Fate and Free Will

[zedturtle]

So, a day or three ago I threatened to write an essay on gaming in Middle Earth; taking in consideration of canon but also trying to avoid railroading and 'we can't do anything, Frodo et al are the heroes' problems that crop up. Here's a very rough draft of the first section of the essay. Please tear into it and tell me what's wrong, what needs expansion or better explanation or is just plain not needed!

• Fate and Free Will: Roleplaying in Middle Earth
  
  'And since I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will.'
  
  'And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite.'
  
  The idea of canon is troublesome to some people who wish to play in Middle Earth; why play in a world where Frodo will save the world, when you can play in another one where your hero is the one that saves the day? Why play in a setting where certain things are immutable, and you feel railroaded to a destination?
  
  There are a lot of approaches to this problem. One of the ones that has the most validity is the 'unreliable narration' aspect. When we read The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, we are reading stories that Tolkien wrote in conscious imitation of his professional studies. In other words, we never get quite the whole story in the books, nor are all the events contained within supposed to be a literal recording of what people actually said and did. Instead, we get a story about those events, added to and amended by the scribes who recorded the version that Tolkien translated for us. If you buy into this fictional framework for the legendarium; it has great benefits... who's to say that there aren't versions of the story where Aragorn marries Eowyn instead? Or that some of the Fellowship are anachronistic insertions for political reasons?
  
  This approach helps, but it relies on positioning yourself outside of the source material, looking in. Another approach, more heavily invested in the source material, is what I'm going to call the "Fate and Free Will" model. Tolkien was a devout Cathlotic and one of the questions that he had to answer, both for himself and for his story, was 'If God is at once all-knowing and all-powerful, then how does Man have Free Will?' Various thinkers have offered answers, but Tolkien was especially fond of The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius. The answer given by Boethius is that causality is an artifact of our nature as limited beings, travelling only one direction in time. For God, standing outside of time, everything looks very different: all of time seems like a book, ready to be rewritten at any time. If you intended that the villain be killed in Chapter 30, but your hero has chosen otherwise, go back to Chapter 1 and add a new character. Or, perhaps, killing was the wrong answer. Foreshadow the need for pity in Chapter 2. All of time is able to be rewritten at any time, but each character makes their own choices within the part of the story that they can see.
  
  Tolkien choose to use Boethius' ideas; the quotes from the Ainulindalë are an excellent example of this. The Ainur are free to choose what music to perform, if they are inspired by the themes of Ilúvitar, but are not required to do so. Melkor rebels against the theme, but as Ilúvitar explains in the second quote, his rebellion is taken into account in the music and the final product is the triumph of Ilúvitar, not Melkor. But how does this help us, if we choose to game in Middle Earth?

---

Thanks, and remember being honest is much more helpful than being kind...

[Otaku-sempai]

The way I see it, there were things that happen in the real world that Professor Tolkien found too distasteful to write about in his accounts of Middle-earth. Does that mean that those kind of events never took place in Middle-earth? No, it does not. Tolkien, himself, suggested that one ideal was that honorable folk do not slay foes who ask for mercy, but acknowledges that in the heat of warfare this is not always so (especially when dealing with a hated foe, such as Orcs). Similarly, knowing that even the Elves did not always act with hohor during war, we can suppose that atrocities did happen in Middle-earth. Men could loot, murder and rape (although I would expect that rape would have been especially uncommon among Elves and Dwarves) even though such actions went against the ideals of most Middle-earth cultures.

When gaming in Middle-earth, I think it is important to differentiate between player knowledge and knowledge belonging to the PC Heroes. It is all too easy to succumb to metagaming and Loremasters need to be alert to that fact. LMs also need to remember that this is THEIR version of Middle-earth and not Tolkien's story.deviations are possible, if not inevitable, although the broad outlines of the history of Arda should probably be respected and maintained. Even that is more of a guideline than a rule.

[Rocmistro]

Zed, you certainly picked a light topic for conversation

I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for, but I'm just going to throw out a bunch of observations, suggestions, random ideas, etc.

1. Recognize, whether you are playing or Loremastering (but especially if you are Loremastering), that this is a game. The purpose of a game is to have fun. You are not loremastering for an artificial audience that will pat you on the back or give you high fives in Valinor locker-room for adhering to Tolkien canon.

