Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: nash on January 15, 2023, 11:47:31 AM
-
My biggest RMU complaint is that I can't play it with just the Core book.
What is annoying is it is pretty easy to fix; Add some monster stat blocks to the end of the book. Then you can slap together some martial only characters and at least play a simple adventure. Having to purchase multiple books to even start a game is a massive discouragement.
Some other example;
Truncheons & Flagons has pretty much all you need in the core book; there is an appendix with a few pages of monsters. HARP nailed it - everything in the core book you needed, just extra stuff later to expand the game. RMSS pretty much had the same problem, although it did have the NPC stat blocks there.
Hence how much effort would be to at least put a table with some monster / enemy stats at the back of the book? Twenty single line descriptions of some common low level monsters would be great.
My other suggestion would be to add a few spell lists to something like 5th level at the back. Just 3 open essence, 3 magician base, 3 open channeling and 3 cleric base (spell lists picked to not need much extra rules). I say ignore mentalism and most other classes just to make it super simple. This is a dozen lists to 5th level - 60 off spells in total - should be able to get that in 3 or 4 pages. However this is not as important as getting the monsters there however.
This is not a big deal for experienced players I know - I can grab my (28 year!) old Creatures and Monsters and use them with some simple adjustments to AT mostly.
Otherwise RMU looks pretty good and pretty polished compared to previous editions. The presentation is generally good, it's mostly clear. My next biggest issue is that Shock bolt needs to use Lightning bolt so I need to do a whole heap of division when players use the most common low level ranged spell attack. Can we change Small to Miniscule please?
-
>Can we change Small to Miniscule please?
That's being done, it will be in the PDF when it is updated.
We're way past the point to add significant amounts of content though. I think what you are looking for is more of a quick start book and that is something we discussed doing in some form after the rules were finalized and released.
-
WRT to monsters; Maybe a free 2-4 page PDF with a list of monster stats and the icons? If you can bundle it with RMU all good - but a free download on drivethru would be amazing.
Else the only enemies are what a GM makes themselves.
-
I fell into a similar trap in expectations for the product. I’m over that illusion at this point. RMU, whether intentional or not, is a product aimed at the Rolemaster diehards. It’s not really designed to be a new start to an old game, just kind of a compilation and clean up of Rolemaster house rules. Now I may be being slightly unfair, but that definitely is the way it feels.
Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s some good work that was done in cleaning the rules up but that’s pretty much all there is. In the meantime, within the past 2.5 years Against the Darkmaster was released with what are simply cleaned up MERP rules, everything in one book, 3 adventures and an official/unofficial 3rd party product that significantly expands both the spells and “professions”/vocations.
Side by side, the overall rules for both games could be interchangeable. Except that AvD has released significantly more material and are working on a full on campaign and the 3rd party is putting out 3 additional adventures which are to form a campaign.
The fact that RMU was released without some very necessary and simple additions that would make it a completed product is pretty inexplicable, unless of course the purpose was never to expand the player base and compete in the RPG fantasy game market.
Just a couple things that could be done to remedy the basic issues.
1) faster release schedule. The glacial pace at which ICE will release products will do them no favors in picking up new players and actually hurts them with current players. If I can’t switch my current campaign over to the new system, what’s my incentive to do so. I may as well just stick to RMSS or RM1/2/classic, at least it’s supported and the materials are already done.
2) set forth a clear set of product releases. The members of this forum ie die hard RM players may know all the stuff for RM must someone that’s coming back to the game after years or new to it would be clueless to what’s coming and some idea when.
3) hurriedly support your existing game world or make another. Nowadays, few people pick up an RPG and think “man, I can’t wait to do a bunch of conversion work”. What’s more common is “cool game and setting, I can’t wait to do a deep delve and run the adventures they put out and maybe add some of my own”. The fact that ICE has a setting with 100s of pages in materials that could be reprinted, cleaned up and RMU converted along with their product and failed to do so is business malpractice. That EMER, Sel-Kai or Jaiman wasn’t converted and released with RMU stat lines at a minimum is incomprehensible.
4) offer a free QuickStart with a simple adventure, some spells and few premades which could introduce people to the game, that’s almost a standard for almost every game that exists.
5) a website. The worst of games have one of those to promote their crummy game, RMU/ICE needs a real one to push their game.
I’m sure I could come up with about 50 more points but I suspect it’ll fall on deaf ears. The smallest of companies are getting this right.
-
interesting that the moderator made changes to my post. LOL
-
interesting that the moderator made changes to my post. LOL
The "moderator" in this case being automated forum software.
-
My biggest RMU complaint is that I can't play it with just the Core book.
Unless I'm crazy (entirely possible) you couldn't with RMSS either. There was just no way to put Spell Lists, Attack and Crit Tables into a book of core rules. The thing would have been impossibly massive.
-
RMFRP managed it by having a subset of professions, races, spells, and attack tables. It made for a better introductory product but a worse reference book once you were actually in play, and you had to essentially purchase all that content twice once you wanted everything. I don't think it's optimal. There's still definitely a place for something to serve as a convenient entry point but I don't think that should replace the core rules.
-
RMFRP managed it by having a subset of professions, races, spells, and attack tables.
RMSS was probably the worst as far as how much you needed to play.
My point however is that that RMU Core has almost everything you need to play a non-spell using game. You just need a few monsters. Like a couple of pages worth and it is a playable game in one book.
Having Arms Law in the same book as Character Law is a great step forward. And just a few enemies, and we can start hunting rats in the tavern basement or something.
-
On the other hand, even RM1 was split into three books (Character Law & Campaign Law, Arms Law & Claw Law, Spell Law). But it was sold in a single box, which also happened to include an adventure module, Vog Mur. A complete package.
The various editions of D&D also have three main books, but the PH includes everything needed to create and play characters, including magic.
RM2 inflated the word count of the rule books. RMSS did it again in a fairly major way.
And I really, really think that the core of the RM system should have been trimmed down. Have the character law contain everything that allows players to create and play characters - same content as the PH, with a similar page count. Which means marking a significant number of subsystems as options and pushing them back into a companion or something.
Basically, RM1 offered more in 100 pages than RMU does with a full book. Less precise, more prone to interpretation and misunderstanding, but you could grab it and play, and worry about the finer print later.
-
There's a tension between concise rules and providing the GM with a way to handle a given circumstance. Over the whole playtest period, there have been lots of requests to make rules more specific and more clear, or to cover situations that weren't previously covered, and virtually none for taking out rules that cover situations and leaving it to the GM to decide.
-
The need for more and more rules usually means
1) the games is placing realism over fun
2) the rules are too complex overall
3) the game is missing a general resolution mechanic that resolves 99% of situations.
Our group over the 35 years of gaming have likely played over 100 different games, even if some were just a quick test. The games that provide the best play experience lack unnecessary complexity and a need to cover every possible situation.
The best games have
1) fast combat
2) enough skills to generally represent most things players need to cover
3) centralized mechanics for near all situations
4) as few exceptions to the general rules as possible.
5) support materials for running a game within the game world that shows
Simple is nearly always better. If you can’t make a rule concise in an RPG, the rule is doing something it shouldn’t.
-
There's a tension between concise rules and providing the GM with a way to handle a given circumstance. Over the whole playtest period, there have been lots of requests to make rules more specific and more clear, or to cover situations that weren't previously covered, and virtually none for taking out rules that cover situations and leaving it to the GM to decide.
I acknowledge the tension you speak of, but I'm not sure the playtest is a good indication of what should be done. Playtest is typically realised by people who already know either the designers themselves (alpha testing) or previous iterations of the game and are already fairly hardcore fans (beta testing). There is a strong risk that any beta testing will end up emphasising both the qualities and the flaws of any given game system if it is an iteration (compared to a new game).
In addition, beta testing, especially over the time RMU has been in beta, is a lengthy process during which people have a long time to actually read and understand the rules before using them, whereas people who simply buy the game expect to be able to use it quickly. My comment was only highlighting the fact that RMU, like most previous iterations of RM, is not designed to be used quickly and not designed to be memorised easily either.
