Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: Terry K. Amthor on February 19, 2015, 11:33:10 AM
-
Wow, love to see how active this board is; it's my first time here. I still use RM2, and frankly, do not like RMSS; I think RM2 could use a few tweaks (not all those crazy Companions, thank you!) but some profession additions and adjustments. And I even like the HARP lesser spells.
Just MHO,
Terry
-
I never cared for RMSS, either, honestly. I modified the mess out of RM2, but that was more setting-specific and integrating things from the Companions in a (for us) sensible way. RMSS...well...no.
-
You're old fashioned. :)
I still love RM2. Not RMC. Just plain old RM2. My kids are all hooked on it now, my now ex-wife, and just a few months ago, three, possibly four new players really into it.
RMSS had some great ideas and refinements that I really liked, but too much of a departure from what I loved but not enough to get me to re-invest all that time and money into a "similar" game system. (I have all of the RM Companions. I'm an addict. What can I say?) It wasn't like going from RM2 to White Wolf or D20. It was still RM, just different.
I have an open mind and anticipation for RMU, but still not sure it will be enough to get me to leap from RM2.
I think the only major mod we ever did to RM2 was the initiative system. We simplified it down to just open ended D100+QU bonus. Everyone went in order or held their initiative until the wanted to act to interrupt someone.
Quellbourne is still one of my favorite companions. Just saying :)
-
I remain RM2 core... Though I have hopes for RMU.. they still didn't go the way I went with my own modifications to RM2. But given the choice between RMU and RMSS? I think I am leaning towards RMU.
-
I have been a pure RM2 player and GM for 30 years or so right up until this month where I just bought the 4 RMC books as PDFs.
I have never even read the RMSS books.
-
I have tried everything from MERP to RMSS/RFP and use bits of each. I am RMSS to the core once I got the house rules fine tuned. The Category system sealed it for me. I miss all the extra classes in the RM2 Companions but that was getting complicated to handle and remember. I am looking forward to seeing RMU become the next great thing but have issues with the development system of talents being purchased through out game play.
-
We prefer RMSS, however we had been implementing RM into our D&D campaigns much farther back (even pre-RM2). However, we pull a lot of stuff from RM2 into RMSS since there's so much more material there, we just have to tweek it a bit (sometimes a lot) to balance better.
-
I prefer RMSS for many reasons that I will not go into here as I have been accused of bashing RM2/C in the past, and quite a few of players that I have had in the past also share my version of RM preference.
MDC
-
Started off with RM2, switched to RMSS for a lot of years after that. RM2 had some really unbalanced Companion books.
I run RMFRP these days, with a few bits thrown in from HARP, but frankly I should have stayed with RMSS. RMFRP has too many small and subtle changes, I'm still finding differences between RMSS and RMFRP after 5 years.
Looking forward to trying RMU when the next release appears!
- David.
-
After running RM2 for many years I switched to RMSS and ran it for several years too, but never quite surmounted the nagging feeling that something had been lost. I suspect that this was in part intangible - rather like dating someone closely reminiscent of one's first true love but lacking the zing of the earlier experience - but also due to the fact that RMSS seemed somehow over-organised, rather as if the sprawling vistas of RM2 had been framed, tamed and somehow lost their organic beauty (I thought the category system a nifty piece of work but didn't actually like it).
All prolixity aside, the earlier version just seemed more open and malleable from a worldbuilding perspective. I never really worried about power creep in the Companions (after witnessing two of my players, a Mystic and a Magician regularly deploying the Oxygenation-Firebolt one-two punch), preferring to interpret power creep as rising levels of challenge, rare and dangerous gems to be unearthed and surmounted (or not). And some of the new options in the Companions simply worked better in the context of the world I was building. I was grateful to encounter them.
-
I got the Character book for RMSS by mistake when I started building my RM collection. I wasn't sure how I felt about things like developing categories of skills, and I nerd-raged ridiculously about the stat bonus changes(me<--dumb), but I absolutely hated the cultures and racial skills. To me an important aspect of Rolemaster was its generic-ness. Cultures and especially racial skills forced setting into the mechanics really bothered me. Now, I realize that somewhere in the mechanics there are going to be setting/cosmological assumptions--it's inescapable. But the smaller and fewer they are the more I can build my world setting and not have to incorporate or houserule.
I've just started going through CL for RMU; I probably won't get through it too fast as I'm also ramping up a new RM campaign group. I see that cultures are in there, but I haven't gotten to their specifics yet. How much cosmology is assumed in the mechanics will certainly be a major question as to whether or not I buy it when it's done.
-
I actually liked the racial and cultural skills at character development. This brings in a flavor of what your upbringing influences skills in ones history. The Racial skills are fixed but the cultural skills can change the outcome of a character concept. If you don't like the stated skill list you can adjust them to your liking as long as the balance of skill points is the same. This really endured me to the RMSS system as it gave skills to characters that players usually pass up during character develpement (Culture Lore, Ect....).
