Callings and beginning an adventure

[cuthalion]

A first attempt to address some of the ideas in the AC thread about callings. This is very rough, but I'm sure everyone will have ideas, so better to start that way I think.

My personal feeling is that it would be nice to try and use existing systems (of which I think there are plenty, and that they are very adequate), rather than going down the houseruling route. If needs be, we can always move this thread to that forum if I'm proved wrong.

So, a good jumping off point, I think, is Stormcrow's post:

Name the callings of the following characters when they first take on a major role in the stories. Don't pick something kinda-sorta close; choose the correct calling and be certain. Explain your certainty.

Frodo
Sam
Merry
Pippin
Legolas
Gimli
Boromir
Beren
Túrin
Tuor

Aragorn and Gandalf are easy: leader, though Aragorn has spent time as a warden. Bilbo is a wanderer thanks to his Tookish side—NOT a treasure-hunter, and not a scholar until AFTER his adventure. The thirteen dwarves of Thorin's company are treasure-hunters. Earendel is a wanderer. But the ones above... not so easy, eh? Why is this the case for most of the Fellowship, and many of the major Silmarillion characters?

Perhaps the callings, the basic motivations to adventure for player-heroes, don't reflect the motivations to adventure for most of the characters in the books?

I think there is clearly ample room for debate about specifics here, but this comment raises two interesting points:

• Some of Tolkien's characters do indeed seem to show either a predilection to 2 or more callings or a development over the story from one calling to another.
• Some characters don't necessarily begin with a real call to adventure of their own.

I think both of these nuances would, indeed, make for more believable adventures.

Trying to keep this brief, I think (1) a good way to engage a character in an adventure might be to engage the trait that accompanies their calling, (2) players ought to be allotted freedom to change their calling to suit the development of their character, and (3) only one or perhaps two characters' callings ought to define the current story arc and other character's callings can then come into play and receive focus as appropriate.

Some of this is perhaps just good, common-sense LM-ing.

Some more detailed thoughts below, if you care to read on.

***

So, let's take the example of Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry. The AC actually points to Frodo's calling as Warden under the "Reluctant Hero" heading on p.21. I think this is pretty savvy. His ruling drive is really to protect the Shire. And this shows how we ought to take the Callings--as archetypes, yes, but that doesn't mean that we need to stick to the cliche entirely. The twist of a hobbit possessing the One Ring is what makes the book after all.

So Frodo has a background that makes him an inheritor. This is all easily accomplished by RAW. Then the story hook comes when Gandalf engages him via his Calling's trait---Shadow Lore. There is obvious foreshadowing of and later use of the Lure of Power shadow weakness arc, though Frodo proves that he doesn't have the personality to progress past Resentful.

Things are under way. Some other key relationships define Frodo, characters from his past in Buckland, and his servant Sam. Sam**, Pippin, and Merry, while conceivably having Callings, don't really demonstrate them as driving forces early on. Their main call to adventure is their love of Frodo--and we can see this in game terms develop into a Fellowship Focus.*

A second example, in brief, Bilbo: Tookish-ness is, say, Wanderer calling, but I think perhaps even more fittingly, Scholar:

yellowed maps in lost books replace a fear of the unknown with curiosity and wonder of places you have yet to explore, songs composed in ages past strengthen the weariest of hearts

The twist here is that he is engaged by Gandalf via the defining trait of the Treasure Hunter calling---Burglary (though clearly "Rhymes of Lore" also enter into it). And we see a central theme for Bilbo is the working out of this dilemma, whether you see it as two (perhaps three) Callings being in play, or a character with one Calling being forced to follow the path of another one that doesn't fit him. Thorin might be defined by Treasure-Hunter, or perhaps by Slayer. The remaining dwarves callings ought not, perhaps, and I think arguably do not to enter into it.

So we could probably debate some of the details here, but the takeaways for me are: perhaps some of the ambiguity over Callings can be embraced, in the spirit of allowing players to grow and develop as play goes on---and in pushing for more ambiguous scenarios, with reluctant heroes etc.? Perhaps it's ok, even better, for some characters to not have a calling, at least at the beginning of an adventure, and instead focus on developing and tapping into the in-built traits and weaknesses of one or two good story arcs. If a character is going to be drawn out into an adventure via the mechanism of a Calling, we should foreshadow/challenge their Weaknesses and provide challenges for their Calling's trait. We should also endanger and involve close relations, or locations.

