Topic: About RM game line...

[giulio.trimarco]

I'm not following the ICE forums, for about an year? More? Don't remember.

I receive mail about rebrading, print on demand, ecc. I hope the best for the line, producers, editors and everyone who invest time and energy in the products.
My best wishes.

Now, to the real question from the perspective of an old RM player/GM (not a fan): will RM line revised to clear some of the main critiques and incosistencies that are endemic to the game mechanics (in a near future) or the game will be re-presented as is?

I know that I will be roasted for this question (and I in case this questions has been already done 100000 times I apologize), but that's so.

Thanks!

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

I want to see the completion of the rebranding process before we start announcing new products and discussing what's next for Rolemaster.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[markc]

 I think Nicholas answered you question but reading between the lines it looks as if they are going to be re-branding the stuff as is and then once that HUGE project is done start thinking about re-doing or updating product lines.
 But I think (guess) the new stuff (2010-) can be easily updated. But again that may be wrong.


MDC 

[Witchking20k]

To play devils advocate; why re-brand if you're going to revise?

[Thom @ ICE]

Care to enlighten me as to what our the main critiques and inconsistencies, from your point of view....


And note that no one will be permitted to roast you...

[Cory Magel]

Heh, DFA.  We used that acronym a lot in the past.

First, you'll find these forums are far, far friendlier than most gaming forums.  If they ever aren't Thom will drop a brick on the persons head.

As to someones question as to why bother re-branding if you're going to revise:  It's a fairly straightforward business decision.  You use the existing product to keep the train moving so that you can eventually get where you want to.

Wizards of the Coast originally bought the Talislanta rights and physical stock pretty much for the purpose of getting the company 'off the ground' and established as a gaming company.  Then they started putting out their own game (The Primal Order).  Not sure how successful that was, but the end result is they eventually came up with a blockbuster product (Magic The Gathering) as a result of having a foundation to get them started.

You use a pre-existing product to accomplish your end goal (whatever that goal may be).

I'm not sure what ICE's long term plan is, but no matter what that is it makes sense to continue the existing product lines for the time being.

[yammahoper]

Marshmellows anyone?   

I'm sure rebranding is an ip issue too.  Im so sure im probably wrong.

There are many old threads that go round and round this subject.  Search the archives if you wish.  Maybe a moderator can point you in the right direction.  I know I have said enough and had enough of "that" conversation 

[Witchking20k]

Indeed.  That makes sense. 
On another note Death From Above 1979 is one of my favourite bands. 

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

To play devils advocate; why re-brand if you're going to revise?

We re-brand whenever the fans want to buy the product and that product meets the necessary legal, quality, technical and financial requirements to be sold and rebranded. If it meets the requirements, then fans are happy and we make some money. If it fails those requirements, it goes into a limbo and won't emerge until it meets those requirements.

We re-brand because we have GCP products that build upon other products, for instance we rebranded SWMA 3rd and 4th Edition because we have Xa-ar and the immensely successful Shadow World Player's Guide.

We re-brand because it means we can reissue books where we've come to agreements with the authors that enables them to recoup some of the money that they should have been paid according to their contracts with Old ICE and/or Mjolnir. It means those authors are much more likely to be willing to consider writing for us in the future. Authors who don't get paid by a company quickly stop writing for that company and entire product lines grind to a halt as freelancers bail on projects.

We re-brand because it's necessary to fix trademark claims, to fix legal addresses, to remove existing ISBNs for print-on-demand, etc

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[giulio.trimarco]

Thanks for the replayes.

I perfectly understand re-branding.

I'm a "generic" RPG player, I've played RM2 (my first game ever, and only one as player), RMSS for years as a GM and I'm a reader (and possessor) of all RMC line, so I'd love to see a "conspicuous" revision of old and venerable system.

Care to enlighten me as to what our the main critiques and inconsistencies, from your point of view....

I've already debated on these boards these points, I'll not bog the forums again 

[Witchking20k]

We re-brand whenever the fans want to buy the product and that product meets the necessary legal, quality, technical and financial requirements to be sold and rebranded. If it meets the requirements, then fans are happy and we make some money. If it fails those requirements, it goes into a limbo and won't emerge until it meets those requirements.

We re-brand because we have GCP products that build upon other products, for instance we rebranded SWMA 3rd and 4th Edition because we have Xa-ar and the immensely successful Shadow World Player's Guide.

We re-brand because it means we can reissue books where we've come to agreements with the authors that enables them to recoup some of the money that they should have been paid according to their contracts with Old ICE and/or Mjolnir. It means those authors are much more likely to be willing to consider writing for us in the future. Authors who don't get paid by a company quickly stop writing for that company and entire product lines grind to a halt as freelancers bail on projects.

