The Decipher LOTR rpg had many flaws, BUT one thing it got very right was the magic and spells. It is up till this day the best magic system in any game, and represented Middle Earth magic very well IMO and in the opinions of many other people who owned the game.

Now, fact of the matter is that Gandalf was an important character in Hobbit and LOTR, around which TOR is based. There are many people who wish to play a Gandalf like character, one who is Wise, can fight with a Sword, but can also bust out a spell or two when the need is great.

I do believe it is the duty of the fine folk at Cubicle 7 to provide rules for people who wish to play a Gandalf like character. And quite frankly, it can be easily done using the already established rules:

According to ME lore, only the Valar, Maiar, Elves, and Istari can use magic in human form. Furthermore, we have examples in the books of human characters descended from elves being able to use magic.

So, simply give cultural backgrounds like 'Descended from Maiar/Descended from Istari/Descended from Elves' etc etc. These backgrounds would be the only ones allowing for pcs to play as Conjurors or Magicians (albeit not full fledged Wizards as there were only 5 of those in the books)

At the highest of levels such PCs can do anything Gandalf or Saruman could do, just not as well or to as high a degree.

I think this would make Magician PC playing people such as myself very happy, and we too could enjoy this fine game to the hilt, and at the same time it would not disturb those people who are against a magic system, as this sort of a system would be subtle and fit into the existing lore effortlessly and flawlessly.

There are official magic rules. In the virtues section, there's Wood-elf magic, Broken Spells (for Dwarves), and Dreadful Spells (for opponents).

Read Other Minds 13 for a magic system subtle enough to fit in and appropriate (I think) for each culture. I'm not big on adding more magic to the game, but I really like the article in issue 13. There are other documents on the forums.

As for this being C7's duty, I couldn't disagree more. It is very clear that this game takes place not in the entirety of Middle-earth's geography and history, but in a limited setting of time and place.

I believe if you want something that doesn't fit in with the game's parameters as defined by the designers, who have studied Tolkien and his world as much as anyone, it is actually your duty to either design it yourself, or find others here on the forums who have the same interest and work together on something. Make something good, show its effectiveness and validity, and see what happens. I've been amazed at the fan-generated material which shows up here. We'll probably see official Rohan, for instance, but in the mean time there at least two different documents for playing the Riders here.

Yesterday I saw a new post (Free-form System) breaking down the mechanics as much as was possible. This might be another good place to start.

Yours in fellowship,
Stephen "Trotter"

I liked the CODA game overall, but I did think the magic system a little too flashy for Tolkien's world. And though I agree a maic system could be an excellent addition to TOR, it would need to be very subtle. And PC's should never be abe to gain the same power level of Gandalf and the other Wizards, they are part of the magic of the world and should be a level of magnitude over what a "mortal" conjuror could muster.

I like the current system.

Sure, the PC can't choose to be magicians. However, they can choose to do some magic tricks and can have some magic weapons (through a Reward).

I would be really disappointed if Cubicle 7 decided to add a "real" magician option as a playable character. I want a game where you play a hobbit shiriff, an human merchand, a elven guard, a dwarven craftsman. Who can do some low-powered magic tricks sometimes.
Not a game where you play the secret heir of Manwe.

For me, the magic in the Middle-earth is not a speciality, it's something that coexist with a more mundane reality. So a healer will have some magical healing stuff, a craftsman will create some magical object. But no one will be magician as a primary set of skills.

I think TOR hit "magic" in Middle-earth out of the ballpark. I expect and want to see a few magic-like Rewards for the Dúnedain and Eldar. More than that, though, and I'll be thoroughly disappointed. The very subtle magic of Middle-earth is one of its greatest appeals to me and I think Francesco did a bang-up job representing it as Tolkien intended.

For my part, I do strongly agree that the magic system as it is being presented so far for player characters is ideal. For my part I'm mostly interested in guidelines for non player characters. What can Radagast do or Gandalf or Saruman for that matter? What about ancient elf magic... that of Galadriel for instance. If I'm not mistaken even Elrond is supposed to be a bit of a miracle worker if I'm not mistaken and not only for hsi healing arts... I believe he possesses one of the three elven rings, that ring associated with water, which makes me think the incident involving ring wraiths and a flooded river might be connected. I suspect that the Rivendale supplement MAY touch on that perhaps, or perhaps there will be a "Rings of Power" supplement at some point in the distant future :-) Personally I'm happy enough just making things up as I go for non player characters.... but I'm not everyone.

