Elves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxjenius

Do you see Rune-keepers parrying with their rune-stones? No. All combat is just one big abstraction.

---

But nonetheless they are parrying. It's one big clunky abstraction where Turbine are having to fiddle things. Trying to RP along literally with that would mean taking that sort of crude hack at face value and having to explain it in RP terms. Some games have mechanics that you can take at face value in RP; this one doesn't.

Quote:

---

And so?

---

Meaning that you would not be RPing so much as having to excuse the game mechanics.

Quote:

---

"Obvious 'X' is obvious" is even worse. You're saying it's obvious simply because you think it's obvious. "Obvious" is often what people say in an argument when they have nothing substantive to say. A weak, transparent rhetorical device.

---

Obvious evasion is obvious :p

If you kept saying 'I doubt I could explain it to you' or some such then it would become very evident that you were having to evade answering.

Quote:

---

No explanation needed. And I see you're still evading the Lore-master and Minstrel issues. That's the problem you have. Simply for matters of personal preference, which you couch in "lore," you accept some lore-breaking nonsense and reject others. I don't find Rune-keepers terribly lore-friendly, but if we're gonna have the game topped off with loads of other lore-breaking nonsense, the better course is to simply go with the flow and accept that LotRO is Turbine's Middle-earth, not Tolkien's. That's the way I deal with lurkers without mentally giggling every time I see one.

---

I didn't see you 'going with the flow' at all for lurkers on that other thread, you got really wound up when I said the idea behind the things wasn't actually all that bad and they just look goofy. And even when the general 'flow' is raw sewage lore-wise, the RK still stands out as that one huge glistening &&&& you can't help but notice as it goes floating by. That class was designed to draw attention to itself.

Quote:

---

So again, it's really not your positions on X and Y and how lore-friendly or lore-breaking they are I take issue with, it's your cherry-picking rationalizations.

---

No, it's just your unwillingness to accept that I do generally go with the flow but that I point out where I think Turbine have gone too far even allowing for it being their Middle-earth rather than Tolkien's. Apparently I'm not allowed to do that, for some reason. Sorry, but I don't have to follow your approach just because you think I should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

But nonetheless they are parrying. It's one big clunky abstraction where Turbine are having to fiddle things. Trying to RP along literally with that would mean taking that sort of crude hack at face value and having to explain it in RP terms. Some games have mechanics that you can take at face value in RP; this one doesn't.

---

They're only "parrying" because Turbine used the word "parry" as a skill/stat. If you can't see it happening, it doesn't matter what the game calls it. They could have called it "attack effectiveness reduction." Since you can't see it happening, there's no need for RP justification.

Quote:

---

Meaning that you would not be RPing so much as having to excuse the game mechanics.

---

No, that would be RPing the game as it comes. A good RPer RPs with what he or she is given and does not have to resort to meta-gaming. Or to pretending something does not exist in the game world or game rules.

Quote:

---

Obvious evasion is obvious :p

---

If anyone's shown us that, it's you.

Quote:

---

If you kept saying 'I doubt I could explain it to you' or some such then it would become very evident that you were having to evade answering.

---

If you told me "I have a PhD in physics and I've been working on some very esoteric sub-atomic particle research" and then said "I doubt I could explain it to you," that's a legitimate answer because my physics knowledge is rather limited. Therefore, such an answer is far from being a cop out.

Quote:

---

I didn't see you 'going with the flow' at all for lurkers on that other thread, you got really wound up when I said the idea behind the things wasn't actually all that bad and they just look goofy. And even when the general 'flow' is raw sewage lore-wise, the RK still stands out as that one huge glistening &&&& you can't help but notice as it goes floating by. That class was designed to draw attention to itself.

---

What do forum discussions have to do with playing the game? Answer: nothing. I go with the flow in the game. On the forums, I'll discuss whatever with whomever.

You have a giant hang-up about Rune-keepers. Does it bother you in-game? In-game, every time I see a lurker, I don't fume and swear at the game. I sigh and go along with it.

Quote:

---

No, it's just your unwillingness to accept that I do generally go with the flow but that I point out where I think Turbine have gone too far even allowing for it being their Middle-earth rather than Tolkien's. Apparently I'm not allowed to do that, for some reason. Sorry, but I don't have to follow your approach just because you think I should.

