Topic: My Biggest RMU Complaint

[Druss_the_Legend]

Well, I'm pretty sure that if anyone is willing to produce for free (or so…) a simple, 4-5 pages, adventure for RMU, the ICE team would just love it and be willing to include it as a free download anywhere, including as part of the forums. So, any volunteer?

Heck, since it may be quite a lot of work for a single person, we could even make it a forum group effort! Have one person write a simple adventure story with simple NPCs, someone create the NPCs and creatures' stats, some draw a quick map, and someone create the first level (or so) pre-made PCs, and voilà!

im happy to send you scans of the maps for The Secret Armoury of Heqt. There are 4 in total. As its generic the dungeon can be placed anywhere really. I split the layout map for the dungeon into thirds and only gave the party the west and east ends of the map (they find these two in the library at the start of the adventure).The maps are hidden in a private library (one beind a mirror and one inside the base of a fountain). Locate Secret Opening skill to find them but they still need to solve the initial riddles found in the main library first by using Linguistics and Read Runes.

This reseach component of the adventure was completed by a single character but in a larger group id spread the skills around and extra players could help solve the riddles which can easily be changed to suit your playgroup if riddles arent their thing eg. could be a mini adventure helping the librarian complete a task or errand involving some role-playing or different skills - just as long as they get the two clues they need and somehow gain access to the private library. A thief/burglar/rogue character could be sent the burgle the place and you could tailor the challenge level to the level of the character easily enough - putting traps and/or alarms in his/her path. This might involve them pickpocketing the keys to the restricted private library or sneaking past the two guards in the corridoor near the private library or picking the lock.

I didnt actually use a physical map for the libarar and made this first part of the quest quick short but it would be easy enough to crreate a layout for a library (with help from someone here on these forums) and include this in the adventure with specific details about the head librarian who is a magician and his staff and the guards.

Back to the maps. There are 4 maps. one map shows the location of the secret armoury in the mountains (but not the entrance itself which is hidden) and the other 3 maps are parts of a single map which only show the layout of the dungeon with rooms, caves and doors. It does not show the monsters, traps or treasure and the party begin the adventure still missing the middle 3rd of the map (This can be found in the dungeon about half way through the adventure on a skeleton lying in a corridoor).

[Druss_the_Legend]

The need for more and more rules usually means

1) the games is placing realism over fun
2) the rules are too complex overall
3) the game is missing a general resolution mechanic that resolves 99% of situations.

Our group over the 35 years of gaming have likely played over  100 different games, even if some were just a quick test. The games that provide the best play experience lack unnecessary complexity and a need to cover every possible situation.

The best games have

1) fast combat
2) enough skills to generally represent most things players need to cover
3) centralized mechanics for near all situations
4) as few exceptions to the general rules as possible.
5) support materials for running a game within the game world that shows

Simple is nearly always better. If you can’t make a rule concise in an RPG, the rule is doing something it shouldn’t.

^^^ 100% this.

[pastaav]

I acknowledge the tension you speak of, but I'm not sure the playtest is a good indication of what should be done. Playtest is typically realised by people who already know either the designers themselves (alpha testing) or previous iterations of the game and are already fairly hardcore fans (beta testing). There is a strong risk that any beta testing will end up emphasising both the qualities and the flaws of any given game system if it is an iteration (compared to a new game).

A different way to look at it is the most likely customer of a new RM edition is, in fact, existing RM fans. We can speculate that there is an alternate design of the rules that would expand the audience even further but still appeal to the RM plans. The problem is that such speculations do not tell us anything about how to discover that alternate design. Doing things in a way that doesn't appeal to playtesters because you hope there will be another audience is possible, but what if you are wrong?

I think it is quite likely the large number of playtesters that liked the end result enough to want their name in the book will also be likely to buy materials and spread the word. This group of players is, of course, not representative of every gamer out there but trying to design a game that appeals to every player is also bound to fail.

I think that people who complain on the forum that RMU is too different from their favorite house rules or that RMU reads just like a particular set of house rules would never be happy buyers. I also think that people complaining RMU is not similar enough to some other game or should have done radical breaks with rules from previous editions would never be happy buyers. At the end of the day, not everyone will be a fan of RMU, and that is just life.