A loremaster who is well versed in the lore of middle earth, and who has a very strong imagination and possesses enough time to put this mighty imagination to work, might find this challenge exciting. Some others might find this challenge daunting. A lore master whose game has players who seem to know a lot about middle earth may feel an obligation to "get things right". another loremaster may have read all of Tolkien's works, and note that the various Istari, elves, and Maiar can do X, Y, and Z, but still have trouble making sense of whether they should be able to do A, B, or C. That is, it can be hard to turn examples into an understanding. Some lore masters may have difficulty distinguishing what the differences between the magic of the ancient Numenorians, Dwarves, Noldor, and Sindar are, and how the magics of those people's differs if at all from the magic of the Istari. Where does Beorn's magical ability to turn into a bear and communicate with animals come from, and are the remarkable animals that serve him (in "The hobbit") special or is their remarkable behavior related to Beorn's magic and training? How much of the magic tricks Galdalf does with fire come from his own power and how much do they come from the elven ring of fire that he secretly possesses? Is a Wizards magic tied to his staff? The introduction of any "official magic system" that tries to create rules to handle every situation in my opinion is going to be hard to make and is likely to generate a lot of controversy.

The simplest solution is to avoid putting these rare individuals directly into the story. Indeed how many such magic users dwell within Wilderland? Only a small handful, The players might hear about what Radagast is doing to combat the shadow, but not be present to see him do it with their own eyes. Even if they do meet him he may be unlikely to share the details of what he can and can not do with the heroes. Perhaps they hear that Galadriel has discerned the plans of the enemy, but they do not have to know how she did it. Magic isn't really magic anymore if it is understood, therefore magic users should remain mysterious. In these cases, no clear magic system is required because the information is filtered through other mouths so if things sound strange or impossible to the players, one would not be certain if the rumors were incorrect or if perhaps the players simply did not fully appreciate the power of that character's magic.

Going back to the issue of players using magic.... I understand some gaming groups want players to have the option to play the role of the wise mystic. I get that, it's an archetype firmly embedded in fantasy culture. It's an archetype some players are quite attached to playing. It's an archetype central to the stories that Tolkien tells. Would "The hobbit" or "The Lord of the Rings" been as good without Galdalf? Of course you can't play one of the 5 wizards but I understand the desire to use that role, perhaps to create pupils among the races of middle earth who can fit into this archetype somehow.... it's not part of the middle earth lore, but people can and should do what they want to make the game more enjoyable to the preferences of their own gaming group.

I did read a long thread about a magic system under development on these forums. Have you read it? look for a topic called "My Homebrew Magic System" or try this URL http://cubicle7.clicdev.com/f/index.php?tr...&showtopic=2383 I dunno if that will work. I read through most of it out of curiosity and discovered that it is geared towards the races of men and not hobbits dwarves or elves. The premise is that the player character has a special gift and as his power grows he becomes more like the wizards and is even included in the white counsel. I find it a little bit much in several ways, but I'm sure some gaming groups will find these ideas exactly what they are looking for. It is still in development and the writer changes some aspects as the thread continues, but I think it's worth reading through if you are considering making your own magic system so you can be exposed to the writers thoughts, and the thoughts of many others who contributed regarding magic in middle earth.

As I said in my OP, the magic system would be subtle. Where did I ever say I want D&D style meteor swarms and Wish spells?

Heck, they can use the same format for spells they are currently using, like the Wood Elf Spells or the Dwarven spells. Just you know, have a Conjuror profession and a full spell list that can be purchased.

For those that don't want such in their games, that's fine. You can just ban them from your games. But for those who DO want such rules, it is much harder for us to make up balanced rules on the spot.

It is always better to have something which can be optional even, and then not use it, rather than not have something and have to make it up which is much, much harder to do.

Whilst I respect your opinion, Xex, I would prefer Cubicle7 NOT develop an official system. Once such a system had official sanction, I can only imagine it creeping into most or even all future supplements, creating work for those of us investing in the game as it is, without "conjurors" or whatnot. I truly believe that a conjuror would only be possible for a servant of the Enemy and TOR isn't, nor ought it become, a game where players take the role of such folk.

