Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: Cpt Tiberius J. Krik on May 17, 2022, 10:43:30 AM
-
I'm wondering how much of a workload a GM has when running Rolemaster. With all the tables and charts and moving parts, it looks like lots.
What's your experience as a RM GM?
-
I'm wondering how much of a workload a GM has when running Rolemaster. With all the tables and charts and moving parts, it looks like lots.
What's your experience as a RM GM?
If you keep everything, and try to keep track of everything, my experience is that it's *a lot*. Personal opinion here : too much.
Especially since I keep all tables on my side of the screen (no tables in the hands of players).
On the other hand, I dump every rule that I don't consider necessary (such as endurance). I simplify action resolution to a single roll per action (even if it would involve multiple skills - one roll with modifiers instead of several rolls), and I average most NPC rolls instead of rolling them, except in specific cases. I approximate results on combat tables, and use critical tables as guidelines, not hard rules. I ignore the Moving Manoeuvers table because the Static Manoeuver table is easier to memorise, and I rule-of-thumb the action modifiers. Basically, if I don't know the modifiers immediately, I fudge them. If there are many opponents, I use the mob rule (a small group is a single character with modifiers for numbers).
Anything to speed up play. My players are not rule lawyers - on the other hand, if the story grinds down to a crawl because rules get in the way, I'm sure to get an earful.
My next "improvements" in the pipeline are
- to have PCs roll everything, removing dice use from the GM side
- to have an attack table that fits on a business card so that I can have many of them on a single A4 sheet.
- to find a way to remove the critical roll without removing criticals themselves.
- to have RRs integrated in the casting roll (or vice versa, since PCs roll everything - so it's a casting roll when a PC is casting a spell, and it's a RR when a PC is resisting a spell, but there's only one roll in all cases).
Basically, go to "one action = one roll", remove rolls from GM side, and reduce size of tables.
-
I'm wondering how much of a workload a GM has when running Rolemaster. With all the tables and charts and moving parts, it looks like lots.
What's your experience as a RM GM?
If you keep everything, and try to keep track of everything, my experience is that it's *a lot*. Personal opinion here : too much.
Especially since I keep all tables on my side of the screen (no tables in the hands of players).
On the other hand, I dump every rule that I don't consider necessary (such as endurance). I simplify action resolution to a single roll per action (even if it would involve multiple skills - one roll with modifiers instead of several rolls), and I average most NPC rolls instead of rolling them, except in specific cases. I approximate results on combat tables, and use critical tables as guidelines, not hard rules. I ignore the Moving Manoeuvers table because the Static Manoeuver table is easier to memorise, and I rule-of-thumb the action modifiers. Basically, if I don't know the modifiers immediately, I fudge them. If there are many opponents, I use the mob rule (a small group is a single character with modifiers for numbers).
Anything to speed up play. My players are not rule lawyers - on the other hand, if the story grinds down to a crawl because rules get in the way, I'm sure to get an earful.
My next "improvements" in the pipeline are
- to have PCs roll everything, removing dice use from the GM side
- to have an attack table that fits on a business card so that I can have many of them on a single A4 sheet.
- to find a way to remove the critical roll without removing criticals themselves.
- to have RRs integrated in the casting roll (or vice versa, since PCs roll everything - so it's a casting roll when a PC is casting a spell, and it's a RR when a PC is resisting a spell, but there's only one roll in all cases).
Basically, go to "one action = one roll", remove rolls from GM side, and reduce size of tables.
All good ideas/techniques. I especially like the 'GM doesn't roll dice' part. I really like RMC (it's one of my favourite systems in theory) but I'm getting to the age where crunchy systems get a hard pass.
-
My next "improvements" in the pipeline are
...
- to find a way to remove the critical roll without removing criticals themselves.
One possibility would be to simply reverse the digits for the attack roll. If you rolled a 64 on the attack roll, the crit is 46.
- to have RRs integrated in the casting roll (or vice versa, since PCs roll everything - so it's a casting roll when a PC is casting a spell, and it's a RR when a PC is resisting a spell, but there's only one roll in all cases).
