Topic: What ICE can learn from "that other company"

[smug]

I suspect that the round is one of those areas where there's a lot of divergence, take a look:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=11535.0

The vote count is low, so it's not definitive, but so far it looks like around 40% of those who voted so far use an "Other" round in play. . .that's a pretty strong statement of the strength of the house rules faction we have.

I think a lot of us have been pretty clear that those of us on the forums aren't really representative of any group other than "RM fans who post on the ICE forums", particularly not representative of the significant numbers one assumes ICE wish to attract to play RM again or for the first time.

The discussion of what ICE can do easily gets depressing, I think. Whatever one feels about the scale of contraction (or otherwise) of the tabletop RPG market, there's a load of just great games out there, pretty much all of the games RM used to compete with (and thanks to the OSR, we have an almost-exact copy of 1e, BE(CMI) and most of the other games also live on in recognisable form; meanwhile, ICE lost the big attention-getter it had back in the day, the Middle-Earth license) plus a load of great new ones. Unless ICE do something spectacular like go OGL -- which I'd love, but I can't see it happening -- I can't see the way to anything bigger than a niche.

None of that means, obviously, that it can't be done -- I'm not a game company owner, an RPG designer or any sort of marketer -- but add that to the division between RM2/C and RMSS/FRP and it's some needle to thread.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I think the "Holy Grail" would be to find the right framework (or core mechanics) to support modularization of rule-set / components.

What generally 'broke' rules in the past for different groups was the inherent power-creep of new suppliments, or combinging new rules, spells, talents, etc., in ways previously not balanced...that's all up to the GM to balance in the end.

(Emphasis mine.)

And there's the rub. In many ways I consider HARP to be simpler than RM1, yet I'm struggling to find a way to split the four methods of mana tapping so that the mechanics are very distinct and each have their own flavor, and yet can use the exact same casting mechanic. 4 different methods, each of which have to balance precisely with the other 3. It's not as easy as it sounds.

Now try to extend that to every modification of character generation/development, every modification of combat resolution, every modification of action sequence in a round... and every one of those mods has to balance perfectly with all of the others, or if not the designers have to know the ins and outs of each so thoroughly that they can put warnings in saying basically, "don't use combat mod X with spell casting mod Y, it'll break your game because of _____."

Or if you prefer, I can put it in terms of simple arithmetic: If there are 5 character generation options, 5 combat resolution options, 5 spellcasting options and 5 action/round sequence resolution options, 5x5x5x5=625 possible combinations, and the designers have to have proved to their own satisfaction that every single one of those 625 combinations works and doesn't unbalance the game before they dare publish.... and then after a year or so of crowdsourcing it to GMs and players, they'll still have a crop of balance and/or playability issues that they'll have to revise for.

Add in 5 methods of dealing with talents and it becomes 3125 possible combinations. 

As much as I love tabletop RPGs, I doubt the market is big enough to support the number of people required for the number of hours necessary to sort through the sheer volume of stuff that would have to be checked.

[jdale]

You can't balance perfectly. First of all, if you look at 4e that's what they did. Everybody gets the same number of encounter powers per level etc etc. It is so balanced it is painful. Painfully boring.

Second of all, balance depends on factors external to the rules. For example, Mentalism is not as useful as undead. The relevance of this as a balancing factor depends on how common undead are. If they are the main bad guys, it's big. If there are no undead, it's irrelevant. More simply, in a game where combat is rare and politics is common, combat-focused characters are at a disadvantage, while skill-focused characters are at an advantage. In a combat-focused game, the opposite is true.

The best a game can do is ensure that it is reasonably well balanced for a typical game, and then point out how to address these factors as they come up.

On the other hand, you only need to do your heavy playtesting and crowdsourcing if you are making major changes. There are many commonalities between RM2 and RMSS. Both of which have been heavily crowdsourced already (except it was called a release not a beta...).