Moreover, it's quite clear that Cubicle7 has limited resources for producing new TOR material. I would resent the use of those resources for even the most qualified optional magic system.

Various optional systems have been crafted already by players. I think they are more than sufficient for those seeking that experience.

My firm opinion on Magic in TOR is that is should operate exactly like the magic system in King Arthur Pendragon (especially the firs edition). Magic is, well, magic. It is a narrative tool for the gamemaster. It is not codified by game mechanics and rules. It does what the gamemaster needs it to do when it is needed to advance the story. That is all. When Tolkien needed Gandalf to do something with magic Gandalf did so.

Gandalf was not, is not, and should never be, considered as a player character archetype. He was a plot device. He was the equivalent of an Archangel. Do you really want player character Demi-gods running around your world?

Simply using his magic to kindle a fire in the wet wrote "Gandalf is here" for all who had eyes to see it. This is a pretty clear statement that spell casting type magic is so rare and specialized that any casting pretty much immediately reveals the identity of the caster.

The magic that is more common, and should be available to player characters, albeit in small measure, is crafting magic objects. Much skill and craft in this area has been lost, but some still remains. The folk of Dale crafted magical musical crackers for Bilbo's birthday party after all. Thror's inscribe his map with moon letters, that is the sort of magic that might be available, not flaming pine cones of doom.

As others have said, magic-user official rules are NOT needed in my opinion. If players want to cast spells every session they should play a different RPG as this is not in the spirit of Tolkien's works.

Also as others have mentioned, what IS in the spirit of Tolkien's works is the ability of some individuals (usually elves or dwarves) to craft weapons and other devices which have magic imbued into them - like a sword that glows in the dark when orcs are near or a magical lock. To my mind this is more akin to the "blessings", "wards" and "curses" style of magic than spell-casting - i.e. the crafter calls upon their god or gods to impart his/her power into the crafted item.

I think the current system is very, very good and I don't want anything more than this on magic subject.

Other Minds 13 and the article "The Art of Magic for TOR: Suggestions for spell magic within the TOR framework"

I thought this was a good read, and some subtle options for magic that seemed to compliment what TOR already has officially.

While I am a big fan of Decipher's game as well, let me add my voice to those saying that this is something that I think C7/SG got better with TOR.

In a 4 year campaign I ran, we had a regular PC who was a magician. Despite the hope that magic would remain subtle, we faced such deadly foes that "Flame of Anor" became his regular go-to spell, such that it seemed that in every fight there were magical blasts or flaming pine cones being hurled at the enemy. Personally, I prefer magic to be much more subtle and behind-the-scenes.

As others have said, Gandalf doesn't really play the part of a PC in the stories. He's more of a deus ex machina (as the Eagles were), and magic mostly served the same function. It was mysterious and rare, and was only there to advance the story. It was NOT there as a regular, every day occurrence that could become routine. Allowing magicians, casters, and sorcerers in Middle-earth takes it away from Tolkien's work and more into the generic fantasy.

In this case, it's one of the things that TOR got right, and is an area that is much better than the CODA system, IMHO.

Everyone pretty much posts how I feel about the Wizards & Elves helping the heroes from behind the scenes - Gandalf, Radagast, Elrond, & so on.

ToR gets it right & I don't want them to go beyond adding some Wood Elf Magic or Dwarven Broken Spells to Dúnedain Seers or something like that.

What I will add, however, is to remind everyone that Francesco recently hinted that the Rivendell (TBC) supplement contains a chapter on Magical Treasures. This chapter MAY (fingers crossed) discuss how to craft, etc

However, when was the last magical object crafted in the Middle Earth ?
I'm almost sure it was in the Second Age (only Narsil being reforged in Anduril takes place in the Third Age).

So I think it will be more about finding treasures than crafting objects.

True, & that's how I've always LMed it - the ancient weapons & rings & such are rare & normally from no later than the Second Age (Celebrimbor, etc.)

The only exceptions I've ever allowed are a handful of Dúnedain barrow-blades, forged against the Witch-king during the Third Age, & that sort of thing. They are, however, very rare.

Yeah, I couldn't disagree more with the original post.
The reason TOR is so successful in representing Tolkien's world is precisely because it stays away from such things as codifying magical powers. Especially for characters.

