Official ICE Forums
Gamer's Corner => General Discussion => Topic started by: foilfodder on January 26, 2020, 02:28:36 PM
-
Rolemaster editions, MERP and HARP have some key differences. Each player will have a different opinion on what is the best part of each game system; what's yours?
Rolemaster (original/2.0/SS/FRP/RMU)
1) Skill Progression split between catagories and specific skills is great for character customization (with a good spreadsheet)
High Adventure Role Playing
1) Racial balance and traits for character building (MERP doesn't have enough customization for me, RM allows too much min/max).
2) Stat improvement based on spending DPs rather a random die-roll after level up.
3) I love the spell system flexibility as a player (however as GM I woudl be tempted to bring RMSS Spell Law back out).
Middle Earth Role Playing
1) My favorite Attack Tables among the systems. Just a few tables with a few columns each filled with crit-tastic goodness!
2) Fixed points to spend for development based on profession at each level rather than varying based on stats.
-
For me (using your number classification):
1) The fact that when I finish making my character (and I don't mind it taking a while, all part of the game, afaik) they feel 3D. Not a 2D caricature, but a fully fleshed-out inhabitant of the world. I did like it, in RMFRP, where they switched to a single combat table for slashing, piercing, bludgeoning, etc..., it made running combat much quicker/easier.
2) Single-roll combat. Even if I was to play RM, I would try to work in the HARP combat system because I am a big fan of the single-roll mechanic. Plus, it is a very quick game to pick up and play. (You are much more likely to get new gamers to play HARP than RM. Imo.) I also like the fact that is is easy to turn into a level-less game, something I think they should have done from the beginning.
3) The setting and the sheer amount of material for it. I mean, if they had put out half the adventure modules for RM that they did with MERP... a boy could dream.
-
2) Single-roll combat. Even if I was to play RM, I would try to work in the HARP combat system because I am a big fan of the single-roll mechanic. Plus, it is a very quick game to pick up and play. (You are much more likely to get new gamers to play HARP than RM. Imo.) I also like the fact that is is easy to turn into a level-less game, something I think they should have done from the beginning.
Yeah, I've never GMed (only been a player on these systems) but I think I would make a house-rule of using the Attack Dice Roll to double as the Critical Table Dice Roll would work for that. Ex: if you roll a natural 88 and score a D crit because of your OB, then use the die roll of 88 for the crit also. Still two tables, but only one die roll. Always was frustrating to get a high attack roll then roll a 10 for the crit....
-
Rolemaster (original/2.0/SS/FRP/RMU)
1) I like RMu's fast casting and spell casting mechanics
2) I like RMu stat attributes
3) I like RMu 'expertise skills'
4) Fixed number of DPs per level
High Adventure Role Playing
1) I like the way that races and demi races are constructed in HARP
2) The scalable spells
Middle Earth Role Playing
1) I like the compact combat tables, but RMFRP also uses these as does the RMC Combat Companion.
2) Free skill ranks per profession
-
2) Single-roll combat. Even if I was to play RM, I would try to work in the HARP combat system because I am a big fan of the single-roll mechanic. Plus, it is a very quick game to pick up and play. (You are much more likely to get new gamers to play HARP than RM. Imo.) I also like the fact that is is easy to turn into a level-less game, something I think they should have done from the beginning.
Yeah, I've never GMed (only been a player on these systems) but I think I would make a house-rule of using the Attack Dice Roll to double as the Critical Table Dice Roll would work for that. Ex: if you roll a natural 88 and score a D crit because of your OB, then use the die roll of 88 for the crit also. Still two tables, but only one die roll. Always was frustrating to get a high attack roll then roll a 10 for the crit....
One of the most elegant solutions to this was the Hack & Slash tables.
They used the 5 armour types (None, Soft Leather, Rigid, Chain, Plate), they then defined 26 unique criticals, A to Z.
A would be the first critical vs No armour, Z was the 150 result against Plate and the others progressing between the two extremes.
Each critical was a unique entry but because the critical writer knew exactly what weapon was being used and the exact armour being worn and the severity of the blow, the text could reflect all of these things in a uniqe critical. You don't have use generic phrase like "pierce enters lung" you can say "Arrow punches through foes breastplate and lodges in their lung" because you know this critical is for bows and you know the target was wearing plate armour.
You get to keep the unique profile of each weapon against each type of armour which is one of rolemaster's strengths and you get greater granularity in the armours than HARP can offer. You also gain this nice little detail of weapon specific criticals that add flavour.
