Topic: Why d'you choose RMSS/FRP over RM2/Classic?

[ToM]

Don't know if some topic of sort already exists.
However, why do you RMSS/FRP aficionados still hang onto these two preferring them on the "newer" (actually older) versions of the game?

I will go first:

• Skills, altough somewhere redundant, hare handled in a much more logical way. No distinction between Primary and Secondary skills and no "similar skills" rules, but a solid unified system for categories and skills makes for greater internal coherence.
• Spell casting rules are way better handled and balanced. I prefer SCMS over ESF all the way because of its intrinsic "logical" approach to the matter. Power Points development is a must.
• Static maneuvers divided per Skills Group are more variegate and colorful
• The so-much-hated three phases initiative system and round gets very interesting once you're acquainted to it. Not so simple to handle in the first place, I must admit, but very flexible and players must definitely like it in the hand for the more options it offers. Combat is not slowed down so much when the round is split apart, but instead expert players exploit the system to make interesting combos of action to actually speed up resolution of the whole round. Although, I must admit, 2d10 + bonus initiative determination still sucks. But, CEATS is really too much cumbersome to me to keep track of.
• Professions. Sweet, and balanced, and colorful.
• Training Packages. Someone a GM and Player must like when figuring out interesting backgrounds for their characters.

[yammahoper]

What he said. 

RMSS/FRP is an improvement to RM2.  That said, there is still room for improvement in RMSS/FRP.

[ToM]

RMSS/FRP is an improvement to RM2.  That said, there is still room for improvement in RMSS/FRP.

Agreed on both.
So, this said, why do you think ICE dropped RMSS/FRP for RMC (which is, substantially, RM2 reworked)?
Might it be it is more palatable for entry-level players?
If so, why HARP, at all?

[yammahoper]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The website redo has been delayed while a bunch of stuff gets sorted out.  I would not read too much into it and especially nothing about and RMSS/RMFRP death knell.

Thats a quote from ICEBruce.  Hey, he oughta know is how I see it.

HARP was the new ICE flexing its creative muscles.  It told the world that ICE was back after bankruptcy and moving ahead.  HARP is a fine product that also allowed experimentation with RM core rules and the like, though in the end HARP stands on its own as a fully formed and playable system.  Still, MERP was the second best selling rpg of all time.  Tough boots to walk in to be sure.

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

RMSS/FRP is an improvement to RM2.  That said, there is still room for improvement in RMSS/FRP.

Agreed on both.
So, this said, why do you think ICE dropped RMSS/FRP for RMC (which is, substantially, RM2 reworked)?
Might it be it is more palatable for entry-level players?
If so, why HARP, at all?

It's much more interesting to hear why players and GMs prefer RMSS/FRP over RM2/Classic.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[DangerMan]

Limited edition, hardbound RMC for sale:

http://www.finn.no/finn/torget/tilsalgs/annonse?finnkode=24783325

105 dollars + shipment.

Not my add, but I thought some of the people reading this thread might be interested.

Click "Send epost " to email seller.

[Tolen]

I pretty much covered the mechanical reasons in the other thread.

Aside from those reasons, however, It's a matter of 'feel'.  I just like the way the RMSS set works in general and in total.  Plus, I had the chance to pick up more than one version of the rules when I started, and I went with my gut feelings (sadly, my LGS doesn't carry much RM anymore...). 

So the RMSS set is the one I've read most often, and most thoroughly.  It's the system I know best.  When HARP came out, I went and took a look, but it just didn't feel right to me either.

And that about sums it up for me. There is a list of technical mechanical reasons that I like better in RMSS, and there are a lot of rules in the other rules in the other editions that just rub me the wrong way.

To paraphrase Red Dwarf:
"Well, I'd play RMC, but I'd be thinking about RMSS."