We re-brand because it's necessary to fix trademark claims, to fix legal addresses, to remove existing ISBNs for print-on-demand, etc


Nice.  I could almost visualize you leaping onto a desk top and shouting this for all to hear!

[JimiSue]

I've already debated on these boards these points, I'll not bog the forums again 

I think the request was more a "Please can you summarise so we don't have to trawl through hundreds of posts" kind of thing. Besides, those of us new to the boards want to arg... I mean, discuss calmly and sensibly, about the issues too!

[Thom @ ICE]

Yes, I was simply requesting a simple listing without debate.  Sometimes people believe that what is apparent to them should be apparent to everyone, and that their opinion is the commonly held belief of the masses - and that applies to both his position and my own.

But, I have also looked into the archives and read through many of his old posts and have seen that at times he has had some labored discussions trying to have RM fit his desires better, and it is somewhat understandable not to want to get into all of that again. I can respect his choice not to want to go there.

[VladD]

Hmmm I like this clean slate... a blank canvas for painting it with my "ïnsights" and desires 

Critiques: and I'm listing not just my own, but some general complaints as well.
- Slow table look up slowing games down.
- Many rules revisions contradicting. RM1, RM2, RMC, RMX, RMSS, RMFRP, anyone?
- Bad starter pack: The example of making a character in RMFRP is presented first, then people get the same stuff again, except with more rules and explanations... Rather make the example after the rules. Maybe it is a good plan to hammer in the one track resolution of the system: Ranks give skill bonus, skill bonus +roll = 101 = success.
- Too many books to play the game properly: like RMFRP rules book, Creatures and Monsters, Spell law (3x) of Realm, Arms law. then I'm not even going to say: SOHK, treasure companion, GM law and the Armory. OW I just did...

Perhaps I should leave some to the others to mention...

[JimiSue]

Slow table look up slowing games down.

I agree, to some extent. However, the time taken does reduce with practice, as a GM I have learned that it's a good idea to make a reference photocopy of often-used critical tables and attack tables to save time leaving through the book. Also, less table look up would come at the expense of a less realistic combat system - all weapons would become the same, criticals would be reduced (potentially) to the D&D level of extra damage.

Many rules revisions contradicting. RM1, RM2, RMC, RMX, RMSS, RMFRP, anyone?

Pick the version you like and play with it? All versions of RM are broadly compatible. If you want to use a movement rule from one, but like the static maneuver rules from another version more, no one will come and chew you out

Bad starter pack... (etc)

This is definitely a layout thing. I've seen many rulebooks try a simple version of char gen which is later fleshed out. However, after the first time this becomes horrendous - anyone tried looking up rules in Werewolf: The Apocalypse? Awesome game, but it can take hours to find stuff because everything is all over the shop. If I want to find out about how skills work, for instance, I want to find out from a single location, not have to check three or four places.

Maybe it is a good plan to hammer in the one track resolution of the system: Ranks give skill bonus, skill bonus +roll = 101 = success.

Which is fine for things like static actions. But when you have detailed and often entertaining results from partial successes, it's easy to get hooked on the more complex resolution tables. I think multiple versions of resolution can sit well together - almost all General Perception checks I call for in game work on a 'break 100' model, but even on those I reward especially high results or low results, with additional info/misleading info as appropriate. Again, this is a flavour thing, depending on how you want to roll with it.

Too many books to play the game properly

Then don't use 'em But if you want to use the rules, you gotta have the books

My own personal irritation is that Space Master (talking SM2 here since that's what I play) has no rules in it for determining initiative, and orientation only gets a mention in the breakdown of the round order. Sure I can wing it, and generally do, according to how much the players have annoyed me, but it would be nice to not have to try and remember how I handled it last time

[yammahoper]

I agree, to some extent. However, the time taken does reduce with practice, as a GM I have learned that it's a good idea to make a reference photocopy of often-used critical tables and attack tables to save time leaving through the book. Also, less table look up would come at the expense of a less realistic combat system - all weapons would become the same, criticals would be reduced (potentially) to the D&D level of extra damage.

Hmm...no.  I have play tested a set of rules were eaach weapon is rated for critical range (i.e. target number to acheive A crit, B crit, etc.).  Armor adjust target number(s) for krush/punture and slash.  We abandoned hits delivered by the attack roll and rated weapons for base hits + St mod.

