Author Topic: Cutting the Revision Knot  (Read 9319 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rdanhenry

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,582
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • This sentence is false.
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2011, 10:08:25 PM »
I spend at least as much time on character concept as mechanics (although there is back and forth between the two, so in practice they intertwine), but if you want to min-max, a computer is very useful to try different character builds to push the skill(s) of interest to the limit.
Rolemaster: When you absolutely, positively need to have a chance of tripping over an imaginary dead turtle.

Offline jasonbrisbane

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 660
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Darkeen's Battlefield - still going strong.
    • Darkeen's Battlefield
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2011, 12:00:32 AM »
O thinl each weapon in arms law should be available as a download in the rm shop. 99c downloads anyone? It worked for apple! And it would increase the revenue stream for ice.

--------
Regards,
Jason Brisbane
HARP GM & Freelancer
Author of "The Ruins of Kausur"
http://roleplayingapps.wordpress.com

Offline Athelstaine

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2011, 07:31:56 AM »
Weird i never really thought that rolemaster was  hard per se. I can crank out a charcater in under an hour. Then i had to remember that i been playing RM for almost 20 years so it is easier. Like everyone else,i feel if any changes are to be done is should be with category consolidation.

I have a mix group of players. Half likes RMFRP the other half are hard core RM2. My RM2 friends the only thing they dont like are the categories, mainly for lack of consoliditaion and honestly having to double spec their points.

I tried explaining that they get a heck of a lot more DP's that they would in RM2 even including the extra 50% option. Once that was proven the new argument was the increased cost of some of the skills, like the crafts all being 5/12. Once again i pointed to the extra DP's.

So what i did was doled out a few extra dp's based off their stats.What i did was take their stat mods for their dev stat and treated it as a percentage of extra dp's they could use for skill and categories they do not get profession bonuses in and that seemed to placate them.
May i serve in Valhalla, better than i did in life.

Offline Grinnen Baeritt

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 505
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2011, 09:03:43 AM »
I've always thought that the skill category system was flawed... but only in it's explaination and execution not its purpose in character creation.

Those skills that "sit uncomfortably" are potentially those ones that people could concievably learn in the same manner rather than having any direct correlation as to subject matter. Perhaps these are skills that are better learnt by those with a aptitude...(which is why certain professions have different development costs in the first place).

Let's take the Lore skills (which to me actually sit fairly comfortably together). So Religion and Region Lore don't have any apparent or obvious similarity? Most people know a little about geography from religion and vice versa, the same could be said for culture lore and religion or region lore and culture lore.

I think it is vitually impossible to learn something without either learning a titbit of information about learning another... or by utilising the same methods/practices when learning a skill. Without specialising and dedication you won't be an expert.. but equally you won't be completely ignorant either.

To me, purchasing ranks in a Lore category, rather than specific skill ranks simply means to have a "gradual increase in general knowledge", whilst having them in a Tech/Trade category indicates "an improvement with manual routine techniques", Combat Manuevers indicates "learning general techniques that enhanse positional combat", Craft skills "improving general crafting methods" etc.. I'm not sure there is a skill which is so alien that it cannot be related to another in some way. The fact that that one skill is paid for with DP as a "skill" shouldn't mean that other subject matter doesn't, in some way benifit from it's improvement. 


Offline Witchking20k

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,312
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2011, 11:16:50 AM »
I love the idea of categories.  But, I also love the idea of being able to make a character without a spreadsheet.  I played RMSS for over 10 years; and the categories were a huge part of the reason why.  But, at this stage in life, I can't be bothered for a bunch of math that is rarely used.  I only game for 5-6 hours a week, and am loath to commit more than 1/2 hour to character creation & leveling up etc. 
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

Offline pastaav

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,615
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Swedish gaming club
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2011, 03:01:26 PM »
I do agree about it being possible for an expert to generate a character in say an hour or less, but it takes loads of more with a newbie. I would add that the same is true for leveling up. The critical difference is very much that when I need to level up a character a very large part of the DP is tied up for skills that I know are essential. I don't need to consider every single DP, but will just have to make an active choice about the few spare DP that remains after I have bought all the essential skills.