What we don't have in the books is, for example, a party of four hobbits, all with different callings so as to 'balance' the game or differentiate the characters. If you don't have a good reason to give a character a calling, or at least focus on it, maybe just leave it out for now? Less is more and all that.

There's great advice on all of this in the AC. I think by combining the new ideas on Archetypes and Shared Toils and making more focused, but limited use of Callings, we can get to some of the beginnings and hooks that the books model.

Thoughts?

*Really, my only question then is, should these companions be rewarded mechanically for not pursuing their own ends? Could they, perhaps, receive extra bonuses from the Fellowship rules, for acting selflessly (perhaps balanced by harsher penalties if their focus is wounded or killed). This is the only point I would perhaps feel the need for houserules--perhaps at this point their Calling is 'Companion'. Another addition would be a list of fitting distinctive features for companion characters.

**Taking Sam as a sub example, the closest calling you might argue is Wanderer, because of his desire to see the elves, Folk-Lore being a more fitting defining trait, Custom and Survival skill groups being heavily relied upon, etc, etc. Again, Sam's love for the Shire is in direct opposition to his interests in adventure, however, and I wouldn't necessarily say that Sam ever operates under his own Call[ing] to adventure. Again, highly debatable, but the point that it is debatable seems to highlight the idea that making Callings more conflicted could produce more nuanced, believable characters.

[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.

And yes, as an LM I design (or emphasize) different traits in different adventures. Sometimes even by the absence. When our Treasure Hunter was away for a session, the party found multiple situations in which her traits would have been incredibly useful, and the party as a whole appreciated her more when she got back. I don't necessarily think I emphasize Calling traits significantly more than other trait/standing/skill focuses, except that they are unique.

I would welcome a Companion calling, for the sake of adherence to the story, but I think it is more appealing as a theoretical construct than it would find much use in most groups.

[Stormcrow]

The point of my post was to show how TOR emphasizes what Sam says is not actually what motivates adventurers: "I used to think that [adventures] were things the wonderful folk of the stories went out and looked for, because they wanted them, because they were exciting and life was a bit dull, a kind of sport, as you might say." It does not pay enough attention to what Sam thinks is REALLY what motivates adventurers: "Folk seem to have been just landed in them, usually — their paths were laid that way, as you put it."

Whether you can get the system to recreate characters from the book is not the point; I merely used them as convenient reference characters. Let's not get side-tracked with trivia.

We don't need to find ways to mechanically change the game to better represent Tolkien. My issue is that the authors, knowledgeable as they are, don't quite seem to have their fingers on the pulse of Middle-earth. Players are encouraged throughout the character-creation process to give their characters reasons to go out on adventures, often because they are exciting and life is a bit dull.

Remember all the "quiet lads and lasses going off into the Blue for mad adventures"? Bilbo makes it sound like they did it for fun, and that's probably exactly what he thinks. TOR obviously picks up on this line and has it in mind for hobbits a lot. But we really have no idea WHY those hobbits went gallivanting off. For all we know, Gandalf said to them, "Your uncle Rupert was chased into a cave by a warg; go save him!"

What's needed is a discussion of ways in which the backgrounds and callings can be bent toward a situation in which player-heroes have little choice but to go on adventures. This won't change much for the player—presumably he's there to play in an adventure, not to choose not go on one. But it changes the setting a LOT. People don't just join adventuring parties and wander around looking for adventures, or even hire themselves out as professional adventurers. A given fellowship gets together for a reason and goes on adventures for a reason, and that reason is more than a vague desire to have adventures until an ACTUAL adventure comes upon them. Adventurer companies aren't the common and default things they are made out to be in the Adventurer's Companion.

I once ran a game for three RPG newbies who are fans of The Lord of the Rings. They created characters and I tried to get across the idea that they needed to develop ideas as to why their characters would go on adventures. They couldn't grasp it. In their minds, adventures happened to them, you didn't go out looking for them. They were two hobbits and a dwarf traveling near Mountain Hall. Even after I introduced the idea of goblins inhabiting an old watchtower and threatening nearby farms, they still couldn't understand why THEY were supposed to go do something about it. And I couldn't explain it to them, because without carefully constructing such characters they really DIDN'T have any reason to do anything about it, other than "that's how the game works." Experienced RPGers could figure out what to do about this, but not a bunch of newbies. If it had been a D&D game, things would have been simple: There's gold in them thar dungeons! Go get it! But the motivations given in the game made little sense to people who knew Tolkien but not RPGs.

