Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: giulio.trimarco on February 08, 2012, 08:26:08 AM
-
I'm not following the ICE forums, for about an year? More? Don't remember.
I receive mail about rebrading, print on demand, ecc. I hope the best for the line, producers, editors and everyone who invest time and energy in the products.
My best wishes.
Now, to the real question from the perspective of an old RM player/GM (not a fan): will RM line revised to clear some of the main critiques and incosistencies that are endemic to the game mechanics (in a near future) or the game will be re-presented as is?
I know that I will be roasted for this question (and I in case this questions has been already done 100000 times I apologize), but that's so.
Thanks!
-
I want to see the completion of the rebranding process before we start announcing new products and discussing what's next for Rolemaster.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
I think Nicholas answered you question but reading between the lines it looks as if they are going to be re-branding the stuff as is and then once that HUGE project is done start thinking about re-doing or updating product lines.
But I think (guess) the new stuff (2010-) can be easily updated. But again that may be wrong.
MDC
-
To play devils advocate; why re-brand if you're going to revise?
-
Care to enlighten me as to what our the main critiques and inconsistencies, from your point of view....
And note that no one will be permitted to roast you...
-
Heh, DFA. We used that acronym a lot in the past.
First, you'll find these forums are far, far friendlier than most gaming forums. If they ever aren't Thom will drop a brick on the persons head. :)
As to someones question as to why bother re-branding if you're going to revise: It's a fairly straightforward business decision. You use the existing product to keep the train moving so that you can eventually get where you want to.
Wizards of the Coast originally bought the Talislanta rights and physical stock pretty much for the purpose of getting the company 'off the ground' and established as a gaming company. Then they started putting out their own game (The Primal Order). Not sure how successful that was, but the end result is they eventually came up with a blockbuster product (Magic The Gathering) as a result of having a foundation to get them started.
You use a pre-existing product to accomplish your end goal (whatever that goal may be).
I'm not sure what ICE's long term plan is, but no matter what that is it makes sense to continue the existing product lines for the time being.
-
Marshmellows anyone? :flame:
I'm sure rebranding is an ip issue too. Im so sure im probably wrong.
There are many old threads that go round and round this subject. Search the archives if you wish. Maybe a moderator can point you in the right direction. I know I have said enough and had enough of "that" conversation ;)
-
Indeed. That makes sense.
On another note Death From Above 1979 is one of my favourite bands.
-
To play devils advocate; why re-brand if you're going to revise?
We re-brand whenever the fans want to buy the product and that product meets the necessary legal, quality, technical and financial requirements to be sold and rebranded. If it meets the requirements, then fans are happy and we make some money. If it fails those requirements, it goes into a limbo and won't emerge until it meets those requirements.
We re-brand because we have GCP products that build upon other products, for instance we rebranded SWMA 3rd and 4th Edition because we have Xa-ar and the immensely successful Shadow World Player's Guide.
We re-brand because it means we can reissue books where we've come to agreements with the authors that enables them to recoup some of the money that they should have been paid according to their contracts with Old ICE and/or Mjolnir. It means those authors are much more likely to be willing to consider writing for us in the future. Authors who don't get paid by a company quickly stop writing for that company and entire product lines grind to a halt as freelancers bail on projects.
We re-brand because it's necessary to fix trademark claims, to fix legal addresses, to remove existing ISBNs for print-on-demand, etc
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
Thanks for the replayes.
I perfectly understand re-branding.
I'm a "generic" RPG player, I've played RM2 (my first game ever, and only one as player), RMSS for years as a GM and I'm a reader (and possessor) of all RMC line, so I'd love to see a "conspicuous" revision of old and venerable system.
Care to enlighten me as to what our the main critiques and inconsistencies, from your point of view....
I've already debated on these boards these points, I'll not bog the forums again ;)
-
We re-brand whenever the fans want to buy the product and that product meets the necessary legal, quality, technical and financial requirements to be sold and rebranded. If it meets the requirements, then fans are happy and we make some money. If it fails those requirements, it goes into a limbo and won't emerge until it meets those requirements.
We re-brand because we have GCP products that build upon other products, for instance we rebranded SWMA 3rd and 4th Edition because we have Xa-ar and the immensely successful Shadow World Player's Guide.
We re-brand because it means we can reissue books where we've come to agreements with the authors that enables them to recoup some of the money that they should have been paid according to their contracts with Old ICE and/or Mjolnir. It means those authors are much more likely to be willing to consider writing for us in the future. Authors who don't get paid by a company quickly stop writing for that company and entire product lines grind to a halt as freelancers bail on projects.
We re-brand because it's necessary to fix trademark claims, to fix legal addresses, to remove existing ISBNs for print-on-demand, etc
Nice. I could almost visualize you leaping onto a desk top and shouting this for all to hear!
-
I've already debated on these boards these points, I'll not bog the forums again ;)
I think the request was more a "Please can you summarise so we don't have to trawl through hundreds of posts" kind of thing. Besides, those of us new to the boards want to arg... I mean, discuss calmly and sensibly, about the issues too!
-
Yes, I was simply requesting a simple listing without debate. Sometimes people believe that what is apparent to them should be apparent to everyone, and that their opinion is the commonly held belief of the masses - and that applies to both his position and my own.
But, I have also looked into the archives and read through many of his old posts and have seen that at times he has had some labored discussions trying to have RM fit his desires better, and it is somewhat understandable not to want to get into all of that again. I can respect his choice not to want to go there.
-
Hmmm I like this clean slate... a blank canvas for painting it with my "ïnsights" and desires ;D
Critiques: and I'm listing not just my own, but some general complaints as well.
- Slow table look up slowing games down.
- Many rules revisions contradicting. RM1, RM2, RMC, RMX, RMSS, RMFRP, anyone?
- Bad starter pack: The example of making a character in RMFRP is presented first, then people get the same stuff again, except with more rules and explanations... Rather make the example after the rules. Maybe it is a good plan to hammer in the one track resolution of the system: Ranks give skill bonus, skill bonus +roll = 101 = success.
- Too many books to play the game properly: like RMFRP rules book, Creatures and Monsters, Spell law (3x) of Realm, Arms law. then I'm not even going to say: SOHK, treasure companion, GM law and the Armory. OW I just did...
Perhaps I should leave some to the others to mention...
-
Slow table look up slowing games down.
I agree, to some extent. However, the time taken does reduce with practice, as a GM I have learned that it's a good idea to make a reference photocopy of often-used critical tables and attack tables to save time leaving through the book. Also, less table look up would come at the expense of a less realistic combat system - all weapons would become the same, criticals would be reduced (potentially) to the D&D level of extra damage.
Many rules revisions contradicting. RM1, RM2, RMC, RMX, RMSS, RMFRP, anyone?
