problem with The One Ring is that they are assuming D&D-style adventuring shenanigans and tropes, but the setting of Middle-Earth is actually not suited to D&D-style adventuring shenanigans and tropes. It isn't Lankhmar where you can just wander into an inn and get offered an adventure, but it also isn't like Lankhmar where stealing shit and living like lords guzzling wine and keeping the local Seamstresses Guild gainfully employed is par for the course and even expected.

They haven't made a case for why and how you are expected to be an adventurer in Middle-Earth. And that is terrible.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

I know I say this a lot in these OSSRs, but every game needs more than just a setting and a bunch of rules. It needs a premise. In D&D, you are adventurers and you go on an adventure. In Shadowrun, you are a shadowrunner and go on a shadowrun. It is not enough to say, "I want to be an Elf in Middle-Earth." You still need to have something to fucking do. There has to be some goal to obtain, and the goal should in some way relate

I'm curious, is "you go on a series of connected adventures with an overarching plotline" a game premise, or a campaign premise? What would be the difference between the two?

[DrPraetor]

AH has a Jungian shadow who is totes credulous for Hu?tzil?p?chtli and Jesus being the same meta-myth.

Anyway:
https://frialigan.se/en/news/#/pressrel ... th-2979811

so there's a version of this game that uses 5th edition D&D rules instead of the stuff with D12s - and no-one has spells (it has the same petty magics as this game but you have to spend feats to get them?)

[DrPraetor]

(oops)

[DrPraetor]

AH has a Jungian shadow who is totes credulous for Huitzilopochtli and Jesus being the same meta-myth.

Anyway:
https://frialigan.se/en/news/#/pressrel ... th-2979811

so there's a version of this game that uses 5th edition D&D rules instead of the stuff with D12s - and no-one has spells (it has the same petty magics as this game but you have to spend feats to get them?)

[Ancient History]

I know I say this a lot in these OSSRs, but every game needs more than just a setting and a bunch of rules. It needs a premise. In D&D, you are adventurers and you go on an adventure. In Shadowrun, you are a shadowrunner and go on a shadowrun. It is not enough to say, "I want to be an Elf in Middle-Earth." You still need to have something to fucking do. There has to be some goal to obtain, and the goal should in some way relate

I'm curious, is "you go on a series of connected adventures with an overarching plotline" a game premise, or a campaign premise? What would be the difference between the two?

That's not a premise, it's the definition of a campaign.

A game premise is a set understanding of what the point of the game is before you sit down to play. With Dungeons & Dragons, it really doesn't matter what the actual plot of the game is or what world it's set in, you know before you get to the table that you are an adventure going on an adventure, and while there's wiggle room on that to do moisture-farmer-to-space-wizard plots, the general understanding is usually that you are in some sense a professional adventurer. Your class may be Ranger or Wizard, your race may be Elf or Half-Orc, but what you do is go on adventures...which can be almost anything, although the whole meet-at-a-tavern-and-get-a-quest is traditional.

Think about how other games work. Shadowrun, you're a shadowrunner so you go on shadowruns. That is your job, and it's something you immediately have in common with the other people that are sitting down at the table. That's an inherent team-built concept right there.

Contrast with Vampire: the Masquerade. You're a vampire, and you...what? You have a coterie, but the politics of the setting say you should all hate each other. Nobody has any set goal. Vampires in V:tM generally don't have jobs. Coteries aren't assembled by Princes to fulfill specific missions, they aren't formed by opportunistic younger vampires to try and leverage their diverse talents to better themselves because the hierarchy of ages is against them. Vampire: the Masquerade doesn't have a basic premise for what a vampire should do.

Call of Cthulhu, you're investigators and you're set to investigate. That's barely a premise, because unlike with D&D and Shadowrun, no reason is given why a group of investigators should actually participate together in investigating anything. You don't start out as part of an agency, you may not even know each other. Damn near every scenario has to begin with some way to get the PCs to start an investigation...there isn't that automatic buy-in of "looking for work" or "this is what we do," because it is a very half-assed game with little thought given to what the players are doing or why.

So The One Ring is trying to borrow D&D style tropes with one hand because that is their default for how RPGs work, and their other hand it is scratching their collective asses because they have no idea how to make it work in the setting.

Which is really bad, because there are Wizards in the setting whose entire deal is gathering groups of people to go do things because they're not supposed to oppose Sauron directly. You can have your old guy handing out quests in the pub, and it can just be fucking Gandalf or Radagast, and that explains pretty much everything. You can even be agents of Saruman, unwittingly furthering the aims of the White Hand because he hasn't gone full technicolor raincoat yet.

And with Tolkien especially, it's okay to set up dualistic struggles where you and your friends are pawns in a cosmic chess match. It's actually really helpful when the going gets rough to know that there's something you're fighting for beyond a bit of dwarf gold and sweet kisses from bearded women. It's not like Tolkien gifted us with a strong mercenary tradition to draw on. None of the Fellowship of the Ring were asking about shares of the loot at any point.

[Thaluikhain]

but that if you were to find yourself writing more information about Tolkien's Dwarves for the purpose of cooperative storytelling and world building, that you should probably spend more time studying Jewish folklore than ruminating about Games Workshop.

Erm...while that is the way Tolkien would have done it, does that mean it's the way you should? Is it wrong not to aim for "worthy successor to Tolkien" and go for "fanfic set in a themepark based on Tolkien" instead?