-
As most of my HARP likes have been mentioned, I'll put in the one that hasn't: Damage by weapon group rather than individual weapon. And for SF, if you're wearing armor and you take a bullet (or a few) it's Ballistic Impact, if you're unarmored it's Ballistic Puncture.
-
Rolemaster (RM2):
--Individual weapon charts in all their crunchy goodness.
--Unique critical charts in all their crunchy goodness.
--Individual skill costs, which makes for deep character customization, in all their crunchy goodness.
--Vast range of classes and spell lists in all their crunchy goodness.
RMU:
--Spellcasting changes make lower level casters playable.
--Simpler and easier rules in general (lots of needless complexities eliminated, and many rules streamlined).
--Size rules standardized.
--System for balancing races, classes, and levels, and easy rules for how to build your own races and classes.
--Action point economy and initiative system.
--Spells at every level of all spell lists.
-
Can't comment in HARP, as I don't have it and am really not interested from what I've read.
RM:
- The professions as "learning types", as in "people (who might otherwise be similar, stat-wise for instance) being different in what they can easily learn". Of course the way it is presented is not realistic, but the notion as such is a real-world thing that no other game I am aware of grasps so well.
- The realistic approach to damage side effects (criticals). In RMU. this is even better with the addition of hit locations.
- Magic that adds more effects that fit into a learned concept as you progress learning more about it. You don't learn just a spell, you learn a certain way to use magic, and as you get better at it, more effects become doable.
MERP:
- Fewer weapons charts than RM; which does make sense to me. After all, a blade with a point will not do different damage than another blade with a point.
- Fewer skills. While this is not as realistic, this kind of realism in RM quickly turns into bookkeeping, which limits player fun (and also, simply costs player attention span).
- A default setting that is readily accessible to any fantasy fan, and rules that fit the setting at least to some extend.
-
- Fewer skills. While this is not as realistic, this kind of realism in RM quickly turns into bookkeeping, which limits player fun (and also, simply costs player attention span).
You could probably add that as a point in RMU's favor too: RMU has consolidated the skills list, greatly decreasing the overall number of skills. There's just one skill for Perception, as opposed to separate skills for General Perception, Sense Ambush, Sense Reality Warp, Detect Traps, Locate Secret Opening, and Sense Toast.
-
There's just one skill for Perception, as opposed to separate skills for General Perception, Sense Ambush, Sense Reality Warp, Detect Traps, Locate Secret Opening, and Sense Toast.
That's a shame. It's so hard to find good toast.
-
That's a shame. It's so hard to find good toast.
My son once asked me for 'raw toast'. It took me a minute to figure out what he meant: bread.
Life would be unimaginable without toast.
-
My son once asked me for 'raw toast'. It took me a minute to figure out what he meant: bread.
Life would be unimaginable without toast.
Given that my mother relies on toast (raw toast gets under her dentures too easily, too frequently and too annoyingly), I would be toast without toast. So may I propose, then, the following toast to toast:
To toast!
May you e'er be toasted and ne'er roasted, e'er any boast of their roasted toast!
-
[...]
- The realistic approach to damage side effects (criticals). In RMU. this is even better with the addition of hit locations.
[...]
I must add that, having tested it a bit in actual play, I went back to the tables of RMFRP over those of RMU, as rolling hit locations first, attack rolls second (so that I know which armor type I hit) sort of took the fun out of RM combat for my players.
-
I must add that, having tested it a bit in actual play, I went back to the tables of RMFRP over those of RMU, as rolling hit locations first, attack rolls second (so that I know which armor type I hit) sort of took the fun out of RM combat for my players.
A fair point, though of course you could just not use piecemeal armor in RMU, and then you don't have to roll hit location first. I think that would give you a system virtually the same as the FRP system?
-
Actually, I like the idea of being able to make piecemeal armor.
But an ideal system, in my view, would use critical results that are location-agnostic, and a separate hit location chart (with penalty for targetting locations deliberately). That way, the tension from what the severity of the critical hit will be remains in place.
-
You'd lose a lot of the color by taking out the locations, and I think that is one of the best parts of the criticals. "-10 tendon and joint injury" is just not as interesting as "Strike knocks shoulder out of its socket, which shifts back into place with an audible pop. Joint back home, but injured."
