Official ICE Forums
Iron Crown Enterprises => ICE News and Discussion => Topic started by: NicholasHMCaldwell on July 04, 2012, 02:55:22 PM
-
This is the twelfth of our scheduled Briefings.
Now that there’s been a little bit of time for the ICE community to digest the news of our Rolemaster Briefing, this is a good juncture to answer at least some of the questions that people have been asking.
Qu 1: What is the status of the new unified Rolemaster products?
There’s been a lot of speculation about this. The facts are as follows – a complete draft of the new Arms Law has already arrived fresh from core playtesting to my inbox. Copies have been provided to selected individuals for their commentary and their independent second-round playtesting. The new Character Law and the new Spell Law will be the next to appear, but I don’t know which will materialise first. The fourth and fifth books, namely “Creatures†and “Treasures†will turn up last.
Qu 2: Is this a new edition of Rolemaster?
In some ways, it is a new edition. In some ways, it is very much a “best of†drawing upon the best ideas of the past three decades. It is not a cut-and-paste job. It is definitively and definitely Rolemaster.
The RPG industry and the hobby have been around a long time now with a myriad mechanics explored in games mainstream and indie. For a game to survive and to flourish, it needs quality and stability in order to attract and maintain the interest of players and GMs, and it needs to be supported by its publisher.
Of course you as fans have to give unified Rolemaster a chance and support it in turn as that support enables us to produce more products for it, encourages software creators to develop high-quality virtual tabletops and support tools, and so on. Living, growing rpg systems attract more players and GMs, which means more opportunities for existing gamers to find new folk to game with. A win for everyone.
Qu 3: What happens next? How can I become a playtester?
After the first three of the vanguard products have arrived and have survived my editorial scrutiny and that of our specialist commentators, we will then make them available for a public beta playtest. The expectation is that this public beta test will kick off in August. Copies of the drafts will be available for purchase in minimalist formatting from the OneBookShelf network and paid-up beta testers will be able to comment and discuss their playtesting results on the ICE forums.
This will be a strictly time-limited beta test and it will end once our crack team of artists have finished the illustrations and covers, so that final editing and layout can occur. Anyone who purchases a beta version of one of the new books will be able to update their pdf copy at no extra cost to the release version as soon as they become available. PDF release of the final versions will be followed by print-on-demand and mainstream distribution.
We are determined that unified Rolemaster will be the best it can possibly be. With the feedback from the community, we are certain that together we can create a new edition of Rolemaster that will stand the test of time and be a new classic.
Qu 4: Why five books? Why not one?
Our assessment is that while many fans would like an introductory, lightweight or streamlined version of Rolemaster in one book, many more will want a full-blooded, full-featured version of Rolemaster. From the publishing perspective that we want to support Rolemaster through new Shadow World and Cyradon material and adventure/campaign modules, we need the complete unified Rolemaster now.
There will be a “Lite†one book edition of Rolemaster in due course, but it will be fully compatible with the full version. It will not be a conflicting or variant edition – the voice of the community is very clear that multiple competing editions are a major problem.
Qu 5: So what is happening with Shadow World?
Shadow World will continue to be the premier fantasy setting for Rolemaster, and there will be a Rolemaster Handbook for Shadow World that provides the necessary additional rules material (e.g. Loremaster and Navigator spell lists) for gaming in the perilous lands of Kulthea. Depending on when Terry finishes his latest masterwork, Emer III, this may become one of the first sourcebooks to be a unified Rolemaster product. What is certain is that new Shadow World material beyond Emer III and books written by third-party authors will be written for unified Rolemaster. In addition, we will be updating and refreshing existing sourcebooks such as Emer I, Emer II, Eidolon, Cloudlords of Tanara, and more, to be compatible with the new Rolemaster.
As an aside, there will also be a HARP Handbook for Shadow World.
Qu 6: What about Cyradon?
In addition to being the premier setting for HARP Fantasy, we will be providing a unified Rolemaster conversion of Cyradon, enabling future Cyradon products to support both HARP Fantasy and Rolemaster gaming. Once again, this will not be a variant of unified Rolemaster; it will be a straightforward conversion with appropriate additional material.
Qu 7: Is a new version of Spacemaster being worked? Will Spacemaster be unified?
Spacemaster is not currently being worked on. There are limits to how much even our teams of freelancers can cope with at the same time. But in due course, there will be a unified version of Spacemaster and it will be compatible with the new unified Rolemaster. Meanwhile we are continuing with our rebranding and rerelease of the existing Privateers line – five of the seven books are now available on the OneBookShelf network.
Qu 8: What’s happening with the HARP Fantasy line?
It’s full steam ahead for the HARP Fantasy line. As I write this, I have an email from Eric with the latest complete HARP Fantasy draft layout and covers to review. I finished all of the extra material for Martial Law and so it is ready to hand over to Eric. Virtually all of the new artwork for HARP College of Magics is already here.
We don’t see HARP Fantasy/HARP SF as rivals to Rolemaster/Spacemaster but rather complementary systems addressing different gaming needs and this will become more obvious as new products are developed and released. Due to the larger pool of freelancers that GCP is able to draw upon, we have the capability to maintain a stream of substantial products for multiple lines at the same time and this keeps everyone in the community happy.