-
I feel like there needs to be a balancing template provided for things like that. Am I supposed to call two cultural packages equivalent because one spends 2 DP on Animal Herding and the other on Stalk/Hide? Unless you're running a heavy agricultural game that's not equal. So how should I balance them? Is doubling the effective cost of Stalk/Hide enough? I don't know....
I am very aware that the process of balancing things in games is a much more complicated process than it seems, and I don't know much of anything about it yet. So I want the people who did do the balancing to tell me how to get to balanced sets. I only know enough to get myself in trouble.
(yes, balance is a huge concern for me, which is also partly why I'm not a fan of houserules in general. That and I'm just a bit of a stick-in-the-mud. ;) )
-
Ditto Cory, Markc and others. I prefer RMSS.
-
I feel like there needs to be a balancing template provided for things like that. Am I supposed to call two cultural packages equivalent because one spends 2 DP on Animal Herding and the other on Stalk/Hide? Unless you're running a heavy agricultural game that's not equal. So how should I balance them? Is doubling the effective cost of Stalk/Hide enough? I don't know....
I am very aware that the process of balancing things in games is a much more complicated process than it seems, and I don't know much of anything about it yet. So I want the people who did do the balancing to tell me how to get to balanced sets. I only know enough to get myself in trouble.
(yes, balance is a huge concern for me, which is also partly why I'm not a fan of houserules in general. That and I'm just a bit of a stick-in-the-mud. ;) )
How to balance them is simple. Like set dev points, assign a set number of adolescence ranks that players can spend however they with to design their youth/cultural upbringing.
I have done this in RMSS for years now. I totaled the adolescent ranks for all the cultures and averaged. Then I decided screw it and gave everyone the 85 ranks a high elf always gets (they have a lot of languages). I limit ranks to four in most cases, but if a player really wants 6 ranks in surgery or boat pilot and it makes sense, I am game.
Set ranksremoves a bunch of needless tables and allows GM's and players to tailor their PC's to their gaming style. Win/win.
-
I actually didn't mind the set race/culture options for adolescence in RMSS - or at least, I didn't mind the mechanic - but I adapted it for my own campaign. The general Middle Earth flavour (Hillmen, Mariners and whathaveyou) of the options presented didn't appeal, and anyway, my campaign at that time didn't use any of the archetypal RPG races (there were some...analogues of those races, I guess).
I like the idea that during adolescence character options are channeled into narrow-ish parameters and rather enjoyed compiling a few needless tables ::) I'm currently going through that process again for a new campaign. As long as the players have plenty of wriggle room, I'm fine with it. And like tbigness I'm in favour of players receiving ranks in skills that they might not otherwise develop.
-
I'm right there with you on that MrApollinax. I like the idea of adolescence, but it needs to be fined tuned a bit more depending on your setting.
-
I like the element of backgrounds to provide how a PC was raised. So I don't think giving a PC complete control of Adolescent development is good for the game. The Adolescent development generally gives skills to otherwise looked over skill that are a part of role playing such as Region Lore and Basic Math. if one does not have any ranks then they cannot know the local customs of the region or how to use the concept of counting, weighing, or the fundamental exchange of currency. So there should be background skills developed according to the upbringing you choose to play as.
-
I like the element of backgrounds to provide how a PC was raised. So I don't think giving a PC complete control of Adolescent development is good for the game. The Adolescent development generally gives skills to otherwise looked over skill that are a part of role playing such as Region Lore and Basic Math. if one does not have any ranks then they cannot know the local customs of the region or how to use the concept of counting, weighing, or the fundamental exchange of currency. So there should be background skills developed according to the upbringing you choose to play as.
I agree. Basic Math is an oft over looked skill for example. Many outdoor skills in rural settings or crafts are ignored on the standard adolescent table. Hobby ranks are good and all, but most of my players look to represent their youth, not min max, and honestly, in a game with a GM, seeing to properly spending tose ranks is part of her job anyway.
-
I've been working with coming up with a new campaign (life keeps getting in the way) and one of the things I'm going to do is ask each player what their character did before 'adventuring' (i.e. before the campaign begins). It needs to be something aside from combat type skills. So you could have been a sailor, or a carpenter, or a baker, etc. Then I'll provide a set of skills in that 'non-adventuring' trade.
-
I have in the past put in place a youth level which was defined by your social class, this went a long way to helping with some of the skills that I thought PC's should have at least 1 or 2 ranks in but they did not have the DP for them.
MDC
-
I did this while playing RM2. I gave out background skills that were non-combat/Spell oriented to round out the characters for background knowledge based on their backgrounds. That is why I was excited about RMSS development.
