Back our Kickstarter Campaign going on Now
Page 3 of 9 First 12345 ... Last
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Trenloe View Post
    Thanks for the info. Personally, I don't see how the lack of CoreRPG tables and a party sheet (the specifics mentioned in that post) would result in not wanting to play Rolemaster in the current ruleset, especially as that has very little impact on the players, which you say is the main reason why you're not playing. I wouldn't let that get in the way of me gaming online with a system I love. But, hey, each to their own...
    I am curious, have you ever played Rolemaster? It is literally 90% tables that link to other tables.

    It is sad, however, that in your last three posts on this forum my takeaway is don't ask for better, don't expect improvement, and just accept and be happy with what you get. Which is literally the opposite of what I would think someone representing SmiteWorks should be doing.

    I know that it might take years, I know it might never happen at all, both outcomes are fine with me. Considering most of the posts in this forum are generated by Dakadin specifically starting he was working on migration to CoreRPG leads me to believe you didn't read the original posts before deciding to jump in with things are hard and don't ask for better. I've noticed you do that a lot. It's very off putting.

    Collaboration between users and developers is how software generally improves, or at least that is what my experience in software development has taught me. If you need a real-world example of how well that works I would have you read the last 100 or so posts in the Traveller forums. The ruleset has improved tremendously through collaboration despite you also dropping in there to tell us to suck it up and be happy with what we got.

    I would like to refer you to post 2 followed by post 7 in this thread for additional information about CoreRPG and Rolemaster, and then my feelings on ruleset development.
    Last edited by esmdev; March 28th, 2019 at 13:29.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,630
    Blog Entries
    7
    Not a RMC player myself, but I've repeatedly seen @JohnD state that he experiences crash-to-desktop after roughly 90 minutes of using the ruleset. He claims it's usually fine until he has to start rolling on the tables, at which point his memory consumption starts increasing until his PC crashes. Maybe there's a memory leak in the existing Lua powering the RMC tables? Hopefully switching to CoreRPG can fix that at the very least.

    Like Dakadin, I'm not a programmer, though after a few years dinking around FG I have enough knowledge to be incredibly dangerous (lol) so out of curiosity I poked around the RMC code and nearly spit my coffee on the keyboard seeing how much work it will be to get this thing powered by CoreRPG. @Trenloe is absolutely correct on that—this is no small task, so I commend you for your endeavors, @Dakadin!

  3. #23
    Trenloe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, USA (for a bit)
    Posts
    22,210
    Quote Originally Posted by esmdev View Post
    I am curious, have you ever played Rolemaster? It is literally 90% tables that link to other tables.
    Yes, I've played RMC a lot, both face to face and on FG - with JohnD and Dakadin, in fact. I know exactly how it works and how the tables work. What I fail to understand is what you expect the move to CoreRPG table to give you over how the tables are implemented in the current RMC ruleset? What don't you like about the current RMC tables?

    Quote Originally Posted by esmdev View Post
    It is sad, however, that in your last three posts on this forum my takeaway is don't ask for better, don't expect improvement, and just accept and be happy with what you get. Which is literally the opposite of what I would think someone representing SmiteWorks should be doing.
    My take away is that I've asked you exactly what you want in an improvement and you basically haven't said much. I'm asking you to engage and tell us exactly what is missing and what you expect a RMC ruleset migration to run on top of CoreRPG would give you. In post #17 I asked "I'm genuinely interested in what has stopped you playing Rolemaster with this ruleset and what would make you start using it again?" But...

    Quote Originally Posted by esmdev View Post
    I would like to refer you to post 2 followed by post 7 in this thread for additional information about CoreRPG and Rolemaster, and then my feelings on ruleset development.
    I fail to see any specific information in those two posts that helps a developer understand what you expect from a migration to CoreRPG.


