The Lore Toggle

[Arnenna]

My suggestion is that swift rides and the instance panel should be disabled for anyone in RP mode. After all, they aren't lore. Take your horse to every instance.

The game used to be that way once. It was a lot of fun, and helped to build friendships in game and group cooperation. Hunters were well sought after. I missed that boat, arriving a bit later, but my kin mates made sure I got the experience of running to the raid, on more than one occasion I can tell you, and it is the best way to play in a group. We all used to go hunt down book pages mob handed then too, then they placed them all in Moria and made it easy. Once, you couldn't ride a horse until level 40. There was also a time when venturing into Lothlorien without any reputation would have you shot down by elven archers. No messing, just alive one minute then dead the next. They removed that from the game too, much to the disappointment of many players.

None of it would bother me. In fact, I'd prefer it that way. We all use instance finder nowadays because eleven other people are not going to wait for one player to run to the entrance. But given the choice, I'd much rather we run the gauntlet as a group and go to the door. We all have to do it for initial discovery.

[Radhruin_EU]

And yet somehow the 'exceptional' part can't apply to hobbit lore-masters here

In the context of what I actually said, I meant exceptional for being adventurers and in ability, not in terms of doing something it's clearly not intended for their race to do at all, ever. And yes, you're still just trying to make excuses for what's almost certainly a business decision by SSG rather than anything that's really defensible within the game.

[Curuer_Bauglir]

My suggestion is that swift rides and the instance panel should be disabled for anyone in RP mode. After all, they aren't lore. Take your horse to every instance.

I like your name.

[Brinswith]

My suggestion is that swift rides and the instance panel should be disabled for anyone in RP mode. After all, they aren't lore. Take your horse to every instance.

You jest, but I actually preferred it when we had to ride up to raids. One of the things I miss is seeing kin groups gathering up outside of raids on a Thursday night to get ready for raiding.

[Ethuilir]

Seems very vague - what exactly are you suggesting we imagine instead?

Sorry but you are all but saying that the devs can do whatever and we should always compromise, since you're not allowing for any circumstance in which we should say "Enough is enough, they're taking the mickey." Where's your line, then? Do you even have one?

Then it was all about lines for you which is already a tired point and one I have no real interest in discussing. The strictest and broadest of lines were crossed ages ago with the creation of the 'magic'-themed classes, but they were crossed with enough care so as not to be blatant that I didn't mind. And lines being crossed will never mean that I'll stop playing the game, especially if it's the strictest, broadest lines and if I'm still enjoying the game. I'm a 'magic' fan in general and will play magic classes or characters in games, mostly. The most obvious line for many people, including me, is flying animal mounts, but I'd be lying if I said I'll stop playing if they ever add such mounts if, once again, I'm still enjoying the game.

Player character-related lines are the weakest lines for me, as I can always just see them as gameplay mechanics, semantics, or player freedom. Hence why this fixation of people regarding this have become exhausting to me.

The truest lines for me are the story and the worldbuilding, as I've mentioned in the other thread, which you have read. And so once again, to kinda reference it, if you all really wanna be strict with player classes, why not remove the flashy visuals from the non-'magic' classes? Why are there waves of light, floating shields, and glowing arrowheads? If one can see them as visuals for displays of power and whatnot, then one should also be able to see the visuals for 'magic' as visuals for combat and gameplay's sake of the 'magic'-themed classes. It's so ridiculously easy to just see 'magic' as any other visual representation. Forget the game's semantics.

Speaking of semantics, who said I'm not 'allowing' anyone to set their lines? All I did was share my stance and share notions/suggestions based on that stance. I said compromise. If you won't, what am I gonna do it? Do I need to establish disclaimers again like I did in the other thread? It's you all who are seemingly not 'allowing' anyone to think differently. =.= I don't even participate early in these threads because I know people will speak their minds and should be allowed to speak their minds, and so I come in at a later point to speak my mind. That's all there is to it. And now, it's already been two or more long threads about pretty much the same topic and it's become a tireless circle. But that's just me. If you all have more to say about it, feel free to continue. *shrug*

[Radhruin_EU]

Then it was all about lines for you which is already a tired point and one I have no real interest in discussing.

