The "Your-Canon-Concerns-Me-Not" Middle-Earth Campaign

I've been re-reading Lord of the Rings the past two weeks or so, getting through a chapter some mornings, and one to three chapters in the afternoon/evening. I started on Feb. 28th (Monday) and I'm currently up to the chapter Flotsam and Jetsam. And of course it's got me thinking about how I would run a Middle-Earth campaign. 

I'm not going to do this. At least, not any time soon. My TS&R Jade game is going strong, and I've got some ideas percolating for continuing my Star Wars campaign. But maybe one day, I'll do this. 

__________________

So, the first thing is, what rule set to use? There are plenty of "official" Middle-Earth games to choose from, and unofficial OSR games like Balrogs and Bagginses. But me being me, I'd probably stick to either BX or BECMI style D&D, just with a few house rules. Maybe this could be a TS&R Silmaril version? I'd have to file off lots of serial numbers if I did that...

I've seen ideas bandied around to modify BX/BECMI for ME gaming. Some say use the Elf class but with the Cleric (or Druid) spell list for elves (or at least the Noldor) and the Cleric minus weapon restrictions for the Wizards (Istari). Some say use the Cleric class for the Noldor and use the Elf class for the Wizards (with a curated spell list, or the Cleric spells). Some say all Men should just be Fighters, but Numenoreans might get some Cleric spells (like the BECMI Paladin/Avenger), or porting in the Ranger and/or Paladin from AD&D. I've seen debate on whether Burglars (the Thief class, but for Hobbits) should be included as its own class or not, or if a few more Thief skills should be added to the Halfling class. It seems that the only BX/BECMI class people find suitable without change is the Dwarf.  

I would probably end up doing some combination like the above, except I might still keep the MU class for the Istari, only with an edited spell list and a few more weapon options, and probably the Lore ability of my TS&R Bard class. Possibly with a custom spell list for each Wizard! This would limit player options for Wizards though, and as the title of this post says, this is a "screw canon" campaign. 

For Elves, I think probably the regular Elf class could be the Noldor (Galadriel, etc.) just with the same edited spell list for the Wizards. Sindar (like Legolas) would use the Fighter class, but with the Elf class special abilities (ghoul touch immunity, secret door finding). Some Sindar might use the Cleric class to give them some magic ability.

For Hobbits, there could be Bounders (the Shire's guard/militia/border patrol) using the regular Halfling class, and Burglars using the Thief class plus Halfling special abilities. I don't think there would need to be a difference between the different types of Hobbit. 

Dwarves? Yep, as is. 

Men -- now we need to consider a few things. Are they all just Fighters (and maybe Thieves) with some cosmetic differences for Breelanders, Numenoreans, Men of Dale, Rohirrim, Beornings, etc.? Or do we need special classes for some? I'd say most Men could be covered by the four normal BX/BECMI classes, with a few limitations to make Clerics and Magic-Users rare. 

I could modify my old Barbarian class (cut from TS&R before release) for Beornings, and make it into a werebear class with increasing transformation abilities as they level up.

Numenoreans/Dunedain are the tricky part. The Rangers of the North are all Dunedain, but not all Dunedain are/were Rangers. Also, Gondor had rangers, but while they may have been descended from Numenoreans, they don't seem to have the pure bloodline like Aragorn. I'd probably just use normal human classes for them, including Cleric and Magic-User, and give them my TS&R Human special ability of rolling twice for hit points each level and keeping the better number, but making sure they have some ability score requirements like the demi-human classes to be one. 

Nope, sorry, you can't play an Ent or Eagle. Or an Orc or Troll or Giant Spider. 

The biggest "chuck canon out the window" thing I'd do would not be related to PC options, though. It would be the campaign world itself. I'd use one of those maps that float around where 1st Age Beleriand and 2nd Age Numenor haven't sunk under the waves, along with the 3rd Age Shire, Mordor, Mirkwood, etc. most people are familiar with. I'd keep Aman on the 'straight path' while the world is bent thing, to keep all except very high level PCs (if we ever got there) from raiding the Undying Lands.

