Topic: Would Simplifying the Round speed up RM?

[Marc R]

I agree with your initial statements LM... it may prove a larger chart or reduce the actual color text too much for our tastes.

However, what I have been doing is trying to find a way to help create a simplified version that would go into a core book, thereby combating the stereotypes RM suffers by those not truly familiar with it.  My intention would be for them to expand things back out in an "Arms Law" or "Combat Companion" book later on.  So, it might HAVE to be a simpler version to start off with.  Then they could start presenting the 'expansions' to the new players that will be what the existing players would want and be waiting for.

Essentially I think RM needs to revisit what it was trying to do before with RMSS and RMFRP, but take it in a direction that is going to circumvent the misconceptions that people who don't play RM have about the game by simplifying the absolute basic core of the system to a point that most existing RM users will likely turn their noses up at it... UNTIL the expansions start to arrive which are done in a more thought out, organized, controlled manner.  i.e. no more expansion books without much effort put into consistent power level control to prevent proliferation or power creep.  Basically we need a core book that is a new version of the game system that rhymed with BURP (the game that shall not be named).  A gateway to the true RM.

The Catch22 here is that, in my opinion, to gain NEW players RM needs to have a simple "starter" point and overcome the criticism it has suffered in the past (deserved or not).  Then take the good aspects of all the past versions and products and mesh them together in a manner that is appealing to RM2/RMC and RMSS/RMFRP users alike.  The problem will be that us veteran RM users will need to accept that we are probably NOT going to like the initial release in such a revamp.

So, one of the biggest criticisms of RM has been the supposed number of rolls and charts.  I, personally, have no issue at all with these things and I think any gamer worth their salt shouldn't be blindly swallowing all the rhetoric that gets spouted about RM from people who haven't played it, let along even actually learned anything about it, in many cases.  But, I think if RM is to gain new players, its going to have to get over those hurdles regardless.

Cory,

I get that logic, of having a slimmed down combat system choice for people who want one, and you can find something like that in the RMX core book, which has a feel very similar to the game which should not be named.

That was only in the tabling simplifications though, I suspect if you really wanted to actually make a slim and easy version of RM combat that moved fast, the target to go after is phases and interruptions. . .a combat with 8 combatants vs 4 in RM takes 10x as long to resolve rather than 2x, because every combatant's each phased declaration can interrupt or change each action that comes after, causing a constant revising or changing of declarations as the round goes. . .

So if you really wanted a fast, easy, quick resolving RM, then run it out in classic AD&D initiative style rounds. . .

i.e
1) Declare OB/DB splits.
2) roll initiative
3) go in initiative order, where each person does ALL of their actions for the round in initiative order with no phases and no interuptions, you get and complete all your actions in a single block, then the next person does the same, etc, etc, in initiative order.

Now that would move way faster. You could also toss in RMX tables to get the simplest possible set of tables. . .but I bet if you tested it out, running all out full RMSS books and tables using the simple style round would go way faster than using classic RMSS rounds using the simplified RMX tables.

It's the round structure and granularity, with complicated actions broken into phases and the capacity for interruptions or interactions between declarations within that complex round that make RM rounds take a lot of time and give it a reputation for complexity.

[markc]

   IMHO yes it would dramatically eventhough you lose some detail. And IMHO it is the best way to speed up combat vs. the others that I have seen.
MDC

[vroomfogle]

I've gotten rid of the declaration phase, which I think speeds things up considerably.   With that removed the RMC round is much like your 4 steps, except there's that initial quick action phase. 

[Marc R]

The only really critical declaration that is really needed is OB/DB split, and that really needs to be made before initiative.

[markc]

   I am thinking about doing it the way Battletec does in that you have  the lowest init move up to the highest and then the highest init attacks first back down to the lowest.
   IMHO you can define some base movements for each player based on their own speed with penalties and do the computing before it needs to be done in combat.


MDC

[Marc R]

I've seen it played where all declarations were made in reverse order, then resolved in init order.

The move/attack issue goes back to a phased round. . .when you're looking for "dirt simple" you do wholistic rounds and just resolve everything at once for each combatant until done. . .beyond that it gets into smaller and smaller slices of the round via phases, be that 2, 3, 4 or whatever.

