What's the Best ERA for Running a Game Set in Middle-earth?

[RobShanti]

With a debt of gratitude to all those who have responded (and continue to do so) in my other thread, about the best gaming system for LotR, I would now like to hear folks' opinions on what the best ERA is to run a game set in Middle-earth. The First Age? The Second? The Third? The Fourth? Some other?* And why would you recommend this period?

*(As an amusing anecdote, I once ran a d20 Modern game set in Tolkien's Seventh Age -- a modern urban fantasy game set in Tolkien's mythos. It was fun.)

 

[S'mon]

The world of 'The Hobbit' seems very gameable, so I'll say Third Age.

 

[Mark CMG]

This might depend more on how much influence your players will want over the outcome of the campaign. I've played in ME games where no matter what the players do, the history as written will roll on over them. I've played in others where the setting existed from the outset with the GM making it clear that from that point onward, whatever the players do can change what Tolkien wrote. Some players do not mind the first and others will prefer the latter. Player expectations might steer you toward lesser known ERAs or might require an ERA with which the players are all very familiar.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I guess a lot depends on what you want to do with the game. Big damn heroes? Sandboxy kingdom building? Little people trying to push back against the shadow in the wilderness? Narrative goodness?

*(As an amusing anecdote, I once ran a d20 Modern game set in Tolkien's Seventh Age -- a modern urban fantasy game set in Tolkien's mythos. It was fun.)

That sounds awesome. How did you avoid turning the setting into a shadowrunny dystopia?

 

[Razjah]

I think the Third Age after The Hobbit but before Lord of the Rings works very well. There is an enemy growing, the Wilderlands to civilize, beornings, orcs, spiders, and lots of other things that can cause problems for the party to run into.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

4th Age after LotR if you want a wide open canvas to paint on.

Between Hobbit and LotR if you want something narrow, familiar, and well defined.

3d Age pre-Hobbit if you want something more grim, but the "ending" remains relatively fixed.

I'd prefer the last, personally ... Rangers against Angmar, for example, or the dwarf wars at Moria after the fall of Erebor.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

As an amusing anecdote, I once ran a d20 Modern game set in Tolkien's Seventh Age -- a modern urban fantasy game set in Tolkien's mythos. It was fun.

I want to see the game notes for that.

 

[Orius]

It's say either during the Third or Fourth Ages. Third Age has a lot of areas with adventure potential, and Tolkien fleshed out a good deal of the background in the Appendices (and there's probably more info to be had in the final volume of the History of Middle-earth). Fourth Age has the advantage of being after the books, where the group has a lot more freedom to actually shape things. In any case, First and Second Ages would both be rather poor choices, because you've got evil god-like beings ruling over the entire setting, who would more than likely crush the PCs before long.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I recommend the Fourth Age. There are quite a few solid reasons to do so, but it's a lot of material. I hope it's OK to mention a blog post where I dusted off that material.

 

[RobShanti]

This might depend more on how much influence your players will want over the outcome of the campaign.

Yes, very good point, Mark, I should have specified in my OP. As dd.stevenson put it in the post immediately following yours (and with a nod to Mal Renolds), I'd like the PCs to be the Big Damn Heroes, always with some "narrative goodness." I'm not interested in "sandboxy kingdom building" though the idea of "little people trying to push back against the shadow in the wilderness" has a good bit of appeal too.

To S'mon and Razjah, who recommended the Third Age, my chief concern is how the established events of Tolkien's Legendarium may limit the PCs (unless I resort to letting the PCs change canon, which will mean more work for me and fewer touchstones for everyone)...although:

3d Age pre-Hobbit if you want something more grim, but the "ending" remains relatively fixed.
I'd prefer th[is], personally ... Rangers against Angmar, for example, or the dwarf wars at Moria after the fall of Erebor.

I must admit, Olgar, you do make the era sound appealing here.

...First and Second Ages would both be rather poor choices, because you've got evil god-like beings ruling over the entire setting, who would more than likely crush the PCs before long.

Very good point, Orlus, and one I hadn't considered. Yeah, I'm not so sure I want my PCs to feel like little fish in a big pond.

I want to see the game notes for [RobShanti's d20 Modern urban fantasy game set in Tolkien's 7th Age].

I will dig them up this afternoon and post them in a dedicated thread to these forums for your amusement, Achan.

That [d20 Modern game] sounds awesome. How did you avoid turning the setting into a shadowrunny dystopia?

Well, I didn't...except to the extent that the dystopia was a present-time dystopia, rather than a futuristic one. The game was to culminate with the Dagor Dathorath, the End of Days. Unfortunately, we never got to finish it.

I recommend the Fourth Age. There are quite a few solid reasons to do so, but it's a lot of material. I hope it's OK to mention a blog post where I dusted off that material.

HOLY CRAP! Not only is it okay, Colonel, your blog post sealed the deal for me. I think I will go with a Fourth Age game, and, if YOU don't mind, use your blog post as my campaign outline! That was AWESOME. Thank you for writing that!