Topic: Cutting the Revision Knot

[David Johansen]

Okay, on stat selection.  I think potential stats and stat gains should be optional.  Yeah I know, it's a really classic feature of Rolemaster but it also means people have to recalculate all their skills every time they level.  I'd like to have it be spend 600 points and then determine a random factor similar to RMSS in the core because I like the potential for a dump stat to get bounced to an exceptional level.  (one of my very favorite things actually)  Even so, just allowing pure random generation and points as viable methods would be okay too.

The Combat Companion is a pretty mixed bag of options and revisions.  The only thing that would need to be implemented from the start if it were to be used is the revised armor type scale for attack tables.  While in principle I understand why it's wanted, the whole point of attack tables in the first place is simulating the advantages of various weapons verses various armor types.  Really the Combat Companion method should be taken to its obvious conclusion, removing the attack tables entirely, if it is implemented.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

I agree that stat potentials and stat gains should be options - I've never been wholly convinced by the mechanics.

Regards

Edward

[smug]

I don't mind if they're optional, so long as they're in there somewhere. I always found the Rolemaster system for stat gains a lot more flavourful than "can't really increase stats normally" (AD&D) and "regularly increase/have option to increase stats" (D&D3+, Savage Worlds, etc). I also prefer rolled stats.

[Cory Magel]

Rolled vs set stats is an easy baseline option that I think should be included from the get-go.  This isn't one of those things that has an obvious preference from gamers and is just too simple to not provide the rules for both in the core book.

Stat gains is, potentially, another story.  I think having two options for that would be a good idea too.  Basically random vs purchased.

[David Johansen]

Here's a .pdf of some notes I've made, it's very rough and doesn't really show what I'm talking about for categories, but for the moment assume as it does that the progression is the combined rate and there are no categories.

http://www3.telus.net/public/uncouths/RevLists.pdf

All I'm asking for is a category rank option that maintains compatability with the rest of the system.  At present I think the best way to do that is simply have the standard and category progressions as part of that option as it allows the total bonuses to come out the same in the end.

The assumption with the racial stat bonuses is that they are directly added to the stat rather than the bonus.  I don't know if I like it that way but it would open up the system for doing superheroes a bit.  Whether that's a good thing or not I don't quite know.

[smug]

One thing about options in core is that it's pretty sweet if you grok the game -- GURPS and BRP are both like that -- but it can make a game pretty confusing to read. On the other hand, options in separate books comes with its own problems (I personally prefer that approach, but it's not a slam-dunk as to what's better). Stat roll versus point-buy, however, isn't one of those things that can't be in the core book, as it's a pretty natural thing for which to offer options.

[markc]

if you grok the game

 Translation?
MDC

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

Easiest explanation is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok 
word coined by Robert A Heinlein in novel Stranger in a Strange Land.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[markc]

Thanks;
 I read Stranger in a Strange Land so long ago that I forgot the word.


 I thought it was some new term that was not in the dictionary.


Thanks again.
MDC 

[smug]

It's one of those words I never realised I needed until I learnt about it.

[Langthorne]

I think that we should be looking at a new version of Rolemaster and not a revision of any existing version. I am very fond of RM2 and RMSS, having played both over a good few years (first RM2 and then RMSS), but I don't think tweaking either or both of them and calling it new is the way forward.

Many of these issues have been discussed years ago (probably refiled in an archive somewhere), but I'll gladly drag them out again...

For me there are two questions to address:

1. What is essential to "Rolemaster"? (Are there consistencies throughout all incarnations?)

2. What would each person like to see?

Armed with the answers to these questions, a new version might begin to emerge.

If someone wants to see RM2 or RMSS then I have great news - they have already been produced and are widely available! Go forth and slay dragons!

[GrumpyOldFart]

1. What is essential to "Rolemaster"? (Are there consistencies throughout all incarnations?)

I've moved to HARP, so it's not like there's any future in pleasing my particular tastes. However, I started playing RM back at the very beginning, so I think I can give you an answer to this one, if not the answer.

I've seen two things that stayed consistent from the early 80's through RMFRP. Other things tended to stay similar and got adjusted more or less between revisions:

1. Make the mechanics as standardized and modular as possible, so no one ever has to wonder what dice they roll, and the roll result gives you a fair idea of how well you did before you ever look at a table. The mechanics of _____ work exactly the same as the mechanics of everything similar to _____. It keeps the learning curve from being a pain, and if someone rolls 00 three times running, they don't have to look anything up before they say,

"Woohoo!" 

