Author Topic: Rolemaster's Future  (Read 8632 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Warden

  • Guest
Rolemaster's Future
« on: December 23, 2011, 06:36:49 AM »
Not sure if this is in the correct forum, I apologise if it's not.

I've got the 90 page RMX pdf.

What's the latest edition of Rolemaster and is it in print?

Offline Marc R

  • Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,392
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • "Don't throw stones, offer alternatives."
    • Looking for Online Roleplay? Try RealRoleplaying
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2011, 06:46:16 AM »
The two most up to date versions currently are:

RMC, which is the most current iteration of RM2 (and which RMX is the "Lite" version of)

RMFRP, which is the most current iteration of RMSS.

Both are for sale at the store (click "Shop ICE" in the top left of the page menu) in PDF form.

Neither are available currently in print form, GCP is rolling out printed versions of some books in the store, the most recent updates on that are in the announcements board:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?board=162.0

and discussed here and there in threads on the board.
The Artist Formerly Known As LordMiller

Looking for online Role Play? Try WWW.RealRoleplaying.Com

Warden

  • Guest
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2011, 07:11:11 AM »
The two most up to date versions currently are:

RMC, which is the most current iteration of RM2 (and which RMX is the "Lite" version of)

RMFRP, which is the most current iteration of RMSS.

Both are for sale at the store (click "Shop ICE" in the top left of the page menu) in PDF form.

Neither are available currently in print form, GCP is rolling out printed versions of some books in the store, the most recent updates on that are in the announcements board:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?board=162.0

and discussed here and there in threads on the board.
Thanks for the Marc

Not sure what all the abbreviations are for.

RMC = Rolemaster Classic
RMFRP = I assume is Rolemaster Fantasy Roleplay
RMSS?

Could you perhaps give a quick summary of the differences between RMC, RMFRP, and RMSS?

Offline lordmalachdrim

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2011, 07:18:36 AM »
RMSS = RoleMaster Standard System

RMC is an expanded version of RMX.

RMSS/RMFRP is much more detailed (ex You buy ranks in both the skills and the categories they belong too)

Great Break down: http://www.ironcrown.com/?page_id=711

Warden

  • Guest
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2011, 07:53:34 AM »
Thanks for that :)

Offline frnchqrtr

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2011, 11:14:48 AM »
A niggling point, I know, but it would be more accurate to state that RMX is an abbreviated RMC.

RMSS = RoleMaster Standard System

RMC is an expanded version of RMX.

RMSS/RMFRP is much more detailed (ex You buy ranks in both the skills and the categories they belong too)

Great Break down: http://www.ironcrown.com/?page_id=711
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - Cardinal and Duc de Richelieu

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" - Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis

Offline bpowell

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 528
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2011, 03:07:20 PM »
OK, here are my $0.02.  I have been looking around and asking this same question for a few personal reasons.  Over a year ago under the last folks to hold the license I also bought RMX.  I found it to be a nice intro into RoleMaster.  I have played and DMed RM for more years that I care to count and have always loved the system.  But most people find it "too hard" and "too complex".

I found RMX an easy way to ge them playing RM and not have a huge number of charts and the like getting in the way.  But I was recently told that RMX will not be published by the new license holders (GCP).  There is some sort of legal issue that I do not know about (and did not ask truth be told).  but I was also told, on the forums here, that a RoleMaster Lite would be coming in the future.

I know that RM can be daunting for those just getting into FRPs.  But since D&D 3E was more or less based on it, many can understand it.  I see the use of d100 being the main issue.  I have been told that "I don't do math..."  I point out they make the same calculations in D&D and after a bit they seem to accept it.

I know that all of the RoleMaster Classic books (Character Law, Spell Law and Arms Law) have been re-released and are available as PDFs.  I also know some of the RMFRP stuff has been released also.  I know that Nicholas is actively working to get new materials printed for RMC and RMFRP along with SpaceMaster and HARP.

Offline smug

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,291
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #7 on: December 25, 2011, 03:54:14 PM »

I know that RM can be daunting for those just getting into FRPs.  But since D&D 3E was more or less based on it, many can understand it. 

I just don't agree that 3.x is "more or less based" on Rolemaster, even though Monte Cook was involved in both. The way actions work, the tactical combat in general, keeping binary 'to-hit', Vancian spell-casting, feats, multiclassing, etc, it's all different. The games just don't feel the same (although I have enjoyed playing both).

I definitely would love to see RMX back now or something similar (an introduction to RM2/C) really very soon. In my experience it's a really good bridge into the full game.

