Topic: Making Rolemaster Better!

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I feel that inherently that the RMSS system is ok as it is. However, much of what draws critism is due to lack of organisation and over complication.

Take the example of the the Categories and Skills. I would says that the Categories should be trimmed down and brought into line across both SM and RM.

(The Tech/Trade, Sci/Anal skills specifically need re-organisation).

If you can bring the number of Categories down to about thirty that should be sufficent to retain an adequate amount of complexity.

Then revise some of the skills so that they all advance the same way... PPD, Body Development, Spell List Development being the only exceptions. (i.e. Drop the combined skill progression).

The actual amount of skills that there are shouldn't really matter, but there should be a better defined list of the more frequent ones.

With the exception of the combat/critical/fumble tables, there should only be about three/four other tables actively used in play:

M/M, S/M, Spell casting and RR. Ensure that all four are adequately described with examples. For example, ALL skills should either use the S/M OR M/M tables, it does not require a seperate table for each skill. A few verbal examples would suffice.

[markc]

I feel that inherently that the RMSS system is ok as it is. However, much of what draws critism is due to lack of organisation and over complication.

Take the example of the the Categories and Skills. I would says that the Categories should be trimmed down and brought into line across both SM and RM.

(The Tech/Trade, Sci/Anal skills specifically need re-organisation).

If you can bring the number of Categories down to about thirty that should be sufficent to retain an adequate amount of complexity.

Then revise some of the skills so that they all advance the same way... PPD, Body Development, Spell List Development being the only exceptions. (i.e. Drop the combined skill progression).

The actual amount of skills that there are shouldn't really matter, but there should be a better defined list of the more frequent ones.

With the exception of the combat/critical/fumble tables, there should only be about three/four other tables actively used in play:

M/M, S/M, Spell casting and RR. Ensure that all four are adequately described with examples. For example, ALL skills should either use the S/M OR M/M tables, it does not require a seperate table for each skill. A few verbal examples would suffice.

G-B-it,
 I will post this topic also in the RMSS/RMFRP section so as the RMC/2/X fans do not have to repond to any RMSS comments.

MDC

[GoblynByte]

That question sounds like improving sales, not the system to me. Which is very similar to another thread. Fiolnir, which were you asking? Rasyr, which were you anticipating seeing?

Oops.  My bad.  Yeah, he did ask that didn't he?  My apologies.

Okay, as for increasing the fan base I will add my thoughts.  My brutally honest thoughts?

The down side is that I think marketing RM to anyone born after the release of RMSS (yes, people that were born in 95 are playing RPGs now), or even after about 1990 is very tough.  They just have a very different outlook on what they want from RPGs.

For instance, RPGs are not attempting to emulate the same thing they were trying to emulate in the mid- to late-70's which is where games the older generation plays are rooted.  In the 70's RPGs were attempting to emulate traditional fantasy and sci-fi literature.  In the 80's and 90's they began attempting to emulate movies.  The focus was on a cinematic style and you had people always talking about wanting to do things like they see in the movies (anime, cartoons, Xena, Highlander, you name it).  Now RPGs are moving towards emulating what's seen on computer screens.  I'm not for one second saying its bad or "less intelligent," It's just a different expectation of how RPGs should behave.  We can try and maintain all we want that this shift in expectation doesn?t exist, but I honestly believe that in doing so we?re wearing blinders to the reality of the situation.

We in the older generation wanted RPGs to behave in a certain way.  The newer generation doesn't want them to behave in the same way.  The proof of that rests in what is successful.  Nobody makes games like ICE anymore?with all the advantages and disadvantages that approach carries.  The makers of D&D (and much of the rest of the industry) recognized this shift in paradigm and have mutated to survive.  That's why D&D has remained the dominant RPG for 30 years.  It has adapted to what people expect rather than expecting people to adapt to them.  In other words, WotC isn?t waiting around for people to become disgruntled by another system and come running.  They?re becoming the system that people want and expect?with all the advantages and disadvantages that aspect carries.  Every company that existed before the late 90?s and still exists today adapted their games in some way to math the changing times.

I honestly hate to be critical but for the longest time ICE stood firmly on a marketing strategy of "someday they'll realize we're right."  But "someday" never came and the clientele just drifted farther and farther away from the style RM supported.  Then the bubble popped and ICE crumbled (along with many, many others).  Then the ?new? ICE took over and with it more open eyes to the way the industry was headed.  As a result HARP was a very bright light and the first real sign that ICE was willing to adapt.  But then they bring out RMC, which is great?for those who played it back in the day.  But it goes back to catering to that older expectation.  An expectation that, again, is getting smaller and smaller.   Yes, there are holdouts.  Yes, there are those who want that old nostalgic feeling and want games that speak to that older style, but the question that needs to be asked is this: is that demographic enough to support a gaming company in the coming years?  I don?t think that it is.

