Something that has bothered me somewhat is how Hobbit characters come to be in Rhovanion (Wilderland) in the first place. All the other available character cultures are either in Wilderland or close to it. I therefore think players who choose to play Hobbits should have a kind of "prologue" adventure in which they leave The Shire and travel to Wilderland.

Assuming all Hobbits would be welcome in Rivendell (not unreasonable, assuming they can actually find it!) then the journey from Hobbiton to Rivendell could be played out using the Journey rules, in a number of legs, as outlined in this site:

Bag End to Rivendell

Itinerary:

Hobbiton -> Crickhollow: 73 miles

Farmland with good road (Very Easy to Easy).
Some Hobbit characters could skip this leg if they are from Buckland.

Crickhollow -> Bree: 62 miles (subtotal: 135 miles)

Leave the Shire and enter "The Old Forest" (Hard to Severe).
May encounter Tom Bombadil.

[EDIT] Alternatively, take the road that skirts around the Old Forest to the north (Very Easy to Easy).

Bree -> Weathertop: 105 miles (subtotal: 240 miles)

Marshland leading to Hills (Moderate to Hard).
If Great East Road is deemed safe to use, lower difficulty to Easy (but not Very Easy, as the area is still fairly inhospitable).

Weathertop -> The Last Bridge: 118 miles (subtotal: 358 miles)

Shallow valleys, rising towards the Trollshaws (Moderate).
If Great East Road is deemed safe to use, lower difficulty to Easy or even Very Easy.

The Last Bridge -> Rivendell: 100 miles (subtotal: 458 miles)

Passes through the Trollshaws. Very hilly and wild terrain (Moderate to Hard).
If Great East Road is deemed safe to use, lower difficulty to Easy (but not Very Easy, for same reason as above). Possibly find Bilbo's "Stone Trolls".

Well, it does say in the AB that suggested callings for Hobbits being Treasure Hunter (read burglars) and Wanderers. I think it easy to envision Hobbit folk like these would be all over Middle-Earth. But, being Halflings, no one really takes notice.

There are another Hobbits! If I recall correctly, the Hobbits living in the Vales of the Anduin (Smeagol's folk) were still around when Saruman began to search the One Ring (I think thet were near the Gladden River).

They would be a fishing and hunting folk, very good at hiding and may count with some healers (using plants rather than magic). However, they would be remarkably mistrustful with the Big Folk.

I'll check the Appendix of the Lord of the Rings. If they are (or could be) still around in the game time setting, I think we could develop them as a gaming race.

IIRC, by the time of The Hobbit all of the Stoors in the Vale of Anduin have migrated elsewhere. They would have been there in the 2460s, the time when the Ring was discovered, but migrated by the 2940s when The Hobbit takes place.

Delve deep and be rewarded (unlike the Dwarves of Moria)!

So, at least in one version, there are Stoors living there until one week before the Nazgûl arrive to the Shire.

Having a little settlement wouldn't be too far-fetched and would allow to have a different kind of Hobbits!

Thanks for your replies.

The suggestion of other communities of Hobbit-like people is an interesting one but for many players I suspect they would want their Hobbit character to have come from the Shire rather than somewhere they've never heard of and know nothing about.

I would also question the suggestion that Hobbits are all over Middle-Earth at the time the game is set. Tolkien's works suggest instead an insular culture, mistrustful of outsiders, and distinctly lacking in curiosity about what is beyond their borders. Both Bilbo and Frodo are in a sense reluctant heroes who have no great desire to leave the Shire. Bilbo is talked into it by Gandalf and the dwarves, whilst Frodo does so out of a sense of duty and self sacrifice to protect his beloved homeland from the forces of Sauron. Hobbit heroes would be rare in Wilderland, I feel.

As the Shire is so far away from Wilderland, I think Hobbit heroes should have experienced some adventures just getting there. They do, after all, have to cross the Misty Mountains to get there, which was no mean feat in either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings.

