D&D comes to Middle Earth (from Cubicle 7)

I have high hopes that the 5E OGL will really start to open up the game...and this would seem to qualify! Very excited for this.

 

[Reynard]

Well my friends, you haven't been waiting around for FIVE FREAKING YEARS just to get a playable version of the Gondor culture.
(snip)
Imrahil, Faramir, Dol Amroth, Minas Tirith, Osgiliath, Ithilien, The Stone of Erech . . . . These are some of the most critical players and locations in the Lord of the Rings fiction . . . . aaaaand they're basically unplayable in The One Ring as currently constituted.

This comes off as very entitled. From the official website for The One Ring:

Middle-earth is a huge place, stretching thousands of miles from the Lonely Mountain in the north to Far Harad in the south, and beyond. It’s an ancient land too, with a richly detailed history going back thousands of years to the dawn of the First Age.

But The One Ring Roleplaying Game is set in a very particular place, in a very specific time: Wilderland, 5 years after the Battle of Five Armies. Wilderland is at once familiar to fans of the novels, as it's the region both Thorin’s Company and the Fellowship (once broken) traverse on their journeys.

This land is filled with instantly recognisable locations from the novels: Mirkwood, Thranduil’s Halls, Lake-town, Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, Dol Guldur. All are locations ripe for exploration and adventure. Its also home to some of the best-loved characters from the novels too, from Radagast the Brown and the Elvenking Thranduil to King Bard of Dale and King Dáin of Erebor.

So whether the larger part of Middle Earth is "unplayable" without Gondor, the fact is that The One Ring was never intended to be a complete Middle Earth rpg.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, there have been a few people like that hanging around the Cubicle 7 forums for a while. Very entitled, very personally offended that C7 doesn't crank out splatbooks fast enough for them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The problem I have is, if you've already invested in The One Ring line, this is kind of a slap in the face. "Yeah, all your loyalty to our original product line? Yeah, sorry, we've got a business to run, so we're jumping on the new hotness of 5e 'cause we can actually make money on it."

This from the C7 website yesterday: "But we are absolutely not joking, or spinning you a line, when we say The One Ring Roleplaying Game will continue as an independent, fully supported line. You guys are at the heart of what we do. True story. And heck, I didn't shed this much blood sweat and tears to then throw The One Ring away, and I know the rest of the team feel the same, from the bottom to the top. We have some good stuff for you this week."

So maybe do your research before jumping to conclusions and spewing bitterness and nerdrage around the internet?

 

[Morrus]

This from the C7 website yesterday: "But we are absolutely not joking, or spinning you a line, when we say The One Ring Roleplaying Game will continue as an independent, fully supported line. You guys are at the heart of what we do. True story. And heck, I didn't shed this much blood sweat and tears to then throw The One Ring away, and I know the rest of the team feel the same, from the bottom to the top. We have some good stuff for you this week."

Blood?!?! I hope not!

 

[Reynard]

Blood?!?! I hope not!

Paper cuts, man, paper cuts.

 

[Rune]

This from the C7 website yesterday: "But we are absolutely not joking, or spinning you a line, when we say The One Ring Roleplaying Game will continue as an independent, fully supported line. You guys are at the heart of what we do. True story. And heck, I didn't shed this much blood sweat and tears to then throw The One Ring away, and I know the rest of the team feel the same, from the bottom to the top. We have some good stuff for you this week."

Blood?!?! I hope not!

Paper cuts, man, paper cuts.

They could probably cut down on the sweat if they just get that AC fixed.

 

[innerdude]

This from the C7 website yesterday: "But we are absolutely not joking, or spinning you a line, when we say The One Ring Roleplaying Game will continue as an independent, fully supported line. You guys are at the heart of what we do. True story. And heck, I didn't shed this much blood sweat and tears to then throw The One Ring away, and I know the rest of the team feel the same, from the bottom to the top. We have some good stuff for you this week."

So maybe do your research before jumping to conclusions and spewing bitterness and nerdrage around the internet?

This comes off as very entitled. From the official website for The One Ring:

Middle-earth is a huge place, stretching thousands of miles from the Lonely Mountain in the north to Far Harad in the south, and beyond. It’s an ancient land too, with a richly detailed history going back thousands of years to the dawn of the First Age.

But The One Ring Roleplaying Game is set in a very particular place, in a very specific time: Wilderland, 5 years after the Battle of Five Armies. Wilderland is at once familiar to fans of the novels, as it's the region both Thorin’s Company and the Fellowship (once broken) traverse on their journeys.

This land is filled with instantly recognisable locations from the novels: Mirkwood, Thranduil’s Halls, Lake-town, Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, Dol Guldur. All are locations ripe for exploration and adventure. Its also home to some of the best-loved characters from the novels too, from Radagast the Brown and the Elvenking Thranduil to King Bard of Dale and King Dáin of Erebor.
So whether the larger part of Middle Earth is "unplayable" without Gondor, the fact is that The One Ring was never intended to be a complete Middle Earth rpg.

First of all, perhaps my comments came off more inflammatory in writing than in actuality. Yes, I find it annoying, but in terms of generating actual "nerd rage," this is maybe a 2 on a scale of 10. Cubicle 7 has chosen not to produce the kind of product I want; I've chosen not to purchase much of what they have produced. **shrugs** Seems like a pretty straightforward consequence of product supply / consumer demand.

