Topic: Problems addressed by RMC (was Re: Where do i begin)

[shnar]

- RMC addresses a lof of the RM2 problems that led to the creation of RMFRP.

Out of curiosity, what problems are addressed in RMC?

-shnar

[markc]

- RMC addresses a lof of the RM2 problems that led to the creation of RMFRP.

Out of curiosity, what problems are addressed in RMC?

-shnar

Thier was a topic on the RM2/RMC forums about this but I do not remember what all the fixes are. I would do a quick search thier and see what you come up with or e-mail Lord Miller.
MDC

[shnar]

I've read a couple posts that talk about the differences between RM2 and RMC, but none of them seem to talk about "addressing a lot of RM2 problems that led to the creation of RMFRP". I was wondering specifically what problems are solved in RMC that were also solved with RMPFP...

-shnar

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Topic split because it was very off-topic in the original thread and interesting enough that I would like to see what all others might have to say.   

[Setorn]

Well, here are a few issues that I had had with RM2 (, and was disappointed with RMSS when it came out) that are addressed in RMC:
1)   Optional rules and core rules are better signified.
2)   Power creep (I freely admit that I was part of the problem as one of the authors of the Doppelgaenger.  Hey, I also wrote the Shadow Mage and it was more balanced) is now under control. 
3)   Similar to number one, but it appears that in future companions rule systems addressing the similar rules issues (e.g. spell research, magic ritual, to name just two) will be presented as optional. 
4)   The organization of RMC is much, much better. 
5)   The production quality is better as well.  Not that it was substandard then just it is easier and cheaper to make better products to day.   
Those are just a few improvements that I notice.  There are mechanical tweaks as well, but it has been years since I played RM2 and I feel the changes just cann’t put my figure on them.   
All of that said it would be wonderful if we could get a comprehensive list of changes made, and an general idea of how compatible each companion now is. 
All of that said. I really like taking everything back to basics.  I am teaching a new group RMC and it is much easier than back in the day with seven companions, SUC, house rules, etc….  I must admit to that one of my players back in the early 90’s was always driving up the power level of my game s and now I am a little more free to conduct a lower powered game. 

[markc]

I have also head they put in a lot of time to redo Spell Law Classic. With improvments to the illusions base list and soem new spell clarifications. I do not have it but some people have said it is a great improvement.
MDC

[yammahoper]

I freely admit that I was part of the problem as one of the authors of the Doppelgaenger.  

Finally I know who to hate.

Kidding

Well...almost anyway.

lynn

[markc]

I enjoyed the dopp list but it was too powerful, if you could start the list at 10th or 5th level it would be better IMO.
MDC

[Setorn]

Finally I know who to hate.

Well, believe me considering the two other authors, it could have been worse.  I like low powered games, but those two...Wow!

[Marc R]

heh, well, if we ever do one of those "Lets hunt down the old authors" things again, there's a lead right here.

There are quite a few items lifted out of RMFRP as options in RMC that are variations on rules from the RM2 companions, distilled by time and through RMFRP back to RMC as new options.

[shnar]

For some reason, I always *hated* Spell Law and in our games, we simply never had magic users. I'll have to pick up RMC Spell Law and see if this eases my discomfort with the system.

I'm getting ready to start up a new RM2/MERP campaign, and I've been debating on buying RMC instead of dusting off the RM2 + Companions or not. Another curiosity question, which version of RMC did you buy/use? PDF, Softbound, Hardbound?

-shnar

[Arioch]

I'm really curious, what did you hated of Spell Law? 

[Setorn]

I agree please continue...

[shnar]

Magic was just so different to everything else, it always seemed so intimidating. I mean, locks never got a "resistance roll" after you tried to pick them. Multiple rounds to prepare, low level magic users were so useless that players hated playing them. And the randomness with aquiring Spell Lists just seemed awkward. Once RMCIV came out, magic seemed to play a little better for us (linear spell list aquisition and one-roll spell casting), but magic was still rarely used...

-shnar

[Marc R]

well, we added linear SLA and one roll casting to SL, though in slightly different forms than any of the previous versions.

[shnar]

Ooo! I'll have to pick up RMC:SL then

On a similar note, I really liked how SM did psionics. It feels more like another skill, instead of a completely foreign system...

-shnar

[Marc R]

Casting is now one roll, with the optional ESF material folded into that roll, but you still need RRs from the target for "F" spells.

[Ecthelion]

Magic was just so different to everything else, it always seemed so intimidating. I mean, locks never got a "resistance roll" after you tried to pick them.

But the roll to pick them could fail, just like the RR could keep the spell from working...

Multiple rounds to prepare, low level magic users were so useless that players hated playing them.

There is much truth in this. OTOH at higher levels spell users can be very powerful - and they pay the price for this in the form of less power at lower levels. Semi Spell Users IMHO are a good compromise. They are sufficiently useful at lower levels and gain an additional edge at higher levels due to their spells.

And the randomness with aquiring Spell Lists just seemed awkward. Once RMCIV came out, magic seemed to play a little better for us (linear spell list aquisition and one-roll spell casting), but magic was still rarely used...

I also prefer Spell List acquisition where you pay DPs per spell instead of a chance to get a bunch of spells. This is IMO one of the areas where RMSS is superior to RM2/RMC. But in the end it is perhaps only a minor nuisance because over the course of 10 levels or so the character should have a few lucky spell list acquisition rolls and a few unlucky ones. So the number of gained spells normally comes close to the expectancy value, so that you can make a good estimatation of how many spells a spell user is going to learn over the course of 10 levels or so.

[shnar]

Magic was just so different to everything else, it always seemed so intimidating. I mean, locks never got a "resistance roll" after you tried to pick them.

But the roll to pick them could fail, just like the RR could keep the spell from working...

But you can also fail with the spell casting in general, so you effectively get 2 chances to fail, either failing the spell, or target succeeding the resistance roll. I award you no points.

But this is probably a personal gripe. I've never liked "magic" in *any* RPG system, except maybe HERO and D6, since it always seems like a completely different system then the rest of the skill/combat mechanics.

-shnar

[Ecthelion]

Hmm, with a utility spell that meets the realm's casting requirements (no armor for Essence, no helmet for Mentalism etc.) failing only on a UM01-02, I don't think this failure chance has much influence on the general chances of succeeding with the spell.