"Lord of the Rings campaign ideas" Topic

Hello all,

I have been toying with the idea of a "proper" LotR campaign for a while now. LotR is perhaps my most enduring wargaming interest, from the SPI War of the Ring boardgame in 1977 as a 10 year old through to the Battle of Five Armies in 10mm in recent years. I have amassed a reasonable collection of GW in 28mm and also have a useful 10mm collection, mostly BoFA and Copplestone.

I also have been reading Donald Featherstone and Tony Bath's excellent books on campaigns in general and solo campaigns in particular for inspiration and ideas.

I am still in the beginning stages of planning, but the basic premise I am beginning to flesh out is a map based military campaign, but also with a political and resources flavour. It will have to be solo in most aspects, at least to begin with, as I develop the context, but with a view to incorporating players for battles in the short term, and perhaps to take on some or all of the factions in the future. I suppose I see my role as more 'world manager and umpire' in the Tony Bath Hyborian campaign mould.

I would like to use the old SPI war of the ring game as the foundation (it has such a great map) but reversing the emphasis from the 'character' game to the military. One of the problems with gaming the 3rd age is the focus on the ring quest. It is both the centre of the story and the ultimate trump card. The ring is the nuclear weapon for the dark ages. The presence of the ring hopelessly unbalances any campaign and was the main weakness in the old spi game; the military campaign just didn't matter, the ring decided all. True to the story, but it made for a predictable game.

So my idea is to remove the focus from the ring and turn it on to the life and death struggle between the free peoples of middle earth and the forces of Sauron and his allies. After all, whilst Sauron was seeking the ring, and was expecting it to turn up sooner or later, he certainly didn't need it to wage war on the west. So I will treat the ring as 'lost' to all factions, allowing the campaign to focus on the more traditional military objectives of destroying military capacity, controlling key objectives and controlling resources.

But I don't want to lose the ring entirely, just tone it down a bit. Perhaps use it as a bit of a 'random event' depending on how the campaign develops. One idea might be to require a good faction to assist the ring bearer (divert resources away from the main task of fighting a war), Sauron might be handicapped in the number of moves he can make unless he has the ring (shadow points in the spi game) and an evil or neutral faction (Sauman) might get a bonus in resources from seizing it and using for their own ends. Another idea would be to help balance the campaign as it develops. Evil losing too badly too quickly? Give them the ring!

There was an air of mystery about the ring anyway. People thought it was a weapon, but was it really? All it really did was corrupt people and turn hobbits invisible. Handy, but hardly a super weapon. It is the ring's destruction that undid Sauron and I might conveniently just forget about destroying the ring for the duration of the campaign.

Downplaying the ring story also allows the politics to come to the fore. One of the things that Tolkien did really well in the LotR was the politics. Everyone is out for themselves. The elves just want to leave, Saruman wants to be the new lord of middle earth himself, Gondor is in decay and is just battling for survival, Rohan feels alone, and probably is (the help only goes one way – to Gondor), the dwarves don't trust anyone. Similar divisions can be portrayed amongst the evil allies, who surely are just out for what they can get. There is no guarantee that each of the factions will cooperate fully or even at all. There is more scope there for alliances of convenience and mutual distrust and betrayal than might first appear.

I also want to introduce an element of reconnaissance (nazgul on fell beasts are awesome spotters), and agents for intelligence (grima wormtongue). Heroes and generals are also important. A basic resource management system to give focus to the military campaign is also desirable. The dwarves and the goblins fought over the mines of Moria for a reason, the Mithril was valuable!

For battles, I would like to cover the whole range, from minor reconnaissance skirmishes using 28mm figures using the GW SBG rules, mid-range battles using 28mm figures on multiple bases, perhaps using GW War of the Ring rules, right up to major campaign deciding battles like the Pelennor fields, using 10mm figures with Hail Caesar or perhaps warmaster rules,

Anyway, these are still just initial ruminations. As I don't like reinventing the wheel, I was wondering if if anyone had tried this type of thing before. Are there any online resources? Blogs perhaps? All ideas and suggestions welcome.

I love the idea it just sounds REALLY complex. My only advice would be to just make sure to print a little packet of all the necessary info for each player so they can wrap around it all.
I used to play in a DnD group with 8 people total, and the GM had about 25 recurring characters, I couldn't keep it all down, so I made printoffs to help, might be a good idea.

Yup. Complex, long term and immersive. Something that I can think about in odd moments throughout the day. It is really a project designed to keep me amused for years to come, not just a one-off assemble the players and have a campaign type idea. That is why I will really be occupying the role of umpire/world manager. I will involve players as and when I need them, but with the idea that they will be given a particular role, or perhaps requested to give me certain decisions based upon the limited information I provide. That should still be fun for the player (without the commitment that players usually struggle to give) and allows me to develop the campaign without me being deus ex machine for everything.

I suppose that the attraction for me is the narrative that develops over the course of the campaign. That is more interesting to me than playing a particular faction. There may even be unwitting players involved. I loved the Featherstone chapter on recruiting your family into your solo campaigns by getting them to give you decisions or key ideas without even knowing it.i can see my wife giving me lots of decisions based upon my feeding her certain facts and asking what she would do next…

How about tying victory points for the campaign to giving the fellowship time to get to Mordor to destroy the ring. Example, even if a battle is lopsided if the good guys hold out long enough or against all odds give some type of points to advance the fellow ship towards Mordor. If Gondor, Rohan and the elves win enough vp's they win. Similarly, if the bad guys win big penalize the fellowship by removing points to simulate them having to evade more parties of orcs and sundry thus taking longer to achieve their ultimate goal. If the baddies get enough points they have tracked down the fellowship and obtained the ring. By doing this you have a military showdown and the success of either side determines the fate of the fellowship.

