Just poking my head in, with moderator hat on, to say "steady now". No one is in trouble, but let's keep things polite.

And by way of incentive I had to break off work on Darkening of Mirkwood to post this.

I should hopefully get time to enquire about fan policy today.

Thank you, Jon, for the interjection. It is greatly appreciated by this member of the Fellowhsip of TOR.

Best regards,
E

OK I'll tone it down but here's an example of what upset me about MERP and then the "direction" OM's take because of ICE's fabrications:

OTHER MINDS
Magazine
Issue 8,
November 2009



"Er-Mûrazôr, the Witch-king
Númenórean Ringwraith, the First. He
was the second son of the king of
Númenor, Tar Ciryatan, born in SA 1920.
In SA 1940 he sailed with a private household
fleet to the colonies of Lond Daer and
Umbar but was unsuccessful in obtaining
any feudal dominion there over the previous
Númenórean claimants. He then went
to the colony of Sakal an-Khâr in the Bay of
Ormal, east of Greater Harad, which he
came to control as an independent potentate.
His father, however, demanded his
surrender of independent control and, defeated,
the Black Prince retreated to the
jungles of the interior to wage a prolonged
guerrilla war. In SA 1998 he accepted a
Ring of Power from a Maia of the land not
knowing that he served Sauron. By SA
2243 he had become a Ringwraith and
tried to wrest New Atlantis, his old colony,
4 from the hands of the Númenóreans.
When Sauron accepted defeat in SA 3262
and went to Númenor, the Nazgûl remained
in control of the defences of the
One Ring in the Dark Tower " (24)

Sounds cool right?

The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth

Lord of The Nazgul:

The chief Nazgu (q.v.), the mightiest of Sauron's servants. Originally a king and sorcerer, he was enslaved by Sauron when he received the greatest of the Nine Rings. . .His real name is not given.

The Witch-King wasn't the second son of Tar-Ciryatan, he didn't sail in his with his household fleet to Lond Daer, etc. . all these fan-fiction details are useless to me because they are not Tolkien. As much care as Tolkien took with genealogies and historical facts, this similar type of information I found in ICE was toublesome and ponitless. I had to re-read Tolkien on many occaisions to seperate "fact" from ficiton. Part of what makes The Witch-King cool is that he didn't have a name and his past is obscured by the passage of time and other means.

I feel this is the reason that ICE lost their license too. They really started to creat a middle-earth that only existed in a alternate MERP reality. I want to play in Tolkien's world not ICE's.

This article using the MERP names for the ringwraiths further gives credence to their canonicity and that troubles me. It has a MERP canon angle I don't want TOR to take. MERP is not canon in any way! ( because it's not Tolkien) The ringwraiths do not have names and never will. ( another part of their trajedy)

I love the way TOR has based most of their creations directly on the books, not their own inventions, and I understand to do an RPG they will have to invent some things but in my opinion ICE went entirely too far and I was happy when the plug was pulled on them.

so if I sound bitter it's really more exasperation to get away from the mentality that MERP created. TOR has created a vibe of reverence and respect for Tolkiens words and I want that vibe and feeling to continue and not the slippery slope MERP created and promoted. ( to the detriment of the setting)

Hi Blu star,

When the idea of 'waybread' was originally mooted by Issachar, I thought that it was a great idea. It was a new Zine and completely unrestrained by any other 'non canon' literature that had been penned before. When I realised that both HoF and OM had already published articles about subjects that I am currently working on, I became a little worried.
Would Issachar and Tolwen regard something already accepted and published, in their respective journals, as 'canon'? In short, was I wasting my time?
They have replied( in this thread) to confirm that as long as articles are well written, that there is no reason why they would not be published. In other words, IMO anyway, they are saying that there is no Zine 'canon'.
I love the idea that we can add to 'in game canon' as long as we respect the original source material.
I quite like the Merp take on the Lord of the Nazgul. You don't and you are entitled to that opinion. It's apparent that others did, as several contributors decided that it suited their own 'in game canon'.

