Hey all,

I ordered my books a little while ago, and have been pouring over the PDFs since. Things look good overall, however I do have some issues.

Chief among them is the seeming incongruity of having hobbits as a playable race in this setting. I think that the premise is more than a bit strained that you would find them in Wilderland. No matter what kind of news of treasure and gain that Bilbo brought back to the Shire with him, few if any hobbits would leave to go after them.

What few there were would have to be very seasoned individuals with quite some amount of adventuring behind them by the time they reached Wilderland. I admit that perhaps some youngsters who were overly ambitious would try this, but to be truthful how many would make it through the perils in between their home and destination?

I have a sinking feeling that including them in this offering was possibly more a marketing move than a logical story decision. With the Hobbit movie as more than a little bit of a motivation for this game it would be difficult to not have them in the game. To have kept the spirit of the hobbits nature and get them in the setting their inclusion should have been put off until an Eriador setting book was released. This would have allowed them to be more believably present than the current arrangement.

I look at it this way, if it took an Istari and twelve dwarves to get the first hobbit since their exodus to be east of the Misty Mountains again, then how can I really accept a lone (or even quartet) hobbit to make this bold journey?

I imagine I'll hear a hue and cry over this opinion but I stand by it, and even though I can't argue they are an interesting and compelling player race, I can't see them in Wilderland.

Luke

Realistically, although I can see where you are coming from I cannot see Hobbits being left out. The have the other three species and leaving out the Hobbits would have incensed those who would like to play them. It would be like running Star Trek without Vulcans.

If you prefer them to be left out there is nothing stopping you from placing them out of bounds to your players.

E

Then don't allow your players to play Hobbits?

I understand that its a little hard to rationalize Hobbits making it all the way to Wilderland on their own, but I also can't imagine the uproar if a Tolkien RPG had come our without Hobbits as an available PC race especially one focused on Rhovanion and at least somewhat based on The Hobbit novel.

John

The game would include hobbits if they just waited until an appropriate time for them. I could just as easily say that I'm incensed over the overlooking of the Dunedain as a race since they too could just as easily (and one could argue more believably so) been encountered in Wilderland. Using that line of thinking why wouldn't there be just as many people with this outlook?

When would be an appropriate time for hobbits?

Player characters are exceptional examples of their race/society. After all, no matter the setting they are part of a very small percentage of beings doing what they do. I see no problem in a player character being one of the young ones that made it, or one of the seasoned ones.

You could always start the characters in someplace like Bree, where hobbits are commonplace. It wouldn't be a big stretch for a party to wind up with a hobbit or two if formed in that area.

Remember the Tooks as well. Bilbo's only half Took, and look what he did. There's nothing saying that full Tooks wouldn't be even more adventurous.

Hobbits aren't all the insular Shire-dwellers.

They'd have been beyond foolish to release the game without playable hobbits. That said, it's not difficult for me to reconcile them as playable characters.

Same could be said for excluding Dunedain or the Nolder. They are just as iconic as hobbits.

I have to admit that I shared your concern and views, RangerofIthilien, but then I decided to read the Hobbit again and you don't need to read far into the book to realise that its perfectly feasible for hobbits to be found outside the borders of the Shire, both before the adventures of Bilbo and after.

"It was often said (in other families) that long ago one of the Took ancestors must have taken a fairy wife. That was, of course, absurd, but certainly there was still something not entirely hobbitlike about them, and once in a while members of the Took-clan would go and have adventures. They discreetly disappeared, and the family hushed it up; but the fact remained that the Tooks were not as respectable as the Bagginses, though they were undoubtedly richer. (An Unexpected Party, pg 13)

As far as explaining how they came to be in Wilderland, with the liberation of Erebor from Smaug's tyranny there may or would have been a great migration of dwarves from the Blue Mountains. In two games in which I am involved, the presence of hobbits has been facilitated by their having accompanied a party of dwarves eastwards - providing protection while the intrepid young hobbit earns the 10xp with which to develop his skills along the way.

And, I have to agree, it seems unfair that the Dunedain have not made it into the game. But consider that Elessar's true name and heritage have not yet been revealed to him by Elrond (until TA2956, I believe), it may well be the case that the northern Dunedain have more to contend with west of the Misty Mountains and are not yet as well organised under the King yet to come. Furthermore, those individuals to have ventured into Wilderland are probably going to be more experienced than the starting level of TOR: On the edge of the Wild caters for.

Now THAT could have been a marketing thing. The Rangers will be popular, and could have been held out to be the centerpiece of an expansion.

