Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: arakish on July 17, 2012, 11:15:47 AM
-
First, I hope this is the correct place for posting.
Second, I hope you accept this as constructive criticism.
With this new system, please put the spell description with each and every spell. Not a reference to another spell. Regardless if the spell is the same as another spell on a different list.
Nothing is more frustrating than to look up a spell under one profession only to find a reference to another profession's spell that is the same, sometimes in a different book.
This is especially frustrating with the digital books. I like to print out the just the spell lists my character knows. I really hate having to print two, three, sometimes four different spell lists just to get the descriptions for one spell list.
Example: On the Mana Fires lists in RoCo1, the spell description for "Woodfires" is: As Woodfires on the Magician Base Spell List: Fire Law. Which then means I have to go to first edition Spell Law, or Spell Law Classic, or Of Essence.
I would rather pay extra to have the spell description with every spell, regardless if the spell is exactly the same as another spell on a different list.
If anything, this is the one thing I would say is wrong with any of the RM systems. I know there are those who don't mind it, but it was complete frustration for me.
Thanks for the understanding.
rmfr
-
I believe this is less prevalent in the later additions of RM.
Although there is a problem with certain spells of same/similar name being slightly different.
This could be explained as a different List/Profession has a different spell. Mystics require an elemental source for Bolts, Magicians don't, for instance. Just an observation.
-
RMSS pretty much identified crosslist references. References within the same list were retained, including in places where said references were not helpful. "Same as spell Blah, except completely different effects." In some cases, where a fairly lengthy bit of mechanics is included in a spell description, it is a useful thing to refer back to an early spell in the same list (esp. cases where it is a series of increasingly powerful version of the same effect).
-
I wish RMU would do away with all of the repeated spells, and instead expand on the Spell Mastery skill.
For example, for every augmentation you make to a spell, whether it be extra targets or options (as in the Phantasm spells), or additional range or area of effect, add penalties as per normal Spell mastery rules. Obviously, you could end up with a very high penalty, this can be offset by spending PPs (and thus also increasing the level)
This way you wouldn't have rediculous amount of repetition and you have one system for augmenting, bending, changing and generally adding colour to your spells.
-
I wish RMU would do away with all of the repeated spells, and instead expand on the Spell Mastery skill.
For example, for every augmentation you make to a spell, whether it be extra targets or options (as in the Phantasm spells), or additional range or area of effect, add penalties as per normal Spell mastery rules. Obviously, you could end up with a very high penalty, this can be offset by spending PPs (and thus also increasing the level)
This way you wouldn't have rediculous amount of repetition and you have one system for augmenting, bending, changing and generally adding colour to your spells.
Yep, like he said.
What I'd also like to see is options on rules, character generation etc that can be used for different game styles. Also options with the use of magic levels of low, medium and high power in a game setting(Not everyone likes to have Harry Potter magic in their games). Something else I'd like to see is the removal of the LotR influence in races. I'd like to see it be generic with the option of tweaking it to my own game world. That's about it from me atm.
-
Yep, like he said.
What I'd also like to see is options on rules, character generation etc that can be used for different game styles. Also options with the use of magic levels of low, medium and high power in a game setting(Not everyone likes to have Harry Potter magic in their games).
Can you expand a bit on those two ideas? (ie how would you?)
Thanks
MDC
-
IIRC, Cyberspace 2020 had some of the best (workable) rules as foot notes and side bars.
RMU could do the same thing. Skills are given in a generalized fashion and then a sidebar on optional rules: Skill Categories, for instance..(like RMSS/FRP). They're there if you want to use them..
DP/lvl may be derived from XYZ stats. Or the GM could decide a set number/lvl.
But I don't want to placate everyone. Make the changes then print the rules! I'll take what I want for my game and leave the rest.
-
Hmmm, I think something like Races & Cultures(don't own book) but very watered down added in. Something that is adaptable to a game world instead of LotR as it currently is.
Regarding the magic issue...I'm not sure how that could be done. I'm not a games mechanic I just make the pretty pictures for them :) I guess it depends on how the new rules pan out, otherwise I can't see the point of trying explain how I would do it.
It's all out of our hands anyway regarding the rules, and most likely whatever is said here and elsewhere really doesn't make a scrap of difference(which is probably a wise choice).
Don't think me being negative, I'm excited for the new version coming out. So I'm just going to sit back and see what happens, throw in what I'd like to see and let them worry about the mechanics, as that's what they do best.
One thing I do wonder about is what the target age group their marketing for. Reason I say this I have a couple of kids I could introduce this to. Two are aged 10, one 14 and the other 19. It's the younger ones that would be the problem, so it would be good to have something that could be integrated for a younger audience.
-
It's all out of our hands anyway regarding the rules, and most likely whatever is said here and elsewhere really doesn't make a scrap of difference(which is probably a wise choice).
I am with you as I know nothing about RMU or URM (and I was surprised as everyone else when it was announced), but you comment was interesting so I asked for more info.
MDC
-
Yeah no worries. Another thing that strikes me is everyone is calling it RMU. I'm not sure this is a good idea, although it's something that I don't think can be helped. I say this because people will get confused again with all the abbreviations already out there...perhaps? Anyway it looks like the Unification War is near it's end! ;D
I've never like RM spell system and the players I had hated it. It was one of the biggest disappointments with RM for me. But I understand and respect those that love it...whatever floats your boat, hey. Until the new Rolemaster comes out and I see what it has to offer regarding it's spell system I'm not going to concern myself with tweaking a system for myself. If it's similar to spell list system then I wouldn't buy the book(Spell Law I assume it'll be called?)personally, I'd do my own thing.
-
Yeah no worries. Another thing that strikes me is everyone is calling it RMU. I'm not sure this is a good idea, although it's something that I don't think can be helped. I say this because people will get confused again with all the abbreviations already out there...perhaps?
Although it adds to the list of abbreviations, I think it needs one otherwise simply calling it 'Rolemaster' could be even more confusing for new people not knowing what System it's meant to be with, not realising it's a brand new system.