I really think, given you explanation of your distaste for OM, that you are going to absolutely hate my work on a heroic culture for the Horsefolk of Rhovanion. The Prof never mentions them In the default setting and the premise for their existence is fairly slender, based on a paragraph and a footnote in Unfinished Tales.

Prof. Tolkien also never mentioned that anyone ever used a restroom ... doesn't mean that they didn't.

I absolutely loathe it when discussions about what is canon and what is not canon spiral out of control when the mindset becomes "the creator did NOT mention something, it can never be". That is ludicrous! Canon should only EVER apply when something CONTRADICTS what has been created by the creator ... period. Just my 2 cents.

And, before this degenerates into statements along the lines of ... "Prof. Tolkien also never mentioned Death Stars ... does that mean they exist?" ... I could accept the presence of a Death Star orbiting Middle-earth as an (odd ... a VERY odd) explanation of the tools used by the gods to destroy Numenor. I could accept that all of the gods are actually orbiting, sentient satellites that enact their will through drones, etc. ... super-science. If I presented any of this for public consumption, I would merely point out that it is a different take on the subject matter that doesn't contradict any writings. It's just in the situations that Prof. Tolkien contradicted himself (or didn't state specifically) that I make a judgement call as to what I want to use. For example, my Balrog has wings ... my Glorfindel is THE Glorfindel who killed a Balrog ... my Dwarven women do NOT have beards.

Ultimately, I am accepting of different interpretations as long as they do NOT contradict the original work. Some, in fact, I find I derive amusement in the speculation. This doesn't mean I would actually use the interpretation.

Note, though, that I do NOT believe any of this to be the actual case ... I prefer my fantasy to stay fantasy and my science-fantasy to stay science-fantasy.

Throrsgold, great response on canon. There are two threads that have popped up on the boards within the last 30 mins that IMO might benefit from a copy and paste from this post. However, as it is your post I did not wish to do so without your permission.

HN

And that was exactly my point Throrsgold. The game and this community is not going to get far if it can't expand the vision.

Well, we certainly all have some divergent views .

Seriously though, I'm not too keen about any of the previous iterations of converting Middle-earth to tabletop RPGs either, but I sometimes pick & choose from articles from all of them.

Actually, I think it's a pretty simple argument in that if we read something that we feel stretches beyond canon (I also have problems with the example given from MERP), then we can just ignore that material & move on to something that works for us. Someone else, however, may like the very articles that we loathe.

Concerning the logistics, these webzines require so much time & effort that we're probably lucky to even keep one of them going for a while. Please remember that our fellow gamers do this out of their love of Middle-earth - in whichever rules format they prefer. If we end-up with multiple 'zines, well, I'll be surprised if they last. I'd rather have something published at least from time-to-time but ongoing, with bits & pieces that I can pick & choose, than nothing at all .

I hope that I conveyed that I was supporting your viewpoint. I agree with you wholeheartedly!

Thank you. Yes, I'm going to do just that immediately after posting this.

The problem with expanding is that I never viewed LOTRs like I do Star Wars or Star Trek, where they're basically a hodge podge of cool ideas slapped together to make a nice story. There's no sense of realism in these other Universes ( and that's what makes them fun!) Fans added to them, some of it was good and some not so good but everyone was encouraged to add something. The Star Wars EU is prodigious. But LOTR's is a different animal all together (IMO)

Tolkien painstakingly and lovingly created Middle-Earth and it's background. So the closer we can stay to that vision the brigther the light of this RPG will shine. ( IMO) Will things need to be invented ? Of course but I feel they should be only when necessary, not just for the sake of it. Do we really need to know the fake names of the nazgul? Those aren't their real names anyways, so what's the point? I'm not saying LMs can't make up whatever names they want but the Official RPG for LOTR should be trying to stay true to Tolkien's vision. It doesn't add anything of value to my game.

