Official ICE Forums
Gamer's Corner => The Guild Companion e-zine => Topic started by: PhillipAEllis on June 25, 2013, 03:12:43 AM
-
G'day!
I know things have been largely quiet, lately, regarding the volume of submissions. And I know from my own experience that a small article can easily be written up in an hour, an hour and a half. What can I do, then, that would help encourage our peers to contribute more material, even if it is a small article or write-up of a PC or NPC (etcetera)?
-
Not to sound like a total ass, but money is what turns the gears. Time is money and these days doing stuff for free is counter-productive and to be blunt, an industry killer.
I understand places like Guild Companion is a good place to show ones talents in writing and feedback but these places will struggle to be thriving unless there's a
strong invested interest by the fan base and the chance of real paid work from those contributing articles. I'm unsure if anyone has gotten a gig from writing GC articles? beyond my knowledge.
I did the character illustrations for "Friends and Rivals" waaaaaay back, and I would never do that again under the same circumstances. There was to much time invested and little reward at the end. This was not GCP fault but mine.
Would I do character/NPC illustrations? sure I would with a caveat, the effort will justify the reward this time round. F&R was never a hit so I'm skeptical something of that nature again would do well.
-
I have written a couple of articles in the past and will certainly do so again should I have something I think others really might be interested in. But I have to admit that in the past there was little "reward" (as Ironmaul phrased it) in terms of (positive) feedback on the articles. So I will definitely think twice before investing the time.
-
I hear what you're saying Ironmaul (and no, you don't sound like an ass, total or otherwise), and I understand that what can help pick up the fortunes of RM 7/or HARP is a serious prozine or semi-prozine that pays contributors. Unfortunately, that requires income, usually in the form of advertisers, and the advertisers want the circulation before they poney up the cash, in most cases.
Where I see places like the Guild Companion is this: it gives potential designers the space to develop their writing skills, progressing towards more ambitious items. Then, when they're ready to progress towards the paying publications, these same articles can be used as the basis of their early portfolio. I am, though, seeing that from my experience as a published author and poet.
Ecthelion: I understand your reluctance to write again, and I appreciate that for you and others that feedback is essential. I have an idea (below) and I would appreciate your thoughts on it.
Briefly, the idea is that more experienced writers be encouraged to act as mentors to less experienced writers, and give them the sort of feedback needed. I know this places more demands on the more experienced writers; among Australian poets the solution has been to make sure mentors are paid for their time and effort, to help support them and their careers, as well as bring in income. Something like this could happen, perhaps with kickstarter projects to fund those who are less able to afford a mentor.
What do you think of this?
-
Where I see places like the Guild Companion is this: it gives potential designers the space to develop their writing skills, progressing towards more ambitious items. Then, when they're ready to progress towards the paying publications, these same articles can be used as the basis of their early portfolio. I am, though, seeing that from my experience as a published author and poet.
That's how I had seen it as well, and I am seeing it from the point of view of someone whose writing experience is virtually nil.
I understand your reluctance to write again, and I appreciate that for you and others that feedback is essential.
Yeah, that. The closest analogue I have is the entertainment industry as an actor and musician. In that sense, I regard Guild Companion as equivalent to "open auditions." But with any audition, the critique of your performance is the most important part, it's the foundation of your insight into what worked from the initial concept, what didn't work, and how to improve what didn't work until it does.
To be sure, part of my problem with GC Magazine recently is that between RMU and the HARP revision, much of the basis for ideas are in a state of flux themselves, so it's hard to escape the concern that whatever ideas you put forth may already be obsolete before they are ever published. In fairness, a lot of the problem for my part has been a simple lack of ideas themselves. I'm fairly good at conceptualizing a rationale for why the game mechanics work as they do, and reasonably good at coming up with a mechanic to fit my conceptualizing. But it seems to me that the conceptualizing is rather useless without game mechanics to tie it to, to "put meat on the bones" so to speak, and as noted above, tying the concept to mechanics that may no longer be valid by the time the piece goes to publication rather dampens one's enthusiasm at best.
I have written two pieces for GCM. The first was a concept for a robotic AI NPC for HARP SF, written before (possibly during) the decision was made that AIs (among other things) needed to be reserved for HSF Extreme. I am still not completely sure to what degree my methods agree or fail to agree with the AI creation system the game itself will eventually have, although Nicholas was as helpful there as it was possible for him to be.
The other piece was a method of having supplementary skill knowledge support the primary skill being considered as the basis for a given skill roll, without having to have a lot of information tracking or a bunch of extra rolls. It was intended for use with HARP, but in theory would work with any system that used skill resolution based on a d100 roll and diminishing returns for skill ranks. Of course I liked the idea or I wouldn't have submitted it, but I got so little feedback that I honestly couldn't tell you if more than half a dozen people ever read it at all, much less whether they thought it might be useful. I'm glad I came up with the idea, as I will use it even if no one else does... but if I'm the only person who cares, I could have just as well left it in the form of hen-scratch on a note pad. I'm glad I wrote it, if for no other reason for the practice of putting my ideas into a coherent narrative... but whether it qualified as an actually productive use of my time is still very much arguable.
Mentoring sounds to me like a great idea, the trick is in making it work. My current experience is so scant that I don't consider myself qualified to judge whether your idea is feasible or not.
I'm unsure if anyone has gotten a gig from writing GC articles? beyond my knowledge.
I think I could credibly argue that I have, as I have gone from that to working on a section of an upcoming product for which I will presumably be paid. How much influence the one had on the other, I am unable to say with any certainty. And in all honesty, I would have no problem with doing more submissions for GC Magazine, knowing it would net me nothing except practice and exposure. Right now, I suspect I need both of those things at least as badly as I need the money. Nonetheless, the problems noted above still exist.
