Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: tbigness on January 21, 2016, 01:41:42 PM
-
After Beta testing the RMU system, I took a break and went back to doing a game sessions with RMSS/FRP and found a few opinions of this system in comparison:
RMSS System now feels:
-Character creation is easier as the material is mostly in the same area
-Characters are playable at first and second level with skills averaging 45-60
-Love the talents and flaws book
-Love the Training Packages with possible starting Items
-Took the advise of others and went to 100 DP's made character creation better for all classes
-Everyman skills are great for lower level characters but may not be necessary
-Love the upfront Professional bonuses for skill categories as they make a huge difference
-Professions seem more diverse in a sense but more specialized vs. other professions than RMU
-After playing around with the RMU combat, it felt good to go back to the Percent system and 3 phase combat (Snap, Normal, Deliberate)
-Combat was smoother and sticky combat was not even a worry or issue
-Using Combat Minion made the process and time for combat look like warp speed vs. normal without
-Disappointed in the Spell List with no spells at each level like in RMU
-Disappointed in the Spell Ritual definition vs RMU Spell Law
-Still hate the Exhaustion system and won't use it
-Encumbrance and how much a person can lift is not really defined. Use a rule in an old RM Companion for base lifting weight
-Love not having to be prepared a head of time with leveling monsters for random encounters. Using Creatures and Treasures of old is better overall for fast encounters for most of my campaigns, I need the info fast and ready without deciphering all the jargon of what a creature can do and what tables to use
-Love the Resistance Roll Chart for magic. It is easier to look up and no confusion for what is needed to save like in RMU, which was a nightmare and I am still confused on what is needed to resist
-Love having magic items ready to go for encounters or treasure without having to try and recreate the wheel and make what your looking for
I am OK with some complexity but I am not a numbers guy who needs physics to enjoy a game. There is not getting up to speed and how long it would take to go from a walk to a dash with me. That is a complexity for number crunchers and not needed in my games. I also don't need to invent the wheel on all aspects of creatures and treasure. Unique items now and again is fine but I need things as they happen.
I am not looking to penalize everything down to the weight of underwear to use a skill or ability such as (encumbrance, organic/inorganic material, exhaustion, Low PP or Hits) to make the game fun and playable the injuries do enough of that in the first place and the rest is just number crunching to penalize the players which at low levels makes them not very playable at all.
I got into the game from the critical charts and then the spell list concept, not the complexity of every aspect. I believe the combat system needs to be simple, challenging, easy to comprehend and fast of play per round. Obviously I house rule this entire area because the combat rules are way too complex for me and my players. The old Pathfinder round is actually a better model in my opinion but I do follow the percent combat system as written.
As far as the spell system I actually like the HARP spell system better. I would like to see a Hybrid system of HARP spell scalability with the RM Spell List. This would give lists less spells but the spells can be modified on the spot and instead of the individual spell development of HARP, you would use the list development system as to how many PP can be used with all spells on the list such as:
Fire Law
1 Lighter
2 Heat Object
3. Fire Emulsion
4. wall of fire
1 Lighter - Creates a 6 inch flame from ones hand to light an area as a small torch. Can be used to light a fire and will cause an A Heat Critical -20. Duration 1 min/LVL Range 6 inches.
-Increase range +2 PP / increiment 1'/5'/10' max
-Increase Heat +2 PP/ +5 bonus (Max +20)
-Increase Severity +4 PP Delivers B Heat Crit -20
2 Heat Object- Increase the heat of an object up to 110 degrees at a rate of 1 degrees per second. at Higher than 110 can cause an A Heat crit -30. Duration Concentration Range Touch
-Increase Range +2 / increment (5'/10'/20'/50' max)
-Increase heat range +3 / 5 degrees (max 200) (+5 crit bonus/ 10 degree change)
3 Fire Emulsion- Body become as lit on fire in a 1' radius. This does not affect the caster or his equipment. Contact with caster will cause an A Heat crit. Touching objects other than on person will cause them to lite on fire as per fire starting rules. Duration 1 min / LVL, Range Self
-Increase Heat +2 / +5 bonus (max +30)
-Increase Severity B Heat +5
-Increase Severity C Heat +10
-Increase Severity D Heat +20
-Increase Severity E Heat +40
-Increase area of effect +5 / 5' radius
4 Wall of Fire- Create a 10' x 10' x 1' wall of fire. This wall is semi-opaque and cuts vision by 80% through the wall. Any attack through the wall is at -100 and if used by a melee attack will receive a B Heat Crit and flammable items may be ignited on fire. Duration 1 min / LVL Range 20'
-Increase Dimension of Wall +2 PP / 5 x 10 x 1 addition
-Circle of Flame 15' radius +5 PP
-Increase Circle Radius +2 PP / 5' radius
-Increase Severity B Heat +5
-Increase Severity C Heat +10
-Increase Severity D Heat +20
-Increase Severity E Heat +40
-Increase range +5 PP / 20 ' range addition
With these four spells many combinations can be made from the scaling that would replace missing or otherwise scaling of spells currently listed such as Sleep V, Sleep VII ect...
