Topic: What is wrong with Rolemaster?

[RandalThor]

To me, it seems as though AT-2 was enough clothing to inhibit some movement - hence making it easier to hit you, but not significant enough to impede an enemy's blow (hence hurt you easier). The movement penalties aren't enough to cause significant MM mods, imo.

As for the stat gains/losses due to level: I get the idea behind it, but if there wasn't something in the game to explain the fluctuation (this works mostly for losses, but can also pertain to gains), then I don't think it should be bothered with. Also, RM is a skill based game, when a person gets better it is generally reflected in higher/better skills, it isn't the Warhammer 40K RPG where your skills are your attributes. I think that what the current/potential stat rule is trying to say is that your character is young/new and not fully "filled out" yet. While I can understand this to a degree, I don't necessarily agree with it. Geniuses are geniuses at age 7, the biggest difference between them at that age and them at age 40, is experience and knowledge. (Read: levels and skill ranks.) So, as most characters start out at the equivalent of a humans late teens, I agree they may not be completely filled-out physically, but mentally they are pretty-much there. And, I don't think it is a big deal to say they are fulled out physically, so why not just do it? With that said, I don't really care about it all that much, and can play with that rule in effect just fine.

[jdale]

To me, it seems as though AT-2 was enough clothing to inhibit some movement - hence making it easier to hit you, but not significant enough to impede an enemy's blow (hence hurt you easier). The movement penalties aren't enough to cause significant MM mods, imo.

Based on the broadsword table, it must be at least as encumbering as a chain shirt (AT 9), since criticals start at the same point. More encumbering, actually, if you assume the chain shirt is actually doing something to reduce the criticals. A chain shirt is -50 movement/maneuver penalty. How can two armor types have the same impact on your dodging but a 50 point difference in their maneuver penalties?

I've heard some people say they use AT 2 as the base for any unarmored person. That actually is more reasonable in many ways than AT 1, which is way out of scale.

[JimiSue]

So, as most characters start out at the equivalent of a humans late teens, I agree they may not be completely filled-out physically, but mentally they are pretty-much there.

Could not disagree more. Although when I was 18 I probably would have completely agreed.

I know I have spent my life thinking things like:

"Man, I really thought I knew it all when I was 16. Thank god now I'm 18 I see how wrong I was. I've learned so much, and now I really do know it all."

"Man, I really thought I knew it all when I was 18. Thank god now I'm 21 I see how wrong I was. I've learned so much, and now I really do know it all."

"Man, I really thought I knew it all when I was 21. Thank god now I'm 27 I see how wrong I was. I've learned so much, and now I really do know it all."

... there is a pattern here. Now, having reached the grand age of 41, I am finally prepared to admit that actually, I know bugger all, and I'm prepared to give some respect to those generations older than me.

My real point though is that there's a lot to learn through life that can be represented in stats better than skills - things like common sense, charisma, methods to improve memory and improve reasoning, better resistance to disease (since the longer you live, the more pathogens you are exposed to). I don't need to find a justification for the stat gain rules, to me they make perfect sense. Life is a constant learning experience both mentally and physically. Sometimes you take the wrong path - reflected by the reduction rules - but you can still get back on track.

But hey, we each have our own games, so really, by that definition alone, we're both right

[rdanhenry]

So, as most characters start out at the equivalent of a humans late teens, I agree they may not be completely filled-out physically, but mentally they are pretty-much there.

The human brain does not reach full maturity until around age 25. Even then, there's no guarantee it has been honed to actually be functioning at full potential. That's just when the "hardware updates" are finally over.

[providence13]

If it costs 100 DP to go from 99 to 100, it seems to me it should take (1²+2²+3²+4²+5²) 55 DP to go from 90 to 95. I would guess by level 10 that most of your characters have almost every stat above 90.  If you can bring any 70 to a 90 in one level spending only 20 DP... thats the best bang for your DP buck ever.  Seems quite OP.

Hey, I'll look into that for the next game. So far, only 2 players out of 2 games (8th and 10th lvl) have wanted to do it. My players are skill Rank greedy instead of stat greedy. But I like your idea of exponential increase.
It won't be long before age penalties will start to creep into the mix. The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long..

[Nortti]

As to the mechanism of levl-up stat gains - I like it because Bill the level 1 fighter is still essentially a yahoo from the local farmyard. As he gains experience and levels up, he learns more about the world (to help stats like RE and ME), more about other people (EM, PR), how to fight without being suicidally bad (ST, AG, QU), how to take punishment and put up with hardship (CO, SD), the value of luck (IN), and sometimes overlooked, the benefit with the ladies of having a bath now and then (AP).