Now, to really chuck the canon out with the bathwater, Morgoth would rule over Angband, Sauron would be in Mordor, the Witch King ruling Angmar, and sure, the Necromancer in Mirkwood. Elves would have several kingdoms in Beleriand, plus in Mirkwood, Eregion, Lothlorian, and Rivendell. Hobbits would have the Shire (and share Breeland), and maybe I'd throw in Smeagol's folk in Wilderland near the Beornings. Dwarves would have isolated strongholds in Moria, the Lonely Mountain, the Iron Hills, Belegost, etc. and they would be commonly coming and going between their strongholds. Arnor would still be a kingdom, as would Gondor, Rohan, Dale, and other human lands from the 3rd Age. There would also probably be a kingdom of Men somewhere in Beleriand, for Beren, Turin, Hurin, and all those guys from the Silmarillion. Oh, and yeah, I already mentioned Numenor would be there.

Basically, it would be more D&D in Middle-Earth than Middle-Earth role-play. And in proper D&D fashion, it all goes in the blender and gets turned into what James Mal once called an "unholy goulash" of a campaign setting.

Middle Earth Mood

I recently came across this idea about the true nature of Tolkien's enigmatic Tom Bombadil on G+ the other day. Apologies for whoever posted it there, I couldn't find it again in a (lazy and quick) search of my G+ feed. Go read the link, it's not long. Then come back.

Did you read it? No? Need a tl/dr? The author claims Bombadil must be some sort of evil spirit who controls the Old Forest and Barrow Mounds, and only appeared as a cheerful jolly fellow to keep the hobbits from just running away.

When I shared the link with my D&D buddies, Dean posted this much better thought out and possibly correct theory of Bombadil. This one's a LONG read, in fact I'm still not 100% through it yet. If you've got time, though, and are interested in this sort of thing, I recommend it.  tl/dr? Bombadil is an incarnation of the Song of the Ainur (and Ungoliant is the incarnation of Melkor's Discord).

Regardless, the first link got me to pondering running a game of D&D in Middle Earth. Not MERP (don't have it, have never played it) but good old D&D. I remember years ago James Mishler had a blog about his BX game set in Middle Earth. This would be (if I ever get around to it, maybe after the Chanbara play testing if this idea is still on my mind) a more-or-less standard D&D game, just using the maps and NPCs and trappings of Tolkien's work.

So an alternate universe Middle Earth, in other words. I think my guiding concept would be that either Morgoth was cast out but never imprisoned/chained, or else escapes. Or maybe the war against him ends in a draw, and he's still deep in his fortress, breeding monsters and plotting? Due to his influence, many other evil spirits enter Middle Earth, creating all kinds of monsters (as you'd expect in D&D) and the Valar send more than just five Wizards to combat them. In the past, I'd thought of using the Second Age (the Silmarillion stuff) as a more "legendary, heroic" sort of Middle Earth for D&D. Now, I'm thinking the good old War of the Ring time frame might be fine. It's more familiar to me and any potential players, although they'd have to be warned that this is not just a railroad Dragonlance style "play out what happened in the book" thing. Maybe I'd start the campaign in the time-frame of The Hobbit? Still considering that.

Anyway, with more powerful fallen Maiar than just Sauron in the world, there would be plenty of stuff for players to do besides try to destroy the One Ring (although I suppose they could take up that quest if they want!).

Would I run it with BX/BECMI slightly modified? That's tempting, and most likely the simplest way to do it. But I'd also consider using 5E. The ability to modify the subraces and backgrounds to fit Middle Earth, and with certain races and classes excluded or limited, it could work. It would be a lot more work for me to prepare that, though.