The implication of this is that a newbie friendly version of RM should not have fewer skills, professions or similar, since you won't reduce the time needed for the character creation by doing this. Instead we should give the newbie good suggestions about what they need to look at and what is not so important. For instance it would not very hard to give a suggested list of useful skills for a dedicated arms user. The Master NPC table already build on these kind of templates so why not present them to the newbies so they get how the experienced RM users think?

The same kind of aids can be created for spell list selection. It is harder there since there are so many spell lists, but I think it is pretty simple to determine a limited set of builds that will be used for just about every character of a certain profession.
/Pa Staav

Offline pastaav

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,615
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Swedish gaming club
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2011, 03:12:54 PM »
Speaking of things that make you recalculate your whole character sheet when you level up, Stat Gain rolls need to be trimmed somehow.  Next to having all your stats change and cascade through, RM2 profession bonuses are a pretty minor issue.

Bah...that is nothing compared to the rules about Concussion drain. Having a rule that require you to recalculate large part of your character during the actual play session due to nonlinear cascading effects is simply insane.

It always has surprised me why not every RM GM added something like my house rule:
Life drain
*undead life drain ability does not change the constitution stat but instead affect the life level of the
target.
*life level is 75 modified by constitution bonus of the race
*penalties from life level apply to all actions and is three times the life level loss, example a life
drain of 50 would give the target -150 on all rolls. An almost dead character has a penalty of around
-225.
*When a target reach 0 in life level he dies
*life levels can be regained by magic, herbs and rest (natural healing rate is 1 life level of each day
with activity and 2 life levels of each day of rest)
/Pa Staav

Offline Grinnen Baeritt

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 505
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2011, 03:26:05 PM »
I love the idea of categories.  But, I also love the idea of being able to make a character without a spreadsheet.  I played RMSS for over 10 years; and the categories were a huge part of the reason why.  But, at this stage in life, I can't be bothered for a bunch of math that is rarely used.  I only game for 5-6 hours a week, and am loath to commit more than 1/2 hour to character creation & leveling up etc.
I agree.. but I suspect the majority of that "Speadsheet stuff" when leveling up is actually due to where attribute changes affect everything, and that happens with both RMSS and RM2, particulalry at low levels where the changes are more marked. Because there are less categories than skills the calculation takes less time since all the skills in the category use the same stats and cost the same. Once established they also provides an easy reference on the occasions when a character attempts a skill that they do not have on their character sheet.

Part of the reason I changed from RM2 after getting RMSS was that skills system made more sense and was less "D&Dish" being tied to level.. i.e. you only increase in skill when you pay for it rather than automatically increasing with level.

The beauty of it, if you really want to simplify, is that the category CAN actually be used for the skill, rather than fussing around selecting individual skills, you simply need to decide what the cost of treating like that is and what the "+" per rank purchased is. This massively reduces the number of "skills" on the character sheet.

This is only a rough idea.

It might be as simple as doubling the current Skill Category DP cost, retaining the +2 per category rank purchased progression, but ignore the normal -15 penalty for not having a rank in a specific skill. (That way all skills within the category are effectively treated as being trained to the Skill category bonus). If the character then chooses to specialise in a specific skill then, it costs the same as the category cost,  and recieves a simple +5 for each time.  However, I would suggest they can only be able do this max number of times equal to thier level (and a maximum of once per skill per level)


Offline Witchking20k

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,312
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2011, 04:57:24 PM »
I have been using my own skill system for a few years now.  I use a skill tree. 

As an example Awareness is a single skill that develops at 5/rank; the cost is 1/3.  The player can develop up to 10 ranks in Awareness.  Detect Secret Opening (or the like) is a Skill Focus that reduces difficulty mods by -5 per rank.  It Costs 4/ rank and a character can develop up to 5 ranks in it.  The skill focus does not add to an Awareness roll; it just reduces the difficulty of it.  So, a character with +50 Awareness & +15 Locate Secret is searching a room; behind a mirror is a hidden safe (-10).  The player rolls normally but the GM reduces the penalty to Zero.

Like all skill systems it has its flaws; notably characters without a x/x cannot develop a specialization.  But, no one has ever complained, and it creates some rather stark separation in "who does what" well.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

Offline thiha

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Peace
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2011, 06:35:20 PM »
Am I the only one who thought Rolemaster Express and Express Additions were trying to bridge the gap between RMC/2 and RMSS/FRP? I thought they were meant to offer a minimum ruleset and then bunch of both RMC/2 friendly and RMSS/FRP friendly options modular enough to satisfy your taste.