In addition, beta testing, especially over the time RMU has been in beta, is a lengthy process during which people have a long time to actually read and understand the rules before using them, whereas people who simply buy the game expect to be able to use it quickly. My comment was only highlighting the fact that RMU, like most previous iterations of RM, is not designed to be used quickly and not designed to be memorised easily either.

Our experience from the beta testing was very different. Except for some issues that have been resolved since the beta, the RMU rules ran quicker with much less need to memorize difficult things than any previous RM edition.

There are some parts of the rules that are very complicated...the rules for suffering injuries due to exhausting yourself are not something anyone would memorize. One of the reasons for this is that the play situation when these rules apply is rather rare. On the other hand, if you are running a desperate race when these rules will matter, the level of detail will add lots of flavors. This kind of detail will not appeal to every gamer, but I think it is a good bet that the same kind of player that enjoyed RM2 and RMSS will also want this level of detail.

But in any case, there are ways to make rules more concise that can be done even in that kind of games, such as standardising the action modifiers, standardising combat results, reducing the number of skills by making sure each of them covers a well-defined, but wide enough range of applications and avoiding niche skills like the plague, and so on.

Sounds pretty exactly like RMU to me...except for the level of crunchiness during combat that clearly is moving in the opposite direction and building on the aspected that has made RM combat unique. Criticals are fun and have more detailed outcomes that do not just differ on the flavor text is a step in direction of a game I want to play.

[katastrophe]

Without getting into every point you make I’ll say this.

If the play test was basically open to RM players only then what would you expect but for them to just rehash the same ideas. I don’t know how open the play test was but since it’s mainly here on the RM site and didn’t appear to be an attempt at really opening the test up to players of other, more modern, games then you get what we got.

If the aim was to expand the market and bring in some real “new” thinking, the play test would’ve likely sought those outside opinions. When I signed up for the play test and read the rules my firth thought was “this is not a new-ish view of RM for the 2010s or 2020s. It’s basically oldRM with a little clean up”. Then I read pages and pages of posts basically reaffirming that there wasn’t really a voice or real discussion of making any wholesale changes to make a 2020s game with RM at the core. What I read was “in my RM game we like x and y” and “I like RM1 and companion 4 for my game” and “we will just keep playing our old game if you change x and y”. The few times I read where someone suggested some modernization and simplification of the game that might attract new players, they were summarily shot down by the purists. The idea of changing any of the sacred cows (no matter how outdated they were) were shut out immediately. I knew right then there was no real attempt to play test the rules or especially make a 2020s version of RM that might expand beyond the current RM crowd.

[Hurin]

I think that is a very inaccurate characterization of the beta. Many ideas were discussed and there were many significant changes.

One example: the number of Armor Types was reduced to 10. This not only streamlines play, but actually allows more actual armors to be used in game (e.g. Scale and Brigandine). This was a major change: all previous versions had 20 armor types. But it was made nonetheless because it both streamlines play but also adds greater functionality.

There are many other examples of this. Spellcasting no longer requiring a chart; same for moving maneuvers. Standardization of skill progressions. Simplification of casting penalties for armor. Etc. etc.

[jdale]

The four action point round is also a streamlining. The skill list obviously. We did reject some more fundamental changes, like eliminating potentials or even stats (in favor of only having the stat bonuses), but to a great extent that was because it was going to make it harder for some people to relate to, not easier.

On the other hand, it was never meant to not be Rolemaster. We could write another game that tries to be something completely different, but there was no point in becoming HARP (since HARP already exists), and it wouldn't make any sense to, for example, create a streamlined narrative-based game that would compete in the crowded end of the game market while alienating everyone who plays RM.

[katastrophe]

I suspect we’ll agree to disagree and that’s not meant to be an attack. But there are plenty of ways to further streamline play that doesn’t make the game “not Rolemaster”. As I’ve noted in other posts, I appreciate some of the simplification and think it serves the game well. There are other things that were kept in place that could be changed for a better and more relatable version of RM that some games like Harp, Lightmaster and VsDarkmaster  for instance simply got better (I use those because they’re all based on the same RM/MERP engine). 

