A Revisionist Lord of the Rings?

OK, so we talked about 1977's Rankin/Bass Hobbit and reviewed it favorably against the recent debacle movies.  But it occurred to me that as much as I loved that particular version, especially when compared to Jackson's efforts, it really only succeeds by itself and not as part of the actual trilogy that followed it... 

And so this week's post is about how the Rankin/Bass Hobbit fails, but also how their attempt to take on its sequel was actually pretty good as a REVISIONIST version of the tale!

So to be clear, I hadn't read the hobbit until after I saw the televised version, and put off reading Lord of the Rings until even later, being distracted by the stuff of childhood and a brand new diversion called Dungeons & Dragons that left me, at least for awhile, more interested in gaming rulebooks than inspirational works of 20th century literature!  Such were my priorities then...   

But sometime in-between, I imagined all manner of continuing adventures for Bilbo and his magic ring, including several attempts by the evil Gollum to get it back!  This was pre-internet fan fiction, and pretty fun even if it was pointless.  I mean, I knew there was a sequel out there, and one much darker than my own rather straightforward and morally clear-cut storylines.

Of course, Ralph Bakshi was releasing his own Lord of the Rings animated feature, and its evocative and colorful visuals filled the pages of Famous Monsters of Filmland.  So I patiently awaited its release and watched, transfixed, its rotoscoped orcs and epic battle scenes spawned by that little ring of Bilbo's.

This was a pretty straight rendition of the story, deviating only where the necessity of editing and omission required, meaning no new characters to compensate for what amounted to a sausage party of a book, minus Galadriel and some lady hobbits.  But it was also a very incomplete release, because it stopped at The Two Towers!

The Rankin/Bass Return of the King
was a surprisingly dark and mature offering...

It was Lord of the Rings, alright.  But given how the Rankin/Bass Hobbit had been my introduction to Tolkien's universe, Bakshi's film felt alien (despite being more authentic), both in style and tone, and I found myself longing for something closer to the imaginary fan fiction I had spent the previous year dreaming up.

Fortunately, Rankin/Bass had a Return of the King in the works, closing out this patchwork animated trilogy by returning to the look and feel of their animated Hobbit.  This ran in 1980, just in time for me to start growing up and begin thinking I was too old for this sort of thing (I've long since come to my senses, luckily)...

The story begins with the hobbits and Galdalf at Rivendell to celebrate Bilbo's birthday, when Bilbo notices that Frodo is missing one of his fingers!  Of course, this demands an explanation, and Gandalf spends the rest of the program telling it.  So the mission to destroy the One Ring is cleverly told in flashback, making it easier to gloss over the first two books of the trilogy!

Nice!  But it's a bit confusing having Sam, Merry, and Pippin suddenly inserted, although real efforts are made to flesh out these characters, and it mostly works.  Aragorn and Denethor are nicely brought into the story as the narrative unfolds, noting that while this approach technically succeeds (mostly), it also points to major shortcomings when compared to the Hobbit offering...  

Aragorn is both elevated and diminished minus his humanizing backstory, and the complex historical (and political) situation that required Gondor to even NEED a steward is pretty much overlooked, making major events feel random instead of the culmination of many disparate events.  Now, while this shouldn't be a requirement of something ostensibly meant for children, the program is remarkably dark and intense at times, making it feel pretty conflicted.

In general, everyone who ISN'T Gandalf or a hobbit is reduced to mere window dressing.  A necessary backdrop.  And the overall feeling is that of a historical narrative with many important events inserted Cliff Notes style in top-down fashion...

Legolas was a wood elf, and here,
Bakshi's (right) clearly did a better job!

In short, characters are introduced suddenly and with little real context if they aren't just taken at face value, and important events occur in rapid-fire succession that feels frenetic, although the producers appear to recognize this and exploit it to create a sense of urgency.  Oh, and the Witch King sounded for all the world like Skeletor, which I'm divided on!

But the program succeeds on many levels as well.  Visually, it matches the Hobbit, but that's not all.  Despite the much-vaunted realism of Bakshi's effort, the Rankin/Bass version feels more energetic and choreographs its many battle sequences far better than rotoscope could pull off.  The orcish ram, Grond (an interesting inclusion), had more action, grit, and realism than anything Bakshi managed to pull off, perhaps because the animation was freer.

