Topic: The Crown is Dead, Long Live the Crown Announcement

[WoeRie]

Ever heard of HARP? Maybe that's what you are talking about?

A redesign... YES
a new name... YES
a new controlling group... at least a new designer (Tim), so YES

[naphta23]

Frankly, I have all I need for my Rolemaster campaigns. I use nearly all books and those numerous articles found on the Guildcompanion - I do not have the need for new material, I do not miss anything really important. RM FRP is pretty complete, offering all my group needs.

Still, it would be quite nice to have some new material, I would buy it anyway, even if I do not really need it. Thus, I would not be utterly and permanently down, should RM FRP be dropped. Mind you, I still would hope for some articles on the Guildcompanion.

I do not know if a new Revision, a new Rolemaster or a completely new system would solve the problem. The authors of any RPG have to compete against countless MMORPG, with many of them being jolly great games - a new game would have to make itself known and attractive. Rolemaster has a name for itself already. Perhaps not with the best reputation, but hey, if I tell somebody about Rolemaster, they have at least an idea.
Plus, there are countless independent RPG for free, just look around the internet and choose the most appealing.

In my opinion, it is very, very important to keep the old products available. Whenever we have new players, we try to convince them to buy material.

Why not offering a platform, where various campaign worlds are offered? Made by players and gamemasters, offered for free, forum included? 

[frnchqrtr]

The idea that matters most is removing the excessive number of charts in the game.

One man's excess is another man's robustness.   

[Marc R]

The charts are essentially formulaic calculations, done for you. . .

It's assumed people wouldn't prefer to do math on the fly, if they can instead look up on a table instead.

Systems with a lot of constant, on the fly calculating tend to grind time-wise.

[smug]

The issue of charts is inevitably going to divide us, I think. Personally I like them a lot. I like cross-referencing the number and not knowing until I find the right number in the chart, and I like that each major weapon has its own. To others, they're some dinosaurish remnant of an old-school past that might be better buried.

However, as Yamma and I have agreed, either the charts or their absence could be an option. I would say that whatever replaces the charts will have to be really simple -- not simple as we might see it, simple as a non-Rolemaster veteran might see it -- if it's to remove some of that "heavyweight and complex" vibe that some people got from Rolemaster.

[rdanhenry]

I would point out that there were optional methods in the RM2 companions. I don't think any of those caught on. Frankly, I've always found the brilliance of RM to be in the charts. They offer enormous detail without complexity. You do need to be modestly organized, so you have the right charts to hand, but really the need for organized materials is there for most games.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I always liked having a multitude of weapon charts, and I got into the habit of passing out weapon tables to players before I even got out of the red boxed set in... I don't know, way too long ago, I know that much.

I also love the granularity of damage and healing. If someone doesn't (hasn't?) beat me to it, sooner or later I'll find a way to make that an option for HARP, by the Gods I will.

I found the gazillion and a half variations on the theme of "static maneuver" to be a pain, and pretty much ignored it from the first.

There are many ways you could break down and categorize attack and defense methods, which I think is where the granularity would be most appreciated. If it were up to me I think I'd categorize attacks by the type of attack (thrust, tip slash, reverse stroke, hammer stroke down the center, etc.) than by the type of weapon (bladed, crushing, short, long, elemental, etc.) I mean if you think about it, other than the type of crit, the damage done by a baby mace to the gut, an arrow to the gut and a dagger to the gut are remarkably similar. I say that... similar to a dagger thrust to the gut, a dagger slash to the gut produces markedly different damage.

Damage done by a battleaxe or a flair is pretty much the same, just scaled up. Same goes for the damage comparison between a mangonel, a mortar, a volley of arrows and a fireball.

In the process, you might end up putting actual strategic and tactical decision making into RPG combat too, by deciding what attack styles and defense styles to learn.

Or am I way off base here?

[David Johansen]

The sad truth is that The Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying Game did the best job of differentiating melee weapons I've ever seen in an rpg.  They gave bonuses to strike, parry, and throw at different rates with a large shield being significantly better for parrying than a sword or axe.  I've always wanted something similar to be integrated with weapon speeds and the Rolemaster weapon verses armor tables.

[Witchking20k]

Agreed on the palladium observation. 

[lordmalachdrim]

Sadly that was the 1st Ed of Palladium's Fantasy which was before ol'Kev decided everything needed to be a variation of Rifts.

But I agree I would love to see something similar used in RM. While I do like the individual weapon tables if something has to be condensed (abstracted, simplified, what ever word you prefer) I'd rather it be them then the crits, since the crits are what make RM so much fun in combat.

[yammahoper]

Crits should stay and be expanded on, imo.

As long as the core rules for resolving attacks are fairly simple and complete, GM's can descide if they want to use all the extra rules for melee or not.  I saw few who used weapon speeds and THACO mods by weapon type against armor.  Did I hit or not and what was the damage?  One reason crits in RM work so well; its the damage we really care about.

[Witchking20k]

I think having a warrior/thief/semi/mage weapons advancement system could be cool

[Elton Robb]

hmm, after reading the new announcement on the webpage I'd like to state that this is a classic case in where copyright should be rethought.  That's all I want to say about it.

[Old Man]

I would point out that there were optional methods in the RM2 companions. I don't think any of those caught on. Frankly, I've always found the brilliance of RM to be in the charts. They offer enormous detail without complexity. You do need to be modestly organized, so you have the right charts to hand, but really the need for organized materials is there for most games.

I always liked the table in the back of the Companions (when done) that rated the options with thoughts on playability (A = Core, B = Option, H = High powered etc.). Might be useful for any add-on material.

As for upcoming stuff. I'd like to see more setting and expansion material. Given I have RM2/RMC I don't need a ruleset but I do like world content and such.

Ciao,
Old Man