forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Shane, I think you made an excellent point: personally I'm glad the C7 folks didn't hide in a cave for 20 years and then release one, single, omnibus edition. I'd much rather have sequential, and iterative, releases.

And if you're going to describe a world, and a timeline, in multiple books, how exactly do you break it up so that nobody's adventures ever span two books? Can't be done.

My basic idea about Dunedain and Noldor is that they shouldn't have any "low-range" attributes.
We know that, in Rhovanion, the cultures had the 5-7/4-6/2-4 (or the like) division of attributes. I think those two special cultures should have no 2-4 range attributes. Maybe one 5-7 and two 4-6.

I'm not entirely sure if they should also have some more starting points for the common skills, weapons or two increases for Valour/Wisdom instead of only one. Any (but maybe not all) of this could be acceptable for me.

I can see Virtues like Light of Valinor or Heir of Numenor, which could increase the power (Awe, Persuade, fighting power against Shadow servants,...) of the heroes.

But regarding the downside of this cultures, I have many doubts of how it could come into play. A guess would be for Noldor to have low Hope scores: they are already tired of fighting the Evil along the Ages, and consider Sauron a matter for Humans. Most of them prefer to counsel other races, to hide in Rivendell or Lorien, or to plainly sail West.
As for the Dunedain, we know that they are the race most hated by Sauron, and therefore the most prosecuted. They have to hide their power and majesty (in a way similar to that of the Istar) to avoid being discovered and hunted down to the death by Sauron's creatures and minions. Here, I think, the rules for the Eye of Sauron can help a lot balancing the Dunedain culture (and also the Noldo, probably).

As for rules for not having a party entirely of Noldo or Dunedain, well, I don't know. I don't think rules for this are necessary. I wouldn't allow a party of only Hobbits travelling the Wilderland, and there are no rules against it in the Core Book. But I don't feel I need them. And then again, maybe someday I would like to make a mini-campaign using the Hobbits from the Easterly Inn as the heroes, and I wouldn't like to have a rule that forbid it.

I like to let my mind go in these forums !

Elfcrusher wrote:Shane, I think you made an excellent point: personally I'm glad the C7 folks didn't hide in a cave for 20 years and then release one, single, omnibus edition. I'd much rather have sequential, and iterative, releases.

And if you're going to describe a world, and a timeline, in multiple books, how exactly do you break it up so that nobody's adventures ever span two books? Can't be done.

I would submit there is indeed a middle ground between "releasing a 4000 page omnibus with a meticulous index" and "splitting information up unproductively."

I mean, hell, even C7 admits that the slipcase edition was badly organized in many ways.

Shane wrote:I respect your right to disagree with how they are doing it, of course, I just don't share your view.

Is that the impersonal you you're using, or are you responding to me? I just said I expected it; I didn't say I disagreed with it or disliked it.

Rich H wrote:

Stormcrow wrote:Yes, yes, I was just kidding, as I said. I was anticipating this question being asked repeated even though we know the answer.

I know, I was just clarifying what a few meant as (a) it helps and (b) these terms can mean different things to different countries and people.

True. Here in Canada when you say a few you usually mean 3, when you start talking 5+ you usually say "several". So, knowing you Brits mean 3 to 5 weeks when using "a few weeks" is, indeed, good to know.

Murcushio wrote:
I would submit there is indeed a middle ground between "releasing a 4000 page omnibus with a meticulous index" and "splitting information up unproductively."

I mean, hell, even C7 admits that the slipcase edition was badly organized in many ways.

Oh, I meant more that it's impossible to break up the content cleanly (places, people, events), not the rules.

Elfcrusher wrote: EDIT: I just re-read Andrew's post at the beginning of this thread and I'm literally fidgeting with excitement.

Same here, Elfcrusher! I got ants in my pants. I can't sit still.

Stormcrow wrote:

Shane wrote:I respect your right to disagree with how they are doing it, of course, I just don't share your view.

Is that the impersonal you you're using, or are you responding to me? I just said I expected it; I didn't say I disagreed with it or disliked it.

I was responding to you, but I thought you disliked it. My misunderstanding. The joys of reading text without facial expressions and tone.

Shane

Guys, guys. Have a little faith when it comes to the new cultures: Francesco, he knows what he's doing!

Andrew wrote:Guys, guys. Have a little faith when it comes to the new cultures: Francesco, he knows what he's doing!

Yeah, the having their own problems bit sounds like the issue has been considered. For the High Elves especially, I can see a restriction on Hope usage... it should be a precious commodity for the Noldor, already mostly consumed and almost irreplaceable.

Plus, that would make Hobbits and Woodmen look like decent options again.

---

Perhaps Bree will be like Esgaroth... i.e it comes with a stand-up shield with relevant charts and tables on it, corresponding to the new rulebook?

I do agree, Bree (before TOR) was always my default starting place for any game set in Middle Earth. It's pretty easy to explain why a Hobbit, an Elf, a Man and a Dwarf walk into a bar there.