Official ICE Forums
Gamer's Corner => General Discussion => Topic started by: area51games on August 06, 2013, 01:58:49 AM
-
So I have been around gaming sense 1982. I was 13 year old when I set down and made my First AD&D character. later on in 1987 I think I picked up space master or was it 88 , any way it melted my brain and i fised the box set for stuff, but none of my then Traveller and AD&D player want anything to do with the game. I used the psionic rules and ADandD and made my own game for a while, and played other games, GOLDENHEROES. Gammaworld, HEROES.
only now many many years later with my 21 year old son do we pick up HARP and then I get SF and Start picking up old pdf of rolemaster from rpgdrivethru.
so let me tell you what I think.
I like the crunch "
But if you really want new players and you really want to keep the old players, you got a problem.
the things I like- one the details
two the one roll combat and resolution in HARP.
in rolemaster I like the detail, and the options of course.
but you got to ask your self . . . . .self why the high numbers? when the bonus mean everything?
you cold just as Easily rang the score from 1-13, with a percentage table to generate it. if you got to have the negitive -5 thru 13.
Professions are cool and they focus the game, but I DO NOT GET THE whole complicate cost system.
, do i get levels - advancements sets would work too. every 1000 xp equal 12 development point.
why percentage your table do not even utilize the whole spectrum an range of 1-25 would work <d25>
but them it would not be the old game, I do understand why you keep what you have. honest.
but the why Rolemaster runs , go out make get a programmer, take you game engine, make it a program , that a game referee or directer , can install and just imput his players and he adds the story componenets from the many forms and hit enter and it calculate all the stuff as the game develops. maybe get with a laptop company like Alien ware and make a special rolemaster pad/laptop. with a projection to show pictures at right moment to get the vision down.
but then again would it be rolemaster?
rolemaster is the details - shadow world and spacemaster empire and privateer.
its the stories players bring to the game
its a game to be played where no one not even the game master can tell what going to happen.
" that thegame part"
streamline and I well play it, but in the end what are the key elements that make it a role-master experience?
its the detailed characters
its the fast combat rolls and resolution with teath
its the worlds and settings , the old art that made me pick up the old box set of space master and MERPS!@
ITS TIME. . .
Look DnD is trying to reset its self and its logo because it got off the tracks - but it forgot something table top can not be a online experience.
table top is joking with friends every moaning when the roll was not made and every screaming and jumping up and down when it was!
it company and its story and it a time to escape with your friend to a distant land and pretend with rules and a game like enviroment!
so what are the elements of role master to you fellow readers I would like to hear from old timers and see what it is you " old timers " got to say for your game.
I like some key elements of the game, the one roll, the development of character.
but some of it don't seem to fit the future, and that is big time for all the forty somethings to player a game.
or in the future. we need to think that maybe spacemaster and role master could be , it just a thought from the guy!
-
I can say that the reason the tables are not 1-25 has to do with statistics and what the numbers mean. If the game could be reduced to d20 then I think it would be.
MDC
-
There is no doubt in my mind that if we wanted to make a d20 version it could be done... but that then makes every modifier that is done (whether for skill development, special abilities, or simply situational) a multiple of +/- 5% which really limits the relative modifiers.
The concept of d20-ified HARP has been discussed on these boards and while it would be simpler math, it really would lose a lot of the feel. The HARP rules use a +5/+2/+1 skill bonus progression and effectively you would change that to +5/+5/+5 unless you change the mechanics to be multiple ranks = +1 (on d20) but that becomes a bookkeeping nightmare. And fumbles in HARP are different ranges for different weapons, but they would all become a fumble on a 1 (=5%) which just feels way too much like D&D to me. Bad things happen on a 1, good things happen on a 20.... Not for me.
-
this boat has sailed, :-X
-
I always hated d20 and have a marked preference for percentile-based games. I've converted enough d20 folks to think that it's more a matter of presentation. Once they saw how much fun it could be and how flexible the systems were, the change was easy.
-
D20 is RM divided by five. And I mean that in a broader sense than just the dice - I mean the level of detail in general also. I don't see a point to that. People also need to learn that 100 isn't really any harder than 20 (or, if it is, maybe a game where you need to be halfway decent at basic math - assuming they don't want to use a calculator - just isn't for them).