[rdanhenry]

And... there's precious little agreement about what was right or wrong with either one. A few obviously broken things have been noted, but mostly the discussion on RM rules just end up reinforcing just how much balance is contextual and how different people have different tastes and styles of play.

[Cory Magel]

RPG design is an interesting dilemma and, yes, rather depressing these days.

You have to decide how much should be provided to the user as hard rules, how much should be provided as flexible rules, and how much you just don't explain at all and let them figure out for themselves.  Part of doing this is deciding who your target audience is.  Old time gamers want flexibility because they've pretty much figured out where things are going to break with their particular gaming style.  It's a toss up on spoon feeding the why's of a particular games design or letting the customer put their own spin on it.  Take the various forms of magic... do you give a specific and detailed reasoning behind the realms, or do you leave it vague and let the gamer insert their own theory?  As someone said already, we aren't the crowd to ask either.  We're pretty much mostly hard core/fanatic table top gamers here.

"In the day" there was a decent enough sized customer base that RM could be a modest success (in the top 5 or so) on what we would consider veteran gamers coming from other RPGs.  There were a number of companies that could probably have lived off their RPG alone, but much of their customer base originated with D&D.  D&D might still have been a product that could keep a company alive on it's own back when TSR was first aquired by WotC, but there's no way that could happen today in my opinion.  I don't know as if Hasbro is capable of turning D&D into what is was under pre-Hasbro WotC (let alone it's heyday with TSR).  Most of my reasoning on that is because WotC is no longer controlled by table top gamer (i.e. Peter)... it (D&D) is run like a business these days and, given the state of the RPG industry, Hasbro probably doesn't see it as good business.  Partially their own fault, but the downfall of Table Top RPGs started with the downfall of TSR in my opinion.  Pre-Hasbro WotC started to turn that around... but as I said, the gamer control of D&D dissapeared shortly after Hasbro took over (pretty much because Hasbro quickly started sticking their fingers into stuff they said they wouldn't).

Anyhow... my point is that if you want to survive as a Table Top RPG you have to draw in new customers.  With D&D not being successful enough to leave a sizable number of scraps laying around the ways to do that are to try and get the 'old guard' to start passing on the tradition, which I don't see as a very reliable marketing strategy (although it should not be ignored) or to try and start appealing somehow to today's non-D&D 'gamer'.  How do you appeal to today's gamer becomes the question.  I don't like the answers that pop into my head when it comes to that question.  D&D, as much as I hate to say it, probably did what I would have done - figure out how to appeal to online gamers.  WoW is currently the most attractive critter for leeching off of.

Someone mentioned that computer gamers are also table top gamers.  I don't believe that.  I believe most table top gamers are also computer gamers, but I do not believe the opposite is the case.  If it were I think the customer base of WoW alone could drive a healthier Table Top RPG industry then we have right now.

So, the answer I hate... you need to appeal to online gamers if you want to live long term.  You could go after an entirely new market (non table top or online gamers), but how do you draw them in?  You'd probably need a nice juicy license for something like Star Wars, Star Trek, Game of Thrones, Middle Earth, getting more modern maybe James Bond, Twilight (*gag*), or maybe sci-fi with Firefly or Farscape.  And you're going to have to advertise like hell.  Who can afford to do that?  Companies that aren't just RPG companies.  What if Blizzard licensed WoW?  Then you might have something.

Ok, I've rambled enough... the point is if RM wants NEW customers (non-table top gamers or not) I believe it needs to give the appearance of being simplified.  It doesn't necessarily need to be simplified, it just needs to look like it has been.  RM2 was never a cohesive system and eventually became a mess.  It was very newbie unfriendly.  RMSS, even though done fairly well, suffered from RM2's reputation so you couldn't get enough new people to try it and the RM2 users, mostly being veteran gamers, didn't really need a new RM.  RMFRP was just, well... strange.  I myself don't understand the reason for it.  It just didn't seem different enough to justify starting over from RMSS and I think it ticked off a lot of RMSS users (even though we don't complain a lot about it).  RMC came along when things were pretty much doomed, although it was a cool thing for many of the RM2 users.