-
I'm not too concerned with tangible rewards for TCG articles. I've only submitted a few, but I've got a couple more pending me coming up with the motivation to finish them up. For me just being able to contribute to a hobby that I have enjoyed for near to three decades is nice.
Even if not many people give any feedback on the articles, I figure there are 20 people who enjoyed it for every one that does give feedback. So if only 2 or 3 people say anything I figure at least 40 or 60 people actually enjoyed it - and that is enough people to make it worth my recreational time.
Now if I could contribute to an actual printed project that would be pretty cool, but even just a free web magazine being interested enough to put my work out there is cool enough to keep me contributing.
Now if there were tangible motivations available I'm sure I would be able to carve out some more time to push my articles out faster but it isn't really my main motivation for writing them.
-
OK, I'll admit that I have been hesitant to provide too much feedback, mainly because I appreciate that people take the time to submit any article and I'd hate to have my negative comments impact their desire to write more - but then again, if non-commenting is yielding the same result I might as well comment.
As most ICE fans are probably aware, I am a HARP fan/contributor. I've only played RM a few times but I found that for me they did not meet up to my HARP experiences. So my comments are really only regarding HARP and HARP SF articles published since Jan 2012.
1 - Clint Fell's article on Power Armor (June 2013) and the Bughunters articles (Jan and Feb 2012) are all great in my opinion. This probably comes from my love of all things Starship Troopers (book, movie, animation, even Mongoose Publishing's RPG products that try to combine them all). The Power Armor is a bit more complex than I would like (I prefer HARP to be simplified whenever possible), but the concepts are great and I can always tweak it.
2 - Jorg's article on Rolemaster Combat for HARP (Nov 2012). I know for many this is likely a great thing, especially considering how HARP Combat was released and then tweaked repeatedly by the folks of Mjolnir. While they may have served some gamers out there, I really prefer to stick to a single system and find the original core version to work for the most part (though I am not a fan of damage caps as they seem to come up a bit too often). Overall a good article, but not for me.
3 - Sam Orton's Bonus Skill Resolution (Dec 2012) is an interesting twist on the rules, but way too much additional complexity for me and I prefer to simply use the Bonus column on the maneuver table applying it for only one related skill (highest bonus).
Reasonably written, but not something I'd ever be interested in using.
All three of you, thanks for contributing to the hobby and the possible enjoyment of the HARP system.
-
I'm pretty sure that if I hadn't written for TGC, I would not have been invited to be part of RMU development. My forum comments were a consideration, too, but the articles showed I could produce finished prose product and I did it reliably over an extended period of time. So Nicholas knew who I was, and I ended up being one of those who went the distance and actually is authoring RMU text.
And that is why I'm not producing anything for the Guild Companion. I had quite a few ideas that would have become articles if not for RMU. Once RMU is done, some of those will probably be resurrected.
When it comes to feedback, could something be done to encourage this? Maybe just a line at the end of each article asking to put your two cents in and a link to the appropriate thread here?
And while it is a bit early to be writing for RMU, there's still room for material based on earlier editions (and things that can be done without mechanics entirely). When the market for RMU support materials does arrive, I expect having some TGC articles to your name would help your proposal get accepted.
-
I want to add that, as a result of my work in the Guild Companion that I've been invited to write, recently, for HARP. So I can support the role it can play.
Likewise, I've been remiss in giving feedback, and should get off my arse and do something about doing so. And thank you, Thom, for your comments.
As for waiting for RMU, I can see arguments both for and against it. For it, it is the next iteration of RM, but against, there are many still playing the older versions. I still have urges to collect everything RM2 and resurrect my house rules. What I can do, tho, is write generic stuff, such as a lot of my magic items, and version-specific items, such as the Psionics articles, and still create a range of options that others can then adapt from, adapt, or riff off as desired.
And it's good, as pyrotech may well back up, to stand back and say with satisfaction "I made this!"
-
I think that The Guild Companion magazine is a great place to officially put your ideas out there for one of the systems that you know isn't going to go in as official. I've contributed a few items, but always declined payment (which allowed me to retain my own rights of usage to the material), not that they would have brought me much anyhow. For example, I tossed in my idea for a "Duelist" using a unique branch off of Bladerunes that I don't ever see going into RM, but there might be a good number of gamers who find it interesting enough to implement.
Also, I don't think lack of large profits for contributing articles is really much of a deterrent for most of us who love the hobby. You don't write for RPG's because you're looking to get rich (and if you are - well, good luck). I do it because if I can help someone else have as much fun as I have playing without much personal investment I'm totally up for it. Do a crapload of work helping rewrite RM? Not for me, not without a nice monetary payoff for the time invested. But contribute a few ideas or articles here and there? Sure, why the heck not. Most of it is rules we've just come up with for use in our group already anyhow. A little polishing and editing and you've got an article.
I've said before, if there were loads of high caliber RPG writers out there I still don't think there'd be room enough for them in such a small industry anyhow. Supply and demand and all that. Also consider that the highly successful game companies often pay less... because people want to work for them. I did for a while and found I could (literally) make twice as much elsewhere. There's a line for all of us between a fun job and a well paying job. The people who get both are lucky. If I could make... say... 75-80% of what I do now working in the RPG industry I'd probably do it. But there are a good number of people with more credentials (although potentially not necessarily better) than I lined up in front of me. Point being, if you think writing is going to get you rich take a look at someone like Michael Stackpole. Great writer (IMO), but not exactly raking in the cash. He's making a living at it, but likely not as good a living as many of us here.
So I say, unless you think you've got the next D&D rolling around in your head and have the commitment to publish it (and be honest with yourself about that), contribute and inspire others the way past articles may have inspired you.
-
Mentoring sounds to me like a great idea, the trick is in making it work. My current experience is so scant that I don't consider myself qualified to judge whether your idea is feasible or not.