Pick the version you like and play with it? All versions of RM are broadly compatible. If you want to use a movement rule from one, but like the static maneuver rules from another version more, no one will come and chew you out :)
Bad starter pack... (etc)
This is definitely a layout thing. I've seen many rulebooks try a simple version of char gen which is later fleshed out. However, after the first time this becomes horrendous - anyone tried looking up rules in Werewolf: The Apocalypse? Awesome game, but it can take hours to find stuff because everything is all over the shop. If I want to find out about how skills work, for instance, I want to find out from a single location, not have to check three or four places.
Maybe it is a good plan to hammer in the one track resolution of the system: Ranks give skill bonus, skill bonus +roll = 101 = success.
Which is fine for things like static actions. But when you have detailed and often entertaining results from partial successes, it's easy to get hooked on the more complex resolution tables. I think multiple versions of resolution can sit well together - almost all General Perception checks I call for in game work on a 'break 100' model, but even on those I reward especially high results or low results, with additional info/misleading info as appropriate. Again, this is a flavour thing, depending on how you want to roll with it.
Too many books to play the game properly
Then don't use 'em :) But if you want to use the rules, you gotta have the books :)
My own personal irritation is that Space Master (talking SM2 here since that's what I play) has no rules in it for determining initiative, and orientation only gets a mention in the breakdown of the round order. Sure I can wing it, and generally do, according to how much the players have annoyed me, but it would be nice to not have to try and remember how I handled it last time :)
-
I agree, to some extent. However, the time taken does reduce with practice, as a GM I have learned that it's a good idea to make a reference photocopy of often-used critical tables and attack tables to save time leaving through the book. Also, less table look up would come at the expense of a less realistic combat system - all weapons would become the same, criticals would be reduced (potentially) to the D&D level of extra damage.
Hmm...no. I have play tested a set of rules were eaach weapon is rated for critical range (i.e. target number to acheive A crit, B crit, etc.). Armor adjust target number(s) for krush/punture and slash. We abandoned hits delivered by the attack roll and rated weapons for base hits + St mod.
It worked beautifully. We created the ranges by averaging the existing attack tables then looking at the average spread for each AT catagory. We desired to exaggerate armor over normal RM protection values. As an example, AT 6 could be +3P, -1K, +10S
Magical armors add their bonus to the crit range versus all attacks. So if the AT 6 is +5, the crit ranges are modified by +8P, +3K, +15S.
Weapon and armor info was easily recorded on the character sheet and I needed only one page/chart for all weapons and armor. Well, call it two tables on one page.
We have played with other mechanics to eliminate attack tables but liked this one the best. I am working on a mechanic to elimnate the critical tables by randomly rolling the specific damage caused per blow based on crit severity. So far I'm using a d10 rolled on wound colums, but it involves quite a few die rolls and more tables than currently used. My original intention was to design a sytem of progressive damage easily memorized, but one mans easy is another mans HUH? so I think the idea is bust. Currently, an acrit would roll a d10 for bleeding, hits, muscle and bone damage, with 0-7 being no bleed, an 8 1 hit/rnd, a 9 would be 2hits/rnd, etc. Any time a roll results in trips, some body part is badly mauled/destroyed, four of the same number indicated instant death...as you can see, it quickly became burdonsome and bloated. I'm reduced to mulling over it some more.
-
Although I'm much obliged with the answers to the problems I spotted in the RM line, but actually I was replying to a question posted by the ICE staff...
As it stands: I'm actually trying to expand RMFRP even more, so I'm not phazed by a 2 page spread, several pages long table and trying to look up criticals or what ever, but I'm recounting how other people look against the system.
As with all the versions, I merely mentioned them to show how many versions there are (I played them all except RMC and RMX) and that its maybe time to marry all the versions into something all fans can comply with AND rake in throngs of new customers.
The resolution, although its pretty much hidden, is 101+ is success: Attack tables, the MM table and the SM tables are all based on the same concept. Except with attack tables you get variance because of AT and weapon effectiveness, on the MM they laid out the results with more details, but its a success on 100 vs the medium column.
Anyway thanx for the support!
-
OK, I guess I wasn't clear - if someone wants to post their thoughts about what they don't care for in Rolemaster or believe are commonly held negative beliefs about the system, I'd like to hear it.
Please Do NOT discuss, debate or comment on their thoughts as it may inhibit people from wanting to share.
-
Is this OK?
The only problem I have ever encountered is the table look up when in combat.
Although I enjoy the idea of a look up table for each weapon, would it not be best to consolidate? All edged weapons on one table. All concussion weapons on one table.
However, those of us who know the effects of real weapons, also know that each weapon causes damage in different ways and cause different criticals depending upon weapon design. Good examples: a curved blade will be great for Slash criticals (Falchion) and straight blades would be great for thrusting (Puncture) criticals and hacking (Krushing/Slash) criticals. But the best difference of these blades is in mounted combat. Straight are best for thrusting (Puncture), where curved would be best for slashing.
I shall always say, leave the RM/SM system the way it is. Always reiterate that the system is flexible enough that any GM with enough initiative can tailor it to his/her needs.
Isn't that what the system states anyway?
Otherwise, ignore the dribble. I do. You would not believe the number of threads I have just ignored. However, there have been many lately that interest me. I will not list.
Yes, there are a lot of things I would like to see published for the RM/SM system. One is "Critical Injury Law." However, I am also knowledgable enough to write my own notes for such. Provided I felt the need for such.
In fact, I have written a lot of stuff that could be published for the RM/SM system. However, most of it only fits my world. Or, it only fits my style of GMing. It is not meant for mass consumption for the public. Thus, I have never released any of that data. It shall forever remain mine own IP, if you want to get technical.
Thus, I ask all those who wish to look for the contradictions of the RM/SM system to ask thyself, "Is this really a contradiction, or is it a contradiction to how I would do it?"
Additionally, if it is a true contradiction, instead of (sorry for such a mean term) polluting these boards with "How do I fix this <contradiction>?" post, why not ask thyself, "Ok, this seems to be a contradiction. How can I fix it?"
I have been doing such since I started that TSR system back in 1974. In fact, I have forgotten and lost more information for fixing RPG systems than many are now asking, "How do I fix this?"
I am sorry for such a harsh post, but really people. Think for thyself.
And, yes, I will admit I have posted many questions to these forums. However, I have always asked for opinions on how I wanted to change the system instead of posting a question of how do I fix this seeming contradiction.
Thimk for thyself.
rmfr
-
I just referred 2 new players to RM. Both failed to buy anything because of system confusion. Not only is multiple versions being supported here confusing; but online forums etc add another layer to that.
-
Not necessary?
Levels, experience and devleopment points. They just slow down the game. Grant maneuvers an chance to raise the skill rank based on difficulty.
Modify the way weapon skills are handled.
Category: Weapon family.
Skill: weapon type (sword would work for any kind of sword, saber for any kind of saber, and so son)
Skill spec (one per skill, granting a +10 bonus) for a given weapon.
