Suite101 article: There are games afoot!

I'm still running two days late with these articles but I'm working on getting back on schedule.

How have role-playing games tried to depict Tolkien's world in the past? With the prospect of a new role-playing game based on The Lord of the Rings facing us, are there perhaps better methods of depicting Tolkien's vision while retaining playability?

www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/tolkien

Good article.

From Numenore to RPing. We're slowly steering sadly away from the lost tales of the stunted Oghor-hai and the mystical magic of Mr. Drubar, savior of Middle-earth essays.

In other words I haven't read it yet, but I will. I'll post the link on the MEOVN. They're idle people over there, don't go outside much. Haven't seen an entmoot, depend on news from wanderers. Hopeless lot.

I DO intend to go back to those forums. I just don't know when I'll be able to. Whenever I get a free moment these days I try to relax offline.

No rush. You'd probobly be board with the discussions that have risen in the last several days. If you want to know there was joke concerning the jimmy-cracked-corn song on the General Board ("if jimmy cracked corn and noone cared than why the hell did anyone write a song about it?"). I wrote a parody-essay on it (since it is a parody, it is not really an essay at all), based on the controversy of heated discussions, er, you yourself have taken part in. It was entitled Look what they've done to my corn, ma!. You might like it. All the same, we'll be glad to have you back whenever. However, reportedly Morthoron is not ready to prescribe to the gospel of Michael. Another poster had presented your opinion as leverage for credibility in a Glorfindel debate. People need to realise although more reliabe than ICE, Michael Martinez is no more an authority! Hehe. (Visualizing Middle-earth carries the warning). Actually proof came forward and the poster was right. So go figure.

I have read the essay now. Very good. I still wish you would allude to the REVISED version of Fonstad's work, which doesn't contain nearly as many mistakes.

I'm very glad you mentioned the MEO drama. It is just very sad and infuriating what happened to our community. Dreams shattered. Actually I found about the project very shortly after it happened, but it seems as though I was there with the rest of the gaming community when the crushing news of the "axing" dawned on the faces of the hopeful.

But you (or your essays, or both) never cease to amaze me. It seems like people who read your essays either find it very agreeable or just the opposite. People either like what you have to say or they don't. I'm in the thumbs-up group. I always enjoy reading what you have to say. The style of your writing is intriguing. The subject-matter can be made into a large sack of drear in the wrong hands, but you know how to draw the readers in and show them what you think. Sometimes it feels like opening a door and finding someone else's thoughts--that somehow don't seem alien. The information you present are not robotically delivered. You don't force people to read what you have to say, you beacon them, and they come. The information you present often appear as revelations.

And I greatly applaud your defence of Tolkien purists as opposed to RPing games being used with a authoritative function. But then comes the revelation, and I see (now) the cause for defending games who may be faithful to the movies and not the books. But the fans are unaware of the legal implications seemingly and often don't take it into account. I certainly don't.

I like the humor in your essays, and in this one. The humor is true, so it's all the more humerous. (I.e., pity to the people defending what is often considered blasphemy to purists in unmoderated places on the Internet, but you may not have intended that as a kind of punch-line). I also enjoyed the Frodo/Tharbad joke. You're always up to par. Humor is a good thing to have in these sorts of discussions, if you know what I mean.

I have a couple questions. What exactly are the hill-men? The Angmarians who you supposed were the Forodwaith? I don't think I've ever bothered to ask before. Also; what monsters did Tolkien leave roaming about Eriador, the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood? I cannot think of "plenty".

Magic is a hard thing to grasp in Middle-earth. It's not simple. It has a real feeling about it like everything else in Tolkien's mythology, and as such, it's not easy to understand. For a little while now deep down I've had a fighting notion that magic is not race-based. I've certainly heard you voice the idea many times. But I just couldn't grasp the evidence or bend my theories in that direction. How could it not be race-based? But you present the evidence in a form tangible enough to grasp.

As for pale-skinned Dunedain in the South, I'd go with few and not none. Damrod and Mablung were specifically said to be pale-skinned, dark-haired and grey-eyed.

Haven't you ever considered applying for a job as a developer of any Middle-earth related product?

Great essay.

I wonder if I'm a well-known enough writer that I could start a Michael Martinez parody contest for Dragoncon?

I have to admit, you have some of my standard rebuttals nailed down pretty well.

As for the hill-men, I have never found any explanation of how they fit into Tolkien's families of peoples. They could be "Easterlings" (as opposed to Edainic men) or some offshoot of the Edain. People have argued both ways (although I tend to favor a non-Edainic stock).

I'm still trying to figure out the magic, but there is just no way I can see it as race-based. Everyone but the hobbits seems to get into it. And, yes, Damrod and Mablung are pale-skinned. I had misgivings about that part of the essay but wanted to get it out.