Posted on

Upcoming Game Design Posts

I posted my first entry to this website a few weeks ago and implied that I was going to write more, at least about spell lists. That has not happened.

Instead, amidst the slowly expanding but disorganized mess that I did write, I found a few other things I wanted to talk about which I believe provide necessary context. This post serves as an outline to help me organize my thoughts… and to warn you about what I have planned. Ok, and also as a way of committing myself to following through and finishing. I might change this outline based on comments, on a need to break this up even further (I’m looking at you, CLT&SL) and on ordering (thoughts about rpgs can come at any time, and is the most fluffy.)

The Cost of Charts

Maybe charts are good, maybe charts are bad, but charts are definitely expensive. Since charts are the elephant in the room when it comes to Rolemaster, I think it is important to talk about the size of that elephant. This post will put math to explain why I claim charts are expensive. I will also suggest that rule tinkerers (You know who you are!) who have been adopting a single “Non-profession” class in RM, or who have been having problems with skill categories in general and how they don’t quite work the way you want in RMU, or who have been surprised about how long it RMU has been gestating have run into the iron wall of this math. It’s light math, so don’t worry!

The Illusion of Choice

Many of the choices we think we have in real life are not choices at all, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the game is rigged with options that are not worth taking, sometimes we are heavily guided, almost coerced, by social engineering, and sometimes we are deluded that something deterministic involved any choice at all. This discussion will focus on various kind of false choice in rpgs. Although the conversation generally applies to all rpgs, it especially matters for RM, because choices in RM cost a lot more than they do in most other rpgs because of math.

The Splendor of Classes, Levels, Talents and Spell Lists

Although sometimes maligned, there is much to admire about all of the features featured in the title. I want to talk about that. Although I don’t think they come together quite right in RM, I think that they can, or at least come closer. I want to talk about that too. None of these features originated in Rolemaster. Of these features, only Spell Lists have been significantly developed and leveraged within Rolemaster. All can be retained without creating more adverse math, even if false choices within these features are also retained.

The Right Setting for Rolemaster

The right setting should be cool, of course, but I’m not cool enough to come up with that! So I will settle for a conversation about the characteristics I think that game world should have. It might be a short conversation: I think magic in the right setting for RM should be ubiquitous but usually of low to moderate power. Pretty much every PC should have spells and/or interesting talents. This seems contrary to the mindset I infer from having spent time around RM players and forums, so perhaps the conversation might not be so short after all.

Some RPGs I Think You Should Know About

There has been a lot of RPG system development and evolution since RM was published, nearly all of which has occurred outside of RM. If you are tinkering with RM, I think some of these other games deserve your attention, to plunder for ideas and perhaps to think about while reading this series of posts. At the very least, I wish to talk about a few: Anima pretty much stole the core RM system but then did something very different with it, different from anything that ICE has done with it, and not just because of the slick production values. Ironclaw (Squaring the Circle) might disturb you because it is written by, for and about furries, but it is a solid system of special interest to RM fans because of how it handles magic and combat lethality. Burning Wheel is a low magic, consequence-ridden system whose rules govern players as much as characters, attempting to achieve an old-school feel through modern means. I do not necessarily recommend any of these for you to play, especially since I suspect you already have a favorite system!

 

Anyway,

Ken

Posted on

Chargen Part 2 Questions

I used to have a GM that would start the first game session with dishing out about 5 pages of questions about your  character. The format was sort of question followed by about 10 lines of space then next question and so on. I cannot remember the actual questions except the very last one which was “What would your character sell his soul for?”

I used to detest these questions. For a start I rarely know my characters personality when I sit down to play. I tend to have an idea of what I want to play but I am heavily influenced by the other players characters and the first adventure.

It is not the actual questioning I objected to but the timing of it. During that first session there is so much to take in, you could be getting to grasp with an entirely new setting, your new character, new party members, a new mission and possibly new rules or variations on the rules you thought you knew.

What brings this all to mind are twofold.

  1. Spectre771 mentioned in a comment to my last post about the differentiation between experienced players and newer less experienced players.
  2. My reading of the 7th Sea rules.

One of the things that my Rolemaster house rules always share is that character generation is always diceless. In RMC I use fixed #hits and point buy stats. In RMU hits are skill based, not rolled, and there is a core rule for point buying stats. Spell acquisition is skill based in both games although using different methods but the net effect is the same. If you know my house rules then you can create your character well in advance. For me it means that I can then devote my time and effort to any new players who cannot be left to create a character without some support.

