Official ICE Forums
Gamer's Corner => The Guild Companion e-zine => Topic started by: NicholasHMCaldwell on October 03, 2009, 02:39:18 AM
-
Greetings from the Guild Companion,
The October issue (#128) is now available at http://www.guildcompanion.com
In this month's issue, we have an essay on the social implications of the Mystic's base lists, seven real-world martial arts styles statted up for Rolemaster, a variant set of profession-less rules for HARP, and editorial thoughts on Something Wicked, TGA#4 and the state of Rolemaster.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
I really enjoyed reading the editorial of this edition. The progress information on Something Wicked was - again - very nice to read and raised my interest in that product even more. Hope it makes it for Christmas ... maybe.
I have to say, however, that the "rant" on Rolemaster was really something. As an addition one might say that there should maybe also be an alliance of RM and HARP gamers to support both lines and strengthen the company together. A future option might also be to combine RM and HARP in the next edition step. Quite a few people have mentioned that they like the skill system of RM and the spell system of HARP for example. And RM has always offered options to choose from, something I always though made it better than all the other systems on the market.
-
Profession-less HARP - Excellent article, though my hesitation to implement is based upon a single stat being used as the key for a skill category. It opens the door to some abuses. The limitation of skill development per level based upon stat was a real nice touch - one I had not really considered.
Taking this the extra step - set the development cost based upon the combined of the two stats.
0-40 costs 4
40-60 costs 3
60-90 costs 2
90+ costs 1
Each skill then sets it's own cost based upon both stats it uses - and there are no longer any favored categories.
This now expands skill costs from 2 to 8.
Make the max per level using the reverse.
0-40 max at 1
40-60 max at 2
60-90 max at 3
90+ max at 4
If both of your stats for a skill are 90+, then you can build up to 8 ranks for a cost of 16DP, or you can use those same 16DP on a skill where your stats are both less than 40 and only get 2 ranks....
Otherwise - I really like the article, just my tweak on it....
-
I could see setting 2-3 stats to 91, then spending half DP on skills in that narrow tranche, while spending the other half of DP on raising the other stats to 91, expanding your scope as each stat clears 91. . . .some stats are more skill used than others (so at 4 stats over 91, more than half the skills would be 1 costs).
Being able to spend 1/rank on skills means that compared to Core harp, you'd be able to spend half your DP on your 1 cost skills while spending the other half on stats, with a net result of having the same amount of overall ranks as the core character spending 2 dp/rank and not raising stats. . .once you got all stats over 90, you'd be taking each level equal to 2 levels core when you stopped buying stats.
-
Every HARP skill uses 2 stats - therefore if both stats were at 91 then it would cost 1 DP per stat for 2 DP per rank in the skill - the same as favored categories currently get.
The real impact is on the low side where it noe costs at most 4, my proposal expands it to 8 which I have heard from RM fans is a weakness of HARP (too limited in skill costs)
If done this way then for a training package you simply apply a reduction of 1 DP per rank
-
Ahhh. . .OK, that makes sense. . .I thought you meant 1DP/rank total.
-
Profession-less HARP - Excellent article, though my hesitation to implement is based upon a single stat being used as the key for a skill category. It opens the door to some abuses.
OTOH there is the limitation of the DP sum of all categories not being able to get lower than 30 (or 28/26 with the Jack-of-all-trades talents). I hope this keeps abuse in check. And the system is a bit easier to handle if you use only one stat.
The limitation of skill development per level based upon stat was a real nice touch - one I had not really considered.
Taking this the extra step - set the development cost based upon the combined of the two stats.
0-40 costs 4
40-60 costs 3
60-90 costs 2
90+ costs 1
Each skill then sets it's own cost based upon both stats it uses - and there are no longer any favored categories.
This now expands skill costs from 2 to 8.