My impression of the Dunedain operating in the area covered by these books is that none of them were free agents though. The very few of them that were there were there to watch and report, not go around seeking treasure or notoriety or adventure. The idea of a Dunedain doing so seems wrong to me, though that's just my feeling.

Just to add a thought or two to the mix...

The Rangers of the North had a very specific charge tied to the lost realm of Arnor and the remnants of society left in Eriador. Never large in numbers, the Rangers would have been strained in maintaining their charge to land and lord, safeguarding the Line of Isildur and the Heirlooms of the North. A free wandering Dunedain of the North would seem unusual outside the context of a life lived as a Ranger. For me, this makes the forthcoming Errantries of the King (or whatever the release name finalizes as) very interesting. What backgrounds will they have as a new heroic culture, what callings...?

Now Hobbits present a far easier picture. A wandering Hobbit who has quietly slipped off for an adventure doesn't require much to imagine. In fact, you don't even have to go outside the canon to work published post-humorously. In the first chapter of The Hobbit, why Tolkien mentions that it was not uncommon for a member of the Took-clan to go off and have an adventure. This could be assumed of Brandybucks as well given their descriptions as a clan from the LotR.

In this way Tolkien himself provides the key to incorporating Hobbits into The One Ring. Of course, this does not address the question of one or two lads and lasses ending up in Wilderland. Nor is there a clear sense of how a starting Hobbit might still be a starting player-hero after making the journey over the Edge of the Wild. Maybe this should be part of explaining the 10 starting XP. From the perspective of game mechanics, that could equate to three or four adventures. (Although, this would be better supported if you spent starting experience points and advancement points during character generation. As it stands, it's hard to draw a one-to-one correlation between beginning XP and a possible number of adventures in the player-heroes past.)

So maybe both possibilities are true. Maybe there is a bit of marketing involved as well as staying faithful to Tolkien. Then again, isn't that a piece of the secret to making a game successful?

Knight your post has served to sway me on my original statement. I have to contend however that I don't agree with your statement about the Dunedain. If any time would exist that the North is less harried than ever it would be at this juncture. The forces of the Shadow have been dealt a serious blow that would require their direct attention in Rhovanion. The lands of old Arnor are less of a concern due to this situation. I guess that I'll just have to say that without making this game a much larger release that dealt with much more material, and quite possibly would have diluted it as far as overall quality, the developers couldn't include all things on everyone's wish lists.

Ihave seen a similar argument for not putting Jedi as a class in a Star Wars RPG. Surely, the concept is best served by simply overlaying Force abilities over other classes. At the end of the day, despite all the best arguments in the world, most people who pick up a Star Wars RPG will want a Jedi option, plain and simply. They are the most obvious character choice looking at all 6 movies.

That answer is the same answer to this question. When most people pick up an RPG based on Tolkien's work, especially one that pretty much is the RPG for a book called the Hobbit, they are going to expect to be able to play a Hobbit. You can have all the logical arguments in the world to say otherwise, but if you loose yourself in them and leave behind that simple idea you risk turning the RPG into a theoretical exercise rather than a successful game.

I see your point. Nevertheless, I think we shall have to agree to disagree

Matchstick and Eluadin have given more eloquent statements than mine in this regard.

I don't think the Jedi example is entirely applicable. One is based on ability and can be undertaken by just about any species in the galaxy, whereas the hobbit example is fully race based. A more equal example is having a campaign in Star Wars where a player wants to be a jawa on Coruscant. Why is he there, if he is there has to be some exceptional reason for the fact. I also counter that I don't necessarily associate the Lord of the Rings overall with hobbits, simply for the reason that I'm not overly fond of them in the scheme of the story, give me the elves as my favorite race. I've always viewed the hobbits as the sympathetic tool by which Tolkien more easily allows the reader to 'believe' in the milieu of Middle Earth. The hobbits are the vehicles that place the reader in the story, both in the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. The hobbit is the window through which we earthly humans are able to look out upon the world the Professor created.

As for hobbits in the wider world , Tolkien says in the Fellowship of the Ring when discussing Bree and hobbits 'there were probably many more outsiders (outsider hobbits) scattered about the west of the world in those days than people of the shire imagined. Some doubtless were no better than tramps, ready to dig a hole in any bank and stay only as long as it suited them'. Page 150 of the 50th anniversary hardback edition

I'd actually think there'd be less chance of finding a Lorien elf out adventuring than a hobbit. Or at least they'd be comparable in percentage of adventurous, leaving-the-nest, kind of beings. But I sure hope there's Lorien elves in the game at some point.

