Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: GoblynByte on July 04, 2007, 10:18:41 AM
-
I know similar threads have bee started, but none that really cover my perspective on this question...so I apologize for repeating a thread or possibly beating a dead horse...but here it goes... [grabbing mallet]
In a recent discussion on these boards I was brought to an increased interest in possibly expanding my game a bit. To rehash my background, I started my relationship with ICE with MERP and later expanded with RM2. I like MERP (coming from D&D the complexity and deadliness of the combat system was refreshing) and this enjoyment increased with RM2, but new members into the group (who were generally not as enthusiastic about that much detail) and a drift towards non-fantasy genres, pushed RM2 to the wayside. Years later I picked up cheap, used copies of RMSS in an effort to learn more about it, but was completely troubled by the amount of time it took to develop characters. I enjoy that much detail myself, but would NEVER be able to get my general group to go for it. I then found HARP and fell in love. It did everything I saw valuable in RM, but with a more streamlined method.
However, now I'm curious. I seem to be drawn to RM like a train wreck. I still can't quite place my finger on why I keep wanting to delve deeper into it when HARP does what it does (which is really all I ever need...so WHY am I drawn RM???). Well, I'm the type of guy who likes to explore such things and want to try and consolidate my involvement in RM. I want to see first hand what the attraction is. This means playing. This also means exploring the possiblity of "upgrading" my RM set.
I don't have my RM2 books anymore (sold them for crack...or othe RPGs, can't remember which). I do have RMSS along with Arms Law and Spell law (for the RMSS rules system). I really like the organization of these books (the fact that there is very little repeated information between these books is awesom) but for a new player it is a bit much. Also, the complexity of RMSS (and I assume RMFRP) will be a problem when presented to my players. I'm also having problems locating some essential products (I want the old RMSS GM Law and Creatures and Monsters, not the new RMFRP edition...just for nerdy reasons). But if I can get them to buy into it, could it be better than RM2/RMC?
So, here's my question. Should I buy new copies of RM2 on PDF, buy the upgraded RMC, stick with the RMSS that I have (and hunt down the two or three books I still need), or buy into RMFRP so that the players only need to buy the one, core book?
I hope all this makes sense. ;) Anyway, any input, even trivial input (hey, ya never know what might help), would be much appreciated. lol
-
RMC is basically RM2 in an updated and partially re-edited version. I would always prefer RMC to old RM2 books. That leaves us with RMC, RMSS and RMFRP. The latter two are IMHO harder to learn for a new player than RMC. Therefore I would suggest to go with RMC. Using your RMSS Arms Law and Spell Law with RMC Character Law should work fine.
-
RMFRP is a reformatting of RMSS. Â It is leaner, better organized and has a complete, if a bit truncated, version of RMSS in one book, with spells, combat and monsters even. Â It is exactly the sort of approach ICE should maintain, whatever version the revision of RM brings us in the future (off soap box).
RPG books ARE crack for geeks like us. Â As such, you will want as much crack as you can possibly afford...and maybe just a little more, if the rpg book/crack analogy is accurate and not just one more poor attempt at humor by yours truely. Â Point; buy em all, enjoy the read, and what a nice bonus if they prove useful.
Beyond that I have no opinion...too cracked out. Â Freebasing rpg's...the very term strikes me as hilarious.
Two rpg addicts; "Man, I love the flavor of RM books...the paper quality is awesome, and this maui wowie ink is awesome man..."
lynn
-
I have been through exactly the same line of thought and my conclusion was that I would buy the RMC books.
I still have most of the books for RM2, but as my players are new to the system they dont have them and, let's face it, so far real books are better than pdf. :) Besides it takes a lot of time to hunt down the RM2 books on Ebay or elsewhere.
As for teaching people the complexity of the system, here is what I normally do http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=4504.0
It might or might not be helpfull.
Ohh and Yammahoper is exactly right: For people/geeks like us, RPG books ARE crack.
I have a lot of books to systems that I have never even played, because said books contain something that I thought that I would use in some setting or another. :)
-
RPG books ARE crack for geeks like us. As such, you will want as much crack as you can possibly afford...and maybe just a little more, if the rpg book/crack analogy is accurate and not just one more poor attempt at humor by yours truely. Point; buy em all, enjoy the read, and what a nice bonus if they prove useful.