It is ironic, though, that griping about the 5e release schedule seems to be a generally accepted thing around here, but leveling the same criticism at another company is somehow taboo. To say nothing about how we hear the mantra constantly on these forums, "Play what you like! It's okay to have your own preferences! No one has to tell you you're having badwrongfun!"

But as soon as I talk about my dissatisfaction with the current One Ring product line, because I have personal preferences of what I enjoy in the Lord of the Rings fiction, somehow I'm now a bitter nerd-rager?

To give some context: Faramir is BY FAR my favorite character in the Lord of the Rings fiction. (Peter Jackson's deplorable treatment of Faramir in the movies is worthy of much more nerd rage than Cubicle 7, but that's another debate entirely. ) The entire backstory of Gondor, Numenor, Isildur and Anarion, the North and South Kingdoms of the Men of the West, etc., are by far my favorite parts of the Lord of the Rings lore, closely followed by the history of the Silmarils. I don't currently have any tattoos, but if I ever got one, it would be of exactly one thing --- the White Tree of Gondor.

So yeah, I'm partial to Gondor. And @Reynard might be right; The One Ring isn't "made" just for me. They made a design decision to stick to one particular time period and locales for the system. And because of those choices, I have been unwilling to promote the system more, because that's not the Lord of the Rings RPG play experience I want. To me, The One Ring is missing what I consider to be some crucial, nay, vital pieces.

Why the need to jump to Cubicle 7's defense? Do you work for them, or have some business interest? They made a choice to focus on what I see as particularly uninteresting aspects of Middle-Earth's Third Age. I'm not denigrating anyone who prefers what they've already produced; I'm simply saying I will be dissatisfied as a customer until I see support for Gondor characters. And this is somehow . . . offensive?

As far as what Cubicle 7 posted on their web site, it's a lovely sentiment. Truly, I'm sure they mean it from the bottom of their hearts, and I'm sure they feel it when they say it. But the harsh reality of business is that there is going to be an opportunity cost to produce a D&D 5e "setting" or "imagining" of the Lord of the Rings for them. The fact that their release schedule for the product line has already been brutally slow isn't going to suddenly change by them taking on a new project of significant scope. My best hope is that they'll get a massive influx of cash from their D&D 5e efforts, and maybe sometime in 2018 I'll finally get my Gondorians.

 

[Reynard]

I'm simply saying I will be dissatisfied as a customer until I see support for Gondor characters. And this is somehow . . . offensive?

I think if you look back at what you wrote it does not come off as merely an expression of preference but a castigation of the game for not being something it wasn't intended to be in the first place. What's more, you initial post strongly suggests C7 is betraying its customers and slapping them in the face. I really wasn't white knighting Cubicle 7 so much as I was pointing out what I thought was an unnecessarily negative reaction. if that is not what you intended, I apologize.

Now, i am happy for C7's take on a 5E ME game for a very simple, practical reason: if it says D&D on the tin, no matter how much or little it is like vanilla D&D, I can actually get people to play a ME game. Most people I encounter who want to play fantasy want to play D&D. it is a sad truth.

 

[innerdude]

No, I quite understand; my initial reply was very much coming from a well of cynicism. Truly, I don't think about it much unless I'm downstairs looking at my (sadly miniscule) RPG book shelf and see my original One Ring set and Rivendell guide and think, "Sigh, when am I gonna actually get to play this?" Again, the easiest comparison would be, what if Wizards of the Coast excluded rangers, paladins, sorcerers, and druids from the initial 5e Players Handbook, then waited 5 years to release the Player's Handbook 2 that actually included them. How much angst has the absence of a 5e warlord caused, a class that appeared in exactly one edition of D&D in history?

On a certain level it almost feels like Cubicle 7 is kind of being stubborn about it, like they're rebelling. Sort of like refusing to see that popular summer movie just because everyone and their mother is telling you that you should. LOL

Another irony about @Elfcrusher's comment---"There's people all over the Cubicle 7 forums saying the same things, wanting more stuff. Gosh, why don't they just give it up already?"

Umm . . . and this is somehow bad for Cubicle 7? That people are asking for more product? If a lot of people are asking for Noldor, Gondor, Rohan, etc., why not just give it to them?

It's like what Malcolm Gladwell said about spaghetti sauce. If all you want is straight "meat primavera" Lord of the Rings, go ahead and serve those customers. But why stop yourself from also serving customers that want mushroom and vegetable sauce Lord of the Rings, garlic herb Lord of the Rings, or sun-dried tomato and basil Lord of the Rings?

More than anything my response was motivated because I just don't get it. What possible business justification could they have over a period of 5 years to not add those cultures to the One Ring product line?

Jumping to 5e to make more money? That I TOTALLY understand.

 

[Reynard]

It's like what Malcolm Gladwell said about spaghetti sauce. If all you want is straight "meat primavera" Lord of the Rings, go ahead and serve those customers. But why stop yourself from also serving customers that want mushroom and vegetable sauce Lord of the Rings, garlic herb Lord of the Rings, or sun-dried tomato and basil Lord of the Rings?

Not only do all of those thing take extra effort (and C7 is a small studio) but there is the artist's preferences and interests. maybe the guys being TOR don't give a flip about Gondor. That is what I meant by "entitled": customers get to choose whether or not to support what an artist makes, not demand what tey should make. Only (true) patrons can do that and being a patron is expensive.