D&D 4E Rambling thoughts on 4e and Lord of the Rings.

[amerigoV]

While I could see the entire escape from goblintown being done as a skill challenge, I don't see 4E doing any better of a job with LotR than any other edition.

D&D was inspired by a myriad of sources - LotR, Lankmar, Conan, Dying Earth, etc. D&D's strength isn't in how well it models LotR, but how well it lets you play any sort of fantasy.

I was almost in complete agreement with you until I came to the highlighted part. In theory, I agree. But over time D&D has become more than a ruleset - its also a genre of its own (which I think is a prime source of the "thats not my D&D" - you are not just changing the numbers you are changing the genre with an edition change). Some groups may bend the system to fit their style, but its very hard to get most D&Ders to run a true Conan or Lankhmar game (all humans, basically no spellcasters) using D&D rules. Running elves/dwarves/halflings/halforcs with a sizable amount of magic is very hard to carve out sometimes.

It can done, but IMO its better just to find a system more suitable to the game (Lankhmar/LoTR) than to been D&D to do it.

 

[amerigoV]

While I could see the entire escape from goblintown being done as a skill challenge, I don't see 4E doing any better of a job with LotR than any other edition.

D&D was inspired by a myriad of sources - LotR, Lankmar, Conan, Dying Earth, etc. D&D's strength isn't in how well it models LotR, but how well it lets you play any sort of fantasy.

I was almost in complete agreement with you until I came to the highlighted part. In theory, I agree. But over time D&D has become more than a ruleset - its also a genre of its own (which I think is a prime source of the "thats not my D&D" - you are not just changing the numbers you are changing the genre with an edition change). Some groups may bend the system to fit their style, but its very hard to get most D&Ders to run a true Conan or Lankhmar game (all humans, basically no spellcasters) using D&D rules. Running elves/dwarves/halflings/halforcs with a sizable amount of magic is very hard to carve out sometimes.

It can done, but IMO its better just to find a system more suitable to the game (Lankhmar/LoTR) than to been D&D to do it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

While I could see the entire escape from goblintown being done as a skill challenge, I don't see 4E doing any better of a job with LotR than any other edition.

The skill challenge doesn't allow 4e to do anything you can't do without them almost as well. What it allows is a new DM who understands them (and WotC's guidance is not good at this) to cope with unfamilliar situations and off the wall PC plans almost as easily as a veteran DM. I've written a few paragraphs today that were missing from the skill challenge guidance and explain how it was meant to be used.

The reason 4e does better than any other edition at LotR is that the mundane/magical split isn't as harsh, and there is no dependence on a cleric. Most of the time in both the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, the company is without Gandalf or anything resembling a caster. Which means no healing. And half the game gone. At least in any editions before 4e. 4e you can keep the high action playstyle and not have a single caster in the party. It makes for an interesting dynamic, but not a gaping hole.

(There's a simple house rule that really makes LotR work better in 4e than it otherwise would - Extended Rests may only be taken at a place of safety - somewhere like Rivendell or Lorien).

D&D was inspired by a myriad of sources - LotR, Lankmar, Conan, Dying Earth, etc. D&D's strength isn't in how well it models LotR, but how well it lets you play any sort of fantasy.

Pre-4e was poor at most of those. Lankmar? Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser? A thief who was an apprentice magician and a match for his barbarian friend with a sword. And no mages or clerics with them at all. 4e: Thief with Ritual Caster. Dying Earth? A setting where great archmages could only memorise half a dozen spells at a time but were generally extremely physically as well as magically capable? Despite D&D Wizards being called Vancian, that really really doesn't fit. 4e: PCs with abilities above and beyond the norm and you pick ones with only a light dusting of spells? Sure.

I think 4e Martial classes can do very well emulating the feel of the LoTR movies. The books, not so much.

Having been playing a 4e Martial Only LotR campaign for a lot of last year, this is accurate And it worked pretty well.

