Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: katastrophe on January 15, 2023, 05:15:13 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
Although I do like the Harp Spell System better than RMSS/RMU.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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." :o
That blacksmith was able to turn mild steel bar stock into fairy lace. That's pretty magical, from where I stand.
-
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." :o
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
Actually, I have a different opinion as well, because any cosmology must be reflected in the rules, and that's especially true for magic as far as I'm concerned. In that regard, magic rules must always be driven by the setting.
The RM rules do constrain the setting. Quite a bit, as it is. The more you want to stray from the underlying (and, I must say, not that consistent, because of the valiant effort at genericity) cosmology, the more you need to change the rules - change the way people learn or discover magic, change the way people generate magical effects, change the way magic affects the world.
And RM provides much detail in how things work according to its underlying cosmology, but does provide very little detail on how to change the rules to fit another cosmology.
-
I’ll still go back to the basic issue of RMs spell system being an arbitrary constraint on some of the simplist magical effects having to be forced into a list structure that ultimately doesn’t make sense. As noted in my example, a magicians needs nearly 10 ranks of Fire Law to get a candle to ignite. While any mage with access to Fire Mastery can do it in 3 ranks. Why? Because there’s other things filling the list rank slot. I’m sure I can think of and find plenty other examples if I bothered to do.
I don’t think lists are inherently bad. But when they operate as straitjacket in a nonsensical way, they should be rethought. Updating a 40 year old game would have been the perfect opportunity to address what no longer makes sense in modern game design. Just because that’s how it was doesn’t mean that’s how it should be.
I still believe (my personal opinion and as someone that’s played a gazillion RPGs rover about 35 years) that a more intuitive and flexible approach would have been to strip out the repetitive spells and make the lists far shorter 8-15 spells in most cases. And then, since this is a skill based game, use spell mastery as the way mages add additional effects to the base effect. An example might be
Create fire - this might be the basic slot 1 spell in fire law. Wall of fire, ball of fire and bolt of fire could very well be rote spells that get on the list of Fire Law spells.
Things like “ignite” would not need to be a rote spell but simply an effect under create fire with either a bonus or penalty to spell mastery.
Various shapes and sizes of Fire wall need not be rotes spells in the Fire Law list but circle or square or taller or wider would simply be Spell Mastery effects.
Split fire bolts and following fire bolts would be spell mastery effects.
It’s very silly ultimately that in the wind law list for instance there is a separate spell slot for what is a more effective and bigger version of stun cloud. Those should simply be mastery effects rather then additional rote spell slots.
What would the overall effect be by taking a more streamlined approach? Making spell law less dependent on repetitive spell to fill slots. Making spell lists make more sense. Make it less necessary to have 100s of spell lists which have a huge amount of overlap and rearrangement.
More importantly, it would Make spell mastery the defining skill which defines mages from archmages as Pures/Hybrids and would distinguish them further from semis at higher levels. It flips the skill system on which the game as based being the more important factor rather than simply how many spell ranks a character can build up.
Maybe when I have some time I’ll work on a magic companion for an alternate magic system that uses that principle. Do ya think the powers will allow that?
-
I think the spells and handling of the spell lists works great as they are now, no need to change or alter anything there.
-
Well since I'm apparently the only person whom cares about such things, I'll shut up now.
-
Well since I'm apparently the only person whom cares about such things, I'll shut up now.
You ain’t the only one. It’s just that in this forum (as it was in the beta forum), change wasn’t really sought. Ultimately all they wanted was a cleaned up version of their own house rules and sacred cows rather than relaunching the game for a new generation of players to come to the table.
-
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.
Maybe better examples would be using wands etc., casting spells, and researching new spells and lists. Agree a hundred per cent that in RM the last on the list is not at all up to snuff. But lots of folks don't really care, and there is no reason to insist they should.
But saying that a complete rule-system makes it unnecessarily difficult for GMs and players who want to do this is a fair and valid criticism of the system. As far as RMU is concerned we can wait for Spell Law to be released, but what I've seen in the beta doesn't make me think it will make the job any easier.