The more Ranks put into the list the more scaling options one can use such as:
10 ranks in Fire Law (above) one could have: 5' flamethrower at B Heat -20
Lighter 1 PP
5' increment 4 PP
B severity 4 PP
or
Circle of Flame 15' Radius
Any way I am coming up with many spell revisions such as this but will take some time to finish.
In conclusion to my lengthy post, it will be hard for me to switch to RMU if all the features are not at least close or become better presented in the system. I like RMSS and have used it since it came out in the revised edition in the 90's. I hope they keep some of the elements and don't make the system a numbers crunch like most on these forums continue to post as the system should be fun but crunching how fast a person can go with increments of speed and cost of AP per round per increment x the BRM = disaster and you lost me and my players attention at increments. Keep it simple and have good character creation tools (background, talents, flaws, training packages) and I will be happy with the system. Until then RMSS will be there for me and my players.
-
+1, I am also hoping for improvements in some areas.
-
Thanks for the feedback. While I think some of your findings are due to comfort and knowledge of the rules (not needing to look things up and such), I do think you have some interesting points, and I hope the designers will review your comments with an open mind.
Thanks!
-
-Love not having to be prepared a head of time with leveling monsters for random encounters. Using Creatures and Treasures of old is better overall for fast encounters for most of my campaigns, I need the info fast and ready without deciphering all the jargon of what a creature can do and what tables to use
I don't understand this part: you have tables at the end of the RMU Creature Law if all you need is a default creature. Why the need "to be prepared a head (sic.) of time with leveling monsters for random encounters"? It's not as if you could level up monsters without preparing ahead of time in RM2/RMSS either (though, admitted, there was little reason to do so, considering they would only gain some few OB and hits...)
-
I have tried to use the tables in the RMU Creature book and it was hard to decipher the stats and creature abilities. I could not just pull them out and use them, I had to look everything up and this slowed play down tremendously. A simple page with stats, creature abilities and treasure code is perfect.
-
OK, so it sounds like formatting needs work, and perhaps focusing on the standard version of each creature with the modification support as a secondary option, or even in a second book allowing for GMs to customize the creatures...
-
OK, so it sounds like formatting needs work, and perhaps focusing on the standard version of each creature with the modification support as a secondary option, or even in a second book allowing for GMs to customize the creatures...
I think it might go a little beyond that Thom. I think the problem is the talents. It was a noble idea to try to balance everything in the game via talents, giving each creature a set of them that explained and balanced their special abilities. But the implementation is in many cases too complex: creatures simply have too many talents. A simple Horse (Wild), for example, has a dozen talents, literally. I certainly can't remember them all, and I guarantee that my players won't. It is even going to be difficult simply write them on paper, and to include them all in the stat block (just from a formatting/layout perspective).
I'm not sure what the solution is, but it seems that this is a level of complexity that some groups will find overkill and will make it hard to create and especially print the Creature Law book. In many cases, RMU seems to be working hard to streamline the rules and make them easier to use; but Creature Law is much harder to use than its RM2 equivalent.
Much the same could be said of Treasure Law.
I think it is important that RMU take a consistent approach to the idea of the complexity of the rules. Is the goal to streamline things and make them easier to use? Then the decision to go to a category system for skills is understandable, but Creature Law and Treasure Law are not. Is the desire to maintain complexity to distinguish RMU from other systems and give it a unique appeal? Then Creature and Treasure Law are fine, but Character Law is going to need some work.
