Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: VulgarCelt on October 07, 2014, 03:29:44 PM
-
I am a longtime RM player. Originally RM with far more time played in RM2 and RMSS / FRP. I have been raising kids for the last several years and have only recently started gaming again. I was always a fan of RM2 and I see that there is another version titled RMC. Can anyone succinctly describe the differences if any between RM2 and RMC? If they are few enough I think I will dig out my boxes of RM2 and Merp material.
I used to contribute to this forum quite a bit but haven't in a few years. If there is already an article out there or a guide someone could point me to that would be appreciated as well.
-
RMC is RM2 with a lot of the options added as base rules.
Not as big as RM2 but a good updated version. Great place to start and get back into it.
I myself was an avid RM2 GM and now I run RMC with all my old RM2 stuff as well, great rules.
I run RMC extended on virtual table tops every Friday using Fantasy Grounds, I also play as a PC in a RMU on Fantasy Ground as well. If your getting back into it check out the technologies available to run Rolemaster makes it real easy.
-
I run RMC extended on virtual table tops every Friday using Fantasy Grounds, I also play as a PC in a RMU on Fantasy Ground as well. If your getting back into it check out the technologies available to run Rolemaster makes it real easy.
How is the RMU campaign you are in working on Fantasy Grounds? I'm looking to setup a RMU campaign and would like to use FG for it.
-
I am just a player for the FG RMU, one of the other players is writing the extension.
Combat tracker we are using the 33% phase method which works well as they players input there actions and the computer handles the Initiative in phases. All in all not much difference to RMC in the way it works.
I got back into Rolemaster because I can run my RMC game on it.
I like RMU but until they have a finished module for Fantasy Ground I am sticking with RMC it runs so sweet for the combat, and Linking tables to character sheets is such a time saver for RR and MM die rolls. If I played at a table with everyone present I would still use FG to display maps and handle combat.
-
I'd love to see a beta RMU addon. I'd pay for it. I've already paid for the RMC version. I want to use FG also but I really would like to use RMU. I think it will be easier for the new players to Rolemaster. I'd rather start off in RMU if I'm going to be running the game for more than a year.
I might have to do what one of the other players did though and think about editing the extension.
I was hesitant about the 33% phase method. I'm interested in it but I don't want the game to get too slow.
-
When we started the battles for RMU we did the 3 phase without computer support and it really slowed the game down, and personally I don't feel it gives enough to warrant it in the game. It creates an initiative system inside the initiative system to me.
We use the two phase (50%) in RMC long and short rounds, this allows us to do 50% movement and spells then finish movement and combat, keeps the flow (RMC is 50% to 100%, RMU is 30% to 100% action percentage). I myself prefer the action point system like in the RM2 and Harp style mechanic with the way it flows but I don't have that for FG and I am not sure that Minion does it either (anyone know?).
The finished written rules are not out for RMU except in beta, so you will not see FG RMU until they are done.
Rolemaster is Like what I saw written somewhere and this is true " when you play Rolemaster you are not playing from the rules as written, you are playing your rules as you see fit as GM and Players". don't get hung up on the system.
-
Rolemaster is Like what I saw written somewhere and this is true " when you play Rolemaster you are not playing from the rules as written, you are playing your rules as you see fit as GM and Players". don't get hung up on the system.
I seem to be playing "...playing your rules as you see fit as GM and Players and all the bagage you have collected over the years where you got things wrong but that is now the way it has always been and everyone gets upset if you try and change anything."
-
I seem to be playing "...playing your rules as you see fit as GM and Players and all the bagage you have collected over the years where you got things wrong but that is now the way it has always been and everyone gets upset if you try and change anything."
Hear Hear!!! That seems the be the way it is now for me, but with this new group starting out in RM for the first time, I'm trying to establish some fresh, new, "correct" habits. :)
-
I know what you mean. I started my new campaign on Friday night and we started with howls of protest just with the character creation as optional rules they have had available for 30 years were not there.
I wanted to be a bit tighter on the rate that spell lists were acquired and the number and power of spell bonus items. The three PCs so far are a Sorcerer, Cleric and a Warrior Mage. There is one more PC to join the group but I doubt that he will be a spell user. You can see why pulling the characters back closer to the core rules on spell list aquisition would strike panic into the hearts of the characters.
