COMMUNICATIONS

Bjørn Asle Taranger:

I normally start reading OH from the beginning, and on page two of last issue I found a very refreshing and rather puzzling letter written by a French "school of Elven studies" who obviously take their "Tolkien" very seriously, and who also doesn't care much for role playing (in general). That was my impression anyway.

The letter was interesting, and I must say that I can share some of their concerns regarding the "authenticity" of ICE's version of Middle-earth. However, I found it hard to take the article all too seriously when it characterizes Pete Fenlon's maps as "ridiculous." Such a statement should be backed up by some arguments, in my opinion.

I liked the fact that the letter was printed. This brings credence to the claim that OH is independent of ICE. I hope the letter may be the start of a serious debate which may be carried out both here and in OH.

Enga 5
N-3430 Spikkestad
Norway

Robert Carignan:

I'd like to append my comments to the ones already voiced on the latest issue (#15/16) of Other Hands. First, I'd like to give Editor Chris Seeman credit for printing the letter from "The Association of Friends of Tolkien in France" (hereafter referred to as the "Association"). As Chris states in his editorial on the front page, Other Hands' purpose is "to provide an open forum that celebrates a diversity of viewpoints on Tolkien's world as it relates to role playing." The Association's view isn't against role playing in Tolkien's world, just ICE's approach to it. Kudos to Chris for publishing an anti-MERP letter in a definitely pro-MERP journal.

As for the Association's view, at first I was shocked, then downright resentful of it. However, as I re-read the letter over the week's time, I began to sift through what they were saying and understand it a little.

In their letter, they write: "This 'crowning glory' of role playing games is a highly dangerous dish for novice Tolkienists (and other amateurs) who want to learn more about Tolkien and his world!" I couldn't agree more with this statement. The primary gripe of the Association seems to be that they fear people unfamiliar with Tolkien's works will use the published material by ICE as a surrogate for the actual corpus. They also take great exception to the fact that ICE invents portions of Middle-earth in order to fill in the blank spots on maps and flesh out areas to role play in.

Does the Association think that we don't know this? If so, they have a false impression of us. Do any of you believe that ICE is a true and accurate resource for Tolkien's works? I don't! They are a game company that has a license from the Tolkien Estate to develop and publish their version of Middle-earth; one that we buy into by purchasing their product and molding it to fit our conceptions and role playing needs. By our own agreement it is an exemplary product line that we feel represents the flavor of Middle-earth, but I would never think to substitute it for reading Tolkien himself.

The Association's letter is reactionary, fueled by an imprecise conception on what ICE's Middle-earth Role Playing is and who we are as players of that milieu. In response to their final statement, "please for your game-settings, do rely on your own imaginations than on ICE modules," I say that I rely heavily on the former with a nice dose of the latter because I understand the difference.

277 Union Street
Bangor, ME 04401

Phil Hendry:

Regarding the letter from the Association of Friends of Tolkien in France, just saying Pete Fenlon's maps are "ridiculous" is in itself ridiculous. Without any evidence or arguments being offered we must surely conclude that this statement is simply an expression of personal taste on the part of the author.

In my opinion, Pete's maps are fine. I like them a lot and use them all the time in my games. In terms of accuracy (i.e. fitting in with the journeys described in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings) they work about as well as any others I've seen. What other criteria could one apply to maps of Tolkien's world? The level of detail is about right�enough detail to aid the description of the adventures in a particular module, whilst still leaving enough "blank" areas around to be used for "home-grown" adventures.

There are aspects of ICE's treatment of Middle-earth with which I am less happy though. I'm not 100% happy with the magic system. I'm not sure that it models the magic of the books very well. I'm also less than happy with the amount of treasure handed out in the modules. I routinely divide the money and gems by at least ten, chop out most of the magic items, and reduce the power of those left.

MERP (and its big brother RM) are pretty much "traditional" FRPGs, catering to the "traditional" gamer, who wants loads of fancy spells to cast and to get very rich, very quickly. No bad thing in itself, as it makes for a fun game, but in my humble opinion it doesn't fit J.R.R. Tolkien's vision. There's no reason why a game fitting the books better shouldn't be fun either�the fun would just be a bit different, which would also be no bad thing.

I wonder why ICE took the route they did? Perhaps because they thought a "traditional" FRPG with loads of magic and treasure would sell better than an "accurate," low treasure, low magic game? Perhaps to fit in with RM?

Jasna Martinovic:

The letter that criticized the ICE books in OH 15/16 was an interesting point of view, because it shows that there are people who are rather conservative in their approach to the works of Tolkien (as well as very ignorant about the aspects of role playing in Middle-earth). I didn't agree with their critiques about ICE being 'unloyal' to the true spirit of Tolkien, but they pointed out one thing that was also very puzzling to me: the one female Nazgûl. Even this example of 'disloyalty' to Tolkien isn't enough to justify their critique, because they are creating a dogma from Tolkien's books and aren't allowing people to be creative by adding their own elements to the world that Tolkien had created. So far, I haven't noticed any major discrepancies between Tolkien and the books by the authors that work for ICE, and until someone offers better material for role playing in Middle-earth, I will continue to appreciate and buy ICE's books.