[Erik Sharma]

I have also noticed that removing the declaration phase really speeds up combat.

We normally play RMFRP/SS and have kept the 3 different phases without any problems. I just call out each phase in the beginning and the ones who wanna act in that phase let's me know and if not I just skip to the next phase and so on.

Regarding the OB/DB split we don't bother until a person gets attacked or attacks then he has to make the decision that sets the OB/DB for the rest of the round before the attack is resolved.

So far it has worked quite well.

Right now I am letting our current RMSS campaign rest (waiting for a very delayed order of RMSS book to replace the worn out ones I have) so I am running Rise of the Runelords (only the 2 first adventures) with HARP and I have done the same in HARP and it really did speed up the combat there too. Combined with using Hack & Slash the combats flows very nicely.

[Elton Robb]

I'm not getting rid of the Declaration phase in my games unless I'm dealing with 2 to 1 player.  Especially with my cousin playing in my games; until I fully understand how RM combat is ran.

Then I can start chucking the declaration phase.

[Marc R]

I wasn't actually advocating this change other than as a method of "simple play". . . if you wanted to bring a noob into RM in the simplest possible method, one of the easiest places would be this, run the round in a single action phase.

I happen to like the complexity of the overlapping actions of RMs multiple phases. . .I like the fact that when you go to run 20' and attack the goblin, sometimes someone chooses to get in your way, attack you en route, or the goblin runs off while you run to his location.

[markc]

I wasn't actually advocating this change other than as a method of "simple play". . . if you wanted to bring a noob into RM in the simplest possible method, one of the easiest places would be this, run the round in a single action phase.

I happen to like the complexity of the overlapping actions of RMs multiple phases. . .I like the fact that when you go to run 20' and attack the goblin, sometimes someone chooses to get in your way, attack you en route, or the goblin runs off while you run to his location.

  I use a roundless combat system that is perfect for this but right now the people I play with like rounds and have trouble grasping the roundless concept. Too much thinking for them. BTW it also solves a lot of other problems you talk about in the other thread.
MDC

[Cory Magel]

If I were making the perfect system for me (something we've already done to some extent) it would be very different than some of the things I would likely propose for a published system.  Take the Channeling Companion.  We had been using some of that material in our gaming group for years, we just had to readjust it for use with a more traditional RM.

I want a constant round (second by second) where a characters action takes a certain amount of time (modified by various things - quickness/dex and speed factor to name a couple, plus a variable roll to add a little randomness), space limitation considerations when performing actions (which would effect mainly combat really), more variety in criticals (crazy, I know) via weapon specific critical charts.  I want a piecemeal armor system, possibly with hit location.  I want spell casting professions to have nearly exclusive base lists as RM does (I don't like multiple spell casting professions sharing all their spell lists as it HARP).  In my opnion, these things will not result in a wildly complex game sytem so long as you have prepaired players.  Unfortunately when you describe all these things to either someone new, or worse yet someone from another game system, they can sound like a nightmare.  What I want would almost surely fail as a commercially successful game system because of the potential perceived complexness.

Now, granted, it will likely be a long time (if ever) before we see an official new version of RM.  But if we do, one of the big things it is going to have to overcome is misnomers and stereotypes, regardles of how much validity they have.  There's always the option to start a campaign (that would have to be huge in table top RPG terms) to educate gamers about RM... but I think we all know that's not going to happen.

[Marc R]

True, overcoming the reputation is a big hurdle. . .

But I suspect the complexity of the way a round unfolds even in RAW RMC or RMFRP is much of the problem. . . .rolling to hit, then rolling to crit is not that terribly different from rolling to hit and rolling damage. . .but interrupted movement resulting in your inability to attack the target you wanted and the bluff-or-raise logic of pre declared OB/DB stance are far more points that would confuse or scare off a noob IMO. . . .I think you could do a "Rolemaster for Noobs" game which would have "100% action in initiative order" and "Use the simplified RMX style attack/crit tables."

[Marc R]

(and default to 50/50 OB/DB stances). . .

Then let GMs layer on the added complexities from there.

[markc]

(and default to 50/50 OB/DB stances). . .

Then let GMs layer on the added complexities from there.

 I would give them some options like 75:25, 50:50 and 25:75. As this IMHO allows for some thinking on the part of the player and is easy to decide as there are only 3 to pick from.
MDC

[Marc R]

I think that might be a good weaning process.

