Author Topic: Suggestions for Simplified Round  (Read 2515 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Green Manalishi

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Suggestions for Simplified Round
« on: March 21, 2022, 02:43:10 PM »
I've started a game of RMC, with my son and some of his friends, getting a younger generation into Rolemaster.

I've tried using the round RAW, but movement really bogs down to calculate pace, movement rate and % used, and really detracts from the flow, and any movement lowers OB, which alters actions in a game unrealisitically IMO

Anyone us a simpler system or a homebrew one that works?

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2022, 05:33:46 PM »
I know you're asking about RMC/2, but the RMU round also should work fine, if you use its 'Simple Round'.

I also use a modified form that reduces main actions (spells, melee, missile fire) to a standard 3 action points, leaving 1 action point left over each round for movement. I find this greatly cuts down on how movement inhibits OB.

You can download the RMU playtest materials to see how the Simple Round works there. Here are my updated action point costs for that:

Action            AP Cost

Equip actions
Drop Item         Free
Shift Item to Other Hand   0
Draw Weapon/Ammo/Item   1
Pick Up Item from ground   3
Load Light or Hand Crossbow   6
String Bow         6
Load Heavy Crossbow      14

Movement actions
Turn to Face Opponent      Free u/0
Move Your BMR      1
Drop Prone         1
Withdraw/Disengage      1
Chase/Press         1-4
Mount/Dismount      2-4
Stand Up         2
Hold Position (Swim/Climb)   C

Attack actions
Attack (melee or missile)   2-3
Charge Attack         3

Magic actions
Cast Instantaneous (*) Spell   0
Prepare Spell/Grace      C
Cast Normal Spell      3

Other actions
Stunned Manuever Check   0
Eat or Drink (Herb/Potion)   2
Prepare Adrenal Move      C

Legend
Free = never any action cost
0 = no cost for the first such action per turn; each subsequent action costs 1 ap
C = Concentration (doubles cost of all other actions performed that turn)
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Vladimir

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 154
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2022, 10:52:24 PM »
I've tried using the round RAW, but movement really bogs down to calculate pace, movement rate and % used, and really detracts from the flow, and any movement lowers OB, which alters actions in a game unrealisitically IMO

Anyone us a simpler system or a homebrew one that works?
  The problem with combat is balancing realism with simplicity. Very simple systems just aren't realistic while combat simulators tend to be complex. I've played with modern firearms rules that use 3 second rounds of action and it used a page of applicable modifiers.
Action Point systems seem to be a decent compromise, and I've seen variations of Casual/Simple/Complex actions in other games.
When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
-Lao Tzu

Offline Green Manalishi

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2022, 11:26:38 PM »
I know you're asking about RMC/2, but the RMU round also should work fine, if you use its 'Simple Round'.

I also use a modified form that reduces main actions (spells, melee, missile fire) to a standard 3 action points, leaving 1 action point left over each round for movement. I find this greatly cuts down on how movement inhibits OB.

You can download the RMU playtest materials to see how the Simple Round works there. Here are my updated action point costs for that:

Action            AP Cost

Equip actions
Drop Item         Free
Shift Item to Other Hand   0
Draw Weapon/Ammo/Item   1
Pick Up Item from ground   3
Load Light or Hand Crossbow   6
String Bow         6
Load Heavy Crossbow      14

Movement actions
Turn to Face Opponent      Free u/0
Move Your BMR      1
Drop Prone         1
Withdraw/Disengage      1
Chase/Press         1-4
Mount/Dismount      2-4
Stand Up         2
Hold Position (Swim/Climb)   C

Attack actions
Attack (melee or missile)   2-3
Charge Attack         3

Magic actions
Cast Instantaneous (*) Spell   0
Prepare Spell/Grace      C
Cast Normal Spell      3

Other actions
Stunned Manuever Check   0
Eat or Drink (Herb/Potion)   2
Prepare Adrenal Move      C

Legend
Free = never any action cost
0 = no cost for the first such action per turn; each subsequent action costs 1 ap
C = Concentration (doubles cost of all other actions performed that turn)

I like that, it simplifies and is sensible for a game for quick resolution.