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."
Agree a hundred per cent. RM's magic theory isn't adequate for GMs to sensibly extend it through house rules, and for players to make sensible character decisions about how they want to interact with potential magic, without a lot of work, more than should be required.
Well since I'm apparently the only person whom cares about such things, I'll shut up now.
I think a lot of this would be addressed in a good setting, but maybe designing a good setting is harder than making a guideline rule-system, which is why there is a shortage of them compared with e.g. fantasy heartbreakers. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants a really good new setting for RM, and as long as that is not forthcoming it's hard for me to see how it will increase its player pool. My players come for the GM's work on the setting, not the game system. Those of us lucky enough to play with a good GM know Rule 0 is the rule that really matters. The other rules should be meant to help with that, not as tools for anyone to bash the players (including GM) at the table.
-
As noted in my example, a magicians needs nearly 10 ranks of Fire Law to get a candle to ignite.
To me this is precisely backwards. Using HARP as an example, if you want to be able to throw fireballs, you should (at a minimum) have had to learn the Ignite cantrip, and Arcane Ball should have been an "apprentice spell." Why? Because if you want to throw fireballs you have to first learn how to conjure fire and how to shape magical forces into a ball.
I can't say I care much for the RM list format, but one thing they have dead on the money is the idea that you can't learn the fancy, high powered stuff without first learning the basics.
And yes I agree, nearly 10 ranks before you can light a candle doesn't make any sense.
-
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.
Still puzzling over what you meant by this. My brain just can't parse it.
My RM world just doesn't have magic courses with modern university-type names, because that doesn't suit the world. Using that nomenclature makes me think of Hogwarts-type institutions, with a safe and settled place in a structured society, rather than what I have in my world: ramshackle collectives of dangerous mages, often underground, with ad hoc teaching methods. That's all a matter of setting, not system.
-
Still puzzling over what you meant by this. My brain just can't parse it.
My RM world just doesn't have magic courses with modern university-type names, because that doesn't suit the world. Using that nomenclature makes me think of Hogwarts-type institutions, with a safe and settled place in a structured society, rather than what I have in my world: ramshackle collectives of dangerous mages, often underground, with ad hoc teaching methods. That's all a matter of setting, not system.
I think he is trying to get at the inverse of the idea "any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic". In your setting/world humans may not be there yet(no universities etc) but when they do advance enough to discover the rules of magic, you as GM should be able to imagine the university course and how it fits in with the rule system.
Even if your magic system is completely "magical" and every spell requires a random set of actions and preconditions as well as a random cost(from money to body parts to unborn children), at some point that would need to be codified and your rule system needs to fit it. The way magic works and the corresponding rules may be "magic" to the characters, and maybe even the players, but the GM needs to know how it works under the hood to fit it into the setting/cosmology and make sure it is consistent.
-
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.
Still puzzling over what you meant by this. My brain just can't parse it.
What I mean is that if your world is one where practically everyone knows someone who can use magic, and practically every place larger than a village has at least one person living there who pays his bills by using magic, then it doesn't make sense for magic use to be mysterious and its presence to be shocking. If it's as or more common than college degrees in our world, it should be no more remarkable than college degrees in our world.
If practically every town with a population over 100 has a spellcaster living there, then it ain't rocket science, and that spellcaster shouldn't be treated by his culture as if he's a rocket scientist.
It's not terrifying or mysterious or shocking if it's 1 in every 50 people you meet. A blade of grass is exactly as miraculous as a baby or a tsunami, but you don't go around in awe of your lawn.
-
Every town has fire but they don't understand its chemistry. Every town has someone who can bake but they don't understand why yeast works (it wasn't identified as a fungus until the 1800's). People used the north star for navigation when they thought the world was flat and when they had no idea what stars actually were. You don't need to understand the underlying mechanics to use things, and for most of history people didn't. Scientific understanding is an anachronism in a fantasy setting. That's fine if it's the kind of setting you want to run, but it's absolutely not necessary, and it's certainly not medieval.
