A Company of the Same/Similar Culture

[Southron]

Has anyone played with a company of the same/similar culture?

If so how did the play feel and work out?

[Elroval]

I'd also be intersted to hear anyone's experiences with this.

I've not tried it myself, but I've often wondered what an adventure set in the Shire would be like, with a party of hobbits. Trips to Scary, or the Old Forest could provide danger, as well as 'queer folk' passing through. And there could be plenty of intrigue and inter-family politics to work with.

[bluejay]

I think it can work out well for a while and obviously it's worth trying to get as much variation as you can between the cultures.

For instance with Riders of Rohan, definitely include someone from Harrowdale and a Shield Maiden.

With Woodmen of Mirkwood maybe one is from Mountain Hall and another has the River Blooded trait.

Obviously try and give the characters different 'roles' within the group and some element of their own niche.

The only issues occur when you start getting a lot of Wisdom and Valour because they're all choosing from the same collection of cultural virtues and rewards. That will mean the group will tend to grow more similar over time. Sure this can be mitigated to some degree (for instance magical weapons and armour may replace cultural rewards) but in a party of four or more players expect a fair amount of overlap.

[Rich H]

As a bit of a filler I ran a campaign for 3 players, "Three's Company", where they all played Hobbits. I based it in and around The Shire and had the idea of gradually building up the external elements and sending them further afield if the choices they made warranted it. We often look back on it and think it was more fun than the "Darkening..." campaign it was meant to temporarily be a substitute for.

Although there will always be mechanical similarities in running a game where the fellowship is the same culture I do think it leads to the players realising this and therefore making far more of an effort to have their characters of different backgrounds, personalities, etc in order to distinguish between them more. Certainly in the game I ran, the three (and eventually four) Hobbits the players created all felt very distinct and believable but also presented a very tight, cohesive and believable set of characters; more so than a more disparate set of cultures would in my opinion. Add to that the Fellowship Pool of 8 (!) and their shared abilities (eg, same Virtues, etc) and they were actually an extremely competent and dangerous group of adventurers; even if they did think they were a Hobbit walking party rather than anything more lofty and important.

I wonder if the same could be said for another culture or whether being Hobbits produced a specific and unique set of circumstances. I have an instinct that the latter is more likely.

[bluejay]

One mechanical oddity would be a group of Rangers of the North, each able to add to the Fellowship Pool but not take Hope from it.

Thankfully they could at least spend the Fellowship Points on the new combat roles introduced in The Adventurer's Companion.

[Corvo]

My main fellowship are "The Kings Men", composed of four Bardings.
The secondary fellowship are "The Hunters", two Beornings and two Woodmen.
They are played by the same players in The Darkening campaign: some events are encountered by the first fellowship, others by the latter.

My impressions? Very good. As Rich said, they give a very cohesive impression. With the group of four Bardings you can narrate the story from a coherent point of view: for example, Elves are allies, yet distant and fickle in their commitment to the fight against the Shadow; Hobbits are a source of wonder and curiosity; the Dwarves are narrated as obvious friends, even if cranky and greedy, etc.

The players understand that this is a biased point of view, yet they got the chance to immerse in it and maybe fight against their people's accepted wisdom.

As virtues and rewards go, for the King's Men I choose to widen the selection a bit to help differentiate the characters. Two Heroes got to have a Beorning parent/grandparent, two got a Woodmen one: I selected some virtues/rewards from these cultures and made them available to the characters.

[Blubbo Baggins]

My main fellowship are "The Kings Men", composed of four Bardings.
The secondary fellowship are "The Hunters", two Beornings and two Woodmen.
They are played by the same players in The Darkening campaign: some events are encountered by the first fellowship, others by the latter.

My impressions? Very good. As Rich said, they give a very cohesive impression. With the group of four Bardings you can narrate the story from a coherent point of view: for example, Elves are allies, yet distant and fickle in their commitment to the fight against the Shadow; Hobbits are a source of wonder and curiosity; the Dwarves are narrated as obvious friends, even if cranky and greedy, etc.

The players understand that this is a biased point of view, yet they got the chance to immerse in it and maybe fight against their people's accepted wisdom.

As virtues and rewards go, for the King's Men I choose to widen the selection a bit to help differentiate the characters. Two Heroes got to have a Beorning parent/grandparent, two got a Woodmen one: I selected some virtues/rewards from these cultures and made them available to the characters.

This sounds awesome. Makes me want to have a game like this some day (play in or run). Very cool to hear about how it works out.

[Adhemar]

With the group of four Bardings you can narrate the story from a coherent point of view: for example, Elves are allies, yet distant and fickle in their commitment to the fight against the Shadow; Hobbits are a source of wonder and curiosity; the Dwarves are narrated as obvious friends, even if cranky and greedy, etc.

The company I am loremaster for is made up of purely Mannish cultures in WIlderland. Your example above is one of the main reasons I went this direction. Secondly, I've hit home the fact that the company is shaping the world in which their children will be fighting the War of the Ring in. Thus generational gameplay; the importance of finding a spouse and having children are becoming an important part of the overall story.

[Majestic]

I started with a very diverse group, but over time some characters died or retired, and other players weren't able to make it often, leaving me now with a regular fellowship of four Elves. Though they are two Mirkwood Elves and two High Elves from Rivendell. Three of the four are Scholars, but even then they've diversified enough that they are all quite different from each other. For instance, one of the Mirkwood Elves, a Scholar, has trained under Ormal, has taken everything he can of Wood Elf Magic, and is much more musically inclined, whereas the other Mirkwood Elf, also a Scholar, has become much more proficient in combat and has become 'darker' (gained two Flaws, both Scornful and Haughty).

Another friend who had moved away will be returning soon, so we might have our Hobbit back to add a bit of variety to our group.

[Glorelendil]

I love the sound of Corvo's campaign. I especially like how Elves and Hobbits can be presented in their canonical roles, which I think becomes a lot harder when either or both are PC's cavorting all over middle-earth