Topic: Query: dual-statting new creatures and monsters

[PhillipAEllis]

G'day!

I have a question that I'd love feedback to. Basically, I am interested in writing up new beasties for RMFRP, since that's the system I have been playing with, and I was wondering how interested would you be in having them dual-statted for HARP. I ask as most of them will appear in a supplement that I am working on, another bestiary for RMFRP, dual-statted for HARP.

It's only baby steps at the moment. There's more, in another topic in this forum.

[markc]

 IMHO the more useful you could make it the better but some may be ticked off at having to buy the extra pages if they do not play one of the systems.
MDC

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Seems fine to me... the "meat" being the discription anyway.. the "stat blocks" being a relatively minor part. If you are doing an indepth "one page one creature" version then should be no problem.

[PhillipAEllis]

I understand what you mean, Mark, and I am sure there are compromises.

For example, since one of my key aims is to provide a series of articles for Guild Companion, the dual-statting can take place there. With the final product, if accepted by ICE (I plan on submitting it for publication, once I have the bulk of the material written) then HARP stats, for example, could be bundled into a PDF supplement, similarly to the RMSS/RMFRP conversion for the Rome supplement. Likewise with RMC perhaps, extending the utility of the product.

As I said, baby steps.

[markc]

I understand what you mean, Mark, and I am sure there are compromises.

For example, since one of my key aims is to provide a series of articles for Guild Companion, the dual-statting can take place there. With the final product, if accepted by ICE (I plan on submitting it for publication, once I have the bulk of the material written) then HARP stats, for example, could be bundled into a PDF supplement, similarly to the RMSS/RMFRP conversion for the Rome supplement. Likewise with RMC perhaps, extending the utility of the product.

As I said, baby steps.

 Dont get me wrong I think it is great I was just trying to point out any potential problems that I may see. I also think that the extra PDF for one or the other is a great idea for those that have a problem.
MDC

[PhillipAEllis]

Mark,

I appreciate the thought that you put into the point, though, and I'm happy to have it.

yrs

Phillip

[munchy]

Wouldn't it make more sense instead of having the documents with all those stats to create one document with RMC stats, one with RMSS/FRP and one with HARP stats? Less confusion, fewer numbers, maybe even fewer pages and more easily to determine whether the specific product is for me or not.
With dual-statted stuff I always have to look whether it is a dual-statted product or not and if not and I do not see it I might be a bit annoyed. So, stats for every system but maybe one document for each system.
If you need the material for more than one system you either convert it yourself or you buy it for the other system also (maybe, if that is possible, with a discount if you have already bought the version for one of the systems that GCP publishes for).

[PhillipAEllis]

They're good points, munchy, and I'm leaning towards multiple items, as a result of this and other responses. Thanks: every bit helps.

[jasonbrisbane]

Id like to see Harp stats for one.
Im always eager to use new monsters in my games.... unfortunately so are my fellow GM's..