The 'zine should also reflect TOR's attitude towards this issue and not MERP's which was basically lets create our own setting.

What I would like to see as expansion is like stats for areas like Archet and the like, places my PC's might visit. Messing with the cosmology and genealogy of the setting is going to far. Stats for major NPC's , common s, monsters, etc. . .

It's really a thin line with LOTR I feel. If you go to far then it ceases to be Middle-Earth which is where we all want to adventure in, or else lets just play D&D , Tunnels and Trolls or whatever.

I think TOR so far treats the source with the repsect and the vibe is it's main selling point. Lets face it, that's the only thing that will differentiate this game form a 100 other fantasy games. This game reflects Tolkiens visoin of Middle-Earth. Do you want to adventure in Middle-Earth or some hybrid mess?

I think it would be fine for your game and maybe even for a TOR 'zine but there are already so many cultures with exacting detail in LOTR why would I need them? Do my PC's want to brush up against the Rohirrim, Ents, Orcs or some fan-fabricated culture I invented? I guess my question would be why adventure in ME then?

If my players ran into this group of people I would describe them in the same way Tolkien did, with a couple sentences and off we go.

I feel Tolkien has invented the ingredients already we just need to use them and stir the pot so to speak, and the more ingredients we add the farther we get from the perfect recipe. We need to become better cooks with what we have.

Just to set expectations...

The adventures and so forth I'll be creating for TOR will absolutely include made-up stuff not found in Tolkien, including ideas borrowed from MERP. I mean to use MERP sources sparingly and to try to preserve the "feel" of TOR as I perceive it. But it's not going to be everyone's cup of Entdraught.

I'll still be interested in criticism from Blustar and other folks who lean more toward the purist end of the spectrum, though. I'd prefer correction from that side to "moar dragns pls!"

Wot, no Dragons...........

So, Blu star, you want details about places like Archet. What information would you like? I could write an article for you about Archet that would include population, places of interest, colourful local characters and even the odd plot hook. It would still be completely made up, the product of my own imagination. It might be true to the spirit of the Professors writing as far as I was concerned,but you might disagree.
Virtually everyone on this forum believes that their suggestions are in the spirit of the books.
It is up to each discerning reader to decide which of these suggestions, if any,can find a place in what he believes is right. On top of that, it's 'FUN' to indulge in speculation and to try to create new things and ideas.

There are, as you rightly point out, already a number of very well developed Heroic Cultures. Why would you want to use mine? I don't know. Perhaps, if you gave it a read(if it ever gets completed or accepted for any Zine) you might actually like it. It will be a while before the Rohirrim make an appearance and it could make for a fair substitute in the mean time, if you found that you could not buy into the premise that the Horsefolk actually exist.

After all, the author of TOR managed to create two whole Heroic cultures from footnotes and occasional paragraphs in the Woodmen and the Beornings.

ENTDRAUGHT!

That would be my vote for a fanzine title.

Thanks!

I would love an article of that type.

What I meant by my last statement was if I gather my friends around to play TOR ( or any other LOTR RPG) what kind of game would they enjoy?

They would probably want for the world of ME to come alive for them, so in the part of the world where TOR started that means Beornings and Woodmen, Wood Elves, Dwarves, spiders, wolves, etc. . .

What makes ME ME? is it the vibe? The creatures who inhabit the land? ( Hobbits, ELves, etc. . .) Anything you want? Eventually it's going to cease being ME if you keep expanding.

We also played Forgotten Realms and we could care less about canon because we could care less about the books, they were schlock fantasy novels for us, although they were still fun to read in their way. LOTR is different to me. It has more prestige in my gaming circle of friends, it's a "real" place. Maybe ME is not a good place for me to GM because I hold the source material in too much esteem.

If I played in a TOR ( or any other LOTR RPG) game and ran into all these made up things that never appeared in the books, ( like a Mind Flayer)I know I would be disappointed. It's a fine line like someone else said. It will depend on the group on what they expect out of the game. I would rather just play D&D then or Pathfinder.