Thanks Bashytubits. Nice ideas. I definitely think there is a role for the ring, I just don't want it to be the main focus of the campaign. Perhaps a nice sideline to spice up things occasionally, but really I want the campaign to focus on the military, politics and resources side. What I don't want is the good guys to just be hanging around waiting for the ring bearer to do his thing.

One thing to remember is that the fellowship retained control of the ring the whole time in the books. If you make it possible for the armies of mordor to control it, say if the fellowship loses a battle where the ring is present, then it could become an objective that moves around on the map. You could even make its location hidden from both sides at the start, and maybe have it move randomly throughout the world, so neither side knows where it is. Maybe a token for the ring, and a bunch of dummy tokens?
You're forces take a region and if unopposed for a turn they can search for the ring. Role a die and a 6 let's you look at that regions token?

Dear Jkavanaugh 67

Sounds peachy.

Now I'm going to rain on your parade.

Nothing you have said so far is the slightest problem-- for you..
Do you intend to have any other players in this campaign or will this be a solo-manifestation? That is are you going to be the sole and only player in this, using it as an umpire tool to string your battles and backstory together or are you going to have several other players taking various roles?

If you are doing this alone, fine and dandy, but if you are using other players …. I see problems….

First of there is a middle way. You can have other players in the campaign who just stand around and wait for you to form battles to put on the table top and they fight them. This is the type of campaign where the gamers have no real decision making power and it's all up to you, and it'll work.

A second method for this is to give them limited input througha "narrative campaign." How this works is you are the owner and operator of the system you wish, and they take various powers, Gondor, Fordor, Twodor, Bakdoor, Humidor Cuspidor, Levellor whatever. Each campaign round they tell you what their intentions are for that round and you match up the intentions and then decide by whatever means your desire what contacts and battles will result. This will work quite well too! If they want to do something that's out of the realm of probability or possibility or can't be done you just say "TILT" and tell them to rephrase it.

If on the other hand you are going to allow them to be full discretionary persona dna manage their countries as they see fit then I see huge problems.

Simply put most players are simply bone lazy and will not do the work. Oh, out of every dozen you might get one or two who will put in the time and work to do it and it take A LOT even for a simple game, but most won't/. My experience in 40 years of doing campaigns and International War Games (games like yours were players repreent different nations and factions) is that of every 12 you will get the following.

2 players who will regularly and soncientiously do the work and send in the moves.

3 playuers who will do the work conscientously and send in the moves until about three months latter when it will just become too much for two of them and they will slow down to every other month or stop, or they will lose a battle and drop out because difficulty and unpleasantness is not their thing and they won't want to play if they aren't winning.

3 players who will never send in a move or even tgheir original set up but will be constantly urging you thay are "Just about to do it" or "Jee willikers, if my cat hadn't developed that complex and had to be taken to the cat whisperer, or my motherin law didn't come to stay, or Gosh Golly, it's a lot work.

2 players will say that they are just about to start reading the rules and will take part soon but in the meantime could you run their country for them, sending them detailed updates, and managing their stuff, giving them the right to object when you do something and it doesn't work out.

1 player who will have come out of nowhere and who you did not know and who would just LOVE to play your game and this THE THING He's been looking for all his life and you will send him a copy and you'll never hear from him again.

1 player whose contribution will be a running commentary and criticism on everything about the game and how stupid, unrealistic, illogical, and bad the rules are written, the maps are drawn, the game structures are, and making hordes of suggestions that you should do just like they do in Egos, Umpires and Liars, only change it completely. No he will not send in a single move because "how can I be expected t0 make a move until these mistakes are fixed.

I'd reccommend the Narrative campaign method.

Belive me, I'm not trying to discourage you, but I've been there before and with all your excitement and dedication.

Don't let the b*s*a*r*s get you down.

Unfortunately, OSchmidt's experience is largely that of mine as well. The reality is, (as much as I love them) few map campaigns ever get past the first few turns, let alone played to a satisfactory completion.

Yours is even more ambitious than the typical map campaign.

One of the best map campaign systems I've seen was actually in the Warhammer Fantasy "General's Compendium". It drew heavily on the boardgame "Diplomacy" for some aspects of army movement, etc., and it essentially allowed for balanced armies with some bonuses based on supporting armies, etc.

It looked like it would provide a framework for campaigns that wouldn't get dramatically unbalanced right after the first clash of arms, leading to folks dropping out of the campaign.

Dear Darthfozzywig.

I like the name. Any relation to A.C.Carol Fezzywig?

Maybe we should keep each other in mind for the next time we want to make one of our grand map adventures and only let in those people like us who would do the work as proven by our constructing these campaigns. We'd have more likelihood that way. My last effort was one with a dozen countries in the 18th century.

Hey OScmidt, thanks for your thoughts. I can see they come from hard earned experience. Your post is actually a good roadmap of what I intend. Solo to begin with whilst I set it up, then introduce players gradually and as required to play battles (what you call the middle way). Then, over time, have some players in the 'narrative campaign' having input as I need.

Yes it will mean a constantly evolving campaign over the longer term, but that is ok, I am not in a hurry. It also means that I have just removed the time pressure, so if I get one of your delinquent players, I can either just wait, or rule that their country is paralysed from lack of leadership, or more likely, revert to solo mode.

Great thoughts though, I appreciate the opportunity of learning from other's experience.

Have you considered focusing on an area not detailed in the books? Plenty happening in Erebor, Northern Mirkwood and Angmar. That way you wouldn't have to worry about how to interact with The Ring.

Can the Ring just be timer. IE the game ends when the ring reaches mount Doom? And ignored for victory conditions.