Basically, go to "one action = one roll", remove rolls from GM side, and reduce size of tables.
You can do a lot of this easily in RMU.
You can resolve spells in a single roll if you like. That's not the core rule, but the math supports it, and the removal of the chart for Base Attack Rolls and RRs means you can easily do all the math for casting a spell in your head without a chart. Instead of rolling an RR, characters can be given a target number equal to 50 (an average d100 roll) + any bonuses/penalties they would normally get to the RR. The attacker then just needs to meet or exceed that number. Similarly, you can turn it around, and make the target character roll an RR against 50 + any bonuses the attacker would get to the Spell Casting Roll. The target character just needs to meet or exceed that number to succeed at the RR.
Finally, RMU essentially enables you to do away with the Moving Maneuver chart altogether.
It sounds like I am making an advert for RMU, but I just wanted to point this out because it seems like you are trying to simplify your game in a way that is much, much easier to do in RMU than in any previous edition. So you might find some use in the RMU rules even if you are sticking with RMC/2.
-
I use my position of GM to train future GMs.
When combat starts, I delegate one or more players to assist me in keeping the sequence moving smoothly by letting them handle the tables and helping newer players with calculating their OB/DB. I see no reason to handle all those things myself when I could turn it into a training opportunity. If all the players are involved in combat, I have them take turns in handling the tables.
When players know how the rules work gameplay flows a lot smoother and eventually, the players interested in being GMs volunteer to assist. Newer players no longer need to be prompted on when to act and learn to be more proactive in the game.
Playing a game is more than just rolling dice. I can always generate random rolls before a game starts and have players just declare their actions and I'll cross off a roll from my list. You'd be amazed how fast going diceless can be.
Once in a while, you'll have a player who just cannot do the math. We had one who could not even figure out the cheat sheets we gave him to help calculate his attacks. When it was his turn, the game dramatically slowed down to a crawl as we walked him through the number calculations. He eventually stopped playing with my group as he just wasn't a very good player, no matter how many advantages and skills I allowed him. If the GM has to bend the rules for a player to be average, it isn't fair to the other players.
Having more players familiar with the rules and gameplay makes for a smoother running game. Having players participate with more than just rolling dice takes much of the burden from the GM. As a GM, I'm not interested in controlling the players, I put situations in front of them and allow them the freedom to come up with their own solutions, even if it results in them refusing to finish a mission out of lack of interest.
-
My next "improvements" in the pipeline are
...
- to find a way to remove the critical roll without removing criticals themselves.
One possibility would be to simply reverse the digits for the attack roll. If you rolled a 64 on the attack roll, the crit is 46.
That's a genius way to do that. I'll have to think on it.
-
I'm not too familiar with the subtleties of GMing Rolemaster, the last time was back in the 90s with MERP 2ed.
What types of tasks could I delegate to the players to help things run smoothly?
- Read the Crit charts
- Generate some dice rolls prior to the evening's session
- ?
As I say, I have very little experience with the system.
-
I have my players look up their own attacks on the attack charts; I print them up and give them to them. I completely understand why some GMs like to keep those charts behind the GM screen, but for me, giving them to the players just sped the game up so much that I can't go back.
-
I use software for all the combat table lookups. Highly recommended. It's also nice for tracking status (stun, bleeding, etc). If you don't do that, however, assigning a player to look up crit rolls is a good move. You can either also have them look up attack rolls, or make sure each player has the tables for their own weapons to do so.
Outside of combat, especially in RMU, all the tables are optional. I use the skill resolution tables when I need an idea for what an unusual result or an absolute success is, but mostly I just assess success or failure and narrate accordingly. That's not really any faster or slower than any other game.
I tend to abstract NPC-vs-NPC interactions. If there are a lot of NPCs in a combat, I might just roll a "is he dead yet?" percentage chance but definitely not track the damage and specifics of the NPC-vs-NPC attacks unless the PCs are likely to jump in against that particular foe.
-
I'm not too familiar with the subtleties of GMing Rolemaster, the last time was back in the 90s with MERP 2ed.