The further the movies drifted from the books the less I liked it, I think the same could be said with the RPG. I suspect the further you distance your game from the source material the less fun the game becomes for me.

I think TOR should try and emulate ME as closely as possible for maximum immersion.

It's weird because I've played in other licensed universes and I've never really cared about getting it right. Middle-Earth is a special place I guess.

Anyways, I've calmed down now and will now meditate as Christopher Lee's voice serenades me (listening to Treebeard's Song)

For what it's worth I personally totally understand the passions at work here. Middle-Earth is incredibly personal to everyone who discovers it, and unfolds it in their mind. And if you love it sufficiently to want to play in a roleplaying game set there? Well that bar of passion is already pretty high.

Speaking purely as a fellow gamer here, in zero official capacity, I wonder if a possible amicable solution is to offer a rating for each article on how close to canon it is? Given time and usage such a system could become quite intuitive, and allow people to be warned ahead of reading if the material was absolutely faithful to the source and didn't add anything, was a little more speculative, was making a more creative usage of references, or was entirely a work of fiction in the spirit of canon.

A ratings system could be as simple as three or four rankings for "canon", or something a little more detailed. Just an idea anyway.

And in reply as a fellow gamer, Jon I just want to say that I've been a big fan of your art since first seeing it in AFMBE (another great game).
You are their go-to-guy.

Is it evil of me wishing to see zombies in Middle earth?
Your TOR art adds just the right touch of creepy/gloomy otherworldliness.

Let Thunderdome resume.

The rating system seems like a great way to strike a balance in this argument, since we'll probably never please everyone all the time .

If the editors decide against Jon's idea, perhaps some type of disclaimer (or whatever they decide to call it) at the beginning of each article to the effect of the veracity - canon?

I believe OM already uses a rating system like this. Although, in regards to "canonicity" rating systems, you first have to define what you're considering canon - ie only what appears in the books; material from rpg sourcebooks; etc. I know some people who consider the movies canon, and others who consider MERP material canon (although I enjoy the movies, I don't consider either of these to be canon, btw).

As much as I love the concept of "rating" it only ever gains a true impact / worth if you open up for a large number of people / fans to rate it.

Let's say we had all this stuff in a wiki on-line instead? That would allow everyone reading the article to rate it according to his/her standards and the true gems would crystallize eventually.

In a 'zine.. it would still only be up to the author or editorial staff (3 or 4 guys / gals?) and we are not really gaining anything?

Or maybe we do.. I don't know.

/wolf

The "canonicity scale" might work better as a radar chart, otherwise known as a spider web chart. Off the top of my head, I could see the following axis/arms:

• JRRT Cannon: it appears verbatim from JRRT's works published by him in his lifetime with revised editions being more cannonical.
• CRT Addendum: materials published by CRT after his father's death which includes some amount of interpretation / speculation.
• MERP: utilizes material from MERP - official ICE MERP content or any derivative content.
• LOTR: utilizes material from LOTR RPG - official Decipher's LOTR RPG content or any derivative content.
• TOR: utilizes material from TOR - official Cubicle7 The One Ring content or any derivative content.
• Historical: real world historical content used to expand or create new content.
• Mythological: content expanded or created from legends, folk lore or mythology from any real world source.
• Creator: material that, like Athena, sprang forth whole from the creator's mind.

Assume a simple 0-5 scale. Zero means that absolutely none of the material represented by that arm exists within the article. Each additional point on the scale is an approximate +20% increase in material represented by that arm.

So an article about the Fall of Numenor, might be listed as:

JRRT Cannon = 0
CRT Addendum = 2
MERP = 0
LOTR = 1
TOR = 1
Historical = 0
Mythological = 0
Creator = 3

This article would contain lots of stuff that the author made up themselves without any specific historical or mythological foundation. (Not that it might not have some, just that the creator was not actively working from Atlantis, Mu, etc.) But the article does draw upon The Silmarillion or HoME at times. Adding in a few elements from both Decipher's and TOR's published material to add extra embellishment to the article as a whole.