What now?  Continue RMFRP?  Continue RMC?  Both?  Create a new RM?  Really tough choices.  But if RM is to survive as a viable product (and not just a side hobby of the owners) I think it needs to take the stuff both the RM2 and RMSS crowds liked and create a new RM from that foundation, but also try to focus it towards the online gaming crowd somehow.  It's too bad Dark Age of Camelot didn't work out better for ICE 2.0, but I think there's still a possibility for some publicity there if it's legally possible... might be a good starting point.

[Cory Magel]

You can't balance perfectly

Anyone that manages to do that successfully needs to go work for the president on the budget.

[markc]

 IMHO RPG's are part art and part science. The money side of the equation can spoil the art and the science very quickly.
 Also IMHO it is the goal of most versions to retain their past customers and attract new customers, if they are in it to make $.
 IMHO you can learn a lot from failures as well as from success as long as you have the right way to apply it to the future.
MDC 

[rdanhenry]

What now?  Continue RMFRP?  Continue RMC?  Both?  Create a new RM?  Really tough choices.  But if RM is to survive as a viable product (and not just a side hobby of the owners) I think it needs to take the stuff both the RM2 and RMSS crowds liked

Which would be what exactly? I don't think you could find much of a list of generally agreed upon likes/dislikes even among the players of one of the two RM families. Why do you think RM2 spawned so many variant rule options that two campaigns could be played using no house rules whatsoever, just published RM2 rules options, and have virtual nothing in common but some terminology? There were even rules that changed combat that all but did away with criticals! If we can't all agree that critical tables are awesome and there ought to be more of them (Social Faux Pas Criticals! Inebriation Criticals!), what hope is there for agreement on anything?

[Cory Magel]

What now?  Continue RMFRP?  Continue RMC?  Both?  Create a new RM?  Really tough choices.  But if RM is to survive as a viable product (and not just a side hobby of the owners) I think it needs to take the stuff both the RM2 and RMSS crowds liked

Which would be what exactly? I don't think you could find much of a list of generally agreed upon likes/dislikes even among the players of one of the two RM families.

Although we need to take the opinions here with a grain of salt, both because we are the 'fanatics' and because you can't assume both 'camps' know the other version well, I've never seen a good discussion about what each side LIKES about the others version, only what they complain about.  Every once in a while you see an offhand comment along those lines, but there's never been a really good discussion about it.  I'd really like to see what the various RM users LIKE about the versions they don't use.

Why do you think RM2 spawned so many variant rule options that two campaigns could be played using no house rules whatsoever, just published RM2 rules options, and have virtual nothing in common but some terminology? There were even rules that changed combat that all but did away with criticals! If we can't all agree that critical tables are awesome and there ought to be more of them (Social Faux Pas Criticals! Inebriation Criticals!), what hope is there for agreement on anything?

I think RM2 spawned so many variants because it was a piecemeal system that was never truly published as a cohesive whole very well.  RM originated as mere add on materials for use with other systems.  Our group used some of that stuff in our modifications of AD&D 2nd Ed (along with some of the RM2 stuff later on).  RM2 didn't really do a good job of correcting the feel of that and only got worse, much worse, as expansions were published with no true oversight/control.  It was very difficult for new gamers to pick up RM2 once you had that mess.  As a result you had a bunch of RM2 customers, which were veteran gamers, who had essentially adopted various bits and pieces that were disorganized and unbalanced into their own little RM.  RMSS was needed if they expected to gain more customers long term.  When my group decided to start using RM as a full on system we looked at RM2 and RMSS.  We went with RMSS due to fairly obvious better organization and, over the years, learned that RM2 was horribly controlled as we integrated materials from RM2 that had not been published for RMSS yet.  We usually re-wrote what we integrated using the old RM2 material as a guideline.

