Topic: Rolemaster Issues

[sunwolf]

I don't know that that would be necessary, although it's being done all the time for a variety of purposes anyway. I think the major problem is that of most RPGs: How many hits you took and dealt, what injuries you did, what spells you cast, who and what you killed.... all that is easy to quantify for purposes of giving experience. So an RPG designer can fairly easily draw up a basis for XP guidelines based on it, and a new GM can understand it. What's harder is thinking up XP guidelines based on a player's contribution to a story that the person making the guidelines has never, nor will ever, hear.

This is why in many of the groups I have played there are two bonus awards.  The GM bonus award which the GM awards to the player he thinks made the session most enjoyable/entertaining or had the best roleplaying.  Then the Player's choice award, this is awarded by majority vote of the players.  We usually had them set between 10% and 20% of the average award given.

[Langthorne]

The only other issue that I agree with is profession bonuses - I'd be happy to see them go.

Easy enough to ditch em from your game, no?

Yeah, I suppose I should have said "I was happy to see thm go".

 

[giulio.trimarco]

I don't know that that would be necessary, although it's being done all the time for a variety of purposes anyway. I think the major problem is that of most RPGs: How many hits you took and dealt, what injuries you did, what spells you cast, who and what you killed.... all that is easy to quantify for purposes of giving experience. So an RPG designer can fairly easily draw up a basis for XP guidelines based on it, and a new GM can understand it. What's harder is thinking up XP guidelines based on a player's contribution to a story that the person making the guidelines has never, nor will ever, hear.

Well, XP by injuries, critics, and hits is another thing of RM that isn't pratical.
Hits delivered, crits, etc.

Too calculation. I think that rigid XP guidelines isn't very necessary.
The GM assign every player XP as he feels appropriate.
In addition XP are an overall experience/knowledge of the PC. Giving specific XP for combats it's a way to kill the "Role" part of the game, IMHO.

About the shield probelm:

I do some medieval fight, with arms and armor.
Shield is used as active weapon. You should intercept a blow and "drive off" the energy.
Leaving the shield in place, especially with light shields, mean a broken shield and arm.

Imagine a buckler that try to block a warhammer.
In addition shields straps are made so, when your arm is up (at chest level), an guard, you shiled cover you body, and you can "move" the cover.
If you relax you arm the shield will go behind you, leaving room for the blow and a running stance.
Using a shield well is a very important thing of a medieval warrior.

In RM this isn't factored because a shield skill means double DB and this, of course, will blow the OB/DB system.
Or better, will blow the warrior / monster system. Since many warriors will use a shield the system will rebalance itself.

The other problem is that only with a shield you could hope of block an arrow.
Now also this is an important skill.
BUT, if you don't have sword in you hand you couldn't improve your defense. So  

The facing problem is a false problem. An RPG must be fast and giving facing in a 10 seconds rounds will do nothing in sense of realism.
So why don't punt a -20 (or -30,40 or whatever) DB for every attacker over the first?

I use a system where the breakage rules are very important and adds an element of unpredictability to combats. I use them. I enjoy them.
Why don't use a more simple system in RMC?
In case the blow is parried (no hits delivered or 5 or less hits deliverd) the defender weapon do a breakage check. If failed the weapon will suffer a damage (to STR) equal to difference.
If passed the attacker weapon do the some check.

The active defense. Not much to say here. Many think that an "active" defense will slow down. I don't think so.
A defender that roll a defense is actually playing is round.
If you put in game the fumble possibility of the defender or attacker, it's a very nice thing to play.
In addition you defender beat attacker of an X factor, a counter attack can be gained. But this is an advanced option.

About the table to be different but too similar. It's a delicate issue. In effect only against some AT there are differences. All in all you give a A,B,C,D,E criticals more or less with all weapons (even fists). Even with a cannon ball you will deliver an E critical (or n crits on the some location   blasted ribs, destroyed ribs, pulverized ribs, chewed ribs, etc.)

The mean of all of this is:
A charging knight on a heavy war horse hit a nearly naked bandit, hits for an E critical..

A kid will crawl behind a nearly naked bandit and, with a knife, hits for an E critical.

Now... who is potentially more killer?
The lance, only because score a critical at 87 opposed to the dagger at 95 and differences on dispositions of criticals.
I've taken the two opposite weapons with lower AT.

We found that a Battle Axe, Two-Handed sword, Flail and Lance are practically equal. And smaller differences with other weapons.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Well, XP by injuries, critics, and hits is another thing of RM that isn't pratical.
Hits delivered, crits, etc.