Hmm, it occurs to me that if a radar chart is used a secondary display might be how applicable the article would be for each of the Middle-Earth gaming systems.

Either way, the scaling is subjective, there is no real way to get around that. The closest that anyone could come would be to peruse the various ME related websites for consensus(!) on a given topic. It might be better than nothing, but still far from perfect.


With regards to the name, I'm not sure I like Waybread. I cannot think of another name at the moment though.

I'm not sure ratings are so helpful. But it would be useful if each article came with a short boxed text explaining what is derived from known Tolkien sources, what comes from history but not ME, what is taken from other RPGs, and what is just the author's invention. And perhaps a brief mention of anything well-known that this piece conflicts with (for example, the Marsh Bell as written is not entirely compatible with MERP writings about Londaroth, or not without a little work at least) I would appreciate that more than a bunch of numbers.

I was kind of assuming "instant gratification" with my suggestion. Something that a reader could glance at to determine the viability of an article for their needs - assuming a multiple Middle-Earth RPG system mag.

I figured I would throw it out there to see if it was worthwhile. Your idea provides more detail. Either way, it depends on who is doing the judging.

You'r right that we have a wide-meshed rating system for this. And as you said, it is not an easy thing to define the "canon" against which you are rating. Due to this, it is more intended as a rough guideline what you can expect when reading it. By now we us the following ratings:

• Core: Defined as the most 'canonical', i.e. a scholarly treatment of a subject without (or only minimal) original inventions by the author.
• Optional: Defined as material that looks more or less close to the 'canon' and from this extrapolate original ideas, i.e. creating new stuff.
• House: This is the most 'free' category, where most purely gaming stuff is placed that does not (or only barely) looks at the sources, but just adds original ideas. For example, most adventures would fall in this category, as long as they are not very closely based on something Tolkien wrote himself .

In addition, we use intermediate ratings (e.g. 'Optional' and 'House') for material which falls more or less between the three above.
I would judge the Marsh Bell adventure as this for example. It is inspired by a Tolkien poem, and transforms it into a gaming supplement (and gaming in general being 'House' by definition here).

The difference between 'House' and 'Optional' here is a bit fluid. We use the amount of material available by Tolkien on the subject as an important factor. If there is a substantial amount of material available to draw upon your adveture, rule(s) or whatever else, it would be more 'Optional'. If there is only a single mentioning of something and you base your ideas on it, it would be more leaning towards 'House'.

As you can see, it's hard to decide precisely, and a certain degree of blur is unavoidable. In cases of doubt we discuss the rating of course before applying the final one.

This system is also not meant to be last word on ratings, it's just what seemed appropriate to us four years ago.

Nothing in the structure or appearance of OM is meant to be set in stone. We always welcome input by readers if they feel something should be improved, added or in any other way modified. These suggestions will be considered and discussed before a decision is made.

Best
Tolwen

Reminds me... Where does this idea stand at the moment? The discussion about having a fanzine and where just seemed to end without resolution.

I already contacted Issachar in private. I am sure he will answer in due time and then the further proceedings will become more concrete.

Best
Tolwen

Sorry all -- I'm not dead yet.

Visible activity on TOR support within OM will resume soon.

Thinking about a rating system and, after reading those suggested as well as the current system with which OM operates, I thought of adding my opinion as a prospective reader.

The first thing I would like to know is the type of submission. For example, is it an Adventure or Campaign Idea; New Rule or Rule System; Background Material; or Rule Usage and Clarification, especially if it's through an example of play!