The skill cost system balances out the professions. It's really just as simple as that. Without them you'd have no archetypes. I won't go into a deep philosophical discussion about that, but I'll just say I think that would be a huge mistake in the long run, even if the individual players don't quite understand why.
I've said these things many times in the past...
The reason most people think RM is complicated is because they do not know it. Meaning, if they were an RM player and moving to D&D these days, they would think D&D was the more complex system. I grew up playing D&D, started integrating parts of RM1 and RM2 into 2nd Ed AD&D, re-wrote half of 2nd Ed D&D, integrated The Primal Order with it, then moved to MERP as a full system, then to RMSS as a full system. When I look at D&D these days (3.0-4.0) I perceive something more complex than RM. I know, or am pretty darn sure, it's not... I simply don't 'know' D&D these days, so it appears more daunting.
Those criticizing RM extensively often do not know the system very well, if at all. They make a quick gloss over, see the charts and tables, and suddenly jump to the conclusion that you're going to need to know calculus and spend 80% of your time looking up results. Or, worse yet, they are just parroting what others have said. The majority of people I see making fun of Rolemaster don't have a clue how it actually works. D&D requires as much if not more math than RM, albeit in 2 digit form rather than 3 digit form (and if that presents a problem for their math skills then their opinion is really of no significance imo).
Now, although D&D has become more and more like RM over the years (more skill, more abilities - like feats, etc) it is still less detailed than RM when it comes to actual combat and skill resolution (to my knowledge).
So, your first problem is overcoming a typically inaccurate perception of how RM plays. Your second 'problem' is simply if the players like the extra detail you're going to get out of RM.
IMO, if RM wants to draw in new customers the FIRST issue will be overcoming it's reputation, deserved or not. Unfortunately, from what has been put out so far, I don't see that happening as a result of RMU.
-
I've always advertised RM or Harp has a D100 game, which is like a D20, but simpler with 5 times more possibilities.
I played AD&D for roughly 10 years before moving on to RM2e. I found RM2e very complex at first, until I got the concept of it. How the books were written didn't help. RMSS was a significant improvement, but character generation tended to be very long and mistake prone. 10 years ago I picked Harp and I loved the simplicity and straightforwardness of the system. I even applied some of to RMSS. The Harp Fantasy fixes a lot the issues of the original Harp making it an exceptional system. I think RMU has the potential to just has good as Harp Fantasy, simple yet detailed.
I play D20 regularly as a player, and I find the game exceedingly complicated. We spend considerable time looking through the books to find exactly how the handle situations. D20 has rules for just about everything and a dozen or so exceptions to these rules. I know off the top of my head how to handle to situation in Harp and RMU, and I haven't had an RMU game yet! The fewer rules that are very simple and allow the detail. D20 has little detail and many rules.
D20 has a 575 page core book, which does not include the bestiary! I find that ridiculous really.
What RM and Harp really needs is good marketing. Most gamers don't even they exist. Those I meet tend to hear of it from me for the first time, yet they know more about what's going to happen to D20.
Well, we have to get the word out there somehow.
-
D20 is RM divided by five. And I mean that in a broader sense than just the dice - I mean the level of detail in general also.
Exactly. There's no reason to use d100 rather than d20... so long as you're willing to have no practical chance of anything with less than a 5% probability, so long as you're willing to accept only 1/5 the granularity. I'm not. Personally I like 1 in 100 chances, and 1 in 10,000 or 1,000,000 chances. I even like the fact that on a generic open ended roll, you have a 5% chance of the dice exploding upward, but only a 4% chance of them exploding downward.
-
What RM and Harp really needs is good marketing. Most gamers don't even they exist. Those I meet tend to hear of it from me for the first time, yet they know more about what's going to happen to D20.
Well, we have to get the word out there somehow.
And in the wings a form waits, biding it's time, the symbol of the Iron Crown depicted upon it's shield and the dark cloak covers it's head.... It knows that it's time will come, but anxious it remains to join the others with the launch of a new Order.
-
Exactly. There's no reason to use d100 rather than d20... so long as you're willing to have no practical chance of anything with less than a 5% probability, so long as you're willing to accept only 1/5 the granularity. I'm not. Personally I like 1 in 100 chances, and 1 in 10,000 or 1,000,000 chances. I even like the fact that on a generic open ended roll, you have a 5% chance of the dice exploding upward, but only a 4% chance of them exploding downward.
