Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;903935Was there a need for a new edition of Role Master? Are the previous editions out of print? Or out of date? Was the plan to make a revised edition with bug-fixes included? Or to make a whole new rule-set that was streamlined? Or one that was more detailed?

The last major edition came out twenty years ago, so I'd say a new edition is not a stretch. RMSS comes across as a dinosaur, and was never as successful as its predecessor. And the major problem has always been the split - roughly 50/50 it seems - in the fan base between the two major editions. ICE blundered around for a decade, creating HARP, reissuing RM2 as RM Classic, while continuing to support RMSS, nominally at least. When that iteration of ICE went belly-up, the time was right for...anything. Just keep the game alive somehow.

But we've had 5 years of development of a new edition, by a committee of the most grognardy and opinionated FANS (not experienced game devs) that you could imagine. It's the worst of all possible outcomes, probably worse than if the game had once and for all gone OOP and some legally-grey retroclone had filled the gap. Pretty much all goodwill and patience has disappeared in the fan community, and the game has sunk to oblivion within wider gamer circles.

Quote from: The_Shadow;903956The last major edition came out twenty years ago, so I'd say a new edition is not a stretch. RMSS comes across as a dinosaur, and was never as successful as its predecessor. And the major problem has always been the split - roughly 50/50 it seems - in the fan base between the two major editions. ICE blundered around for a decade, creating HARP, reissuing RM2 as RM Classic, while continuing to support RMSS, nominally at least. When that iteration of ICE went belly-up, the time was right for...anything. Just keep the game alive somehow.

But we've had 5 years of development of a new edition, by a committee of the most grognardy and opinionated FANS (not experienced game devs) that you could imagine. It's the worst of all possible outcomes, probably worse than if the game had once and for all gone OOP and some legally-grey retroclone had filled the gap. Pretty much all goodwill and patience has disappeared in the fan community, and the game has sunk to oblivion within wider gamer circles.

Ouch. Fans of other editions that know nothing about game design make the worst playtesters. I've seen it too many a time. I remember the HARP stuff in stores back in the day. I'll have to look those up on their site to refresh my memory how they compare to the other rules.

HARP's designer, Rasyr, has a game of his own called Novus.  If you don't like the d100+ Skill mechanic of Rolemaster you might want to look at Novus as it uses 2d10 instead.

Just picked up the Channeling Companion for £7.99. Result!

Quote from: One Horse Town;903976Just picked up the Channeling Companion for £7.99. Result!

Not one of the best companions but I do like the guidelines for custom priests.

RM with a bunch of companions and the right group makes for a glorious game. The thing is to dive into the baroque mess of options, and enjoy the unique features of the game...the chart results, the incredibly granular character creation, the myriad of spells, etc. It provides, dare I say it, an immersive experience.

And a saving grace is that those who say "it's really quite simple at its core" are actually at least half-right. It can run fast with one or two rolls for every action and combat is faster in my experience than say, Hero, maybe on a par with Runequest.

But on topic...who has time for the Beta playtest? RMU is basically vaporware, and I just can't see anything worthwhile that it will offer anyway.

It's funny that this thread came up.  I was just wondering about that beta the other day, after years.  I even went by Guild Companion, but you have to log in and everything to look at the beta.  Just couldn't be bothered with all that.

I was just looking over my Holmes D&D and Arms Law 1e set-up this week.  I wish the game would be more like the original concept, without a character creation element.  The first Arms Law is about 10 pages of phased combat rules with an economy of tactical points (offensive bonus), the rest is the individual weapon tables and the few critical tables. It's basic compared to AD&D 1 really, let alone actually complex games.  The mess is in the character creation part that became so over-arching to the game.  A new edition that had some short and sweet guidelines for using Arms Law and Spell Law with games that are popular today is all I would like to see. No Character Law, Campaign Law, Creature Law, etcetera, etcetera... The original idea of moduler combat and magic systems to replace another game's method.  The 1st edition reworked, with new fancy layout and illustrations, for TODAY's and yesterday's games.  Any new content should be guidelines for any new games that have come out.  So, the first companion for this hypothetical modern slightly reworked 1st would contain brief one page guidelines for a bunch of games that came out in 2017.  Anyway, that's what I would like, given my use of it.  It won't happen.  I have the old 1st Arms and Spell Law to use like that, though. Still debating on a new Holmes D&D, (Everything else remains D&D, including character creation, tweaked monsters and spells, with a few miniscule AD&D 1 bits.), Arms Law campaign .

I don't see the problem here.  Arms Law has combat rules in it so you can do exactly that.  The format is still modular.

You could quite conceivably use Character Law with D&D combat and magic.

Character Law is about creating characters with depth and flexability while retaining niche protection.

That's Rolemaster in a nutshell really.  It tries to have it both ways.  Fast and Detailed.

As for the beta, I suspect they drove off too many moderates.

Problem?  Nothing problematic.

It sounds like you know the editions.  Pick up your 1st edition of arms law.  Does it mention any specifics about skills, body development etc? No.  The newer editions are just not written like that.  There is an assumption that it will all be used together.  The rule exteme bloat is mostly all the character definition stuff bleeding into everything. That part of the game is just the worst everyone complains about.

Quote from: The_Shadow;903987Not one of the best companions but I do like the guidelines for custom priests.

That's what i got it for. I've got RM II companions coming out my wazzoo, so i've played for years with the options and professions i want, but no official options for Clerics and the Gods, so looking forward to seeing that! For that price, considering how much this stuff goes for these days, i'm happy enough.

As for the playtest, it should be jettisoned and i should be put in charge of doing a proper Rolemaster edition.

Quote from: David Johansen;903970HARP's designer, Rasyr, has a game of his own called Novus.  If you don't like the d100+ Skill mechanic of Rolemaster you might want to look at Novus as it uses 2d10 instead.

I was pointed to Novus on here a couple of months ago, and I really like it.  I wish the eleven small supplements were put together in a printed volume, but that's not a huge deal.

Received the channeling companion. Love the cover, really cool. Not the sort of style you usually see on an RPG book. Some really good 'new' spell lists (mostly cannabalised RM II lists really with a few new things thrown in) and i like the priest material and the stuff on spirits and the spirit world.

Next month i'm going to get a couple soft-cover Shadow World books POD from drivethru.