@ Logain, an excellent idea. I will give that some thought. Perhaps I, as the umpire, will move the fellowship according to a system of my own devising, and see what happens if/when they are discovered by the patrols of the various factions. That is pretty much what happened in the story too. Food for thought.

@FABET91, yes I had thought of that. There is even a rules variant for the old spi game tha focuses on the war in the north. But I suppose I am more ambitious than that. I want the whole continent to play with, and I am not going to let the small matter of the ring interfere with my emerging omnipotence…

@Maxshadow, an interesting idea. But it still has built into it the idea of the ring as all powerful. I would like my campaign to be more open-ended than that.

To explain my intentions more fully, what I am really aiming to do is give my gaming in middle earth some context. I find that when I have a campaign running, not only do I enjoy my gaming more (the games have a purpose and a meaning absent from just a straight battle game) but I also play more because I want the narrative to move along, and that has to be a good thing.

I also work away from home a lot (I'm a seafarer) and so a lengthy complex campaign with all the bells and whistles(politics, resources, geography) will give me something to think about and work on whilst away from my toys.

What about gaming the start of the Fourth Age? The War of the Ring has ended, but there must still be factions of the kind you describe – and you and your players get to create the ensuing history…

The good thing about this variant is that the One Ring has gone boom, and instead of it you could build in the lesser rings as less powerful, but still interesting artefacts.

Thanks Caliban. Excellent idea. Plenty of scope there. Loads of Haradrim and Easterlings and orcs still roaming around looking for a new leader and a place in the west. The free peoples are exhausted and war weary. The Dunlendings will cause trouble again. The dwarves have scores to settle. The objectives for each faction are starting to write themselves. Trade and diplomacy needs to be restablished. The men of harad like all the greenery and want to stay. The kingdom of Arnor won't reestablish itself. And no ring. Yep, I like it.

I like the name. Any relation to A.C.Carol Fezzywig?

No. More closely related to Fozzy Bear's character in "A Muppet Christmas Carol."

Maybe we should keep each other in mind for the next time we want to make one of our grand map adventures and only let in those people like us who would do the work as proven by our constructing these campaigns. We'd have more likelihood that way. My last effort was one with a dozen countries in the 18th century.

I'm in.

And for what it's worth, I have and love SPI's "War of the Ring," warts and all. I still think I prefer that to the (admittedly gorgeous) Nexus/FFG version.

I did a solo campaign of the fall of Arthedain ages ago, converting information from the MERP "Rangers of the North" setting book to the AD&D Battlesystem. Not recommended, but it worked for me. :)

I much prefer the various wars of the Second and Third Ages to hypothetical Fourth Age campaigns. Not entirely sure why.

Just to add spice to the Fourth Age idea – maybe the power of the Lesser Rings is linked to leadership, and that's how a faction gains its great captain? If a faction doesn't have a ring, then it can't properly conquer and consolidate at the strategic level. It could be a tough cookie in its own lands, especially if somebody else is threatening, and it could maybe mount raids, but no outright wars of aggression.

And the 'skirmish' level games could include the attempts of said 'minor' faction to acquire such a ring. In fact, a whole pseudo-rpg element could revolve around the ways in which the various powers jockey to retain control of their rings, and then to protect the ring-bearer (faction leader or war champion). Lots of scope there for spying, manipulation, counter-bluff and soon. This would work with the plethora of 'skirmish' type wargames out there at the moment.

The problem with "The Ring" and with any "Ring" even the minor ones is that it seems pretty clear that with the dissolution of "the one ring" the others either vaporize or become like the ticky-tacky sold at garage sales.

The problem with any ring is that it makes material irrelevant. Doesn't matter if you have a vast army ifthe ring can blight them all.

One of the the things that I always found about "Lord of the Rings" was that it was a world forever looking back. It was a world conscious that it's best days were behind it, and that only a weird hollow, almost wraith-like existence was left to them. A world conscisous that it had a wasting disease and that was continually banging up shop. The long distances between kingdoms, the ever-present ruins, the "blasted heaths, woods, marshes whatever" all seemed to say that the world is tottering on the edge of existence and there was moreover, over all a deadening hand of despair, which the occasional bits of over the top oratory and bravado rang hollow. Its like all those brave words by the societies of France and Britain after 1918 about a utopianistic futre, but they relly know-- they're finished.

The's the ring doing it.

It's a sense of despair of "what can man do if there are such rings."

Once the rings are gone the world gets a new life, and the Elves might be sorry they took the slow boat to the west.

Once the rings are out of the way there is the possibility for improvement- for hope-- for doing something other than sitting around caterwauling your sad songs about the good old days.

The end of the Rings would signal a Renaissance like outpouring of optomism, hope, and tremendous enegies of possibilities.

But that brings its own problems. In the immediate period after the wars, given all those ruins and low popultion density and wide marches and lands there's going to be enormous space for the peoples of middle earth to expand without crashing into anyone else. As civilizations go and expand, the hunmdred of miles between anything important is going to take a long time to fill up till conflict over resources and national ego will cause conflict. Indeed, the memory of over a thousand years or so or whatever might be a huge brake on warfare itelf.

I'd like to do a campaign, but at the moment I'm working my way through the Battlegames in Middle Earth scenarios for Games Workshop's SBG. So far still engaged in Isengard's incursions into the Westfold and Plains of Rohan. At that point no one really seems to know what the hell is going on.The Ring is not known to Theoden (or rather Eomer and Theodred). So it is a military campaign of defence.
Thranduil and Brand and Dain are fighting growing incursions from the Easterlings and Dol Guldur and maybe a reforming goblin presence in the Mount Gundabad region.
Faramir and Boromir, presumably alongside Prince Imrahil, are taking it from all sides in Gondor, but again this is a military campaign.Denethor is not telling what he thinks, or wants.On a smaller scale The Dunedain and Elves of Rivendell are fighting against remnants, or growing forces, out of a ressurecting Angmar. Lots of good stuff to fight over. Small scale actions growing steadily larger it seems to me.