This is a cool thread!

Djd, is that in the appendices? I seem to recall that part about digging a hole in a bank. I have a nice red hardcover slipcased edition from Houghton Mifflin Company and think I may have read it there.

Thanks for the comment.

I would suggest that Bree Hobbits would require custom backgrounds, for I imagine that they are quite different from Hobbits of the Shire.

Not that I'm volunteering, though

Matchstick, now that I think about it, I think they should have included Lorien elves in this release since their haven is situated firmly in Rhovanion and Wilderland .

You may not associate Hobbits with Lord of the Rings but I think it is clear that most people do, and for good reason. As a good designer, you need to look beyond yourself and gain a a greater perception of who the work you are dealing with is perceived.

Also, don't you answer your own question, with you quote above? Hobbits are the vehicle in which potential customers have traditionally experienced Tolkien's world. Not having them as a PC option for players up front would be a glaring ommission

Hahaahahahahaha! Now I got you started on a whole other race!



Lorien always seemed more insular than almost everyone else to me. But I'd still be OK with them as player characters.

Remember in AD&D where they had three types of hobbits? What was it? Stout, Proudfeet, and something else I think.

While you're right, I don't think I'd make any new rules for different hobbit families or societies. I like how rules light TOR is now.

Again, simply a case for a custom background. Lorien elves were mostly silvan elves (Nandor?), with the odd Sindar or Noldor hanging around for good measure.

I'm still not volunteering

It's quite clear he's talking about hobbits outside if both the shire and breeland here.

True, I missed that.

The halflings in AD&D were stouts, tallfellows, and hairfoots. If there was ever more of a dead giveaway for their inspiration I don't know what it would be other than hairfoots(harfoots anyone?).

Sorry missed this question- no it's in the main text. Just before they go into the Prancing Pony

I totally do not remember that line at all. Good catch!

See, and here I thought it was Proudfeet! The memory is the first to go you know!

I have players who will not purchase or play the game because it doesnt include Rangers or Riders of Rohan and the like.

Will they buy in 2012 and 2013 when it does?

You could have your Hobbits come from the remnant of the original Stoor inhabitants near the Anduin. Wasn't the region the original home of the Hobbits. Smeagol was a Hobbit-like creature who lived near the Gladden fields. Not too out of the way to have a few Hobbits remaining in a quiet corner of the wildlands.

Their loss. TOR is one of the greatest games I have ever played. I too, though, am eagerly awaiting Francesco's treatment of Rangers.

If you recall from the LotR, the Lorien elves had become so insular under the mantle of Galadriel's power that even to Legolas they were as a rumor and a whisper among the leaves.

Therein lies a strong case for leaving them as an unknown in the game at this point in time.

When it comes right down to it, everyone is going to have their arguments for and against any of the less far flung races being or not being playable races. I could ask why weren't Dorwinions included since their traders and no doubt adventurers dealt with the societies around Esgaroth. In the long run no one answer is right, since as with the hobbit situation you can come up with 'special' circumstances that allow for the exceptions to the rule, even in the case of the Galadhrim.

Well we have the Took quote above and for the Galadhrim .." there are some of us who still go abroad for the gathering of news and the watching of our enemies.." Haldir in the Lothlorien chap.

I think what has not been mentioned is that ANY adventurer will be a special case. It seems that it is mostly Dwarves who do a lot of traveling.

HN

HN, great find in Haldir's words.

This reminds me of the long wait for TOR's release and the interviews C7 posted with Francesco about the evolution of the game. In one of them, he directly addresses this issue: a focused and narrow approach versus the open approach adopted by MERP of old.

That gives me some comfort that the game designer was very cognizant of the route he took in limiting place and people within the cultural framework of the first release. The selection is not arbitrary with some cultures left out and others included for ease of publication. I assume (and hope) he has a singular vision in mind that guided his choices, a common thread that will be woven through his trilogy and this epic thread will make sense of the choices. Unfortunately, the thread most likely will remain unclear to us until the three core sets are released and the nuances uncovered in countless turns at the game table...and we still will most likely critique and praise in equal measure even as dust collects on one more piece of Middle-earth.

Therein lies the blessing and the curse of the game designer: the choice is his or hers, and the choice lies upon him or her. As the recipients and fans committed to playing it we have our own blessing and curse: we are not responsible for what officially comes into print, just the beneficiaries of it. And, as the beneficiaries, well, we get what we get! Who can say who has the better end of the stick... LOL

Despite the wonderful and incisive critiques, the (arguable) shortcomings and focused vision, I believe TOR is the best yet at capturing Middle-earth in a RPG.

