Received my Rivendell sourcebook

[Otaku-sempai]

The RIvendell book arrived in the mail yesterday and looks fantastic. I was hoping that somehow the error in the White Council entry on pages 19 and 20 regarding Gandalf and Dol Guldur had been fixed; but, I guess that will have to wait for a new printing or a whole new edition.

For the record: Gandalf discovered the true identity of the Necromancer in his investigation of Dol Guldur in TA 2850, when he also found Thrain II dying in the dungeons. He reported his findings to the White Council in 2851 and urged the Council to strike against Sauron. Saruman vetoed the recommendation not because Gandalf was not believed, but because he was secretly hoping that Sauron's servants would reveal the location of the One Ring. The White Wizard convinced the rest of the Council that the Ring was forever lost and that Sauron would not again become a serious threat.

[Otaku-sempai]

Well, I finally got around to downloading the updated PDF for Rivendell and I see that the erroneous history of Gandalf and Dol Guldur has not been corrected.

[Earendil]

Is this an error? I assumed that it was just telling the story as anyone in Middle-Earth would have known it at the time of the game. The truth about Saruman doesn't come out until he imprisons Gandalf in 3018.

Besides, the book does make it clear a few paragraphs later that Saruman is lying:

Saruman claimed that he had learned that the One Ring
had been lost to the sea

and

they might be unwitting pawns in his attempts
to discover the location of the One Ring or even hide the
truth of its evidence from other council members.

A sidebar to clarify things might have been useful, but I think anyone running a game of TOR will already know the truth. And it's all made clear in Horse-Lords of Rohan anyway.

[Otaku-sempai]

Is this an error? I assumed that it was just telling the story as anyone in Middle-Earth would have known it at the time of the game. The truth about Saruman doesn't come out until he imprisons Gandalf in 3018.

Besides, the book does make it clear a few paragraphs later that Saruman is lying...

No, it is presented as information for the Loremaster, not what Player-heroes might just believe to be true (and entails knowledge not privy to those outside of the White Council). Besides, it is not Saruman's words that are at issue, but the actions of Gandalf. Gandalf discovered that the Necromancer was actually Sauron in TA 2850, during the same investigation of Dol Guldur where he found Thorin's father dying in the dungeons. Gandalf reported his discovery about Sauron to the White Council at the meeting of 2851. The text that states that Gandalf learned this almost 100 years later, presumably just before Thorin began his quest, is incorrect. With the exception of the Peter Jackson films, Gandalf did not re-enter Dol Guldur until the White Council took action in the late summer of 2941.

The Tale of Years in the Loremasters section of the core rules has it correct. That said, I've been in communication with Jon Hodgson about this, and it does not appear that a correction in the text of Rivendell is slated to appear any time soon.

[Stormcrow]

The rule books strangely play coy with the information that Saruman is a traitor, as if this is a spoiler that a later book is going to reveal. WE all know it already; I'm not sure what the point of giving the information from the point of view of any character is.

[Otaku-sempai]

The rule books strangely play coy with the information that Saruman is a traitor, as if this is a spoiler that a later book is going to reveal. WE all know it already; I'm not sure what the point of giving the information from the point of view of any character is.

That is likely because this is information that is unknown to anyone until the War of the Ring, and not revealed to the Wise (with the exception of Gandalf) until the Council of Elrond. And, who knows? Someone might want to Loremaster an alternate-timeline campaign were Radagast is revealed to be the traitor and Saruman has been tricked into cooperating.

[Glorelendil]

I've spent some amount of time working on a long adventure in which I try to play on the tension between player knowledge and character knowledge: the characters start to get some strong evidence for Saruman's treachery, but "proof" stays tantalizingly just out of reach. And of course if they try to convince anybody else they won't be believed. So they're free to "metagame"* but it won't necessarily get them anywhere.

I've always believed that true "immersion" has nothing to do with historical accuracy or "suspension of disbelief", etc., but rather it's the state of feeling the same emotions that your character would be feeling: surprise, rage, terror, etc. Or at least related emotions: you may not be as terrified as your character, but you can at least genuinely worry that you are going to lose your favorite character.

So in the Saruman case, I want both the characters and the players to think they are on the verge of exposing the biggest scandal of the 3rd Age.

[Grey Seer]

I've spent some amount of time working on a long adventure in which I try to play on the tension between player knowledge and character knowledge: the characters start to get some strong evidence for Saruman's treachery, but "proof" stays tantalizingly just out of reach. And of course if they try to convince anybody else they won't be believed. So they're free to "metagame"* but it won't necessarily get them anywhere.

I've always believed that true "immersion" has nothing to do with historical accuracy or "suspension of disbelief", etc., but rather it's the state of feeling the same emotions that your character would be feeling: surprise, rage, terror, etc. Or at least related emotions: you may not be as terrified as your character, but you can at least genuinely worry that you are going to lose your favorite character.

So in the Saruman case, I want both the characters and the players to think they are on the verge of exposing the biggest scandal of the 3rd Age.

I like this way of looking at it. Very interesting. Have you had this happen in game yet?

[Stormcrow]

That is likely because this is information that is unknown to anyone until the War of the Ring, and not revealed to the Wise (with the exception of Gandalf) until the Council of Elrond.

Characters do not read the rule books.

[Otaku-sempai]

That is likely because this is information that is unknown to anyone until the War of the Ring, and not revealed to the Wise (with the exception of Gandalf) until the Council of Elrond.

Characters do not read the rule books.

No, but my point was that the information is not revealed until the War of the Ring, and the books don't delve very deeply into future events. Loremasters should be careful about how they use Saruman unless they want to spill the beans early. That said, Horse-lords of Rohan is much more clear and open about Saruman's betrayals and machinations. Perhaps you do not have that sourcebook?

I"m not entirely sure why Saruman is being discussed so much in this thread. The error I caught had to do with Gandalf, though I'm sure that Saruman appreciated learning who the power was behind Dol Guldur. He might have even figured out the identity and significance of the dying Dwarf long before Gandalf realized that it was Thrain.