Too calculation. I think that rigid XP guidelines isn't very necessary.
The GM assign every player XP as he feels appropriate.
In addition XP are an overall experience/knowledge of the PC. Giving specific XP for combats it's a way to kill the "Role" part of the game, IMHO.

Sure, if you have a good GM who knows what he's doing. What if it's someone who's never played an RPG before? With no real guidelines he's gonna get into fairly deep trouble before he realizes it, is he not?

This is why in many of the groups I have played there are two bonus awards.  The GM bonus award which the GM awards to the player he thinks made the session most enjoyable/entertaining or had the best roleplaying.  Then the Player's choice award, this is awarded by majority vote of the players.  We usually had them set between 10% and 20% of the average award given.

I like that, and yes, there should be something similar. But the point I'm making is that the basic rules a 'green-as-grass' player or GM sees in most RPGs is that hack & slash gets you rewards (XP) faster and easier than wit, innovation or quick thinking, whereas the latter are what take it from wargaming into roleplaying. The only way they're gonna become the core of the game is when rewarding them becomes more basic to the XP concept than combat. It does in your game apparently, but you had to houserule that.

[markc]

I use a system where the breakage rules are very important and adds an element of unpredictability to combats. I use them. I enjoy them.
Why don't use a more simple system in RMC?
In case the blow is parried (no hits delivered or 5 or less hits deliverd) the defender weapon do a breakage check. If failed the weapon will suffer a damage (to STR) equal to difference.
If passed the attacker weapon do the some check.

I play RMSS and I did buy the RMC 3 core books but I have not taken a good look at the breakage system. But having said that I am of the school the sometimes you cannot make something simple and keep all the stuff you want to have.

 Crits:
   Are you saying you want a chart for critical hits that depend on weapon used, location and ability of the attacker? IMO that is a lot more charts than the 2 RM uses now. In most games I have seen when they go the rout you seem to point towards they have smaller charts for each location. For example take a look at Warhammer and Warhammer 40K, even though they are the same system they use some of the ideas you talked about above.
   I can say that maybe having new eyes on the crit system might help but then again it might not either.
 
MDC

[giulio.trimarco]

Sure, if you have a good GM who knows what he's doing. What if it's someone who's never played an RPG before? With no real guidelines he's gonna get into fairly deep trouble before he realizes it, is he not?

We are all have been green GM and to me the wrongest way to say to a junior GM HOW should be handled XPs is printing on a book charts and charts about XP for hits... in a game that have TONS of hits.
And you gain XP fot crits... after the 345 A crits you still gain XP.
And, as said again, this will put in the game the  D&D problem: all the party in search for just one more monster to kill.

I don't think this is a good school at all.
But that's taste---

markc,

I think that new tables, lighted tables, are needed to render more appealing RM to newcomers (or oldgoners ). The problem as now, after trying other system, the weapons chart maintain a particular feeling but... hey, even a whip can kill with a single blow 

If no one will ever work this out, no changes will be ever done. An changes are necessary for any living product.

P.S.
I hope changes will be for the good, and not like D&D 4e  :'(

[Arioch]

I don't know that that would be necessary, although it's being done all the time for a variety of purposes anyway. I think the major problem is that of most RPGs: How many hits you took and dealt, what injuries you did, what spells you cast, who and what you killed.... all that is easy to quantify for purposes of giving experience. So an RPG designer can fairly easily draw up a basis for XP guidelines based on it, and a new GM can understand it. What's harder is thinking up XP guidelines based on a player's contribution to a story that the person making the guidelines has never, nor will ever, hear.

This is why in many of the groups I have played there are two bonus awards.  The GM bonus award which the GM awards to the player he thinks made the session most enjoyable/entertaining or had the best roleplaying.  Then the Player's choice award, this is awarded by majority vote of the players.  We usually had them set between 10% and 20% of the average award given.

I don't think that just giving XPs would be a solution, but probably as GrumpyOldFart suggested before we should open a new thread to discuss this topic 

[Langthorne]

 Crits:
   Are you saying you want a chart for critical hits that depend on weapon used, location and ability of the attacker? IMO that is a lot more charts than the 2 RM uses now.
MDC

I'd love to have crit tables for individual weapons - though the rest I could leave.

Love Rolemaster=Love Charts! 

[GrumpyOldFart]

Sure, if you have a good GM who knows what he's doing. What if it's someone who's never played an RPG before? With no real guidelines he's gonna get into fairly deep trouble before he realizes it, is he not?

