Of powers outside our realism?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by blantyr

Ambarquenta runs 316 pages, and you are correct, it has or is no exegesis. It's a set of role playing rules, not an academic thesis. It's bulky enough without footnotes. Those trying to play the game aren't likely to want the footnotes. I also figure that those who see a D&D level break out and have a decent knowledge of the books will know where the D&D level break out came from and will be able to judge reasonably how worthy the break out is.

It also seemed to me that Paradus was asking his questions at a D&D level. At least, I wasn't up to answering it at a deeper level.

[explanation of Ambarquenta character creation rules]

This is just my spin on the books. Can I prove it? No. Can I come up with academic references to support my thesis? No. Still, I'm not sure that one ought to be dismissive of the role playing perspective. Deconstructing -- practicing Saruman's heresy, working details from the bottom up -- isn't the only way one might learn of something, but neither should it be dismissed. Aerlinn's experiences might not be canon or anything approaching canon, but they might hopefully provide food for thought.

Yes, but the problem is that the original poster, Paradus, though he indeed seemed to thinking rather in D&D terms, was asking about "Tolkien's world"– that is, presumably, Tolkien's own writings rather than any roleplaying system based on them. Tolkien didn't write the "Ambarquenta" rules, did he?

[Anguirel]

well, it would be pretty hilarious if someone discovered that he had done...

Imagine the raised eyebrows at Oxford high tables

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Yes, but the problem is that the original poster, Paradus, though he indeed seemed to thinking rather in D&D terms, was asking about "Tolkien's world"– that is, presumably, Tolkien's own writings rather than any roleplaying system based on them. Tolkien didn't write the "Ambarquenta" rules, did he?

No, he didn't. Nor did the author of the AQ rules write LotR. And reading AQ would say nothing meaningful about Tolkien if you haven't read a great deal of Tolkien. I would say AQ is a not particularly good rules system unless one has a fairly deep love of Middle Earth. AQ is a reflection, inevitably a distorted reflection. As such it needs a correction which might best come from players with a knowledge of and respect for the original. I did assume Paradus familiar with the original.

I might say AQ doesn't answer anything. It perhaps asks far more questions than Paradus. For every point where it states something firm about how the books step outside realism, you can and perhaps should ask if the rules got it right. Tolkien's number one priority was not nitpick level consistency, while RPG rules have to act like rules. The job of writing rules can't be done perfectly. Still, my thought is that if one immerses one's self in the sub-creation, one learns different things than if one discusses the sub-creation in abstract. If one doesn't attempt to find patterns, one isn't going to learn patterns.

I do see Paradus's questions as relevant. What can one do in Middle Earth with song and magic that one can't do in our poor mundane reality? Who can do what, why, when and where? Yes, I am echoing Saruman's heresy of breaking things up to understand the parts. Perhaps I might be missing something of the whole.

But if one shuns the W questions, something is missing too. AQ was put together by people with a great love of Tolkien. In setting up RPG rules one has to address the W questions. An academic exegesis, if it avoids the W questions, isn't going to be complete.
.