Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Dragonking11 on September 27, 2017, 07:13:03 AM
-
Rolemaster (any editions) is quite complex and rules heavy, but is I think pretty well balanced overall. I mainly play RMSS though so I'm not that familiar with the other editions.
I try as much as possible to use the RAW but have some house rules of my own on some stuff regarding skills and combat. The bulk of my house rules concerns the integration of a battle map for my encounters. Rolemaster' rules are in fact really well suited for this but are unfortunately not really incorporated in the rulebooks. I understand that those were not really popular yet in the 90s.
Do you have a heavily customized ruleset of your own in your games ?
-
It tends to be that if it isn't on a critical table then it is open to negotiation. Having said that, I have written my own critical tables so I am not sure I use anything that is RAW in my main game.
-
I use RM2 with a lot of home-brew rules. Most of those fall into two categories, (1) simplification/streamlining, or (2) cultural specializations.
The latter is a matter of specialized skills for cultures, that I don't allow to other culture, or weapons, or spell lists. But the mechanics of how those skills, weapons, or lists work are almost always the same as others of their ilk.
There's a small set of rules I've imported from RMSS to fix or expand things I think RM2 was weak on.
-
Over the years we have accumulated a quite large set of house rules.
-
I guess I use a few, but not many, and those I do use I don't think are big departures/changes. So, ultimately, not much at all.
-
It tends to be that if it isn't on a critical table then it is open to negotiation. Having said that, I have written my own critical tables so I am not sure I use anything that is RAW in my main game.
What did you not like in the critical tables ? I suppose you rebalanced them your own way ?
-
We try to keep as close to RAW. We add optional rules here and there, but those are also as-written from the books. The big optional rule we use is simplified initiative.... this however may actually be house-ruled just a little. Roll OE up or down + QU bonus - Modifiers. Highest value goes first, then down the line. I higher value player can defer action until later in the initiative chain.
-
i have added many house rules.
1) i use a variation of the super fast combat system that delivers crits only on an open-ended roll. weapon damage is less than the actual system as given in the rules
2) ambush is similar but i allow the skill rank to increase he odds of crits
3) poisoned weapons use the weapons tables for purposes of effect, a letter result means the poison has penetrated the armour
4) i allow talents to be developed after starting level with a 4/* cost (similar to spell list development)> players get assigned a drawback to balance the new talent and the talent is gained at full level
5) we have 1/3 level development as well as 1/2 level advancement. this staggers the skills developed
6) weapon abilities are gained at higher skill ranks (12+) as well as a small increase in weapon damage. ST/ST/AG bonus is used to increase melee damage but this damage is 1/5 of the stat bonus. quality weapons increase damage slightly also (about 1/5 of bonus so +10 weapon adds +2 damage)
7) Initiative is rolled using 2d10 + 1/5 Qu mod.
-
I wrote and use quite a lot of house rules, foremost related with magic, since I never quite agreed with how RM2 handles it (or, rather, with the paradigm with which on mind the magic system was written), and the only other significant one is about how to give out experience points since RM2 was written in the 80s where action and kills were more important than roleplay and storytelling.
-
It tends to be that if it isn't on a critical table then it is open to negotiation. Having said that, I have written my own critical tables so I am not sure I use anything that is RAW in my main game.
What did you not like in the critical tables ? I suppose you rebalanced them your own way ?
We have been playing do long that my players know the tables. So I rewrote them to freshen them up. Some days I use the official ones, dome days my alternatives.
-
I wrote and use quite a lot of house rules, foremost related with magic, since I never quite agreed with how RM2 handles it (or, rather, with the paradigm with which on mind the magic system was written), and the only other significant one is about how to give out experience points since RM2 was written in the 80s where action and kills were more important than roleplay and storytelling.
what rule changes did u make to spell system?
-
I've modified...
Experience (none) and Leveling (when I say).
Everyone gets a set, flat amount of Development Points.
How Profession Bonuses (smaller up front bonus) + Everyman, Occupational, and Restricted skills work (bonus or penalty per rank developed).
How the round works (declarations, actions, movement in combat).
Created a form of weapon specialization.
How multiple attacks work.
How shields work.
How instant spells work.
How adrenal skills work.
Then I've converted from RM2 or created new Professions and/or Spell Lists.
-
I've modified...
Experience (none) and Leveling (when I say).
Everyone gets a set, flat amount of Development Points.
How Profession Bonuses (smaller up front bonus) + Everyman, Occupational, and Restricted skills work (bonus or penalty per rank developed).
How the round works (declarations, actions, movement in combat).
Created a form of weapon specialization.
How multiple attacks work.
How shields work.
How instant spells work.
How adrenal skills work.
Then I've converted from RM2 or created new Professions and/or Spell Lists.
thats a lot of work.
interested in what u have done with...
How the round works (declarations, actions, movement in combat).
-
I have worked up a simplified round and am also in the process of creating a second-by-second system. I wouldn't call the second-by-second more complex, but it looks that way on paper. Not done with it however, so here's the simplified version...
Step 1.) Roll initiative using 1d10+Average of Stats Bonuses.
The bonus to an initiative roll for physical actions (including movement) is calculated by taking the average of the characters Quickness, Agility and Intuition stat bonuses
The bonus to an initiative roll for mental actions are the average of Reasoning, Memory and Self Discipline.
Step 2.) Movement.
The combatant with the worst initiative is called upon to take their movement action first, however combatants with a higher initiative can choose to react to the movement of those with a lower initiative.
This is in order to simulate the advantage a combatant would have in winning the initiative. They are able to either move first to block a passage for example, or react to others movement and adjust theirs accordingly.
So, characters with the worst, or lowest, initiative will take their movement first unless someone chooses to react to that movement. They can move as little or as much as they want, but obviously no further than the character can move in a given round.
Most characters can move roughly ten feet per second at a full run. This translates to one, five foot, hex 5% action used. Obviously a character must have enough action left to perform whatever actions they intend to after movement (potentially with the appropriate penalty due to minimum action percentage needed to perform that action).
Step 3.) Declarations.
Players now declare their characters actions. Basically, anything other than movement, which has already occurred, needs to be declared at this point. The only exception to this are Instantaneous actions. For example, all of the following would be declared at this point: Attack Actions, Moving Maneuvers, Shield allocation, and Parry / Attack OB allocation
Step 4.) Action Resolution.
Actions are resolved in the order of the character with the best, highest, initiative to the worst, lowest, initiative. Characters can chose to delay their action and continue it later in reaction to another, slower characters, action.
For example, a character may wish to interrupt another character while in the process of taking their action (as opposed to merely trying to stop it in the first place).
If making mental actions (spell casting for example) you can use your In/Me stats averaged for an initiative modifier at this point with original init roll.
-
I have worked up a simplified round and am also in the process of creating a second-by-second system. I wouldn't call the second-by-second more complex, but it looks that way on paper. Not done with it however, so here's the simplified version...
Step 1.) Roll initiative using 1d10+Average of Stats Bonuses.
The bonus to an initiative roll for physical actions (including movement) is calculated by taking the average of the characters Quickness, Agility and Intuition stat bonuses
The bonus to an initiative roll for mental actions are the average of Reasoning, Memory and Self Discipline.
Step 2.) Movement.
The combatant with the worst initiative is called upon to take their movement action first, however combatants with a higher initiative can choose to react to the movement of those with a lower initiative.
This is in order to simulate the advantage a combatant would have in winning the initiative. They are able to either move first to block a passage for example, or react to others movement and adjust theirs accordingly.
So, characters with the worst, or lowest, initiative will take their movement first unless someone chooses to react to that movement. They can move as little or as much as they want, but obviously no further than the character can move in a given round.
Most characters can move roughly ten feet per second at a full run. This translates to one, five foot, hex 5% action used. Obviously a character must have enough action left to perform whatever actions they intend to after movement (potentially with the appropriate penalty due to minimum action percentage needed to perform that action).
Step 3.) Declarations.
Players now declare their characters actions. Basically, anything other than movement, which has already occurred, needs to be declared at this point. The only exception to this are Instantaneous actions. For example, all of the following would be declared at this point: Attack Actions, Moving Maneuvers, Shield allocation, and Parry / Attack OB allocation
Step 4.) Action Resolution.
Actions are resolved in the order of the character with the best, highest, initiative to the worst, lowest, initiative. Characters can chose to delay their action and continue it later in reaction to another, slower characters, action.
For example, a character may wish to interrupt another character while in the process of taking their action (as opposed to merely trying to stop it in the first place).
If making mental actions (spell casting for example) you can use your In/Me stats averaged for an initiative modifier at this point with original init roll.
so instantaneous spells that r prepped and ready go on the casters initiative?
-
Here's more of it...
Related Rules...
Instantaneous Actions.
Instantaneous actions are exactly, that… instantaneous. They do not automatically require declaration and they do not impact any of the characters other actions negatively.
Snap and Deliberate Equivalent Actions.
Making a “snap” action simulates attempting to perform your action quicker by sacrificing effectiveness in your action. A “snap” action will add +2 to your initiative, but give a -20% penalty to your action.
Making a “deliberate” action simulates attempting to perform an action more skillfully by taking ones time in performing it. A “deliberate” action will impose a -2 penalty to your initiative total, but will provide a +10% bonus to your action.
OVER-CASTING SPELLS
- You can overpay when casting a spell to raise its effective level. This means if you cast an “Open Locks” spell on a magic lock that is 4th level but use 10 PP to do it instead of the normal four, then the lock you are casting it on would resist against a 10th level spell instead of a 4th. You cannot overcast beyond your level (meaning you would need to be 10th level to spend 10 points on a 4th level spell).
INSTANT SPELLS
- Instant spells take no percentage of action.
- Instant spells do not count towards the One Spell Per Round rule, with the exception of offensives spells.
- You can cast as many defensive instants as you like each round.
o Instants cannot be stacked for more effect on the same ‘target’.
- Instant spells need not be declared if…
o You are not in melee combat.
o You are targeting your current foe or an action that foe is performing.
o You are in melee combat and roll a successful Situational Awareness: Combat check.
ADRENAL SKILLS:
- Non-passive Adrenal Maneuvers require 10% activity to perform unless otherwise specified.
- Only one non-passive Adrenal Maneuver can be performed in a given round.
- Non-passive Adrenal Maneuvers that are performed undeclared penalize the next action by 10%
- Adrenal Defense is passive in nature once the stance has been assumed and does not require a percentage of activity for the remainder of the current engagement.
Therefore a character utilizing Adrenal Defence could still make an Adrenal Strength maneuver, however a character could not perform Adrenal Strength and Adrenal Speed in the same round.