-
tbigness,
Thank you for giving us an overview of what you have seen. May i ask the make up of you play test group? Were they all RM veterans? The reason I ask is that mine is not and I had some issues getting over the "This is not like Pathfinder..." mind set and I was wondering how you handled that.
-BP
-
OK, so it sounds like formatting needs work, and perhaps focusing on the standard version of each creature with the modification support as a secondary option, or even in a second book allowing for GMs to customize the creatures...
I think it might go a little beyond that Thom. I think the problem is the talents. It was a noble idea to try to balance everything in the game via talents, giving each creature a set of them that explained and balanced their special abilities. But the implementation is in many cases too complex: creatures simply have too many talents. A simple Horse (Wild), for example, has a dozen talents, literally. I certainly can't remember them all, and I guarantee that my players won't. It is even going to be difficult simply write them on paper, and to include them all in the stat block (just from a formatting/layout perspective).
I'm not sure what the solution is, but it seems that this is a level of complexity that some groups will find overkill and will make it hard to create and especially print the Creature Law book. In many cases, RMU seems to be working hard to streamline the rules and make them easier to use; but Creature Law is much harder to use than its RM2 equivalent.
Much the same could be said of Treasure Law.
I think it is important that RMU take a consistent approach to the idea of the complexity of the rules. Is the goal to streamline things and make them easier to use? Then the decision to go to a category system for skills is understandable, but Creature Law and Treasure Law are not. Is the desire to maintain complexity to distinguish RMU from other systems and give it a unique appeal? Then Creature and Treasure Law are fine, but Character Law is going to need some work.
I am with you... having played a significant role in the HARP updates, specifically on the monster updates, I really like the idea of building everything from the same structure from the ground up - but I fully hear your concern. Using the horse as an example, the horse has a whole bunch of talents (abilities) that a normal average human does not, but there are also a lot of things that the horse is not capable of (speech, high level intellect, etc.). The baseline may need to be brought down to the Family level, which would then provide certain base abilities/weaknesses - and then build from there with development points.
-
I am OK with some complexity but I am not a numbers guy who needs physics to enjoy a game. There is not getting up to speed and how long it would take to go from a walk to a dash with me. That is a complexity for number crunchers and not needed in my games.
If you go with a simple turn (counting down 4 AP at a time), you could simply dispense with the acceleration/deceleration rules, and allow creatures simply to move up to their BMR x Pace each round. E.g., for 0 AP they can move up to BMR; for 1 AP up to 2x BMR; for 2 AP up to 3x BMR, etc.
-
The baseline may need to be brought down to the Family level, which would then provide certain base abilities/weaknesses - and then build from there with development points.
That might work. You might run into some of the same problems that you run into with the category system though: i.e., if all animals in a family have the same talents, you might find that some animals have to be given talents that don't really fit. But it might be worth trying, if it makes Creature Law easier to use and print.
-
I think to have the basic elements of a creature family in one setting and then expanding it individually as a specific talent for the breed would go far in my opinion.
Having the base for Feline traits that support all Felines then in the individual creature description capture the other traits or talents such as Cheetah having increased speed or the Leopard climbing with a carcass ability would separate the animal from the species nicely.
-
tbigness,
Thank you for giving us an overview of what you have seen. May i ask the make up of you play test group? Were they all RM veterans? The reason I ask is that mine is not and I had some issues getting over the "This is not like Pathfinder..." mind set and I was wondering how you handled that.
-BP
Two of the players were veteran RM players for years, but have played multiple systems besides. The others have played other systems but pretty new to RPG's. I am very instructional and ask questions on what they would like to do or give hints that things can be done. I find that once someone is invested in their character from creation that the will to play is high. Then put them through a tutorial of how skills are used and a combat situation with hints as to what can be done during a turn (I use the Percent based round). By the time the critical tables are read out they are hooked.