But if you are willing to just work with the effects and ignore the descriptions, there's no reason you could not just use the existing tables the way you describe, and simply invent your own color text on the fly.
We did discuss changing the critical tables so you'd have one column per location instead of one column per severity, and then add a modifier to the roll based on the severity. That would address what you're saying. But it would also significantly change the way lethality is distributed. A and B criticals would have to lose their lethal results, D and E criticals would be more lethal. (You could shuffle the results around to balance that out, but doing so would make Ambush and other crit modifiers more powerful.)
To add my two cents on the thread...
RM2 is a great kit you can use to assemble a game, but some assembly is definitely required. RMSS is a great game you can still customize if you wish, although sometimes the approach of incorporating and organizing every single thing from the old edition makes it a little bloated (e.g. skill list). For all versions of RM, I love the way professions encourage you to fit an archetype, but give you the freedom to reach beyond it. I also love the magic system, where your knowledge is growing (not just learning arbitrary high level spells unrelated to your low level spells), but due to the nature of the lists you are picking up side knowledge and tangents as you go, encouraging you to find unexpected uses for spells you might not have actually picked on your own.
HARP does some streamlining but I felt it weakened the profession concept too much. And scalable spells feel a little too narrowly linear to me.
Obviously my preference is RMU so I won't belabor that point.
-
From the entire RM collection (taking RMu with a grain of salt as it has not been completed) I love the expansiveness. It's more a "role playing simulation" than it is a "table-top game." The ability to customize is staggering and while some people see that as a downside, you can easily restrict portions, professions, skills, spell lists, etc. to make the game manageable. Saying it is too vast is a cop-out. You can easily tailor everything to suit your style, setting, intentions, etc.
Specifically from RM2, I love that I can use a Companion such as Elemental Companion to truly customize the game world (or At Rapier's Point or Oriental Companion) and base the entire game setting on a single Companion and magic system. I love that Shadow World provides an already built world to jump into, or allows you to take portions from those SW books to inject into your own world or to even play as a stand alone adventure for a small group of new players. I've said it dozens of times in other posts, but I believe EC's handling of elements, elementals, elemental realms, creatures, etc. is sheer brilliance. It's hands-down my favorite book from the entire collection.
I love the number of spells available to choose from as opposed to a single, small collection of spells that all spell casters have access to.
I love the variety of Professions. While the Professions available allow players to choose their own special archetype, the PC still has the opportunity to learn nearly any skill, at a cost. It's not like choosing a class and the choice automatically eliminates some skills from the PC. There is a built-in balance there; several ranks in the low cost skills, or buy the couple of higher cost skills to really add flavor to the PC, or drop 20 DP for a non-spell user to get a 5% chance to learn a spell list. (I had one fighter PC do that and he finally learned a spell list at level 6. It was a small selection of spells, but for a fighter to be able to cast spells was a great surprise for the bad guys.)
I love the PC creation mechanic. Every PC is different . The stats are different, the bonuses are different, the background options are different. The background options really add the greatest flavor to a PC. The number of background option lists to choose from is awesome too. I've had some great fun with PCs based on the results of the background options, even the Chaos Tables were fun.
When I first started playing RM, the GM at the time was also using MERP books in addition to the RM books so I can't say which aspects of MERP I like even though I did have some experience with it. When I asked the GM about using both sets of books, he stated he liked the way some weapon tables were and some game play mechanics.
-
RM2: I like most the magic spell list system, though I don't like much how it compartmentalises the spell lists into realms.
MERP: the simplification of armour penalties.
Aside from these two points, the critical tables are both the funniest yet the least realistic part of the RM system so I love them as much as I hate them.
-
The best part about RM for me is the critical tables. Since any single attack can potentially take someone out of the fight, it creates big moments that I haven't experienced in other games. We still talk about some of them years later. :) It also makes people respect combat. They don't survive or get injured if they aren't careful. That can even happen when they are careful so they are much more cautious and get more satisfaction from winning a fight.
-
MERP - The relative simplicity if talking mechanics. But, really, the fact that it's MERP. Middle Earth. Best version of the setting to be created.
HARP - The way to you can scale spells.
Rolemaster - The detail. Critical hit tables if I had to pick one piece of that. But also the fact that professions usually fill a fairly normal arch-type, yet can be customized in so many directions to the point that various builds using the same profession can be largely unrecognizable from each other.
