Topic: Cutting the Revision Knot

[David Johansen]

Okay, the more I think about it any deep redesign or revision is as likely to lose more people than it brings in.  My basis for this thought is that preferences have shifted towards simplicity and are unlikely to return from it in the short term.  Actually I think we'd need about ten years of a return to fundamentals in primary schools for things to turn around.   But that's another flame war.

What may be the best approach is a middle of the road solution that tries hard to make the existing mechanics work for both parties.

I think if we consider training packages and talents to be strictly optional the divide comes down to the following things.

Stat Bonuses (Additive verses Averaged)

My understanding is that a major part of this is the desire to have two stats apply equally to some skills.  We can probably solve this with a simple 1.5 multiplier for those special cases.

Skill Category Split and Skill Costs and Stats By Category

I want to hit this one in one fell swoop.  I propose we could equivilate every RMMS style category to one skill.  For instance Athletic Gymnastic to Climbing or Armor Medium to Chainmail.  So, if we have a cultural or training package they could just reference the single core skill.  If you are using the skill category split option, the character simply recieves a rank in the category and skill from the packages.  I think, this essentially leaves both versions intact, though, of course, all the packages would have to be reworked.

Spell Lists, Body Development, and Power Point Development
I have often thought that giving these separate development rates got a bit confusing.  I much prefer the RMSS Spell List Development but the limited bonus progression seems odd in context of the +50 special bonus to spell casting maneuvers I can see how it's better when looking at very high level characters but it probably isn't a really major issue.

Development rates are a bit more of an issue but it shouldn't be too hard to make a progression or die type work as alternate options.  I might even like the die type better though most versions of D&D have moved to a fixed points per level system.

I certainly think getting the number of development rates down is important.  Even if I do fantisize about replacing skill costs by profession  by development rates by professions. 

[Cory Magel]

I think if a new version is taken on it must divide the gap between RM2/RMC and RMSS/RMFRP users.  Otherwise, in my opinion, there would be little point to the endeavor.  Yes, it would need to TRY and bring in new players, but I think it would need to succeed in the short run before it had the chance to do that in the long run and that means appealing to the existing RM fan bases.  There will never be a point where everyone is happy, but I think we can all agree it should attempt the best middle ground possible.

Too simple and you get HARP.  Don't need another HARP.  Too complex and you won't get RM2/RMC players to buy in and probably no significant new customer buy in.

Stats I don't really believe there's any major difference between averaged or added.  Six of one, half dozen of another.  So long as it's balanced I don't care either way.  It will simply be based on how important stats should be... if the stats are more important, you add.  If less, you average.  I would lean towards add because I think stats should be important, but like i said, I am unconcerned either way.

Categories are an interesting topic.  I'd like to see them go to simplify things, but doing that might have wider reaching effects than people realize.  Changes in one part of a system can have unexpected results in areas you wouldn't normally consider.  Umbrella skills are a good idea, but really it's just a shell game when it comes down to it.  Having one "Armor" skill that you need to develop separately for Soft Leather, Rigid Leather, Chain and Plate is really no different than having them as their own separate skill apart for the perception of someone looking at the size of each skill list.  But then, a good number of the 'criticisms' of Rolemaster are merely such perceptions.

I don't quite understand your point about Spell Lists, Body Development and Power Point Development.  They must have different development costs.  You don't want a Warrior and a Magician to have the same costs for all those things.

By development rates what are you referring to?  Each individual skill, or the number of development points you get per level?

Something everyone needs to keep in mind also... we, here on this board, are not the average customer.  Even with as 'small time' as RM is these days, we are a fraction of the customer base and we are, essentially, the fanatics.  We are possibly the vocal minority and that needs to be considered by all of us.

[David Johansen]

doh, I ment PROGRESSIONS.  In RM2 you get a hit die type reflecting the size of your race.  In RMSS you've got a racial progression rate like 0*6*5*4*3.  What I'm suggesting is simply saying "Halflings get 4 hp per rank or Humans get 6 hp per rank.

I am in favor of trimming the skill and category lists a bit and don't think there will be much weeping wailing an gnashing of teeth if it's done.  For instance if we just made Armor one skill category, it might be a good place for an exception to the one skill for the whole category thing.  On the other hand I'd like a single Melee weapon category, so the old 1h edged etc would be the specific skills.

[markc]

Send in a submission and see where it goes.


MDC

[David Johansen]

They've got enough on their hands at present.  I just had a notion today of what might work to bridge the divide.  I mean I've got a complete redesign I'd love to do but whether you could still call it Rolemaster is debatable.  I even want to revise the crit charts so they work a little better for monsters and such.