I just ensure I include different things to keep their attention and add or take out different rolls for skill use. Anything other than routine gets a roll otherwise does not need one (unless I feel comical at the time). Combat Minion has helped alot with the pace of combat and table/book use so my games run faster and less referencing to boot. I just judge the pace of the game by the story and mood of the players and give options. I don't play killer GM but don't let anyone get away with out feeling the effects of stupidity either.
Basically it comes down to keeping the game concepts simple and easy and involve the players. I tell then they don't need to know all the rules, that is my job. :D
-
Thank you for the info.
My group is all over the board, but long time RP players with two exceptions.
I actually am using the RMU AP round, but I am using it where you tell me what you are doing and we more or less spend AP through the round. So it someone does something that costs 3 Ap, the affects of someone else's 1 AP action might go before them. A bit of a blending of the Ap based turn and the percentage turn.
-
That was what I was using before going back to the percentage based. I use the Snap, Normal and Deliberate actions along with the percentage. This allows for quicker actions or more deliberate with the penalties or bonuses based on that action.
-
The percentage method seems to much like "Calculus" in the game to me. While it worked well of I was using a Combat Computer Program to keep track it was just too difficult on a sheet of paper.
During the game we are telling a story, i try not to let the system get in the way. But i like the ability to ask..."Give me a Research Skill test with a concentration in Engineering to see if the modification to the catapult should work..." And turning to another character in the same downtime event at the Inn ..."Give me a Medicine test to see if the sutures in Bob will hold and help him heal..." I hope both characters feel they made differences and moved the story along with their different abilities.
-
For me the central problem with the talents is the absolute number of them. That's why I worry a bit about talking about families getting a certain core of talents: You would then have talents by family (all felines have night vision and other) and then by individual (lions have special attacks or whatever). That wouldn't necessarily reduce the absolute number of talents.
Say what you want about Dungeon and Dragons 4th edition (and I know a lot of people hated it), but they did a good job of giving each creature about 3 different combat-related abilities/powers that made the monsters feel more unique. I think ideally you want to shoot for about 3 to 5 talents. Less than 3 means the monsters become more like they are in 5th edition DnD, which is largely just sacks of hitpoints with little differentiation in the way the fight; more than 5 means you simply can't remember them all. So for me the sweet spot is around 3-5, and of those, I would prioritize talents that have an affect on combat.
-
The percentage method seems to much like "Calculus" in the game to me. While it worked well of I was using a Combat Computer Program to keep track it was just too difficult on a sheet of paper.
My group is the same. Percentages involves too much math for them, which is why I went to an action point system.
-
Well seeing that I never took Calculus then I understand more than I thought. I just ask for what are you doing and then get a percentage of action, any left over they can start a new action that bleeds over to the next round percentage. I do like the AP system but with modifications to 5 AP's to represent time based activities. But the whole problem with clash of arms and movement and penalizing everything gave a bad taste. So I went back to what I know and already used successfully keep the venturing going.
-
Reading.
The gist I get is a "basic" model of creature. Additional XP is only gained by "age" of the creature.
No problem. Have standard "age" ranges such as Newborn, Young, Juvenile, Early, Elder, Middle, Old, Ancient.
All creatures go through these stages, especially mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, et. al.
Insectoids deviate greatly in having Egg, Larval, Nymph (if), Adult.
Mollusks may also deviate. Protozoa definitely do. Protozoa are basically binary. They exist or they don't.
Companion "creatures" DO earn XP. Regardless. Some can even learn certain things to do when a certain "thing" is done, such as a tongue click followed by a certain whistle. The companion animal then does those "things" trained to do.
Some can even learn "spoken" commands, such as "regaltha" meaning to "take point and protect."
Thus, yes, give us a table showing a more divisional separation between the "age" of a creature; rather than, giving us a "how to build a creature from scratch." Add that in a supplement.
rmfr
-
Isn't this the wrong place to be discussing this?
Move to a RMU board.
rmfr
-
I was really hoping for a newer Magic system with the new edition of RM. With the onset of HARP and the way they have gone to individualize spells and make the spells scale in usability made me actually contemplate changing spell systems to the HARP way. The lack of organized lists became an issue as the HARP spells would then need to be classified as OPEN, CLOSED, BASE and Other for developmental purpose and the DP cost became an issue. I was hoping for a combination or mix of the systems for a NEW edition using the best of both worlds. Instead the spell systems stays the same with filling in the blank slots which is better than the other editions but more of the same thing we all know.