One of the players is also one of our GMs and he normally starts spell users off with a x2 or x3 multiplier in his world as he hates the early stage of low level magic users with no magic. I have plotted out and rolled all the treasures for the first two major adventures they are all going on and this should get them to 3rd or 4th level and there is not a single spell bonus item anywhere.
-
I know what you mean. I started my new campaign on Friday night and we started with howls of protest just with the character creation as optional rules they have had available for 30 years were not there.
I wanted to be a bit tighter on the rate that spell lists were acquired and the number and power of spell bonus items. The three PCs so far are a Sorcerer, Cleric and a Warrior Mage. There is one more PC to join the group but I doubt that he will be a spell user. You can see why pulling the characters back closer to the core rules on spell list aquisition would strike panic into the hearts of the characters.
One of the players is also one of our GMs and he normally starts spell users off with a x2 or x3 multiplier in his world as he hates the early stage of low level magic users with no magic. I have plotted out and rolled all the treasures for the first two major adventures they are all going on and this should get them to 3rd or 4th level and there is not a single spell bonus item anywhere.
I'm definitely trying to limit the number of Optional Rules introduced into the game and too many to soon will make things more difficult than they need to be. x2 x3 PP items are huge (IMO). I know the pain you guys feel with the lower level mages, they are so difficult to keep alive, that's how we came about with the 5th level starting characters; good number of HP, a few spell lists, still can't single round cast anything yet. It was a nice compromise and we were able to start to award some nicer treasures, but even at 5th+ levels, the PP multipliers were very rare. Adders? Yeah, there were some, but I don't think I've ever seen a PC with 3x item. Once the mages maxed out their stats and had full PP pools, the 3x item over powered the mages and they ran the session. All we did was block and parry to keep the mage alive while he did all the heavy work. That was just the world we played and no disrespect at all meant toward your GM.
-
Our new game starts on the 26th. Two level one orcs, a Shaguk-cur and a Shaguk-gul. They start 60' from an entrance to a prison they have been sentenced to called NAKED DOOM (Tunnels and Troll solo module I mapped out and added some extras to). As the guards load xbows, they are commanded to run or die, or both. FYI, 65 OB lxb. Anyway, they are naked, except for a rough loin cloth.
I hope to keep these two begging and scraping just to eat let alone gain good arms, herbs and the like. Bonus items? Superior eventually, but certainly no magic for a loooooooong time. A fighter and a mage for those who were wondering. Howver, the mage choose a talent that makes him x2 out the gate. You can bet I'm gonna starve him over that!
-
I seem to be playing "...playing your rules as you see fit as GM and Players and all the bagage you have collected over the years where you got things wrong but that is now the way it has always been and everyone gets upset if you try and change anything."
[/quote]
yep that happens when you play for that long,
But don't forget a lot of that baggage is what made you stick with the game for so long.
-
yep that happens when you play for that long,
But don't forget a lot of that baggage is what made you stick with the game for so long.
Almost every campaign we play has different rules, for example this game the GM has increased the back ground options significantly and PCs can multi class. It is fun to mix it up.
-
The problem I have seen and I am trying to address, as was mentioned yesterday in a different thread I think, is that but the time the characters reach the begginnings of the higher levels, say 12th level or so, the mages are all powerful and non spell users become a human shield just to let the mages do their work. I know this is the balancing of the fact that mages are seriously weaker at the lower levels but the balance of power had gone too far in the mages favour.
I love non-traditional mixes of partys. There is no reason why there has to a fighter, thief cleric and magic user in a group. This time I have three spell users already and it is possible I could end up with four. I told everyone that they should create characters that they felt could survive as a solo character for a couple of levels so had to be able to survive a fight on their own. As it was they did all meet straight off the stage coach at the starting point of the game.