But in any case, there are ways to make rules more concise that can be done even in that kind of games, such as standardising the action modifiers, standardising combat results, reducing the number of skills by making sure each of them covers a well-defined, but wide enough range of applications and avoiding niche skills like the plague, and so on. RM will always have a load of reference pages as long as the spells are presented in list format and the combat is resolved with individual weapons and critical tables - there's just no way around it. You can reduce the number of weapons in the core book, but beyond that, you are basically stuck with reducing the word count of the rules themselves.
Oh well. I guess it's easy for me to say - I don't design games, after all, I merely hack them for my own enjoyment :)
-
I think part of the problem is simply the nature of playtesting.
In a normal game, the GM is the final authority. Whatever answer he comes up with, that's the final answer, no matter how squirrely that answer may be. This puts the burden squarely on the GM to come up with some answer, and make it the best answer he can.
In a playtest, he can yell for help to someone above him. Therefore he does. I suspect some things that should have been "GM discretion" weren't simply because it was a playtest. That's a trap that the designers have to watch out for.
-
I would suggest that a free sample PDF (4-5 pages) be made available with a selection of low-level "basic" monsters and some common low-level spells on it be made available, ASAP.
It does seem to be an issue that is likely to turn people off, at least the impatient ones.
That shouldn't disrupt the printing scedule, cost virtually nothing (in fact I expect some forum members might like to do it...)
-
I would suggest that a free sample PDF (4-5 pages) be made available with a selection of low-level "basic" monsters and some common low-level spells on it be made available, ASAP.
It does seem to be an issue that is likely to turn people off, at least the impatient ones.
That shouldn't disrupt the printing scedule, cost virtually nothing (in fact I expect some forum members might like to do it...)
Impatient people have the excellent option to download the free beta versions, until the PDFs are ready on drivethrurpg
-
Well, I'm pretty sure that if anyone is willing to produce for free (or so…) a simple, 4-5 pages, adventure for RMU, the ICE team would just love it and be willing to include it as a free download anywhere, including as part of the forums. So, any volunteer?
Heck, since it may be quite a lot of work for a single person, we could even make it a forum group effort! Have one person write a simple adventure story with simple NPCs, someone create the NPCs and creatures' stats, some draw a quick map, and someone create the first level (or so) pre-made PCs, and voilà!
-
Impatient people have the excellent option to download the free beta versions, until the PDFs are ready on drivethrurpg
Is that available on Drivethrurpg or some website? Are you saying that Joe Blow that isn't part of this Forum community and has signed up for the Beta has access to those documents, can you inform us where?
If not, then what exactly is Joe Blow that saw RMU on drivethurpg supposed to do once he gets the core book and realizes that he cannot do anything at all with it?
-
Impatient people have the excellent option to download the free beta versions, until the PDFs are ready on drivethrurpg
Is that available on Drivethrurpg or some website? Are you saying that Joe Blow that isn't part of this Forum community and has signed up for the Beta has access to those documents, can you inform us where?
If not, then what exactly is Joe Blow that saw RMU on drivethurpg supposed to do once he gets the core book and realizes that he cannot do anything at all with it?
So passive aggressive, I like your spirit.
-
Well, I'm pretty sure that if anyone is willing to produce for free (or so…) a simple, 4-5 pages, adventure for RMU, the ICE team would just love it and be willing to include it as a free download anywhere, including as part of the forums. So, any volunteer?
Heck, since it may be quite a lot of work for a single person, we could even make it a forum group effort! Have one person write a simple adventure story with simple NPCs, someone create the NPCs and creatures' stats, some draw a quick map, and someone create the first level (or so) pre-made PCs, and voilà!
im keen to contribute. depending on the setting. my strengths are in dungeon design. i actually have a "Secret Armoury" adventure Ive created recently that is generic enough to be used in a range of settings.
The adneture is called 'The Secret Armoury of Heqt', suits a party of 3-6 players.
id add pre generated characters with backgrounds too.
Pregenerated characters: Fleck the Burglar, Kromm the Barbarian, Tel the Paladin and Blackfang the Assassin.
the dungeon map is on roll20 but i have copies of the open source map. id need to add simple detail to the 11 rooms in the dungeon explaing the traps, treasure, monsters etc but that woudnt be too involved as iv put icon on the map and noted down specific relics and magic items in each location.
There is a paladin/knight NPC who recruits the parry to help him on his quest to find the a Secret Armoury that contains a cache of ancient relics that are needed to equip a small army in a future battle versus undead The larger story involves an evil cult of vampire worshippers who are working to resurrect an ncient cabal of vampire lords who have been magically trapped in magic stones called Soul Stones.
The adventure begins with the party looking for information about the Secret Armoury of Heqt. This requires research in a city library to locate maps to find the armoury. To find the maps needed the party must solve two riddles which gives clues to the map they need. Requires a role-playing encounter with the librarian to gain access to a restricted private guarded library and find the maps.
The party must then travel into the mountains (2-3 days from the city), locate a hidden entrance by decoding a series of runes/riddles and enter the dungeon/cave complex which is well guarded by undead (6 skeletons, 3 wights and 4 wraiths), 4 golems, 3 giant spiders and a Toad Monster near a lake filled with electric eels. They must also negotiate a number of traps (rolling boulder, collapsing bridge, poison darts and fire trap). The undead are ancestors of an ancient order of knights who guard the armoury and are armed with some of the magical relics (swords, shields and armour) that the party are sent to find and return to the paladin's temple.
The main encounter in the dungeon is with the Spirit Guide of Heqt who will put the party through a series of trials before she will assist them on their mission. There are 7 trials, some designed for paladins specifically but these could be completed by other professions also. The ideal setup is having a paladin in the party who is of the same order of knights - The Knights of Heqt.
Spirit Guide "Knight of Heqt you must pass the Trials of Heqt to show that you are worthy. If you fail you will be offered up as a sacrifice to the Red Moon Mage. You will become an immortal protector of the ancient relics of Heqt and you will remain here for eternity".
"Knight of Heqt do you trust your companions? Are they free of malice or greed? Yes? Then they too must be tested. If they are proven unworthy then they will be sacrificed to the creatures that inhabit the dark depths of the Sacred Waters of Heqt. This is a great honor!".
"Knight of Heqt, if you and your companions prove yourselves worthy then I will serve as your guide and give you what help I can to complete your quest".
The Spirit Guide invokes the seven ancient Trials of Heqt.
1) Combat
2) Lore
3) Might
4) Will
5) Wisdom
6) Courage
7) Power
The 7 Trials of Heqt. >>>> trials must be attempted in this order: Wisom 1st, Courage 2nd, Combat 7th/last
1) Test of Combat. A physical combat versus a spirit/enemy summoned by the guide [FINAL TRIAL FOR ALL WHO ENTER THE ARMOURY]
2) Test of Lore. Name the 3 Elemental Laws. the 3 Laws? Paladins order/religion [Paladin only]
3) Test of Might [Strength], remove the black orb from the fountain on the isle on the Sacred Lake [Any PC]
4) Test of Will [Self-Discipline], Stab an ally/draw 3 drops of blood into the sacred waters. with the the Quartz Dagger. Full OB. [Any PC]
5) Test of Wisdom [Intuition check to get a clue], Riddle: Sometimes I shine, sometimes I’m dull, sometimes I am big, and sometimes I am small. I can be pointy, I can be curved, and don’t ask me questions because even though I’m sharp, I’m not smart enough to answer you. What am I? (Low Int check = half the riddle. High INT check and entire riddle with a clue)
Answer: A knife
6) Test of Courage. Retrieve the Quartz Dagger (green) from the Sacred Waters of Heqt. [Paladin only]
7) Test of Power. Channeling skill check/touch the Toad statue and make a channeling check. (Absurd/Lose all PP/statue by the Lake) [Paladin only]
Test of Combat (1) is the final test and Passing all the tests the party can avoid combat (or most combat). Failure in these will determine the strength/numbers of the enemies that will be sent against the party.