2. No matter who you are, there is nothing anyone else can do that you simply cannot learn to do. It may not be cost effective, you may never be any good at it, but there is absolutely nothing that the GM replies to with, "You just can't, that's the rules." No matter how foolish you're going to look, or how high the likelihood is of you killing yourself, the rules allow you to at least try.

My 2 coppers. 

[smug]

I think that we should be looking at a new version of Rolemaster and not a revision of any existing version. I am very fond of RM2 and RMSS, having played both over a good few years (first RM2 and then RMSS), but I don't think tweaking either or both of them and calling it new is the way forward.

the more I think about it, the more I'm unsure that a new version makes sense, personally. Who is it aimed at? New players are a much harder sell than in the past, I reckon, and RM2/C and RMSS/FRP players seem to me to be pretty dogged in terms of their support for an existing system.

[rdanhenry]

The greatest asset Rolemaster has at the moment other than some great rules (and a few that could use kicking into better shape), is a loyal fan base who can help others feel the love. Now, it is true that this asset is diluted somewhat by the RM2/C-RMSS/FRP divide (which is probably in most cases a preference rather than anything stronger, despite the polarizing effects of the occasional debate). Any new version is just going to aggravate that problem, unless it provides a smooth synthesis of all existing versions, which would be a pretty big feat. I don't think people are going to get excited about a new version of a game that's not on their radar to begin with. Let's work on improving what we have until the polish is so bright that it really deserves to have all the improvements printed between one set of covers and called a new version.

[Tolen]

I hope we can encourage older players to open their minds to a different version.  I used to be a die-hard RMSS fan, but looking over the RMC books, it's easily 75% the same if not more. 

It'll help if we can get everyone past the feeling that "if it won't be like version X, I won't like it."  Especially if we can find a good way to turn the parts that make each version unique options that can be more or less plugged into the core of whatever revision we end up with.

If we can't get rid of the division in our own ranks, how can we hope to attract new players?

[smug]

I hope we can encourage older players to open their minds to a different version.  I used to be a die-hard RMSS fan, but looking over the RMC books, it's easily 75% the same if not more. 

It'll help if we can get everyone past the feeling that "if it won't be like version X, I won't like it."  Especially if we can find a good way to turn the parts that make each version unique options that can be more or less plugged into the core of whatever revision we end up with.

If we can't get rid of the division in our own ranks, how can we hope to attract new players?

The division exists, I think, because there are two games and given that one of those was commercially dead for a decade or so and the division didn't die off, I think it's a genuine division. I'm dubious that a new version is going to do more to bring us together than it would to increase the amount of division; in the end, people like what they like. Unless a new version is going to appeal to people not currently playing RM -- and maybe it will -- then I'm not sure that I see the point of it.

[Langthorne]

As Corey has observed - the posters here are a very small sample of the whole potential market. Most of us have our own preferred system and could survive without any more material from ICE (let's face it, we've survived this long).

For some of those who are happy with their existing set up, maybe there is no point trying to please them. Any revision would need to be 'just like or compatible with version X' - just play version X!

Unifying the versions should not be the aim - bringing out a great new product that potentially appeals to many should be the aim. When a new version comes out, that should be it for the old one.

[yammahoper]

I do not believe the division exist amongst most RMSS/FRP players.  WE already changed once.  I know I'm willing to change again.

[rdanhenry]

I'm only willing to change if the new version represents some substantial improvement over RMSS. Most of the ideas proposed for a new version have tended to go off in directions that don't interest me. I am open to adopting a new version, if it appeals to me more than the old, but I will not do so merely because it is the "current version".

[Fornitus]

My group has always been die-hard RM2 people.......... with some alterations......

as time goes by as GM I realized that most of those "alterations" were what RMSS/FRP was after when written.

we just never went over since we were ballparking stuff that was slightly off for so long its automatic.
our version works great so we never put in the effort to really dive into a new set of books to find the (sometimes small) differences.

I bought RMC Spell Law with high hopes........ but it sits on the shelf and the players use the stained,beaten, and torn RM2 Spell Law since they can find it all faster. (and the book kinda falls open to the right places. )

So, the only way our group is gonna go 'New Version' is if it has one hell of a world and mythos attached to it.
(kinda like the game that shall not be named, which I dont like but my players love. )