[ToM]

Talking about RMSS, I think it can claim the best supplements to the core book ICE ever produced for any of its games.
Essence, Mentalism, Arcane (although somewhere a little broken) and most of all Channeling Companions add a lot of depth to the game. I especially love some professions introduced with Mentalism Companion and, of course, The Priest with all its variants. Which is, IMHO, something RMC still totally lacks.

[lordmalachdrim]

Skills: Overall i like the way they are laid out in RMSS better then RMC, I also like the variety offered.

Books: I really liked the lay out of the RMSS series over RMFRP but over all I like the detail involved and the fact that even with all the  detail it is still at it's core a simple system.

Combat: RMSS and RMC are both better then HARP in this respect for me for the simple matter of the individual weapon tables. Though I like the armor by piece and the simple action setup of HARP, it just isn't enough to compete with the weapon tables for us.

I'd love to see a revamp of RMSS with a slight review of skills to eliminate the few redundant skills, A simpler actions in combat (100% of activity while detailed seems to be something my players just cant comprehend),  And maybe slightly more customizable armor without losing the weapon tables we have.

[markc]

  There are quite a few threads in the archives on the topic of RMSS/FRP vs RM2 (RMC/X) that can be looked up.


  I like it because it is easy to mod for a unique game world I would like to run or for even unique races to be able to mod the skills progression, skill cost, stats or add many stats to a skill.
  I am also thinking about completely changeling the skill progression system and it will be very easy to drop into the system no matter how I do it. IMHO a perfect framework system to allow for easy change or adaption of other systems.


  As to skill changes in SM:P they created a Medicine skill category that IMHO is a great addition that can be dropped into RMSS quite easily. 


  Many if not all of the above points I agree on vs RM2 but some rules or optional rules in RMC/X affect my opinions. 


MDC

[Kristen Mork]

Reason #1: Almost everything is a skill.  Learning spells is a skill, learning a weapon is a skill, gaining hits or PP is a skill.  Not only does this streamline the system, but it allows me to run a game that spans several epochs by simply assigning a technology prereq to each skill (e.g., short sword requires bronze, broad sword requires iron, Lofty Bridge requires closed essence, etc.).  In RM2 there were separate mechanics for spells, weapons (with a level bonus), hits, power points, etc.  (And don't get me started on D&D 3.5 with skills, weapons, spells, feats, etc.!)
Reason #2: Every skill has a discrete category.  Thus, adding new professions is simple.  Just assign costs to the fixed categories, add some Profession bonuses, and you're done.  This feature also makes it easier for me to put everything in a database.
Reason #3: Spells were streamlined, and spell types explained.  In RMSS I never have to have the argument regarding Long Door-ing an opponent 100' into the air.
Reason #4: Stats were streamlined: Most players seem to prefer a point-buy system (I like random stats, without re-ordering, but I know I'm in the minority).  Dev points are calculated (no table needed), potentials can be calculated (there's a table, but it's formulaic), and stat gains require no table.

Things I don't like about RMSS:
* Training Packages require separate costs for every profession.  And, some costs simply aren't available.  TPs should rely on a fixed formula instead.
* A handful of mechanics aren't skill-based: initiative, RRs, exhaustion points.  I found it easy to make Endurance a Body Development skill to handle exhaustion points, but there isn't a simple fix for the other two.

[markc]

Peter;
 There is a TP creator sheet in the Vault that does do TP cost by formula as well as a master TP cost chart in the errata section IIRC.
MDC

[Kristen Mork]

Mark, thanks!  I had already grabbed a copy of the TP creator sheet, which IMHO is how TP costs should have been defined from day one.  I don't see a master TP cost chart on the errata board, if you have a chance to provide a link, I would be grateful!

[markc]

Mark, thanks!  I had already grabbed a copy of the TP creator sheet, which IMHO is how TP costs should have been defined from day one.  I don't see a master TP cost chart on the errata board, if you have a chance to provide a link, I would be grateful!

Here it is: http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item187


MDC

[Tolen]

  As to skill changes in SM:P they created a Medicine skill category that IMHO is a great addition that can be dropped into RMSS quite easily. 