2. Recognize that you are not the only person playing at your game. While you certainly are allowed to set the vision, scope, etc. for things given that you are the Loremaster, other people who are playing need to be a part of the story, have fun, contribute something, etc.

3. To that end, gauge the wishes of your players. Ask them what their tolerance is for X, Y, Z. And, (here's the hard part), be willing to suspend playing the One Ring if you are the only one that's enthusiastic about playing in Middle-earth, or if you cannot reconcile your puritan vision with your players' artistic-license vision. What I mean by that is if you want to have a traditional "Middle-earth" flavor, and the first person in your group asks if he can play a sorcerer (and then digs in his heels on it), your group is not ripe for playing TOR, and you need to recognize that, and either adjust your vision or resign.

4. Assuming you have gotten past all that and are pretty much in one accord, here is a question you have to answer for yourself: How far am I willing to let PC's change history? If the answer is "not very much", then it's UP TO YOU to design and monitor adventures that in no way intersect with the antagonists or protagonists of Lord of the Rings. If you allow your players to encounter Gollum, and they kill him (or try to kill him), you should not "punish them" or throw a hissy-fit or do a heavy-hand-LM fiat to get Gollum out of trouble. "My triple fell-handed beorning hits Gollum for an extraordinary success with a grievous, keen, fell great spear, that's 29 damage and I force a wound and oh look he failed his protection test...what? he's still alive?"

All that having been said, I think the right approach to gaming in Middle-earth is to set expectations, and if you really want a true Tolkien experience, you need to find like-minded people. It's one of the main reasons I came online to PBP forums such as yours; my friends are simply "eh" about Middle-earth/Tolkien.

[zedturtle]

Yep, I am certainly going to rewrite the essay (both this first part and the rest) yo try and have more of a conversational tone and less of a 'university assignment' tone.

Your points are well taken; I'm trying to explain in the essay why I think Tolkien would be okay with games in which the players 'tweaked' canon (heck, look at Celeborn and Galadriel's ever changing history) and provide an in-universe explanation for why it will all work out (Eru allows free will and always has a backup plan, or at least will give things a nudge, sometimes over a cliff edge into a volcano).

Thanks to boy of you! More revised stuff to come later...

[Jon Hodgson]

I think it's a good introduction. In the spirit of being honest over being kind I think it could stand some more elaboration on the problem in discussion. What is railroading in canon heavy games, and why is that problem to some players? In which kind of games is this not an issue and why, and why can't a LOTR game be one of those?

For me this would layout the parameters of what you're discussing a little more thoroughly. As it stands I can tell you're really keen to get into the meat of the solution, and I'm left hungry for a little more discussion/definition of the problem being addressed.



To step out of that side of things into the question under discussion, something I've long enjoyed in rpgs is opportunities for dramatic irony/foreshadowing - we all know what's going to happen, but that's good because we fill in the gaps between those fixed points - this lets us play tragic or heroic characters to greater effect during the time they are being played.

On a smaller scale we've been frequently asked how our staff game can be The Darkening of Mirkwood with a bit of Tales from Wilderland thrown in, when we all know it back to front. For me it's just not an issue, even for the scenes that I can remember very clearly because playing through these scenes as our characters is a new experience, and the interplay of the characters being improvised as we go is wholly new. In the first adventure in Tales for example I knew that we might fail to get an audience with Thranduil. But I was still really surprised when it happened. Like, really surprised (almost shocked) that we didn't get to explore any of that map at all. It was just denied to us, and the action only took place on the barrel dock. And now our Fellowship don't really like elves all that much. Which is perfect for canon. I love that! That's a micro-example, but I think it scales up well for some types of players.

That said I understand that this isn't the case for everyone. Many players want unfolding surprises and the ability to dramatically shape the world their characters inhabit. I can't say it bothers me all that much, and for me canon provides an excellent framework for the tone and content that we slot in.

