Switch to full style
All topics including role playing games, board games, etc., etc.
Post a reply

Middle Earth Mashup

Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:27 am

I found an old thread about using C&C for Middle Earth. But I was wondering has anyone used the 5E Adventures in Middle Earth with C&C yet? I've been thinking about picking up some of the books and I own almost all the old MERP modules. But I'd prefer to use the C&C rules rather than 5E. And I'll probably keep some C&C classes, possibly even spell casters. I'm not that wedded to the Tolkien canon and frankly I think the main reason not to use lots of magic is because it attracts the Shadow. So I definitely want some spell-casting villains at the least. Just curious if anyone has done this yet?

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:41 am

I was considering the very same. I do like the 5E Middle-Earth books.

~O

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:01 pm

I do like the 5E Middle-Earth books.


I am not familiar with these books. Where can i find them? Publisher website?

-Fizz

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:07 pm

Fizz wrote:
I do like the 5E Middle-Earth books.


I am not familiar with these books. Where can i find them? Publisher website?

-Fizz

http://cubicle7.co.uk/our-games/adventu ... dle-earth/

R-

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:07 pm

I'd probably limit character classes to fighter, ranger, rogue, knight, and bard. Maybe barbarian, too. I would probably make/use a scholar or sage type class, and perhaps a healer. I wouldn't personally use traditional spell casters, but to each their own. The AiME books have what are called virtues, which are like feats. They add the Tolkien magic into the game. Some of them use the 5e mechanic of inspiration, which can be changed to a 1/day ability, or something like that. Many/most of the will need tweaking to be playable, but it wouldn't be to much work.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:02 am

I should add that I haven't actually gotten my Middle Earth books yet, just read a bunch about them and watched a bunch of videos on youtube. So I may initially play with the Middle Earth classes adjusted to C&C and then incorporate spell-casters later. I had something in mind like creating specialized spell lists for certain casters. So there might be conjurors, elementalists, and sorcerers (evil), that are basically more limited versions of the C&C wizard and illusionist. But casting spells would have a risk of attracting shadow forces and corrupting the caster. The more powerful the spell, the more dangerous.

Then I'd maybe consider druids rather than regular clerics. This makes sense to me in terms of the cosmology with the Valar and I could see them as defenders of the world. But the fact that they can't turn undead fits the dangers they might encounter and makes them more vulnerable to the Shadow forces. And having various spell casters makes converting old MERP modules easier since they often have sorcerous villains. As i said in the original rules, I love the Middle earth setting, but I'd rather play C&C in it than their modified 5E or MERP, though I've played a ton of that over the years.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:52 am

If you look around the forums, you'll find a couple of Middle-earth conversions.

R-

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:00 am

There is a list in the Loremaster's Guide, on page 145, that denotes "Middle-earth Appropriate Spells." I would certainly start there when constructing a spell list for casters.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:21 am

Sorry, but even now YEARS since I played it, when I think Middle Earth RPGs, I think MERP ... It may just be nostalgia (MERP was the 2nd RPG I ever played - right after D&D/AD&D and before SW D6) but I can't picture any other rule when I first think of gaming ME ...

However, even with that I admit I dislike the ICE / Role master table upon table upon table ...

After MERP, I think C&C would be a viable system for MERP. Heck I fed ideas into the above mentioned treads (oh so many years ago). C&C is flexible enough to put it in a Tolkien setting and it would play easy enough and the defaults associated with the setting/feel wouldn't muck up the works too bad.

As for the Cubicle 7 books (their specific rules) I've never played them, but the look like a good system. However, I'm poor and the price tag (even for just PDFs) keep me from digging into them. With that they may be a perfect game with a perfect fit for ME, but I wouldn't know it

For the 5e conversion ... anything with modern D&D tied to it .... frightens me ... I never played 4e and have only seen 5e played on youtube, but to me it is TOOOOO rule heavy to crunchy, This feat does this this advantage does that this ability does that ... and it all adds up to a way to complex clunky game (at least for me and what I enjoy).

Also, like the cubicle rules, the price tag on the 5e version ... again I'm poor . However, if the conversion does have suggestions on spells, classes etc. It may be good info to mine and to make a C&C house rule even better.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:18 am

You can definitely adapt a 5E rules set to C&C. I've done it with every edition, and 3E and 4E were far more difficult to convert than 5E would be. Considering 3E and 4E got easy enough, with practice, to do it "on the fly", that means converting 5E will be comparatively easy.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:21 am

I've never played any edition of D&D beyond 2nd, though I own a few books from later editions, mostly monster books. I find it's not that hard to adapt any of them to C&C. Not crazy about things like feats. And I don't get why they made such a big deal about offering options for backgrounds in 5E. Isn't that what your imagination is for? Likewise with challenge ratings. Any decent GM/CK should be able to gauge monster strength for his players.