Unless it's the only System that ICE is selling (which would mean zero confusion for new players), I think there needs to be clearer instructions on the front page of the website outlining what each system is and which is current or not and why.
-
Well it appears I can comment on a few things...
1 - Website is in process of revision, and Rolemaster version issue will be addressed for clarity
2 - Intent is to refer to it as Rolemaster... Use of unified at this time is simply to emphasize what is happening with it. In the end, expect a Rolemaster product with RM as the common reference.
3 - Target audience is not early teens. Rolemaster is aiming for the experienced gamers who would appreciate the simplicity and completeness that RM offers. That doesn't mean that teens couldn't handle it, because really the math should be in reach for 99% of most 10-year olds the issue is more in the fact that Rolemaster is a very complete system that takes 5 books to present fully and most of the teen market these days is not going to read that much material in order to play the game. Of course, the lite version will help some but the lite version doesn't dictate the target audience for the overall product.
-
I agree that spell-list should have full description of the spell instead of having to go through books. How about making some changes too to match the profession and give spell-lists a little different feel?
Clearest for those that are not so familiar with RM yet would be to use Rolemaster and then number. Like Rolemaster 4 or 5. How do you count different editions in this case? We have RM1, RM2, RMSS and RMFRP. Next would be 5 then? Then there are express and classic too. For those that are familiar with RM the word "unified" is clear. For others I think not. Would be better to think of those possible new gamers.
DnD is now 4th ed with 5th coming soon and RQ up to 6.
My suggestion for new RM ed: Rolemaster 5
-
I do not know but I think that the spell list issue was to save space and an issue with author authorization to reprint material. But I could be wrong also.
MDC
-
I really don't think there are any cross-references left in RMSS/RMFRP. Only for spells on the same list. They did a good job updating them.
The idea of spell scaling, ala HARP, rather than a strict list is interesting. It captures some of the sense of what Spell Mastery does. I always felt there was too much overlap between spell mastery and higher level spells. Unification could be good there. It's a pretty substantial change though and I don't expect to see it here. Seems like good material for the Guild Companion though.... ;)
-
I really don't think there are any cross-references left in RMSS/RMFRP. Only for spells on the same list. They did a good job updating them.
RMSS pretty much identified crosslist references. References within the same list were retained, including in places where said references were not helpful. "Same as spell Blah, except completely different effects." In some cases, where a fairly lengthy bit of mechanics is included in a spell description, it is a useful thing to refer back to an early spell in the same list (esp. cases where it is a series of increasingly powerful version of the same effect).
For clarification. What I meant was spell descriptions that forced you to either refer to a completely different book, or you have to flip a hundred pages backward through the same book.
I never minded the descriptions for say, Fire Ball I, and Fire Ball II, on the same list, where the description for Fire Ball II is "As Fire Ball I, except radius is 20 feet."
I meant like the Mana Fires spell Woodfires as in the initial post.
I can understand the need to reduce file size, or number of pages, but as I said, I would rather pay more for the product just to have the description of each and every spell with each and every spell.
Also, as I said, nothing is more frustrating than the need to print two, three, sometimes four different spell lists just to have the descriptions for only one spell list.
Sorry for ranting, but it seemed some missed the point.
Thanks again for the understanding.
Another nice thing would be a more unified attack tables for weapons. Say, use the same table for all sword like weapons, just give bonuses and penalties for differing weapons. Say, a long sword has a +0 modifier where a Broad sword would have a +20 due to being a larger blade, and a short sword would have a -20 for being a smaller blade. Just a thought that popped into this mind of mine.
The idea of spell scaling, ala HARP, rather than a strict list is interesting. It captures some of the sense of what Spell Mastery does. I always felt there was too much overlap between spell mastery and higher level spells. Unification could be good there. It's a pretty substantial change though and I don't expect to see it here. Seems like good material for the Guild Companion though.... ;)
I also like this idea. Been working on such. But doubt I'll ever get around to doing it for the complete product line.
rmfr
-
I never minded the descriptions for say, Fire Ball I, and Fire Ball II, on the same list, where the description for Fire Ball II is "As Fire Ball I, except radius is 20 feet."
I meant like the Mana Fires spell Woodfires as in the initial post.
I can understand the need to reduce file size, or number of pages, but as I said, I would rather pay more for the product just to have the description of each and every spell with each and every spell.
Also, as I said, nothing is more frustrating than the need to print two, three, sometimes four different spell lists just to have the descriptions for only one spell list.
Yeah, that. It's not a big deal to refer to a description elsewhere in the same list, on the same page. Even a different list on the same page. If a page has the water elemental spells list and the fire elemental spells list, I don't mind if _____Ball reads, "as _____Ball (which is right next to it on the page) except it does _____ crits" (cold vs. fire, for example.) Having to shift my eyes 2 inches to the left to read the description of the Water Ball spell and apply it to the Fire Ball spell 2 inches to the right of it.... I can get over that. Especially when printing out my spell list won't lose any of the descriptions.
Another nice thing would be a more unified attack tables for weapons. Say, use the same table for all sword like weapons, just give bonuses and penalties for differing weapons. Say, a long sword has a +0 modifier where a Broad sword would have a +20 due to being a larger blade, and a short sword would have a -20 for being a smaller blade. Just a thought that popped into this mind of mine.
I'm not so sure about this one. There's a fair amount of difference between how a long blade plays and how a short blade plays, as well as the difference in play between 1 and 2 handed weapons and the difference between blunt, single edged, double edged and multi-edged weapons. Being able to model that reasonably well is the only thing that gives the complexity of refining attack forms down to 'this weapon against that surface' any value, AFAIK. Throwing in a lot of "it's just like _____ only with modifiers" while keeping multiple attack forms and multiple ATs would seem to me to be the worst of both worlds.
The idea of spell scaling, ala HARP, rather than a strict list is interesting. It captures some of the sense of what Spell Mastery does. I always felt there was too much overlap between spell mastery and higher level spells. Unification could be good there. It's a pretty substantial change though and I don't expect to see it here. Seems like good material for the Guild Companion though.... ;)
I also like this idea. Been working on such. But doubt I'll ever get around to doing it for the complete product line.