Drop the gazilion combat skills, reduce them to the minimum (swashbuckling should disappear, fumble range should be [base fumble range - skill rank/10] with a minimum of 1). Revise martial arts (basically, karaté and savate are just styles, their point is still to punch and kick).
Other skills require an overhaul to reduce their number.
-
ITA that the Rolemaster experience point system needs an overhaul. My least favorite part of GM'ing was always having to record every single hit given/received in combat, every single critical given/received, how many miles traveled, etc.... I felt more like an accountant than a GM. I prefer the HARP experience system. Far easier, and less note taking.
I am going to have to agree with the "Too many RMSS books" argument, also. Some races in this book, some in that book....some skills in the main book, some skills in Skill Companion....and which book was that profession in again?? :o
I will say this though...I LOVE "Creatures and Monsters" it's like having all three volumes of C&T in one place. <3
Another book I can't live without is "Castles and Ruins". The random ruin generation tables are a lot of fun to use.
-
I like the consolidated weapon charts in RMFRP. I also like that they are optional.
I personally think the weapon charts need to be redone, they make too strong an assumption about how much armor slows you down. That gives too much benefit to unarmored combatants, and makes armor of questionable merit unless you have a lot of body development. The maneuver penalties for armor are also too high. The weapon charts also make odd assumptions about the ease of getting hits with different weapons (compare the first hit numbers for martial arts vs broadsword, for example, it's like a hidden +25 for martial arts).
Fumbles should be confirmed with a skill check. The one place I would add a roll. Experts fumble less than neophytes.
Personally I would de-emphasize the moving maneuvers table and limit it to skill attempts where there is a chance of partial success. The static maneuvers is a quicker resolution, and much easier to explain. Moving maneuvers are inelegant and create weird situations where, for example, you try harder (take on a higher difficulty e.g. try to run faster) and achieve less. And I would merge the RR and BAR tables and rolls into a single roll. If it could be resolved on the static maneuvers table, even better. The BAR-RR process is unnecessarily complex and slow. We constantly have to re-explain it.
I would condense the skill list to something between RM1 and RMSR, eliminate skill categories but have more general skills (e.g. one-handed edged) that permit specialization (e.g. broadsword). A more streamlined way of handling related skills.
And I would think about ways to let characters "catch up" on skills they did not start developing from the beginning. For example, many combat maneuvers limit your OB to the lower of your weapon skill or the combat maneuver skill (e.g. weapon styles, TWC). If you pick them up late in your career I think it's too hard to develop them to a level of relevance. It's not easy to switch styles but the system overstates the difficulty, you almost have to plan everything from level 1.
-
Hmm...no. I have play tested a set of rules were eaach weapon is rated for critical range (i.e. target number to acheive A crit, B crit, etc.). Armor adjust target number(s) for krush/punture and slash. We abandoned hits delivered by the attack roll and rated weapons for base hits + St mod.
It worked beautifully. We created the ranges by averaging the existing attack tables then looking at the average spread for each AT catagory. We desired to exaggerate armor over normal RM protection values. As an example, AT 6 could be +3P, -1K, +10S
It sounds really interesting. Any chance that you have this system written down? Could you share it and upload it to the Vault?
-
Hmm...no. I have play tested a set of rules were eaach weapon is rated for critical range (i.e. target number to acheive A crit, B crit, etc.). Armor adjust target number(s) for krush/punture and slash. We abandoned hits delivered by the attack roll and rated weapons for base hits + St mod.
It worked beautifully. We created the ranges by averaging the existing attack tables then looking at the average spread for each AT catagory. We desired to exaggerate armor over normal RM protection values. As an example, AT 6 could be +3P, -1K, +10S
It sounds really interesting. Any chance that you have this system written down? Could you share it and upload it to the Vault?
Did the same, in a different way (the critical thresholds are fixed by armor, weapons just modify it, some have properties like “blunt trauma†or “armor penetrationâ€). It needs tweaking but does marvel. Too bad, can’t finish it now because I’m too busy.
-
And I would think about ways to let characters "catch up" on skills they did not start developing from the beginning... If you pick them up late in your career I think it's too hard to develop them to a level of relevance. It's not easy to switch styles but the system overstates the difficulty, you almost have to plan everything from level 1.
I do something like this in my games (which are Space Master, but use the same mechanics). For most skills that have a specialisation breakdown, the PC can develop a general skill, which is good for the first 10 skill ranks, but once they have developed that broad knowledge base, then allow them to split into specialisations. These specialist skills don't qualify for stat modifier or level bonus, but can be added directly onto the general skill bonus. It works particularly well for technical, engineering and science type skills, but I've also adopted it for things like driving and piloting. I think there are too many skills for a limited DP pool - even fairly specialist characters can have trouble becoming an expert in relevant areas of their specialisation.
I don't do this for weapon skills though, mainly because I've already done an architecture for similar skill ranks (e.g. if you develop a skill rank in 10mm medium pistol (this being Space Master) I allow 1/2 similarity for weapons in the same specific category - which in this case would be all other 1H projectiles, 1/4 similarity to weapons of the same general type - which would extend this out to mini versions of projectiles, shotguns, and 2H projectiles, and also to weapons of the same size in the other broad group, this being 1H energy pistols, and 1/8 similarity one step further, here being fully automatic projectiles, support projectiles, 2H energy and mini energy). It's a lot of book-keeping but since I put it all onto Excel (which handles this kind of thing very well), it's suddenly become much easier.
This means that someone who is level 10 and has 20 skill ranks in, say, a laser rifle for a +70 skill rank bonus, could pick up a blaster rifle, and attack with a +50 bonus (well actually 25 since he's unskilled) but it does mean that he could quite easily switch his preferred weapon if he notices that the Imperial trooper happened to be carrying a +20 blaster rifle or something.
-
And a separate thing on skill listing - in SpaMCo 1 there are a few skills missed off the list at the end of S in the alphabetical list - e.g. Surveillance, Subduing, Strategic Targeting... sometimes we can take a guess on what a skill does, but it would be nice to have some idea :) I am yet to come up with a thought on what Strategic Targeting does, since we have Targeting to add to the OB if you get a chance to aim properly, and Sniping to add to the critical roll (as Ambush). Any suggestions appreciated :)
-
Let me add Power points to my list. Just hit the exhaustion points pool.
-
When I run HERO I use the Endurance Pool to power spells. It works really well and makes keeping track of END worth while.
-
And a separate thing on skill listing - in SpaMCo 1 there are a few skills missed off the list at the end of S in the alphabetical list - e.g. Surveillance, Subduing, Strategic Targeting... sometimes we can take a guess on what a skill does, but it would be nice to have some idea :) I am yet to come up with a thought on what Strategic Targeting does, since we have Targeting to add to the OB if you get a chance to aim properly, and Sniping to add to the critical roll (as Ambush). Any suggestions appreciated :)
Strategic Targeting = Targeting or Ambush for heavy weapons (like ship-to-ship weapons)?