From what I've seen RMSS users aren't as fanatic about the whole RM2 vs RMSS debate.  I suspect part of the reason for this is because the RM2 users had largely created their own unique versions of it due to the nature of the materials and, therefore, defend them more aggressively.  If I had effectively created my 'own' RPG I would too.  The primary complaints I see from RM2 users are the skill system and the profession bonuses in RMSS.  I don't think altering those two things will be a deal breaker for the RMSS crowd.  Obviously if ICE wants to hold on to the RM2 crowd they'll have to either continue on with RMC (resulting in two supported versions of RM) or integrate some of favorite points of RM2 into a new version.  The only drawback about supporting two versions is the manpower that will be needed to do that.  Otherwise it's a great idea if you're not looking to expand your customer base.  Just keep publishing RMC and RMFRP (unless there are legal issues with rights for materials).

But what about gaining new customers?  That's the real question for the future.  If ICE thinks the current fan base can support their expectations then just keep putting out RMC and RMFRP.  I think that's a bad business plan if you want a product with longevity.  To keep a system alive as a viable product you also have to revamp it eventually.  Ten years is probably about as long as you want to go without doing so.

RM needs to appeal to non current table top gamers somehow anyhow.  So, my plan would be to create a new version that tones things down (simplifies) a bit.  But you should try to integrate the things that both the RM2 and RMSS crowds can agree on or at least can live with.  RMC and RMFRP would eventually run out of new materials anyhow and have to be revamped just as any system needs to have done every so often, so you might as well try to make the revamp integrate those groups.  RM is still going to have to overcome it's past reputation though.  That's where I'd try to point out to the world that Dark Age of Camelot was largely RM based if not heavily influenced (in case legalities disallow saying it was RM based).  Better yet, try to license the system out to a computer based game, hopefully a MMORPG  Even if ICE didn't ask for a bunch of money for the license the publicity might be quite valuable.

In the end continuing to support RMC and RMFRP is a decent plan short term.  But even those will eventually have to be revamped and you're not doing much to gain new customers in the mean time.  You might as well try to create something that does it all instead.  Not saying that's going to be easy by any means, but it's what I'd be looking at doing long term.

[Witchking20k]

WOTC will not fail. 

IMO RM needs to be streamlined into 1 system; the RM2 vs RMSS dilema has been a deterrent to people I have directed to RM in the past.  Last week actually.  At the end of the day ICE needs new clients.

I agree with the statement about saying what we LIKE about the existing versions of RM; and combining as many aspects of that as we can.  I am going to try not to pick on RM.  I only do so because I love it.


From RMSS: I like the snap/normal/deliberate phase.  I like 3 stats per skill.  I prefer the up front bonuses to the per level bonuses. I like Cultures and TPs with development cost based on Profession.  I prefer the body dev progession.

From RM2: I prefer the PP/level approach.  I like the combine progression for skills. 

I loved RMX.  I think that was a solid incarnation of RM and could serve as ground to move forward with.

[pastaav]

The question how to draw new customers is interesting. The thought of having a RM version that is simplified to draw new customers are lovely...actually I think I heard just this kind of talk when HARP came.

Looking in the rear window I think ICE attracted a new crowd with HARP. I also think it is fairly easy to see that it was lack of support for Cyradon and HARP that made HARP lose its influx of new customers. The same could be said about RMFRP and RMC. Products that lost their momentum due to lack of new produced material.

To put it differently...what would be different in 'RM Light' compared to HARP?
What evidence is there that the brand name RM would work better than HARP to attract new customers?

I would not say that it is impossible to renew RM as a mainstream product, but I do think that it would require using a major license as Game of Thrones. In the absence of such license we need to look at reality. Every new edition produced mean risk of starvation of the support for the current products and the competition will not be idle. When the RM+ version comes it will have to compete with other companies that also has improved their products and who do have major licenses to boost sales.