-
I was disappointed in the combat system as it sounded great but the mechanics had too many factors that unsettled the concept of combat (Action vs. Time of Action). Sticky combat or clash of arms became a huge issue that the community is still confused about and either needs to be scrapped or be redeveloped. Older version combat was at least competent in any system with clear rules for each action with the GM as the deciding factor. The new system puts subjective in with action and makes the decision unclear as to the appropriate action and becomes mostly a judgement call in most cases. A more appropriate system may be a 5 AP or second by second system that forgoes the standard round. This would give the devil in the details look at what is going on in combat and make it more fluid. A second option would be to make the round by AP which was suggested in other forums.
-
Character development is very weak in the system as there is no benefit to having a profession be designed for an archetype character. One can play a ranger type character with a Ranger, Rogue, Thief, Fighter, Laborer, and Druid. In most cases the only difference in the make up is weather a player wants spells or not. I know the goal is to make the professions more diverse but it has blurred the lines between professions greatly.
Limiting the professions to only get the "Professional Bonus" in 10 skills is very limiting vs the skill bonus in skill "Categories" as previous editions. The bonus at first level is too low to matter anyway. The use of "Knacks" is ok but is limited to 2 or 4 if using the higher power levels. This could be cut out in my opinion as it is like a talent in the other editions or could be applied to the 10 skills as the Professional bonus and then the professional bonus can be applied to categories. This I would support. The issue is 1st through 3rd level characters are almost laughable with the incompetence in being played at those bonus levels.
-
Character development is very weak in the system as there is no benefit to having a profession be designed for an archetype character. One can play a ranger type character with a Ranger, Rogue, Thief, Fighter, Laborer, and Druid. In most cases the only difference in the make up is weather a player wants spells or not. I know the goal is to make the professions more diverse but it has blurred the lines between professions greatly.
Limiting the professions to only get the "Professional Bonus" in 10 skills is very limiting vs the skill bonus in skill "Categories" as previous editions. The bonus at first level is too low to matter anyway. The use of "Knacks" is ok but is limited to 2 or 4 if using the higher power levels. This could be cut out in my opinion as it is like a talent in the other editions or could be applied to the 10 skills as the Professional bonus and then the professional bonus can be applied to categories. This I would support. The issue is 1st through 3rd level characters are almost laughable with the incompetence in being played at those bonus levels.
Some of the things you have problems with are changing, so we need to see exactly how this all shakes out. But I agree with you on several points, most notably:
--The boundaries between classes have been blurred, especially in the categories of Crafting, Lore, and Vocational skills, where the costs are very similar for all members of an archetype (Arms, Semi, Pure spell).
--First level characters are very weak. This is the first edition of RM in which I am seriously contemplating not starting at level 1.
-
To it makes no sense to start out higher than level one to start a game. If a level one character cannot survive reasonably with a low level encounter then there is an issue and that needs to be addressed. This was done in RMSS with training packages, Everyman/Occupational skills, Professional bonuses front loaded, ECT.... This did not diminish the game and by the time a character got to 10th level it evened out with non-front loaded basics due to diminishing returns and bonus points per level for professional skills in RMC.
-
I generally agree, but I do think that some groups might actually like the challenge of starting out at level 1 (the 'Fantasy Vietnam' approach).
I suggest that RMU might add another column on the Power Level chart (11-1, on p. 106) to advise that people start at different levels depending on the campaign's power level. Thus the recommended starting levels would be:
Average 1
Superior 2
Heroic 3
Legendary 4
Epic 5
It isn't as good as having level 1 be more viable, but at least it would give more guidance to groups that just assume they start at level 1.
-
I also like the Martial Arts in RMSS better than any other edition. With the Martial Arts Companion, the Warrior Monks, Monks and Fighter Types get unique ways of becoming more unique. As a GM I can also identify areas in my world where certain styles are used whether it be Martial Arts or Weapon styles. This makes a big impact in my world as the Kung Fu styles vs. other form styles or Weapon Styles are different in each area. It gives quest ideas to achieve the learning of different styles or scrolls of learning to teach the styles. This also give Fighters opportunity to have increased effects or capabilities for using weapon styles and gives players a willingness to research different styles through game play.
