The Fellowship or the Hobbits?

[Isaac Zephyr]

General discussion for GMs writing custom campaigns, and players in general.

In a campaign, would you prefer to write/play as the fellowship, the specialized group that needs to protect the hobbits on the way to Mordor, or the hobbits whom are the focus of the story?

I've had GMs do this poorly, where the group is written to be the fellowship, guiding an NPC along, but the NPC is written too powerful and outshines the players. I've written games both ways, where the players have been the hobbits in gritty realism type games and they felt too weak, and where they're the fellowship trying to stop a major threat but they felt the game was more about the NPCs and the villain than it was about them (to draw the LoTR parallel, I had them equivalently seeking the ghost army while the equivalent hobbits they were following were fighting demons and getting praise).

So which is the better to write the players as? In a case where they can't be both of course.

[Danny StarDust]

I'd go for the Fellowship, albeit that they have character development as well. Even if the story is about the Hobbits, make each of them have a special bond with one of the fellowship members and "side-quest" in which the Fellowship member is outshining the hobbit and that only that one particilar fellowship member is able to solve the issue in that side-quest. AS well as character development, let the characters have a special backstory (i.e. aragorn as a long lost bloodline of Kings, Legolas as the son of an elven king, Gimli as the royal blood of an drawven kingdom), and let the characters mature into a bigger role than a glorified sentry

[Claxon]

From a goal perspective, it's all about Frodo getting the ring to Mordor.

Even the other hobbits are really just there to facilitate that.

In the end, Sam is real hero of the story but without Frodo it still would have fallen apart.

Regardless of that though, playing as Frodo or the hobbits probably isn't a lot of fun for players since they have a much more passive role in what happens.

If you to see an AP where something like this happens you should look at the Jade Regent Adventure Path where an NPC with a McGuffin is pretty critical to the success of the overall story, and your job as PCs is to help get her to there.

[Dave Justus]

So you question is, Should the campaign be designed to

A) Have the players control weak characters protected by NPCs, but they have a pivitol role in the final outcome of the story

or

B) Have the players control powerful characters protecting NPCS, who have the real mission and dramatic impact.

The answer is none of the above. I don't think NPCs should player as significant a role as either of those options. The campaign should be about the players.

In my experience GMs that decide to make NPCs that significant are really just interested in telling a story, not running a game for the players to create their own story. Write down your story as a book instead, I might really enjoy it that way, but I don't want to play a supporting character for you.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

The traditional level based answer is that the PCs confront serious problems, but problems limited in scope by their level.

For example: weak/low level PCs defend a village against Goblins. High level PCs defend a kingdom against an invasion of Dragons. Both stories have a very similar structure (PCs defend the innocent against invading monsters) but their level controls the type of antagonists and scale of the threat.

Looking at the Fellowship of the Ring in particular, some chunks would work as adventures but some wouldn't.

"You four are Hobbits who need to get to Bree" works fine. It's a wilderness trek with low level characters.

"You, Aragorn, need to get these helpless Hobbits to Rivendell" works fine for a game with only one player. "You four are Hobbits who get to watch my GMPC fight Ringwraiths while you cower" would be terrible.

"You five super heroes (Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli) need to get these helpless hobbits alive through Moria." works fine. "Watch my superheroes protect you in Moria" isn't playable.

Where things get interesting is after Amon Hen when there are two parties. "You two need to sneak into Mordor despite being low level" is totally playable. "You three (Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli) need to rescue NPC hobbits from Uruk-Hai and deal with the war from Helm's Deep to the Black Gate" is a pretty typical structure for an epic campaign.

The interesting thing about the "The three hunters fight the War of the Ring" campaign is that, off-stage, something more important is happening. That's an interesting twist that I think could really add something to a game where the typical assumption is that the most important work anyone is doing is being done by the PCs. I don't see why in principle that needs to be the case though.

[Brolof]

I'd prefer to write/play as the Fellowship. I'm not a fan of gritty realism or under powered campaigns that much, mostly I just get annoyed when I feel like there's nothing I can do. While the Fellowship technically isn't the ones to save the day, they still do plenty important stuff in the mean time.

[Meirril]

Honestly I think its a problem to try and transplant a story as is into Pathfinder. You can design encounters to be like a story, but don't try to be too close because it won't go right unless you hand the player's scripts and everybody is into it for some reason.

Sure, you can base locations and encounters on material you take from another source. But don't make a single path rail shooter when Pathfinder (and other RPGs) are the ultimate Sandbox game. Expect the players to wander around and look behind all of the props. Throw in some extra nuisance encounters, and some treasure that the story didn't include if they look in the right places. Because that is what Pathfinder adventures are like. And do not get upset when the players react to an encounter in ways you never would of expected. Like picking fights with NPCs that should be friendly, making friends with bandits, robbing the Princess' coach instead of rescuing it, fighting that dragon they were suppose to run from. Players do that, so you better be able to roll with it.

One of the best examples is fighting the horde of orcs under Moria. Guess what? Most players will assume they can win that fight. Most won't run until they actually see the Balrog and even then a lot of players will stay and fight the thing! And are you cool enough as a GM to coax someone into an impromptu performance of becoming Gandalf for that fight? That is insanely difficult!

Take inspiration from other sources, but remember what kind of game Pathfinder is.

[Archimedes The Great]

Don't do the hobbits and certainly not Frodo. I can see players taking over the roles of the other 3 hobbits, but it would create a very strange unbalanced dynamic where whoever plays Frodo is literally everything.