If anything at all should be done with RM then it is IMHO to produce a FRP companion for RMC that would expose the few RMSS/RMFRP differences as options for RMC. Call this the RMGOLD or something similar and the different editions are gone and replaced by different styles of play. The downside of such a product would be sales would be low since the target audience already has what they need in their RMFRP books. The upside of such product is that it combined with a promise to dual stat everything for both styles would dispell much of the "supported but without any actual new products"-cloud that impact sales negatively now.

On the top of my head this are things that I think should be done:
*Get HARP back in a working condition as soon as possible. Do not wait for every part of it to be ready but make sure there are HARP material to be bought.
*Release follow up material for HARP SF.
*Support Cyradon with new material or at least give a timeframe when this will be considered to not leave the fans in a limbo.
*Make fantasy products that can be trippled statted (RMC, RMFRP, HARP) or made into a simultaneous release both for RM and HARP   

I think that all the above are things that are more sure ways to earn customers than a RM new edition.

[VladD]

I concur with Cory Magel:

RMC and RMFRP are fine systems, and must keep ICE afloat for the time being, but ICE needs a new direction. Preferably BEFORE D&D 5E arrives, because then it isn't too late to swipe some "floating" customers from them, such as my own gaming crew.
I went on to buy RMFRP because it seemed the premier edition and loved it. It has many great features over RMC. I do agree that the basic premise is the same; and for many the gameplay will look the same, but there are marked differences in how fast you get to learn certain skills...

This said: I'll indulge Cory Magels request:

1) RMC is very open to changes. I like how it accepts new professions, spell lists and skills.
2) RMFRP maintains a very opaque spell casting system. It invites people to use overcasting in nearly every spellcasting, leading up to HUGE chances of a blown up mage, and or party.
3) Buy ranks at cost X/Y and criticals should NEVER be cut from the system.

This said: I want to elaborate on my earlier post on this topic.
Why am I firing off new ideas, is because RM needs new ideas. It has been kept alive using the same principles and almost the same text for almost 3 decades. People might tire from that, or look at the "new" stuff, see the same rules text, with few changes and think: " nothing has changed".
With a system with a bad rep; that is even worse. It needs new content, new ideas, a fresh perspective on things.
I have a totally simulationist bias for wanting this. My games rely on simulating the real world while trying to tell a story with a fantastic background, solution and outcome. That simulation style game I feel is best played in RM. I'd really like to preserve that feel and build on that.
Use more real world weaponry and armor. Build up a system of magic around ancient religious practices. Give players a skill set that is more to the point of day to day survival, instead of allowing someone to focus all this points in hitting really really hard, ignoring stuns and dodging attacks. Make a combat round that is, for example, more than 10 secs and allow people to do things relative to each other, such as movement by the second, multiple attacks with a dagger vs a two handed sword. Perhaps even allow spells to be prepared and cast in that same round, so spell casters don't feel "nerfed".
RMX might be a great choice. I'm not really sure how this system operates, but I hear it is a great distillation of RM in general, so that is how it should start and then ICE can build up around that.

[GrumpyOldFart]

The thought of having a RM version that is simplified to draw new customers are lovely...actually I think I heard just this kind of talk when HARP came.

When I read,

So, my plan would be to create a new version that tones things down (simplifies) a bit.

I thought, "Isn't that what HARP is an attempt to do?"

*Get HARP back in a working condition as soon as possible. Do not wait for every part of it to be ready but make sure there are HARP material to be bought.
*Release follow up material for HARP SF.
*Support Cyradon with new material or at least give a timeframe when this will be considered to not leave the fans in a limbo.
*Make fantasy products that can be trippled statted (RMC, RMFRP, HARP) or made into a simultaneous release both for RM and HARP   

So far as I can tell (keep in mind, my name has never been in the credits of an ICE product ever, which rather defines how limited "so far as I can tell" is), the first 3 are happening right now. Giving a timeframe for Cyradon support is probably foggier than the first two, but I can sympathize with those who are hesitant to give a timeframe when they may not have one themselves. There's a lot of things being done at once, and "when will there be more support" for a setting attached to a game that's in revision may be a calculation that would make a quantum mechanic hand in his toolbox.