After that, I would like to know something about the source: The Hobbit and The LotR strictly speaking; Tolkien broadly speaking; Historical; Existing Game; or the Author's Own Invention. The first category would tell me if the submission could have been released by C7 or Decipher. That is, it intentionally constrains itself to licensed material; and, in that sense, poses the least potential conflict with either The LotR RPG or TOR RPG. The second category lets me know that the submission is grounded in Tolkien sources of one type or another; but, having drawn on sources other than those published during JRRT's life, the submission might present something that conflicts with the choices made by game designers limited to the licensed material. The third category acknowledges the rich possibilities inherent in drawing on our own world with its historical landscape. I can think of a couple of posts that displayed this to great affect. The "Existing Game" category takes into account the wide range of material presented by MERP and other licensees before the imposed limitations that arose with the advent of a major motion picture. The last category pays homage to individual creativity and lets me know that there is only one source to go to with questions or comments.

Last, if the submission is an adventure or campaign idea, or a new rule or possibly new rule system, I would want to know what inspires the storyline or mechanics. For example, is the adventure or campaign idea crafted according to a Tolkien-style narrative; or, it the storyline crafted with a different aesthetic in mind? With rules and new systems, it would be nice to know if the dynamics of the rule(s) was inspired by the dynamics with which Tolkien governs Middle-earth. Magic is a great example of this. There a any number of ways to create a magic system and graft it onto a game. Among the possibilities, I would like to know if it jives with the way Tolkien envisioned things working.

That's all. Now, I don't think of my suggestion as something to implement. I think of it more in the style of a response to a poll if one had been sent out. This is what I would answer in response. My wish list of sorts. But, since I'm not administering the fanzine nor supervising a section, my two cents are just that: virtual pennies cast into the aether.

Best of luck to those undertaking this much needed task!

Regards,
E

FWIW, i'm not sure how many others feel the way I do - but this is actually only marginally helpful - specifically in regards to saying "adventures are HOUSE".

That part is fairly obvious in fact, unless the actual adventure is a railroaded following the tales of Frodo, or Bilbo etc and all things happen exactly as it was written.


Instead - as LM - what would be more helpful, in regards to adventures is whether or not the people and places involved are part of the canon lore of Tolkien. In other words: Does it take place in the Old Forest and involve Tom Babadil and spiders etc..*(closer to canon), or take place at the ruins of Amon Sul (Closer to canon), or is the setting of the adventure a completely made up set of ruins, but set in the Trollshaws where trolls live near where Bilbo's trolls were encountered as if that is where those three resided - but stylized to be completely plausible based on the history of the region and we know (middle of the road canon) or lastly - a setting, people and otherwise seemingly unrelated area to any specific timeline or occurence that can be sited; but otherwise an adventure including Tolkien-ish setting of trolls or orcs or wargs or whathaveyou in an otherwise non-specified forest region - obviously for free-form LMs to just drop the mini-quest wherever he/she feels fit. (non-canon).

I feel Eladuin is on to something for the categories; i feel it need to be stated if the submission is:

LM Supplement (place/people/history) (canon = researched material being presented / non-canon = completely made up NPCs or areas to include in the setting - like the Council of the North in LOTRO)

Rules Expansion (canon = discussion of use and clarifications on rules use or expanding on creative uses for them / non-canon = completely new and made up for inclusion in the game such as Halbarad's Rohirrim and mounted combat ideas)

Adventures (canon = very plausible adventure ideas sparked by specific , timeline and people and believable scenario as a result of / non-canon = an unrelated but interesting M-E/Tolkien feeling adventure that can be placed in many non-specified locales.)

Then each category rated say 1 to 5 as to the degree of how close to canon the material conveys. This I feel would satisfy the one end of the spectrum like Blustar that wants ONLY canonized info, and the other end that just want to play an RPG and feel that paying so close attention to canon and details are just too burdensome to worry over so long as everyone is having fun.


