Topic: RoCo II for RMC (Not a reprint per se...)

[Steve_990]

Just wondering what the tought would be on a new take on RoCoII for RMC would be. I've seen people over and over state that for RM2 that RoCo 2 was THE item to have (I know I thought so)... it have an addition of many great professions, and the new skill additions is really what made Rolemaster for me back then.

I'm well aware of the inability to reprint RoCoII due to author copy right issues, so how about a redo of the same concepts that made RoCoII great... and put it into a new format for RMC lines. "RMC Companion?"

As I see it skill names couldn't really be trademarked.. bloat could be removed, and rules streamlined for RMC use. Also professions could be handled in a similar manner as Combat Copmpanion professions... renamed, and tweaked with recognizable spell lists, but changed... (i.e. Elemental Warrior is basically the RoCo Warrior Mage, Champion = Paladin, etc...)

Maybe it could be a RMC Advanced book or something concentrating on New skills, Professions and Spell lists without lots of new rules.

What do you guys think?

P.S. bring back transcend armor... even if it's only an option with a page and a half of warnings how this could break your game... lol

Steve.

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

The reality is that we've found and have chatted to two of the three authors for Rolemaster Companion II, who would like to see it republished. They are busy tracking down the third of their august trio.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[dutch206]

(This is just my opinion)  I really don't care for this idea. 

First off, some of those professions were covered in the Combat Companion.  Also, what is the difference between a Dancer and Thief with ranks in perfomance skills?  Instead of a Dervish, why not just make a Bard and rename that spell list "Controlling Dances"?

Secondly, the phrase 'skill bloat' comes to mind.  Too many skills, not enough DP's.

Thirdly, I really detest having perception split up into a dozen different skills.  Who cares whether you use it to locate secret openings or use it to search for traps?

[Winterknight]

I agree.  I personally thought the expanded skills in RoCo II were the beginning of the decline of RM2. 

There were some interesting spells, IIRC, and some nicely combined lists that were fun, however.  Those could be implemented in new ways, and as stated above, some have been converted in the Combat Companion.  That, to me, seems like a better path forward.

[Ecthelion]

Nevertheless there were many people who like RoCo II and would like to see it republished. But I agree that many changes that came with the old Companion books should better not make it into RMC or RMFRP.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

First off, some of those professions were covered in the Combat Companion.  Also, what is the difference between a Dancer and Thief with ranks in perfomance skills?

Truth to be said, for non-spellcasters professions, the only difference is the cost of the skills and the level bonuses. If we had a way to start from a single profession (say, 'No Profession'  ) then customize it according to a few simple 'balancing' rules, we should be able to create any possible profession concept.

[thrud]

It's funny how your perspective changes with age.
If you had asked me this question 5yrs ago I would have agreed wholeheartedly with Steve_990.
Today I'm leaning more towards dutch206 take on things.
Mainly the skillbloat leaves a foul taste in my mouth, the professions I like. As I see it you can never have to many professions, you just have to put some effort into making them balanced and thoroughly thought through.

[Winterknight]

Truth to be said, for non-spellcasters professions, the only difference is the cost of the skills and the level bonuses. If we had a way to start from a single profession (say, 'No Profession'  ) then customize it according to a few simple 'balancing' rules, we should be able to create any possible profession concept.

The problem I see with this is that someone, whether the GM or the players, has to take the time to tweak the baseline profession for the character.  If done by the players at character creation, it takes what is already one of the longer character creation processes, and stretches it considerably.    If done by the GM as approved "templates" for his world (or ahead of time based on the players' character suggestions so it's ready for them to use), it puts another time burden on the GM, when he is already doing most of the behind-the-scenes work/prep.

Not that this won't work, it just won't work for folks who are time-limited, or easily distracted.  I have had players that fidget if they can't get into the action quickly, and designing their character class from a template would cause a fair degree of frustration.

[Steve_990]

Actually the whole skill bloat is one of the reasons I was thinking more of a "redo" instead of an exact copy. If more skills were added to bring RMC closer to RMFRP or RMSS, but leave out alot of the "What the heck is the difference between skill A and B" skills, it would end up adding to the system (which is what RoCo II originally did for RM2), but with less confusion.

As for the non-spell using professions, either the old way of having a bunch of varied types, or like what OLF suggested by having a ruleset to create your own different professions (i.e. something uniform without the need to house rule it). I do however agree with WinterKnight, so providing a series of example templates (i.e. the old non-spell professions) would be great examples...

For all the good (IMO) that RoCoII bought, I do agree there was an equal amount of stuff I threw out.