So I'm not saying that the game is all wrong or bad. I'm saying that we need to pay closer attention to the themes of Tolkien, and the authors need to do a better job of supporting those themes. A biggie is "Why am I out here?" I feel that the AC loses sight of those themes. We need less "You seem to be stalwart adventurers! Here's a mission for you!" and more "I will take the Ring though I do not know the way."

[cuthalion]

What's needed is a discussion of ways in which the backgrounds and callings can be bent toward a situation in which player-heroes have little choice but to go on adventures.

Agreed. Trying to prompt exactly this discussion! Ideas welcome.

[cuthalion]

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?

I would welcome a Companion calling, for the sake of adherence to the story, but I think it is more appealing as a theoretical construct than it would find much use in most groups.

Yeh--agreed. I think maybe I was thinking about mechanically rewarding players who chose to not put themselves under the spotlight. Also though, it occurs to me that it might be a relief for some, to not have to come up with a backstory/motivation--at least, at the outset, or all the time.

[Deadmanwalking]

See, I don't see this as nearly as much of a conflict as a lot of people here seem to. Callings mean one of two things:

1. Why do you go adventuring?
2. If you don't want to go adventuring, what would motivate you to do so?

They can just as easily mean the second as the first (and indeed, anyone who says 'I don't know.' or 'Nothing.' in response to the first should be asked the second), and the answers to the second will usually give a very clear Calling to the character in question. I mean, Warden, Leader, and maybe Slayer will be more common in answer to the second than Scholar, Wanderer or Treasure Hunter, but the answer still leads to a valid Calling, and will still define the character's life and world view a fair bit.

[cuthalion]

Well, I think the whole point is to try and get at that not choosing to go adventuring, but being swept away on an adventure feeling. 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.

On the other hand discussing ways/approaches for players to come up with fun/believable/Tolkienesque realizations of the various callings is kinda the purpose of the thread.

If the answer to the question, "What would it take to make you go adventuring?" is, "Oh to go find and kill the orcs that killed my sister" (Slayer), I still don't think we're really quite there in terms of what some people would like to recreate from the books.

What if the same Slayer, fleeing from a remote village attacked by orcs, must protect and provide for a younger sibling, or must guide surviving villagers to safety, perhaps drawing on her Enemy-lore (Orcs), just not in the way you would think of for a Slayer.

She is now in the position of being conflicted between her desire to hunt and kill the orcs and fulfilling the Warden/Leader role that's being asked of her. She's tested over a grueling journey. Does she become Spiteful and increasingly Brutal and Cruel (Curse of Vengeance) as her own desires keep being thwarted and she isn't able to do enough to avenge her sister? Or is she forced into a wider world where suddenly those older motivations give way to new understanding; maybe she is exposed to some of the history of ME and embraces the chance to help thwart the Shadow.* At which point a devious LM would probably bring back the orc that slew her sister, and see how she reacts.

Okay, this is still pretty cliched. But I feel a bit like with existing Traits, Relationships, Holdings, Inheritance, etc. and of course Callings, there ought to be some ways of harding conflicts/twists, so that players have that feeling of HAVING to do something, rather than going a-questing.

[Deadmanwalking]

Well, I think the whole point is to try and get at that not choosing to go adventuring, but being swept away on an adventure feeling. 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.

That's more or less what I was getting at, yeah.

On the other hand discussing ways/approaches for players to come up with fun/believable/Tolkienesque realizations of the various callings is kinda the purpose of the thread.

Oh, sure, I was just saying I didn't see them as being in the way. I suppose I'm advocating using the existing Calling rules to enable concepts rather than changing said rules to do so.

If the answer to the question, "What would it take to make you go adventuring?" is, "Oh to go find and kill the orcs that killed my sister" (Slayer), I still don't think we're really quite there in terms of what some people would like to recreate from the books.

Sure. But an answer like 'Well, if my friends needed my help.' very much is, and you can equate that to Warden or Leader pretty directly.

What if the same Slayer, fleeing from a remote village attacked by orcs, must protect and provide for a younger sibling, or must guide surviving villagers to safety, perhaps drawing on her Enemy-lore (Orcs), just not in the way you would think of for a Slayer.

She is now in the position of being conflicted between her desire to hunt and kill the orcs and fulfilling the Warden/Leader role that's being asked of her. She's tested over a grueling journey. Does she become Spiteful and increasingly Brutal and Cruel (Curse of Vengeance) as her own desires keep being thwarted and she isn't able to do enough to avenge her sister? Or is she forced into a wider world where suddenly those older motivations give way to new understanding; maybe she is exposed to some of the history of ME and embraces the chance to help thwart the Shadow.* At which point a devious LM would probably bring back the orc that slew her sister, and see how she reacts.