By using the Journey rules, you could portray this trip without taking up too much game time. If would act as a kind of "tutorial" game session to teach new players the basic game mechanics by encompassing a few checks and tests, maybe some fighting if they run into unfriendly creatures, and an encounter or two. But more to the point, it would get around the strangeness of how a Hobbit character came to be in Wilderland with no knowledge of how they got there.

Not sure about the Rivendell bit. Imladris is a secret place, hidden from anyone who is not an Elf friend, or travel with someone who has proven themselves trustworthy. At least that was the impression I got.

Other than that, it's a good idea.

In my first post I did allude to the fact that Rivendell is not exactly signposted and would be hard to find. However, a Hobbit hero could know of its existence and head for it in the hope of finding it, or if not, head straight for the High Pass.

I also think it is unlikely that Hobbit characters would make the journey alone. This would be an opportunity for the Loremaster to introduce a powerful NPC who could act as "Guide" to lead the Hobbits to Wilderland. For example, once the Hobbits leave the safety of the Shire a kindly stranger (possibly a Ranger or Elf) might come to their aid during a Hazard, and accompany them the rest of the way. This NPC would allow the player-heroes to get into a spot of trouble here and there without it proving to be fatal! As with "traits", the NPC might automatically succeed at chasing off bad guys etc. After all, this is only supposed to be a "prelude" to the main campaign, in which the Loremaster will not be so lenient.

Fair point.

In my game we had the Hobbit character join the caravan of the Dwarf character. on its way from the Blue Mountains to Erebor. It was only in backstory but it gave them a strong bond to play off.

There is one more thing bugging me. Why would a Hobbit leave the Shire and head to Wilderland? As I've already pointed, they are not naturally adventurous folk, although Tooks are supposed to be a bit more outward-looking than most. Their reason for leaving the Shire should also be factored into the character's backstory - and I don't buy the idea suggested in the rules that lots of Hobbits suddenly get the urge to follow in Bilbo's footsteps in search of treasure and adventure.

Some suggestions as follows:

"Wanderer" calling:

The Hobbit is accused of a crime they did or did not commit and must flee the Shire to escape justice.

After one-too-many ales, the Hobbit is press-ganged into the service of some dwarves travelling from Ered Luin to the Iron Hills who think having a Hobbit along for the journey will bring them luck.

The Hobbit suffers a terrible emotional loss, such as their betrothed leaving them for someone else, and decides to leave the Shire "to forget".

"Treasure-Seeker" calling:

The Hobbit's "Gaffer" is bankrupted after some financial calamity, so the Hobbit hero decides he must leave the Shire in search of riches to save the Gaffer from this humiliation. Having embarked on this mission, they learn that the Gaffer is now dead. With no reason to return to the Shire, they decide to continue the new life they have started in Wilderland.

To say that all Hobbits are not adventurous is paintng with a pretty wide brush. For that fact why would a Lake Man venture into Mirkwood? Why would an Elf worry himself over the happenings of Men and Dwarves? Why would a Dwarf leave the mines?

My current character is a Woodman who was hired by the party to be a guide. Other then him being a Warden of the Vale that is the only background explaining why he is where he is.

I really don't see why a PC Hobbit would have to come up with a special reason as to why he is an adventurer. If the player has come with such a background...bonus! But, it should not be a requirment.

In our game, we assumes that there are a handful of hobbit characters spread over the Rhrovanion. After all, these hobbits that Gandalf was reputedly responsible for running away with the elves and getting involved in all kind of adventures could have ended-up somewhere outside the Shire...

We like to think that they kept a low profile, often passing for a local (yet benign) curiosity, until Bilbo that is. Then, these hobbits (at least our hobbit-hero) were shaken from their comfort by Bilbo's good-hearted courage and fame, becoming reputed heroes of their own.

Just tihinking it through, The Shire is very far away and there's plenty of adventure on its doorstep so I can see questions being asked along the lines of: why travel all this way when you have the Old Forest, the Barrow Downs, the Wildlands, the Trollshaws, Deadman's Dike, Angmar, and so forth (which all account for great adventuring opportunities) on your side of the Mountains? I think that for Geekdad that question looks to require a reasoned out response so the logic of the situation makes sense to him, which is something I can understand.