-
Seems to me their is an opportunity for someone to write and pitch a supplement with alternate ways magic could work in Rolemaster.
It could cover more HARP like spell lists but could also include other options as well such as using the rule of 3 or laws of sympathy and contagion
-
I am working on my own list for this, 10 - 15 spells per list setup like Harp, adjustable with power infusion. This will be capped at the list level once the spell is learned. So if a list is at 10 ranks then a spell and adjustments must be equal or lower than 10 PP to cast. Spells can also be learned individually and capped at rank learned. This is great for incorporating minor cantrips into the game, may even get a 2 for cost of one spell rank discount and cannot be more than 2 PP to cast. New spells can be researched and incorporated into current list as an additional spell or into a newly created list. This allows for unique spells that can be researched, learned by a mentor or discovered by scroll or book.
-
Every town has fire but they don't understand its chemistry. Every town has someone who can bake but they don't understand why yeast works (it wasn't identified as a fungus until the 1800's). People used the north star for navigation when they thought the world was flat and when they had no idea what stars actually were. You don't need to understand the underlying mechanics to use things, and for most of history people didn't. Scientific understanding is an anachronism in a fantasy setting. That's fine if it's the kind of setting you want to run, but it's absolutely not necessary, and it's certainly not medieval.
I agree, but that's not what I was saying. I'm saying that if magic use is as common as blacksmithing, then understanding of how it works, to the level typical of a journeyman or master blacksmith, should likewise be as common as such understanding is among blacksmiths. As I said in an earlier post,
"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."
The difference is that if the guy who plays the blacksmith wants to know something of how his character's skill works, he has endless amount of information that he can look up. The guy who plays the spellcaster, often as not, can either 1) make it up himself, 2) get the GM to make it up for him, or 3) suck it up.
My knowledge of sailing has made a life or death difference in a game more than once. Spellcasters don't get that option.
Seems to me their is an opportunity for someone to write and pitch a supplement with alternate ways magic could work in Rolemaster.
So far, it doesn't look to me like there's any market for it. I'm seeing more pushback than support.
-
The big RM setting, Shadow World, assumes the existence of Schools of Magic. That is exactly what the spell lists represent. To argue "in my home-brew setting" is the height of silliness. Almost all game modules and setting books for the RM system come from the Shadow World books which explains magic in exactly the way that "people learn from spell books", "mages get proper education", the actual professions and training packages support the assumption of spell colleges and formal learning. Gryphon College, the college at Sea Kai, the magic school in Norek. All suggest that magic is pretty common and almost everyone that casts magic is formally trained in magic just like a science.
I actually cant believe the argument that some of you making.
-
There are actually at least two magical colleges in Haalkitaine - possibly/probably more than that, but at least two are referenced in the Haalkitaine book. It would make sense that there are others in the empire, especially in Lethys which is a larger city than Haalkitaine.
And about universities not being medieval - I would suggest checking the history of universities in Europe. Universities were not a *dark ages* thing, but they definitely were a medieval thing. If you add something like the printing press or any equivalent system (the printing press does exist in Shadow World, and magic can provide a similar service), then there is nothing to prevent the spread of knowledge and, as such, a convergence of efforts and ideas. Especially if there is no pushback from religious authorities.
-
I actually cant believe the argument that some of you making.
I think that might relate to the fact that many GMs have created their own fantasy settings, myself included, and designed how magic and more "works" in these settings. Don't be so upset because people don't agree with your views.