I'm not saying I want RM to give up that style.  Being of the older generation I still want to hang onto what I enjoy.  But if the goal is to make RM acceptable to a wider audience the simple fact is that it is going to need to change?significantly.  In doing so, however, it will likely alienate its current fan base.

Here?s my brutally honest bottom line (and, as always, IMVHO): we can?t have it both ways.  We can?t ?keep? Rolemastern the way it is and get a much larger fan base.  I just don?t think that fan base exists anymore and that leaves the existence of Rolemaster simply to serve the fans it already had.  And the small number of fans we as players will be able to recruit won?t make much of a dent.  Meanwhile we?re beating our chests saying the other gamers just don?t get it while they?re happily agreeing with us and rolling their d20?s.

[thrud]

Our main problem is getting people to try RPG's.
When they try it they like it and have no trouble with RM.

About adaptation to current media. Genrebooks... RM is easy to make into whatever. Do you want superheroes? Buy the super hearo addition. (If there was such a thing)
RMC is great the way it is and I wouldn't change anything I think.

[Ecthelion]

What I'd like to see in RM is:
- Some streamlining: Fewer skills as core, more may be added optionally. Rules for number of DPs with reduced and larger skill-set.
- Combat system revamped, as done in RMC Combat Companion. IMO this should be the core combat rules.

Quite radical:
- Dump professions: Instead of having a flexible number of DPs based on stats, have the DPs fixed and have all skill-costs each depend on a single stat. E.g. a high Ag value would lower the DP costs for subterfuge skills, a high Re value would lower the costs for spells. Everyone can learn anything but is limited by the DP costs of the skills, which in turn depend on his stats. This would encourage agile "Thieves", clever "Mages" etc.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

G-B-it,
 I will post this topic also in the RMSS/RMFRP section so as the RMC/2/X fans do not have to repond to any RMSS comments.

MDC

Sorry, I read a lot of comments above referring to RMSS and assumed RM included RMSS... my bad.

[ictus]

Here?s my brutally honest bottom line (and, as always, IMVHO): we can?t have it both ways.  We can?t ?keep? Rolemastern the way it is and get a much larger fan base.  I just don?t think that fan base exists anymore and that leaves the existence of Rolemaster simply to serve the fans it already had.  And the small number of fans we as players will be able to recruit won?t make much of a dent.  Meanwhile we?re beating our chests saying the other gamers just don?t get it while they?re happily agreeing with us and rolling their d20?s.

Not just for that bit but for the whole post, have an idea point, it is excellently written and argued, and saddly true (I am one of the holdouts )

For me, if you want a game to cater for a new audiance, you need more than just a book, you need the software to make character creation, combat, magic and other maintenance easy, and so little to learn that people can jump in and play quickly.

After all, I haven't the time to learn anything new, so how can I expect others to learn my system of choice, if it will take them more than an hours reading.

[mibsweden]

What I'd like to see in RM is:
- Some streamlining: Fewer skills as core, more may be added optionally. Rules for number of DPs with reduced and larger skill-set.

I think RM has even fewer skills as core than D&D 3.x. If you take in to account the secondary skills then we have another matter

[Ecthelion]

I come from a RMSS perspective (this thread was AFAIK split after my posting), where all the secondary skills from RM2 are included plus more skills from RM2 Companion2.

[Justin]

For me, if you want a game to cater for a new audiance, you need more than just a book, you need the software to make character creation, combat, magic and other maintenance easy, and so little to learn that people can jump in and play quickly.

This is a great idea. May I suggest though that it somehow handles house rules. Maybe it could use a GUI-building block approach to build code w/o the GM having to know the code themselves. (There are already IDE's doing this to a degree.)

[Archangel]

Personally I think a half of what make RM the game it is, is the though that has to be put into playing it. It breeds a different class of player. I evolved through what I assume must be a typical growth from D&D basics to buying all of the resource books to adding crit charts from RM to giving in and working through a few characters in a fully RM2 world. I have never really been a GM but our group did and does a LOT of debiting on how to best resolve a given situation. That brings interpretation to the party and boy did we get it WRONG a lot, but who cares it's fun. Yes it took a lot of effort on the GM's part but man when I talk to players of the non RM type games there is NO comparison. The brain builds with work and RM demands a higher thought process if you are even going to try and balance Magic, Physics and everything ells. I really enjoyed playing D&D but don't have any interest in going back (I've been invited several times to play in a 3rd edition group), I would like to see some more organization tools like master indexes covering the base books and companions. We play RM2 and some day I will find a large cash at a garage sale of some one who "grew up" and then I won't feel bad about cutting the bindings and create my own organization. 

[Trond]

As some of you may have noticed, I would like some easy rules on how to roll against stats (see my discussion on this elsewhere ). Other than that, maybe a easy-to-use section on things that commonly occur in RPGs such as falling, drowning, strangulation and other unpleasantries. It is discussed in the rulebooks, but it's often hard to find when you need it.

