Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: Prince Finnion on January 23, 2018, 10:08:33 AM
-
I'm introducing several players to the old 2nd edition system. These are all D&D vets and 2 complete RP rookies (one is my son). This has been an interesting journey and it's far from over for them. I started them out at level 1 and have been bumping them up each week (until they hit 5) in an effort to get them familiar with the mechanics of the system and leveling up a character (which they seem to find very complex). In my experience at level 5 you can actually hit something and get a fun critical, plus you can usually take a hit and not cry about it to badly, so once they get there the true challenges will start.
The vets tend to assume the system is just like D&D, even after seeing the complicated character sheets, in that there are only a few base classes and those roles all need to be filled. They expect a very limited number of spells and for magic missile to always hit and give damage. That kind of thing.
The biggest thing I tried to convey was the skills you need to survive.
"Body Dev for you hits, without hits you die."
"General Perception, if you don't see it, it can kill you."
"Primary Weapon, if you can't kill it, it can kill you."
So after reviewing their skill sheets I learned that they were skipping a rank of BD or Weapons so that they can pick up Seduction or some other skills. I heard the comment, "I'll just get it next level." Then there was the complaints about not having the best possible stats for every skill, or not having enough DPs for every skill on the sheet they thought they might use one day. The Magician complaining that he has to prepare his level 2 Shock Bolt for a few combat rounds while the fighters kill everything.
So far they've fought a handful of level 2 orcs and a handful of level 2 brigands that they took care of with ease. Then I threw just 6 Elothere at them (level 5 giant boars) and they almost died, lol.
As a quick side note, I use Middle-Earth as my background and reference the MERP system as source material. They seem to love the idea since they've all seen the movies (I told them not to hold the Hobbit movies against Middle-Earth, it wasn't supposed to be like that) and a few have even read the books, one has even read the Silmarillion.
So what advice can I give these power gamers and noobs to help them through these trying times? What advice can you give me with dealing with them? Or, what advice do you have in general for introducing new players to the system?
-
I ran into this issue when I ran a mini-campaign for the AD&D players last year. I gave them pre-made characters so they could see how the game system worked. All PCs were level 5, but I stepped up the difficulty each week. Small groups of goblins with an orc commander, make shift barricade/bunker manned with goblin archers/javelins and two orc captains etc. When it came time to make a PC, they had an understanding of what skills they would probably use, not use, would like to have.
It sounds like your group is already beyond PC creation. At this point, you have to keep reminding them "... this is not D&D..." It's a base 100 system; percentile. The group I have now are all level 1 and they aren't having any issues at all hitting other level 1, level 2 NPCs. This last session, it was four level 1 PCs, vs. 6 level 1 PCs and the players did quite well. A couple took some damage from heavy crits, but the others knew to parry, they worked the Barbarian into position for flank and back attacks with a battle axe, while the Romantic parried the flank attack going to the barbarian. One player at full parry with a "token attack at +1 OB" and the barbarian able to focus full out attack +63
The difficulty should be commensurate with the players. I looked at the stats of the players found the highest and lowest values for HP, OB, DB and planned their enemies based on those stats. Some NPCs are on the higher end, others on the lower, but nothing they can't take out with some strategy; flanking, back attack, parry the attacks going to the mage so he can prep his spell, making sure the mage takes cover while prepping his spell, etc.
As for crying about lack of DP for "all the skills they want"... they are focusing on the wrong skills. They need the "live to fight another day skills" first, then extra ranks in the skills they really want to be better at, then the remainder goes to rounding out the PC with skills like Seduction, Duping, Tightrope Walking, whatever. The player buying Seduction... is s/he a Romantic? Dancer? Houri? The cost is a little higher for Seduction than those professions that would probably use it or specialize in it.
You have it right with the basics. Primary weapon (2 ranks per level), secondary weapon maybe (1 rank per level), at least 1 rank in Body Dev every level no matter who you are, Maneuver in armour if they even wear it, General Perception, spell lists for the mage, directed spells for the mage.
I would add to your "must have skills", Stunned Maneuver and Sense Ambush Assassin. HPs don't kill you, crits do. When you get whacked with a "Stunned x# rounds", Stunned Maneuver is big. Not getting caught in surprise or allowing an ambush to get a back attack on you is great.