The next scheduled Director’s Briefing will be in early August, but I expect to be announcing the release of HARP Fantasy in the interim.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
Director, Guild Companion Publications Ltd.
-
Thanks for the info, that answered a lot of my questions.
I did come up with one new one; the old SW books that will be stated for RMU, will the stats be free or will you have to buy the PDFs to get them?
Mainly asking because I own a lot of the print versions and while I like supporting my favorite company, it feels like a waste to buy the PDFs.
Even if the stats would be available as a cheap pack of some kind would be better.
-
I have a question about Qu 8
If Harp Fantasy and Harp Scifi aren't in competiton with a unified Rolemaster and upcoming unified Spacemaster I would really appreciate a more clearer explanation of what the differences are, is one line more complex, what ?
I would assume that if someone has come up with this idea of unifiying these old versions at the risk of distracting away from what the Harp lines could have been seen as, a more playable and easier unifying version of what has come before of Rolemaster and Spacemaster, why do this and add yet another version of Rolemaster and Spacemaster.....it seems perplexing.
And just to clarify I'm not a diehard fan of Harp but felt this latest turn of events strange to me ???
-
At one level, it is about detail. HARP & HARP SF have much less detail, much less granularity than Rolemaster and Spacemaster. For instance, skills in HARP/HARP SF cost either 2 DPs or 4 DPs, skills in Rolemaster have a much greater variation allowing more nuanced professions.
At another level, it is about game-play. HARP & HARP SF have potentially faster game-play than Rolemaster and Spacemaster. For instance, combat in HARP/HARP SF is one roll resolution (unless you fumble) whereas combat in Rolemaster/Spacemaster is attack roll then critical roll.
At a third level, it is about design, modularity and options. HARP & HARP SF are complete games in one/two volumes (sf always takes more room), Rolemaster and Spacemaster can be done in single volumes but there are always sacrifices that have to be made to accomplish this or you need really massive products. HARP & HARP SF are designed to be expanded with optional extensions, Rolemaster and Spacemaster are more modular and have more options built into even their core systems.
At a fourth level, HARP & HARP SF will be making real the high adventure in their names, Rolemaster & Spacemaster always have an eye to putting more of the illusion of realism into the drama of the game.
That's some quick scribblings on the differences.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
Nicholas,
Appreciate the quick response and I guess I already knew the answer at a instinct level but just wanted to confirm it in case I was missing something.
For my part I was an avid RM, RM2, SM2 for years, even converting to RMFRP, skipping RMSS and ran some SM Privateers so I feel experienced enough to be able to put forward my views from not only as a player but as a GM/Referee/Sy Ops. I've played the game systems as a young man and continuing on tried to keep in touch as a father while dabbling with such vivid graphical temptations as online gaming and other similar distractions.
For me I think I'll stick with the speedier HARP SciFi, it suit my present needs and I can then concentrate abit more on background of the stories and the setting my players skip through. When we've looked back on previous adventures while the odd crit or fumble comes to mind usually its the stories and the moments and characters/npcs in them that stand out the most.
Best Regards and appreciate the focus you've helped bring back to the game system. :)
-
I have a question about Qu 8
If Harp Fantasy and Harp Scifi aren't in competiton with a unified Rolemaster and upcoming unified Spacemaster I would really appreciate a more clearer explanation of what the differences are, is one line more complex, what ?
I would assume that if someone has come up with this idea of unifiying these old versions at the risk of distracting away from what the Harp lines could have been seen as, a more playable and easier unifying version of what has come before of Rolemaster and Spacemaster, why do this and add yet another version of Rolemaster and Spacemaster.....it seems perplexing.
And just to clarify I'm not a diehard fan of Harp but felt this latest turn of events strange to me ???
Welcome to the ICE forums. And great questions.
MDC
-
I effin' love the concept of a "unified Rolemaster." Will the rules for this new, upgraded system come with *simple* instructions for converting the older RMC and RMFRP characters for use in the new system?
-
I effin' love the concept of a "unified Rolemaster." Will the rules for this new, upgraded system come with *simple* instructions for converting the older RMC and RMFRP characters for use in the new system?
Thank you for reminding me. We will need to do that.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
Thanks for the info, that answered a lot of my questions.
I did come up with one new one; the old SW books that will be stated for RMU, will the stats be free or will you have to buy the PDFs to get them?
Mainly asking because I own a lot of the print versions and while I like supporting my favorite company, it feels like a waste to buy the PDFs.
Even if the stats would be available as a cheap pack of some kind would be better.
This may well depend on how quickly experts/writers in the new rules can be "trained up" and set to work on converting existing stat blocks. We need to get the new Rolemaster rules completed, then the Shadow World specific rules written, then get folk doing the conversion work.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
Thanks for the update, Nicholas. It answered all of my questions and has me super stoked for August! I'm going to have to start recruiting a play test group on G+.
-
I'm hoping there will be some polling of rules preferences and presentation of new rules to the Rolemaster community. I think WotC's approach to D&D Next is a good model if you are hoping to unify the fanbase, although a playtest on that scope will obviously be too hard. In fact following D&DN's core + modules approach would be a really good fit for Rolemaster, allowing individual groups to dial the level of complexity and edition specific rules preferences.