I felt we had drifted over the years into a situation where we had completely cancelled out the minuses to being a low level magic user and rather than balancing the other end as well we had then just exasperated the problem of higher level magic users. I have a 15th level Illusionist in the other game who I would estimage has a total pool of power if you took every spell bonus item, rune, potent and most potent item, background option and natural power point of in the region of 400 power points. It would take a while to recreate a lot of the runes if I had to use them but that is a massive reserve of power. He GMing stye is also for small compact conflicts, The only thing that would really stress me would be a long drawn out dungeon crawl but that is simply not his style so is highly unlikely to happen.
I wanted to address the root causes of this rather than try and firefight the problem later on and make the fighters a userful class all through their careers.
-
Superior eventually, but certainly no magic for a loooooooong time. A fighter and a mage for those who were wondering. Howver, the mage choose a talent that makes him x2 out the gate. You can bet I'm gonna starve him over that!
I like the way you think, sir! I doff mine cap to thee.
For spits and giggles, my friend and I started a campaign for the two of us where we would GM for each other in the same session. Our characters were brothers and were growing up together trying to get out of the backwater town, but the situations arose where we could switch off between the two roles and have a pretty good time. We started as level 1 PCs and just wanted to play the game through to see what it was like to have low level PCs with no magic items, and trying to scrap our way up the ranks. It was a great time, but we only made it to level 2-3 before we graduated and went our separate ways.
-
I wanted to address the root causes of this rather than try and firefight the problem later on and make the fighters a userful class all through their careers.
In a way we have solved this problem buy using RoCo1 and RoCo IV back ground options. Either you are a fighter type that has taken some spell casting or a mage that has a fighting based (often Martial Arts as Monk). In this game we have a non spell casting Assassin (rogue variant) who took power and no esf in a couple of doppelganger spell lists and spatial. This allowed her to shape change the party and led to some hilarious situations.
I think in a way this is a microcosm of the problem with many game systems. The whole idea of Mage vs Fighter play balance is literally from the 80's. So ditch the idea and embrace making every character awesome at all levels. And I must say, one of the great things about RM is the spell lists, why would you want to play a character that can't cast spells?
-
why would you want to play a character that can't cast spells?
That is very subjective.
I have at least one player who never plays characters with spell casting abilities. His preferred character type is normally a knight, he loves the chivalry of it and the relative simplicity. He dislikes the way that most spell caster players get their kicks often from trying to twist the 'intended' use of the spell to create something that was never in the the spirit of the game. An example would be using waterlungs as an attack. He sees spell casters (players and characters equally I suspect) as kind of devious and often accuses them of slowing down the game as they [one of ours especially] can spend an inordinant amount of time diving into Spell Law just to find the 'perfect' spell.
He isn't 100% right but he isn't 100% wrong either.
Part of his ire comes from the number of times he has gone to great lengths to manoeuver into a position, often forgoing easy kills just to have the kill 'stolen' by a mage with a lightning bolt in the magic phase of the very round when he was about to engage in his heroic one on one battle with the top villain. His current character has also been fried a couple of times by the mage by firing lighning bolts into melee with our platemailed knight taking the brunt of the damage.
My personal feeling is that I am really reluctant to create more and more house rules to fix problems which normally exist between the couch and the character sheet rather than between the front and back covers of the rule books. I assume the rules have been playtested in a variety of settings with a variety of characters. Any changes I would make would have a play test sample size of one party. I do have house rules and every player gets a copy but it mostly consists of setting out clearly which of the many options presented in the rules I have chosen to employ. If there is a really good sounding suggestion on the boards here I explain to the players where and when it will come into play and the 'spirit' of the ruling so they know what I am trying to achieve and that normally tells them which way I am going to rule when a 50/50 situation arises.
My house rules doc also includes things which have never come up in my game but I have experienced as a player and I didn't like the GMs ruling and I would have done it differently. I detail the situation and how I interpret the rule(s). This is useful as I play in the same game as some of my players and we could be working under one rule on the Saturday morning and a diferent rule for the same situation in the afternoon.
Every ruling has implications. I have found that restricitng the speed at which spell lists are acquired has lead to the lower level spells that were often over looked in the rush for the fireballs now get looked at much more frequently.
-
That is very subjective.
