Quote from: David Johansen... I think Rolemaster will soon go the way of C&S.  Too many of the changes Tim wants to make will only serve to destroy the things that make it unique and I've got a stack of very new looking RMfrp books.  Though I suppose one could argue that RMSS was the edition that killed the game...

I would certainly argue that RMSS was something of a disaster, both in terms of rules (overly long and complex character generation; even more charts) and presentation (poorly organised, followed by the near-identical RMFRP with its pared down core book, and subsequent confusing supplements).

My impression is that the return to 2e in the form of Rolemaster Classic (and its intro, cheap book Rolemaster Express) is the right move for the system.  That's a better base for a future new version (albeit one that incorporates some of the better features of RMSS/RMFRP), and there seems to be more fans of that version of RM.  (Also, the similarity between RM Express and MERP can't hurt either, given the popularity of MERP back in the day.)

So I don't think RM is 'beyond salvation'.  It's just returning to an earlier form.  :cool:

Quote from: One Horse TownErik worked for WEG?! :eek:

Quote from: AkrasiaI would certainly argue that RMSS was something of a disaster, both in terms of rules (overly long and complex character generation; even more charts) and presentation (poorly organised, followed by the near-identical RMFRP with its pared down core book, and subsequent confusing supplements).

You misunderstand me.  I hate RM2 with a purple passion.  To the extent that I've walked away from freelancing for ICE over it.  Nor do I think that pandering to the whiners is in any way a good move for ICE.

David, what about RM2 gets your goat?

Quote from: WarthurI think it is entirely possible for a game line to end up in the hands of people who simply don't understand why it was good in the first place - this happened to Paranoia and Gamma World.

Quote from: WarthurIf White Wolf (or whoever currently owns the Gamma World IP) lets someone who is actually sympathetic towards classic-period Gamma World helm a new edition, there'll be hope for Gamma World; if Mike Pondsmith loses control of Cyberpunk to people more capable of doing it justice, there'll be hope for that game too.

Well, to be fair, there are plenty of games that did stay true to their original vision and nevertheless faded into obscurity.  Heck, I think it's fair to say that original-vision Gamma World had its shot -- it faded even before the era of AD&D2 and TSR's overall problems.  These old true-to-their-original games often have a huddled core of fans who talk about how great it is, and search about on Ebay for used copies of the game to get for their players.  

Star Frontiers is a typical example, say.  I personally loved James Bond 007, myself, but it similarly faded (though I could point to license and property issues).  Amber DRPG has a fantastically loyal fan base, and I myself am going to AmberCon NorthWest in two weeks to play more of it.  However, let's face it -- the rules can't even stay in print.  

Authors of a new edition are often given a specific mandate to shake things up, to introduce sweeping change since the current edition is failing.  

Conversely, there are an awful lot of changes between the original D&D and the current 3.5th edition.  Similarly, Champions has changed enormously from it's first edition to the current 5th edition HERO System, yet it still has a thriving line.  I think it is fair to say that the HERO System has deliberately turned its back on many of the silly comic-book tropes of the early editions of Champions, which had much more of a four-color feel.  The current HERO/Champions is much like the newer comics, generally more serious.  Pendragon, GURPS, and Ars Magica have also had significant changes from their originals -- though to a lesser degree.  

Now, there are a few games that have remained successful without major change, like Call of Cthulhu.  It follows the pattern of many games, with successive editions retaining fans and typically getting thicker and thicker core books.  

This isn't to say that there aren't plenty of new editions that aren't crap.  However, just keeping things the same or "true to the original" can fail just as easily.  

Personally, I never thought much of the original Deadlands.  Among other things, it was part of a faddish nineties "cinematic" trend along with Torg and Feng Shui.  All three recommended the GM write a linear plot down to a sequence of scenes and force the players through each scene.

Well, I'm pretty much done ranting about it, having given up on ICE altogether at this point.  So I'll summarize.

1 - Stat generation method, d% drop rolls below 20 and substitute 2 90s, is far too random especially given:

2 - Development Point Award method that is heavily unbalanced in favour of high stats.

3 - Averaging of stat bonuses to get skill bonuses

4 - Stat bonuses restricted to even fives (ugh just roll a d20 and go away)

5 - Spell List Block Chance To Learn Percentages

6 - Level linked profession bonuses

7 - The need to add a whole new chart every time you want to add a skill

8 - related skills method

9 - use of dice rolls for body development ranks

10 - turn sequence

Also, Tim's absurd notion that RM2 being less complete and functional makes it any simpler in light of the above ten points.

D&D 3rd managed to come back from the wasteland that was D&D 2nd.

Of course, it did have the D&D label to help it.

I think RPGs can come back from the wilderness, yes. But there has to have been a decent play community to start with at some point.

Quote from: CalithenaD&D 3rd managed to come back from the wasteland that was D&D 2nd.

Of course, it did have the D&D label to help it.

Well, and they kept the flavour of the game while seriously improving the rules and gameplay.

But yeah, DnD went the way of all flesh, and 3e brought it back and made it good again.

By contrast, Cyberpunk for me is the one that is pretty much irrevocably fucked, in part as the genre it spoke to is dead as well.