-
Strategic Targeting = Targeting or Ambush for heavy weapons (like ship-to-ship weapons)?
Good thought, there is Mounted Weapons Ambush for the ambish part of that, but I can't see anything for the targeting part. Although couldn't you just use targeting?? However, this sparked me to check which skill category it fell into, but quickly became an effort to find it at all. It's not in SpaMCo 1's complete listing, it's not on the skill cost chart either. It isn't in the Player's book, and it's not in RMC2's listing either. So unless it's in RMC 3-7, I may have just made that skill up and I'm going quietly mad.
Pardon me while I gibber in a corner somewhere.
-
Strategic targeting is in my database as being ambush for crew operated weapons. I don't see a book reference, and it's in the combined RM/SM skill list, so I can't narrow down the official source. Something in the back of my mind says it's in the Arms Companion, but I could be mistaken.
-
I use targeting skill to off set range penalties. It typically requires one shot a round at 100% act. Sniping could then mod the crit.
-
Ah, Arms Companion I have to hand... in Arms Companion, there is a Strategic Targeting skill, but it is for hitting a specific part of the body and is used with the hit-location rules also in ArmsCo. It is for called shots, but uses a different mechanism than the standard crit tables and Ambush.
-
Lovely, perhaps 2 skills out there of the same name, or perhaps my DB is just flat wrong. Good to know the back of my brain is still working.
-
Wow, what a discussio has flourished.
Well, I love to discuss about RPG so I will add some contributions ;D
In generale I've identified in RM these areas where I'd like to see a revision/update/overhaul:
Weapons tables: I'd love to see removed the mobility from them and only account for meterial protection.
Armour materials: RM has been created when very few resources were available about real armours, their protections etc. Remove the concept of armour set to add armor materials. AT from 1 to 20 could simply be armour stacking. Padding (AT6) + Chain (AT 10) = AT16. Someone can argue that chain without padding is worse than nothing :P
Critical tables: IMHO critical tables should stick more on the five degrees of injury, removing random dispatching. An A or B critical should not kill. They should be wounds.
Breakage rules: simplify them
Foumble: should be in accord to the skill level of the fighter.
Two weapons fighting: More integrated in the basic mechanics.
OB/DB, dodge, parrys and shields: you can be William the Marshal with a sword and Joe Dead with a spear. Combat is a skill developed in a broad manner. You gain principles, grow in the art and then, specialize. In short specific weapons should give a fraction of OB, a couple of skill should be the backbone of fighting.
Ambush and special skills: I'd like see these skills removed and integrated in basic mechanics, without exception.
Profession bonuses: removed, since the skill profression account for specialization. In case mark even more the skill progression to characterize even more the profession (the I like very much)
Round and action resolution: simplify, unify, clarify. A more user friendly, practical, action resolution. I've never well seen the % of activity.
Initiative: I'd like to see more skill based initiative. In combat initiative is less tied to agility, quickness and equipment weight than to fighting experience.
Spells and spell points: too much spells, perhaps too powerful and with too many spells points available (at least in RMSS). Too quick to launch speels. Use endurance to track fatigue, just make that a skill. There is always the argument (nights spents talking about this with my old group) about permanent stone walls created from tin air amidst cities...
Skill as caps: We've found developing skills that function mainly as as "caps" to others skills are a little frustrating.
Body development: In RMSS you can train to level that... well, simply too much.
Exaustion: Even here a little semplification could be used.
-
I wonder if making Exhaustion affect concussion hits might be interesting. Hits are not really how you die in RM and are relatively easily gained and lost.
-
I actually like Profession bonuses, but I've also totally overhauled them. They're now allocated by players and not based on skill categories (which led to some very bizarre situations).
As for Ambush...overhauled that, too. I prefer having things like that as a specialized skill rather than being factored into rules generically.
-
Stuff.
I disagree with a lot of that. I like the complexity of RM. If I want a simple less realistic game I... play a simpler and less realistic game. Ambush (and indeed other special skills) definitely should stay skills - if something is a learnable characteristic, it should be a skill and not a mechanic.
I do agree though on fumbles - definitely should be affected by skill of the user, and also in two weapon fighting. A player of mine was super keen on that idea until he read up on the rules and in the end didn't bother.
Also don't think fighting skills should be reduced as arms users are already at a huge DP advantage against pure spell users who hav eto pay DP through the nose for their spell lists. I do think though that they should be able to train certain skills to give them special abilities - e.g. the chance to increase bleeding hits from criticals, or add stun results, or maneuver penalties.
-
Stuff.
I disagree with a lot of that. I like the complexity of RM. If I want a simple less realistic game I... play a simpler and less realistic game. Ambush (and indeed other special skills) definitely should stay skills - if something is a learnable characteristic, it should be a skill and not a mechanic.
Just for this: in armed combat, RM ambush, that is the ability to aim for vital points, is learned in 5 minutes. 10 if you are a slow learner. It’s not a skill, it’s not even something remotely difficult : cranium, eyes, mouth, neck, behind the collarbone, armpits, kidneys, heart, brachial and femoral arteries, groin. The end. A 8 year old can learn to kill by suprise in a matter of seconds.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the way RM offers a rich gaming experience. But this experience does not gain anything from a ton of combat skills (I mean, we already get tetraplegic dragons, foes melted into pools of goo and the unholy 66 critical result that make heads fly higher than Sony profits over the corpse of Whitney Houston). It profits from a single fact: you can level up to 50 without drawing blood if you choose so, just using social, medical or lore skills. I’d rather see the game streamline combat, reduce the number of skills dedicated to this activity and expand on the amazing character diversity it allows. A game were you have the choice to go on a rampage and kill everything in sight, lure everybody with illusions, bard/houri (the later being also a fun way to make other players’ faces turn red) your way through opposition or just ask nicely with mad social skills to reach your goals is great. More options, the better.
Another suggestion, that would go along the removal of levels and dps: drop professions, create a handful of vocations (arms, stealth, lore, wild, crafts), make the ability to wield magic a talent and let players build their roles from those.
-
Just for this: in armed combat, RM ambush, that is the ability to aim for vital points, is learned in 5 minutes. 10 if you are a slow learner. It’s not a skill, it’s not even something remotely difficult : cranium, eyes, mouth, neck, behind the collarbone, armpits, kidneys, heart, brachial and femoral arteries, groin. The end. A 8 year old can learn to kill by suprise in a matter of seconds.
By that measure, shooting a gun is holding the handle, pointing it in the right direction and pulling the trigger. Melee combat is just holding a weapon and hitting your enemy. Playing a piano concerto is just hitting all the right notes on the keyboard. I agree that the knowledge of where is vulnerable is bloody obvious. I have always thought that Ambush measured not knowledge, but the ability to lay down a precise attack, probably in poor visibility, probably against a moving target, probably against someone whose armour covers up all the vulnerable points, possibly against someone trying very hard not to be ambushed.
