Topic: The Crown is Dead, Long Live the Crown Announcement

[Thos]

I agree about focusing more on HARP in the near future. I also like the idea of starting work on a new Rolemaster if RMSS/FRP is not going to be supported much anymore.

I will continue to support ICE products as long as they are of the same character I'm used to! 

[Steel Rabbit]

But the answer is no, at least at the moment the plan seems to be to sell through rpgnow and drivethroughrpg, who are just unrolling a print on demand program.

This is too bad. I do all my shopping at a brick-and-mortar games shop. I guess I'll wait until they start to flow through the hobby channels. 

[danbuter]

I honestly think you need to redo RM, combining the best of both RMC and RMSS. Having two similar yet different systems is just splitting the fan base of an already niche product.
Also, HARP support can be dropped completely AFAIAC, instead of dropping support of RM.

[jasonbrisbane]

Wow. Way to start a flame war danbuter.

I thought trolling was against forum policy...

Btw I fully support harp and disagree entirely with the entire comment.

[Thom @ ICE]

Note - Dan's comment was a personal opinion statement where he did not troll, but simply stated his own preference.

Please also note that if anyone ever feels a post was indeed trolling or required moderation, the proper course of action is simply to click the "Report to Moderator"  button at the bottom of the post and state your reasoning. We'll look into it and address it as appropriate.

In response to the comments...
Neither RM nor HARP are going to lose support. We've got big plans for both systems going forward under the direction of GCP, but first the focus is on making the products available once again in their current versions.

[yammahoper]

I honestly think you need to redo RM, combining the best of both RMC and RMSS. Having two similar yet different systems is just splitting the fan base of an already niche product.
Also, HARP support can be dropped completely AFAIAC, instead of dropping support of RM.

I agree, though HARP can stay.

The new RM needs to abolish all those attack tables, developing new mechanics to replace them.  Failing that, at least simplify them greatly.  Those tables are remnants and inspired by the ancient 1st edition ADnD.  Remember the old Dungoen Master Guide?

Less attack tables, more crit tables, since I have never seen anyone complain about critical tables, though I imagine there is even a limit there too.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I honestly think you need to redo RM, combining the best of both RMC and RMSS. Having two similar yet different systems is just splitting the fan base of an already niche product.

I can see the sense in that one, if you think there's any possibility of healing the rift between the two fanbases. If not, I don't see what will be gained.

Also, HARP support can be dropped completely AFAIAC, instead of dropping support of RM.

Drop support entirely for the newest line of products the company has put out, while concentrating support on a product line that's a decade or more older... oh yeah, now there's a smart business decision, huh?

 

[Mordenkainen]

Drop support entirely for the newest line of products the company has put out, while concentrating support on a product line that's a decade or more older... oh yeah, now there's a smart business decision, huh?

 

I don't think the age of the line in question is an important factor. RM has always been ICE's flagship, and to change that would run the risk of alienating much of the fanbase. While I'm not against continued HARP support, this should be considered on its merits.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I don't have a problem with supporting RM, although with 4 different versions out I question the sense in adding a fifth, unless it can manage to combine the fanbases of the existing versions. And I suspect that'll be a tall order, although I can't claim to have done the research to know.

But on the other hand, any consideration at all of dropping support for the newest product line makes me wonder what point there was in producing said product line in the first place. Regardless of what system anyone is a fan of, it seems like an idiotic decision from a pure business standpoint.

[yammahoper]

I think "healing the rift" involves rewritung RM, and then going with JUSTTHE REWRITE.

The rift will close on its own after there no other choices.  Sure, a small but vocal community of old heads wont abandon the old system, proclaiming perfection was achived with the Players Handbook, DMG and Unearthed Arcanna, but the majority, and new customers, will simply move on.

[Guillaume]

[...]  Sure, a small but vocal community of old heads wont abandon the old system, proclaiming perfection was achived with the Players Handbook, DMG and Unearthed Arcanna, but the majority, and new customers, will simply move on.

Perfection was achieved with the Rule Cyclopaedia. 

Back on topic : as long as there is a version of RM and things to support it thing will go well.
From my point of view the main problem of RM has always been the lack of follow up with a specific setting.
yes, there's Shadow World... but either it becomes the official setting and there's lots of stuff edited with regularly new things or RM need to go the GURPS way and have more than ten of officially supported settings.