    Quote Originally Posted by esmdev View Post
    Collaboration between users and developers is how software generally improves, or at least that is what my experience in software development has taught me. If you need a real-world example of how well that works I would have you read the last 100 or so posts in the Traveller forums. The ruleset has improved tremendously through collaboration despite you also dropping in there to tell us to suck it up and be happy with what we got.
    I'm sorry you feel that I get in the way of software development. That's not my intent - I walk a fine line between managing expectations, assisting the community, and moderating this forums. I've been very supportive of the Traveller ruleset developer - perhaps I've been defending him too much and that has come across as me not wanting change. That can't be further from the truth - you'll see I contribute many extensions and code that provide new functionality, I've assisted dozens of FG community developers take their steps in FG customisation, including the Traveller ruleset developer. I whole heartedly support collaboration between the community and developers - but communication of what people want (details please) and what people expect have to be managed. That's what I'm trying to do here.

    So, let's take a step back here and let's try to actually understand what it is you're wanting...

    Have you tried to run a RPG game using purely the CoreRPG ruleset, nothing else? You'll see that there's very little there in terms of an infrastructure that is new and game changing to what is in the RMC ruleset. Sure, there are a few nice things and a more formal structure, I've mentioned a few of these things in post #17.

    My concern is that the GM and player expectations are of what they've seen in other rulesets that are CoreRPG based (D&D 5E, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, etc.) and a lot of the bells and whistles in those rulesets are thought to be CoreRPG driven - when they're actually coded specifically in those rulesets, not CoreRPG. Like I've already said in this thread, I've tried to set expectations - knowing what you'd get from a CoreRPG migration (what would be the best way to do it in the RMC code, etc.), I'm pretty sure most of you would be disappointed, as I think you're expecting much more than you'll actually get. In post #1 the OP says "I love RMC and would like to see it match the features of the other games" - this is my concern in terms of expectations - that suddenly a move to CoreRPG provides all of the stuff people have seen in the top end FG rulesets. I'm sorry, but it won't for the majority of things, that still needs to be coded into the RMC ruleset - taking existing products and ongoing campaign data into account.

    So, let's collaborate! Obviously I can't speak for Dakadin and what plans he has (although we've already communicated offline about a CoreRPG migration strategy). Please don't point to other posts (even if you've already provided full details there), or just say "what's in CoreRPG", let's start making the detailed list now. What is it GM's want from a migration to CoreRPG? What is it players want?


    FG Product Development status: Pathfinder Playtest Ruleset and add-ons: In development. Pathfinder Bestiary, Pathfinder Bestiary 2, Pathfinder Bestiary 3 (in store).

    Private Messages: My inbox is forever filling up with PMs. Please don't send me PMs unless they are actually private/personal messages. General FG questions should be asked in the forums - don't be afraid, the FG community don't bite and you're giving everyone the chance to respond and learn!

  4. #24
    Trenloe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, USA (for a bit)
    Posts
    22,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Talyn View Post
    Not a RMC player myself, but I've repeatedly seen @JohnD state that he experiences crash-to-desktop after roughly 90 minutes of using the ruleset. He claims it's usually fine until he has to start rolling on the tables, at which point his memory consumption starts increasing until his PC crashes. Maybe there's a memory leak in the existing Lua powering the RMC tables?
    It's funny you mention this. A memory leak in the PC skills tab in the RMC ruleset was what first got me looking under the covers of FG rulesets for the first time in 2011! Info here if you're interested: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...grouped-skills

    I very much doubt that in the initial migration to CoreRPG that the RMC ruleset current table rolling functionality would be changed to use the CoreRPG random tables code - they're different under the hood, have different functionality and requirements - the current table rolling is very specific to RMC, so I doubt that we'd see a jump from one code base to the other. But they'd be there (a long with store templates) for others to use for random generation of "stuff". Hopefully the issue JohnD has can be tracked down and identified - and fixed, maybe with some code from CoreRPG or just adjusting the RMC specific stuff.


    FG Product Development status: Pathfinder Playtest Ruleset and add-ons: In development. Pathfinder Bestiary, Pathfinder Bestiary 2, Pathfinder Bestiary 3 (in store).