Yes it is :)
I have played character's with out spells and enjoyed them but ususally it was campaign based. (my Darksun monk who had the rope making skill and used his own hair to make nunchucks for example)
There are tonnes of game systems out there but for me the things that make RM run (and what most people tell stories about years later) are the spells and the crits.
I do find it difficult to reconcile the actions of the mage player, it seems like they deliberately wanted to annoy the knight player and didn't need to be a mage to do that.
-
I do find it difficult to reconcile the actions of the mage player, it seems like they deliberately wanted to annoy the knight player and didn't need to be a mage to do that.
I have noticed that as well. It is something I have seen several attempts to address none f which have been particularly successful.
-
I do find it difficult to reconcile the actions of the mage player, it seems like they deliberately wanted to annoy the knight player and didn't need to be a mage to do that.
I have noticed that as well. It is something I have seen several attempts to address none f which have been particularly successful.
Maybe make the Knight the recipient of the Holy Champion Spell list (From SUC), or give him an item that has the Wyrd (SUC page 41) spell in it. You don't have to tell anyone.... Then when a lightning bolt is "accidently" cast into the melee it won't "randomly" hit the tank.
"Causes the caster to be excluded from random rolls made concerning a group of which the caster is a part, (there must be at least on other person in the grou). If the GM rolls randomly for the group, concerning encounters, surprise attacks, reassure, "volunteers' etc. the caster will be excluded from the random determination for the duration."
We have talked about using this spell as a dodgy aggro mechanic. The idea is that you have everyone in the group except the heavy armoured fighter wearing an amulet with this spell on it. if not the fighter, then a golem/construct/undead (with illusion on it) :)
-
The issue as I perceive it is that:
- Mages are thought of as too weak at the lower levels
- as GMs we are inclined to blur some dice rolls to keep the players alive
- the character creation system is complex and time consuming
Part of the balancing game play equation is that it is dangerous to be a low level magic user and that few survive to high level. The truth is that because we want our players to have fun and be actively engaged all the way through then we are disinclined to kill them when a crit says death but the party lacks the healing spell to save the member. We are also inclined to give the magic user some sort of bonus item to give them a bit more magic than their single spell in a day for example.
So unless the player does something so stupid that the character really deserves to die he is as likely to survive to just as high a level as platemailed knights. This strips out the basic premise of game balance and we then compound it if we give away spell bonus items or relaxed rules of spell list acquisition.
I don't like fixing things by adding in another magic item to try and balance it out as these things have a habit of going awry. In my party magic items have a tendency to gravitate to the magician. He periodically 'sweeps' the parties equipment just in case a spy for the bad guys has placed a cursed or enchanted item amongst our possessions. So the wyrd item above would eventually be spotted, and knowing the magician, would end up in his possession. We are carrying an incredibly powerful item that must not fall into the hands of the forces of evil so it would make sense to give this extra bit of protection to the carrier. Guess who that is!
Also having a player who doesn't like having magical characters, gifting him a spell list does not change anything as he then wouldn't be inclined to use it. Our characters mostly reflect our own personalities to a greater or lesser effect. I have a "lego brain" and in both real life and my characters I see problems as tiny little bits that just need to be solved individually to unravel the entire problem. My thief had a great many skills and I would apply long chains of skills to solve problems. My Illusionist likes to build layer upon layer of spells to create a spell effect that doesn't really exist in the books.
-
And I must say, one of the great things about RM is the spell lists, why would you want to play a character that can't cast spells?
It's easier? It's funnier? Not everyone enjoys casting spells? In over two decades playing with over one score players and three different GMs, only two players (one of them being me!) ever wanted to play a mage, and only half of them wanted to play semi-spell users. Main reasons? Too much bookkeeping (a mage quickly having to juggle with hundreds of spells —and if he doesn't, it's because he's low-level and almost useless), many more rules to know than a non-spellcaster, leveling up takes time (because the time spent in selecting the new spell lists), and being a mage is often in-game difficult and expensive (most GMs consider a mage has to find the spell lists he wants to learn, which is often a hard, dangerous and expensive matter —and from what I read here, most GMs here do the same). Even if the GM allow the mages to be very more powerful than non-mages at early levels (OK, 10+), most players just don't think it's worth the trouble.
