Topic: Comment on "Cutting the Revision Knot"

[Marc R]

I don't want to mess with this discussion, but offer a suggestion:


When someone who prefers RM2 points out the worst possible instance of how categories are broken, and uses it as an example of why they are a bad thing.

or

When someone who prefers RMSS points out the best possible instance of how categories work, and uses them as an example of why they are a good thing.

It gets an opinion on the table, but really offers no benefit in getting anywhere other than making it clear which camp you belong to.


On the other hand.

When someone who prefers RM2 points out the best aspects of categories, and addresses ways to use them, or get the same benefit in another way.

or

When someone who prefers RMSS points out the worst aspects of categories, and addresses how to work around that or fix it.

Then you're actually addressing the issues in a way where you might actually go somewhere.

Having everyone cheer the home team and boo the visitors is something we've done a million times before, and it never seemed to actually go anywhere or accomplish anything other than escalating until the thread gets locked.

In my opinion, if you can flip that on it's head, and instead focus on what you like best about your non preferred version, and what you like least about your preferred version, this thread might end in something more positive than a version brawl and a moderator lock out.

[Moriarty]

I personally don't have a stricly preferred RM version, and we play with so many house rules in our RM games that it is debatable whether we are really playing a certain 'version' of RM.
Is the division of RM fans into two camps still relevant at all?
It seems to me that the difference between two aging incarnations of RM are small and insignificant considering the difficulties that lies ahead, if things are going to move forward.

[Marc R]

I don't want to tread on people's talk.

But I've seen a lot of these "What I'd love to see" threads come and go. . .and usually when people focus on things in the game they play that they would change, things go well. . .when they start defending their version, it seems harmless enough, but it invites criticism in reply. One the negativity starts, flames start to flicker, rudeness follows, then the moderators lock it.

Like any RM2 player touting the perfection of the RM2 similar skill mechanism, that's so perfect there's no justification in even suggesting it might have any issues worth fixing.

or

Any RMSS player touting the perfection of the RMSS category system, that's so perfect there's no justification in even suggesting it might have any issues worth fixing.

Both of those statements are positive ones, unlikely to get the thread locked. . .but they're like throwing buckets of blood into shark infested waters, and will draw people to post to the contrary. . .which starts the negative spiral toward flame war.

At least, I've seen it happen before. . .hence this comment.

[David Johansen]

Absolutely, one thing I notice is nobody argues much about the different turn sequences 

But that's why I think we have to have it both ways in any potential revision.  Really it's not that hard if the system is initially designed with that intent.  What makes it hard with RMSS is that there's not enough consistancy in the culture and training packages and that there's combined progression skills with odd numbered costs.  "No bloody hanging fractions," that's my motto.

A standing joke with new players in my games is "Whatever you do don't look at the category sheet."  Though I usually make PCs to spec for new players and let them tinker afterward.

[smug]

It seems to me -- from the 3.5-Pathfinder/4e wars as much as the RMSS/FRP vs RM2/C discussions -- that because the versions are in many respects pretty different, it's harder to see how we could synthesise something from both in terms of merging content and ideas. Some people do play both, but plenty of others have strong preferences.

Obviously, a fair amount of RMSS was in RM2 as options, although it was piecemeal in RM2 and properly integrated in RMSS. However, I think that a "RM Version Y did X really well" is really only one step away, by implication, from saying "RM Version Z did X pretty poorly" and it just takes a little longer for the arguments to start. One thing I had thought, by the time I mostly stopped posting here, was that the two sides had at least acknowledged that the versions were different, and both accepted that both versions were going to continue to exist, so that the heat had gone out of it somewhat.

Also, I thought I was almost the only person that actually likes similar skills...

[Cory Magel]

Personally I think what RMSS users like about RM2 and vice versa is far more useful information than what they don't like about the other.

[Marc R]

Exactly. . ..Criticism of RMSS elements from an RMSS fan will have more weight. . .Praise of RM2 elements from an RMSS fan will have more weight. . .and vice versa Criticism of RM2 elements from an RM2 fan will have more weight, as will their praise of RMSS elements.

Such also avoids fighting. . .criticism internally is one thing, getting slagged by the other team is a provocation.