I would do that (especially since I agree that RPG books can be entertaining even if you don't use them), but cost is a factor in this venture. And I don't generally like buying books on PDF. If I buy a game I like getting the purdy hardback books. They make me happy. ;)
-
I have found that the RMSS books in general are a cheeper way to go then RMFRP, because they do not try and do everthing in one book. Some of the harder books to find in print are the Essence Comp and the Martial Arts Comp and both can cost big $ in hardback. IMO it would be cheeper to buy the PDF and print your own.
I have not taken a look at RMC but then I am not a big fan of RM2 as it does not do what I want it to do.
I do agree that RMSS is more complex but in the end IMO it is worth it to put the time in so you get a bigger benifit in the end.
MDC
-
I still can't quite place my finger on why I keep wanting to delve deeper into it when HARP does what it does (which is really all I ever need...so WHY am I drawn RM???).
Because we are :evil1: evil :evil2: and have stolen your soul........
:laugh1: :laugh3: :laugh1:
:clown: <--Pennywise the Smiley
-
Maybe it's because you subconsciously REALLY LIKE IT! :king:
-
Well, let me put it this way...
It depends on what chair I'm sitting in. As a player I enjoy very detailed character creation and a detailed tactical system. As a GM I enjoy fast character creation and a short and sweet tactical system.
I'm okay with taking several hours to make a character if I only have to make one. If I have to make a cast of many as a GM, however, I need to get the stats done fast and "cheap" so that I can get on to the good stuff.
I'm okay with fiddling with tactical detail if all I have to worry about is one character on the field. If I have to manage multiple NPCs and be the narrator of the story in the process the rules better darn well stay out of my way.
I think RM fills my needs as a player, but as a GM I'm too busy to bother with it. ;)
-
Well, I can share with you my experience as a RM GM... I read all the books, eventually came back to them, re-read chapters, etc... then put them all away and sat down to GM my group.
I know this is not for everyone, but when you get the "idea" behind the system, and your players are not too pesky about it, making calls on the fly with RM is really easy. You know the basic bonuses, have an idea have to run a disarm... who cares if the book says otherwise? You can always check it up later.
So my advice... GM as if you were a player. Just pretend to be a know-it-all. RM (in all its versions) is solid as rock in its foundations and with a little inspiration you can wing it without opening the books once (except for attack tables and spell descriptions, but you get the idea :)).
Don't get me wrong, I loved reading all the tables... but I'm sure I never used any of those RMSS skill charts or whatever, not even encounter tables, etc... it was fun sometimes to roll, but there's no need to it really.
So my advice: Get RM2 (RME for a taste of it, instead). Read it. Have your players create PCs and put it aside. Run a short adventure. If in doubt note it down and check it after the game. In a few sessions you will instintively know the right answer to most rules' questions ;D
-
I want to thank all of the participants of this thread for utterly destroying my assumption that I needed to come and moderate some heads together just from the title. . .that you can have a mature discussion on the subject without getting nasty is a nice change from the usual.
I suspect that the two systems just appeal to two different styles of play. I don't find them on the whole to be all that different. (I have no problems lifting from one to the other on almost all levels)
I'd suggest to anyone just starting out to try RME first.
-
A note on NPC's, I just wing them. Thier is a table in RMSS that provides skill bonues for each profession at varous levels, so instant NPC's. If I need a skill not listed I just make a snap decision as to wwhat it should be and my players never know. The 1-100 roll forgives a lot of bad estimating for skill ranks. Also after creating and editing a lod of characters I sort of know what each one basicly looks like. I also have a simple rule that the person who tought me RM[2] used, a skill of 55 provides the basic knowledge to get a job below that and you need to know more above that and you are more skilled. This comes from taking an easy task +60, your skill score +55 and the lowest nonfumble 06 to get 111.
MDC
-
I still can't quite place my finger on why I keep wanting to delve deeper into it when HARP does what it does (which is really all I ever need...so WHY am I drawn RM???).
Because we are :evil1: evil :evil2: and have stolen your soul........
OMG that was too funny!
True, but funny. ;)
-
After much deliberation, some independant research, and, most helpful, some VERY good advice from everyone here, I think I decided to try out RMC.
I saw no need to upgrad from RMSS (for which I already have three core books) to RMFRP. The two systems are as close to identical as makes no odds, and I really prefer the organization of RMSS over RMFRP. So that answered that portion of the quetion.
However, everytime I do crack open my RMSS materials to start creating a character I start to get dizzy. I don't think of myself as a dullard by any stretch, but I just think of RMSS as far too much effort at this point. I certainly may change my mind as time goes on, though, so I'll keep them handy.