Start them off on 50:50 default. . .once they get that down, offer them a menu of

100:0
50:50
0:100

Then after a bit take it up to full out choice. . .the problem with 75:25 and 25:75 is that apparently asking someone to divide by 4 then multiply by 3 is akin to asking for their first-born. . .they will begrudgingly try to remember how to divide by two, if you bribe them with pizza.

[markc]

    You do it with a calculator or a table and write it down on a sheet. Then they just have to look at the sheet and pick an option.
MDC

[TerryTee]

What I have found to really speed up combat is to organize the tables and charts you need in an efficient way.

I have made a folder that I mount at the edge of the table so that it sturdy and I can flip in it with one hand. It has three sections: General charts, Attack charts, Critical charts.
The charts are sorted alphabetically, and I use tabs/bookmarks to make it easy to open the correct page. General charts have tabs sticking out at the bottom of the pages, Attack chart tabs stick out on top and Critical chart tabs stick out at the side. This makes it easy to flip to the correct type of page (e.g. so when I go for a tab marked “C” I don’t mix up Club attack with Crush critical).
I have included a sketch of the thing, and I can really recommend this:-)

I have also made an electronic version that we use when we play online with out of town players (or the Gm can use at the regular table as well). It is simply a collection of the relevant charts sorted in a similar manner as the paper version. Three menus are presented, and the GM just picks what table he wants to see.

-Terry

[Cory Magel]

In our groups each player has their own folder with any table/chart they will commonly use.  Players should NOT commonly be reaching for a book to look something up.  If it's a commonly used part of the system for their character it should be in their folder and in front of them.

At minimum each player will use their own folder so that the open pages correspond. In order...

You have a two page characters sheet.  On the left your basic character info, on the right your combat sheet (CC's, PP's, Exhast Point if you use them, DB's, etc and ten rounds of action lines).
You have your skills (added up to your normal total in that skill before any outside modifiers).
You have each weapon or spell attack table you will commonly use and the corresponding critical chart needed for it.
You have your spell lists.
You have your item list and magic item descriptions.

Some players will have more, moving maneuver charts or whatever else they think they need.

[pastaav]

I think RMSS phases vs CEATS vs other combat system boils down into how you want decisions unfold. Interrupted actions might take time, but think about it like a movie. I have seldom seen a movie fight when each character pick their enemy and then stand and bash at each other until the enemy or themself are defeated.

All the good movie scenes contain switching of target, people being in danger and getting saved by their buddy or pure luck, people starting doing something and then aborting the action because someone else attacks them. Super short rounds, no interrupted actions and no overlapping actions is a fully valid combat style if you don't wanting it to feel like a good movie fight.

What RM lacks is good examples of how to execute the rule engine to reach different play styles.

The reputation of RM and especially the RMSS phases comes from people sitting down expecting combat systems to be a stupid "bash at your enemy until he is gone" and not ever trying to use the phases to their advantage. The phases of RMSS are senseless overhead if the player and GM doesn't try to use them to create drama. The same goes for second by second and every other init system I have seen.

I think the key is to pick a movie you like and then design the init system to match that movie. After this has been done for a couple of styles there is no harm to present them all to the GM and provide a guide about why he should pick either of them. The complexity of RM is all about giving good rules without explaining why they are good.

If I take an example I in my game have the houserule that stun only apply when you are engaged in combat. It takes one single round to clear any number of stun rounds if you are static and not need to defend. The good point with this rule is that players can aid their comrades. If they have the means they can provide their stun comrade cover and you both get a more movie like flow of the battle and more happy players since they don't have to miss loads of fun just because they suffered unlucky stun result. The bad points of this rule is that support characters like archers and spell users sometimes will always get one round max stun. On the whole I think it is a great rule and I am convinced that their are loads of similar rules that can be used to make the gamers think that the rule engine has no particular upkeep since everything there is are there from a purpose.

[markc]

   I also think it might be advantages to have 2 different combat systems one easier than the other. So one phased and the other no phased. Use the same example for each and have an expert example for each. Try and answer all combat problems that may arise in an expansion product like Arms Law or on a free PDF. (IE solve problem to make the game easy and drive sales.)
MDC