There is very little (if any) precedent in the lore of people being descended from Istari or anything of the sort. If you really must have magic spells in your game, I would suggest modifying the setting for another rules set such as Pathfinder or D&D.

The beauty of TOR is that it is, for the first time (imo) we have a game where the rules actually reinforce the tone and setting, instead of just feeling like another D&D clone with a thin Tolkien paintjob.

Well, there's the Elrond's family and the royal line of the Numenorans (both are descending from Melian, a Maia.
And Ungoliant also had descendants (although I don't think a giant evil spider is a good concept for a PC).

And even numenorans, magic is not really strong (Aragorn can use a palantir and has some healing powers, but he doesn't cast flaming pine cones).

I did learn a long time ago that there are many different ways of understanding magic in Middle-earth, from the mundane to the high magic. None is wrong, none is absolutely right.
I learned also that there are different groups of Tolkien fans with diverse tastes, none of them better or worse. And I decided that a game system that tries to appeal all kind of Tolkien fans should take into acount this diversity.
That said, Cubicle 7 does not need to offer an official magic rules set. It owes part of its success to this low-magic approach. But it is also a weakness, since there are a great many fans that rightly feel in need of one.
I can understand very well Xex's appeal, the same as the opponents to his proposal. I feel a shame how he is being rebuked, and if there is the impresion in this thread that the only TOR fans are those that oppose a magic system, I would like to point to the many other threads with many TOR fans struggling to develop a magic system.
All good to you all!
Namarie
VACO

Who rebuked Xex? He offered an opinion and so has everyone else. The closest thing to a rebuke was offered by me, but not for wanting magic. I thought it was wrong to tell the designers what their duty was when it came to his personal desires. And I still do. I also take a dim view of the practice of appointing oneself to speak for everyone, but I didn't even mention that because that's a personal pet peeve that might not bother anyone else. So, forget I even mentioned it. The funny thing is, in that original post he didn't even actually specify what he wanted.

If the designers felt a magic system beyond what we have was appropriate, we would have one. I am thankful they didn't. What they made seems just right. I'm really glad they didn't put Rune-keepers in this game. There are plenty of games with fireballs and teleportation spells, but not here.

So yes, there actually are some wrong ways to do this, and there is one right way. Tolkien's. This game may not be perfect, but I'd wager he would have liked it. In choosing a system for playing in his world, that matters to me.

What those who don't want magicians as PC should have done, really ?
As far as I can tell, the posters in this thread gave their opinion and tried to use the work of Tolkien to sustain those. How is that rebuking ?

Besides, a game system that tries to appeal to all fans is doomed to fail.
Some design choices must be made, that will please some players and displease others. You just can't satisfy everybody.

I'm one of those who would like a Magic System and a bit more magic. Not CODA/MERP levels, but more. And yes, mage characters. IMO Tolkien makes enough passing references to magic users to warrant inclusion of both.

Having said that I know what the general community consensus is in regards to this subject. Thus I haven't previously bothered to comment. Nor will I argue my position.

No point in fire-pineconing the already dead pack of wargs. (The Rohirrim would be offended if you struck any horse, living or dead!)

I could agree to a subtle form of magic added to the game. Say, being able to start a fire with a spell, but not a system that allowed fireballs; at least for the characters.

I hope designers don't change The One Ring philosophy. Players are always free to create their own house rules and play the game as they wish. But the core game must keep its horizon clear, otherwise we will have a very random publishing line.

Well, it is IMHO quite clear that there exist spell-using individuals in Middle-earth apart from high-powered individuals like the Istari or the great among the Eldar (if the latter use "spells" in the mannish - and classic RPG - meaning at all). Some instances come instantly to mind without doing a proper research:
Gandalf mentions dozens of different lock-opening spells in the tongues of elves, men and orcs (sic!) before the West-gate of Moria. This suggests that the primary users of these languages used them for such purposes.
More indirectly, it is telling that Angmar (existed ca. TA 1275 to 1975) was ruled by the Witch-king (an epithet probably given by his enemies). Why name such an individual a "king of witches" (in a fantasy world!), if not for the presence of some nasty magic-doers coming from this country?
The Witch-king silences Frodo at the Ford with a simple gesture (something like a "spell" requiring no verbal component).
Most telling, the Mouth of Sauron is unmistakably described as having learned "great sorcery" in Sauron's service, clearly suggesting some kind of evil magic accessible by studying it.