-
I don't know why everyone is saying that RMC/RM2 is unbalanced. If you read the introduction of ANY of the companion books, it says that you shouldn't use everything. There are tons of options for all kinds of GM's, depending on what sort of campaign they want to run. The golden rule is: READ THE BOOK!!!
-
One trick to getting a player to develop a trade/craft is to have it determine part of their initial money. So, for each rank in a trade/craft skill add a silver piece or something similar.
-
I don't know why everyone is saying that RMC/RM2 is unbalanced. If you read the introduction of ANY of the companion books, it says that you shouldn't use everything. There are tons of options for all kinds of GM's, depending on what sort of campaign they want to run. The golden rule is: READ THE BOOK!!!
Some people aren't able to understand the impact various parts of the rules will have on balance. This is the exact reason all published material in a given system should be balanced as well as possible. As time went on the oversight by the ICE editors became too lax in that regard.
-
IIRC what I heard was there was very little oversight it was just fan submitted material that was published in book form.
MDC
-
"Too lax" was probably being kind. ;)
-
I liked the RMSS themed companions a lot more than RM2 "get as much as you can and pack it into a book" companions. I hope this themed philosophy is carried over to RMU.
About RMSS vs RM2. i love both of them, but I found RMSS better organised. The categories are a cleaner way of working similar skills, so I feel good with them around, even if at first look they looked quite strange. If i had to make a choice between them, i will go for RMSS. back in those days my regular campaign group changed from RM2 to RMSS without problems, and they liked RMSS better than RM2. Now, after more than ten years without GMing i am starting a new game with new players, most of them new to RM, and we are going for RMSS. With new players I don't feel safe playing a RMU Beta, but I am sure that as soon as it gets published I will change to it.
-
I remember when I first started running RM out of the boxed set- then we expanded in to RMC1. Not too bad. But, RMC2 was where everyone went to for a semi spell user.
-
Our group usually plays into the teens in levels (12-17 or so) and the Semi's always pulled out in front in the end, so I often play one - although I probably play a Rogue about a fourth of the time due to their varied skill costs. The Pure Arms PC's are good up front, then the Pure Casters pull ahead, then the Semi's eventually pull out in front of them both.
-
I started out with RM2 and played that for many years. When RMSS came out we eventually switched over and played that for a long while but I never liked it as much as RM2. I think my main concern with RMSS was that it was too detailed, it hampered game play. IMHO it's more fun to have somewhat less skills that you can have a broader use for, it also allows for more inventiveness. But hey, that's just my opinion...
Having spent some time here on the board reading people's reactions and thoughts on RMU I feel a little lonely I must admit. I actually really like the Beta 2. It has something that I've never experienced in RM before, cohesiveness.
It seems no one is happy, both RM2 players and RMSS players complain equally. Maybe the complaints are different to each other but no one seems to actually like anything. I wonder if people are just being set in their ways?
The only thing that I have a problem with is backwards compatibility. If you change how many hit points monsters have and make it relative, it'll just be a big mess to use old campaign material.
Everything else I could totally live with and enjoy. I'd be happy to change over to RMU using the Beta 2 rules after they have been fine tuned for final release. In many ways I felt that the authors had solved things in brilliant ways even if it was done very differently compared to past editions. I still feel it holds true to the Rolemaster heritage.
I could keep playing RM2/RMC too, I'd be fine with that, but IMHO RMU is a great product. I hope they don't revert back in too many ways with the next beta, being new isn't a bad thing, it's just different.
-
Having spent some time here on the board reading people's reactions and thoughts on RMU I feel a little lonely I must admit. I actually really like the Beta 2. It has something that I've never experienced in RM before, cohesiveness.
I actually like RMU and its philosophy: it's coherent and makes a GM's work easy to create his world. With RM2, I tried creating new creatures and it was a pain, as there was absolutely no rule behind each of them, as if the creators just put down figures about how they felt the creature was supposed to be. No relationship between its type, level, OB, DB, etc., not to mention you had to learn rules to manage them that were different from the ones managing the PCs/NPCs., and no skill. I tried creating new weapons in RM2 and, uh, is there even a logic between the weapon tables? I probably won't use Spell Law as I have a major philosophical disagreement with how RM manages realms but from what (little) I read, it seems that, at long last, spellcasting feels like being part of the same system as the other skills, rather than its own set of specific rules. RM2 used to be just that: you had ChL and its own set of rules, you had C&T and its own set of rules, you had SL and its own set of rules, the whole loosely tied by some tying rules. Now, at last, it feels like you only have one set of rules for everything.
-
I always got the impression that the RM Companions contained a lot of GM's house rules that were probably balanced in their game worlds; not so much in those of others, without at least some tweaking.
-
That's likely a huge part of it egdcltd. When my co-author and I wrote the Channeling Companion for RMSS we were careful to re-balance things that we thought were not in line with RMSS's balance.
-
Played RM2 for 23 years or so!
We tried out RMSS but RM2 is just the best!