7th Sea is also a diceless character generation system, you just pick options at each stage to create your hero. It is exceptionally quick and easy but lacks much of the detail and granularity of RM.

The stand out difference is that 7th Sea starts with 20 questions. These start with objective things like What Nation is your Hero from? and progress through things like What are your Hero’s highest ambitions? and What is your Hero’s opinion of his country? to eventually end up with What does your Hero think of Sorcery?

The fundamental difference between these questions and my old GM’s questions is that of timing. I can give out the 7th Sea questions along with a primer on my setting, nations and game world long before the game starts. That way you get to think about the sort of character you want to play in your own time. You can answer the questions then go back and change your mind. The answers you come up with then turn into a blue print to use in creating your character.

Adopting the same technique for Rolemaster, particularly with new players, has massive advantages. For really new players coming to RPGs for the first time the difference between Roll play and Role play are not always clear in their minds, particularly if they are coming from a wargaming background where the use of dice for combat resolution is an idea they are comfortable with.

I don’t see this just as a structure for new players either. It doesn’t hurt to give it to experienced players. My group have a tendency to slip into the same old personalities again and again. I get my players to create a post-it sized personality description which is stuck on the front of their character sheets. At the start of every session I ask them to read it to themselves as a reminder. If they tell me they do something that I think would be seriously out of character then I will ask them to read their post-it and then reconsider. Sometimes they read it and then insist that they are happy with their original choice, others they retract the action and do things differently because the character simply would not rip the innocent bartenders fingernails out just to get the address of an informant.

The 20 7th Sea questions do not take up any game time as they happen before the first game session but they make creating that personality prompt post-it much easier. It also makes creating a character with a new player easier too. As a guiding GM with a new player if you know what the player wants to play it is easier to help them achieve that. This is doubly true with a fully expanded RM2 I would say.

If you want I will list the 20 questions but I would also suggest that you create your own and make them setting specific. For modern espionage settings (I’m looking at you Intothatdarkness) you could style it like a psych evaluation. For shadow world if you have already decided on your characters starting location then you can add in cultural influences or drop in questions to hint at the Unlife or if everyone is going to be Gryphon College trained then twist things to reflect their world view.

Any thoughts? Do you want to see the questions?

Posted on

The Red Stone Circle & May Fanzine

This week we have a two goodies for you. The May edition of the fanzine, issue 13 or Year 2 issue 1 depending on how you want to think of it. We also have our latest 50in50, The Red Stone Circle.

The Red Stone Circle

The Red Stone Circle is an unusual location, a stone circle formed of concentric rings of monoliths with a dolmen at the very centre. The circle acts as a magical dampener, suppressing the magic of anything that goes into the rings; the further in, the greater the effect.

 

This month brings 25 new Channeling Spell lists from Dark Woundings to Herb Mastery, here is the first part of the BASiL Channeling book by Brian Hanson. You can get the PDF from RPGnow or the print and kindle versions on Amazon.

I love the covers by Craig John, this time Sel Kai!

Posted on

Revisiting Spell Law: Spell Casting Mechanics Pt. 4 Notational Magic

Welcome to the fourth part of my Spell Law Series.  In Pt. 1 I discussed Spell Law and BASiL in overview. In Pt. 2 I delved into the mechanics of the Essence realms, Pt. 3 into Channeling and now is Pt. 4 I wanted to discuss “Notational” Magic, or written/inscribed magic. Rather than offer my own solutions, I want to open the conversation up from a deconstructive standpoint.

So what is Notational Magic? It’s any magic that requires pictograms, symbols, drawing or writing as part of it’s mechanic; in short, “written or inscribed magic”. In Rolemaster that could include Runes, Glyphs, Sigils, Heiroglyphs, Circles, Magical Tattoos, Blade Runes, Marks, Signatures, Signs and Wards. Over time with various optional rules, settings and companions, many of these words have been used interchangeably and muddied the rule mechanics. For instance, typical “Runes” are written on special paper, can be used to learn a spell or can be cast which then depletes the Rune. Battle or Weapon Runes (RMCI) are temporary spell charges that are cast on weapons and armor. Obviously these are two different mechanics with differing functions, but both are called “Runes”. However, these Runes and the other types listed above share a single trait: all imply a functionality  based on a written/drawn parameter. This similarity is be enough to group these types of magic under a cohesive mechanic, rather than shoehorn it into Essence, Channeling or even Mentalism.