Frodo and Samwise are reasonably well developed in their journey through Mordor, and the production team seemed to realize that Sam was the REAL hero of the story.  Merry and Pippin are similarly developed, along with the wizard Gandalf, via two encounters with the Witch King and an exchange with Denethor that is actually quite chilling and captures the latter's madness well. 

Indeed, this compact version carefully and thoughtfully chose the right scenes for maximum story advancement as well as character development, and the fact that it's really hobbit-centric works on several levels.  Now the songs aren't as good, with the possible exception of the great "Where There's a Whip There's a Way", which addresses the goblin's own feelings about going to war.

Indeed, there's this sequence where human and orcish soldiers are arguing over access to a road that touches on the subject of racial relations between Sauron's various servitors.  This is something generally overlooked, and it adds a layer of thoughtful nuance to an otherwise straightforward take on good and evil...

The Rankin/Bass version of The
Hobbit and Return of the King succeeds
as its own thing and quite well...

And so the ring is destroyed and the world saved, and at the end it's revealed that the elves would depart and the Age of Men begin, and that the hobbits would steadily grow in size(!) and gradually merge into the human population.  This is an original concept and at odds with Tolkien, but it speaks to a charming REINTERPRETATION of the story that's utterly fascinating in its implications.

Years later, I think I've worked these things out...

The Rankin/Bass Hobbit FAILS as a prelude to the REAL trilogy primarily due to its visual representation of elves.  It's hard to imagine Legolas as a green troll or Aragorn falling in love with someone having a literal ring of stars circling around their heads, although Captain Kirk was none too particular.

And it FAILS as a prelude to Bakshi's film because the style and overall tone are off (Bakshi was doubtless more true to the visual style Tolkien had in mind, even if his Balrog was boring).  

But then again, Bakshi's film FAILS as a prelude to the Rankin/Bass version (on similar grounds) of Return of the King.

But when you take the Rankin/Bass Hobbit and Return of the King together, minus all that other stuff, you get a coherent and internally consistent REVISIONIST retelling of the trilogy, one that doesn't require Galadriel or Tom Bombadil to succeed, because the emphasis is on the hobbits.  Indeed, you get the feeling of a wider world mostly beyond these simple little people, who struggle just to find their own place in it, and it WORKS on this level.

Upon closer examination, Tolkien's original trilogy was to the Rankin/Bass animated version analogous to what 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was to the simpler Dungeons & Dragons ruleset that ran alongside it through much of the 1980s and 90s, which is a fitting comparison given how much all of them figured into my own evolution as a gamer and fantasy enthusiast.  It's ALL good...

OneDice Supers (a Review)...

With all the awesome superhero movies we've been treated to this past summer (and Doctor Strange in November), my thoughts inevitably turn to gaming, and I feel an overpowering urge to role-play in a world where radioactive spiders bite awkward teenagers and mutants organize to save the world!  But I want to create MY OWN heroes with the unique powers I imagine for them (sorry, Marvel Superheroes), and I don't want endless rules to get there...    

If this is your cup of tea, you might consider a recent discovery; OneDice Supers, a game that delivers all this and more! 

In the interest of full disclosure, I got this in trade from the designer (+Talon Waite).  We both share a passion for simplicity in gaming and have been having a good time trying each other's stuff out (because we WILL be giving it a whirl).

Back in the day (meaning the 80s), I played Champions (by Hero Games), and while the system had some exciting ideas, like a point buy system for powers and advantage/disadvantage rules meant to tailor abilities and costs, it had certain, uh, bugaboos, probably player error, that affected my gameplay experience... 

For one thing, the game was heavy on accounting, and we were certainly up to the challenge!  We'd spend a WHOLE WEEK hashing out the perfect character; I mean the optimal build, only to feel the inevitable anti-climax at the table.  And our creations were so powerful and meticulously crafted that no one could actually defeat anyone else, and everything fell into a tedious combat scenario culminating in a standoff.  We went back to D&D.

It didn't help that our GM was emotionally invested in his own villains; lovingly crafting each one and jumping into combat eager to show off his superior accounting!  

This was more than a little frustrating, because the game had so much going for it, including a then-revolutionary provision of players buying EFFECTS and justifying them (SPECIAL effects) however they wished.  But somehow, our group overthought things...

Now, many people ADORE Champions, and who am I to argue with anyone's personal preferences?  But OneDice Supers inevitably draws comparisons to that most venerable game because, for me, anyway, it incorporates its finest intuitions and expresses them in a smart and decidedly simple (and player-focused) rulebook.      