-
Isnt "core +optional modules" how we got into the whole RM2 power creep issue?
A new unified version should be complete, as is.
-
RMSS and RMFRP had companions too and there wasn’t any power creep issues. Maybe some imbalances there and then but nothing a good GM couldn’t deal with.
Their goal was clearly to expand the game, not give more power to the players.
-
Yes, adding options onto a core system has to be done carefully to avoid creep/bloat in all its forms. If it's done at all.
But let's say for the sake of argument that you don't do it at all, and the core system is it, except perhaps for adventures and world-specific things for Shadow World and Cyradon.
Wouldn't you lose the modularity of ICE games, the ability to tweak the system to fit whatever the individual GM's world concept happens to be? Dunno about you, but that right there is what makes RM and HARP worth playing IMO, the fact that we can make it our game instead of ICE's. Your game isn't the same as mine, and that's as it should be.
Is that worth it? Personally, I'd rather just go carefully and accept the risk.
-
RMSS and RMFRP had companions too and there wasn’t any power creep issues. Maybe some imbalances there and then but nothing a good GM couldn’t deal with.
Their goal was clearly to expand the game, not give more power to the players.
I think they did a good job with new classes, training packages, and spell lists. I would hope that skills are kept to a minimum because here is a place that complexity can creep up on you if you aren't paying attention, especially for arms-race type skills (e.g. mental assault and mental defense).
The martial arts companion in particular made some fairly deep changes, which I thought were good for the most part but I would like to see some of those become core. (E.g. very different handling of adrenal defense and martial arts ranks.)
Whereas, say, the Channeling Companion was full of good ideas but there is nothing in it that makes you feel like you need to go back and rework existing characters.
-
I feel a good solid set of core rules would be fantastic. Then true to Rolemasters past add in some optional rules, for the UNIFIED SYSTEM. Just rewriting the material and putting it all in an easy to find place will make it a vast improvement.
Let's face it, this community understands modularity and options as do most gamers. if there is something we don't like, we just change it to something that fits our group. Without a doubt I can bet 90% of the people coming from this community will mod the Unified System.
There is always going to be things that we don't like about any system, but Rolemaster had most of what I liked so that is why I modded it to my groups taste.
I am super psyched about the new version and have already let my players know that the existing campaign will go on hiatus once this is released. They are excited as well, since most of us have been playing Rolemaster for 20+ years and hands down it is the game of choice for the type of group we have.
-
Let's face it, this community understands modularity and options as do most gamers. if there is something we don't like, we just change it to something that fits our group. Without a doubt I can bet 90% of the people coming from this community will mod the Unified System.
Exactly. Probably a big chunk of the reason that 90% still plays RM, HARP or both is because they're pretty much designed to be modified. "Tweakable" is baked in. If that doesn't remain the same in new products, those new products will have a different kind of customer base. You may add some people, but you'll lose some, too.
If the idea that "tweakability is built into the core mechanics" is inherent in the new products, then "optional rules" become examples approved by the writers of the core mechanics of how to tweak the system while retaining the same game balance. Or ways to tweak the system specifically to change the game balance in a defined manner.
Not that those will be the only possible ways, that's not the point. The point is to illustrate how small changes can have broad effects, and how to get from A to B without wrecking your game.
No?
-
Isnt "core +optional modules" how we got into the whole RM2 power creep issue?
Actually I don't think we did. It was more...this is optional thus we don't need to playtest it or look into if it is dustruptive with other optional rules.
-
There probably needs to be a distinction made between "optional but playtested" and "interesting idea that hasn't been checked yet."
-
There probably needs to be a distinction made between "optional but playtested" and "interesting idea that hasn't been checked yet."
Having met some of the numbered Companion authors, I think many of the rules were playtested, but only by the authors. Their games and my games don't look very similar so rules that made perfect sense to them would break my games. Thus, we need a more rigorous: "optional, but playtested by multiple independent groups."
-
There probably needs to be a distinction made between "optional but playtested" and "interesting idea that hasn't been checked yet."
Having met some of the numbered Companion authors, I think many of the rules were playtested, but only by the authors. Their games and my games don't look very similar so rules that made perfect sense to them would break my games. Thus, we need a more rigorous: "optional, but playtested by multiple independent groups."
+1
MDC
-
Well, yeah. Sorry, I assumed "playtested" included "across a variety of styles." You can't get a broad enough data set for a serious test otherwise. Which means any notes you give concerning "using option X affects game balance in Y fashion" may or may not actually be true.
We've been down that road, and none of us liked the neighborhood it went through. See earlier comments about proceeding with extreme caution when presenting optional rule subsets.
-
I guess my question to the powers that be is, how long has the UNIFIED ROLEMASTER rules been in the works? Has this been a long term plan or something that came up in the last say six months?
Not that it really matters, I am just glad to have the chance to test this and make our Rolemaster world the best it can be.
-
Having met some of the numbered Companion authors, I think many of the rules were playtested, but only by the authors. Their games and my games don't look very similar so rules that made perfect sense to them would break my games. Thus, we need a more rigorous: "optional, but playtested by multiple independent groups."
