Callings and beginning an adventure

[Stormcrow]

But if I understand you right you're saying that a calling doesn't necessarily need to be acted on by a player at the beginning of the game, and could, instead, provide hooks to put a character in the kind of position where they are suddenly drawn into adventure. If that's what you mean, then yes I agree, and I think that's part of the solution--seeing callings as part of a characters background/worldview rather than mandates to adventure.

I was wondering the same thing. Consider, for example, the core game and ignore for the moment any supplements. You can play a hobbit, because how could you have not have hobbits? But the setting of the game is Wilderland, where no hobbits have any business being. But if we GAVE them business there—not adventures, business—then having adventures find them starts to make more sense.

So a hobbit Scholar is in Dale planning to write a book about it. He's well outside his comfort level already just being there, but he's not looking for adventures to find lore; he's got his journey all planned out and it's supposed to be relatively safe. Then adventure finds him and he's swept away by it. Or a hobbit Treasure-hunter is among the Beornings because all travelers pass through their lands, and the hobbit is looking for certain artifacts that someone may have found.

In other words, the calling is just used to put the character in the right place at the right time. They're not why you go on adventures; they're why you're in the right place to find yourself on an adventure. You still need a reason to ACCEPT an adventure, but that's up to your background and your sense of cooperation as a player. You also still need a reason to take up with all these outlandish folk, which seems to me a difficulty; most groups seem to just hand-wave that part away.

[Scrollreader]

I've solved this issue by allowing players to mix and match calling traits and weaknesses. When doing so, it becomes significantly easier to make someone from the books.

This is interesting--I could see how that would work. Are you saying the players felt it easier to attribute some conflict.complexity to their characters? Could you maybe give an example?

Sure.

My players are more or less familiar with Tolkien. All of them know the story, have seen the film's, and read the books at least once.

Roderic the Bard (Scholar) is a Woodsman. Roderic's player came up with a backstory where he is trying to ... Civilize isn't quite the right word, but organize and educate the Woodsmen. His holding is a school, where he teaches reading and writing. He is a scholar, absolutely. But he doesn't necessarily seek knowledge for its own sake. He wants the Woodsmen to gain the benefits of somewhere like Dale. Perhaps, someday, even a King of Rhovanion again (though probably not in his lifetime). As such, the player approached me about the Lure of Power for his Shadow Weakness.

I see it as being very much Saruman's struggle. Being tempted to simply take power and /make/ people act how you want. Setting yourself up as a Lord among free folk. At the moment, he has accepted an advisory position with Mogdred and is really starting to feel conflicted ... Which is amazing. And due in large part to the unique combination of calling and shadow weakness.


In a less elaborate, but still interesting example, Glabum the dwarf. He is a Slayer (Dragons). But his backstory involves being among Dain's folk arriving for the Battle Of The Five Armies, and the vast hoard of Smaug kindled the sleeping coals of his dwarven heart, spurring him to leave pickaxe and smithing hammer behind for Axe and Shield.

He's not a burglar, at all. But what works on his heart, and what drives his knowledge and seeking of Dragons is not vengeance ... But the lust for the beautiful and ancient works of his people. So he's a Slayer with Dragon-Sickness.

I have PCs with the traditional Shadow Weakness for their Calling as well, of course. But it both helps tie the complexity of a character into mechanics, and in some cases helps differentiate between two characters with the same Calling, providing me with different hooks and tools to motivate and tempt them.

[Mim]

Once again, this is (for me) a very intriguing and useful thread.

These are some great ideas and I'm digesting 'em as you write, because this comprises the heart of adventuring and one of the things that sets Middle-earth apart as a setting. In particular, I'm considering some of the points raised about traits and backgrounds, and how to integrate 'em into my own chronicles.

Thank you!

[zedturtle]

In other words, the calling is just used to put the character in the right place at the right time. They're not why you go on adventures; they're why you're in the right place to find yourself on an adventure. You still need a reason to ACCEPT an adventure, but that's up to your background and your sense of cooperation as a player. You also still need a reason to take up with all these outlandish folk, which seems to me a difficulty; most groups seem to just hand-wave that part away.

As far as long-term campaigns go, I've only actually run 2.5 of them. The first being Tales From Wilderland, where I specifically requested that each character created initially have a connection to at least one other character, and in such a way that I could draw a line from character to character and connect the whole group. Then I just (as the game began) declared a bit of narrative fiat so that this group was out and about, they heard a cry for help, chose to respond and we were off to the races.

For the other campaign, the heroes again had some connections to each other, but they were not as strongly linked. But they ended up coming to Stonyford to attend a Beorning festival, manage to connect with each other over the course of the festival. Then something is stolen, the heroes step up to solve the mystery and we're once again off to the races. (This is Theft of the Moon in case it's not obvious.)

The 0.5 case is the Tales From Wilderland group deciding to continue on into The Darkening of Mirkwood. I used 2948 as my starting point, as the council meeting was another good opportunity to have a reason for everyone to be present. Again, there was an opportunity and the heroes stepped up {this one being a little bit more heroic in nature, as Ingomer had them searching for his lost son... I didn't go with Mogdred appearing at the council but instead had to be sought out}.