Same way as when Americans write steampunk set in Britain, it's all tea drinking, cor blimey, Queen Victoria. Because the writer's research was reading other steampunk novels set in Britain written by Americans and that's true of their target audience as well.

You might want to put "not for the purists" on the cover or something, but otherwise I don't see why it has to be a problem.

[Username17]

but that if you were to find yourself writing more information about Tolkien's Dwarves for the purpose of cooperative storytelling and world building, that you should probably spend more time studying Jewish folklore than ruminating about Games Workshop.

Erm...while that is the way Tolkien would have done it, does that mean it's the way you should? Is it wrong not to aim for "worthy successor to Tolkien" and go for "fanfic set in a themepark based on Tolkien" instead?

Same way as when Americans write steampunk set in Britain, it's all tea drinking, cor blimey, Queen Victoria. Because the writer's research was reading other steampunk novels set in Britain written by Americans and that's true of their target audience as well.

You might want to put "not for the purists" on the cover or something, but otherwise I don't see why it has to be a problem.

But Dungeons & Dragons and World of Warcraft and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay all exist. Fuck, there's a version of WFRP that is also published by Cubicle 7. If you want to play Dwarves that are written and inspired by people familiar with modern fantasy games and movies and naught else - that can be arranged.

If you aren't going to put in the effort to fill in Tolkien's blanks the way Tolkien would fill them in, why are you bothering to label your work as specifically Tolkienian? It would be one thing if you were making a TV show or a breakfast cereal or a stage musical - something that isn't normally associated with Tolkien at all. Then you could sprinkle some Tolkien herbs and spices and that little bit of flavor would be novel. But this is a goddam Role Playing Game. Literally every single RPG has some amount of Tolkien in its DNA. Literally. Every. One.

If you want to get a half assed Silmarillion reference in an RPG book you can just go to the book shelf, close your eyes, and pick a book at fucking random. You don't need the Middle Earth license from Tolkien's estate, because Forgotten Realms and Ye Old World are already warmed over Tolkien pastiches. You only need to put "officially licensed elf game" on your elf game if the Elves are specifically Tolkien's Elves. If you just want Orcs and Elves, even if your Elves call themselves Eldar and are obviously inspired by reading Lord of the Rings - you can just do that. In any game. In every game.

-Username17

[Thaluikhain]

Well, setting it in Middle Earth and not a half-hearted rip off of Middle Earth gives you the brand name.

Now, I'm not saying that doing that would be a good idea, but then I can't say I'm at all surprised that someone thought it was. Presumably there's zillions of like-minded people who are only interested in Tolkien's world-building in the most superficial way, who'll rote recite names and dates instead of understanding where he was coming from. Some of them buy games.

Having said that, I personally don't see Middle-Earth as a great setting for a RPG either way, but if people want to throw pop-culture at it I'll tend to say "not for me", rather than "bad".

[Username17]

My theory is that the number of people who care enough about Lord of the Rings to have an opinion about the birth years of Hobbits in between the books and yet also do not care enough about Lord of the Rings to have an opinion about the authentic feel of Dwarf and Elf tongues can't be a large group.

I am sure there are people out there who would get very upset if something "non canon" happened in year 3957 of the third age in their Elf Game and are so into the specific feel of Tolkien's writing that they want there to be a Riddle and a Song skill that are separate; but who also don't sweat the linguistics and folklore and just genuinely don't give a fuck about how the Dwarvish language is constructed or sounds. I mean, this book is obviously written by fans who meet that very specific sweet spot of obsessing over Elf details and blowing off the background of the setting.

But it seems to me this is a very internet-age type of fan. Someone who has memorized big chunks of the Middle Earth Wikipedia and mistakes that for Tolkien scholarship. I honestly don't have a lot of respect for it.

Anyway, one thing I will say about this game is that it manages "success at a cost" in a very smooth fashion. A large chunk of die rolls fail unless you spend a hope point. Which gives the player a very understandable choice and presents it to the player without any bullshit. The dicepool system is still fucking bonkers, and the Shadow Misery subsystem is a warcrime, but credit where credit is due: the hope point subsystem handles the success at cost thing that games like bearworld were trying and flailing at for much of the last decade.

-Username17

[Stubbazubba]

None of the Fellowship of the Ring were asking about shares of the loot at any point.

No, but it played a pretty major role in the travails of Thorin's Company.

[Blicero]

If anyone hasn't seen this blog post that sketches out The Hobbit specifically as a sword-and-sorcery setting, it's worth a read.

[maglag]

The Necromancer has fled, Dol Guldur lies empty, the Big Bad magical artifact is in the pocket of a particularly fat-arse hobbit in the Shire. Does this world still need heroes?

-Angry trees encroaching the hobbit lands that specifically need to be pushed back with axe and torch every other year.
-Orcs still hold large amounts of land, bleeding and pushing back Gondor back bit by it.
-Pirates!
-Mammoth raiders!
-Plenty of dungeons with dragons (and Balrogs).
-Ents want to find their wives.
-Mighty wizards going insane(r).
-Forests still infested with giant spiders.
-Plenty of fantastic ancient treasure scattered all around.

Even without Sauron and the One Ring, there's plenty of danger and adventuring opportunities in Middle Earth.

None of the Fellowship of the Ring were asking about shares of the loot at any point.

No, but it played a pretty major role in the travails of Thorin's Company.

Indeed, they had contracts and everything for that.

[Ancient History]

Even without Sauron and the One Ring, there's plenty of danger and adventuring opportunities in Middle Earth.

Unfortunately, absolutely zero of that is what you actually get in The One Ring.