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2022, 12:17:11 AM »
You could use the RMSS or simple RMU rounds well enough I suspect.  Out of all the official RM rounds I prefer the RMSS one, however I'd use either a second by second (arguably the opposite direction you want to go) or use the other round I like.

Essentially...

Lowest Initiative moves (unless those with a higher one want to interrupt what one of them is doing).
Highest Initiative moves.
Highest Initiative takes their action (unless they want to hold on someone else).
Lowest Initiative takes their action.

No splitting up the round by percentages.
Snap and Deliberate actions give you an initiative modifier to balance out their usual bonus/penalty.
Typically we allow a small amount of movement without impacting your OB.
This still gives an advantage to those who have a higher initiative, but doesn't dumb it completely down to a D&D style round.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline MisterK

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 655
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2022, 12:58:42 AM »
You could use the RMSS or simple RMU rounds well enough I suspect.  Out of all the official RM rounds I prefer the RMSS one, however I'd use either a second by second (arguably the opposite direction you want to go) or use the other round I like.

Essentially...

Lowest Initiative moves (unless those with a higher one want to interrupt what one of them is doing).
Highest Initiative moves.
Highest Initiative takes their action (unless they want to hold on someone else).
Lowest Initiative takes their action.

No splitting up the round by percentages.
Snap and Deliberate actions give you an initiative modifier to balance out their usual bonus/penalty.
Typically we allow a small amount of movement without impacting your OB.
This still gives an advantage to those who have a higher initiative, but doesn't dumb it completely down to a D&D style round.
I would switch the relative order between moves and actions (I guess that's personal taste)
I would also prevent movement if you're in "melee area" (basically in the threat range) unless you either have not been attacked prior to your movement action or you've both been attacked but not hit ("0" result) AND have not attacked yourself. Makes melee combat more sticky.

Within melee area, you can basically shift: it's melee, not unlike quantum mechanics. You only have an approximation of the position of people.

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2022, 11:33:36 PM »
I would switch the relative order between moves and actions (I guess that's personal taste)
If someone is forced to move before you, you can react to that movement. That gives you the advantage.
If you can act before someone else, but can chose to wait on them, that gives you the advantage.

For example, if you moved first and your foe wants to escape, and you run to the door they can then just run to the window instead.
But if you see they are running for the window instead of the door, you can intercept them if you so choose. Make them show their hand, then react.

Acting first, unless you don't want to, should pretty obviously be advantageous.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline MisterK

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 655
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2022, 12:49:56 AM »
I would switch the relative order between moves and actions (I guess that's personal taste)
If someone is forced to move before you, you can react to that movement. That gives you the advantage.
If you can act before someone else, but can chose to wait on them, that gives you the advantage.

For example, if you moved first and your foe wants to escape, and you run to the door they can then just run to the window instead.
But if you see they are running for the window instead of the door, you can intercept them if you so choose. Make them show their hand, then react.

Acting first, unless you don't want to, should pretty obviously be advantageous.
I don't dispute that. I simply meant that I would use the alternative :
- actions, from highest to lowest initiative (with higher initiatives allowed to delay)
- movements, from lowest to highest initiative (with higher initiatives allowed to intercept)
With sticky melee, I think it makes sense.

Having movement first and actions second make sense in a game like Agôn, where movement is abstracted into manoeuvering into optimal range (and denying your opponents the same), and because you can not only move yourself but also *move your opponent* if you have a higher initiative. It is a fundamentally different take to combat from most games (and I advise everyone who doesn't know Agôn to have a look at it, if only to put things in perspective).