We tuned some of it to our needs and liking!
-
I started with the Spell Law, then the Character Law, and just kept buying whatever ICE put out.
I'm currently playing RMSS, and like the system a bit better than RM2. I feel everything is a bit better balanced. RM2 was very cool with the diversity, and I still pull a lot of stuff from it. The class differences are pronounced in power level.
The progression as you level seems much more pronounced, and I like the feel of a more even level progression. Maybe as my campaign gets higher in level it might feel too restricted, but for now it feels good.
Mal
-
I like most of what RMU is doing. I think many people do like it; I just think there are a couple of dealbreakers that had to be resolved. For me, the biggest dealbreaker was the category system for skills, as it seemed to sever the link between the class concept/description (e.g. Rangers are good at the lore of wild beasts) and the actual mechanics (Rangers aren't actually that good at the lore of wild beasts).
I didn't have too many problems with the size rules, other than the fact that they were a bit more complex than they needed to be; I didn't think we really needed 13 size categories, when 5 or 7 would suffice. Now that Thrud mentions it though, the hit point issue for size categories really would hurt backwards compatibility. If a Troll and a Halfling each have 100 hits, it is going to be a bit more complicated to use all of those old Shadow World and MERP modules. On the plus side, I think the developers have realized this and are making at least some of the necessary changes by 'baking in' the size modifier to hit points. I'm not quite sure what happens to the hit point modifier for doing damage though.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I think RMU is shaping up well, aside from those two dealbreakers. There is some negativity, but that is normal and expected in a playtest: you subject every aspect of the rules to scrutiny and criticism in order to make a stronger game.
-
I like most of what RMU is doing. I think many people do like it; I just think there are a couple of dealbreakers that had to be resolved. For me, the biggest dealbreaker was the category system for skills, as it seemed to sever the link between the class concept/description (e.g. Rangers are good at the lore of wild beasts) and the actual mechanics (Rangers aren't actually that good at the lore of wild beasts).
I didn't have too many problems with the size rules, other than the fact that they were a bit more complex than they needed to be; I didn't think we really needed 13 size categories, when 5 or 7 would suffice. Now that Thrud mentions it though, the hit point issue for size categories really would hurt backwards compatibility. If a Troll and a Halfling each have 100 hits, it is going to be a bit more complicated to use all of those old Shadow World and MERP modules. On the plus side, I think the developers have realized this and are making at least some of the necessary changes by 'baking in' the size modifier to hit points. I'm not quite sure what happens to the hit point modifier for doing damage though.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I think RMU is shaping up well, aside from those two dealbreakers. There is some negativity, but that is normal and expected in a playtest: you subject every aspect of the rules to scrutiny and criticism in order to make a stronger game.
To me the deal breaker is Directed Spell in Combat Training. When a Magician can spend their first combat training in Directed Spell and still be better at Melee than a Druid even if the Druid uses their first Combat Training for a weapon?? This is a huge problem. I brought up this issue back in Beta one and it was heavily debated (mostly negative) and the designers did not listen.
I will use any other version of RM over RMU. Just my 2 cents.
-
To me the deal breaker is Directed Spell in Combat Training. When a Magician can spend their first combat training in Directed Spell and still be better at Melee than a Druid even if the Druid uses their first Combat Training for a weapon?? This is a huge problem. I brought up this issue back in Beta one and it was heavily debated (mostly negative) and the designers did not listen.
I will use any other version of RM over RMU. Just my 2 cents.
Just so you know, I think they developers have now decided to take Directed Spell out of Combat Training and put it in Power Manipulation. They are listening to reason :)
-
I believe it has been said that that will be changing.
I think my single biggest issue is the lack of capability between RMU and the previous versions, which is too bad because that's likely to stop me from buying bits and pieces that I otherwise would have even if not switching. Will have to wait and see how some of the expansion books work out, but that's probably years away.
-
I believe it has been said that that will be changing.
I think my single biggest issue is the lack of capability between RMU and the previous versions, which is too bad because that's likely to stop me from buying bits and pieces that I otherwise would have even if not switching. Will have to wait and see how some of the expansion books work out, but that's probably years away.
Aside from the hit point issue, which I think is being at least partially addressed, what specifically would prevent compatibility? The armor types are different but relatively easy to adjust. OBs and DBs should be roughly similar (with RMU having a bit of DB inflation, to be sure, but not so much I think that it couldn't work). What else do you think would prevent compatibility?
-
Some possible points of incompatibility include the healing spells, the structure of the combat round (e.g. action points) and how spells target it (e.g. haste giving bonus AP). There are other things like the typical skill bonus or PP for character of a given level, but those already varied quite a bit between RM2/RMC and RMSS/RMFRP, I don't think RMU is really beyond that spread. For that matter, RMSS has spells that talk about snap actions etc that are specific to the RMSS combat round.
