LOTR from a gamer's perspective

GwydapLlew said:
Molonel, the problem with your position is that anything posted contradicting the Eagle Debate is shot down by you without consideration.

If someone mentions anti-air defenses (whether archers or catapults), you mention range - disregarding that the Eagles have to land to drop off their cargo.

If somone mentions Sauron's air units, you state that they are limited in scopre and incapable of handling Eagles - disregarding that there are no hard numbers (that I can find) on the Giant Eagles, just as there are no hard numbers on the Fell Beasts.

If someone mentions Sauron acting directly against an incoming Eagle, you state that the reaction time would be too slow - disregarding that we have almost no information on Sauron's powers in Mordor during the ending of the Third Age.

Well, I'm of the opinion that those reasons don't have much value when examined with a bit of a critical eye; Sauron could have flocks of dragons ready to intercept any eagle, but it's much reasonable to limit ourselves to what the books say, and I infer from the books that the eagles were a strong contender to whatever Sauron could throw at them, and that a surprise strike would have had a lot more chances of success than the conventional one. I don't see the harm in having a small plot hole, specially if it's a neccesary plot hole; with the eagle plan there would be no book, success or no success.

To be fair however, I see reasons for the "not eagle" option. In the council, it's clear that the info they have on Mordor and Sauron is nil; notice that Sauron spent a lot of time raising the nazgul's fell beasts, and they took everyone by complete surprise. It doesn't matter if Sauron can or cannot actually kill an eagle, the fact is that it's very reasonable to think that he can and thus not to risk an aerial assault and instead to go for the conventional plan.

In other words, the eagle option looks much more reasonable after reading the book.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Or maybe, just maybe, Gandalf could have spent, say, 58 years instead of 60, researching the ring, and done a bit of groundwork prepping our Halfling ninjas to get into Mordor. :)
 

Hussar said:
Or maybe, just maybe, Gandalf could have spent, say, 58 years instead of 60, researching the ring, and done a bit of groundwork prepping our Halfling ninjas to get into Mordor. :)

The Deadly Hobbit Viper Assasination Squad?
 

The one thing I did hate, is that no one ever said anything to Legolas about his people leaving the world and not helping...

*sigh*

No one ever says anything to Men about their stupid habit of up and dying either. I can see it now, Elrond turns to the men and says, "Just when Middle Earth needs you, you are going to grow old, die, and flee outside the walls of the world. What a goldbricker. What a lazy selfish peice of trash you are. Show some concern for a change."

no one ever gave Elrond about not killing the king in the volcano that day, not even Gandalf.

So, you are suggesting that Elrond should have killed his best friend's son and taken the ring from him? Yeah, that would have worked really well. "Give me the ring, Isildur.... It's precious to me. It's my birthday." *gollum*

Sheesh, folks. If you don't get it, its a freakin' major artifact. It's more powerful (relatively) than most D&D gods. You don't mess with it.
 
Last edited:


molonel said:
I'll bet you sat that to all the sexy gamers.
just the delusional ones. :)


You're proving my point. Played by a gamer, there is no reason to believe he'd ever actually lose a fight like that.

His build is certainly possible in a supers game. He's just at the higher end of the scale.
If Batman is built to the same point system as Superman, then Im sure he'd have Kryptonite Bat Spray or some ancient martial art that lets you use the enemies strength against them, thus making Superman's strength a liability.

But, since I never said Batman could beat Superman, I'm not sure how far I should argue the strawman.


Well, you've definitely never played a supers game.
I'll have to tell all the GM's that ran me through such games that they were failures then. It will hurt them to shatter their reality, but since you've made your decree, it must be done.
 

How many PCs would have tried Intimidate vs Galadriel instead of Diplomacy, and been tossed back to the orcs?

Sam's "Roleplaying" player would probably have traded the One Ring to Galadriel for elven flatbread anyway. "It's in character! I'm fat and eat a lot!"
 

Celebrim said:
So, you are suggesting that Elrond should have killed his best friend's son and taken the ring from him? Yeah, that would have worked really well. "Give me the ring, Isildur.... It's precious to me. It's my birthday." *gollum*

Not just his best friend's son, but Elrond's own great-great-great-nephew (I missed a few greats in there, but the point stands). Isildur was descended from Elros, Elrond's own brother.

Given that one of the biggest crimes in elven history was the Kinslaying, I'm thinking Elrond didn't want to add a new version of that to his karmic tally sheet.
 

Vocenoctum said:
How many PCs would have tried Intimidate vs Galadriel instead of Diplomacy, and been tossed back to the orcs?

More to the point, how many would have tried to seduce the "hot elf chick" and spent much of the session making lame sexual references whenever she tried to be all mysterious and prophetic?
 

molonel said:
The reason it annoys purists is because it's too simple, not dramatic enough and actually makes sense.

True, but that's also the reason it would annoy DM's.

Scry-buff-teleport?! Aw hell naw, not against *my* near-invincible army of darkness and evil. You're going to have to work for your victory, you would-be heroes...:)

And Frodo's player would be complaining that Sam is pretty damn useless as a Cohort. There's a REASON that halfling took Leadership, and it wasn't to just have a first level commoner as a love interest.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top