Of course this would also be possible. I think that your numbers would need some work, though, since a typical character who chooses to have stats between 60 and 70 would have all categories at a DP cost of 4, which IMO is too high. Additionally you'd also have to create a modified system for the initial skill development at character creation. That would then probably also depend on two stats instead of one. All in all IMHO it is better to first test the more simple one-stat variant and see whether the '30 DP over all categories rule' keeps abuse in check, and only if this does not work then to expand the system to two stats.
Just my 2 cents
-
In the written system the Combat skills are all Strength based.
The agile Robin Hood fighter with low/mid strength is now impaired by the system. There are skills within Combat category that don't use Strength at all for their bonus so why should that control the cost?
General is Reasoning costed, but it includes Resistance-Magic which is IN/IN and Resistance-Stamina which is Co/Co, etc.
Outdoor has skills which do not use In (Sailing & Riding)
Physical is Strength costed, but it has Endurance which is Co/SD
Subterfuge has Streetwise and Trickery that don't use Ag.
I don't need to playtest something if I see a gap in it from the start.
As for the break points I simply used the same as the article, but if I were to do it myself, I would use....
Stat Max # of Ranks DP Cost/Rank
0-50 1 4
51-70 2 3
71-90 3 2
91+ 4 1
These splits coincide with every +4 of bonus.
For someone wanting to specialilze they could use 3-91's, 2-71's, 1-51, 1-41, and 1-40. (550 point system)
For someone wanting to spread "evenly" they could use 7-71's and 1-53 or 6-69 and 2-68. (550 point system)
These are just gut comments and have not been playtested.
-
I can say that I really loved the Editorial this month, especially the state of Rolemaster sections. I also liked to see the new martial arts for RMSS using the MAC rules. It wants me to stick my head back into the MAC rules.
MDC
-
"The State of Rolemaster and Everything Else" segment was an interesting and eye opening read. I was suprised it has been several years since certain products were last printed or supported.
-
In the written system the Combat skills are all Strength based.
The agile Robin Hood fighter with low/mid strength is now impaired by the system. There are skills within Combat category that don't use Strength at all for their bonus so why should that control the cost?
General is Reasoning costed, but it includes Resistance-Magic which is IN/IN and Resistance-Stamina which is Co/Co, etc.
Outdoor has skills which do not use In (Sailing & Riding)
Physical is Strength costed, but it has Endurance which is Co/SD
Subterfuge has Streetwise and Trickery that don't use Ag.
Yes, of course. Unless I had created a very complicated system which bases the DP cost of a category on all stats appearing in that category, probably ideally also considering how often a stat appears, this will always happen. Instead I tried to select one stat that is quite often used per category and I also tried to use each stat at least for one category and not more than twice to reduce abuse.
I don't need to playtest something if I see a gap in it from the start.
Huh, why this aggressive tone (not only in this last sentence)? I only gave some comments about my reasoning when I wrote the article. If you don't like it or my comments above, then that's OK. No need to get rude...
-
"The State of Rolemaster and Everything Else" segment was an interesting and eye opening read. I was suprised it has been several years since certain products were last printed or supported.
QFT
-
Huh, why this aggressive tone (not only in this last sentence)? I only gave some comments about my reasoning when I wrote the article. If you don't like it or my comments above, then that's OK. No need to get rude...
It was not intended as rude - simply a statement. My apologies if more was taken from that. The intent was that while I liked the idea, I did not care for that element and saw an inherent problem with it - to which I had a potential solution. If I see a problem with the proposed solution rather than play it anyway because it is simpler, I choose to try to solution it - which I thought I started working towards.
I did and do still like the idea of the article, and as I stated originally - excellent article.
-
OK, looks like I misunderstood you, sorry.
-
I also liked the HARP article, and the state of Ice and Rolemaster.
I think One RPG To Rule Them All... should be the direction ICE should take when or if it decides to make a new game.
A hybrid of Rolemaster and Harp, but adding new elements that aren't a part of either, might be a good idea, as long as it still resembles in some way the systems that came before it. Fixing the main complaints about ICE's games, while keeping the old school fans might be a tough thing however. I guess it's just tough to be in the RPG industry...