Movie Review: The Hobbit - The Battle of the Five Armies

Yesterday, my son and I went to watch the final Hobbit movie on the big screen.  We'd recently watched all of the LotR trilogy on DVD, and although he hadn't seen parts 1 and 2 of the Hobbit, he really wanted to go, so off we went.

Now, I enjoyed the first two installments while watching them, but on reflection found them tedious, drawn out, and full of sound and fury signifying nothing for a large part of them.  But then it's Peter Jackson's (and Weta Workshop's) vision of New Zealand-turned-Middle Earth, which is worth sitting through just for the amazing cinematography, IMO.  Anyway, I wasn't exactly anticipating the final chapter, but I knew I couldn't miss it either.  I'm that sort of completionist nerd.

And before we get to the interview proper, as always the title of the blog brings people wondering about swear (curse) words in films any time I do a review.  Here it is: Dain, Lord of the Iron Hills (Billy Connoly) has a few mild swears.  My son's favorite swear being "bastard," when Dain uttered it, he turns to me and laughs, "Did he just say 'bastard'?  Ahahaha!"  That's it.  And if you know Billy Connoly, you'll know that's pretty mild for him.

Now, what did I think of The Hobbit Pt. 3?  Well, as usual it was visually stunning in some parts, but the vast majority of the film happens on Erebor (The Lonely Mountain) which to be honest, looks really cool from far away but isn't that interesting up close. 

The story was more focused (mostly the eponymous battle, plus a short bit where the White Council confronts the Necromancer at Dol Guldur which was surprisingly brief considering the bloat in the first two films).  But that doens't mean it was necessarily better.  For some reason, the movie felt a bit underwhelming.  Where the first two were going out of their way to diverge from the book to "pump up the action" this one felt subdued in a sense.  There's some over-the-top action in it, but it wasn't quite as heart-stopping as some of the action scenes in the first two installments. 

Maybe I need to sleep on it a bit more to pin it down (thanks to the baby, I didnt' get much sleep last night).  Something seemed off about the movie, though.  It still had the PJ touches you'd expect (crazy decapitations - watch for Thranduil on his elk for a good example; modern cliches being mouthed by Middle Earth residents: "think of the children!" in this case; gratuitous fights with a video game feel to them).

Anyway, it was thankfully only a bit over two hours long, rather than three.  And it was Middle Earth on film.  If you enjoyed the other Hobbit movies, don't let this disuade you.  It's alright.  It just lacks the emotional oomph that The Return of the King had.  It's a weak climax to an overdone film series, but it's not completely terrible, either.  If you're on the fence about seeing it, though, I'd say you may want to wait for a cheaper option than a full ticket price.

Thoughts on The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

This is not a review, really, although it sort of could substitute for one.  And it could get spoilery, since I'm planning to discuss the movie vs. the novel.  Go ahead and click away if you don't want the movie spoiled.

So, I saw the movie on Thursday, when it opened here in Korea.  I've got a bad head cold, and called in sick to work.  After laying around for a bit, I remembered that the movie opened, and we checked the times and there was a showing my wife and I could make, so we went to see it.

Visually, we get the same beautifully rendered world of Middle Earth that we know and love from the LotR movies and An Unexpected Journey.  The special effects were well done, the locations, sets, CGI backgrounds, props and costumes, all of that really continue to bring Middle Earth alive. 

Martin Freeman really brought Bilbo to life, showing his growing courage, the beginnings of the pull of The One Ring, and cleverness in the face of adversity.  Ian McKellan was also great as Gandalf.  A few of the dwarves besides Thorin and Balin also began to stick out as actual characters, but it would be hard to do that with all of them.

As far as the story goes, though, there were (IMO, of course) way too many derivations from the novel.  In the LotR movies, there were abridgements, additions, and substitutions, but I always felt like they were done to help translate the novels to film.  Not so here.  Most of the stuff that actually came from the book was over in a flash, while stuff that PJ and company made up seemed to take up the lion's share of the film.  And I'm not just talking about the Necromancer/Dol Guldur stuff.