+1.
Addressing the complexity, I never had much trouble with that aspect, but that's because I rearranged the rules and modified them to suit my world. That was the only way to overcome the original layout. My version presented character creation in a very linear, culture-focused way that made it easy for new players to grasp (very important since most of my group was new to RM, and at any given time 50% or more of them had never played an actual pen-and-paper RPG before).
-
you know , I reread my post and no where do I say d20, I am asking what is core, what is role master, I asked if the 100 is part of that? I asked why not bonus for the score instead of score then bonus, D20 took in my oppinion a lot from the game that progressed passed the original frame or structure.
I am not asking for change I am asking why and what is Rolemaster core and what it is not?
is it a precentage system? well yes all game are structured on a percentage or can be. but games like Fate and storyteller system and d6 system all did move to a new format or Dichotomy-
Yes I am sure you have had this before, I am not asking for a d20 system- sigh!
I am asking you what is the core of " what is rolemaster"
how much of Harp is role master?
if you can take harp and add it to the ICE CROWN?
Why not a more core system- level less score range 1-13 as also the bonus. ranks that are worth the number value instead a transient number. I am into game mechanics And I was wanting to know the very core of your game ideology?
so let us start again if some one would- what is the very essence of the standard rolemaster system, and why
do you use the class,Level structure with also a skill system ?
what is the difference between the common populace and the adventure, "heroes"
what is your interpretation of Balance in the light of a soldier who fight in a four year world on the frontline and a police officer who walk the beat in hell kitchen? are they Heroes? or are they commoners what make the difference, if their is none so what level is a baker who has worked 20 years in his own shop and a baker who works for a restaurant for 20 years are they the same level?
I am not being a Critique I am interested in the mind set of a game designer and what they look at in balancing a game?
-
Rm is a system using target numbers. RM is d100 the way DnD is d20. RM has codified the target numbers with tables.
A D100 game system could easily be devised. No volunteers?
-
what is the difference between the common populace and the adventure, "heroes"
what is your interpretation of Balance in the light of a soldier who fight in a four year world on the frontline and a police officer who walk the beat in hell kitchen? are they Heroes? or are they commoners what make the difference, if their is none so what level is a baker who has worked 20 years in his own shop and a baker who works for a restaurant for 20 years are they the same level?
I am not being a Critique I am interested in the mind set of a game designer and what they look at in balancing a game?
RM allows you to answer those questions in a number of ways. I know how I answer it in my game, but that's going to be different than the answer you'll get from some here. And that's fine...it's the greatest strength of RM-style rules.
To get to your specifics...in one of my games the war veteran and the cop would likely be close to the same level, but with very different skills. They might be close to equal in some weapon skills, but there the similarities would end. Same goes for the bakers: they might both have Cookery: Baking (or whatever) to the same level, but the other skills might be quite different. I do a great deal of non-magic setting stuff, and in those games you don't have "heroes" in the same sense you do with a fantasy adventure party. Some GMs allow for the use of background options and the like for PCs, but don't use those when they develop NPCs. In the modification of the RMU system I'm using now, PCs are developed at the Superior Power Level, while NPCs are done using Average. This gives PCs slightly higher stats and skill bonuses, but that's it.
-
you know , I reread my post and no where do I say d20, I am asking what is core, what is role master, I asked if the 100 is part of that? I asked why not bonus for the score instead of score then bonus, D20 took in my oppinion a lot from the game that progressed passed the original frame or structure.
Well, you are talking about RM and D&D in a way, which is d100 and d20. But I get it, we kind of went off on a tangent from your question. But, the point is sort of the same... what is Rolemaster? It's D20x5 with x5 the possibilities. I think that is our point.
I am not asking for change I am asking why and what is Rolemaster core and what it is not?
is it a precentage system? well yes all game are structured on a percentage or can be. but games like Fate and storyteller system and d6 system all did move to a new format or Dichotomy-
I was not picking on you, thinking you were criticizing RM, I was pointing out what needs to change for RM to become popular with new players again. The first and foremost solution is getting the people who claim they don't like it to actually learn more about it before they claim they don't like it (because most don't actually know much about it - which often shows in their criticisms). The second part is doing what is possible without 'ruining' RM to make it appear less complex.