Rolemaster Companion II officially tackled part of the issue with rules around Summoning Circles. While the spells themselves followed standard casting mechanics (SCR, Class I-III etc), there was an acknowledgement that drawing a 10′ diameter circle of arcane symbols might take longer than the 30 seconds it might take to cast a Class III spell. But don’t Runes, Glyphs, Symbols or Sigils need to be “drawn” as well? Or do you feel that the spellcasting itself creates the resulting shapes or symbols?

But stepping back a bit further, we should ask what is actually being drawn or written? A written language? Forms that hold/create power? Power symbols? Is it a written magical short-hand? Something else? Is the shape or form of “scroll runes” different than Glyphs or Symbols? How can a channeling spell be imbedded into an object or rune paper if the spell requires the basic consent of a God? Doesn’t that amount to a work around? If each is it’s own language do casters need to learn different written forms similar to magical languages?

For me, the number and type of the above questions indicates that there is already a massive gap in the rule constructs for written magic. Essence we can subscribe to chanting and waving hands, Channeling to prayer and Mentalism to mental focus and concentration but the similarities AND the established differences in these varying types of magic require quite a bit more organization work.

Finally, if a rune or symbol spell requires writing or drawing, shouldn’t the spellcasting roll be based on the casters skill in writing or drawing? As previously argued regarding magical languages, you can’t use magicial languages to cast high level spells if you have a 1st grade ability in a magical language. Shouldn’t the same be true for written magic? If you can’t draw, write cursive, do calligraphy or draft how can you effectively draw a working summoning circle?

What are other possible issues around notational magic?

  1. Surfaces. What can notational magic be used on? Runes require a special paper. Glyphs can be written on a flux: fluid or air? Symbols require a large heavy stone, blade runes require a weapon but depends on size. Basically it’s all over the place.
  2. Mediums. Is there a medium needed to inscribe the spell? Ink? Paint? Oil? Blood? What about acid etching, chiseling, carving or tattoos? How does the strength or permanency of different mediums interact with the spell, spell casting for general duration? Should it matter?
  3. Analysis. If notational magic has structure should a skill like Runes or Rune Language allow someone to interpret the rune or similar symbol? Should they be able to decipher the rune, it’s power, effect or level?
  4. Visibility. Which types of notational magic or visible to the naked eye? Do they glow, do they fade until triggered?
  5. Casting Time. How long should it take to write and cast notational magic? It should probably depend on the type of writing, the surface and the medium, right? That means a varied system of casting times that break out of the standard Spell Law mechanic. In some respects this is closer to the rules around ritual magic.

Compared to other realms, notational magic has some real disadvantages: needed materials, complexity, casting time etc. This should be offset by some advantages: duration, power or flexibility. That will need some thought.

Finally, last thought. This is really setting dependent but there are opportunities to create some really unique magic styles that could differentiate your campaign. So what are your thoughts? If you could start from scratch (deconstruction) would Runes and similar types of magic work differently than the 3 realms? What other types of notational magic can you think of?

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Bone Weapons in Rolemaster & Shadow World

Figure 1.

Last October I posted up some of my work with “Special Armor“: cultural armor that utilizes special materials that is specific to various Shadow World cultures or groups. Since then, I’ve been building on this idea with weapons, and specifically weapons made of bone.

While bone may seem too fragile or may splinter too easily to make good weapons, there are historical precedents. The picture at the top are human bone daggers utilized by tribes in New Guinea. Not only is the idea of human bones cool/grim, the “Runes” carved into the daggers lends itself to a fantasy RPG setting. The tribes also made daggers from bones of the Cassowary, a large flightless bird similar to an Ostrich. For inspiration, check out this article on real weapons made from animal components. Some of these are quite intimidating!

Figure 4.