I own almost all the old MERP stuff and is is fun to play, but combats are lethal and there are just too many charts and tables. And advancing levels is slow indeed. So I think I will pick up the 5E Middle earth books and convert to C&C. If it works well, and I think it should, I'll post results here.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:57 pm

Persimmon wrote:I've never played any edition of D&D beyond 2nd, though I own a few books from later editions, mostly monster books. I find it's not that hard to adapt any of them to C&C. Not crazy about things like feats. And I don't get why they made such a big deal about offering options for backgrounds in 5E. Isn't that what your imagination is for? Likewise with challenge ratings. Any decent GM/CK should be able to gauge monster strength for his players.

I own almost all the old MERP stuff and is is fun to play, but combats are lethal and there are just too many charts and tables. And advancing levels is slow indeed. So I think I will pick up the 5E Middle earth books and convert to C&C. If it works well, and I think it should, I'll post results here.


Feats are a love/hate thing for a lot of people. Some people see them as options, others as restrictions. I've viewed them both ways in the past. Now, I try to look at them as "optional class features," not unlike a rogue's backstab or a fighter's weapon specialization, or an illusionist's disguise ability - only the player can pick choose these features. However you look at them, they're easy enough to ignore.

Backgrounds are another love/hate thing. I believe a lot of the deal with backgrounds are that it gives a little bit of role-playing to the uninitiated. Try not to think of them in terms of us old-timers. I try to think of the audience they're targeting - newer and younger players. Also of these folks, pardon the cliché, are coming from video games and crpg experiences. Backgrounds are bolt-on backstories that confer a few mechanical perks. However, it also gives a PC a history for their character. Not much of one, granted, but if cultivated properly between the player and DM, it can have some significance. But for a lot of older, more experienced players, backgrounds are viewed just like you said, Persimmon - a tool for those who lack imagination. I prefer the old methods myself - either write up a backstory or, at the very least, roll on the secondary skill chart.

As others have said, converting 5e over to C&C shouldn't be that hard. I like both TOR and AiME, so any conversion efforts would be interesting to see!

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:35 pm

When looking at feats, and skills, for that matter, I just decide if I want to keep them, or get rid of them, on a per creature basis, then run with what I keep.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:54 am

Feats are a love/hate thing for a lot of people. Some people see them as options, others as restrictions. I've viewed them both ways in the past.


I too have seen them that way too. Ultimately, i came to think of them as special abilities that are not unique to a class. That is- any character could have such an edge, but it's not unique or defining to any class in particular.

-Fizz

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:58 am

And I don't get why they made such a big deal about offering options for backgrounds in 5E.


I agree, i've not been big on backgrounds. In some ways it makes sense, but if they had a background shouldn't they have a level? To me, in 5E it feels like backgrounds as well as paths are a way of giving maximum character variance.

But it's a different philosophy. 5E, while not as bad as earlier versions, still has a lot of numerical crunch to cover a lot of things. Conversely, C&C sticks with the fewer rules, and lets the players and CK figure out if such crunch is even required.


-Fizz

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:29 pm

Well I'm glad I'm not alone ... everything I've seen on 5e does make it look (slightly) better than 3.5, but still way to much crunch for me.

Now back on topic .... drat you all! After reading theis and thinking about it. I dug through all my notes and ideas for ME / C&C ... Oh I WANT to play a ME game or run one .... sadly, I know I do not have the time to run a game (outside my game for my daughters ever 2 or so weeks) and unless Tree or Rigon drops their games and changes their game world philosophy ... (not saying you are either wrong on your games, just that it isn't Tolkienesk) ...

Lord Dynel wrote:There is a list in the Loremaster's Guide, on page 145, that denotes "Middle-earth Appropriate Spells." I would certainly start there when constructing a spell list for casters.


So, for those of us that are poor, and don't have the book, what in general are 'ME Appropriate' ? I assume no fireball etc, however, back in the day when I was more deep in the weeds for a conversion, I ended up having some more powerful direct attack spells added. Pyrotechnics, is one that comes to mind now. Also, I had a lot of 'magical' weapons in that they had a history and properties, but none were 'standard' +2 btb weapons.

Persimmon wrote:...