So that left either RM2 or RMC. As I said before, I don't have my RM2 materials anymore, and I generally prefer hardback books to PDFs, so looking into brand new, crisp copies of RMC is probably going to be the way to go. Besides, those books are so darn purdy! ;D
Thanks again for all your help, everyone. It's hard to decide such things because everyone presents such compelling debates on either side of the coin. In the end, though, it comes down to personal preference and I just like a slightly more streamlined system than RMSS presents.
-
Try JD Dale's spreadsheet next time. It really cracked down the time it took to make a character.
-
Try JD Dale's spreadsheet next time. It really cracked down the time it took to make a character.
There is that. And I have no solid objection to using that. I've used the HARP version several times and I like it a lot. The only thing that prevents from doing that very often, though, is simply a sense of nostalgia. I'm a pencil and paper kind of guy when it comes to RPGs. I use computers so much at work and at home and I use RPGs as a way of "unplugging" for a while. So I'm a big proponent of a minimalist approach to the hobby. That being said, I don't mind such spreadsheets as a convenience, but all but needing one simply to reduce chargen time down is a bit of a stretch for me. I'd rather play a game that I can do without one and not let need dictate that decision. Does that make sense?
-
As an interesting addition to this thread I may have pinned down the one aspect that frustrates me about RMSS when compared to RM2. It's the skill catagories. To me this seems like a rather needless step to character creation that only serves to make skill management more of a task. I can certianly understand the mechanical advantage to it, but it just doesn't seem to make that much of a difference to me. I see it as just an added layer of complexity with no noteable benefit. Sure, the spreadsheet would clear up a lot of the effort, but, again...(see last post)...
One thing I do like about RMSS, which is also something that existed in MERP and is one of my favorite features of HARP, is the fact that adolescent skills are based on race/culture rather than DPs. If you don't take DPs so literally it isn't a problem, but I just think basing them on race/culture has a certain "flavor" benefit that I really like. I'm not sure how RMC handles this (in comparison to RM2), but I think it might be a pretty easy thing to insert. It would be far easier to insert that instead of removing skill catagories from RMSS. ;)
Anway, just some thoughts. I know the moderators are probably biting their nails waiting for this thread to degrade into a flame war, and I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight. But nobody here has treated me with ill favor yet, and I simply enjoy talking out such details, so I see no reason to be gun shy. ;D
-
who's got fingernails left, I was eating my fingertips.
-
GB, the category and skill split is one of the reasons I like RMSS over RM2. I know it adds complexity but IMO it is well worth it for long term games.
I also think thier is a big difference in long term games and short or a lot of 1-shot adventures games strung together for character creation. IMO if characters are too easy to create then people do not mind dieing to bring in a new character. But if thier are some limits then they try and make do or change thier character to do what they want. they may not be superman at everything but they still get the job done. I have also seen this increase interdependance amoungst the group and all in all provide a positive experience.
MDC
-
GB, the category and skill split is one of the reasons I like RMSS over RM2. I know it adds complexity but IMO it is well worth it for long term games.
Hmmm...that's a perspective I'm not able to take advantage of...yet. ;) That is somethig to consider, though.
The down side to my "journey" in exploring the RMC and RMSS is that I have yet to actually try any of them in actual play (except MERP and RM2 a long time ago). Most of my frustrations haven't even gotten past the character creation phase. lol
One thing I still want to try, though, with RMSS is use the character sheets in the Character Records book. I think the expanded skill worksheets will help keep things organized a bit better.
I also think thier is a big difference in long term games and short or a lot of 1-shot adventures games strung together for character creation. IMO if characters are too easy to create then people do not mind dieing to bring in a new character. But if thier are some limits then they try and make do or change thier character to do what they want. they may not be superman at everything but they still get the job done. I have also seen this increase interdependance amoungst the group and all in all provide a positive experience.
MDC
I can certainly see that as well. Though, the guys I usually game with put so much effort into their characters outside the technical aspects that they still value them pretty highly. No matter what system we use (from simple to complex) they still start sharpening their axes when I kill off a character. ;)
-
who's got fingernails left, I was eating my fingertips.
Yoh.