If I were doing it, I'd suggest martial classes only, but allow a few arcane and divine multiclass feats, eg Aragorn might be a TWF Ranger with Multiclass Paladin, Elrond a Fighter with multiclass Wizard. Ritual caster feat lets Elves et al use non-battle magic. Gandalf type wizards as PCs would be a problem, but there is no indication of mortal human Wizard types in the books. In the books Gandalf had an at-will burning hands type power, but that derived from him being an Angel wielding the Ring of Fire.

Pretty much what we did (with a broad-ish definition of Martial to include a Skald and a Hunter Ranger).

LotR has one issue that doesn't work very well with D&D though: narrative combat. It's different in the movies somewhat, but in the books, most "combats" were actually puzzles.

This is a very interesting point And one of the reasons you have much more of a movie feel than a book feel with orthodox 4e-martial in Middle Earth. I think for the puzzle-monsters you'd have to run one off things anyway and no system would really help or hinder that much as they are all one off.

I think this kind of thing would also make a Doctor Who game hard to do. You probably can't beat the Cybermen... unless you've got gold. You probably can't beat the Slitheen... unless you've got vinegar.

The Dr Who RPG has one briliance in it - the Initiative Sequence. Talk, Act, Run, Fight. (I think - the runners might act before the act (i.e. non-combat actions) people).

4e does a few other things right for LotR too. From what I recall, Gimli took a blow to the head and just kept on ticking. Someone spent a healing surge or two after that fight. But Frodo got stabbed by a Morghul-blade and didn't get better. He was basically suffering from a disease track-like curse, and even Aragorn couldn't actually treat the injury. (He could have used the Delay Affliction, which is 6th-level IIRC, non-core, and then let someone in Rivendell use Remove Affliction on him later.)

This. The Morghul Blade is basically the Condition Track in action - and Healing Surges show up in just about any heroic fantasy; most fantasy heroes spend healing surges at some point or other. That said, the condition track is only a trivial advantage for 4e here as the mechanics are basically a useful bolt-on rule that would work in any game and wouldn't take long to explain.

 

[B.T.]

Pre-4e was poor at most of those. Lankmar? Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser? A thief who was an apprentice magician and a match for his barbarian friend with a sword. And no mages or clerics with them at all. 4e: Thief with Ritual Caster. Dying Earth? A setting where great archmages could only memorise half a dozen spells at a time but were generally extremely physically as well as magically capable? Despite D&D Wizards being called Vancian, that really really doesn't fit. 4e: PCs with abilities above and beyond the norm and you pick ones with only a light dusting of spells? Sure.

I'm going to have to disagree here. 3e did this fairly well, as long as you change your assumptions about the characters. "A thief who was an apprentice magician and a match for his barbarian friend with a sword" is a higher-level multiclass character. Rogue 4 / Wizard 2 vs. Barbarian 4, for instance. (Or he might be a bard or spelltheif.)

Naturally, D&D doesn't do fantasy stories well because D&D is a role-playing game, not a storygame. If you want to play a fantasy storygame, I'd recommend Dungeon World. But even if D&D went out of its way to accommodate specific fantasy stories, it would do so poorly because of its various tropes. Classes? No, not unless you create a special class for individual characters. Gandalf is an angel, Aragorn leads an undead army, and Frodo has something a little tougher than the Iron Will feat. There's no way to represent this in D&D because you get people asking, "If Gandalf can kill a Balrog, then why couldn't he just kill all the orcs? Why didn't he just summon the eagles to fly the Ring to Mt. Doom?" There are all sorts of in-universe justifications, but the real answer is simple: because there wouldn't be a story. In any role-playing game, Gandalf could not exist alongside Frodo because anything that would challenge his abilities would destroy Frodo, and anything that would challenge Frodo would be a cakewalk for him.