I own almost all the old MERP stuff and is is fun to play, but combats are lethal and there are just too many charts and tables. And advancing levels is slow indeed. So I think I will pick up the 5E Middle earth books and convert to C&C. If it works well, and I think it should, I'll post results here.


Rgr that ! Those charts (especially when I added Rolemaster books for more complete charts etc) were endless and BRUTAL !! I prefer low magic setting with a bit of danger and grit, but good lord ...a few c]lucky rolls on those charts and you have loped of an arm or been beaned in the head and have major brain damage ... realistic maybe, but a fun heroic game not so much .

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:14 am

Lurker wrote:
Lord Dynel wrote:There is a list in the Loremaster's Guide, on page 145, that denotes "Middle-earth Appropriate Spells." I would certainly start there when constructing a spell list for casters.


So, for those of us that are poor, and don't have the book, what in general are 'ME Appropriate' ? I assume no fireball etc, however, back in the day when I was more deep in the weeds for a conversion, I ended up having some more powerful direct attack spells added. Pyrotechnics, is one that comes to mind now. Also, I had a lot of 'magical' weapons in that they had a history and properties, but none were 'standard' +2 btb weapons.


Yeah, you nailed it pretty much, hoss. Looking over the list, there's nothing that's really a direct damage spell (fireball, lightning bolt, magic missile, etc.). There's about 120 or spells in all, and they're mostly utility or defensive spells. I'm sure you've heard the conceit that that Tolkien's magic is subtle, and part of the world. So, yeah, C7 continues that mindset. There's also a sidebar that state that magic use will undoubtedly get Sauron's attention, and he'll dispatch minions to hunt down such a threat. Interesting.

I've never played the old MERP system (I did collect it for a while), but I heard that this was actually one of the complaints (after all the charts and tables); the magic system wasn't as evocative of Tolkien as it should be. Too many over-the-top spells didn't capture the feel of Middle-Earth as well. To each their own and all, but I'm actually really glad that C7 chose not to include magic users in the game. The option to include it is there, but I'm kind of happy the default was to leave them out. That's my personal preference, of course!

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:40 am

By the way, I just found the Loremaster's Guide as a pdf for free online, but it already seems to have been taken down. I was going to be a link in here, but I wasn't sure if that's allowed since it's copyrighted content. And now I can't find it...

And yes, there is an extensive list of Middle Earth appropriate spells. Interestingly, they note that druid and bard spells are most appropriate. Lots of divination and info gathering spells. They also include healing spells though some of the regular Middle Earth stuff like lembas is pretty potent. One gets d6 healing per character level from eating a lembas cake. Either way is better than the lame 5E short/long rest rules for healing. Regaining all one's hit points after just resting overnight really diminishes the danger of dungeon crawls or long treks. Even if I decide to put more magic in, I like the idea of making PCs conserve/manage their resources.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:30 pm

Persimmon wrote:...I like the idea of making PCs conserve/manage their resources.


I used to do that. Decided I really hate detailed record keeping, so stopped. To each their own and all that.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:47 pm

Persimmon wrote:.... Either way is better than the lame 5E short/long rest rules for healing. Regaining all one's hit points after just resting overnight really diminishes the danger of dungeon crawls or long treks. Even if I decide to put more magic in, I like the idea of making PCs conserve/manage their resources.


Rgr on the regaining ALL hp after a rest ... I saw that and couldn't believe it ... get ALL hp back after resting 6 - 8 hours ...Yeah that is heroic ...

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:58 am

I think 'The One Ring' is the best interpretation of Middle Earth I have played. I played a MERP campaign for about 10 years using Rolemaster and I have played the 5e Adventures version as well. The 5e version has some odd quirks which means that lots of attacks resolve against saving throws rather than AC...I didn't like it. In getting rid of magic they actually just kind of reskinned it as things like 'dagger throwing' save vs DEX take half for save..in other words..the way spells operate if you get my drift. Also don't plan on easily using it with the 5th Edition Core as the maths changed considerably. As to using the material with C&C...yes could work but just read Tolkien and go from there would be my take..trying to shoe horn the 5e stuff into C&C is probably work not worth the time and effort. Each to their own of course, who am I to try to tell anybody what to do :) I'd just play 'The One Ring' it's got the feel.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:43 pm

Revturkey wrote:I think 'The One Ring' is the best interpretation of Middle Earth I have played. I played a MERP campaign for about 10 years using Rolemaster and I have played the 5e Adventures version as well. The 5e version has some odd quirks which means that lots of attacks resolve against saving throws rather than AC...I didn't like it. In getting rid of magic they actually just kind of reskinned it as things like 'dagger throwing' save vs DEX take half for save..in other words..the way spells operate if you get my drift. Also don't plan on easily using it with the 5th Edition Core as the maths changed considerably. As to using the material with C&C...yes could work but just read Tolkien and go from there would be my take..trying to shoe horn the 5e stuff into C&C is probably work not worth the time and effort. Each to their own of course, who am I to try to tell anybody what to do :) I'd just play 'The One Ring' it's got the feel.