Chris Seeman:

As several (or, at any rate, four) readers have been moved to respond to the open letter from the School of Elven Studies which appeared in last issue's Communications column, I too have felt compelled to offer some kind of rejoinder. I'm not certain whether its author had in mind any of my own contributions to the MERP series in his censures, but since I have made a contribution to some of the recent modules (The Kin-strife, Southern Gondor) and have, more recently, assumed much of the editorial responsibility for the content and quality of the line, I think it only fitting that I should answer some of his criticisms. I would hasten to add that I am not setting myself up as an apologist for ICE; rather, as a fellow gamer and lover of Tolkien's works, I wish to point out where I agree or disagree with the author's claims.

I recognize from the outset that his letter was intended as a succinct cautionary message, and not as a detailed exploration of the strengths/weaknesses of the MERP series. The point it seeks to make is perfectly legitimate: to alert people to the fact that the representation of Tolkien's world in MERP products does not necessarily reflect what Tolkien himself wrote. However, in making that point I believe that the author has also made some potentially misleading statements which I hope to correct.

There are many aspects of past MERP products (some major, others less so) with which I share the author's criticisms (see, for example, my reviews of Angmar and Mirkwood in OH 12). However, I would take exception to the hyperbolic tone he adopts. It is a gross exaggeration to assert that the entire MERP line contains "not a single pertinent analysis, no notes worthy of interest, not the least trace of well considered interpretation." The only way to answer this kind of assertion is with specific examples, and these I will take from my own work or from work which I edited (not because I think these are necessarily superior to other examples, but because I can claim direct responsibility for their publication).

Take Southern Gondor, for instance. I think the section describing the values and ideals of the Gondorian nobility is a rather cogent summary of the characteristics which Tolkien used to distinguish the Faithful Númenóreans from the King's Men. Not only does it attempt to profile these virtues, it also attempts to show the various ways in which they interact with one another to form a distinctive cultural mentality. As for "notes worthy of interest," I would recommend a glance at Martin Baker's highly valuable and laboriously researched concordance of the various calendrical systems observed in the South-kingdom. Another example of what I would call a carefully considered interpretation is the history of Dol Amroth that appears in that module. Anyone who is even remotely aware of the morass of conflicting and unresolved traditions in Tolkien concerning this site and its occupants will appreciate the kind of interpretive effort demanded for achieving a coherent synthesis for a mid-Third Age game setting. My reconstruction of that history may well be at variance with the views of others, but it would simply be fallacious to impute that the version appearing in the module was unresearched, ill-considered or insensitive to the larger themes of Tolkien's mythology.

The author's principal criticism appears to be that "ICE transforms what Tolkien has actually written in his books, and pretends to do otherwise (italics mine)." While the first part of this statement is demonstrably true�as applied both to outright errors and to valid elaborations of Tolkien's world�the second is not. Every MERP module states clearly at the very beginning and in no uncertain terms: "ICE does not intend [the MERP line] to be the sole or proper view....Remember that the ultimate sources of information are the works of Professor J.R.R. Tolkien." So however justified the author may be in criticizing the failings of the series to live up to his own high standards, it cannot accurately be claimed that ICE has involved itself in a conscious deception to mislead "novice tolkienists (and other amateurs) who want to learn more about Tolkien and his world."

I fully concur with the author that the point of role playing is to have fun and that gamers should rely on their own imagination in exploring Tolkien's world. However, in caricaturing ICE as some monolithic entity bent on ruining Tolkien's mythology for crass commercial motives he fails to recognize that the vast majority of MERP products are conceived and written not by ICE, but by free-lance writers who are using their imagination to explore Middle-earth. "Marketability" is hardly what motivates these individuals; rather, it is a genuine love of Tolkien's world.

If ICE can be faulted for anything, it is surely for the reverse of what the author implies; the need is rather for a more informed and consistent editorial control than ICE has heretofore exercised over the content of the series. No single person's knowledge of Tolkien's world is perfect or complete, and I am no exception to that rule. I believe that the most effective way for improving the quality of MERP in this regard is to cultivate a global network of specialists devoted to all aspects of Tolkien's work relevant to role playing (history, linguistics, etc.) who can function as "consultants" in the development of new products. Other Hands has helped to foster that goal over the past four years, and the vastly enhanced communication possibilities of the Internet has also played its part. This effort is already beginning to bear fruit, and I anticipate that it will reap still more positive results in the course of this year.

One final remark: I was rather shocked at the author's benign judgment of the MERP rule system (in contrast to his wholesale rejection of the modules). In my view, the rules are the most problematic and fundamentally "un-Tolkienian" aspect of the series. In my own gaming experience, it is game mechanics (or, rather, their overall orientation and implied style of play) that often prove to be a central factor in determining whether or not a game will successfully evoke the feel of a given literary world. To the extent that the MERP rules are the step-child of the Rolemaster system, they reflect its cosmology rather than that of Tolkien (though cf. OH 13:16ff). The MERP magic system is merely the most glaring example of this gulf. Happily, ICE is seriously considering creating a new rule system (or significantly restructuring the existing one) which will reflect the distinctive themes of Tolkien's mythos. All that remains is to locate potential writers who are sufficiently competent in both Middle-earth and game design...

PO Box 1213
Novato, CA 94948
USA