Will the Hobbit bring in new gamers?

(Psi)SeveredHead · Oct 13, 2012

While I could picture an interest in gaming, I don't think any of the well-known games (eg D&D and Pathfinder) could replicate the setting.

It takes a seriously hard core fan to actually want to play in the setting. As the sole conflict in the setting was dealt with in the books, the DM needs to learn the setting inside out - the power players, the languages, the characters, etc - and then needs to get 4 or 5 players as interested in the same thing. It's also not a sword & sorcery setting, which D&D and PF rely on - only Noldor and "outsiders" get to cast spells, healing takes forever, etc. So when potential gamers show up at a Middle-earth game, they'll likely be disappointed.

At least one issue could be resolved with a published game system rather than "homebrew", and I suspect it's been done before, but not in a system that people are familiar with.

It's possible another system could handle the game just fine - there was a thread about that the other day - but those are systems the majority of gamers haven't heard of, much less new gamers.

The "dream" scenario would be if WotC got the license for the films, so there'd be no IP conflict between film maker and game maker, but that'll never happen. Furthermore, WotC would have to develop a new system for the setting, which is ... well, just look at what happened to TSR, then picture it getting worse.

Mark CMG · Oct 13, 2012

Olgar Shiverstone said:
I came to fantasy RPG gaming -- D&D -- from wargaming, but in large part because I was a huge fan of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

How do you like how GW handled their miniatures lines? I certainly enjoyed having some extra figures I could use both for wargaming and for RPG scenarios, beyond their WH stuff, of course (much of which is too cartoonish for my tastes).

Celebrim · Oct 13, 2012

Olgar Shiverstone said:
Mostly I'd agree.

But I have to say that I'm an exception ... I picked up D&D because it looked interesting and Hobbit-ish, taught myself to play, and then taught friends so I'd have people to play with.

Not a counter example.

Quickleaf · Oct 13, 2012

Olgar Shiverstone said:
Mostly I'd agree.

But I have to say that I'm an exception ... I picked up D&D because it looked interesting and Hobbit-ish, taught myself to play, and then taught friends so I'd have people to play with.

RPGs have gotten quite complicated and the barrier to entry is such that it almost forces the need for "a good game master" as the sole barrier to entry ... but how does that help people & kids who don't know RPGs exist (outside of video games and MMOs) and don't know a game master, but are potentially interested because of an interest in fantasy epics?

Well, I am planning on exploiting the release of the Hobbit to run a D&D game for non-gamer friends. Since I came out of the gamer closet, three of my non-gamer friends have been constantly ribbing me in a good-natured way about my geekiness, and one even joked over a beer that he wanted to play a game just to have the experience. Chances are there will be many bad Middle Earth puns, a fair amount of alcohol, and other adult humor.

Now I've just got to figure out a system to use, mock up some pretty character sheets (I'm thinking of doing a photo-manipulation/collage of each of them), and make up a short but sweet adventure.

Umbran · Oct 13, 2012

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
As the sole conflict in the setting was dealt with in the books...

That's as true as saying the sole conflict in the Star Wars setting was dealt with in the original trilogy of movies. But, somehow that universe winds up being rife with role-playing adventure opportunities, even if you restrict yourself to the time period of those movies. Stretch beyond that, into the other places implied and referenced in the movies, and into the realms of conflicts referenced as before and implied after the original, and you've got plenty of material to work with.

(Psi)SeveredHead · Oct 13, 2012

Umbran said:
That's as true as saying the sole conflict in the Star Wars setting was dealt with in the original trilogy of movies. But, somehow that universe winds up being rife with role-playing adventure opportunities, even if you restrict yourself to the time period of those movies. Stretch beyond that, into the other places implied and referenced in the movies, and into the realms of conflicts referenced as before and implied after the original, and you've got plenty of material to work with.

I was just about to mention KotoR, which of course takes place in a different time period...

I think Star Wars has (to a lesser extent) the same issue with Forgotten Realms, having "Big Goods" along with the obvious Big Bads. (I'm a little tired of Luke Skywalker popping up in all these post-SW EU novels.)

But Star Wars is a bigger universe, with an arbitrarily large number of planets, species, etc. Middle-earth is much more detailed and much smaller. I think a DM would be more challenged to come up with conflicts that the PCs could deal with considering the magnitude of a massive "world war" going on near Gondor than with many currently-designed game settings (including non-D&D settings such as Creation for Exalted). I'm not sure if there's any villains (beyond perhaps some unaffiliated bandits and random trolls) in that setting who aren't connected to Sauron in some way.

To put it another way, a setting that's specifically designed for roleplay (like Eberron, or even Dark Sun before the novels) has fewer hoops for the DM to jump through than one with an overarching metaplot.

DM Howard · Oct 14, 2012

I don't really see much coming of the Hobbit movie in regards to an influx of new gamers. The games we play are such that you are either going to be interested or you're not. No movie is going to make you take the plunge if they didn't look interesting in the first place.

And although I respect what others have said I'm a combination of "I wouldn't want to mess with the canon/not much worth doing". Sure you can clean up Moria, perhaps find a way to restore the three elven rings and create a second valinor in middle earth, but in the end I guess Tolkien touches me too deeply to want to do it and it all seems dwarfed by the acts of Frodo and Samwise.

The best way I can think of it is like painting over the Mona Lisa or adding on to the Bayeux Tapestry. It doesn't really add or improve the original, to my mind, so why do it?

mmadsen · Oct 16, 2012

ColonelHardisson said:
Middle-earth, even without the Ring or in the times it was lost or inactive, was more detailed and interesting than most, if not all, other game settings. Even with the Ring destroyed, there were a lot of things to do in Middle-earth.

It takes skill and effort to fit a campaign into someone else's world -- or the historical real world, for that matter.

I've always wanted a D&D where the default assumptions were more in line with the fiction I read (and watched), like The Hobbit, but not necessarily a dedicated Middle Earth game.

Bluenose · Oct 16, 2012

Crothian said:
Was there a surge in gamers or did any company successfully take advantage of the release of the Lord of the Rings movies?

Games Workshop got a good few years of sales out of their LotR minis game, released at the same time as the movies.

Votan · Oct 17, 2012

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
While I could picture an interest in gaming, I don't think any of the well-known games (eg D&D and Pathfinder) could replicate the setting.

It takes a seriously hard core fan to actually want to play in the setting. As the sole conflict in the setting was dealt with in the books, the DM needs to learn the setting inside out - the power players, the languages, the characters, etc - and then needs to get 4 or 5 players as interested in the same thing. It's also not a sword & sorcery setting, which D&D and PF rely on - only Noldor and "outsiders" get to cast spells, healing takes forever, etc. So when potential gamers show up at a Middle-earth game, they'll likely be disappointed.e.

I am not sure about this. Rolemaster (the original middle earth setting) was fairly high magic (at least by level 10 or so) and featured a lot of "walk on characters" who were human spellcasters. There are a lot of settings that could be interesting (e.g. Umbar) that are never explored in the books. There are missing wizards far out east. There are interesting time periods (e.g. the fourth age).

It's not ideal but one can at least see some potential as a setting.

Pathfinder would work fine at lower levels. Very high level Pathfinder would be more difficult but impossible.