What types of tasks could I delegate to the players to help things run smoothly?
- Read the Crit charts
- Generate some dice rolls prior to the evening's session
- ?
As I say, I have very little experience with the system.
The first time I GM'd RM2 I had a story line ready to go, the paths they would take, the NPCs they would run into.... That lasted all of 10 minutes and the players went off my planned route and I was floundering. The single most important thing I learned from the first night was to make a skeleton outline of what the players need to achieve, how they get there is more up to them than for me to dictate. Too rigid and when the players go off your route, you're ummming and errring a lot.
Another great way to streamline is to use index cards for NPCs you plan on using and some random ones you can pull out in a pinch should one of your players decide to attack the street vendor, or when they decide to pickpocket the priest and fail. Just super quick stats.
Level HP AT
DB QU bonus (for initiative)
OB for weapons they may have on them
Stunned Maneuver
Any other skills they may use. Sense Ambush, General Perception, Adrenals.
Just keep it super simple.
Now for the elephant in the room; the charts and tables.
I made photo copies and placed the sheets into the 3-hole sheet protectors. When I'm ready to to GM, I pull the attack tables for the weapons the players use and the crit tables that will pop up. Now I only have 6-7 tables in front of me instead of flipping back and forth between multiple books and pages. I have the MM Table on hand too. No more books, just a few pages.
The books are on hand if really needed.
-
Having a collection of the pages you need all in one place is pretty useful. That applies to the players, too -- the game will flow better if they have copies of their spell lists etc rather than needing to look everything up in the books.
When I need a quick NPC, I use IPP: https://ironcrown.co.uk/ICEforums/index.php?topic=18789.0 (https://ironcrown.co.uk/ICEforums/index.php?topic=18789.0)
-
My next "improvements" in the pipeline are
...
- to find a way to remove the critical roll without removing criticals themselves.
One possibility would be to simply reverse the digits for the attack roll. If you rolled a 64 on the attack roll, the crit is 46.
That's a genius way to do that. I'll have to think on it.
sounds good in theory, but wouldn't that make it extreamly rare to get a high "Roll" on a crit? Roll a 91 to hit and get a 19 on the crit would feel pretty "meh" to me as a player.
-
sounds good in theory, but wouldn't that make it extreamly rare to get a high "Roll" on a crit? Roll a 91 to hit and get a 19 on the crit would feel pretty "meh" to me as a player.
Not really any different from rolling. E.g. if your to-hit roll is 91-100, the mean critical roll is 63.1, with the potential for a 99 or 100, so actually somewhat better than a random roll. If the idea is just to save time, it works out ok.
Personally I don't think the time saved here is noticeable. No player has ever complained when I gave them the chance to roll a critical.
-
You can do a lot of this easily in RMU.
You can resolve spells in a single roll if you like. That's not the core rule, but the math supports it, and the removal of the chart for Base Attack Rolls and RRs means you can easily do all the math for casting a spell in your head without a chart. Instead of rolling an RR, characters can be given a target number equal to 50 (an average d100 roll) + any bonuses/penalties they would normally get to the RR. The attacker then just needs to meet or exceed that number. Similarly, you can turn it around, and make the target character roll an RR against 50 + any bonuses the attacker would get to the Spell Casting Roll. The target character just needs to meet or exceed that number to succeed at the RR.
Finally, RMU essentially enables you to do away with the Moving Maneuver chart altogether.
It sounds like I am making an advert for RMU, but I just wanted to point this out because it seems like you are trying to simplify your game in a way that is much, much easier to do in RMU than in any previous edition. So you might find some use in the RMU rules even if you are sticking with RMC/2.
I am trying to simplify my game, period. I did not stick with RM2, actually - I moved to RMSS and FRP, then tinkered and simplified over the years. I don't use any recognisable form of RM anymore, except for the core spell lists for which I use RMSS/FRP (though I can add things from the old RMCs if I find it interesting).