We are all have been green GM and to me the wrongest way to say to a junior GM HOW should be handled XPs is printing on a book charts and charts about XP for hits... in a game that have TONS of hits.
And you gain XP fot crits... after the 345 A crits you still gain XP.
And, as said again, this will put in the game the  D&D problem: all the party in search for just one more monster to kill.

I don't think this is a good school at all.
But that's taste---

I'm not suggesting "printing on a book charts and charts about XP for hits... in a game that have TONS of hits." As you pointed out, we've all been green GMs before, and we've all had to come up with our own answer for "What do I give XP for and how much?" And I have yet to see any RPG company come up with a really clear, concise answer. My position is that while giving someone too much accounting may be bad, giving a green GM (likely the only who to actually read the XP guidelines, the experienced GMs already have their own ideas) a vague summary completely dependent on one or two totally subjective values is even worse. It virtually guarantees that a GM is gonna destroy his first world setting through imbalance.
Please understand, I agree with you that we don't need a book, or some complex formula that cries out for a spreadsheet. I'm saying that if you don't provide a green GM, someone who is by definition ignorant of how the game works, with clear guidelines on how XP are normally earned and used, he's gonna be lost and he's gonna take his best guess based on that ignorance. And RPGs in general are complex enough that his best guess based on ignorance is nearly guaranteed to screw up.

[giulio.trimarco]

 Crits:
   Are you saying you want a chart for critical hits that depend on weapon used, location and ability of the attacker? IMO that is a lot more charts than the 2 RM uses now.
MDC

I'd love to have crit tables for individual weapons - though the rest I could leave.

Love Rolemaster=Love Charts! 

  Right!

The question is: can new approaches maintain the charts improving playability, options and speed?

IMHO, yes.

The idea should be to have generalized charts, in a way to combine them, to millions of possibility.
Instead now we have rigid charts that combine all to one result: a crit. A crit that is the some for whatever weapon you use, whatever the strength of the blow, whatever caused them.
Combat spells suffer the some problem.

[markc]

 Crits:
   Are you saying you want a chart for critical hits that depend on weapon used, location and ability of the attacker? IMO that is a lot more charts than the 2 RM uses now.
MDC

I'd love to have crit tables for individual weapons - though the rest I could leave.

Love Rolemaster=Love Charts! 

  Right!

The question is: can new approaches maintain the charts improving playability, options and speed?

IMHO, yes.

The idea should be to have generalized charts, in a way to combine them, to millions of possibility.
Instead now we have rigid charts that combine all to one result: a crit. A crit that is the some for whatever weapon you use, whatever the strength of the blow, whatever caused them.
Combat spells suffer the some problem.

 I think this is done in the RMC Combat Companion in that balde weapons have there own crit chart and pole arms have there own chart also. But they are not the full chart like in Arms Law but a slightly reduced chart and combat system that is detailed in RMC Combat Companion.

MDC

[giulio.trimarco]

 Crits:
   Are you saying you want a chart for critical hits that depend on weapon used, location and ability of the attacker? IMO that is a lot more charts than the 2 RM uses now.
MDC

I'd love to have crit tables for individual weapons - though the rest I could leave.

Love Rolemaster=Love Charts! 

  Right!

The question is: can new approaches maintain the charts improving playability, options and speed?

IMHO, yes.

The idea should be to have generalized charts, in a way to combine them, to millions of possibility.
Instead now we have rigid charts that combine all to one result: a crit. A crit that is the some for whatever weapon you use, whatever the strength of the blow, whatever caused them.
Combat spells suffer the some problem.

 I think this is done in the RMC Combat Companion in that balde weapons have there own crit chart and pole arms have there own chart also. But they are not the full chart like in Arms Law but a slightly reduced chart and combat system that is detailed in RMC Combat Companion.

MDC

I own also CC, to me suffers the some problems.

[naphta23]

By the way, would a "green GM" know what "playing a role" is and when to appreciate it?
In my opinion, as long as you do not know roleplaying, why shouldn't you have lots of fun with rollplaying, as long as everybody in the group enjoys it?

If there is no need for Roleplaying-EP, why bother? And as soon as a group new to the concept starts to appreciate roleplaying, what is going to stop them to make up some standard rewards for pursuing the character traits instead of looking for the optimal way?

[giulio.trimarco]

The question is that a better laid out combat system will help roleplayng and rollplaying.

And a better laid out magic system will help roleplaying and rollplaying.

