Topic: RMU and HARP

[katastrophe]

This may be common knowledge but I likely missed the answer in the past.

Why wasn’t HARP subsumed into RMU so that ICE would have 1 system to support going forward and the rules designed to take the best lessons from
Both games?

Wouldn’t it be easier to have 1 RPG, 1 game world, adventures and updates to support 1 game.

I know there’s likely a simple answer, I just don’t know what it is.

[jdale]

There are some clear similarities between the two systems, but HARP has some differing philosophies, especially about character creation and magic. I don't see a lot of HARP players switching to RM, and I think dropping HARP would not be well received by that community or inspire the people writing for it to switch to writing for RM. Since all the writers are freelancers, it's about what motivates them, ICE can't simply reassign them to a different system.

[tbigness]

Although I do like the Harp Spell System better than RMSS/RMU.

[katastrophe]

I wish spell lists in RMU could be fixed but sadly it’s a sacred cow that die hards couldn’t ever get beyond.

Nearly every list should be about 10-15 spells. Variations off of the same spell (ones that simply increase the same effect or increase the range/radius etc) should simply just be a modifier on the spell rather than a whole new spell. It’s silly design to keep a silly structure. But is a part of RM that will simply just be part of the structure of the game.

The Harp system is a lot more flexible and simple and more effective and represents how most people believe magic should work (at least in modern game design). Harp is at least close to a more modern approach.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Although I do like the Harp Spell System better than RMSS/RMU.

So do I, but they each have their points. I've been working on trying to introduce "hybrids" to HARP, by having spells that require at least _____ PPs of _____ and _____ mana types. If you think about it, most rituals in our world (like a coronation, for example) would be considered hybrid magic, requiring a particular location (Ambient), particular items (Fixed) and the blessing of a God (Granted). The idea of "Holy" spells not powered by Granted mana doesn't make much sense, yet a Druid who relies on Ambient or Fixed mana absolutely works.

That said, I'm not giving up spell scaling.

[jdale]

Personally, I love spell lists. The interconnected spells that exist in a particular structure better fits the idea of learning arcane secrets, vs a system where you just pick and choose the particular powers you want. I love that spell lists end up giving you spells that you never would have picked and you become more diverse for it. But this is entirely subjective and that's fine.

[5th Knight of Xar]

Then there's an economic reason for not merging the two: two systems usually means two fan bases amd potentially more products to be sold

[tbigness]

I wish spell lists in RMU could be fixed but sadly it’s a sacred cow that die hards couldn’t ever get beyond.

Nearly every list should be about 10-15 spells. Variations off of the same spell (ones that simply increase the same effect or increase the range/radius etc) should simply just be a modifier on the spell rather than a whole new spell. It’s silly design to keep a silly structure. But is a part of RM that will simply just be part of the structure of the game.

The Harp system is a lot more flexible and simple and more effective and represents how most people believe magic should work (at least in modern game design). Harp is at least close to a more modern approach.

This also allows for creation of spells or having some spells unique and hard to find. Spell books become more important for new knowledge.

I imagine that investing in like spells (fire bolt, walls, balls) could be grouped as a list and once initial investment to learn the spell basic level (learned IE Firebolt 6 ranks to gain spell) then ranks in Fire Law can be used to alter the spells in the list for boost in range, damage, area, ect. If only learned by itself the no alter of the spell is possible but can gain use of the basic spell. This can be capped by Minor Magic (open), Major Magic (Closed list), or High Magic (Base List). Of course there is still Restricted Magic (Arcane, Evil Base, or other Realm list).  This can also give room for very minor cantrips outlined in HARP that can be quite useful but not even  a consideration of List spells, (compass, Dry Manuscript, Awaken)

The issue would be to put spells into Realms and then Modifiable Spell List. I am currently working on this and have the Realms almost complete. I will continue with this approach and once finished I will try to post to see what people think of it.

[katastrophe]

Personally, I love spell lists. The interconnected spells that exist in a particular structure better fits the idea of learning arcane secrets, vs a system where you just pick and choose the particular powers you want. I love that spell lists end up giving you spells that you never would have picked and you become more diverse for it. But this is entirely subjective and that's fine.