It worked beautifully.  We created the ranges by averaging the existing attack tables then looking at the average spread for each AT catagory.  We desired to exaggerate armor over normal RM protection values.  As an example, AT 6 could be +3P, -1K, +10S

Magical armors add their bonus to the crit range versus all attacks.  So if the AT 6 is +5, the crit ranges are modified by +8P, +3K, +15S.

Weapon and armor info was easily recorded on the character sheet and I needed only one page/chart for all weapons and armor.  Well, call it two tables on one page.

We have played with other mechanics to eliminate attack tables but liked this one the best.  I am working on a mechanic to elimnate the critical tables by randomly rolling the specific damage caused per blow based on crit severity.  So far I'm using a d10 rolled on wound colums, but it involves quite a few die rolls and more tables than currently used.  My original intention was to design a sytem of progressive damage easily memorized, but one mans easy is another mans HUH? so I think the idea is bust.  Currently, an acrit would roll a d10 for bleeding, hits, muscle and bone damage, with 0-7 being no bleed, an 8 1 hit/rnd, a 9 would be 2hits/rnd, etc.  Any time a roll results in trips, some body part is badly mauled/destroyed, four of the same number indicated instant death...as you can see, it quickly became burdonsome and bloated.  I'm reduced to mulling over it some more.

[VladD]

Although I'm much obliged with the answers to the problems I spotted in the RM line, but actually I was replying to a question posted by the ICE staff...

As it stands: I'm actually trying to expand RMFRP even more, so I'm not phazed by a 2 page spread, several pages long table and trying to look up criticals or what ever, but I'm recounting how other people look against the system.
As with all the versions, I merely mentioned them to show how many versions there are (I played them all except RMC and RMX) and that its maybe time to marry all the versions into something all fans can comply with AND rake in throngs of new customers.
The resolution, although its pretty much hidden, is 101+ is success: Attack tables, the MM table and the SM tables are all based on the same concept. Except with attack tables you get variance because of AT and weapon effectiveness, on the MM they laid out the results with more details, but its a success on 100 vs the medium column.

Anyway thanx for the support!

[Thom @ ICE]

OK, I guess I wasn't clear - if someone wants to post their thoughts about what they don't care for in Rolemaster or believe are commonly held negative beliefs about the system, I'd like to hear it.

Please Do NOT discuss, debate or comment on their thoughts as it may inhibit people from wanting to share. 

[arakish]

Is this OK?

The only problem I have ever encountered is the table look up when in combat.

Although I enjoy the idea of a look up table for each weapon, would it not be best to consolidate?  All edged weapons on one table.  All concussion weapons on one table.

However, those of us who know the effects of real weapons, also know that each weapon causes damage in different ways and cause different criticals depending upon weapon design.  Good examples: a curved blade will be great for Slash criticals (Falchion) and straight blades would be great for thrusting (Puncture) criticals and hacking (Krushing/Slash) criticals.  But the best difference of these blades is in mounted combat.  Straight are best for thrusting (Puncture), where curved would be best for slashing.

I shall always say, leave the RM/SM system the way it is.  Always reiterate that the system is flexible enough that any GM with enough initiative can tailor it to his/her needs.

Isn't that what the system states anyway?

Otherwise, ignore the dribble.  I do.  You would not believe the number of threads I have just ignored.  However, there have been many lately that interest me.  I will not list.

Yes, there are a lot of things I would like to see published for the RM/SM system.  One is "Critical Injury Law."  However, I am also knowledgable enough to write my own notes for such.  Provided I felt the need for such.

In fact, I have written a lot of stuff that could be published for the RM/SM system.  However, most of it only fits my world.  Or, it only fits my style of GMing.  It is not meant for mass consumption for the public.  Thus, I have never released any of that data.  It shall forever remain mine own IP, if you want to get technical.

Thus, I ask all those who wish to look for the contradictions of the RM/SM system to ask thyself, "Is this really a contradiction, or is it a contradiction to how I would do it?"

Additionally, if it is a true contradiction, instead of (sorry for such a mean term) polluting these boards with "How do I fix this <contradiction>?" post, why not ask thyself, "Ok, this seems to be a contradiction.  How can I fix it?"

I have been doing such since I started that TSR system back in 1974.  In fact, I have forgotten and lost more information for fixing RPG systems than many are now asking, "How do I fix this?"

I am sorry for such a harsh post, but really people.  Think for thyself.

And, yes, I will admit I have posted many questions to these forums.  However, I have always asked for opinions on how I wanted to change the system instead of posting a question of how do I fix this seeming contradiction.

Thimk for thyself.

rmfr

[Witchking20k]

I just referred 2 new players to RM.  Both failed to buy anything because of system confusion.  Not only is multiple versions being supported here confusing; but online forums etc add another layer to that.