DUAL ATTACKS
Dual Attacks are when a character is using a weapon that can effectively be used to attack with more than one point. The Quarterstaff, Three Section Staff, and some “Pole” weapons are good examples. Dual Attacks are commonly the result of Fighting Styles.
MULTIPLE ATTACKS
Multiple Attacks are when a character has specialized in a weapon to the degree that they can effectively make more than one attack per attack action. This is simulated by increased base damage, secondary and potentially even tertiary criticals. Multiple Attacks are commonly the result of Weapon Specialization in a specific weapon. (Note: Characters may not specialize in more than two specific weapons).
TWO-WEAPON COMBO
- Off hand with the same weapon must be developed as a separate skill unless the player has the Ambidexterity talent.
- Using two weapons of the same length longer then a short sword (roughly 2 feet) will result in a -10 penalty on the secondary weapon.
- The two attacks can be split between two opponents with a -20 penalty to both.
- When Parrying the OB used to do so applies to both weapons (and foes if split).
- For ease and speed of game combat both attacks are resolved at the same time. This is resolved as one attack action (60%-100% activity) and a Bladeturn spell would apply to both swings.
SHIELDS
- Shield bonuses can be applied to all foes within the characters forward arc (hex immediately in front of and the two to either side of it).
- If the character is focusing all of his or her shielding attention towards a single ranged attacker the character gains +10DB against that attacker.
- If it has been trained in as a weapon you can make a Shield Bash attempt and still use the shield defensively, however you will be using Two-Weapon Combo rules to accomplish this.
- A small buckler can be used with a two-handed weapon, however is useless against ranged attacks unless the character possess a skill which allows for missile parries (and is only effective when actively using that skill).
- DB = Buckler +5 / Small Shield +10 / Medium Shield +15 / Large Shield +20 / Target Shield +25
-
@Cory
Wow you seem to have tuned all the major rules from the books.
Have you tried playtesting RMU ?
Does RMU includes some of your tuning as RAW ?
-
There are some thing very core to RMU that I don't particularly like. Besides, when you've already created your own version of RM, customized to how you like it, why start over with a version that has less material out? I'm sure that's part of why so many never left RM2.
-
There are some thing very core to RMU that I don't particularly like. Besides, when you've already created your own version of RM, customized to how you like it, why start over with a version that has less material out? I'm sure that's part of why so many never left RM2.
I understand your point and think you are probably right about people not "upgrading" to the next editions. Unfortunately for ICE as they need the revenues.
ICE really needs to get more players to RM as most of the long time players will probably never leave their current system
-
Aye, I could say a lot about the history/future of RM as I see it, but I don't want to derail the thread. ;)
-
ICE really needs to get more players to RM as most of the long time players will probably never leave their current system
This is very true. The main reason I never went to any newer version of RM from RM2 was the amount of money I had already invested in the game. $15-$30 per book (about 20 books), then the Shadow World books I purchased later on, I am into RM2 for hundreds of dollars. I don't have War Law, but I have every other book and about a dozen Shadow World books and Tales from the Green Gryphon Inn hard cover :) (also an awesome book!). When RMSS came out, it was a nice change and lots of cool new things added to it... but the book I bought was $30+ and was only one book. There simply wasn't enough of a reason to get me to invest (possibly) $100+ into the new system. Then RMFRP followed but I was out of college, my gaming buddies all went their separate ways.
It's been a couple of decades now. I'm not a broke college kid working 3 part time jobs trying to stay afloat. I have kids and they like RM2. I've had a great interest in RMU and I've offered input in a lot of the Beta threads, gotten to know and to speak to the authors and the latest version looks to be really great. I'm ready to jump in when everything is released.
-
Snap and Deliberate Equivalent Actions.
Making a “snap” action simulates attempting to perform your action quicker by sacrificing effectiveness in your action. A “snap” action will add +2 to your initiative, but give a -20% penalty to your action.
Making a “deliberate” action simulates attempting to perform an action more skillfully by taking ones time in performing it. A “deliberate” action will impose a -2 penalty to your initiative total, but will provide a +10% bonus to your action.
I use a similar set of rules for initiative, though I go with a 2d10 + average of Qu, In, and Ag, and I also add in a +2 per every 5 character levels to reflect experience. Also, I go with a +10 (-20%) / -10 (+10%) for Snap and Deliberate, respectively. That way, while you are very likely to go first if you Snap, it is not 100% guaranteed, someone who is incredibly quicker and/or much more experienced can still come out faster. (Though not if they also go Deliberate.)
I also use the AG/IN/QU mods for DB, only I don't average them, just add them and multiply the number by 2. (Yes, any negative attribute mods really hurt...)
-
I also use the AG/IN/QU mods for DB, only I don't average them, just add them and multiply the number by 2. (Yes, any negative attribute mods really hurt...)
Interesting twist to the rules
What is your goal by using this formula ? Did you want to give more DB to the players overall or just wanted to spread the stats to reduce the importance of the Quickness stat ?
-
This is very true. The main reason I never went to any newer version of RM from RM2 was the amount of money I had already invested in the game.
I always wondered why the RM2 people never took the RMSS train. I never played RM2, only RMSS, but from what I heard since, RMSS seems to have improved the game on a lot of core areas.
I'm curious to know if the majority of people hold onto RM2 because of their "investment" in the game at that point or if it is because the rules were so different that they chose to continue playing the game they were accustomed to.
-
What is your goal by using this formula ? Did you want to give more DB to the players overall or just wanted to spread the stats to reduce the importance of the Quickness stat ?
Well, realism actually. I fully believe that simple quickness is not the sole determination factor for things like DB and Initiative. How well someone moves (Ag), everyone's innate "Spidey-sense" (In), as well as experience/training all come into play. In fact, if I was being even more real, I would make experience/training play a bigger part in Initiative (something I thought was a positive turn for many of the D20 systems that came out years ago, such as Spycraft/Fantasycraft; they added an Initiative modifier and Defense modifier to each of the classes).
Have you ever played Twilight 2000 (the original)? They have a stat called Coolness Under Fire which is used to determine how often/quickly a character goes, by determining how much they will hesitate (everyone will to one degree or another). This stat is directly proportional to how much combat experience one has. It shows the difference between the "boot" (aka: newbie) and the "salt" (aka: someone who has been in and seen lots of combat). The boot will hesitate much more than the salt (barring some mental issues, of course, but that is the purview of flaws / disadvantages), so the salt will be seen as doing more in the same amount of time. Experience matters, more than natural ability (something I think is a basic principle of the RM system) - unless you are talking about superheroes, then powers matter, a lot.
-
I kind of agree with you on the "realism" part that it makes sense to include other stats such as Agility and Intuition in the Ini calculation.
I just wondered what side effects this would bring game play wise. It would be difficult for certain classes to achieve high natural DB if their primary stats are for example Reasoning and Empathy (an RMSS Magician). After putting 90 in those prime stats, it would be difficult to invest heavily in Quickness, Agility and Intuition.
-
More stats will bring the extreme values towards the mean (both low and high). Using Intuition will make rangers quicker than magents and clerics quicker than magicians, which is a bit odd. Using Agility will tend to boost Arms characters over casters, but otherwise just devalues Quickness in my opinion. Agility is already very useful.
-
what rule changes did u make to spell system?
I think I wrote about the matter but I don't like how in RM2, magical realms are just arbitrary ways to separate spells. I think the main change I did was to put all Open spell lists together, all Closed spell lists together, and not associate any profession to any specific realm. Then, I wrote rules about what differentiates one realm from another, whilst considering a realm as a power source, meaning that the differences aren't about what a spellcaster can do depending on his realm but about how he fuels his spells, and the impact his realm has on his magical power rather than its application.
Oh, and I allow several spells being cast in the same round.
I did some of what Cory wrote about as well:
How multiple attacks work.
Multiple attacks are only against several opponents. Against one,it merely gives bonuses and additional criticals. Same for TWC.
How shields work.
I changed the bonuses so that each shield grants a higher DB bonus but inflicts an OB penalty. For instance, a target shield is +30 DB/-10 OB whilst a normal shield is +40 DB/-20 OB. As you can see, the net bonus is the same as it is now, but it gives "smaller" shields an advantage over "bigger" shields as one is offensively more effective.
-
This is very true. The main reason I never went to any newer version of RM from RM2 was the amount of money I had already invested in the game.
I always wondered why the RM2 people never took the RMSS train. I never played RM2, only RMSS, but from what I heard since, RMSS seems to have improved the game on a lot of core areas.
I sort of eluded to it in another thread, but I think many RM2 users didn't see RMSS as an improvement because they understood RM2 quite well already and were either okay with what others perceive as flaws or had fixed them themselves already. This is why I tell new users inquiring between RM2 and RMSS to go with RMSS, it's more NEW user friendly in my opinion and RM Classic is (imo) simply for RM2 users who were looking for reprinted RM2 material.
-
IMO both RMC/RM2 and RMSS/RMFRP are dead ststems. There will be no new material for either.
They are played by an aging and diminishing community of players.
RMU is the future of the game and if you want to get started in RM any other advice is patently unfair.
-
They are played by an aging and diminishing community of players.
Hey! I'm not diminishing! I've had to buy larger pants over the last couple of years! Yeesh.
RMU is the future of the game and if you want to get started in RM any other advice is patently unfair.
Absolutely correct. The newest system is on the cusp of being released. Now is the time to jump in at the ground level with a fresh revision of a game system that so many of us still love. This is sthe best time to bring younger and/or new players to RM. I'm a die hard RM2 player, but I'm really eager for RMU to release.
-
RMU is the future of the game and if you want to get started in RM any other advice is patently unfair.
I wouldn't say it's without doubt unfair. It depends on what the user wants out of it.
There was little new material for RMSS that hadn't been published in RM2. The same will be true of RMU.
All that material is out for RM2 and RMSS, it's not for RMU. So if you want a more complete system now RMU isn't it. If you're okay waiting for the materials to be revamped for RMU, it may be.
-
All that material is out for RM2 and RMSS, it's not for RMU. So if you want a more complete system now RMU isn't it. If you're okay waiting for the materials to be revamped for RMU, it may be.
I kind of agree there. Even if no new materials will ever be produced for older system such as RMSS and RM2, the fact is that those systems already have tons of supplemental books to play with.
RMU must be the future but if ICE takes their sweet time (as in a few years) before releasing supplemental materials, people will get bored, go back to their old system and never look at RMU again.
But let's just be positive here and hope for the best. I really wish for the Rolemaster franchise to reboot as it is one the best gaming system out there !