But I'm biased...

Here is a possible one for Rangers of the North. It mentions in " Many Meetings" that the sons of Elrond rode "far afield" with the Rangers of the North.

HN

I believe so.


Here's a thing along those lines. One of the first images I had to paint for The One Ring was Rivendell. And if any in Middle Earth gives an artist the willies it's Rivendell. I suppose it was good to jump in at the deep end and immediately wrestle the problems of illustrating Middle Earth. (Woah mixed metaphors again ?!)

In my head Rivendell looks about six different ways. And when you read the books that just isn't a problem at all. It's as big, as small, as complex, as simple, as medieval, as gothic, as romantic, as nordic as it needs to be for any given moment in the narrative. But in a single image, which is meant not just to show a nicely coy single view of the place that maybe hints at one aspect through lots of trees and mist, but which shows players what it looks like? That's hard. You have to nail it down, reduce it to just one aspect. And in many ways that just isn't Rivendell. You're in danger of losing more than you're bringing to it. But still, that's the task at hand. Heh and this worry all goes double when you find out Tolkien himself only really liked Cor Blok's illustrations of Middle Earth... Whilst it's utterly daunting, it's not something you're going to pass up, and don't get me wrong, there's no plea for sympathy here. Far from it. I'm having the best time making art for this game.

However, with that idea of the difficulty of reducing things down in mind, I can only imagine how tremendously difficult it must be to divide up the entire notion of a Middle Earth roleplaying game into playable, commercially appropriate chunks, that provides sufficient differentiation from other ME games to be worthwhile. And which appeals to the maximum number of people whilst retaining some kind of coherence and consistency.

And let's not be coy here - the game needs to sell. Neither Cubicle 7 nor Sophisticated Games is a charity. However I solidly believe in the integrity of the team involved, more than any other I've worked with in 12 years rpg freelance. The underlying principle is very much to make the best possible Middle Earth game, and trust that quality will provide the necessary financials. So I guess I'm saying I believe in and trust the team, and I think you should too.


Of course you can't please all the people all the time. That's simply the nature of any kind of cultural production. And of course as fans of stuff we've all been there. I can't forget sitting in the cinema watching The Fellowship movie as it slowly dawned on me that my personal idea of Middle Earth is not shared by Peter Jackson. But then, how could it be? Where I see an epic, romantic saga in a clear "dark age" tone others see the original fantasy novel, with the emphasis on fantasy.

We all add so much to the reading of these wonderful books, and in part that's the whole point of them. And we all take way different things. Lord of the Rings is a many layered telling, with very little direct description. That's what makes it so affecting, and so well loved in many ways. That and that Boromir is frikkin sweeeeeeet.

To engage a little more with the direct game issues, my personal take on it is that just because across the rpg world there might be a thousand hobbit player heroes, in each of those games those characters represent exceptionally rare individuals. The fact you can play a hobbit and a Wildman doesn't infer an equality of numbers between those two cultures. The two hobbits in your fellowship might be two of a dozen in the region.

I can very much see the argument that if we're prepared to stretch our boundaries to allow Hobbits in, then why not Rangers and Rohirrim? It's a fair point. But ultimately a line has to be drawn somewhere. And the drawing of lines, much like the drawing of Rivendell, will always by necessity disappoint someone. For my money it would be sheer perversity not to include Hobbits in the initial release. So I can understand, whilst perhaps not agree, with those who feel the same about wizards and rangers. Though perhaps I would see the latter more reasonable than the former, despite seeing impassioned on-line pleas that the game simply would not reflect LOTR and The Hobbit without PC wizards.


Wow that was long, eh?

In other news I'm painting the Mountain Hall right now and it's sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

SWEEEEEEEEEEET!

...both in anticipation of Mountain Hall and the thoughts you shared!

Not sure I agree here, although Dunedain are a longer lived race they are still humans with the same mores, and Noldor are a different brand of Elves but still Elves. We already have Elves, Dwarves and Humans in TOR so not having Hobbits would be more of a exclusion. Besides it is better to have the stats for Hobbits and never want them to than to want them and not have them. No one is forcing their use.

E

I believe that another reason for excluding Dunedain and Nolder Elves was that they are significantly more powerful than other races and the design team wanted more time to figure out how to work them in.

Honestly, I hope we don't see PC Wizards. That's not Middle Earth to me. There's plenty of games out there for people that simply MUST play a wizard, I hope this game stays true to the setting and makes Wizards ultra rare, wonderful, and NPC.