If they pass all the tests (still need to complete a trial by combat of some level) the Spirit Guide will be able to answer ONE yes/no question for each party member. 7 in total.
I made the test of wisdon more challening by only giving the half the riddle. if they didnt come up with the correct answer early on I gave them an INTUITION modified stat/manuvre check (Hard) to get a clue.
There are three laws, one gold, one silver and one iron. The golden law is full of cheer. The silver law is cold calm and clear. The iron law is harshly severe. What are their names?
Love is the golden law,
Full of cheer;
Justice, the silver law,
Cold, calm, and clear;
Anger, the iron law,
Harshly severe
RIDDLE ONE>>>
Yellow flame flickers
Shadows dance upon the wall
This grows ever strong.
>>> I am the law of gold, WHATS MY NAME? Love
RIDDLE TWO>>> For agony and spoil
Of nations beat to dust,
For poisoned air and tortured soil
And cold, commanded lust,
And every secret woe
The shuddering waters saw—
Willed and fulfilled by high and low—
Let them relearn the Law:
>>> I am the law of silver, WHATS MY NAME? Justice
RIDDLE THREE>>> The eye of revenge
Forged in volcanoes of fire
An act of revengence
>>> I am the law of iron, WHATS MY NAME? Anger
The combat trials involves fighting a Toad Monster and 2-4 giant spirit knights which are animated suits of armour.
The number of trials that must be passed are up to the GM. id suggest 5-7. fail in too many quests and the party will be attacked by the protectors of the armoury (more animated spirit knights and Toad Monsters). These Trials of Heqt take place ina large undergound cavern which had a large lake at its centre and a narrow suspension bridge across it. I have the master map co leted in roll20.
-
Well, I'm pretty sure that if anyone is willing to produce for free (or so…) a simple, 4-5 pages, adventure for RMU, the ICE team would just love it and be willing to include it as a free download anywhere, including as part of the forums. So, any volunteer?
Heck, since it may be quite a lot of work for a single person, we could even make it a forum group effort! Have one person write a simple adventure story with simple NPCs, someone create the NPCs and creatures' stats, some draw a quick map, and someone create the first level (or so) pre-made PCs, and voilà!
im happy to send you scans of the maps for The Secret Armoury of Heqt. There are 4 in total. As its generic the dungeon can be placed anywhere really. I split the layout map for the dungeon into thirds and only gave the party the west and east ends of the map (they find these two in the library at the start of the adventure).The maps are hidden in a private library (one beind a mirror and one inside the base of a fountain). Locate Secret Opening skill to find them but they still need to solve the initial riddles found in the main library first by using Linguistics and Read Runes.
This reseach component of the adventure was completed by a single character but in a larger group id spread the skills around and extra players could help solve the riddles which can easily be changed to suit your playgroup if riddles arent their thing eg. could be a mini adventure helping the librarian complete a task or errand involving some role-playing or different skills - just as long as they get the two clues they need and somehow gain access to the private library. A thief/burglar/rogue character could be sent the burgle the place and you could tailor the challenge level to the level of the character easily enough - putting traps and/or alarms in his/her path. This might involve them pickpocketing the keys to the restricted private library or sneaking past the two guards in the corridoor near the private library or picking the lock.
I didnt actually use a physical map for the libarar and made this first part of the quest quick short but it would be easy enough to crreate a layout for a library (with help from someone here on these forums) and include this in the adventure with specific details about the head librarian who is a magician and his staff and the guards.
Back to the maps. There are 4 maps. one map shows the location of the secret armoury in the mountains (but not the entrance itself which is hidden) and the other 3 maps are parts of a single map which only show the layout of the dungeon with rooms, caves and doors. It does not show the monsters, traps or treasure and the party begin the adventure still missing the middle 3rd of the map (This can be found in the dungeon about half way through the adventure on a skeleton lying in a corridoor).
-
The need for more and more rules usually means
1) the games is placing realism over fun
2) the rules are too complex overall
3) the game is missing a general resolution mechanic that resolves 99% of situations.
Our group over the 35 years of gaming have likely played over 100 different games, even if some were just a quick test. The games that provide the best play experience lack unnecessary complexity and a need to cover every possible situation.
The best games have
1) fast combat
2) enough skills to generally represent most things players need to cover
3) centralized mechanics for near all situations
4) as few exceptions to the general rules as possible.
5) support materials for running a game within the game world that shows
Simple is nearly always better. If you can’t make a rule concise in an RPG, the rule is doing something it shouldn’t.
^^^ 100% this.
-
I acknowledge the tension you speak of, but I'm not sure the playtest is a good indication of what should be done. Playtest is typically realised by people who already know either the designers themselves (alpha testing) or previous iterations of the game and are already fairly hardcore fans (beta testing). There is a strong risk that any beta testing will end up emphasising both the qualities and the flaws of any given game system if it is an iteration (compared to a new game).
A different way to look at it is the most likely customer of a new RM edition is, in fact, existing RM fans. We can speculate that there is an alternate design of the rules that would expand the audience even further but still appeal to the RM plans. The problem is that such speculations do not tell us anything about how to discover that alternate design. Doing things in a way that doesn't appeal to playtesters because you hope there will be another audience is possible, but what if you are wrong?
I think it is quite likely the large number of playtesters that liked the end result enough to want their name in the book will also be likely to buy materials and spread the word. This group of players is, of course, not representative of every gamer out there but trying to design a game that appeals to every player is also bound to fail.
I think that people who complain on the forum that RMU is too different from their favorite house rules or that RMU reads just like a particular set of house rules would never be happy buyers. I also think that people complaining RMU is not similar enough to some other game or should have done radical breaks with rules from previous editions would never be happy buyers. At the end of the day, not everyone will be a fan of RMU, and that is just life.
In addition, beta testing, especially over the time RMU has been in beta, is a lengthy process during which people have a long time to actually read and understand the rules before using them, whereas people who simply buy the game expect to be able to use it quickly. My comment was only highlighting the fact that RMU, like most previous iterations of RM, is not designed to be used quickly and not designed to be memorised easily either.
Our experience from the beta testing was very different. Except for some issues that have been resolved since the beta, the RMU rules ran quicker with much less need to memorize difficult things than any previous RM edition.
There are some parts of the rules that are very complicated...the rules for suffering injuries due to exhausting yourself are not something anyone would memorize. One of the reasons for this is that the play situation when these rules apply is rather rare. On the other hand, if you are running a desperate race when these rules will matter, the level of detail will add lots of flavors. This kind of detail will not appeal to every gamer, but I think it is a good bet that the same kind of player that enjoyed RM2 and RMSS will also want this level of detail.
But in any case, there are ways to make rules more concise that can be done even in that kind of games, such as standardising the action modifiers, standardising combat results, reducing the number of skills by making sure each of them covers a well-defined, but wide enough range of applications and avoiding niche skills like the plague, and so on.
Sounds pretty exactly like RMU to me...except for the level of crunchiness during combat that clearly is moving in the opposite direction and building on the aspected that has made RM combat unique. Criticals are fun and have more detailed outcomes that do not just differ on the flavor text is a step in direction of a game I want to play.
-
Without getting into every point you make I’ll say this.
If the play test was basically open to RM players only then what would you expect but for them to just rehash the same ideas. I don’t know how open the play test was but since it’s mainly here on the RM site and didn’t appear to be an attempt at really opening the test up to players of other, more modern, games then you get what we got.
If the aim was to expand the market and bring in some real “new” thinking, the play test would’ve likely sought those outside opinions. When I signed up for the play test and read the rules my firth thought was “this is not a new-ish view of RM for the 2010s or 2020s. It’s basically oldRM with a little clean up”. Then I read pages and pages of posts basically reaffirming that there wasn’t really a voice or real discussion of making any wholesale changes to make a 2020s game with RM at the core. What I read was “in my RM game we like x and y” and “I like RM1 and companion 4 for my game” and “we will just keep playing our old game if you change x and y”. The few times I read where someone suggested some modernization and simplification of the game that might attract new players, they were summarily shot down by the purists. The idea of changing any of the sacred cows (no matter how outdated they were) were shut out immediately. I knew right then there was no real attempt to play test the rules or especially make a 2020s version of RM that might expand beyond the current RM crowd.