-
I can certainly see that as well. Though, the guys I usually game with put so much effort into their characters outside the technical aspects that they still value them pretty highly. No matter what system we use (from simple to complex) they still start sharpening their axes when I kill off a character. ;)
Now that's funny, GoblynByte. I don't know whether to praise them or chasten them. Fortunately, they aren't my players. :)
Oh, and the spreadsheet does make everything easier. I wondered if a Spreadsheet might help D&D character creation; but this group says that RMSS/RMFP/RMC is so simple, but the character creation so detailed, that a spreadsheet really does help.
D&D's so simple yet so complex that a Spreadsheet would get in the way. That's just the facts of life. Mechanically, RMC/RMSS/RMFRP is the exact opposite of D&D.
-
Oh, and the spreadsheet does make everything easier. I wondered if a Spreadsheet might help D&D character creation; but this group says that RMSS/RMFP/RMC is so simple, but the character creation so detailed, that a spreadsheet really does help.
D&D's so simple yet so complex that a Spreadsheet would get in the way. That's just the facts of life. Mechanically, RMC/RMSS/RMFRP is the exact opposite of D&D.
I think you're right about this. D&D puts its complexity on the other end. Character creation is simple to the point of being bland (one fighter isn't fundamentally any different from another), but combat is complex without really being all that interesting.
The Rolemaster family is very different. Character creation is more involved (the degree of which depending on which version you're using), but far more interesting. Combat, in one respect, is very complex to the point of taking advantage of a lot of tactical detail, which makes if very, very interesting and exciting, but it's charts are a double edged sword. They make combat easier by having the charts do all the calculations for you, but then you end up with 25+ combat charts to wade through, but at its fundamental core concept the RM mechanic is very, very simple.
-
One thing I have done is take a spread sheet and put the skills on one side and numberrs accross the top. In each cell I write when I bought the skill, ie a=adol, 1= 1st, Tp=# = Training Package name, A=Apprentiship, G=GM, B=Book. It makes it very easy to recreate the character and see just how many ranks you have where. And better yet it works without a computer. In fact many of my players did thier level ups and then I put them into the computer to check them out and make sure the numbers jive.
MDC
-
One thing I have done is take a spread sheet and put the skills on one side and numberrs accross the top. In each cell I write when I bought the skill, ie a=adol, 1= 1st, Tp=# = Training Package name, A=Apprentiship, G=GM, B=Book. It makes it very easy to recreate the character and see just how many ranks you have where. And better yet it works without a computer. In fact many of my players did thier level ups and then I put them into the computer to check them out and make sure the numbers jive.
MDC
Hmmm...that's interesting. I'll have to try that out too. It sounds pretty simple.
How do you factor skill catagories into that? Have a collum in skills for "catagory" rank, I suppose?
-
I have a seperate page for the categories. But you can work out a sheet with categories and skills underneath writen in.
It does make a huge diffeence. I joined a new group that plays HARP and they love how I do it.
MDC
-
As an interesting addition to this thread I may have pinned down the one aspect that frustrates me about RMSS when compared to RM2. It's the skill catagories. To me this seems like a rather needless step to character creation that only serves to make skill management more of a task.
So...a mechanic that reduces the number of skill cost listings and stat bonus computations to a managable level is a needless complication?
The main problem I see with skill categories is that it can be hard for players to remember which skill came out of which category (frankly I'd reduce the number of categories to about half if I had my druthers)
There's an easy solution that came to me today and I've been kicking myself for not having thought of it earlier.
Just put a line in for a heading that separates each category on the skill list!
Doh!
Also, you silly kids and your computers. It's not hard math, just a fair bit of it.
But then I've always favoured not totaling skills that aren't likely to come up much and letting players total bonuses while their character is indisposed.
"Shut up and total a few bonuses" That's my mantra.
-
Rolemaster actually dramatically improved my mental calculation abilities.
Rolemaster : bringing your mind to new levels since 1982.
-
When I started playing SPAM I made a combined sheet which have the skills written under each of the catagories. Makes it alot easier to remember your catagory and to develop it actually ;)
I do agree on that in RMFRP/SPAM it seems to take a lot longer to create a character. It seems a lot more complex than RM2, which I play when not doing SPAM, which is based on RMSS. The newer versions do have some nice ideas, but maybe I am too stuck on things I know and like to move on to something else. Ealier versions seems earlier, though the books can be somewhat complicated to find information in.