This is an area of some concern to me. In writing the Channeling Companion there were a lot of things that came form our own groups game-play, house rules, etc... however we are VERY aware that our play style can be very different than others, so we tried to be especially careful about molding our ideas to more along the mainstream style of RM. There are things our group does that I would not in a million years assume to try to include as even an optional rule in an official RM book. One individuals opinion, outlook, game theory, etc can be very... well... individual. It takes someone that understands their ideas may not be the best to design around to a good job.
-
Having met some of the numbered Companion authors, I think many of the rules were playtested, but only by the authors. Their games and my games don't look very similar so rules that made perfect sense to them would break my games. Thus, we need a more rigorous: "optional, but playtested by multiple independent groups."
This is an area of some concern to me. In writing the Channeling Companion there were a lot of things that came form our own groups game-play, house rules, etc... however we are VERY aware that our play style can be very different than others, so we tried to be especially careful about molding our ideas to more along the mainstream style of RM. There are things our group does that I would not in a million years assume to try to include as even an optional rule in an official RM book. One individuals opinion, outlook, game theory, etc can be very... well... individual. It takes someone that understands their ideas may not be the best to design around to a good job.
That is why you are a god. ;D
MDC
-
Isnt "core +optional modules" how we got into the whole RM2 power creep issue?
A new unified version should be complete, as is.
Yeah, but whose version of complete? If the new edition hopes to appeal to both RM2/RMC and RMSS/RMFRP fans then it needs to have options to allow gaming groups to use the same rulebooks but tweak for their preferred playstyle. Options to dial up or down complexity, particularly in the skill system, would allow new players to add diffiulty as they got used to the system. Options such as chose either A) or B) are very different to add A) or not dependant on your preference. As it is any power creep in RM2 was more a result of adding options carte blanche, nothing in the companions forced individual gaming groups to use everything just because it was printed.
-
Nothing in the briefing says they are limiting our creativity. After all it is our choice to try the UNIFIED ROLEMASTER and see. Power creep was a choice made by those individual groups. No one can be blamed except the group.
With all the material available for Rolemaster I expect we will all smile at the cleaned up version and go right into modding for our own groups taste.
-
There is one amazingly simple, yet profoundly useful thing that could be done to enhance the unification experience - measurements. I have nothing against the imperial system for distances, weights and volumes, I have learned them by playing RM, but there is absolutely nothing medieval about using fahrenheit to measure temperature. There are hardcore players in metric Europe who would consider it a minor stroke of genius to put the celsius value in parenthesis after the fahrenheit. Unification! ;D
-
RMSS and RMFRP had companions too and there wasn’t any power creep issues. Maybe some imbalances there and then but nothing a good GM couldn’t deal with.
Their goal was clearly to expand the game, not give more power to the players.
I think they did a good job with new classes, training packages, and spell lists. I would hope that skills are kept to a minimum because here is a place that complexity can creep up on you if you aren't paying attention, especially for arms-race type skills (e.g. mental assault and mental defense).
The martial arts companion in particular made some fairly deep changes, which I thought were good for the most part but I would like to see some of those become core. (E.g. very different handling of adrenal defense and martial arts ranks.)
Whereas, say, the Channeling Companion was full of good ideas but there is nothing in it that makes you feel like you need to go back and rework existing characters.
To be honest, I believe RM should have less skills, combined together to attain the desired goal.
Pick locks ? Lock lore + manuel deftness
Build lock ? Lock lore + related craft skills
Jam lock ? Lock lore + required tool or material
Detect trap ? Observation/awareness + trap lore
Disarm trap ? trap lore + manual deftness
Build trap ? trap lore + related crafting skills
Jam trap ? trap lore + required tool or material
Silent kill ? Wrestling to prevent the quarry from yelling and the body to slam loudly on the floor.
Ambush ? If foe is surprised and you succesfully stalked him, use weapon or anatomy skill rank to modify crit roll
And so on…
You usually manage for greater variety in action and possibilities when you set a limited number of mechanics that can interact together rather than setting a lot of mechanics that can’t. And setting a lot of mechanics that can interact prevents you from keeping track of the action and results in redundant mechanics. The later is RM’s problem.
-
There is one amazingly simple, yet profoundly useful thing that could be done to enhance the unification experience - measurements. I have nothing against the imperial system for distances, weights and volumes, I have learned them by playing RM, but there is absolutely nothing medieval about using fahrenheit to measure temperature. There are hardcore players in metric Europe who would consider it a minor stroke of genius to put the celsius value in parenthesis after the fahrenheit. Unification! ;D
Well if you go that way, Celsius is not that medieval either. They went with freezing cold, cold, mildly cold, mild, temperate, mildly hot, hot, really hot, “I’ll tell you everything, have pity!†hot and “I AM NOT A WITCH! I CURSE YOU ALL! YOU IGNORANT BIGGOTS!†hot.
-
I know most of a game's sales base is in the US, thus the need to use antiquated measurements and scales in game books, but for the rest of the world Celsius and metric additions would be beneficial.