-
Aside from the hit point issue, which I think is being at least partially addressed, what specifically would prevent compatibility?
In terms of RMSS what DON'T you have to convert? Weapon Tables (longer) and Armors (less of them) are different. Combined skills aren't that big a deal to convert, however skill cost changes (more problematic), and number of DP's per level (less so) result in different power levels. Talents have been turned into skills and skills have been turned into talents. Creatures appear to not actually reflect their level unless you spend their spare DP (you often need to finish building them for them to reflect their level) so why wouldn't I just continue to use the old Creatures and Monsters? Rounds work different. For other RM users there are even more differences, but are things that I've already modified for RMSS (like profession bonuses, Every/Occ/Restrict skills, etc). The thing I was still potentially looking forward to were the spell lists, but so many spells have been modified in how they work (Healing, spells that effect the round, spells that impact skills, Haste, etc) that even this is going to require re-writing many of them.
There's enough of RMSS I like better that I wouldn't use RMU as as system, which leaves me looking to back convert things from it, but there's nothing substantial I can get out of RMU at this point to back convert. The stuff that I like would require re-working anyhow (spell lists) at which point why not just continue rework RMSS myself? RM2 and RMSS work enough alike that there are a good number of things you can pull from one to the other fairly easily. That likely facilitated converting more users. RM2 and RMSS users bought materials that were easily used in the other. I'm not seeing much of that in RMU (and I think it's going to be a liability).
-
I'm not sure why you would want to convert the weapon tables and armors. Use the ones from the edition you are playing in. The only place that's an issue is if you want to use a table from the companions (e.g. Void Ball) in RMU. Those will come in the RMU companions.
The power level differences between RMSS and RM2 even at 1st level are so extreme that mixing character generation systems is not going to work. Pick one system to build characters. You can easily take skills from one edition to another, though. If taking skills from previous editions into RMU or RMSS, you just have to assign them to a category. Going into RM2 you need to assign costs. Taking professions into RMU, you would essentially just design a new profession based on the original one, but at least there is a system for doing so. When converting a profession from RM2 to RMSS, you likewise have to come up with all the costs and details, but there was very little guidance.
Creatures and Monsters has a greater mismatch between levels and abilities than RMU's CrL, the difference is that the stats are just made up, it's not as apparent. I mean, would you rather fight a gray gratar, greater giant skeleton, or thauredhel? Do you suppose those are balanced against each other? All 12th level.
With regard to the spell lists, healing is an issue, but those lists exist in previous editions so the need to convert them is questionable. The number of spell lists that actually depend on the combat round is minimal, and that issue likewise existed going between RM2 and RMSS. The majority of spell lists will translate with no issues. I've been heavily using RM2 and RMSS spell lists in RMU already. I've been tweaking them for setting but the only place I've run into significant rule incompatibilities was the transition from beta 1 to beta 2 since RMU changed its own combat round. Of course I'm only using lists from RM2 and RMSS when there is not already an equivalent list in RMU.
-
I guess for me I was thinking of compatibility more in terms of, 'Can I still use all those old Shadow World and Middle Earth modules?' And I think that for the most part, I can. I may have to start the PCs at level 3, but the OBs, DBs, hits, etc. should still be alright. So for me, I don't see any insurmountable difficulties.
If you were trying to convert characters from RM2 to RMSS or something like that, they yeah, I see where you would have some problems.
-
I'm not sure why you would want to convert the weapon tables and armors. Use the ones from the edition you are playing in.
You don't between RMSS and RMU. That's the point. I can mostly use RM2/RMSS ones interchangeably. I can't do that with RMU. I probably wouldn't use the RMU materials in an RM2 or RMSS game as a result. I would say I'd look into if RMU tables could work due to being expanded, however there is far less selection and, more importantly I despise how the size rules work which impacts weapons.
The power level differences between RMSS and RM2 even at 1st level are so extreme that mixing character generation systems is not going to work. Pick one system to build characters.
Why on Earth would I try mix characters built using RM2 and RMSS? No offense, but that's a huge 'duh'.
You can easily take skills from one edition to another, though. If taking skills from previous editions into RMU or RMSS, you just have to assign them to a category. Going into RM2 you need to assign costs.
Right, as I said, not a big deal to convert, just add or remove category assignment if I want to move from a category system to an individual one. Skill costs and DP provided are the bigger issue.
Taking professions into RMU, you would essentially just design a new profession based on the original one, but at least there is a system for doing so. When converting a profession from RM2 to RMSS, you likewise have to come up with all the costs and details, but there was very little guidance.
Exactly, I would have to redesign RMSS professions to use in RMU. I've already done much of this from RM2 to RMSS, but in most cases I just took a RMSS profession and tweaked it a bit. If RMU came out with professions I didn't already have they could be useful. If they had spell lists I didn't need to convert, more so. The first is unlikely for many years. The second is a distant possibility. But how many spell lists will be in the base RMU that I can't already find in RMSS and RMU? How long before new ones come out that aren't based on those? How many of those won't have spells that hinge on RMU mechanics that I need to tweak?