So it seems to me that Callings might inform something about a hero, but it's really up to the Loremaster (in the role of Eru Ilúvatar) to create a normal(ish) situation for the heroes, and then give them the chance (not force them, just give them the opportunity) to step into something larger than themselves. And then they can be carried away by it, and soon enough they, like Sam, are sitting on the front porch of Mordor, wondering how they came to be in this situation.

[cuthalion]

So it seems to me that Callings might inform something about a hero, but it's really up to the Loremaster (in the role of Eru Ilúvatar) to create a normal(ish) situation for the heroes, and then give them the chance (not force them, just give them the opportunity) to step into something larger than themselves. And then they can be carried away by it, and soon enough they, like Sam, are sitting on the front porch of Mordor, wondering how they came to be in this situation.

I think that's true, but it doesn't necessarily speak to some of the slipperyness involved in trying to make sense of Callings when looking at the models in the books, and it doesn't get us away from the conceits involved in beginning an adventure with a motley crew of adventurers from the far corners of ME, all with a burning passion for adventure--especially when that transition to adventure really happens in that first session. If it's true that an adventurer knows why they are adventuring (in general terms) from the beginning, I don't see that there's quite as much room for development/twists (not denying there isn't any)--and I think getting them all on an adventure together can be kind of a forced affair, and continuing it even more so.

To take Sam--I do think it's essentially true that he is bound (literally forced) in to an adventure from the very beginning (though who would have accepted that conceit without the brilliant setup relying on other characters). But Sam doesn't follow Frodo to learn secrets, or find treasure, or protect the weak, or any of those things. Frodo is also literally forced into adventure--twice!

Personally, as a player, I would much rather be put in a difficult position (difficult, as it relates to MY character), and play things out as best I can, than have to just start randomly helping people and fighting the shadow over and over again and keep doing so because that's the way to gain XP. I think that's what we're all trying to get at.

[cuthalion]

Once again, this is (for me) a very intriguing and useful thread.

These are some great ideas and I'm digesting 'em as you write, because this comprises the heart of adventuring and one of the things that sets Middle-earth apart as a setting. In particular, I'm considering some of the points raised about traits and backgrounds, and how to integrate 'em into my own chronicles.

Thank you!

Great! Hoping we can get some concrete ideas down!

[cuthalion]

I have PCs with the traditional Shadow Weakness for their Calling as well, of course. But it both helps tie the complexity of a character into mechanics, and in some cases helps differentiate between two characters with the same Calling, providing me with different hooks and tools to motivate and tempt them.

Thanks for that.

At the moment, he has accepted an advisory position with Mogdred and is really starting to feel conflicted ... Which is amazing. And due in large part to the unique combination of calling and shadow weakness.

This sounds like success to me. Good for you.

And it seems pretty important to the discussion.

I'm kinda thinking that opportunity for conflict is pretty key--we see it in Frodo, and Sam.

It's of course time for this--which I'm sure I've read elsewhere posts about this topic:

‘Not that I ever heard,’ said Pippin. Frodo was silent. He too was gazing eastward along the road, as if he had never seen it before. Suddenly he spoke, aloud but as if to himself, saying slowly:
The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with weary feet,
Until it joins some larger way,
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.
‘That sounds like a bit of old Bilbo’s rhyming,’ said Pippin. ‘Or is it one of your imitations? It does not sound altogether encouraging.’
‘I don’t know,’ said Frodo. It came to me then, as if I was making it up; but I may have heard it long ago. Certainly it reminds me very much of Bilbo in the last years, before he went away. He used often to say there was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs were at every doorstep, and every path was its tributary. “It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door,” he used to say. “You step into the Road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to. Do you realize that this is the very path that goes through Mirkwood, and that if you let it, it might take you to the Lonely Mountain or even further and to worse places?” He used to say that on the path outside the front door at Bag End, especially after he had been out for a long walk.’
‘Well, the Road won’t sweep me anywhere for an hour at least,’ said Pippin, unslinging his pack. The others followed his example, putting their packs against the bank and their legs out into the road. After a rest they had a good lunch, and then more rest.

A few things I notice--will be interested to hear what others say . . .

That idea of not knowing exactly where you're going is really key--but this isn't just not knowing in the sense of, 'Where shall we go can find the next quest?', it's being compelled on a path and having to follow as best you can.

Whether it's a conflicting shadow weakness, or a choice of callings, we want to put characters in hard situations and have them make choices. Let's take Aragorn for a new example--there's a clear case to be made that he's a Warden early on, but even if the new Leader calling didn't exist, I would argue that the interest and intrigue in his story arc is that that Calling becomes increasingly unavailable to him, and he must negotiate adopting a new Calling as the story progresses (of course, it was always going to be his true Calling, but you take my point).

(Also, note Pippin---‘Well, the Road won’t sweep me anywhere for an hour at least,’---as the character who isn't actively engaged in a Calling of his own. That cavalier-ness is of course part of his character, but it also changes later on when he has a path of his own to follow.)

