Topic: What was "crying out to be fixed"?

[GoblynByte]

I'm not intimately familiar with RM2 or RMC so its hard for me to find the subtle differences between the two.  Though in RMC it states that one of the points of the project was to fix a number of details that were simply "crying out to be fixed."  I'm curious as to what these small changes were.  Or are they really small changes?  Is it just general stuff like the combat sequence and such?  What were those aspects that nagged at everyone that consituted "inevitable" changes?

Thanks in advance!

GB

[ictus]

it's more a clarification of rules that where a little unclear, or options being made core rules as they have always been used as such.

Also the old books aren't on computer, so reprints and amendments are an issue.

[Maldroth]

from what I can tell is the reorganization of the book greatly helps in its readability. There are better examples now that help to show how to handle some of the confusing bits of the game.

Also they reworked the initiative system, I played in the old one and like the new one much better.

Not enough changes to say RM2 and RMC are incompatible, but its very nice to see the material cleaned up and modernized for the current RPG market.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

organization
the lack of examples
confusion between what was core and what was an option
spell type issues
the combat tactical/initiative system

 

[Marc R]

Nerve Law and Symbolic ways were somewhat shambolic in RM2 spell law.

(One referred to non existant spells, the other was both confusing and illogically presented.).

Addition of "Items And Will" from FRP to both SL and CT.

Bunch of clarifications in CT (Yet to be released) on creature rules.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

oh! an getting rid of references to other spell lists.... all references in Spell lists are now limited to spells within that list

[Maldroth]

I hadn't noticed that yet but wow that will make a huge difference I remember how irritating that got.

[yammahoper]

The very first "Spell Law" books were simply the worst.  They were neatly printed on colored paper that matched the realms magical color, but spell list were described for 15 levels, then the rest of the list scattered throughout the booklet!  In addition, a light spell on one list could read "as light on base mage light law" so you had to flip back and forth.

One spell list per page was a great improvement.  So was no cross list references.  Great job guys.

lynn

[Maldroth]

What improvements are we going to see on Creatures and Treasures?

I'm looking over my old copy and the new sample document that is available for download and I see no real change. Perhaps I just don't have the tables memorized but I always found that C&T was really awful to use because of all the cross table use.

I think its the codes that drive me whacky. Movement for instance is rated at AS/FA (made up the codes). In RMX that could mean +20/+20. So why not use that rather than another table?

Looking at the old RM2 C&T the MS/AQ table has four collumns two for MS and two for AQ. One is the base number the other is for a certain situation such as charging or fleeing. So why not have the monster chart entry use +20(+0)/+20(+10) for the entry rather than refer to a second chart.

Like I said perhaps I just need to memorize the charts but that will take time and i'll have to bumble though this in the mean time until that happens.

I think I'll need to make a two page GM screen just for the monster tables to decode them.

[arakish]

oh! an getting rid of references to other spell lists.... all references in Spell lists are now limited to spells within that list

This P.O.ed me to no end...  Flipping in one book only to have to grab another book, then flip from one section to another in that book, only to find I had to grab yet another book, and flip off with "the bird" as I flipped back and forth through that book...

 

grrr...

rmfr