Author Topic: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)  (Read 7050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NicholasHMCaldwell

  • GCP
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,023
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Director of Iron Crown Enterprises Ltd.
Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« on: October 03, 2009, 02:39:18 AM »

Greetings from the Guild Companion,

The October issue (#128) is now available at http://www.guildcompanion.com

In this month's issue, we have an essay on the social implications of the Mystic's base lists, seven real-world martial arts styles statted up for Rolemaster, a variant set of profession-less rules for HARP, and editorial thoughts on Something Wicked, TGA#4 and the state of Rolemaster.

Best wishes,
Nicholas
Dr Nicholas HM Caldwell
Director, Iron Crown Enterprises Ltd
Publisher of Rolemaster, Spacemaster, Shadow World, Cyradon, HARP & HARP SF, and Cyberspace, with products available from www.drivethrurpg.com
Author: Mentalism Companion, GURPS Age of Napoleon, Construct Companion, College of Magics, HARP SF/HARP SF Xtreme

Offline munchy

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,854
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • The Munch Companion
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2009, 10:41:40 AM »
I really enjoyed reading the editorial of this edition. The progress information on Something Wicked was - again - very nice to read and raised my interest in that product even more. Hope it makes it for Christmas ... maybe.
I have to say, however, that the "rant" on Rolemaster was really something. As an addition one might say that there should maybe also be an alliance of RM and HARP gamers to support both lines and strengthen the company together. A future option might also be to combine RM and HARP in the next edition step. Quite a few people have mentioned that they like the skill system of RM and the spell system of HARP for example. And RM has always offered options to choose from, something I always though made it better than all the other systems on the market.
Get Real, Get Rolemaster!
Be Sharp, Play HARP!

Offline Thom @ ICE

  • Aurigas Staff
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,810
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Thom@ironcrown.com
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2009, 11:29:14 AM »
Profession-less HARP - Excellent article, though my hesitation to implement is based upon a single stat being used as the key for a skill category.  It opens the door to some abuses.  The limitation of skill development per level based upon stat was a real nice touch - one I had not really considered.

Taking this the extra step - set the development cost based upon the combined of the two stats.
0-40 costs 4
40-60 costs 3
60-90 costs 2
90+ costs 1

Each skill then sets it's own cost based upon both stats it uses - and there are no longer any favored categories.
This now expands skill costs from 2 to 8.

Make the max per level using the reverse.
0-40 max at 1
40-60 max at 2
60-90 max at 3
90+ max at 4

If both of your stats for a skill are 90+, then you can build up to 8 ranks for a cost of 16DP, or you can use those same 16DP on a skill where your stats are both less than 40 and only get 2 ranks....

Otherwise - I really like the article, just my tweak on it....
Email -    Thom@ironcrown.com

Offline Marc R

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,392
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • "Don't throw stones, offer alternatives."
    • Looking for Online Roleplay? Try RealRoleplaying
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2009, 11:50:34 AM »
I could see setting 2-3 stats to 91, then spending half DP on skills in that narrow tranche, while spending the other half of DP on raising the other stats to 91, expanding your scope as each stat clears 91. . . .some stats are more skill used than others (so at 4 stats over 91, more than half the skills would be 1 costs).

Being able to spend 1/rank on skills means that compared to Core harp, you'd be able to spend half your DP on your 1 cost skills while spending the other half on stats, with a net result of having the same amount of overall ranks as the core character spending 2 dp/rank and not raising stats. . .once you got all stats over 90, you'd be taking each level equal to 2 levels core when you stopped buying stats.
The Artist Formerly Known As LordMiller

Looking for online Role Play? Try WWW.RealRoleplaying.Com

Offline Thom @ ICE

  • Aurigas Staff
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,810
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Thom@ironcrown.com
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2009, 12:03:10 PM »
Every HARP skill uses 2 stats - therefore if both stats were at 91 then it would cost 1 DP per stat for 2 DP per rank in the skill - the same as favored categories currently get.

