Author Topic: Encouraging Contributors  (Read 17949 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline PhillipAEllis

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 599
  • OIC Points +30/-30
  • Ask me about the Rolemastery blog.
    • My homepage
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2013, 09:17:17 PM »
Word, Mister Fart!

And I can emphasise that the system is flexible enough to handle the range of views and biases that we bring to it. One of my clear biases is an emphasis on cultural elements rather than biological ones, so that most changes in magic use can be considered the outcome of a set of cultures & subcultures than the "physical nature" of magic. There are occasions where I work otherwise.
Formerly: ghyle.

Rolemastery blog: http://rolemastery.blogspot.com.au/

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #61 on: September 14, 2013, 10:48:32 PM »
GM's can alter the commonness of magic by simply making the in-game learning of it easier or harder regardless of the actual DP cost mechanism built into professions.  There's a lot of stuff that the GM can bend to their will, the GM just needs to experienced required to come to that conclusion.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline Old Man

  • Wise Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 968
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • The Campaign Nook
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #62 on: September 15, 2013, 11:01:20 AM »
GM's can alter the commonness of magic by simply making the in-game learning of it easier or harder regardless of the actual DP cost mechanism built into professions.  There's a lot of stuff that the GM can bend to their will, the GM just needs to experienced required to come to that conclusion.

As a GM, I find the hardest part (mentioned earlier in this thread or elsewhere) is the intersection of magic and society - after figuring out how many casters (or caster capable folk) exist and how long magic has existed, how to determine how magic moulds societal development. (Especially toward Healing and Item Creation and to a lesser extent Divination, Summoning, Transport, etc.) Do you think we, as setting authors, are doing a good job showing that intersection?
** Yes, some of ROCO IV and VII is my fault. **

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #63 on: September 15, 2013, 11:43:26 AM »
Do you think we, as setting authors, are doing a good job showing that intersection?
Well, my answer depends largely on if the gamer wants that dictated to them.

If it's an official setting and there's an official 'level of magic' in the setting then I understand defining that relationship in the product.  Some or even many GM's might want to change that relationship and, while you can't let that derail your own creative process (because there's no way for you to cater to them all), it would be a good thing if you made the predetermined theory ignorable.  I wouldn't concern yourself overly with it however.

Using me as the example... In my 'little world' magical ability is technically fairly common, but not believed to be so.  The local 'healer' (generic term, not the profession - well, maybe) may not even realize themselves that they are using magic to make people better.  The social outlook of magic depends a bit on how worldly the local population is.  Huge city?  Magic is likely accepted as real but still looked at with a bit of awe.  Tiny hamlet in the country?  It's possible a large display of magic would either clear the town (due to fear) or create a lynch mob.

But, that's MY setting.  Am I going to buy materials intended for other settings?  My answer to that is yes, so I can pull elements that are usable in my setting.  But, from my perspective, I don't think that you should be concerned with how you explain magic.

However
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline RandalThor

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,116
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #64 on: September 15, 2013, 12:28:13 PM »
As a GM, I find the hardest part (mentioned earlier in this thread or elsewhere) is the intersection of magic and society - after figuring out how many casters (or caster capable folk) exist and how long magic has existed, how to determine how magic moulds societal development. (Especially toward Healing and Item Creation and to a lesser extent Divination, Summoning, Transport, etc.) Do you think we, as setting authors, are doing a good job showing that intersection?
I would have to say no.

Even with my favorite "regular" fantasy setting, Shadow World, there is some question about this. When reading the setting material, I get the impression that magic is very common and can be very powerful. To the point where the common villager sees some at least on a weekly basis if not several times a week, and town or city folk likely see magic every day, sometimes several times per day. But, I have heard others mention the opposite sentiment, or at least they feel there is a much lower amount of magic than what I believe.

Of course, in a basic rulebook sans setting, enforcing a specific level of magic is unnecessary. Now, putting in a variety of magic levels and how that might work out is a good idea. Really anything to help GMs, both new and us old grognards, is a good idea.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Scratch that. Power attracts the corruptible.

Rules should not replace the brain and thinking.

Offline intothatdarkness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,879
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #65 on: September 16, 2013, 09:45:50 AM »
I would have to say no.

Even with my favorite "regular" fantasy setting, Shadow World, there is some question about this. When reading the setting material, I get the impression that magic is very common and can be very powerful. To the point where the common villager sees some at least on a weekly basis if not several times a week, and town or city folk likely see magic every day, sometimes several times per day. But, I have heard others mention the opposite sentiment, or at least they feel there is a much lower amount of magic than what I believe.

