: I'm not talking about what is made up. I'm talking about what is easily checked against the appendices. I'm sure I'm not the only Tolkien fan who knows the last prince of Cardolan died in 1409 and that the last Heir of Isildur in both Cardolan and Rhudaur died decades before then as well.

I doubt the dates of the births, deaths and reigns of the various kings of the Line of Isildur would have been common knowledge to the typical RPG character, unless the character was some sort of lore master (at least during the late TA). Most others would view such things the same way the men of Bree veiwed places such as Fornost Erain or 'Dead Man's Dike' as the Bree-men referred to it, being ignorant of events which occured 1100 years earlier and remembering only legends of the past. If a player questioned me regarding such details, he or she had better have a good reason for their character to possess so precise a degree of knowledge.

: Would YOU want to be the Game Master who flips out that gross error only to be corrected by 3 of your players? The sloppy research has a negative impact on any players who know the material. Players who don't really know it won't react that way, but I've known way too many nit-pickers in my time (and I have certainly been one of them) to want people to go running off to the gaming session thinking the material on that site is really trustworthy.

Again, player knowledge and character knowledge are two different things. If a player wishes to harp on every detail of my game, then I don't need them as a player. I'm not talking about gross abuses like having Hobbits running around the Shire during the Second Age (any GM who is this unfamiliar with the subject material has no business running a Middle-earth campaign), but rather questioning my interpretation of Tolkien's works - especially when GM'ing campaigns which are set at times during which little narrative information is available (which is the type of campaign I prefer - it leaves more room for creativity).

For instance, if I decide that in my campaign a rogue group of King's Men had established a pirate colony on the eastern coast of Endor sometime around SA 2400, then that is the way it is. I would have a real problem with a character questioning this, since most characters (not players) would have no idea of the extent or location of all the Numenorean colonies in Middle-earth. And characters who did have such knowledge would be very boring to play, since they would tend to be rather stationary (imagine playing Cirdan during the TA - what would you do all day except build ships and occasionally receive messengers.)

Another example is geography. While in Rivendell, Merry spent a fair amount of time studying maps, which ended up paying off later in the story. However, if the player-character had never bothered studying maps (like Pippin), then I would be very skeptical of any comments made by that character concerning how long the Anduin is, or how far it is from the Grey Havens to Rivendell, etc. Again, they better have a good explaination for how they came by such knowledge.

: The fact a lot of it is made up is not the problem. Everyone who has run a game knows you have to have a lot of details (the players will asked about the dangedest things, after all). But if you're going to run a game based on Tolkien's world for people who like to scan the appendices, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you don't get your basic facts straight.

I would never wish to run such a game, but you are correct that you better have your ducks in a row before attempting it. I prefer the type of player who has read LotR all the way through at least once, and who wishes to experience in a small way what it might have been like to live in Tolkien's world.

: Let the buyer beware.

: You get what you pay for.

: It's always easier to find the flaws in someone else's work than in your own.