Topic: New Rolemaster

[Justin]

I for one like that DP come from stats and specifically the stats they come from. I see a nice balance btwn ST/Prime and DP-stats; if you go for many DP, your atks/PP will be low; go for powerful atks/many PP, your DP will be few. This assumes you don't use PP development, which I don't, and assumes the player doesn't happen to roll a bunch of 80+.

huh? You started off talking about Development Points and ended up talking about Power Points.... I is confuzed....

Because it's the first 5 stats that determine DP, but the latter 5 contain melee and spell bonuses. If they were the same stats, the others would become dump stats. I don't want any dump stats in my games: either come up with an equally important use or get rid of them.

As an aside, I would be completely okay if RM dropped the Reason stat. I think I prefer just not having an intelligence stat of any kind and letting the player just be themselves. Anything else and they/I either have to hinder ourselves or we get rolls for ideas our chars are smart enough to get but we aren't, and that just feels like the GM giving [me] clues because the players suck.

[GoblynByte]

GoblinBute,
 I think the idea is that each core section has a lot of customizable rules that a GM can pick and chose from to creat his own unique RPG enviroment.

MDC

Isn't that the way RMC is now?

[Langthorne]

I don't like the idea of separating stats from DPs, although I'd be happy if there were different stats involved in providing DPs (and maybe emphasise Memory and Reasoning plus make Intuition a development stat in place of Agility); I'd prefer the game power variable to be reflected in a multiplier.

How about:

Development Points  per level = 50+[(RE+ME+SD)/6]

I don't really like Co and AG as development stats, so I just dropped them. I do like different characters having different amounts of DPs per level to reflect different capacities to learn ("50 + x" gives a bit of a safety net for the barbarians) .

I know this little formula doesn't look easy and elegant, but it does the trick (for me anyway).

[Emaughan]

I like the alternate rule DP = 2 x Me + 2 x Re + 1/2 x Ag + 1/2 Co with the sum being multiplied by the SD bonus.  Thus an elf may have 40 DPs x -.20 thus ending up with a 32.  This makes it much harder to pick which stats to buff up - before it was ALWAYS Co and Ag.

Development Points  per level = 50+[(RE+ME+SD)/6]

Way too high DPs for Rolemaster Classic - IMHO.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Isn't that the way RMC is now?

For the most part, yes, but in a more clearly defined manner, and with more attention paid to the actual choices available and how they interact.

I don't like the idea of separating stats from DPs, although I'd be happy if there were different stats involved in providing DPs (and maybe emphasise Memory and Reasoning plus make Intuition a development stat in place of Agility); I'd prefer the game power variable to be reflected in a multiplier.

How about:

Development Points  per level = 50+[(RE+ME+SD)/6]

I don't really like Co and AG as development stats, so I just dropped them. I do like different characters having different amounts of DPs per level to reflect different capacities to learn ("50 + x" gives a bit of a safety net for the barbarians) .

I know this little formula doesn't look easy and elegant, but it does the trick (for me anyway).

The actual number of DPs should be determined by the number of skills that are being used. And if we go to a three tier skill system, then we would have to be able to adjust the number of DP accordingly.

One of the main problems with RM2 was that when RoCoII went and doubled the number of skills, it did not increase the number of DPs available and it wasn't absolutely clear that a GM should add only those skills that were needed, so the general thought was that ALL the skills were to be used.

Also, among the many things that we will have to keep in mind is how easy or hard something is, and how it will appear to those who don't know Rolemaster (i.e. potential customers!!). Smug wants DPs that are based on stats, that can go in as an option in the toolkit. Give a static base with about 1/3 of the total being determined by stats (thus you can also never get a NPC who gets no DPs)

For the ICE House Rules (the setting-less version of which would likely look something like RMX) we can use a clean static value, since we will only be including a static number of skills in it as well. (as each tier of skills will still need to be vetted by the GM and the whole list for a tier may not be used)

There are a lot of variables and options and methods and concepts that need to be fully considered and tested. When ICE begins working on the revision, there is going to be a lot of things that have to be taken into account before any final decisions are made on anything...

[Langthorne]

Development Points  per level = 50+[(RE+ME+SD)/6]

Way too high DPs for Rolemaster Classic - IMHO.