I'm also fairly certain that triple statting everything was a project they were working on back before the Mjolnir/TGC change. Where that is currently on the priority list (if it's there at all) I couldn't tell you, but the idea was at least thought of at some point.

However, I do agree that this

I've never seen a good discussion about what each side LIKES about the others version, only what they complain about.

is a very good point. To that end, here's my bit. I started with RM1, went to RM2, skipped over RMSS/RMFRP entirely and went to HARP. So... what elements do I like about RMSS/RMFRP?

Category ranks. I think you have to go carefully here, because after all you're affecting several skills at once with each DP spent (and thus potentially creating a major imbalance in the cost/benefit calculation of the value of a DP). Nonetheless, I think it's valid to have an option whereby you can learn a smattering of the basics that apply to several closely related skills.

Everyman skills: I don't think this idea was very well executed, but I thought the concept was pure gold. The problem I saw with it was that in execution it became "too fiddly", too much housekeeping involved, which was made worse by the fact that it was introduced as part of a system many saw as "too fiddly", with too much housekeeping/information tracking involved throughout the game system.

Both of these I think were good ideas. But in terms of the appeal of the game, I'd rather do without them entirely than have them be yet another source of confusion.

[Cory Magel]

Guess I should do what I'm talking about...

What I like about RM2...
1) I actually prefer the per rank profession bonuses.  I think they greatly alleviate the diminishing returns issue over the long term and help slightly reduce the starting power level of first level characters (although it depends on who you ask if that's a good thing).
2) Although I like both just as well, if I had to pick the skill system from either RM2 or RMSS I'd probably go with RM2.  I use the RMSS one because there's just to reason for me to mess with it's setup in RMSS, but I think that the RM2 setup is less intimidating to new customers.
3) RM2 was around the longest and, therefore, has the most materials.  They need to be cleaned up, but there's a lot of RM2 that never saw the light of day in RMSS or RMFRP.  That's the stuff that will keep a new version going for years. The issue will be getting rights to use it or revamping it under a new author.  RMSS didn't even come close to using all this stuff, which is why RMFRP's release confuses me (why start over when you haven't come close to finishing RMSS's potential?).

What I don't like about RMSS (my preferred system)...
1) Occupational and Everyman skills.  They were a good concept, but implementation just lead to diminishing returns kicking in even faster.  I think the RM2 per rank bonus is a better way to handle this.
2) Clerics. One word: Boring.  They were too generic and didn't do anything to represent different religions.  This is the reason my co-author and I put the Priest concept into the Channeling Companion (although I think we needed to do a better job on explaining and/or controlling power balance in selecting base lists...).

What I like about RMSS...
1) The round is not too simple yet not too complex for new customers.  I personally go with either a simpler or more complex round, but in the end that leaves me thinking the "core" RMSS round is good where it's at.  Besides, most RM2 users agree the RM2 round was way too clunky.
2) Talents were a great new option and I think should stay, but they really, really need some closer inspection in terms of cost/balance.
3) Training packages.  I like them, but they need to be limited and the discounts potentially received for them toned down a bit.  Players shouldn't be buying several TP's in my opinion, one Lifestyle and one Vocation should be the limitation and the 'extras' gained for the DP's you put into them should be non-combat related in order to encourage more role-play and less hack-and-slash.  Basically, use them to encourage developing skills players tend to ignore or overlook.
4) Organization.  I don't think this really even needs to be said, but a game system becomes a nightmare for new customers if it's not organized well.  RM2 was never as organized as RMSS and only became exponentially worse.  I know many of us will say "but they were meant as options" but that's not how new customers will tend to look at it, or really even a lot of the existing RM users.