    Private Messages: My inbox is forever filling up with PMs. Please don't send me PMs unless they are actually private/personal messages. General FG questions should be asked in the forums - don't be afraid, the FG community don't bite and you're giving everyone the chance to respond and learn!

  5. #25
    To clear up confusion, the RMC attack, critical, fumble, MM, and RR tables will not be something you can create within the ruleset after being converted to CoreRPG. As Trenloe mentions the RMC tables and the CoreRPG tables are very different. They will exist side by side but you won't be able to mix and match them. The most complex portion of the RMC ruleset is the table resolver. It just isn't possible to integrate the two at least by me.

    For the issues JohnD is experiencing is this recently or in the past. The reason I ask is because the way the tables were stored in the RMC ruleset originally, used up a lot of memory. With the 32-bit architecture of FG, it used to crash regularly because it would hit the memory limit. With version 1.5 of the ruleset, I reworked that so it uses a fraction of the memory now but it still uses more than most rulesets. It basically dropped the memory usage to about 25% of what it used to be. I haven't had a crash with the RMC ruleset since then which was about 6 years ago and I been running a game for most of that time.

    JohnD can you give me more details on this since I haven't heard of any crashes in quite a while?

    Rolemaster Classic for FG Wish List - http://rm4fg.idea.informer.com/

  6. #26
    As I understand it from the FAQ, CoreRPG is the defacto standard for modern FG rulesets sold on the store. I assume, but again that is an assumption, that is because SmiteWorks designed CoreRPG to be a standard.

    So, what would a transition from a complex custom system to a complex standard system provide?

    First, I believe it would likely be easier for developers to support, easier for the community to extend, and insure a smoother transition to FGU when available.

    Second, while the automation and other coolness of the modern rulesets are not a part of CoreRPG, they are likely much easier to implement through extension and/or theme under CoreRPG than a system that uses code from forever ago for a baseline that has long been retired.

    Again, it is just an assumption but I assume that things would end up in consistent places, like module activation in the library. Characters in where they are in just about everything else, etc. I realize that they are all there in other places but the general format for those things in CoreRPG is much more intuitive.

    My principle concern is ruleset endurance. You can see throughout the forums where rulesets have come and gone because community developers work on it for awhile and then move on to other games or life takes over. There's nothing wrong with that, really, but a ruleset written to the standard is more likely to be supportable by another than another. Too many systems get the response, we no longer have a community developer for that ruleset. So when a new FG update comes out there is always a chance that an unsupported ruleset will no longer function.

    That is why, when I see a developer talk about a migration to CoreRPG I am always a cheerleader of that effort. Note, I didn't initiate the conversation about a migration to CoreRPG, I simply pointed out that I was behind the effort and thought it would be awesome. I also said I didn't expect it anytime soon.

    Not once, ever, did I say that I wanted the bells and whistles of 5E. I have said that it is clunky and my players don't want that. If you open up a clean CoreRPG campaign everything is about the same as it is in 5E or Pathfinder or Starfinder or Traveller or Castles & Crusades, etc... That has nothing to do with a UI redesign, that's just the way it starts out.
    Last edited by esmdev; March 28th, 2019 at 20:42. Reason: Removed some unnecessary negativity

  7. #27
    Trenloe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, USA (for a bit)
    Posts
    22,210
    Quote Originally Posted by esmdev View Post
    Anyways, attack after attack by you has gotten me down, so I'm done with RMC. You win. Congrats. I will keep quiet and not try to encourage innovation.
    Wow! Attacks? Have you read the stuff you said about me in your replies? You put a lot of negative words in my mouth! If anything, I could cry foul and accuse you of attacking me - but I don't! I've been trying to engage you and get requirements and details from you. Is asking questions attacking you?