...and, to be honest, when I read how people here want spellcasters and non-spellcasters to be equally powerful at all levels, I think I'll have an even harder time to get anyone play a mage, since it's, ingame and out-of-game, about several times more work to play one compared to playing a non-spellcaster, yet, in the end, both characters are supposed to be equally powerful?
-
RMU and RMSS seem to give more power points to starting mages than RMC/RM2 does. At a low level, additional power points let you cast a lot more spells, since the cost of each spell is very low. At higher levels, if you've just gotten a one time boost (e.g. 5 or 10 more PP), that difference becomes less and less important, your gradually built up development becomes more important and also your individual spells are more expensive so that initial bonus is small, it might not even be enough to cast a spell of your level). A multiplier is a bad solution here since it boosts both the starting mage and the master. A flat bonus early on is better if the issue is that starting mages are too weak.
Individual spell purchasing also boosts the starting mage. They can start with a lot more options at low levels instead of knowing more lists to a higher level each.
I haven't had the impression that starting mages are weak, but I've been playing RMSS and RMU, not RMC/RM2. If you think it's a problem in RMC/RM2, I suggest considering adopting or emulating some rules from those alternatives.
-
That is sort of my problem, I don't think they are weak, I just thiink they are incorrectly percieved as weak. If there is a power balance issue and I think there is, I would say that they are too powerful at a higher level.
I agree that multipiers are a bad solution. There is a discussion in a different thread about individual spell purchases. It seems that there are as many different variations in the implimentation of that as there are GMs using it. That says to me that there are significant issues in the rules as written and everyone is trying to plug holes in their own way. That may be unfair and I have no experience of my own to call on. It may be that there are no issues but the system lends itself beautifully to campaign centred bespoke magic systems.
-
...and, to be honest, when I read how people here want spellcasters and non-spellcasters to be equally powerful at all levels, I think I'll have an even harder time to get anyone play a mage, since it's, ingame and out-of-game, about several times more work to play one compared to playing a non-spellcaster, yet, in the end, both characters are supposed to be equally powerful?
My last four RM characters have been Fighter, Lay Healer, Thief and Illusionist. When I am playing frequently then I prefer the skills based classes and I agree they can be simpler to play. When I am playing infrequently the magical types and give me many hours of geeky pleasure readng spell descriptions and planning which order to learn spell lists and all that out-of-game 'work'.
I do not really need all characters to be equally powerful at all levels but I do find that magic users have a tendancy to be significantly more powerful at the higher levels. It is not the power that is the issue, it is the impact on the enjoyment of the players of the other classes I am concerned about.
I am not entirely sure I could even define power in this context. It is more to do with lethality if such a word exists. My Lay Healer used to claim about 30% to 40% of all the party kills regardless of whether he was in melee or ranged magical combat. He was normally first into the fray and last man standing. There was fundamentally nothing wrong with the other characters. It was just that as a pure spell user I never lacked for options in any situation.
In a current game there was a situation where three out of five characters were captured. We had lost our ranger, fighter and healer. The two that remained were my thief and the magician. We didn't notice the other three were missing (of course we knew they were kidnapped but their absence did not really impact our performance of the rescue mission, if anything it made the planning a hell of a lot faster!). We raided the villains base and pretty much levelled the place and killed most of his guards and rescued the other party members.
Most of the killing and levelling was done by the magician.
-
I'm not sure it is as much of a power level concern as it is structuring fights so that all involved have something to do that is challenging to the player. Mages will become more powerful but if a fight or challenge has multiple elements occurring at the same time that is more than just making a mass of living things into no longer living things, then you can bring out the strengths of each profession.
-
Yes, you are right.
When I restarted my campaign two weeks ago now I insisted that every character was sufficiently rounded to survive in a fight. That did mean that people may have sacrificed the number of spell lists they had and or some other skills. I didn't know what characters I had in the party before the game started and I have not pulled any punches to take into the account that every one of them is a first level pure, hybrid or semi spell user. They have no fighter at all. The first potential NPC they may adopt is a rather disfunctional cleric which would then give them yet another pure spell user.