I think that's part of the whole thing, though, Rev (see my bolded text) - I think the idea to use C&C. The One Ring is a fantastic game, I agree. But for some, they want the ME experience in C&C, because they like C&C that much, or maybe they don't want to learn another system. I know that if my table wants 5e and Middle-Earth, AiME is a no-brainer. If they just want Middle-Earth, I'd certainly steer them towards a The One Ring. But for me, personally, I don't have the desire to make the necessary conversions of AiME to C&C. I'd probably just use the old Forgotten Realms boxed set (1st Edition) with C&C and call it done. But I also don't need to use C&C with Middle-Earth.

That said, I don't think converting AiME to C&C wouldn't be that difficult. A lot of it would be reskinning. You would have to make subclasses a thing, I believe, because giving a single class features from both subclasses would be a mess.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:48 pm

Lurker wrote:
Persimmon wrote:.... Either way is better than the lame 5E short/long rest rules for healing. Regaining all one's hit points after just resting overnight really diminishes the danger of dungeon crawls or long treks. Even if I decide to put more magic in, I like the idea of making PCs conserve/manage their resources.


Rgr on the regaining ALL hp after a rest ... I saw that and couldn't believe it ... get ALL hp back after resting 6 - 8 hours ...Yeah that is heroic ...


Yeah, I don't do that. I have PC's roll their total HD after a long rest to regain HP. This is completely separate, mind you, from the short rest HD expenditure mechanic. For example, a 3rd level fighter/2nd level wizard would roll 3d10 and 2d6 after a long rest and that's how much they'd get back. So many times they get back a good bit, but not always. It's still a bit much but it was a good compromise from being completely healed every morning. :roll:

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:34 pm

Hey Lord Dynel, yes I totally get what you say. I guess my group is very flexible with regard to systems. We are pretty lazy when it comes to reworking and converting material though so would rather just go with the original version etc. One beauty of C&C is that converting and setting games in different worlds is pretty simple. I loved the Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics C&C conversions. Amazing Adventures and Victorious seem to have been well received by gamers as well :)

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:46 am

Frankly, I'm too old to learn new systems. I just don't like the mechanics of The One Ring game. I'm not crazy about 5E either, but I do like the idea of gaming in Middle Earth, at least some of the time. I've found it pretty easy to convert other 5E stuff to C&C so I don't think it'll be that hard once I figure out how much I want to crib from AiME. So it will be C&C in Middle Earth more than keeping all the 5E and AiME mechanics. Hence my interest in having a bit more magic.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:30 pm

Persimmon wrote:Frankly, I'm too old to learn new systems.


I'm sure I'll get there at some point (most likely), but I still like learnign new systems. They're certainly not as easy to grasp as they used to be but I still find them fascinating. I learned The Dark Eye mechanics over the summer and while at first I didn't really enjoy them, they grew on me and I did end up liking them.

I just don't like the mechanics of The One Ring game. I'm not crazy about 5E either, but I do like the idea of gaming in Middle Earth, at least some of the time. I've found it pretty easy to convert other 5E stuff to C&C so I don't think it'll be that hard once I figure out how much I want to crib from AiME. So it will be C&C in Middle Earth more than keeping all the 5E and AiME mechanics. Hence my interest in having a bit more magic.


TOR was actually another system like TDE. I played an intro game the year it came out at GenCon and I was lost for a little bit at the beginning. But it's a little whimsical, for lack of a better word, and fits the theme and feel of Middle-Earth quite nicely. But its pretty easy to convert (the 5e stuff more so, in my opinion, than the TOR stuff would be) and shouldn't be a problem.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:47 am

Lord Dynel wrote:
Revturkey wrote:I think 'The One Ring' is the best interpretation of Middle Earth I have played. I played a MERP campaign for about 10 years using Rolemaster and I have played the 5e Adventures version as well. The 5e version has some odd quirks which means that lots of attacks resolve against saving throws rather than AC...I didn't like it. In getting rid of magic they actually just kind of reskinned it as things like 'dagger throwing' save vs DEX take half for save..in other words..the way spells operate if you get my drift. Also don't plan on easily using it with the 5th Edition Core as the maths changed considerably. As to using the material with C&C...yes could work but just read Tolkien and go from there would be my take..trying to shoe horn the 5e stuff into C&C is probably work not worth the time and effort. Each to their own of course, who am I to try to tell anybody what to do :) I'd just play 'The One Ring' it's got the feel.