But, I think it's beyond the scope of what would be widely accepted.

On the other hand, if we can find a way to make categories optional but fully supported, allow one two or three stats per skill as needed, cut things down to one progression rate, and tidy up the skill list I think we might actually be able to make everybody happy.

And adding new skills and professions wouldn't be too cludgy (a major issue of mine with RM2).  You could assign new skills to a category and they'd just have the same cost as another skill.  So, for instance, if you added tumbling it would have the same cost as climbing.  And new professions would only need to have costs for the core skill list, not every skill ever added in any supplement.

[markc]

David Johansen;
 Is that not RMSS/FRP except with different progressions? IMHO it will be tough to get rid of different progression rates. I have tried and IMHO a few more different progression rates would make the game easier.
 I can also say that it is tough to get one set of categories that work well with both RM2 and RMSS do to how they are built. Also a lot of RM2 players do not like categories in any way.
 You can always take a look at the Dec GuildCompanion.com and see what someone did. I do not know if that is what you had in mind or not.


MDC

[David Johansen]

No, I'm talking about a fixed skill list with categories being absolutely optional.  The idea is that the list determines the cost of the categories so there doesn't need to be two cost lists.  So, all Athletic Gymnastic skills would use the Climbing costs.  So, having profession bonuses that are purchased at the same cost would be an underlying rationale that wouldn't come to the surface in the core game.

I'm also thinking a master table similar to the RMSS Spell List Cost table could be used to construct the professions.

This way you'd have a list of specific costs by realm.  So if the realms were Nature, Essence, Mentalism, Channelling, Subterfuge, Arms, and Practical, professions would be either pure or semi users and have their costs determined accordingly.  I'll have to build a chart to show you what I mean.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Being more a RMSS fan than RM2... my bias would be obvious here.

The big differences are the Skill handling mechanism and the Profession Progression each level ( )

Surely there is a way that a simple option could be written into a set of Core rules to allow *either* method of dealing with skill mechanism?

If you dont like the idea of "categories" and the massive variety of skills within them, then simply treat each "Category" as a seperate skill... and Double the cost of purchasing them to cover the additional benefit of knowing all the activities that come under that umbrella.

(This is more or less the reverse of what David J has said above.... ... instead of calling a skill "Climbing" you define it more loosely... and call it an "Athletic-Gymnastic" activity. ) This way, the "skill" becomes a "Generalised activity" rather than a defined "skill".

OK, so this perhaps over simplifies things, with respect to those skills in the "Combined" groups. The trouble is that these skills, appear so diverse yet (in RMSS) are covered by a category that defines them loosely enough that they fail to become similar enough... I've always thought that the "Combined" skills categories are the major problem with RMSS skill system.. because they are an exception.  However, should they be treated as an exception? 

[yammahoper]

I could easily accept the loss of standard progression and going back to combined progression for all skills.  Catagories could still define skill cost for each profession.

[Ecthelion]

If you dont like the idea of "categories" and the massive variety of skills within them, then simply treat each "Category" as a seperate skill... and Double the cost of purchasing them to cover the additional benefit of knowing all the activities that come under that umbrella.

(This is more or less the reverse of what David J has said above.... ... instead of calling a skill "Climbing" you define it more loosely... and call it an "Athletic-Gymnastic" activity. ) This way, the "skill" becomes a "Generalised activity" rather than a defined "skill".

OK, so this perhaps over simplifies things, with respect to those skills in the "Combined" groups. The trouble is that these skills, appear so diverse yet (in RMSS) are covered by a category that defines them loosely enough that they fail to become similar enough... I've always thought that the "Combined" skills categories are the major problem with RMSS skill system.. because they are an exception.  However, should they be treated as an exception?

Have you seen the Guild Companion article about simplifying the RMSS skill system. What about a solution like that?

[rdanhenry]

Any revision will create a third "faction" of RM fandom, not unite those who are already split. Any discussion of a new revision must accept that (unless it is essentially going to be a repackaging -- and I think RMSS/FRP would be better off with another set of revision, one that clearly separated rules and content and discussed how to adjust content for a specific setting: not just race and culture creation, but creating, modifying, and removing Professions, creating Training Packages, adjusting the skill list [including adding skills, removing skills, moving skills to different categories, adding new categories of skills, and combining/removing skill categories], etc. Make the presentation of the underlying engine as clear and precise as possible, then not only provide some "stock fantasy" content to work with, but guidance on how to use the "kit" aspect of Rolemaster to make that engine run everything from Stone Age Survival to Steampunk Vampire Hunting.)