-
Just for this: in armed combat, RM ambush, that is the ability to aim for vital points, is learned in 5 minutes. 10 if you are a slow learner. It’s not a skill, it’s not even something remotely difficult : cranium, eyes, mouth, neck, behind the collarbone, armpits, kidneys, heart, brachial and femoral arteries, groin. The end. A 8 year old can learn to kill by suprise in a matter of seconds.
This assumes that all armed ambush has as its goal the quickest possible death. That no one ever wants to take a prisoner or merely put someone out of action. I don't think that's a tenable assumption.
I think of Ambush as more of a tactical skill, the skill of putting yourself in the right position that the target's movements will hand you the shot you want. It's most commonly thought of in connection with ranged weapons, but the same tactical thinking would apply to melee or magical attacks as well. I'd think that in all cases it would have to be done by surprise or by opportunity fire.
The thing is that what defines "the shot you want" is widely variable according to the situation at the time.
-
By that measure, shooting a gun is holding the handle, pointing it in the right direction and pulling the trigger. Melee combat is just holding a weapon and hitting your enemy. Playing a piano concerto is just hitting all the right notes on the keyboard. I agree that the knowledge of where is vulnerable is bloody obvious. I have always thought that Ambush measured not knowledge, but the ability to lay down a precise attack, probably in poor visibility, probably against a moving target, probably against someone whose armour covers up all the vulnerable points, possibly against someone trying very hard not to be ambushed.
5 years of ancient fencing told me that the hard part of learning is to avoid killing your partner. In fighting, the hard part is not landing a blow, it’s preventing from being hit. What I said was not wild guess, it’s experience. Look at military training: what takes the most time is how to survive, becoming fit for fighting, using material. Not how to kill, that is bloody easy.
Besides, ambush is meant for use on unsuspecting targets. RMSS page 196.
You don’t aim a blow at a foe that is actively defending itself, you hit him were you can and when he is helpless, you finish him off. I positively love fencers that target some areas of my body, I ostensibly leave them unprotected and counterattack while they lose time readying THE blow they want to land.
Armor? Weak points learned in a couple of minutes. Eyes, groin and necks still work admirably. With the right weapon, your don’t even have to aim, just hit very hard on the head or on the neck and laugh like a madman. I mean, if you were given a knife and told to down an unsuspecting guy, how hard would that be?
(And you mix up knowing where to hit and having the skill to do so, skill at arms is managed through weapon skill. But since an unaware foe is not fighting, not even fleeing from you, there should not be any attack roll. Hitting the guy is just like shooting a sitting duck at point blank.
This assumes that all armed ambush has as its goal the quickest possible death. That no one ever wants to take a prisoner or merely put someone out of action. I don't think that's a tenable assumption.
Avoiding to kill someone is far harder than killing, that’s for sure. That’s what the skill subdual is for.
Now, ranged weapons are another matter. To be honest, I don’t think RM handles them well enough but I have absolutely no idea to improve their mechanics without using a new way to resolve attacks.
Ambush should disappear, replaced by a mechanism that would allow for quick and easy dispatch of unaware foes.
Silent kill should disappear, use wrestling instead (basically, you just have to prevent the ennemy from yelling and control his body while it lumps to the ground).
A better control over hit location and critical result, for those who feel it is necessary, should come from weapon skill and nowhere else.
Subdual could be managed or caped by the lores or technicale/trade skills: want to knock out a goblin? Use subdual caped by your skill in first aid (goblins) or goblinoid lore.
Actually, besides hide and silent move, all the skills under the subterfuge group can be replaced by others, from other groups. I have the feeling that they were put there because there was the need to give roguish professions their set of dirt cheap skills (which is not a bad thing, but the end result is redundant skills). In a system without professions, those would just be wiped off the board.
-
Ambush should disappear, replaced by a mechanism that would allow for quick and easy dispatch of unaware foes.
Silent kill should disappear, use wrestling instead (basically, you just have to prevent the ennemy from yelling and control his body while it lumps to the ground).
If you want to use the Coup de Grace and Grapple rules from D&D, go right ahead. :) Not for me though. The thing is, no system will ever replace realism, it can just do better or worse facsimiles. I'm happy for weapon skill to increase you chance of landing a more severe critical, and having the Amvbush skill (limited use) available to modify that critical result some.
We all have different game styles, knowledge and opinions, and this just highlights to me that actually, you can't please everyone.
-
[
If you want to use the Coup de Grace and Grapple rules from D&D, go right ahead. :) Not for me though. The thing is, no system will ever replace realism, it can just do better or worse facsimiles. I'm happy for weapon skill to increase you chance of landing a more severe critical, and having the Amvbush skill (limited use) available to modify that critical result some.
We all have different game styles, knowledge and opinions, and this just highlights to me that actually, you can't please everyone.
Coup de grace is broken. Basically, when it comes to smart mechanics, I’d rather not look in that company’s direction. Wrestling works just fine too, no need for that game’s grapple. A simple static maneuver skill check does the job.
-
Now, ranged weapons are another matter. To be honest, I don’t think RM handles them well enough but I have absolutely no idea to improve their mechanics without using a new way to resolve attacks.
I developed a mechanic for firearms combat that dealt with this, and it worked pretty well. Ambush became Sniping, and it modified critical results based on the shooter's status (firing from an ambush or not). I also revamped the crit tables for firearms to deal with hit location, as I always felt that was important. It should work fairly well with a few adjustments for bows.
-
Lots of interesting discussions here, but in the interest of clarity and in respect for Thom's post, it would be better to break them out into their own separate threads rather than try to debate all of them at once in one place.
-
I try to break out subjects when they veer off the main topic, but the topic here is so broad it covers anything, so I've left it alone. Feel free to open narrower focused threads on anything discussed here, been a lot of interesting stuff to read.
-
Stuff.
I disagree with a lot of that. I like the complexity of RM. If I want a simple less realistic game I... play a simpler and less realistic game.
While complexity and realism are somewhat tied, you can get a midium complexity system that retains an high degree of believability (calling it realism).
TRoS, for example, sport an high complexity with an higher degree of reliasm. The highest complexityI've ever seen is Imagine RPG, I'll not reccomend that one :-/
Ambush (and indeed other special skills) definitely should stay skills - if something is a learnable characteristic, it should be a skill and not a mechanic.
Yes, of course.
Ambush and other learnable skills are mainly, your combat skill, what should be the OB. Their are severly tied. You can't be a world heavy champion and not able to hit the liver of an unsuspecting boxer.
Why Ambush, that I'll rename as "Slay", "Assassinate", "Critical hitting" is in place?
I think to mitigate this: Conan the barbarian approaches Joe Dead from behind. It's 200OB broadsword slice/puncture from above, side, wherever. He rolls OpenEnded to 250 + 200OB = 450. He score Max hits and an E critical.
He rolls d100 for an E and ... 01 ... +1 Hits.