-
I think that is a very inaccurate characterization of the beta. Many ideas were discussed and there were many significant changes.
One example: the number of Armor Types was reduced to 10. This not only streamlines play, but actually allows more actual armors to be used in game (e.g. Scale and Brigandine). This was a major change: all previous versions had 20 armor types. But it was made nonetheless because it both streamlines play but also adds greater functionality.
There are many other examples of this. Spellcasting no longer requiring a chart; same for moving maneuvers. Standardization of skill progressions. Simplification of casting penalties for armor. Etc. etc.
-
The four action point round is also a streamlining. The skill list obviously. We did reject some more fundamental changes, like eliminating potentials or even stats (in favor of only having the stat bonuses), but to a great extent that was because it was going to make it harder for some people to relate to, not easier.
On the other hand, it was never meant to not be Rolemaster. We could write another game that tries to be something completely different, but there was no point in becoming HARP (since HARP already exists), and it wouldn't make any sense to, for example, create a streamlined narrative-based game that would compete in the crowded end of the game market while alienating everyone who plays RM.
-
I suspect we’ll agree to disagree and that’s not meant to be an attack. But there are plenty of ways to further streamline play that doesn’t make the game “not Rolemaster”. As I’ve noted in other posts, I appreciate some of the simplification and think it serves the game well. There are other things that were kept in place that could be changed for a better and more relatable version of RM that some games like Harp, Lightmaster and VsDarkmaster for instance simply got better (I use those because they’re all based on the same RM/MERP engine).
Some things could have been deconstructed in a way that would make for better class/profession, skill and magic list structures. For example, there was not, as far as I read back, discussions on preventing future Profession creep. Since RM is ultimately a skill based game professions could have been minimized since players can essentially buy whatever skills and spells (based on access) they want. So maybe a path to really explore could have been to make a few base templates pure mage, hybrid mage , fighter, thief, semi fighter/mage (would encompass assassin/nightblade, Paladin, warrior mage, ranger), etc. then provide the packages that differentiate the types/professions/whatevers within those templates based on the skills and sometimes basic spells lists they begin with (or have access to) rather than manipulating the costs of the skill ranks, similar to what was done in the channeling companion. This would have been a far simpler and more elegant solution overall. And it would have made it far simpler for ICE to release new variants off of the professions. All the writer would have to do is come up with appropriate beginning skills and number of ranks for the chosen new profession rather than having to try to come up with some slight changes to the costs of skill categories to justify Necromancer, Sorcerer, Mystic, Magician, etc having a set of slightly different skills costs.
Keeping things like random stats and talents just seems very 40 years ago and character building should have just gone pure point based across the board. (I’ll still never understand the whole temp vs potential stat progression particularly since the DPs no longer are based on the stats, players could just start at their potential and if they want to buy up stats after charges make it absurdly expensive so as to make it something people rarely do).
I won’t even get into the simplification of the magic system again because there is clearly two separate camps on that as discussed in the other thread.
Simpler is always better.
-
If the play test was basically open to RM players only then what would you expect but for them to just rehash the same ideas. I don’t know how open the play test was but since it’s mainly here on the RM site and didn’t appear to be an attempt at really opening the test up to players of other, more modern, games then you get what we got.
Many here in the forums haven't only played RM but also other game systems. Therefore even that player base could bring in new ideas, things they've seen in other systems and also their own ideas. At the same time I think it's good that RMU did not throw everything over board that is the core of the Rolemaster system.
-
If the play test was basically open to RM players only then what would you expect but for them to just rehash the same ideas. I don’t know how open the play test was but since it’s mainly here on the RM site and didn’t appear to be an attempt at really opening the test up to players of other, more modern, games then you get what we got.
Many here in the forums haven't only played RM but also other game systems. Therefore even that player base could bring in new ideas, things they've seen in other systems and also their own ideas. At the same time I think it's good that RMU did not throw everything over board that is the core of the Rolemaster system.
I didn’t say they never played anything else. But the fact that they are even on this board and were in the playtest just meant the playtest was asking people intimately familiar with the game to fix the game. That rarely works as all you get is incorporated house rules rather than a rethinking of how things could/should work within the basic game framework. It’s evident that was the case by reading through the threads and how suggestions that veered from the basic RM and companions were dismissed.
Inviting in nonRM players may have brought about questions about why some things are being done a certain way when modern games long since left that way behind (random stats). And they could definitely tell you whether they’d be interested in playing and supporting the game (is it overly complex, confusing, etc). I’ve played RM since the 90s, I think, so some aspects such as maneuver charts I understand (i think they are unnecessarily specific and complex but I understand them since I’ve played and run 100s of RM sessions). However, someone coming from a simpler resolution to skills and maneuvers would look at the RM approach and say WTF, how does this work. In the playtest that kinda feedback is missed because it’s not foreign or confusing to RM players.
-
Since RM is ultimately a skill based game professions could have been minimized since players can essentially buy whatever skills and spells (based on access) they want. So maybe a path to really explore could have been to make a few base templates pure mage, hybrid mage , fighter, thief, semi fighter/mage (would encompass assassin/nightblade, Paladin, warrior mage, ranger), etc. then provide the packages that differentiate the types/professions/whatevers within those templates based on the skills and sometimes basic spells lists they begin with (or have access to) rather than manipulating the costs of the skill ranks, similar to what was done in the channeling companion. This would have been a far simpler and more elegant solution overall.
There was a lot of discussion about this. You can do a search for 'archetypes', as that I think was the most common term for this sort of plan. So yes, that was definitely brought up many times.
In the end, many felt that it eroded the sense of playing a new character if you played a 'stealth archetype 1' versus 'stealth archetype 2' rather than the sexier 'Thief' vs. 'Outrider'.
-
Pitching the playtest mainly at non-RM players would be a great solution if the goal was to make a game targeted at the mainstream of gamers, a group that is already well served by a variety of different games. RM's niche is a more detailed, crunchier rule system intended for people who like that. (And HARP exists to fill a space midway between that and RM.) We did look at the types of complexity in the previous editions and ask which parts of that complexity add something (e.g. descriptive criticals, buying skills individually) and which parts did not (e.g. the BAR, the RR table, the old moving maneuver table) and made changes accordingly.
Speaking for myself, I've played a fair amount of D&D 1st, 3rd, and 4th edition, Pathfinder, Mage/WoD, GURPS (run a lot of it too), etc. My primary playtest group has mainly played D&D so RM was new to many of them. Others have cited their experiences in other systems during the playtest. So it's not at true that only RM voices were heard. Certainly we listened to people who were looking for a game like RM, but it would be madness not to.
-
Since RM is ultimately a skill based game professions could have been minimized since players can essentially buy whatever skills and spells (based on access) they want. So maybe a path to really explore could have been to make a few base templates pure mage, hybrid mage , fighter, thief, semi fighter/mage (would encompass assassin/nightblade, Paladin, warrior mage, ranger), etc. then provide the packages that differentiate the types/professions/whatevers within those templates based on the skills and sometimes basic spells lists they begin with (or have access to) rather than manipulating the costs of the skill ranks, similar to what was done in the channeling companion. This would have been a far simpler and more elegant solution overall.
There was a lot of discussion about this. You can do a search for 'archetypes', as that I think was the most common term for this sort of plan. So yes, that was definitely brought up many times.
In the end, many felt that it eroded the sense of playing a new character if you played a 'stealth archetype 1' versus 'stealth archetype 2' rather than the sexier 'Thief' vs. 'Outrider'.
Hmm, I read back pretty far and did not see that kind of discussion. Definitely did not see any real explanation of how it would work and what it would look like. If the nature of the conversation was as you put it, seems that was a real gloss over. But it does not matter now. And the logic you presented above is odd at best. "I played a thief last campaign and this time I want to play another kind of thief but I definitely need to have a whole new class/profession to do". Not sure that is a well thought out rationale to have 15 different professions that have to be separately balanced and made by tweaking the costs of the skill categories. I hope there were better reasons that the one you presented for the profession creep to be maintained in the game.