If the new version was ABSOLUTELY AMAZING, you might get a substantial number of old RM gamers to buy a new set of books and change over. If it is simply very good, they'll justify buying books to lift ideas for their RM2 or RMSS campaigns. But trying to "unify the fan base" for Rolemaster is not going to happen, so the purpose behind any new version needs to be something else, like appealing to a new audience. Frankly, I think RMSS/FRP could do that if it were carefully revised to have high standards of editing and organization so that it was clear, careful demarcation of rules ("this little bit is what you actually need to digest before getting started") versus content ("this is the masses of cool stuff you can look up when you need it"), and marketed properly. That last part is really the tricky bit.

[David Johansen]

Well, partly I don't think buying new books is a major barrier anymore.  A $5 pdf simply isn't in the same ball park.  People will buy it just to see what's been done.

Secondly I think the fan bases can be unified, the gap isn't really all that great.  The big debate is over how much stuff RMSS adds at the core.

I'll admit the profession bonuses are a bit of a problem between the two but all told I think the approach can be blended.  Even RM2 fans would probaby be okay with a bit higher bonuses at first level.

I think even RMSS fans would go for a version that gave 100% compatability with a smaller, easier to use core.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not willing to settle for less than 100% compatability between the no categories and categories options.  It's really not that hard to strip RMSS down if you don't care about compatability.

Lastly I don't think you'll find a more rabid RMSS fan than myself.

[David Johansen]

One thing I do think would be wise is to have two core books.  One, Entitled Rolemaster would cover only half a dozen professions and races, would include Arms Law in its entirety and as much of Spell Law as can be crammed in with a toilet plunger.  This book would have the skills only version of the rules.

Character Law would be a book of equal size with nothing but character creation options including at least two dozen races and profession, as well as training packages, talents and flaws.  With no space dedicated to combat, GMing, or anything else it might even contain Space Master material (though that would not be the prime goal)

[yammahoper]

The best way to kill the factions is ONLY SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL CORE LINE of RM book.

The rest get posted in the sales vault and left to rot.

[David Johansen]

Yes, but ideally in doing so one unites them rather than sending 40% of them off to play and buy something else.  I've got a good 80% complete d% sf game sitting on my hard drive that has accumulated over the last couple years of RMBS and honestly, if working with the new ICE doesn't pan out I will publish it and aggressively court RM fans.

But

I really believe a united, revised core system is possible and essential.

See RMSS was dead when the bankrupcy hit.  I'm pretty sure there's a stack of republication royalty issues on art and writting that's absolutely unresolvable.  (IRRC the old ICE generally payed royalties based on sales, not a one time fee.)

RMSS is not new user friendly.  Heck I've seen a fair bit of evidence over the years that it wasn't even RM veteran friendly, perfect and less complex though it was

Still, ultimate compendiums are fun as long as they support a viable point of entry so I think the two book solution would be worthwhile.

[Cory Magel]

Any revision will create a third "faction" of RM fandom, not unite those who are already split.

I disagree.  I think that a compromise between RM2 and RMSS is possible and, if RM wants to continue as a viable system long term, a new version is a requirement anyhow.

But trying to "unify the fan base" for Rolemaster is not going to happen, so the purpose behind any new version needs to be something else, like appealing to a new audience.

I see absolutely no reason why both things can't at least attempt to be accomplished with a new version.  RM cannot continue to support two versions that both need revamping regardless and even if they did there's not much life left in them as they stand.  If you think someone like myself (an RMSS user) isn't going to buy an entirely new version why on earth would I buy a revamped version of what I already have?

[Cory Magel]

By the way, as an RMSS fan, I could easily live with no categories and I could live with RM2 Profession bonuses of +X% per level rather than an up front one time bonus.  I actually like the idea of the RM2 Profession bonuses as it alleviates some of diminishing returns problem.

[rdanhenry]

I could live without Profession bonuses altogether. However, dropping the skill categories would lose me unless some elegant solution so far unproposed appears which performs the same functions even more gracefully.

[Cory Magel]

Just out of curiosity... what's so attractive about the categories?  The only benefit I see from them is that they allow you to gain small amounts in every skill in that category.  Something that could easily be re-accounted for in a new skill cost and advancement setup.

[David Johansen]

I think the category system is brilliant if, yes, a bit forced in places.

It allows so many options.  You can develop a skill and category at full pace, or just get one rank in each and then stick to the skill to specialize, or build just the category to generalize, or buy one or the other each level to slowly build proficiency.

It lets you really control how your character develops in detail.  It also makes adding new skills easier and cuts down the size of the skill cost list.  You only have to total your stat bonuses once per category so it speeds things up a bit (no, I don't think categories are the main culprit that slows RMSS chargen down).