-
RMU must be the future but if ICE takes their sweet time (as in a few years) before releasing supplemental materials, people will get bored, go back to their old system and never look at RMU again.
This will definitely be a factor. Looking back, I don't see a lot of supplemental material for SS or FRP which makes me all the more happier that I didn't invest a lot of money into those systems.
If the older stuff is easy, or somewhat easy, to convert into the new RMU system, that will be a good holdover as players wait for the new RMU supplements to be produced.
-
Not only do I doubt ICE will have the ability to do that in short order, but longevity as a company would be diminished if you cranked everything out at once. I would be extremely surprised if you saw RMU catch up to RMSS any quicker than several years.
If the older stuff is easy, or somewhat easy, to convert into the new RMU system, that will be a good holdover as players wait for the new RMU supplements to be produced.
I think you underestimate the nature of the changes. Size rules are very different, armor and weapon tables are different, percentages for actions is different, etc. I'm somewhat hopeful there may be spell lists I'll eventually want, but given that they need to align with the other, sometimes widely effecting, changes even that may be problematic.
-
Not only do I doubt ICE will have the ability to do that in short order, but longevity as a company would be diminished if you cranked everything out at once. I would be extremely surprised if you saw RMU catch up to RMSS any quicker than several years.
It does not always follow that what has gone before has to follow.
Eclipse Phase has a production team of just four people yet they have produced an average of one release a month for the past eight years. Some bigger such as full rules supplements and some smaller like new themed character sheets.
That was for version 1 of Eclipse Phase. They are only now doing the public playtest of their 2nd Edition.
Small can mean nimble rather than snowed under.
-
You do realize how long RMU has been in development and that they have no full time staff?
-
You do realize how long RMU has been in development and that they have no full time staff?
I am painfully aware of that.
But also take into consideration that Brian Hanson has completely rewritten Character Law to fit hand in glove with Shadow World under the banner of SWARM. He had completely rewritten Spell Law for Shadow World under the heading of BASiL. He has completed the Priest King module amongst others. He is now working on a complete reworking of Arms Law.
He also has a full time job and all his output has been play tested or is currently in play test (with regard to his very high level Shadow World adventures).
Brian is but one person yet he is just a Creature Law short of an entire game system.
The question of full time staff is possibly self fulfilling. If you do not put out sufficient saleable quality products then you will not generate sufficient income to employ full time staff.
If you look at the earlier RoCos there were half a dozen professions, maybe 20 or so spell lists and then a mixed bag of optional rules. There are now clear rules for creating RMU professions and the core rules are much better in structure, there are less weird outlying exceptions. One person working part time could recreate an entire companion on their own. Much of the profession text would be a copy and paste job/proof read task. The skill costs are quicker to produce as there are rules for that. The spell lists are a larger task as the blanks need filling and the spells rebalancing. The optional rules, if they are even needed are going to be relatively easy to port across as RMU is better structured. The original optional rule author has done all the heavy lifting of identifying the problem and coming up with the rule concept. Any new races are going to be easy to recreate as RMU has clear rules for race creation and the concepts are already in the old companions. The race descriptions are another copy and paste/correct task. There are quite a few critical tables in the companions and there are clear rules creating the new critical tables. The witticisms from the criticals can be copied directly across. There will only be a limited number of criticals that will have to be created from scratch to fit the new critical table structures.
In essence one person working part time could probably do a RM2 to RMU conversion in under two months. Two part timers could release a RM2 to RMU RoCo each month by staggering the releases.
Alternatively you could have one person go through all the companions and extract all the character races. Then use the RMU race creation rules to rebalance them all. The descriptive text is a copy paste/correct task. Re-use as much art as you can. You then have a RMU Racial Law. That is a quick and easy book to produce. At the same time you repeat but pull out all the Arms and Skill based professions. Rebalance them for RMU as we have rules for that. Drop in some new combat tables such as a dedicated Rapier table for a duellist profession and a dedicated shortsword, net and trident tables for the gladiators and you have a RMU Warrior Law. I concede that the spell lists will take longer but those first to companions are going to be significantly lighter so you can then move the effort to the larger tasks.
The early companions were basically the house rules from individual campaigns. They do not have to be like that. You can structure them so that they play into our own strengths. You can look at all those spell casting professions and all those spell lists and chop them up into realms. Many of the spells on the lists were repeats anyway so you can probably fill a few of the slots with the existing spell from RMU Spell Law.
I am not saying it has to be done the way I describe it. I am just painting a picture where ICE can be more nimble. If people are saying they will be reluctant to move to RMU because the additional support material will not be there then they can solve that problem. If the bottleneck is page layout then use freelance page layerouters. If the bottleneck is editing then use freelance editors. The money for these freelancers will come from the sales of the companions. It is a virtuous circle. The more alive an dynamic the game system appears the greater the likelihood that people will give it a go and buy into it.
-
ICE's staff pretty much are the freelancers, or people like them, that used to write for RM before ICE's most recent demise.
I'm not being critical of ICE in how long things are taking or will take, I'm just saying it's pretty much a reality based on how it's operating.
Your idea of how quickly things can be done just isn't that realistic. For example, almost all of what you said about how old material can be recreated is exactly what happened from RM2 to RMSS and how long did that take? As long, or longer, than I originally commented... with a full time staff.
Could we, as users do much of this ourselves? Most of us already have with RM2 and RMSS, so obviously we can, but that's also why many didn't switch from RM2 to RMSS and why many won't switch from RMSS/RMFRP to RM2... because they already did.
-
ICE's staff pretty much are the freelancers, or people like them, that used to write for RM before ICE's most recent demise.
I'm not being critical of ICE in how long things are taking or will take, I'm just saying it's pretty much a reality based on how it's operating.
Your idea of how quickly things can be done just isn't that realistic. For example, almost all of what you said about how old material can be recreated is exactly what happened from RM2 to RMSS and how long did that take? As long, or longer, than I originally commented... with a full time staff.
Could we, as users do much of this ourselves? Most of us already have with RM2 and RMSS, so obviously we can, but that's also why many didn't switch from RM2 to RMSS and why many won't switch from RMSS/RMFRP to RM2... because they already did.
The speed at which ICE operate is almost uniquely slow in my experience and the idea of the staff being the freelancers is missing the point. The objective in using freelancers is to bring in extra capacity at the point it is needed. As a snapshot Eclipse Phase, as I mentioned above, has managed an average of 1 new product release per month for the last eight year, Paizo has put out an average of 6 rulebooks and 3 adventure paths each year for the past 8 years. Pinnacle Entertainment have put out more than 20 supplements per year for the past 14 years. Evil Hat have 35 publications for the latest incarnation of FATE since 2013 or just over 8 per year.
I know all the staffers at ICE are part time but then so were all of the others listed above bar Paizo. They can now all afford staff because they publish books that make money.
This is all rather academic as ICE do things ICE's way. The target appears to be almost exclusively the existing players and we all already own RM in its past incarnations.
-
The speed at which ICE operate is almost uniquely slow in my experience
It's not, you likely just don't know the amount of time it normally takes to do this stuff.
and the idea of the staff being the freelancers is missing the point. The objective in using freelancers is to bring in extra capacity at the point it is needed.
I think it's you that misses the point. With a full time staff, previously, using the same type freelancers that are now doing all the work, RM took many years to put out the previous editions. Now the full time staff is gone and it's, effectively, just the freelancers. That is the point.
As a snapshot Eclipse Phase, as I mentioned above, has managed an average of 1 new product release per month for the last eight year, Paizo has put out an average of 6 rulebooks and 3 adventure paths each year for the past 8 years. Pinnacle Entertainment have put out more than 20 supplements per year for the past 14 years. Evil Hat have 35 publications for the latest incarnation of FATE since 2013 or just over 8 per year.
What type of supplements? What quality? What's the page count and unique material. What is the status of people doing the work?
I just don't believe you're comparing apples to apples. There are a lot of variables that we don't know about your examples.
96 publications for Eclipse Phase? I find less than half that available.
Paizo is one of the best staffed and funded examples, not in the same realm.
Pinnacle has 280? Exactly what are you including there? Likely a lot of uncomparable stuff.
This is all rather academic as ICE do things ICE's way. The target appears to be almost exclusively the existing players and we all already own RM in its past incarnations.
I still question if that's really the goal (existing players). If it is, I question the choice based on both the customer bases past behavior and demographic... unless this is really just a hobby for those involved.
-
This is all rather academic as ICE do things ICE's way. The target appears to be almost exclusively the existing players and we all already own RM in its past incarnations.
I still question if that's really the goal (existing players). If it is, I question the choice based on both the customer bases past behavior and demographic... unless this is really just a hobby for those involved.
ICE have made absolutely no effort to reach out to the non-RM playing public for the public play test. There was no effort to promote the public play test across the blogosphere for example. Do you know of any efforts to draw in other communities?
It is the logical to then infer that if they are only asking us to play test then they are designing for us.
If they were designing for new players then they would value the input of new players, not avoiding it.
Can you draw any other conclusion?
-
The speed at which ICE operate is almost uniquely slow in my experience
It's not, you likely just don't know the amount of time it normally takes to do this stuff.
and the idea of the staff being the freelancers is missing the point. The objective in using freelancers is to bring in extra capacity at the point it is needed.
I think it's you that misses the point. With a full time staff, previously, using the same type freelancers that are now doing all the work, RM took many years to put out the previous editions. Now the full time staff is gone and it's, effectively, just the freelancers. That is the point.
As a snapshot Eclipse Phase, as I mentioned above, has managed an average of 1 new product release per month for the last eight year, Paizo has put out an average of 6 rulebooks and 3 adventure paths each year for the past 8 years. Pinnacle Entertainment have put out more than 20 supplements per year for the past 14 years. Evil Hat have 35 publications for the latest incarnation of FATE since 2013 or just over 8 per year.
What type of supplements? What quality? What's the page count and unique material. What is the status of people doing the work?
I just don't believe you're comparing apples to apples. There are a lot of variables that we don't know about your examples.
96 publications for Eclipse Phase? I find less than half that available.
Paizo is one of the best staffed and funded examples, not in the same realm.
Pinnacle has 280? Exactly what are you including there? Likely a lot of uncomparable stuff.
This is all rather academic as ICE do things ICE's way. The target appears to be almost exclusively the existing players and we all already own RM in its past incarnations.
I still question if that's really the goal (existing players). If it is, I question the choice based on both the customer bases past behavior and demographic... unless this is really just a hobby for those involved.