Well, all that sounds like something the player and LM should probably discuss between them, not something the LM should just spring on them, and if they discuss it, you can pretty readily probably decide whether the killing of orcs or the protection of innocents from orcs is more important to the character, which says a lot about who they are as a person. Protecting their sister might also very well be a greater priority than either, but that's a personal connection, not really a philosophical position/life goal...and philosophical positions and goals are sorta what Callings are.

Really, what Calling you have should be a conversation between the LM and the player.

Going out on adventures is dangerous, why do you do it? You don't want to do it? Well, that'd be a pretty boring game, so there must be some reason. Is it something that forced you to leave home? What was it? Oh, you want it to happen in the first session? Sure. What kind of thing would make your character feel she needed to go out adventuring?

And so on. Everyone has something that would make them do dangerous things. Or at least, everyone who ever does them under any circumstances. Find what it is, find what the person desires, or what they believe in, that would cause them to do something dangerous, and you've found their Calling. Is it the safety of their loved ones? Money and fame? Vengeance for some injury inflicted upon them? What?

And knowing that is both useful and important in defining what sort of person they are.

Okay, this is still pretty cliched. But I feel a bit like with existing Traits, Relationships, Holdings, Inheritance, etc. and of course Callings, there ought to be some ways of harding conflicts/twists, so that players have that feeling of HAVING to do something, rather than going a-questing.

Sure. Totally doable, and potentially quite interesting, but not necessarily more Tolkien-like than the alternative (the dwarves and Bilbo have a much more typical adventurer mindest/goal, and even of the Fellowship, only the hobbits lack a proactive setup).

But even in such a setup, I feel like Callings are useful, because they say something about what part of what's going on motivates you to need to go and deal with the situation. If a town is under attack, a Slayer, Warden, and Treasure Hunter might all feel the necessity of taking up swords in defense of the place rather than hiding in a cellar...but for different reasons.

[cuthalion]

Oh, sure, I was just saying I didn't see them as being in the way. I suppose I'm advocating using the existing Calling rules to enable concepts rather than changing said rules to do so.

Right. Agreed.

At the risk of repeating myself over again, the point of this thread was to discuss ways of handling beginnings that players/LMs can agree on that feel more like the positions of some of the characters in the books. It doesn't necessarily involve changing rules.

Several people have indicated interest in the idea--so I don't so much want to debate whether or not it's needed, as start the ball rolling on how to approach it.

. . . . So, again, ideas welcome.

Imagine that some of us want to slow down and tackle this:

Going out on adventures is dangerous, why do you do it? You don't want to do it? Well, that'd be a pretty boring game, so there must be some reason. Is it something that forced you to leave home? What was it? Oh, you want it to happen in the first session? Sure. What kind of thing would make your character feel she needed to go out adventuring?

in much more depth, with some hints/rules/guidelines/synergies for producing believable beginnings. Yes Callings are great. How do we make more and better use of them?

I'm gonna stay out of the discussion for a bit, but hoping we can address the qs raised in the OP in whatever follows.

[poosticks7]

Well the bonds of friendship are also important reasons for going on a adventure. Which is built into the game already.

The scholar or treasure hunter might have good reason to head into the mountains/forest/ruins. The bonds of friendship will pull the others along.

In fact the Scholar, Treasure Hunter and now the Leader are perfect catalysts for adventure. With the other three arguably being less so.

Perhaps the Warden could be in that group too, his motivations could be good start points for adventure.

The Slayer could vow for kill a certain creature and drag the others along.

The Wanderer is a little more harder to be the initiator other than, 'I want to see such and such a place, let's go.'

If you have a group made up of mostly Treasure Hunters and Slayers you are not that far off dnd


I think you could assign callings to all the adventurers in Tolkien's writing and with other similar stories. The callings are archetypes and you will be hard pressed to write a story without archetypes.

Is there room for more callings? Well yes, there are more archetypes. An obvious one would be Destined/Chosen which fits Frodo and several other heroes from literature.

As to changing callings, I think rules for that would be suitable or perhaps for mixing shadow weaknesses. In fact looking to expand the shadow weakness rules would be a good discussion for the house rules section.


In the end characters hopefully should be three dimensional, they may blur the lines between archetypes (they SHOULD blur the lines, or they are flat characters). They are not constrained by rules of behaviour. Callings are the start point not the one and only thing that drives a character. The more rules you assign to Callings the more you are promoting rigidity.