How can I best explain this. One of the problems with RMs approach to spell lists is the linear nature of spells since there is only one per rank and the difficulty is based on where it is in the list. That is a structure problem.  I have no issue with Fire Law has a list of associated spells. But I do have a problem with the fact that the linear rank system ends up with silly distribution and placement of spells and that depending on which list is being used, the same spell can be more difficult in 1 list than it is in another, even within the same realm.  That is just a function of how RM has them set up.

In more elegant systems, fire would not need multiple lists, kinda rearranged with some redundant spells. The more elegant approach would be for there to be Fire Law and within Fire Law there would be say 7-10 spell effects disconnected from the "rank/level" system. Just have the spells and their cast difficulty. ie Firebolt might have a difficulty of 6. If you want to all ball that would be +2 difficulty factor, you want to add additional range might be +1 difficulty, split the effect maybe +3 difficulty, etc and any combination of additions could be done. And a spell like Ignite should be rank 1 or even similar to a cantrip and a free effect. It seems kinda silly that a Magician, master of the elements, with Fire Law cannot make a candle ignite until he reaches 9th level even while he can toss bolts of fire, balls of flame and create walls of fire and even set wood on fire. Yet, Fire Mastery a closed list has ignite at 3rd (yes I realize there is difference in the number things that can be ignited between the two spells). This shows why the RM version of linear lists doesn't really work. I mage knowing spells about fire has to have two separate spell lists to accomplish even relatively simple magical effects. 

Once a mage knows Fire Law, he should just have access to the spells/effects and the ranks in Fire Law should simply represent proficiency of the range of the spells rather than knowledge of spell effect. (personally I believe these are the kind of things RMU should have really fixed rather than just doubling down on 80s approaches to design but no one asked me).

Ars Magica (at least the earlier editions as I have not read the 4th+ ed) I believe got it most right for how it really appears to work in fantasy literature.

[katastrophe]

Then there's an economic reason for not merging the two: two systems usually means two fan bases amd potentially more products to be sold

I suspect that creation of a single really good game would bring both groups together and expand the number of products that can be put out since there would be more freelance opportunities.

[jdale]

It's magic and not a science, and that's fine with me. I've GMed a system with discrete spells and a prerequisite tree and it just did not feel magical at all. I've played Mage which does high-power concept-based magic and it is cool but does not balance well, either in terms of power or story share. Ars Magica doesn't either and they invented a whole new party structure to deal with that. Which is fine if that's what you are going for.

[5th Knight of Xar]

Then there's an economic reason for not merging the two: two systems usually means two fan bases amd potentially more products to be sold

I suspect that creation of a single really good game would bring both groups together and expand the number of products that can be put out since there would be more freelance opportunities.

I feel both systems are really good as they are now. It would be silly of ICE to cut income by removing one of them plus spending time to merge the two into one. Not to mention the rage over the new artwork that would have to go into the new books.

[GrumpyOldFart]

It's magic and not a science, and that's fine with me.

I stand by something I have said elsewhere. Given:

1) Magic demonstrably, provably works

and

2) Humans are a character race

You quickly reach one of two conclusions. Either a) "Humans" in the game are not the same species as you and me, or b) If you can't imagine "THAU 131 - Thaumatology 131, Fundamentals of magic use" in a university course catalog, then your magic system is a poor fit for your game system.

As for whether it "feels magical"... I have watched a master blacksmith at work. I was deeply impressed. That man knew things I will never know and never learn. I have no idea what his formal knowledge of physics and metallurgy was, if any. But I am quite certain that there were techniques he used that were based on principles of physics and metallurgy, whether he was consciously aware of those principles or not. Maybe it was just along the lines of "If it's _____ color, it's ready to beat out. If it's _____ color, it's too hot, beating it out will cause _____ problem," etc. The point is that you at least have to know how it works, even if you don't know why it works. And in a game system where some will use magic but not all, you have to walk a fine line between "sucking the magicalness out of it" for the fighter types, and leaving the magicians in the lurch with the non-explanation of "it just works, you don't know how or why, it's magic."

That blacksmith was able to turn mild steel bar stock into fairy lace. That's pretty magical, from where I stand.