-
Hmm, I read back pretty far and did not see that kind of discussion. Definitely did not see any real explanation of how it would work and what it would look like. If the nature of the conversation was as you put it, seems that was a real gloss over. But it does not matter now. And the logic you presented above is odd at best. "I played a thief last campaign and this time I want to play another kind of thief but I definitely need to have a whole new class/profession to do". Not sure that is a well thought out rationale to have 15 different professions that have to be separately balanced and made by tweaking the costs of the skill categories. I hope there were better reasons that the one you presented for the profession creep to be maintained in the game.
Not sure what I else I can say. You argued that not enough change was made, and I provided examples of it being made. You said various things weren't discussed, but I noted that many of them were. If you want to minimize and dismiss the discussion, then you are free to do so. But I would note that many players (myself included) prefer to have a wide range of classes with different skill costs; it was a very RM2 approach that we liked. The Outrider for example will have better wildnerness/outdoor skills than the Thief, as befits a more outdoor survivalist type class. Even just having a different name can often help roleplaying and identification with a character. I get that you don't like that; but many players do. So that's why that decision was made, after considerable discussion of alternatives.
-
...if the goal was to make a game targeted at the mainstream of gamers, a group that is already well served by a variety of different games. RM's niche is a more detailed, crunchier rule system intended for people who like that.
At the start of the RMU revamp there was discussion about targeting new users in order to increase the audience of RM, but over the course of the design it never really seemed to be going that way and I think this is actually the first time I've heard someone say that that was abandoned (not saying I disagree mind you). It's one of the two primary reasons I bowed out of the process. No one would answer the question directly (I didn't see how I could help if I didn't know who we were designing for).
IMO there had to be a choice. Cater to the existing RM users or specifically try to bring in new users (which would have required a more significant change). I did not believe both was possible. Mix into that that ICE is effectively a part-time/hobby company and, as such, simply doesn't have the ability to market on any significantly meaningful level and I think keeping to the existing RM user base was the better choice. Course, recent events have a small chance of a broader audience being reached... but even if that came to pass, no one really saw it coming.
-
I would point out that much of the discussion of RMU is no longer available, as the first round of discussions was removed when the second beta came out, and much of the more broad theoretical discussions took place before that. Just because you can't find it on the forum now doesn't mean it wasn't discussed at length.
-
I would point out that much of the discussion of RMU is no longer available, as the first round of discussions was removed when the second beta came out, and much of the more broad theoretical discussions took place before that. Just because you can't find it on the forum now doesn't mean it wasn't discussed at length.
I bowed out before the second beta and I didn't even bother asking to be included in the later talks. I asked the question quite a few times over the years after that and no one answered.
-
Existing RM fans and user were once new to the rpg system also, I've never found RM to be too detailed and difficult to get into. There's always the option to tweak stuff that are hard to understand. I'm personally glad ICE didn't go for a "dumbed down" version meant for a broader target group when designing RMU.
-
I would point out that much of the discussion of RMU is no longer available, as the first round of discussions was removed when the second beta came out, and much of the more broad theoretical discussions took place before that. Just because you can't find it on the forum now doesn't mean it wasn't discussed at length.
If you read my post you’ll see that I said I didn’t see those discussion from what I read. If there were discussions that were removed, I can’t magically know they happened. I’ll repeat, I read back pretty far and did not see where those “theoretical” subjects were discussed or contemplated or tested to see if they could work.
Most of the discussion in this thread I believe proves my point though. The idea of modernizing the game for a broader audience was determined not to be the design goal. Ultimately what was created was a cleaned up 80s game rather than a 2020 version of RM which kept the core concepts but made the game more readily accessible to the broad swath of gamers that exists today. It’s RM for people that already play RM, which makes it currently a shelf game rather than a play game. That’s fine I suppose. Maybe 2-3 years from now when the basic books are all released and some semblance of a RMU Shadow World is made available our group will revisit playing RMU but until them if we decide to play it’ll likely remain the heavily modified and houseruled RMSS we’ve been using for nearly 30 years.
-
I would point out that much of the discussion of RMU is no longer available, as the first round of discussions was removed when the second beta came out, and much of the more broad theoretical discussions took place before that. Just because you can't find it on the forum now doesn't mean it wasn't discussed at length.
If you read my post you’ll see that I said I didn’t see those discussion from what I read. If there were discussions that were removed, I can’t magically know they happened.
Obviously. That's why I was informing you.
-
It’s RM for people that already play RM, which makes it currently a shelf game rather than a play game. That’s fine I suppose. Maybe 2-3 years from now when the basic books are all released and some semblance of a RMU Shadow World is made available our group will revisit playing RMU but until them if we decide to play it’ll likely remain the heavily modified and houseruled RMSS we’ve been using for nearly 30 years.
That's every RM you've seen up to now also. Every new version of RM leaves RM users behind using the old ones (that's almost surely true of most game systems).
So, while I'm mostly right there with you on likely continuing to use the RMSS that our gaming group has tweaked over the years, I really don't think it was a wrong decision.
In my opinion ICE just isn't in a position to accomplish what you're talking about. So to keep the system alive and, at least, make it publishable you rely on your existing fan base.
-
Then why create even more fragmentation? They could have just put out a companion to the two already fragmented games with some optional codified house rules applicable to both. Woulda sure taken less than 10 years. That’s time that coulda been working on additional content for Shadow World, some adventure series and just making some focused booklets on 15 slightly different professions of thieves/assassins for both systems and then a book on 12 professions of rangers/outdoorsman for both systems, etc.
If the idea was to just appeal
To the crowds already playing but to not be able to put out support for years for a playable game, that’s a terrible business approach even for a part-time operation. I suspect my buddies and a few game groups coulda put out the main books significantly faster but that’s neither here nor there.
So where we end up is with a product aimed at people that don’t really need a new product. And it’s incomplete so it’s unplayable. And nothing that’s going to be released for at least the next year or two would allow the target audience to actually switch from their ongoing gaming to the new game.
It seems a pointless and ill conceived endeavor. It has some “feel good” and “look what we accomplished” to it but from a bigger picture, there’s no there there yet.
-
Then why create even more fragmentation? They could have just put out a companion to the two already fragmented games with some optional codified house rules applicable to both. Woulda sure taken less than 10 years. That’s time that coulda been working on additional content for Shadow World, some adventure series and just making some focused booklets on 15 slightly different professions of thieves/assassins for both systems and then a book on 12 professions of rangers/outdoorsman for both systems, etc.
If the idea was to just appeal
To the crowds already playing but to not be able to put out support for years for a playable game, that’s a terrible business approach even for a part-time operation. I suspect my buddies and a few game groups coulda put out the main books significantly faster but that’s neither here nor there.
So where we end up is with a product aimed at people that don’t really need a new product. And it’s incomplete so it’s unplayable. And nothing that’s going to be released for at least the next year or two would allow the target audience to actually switch from their ongoing gaming to the new game.
It seems a pointless and ill conceived endeavor. It has some “feel good” and “look what we accomplished” to it but from a bigger picture, there’s no there there yet.
I think we all got it now after weeks of complaining, RMU is not for you and your decades worth of gaming experience buddies. I suggest doing what you yourself suggested there and create the best rpg system ever then come back and show us, or even show us the progress in a dedicated thread on this forum as you go along. 👍
-
Then why create even more fragmentation? They could have just put out a companion to the two already fragmented games with some optional codified house rules applicable to both. Woulda sure taken less than 10 years. That’s time that coulda been working on additional content for Shadow World, some adventure series and just making some focused booklets on 15 slightly different professions of thieves/assassins for both systems and then a book on 12 professions of rangers/outdoorsman for both systems, etc.
If the idea was to just appeal
To the crowds already playing but to not be able to put out support for years for a playable game, that’s a terrible business approach even for a part-time operation. I suspect my buddies and a few game groups coulda put out the main books significantly faster but that’s neither here nor there.
