Props to ICE for sticking with real artists.

Yet, the art is at times alright, and at other times... just plainly not good. It's a shame, because the rules themselves are great, but the art is not going to be helping the sales. Just my opinion of course.

And, I'm sure, to a degree it literally is (actual cost) as there are no material costs involved and you can try as many times as you want to make something that looks cool. Sure, you have to pay for the program and your computer, but after that it's all simply your time - which is worth something, but not in the same way that $1000 is.

Sounds like creating digital imagery is about the same as being a writer/game designer, all you need is a cheap but functional computer and enough time on your hands to try and hit the right combination of keys to make up a product that someone else has to correct before publishing. 

Yes, the illustrations mean that the books have not yet been translated into French, as the publisher is considering whether to redo all the illustrations. The market is already quite small, and the extra cost means that they're considering it as it is... much to my despair.

I think a lot of the sales are going to be nostalgia sales. Putting a pretty book on the shelf could go a long way toward increasing those numbers.

I am reposting this, since it is otherwise buried in my comments on the PDF release of Treasure Law. It addresses an issue that has bothered me for a very long time, though perhaps I am the only one who cares. In the hope that perhaps I am not, I am calling this to general attention. Perhaps if there is some additional support for my position, the necessary changes can yet be made:

As a D&Dism, the flesh golem as fantasy Frankenstein's monster does not meet the long-standing Rolemaster definition of a golem “Unlike constructs, golems are composed of a single piece of a particular substance” (C&T, p. 34), as "flesh" is not a substance, but a mix of muscle, bone, tendon, and other tissues, and a body has many distinct parts rather than constituting a "single piece", if this language is to be meaningful. Removing this definition from Treasure Law does not fix this issue, nor will doing so in Creature Law. For some line must be drawn to separate construct and golem, and if one sets aside this anomaly, it is clear that constructs are fully articulated forms, for which magic is required only to power the movement, whereas the solid stuff of golems is mobile only by a miraculous flexibility provided along with motive power.

 If it were up to me, I'd move the "flesh golem" to the Cultivated Creatures and probably rename it "artificial man" for clarity, but between constructs and golems, it would make far more sense as a “flesh construct”, as it is like the inorganic constructs in being equipped with joints and machinery for mobility and requires only motivating power from magic to employ them.

The construction of stitched-together corpses is a pure Hollywoodism in itself. In the novel, V. Frankenstein does spend time exhuming and studying the dead, but that was how artists and doctors learned anatomy at the time. Vat growth as seen in creature cultivation is just as plausible when going to the novel. When looking at it thematically, making "the Creature" a golem is contrary to the stands of both novel and movies, as Frankenstein's creation is seen as unholy, a tampering, a trespass. It is the very opposite of the sacred act of creating a Golem via Channeling.

Frankly, the stitched-together version offers the possibility of some future expansion to cover such creations more fully, with various variations, and its own spell list and creature type ("Assemblages"?). To force in this special case now is not only awkward (and IMO unnecessary), but cuts off a promising comprehensive alternative.

What Crafting skill would one even use for the “flesh golem”? Culinary? That is the only one that includes dealing with flesh.