Nowadays in most case it's more a setting than a game system that sells or not.

[Raf Blutaxt]

The point we usually forget is that we, the RM (and maybe Harp) fanbase are not exactly the audience that needs to be targeted with any new edition. I doubt that man people who have stuck with RM C through all these years will ever buy another edition of the game. They don't need to, books don't wear out like some of the newer media do. Therefore a new edition would have to target new players and not the old crowd.
Setting now is a different cup of tea, setting is useful for everyone and as long as there are conversion rules around, it could be sold to all sects of RM players.

[smug]

I think "healing the rift" involves rewritung RM, and then going with JUSTTHE REWRITE.

The rift will close on its own after there no other choices.  Sure, a small but vocal community of old heads wont abandon the old system, proclaiming perfection was achived with the Players Handbook, DMG and Unearthed Arcanna, but the majority, and new customers, will simply move on.

So, what, you'd stop even selling pdfs and PoD of the older RM2/C and RMSS/FRP material? I'd be 100% against doing that. If ICE keep them available and only support the new version with new material, I won't care as much; I don't expect to buy it, but so long as people I want to play with can buy the old material, I'm OK with that.

[yammahoper]

Old materials wouldbe kept available, just not expanded on.

The setting idea presented is one I've been thinking about myself.  How do you create a setting that is a MUST BUY?

Even if a must buy setting happened, the question of "what are the core game mechanics for it" would surface.

No company can succeed imo by vacillating back and forth: pick the product, produce the product, BELIEVE in the product.

Over the last several months I have brought three early 20 somethings to this website to check out RM.  Each balked over confusion of what they needed or even WAS the game.  Back in the day, I never had this problem.  The new player bought a boxed set and was off and running.  While box sets may be a thing of the past, a SINGLE RULE BOOK CONTAINING THE CORE GAME is not.  Having THREE versions of the same game is STUPID counter productive.  I know this.  I have seen this.  I have converted masses of people to RM over the years.  Now I can't because it appears to dificult to learn AND is a confused mess.

There are reasons the good people of this company failed.  The only point in ignoring the failure is a desire to fail again.

[danbuter]

Wow. Way to start a flame war danbuter.

I thought trolling was against forum policy...

Btw I fully support harp and disagree entirely with the entire comment.

I guess you ignored the posts earlier in this same thread saying to drop RM support.
In any case, HARP isn't a great seller. It had it's chance, in a great time period when many were sick of d20, and it didn't make a big impact. Continuing to throw money at it is a loser.

[frnchqrtr]

The new RM needs to abolish all those attack tables, developing new mechanics to replace them.  Failing that, at least simplify them greatly.  Those tables are remnants and inspired by the ancient 1st edition ADnD.  Remember the old Dungoen Master Guide?

Less attack tables, more crit tables, since I have never seen anyone complain about critical tables, though I imagine there is even a limit there too.

That would be an unfortunate change, as then I would have no reason to keep buying both RM and BRP products.  I'd just stick with BRP, because it's my favorite skills-based game, but I also like the robust RM combat system.  You delete that in the later, and I have no reason to bother with any new RM products.

Do I remember the old Dungeon Masters Guide?  Heck, I still use it! 

I like diversity in gaming.  RM is unlike BRP which is unlike D&D.   Ya know, sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't and sometimes you feel like both!   

[pastaav]

I think that it is possible to make a new RM edition that include all the essence of RMC and RMSS in it. My greatest problem with RMC is not that I think it is bad system but that I think it miss some of the vital improvements that happened in the transition to RMSS. The irony of it is that RMC is championend as the game of options, but it is still lacking the options needed to make it like RMSS.

One of the major reasons we had the flame wars about edition in the RM2 to RMSS switch was the RM editor had his vision about unifying everyones game to use same set of options. Instead of working with making the users get an educated choice about what to use and why his set of options was superior he worked hard to hide the possible options and get one rule book to rule them all. This was the first bad decision that fractured the fan-base. The second bad decision was RMC that reformated RM2 to be more modern, but failed to include the good additions from RMSS.

If we are speaking about specifics...a new RM edition should include a set of professions that include the professions from both RMC and RMSS (to not have magent, dabbler and paladin in the core book does not make sense), added stats bonuses should be an option (or perhaps even the core choice...averaging of bonuses serves very little point), the category system should be given as an option for those that like such. I could go on, but I am sure you get the point.