Me too. Actually, reworking Spell Mastery to do the job of scaling would probably make more sense for RM. That way you get scaling, in a way, and you still keep lists.
-
+1 here for adding scaling to each spell and having SM plan another role.
MDC
-
Yes, well the references to other spell lists haven't been around since RM2. No worries there.
Even getting balance crudely right on a system replacing spell lists with HARP-like scaling would take at least an extra year, allowing for the fact that you'd have to completely rewrite every spell. If you really think you can do it, make it balanced, and provide just as much magic as Spell Law, go ahead. It'd make a great supplement as an alternative magic system.
Spell Mastery became one of the most broken aspects of later RM. In fact, most RMSS/FRP balance complaints were either about Talent costs or Spell Mastery.
Individual weapon tables are part of what makes Rolemaster Rolemaster. Indeed, it is in many ways the very heart of Rolemaster.
It sounds like a few people in this thread would simply prefer HARP. Good news, HARP already exists. Do not expect RM to become HARP.
-
It sounds like a few people in this thread would simply prefer HARP. Good news, HARP already exists. Do not expect RM to become HARP.
I'm already playing HARP, and already tweaking it to fit just as I did with RM for decades. No worries. However since ICE games from their inception deliberately targeted people who wanted a system that could be tweaked to fit, what to do for the folks who want the combat of one and the magic of the other is a valid question. Because sure as sunrise, given the nature of ICE's fan base, those folks already exist.
Spell Mastery became one of the most broken aspects of later RM. In fact, most RMSS/FRP balance complaints were either about Talent costs or Spell Mastery.
Fine and good. If anything is "the heart and soul of HARP magic", it's scalable spells. If someone is determined to 'port that into RM, there is probably no better vehicle than Spell Mastery, not least because 1) it's already written into the system and 2) as you noted, the mechanics governing its use are poorly defined in already extant versions so it needs to be rewritten anyway.
If you really think you can do it, make it balanced, and provide just as much magic as Spell Law, go ahead. It'd make a great supplement as an alternative magic system.
I'm not saying it'll be me (it probably won't), but somebody's going to, count on it. From what I read on the forums, I'd suggest it's already happening.
-
Another nice thing would be a more unified attack tables for weapons. Say, use the same table for all sword like weapons, just give bonuses and penalties for differing weapons. Say, a long sword has a +0 modifier where a Broad sword would have a +20 due to being a larger blade, and a short sword would have a -20 for being a smaller blade. Just a thought that popped into this mind of mine.
The core RMFRP book has tables exactly like this. E.g. there is a table for one-handed edged, with modifiers for different weapons. It's a good approach for a pared-down basics book, if you are going to retain the tables.
I'm not totally sold on the idea of weapon tables, but I've talked about that enough elsewhere.
-
We use Spell Mastery, Magical Languages (as a Power Manipulation Maneuver) and Ritual Magic.
SM and M-Lang are List specific for us.
Ritual Magic is a skill cross fed by many other skills; but is still Power Manipulation.
Then there's Spell Research! Like SM but permanent.
Our RM magic system is very scale-able.. You can do so many things beyond the norm, if you want to take the risk.
-
I'd like to see:
- Clear rules on handling hazards (like drowning, traps, hunger/thirst,...). Imho HARP did a great job here, putting all these things together in a single chapter. I hope to see something similar in RMU.
- Clear rules on handling improvised weapons and/or "unconventional" attacks. For clear, I mean the rules being all in one place, with a big header making them easy to find
- Rules on swarms (or herds)
- Rules on grenade-like attacks
- Less or no mundane animals in the Creatures book. Look, I don't care how many HPs a sheep or an anteater has, just give me a generic "small/medium/large non-dangerous animal" and let's focus on critters that can actually threaten the PCs.
-
- Less or no mundane animals in the Creatures book. Look, I don't care how many HPs a sheep or an anteater has, just give me a generic "small/medium/large non-dangerous animal" and let's focus on critters that can actually threaten the PCs.
Darn.... now I'm going to have to come up with something else to replace those 7 pages on sloth and the 6 pages on hummingbirds and finches...
BTW - I agree 100% with you on this. If it's mundane, it had best be a true threat.
-
- Less or no mundane animals in the Creatures book. Look, I don't care how many HPs a sheep or an anteater has, just give me a generic "small/medium/large non-dangerous animal" and let's focus on critters that can actually threaten the PCs.
Yes!
And no fishes with donkey heads, please.
-
Yeah no worries. Another thing that strikes me is everyone is calling it RMU. I'm not sure this is a good idea, although it's something that I don't think can be helped. I say this because people will get confused again with all the abbreviations already out there...perhaps? Anyway it looks like the Unification War is near it's end! ;D
Why not call it RM4?
-
Expanded armour rules, to allow 'armour by the piece rules' but with each weapon getting its own attack table.
As has been said, the combat system with crits is the heart (or soul) of RM and that could use expansion without affecting the feel of the game.
-
Yeah no worries. Another thing that strikes me is everyone is calling it RMU. I'm not sure this is a good idea, although it's something that I don't think can be helped. I say this because people will get confused again with all the abbreviations already out there...perhaps? Anyway it looks like the Unification War is near it's end! ;D
Why not call it RM4?
RM4E (RM Four Everyone)
MDC
-
Yeah no worries. Another thing that strikes me is everyone is calling it RMU. I'm not sure this is a good idea, although it's something that I don't think can be helped. I say this because people will get confused again with all the abbreviations already out there...perhaps? Anyway it looks like the Unification War is near it's end! ;D
Why not call it RM4?
RM4E (RM Four Everyone)
MDC
RM4HSNAA(RM Four Heavens Sake not Another Abbreviation!) ;D :o :P Nah, I'll just call it Rolemaster when it comes out, leave the abbreviations for the older versions.