-
There is one amazingly simple, yet profoundly useful thing that could be done to enhance the unification experience - measurements. I have nothing against the imperial system for distances, weights and volumes, I have learned them by playing RM, but there is absolutely nothing medieval about using fahrenheit to measure temperature. There are hardcore players in metric Europe who would consider it a minor stroke of genius to put the celsius value in parenthesis after the fahrenheit. Unification! ;D
Well if you go that way, Celsius is not that medieval either. They went with freezing cold, cold, mildly cold, mild, temperate, mildly hot, hot, really hot, “I’ll tell you everything, have pity!†hot and “I AM NOT A WITCH! I CURSE YOU ALL! YOU IGNORANT BIGGOTS!†hot.
You are right, but from a unification standpoint using both systems side by side would help in gauging what is cold and what isn't. I wouldn't change inches, feet and miles as they are medieval and give flavour to the game. When I see 32 as a temperature value I instantly think hot, but it is actually freezing. Putting celsius in parenthesis would be a big help. :)
-
Maybe we should use Kelvin? ;D
MDC
-
Maybe we should use Kelvin? ;D
MDC
;D ;D ;D
-
Or any unit of measurement in the books could be parsed and processed with a conversion script.
-
Well inserting degrees Celsius is pretty easy and all, but dual-listing all measurements would be a lot more work and space-consuming. And as pointed out, feet/inches/miles type measures do give an archaic feel (outside the backwardness of the USA), whereas any temperature scale is fairly modern.
-
I am not talking about it just for the joy of writing stuff.
I already did it on another project. All it takes are nice brackets, a conversion script and… nothing else :p
Write your stuff, bracket what you want converted, run the script, done. I did this with money and distances. It really saves a lot of time.
Now, I’m thinking about it again, I guess I could learn a bit of Python and create a LaTeX fonction for this. When I’ll have some time. 3 years in the future :p
-
RM2 (with our own modifications, of course) has been my game of choice as a GM. Its really interesting to see what makers of "unified RM" will come up with. Thing is that we have very much made the game to our liking already. I make my own changes for different campaigns to enhance the current flavor. Lets see, I hope I will be pleasantly surprised by the outcome.
Exactly. Probably a big chunk of the reason that 90% still plays RM, HARP or both is because they're pretty much designed to be modified. "Tweakable" is baked in. If that doesn't remain the same in new products, those new products will have a different kind of customer base. You may add some people, but you'll lose some, too.
From a business point of view I guess it is more important for ICE to get more new players in. Thats where they have a chance to expand fanbase and get more turnover. I guess we are more or less hooked already. By serving just for us they will get nowhere.
On that subject, visuality is so important these days that their effort will probably succeed or fall with that. If they have good visuals for commercials and inside the book they will hook new players and give them a strong feel of the game. Feel of what RM is like. You might have the worlds best ruleset inside the book but if you cannot catch peoples imagination with visuals and use those images to plant ROLEMASTER to their minds then you have failed in your business.
There is one amazingly simple, yet profoundly useful thing that could be done to enhance the unification experience - measurements. I have nothing against the imperial system for distances, weights and volumes, I have learned them by playing RM, but there is absolutely nothing medieval about using fahrenheit to measure temperature. There are hardcore players in metric Europe who would consider it a minor stroke of genius to put the celsius value in parenthesis after the fahrenheit. Unification! ;D
Well if you go that way, Celsius is not that medieval either. They went with freezing cold, cold, mildly cold, mild, temperate, mildly hot, hot, really hot, “I’ll tell you everything, have pity!†hot and “I AM NOT A WITCH! I CURSE YOU ALL! YOU IGNORANT BIGGOTS!†hot.
I feel that Jinor has a point here. Seeing those imperial measurements when you go through a book in the bookstore makes some europeans put the book back to the shelf. I had to convince my players that we can live with these measurements. Actually fahrenheits tell me nothing. I have no idea if its hot or cold when its 50f. Pounds we just handle as 0,5kg. I know it is actually about 0,454kg but I dont want to use calculator for checking the exact weight when we should be concentrating on a fantasy RPG. I know centimeters and celsius are for us freaks and weirdos here but if you want to serve customers outside foot/pound territory then you use both measurements in your books. For some potential customers it can really be a deal-breaker from the start. Not having both measurements effectively tells users of metric system that you dont care about them as customers.
-
RM2 (with our own modifications, of course) has been my game of choice as a GM. Its really interesting to see what makers of "unified RM" will come up with. Thing is that we have very much made the game to our liking already. I make my own changes for different campaigns to enhance the current flavor. Lets see, I hope I will be pleasantly surprised by the outcome.
This is my concern for the new RM. Even if ICE can create a system that both RM2(etc) and RMSS(etc) camps could agree on, how many of them actually need a new version of RM? I suspect many of us on this board are similar to you... we have the RM we want/need. The only new books I would personally buy (aside from simply supporting ICE as a company) would need to have material that does not exist or that I have not converted from another version of RM for my version of the game. You have veterans playing a game that they've molded for years. You're going to have to REALLY impress them to get their buy-in.
But, are we on these forums representative of the typical RM user?
-
But, are we on these forums representative of the typical RM user?
And are there enough "typical RM users" left to sustain the line? Or does it need to appeal to a larger base?