OK, here are the spoilers:

Beorn got less screen time than Radagast did in AUJ (and Radagast gets a fair amount here in DoS as well).  Bilbo does a little bit of spider fighting, but no taunting.  Then the dwarves all get their weapons and chop away until Legolas and Tauriel (the female elf character they added - who was fairly well done by the standards of action movie kickass babes/love interests) take out the rest.  Barrels out of Bond turns into, as someone I read on either G+ or Facebook put it, a video game platformer.  The fairly unnecessary Azog the Defiler gets pulled away from his chase of Thorin, only to be replaced by Bolg (who's in the book), but who looks almost the same and acts fairly similarly as well.  Laketown is a seeming cauldron of near revolution led by Bard against the Master (IIRC in the book they have no love for each other, but it's not like a daytime soap opera)  The dwarves try to fight Smaug, leading to a big set piece battle in the forges of Erebor. Oh, and worst of all was the unnecessary elf-dwarf-elf love triangle.  But then if you cast a young handsome dude as Kili, I guess as a filmmaker you feel the need to give him some romance in the movie.

When the Momoa Conan movie came out two years ago (or was it three?) lots of people said it was a good enough fantasy action movie, it just wasn't Conan.  I feel sorta the same way about Desolation of Smaug.  It's got "The Hobbit" in it, but there's so much other stuff bloating it and taking away from the style and feel of the book that it's not really the same story at all. 

Still, I will be there next December to see the Battle of Five Armies and the cleansing of Dol Goldur.  It's a fun movie, don't let my complaints give you the wrong idea.  I just wish there were more The Hobbit in The Hobbit.

Movie Review - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

My wife and I dropped off our son at his grandparents' house this morning and went to an early showing of The Hobbit.  We saw it in 48fps (no choice, a buddy in Japan told me it's only available in standard 24fps there) 2D.  We considered IMAX, but it was IMAX 3D and we are not (as you'd probably guess if you read most of my movie reviews) not fans of 3D, especially for a three hour movie. 

Standard Warning:  Due to the title of this blog, I get lots of web search hits from people wanting to know if there are "curse words" in movies I've reviewed.  Rest assured, parental unit types, this is from Tolkien so there are no curse words in the movie.  That said, this is also from Peter Jackson so there are plenty of lopped off body parts (the reason our 4-year-old stayed behind).

Now on to the review.  I doubt this will be spoiler free, because I assume most of my readership has read the book.  But we'll see.  If I get to the end and didn't spoil anything, I'll delete these sentences.

Did you like Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies?  I sure did.  Yes, they don't follow the books as closely as they could even considering the liberties that need to be taken to transfer a book to film.  If you liked LotR, you'll get more of the same from The Hobbit (at least from this first part). 

Technical stuff first.  The 48fps took a bit of adjusting to.  At first, there were lots of fast camera sweeps and the high frame rate made them very blurry, but my eyes seemed to adjust after a little while.  The images were - how to best describe it? - crisper than a normal 24fps movie.  I wonder if this will indeed become the new standard or not.  It might require higher CGI budgets for romantic comedies to hide all the little blemishes on the actors and actresses! 

The cinematography was gorgeous.  Again, very similar to LotR.  A few locations "in the wild" even seemed like some of the locations from LotR (of course The Shire, Rivendell, and the road between did cover the same path).  The amazing New Zealand landscapes alone make it worth the price of admission IMO.  The fact that we're getting Professor Tolkien's works put up on the big screen in a loving manner is just icing on the cake (OK, hyperbole there, the landscapes are the icing on the Tolkien cake).