[smug]

It seems likely enough that some/many people that dislike version X or prefer version Y won't have played version X for long enough to really decide what they like about it. Some will, of course, and on some the realisation of a preference for Y may dawn slowly or incompletely, but if I think about my 4e experience and how I really didn't like the game in practice, I didn't hang around for long enough to admire aspects of it.

However, I have read RMSS pretty thoroughly back in the day and played a small amount, so it's not always that there's nothing there for appreciation; some of it I liked, although abstracting it out of the whole might be hard. However, how I felt about it is pretty coloured by my overall lack of enthusiasm for the game and, at least before RMC came out, there was a clear extent to which ICE had killed off the game I prefer in order to push RMSS. I remember, when RMC did come out and appeared to some/many to be starving RMSS/FRP of oxygen, similar feelings from fans of RMSS/FRP; if they were saying what was good about RM2, they'd arguably be hurting the game they preferred, to some small extent (and similarly for RM2 fans talking about RMSS/FRP). As I can't imagine that new ICE wants to make a commitment to supporting both of them indefinitely going forward* -- particularly with the continuing talk of a revision and bearing in mind that RM2 and RMSS/FRP are pretty different in many key respects -- it seems to me that some people will pretty naturally fight their game's corner because whether the next version looks more like someone's currently favoured version could conceivably be somewhat affected by what people say on the forums, and how persuasive they are.

*I should add, from my perspective, that what ICE have done with RMC and GuildCompanion with RoCo1 is awesome and absent my pie-in-the-sky dreams of at least RoCoII and RoCoIII getting the GC treatment -- I say pie-in-the-sky because as I recall they have many, many authors, all of whom would have to be found and who would all have to give their permission (and who knows how they feel about ICE?) -- a PoD RMC indefinitely available is pretty sweet, even if I'd prefer to see it in distribution again.

[rdanhenry]

The best thing about RM2 was also the very problem that prompted the revision to RMSS: a huge number of options, such that two groups could play RM2 by published rules and be playing games with very little in common.

The only core RM2 feature I prefer is randomly generated stats, but that's not even a strong preference. There's a lot I do like in RM2, but those things made it into RMSS. The things in RMSS that really need fixing were things that were problems in RM2, like the oddities of missile parry.

After all, I prefer RMSS because I think it improved on RM2.

[smug]

Woah, edit window is really short. What I should have added to my above post was that, of course, RMSS/FRP players may have come through RM2 first, so they may be more likely to have elements of RM2 they like and with which they are familiar. However, unless I'm wrong, waaaaay more people played RM2 than RMSS (not meant as a reflection on the games themselves, more about the rpg market and ICE's travails).

[Marc R]

And more people played that game which should not be named. . .

I dunno. . .while we have quite a few of Brand X or Brand Y around here, most of the older hands have played both. . .or played in combo. . .like 90% of my RM play is RM2, but we used all the books, even the RMSS core book for some skill clarifications (though once we got SoHK the RMSS core book got mostly retired). . .the RMSS Spell law retired our RM2 SL. . .with the exception of the healer/lay healer which remained two professions in our games. . .we happily extracted all the spell lists and some of the rules out of the Arcane, Mentalism, Essence, and Channeling companions (and the Holy crits out of the Chan. Companion kick major arse), we also took the fate exchange out of Chan Companion. . .I will admit we never took a shine to the Treasure Companion over the Alchemy Companion, but we got use out of every RMSS/FRP title that came out.

On the SM side, we used a lot of SM:P, and more extensively, to the point where I could almost say our SM may have been more SM:P than SM2.

[yammahoper]

And more people played that game which should not be named. . .

I dunno. . .while we have quite a few of Brand X or Brand Y around here, most of the older hands have played both. . .or played in combo. . .like 90% of my RM play is RM2, but we used all the books, even the RMSS core book for some skill clarifications (though once we got SoHK the RMSS core book got mostly retired). . .the RMSS Spell law retired our RM2 SL. . .with the exception of the healer/lay healer which remained two professions in our games. . .we happily extracted all the spell lists and some of the rules out of the Arcane, Mentalism, Essence, and Channeling companions (and the Holy crits out of the Chan. Companion kick major arse), we also took the fate exchange out of Chan Companion. . .I will admit we never took a shine to the Treasure Companion over the Alchemy Companion, but we got use out of every RMSS/FRP title that came out.

On the SM side, we used a lot of SM:P, and more extensively, to the point where I could almost say our SM may have been more SM:P than SM2.