+1
-
Cory Magel, you've made strong points there. Not everyone can be, after all, a Monte Cook or Gary Gygax, just as I know that most writers find it bloody difficult making a living from their writing. Those that get the press, the Dan Browns, et al., usually do so at the expense at the quality of their writing. This is why I admire the work of Terry for one thing: he doesn't take the easy, populist route, at the same time as he supports his fan base. That is the sort of writer I want to be.
Can HARP/RM support a paying magazine? I don't know, not at this stage. From what I understand, Dungeon & Dragon both struggled with the advent of online content, and both have now moved to a digital format.
You may pity us poor poets: most of us, if we get paid, it's $1-$5 a poem and/or a copy of the magazine. Heck, a lot of places charge us to submit. And usually most of our income comes from workshops & teaching positions. Yet there are poets that make a living from it, nothing extravagant, but a living nonetheless.
:)
Ciao!
-
If there was a paying magazine with ICE system material in it then both Aurigas Aldebaron (ICE) and GCP would need to dedicate resources to it. We would also need to ensure it resulted in regular delivery of material. I believe everyone would rather see full quality products rather than a regular small magazine product with material that has not been playtested and fails to truly expand the product lines.
-
I make a decent wage outside of gaming so the money is not a huge reason for writing. I will retire from the military in a couple of years and would be interested in getting more involved in the future (more than editing).
As others have said its a foot in the door and perhaps a bit of recognition on the boards is a good thing. Everything I have written I did for me and my players - putting it out in GCM was just icing and to help the magazine out. Putting your name on a product you have played for 3 decades is great. I remember the names when I was a teen and perhaps the next generation will remember mine a bit (immortality - hit your 40s and you will think of it occasionally).
Charles
-
If there was a paying magazine with ICE system material in it then both Aurigas Aldebaron (ICE) and GCP would need to dedicate resources to it. We would also need to ensure it resulted in regular delivery of material. I believe everyone would rather see full quality products rather than a regular small magazine product with material that has not been playtested and fails to truly expand the product lines.
You said it succinctly and straight as, Thom. As it is, it can often seem a struggle to get a good mix of articles for the Guild Companion, precisely for those reasons. One response I'm dedicated to undertaking is maintining, if possible, a batch of submissions for when times are lean, and Peter ends up gnawing his shoe leathers for sustenance, so to speak. That way I can be assured that there's that "regular delivery of material' to which I am helping commit myself to. And I know I'm not the only person out there playing the games that we love.
I was wondering, Thom, how would you and your colleagues in Aurigas help encourage potential contributors to take a punt with the Guild Companion?
-
mistrornge -- I think about immortality a lot, and I doubt I'll get it from biosprogs, so a name in the footnotes of poetry and gaming seems the best option thus far.
All the best with the rest of your tour of duty (if I may so wish).
-
Funny you should ask...
Now I cannot elaborate too much at this time as we are not fully ready to announce it, but we will be doing an overhaul of the Order of the Iron Crown. The OIC began a few years back as fans wanted to put time ans effort into promoting ICE systems and settings. Now Aurigas will be embracing the OIC and will be using our forums, social media and other avenues to acknowledge, recognize and reward fans for their support and contributions. It is one of key projects right now to put the finishing touches on and I hope to complete before the end of summer. I am very excited about this and hope that as more news is shared you will all be as well.
-
One or more TGC articles gives contributors credibility when they turn up in my inbox in answer for a specific call for writers or if they are trying to pitch me a proposal. In some cases, a track record in articles may mean that a request from me arrives in their inbox.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
You've grabbed me by the ears and are shaking my beard till the crumbs fall out, Thom!
I look forward to hearing more over time; feel free to message me if there's any way I may assist you & yr colleagues.
I am now off to dip my head in a bucket of dreams; good night!
-
Point being, if you think writing is going to get you rich take a look at someone like Michael Stackpole. Great writer (IMO), but not exactly raking in the cash. He's making a living at it, but likely not as good a living as many of us here.
If I was able to make a living at it, I wouldn't worry about getting rich, and would count myself as being well ahead of the game. I would have the same opinion of my work that I had back when I was barely making a living as a stagehand:
"It's beautiful, because I don't have to work for a living at all. I play for a living. But since people are paying me for it, I play hard."
Thank you Thom, for your critique. That has always been my frustration with any work whose "success" is defined subjectively by the audience, and yet is not a "performance" so to speak, so you don't get that feedback in real time. How can you improve your craft if you can't find out what you do well and what you do poorly?
:o
I appreciate that people take the time to submit any article and I'd hate to have my negative comments impact their desire to write more...
I can understand that, and I can't speak for anyone but myself in terms of the impact it has... but for myself, I need the negative feedback more than I need the positive. And I can't help feeling that if your ego is too fragile to survive a negative response, whatever could you be thinking doing work that by its very nature cannot be considered "successful" without being judged by hundreds, thousands or even millions of random strangers?
-
This is a small thing, but how about a forum "badge" for Guild Companion authors? Even better would be if it linked to a list of their contributions.
-
You are on the right track....
-
...but for myself, I need the negative feedback more than I need the positive. And I can't help feeling that if your ego is too fragile to survive a negative response, whatever could you be thinking doing work that by its very nature cannot be considered "successful" without being judged by hundreds, thousands or even millions of random strangers?
You know, when the Channeling Companion came out I was actually somewhat disappointed that all the feedback was good (although the praise was more than welcome). Interestingly when I asked for what people felt were 'cons' most of it was stuff we wanted to put in but couldn't due to space restraints or because the current ICE at that time wasn't interested in doing so (we actually had to fight to keep the Priest concept as more than a single Profession template).