-
Even if ICE can create a system that both RM2(etc) and RMSS(etc) camps could agree on, how many of them actually need a new version of RM?
For me a new version should add some new stuff that would enrich my games, like new professions, new combat styles, it should fix some issues the rules have and which I (in part) fixed with my house rules, and it should of course keep the stuff that I like. This is IMO not impossible. And if other long-time players don't expect too much more, then perhaps they will buy the new version.
-
But, are we on these forums representative of the typical RM user?
And are there enough "typical RM users" left to sustain the line? Or does it need to appeal to a larger base?
I think it HAS to appeal to a larger base to survive as a viable 'company'. So is the goal to "Keep the memory alive" and not worry too much about good profits, or is there a serious effort to bring in new blood? Because, imo, the goal of making existing users happy and bringing in new blood have quite different approaches. I really don't think both are simultaneously possible when it comes to RM.
-
The game will always struggle to appeal to a larger audience due to the nature of the d20 engine. There is a huge appeal to playing and games-mastering a game that has a huge amount of source material to support it. The trick is getting people to play (and a gm that understands the rules also). I switched to RM in 1991 after a spell of playing d20 games. I actually found spacemaster first and was blown away by the complexity and realism. A few months later I converted my gaming group to RM and I ran a campaign for about 12 years. My RM experience ended in about 2005 after an epic scenario ended with a PC killing the main bad game with one lucky dice roll. I ended the campaign and took shelter in d20 for the next few years. I have more recently come back to Iron Crown and begun running HARP which I believe offers a lot of RM (but runs a lot faster). I still use my RM books for extra rules and am really looking forward to a new edition.
RM unfortunately will never appeal to the masses, it is simply too complex for some gamers to get their heads round. Release the game as Print on Demand and keep costs down, this for me is the way forward. I will buy every book RM release (as I always have).
-
Oh you can be sure that the products will be released print on demand, but first they'll come out as pdf's so that we can make sure we get it right before official hard copies are printed.
As for whether Rolemaster will appeal to the masses, the loyal fans, or just a handful - I'd have to go with what John Seal and Nicholas have said so far... it's not going to be something all new - it's still going to be Rolemaster. It is expected to appeal to the veteran gamers, especally those who enjoy a bit more realism and detail. That's what Rolemaster has always done, and this is Rolemaster... Is it going to reach out and take over the entirety of the rpg market? While that would be great, I don't think anyone is expecting that. We're hoping to bring together a splintered fanbase, reach out to gamers who had difficulty figuring out which RM was going to get supported, and provide a stable, yet modular system that is conducive to house rules - but most won't need them.
I expect it will reach out to new blood... but probably not the mass audience. Instead it will reach out to those who want more out of their rpg game... just like when Rolemaster began and offered a game with more 30 years ago. We hope you'll all enjoy it, and similar to then... the legacy of Rolemaster will once again grow throughout the industry.
-
I for one fully support the idea of the new RMU. I am divided between RM2/C and RMSS/FRP liking some aspects of both but really disliking other aspects of each game. And for someone who hasn't been there from the beginning to gather all the options from the Companions and such to build the game I like, I do welcome the RMU.
Personally I prefer RM2/C but my players always vote for the RMSS/FRP system everytime we are about start a game. So even within our group we are splintered. :protest:
-
Oh you can be sure that the products will be released print on demand, but first they'll come out as pdf's so that we can make sure we get it right before official hard copies are printed.
As for whether Rolemaster will appeal to the masses, the loyal fans, or just a handful - I'd have to go with what John Seal and Nicholas have said so far... it's not going to be something all new - it's still going to be Rolemaster. It is expected to appeal to the veteran gamers, especally those who enjoy a bit more realism and detail. That's what Rolemaster has always done, and this is Rolemaster... Is it going to reach out and take over the entirety of the rpg market? While that would be great, I don't think anyone is expecting that. We're hoping to bring together a splintered fanbase, reach out to gamers who had difficulty figuring out which RM was going to get supported, and provide a stable, yet modular system that is conducive to house rules - but most won't need them.
I expect it will reach out to new blood... but probably not the mass audience. Instead it will reach out to those who want more out of their rpg game... just like when Rolemaster began and offered a game with more 30 years ago. We hope you'll all enjoy it, and similar to then... the legacy of Rolemaster will once again grow throughout the industry.
If this is your target audience, take into account that most of them (us) are not teenagers anymore and we don't have as much free time as we used to. My point being that a line of adventure modules, old school style (MERP-like), will sell like hotcakes. Make them generic, so they can be fitted into any home-grown campaign, and you will have something that RM have been lacking since the good old MERP days.
Just my two cents :)
-
If this is your target audience, take into account that most of them (us) are not teenagers anymore and we don't have as much free time as we used to. My point being that a line of adventure modules, old school style (MERP-like), will sell like hotcakes.
This.
-
All I can say to that is.... (Emphasis is mine)
The vanguard of the new Rolemaster edition will be five books - Arms Law, Spell Law, Character Law, Creatures, and Treasures. In due course, these will be followed by other products such as a multi-adventure set, a new Campaign Law, a Rolemaster System Handbook for Shadow World, and many more to come.