Oh, right, so you're endlessly accommodating of their foibles and you pass that off as 'RP'. Gotcha.

You implied that if we didn't like something we should just pretend it's something else or ignore it. Hence I asked you what we should pretend a hobbit LM is 'really' doing. And of course you haven't said (I didn't think you would), just 'anything else'. That makes what you said ring hollow.

[Arnenna]

The truest lines for me are the story

I don't thing they are. If story is where your line is, then you wouldn't be considering a magical hobbit, even if you do prefer magical characters.

[gildhur]

We are still nearing the end of the Third Age in LOTRO. Hobbit culture hasn't changed in the decades since Bilbo went off on his adventure. Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin haven't even returned to the Shire yet, but we're supposed to believe that hobbits can now shoot lightning out of their walking sticks? I would also point out that individuals in Middle-earth who use the type of "magic" associated with LOTRO LMs are not ordinary individuals. They are all of an order much higher than hobbits: Ainur, High Elves, and Numenoreans. A hobbit can never achieve the special gifts that were bestowed upon these races. It's not how Middle-earth works.

And yet non-Noldorin Elves and Men have been able to "shoot lightning out of their walking sticks" for 16 years, and no one really ever complained. If a Man of Rohan can learn to be a LM, then so can a Hobbit. Sorry 'bout it.

[Mirhaen]

Hence I asked you what we should pretend a hobbit LM is 'really' doing.

Having trouble with cooking!

Burning Taters, Gust of Crust, Flambe Lore, Cracked Pen, Share the Meal, Sticky Dough, etc.

And we ought to have a combat shrew, and farm animals.

I jest, guys

[Radhruin_EU]

And yet non-Noldorin Elves and Men have been able to "shoot lightning out of their walking sticks" for 16 years, and no one really ever complained. If a Man of Rohan can learn to be a LM, then so can a Hobbit. Sorry 'bout it.

Because doing the "it's a game" thing for that as far as Elves and Men went was a reasonable compromise. That was why it lasted so long. Hobbits aren't exactly like Men either so just because a Man of Rohan does something that doesn't mean a hobbit should too.

Hobbits being really into really deep lore - since when?
Hobbits knowing a ton of stuff about the outside world - since when?
Hobbits studying magic - since when?
Hobbits wanting to do seriously violent things like setting people on fire - since when?
Hobbits being close to wild nature and large, dangerous wild animals - since when?

So yeah, go on, ignore several things at once about what hobbits are meant to be like, that's just so convincing and totally sounds like Middle-earth

[Radhruin_EU]

Having trouble with cooking!

Burning Taters, Gust of Crust, Flambe Lore, Cracked Pen, Share the Meal, Sticky Dough, etc.

And we ought to have a combat shrew, and farm animals.

I jest, guys

Cracked Crust (warning - contents hot!)

[Ethuilir]

Oh, right, so you're endlessly accommodating of their foibles and you pass that off as 'RP'. Gotcha.

You implied that if we didn't like something we should just pretend it's something else or ignore it. Hence I asked you what we should pretend a hobbit LM is 'really' doing. And of course you haven't said (I didn't think you would), just 'anything else'. That makes what you said ring hollow.

I don't know how you could still not see how I would 'accommodate' hobbit lore-masters after expressing my takes multiple times. Selective reading and conceit is what I see. Basically a hobbit with a staff and the 'magic' is not actually magic, but crafts or just visuals. Stop this. Just because I choose not to explain myself thoroughly to you of all people doesn't mean my take is hollow. We all know you're not going to be convinced by anything at this point and that you're not looking to be convinced, and all you do is remain contrarian to differing opinions. What a waste of time.