I can't agree more! Hobbits are not known for their wanderlust and we are not speaking about seasoned adventurers, but of Hobbits with no experience in the matter who, for no special reason, travel about 458 miles to begin their adventures.

In my opinion, they have been included because you just can't make a Lord of the Rings game without Hobbits but they don't make much sense withing the setting.

I mean, if Hobbits living so far are included, then why not many other cultures which live closer such Lórien or Rivendell Elves, or Eriadorians, Dúnedain (who do have a travellling background anyway) and so for? The only reason I can think of is Hobbit popularity among players.

So, I share Geekdad's concerns about Hobbit background histories, and his effort to make them believable is much appreciated. The idea of having them playing an introductory travel adventure (and a sound background reason to make such travel) is quite right for me.

I'm in full agreement with Arthadan and others - it was my first (and so far virtually only) reservation when I had my first skim through the book.

Personally, I think I'm going to [a] discourage players from playing hobbits and [b] if they do insist on playing hobbits, try to persuade them to go with version B of the story of the hunt for the ring in Unfinished Tales, and have their character come from one of the settlements of hobbits in the Vales of Anduin.

If those fail, they'll have to have come from the Shire with a party of dwarves relocating from the Ered Luin to Erebor or something like that.

... "Why not go off adventuring at Deadman's Dike (et al) first before coming all this way, master hobbit?"

Yes, doesn't make too much sense does it. Like you stated, if the hobbit was a seasoned adventurer (eg, built with extra XPs) then you could infer they have already been adventuring in those parts but these are hobbits 'out of the starting block' - the exceptional thing about them is that they want to go adventuring. Quite reasonably, they could want to adventure in Bilbo's footsteps - but just using that one reason could get tiresome pretty quickly so I can see why Geekdad is thinking beyond that.

I do remember before TOR was released we did have this discussion over on RPGnet and that was the conclusion that many of us came to and its completely understandable that they were included because you're right; a game set in Middle Earth without hobbits as potential PCs would be very odd. And quite possibly, it could have been a requirement of the license to include them.

"why travel all this way when you have the Old Forest, the Barrow Downs, the Wildlands, the Trollshaws, Deadman's Dike, Angmar, and so forth (which all account for great adventuring opportunities) on your side of the Mountains?"

I think you answered the question right here. They started out closer to the Shire and as their adventures continued they strayed farther and farther until they ended up in the area the game is set.

Not if you read my post just above. ... Come on, keep up, Beran! ;-)

In which case they should start the game as "seasoned adventurers" with extra XP to spend during character creation, etc. (as pointed out by Rich H).

If C7 would only hurry up and release a supplement for NW Middle-Earth there wouldn't be a problem! We could then start our Hobbits in the Shire and have them adventure eastward.

Ideally the first core set should have been NW Middle-Earth (as it has Hobbits in the Shire, Men in Bree, Dwarves in Ered Luin, and Elves in The Grey Havens) but followed up quickly (like in 6 months) with a "Wilderland" second core set. The natural progression would then have been Rohan/Isengard for set 3 and Gondor/Mordor for set 4. As it is, Wilderland is a great setting but doesn't make much sense as far as starting Hobbit characters are concerned.

I don't know why I always find myself playing devil's advocate on these threads, but...

Why would this make more sense? By your own admission (and that of the books) Hobbits aren't very adventurous as a group. So, why would starting closer to the Shire make a difference for Hobbit characters?

Surely the Pc hobbit heroes are the exception rather than the norm and are the only hobbits wandering around Wilderland (plus the family that set up the Easterly Inn).

The 10 pts that a starting hobbit adventurer gets plus the fact that he knows one end of a sword from the other likely means he's had a few escapades on his way to Wilderland and can be explained away as back story.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the op's idea of a 'training' style prelude for the hobbit adventurer.