First Aid is also good to have. After that... there should be plenty of DPs to buy a few of those "I want to have these skills." Each level, purchase a couple more of those "I want" skills but focus on the "Live to fight another day skills" first. Once those hit 10 ranks (hopefully by level 4) there are even more DP available for fine tuning all those "I want" skills they had been buying.
Just because RM lists the skills, doesn't mean you have to buy them.
-
Spectre makes many good points. I would also add that you might want to let them know just in a general way that RM works a little differently than DnD. In Rolemaster, you start at a generally lower power level: think of a first level character as someone who has just passed adolescence, a young adult. Some people use the phrase 'fantasy Vietnam' to describe the fact that at that level, you are really just an ordinary person-- in fact, you are a young ordinary person. Tell them that they will eventually get to be quite heroic (if they live), but at these levels the are kind of more like Harry Potter and co. in the early books: still learning their craft, and they are going to fail a fair bit early on.
As for casting spells... well, we too did find that forcing the caster to prep for two rounds was a bit of a drag. I made a houserule that casters could add their spellcasting stat (e.g. Intuition for Channeling users) to any Extraordinary Spell Failure rolls. This made it easier to cast spells faster. Or you could take the RMU solution: just allow casters to cast any spells of their level or below with no prep., and save ESF checks for spells above their level. This will increase the power of casters significantly, but casters in RM2 need it, IMHO.
-
you start at a generally lower power level: think of a first level character as someone who has just passed adolescence, a young adult. Some people use the phrase 'fantasy Vietnam' to describe the fact that at that level, you are really just an ordinary person-- in fact, you are a young ordinary person.
Excellent point, and to add to that. They really are just out of adolescence if level 0 is adolescence. If a player makes an older level 1 PC, say 25 years old, then he's just starting out on his adventuring career because something has moved him to do so, but he's still unwise in the ways of practical combat (sparring and practice is so NOT the same thing as a real world fight.) The PC's "adventuring experience" is low, therefore the "adventuring skills" are low.
As for casting spells... well, we too did find that forcing the caster to prep for two rounds was a bit of a drag. I made a houserule that casters could add their spellcasting stat (e.g. Intuition for Channeling users) to any Extraordinary Spell Failure rolls. This made it easier to cast spells faster.
That is a great idea. I think I'm going to allow that in my games now. It makes good sense.
We have a level 1 caster in our group, and he casts a level 1 electric wispling. That wispling gets 4 Ti Bash per round and an insane DB (relatively speaking). Four attacks per round, even at a low OB, is pretty darned good for a level 1 mage vs. level 1 NPC. I let the player choose if the crit is Impact or Electrical.
-
It's important for characters to develop the critical skills that represent the things they expect they can do. E.g. if a character thinks he should be able to withstand attacks, he better buy Body Development.
But also bear in mind that a player who is buying some random skill is telling you something about how they want to approach problems in the game. If they are coming from a game like D&D with a minimal skill system, they are saying they are interested in doing more with skills. If they prioritize seduction rather than combat skills, they may be saying they want to deal with more problems through roleplay rather than combat. That's not necessarily a bad thing, especially in Rolemaster where combat is deadly. This doesn't mean eliminate all the combat but try to make those other skills relevant.
-
Do a turtorial!
Start by giving them a very simple premade char and do a combat with them, startign with a movement, a bow being fired etc!
Do the same with static action ( out of combat ) pick locks, seduction etc!
-
The player buying Seduction... is s/he a Romantic? Dancer? Houri?
Actually, I think it was the Barbarian, but I made him drop it.
-
The player buying Seduction... is s/he a Romantic? Dancer? Houri?
Actually, I think it was the Barbarian, but I made him drop it.
Ahhh yes..... Conan III - Conan the Seducer!
-
Actually, I think it was the Barbarian, but I made him drop it.
Boo!
IMO, if characters can't develop any skills outside their core competencies, either they need more DP or the skill list needs to be pared back.
-
Not always. In some cases players (especially those new to RM or coming from D&D) don't develop core skills because they don't think they have to. They just assume (based on past game experience perhaps) that they get hits just because, and that attack rolls are automatically based on their profession and not a skill.
This is why I got to the point where I beefed up culture skills (including weapons) and even did half a character's development for them. That way they could go buy (say) Seduction because I'd already made sure they at least had hits and could swing a sword if that was their profession's main purpose.
Running combat tutorials is also a good idea...if for no other reason than to show new players how fatal RM can be.