If they only had one RPG, they could focus on putting out more books for that game, IMO. With a limited amount of staff, working on a single RPG line makes sense, at least from my vantage point (again my opinions don't seem to always be popular, hehe).
I'm normally in the minority when it comes to my opinions about RPGs around here, but I think it would be good to have a very flexible game that could be rules-lite, rules-medium, or rules-heavy depending on how many optional rules you add to it.
Think of this imaginary game like a giant Mr. Potato Head. You can run it bare bones (legs and potato), or with a little more crunch (legs, potato, some arms, and maybe an eye), or with lots of crunch (Mr. Potato Head with all the appendages, plus lots of James Bond gizmos).
Having a set number of skills (no matter what level of complexity the game could have) would be nice. I'm not a big fan of skill-creep... especially with crunchy games that depend more on character sheets that auto-calculate (and need re-edited every time a new skill is added to the game).
Take it or leave it, as those thoughts just jumped out of my head.
-
My personal favorite was the Star Wars "Darth Tater". :Joker2:
-
A hybrid of Rolemaster and Harp, but adding new elements that aren't a part of either, might be a good idea, as long as it still resembles in some way the systems that came before it. Fixing the main complaints about ICE's games, while keeping the old school fans might be a tough thing however. I guess it's just tough to be in the RPG industry...
Rolemaster should never go the way that some suggest, a D20 dumb down. I read a lot of a recent thread over at RPG.net and came away with a bit of an epiphany. Those that do not like Rolemaster who played it in the past were "overusing" the options and getting bogged down. One whiner mentioned how silly it was that one had to roll for food poisoning. I thought I knew the options well but that was one I did not remember - but it is there burried deep in one of the companions. Likely this poster was bending the truth for effect since I doubt that anyone ever tried to play such a rule but true or not, it was obvious that he had no clue about the concept of a GM's toolkit and optional rules. Too many complex charts and rules and math (blah blah blah) - I came to realize that the complainers did not understand how the game system should be used.
Rolemaster too complex - ya, if you try to cram and use every optional rule and table!
Rolemaster has too much math - I'm sorry, I have not sympathy for a population that can not do double digit addition/subtraction in their head OR have never heard of a calculator
Rolemaster is too deadly - DnD is too silly and has a low sense of immersion because of its riduculous combat and damage system. Rolemaster allows greater immersion and realism because of its more realistic combat models, also PCs adapt and become smarter in the way they handle things. Less monster bashing and more roleplaying.
Rolemaster characters take too long to create - Yes they do take more time but they are more individual and detailed. This is a matter of taste, I like more detailed PCs as opposed to cookie cutter PCs that one will get with a more basic ruleset.
The problem is that Rolemaster is very complex for a beginner (without help from a veteran). The game once understood is actually very simple and can have as much or as little detail as one wants without breaking the system. Unfortunately it seems that some got stuck somewhere just past the early beginner stage and never saw the real game through all the rules, tables and options (i.e. can't see the forest through all the trees).
I believe ICE is close to understanding the fix but their focus wavers at times. RMX is a great idea to help babystep players up to full blown RM. Newbees need to know that many supplimental rules are OPTIONAL and given suggestions on ways to streamline gameplay. A little section on when to fudge and when not fudge might help some understand that all the charts do not need to be used all the time. Now for the "wavering focus" bit. RMX is a good idea, but... after reading what RM Cyrdan is going to be, I add my lament to Nicholas'. Why, oh why didn't ICE either make it for RMC or better yet make it the bridge for joining RMC with RMFRP? Instead it is sounding like yet another separate ruleset for RM... NOOOOO!
Ok now to end my rant with my wise guy ideas on how to help RM.
