Topic: Poking Sacred Cows pt. 1: Intro and MnA

[B Hanson]

Intro
Like many of the contributors on this forum, I’m in my mid 40’s and have been playing RM since the early 1980’s. And like most GM’s I’ve house ruled, hacked, re-written or created quite a bit of material over the last 30+ years. For the last few years I’ve done a complete re-write of Spell Law, drafted by own Character Law and have been waiting for the new RMU Arms Law (too many tables to do myself!).
The ongoing RMU discussions has been a great opportunity to discuss common problems with RM and a lot of great solutions that MAY be incorporated into the new rule set. However, it seems to me that RMU isn’t meant to be a complete re-imagining of RM but more of an integration and streamlining of past editions.

I thought I’d write some posts on issues I have with RM; problems resulting in accepted rules that may have never been re-evaluated in subsequent RM editions and RMU.  These posts are more meant to spark discussion or challenge mental models than to litigate my own solutions. Given the quality and depth of gaming experience on these boards I look forward to any thoughts or arguments!

Part 1: Eliminate Maneuvering in Armor skill and enjoy a simplified encumbrance system.

I have to imagine in the initial development of RM that the Maneuvering in Armor (MnA) skill served several purposes. First, RM was a skill based system so most actions, static or MM were encapsulated as skills. Second and perhaps more importantly, making MnA a skill reinforced class specialization and class tropes: “magic users can’t wear armor”. Of course this stems from the well balanced party: fighter, thief, magic user and cleric. In D&D these tropes were enforced by simple class restrictions. MnA wasn’t really a skill really, it just offset penalties associated with the weight and limitations of armor. RMU has broadened this now into contra-skills (skills used to offset penalties; grace, reverse strike, dual wield etc) and this may be a good solution. Strangely, in the original RM, Shield wasn’t made into a skill—you could pick up a shield without any training and get its defensive advantages. You could argue then that Shield was more of skill than just donning heavy clothes or a metal shirt.
So why have MnA at all? A few thoughts:

1.   Is it really a skill? I’m sure medieval re-enactors would argue it takes skill to operate in heavy armor and I would probably agree to some extent…but is it more of a handicap (ie weights added to horses in racing) than a trainable skill? If you put a 110lb weak person in heavy armor and have them practice day and night I’m not sure they will improve a “skill”, but may improve their strength and endurance. Armor should incur penalties, but those can be “offset” by increasing your weapon skill or MM skill.
2.   Is it needed to maintain Professional Specialization? Without MnA armor can still have substantial failure and MM penalties which would disincentive spellcasters from wearing it. I don’t subscribe to the “spellcaster can’t wear armor” school; it’s D&D DNA and so imbedded into RPG that we don’t question it. There are plenty of fantasy settings that feature armed & armored magicians and spellcasters. So if I don’t need that differentiation then I don’t need a skill to reinforce it.
3.   Is it worth the hassle? I like the granularity in RM—that’s why it’s my system of choice. But for me the original combination of the armor penalty chart, MnA skill, encumbrance and movement/pace rules were overly complex.

I think RMU has gotten it mostly right: encumbrance penalty is equal to your total encumbrance (as %) less your encumbrance allowance. I also think that’s where it needs to be left. There is no need for both a Armor Manuever Penalty and an Encumbrance Penalty, all that's needed is encumbrance penalty.

1.   Calculate total encumbrance as % of body weight. (in RMU armor is now stated as % to scale for size)
2.   Reduce total encumbrance by your encumbrance allowance (10% weight + Str bn ) to get your encumbrance penalty
3.   Specific armor types have fixed penalties for missile & perception
4.   Encumbrance penalty (EP) is then applied to all appropriate actions.
5.   EP can reduce Quickness Bonus (optional)
6.   EP is applied to all MM (and melee optionally if you want to be cruel)
7.   EP is added to fatigue rules (if used)
8.   Movement is decreased by % equal to EP penalty. (no need to reduce pace categories based on encumbrance categories. i.e. if you sprint at 5x with a 50% EP your total distance is halved—effectively reducing your pace to 2.5 without having to consult a chart)
9.   EP or Total Encumbrance can be used as an ESF modifier to Essence casting(or partial to channeling)

No more armor penalties offset by MnA used in conjunction with encumbrance and pace modifier charts. Players only need to keep track of their EP. It’s simple and less complicated for new players. The only task is to assign new Enc. Penalties to armor (see my chart attached below--need to be approved btw)—it scales well to piecemeal armor and allows for real advantages for quality, lighter materials when constructing armor. I set encumbrances penalties that were high enough that unless you had heroic strength (101+) you were going to have a net penalty from armor. That doesn’t include the remainder of your kit. Armor has a real cost in terms of performance to wear it.
Attached is the chart that I use (RMU AT's). It’s based on piecemeal but for reference a total plate kit (standard steel) would be (66%). A fighter with a 100 str would offset that by 25 so the MM penalty for Full Plate would be -41. That penalty represents the real limitations of wearing full plate while riding a horse, climbing a wall or swimming! A PC could reduce the weight or penalty via spells (temporarily) or get armor fabricated with magic, superior and/or lighter material.


