Topic: Why buy RM Classic?

[ttsgosadow]

This topic discusses why one should move from RM2 to RMC, are those the same reasons one should move from RMFRP to RMC?

[Marc R]

I don't think this thread is a question of moving from RM2 to RMC, it's "Why should I buy RMC if I have RM2". . . .is the material worth purchasing for someone who already has the base materials RMC was drawn from.

I happen to play RM2/C, but own a lot of RMSS/FRP stuff. . .So in the context I stated in the para above, I'd say that I would buy RMC if I played RMSS or FRP, if only to steal bits and pieces.

There is a lot of material here that I think an FRP GM might find interesting and potentially useful. . .Probably more so in AL, SL, CT and less so CL.

**Official Warning**

Anyone who proceeds down the path of a hostile RMFRP vs RMC thing will find their posts clipped off this thread so you can brawl somewhere else.

**End Warning**

[Witchking20k]

They are two very different games with very similar mechanics and I use them both for different reasons.  Like you Lord Miller I steal from one & the other constantly.

I am looking forward to seeing the RMC material.  I was flicking through a bunch of the old companions etc to try and find various spell lists etc last weekend, and thought to myself how nice it would be to have a unified & streamlined version of this stuff for my own purposes.  And how cool it would be to be able to hand over the books with confidence and say pick your racces & profession to the players.

[kamikaze]

For me, I can't really play RM2 anymore. It's too messy and unorganized, too hard to teach someone, and the backstock of printed books was finally reaching a point where it was hard for new players to get them.

RMC is just RM2, in print and supported again, with actual editing and tutorial explanations , and a slightly different mix of optional rules.

The new percentage-of-activity initiative system is a sudden and inappropriate change. I *really* wish ICE had left the RM2 initiative sequence in as the primary system. Whether or not it seems "horrendous" to new developers, phased combat was the standard RM system in use for 25 years, it was easy to explain, easy to resolve, and required minimal bookkeeping. I could teach a new player how to fight in a couple minutes. The new system's fine as an optional system; I've mostly used CEATS ever since it came out, and could comfortably replace it with the new initiative system, but it requires considerably more paperwork than phases.

The new Spell Law is excellent. Additional explanations for spell types, well-organized and edited spell lists, and many of the best optional rules from the Companions.

If you're currently happy with RM2, you don't really *need* RMC, because you basically have it already, but overall it is a better edition of RM2 than the old red box set. You may very well want to make copies of your RM2 Arms Law sequence of play, and use that instead of the new system.

[mocking bird]

Spell Types reworked, getting rid of Passive and adding Phantasm/Illusions as a type. Most of the spells that were Passive became either Informational or Utility. Better guidelines/rules were given for resolving Informational spells.

It would seem that Spell Law had the most mechanical revisions.  (I don't count initiative as there are as many versions of that as there are spells.)  There was also a lengthy thread regarding spell traces.  (Which I found I think in the RMSS Arcane Companion with a spell that allows you to detect all spells ever cast in an area.)  Any chance some type of addendum/option pack would be produced separate from the main books?  The Spell Law changes sound intriguing and I feel would be useful in case a discussion similar to the one in the forums crops up.  As death's tale will soon be in my mythic's repitoire.

[Willen]

Were there ever plans of doing a "what's new" or "RM Update" document to bring us old RM2 people up to date with the changes. I think, if 98% of RMC is ol'good RM2, and now RMC is official (and more, since you're marketing it as "cleaned-up RM2"); how do I know if future releases (like Combat Companion) that I might consider buying are assuming divergences(*) to my old books?

Unless of course the policy is to have everybody buy the new books in order to take advantage of new releases (like in being forced to)(**).

(*)Like: stuff that asumes my initiative system is the new one I know nothing about, or makes reference to Utility spells...
(**)This in no terms is a complain against the great company ICE nor the nice creative bunch you people are. I just find it... odd that:

Rolemaster Classic (RMC for short) is a revitalized version of the revered Rolemaster 2 system found in the hallowed ?red border edition? of Rolemaster in the late 80?s.

Rolemaster pioneered many of today?s gaming concepts and still sets the platinum standard for fantasy RPG systems. ICE has taken this great system and re-organized it for clean and easy use. A more polished appearance and new artwork give the books a more open and modern look that's pleasing to the eye.

...does not tell of the "small" mechanical changes   

[Willen]

Now, who am I kidding, I'll probably buy it anyway (hopefully with player's money bwahahahahaha!!!)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Two main points here....


1) It needs to be recognized that you most likely consider certain options (that were NOT clearly marked in the RM2 core books) to be part of the core, not really an option. Many folks also consider some things like the large list of skills from RoCoII to be part of the core even when they were not.

This means that when you look at RMC, you will likely find things that are different from what you remember or think them to be. This alone is going to be enough of a shock to some people. 

2) I follow a policy of, and stress to others, to "write to the core". This means that ICE cannot predict which set of options, if any a given GM will be using. Therefore, all new options must be written to work with the core rules first and foremost. If an option REQUIRES that a certain other option is needed, that is fine, but the option will specifically and explicitly state that it is written to work with/for Option XX, and should not be used if that option is not being used.