First and formost. One version to bind them all one version to rule them all. Make a version of RM that has the following traits:
1) It has a simple base ruleset, and yet is easy to add more detail to it. Skills, Spells, Combat options are all areas that can be easily built upon starting with a basic foundation. Thus if one likes to keep combat simple, but loves having a bajillion skills - no problem - keep the core rules for combat and use the expanded rules for skills.
2) Once this core book is done, one that combines the best of RMC, RMFRP, and HARP, then set up an even more basic ruleset to help newbees get started (like RMX). Charge a small fee for a paper version of it, but consider giving the PDF for free (or maybe a buck or two).
3) Additional supliments where it is stressed and made clear and repeated and burned into the minds of the buyers - these are OPTIONAL rules. I got it with the RM2 companions - but I think there were many who did not.
End of rant, epiphany over.
-
I also liked the "State of Rolemaster", being a manager looking always for organizational issues I came to the same conclusion long ago.
And I do not think that simplifying RM, coming up with 1 new RM, merging HARP and RM, ... is the answer. it would cost an unbelievable amount of energy and at the end leave many fans dissatisfied (i.e. we would not survive it). I would leave the current systems as they are, dual stat any RM supplement and continue with HARP as it is. Just focus on getting material (any material) out.
BR Juergen
-
Current RM I love. I prefer RMC but also many of the ideas in RMFRP are good and done better than RMC. HARP is not a system I play but some great ideas are found in HARP, the scalable spells (great idea) and much of RMC's Combat Companion gleaned ideas from HARP. With that said, I think ICE needs to find a way to modernize and improve RMC and RMFRP by cherry picking the best ideas from all their systems. Bring the two systems together while simplifying the rules - without dumbing down the system. This can be done and it would bring fans of both systems under one system. If Nicholas is right in his assesment, and I believe he is, RM can't go on in a "business as usual" mode. Your sugestion does not sound too different from what they are allready doing which I do not believe will work in the long run.
Done right, it will appeal to both groups of us old school fans AND clarify for the newbees how to best use a system that has so much variety and options. Current RM confuses greenies due to all the charts and tables and options. Also, Rolemaster does have some negative bagage that scares away some of the potential future buyers. Just reading the forums, I have seen many good ideas that could be used in the new system and the system could be designed to be as simple or complex as the players wanted.
Just has HARP has scalable spells - a wonderful idea - I believe a new Rolemaster should be designed as a "scalable ruleset". Once you understand the base game go ahead and scale it up using options that your group would like best. Tables and charts could be color coded to clearly define what "level" of game they fall into (i.e. green boarder is for core, must have, base game, yellow boarder is for intermediate optional rules, and red for the serious hard core grognard gamers). Combat could be simple offense/parry, all the way up to multiple manuvers and styles, new weapons and more detailed crit charts. Skills start at a base set of general catagories which could then easily be divided into a large range of subsets - how detailed one wants to be with skill purchases is up to the gamers. Purchase only general catagory skills (basic) or have players purchase each skill found in the subset (advanced). Magic could start with a few simple key lists and basic guidelines, but then could add in relms, scalable spells, open - closed - and base lists, nomenist, crystalist, somantasist, corpralist, rune masters, alchemy rules... lots of scaling potential with magic.
The key is take the best from RM - all systems, and the best from HARP. Use this to make a simple core game that is easily scalable. Make it clear to the beginner that the initial game they get is only foundation for a very large toolbox of options that can be used or ignored. For all of us old school fans, we would now have a game that combines what we like about RMC and RMFRP while making it simple to ignore what we don't like.
P.S. This would be a replacement for both RMC and RMFRP - I would not consider this also a replacement for HARP. HARP is a different enough game that it should still be on a seperate track.
-
I agree with what's been said by others above, and repeat what I've said before on this topic, a few months ago, as i think it's really the way to to make ICE (which I would like to stand as long as long as possible, given it's clean attitude and wonderful games) a powerful player in the diminishing business that RPGs are now:
- One totally new game system. Call it HARPMaster or whatever you want, at one time, you will have to get rid of the bad feelings RM has always had among people who never played it. Try to make it simple to learn, simple to play, but give through option books some meat to the people who love to play with a lot of rules. Make all other old ICE systems "free to be updated and add more content by the fans, all free products welcome". Can you really keep saying you support a system when you don't get products out for it for years?