Actually, I really thought they were not bad, and, if handled properly, would be able to make the two RM streams into one whole as a simple ruleset with two large groups of rich options.

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,617
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2011, 10:34:54 PM »
I do agree about it being possible for an expert to generate a character in say an hour or less, but it takes loads of more with a newbie.

I really don't think D&D would be any different anymore.  I've seen what characters are like in 3.5/4.0 and, even being a former D&D user, it would take me a while to create a well thought out character for it now.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline yammahoper

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,858
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2011, 10:48:15 PM »
I just finished running a brief 3.5 adventure, and I can tell you nothing about 3.5 is simpler than RM.

Young players seem less willing to try new games the way we all seemed to back in the heyday of TT, but it may also have to do with these dnd'ers have STACKS of books.  With an investment like that, I'd wanna play mostly that too I guess.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,617
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2011, 11:11:31 PM »
Ask them if they'd rather have ten dates with really ugly women or one date with one really hot one. ;)
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,617
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2011, 11:16:42 PM »
But, at this stage in life, I can't be bothered for a bunch of math that is rarely used.  I only game for 5-6 hours a week, and am loath to commit more than 1/2 hour to character creation & leveling up etc.
Heh, we rarely play more than 6 hours a MONTH and we'll happily spend a couple hours or more developing a character.  But we tend to run characters for a minimum of six months, sometimes a few years.

Do you not reuse characters in multiple adventures?
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline rdanhenry

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,582
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • This sentence is false.
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2011, 11:51:23 PM »
I like making characters.
Rolemaster: When you absolutely, positively need to have a chance of tripping over an imaginary dead turtle.

Offline Tolen

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2011, 12:03:03 AM »
Me too.

If I ever get a face to face group going again, I have plenty of pre-made characters for them to use while they lean the system.  Afterwards, they can learn how to design a character of their own.
I'm in Southern Illinois.
No, further than that...
Try South of Mt. Vernon, where Southern Illinois really begins.

Offline kustenjaeger

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2011, 03:33:11 AM »
Greetings

I'm currently rereading a lot of my old RM material including RM2, RMSS and HARP.  I bought RMX a couple of years ago and this looks like a reasonable basis with a couple of EA additions and some tweaks.

I've looked at categories in relation to this - primarily in relation to 'secondary skills' and am working on the basis of making some RMSS skills that would be useful for what I am contemplating into single merged secondary skills with the possibility of additional focus.

I have two potential groups of players.  One is my son's friends who are at university stage now who play a mix of D20 games with me GMing occasional games of RQ and Dresden Files. The other is a group of friends of mine from university who play a range of things including Ars Magica/Call of Cthulu - many of us used to play RM - but more SM - decades ago.  Neither of these groups is going to spend much time on development (so premades beckon) but more importantly in time spent in game finding one out of a large number of skills.  If the key details can't be seen on one side of a sheet of A4 paper (equipment, background, spell details etc can be on the back) then I don't think it wll work for them.  This either means using categories as skills with the potential for drilling into specialised aspects or just a limited list of skills.   

On a slightly related note, one aspect that struck me last night was the difference in PP acquisition - RM2/RMX 10+x/lvl (where x = 1 for stat 75-94 etc) without any cost vs RMSS with PP development skill and progession - looking at the NPC charts this leads to widely disparate PPs between the two with similar PP expenditure on spells (albeit with RMSS exhaustion rules).  What do people think an appropriate middle ground is here?

Regards

Edward

Offline Witchking20k

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,312
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2011, 08:33:16 AM »
We reuse characters until they die actually.....which can be a little more often than you would like.  But, we take turns running a game so, we can end up making new characters every couple of months based on a new world setting.

Trust me I can still make an RM/RMSS character in a half hour to an hour max(RMSS using Talent Law).  But, RM has to simplify this process a bit to allow newbies to play with minimal hassle.

I agree whole heartidly with you thiha!  I love RMX.  It is what brought me back to RM after a couple years of Hero/HARP/D&D/M&M.  I believe that a tight package like that is what RM has to become (at least as an entry level product) inorder to garner new players.  IMO RMX with a reworked skill system & single stats would probably do the trick.