I think one thing that was never really clear in the old RoCo's was that these were optional, so everyone tried to put it all in, and basically caused a mess. I know it was mentioned in the beginning of each book, but if there were a synopsis of each rule addition and how it may effect a game might have had people think more about it.

Going back to the skills, it good be a good way / time to test Rasyr's theory for tiered skills (more skills = more DP's) and allowing varied complexity. I know Rasyr thought of this for a possible RM rewrite... I think a companion ... read "Optional rule book" ... is a great way to test it out without creating a whole new game for a test.

On a side note, part of what started me on this track was starting a RMC game a few weeks ago... I found myself asking alot of "do you guys have this skill?" only to remember that was in RoCo2... so I went through and added the choise skills I wanted to see back into the mix along with old RM2 professions. Was a natural progression to think of a potential RMC Companion...

[Wōdwulf Seaxaning]

I agree with Steve...I'd love to see a product like this..I love skills.If ICE could use the new RMC Companion to test out a tiered skill system that'd be cool too. But I hope that the last author is found & gives consent for RM:Co2 to republished as a PDF like the 1st one was.I'd buy it!

[Hurin]

I'd love to see it.

RoCoII was a great book that really added a great deal of fun to Rolemaster for me and my group.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I agree with Steve...I'd love to see a product like this..I love skills.If ICE could use the new RMC Companion to test out a tiered skill system that'd be cool too. But I hope that the last author is found & gives consent for RM:Co2 to republished as a PDF like the 1st one was.I'd buy it!

ICE is now accepting proposals  --> http://www.ironcrown.com/index.php?page=cinfo/proposals

 

[black flag]

RoCo II was a good book...but now I think if RoCo II must be republished,  the skills must be (re) thought; the skills categories are good idea but the skills are too numerous: for example one Perception skill is enough (like in base RMC or HARP).

[yammahoper]

You can have one perception skill, then allow players to train specializations under "perception", such as traps, lie, etc.  The perception skill is used, but when looking for the specialized thing, the player can add a bonus equal to the rank bonus he has in the specialization.  Limit specialized skills to 10 ranks (like the old directed spell skill for you fellow old timers).

[kevinmccollum]

RMCII had huge power creep built into it. It was almost a complete waste ( I did like base pp for casting and the fear rules). It has some seriously broken rules such as stun removal. I'm worried about bringing new people into RM and then they pick up a reprint of RMCII and try to use classes/rules from it and I have to be the bad guy and tell them no.

[kevinmccollum]

under the original RM, perception was used but at a penalty if you didn't really know what you were looking for (untrained person looking for traps, etc)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

You can have one perception skill, then allow players to train specializations under "perception", such as traps, lie, etc.  The perception skill is used, but when looking for the specialized thing, the player can add a bonus equal to the rank bonus he has in the specialization.  Limit specialized skills to 10 ranks (like the old directed spell skill for you fellow old timers).

Hmm...

or  have things like

Locate Secret Opening == Perception roll with -30 modifier (plus Difficulty mod based on how well door is hidden).

Then each rank of specialization could reduce that base penalty/modifier by some amount

Or have the Specialization be a talent of sorts that lower the difficulty rating by a step (and make sure to increase the difficulties accordingly -- don't care for this idea much, not enough granularity).

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

The problem I see with this is that someone, whether the GM or the players, has to take the time to tweak the baseline profession for the character.  If done by the players at character creation, it takes what is already one of the longer character creation processes, and stretches it considerably.    If done by the GM as approved "templates" for his world (or ahead of time based on the players' character suggestions so it's ready for them to use), it puts another time burden on the GM, when he is already doing most of the behind-the-scenes work/prep.

Not that this won't work, it just won't work for folks who are time-limited, or easily distracted.  I have had players that fidget if they can't get into the action quickly, and designing their character class from a template would cause a fair degree of frustration.

Well, sure. I was merely commenting about the "what is the difference between a Dancer and Thief with ranks in perfomance (sic.) skills?" comment. In the end, it's just that: to keep a balance between providing too many templates and not enough. Problem is: no matter how many ICE does, some players would consider there are too many whereas some would consider there aren't enough. As far as I'm concerned, having a few (Fighter, Thieve, Rogue?) core templates would be enough, then giving rules to create new templates from these core ones and leaving other templates to be created by... the RM community!

[dutch206]

That's the problem with trying to re-write the RM rules.  Because RM is an RPG toolkit, everyone has their own idea about what "the Rules" actually are.  ROFL.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

That's the problem with trying to re-write the RM rules.  Because RM is an RPG toolkit, everyone has their own idea about what "the Rules" actually are.  ROFL.

Hence the Character Creation Guidelines which show what ICE is considering as the "Official Rules" being used in modules and other products where characters are made.