[Willen]

Oh, sorry, following the thread I was under the impression that the new initiative system and the re-classification of spells were core, not optional. My mistake then.
Core for me is: found in the main red-bordered books and not listed under "optional" in them. Or their equivalent in RMC (edition we here refer as the "great covers' one". Kuddos on the cover art.)

[Cormac Doyle]

The "Core" is what not flagged as optional in the RMC edition. There are very few areas where this diverges from the true "core" of RM2 - the spell types and initiative system are the two principal changes to the core.

All subsequent publications will be based on the RMC Core, and play balance will be an important consideration for all options introduced.

There is a vast amount of optional material in the red-covered books. You should note that the same option will be clearly marked as "optional" on one page, but is then assumed to be core on another. this is the reason we had to clarify exactly what constituted what is core for RM2/RMC - the original RM2 books did not make a clear distinction !

[Willen]

And to regards of my question: was there ever considered compiling a document with changes, what is considered core, etc, from RM2 to RMC?
Is there any hope of something like that?

Cory, if "core" is what is not optional in RMC, and we go by RM2, how do we know what is officially core now? Tim, I respect "designing to the core rules", but now I'm confused about what is core and what is not 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

And to regards of my question: was there ever considered compiling a document with changes, what is considered core, etc, from RM2 to RMC?
Is there any hope of something like that?

Cory, if "core" is what is not optional in RMC, and we go by RM2, how do we know what is officially core now? Tim, I respect "designing to the core rules", but now I'm confused about what is core and what is not 

Not from me, there isn't and I am the principle person at ICE who might be even remotely interested in doing so (let alone finding the large amounts of time required to do such). However, let me point out that the list I gave up above is pretty much most all that has really changed from the original core rules.

As for knowing what is and isn't core. In RMC we have marked ALL options as being options. This was not the case in RM2, and this caused TONS of confusion over the years. And each book specifically carries a section of TOC just for the options. And the index contains an Options entry with all the options listed beneath it.

In short, ALL of the options in RMC are clearly and explicitly marked. There is no confusion about what is or is not an option.

What I was trying to say in my last post was that RM2 did not explicitly and clearly mark options, and it is quite possible that something you thought was core actually turned out to be an option.

As for "go by RM2", I would suggest getting RMC instead. It is much cleaner and clearer. Plus it includes NEW options that you may find appealing..... 

[Willen]

"I go by RM2" means I have RM2 and, for now, won't be getting RMC. Then I have no idea what is officially now "core".
If I had bought RMC, of course, there would be no argument 

Perhaps making the TOCs available for us here at the forums, so that we can see what you labelled as "optional"? Pretty please? 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Find the thread/poll about the Character Law options!! That will tell you what is optional, and from that you can figure out what is core...

[Willen]

I beg your pardon, I should stop being such a lazy a$$ (hey, even my avatar asks forgiveness!  )

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

 

[Marc R]

heh, check out the three option polls. . . .looking at those should make the option variations fairly obvious. . .and those are also the places to ask specific questions. It's a lot easier to get into the variations with a more specific "In Character Law. . ." or "In Spell Law. . ." reduction in the scope of the topic.

[Marc R]

You could also check out the three "Non staff" review threads posted on the product reviews board over here:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?board=65.0

Those who have purchased the books who have not already reviewed them can post reviews over there, giving more "Non official" information to those who want it. (Hint-hint, nudge-nudge) It would be much appreciated.

[Allen]

I'm curious... my big hang up at this moment is that I have all of the RM2 stuff... well I think i have it all  ...so I'm curious as I'm about 99% sure (yet to make my Re roll) I'm gonna make the jump, but have a couple of questions first.
Let me try to pose my first question like this....
Knowing that RoCo1 and 2 are not 'supported' by ICE and probably wont be printed again in any form... my interest is in being able to use the professions and skills list. Are they still applicable? By that I mean, can I intergrate them with RMC? I'm not concerned with the optional rules, just the skills and professions... crap, having a brain fart now and cant remember what if any crit tables there might be. damn... anyways, I'd probably use those to. Can those be easily be intergrated into RMC?

On to the topic of character development... pretty much the same as my beloved RM2 Right?

Can you point me to the link, please, for when additional titles will be released?

Hope I'm not driving anyone bonkers... I had/have serious issues with the BS of sucking up and getting (gag) 3rd ed. D&D only to have to get the (bleep)ing (blank)ing (censored) 3.5 books not even 6 months later. I was ready to filet someone's testicals over that.
RM2 is... I dunno how to put it without sounding sappy... I love RM2, d20 be damned, and am a bit concered about being let down again.

to the RMC team... from the reviews I read today I have a feeling I'll be pleased, but paranoia has kept me alive this long... along with a pretty high perception... 

Thanks again for the time,

Allen

[Marc R]

If you have the RM companions, I can't think of anything in any of them that will be directly unusable due to the rules in RMC other than the various versions of the combat round. Those were always plug in plug out anyway. (Like you couldn't use the Core RM2 round and CEATS at the same time either.)

Working on RoCo1 with Nick and Cormac, we have found very little in there that needed anything at all in the way of changing for RMC compatability.