-
My God, I forgot the Crit tables. The variety of crit tables to choose from and the variety within the tables themselves. When I first started playing the GM was getting mad at us because we were reading all the crits for fun and ruining the surprises.
I love the pseudo-realism they add to the game. It's possible for an outclassed PC to get a really lucky shot in to overcome overwhelming odds. David and Goliath. Tell me David didn't roll a 99-E tiny crit!
For the realism and uncertainty they add to the game, it really cemented the tone and flavor of RM for me, from the invisible turtle, to get a spatula, to instant sterilization, to "very much dead." It was those little bits of comedic relief thrown in that made RM feel like a fun game to play, not just a serious game that was all sticks and stones, black and white.
-
Honestly, I fail to see how and why anyone could say that the critical tables add any kind of realism to the game. If anything, they remove any semblance of realism. Imagine Bruce Lee, arguably the best unarmed combattant in modern times, trying to punch in the face an immobile man. If he were using the RM rules, though he would hit the man anytime due to a very high OB, he'd pretty much never succeed in a bad luck day, whilst, in the real world, even a complete untrained man would be able to successfully punch the man in the face in 100% of the cases, except possibly if totally drunk. Heck, someone pointing a handgun at someone's else torso at a distance of four inches would still miss the torso most of the times (though he would hit, due to range and point blank OB bonuses) said torso, and possibly hit the calf instead!
In fact,It's possible for an outclassed PC to get a really lucky shot in to overcome overwhelming odds.
...which is very far from being realistic. A complete untrained fighter is just as likely to kill his opponent in one hit than a immortal fighter with millennia years of training, as long as they score the same critical (that max. at E), which absolutely far from being realistic! Fun, absolutely! Realistic, absolutely not! Marksmanship doesn't exist in the RM world, only pure luck.
David and Goliath. Tell me David didn't roll a 99-E tiny crit!
Except of course that it was supposed to be impossible, and due to divine intervention.
-
Heck, someone pointing a handgun at someone's else torso at a distance of four inches would still miss the torso most of the times (though he would hit, due to range and point blank OB bonuses) said torso, and possibly hit the calf instead!
I'm not disputing your wider point, but this specific outcome issue has now been corrected in RMU. You would definitely hit the torso.
-
See this picture?
(http://www.madreporite.com/rpg/clout2012.jpg)
In the middle of the picture there's an arrow suspended where it split the bamboo flagpole. I hit that from 100 yards away. And I can attest in all honesty that it was pure luck. :) At that distance I can usually get most of my arrows into a 30' circle. Extreme events occur.
That said, in RM it's not just luck. You have to hit first. The severity of the critical influences the likelihood of different results, so if you are very skilled you are more likely to score a more severe critical which increases the chance of a severe outcome. In RMU, an A critical has a 1% chance of being fatal, while an E critical has a 15% chance. We also generally assume the target is moving around and trying not to be hit, so an attack isn't one punch at the face (that might or might not hit) but a flurry of swings of which one might be solid enough to talk about. If the target isn't moving around (e.g. surprise), you might be able to use Ambush to influence the crit roll as well.
Still... I would grant that the criticals are more about providing narratively interesting detail than they are about realistic simulation.
-
In the middle of the picture there's an arrow suspended where it split the bamboo flagpole. I hit that from 100 yards away. And I can attest in all honesty that it was pure luck. :)
OK. Now I'm supremely impressed! :worthy: I would still tell people you meant to do that though. 8)
Still... I would grant that the criticals are more about providing narratively interesting detail than they are about realistic simulation.
I will amend this to my previous statement. "The crits also add interesting narrative detail and add lots of color and flavor."
Imagine Bruce Lee, arguably the best unarmed combattant in modern times, trying to punch in the face an immobile man. If he were using the RM rules, though he would hit the man anytime due to a very high OB, he'd pretty much never succeed in a bad luck day...
You're actually looking at this from the opposite direction. I'm not saying Bruce Lee cannot hit an immobile man and not do extra damage. My point was that a lesser skilled combatant can get in a lucky shot on a higher skilled combatant. Bruce Lee, for all his skill did actually get hit from time to time by people who were arguably less skilled than he was. One of my instructors went to seminars hosted by Dan Inosanto and had plenty of training with him. He still managed to get solid "finishing" strikes in on Mr. Inosanto. Likewise I was able to get solid "finishing" strikes in on Christine Bannon (she wasn't married to Don Rodriguez at that time) but she was still ranked in the USA around the time she was triple crown winner for weapons, forms, and fighting. I clearly not as skilled as she, but I still managed to get several blows in on her because she had never sparred against me and didn't my my style and wasn't familiar with my skill set.
