forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Trippy wrote:So…we should remove playable elves too?!

I'm just explaining why I believe that specific game is better without elves and wizards as playable characters. I am not going to come and remove pages from your book

This is a roleplaying game. If a player wants to play a wizard and her LM agrees, nothing will prevent them from doing so. Does it warrant official rules? I doubt it, because:
- it would send the message that wizards are as playable as other cultures
- it would make it a lot harder to balance the game if you allow playing demigods

I think the idea was to have a sorcerer type of character, not an istari. There is ample evidence of sorcerers and magic wielders existing in ME. What happens is that they are always references in the fringes of the stories, as something that exist, but it is not touched upon much. At least to my 8limited) knowledge. As such it is not clear what necromancers and other sorcerers would be doing, or if they had any particular feature in their magic. Or how they wielded magic in the first place.

One of these lesser magicians could be a playable option. I think this is what was being advocated.

Xavi

What I am advocating is….throw us a bone, here!

You could choose to elaborate on Maiar as a culture, or elaborate on lesser magic users, or even just focus on cultural spells lost in time. You could just have an all-encompassing supplement that discusses magic, and magic-using types - replete with some (rare) playable options, and a load of spells and magical items.

But what I am saying is do something that at least in part addresses the issues raised. People cite Pendragon a lot, but they did have a published magic system (however uncinematic and time-consuming it was!), that could at least be referenced for those who expressed an interest.

Trippy wrote: People cite Pendragon a lot, but they did have a published magic system (however uncinematic and time-consuming it was!), that could at least be referenced for those who expressed an interest.

Yes, and it's something Greg Stafford quickly got rid of in later editions, regretting it's addition to the game. Pendragon 5/5.1 only has magic as a GM device/plot driver not as a Character Class and it's stronger for it.

Personally, I don't see Gandalf as a PC; he's more of an accompanying NPC and many of the other references to wizards and users of magic beyond the Istari and the stuff available to elves and dwarves are invariably evil or tied to a greater enemy. I therefore don't see why there'd be any need to have one as a PC culture, beyond what we already get as Virtues for elves, dwarves, etc.

I agree with previous posters that adding a spell-casting culture would send the message that these are readily available and common to the world. That's not something that is true of the literature at all. If they were introduced then it's highly likely that published adventures would start to include elements, plot points, etc relating to them; this would therefore impact negatively on many players and gaming groups that didn't want to see such things.

So, no magic-users thanks. There's enough magic within the game already.

Rich H wrote:

Trippy wrote: I agree with previous posters that adding a spell-casting culture would send the message that these are readily available and common to the world. That's not something that is true of the literature at all. If they were introduced then it's highly likely that published adventures would start to include elements, plot points, etc relating to them; this would therefore impact negatively on many players and gaming groups that didn't want to see such things.

So, no magic-users thanks. There's enough magic within the game already.

Despite my interest in exploring such a culture as a creativity exercise, I agree with this.

.

Aeglosdir wrote:

Rich H wrote:So, no magic-users thanks.

+1

FWIW, Tolkien wrote:
"Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story [the L.R.] is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but it is in an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such."

As an afterthought, Tolkien did note the Númenórean "spells" used in making swords. So maybe a game set in the Second Age could have magic-users? For Middle-earth as described in the LR, though, I think Tolkien's words above are to the point.

Aye, there's the rub. It's pretty hard to argue...given the accomplishments of Feanor and Celebrimbor and even the existence of Sting that magic-use doesn't exist. But it "feels" like a 1st/2nd Age thing. By late TA it feels like a thing of the past, or remaining only in elves like Galadriel and Elrond. Aragorn may have the tiniest flickering, much diluted over the generations.

Thus little hints of magic, like the current cultural virtues, seems about right.

Some of the party crackers at Bilbo's 111th birthday party were described as being "obviously magical". However that magic appears to have been pretty low key. I get the impression from reading the two novels on which the game is based that certainly by the Late Third Age what magic remains in Middle Earth is generally of the subtle variety. "The hands of a King are the hands of a Healer" given the right herbs to work with. The Elven cloaks and rope of Lorien.

The other magics we see are the hidden doors of the Dwarves, moon runes, enchanted blades, and others of that sort. The Watchers at Mina's Morgul are definitely magical in some part, and the Mazgul are dripping with black magic, but even then it is subtle in its effects.

Gandalf hints at a powerful wizard being able to divert rain clouds, but warns of the consequences of doing so, unintended drouth or flood.

I remember a very old article by Gary Gygax about Tolkien and D&D in which Gygax stated that Middle Earth simply did not have the sort of magic that wizards in D&D did. This I think is the core of the problem. People are so used to playing high magic games that they have trouble grasping that Middle Earth is a very low magic setting. There is arguably less magic in The Lord of the Rings than there is in Arthur and King Arthur Pendragon limits magic to GM fiat.

My chief fear about introducing more magic, especially spell casters, into TOR is that the game will degenerate into hack&slash dungeon crawling.

Magic in the third age seems mostly relegated to objects- doors of durin, the entrance to the lonely mountain, Elven cloaks, enchanted swords, etc. I wouldn't be opposed to more if these things, but at this point in the history, magic and the forces which still have it (elves, dwarves, istari and other beings) are largely fading away and/or leaving as the prevalence of Men increases. So on that note, I wouldn't mind seeing perhaps more artifacts or ancient treasures or possibly more things like Broken Spells, but not a full fledged culture or supplement.

Sprigg wrote:Magic in the third age seems mostly relegated to objects- doors of durin, the entrance to the lonely mountain, Elven cloaks, enchanted swords, etc. I wouldn't be opposed to more if these things, but at this point in the history, magic and the forces which still have it (elves, dwarves, istari and other beings) are largely fading away and/or leaving as the prevalence of Men increases. So on that note, I wouldn't mind seeing perhaps more artifacts or ancient treasures or possibly more things like Broken Spells, but not a full fledged culture or supplement.

And that's part of the sad beauty of TA Middle Earth. The former greatness is long gone, and much of the remaining greatness is leaving.

I'm reminded of Bernard Cornwall's novels, namely his Arthurian trilogy and his Saxon Tales series, in which post-Roman residents of Britain marvel at the Roman buildings and bridges, and comment that nobody knows how to do that anymore.

Now that I think of it, his Arthurian trilogy is relevant for another reason: his Merlin is a charlatan, never actually using any "magic" but convincing everybody he is a powerful druid.