Topic: Gaming Restart

[VulgarCelt]

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.

[Dark Mullisha]

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.
 

[Profcrab]

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.

[Dark Mullisha]

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.

[Profcrab]

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.

[Dark Mullisha]

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.

[Peter R]

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."

[Spectre771]

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.

[Peter R]

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.

[Spectre771]

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.

[yammahoper]

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!

[Dark Mullisha]

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.

[Marrethiel]

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.

[Peter R]

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.

[Spectre771]

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.

[Marrethiel]

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?

[Peter R]

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.

[Marrethiel]

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.

[Peter R]

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.

[Marrethiel]

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)