I think that while it's a stretch from the source material (in which there's no sign of Hobbits leaving the Shire between TA 2941 and TA 3018), it's not that hard to hand-wave the idea that Wilderland would be a popular destination for adventuresome Hobbits inspired by the story of Bilbo's travels. They'd know the basic s from that story, and would also know that the folk in that part of the world hold Hobbits in (relatively) high esteem.

That said, I really enjoy the suggestion that the starting ability scores for Hobbit characters reflect the extra travel they've undergone -- this explains how they got all the way out to Wilderland, and also helps excuse the fact that they start off balanced with characters from other cultures (when one might reasonably expect them to be sorely lacking in fighting skills, for instance).

It has came to my mind that the old ICE Lord of the Rings Adventure Game had a short adventure set in Bree, called Dawn comes early, which could be pretty useful as an introductory one.

Basically, one Hobbit is missing while investigating the misterious loss of some sheeps. His sister will look for him with the aid of their common friends, including a Dwarf, a Ranger and even an Elf from the Grey Companies. For us, it could be used just for Dwarves and Hobbits.

Some years ago I worked with some other people on a revised version (the original was quite linear) for Ambarquenta (a fan-made rule set). I can ask if it's fine for them to upload it somewhere you can find it.

Also, there is a nice introductory adventure for Anduin Hobbits called banks of northern Anduin, published in Other Minds webzine which you can download here.

I'm going to be using that and its follow up, Darker than the Darkness, in my Hobbits of the Shire campaign, Three's Company. Just recently started it with a cricket match in the Shire, then its off to Evendim, and after that one of the PCs will have a letter delivered asking them to go to Bree. There's an absolute shed load of adventure opportunities set in, around, and beyond the Shire.

I still advise caution with regards to using Rangers within a Shire campaign. The hobbits do not know that the Rangers have secretly been protecting the Shire and, to a lesser extent, Bree and the remainder of Eriador.

This means that investigation of Arnorian ruins and certain dealings with the Rangers, Elves or Dwarves might reveal information that the Hobbits do not have per canon. Neither Bilbo or Frodo knew to what extent the Rangers were safeguarding the Shire. Although Bilbo alludes to knowing Strider/Aragorn in LOTR, it's mentioned only after the fact, when Frodo has made it to Rivendell - implying that Bilbo is ignorant of the Rangers being Dunedain and the Dunedain being Arnorians and the Arnorians being Numenorians. Thus Bilbo, theoretically the most knowledgeable hobbit of "foreign affairs", doesn't realize how the Rangers are associated with the greatest part of the history of Middle-earth.

As always, if a LM chooses to do something different with their campaign, that is their choice and my warning can be ignored. I'm simply trying to point out for those who want to maintain canon that this is an issue to be considered.


Ok, just saw the other thread where you say you're going Fishing at Lake Evendim, etc. That is a perfectly valid use of the and the Rangers. It complies with canon and yet expands the original material without invalidating any part of it.

I agree with what people have said here about hobbit PCs. I don't like hearing repeatedly about 'plucky little chaps' who are actually the equal in fighting ability of their Big Folk companions -- and just as eager to dive into the fray!
I have to reconcile this on the basis that they are all unique within their own games, and as long as no game has half-a-dozen hobbits 'looking for adventure' on every Esgaroth street-corner, then no individual game's internal logic is stretched too far.

I think the premise is wrong. I don't think starting Hobbit Player-heroes should be identified as "adventurers" at all in the RPG sense of the word -- as a career-choice of serially looking for opportunities to risk life, limb and second breakfast for the chance to win hoards of gold.
Travel itself is perfectly "adventurous" enough in hobbit terms, and a hobbit Player-hero in Wilderland is 'just' a traveller who happens to get involved in something that propels him into a series of events... that may become increasingly "adventurous" as he goes along...

In a MERP campaign I ran years ago I had just one hobbit PC -- introduced with a specific role in a specific home-made adventure. Mixing with Big Folk adventurers in the course of that basically made Buster Toakes unwelcome in his own community when it was all over, so he went off with the adventurers... He did one adventure with them ('Ghost Warriors') and promptly retired to spend his days running the pub in Tharbad thaat the party had bought, regaling the customers with his tales of derring do. That struck just about the perfect level for me.