Looking at the timeline from Tolkien in the Appendices the state of undeclared war that existed before 3018 TA was about this:

2951: Sauron declares himself openly in Mordor.
2953: Saruman fortifies Orthanc.
2954: Ithilien lost to Gondor.
2957-80: Aragorn serves with Rohan and Gondor in disguise.
2989: Balin's expedition to Moria.
3000: Saruman uses the Palantir and is enslaved.
3001: Gandalf discovers the One Ring, but tells few.

3018/19: The War of the Ring.

That's a lot of time to campaign in and when the Ring was un-played as it were. Sauron and Saruman were searching and Gondor and the Free Peoples were up against a many-headed series of threats.

Perhaps you could take your campaign back further still to the time of The Hobbit? 2941 TA when Sauron decamped from Dol Guldur.

I like the old shadow-points system that the SPI game had. Sauron can only use his influence to search and use his armies by expending his will in different areas and for different purposes. Perhaps the Elven rings can also be used to "see" what is going on. In that way no side has the advantage perhaps.Like wise Saruman and Denethor with the Palantirs, before each was overcome. In this way each faction could have intelligence gathering opportunities to aid them. Similarly the "Fear-Factor" of the Nazgul can be countered by the likes of Glorfindel and other leaders-the orcs and goblins are frightened to enter areas where they are on military operations. It could make for a balanced game.

All the best and I hope you get your game up and running.

Thanks for all the interesting ideas. It's fantastic to get such thoughtful responses.

OSchmidt, i think your analysis is spot on. I not only agree with it, i think it is exactly the reason why a campaign set from the very beginning of the Fourth age is attractive to me. It is a hopeful time, potentially arresting the long decline of the kingdoms of men. But the wild lands, that is, most of Middle Earth, still contain significant pockets of hostile creatures and that might, if a new leader rises, extinguish the nascent resurgence of Gondor and Arnor.

For me, the depopulation following the war of the ring and the extensive tracts of wilderness are an opportunity, not a problem. Nature abhors a vacuum, and will fill the empty spaces with something if the various factions do not act quickly to conquer, make safe, and settle the lands around them. So the beginning of the campaign is characterised by the factions extending their boundaries as much as possible with their meagre starting forces. Resources are thin, and the wilderness still has many threats for all, not just men. But there is a balance, too much expansion will result in a faction being unable to defend its territory. Too little, and the wilderness will encroach.

As the campaign matures, the various factions will come into contact with one another and various consequences are possible. Alliances of convenience, trading, and eventually outright conflict, as each faction seeks to achieve their goals.

Who are the factions in the Fourth Age and what might their goals be?

The Elves are in decline and are leaving middle earth. Those that stay will ultimately become the wood spirits, watching the world but not participating in it. But the elves still have a significant role to play in protecting their enclaves from evil creatures and also from exploitation by men. Can Mirkwood be returned to the Greenwood of old? A faction each for the high elves of Rivendell and the silvan elves of Lorien and Mirkwood.

The dwarves are few and are scattered – from Erebor to the Iron Mountains to Gimli's small settlement in Aglarond. The dwarves still seek wealth from the earth, but their numbers are also declining and old family rivalries are reemerging. The dwarves wish a return to trading and security for their settlements, but also expansion. Are there enough dwarves of stout heart left to tackle Kazad-Dum?

The men of Gondor are weakened by decades of war. The crops lie untended and mothers grieve for lost sons. Mina's Tirith is damaged, Ithillien is lost, the threat of Harad and the corsairs of. Umbar is undiminished. Can King Aragorn return Gondor to prosperity and security, and perhaps even re-establish the northern kingdom of Arnor as well?

The free peoples of Eriador, men of Bree, rangers of the north, stout hobbits, have an opportunity to win lasting peace and security, but only if they can secure their borders and remove the threat of marauding creatures. Perhaps with Fondor's help, the kingdom of Arnor might be reestablished in the north.

The mighty army of Harad has scattered; defeated but not destroyed. Far from their desert homes, the remnants are leaderless and lack direction. But perhaps one man will emerge from the pack. He doesn't want to go back to the desert. He likes the green pastures and rolling hills of the Lands west of the mighty river, and he intends to stay and carve out a kingdom of his own.

Ditto for the men of Rhun. Rhovanion looks inviting. The great host intends to stay and who is going to stop them?

The men of Rhovanion, the men of Dale and Beornings, have little left but their lives. Can they survive to rebuild their homes and trading posts. Perhaps with the help of the a Dwarves they can…

The men of Dunland swore an oath not to take up arms against the kingdoms of men again. But what value is such an oath to the people who took your lands and banished you from your home? The horse lords are your ancestral enemies, and they will be punished.

The men of Rohan paid a heavy price in the war of the ring, playing a key role in the defeat of both Saruman and Sauron but losing their king and the best of their warriors in the process. King Eomer has strengthened his tie with Gondor by marrying the daughter of The Lord of Dol Amroth, uniting even further the ruling houses of the kingdoms of men. But still the help only seems to go one way. Will Gondor help Rohan in her time of need? The westfold has been burnt. The people are scattered. Food is short and the horse herds have been thinned by war, neglect and predators. Can Rohan protect itself, let alone rebuild?

What of the foul creatures of middle earth? Orcs, wargs, Uruk-hai, trolls and so on. Do they scatter into their caves? Or do they thrive in the dark corners of middle earth just waiting for a leader to rise from within, an Orc General capable of raiding for profit and perhaps even conquering a slice of middle earth for themselves. Willa number of factions are possible, including the scattered creatures from Sarumans's defeated army, the orcs of the misty mountains and of Gundabad, and of course the orcs of mordor itself. Their master may be gone, but they will endure…

I have a beginning gents, many thanks. I will start a blog in due course and post the link here. Much more thought required, but I am on the way. And of course, it is the journey that is the interesting part.