They have fixed this in the RMC books, a lovely thing to say the least, so I have been playing to continue to do rm2, gthough through the help of RMC books ... Maybe one day the change will be complete
-
One thing I do like about RMSS, which is also something that existed in MERP and is one of my favorite features of HARP, is the fact that adolescent skills are based on race/culture rather than DPs. If you don't take DPs so literally it isn't a problem, but I just think basing them on race/culture has a certain "flavor" benefit that I really like. I'm not sure how RMC handles this (in comparison to RM2), but I think it might be a pretty easy thing to insert. It would be far easier to insert that instead of removing skill catagories from RMSS. ;)
I added it to the standard two-stage RM2 start process, tossed them some extra free ranks in culturally determined skills (occasionally with some free choice), normally including some weapon skill or other (depending on culture/status; some don't get any). Given that some people choose to start their RM characters at third level anyhow, it didn't seem like that big a deal to me, given that it only happens at the front end.
-
So...a mechanic that reduces the number of skill cost listings and stat bonus computations to a managable level is a needless complication?
An added layer. Yes. It may make costs more managable, but it makes skill record keeping a pain in the but. With a proper character sheet it isn't quite so bad, but why go through the hassle? The way I see it, have either the skills, or the skill catagories. Not both. Sorry.
The main problem I see with skill categories is that it can be hard for players to remember which skill came out of which category
Exactly. It just makes skill management more complex, I think.
But then I've always favoured not totaling skills that aren't likely to come up much and letting players total bonuses while their character is indisposed.
With RMSS you almost have to. That's why they have that list of "frequently used skills" on the first page of the character sheet. Even with the simple skill system of HARP I usually only add up the skills to which I apply ranks. But, for me, the problem isn't totalling up the skills. That's the easy part...just busy work. It's the application of DPs and ranks, while splitting your attention between skills and catagories that just seems like wasted effort. I mean, why the catagories in the first place? I'm not trying to bait anyone, I honestly can't see the benefit. Ya know?
-
The beef I have with categories is the ones that contain a single skill. I love the separation it's one of the features that makes the game for me.
On the other hand, I'd probably have one armour category, melee, and missile. With all special attacks and combat maneuvres falling under melee or missile.
-
IMO the idea of categories is a way to handel skill synergy, without a chart. If you add a new skill you have the synergy built in.
IMO it is vastly superior to RM2 skill system and it is the reason I switched to RM from RuneQuest. Yes it is a bit more complicated but again if your game requires that level of detail you have it. It is much tougher to add detail to a simple system than to take it away from a more complicated one.
MDC
-
IMO the idea of categories is a way to handel skill synergy, without a chart. If you add a new skill you have the synergy built in.
Agree. To lazy to type it, however ;)
lynn
-
I can also say I am happy to just see people play the game in any of its forms. I reciently moved to OR from CA and I am very suprised at how many gamers thier are in my area. Where as in CA thier were not as many and it was tough to get a group that meshed well.
MDC
-
I started gathering players for a group. I ended up with (GASP) 15 applications !
Looks like i am the only RM gamemaster south of Paris. Scary.
-
I started gathering players for a group. I ended up with (GASP) 15 applications !
Looks like i am the only RM gamemaster south of Paris. Scary.
Good job! Time to teach someone eles to GM and you can have 2 groups. Or run 1 campain with one side good and the other evil, and see who wins out in the end.
MDC
-
IMO the idea of categories is a way to handel skill synergy, without a chart. If you add a new skill you have the synergy built in.
That's a good point. As a player I suppose you could even just develop catagories and not skills. That might even be a good way of getting general, mook NPCs done a bit faster. I mean, would their be a huge difference in cost efficiency if you just developed catagories instead of skills?
-
GoblinByte,
Culture-based skill ranks for adolescence was an option mentioned in Rolemaster Companion I, but nothing ever became of it.
-
Category ranks + static profession bonuses ends up serving the same function as progressive level bonueses in RM2.
While an RM2 fighter gets +3 level in weapon skills for life, a RMSS fighter starts with +20 then purchases ranks in "weapon category X" to get the rest.
It does allow for a bit more customization than fixed bonuses, since you can choose where to spend your category ranks, but in the end 90% of spend is done within archetype, so the end result is the same, with a bit more paperwork.
Offering an example:
1) Take RMC using the "RMFRP friendly skill categories" option.
2) Give all players +30 DP per level.
3) Characters start at 1st level with fixed 5th level level bonuses. So +1 = +5 bonus, +2 = +10 bonus, +3 = +15 bonus and +3 open ended (Fighter "Combat" bonus) = +20 bonus.