I don't thing they are. If story is where your line is, then you wouldn't be considering a magical hobbit, even if you do prefer magical characters.

I've mentioned and implied multiple times that the player character can be largely separate from the story and worldbuilding in-game, especially as this is a game.

In other news: Players question the Galadriel with the One Ring mechanic in Battle for Middle-earth II (2006).
In other, other news: Players question how a vampire Dragonborn character can still do Meridia's quest in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2011).
In other, other, other news: Players question why they can't purge/reduce corruption themselves as a member of the Holy Mission of Elatt in Outward (2019).
Breaking news: Players question why 'magic' classes exist in The Lord of the Rings Online since 2007 to 2022.

You can choose to RP it out or choose to try to take everything in as literal or as in-game canon but it's never really going to work.

-

Again, that's my stance on it. I'm not here to invalidate your stances. But none of you dare to invalidate other people's stances. It's ridiculous.

[Arnenna]

I don't know how you could still not see how I would 'accommodate' hobbit lore-masters after expressing my takes multiple times. Selective reading and conceit is what I see. Basically a hobbit with a staff and the 'magic' is not actually magic, but crafts or just visuals. Stop this. Just because I choose not to explain myself thoroughly to you of all people doesn't mean my take is hollow. We all know you're not going to be convinced by anything at this point and that you're not looking to be convinced, and all you do is remain contrarian to differing opinions. What a waste of time.



I've mentioned and implied multiple times that the player character can be largely separate from the story and worldbuilding in-game, especially as this is a game.

In other news: Players question the Galadriel with the One Ring mechanic in Battle for Middle-earth II (2006).
In other, other news: Players question how a vampire Dragonborn character can still do Meridia's quest in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2011).
In other, other, other news: Players question why they can't purge/reduce corruption themselves as a member of the Holy Mission of Elatt in Outward (2019).
Breaking news: Players question why 'magic' classes exist in The Lord of the Rings Online since 2007 to 2022.

You can choose to RP it out or choose to try to take everything in as literal or as in-game canon but it's never really going to work.

-

Again, that's my stance on it. I'm not here to invalidate your stances. But none of you dare to invalidate other people's stances. It's ridiculous.

You can take your stance, why on earth would you think that you cannot? You are in here, explaining why you think a magical hobbit can fit, and others are in here explaining why they think that a magical hobbit can't fit. Those are opposite stances, so yeah, when one states a view, it's directly going to oppose the other.

Its either all ridiculous, or none of it is. You have yours, I have mine, that's how it works. Coming in late doesn't give some right of passage to avoid opposing views. When you enter a thread and oppose a view that magical hobbits do not exist in lore, you are invalidating that opinion (stance), but that is your right, so, I'm fine with it.

[Radhruin_EU]

I don't know how you could still not see how I would 'accommodate' hobbit lore-masters after expressing my takes multiple times. Selective reading and conceit is what I see. Basically a hobbit with a staff and the 'magic' is not actually magic, but crafts or just visuals. Stop this. Just because I choose not to explain myself thoroughly to you of all people doesn't mean my take is hollow. We all know you're not going to be convinced by anything at this point and that you're not looking to be convinced, and all you do is remain contrarian to differing opinions. What a waste of time.

Yes, you telling us we should just pretend it's something else was a waste of time. I asked you a fair question - what you'd pretend they were 'really' doing - you've dodged that and are now carping about it rather than just say so either you don't know yourself or you know what you'd suggest would come across as wildly contrived. You can pretend whatever you like to yourself but you can hardly complain if other people are sceptical when you tell them they should do it, too.

RPG 101: the game mechanics are meant to be a means of adjudicating what happens when characters take actions. Game mechanics are a good servant but a poor master: when they take over entirely and start telling a messed-up story all of their own (all brightly-coloured nonsense) to the detriment of the real story, something's gone wrong. A degree of that's inevitable in a mainstream game (got to have those hobbits, got to have a magic class and so on but not necessarily all in one package) but it's never a good principle to make it all about the game mechanics, as here.