Some people have complained that there are too many dwarves and that they aren't all distinguishable.  Well, I say read the book.  Ask me to tell you about the dwarves in The Hobbit (the book) and I can tell you off the top of my head on any given day:
Thorin is the pompous ass
Balin is the resourceful and sensible one
Filli and Killi are the young brash ones who seem to do all the work
Bombur is the fat one
Gloin is... um, Gimli's dad
The rest are there...
Now, as for the fact that many of the dwarves don't look like typical dwarves, this is a good thing!  These dwarves seemed more real by not all having long ZZ Top style beards.  Just like the actors playing hobbits were more or less as varied as typical humans (counting all the extras in Hobbiton in LotR), we see that dwarves are "people" even if they aren't human. 

Now, on to the story.  It's good.  It more or less sticks to the book, and I can see why certain changes were made for the screen.  The pacing was good for an action movie, but this is one of the movie's failings, I think.  The Hobbit is not an action story, it's an adventure story.  PJ added in lots of extra fighting to make it "more exciting" but that's not the sort of story Tokien told.  The Hobbit (the book) really shows JRRT's fondness for Haggard's Alan Quatermain stories.  The basic pacing is travel-explore-action.  By splitting the story into three parts, they felt the need to ramp up the action.  Likely they would have ramped up the action anyway, but if they'd kept it to one or two movies, they could have condensed to just the action scenes if that's the way they wanted it played out.  Oh well, the movie's not perfect, but it was still pretty good.

One good thing about stretching the movie out was that they were able to include some unnecessary but cool scenes, like for instance the Stone Giants.  Of course, PJ kinda overdid it, but it was fun to watch.  Reminiscent of the Moria staircase. 

Another thing they could have done away with was the frame story, with old Bilbo telling Frodo about how Smaug came to Erebor, which is of course shown with Bilbo's narration over it.  Cool, and they kept Smaug mostly off camera - gotta build up excitement for the next installment! - but since we learn all of that stuff in the story as Bilbo learns it, it was kinda unnecessary. 

Some of the other additions, like making Azog the Orc actively hunting down Thorin and Co. and the scenes involving Radagast the Brown and his jack rabbit sled adds more of a sense of continuity for those unfamiliar with the book, I suppose.  It also allows for more fight scenes.  I'm sure that when we get to The Battle of Five Armies and the White Council's battle with the Necromancer, these now apparently extraneous set-ups will pay off.

Despite the flaws, the movie was exciting, beautiful, funny, and moving.  And it's not even a complete story!  While it ended at a fairly good place to end action-wise, with the party just past the Misty Mountains on the borders of Wilderland, as far as the emotional development/character arcs go, it was sort of a lukewarm ending. 

I really enjoyed this first chapter of The Hobbit.  And as I said above, if you enjoyed PJ's take on Middle-Earth in the Lord of the Rings movies, you should enjoy this.  If you didn't like PJ's LotR, you likely won't enjoy this one either.  As for me, Dec. 2013 and "The Desolation of Smaug" can't come soon enough!

28 years gaming

It's my birthday today.  Number 39.  I've been playing D&D for 28 years now.

My parents sent me an Amazon.com gift card.  Time to think about what to spend it on.  Probably a physical copy of one of the retro-clones (I saw at least the Labyrinth Lord core book through an Amazon vendor). 

The Hobbit also opens here in Korea in two days.  I'm gonna have to wait until Sunday to see it thanks to my busy schedule, but we've got plans laid.  But that's also part of my birthday celebration.

Beast of the Week: Ungol

Turning to Tolkien this week, we get one of the iconic creatures of both Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, the intelligent giant spider.  The giant spiders of Mirkwood are the offspring of Shelob, who is the offspring of Ungoliant.  Ungol was the Sindarin word for 'spider' hence Cirith Ungol, the Pass of the Spider where Shelob laired.