    You said: "I don't use it because it because my player's feel it's too old and clunky compared to newer offerings. I love Rolemaster (played it since before it was Rolemaster) and would love a more modern, supported version." I'm trying to help move towards a system that allows you to play the game you love - I know that just an upgrade to running on CoreRPG will not win your players back. What will win your players back? Asking you that is a genuine question, not an attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by esmdev View Post
    You win. Congrats. I will keep quiet and not try to encourage innovation.
    There's no winners here - only losers if you don't want to actually engage and "collaborate" - a word you introduced to this discussion. That's all I'm asking - provide the details of what it is will help you play the game you love. You started to do this in your last post - great! Thanks for that. But now you've jumped to all sort of wrong conclusions and think I'm attacking you. No - I'm not. We're all losers if you walk away without telling us what you want.


    FG Product Development status: Pathfinder Playtest Ruleset and add-ons: In development. Pathfinder Bestiary, Pathfinder Bestiary 2, Pathfinder Bestiary 3 (in store).

    Private Messages: My inbox is forever filling up with PMs. Please don't send me PMs unless they are actually private/personal messages. General FG questions should be asked in the forums - don't be afraid, the FG community don't bite and you're giving everyone the chance to respond and learn!

  8. #28
    I wrote 8 paragraphs on my thoughts and concerns and you focused only on the 9th. In the first 8 paragraphs I defined my definition of 'modern supported ruleset.' I think that your idea of what I am looking for and what I am actually looking for are vastly out of sync.

    Also I'm not trying to win players back. I have had, mostly, the same gaming group for over 35 years, our newest player joined our group about 22 years ago. We have games stacked up for the next two or so years using SWADE/ETU, 5E, Traveller, and Shadowrun 5 (yay, for that ruleset suddenly existing), we're also thinking about trying Pathfinder 2 sometime next year. Each campaign generally runs about 4-5 months. So I'm not super worried about my players, we play all sorts of games.

    I'm sorry if you feel that my statement of how >I FEEL< about your statements is somehow mischaracterized. It is my feeling based on what you say. Intellectually I realise you don't want people to believe that a change of baseline is going to produce a score of rainbows that all have pots of gold at the end, but it is a downer when you consistently drop in with your setting expectations posts (which I see a lot of since I have read the forums daily for years).

    I realise you have been around forever, and can do your own thing with the software. But for some of us customers, who mostly just buy stuff from the store, what we are looking for more than anything is consistency and sustainability in what we are spending money on. I don't have a problem spending money in the FG store (or maybe I do, it that's the same problem I have whenever I walk into a FLGS or log into DriveThruRPG ) I just like to know it will work and continue to be supported and won't suddenly break without support in the middle of a 5 month campaign.
    Last edited by esmdev; March 28th, 2019 at 18:31. Reason: Corrections to spell check corrections

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by esmdev View Post
    Again, it is just an assumption but I assume that things would end up in consistent places, like module activation in the library. Characters in where they are in just about everything else, etc. I realize that they are all there in other places but the general format for those things in CoreRPG is much more intuitive.

    ...

    Not once, ever, did I say that I wanted the bells and whistles of 5E. I have said that it is clunky and my players don't want that. If you open up a clean CoreRPG campaign everything is about the same as it is in 5E or Pathfinder or Starfinder or Traveller or Castles & Crusades, etc... That has nothing to do with a UI redesign, that's just the way it starts out.
    So does this mean that their main issue is that the sidebar buttons are in different than the CoreRPG rulesets?

    Please let me know if there is anything else so I can put it on my list.

    Thanks,
    Dakadin

    Rolemaster Classic for FG Wish List - http://rm4fg.idea.informer.com/

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Dakadin View Post
    So does this mean that their main issue is that the sidebar buttons are in different than the CoreRPG rulesets?

    Please let me know if there is anything else so I can put it on my list.

    Thanks,
    Dakadin
    Yes, that is one of their major complaints is that things aren't where they expect. It might seem arbitrary to FG experts, but for people who just want to connect and play, it can be disconcerting. Not all of them are the most computer savvy people in the world, we use FG these days so we can connect and game when separated by thousands of miles rather than everyone having to take plane flights to get together for a game. It is much more convenient to gather on FG but in other ways limits what we can play.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in