---

I don't think you should do anything. You can work yourself into a frenzy about Rune-keepers for all I care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

What sort of answer do you want? It should be obvious how people's actions can affect other players on an RP server. There's a limit to how much you can ignore.

---

The only limits to how much one can ignore are set by that person alone. No one else. So no, there are no limits other than what one chooses to set themselves regarding how much one can ignore.

Another character's actions, other than forced emotes, can be ignored just as well as that character.

Given that, I repeat: What does it matter to you how anyone RPs? What possible effect might it have on your gaming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

---NPCs don't really care who or what you are. ---

---

Better not swear about something you haven't yet witnessed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

---So go on, tell me how game mechanics that are essentially anti-RP can possibly encourage RP 'at all levels'.---

---

Let me quote myself, with added emphasis for clarity:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daeross

Not to even mention the highly subjective "quality of RPing"... all levels of which are allowed, if not outright encouraged by the game and the people behind it---

---

I stated that it was allowed; you came up with the encouragement demand.
We're allowed to ride around practically anywhere we want to in the open world content; we're not encouraged to go to places several levels above us.
We're allowed to RP whatever and wherever and however we want to; we're not encouraged to RP a giant in the Misties.

But just to humour you...
We have several free locations ideal for RP events; we have cosmetics; we have a chance of building, however rudimentary, family; we have emotes. We have housing. We have 'useless' flowers.
We have all that 'fluff' you seem to want to ignore. But all that 'fluff' is there to encourage RPing. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have it.
The best RP happens when one ignores all the pesky things that would get in its way, and enjoys the 'fluff' to its full potential.

However, the game mechanics... are anti-RP? How?
The best RPers are those who can take the very mechanics and use them as part of the character they RP.

And now for your questions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Oh, so you think that there's nothing odd about game mechanics that allow a hobbit to tank just as well as anybody else?

---

No, I don't. Tanks are meant to make themselves the target, make themselves seem to be the biggest threat. If the others of a group let the tank yell and shine and make themselves appear bigger than they might physically be... why not a hobbit tank?
I might be willing to believe that more easily than an elven one.

Granted, that's because I've seen cats scare away critters twice or thrice their own size... not to even mention Sam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

---You can tell when game mechanics are overly abstracted when they routinely yield silly results (like being able to kill things just by shouting at them, for example)---

---

You're stating opinion as fact again...
I'm sorry... but really?
Human voices can hit a pitch that shatters glass.
We don't know nearly enough about elven, hobbit or dwarven voices to say what one realistically could or could not do with them. Or about the biology of at least half the things we can attack in this game, how susceptible they are to whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Your opinion seems to be ignoring the demonstrable fact that such odd results exist as artifacts of the 'morale' system.---

---

Sorry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxjenius

---So again, it's really not your positions on X and Y and how lore-friendly or lore-breaking they are I take issue with, it's your cherry-picking rationalizations.

---

Sad, but true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxjenius

They're only "parrying" because Turbine used the word "parry" as a skill/stat. If you can't see it happening, it doesn't matter what the game calls it. They could have called it "attack effectiveness reduction." Since you can't see it happening, there's no need for RP justification.

---

You might as well call it what it is, then, which is FAIL. You're just making excuses: if you're trying to pretend it's some unknown something else which nobody else gets then that'd be even more of a fiddle.

Quote:

---

No, that would be RPing the game as it comes. A good RPer RPs with what he or she is given and does not have to resort to meta-gaming. Or to pretending something does not exist in the game world or game rules.

---

And if the skill is an example of metagaming itself, like HiPS? What then - would you pretend that the Burglar's disappeared up his own backside, or what?

Quote:

---

If you told me "I have a PhD in physics and I've been working on some very esoteric sub-atomic particle research" and then said "I doubt I could explain it to you," that's a legitimate answer because my physics knowledge is rather limited. Therefore, such an answer is far from being a cop out.

---

That's going to an extreme case, like "if it were as esoteric as the most esoteric thing you can think of". The point remains that if you did that all the time then it'd get old, fast.

Quote:

---

What do forum discussions have to do with playing the game? Answer: nothing. I go with the flow in the game. On the forums, I'll discuss whatever with whomever.

You have a giant hang-up about Rune-keepers. Does it bother you in-game? In-game, every time I see a lurker, I don't fume and swear at the game. I sigh and go along with it.