Oh yeah, I like that, too.  In fact, I've tinkered with the SM:P version of psionics in RMFRP, and once built a master skill development table that blended the fantasy/sci fi skill lists (of course, I fudged a lot of the numbers...)

And that's another thing I like about it, it's flexibility.  I can tweak and change and add or subtract without a separate rules mechanic to handle it.  It's all flexible, but well defined.

[markc]

I also have a master Excel spreed sheet with the SM:P and RMSS stuff in it that I use as a master to do a lot of stuff.


MDC

[rdanhenry]

I've needed the TP calculation spread sheet. I can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't want to put together my own TPs. Not only do I need to reflect what changes I've made to the skill list, but I consider training packages to be important parts of the setting, a major part of world creation, since they define common "types" and vocations. My world is fairly high magic, so there's an "Illuminator" TP for someone who makes a living (or supplements his income) casting light spells, for example. I'd say that TP selection almost as basic as what Professions and Races/Cultures are including in building the setting.

[markc]

I've needed the TP calculation spread sheet. I can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't want to put together my own TPs. Not only do I need to reflect what changes I've made to the skill list, but I consider training packages to be important parts of the setting, a major part of world creation, since they define common "types" and vocations. My world is fairly high magic, so there's an "Illuminator" TP for someone who makes a living (or supplements his income) casting light spells, for example. I'd say that TP selection almost as basic as what Professions and Races/Cultures are including in building the setting.

 You can also use the TP Calc Sheet for SM:P as the formula just looks as ranks in this or that and then map the DP cost to the closest profession in SM:P. ie soldier is a fighter etc.
 That is IIRC
MDC

[Elton Robb]

* Flexibility within a solid rule resolution system.  RM2 was getting way overpowered by the use of the companions.  If I were to run RM Classic, the only companion I'd use is The Rolemaster Companion since it doesn't over power RM2 except for the Archmage and the High Warrior Monk.

In relationship with my FR campaign -- With RMSS, I get a happy medium between Pendragon and D&D.  In other words, you can create a primp and proper lady using the Layman profession and a training package for Ladies-in-Waiting (the female balance for the Knight).

Since my FR campaign has Arthurian overtones, sort of [the players and the world taken in as a whole], RMSS is the perfect system to run it.  Although FR is built for D&D, it's a lot less work to run Rolemaster with it than Pendragon, because Pendragon is an RPG built for Arthurian Roleplaying; while Rolemaster is built for a generic fantasy environment (a'la Forgotten Realms).

[ToM]

* Flexibility within a solid rule resolution system.  RM2 was getting way overpowered by the use of the companions.  If I were to run RM Classic, the only companion I'd use is The Rolemaster Companion since it doesn't over power RM2 except for the Archmage and the High Warrior Monk.

In relationship with my FR campaign -- With RMSS, I get a happy medium between Pendragon and D&D.  In other words, you can create a primp and proper lady using the Layman profession and a training package for Ladies-in-Waiting (the female balance for the Knight).

Since my FR campaign has Arthurian overtones, sort of [the players and the world taken in as a whole], RMSS is the perfect system to run it.  Although FR is built for D&D, it's a lot less work to run Rolemaster with it than Pendragon, because Pendragon is an RPG built for Arthurian Roleplaying; while Rolemaster is built for a generic fantasy environment (a'la Forgotten Realms).

I also played many RMSS campaigns set in the FR.
Strange enough, FR feel is IMHO more preserved with RMSS than with "official" 3.5. Talking about Ed Green's FR, not WotC's messed-up ones.

Also the flexibility of RMSS has also been succesfully adapted by me to:

• Mystara
• Dark Sun
• Hyborian Age
• Warhammer Fantasy
• Victorian/Steampunk Fantasy
• Middle Earth (of course)

All those words and legends retained superbly their original flavor adding all the depth and detail only RM can add.