Another example - For me, meeting Gandalf in character will be huge. The choice isn't "can I kill Gandalf?" because I'm not 12 anymore. It's much more "what would my character say?" with a really strong dash of "what do I (as Jon, not in character) want to say to this character I've known all my life?". How these two forces interact is where the enjoyment is for me. I don't want to take the Ring to Mordor. I don't feel that need at all. But I might like to wind up helping King Bard in the battles further North. There's lots of room there for us to add something to canon in a meaningful way.

One of the real spine tinglers for me working on TOR has always been the disappearance of the Woodmen. That's just a superb example of what there is to do in Middle-earth. We know that at point A we have lots of settlements of Woodmen at the eaves of Mirkwood. By point B they are gone.... and as I'm typing this I'm getting goosebumps... And that's the Darkening of Mirkwood right there.

In game I want to go there, and fight the rising dark, even if I know that's dooming my character. In fact so much the better if it is dooming my character. I want that arc, I want "my guy" to have a beginning a middle and an end, and I'll really enjoy playing it out, even if it's a battle I know we'll probably lose. The mixture of finding out and deciding how we'll lose is the enjoyable part for me.

Blah blah Didn't mean to write an essay myself...

[Glorelendil]

I'm kinda with Jon on this one. I don't really see inevitability as a liability. From Euripedes and Aeschylus to recent movies based on Marvel comics, audiences have known what the outcome of the stories will be; it's the journey getting there that is compelling.

If there's a problem with that, it lies only with the viewer. In the case of TOR, if some players aren't happy because they want their own hero to save the world, they're watchin' the wrong show.

And foreknowledge doesn't have to mean the absence of dramatic tension. It's hard to watch Romeo and Juliet without thinking, irrationally and maybe subconsciously, "Maybe it will turn out differently this time..."

Finally, as Jon points out, there are side-stories that haven't played out, and don't necessarily end happily ever after. One of the things I most dis-like about modern action movies is that the fate of the world always hinges on the outcome. Really great storytelling shouldn't need to use The End of the World(tm) as a hook. It's like using BOLD CAPS!!!! to compensate for weak content.

If all that still doesn't do it for some players, it's still possible to make the players feel integral to the outcome. There are many places in the Canon where details are fuzzy and the players have a chance to play a vital role. Did Aragorn capture Gollum all by himself? How exactly did the Eagles learn about the last battle? What did happen to Radagast? Etc.

[rav3nking]

I like thinking about it in terms of fish and ponds.

Playing in your campaign, you should be the big fish in the little pond, by which I mean you are one of the main contributors and drivers of the story (big fish), which in itself has a limited 'area of effect' so to speak (little pond). Now, empty that little pond into a big pond and you get some ripples, but the water level barely changes and your big fish suddenly look pretty small.
Your adventurers do contribute to the overall health of Middle-Earth, but in the grand scheme of things it takes a lot of little ponds to make the water rise, so to speak. The beauty of TOR is in the individuals - so what, you're not the Fellowship of the Nine, but damnit you ARE a fellowship and it's the drama between you and the decisions you make, all set against that dark background that is the inevitable coming of the Shadow, that make epic tales. You know the Werewolf of Mirkwood is coming to destroy a Woodmen village and slaughter everyone? You know you can't best it in battle? So what, stand against it, know that you will inevitably fall to it, but you've bought the time needed for those inhabitants to flee to safety. It doesn't matter that none of those villagers are integral to the story, what you've done is cast a tiny ripple in that great pond of Middle-Earth..

[zedturtle]

I like thinking about it in terms of fish and ponds.

Playing in your campaign, you should be the big fish in the little pond, by which I mean you are one of the main contributors and drivers of the story (big fish), which in itself has a limited 'area of effect' so to speak (little pond). Now, empty that little pond into a big pond and you get some ripples, but the water level barely changes and your big fish suddenly look pretty small.
Your adventurers do contribute to the overall health of Middle-Earth, but in the grand scheme of things it takes a lot of little ponds to make the water rise, so to speak. The beauty of TOR is in the individuals - so what, you're not the Fellowship of the Nine, but damnit you ARE a fellowship and it's the drama between you and the decisions you make, all set against that dark background that is the inevitable coming of the Shadow, that make epic tales. You know the Werewolf of Mirkwood is coming to destroy a Woodmen village and slaughter everyone? You know you can't best it in battle? So what, stand against it, know that you will inevitably fall to it, but you've bought the time needed for those inhabitants to flee to safety. It doesn't matter that none of those villagers are integral to the story, what you've done is cast a tiny ripple in that great pond of Middle-Earth..