---

Who says anyone fumes and swears? That doesn't change a damn thing about what I said, particularly as player-characters are everywhere, lurkers aren't, and Turbine really did design the RK to stand out (so much so when they first came out, that they had to nerf the volume of the sound effects - particularly the zapping noise - because so many people complained). And sorry, after all the fuss you made about lurkers on that other thread, this pose you're now striking just isn't credible. And all because I said that the story behind them wasn't so bad, not that they didn't look goofy. You've been having a go at me about it ever since, too.

Quote:

---

I don't think you should do anything. You can work yourself into a frenzy about Rune-keepers for all I care.

---

So why are you making such a point of saying how you supposedly behave? I hold that Turbine go too far, sometimes, and come up contrived or otherwise RP-hostile gameplay as they endeavour to keep Joe Gamer happy at Joe RPer's expense. What on earth is supposed to be so wrong with that?

Always going with the flow would mean having to accept that, for example, a hobbit could 'really' go toe-to-toe with a Balrog and get away with it. That sort of junk fantasy is just not credible in RP; most people have the sense to avoid all mention of it. Stuff like that is in the game to bolster Joe Gamer's impression that his character is ridiculously powerful, and isn't RP-worthy even allowing for it being a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

You might as well call it what it is, then, which is FAIL.

---

I see we've reach the limits of your rhetorical skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxjenius

I see we've reach the limits of your rhetorical skills.

---

Good excuse for ignoring absolutely everything else I said, too, huh? :p

Quote:

---

Always going with the flow would mean having to accept that, for example, a hobbit could 'really' go toe-to-toe with a Balrog and get away with it. That sort of junk fantasy is just not credible in RP; most people have the sense to avoid all mention of it. Stuff like that is in the game to bolster Joe Gamer's impression that his character is ridiculously powerful, and isn't RP-worthy even allowing for it being a game.

---

Let's be straightforward here: a game that exists for RP first, gameplay second, is not generally an MMO. It's not difficult to see what sort of game you want:

Hobbits stay in the Shire (excepting a very very small minority)
Elves are enormously better than any other race
There is no access to quick-healing, or any form of direct magic
Combat is entirely realistic - skills with outlandish moves or animations, let alone special effects are largely out
Death is permanent

Now that seems to me to be a very particular kind of game, and not one I've ever seen in a mainstream MMO. If by the way you know of one, please let me know so I can sign up! I've enjoyed playing on NWN persistent worlds where the rules and gameplay weren't too far from these standards - but I'll be perfectly honest, none of them had anything like the number of subscribers/paying customers that LotRO has, so we very often had to just put up with gameplay flaws, because there wasn't a paid team to cover them, let alone implement new content on a regular basis.

Thing is though - we can take almost all of these features, and find them in the RP that goes on in LotRO. Not the gameplay - but one only has to look at how much of the Hobbit RP is centred on the Shire, and occasionally Bree, or the way in which Elves are RPd as possessing far more than their gameplay allows. Likewise, I've been in RP campaigns where level 65 characters RPd taking near-mortal damage from a lvl20 mob, and certainly where RPers held back on the flashy "single-shot" effects (most used only auto-attack). Finally, there's been RPers who've planned out persistent death for characters, or departing for Valinor etc.

So from where I'm sitting, that's an awful lot of voluntary realism. Sure, there are "Brelves" and the usual sighing assassins in the Prancing Pony, but there are griefers and people who - gasp - never RP at all, even on RP servers. Doesn't stop those of us who want more "realistic" or "lore-appropriate" RP from enjoying ourselves. I've known kins who RP regularly in Neo-Khuzdul or Sindarin (and even one that uses Quenyan fairly regularly). There's no way the game is particularly set up for that - you have to put a fair bit of work into getting accents into speech for instance (mostly using cut and paste) - but it happens because people are imaginative, and grateful.

More than that - there is, quite simply, no better place for LotR RPers to come together in an online environment. That's the final big advantage of LotRO: there are a lot of nutters like me!

Sure there are things that annoy me, people whose grasp of lore is lacking, and griefers - but if these things get to me that much, I just switch off and read the Silmarillion. LotRO wasn't made just for RP - it has a lot going for RP, but there are other people as well.

Finally had time to locate/post this...
Here's something I think might be a good idea to bear in mind, regarding roleplaying...