The latter two are also good examples why "classic" magic should almost non-existent in a game like TOR: It is tainted and - in TOR-terms - would quickly earn you a lot of Shadow.

This is understandable, since the will to govern and direct the physical substance of Arda (be it animate or inanimate) by such powers is the beginning of the road to Evil. Therefore Tolkien describes the "Ring of Power - project" of the Noldor in Eregion as the closest case the Eldar came to "fall" and become enamored by what Tolkien describes as "the machine". They wanted to use their powers to shape the world around them and bend it to their will. It was a very close shave, but they avoided the trap at the latest moment. The principle remains though, and use "magic" to control other people or things to do your bidding. Their basic motive was not evil though, and thus they escaped falling into Sauron's plan at last (and at a high price indeed for this flirting with evil).

Coming back to a game, every "magic" that strives to manipulate the physical world carries in it the seed for Shadow gain. If used for good purposes like healing or helping others, it should have a good chance of avoiding Shadow (e.g. by making an easy test against it), but still with a chance for it. Classic "combat magic" manipulating the elements (even if on a low level like lighting flammable objects as pinecones or arrows) would carry a higher chance for Shadow gain. At the far "evil" end, all magic that deals directly with manipulating other people to do your bidding or overpower their will (the W-k at the ford or the "evil" signature of the Nine and Seven Rings) will get you automatic Shadow gain.
It is IMHO also important to not only translate the descriptions of "magic" effects or powers in the books into game terms, but also develop other - not described - effects that fit into the overall tone of the described effects. This is truly the "champions league" of game design in Middle-earth: inventing new things that look and feel like that could have been written or designed by the Professor himself and integrate smoothly into his world design.

In a nutshell, the chances for mind-affecting or combat spells are quite slim as long as you stick to the focus of TOR for morally upright heroes. That does not mean that spell-magic does not exist in Middle-earth - only that the narrower focus of the game as it is now does not cover it.

Cheers
Tolwen

Tolwen (as usual) covers it well.

If any of you are considering supplementing ToR's magic system with your own, you may want to see what the good professor had to say about the subject - which is pretty cool, BTW .

I won't quote extensively on here because of the obvious legal issues, but see if you can find a copy of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien - particulary pp 146, 152, and 199–200.

This pretty much covers it. Anything more would be harmful to the play experience for a Hobbit/LotR RPG.

I don't want to see any official magic rules* beyond the way its done already as part of Virtues and Rewards. I honestly don't think there's really a need for more detailed systems for emulating magicians and conjurors in the literature that this game is based upon. Characters like Gandalf, Saruman, etc aren't really to be emulated by PCs and with those particular individuals I would go the way of Pendragon (5th edition) and just let such characters achieve what is narratively important for them to achieve. No specific codifying of rules (just an LM's understanding of the works of Tolkien and what they want from their game) are really required. Virtues could easily cover anything else.

Also, I understand people saying they could be written and those that didn't want to use them could simply ignore them but:

i) Cubicle 7 and Sophisticated Games has finite resources so any time spent on a magic system would be time not spent on something else.

ii) If an official system was developed then it's highly likely that it'd get used within other official material (eg, adventures) which would make it more difficult to remove from your game.

So, for me, no thanks.

* I do like reading the fan-made stuff though.

It's already in the game.
It's one of the virtues available for the dwarves.

I think it's "King and witch" rather than "king of the witches".

Anyway, my opinion is (and I agree that other people will have other opinions, and that the authors will decide) that :
- in the third age, the only 'real' users of magic are the VIP of the middle earth. For me, in TOR, we're supposed to play Merry, Pippin, Faramir or Gimli, but we're not supposed to play Gandalf, Elrond or Galadriel.
- magic is used to enhanced a natural ability. So I agree that the world is magic and that it should be reflected in the rules (it already is), but they are not firstly magicians.

Xex,

Please see the Magic rules in my sig, as they are the Decipher magic system converted to TOR, as like you I was a fan of the magic system in LOTR. This took me many months to compile, please read and enjoy!

I have not yet updated to version 3 as I'm waiting for the Rivendell Sourcebook now!

Robin S.

I agree.