I pointed out that Paizo was on a different scale. And I never said that very publication was a full on multi hundred page supplement. I just said they were putting out content. I included things like free new designs for character sheets, floor plans to source books and adventures.
The point is that regardless of your budget you can get your hands on something new. Whether that is a free set of floor plans or book of NPCs for $4.99 or a supplement for $14.99. What is more , all of these things once released they stick around so new players have a whole back catalogue they can start to download for free at first and then the cheaper things to the full on supplements. All these things keep the cash tills ticking over. The basic business model for games companies is feed the addiction.
Pinnacle has 280? Exactly what are you including there? Likely a lot of uncomparable stuff.
Incomparable to the whole load of nothing that is ready for RMU? Yes it is different, it exists and is on the shelves ready to buy. I am not being intentionally harsh or abrasive but the description of what I was suggesting above such as a book of the extracted races or just the arms professions would be small supplements. Intentionally so. Little and often for pocket money prices are easier to complete and bring to market. Rolemaster Companion I costs $15 on RPGNow. Chop that into several booklets for example arms professions, the races, the qabbals, the package deals for goods, the additional monsters, the poisons and nefarious things. Turn those into seven $2.99 supplements and you have dodged the difficulty of the incompatible spell lists, avoided the arcane magic. You can throw in some attractive RMU character sheets and even interactive spreadsheet character sheets as digital downloads. If new enthusiastic players buy them all, and in the past we all bought everything, that is almost 50% more income ($20.93 vs $15) for less than half the content. I would bulk each PDF download out to about 15 to 20 pages including art and covers.
So no, I am not saying ICE can churn out a 133 page companion a month.
-
ICE have made absolutely no effort to reach out to the non-RM playing public for the public play test. There was no effort to promote the public play test across the blogosphere for example. Do you know of any efforts to draw in other communities?
Well, 'ICE' is, again, pretty much part time freelancers or volunteers that are scattered around the USA and UK. I'm not going to say those in charge couldn't have tried harder, but it's not as if I can really give them much grief over it knowing the situation.
It is the logical to then infer that if they are only asking us to play test then they are designing for us.
I was part of the process before the Beta went live and the stated goals were to simplify RM in order to gain new users (the only way RM will survive long term) and try to unite the RM2/RMC and RMSS/RMFRP crowds (in the hopes of obtaining customers in the short term). I won't go into detail on how things progressed from there, but I will say I've asked many times since which was/is the more important goal, because I don't see what we have appealing to non-RM users any more (maybe even less) than the previous editions.
If they were designing for new players then they would value the input of new players, not avoiding it.
I wouldn't say avoiding, I'd say not making a more concerted effort to seek it out (and, due to everyday life, may very well not have the time to).
Can you draw any other conclusion?
For some time my conclusion has been that there have been problems and road-blocks with the process, both specific contributors and the overall reality of the situation. Some, I think, could have been addressed much sooner and some were unavoidable. I also think the current problem is that, in my opinion, we have an RMU that does not address the issue of the perception of RM by non-RM users and that it will also have the same diminishing return of existing customers that RM suffered moving from the RM2 crowd to the RMSS one.
If RM is to be a 'hobby' done for the sheer pleasure of the creators without much concern to profitability, they should do whatever they want. If they intend for it to make a come-back and survive in the long-term we need to not be very concerned with what the current fan base thinks and focus on combating RMs past/existing reputation.
-
If RM is to be a 'hobby' done for the sheer pleasure of the creators without much concern to profitability, they should do whatever they want. If they intend for it to make a come-back and survive in the long-term we need to not be very concerned with what the current fan base thinks and focus on combating RMs past/existing reputation.
I am not going to disagree with you there.
I wrote this back in 2015 http://www.rolemasterblog.com/who-is-unified-rolemaster-rmu-for/ (http://www.rolemasterblog.com/who-is-unified-rolemaster-rmu-for/). It seems nothing has changed.
-
You touch on a number of points I've been making over the last few years too.
Kind of getting back to the threads point: I do not think RMU is a good representation of possessing the good of all the RMs and removing the bad from them and creating a unified RM. I think too much of it is just plain new overall to succeed in uniting the customer base. A lot more time should have gone into asking the fan base what they've customized, why, and how. For example; do RM2 users like the RMSS round better? Do the RMSS users like the RM2 profession bonuses better? Does one group like how the skill system works in the other better? And, possibly most importantly, if they (generally speaking) didn't modify it it's probably not broken and if it's not broken...
-
We’ve been diving into these issues over at the Rolemaster blog.com.
Here is my most recent thoughts:
http://www.rolemasterblog.com/rmu-mission-accomplished/
-
You touch on a number of points I've been making over the last few years too.
Kind of getting back to the threads point: I do not think RMU is a good representation of possessing the good of all the RMs and removing the bad from them and creating a unified RM. I think too much of it is just plain new overall to succeed in uniting the customer base. A lot more time should have gone into asking the fan base what they've customized, why, and how. For example; do RM2 users like the RMSS round better? Do the RMSS users like the RM2 profession bonuses better? Does one group like how the skill system works in the other better? And, possibly most importantly, if they (generally speaking) didn't modify it it's probably not broken and if it's not broken...
I don't see RMU as being an attempted union of the two. There is a lot of HARP DNA in there as well. We cannot change where they started from.
The play test seems to be going nowhere. I think something needs to change.
-
I'd actually call it enhanced HARP honestly. It has more in common with that than any RM stuff at this point.
-
I'm hearing, and feeling, frustration. Peter and Adrian have fledgling publishing endeavors plus a number of RM projects they could move on. IntotheDarkness has 3-5 bolt-on modules for RM or RMU for alternative settings. I have a ton of stuff--I can revise, refine and publish 150 docs at $1-$2 per, have several larger projects and a list of future projects.
Honestly, I don't even care about $$. I want to turn this ship around using new market strategies (self publishing, OSR, OL, blah blah), open and cross ecosystem strategies etc. Is that even possible? I have my own opinions--you can read them all on Rolemasterblog.com.
The best strategy? Unleash the creative talent of third party authors via OSL for both RM, RMU and Shadow World. Run every publication through a verified channel like RPGnow. You know what? Players/users that see a stream of new and creative content WILL take a look at the game system.
As a business consultant, business owner and long time entrepreneur in a variety of industries I see a clear path to growth. Growth is scary or at the least unpredictable. We saw that with Shadow World. I get that.
On the other side, the industry has changed. IP holders can allow third party content in a way that doesn't threaten the core brand equity because USERS DON'T EXPECT IT! Not every module will be written by Gygax. Buying third party open license material does not damage a brand. (btw: people still look for Shade of the Sinking Plain..hahahaha...it sucks..I have many copies and 3 still in shrinkwrap).
-
You should look at the amount of activity on Kickstarter for the new Top Secret that's coming out late this month or next month. Amazing stuff for a game that's been out of publication for well over thirty years. And most of their module development is going to be freelance/open source. ICE is missing an opportunity here, I think.
-
I think the market has changed and just finding a middle ground between RM2 and RMSS would not have been a good outcome. The current version of RMU removes some unnecessary, intimidating complexity, like the BAR, or compare the old moving maneuver table (in both RM2 and RMSS) to percentage maneuvers in RMU. Some changes are inevitably going to be matters of opinion, but I do certainly think that a new, naive player is going to have a better experience with RMU (in its finished final state) than they would with RM2 or RMSS. There is more intimidating material in TL and CrL but keep in mind those betas are in an earlier state than the current A&CL and SL betas and it's something that is being addressed.
While I think that Peter R's expectation about the speed with which supplements can be released is unrealistic (at least if we want to maintain system coherency and balance), there's no doubt that supplements can be released much faster than the core. That will to some extent depend on how many people step forward to write for the system, and also to what extent we can revise existing books versus having to write new material (I don't know if there are contractual issues about revision -- to be clear I have zero information and there may be no issue with this), but definitely faster than the core even if it's all new material being written. I think the long public playtest process has been hard on the development team and that may slow things down a bit, only because I suspect not all of those involved will want to turn around and jump right into another book, which is unfortunate, but at the same time I think the core will be better because of the time spent.
-
While I think that Peter R's expectation about the speed with which supplements can be released is unrealistic (at least if we want to maintain system coherency and balance), there's no doubt that supplements can be released much faster than the core. That will to some extent depend on how many people step forward to write for the system, and also to what extent we can revise existing books versus having to write new material (I don't know if there are contractual issues about revision -- to be clear I have zero information and there may be no issue with this), but definitely faster than the core even if it's all new material being written. I think the long public playtest process has been hard on the development team and that may slow things down a bit, only because I suspect not all of those involved will want to turn around and jump right into another book, which is unfortunate, but at the same time I think the core will be better because of the time spent.
I think I have different expectations of what a modern supplement looks like. The way RMU is set up, as long as the race/profession/creature rules are adhered to then balance should not be an issue. It is also my belief that criticals are also being constructed on a points basis. If that is also true then new critical types and tables, which are a firm favourite with many people are balance guaranteed. Creature Law has all the archetypes so new monsters are also going to be kept in balance.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by system coherency in a RM context. If it is ICE's intention not to fill supplements with optional rules, then I applaud that. I personally was never a fan. On the other hand every single GM at some point will change the RAW to fit their game world. RMU is sort of generic by which I mean it still carries much of its DnD heritage forward so is best suited to playing in World of Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms. If by coherency you mean future supplements remaining coherent all past supplements then the onus for that is surely with individual GMs. All supplemental material is optional and GMs should evaluate and use what fits their game and discard the rest.
That last point is another good reason for going towards more frequent, more tightly focused, smaller supplements rather than 100+ page books. If I buy a 25 page supplement on Barbarian Warriors with professions, new weapons with individual weapons tables for new barbarian weapons (I don't even really know culturally who the barbarians were, I am imagining celts or scottish highland warriors and lot so blue woad!) and maybe some new skills to drop into the categories. By making that choice to buy that supplement I know what I am getting. I want barbarians in my game so I buy a $3 book on Barbarians. If I buy a 100+ page supplement that is not clearly themed such as a RM2 companion then chances are 90% of the content will not be used. RMSS supplements look better organised but the bigger and more wide ranging a supplement becomes, such as taking on an entire realm of magic, the less likely the information is going to useful. The chances of you needing Buddhist monks and European paladins and Caribbean Voodoo practitioners all in the same game is slim.
Ironically BHanson plays RM in shadow world and has had to change just about everything to make RM work with the setting. Intothatdarkness plays in a modern setting which is neither fantasy (RM) or science fiction (SM) and has had to change just about everything to make RM work with the setting. I play in the Forgotten Realms and everything works straight out of the box. My customisations are not to bend the game to the setting, it is to make RM faster to play with less record keeping and less dependence on the rule books at the gaming table.