Turbine Official Roleplaying Rules and Policy

"To encourage a friendly and cooperative environment within Turbine’s Roleplay-supported servers, players should be tolerant of the roleplaying choices of others. Since roleplaying may mean different levels of involvement and immersion to different players, you may not disparage, harass, abuse, or threaten players for their choice of roleplaying. You may not use roleplaying as a reason for disparaging, harassing, abusing, or threatening other players for any reason."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

Let's be straightforward here: a game that exists for RP first, gameplay second, is not generally an MMO. It's not difficult to see what sort of game you want:

Hobbits stay in the Shire (excepting a very very small minority)
Elves are enormously better than any other race
There is no access to quick-healing, or any form of direct magic
Combat is entirely realistic - skills with outlandish moves or animations, let alone special effects are largely out
Death is permanent

---

Nope, that would be "let's misrepresent what Radhruin is saying here". I mention that it's a bit much (a lot much, really) to take at face value that a hobbit could go toe-to-toe with a Balrog, and you immediately bring up the old chestnut about hobbits staying in the Shire? I neither said nor implied anything of the sort, or even close. It's simply the case that the game mechanics are overly abstracted and aren't designed with RP in mind, so LOTRO's hobbits can do truly ridiculous things even by FRPG standards. (This is where the hobbit fanclub normally turn up and scream at me for saying such things, but it's true).

There's a long way between thinking RP could do with reflecting a more believable level of heroism (rather than the sort of silly superheroism that Joe Gamer seems to prefer) and thinking that hobbits should stick to the Shire (etc.). Is that clear, now?

Quote:

---

Nope, that would be "let's misrepresent what Radhruin is saying here". I mention that it's a bit much (a lot much, really) to take at face value that a hobbit could go toe-to-toe with a Balrog, and you immediately bring up the old chestnut about hobbits staying in the Shire?

---

You slightly misrepresent what I wrote - which was that the majority of Hobbits stay in the Shire - which I wouldn't have thought was a controversial position when one is arguing, as you have, from a relatively "strict" lore perspective.

There isn't really any likelihood that a licensed game of the Lord of the Rings is not going to have a Balrog directly involved at some point - and a guardian only goes toe-to-toe with it, because that's its class role. They don't stand alone - they draw its attention whilst the eleven other members of their team aid them. Is it that you object to a Hobbit Guardian doing so? In which case, it's true - Turbine could have pursued a different development route where race was more important. But it's difficult to see how that would have avoided the Hobbits-stay-at-home syndrome: a substantially frailer character who is deliberately unable to meet certain enemies is not going to be an intuitive choice.

Quote:

---

There's a long way between thinking RP could do with reflecting a more believable level of heroism (rather than the sort of silly superheroism that Joe Gamer seems to prefer) and thinking that hobbits should stick to the Shire (etc.). Is that clear, now?

---

Sure, it's clear, but how does one actually go about doing this with an MMO? The basic line of your argument is that "LotRO doesn't always meet an RPer's objectives". Well, no it doesn't. But that's because it's not an online RP game masquerading as an MMO, it's an MMO with features to support RP. And I don't honestly see a way around that - the types of game that prioritize RP and realism are very rarely workable as an MMO, and have a limited audience - which tends to preclude their commercial development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

You slightly misrepresent what I wrote - which was that the majority of Hobbits stay in the Shire - which I wouldn't have thought was a controversial position when one is arguing, as you have, from a relatively "strict" lore perspective.

---

It's not strict lore I'm arguing from, just something that would involve rather less outright BS. Again, it's not an either/or question, either the game as it is or strict lore, with no choices in between.

Quote:

---

There isn't really any likelihood that a licensed game of the Lord of the Rings is not going to have a Balrog directly involved at some point - and a guardian only goes toe-to-toe with it, because that's its class role. They don't stand alone - they draw its attention whilst the eleven other members of their team aid them. Is it that you object to a Hobbit Guardian doing so? In which case, it's true - Turbine could have pursued a different development route where race was more important. But it's difficult to see how that would have avoided the Hobbits-stay-at-home syndrome: a substantially frailer character who is deliberately unable to meet certain enemies is not going to be an intuitive choice.

---

They could simply have avoided the ridiculous idea of having hobbits being tanks. Damn straight, I object to hobbit Guardians. That does not mean, however, that any more hobbits should have to stay at home.