Offline bpowell

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 528
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2011, 09:53:43 AM »
Yeah,  I am introducing several new players to my RM game.  All are experienced D&D players.  But as we do the mechanics of the game they seem to have issues.  One told me she did not "do higher math".  Soon she caught on and was able to accept the d100.  The idea of the weapons charts seems to be the main thing.

They seemed to like RMX since it had 4 centralized charts.  I am sure as they become used to the idea they will warm more to the game.

Offline yammahoper

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,858
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2011, 10:15:15 AM »

I know that RM can be daunting for those just getting into FRPs.  But since D&D 3E was more or less based on it, many can understand it. 

I just don't agree that 3.x is "more or less based" on Rolemaster, even though Monte Cook was involved in both. The way actions work, the tactical combat in general, keeping binary 'to-hit', Vancian spell-casting, feats, multiclassing, etc, it's all different. The games just don't feel the same (although I have enjoyed playing both).

I definitely would love to see RMX back now or something similar (an introduction to RM2/C) really very soon. In my experience it's a really good bridge into the full game.

3e is RM translated to a d20.  DC's are how RM has always worked. Routine mnv, 3 or higher, easy, 5 or higher, light, 6 or higher, medium, 10 or higher, etc.  RM instead uses a table, but the 3e mechanic is certainly the same.

Skills are also a direct copy of RM in 3e.  Professions have a set of skills that are cheap, while all other skills cost twice as much to develop.  Simplified certainly, but obviously an idea out of RM.

DnD did what RM should have done in 92-93, created a simplified version of its rule core that any 11 yr old could learn easily without fear of intimidation.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.

Offline smug

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,291
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2011, 02:44:50 PM »

3e is RM translated to a d20.  DC's are how RM has always worked. Routine mnv, 3 or higher, easy, 5 or higher, light, 6 or higher, medium, 10 or higher, etc.  RM instead uses a table, but the 3e mechanic is certainly the same.

That's not a new idea, it's how Armour Class has always worked in D&D. Shadowrun had target numbers, too (although had dice pools as well). In fact, Rolemaster's distinguishing factor on skills, I'd say, is partial success, which in general 3.x doesn't have (other than in diplomacy, although it does have gradations of failure in other skills like climb).

Quote
Skills are also a direct copy of RM in 3e.  Professions have a set of skills that are cheap, while all other skills cost twice as much to develop.  Simplified certainly, but obviously an idea out of RM.

Actually, Runequest/BRP skill improvements are easier to learn if you have talent in that general area (although not by the same amount as in RM or D&D); it's older than RM and doesn't have classes or levels (but in the sense of D&D classes, Rolemaster doesn't have them either), but the idea of differentiated skill costs doesn't come from RM. Skills are hardly the major element of 3.x in any case; 1e had non-weapon proficiencies and 3.x skills are pretty simply viewed, I think, as an extension of that.

By the time 3.x was released, there was a bunch of thinking about rpg design by a host of people.

Quote
DnD did what RM should have done in 92-93, created a simplified version of its rule core that any 11 yr old could learn easily without fear of intimidation.

I think that most people don't find the 3.x core terribly simple and I would say with good reason, it isn't; it's also more complicated than the 2e and 1e core (although 2e as a whole got fairly complex, given all the extra crunch supplements). Indeed, I think that RM2 is simpler but relies more on GM interpretation (as does RMSS).

The big deals with 3.x in terms of changes are things like the tactical combat/action economy, the new multiclassing, a bunch of regularisation as with statuses and bonuses and spell descriptions, plus the xp progression, etc.

Playing 3.x, in my opinion and (now somewhat extensive) experience doesn't feel remotely like playing RM.

Offline yammahoper

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,858
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2011, 02:58:26 PM »
If 3e's designer had been Shadow Runs designer, or RQ designer, I'd say you had valid points.

Still, as your closing line indicates, its all about a feeling you have, and there is no logical arguing with that, as matters of taste are not debatable.

 8)
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.

Offline smug

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,291
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2011, 05:26:48 PM »
They were aware of the other games on the market, and it's not like Cook designed RM, he came on-board way after that.

The similarities, it seems to me, are just too weak to draw straight lines, and the similarities aren't really central to what 3.x is in any case.

I prefer RM2 to 3.x, although I run more 3.x for the normal reasons (finding player, plus system support). I am bemused that anyone considers the defining elements of the systems to be very related, even if there are influence.

It is in the eye of the beholder, though, at least until we can see into Monte Cook's head.

Offline RandalThor

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,116
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2011, 07:37:04 AM »
.  The idea of the weapons charts seems to be the main thing.
That was a problem my friend had, not the math, he was fine with the math, in fact, he would have rather had the attacks use a math-based equation for him to be able to do in his head, instead of the tables and charts. (He is the only person I have ran across in my 30+ years of gaming who is better than that than I am, and he is better by a long shot.)