The final outcame, from my point of view, is inconsistent with all the previous factors (so to the opening post). Dissecting why:
- Conan is a Master swordsman
- Unaware opponent, in other words defensless.
- Armored or not you have exceeded whatever armour he had (and E critical with max hit)
- Not a fumble, instead a solid roll (open ended or not)
- You really hit him, since max hits means a contact with your oppenents with your weapon
- You really should have make him suffer... an E critical. Not necessarily killing him but...
- instead, if it's a full Hits, your blow could be totally without consequences.
-
I really would have skill ranks in weapon skill modify the criticals in given circumstances, not a separate skill. Or just give a flat bonus to critical according to circumstances.
From my point of view, here is the main issue. A wants to backstab B.
A rolls for hiding.
A rolls for silent move.
B rolls for awareness or sense ambush
A rolls for attack
A rolls for ambush
A rolls for critical
And event with 40 ranks in ambush, if you roll 01 for the critical, B survives without any severe injury.
Six rolls? Seriously ? That’s Rolemaster, not Dicemaster :p
At the very moment B fails is awareness roll, he should be dead meat. That’s what I do in my game, and my players love it (even knowing they can fall victim to this rule… they just pay extra attention to their backs and actually buy ranks in sense ambush and awareness).
-
I have GMed entire 8 hour games without opening a book.
The rules are great and help explain some of the reality and the mechanics work. However, I seriously think the game needs a program to run combat. It would help newer players and especially GMs entry into the game. I can imagine sitting down to play and spending 5 minutes finding a specific modifier or chart needed while your players look on.
Keeping track of hits, exhaustion, pp, bleeding, and injury mods can be rough.
We had a great long running battle where 6 PCs killed several waves of giant ants. With the entire group low on power, exhsustion or hits with resultant mods it made things much more realistic.
-
I prefer not to crack a book either unless of course I have to. OTOH, my three ring binder of copied tables and such is very close to a book ;D
One house rule I like is allowing crits to me adjusted by half ranks in weapon when striking a stunned foe. Full ranks can be used if foe is stunned with no parry. Players like it, and have learned when stunned with no parry, surrender makes GREAT sense.
-
Given the system is simple, I rarely open a book for something else than a spell or skill description.
-
I don't know about your games but in mine if I as GM said....roll a perceptions roll...looks like you missed the ambush...you are an unaware target so you are automatically dead...then I would soon have a empty gaming table.
It is given that there are situations when it is more difficult to kill in the game than realistic. Using poisons is a prime example. There are loads of ways to poison a person in a way that can't realistically detected in advance and the outcome is given to be death if the victim ingest the poison. Problem is just that it makes a lousy game if it is too easy to loose you character or kill you opponent.
I think that it is essential that any critical can kill because else a number of weapons become really useless. The gaming mechanics that balance the randomness of the criticals do their work reasonably well. The areas that truly need to be addressed is more connected to character creation. Combat is one of the main selling points of the game and starting to improve that area is not sane if we at the same time have the situation that newbies spend hours to grasp character creation.
-
I don't know about your games but in mine if I as GM said....roll a perceptions roll...looks like you missed the ambush...you are an unaware target so you are automatically dead...then I would soon have a empty gaming table.
I just had a table were someone was concentrating on a detect enemies spell every time he was alone and the others always went by pair. Harsher games bring better tactics. But it indeed is a GM choice. It’s just a simple tweak, and a proof that RM allows for very varied gamestyles.
I agree with you about character creation, finding a way to allow for the great diversity permited by RM and making it simpler to use is quite a challenge.
Thinking about power points, exhaustion points and hit points, I was wondering if we could just use exhaustion. Spell would consume exhaustion based on how succesful they are (blunders draining the pool dramatically, perfect succes costing few points). This pool would be developped at a slow rate. Just throwing an idea.
-
Using exhaustion points for magic is interesting. It does have an effect that talented mages need a high Constitution. In some ways it becomes more important than the realm stat. So much for the archetypical feeble old mage.
This is a good solution for GURPS, where there are few stats. You wouldn't want to put everything on Intelligence. But RM has more dimensions.
-
In RM, it can’t come along. It’d take a modification of spells cost.
-
In RM, it can’t come along. It’d take a modification of spells cost.
This post has born with some hope of revisioning ;)
I'd love to see spell poits as Endurance points, it'll make much more sense to me, like in Ars Magica.
It's intriguing to see mages that will not use heavy armours type to reduce physical stress.
-
Thinking about power points, exhaustion points and hit points, I was wondering if we could just use exhaustion. Spell would consume exhaustion based on how succesful they are (blunders draining the pool dramatically, perfect succes costing few points). This pool would be developped at a slow rate. Just throwing an idea.
Yes you can. The only downside is that some people might associate this style of power too much with psion powers. Personally I think such system would be a great benefit to the fantasy game since it make more easy to represent innate abilities of races, monsters and superheroes. The idea that you must keep the magic and psion systems separate by using different rule mechanics is bad if you ask me since limit the design of the game rules without real benefits.
-
Thinking about power points, exhaustion points and hit points, I was wondering if we could just use exhaustion. Spell would consume exhaustion based on how succesful they are (blunders draining the pool dramatically, perfect succes costing few points). This pool would be developped at a slow rate. Just throwing an idea.
Sounds like a worthy Guild Companion submission. ;)
-
Thinking about power points, exhaustion points and hit points, I was wondering if we could just use exhaustion. Spell would consume exhaustion based on how succesful they are (blunders draining the pool dramatically, perfect succes costing few points). This pool would be developped at a slow rate. Just throwing an idea.
Yes you can. The only downside is that some people might associate this style of power too much with psion powers. Personally I think such system would be a great benefit to the fantasy game since it make more easy to represent innate abilities of races, monsters and superheroes. The idea that you must keep the magic and psion systems separate by using different rule mechanics is bad if you ask me since limit the design of the game rules without real benefits.
Actually, I don’t propose to fuel spells by spending exhaustion points, but to fuel the ability to channel power with exhaustion points. To do magic, you still need a power source. Of course, if exhaustion is used to represent resistance to pain and exhaustion from physical, intellectual and magic activities, you can also use it to represent the strain from breathing fire, secreting poison or using an ability that’d allow to scale walls more efficiently. Exhaustion would just represent how much the body is strained from effort.
-
This has gone a slight bit off topic; but I'd like to pitch in:
Its probably most realistic to use some sort of exhaustion rules to replace Hp and PP. Its like triple the same system, while combat and magical effectiveness is probably measured by exhaustion alone.
People don't succumb to 1000 pin pricks, but I think taking wounds and even partaking combat is very tiring. In the end a battle (wrestling match, fencing, even other sporting event) is won by being less exhausted than the other guy, given equally skilled opponents.
Maybe the system should be made more interesting, with something like multiple exhaustion levels (I mean like 10) and a way of accumulating exhaustion that isn't linear (since in reality it isn't). Let it capture stuff like penalties to activity, bleeding and wound trauma, as well as Hp and PP. I'm not that well read in RPG mechanisms, but I think it hasn't been looked at, that way. Also it simplifies things on the keeping-track-side.