-
Is there anything that would prevent the Martial Arts Companion from being adapted into RMU, as an expansion?
-
As far as I can tell they have striped all the martial arts from the previous editions out and used the skills as talents (Adrenal Defense). They are trying to trim the amount of skills so why they did not include the Style skills for weapons and martial arts is very disappointing. Again the professions do not reflect the previous editions for martial arts as they are now in the combat category rather than martial arts category so any profession can get them as cheap as monks and warrior monks. There is no increase for martial arts specialty damage even if it was divided in ranks like the old rank 1-4 developed individually or by martial art styles that have limits on the ranks based on style most often rank 2-4. Everyone does the same table damage no matter the expert in the skill or profession. So they really should take out the monk and warrior monk from the list of professions as they are not even specialized enough to matter any more.
-
I hope that some kind of fighting styles get added in a future companion. I thought they added some good depth. One limitation in the MAC was that you really had to start training your selected fighting style from the beginning. I would rather something that gives the Arms characters new directions to start developing later on in their careers. The design of the combat expertise skills works well for that, maybe the fighting styles can take some inspiration there.
None of that was core in RMSS either, of course.
-
One limitation in the MAC was that you really had to start training your selected fighting style from the beginning. I would rather something that gives the Arms characters new directions to start developing later on in their careers.
I think this is more a reflection of how skill ranks are developed by level. In concert with requiring time per rank, I allow rushed development, say lvlx2, so the eighth level pc could train 16 ranks right away if willing to spend the dev and time.
-
That's one solution -- as a house rule in RM2/RMSS and a listed optional rule in RMU. But it comes from the need to keep the fighting style at the same level as the OB skill. The combat expertise skills in RMU don't require that matching, once you have developed one sufficiently there is a point where you don't need to develop it any more, freeing up points to learn something different. Unlike OB skills where there is always a reason to keep putting points in.
-
For me the big issue is the uniqueness of the professions in all RM editions have a set difference (monks had MA skills and Adrenal Defense cheap, Fighters had heavy armor and more weapon skills cheap, rouges the jack of all trades for fighter-thieves, Thieves had stealth and deadly arts, Rangers had animal control and outdoor skills, Magents had stealth and poisons, Bards had music and entertainment as well as influence, and the Mages all had their own specialties. In RMU this is not so as there is very little to differentiate each of these professions from the rest.
-
I'm not sure it's worth complaining about things that we already know are going to be changed.
-
The last comment was that they were going to keep the bases of the Professions in RMU the same as the Beta 2 with a few tweeks. That is not the same as having a template that is different for each profession. At lower levels there is not much separation except with the Knacks. After 10th level the Knacks are almost invisible but the Professional bonuses will have a greater effect. Still at low levels there is not much difference between most like professions.
-
Normally I tend to write a lot... but I'm going to try and simply touch on my overall thought on the various versions and how the fans behave in their preference of them. There there are definitely specific parts of RMU I highly dislike, I want to cover broadly rather than get into specifics here.
There are things I like about RMU compared to RMSS and things I don't like. Now, there is a balance of one over the other that sways more towards RMSS in general, however if that were not the case there's still a serious issue that I think needs to be overcome for RMU to pull the RM2 and RMSS users in in the numbers desired and that is...
RM is, I think most of us will agree, traditionally a veterans game and started as a piecemeal system that you assembled to fit your tastes. While it evolved so did the users, creating their own version of RM. If they didn't like something they used one of the published options or created their own material/rules/design. So a lot of people that started with RM2 didn't really NEED to move to RMSS. We had used RM1/RM2 material to modify D&D over the years, moved from D&D to MERP, then when RMSS was just coming out we decided to go to RM fully. We looked at both systems and saw that RMSS was going to be easier to learn as a full system as RM2 was scattered and bloated (and unbalanced in some cases). From that point we then went through the same evolution that RM1/RM2 players did, if to a slightly lesser degree because RMSS was not so piecemeal. But in the end we find ourselves in the same position RM1/RM2 users did when RMSS came out. Is there a enough good reason for us to buy into the new version?