Although it's not like it is a 'feature' of RMSS, but it's rules were better controlled and balanced by the ICE staff than RM2 ever was.  This is something that needs to continue going forward.  ICE needs to be careful about being very hands-in when looking at freelance work.  It's going to annoy those of us who might do freelance work for them, but they are going to have to keep close control on our proposed rules/options to make sure things don't get out of hand (power creep).

There are a few things I think RM has to keep in general imo.

Criticals being the #1 one.  It would be nice to see attack charts and critical charts combined in some manner, but I really do not like the HARP melee setup.  Far too much repetition in results.  I think leaving them alone is probably the best way to go, ICE just needs to make new customers fall in love with them - that's a task for marketing.  Way back there were some ads that actually drew us to RM materials which did exactly that.

The spell system needs to remain in place.  What I mean is that professions should have unique base lists as they do now, not pick and chose from a communal group.  I do not think HARP actually made the spell system any less complex and lost an enormous amount of spell selection uniqueness in the process in comparison with RM.

[Witchking20k]

I would consider re-looking at the attack charts and maybe having criticals achieved less frequently too.  They become more climactic if you aren't rolling them after 2/3rds of your attacks.  It might speed up the game too.

[GrumpyOldFart]

1) Occupational and Everyman skills.  They were a good concept, but implementation just lead to diminishing returns kicking in even faster.  I think the RM2 per rank bonus is a better way to handle this.

I may be showing my ignorance here, because as I said, I skipped over RMSS/RMFRP entirely. I agree that Occupational skills could be better done in a different way. What I think justifies the concept of Everyman skills is to have them tied to the culture that provided the character's Adolescent ranks. For example, I consider the idea of a Comanche or Mongol to have no advantage when dealing with horses to be frankly irrational. So what if he's a mage? He's still a Mongol.

What I dislike about HARP:

Spell spheres. I like scalable spells and I like the idea that, for example, Charm is Charm is Charm, and whether it's being cast by a mage, a harper or a mystic is beside the point. My opinion regarding spell "uniqueness" is almost diametrically opposed to yours. I think your caster's spell abilities should be almost universally customizable. However, I think there should be prerequisites. I don't think you should be able to cast Fireball or Firebolt unless/until you have learned the Ignite cantrip, no matter how high level a mage you are. You have to learn the basics first. I don't think you should be able to cast Elemental Line or Elemental Cone unless/until you've learned Elemental Ball and/or Bolt. I would group spells into bunches of half a dozen or so very similar spells (such as Ball/Bolt) and say that semi spellcasters start with 2-3, clerics start with 3-4, mages start with 4-5. But by having prerequisites, you can still slow the rate at which mages become generic.

What I like about HARP:

There is a grand total of 2, count 'em, 2, possible costs for skills. That simplifies things enormously, IMO.

[intothatdarkness]

1) Occupational and Everyman skills.  They were a good concept, but implementation just lead to diminishing returns kicking in even faster.  I think the RM2 per rank bonus is a better way to handle this.

I may be showing my ignorance here, because as I said, I skipped over RMSS/RMFRP entirely. I agree that Occupational skills could be better done in a different way. What I think justifies the concept of Everyman skills is to have them tied to the culture that provided the character's Adolescent ranks. For example, I consider the idea of a Comanche or Mongol to have no advantage when dealing with horses to be frankly irrational. So what if he's a mage? He's still a Mongol.

To deal with the cultural stuff, I ended up developing an initial rank bonus based on origin. My "Mongols" started the game with 5 ranks of Riding, no matter their profession. Each culture had its own 'set' of background skills that were tacked on when doing initial development. Scrapping the normal level bonus system also helped greatly.

[Wōdwulf Seaxaning]

I already posted about how I thought I didn't think a new edition of RM would be viable at this time. Mainly it's because they are working on 'tweaking' HARP to bring it in line with HARP SF/SFX
& they have yet to finish getting past works imprinted for the new deal. But going forward after ALL of that is done ... what would I like to see for RM?