-
What I was pushing back against - perhaps idiosyncratically - is the idea of thumbing through a course catalog which contains "THA101". There is nothing wrong with this, it just doesn't gel with the way I have envisioned magic and played out magic learning for the last 35 years as GM. I envision more of an ancient (Athens) or medieval (early Oxford, not 16th C on) university setting. In this environment, you don't sign up for the course out of a prospectus. You go and see Old Aengus holding forth in the agora, and see if he will accept you in his inner circle after a while. In time, he may teach you the contents of some of his librams. That is the early university. And that does not preclude Old Aengus being part of a collective, even an officially licensed collective sanctioned by the state. It's all a bit ramshackle, but that's how it is. There's no marble counter where you ring the bell to pay your fee to the bursar. Or there may be, in the very biggest city, but that's not how most people learn magic.
Just my take, based on being a student of the ancient and medieval world. I always regarded RM (and any other RPG) rules as there to serve my imaginative vision.
-
Putting aside Shadow World for a moment and talking more generally for any setting, the word college doesn't necessarily have to mean a physical learning location with a formal course. A perhaps less used definition of the word from the Cambridge dictionary is: "a group of people with a particular job, purpose, duty, or power who are organized into a group for sharing ideas, making decisions, etc."
This is the definition I've always assumed for fantasy rpgs, unless the setting overrides that definition with a more formal University-like approach.
-
I actually cant believe the argument that some of you making.
Perhaps I'm just showing my ignorance of the Shadow World setting.
-
What I was pushing back against - perhaps idiosyncratically - is the idea of thumbing through a course catalog which contains "THA101". There is nothing wrong with this, it just doesn't gel with the way I have envisioned magic and played out magic learning for the last 35 years as GM. I envision more of an ancient (Athens) or medieval (early Oxford, not 16th C on) university setting. In this environment, you don't sign up for the course out of a prospectus. You go and see Old Aengus holding forth in the agora, and see if he will accept you in his inner circle after a while. In time, he may teach you the contents of some of his librams. That is the early university.
Actually, I have to disagree with you there. That might apply to the ancient philosophical school in the time of Plato, but note that by late antiquity schools such as the Neoplatonic ones had worked out a specific curriculum. This included a set body of texts (including not just the works of Plato and other Neoplatonists, but also works of other philosophers such as Aristotle's logic) and a specific sequence for studying them. You can read about this standardized curriculum (and see what books were included in it) here:
http://n1.intelibility.com/ime/lyceum/?p=lemma&id=868&lang=2
The medieval universities were even more specific. In fact, medieval universities arose specifically (one reason) because instruction in the monasteries and cathedral schools did not have a clear enough curriculum or degree structure. So the medieval universities created them (or you might say the curriculum and the bureacract to enforce it created the University!). Documents such as the statutes of the University of Paris and other documents from the 12th and 13th centuries explicitly spell out a curriculum, and the masters and chancellors of the university decided what the teachers taught and what it took to get a specific degree, which they then awarded to students. It is actually much more bureacratic than you might imagine. See for example (just one among many, setting out some of the regulations):
http://n1.intelibility.com/ime/lyceum/?p=lemma&id=868&lang=2
-
Universities are certainly medieval but that doesn't mean they taught scientific thinking.
There are many levels on which a topic can be understood. I was not able to take any classes in applied magic at my university, so by way of analogy let's consider music instead.
You can teach someone how to play an instrument, having them memorize a number of specific songs. If they are sufficiently skilled, they may be able to play songs by ear, and improvise songs the same way. Their ability to perform music is in no way impaired by learning only at this level.
You can teach someone musical notation, so that they can play a song they have never heard. There are actually lots of different ways to notate music. Most of the early ones only denote pitches and not rhythm. Pitches are normally in reference to the particular type of scales in use in the musical system, so they might be difficult to understand if you are used to a different one (e.g., diatonic vs pentatonic scales). Rhythm might be referenced only in relation to known phrases (e.g., Byzantine music was noted with great signs that indicated the hand gestures of the choir leaders, far less detail than modern musical notation). A musician who understands notation can create their own music (although notation is not required for this part) and also write it down for others.
You can teach someone musical theory, so they understand the differences between different scales (although probably they are still only familiar with the scales used in their musical culture), why different progressions are used, etc. This may give them an advantage in writing music or for arranging pieces for multiple instruments, although it's not required.