The first adventures planned for the group are all combat heavy with little chance for resting a recovering power points so this should be fun.
-
Yes, you are right.
When I restarted my campaign two weeks ago now I insisted that every character was sufficiently rounded to survive in a fight. That did mean that people may have sacrificed the number of spell lists they had and or some other skills. I didn't know what characters I had in the party before the game started and I have not pulled any punches to take into the account that every one of them is a first level pure, hybrid or semi spell user. They have no fighter at all. The first potential NPC they may adopt is a rather disfunctional cleric which would then give them yet another pure spell user.
The first adventures planned for the group are all combat heavy with little chance for resting a recovering power points so this should be fun.
Ironically, I am running into the opposite scenario. I have 7 fighters and 1 pure spell user. The fighters are all going in guns blazing and getting hammered by high end crits. They are being taken out of the fight because they refuse to parry or break out of the D&D D-20 mindset. They look at HP and figure they have the time to stand and fight. The mage at least knows to start casting inside the building then to stand up and to shoot the spell out the window. They are all veteran players and this is their first time with RM, however, it's easily the 4th-5th session and I have been preaching Parry Parry Parry every session and reminding them that Hits don't kill you, Crits do.
A few are catching on. I am still pulling punches on the death crits, but letting them have the full damage otherwise. 12 rounds stun, shattered and useless arm, severed tendons and muscle, knocked unconscious, etc.
I'm hoping that once they have to roll their own characters up, they'll see a little more tactically to the game play. It's been tons of fun and lots of great laughs though and that's more important. Lot's of great one-liners too.
-
That is sort of my problem, I don't think they are weak, I just think they are incorrectly percieved as weak.
Indeed.
I think part of this is the perception (and the player's deception) the other part of the threshold in many skills (and spells, most open and closed spell list are designed to have a threshold at lvl 5/6). On the other hand RMfrp doesn't claim to have perfectly balanced professions. It's the job of the GM and the setting.
A lot of the pure spell user skills (spellmastery for example) become super powerful, after a hard time in lower levels.
The probably most powerful profession is the paladin, but he'll be balanced by his deities rules.
Magicians are often part of a school, union, guild, order, bondsmagi, etc.
And higher spells also increase the risk factor (very nice way to keep a pure spell user from spamming spells).
To manage the low pp issue in lower levels, they often get rings as novice, adept, master ... our GMs used to give pp repository rings to a novice or a staff with charges. (or a better quality weapon to the pure arms - weapons tend to break anyways). So at the end many characters are not really more powerful in lvl 7 than in lvl 3 in their main proficiencies.
A 'of Mentalism' pure spell user isn't the best example for the melee possibilities of pure spell users, they have significant lower costs in mundane skills as well as the possibility of metal armor.
My longtime experience is that the pure arms or arms based semi have a more unreserved life and a bigger bunch of contacts and buddies than the spell users. Who likes to go bar-hopping and end up as a frog next morning because his buddy became too drunk? :D
-
I am definitely going in Yammahoper's direction and pretty much what you just described. The characters have been given some material assistance but it was in the form of a couple of potions and some herbs rather than inthe form of permenant magical items.
I do not intend to give the party any magical items for a few levels yet apart from one cursed ring that is there to be found. Mind you the party walked past three out of five interesting encounters int he first session so there is good chance they will completely miss that one as well. If it doesn't leap out at them wielding a bastard sword then they are inclined to ignore it.
-
If it doesn't leap out at them wielding a bastard sword then they are inclined to ignore it.
;D That's awesome.
And sadly, often times true.
-
If it doesn't leap out at them wielding a bastard sword then they are inclined to ignore it.
HAhaha :gnash: hahaHA!
You sir made me choke on hot coffee.
-
That was actually the litteral truth. The only hostiles they have actually encountered have been a race known as Quoggoths. They are a wonderful low level beasty.