All the best.

Dear jkavanagh67

Don't be too hasty. Remember in the mythic mumbo-jumbo that Tolkein put out on the origins of the species (all of them) Sauron had a hand in it. So the questions becomes what happens to the creatures of Sauron once the one ring goes up in smoke. Do all the evil things that are eminations of his power go up with it? Or do they remain. It's an interesting thing from two point.

1.Up in smoke- OK this nust means a new world, a new eden without the baddies. Remember, one feature of The Lord of the Rings is that it's basically a manicean world without a fall from Eden. Mankind does rebel abainst God and is cast out of eden, there is one force which is intruding in the eden. Once it's gone, eden returns. Beyond the questioning if there is even any evil left in the world, this means the world does not have pockets of pree-whoops creaturs.

2) Strangers in a Strange land. Ok so the ring is Gone, Sauron is Toast (literally) but the Orcs, Trolls, blah blah blah's are all still here. What do they do? How do they hand;e this world which they obviously were not made for. What if with the destruction of the ring the "Hatred" Theoden spoke of is now gone and the Orcs, and Trolls, and so forth have to look around and say "What are we going to do now? What will they do? How will they adapt to this "pallid new world?" They gotta eat, they gotta do something on Saturday nights, they'll have, wives, and in-laws and will need braces for their kids. More, what if they REALIZE "the ring made me do it" and want to avoid the general genocide that will follow.

3) What do the good guys do! It's bad enough for the baddies, but this brave new peaceful world will present them with extreme challenges as well. Remember for centuries, milennia, eons, the whole world has been struggling againt or for "the ring" (forget about Sauron, he's actually irrelevant) in all it's emminations. Once that opposition is lifted THEY will have their own world to sort out because just like the orcs, trolls etc., now being released from the ring, so too being released from the fear and terror of the ring . Oh yeah, to be sure, after the end of Sauron and the end of the ring everyone's going to go on a week long bender and super-sized sex orgy from the relief of tension (Baby-boom -- good thing--- Middle Earth needs people) but on the morning of the 7th day they're going to have problems that make their hangovers, seem like a walk on the beach.

What can be fascinating about this game, rather than just dropping back into the same old same old warfare paradigm (what's to fight for, we got plenty of land, lawdy knows we got plenty of gold from all those dead dragons, and besides what's Gold, it's now going to be cheap as pebbles) and a really interesting game can be made on determining what the peoples of middle earth are now going to do with themselves.. we're not talking about state building here, were talking about the buildling of the very basis of civiliztins and the myths, mental attitudes and conceptions that make it up.

By the way, as long as we're on the subject. I have a theory which is totally my own about Lord of the Rings, which IN NO WAY DO I BELIVE TOLKEIN MEANT' but which to me makes sense.

If you look at it carefully Sauron really is irrelevant. Obviously the ring's the thing.

I think the ring WANTS to be destroyed! Sauron may want to repossess it, but I think the ring, which is obviously an abomination of nature (Sauron=abomination and I mean abomination in every sense as in the Old Testament) and that little part of nature in the ring which Sauron takes wants to be re-united with that which it comes from. Therefore it originally betrays Sauron, and each step of the way it seeks to distance itself from those who posess it and grows stronger once it moves closer to Mt. Doom. It's not moving toward Sauron, it's moving toward Mt. Doom, wher eit can be re-united with nature and the world made whole again. You can see all the tropes where everything Sauron does is a perversion of nature, Mordor itself is a vile blasted land, each step the ring bearer takes makes the ring more powerful, but at the same time the ring seems to protect those who bear it-- but do not wear it. For to put it on even temporarily involves the wearer in great danger. It seems that even WEARING the ring seems to be a preamble to claiming it. Once it is worn, things go bad. Take it off thing go better. Remember that it is not Frito who destroyes the ring, it's Gollum – by accident. By Accident? REALLY? Don't you think that a bijou as powerful as the ring could influence the mind of a crazed devotee to not watch his step?

Oh, and by the way-- if one is invisible when one has the ring on, how does Gollum see him?

As I said, it's my own speculation but it seems to make a lot of things fit. It's all very gnostic but remember what Tolkein's trade was.

Dear jkavanaugh67

By the way, ever read Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings?" Hilarous, make that the style of the new campaign on the fourth age and you'll have a winner.

Possibly only exceeded by Harvard Lampoon's "Doone" All hail the Kumquat Haagendass- Steak for dinner sometime soon.

Hi OSchmidt, as always your posts are full of goodness to mull over, and I won't respond fully as it is quite late Downunder. My initial response is that I had a slightly different take on the influence of Sauron. I always had the impression (rightly or wrongly) that Sauron was the main instigator and organiser, the one trying to subjugate the whole world to his will (comparisons to most historical tyrants are apt). Without him, the various creatures of middle earth will be a bit lost for a while, as you say, but will eventually revert to their various natures, at least until the next tyrant wannabe comes along and starts organising them again.

And I think that is really what I meant about 'nature abhorring a vacuum'. Sauron's demise is simply an invitation for the rest of middle earth to strike out on their own account, rather than to be a servant. If only Saruman had been more patient, the world could now be his!

On a related idea, and inviting a dangerous tangent, if the war of the ring could be compared to its historical analogue, the Great War, then the end of the Great War did not see an end to all wars. It merely sowed the seeds for the next series of wars, from the strife in the Weimar Republic, to the Spanish Civil War, the Japanese invasion of China and eventually to the Great War part II (as I like to call it). To follow that line of thought just a little further, the major powers were gravely weakened by the Great War, but the conflicts didn't stop. Indeed, the global powers shifted and a new balance of power arose that was inherently unstable (the rise of the USA and Japan in particular) resulting eventually in an even greater and more destructive war.