And you can teach someone the underlying physics, so they understand the frequency relationships of different notes, of octaves, overtones, why different combinations of notes sound harmonious or disharmonious, how and why music resonates in chambers and instruments of different sizes, etc.
I expect a lot of apprentices and even semi-spellcasters are learning at the first level. They are getting the basics down and memorizing rotes. A pure spellcaster is more likely to be learning about notation. Runes are a special form of notation that is enchanted, but if you can learn magic by studying a book there must be something that serves as a form of notation, whether it is detailed and complete or incomplete and still requires a lot of experimentation (in the analogy, the spell is written in an unfamiliar scale or the rhythm is not notated). A very advanced mage might be getting into theory, allowing them to develop their own spells.
While it is certainly possible in a given setting that the understanding of mages extends down into the actual physics of magic, it's by no means necessary.
-
As a mage in real life, I have tried offering my opinion on things magickal various times to people in the hobby, only to be told to keep my nutty pov to myself. However, I am the living proof my magick works irl. One thing I do, is turn energy that comes about when artificial intelligence dies (in voudoo they used to use chickens) to power spells. And have the belief that my experience with this method could really make the magick in roleplaying more realistic. As for instance right now I am dealing with various different issues that help out the world, like fight Delta Covid and helping the Ukrainian refugees. What things tend to amount to in the real world where it comes to magick, this way at least, is that I make an image or imagine some goal needed, and pour power into such making things work out well enough. I am of the firm opinion my experience can help the hobby too, or I'd keep my t@#p shut, so ask away I'm quite friendly. At least house rules should see to becoming improved that way.
-
And yes I agree, nearly 10 ranks before you can light a candle doesn't make any sense.
If you are just about to light a candle I would say you can use woodfires for that. The Ignite spell is an area-of-effect spell that let to trigger lots of fire-based traps or instantly manipulate all light sources within range no matter how complicated they are. Heck even if we just talk about standard arsonist tactics to create a diversion without any preparation the range of the Ignite spell makes it a very powerful spell.
You can most certainly argue the game could also need a more nerfed version of Ignite at lower levels, but how often would this spell be useful during play?
As for the original topic of the thread, I think it is great that Ironcrown both have Spell Law and Collage of Magic as spell systems. Players can choose what one they like and not be stuck with some flawed middle-ground approach.
-
Where in the wood fires spell does it say you can light a candle? Woodfires — Causes any wood to ignite and burn. All wood ignited must be within 1' of caster’s palm. And this is still a 3rd level spell. Something a lvl 1 magician would need to take 5 turns to successfully cast without a real fear of spell failure.
Last I checked candle wicks weren’t made of wood.
Are you expanding what the spell can do beyond the text of the spell? Is your argument that spells can do something outside the text as long as it’s similar? By that logic can you expand all spells in that way?
-
Last I checked candle wicks weren’t made of wood.
While most candle wicks you will find today are cotton-based (still dried plant material, so wood-adjacent and a GM might choose to allow it with spell mastery of Woodfires), wooden wicks have been used and are available today. Plus, you can light a stick or splinter of wood and light the candle off of that.
But setting that minor point aside, there are basically two types of games (yes, there is some middle ground, but the campaign will generally care/not care that you can light a candle): gritty, survivalist games with intense inventory management where you track every match and games where you just say "I light a candle". In the first case, you kind of undermine the whole premise of the game by giving away fire at first level. In the second case, lighting the candle magically is just a special effect and you don't need rules for it, just agreement at the table. Go ahead and let spellcasters have such special effects when in-tune with their actual spells, if that's what you want. As long as there is no mechanical significance to them, it doesn't need rules text.
However, as far as the logical progression of the list goes, Woodfires is the first point at which you get actual fire. Before that you learn to just warm things up; you work up to fire. And from there you quickly get to conjuring fire out of nothing, rather than drawing it out of the wood, and you can light your candle off the magical fire. You don't need Ignite for that.