-
Not always. In some cases players (especially those new to RM or coming from D&D) don't develop core skills because they don't think they have to. They just assume (based on past game experience perhaps) that they get hits just because, and that attack rolls are automatically based on their profession and not a skill.
This is why I got to the point where I beefed up culture skills (including weapons) and even did half a character's development for them. That way they could go buy (say) Seduction because I'd already made sure they at least had hits and could swing a sword if that was their profession's main purpose.
Running combat tutorials is also a good idea...if for no other reason than to show new players how fatal RM can be.
I'm not denying that it can be hard to cover all bases (the fact that it's easy miss things is a definite flaw in RMSS and in RM2 with the complete optional skill list). However, Prince Finnion didn't say, "I made sure the player had covered his core competencies". The statement was that the barbarian was banned from developing seduction, apparently because it was decided that it is impossible to make an effective barbarian who develops seduction.
If developing one peripheral or non-standard skill means an essential skill has to be left out, there is a major problem somewhere, IMO.
-
In the specific case of seduction, I could see not wanting it because I don't want to run the kind of game where that's a big thing. Especially given a somewhat stereotypical (and possibly unfair) idea of what a barbarian adventurer would be using it for.
-
In the specific case of seduction, I could see not wanting it because I don't want to run the kind of game where that's a big thing. Especially given a somewhat stereotypical (and possibly unfair) idea of what a barbarian adventurer would be using it for.
Yeah, that's a fair scenario.
-
The gamer, Dorkness rising.... Seduction :D
Flynn the Fine: What is that heavenly music?
Priestess: The Hymn to Therin. It calls to our goddess.
Leo: [voice-over] I seduce the priestess!
Lodge: [voice-over] She's taken a vow of celibacy!
Leo: [voice-over] Dude, 20 ranks in seduction!
Flynn the Fine: [to priestess] Hey, baby. Wanna tune my mandolin?
[rolls and the priestess and Flynn leave the room]
Daphne: [to Hierophant] Please understand the horny Bard does not represent us.
-
I don't think that "banning" skills or "too many" skills is the gist of the thread. It's not that the barbarian is banned from getting Seduction, but it appears that he was getting seduction at the expense of the core skills, i.e.: no Body Dev or double ranks in primary weapon. Buying Seduction at, say level 3-4-5, after there has been a little more DP invested in really beefing up the core skills, sure. By all means, go for it.
What the OP mentioned in the initial post is a trend that I've seen of a LOT of D&D players coming to RM. They assume that buying the skill means they automatically get to do it, like buying Cleave, Backstab, Parry, or Magic Missile always hits - no save roll. It's a completely different game system with completely different mechanics that they don't grasp until they've played several sessions and perhaps made a couple of RM PCs. Buying 1 rank in Seduction doesn't mean the PC automatically seduces an NPC the way buying Cleave automatically gives double damage... (Or whatever Cleave does)
We don't ban any skills for any player, but I make sure they focus on the core skills that are A) affordable to them due to profession and B) will get an awesome bonus due to stats or background options. One player had a great archetype made up for an assassin focused on poisons and medical skills, then rolled background options and received +25 to all Adrenals. Normally, she wouldn't have invested in adrenals, but with +25, it would take fewer ranks to be really decent with them. She changed her focus from poisons, to being very very fast and strong.
To this day, no one has ever taken Midwifery! LOL It doesn't mean they can't.
I've been playing RM2 since '89. I have never run into an instance where a player didn't have enough DP to buy the core skills (usually at 2 ranks per level) and not have enough left over for secondary skills to flesh out the PC. I've had a player with as few as 31 DP per level and there was no issue. There may have been someone lower than that, but I can't recall. Just because the skills are listed, doesn't mean you have to buy them. The player, especially at the lower levels, needs to be a little more focused on core skills before buying lots of "would like to have" skills.
One thing we did to counter this DP/skills/power issue and to help out the spell casters a little more was to start everyone at level 5. We did that for decades and just this past year, I've gone back to starting everyone at level 1. With Adolescence level and level 1, it's like they're level 2 facing off against level 1 NPC's so there's a little boost in their favor.