- One original setting, on paper and PDF, single stated for this game system. This could be multi-stated with cheap PDFs to get some more money from previous systems fans.
- Adventures and multi-part campaigns placed in the setting. As above, print and PDF, single stated, with cheap additional PDFs for other systems.
- One rule or expansion or option book every two months. Just say where you want to go, try to make things happen on time (it CAN be done).
- One setting book or adventure or campaign part every month. Get good and cheap free lancers on-board to help those already doing a great job.
At one time, ICE should admit that fans of a 20 years old RPG system don't wait for much more except being able to go on playing with what they love and share what they have done for it with others. What kind of successful book can you hope bringing to them that they will buy? Why try to update a system, when every time you talk about changes, old die hard fans tell you "I don't agree on this change, but I don't care, I played this or that way for years and already have changed the system to fit my gaming style"? RM fans are already split in three "chapels", just create a new one and let the old guys play with what they already have, it pleases them.
My opinion is that the way to go is to bring in something new, both simple and deep, best suited for the current gaming population: people in their 40's, having little time to play or prepare, but still dying for this little time spent every week or month with friends to play a game of fantasy. That's why we now need simple systems, spiced with settings and ready to play adventures. Just try to make some "old" and mostly many "new" fans buy and play an ICE RPG.
-
Making a new edition of HARP (and calling it HARP), adding in some house rules from those that have played it and from the Guild Companion, and giving it levels of higher complexity (Basic, Intermediate, Expert, etc) as optional rules which would be highly influenced by Rolemaster I think would be the best way to do things. No one is ever happy with a compromise, but wouldn't you want new stuff to come out for a compromise, than nothing at all because they are not focused enough on one game?
I like the idea of a base list of skills (that never increases in number), and later add specialties to those same skills with the Intermediate, and Expert rules, so you don't have skill-creep. Just make sure the base skills are vague, so they can handle just about every situation with all kinds of specialties added in later. Stress the playtesting aspect of the design process, and be open to change. If we don't change we'll die. It doesn't have to be drastic change (because not all change is good...) but I think you get what I mean.
Basic would be a small cheap rules-lite book, so people can buy into the system easily. Think Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition cheap. Intermediate would be another slightly bigger book by page count, with added complexity. Expert would be a large book with tons of optional content. Releasing the PDFs cheap would help as well to get the word out.
It might anger some people, but the name "Rolemaster" has a love/hate relationship with people. Those that remember playing it and loving it, and those that tried playing and hated it, and would probably never try anything called Rolemaster again. I think naming the new system Rolemaster would not help the situation. Since HARP is newer, and has less negative baggage, I think calling it "HARP 2" or whatever would be better. Or call it something new entirely, but then you have to work on name recognition from the get go.
I wish ICE luck. HARP brought me back to the ICE fold, as I was a RMSS player when I was a kid. As I age I prefer more rules lite to rules medium games, so for me these days Rolemaster just isn't for me. So in the above suggestion, I would probably be a Basic guy, with some Intermediate rules thrown in sparingly.
-
To appease those that will not upgrade ever, I suggest continuing to sell the PDFs of the older versions of games, and sell the remaining stock of older books until they are gone. Then focus on the new game with all of the effort ICE can muster.
People tell me that having options using Iphone technology is the future of RPGs, but I don't have my crystal ball to check. Or perhaps I failed my Divination spell roll. :)
These are all just my opinions, and like many here I'm in the over 30 crowd. Some kid in elementary school will probably invent the next RPG-like thing that will sweep us old foeggies away like chaf before a fire.