Offline Camel1918

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2022, 03:01:33 AM »
Hey all,
Our group has been using the Combat Environment Activity Tracking System II or for short "CEATS II". It was developed by Joel Lovell. It's basic idea is to have characters cross indexing current initiative with a list of basic combat actions to determine how many seconds will go by before that action is resolved. This way simultaneous activity can be tracked easily and players can tell exactly when things occur for each combatant in a round. It might seem complicated at first but it is very easy. Simply roll your initiative looks up any modifiers to the initiative (for example, snap, or deliberate) cross indexes it on a table with the action being attempted and note down how long it will take to resolve his action. Combat starts at 0.0 seconds, when your time that you noted come up you complete your action.

Very simple and we love it for its simultaneous activity, no more figuring out what % of an action I can do what in. The round runs very smoothly.

Offline MisterK

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 655
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2022, 11:26:03 AM »
I'm currently toying with the continuous action sequence (also known as roundless combat) as well, but using a simplified model compared to CEATS (actions basically take 1 or more action ranks). It does not require initiative either - the action begins when someone decides the time for talking is over, and everyone goes from there, unless surprise is a factor which means a 1-10 AP delay before first action.

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2022, 12:09:03 PM »
I'm currently toying with the continuous action sequence (also known as roundless combat) as well, but using a simplified model compared to CEATS (actions basically take 1 or more action ranks). It does not require initiative either - the action begins when someone decides the time for talking is over, and everyone goes from there, unless surprise is a factor which means a 1-10 AP delay before first action.

Sounds like you're making your own system, but just FYI, you can also totally do that with the core RMU system. Just use the 'phased round' rather than the simple round, and keep adding phases.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline MisterK

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 655
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2022, 01:27:18 PM »
Sounds like you're making your own system, but just FYI, you can also totally do that with the core RMU system. Just use the 'phased round' rather than the simple round, and keep adding phases.
I am sort of making my own system, yes. I keep ideas from RM (open ended rolls, basic resolution mechanism, spells) and change things as I see fit - reducing the weapon table size so that I can fit several of them on a single A4 sheet, reducing the active skill list by removing a plethora of skills that I can integrate in the base skills as modifiers or learnable talents, adding styles (combat and magic) as talents instead of skills, removing passive skills such as armor manoeuvering, separating skills between active skills (that have a skill bonus and are rolled) and investigation skills (for which I plan to pilfer ideas from the Gumshoe system), using a d20 instead of a d100 because some of my usual players have trouble with fast computation and it basically does not change anything, removing rolls from GM side... I still need to find a simple way to handle criticals without having full crit tables.
Once the basics are stabilised and are playtested properly, I'll move to magic and try to reorganise RM spells in spell trees and remove spell iterations (<effect> I, <effect> III, <effect> V...). But right now, magic is still serviceable as it is.

Basically, I try to make the RM I've wanted to use after having played the various editions for more than 30 years and having also shown interest in several modern systems. And, sadly, it is not RMU.

Offline Vladimir

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 154
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2022, 01:41:07 PM »
I'm currently toying with the continuous action sequence (also known as roundless combat) as well, but using a simplified model compared to CEATS (actions basically take 1 or more action ranks). It does not require initiative either - the action begins when someone decides the time for talking is over, and everyone goes from there, unless surprise is a factor which means a 1-10 AP delay before first action.
  I've played wargames with a similar thought in mind, using a deck of cards with units assigned a set of cards, depending on their training level, with better trained troops getting more cards. The cards are shuffled and the GM draws cards, which cued which unit acted first. Better units could have more actions. There was no rounds, just occasional reshuffling the deck. Quality units had the option of interrupting lesser units.
When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
-Lao Tzu

Offline Tywyll

  • Seeker of Wisdom
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2022, 09:27:12 AM »
I've started a game of RMC, with my son and some of his friends, getting a younger generation into Rolemaster.

I've tried using the round RAW, but movement really bogs down to calculate pace, movement rate and % used, and really detracts from the flow, and any movement lowers OB, which alters actions in a game unrealisitically IMO

Anyone us a simpler system or a homebrew one that works?