[Barner Cobblewood]

It's magic and not a science, and that's fine with me.

SNIP
As for whether it "feels magical"... I have watched a master blacksmith at work. I was deeply impressed. That man knew things I will never know and never learn. I have no idea what his formal knowledge of physics and metallurgy was, if any. But I am quite certain that there were techniques he used that were based on principles of physics and metallurgy, whether he was consciously aware of those principles or not. Maybe it was just along the lines of "If it's _____ color, it's ready to beat out. If it's _____ color, it's too hot, beating it out will cause _____ problem," etc. The point is that you at least have to know how it works, even if you don't know why it works. And in a game system where some will use magic but not all, you have to walk a fine line between "sucking the magicalness out of it" for the fighter types, and leaving the magicians in the lurch with the non-explanation of "it just works, you don't know how or why, it's magic."

That blacksmith was able to turn mild steel bar stock into fairy lace. That's pretty magical, from where I stand.

Agree with jdale that another system like Ars Magicka tries to deal with this very problem, and leads to a very different kind of game, which might not suit some players.

And also agree with GOF - there would be schools. Once magic use reaches a certain level of repeatability it definitely would be treated as a technology, i.e. theoretical training not so necessary, but as for researching magic, doing that would still be a kind of science, i.e. based on a theoretical understanding of how it should work. Like the difference between using a mobile phone (tech with only practical knowledge), managing a network (tech with some theory letting you diagnose and fix the problem if it lies in the technique), and understanding the very nature of the universe (science) leading to new kind of tech. Furthermore there would be theoretical knowledge not yet understood which could cause difficulties, whether for the caster or for those in the vicinity e.g. castastrophes. RM2, which I know best, does a pretty good job with the tech aspect, but has some trouble incorporating theory for those who want to play that, or for GMs who want to introduce a variation that makes sense.

Or perhaps it's the GM's fault. In my case, it's certain.

[jdale]

There's nothing in RM to suggest magic isn't something that can be taught in a school or university.

On the other hand, a scientific way of thinking is something that took humans thousands of years to develop. We eventually got there, but not for lack of trying everything else first. If we were running, say, Shadowrun, rather than a fantasy game, I would expect a different approach.

[GrumpyOldFart]

On the other hand, a scientific way of thinking is something that took humans thousands of years to develop.

Sure. And as I pointed out with the example of the blacksmith, I don't have a problem with a certain amount of mystery. Certainly that blacksmith had me thinking, "How does he DO that?"

But on the other hand, if I'm doing something of a quasi-simulation, I don't want the blacksmith in the setting being stuck with that same sense of "How do I DO that?" Even in a medieval setting, it's unfair to the guy who plays the blacksmith. While it can be "a mystery" to everybody else, to him at least it should be fairly straightforward. He deserves a better answer than, "It just works, you don't know how or why, it's magic."

Like the difference between using a mobile phone (tech with only practical knowledge), managing a network (tech with some theory letting you diagnose and fix the problem if it lies in the technique), and understanding the very nature of the universe (science) leading to new kind of tech.

If you're the guy who can create a phone from scratch with 99% reliability, it shouldn't be a mystery to you. More to the point, you should know what to watch out for and what steps to take to keep that bad 1% from turning up.

I guess the reason this is a pet peeve of mine is because it seems to me to be easier and fairer for the guys whose characters know nothing of magic to pretend ignorance even after they've read the books and know how magic works in the game, than for the guys whose characters supposedly know magic well enough to handle it casually on a daily basis to pretend knowledge that the game designers flatly refused to give them, because they wanted it to "feel magical."

[5th Knight of Xar]

On the other hand, a scientific way of thinking is something that took humans thousands of years to develop.

Sure. And as I pointed out with the example of the blacksmith, I don't have a problem with a certain amount of mystery. Certainly that blacksmith had me thinking, "How does he DO that?"

But on the other hand, if I'm doing something of a quasi-simulation, I don't want the blacksmith in the setting being stuck with that same sense of "How do I DO that?" Even in a medieval setting, it's unfair to the guy who plays the blacksmith. While it can be "a mystery" to everybody else, to him at least it should be fairly straightforward. He deserves a better answer than, "It just works, you don't know how or why, it's magic."