Oh, and re-balanced races.  And......he he he, ah the slippery slope.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

Offline yammahoper

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,858
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2011, 09:22:13 AM »
Greetings

I'm currently rereading a lot of my old RM material including RM2, RMSS and HARP.  I bought RMX a couple of years ago and this looks like a reasonable basis with a couple of EA additions and some tweaks.

I've looked at categories in relation to this - primarily in relation to 'secondary skills' and am working on the basis of making some RMSS skills that would be useful for what I am contemplating into single merged secondary skills with the possibility of additional focus.

I have two potential groups of players.  One is my son's friends who are at university stage now who play a mix of D20 games with me GMing occasional games of RQ and Dresden Files. The other is a group of friends of mine from university who play a range of things including Ars Magica/Call of Cthulu - many of us used to play RM - but more SM - decades ago.  Neither of these groups is going to spend much time on development (so premades beckon) but more importantly in time spent in game finding one out of a large number of skills.  If the key details can't be seen on one side of a sheet of A4 paper (equipment, background, spell details etc can be on the back) then I don't think it wll work for them.  This either means using categories as skills with the potential for drilling into specialised aspects or just a limited list of skills.   

On a slightly related note, one aspect that struck me last night was the difference in PP acquisition - RM2/RMX 10+x/lvl (where x = 1 for stat 75-94 etc) without any cost vs RMSS with PP development skill and progession - looking at the NPC charts this leads to widely disparate PPs between the two with similar PP expenditure on spells (albeit with RMSS exhaustion rules).  What do people think an appropriate middle ground is here?

Regards

Edward

I prefer skill based pp's.

It provides a little extra punch for beginning spell users.  If they survive long enough, those points become far less abundant in appearance and reality.

Of course, thats the spell users primary limit: sooner than later they run out of power.  Like a loaded gun, no one wants to take the first bullet, but once out of bullets, spell users are so very easy to tackle and stomp to death.

To few power points undermines the often dramatic releationship between spell users and mundanes.  A spell user needs mundanes.  The fewer pp's, the more the need and the more the spell user will be beholden to the mundanes.  To many pp's and mundanes will have wizzard kings instead of the typical mundane king and spell user advisor.

PP skill also eliminates the essential need for multipliers and abundant spell items.  A lack of pp drives the mass market magic item industry that seems to develop in many game worlds.  If the spell user can cast sufficient spells, the lack of magic items won't be mised.  When the spell user is forced by the necessity of survival to hoard his pp, then players clamor for potions, scrolls, daily items, wands, etc.

The ability to learn how to collect power rather than it being a reflection of only innate talent means there will be a lot more spell users in the world, which increases the ready availability of spells and further reduces the need of magic items.  With lots of spell users, suddenly the item of magic becomes rarer and more precious.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.

Offline pastaav

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,615
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Swedish gaming club
Re: Cutting the Revision Knot
« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2011, 02:46:06 PM »
Am I the only one who thought Rolemaster Express and Express Additions were trying to bridge the gap between RMC/2 and RMSS/FRP? I thought they were meant to offer a minimum ruleset and then bunch of both RMC/2 friendly and RMSS/FRP friendly options modular enough to satisfy your taste.

Actually, I really thought they were not bad, and, if handled properly, would be able to make the two RM streams into one whole as a simple ruleset with two large groups of rich options.

I agree that I think that was the plan, but I think they were limited by Mjolnir repeatedly saying they were not revising stuff. At the heart of it quite much of the EAs were neither RMC or RMSS materials. In some sense they were periodicals where Mjolnir tested stuff without ever committing about to what degree the material was tested for prime use or if they were meant to be kept in the next edition.

I think the reason the concept failed to get off the ground is pretty much that the feedback loop became too weak. Nice to have have a profession or a new race, but you don't make characters very often and you won't generate any buzz over something that even the interested buyer won't have use of until months or years later.

I think the way forward is having a very tight core and having complete supplemental parts. If these part are chapters in a books or individual products that you can buy is not something that I have much opinions about. Yet I do think it is essential that you get the complete deal in one product.
/Pa Staav