Conclusion.  Maneuvering in Armor Skill is not necessary and adds complexity.

next week...Poking Sacred Cows pt. 2: Problems with Magic Items

[Cory Magel]

Pretty much agreed here.  Reducing combined effects when they can be simulated with only one is almost always positive step in my opinion.

[jdale]

I appreciate how you have laid out your points and specified what assumptions you are questioning.

I do think you are missing one issue, which is balance. I think from a realism standpoint you may be right. But, especially with the new tables in RMU, armor gives a significant benefit and it may be too much benefit to let characters gain essentially for free early on. If a character skips right up to plate, their opponent needs to have an OB higher by ~50. That's the kind of big difference that's significant enough that, especially at lower levels, the GM will have trouble throwing a foe at the party that is a threat for the tank and not overwhelming for the others. The Maneuver in Armor skill essentially assigns a DP cost to the protection gained. That cost is high for the best armor, but (especially in RMU where there's only one MnA skill) you can develop it gradually working through light and then intermediate armor. To some extent you can address this by limiting the rate of stat development (if characters start with a low strength that limits how fast they can get to heavy armor) but I am doubtful whether it will be sufficient -- there's certainly no DP cost that way. It's not just about spellcasters vs Arms characters, it's also about heavily armored tank type characters vs light fighters, martial artists, thieves, etc.

I do think the penalties are generally too high. I agree with your point 8 regarding movement. And with regard to point 9 about armor penalizing spells, that's essentially how I am doing it currently. My realms are different, but something like -2*(Enc penalty) for Essence, -3*(Enc penalty from metal armor only) for Channeling.

[markc]

Approved your file.

  First I think it is a good idea to take a look at all of the moving parts in a game and thanks for doing so with RM.


1) Perception Penalties on chart: IMHO the Perception penalties on the chart are a bit low IMHO, I might even go so far as to provide a Perception penalty for using larger shields in combat (an idea I just got).


2) Armor and Enc %.
 1) IMHO I would prefer to use some hybrid of the 2 systems you outlined above, by using both a skill based and body weight based modifier you would get the most accurate system (IMHO).
 2) ENC Penalties: For me I would need to see the system in action and probably nod it for my own game to get a real test as I have removed the auto 90's for profession rule as it does not make real sense (to me) in real life. So in that case many people in my game have much lower stat values and fewer have high stat values (ie every PC/NPC is not an Olympic/Mensa/ Special Org candidate, which it where I need my game to be and I think that everyone in real life does not have a 90 stat or two somewhere)
 So again lower or no stat bonuses in most of my games population would require a skill to reduce the penalties.
   Could this be a general skill to reduce all enc penalties (from armor/backpack and maybe other sources, sure) with a requirement that you send some DP to pick up a Talent to deal with the other option (probably very small amount of DP 2 DP add option you did not take at start and 2 DP for other options I have not thought of yet).


 Now using the rules from the RMSS MAC you could provide some Armor Training Skills as part of a combat style and this would reduce the time to max out the relevant skills as a +10 bonus ca go a long way for skills.
 There is also an ability to reduce the movement penalty while using a thrown weapon and that could also be expanded to be of use.


MDC     

[jdale]

Reducing the encumbrance allowance (which is pretty high), and then having a skill that applies against the total encumbrance penalty, might be a decent way to unify the mechanic but still have a DP cost for wearing armor.

[netbat]

Great post, I really like the idea of revisiting some of the basic assumptions in RM and look forward to your next posts.

The biggest problem I have had with the MnA skills is that while while I agree with your argument #1 about it not being an independent trainable skill(In RMSS case only to reduce penalties), I disagree that it is entirely a matter of strength and endurance(at least in how it is modeled in RM as Stats). The two major issues in my experience with armor are the changes in balance and momentum from the increased mass, and the changes to the way you move due to bulk and restriction. You can overcome some of this through familiarity and practice, but I think it is more of changing how you execute the skills you know rather than a separate skill. I got fairly comfortable running in armor with practice, but wouldn't want to try tumbling or climbing without tons of practice first.
Unfortunately, I have never come up with a satisfactory solution mechanics wise. I have never been happy with skills only to reduce penalties. The only thing I played around with was using the specialization rules from SoHK on skills in the Athletic Endurance and Gymnastics categories, but it was too much work to adjust the armor penalties to get similar results and it didn't address combat skills and maneuvers which should also be affected. Maybe combining this along with using styles from the MAC as markc suggested would work for RMSS?

[Cory Magel]

I do think you are missing one issue, which is balance. I think from a realism standpoint you may be right. But, especially with the new tables in RMU, armor gives a significant benefit and it may be too much benefit to let characters gain essentially for free early on. If a character skips right up to plate, their opponent needs to have an OB higher by ~50.

