Topic: Which Rolemaster combat round do you use? (Poll)

[Cory Magel]

It depends on the GM running, but by in large our group as a whole uses the RMSS round.

[Cory Magel]

It makes a lot of sense that "other" would have a just as many as the others, but the numbers on the other three are making me curious... how many RM2 and RMC users use the RMSS round?

I believe there are just as many, if not more, RM2/RMC users in the forums, but the RMSS round has five times more users than each of those.

[yammahoper]

It makes a lot of sense that "other" would have a just as many as the others, but the numbers on the other three are making me curious... how many RM2 and RMC users use the RMSS round?

I believe there are just as many, if not more, RM2/RMC users in the forums, but the RMSS round has five times more users than each of those.

Well, thats because the old RM2 phases were not popular.  Going WAY back, we used alternate init rules (200 point init rules from RMCI was our fav).

[Marc R]

We shall see, even in the select grouping of the forum, we have just 24 votes, so it's not really  enough mass to call yet. . .but the trends so far are interesting.

I'd suspect that of the choices, the RM2 round will be least, but we shall see.

[rdanhenry]

There was pretty much a new round or round-substitute per RM2 Rolemaster Companion.

[Marc R]

Certainly at least a handful of modifications to the round each one, if not an all new entire round.

[arakish]

There was pretty much a new round or round-substitute per RM2 Rolemaster Companion.

Certainly at least a handful of modifications to the round each one, if not an all new entire round.

Especially the supposedly Super-Fast Attack in RMC3, pp 19-21.  That one left me saying, "You've got to be ____ing kidding me!  If this is super-fast, I'd hate to see slow."

My method is as listed below.

Roll initiative.
Declare actions lowest to highest.
Resolve actions conflicts, if any.
Perform actions highest to lowest.
Perform clean-up.

Simple, easy, and it has worked for me for over 30 years.

rmfr

[Marc R]

The "Battletech" round.

[arakish]

The "Battletech" round.

Actually, I came up with that type of round back in 1985, before I ever heard of Battletech.  It may not have been before Battletech ever existed, but before I heard of Battletech.  Believe it or not.

In fact, I have never seen anything Battletech/Mechwarrior/et.al.  Just never liked the idea.

rmfr

[Marc R]

(I've used that round myself, and before I played Battletech too)

[arakish]

At least there is more than one of us who seeks simple.

rmfr

[Marc R]

For simple, go with an old school D&D round.

Roll init, go around the table in init order, declaring and completing a round of actions in turn. The backward-forward initiative ala battletech is the start down the road to ruffles and flourishes! 

[markc]

 In my defense of custom combat I can say that I have never played with the RAW in RM2 or RMSS/FRP. I have read them and studied them but they are just not for me as there seems to be a better way to do it for my group or me.
MDC

[MariusH]

We use RMSS rounds, very, very close to RAW. We have:

A) Decision phase. Everyone secretly decides what to do.
B) Declaration phase. Everyone says what they'll do (including amount for parry, if any), and when they'll do it (max one action pr phase, snap, normal and deliberate).
C) Roll for initiative
D) Everyone has three markers, and puts one marker on the number corresponding to their initiative in the phase(s) they have actions.
E) Before a phase starts, everyone who has declared a "react and melee" is asked if they'll act this phase. If not, their marker is moved to the next phase, with the same initiative (if they are attacked that phase, they can still choose to parry, but then they have a designated target).
F) Actions are resolved. After each action, anyone on "opportunity" action is asked if they will resolve their action.
G) At the end of the deliberate phase, anyone with activity left has the option to use this for movement (unless they are in melee, of course).

It may sound tedious, but usually it runs rather smoothly, actually.

[Marc R]

Posted a SM version of this poll to see if there's any variance between the two:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=11557.0

[joel.lovell]

One idea I had, as a variation of CEATS II that would be simple, would be to have the same set 'time' for an action, instead of a table that looks up your 'time' for an action depending upon your initiative. The trick here would be, anytime an action 'coincided' with another, the higher initiative stat would beat out the others.

For example, if it took 1 second to draw a weapon, and two combatants decided to draw, the action would, in game mechanics terms, take 1 second for both. However, Combatant A has a Initiative of X that is higher than Combatant B's initiative of Y, and thus finishes the draw before B.

Not much happens, except A has his sword out a hair before B has his dirk out...and since A has initiative, B has to declare his action first, so A has a chance to respond to it...

Next action continues to add to the timer....B announces he throws his dirk, while A had planned on doing a full-on sword attack. If a thrown attack was 3 seconds and a longsword attack was 4 seconds, B's action would be faster than A's, and thus complete first....even with the lower initiative. However, since A had the initiative advantage, he can pick a different action, i.e. a punch to the face or to leap out out of the way, etc.

Thoughts?

[Marc R]

So like I draw for 20%, while you move 10% then snap cast for 10%.

You move 10%

Then whichever of us has a higher Qu bonus gets the draw or cast off first?

[pastaav]

One idea I had, as a variation of CEATS II that would be simple, would be to have the same set 'time' for an action, instead of a table that looks up your 'time' for an action depending upon your initiative. The trick here would be, anytime an action 'coincided' with another, the higher initiative stat would beat out the others.

For example, if it took 1 second to draw a weapon, and two combatants decided to draw, the action would, in game mechanics terms, take 1 second for both. However, Combatant A has a Initiative of X that is higher than Combatant B's initiative of Y, and thus finishes the draw before B.

Not much happens, except A has his sword out a hair before B has his dirk out...and since A has initiative, B has to declare his action first, so A has a chance to respond to it...

Next action continues to add to the timer....B announces he throws his dirk, while A had planned on doing a full-on sword attack. If a thrown attack was 3 seconds and a longsword attack was 4 seconds, B's action would be faster than A's, and thus complete first....even with the lower initiative. However, since A had the initiative advantage, he can pick a different action, i.e. a punch to the face or to leap out out of the way, etc.

Thoughts?

Sounds fun...but what happens if there more than two characters involved?

[munchy]

Most of the time we have used the simple "roll for initiative" ... "highest initiative goes first and then decides what he wants to do and completes it then (if completable in one round)" ... which is not as simple as our first take on initiative in the OLD DAYS: the one who sits to the left of the GM goes first, then the one left of the one left of the GM and so on ... cool situations with this system, posted them in those RM Moments ages ago: Character 1 "I pick the lock", Player 2 "I open the door and enter the room", GM "You see an open chest with gold coins in it", Player 3 "I go into the room and loot the chest", Player 1 "Argh, I hate this system!"

We are, however, planning on introducing a version of CEATS or CEATSII which one of my player got to know in another group and I think it looks really promissing. Always thought it too complicated but it doesn't seem to be at all.

[markc]

Most of the time we have used the simple "roll for initiative" ... "highest initiative goes first and then decides what he wants to do and completes it then (if completable in one round)" ... which is not as simple as our first take on initiative in the OLD DAYS: the one who sits to the left of the GM goes first, then the one left of the one left of the GM and so on ... cool situations with this system, posted them in those RM Moments ages ago: Character 1 "I pick the lock", Player 2 "I open the door and enter the room", GM "You see an open chest with gold coins in it", Player 3 "I go into the room and loot the chest", Player 1 "Argh, I hate this system!"

We are, however, planning on introducing a version of CEATS or CEATSII which one of my player got to know in another group and I think it looks really promissing. Always thought it too complicated but it doesn't seem to be at all.

 Once you get used to a second by second system it is hard to go back to others, IMHO. This is because if you like realism then the others seem very fake.
MDC