-
- Less or no mundane animals in the Creatures book. Look, I don't care how many HPs a sheep or an anteater has, just give me a generic "small/medium/large non-dangerous animal" and let's focus on critters that can actually threaten the PCs.
Darn.... now I'm going to have to come up with something else to replace those 7 pages on sloth and the 6 pages on hummingbirds and finches...
BTW - I agree 100% with you on this. If it's mundane, it had best be a true threat.
Come to Australia and see all our mundane creatures and crawlies. Yep, even a kangaroo will spill out your bowels if your not careful, and everyone thinks there so cute. Even though mundane, our snakes, spiders and scorpions are lethal, and not forgetting our crocodiles and bull sharks.
Which brings me to say that a section on poisons and venomous creatures would be a asset in RM(although I'm sure you'll have it in there anyway). Small venomous creatures makes for an interesting addition when PC's make camp or search caves and caverns etc.
I'm just thankful we don't have bears here...now they scare the bageebee's out of me!
-
- Less or no mundane animals in the Creatures book. Look, I don't care how many HPs a sheep or an anteater has, just give me a generic "small/medium/large non-dangerous animal" and let's focus on critters that can actually threaten the PCs.
Darn.... now I'm going to have to come up with something else to replace those 7 pages on sloth and the 6 pages on hummingbirds and finches...
BTW - I agree 100% with you on this. If it's mundane, it had best be a true threat.
Come to Australia and see all our mundane creatures and crawlies. Yep, even a kangaroo will spill out your bowels if your not careful, and everyone thinks there so cute. Even though mundane, our snakes, spiders and scorpions are lethal, and not forgetting our crocodiles and bull sharks.
Which brings me to say that a section on poisons and venomous creatures would be a asset in RM(although I'm sure you'll have it in there anyway). Small venomous creatures makes for an interesting addition when PC's make camp or search caves and caverns etc.
I'm just thankful we don't have bears here...now they scare the bageebee's out of me!
Maybe you had bears there long time ago but the kangaroos pummeled to death those last bears that had escaped the poisonous critters ;)
But yeah, wide variety of small poisonous creatures and a well thought-out system for poisonings would be an asset in the new ed.
And, as far as I know Australia has more poisonous creatures on this planet than any other place.
-
Small poisonous creatures have been a part of C&T and C&M in the past. As for other normal animals, there are all sorts of situations in which they can come up. Remember, something normally non-aggressive can become a persistent threat under the influence of an appropriate spell. It's not like they cover a huge amount of page space, either. C&T: 96 page, 15 for all animals. 1.5 pages are for domesticated riding and draft animals, which will be used by most groups fairly routinely. Two pages are devoted to carnivorous mammals, while 2.5 more are devoted to "other potentially dangerous animals". That's not counting in such creatures as sharks and crocodiles, venomous snakes and spiders, and other assorted hazardous fauna. Of those that are "innocuous", many might come up in play if any of the PCs or significant NPCs have pets or familiars.
And if I have the stats for a beaver, it makes creating stats for a fire-spitting beaver all the quicker.
-
If I'm right, the 5 new books to be are RM core, Arms Law, Character Law, Creatures and Treasures and Spell Law. Perhaps a sixth "Campaign Law" including the uses of venom and poisons, extreme heat & cold environments in ones campaign world. Much like Gamemasters law.
-
If I'm right, the 5 new books to be are RM core, Arms Law, Character Law, Creatures and Treasures and Spell Law. Perhaps a sixth "Campaign Law" including the uses of venom and poisons, extreme heat & cold environments in ones campaign world. Much like Gamemasters law.
The Creatures book and Treasures book are separate, as in RMSS.
The vanguard of the new Rolemaster edition will be five books - Arms Law, Spell Law, Character Law, Creatures, and Treasures.
Note the use of the Oxford comma, preventing any ambiguity.
-
I would like to see clear, concise and thorough examples given that detail the more 'complicated' aspects of the rules. Armour penalty calculations and spell casting are good ones.
In previous versions, the examples were often not thorough enough and left gaps in understanding. This may help all the constant requests for 'how does this rule work?'.
-
If I'm right, the 5 new books to be are RM core, Arms Law, Character Law, Creatures and Treasures and Spell Law. Perhaps a sixth "Campaign Law" including the uses of venom and poisons, extreme heat & cold environments in ones campaign world. Much like Gamemasters law.
5 books:
Arms Law
Character Law
Spell Law
Creatures
Treasures
It is likely that we will modify the name of both "Creatures" and "Treasures" to prevent ambiguity. They may be elevated to "Law" status.
Campaign Law is an intended future product but we may separate out the world-building (RM2 era Campaign Law) and the GM guidance end (the first half of RMSS GM Law variety of material).
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
One of my favorite things about MERP was that the adolescence (0 level) skill ranks where given by the culture of the character. (Table CGT-5, if my memory works fine)
This is something that have been implemented in some way or another in the different incarnations of RM, but if I'm not mistaken, only as an optional rule.
IIRC there was an issue of RMC Express Addition that had culture rules, they were handled a bit like training packages.
One of the things that gave so much flavor to Runequest character creation, was the whole profession/culture connection with the starting skills of the character.
I would love to see a well developed culture system in the core RMU rules and to have the adolescence skill ranks tied to the culture. This will give the perfect extra pinch of salt to character creation. (If any GM doesn't want the culture system, he can just do the adolescence level exactly like the first level anyway.)
As the core rules will not be tied to any gameworld in particular, the cultures should be generic, e.g.: prehistoric, nomad, barbarian, civilized, sylvan, hill...
-
Also, guidelines for the creation of balanced cultures will be a nice addition.
-
It is likely that we will modify the name of both "Creatures" and "Treasures" to prevent ambiguity. They may be elevated to "Law" status.
Bah! Enough of these soft "Law" ways! I say Chaos! Character Chaos! Spell Chaos! Creature Chaos! Treasure Chaos! Then we'd have a real rpg! One that would beat up all those wimpy Law books and take their lunch money!
:)
-
Order and Chaos are essentially the same. Each constantly breeds the other.
