Author Topic: So..  (Read 28605 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: So..
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2018, 04:19:34 AM »
RPGs are long life products. Asking your fan base to drop twenty years of optimisation and customisation and abandon a whole shelf of books just to go back to a set of core rules is an impossible ask.

A few groups, like Hurin's and Jdales, have been playing RMU for several years now and they have settled in.

Roll the clock forward and all the new shiny things are for RMU and as GMs we tend to be magpie and we always want the new things.

I think RMU will be successful but it will be a long term success. Never before were the old versions ever explicitly ended and support turned off. RM was always the one product that limped on.
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: So..
« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2018, 11:17:55 AM »
20 years is actually a LONG time.  Any system has a business life unfortunately.  The best sales you make are the introduction of a new book and, when you create a new version, you are often selling multiple new books.  You can only produce so much quality products before you run out of good material/writers too.  Wait too long for a revamp and you start to produce mediocre products and begin to lose your base (TSR anyone?).

RM did need a revamp, for life-cycle (ran out of good material) and business (new ICE) reasons.

My opinion: The real question was do they try to retain existing customers or gain new ones? I don't think both is realistic.
- If this is more a side-hobby for the ownership then targeting the existing customer base is a good idea. Although I think RMU could have done a better job there. RMU should have taken the best aspects of RM2 and RMSS and tossed the worse aspects of both without a lot of other significant changes.
- If the ownership wants to revitalize RM and try to bring it back to its former glory, RMU needed to not cater to the existing customer base and change fairly significantly. The people still playing it weren't really the people they should have been bouncing ideas off of. It should have been people that either used to play and have moved to new, more recent, systems or people that had never played RM at all.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,099
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: So..
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2018, 11:19:18 AM »
I think there will still be a lot that can be mined going forward and back. We're using spell lists from RMSS and even RM2 in addition to RMU lists, for example, and you could use RMU lists in the previous editions if you wanted to take advantage of them filling in the blanks. There are some specific types of lists which will not translate as easily (e.g. healing is different, things that affect the structure of the combat round like haste) but the majority will be fine. The presence of tools for creating races, cultures, and professions means that if you do move to RMU, you are not left on your own if you need to convert things from previous editions. Creature stats will be different but that's why the entire creature list is being converted -- just use the new ones -- and again there is a system for creating creatures if you do need to make your own. Character skill bonuses are going to change, but there are already big differences in those bonuses between RMSS and RM2/RMC, because of differences in how profession bonuses work (flat in RMSS, level based in RM2/RMC) and higher numbers of ranks in RMSS. I've also seen a fair amount of discussion about converting modules from, say, Pathfinder, and converting between RM editions is going to be way easier than that.

There are other changes like the structure of the combat round but I don't see that as difficult to house rule. Of course the more tweaking you did, the more there is to adapt, and RM2 with all the companions is more of a kit for assembling your own RPG than a fully actualized RPG....
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: So..
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2018, 01:21:06 PM »
I think there will still be a lot that can be mined going forward and back. We're using spell lists from RMSS and even RM2 in addition to RMU lists, for example, and you could use RMU lists in the previous editions if you wanted to take advantage of them filling in the blanks. There are some specific types of lists which will not translate as easily (e.g. healing is different, things that affect the structure of the combat round like haste) but the majority will be fine. The presence of tools for creating races, cultures, and professions means that if you do move to RMU, you are not left on your own if you need to convert things from previous editions. Creature stats will be different but that's why the entire creature list is being converted -- just use the new ones -- and again there is a system for creating creatures if you do need to make your own. Character skill bonuses are going to change, but there are already big differences in those bonuses between RMSS and RM2/RMC, because of differences in how profession bonuses work (flat in RMSS, level based in RM2/RMC) and higher numbers of ranks in RMSS. I've also seen a fair amount of discussion about converting modules from, say, Pathfinder, and converting between RM editions is going to be way easier than that.

There are other changes like the structure of the combat round but I don't see that as difficult to house rule. Of course the more tweaking you did, the more there is to adapt, and RM2 with all the companions is more of a kit for assembling your own RPG than a fully actualized RPG....

Something I would love to see is a set of acceptable rules of thumb for converting B/X to RMU so we can both convert the mountain of freely available b/x or OSR modules to RMU and use them to attract in the OSR community.

RM in all its flavours has promoted itself as an 'advanced' system and the OSR community are often the most experienced of GMs and players who go back to the 80s.
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: So..
« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2018, 01:31:38 PM »
20 years is actually a LONG time.  Any system has a business life unfortunately.  The best sales you make are the introduction of a new book and, when you create a new version, you are often selling multiple new books.  You can only produce so much quality products before you run out of good material/writers too.  Wait too long for a revamp and you start to produce mediocre products and begin to lose your base (TSR anyone?).

RM did need a revamp, for life-cycle (ran out of good material) and business (new ICE) reasons.