-
RM2 did have a problem with a development point scarcity, especially if you use all the skills in the companions. The system kept adding skills, but didn't give any more points to buy them with (at least not unless you used optional rules). So I can see that being a bit of a problem. I know our group seriously considered some of the optional rules that added extra development points to spend on secondary skills (pretty sure that was in one of the companions; can't remember where though) So that is an option for the OP too: have an extra pool of DP (say 1/4 or 1/2 of what you normally get to spend) that can be spent only on secondary skills. Then the Barbarian can take Seduction as his hobby -- Conan was pretty buff, after all, and could have made good use of those washboard abs. :)
-
Conan was pretty buff, after all, and could have made good use of those washboard abs. :)
"washboard"???
Those were speed bumps!! ;D
-
Malim, +5 to you for quoting “The Gamers” from ZOE!
Very Much Agreed with JDale, base skills and stats are good(at least 1 rank per level), but it definitely gives you a chance to tailor a few side treks to use the skills that they are developing off script.
Likewise, enemy NPCs can be rolled back for stats, too.
As GMs, we tend to see things as power gamers/min-maxers and can do with looking at the wonder and excitement of what made us buy into all the old books in the first place...the extra skills/professions/spells!
Let ‘em go and watch ‘em amaze you. Too much harping on the combat part of the game - which is also super amazing - and harping on only so-and-so skills, might turn the crew off of the game since you’re making the PCs instead of them...
Good luck and much success with it all, though! Enjoy it!
-
RM2 did have a problem with a development point scarcity, especially if you use all the skills in the companions. The system kept adding skills, but didn't give any more points to buy them with (at least not unless you used optional rules). So I can see that being a bit of a problem. I know our group seriously considered some of the optional rules that added extra development points to spend on secondary skills (pretty sure that was in one of the companions; can't remember where though) So that is an option for the OP too: have an extra pool of DP (say 1/4 or 1/2 of what you normally get to spend) that can be spent only on secondary skills. Then the Barbarian can take Seduction as his hobby -- Conan was pretty buff, after all, and could have made good use of those washboard abs. :)
It was actually an option in the core rules. I don't remember the percentage right now, but you could award that % or regular DPs which could only be used with Secondary Skills.
-
RM2 did have a problem with a development point scarcity, especially if you use all the skills in the companions. The system kept adding skills, but didn't give any more points to buy them with (at least not unless you used optional rules). So I can see that being a bit of a problem. I know our group seriously considered some of the optional rules that added extra development points to spend on secondary skills (pretty sure that was in one of the companions; can't remember where though) So that is an option for the OP too: have an extra pool of DP (say 1/4 or 1/2 of what you normally get to spend) that can be spent only on secondary skills. Then the Barbarian can take Seduction as his hobby -- Conan was pretty buff, after all, and could have made good use of those washboard abs. :)
It was actually an option in the core rules. I don't remember the percentage right now, but you could award that % or regular DPs which could only be used with Secondary Skills.
I did not know that it was in the core rules; interesting! I just looked and found the page of the red band RM2 edition, and it recommends adding an additional 10 to 25% development points for Secondary Skills. So it is right there in RM2 Character Law (p. 84), as you said, as an option ('A Gamemaster may wish to give characters additional development points to be used solely for the development of secondary skills...').
-
I usually used the max (25%) and had no problems with characters lacking skills. That didn't always stop them from selecting the wrong skills or skipping those they needed, of course.
-
Yes, given the later skill bloat of RM2, I think 25% is perfectly reasonable.
-
I think there are two differnt situations to consider here:
1 - players do not focus on main abilities because they don't get how the system works. In this case I'm perfectly fine with direct them to more useful skills for their profession and help them understand the diferences between the systems in order to make them capable of their own decisions. A couple of one shot with different kind of characters usually help here.
2 - player doesn't care for what his character is supposed to do, he has an idea for the kind of character he wants to build and even though it's not combat-effective he thinks it's fun to play. In this case I never interfere. I once had a Druid player who built the carachter to be a "repented" druid, who was very conflicted in his connection with nature, and as a result couldn't cast any spell anymore. He was an experienced player so I didn't try to stop him, it turned out a very funny campaign, with very interesting charcters, and his broken druid more than others. Of course, this depends on your game style: if you are very combat heavy this could be a difficult approach and you may need to handle it in a more balanced way, maybe giving some advice to the player about the tone of the campaign in general.
-
Not always. In some cases players (especially those new to RM or coming from D&D) don't develop core skills because they don't think they have to. They just assume (based on past game experience perhaps) that they get hits just because, and that attack rolls are automatically based on their profession and not a skill.