They are 11' tall, shaggy furred like a bear but as muscular as an ape and wield either spiked clubs or bastard swords. What makes them so wonderful is that they only have a 20OB so they are unlikely to slaughter your party and the bastard sword is capped to a max roll of 140 so that limits the number of E crits you have to deal out should things go really badly. They have 50 hits but will go into a frenzy when they go below 20. So fi the party are doing really well then there is a chance that at least one will go into a frenzy were it gets extra OB and doesn't feel pain so badly which makes them much more dangerous but if the party need rescuing then a frenzied creature does not distinguish between friend and foe so well so you can always turn one on the others to help the party out. Quoggoths are naturally empathetic with giant and huge spiders and often have trained spiders to hand which gives the GM the option to throw in another beasty if needed especially one that can slowly lower itself down onto the unsuspecting party or behind it to block a retreat. Because they are 11' tall they use the large crit table which does give anyone the chance of doing an open ended crit and killing one whereas some low level characters expecially our pure spell users at first level have difficulty doing more than an A crit.
So really it had to have a bastard sword to get their attention, or fangs but I ddn't give them much choice with that one. Everything else they tried to hide from.
-
Everything else they tried to hide from.
Nothing wrong with Strategic Reassessment of Current Tactical Resources and Implementation. :)
I've said it before...........
If discretion is the better valor and
cowardice the better part of judgment,
let's all be heroes and run away!
-
Your weapon cap rule is yet another I wanted to see used to remove the tables in RM and make them into a simply expressed set of numbers on the character sheet. A weapon could first crit(k) at 93, have a spread of 20 (B Kr at 113, C Kr at 133, etc) and cap at 145, as a club for example. Armor would mod first crit strike per crit type (AT 5, +7 Sl, +2 Pu, +0 Kr). With all damage delivered via crits, weapons would not need to deliver a base hit amount. However, if desired, a hits delivered mechanic could be derived using St and/or size mods.
I digress. ::)
-
The table cap is not really my rule it is the weapon spec in AL/CL.
I would not like to see this sort of data on the character sheet. I do not tell my PCs the actual AT or DB of the foes they engage. Sometimes it is obvious what armour it is but occasionally you will have someone dressed in soft leather but the actual AT is higher due to magic or quality. Under your idea you would have to reveal the armour to the characters.
Table caps are not uncommon. Nearly all weapons in SM have a cap and all the claw law tables are capped.
-
TMWTD makes great use of them. I would like them universally applied to all attack types, including condensing the data presented while expanding options to the GM.
-
TMTWD? Sorry, you have lost me. I thought you were going for teenage mutant ninja turtles there for a second.
-
TMWTD = Ten Million Ways to Die
-
Does anyone remember the original TMNT black and white comic? Oh those were good. Think hardcore post apocalyptic in style instead of pizza eating skater boyz.
TMWTD offers condensed attack tables covering melee, missile, modern and future arms. The tables reduce AL to ten columns and include SM armor types. This of course allows SM armor to be easily introduced in any setting or just used as magic armors.
-
Does anyone remember the original TMNT black and white comic? Oh those were good. Think hardcore post apocalyptic in style instead of pizza eating skater boyz.
Yes. Bought #2 on a class field trip to the New England Aquarium. Bought it off the rack at the convenience store on the corner. The feel, artwork, theme, everything was better than the garbage they have now.
-
I don't get hiding the AT. So an experienced fighter hitting someone in light leather can't tell that his hit "should have" been more severe but "something" else is happening?
Do you give them a clue or just hide everything thing because that's what (an 80's) GM does?
-
If the armour is made of Kraken beak I describe it as being made of Kraken beak. The fact that it protects as AT 18 but wears as AT9 is nothing to do with the players.
-
Well no issue there, that's not giving PCs blindfolds. I can't stand as a player the secretive, hiding stuff that a player would at least be perceptive to. Things like someone wearing only a loin cloth, but attacks are not getting through, and you know you should have hit him. I'm not saying that as a player I should know he has an item that wears as AT 20, but I should know "something" is up.
Or your opponent has a 50 DB. Is that from parrying? Quickness? Shield? Other? Again, not necessarily knowing that 23 if from Qu, and 27 is from parrying, but a rough idea at least.
The GM type thats "Tell me your OB/DB and I'll roll for you so you can't know anything at all about your opponent, you just know you hit or miss" is very unfair to players