If you want to improve upon your work getting feedback on what people didn't like is just as important about what they did like. Just try to be polite about it! ;)
-
I remember when I got feedback on an assignment I did, for a University unit on the Vikings. The unit coordinator made positive remarks, then negative, then back to the positive remarks, and I found the whole an excellent example of the sort of feedback that you mean, Mr Magel. :)
-
There's an important distinction in there I perhaps failed to make clear:
...but for myself, I need the negative feedback more than I need the positive.
To be sure, I appreciate the positive feedback more than the negative... but for purposes of making sure the next piece of work is an improvement over the present one, I need the negative feedback more than the positive.
-
There's an important distinction in there I perhaps failed to make clear:
...but for myself, I need the negative feedback more than I need the positive.
To be sure, I appreciate the positive feedback more than the negative... but for purposes of making sure the next piece of work is an improvement over the present one, I need the negative feedback more than the positive.
It's no different with my illustrations. I'm lucky though, as my wife is pretty harsh and brutal at times with her criticism which drives me to improve. It's always good to hear the positive but as long as they're not just saying it to be kind.
I can understand it would be a lot harder for an author to get feedback because of the time needed to invest just reading it. Why don't you guys form some kind of reading group to help each other out. You could even do this through Skype.
All that's needed is a sort of NDA that covers everyone that participates and your pretty much good to go. Anyway, that's just a suggestion.
-
It's no different with my illustrations.
I still say that pixie girl you did a couple of years back would look better in insect colors. Pastel shades for the body, full color for the wings. ;)
Just because I don't know anything about art doesn't stop me from being opinionated. ;D
-
Hehe, that's right, you don't have to know about art to know if something is wrong.
You know it's funny you mentioning about that pixie girl I did, I've been thinking on doing another one.
I've always remembered your comments about it too, so I'll take that into consideration when it comes to her
colours and markings. And I'll do a better job at attaching the wings to the body...I know that was you and I think Marc that pointed it out.
-
There's an important distinction in there I perhaps failed to make clear:
...but for myself, I need the negative feedback more than I need the positive.
To be sure, I appreciate the positive feedback more than the negative... but for purposes of making sure the next piece of work is an improvement over the present one, I need the negative feedback more than the positive.
Personally, rather than calling it negative feedback, I'd say what you need is directed, constructive feedback. Negative feedback, to me is saying something like "this element doesn't work." Constructive negative feedback is then "this doesn't work because...." Directed constructive feedback is more "this works & that doesn't work, and you could make these better by...." You need to know, and we all need to know, what works, what doesn't, and how to improve, three elements rather than just the one, especially given the subjectivity of all three items.
How do you feel about what I have just written?
-
I feel like I want the advice, but at the same time I won't find out how to be good in my own style unless and until I do what I think works and you and others like it, rather than doing what you think works. Training wheels help you learn to ride, but you're not actually riding the bike yourself until you take the training wheels off, if that makes sense. To me, the main advantage of "this doesn't work because...." is that it helps you to not repeat mistakes that were old and worn out when Chaucer was in diapers.
You can be told why things work the way they do, and that may be helpful, but nonetheless, you've just been told, that's not the same as having learned it. If you found it yourself, hopefully without having to get bitten by your own ignorance first... well now you know it, and you'll never forget it.
-
I get what you're saying: you need that chance to work it out because that's the way you learn and retain the message. That's cool.
I'm sure we're also aware that not only are there many ways to learn, there are also many ways to convey what's needed to learn. So, I expect, what's best is if we writers were explicit about what we need at the time. How does this sound to you?
Which reminds me: what would you like feedback about, at the time of writing?
-
Which reminds me: what would you like feedback about, at the time of writing?
Thank you for that question. I won't claim I'm any closer to a real, simple answer than I was when you asked it, but it forced me to at least try to clarify my thinking on the subject.
"At the time of writing" or not doesn't make any difference to me. I mean yes, I'd rather have constructive criticism before publication than after, but what gives the critique value is still the same, before or after.
If I write something, or perform something, or draw something, it is a personal communication between me and the reader (audience, whatever). If a million people read it, it's still a personal and subjective communication, no two of them take away precisely the same thing for precisely the same reasons. It's easy enough for me to see what I was doing on my end of that communication, but I cannot ever have a sure way to see what came out the other end, because I can't see into people's heads. The critique of a reader, any reader, is of value in that it gives me a (foggy) look into the relationship between what I said and what they heard. The critique of someone whose experience and knowledge is such that they've faced the same problem before that I am facing now is, of course, of higher value. They can more clearly articulate what they're getting from the work, thus "clearing the fog" somewhat. Nonetheless, even if I'm being critiqued by Shakespeare's ghost, he's still only one reader, so what comes out of the other end of the communication stream is still going to be different for everyone else than it was for him.
So... for me the goal of a critique, whether I'm giving it or getting it, is what I (as audience) "heard" from the artist's work, what I suspect he was actually trying to "say," what made me think there was a difference between the two and how I would have "said it differently" had it been me (assuming I think I could have done better.) The more clearly I can articulate those things, the more value my critique has. Nonetheless, I also know that it's "just another one on the pile," and "the pile" is the size of the artist's entire audience.
I'm assuming that there is always a difference between what the audience experienced and the experience the artist was trying to convey, and that the more astute members of the audience will be able to spot it, even if they can't positively identify it. Some artists and some works are so perfect that the above doesn't apply, but most don't live long enough to be able to count on that degree of skill every time. I don't expect to, but that won't stop me from trying.
-
Been quite on this up till now. But I agree that TGC is a great way to get your name out there and try your hand (and get "constructive criticism" on that work).
Having done some writing in the early years and in recent years having done some editing for TGC has been helpful for me. With a couple of modules published electronically (first through TGC when Nicholas was running and now by GCP once he stepped down from TGC and took up the reigns at GCP/ICE) it was a very good experiences for me. Especially with Nicholas being patient with me and pointing out a lot of issues, that I've since made an active effort to improve (although I still have a long ways to go). As frankly my writing used to royally suck rotten eggs, now it just kind of sucks, but it has improved dramatically over the last decade or so.