So without further delay, here's my take on OneDice Supers by Talon Waite and the awesome folks at Cakebread & Walton Games:

This is a game about superheroes.  Specifically, a game where players can custom-design their own heroes, complete with their own super powers, abilities, and back-story.  This is an intriguing prospect even if you don't otherwise enjoy comic books, and OneDice Supers DELIVERS here by trimming out the fat.

Character creation is easy.  You get 8 ability points to divide between four abilities; Strong, Clever, Quick, and Power.  Each of these relates to specific actions undertaken (i.e., climbing or firing a gun) within the course of a game.  Players can choose to be normal (vs. super-powered), however, with minor adjustments and stipulations, meaning this simple, tight little system can actually be used to make awesome pulp-styled heroes as well!  

These abilities can be used to calculate a character's Health, Defense, and Movement quickly and easily.  For instance, a Super's Health is Strength x 3.  Ditto for Defense and Movement, which effectively consolidates several additional calculations into a few simple steps easily completed within minutes.

Players also get 5 points to buy powers (Gifts), drawing from a streamlined, but comprehensive, list.  Supers can blast, ensnare, or even steal another's powers, and these can be justified within the narrative (referred to as their Tag), extending the options well beyond the 36 items offered.  Some of these, like superior strength, enhance abilities, while others, including blast, deliver heroic powers comparable to our favorite heroes from the comics!

Players can put one or more points (up to 3) into a Gift, each impacting its power and/or effectiveness.  Some are passive enhancements, while others require activation rolls per the power's written description, all of which are easy to use.

The possibilities are literally
endless, and the emphasis is on role-playing
as much as heroic superhero combat... 

Next, players choose one Embellishment, like being filthy rich or having a Batman-esque butler, and a single Flaw, such as being magically cursed or missing a body part, etc.  Finally, they get 6 Skill Points to purchase Skills, which is otherwise similar to Gifts and add greatly to the Super's background and persona.  There are likewise provisions for establishing the character's secret identity or Cover, and even rules for disposable income and equipment.  

Task resolution is similarly easy.  You roll one die, add the governing ability/power/skill score and compare the result against a Target Number established by the Game Keeper.  There's more, of course, but it largely all comes down to this simple core mechanic, which leaves more time (and energy) for the narrative!      

This is a compact ruleset that achieves great things.  Gifts are carefully selected to provide ENDLESS possibilities, being universal across the genre and GREATLY expanded by the Tags used to justify them within the narrative.  And the absence of complicated mechanics and tedious point accounting eliminates most abuse and results in characters who can actually LOSE instead of the just running on the treadmill of stalemates in an endless looping combat scenario. 

Ultimately, this is accomplished by keeping the numbers low, consolidating several function into one, and relying on the player's ability to justify the MANIFESTATION of the powers so central to superheroes in general.  At no time does your character feel buried under the weight of an overly busy character sheet! 

OneDice Super's 129 pages are cleanly laid out and very nicely illustrated in a way that utterly nails the spirit of the genre and recalls that excited feeling I got when I stumbled upon Champions back in 1983.  You see this in the sample characters, each of which is pure and undiluted CONCEPT that shines through its wonderfully uncluttered statistical expression.  Heroes at their finest!

There's more, of course, including rules for advancement and a specialized campaign setting, etc.  Everything the ambitious player needs to become a hero and fight the forces of evil, and all the creative Game Keeper needs to build an exciting setting. 

OneDice Supers is available from One Book Shelf in digital, soft, and hardcover formats.  Well worth getting if you love superheroes!

Can We Have Too Much Death?

Consider the many books and movies (or books BASED on movies or whatever) we draw our inspiration from.  Aside from Game of Thrones, the main characters aren't dropping like flies because that would limit the story somewhat (trademark understatement, folks), but also because it limits the IMPACT of death itself...

You really need an ongoing story, and it's hard to have one with turnover rivaling that of your local Taco Bell.  And the characters can't develop enough for anyone to CARE if they end up dead!

No, the media we enjoy depicts our heroes (and heroines) hacking through hordes of the things through many adventures, facing myriad challenges and overcoming them all with aplomb...

Chapter after chapter until...BANG!, a cherished character dies unexpectedly.  Maybe its a deadly arrow from some hidden archer or that lethal blow from someone's axe at the height of victory.  

