Topic: I Can't Help Myself It's A New Edition

[David Johansen]

So Skynet?

Would you be happy to know I did the bulk of my "revision" with the intent of designing an RM superhero varient?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Skynet, if there is one thing that the jump from RM2 to RMSS teaches, it is that too big of a step is dangerous and can cost us customers. Before RMSS, there was no "Combined Category/Skill" system in RM, just a Skill system (where the skills were divided into categories).

Going from a game whose core had 28 skills and 40+ optional skills (or a total base of 112 skills if you were using Rolemaster Companion II) to a game that had approximately 50 categories and 300+ skills (both of which you could purchase ranks in) was just too great of a step/leap for some people.

so, from 60 (or 112) to 350+

A jump from 3-6x the number of core skills Ouch! And there was nothing in any of the companions that came even relatively close to the changes made to the skill system (the closest was the USS (Unified Skill System) in Rolemaster Companion VI, but even that was more along the lines of core RM2 in regards to the number of skills involved).

And obviously, the same type of reaction can and will likely hold true in reverse as well. Thus, my comments regarding introducing a tiered skill system where the tier selected selects the number of skills and allow for the level of detail that they want. And if we do it properly, it will also allow for an easy transition from one tier to the next.

Heh.... I guess you could say the changes were so great that some folks went into System Shock....   


As for some of your other suggestions, it would appear that in some ways, HARP matches your requests (though not in all ways, and maybe not quite in the way you were thinking).

As for armor tables -- you have to keep something in mind, the current/old attack tables are against specific suits of armor. The Armor Types are specific suits, as the AT numbers increase, they do not represent an increase in overall protectiveness (which IS what you are asking for). And that would require a revamping of the armor system, and that is not something to spring on people in a revision. It is something that they should be able to see and test as an option first.

I think that you will like the upcoming Combat Companion. One of its main sections is specifically an option that covers what you were talking about regarding armor. Plus, there are some new attack tables that can be used in conjunction with this.

[Marc R]

RMSS appeals to people who like a strongly structured system that does a good job of managing an amazing level of detail.

RM2 appeals to people who like a flexible, modular game and are unconcerned with balance, power creep, and nit picky details.

I'm not sure you can have a structured freeform game...

I think this is a rather unfair view. RMSS is essentially one fixed variant of RM2. The problem with this logic is that you cannot view "RM2" as all people playing it as playing one big system.

Yes, RM2/C is filled with options, allowing for many differing levels of complexity and power level.

This doesn't carry on to the value judgement that there's no concern for balance or power creep. . .what it is is that it leaves the judgement call as to what power level you want in the hands of the GM. What's overpowered in one game is underpowered in another. . .and if you were playing RM2 and just adding on everything from every companion as it came along, you did experience power creep, but I don't know many GMs who allowed "anything!" without knowing what they were getting into. (And many of the companion rules are mutually exclusive and incompatable.)

As I see it, RMSS is the version of RM2 as played by the GMs and players who happened to work for ICE. . . .

So, we could just have easily gained the same level of top down coherency if ICE had said "We are going to publish LordMiller's house rules as the new singular official version".

By paring off the options, going with a singular set of rules, they made it so you could go from game to game "We play standard rolemaster". . .when in the past it was "We play RM with this and that and not with that and this, and I've changed all that."

I suspect the mistake lay in the fact that if you're going to enforce a single "standard" they might perhaps have been better off doing it RMX like, with a very simple, cut down version. . .rather than choosing to make the standard the most ornate, options activated fully comprehensive version of someone else's house vision of what the game should play like. . . .

Standards should impose a standard of all the items that make every game the same, not impose as standard the most ornate, byzantine, curlicued, down to the nth detail version of one house's vision of how the game should be played.

I'll be the first one to admit that RM2 has lots of warts and flaws, but I'll counter that it's a lot easier to change something you don't like than it is with RMSS. . .presenting most materials as options, with a tiny core, seems to be the best way to satisfy the most people, while presenting a giant, harder to customize "complete vision" seems to have ticked a lot of people off.

[vroomfogle]

LordMiller has taken the words out of my mouth, nicely said.    RMSS's mistake was to presume that everyone wanted to play with the same system.   

There are really only two big changes in RMSS:  one is the skill system and the other is the tactical sequence (even though the new RMC tactical sequence is more similar to RMSS then RM2).   Once you look at the other details they are very minor.    It seems like most of the focus and discussion of RM2 vs RMSS all centers around the RMSS skill system which is certainly a monster and difficult to customize.

[Skynet]

As for some of your other suggestions, it would appear that in some ways, HARP matches your requests (though not in all ways, and maybe not quite in the way you were thinking).

As for armor tables -- you have to keep something in mind, the current/old attack tables are against specific suits of armor. The Armor Types are specific suits, as the AT numbers increase, they do not represent an increase in overall protectiveness (which IS what you are asking for). And that would require a revamping of the armor system, and that is not something to spring on people in a revision. It is something that they should be able to see and test as an option first.

Thanks for the answer, Rasyr. Yes, I'm aware that HARP matches some of my suggestions. That's why I play it too! Personally, I would say that HARP is better designed than Rolemaster. In some ways, it IS a revision of Rolemaster with a more "logical" approach. To me, Rolemaster is full of artifacts of dubious design decisions. Like Static Maneuvers : how on earth can you come up with 111 as the threshold for success? Why not 100? In RM2, the text says that a static maneuver result of more than 100 is successful. But the table says otherwise. It says 111 to get a full success. Same thing with RMC and RMX. RMFRP carries this design flaw (personal opinion) over, removing the logical option. Now the text doesn't state that 100 is successful, just 111. And here comes HARP, with an beautiful table offering results higher that 100 as successes. I agree, this is minor and easily fixable. But why should this endure after 3 editions and/or revisions of the system?

Now, I agree that others may not perceive this as a flaw like I do and that it is why Static Maneuvers are still resolved this way. And it's OK.

Now comes the armor issue.

As for armor tables -- you have to keep something in mind, the current/old attack tables are against specific suits of armor. The Armor Types are specific suits, as the AT numbers increase, they do not represent an increase in overall protectiveness (which IS what you are asking for). And that would require a revamping of the armor system, and that is not something to spring on people in a revision. It is something that they should be able to see and test as an option first.

I'm aware of all that and I would have no problem if chain mail would be less effective against pointed weapons that rigid leather. Fine by me. But if I wear a soft leather vest (AT5) in ANY edition of Rolemaster, I'm penalized. Of course, in the long run, criticals' severity will be lower and so will the number of hits suffered. This is the good part. But I'm cannot wrap my head around the fact that, while I would suffer only hits or even be totally missed by my enemy, I receive an A or even B critical because I wear a leather armor (AT5). The armor isn't even cumbersome, as per the absence of Qc penalty. How can a sword, having to cut its way through leather and skin, be more lethal than one having to cut its way only through skin. Now I could be easier to hit, which is what happens when the armor carries a penalty to the Qc stat, but I shouldn't have to suffer worse wounds in armor than naked against the same attack roll.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not trying to attack anyone or anything. I'm not furiously writing the post in my living room, wishing I could beat the crap out of someone. These are just my thoughts one the current system. And despite what I may look like, I LOVE Rolemaster. More than HARP and it's "logical" approach of the same system. I would just like to see it evolve into a better, more logical and flexible system.

[/thread hack]

I think that you will like the upcoming Combat Companion. One of its main sections is specifically an option that covers what you were talking about regarding armor. Plus, there are some new attack tables that can be used in conjunction with this.

Thanks! I will definitely check out this bad boy.

So Skynet?

Would you be happy to know I did the bulk of my "revision" with the intent of designing an RM superhero varient?

Very. Keep me informed on this one!

[yammahoper]

RMSS appeals to people who like a strongly structured system that does a good job of managing an amazing level of detail.

Funny thing is, LM entire post was an arguement in support of this statement, and the following statement about RM2 appealing more to those who prefer flexible, modular game.

Me thinks it was the munchkin-esque reference that disagreed with LM.  Certainly, not all RM2 players are into munchkinism, but...most gamers are.  If the rpg hobby can be said to have masses, then most of those masses are munchkins to a degree.  The overwhelming popularity of munchkin-esque advenyures filled with tons of magic and treasure surely shows this to be true.

Always ready to be wrong, and certainly no offense intended

lynn

[David Johansen]

To be fair, not caring about power creep, game balance, and ignoring nitpicky details isn't neccessarily munchkinism.  Abusing those facets of the system to dominate play is, but there are perfectly valid reasons to not care about them.

If you had the players I have to work with you'd want a rigidly structured and balanced system.  This is one of those things I've said about GURPS a few times.  It's a great game but my players need firmer limits than it supplies.

[Marc R]

"power creep" assumes you were playing RM1 and were playing as those books were released. . .so that the game evolved under you while you were playing it. . .if you have all those books on day 1 then it's a moot issue, since you were already at the end of the line, with all of it in front of you. (Only power creep I see in my games is called "Going up levels" and that happens constantly.)

Game balance benefits exist mostly in how one enforces the rules, there are plenty of aspects of RMSS that jack power levels, starting with higher stat bonuses, Talents and Training Packages. The only two aspects of RM2 I really see toned down are Level Bonuses and re-written spell lists.

And "Nit picky details" is funny, considering most of them come from RM2. . . .like individual static maneuver tables and modifiers for each skill. . . .Or the SCSM table, which is essentially BSC with all the ESF modifiers built into it. . . .if anything RM2 has more silly nit picking details, like the goofball starvation rules. . . .

There's very little about RMSS that's new. . .other than the category/ranks set up.

Yamma, my objection wasn't to any of the details, so much as the general characterization. . .RMSS isn't
"a strongly structured system that does a good job of managing an amazing level of detail." as compared to RM2 being an out of control power gaming mess. . . .RMSS is one GMs choice of how to run RM2.

I'd say the one factual statement there that's not just a loaded reverse version of Smug's "Baby killing RMSS" drollery is "Strongly Structured". . . .I'll agree 100% that RMSS is more concrete and structured than RM2.

As to players and limits. . .I always thought authority ran through the hands of the GM, not the pages of a book. If you need to design a game to defend against lawyers, the rulebook shouldn't be longer than 20 pages. . .

[David Johansen]

It's hardly just the Category / Skill system Training Packages and Talents are both new.

I really like Training Packages though I do think that they need to be a little more focused on task.  Currently they're a whole extra pack of mechanics instead of just being a way to make skill selection quicker without neutering it back to RM2 levels.  They should never ever ever provide a discount on skill costs.  Free gear, sure but no massive stackable discount on skills.

Talents, well, they need some cleaning up but I like them in principal.  Especially when they serve the purpose of allowing custom tweaks to professions without needing a new profession to do it.  For instance using a talent to give a rogue beter wilderness skills or a mage some skill with a sword is more what I thing they should be doing than making it so your fighter can get another ten ranks with his sword at first level.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Talents actually weren't new in RMSS. Rolemaster Companion I had new "background" options, and then later products introduced new ways of acquiring them. Oriental Companion gave even more "options". It was a very small step from there to talents.

The predecessor of Training Packages can be found in Arms Companion, which basically traded a full level or levels for selection of skills that are "pre-learned".

After spending several days repricing every single TP up to that point (just to create a 12 page PDF that is nothing but one huge table), I can heartily say that the concept of training packages is a not a good thing. Players see them only as a cheap way of gaining skills.

Nor is it possible to create an easy method of doing up skill packages that are fair to each different profession because of all of the different costs. The only way to do something along those lines would be to drop everything to maybe 2 different costs, and then also have a static number of DP per level, and then create "Profession Packages" which give some specific skills, and some ranks in skills that the player gets to choose (i.e. 2 ranks in melee weapon, 2 ranks in missile weapon, 2 ranks in a Lore (Region), and 2 ranks in a craft -- this is generic enough to allow for lots of customization without being overly stifling.

A better idea, I think, would be to provide a reason for the player to purchase specific skills, or groups of skills....

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I've always considered the Training Package and Talent options as a convienent way to increase the diversity of Professions with the requirement to create entirely new Professions..

The wide level of customisation in the character creation process in RM (in general) is one of it's greatest achievements... simplifying (and rationalising it) should therefore be the way forward.

The very reason I didn't stay with RM2 is because of the rather massive amount of Professions and supplement/optional rules introduced in the various Companions. Not to say they are not valid professions, just that the original system should have a mechanic for coping with the variety of concepts that the players of the system want.

However, RMSS/RMFP became the same monster with new professions being added every new supplement. Keeping track of the various DP costs for the various professions has become a nightmare.. as evidenced by Rastyr's post. Better to have a reduced number of base professions, increase the customisation, then set the restrictions for creating new TP and talents in the Core Rulebook. To a degree I believe that Harp has done this.

With respect to discounting of Training Packages, I've always considered the discounting to be an offset for the players having skills that are not as "game useful" but a realistic requirement of the package itself. That, I believe, is what the discount is for, to provide a realistic set of skills that the Package Provides, some useful others less so.
Training packages that provide huge bonuses to "common game skills" specifically combat skills should be rethought with this in mind.. such as changing an actual weapon skill into a skill rank in weapon maintaince or crafting.

The equipment options for the packages are, to me, MORE of a problem. The various TP's provide vastly differing values of free stuff whilst others merely provide contacts. Having a random element also makes this a something or nothing method. Better I think to provide a specific budget for purchasing discounted relevent items (from a list) AND also have a number of "background" choices for creating the characters background/history. (i.e. contacts or campaign secrets...left to the GM to provide details).

I love the concept of Talents for creating diversity and fleshing out the character background. These should form the basis for creating the concept that the player wants to play, rather than having a plethora of Professions written for the rules.

[RandalThor]

I've always considered the Training Package and Talent options as a convienent way to increase the diversity of Professions with the requirement to create entirely new Professions.

I totally agree. One of the ways I describe what I like about RM/SM is that when I am done creating my character I feel that he is "3-D" to me - while other game characters are only "2-D." (I guess this could be said  as being "fleshed-out," too.

The wide level of customisation in the character creation process in RM (in general) is one of it's greatest achievements... However, RMSS/RMFP became the same monster with new professions being added every new supplement. Keeping track of the various DP costs for the various professions has become a nightmare.. as evidenced by Rastyr's post. Better to have a reduced number of base professions, increase the customisation, then set the restrictions for creating new TP and talents in the Core Rulebook. To a degree I believe that Harp has done this.

I really like this idea as well. For me to make a "Magent,"for instance, shouldn't necessarily by an entirely new profession, but one where a "Thief" or "Rogue" (or even a "Fighter," maybe) gets a Secondary Spellcaster Talent which allows him to learn and cast a limited number of spells. The same for a Warrior-Mage, a Dabbler, etc. This will allow them the ability to say, be more of a fighter-assassin (Fighter w/Magent abilities) or a thief-assassin (Thief w/Magent abilities) or even a mage-assassin (just plain scary!). I have sort of done this by utilizing the "Semi-Psychic" power progression for one of the characters in my present game, and just given the other character (a Layman, by profession) full spellcasting capabilities - though she is just learning that she has these abilities now.

Now, I do NOT recomend going to total Tool-Box style rules system as I feel that detracts from flavor (when anyone can do anything it all just sort of blends together). But something inbetween, I feel, would do wonders.

With respect to discounting of Training Packages, I've always considered the discounting to be an offset for the players having skills that are not as "game useful" but a realistic requirement of the package itself. That, I believe, is what the discount is for, to provide a realistic set of skills that the Package Provides, some useful others less so.
Training packages that provide huge bonuses to "common game skills" specifically combat skills should be rethought with this in mind.. such as changing an actual weapon skill into a skill rank in weapon maintaince or crafting.

Again, I agree. I like it that training packages give a discount to encourage the players to use them (and, in so doing, encourage them to be part of the social system of the world). To me it is like going to a modern university: Sure, you can go and pick out all the same classes of that degree you want, but it is easier and more efficient/cost effective to just pick the degree and go to the classes they tell you (with a few choices along the way).

I love the concept of Talents for creating diversity and fleshing out the character background. These should form the basis for creating the concept that the player wants to play, rather than having a plethora of Professions written for the rules.

I just love talents........... (and flaws, too, don't get jealous now........)

[dutch206]

Lord Miller:
Standards should impose a standard of all the items that make every game the same, not impose as standard the most ornate, byzantine, curlicued, down to the nth detail version of one house's vision of how the game should be played.

Props to Lord Miller for paying attention on the day adjectives were explained.
(I happen to agree with him)

[Marc R]

DJ, peace, I don't actually want to have an argument all over this topic, yet again. . . .

The part of your point I agree with, about "Strongly Structured" is something you should consider again from another angle. . .

In the chaos of RM2, there's loads of stuff here and there. . .I'll bet that if any of us were to sit down and read all our RM2 stuff cover to cover right now, there'd be at least a dozen "What the!?!?" or "I didn't realize that was in here?!?!" moments. . .

Even just in the core books, we had some moments of "WTH?". . .simply because they were so chaotic and disorganized.

But, if you actually wanted to, I'm certain you could do a page-to-page mapping of the RMSS core book to the RM2 Stack-o-books-n-companions. . . .and find 95-98% of the material is just re-packaged, sometimes with a slight twist. (Like ESF into SCSM).

The only item in RMSS I can't directly match to something in RM2 is the skill-cat system. . .but then again there are probably a dozen or more "How to calculate skill bonus" options presented in the various companions so I actually wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a citation to state that there was already something akin to that concept presented in one of the companions, likely under something like one of these three headings:
"Alternate Skill Bonus Calculations"
"Alternate Level Bonus by Category"
or
"Alternate Similar Skill Rules"

Just because I can't think of it off the top of my head, doesn't mean it isn't in there (or there in a variation) somewhere in the chaos if someone cared to really look over all the books in detail.

Part of what was wrong with RM2 is the mess, and the volume of contradictory options. If you play RM2 for decades, and you use Option A, your brain tends to get fuzzy on the details of all the options presented that conflict with A, since you never used them. . .hence the fact that anyone who re-reads a RM companion cover to cover seems to have one of those "What the?" moments at some point.

[vroomfogle]

I bet some precursor to the RMSS skill cat system was published somewhere.  I came across an early form of the RMSS tactical round in a Grey Worlds a couple months back.

I was flipping through the RM Companion IV and V the other day and was surprised at how many good ideas I found!   The later companions are often looked at as less useful but what I find is great ideas that aren't fully fleshed out or detailed, and likely never playtested.   That was more of the problem.   It is no surprise that RMSS went back to those and tried to take the good bits.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Precursor to cat/skill system is the Unified Skill System from Rolemaster Companion VI. It has all of the elements of the RMSS cat/skill system, including a lot of skills having 3 stats.

Precursor of Training Packages is the Package Deals from Arms Companion

Precursor of Talents are the Background Options from Rolemaster Companion I, along with some of the options for it from Rolemaster Companion IV thrown into the mix. Perhaps some from the Oriental Companion as well.

 

[smug]

Just curious.

How do you know you're recapturing the lost fan-base?

Sales is a primary indicator. Both online and through/to distributors.

Are sales good? I hope they are, no one will be surprised to hear.

Also, on the TP issue, I would say that they are pretty much there in MERP, where you get a significant number of ranks based on your race/culture (like the adolescence RM ranks, but you don't get to pick) and then you get to pick more (like the apprenticeship ranks). You are right that they are also in Arms Companion, of course (I've made that point elsewhere myself), where they were perhaps the horriblest thing in what was in my opinion the horriblest RM2 book.

[yammahoper]

RMSS/FRP is not house rules.  It is THE official current version of RM, not a bunch of house rules to the nth degree.

There are other versions, such as RM2.  And everything in the core books is the OFFICIAL RULES, not house rules.

Drop or add what you like from either version, but do not belittle them please.  I love them far to much to bear that :'(

lynn

[smug]

I think that his claim is that you can get something relatively similar to RMSS/FRP by picking a set of published RM2 optional rules.

And what does it mean to say that RMSS/FRP is 'THE official current version of RM'? It seems to me that RMC and RMFRP are both in active production and both 'official'. That one was for a time not in active production doesn't mean that now it's back it's not 'official'. Indeed, if ICE had to pick one version to be the official version (which they don't) I am not entirely sure which one they'd pick. We can guess which one is getting the most effort expended upon it at present (mostly because it needed to be put together again after so long out of print, but it seems that there's more to come out).

[David Johansen]

DJ, peace, I don't actually want to have an argument all over this topic, yet again. . . .

Heh, If I didn't make so much noise, ICE would think there aren't any RMSS fans out there.

Oh well, in the end it doesn't matter.  I don't own ICE, I don't work for ICE,  really I don't see myself writing for ICE in the future, and my next campaign isn't going to be using an ICE game.  (not that I'm planning to scuttle the current campaign but they don't last forever) So all told I don't really have much stake left in the issue.