Let's just say I liked 50% of RMSS and I like 50% of RMU. I've fixed the 50% of RMSS I didn't like. RMU now has to not only meet my version of RMSS, it has to improve upon it. It has to do that for all its target demographic and its target demographic all have different ideas of what the 'perfect' system is like... so you can't possibly accomplish that goal. This is why RM lost a lot of its users going from RM2 to RMSS and why I think it will lose a lot of RMSS users in going to RMU. The first post in this thread is a good look at how one, of many different possible players styles, viewpoint is going to compare the versions. The basic comparison, then the comparison of how they've modified their own version. I think if RM intends to become a product capable of supporting a true company it needs to forget about the old customers and focus on new ones and RMU, in my opinion, does NOT do that. Of course, then we get into if that's even possible these days... but I digress.
-
That is a good rendition of some of my thoughts as I went through MERP, RM 1, RM 2, and RMSS/FRP. Although I generally went with the newer version as it was coming out with high anticipation for learning a new system. I was the same with the Beta testing but I feel it was not to my liking with many of the components. Although like you, I do like many portions of the system in general. I like the consolidation of the skills instead of 6 different one to do many slight different effects such as with Medicine skills. The character gen had some issues for me but the movement and combat sequence was a stickler. The Creature and Treasure laws looked to needing a degree to decipher simple creatures or items from them. The overall feel of it was kinda disappointing. I will probably get it anyway but will house rule almost too many features to justify the cost of the new system in my opinion. But that is me coming from a piece meal system from the beginning to now.
-
Yeah, that was a pretty good description of my own evolution as a RM player. My group never made the jump to RMSS because we despised things like the category system and training packages (which looked too much like DnD for us).
For me, one of the advantages a new version has is that it will be fully supported, with new adventures, new tools, and nicely formatted new books. No one will have to go searching on Ebay for that one splatbook no one has. So that's a big plus for my group.
To me, the existential question for RMU right now is whether to simplify or to retain a high degree of complexity. Simplification will make the system more accessible to new players, but obviously turn some of the grognards off (I consider myself a grognard, but generally favor simplicity when it can be achieved without too much damage). In any case, I think RMU needs to choose one or the other, either simplicity or complexity, or risk getting the worst of both worlds: Character Law leans towards simplification, whereas Creature and Treasure Law favor complexity.
-
Although like you, I do like many portions of the system in general.
(Referencing RMU)
Oh yeah, there are things I really like about RMU. Profession bonuses moved back to more like RM2 for example. I love that the spell lists were redone to fill in all the blanks, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to use them with RMSS due to the nature of some of the ways some spells now work (like Haste). I'm just going to have to see how easy those 'fixes' would be and ensure the rest doesn't throw the overall balance off. There are even things I think were the right way to go that I personally wouldn't use, like combined skills. I prefer the RMSS system, but I think combined is the right way to go for a new version as it addresses something RM2 users didn't like about RMSS, isn't all that big a deal to RMSS users, is easily modified anyhow, and best of all... a little simpler for new users. Although a reasonable argument can be made it's still somewhat like RMSS when you start talking about specializations.
However, most the stuff l like about RMU are things we'd already done with 'our' RMSS, hence the problem of getting people like me to change over. The bigger issue is the things I don't like that can't easily be fixed. RM2 and RMSS are fairly convertible. I don't think RMU is, which may potentially result in losing even 'partial' buyers, but we'll have to see what the final product looks like.
Still, in the end, if I liked both equally well why change? To support the 'cause'? That's no business model.
-
I think if RM intends to become a product capable of supporting a true company it needs to forget about the old customers and focus on new ones and RMU, in my opinion, does NOT do that. Of course, then we get into if that's even possible these days... but I digress.
I think this is very true. If we all move over then that is a bonus. In marketing we always say that it is always easiest to sell more to an existing customer than it is to find a new customer. You cannot have a business model based upon the idea of exploiting an existing user base. You must actively seek out new users. Once you have new customers then you can up sell all you like.