Cutting the number of charts down does help - for me as well. I have begun to prefer the HARP tables and stuff (particularly the Hack & Slash ones) to the RM ones. Getting rid of the Armor Type and each weapon table has meant much less scrambling as I leaf through Arms Law. (Yes there are many methods to try and cut down that time, but the still end up taking longer than if I am able to have all the tables - at least the top 6 - hanging in front of me on the GMs screen.)
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Scratch that. Power attracts the corruptible.

Rules should not replace the brain and thinking.

Offline bpowell

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 528
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #14 on: December 27, 2011, 11:46:00 AM »
Yeah, after running RM for MANY years i have a general idea where the table take off and when I can just call a miss.  One thing my new players like is that besides spells they can attempt anything at a -25.  This allow for some interesting results.

During the last game my dice were throwing high then low.  This caused a fumble on a bow then a 100 on the fumble.  This caused the poor bad guy to have his bow snap in half and the broken bow shove the bad guy's jaw into his brain.  Everyone laughed until my wife pointed out hat this could happen to any of them.

Warden

  • Guest
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2011, 03:04:16 PM »
A couple more questions

What's the most detailed/complex/crunchy RM offering, and how does it square up with GURPS 4E? Which is more complex?

Would you say that after RMX, RMC is the easiest edition of RM?

I'm looking for a system to run Harn

Offline Marc R

  • Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,392
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • "Don't throw stones, offer alternatives."
    • Looking for Online Roleplay? Try RealRoleplaying
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2011, 03:10:16 PM »
If you're already playing RMX, then RMC will be a comfortable next step into greater crunch.

Viewed as a whole with all supplements in play, I dunno that RM2/C vs RMSS/FRP can be viewed as one more crunchy than the other.

Complexity vs Gurps is a hard call. . . .I'd call HERO, GURPS and RM to all be rather complex, crunchy systems, differing not so much on complexity or crunch level as in specificity. . .RM is very fantasy tuned, SM is is very sci fi tuned (you can eke out a modern game using elements drawn from both), while HERO or GURPS are more genre independent. . .
The Artist Formerly Known As LordMiller

Looking for online Role Play? Try WWW.RealRoleplaying.Com

Offline Thom @ ICE

  • Aurigas Staff
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,810
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Thom@ironcrown.com
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2011, 07:41:20 PM »
I'm looking for a system to run Harn

If you are looking for a system to run Harn, I would recommend you jump over to HARP. We already have a free download in the vault that develops the setting for the Harp system.
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item761

Email -    Thom@ironcrown.com

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,629
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2011, 01:28:15 AM »
If 3e's designer had been Shadow Runs designer, or RQ designer, I'd say you had valid points.

I started on the original D&D red box, went to AD&D, then 2nd Ed D&D, we re-wrote a lot (probably 50%) of 2nd Ed D&D using a lot of RM2 materials in addition to our own modifications, then converted over to MERP, then to RMSS. (Also keep in mind I've worked for WotC directly and as a Freelancer for ICE).

I have paid some attention to D&D up through 3.5, but I know almost nothing about 4.0.  In my opinion D&D gets more like RM with each newer version so far as I've followed it - and is actually a big part of why I don't even bother paying attention to it anymore.  No idea who's influence it is or if there's a direct connection somewhere, but it's hard to imagine there's not.

Probably one of my biggest pet peeves about the reputation RM has is that it's vastly more complex than D&D.  While that may have been true when compared to the pre-AD&D versions I really don't think it holds true after that and is simply a matter of being familiar with one system vs the other and, therefore, believing one is more complex out of ignorance of the other (i.e. you have to learn an entire new system - so you see it as harder simply due to that).
- 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 Kristen Mork

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 505
  • OIC Points +70/-70
Re: Rolemaster's Future
« Reply #19 on: December 28, 2011, 06:17:31 AM »
I have paid some attention to D&D up through 3.5, but I know almost nothing about 4.0.  In my opinion D&D gets more like RM with each newer version so far as I've followed it - and is actually a big part of why I don't even bother paying attention to it anymore.  No idea who's influence it is or if there's a direct connection somewhere, but it's hard to imagine there's not.

D&D 4.0 (which I play almost as much as RMSS, but not because I like the system) is nothing like Rolemaster.  I'd say it's more like Diablo with a d20 thrown in for nostalgia.  I agree that 3.5 was a step in the right direction (more RM-like); I borrow from 3.5 whenever it seems appropriate (e.g., it's the first time I saw lighting done well).