Quote:

---

Sure, it's clear, but how does one actually go about doing this with an MMO? The basic line of your argument is that "LotRO doesn't always meet an RPer's objectives". Well, no it doesn't. But that's because it's not an online RP game masquerading as an MMO, it's an MMO with features to support RP. And I don't honestly see a way around that - the types of game that prioritize RP and realism are very rarely workable as an MMO, and have a limited audience - which tends to preclude their commercial development.

---

My point is that the balance is off - LOTRO over-favours what Joe Gamer likes in the way of wish-fulfillment (which is why everything is so over-the-top and the role of the player-characters involves so much overblown superheroism) and that is essentially anti-RP because it eschews realism altogether, when even D&D (which is very far from simulationist in its approach) does at least allow for the fact that hobbits are tiny. That's all. I am not talking about going all the way back down to strict 'realism' (in Middle-earth terms) because a game does need more than that, but equally I am saying Turbine have overdone it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

They could simply have avoided the ridiculous idea of having hobbits being tanks. Damn straight, I object to hobbit Guardians.

---

So you would evidently would not have Elves as a playable race, either, since they don't really fit into the larger world well. Your LotRO would be a mighty limited place: no Hobbits but Burglars or Minstrels, no Rune-keepers (although you have yet to justify the flashy magic of Lore-masters and Minstrels in light of your opposition to the same from Rune-keepers), no Elves (presumably, although actually I have no doubt you will resort to your usual rationalization to shoe-horn them in somehow), no Dwarves but Champions and Guardians I imagine.

Your posts consist of nothing but disingenuous rationalizations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxjenius

So you would evidently would not have Elves as a playable race, either, since they don't really fit into the larger world well. Your LotRO would be a mighty limited place: no Hobbits but Burglars or Minstrels, no Rune-keepers (although you have yet to justify the flashy magic of Lore-masters and Minstrels in light of your opposition to the same from Rune-keepers), no Elves (presumably, although actually I have no doubt you will resort to your usual rationalization to shoe-horn them in somehow), no Dwarves but Champions and Guardians I imagine.

Your posts consist of nothing but disingenuous rationalizations.

---

There's nothing disingenuous about pointing out that it is ridiculous even by game standards to have hobbits acting as front-line warriors as capably as anyone else, not limited in any way by the fact they're tiny. That's no 'rationalization', either; that's just a word you keep spamming in vague hope it'll stick.

Did I suggest any reason why hobbits should not be Hunters? No, so don't try and put words in my mouth about what 'my' LOTRO would be like. I don't regard LMs as an unreasonable price to be paid for having a game at all: some sort of caster class was inevitable in a mass-market game, and the LM was originally presented as being as much of a 'real' caster class as we'd ever get as well as having originally been somewhat less flashy than it now is. I do, however, draw the line at the RK as something entirely made up (having not the least shred of provenance in anything Tolkien ever wrote), a casually lightning-flinging mage class. And I have, in fact, pointed out many times in the past that I see Minstrels as a problem too, particularly as regards War-speech and the like and how this disguised caster class is laughably portrayed as non-magical so hobbit minstrels can be justified so again, you're wrong. Playable Elves (and hobbits) are a predictable, all but inevitable consequence in any mainstream game based on LOTR so that is a simple (if unfortunate) fact I am forced to acknowledge, rather than any sort of rationalization. As for what classes Dwarves might be, again you've gone and left out Hunters for no reason. Kindly stick to what I actually say rather than what you 'imagine'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

--- the RK as something entirely made up (having not the least shred of provenance in anything Tolkien ever wrote)---

---

Once again... that's opinion. Repeating it doesn't make it fact. No matter how many or how strong words it's laden with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

---Kindly stick to what I actually say rather than what you 'imagine'.

---

Let's all just kindly do as it's preached, and not as it's done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daeross

Once again... that's opinion. Repeating it doesn't make it fact. No matter how many or how strong words it's laden with.

---

An opinion that's withstood everything the pro-RK camp have ever tried to throw at it, not least because in a rare moment of candour Jeff Steefel openly admitted that the RK wasn't based on lore. And that was before MoM even came out:

"We're slowly trying new things; the addition of the Rune-Keeper in Moria, a straightforward magic using class, is a pretty big step in that respect. It's not something that a pure Tolkien lore person would accept, it just couldn't exist in Middle-Earth. On the other hand, this is an RPG, it must exist."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-lord-of-the-rings-online-mines-of-moria-interview

Note the date: 1st September 2008. And the pro-RK crowd have been in denial ever since.