In other words, we shouldn't have to do what you're telling us we should do. If you're doing that in the first place rather than taking the gameplay at face value then that says a lot about the game, and nothing good at that.

[Ethuilir]

You can take your stance, why on earth would you think that you cannot? You are in here, explaining why you think a magical hobbit can fit, and others are in here explaining why they think that a magical hobbit can't fit. Those are opposite stances, so yeah, when one states a view, it's directly going to oppose the other.

Its either all ridiculous, or none of it is. You have yours, I have mine, that's how it works. Coming in late doesn't give some right of passage to avoid opposing views. When you enter a thread and oppose a view that magical hobbits do not exist in lore, you are invalidating that opinion (stance), but that is your right, so, I'm fine with it.

To be clear, parts of that weren't a reply to you specifically but to people challenging my stance in general. And no, to merely express a stance doesn't mean to invalidate a differing stance, which the other person keeps doing.

Yes, you telling us we should just pretend it's something else was a waste of time. I asked you a fair question - what you'd pretend they were 'really' doing - you've dodged that and are now carping about it rather than just say so either you don't know yourself or you know what you'd suggest would come across as wildly contrived. You can pretend whatever you like to yourself but you can hardly complain if other people are sceptical when you tell them they should do it, too.

RPG 101: the game mechanics are meant to be a means of adjudicating what happens when characters take actions. Game mechanics are a good servant but a poor master: when they take over entirely and start telling a messed-up story all of their own (all brightly-coloured nonsense) to the detriment of the real story, something's gone wrong. A degree of that's inevitable in a mainstream game (got to have those hobbits, got to have a magic class and so on but not necessarily all in one package) but it's never a good principle to make it all about the game mechanics, as here.

In other words, we shouldn't have to do what you're telling us we should do. If you're doing that in the first place rather than taking the gameplay at face value then that says a lot about the game, and nothing good at that.

Conceit. Conceit. Conceit. It's either you're still selectively reading or you're disregarding what should already suffice as an answer. I already answered the question. You not being convinced means nothing. No one here is obligated to convince you or anything. You wanting to keep going while continuing to invalidate every reply is the clear waste of time here. What a way to be a fan and a defender of a work that values humility. You are no lore-keeper. You are a bigot and a gaslighter. A false steward. Goodbye.

- - -

To the rest, I apologize for helping instigate and bringing about even more hostility to this topic.

[Mirhaen]

Conceit. Conceit. Conceit. It's either you're still selectively reading or you're disregarding what should already suffice as an answer. I already answered the question. You not being convinced means nothing. No one here is obligated to convince you or anything. You wanting to keep going while continuing to invalidate every reply is the clear waste of time here. What a way to be a fan and a defender of a work that values humility. You are no lore-keeper. You are a bigot and a gaslighter. A false steward. Goodbye.

Radhruin is the only person on this forum who cares so deeply about Tolkien's written word, canon, lore... and he argues from it, from that point of view, and for it. And often times he say something we don't want to hear, because even those who are fully or partially aware of the lore would rather close their eyes sometimes and let some things pass through. Perhaps more times than we should. Because ultimately we do want to keep this game's world in the spirit of Tolkien's world, or I should hope so, otherwise it would have been just another generic fantasy.

All he tried was to explain that there is no base, in the Tolkien's writing, for Hobbits to use magic. His words cut like a sword sometimes, because it gets annoying when one doesn't want to acknowledge obvious, even when quotes and references are provided, and all the while people coming to argue opposite, with nothing based in the writings but just their own ideas and wishes. Understand he doesn't argue from the point of what we are willing or what we can or can't imagine...

Class changes are coming, no matter what each of us think about it.