Of course, in a basic rulebook sans setting, enforcing a specific level of magic is unnecessary. Now, putting in a variety of magic levels and how that might work out is a good idea. Really anything to help GMs, both new and us old grognards, is a good idea.

The Power Level discussion touched on this to a degree, but it could stand to be amplified (and that might make a good section for a GM Companion should one be written). Tables and such are nice, but it's also helpful if there's some explanation of the logic behind the tables and the social assumptions of the setting that make the logic work. For example, in my world magic isn't uncommon, but it's also not all over the place. This is based on the setting history and an event that makes the current gods retain a very close hold on the flow of magic. I never used essence flows, but rather allow the various gods to control access to that power. The defining event also changed the genetic structure of most of the human races, making them less able to access magic power.

These are all things that can be taken into account and explained in a good integrated Power Level system.
Darn that salt pork!

Offline PhillipAEllis

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 599
  • OIC Points +30/-30
  • Ask me about the Rolemastery blog.
    • My homepage
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #66 on: September 16, 2013, 05:10:56 PM »
Would such a discussion be something that should appear once or, more ideally, with each setting or significant setting? Would be better fitting something like a Gamemaster Companion, that is, 'the' core book of the system, or something more introductory, something more attuned to 'these are ways of becoming not only an RM GM, but a great RM GM'?
Formerly: ghyle.

Rolemastery blog: http://rolemastery.blogspot.com.au/

Offline intothatdarkness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,879
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #67 on: September 16, 2013, 05:19:18 PM »
Would such a discussion be something that should appear once or, more ideally, with each setting or significant setting? Would be better fitting something like a Gamemaster Companion, that is, 'the' core book of the system, or something more introductory, something more attuned to 'these are ways of becoming not only an RM GM, but a great RM GM'?

I think you could discuss power levels and setting design in one location (GM Companion) and then have a short rehash of the ideas in a setting book or possibly each adventure. With a system as flexible as RM, I think it's a good idea to have some supporting material out there (actually a fair amount) so that new groups don't have a bad experience with an inexperienced GM and get turned off the rules, or so that new GM could actually pick up the Companion and see how he or she can make the rules work with a particular campaign idea.
Darn that salt pork!

Offline Old Man

  • Wise Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 968
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • The Campaign Nook
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #68 on: September 16, 2013, 06:16:34 PM »

I was thinking perhaps a GM Companion could have 4+ examples - perhaps the basic "4 corners" society examples:
Low Magic + Low % of Magic capable population
High Magic + Low % of Magic capable population
Low Magic + High % of Magic capable population
High Magic + High % of Magic capable population
** Yes, some of ROCO IV and VII is my fault. **

Offline PhillipAEllis

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 599
  • OIC Points +30/-30
  • Ask me about the Rolemastery blog.
    • My homepage
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #69 on: September 16, 2013, 08:36:37 PM »
So a revival or an update of the much-beloved Campaign Law? I'm tempted, and I think I mentioned it to Badger, to attempt something like a Rolemaster for Dummies that would cover how to be a great player &/or GM. It's something I would have loved as a neophyte, especially if it conveys the feeling of freedom the system inspired in me when I first played it.
Formerly: ghyle.

Rolemastery blog: http://rolemastery.blogspot.com.au/

Offline RandalThor

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,116
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #70 on: September 16, 2013, 08:55:12 PM »
Would such a discussion be something that should appear once or, more ideally, with each setting or significant setting? Would be better fitting something like a Gamemaster Companion, that is, 'the' core book of the system, or something more introductory, something more attuned to 'these are ways of becoming not only an RM GM, but a great RM GM'?
No matter what, each setting should have magic explained in detail as it pertains to that setting. This is so a GM knows how the magic affects the setting and those within.

In the corebook, a quick (2 -3 paragraph) discourse is all that is needed, with some general examples of what each of the magic levels might mean as it pertains to the spell lists and access to them. Using an RMSS/FRP example: in a setting where magic is not only rare but hard to learn/perform, all magic skills including spell lists might be restricted, meaning you have to pay for 2 to get one rank; the opposite could be true for a setting with very common magic. But only quick, generic methods, nothing very detailed.

The Gamemaster Law book should have a more detailed explanation, including more detailed rules/guidelines on how to handle the different levels of magic, including the variances noted in OMs post above(#68). That book should be the one to tell you how to utilize the RM rule set to build your own setting, as well general GM tips and tricks on running a game.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Scratch that. Power attracts the corruptible.