Absolutely right. Sorry, I should have specified RMSS. That option would give a (very rarely achieved) maximum of about 100 DPs. When you play a 'skill rich' scenario even 100 DPs is not too many. 

I can certainly see that there are almost as many preferences as there are people posting about (and playing) Rolemaster (in whatever guise), so the idea of a very simple and streamlined system with the later option of greater detail and variation seems very prudent (both in terms of system organisation and perspective sales).
I think that, for the game designers, it is a good thing to know as many of the options that might be available when working on the basic system, so as to avoid unintentional unbalancing or other unwanted issues (no doubt they will  ).

 

[markc]

GoblinBute,
 I think the idea is that each core section has a lot of customizable rules that a GM can pick and chose from to creat his own unique RPG enviroment.

MDC

Isn't that the way RMC is now?

 I have spent some time with my nose in the RMC books and they do give options that I think many people played with as house rules. As Rasyr said above the idea I remember people talking about in past "Is there going..." threads is a very customizeable module idea or the tool kit idea or the X core idea. And each of these blocks would be adapted to a GM's world with some input from the book on how each rule option might change thier game.
 I know nothing else beside what others have talked about in the past on threads like this.
MDC

[GoblynByte]

Isn't that the way RMC is now?

For the most part, yes, but in a more clearly defined manner, and with more attention paid to the actual choices available and how they interact.

But the hope would still be to break up the main concepts into different books (combat, character creation, spells, etc)?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Again, no idea at this point...  We haven't really thought much beyond toolkit book(s) and house rules book(s) stage.

Most likely, we won't actually decide what or how many books might be required or used until we have a better idea on exactly how much data/rules we will have.

[GoblynByte]

Again, no idea at this point...  We haven't really thought much beyond toolkit book(s) and house rules book(s) stage.

Most likely, we won't actually decide what or how many books might be required or used until we have a better idea on exactly how much data/rules we will have.

Gotcha.  Excellent.  Either way is cool but we'll be expecting your full proposal on our desks by this time next week.     Get to work! 

[smug]

The actual number of DPs should be determined by the number of skills that are being used. And if we go to a three tier skill system, then we would have to be able to adjust the number of DP accordingly.

One of the main problems with RM2 was that when RoCoII went and doubled the number of skills, it did not increase the number of DPs available and it wasn't absolutely clear that a GM should add only those skills that were needed, so the general thought was that ALL the skills were to be used.

Also, among the many things that we will have to keep in mind is how easy or hard something is, and how it will appear to those who don't know Rolemaster (i.e. potential customers!!). Smug wants DPs that are based on stats, that can go in as an option in the toolkit. Give a static base with about 1/3 of the total being determined by stats (thus you can also never get a NPC who gets no DPs)

That would be OK with me (I prefer it as an option, mind, and I wouldn't want my preferred, old RM solution in another book!) and DPs should be given for any stat level (also I, and probably everyone else, use the RMC1 progression rather than the more discretised ChL one).

[shnar]

One of the main problems with RM2 was that when RoCoII went and doubled the number of skills, it did not increase the number of DPs available and it wasn't absolutely clear that a GM should add only those skills that were needed, so the general thought was that ALL the skills were to be used.

There was an optional rule in I think RoCo V that said use DPs for *every* stat, but you could only spend that stat's DPs on a skill that used that stat's bonus. IMHO, was a nice way to balance all the additional skills II added, though it did make leveling even more cumbersome.

For me, RM2 with all the various Companions *is* a compartmentalized tool-kit. I have a ton of options that I can use for any particular campaign I want to create and definately don't have to use them all.

-shnar

[Langthorne]

• Magic -- personally, I like the idea of lists of scalable (and sometimes non-scalable spells - along the lines (the idea does need more development!!) of  what I posted here -- http://www.wizlair.net/news.php?extend.41

(I understand the idea isn't fully fleshed out yet, but) It looks like "scalable spells" are pretty much a replacement of Spell Mastery Skill, or should I say a situation where 'spell lists come with spell mastery effect built in'.

I prefer the idea of Spell Mastery type effects being the realm solely of a true spell master, not just anyone (semi/'dabbler'/layman) who has learnt to cast the list.

I might use some of these 'scaling' ideas for a more detailed and varied Spell Mastery skill though.