Ask anyone who has studied Chaos Theory. ;D
-
Bah! Enough of these soft "Law" ways! I say Chaos! Character Chaos! Spell Chaos! Creature Chaos! Treasure Chaos! Then we'd have a real rpg! One that would beat up all those wimpy Law books and take their lunch money!
:)
Was this the Melnibonean method (Michael Moorcock)? Elric of Melniboné was more concerned with Law/Chaos than Good/Evil. :)
Mythus did a mundane creatures book. I was a bit disappointed when I bought it. I agree that RM should have them stat'd. Otherwise it will be the same old song; "Look for X book that is possibly out of print. The answer is in there. Zardoz has spoken!" Shouldn't take but a few pgs to at least have the normal critter charts. Want examples? Look in an encyclopedia.
-
Order and Chaos are essentially the same. Each constantly breeds the other.
Ask anyone who has studied Chaos Theory. ;D
Blasphemy! I demand Blood & Souls for the glory of Chaos!
And I approve Jolt suggestion! Have an laugh point Jolt ...and a random mutation that will show the world your devotion to our cause.
You can roll on this table (http://talesofthegrotesqueanddungeonesque.blogspot.it/2012/03/random-magical-mutations-table.html?zx=354fe715e0c17157) yourself to find out what your mutation will be.
-
Fools. Arioch is but a single breath of my eternity.
Chuthulu.
P.S. the office party is delayed yet again due to a meddling group of kids derailing yet another fool prof plan to rain blood and chaos on humanity.
-
Blood for the blood god! Oh...wait...wrong game.... ;)
-
Order and Chaos are essentially the same. Each constantly breeds the other.
Ask anyone who has studied Chaos Theory. ;D
Blasphemy! I demand Blood & Souls for the glory of Chaos!
And I approve Jolt suggestion! Have an laugh point Jolt ...and a random mutation that will show the world your devotion to our cause.
You can roll on this table (http://talesofthegrotesqueanddungeonesque.blogspot.it/2012/03/random-magical-mutations-table.html?zx=354fe715e0c17157) yourself to find out what your mutation will be.
I rolled, but it was a trait I already had.
-
Personally I'd like to see scalability with spells as previously mentioned by others. As this would allow for more flexibility and on the fly adjustments based on the environment and unusual situations, and thus would encourage players to think and come up with out of the box ideas more often, and thus would create a more engaging system and game sessions.
I'd also like to see better scalability with weapons. For example, the Condensed Combat Table on page 62 of the Rolemaster Companion from RM2, was fantastic is my opinion. This creates a situation where you can't "max out the table" and then need to decide how to deal with that situation. Likewise someone else mentioned piecing together armor? This type of a system works very well with that type of an armor system. I know a lot of people say it involves too much math and calculations, but it is not that much more than what is already needed (and it is simple arithmetic, no algebra needed), and as previously stated, 99% of adults can handle the math that RM uses, and that number applies to the Condensed Combat system as well.
Also I'd like to see the ranged weapons set up with a flat modification based on range (rather than range categories or bands). For example, instead of having a fixed range penalty for each of several range bands (the exact same penalty for 180 feet away and 239 feet away is a little screwy, while one more foot further and the penalty suddenly nearly doubles is a bit screwy in my opinion. Instead why not say -1 per 4 feet of range for the short bow for example or -1 per 5 feet of range for the sling for example (as the combat tables are woefully inaccurate when it comes to slings anyways as slings have a longer range than any type of bow in the hands of someone who knows how to use one, but that is another issue entirely). As someone who is truly skilled should be able to fling a sling-stone further and with accuracy than what the sling combat table allows for. This is a common problem with all the ranged weapons, they don't allow for extraordinary shots using extraordinary skill very well.
-
It would be interesting to see a section on something relating to sanity/power corruption etc. And how that could be used in game play.
-
I "book of healing" and how to handle first aid with spells or herbs.
-
It would be interesting to see a section on something relating to sanity/power corruption etc. And how that could be used in game play.
A big +1 for this. It seems to be a common enough theme in many settings.
-
You could treat it like Con drain. Just use SD, perhaps..
For Cthulu type critters that drive you insane if you even look at them. It could be an RR as a magical effect or your SD vs their awesome Presence.
Hmm..
But since this is RM (!) we should probably have a chart. :)
(I found a Depression crit chart, but no Insanity, yet.)
-
It would be interesting to see a section on something relating to sanity/power corruption etc. And how that could be used in game play.
A big +1 for this. It seems to be a common enough theme in many settings.
Menatlism Companion is what you seek.
For all its lack of popularity, RMSS/FRP was very complete.
-
To be a true unifying product, RMU must contain enough options to recreate the unique play styles of both RM2 and RMSS. I am betting that is exactly what we will see. A core much like RM2 with a few small updates and advancements from RMSS that even RM2 players think of as improvements, and then enough options to fully recreate the RMSS feel if one chooses. Nothing new or updated. This is the only way to unite both camps under a single banner, and not just fracture it further.
RM is great for having tons of options, and I am sure we shall see see plenty of future non core books presenting options both familiar and new.
What I really hope for, once the core books are released, is some good adventures. To me, there are no iconic adventures for RM, or even good official adventures that show what a typical RM game is all about, nothing to serve as good examples for new GMs. RM needs a Keep on the Borderlands, Enemy Within, Apple Lane of its very own. Give new players the means to jump right in and start playing, help them learn and apreciate the subtleties of the game.
As much as I love all the options, it makes it difficult to jump into the game for the first time.
-
Menatlism Companion is what you seek.
For all its lack of popularity, RMSS/FRP was very complete.
Not unpopular with me. I love that book, especially the Armsmaster.
-
But, what I would really like to see in RMU - a professionless and levelless version.
-
Level-less would be great, but I doubt it. Hell, one prof with skill cost of 2/4 for all skills wouldn't bother me. But since I imagine RM will retain 13-20 core professions, I would like to see new professions NOT have their own skill cost, but use an existing core prof with a talent/perk set that "creates" the prof.