Some things could have been deconstructed in a way that would make for better class/profession, skill and magic list structures. For example, there was not, as far as I read back, discussions on preventing future Profession creep. Since RM is ultimately a skill based game professions could have been minimized since players can essentially buy whatever skills and spells (based on access) they want. So maybe a path to really explore could have been to make a few base templates pure mage, hybrid mage , fighter, thief, semi fighter/mage (would encompass assassin/nightblade, Paladin, warrior mage, ranger), etc. then provide the packages that differentiate the types/professions/whatevers within those templates based on the skills and sometimes basic spells lists they begin with (or have access to) rather than manipulating the costs of the skill ranks, similar to what was done in the channeling companion. This would have been a far simpler and more elegant solution overall. And it would have made it far simpler for ICE to release new variants off of the professions. All the writer would have to do is come up with appropriate beginning skills and number of ranks for the chosen new profession rather than having to try to come up with some slight changes to the costs of skill categories to justify Necromancer, Sorcerer, Mystic, Magician, etc having a set of slightly different skills costs.

Keeping things like random stats and talents just seems very 40 years ago and character building should have just gone pure point based across the board. (I’ll still never understand the whole temp vs potential stat progression particularly since the DPs no longer are based on the stats, players could just start at their potential and if they want to buy up stats after charges make it absurdly expensive so as to make it something people rarely do).

I won’t even get into the simplification of the magic system again because there is clearly two separate camps on that as discussed in the other thread. 

Simpler is always better.

[Ecthelion]

If the play test was basically open to RM players only then what would you expect but for them to just rehash the same ideas. I don’t know how open the play test was but since it’s mainly here on the RM site and didn’t appear to be an attempt at really opening the test up to players of other, more modern, games then you get what we got.

Many here in the forums haven't only played RM but also other game systems. Therefore even that player base could bring in new ideas, things they've seen in other systems and also their own ideas. At the same time I think it's good that RMU did not throw everything over board that is the core of the Rolemaster system.

[katastrophe]

If the play test was basically open to RM players only then what would you expect but for them to just rehash the same ideas. I don’t know how open the play test was but since it’s mainly here on the RM site and didn’t appear to be an attempt at really opening the test up to players of other, more modern, games then you get what we got.

Many here in the forums haven't only played RM but also other game systems. Therefore even that player base could bring in new ideas, things they've seen in other systems and also their own ideas. At the same time I think it's good that RMU did not throw everything over board that is the core of the Rolemaster system.

I didn’t say they never played anything else. But the fact that they are even on this board and were in the playtest just meant the playtest was asking people intimately familiar with the game to fix the game. That rarely works as all you get is incorporated house rules rather than a rethinking of how things could/should work within the basic game framework. It’s evident that was the case by reading through the threads and how suggestions that veered from the basic RM and companions were dismissed.

Inviting in nonRM players may have brought about questions about why some things are being done a certain way when modern games long since left that way behind (random stats). And they could definitely tell you whether they’d be interested in playing and supporting the game (is it overly complex, confusing, etc). I’ve played RM since the 90s, I think, so some aspects such as maneuver charts I understand (i think they are unnecessarily specific and complex but I understand them since I’ve played and run 100s of RM sessions). However, someone coming from a simpler resolution to skills and maneuvers would look at the RM approach and say WTF, how does this work. In the playtest that kinda feedback is missed because it’s not foreign or confusing to RM players.

[Hurin]

Since RM is ultimately a skill based game professions could have been minimized since players can essentially buy whatever skills and spells (based on access) they want. So maybe a path to really explore could have been to make a few base templates pure mage, hybrid mage , fighter, thief, semi fighter/mage (would encompass assassin/nightblade, Paladin, warrior mage, ranger), etc. then provide the packages that differentiate the types/professions/whatevers within those templates based on the skills and sometimes basic spells lists they begin with (or have access to) rather than manipulating the costs of the skill ranks, similar to what was done in the channeling companion. This would have been a far simpler and more elegant solution overall.