Quote:

---

Let's all just kindly do as it's preached, and not as it's done?

---

If you're going to try to defend how maxjenius was brazenly putting words in my mouth then you're as bad as he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

An opinion that's withstood everything the pro-RK camp have ever tried to throw at it---

---

It's easy to hold onto an opinion if one ignores everything that disagrees with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

--- "We're slowly trying new things; the addition of the Rune-Keeper in Moria, a straightforward magic using class, is a pretty big step in that respect. It's not something that a pure Tolkien lore person would accept, it just couldn't exist in Middle-Earth. On the other hand, this is an RPG, it must exist."

---

A shared opinion doesn't make it a fact, either. If there is nothing else but that single quote, then it remains a fact that Turbine's stand is "Go, RK", and that was just the opinion of Jeffrey Steefel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

If you're going to try to defend how maxjenius was brazenly putting words in my mouth then you're as bad as he is.

---

I don't need to put words into your mouth; you're quite able to do that yourself.
I am, however, wondering about people who do not practice what they preach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daeross

It's easy to hold onto an opinion if one ignores everything that disagrees with it.

---

Which is exactly what the pro-RK camp having been doing for the last four years. It all seems to come down to some last shred of denial that refuses to acknowledge that Turbine might do that, which is irrational given that Jeff Steefel said that was what they did.

Quote:

---

A shared opinion doesn't make it a fact, either. If there is nothing else but that single quote, then it remains a fact that Turbine's stand is "Go, RK", and that was just the opinion of Jeffrey Steefel.

---

There is far, far more than just that one quote but I am not going to rehash the whole damn argument yet again; I've lost count of how many times this has come up in the last four years. If, on the other hand, you feel like demonstrating exactly why you think Jeff Steefel was wrong then go right ahead; burden of proof is very much on you, there. To save time, however, I can assure you that whatever you try to come up with will get pulled to pieces, because that's what always happens.

Let me remind you that Jeff Steefel was the then Executive Producer. They'd had the same sort of debate in-house, and not all of the devs were keen on the idea. The fact that Turbine included the RK doesn't contradict the simple truth that they made the whole thing up out of whole cloth to plug a perceived gap in the class line-up, one which needed to be filled for marketing reasons (because too many people expected a mage class in this sort of game for Turbine to just ignore them). But of course, the pro-RK camp think they know better than everybody else, including the guys who made the game.

Quote:

---

I don't need to put words into your mouth; you're quite able to do that yourself.
I am, however, wondering about people who do not practice what they preach.

---

If you've got something specific to say, then come out and say it.

I've read through the messages in this thread and I thought I'd come out with my own RP ideas (seeing as that was basically what this thread was to be about, right? ^_^'')

Anyways, I love to RP (I also play on the Laurelin server for that purpose) but in my opinion the greatest challenge in RP is to stay true to the world that I roleplay in. In this case that means (for me) that even though I play a Burglar Hobbit girl, I only play with the female hobbit part when I RP - Therefor I don't RP when I'm out and about on quests (not even when I'm in a party) as it seems odd in my eyes to roleplay a female hobbit who runs around with a sword and a mace and wacks orcs in the Lone-Lands (for an example). In the Lord of the Rings world that I have pictured in my head, that wouldn't happen.

I only RP with her when I'm in a town somewhere, and there I generally tend to RP her as someone who's just curious (like the nosy hobbits in the game). In an RP I would focus ore on her curiousness and her love for cooking, than I'd focus on her fighting - I wouldn't put her with a group of men who discussed their recent battles - At least ot directly. She'd just be listening from a distance (and I would perhaps write what she thinks of the things she hears).

On the other hand, if I want "action RP" so to speak, where I RP during quests as well, I generally tend to do so on my Elven Hunter - Although it is also a female. With her though, I just think of Arwen from the LOTRO movie and her defence of Frodo at the riverbend near Rivendell - And that justifies it (in MY head)...

What I'm saying is, that if I were to play a rune-keeper char. (and use it in an RP) I'd focus more on the story I'm RPing in, than on what class my character actually is :-)

I can see how that would be a problem if I were to RP in battle situations though ^_^''

Athelia - thanks for that timely intervention.