Creatures and Monsters has a greater mismatch between levels and abilities than RMU's CrL, the difference is that the stats are just made up, it's not as apparent. I mean, would you rather fight a gray gratar, greater giant skeleton, or thauredhel? Do you suppose those are balanced against each other? All 12th level.
I appreciate the time that went into the RMU Creatures and Monsters, but I think that book is a mess in terms of how it seems to have been forced into the design theory of everything else. Talents and flaw costs seemed very inconsistent (very similar talents/flaws had very different costs) and I suspect were often eye-balled in order to make the creature fit the level (talents/flaws seem to basically have been made up to fit the DP requirement for the desired creature level) and not the other way around. The formatting of those also results in too much page flipping and I don't see that changing since that would result in repeat information in an already massive book (even if split). They (everything) have levels, but often times those levels are partially based on DP they have not spent, which means they aren't necessarily really that level until you finish them... which seems to defeat the purpose. I won't even get into the size rules, we'd need a page for that. In a nut shell, I think someone did a lot of nice work on the book with what they were given, but what they were given was a single shaped hole that they had to force all kinds of various shaped creatures through.
With regard to the spell lists, healing is an issue, but those lists exist in previous editions so the need to convert them is questionable. The number of spell lists that actually depend on the combat round is minimal, and that issue likewise existed going between RM2 and RMSS. The majority of spell lists will translate with no issues.
There are multiple factors when trying to convert spell lists because spells can impact so much of the mechanics in the system. They can effect all the various skills, weapons/armor/combat, healing, etc. As an overall piece of RM the spells have a hand in everything. RM has always been a complex system where messing with one piece of it often has an impact on other parts. RMU has changed character build, weapon and armor balance, skills/talents/flaws, round structure, movement, size rules, spell effects, etc.
Stop and look at it this way: Although it's better than Beta 1, I still don't like the round (actions vs movement is still too wonky). I don't like the way creatures are built with talents/flaws I have to look up and are not just listed with them and that they aren't finished (left over DP). I don't like the size rules. None of those things are easily removed/replaced due to the interconnected balance of things. So if I continue to use RMSS they would hope I would still buy RMU materials to back-covert. So, what do I pull from older RM's? Weapon tables, crit tables, spell lists, maybe creatures. Can't use RMU Weapons. Last time I looked I didn't like the RMU crit tables, they are unlikely to come out with ones I don't already have for a long time and even then they SHOULD now be balanced to different weapon tables and armors. Creatures are a mess. Spell lists can be moved back IF there are new ones and IF they aren't tied to things like round mechanics, healing, haste, weapon/armor balance, etc. I like that they are filled in, but it doesn't do me much good if I've already done this myself with essentially the same list from older RM's.
If you were trying to convert characters from RM2 to RMSS or something like that, they yeah, I see where you would have some problems.
And if you're trying to retain your existing fan base...? You're counting on them largely tossing everything they've already done.
-
Yeah, I'm really confused on why RMU went the direction it did.
It feels like change for changes sake.
I don't know that the changes make any improvements to the system.
And I see several things that I do not like with RMU, so I don't see a reason to move to it - and I'm the guy who would normally buy every product put out by ICE.
Mal
-
Yeah, I'm really confused on why RMU went the direction it did.
It feels like change for changes sake.
I don't know that the changes make any improvements to the system.
And I see several things that I do not like with RMU, so I don't see a reason to move to it - and I'm the guy who would normally buy every product put out by ICE.
Mal
I agree there are some changes made that seem only for the sake of change, or to address problems that my group at least never experienced. These include Directed Spell being put in the Combat Training category, Adrenal Defense being made a talent rather than a skill, and a few others.
-
These include Directed Spell being put in the Combat Training category, Adrenal Defense being made a talent rather than a skill, and a few others.
Both of which are being changed -- Directed Spells will be in Power Manipulation, and Adrenal Defense will be a skill in Body Discipline.
-
i the case of the RMU Combat Tables,
I may prefer them and use them in my RM2 game, I am still on the fence for all the other game changes.
I like the Change that Success Must be 100 or better on the tables... Not the Idea that Regardless of what happens, you can't miss Hitting a guy in plate... which is completely unrealistic and has been one of My personal concerns/Modifications to the original RM/RMSS combat tables.
I don't see why one couldn't use the RMU tables (with some house rules to account for the armor changes) in an RM classic or RMSS game?