I think there was a long period before you [JDale] became a public spokes person for the beta test that I would have described the RMU play test as one of the worst examples of project management for a games testing that I have ever encountered. The impression I got was of 'dump and run' the pdfs were released and then no one seemed to be coordinating any of the testing and no one seemed to have a plan of action. I may be completely wrong but that was the lasting impression.
I would say that even now it does feel like that there is a lack of impetus.
-
It is also my belief that criticals are also being constructed on a points basis.
I don't know if I have the formula I used anymore, but this is how I created the critical tables in the Channeling Companion.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by system coherency in a RM context. If it is ICE's intention not to fill supplements with optional rules, then I applaud that. I personally was never a fan. On the other hand every single GM at some point will change the RAW to fit their game world.
I think the optional rules are an effort to appease both the RM2 and RMSS camps and do complicate RMU, which somewhat contradicts JDales first two sentences in his last post. Existing RM users will do as you say, eventually create their own optional rules anyhow, and new players don't need that complication. Again, who is it really aimed at?
That last point is another good reason for going towards more frequent, more tightly focused, smaller supplements rather than 100+ page books.
I figured this is what was coloring your statements about the amount of material being put out by other systems. RM was, originally, intended to be integrated with other systems and eventually grew into a full system of it's own. I think taking a somewhat similar approach again could be good, which would benefit from what you say here I think. The only danger would be ensuring there are no unintended balance issues when combining all the various minor works.
I think there was a long period before you [JDale] became a public spokes person for the beta test that I would have described the RMU play test as one of the worst examples of project management for a games testing that I have ever encountered. The impression I got was of 'dump and run' the pdfs were released and then no one seemed to be coordinating any of the testing and no one seemed to have a plan of action. I may be completely wrong but that was the lasting impression.
I would say that even now it does feel like that there is a lack of impetus.
Oh yes. Much feedback being provided was, and likely still is (I have stopped paying attention partially due to it), invalid because the 'testers' were not using the material as-is. There are individuals that would vehemently argue something was wrong only for us to find out they had intentionally applied some of their own house rules, pretty much completely nullifying the results. To be blunt there's a small handful of people that post regularly whos feedback I would be willing to trust without much concern.
-
Oh yes. Much feedback being provided was, and likely still is (I have stopped paying attention partially due to it), invalid because the 'testers' were not using the material as-is. There are individuals that would vehemently argue something was wrong only for us to find out they had intentionally applied some of their own house rules, pretty much completely nullifying the results. To be blunt there's a small handful of people that post regularly whos feedback I would be willing to trust without much concern.
[/quote
My personal play testing didn't really start until last year by which time jdales new tables were and they did make a big difference. There are many different types of broken though. Whilst combat worked; the feedback that I got, and I agree with, was that it [combat] was not fun. That sort of feedback then is really hard to quantify. In the early days I could only really test character creation as none of my players were interested in playing it having read the rules. Mind you it took me years to get them to move from RM2 to RMC and they still grumble when they fail a skill test with anything between 101 and 110 which would have succeeded under the RM2 rules. There is no helping some people!
-
I think the market has changed and just finding a middle ground between RM2 and RMSS would not have been a good outcome. The current version of RMU removes some unnecessary, intimidating complexity, like the BAR, or compare the old moving maneuver table (in both RM2 and RMSS) to percentage maneuvers in RMU. Some changes are inevitably going to be matters of opinion, but I do certainly think that a new, naive player is going to have a better experience with RMU (in its finished final state) than they would with RM2 or RMSS. There is more intimidating material in TL and CrL but keep in mind those betas are in an earlier state than the current A&CL and SL betas and it's something that is being addressed.
I agree that some complexity was taken out of the system. And that is a good thing. Still my biggest concern is with character creation and character creation will in many cases be the first thing new players will get to know of RMU. And, from the experience I had with my test characters, I had the impression that it now takes considerably longer to create a usable RMU character than it took to create a RM2 (sans optional rules and companions) and also longer than it took to create a RMSS/RMFRP character. The simple reason is that now a player has to do the old character creation for level 1 and then level up the new character two times more until it is at level 3, which is the suggested starting level. My fear is that people will shy away from a system which on the one hand requires so much preparation time for the first play session and then is also a quite deadly system.
-
My fear is that people will shy away from a system which on the one hand requires so much preparation time for the first play session and then is also a quite deadly system.
Anyone remember that character creation is one of the things RM critics picked on? Even if the new system, as a whole, is less complex (which I am not remotely convinced of) if people don't get past character creation it's a moot point.
-
Interestingly, the post I have just put up on the rolemasterblog is related to both character creation and game customisation.
http://www.rolemasterblog.com/thought-experiment-part-one-two/ (http://www.rolemasterblog.com/thought-experiment-part-one-two/)
If anyone has time to create a starting character at any time this week could you take a look?
-
I house-rule based on the campaign we are trying to play. But, none of the games use the rules of any version of RM in their entirety, and I have some core concepts that carry over from campaign to campaign. I'm of the same mind as Cory- now that I have built my own core rules I will likely never "upgrade" because for me it's not an upgrade. I also try and re-interpret the rules as written as often as I can rather than add whole new rules.
That said- setting material is always welcome and should be continued area of focus for ICE (probably more so than a new version of RM in some ways)
-
I house-rule based on the campaign we are trying to play. But, none of the games use the rules of any version of RM in their entirety, and I have some core concepts that carry over from campaign to campaign. I'm of the same mind as Cory- now that I have built my own core rules I will likely never "upgrade" because for me it's not an upgrade. I also try and re-interpret the rules as written as often as I can rather than add whole new rules.
That said- setting material is always welcome and should be continued area of focus for ICE (probably more so than a new version of RM in some ways)
As I said above every experienced GM should mould the rules around the setting. If you have current house rules about character creation could I nudge you to take a look at my little experiment?
-
My fear is that people will shy away from a system which on the one hand requires so much preparation time for the first play session and then is also a quite deadly system.
Anyone remember that character creation is one of the things RM critics picked on? Even if the new system, as a whole, is less complex (which I am not remotely convinced of) if people don't get past character creation it's a moot point.
Sure, but that doesn't mean your first level character should be unplayable. And we had that happen during playtest. Sorry...any system that forces you to develop to level three or five in order to be playable is broken. I agree RMU character creation isn't less complex than RM2, especially if you went RAW and ignored most of the Companion stuff.
-
This is very true. The main reason I never went to any newer version of RM from RM2 was the amount of money I had already invested in the game.
I always wondered why the RM2 people never took the RMSS train. I never played RM2, only RMSS, but from what I heard since, RMSS seems to have improved the game on a lot of core areas.
I'm curious to know if the majority of people hold onto RM2 because of their "investment" in the game at that point or if it is because the rules were so different that they chose to continue playing the game they were accustomed to.
My own opinion on RMSS can be summarized by a quote sometimes attributed to Samuel Johnson, supposedly when reviewing a book for publication: "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."
-
Sure, but that doesn't mean your first level character should be unplayable. And we had that happen during playtest. Sorry...any system that forces you to develop to level three or five in order to be playable is broken. I agree RMU character creation isn't less complex than RM2, especially if you went RAW and ignored most of the Companion stuff.
That's why I really like the idea we were discussing on the RMBlog. There should be an option for quick character creation, especially for the playtest (but also for the final game for those that want it). Each class has a 'standard build' at level 1, which uses all 60 development points. So if you choose this quick build option, all you do is pick race and class, roll for stats (unless you just want to take a 'standard array'), and you're ready to play. Only at level 2 do you start buying skills individually. This is similar to the way DnD works now, in order to walk players through the creation process: only at level 2 do you start to choose customization options.
Note I am not suggesting this should be the default rule in RMU; I personally will still want to allot every single development point by hand. But I know players in my group would be happy to just be able to pick race and class and start playing, if they had that option. So I think it is good as an optional rule, and essential for a playtest packet.
-
The bit that Hurin is referring to is way down in the comments. The comment was by BriH http://www.rolemasterblog.com/well-sir-wouldnt-start/#comment-1521 (http://www.rolemasterblog.com/well-sir-wouldnt-start/#comment-1521) that is a direct link but I would suggest that you read the whole kit and caboodle just because strangely the discussion Cory and I were having above was running in parallel on the blog.
http://www.rolemasterblog.com/well-sir-wouldnt-start/
If you really have too much time on your hands that post was actually my response to one of BriH's earlier posts which you can read first... here... http://www.rolemasterblog.com/rmu-mission-accomplished/ (http://www.rolemasterblog.com/rmu-mission-accomplished/)
This whole thing then started my train of thought that lead to my experiment than I mentioned above.
-
A lot of good discussion going on here
With all that being said, I can see why RM as a game system may have appeared overly complex or just plain scary to new players (in the past or even now) as we are ourselves, as veteran RM players, unable to agree on which version to use.
A new player coming to the forum for info won't be able to decide if he should invest ($$$) in RMC or RMSS for example as we are so much divided. He may then decide to just try another game system instead.
That is what I think ICE aims to achieve with RMU by promoting it heavily (when ready) and by discontinuing past editions completely.
ICE probably knows that the success of RMU will depend on getting new players to play it and not by having "old timers" such as ourselves converting to it.
But this is only my educated guess ... who knows what really is ICE's strategy behind it all (if any).
-
A lot of good discussion going on here
With all that being said, I can see why RM as a game system may have appeared overly complex or just plain scary to new players (in the past or even now) as we are ourselves, as veteran RM players, unable to agree on which version to use.
A new player coming to the forum for info won't be able to decide if he should invest ($$$) in RMC or RMSS for example as we are so much divided. He may then decide to just try another game system instead.
That is what I think ICE aims to achieve with RMU by promoting it heavily (when ready) and by discontinuing past editions completely.
ICE probably knows that the success of RMU will depend on getting new players to play it and not by having "old timers" such as ourselves converting to it.
But this is only my educated guess ... who knows what really is ICE's strategy behind it all (if any).
I would go so far as to suggest that we are nothing more than an insurance policy. If RMU does not gain substantial numbers of new players then they will need the existing user base. We, however, are not the future.
-
I don't think you can reach new players without having old players to carry the torch to them. If you don't care about that, you create a new game with a new name. ICE has, of course, already done that with HARP, and it would be pointless to try to repeat that strategy with RM.
-
I don't think you can reach new players without having old players to carry the torch to them. If you don't care about that, you create a new game with a new name. ICE has, of course, already done that with HARP, and it would be pointless to try to repeat that strategy with RM.