And by the way - Shadow World will be moving to the new Rolemaster.... Cyradon will be available for the new Rolemaster.... We understand that we're dealing with those who don't have as much time as we did when we were young. We're hoping to give you adventures, settings, and even software support to help you get back to the gaming table with your friends. For those of you with friends who are around the world.... we'll be getting Fantasy Grounds updated to new Rolemaster also. (And we've got a lot of other stuff going on for our other product lines...)
-
All I can say to that is.... (Emphasis is mine)
The vanguard of the new Rolemaster edition will be five books - Arms Law, Spell Law, Character Law, Creatures, and Treasures. In due course, these will be followed by other products such as a multi-adventure set, a new Campaign Law, a Rolemaster System Handbook for Shadow World, and many more to come.
And by the way - Shadow World will be moving to the new Rolemaster.... Cyradon will be available for the new Rolemaster.... We understand that we're dealing with those who don't have as much time as we did when we were young. We're hoping to give you adventures, settings, and even software support to help you get back to the gaming table with your friends. For those of you with friends who are around the world.... we'll be getting Fantasy Grounds updated to new Rolemaster also. (And we've got a lot of other stuff going on for our other product lines...)
Fantastic!!
I'm so impatient for the new edition that I will eat my own arm.
I want to beta test now!!
-
Glad to hear it... just don't go eating that arm yet. You need it to roll the dice. ;D
-
I am very excited about this. I have $250 saved especially for Rolemaster and it is burning a hole in my bank account!!
-
Oh you can be sure that the products will be released print on demand, but first they'll come out as pdf's so that we can make sure we get it right before official hard copies are printed.
As for whether Rolemaster will appeal to the masses, the loyal fans, or just a handful - I'd have to go with what John Seal and Nicholas have said so far... it's not going to be something all new - it's still going to be Rolemaster. It is expected to appeal to the veteran gamers, especally those who enjoy a bit more realism and detail. That's what Rolemaster has always done, and this is Rolemaster... Is it going to reach out and take over the entirety of the rpg market? While that would be great, I don't think anyone is expecting that. We're hoping to bring together a splintered fanbase, reach out to gamers who had difficulty figuring out which RM was going to get supported, and provide a stable, yet modular system that is conducive to house rules - but most won't need them.
I expect it will reach out to new blood... but probably not the mass audience. Instead it will reach out to those who want more out of their rpg game... just like when Rolemaster began and offered a game with more 30 years ago. We hope you'll all enjoy it, and similar to then... the legacy of Rolemaster will once again grow throughout the industry.
If this is your target audience, take into account that most of them (us) are not teenagers anymore and we don't have as much free time as we used to. My point being that a line of adventure modules, old school style (MERP-like), will sell like hotcakes. Make them generic, so they can be fitted into any home-grown campaign, and you will have something that RM have been lacking since the good old MERP days.
Just my two cents :)
Yes please. Also, take into account the proliferation of VTT play (i.e. Fantasy Grounds) and have modules already converted for them.
-
I can assure you that ICE is working on expanding the support of FG software. We see this as a growing population of RPG gamers, and we want to make sure that ICE's supporters can find their favorite systems and settings ready and available for playing using the FG engine. It won't happen overnight, but it will continue to be a key aspect of expanding our outreach.
-
I am a long term Rolemaster player, and given the revision of the system (that I'll buy in integrality, you have my word), I'd very much like to give suggestions to little details...
My main point : you should take some D20 system of attack into consideration. In this system, you can make, say, whirlwind slash, on peripherics enemies or triping attack, or disarm attacks... In RM, in the core system (even if that must be expanded in the companions somewhere), you only slash one on one, or at most, give 2 or 3 attacks, but still the same.
You should develop offensive attacks more deeply, not just boost the OB, and let the criticl hit do the rest. If you are, like, Gutts in Berserk with a giant 2Handed Sword and do a whirl wind slash to chop everything around, you should have the means to get to this point and do it :)
Also, always in the same wave, if you hit to kill, like, with a crossbow from the dark, it should be more possible to try to hit to kill - Even having the possibility to aim at certain body point... Head, neck, or sword bearing hand...
I admire your work, would be awesome to contribute in a small measure myself. Thank You!
-
I am a long term Rolemaster player, and given the revision of the system (that I'll buy in integrality, you have my word), I'd very much like to give suggestions to little details...
My main point : you should take some D20 system of attack into consideration. In this system, you can make, say, whirlwind slash, on peripherics enemies or triping attack, or disarm attacks... In RM, in the core system (even if that must be expanded in the companions somewhere), you only slash one on one, or at most, give 2 or 3 attacks, but still the same.
You should develop offensive attacks more deeply, not just boost the OB, and let the criticl hit do the rest. If you are, like, Gutts in Berserk with a giant 2Handed Sword and do a whirl wind slash to chop everything around, you should have the means to get to this point and do it :)
Also, always in the same wave, if you hit to kill, like, with a crossbow from the dark, it should be more possible to try to hit to kill - Even having the possibility to aim at certain body point... Head, neck, or sword bearing hand...
I admire your work, would be awesome to contribute in a small measure myself. Thank You!