-
It seems many people are jumping on to the Micro-Payments model of things, and that might be a way to go as well. Have a yearly membership, with payments coming out automatically, and any updates or errata, as well as small extras such as the Express Additions, or HARPer's Bazaars would be sent directly to those with the Membership.
You could call the members, the Order of the Iron Crown... :)
Take everything I say with a grain of salt, and ignore all the stupid stuff. hehe.
-
So far all I hear are discussions of a significant down grade of an already excellent system.
-
So far all I hear are discussions of a significant down grade of an already excellent system.
Yes! I want new material, not new rules or a new system.
-
Like many others have said the Editorial this month was a really interesting.
I wholeheartedly agree on the State of RM and it's also good to know that TGA is alive and kicking. Even more important when you consider the fact in State of RM with no published books for a long time (except for RMC) and we need something like TGA to keep the games alive. My introduction with ICE is through SRR (Swedish translation of "The game that shall not be named") and later on took a step over to english translation just because there was a bigger selection of modules available and you didn't have to wait for them to get translated.
Was interested in the existing RM2 edition at the time but never took the step over.
But when RMSS saw the light I jumped at it. But it didn't last long because it was competing with other games at that time, and with the sad news of the old ICE I thought all the games was dead (I know for a fact many roleplayers here in Sweden still don't know ICE is still alive) but when the news of the D&D 4th Edition of another game was announced I shelved my whole D&D collection and dusted of my RMSS-books. Not to long after RMC saw the light and I jumped at it, and so far have ordered everything that is printed to RMC (through the ICE Shop since it's basicly impossible to get otherwise in Sweden). Still waiting for the Gamemaster Screen (I know of Bruce's backlog of work so I guess it will get here eventually).
I really do like RMC and the back to basics idea!
I do feel the simplicity (especially when adding RMX into that), but after a while became so troubled with choosing between what Optional Rules to use in my game and seeing that I always kept shaping it towards the RMSR standard. The RMC/X Char Gen Guidelince was a step in the right direction with establishing what will be the norm for the ICE products. But since most of my choices took RMC closer to how it was in RMSS/FRP-line so I decided to take step back to RMSS and have recently ordered RMSS Harcover Value Pack to replace all my old SS and FRP books with loose/missing pages. More hardcover books are planned getting bought since I have found that they are really durable. I will still support the RMC line and ICE as much as possible since their games at the moment is the only games I focus on currently and probably will be returning to it. The reason is as the TGC editorial says, it's the only game that is getting some love at the time.
-
Yes! I want new material, not new rules or a new system.
I love the current systems (both RMC and RMFRP). I believe though that ICE needs to find a way to bridge both systems, and I also believe that this can be done without completely throwing out baby and bathwater. Just like I can use much of the material from RMFRP in my RMC campaign, a well done merger would not invalidate our current material. "The Merger" would allow one to use the simplier approach as found in RMC (and some of the good stuff from HARP), but easily add on more complex rules as found in RMFRP.
- Make it a good base using rules from RMC and some HARP.
- Clearify to newbees how to properly use not just the rules, but also how to use a toolkit.
- Make optional rules and tables scalable and graded by complexity (i.e. color codes/borders).
- Add on optional rules barrowing from the best of RMFRP, RM companions, and the great brain trust that is all ICE employees.
Again, this is not a "throw RM out and start over", just the opposite! This is all about saving RM. The key problems that newbees, and some of the former players, have had with RM is that they failed to grasp the game. We're fans, and from reading posts on these threads, most everyone here "gets" RM. Unfortunately we're the elite, highly intelligent, charismatic, he-man gamers. Not everyone gets RM - I believe that RM can be upgraded to a scalable game that helps the unwashed masses babystep into full blown RM - or anything inbetween. At the same time it can bridge the divide between RMC and RMFRP (they are not that different).
So other than slapping bumper stickers and/or picket signs calling on people to "Save Rolemaster" (forget the whales for now), ICE needs to do something to bring things together while lowering the bar to enter our elite club. NOT dumb down the game!!! Just provide stairsteps to bring newbees up to our elevated levels of gamer enlightenment.