Does that work? I think in 30+ years I have introduced 2 new GMs to RM. I am pretty much still playing with the same group I started out with in the 80s. Even the blog mostly preaches to the converted despite my best efforts. Granted I am a statistical sample of just 1 and I may be statistically abnormal, that wouldn't surprise me either way.
It sounds like a pretty big cohort of existing players do not intend to migrate to RMU at least until there is more supporting material available, if at all. That leaves some slim pickings if you want to rely on word of mouth recommendations.
-
None of the players in our existing RM games had played RM previously. Mind you, some of them have now been playing RM for a long time, and some of them joined us recently.
There was a time when I bought new games just because I thought they were interesting, way more of them than I ever actually played. But that was a long time ago. Do you think most people adopt a new system now because of a random encounter with it on a shelf in a store, or based just on social media exposure?
-
I don't think you can reach new players without having old players to carry the torch to them. If you don't care about that, you create a new game with a new name. ICE has, of course, already done that with HARP, and it would be pointless to try to repeat that strategy with RM.
How did RM become popular in the first place? Granted, MERP can be pointed at, but it's really a 'Light' version of RM2/RMSS and without such an obvious beacon would it have reached one of the top RPG's of its time back then?
The existing customer base hasn't been pulling in enough people for a long time. What makes you think they will now?
None of the players in our existing RM games had played RM previously. Mind you, some of them have now been playing RM for a long time, and some of them joined us recently.
We have the same story really. We were very experienced RPGers and actively went looking for an alternative to D&D. However, firstly, how common is that today in a younger demographic? Secondly, when long time RPG gamers see a new RM is out, and start making the same comments about it they did before, what then? Nothing has changed in this scenario except that we're all older.
There was a time when I bought new games just because I thought they were interesting, way more of them than I ever actually played. But that was a long time ago. Do you think most people adopt a new system now because of a random encounter with it on a shelf in a store, or based just on social media exposure?
RPG web sites and Social Media (maybe you're lumping those together) and maybe true game stores.
-
If existing RM players and GMs do not move to RMU until there is a lot of support material, then where is the support material going to come from? The money is not there to put employees on the job, or that would have been done for the core game, which would have then been done much sooner. The support material must be written by freelancers. Experienced RM GMs revising material to the new edition are the most promising source for those freelancers.
-
This is the dilemma RM faces. You pretty much just described what happened from RM2 to RMSS aside from the core books. RM is still in the same situation it was back then (or worse), it's just now being run by people with better business morals.
I will say that I trust the new ICE to actually pay people the royalties they are owed. Most the RMSS material was written under the promise of getting paid more (but then they didn't actually GET paid by the old ICE). The problem this brings is that you need people that can create good material do so and not have it aimed at a specific personal viewpoint of RM while understanding they are mostly doing it for the love of it or the exposure (and you're not going to get a professional to do something free for mere exposure).
If I either had the spare time to dedicate to this kind of thing, or the ability to live off the income doing it full time, I'd still be writing for more than just my own groups consumption. I also do very enthusiastically encourage those with the ability to do so to write for RM and ICE in general.
But RM is in the same position it was before and I'm not so sure the current path is different enough to expect better results.
-
None of the players in our existing RM games had played RM previously. Mind you, some of them have now been playing RM for a long time, and some of them joined us recently.
There was a time when I bought new games just because I thought they were interesting, way more of them than I ever actually played. But that was a long time ago. Do you think most people adopt a new system now because of a random encounter with it on a shelf in a store, or based just on social media exposure?
If you followed #RPGaDAY2017 the question asked on 3rd of August was How do you find out about new RPGs?
If you search for that day's answers then you will have the answer to where people find out about new games.
In the 80s I would buy games, more games than I ever played.
In the 90s I didn't buy any games at all, I was busy with family, kids and work.
In the Noughties (2000-2009) I mainly bought or downloaded 'Lite' versions of games and normally for free.
In the Teenies (2010 to present) I download pdf quickstart packs. Theses are always free and everything I need to get up and playing inside an hour. I can then play and keep or play and bin. I select those quickstart downloads based upon the recommendations of bloggers I have come to trust.
The only full games I have bought the rules for in the past 10 years have been a complete re-buy of RMC and all the HARP books.
-
If existing RM players and GMs do not move to RMU until there is a lot of support material, then where is the support material going to come from? The money is not there to put employees on the job, or that would have been done for the core game, which would have then been done much sooner. The support material must be written by freelancers. Experienced RM GMs revising material to the new edition are the most promising source for those freelancers.
This is the dilemma RM faces. You pretty much just described what happened from RM2 to RMSS aside from the core books. RM is still in the same situation it was back then (or worse), it's just now being run by people with better business morals.
I will say that I trust the new ICE to actually pay people the royalties they are owed. Most the RMSS material was written under the promise of getting paid more (but then they didn't actually GET paid by the old ICE). The problem this brings is that you need people that can create good material do so and not have it aimed at a specific personal viewpoint of RM while understanding they are mostly doing it for the love of it or the exposure (and you're not going to get a professional to do something free for mere exposure).
If I either had the spare time to dedicate to this kind of thing, or the ability to live off the income doing it full time, I'd still be writing for more than just my own groups consumption. I also do very enthusiastically encourage those with the ability to do so to write for RM and ICE in general.
But RM is in the same position it was before and I'm not so sure the current path is different enough to expect better results.
The answer to both of these probably lies in changing the business model. There are a body of developers queuing up so produce new content for RMU, and all the existing versions if that was desirable but ICE is a closed system. I am talking about Community Created Content programmes. ICE open up just enough of their intellectual property so that independent developers can produce adventures or supplements for the games. The programme is administered via sites like OneBookShelf and they take 30% of the sales figure but do all the fulfilment. The developer gets 50% of the sales value and ICE get 20% for effectively doing nothing but also retain ultimate editorial control. They can block any product that does not meet their criteria.
They do not have to read and approve everything, they can be purely responsive and act of anything flagged by users. OBS have their own content guidelines that prevent 'bad stuff' being published.
As an example Cypher System is owned by Monte Cook Games. Cypher System products are being released by 15 different publishers in addition to Monte Cook Games. In addition to that all the independents can publish their own content under the Monte Cook Games banner. This week along I have sold supplements for John Wick Presents (7th Sea), Mongoose (Traveller) and Monte Cook Games (Cypher System). In addition to that I have sold supplements for generic/no system but the branded ones are by far the best sellers.
We (the blog crew) have 50 adventures we are queuing up to publish. They are being sold as generic/no system because we cannot add monster stats, NPC details or spells for Rolemaster because of IP issues. We cannot write an adventure for Shadow World because we are not allowed even if it was intended to take place in a no name little village in the back end of nowhere and have no repercussions for anyone more influential than a pig farmer.
In the rolemaster world there is tumbleweed blowing across deserted plains where all the creative content should be. Many other systems by contrast a bustling hives of creativity.
Have a look at this comment from the blog last week. It actually refers to Cory and I posting earlier.
egdcltd
OCTOBER 8, 2017 AT 8:51 AM EDIT
There was discussion in the thread on the ICE forums about Paizo being a lot bigger (it is; only Wizards looks bigger) and ICE being solely dependent on freelancers. One thing that seemed to be overlooked is that, although Paizo do have permanent staff, a lot of their work is written by freelancers. Owen K.C. Stevens (who is on the Starfinder team) runs Rogue Genius Games, as well as doing stuff for Rite Publishing and Green Ronin. Greg A. Vaughan, who has written a lot of adventure path modules (he may still have written one adventure for each path) is also the Creative Director: Pathfinder for Frog God Games. Heck, for the last couple of months I have hired a freelancer who has published works for Paizo!
...egdcltd has released 146 supplements
-
Sorry, I was too late to modify my previous post...
Check out http://www.rpgnow.com/browse/pub/6582/Azukail-Games?affiliate_id=730903&src=ICEForum (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse/pub/6582/Azukail-Games?affiliate_id=730903&src=ICEForum)
The most interesting thing is that there is an entire section on Pathfinder and a section on Hero Kids, but sadly no Rolemaster section.
-
I really really think that Rolemaster is intended to be a do it yourself game. All the GMs I know, includind myself, work on rules and variations almost as much as in preparing new campaigns... And I think that´s the way it should be
-
I will be delving into RMU when it comes out with the hopes that I can get whatever players I have at the time to try it out for a few sessions.
I will of course use it as is at first then as we play see if anything needs house rules.
I currently play HARP and have several house rules for. Most of it minor stuff that to me do not affect balance or mechanics that much. An example would be that the Magestaff spell from the Thaumaturge list is also a mage spell. I do have rules for what I call Action Marks (similar to bennies) and I have my own combat system which is in complete revision as we speak. It is sort of a combination of the RM crit tables and HARP's simplified combat system. But it works quite well. I am currently trying to find a way to get the crit system to work faster but still be variable and interesting.
I'd be curious to see what things different people like and dislike about the new RMU system. But not here.
-
I really really think that Rolemaster is intended to be a do it yourself game. All the GMs I know, includind myself, work on rules and variations almost as much as in preparing new campaigns... And I think that´s the way it should be
Not if they want to sell a lot of copies. The shift in the industry has been away from the house-ruling style, and more to the "just play" style. Meaning, more and more RPGers are wanting to do nothing but sit down and start play as fast as possible. They don't even want to take more than a few minutes to make a character. Everything that is not play is considered "work", and thusly, not fun and they don't want to do it.
And, they need to get this thing done already. It has been what, 10 years in the making? That about right? I, a die-hard Rolemaster fan am getting seriously disillusioned and frustrated, and if it takes much longer, I may not even bother getting it when it (if it) finally does come out. The longer it takes, less more I believe it is not happening.
-
I really really think that Rolemaster is intended to be a do it yourself game. All the GMs I know, includind myself, work on rules and variations almost as much as in preparing new campaigns... And I think that´s the way it should be
Not if they want to sell a lot of copies. The shift in the industry has been away from the house-ruling style, and more to the "just play" style. Meaning, more and more RPGers are wanting to do nothing but sit down and start play as fast as possible. They don't even want to take more than a few minutes to make a character. Everything that is not play is considered "work", and thusly, not fun and they don't want to do it.
I agree that in order to attract new players, the system must absolutely be playable as is without having to houserule core features such as character creation or combat.