The History of Middle Earth is one of conflict of various kinds over various things. I don't think the Fourth Age would be very different. Just the players may change, and that is where I think my campaign will explore. Who got off lightly in the war of the ring? Who will be the next superpower aspirant?

Yes, I remember fondly the National Lampoon books. I read LotR when I was 14, the spoof when I was 17. Both left a strong impression; I never thought of elven maids in quite the same way again…

Just found this post, I shall have to think a bit more and return with more ideas, but a start suggestion is to buy two rule sets: Dux Britanniarum from TooFatLardies and Dux Bellorum from Osprey. Dux Brit has a wonderful campaign system and since large parts of Middle Earth is lifted from post-Roman Britain both combat and campaign works great. Start there, build a few forces and play with them, expanding as you go. Once you get to a certain level, about 100+ figures, go over to Dux Bell and continue.

Dear JKavanaugh67

Remmber that the Orcs and Trolls and several other of the "evil races" of Middle Earth are creations of Sauron as parodies or antithets to men, dwarves or Elves which are the "good" races. The question then becomes how dependent are these races on their creator and what are their natures, especially if their creator is gone.

Remember also that Tolkein was an infantry officer in World War One, and (please any of you out there who have the sources at your fingertips don't tear me apart if I get it wrong) but I believe of the whole calss of Oxford of 895 or so (including instructors, students, and administrators) went off to war--- 840 or so never came back. One can see the devastation of the war physically and mentally from that, and if one adds in the men from the Sorbonne, or Heidelburg, or Bolognia et all, one wondeers how many great masterpieces of literally were never written because they were buried with the could have been authors in Flanders fields.

The other thing to remember that Tolkein, along with CS Lewis and many others, were Oxford Dons, and world famous and renowned Medievalists of their time. Their work as novelists is only the more showy aspects. Tolkein was trying to make some provision for his family (Oxford Dons are illustrious, but Their salary is not very high, and he used his work on Languages as a backup. The particular format of The Lord of the Rings is not a saga or a ballad, but a quest. He is showing to the modern man what the idea and meaning of a quest is. In a Quest, for some reason, we often do not know why, but the world has gone out of joint and some object has to be returned somewhere, or some monster fought, or some great deed done to restore the universe to its balance. This is the real spirit of the quest and there are bits and pieces that resonate deeply with the corpus of Western Literature. Frodo is "the poor fool" -- the "Parzifal" who through his inner virtue or simplicity must provide the pure heart to carry on and undertake the quest. The ring itself, a thing of power is well known as a trope from the Norse Sagas and the division of the cosmos into things of good and evil, both Gnostic and Christian and Pagan. Thus the real importance of men and their armies is in effect completely secondary. They struggle and figut, but it is to no avail and only because the hero, the everyman, the chosen one, whatever knows what he has to do and sets about to do it in spite of all the temptations and dangers that he does it.

Hi jksvanach67! If you want a game with politics and intrigue, then for the love of Eru, don't throw out the Ring! It's the one power-up that could allow the "good" factions to stand against Sauron's overwhelming might, and the one source of corruption that would lead them to turn on each other. Basically, the potential power of the ring breaks Middle Earth diplomacy out of the band-together-or-die straightjacket of the War of the Ring scenario. As long as your players aren't all goody two-shoes, a back stabber has the ability to make a sudden play for global domination.

How's this for a scenario: The campaign opens with Boromir running down from Amon Hen, the Ring on his finger. Sauron and Gandalf both perceive him from afar and see that their plans have gone horribly, horribly wrong. With the power of the Ring, Boromir cuts effortlessly through the orcs sent to detain him, and then disappears into the grass of the Eastmark…

Two weeks later, Boromir returns to Minas Tirith, to the great joy of his people. He bears with him a mighty weapon. Already its power is waxing in his hands. But Sauron has not been idle. He knows he must crush Gondor quickly before the new ring bearer is able to fully realize his new power. Saruman has called off his raiders and broods in his tower, paralyzed by uncertainty. Perhaps Sauron's was not the winning side in this war after all?

Meanwhile, Gandalf has gathered the remnants of the Fellowship and sent tidings to Lorien, Rivendell, and Erebor. He hastens to Minas Tirith to confront the new ringbearer. If he fails to convince Boromir of the magnitude of his folly, he may have to find new allies to prevent the rise of a new Dark Lord…

**Mechanics: Every time it is used in battle, the ring should grant its bearer new powers. They can start as mere morale or combat boosts, but later may extend to control over orcs or over Ringwraiths. For extra flavor, these powers should reflect the abilities and ambitions of the bearer. Ultimately, the Ring should allow the bearer's faction to recruit evil creatures, first at a massive discount, and later to the exclusion of any other units.

The other factions can engage in diplomacy as they see fit, but should try to prevent any tyrant, old or new, from covering the lands in a second darkness. Sauron is the greatest threat, of course, but once he is overthrown…

The ring quest may be renewed, but has a 0% chance of success as long as Sauron controls Mordor. Sauron recovering the Ring would be a huge no-no. And after so many uses, a character will not willingly give up the Ring. Peaceful ring handoffs between factions should have a 50% chance of devolving into murder and pitched battle on the spot.

***One "coalition" strategy would be to use the Ring to battle into Mordor, and then attempt to destroy it there. But if the Gondor faction takes off the gloves, or Rohan grows tired of playing second fiddle, or Sarumon the white proves less-than-pure…

:D

@OScmidt, again I agree with you. The LotR is undeniably a quest saga with the ring as the centre. That is exactly why I want to move away from the idea of the 'all-powerful' ring altogether.