"Northern courage" to stand against the enemy, knowing that you will die and fail, simply because it is the right thing to do.

Keep it coming, I really appreciate all of the feedback and the other approaches.

Jon, special shout out to you; letting me know to expand the "issue" part is very helpful!

[Tolwen]

[...] Many players want unfolding surprises and the ability to dramatically shape the world their characters inhabit. I can't say it bothers me all that much, and for me canon provides an excellent framework for the tone and content that we slot in.
[...]

There are many places in the Canon where details are fuzzy and the players have a chance to play a vital role. Did Aragorn capture Gollum all by himself? How exactly did the Eagles learn about the last battle? What did happen to Radagast? Etc.

These are IMO pivotal and absolutely correct statements that I cannot overemphasize. The - IMHO - real fun of gaming in Middle-earth is not about killing Balrogs, dragons or becoming king of Gondor (or Rohan), but becoming a part within the framework provided by Tolkien. It is the "unsung heroes" (as far a sreported by the Professor) that provide the best place for Middle-earth gaming.
Elfcrusher's examples above are good ones and I'd like to add others for further ideas.
Tolkien tells us that in the Northern war of TA 1409, Angmar's forces besieged and destroyed Amon Sûl, but that its palantír was saved and brought to Fornost. Now, how did this happen? Tolkien does not go into any detail. Here is a place for a great campaign, culminating in that war and the player's heroes being those who manage to save that prized item from the Witch-king's grasp.
There are myriads of such hooks already in the Appendix A and B of The Lord of the Rings to fill several campaigns in many places and times of Middle-earth. You only have to read these pieces carefully to discover their potential.
For me personally, the late Third Age (i.e. the era fro the Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings) isn't my favourite timeframe to play in, but two others: First the first half of the 15th century (about TA 1400 to 1450) which contains the above mentioned great war with Angmar and then the - in gaming terms - exceedingly exciting civil war in Gondor (1437-47). My other favourite era is the second half of the 28th century (about TA 2740-2800). This has the struggle of the Rangers (and the other people of Eriador) against a decade of orcish invasions, the Long Winter and the height of the conflict of the Rohirrim with the Dunlendings. Then you have a dragon descending upon a blissful dwarven and mannish realm, and finally a great war of revenge of the Dwarves against the Orcs.

Cheers
Tolwen

[damiller]

Until recently I had trouble with fate, free will and railroading in RPG adventures.* Then I happened on an neat article that explained how to write a story in three acts with cartoons:

http://timstout.wordpress.com/2011/09/0 ... ic-strips/

Now I wanted to see it for cartoons, but it explained my problem with RPGs and adventure prep very well:

See I want players to have the choice to do as they wish in my games. But when I do that it often becomes a very unfocused and for a lack of better word boring. And yet, I don't like to railroad my players, telling them what they have to do what when. BUT I loved STORY in RPGs. I wanted stories in RPGs, not just a random collection of events that preceded my characters grimly funny death**.

That is why the above link helped me so much. For years I had no problem with Act 1: The Context. Or Act 2: the Goal. Mostly those were laid out and kind of agreed on because we were all around the table and wanted to go on an adventure. It was Act 3: Resolution that perplexed me. So when that article talked about Act 3 is where the character reacts to the "death" of their goal, A LIGHT WENT ON. That is where I can let my players have all the control they want, and not have to worry about. It is in Act 3 of the story I write that I stop writing, and let the players decide what is important, in what order it is important, and I just follow them as they resolve all the problems thrown at them in Acts 1 and 2.

For me it all boils down to the fact that I wanted my player's characters to be swept away on an adventures, and knowing myself where it was all going (to a degree), even as they don't. And I feel like understanding that one thing about Act 3 has made all the difference in my Game Mastering, and it reminded me of this quote which is what I want for all my games:

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.”


*please note I am not think I came up with any kind of stupendous revelation about plots or rpgs, just that things gelled for me.
**what usually happens to me, or in my D&D games.