While scientists have concluded that the human thigh bone has excellent properties for use as a piercing weapon, a fantasy game setting opens up the opportunities for bone weapons made from magical creatures: Dragons, Shards etc.  So let’s take it one further: combining magical bone with Weapon Runes. These become totemic cultural weapons that can help define a unique culture. Special bone weapons are common in other game systems and fantasy computer games, but not really represented in Shadow World. I added  a tribe for my Shadow World campaign:

Igata – Triangle Glyph. Outer islands. The Igata are a reclusive tribe living on the long island south of the Demon Gap. They will trade with passing ships but their isolation from the mainland makes them cautious of strangers. The Igata consider themselves caretakers of the waters of the Ssoei’dawass and the Sea Serpents that travel to the sheltered bay to spawn, and eventually, die. The Igata collect shell fragments and bones from the bay and carve them with powerful runes and fashion them into potent weapons. Their main hall is framed with the rib bones of an enormous serpent.

The Igata skills combining Sea Serpent bones with ritual and inscribed magic (Runes and such) to make charms, weapons, staves, rods and other powerful items that are sought after. The magically infused and unnaturally strong Sea Serpent bone lends itself to enchantment. (see my post and chart on enchantment and material strength; I use a single number for both material strength and enchantment capacity). While bone items may be better for Crushing or Piercing weapons,  I also allow the magical properties of special bone to be used for Slashing as well–or alternatively by utilizing an  “Edging” Weapon Rune.

With so many cool magical metals and alloys in Shadow World, it probably doesn’t seem necessary to add enchanted bone weapons, but I think it adds a lot of cultural flavor to the game. Have you used Bone Weapons? What SW or RM creature would have “good bones” for use in these weapons?

 

 

Posted on

The core feature of RM

Hi,

RM is famous, renowned, infamous for its charts, for its criticals, for its fumbles, but I don’t see these charts as the heart of the game. Charts? Yes. The central feature of Chartmaster absolutely must involve charts. But these are not the charts I’m looking for.

I’m probably wrong about this. RM has never been my RPG of choice. The real players have spoken! The game is still alive because of you, not me, and you know why you are here.

But RM crits themselves are a feature bolted onto a combat system that is largely D&D, with hit point damage and all, not even a substitute feature, for all that hit point damage is far less feared than side effects of criticals.

And really, are the critical tables as interesting as all that? Mostly, they all boil down to something like this (table results truncated):

01-20: I’ll get you next time Inspector Gadget! Next time…

21-40: You lose more hit points.

41-55: You lose more hit points and start to bleed. Arg! Blood, blood, everywhere! Does anyone have a Flowstopper? Why doesn’t someone have a Flowstopper?

56-65: You lose more hit points, bleed and suffer a minor setback for a round or two.

66: You are exterminated by a Dalek!

67-85: You are stunned for a few rounds, bleed, take damage and really hate life.  Don’t worry, at the rate you’re going it will be over soon.

86-98: They told you to wear a bicycle helmet. But did you listen? No? Well, next time you’ll listen. And by next time, we mean when you start rolling up your new character, which might as well be right now, because you can’t play this one any longer. Oh, you did listen? Fine. Then just take some minor side effects and damage. Damned helmets.

99-00: Great that you wore a bicycle helmet. But is it certified versus being pasted by an asteroid? Or pulped by Grond? No. No it’s not. No, a +3 helmet isn’t going to help either. Consumer Reports tested it. They roll that way. Speaking of rolling…

Don’t get me wrong. The critical and fumble charts do add character to the game. RM is among the first games to implement criticals, perhaps the first to really focus on these.

Other games out there just toss out hit point damage for crits and fumbles, but that’s admittedly kind of bland. Other games let the GM just pick a consequence, but that’s not quite the same as getting to slough off all responsibility for killing a PC by rolling on a chart. The Dalek wasn’t my idea. Don’t blame me! You were exterminated fair and square! Still other games feature a much smaller set of charts for criticals, wieldy and functional and that’s it.

When it comes to charts, RM wins. Even so, a player tends to use only a few attacks, and tends to generate similar results very often. Each edition of the game has a few sweet spots for weapons and armor, and players naturally gravitate toward these. That’s another conversation, about tactics and choices in rpgs. Maybe more than one conversation. Mostly, strange results happen to PCs, from the wider variety of Things that accost them. Regardless, because combat is so dangerous, and is avoided, these charts do not see life all that often. They do not shape a RM campaign.

The charts I noticed when I encountered RM in the 80s, the charts that dominate, the charts that most define RM for me, are the spell lists. Charts and charts and charts, filled with little spells.

I’ll talk about these more some other time.

Anyway,

Ken

Posted on

Rolemaster Deconstruction: Familiars. How should they work?