And, to be honest, what is the use of getting RMU if I would ignore almost all the core rules anyway ? I would do away with the skill list, the attack tables, the crit tables if I can get away with it, I would rework the combat sequence... The only thing I *might* get is Spell Law, but even then, I saw the beta version and I find the changes from RMFRP a mixed bag - part of it is because I'm definitely not looking for a balance between non-spell users and spell users - everyone who counts in the shadows is using magic, even if 99% of the population doesn't. It makes for a significantly different game (for example, one of the NPCs in my last campaign was a Fighter. She had 10 spell lists - fairly low level, granted, but still - to go along with several combat styles).
And, as much as it pains me to admit, if it were not for Shadow World, I would have ditched RM, and the only reason I keep RM for Shadow World is because I've become so used to the magic system and spell lists that using another would be weird.
-
I've read a little about the combat phases. Are they really that much of a chore?
-
#1, as said above, is hand out weapon attack tables to the players for every weapon they possess.
If you don’t trust them, have them hand their attacks to the players on the right - that helps keep all players involved in the game vs just waiting for their turn.
In the 80s/90s there were less ways of taking player attention away from the game where cell phones are in everyone’s pockets.
#2, cell phones go into the middle of the table. Anyone grabbing for one pays for pizza/snacks/drinks that session…after a few sessions, no cell phones will be in use!
#3, everyone is learning - take it as slow as you wanna, but I recommend a few Dwarven Arena battles where you go over attacks/parrying/spells/actions/initiative.
Get more complex as they get it, increasing distances they start at from one another and from potential arena foes if they don’t just fight themselves in a battle royale!
#4, use the movement/maneuver table for everything!
You can use it for the following:
A/ Calculating how long something takes to perform(lockpicking/trap-removal) by adding numbered results together until 100% is reached. Higher(to the right) columns means more time to reach the end goal.
B/ Results equals the percentage chance of completing an action in one fell swoop.
Getting a result of ‘30’ on a column means a 30% chance with a second roll to perform the action successfully.
C/ Distances gained. The default:
“I wanna jump the 10’ pit trap!” Assign a Difficulty(Routine thru Absurd), Roll on that column and whatever result shows up, that’s how far %-wise they’ve traveled.
House rule: If less than 20-25% away from their target number, let them make a last ditch effort to achieve their result by being successful but with a problem attached to it…they hurt themselves and have a -5 to -10 injury, they roll a Fumble, they A crit themselves, they are holding on for dear life at the edge requiring another different skill check to save themselves.
Admittedly this last one is more basic RM but it’s great as it helps you instill foreboding and anxiety into each happenstance!
5/ Have a co-GM that helps run Monsters/Initiative.
They can be key for looking up tables/crits if you prefer “fair” monster duties! ;)
Enjoy and let us know how your sessions go!
-
I've read a little about the combat phases. Are they really that much of a chore?
You mean the phased combat system of RM2? They're not so much a chore, as rather rigid. E.g. Spells always go first, no matter if a rogue is 1 inch away from the caster; missile weapons always go after spells but before movement and melee; melee always goes last. That's a bit confining. The other issue I have with the old phased combat system is that it requires you to have a list of specific rules about what you can/can't do after you've acted in a specific phase; there is added complexity inherent in the system because it treats different actions in fundamentally different ways.
In practice, many groups dispensed with the phased system quite early on in Rolemaster's history, as evidenced by the numerous alternative initiative/action systems offered in the Rolemaster Companion books, as well as the fact that RMSS/FRP introduced a different system. It seems like many people had issues with the phased system.
This is why I have converted to RMU's system (the Simple Round option), which treats all actions according to the same rules and allows the Rogue to make a quick dagger thrust to the Magician's heart before the Magician can get that spell off.
(Don't worry, Misterk: that last comment was not directed at converting you! I am just answering OP's question).
-
(Don't worry, Misterk: that last comment was not directed at converting you! I am just answering OP's question).