This is why I got to the point where I beefed up culture skills (including weapons) and even did half a character's development for them. That way they could go buy (say) Seduction because I'd already made sure they at least had hits and could swing a sword if that was their profession's main purpose.
Running combat tutorials is also a good idea...if for no other reason than to show new players how fatal RM can be.
I'm not denying that it can be hard to cover all bases (the fact that it's easy miss things is a definite flaw in RMSS and in RM2 with the complete optional skill list). However, Prince Finnion didn't say, "I made sure the player had covered his core competencies". The statement was that the barbarian was banned from developing seduction, apparently because it was decided that it is impossible to make an effective barbarian who develops seduction.
If developing one peripheral or non-standard skill means an essential skill has to be left out, there is a major problem somewhere, IMO.
Let me elaborate some here. Yes I made the Barbarian player drop 3 ranks of Seduction. No I did not ban him from developing the skill. What happened was that after lvl 0 and lvl 1 development he had invested just 1 rank of BD and just 2 ranks of weapons skills. Mathematically his max possible hits would have been 12.
The reason I put this single example (there were more, I have 7 players) was to point out their view of RM compared to D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder, which are the two (basically same) systems they are familiar with.
One player mentioned that he needed Duping to be maxed because he might need to talk his way out of some situation. I agree that its a useful skill, but I pointed out that if you're a Noble Warrior who develops Duping at the expense of weapons skills what happens if you fail your Duping attempt and now you have to fight your way out?
When you compare the systems skill development you see that in RM more is more and in D&D you can get by with less in most cases.
So far they seem to be coming around, slowly for some, but their getting there. One player has a few of the books now and builds characters for the fun of it. That has really helped him out a lot. He has free time.
-
I think there are two differnt situations to consider here:
1 - players do not focus on main abilities because they don't get how the system works. In this case I'm perfectly fine with direct them to more useful skills for their profession and help them understand the diferences between the systems in order to make them capable of their own decisions. A couple of one shot with different kind of characters usually help here.
2 - player doesn't care for what his character is supposed to do, he has an idea for the kind of character he wants to build and even though it's not combat-effective he thinks it's fun to play. In this case I never interfere. I once had a Druid player who built the carachter to be a "repented" druid, who was very conflicted in his connection with nature, and as a result couldn't cast any spell anymore. He was an experienced player so I didn't try to stop him, it turned out a very funny campaign, with very interesting charcters, and his broken druid more than others. Of course, this depends on your game style: if you are very combat heavy this could be a difficult approach and you may need to handle it in a more balanced way, maybe giving some advice to the player about the tone of the campaign in general.
Some of these guys are very experienced. One wanted his Ranger to be mute. The Barbarian wanted to be mute. I allowed a concession with the Ranger that he not be mute, but perhaps has damaged vocal cords as he needs speech to cast. I did not allow the Barbarian to be mute because I already had one, plus he is the most noob at the table and we all want more RP from him, as a mute that would be difficult. Now we have issues with the mute Ranger and the Barbarian sees how it affects the game.
As for my game, yes it's combat heavy because I set them in the Third Age of Middle-Earth in the kingdoms of Arthedain, Cardolan, and Rhudaur. The three were formerly Arnor. So there's civil wars and war with Angmar. There also lot of politics. Three very different kingdoms with interests in each other, Rivendell and the interests of the Elves, Isegard and Saruman, and big brother Gondor not far off, plus the Misty Mountains right there. I even threw the Shire into the politics of Arthedain. There are criminal organizations, clans, spy networks, the Great Plague, evil warlords, two warlocks, evil cults, and don't forget... the Witch-King.
I give them lots of paths and let them choose, but there is always the passage of time and things that will come to pass. Some of the players witnessed the fall of Cameth Brin to Angmar.
In short? If they get bored it's not for a lack of preparing on my part. I'll always be able to give them plot hooks.
-
Do a turtorial!
Start by giving them a very simple premade char and do a combat with them, startign with a movement, a bow being fired etc!
Do the same with static action ( out of combat ) pick locks, seduction etc!
I did this with 3 of the players I have now, but it was a few years ago. It was a lvl 5 group that I made as diverse racially as I did professionally, with a few arch-types. At the end of session 1 there was a murder trial by combat almost followed by one of those "let's take it outside and settle this like men" situations.