Now THIS has an emotional IMPACT.  The late character is both established and well-developed and will have doubtless contributed to the story in many ways (and through many thrilling chapters), bonding with their companions, but also the READER. 

In role-playing games, player characters are literally the MAIN CHARACTERS IN THE STORY, and in a story-driven campaign, there needs to be some potential for long-term growth.  But these aren't just fictional characters witnessed in third-person from a distance, they're OUR characters, and they bond with US and with our friends within the context of a weekly fantasy get together... 

This is what happens when you have REAL people behind the mask!

Character death should happen
and should have an IMPACT when it does...

In other words, there needs to be the potential for long-term participation coupled with the possibility of death, and making this work can be challenging.  Mostly, it comes down to tailoring the encounters to the party and being familiar with whatever system is being used.  Luckily, this gets easier with practice!

We designed Pits & Perils specifically for this style of play, because there's a lot to be said for exploration and role-playing in an ongoing campaign.  It's exactly what WE wanted when we put the game together for our own enjoyment.  But death still waits... 

Characters enjoy solid hits against the average damage from most attackers (1-2).  If you're looking to die from the first successful hit from the first successful attack against you, this isn't the game for you unless you enjoy house ruling!

So the hit points tick off incrementally over time and can be treated as a resource to be managed.  But after several skirmishes with orcs and their pet wolf, even the fighter will have taken a beating, only to round the corner and meet the magic-wielding orcish shaman and her bodyguards loyal to the bitter end... 

Or they get shot with a poisonous (2d6) arrow...

Or fall into a 3d6 pit trap filled with deadly spikes...

But characters should have a chance to
survive stuff like THIS, at least for awhile...

Long-term survival is built into the game, but death CAN occur, especially when players are careless.  The key here is that they'll typically survive long enough to experience at least some of the campaign and become an important fixture in it. 

In practice, this has created cautious players who don't take anything for granted, because even those common orcs could have a deadly ringer hiding in their midst!    

And when the character you've (very lovingly) developed through multiple sessions and seven levels dies at the hand of an assassin dressed in red (perhaps as a warning) and their poisonous dagger when victory seemed certain, it has a powerful IMPACT...

I've been told it hits harder than losing the character you just made twenty minutes ago.  Because, I mean, they haven't even begun yet, although time would have made them CHERISHED.

As D&D began to go mainstream, there was some effort to make characters more survivable, including suggestions to re-roll hits when 1 or 2 was rolled, suggesting its creators understood that campaigns were increasingly narrative-driven, and that this requires adventurers who survive long enough for us to CARE about them and reach higher levels, where the coolest possibilities await!

All of this is just a fancy way of saying that while the threat of death is necessary to a challenging game, constant and egregious fatalities can actually DIMINISH its impact.  This is something we tried to address in our own game(s), although we know that you, dear reader, have done the same, and we'd love to hear how you do it... 

The Bone Children...

The Maze of Memory hints that the dungeons were populated by abducted life from others worlds, including various periods in human history.  Indeed, the player characters (called prisoners) were snatched from their lives and stripped of memory, recovering them only through great effort.  The necessary mystery is best served by leaving these details to the game master (or jailer)...  

Even so, the rules provide multiple creatures (and races) of probably extraterrestrial origin, and there's more arriving every day, including the enigmatic BONE CHILDREN:   

#AK: 1/weaponry AR: 8+ (hide) DE: by weapon ME: armor worn SL: 1d8+2

The BONE CHILDREN are archaic humans, probably neanderthals, abducted individually or en masse, perhaps in some earlier episode per the jailer.  They have long-since adjusted to their unusual environment which in many ways was not that different, establishing tribal colonies in vast natural caverns.  They wear crude hides, fighting with primitive stone weapons and possessing great physical strength (assume 1-3 ranks of the strong memory).

Interestingly, and perhaps resulting from their more primitive brains, bone children are not subject to the mysterious translator, speaking a native tongue little changed over time.  Prisoners attempting to negotiate must resort to gestures and other creative strategies, noting that as a race they are shy, shunning the ghul and fearing the ithlak and ugliniak as terrifying spirits.

Once again, the desired level of mystery is best maintained by leaving these questions to the jailer, who is free to interpret the presence of ravenous phogs and deadly yorls however they see fit, because ultimately, in only matters that they're THERE, particularly in a one-off session.  But for ongoing campaigns, the individual jailer has a free hand to answer these and other pressing questions!