There was a lot of discussion about this. You can do a search for 'archetypes', as that I think was the most common term for this sort of plan. So yes, that was definitely brought up many times.

In the end, many felt that it eroded the sense of playing a new character if you played a 'stealth archetype 1' versus 'stealth archetype 2' rather than the sexier 'Thief' vs. 'Outrider'.

[jdale]

Pitching the playtest mainly at non-RM players would be a great solution if the goal was to make a game targeted at the mainstream of gamers, a group that is already well served by a variety of different games. RM's niche is a more detailed, crunchier rule system intended for people who like that. (And HARP exists to fill a space midway between that and RM.) We did look at the types of complexity in the previous editions and ask which parts of that complexity add something (e.g. descriptive criticals, buying skills individually) and which parts did not (e.g. the BAR, the RR table, the old moving maneuver table) and made changes accordingly.

Speaking for myself, I've played a fair amount of D&D 1st, 3rd, and 4th edition, Pathfinder, Mage/WoD, GURPS (run a lot of it too), etc. My primary playtest group has mainly played D&D so RM was new to many of them. Others have cited their experiences in other systems during the playtest. So it's not at true that only RM voices were heard. Certainly we listened to people who were looking for a game like RM, but it would be madness not to.

[katastrophe]

Since RM is ultimately a skill based game professions could have been minimized since players can essentially buy whatever skills and spells (based on access) they want. So maybe a path to really explore could have been to make a few base templates pure mage, hybrid mage , fighter, thief, semi fighter/mage (would encompass assassin/nightblade, Paladin, warrior mage, ranger), etc. then provide the packages that differentiate the types/professions/whatevers within those templates based on the skills and sometimes basic spells lists they begin with (or have access to) rather than manipulating the costs of the skill ranks, similar to what was done in the channeling companion. This would have been a far simpler and more elegant solution overall.

There was a lot of discussion about this. You can do a search for 'archetypes', as that I think was the most common term for this sort of plan. So yes, that was definitely brought up many times.

In the end, many felt that it eroded the sense of playing a new character if you played a 'stealth archetype 1' versus 'stealth archetype 2' rather than the sexier 'Thief' vs. 'Outrider'.

Hmm, I read back pretty far and did not see that kind of discussion. Definitely did not see any real explanation of how it would work and what it would look like. If the nature of the conversation was as you put it, seems that was a real gloss over. But it does not matter now. And the logic you presented above is odd at best. "I played a thief last campaign and this time I want to play another kind of thief but I definitely need to have a whole new class/profession to do". Not sure that is a well thought out rationale to have 15 different professions that have to be separately balanced and made by tweaking the costs of the skill categories. I hope there were better reasons that the one you presented for the profession creep to be maintained in the game.
 

[Hurin]

Hmm, I read back pretty far and did not see that kind of discussion. Definitely did not see any real explanation of how it would work and what it would look like. If the nature of the conversation was as you put it, seems that was a real gloss over. But it does not matter now. And the logic you presented above is odd at best. "I played a thief last campaign and this time I want to play another kind of thief but I definitely need to have a whole new class/profession to do". Not sure that is a well thought out rationale to have 15 different professions that have to be separately balanced and made by tweaking the costs of the skill categories. I hope there were better reasons that the one you presented for the profession creep to be maintained in the game.
 

Not sure what I else I can say. You argued that not enough change was made, and I provided examples of it being made. You said various things weren't discussed, but I noted that many of them were. If you want to minimize and dismiss the discussion, then you are free to do so. But I would note that many players (myself included) prefer to have a wide range of classes with different skill costs; it was a very RM2 approach that we liked. The Outrider for example will have better wildnerness/outdoor skills than the Thief, as befits a more outdoor survivalist type class. Even just having a different name can often help roleplaying and identification with a character. I get that you don't like that; but many players do. So that's why that decision was made, after considerable discussion of alternatives.

[Cory Magel]

...if the goal was to make a game targeted at the mainstream of gamers, a group that is already well served by a variety of different games. RM's niche is a more detailed, crunchier rule system intended for people who like that.