Before I get into what I'd like to see for a new RM , i need to preface it with this. No matter if it's freelancers or staff working on RM/HARP ect... EVERYTHING needs to be completely owned buy ICE, so if the liscence ever changes again.. we don't have to go through the legal loops again to see ICE product published again whatever it's form. The writer gets paid & credit in the book his/her contribution is published in but loses any rights to it afterwards. It's ALL ICE's once paid for. No more legal hassles wit ex-staff writers/designers or freelancers like happened with both the RMCompanions & RMX/EAs , plus HARP. We lost a great game in RMX & it's EA supplements over this problem. It should NEVER become a problem again for ICE.

1) I'd like to see a rules-lite intro game like RMX. It should be seperate from a full RM relaunch so people will have a quick & easy intro to RM game principles n' possibly a way to get kids or other RM/RPG newbies into the RM fold.

2) The core book should take the basic outlined in the rules-lite game & expand on them . But in a way that keeps the game simple & fast. Any in-core book 'options' should be kept to a minimum & located in the section/chapter of the core book it is suplementing. ALL options , whether in the core book or it's supplements NEED to be thuroughly playtested for balance FIRST before being included or published. The need to keep power creep out of the game should be a core design principle for ICE/GC going forward.

3) What I liked about RMSS was that ICE tried to give people options to play Modern, Horror, espionage ect genres with RMSS rules. But I feel it was offly piecemeal in it's approach , much like how GURPS did it. So if ICE wants to give it's customers options to play modern related & Sci-Fi games. They should create full seperate games based on the genre desired. Maybe do as White Wolf did & create a Modern 'core' system book/suplents & them publish a Superhero , a horror & a action/Thriller/espionage setting books that plug into the 'RM Modern' core book. The same could be done with a new Spacemaster game. Create a generic SPAM core book & them publish a Far-future setting/rules book that expands on rules specific to it's setting. Then create a new Cyberpunk or Post Apocalyptic setting/rules or a SPAM companion that offered rules to create such as setting.

4a) To appeal to younger/newer fans to RM & ICE in general. Update the site , look to adding cool & vibrant art/graphic design to the products whether as PDFs or POD. I'm not suggesting Anime or mage-punky style al a D&D 3.x but quality art from house or freelance artists. Maybe mine Deviant art for fresh young fantasy artists looking for publishing credits even if for little money.

4b) Add a few MMo-y elements..ugh I can't believe I typed that. Nuthing overtly drastic like with what WotC/Hasbro did with D&D 4e. Maybe a 'second wind' or 'hard to kill' ability tied to the con stat giving limited health during vital combat unless crit causes instand death or several rounds of stun or stun/with or with-out parry. They could use one or more of their H2K or SW points to break minor stuns with out using Stunned Manuever or non-killing blow that causes unconciousness based crit results like a modified fate point.

Well that's it for now..lunch is calling me heh.

[Wōdwulf Seaxaning]

From an advanced rules/options book I'd like to see. Such as simple culture background  & vocational or lifestyle training packages that give players some basic options/skills to help build their character around. Maybe even some starting starting money & equiptment tied to their cultural background & professions.

One thing I'd love to see for the Core (& rules-lite) RM game is a simplified combat round rules-set. Then you can include (tested) optional rules to modify it for those looking for more complexity in the 'Advanced Options' book. Well that's it for now.

[intothatdarkness]

From an advanced rules/options book I'd like to see. Such as simple culture background  & vocational or lifestyle training packages that give players some basic options/skills to help build their character around. Maybe even some starting starting money & equiptment tied to their cultural background & professions.

This is exactly the route I took with my world, and is one of the reasons I think RM needs to come out with a fleshed-out environment linked to the rules. High Man starts to make more sense when it's linked to a specific culture or region. Pushing out profiles like that without a good overall context is, to me, a negative.