Two comments on that: Firstly, as you elude to, the way penalties apply from armor and how they are negated (in terms of raw numbers) would need to be looked at.  If stats are going to be the measuring stick then there may need to be a 'progression' for stats that ends up simulating the previous combined effects of two modifiers.  Second, RMU seems to have an issue with starting power/survivability if you take the temperature of the average poster here (as that related to stating OB's for example)

[B Hanson]

Thanks everyone, lots of great feedback! A few thoughts in response:

1. Balance armor gives a significant benefit and it may be too much benefit to let characters gain essentially for free early on. I had to stop and think about this one for a while, because while I'm not driven by profession/class balance, game play balance is important. However, there is no restriction on any players, 1st lvl, spellcasters, or anyone from donning AT10 (or AT20) armor and realizing the defensive benefits. Under RM rules that player will just have harsh MM penalties--and under the Encumbrance rules I proposed they will still have harsh penalties--but in a much simpler process. So the real issue is the severity of penalties not whether better armor should be, or is, available to lower level players.

2. I use 1/1* penalty to total encumbrance (essence) and 1/2% total encumbrance (channeling). helms have their own mods for mentalism. That's pretty stiff penalties for Essence users and generally dissuades them carrying much of anything.

3. I like the perception mod for shields too--certainly large and wall shields. makes sense--thanks!

Some good arguments about use of armor, training for it and modeling on real life experience. I knew that would be a consideration..but..I always like to defer to simplicity when possible. So is there a better, more realistic solution? Probably, but it may only improve realism by a few percent and adds complexity. Having a simple aggregate encumbrance rule works well, tracks closely to the current RM system, ties in easily with movement and pace modifiers without referring to charts and is easier for players to manage. It's not like monitoring encumbrance is their favorite aspect of roleplaying!

[jdale]

1. I would argue that, while any level 1 newb can put on AT 10, with the current system they will be at a maneuver penalty around -100 and unable to function. So in practice, it's not going to happen. But at higher levels they can spend enough DP to get that down to reasonable levels or even 0. With your system, at level 1 (and, let's say, Strength of 80?) they are at -35, and after many levels and no DP, if they develop Strength enough (let's say, Strength of 95?), they can get that down to maybe -20. I think it's fair to say that, if they are going to wear plate, it's going to happen earlier in your system, and other characters not in armor will not have gained any corresponding advantage (since with no DP cost, anything the other characters got, the guy in plate will also get).

[B Hanson]

Yes, I think that in the current system a -100 penalty for a PC with 85 strength and no MnA is unrealistic. He's basically immobile.

My proposal for full plate for the PC with 85 str would be around -50 total. That's pretty bad and would negate most MM skills for that player, and would be at 50% to pace and -50 to fatigue rolls but he's at least mobile.

Unlike sword skill or casting a high lvl spell, wearing armor is a passive thing. Yes, some practice probably helps, but for me not enough to justify a skill and the associated bookkeeping.

[jdale]

Well, I can't argue that -100 is realistic, it's not. My point is that, in order to wear plate in the rules as written, a fighter is buying ~20 ranks of Maneuver In Armor, for a cost of ~30 DP. You are reducing the cost of being a heavily armored fighter by those 30 DP, that's going to affect balance. Even more if you take a profession with a higher cost, like, say, Magent (~30 ranks at 3/4 =105 DP) or Mentalist (~30 ranks at 6/8 = 210) -- heavy armor suddenly becomes an option for professions it was never practical for before. Meanwhile, it's still not an option for, say, Magician or Dabbler, because of the casting penalties. These are big balance shifts. Are they big enough that some characters will get overshadowed?

I look at my current game, where the Monk (loosely conceiving the profession) has just gotten into AT 5, the archer Rogue is AT 3, the druid is AT 2, and everyone else (all using the equivalent of Essence) is AT 1 (everyone is 4th level). The Monk has a St bonus of +10, so he could easily go to AT 7 and gain a lot of DP back (20 DP in his case). Even higher if he accepted some penalties (could happen for planned pitched battles.) He's already a combat powerhouse. The Rogue would probably not change. The druid would essentially lose her AT 2 if there was no skill to wear it (St bonus of -1). So the net result is a larger power gap where I need to raise enemy OBs at least another +10 to keep up with the Monk (plus whatever he does with those 20 DP), while the rest of the party is slightly more vulnerable than before.

[Green Manalishi]

One thing I did was remove spell casting restrictions for wearing armor. I don't agree with metal interfering with magic, since there are metal magic weapons and armor.
If the world setting was that all inorganic material was not able to be enchanted, then I would use the spell casting penalties.
The "balancing" factor is development cost. I know many would say "Oh no, imagine a magician running around in plate" and I'd say "if he spent enough DPs, why not?" He could have had 10 other spells lists instead but chose armor.

[yammahoper]

One thing I did was remove spell casting restrictions for wearing armor. I don't agree with metal interfering with magic, since there are metal magic weapons and armor.
If the world setting was that all inorganic material was not able to be enchanted, then I would use the spell casting penalties.
The "balancing" factor is development cost. I know many would say "Oh no, imagine a magician running around in plate" and I'd say "if he spent enough DPs, why not?" He could have had 10 other spells lists instead but chose armor.

Armor and spell casting didn't agree with me long ago either.  I decided enchantment realigns the metals atomic structure allowing for imprinting/enchantment.  This also meant a magic anything will detect on a scanner as a living thing, or even a banana for that matter.