At the start of the RMU revamp there was discussion about targeting new users in order to increase the audience of RM, but over the course of the design it never really seemed to be going that way and I think this is actually the first time I've heard someone say that that was abandoned (not saying I disagree mind you).  It's one of the two primary reasons I bowed out of the process.  No one would answer the question directly (I didn't see how I could help if I didn't know who we were designing for).

IMO there had to be a choice.  Cater to the existing RM users or specifically try to bring in new users (which would have required a more significant change).  I did not believe both was possible.  Mix into that that ICE is effectively a part-time/hobby company and, as such, simply doesn't have the ability to market on any significantly meaningful level and I think keeping to the existing RM user base was the better choice.  Course, recent events have a small chance of a broader audience being reached... but even if that came to pass, no one really saw it coming.

[rdanhenry]

I would point out that much of the discussion of RMU is no longer available, as the first round of discussions was removed when the second beta came out, and much of the more broad theoretical discussions took place before that. Just because you can't find it on the forum now doesn't mean it wasn't discussed at length.

[Cory Magel]

I would point out that much of the discussion of RMU is no longer available, as the first round of discussions was removed when the second beta came out, and much of the more broad theoretical discussions took place before that. Just because you can't find it on the forum now doesn't mean it wasn't discussed at length.

I bowed out before the second beta and I didn't even bother asking to be included in the later talks.  I asked the question quite a few times over the years after that and no one answered.

[5th Knight of Xar]

Existing RM fans and user were once new to the rpg system also, I've never found RM to be too detailed and difficult to get into. There's always the option to tweak stuff that are hard to understand. I'm personally glad ICE didn't go for a "dumbed down" version meant for a broader target group when designing RMU.

[katastrophe]

I would point out that much of the discussion of RMU is no longer available, as the first round of discussions was removed when the second beta came out, and much of the more broad theoretical discussions took place before that. Just because you can't find it on the forum now doesn't mean it wasn't discussed at length.

If you read my post you’ll see that I said I didn’t see those discussion from what I read. If there were discussions that were removed, I can’t magically know they happened. I’ll repeat, I read back pretty far and did not see where those “theoretical” subjects were discussed or contemplated or tested to see if they could work.

Most of the discussion in this thread I believe proves my point though. The idea of modernizing the game for a broader audience was determined not to be the design goal. Ultimately what was created was a cleaned up 80s game rather than a 2020 version of RM which kept the core concepts but made the game more readily accessible to the broad swath of gamers that exists today. It’s RM for people that already play RM, which makes it currently a shelf game rather than a play game. That’s fine I suppose. Maybe 2-3 years from now when the basic books are all released and some semblance of a RMU Shadow World is made available our group will revisit playing RMU but until them if we decide to play it’ll likely remain the heavily modified and houseruled RMSS we’ve been using for nearly 30 years.

[rdanhenry]

I would point out that much of the discussion of RMU is no longer available, as the first round of discussions was removed when the second beta came out, and much of the more broad theoretical discussions took place before that. Just because you can't find it on the forum now doesn't mean it wasn't discussed at length.

If you read my post you’ll see that I said I didn’t see those discussion from what I read. If there were discussions that were removed, I can’t magically know they happened.

Obviously. That's why I was informing you.

[Cory Magel]

It’s RM for people that already play RM, which makes it currently a shelf game rather than a play game. That’s fine I suppose. Maybe 2-3 years from now when the basic books are all released and some semblance of a RMU Shadow World is made available our group will revisit playing RMU but until them if we decide to play it’ll likely remain the heavily modified and houseruled RMSS we’ve been using for nearly 30 years.

That's every RM you've seen up to now also. Every new version of RM leaves RM users behind using the old ones (that's almost surely true of most game systems).
So, while I'm mostly right there with you on likely continuing to use the RMSS that our gaming group has tweaked over the years, I really don't think it was a wrong decision.
In my opinion ICE just isn't in a position to accomplish what you're talking about.  So to keep the system alive and, at least, make it publishable you rely on your existing fan base.