Personally I have always disliked RM2's round system. The level of complexity, I feel, is just too fiddly for the benefits it might offer.

You might like looking into Against the Darkmaster. It has a much simpler system, though it keeps things in phases like MERP (movement, missile, spells, melee, other missile, unprepared spells, other actions).

Offline damage

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2022, 10:04:57 PM »
I've always really disliked the various Rolemaster round systems. I've been using the HARP round system for quite a while now. 2 second rounds, so it's pretty rare a character gets to do more than 1 thing in a round unless Hasted/Adrenal Speeded:

Numbers below are the number of 2-second rounds something takes:

Melee :1 round
Move Base Movement Rate (x Pace) :1
Controlled Drop to the Ground :1
Rapid Dismount :1
Missile Attack :1
Draw Weapon (or drop /change weapon) :1
Stand Up (from prone position) :1
Climb (one-half Base Movement Rate) :1
Pick Lock (per difficulty rating) :1
Disarm trap (per difficulty rating) :1
Cast a Spell :1
Take Prepared Herb (stored in bandoleer) :1
Mount Riding Animal :1
Reload Sling or Bow :2
Search 10' sq. Area :4
Reload Light Crossbow :5
Reload Heavy Crossbow :10

My tweaks:
Prepare Adrenal or Cast instantaneous spell : Zero rounds, -10 to initiative.

Offline MisterK

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 655
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2022, 12:08:11 AM »
Reload Sling or Bow :2
Reload Light Crossbow :5
Reload Heavy Crossbow :10
About that.

Has anyone ever really reloaded a crossbow ? A couple of friends and I got our hands on one a few decades ago (it was probably not a historically accurate model of light crossbow, though) and tried to fire and reload repeatedly. Our completely unscientific experiment led us to believe that reloading *and* firing a light crossbow could be done at a sustained rate of about one shot per five seconds (once again, fire *and* reload). But since it was not really a controlled experiment, I would like to know if people have higher quality results to compare with RPG theory.

(I was always under the impression that reload times were inflated in RPGs to favour melee weapons even when starting a fight at range).

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,099
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2022, 01:48:58 AM »
Depends what you mean by light and heavy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs has a crossbow firing 6 shots in 51 seconds, so that's about 8-9 seconds per shot. It's a quite light crossbow with a draw weight of 130 lbs that can be cocked by hand with just a foot brace. In terms of power, it's probably on par with a short bow, nowhere close to a long bow. But RMSS's light crossbow is almost on par with a long bow for damage and crits, well above a short bow. To me that suggests that "light crossbow" should be something considerably heavier that might need a tool to cock, while a "heavy crossbow" needs a crank of some kind. (Although in fairness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIkxyjVu9gc shows a goat's foot with a 300 lbs crossbow not incurring much speed penalty.)

RMSS puts loading and firing a bow as something that can be done in a single round (with a penalty), while loading and firing a light crossbow is 190-220% of a round, so it can be rushed to fire every other 10 second round. (Heavy crossbow is 250-280%, so every third round.) Those do seem a bit slow.

RMU permits a bow to fire every round, or even twice per round with a penalty (1-3 AP plus 1 AP to load), while a light crossbow takes two rounds to load and fire (6 AP to load plus 1-3 to fire, with 4 AP per round), and a heavy crossbow takes four (14 AP to load plus 1-3 to fire). But rounds are only 5 seconds long, so that's a bowshot potentially every 2.5 seconds, a light crossbow every 10 seconds, and a heavy crossbow every 20. Those don't seem unreasonable when you factor in some chaos of combat vs a safe, fixed target shooting environment.

For real speed shooting, you can also add in adrenal speed and combat styles. E.g. the RMC Combat Companion has styles that potentially halve the loading time of bows and reduce the loading time for crossbows to as low as 70%, while the RMSS Martial Arts Companion gives a lesser boost of only 20% (which doesn't make much difference for a crossbow). The fighting styles in the RMU Character Companion will permit reducing the loading time for light crossbows from 6 AP down to 3 (permitting rushed shots every round), and heavy from 14 AP down to 10 (permitting rushed shots every 3 rounds). So don't compare the base speed rules in any of these systems to the fastest shooters, they should be considered "typical" rather than exceptional speeds.