-
I prefer RM2. I tried RMU & it was a disaster. Once it is finally out I might like it better but I'll be running RMX & the graduate to RMC once I get the books for the future. RM2 is what I played for several years after I got back into role playing. I prefer RM but can't run or play RMSS/RMRPG or RMU. I really DETEST RMU's AP system, it was jarring having to fuss with the varied counts. As long as RMU has the AP system as its core mechanic I'll never run or play it again. With RMSS/RMRPG just didn't have the style I preferred compared to RM2, I didn't like the whole training packages & cultures. One of the things I liked about RMU was how they did cultures, it reminded me of Cyberspace.
-
We also still hang on to RM2 with alot of house rules!
For me personally, i better like GURPS for its flexible system in all matters! 4Th edition is really well tuned.
-
I prefer RM2. I tried RMU & it was a disaster. Once it is finally out I might like it better but I'll be running RMX & the graduate to RMC once I get the books for the future. RM2 is what I played for several years after I got back into role playing. I prefer RM but can't run or play RMSS/RMRPG or RMU. I really DETEST RMU's AP system, it was jarring having to fuss with the varied counts. As long as RMU has the AP system as its core mechanic I'll never run or play it again. With RMSS/RMRPG just didn't have the style I preferred compared to RM2, I didn't like the whole training packages & cultures. One of the things I liked about RMU was how they did cultures, it reminded me of Cyberspace.
Can you expand on what you mean by 'varied counts' with RMU's AP system? They have made some changes recently and you might find you like it more.
-
I've spent more time with RMSS, than any other version. There was very little that I thought needed tweaking (other than presentation of the character sheet to a player friendly format).
RM2... well, had some "gap" that I thought needed house-rules for. From what I'm hearing here, I'm not the only one and don't appear to be that many that played it RAW anyway... most used elements from the various Companions.
O.K. So RMSS had it's "Companions" too.. but apart from confusion in the presentation of categories/skills not much changed rules wise there wasn't any great changes to the "basics".
As for RMU... hmmm. I'm not jumping off any wagons yet.. to me it has too many changes at a basic level to make it compatible enough with either of RM2 or RMSS to make fans of either particularly enthusiastic about changing from their preferred system. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but we'll see.... ATM it has the feel of HARP about it.. which isn't a bad thing exactly but also feels like a waste of time since Harp already exists.
-
I prefer RM2. I tried RMU & it was a disaster. Once it is finally out I might like it better but I'll be running RMX & the graduate to RMC once I get the books for the future. RM2 is what I played for several years after I got back into role playing. I prefer RM but can't run or play RMSS/RMRPG or RMU. I really DETEST RMU's AP system, it was jarring having to fuss with the varied counts. As long as RMU has the AP system as its core mechanic I'll never run or play it again. With RMSS/RMRPG just didn't have the style I preferred compared to RM2, I didn't like the whole training packages & cultures. One of the things I liked about RMU was how they did cultures, it reminded me of Cyberspace.
Can you expand on what you mean by 'varied counts' with RMU's AP system? They have made some changes recently and you might find you like it more.
I think I misworded that but it is how I think of it. I hate going through initiative having everyone declare initiative on their 1st AP count, then on their 2nd AP count the perform their action & if able to they can then do other stuff as the AP count winds down. Then go through it over again. I prefer the older RMC initiative - short actions first & then long actions, all using the same initiative order. Plus you declare everything before the initiative roll. Hell I prefer the old RM2 default initiative set up better.
-
I think I misworded that but it is how I think of it. I hate going through initiative having everyone declare initiative on their 1st AP count, then on their 2nd AP count the perform their action & if able to they can then do other stuff as the AP count winds down. Then go through it over again. I prefer the older RMC initiative - short actions first & then long actions, all using the same initiative order. Plus you declare everything before the initiative roll. Hell I prefer the old RM2 default initiative set up better.
Thanks for explaining that. Remember though that you can always vary the AP count in RMU to better suit your group, and to try to approximate whichever system you prefer. If for example you count down by 2 AP at a time rather than 1, that will give you a system that essentially has a short action phase (for all actions costing up to 2 AP) first, and then a long action phase (for actions up to 4 AP) second. Currently, in my group, we actually just have a singe phase for all 4 AP worth of actions, which gives us a simplified round much like the DnD round.
That won't give you exactly the round you prefer, but it would be more like the one you want.
Also, we always use the same initiative order from action phase to action phase and round to round. I know that is not for everyone -- some people prefer to reroll initiative every phase and round -- but it works for us, and there's no reason you can't do that in RMU too.
Note I am assuming you are using the new RMU round structure that has been outlined since beta 2. In the new system, you no longer have to subtract 5 from your initiative for each action point you spend. The system is much simpler now: just count down by action point (whether 1, 2, or 4, depending on which you prefer).
-
Yes it was the one in Beta 2, but I still prefer RMC/2. I might incorporate a few things I like from RMU but NOT the AP system.
-
Ok, fair enough. I just wanted to point out that the system that is in Beta2 has been simplified since Beta2 was released. You no longer have to count down by increments of 5 to resolve your attacks. You just go by action phase, which corresponds to 1 AP being spent. I think you are using that modified system, but I did just want to note that modifications have been made to the Beta2 system since it was released.
