Topic: One Rolemaster to rule them all?

[jolt]

An idea that struck me was to have 3 core professions:

The Warrior
The character who have spend most of his time training with weapons and anything related to combat. This can be an martial artist, an dwarven fighter, an elven archer or a swashbuckler. Low DP cost for everything combat related (weapon skills, body dev., combat styles, armor skill)

The Expert
The character who spend most of his time training in a variety of skills. This can be the thief, the rogue, the schoolar, the noble, and the merchant. Low DP cost for all skills outside magic, exotic knowledge and combat.

Adept
The character who spend most of his time training in magic, be it Channeling, Essence, or Mentalism. This can be the magician, the sorcerer, the priest, the cleric, the seer, etc. Low DP cost for everything related to magic (spell lists, magic Lore skills, directed spell, etc).

This same idea was used in an rpg called Dawnfire (OOP, website hasn't been updated sonce May of '02).  They called their 3 core classes Warrior, Shaper and Rogue and then you customised from there.  It's an interesting idea but I don't think it would work for RM.  You would need a boatload of TP's (or some similar concept) to duplicate the options already available.

One of the reasons I switched from RM2 to RMSS was because (a hypothetical example) if I wanted to be an Arachnemancer in RM2, there had to be a fully fleshed out Arachenemancer class.  In RMSS, that's a TP and even a fighter could be one; I couldn't do that in RM2.  I do think that even some current core professions would be better served as TP's rather than a full blown profession; though that's another topic.  However, I'm not a big advocate of classless systems (esp. in fantasy) or games where there are only a few archetypes to choose from.  I like the color that RM provides.

Your idea isn't necessarily a bad one but if I was of that inclination, I'd probably be playing GURPS or Hero System instead.  YMMV.

jolt

[David Johansen]

You know, that's a great point.

I don't want Rolemaster to be more like GURPS.  Oh sure I'd like it implemented for every possible genre and historical period, but the big thing that brings me to Rolemaster is that there's more structure to it.

Don't try to make RM into other games.  Try to make it better at being Rolemaster.

[Nejira]

I agree there are no or little point in making Rolemaster into GURPs or HERO, and yes if I wanted to play that I would probably do that. My number one attraction to Rolemaster is the criticals, and the way combat "feel". I like that I am told what happens so I can take that into account instead of some arbitrary Hit Points which is hard to roleplay.

For me personally I dont like a lot of classes/professions with regards to different skill costs. True three may be a bit low number but do we really a profession for (nearly) every combination of skills? Are there really that big a difference between a thief and a rogue that warrants two professions? Couldn?t all Essence purecasters just have the skill cost as Magician, and the difference lay in their base lists?

I guess I am an atypical Rolemaster fan as I am infact more a system-light kinda guy, but none of them really does combat as well as Rolemaster, and combat is a big part of fantasy rpgs. Infact I have yet to find a combat system that suits my taste as well as Rolemaster does, and I own a lot of rpgs

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

Yes its a way to cut it down to three fields. RM2 has a lot of profession, and RMSS has its share too. But do we really need that many? Do we need on profession for nearly every combination of skills? If thats the case why not have skill groups as you suggest (scholarship, fighting, crafting, magic, outdoor, stealth, engineering and relationship*) and then you got 8 different DP cost you can select. No1 is the cheapest, No8 is the most expensive, could be 1/3, 2/4, 3/7, 4/10, 5/12, 6/10, 8, 15*. That could certainly work too. More control to the player for which skills he wants to focus on.

* just suggestions, oblivious needs more thought and research.

A layman would be an Expert choosing skills within his field (blacksmith, miller, farmer, etc).

That's the idea.

The reason why I play rolemaster is that there is no limit but a great variety of choice. A character is defined by what he is good or bad at, not by what he *can't do* (that's the D&D like approach so many games use). I'd rather have the game go towards more diversity, get rid of levels (which are not that usefull anyway since RM is skill based and what counts actually is skill ranks and bonuses) and offer tons of character development options than narrowing down the deal to 3 main options.