Like the difference between using a mobile phone (tech with only practical knowledge), managing a network (tech with some theory letting you diagnose and fix the problem if it lies in the technique), and understanding the very nature of the universe (science) leading to new kind of tech.

If you're the guy who can create a phone from scratch with 99% reliability, it shouldn't be a mystery to you. More to the point, you should know what to watch out for and what steps to take to keep that bad 1% from turning up.

I guess the reason this is a pet peeve of mine is because it seems to me to be easier and fairer for the guys whose characters know nothing of magic to pretend ignorance even after they've read the books and know how magic works in the game, than for the guys whose characters supposedly know magic well enough to handle it casually on a daily basis to pretend knowledge that the game designers flatly refused to give them, because they wanted it to "feel magical."

I understand how you think.
I don't see why any of this should restrict a GM and his players from having a good gaming session, modifying magic to work in their fantasy setting as they want it to.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I don't see why any of this should restrict a GM and his players from having a good gaming session, modifying magic to work in their fantasy setting as they want it to.

It won't. It can't. You can't design a game system so complete that a GM can't homebrew it to suit himself. But I don't see any reason why they should be on their own, either. One of the things I appreciate about HARP College of Magics is that it gives the GM a lot of good answers for the how and why of magic use. That doesn't stop a single GM from tweaking it to suit himself. But without any of that information, if a GM gets asked any of those questions by his players, the system didn't supply him any answers to fall back on. He's on his own.

You're always free to ignore or change information you have. You don't have that freedom with information you are never given.

Basically all I'm saying is that info you have and don't need is a better deal than info you need and don't have.

[jdale]

I guess the reason this is a pet peeve of mine is because it seems to me to be easier and fairer for the guys whose characters know nothing of magic to pretend ignorance even after they've read the books and know how magic works in the game, than for the guys whose characters supposedly know magic well enough to handle it casually on a daily basis to pretend knowledge that the game designers flatly refused to give them, because they wanted it to "feel magical."

I don't think that's an issue about spell lists. Unless you use a system where their power is so abstractly defined and sweeping as Mage, they are never going to know all the spells. That doesn't mean they can't know about the spells, know the in-game lore of the spells, know how power flows in the setting, etc. There are things they have never learned to do but they can know what they would need to do to learn those things.

If you are asking for more setting information to be inherent in the rules, ok, but that's going to be wasted space for anyone with a different setting. The setting should establish those things.

[5th Knight of Xar]

I don't see why any of this should restrict a GM and his players from having a good gaming session, modifying magic to work in their fantasy setting as they want it to.

It won't. It can't. You can't design a game system so complete that a GM can't homebrew it to suit himself. But I don't see any reason why they should be on their own, either. One of the things I appreciate about HARP College of Magics is that it gives the GM a lot of good answers for the how and why of magic use. That doesn't stop a single GM from tweaking it to suit himself. But without any of that information, if a GM gets asked any of those questions by his players, the system didn't supply him any answers to fall back on. He's on his own.

You're always free to ignore or change information you have. You don't have that freedom with information you are never given.

Basically all I'm saying is that info you have and don't need is a better deal than info you need and don't have.

I like to think that how magic works, where the powers come from, is a vital part of the GM's world design, the GM's responsibility to explain to the players based on that. Or even if the GM's fantasy world/setting is without magic. It is the GM's task to give a reason for magic to exist in his setting, this can be from multiple sources that doesn't have to be defined in a book. An example can be pulled from the sci fi/fantasy graphic novel setting I'm working on, where magic powers come from forces outside of the normal world, forces that bleed through into the world from another dimension if you like, and spell users can draw from these different powers. Some spell users rely on several factors in order to make use of these powers, such as time of day/night, weather, time of year and more, others are able to pull them through at will and cast spells as they want, mostly. Then think of these powers as having different colors, where blue has one set of powers and ability, then red can have a different set of powers and abilities. Then think of them as warping bubbles that either are still, or move, or strings of powers that some spell users can utilize for teleporting from A to B, similar to how we think wormholes might work.

I'm not trying to pick a fight over magic with you, simply stating that it really doesn't have to be explained in the books.