My opinion: The real question was do they try to retain existing customers or gain new ones? I don't think both is realistic.
- If this is more a side-hobby for the ownership then targeting the existing customer base is a good idea. Although I think RMU could have done a better job there. RMU should have taken the best aspects of RM2 and RMSS and tossed the worse aspects of both without a lot of other significant changes.
- If the ownership wants to revitalize RM and try to bring it back to its former glory, RMU needed to not cater to the existing customer base and change fairly significantly. The people still playing it weren't really the people they should have been bouncing ideas off of. It should have been people that either used to play and have moved to new, more recent, systems or people that had never played RM at all.

You are right and we have had this discussion before in multiple threads.

I think the target audience is the existing community as ICE have made virtually zero effort to attract in play testers from outside these forums.

ICE is almost certainly a hobby. It [the company] is only making about £5000 a year. It is a difficult time for a game system like Rolemaster. If you wanted to make a commercially viable game then RMU is the exact opposite of what you would build. If you are building a system for the love of the system then RMU fits the bill nicely.
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: So..
« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2018, 02:04:23 PM »
There are other changes like the structure of the combat round but I don't see that as difficult to house rule.


Yes, and the discussions have shown that many groups dispensed with the original RM2 round structure -- and indeed even RMSS did too -- so there isn't really any 'one round to rule them all' that you could go back to.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,099
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: So..
« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2018, 02:24:13 PM »
If you wanted to make a commercially viable game then RMU is the exact opposite of what you would build.

But I think if the goal was "commercially viable", you would end up with HARP. It is a heavily streamlined version of RM. That's really why HARP was created. Moving RM to be another HARP would not be a good move commercially, there's no point in making two games that compete for exactly the same niche. RM stakes a claim on the more detail-oriented end of the FRPG spectrum.

Personal opinions only, I was not part of any of the original planning for RMU.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: So..
« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2018, 02:42:35 PM »
If you wanted to make a commercially viable game then RMU is the exact opposite of what you would build.

But I think if the goal was "commercially viable", you would end up with HARP. It is a heavily streamlined version of RM. That's really why HARP was created. Moving RM to be another HARP would not be a good move commercially, there's no point in making two games that compete for exactly the same niche. RM stakes a claim on the more detail-oriented end of the FRPG spectrum.

Personal opinions only, I was not part of any of the original planning for RMU.
I think you are right though.

That is why I think RMU is more a labour of love and not really a commercial game. The biggest movement in RPGs for possibly the last decade is OSR which is a shift away from detail oriented FRPG. The second biggest movement games built around evocative settings and the rules developed to reflect that setting, RMU wears its generic nature with pride. Fantasy is about the most crowded genre in RPGs and completely dominated by big brands taking the lions share of sales and more indie games than you can shake a stick at, this is where RMU is choosing to compete. Finally, the average price of entry to a new game, if you exclude free 'lite' versions which are rather old fashioned these days, and free quickstart books or about 50 pages, is about $20 for a complete system in a book. RMU looks like it is intending to be a set of rule books  right from the start as compressing what we have into a single volume would be a herculean task.

And another finally, assuming RMU emerges in 2019, it is going to come out and have to compete against Against The Darkmaster (vsDarkmaster). I would even say that it looks like vsDarkmaster may make it to market first and is has all the unique selling points of RMU and rolemaster, it has d100 stats, the skills, the criticals, the spell lists and the open ended rolls. What it also has is an active social media presence it could also have a bigger financial war chest depending on how its kickstarter goes, but that is yet to be seen.

There is nothing wrong with RMU and I would buy it tomorrow given the choice. I am fully onboard even if I will house rule the hell out of it, just like I have RM2 and RMC. I just cannot see how in this market, right now it will be a commercial 'success'.
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: So..
« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2018, 02:58:57 PM »
I was part of the team after some basic design ideas had already been discussed but eventually bowed out for a couple major reasons.  One of the two reasons was that there didn't seem to be a clear goal or consensus on what crowd it was targeting.  That left me in a position where I didn't know how to help as those two possibilities would send me in very different directions.

I'm not quite sure if one direction or the other was officially chosen, but these days I'd echo it is obviously not targeting new players (even if it was intended to).
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: So..
« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2018, 03:14:38 PM »
Yes, and the discussions have shown that many groups dispensed with the original RM2 round structure -- and indeed even RMSS did too -- so there isn't really any 'one round to rule them all' that you could go back to.
Long ago, during much earlier design discussions, there was a poll conducted here on the forums that the RMSS round won out pretty clearly.  To be perfectly clear, while I use RMSS, I have no biased there as I prefer either a more or less detailed round than it (either second-by-second or a 'battletech' style round).  But when choosing between the RM2 style round (unpopular), RMSS round (fairly popular), and everyone's own custom round (slightly less popular than the RMSS round and obviously an impossible task regardless), the RMSS round was the obvious choice in my opinion.  I find the new round no better, only different, and possibly even a little more complex.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: So..
« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2018, 04:21:37 PM »
My recollection of that poll about round structure is somewhat different. I don't recall any choice winning the support of a firm majority; and i recall that many people indicated some degree of dissatisfaction with the previous options. It seemed to me most people were looking for or at least willing to try something else

But it would be good to dig those results up to see.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: So..
« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2018, 05:22:33 PM »
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: So..
« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2018, 05:29:56 PM »
I just read that thread and basically not one person was using anything that had not been house ruled except intothatdarkness who was about to introduce house rules. :)
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline Nightblade42

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 436
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: So..
« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2018, 07:47:50 PM »
I think that's the thing.  Just about everything in every version of RM has been houseruled at some point, probably (I know that's a huge sweeping statement to make, sorry).  At the very least, we all use different optional rules from the various companions in both RM2/C & RMSS/FRP.