It's the development cost for skills that make up a profession. The simplest way to simplify the system without losing its soul is to let the players create their professions through a group/category/skill system (and at the same time propose 10 or 20 professions as an example). So, yes, the prices you propose is a way to do it. Actions with skills would give DPs to spend.

Or we could use a mathematical chance to have the skill rank increase through use (even with failures, because a failure that is correctly analyzed teaches you something). But that could be a lot of tedium where DPs can do the job.

There is definitely something to pull out of this thread that would help for a rock-the gaming-world revision of RM.

[Nejira]

Its my experience that rewarding experience for usage of a given skill results in the players insisting on rolling as many skills during a gaming session as posible. Its a good idea in theory but as right now I cant see how to implement it with a failsafe against this (mis)behaviour

I would prefer to continue using Exp, some ideas for a nonlevel based Rolemaster could be having the players buy increases for their character with Exp. Some examples:
A: Buy DPs, one DP could have a cost of 100 Exp.
B: Instead of levelups in pot attributes, let the player buy the chance to increase a pot attribute with Exp.

We need to change how the developing of skills work too. We could say that the first number is the cost for the first ten ranks, and the second number is the cost for all ranks above eleven. EG: A skill with 1/3 costs 10 DPs for the first ten ranks, and then 3 DPs per rank thereafter.

[Justin]

some of these comments are rehashes of things said in the "make rm better" thread, let's go back over there.

[thrud]

*Putting on the flamesuit...*

You guys scare me.
I hope the people in charge don't listen to you.

Maybe some of your ideas are valid but...
I've said it before and I'll keep repeating myself untill hell freezes over or something?
Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
RMC is awsome ruleswise.

Listening to your proposals my gut reaction is "go ahead and design a brand new game but don't call it Role Master".

Of course there are ways one could expand RMC, new rules addons that could bring a new dimension to the game. A lot of these improvements have already been discussed in some ways. The new CC definately opened up some new avenues that may be worth exploring?
Really, if you pause a moment and look at it. There really isn't all that much that have changed from the original Role Master and RMC.
RM is still kicking bu** after +20yrs.

[Skynet]

There really isn't all that much that have changed from the original Role Master and RMC.

I think this is why we are having this discussion. While I think Rolemaster is great in its current form (I prefer RMFRP), there are some issues that certain gamers (like myself) think need to be addressed. If your current set of rulebooks is perfect, you don't have to feel "threatened" about a new, different, edition of the game. You got what you wanted.

RM is still kicking bu** after +20yrs.

And I'm sure it will continue to do so.

[jolt]

Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
RMC is awsome ruleswise.

No need for a flamesuit (unless you get hot flashes  )

I don't have RMC.  I have RM2 but I find RMSS to be better but I can't comment on RMC at all.  That's part of the problem and was the original thrust of why I created this thread.  A lot of us either don't have or don't play RMC.  We're all on different pages and it can get very confusing.

jolt

[thrud]

I don't want to get into any sort of "my version is better than yours" discussion.
First I played RM2, then RMSS which later became RMFRP and now I have come full circle with RMC.
jolt> If you've played RM2 you're already familiar with RMC. Same thing different name...
There are some minor changes but it's basically the same thing.
I enjoyed playing RMSS so there are no complaints on my part. In the end I guess I'm just getting older and have a diffrent view of things nowdays.
Today I really like the simplicity of RMC and that's the main reason we decided to go with RMC over RMSS.

[jolt]

I don't want to get into any sort of "my version is better than yours" discussion.

Nor do I.  In fact, I would eventually like to see the "my version is better than yours" idea become obsolete; because we'll all be playing the same game.  Right now, we're kinda-sorta-almost doing that, but not really.

Everyone plays their game a little differently using different house-rules and optional rules and what not and that's a good thing.  But I yearn for the day when we'll all be playing from the same set of core rules and we won't have to worry about who's playing what version. 