RMSS was a better system, by which I mean it patched up most of RM2's short commings:  pp dev, Hit Point calculation, simplified skill cost, spell list acquisition, a cleaner look, better organization (which should always be the goal of any new edition) but it also made some areas overly complex, particularly in rules for skills.

RM2 built a fantastic foundadtion.  RMSS basically failed, for numerous reasons.  RM3 needs to not try to be either RM2 or RMSS, but the better system.

I too blend many old RM2 rules with my RMSS.  I have from the begginng.  But it is mostly RMSS now, cuz RMSS is better balanced and improves RM's famouse flexibility.

The new system should do the same.  Present crisper, cleaner and simpler rules that set up a flexible frame for play.  QUALITY will sell.

[Cory Magel]

RMSS basically failed, for numerous reasons.

Even with it's problems, RMSS could have been more successful if it had simply been supported.  IMO the proverbial eye has not been on the ball for a very long time.

[yammahoper]

RMSS basically failed, for numerous reasons.

Even with it's problems, RMSS could have been more successful if it had simply been supported.  IMO the proverbial eye has not been on the ball for a very long time.

I completely agree.  RM died with the first bankruptcy and has been on life support ever since.

[smug]

RMSS was a better system, by which I mean it patched up most of RM2's short commings:  pp dev, Hit Point calculation, simplified skill cost, spell list acquisition, a cleaner look, better organization (which should always be the goal of any new edition) but it also made some areas overly complex, particularly in rules for skills.

RM2 built a fantastic foundadtion.  RMSS basically failed, for numerous reasons.  RM3 needs to not try to be either RM2 or RMSS, but the better system.

I too blend many old RM2 rules with my RMSS.  I have from the begginng.  But it is mostly RMSS now, cuz RMSS is better balanced and improves RM's famouse flexibility.

We've been through this sort of stuff before, but I assume we acknowledge that's all your opinion; personally, I think that RM2 is a much better game (although with my insane collecter-trait, I have pretty much all of both RM2 and RMSS). I have literally no idea how many people like RM2 versus how many like RMSS/FRP versus how many like either one or both but would like to see a new Rolemaster version/edition, nor do I know how RMC has sold compared to RMFRP (I believe, from comments from others, that RMSS didn't sell well compared to RM2, but ICE were hardly the only company that had sales drop-off going through into the 90s, so I wouldn't be able to distinguish "sign of the times" from how people felt about RMSS; I assume that RM2 sales were also significantly declining, for a new version to have been proposed and executed).

As for a new edition, I'm interested, but more interested the closer it is to RM2/C than RMSS/FRP (but then, as I said earlier, I really like the Similar Skills!). I am not under the illusion that I'm representative of the market as a whole, though (other than Pathfinder, which I got into early and which has later turned out to be an apparently significant success, I have not tended to be a great indicator of commercial success; even though I buy rpg material like a demented packrat, my credit card cannot keep an rpg company afloat on its own). I agree with you about it needing to be a "better" system, but what comprises "better" is going to be shaped by the opinions we already hold about the versions that exist now.

The new system should do the same.  Present crisper, cleaner and simpler rules that set up a flexible frame for play.  QUALITY will sell.

I am not sure I'd go that far, but quality should certainly be very helpful in selling a product...

[rdanhenry]

even though I buy rpg material like a demented packrat, my credit card cannot keep an rpg company afloat on its own).

That's it! ICE just needs to convince Bill Gates that they've got the greatest game ever and get him to buy a million copies to donate to schools!

[pastaav]

When someone who prefers RM2 points out the best aspects of categories, and addresses ways to use them, or get the same benefit in another way.

or

When someone who prefers RMSS points out the worst aspects of categories, and addresses how to work around that or fix it.

Out of curiosity, what original ideas exist in RMC that does not exist in RMSS?

It is kind of given that RMSS vs RMC turns into a cheering match of the home team, when the real difference is that RMC (while claiming to be all about giving options) don't give any options that allow RMSS style rules. Correct me if I am wrong...

[markc]

IMHO I think it would be more fair to compare RMSS sales vs RMC sales.


MDC 

[DangerMan]

IMHO I think it would be more fair to compare RMSS sales vs RMC sales.

Would be interesting to see those figures, yes.

[markc]

 Also I think the other problem is who is going to accept what someone else may put in the new rules if they do not like it?


MDC