Ungol*
AC: 2 (18)
HD: 7+2***
Move: 180 (60)
Attacks: 1 bite
Damage: 3d6 + poison
No. Appearing: 1d3 (3d6)
Save As: F5
Morale: 10
Treasure Type: A
Alignment: Chaotic
XP: 1650


Ungols, also known as Shadow Weavers, are giant intelligent spiders.  They are web spinners, and also possess a venomous bite.  Being intelligent, they can control the amount of poison they inject.  They typically only inject enough venom to paralyze a victim for 2-8 Turns (save vs. poison to resist).  They then wrap their victims in webs and take them back to the lair to feed upon later, typically within one week.  Against foes that prove their mettle, such as those wielding magical weapons that can harm them, they will inject enough poison to be deadly (save vs. poison or die instantly).  In addition to their poison, they may use their webs to create traps equal in strength to a web spell, and can use darkness three times per day and confusion once per day.

Beast of the Week: seriously? Yeah, I'm going there.

Inspired by this post.  Thanks for the idea, Sean!

Sauron*
AC: -3 (23)
HD: 12***
Move: 90 (30)
Attacks: 1 plus Gaze
Damage: 2d6/paralysis
No. Appearing: 1-4 (1-6)
Save As: Fighter 12
Morale: 8
Treasure Type: H x2
Alignment: Chaotic
XP: 3500


Saurons are 10' to 12' tall, humanoid creatures with black skin, terrible features, and piercing eyes.  They tend to wear ornate plate armor and prefer to wield large maces, flails or hammers as weapons.  Saurons also use a gaze attack.  Each round in addition to their weapon or a spell, they may focus their eyes on one character, who must Save vs. Turn to Stone or stand stunned for one round by the withering gaze.  They may also cast spells as a 12th level Cleric.  Saurons can use Polymorph Self three times per day in addition to their clerical spells.  They are only hit by magical weapons.  Saurons often command lesser creatures, such as lycanthropes and shapechangers, goblinoids and giants, or undead. 

Lembas, it's what's for dinner

Just in case some of you reading my blog don't read Jason Vey's (aka The Grey Elf), he's got a recipe up for his homemade version of Tolkien's lembas on his blog.

It looks pretty good.  I think I'm going to need to give this a try over the holidays (or more realistically, since I'll be working the week between Christmas & New Years, during the first week of Jan. when I've got the week off from the kindergarten).

I'll of course be sure to post the results, both here and on his blog.

What does it feel like to level up?

As promised, a little less serious topic this time, and fully about gaming rather than the politics of who's gaming and who isn't.

I was reading my new copy of The Hobbit this morning, and a paragraph of the good Professor really jumped out at me and said, "Hey, Bilbo just gained a level."

It's p. 144 of my edition, Chapter VIII Flies and Spiders:

There was the usual dim grey light of the forest-day about him when he came to his senses.  The spider lay dead beside him, his sword-blade was stained black.  Somehow the killing of the giant spider, all alone by himself in the dark without the help of the wizard or the dwarves  or of anyone else, made a great difference to Mr. Baggins.  He felt a different person, and much fiercer and bolder in spite of an empty stomach, as he wiped his sword on the grass and put it back into its sheath.

You never really see that in Conan stories, or the tales of Fafhrd and the Mouser.  Sure, you see the pulp characters at various stages of their careers, having gained skill, confidence, and prowess from their previous exploits.  But you rarely see that moment of epiphany or feeling of growth with them.  It happens off stage.

Anyway, I wonder if I'd be able to reverse engineer how much XP the various challenges Bilbo and the Dwarves faced up to that point so that Bilbo's share of XP topped 2000 at that point (when a Halfling reaches level 2 in BX or BECMI).  Maybe some day when I've got more time than I do now!

It's my birthday, and I wants it...

Well, it's not actually my birthday until Saturday, but my birthday present arrived in the mail yesterday.

The 70th Anniversary illustrated hardback edition.  It's not the annotated version, which would interest me, but rather the plain text edition that I can read to my son as bedtime stories, the way it was intended. 

(and I can't believe I'm up to almost 300 posts on this blog, and this is the first time I've used a "Tolkien" tag!)