So where we end up is with a product aimed at people that don’t really need a new product. And it’s incomplete so it’s unplayable. And nothing that’s going to be released for at least the next year or two would allow the target audience to actually switch from their ongoing gaming to the new game.
It seems a pointless and ill conceived endeavor. It has some “feel good” and “look what we accomplished” to it but from a bigger picture, there’s no there there yet.
I think we all got it now after weeks of complaining, RMU is not for you and your decades worth of gaming experience buddies. I suggest doing what you yourself suggested there and create the best rpg system ever then come back and show us, or even show us the progress in a dedicated thread on this forum as you go along. 👍
So now you are a whiner because I have some negative views of aspects of the current product and its development, so sad.
-
Then why create even more fragmentation?
You could ask the same question of any edition of any system beyond the original. There are multiple reasons, the two biggest being legal reasons and the sustainable lifecycle of a product from both a quality and a monetary standpoint. Nevermind the fact that the current ICE completely removed from the first two iterations of ICE, I'm not sure how much more quality RMSS product was left in that system.
-
Then why create even more fragmentation? They could have just put out a companion to the two already fragmented games with some optional codified house rules applicable to both. Woulda sure taken less than 10 years. That’s time that coulda been working on additional content for Shadow World, some adventure series and just making some focused booklets on 15 slightly different professions of thieves/assassins for both systems and then a book on 12 professions of rangers/outdoorsman for both systems, etc.
If the idea was to just appeal
To the crowds already playing but to not be able to put out support for years for a playable game, that’s a terrible business approach even for a part-time operation. I suspect my buddies and a few game groups coulda put out the main books significantly faster but that’s neither here nor there.
So where we end up is with a product aimed at people that don’t really need a new product. And it’s incomplete so it’s unplayable. And nothing that’s going to be released for at least the next year or two would allow the target audience to actually switch from their ongoing gaming to the new game.
It seems a pointless and ill conceived endeavor. It has some “feel good” and “look what we accomplished” to it but from a bigger picture, there’s no there there yet.
I think we all got it now after weeks of complaining, RMU is not for you and your decades worth of gaming experience buddies. I suggest doing what you yourself suggested there and create the best rpg system ever then come back and show us, or even show us the progress in a dedicated thread on this forum as you go along. 👍
So now you are a whiner because I have some negative views of aspects of the current product and its development, so sad.
I dare say that your posts have been almost nothing but complaining and negative since RMU came out. The books are made as ICE wanted them to be, Core Law is probably updated now and in the prints these days.
-
One example: the number of Armor Types was reduced to 10. This not only streamlines play, but actually allows more actual armors to be used in game (e.g. Scale and Brigandine). This was a major change: all previous versions had 20 armor types.
The Combat Companion actually first introduced the 10 ATs…
-
The Combat Companion actually first introduced the 10 ATs…
Ok, I'll amend my statement to say, 'All previous core rules had only 20 Armor Types' and add, 'No previous edition, whether core or expansion, had specific (rather than general 'Crushing' etc.) attack charts with 10 armor types.'
-
I dare say that your posts have been almost nothing but complaining and negative since RMU came out. The books are made as ICE wanted them to be, Core Law is probably updated now and in the prints these days.
And? The title of the thread is Biggest Complaint. If you have none or you have a constructive discussion statement have at it. Complaining that I have issues with it is rather childish.
Now I’ve raised questions and stated MY view of the game and decisions that went into the development of same. That’s what the forum is for.
-
As the OP, can I just point out my biggest complaint was that I can't play the game as currently published. That is, 95% of what I need to play RMU is in Core Law (which is fantastic), and I wanted to make a suggestion to get the other 5%.
This was not meant to be complain about RMU thread.
I posted what I thought was a relatively easy way to fix it the basic problem (add some monsters; which I think is still doable as a 4 page PDF, with 8 simple monsters or something), and a harder way to really improve it (add some spells; I knew likely to be unworkable).
The title was meant to be attention grabbing; but it was generally meant to be constructive piece of feedback about how to get people playing RMU today.
I hope the RMU Authors did not take it as a personal criticism, it was meant to be piece of constructive feedback with an earnest suggestion on how to make the experience better. My apologies that my post was unclear. I did not mean for this to create any vitriol or complaints about the way RM is going.
FWIW, I like RMSS, I liked RM2 and I like RMU. RMU feels quite coherent and consistent, well structured and I generally like the rules; I think things like the manuevering rules and Action rules are probably the best out of the box for any edition of Rolemaster (as initially published). I hope I can play RMU soon, but that's mostly with respect to me finding a group/game.
-
Your post was not unclear nash, some just want to spread negativity for the sake of doing so.
-
Anyway, is there a timeline for the release of Spell Law and the two Creature and Treasure Books, so that the core necessary for play game books will be widely available in an official (not test) form?
Also, when might a basic RMU Shadow World conversion be done, with the races updated to their shadow world form (which differs from the core book) or at least a beta version?
Any specific plans to officially address additional classes/professions that have been in the game for decades and are pretty often used, at least from my observation, like the Armsmaster and Warrior Mage (along with their base lists)?
-
Your post was not unclear nash, some just want to spread negativity for the sake of doing so.
I don't think it's "for the sake of doing so". Some people would have liked RMU to be different from what it is, and they are vocal about it. And that's fine, unless this forum is a congratulations forum where dissent is not accepted (in which case it could stand to be named more appropriately).
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think criticism needs to be constructive to be worthwhile - it needs to be explained. Constructive (providing a solution) is optional, especially if you're merely a player and have no skill in game design. As I said in another thread, the lack of design notes in the RMU books make constructive criticism all the more difficult. However, explaining *why* you think parts of the rules are wrong is valid.
-
Your post was not unclear nash, some just want to spread negativity for the sake of doing so.
I don't think it's "for the sake of doing so". Some people would have liked RMU to be different from what it is, and they are vocal about it. And that's fine, unless this forum is a congratulations forum where dissent is not accepted (in which case it could stand to be named more appropriately).
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think criticism needs to be constructive to be worthwhile - it needs to be explained. Constructive (providing a solution) is optional, especially if you're merely a player and have no skill in game design. As I said in another thread, the lack of design notes in the RMU books make constructive criticism all the more difficult. However, explaining *why* you think parts of the rules are wrong is valid.
I agree completely. The worst thing that can happen to any forum is for it to become an echo chamber.
-
The book is out, minor adjustments and error fixing being done to it. There's no amount of complaining from a very minor group of very vocal people that will change Core Law into something else. So why whine and spread negativity?
-
The book is out, minor adjustments and error fixing being done to it. There's no amount of complaining from a very minor group of very vocal people that will change Core Law into something else. So why whine and spread negativity?
The history of RM provides a significant amount of precedents indicating that the course of the game can be altered in the companions.
Furthermore, criticism provide perspective.
We all know that Core Law itself will not change. Some people think it is good. Others don't. Both have the right to express themselves here. I don't see why another reason would be needed.
-
The book is out, minor adjustments and error fixing being done to it. There's no amount of complaining from a very minor group of very vocal people that will change Core Law into something else. So why whine and spread negativity?
The history of RM provides a significant amount of precedents indicating that the course of the game can be altered in the companions.
Furthermore, criticism provide perspective.
We all know that Core Law itself will not change. Some people think it is good. Others don't. Both have the right to express themselves here. I don't see why another reason would be needed.
Then perhaps make a thread of its own, dedicated to bashing at RMU, ICE why they didn't make RMU as they wanted, add in some bragging how "me and my gaming buddies" could have done it so much better for goodness sake. See how much audience that gets instead of grabbing almost every opportunity to do so in other people's threads that really weren't meant for it, see OP's statement above as an example. This constant negativity is what I see as whining, not constructive, especially since the product is made and being sold after years in the making. A classic example of "you didn't make it as I wanted, now I'm going to be pissed".
-
My only complaint is that I cannot see an answer to the question:
What, specifically and in detail, was the problem with RMFRP that need to be solved by having a new edition?