As stated by Nicholas, having small articles published in TGC is helpful when it comes to him evaluating proposals. As had I not written those early articles, then my proposals for the small modules probably never would have seen the light of day, which means that my current larger project probably wouldn't have even been considered by him.
And while I've not made very much on the RPG writing I've done, it has been enjoyable and provides me with a sense of pride that others have used the ideas and concepts (as mentioned by others in this thread). It has also helped me to improve my writing well enough that it has helped my "day job" (which a small part of that job is writing technical papers that are published internal to my employer and may be referenced by others for decades into the future) and has helped me to receive a promotion a couple of years ago and is helping to set me up for the next promotion level (which very few people in my job family with my employer ever get to).
But as can be seen here, one of my writing flaws (that still needs work) is that I tend to ramble on or over-explain things...
But in short (okay, not so short...), yes anything to help with our volume of submissions is a good thing, and as Thom pointed out, ICE and other gaming companies have tried in the past to publish professional RPG related magazines. However they tend to struggle to break even, and with the system we have in place with The GuildCompanion.com, that isn't an issue. We operate totally via volunteerism (authors, artists, editors, web-mastering, and web-hosting).
Hopefully Peter and the rest of us will be able to continue to find the time to support this great hobby and the fans will continue to contribute articles that help to support our readers.
-
Thank you, Wolfhound! You make many valid points, ones which I also hold, and you rambled less than you feared you did. I'd love to ask you, given your experience both as a writer for and staff member of the Guild Companion, how would you encourage both beginning authors and more experienced authors to both submit and keep submitting?
And I hope you don't mind if I throw another question into the mix: one way of stating the 80:20 rule is that 80% of the product (ie. Guild Companion articles) will be written by 20% of the authors. How would you encourage writers who would be in that 80% to become part of the 20%?
-
Not sure on the first question, as for the 2-3 months after Nicholas stepped down and until Peter had the time to dedicate to it, I was acting as the General Editor (glad Peter was willing, as I think he does a better job than I did in that role) and would frequently include mention that we are always looking for submissions, but over that time we didn't get very many. But that is something that I think even Nicholas was struggling with for the last year or so that he was the General Editor, was the decreasing rate of submissions.
About the only thing I can say in regards the second question is that we very rarely turn anything away, so if you have an idea or some info that you think others might be interested in, please submit it. Sometimes things need to go through multiple rounds of editing to make them useable, but we are nearly always willing to work with such authors to get their submissions to a publishable point. And as others have pointed out, it is a great way to improve the quality of your writing. All it takes is to take some time to write your ideas up, and at the minimum people will come to recognize you as a contributor to the hobby we all enjoy and at the most you could end up being able to get more involved in producing commercial works that do have the potential to pay (at least a small amount, although as others have stated, don't plan on getting rich from it).
Unfortunately, all of the discussion so far (I think anyways) has been from people who have been active writers, at least at the GuildCompanion.com level or in some cases even at the ICE commercial level. Hopefully some potentially new people will see this thread and consider submitting articles. We do still have a fair number of readers, so it is a good way to get your ideas out there.
-
But as can be seen here, one of my writing flaws (that still needs work) is that I tend to ramble on or over-explain things...
You're a writer, that's all that you need to say to explain that. :)
-
I think the GCM can benefit from a comment section below the article and maybe a +1/ like button. If people can give feedback right away, I think it might be forthcoming.
With my armor article I went to the forums and specifically asked people to take a look and give comments. That got me some reasonable feedback; all of it valid and useful.
Also a search function; where you type in something like "potion", or "armor" and all the potion articles come rolling out; would be useful.
I like the idea of a place where all the free articles on a game system are collected. Makes for additional value on the systems of the company. As a Dutchie I love my free stuff and it is a kind of trade...
Also I think that publishing something in GCM can brand the idea as yours. Might be pretty important when you want to get in to a copyrighted branch of work. Ideas are worth money and people can now use your idea but can't claim it as their own.
-
G'day, Vlad!
One of the problems of a comment section directly attached to the magazine &/or articles, is that it needs to be moderated so that spam &/or trolling doesn't creep in. A +1/like button doesn't allow the "negative" feedback needed (see above). We need to know what can be done better, not just if a reader likes the article.
There are options: 1) a link to a feedback form set up so bots can't spam; 2) an address or addresses for sending feedback (perhaps linked to a correspondence column in the magazine.
There is a search function; I use it frequently enough. It is, from memory, linked in the links of the left-hand column.
-
This is a small thing, but how about a forum "badge" for Guild Companion authors? Even better would be if it linked to a list of their contributions.
Is there a forum badge for authors in general (past, present or future)?
-
Authors? Not really... anyone who authored, edited, illustrated, did layout or even playtested for ICE is welcome to state that in their sig - however, in the next couple of weeks (assuming we are able to finalize everything) we will be announcing the new OIC and all the benefits involved and that will include greater use of the awards....
If you haven't noticed yet, check out the profile for VladD (and others) where they are now showing a Rolemaster 30th Anniversary Contest award banner. Much more to come...
-
... If you haven't noticed yet, check out the profile for VladD (and others) where they are now showing a Rolemaster 30th Anniversary Contest award banner. Much more to come...
Yeah saw that. Waiting eagerly for the next set of results. :)
-
Yay - it's using the bloody sword version (my favourite)!! :D
-
Excitable boy.... :)
-
Those award things are really nice!
-
One of the problems of a comment section directly attached to the magazine &/or articles, is that it needs to be moderated so that spam &/or trolling doesn't creep in.
Sounds like it needs a way for the author of the article to moderate that article's comments section. If he cares about the feedback, he'll do the work. If he doesn't, he'll disable commenting.