But you do bring up a good point, O.L.F.: What if Bruce Lee is punching an immobile man and he doesn't want to kill the man. Isn't it possible he just lands a lucky (or unlucky blow) and accidentally kills him? Absolutely yes.
The crits allow for the possibility of the lesser skilled to get a killing blow on the over skilled. If this were not the case, then every higher ranked, or higher OB character would always win every single fight against every lower skilled character every single time and RM will be a really boring RPG to play because it will either be a cake wake for the PC as he levels up or he never levels up because he only faces higher skilled characters.
Yes, I still contend the crit tables add realism to the game, tongue in cheek of course. I don't recall any news article of someone vibrating another person so vigorously that their foe's brains leaked from the ears or the attacker literally went and grabbed a spatula. However, there are even the accidental killing crits, which again add realism. There was one accidental tournament death in France where the victim was kicked in the chest and suffered heart failure from the blow. The probability of intentionally doing that is astronomical. Search for any sparring fatalities online you will find hundreds. It is very possible for a lesser skilled combatant to land a killing blow on a higher skilled combatant, the crit tables allow for this possibility.
This is the realism I am referring to, not the "aiming at the chest and breaking foe's leg, foe has permanent limp."
-
I think the best part of RM2 is that it's sort of a tool-kit that you can use to play a variety of different setting themes and power levels (with some experience and leg work). It helped push the boundaries of what I am comfortable GMing today.
RMSS/RMFRP - I really like the race/culture/profession/training package + talents/flaws layering for character creation. Although chargen was cumbersome you ended up with a good & interesting character. I also liked how spell casting was approached as a skill.
HARP - The scalable spells & the one roll combat resolution. It included the same character creation overview as RMSS too. And the general tone of the game was really good.
RMX - A legitimate single book presentation of RM2 that was very good. Had the game included a Mentalist (instead of an Animist) and a Ranger then IMO the core races & professions would have made the game much more appealing. The strengths were using the MERP style combat system with less tables and condensed critical charts. The expansion material was good too and incorporated many aspects of the previous versions of RM & HARP balanced for RMX.
MERP - IMO MERP is still the strongest presentation of the RM ruleset or family or whatever you want to call it. It used the race/culture/profession + backgrounds character creation. The 6 stats instead of 10 or 8 are enough (and familiar for players) . Spell casting was simple and the balance of it interacts with ME explained. Combat used the linear action resolution system (but that sort of makes sense too) and the condensed charts I mentioned in RMX. Although the game was probably too magical and too gritty to use in ME (for some) I have always liked how well balanced the character progression is & how those characters stack up against the standard monsters and NPCs in the modules. Oh, and the modules are still some of my go to material.
-
You're actually looking at this from the opposite direction. I'm not saying Bruce Lee cannot hit an immobile man and not do extra damage. My point was that a lesser skilled combatant can get in a lucky shot on a higher skilled combatant. Bruce Lee, for all his skill did actually get hit from time to time by people who were arguably less skilled than he was.
Sorry to say, but I think you are the one looking at it from the wrong direction. I'm not talking about a lesser skilled combattant possibly be able to fatally hit a more skilled combattant, but about the more skilled combattant inability to accurately hit the lesser skilled combattant. You're talking about the 1% case being made possible whereas I'm talking about the 99% case not happening any longer. In RM, as long as you score a critical 'E', regardless of whether you are the best fighter in the whole universe and with a +10000 OB and scored a 10000 attack roll, or uses a given weapon for the first time in your life with a +0 OB and open-rolled to score the minimal figure to get said critical 'E' (such as 122 vs. AT1 with a broadsword), you're then just as likely to hit a specific location.
Sorry to say, but, no, this is not realistic.
-
How do you handle breaking 150 OLF?
-
OLF and Hurin, I 'm not a moderator so I can't force you to not post, but please try to keep to the topic of Favorite parts of RM/MERP/HARP rather than your tangent discussion on what is "realistic" or not in a fantasy role playing game.
If you really want you continue the "realism" debate, you could start a new topic.
-
Ditto
-
How do you handle breaking 150 OLF?
Not at all. Anything that's over 150 is just wasted in my games. Works fine, and gives players an incentive to think about defense.
Which I see as another advantage of RM, btw.