[ironmountain]

In order to release some pressure, I share here an old "sketch", which was intended to gently troll a friend. I admit I was surprised by this announcement but proposing a LM-Hobbit, well this idea never occured to me
We can tell ourselves that all is not lost and at the same time, nothing is impossible now....
Thinking about it, I prefer my original classes proposals (in pics) even if we repeat again and again that it was not necessery......

Regards.

[Radhruin_EU]

I admit I was surprised by this announcement but proposing a LM-Hobbit, well this idea never occured to me We can tell ourselves that all is not lost and at the same time, nothing is impossible now....

The only thing I'd say there is that if there were such a thing as a Dwarf LM it should have a significantly different flavour to others, a proper subclass rather than the same thing. Dwarves aren't noted for being close to nature (quite the opposite) so the usual pets wouldn't make sense for them and being natural outsiders, they had all their own lore and so you'd expect it to come with a bunch of different skills to reflect their unique culture. That's a world-building thing, you want it to feel Dwarven or there's really no point.

And similarly, thinking about it, if they simply must do hobbit LM then that should be different too. They shouldn't keep the pets the exact same - the hobbits made a point of keeping large, dangerous animals out of the Shire, that was one of the things the Bounders did so for example it might work to give them a great big dog instead of a bear (thinking of Farmer Maggot's dogs Grip, Fang and Wolf) and to tweak the skills some to make them a bit more, well, hobbit-like. For Elves and Men it made sense from a game perspective for them to have the same stuff because Men would have learned it off the Elves in the first place. If it's just the exact same thing for hobbits then again, I wouldn't see the point and it'd show they're not really trying to make it plausible even within the game's own scheme of things.

[Arnenna]

The only thing I'd say there is that if there were such a thing as a Dwarf LM it should have a significantly different flavour to others, a proper subclass rather than the same thing. Dwarves aren't noted for being close to nature (quite the opposite) so the usual pets wouldn't make sense for them and being natural outsiders, they had all their own lore and so you'd expect it to come with a bunch of different skills to reflect their unique culture. That's a world-building thing, you want it to feel Dwarven or there's really no point.

And similarly, thinking about it, if they simply must do hobbit LM then that should be different too. They shouldn't keep the pets the exact same - the hobbits made a point of keeping large, dangerous animals out of the Shire, that was one of the things the Bounders did so for example it might work to give them a great big dog instead of a bear (thinking of Farmer Maggot's dogs Grip, Fang and Wolf) and to tweak the skills some to make them a bit more, well, hobbit-like. For Elves and Men it made sense from a game perspective for them to have the same stuff because Men would have learned it off the Elves in the first place. If it's just the exact same thing for hobbits then again, I wouldn't see the point and it'd show they're not really trying to make it plausible even within the game's own scheme of things.

Agreed.

There is a thread in the suggestions forum related to what you've written. If they must be in the game, and they very probably are going to arrive, then may as well try to suggest ways in which they would be a better fit.

https://forums.lotro.com/forums/show...(-suggestions-)

[Kaeneth]

I'd love if they were able to give unique flavors to classes depending on what race was playing them. I wonder if that's something that would be technically possible or if the way classes/races are coded would prevent it? The closest thing we've seen to that so far is high elf having different animations on certain skills across classes, so maybe something could work?

In any case a dwarf LM would bother me less than a hobbit one, at least there's somewhat of a basis for the raven companion there.

[SniperCT]

I'd love if they were able to give unique flavors to classes depending on what race was playing them. I wonder if that's something that would be technically possible or if the way classes/races are coded would prevent it? The closest thing we've seen to that so far is high elf having different animations on certain skills across classes, so maybe something could work?

In any case a dwarf LM would bother me less than a hobbit one, at least there's somewhat of a basis for the raven companion there.

This would be a lot of work, but I want it too.

[ironmountain]

In the past, I had offered some suggestions along these lines.
Not understanding the absence of a group leader for dwarf, i had thought of this alternative


https://forums.lotro.com/forums/show...ace-suggestion

But now the problem is solved ......

Regards