I generally follow a similar playstyle (and I have a female Hobbit burglar too!). I've started trying to think about my RK in game from time to time. As I said before, I largely RP him away from combat, or as a fairly mundane healer. One of my kinmates recently reminded us of a passage in the Hobbit regarding spells woven by Thorin and his company to protect the treasure of the Trolls - and it's got me thinking.

I tend to find the really "flashy" magic a little off-putting - although that goes for Minstrels calling down pillars of light, and Loremasters' ability to summon an ent - an image of an ent?? does anyone know what it is? - to smash their enemies. On the other hand, I love the feel of all the caster classes in LotRO, both in terms of what they evoke and how they play. It must be said though, I find certain combinations more appealing than others. I have two minstrels, but whilst the "magic" of Minstrels fits well with my Elf minstrel, my Hobbit minstrel is just a wandering traveller in my head, without much more than his wits and a battered flute to do a bit of mundane distraction and charming. My RK is a dwarf - and there is *something* there about magic which feels like it might be worked into a lore-sensitive (even if not a lore-strict) bit of RP. I think it's more to do with the ostentatious nature of magic as much as it is the flashy effects.

The best magic for LotRO is that of the "everyday". Elves who make magical artefacts, dwarves who weave spells to protect their treasure. These are both canonical examples. There's quite a bit of "magic" in Middle Earth - what there isn't so much of is "magic classes" beyond the Istari. So I still struggle to think how I could RP being a RK but there is a place in RP for a dwarf who knows some handy spells to stop ale from spoiling, or a charm against orcish thieves.

(Thread-derailing discussion moved to more suitable channels, perhaps.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

---The best magic for LotRO is that of the "everyday". Elves who make magical artefacts, dwarves who weave spells to protect their treasure. These are both canonical examples. There's quite a bit of "magic" in Middle Earth - what there isn't so much of is "magic classes" beyond the Istari. So I still struggle to think how I could RP being a RK but there is a place in RP for a dwarf who knows some handy spells to stop ale from spoiling, or a charm against orcish thieves.

---

Off the top of my head, here's a couple of quotes to consider regarding RK's 'place' in Middle-earth:

"runes of power on his door"
-Gimli's song regarding Durin's Days and Khazad-dûm of old, in The Fellowship of the Ring

"I had to use a word of Command.-"
-Gandalf, after Chamber of Mazarbul, in The Fellowship of the Ring

"Then the Black Captain rose in his stirrups and cried aloud in a dreadful voice, speaking in some forgotten tongue words of power and terror to rend both heart and stone. ---
--- As if stricken by some blasting spell (the Gate of Gondor) burst asunder: there was a flash of searing lightning, and the doors tumbled in riven fragments to the ground."
-The Return of the King, 'The Siege of Gondor'
(Black Captain = the Lord of the Nazgûl)

"she commanded him to sleep, saying---"
-Lúthien, Silmarillion

"--The helm of Hador was given to Thingol's hands, that helm made of grey steel adorned with gold; on it were graven runes of victory.---"
-About the Dragon-helm of Dor-lómin
(Related: "A power was in it that guarded any who wore it from wound or death, for the sword that hewed it was broken, and the dart that smote it sprang aside.")

Not to even mention Andúril and many other instances in which words and runes (term used by Tolkien to refer to any alphabets) are mentioned to have an effect, have power...
Or the fact that we're dealing with a linguophile-inspired work. :)

Oh aye Daeross - I was careful to say that *I* couldn't do it, or didn't find it personally appealing to play myself. If someone wants to roll with the lore that's fine. Actually - the example given way back about a player RPing with the Music of the Ainur sounded ideal. Really that seems to be the way to go with lore "additions" - to keep them consistent with the game world.

Take the languages for instance: my kinmates use the fantastic Neo-Khuzdul for Dwarvish. It's not Tolkien canon, but it's not only internally consistent, but it tries to get language to reflect what we know of Dwarf life in Middle Earth, and then to go on and suggest logical extensions to "flesh out" dwarf RP. The result is something thoroughly satisfying, well beyond the lore, and yet unquestionably Tolkienish. I have no idea whether Tolkien would have approved of everything - I'm sure he would have corrected some of the more questionable interpretations of ancient dwarrow lore, and offered his considered opinion, but I doubt he'd have seen the spirit of his work violated.

