A question on Lore

[Doug Taylor]

There appears to be a lot of contradiction on Lore, from the Core Book to the FotR Sourcebook to the Maps put out by Decipher, etc.

Now, just to clarify up front, I understand in great detail the actual borders and regions and boundaries for the following lands. The question I/we have results from the contradictions that I spoke of.

One of my players, who just became a Ranger, wanted to take a "Lore" for the area we had just adventured in, Rhudaur. This makes total sense, but it does not appear that it is one of the "areas" that is specified by the "Lore" Skill. For proof I give you numerous characters in the Sourcebooks that would have intimate knowledge of that region, specifically Elrond, Aragorn and Arwen, but they do not. Nor is it listed in the suggested "Realms" under the Lore Skill (p. 130).

They seem to have both "Eriador" and "Arnor" as larger "Overall Regions", which makes sense (even though the kingdom of Arnor is a thing of the past until Aragorn reinstates it in the Fourth Age).

If you look at the Official Maps, however (also put out by Decipher), it makes it seem as if "Eregion" is the "Overall Region" in which many of these fall. They even give the "Title" of the particular map that shows the Northwest of Middle-earth to Eregion.

So, what should we do as far as the Lore: Realm Skill? Do we break it down into smaller sections (clearly that is what some do, specializing in The Shire or Rivendell), and ignore some of the larger sections (like Rhudaur, Rhovanion, and the like). Or has anyone clarified this particular issue to make it more strealined.

I'm fully aware that we can "do whatever suits us", too. The reason I'm coming here with this is to see if there is a more uniform "accepted" way that's been chosen.

Thanks in advance to everyone for their help in this regard.

[Markraven]

Not sure what the "Official Answer" is, but I would deffinately break it down in that way for my games as I tend to dislike the overlarge area lores.

Someone who had "Lore: North America" just would not have the detail that someone who had "Lore: Alaska" would in matters of "Alaska".

If that makes sense...

[GandalfOfBorg]

I must agree that Eriador, Arnor, Rhovanion are too large of regions to have specific knowledge of everything in. Either break them down into their corresponding realm components or have them receive proportional knowledge of the realms contained within these large regions. My personal preference is the first.

[Ineti]

Originally posted by Doug Taylor
So, what should we do as far as the Lore: Realm Skill? Do we break it down into smaller sections (clearly that is what some do, specializing in The Shire or Rivendell), and ignore some of the larger sections (like Rhudaur, Rhovanion, and the like). Or has anyone clarified this particular issue to make it more strealined.

I generally recommend using the smaller areas for lore, and use specializations as needed, rather than rely on a "Lore: Rhovanion" for example, to get by.

However, it does make sense that someone might have a general knowledge of an area without getting into specifics. Thus, a soldier of Gondor might have Lore: Mordor without a specialization.

But a loremaster might have Lore: Mordor (The Morannon) or Lore: Mordor (Minas Morgul).

Of course, you could also have Lore: The Morannon, Lore: Minas Morgul, etc. Very flexible.

[Sarge]

I'd allow players to choose almost any size region. But the bigger the area, the more general and vague their knowledge will be. A very small region, OTOH, will grant them intimate knowledge of almost everything there.

[AslanC]

I allow the larger Lore coverage, but up the TN for specifics if the area covered is too vague. IE, someone with Lore: Realm (Hollin) would know more about the elf and dwarf villages that were there than someone with Lore: Realm (Eriador). So on those specific tests, the guy with the more refined Lore gets an easier TN or the other gets a harder one.