I want a campaign setting in a world for which I have a lot of toy soldiers already, not a recreation of a dark ages Anglo-Saxon saga, or even a medieval holy grail quest. I admire Tolkien's work immensely, but I don't want to follow the story or even be overly faithful to the canon (heresy I know). I just want to borrow his world for my own entertainment. And if I need something to be different to make my campaign work and be interesting, then so be it (a bit of world making megalomania of my own).

In that vein, my campaign needs Orcy baddies, and so I will have them. My justification is simply that the destruction of Sauron their creator did not destroy them. Much like a child grows independent of their parents, once created, the twisted races have a life and an energy of their own and will continue to inhabit the blasted lands of Mordor and the other dark places of the world, albeit leaderless and without focus (for a while anyway). So that leaves some thinking about their inherent natures which is interesting. Are they inherently evil or did Sauron just make them that way? A kind of nature vs nurture discussion. Thanks OSchmidt for the prompting, I am finding just thinking about these fundamental campaign ideas enjoyable.

@Kropotkin 303, there is a lot of opportunity in the Third Age, and your timeline demonstrates just how much scope there is, but the ring looms large and I just want some 'ring-free air' in which to develop my campaign.

@Thomas Nissvik, I have both of those rule sets, but have yet to try them. I have read through Dux Brit, and agree the campaign system seems workable, but I am not sure how it would work for a 'world system''. I see it might work for elements of the campaign, such as the men of Dale resisting the incremental advance of Easterling raiders who will ultimately settle in Rhovanion if not driven out. A similar theme could be played out with the men of Harad and Gondor, or even the dark creatures of Ithillien resisting Legolas and his elves. The attraction of the map based campaign is that it is more free form, and I also just like maps.

All thoughts welcome. This has been a really interesting conversation.

@Lafayatte. I see where you are coming from, but I just don't think it is for me in this campaign. The races of middle earth have never needed a ring just to disagree or scheme over. The antipathy and mistrust between the good races is a strong theme in Tolkien's work, and that alone is enough to make the diplomatic and political scene interesting. The good races had to band together in order to defeat Sauron. Now that he is gone, the reason for putting aside their differences has gone too, and all the old rivalries and suspicions of others' motives return. There are rich pickings there that don't need the ring. In fact, the ring is so powerful that it requires all the other good factions to cooperate or be destroyed. I want a campaign where they might cooperate or not, depending on the situation.

Just another thought. I have been toying with the idea of a new 'baddy', a black númenorean perhaps, who moves into Minas Morgul to start his own rise to power.

I think the Palantir might still exist, and present an interesting tool for those factions that have one.

Good idea. You can effectively start your own history with that fantastic middle earth setting.

what about setting it after the fall of Sauron?

Gondor is in a belligerent mood and feels it owns the world and is flexing it's muscle. You can have campaigns against the easterners, in Harad, plus Rohan may think the time has come for its place in the sun..

Plus you could have left over pockets of Orcs and fell beasties trying to carve their own kingdoms that need to be crushed before they get too strong, there are also elves and Dwarves still around with their own agendas..

The 4th Age may have been the time of man, but it doesn't start off like that, nor is it a time of peace…

Hey Bindon Blood, that is exactly what I am proposing with the 4th Age campaign, which started soon after the fall of Sauron. Great minds etc.

I have started a blog over here: middleearthcampaign.blogspot.com.au

I am at sea at the moment, so I have no pictures or maps or anything at all really. Just words and not even too many if those. But I will be getting home in a few weeks and will be looking forward to getting some toys on the table and putting up some snaps and campaign progress. The clearing of Cair Andros beckons as Gondor's first task…

Been a while since I read the back stories but didn't Morgoth create the dark races? Sauron was his servant and most important general. Once Morgoth was defeated Sauron lost much of his power and was forced to hide while he recovered.

The ring has much of Saurons life force locked up within it as that is what allowed him to control those other rings that he is aware of. So in a fourth age campaign it isn't a given that Orcs, Trolls and Goblins have gone. They are scattered and leaderless only. The "evil races" of me were held in subjugation by Sauron by careful use of carrot and stick and playing on old enmities. With Sauron gone those influences still remain but can be countered. Equally well the "good" races of men have agendas. Rather like the aftermath of a civil war they would start to realise that the main thing that united them was a fear of Sauron. With the enemy gone their differences will rise again.

Tolkeins himself started to plot out a storyline set in the early years of the Fourth Age but gave up on it as he couldn't find story drivers to match those of LOTR.

I second the option of handling such a campaign as a narrative campaign. You run the world yourself, and draft players as army commanders when a battle needs to be fought (much as in Tony Bath's original Hyboria campaign).

If you want more player involvement, one option that worked well for us in the past is to have each player submit matrix-game style arguments about what they would like to do. You as umpire assign some probabilities, and decide whether the events take place or not.
In any case, shield the players from any underlying military or economical game-mechanics you use. That way, you can make the underlying as simple or complex as you want, without involving the players.

Another thing to consider: if you want to use an elaborate economical system, use political influence, spying, trade, dynasties, weather, … etc., consider running one or two countries for a couple of turns in "peace-mode". That way, you gain some experience with the engine without the added complexity of military campaigns.

BTW, if you read Tony Bath's campaign book, you will have noticed he changed and modified many subsystems of his campaign while running it. That's a good approach!

Dear Kavanaugh67 and Phil Dutre.