I prefer that point of view to having all PCs start in perfect physical shape, knowing all there is to know about their world and those around them.

+1 Agree

+1 Agree

Rolling for stats when leveling up raises the stats, and that is already a benefit for the characters. Those stats rolled in the lvl 1 could also just be their permanent stats. In other systems they would be. I see this as a boon for RM players. Buying stats with DP when leveling up is basically just another method. Those do it who like it.

Personally I like to have at least some randomness, or hand of fate meddling in characters life. Chances to negative changes are very minor to the character anyway. How about some decreptitude points and a possible death during winter like in Ars? I mean RM PCs have it maybe too good here. Are we being pampered?

Maybe I am a bit fatalist but IMO getting new chances to raise stats to potentials is good already. I guess I just have to start consider using those "lets see if you make it through the winter" points Oh well, seriously I think everything in life cannot be in PCs (or ours) full control. You cannot always just get everything just the way you wanted. Maybe you really got sick, that healing spell or first aid didnt work 100%, something was wrong with that food, or that woman was not of so high virtue as you were led to believe. Chances of that stat getting lower are so minuscule anyway that I cannot consider this to be an issue. And if it happens it happens.

I know some think its a fantasy game and you should be able to build your character exactly as you like. Fair enough. As I see it players already have high degree of control over the development of their characters. We all do it the way that suits our game.

Buying stats with DP is still something that I could approve in mine, if it would be of enormous importance to a player. It hasnt been. I would probably not give any extra DP for it. In addition to making those stat raising rolls player could also dish out some of his DP to raising stats.



 

[pastaav]

I'd drop variability of stats from leveling.
Never understood why leveling should drop or raise stats.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but this doesn't seem to matter much after 3-5 lvls, but explaining this to new players each time they level while watching their eyes glaze over wasn't helpful to selling the game. "Well your bout with chicken pox has left you horribly scarred.." Just slows down the process.

I could not agree more. Have stat change at level up is counter intuitive and give very little benefits to play experience. Having the adventure of your life when you did all kind of physical tasks and as result end with lowered strength stat due some bad dice rolling disturbs the feeling. The character being sick during the adventure might be totally inappropriate for the game style and getting told afterwards that you must have been sick even though you did not game it like that is long from fun.

What I would propose would be the following.
*Skill purchase of a skill that uses the stats me, re, me would give 2 points to me and 1 points to increase of the stats. If the player does not take any skill that uses a certain stat then the stat does not improve (a magican never taking physical skills would not become strong)
*When you have assembled enough points your temp stat increases, but it can not move it past your potential stat. Additional points when you have reached you potential are lost
*The player can at level up use DP to increase his temp and potential stat
*A stat decreases as effect of the player suffering from disease and poisons that cause stat loss. If a group does not want to include those elements in the campaign then they should not suffer the consequences.
*There could be an option about using random stat changes for those that does not want to bothered with the bookkeeping of core rules.
*There could be an option about in game use of the skills giving the points to raise the stat for those that prefer that level of detail.

[pastaav]

A set of full body clothing that is multi-layered, and for which it is helpful to have assistance with putting on. Also covers bulky clothing used to protect against environmental dangers (such as snow suits and environmental suits).

My problem with that is that I don't think the effect on the tables are in synch with the real world. My totally in game LARP gear is good for -30 celcius (tried in practice and I found out that it was stretching things, but not by much) and they does in fact does not impede my movement in any significant part. If we are speaking about some environmental suit in modern sense then perhaps we might be approaching limitation of movement. Still it beats me why not such suits are not better handled by straight DB and OB modifications.

[RandalThor]

Could not disagree more. Although when I was 18 I probably would have completely agreed.

<SNIP>
But hey, we each have our own games, so really, by that definition alone, we're both right

But what you are describing isn't intelligence, but knowledge. I admit that a person's knowledge changes (hopefully increasing) as they get older. But, their basic intelligence - learning capability goes nowhere but down after, I guess 25 (see below). So, having their basic bonus for RE & ME go from +0 to +5 as they get older, is counter to reality. (For the vast majority of us, there are mutants out here, thank [insert whatever you like to thank for good things here].)

The human brain does not reach full maturity until around age 25. Even then, there's no guarantee it has been honed to actually be functioning at full potential. That's just when the "hardware updates" are finally over.

But it very likely doesn't go from +1 to +8 in those few years, basically 800% better. Perhaps, 10-15% tops. A genius is recognized as such from an early age, and a person who starts out with an average intelligence will only be of average (or maybe, maybe very slightly higher) later in life.