Even call it something like effectiveness, or energy...
-
Stamina?
-
technically, every time you cast a spell, use a psion, walk down a flight of steps, etc, you DO use some of your Exhaustion points in addition to whatever PPs you may need.
So from that POV, this system is already in plcae.
The big problem is that the current exhaustion point mechanism is excessively clumsy and requires more effort/bookkeeping than you gain in playability or enjoyment.
If you do a search for "fatigue" and my name, you should be able to find an entirely separate "Fatigue" mechanism that I proposed to replace exhaustion ... and yes, you could also use it to directly power Psions/etc if necessary ...
-
If you do a search for "fatigue" and my name, you should be able to find an entirely separate "Fatigue" mechanism that I proposed to replace exhaustion ... and yes, you could also use it to directly power Psions/etc if necessary ...
I went and looked, and found this:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=775.msg9975#msg9975
Is that what you were referring to?
-
The exhaustion by level is a great thing and will be an easier calculation.
Say there will be a Stamina skill in which you develop ranks + SD/CO.This is the base threshold.
So, if you have +20 tha base threshold (BT) will be 20.
There are 10 levels of exhaustion: from BTx1 to BTx10
From now on you will build up hits taken, spells cast, fatigue used, etc. Every level of exhaustion reached will impose some penalty, from -10 (or -5) to -100 (or -50).
This is much easier to compute during character updates and during the game itself, and you will only have to compute one stat instead of three (Hits, PP and exhaustion).
Ex. Say you have a BT of 20 and you are hit for 12 concussion hits, you have accumulated +12 exhaustion. No penalty, yet.
Next you will cast a spell with a cost of 10PP. 12+10 = 22, so you are now -10 (or -5).
-
I don't see the big deal about this "fatigue replacing hits, exhaustion and power points" thing. I mean, it isn't such a hard thing to keep track of three pools of numbers - given other book-keeping going on in play it's a pretty minor ask really. And as a player, I prefer having multiple things to keep track of anyway, helps me to feel more involved with the game.
-
In my opinion, less bookkeeping = more roleplay, more story, more fun.
-
We reduce bookkeeping by not using exhaustion points at all.
-
If you do a search for "fatigue" and my name, you should be able to find an entirely separate "Fatigue" mechanism that I proposed to replace exhaustion ... and yes, you could also use it to directly power Psions/etc if necessary ...
I went and looked, and found this:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=775.msg9975#msg9975
Is that what you were referring to?
I think that is the correct link. I very much liked the idea and have added it to my game with some modifications. Below I paste the current version of the rules that I use.
Exhaustion
*no exhaustion points are counted, instead rules for "pushing the limit" as detailed below are used.
*You have to beat your current Exhaustion Limit (EL) to keep going without (more?) penalties
*EL start at 50 and is increased by 10 for every period the character is pushing the limit. EL rolls are modified by the characters Co/Co/SD bonus.
*Failing to beat the EL will give you a exhaustion penalty until you rest
*exhaustion penalties are 0/-20/-40/-60/-80/-100...
*recovery time are 1 minute of rest or 3 minutes of normal activity. Each recovery period reduce your EL by 10 and move you one exhaustion class up(i.e. from -50 to -30).
* Adrenal-type maneuverer can be triggered without pushing the limits if the character is not pushing the limits for any other reason, and only for one round. After that round the character must push the limits to trigger Adrenals …
*Base stride is 12 meters per round, or 36 feet per round, or 2 meters per second, or 6 feet per second
* Combat - increases EL every 6 rounds (1 minute)
* Jogging (x2 pace) - increases EL every 6 rounds (1 minute)
* Running (x3 pace) - increases EL every 1 round
* Sprinting (x4 pace) - increases EL every 2 seconds
* Dashing (x5 pace) - increases EL every second
* You can accelerate at most one pace per second. This means it takes about five seconds to reach dashing speed. EL checks frequency depends on target speed and not the speed the character has reached so far.
*Additional Factors - Sleep Deprivation / Hunger / Long-term Exhaustion/ Sickness - forces the character to do EL roll even when rested. In severe cases the EL could start higher than 50.
(The above rules means the master sprinter with good stats need about 9 second for 100 meters, A newbee sprinter cover about 50 meters in the same time)
-
What I'd eventually like to see it a system where whatever the points are called (Exhaustion, whatever) and simply what Arms users use for special attack and Spell users use as spell points. I've toyed with theories in my head, but I've never bothered to try and put it on paper and work it out yet.
-
We reduce bookkeeping by not using exhaustion points at all.
Agree. I've never been a fan of exhaustion points.
-
We find that they're really only needed to limit the amount of time a caster can a) concentrate on a spell or b) concentrate to keep a spell prepared. At 1 exhaustion point per minute, one cannot keep a (c) spell around forever.
-
We find that they're really only needed to limit the amount of time a caster can a) concentrate on a spell or b) concentrate to keep a spell prepared. At 1 exhaustion point per minute, one cannot keep a (c) spell around forever.
I'm not really a fan of tacking other functions on to Exhaustion Points because then you have to track Exhaustion Points. Right now they can safely be ignored without really affecting anything else.
I like the Spell Concentration skill as a solution for concentration. I think it was in one of the realm Companions, a new skill in the Self-Control category (this is RMSS). Basically, the number of ranks is your base number of concentration rounds. E.g. if you have 5 ranks, you can concentrate for 5 rounds automatically. At the end of that time, you have to make a Spell Concentration static maneuver to continue concentrating. And then again at that interval (e.g. with 5 ranks, you make another Spell Concentration check every 5 rounds).
If you didn't want to have a new and separate skill, you could also make the base number of concentration rounds your Self-Discipline stat bonus (or that x3 or +5 or whatever if you want to be generous), and use your bonus in the spell list to make the check. No DP sink, no skill bloat, fairly simple mechanism that improves as you get better with the spells.
-
Well, I’d bring spell concentration in the same ground than the general ability to concentrate on something, thus droping the extra skill and using meditation or another that’d do the same.
But the matter was not “what to do with exhaustion points as they are now†but rather “how to bring HP, EP and PP in the same pool†and a pool of points that’d represent the strain of pain, effort and power channeling would be a great step towards a reduction of bookkeeping. It would also prevent mages with a few EP left from casting lvl 50 spells without too much trouble.
-
As a whole, I don’t like it when skills are added “because it’s magicâ€. If the skill is really JUST related to magic, OK, go on. But if it’s the same than another activity not linked to magic, then a generic skill should be enough.
Same goes with poisons and herbs. Why separate skills. Merge then in one skill, because what can heal you can also kill you, it’s a matter of proportion. Arsenic can cure cancer. It can also kill you lightning fast. (And herds don’t cover remedies extracted from minerals and animals at that, so there is a gap.)