4) Players must purchase all further level bonuses each level at 3 DP per +1.
5) Players must buy +10 in bonus each level.
There would be a slight variation in the bonus per ranks level compared to RMSS, and how diminishing returns affects that level bonus, but that seems to be essentially the concept behind RMSS category bonuses in a nutshell, from my point of view.
It's neither a good nor a bad thing, I'm just not sure that it's the best way to achieve the end result desired. (It's certainly infinitely better than "Similar skills".)
-
RMSS Profession bonuses also contribute to the more capable RMSS level one characters I'm so fond of.
I also love training packages. However, I loathe the discount. Really you should get some XP with each TP and enough of them should bump you a level.
-
Category ranks + static profession bonuses ends up serving the same function as progressive level bonueses in RM2.
Sorry, but I don't think that this is true. Category bonuses serve the purpose to represent similarities between skills. And the static profession bonus is meant to replace the RM2 level bonus with a bonus that pronounces professional differences from the start but does not grow over time.
While an RM2 fighter gets +3 level in weapon skills for life, a RMSS fighter starts with +20 then purchases ranks in "weapon category X" to get the rest.
But OTOH the RMSS Fighter develops skill ranks for his weapons with a progression of 3-2-1-0.5. The category progression of 2-1-0.5-0 only makes up for the reduced amounts in the skills progression. An RM2 Fighter OTOH will have his level bonus increase further and further, which lets his main OB often be in the range of ~165 at lvl. 20, while an RMSS Fighter at that point might have an OB of "only" 140 (I am assuming +20 stat bonus and 2 ranks per level and no item bonus).
It does allow for a bit more customization than fixed bonuses, since you can choose where to spend your category ranks, but in the end 90% of spend is done within archetype, so the end result is the same, with a bit more paperwork.
Of course in cases where a character wants to develop a skill at maximum rate, he will also develop the category at maximum rate. But I have also had the case that characters have deliberately have developed only the skill and not the category or vice versa.
In the end I'd say that RMSS categories let you map skill similarities, but in the end the result does IMHO not justify the added complexity.
-
RMSS Profession bonuses also contribute to the more capable RMSS level one characters I'm so fond of.
Fully agreed. I also prefer the RMSS professional bonus over the RM2/RMC level bonus.
I also love training packages. However, I loathe the discount.
I also like TPs. They add to the characters background and they are also a good means for new player to more quickly generate a character. Just select one or two TPs and there are only a few DPs left where you have to think about where to place them.
The discount is a different matter. A TP always has some skills in it where the player thinks they are useless and the discount then is an incentive to choose the TP nevertheless. Therefore I think it is a good thing.
What is more problematic is that that skill costs like 1/5 make it difficult to calculate a fixed cost for a TP. Lets say you create a TP that only gives a character 4 ranks in a weapon skill. Not using any discount this TP will cost a Fighter, with skill costs for his primary weapon of 1/5, 4 DPs and a Magician, with skill costs of 9, 36 DPs. But if my Fighter wants to develop 2 ranks in his weapon every level - which I think is quite normal for a Fighter -, then each of the TP ranks is worth 5 DPs, i.e. the cost for the second skill rank, for him, not 1. So he gets ranks normally costing him 20 DPs for an investment of 4 DPs for the TP. This advantage is often much more important than the little discount of ~20% DPs.
-
Well, I got my RMC books in the mail earlier this week and I've been reading through them. I gotta say it's pretty slick. The books themselves are very nice and are organized far better than I remember the RM2 books (a common comment I see). I miss the adolescent ranks being handled by culture, but, as mentioned before, I can't see any roadblocks to adding this factor. The mess of options seems a bit overwhelming, but at least their listed separately so they don't get confused.
So, do I like it better than RMSS? Hard to say. I'll have to dig a little deeper and see. RMSS's organization does have a certain "grace" to it, but RMC is a lot "lighter" (literally). I like the fact, though, that RMC holds with RMSS's general organization philosophy and does not repeat information from one book to the next (at least not much). That's something I didn't like about RMFRP. With a system as rich as RM I like to know where to go to find what I need and don't need duplicate information in multiple books confusing the situation.
I'll read more and come back again. ;)
-
Ecth,
"Similarities between skills"
If you don't think about it too much, and just look at what you have, there are three "similarity" mechanics in each version of RM:
RMC: Stat Bonuses, Level Bonuses (RM2 "Similar Skills")
RMSS: Stat Bonuses, Professional Bonuses, Category Skill Ranks.