One thing I would like at add as a reader/consumer of much of these things - the one frustrating thing (to me) more than anything else is having to figure out WHEN something occurred (by canon) that is referenced when reading adventure ideas. Essentially, when I read something detailing an adventure hook or setting details that plays on something that occurred earlier in ME history (such as the discussion on the board as to who the "Beornings and Woodmen" that settled in Anduin Vale), it is far more enlightening if a (circa) year is included. In other words when submitting a piece for plausible setting supplements to detail who the lineage of those setting in, please include years of when certain events you're drawing your conclusions from.

"...they descend from those riders who came to the Vale under (so and so reign) in (X Age YYYY), and mingled with those come came east and originally settled after the (blankety blank event) in (X Age YYYY). "

This better gives the reader a timeline for when these things supposedly happened - how long ago - and primarily - how it affects the year that their current campaign is taking place or what else was going on in the area. Furthermore, it helps guide someone who wants to do even more research on the topic and events that happened in that time-period.

Of course - this all goes for historical sitings in posts on here as well as any reader submitted E-Zine. Just a request. I am trying to keep my campaign 75% of canon and any mention of time-frames helps assure I don't make some erroneous anachronism. And my knowledge of Middle-Earth prior to obtaining The One Ring was quite limited in Scope - having never read the Simarillion (Yet) or the Histories of Middle-Earth. I'm re-reading the Hobbit now and will Re-read LotR (which i havent read any of those in over 20 years), so as to refresh all what I already know before tackling Simarillion which seems to require quite a bit of overall knowledge of the world to really grasp all that is conveys.

Excellent idea. Hall of Fire was excellent.

That sounds like an idea worth developing. The point with all "canon" ratings - as said above - is what is counted as "canon". Here the definitions will vary widely, and one has to decide for one to measure everything against the same scale.
For example, anything written by Tolkien and compatible with The Lord of the Rings (including Appendices) and The Hobbit might be considered the "extended LotR-canon". Here you would already have to question some Sil77 parts, since they are - after closer scrutiny - outdated compared to said standard. Some chapters of the Quenta Silmarillion (mostly from the Fall of Doriath onward) were not completely written by J.R.R. himself, but partly his son Christopher. This is due to the unfinished nature of Tolkien's most recent versions of the Silmarillion, that Christopher had to "patch up" with bits of older (and in principle outdated) versions and combined with some original work by christopher and some "polishing" to integrate the outdated parts into newer ones.
To differentiate all this, knowledge of the History of Middle-earth series is invaluable.

Having some kind of rating with numbers (e.g. 1 to 5) or "stars" (the more of them, the more "canonical") can also quickly seen as a rating of overall quality. For example, something based closely on canon, but with more average quality (as an example) would gain 5 "stars", while one based on half a line from Tolkien, but capturing the "feel" quite well (but otherwise totally made up by the author) would only get 1 "star".

Thus the rating would have to only rate the amount of original Tolkien-content found within (or that was used in making this piece), without judging on anything else.

Here a game mechanic contribution (obviously only little direct Tolkien-content in most cases, but at best derived from them) is at a disadvantage versus a scholarly treatise which makes heavy use of Tolkien quotes on a given subject, and content with discussing and analyzing the subject.
The first one would further the game (thus having a high game-related value) but a low rating while the latter might have little direct game value, but a high rating due to the heavy use of quotes and almost no derivative work of the author himself (beside discussing the quotes).

Other definitions are possible as well, and so it's almost impossible to find one which fits all needs.

I'd have no problem with ratings that judge only how much Tolkien content has been used in a given contribution, but it must be clear that this may lead to unwanted-for side-effects like the one I tried to explain.

Best
Tolwen

Tolwen,

Please, not stars. The implied merit, based on early childhood school-work, will make things awkward for the reason you cited (quotes vs creativity).

Rings are an over-used motif. Other possible graphic elements: mallorn leaves, mugs of ale, palantirs, shields, pies, smoking pipes. Actually smoking pipes might be good as JRRT was very often pictured with one.