Right now if someone just says, "Rolemaster" it doesn't really mean anything; Rolemaster what?  I hope that eventually we'll all be using the same "X" number of core books and then picking and choosing the options we like.

jolt

[RandalThor]

And personally, I like there being different version so that everyone can have one they prefer. The "One Roll to Rule Them All" thing sounds bad to me. (See first part of my tag........  )

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

But I yearn for the day when we'll all be playing from the same set of core rules and we won't have to worry about who's playing what version.

In a sense, we already do. Skill, combat and magic resolution works pretty much the same way in the various versions of the game.

[Wōdwulf Seaxaning]

An idea that struck me was to have 3 core professions:

The Warrior
The character who have spend most of his time training with weapons and anything related to combat. This can be an martial artist, an dwarven fighter, an elven archer or a swashbuckler. Low DP cost for everything combat related (weapon skills, body dev., combat styles, armor skill)

The Expert
The character who spend most of his time training in a variety of skills. This can be the thief, the rogue, the schoolar, the noble, and the merchant. Low DP cost for all skills outside magic, exotic knowledge and combat.

Adept
The character who spend most of his time training in magic, be it Channeling, Essence, or Mentalism. This can be the magician, the sorcerer, the priest, the cleric, the seer, etc. Low DP cost for everything related to magic (spell lists, magic Lore skills, directed spell, etc).

Now these are the Core professions, the ones which everything is built upon. On these we add the template professions.

Template professions
These are the further specializations of the core professions. These determines the further aspects of the character. This can be combat styles, spell styles or modifications on skills. Could even work as a TP to illustrate the training the character got before becoming [insert name of template profession here].

EG 1: To get a knight, we start with the Warrior and add the Knight template. The knight template tells us what combat styles we can choose from (mounted combat, shield & sword, etc), roleplaying tips, and what armors and weapons are appropriate for a knight (the use of ranged may be considered contrary to the chivalry code and such).

EG 2: To get an assassin, we start with the Expert and add the assassin template. The assassin template tells us what combat styles we can choose (like ambush, I know its not a combat style per se but its appropriate here), roleplaying tips and so forth.

EG 3: To get a priest of Mitra, we start with the Adept and add the Mitra template. The mitra template tells us what base lists we can choose from (similar to the idea from EA 9), roleplaying tips, what armor (if any) a priest of Mitra can wear and what weapons.

Nejira,

I don't mind this ,but I'd include a fourth Core profession the Rogue .They'd specialize in subterfuge & social skills. This reminds me of Cyberspace. I'd include a adolesence skill chart based on a characters social class or culture/race.Then have the professions list number of dev. points per level for the core skill catagories .Then add bonus DPs related to stats.Thus a person with average stats gets less additional dps while a character with high stats gets more.

That said I'd go with Thrud's basic idea...stick with RMC & RMX but include a Advanced RM book full of options that appeal to the RMSS/FRPG crowd.You'll have RMX for the rules lite crowd, RMC for the standard gamer that wants more "meat" to there game & Advanced RM expansion for those gamers who want more options & complexity in their game.

[David Johansen]

Well, really the profession templates should be realm based:

One Realm Specialist
Two Realm Generalist
Broad Generalist

The realms should probably be Arms, Magic, Subterfuge, and Practical

I guess it depends on what you see as the role of professions.  I like the idea that a profession sets the costs for skills but perhaps it should be called a focus or aptitude then.  Training packages can then be used to differentiate professions further.  Both in terms of bonuses or ranks and in terms of starting gear.  Mage, Illusionist, and Cleric would then all be Magic Specialists with a training package.

Though honestly I favour a simple streamlining of RMSS.  As I've long maintained.  I think people would be surprised how much just getting rid of undefined ranks "Any 2 from Tech Trade Professional? What's in Tech Trade Professional?" and getting rid of the random Training Package equipment would clean it up.  Especially for beginners who have no idea where skills came from.

If I cut a little deeper, the special skills would go, as would the item table from the core rules background options "2bop to pick 2 +20 items?  I don't think so!"  I'd clean up and organize the skill list a little by cutting down the number of categories and trimming a few skills I don't like.  But that's about it.