There is very little that speak for the edition divide being caused by it being impossible to make a joint edition and very much that speaks for that the problem is that there has been no effort at all in making a edition that appeal to both camps. I am sure that both sides can live with if some of the favorite options are just options in a new edition. Make a new spell law that can serve both RMC and RMSS users and I am sure none will complain. When new products are created make sure it work with or without a category system and you suddenly have system that work for both camps. Making a Combat Companion and not dual stat the added professions was a very bad choice that I am sure irritated many RMSS/RMFRP users. If it made some of them so irritated that they did not buy the book I can not say, but the message was obvious...RMFRP had been dumped despite numerous promises that it would be a supported game. Don't repeat that mistake and the joint RM Gold Edition is a very real posibility.

[Raf Blutaxt]

Wow. Way to start a flame war danbuter.

I thought trolling was against forum policy...

Btw I fully support harp and disagree entirely with the entire comment.

I guess you ignored the posts earlier in this same thread saying to drop RM support.
In any case, HARP isn't a great seller. It had it's chance, in a great time period when many were sick of d20, and it didn't make a big impact. Continuing to throw money at it is a loser.

Do you have any numbers to back up your claims? If not, I would not be so rash in calling Harp a failure. I for one am not sure, which of the three game lines (RM FRP, RM C and Harp) sold the most and which the least in recent years.
Harp has its fan-base and dropping it would not help RM in the least.

[smug]

I think that it is possible to make a new RM edition that include all the essence of RMC and RMSS in it. My greatest problem with RMC is not that I think it is bad system but that I think it miss some of the vital improvements that happened in the transition to RMSS. The irony of it is that RMC is championend as the game of options, but it is still lacking the options needed to make it like RMSS.

Because at least some of those were already published, surely, in Companions and the original authors own those rights?

One of the major reasons we had the flame wars about edition in the RM2 to RMSS switch was the RM editor had his vision about unifying everyones game to use same set of options. Instead of working with making the users get an educated choice about what to use and why his set of options was superior he worked hard to hide the possible options and get one rule book to rule them all. This was the first bad decision that fractured the fan-base. The second bad decision was RMC that reformated RM2 to be more modern, but failed to include the good additions from RMSS.

RMC was RM2 republished (including new layout), surely? Not RM2-evolved, or something like that (and where would we get agreement on which were "the good additions")? RMC is what it is, which is effectively almost exactly the same as RM2, which is what people like me -- RM2 fans -- wanted, our game back in print.

[pastaav]

I think that it is possible to make a new RM edition that include all the essence of RMC and RMSS in it. My greatest problem with RMC is not that I think it is bad system but that I think it miss some of the vital improvements that happened in the transition to RMSS. The irony of it is that RMC is championend as the game of options, but it is still lacking the options needed to make it like RMSS.

Because at least some of those were already published, surely, in Companions and the original authors own those rights?

That argument does not make sense. The options that was used to make RMSS is by nature included in RMSS and thus free to use. There are of course options from RM2 companions that never made into RMSS and those can't be used, but that is clearly a separate issue.

One of the major reasons we had the flame wars about edition in the RM2 to RMSS switch was the RM editor had his vision about unifying everyones game to use same set of options. Instead of working with making the users get an educated choice about what to use and why his set of options was superior he worked hard to hide the possible options and get one rule book to rule them all. This was the first bad decision that fractured the fan-base. The second bad decision was RMC that reformated RM2 to be more modern, but failed to include the good additions from RMSS.

RMC was RM2 republished (including new layout), surely? Not RM2-evolved, or something like that (and where would we get agreement on which were "the good additions")? RMC is what it is, which is effectively almost exactly the same as RM2, which is what people like me -- RM2 fans -- wanted, our game back in print.

That is exactly the problem. RM2 was revised into RMC to make people like you happy when it could have been revised into something that did not alienate the RMSS crowd but still made you happy. Perhaps you can argue that your RM2 rules must not get a increased page count due to RMSS inspired options (IMHO it does not make sense since some options from RMSS made it into RMC). Anyhow that could easily be solved by having those options in a separate booklet that you could avoid to buy if you can't stand the thought of paying for RMSS material.

As for the problem of choosing what options that was good, what is the problem really? Do you argue that RM2 fans are not able to handle having extra options listed?  What would the harm be if other game groups liked the RMSS inspired options?