I t'werent saying that all was the same, but that those all end up serving the same purposes. . . My personal opinion is that "Similar Skills" is a total mess, a sloppy bit of logic that rapidly got out of control. Too much in the way of free lunch, and a lot of complexity, and also the chained logic was never checked, so you ended up with some nonsense like 8 ranks of Dance giving you 1 rank in Undead Lore.
Those logic chains bore a lot of abuse. . .and anyone can make a halfway decent argument to extending them further. "Shouldn't my 10 ranks in rapier give me some ranks in Dance, since both rely on timing, footwork, and balance?"
I'm happy enough to see that bogie mostly dead. . .only appearence SS has made in RMC so far is in weapons.
OTOH, the RMSS attempt to "fix" similar skills with those categories may have been a mistake. It's my opinion that actually killing that hydra was the right course to take. . .I suspect that any honest assessment of the categories in which you may purchase ranks can identify skills that seem absurd in association, as well as skill pairs seperated in different categories that seem like they should hold great similarity but flatly do not, since they're not in the same category.
The logic of say, picking up Rapier and Dance in the same training package, and paying for both, makes a lot more sense. . ."My rapier instructor made us take dance lessons to improve our footwork, balance and timing."
I suspect, the word "Similar" boils down to "But I want it for free!". . . .players love to argue how they should have free ranks in skill X because they have 20 ranks in skill Y. "It just makes sense that if I can do this, I should naturally have some bleed over of skill into that." . . .funny how that logic never came up when the player was spending DP. . .rather than pick up a rank of Dance here and there, they instead chose to double buy Rapier every level and pick up an extra rank in Body Development.
The whole basis and logic behind a third layer of "Similarity" beyond Stat bonuses and professional/level bonuses, in my mind, boils down to pure greed. If you want a broader character with a more diverse skill set, perhaps you should spend your DP that way.
BTW, since the rules on level bonuses are mostly optional in RMC, you can always choose the "Fixed Bonus" option if you dinna like the mechanics of the progressive method. (We tried to open the door to new ideas, especially keeping in mind RMSS). If you go with "Base PP", "Base HP", "RMFRP Friendly Skill Categories", "Fixed Bonuses" and "Non random SLA by Individual Spells" the first level characters are probably a bit better grounded than you'd think if your experience is only with RM2, not RMC. (In fact, those characters may look a lot like RMSS characters). . . . We tried to incorporate any good ideas from RMSS/FRP into the system, mostly as options. . .only a fool would think 20+ years didn't produce a lot of good ideas.
-
In an old game I think was based a lot on Rm2 we got armor bonuses for dancing. As the logic was it helped you move around better. Once again logic it may work but by how much and can you make 1 simple rule to fit every skill synergy.
MDC
-
In an old game I think was based a lot on Rm2 we got armor bonuses for dancing. As the logic was it helped you move around better. Once again logic it may work but by how much and can you make 1 simple rule to fit every skill synergy.
MDC
This point, as well as LordMiller's, reminds me of some of the fuzzy logic that plagued the Storyteller system in Vampire. You got a specialization once you got 4 ranks in something (if memory serves) and this specialization was little more than a descriptive term that determined "if you are using this skill to do something within that specialization, you get special considerations." I can't remember what that special consideration was, but it almost became disgusting how players would try to come up with the broadest specialization term they could think of so that they could apply it to just about any action.
"My specialization for Dexterity based actions is "attacking" so any time I attack I get that benefit!"
"Yeah? Well my specialization for Charmisa is for "speaking" so every time I open my mouth I get that benefit!"
Add to that the nebulous stat+skill formula for coming up with die pools, and the "free" nature of the game to let you come up with the combination that best fits the situation, and you have a munchkin's paradise.
"Why exactly would Wits+Repair work in this situation?"
"Heck, I don't know...I just know I have 5 in both!"
;D
-
LM, that was quite a good summary.
-
One thing I do like about RMSS, which is also something that existed in MERP and is one of my favorite features of HARP, is the fact that adolescent skills are based on race/culture rather than DPs. If you don't take DPs so literally it isn't a problem, but I just think basing them on race/culture has a certain "flavor" benefit that I really like. I'm not sure how RMC handles this (in comparison to RM2), but I think it might be a pretty easy thing to insert. It would be far easier to insert that instead of removing skill catagories from RMSS. ;)
I always played RM2 in the Tolkien setting (can I say that on these boards?) and I agree, one of the best things from the-game-that-shall-not-be-named was the cultural stuff, from starting languages, to background points, to special abilities (which I always considered forced-background options), to adolescant development. After a campaign or two, our group just decided to use that for our character development. I think we simply took what was listed (modified for RM2) and then gave something like 20% of DPs for your own personal use.