The real impact is on the low side where it noe costs at most 4, my proposal expands it to 8 which I have heard from RM fans is a weakness of HARP (too limited in skill costs)

If done this way then for a training package you simply apply a reduction of 1 DP per rank
Email -    Thom@ironcrown.com

Offline Marc R

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,392
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • "Don't throw stones, offer alternatives."
    • Looking for Online Roleplay? Try RealRoleplaying
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2009, 12:05:24 PM »
Ahhh. . .OK, that makes sense. . .I thought you meant 1DP/rank total.
The Artist Formerly Known As LordMiller

Looking for online Role Play? Try WWW.RealRoleplaying.Com

Offline Ecthelion

  • ICE Forum Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,497
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Character Gallery
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2009, 02:07:44 PM »
Profession-less HARP - Excellent article, though my hesitation to implement is based upon a single stat being used as the key for a skill category.  It opens the door to some abuses.
OTOH there is the limitation of the DP sum of all categories not being able to get lower than 30 (or 28/26 with the Jack-of-all-trades talents). I hope this keeps abuse in check. And the system is a bit easier to handle if you use only one stat.
Quote
The limitation of skill development per level based upon stat was a real nice touch - one I had not really considered.

Taking this the extra step - set the development cost based upon the combined of the two stats.
0-40 costs 4
40-60 costs 3
60-90 costs 2
90+ costs 1

Each skill then sets it's own cost based upon both stats it uses - and there are no longer any favored categories.
This now expands skill costs from 2 to 8.
Of course this would also be possible. I think that your numbers would need some work, though, since a typical character who chooses to have stats between 60 and 70 would have all categories at a DP cost of 4, which IMO is too high. Additionally you'd also have to create a modified system for the initial skill development at character creation. That would then probably also depend on two stats instead of one. All in all IMHO it is better to first test the more simple one-stat variant and see whether the '30 DP over all categories rule' keeps abuse in check, and only if this does not work then to expand the system to two stats.

Just my 2 cents

Offline Thom @ ICE

  • Aurigas Staff
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,810
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Thom@ironcrown.com
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2009, 02:49:04 PM »
In the written system the Combat skills are all Strength based.
The agile Robin Hood fighter with low/mid strength is now impaired  by the system.  There are skills within Combat category that don't use Strength at all for their bonus so why should that control the cost?

General is Reasoning costed, but it includes Resistance-Magic which is IN/IN and Resistance-Stamina which is Co/Co, etc.
Outdoor has skills which do not use In (Sailing & Riding)
Physical is Strength costed, but it has Endurance which is Co/SD
Subterfuge has Streetwise and Trickery that don't use Ag.

I don't need to playtest something if I see a gap in it from the start.


As for the break points I simply used the same as the article, but if I were to do it myself, I would use....

Stat             Max # of Ranks            DP Cost/Rank
0-50                    1                              4
51-70                   2                             3
71-90                   3                             2
91+                      4                             1

These splits coincide with every +4 of bonus.
For someone wanting to specialilze they could use 3-91's, 2-71's, 1-51, 1-41, and 1-40.  (550 point system)
For someone wanting to spread "evenly" they could use 7-71's and 1-53 or 6-69 and 2-68. (550 point system)

These are just gut comments and have not been playtested.
Email -    Thom@ironcrown.com

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2009, 02:51:37 PM »
 I can say that I really loved the Editorial this month, especially the state of Rolemaster sections. I also liked to see the new martial arts for RMSS using the MAC rules. It wants me to stick my head back into the MAC rules.

MDC 
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline ironmaul

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • I'll work for free, if you can pay all my debts.
    • The Art of Rick Hansen
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2009, 11:15:51 PM »
"The State of Rolemaster and Everything Else" segment was an interesting and eye opening read. I was suprised it has been several years since certain products were last printed or supported.

Offline Ecthelion

  • ICE Forum Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,497
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Character Gallery
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2009, 05:06:42 AM »
In the written system the Combat skills are all Strength based.
The agile Robin Hood fighter with low/mid strength is now impaired  by the system.  There are skills within Combat category that don't use Strength at all for their bonus so why should that control the cost?