[markc]

Archangle and Trond: Welcome

MDC

[mibsweden]

As some of you may have noticed, I would like some easy rules on how to roll against stats (see my discussion on this elsewhere ). Other than that, maybe a easy-to-use section on things that commonly occur in RPGs such as falling, drowning, strangulation and other unpleasantries. It is discussed in the rulebooks, but it's often hard to find when you need it.

This kind of rule could cut down on the number of skills considerably, which I think a lot of people would appreciate. The way it is today, the stat bonus plus a d100, gives a chance that is too low for it to actually being able to replace som skills in my opinion.

[Trond]

A positive reply, yay!
Generally, for situations when you want to 'roll against a stat' rather than a skill, I just invented the formula: [(stat bonus x2)+50]+/-difficulty lvl add 1d100 and apply to static action table. See the other thread for other options.

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=6993.0

Maybe I should quit working in paleontology and start designing games. The income should be about the same 

[Trond]

More to the point, making RM better:

To keep old RM players: Update the game using lots of common sense and a little inspiration from research material, but make it recognizable as RM. How to do this? I think Combat Companion is an excellent example. Keep up the good work!

To capture new players (IMO): first, explain the core rules in one or two introductory pages and then throw in a couple of sample characters on the next few pages as well as the most used tables. In other words: give the reader the impression that he/she can play it by just reading a few pages (the rest can be used mostly to add depth and look up things). Second, include great artwork (both on the cover and inside). You're already doing that in RMC, but try to avoid D&D look-alike illustrations (there are a few of those inside, but all in all, it's pretty good).

For both old and new: publish some great-looking campaign aids, with lots of detailed maps. Campaign books may not sell that well, but I think people lose interest quickly without them. They should include some suggested adventures, hopefully with a good mix of intrigue, scare factor, and good old hack and slash for those who like it

[Justin]

Trond's post seconded

[Tolen]

Ok, here goes.  I mentioned this in the other thread over in FRP, not realizing that this is the more active version of the discussion.  The impression I have for improving RM (in just about any form) would be valid regardless of edition.

First, let me say I haven't yet read RMC or all of HARP, so the new ICE may have fixed this somewhat.

Simply put, I think the thing needs to be rewritten.  I don't mean we need to change the rules.  A tweak or two maybe.  No, I think the biggest problem with RM is the way the rules are worded.  RM seems to me to be written from the point of view that anyone who tries to use it is a veteran gamer.  Certain concepts are just not clearly laid out, I think, because the assumption is the idea is already familiar to everyone.

Examples from RMFRP:
-Overcasting.  The concept is there, but only when you look at the tables and realize what the data means.
-Creature level.  DnD players know what creature level means, but does the same hold true for GURPS or WoD?

I think simply starting over while keeping in mind that the audience is made up of people who may never have played a game before (and certainly not previous versions of RM) would help tremendously.  Don't cut and paste, don't dumb it down, but do look at each rule and see if it is easy to figure out what it means.  A change in language I think is all that is necesary. 

Something else I mentioned in the other thread was monster stat blocks.  RM has a reputation.  It's unfortunate, and incorrect mostly, but it is there.  Chartmaster.  It's a perception based on how many tables a potential player sees.  NPC blocks and Monster blocks all have a code in them for various entries.  That sends us looking for another table to find out what the code means.  I feel the information should be where I'm at, not somehwere else, it would make planning easier.  Further, if you put that data in the creature descriptions, and it turns out that +4 is too weak, but +8 is too strong, you can tweak it for that monster.  Tables can be too granular.

There are ways to reduce the number of tables and charts without changing the way the rules work.  Instead of reprinting the armor table each time the subject comes up, put it in the appendix.  Do we need a version of the static maneuver table for each type of static maneuver?  They all say essentially the same thing.  One copy in the appendix, possibly with a column for skill use, and another for spell use, etc. would suffice.

You can't get rid of the attack and critical tables, they are the heart of the system, but when every book has new versions of the tables, or tables for the next exotic weapon players might want to use, the pack gets thicker everyday.  The basic tables are sufficient (though in my games, I do use the newer ones, and the ones in the Armory).

And since I've already taken all of your time thus far, allow me one more item (which may be handled better these days, as I said before): Editing.  I'm re-reading Gamemaster Law for RMFRP in preparation for a new campaign, and this book has the most dropped words I've ever encountered in any book.  I almost wonder how bad it is in the translations...

[Justin]

oh, are they the same topics? I assumed that since there were two "making RM better" threads in different parts, they were aimed at what was lacking in each of the flavors of RM, specific to the board they are on.

[markc]

 It was my gaol to have each RM Flavoe have its own version of this thread to prevent any confusion or too many side discussions.

MDC