-
However, as far as the logical progression of the list goes, Woodfires is the first point at which you get actual fire. Before that you learn to just warm things up; you work up to fire. And from there you quickly get to conjuring fire out of nothing, rather than drawing it out of the wood, and you can light your candle off the magical fire. You don't need Ignite for that.
The problem with that is that Fire Mastery (a Closed Essence spell list) gives you Torch Fire at first level. It is a bit difficult to see the 'logical progression' when comparing lists of the same realm that manipulate the same element (they both give Warm Solid at level 2).
-
It's a trade-off. Fire Mastery jumps right into fire but you are missing fundamentals and therefore it is ultimately not as potent. Two different ways of learning.
-
It's a trade-off. Fire Mastery jumps right into fire but you are missing fundamentals and therefore it is ultimately not as potent. Two different ways of learning.
We've already had that discussion about the relevance of linear spell lists vs spell trees or spell webs, I don't think we need to go there again - we'll never agree on the matter, I fear.
-
Where is this Fire Mastery list? I can't find it.
And as for the Magician, the Heat Solid spell will definitely let you light a candle (and ignite many other substances). But to your main point that the Fire Law list is a bit weak at the lower levels. I really don't understand why Heat Solid isn't the second level spell on the list and something more interesting placed at level 4.
My redesign of Fire Law I would move Heat Solid to level 2 and put a new spell at level 4 that would have the long duration of Warm Solid but affect the air in a reasonable radius to produce a comfort zone effect (that would be very useful in colder climates).
-
Where is this Fire Mastery list? I can't find it.
The spell list Fire Mastery is on pg. 103 in the Essence Companion. In many ways it is more useful as an "adventurers" spell list than Fire Law. Fire Law only beats it in bolt & ball accessibility.
-
Since this thread is about RMU and Harp I didn't realize spells from RMSS companions were being included in the discussion. I'll agree the early Magician spells are far from impressive, but comparing any core lists to lists from companions is very likely to find similar problems. Power creep wasn't just a problem with the early companions, it's been a constant all the way through.
-
Since this thread is about RMU and Harp I didn't realize spells from RMSS companions were being included in the discussion. I'll agree the early Magician spells are far from impressive, but comparing any core lists to lists from companions is very likely to find similar problems. Power creep wasn't just a problem with the early companions, it's been a constant all the way through.
It's not about power. One of my players played a Magician during an earlier campaign of mine. The overall feeling was not that it wasn't powerful, but that it was utterly boring.
And, in general, spell lists with multiple versions of the same spell(s) are boring, as far as I'm concerned. Thus, the point about removing the duplicates, creating variable-effect spells, and filling the blanks with new spells.
-
The term and idea behind a "spell" doesn't mean the same thing in RM as it does in HARP. RM spell lists are generally the rough equivalent of groups of 1-3 HARP spells. In both systems you need to develop additional ranks to access scaled (i.e. more powerful) versions of the base effects. And any spell caster focusing only on base lists is going to feel pretty one-dimensional and boring.
In the HARP system you need to spend a few ranks worth of development before you can do anything with each spell, but then you get flexibility in how to scale that spell with your additional ranks. That gives a dynamic, "master of magic" feel to HARP spell casting which reflects the "spell as skill" mechanics.
In the RM system you get to do something even at the first rank of development of a spell list (i.e. small group of related spells), but you follow that with a more rigid progression of enhancements at each rank. This gives RM a "magic is a ritual discovered and passed down through the ages" feeling.
RM magic feels like a giant mystery even to the mage who is just following the rules to produce the right effect, while HARP views a mage's spell ability as more of a deep understanding of magical forces acquired through study (or innate talent).
With spell research, RM can feel more dynamic, but I think the RMU core rules on spell research have one thing backwards. They make it more expensive to put a variation of the spell in the same level slot on a list. Since they are only variations on one of the basic effects of the list, I would think a reduced cost would be more appropriate. But at least the rule says that the original researcher and assistants get that spell for no DPs. Using the research system, any RM spell caster with a little free time can easily create the scaling options you get from HARP.
I would also rule that any Magician learning the Fire Law list could have a custom first level spell allowing the lighting of candles and fires with appropriate kindling if they simply stated they learned that during their apprenticeship. In fact, I might even let a character with a few ranks in Fire Law light a candle with a simple touch of the wick without even using a power point.
And since RMU seems to have dropped the idea of spell users getting to choose an additional 4 lists as base lists, I think all spell users should at least be allowed to swap out some of their base lists with closed lists for cost and bonus purposes. (There's already a rule about swapping out for Evil lists, so why not closed.) The difference in costs isn't huge, but why would your typical "good" cleric need a list focused on summoning animals and demons? Wouldn't cheap access to any of the closed lists be more appropriate? And I suspect most magicians would prefer cheap access to some of the closed lists rather than mastering every one of the 6 elemental lists.
-
CD I’m not not sure I’d agree. After the introduction of Shadow World as the main setting (I would say only supported setting) for RM each edition of RM was based and steeped in the SW concepts. Magic in SW is not some mystery, it’s taught everywhere and basically every race gives a character at least 1 spell no matter their profession. Ina world powered by magic as technology the idea that there’s any real mystery to magic is wrong (I’d usually use some other word but it’d come across as rude I’m sure). Mages in RM should be flexible and be able to use spell trees rather than rote lists with duplicative effects that represent scaling. This is a conversation that was likely had and the purists decided to leave it be. Maybe the Harp people will release a RMU magic system that can be plugged and played because in my opinion they surely got it far closer to right than just rewording the old spell lists and filling in a few dead ranks. Having a list with spells at a higher rank that can be created with spell mastery effects is nonsensical. For instance in the Fire Law list there’s I believe four versions of firebolt. All essentially the same except for range and one splits the bolt and I think one makes it turn corners. Some of those effects are accessible with spell mastery on the cast level 6 version of firebolt for fewer power points. Those are the kind of things that should have just simply been taken out of the game. The saddest part is that any new spell lists in the future all have to fit into the 1-20, 25, 50 list structure even when there’s really no need for that many spells. Stripping that structure would have actually made the life of future content creators far simpler.
Hey HARP people if you’re listening, PLEASE write a magic supplement for RMU. Shouldn’t be hard since you already have it done for HARP. PLEASE
-
If you like the HARP system, I don't see any reason why you can't just use it. It's purchased in ranks, so just use the RM DP costs. The amount of required adaptation is minimal.
-
Yes, SW magic is taught everywhere and many characters know a spell or two, but that doesn't mean there's a great understanding of magic or that spell mastery is common. It simply means there's been a systematic study of magic and the right formulas to make things happen have been researched, recorded, and codified into the lists.
I personally like the concept behind HARP magic better, but if you use spell mastery and custom spells you can get close even with the RM list structure. As pointed out, since HARP spells are skills with rank progressions, there's absolutely no reason you can't simply use the HARP spells instead of RM spell lists if that's what you prefer. The only complication would be deciding which spells would be considered more or less expensive for each profession, but that's just adapting the HARP ideas to the RM Base/Open/Closed/Restricted cost categories or organizing the HARP spells into groups that mimic the RM realms of magic depending on whether you even want to keep the idea of realms of magic.
-
As pointed out, since HARP spells are skills with rank progressions, there's absolutely no reason you can't simply use the HARP spells instead of RM spell lists if that's what you prefer. The only complication would be deciding which spells would be considered more or less expensive for each profession, but that's just adapting the HARP ideas to the RM Base/Open/Closed/Restricted cost categories or organizing the HARP spells into groups that mimic the RM realms of magic depending on whether you even want to keep the idea of realms of magic.