 

Familiars are not only a staple of fantasy fiction but a core visual ingredient of Rolemaster book covers–specifically the ongoing series of Angus McBride covers from earlier RM books that featured a cast of PC’s with several small animal Familiars.

Familiars had a more sinister aspect in early fiction; most often a demonic imp, crow or other dark-aspected animal tied to an evil antagonist. Early D&D applied this concept to any M-U, and broadened it to a simple servitor or animalistic henchmen of a spell-caster.

First, let’s differentiate between “animal control” spells and “familiars”. Animal control spells are featured in the Animist, Beast Master, Druid and similar professional lists in Spell Law and Companions. These are spells that summon/call, control/master and sometimes allow the caster to sense through a controlled animal. These are all powerful affects, in in some ways SUPERIOR to the limitations and penalties associated with Familiars. So how does Rolemaster deal with Familiars? Fairly easily, in fact, so easy that it behooves a caster to immediately have one.

So why would a caster have a Familiar?

Familiars have a symbiotic connection to the caster where animal control is just a magical charm or affect on a creature. So what is the symbiotic relationship? What benefit does it provide besides cinematics? How does it work, mechanically via the rules?

The basic premise is that there is a REAL benefit to the caster, but at the cost of INVESTITURE. In other words, if the relationship is severed there is a real, physical or psychosomatic cost to the caster. Otherwise isn’t it just easier and less risk to control creatures when needed?

So what is the benefit, or possible benefits, of a familiar that differentiate it from other animal control spells? Here are a few ideas:

  1. Communication. The Familiar bond should allow for free two way communication between the caster and creature. This may not be actual “language” but at least a strong empathic bond.
  2. Awareness. The caster and familiar should have some base awareness in terms of location/distance of each other at all times.
  3. Shared Awareness. With concentration the caster might be allowed to project sensory ability and awareness through their Familiar.
  4. Control. The caster, with concentration, should be able to have some control over their familiar or, at least, give simple instructions for a Familiar to execute.
  5. Shared abilities. A caster might gain some extra-abilities through the Familiar relationship. Perhaps better vision, languages, strength, sensory etc. On the flip side, a Familiar could gain some intellectual ability bestowed by the Familiar bond.

Most of these benefits mirror other animal control spells. But those are temporary spell effects; a Familiar is permanent.

My belief is that GM’s are reluctant or adverse to Familiars. Why? Familiars are really NPC’s for the benefit of the PC’s. That really complicates the narrative.  GM’s not only have to manage normal NPC’s but a constant stream of Familiars that can upend the storyline unless the GM takes the Familiars into consideration!!! At that point, who is the audience? Additionaly, Familiars can change the challenge/reaction of normal adventures–familiars act as scouts or agents with heightened senses that can off-set the normal challenge-balance. At the least, Familiars can be the “canary in the coal mine” and alert the group of traps or other imminent obstacles.

Some additional thoughts:

  • Familiars are GM agents. You can better control the narrative through them.
  • They should be of animal intelligence. They may act with pro-forma intelligence via their caster, but their base ability should be simple animal intelligence.
  • Size. Should they be of smaller size? Should a caster have a bull as a familiar? Probably not. I would restrain the spell limits using the size rules to Small or less.
  • The penalty for losing a familiar should be EXTREME, or at least cautionary. The tie that binds should snap back accordingly and in proportion. This could be loss of temp CO. or even a permanent CO pt, a general activity penalty and even worse.

Again, this goes back to risk/reward. No GM wants to manage intelligent Familiars that run the unknown gauntlet, trip the traps and distract the monsters. At that point, who is playing? Familiars should be carefully hoarded resources–a cool benefit that needs to be defended! Are familiars a great resource in you game?

Of course, if easy and beneficial, every player will have a Familiar. But if the risks and rewards are balanced, would it be different? Maybe the whole concept should be reduced to a simplified, professional agnostic “Animal Bond” mechanic and spell list. That eliminates the whole D&D Magic-User familiar trope and become a generic but specific rule-set that could be used by a variety of PC’s or classes: Magician, Animist, Druid, Beast Master, Barbarian etc. What are your thoughts?

 

 

 

Posted on

Gaming Post Mortem

Well we had a fun and interesting weekend of gaming.

To start with I spent many more hours playing than GMing. That is something that hasn’t happened for several years. The consequence is that we got less done in my game that I had hoped.

I had wanted to emulate a long and fruitless search, resolve the searching and then mount a successful rescue at the correct location. The dream sequences worked for the first two days but then a combination of Guess (Communal Ways, 1st Level) and Dream I (Communal Ways, 4th Level) soon dispensed with the entire need for hunting up and down the forest.

In some ways this was a clever solution by the players, effective use of low level magic and it solved a potential problem. I could just shift some simple encounters from inside the forest to the edges where the characters were travelling and a that was that. We ended up leaving the game at the point where they are about to launch the rescue mission itself. They don’t know it but there is another encounter they are going to have first but my year of worrying if I could pull off the fruitless search was completely pointless.

From a playing point of view the adventure was a brilliant first adventure and introduced the new setting, a homebrew world where magic is incredibly common and there seems to be a forgotten ancient civilisation and a legacy of old technology.

I am playing a Lay Healer and despite the potentially second string nature of the profession I got fully stuck in with the rest of the team. It was interesting to see the characters go through several iterations of the best ‘marching order’ as we investigated a subterranean complex. For a fair portion of it I was in the role of second warrior. This is not exactly what I had expected!

Here is a little clip from my equipment list from the start of the adventure…

And what happens if you make the lay healer the second guy through the door after the knight!

I think I did enough to accumulate enough experience to gain 2nd level but I will have to wait until the autumn to find out.

There was plenty of fighting undead and healing the party, especially during combat where those few extra #hits made the difference between standing and fighting and hitting the deck.

We shall see…

Posted on

Gemsting Cave

This is one of the adventure ideas I had based around using a very specific creature, and a creature that doesn’t feature that often.

In Gemsting Cave, characters explore a cave once haunted by Gemstings – Giant Scorpions – which have now returned after many years.

The cave can be dangerous, as the Gemstings are able to climb on the walls and roof, attacking from three dimensions.

Gemsting Cave is meant to be a stand-alone combat encounter but has plenty of role play potential. I also liked the idea of attacking the players from all three dimensions!

Combine this adventure with one of many free cave system map makers you can find online and you have a full drop in location to use in your campaign. The Gemsting stats you can take straight out of Creature Law.

Posted on

Two philosophies of RMU: rebuild or reorganize?

While it’s  much too late to change the course of events, there are still a number of detailed conversations going on at the RM Forums regarding the RMU Beta test.

For me the endless rules debates became too deep a rabbit hole that I didn’t want to go down any longer and there are still many players who are fiercely engaged. So rather than discuss actual rules, I thought I would discuss the rules making process. A bit of a meta-debate if you will.

I think the RMU development process has become a rorschach test for the RM community. It’s clear that there are variety of differing and strongly held beliefs about the rule resolutions and they are mostly the product of an individual’s ideas on versimilitude and their own tolerance for complexity. I discussed Chargen complexity in a previous POST, but I wanted to broaden the scope of my question into 2 parts. First, does RMU rebuild the ruleset or just reorganize and streamline it? Second, are peoples suggested rule changes a rebuild or a reorganize?

I think the answer to the first question is easy. RMU stayed “inside the box” and merged, streamlined and tinkered with core mechanics without any significant rebuild. Perhaps the only rebuild mechanic that was introduced was the size rules and those were discarded after community input.  Arms Law still kept weapon tables, crit charts and the basic combat structure. Does the round sequence or initiative rules rise to the definition of a rebuild? I think it was evolutionary, but certainly not revolutionary. Spell Law was left almost as-is, with some spell mechanics rewritten or clarified, spell slots filled but little else. Character Law seemingly reduced RMSS skill bloat (but not really) and added to the Chargen process with pages and pages of talents and flaws–rules for rules!

So my second question–are your solutions rebuilding or just tinkering around the edges? It seems like many rule suggestions (including mine) are just an attempt to get RMU to adopt house rules in some fashion. But are these suggestions meant to truly revise RM or are you painting within the lines? I think RMU met it’s name: it’s attempted to unify a diverse community within the established mechanics.

But did RMU need more? If so what?

Did rule changes take you out of your own comfort zone?

Are proposed rules to the benefit of growing the community or appealing to the current user base?

Do RMU rules advance the system into the contemporary gaming community?

I negotiate for a living and a saying in my profession is that the best possible deal is when both parties walk away somewhat dissatisfied.