-
I use a few house rules in my game but the problem I see with lots of options is how is that going to effect the PC stats section of any product? How about the monster stats and options?
To me the above is a big problem for a game with lots of options.
MDC
-
with lots of options is how is that going to effect the PC stats section of any product? How about the monster stats and options?
Lets start with Monsters - just because its always best to start with monsters.
- HP - I do not see how optional rules would effect that.
- OB/DB - Again, I do not see much of change in this catagory. I suppose that a GM could add combat styles to each of their monsters, but this would really be best handled on an individual GM basis and would not need to be a part of the monster stats in a module.
- Armor Class/Type - This one may very depending on which level of options are chosen. Right now with RMX, Combat Companion, and Arms Law, one can have 5 armor types, 10 armor types, or 20 armor types. This may be an area that would be best to keep one standard - like combat companion's 1-10 Armor types. Options would be for armor by the piece rules, and not introduce whole new levels of armor types.
NPC and PCs - key to success with this is to make sure that all optional rules scale nicely from the base game. Here is an example:
Bob the Fighter is a key NPC in a module titled, "The Curse of Bob" (ya I'm not going to be invited to write modules). Bob's stats would be based on the core game as this is area that I do not see as needing to be moded. It would be silly to have a core game with say 6 stats, and then upgrade to 10 different stats. How those stats are derived, or adding the concept of potentials, these are areas that could be upscaled options, but they would have no impact on game modules.
Skills would be easy as well. Core game has at most ~20 skill catagories, while the advanced options (going with an RMFRP flavor) would have maybe hundreds of subskills. Bob could have his skill levels listed using the base skills - but in the description of the NPC relevant details for those GMs who use the subskills can be added as a subset. Rarely wood an NPC need to be that "fleshed out", most could be designed with core rules only - but using higher level options would be easy to add. Going with my idea of color coding it might look like this:
Crafting 15 ranks
Leather Working 14
Wood working 12
Smithing 5
The base game teaches newbees about how to use options and to understand a toolkit approach to game design. Thus, when they are reading a suppliment or playing a module, anything color coded blue or red means that those are more advanced rules that should be ignored if they are not using them. Thus NPC Bob for a newbee has - Crafting 15 - but for anyone playing the option of increased skill choices, they would use the blue options.
Thus modules would normaly be written with the base rules but could easily throw in advanced rules without causing severe injury to the newbees.
-
Rarely wood an NPC need to be that "fleshed out"
Ahhhh! What happened to the edit key?! Please let the edit button come back and stay. Thank you from all the spelling and grammar challenged.
-
Emaughan;
I am thinking about the RM2 rules that allowed you to assign your level bonuses. As this would have the biggest impact on skill numbers.
MDC
-
I found Profession-less HARP very interesting. Liked the idea very much and I feel it could be a nice improvement to HARP. I liked also TJones67 suggestion to improve the idea. It would be great if something similar could be developed for RM. Maybe controlling skill costs by stats and using the Lifestyle Training Packages idea to simulate professions and granting level bonuses, base list access, cheaper costs for a small bunch of skills... ::)
The Editorial made also very good points. Specially with the state of RM. IMHO a new version of RM would be a neat idea. That new version can came in the form of a Toolkit that, eventually, can be used to almost reproduce the other RM incarnations (RM2/RMSS/RMFRP/RMC) or even HARP since it's close enough. That Toolkit must be modular with several degrees of complexity and not bound to Fantasy only but offer the possibility to run Modern or Sci-Fi settings. I feel that last ICE publications have been centered on Fantasy and forgot completely about the rest (OK, there's HARP-SF which is great, but you've got the point).
And about settings, I've the strong feeling that many people of my age got trapped in ICE because of that setting to rule them all. Since it's no longer possible to repeat, the main idea of having a really attractive setting and publishing very detailed information about it could be the way to go in order to catch the attention of both new and old customers. I know it's difficult but... well, that's just my 2 cents.