-
One trick to getting a player to develop a trade/craft is to have it determine part of their initial money. So, for each rank in a trade/craft skill add a silver piece or something similar.
I like that idea. Might have to steal it ;)
Nightblade ->--
-
I remember long ago when RMSS was first being rolled out, there was an article in the Guild Companion talking about the future of RM & what improvements should/shouldn't be looked at (sort of like the process we are going through now with RMU). The author of the article noted that he saw RM not as a Role Playing Game but a Role Playing Game Construction System. His reasoning was that, yes there is a Core set of rules in RM2 (ChL; A&CL; SL & C&T) with a ton of options. It is all these options (that all of us have used or not over the last few decades) that give RM its enduring character & feel. I remember the auther citing a situation where a new player joined his group claiming to be an old hand at playing RM. So, not thinking, the Author told the new player to make a PC & join the group. Well, the new player used a ton of optional rules that the Author didn't - to the point where the PC the new player had done up wasn't compatible with the Author's game. It was this situation that made him realize that every single RM2 game was going to be different because of all the options available. As such, he saw RM2 as a RPG Consturction Tool.
RMSS was a definate attempt at making a single system (hence the name "Standard System") & it (IMHO) achieved this. Personally, I don't like some of the rules (smoothed stat bonuses for one) but it was compatible enough with RM2 that one could use portions of either system interchangably. A sort of RM-Frankenstein that I have come to be quite proud of in my own uses of this wonderful RPG System. But I always thought: you know, RM2 really could be one set of rules if you wanted. If you just followed the RAW in those four core RM2 books without any of the options (which I think RMX attempted to do), you have a very simple, playable & realistic FRPG.
I've yet to delve too far into RMU, but I was under the impression (rightly or falsely) that it was supposed to take the best of both systems & make a truly unified game. Instead, it seems with RMU we have a third set of rules, one which is even further from being compatible with previous versions, that will only cement more division between various "camps". Albeit, RMU is still in Beta stage & far from being in its final form. And I understand that picking & choosing things from each system to make just one system is much easier said than done. But I wonder - why put all this effort into further division in the hopes of bringing people together? Why not just acknowledge the true marvel that RM gives us all - a system to create our own fantasy/sci-fi worlds (when you include SM) & a system that allows us to mold the rules to fit our worlds in the best way. Yes, it means as GMs we need to have a "Here's My House Rules Player Guide PDF" for every player that wants to join our games. But will one ruleset truly fit the vision of every GM using the system? Will GMs not continue to tweak & change rules to fit their worlds anyway? So why fight it? Build that into the system (as RM2 did). Accept that it is going to happen & create products to support our type of GMs that revel in tweaking rules & mechanics in order to make the system work best for their world. After all, as a GM who has put the time into creating a world or a campaign, the last thing you need is for an unbending ruleset to hamper your vision. Right?
But then again, this is: IMHO. I am certain there are those of you out there who will disagree. That's good. You should. Becuase your vision of RM is not exactly the same as mine, nor is it exactly the same as anyone elses. As it should be!
Keep rolling those 66's 8)
Nightblade ->--
-
I think RMU should be made as compatible as possible with earler editions. That way, you don't alienate the player base and you have a huge body of MERP and Shadow World (and Spacemaster) modules and adventures to play RMU with. Those who don't plan to use all of RMU might still buy it, then, to use parts of it, like the new spell lists (which have spells at every level) or the piecemeal armor rules.
-
I'll wait until RMU is out before I judge it, but I don't see switching from RM2 or more likely RMC since I am missing RM2 books & frankly the ones on the used market are in various degrees of wear.
-
I think RMU should be made as compatible as possible with earler editions.
As an existing player using RMSS I would also like to see this. But, as far as I have taken a look into the RMU rules and observed some discussions in these forums, compatibility with the previous editions was not one of the primary goals. So I think a couple of adjustments need to be made when wanting to use old adventures. But perhaps some guides on how to migrate existing RMC/RM2/RMSS adventures can be added to the RMU books.
-
I think RMU should be made as compatible as possible with earler editions.
As an existing player using RMSS I would also like to see this. But, as far as I have taken a look into the RMU rules and observed some discussions in these forums, compatibility with the previous editions was not one of the primary goals. So I think a couple of adjustments need to be made when wanting to use old adventures. But perhaps some guides on how to migrate existing RMC/RM2/RMSS adventures can be added to the RMU books.
We've been playing an old ICE Middle Earth module (Cardolan I think) and so far it is pretty compatible. The armor types are probably the one thing that needs to be converted most often, but the conversion is quite easy. Other than that, we haven't had any major issues. The one thing that might be a problem as we get to the mid to high levels is the passive defenses, because right now we are seeing a lot of DB inflation.