2) an address or addresses for sending feedback (perhaps linked to a correspondence column in the magazine.
That could work as above, but communication changes from public to private. I can't articulate why exactly, but I think you'll get better results if the feedback is public.
-
Perhaps an alternative would be a link at the end of each article, "discuss this article", that takes the reader to a thread on the forum? Having the discussion on the forum makes it much easier to follow than if you need to constantly go back to the article to check for replies.
-
Just be careful about the Chicken or the egg aspect...
If you post the article before the forum post is created you'll need to go back and add that link to the article.
If you post the forum post first then you'll need to go back and update with a link to the article.
Also, I am assuming you are talking about these ICE forums, and since The Guild Companion is not connected to ICE (though we do appreciate it) an article about a different system really shouldn't be discussed here on the ICE forums. If you are referring to The Guild Companion forums (not sure that they are still active) then you will likely reduce feedback because users won't necessarily want to create new forum logon's just to provide feedback.
-
You are correct, the GuildCompanion.com forums are no longer active. Any other (non ICE systems) should have threads for discussion started on the http://www.realroleplaying.com/rmsmf/index.php?www forums (http://www.realroleplaying.com/rmsmf/index.php?www forums) ), as they have allowed us to have a similar thread there for discussion of both ICE as well as other (although they prefer avoiding the d20 based systems) RPG systems.
But for ICE based games (Rolemaster/HARP/Spacemaster/etc.) should be discussed here, as the volume of ICE fans are obviously greater on the ICE forums that through the RealRolePlaying forums.
-
As far as I'm concerned, aside from pure laziness and lack of motivation (foremost the latter but…), my main problem with submitting anything is the eternal question of whether what one soever submits and on which one spent hours would be of any interest to anyone as, in the end, it was probably developed for one's own world, settings and campaign.
My second problem is with copyrights, as my main contributions would be new professions (doh!), many using spells thus having base lists. Alas, whilst I use public-domain lists (such as some posted in the RM mailing-list… decades ago), I'm not really sure posting them in the GC is legal (as for tracking the spell list creators… I have lists dating from the late 90s!).
Even the lists I created myself would be a bother, since they're written in my world's units (time and length) though it's kinda minor compared to the previous ones.
-
OLF,
I worried about similar issues (personal campaign content not being usuable) but Nicholas and I were able to develop what was originally a setting out of my homebrew campaign into a Cyradon setting and scenario. So I'd encourage sending outlines/proposals to ICE/GC (if they don't mind) and see what they think.
Regards,
OM
-
FYI, doing what Old Man suggests also gives them a good idea if they think you are suitable for future projects offers they could potentially extend to you.
-
...many using spells thus having base lists. Alas, whilst I use public-domain lists (such as some posted in the RM mailing-list… decades ago), I'm not really sure posting them in the GC is legal (as for tracking the spell list creators… I have lists dating from the late 90s!). Even the lists I created myself would be a bother, since they're written in my world's units (time and length) though it's kinda minor compared to the previous ones.
Obviously the powers that be have final say, but... Spell lists are not that big a deal in my own personal opinion. So many of RM's work is at least partially rehashed from previous versions but with enough modification that there's little room to claim they were 'stolen'. MUCH of the time a spell list is just a remixing of spells from other lists that are inherent to all versions of RM. While there are very few of the Channeling Companion spell lists that are a direct pull from the past I am sure there are several that are very similar to old ones.
-
What about creations adapted from other public sources such as this list (http://www.gwathyr.net/guest/Klaus%20Kustard%20Komprehensive%20Kontrol.pdf)?
-
That is your own list and does not appear to be a representation of anything ICE ever published. The fact that it uses the Spell List concept is fine, provided you don't create an rpg based on that and sell the material (which may or may not be legitimate).
If someone wanted to post a new profession simply list the spell lists that you are using by name (without detailing the spells on them) for ICE spell lists.
If you are creating new spell lists you are fine, provided you are not selling it.
-
That is your own list…
Or not. By "other public sources", I meant that some of the spells are RM2 adaptations of fan-created spells for other game systems.
-
It's pretty difficult to come up with original spells that can't be at least claimed to be influenced from other works. Obvious examples would be Fly and Haste. No one can realistically claim ownership of those concepts. I would be like claiming a copy-write on elves. Additionally even the details of those spells, meaning how they work, can only be so varied. You can say Invisibility bends light around you, or causes light to go right through you, or even merely creates the illusion that an object is not there... but those are fairly logical ideas that many people would come up with.
So I see little chance that a spell list you put together, unless it is a direct and exact copy of another, is going to be legally problematic. I've redone a lot of RM2 lists simply so they would be more balanced in our RMSS games and, while I've never looked into publishing them, having reworked some of the details of the spells and moving them around for balance reasons is 'good enough' to call them 'new' I suspect.
Take a look at the Warlock in the Channeling Companion. While there are differences this is essentially an update to the old Warlock. It's not exactly the same, but it's obvious that's what it is based on. Even the Mythic and Summoner, which were relatively original, could be (likely legitimately) compared to old RM professions.
-
G'day,
I'd just like to mention that there is an excellent lack of atrocious writing on these threads. Seriously. I get that a lot of you have been writing for gaming materials and tech journals and so on... But guys... You lot have some game (so to speak). :)
I've spent most of the last decade with part of my job being editing and mentoring writers and students. The usual suspects here have a well above average ability to engage and communicate.
If any of you have something that you want critiqued; let me know. It's a happy distraction from my 9 to 5.
I will tell you exactly what I see when I read your piece. I won't sugar coat it, but I won't denigrate it, either.
I can't really offer useful commentary on game mechanics - my own biases are too entrenched. I think I can help with style, novel craft, plotting, non fiction engagement, that kind of thing.