Since this is developing into an impromptu poll, add my vote for keeping the status quo.

Aiya, mellon Trotter, mellon Dalriada:

I am sorry that my comentary anoyed you. As an outsider I got the feeling of hostility to Xex and his proposal (like "digital flappings") from the community. I hope you are right and that it was not the feeling.
Coming back to the topic, I feel there are different ways to tackle Xex's proposal. But I feel the ground discussion here is not about if there is magic in Middle-earth that could be translated in a playable gaming system or not, but just and exchange of tastes (I like it, I like it not).
If we talk about tastes and TOR, I agree with you Trotter that Cubicle7 alone will decide if it puts a magic system for TOR or not. And I agree also that there are a lot of community members who enjoy TOR as it is. But that let us "others" (I include myself in it) as outsiders. A broken Tolkien gaming community. And that I deem as a weakness.
And if we talk about magic as such, the fireball throwing people in Middle-earth were mentioned before as Iconic case of non-existence. I find it funny that actually there are many such cases in Tolkien writings:

To that are the fires and thunder of Weather-top and Zirak-zigil, the infamous pinecon-burning, the Orthranc-fire, the flames of Isengard, the flaming sword of Aragorn. [That is more than you can count with one hand ]
That makes NOT the point void, since I have also played D&D and I know what you people mean. But I want to point out that there are a lot of (good) magic that is not easily to be seen in Tolkien works, but that is there anyway. And I deem that the low-magic scenario is just an interpretation and not the only valid one.
Namarie
VACO

Well, of course Gandalf casts spells. Of course there are magical items (the One Ring being, of course, a big one). No one is trying to pretend there is no magic in Middle Earth. The question is whether the PCs can do magic or create magical items. It seems to me that fireball-like magic is strange an uncommon for most of the characters in Tolkien's texts, except the magicians, and to some extent the high elves.

But on the other end, maybe my opinions are a bit too extreme, since I don't believe players should be able to play elves either.

I guess that flaming sword only emitted light, but there sure are examples of Gandalf playing with fire. Other interesting magical devices were ford at Bruinen or Galadriel interacting with Dol Guldur. But! These things are very clearly not connected to human and hobbit race, and are subtle in the nature: they are not mechanical (fireball, fireball, lightning, fireball) but rather an act of art, altering the creation in an organic way.

I guess the problem many people have with official "magic" system enabling players to play casters is that it could be very mechanical, while the TOR team managed to reproduce many magical effects in a way more consistent with books. The only human "mages" we know about were all evil, I think - and Tolkien clearly makes line between natural giftings and power usurped beyond one's calling.

It may just be me, but I'm seeing a lot of emotion as to why there can or can't be magic users in ME. Why? I think it all comes down to one thing...
It's a game! And more importantly...It's your game! You want magic users in Middle Earth? Guess what, they are there. You don't want any magic users at all? They're gone. The books are in your hand, make with them what you will.

I think Francesco and co. approached Middle Earth perfectly. It retains the feeling of the books, but the system is so elegant, it allows for fan tweaking without breaking the system. If Francesco was to release a magic system, I would hope he would do it with a blog or forum post, "This is how I would allow players to be magic users" or somesuch.

There has been a lot of fan work in this area (I'm one of them), and its an interesting endeavour. Check some of the systems out, you may like them.

I find you are completly right here. I find one of the joys of community is sharing ideas, which can be awesome. I once knew somebody who had the opinion that the only way to evectively share ideas was with conflict. I still hope he was wrong.
Namarie
VACO

I disagree, he was right !


I think at the end, it depends on what you call conflict and what you call debate.
I was for example really surprised by Kaltharion saying "but I'm seeing a lot of emotion as to why..." in his previous message.
For me, this thread has been quite friendly. We disagree, we give arguments... That's how we debate, without any ill-feeling. I don't see how we could do otherwise, without being hypocritical.

Aiya, mellon Dalriada:
I use to consider a success to go out of a discussion with the feeling of having new friendships
What do you say if we come back into thema and discuss Gandalf as icon of (human) magic-users in Middle-earth role-playing games?
Namarie
VACO

Vaco,

If I was annoyed I would have said so. I generally say what I think (not feel) because I try to use reason. While I may not always succeed, you will still not need to read between the lines.

Yours in fellowship,
Stephen "Trotter"