-
In my opinion blending HP/PP/EP is painless.
While I can't say to be able to cast spells, I can assume that casting one could be comparable to 8 hours of works on a PC.
While you're not physically tired the final outcame is that... well, your globally tired.
The same after three round of boxing: your fatigued.
Since in RM hits are pain, stress, etc, I see that they can be safely pooled.
Skill cost could be race-based instead of profession based.
I'll drop completely the exhaustion tracking for actions and will add options to voluntarily spend it to gains benefit.
-
I’d drop professions and dp and would make skills gain ranks when employed. The probability to gain 1 rank in a skill should vary according to values chosen at character creation (or according to stat bonuses, or not vary at all). The ability to channel magic power should be a talent with a downside (reduced ability to gain ranks in some other fields). Each type of magic should be a talent, you have to buy all the types to be an arcane caster.
Those talents should have ranks, ranging from no casting ability to exceptional magic ability (none, poor, mild, mediocre, good, very good, excellent, exceptional). Depending on the setting, most character should start with none to mild magic power channeling ability).
The new EP skill would gain ranks when checking for EP loss. EP pool should be heavily influenced by race.
-
I encourage you to check out the forthcoming edition of The Guild Companion, which includes a discussion of gaining skills as they are employed. Not quite what you described, but perhaps of interest nonetheless.
-
I will, thanks. I would have submitted mine, but it ended up weighing 15 pages and would rather fit in a rulebook :p
-
We reduce bookkeeping by not using exhaustion points at all.
The only time I use exhaustion points is to figure out how many rounds someone can move at the "Fast Sprint" movement rate.
-
I will, thanks. I would have submitted mine, but it ended up weighing 15 pages and would rather fit in a rulebook :p
Fifteen pages is not a problem for TGC.
-
I also use Exhaustion Point s a guideline to see how long someone can perform an action (running, swimming, etc). I track them and let the player know with hints.."Bob is hardly winded." "Bob is feeling the strain." "Bob is puffing like an old style locomotive", etc
This move the game along and prevents my players from feeling like accountants.
-
15 pages isn't so crazy, Ecthelion's house rule doc is pretty big too.
-
15 pages isn't so crazy, Ecthelion's house rule doc is pretty big too.
Actually, I was asked some times ago to write a draft for a rpg. The project went down, Iceland economy style, so I am now the owner of an uncomplete 70 pages rulebook draft written in French that is slowing turning into a houserule book.
The point being that I must translate it for publication in the GC.
-
Why not approach Nicholas and pitch it as a saleable product? Least there'll be some form of remuneration in all the hard work.
-
Why not approach Nicholas and pitch it as a saleable product? Least there'll be some form of remuneration in all the hard work.
Harp, RMC and RMFRP seem far enough for GCP (actually, most of us would agree that’s too much already), don’t you believe? I’ll just adapt it to RM and decide what to do with it when it’s done (understand: when my PhD will be a success, in 3 years or so).
-
Agreed, having 3 alternate systems to market is a headache I would not want...but what's done is done.
-
To move this topic along, and coming back to the original request on what would be good to change... Reminded by the thread about character generation, I would like to see a reduction in the skill list. Note that here I'm speaking with the older version of the game (the one with all the companions) so it may have been addressed in newer versions - if so I apologise :) But the skill list is absolutely massive and very intimidating to a new player. I look at some other games (e.g. Pathfinder, which took an already slim skill list and slimmed it even further) and then back at Rolemaster , where the (not very long) skill listings take up dozens of pages, and wonder if there could be a better way.
Recently I created an Excel spreadsheet to assist in character management, on which I had to list down all the skills, and it came to over 500 lines - and I didn't include all of the sub skills either, although that does include individual weapons. I reckon you could chop half of the skills and see no detriment in realism, probably more.
-
Agreed. There are many redundant skills in RMSS/FRP too.
Exemple : you have a skill for picking locks, a skull for setting and removing traps, a skill for mechanition… But all of these are mechanisms. So, just put a skill representing the dexterity, and use over skills to limit its application.
Picking locks? dexterity capped by lock lore (+mod from lock lore roll).
Removing traps? dexterity capped by trap lore.
Trap building? roll for design, roll for crafting with skill modified by mod from design roll
Picking pockets? dexterity capped by stealth.
Just ideas.
-
I think that "skill as cap" are perceived by players as wasted points.
I could do much more... aside from that stupid cap...
Skill reduction is the way, expecially in RMSS/RMFRP.
-
So don't use Secondary Skills. Problem solved... ;)
I never used ALL the skills introduced in the various Companions, and the proliferation of skills in RMSS was one reason I never switched to it. Rather, I went through and selected the skills that were needed for the cultures in my world and avoided the rest. In all seriousness, even the basic Secondary Skills were considered optional, and those introduced in the Companions doubly so. RM is, at the end of it, only as hard as WE make it, IMO.
-
Exemple : you have a skill for picking locks, a skull for setting and removing traps, a skill for mechanition… But all of these are mechanisms. So, just put a skill representing the dexterity, and use over skills to limit its application.
Picking locks? dexterity capped by lock lore (+mod from lock lore roll).
Removing traps? dexterity capped by trap lore.
Trap building? roll for design, roll for crafting with skill modified by mod from design roll
Picking pockets? dexterity capped by stealth.
I think caps are boring. On the other hand I think streamlining the skills is the way go.
In my game I have replaced all these skills with a single skill named Gimmicry/Fine mechanics. The lore skills still exist and they give understanding about what to do. A character with only the lore skills might understand that the chest is trapped, but lack the steady hands needed to defeat the mechanism. On the other hand he could talk a character with Gimmicry/Fine mechanics through the task of disabling the trap. If a character have both skills I either resolve it as separate rolls if it is trap must not be set of or as a plus to the Gimmicry/Fine Mechanics if the character safely can tinker with mechanism until he manage to make it work.
-
I had posted elsewhere that I use a system where there are only 25ish core skills. Secondary skills only reduce the penalty for performing actions but have no skill bonus and are capped at 5 ranks (+25). The secondary skill cannot provide a bonus only reduce the difficulty. So, a player can have a skill bonus of +63 in Gimmickry then +5 in Pick Lock, +10 in Machinery, and +15 to disarm trap. This character trying to disarm a trap (Hard -10) would reduce the difficulty to +0 then roll gimmickry +63. To pick the lock (Hard -10) he would reduce the penalty to -5 and roll +63.
Each rank in a secondary skill costs the combined cost of the skill (2/5 = 7).
-
Regarding RMFRP skills, I just completed a skill reduction for my game. There are still plenty of skills but I tried to eliminate redundancy. I consolidated skills and skill categories. My next step is to update my excel character sheet to reflect those changes.
One day, I may post my list as house rules. The limiting factor to that is explaining why some decisions were made.
-
Just slap on a new forum topic to your cleaned up skill list and start explaining away! :)