Topic: Rules-Lite RMC discussion

[Ebon Hearted Soul]

I know that RMX is OOP and will not be available in print or PDF (Luckily I own it in print), that said has anyone who owns RMC homebrewed their own rules light RMC in the vein of RMX for your personal campaigns? I am thinking of doing so or even making RMX even more Rules-Lite. I love RM but I have cognitive issues so overly complex rules are harder for me to run and yet I really want to run a RMX or rules-lite RMC campaign in the future.

Just wonder if there is any advice that can be given to help me in this process?

I am likely going to pare down the number of skills starting with skills that cover things that should be "Role-Play" based (like Perception). I am going to run two HARP 2e campaigns in the near future and saw some options in the RMX Express Additions that add elements found in HARP like the consolidated combat charts.

Even though I like HARP 2e as it has just the right amount of crunch I still like what RMX and RMC offers in professions and races. Plus I can pull stuff from Cyberspace and Spacemaster 2 and house-rule them to fit RMX/RMC fairly easily, since I am a fan of Science Fantasy campaigns. 

[markc]

IMHO, from your description I would be careful to remember one of the core rules of RPing "The players are not their PC's and the PC's are not the players"


That means simply that the players ability to describe actions is not the PC's ability to execute them as well as the reverse (ie a less skilled RP'er should have more skill (if appropriate in the PC's skills or stats) then they exhibit.
Also RPing is not an wholly acting experience unless it is at your table and if it is then extroverts often dominate the game.


MDC   

[Ebon Hearted Soul]

I agree to a degree and yet I want to foster a reliance on Role-play over "Roll-play". It is possible with RM/HARP ect. Take perception, even if it is present I would simple ask the player to describe what their PC is searching for or use it as a "Awareness" check incase danger is afoot. If a PC is searching a room they describe how and if something is hidden but discoverable by their stated actions, otherwise they didn't find it. A thorough search should negate the need for a skill roll, whereas a Lore check or Crafting check is needed and thus rolled. 

[markc]

IMHO,
1) The player may not have the knowledge that the PC has or vice versa.
Example (Modern day examples are easier): a PC is a Particle Physicist the player has only High School level of knowledge of the field.
>>>>The GM has to make up the difference in the PC knowledge vs the player knowledge otherwise the player does not know how to react and act in specific situations.
Example: The player is a modern military officer and understands tactics and logistics playing a unskilled PC in this area, they should not be able to use their personal knowledge for their PC.


I have seen the style of play you describe above work fine in a known group but when new players come into the game it falls apart or when the GM decides to run a game at a Con.


MDC  [size=78%]  [/size]

[markc]

I have found it is often very tough to pull players into more RPing then roll'ing and rules light systems generally do not support more RPing (but that can vary dramatically by group and interaction of group with the rules, ie quite a few people do not want to lean new games and when presented with simple games they even do not learn them).


You can also have very silly things happen in rules light games based on the system. I am going to present a D&D 5e example here about their new War Beasts (beasts that draw platforms for war), the author has a creature being able to fire a trabuchet  from a platform (the siege weapon needs lots of weight and stability being ground mounted to prevent it from falling apart).


MDC

[markc]

Sorry the creature template is Monster of War.
MDC

[markc]

An example just came to mind of a system style that I have seen does not work (but may in limited groups), White Wolfs version that uses beats to get the player to RP wounds, flaws and goals.
The idea sounds solid (to reward RPing with exp based on PC's experiences) but quickly became about setting easy goals and collecting flaws to RP. Yes their is a note about player abuse of this style, but that does not fix the issue the basic game rules created by the system and its inherent flaws. ie it can work if everyone is a perfect player but it seems to ignore the fact most players and GM's are not perfect.


MDC   

[Witchking20k]

I GM a steam-lined RMX. Here are the tweaks I've made:

-I use a single armor skill based on RL development cost.
-I develop Weapons based on group (1 Handed Edge, Missile, etc).
-I replace climb & swim with Acrobatics (Ag/Qu) & Athletics (St/Co) - this gives a generic Ag & St based skill roll.
-Ride is a generic animal skill.
-I use a single Lore skill (no sub skills) and a rule that all rolls relating to your profession, race, culture start at Light difficulty and each step beyond that increases the Difficulty by 1 step (this leaves a little world based interpretation).
-The other 3 secondary skills are staples in my games anyway (so they are essentially primary skills).
-I use Concussion's Ways as 1d10 healing/level - each d10 can heal a d10 hits or 1 pt bleeding, or 1 round stun or -5 in penalty.