Rules should not replace the brain and thinking.

Offline intothatdarkness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,879
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #71 on: September 17, 2013, 09:00:32 AM »
So a revival or an update of the much-beloved Campaign Law? I'm tempted, and I think I mentioned it to Badger, to attempt something like a Rolemaster for Dummies that would cover how to be a great player &/or GM. It's something I would have loved as a neophyte, especially if it conveys the feeling of freedom the system inspired in me when I first played it.

I think something like this is sorely needed, honestly. I've spent most of my Rolemaster GM career introducing new players to the game (often people who've never played an RPG before), and it's way too easy for people to get lost in the flexibility of the rules. There are so many possibilities with RM that there needs to be an "owner's manual" of sorts with the rules. This is especially true due to RM's lack of a codified "starting setting." Shadow World, as has been discussed before, isn't really that (and isn't intended to be one as far as I know), so it's even more important to provide some guidance and navigational aids (since that's often provided by a starter setting).
Darn that salt pork!

Offline Old Man

  • Wise Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 968
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • The Campaign Nook
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #72 on: September 17, 2013, 09:07:42 AM »

Or a Pazio Pathfinder Beginner's Box equivalent ...
** Yes, some of ROCO IV and VII is my fault. **

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #73 on: September 17, 2013, 11:01:45 AM »
 Yes explaining just how magic works in your game is very important as well as trying to ground players in just how RM is the same or different from games they have played before.
MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,099
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #74 on: September 17, 2013, 11:16:33 AM »
In RMU, it might be worth adding a few paragraphs in section 3.1 of Spell Law, which has the rules about spell availability. Discuss how the different availability settings will affect how common magic is and how people are likely to view it.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline PhillipAEllis

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 599
  • OIC Points +30/-30
  • Ask me about the Rolemastery blog.
    • My homepage
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #75 on: September 17, 2013, 04:25:55 PM »
I miss being able to give idea points, jdale, because you would have earned one right there. Why not bring it up in the relevant sub-forum of the playtest area? Thank you!
Formerly: ghyle.

Rolemastery blog: http://rolemastery.blogspot.com.au/

Offline PhillipAEllis

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 599
  • OIC Points +30/-30
  • Ask me about the Rolemastery blog.
    • My homepage
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #76 on: September 17, 2013, 04:40:34 PM »
I'm making a new thread elsewhere, about the Rolemaster for Dummies idea, as I want to post a poll. The thread is here:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=13693.new#new
Formerly: ghyle.

Rolemastery blog: http://rolemastery.blogspot.com.au/

Offline ob1knorrb

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,253
  • OIC Points +150/-150
    • ICE Roleplaying WebRing
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #77 on: September 20, 2013, 07:37:40 PM »
There are a few reasons why I haven't contributed to the Guild Companion recently, or in fact posted to these forums.  It wasn't really lack of feedback, I often didn't get direct feedback but my articles often got mentioned as references in postings.
One major reason was the flux in the game systems, HARP being revamped and RMU still in a beta state.  I started a few articles that I ended up just sitting on because I didn't know if they would be relevant to the new versions.
Another major reason is that I'm just not playing HARP or Rolemaster anymore.  My ICE players have scattered to various corners of the globe and the group I play with now prefers Pathfinder, so I've been playing that.
I've also moved more towards board games which can be picked up quickly and don't need an ongoing commitment.

There are a few projects that I might tackle at some point.  I've often thought about revisiting my "Selkie's Secret" adventure that was in "Guild Adventurer 2" and adding stats for Rolemaster as well as fleshing out some of the PCs and maybe adding some additional descriptive text.  Mind you, it was already a double sized article so I'm not sure expanding it would be such a great idea  :)

I also had some thoughts on revisiting and updating some of my older articles once the new systems are solid and in place. 
The other possibility would be doing some articles on converting from RMSS/RMFRP to RMU or RM2 to RMU, but again I want to wait for the final RMU products.
In the mean time, I'm going to work on a Battlestar Galactica game using D6 and maybe integrate it into a version of X-Wing Miniatures for the space combat system.  Likely not anything I could ever publish anywhere. 8)
Brent Knorr...
Ringmaster:ICE Roleplaying Webring - http://www.icewebring.com

Offline Sweetleaf

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Encouraging Contributors
« Reply #78 on: June 20, 2014, 11:33:19 PM »
I have tried to let you know that I have things that I'd like to contribute if you wanted them.

Can you please let me know if you are interested please? Then I can provide samples.