Perhaps the graphic could be made article relevant? Someone submits an article about undead and tombstones are used. Something on Beornings uses a bear claw. Sauron an eye.

Hi Garn,

The main problem is not the motif used, but the system behind it. Regardless whether you use stars, pipes, rings or whatever else, a system with a differing number of the same symbols suggests IMO a higher "worth" for those with more of the symbols.

Thus I'd prefer to use different symbols for each category. Making it too fine-grained also lessens the immediate help it should provide. A three-tiered approach with a symbol each for content with high, medium and low level of Tolkien base should be sufficient as a guideline (the rating is meant as nothing else). Combined with the info of the type of content (adventure, background, rules etc.) this rating sounds right to me with getting a good balance between usability and informational content.

The problem is to find symbols that at the first glance invoke the appropriate associations. For example, the 'G' rune for a high level of Tolkien content is easily recognizable, but what for medium and low content?

That would make the rating system quite complicated and hard to understand for one not deeply immersed in it. IMO it should be kept as easy as possible while retaining enough information to be useful (see above).

Best
Tolwen

For the rating of Tolkien-content (high/medium/low), using the same symbol in different variations might be another idea. For example, in golden, silver and bronze. Or solid, shaded and outlined. The former suggests some kind of valuation too, but perhaps not as obvious as different numbers of the same symbol.

Best
Tolwen

A metallic colored symbol would work for me. Perhaps a crown? Its appropriate to the setting. Plus it provides foreshadowing of things to come.

Another possibility might be a pile of coins / treasure.

Since it is intended as a guideline for the Tolkien content, I think it should be something which is easily associated with Tolkien/Middle-earth as such. therefore the G-Rune could work well. Having a more abstract symbol would unnecessarily cloud this association.

Best
Tolwen

Just a note from the peanut gallery - I feel that when it comes to articles about rules - it shouldn't be based on "Tolkien's Cannon" but on One Ring canon. In other words is it merely an expansion and creative uses of existing rules or completely made up like the magic system that someone is working on. And the "Star" rating should be based on the level of deviation from the core rule set that it is. Also - The One Ring has a defaul setting and timeline. Derivation therein should also be taken into account. The reader should be able to know at a glance how setting relevant the contained info would be to the default setting created by Francesco et al.

Colors sound like a good way to go. Bronze, Silver, Gold.

Symbols for the three categories: A Pipe for how close a story/background or adventure mirrors Tolkien's Canon, and a Ring to indicate how close the story follows The One Ring.


So an adventure that is fan-written and submitted that follows very closely to Tolkien's Lore and canon, but that deviates drastically from the default setting of TOR should look like:

TITLE OF ARTICLE
by: [Author's Name]
Rating: (Image of gold colored Pipe), (Image of Bronze colored Ring).


(there should be no stars or other rating for the "quality" of the writing for doing so is subjective judging).

This is in reply to this thread.
First, the work is really great and so I can only agree with the others who have replied. Concerning the acceptability fanzine for the fanzine, I can only stress that it would be perfect for it.

Concerning rating, we have to take a differentiated view before a final answer. If we rate the absolute Tolkien content, it would be a "bronze", since there is so little original material available (which was all used as far as I can see it). The same would be the case for Dorwinion for example. Realistically, nothing else than a "bronze" 'Tolkien rating' would be possible due to lack of information.

Another solution would be to base the rating on the available information. Here the piece on coins could very well get a "gold" rating, since it uses all of the information available and integrates it into the whole framework quite good.

The first solution would be a good indicator for the amount of information available on a certain topic, while the author's research and concept would be less appreciated. The advantanges and disadvantages of the second solution would be vice versa: A good measurement of the author's research while not ackowledging how much is really available.

I'm not sure by now which one to give preference.

The 'TOR-rating' would be "bronze" IMO, since it goes into great detail of a "classic" RPG currency (and partly economy) system, while TOR emphasizes an abstract system for wealth.

Best
Tolwen