I have changed the dice rolling to a TN system of Light 70+, Medium 90+, Hard 110+, V.Hard 130+. These numbers are based off experience and making them achievable for players from levels 1-3; not be totally derived from RM rules.

You can also reduce the attack tables to the core 4: 1HE, Missile, 2H and Tooth & Claw....honorable mention to the Ball table..but, that doesn't get used all that much.

[brole]

One thing I have used from RMX is "armor as a single skill" instead of the normal four separate armor skills.

[Witchking20k]

The way that the Express Additions worked was nice because it allowed you to add things piecemeal to the game if you wanted. But the core book was "easier" to read/digest for a newer players and, of course, being a playable game based in one book of less than 100 pages was ideal. IMO if that release had included a Mentalist rather than an Animist and a Ranger as a Channeling semi spell user it would have been close to a perfect "lite" version or RMC.

[markc]

Encouraging more RP less Rolling:


This is a topic that come up quite often and in terms of system complexity I often find that less complex systems mean the players are less invested and thus more rolley then roley. That is not to say hard systems.


So in the past I have asked myself these questions:
1) Why is their not more RPing going on? Or why is the level not at the point where I would like?
2) Do my players feel the say way? Do all of them feel the same way?
3) Do my players want to change or can they or will they change their play style?
4) Are their things I the GM can do to help my players be more RPey then Rolly? Often I found that it involves more description in descriptions and on NPC's on my part, thus an increase in prep time for me. Or preping custom observation/perception descriptions that I send to each player electronically, instead on just a common text.


In the past I have tended to see less RPing in games where they players are less invested and interested in the game (but not always and times and players change) and the amount of time spent at the table (less then 4 hours vs 4-8 hours and less time means less interest in RP and more interest in combat, which tends to be less RP'y in nature).


So in general I do not necessarily see simple systems as being more RP driven then more complex systems as these tend to depend on the people who are playing and running the game. 
MDC

[Witchking20k]

I try to encourage people to play in whatever way they feel comfortable. It is supposed to be fun. But, I will say that I have observed that some tweaks to the rules can encourage roleplaying. I use a generic "influence" skill because some players are going to say "I want to convince the barkeep to tell me about the haunted ruins." with more confidence knowing that they get a skill roll for it and don't just have to rely on their own dialogue. Most of the time as they gain a bit of game confidence they start to add in some roleplaying.

[Witchking20k]

A note on skills that you should roleplay:
-As a GM never be afraid to use a base roll of 50 + skill and just tell players what they see or know etc. Plus, let your players know you do this to encourage them to develop these types of skills.

[markc]

In the past I have used ranks to be a quick basis of what I just tell players what they can do or see as well as try and RP any penalties they have.
MDC

[Peter R]

I know that RMX is OOP and will not be available in print or PDF (Luckily I own it in print), that said has anyone who owns RMC homebrewed their own rules light RMC in the vein of RMX for your personal campaigns? I am thinking of doing so or even making RMX even more Rules-Lite. I love RM but I have cognitive issues so overly complex rules are harder for me to run and yet I really want to run a RMX or rules-lite RMC campaign in the future.

Just wonder if there is any advice that can be given to help me in this process?

I am likely going to pare down the number of skills starting with skills that cover things that should be "Role-Play" based (like Perception). I am going to run two HARP 2e campaigns in the near future and saw some options in the RMX Express Additions that add elements found in HARP like the consolidated combat charts.

Even though I like HARP 2e as it has just the right amount of crunch I still like what RMX and RMC offers in professions and races. Plus I can pull stuff from Cyberspace and Spacemaster 2 and house-rule them to fit RMX/RMC fairly easily, since I am a fan of Science Fantasy campaigns.

• If you forget the 101+ to succeed rule, and treat everything as a percentage maneuver it simplifies things slightly.
  You can use partial successes to indicate levels of success or partial successes to indicate the time required. Either way, you are reducing two different game mechanics into one.
• If you can make any skill test that is easier than Medium an automatic success. This makes characters more functional and saves the dice rolling for more meaningful skill tests
• If your game is based around investigations, if a character has a skill then make finding clues based upon that skill automatic success. The fun starts when the players have the clues and are trying to put them together and solve the mystery. If a fail doesn't add to the excitement, don't make the players roll.