When I was young, I was thrilled to pass hours upon hours thinking how to tweak the rules and coming with my own way of doing things ... now I much prefer to have other people do it for me (others as in a gaming company I paid money for their products)
-
I don' think that the mark of a "great" or even a "good" game, any game, any format is... "I can't wait to house rule it to make it work." If I buy a game, I want it working out of the box. I don't want to have to wait for a patch, a fix, late-post-beta testing, or a Day-0-fix.
If I plunk down cash for RMU, I don't want to house rule it before I can play it.
Obviously just my 2c on the topic. I can see later on down the road, something's not quite right or it doesn't fit well with your group and you make a small house rule, but it shouldn't be a day-0 house rule.
After 30+ years of RM2, we have simplified initiative to something I don't think appears in any Companion (House Rule 1), and for Hobbies, we allow players to cut the DP cost of two digits for a skill or skills (House Rule 2). Since we start all players at level 5, that method makes a more balanced PC rather than "4 ranks and 2 ranks" in skills and due to the number of optional skills available from all the Companions, the lower cost in DPs allows players to grab some of those new skills.
Starting players at Level 5 isn't really a house rule, we just like to start at a slightly higher PC level. The weekend campaign I'm running, I'm starting players at level 1 on Friday, but there will be 4-5 one-offs that will have the players all at level 5 by Saturday morning to get into the Grand Campaign.
30+ years RM2 ---> Two (arguably three) house rules
We limit all magic to only Elemental Companion. Could that be a considered a house rule or it's just the magic that exists in our gaming world?
-
I have a tendency to agree with RandalThor in the assessment of how complicated modern game systems tend to be.
My house rules tend to be about removing things from the game and making the things that remain do more work.
I have removed professions, levels, experience points and for the most part development points. I also use a slimmed down combat system.
In any game if I cannot fit an important NPC's character sheet on a post-it note then the character sheet is probably too complicated.
I have said it before but rolemaster feels like it is designed by engineers for engineers but is actually played by people from all walks of life. We may appreciate the overall structure but to be honest I don't need to see and marvel over individual nuts and bolts.
-
I am big on streamlining rules.
Complexity is only worth it if its manageable as a GM.
I now have the largest group of players ever which is why its important that combat is easy to run and pretty quick to resolve. many of my house rules have been for combat.
I use a hybrid combat system that is somewhere in between standard rolemaster combat rules and super fast combat resolution. we use macros on roll20 which speeds up dice calculations to instant speed :)
-
My online play is all non-real time on rpol so speed is not as important. I use the condensed combat system from the Combat Companion. I can run entire combats from a single page with attack tables and criticals all on the same page.
-
I am big on streamlining rules.
Complexity is only worth it if its manageable as a GM.
I now have the largest group of players ever which is why its important that combat is easy to run and pretty quick to resolve. many of my house rules have been for combat.
I use a hybrid combat system that is somewhere in between standard rolemaster combat rules and super fast combat resolution. we use macros on roll20 which speeds up dice calculations to instant speed :)
My fear is that people will shy away from a system which on the one hand requires so much preparation time for the first play session and then is also a quite deadly system.
Anyone remember that character creation is one of the things RM critics picked on? Even if the new system, as a whole, is less complex (which I am not remotely convinced of) if people don't get past character creation it's a moot point.
There is a section of the video below (skip forward to about 4 minutes) which very clearly sets out what appears to be a very common view about game complexity and simulation vs. narrative. All flavours of RM including RMU are very firmly in the simulation camp in my opinion and it takes quite an effort on the part of the GM to rebalance the game to shift the emphasis towards narrative centric play..
https://youtu.be/27vYSQrhxR4 (https://youtu.be/27vYSQrhxR4)
-
Yeah, but watch that video through minute 7 and tell me if that's how you want combat to work. I don't think so. If I wanted that kind of game, I could go play Everway or something that doesn't waste time with rules at all.
RM definitely had more complexity than it needed, and we trimmed off some of that, but RM's niche is at the simulationist end of the spectrum and it doesn't make sense to abandon that in favor of copying what other games have done. The question has to be which detail and complexity enhances play and which does not. Some of that detail inherently creates narrative, e.g. if your character has decided to go check the door while the fight is going on, actually having rules about movement and engagement determine whether you are at risk in a way that the rules don't if you throw away the map and just put your figure on the goblin card or the door card.
-
I have said it before but rolemaster feels like it is designed by engineers for engineers but is actually played by people from all walks of life. We may appreciate the overall structure but to be honest I don't need to see and marvel over individual nuts and bolts.
Now, if only these "RPG Engineers" would do with the rest of the game what they did with the Attack Tables; build all the crunch into the background where the Players/GMs don't have to fiddle with it (unless they want to). You know what I mean? The Attack Tables have all these factors built into them, but all we have to do is roll the dice and look at the (correct) table, simple.
Of course, I have no idea how to do that - but then again, I am not an engineer (of any sort).
-
Yeah, but watch that video through minute 7 and tell me if that's how you want combat to work. I don't think so. If I wanted that kind of game, I could go play Everway or something that doesn't waste time with rules at all.
RM definitely had more complexity than it needed, and we trimmed off some of that, but RM's niche is at the simulationist end of the spectrum and it doesn't make sense to abandon that in favor of copying what other games have done. The question has to be which detail and complexity enhances play and which does not. Some of that detail inherently creates narrative, e.g. if your character has decided to go check the door while the fight is going on, actually having rules about movement and engagement determine whether you are at risk in a way that the rules don't if you throw away the map and just put your figure on the goblin card or the door card.
Oh I totally agree, I wouldn't play rolemaster if I wanted to pick a few cards and to hell with the rest but what I found interesting was how far people are prepared to swing away from the simulationist way. I personally feel it is a dumbing down of the game but many people like it.
-
There is a section of the video below (skip forward to about 4 minutes) which very clearly sets out what appears to be a very common view about game complexity and simulation vs. narrative. All flavours of RM including RMU are very firmly in the simulation camp in my opinion and it takes quite an effort on the part of the GM to rebalance the game to shift the emphasis towards narrative centric play..
The disconnect I have with what that video is saying is that I do not use maps like that. For me, maps are guides not detailed like he shows. Not that people don't, of course, it is just that I don't, even though I consider myself a simulationist style player. I feel that the combat round has to have some level of abstraction, which makes detailed movement like that impossible to do - it just doesn't make sense to me to have such detail, but then claim other parts as abstract.
Plus, I really don't like to have a bunch of special stuff to play the game - it is enough needing the books, dice and the rest of the regular stuff. I will use props from time-to-time, but those are not needed, just to enhance the regular experience. (Stuff like images for people, places and things.)
-
My system is probably RM2 based but with so many changes house rules and grabs from other RM systems that I have set up my own rule books
-
There is a section of the video below (skip forward to about 4 minutes) which very clearly sets out what appears to be a very common view about game complexity and simulation vs. narrative. All flavours of RM including RMU are very firmly in the simulation camp in my opinion and it takes quite an effort on the part of the GM to rebalance the game to shift the emphasis towards narrative centric play..
The disconnect I have with what that video is saying is that I do not use maps like that. For me, maps are guides not detailed like he shows. Not that people don't, of course, it is just that I don't, even though I consider myself a simulationist style player. I feel that the combat round has to have some level of abstraction, which makes detailed movement like that impossible to do - it just doesn't make sense to me to have such detail, but then claim other parts as abstract.
Plus, I really don't like to have a bunch of special stuff to play the game - it is enough needing the books, dice and the rest of the regular stuff. I will use props from time-to-time, but those are not needed, just to enhance the regular experience. (Stuff like images for people, places and things.)
I think I am very much like you. I don't use minis or battle maps but then I also really try and avoid using rules for strategic movement. I may ask for a MM roll if the situation calls for it but I don't think I have ever measured a distance, foe example, to see exactly what amount of someones activity was used. The excitement of the encounter trumps all and for me things like movement rates I probably have 3 speeds, sneaking around, walking and running. Everything else is too much hassle.
-
I think I am very much like you. I don't use minis or battle maps but then I also really try and avoid using rules for strategic movement. I may ask for a MM roll if the situation calls for it but I don't think I have ever measured a distance, foe example, to see exactly what amount of someones activity was used. The excitement of the encounter trumps all and for me things like movement rates I probably have 3 speeds, sneaking around, walking and running. Everything else is too much hassle.
Same here. I very rarely use maps. I like it to be theatre of the mind as much as possible. I may give a very rough "5-year-old's" rough drawing with circles and squares just to clarify where people are standing in relationship to one another or buildings, but I never put distances or draw to scale. People are "... about 8'-10' from the wall..., ...the Orc is about 6' to your left and the goblin is about 5' to your right..." I don't use minis at all.
If a group is exploring a dungeon, I'll have the "map keeper" roll his Cartography skill (maybe Direction Sense if he has it), and I'll draw out the map for him based on his rolls. If he rolls poorly, his map is way off. If he rolls well, then the map is more accurate. The return trips to the dungeon or if he gives the map to another group is a lot of fun. Hey... want a more accurate map??? Get better at map making!
-
The sorcerer player insists on making accurate maps, carries copper plates for etching them and has the skills. The party call him trapfinder as he has set off just about everything going while pacing out the dimensions of a room.
-
The sorcerer player insists on making accurate maps, carries copper plates for etching them and has the skills. The party call him trapfinder as he has set off just about everything going while pacing out the dimensions of a room.
Awesome!! Reminds me of my sister's thief character. If she could disarm the trap, she would just set it off.
-
I think I am very much like you. I don't use minis or battle maps but then I also really try and avoid using rules for strategic movement. I may ask for a MM roll if the situation calls for it but I don't think I have ever measured a distance, foe example, to see exactly what amount of someones activity was used. The excitement of the encounter trumps all and for me things like movement rates I probably have 3 speeds, sneaking around, walking and running. Everything else is too much hassle.
Same here. I very rarely use maps. I like it to be theatre of the mind as much as possible. I may give a very rough "5-year-old's" rough drawing with circles and squares just to clarify where people are standing in relationship to one another or buildings, but I never put distances or draw to scale. People are "... about 8'-10' from the wall..., ...the Orc is about 6' to your left and the goblin is about 5' to your right..." I don't use minis at all.
If a group is exploring a dungeon, I'll have the "map keeper" roll his Cartography skill (maybe Direction Sense if he has it), and I'll draw out the map for him based on his rolls. If he rolls poorly, his map is way off. If he rolls well, then the map is more accurate. The return trips to the dungeon or if he gives the map to another group is a lot of fun. Hey... want a more accurate map??? Get better at map making!
cool! love it
-
Playing on roll20 lends itself to using more visuals. maps but also pictures of npcs and some background music and sound effects as well. This is all gravy and just extra stuff you can use to your own tastes really. ive been using roll20 for 3yrs now and when i started the maps were all i used.
