Topic: Using RMU without attack tables

[Giovanni81]

Short preamble: I'm a happy master of another fantasy RPG. (finally live: this damn pandemic is over!)
Critical successes and critical failures often occur in playing it.
Thinking about the publisher's critical successes and critical failures cards.... my mind went to Rolemaster.

I want to let someone try it but I absolutely don't want the attack tables.
They just give me hives.

I thought I'd somehow borrow the combat mechanic from HARP: you roll directly on the crit table.
The attack roll, inclusive of all modifiers, identifies the row of the table while the armor of the target identifies the column.
(armor at AT 10-9 => A, 8-7 => B, 6-5=>C, 4-3=>D, 2-1=>E)

How does that look like House Rule? [I vaguely remember something similar in this board]
Can you think of ways to improve it?
[Note: the applicant game would be RMU but I own all editions starting from second]

[5th Knight of Xar]

Why ditch one of the best parts of Rolemaster 

[Giovanni81]

Why ditch one of the best parts of Rolemaster

Just a matter of taste.

I vaguely remember something similar in this board

This is the discussion I was referring: https://ironcrown.co.uk/ICEforums/index.php?topic=20198.0

[MisterK]

Do you have a problem with the attack tables themselves, or do you have a problem with rolling twice for every single attack, with the second roll being unmodified ?

I am moving away from using the attack tables and the crit tables both, mostly because of the tables themselves (I will eventually tweak the system again to get an attack result from a single roll, but right now, I'm still using two). I wanted to be able to get the outcome of the action from a single generic result table. So I have a single action table which gives me standard outcomes depending on margin or success or failure (basically, 101+ is a success, and every 25 above the success threshold is +1 quality - and reverse for failure).. Then I have a subsystem to get wound level from weapon, location, armor and QoS (which brings the random factor), and wound level x attack type gives be the effect (additional hits, bleed, stun, nerve damage, fracture...). It's heavily inspired by the Harn combat system. I used the RM weapon tables for calibration of the various weapons and natural attack skill modifiers and for basic concussion hit effect calibration.

But my main reason to do that was to get rid of the dozens of tables RM is riddled with and which are a huge turn-off for most players... without getting rid of the various damage types at the same time. I ended up making the wound level determination non-linear, but that was a side effect.

The main point is, I had particular reasons to do that and I hacked the system to achieve specific goals. Why is why I'm asking why you want to get rid of the attack tables.

[Hurin]

But my main reason to do that was to get rid of the dozens of tables RM is riddled with and which are a huge turn-off for most players...

My players would revolt if the tables were removed; we don't want a return to D&D where if you've wielded one 1d8 weapon, you've wielded them all. To each his own.

[katastrophe]

I personally, and our group as well, like the Fast Combat System (death by hits). It is not perfect by any means but the amount of damage pretty well correlates with how well you roll on your to hit. And the system is very fast to implement. Still has crits but skips all the descriptives. 

[Giovanni81]

Do you have a problem with the attack tables themselves, or do you have a problem with rolling twice for every single attack, with the second roll being unmodified ?

I'd like to just avoid 2 rolls and 2 table lookups.

I will prefer something more similar to the 'one roll resolution' of HARP but using the RM crit tables.

[jdale]

If you just want to roll on the critical tables, without the attack tables at all, it might make more sense to just use the HARP tables, since the RM critical tables don't handle much of the concussion hit damage.

You might also see the discussion in this other thread: https://ironcrown.co.uk/ICEforums/index.php?topic=20198.0

[MisterK]

But my main reason to do that was to get rid of the dozens of tables RM is riddled with and which are a huge turn-off for most players...

My players would revolt if the tables were removed; we don't want a return to D&D where if you've wielded one 1d8 weapon, you've wielded them all. To each his own.

Oh, I did not remove the differences in weapons, I just removed the tables. Weapons are still differentiated by attack type, manoeuverability (skill modifier for attakc, skill modifier for defense), impact, and hit scaling. A weapon can also have multiple attack types (edge or puncture, edge or blunt, blunt or unbalancing...). Attack type determines the special effects, and the order in which they appear according to wound severity.

Basically, I took the Harn damage system and added a couple of things to recreate the RM flavour without the tables. I don't recreate all the minute details, but the details are usually lost in the poor signal-to-noise ratio. And since my players don't like to look up tables...

[Wolfwood]

What you are doing sounds very interesting. I'm working on something similar, but I think I took things too far away from HARP/Rolemaster as I based the combat design more on Runequest/BRP. I'll be interested in hearing about the playtesting and a more detailed description of the system (if it is not possible to share it in its entirety).

[DerGraumantel]

But my main reason to do that was to get rid of the dozens of tables RM is riddled with and which are a huge turn-off for most players...

In my games the tables are not player facing. They don't even know how most of them look like. Their interface with the game are their character sheets and me + the sketches on the blackboard. Least amount of player facing rules as possible to encourage them to interact with the fiction rather than the rules. Guess most players wouldn't like looking up the results themselves.

[DerGraumantel]

Short preamble: I'm a happy master of another fantasy RPG. (finally live: this damn pandemic is over!)
Critical successes and critical failures often occur in playing it.
Thinking about the publisher's critical successes and critical failures cards.... my mind went to Rolemaster.

I had a similar thought when playing the Swedish year zero engine (Forbidden Lands in this case). A dice pool system that has crits, but they are lame, so we use RM crits instead. 1 damage= class A, 2 damage= class B and so on. Works quite well after the damage, bleed, and modifier adjustments. Combat has become a lot more tense.