Quote from: jhkimWell, to be fair, there are plenty of games that did stay true to their original vision and nevertheless faded into obscurity.  Heck, I think it's fair to say that original-vision Gamma World had its shot -- it faded even before the era of AD&D2 and TSR's overall problems.  These old true-to-their-original games often have a huddled core of fans who talk about how great it is, and search about on Ebay for used copies of the game to get for their players.

That's true, but I got the impression from Pundit's post that he was talking about a decidedly different phenomenon: games which drift from their original visions to the extent that long-term fans can no longer see the elements which originally appealed to them in the latest editions of the game (or the latest supplements in the game line), and new people looking at the latest products can't see why the game's such a big deal - either because the game's reputation no longer matches its reality, or because the original vision hasn't been replaced with anything compelling enough to draw in a new fanbase.

QuoteI think it is fair to say that the HERO System has deliberately turned its back on many of the silly comic-book tropes of the early editions of Champions, which had much more of a four-color feel.  The current HERO/Champions is much like the newer comics, generally more serious.

That's fair enough, but I'll point out that:

a) In the case of Champions specifically, this evolution is essentially a result of a parallel evolution in comic books: HERO/Champions has grown and changed with the comics market, and so has succeeded in remaining attractive to comics fans interested in RPGs. In fact, you could probably say the core vision of Champions is "The RPG which lets you play this month's hot new comic book", and in that sense they've stayed true to that since day one.

b) In the case of other games, I think it's often a matter of refinement of the original vision - like with Pendragon or Ars Magica - or replacing the original vision with a new vision which is sufficiently compelling to draw in a new fanbase and win over a reasonable proportion of the old guard (like GURPS as it moved away from being "The Fantasy Trip, Mk 2", and D&D 3.X).

QuoteThis isn't to say that there aren't plenty of new editions that aren't crap.  However, just keeping things the same or "true to the original" can fail just as easily.

I totally agree, I just think that this the sort of failure that can happen if a game remains relentlessly true to the original vision is different from the sort of failure the Pundit is talking about here.

Interestingly, I had zero interest in comic books until I played Champions. Not really relevant to the thread, but I was totally someone who went in the other direction.

QuoteWell, and they kept the flavour of the game while seriously improving the rules and gameplay.

But yeah, DnD went the way of all flesh, and 3e brought it back and made it good again.

I don't feel comfortable with assessments like "improved rules" or "improved gameplay", but D&D3 was a viable RPG for its time, and made a lot of core D&D tropes seem fresh and fun again. Requiescat in pace, old friend.

• D&D 3rd edition (including 3.5)
• Cyberpunk v3.0 or whatever the fuck the new garbage is called.
• Shadowrun 4th ed.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: David JohansenWell, I'm pretty much done ranting about it, having given up on ICE altogether at this point.  So I'll summarize.

1 - Stat generation method, d% drop rolls below 20 and substitute 2 90s, is far too random especially given:

2 - Development Point Award method that is heavily unbalanced in favour of high stats.

3 - Averaging of stat bonuses to get skill bonuses

4 - Stat bonuses restricted to even fives (ugh just roll a d20 and go away)

5 - Spell List Block Chance To Learn Percentages

6 - Level linked profession bonuses

7 - The need to add a whole new chart every time you want to add a skill

8 - related skills method

9 - use of dice rolls for body development ranks

10 - turn sequence

Also, Tim's absurd notion that RM2 being less complete and functional makes it any simpler in light of the above ten points.

Many of those features are indeed annoying.

Fortunately, points 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 are all corrected by optional rules included in the core Rolemaster Classic rules.  In fact, point 10 has been changed in the core rules -- RMC has a new turn sequence system.

Also, all of those optional rules have been incorporated into Rolemaster Express in order to render the game more accessible to new players.  I wouldn't be surprised if they become 'core' in any new version of RM.

I don't understand complaint number 7, since most skills use the same two charts (static and moving).  It seems like a criticism of RMSS/RMFRP instead (where every skill has a separate chart).

Quote from: David Johansen... Nor do I think that pandering to the whiners is in any way a good move for ICE.

Well, I do think it is a good move for a company to satisfy as many consumers as possible.  Obviously there are more RM2 fans than RMSS/RMFRP fans.  Why the former qualify as 'whiners' escapes me.

Quote from: David JohansenTraveller may well be in the dumpster.  Mongoose could pull it off but since the number one complaint about T4 seems to be the editing I doubt it.  Marc Miller?  Well, let's just say that statistical analysis and dry text book writing don't sell games.

I think this is a dodgy one to call. I think TNE was ultimately dumpster worthy and I don't feel I can really address T4, but GT and T20, while not my preference, don't seem to be beyond salvation.

Ah, but number seven is the skill costs table, not the static maneuver table (of which RMSS actually has only one, it's just got funny results written up for each category) and the skill costs table is the deal breaker for me.  I wish them well and Tim's a nice guy I just disagree intensely with his game design preferences and the mangement's direction and.  Also I call RM2 fans whiners because all the time ICE was going through bankrupcy all they could do is whine about how they wouldn't support RMSS because it was too complex.  Which I still argue it isn't.  Scary in its level of completion, sure.  But for every point where it's more complex there's one where RM2 was worse in the core rules and that's without the companions to scramble it even more.

T4 is mainly hated for it's editing and some of the game design choices made, particularly the use of half dice.  Which is why I'm not so sure Mongtrav will succeed.  The half dice may be gone but there will be some obscure statistical interpretation of the new core mechanic that the fans will whine about endlessly.