So how would this work in practice?

Bilbo's conflict between Scholar and Treasure Hunter reveals an overlap in the Favoured Perception skill group. Kind of interesting. And for Aragorn, between Warden and Leader, it would be Personality. That seems like one model--challenge a character to do something different but related.

Actually, now I think about it, this would work for the Saruman example too--Scholar has Perception,Vocation and Leader (which also has the Lure of Power weakness) has Personality,Vocation.

Frodo's conflict isn't necessarily one between Callings, but if had to choose him one it would probably be Scholar, and Scholar shares no Favoured Skill groups with Warden, so there I run dry. Help? I kind of hope there are more models in there to follow really, so as to provide more ideas for inspiration.

I'm already getting ideas for how to shape a campaign I have going, so thanks all for participating.

[cuthalion]

Sorry . . . one last idea on a Companion calling--just noticed only one Calling so far has the Custom Favoured Skill Group, and that one makes total sense here. I would give them Custom, Personality. Then they just need a shadow weakness . . .

Gonna be something in the betrayal/paranoid sphere I think, and I'd look to the Sam/Smeagol relationship for inspiration.

. . . ok, really done now.

Thanks for humouring me.

[Deadmanwalking]

I've got to admit, my own personal headcanon has always pegged Frodo as a Wanderer. The above passage is quoted directly in the Shadow-Weakness section for that Calling, and his faded, traumatized, behavior post-quest is tailor-made for high levels of Wandering Madness. As does his spiritual weariness as the quest progresses. Really, the only times he displays 'Lure of Power' are brief moments, which might easily be Bouts of Madness (or in at least one case, a calculated act) rather than an actual manifested Shadow-Weakness (note that behavior in Bouts of Madness need have nothing to do with the character's Calling or Shadow-Weakness...and the Ring might easily make most such bouts more on the domineering side).

Plus, he always wanted to go out and see things like Uncle Bilbo...just not in the way he wound up doing so.

And Wanderer shares the Survival group with Warden if you want to pursue the line of thinking you're on.

As for Sam, I'd probably peg him as a Warden from the get-go. His entire motivation for going is to protect Master Frodo as much as anything else, and it expands to a more general protectiveness as time passes. His visions when he takes up the Ring certainly support Lure of Power as his shadow-weakness.

And I'd be much more inclined to view the difference between Frodo and Pippin in the above passage as that between those with high Shadow and low Shadow than as that between those with and without a Calling. Pippin is insouciant because he's at full Hope with no Shadow to speak of. Frodo is not in quite the same position and is thus more maudlin and philosophical. Belief that you have no choice, that your actions don't matter and you're merely swept up in events is fatalism, and IMO more indicative of not being in a happy place mentally than it is indicative that that's the way the world works in Tolkien's world, or should work.

And, personally, while I don't necessarily want to play someone who decided upon 'adventurer' as a career path, I do tend to prefer my characters to be proactive. People who see something going on and choose to involve themselves rather than being forced into it. And that description fits almost all of Tolkien's non-hobbit protagonists (and debatably several of the hobbits). Which is not to say that there shouldn't be a place for characters who are just 'swept up in things', there clearly should...but it doesn't seem like they should be the norm.

If going with Companion as a Calling in it's own right, I'd actually stay away from Personality (it's the only skill group given out three times), maybe making the skill groups Custom and Vocation. That does give them Battle, which is odd, but the other five in that group all seem pretty solid 'non-adventure' skills.

[cuthalion]

I've got to admit, my own personal headcanon has always pegged Frodo as a Wanderer. The above passage is quoted directly in the Shadow-Weakness section for that Calling, and his faded, traumatized, behavior post-quest is tailor-made for high levels of Wandering Madness. As does his spiritual weariness as the quest progresses. Really, the only times he displays 'Lure of Power' are brief moments, which might easily be Bouts of Madness (or in at least one case, a calculated act) rather than an actual manifested Shadow-Weakness (note that behavior in Bouts of Madness need have nothing to do with the character's Calling or Shadow-Weakness...and the Ring might easily make most such bouts more on the domineering side).

Yes, I agree with this. I have a hard time placing him--probably it's because he's just the most developed character.

Maybe more thinking/digging about Frodo would give some more ideas.

I do tend to prefer my characters to be proactive. People who see something going on and choose to involve themselves rather than being forced into it. And that description fits almost all of Tolkien's non-hobbit protagonists (and debatably several of the hobbits). Which is not to say that there shouldn't be a place for characters who are just 'swept up in things', there clearly should...but it doesn't seem like they should be the norm.

This is also completely valid. I think a mix would be desirable.

As for Sam, I'd probably peg him as a Warden from the get-go. His entire motivation for going is to protect Master Frodo as much as anything else, and it expands to a more general protectiveness as time passes. His visions when he takes up the Ring certainly support Lure of Power as his shadow-weakness.

This I have to say I flat disagree with! His motivation is not being turn into a toad! He hates to leave the shire, and it's only love of Frodo that compels him, but I'm not sure that means he classes as a Warden.

Anyway, it's obviously very subjective. Fun to debate tho!