Last adventure we played the party faced this huge wolf creature and i had endless fun using a howling wolf sound effect when it attacked and also when it died.
-
Playing on roll20 lends itself to using more visuals. maps but also pictures of npcs and some background music and sound effects as well. This is all gravy and just extra stuff you can use to your own tastes really. ive been using roll20 for 3yrs now and when i started the maps were all i used.
Last adventure we played the party faced this huge wolf creature and i had endless fun using a howling wolf sound effect when it attacked and also when it died.
That's really cool. I've been looking into something online now. If this weekend campaign takes off, maybe I can get it to continue during the year with something online. We'll have a weekend session once or twice a year.
-
Playing on roll20 lends itself to using more visuals. maps but also pictures of npcs and some background music and sound effects as well. This is all gravy and just extra stuff you can use to your own tastes really. ive been using roll20 for 3yrs now and when i started the maps were all i used.
Last adventure we played the party faced this huge wolf creature and i had endless fun using a howling wolf sound effect when it attacked and also when it died.
That's really cool. I've been looking into something online now. If this weekend campaign takes off, maybe I can get it to continue during the year with something online. We'll have a weekend session once or twice a year.
i highly recommend roll20 if u havent used it yet. the basics are pretty easy to master (i not a big IT guy at all) and then when u get the hang of it you can add extra stuff like macro's for dice rolling (these are pre programmed so you can make an attack and add OB automatically for example). Because i have moved away from weapons tables i can also use macro programmed dice for weapon damage (i use super fast combat system from RMCIII) and its pretty fast.
you have to invest 50-100hrs in roll20 before you can start to use it at its potential but even the basics is good when u start.
my rolemaster campaign is played annually for 5-6 weeks so there is a long break between 'seasons'. for this reason i keep extensive online notes on roll20 with info about plot, pcs, npcs etc. its a bit of notekeeping but no more than u would do with standrad rpg imo.
-
...but RM's niche is at the simulationist end of the spectrum and it doesn't make sense to abandon that in favor of copying what other games have done.
Kinda goes back to who is this aimed at. I think the question that needs to be asked there is; Does today's potential audience want that? Old RM users, pretty obvious they do. It seems more and more obvious RMU is not to be aimed at new users. I don't think it'll be able to back track to them either. So maybe HARP, or something else, is seen as filling that.
-
I think I am very much like you. I don't use minis or battle maps but then I also really try and avoid using rules for strategic movement. I may ask for a MM roll if the situation calls for it but I don't think I have ever measured a distance, foe example, to see exactly what amount of someones activity was used. The excitement of the encounter trumps all and for me things like movement rates I probably have 3 speeds, sneaking around, walking and running. Everything else is too much hassle.
Sounds like some of you would like the new Star Wars system. Generic version is coming out very soon too.
-
I think I am very much like you. I don't use minis or battle maps but then I also really try and avoid using rules for strategic movement. I may ask for a MM roll if the situation calls for it but I don't think I have ever measured a distance, foe example, to see exactly what amount of someones activity was used. The excitement of the encounter trumps all and for me things like movement rates I probably have 3 speeds, sneaking around, walking and running. Everything else is too much hassle.
Sounds like some of you would like the new Star Wars system. Generic version is coming out very soon too.
The only thing that I am completely addicted to are rolemaster criticals. Any system that doesn't off them is not for me.
-
I think I am very much like you. I don't use minis or battle maps but then I also really try and avoid using rules for strategic movement. I may ask for a MM roll if the situation calls for it but I don't think I have ever measured a distance, foe example, to see exactly what amount of someones activity was used. The excitement of the encounter trumps all and for me things like movement rates I probably have 3 speeds, sneaking around, walking and running. Everything else is too much hassle.
Sounds like some of you would like the new Star Wars system. Generic version is coming out very soon too.
The only thing that I am completely addicted to are rolemaster criticals. Any system that doesn't off them is not for me.
they are a unique feature for sure and tbh were what i loved about the game when i first discovered it.
to counter slow combat resolution i have reduced the frequency they occur. i know this seems counter intuitive because some crits actually speed up the demise of combatants but in general having fewer criticals smooths out combats involving 6+ combatants.
I have reworked the skill of ambush to increase the odds of criticals happening but this skill requires some setting up to pull off and in my campaign ambushes typically happen at night or with the aid of certain terrain which imo makes the skill balanced.
-
To speed up combat I used the condensed combat system. This uses one table for all similar weapons, so all swords are on the same page but with pluses and minuses verses specific ATs. The critical table is on the same page as are the most common OB mods. I can run an entire combat with everything on one page. As I have printed off the combat pages I rearely need more than two pages for any fight so I can have them facing each other in a folder and never have to turn a page or refer to another book for the entire fight.
Another advantage is that the critical are written for specific weapons so you do not have slash/puncture/krush criticals any more you have sword/arrow/war hammer criticals such as
Stabbing down as hard as you can you drive your blade
behind his collar bone. +12 hits, bleeding 3 hits per rnd, -20
to all actions and stunned no parry 1 rnd.
Your strike hacks deep into his thigh but stops at the bone.
+13 hits, bleeding 4 hits/rnd and stunned no parry for 1 rnd.
The arrow head stabs into his hip and the arrow juts out at an
odd angle, quivering. +10 hits, bleeding 4 hits/rnd and
stunned no parry 1 rnd.
The end of your weapon goes right through his guard and
knocks the wind out of him. +13 hits, stunned for 3 rnds and
unable to parry for 1 rnd.
All of those criticals are for exactly the same roll on the chart but for different types of weapon.
-
This uses one table for all similar weapons, so all swords are on the same page but with pluses and minuses verses specific ATs.
I like doing this also, it greatly limits the amount of page-flipping, which slows down combat. As I don't like the players having the attack and crit tables themselves I have to have access to everything I need for the battle. So, limiting the number of tables is nice. I am generally able to have all the attack tables printed and hanging from the GM screen so in sight all the time, with the crit tables on the table right there also, so they are easily and quickly able to be checked if needed.
The only thing I miss from this is the fact that some weapons can have different crits, such as the broadsword being able to do both slashing and krush, depending upon the hit. Not sure how to "fix" this except to just once in a while use a different critical type for flavor.
-
I have the weapon attack tables and crit tables photocopied. I pull out the tables I need based on the weapons the players have. It speeds things up for me tremendously. I had thought of giving the players the copies of the table to assist e, but I also don't want them to have the attack tables but I also don't want them to know what the DB is for my baddies, or when the baddies are parrying.
-
I think I am very much like you. I don't use minis or battle maps but then I also really try and avoid using rules for strategic movement. I may ask for a MM roll if the situation calls for it but I don't think I have ever measured a distance, foe example, to see exactly what amount of someones activity was used. The excitement of the encounter trumps all and for me things like movement rates I probably have 3 speeds, sneaking around, walking and running. Everything else is too much hassle.
Sounds like some of you would like the new Star Wars system. Generic version is coming out very soon too.
The only thing that I am completely addicted to are rolemaster criticals. Any system that doesn't off them is not for me.
The new Fantasy Flight Star Wars RPG has something akin to them.
I really didn't think I'd be enthusiastic to play an RPG aside from Rolemaster, but the new Star Wars system has done it.
Mind you, I'm still a Rolemaster fun, but I'll happily play the Stars Wars RPG too now.
-
I think I am very much like you. I don't use minis or battle maps but then I also really try and avoid using rules for strategic movement. I may ask for a MM roll if the situation calls for it but I don't think I have ever measured a distance, foe example, to see exactly what amount of someones activity was used. The excitement of the encounter trumps all and for me things like movement rates I probably have 3 speeds, sneaking around, walking and running. Everything else is too much hassle.
Sounds like some of you would like the new Star Wars system. Generic version is coming out very soon too.
The only thing that I am completely addicted to are rolemaster criticals. Any system that doesn't off them is not for me.
The new Fantasy Flight Star Wars RPG has something akin to them.
I really didn't think I'd be enthusiastic to play an RPG aside from Rolemaster, but the new Star Wars system has done it.
Mind you, I'm still a Rolemaster fun, but I'll happily play the Stars Wars RPG too now.
Doesn't that feel a bit like heresy?
-
The new Fantasy Flight Star Wars RPG has something akin to them.
I really didn't think I'd be enthusiastic to play an RPG aside from Rolemaster, but the new Star Wars system has done it.
Mind you, I'm still a Rolemaster fun, but I'll happily play the Stars Wars RPG too now.
Doesn't that feel a bit like heresy?
A little heresy is good now and then. :)
But seriously, as an example... I have a friend that wanted to run a D&D 3.5 game (eventually decided on Pathfinder) and I was like... "Alright, fine. If I have to play that trash I'll humor you." whereas now it's like "Star Wars, alright, I'm good with that."
-
And here I am still preferring (much preferring) the D6 Star Wars...
-
ill jump on the starwars chatter.
what do you think of the starwars icon dice?
ive played that version of the game once and thought it was pretty cool actually.
iv also used the dice to help develop some plot ideas for my rolemaster campaign. threats. successes etc. it was more useful than just rolling 1d100. not suggesting you use them for mainstream play but as a GM if u need to generate some varied story telling results then you can. i just used an online free dice app and looked at a few youtube instructional videos for how to use them.
-
The specialized dice stuff is one of the problems I have with systems like that; I just don't want to have to have anything special like that.
-
At first I was a bit hesitant (just had to get used to it), but I really like the new Star Wars RPG dice. The main reason for this is it actually lets the roller control the outcome of the actual roll to some degree. It's not "I rolled X" and that's it. And the better you get at something the more chance you have to control the result. Being able to 'spend' your successes and advantages on things adds to enjoyment of game in my opinion and, possibly more importantly for new table top RPGers, helps steer them towards role-playing a bit more that just "You do X damage".
-
At first I was a bit hesitant (just had to get used to it), but I really like the new Star Wars RPG dice. The main reason for this is it actually lets the roller control the outcome of the actual roll to some degree. It's not "I rolled X" and that's it. And the better you get at something the more chance you have to control the result. Being able to 'spend' your successes and advantages on things adds to enjoyment of game in my opinion and, possibly more importantly for new table top RPGers, helps steer them towards role-playing a bit more that just "You do X damage".
agreed. the aspect i really like is the players get an opportunity to tell elements of the story. those two successes and two threats could mean something quite different to a creative player. eg. a near miss that triggers an unexpected benefit. its open to interpretation and it allows for many interesting possibilities that dont exist in a pass/fail result.