For example, sage could be Mage with Lore skills as Ev, or all Lore Skills at +20 and one at +30, etc. Assign a talent cost and move on.
Mentioning talents: no PC should be able to spend more bg options or talent points than its race provides. Flaws should never add more points, but be required to balance out purchased talents.
-
Levelless and professionless should be at least possible in any XP ~> point buy system. Depending on how they arrange things it could be a pain in the butt, but it should at least be possible.
And to be honest, in these days of game tweaks most commonly shared as a spreadsheet, I'd be surprised if it wasn't dead easy most of the time, once you'd reverse engineered the spreadsheet they used.
;)
-
Levelless and professionless should be at least possible in any XP ~> point buy system. Depending on how they arrange things it could be a pain in the butt, but it should at least be possible.
And to be honest, in these days of game tweaks most commonly shared as a spreadsheet, I'd be surprised if it wasn't dead easy most of the time, once you'd reverse engineered the spreadsheet they used.
I will say that HARP is easy to do this way, but RM with its vastly different skill costs across the professions is another matter. The only way I could see doing it, would be to take the No-Profession (Layman) profession and applying that to everyone, but let them customize themselves with talents.
Mentioning talents: no PC should be able to spend more bg options or talent points than its race provides. Flaws should never add more points, but be required to balance out purchased talents.
This reminds me of another thing I would like to see in RMU - more PC friendly rules. How about we not have everything go against them, huh? Round down if it is about your character's total bonus, but round up if it is about how much something costs for your PC, take the worst of the two skills, etc... just gets frustrating when everything is stacked against you like that.
Look at it from a marketing stand point: How many of the top selling games are really, really deadly? How many of them are more heroic rather than gritty? I have seen the trend, particularly in the "indie" game circuit, but also in the "big" game circuit for the rules to be more about heroics and big action and less about instant deadliness. Now, I like that, but I also like the level of deadliness that RM (and other games) can bring; I just think that there should be a choice on how to run it in the game.
Make the rules much more flexible between heroics and gritty-deadliness, maybe like a tiered approach. Tier 1: Low Grit/High Heroics, on up to Tier 5: High Grit & Deadliness/Low on the Heroics. This can be as easy as saying: during character creation, a gritty Tier 1 character only gets XX amount of development points to spend on attributes, talents and skills (yes, I am going with a level and classless idea here), while up on Tier 5 you get XXX amount. Therefore, on Tier 5 your character will be much more capable (some of you are bound to say: "superheroes"), higher attributes, more & more powerful talents, more skills, etc... than one at a lower tier - especially Tier 1 characters.
-
Umm...if you get 55 talent points, I'm saying is ALL you should get is 55 talent points. Buying 50 points in flaws should not provide 105 talent points. I fail to see how that is not PC friendly. Nothing is being taken from them.
-
Umm...if you get 55 talent points, I'm saying is ALL you should get is 55 talent points. Buying 50 points in flaws should not provide 105 talent points. I fail to see how that is not PC friendly. Nothing is being taken from them.
How about this (emphasis mine): Flaws should never add more points, but be required to balance out purchased talents.
Which makes it sound like if you use those talent points that your race gives you, you must get flaws you wouldn't ordinarily have to get.
Anyway, getting more, cool talents was one of the ways to make your character more "powerful/capable" so the game wasn't so deadly. (And I read "deadly" to PCs as unfriendly to PCs, can't imagine it thought of in any other way.)
-
Well, they are not required to take talents. Hell, I played for year without talents (though there was a talent list in Character Law, I prefered wealth and stat gains...mostly stat gains hee hee. Those are all plus and NO negative).
-
And, from my recollection, they don't have to take a flaw with a talent - there is an option that makes a talent cheaper if you do take a flaw, but it is not required. So, by requiring them to take a flaw, you are going - imo - to the typical RM bulwark of ruling against PCs.
How I do it is, the character can choose up to their races talent points in talents, but if they want any more than that, it is 2-for-1 in flaws, up to double their races base talent points. So, a mixed man can have up to 110 talent points, but they would have 110 in flaws, as well. That may seem like too much, but is really doable and not character/game breaking.
-
My problem with talents and flaws in general as part of a point buy system is that both become part of the process of min-maxing a character, rather than building something coherent in context of the setting.
If a character is blind from birth, for example, that should have both positive and negative consequences, most or all of which are not up to the player. Use of hearing, smell and touch in Perception will get more exercise, for example, and that's not up to the player, or the character for that matter. That's the consequence of that "flaw" which cannot be escaped. The same goes for various social consequences. If the character is the Crown Prince, you may have to rethink your entire culture to explain why he wasn't killed at birth.
I think it would make more sense if taking a flaw is taking a flaw, period. It may or may not offer a package of compensatory things, like Perception bonuses in hearing or smell for a person blind from birth, but note: Those are specific to that particular flaw, they are not just a bunch of DPs that you can go spend on whatever takes your fancy.
That way if a player takes a flaw, he does it because either the compensatory abilities work to his advantage, or because the flaw itself works with his character concept. Either way, the flaw does not exist in a vacuum, it has a context to fit it into the setting.
-
First, min-maxing is not a game problem, but a personality problem. If you are the GM, and don't like it, then don't allow it. But, also, in a deadly game like RM, doing a bit of min-maxing, could be the only way to make it so a character could survive past the second or third conflict. I, personally, find it hard to imagine a too-powerfull RM character, because even if my character has all 100s, and gets 200 talent points to spend freely, he can still die by a single hit from a (put in your favorite peon here). Having a 100 base DB, and a 250 OB is no proof of getting hit, all I have to do is be forced to fight 3 moderately decent combatants (lets go with 3-5th level fighters from the NPC chart, they would be a tough fight) in order to feel in danger for my character. It doesn't take much to be deadly dangerous in RM, just one or two extra foes.