In that sense, I do know what Radhruin_EU is getting at with things that violate lore - and a teleporting Harry-Potter or WoW fire-shooting wizard would be one of them. But on the other hand, I disagree with him that that's the only way to RP magic in LotRO, or indeed RP a RK.

(Actually, it's worth noting that there's another thread in this subforum where someone does want to do that kind of Harry Potter RP - but look at how they're doing it: by private invitation. I say more power to them - it's not necessarily what *I* want to play in LotRO, but they're doing it in a sensible and entirely inoffensive way, and deliberately avoiding areas where they might accidently run into other RPers who don't like it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

--- Really that seems to be the way to go with lore "additions" - to keep them consistent with the game world.

---

/Agreed. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

---but I doubt he'd have seen the spirit of his work violated.---

---

Actually, in a letter of his, he more or less encourages people to continue his work. :)
I'll have to go and see if I can dig up the quote...
ETA:
"--- I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama."
-in a letter to Milton Waldman, and also reprinted in Second Edition of Silmarillion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

(Actually, it's worth noting that there's another thread in this subforum where someone does want to do that kind of Harry Potter RP - but look at how they're doing it: by private invitation. I say more power to them - it's not necessarily what *I* want to play in LotRO, but they're doing it in a sensible and entirely inoffensive way, and deliberately avoiding areas where they might accidently run into other RPers who don't like it.)

---

It's a good way to try and keep the RP community friendlier, certainly. :)

I posted those quotes more or less for the heck of it, as a food for thought for those who are wondering about RKs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

Actually - the example given way back about a player RPing with the Music of the Ainur sounded ideal.

---

Broken lore-wise, though. (The Great Music only created a 'blueprint' for the world, it was Eru's own power that made it real).

Quote:

---

Take the languages for instance: my kinmates use the fantastic Neo-Khuzdul for Dwarvish. It's not Tolkien canon, but it's not only internally consistent, but it tries to get language to reflect what we know of Dwarf life in Middle Earth, and then to go on and suggest logical extensions to "flesh out" dwarf RP. The result is something thoroughly satisfying, well beyond the lore, and yet unquestionably Tolkienish.

---

Or at least it would be if people remembered that the Dwarves kept their ancient language secret from outsiders, and that it was used for lore rather than for everyday use. Much the same goes for players who insist that their Elf speaks Quenya all the time (again - that had become a language for lore and poetry, not what they'd speak in for everyday purposes).

lol ok.

Thank you Athelia and Sarlinspellweaver for bringing back the original subject which I asked!

those are all great ideas and I think I'll use a bit of all of them for my RP. I really liked the idea of using the song of Arda and of being a healer. I don't do much combat rp but when I do I'll stick to being a healer and runing from wounded to wounded using medicinal plants, salves and bandages with just a tid bit of Elven song/magic. As for non combat I obviously stick to all the Elven principles.

As for my history I'm going with my elf being a Noldor who's parents traveled to Valinor and saw the light of the Two Trees hence the slight magical abilities of my elf. He will be born during the time of Gil-Galad's realm when he sumoned all the Noldor to Lindon. Doing so, what age will my elf be??

Thanks again :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KratosX

He will be born during the time of Gil-Galad's realm when he sumoned all the Noldor to Lindon. Doing so, what age will my elf be??

Thanks again :D

---

During the time of Gil-galad's realm - but when specifically, do you know? That would place your character's birth somewhere into the Second Age, a time frame which had lasted for 3,441 years from the establishment of Lindon and Grey Havens to Sauron's defeat (and Gil-galad's death in that struggle). Fast forward 3000 more years, into the Third Age, and that's when the events in "The Lord of the Rings" are set in motion.
Safe to say, even if you don't know yet at what point in time your character was born, or have not decided that detail yet, that would make him more than 3,000 years old. For brainstorming further, a glance at chronologies/timelines of the Ages can give new and fresh ideas for your char's bio... Take a look either at the Apendices to the LOTR book where they are listed, or here's a handy link listing the highlight events therefrom: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Timeline

If you can't decide on further details yet, just take it easy and let the character unfold as you play it - not everything comes pre-determined and neatly packed and it's often curious how many little details about your character's background may suddenly sneak up on you as if out of nowhere. Your own character may be a stranger to yourself at first when you start out - spend more time with him and see what you discover ;-)