Extremely simple rounds (e.g. a 2-second round where you get one action per round) don't provide much room to accommodate differences between different weapons. Shooting an arrow every 2 seconds is possible if you are very, very good but it's rushed. I couldn't do it, not even close. Whereas it's hard to even imagine using a weapon where you spend 9 rounds out of every 10 just loading (for the heavy crossbow), that's not any fun to play. Even a light crossbow firing once per 5 rounds is just going to fail the fun test. Both RMSS and RMU let a light crossbow fire every other round, that's paying a cost but at least it's playable.



Personally, I've used a crossbow for SCA heavy archery. Mine has a ~105 lbs draw, which is quite difficult to cock by hand unless you are wearing a rigid breastplate to brace it against and have big armored guys running at you with weapons drawn. Then it somehow becomes pretty easy. :) But compared to something you would want to use in real combat, it's pretty light.

One thing I did find with a crossbow in combat -- and this applies to bows too -- is that you spend more time than you would think trying to line up a shot, especially if you are shooting from the second rank. I think a realistic way to handle this, which I don't think any game does, would be to say that at least some of the time when your attack roll is a complete miss (but not a fumble), you actually aren't even firing a shot, you are simply still trying to line one up. That would increase how frequently you could make attack rolls without implying unrealistic loading speeds (since you would be able to make your next attack roll without needing to spend any time loading).
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline MisterK

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 655
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2022, 03:08:29 AM »
One thing I did find with a crossbow in combat -- and this applies to bows too -- is that you spend more time than you would think trying to line up a shot, especially if you are shooting from the second rank. I think a realistic way to handle this, which I don't think any game does, would be to say that at least some of the time when your attack roll is a complete miss (but not a fumble), you actually aren't even firing a shot, you are simply still trying to line one up. That would increase how frequently you could make attack rolls without implying unrealistic loading speeds (since you would be able to make your next attack roll without needing to spend any time loading).
This is interesting because it hints that the *shooting* part is actually longer, and is on par with the RM melee abstraction that says your one attack roll is in fact the result of a series of attempts, only one of which actually connects (back when the round was 10s long). Under that abstraction and with a 10s round, merging attack and reload for all but heavy crossbow might make sense.

And I do not integrate extra speed sources in the computation, because they could be used with melee attacks as well - my points was to ask whether there was a bias towards melee combat in order to avoid a situation where all encounters that begin at range would devolve into shooting contests.

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2022, 12:10:34 AM »
The question about crossbows being realistic as a weapon in RPG's, let alone any weapon really, just makes me look at my tag line: Fun > Balanced > Realistic
Put simply, if it's not fun who cares if it's balanced or realistic?  If the crossbow isn't worth taking X rounds to load and fire vs another missile weapon that's no fun.  Full stop.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline MisterK

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 655
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Suggestions for Simplified Round
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2022, 06:06:15 AM »
The question about crossbows being realistic as a weapon in RPG's, let alone any weapon really, just makes me look at my tag line: Fun > Balanced > Realistic
Put simply, if it's not fun who cares if it's balanced or realistic?  If the crossbow isn't worth taking X rounds to load and fire vs another missile weapon that's no fun.  Full stop.
Which is kind of my point. I would like to find the right balance between "don't use a crossbow, except an already loaded one - once" and "use the freaking medieval gun as soon as you can get your hands on one because it's the bomb". Right now, I wonder if the reload times are too high, especially since my admittedly limited experience seemed to indicate that realism had nothing to do with it - so I was asking about the cause.

And I also think that the balance between fun, realism and balance in RM is not overly skewed towards fun. the number of arguments for balance and realism on this forum alone would tend to bear it out. But of course, of the three, fun is the one that is most in the eye of a beholder.