Cheers,
Badger
-
You never know, Badger, I might take you up on the offer. :)
Have you thought of contributing material at all? If so, what sort of material would potentially interest you?
-
It always drives me nuts when I type "Through" instead of "Thought" and stuff like that. I think it comes from typing quicker than I'm thinking at certain times. ;)
-
I can't really offer useful commentary on game mechanics - my own biases are too entrenched.
I don't see why that's a problem, so long as you have a conscious reason to preserve your bias. As an example, I tend to be more than a bit "anti-heroic." I think if an RPG has humans as a character race and magic in the game mechanics (that said humans can potentially use), then your magic mechanics aren't truly "right" unless they are so clear and so grounded in the real world that you could imagine seeing a "THAU 131: Introduction to Thaumatology" listing in a university course catalog.
Obviously, people who prefer high fantasy aren't going to be interested in anything I come up with in terms of magic. Fine and good, but if make my biases and the reasoning behind them clear at the outset, they can ignore it and go on to something that interests them, without feeling like I wasted their time. As such, I can even gain "goodwill points" from someone who firmly believes "I'm doing it wrong." And on the other hand, those who are "simulationist" in their views about RPGs find out early on that I'm not going to lead them through an explanation and yet still leave them with something as unsatisfactory as "I ate a berry and it un-broke my arm.... it doesn't have to make any sense, it's magic."
In short, people's tastes in what they expect from their RPGs are such a broad range that regardless of what your biases are, chances are very good that there is someone out there who largely shares them. There is likely even someone out there who not only shares them but will thank you for being able to articulate the reasoning behind those biases better than they ever managed to do.
-
Word, Mister Fart!
And I can emphasise that the system is flexible enough to handle the range of views and biases that we bring to it. One of my clear biases is an emphasis on cultural elements rather than biological ones, so that most changes in magic use can be considered the outcome of a set of cultures & subcultures than the "physical nature" of magic. There are occasions where I work otherwise.
-
GM's can alter the commonness of magic by simply making the in-game learning of it easier or harder regardless of the actual DP cost mechanism built into professions. There's a lot of stuff that the GM can bend to their will, the GM just needs to experienced required to come to that conclusion.
-
GM's can alter the commonness of magic by simply making the in-game learning of it easier or harder regardless of the actual DP cost mechanism built into professions. There's a lot of stuff that the GM can bend to their will, the GM just needs to experienced required to come to that conclusion.
As a GM, I find the hardest part (mentioned earlier in this thread or elsewhere) is the intersection of magic and society - after figuring out how many casters (or caster capable folk) exist and how long magic has existed, how to determine how magic moulds societal development. (Especially toward Healing and Item Creation and to a lesser extent Divination, Summoning, Transport, etc.) Do you think we, as setting authors, are doing a good job showing that intersection?
-
Do you think we, as setting authors, are doing a good job showing that intersection?
Well, my answer depends largely on if the gamer wants that dictated to them.
If it's an official setting and there's an official 'level of magic' in the setting then I understand defining that relationship in the product. Some or even many GM's might want to change that relationship and, while you can't let that derail your own creative process (because there's no way for you to cater to them all), it would be a good thing if you made the predetermined theory ignorable. I wouldn't concern yourself overly with it however.
Using me as the example... In my 'little world' magical ability is technically fairly common, but not believed to be so. The local 'healer' (generic term, not the profession - well, maybe) may not even realize themselves that they are using magic to make people better. The social outlook of magic depends a bit on how worldly the local population is. Huge city? Magic is likely accepted as real but still looked at with a bit of awe. Tiny hamlet in the country? It's possible a large display of magic would either clear the town (due to fear) or create a lynch mob.
But, that's MY setting. Am I going to buy materials intended for other settings? My answer to that is yes, so I can pull elements that are usable in my setting. But, from my perspective, I don't think that you should be concerned with how you explain magic.
However
-
As a GM, I find the hardest part (mentioned earlier in this thread or elsewhere) is the intersection of magic and society - after figuring out how many casters (or caster capable folk) exist and how long magic has existed, how to determine how magic moulds societal development. (Especially toward Healing and Item Creation and to a lesser extent Divination, Summoning, Transport, etc.) Do you think we, as setting authors, are doing a good job showing that intersection?
I would have to say no.
Even with my favorite "regular" fantasy setting, Shadow World, there is some question about this. When reading the setting material, I get the impression that magic is very common and can be very powerful. To the point where the common villager sees some at least on a weekly basis if not several times a week, and town or city folk likely see magic every day, sometimes several times per day. But, I have heard others mention the opposite sentiment, or at least they feel there is a much lower amount of magic than what I believe.
Of course, in a basic rulebook sans setting, enforcing a specific level of magic is unnecessary. Now, putting in a variety of magic levels and how that might work out is a good idea. Really anything to help GMs, both new and us old grognards, is a good idea.
-
I would have to say no.
Even with my favorite "regular" fantasy setting, Shadow World, there is some question about this. When reading the setting material, I get the impression that magic is very common and can be very powerful. To the point where the common villager sees some at least on a weekly basis if not several times a week, and town or city folk likely see magic every day, sometimes several times per day. But, I have heard others mention the opposite sentiment, or at least they feel there is a much lower amount of magic than what I believe.
Of course, in a basic rulebook sans setting, enforcing a specific level of magic is unnecessary. Now, putting in a variety of magic levels and how that might work out is a good idea. Really anything to help GMs, both new and us old grognards, is a good idea.
The Power Level discussion touched on this to a degree, but it could stand to be amplified (and that might make a good section for a GM Companion should one be written). Tables and such are nice, but it's also helpful if there's some explanation of the logic behind the tables and the social assumptions of the setting that make the logic work. For example, in my world magic isn't uncommon, but it's also not all over the place. This is based on the setting history and an event that makes the current gods retain a very close hold on the flow of magic. I never used essence flows, but rather allow the various gods to control access to that power. The defining event also changed the genetic structure of most of the human races, making them less able to access magic power.