General is Reasoning costed, but it includes Resistance-Magic which is IN/IN and Resistance-Stamina which is Co/Co, etc.
Outdoor has skills which do not use In (Sailing & Riding)
Physical is Strength costed, but it has Endurance which is Co/SD
Subterfuge has Streetwise and Trickery that don't use Ag.
Yes, of course. Unless I had created a very complicated system which bases the DP cost of a category on all stats appearing in that category, probably ideally also considering how often a stat appears, this will always happen. Instead I tried to select one stat that is quite often used per category and I also tried to use each stat at least for one category and not more than twice to reduce abuse.
Quote
I don't need to playtest something if I see a gap in it from the start.
Huh, why this aggressive tone (not only in this last sentence)? I only gave some comments about my reasoning when I wrote the article. If you don't like it or my comments above, then that's OK. No need to get rude...

Offline dutch206

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,019
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2009, 08:22:15 AM »
"The State of Rolemaster and Everything Else" segment was an interesting and eye opening read. I was suprised it has been several years since certain products were last printed or supported.

QFT
"Cthulhu is the bacon of gaming." -John Kovalic, author of "Dork Tower"

Offline Thom @ ICE

  • Aurigas Staff
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,810
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Thom@ironcrown.com
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2009, 08:36:39 PM »
Huh, why this aggressive tone (not only in this last sentence)? I only gave some comments about my reasoning when I wrote the article. If you don't like it or my comments above, then that's OK. No need to get rude...

It was not intended as rude - simply a statement. My apologies if more was taken from that.  The intent was that while I liked the idea, I did not care for that element and saw an inherent problem with it - to which I had a potential solution. If I see a problem with the proposed solution rather than play it anyway because it is simpler, I choose to try to solution it - which I thought I started working towards.   

I did and do still like the idea of the article, and as I stated originally - excellent article.
Email -    Thom@ironcrown.com

Offline Ecthelion

  • ICE Forum Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,497
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Character Gallery
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2009, 12:13:40 AM »
OK, looks like I misunderstood you, sorry.

Offline SamwiseSeven

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 369
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Tim
    • Tim's RPG YouTube Channel
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2009, 05:27:22 PM »
I also liked the HARP article, and the state of Ice and Rolemaster. 

I think One RPG To Rule Them All... should be the direction ICE should take when or if it decides to make a new game. 

A hybrid of Rolemaster and Harp, but adding new elements that aren't a part of either, might be a good idea, as long as it still resembles in some way the systems that came before it.  Fixing the main complaints about ICE's games, while keeping the old school fans might be a tough thing however.  I guess it's just tough to be in the RPG industry...

If they only had one RPG, they could focus on putting out more books for that game, IMO.  With a limited amount of staff, working on a single RPG line makes sense, at least from my vantage point (again my opinions don't seem to always be popular, hehe).

I'm normally in the minority when it comes to my opinions about RPGs around here, but I think it would be good to have a very flexible game that could be rules-lite, rules-medium, or rules-heavy depending on how many optional rules you add to it.

Think of this imaginary game like a giant Mr. Potato Head.  You can run it bare bones (legs and potato), or with a little more crunch (legs, potato, some arms, and maybe an eye), or with lots of crunch (Mr. Potato Head with all the appendages, plus lots of James Bond gizmos).

Having a set number of skills (no matter what level of complexity the game could have) would be nice.  I'm not a big fan of skill-creep... especially with crunchy games that depend more on character sheets that auto-calculate (and need re-edited every time a new skill is added to the game).

Take it or leave it, as those thoughts just jumped out of my head.
https://www.youtube.com/samwise7rpg

Offline dutch206

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,019
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2009, 07:05:54 PM »
My personal favorite was the Star Wars "Darth Tater".  :Joker2:
"Cthulhu is the bacon of gaming." -John Kovalic, author of "Dork Tower"

Offline Emaughan

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2009, 12:42:47 AM »
Quote
A hybrid of Rolemaster and Harp, but adding new elements that aren't a part of either, might be a good idea, as long as it still resembles in some way the systems that came before it.  Fixing the main complaints about ICE's games, while keeping the old school fans might be a tough thing however.  I guess it's just tough to be in the RPG industry...

Rolemaster should never go the way that some suggest, a D20 dumb down.  I read a lot of a recent thread over at RPG.net and came away with a bit of an epiphany.  Those that do not like Rolemaster who played it in the past were "overusing" the options and getting bogged down.  One whiner mentioned how silly it was that one had to roll for food poisoning.  I thought I knew the options well but that was one I did not remember - but it is there burried deep in one of the companions.  Likely this poster was bending the truth for effect since I doubt that anyone ever tried to play such a rule but true or not, it was obvious that he had no clue about the concept of a GM's toolkit and optional rules.  Too many complex charts and rules and math (blah blah blah) - I came to realize that the complainers did not understand how the game system should be used. 

Rolemaster too complex - ya, if you try to cram and use every optional rule and table!
Rolemaster has too much math - I'm sorry, I have not sympathy for a population that can not do double digit addition/subtraction in their head OR have never heard of a calculator
Rolemaster is too deadly - DnD is too silly and has a low sense of immersion because of its riduculous combat and damage system.  Rolemaster allows greater immersion and realism because of its more realistic combat models, also PCs adapt and become smarter in the way they handle things.  Less monster bashing and more roleplaying.
Rolemaster characters take too long to create - Yes they do take more time but they are more individual and detailed.  This is a matter of taste, I like more detailed PCs as opposed to cookie cutter PCs that one will get with a more basic ruleset. 

The problem is that Rolemaster is very complex for a beginner (without help from a veteran).  The game once understood is actually very simple and can have as much or as little detail as one wants without breaking the system.  Unfortunately it seems that some got stuck somewhere just past the early beginner stage and never saw the real game through all the rules, tables and options (i.e. can't see the forest through all the trees).


I believe ICE is close to understanding the fix but their focus wavers at times.  RMX is a great idea to help babystep players up to full blown RM.  Newbees need to know that many supplimental rules are OPTIONAL and given suggestions on ways to streamline gameplay.  A little section on when to fudge and when not fudge might help some understand that all the charts do not need to be used all the time.  Now for the "wavering focus" bit. RMX is a good idea, but... after reading what RM Cyrdan is going to be, I add my lament to Nicholas'.  Why, oh why didn't ICE either make it for RMC or better yet make it the bridge for joining RMC with RMFRP?  Instead it is sounding like yet another separate ruleset for RM... NOOOOO!

Ok now to end my rant with my wise guy ideas on how to help RM.
First and formost.  One version to bind them all one version to rule them all.  Make a version of RM that has the following traits:

1) It has a simple base ruleset, and yet is easy to add more detail to it.  Skills, Spells, Combat options are all areas that can be easily built upon starting with a basic foundation.  Thus if one likes to keep combat simple, but loves having a bajillion skills - no problem - keep the core rules for combat and use the expanded rules for skills. 
2) Once this core book is done, one that combines the best of RMC, RMFRP, and HARP, then set up an even more basic ruleset to help newbees get started (like RMX).  Charge a small fee for a paper version of it, but consider giving the PDF for free (or maybe a buck or two).

3) Additional supliments where it is stressed and made clear and repeated and burned into the minds of the buyers - these are OPTIONAL rules.  I got it with the RM2 companions - but I think there were many who did not.

End of rant, epiphany over.

Offline Mungo

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 410
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2009, 01:50:16 AM »
I also liked the "State of Rolemaster", being a manager looking always for organizational issues I came to the same conclusion long ago.

And I do not think that simplifying RM, coming up with 1 new RM, merging HARP and RM, ... is the answer. it would cost an unbelievable amount of energy and at the end leave many fans dissatisfied (i.e. we would not survive it). I would leave the current systems as they are, dual stat any RM supplement and continue with HARP as it is. Just focus on getting material (any material) out.

BR Juergen

Offline Emaughan

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2009, 04:05:15 AM »
Current RM I love.  I prefer RMC but also many of the ideas in RMFRP are good and done better than RMC.  HARP is not a system I play but some great ideas are found in HARP, the scalable spells (great idea) and much of RMC's Combat Companion gleaned ideas from HARP.  With that said, I think ICE needs to find a way to modernize and improve RMC and RMFRP by cherry picking the best ideas from all their systems.  Bring the two systems together while simplifying the rules - without dumbing down the system.  This can be done and it would bring fans of both systems under one system.  If Nicholas is right in his assesment, and I believe he is, RM can't go on in a "business as usual" mode.  Your sugestion does not sound too different from what they are allready doing which I do not believe will work in the long run.