I'm not worried :)
I've basically tried almost every variant of the combat sequence except the roundless variant provided in one of RM2's companion books. Phase, round-robin, the RMSS more complex variant of round-robin with snap/normal/deliberate and pre-declaration (which is basically unworkable for the GM when there are any significant number of NPCs to manage)... I'll try my own version of the roundless system next time (and yes, I know it is possible to do that by tweaking RMU AP system :p).
The phase system is fairly rigid, yes. However, it is less rigid than pure round-robin and keeps players a bit more on their toes.
I think the RMSS version of the combat sequence was the worst. It requires pre-declaration (which should never be done in any RPG, seriously), juggling with activity% in a number of sometimes not well thought-out combinations, and really takes a toll on the GM's work.
-
I think the RMSS version of the combat sequence was the worst. It requires pre-declaration (which should never be done in any RPG, seriously), juggling with activity% in a number of sometimes not well thought-out combinations, and really takes a toll on the GM's work.
I agree with you there, especially with regards to activity % and declarations. It was one of the reasons I was pushing RMU to do away with activity % and declarations altogether (which it has, in the Simple Round at least, other than for multi-round actions).
-
I've read a little about the combat phases. Are they really that much of a chore?
You mean the phased combat system of RM2? They're not so much a chore, as rather rigid. E.g. Spells always go first, no matter if a rogue is 1 inch away from the caster; missile weapons always go after spells but before movement and melee; melee always goes last. That's a bit confining. The other issue I have with the old phased combat system is that it requires you to have a list of specific rules about what you can/can't do after you've acted in a specific phase; there is added complexity inherent in the system because it treats different actions in fundamentally different ways.
In practice, many groups dispensed with the phased system quite early on in Rolemaster's history, as evidenced by the numerous alternative initiative/action systems offered in the Rolemaster Companion books, as well as the fact that RMSS/FRP introduced a different system. It seems like many people had issues with the phased system.
This is why I have converted to RMU's system (the Simple Round option), which treats all actions according to the same rules and allows the Rogue to make a quick dagger thrust to the Magician's heart before the Magician can get that spell off.
(Don't worry, Misterk: that last comment was not directed at converting you! I am just answering OP's question).
I'm sorely tempted to ditch RMC and go with RMU, but I heard the current playtest files are in desperate need of being updated.
Do you have a link to an alternate rule set dealing with combat phases/sequences that I can port over to RMC?
-
I'm sorely tempted to ditch RMC and go with RMU, but I heard the current playtest files are in desperate need of being updated.
Do you have a link to an alternate rule set dealing with combat phases/sequences that I can port over to RMC?
The beta rules are a bit out of date, but the basic concept is still there, so I think it is still helpful to start with the latest beta rules. Also, perhaps JDale can give an update/summary/preview?
The most important change IMHO is the option of 'Faster Rounds', so I am hoping that JDale can give us a preview of that text box from the more recent beta files. Perhaps an updated list of AP costs would help too (or has already been released on the forums?).
In any case, the simplest system of 'faster rounds' is what we've called colloquially the 'Simple Round'. Instead of there being multiple Action Phases, characters just take turns taking all their actions for the round, one character after another. Each character has 4 Action Points and one Instantaneous Action to spend each turn. (This is similar to the Pathfinder 2e 'three action and a reaction' system, and not that much different from the DnD 5e system either). Every action has a specific cost. Characters just pay the cost and take all their actions when it is their turn. There are no phases for different types of actions in the Simple Round (or I guess you could say there is just one single phase for all actions), and there are no declarations. You just spend your points and take your action(s) when it is your turn.
RMU makes this possible because it treats all actions according to the same rules -- spells don't always go first, for example, and melee is not resolved differently than spells (in the RM2 phased system, for example, spells were resolved first and simultaneously but melee was resolved afterwards and sequentially; but in RMU, all the actions follow the same rules).
In practice (and I've used this new system for multiple groups for a decade now), I have found players pick this system up extremely quickly, especially if they have ever played DnD or Pathfinder.
If you want to simplify movement as well, you can do away with the pace chart entirely, and just have players pay Action Points for movement as well (this is an optional rule in the core RMU books).
