new sub-forum?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

After all, isn't the Movies for a "subforum for the use of non-canon stuff"? Granted, you leave yourself plenty of wiggle-room with "new sub-forum" and "legitimate adaptations," but I wonder where we make the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate adaptations? There's always been willingness to discuss the Bakshi and Rankin-Bass movies and those are... to be charitable, not exactly in the mainstream of adaptation these days.

I suspect you are too recent a member to remember the major overhauls made to the RPG forum. The precise reason was to ensure that rpgs remained within reasonable grounds of Middle-earth canonicity and demonstrated some creativity and uniqueness. piosenniel and Child of the 7th Age worked tirelessly to help new gamers develop game ideas and characters that were consistent with Middle-earth. This included keeping the tone and action of the games consistent with Tolkien's work--eschewing graphic violence, gore, exploitation of sex--and avoiding Mary and Gary Sues and writing good quality English and not chatese. Conan the Barbarian characters were disallowed. I'm not sure that video games reflect these values. I don't think it can successfully be argued that Tolkien represented revenge and hatred as just.


The distinction between the "Books" and "Novices and Newcomers" forums was to accommodate the new members who were not as versed in Tolkien's work as other members. Both are supposed to refer to Tolkien's literary works and not off topic matters. The 'movies' forum was designed to allow members to discuss the very popular movies without swamping the literary discussion. It became a bit of a game and part of the fun to see how we could relate topics to Tolkien in the Barrow Downs forum and "Mirth" of course speaks for itself.

Like that of Nerwen and Morth, my experience of other Tolkien forums that allowed OT discussion is mixed if not negative. Almost all of them left off Tolkien discussion and were overwhelmed with massive arguments over the other topics.

Why ruin the uniqueness of the Barrow Downs now?

[Inziladun]

I've been a video gamer for a large part of my life, though as is the case with my reading tastes, my game preferences are somewhat eccentric.

I have never played any game having anything to do with Tolkien's works, and can't see myself ever doing so. It seems that gaming in this day is in itself a notable subculture, and I would have to wonder if 'gamers' as a group have the same appreciation for the works of Tolkien that has been a hallmark of the members of this excellent forum for so many years. That is not to say that lovers of the books cannot be game players as well, but I think that allowing a sub-forum devoted exclusively to games could invite some members who would not exhibit the established decorum and civility that has been a trademark of the Downs. I would not be in favor of it.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

despite having no interest or ability to participate in a game-discussions subforum, I am not so sure we don't already have precedent for such a forum.

If I've had a video game based topic to post, I've tried to use the Middle-earth Mirth section.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I don't know... my experience of OT subforums on other sites is that they tend to devolve into conspiracy-theory battlegrounds.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The refreshing thing about the Downs has always been its decided omission of off-topic claptrap and bilge. No need for extraneous political arguments, religious wars, stupid pet tricks and reality TV indiscretions. Just Tolkien-centric talk without the filler.

I agree, the Downs does not need an Off Topic sub-forum. We are a breath of fresh air on the Internet in not having one.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Kuru

I agree, the Downs does not need an Off Topic sub-forum. We are a breath of fresh air on the Internet in not having one.

We all sound so bitter and jaded about this, though, don’t we?

[Mithalwen]

We were refused a sub forum to discuss the BBC Radio adaptation so don't think likely.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

We all sound so bitter and jaded about this, though, don’t we?

I think we have all been through the wars at this point.

[tom the eldest]

Yikes,the opposition is strong.okay then.if that the members opinion,i will appreciate it

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

Yikes,the opposition is strong.okay then.if that the members opinion,i will appreciate it

Well, it isn't really a decision for members; the forum admins decide things like that.
The reigning opinion does seem to be negative, though.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

Yikes,the opposition is strong.okay then.if that the members opinion,i will appreciate it

I think the thing is, from a purely practical standpoint there clearly isn't the interest. If people were interested in talking about the games more they would be, but even the thread about the new game died out pretty quickly.

in every new lord of the rings/the hobbit game,theres new content that is unique,and independent from the book or movie(ex:caragors,mountain giant,graugs,etc)

Regarding this, I think people don't discuss this stuff because they're not interested in it, not because they're isn't a space for it. It's Tolkien-related "new content', but it isn't "real" Tolkien. I can appreciate why the situation is different for the films because of their massive cultural presence and the greater overlap between book-readers and film-watchers than between either of those and game-players.

That being said if anyone wants to discuss 'The Battle for Middle-earth' or its sequel (or the Games Workshop toy soldier game) I'd be more than happy to join in. But I think it's clear by observation of the direction and calibre of discussion here that a whole sub-forum would be little more than a domain of cyberspace tumbleweeds and would jar with the tone of the forum as (in my opinion) a place where "Tolkien" is not the commerical enterprise that has spawned such games.