Let me be the first one to welcome you to the forums!
I have let the PCs to divide their OB and DB with a number of opponents. You could basically divide your OB of 120 to 4 opponents and have four attacks of OB 30. My players are not very keen to do this. Just sometimes a PC has divided his OB vs 2 opponents. To make such cleave and whirlwind attacks (basically attacking all on range) you just need to be very superior compared to your enemies. You know the kind of enemies that killing them is like stealing candy from children.
I tend to make fights a bit hard so usually there is no chance for such show-moves. Personally I think this types of moves are an influence of video-games where you spin around several times like a hammer thrower with your great-axe and mow down a host of enemies.
In RM you have to also divide DB among opponents if you want to defend at all. If you have really good magic-armor and other items that grant you high enough DB vs all melee-attacks then you might run into the midst of the opponents and happily sweep 360 with your sword. Leaving your DB to 0 is usually very dangerous if your opponents can fight back at all.
RM2 Arms Law (mine is 1989) has tables of advancement for martial artists. They grant strikes, sweeps and grapples vs multiple targets. 10th lvl kung-fu guy has OB 100, he can strike or sweep up to 3 targets in 180 degree angle and use 4 different ranks of attacks.
- Maybe there could be an optional variation of this for swordsmen etc? That could work as some kind of simplified "fighter progression table".
I guess that "crossbow from the dark part" would mean ambushing someone. Otherwise I cannot see the benefit of shooting in the darkness. If you make ambush then you can use the ambush skill and adjust the critical more to your liking.
-
For missile weapons and firearm type weapons there is snipping skill.
MDC
-
For missile weapons and firearm type weapons there is snipping skill.
MDC
Actually snipping skill applies to using scissors. Sniping skill can be applied to missile weapons and firearms.
:)
-
Thank you ! I have thought of this point too, while writing it : martial arts are similar to what I thought. If they could enlarge casual attacks options of normal attacks like the martial arts, that could be more diversified.
And if you could integrate the attacks forms of disarms, tripping, or push the enemies, or even attacking multiple opponents, in form of boosting skills apparts (each or in categories), that would be great!
Yes, ambush and snipping, and Critical hit modifications are what I thought. Just putting everything I'm mentionning in the core rules of fighting, not too much lost in the options of the companions, would be great. Thank you very much for your answers!
-
Splitting your attack against multiple opponents has extra significance because you can only Parry opponents you attack. If one combatant is permitted to split while others aren't, you can easily end up with a big advantage by attacking people who aren't attacking you, and therefore can't parry you.
Not to say that such an ability couldn't be added (if so I would incorporate it into some kind of reworking weapon style type skill), but it's really important to balance these factors carefully.
-
Splitting your attack against multiple opponents has extra significance because you can only Parry opponents you attack. If one combatant is permitted to split while others aren't, you can easily end up with a big advantage by attacking people who aren't attacking you, and therefore can't parry you.
Not to say that such an ability couldn't be added (if so I would incorporate it into some kind of reworking weapon style type skill), but it's really important to balance these factors carefully.
You have a valid point there about avoiding unfair advantages. We have done OB splitting only in situations where there was many attackers very close or around the PCs. PC was surrounded or a tight pack of pikemen was attacking. There was 4-5 attacks vs the PC. Means that there is not so much OB left after you have divided around 80 from your weapon skill to defense. For example you could make one hit of OB 100 or 2 attacks with OB 50. These attackers have trusted in numbers and all make a full OB attack anyway. Parrying is not so effective when you outnumber your opponent. Its just all-in with full OB.
In reality I think it is possible that you get to attack a person that does not detect you in time or doesnt have time to defend himself. It should always be a GM decision.
This kind of thing should sometimes happen when a fast character suddenly attacks from flank or side. "you lunge from your bush and see an opponent fighting with your soldier." Player decides to attack right away and GM can just decide or make roll to see if the opponent even notices anything.
If you like you might ask player to make a successful maneuver roll to see if he is fast enough. If player cannot be confident about being able to hit the opponent in the back then you should ask the player to decide OB and DB before the maneuver roll.
A new skill is not necessary for this. If you make a new skill for it, it basically means that PC/NPC that didnt use DP for this "skill" cannot do this. Making new skills often means that everyone can do less. Now all can have this "skill". If character is able to close in fast from flank or rear it is completely possible that opponent that is locked in combat doesnt have time to react.
-
For missile weapons and firearm type weapons there is snipping skill.
MDC
Actually snipping skill applies to using scissors. Sniping skill can be applied to missile weapons and firearms.
:)
Boy do I feel stupid. ;D I guess that is what I get for staying up all night gaming and being a bad speller. As a side note I just may add that to my game and see if anyone notices. If the do I think I will give them some DP for it.
MDC
-
OMG, snipper! Run! Run for your lives!!!
-
Running with Scissors: Absurd Snipping maneuver.
-
That's for the healer's combat circumcision maneuver. ;)
-
Brings a whole new meaning to the GM saying "roll again and subtract", don't it?
:o
-
There probably needs to be a distinction made between "optional but playtested" and "interesting idea that hasn't been checked yet."
I like that ICE graded the options in the Companions.