I am asking you what is the core of " what is rolemaster" \
Rolemaster is... (imo)
Unique characters - profesions are only the baseline used to create much more personalized versions of thier particular archetype.
More possibilities - d100 rather than d20. You are able to break a sorts of things down in order to allow for greater flexibility and a broader range of results.
Details that other RPG's lack - a Fireball does not do 6d6. It does a given amount of damage, but also gives the actual side effects which such an attack should, represented in critical hits.
how much of Harp is role master?
Well, imo (which some HARP fans don't share) is that HARP is a watered down version of Rolemaster. As much as that was possibly not the intention of it, that is what it became from my point of view.
Why not a more core system- level less score range 1-13 as also the bonus. ranks that are worth the number value instead a transient number. I am into game mechanics And I was wanting to know the very core of your game ideology?
Simply put, because it is too limiting and results in a more generic outcome. Besides, what's more initiative than %?
why do you use the class,Level structure with also a skill system?
Well, the skill system is what makes classes (professions) stand apart from each other, so they are really one in the same when talking about this aspect. Warning: RPG psychology incoming... Archetypes are what limit each character type in their abilities, so everyone can't do everything. Why do we do that? Because it creates specializations, characters that are different from one another. Why do we do that apart from 'just making them different'? Because (aside from the socila aspect) a huge part of gaming, even if most don't realize it, is working together to overcome obstacles. If everyone can do everything there's no need to work together and, eventually, no need for a 'group' of adventurers. Now, some will say "But then players will focus on different things, thereby accomplishing the same result." Yes and no. First, if that's what they'll do anyhow then there's no harm in having the specializations divided into professions. Second, eventually the characters will 'max out' or get 'good enough' in their particular focus and start learning the other members focuses also... resulting in a bunch of characters that can do everything eventually. While that might be realistic in a way it diminishes much of the very reason we game... teamwork.
what is the difference between the common populace and the adventure, "heroes"
For whatever reason (read; character background) the "heroes" went down the path of adventure and, as a result, are far superior to the average population. Kind of like a special ops agent compared to a everyday banker. Who are you going to call when things get nasty or who is more likely to rise to the occasion, and succeed, when needed?
what is your interpretation of Balance in the light of a soldier who fight in a four year world on the frontline and a police officer who walk the beat in hell kitchen? are they Heroes? or are they commoners what make the difference, if their is none so what level is a baker who has worked 20 years in his own shop and a baker who works for a restaurant for 20 years are they the same level?
It comes down to actual experience. If the soldier sat at a guard post the whole war and ever saw any action the soldier would have very little experience to apply to anything. If the cop covered a crime ridden area where they were exposed to danger on a constant basis odds are they would have a leg up on that solider. That is where your level comes from: Experience. Levels in Rolemaster are not the same as levels in many RPG's, your level does not determine your skill total (although RMU is trying to work that in in a way). You don't get +1 to hit cause you went up a level. Levels in RM are really only a mechanic meant to control your progression in an overall sense.
-
you know , I reread my post and no where do I say d20, I am asking what is core, what is role master, I asked if the 100 is part of that? I asked why not bonus for the score instead of score then bonus, D20 took in my oppinion a lot from the game that progressed passed the original frame or structure.
If I understand what you are asking, it's been discussed at length here http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=12749.0 (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=12749.0) and here http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=12131.180 (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=12131.180) and probably elsewhere as well.
so let us start again if some one would- what is the very essence of the standard rolemaster system, and why
do you use the class,Level structure with also a skill system ?
The function of professions/classes is to enforce archetypes and push characters to specialize, which makes it easier for all of them to get reasonable amounts of story share. Story share can most easily be gained by having an important role in the party, things your character can shine at. A great GM can handle balancing story share without any help from the system, a moderate GM needs the help.
The function of levels is to constrain skill development in a way that makes it easier for the GM to assess the required threat level of encounters and keeps the party members in scale with each other (which helps with story share). Without levels, you could put all your experience into just, say, combat skills. The ability gap between your character and another character who is, maybe, developing their craft skills, makes it harder to come up with an appropriate threat for the party. (The GM can send the one really tough opponent against the one really tough PC, but one unexpected critical roll in either direction will ruin that solution.) Levels force characters to be better rounded rather than overspecialized.