Done right, it will appeal to both groups of us old school fans AND clarify for the newbees how to best use a system that has so much variety and options.  Current RM confuses greenies due to all the charts and tables and options. Also, Rolemaster does have some negative bagage that scares away some of the potential future buyers.  Just reading the forums, I have seen many good ideas that could be used in the new system and the system could be designed to be as simple or complex as the players wanted.

Just has HARP has scalable spells - a wonderful idea - I believe a new Rolemaster should be designed as a "scalable ruleset".  Once you understand the base game go ahead and scale it up using options that your group would like best.  Tables and charts could be color coded to clearly define what "level" of game they fall into (i.e. green boarder is for core, must have, base game, yellow boarder is for intermediate optional rules, and red for the serious hard core grognard gamers).  Combat could be simple offense/parry, all the way up to multiple manuvers and styles, new weapons and more detailed crit charts.  Skills start at a base set of general catagories which could then easily be divided into a large range of subsets - how detailed one wants to be with skill purchases is up to the gamers.  Purchase only general catagory skills (basic) or have players purchase each skill found in the subset (advanced).   Magic could start with a few simple key lists and basic guidelines, but then could add in relms, scalable spells, open - closed - and base lists, nomenist, crystalist, somantasist, corpralist, rune masters, alchemy rules... lots of scaling potential with magic. 

The key is take the best from RM - all systems, and the best from HARP.  Use this to make a simple core game that is easily scalable.  Make it clear to the beginner that the initial game they get is only foundation for a very large toolbox of options that can be used or ignored.  For all of us old school fans, we would now have a game that combines what we like about RMC and RMFRP while making it simple to ignore what we don't like. 

P.S. This would be a replacement for both RMC and RMFRP - I would not consider this also a replacement for HARP.  HARP is a different enough game that it should still be on a seperate track. 

Offline Mando

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Conversion HARP - Terre du Milieu
Re: Guild Companion October 2009 (Issue 128)
« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2009, 08:50:58 AM »
I agree with what's been said by others above, and repeat what I've said before on this topic, a few months ago, as i think it's really the way to to make ICE (which I would like to stand as long as long as possible, given it's clean attitude and wonderful games) a powerful player in the diminishing business that RPGs are now:

- One totally new game system. Call it HARPMaster or whatever you want, at one time, you will have to get rid of the bad feelings RM has always had among people who never played it. Try to make it simple to learn, simple to play, but give through option books some meat to the people who love to play with a lot of rules. Make all other old ICE systems "free to be updated and add more content by the fans, all free products welcome". Can you really keep saying you support a system when you don't get products out for it for years?

- One original setting, on paper and PDF, single stated for this game system. This could be multi-stated with cheap PDFs to get some more money from previous systems fans.

- Adventures and multi-part campaigns placed in the setting. As above, print and PDF, single stated, with cheap additional PDFs for other systems.

- One rule or expansion or option book every two months. Just say where you want to go, try to make things happen on time (it CAN be done).

- One setting book or adventure or campaign part every month. Get good and cheap free lancers on-board to help those already doing a great job.

At  one time, ICE should admit that fans of a 20 years old RPG system don't wait for much more except being able to go on playing with what they love and share what they have done for it with others. What kind of successful book can you hope bringing to them that they will buy? Why try to update a system, when every time you talk about changes, old die hard fans tell you "I don't agree on this change, but I don't care, I played this or that way for years and already have changed the system to fit my gaming style"? RM fans are already split in three "chapels", just create a new one and let the old guys play with what they already have, it pleases them.

My opinion is that the way to go is to bring in something new, both simple and deep, best suited for the current gaming population: people in their 40's, having little time to play or prepare, but still dying for this little time spent every week or month with friends to play a game of fantasy. That's why we now need simple systems, spiced with settings and ready to play adventures. Just try to make some "old" and mostly many "new" fans buy and play an ICE RPG.
.:| Fred, aka Mando |:.

Communauté francophone des joueurs de Jeux de Rôles ICE : Iceland