[Arioch]

Though honestly I favour a simple streamlining of RMSS.  As I've long maintained.  I think people would be surprised how much just getting rid of undefined ranks "Any 2 from Tech Trade Professional? What's in Tech Trade Professional?" and getting rid of the random Training Package equipment would clean it up.  Especially for beginners who have no idea where skills came from.

If I cut a little deeper, the special skills would go, as would the item table from the core rules background options "2bop to pick 2 +20 items?  I don't think so!"  I'd clean up and organize the skill list a little by cutting down the number of categories and trimming a few skills I don't like.  But that's about it.

I agree... maybe also leave out the Limited and Special skill progressions (just keep normal and combined)

[thrud]

Now, this is more constructive thinking in my book.
RMC + Advanced RM (Companion?) or RMFRP with some cutting in the skills department and a remake of the categories? I think we're actually pretty close to the same thing here.
Thus we would have a very nice scalability going.
1. RMX
2. RMX + EA's
3. RMC
4. RMC + Advanced RM

The only real question would be: What stat bonuses to use? RMC or RMFRP?

Once the bonus question is settled the rest should be smooth sailing. Of course there would be a lot of work but writing a new version is never "easy".

[Nejira]

Actually the idea with a Core RM with buildon books isn?t bad. Then you have the same Core system but just with different layers of depth.

The only real question would be: What stat bonuses to use? RMC or RMFRP?

I would say RMFRP. THe reason is that you simply add it all together to get the total skill bonus, instead of taking the average of the bonuses. Much better math IMO.

[Wōdwulf Seaxaning]

I don't have my RM2 book with me but doesn't it have two types of bonuses that can be used ? If so, does RMC have it as well ? Why not just have RMSS/FRPG bonuses as a option in a RM Advanced book . You just use those instead of the ones in RMC to fit the RM Advanced style of play.That should work.Like having a optional expanded alternate Skill system that can replace the "standard" one in the core RMC book.With a appendix or EA that includes the Skills ( that are introduced in RMA) & their costs for the expanded RMC professions for use with RMC as a option.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I like the idea of having it be as flexible as possible. For my players and me, the charm of RM since 1981 has always been that your character is as individual as a fingerprint, and the old "Why can't I __________?" that D&D GMs had to put up with from their players magically disappeared. If you learned how, you can. Even if you didn't learn how, you are welcome to *try*, although I may not think much of your chances.
I figure the reason HARP hasn't replaced RM in its entirety is because there are still too many "anti-heroic" gamers out there who want their gritty realism. Well, the most fundamental part of realism is that no two people are alike, and that you become the person you *choose* to be. In a practical sense, there are as many "character classes" as there are players. To that end, I'd like to see a character generation/management system that allows you to choose how many areas of focus you have and where they are, and adjusts skill costs accordingly. That way the guy who always wants to create a character the system simply doesn't allow for (there's always one) is stymied. Once again, "Why can't I __________?" has an answer: You can, but you'll have to put up with balancing weaknesses just like everyone else.
Personally I'm thinking along the lines of a computer application of some sort. You highlight the areas you wish to be your strengths, and the program adjusts your skill costs accordingly and displays them in another window. The more areas you highlight, the more the entire skill set moves toward average costs. The fewer areas you highlight, the more things in your strong area are cheap and those outside it are expensive. When you are satisfied with your skill set, you go with that. What you call that character is up to you, but if you find yourself being burned at the stake by the local peasantry because you claimed your character profession was "Mega Uber God", don't whine to the GM about it. It's not his job to prevent you from learning from your stupidity.
Note that the hard part about this idea is judging "skill similarity". If you choose to have melee combat with bladed weapons as a strong point, how does that affect skinning and butchering an animal? Likewise, does the ability to throw fireballs affect your ability to get a campfire going *without* throwing one?
The bottom line is that it has to be kept real to keep us gritty realism junkies happy, but at the same time it has to be kept as simple as possible so keeping a decent pace to your game doesn't become an exercise in frustration. That's why where possible I'd like to have applications to keep the number crunching drudgery in the background.