As for commercial viability, I think RM has become a niche, perhaps even just a nostalgic game.  Yes, it would be great if a new crop of players picked up RM & injected some new life into the product (& ICE's coffers); but when you look at the ages of the users on this forum, they're mostly around the same age - basically all of us who have been playing RM in its various incarnations since high school.  In the end, most of us will continue to use whatever homebrew ruleset we use - perhaps adopting some new mechanics/rules/options from RMU.  But I get the feeling this is where the RM community is sort of headed - IMHO.

I think if ICE wants to inject new life into the RM line (no matter what flavour (C/FRP/U)) they should try to go back to what made them successful in their heyday: amazing adventure modules.  I know there's no chance of getting the MERP license back; but there's Shadow World; SM Imperium; SM:Privateers & a number of other fan-created worlds.  If ICE found a way to support these settings and market modules & adventures set there, I believe they could possibly find some commercial viability.  But that takes dedicated authors & a team of editorial staff to keep things "Canon".  I understand there's issues with such an idea, but there are only so many people out there who will get into a RPG with a generic ruleset that says: Build your own world to play in.  Most people want that hard work done for them.  We're just the crazy bunch that loves to build worlds.  But you can't survive commercially on people like us.

Nightblade ->--

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: So..
« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2018, 09:38:37 PM »
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=11535.0;viewresults

I think this was the poll.

Thanks for finding that! The RMSS round made out a little better than I remembered, in all honesty, but nevertheless I think my point stands that most people use something other than the RMSS round. So there definitely is room for improvement here.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: So..
« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2018, 12:14:55 AM »
Thanks for finding that! The RMSS round made out a little better than I remembered, in all honesty
Pretty much the result I stated.
21 RMSS, 17 house rules, 5 RM2 and 5 RMC.

Quote
I think my point stands that most people use something other than the RMSS round. So there definitely is room for improvement here.
Actually the poll indicates MOST responders used the RMSS round.  If you're going to pick a round for the revamp, it seemed the obvious one.

Your comment really just translates into 'Most people use something other than ANY Rolemaster round' and it's not possible to create a round customized for every RM user.

I don't find the new round any more elegant, it seems like a change simply for the sake of change.  Technically I find it less appealing as the RMSS round allows for more versatility and requires less math.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: So..
« Reply #36 on: November 11, 2018, 01:00:59 AM »

Actually the poll indicates MOST responders used the RMSS round. 

No, it doesn't.

Of 48 responders, more than half (27), or 56.25%, used something other than the RMSS round.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: So..
« Reply #37 on: November 11, 2018, 02:22:28 AM »
If you read the comments several start "I picked RMSS but..." So the poll numbers and the reality at the tables do not match up.
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline Majyk

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 477
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: So..
« Reply #38 on: November 11, 2018, 05:29:18 AM »
I remember sneering at the RMSS round as “what the f+++ is this garbage?!” when I first read through my purchase long, long ago - but didn’t buy it when it first came out because I wasn’t a fan of how the Category and Individual Skill ranks slowed down character creation and bloated character sheets.

All this gleaned from the old RM mailing/news lists of the day...

As said, the multitude of modules from RM2s heyday were what got me to purchase the Red Box, and later on, the Shadow World’s Atlas Box with the green and blue books inside! 
It was also what made me purchase any and all RM Grey Worlds(mini RM Companions!) back issues I could find along with getting into T$R’s Dungeon Magazine(to convert adventures away!).

Nightblade has it right for getting new and old folks back into the fold at the same time - just look at the love for TKA’s unfinished  Grand Campaign!

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: So..
« Reply #39 on: November 11, 2018, 01:43:15 PM »

Actually the poll indicates MOST responders used the RMSS round. 

No, it doesn't.

Of 48 responders, more than half (27), or 56.25%, used something other than the RMSS round.
Semantics. The most used round was the RMSS round.  Trying to say 'most people don't use the RMSS round' is a bit of a distraction to the real point and the only reason you can even legitimately claim it is because a good number of people don't use ANY RM designed round.

If a combined total of 10 people used the RM2/RMC round, 17 used custom designed rounds, and 21 used RMSS based round the RMSS round was the obvious choice to model from.  But now we have another new round modeled from RMC(?) that a bunch of people are already going to house-rule anyhow...?  I'd chalk that up as a flop.

The RMSS round is a good middle ground between super detailed and super simple. Personally I don't much like half-measures, but it probably is a good starting point for the 'masses'. Course, the existing fan base isn't exactly the 'masses'. ;)
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss