Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: David Johansen on February 26, 2008, 01:09:50 PM
-
I've moved this rant from the "I Have A Dream" thread because it was out of place on a thread comprised of epigrams and decapitations...
I'd like to see a new edition, not so sure consolidation's the way to go. Equal? Nope, not when you put them on a scale.
There are things I think need to be done better than they are done in RMSS. But many of them aren't done at all in RM2 or are done significantly worse. I don't see any sense in settling for less.
We're talking about a game with double digit addition and charts as a core mechanic. That's why HARP will never be a roaring success, there's a dozen games of its complexity level that don't expect the players to add double digit numbers and check a chart. It is never going to compete with Savage Worlds or Risus in the rules lite department.
What Rolemaster don't need is the game that tries to make everyone happy. Trying to have two methods of stat bonuses in the core book to make RMSS and RM2 fans happy will make the game more confusing and scary. The core game needs to be unified in its methods. Too many options will prevent growth by scaring off casual investigators. (see case study Traveller the New Era)
Rolemaster's fractured fan base is hurting it in the market place and it hurts ICE because they cut their sales for any product released for any of three different systems.
Any unification will also lose customers but if it's done right it will retain more people who look into it out of curiousity.
I've had a partly finished re-write on my hard drive for a while now. Maybe I should put it out there for people to pick apart.
-
I have stated in the past that I am in favor of doing a new edition, one that consolidates both systems by including a tiered skill system that allows for simple conversion between few skills and lots of skills (though unlikely as many skills as are currently in RMFRP).
However, before we can do such a revision, ICE needs to recapture the large portion of the fan-base that the old ICE lost when it moved from RM2 to RMSS. And that is where RMC comes in. It is meant to recapture that lost fan-base.
Once we do, then we can look forward to doing a major revision/consolidation.
-
However, before we can do such a revision, ICE needs to recapture the large portion of the fan-base that the old ICE lost when it moved from RM2 to RMSS. And that is where RMC comes in. It is meant to recapture that lost fan-base.
Once we do, then we can look forward to doing a major revision/consolidation.
Just curious.
How do you know you're recapturing the lost fan-base?
-
Just curious.
How do you know you're recapturing the lost fan-base?
Sales is a primary indicator. Both online and through/to distributors.
-
Well, I for one was not "lost" through the transfer from RM2 to RMSS. A new edition would be just fine by me though, as I am always looking for new ideas in the game department. I will say that these new ideas I am always looking for are more flavor than rules, though. Yes, I know that a rulebooks make more money because they are something that most of the players of a game will tend to buy, while campaign settings and adventures are more limited in their distribution, but I cannot help that - I prefer to get books with excellent maps and descriptions of great places, bunches of NPCs, and adventure plots. Just what I like. (This is the reason that I had a subscription to Pathfinder and Dungeon magazine before that, the quality of the maps and art was just too good to pass up.)
-
What RandalThor said.
I've always been a huge RM fan whatever the game.
I've played the OLD ICE RM (with all companions at various stages), and our group played RMSS too and liked that.
The fact was that my old group drifted apart (different people went for jobs in different parts of the country) and so the group broke apart. Years later some of us are back and I have a different group.
Actually David, I liked RM for exactly the reasons you stated that people didn't like it!
I like the double digit system and adding together these numbers. I like the charts and I like the multiple stat generation systems.
I suppose it is just different strokes for different folks.
-
I've had a partly finished re-write on my hard drive for a while now. Maybe I should put it out there for people to pick apart.
Yes, I think that would be a great idea! I'm very curious! ;)
-
I was never lost as a fan.
But my group doesn't want to play and I avoided my game store out of frutstration.
As RMSS was released I don't recognized it as a new edition
(I bought the Arms Law because of the new breakage rules).
For all the shiny companions I thought I could always buy them when needed. :'(
Now I bought RMC and HARP (because of the spell system) and will go on.
-
Our group has been using Rm for 15 - 20 years (1 player 20 yrs) and when RMSS came out we got it and looked at it and said "but thats why we quit playing D+D!"
Perhaps that was an unjust reaction, but we just ignored it and kept on with RM 2 and Comps.
I got all hyped about RMC Spell Law and ordered a pdf then ran to Kinkos in the middle of the night and got it printed before our next session. Wasn't quite what I had thought, now, if I had read these boards at the time I would have understood what RMC is intended to be.
RMC Spell Law has some good clairifications on stuff we argued about for years, so definitly worth buying. The other RMC books, however, will probaly just be ordered as funds arise to compleate our understanding of the writers intentions.
Anyway, thanks guys for getting ICE "back on track". ;D
-
What RandalThor said.
Actually David, I liked RM for exactly the reasons you stated that people didn't like it!
I like the double digit system and adding together these numbers. I like the charts and I like the multiple stat generation systems.
You misunderstand me. I think Rolemaster appeals to people who like double digit addition. The problem is that those aren't the people who are looking for a simpler system.
Here's where I see the immovable object in the RM2 and RMSS fan base.
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 used to play RM2 many, many years ago, but the group I played in drifted apart. When HARP came out I picked it up and started one of the groups I play with on it. We played HARP for about 18 months before they decided they wanted to return to D&D. The other HARP campaign I run is still going, and isn't likely to end anytime soon.
I bought the RMC books when they came out, and I have considered trying to swap my HARP campaign to RMC (several of the players are old RM2 fans), but will most likely stick with HARP for the forseeable future.
RMSS came out when I wasn't playing any RM games, so I never picked it up, and I'm not likely to at this stage. And I'm not very likely to pick up a new edition of RM. But I would certainly pick up any supplements and adventures if the new system was easily convertible to RM2/RMC.
The group that swapped back to D&D - I think the complexity was a key issue, combined with the release of 3.5. For the group currently playing HARP, the complexity and the double-digit addition isn't a problem (they're all quite capable of using calculators :D ).
Hawk
-
Here's a link to some of my notes. They weren't in a particularly organized state and I have no less than three complete revision projects to pick from as it turns out, but what you see here is pretty much where I'd go with it. There's some things to iron out and I'd probably go back to the old racial stat bonus method to make the chart leaner but here you go:
http://www3.telus.net/public/uncouths/Revised.pdf
-
I think that by the time a new version gets done the RPG market will be vastly different than it is now in many ways.
MDC
-
Here's a link to some of my notes. They weren't in a particularly organized state and I have no less than three complete revision projects to pick from as it turns out, but what you see here is pretty much where I'd go with it. There's some things to iron out and I'd probably go back to the old racial stat bonus method to make the chart leaner but here you go:
http://www3.telus.net/public/uncouths/Revised.pdf
Thank you very much! Very interesting! :)
-
You misunderstand me. I think Rolemaster appeals to people who like double digit addition. The problem is that those aren't the people who are looking for a simpler system.
Hmmm, i'm not too sure about this.
I got into RM (or RMish rules) when 1E merp came out. It was nice, compact, and no more complex than AD&D was. My next exposure to RM was with RMSS. Although a game loved by many, the added complexity made it "not for us". With RMFRP, I got my hopes up but after purchasing it, found out it was pretty much the same in terms of complexity level (just better organized and prettier). So, we simply wrote off RM as a game which would ever find its way to our gaming table and that was that...for a while.
We (by we, I mean my gaming group and I) knew a lite RM could be done (it had been done quite successfully already) but knew ICE decided to pursue a different route. Then we started hearing a buzz about HARP. Although it simplified a lot of rules, and was an excellent game, it simply felt like a different game to us. Once again, no ICE products at our gaming table.
Then, a while back, I started hearing some talk over at DF of a Rolemaster Classic line being launched. After some tentative research on it (RM2 having passed our group by), and a boat-load of "is it simpler than RMSS/FRP" questions on various boards, I took the plunge and haven't looked back since. The coming of RMX simply rounded off my perfect RM.
"What the heck is the point of all of this, Skath?"
I'm glad you asked.
Although RMSS/FRP might appeal to "people who like double digit addition", this was, for a long time, the only version of RM we had. There was no way of knowing if a lighter RM ruleset would be well received. RMC is not only a great way to scoop up some of the old RM2 folks, but it'll hopefully bring in a different set of the RPG community (and, I believe, a larger set); Mr. Joe Gamer who prefers medium level crunch. Hey, it worked with me ;)
Having all of these choices is great. ICE can showcase the RM rule across multiple complexity levels from the simplistic into-level RMX to the more robust RMFRP. This is great...for now. Everyone knows that sooner or later it'll need to be consolidated into a new RM.
Hopefully, when a new RM comes out, I'd like to see a modular RM. A set of basic RM rules (like a crunchier RMX) that can be used alone for sustainable game play, to which could be added other ICE products to up the crunch for those that "aren't the people who are looking for a simpler system".
-
Hopefully, when a new RM comes out, I'd like to see a modular RM. A set of basic RM rules (like a crunchier RMX) that can be used alone for sustainable game play, to which could be added other ICE products to up the crunch for those that "aren't the people who are looking for a simpler system".
I think that this is what Rasyr meant with "tiered skill system", when talking of the revision about the revision on the other thread:
Once we have recaptured that lost fan-base, or as much of it as possible, then ICE can turn its thoughts towards a new revision, one that does try to unify both RMC and RMFRP fan-bases. One of the only ways to accomplish this is going to be through a tiered skill system (example: Tier 1 == 30 skills, 35 DPs/lvl; Teir 2 == 60 skills, 70 DPs/lvl; Tier 3 == 120 skills, 140 DPs/lvl -- or something to this effect).
I'm right?
-
Pretty much, yes, that is what I meant.
-
Having now got a complete set of the RM2, RMSS and Harp rules I'd have to say that none are exactly "rules-lite". Rolemaster and Harp by a normal* gamers definition "Rules Heavy". And so they should be, that's exactly what attracted the fan base. I'd say we don't want simplification to extremes... lose the charts and you would lose me.
What has been the problem is the lack of definition and direction within the development of the system itself.
RMSS introduced the catagory/skill subdivision which is realistic... however it wasn't across the board, there were still "Combined" skill development in certain categories, which for me was just wimping out. The case remains for PP and Body Development being Race dependant... but make them the ONLY exceptions.
I'd like to see the same set of rules applicable to all genres for example, THAT would simplify things.
* the normal gamer being an outsider who hasn't played the system and just heard about it.
-
I'd like to see the same set of rules applicable to all genres for example, THAT would simplify things.
Now would be my dream come true. Rolemaster is flexible enough to do anything. Of course, there would have to be some modifications and/or subsystems to handle something like superheroes, but it could do it. Easily. In fact, Rolemaster already did some of the work with Black Ops, Pulp adventures and Spacemaster.
I would kill for a generic revision of Rolemaster, with :
- a "universal" approach,
- broad professions,
- very complete skill list that could be cut down to what is important for a particular genre or type of play,
- more generic powers able to handle magic AND psychic (base on the psychic powers of Spacemaster, not the spell lists), etc.
- borad but logical armor tables (you know, where wearing a leather armor IS actually better than wearing nothing...),
- same thing for weapons,
- revised yet simple rules for vehicles where a bicycle doesn't break when you sneeze on it,
- etc.
And I would do it the same way they did Privateer and RMFRP, that is ONE (1) rulebook with basic but totally usable and self-contained rules for everything, and supplements for details about genres or advanced, compatible yet optional, rules. But all under the SAME set of rules, mixable, compatible, exploitable. ;)
There, you have it. This was my dream. I am totally aware that it is almost impossible for now to expect something like this from ICE, but still, dreams are... well... dreams. Also, I'm not sure about this, but I think it would be easier for ICE to get out of the eternal RM2 vs RMSS duality, giving less attention to Spacemaster, etc. One set of rules to rule them all, and in profits bind them!
Ok, have to go to work, but dream on people!
-
RMSS is a lot like the black-cover MERP rules in style and feeling. It's very hard for me to look at those rules and not think about middle earth. RM Classic doesn't suffer from a 'lack of focus', IMHO. That's because it has always been a library of optional rules you can use to make a campaign to your specifications.
As for the tiered skill system being introduced in RMFRP, I believe it was actually introduced in RM Companion VI.
-
So Skynet?
Would you be happy to know I did the bulk of my "revision" with the intent of designing an RM superhero varient?
-
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.... ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 8)
lynn
-
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.
-
"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. . .
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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........)
-
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. :D
(I happen to agree with him)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
;D
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
-
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.