If you're playing a storygame, you can have all this. Gandalf doesn't use his powers because he doesn't want to use up his Fate points, and Frodo has the Indomitable Will trait, and Aragorn has Isildur's Heir background.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm going to have to disagree here. 3e did this fairly well, as long as you change your assumptions about the characters. "A thief who was an apprentice magician and a match for his barbarian friend with a sword" is a higher-level multiclass character. Rogue 4 / Wizard 2 vs. Barbarian 4, for instance. (Or he might be a bard or spelltheif.)

Given that the Grey Mouser almost never uses magic from day to day, merely for special occasions I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

Naturally, D&D doesn't do fantasy stories well because D&D is a role-playing game, not a storygame. If you want to play a fantasy storygame, I'd recommend Dungeon World. But even if D&D went out of its way to accommodate specific fantasy stories, it would do so poorly because of its various tropes. Classes? No, not unless you create a special class for individual characters. Gandalf is an angel, Aragorn leads an undead army, and Frodo has something a little tougher than the Iron Will feat. There's no way to represent this in D&D because you get people asking, "If Gandalf can kill a Balrog, then why couldn't he just kill all the orcs?

Two reasons.

1: You use different techniques for facing a single target than for facing multiple. It's entirely possible to be a superb duellist without AoE booms.
2: You simply aren't using the D&D magic system. Instead you're using something akin the the WFRP 2e magic system (and WFRP 2e is in no sense a storygame). Every time Gandalf casts a spell if he rolls a double (or worse a triple or quadruple) he catches Sauron's eye to a certain extent. Casting spells is both risky and can fail - but the Balrog's very presence gave Gandalf cover.

Why didn't he just summon the eagles to fly the Ring to Mt. Doom?" There are all sorts of in-universe justifications, but the real answer is simple: because there wouldn't be a story.

Both.

In any role-playing game, Gandalf could not exist alongside Frodo because anything that would challenge his abilities would destroy Frodo, and anything that would challenge Frodo would be a cakewalk for him.

Gandalf could not exist in the same party as Frodo. Granted. But re-read Lord of the Rings. How long do they actually spend in the same party? Rivendell to Moria. And what's going on there according to the DM of the rings is we don't have one party, we have two.

The first party is the Hobbits. They all started at L1 (and are probably L3 by the end of Moria.) The second party is Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas/Boromir. And in DM of the Rings, each player has two characters - one in each party. Gandalf is the DMPC/exposition device and therefore has as little of the spotlight as possible and is taken out by a convenient plot mechanic (the Balrog). Work on the basis that it's two parties and a DMPC travelling together for a short distance and the whole thing works. And why Frodo carried the ring? Not just because he (and Sam) have both magic resistance and some pretty massive will saves, but because Frodo is the stealthiest member of the party. They gave the plot device to the person who both has the highest magic resistance and the highest stealth. (Pippin might have a higher stealth than Frodo but he has nothing like Frodo's will). Or: Plot device.

The undead army was an obvious quest reward tied to one PC (when they were down to three players) - I see nothing that requires a storygame for this.

If you're playing a storygame, you can have all this. Gandalf doesn't use his powers because he doesn't want to use up his Fate points, and Frodo has the Indomitable Will trait, and Aragorn has Isildur's Heir background.

Not needed. Now a storygame would make things easier. But once you have the idea that you need to get the ring to the volcano by stealth, everything else falls into place. With sidequests.

 

[pemerton]

Following up on [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s post: I would probably model Aragorn as a WIS-based Warlord (from MP2, I think) with the Paladin multi-class feat that gives the 1x/day Virtue's Touch (ie condition removal - "the hands of the king"). In a play environment of limited extended rests (per [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] upthread) that will have the right sort of feel.

Ideally, your trained skills need to be Endurance, Stealth, Nature, Perception, History (4 class + human bonus). Without my PHB to hand I'm not sure how much that requires tweaking your Warlord with some background/feat supplementation. Your paladin multi-class also gives you Religion, which is how you know that the Nazgul (undead) are vulnerable to fire!