Best thing about RM2/RMC and all incarnations of RM for that matter, is that it's YOUR game. Modify it to fit your needs. You must do what you feel is right, of course.
-shnar
-
Those logic chains bore a lot of abuse. . .and anyone can make a halfway decent argument to extending them further. "Shouldn't my 10 ranks in rapier give me some ranks in Dance, since both rely on timing, footwork, and balance?"
One of Rolemaster's weaknesses, a rulesmaster nightmare. Any of your players min/maxers and they could wiggle all sorts of stuff out of RM2 if you included any of the companions (I always think of Brian from KoDT when I think of Rolemaster).
-shnar
-
I've been going back and forth on this (still!) and it repeatedly is the skill system that is probably the one point of RMSS/FRP that I keep butting my head against. I haven't found any real significant differences between most of the other aspects between RMC and RMFRP. The skill system seems to be the only real game changing alteration between the two lines.
Someone mentioned a while back about some "thin" skill associations within the existing skill catagories and I guess I have to agree with that. One catagory that I noticed a few significantly strange connections were in the Technical Trade - General catagory. How much knowledge from Begging can bridge over to Sailing or Mapping? I think the list of primary skills of RMC is a little thin (the secondary skills help, but they seem to be afterthoughts), so I really like the expanded skills provided in RMSS (if there wasn't something attractive about it I wouldn't be going to the trouble). The skills provided in RMC are good for adventuring, but for more general roleplaying I think the expanded skills are more appropriate.
I know I'm picking a fine point here (one that's probably been beaten to death) and there is another thread discussing ways to fix this problem. Once again I'm just "thinking" out loud in the hopes that this conversation will lead me to greater understanding. ;)
But let me take this thread in a slightly different direction...
-
...Other than the skill system, what are the significant differences between RMC and RMFRP? Has there been a point by point comparison of the differing aspects done before? Can you think of any differences, positive or negative, that jump out at you in regards to combat or general action resolution? I know everyone has an opinion about what works better or worse, so I'm really just looking for simple comparison rather than commentary. My hope is not to egg on any grudges. I seek knowledge. ;D
-
How about these:
completed spell lists
Tactical combat round
Stat bonus scale
2 vs 3 stats per skill
Professional vs level bonuses
Epic power levels
-
How about these:
completed spell lists
Tactical combat round
Stat bonus scale
2 vs 3 stats per skill
Professional vs level bonuses
Epic power levels
All good! ;) Thank you much!
What do you mean by "completed spell lists," though?
And I assume by "Epic power levels" you're referring to the relatively high skills of high level characters in RMC when compaired to similar characters in RMFRP, right? I've heard of this, but have not had any experience in high levels to know first hand.
I'll look at all those points, though, and see which I like better in each. Perfect input!
(I should point out my main reason for being so picky and really putting the finer details of both systems through the ringer: My group in general has a very poor opinion of RM, mostly from past experiences. I've come to see it in a new light of late, however, and I want to present the possibility of trying the system again to see if our general perceptions are truly giving the system justice. But I want to pick the version that will create the best impact. I may only have one chance to make that first impression so I figure the more research I can do the better I'll be able to pick the version that best fits their style and taste. Does that make sense?)
-
the RM companions began a trend toward "Complete" spell lists with no empty slots. RMSS Spell Law went back and applied this to the original core lists.
Epic Power scale is just that. . .RMSS is designed to prevent abuse, which also to a degree curtails epic level play. A comparisson of the Alchemy Companion to the Treasure Companion is a good for instance. another for instance: The combo of "Magical ritual" and "Over 50th level spells" in RM2 got out of hand, but most spell lists were tricked out to 100th or higher level E picks putting some serious epic power into concrete rules form.
These were usually abused more than used, but it was nice to be able to be able to build artifact level magic items without needing to resort to:
Q+skill2*Level :angel5: Then a miracle happens :angel5: = magic item.
I realise that in the end a GM can do anything they want, but there's someone around here who often says "Never take anything from the players, it pisses them off" and despite the fact that I knew exactly why the epic end stuff was trimmed, it still irked me a bit.