It was AWESOME!
-
<...>
What happened was that after lvl 0 and lvl 1 development he had invested just 1 rank of BD and just 2 ranks of weapons skills. Mathematically his max possible hits would have been 12.
<...>
One player mentioned that he needed Duping to be maxed because he might need to talk his way out of some situation. I agree that its a useful skill, but I pointed out that if you're a Noble Warrior who develops Duping at the expense of weapons skills what happens if you fail your Duping attempt and now you have to fight your way out?
When you compare the systems skill development you see that in RM more is more and in D&D you can get by with less in most cases.
It's OK for the Barbarian to max out Seduction and the Noble Warrior to max out Duping... however, those PCs should also have a primary weapon maxed out, and Body Dev maxed out as their primary means of survival are front line fighters absorbing a good hit or two while dealing out damage. This is something they'll learn after playing several sessions and perhaps losing a PC to a crit and rolling up a new one.
Even with a very low amount of DP (30-31 DP), there are plenty of DP to max out those three skills, plus points towards Maneuver in Armour, Sense Ambush, Stunned Maneuver. As Duping and/or Seduction aren't my primary means of survival, I'd probably invest only 1 rank per level in those secondary skills as they are, well... secondary.
You hit the nail on the head with D&D/Pathfinder vs. RM. There is a difference between buying a talent that allows you to "do this now" vs. developing and practicing and training in a skill to get better at it. RM is more like "learning a skill and bettering yourself" where D&D/Pathfinder just unlocks a talent you can now use as succeed/fail vs. target #.
My players are starting to come around more and more each session we do. The biggest challenge for you is keeping them engaged and feeling like they are accomplishing goals with the low stats they have so far. Gradually let the PCs realize they need to buy more ranks in their primary skills to really succeed and that the secondary skills add the seasoning to the stew. Keep the NPC's with similar stats to their PC counterparts for now. When they realize that it's taking 5, 6, 7, rounds to kill two level 1 rats, they'll invest a little more into primary weapon skill before taking on the level 5 skeleton or buying more Seduction. LOL.
There is a background option from the core rules that allows a player to have x# of ranks in a secondary skill or one chosen by the GM to reflect the player's background. (That's close to the exact wording, I'll look for it when I get home tonight.) That's something you could offer to the player. 5 free ranks in Seduction, or +10 to Duping, something like that would help the players. They could use the background option without sacrificing precious DP on secondary skills.
* - just popped into my head... The Dancer profession could very easily be played as a Barbarian. The description is that of a Martial Artist or fighter and not solely "a dancing parson." The cost for Seduction is obviously going to be very low, but the primary weapon category is decent and the Martial Arts skills are also decent. If you allow the optional skills of Tackling or Wrestling (cost as Martial Arts), the player wouldn't feel hemmed into punch/punch/kick. My daughter rolled up a dancer a couple of weeks ago and has done a few sessions and did really well in combat and still had the Seduction, Dancing, Tale Telling skills well developed.
-
Personally I think PF is handling the situation just fine...after all it is his game and he's the one who knows what feel and balance is going to work best in that game over the longer haul.
Given the way RM works, the Barbarian can pick up Seduction later...after he's survived a few scrapes because he actually has some HPs and weapon skills (and can spin some good stories about those scars...). However, if the game is combat-centric the reverse is not often true. Maxing seduction at the expense of weapons and HPs just means there will be more mourning tavern workers at the character's funeral. And if you use the core optional rule Hurin and I were discussing above the PCs will still be able to balance both areas reasonably well.
-
Wait, in the title wouldn't it be "Advice" instead of "Advise"?
I normally don't speak up on grammatical errors but in this case the words really are not interchangeable.
-
I normally don't speak up on grammatical errors but in this case the words really are not interchangeable.
More like an orthographical error. That and "its"/"it's", "there"/"they're"/"their" or "he's"/his" are even more blatant grammatical errors. Yet, do you know how many people not only don't know the differences, they don't even care? For some reasons, everyone would agree that someone who doesn't know basic mathematics (1+1=2) is a moron, yet not knowing basic grammar is apparently fine… :bang:
-
+1 OLF.
I am always amazed when someone pronounces that a 1D10 is a single "dice" :o
It makes me want to die ;D
Nightblade ->--
p.s. sorry for the bad pun… :-[
-
It makes me want to die ;D
Roll that die over your grave?
