Some Questions

[Stormcrow]

Though they might not have the occupation of 'adventurer', per se, some of the characters will have Callings that push them out the front door.

Agreed, but it can really be a pain trying to motivate all different types of callings to go on the same adventure for believable reasons.

Now, if you can convince your group to all play the same calling...

[Wbweather]

Agreed, but it can really be a pain trying to motivate all different types of callings to go on the same adventure for believable reasons.

Now, if you can convince your group to all play the same calling...

That's where the character's backgrounds can come into play. Over the course of several years the company would be developing friendships, or at least relationships that would act as a cohesive bond to keep them adventuring together. In our game, one of the characters has developed a romantic interest in character's sister due to spending time over the winter at his holding. The group is no longer made up of a group of random adventurers, but has formed a family of sorts. They have become invested in each other's lives.

[Deadmanwalking]

Though they might not have the occupation of 'adventurer', per se, some of the characters will have Callings that push them out the front door.

Agreed, but it can really be a pain trying to motivate all different types of callings to go on the same adventure for believable reasons.

Now, if you can convince your group to all play the same calling...

Well, by the second or third adventure, I'd expect that friendship alone would do this job. I mean, Companies are supposed to be close personal friends, and if your friends are gonna go do something dangerous, I'd expect you to go along. So...motivate two or three, or even one if they're the right one, and you've got the rest by proxy. Plus anyone who's a Wanderer is pretty much in as soon as there's a trip to go on.

And yeah, the group I'm in have pretty much become professional adventurers at this point. We just completed Tales From Wilderland (plus bits of DoM) and at the point where you're basically agents of Radagast and are personally asked to perform investigations by kings upon occasion...I think that makes us adventurers. I think that's actually a pretty likely outcome if campaigns continue long enough. I mean, you wind up getting a certain reputation if you save entire communities from attack and the like enough times and people come to you when there are problems of a similar scale.

[Glorelendil]

Though they might not have the occupation of 'adventurer', per se, some of the characters will have Callings that push them out the front door.

Agreed, but it can really be a pain trying to motivate all different types of callings to go on the same adventure for believable reasons.

Now, if you can convince your group to all play the same calling...

Well, by the second or third adventure, I'd expect that friendship alone would do this job. I mean, Companies are supposed to be close personal friends, and if your friends are gonna go do something dangerous, I'd expect you to go along. So...motivate two or three, or even one if they're the right one, and you've got the rest by proxy. Plus anyone who's a Wanderer is pretty much in as soon as there's a trip to go on.

And yeah, the group I'm in have pretty much become professional adventurers at this point. We just completed Tales From Wilderland (plus bits of DoM) and at the point where you're basically agents of Radagast and are personally asked to perform investigations by kings upon occasion...I think that makes us adventurers. I think that's actually a pretty likely outcome if campaigns continue long enough. I mean, you wind up getting a certain reputation if you save entire communities from attack and the like enough times and people come to you when there are problems of a similar scale.

That's certainly logical (in a weird RPG-only sense) but I believe what Stormcrow is saying...and if he isn't then I am...is that it's not very Tolkien-esque.

[Finrod Felagund]

Maybe the answer is that groups initially come together under the same patron. Characters might join together for different reasons, but from the point of view of the overall story the patron is their "boss" and provides the reason for the group to exist.

Not sure I'm explaining this well, but as an example a group all might have Beorn as their patron. From his point of view the group is his elite "go-to" team when he has a problem that needs sorting out, a delicate scouting mission that needs carrying out, or an off the books mission that he wants deniability for/doesn't want to use his own people for. What this means is the group has a underpinning reason for existing and being together.

As a general point, I find the whole concept of "adventurers" rather odd...and slightly "young-adult" (not really Tolkienish at all). With my early-medieval head on, I can't think of any real life situation where it actually occurred. What did occur were mercenary companies, and they were actually rather common. Mercenary is of course a bit of a dirty word, but mercenary relationships can go beyond the merely financial (think of the Gurkhas and the British Army for example), and the relationship could be elevated by a shared desire to defeat the Dark Lord and protect the weak.

[Rich H]

Just a few general thoughts to share:

For me, a group of PCs of different Cultures and Callings working for Beorn as a trouble-shooting team are basically the same thing as a group of adventurers, except they don't travel around as much and are just asked to do things by one person, but I don't have a problem with either in a M-E RPG as these are gaming tropes that make things easier for a group of characters to stick together beyond the one epic quest (a la The Hobbit or LotR), and I think that's the key challenge here. The source material of those two books present two quests and afterwards the characters involved, with very few exceptions, have reached the end of their story from an RPG perspective. Campaigns in RPGs typically start with the PCs all of a relatively low power level and without a heavily developed background (see also low Standing) so throwing them into similar quests wouldn't ring true with the mechanics of the game. Sure, you could have some character of low Standing, renown, and capability but not all. Also, many of the actions performed leading up to these two quests could be adventures in their own right but these are undertaken by just one or two characters so aren't really adaptable/realistic within the context of gaming with groups of 6 or more players unless a LM runs some solo quests before the main event.

Darkening of Mirkwood has the characters roving all over Wilderland, often without any links from year-to-year so it often can appear a little forced if 'run out of the box'. I do think more work should have been taken on this as it is a published campaign so stronger links could have been developed and an initial introduction for each Culture and Calling could also have been provided setting PCs on their way, with the motivation/drive to continue coming from each adventure. I'm less critical of the two TOR adventure anthologies in this regard as their primary purpose is to provide a set of useable scenarios and not a campaign like Darkening.

Although friendship, duty, and a belief in 'doing the right thing' should be the main glues that bind after a few adventures, in themselves they don't preclude PCs being given jobs or adventures due to them being capable and trustworthy fellows, in fact some of them logically mean that NPCs will come to the PCs requesting help. Also, with regard to friendships being established over time, does that mean a character's Fellowship Focus should be picked during the game more often than at character generation? I think we can have both and in my campaign both ways have been used.

We know that wardens (lower case 'w' so not the Calling), mercenaries, caravan guards, emissaries, messengers, etc exist within the game so those 'lower level' roles are often used within self-made and published adventures as a quick 'in' to the adventure proper. Publishers have limited word count so I can understand why many simply brush over how the PCs are involved and go with a more generic approach of "you're asked by 'x' for aid", etc. I guess it's an unwritten rule that anything more specific is up to our respective gaming groups to develop further.

Callings are great for providing the motivation for characters to 'venture forth' into the wild but it is difficult to provide a reason for every adventure and every Calling. By doing so, I think motivations would become generic in their own way just as much as the usual tropes employed of, say, being asked for aid. I also think Cultures can be useful too; threats to homelands can bring together characters of the same Culture but different Callings - wider threats can bring together numerous Cultures, although then the challenge is the characters being of the right reputation to be involved in such events without feeling like spare parts or the setup feeling forced; just in a different way.

Perhaps an option would be for players to create a 'troupe' of characters rather than one character per player as is the norm. With this option, the group could interweave adventures in specific but disparate locales using characters which more logically appear in those locales and have a stronger motivation to therefore get involved. These adventures, with different characters, could weave together to build a wider narrative than just the sum of their parts. Then, later in the campaign, some event brings these groups together in order to resolve the problems facing them all and it's here that the players get to pick from the characters they have previously played to continue and conclude their quest in the last epic act, which may be one of more adventures. With this setup, you're getting Culture and Calling based motivations for each set of 'locale adventures', with those characters growing in renown and ability, until they are embroiled in wider events which allow them to forge new relationships and a 'greater' fellowship with characters from other cultures, etc. Seems like a more logical and interesting setup; it also give players variety to play differing cultures and character types and then pick from their favourites towards the end of the campaign.

Sorry about the size of the post, I was going to post examples of what I've done in my campaign but I think, at least for now, the above is enough!

[Finrod Felagund]

Thanks Rich; it's a real pleasure to communicate with you by the way as I really enjoy all the work you have provided particularly the additional LM resources.

When I'd had a little more time to consider my own comments, I thought that the more likely approach would be that the Adventurers would initially be taken on by one of Beorn's middling Lords as a supplement to his or her household, bearing in mind that manpower was likely to be slight. In this scenario, the Lord (Jarl?) would be their ring giver and they would live within his or her hall as per Beowulf for example. The reason for traipsing all over the place would initially be for low level stuff such as messengers, escorts to the Lord's trading caravans, escorts to the Lord/lady or to other ambassadors. They would then be embroiled in the adventure as a consequence of this. As time goes on, they would come to Beorn's notice which would mean that he possibly becomes their patron giving them more important work to carry out, or their Lord/Lady rises in Beorn's service and as a result the Adventurers are involved in more exciting stuff.

I appreciate that this won't work for everyone, and it means that adventures would need to be treated differently. I also wonder how it would work for Thranduil or Elrond for example since Elven culture is different. Despite my "young adult" comment, I also think that the Adventurer trope is fun for players and gives them considerable choice. I also suspect to a degree that one can overthink this, and that it doesn't really matter why the adventurers are there - they just are, this is what they do, and let's get on with the game!

[Rich H]

Thanks Rich; it's a real pleasure to communicate with you by the way as I really enjoy all the work you have provided particularly the additional LM resources.

That's very kind; thank you!

When I'd had a little more time to consider my own comments, I thought that the more likely approach would be that the Adventurers would initially be taken on by one of Beorn's middling Lords as a supplement to his or her household, bearing in mind that manpower was likely to be slight. In this scenario, the Lord (Jarl?) would be their ring giver and they would live within his or her hall as per Beowulf for example. The reason for traipsing all over the place would initially be for low level stuff such as messengers, escorts to the Lord's trading caravans, escorts to the Lord/lady or to other ambassadors. They would then be embroiled in the adventure as a consequence of this. As time goes on, they would come to Beorn's notice which would mean that he possibly becomes their patron giving them more important work to carry out, or their Lord/Lady rises in Beorn's service and as a result the Adventurers are involved in more exciting stuff.

I think what you've described there, if the PCs are of the same culture, is pretty much part of what I was referring to in my ideas above of having some kind of 'troupe play'. Personally, this setup (including yours above) is something that I think would work perfectly within the framework of TOR and it's something I wish I'd decided to do when I first started the game.

I also think that the Adventurer trope is fun for players and gives them considerable choice. I also suspect to a degree that one can overthink this, and that it doesn't really matter why the adventurers are there - they just are, this is what they do, and let's get on with the game!

I don't disagree with that either. At the end of the day we want to have fun with our mates and if these kind of setup consideration don't matter to gaming groups then they shouldn't worry about them. The 'adventure group' is always something that I'm never truly happy with in many genres of RPGs and I 'tolerate' it as a necessary trope in order to get to the fun stuff. It is easier to overcome in some games than it is for others (eg, in Pendragon the default setup is playing knights serving one lord), though, and many games build the idea of things like 'troupe play' into their mechanics and gameworld (eg, Ars Magica) so the discussion here is a good one.

[Jacen]

Some interesting opinions here for me to mull over. The problem of keeping characters realistically vested in the story without it feeling contrived is a problem I think I will struggle with as well. I have ensured that everyone has a strong motivation to be interested in the fate of Mirkwood, so I suppose that's a start.

[Angelalex242]

Well, I joined Majestic's group last week. While car trouble prevents me from being there tomorrow, it is nonetheless my first face to face experience with this system.

So one of the things my High Elf did (Packing Enemy of Sauron trait) is use it (Because there were too many options on the table) to decide how best to thwart the enemy's plans. The answer I got was 'unite the free peoples, they're too divided.' So my High Elf proceeded to come up with the idea to do exactly that, and so it happened.

Also an archery contest where the PC archer spent hope like water. Heh. Still didn't win though. One of the NPCs had a +7 to his archery rolls. Hit a TN 28 ring (and missed TN 30) just to show off and prove he could.