-
My only complaint is that I cannot see an answer to the question:
What, specifically and in detail, was the problem with RMFRP that need to be solved by having a new edition?
The biggest reason is portions of the previous editions of RM was designed, in part, by employees of the previous iterations of ICE and was not usable without their permission, which is unlikely to be granted.
Putting the user hat on, I would liked to have seen more content for RMSS/RMFRP, before a new system. I'm not sure how much quality material was going to be forthcoming on that front however and republishing RMSS books for RMFRP wouldn't have gotten me to buy them. It would need to be new material.
Putting the company hot on (and as stated above), I think a new edition was necessary for a number of reasons. The most problematic being the IP legalities. The second issue being where new content was going to come from, how unique that content was, and who was going to create it (time required by the author and the quality of that authors work).
My primary issue with RMU at this point is, from what I can tell, it isn't near as backwards compatible. It's fairly easy to cross pollinate between the old RM editions, but it seems like that's going to be a larger issue with RMU... which means for someone who is likely to keep using RMSS, RMU becomes even less useful. For example, if round structure and how Haste works has changed, I can no longer use spell lists with Haste on them. Simply using an RMU spell list as is and changing the Haste spells to how they used to work might have balancing implications that I'm not okay with... which means redesigning the spell list entirely, which effectively reduces its usefulness to me. But we have yet to see how this really ended up at the finish line. Odds are good I'm going to pick up most the books for various reasons, but odds are also good (at this point) I may never use them.
-
As the OP, can I just point out my biggest complaint was that I can't play the game as currently published. That is, 95% of what I need to play RMU is in Core Law (which is fantastic), and I wanted to make a suggestion to get the other 5%.
This was not meant to be complain about RMU thread.
I posted what I thought was a relatively easy way to fix it the basic problem (add some monsters; which I think is still doable as a 4 page PDF, with 8 simple monsters or something), and a harder way to really improve it (add some spells; I knew likely to be unworkable).
That is a very good point. The thread hijacking here is massive, and people are adding many rants that would be much better in their own threads.
Creating a few free samples that are available to the paying customers with some spell lists and some monsters would not really hurt future sales but would make testing out RMU much more smooth.
If the advertising makes clear these are preview pages from the upcoming books, it does not even need to be a separate product. Just select some professions and a few monsters and bundle those pages, and Nash's problem would be solved. If the layout or text is improved, the preview changes can be adjusted as well.
The scenario that somebody wants to buy the core book and do some testing before they commit to buying all the books is reasonable, even when all books are out. Keeping the marketing scheme running makes total sense. Adding additional free material to the core books bundle from time to time would be a great way to grab in those buyers who are on the fence about investing in more books.
-
My only complaint is that I cannot see an answer to the question:
What, specifically and in detail, was the problem with RMFRP that need to be solved by having a new edition?
The biggest reason is portions of the previous editions of RM was designed, in part, by employees of the previous iterations of ICE and was not usable without their permission, which is unlikely to be granted.
See, that was not that difficult. MOST people, myself included, was not fully aware that this was actually the case, aside from a rumor here or there.
So a reason for rewriting the rules was to make a product that the current ICE has complete control over. Good. Makes a great deal of sense.
-
My only complaint is that I cannot see an answer to the question:
What, specifically and in detail, was the problem with RMFRP that need to be solved by having a new edition?
The biggest reason is portions of the previous editions of RM was designed, in part, by employees of the previous iterations of ICE and was not usable without their permission, which is unlikely to be granted.
See, that was not that difficult. MOST people, myself included, was not fully aware that this was actually the case, aside from a rumor here or there.
So a reason for rewriting the rules was to make a product that the current ICE has complete control over. Good. Makes a great deal of sense.
Mind you, I'm not official ICE. But understanding the history of what happened I think it's pretty accurate.
-
The book is out, minor adjustments and error fixing being done to it. There's no amount of complaining from a very minor group of very vocal people that will change Core Law into something else. So why whine and spread negativity?
The history of RM provides a significant amount of precedents indicating that the course of the game can be altered in the companions.
Furthermore, criticism provide perspective.
We all know that Core Law itself will not change. Some people think it is good. Others don't. Both have the right to express themselves here. I don't see why another reason would be needed.
Then perhaps make a thread of its own, dedicated to bashing at RMU, ICE why they didn't make RMU as they wanted, add in some bragging how "me and my gaming buddies" could have done it so much better for goodness sake. See how much audience that gets instead of grabbing almost every opportunity to do so in other people's threads that really weren't meant for it, see OP's statement above as an example. This constant negativity is what I see as whining, not constructive, especially since the product is made and being sold after years in the making. A classic example of "you didn't make it as I wanted, now I'm going to be pissed".
You could always just post a lot of Attaboys, trust me, no will stop you, nor will they complain that you are.
I doubt anyone is pissed with respect to the product. I bought it on day one, although I have the Betas and knew basically what was going to be in the book. Nonetheless, there are design concepts that dont make sense to me and in games I run (when we get around to have a fully playable Shadow World game), I will mitigate those concepts to fit how we play or add some modern concepts that we've adopted for the sake of simplifying the game or making it run faster.
There are actually two separate discussion ongoing. The first is why were certain decisions made in the first place. The second is how will the decision make the game more likely to attract new players. You've contributed to neither discussion except to complain that I have provided negative feedback on aspects of the game. You like it. Fine, Happy for you. If the limit of your ability to contribute is to say that, good. No one forces you to post. If you want positivity only, stay out of threads that discuss negative aspects.
If you disagree with my posts, provide a cogent argument as to why I might have an incorrect view or observation. Saying it is fine as is does nothing for the conversation. Explaining why micromanaging xp is a good thing is better than saying, it is an old welcome mechanic.
-
I think you need to step back a few and read what the OP wrote above here, you my "friend" missed the point of this thread totally in your eager to bash at RMU. Do you even read what you type before you post, a little reality check might be in order.
-
The biggest reason is portions of the previous editions of RM was designed, in part, by employees of the previous iterations of ICE and was not usable without their permission, which is unlikely to be granted.
Putting the user hat on, I would liked to have seen more content for RMSS/RMFRP, before a new system. I'm not sure how much quality material was going to be forthcoming on that front however and republishing RMSS books for RMFRP wouldn't have gotten me to buy them. It would need to be new material.
Putting the company hot on (and as stated above), I think a new edition was necessary for a number of reasons. The most problematic being the IP legalities. The second issue being where new content was going to come from, how unique that content was, and who was going to create it (time required by the author and the quality of that authors work).
My primary issue with RMU at this point is, from what I can tell, it isn't near as backwards compatible. It's fairly easy to cross pollinate between the old RM editions, but it seems like that's going to be a larger issue with RMU... which means for someone who is likely to keep using RMSS, RMU becomes even less useful. For example, if round structure and how Haste works has changed, I can no longer use spell lists with Haste on them. Simply using an RMU spell list as is and changing the Haste spells to how they used to work might have balancing implications that I'm not okay with... which means redesigning the spell list entirely, which effectively reduces its usefulness to me. But we have yet to see how this really ended up at the finish line. Odds are good I'm going to pick up most the books for various reasons, but odds are also good (at this point) I may never use them.
Thank-you sir. Have to say that I am genuinely surprised ICE doesn't own the copyright to their IP. I imagine this might have ties back to the end of ICE around 1990 when freelancers weren't getting paid. I am not privy to that period and only know what I have read in in Designers & Dragons along with the tales online so don't want to put myself forward as an expert or authority.
As a user I think you are correct in that the system was "complete" for the most part and the future products would have to be setting material like modules and campaign worlds. That has long been the way that gaming companies have kept revenue streams open after the rules have been bought. That would have been the path required thinking abotu the situation in a company scene.
I am not particularly excited by RMU. At the risk of sounding like a stick in the mud it just doesn't have the RM vibe to it so for me the likely outcome is that I will just continue playing RMFRP.