I think that's part of the whole thing, though, Rev (see my bolded text) - I think the idea to use C&C. The One Ring is a fantastic game, I agree. But for some, they want the ME experience in C&C, because they like C&C that much, or maybe they don't want to learn another system. I know that if my table wants 5e and Middle-Earth, AiME is a no-brainer. If they just want Middle-Earth, I'd certainly steer them towards a The One Ring. But for me, personally, I don't have the desire to make the necessary conversions of AiME to C&C. I'd probably just use the old Forgotten Realms boxed set (1st Edition) with C&C and call it done. But I also don't need to use C&C with Middle-Earth.

That said, I don't think converting AiME to C&C wouldn't be that difficult. A lot of it would be reskinning. You would have to make subclasses a thing, I believe, because giving a single class features from both subclasses would be a mess.


Agreed. There are some RPG's I would never try to run in another system because their "native" system simply does too good of a job at evoking the right feel for the game. I agree The One Ring is one such RPG. Legend of the 5 Rings is another. Shadowrun would likely be another.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:54 am

accckk, blood, ash and doom !!!

I've gotten the player book for both The One Ring & the 5e version ... I want to play in a Tolkien setting !! (And yes my wife is annoyed I got both, apparently "but it is Tolkien" isn't justification enough for her...)

The one ring looks interesting, but I would want to play for a bit to see how it works. I'm not sure I have my mind bent around the specifics of it yet, especially the fatigue and the wound system & the dice , but I do like the idea of the cultures as race and them having different benefits , and the companion benefits etc.

However, I'm not sure the system is as clean and user friendly as C&C. siege engine makes soooo many things sooo easy.

For the 5e, too much crunch, but ideas to mine that may fit C&C easier then The One Ring.

Re: Middle Earth Mashup

Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:28 am

Lurker wrote:accckk, blood, ash and doom !!!

I've gotten the player book for both The One Ring & the 5e version ... I want to play in a Tolkien setting !! (And yes my wife is annoyed I got both, apparently "but it is Tolkien" isn't justification enough for her...)

The one ring looks interesting, but I would want to play for a bit to see how it works. I'm not sure I have my mind bent around the specifics of it yet, especially the fatigue and the wound system & the dice , but I do like the idea of the cultures as race and them having different benefits , and the companion benefits etc.

However, I'm not sure the system is as clean and user friendly as C&C. siege engine makes soooo many things sooo easy.

For the 5e, too much crunch, but ideas to mine that may fit C&C easier then The One Ring.


There's a quickstart that I usually point people to, and it gives one a pretty good grasp of the game before delving into the book. It was written for the original edition of TOR, but it's still quite applicable to the new edition.

With any foreign system, it looks a little daunting from the outside. The mechanics are fairly simple though, once you get down to them. You always roll the d12 (11 is really bad and 12 is really good, but aren't counted; only 1-10 is) plus any d6s from the skill your checking (if any; 1-3 can't be counted if weary, and the more 6's, the more extraordinary the result) against (usually) a TN of 14. If you have a trait you can feasibly utilize in the check, the check is automatically successful (for example, the LM calls for an Athletics check to guide a boat through some rapids, but a PC has the Boating trait, so they make it through without a check). Hope, a resource, can be used to add your attribute (Body, Heart, or Mind) to the check. But you can't rely on using Hope too much because a) it's difficult to recover and b) if it ever drops below your Shadow, you become "Miserable" and risk succumbing to your weakness. I could go on, but the QS I linked goes over these rules.

In the end, though, it's not as simple as the SIEGE engine. But to be fair, few systems are. But it's not as difficult as many systems I've encountered, and it does quite well at adjudicating a narrative-styled game and does really well at capturing the feel of Tolkien. The 5e version can certainly be mined for idea better, since it's a bit closer to C&C. AiME kind of bridge the "conversion gap" between TOR and C&C, in my opinion. As I stated before, you might need to port the subclass system to C&C, or make them completely separate classes. For example, breaking the Scholar class into two classes, the scholar and the healer (splitting the "stuff" from the main class between the new healer and scholar classes, for example).
Post a reply