So, for the absolute fastest and simplest system: give each character 4 Action Points and an Instantaneous Action to spend each turn; have them consult the Action Points cost chart to allow them to buy/take their actions each turn; and have them take their actions one after another, using the 'faster turns' and pay Action Points for movement optional rules.
I have my own houseruled list of Action Point costs that I would be happy to email you if you PM me about it, but you might want to go with the RAW first so that you can maintain compatibility.
-
About phased combat sequence : one of the most innovative uses of movement phase I've ever seen in a RPG is the one used in Agôn. I can only advise people who want to see a different take on movement to have a look at it. Seriously. Even if you don't use it, or even don't like it, this is the kind of mechanism that really makes you think outside the usual box.
[I won't describe it here - i would have to paraphrase or copy/paste text to explain it and it would probably breach a number of copyrights]
-
#2, cell phones go into the middle of the table. Anyone grabbing for one pays for pizza/snacks/drinks that session…after a few sessions, no cell phones will be in use!
Ten years ago I would have agreed 100%. One of our players, out of similar courtesy left his phone in his car. His father died in a fire in his home while my friend was gaming. He had messages from his father who was trapped in a room above a burning garage. Would the cell phone made a difference? Maybe, maybe not...but my friend has to live with it.
Most of my friends know enough to screen calls while we are gaming and politely inform callers that a call will be returned. I never deny a phone with anybody with children or older parents because you never know.
I agree with pretty much everything else you listed. Organization skills make a GM's job much easier and the more you play, the more you learn to tweak your organization. My group would hold an after action debriefing at a local restaurant and discuss the evening's gaming over coffee. The sessions were open discussions from how the GM could improve the flow of the game to questions among players like, "What were you thinking?"
I found these discussions very constructive as we'd break down scenarios and how players dealt with them, offering suggestions to improve tactics and alternate solutions to challenges posed by scenarios.
On the issue of combat sequencing, I have played more than enough games to know that some games execute combat poorly and that you'll never please all your players, no matter what method you adopt.
My group homeruled a combat sequence based on a simplified version the action point method, which assigned complexity levels to every possible action from walking to piloting a craft and letting players choose their actions. All actions began at the same time with the least complex going first. Looking at a group of people was simpler than looking at a group of people and specifically targeting one. Simple Actions, Actions and Complex Actions were given respective cost of 1, 2 and 3 points with an average person having 4 points to allocate, so up to 4 Simple Actions, 2 Actions or 1 Complex Action plus a Simple Action per round...until you stopped using rounds and just counted Action Point expenditure, then one round would simply blend into the next round until actions stopped.
-
Oh man, that is tragic but a very good point due to our aging demographic…sorry to even imagine, let-alone hear.
#2, cell phones go into the middle of the table. Anyone grabbing for one pays for pizza/snacks/drinks that session…after a few sessions, no cell phones will be in use!
Would the cell phone made a difference? Maybe, maybe not...but my friend has to live with it.
Most of my friends know enough to screen calls while we are gaming and politely inform callers that a call will be returned. I never deny a phone with anybody with children or older parents because you never know.
===
I always love this.
When streaming, I try to leave the “after gaming” talk live for as long as it’s safe/PC to do so! So much learning after a session, for sure.
Highly recommend this, also.
#3, My group would hold an after action debriefing at a local restaurant and discuss the evening's gaming over coffee. The sessions were open discussions from how the GM could improve the flow of the game to questions among players like, "What were you thinking?"
I found these discussions very constructive as we'd break down scenarios and how players dealt with them, offering suggestions to improve tactics and alternate solutions to challenges posed by scenarios.
===
I always liked a flowing round, too, and used CEATS and then the actual Second-by-Second round with actions mapped out depending upon Creature code speeds from C&T. Definitely a crunchier layer, however, but easy math with Weapon Speeds baked in.
Wanna stab with a dagger vs a Two-Handed No-Dachi? You can get in 3 attacks before they do, now! :)
#4, ...until you stopped using rounds and just counted Action Point expenditure, then one round would simply blend into the next round until actions stopped.