The function of skills is to allow characters to be individualized. Within the framework of class and levels.
I find professions and levels to be unrealistic but very useful in running a game, especially in a fantasy setting where the archetypes are well established. Less so in modern or SF settings.
what is the difference between the common populace and the adventure, "heroes"
what is your interpretation of Balance in the light of a soldier who fight in a four year world on the frontline and a police officer who walk the beat in hell kitchen? are they Heroes? or are they commoners what make the difference, if their is none so what level is a baker who has worked 20 years in his own shop and a baker who works for a restaurant for 20 years are they the same level?
It's pretty clear from discussions elsewhere on the boards that there is a wide range of opinions about this. Personally I prefer normal people to be very low level, and PCs to be exceptional. As for the level of the soldier and the police officer, it depends on the needs of the story. Some people learn more from their experience than others. PCs learn fast. Many (not all) NPCs learn very slow.
-
thank you all so much for your answers and opinions .
I like Role master a lot and hope that with RMU , there well return those books of old of pulp and timetravel and black ops as well as some of the real indepth back ground writing that was around in the late 88-91.
ICE seemed to be a contender as it where , what happen ?
But in this day in age is there no one who can see the eventual merging of table top and pads?>
there well eventually be a RPG program that well interface mmo-
already I GM iwth lap top and screen. I can carrie a lot more pdfs then books. and I can hand out those to player so all have a book for a while or print out the most used tables 0
it is just a matter of time before some one interfaces the Game master with an MMO and its a whole new world
but till then I think you you all are doing well . by returning a good game to the market!
-
I prefer RMSS so I will answer from that perspective as I think it differs slightly depending on which version you run.
Also you can look up some where (probably on Wikipedia) what happened to ICE throughout the years.
Difference between Hero's and normal's? Just like in life, their experiences. Look at the experience system and you can see that there are diminishing returns for doing the exact same thing for exp. So the person who does the same thing for 20 years will be a lower level than a person who does vastly different and dangerous things for 10 or maybe even 5 years.
Difference between Hero and norm? Can be profession and profession bonuses.
Difference between two close NPC's or PC's? Skill choice and total DP's for skills.
You can also do a search for your questions and probably read for about a month and there are quite a few topics like the one you have posted in the archives.
MDC
-
I know there are some folks working on ideas for expansions to the RMU rules to deal with modern settings. Steampunk has also been mentioned on the boards, as have some other settings and genres. I expect you'll see more once the next beta comes out (it's hard to develop some aspects of the system when you don't know for sure what the core will look like).
About Professions: one key to making them work for modern settings is to change your idea of them. I view them as access to training, not fixed character archetypes (as far as I'm concerned you do that when you assign stats). You then create rules allowing for changing Professions. It makes the core much more flexible. I'm also not opposed to levels, since they still allow for simple benchmarking of parties and their opposition. Modern, non-magical settings are simply different, and you need to adjust some of the game's "constants" to deal with that.
-
Much of "what happened to Rolemaster" (or in a greater sense, ICE) is a mixture of factors.
Two issues are the decline of the RPG industry as a whole, again for a variety of reasons.
1) Card Games and MMORPG's (Massive Mulitplayer Online RPGs).
a) Card Games created a way to play a quick 'game' between only two players that appealed for various reasons. Game companies, once they saw what was going on, realized this was a huge money maker and the method "took off" as it were.
b) MMORPG's gave gamers a way to play without having to gather up the group and presented an option that required no tracking, physically leveling characters, looking up rules, etc, etc. Basically, in the eyes of a lot of gamers, a wonderful option to table-top games.
2) Game companies were, by in large (WotC being the one exception) pretty small operations. After WotC (which had as many as 1000 employees) the next biggest company was maybe 5%-10% that size. Things as minor as the price of paper could harm their bottom line. Then there was the UPS strike which killed a surprisingly large percentage of the game companies out there.
Now RM was (and usually still is; part of what they need to overcome) considered the "Veterans" game system. While I am sure this is not what was envisioned by its creators, it was for the very experienced gamers who wanted 'more' out of their game system than the others were providing. It was (and is) often criticized for it's number of charts and tables and accused of being nothing more than a bunch of page flipping (these are usually the ones that come up - often from people who really don't know much about RM, or are possibly just poorly organized gamers). So, you effectively had a minority portion of the target audience of a small industry.