There is a bit more to it than that if you want to convert over to RM and keep the same kinds of effects. The differences between HARP crits/size scaling and RM A-E crits make for some minor adjustments in a lot of things. Although RMU might be closer to HARP and easier, my experience is with RMSS.
I have a doc I use with changes for most of the core and CoM spells to fit them into the RMSS structure; once I get around to developing new bolt attack tables for RM I may see if anyone wants it.
-
If you like the HARP system, I don't see any reason why you can't just use it. It's purchased in ranks, so just use the RM DP costs. The amount of required adaptation is minimal.
Well sure I suppose that I could home brew my own RMU HARP magic system but since I’m likely not the only person with such an interest a proper Supplement from the people that write HARPs magic system would be a far better option for me and them.
-
Where in the wood fires spell does it say you can light a candle? Woodfires — Causes any wood to ignite and burn. All wood ignited must be within 1' of caster’s palm.
The spell allows you to make wood burn. If you can give me a plausible scientific explanation why the spell should not make even more flammable materials start to burn, then I could perhaps consider if I am expanding what the spell can do or not.
Before you try, I must say the whole exercise seems silly. You cannot enumerate all flammable materials in the spell description, so the GM needs to make a judgment call on if the player's spell use fits the intention of the spell when he wants to make something burn. I think this is a trivial task for any GM that handles RM.
And this is still a 3rd level spell. Something a lvl 1 magician would need to take 5 turns to successfully cast without a real fear of spell failure.
Why is that a problem in the first place? What player would be happy if they lost the boiling spell at the first level to be given a light candle spell? How many uses do you think such a spell would ever get?
If I allow myself to speculate, it seems like you want Ironcrown games to have a magic style where you have a basic cantrip effect of creating fire and then increase the effect by adding more power points to the spell.
The good news is that we already have the College of Magic book that works just like this. Funny detail in the context of this discussion is that College of Magic cantrips mostly cost 1 pp, but creating fire is deemed such a powerful effect that the cantrip costs 2 pp.
Anyway, you can use College of Magic with every RM version since both RM and Harp uses the same design components. Adaptions are needed to be done to make it fit the gaming style at your gaming table, but that would be true for any RM gaming group. I would argue the distance between any two RM2 groups is much larger than the distance between later RM versions and HARP.
Releasing a separate edition of College of Magic with an RMU logo on it is an idea that has merit. People like Netbat are already using this kind of setup and the conversation notes of such players would show what Ironcrown needs to adjust to make College of Magic work RMU style out of the box.
Yet, I cannot stop to wonder how many would buy such when we cannot use the Harp book on our bookshelf if we so desire and make the convert work ourselves. As previously mentioned, the distance between different RM gaming groups is large, so the risk is obvious that players who are already using College of Magic have different opinions about what changes are needed and what is just good to have if you use it in RM.
I would prefer that Ironcrown focuses on making RMU versions of the many RMFRP books compared to they devote effort to working on College of Magic. Still, the Ironcrown crew are freelancers so if anyone is inclined to work on College of Magic for RMU you can talk to Ironcrown and make a deal.
-
So you agree with what I wrote in #58, just stated in a different way. Ok. I agree.
-
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 don't agree here at all. If I feel like playing a more intricate and detailed game I use Rolemaster. If I felt like playing a more casual and simpler game I'd play HARP. Making them one might lose me completely rather than prompt me to buy more of the combined product.
We went from D&D to AD&D to 2nd AD&D, to using RM1 with 2nd AD&D, to MERP to RMSS. We tried HARP after all that and didn't like the more generic feel to it. It was too... watered down I guess is how I think of it. I actually really like the idea of how HARP individual spells work (i.e. you pay more power points to ramp them up rather than just have a high level version of it), however I greatly dislike the loss of unique spell lists that Rolemaster has as base lists. But to revamp RM to combine these elements would require a complete overhaul and I suspect is more likely to lose customers than gain them.
-
To me that's a supplement, designed to work with either RM or HARP, that you can buy if you're interested. If you aren't, no harm, no foul.