These are all things that can be taken into account and explained in a good integrated Power Level system.
-
Would such a discussion be something that should appear once or, more ideally, with each setting or significant setting? Would be better fitting something like a Gamemaster Companion, that is, 'the' core book of the system, or something more introductory, something more attuned to 'these are ways of becoming not only an RM GM, but a great RM GM'?
-
Would such a discussion be something that should appear once or, more ideally, with each setting or significant setting? Would be better fitting something like a Gamemaster Companion, that is, 'the' core book of the system, or something more introductory, something more attuned to 'these are ways of becoming not only an RM GM, but a great RM GM'?
I think you could discuss power levels and setting design in one location (GM Companion) and then have a short rehash of the ideas in a setting book or possibly each adventure. With a system as flexible as RM, I think it's a good idea to have some supporting material out there (actually a fair amount) so that new groups don't have a bad experience with an inexperienced GM and get turned off the rules, or so that new GM could actually pick up the Companion and see how he or she can make the rules work with a particular campaign idea.
-
I was thinking perhaps a GM Companion could have 4+ examples - perhaps the basic "4 corners" society examples:
Low Magic + Low % of Magic capable population
High Magic + Low % of Magic capable population
Low Magic + High % of Magic capable population
High Magic + High % of Magic capable population
-
So a revival or an update of the much-beloved Campaign Law? I'm tempted, and I think I mentioned it to Badger, to attempt something like a Rolemaster for Dummies that would cover how to be a great player &/or GM. It's something I would have loved as a neophyte, especially if it conveys the feeling of freedom the system inspired in me when I first played it.
-
Would such a discussion be something that should appear once or, more ideally, with each setting or significant setting? Would be better fitting something like a Gamemaster Companion, that is, 'the' core book of the system, or something more introductory, something more attuned to 'these are ways of becoming not only an RM GM, but a great RM GM'?
No matter what, each setting should have magic explained in detail as it pertains to that setting. This is so a GM knows how the magic affects the setting and those within.
In the corebook, a quick (2 -3 paragraph) discourse is all that is needed, with some general examples of what each of the magic levels might mean as it pertains to the spell lists and access to them. Using an RMSS/FRP example: in a setting where magic is not only rare but hard to learn/perform, all magic skills including spell lists might be restricted, meaning you have to pay for 2 to get one rank; the opposite could be true for a setting with very common magic. But only quick, generic methods, nothing very detailed.
The Gamemaster Law book should have a more detailed explanation, including more detailed rules/guidelines on how to handle the different levels of magic, including the variances noted in OMs post above(#68). That book should be the one to tell you how to utilize the RM rule set to build your own setting, as well general GM tips and tricks on running a game.
-
So a revival or an update of the much-beloved Campaign Law? I'm tempted, and I think I mentioned it to Badger, to attempt something like a Rolemaster for Dummies that would cover how to be a great player &/or GM. It's something I would have loved as a neophyte, especially if it conveys the feeling of freedom the system inspired in me when I first played it.
I think something like this is sorely needed, honestly. I've spent most of my Rolemaster GM career introducing new players to the game (often people who've never played an RPG before), and it's way too easy for people to get lost in the flexibility of the rules. There are so many possibilities with RM that there needs to be an "owner's manual" of sorts with the rules. This is especially true due to RM's lack of a codified "starting setting." Shadow World, as has been discussed before, isn't really that (and isn't intended to be one as far as I know), so it's even more important to provide some guidance and navigational aids (since that's often provided by a starter setting).
-
Or a Pazio Pathfinder Beginner's Box equivalent ...
-
Yes explaining just how magic works in your game is very important as well as trying to ground players in just how RM is the same or different from games they have played before.
MDC
-
In RMU, it might be worth adding a few paragraphs in section 3.1 of Spell Law, which has the rules about spell availability. Discuss how the different availability settings will affect how common magic is and how people are likely to view it.
-
I miss being able to give idea points, jdale, because you would have earned one right there. Why not bring it up in the relevant sub-forum of the playtest area? Thank you!
-
I'm making a new thread elsewhere, about the Rolemaster for Dummies idea, as I want to post a poll. The thread is here:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=13693.new#new (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=13693.new#new)
-
There are a few reasons why I haven't contributed to the Guild Companion recently, or in fact posted to these forums. It wasn't really lack of feedback, I often didn't get direct feedback but my articles often got mentioned as references in postings.
One major reason was the flux in the game systems, HARP being revamped and RMU still in a beta state. I started a few articles that I ended up just sitting on because I didn't know if they would be relevant to the new versions.
Another major reason is that I'm just not playing HARP or Rolemaster anymore. My ICE players have scattered to various corners of the globe and the group I play with now prefers Pathfinder, so I've been playing that.
I've also moved more towards board games which can be picked up quickly and don't need an ongoing commitment.
There are a few projects that I might tackle at some point. I've often thought about revisiting my "Selkie's Secret" adventure that was in "Guild Adventurer 2" and adding stats for Rolemaster as well as fleshing out some of the PCs and maybe adding some additional descriptive text. Mind you, it was already a double sized article so I'm not sure expanding it would be such a great idea :)
I also had some thoughts on revisiting and updating some of my older articles once the new systems are solid and in place.
The other possibility would be doing some articles on converting from RMSS/RMFRP to RMU or RM2 to RMU, but again I want to wait for the final RMU products.
In the mean time, I'm going to work on a Battlestar Galactica game using D6 and maybe integrate it into a version of X-Wing Miniatures for the space combat system. Likely not anything I could ever publish anywhere. 8)
-
I have tried to let you know that I have things that I'd like to contribute if you wanted them.
Can you please let me know if you are interested please? Then I can provide samples.