Forum > Rolemaster
Comment on "Cutting the Revision Knot"
Marc R:
I don't want to mess with this discussion, but offer a suggestion:
When someone who prefers RM2 points out the worst possible instance of how categories are broken, and uses it as an example of why they are a bad thing.
or
When someone who prefers RMSS points out the best possible instance of how categories work, and uses them as an example of why they are a good thing.
It gets an opinion on the table, but really offers no benefit in getting anywhere other than making it clear which camp you belong to.
On the other hand.
When someone who prefers RM2 points out the best aspects of categories, and addresses ways to use them, or get the same benefit in another way.
or
When someone who prefers RMSS points out the worst aspects of categories, and addresses how to work around that or fix it.
Then you're actually addressing the issues in a way where you might actually go somewhere.
Having everyone cheer the home team and boo the visitors is something we've done a million times before, and it never seemed to actually go anywhere or accomplish anything other than escalating until the thread gets locked.
In my opinion, if you can flip that on it's head, and instead focus on what you like best about your non preferred version, and what you like least about your preferred version, this thread might end in something more positive than a version brawl and a moderator lock out.
Moriarty:
I personally don't have a stricly preferred RM version, and we play with so many house rules in our RM games that it is debatable whether we are really playing a certain 'version' of RM.
Is the division of RM fans into two camps still relevant at all?
It seems to me that the difference between two aging incarnations of RM are small and insignificant considering the difficulties that lies ahead, if things are going to move forward.
Marc R:
I don't want to tread on people's talk.
But I've seen a lot of these "What I'd love to see" threads come and go. . .and usually when people focus on things in the game they play that they would change, things go well. . .when they start defending their version, it seems harmless enough, but it invites criticism in reply. One the negativity starts, flames start to flicker, rudeness follows, then the moderators lock it.
Like any RM2 player touting the perfection of the RM2 similar skill mechanism, that's so perfect there's no justification in even suggesting it might have any issues worth fixing.
or
Any RMSS player touting the perfection of the RMSS category system, that's so perfect there's no justification in even suggesting it might have any issues worth fixing.
Both of those statements are positive ones, unlikely to get the thread locked. . .but they're like throwing buckets of blood into shark infested waters, and will draw people to post to the contrary. . .which starts the negative spiral toward flame war.
At least, I've seen it happen before. . .hence this comment.
David Johansen:
Absolutely, one thing I notice is nobody argues much about the different turn sequences :D
But that's why I think we have to have it both ways in any potential revision. Really it's not that hard if the system is initially designed with that intent. What makes it hard with RMSS is that there's not enough consistancy in the culture and training packages and that there's combined progression skills with odd numbered costs. "No bloody hanging fractions," that's my motto.
A standing joke with new players in my games is "Whatever you do don't look at the category sheet." Though I usually make PCs to spec for new players and let them tinker afterward.
smug:
It seems to me -- from the 3.5-Pathfinder/4e wars as much as the RMSS/FRP vs RM2/C discussions -- that because the versions are in many respects pretty different, it's harder to see how we could synthesise something from both in terms of merging content and ideas. Some people do play both, but plenty of others have strong preferences.
Obviously, a fair amount of RMSS was in RM2 as options, although it was piecemeal in RM2 and properly integrated in RMSS. However, I think that a "RM Version Y did X really well" is really only one step away, by implication, from saying "RM Version Z did X pretty poorly" and it just takes a little longer for the arguments to start. One thing I had thought, by the time I mostly stopped posting here, was that the two sides had at least acknowledged that the versions were different, and both accepted that both versions were going to continue to exist, so that the heat had gone out of it somewhat.
Also, I thought I was almost the only person that actually likes similar skills...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page