The super-jocks out in the professional grown-up world were super-jocks in middle school - especially compared to the other kids. No, they weren't as big as they would become, but they showed what they would become early-on. Except, in rare cases, it is easy to see who will be and who won't be strong, smart, charismatic at an early age. (Some scientists claiming you are pretty-well set by age 5, I will go ahead and be more conservative than that, and go with puberty ~13. That is not saying you are as strong as you are going to be at age 13, just that is easy to see that you are going to be strong, by that age, as you are likely larger in some way than other kids your age.)

But, in the cases of the PCs, who are universally starting there careers in the late teens, sometimes early 20's if you are a mage and took a TP that had a long training time, then who you are going to grow into and who you are now (in a purely basic, non-skilled sense) are very close. Not knowledge, not experience, but basics. Those basics will get "fine-tuned" but they will not alter greatly unless....magic, technology, injury, whatever. So, having such a huge difference in stats at character beginning is not very realistic. (Except maybe Wisdom, which I think is better served as an experience/learned thing than basic attribute - though a talent can represent the fact that this youngster is wiser than others at their age.)

Of course, having that 98 lbs. weakling go through the strength training montage and come out a much stronger individual can be fun to play (just remember the montage music). But that is not the norm. The norm is that the 98 lbs. weakling just becomes the 130 lbs., fatter weakling - provided he lives long enough.

Basically, I agree that there can be some difference, just not the difference reflected in going from a 50 to 78, or a 60 to 90. So, maybe it should only be there for those exceptional/special stats that are part of the character's uniqueness. Like have the player take a talent to reflect that he can attain an exceptional strength (or whatever). But to nit-pick him going from a base Strength bonus of +5 to a +7 (Can you tell I am more used to playing RMSS/FRP?) is unnecessary. In RM2/C I guess going from a +5 to +10 is more noticeable, so I can totally see wanting to have that in there, though still not necessary - just give them enough stat points to pick their total stats and if they want to be able to increase any, make them spend talent points (or picks). This would mean giving them more points to spend on stats (gasp!), of course.

[JimiSue]

The bottom line for me is that the players like it because it gives them a sense of progression, especially in the earlier levels where you go from being universally rubbish at almost everything to being tolerably rubbiush at a few things. And if the players like it, bring it on.

[RandalThor]

I agree that it can give a sense of progression, but doesn't going up in level and gaining more skills/increasing the ones you have do that? All I am saying, is that it is an unecessary add-on that might be able to make the game less daunting for new players if it was only an optional rule, not an intricate part of the system. And as much as everyone says, "you can do that yourself (I know I have and will), there are many gamers out there that do not want ot have to take the time to create new parts of a system; either they just don't want to, or they feel they don't have the time.)

I would very much like it if RM could get 50x (100x, nay 1000x) the number of core fans it does now, not that I think it will, just would like it to. To do that, I think it needs streamlining and a bit of simplifying. This would endear it to both new/young players and older players, I believe. (New gamers seem to want faster/easier and so do older ones, though for mostly different reasons.)

One thing a friend of mine constantly says is that he likes a game that has character creation and advancement done the same. So, maybe, RM could have a DP system for both creation and advancement - more than it does now: You get a certain amount of DPs at chargen (how much depends upon the style of campaign: gritty, normal, heroic, superheroic, gods-among-men, etc¹). These points are used to buy attributes, talents, & skills. (I do not like equipment bing tied to DPs, so I suggest not doing that here, though it can be in a way if the player decides his character is a noble or otherwise wealthy; which would be purchased through a talent.) How much the player spends on which arena is their own choice. So, if they want a young character full of promise, they can spend more on attributes & talents, and few on skills. Conversely, they could be decide to play the older, mroe experienced - and more normal - character by spending more on skills. Of course, this works best for a profession & level-less system. ²



1. The campaign style could also affect things like: potentials and the types of talents they are allowed to take. (No Blessed by a War God in a gritty campaign, etc...)
2. Yes, I know it sounds like GURPS (and a few other systems), but it is not GURPS because GURPS uses 3d6, has a tighter scale, doesn't have RMs crit charts, and all manner of things that are different. I like GURPS, but I like RM better - even if I have to play or run it using levels and professions.

[Nortti]

I agree that new version must cater to the potential new fans, the current temporary number is much too low

If making that temp/pot -table optional would help it then it indeed should be an option only. Actually I am not convinced yet that rolling potentials is somehow a negative thing for the game, but all parts must be put to the table and their value to the core considered. 