-
I will give RMU credit for trying to introduce the Size system into the game. I may not have liked it much as a character build issue, but for spells it would work wonderfully. This would allow like the shock bolt, lower level (1-3rd) elemental spells on the same charts as the normal spells, except with lower results and effects. One of the things that always frustrated me about the spells in RM is except the Magician's Shock Bolt, there was no low level damage spells. With the Size rules these can now be customized as with the same as the shock bolt which would allow for mini- fire, Ice, earth (pebbles) bolts at said (1-3 level). RM has one of the weakest mage type characters at lower level than any other system beyond the Wind Law or Spirit Mastery spell list. that is disappointing to me and adding these would do wonders for the system (Much like HARP) has done.
-
My players do spell research to create those 1st & 2nd level combat spells.
-
Well in the flavor of the core rules and new players there is little to no thought of spells research. A core system should have things like this from the beginning as some of the spells at lower level are really lame and could have better uses in the list slots. Earth law especially is the worst of the bunch. Beginning characters should not be adequately experienced enough to conduct spell research until they achieve a certain amount of knowledge within a list (10 Ranks my guess) and also attain the research skill at an adequate level to be successful (unless rolling really good) as any research should be very hard or worse in the first place.
-
Old RM2 stuff and some of the RMSS/RMFRP expansion books introduced lower level attack spells. There are various factors in using them which may require some customization depending on the GM/Group/Setting. We've converted a LOT of stuff from RM1/RM2 over to RMSS. Quite often I'll just take an old RM2 list and rebuild it. Moving spells up or down and filling in the blanks.
I was looking forward to at least the spell lists from RMU (there's not much else left that's very compatible), but I've become more concerned that the tweaking of how some of the spells work in RMU is going to make them more problematic to back-covert to RMSS than pulling stuff forward from RM2 has been. So unless they introduce something I've never seen in previous RM's or haven't come up with myself they may end up not being a very viable resource for new material.
-
I am still working on a Hybrid RM/Harp spell system where a spell list has similar based spells that are Like RM with the spells being customization like RM. There are around 15-20 spells on the list with a base cost in ranks that can be tweaked. The Ranks developed in the list limit the amount of customization a spell can go through at the time and adjust the PP based on adjustments. So a level 6 Firebolt that goes an extra 50' would cost 7 or 8 PP rather than the 6 PP but the Fire Law list also has to have 7 or 8 ranks for this to work. In essence I took all the versions of the spell and made them as tweaks to the original spell. A Sleep X is a tweak to the original Sleep V spell so why list it multiple times when you can have it Scale.
This can also allow stand alone spells to exist out side of list that can also scale by developing the individual spell at a reduced cost. This would be good for cantrips or Training Package or specialty spells that are without a proper list.
-
I do miss the Druid spell Stones Throw, which was a directed spell that scaled depending on level. The lowest level attack (level 1 spell) maxxed out at a 'small' attack, then level 4 gave you a medium attack, 7 a large, etc.
The same Druid list (Stone Mastery) had other fun spells too:
--Magic Rock (a little rock that bursts/explodes on impact);
--Spike stones (AoE damage;
--Stone Elemental summons;
--and at higher levels, Petrification.
It was such a fun and flavorful list. A real shame they didn't include it in RMU.
-
I am still working on a Hybrid RM/Harp spell system where a spell list has similar based spells that are Like RM with the spells being customization like RM.
I suspect you mean that second "RM" to be "HARP". I really like the idea of adapting the HARP scaling mechanic to RM, but in order to keep the uniqueness of Base lists you're going to have to do a LOT of work.
-
I've tried such conversion of RM spell lists to a system of combining spell lists with scalable spells (http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2011/jan/rmss_jahnke_scalable_spells.html) some time ago. Overall I think the amount of work is acceptable. And it creates a wide variety of spell, that way perhaps also reducing the necessity for filling all empty spell list slots.
-
I have already converted 15 list this way. I think Combining the Healing list will make the Healer or Lay Healer more effective in the long run and wound dominate DP for list or PP to heal.
-
Overall I like the HARP healing spells better and an all encompassing Joining and Regeneration spell would be better than the current system of having all the list to cast a Joining spell as this would be like 28-35 PP (I can't remember how many systems needed this spell to be successful 4 or 5). Gritty is one thing but a fantasy game is my reality and would like for it to keep the adventure going rather than extended recovery time for PC's.