-
Thank-you sir. Have to say that I am genuinely surprised ICE doesn't own the copyright to their IP. I imagine this might have ties back to the end of ICE around 1990 when freelancers weren't getting paid. I am not privy to that period and only know what I have read in in Designers & Dragons along with the tales online so don't want to put myself forward as an expert or authority.
Put briefly, without getting into the how's and why's, you had what was the original incarnation of ICE go bankrupt. It was was bought up by an outside party and basically licensed back to some of the individuals from the original ICE. They then lost the license and it was licensed to the current incarnation of ICE (pretty much made up of the freelancers that had written a good portion of the RMSS material and some of the long time forum posters who mostly had the needed talent). The problem is some of the material from the second incarnation of ICE was tied to individuals related to that ICE that aren't inclined to work with the newest ICE. For example, my book (the Channeling Companion) has a small amount of material contributed by one of those people and we had to remove it in order to re-publish it.
-
Impatient people have the excellent option to download the free beta versions, until the PDFs are ready on drivethrurpg
So you are telling new people (hell even older folks) who picked up the Core Rules nearly 2 months ago that they can just go download the BETA PDF from this web site that has not been updated in 7 years and that should be good enough for them? That is a terrible answer.
And in regards to the Core Rules they have not been updated or put up for PoD within the alluded 1 month time frame given in the Director Briefings, which is not a good look for new people coming in either.
Also instead of rushing to get Spell Law out and maybe a preview of Creature Law out to capitalize on all the angst over the WotC/OGL stuff they just went radio silent.
Overall this has been bungled and you are looking like a pure fan boy who can not pull their head out of their own posterior to see this failure.
-
I think the size of the errata thread pretty clearly explains why the update has taken this long. That has also taken our limited attention away from Spell Law.
-
Impatient people have the excellent option to download the free beta versions, until the PDFs are ready on drivethrurpg
So you are telling new people (hell even older folks) who picked up the Core Rules nearly 2 months ago that they can just go download the BETA PDF from this web site that has not been updated in 7 years and that should be good enough for them? That is a terrible answer.
And in regards to the Core Rules they have not been updated or put up for PoD within the alluded 1 month time frame given in the Director Briefings, which is not a good look for new people coming in either.
Also instead of rushing to get Spell Law out and maybe a preview of Creature Law out to capitalize on all the angst over the WotC/OGL stuff they just went radio silent.
Overall this has been bungled and you are looking like a pure fan boy who can not pull their head out of their own posterior to see this failure.
Come on, you can do better than this, brand new profile.
-
Come on, you can do better than this, brand new profile.
Brand new? I've had this account since 2011, all you have to do is click on my name to see that. I don't post much because there hasn't been much of a reason to post while waiting for Unified to be released.
-
Come on, you can do better than this, brand new profile.
Getting a bit over-zealous here. One could point out that all but one post you've made in this thread is arguably no more constructive than the ones you're responding to.
-
I suspect that I'm not the only one getting tired of the flame war.
-
Come on, you can do better than this, brand new profile.
Getting a bit over-zealous here. One could point out that all but one post you've made in this thread is arguably no more constructive than the ones you're responding to.
I had hoped the first quarrel was the very end of it.
-
Getting back to the OP,
I am super happy to support the RMU content and it has had a successful launch! This is OUTSTANDING.
However, biggest complaint:
A couple:
Agree with the OP, a few pages of creatures and monsters stat blocks would of been nice. A few Spell lists would also have been nice, but neither is a deal breaker for me - I'm going to just adjust from my old RM2 C&T and HOPE that SPELL LAW will be released soon. I think we will do some historical fun games, learning the new system until then.
But my Biggest complaint is the Art inside the RMU book. Very few pictures are of quality in most TTRPG books now available. I know this was put together with love and the damn hard work of all of the people around here - and THANK YOU!!! But the art is a big factor to many new, would-be players. It would be nice that when we get enough for a true printing of the game (maybe) we get some good art.
Thanks again though to the team that put this together.
-
I think the size of the errata thread pretty clearly explains why the update has taken this long. That has also taken our limited attention away from Spell Law.
I think you are at a point you could probably draw a line on the errata so far, apply them, and then add any new errata to a new revision or a published 'errata doc'. The obvious stuff seems mostly found.
On the bright side... look how many people are looking at the product with a magnifying glass to make the product shine.
-
I think the size of the errata thread pretty clearly explains why the update has taken this long. That has also taken our limited attention away from Spell Law.
I think you are at a point you could probably draw a line on the errata so far, apply them, and then add any new errata to a new revision or a published 'errata doc'. The obvious stuff seems mostly found.
I agree that it is time to release what you got. It is possible to wait until all the errata for Core Law start to slow down to ensure you have captured as many errata items as possible before making the "perfect" physical book. Still, I think it is not the most effective path forward. I think it is likely that any important issues that have not been found so far will not be found until the other books are out.
Also, the likelihood that the other books will be fine without extensive scrutiny by the users seems slim if we consider the number of errata found in the first book. If there are fewer authors creating the text for those might make the next books more coherent, but the layout process has caused a number of errors on its own. The books will probably not be ready for print even if the text started as perfect; furthermore, having an errata-free Core Law, but the other books in need of massive errata will not look very smart.
The largest thing holding back my RMU enjoyment now is hesitation if I shall start to print the pages I need for the game or if I should wait until there is a fixed digital release. There are good reasons that people are talking about Ironcrown release speed as glacial. I want physical books as much as most people do, but more than that, I want digital books that I can print so I can play the game.
I suggest it would be better to release all the RMU books as soon as they are done with layouts and let us fans scrutinize them as we play the game. Releasing books that need extensive fixes before the text is done is not good PR, but Ironcrown spends years proofreading the text and still leaves lots of things that need to be fixed, feeding the narrative of the glacial release process.
In computer software, you often use a set release schedule when the improvements that are done are shipped on certain dates. Sometimes the number of improvements included become minimal, and sometimes they turn out to be more significant but having a release schedule that you follow builds trust that the remaining errors will eventually be fixed. If RMU should start to gain momentum, I think Ironcrown should aim for digital releases of all the books and tell the customers that there will be errata updates to those according to a fixed schedule. When the number of errata suggestions dwindles down, the physical book is released.
-
Half-joking but… the medieval sword is still called a "broadsword (http://"https://www.thearma.org/essays/broadsword.htm#.Y9i-J-zMKHF")". :p
Well, at least, the arming sword is called as such rather than "longsword" whereas the longsword is correctly a two-handed sword but…
-
My biggest complaint is that I think the races are not well balanced. Especially those races, e.g. dwarces and elves, which have few bonus DPs left seem very unattractive to me. I think the underlying race system is somewhat flawed. YMMV
-
I think the size of the errata thread pretty clearly explains why the update has taken this long. That has also taken our limited attention away from Spell Law.
So you indicated with this response that the update was done but I'm not seeing any updates yet. Can you please indicate when this update will be going live?
-
It will go live when Nicholas says so and uploads it to DTRPG.
-
Your post was not unclear nash, some just want to spread negativity for the sake of doing so.
I don't think it's "for the sake of doing so". Some people would have liked RMU to be different from what it is, and they are vocal about it. And that's fine, unless this forum is a congratulations forum where dissent is not accepted (in which case it could stand to be named more appropriately).
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think criticism needs to be constructive to be worthwhile - it needs to be explained. Constructive (providing a solution) is optional, especially if you're merely a player and have no skill in game design. As I said in another thread, the lack of design notes in the RMU books make constructive criticism all the more difficult. However, explaining *why* you think parts of the rules are wrong is valid.
I agree completely. The worst thing that can happen to any forum is for it to become an echo chamber.
I hear you, but thread-crapping is also a very real problem, which drives people out of the thread and eventually the forum. When you come into the a thread, dominate the discussion, and do not approach other points with the least bit of good faith you have moved from "let's let everyone have their say" and into polluting the discussion. Everyone's mileage will vary, but it is not a binary where if you have someone who has no intention of having a discussion but wants to have a soap box - especially re-litigating things that are long ago decided - asking them to tone it down does not magically make the forum an echo chamber.