Cheers,
--Os.

Thanks Garn, I appreciate the concern but I really think its okay and there is little 'risk' in affecting canon. Although its a bit of a threadjack, here are my thoughts as to why that is...

If rangers were helping in an adventure/scenario outside the Shire why would a hobbit think anything other than they were just 'fighting men' in the same way that a dwarf from the Blue Mountains may also be encountered and give aid? Its a man who fights, nothing out of the ordinary.

It's surely far more likely that they wouldn't say anything then - if elves/dwarves/whoever knew what the Rangers were then they'd keep quiet or just refer to them as 'men'. Why would 'someone in the know' say anything to do with the secret history of them to hobbits? They'd know it was secret so wouldn't speak about it.

Not sure it is an issue even if rangers are used. To the untrained eye, they are just men, albeit capable ones - why would their presence result in an understanding of what they were actually doing or what they actually were? I suspect they'd be viewed like other rough sorts and travellers.

Even if a hobbit spent time with such a man why would they know this? I can't see why that would happen. Rangers could quite easily be used in a game and it wouldn't run the risk of affecting canon, in my opinion. The hobbits involved would view him as a man, and that man may even refer to himself as a ranger (although I don't see why he would), but so what? The word ranger has no special meaning to hobbits or other folk, its just a word that describes a person with a particular lifestyle - ie, someone who travels, lives in the wild, etc. Its only those with the hidden lore of what they are that attach significance to the word.

Yeah, I'm setting my Shire campaign in 2998, and I'm certainly using rangers and my hobbit PCs may even share adventures with these 'fighting men'. In fact one of the PCs is a Bounder and as part of his background has met a ranger or three (not that he knows who they are) to the south of the Shire, and ended up fighting together against a pack of wolves the previous winter.

Why a few hobbits' involvement would lead to revelations that this man (or men) are some kind of secret protector(s) or descendent(s) of an ancient race is a bit of a stretch in my mind. I suspect at most, they'd end up being viewed as big folk that looked after themselves and protect their own and sometimes helped others in need - exactly what a hobbit would do in the same circumstances or any decent person for that matter. I really don't see a problem as I don't see the leap from hobbits encountering one or two 'scruffy/wild but decent types that are good in a fight' to 'descendents of Numenor and secret protectors of the Shire'. I suppose it all depends on how they are used, but I certainly don't see the issue of their usage in a campaign as being the problem/concern that you seem to... ... In addition, even if some of their secrets did come out, I certainly don't have a problem with a PC of mine knowing something before Bilbo did, as they are the stars of the show, so to speak.

I don't think anything in my post that you quoted particularly disagrees with what you've stated above. As a traveller, the hobbit would journey from the Shire to Bree, across the wildlands and past the Trollshaws. He'd then (if the elves allowed) stop off in Rivendell, before journeying across the Misty Mountains, the Vale of Anduin, and Mirkwood before arriving in Laketown - all opportunities for adventurous travelling. So, I think the question that some people are asking is they'd like to focus on that journey and/or explain why the hobbit didn't stop or turn back or settle down because he'd had enough (a bit like the hobbit in your old campaign) or if he was motivated by adventure, do something in those many places and then do the settling down, etc. Bilbo came all this way because of an adventure bringing him across the mountains and all this way so people are just trying to make sense of it for other hobbits within their own campaigns. I can certainly understand that thought process and think lots of different suggestions here will help in working this out.

Like I said earlier though, when it was first announced that Shire Hobbits would be a playable race for this area of Middle Earth I did think it was somewhat odd and put it down to it being a requirement of the license or that it just wouldn't feel right to not be able to play hobbits from the start within a Middle Earth RPG. I think one or both of those reasons was the push for their inclusion other than anything else. Not a bad thing though.

Rich H,
Exactly. The difference can actually be summed up quite simply. You even did it unconsciously in your post. You talked about "rangers", I talked about "Rangers".