Second, by nature, most of what we are is not up to us. Is that the game you want to play? The one where everything you are, but a few skill point choices are left completely up to chance? It could be fun, for a one-shot, or mini-campaign. But, I am pretty-sure that one of the big draws of roleplaying is the illusion of choice: I choose to be a big/strong barbarian, a sneaky thief, or an intelligent mage (or a small/weak barbarian, clumbsy thief, or stupid mage). We get to be what we are not (and not just because we live here and now, but physically and mentally* different), that is the draw. If you take away all but a bare few choices from your players, I am pretty-sure you will run out of players quick.
*Well, not really mentally, but we can pretend.
-
I agree that it can be hard for a GM to say no to a player if something is in the book. But as a GM I make the players make characters with me because my game world and their choices make some talents and flaws more or less probable. But rarely does that mean that they have to take this or that. They might not get the background they want or the skills they want if they do not take some of the flaws.
For example I often require flaws or give flaws for PC's who are involved in religion or a magical academy. These institutions often require some time of the player, oaths, etc. So I give them Talent Points (TP) for that and I also given them access to special talents because of that. For example in religions it is often the case the worshiper can get free room and board for a small work or no work requirement. I am sure you can think of other things from literature and RL that would make good Flaw - Talent combo's. And IMHO the trick is to not get too carried away with things and to not be afraid to say no.
MDC
-
And, from my recollection, they don't have to take a flaw with a talent - there is an option that makes a talent cheaper if you do take a flaw, but it is not required. So, by requiring them to take a flaw, you are going - imo - to the typical RM bulwark of ruling against PCs.
How I do it is, the character can choose up to their races talent points in talents, but if they want any more than that, it is 2-for-1 in flaws, up to double their races base talent points. So, a mixed man can have up to 110 talent points, but they would have 110 in flaws, as well. That may seem like too much, but is really doable and not character/game breaking.
The original talents in Rm, listed in Character Law I believe, all had built in flaws.
This is not a system issue. It is a player style issue. The range of player likes and dislikes is wide and varied (no limitations, lots of limitations, roleplaying is rule number one, actionis rule number one, etc). It is a GM's responsibility to make adjustments to the rule set as fits his players, or tell the disgruntled players to buck up or leave. This is so because no system can address every players wants. A system that focuses on balance in its talents is not a bad thing, and it is easy for a GM to IGNORE those rules.
-
I don't have a problem with taking all the advantages it would make sense for your character to have, but that's not the point I was trying to make. Talents and Flaws through the exchange of points inherently rewards minmaxing, but only rewards good roleplay if the player and GM choose to make certain it does. For an example see above, the blind person could specifically choose to bump Perceptive abilities elsewhere because not to do so doesn't make any sense. That decision may cost him the points for another talent he wanted to have, but for a person blind from birth not to have trained his other senses is a pretty long stretch.
"I want this... and that...."
"Well ya gotta take the other, it's a set."
- George Carlin
I'm good with pretty much any combination of abilities, flaws, etc. you want to hand me... if you can explain how you came to have them in context of the setting you're playing in. In the case of the blind guy above, you'd likewise have to explain how you came to not have any skill in making your hearing and senses of smell and touch do more work than most people, if you chose not to.
The same goes for explaining how you came to be a 1st level mage in a culture where they kill any children who show signs of magical power. Sure it can be done, in all of the above cases, but it still prompts a "I gotta hear this one" look from the GM when you start explaining your background.
Talents and Flaws are typically something life changing. IMO a system for dealing with them should be geared toward how to figure out what event caused such a change, and how to explore its full consequences. But most things life changing enough to be on a talent or flaw list should have some consequences beyond a mere DP cost. When the DPs are the only cost, the minmaxing is the only built-in motivation.
-
Grumpy, I'm not sure how exactly you would create such as system without making some assumptions about play style and setting. Could you give some examples how that might work?
I'm one of the authors of the forthcoming books. The new Character Law does have Talents and Flaws but makes it explicit that they are, by default, not allowed unless the GM allows them. That may seem a cop out but RM has really been a type of toolkit building system and it is up the GM how he wants to handle Talents/Flaws. Want to allow Talents but require character's take an equal amount in Flaws? Fine. You can disallow Flaw entirely, limit Talents by total cost based on game power level, it's really up to the GM, and talents/flaws do need to be described as to where they came from. But how would you implement that in terms of game mechanics without making an overly restrictive system?
I'm certainly looking forward to hearing feedback from beta about this and how people end up using talents/flaws in their own game.
-
My problem with flaws is mostly that they give a direct reward (more talent points) that you pay for during play later. This set up basically mean I must punish a player who don't act on the flaws. In my experience this works in some cases but with other players you end in a very awkward position. Depends pretty much on how you mix with the other person in a social context.
Using flaws but give the reward as bonus exp for acting out their flaw is IMO a much better way since you as GM then reward good behaviour and a player that don't feel like for a particular session can decide to not make his flaw come much into play if he don't like it.
-
Grumpy, I'm not sure how exactly you would create such as system without making some assumptions about play style and setting. Could you give some examples how that might work?
I'm not sure exactly either, I was brainstorming. The obvious example was the one I gave, that if you have the "blind from birth" flaw, you automatically have the "sensitive nose" and/or "sensitive hearing" talents to go with it, rather than DPs or Talent/Flaw points of some sort to spend on whatever you please.
Some talents/flaws wouldn't have an obvious "this one, and always and only this one" other condition that goes with it. For some you might have a range of "obvious" possible accompanying conditions, such as both hearing and smell above. You could also include a GM note to the effect that it doesn't have to be one of those choices, if the GM's setting makes something not on the list "the obvious consequence". But a lot of things that make it onto "flaws" lists do have obvious consequences that shouldn't be simply ignored.
I'm one of the authors of the forthcoming books.
I have quite a bit of faith that I'm going to love them, solely from having figured out who the likely authors are. I've had you and rdanhenry pegged for a while now.
-
Talents and Flaws are typically something life changing.
For the big ones, yeah. But a +5 to your basket weaving skill (or any skill) is not "life changing." It is a minor (very, very minor) boost in a single skill.