Two issues harmed the original ICE to the point that they declared bankruptcy.
1) Tolkien Enterprises. Without going into detail or the reasons why they pretty much intentionally sealed the demise of the original ICE. Middle Earth was a godsend for ICE and it was an albatross for ICE. It is, really not even arguably imo, the best Fantasy license you can have... but it comes with having to deal with Tolkien Enterprises (not to be mistaken for the Tolkien Estate) which, again without going into detail, has some serious drawbacks. I don't speculate too much anymore on the moral side of what went down, because I see it from a unique perspective - both as a fan and as someone who understands a couple of the motivations for what happened. 'Nuff said.
2) This one can be debated, but lets just say 'in my opinion' (and again without going into detail), poor management. 'Nuff said there too.
So ICE goes bankrupt, gets bought by the second incarnation of ICE. So a second tier player in a small industry, which is in even worse shape than before, struggles along for a decent length of time. Most game stores, when you ask about ICE products, say "Didn't they go bankrupt?" Essentially, between the fact that the industry is in even worse shape than during the first ICE, and the same #2 above, they eventually lose the rights to most of what is considered "ICE".
Now you have the third generation of ICE, essentially being run by the former freelancers and fans of the first two as a secondary 'job'. While this is an improvement from my perspective it is going to be slow going. The success of the "current ICE" is largely going to be in the hands of it's current fans - not just in that they need to buy it for it to be viable, but in that they are likely going to be the main driving advertising for it.
If RM or HARP can be licensed to a online game, put out some computer programs, or maybe get a popular enough setting to put out a card game things will probably improve greatly.
What I am hoping for is a 'virtual game table' in the future. :)
-
Just a minor couple of clarifications...
So ICE goes bankrupt, gets bought by the second incarnation of ICE. So a second tier player in a small industry, which is in even worse shape than before, struggles along for a decent length of time. Most game stores, when you ask about ICE products, say "Didn't they go bankrupt?" Essentially, between the fact that the industry is in even worse shape than during the first ICE, and the same #2 above, they eventually lose the rights to most of what is considered "ICE".
2nd Generation of ICE as you describe it would be Mjolnir, however Mjolnir never owned the IP, the actual owner was (and still is) Aurigas Aldebaron. AA licensed the ICE IP (including ICE brand) to Mjolnir. After a number of years, AA pulled the license from Mjolnir.
Now you have the third generation of ICE, essentially being run by the former freelancers and fans of the first two as a secondary 'job'. While this is an improvement from my perspective it is going to be slow going. The success of the "current ICE" is largely going to be in the hands of it's current fans - not just in that they need to buy it for it to be viable, but in that they are likely going to be the main driving advertising for it.
The 3rd generation that you refer to is actually still the 2nd generation owner of the IP, but AA has granted the license to Guild Companion Publications (GCP) - 3rd generation team to manage the game system. This license given to GCP does not include the ICE brand. AA now is far more involved in supporting the ICE brand. This allows GCP to focus on products. Advertising has increased significantly, but there is still a long way to go and we will be very much looking for support and word of mouth (including internet postings, reviews, etc.) to help increase the popularity. Thanks for everything that has been done so far in support of ICE and GCP, and we'll keep doing our best to earn your business, support and respect in the days and years ahead.
-
Oops, Yeah, I guess I didn't clarify what I mean by "ICE" as people know it. The way I explained it (i.e. the various company names) was not really well done. ICE was truly ICE in the 1st incarnation, Aurigas bought the rights to the original ICE's IP when it went belly up and licensed it to Mjolnir DBA (doing business as) "ICE" I believe? Then Mjolnir lost that license and what I refered to as "ICE" is now Guild Companion Publications (which grew out of "The Guild Companion" e-zine).
Does "ICE" technically exist in any legal state what-so-ever now? Is it just an old name or does Aurigas actually work under the ICE name somehow?
-
ICE or Iron Crown Enterprises no longer exists as a commercial entity. It hasn't since the bankruptcy. The name ICE and Iron Crown Enterprises were part of the ICE IP that were purchased by Aurigas Aldebaron. Aurigas uses the ICE name and logo to identify ICE brand gaming products. These are owned by Aurigas, much the same way as Rolemaster is.