[MisterK]

But my main reason to do that was to get rid of the dozens of tables RM is riddled with and which are a huge turn-off for most players...

In my games the tables are not player facing. They don't even know how most of them look like. Their interface with the game are their character sheets and me + the sketches on the blackboard. Least amount of player facing rules as possible to encourage them to interact with the fiction rather than the rules. Guess most players wouldn't like looking up the results themselves.

That's what I was doing, but I ended up fudging the results so much (because I didn't want to look up the precise result on the appropriate table) that I started using MERP attack tables instead of RM ones (they can fit on two A4 pages). From there, going table-less (or, rather, using the same table for regular manoeuvers and attacks) was just an additional step.

Reading other rule systems, such as the PbtA games, also drove me to eliminate GM dice rolls. It is entirely possible to do it with RM, but removing the attack tables makes it much easier.

Of course, I lose some level of detail. I just don't think that having a 12A result when the RM attack table would give a 14A is that important. In a similar way, the critical tables can be standardised and, from there, removed as well. Once again, you lose some level of detail and some bonus points for reading out loud an improbable critical result that you have trouble justifying given the universe laws of physics and basic human anatomy, but I find the trade-off more than acceptable.

[MisterK]

What you are doing sounds very interesting. I'm working on something similar, but I think I took things too far away from HARP/Rolemaster as I based the combat design more on Runequest/BRP. I'll be interested in hearing about the playtesting and a more detailed description of the system (if it is not possible to share it in its entirety).

I have not forgotten your request. I'm just trying to organise the thing in a form that is compact and easy to understand, so I don't need to provide post-release support afterwards I'll drop it on my public GDrive when it's done and will post a link here.

[DerGraumantel]

Reading other rule systems, such as the PbtA games, also drove me to eliminate GM dice rolls. It is entirely possible to do it with RM, but removing the attack tables makes it much easier.

I had the opposite reaction. I just got back into Pen&Paper RPGs last year and checked what was seen as state of the art (Forbidden Lands, ICRPG, The One Ring 2E, PbtA) and I was really shocked what focus many games chose. Lots are sacrificing simulation to game and drama and tone. I remember the 90's when White Wolf (Vampire) was doing the tone and drama thing, but now video game like, very abstract rules (wealth levels, resource dice, combat zones, hex grid travel, item slots and so on) are very common as well. I dislike all of that, haha. I like concrete rules so much more (concrete position, coinage, weight i kg, travel by distance and so on). So yeah, my way leads me straight back to my RM-fork as soon as my Forbidden Lands campaign is over.

[MisterK]

but now video game like, very abstract rules (wealth levels, resource dice, combat zones, hex grid travel, item slots and so on) are very common as well.

I don't know what video games you play, but most video games are actually more number-crunching than TTRPGs, simply because it's easy to let the computer take all factors into account and determine a final chance to hit. In the same way, it's easier to take into account the minute details of weight carried when all the inventory is managed by the computer. Ditto for environmental and situational effects.
Resource dice and wealth level are, as far as I know, TTRPG inventions. Most video games shun the abstraction because most video gamers love the illusion of precision the added detail creates, without having to micro-manage every single bit of impact.

What I want is something that is as far away from a tactical game as possible, because my players and I are not that kind of gamers. So having a system that keeps the illusion of detail (the effect of wounds) but removes some of the weight (literally speaking - those books don't carry themselves), most of the tactical nit-picking, and most of the computing is something I strive for.

To give you an idea, I've started a new campaign last November. We've played 11 sessions so far, - about 60 hours of play. And there was not a single combat scene. There will be, of course, but my games are not combat-focused.

[Hurin]

I had the opposite reaction. I just got back into Pen&Paper RPGs last year and checked what was seen as state of the art (Forbidden Lands, ICRPG, The One Ring 2E, PbtA) and I was really shocked what focus many games chose. Lots are sacrificing simulation to game and drama and tone. I remember the 90's when White Wolf (Vampire) was doing the tone and drama thing, but now video game like, very abstract rules (wealth levels, resource dice, combat zones, hex grid travel, item slots and so on) are very common as well. I dislike all of that, haha. I like concrete rules so much more (concrete position, coinage, weight i kg, travel by distance and so on). So yeah, my way leads me straight back to my RM-fork as soon as my Forbidden Lands campaign is over.

Yep, I'm right there with you. D&D 5e's pivot from 4e to 5e and 'theater of the mind' totally turned me off D&D. Give me the crunch or give me death (by critical!)

[Wolfwood]

video game like, very abstract rules (wealth levels, resource dice, combat zones, hex grid travel, item slots and so on) are very common as well.

I haven't played any of the modern RPGs, but I've listened to actual play podcasts. One game especially, Blades in the Dark, made me think of a German style boardgame, rather than computer games. Very flowchart-like gameplay with strict phases with allowed actions and with wealth levels etc. It is not the type of game I'd be interested in playing.

[DerGraumantel]

One game especially, Blades in the Dark, made me think of a German style boardgame, rather than computer games. Very flowchart-like gameplay with strict phases with allowed actions and with wealth levels etc.

That is a very good point. You are right more board than video game!!!
I also hadn’t heard the term ttrpg ever before, we always played in a blackboard/class room setting and called it pen&paper rpg. But together with the board gamey rules this makes sense.

Love german board games but I want smthg different when I want rpgs.

We are drifting far off topic , haha.