-
It makes me want to die ;D
Roll that die over your grave?
Something like that… ;)
-
Quick update, or correction actually
While discussing this topic with the group or was brought to my attention that I got a very key fact wrong, which would've prevented much of this discussion. The Barbarian in question did not invest in Seduction. It was Animal Husbandry, to which his brother in law explained that he couldn't marry his horse.
-
Quick update, or correction actually
While discussing this topic with the group or was brought to my attention that I got a very key fact wrong, which would've prevented much of this discussion. The Barbarian in question did not invest in Seduction. It was Animal Husbandry, to which his brother in law explained that he couldn't marry his horse.
:laugh1: Who's to judge? As long as the horse is of age and isn't being forced into marriage...
-
You can lead a horse to...
Wait, nevermind.
-
A bit of an update here.
But need to address something first: I really did misspell Advice... smh
And no back to your regularly scheduled program.
I should state here that this is as close to a sand box campaign as I can build for them. They can go where ever they want and they can do anything they want to do. This is a blessing and a curse. You'll see what I mean.
There have been a few interesting updates to this campaign. The original idea, FROM THE PLAYERS, was to be members of a mercenary army. This lasted 2 sessions... Thanks for asking me to build a great campaign only to have them trash it.
Two of my players stopped playing, one because the system is to complicated for him and the other to chase women (He's 20 and is also the above mentioned character that wanted to marry his horse). These were the only melee classes in the group so our Beast Master decided to switch characters. THIS meant their motive of transportation left the group too. So if you saw another thread I started I was looking for help with hireling and shipping costs. Yeah, all that work went to waist too. Now he's an Armsmaster with ridiculous DB.
Our Bard was very unhappy with his Bard, which can be difficult to play plus he was expecting a D&D Bard, so now he's playing a Duelist with a psychotic temper back ground.
Re-enter our melee player who wanted to marry his horse three months later (side note: he never caught any of those young women he was chasing) who is a Bashkar BTW.
Our Magician thinks he has the answers to all life's questions (in and out of character sometimes) and constantly gets into trouble. He's currently being held by a local temple for meddling in affairs WAY above his head. I'm really looking forward to this next session!
The Ranger was trying to cast a simple healing spell to stop bleeding but fumbled, double open ended mind you, and has the background where all of his fumbles are on the combat casting chart. He cannot cast spell for another 2 months and 24 days of in-game time. But who's counting?
More to come maybe
-
That is beautiful! That is exactly what makes Rolemaster... Rolemaster. That is a fantastic story line and you can build so many sub-quests and plots off of those adventures.
I can see the pattern developing in your players that have developed in the groups that I've had over the years. They make their first PC and mistakenly assume that RM plays as D&D. They find that their PC's simply can't do what they imagined they would do so they change to a new PC, usually something extremely focused (i.e.: Bashkar instead of Barbarian) and over focus on the skills they didn't have originally, then lament that they can't do anything except fight. Eventually, by their 3rd PC and several gaming sessions of RM, they start to find the blend.
There have been a few interesting updates to this campaign. The original idea, FROM THE PLAYERS, was to be members of a mercenary army. This lasted 2 sessions... Thanks for asking me to build a great campaign only to have them trash it.
Yes, I've had players do that to me as well, but don't look at it as a derailment, just a separate adventure. You don't need to lose the work you've already done, just find a way to work the group back into your original story line. Perhaps the group that hired the mercenary army saw that the Jack-of-all-trades approach didn't work and now they want the Hammer-and-anvil approach with a frenzied over the top Bashkar and a psychotic Duelist. I've come to make my campaigns more of a skeleton framework with some meat to them and the players end up writing the rest of the campaign for me. You'll never plan for every eventuality because the players come up with ideas you never thought of, so I go with it. I work their actions into my skeleton of a campaign and end up with a grand adventure that the players helped write. They feel more invested in the story because they actually are shaping the world with their actions and don't feel like passengers on a train just doing each stop you have planned out for them.
THIS meant their motive of transportation left the group too. So if you saw another thread I started I was looking for help with hireling and shipping costs. Yeah, all that work went to waist too.
Yes, as we get older, a lot of things go to our waist, however don't let all your hard work go to waste. :D
p.s.: Did the horse say yes??? :party: