forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Tolwen wrote:I guess the licensee is important as well. If they complain about you, stating you threaten their sales, you're likely in trouble. If they support you and state to TEE that your stuff enhances sales or at least positively supports the product, it's probably OK.

I agree with that. I do think fan produced material for TOR can only help sales for C7 and directly increase the value of the license for MEE.

BUT...

We may be producing material that C7 would like to produce their own version of - eg, Mythic Battles, A Guide to Dale, Hobbit Cricket (!!!), etc. In that case we could be damaging future sales.

Like I said, I think the practical response would be to publish, credit where credit is due, and comply with anything that C7 and/or MEE request at a later date as we simply don't have the time or resources to second guess lawyers.

Tolwen wrote:IMO this was not also a normal takedown notice but also an attempt to "clear the slate" for the new product (LotRRP back then) out of fear that the old "ballast" would hinder its start.

Hmmm, yeah, that's definitely another dynamic to consider.

Tolwen wrote:ISee also Issue 1 of OM. There is an article about this affair with OH, called "The Acroteriasm of Other Hands"

I'll have to take a look through that, thanks.

I agree with Rich that a plausible argument can be made that fan-based material for TOR at this stage does much more good than harm for the longevity and fan base of the game - leading to longer attention spans and therefor fans sticking around long enough to buy additional products as they are released: especially given the rate at which new published material is available.

I believe many current or newer fans of TOR would have gravitated away as they awaited something new if there hunger for new material wasn't satiated to some degree by fan based new material that is shared here.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


That being said, I also don't believe anyone is going to boldly announce that this fan based material is 'better than anything C7 has been releasing.'

Robert

SirKicley wrote:I agree with Rich that a plausible argument can be made that fan-based material for TOR at this stage does much more harm than good for the longevity and fan base of the game

Do you mean "much more good than harm" there???

SirKicley wrote:I believe many current or newer fans of TOR would have gravitated away as they awaited something new if there hunger for new material wasn't satiated to some degree by fan based new material that is shared here.

I know if it wasn't for the awesome community here I'd have moved to another game. I love TOR but the posters here play a *big* factor in that and keeping my enthusiasm bubbling for the game.

SirKicley wrote:That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I dislike internet-isms, but: I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

SirKicley wrote:That being said, I also don't believe anyone is going to boldly announce that this fan based material is 'better than anything C7 has been releasing.'

It isn't but I really think some of it runs a pretty close second. JamesRBrown's "Mythic Battles" is probably the best fan made supplement for any game that I've ever seen*. And I'm being completely sincere about that. It's truly excellent.

* Absolutely no hyperbole has been invoked in making such a statement!

Rich H wrote:

SirKicley wrote:I agree with Rich that a plausible argument can be made that fan-based material for TOR at this stage does much more harm than good for the longevity and fan base of the game

Do you mean "much more good than harm" there???

Of course I did!!! How silly of you to assume otherwise!

I must be bonkers if I meant it the way I said it!

(For the record, I also went and edited my text in that post to be commensurate of what I meant......)

Robert

Ok, a bit lost by the discussion around the original post. I don't intend to publish the original MERP scenarios in anyway just reuse them by changing the stats. I was looking at adapting the stats along the lines of the following:

for every 16 - 17 pts of skill from MERP equalling 1 action die in TOR, so a skill of 55 would be equal to 1 feat die and 3 action die

for every 32 - 34 points of combat skill from MERP equalling 1 action die in TOR, so an OB of 120 would be 1 feat die and 3 or 4 action die (depending on the nature of the character)

hits as per endurance stats for creatures/cultures

B/H/W as an average of relevant stats eg ST90 AG60 CO 30 = Body 6

Does this sound reasonable to anybody?

Thanks again for any responses

Cheers, Ross

roma912 wrote:Does this sound reasonable to anybody?

I personally wouldn't go with a set of conversions rules like that and would just create what fits for TOR and the requirements of the adventure.

Hi Rich,

Thanks for your comment.

Cheers, Ross

The game systems are so vastly different, I have to say that I concur one hundred percent with Rich. MERP/RM largely revolves around OBs, DBs, and fiendishly complicated tables. I think you'll miss the boat if you port that into TOR. As in so many respects, I think TOR is the superior game because it transcends statistics in a way that MERP never could. Naturally, mileage may vary.

roma912 wrote:Hi Rich,

Thanks for your comment.

Cheers, Ross

No problem, happy to offer my opinion - even if it was a little lacking in substance. I just think it'd be more trouble than it's worth. The LM guide offer really good advice on building NPC characters which I think should give you the guidelines you need to build NPCs. MERP and TOR are very different systems, not just in mechanics but in their design goals, so I wouldn't try to convert from one to the other. Even discounting the two very different design philosophies the mechanics can't really compared due to the way attributes work differently in MERP (constant addition to skill bonuses) to what they do in TOR (only added when Hope is spent, or if skill group is favoured for NPCs).

They really are too different and for all the work it'd take on writing some solid conversion rules you'd be better spending the time building interesting TOR-specific characters from scratch.

All valid points and I will take them on board. It will also help me familiarise myself with more elements of the rules by developing more advanced characters.

Cheers, Ross

Rich H wrote:

roma912 wrote:Hi Rich,

Thanks for your comment.

Cheers, Ross

No problem, happy to offer my opinion - even if it was a little lacking in substance. I just think it'd be more trouble than it's worth. The LM guide offer really good advice on building NPC characters which I think should give you the guidelines you need to build NPCs. MERP and TOR are very different systems, not just in mechanics but in their design goals, so I wouldn't try to convert from one to the other. Even discounting the two very different design philosophies the mechanics can't really compared due to the way attributes work differently in MERP (constant addition to skill bonuses) to what they do in TOR (only added when Hope is spent, or if skill group is favoured for NPCs).

They really are too different and for all the work it'd take on writing some solid conversion rules you'd be better spending the time building interesting TOR-specific characters from scratch.