-
Rarely wood an NPC need to be that "fleshed out"
Ahhhh! What happened to the edit key?! Please let the edit button come back and stay. Thank you from all the spelling and grammar challenged.
You are allowed to edit your posts for up to 15 minutes after the post is made. Now that we are on a linux/unix based server, the Quick reply and Reply areas have a button for doing a Spell Check.
-
the Quick reply and Reply areas have a button for doing a Spell Check.
Good thing, but I didn't mispell "wood". ;D
-
FYI, after some feedback an updated version of the Profession-less HARP article is now available on my homepage in PDF format (at the very botton of the RPG section). I made only slight modifications to the proposed system and did not incorporate the changes suggested by TJones67 since IMHO these would at least need some more work and ATM the system in the article is still the better choice. YMMV
-
This is more an idea for the future not so much a comment on the current issue but has the staff of the Guild Companion ever thought about publishing a Companion with all the HARP houserules or articles. There are a lot of interesting and useful ideas among them and it would be nice to see all those articles bundled with a Table of Contents for easy orientation as I start to find the "clicking myself through all the editions" rather annoying. I guess that publishing all that stuff as a pdf or even real book would not work because of copyright issues but wouldn't it be possible to have one Guild Companion special edition featuring ALL the HARP articles? Preferably as a pdf with mentioned Table of Contents.
-
I think that is a great idea, even if only in terms of setting up a ToC page on the web and includes links to the articles based upon categorization.
HARP - House Rules - Combat....
Or
HARP - Monsters....
etc.
While I am not a member of the TGC staff, I'd be glad to work on that as a side project (as time allows).
-
There's a lot of useful TGC articles that would be useful compiled together - all the RM spell lists immediately comes to mind.
-
Vroom - You take RM, I'll take HARP... let's see who gets done first. ;D
-
I already made a HARP compilation from 2004 until January 2008. PM me, if you want the doc (or PDF). It contains a TOC with the name of the author and the issue it appeared. Sorted by type of information... :D
EDIT: BTW. It is 208 pages long ;)
-
Wow! Excellent work.
-
In response to Profession-less HARP:
I love this. The numbers work out just right, and the balance of usefulness of stats just works for me (all but Constitution and Quickness factor into DevPnt Cost, but Qu is base Stat for DB, while Co factors Endurance. It works just right for me!)
But I have one minor tweak. Humans have "Profession Adaptability" talent, which may be switched to "Skill Flexibility". But I think with THIS system, neither one works adequately.
So I'm going to keep the name "Profession Adaptability", but instead, it IS "Jack-of-all-Trades Lesser". Jack-of-all-Trades is now one talent that reduces the minimum cost of DPs by two points. So an Elf with Jack-of-all-Trades can go down to 28 DPs, while a Human with Jack-of-all-Trades can go down to 26 (since they start at 28).
To me, this represents the humans' flexibility over other species.
I am definitely implementing this into my future HARP games.
-
You could as well have Humans pay 5 DPs less per Professional Talent. This would IMO finally give the Profession Adaptability talent a bit of an edge. I'll add this to the manuscript. Btw. the latest version of this document you can find as PDF on my homepage.
-
Concerning the Profession-less HARP article I posted another update on my homepage, again with some minor changes.
-
BTW not a nice April joke to not post a new edition on April 1st.
In despair for a new issue over here ... in TEARS you know! :'(
-
You did notice that it was posted on March 29th???
-
You did notice that it was posted on March 29th???
Your post, yes, but I was referring to the Guildcompanion in general and just read your last post in my unread list. Sorry about the confusion.
-
Don't panic. The April issue is merely delayed. A couple of articles had become trapped in an editing queue, so I'm giving the editors extra time to get them to me.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
While I am very distraught by the fact that the issue is delayed ;) I have to say that "A couple of articles" sound extremely GOOD!
Cannot wait to read the new issue!