In addition, since ICE is a profit company, I think should searching for ways to catch more customers in their product, making the product itself more enjoyable.

[naphta23]

The question is that a better laid out combat system will help roleplayng and rollplaying.

And a better laid out magic system will help roleplaying and rollplaying.

Sorry, but I have to object. I played several RPG systems and with different players and gamemasters, but no RPG helped and inspired roleplaying as much as Rolemaster did. Not for me, not for my friends.
Sure, there are exceptions, who detest the charts and tables, who do not want to have hundreds of skills and the always looming possibility of death. They play and enjoy other games, which is perfectly great - for them and for me.

In addition, since ICE is a profit company, I think should searching for ways to catch more customers in their product, making the product itself more enjoyable.

Agreed!
(It is already enjoyable - it only needs to become more attractive to a larger group of people and/or gamers.)

[giulio.trimarco]

Naphta,

I respect you experiences and opinion.
But it's a fact that many players (me included) feel RM a little too invasive.
I don't mean slow to play (in fact it ins't very much), but it doesn't scale well.

Too difficult actions, too simple actions.
For the first 10+ levels (if you do a skill based game) you PC are little more than bubbling idiots.
After an X everything is possible.

You read all over internet opinions and experiences in witch the famous tables gives inappropriate results to situations.
Or game mechanics too complex or inappropriate for what they try to accomplish.

Super rolls enter the game too often, destroying a good scene or a good laid out plan or distrupting a sense of disbilief.
Idem as above super bad rolls or that absurd super fumble if witch you near killed itself (ifor skills, adreanl manouvre or combat).

So even myself enjoyed RM for many  years and perhaps, if I found another group (over my two), will start a new campaign with RMC, but sure RM suffer from design constraint that were never addressed.

The chart are monolitic and very similar, especially combat chart. And chart are the first thing to be revised (not eliminated) to be more generic, more dynamic and more fun.

Why is this so absurd?

That said I don't doubt that you like RM as is. But that doesn't mean that the issues aren't there.

[markc]

giulio.trimarco;
 Do you have a method to make RM charts more dynamic and not generate a lot more charts? I can say that more generic charts sounds like the oposit direction you want to go. Again I have read your posts about but I fail to see why you can not do that now with RM charts. Simpley look at the location listed and creat your own flavor text with the results listed. It is something I do all they time with monsters and the human centric crit charts of RM.

 IIRC you have said that you have played RM2, RMSS and thought about RMC. DId you find RMSS different from RM2 or RMC? For the list you gave of the games you play or like to play Harn is the only one on the list that I have heard of that people talk about being realistic. In Warhammer and Ars Amagica you PC are way about the normal person in the world. You are not an average joe that has to experience the un-normal to rise above the populace. Now in RM I have told my players that almost everyone in the game is between 4th and 10 level, and they start out between 3rd and 5th. They are at the begining of their life journey. So be carefull as it is a big bad world otu there. And as they have experiences normals do not they rise above the average person.

 I guess I am just having trouble understanding your points from post to post because of the language difference. But I do like to read your coments and ideas.
 
MDC 

[thrud]

giulio.trimarco>Sorry but I'm with naphta23 on this one. (mostly)
1) You suck at low levels! well, yes I agree. Unless you use the skills with really easy tasks you're pretty much screwed. But hey, the same thing applies to every other rpg that I've played.

2. You are a god at high levels! Well, I agree on this as well. Still, where's the difference to other games? If anything RM is much better in this regard using diminishing returns for skills.

If you design the adventure appropriatly and use difficulies for skills this should solve the problem.
If you want better PCs from start you start them off at a higher level.

[giulio.trimarco]

Ok, ok.

I'm on the loosing side.
I've argued enogh.

This is the type of closure that, to me, are bringing RM to a smaller and smaller market (Imho).
Even if I've bought the books without using it.

One last thing:

while every issue could be circumvented in milions of way (like you explained), the issue is there.
Some issues are there nonenthless. And many people feel them. No way about it.
I have played much more RPGs that I can remember (and I have more than 100 in my library) and while I can't keep playing with all, many of this systems are realistic, quick and the player is in control.
Perhaps different approches (and an open mind) to some aspects will do more good than expected.

Bye

[pastaav]

The problem with difficulties of succeeding with rolls for low level characters is a genuine problem that has a very straightforward solution. You can like School of Hard Knocks suggest change the modification for routine to +50, a for easy to +25 and then this problem IMHO literally vanish.