Anyone can make use of a kind of generic group of lawful men (ie, your references to just men, fighting men, wild men, etc) who live in and around the area and do good deeds. They're good neighbors in that they don't cause much trouble, generally mind their own business, keep to themselves, etc. All traits Hobbits would appreciate.

The problem is that some LMs will attempt to use them as Rangers - the descendants of Numenor - with references and implications to both Arnor and Gondor, not to mention the events in the LOTR. It is in that usage that they're likely to break canon. It was in using the Rangers in this fashion that I suggested LM's be careful.

I made the caution because sometimes you can come up with what seems like a wonderful idea, but not realize the implications of it. This has been revealed in other conversations in these forums. Someone might not mean or want to break canon, but did not consider some factor or aspect and has unknowingly sidetracked their campaign. As mentioned, if this is the LM's intent, to purposely deviate from a certain aspect of Middle-earth in their campaign, fine. But it might not be what the LM intended and thus the caution to consider things before potentially creating a problem for themselves.

That was somewhat deliberate on my part as I was trying to illustrate how I'd handle it so that others could approach it in the same way if they ever wanted to run such a game.

Slight clarification though, my group of men aren't a 'generic group of lawful men', they *are* the Rangers but to others they would just appear to be rangers and like I described above "scruffy/wild but decent types that are good in a fight".

That's how I'm using them but others observing these rangers don't know anything about their hidden past. Why would they? I don't see why the LM can't use them as true Rangers but be subtle and protect their secret nature as it doesn't need to be out in the open for them to function properly. For instance, Strider was known in Bree as a ranger, but no-one there knew the true background of him personally or his people. I don't see why a group of PC hobbits would be much different. Sure, they'd see rangers as more active (assuming they had an adventure or two with them) but that's significantly different from knowing they are Protectors of the Shire and descendents of Numenor.

Anyway, I think it's best not to witter on about this much more as it has nothing to do with the thread's subject.

There were hobbit adventurers.

Spoken by the man himself, in the opening pages of the book.

Do not worry about what is "canon" and play the game the way you want to play it. The story and source material are inspiration and source only, secondary to tales and ideas of your own invention.

If you want to play a hobbit adventurer, and your GM approves, then by all means play a hobbit adventurer. If you want your hobbit adventurer to be friends with Aragorn's second cousin, once removed, who also happens to be a Ranger, then let him.

If your game is different from the story, the JRRT Legacy Canon Enforcement Police are not going to kick your door in, slap you about the head and shoulders and take your dice.

When you sit down to play, it is YOUR game, as played at YOUR table that is CANON.


ETA:
to the OP:Your write-up is excellent. I've already downloaded in the hopes of using it in the future.

I fully agree, though I wasn't taking Garn's point as a diktat from the JRRTLCEP: merely a reminder that small decisions made in-game can have ripple out and have wider effects in the setting.

A Loremaster who aims to hew very close to the published stories may wish to take these "ripple effects" into account, but there's no reason anyone has to: as you say, the game ultimately belongs to the players at the table.

Totally agree as well and I also didn't think Garn was doing anything more than offer advice on being careful.

I'm not trying to slam anyone and I apologize if it sounded that way.

The OP worked out a nice little journey, taking into account the stories and the game rules. It fills a gap that the official material has not yet filled.

Yes, you want to keep things consistent with the Tolkien mythos. But you also don't want to stifle creativity in players and GMs.

I would have to agree!

For canon being defined subjectively such that, "When you sit down to play, it is YOUR game, as played at YOUR table [and] that is CANON" is itself a subjective statement and not a universal truth. And, while I respect the sentiment just quoted, for myself, the canon is as Tolkien himself understood it in both the mythic and published sense - fluid and fixed but never irrational.

For those who wish to "hew" closely to the published stories, I agree with you wholeheartedly! Fare forward traveller, fare forward...! Tis a noble pursuit though we strive in vain...!

Beware the "ripple effects" and take caution from Tolkien's own ~Bout of Madness~ [in the TOR sense of course!] as the "ripple effects" of his own tinkering made near impossible the publishing of The Silmarillion. Near intractable were the elements introduced while he dallied with the Perilous Realm!

Regards,
E