One thing I would urge you, Kavanagh 67 is to get yourself a copy of Danna Wynne's "Tough Guide to Fantasyland." While aimed primarily at dungeon builders and role playing crowd, she provides a manual for designing worlds that is of inestimable value. It deals with subjects like Continents, Races, food, ecology, economy, and all the background data for a campaign topically, and points out the obvious shortcomings in most fantasy worlds. Particularly hilarious are the sections on "Horses" (which she surmises from all the evidence shown (or lack thereof) grow by pollination, and "Stew" which seems to be the only food eaten in "Fairyland" though everyone in tropical climates seems to subsist on a diet of raw fruit (they must be horribly ummm… irregular.

Phil, I would disagree on the political economic stuff. It's not worth the candle and I would advise against wasting any effort here. Gamers don't care, they just want to get to rolling dice and like teaching pigs to walk upright they don't do it well and it also annoys the pig. Most War gamers political skills make Hitler look Genteel, and most of them simply want to kill things vicariously.

As for economics My best advice is "Don't do it" Gamer Apathy is the greatest reason, however if you want I'll send you the issues of" Saxe and Violets" which deals with economics and has three (no wait-- maybe four" different economic systems in it from four different campaigns. The problem is that once you realize how state financing of armies is done you realize it has nothing to do with economics.

Phil, I would disagree on the political economic stuff. It's not worth the candle and I would advise against wasting any effort here.

Otto,

I tend to agree with you. My only advice is, that is someone really wants to do it, run a few countries during peace-time, and see whether you like the process or not for a full-fledged military campaign. More often, the answer is "let's not bother … " ;-)

Dear Phil

Ah-- yes-- now I understand, agree completely! It's the desk checking on stuff like this that tells you if you've got something fun or created a monster.

I've found that no matter how exciting it may seem it always slows the game down, and WORSE ruins the game because players can manipulate the system to make a gazillion game points to bury everybody with.

Gentlemen, I see you are furiously agreeing, and I shall add my own complete agreement.

As I was thinking about the distribution of Gondorian forces at the beginning of the fourth age, both standing and militia, it seemed to me that there was really no need for an economic structure at all, at least to begin with. Gondor has been more or less continuously at war for a very long time, culminating in the War of the Ring when the very existence of Gondor could not have been in graver peril. So the armed forces available at Minas Tirith and elsewhere were quite simply all that there was.

So there is no need for a treasury; clearly the state can afford to keep the standing army as it is, and the militia can return to their main occupations until they are called out again if the emergency is serious enough.

It also means that the manpower base is being fully utilised, and any population growth for at least the first decade or so of the campaign will simply be enough to replace losses. Perhaps as the campaign develops there might be scope for additional units being formed from some of the larger cities, but that is some time off.

Trade will be important, but more by its disruption than its presence. That way I simply have to record successful raids (or failure to protect trade) rather than set out the whole underlying system.

Dux Brit uses these kinds of ideas in a simple kingdom attack/defence model. It is only a bilateral model though, and it am looking at a multilateral campaign overall, so I will just have to see how it develops.

And Phil, as a devotee of Tony Bath's work, I am absolutely committed to the idea of evolving as I go. If I waited until the whole campaign was worked out, the story would never begin. I will look out for Danna Wynne's book too.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Dear JKavanagh67

Good choice and good reasoning. As one more support to your ideas remember that from the descriptions of the world in tolkeins books, and from a general inspection of the picture it seems that Middle Earth is somewhere in the 900-1000's to maybe the end of the Third Crusade. There's not much economics going on at that time anywhere, and it is fairly divorced from warfare. Remember that in the Middle Ages the fuedal system was pretty much as Gahnshoff said "Land for military service." I gave you this fief of land+peasants and you agreed to 30 to 60 days of service with my colors when I put out the word. There was aid and counicl as well which latter became diets and parliaments, but warfare back then was not so much an affair of money as the interpersonal bonds between rulers, which Lord of the Rings is chock-a-block full of. Of course Lords often wanted not to give their retainers land (because often when they galloped off that was the last time they saw them, and many tried giving "fief de Bourse" or a "fief which was not land but a fief in money." That was good, WHEN the lord had money, which he usually didn't and such "bourse" as there was was usually "in kind" that is in bushels of wheat and baskets of apples, none of which was very satisfactory to peasants, lords or retainers. Plus the problem with a "fief de bourse" was that it mean't that the retainers usually had to hang around the lord to get their "in kind" payments and the sentiments of the lady of the manor can be imagined with having his husbands smelly, dirty, belching, farting friends hitting on her all the time.

There were mercenaries and the like, but thinly disguised brigands in coat of steel were difficult to pay-- and difficult to get rid of once the war was over and wanted to keep getting paid (like the Mafia) and so you either had to exterminate them or make them retainers --- see above for attendent difficuilties.

Much of what I see in Lord of the Rings are economies pretty much banging along on the ground and not producing virtually ANY surpluss that could be sold for trade to provide money and of manufactured goods---hah! Luxury goods seem few and far between.

That's why I say and agree with you, you can pretty much dispense with economics. Armies were pretty much still tribal, and social. Certain peoples could and others could not bear arms, and money is more an ornament or a holy relic. Not until you get the Condottieri in Italy do you have armies that can be raised by money, but then-- Italy in the age of the Condottieri HAD money! Thus we read that the Tyrant of Orvieto, a miniscule principality had a yearly income greater than the King of France. On the other hand then there were the Swiss.

My favorites.

But the Swiss have an insurrectionary and Social Purpose which makes them highly dangerous. See if you can find Thomas Brady's "Turning Swiss." It's about one aspect of the rise of the Swiss. The problem with the Swiss was they were ruthless killers. They took no prisoners, and especially delighted in slaughtering noble captives. They also had a habit of going on strike and demanding more money for anything extra.

Now THAT would be an interesting force to add to a Middle Earth Game.

So Jkavenaugh67 have you made any progress, decisions, or structures yet?