Listen, none of what I said, says you shouldn't have an in-game reason for the talent. I prefer good character backgrounds that include all sorts of stuff, but I am not going to make them come up with a mystical/genetic/god-touched-me-personally reason to have a +5 or +10 in a skill. Many of the talents are "self-explainatory" in how a character got them, with very little tweeking needed to apply it to this character specifically.
I just never got that idea to be worried about "super" characters in RM, so the talents and flaws in Character Law were almost always fair game. (I was just perusing the old Cloudlords of Tanara module, and in the back of it where they talk about adventuring there, they list it by levels. when they got to the 11-15th level, it said, "PCs at this level are probably getting hard to handle, and depending upon how stocked with magic items they are, they could be a problem." Only to later also say this: "The final confrontation with (edit specific name for TM purposes) could be interesting as well - the PCs might even stand a chance of survival."
I couldn't imagine characters powerful enough at 20th level to not be able to threaten/challenge them, none-the-less at 11-15th level. I think this is the deep set thinking that has guided RM over the years, practically off the cliff: Powerful PCs = Bad. I am here to tell you, that is not so, and I firmly believe that if ICE goes away from that thinking, they will get more customers. (Even if it means some of the old guard leaves.)
As a GM, I want my players* to have characters that are totally cool and awesome. The youngster that is capable, because of natural talent (read: talents) of becoming one of the best in whatever field they happen to choose. I don't generally want to run a bunch of dirt farmers who will barely be able to survive going further than 5-miles from their dirt farm. For me, epic sagas are the best storylines. (Which is probably why I like full novels and big series and not short stories, which have a tendancy to be tragic. I guess tragedy is more "artsy" and meaningful, so I will stick with mundane and meaningless, thank you very much.) In order to have big stories, you need to have "big" heroes. I guess if you can get that dirt farmer to survive to 30th level, they will be big time. But, in RM, that is nearly an impossible task. (Yes, I know that the harder something is, the more rewarding it is to succeed, but I don't want to have to go through 20 characters failures in order to get the 1 success.) So, you get talents, and more attribute points in order to be a more capable character, have more survivability (which I think also helps the longevity of a campaign), and a much greater chance of being epic.
*Provided the player also wants this. If they want to play a complete nincompoop, they can; likely they will be playing many of them, one after the other, though.
PS: Yeah, RM 1 and 2 had flaws built right into the talents, and that is probably one of the main reasons I switched to RMSS/FRP.
-
I have powerful PC's all the time, and at level 11, with or without talents, a PC will be tough if designed with any sort of thought toward mastery of a single skill, or set of skills.
I would also note level one PC's with 100+OB's are not rare at my table. In addition, spells are cast at an eefective level the list is known to, not the PC's level, which is a huge advantage to begininng characters.
I have never seen or imagined RM as anti player. I can see the NPC's in modules being to weak sometimes, but I always saw that as PRO PC bias, almost insuring victory.
-
Grumpy, I'm not sure how exactly you would create such as system without making some assumptions about play style and setting. Could you give some examples how that might work?
I am going to guess that he might have meant that for a given talent you can have a list of flaws beneath it that fit that talent. Op's I meant it the other way around. So for a given flaw you would have advantages that link to it and or are required to be taken if you take that flaw.
But again I am just guessing what he meant by his statement.
MDC
-
I would also note level one PC's with 100+OB's are not rare at my table. In addition, spells are cast at an eefective level the list is known to, not the PC's level, which is a huge advantage to begininng characters.
I like that, and I use that (ranks in skill, spell list, etc...) as a way of getting rid of levels in RM, instead of "level" go with "ranks" to determine effects. (Other than the die roll+bonus+mods, that is. ::))
-
I am going to guess that he might have meant that for a given talent you can have a list of flaws beneath it that fit that talent. Op's I meant it the other way around. So for a given flaw you would have advantages that link to it and or are required to be taken if you take that flaw.
But again I am just guessing what he meant by his statement.
Basically, yes. Which talent you get, or if you get all of them, varies with the specific flaw, likely varies according to play balance needs (you don't want sensitive hearing and sensitive smell to make so much difference that everyone wants to be blind in order to get the bennies), and may vary with the setting.
-
I can see that as workable, and would be a great basis for a Talent Law type of companion, but I think would have required more work and space then we really have available for core which is more focused on providing the building blocks. The inclusion of flaws in the first place was really due to the fact that races are built using talents, and flaws. But outside of race building I wouldn't typically use them.
-
I don't tend to use talents or flaws, although when we did I preferred the balance a talent with a flaw model that RM1/2 used.
-
I would say that I prefer the RMSS Talent Law format for my games. I have removed a lot of talents and moded the cost of a lot more to make it less powerful and more balanced for my game.
MDC
-
all talents and flaws need to answer how/where/when in the charcaters background. it is that simple. when concept stretches a GM to far, he has to know how to say no while players need to be flexible enough to find a new approach.
-
I firmly believe, having played RM for 20 years, that there should always be some degree of randomness in RM character generation. To me, the right degree of randomness combined with player choices is essential to a good RM character generation system. Yes, essential. Not to avoid min/maxing because I don't see that as a problem at all if the system is good, but to ensure that every character is truly unique and can't be copied. I hope this new RM isn't a 'pick/design everything' with points-buy approach like in RMSS but has some degree of randommes in races, stats, background, special abilities, etc. Striking the right balance between randomness and choices is key.
-
Both purchase and random for stat generation appear in the new Character Law. I prefer random myself, but we recognize that there's a large number of people on both sides of this issue so both methods are in there. Same with stat gain (both random and purchase).
-
Thanks, that is somewhat reassuring.
But you speak of 'both methods' as if there are only two, random or purchase, when my point is that those two methods could and should be mixed for the best result. For example, randomly rolled stats but with the possibility of tweaking some stats with background points afterwards, as in RM2.
Any options like that in the new book?
-
Even if there aren't, nothing prevents people from developing them. That's part of the beauty of RM.
And if I remember correctly, in RM2 you had to use a fixed background option to change stats. If the GM wasn't using background options (and there are some who don't), then it wasn't an option.