My view is that the idea of that 1st lvl guy having plenty of potential in him is a very positive one. Some say that it is more realistic to assume that your temps are very close to the potentials but I beg to differ. You can be what you want to be - it is a matter will. Also, with this system you dont have to worry so much about low starting stats, the lower they are the better chances you have for high potentials. Guys with high stats in the start are happy about them already. I think the balance is good here.

Still, I cannot be sure about what those that are new to the system would say about the matter. I think their view is important on this. If they find it confusing and it doesnt give them a feel of a system with its own character then it should be made optional.

Another option could be that buying with DP. It will make the starting rolls more important. The stats you roll in the beginning will be what you are until the end. Of course the starting stats could be bought with a point-system too. Then you have characters with same amount of points, which to me is a bit boring. Of course if you want to have a little different starting stat totals to have a little different PCs you can use background options etc but whats the point of that? Why not just roll the stats?

After all this I still think visuals are the thing that either makes or breaks the chances to have success. It is so important these days. That and presentation. You can have the worlds best ruleset inside the book but if the book itself doesnt immediately catch potential buyers imagination then the business will fail.

 

[JimiSue]

You get a certain amount of DPs at chargen (how much depends upon the style of campaign: gritty, normal, heroic, superheroic, gods-among-men, etc¹). These points are used to buy attributes, talents, & skills.

I actively avoid games that do this. I find it removes any element of randomess because in the interests of game balance no one can create a truly memorable PC (low stats etc can be as memorable as high ones if played correctly), promotes min-maxing (by streamlining players through the "best" selection they can get for their points - much like in D&D 3.5 where "the path of the fighter" was all too often power attack & cleave at 1st level), and by doing both of those things promotes throw away characters that players don't bother investing in emotionally because they are as interesting and distinctive as two lumps of soggy cardboard.

However. While I know I'm not alone in that view, I can see the otherside has points they feel are equally valid. But I feel that there is room in Rolemaster to have both a simple, streamlined game, and a more advanced version. I remember in my fledgeling days of gaming learning the ropes using the basic D&D set (so streamlined that "Elf" and "Dwarf" were both character classes), and graduating onto AD&D 1st edition once I had the core concepts down and could deal with new rules. But I also think that the key thing that TSR got right there was doing them as two separate games. I would not want to see a streamlined Rolemaster which had more pages of optional rules then core rules - that is essentially what we have now, and therefore is not much of a move forward.

In response to Nortti's post - I am currently running a Spacemaster game (using SM2 rules). In my gaming club we do rotations and switch games every month or two months - I am nearing the end of my third rotation, this coming Thursday will be my 20th session with this group. At the start of this, all of my players were Rome/Spacemaster newbies. None of them particularly wanted to play it because they had only heard the negative points we have all heard thrown at us about RM. But I hooked them in with a good campaign concept, and they have stuck with it and now love the game and are looking forward to the new RM coming out to do some playtesting.

I mention this because the stat gain rolls were accepted without any question. It is a simple mechanic, they liked the idea they could improve from their initial scores, and with my house rule in place where they can get a small improve to potential if they roll 99 or 100, they are positively keen. Especially with 6 players, each level up has 60 stat gains, so odds are at least one of them will get an improve. That takes the sting out the the downgrades even though they are twice as likely, and much more severe than the potential gain at the other end.

Probably the thing that caused my players the most grief was the concept of psion list acquisition. My telepath player isn't very experienced but she never really got it - which is why I amended my game so the number of ranks she bought in a list, was the level she could cast up to. Much simpler.

I think the problem these guys had was really the learning curve. Each individual rule isn't too much of an issue, but learning a bunch of mechanisms is where the problem is. So I started with a slightly more streamlined version and introduced bells and whistles later.

They like the skills most of all I think - the variety and access for all. I had to call for a biochemistry skill check last week, which surprised me actually, I had not thought they would go down that route, but the simple fact I could do that rather than a generic Knowledge (Nature) is where the pluses get scored the most in my group.

[yammahoper]

One thing a friend of mine constantly says is that he likes a game that has character creation and advancement done the same. So, maybe, RM could have a DP system for both creation and advancement - more than it does now: You get a certain amount of DPs at chargen (how much depends upon the style of campaign: gritty, normal, heroic, superheroic, gods-among-men, etc1). These points are used to buy attributes, talents, & skills. (I do not like equipment bing tied to DPs, so I suggest not doing that here, though it can be in a way if the player decides his character is a noble or otherwise wealthy; which would be purchased through a talent.) How much the player spends on which arena is their own choice. So, if they want a young character full of promise, they can spend more on attributes & talents, and few on skills. Conversely, they could be decide to play the older, mroe experienced - and more normal - character by spending more on skills. Of course, this works best for a profession & level-less system. 2

this game exist.  its HERO.  im totally done with it.