-
But the bottom line is still that if new ICE products still exist 20 years from now, it'll be because the freelancers and the fans (in general, the membership of this forum) wrote and bought those products.
The phrase 'Someone ought to do something' was not, by itself, a helpful one. People who used it never added the rider 'and that someone is me'.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Well yes, those 'someones' are too us.
-
Like Cory said a few posts back and IMO is that, ICE needs either a board game or card game or both to be competitive with other game companies. I feel that a broader target audience needs to be focused on not just rpg'ers, otherwise it's going to be a long sink or swim. Not to sound like a Richard but when I look back at the amount of illustration hours I've sunk into ICE products it's mind blowing, sooner or later fan work will need to be replaced by professional workers if it intends to be competitive. I'd like to see ICE flourish but I can't see it happening anytime soon while most of the team work day jobs.
-
Card games were really big for a while, but aside from the initial surge of interest, have they really been profitable aside from Magic? WotC is still making money off cards but I don't think other successful companies like Paizo have needed them or found them particularly useful. Board games even less so.
D&D has done well because it has well established mindshare. Paizo did well because they took advantage of WotC's missteps with D&D 4.0. White Wolf did well because they appealed to a completely different style of play (and player) -- although this is risky business, after all D&D 4.0's big misstep was also trying to appeal to a different style of play (tabletop MMORPG I guess). (White Wolf also was very good about producing a large number of setting books and embedding character creation material in every one of them.)
I like RM but I don't know that it's positioned to grow out of its niche. The current strategy, I think, is a good one for maintaining that niche, which is a realistic goal, but unless something unexpected happens (e.g. Shadow World the novel leads to Shadow World the Movie) I don't see that changing. HARP occupies a different niche, so that's good for the company as a whole, and maybe it's even a niche with better growth potential.
-
I just don't know what to think about RMU as an overall effort. I don't think I'm the typical RM user/fan, I think a lot of us here aren't. So I question if we can really answer the question as to if RMU will be a success. Honestly, until something comes out that did not under the RM2 and RMSS umbrellas, there's no reason for my group to buy it aside from loyalty... and should a customer be loyal to something they won't use. It's kinda a tough one for me, especially being someone who worked on some of RM.
RM and HARPs best strategy may be what it was originally... take the disillusioned DnD players from them.
-
It's kinda a tough one for me, especially being someone who worked on some of RM.
RM and HARPs best strategy may be what it was originally... take the disillusioned DnD players from them.
I'm coming at this from the point of view of someone who's doing bits around the edges for HARP. And to be honest, my first response to this is, "Oh no, does that mean I have to play DnD enough to understand why they're disillusioned and what to do about it?"
-
I don't really think so. HARP is fine for a toned down version of RM, but an improvement over DnD. I don't think there's anything wrong with it in that respect (I just like the extra detail provided in RM). Besides, I suspect a lot of the DnD crowds beef is that WotC (post Hasbro buyout) cranked out too many versions of DnD too fast. From a short-term bottom line standpoint that makes sense to do cause you get a huge buy-in... but it will make your customer base angry once they decide you're just milking them.
As for RM, they want to grow the customer base. I, personally, do not see RMU doing that as it stands right now. IMO, currently it's no less intimidating than previous RM's to the non-RM user. More so in some ways. Unless they pull back on the perceived complexity I fear RM's reputation with its critics isn't going to improve. Hopefully either the second round of revisions will improve things or, better yet, I'll just be proved wrong completely regardless.
Also, many of us here who know our, likely customized, respective RM2 or RMSS variants well may not see any point to switching if RMU doesn't present a large improvement in what we (and 'we' all have differing opinions of this) think are their deficiencies. There are things I don't like that I could simply change back (which leaves me wondering: Why change) but there are others that have long term impact which I'm not willing to fix myself. So, I'd stick with RMSS. But am I representative of the typical RM fan-base? I'm comfortable writing my own material, I don't need more rulebooks unless they have something new not released under the RM2 or RMSS umbrellas - and I'll only buy those if they're easily (for me) backward convertible. How normal is that among the overall RM customer base?
HARP is probably the better one to try gaining a new customer base with... essentially "RM Lite" (I know, there was a RM-Lite - but why try to do that again when you can just use HARP?).