[RandalThor]

I mention this because the stat gain rolls were accepted without any question. It is a simple mechanic, they liked the idea they could improve from their initial scores, and with my house rule in place where they can get a small improve to potential if they roll 99 or 100, they are positively keen. Especially with 6 players, each level up has 60 stat gains, so odds are at least one of them will get an improve. That takes the sting out the the downgrades even though they are twice as likely, and much more severe than the potential gain at the other end.

I have used such house-rule, as well. And while I have argued against them, I do see the fun and attraction of potential stats, and will likely use them in the future. I just believe that other options should be presented, and don't see a problem with having as many (or more) options than core rules. To me the core rules should just be a pared down basic set of rules, from which each GM builds their own game around using the optional rules - especially since we all seem to do a bit of house-ruling anyway.

After all this I still think visuals are the thing that either makes or breaks the chances to have success. It is so important these days. That and presentation. You can have the worlds best ruleset inside the book but if the book itself doesnt immediately catch potential buyers imagination then the business will fail.

I have been trying to tell the ICE people this for years now. When I am out at a bookstore, scanning the shelves for a new read, the first thing that will get me to pick up a book is it's cover. Is it in some way attractive? (i.e., attracting my attention.) If it doesn't do that, then I don't even pick it up to read the synopsis, to determine if it is something I am interested in reading. To this day, I still pick up the Star Wars 2nd edition Revised (D6) book and the Monster Manual 3.5, just to scan through and look at because they are so nice. So, you will not see me getting rid of them anytime soon. In fact, I am known to pick up multiple copies of books I really like.

[yammahoper]

To this day, I still pick up the...Monster Manual 3.5, just to scan through and look at because they are so nice.

Much of my game is DnD materials translated to RM stats.  I have not bought anything since version 4 was released, but 3.0 materials are excellent, high quality with great art work (normally).  I can suffer the mechanics, but since I prefer not to suffer, I still play RM and translate.

[intothatdarkness]

One thing a friend of mine constantly says is that he likes a game that has character creation and advancement done the same. So, maybe, RM could have a DP system for both creation and advancement - more than it does now: You get a certain amount of DPs at chargen (how much depends upon the style of campaign: gritty, normal, heroic, superheroic, gods-among-men, etc¹). These points are used to buy attributes, talents, & skills. (I do not like equipment bing tied to DPs, so I suggest not doing that here, though it can be in a way if the player decides his character is a noble or otherwise wealthy; which would be purchased through a talent.) How much the player spends on which arena is their own choice. So, if they want a young character full of promise, they can spend more on attributes & talents, and few on skills. Conversely, they could be decide to play the older, mroe experienced - and more normal - character by spending more on skills. Of course, this works best for a profession & level-less system.

If RM went over to something like this I'd quit playing it, honestly. Never cared for those systems, and my group doesn't, either. Having optional rules allowing that might be helpful for some, but making it the core would cause me to find another system.

[providence13]

On stat increase;
Skills affecting stats is how some other games do it.
But I would definitely put a cap on it or make it something like the TP skill increase (A TP bonus rank can't put a skill above 10 ranks, iirc).
  Then, picking a ton of physical skills won't be the standard to max out your character. Mental skills, etc, would apply to other professions..

In R1FTS, you can learn Boxing, Gymnastics, various Hand to Hand skills, Wrestling, Running.. and these ALL add to hit points, combat bonuses (Wow! I get another +1 to dodge and parry just for taking Professional Dog Walking) stats, etc.
But with a cap or control (which really doesn't exist in that otherwise fun game) it could work in RM.

If it didn't affect the stat number, maybe just the bonus. Still couldn't exceed a certain number.. IDK.

We might need X skill requirements for Y skills. We might need that already. If you don't have Basic Math, then you can't take advanced..
Same for Physical.

[Arioch]

The economic system is another weak point in RM, imho. Not a big deal, but it would be nice having it fixed somehow.
I think the main problem with RM economy is that magical and mundane wares are on two completely different scales: a single magical item or enchanted herb can easily cost more than a ship.
While I can see the reason behind it, this kind of economic system tend to create a few problems in game. Basically, either magical items and herbs become completely unaffordable (which also means that anyone possessing even just a single magical item is incredibly rich) or everything else become dirty cheap, and the PCs soon find themselves with enough riches to buy a kingdom...

[Usdrothek]

A magic item is only worth what someone will pay for it. No good rolling into a town and asking 5,000gp for your magic doodad if noone has even one tenth of that.