Topic: Rolemaster Lite

[ironmaul]

@ JimiSue - Our argument was not against character generation. It was in favour of having pre-gen characters for an introductry game.

I think there is aways room for improvements in RM and it's versions(past and present), some things may need ironing out but that's why I'm asking for opinions.

It dosen't matter what is done with a RM lite, your never going to please 100% of the people 100% of the time...that's life. And to be honest, it's just a game, and there are greater things in real life to get emotional about.

@ Randal - Totally agree with your last post. For me the best marketing statergy would not call it RM lite or even any mention of the word Rolemaster on the product cover. Just have the ICE logo with a catchy name. But anyway this isn't relevent.

[JimiSue]

@ Fenrhyl - this is why we play pen and paper RPGs rather than the computer ones. You can change things at a whim. Personally I would have let him change. From the simple mechanic of freezing his rogue professional bonuses, reassigning his skill costs and being an X level rogue/1st level shaman, to the more intensive process (more work for the GM) playing a level or two of transitional costs that move more slowly towards his new class. It sounds like it could have been a cool roleplaying opportunity and definitely some nice material to create adventures around.

And generally about the whole multiclass thing in D&D. Yes it's very easy to do - you just decide (subject to certain constraints) that you want to take a level in whatever class, and there you go. However, it is pretty rare to see a character who has done that to any great extent. It's the old argument of a specialist vs a generalist - and on the whole a level 10 single class character is likely going to be more dangerous than a level 10 multiclass who has gone for a 5/5 split. More often you see characters who have done things like taken 9 levels in rogue, but have a level in fighter to give them access to more weapons and shields; or a fighter with a level in wizard to give access to the arcane archer prestige class, and so on.

[ironmaul]

...You're not creating "Rolemaster Lite" here, you're creating "A whole new system based on replacing anything slightly clunky about RoleMaster". Which can also be seen as just cherry-picking the best bits.

I can imagine players being introduced on this "lite" system and then wanting to try the big version, only to be stuck thinking "hang on, this is a completely different game." Which means you'll have not succeeded at all in your original goal of making RM more accessible. Don't get me wrong, there are some cool ideas in this thread, I just think that you shouldn't be trying to use absolutely all of them in one go.

Yes, you right. Perhaps calling it RM lite is not the best term. Considering there is two different versions of RM, in which direction would you go?!? I'd say neither considering what you've said above. And I haven't even mentioned HARP in that mix.

Since RMX will not be republished it would be fair to say any lite/express/streamlined RM would have to be a RM Hybrid. But then you get another system which fractures the production focus. But like some have mention before some will not buy any new version which is fine. Any new version would have to solely market towards new folk. For me I'd like to create something that appeals to those that like there RPG experience gritty and low magic setting style. As I've said before, I'm not considering magic at this stage. Also to refresh,  although I  freelance for ICE/GPC this is for my own purpose and not related to ICE or GPC.

[Cory Magel]

I'm not a big fan of pre-mades for novice players. If the players can create their own character they can identify with it far better.

I would never run a CAMPAIGN with pre-made characters and if you tried to 'quick-start' a campaign in my group they'd think you were crazy.  But when introducing players to RM it's a good idea to run a MOCK combat... i.e. it doesn't count, it's just a test fight.  You do this to demonstrate how different RM combat is from something like D&D and you don't hold back.  You show them first hand why they should do things like parry and why they shouldn't take a 'mere troll' lightly.

[JimiSue]

Yes, you right. Perhaps calling it RM lite is not the best term. Considering there is two different versions of RM, in which direction would you go?!? I'd say neither considering what you've said above. And I haven't even mentioned HARP in that mix.

RM Lite is here a tag of convenience really. As this is for your own purposes and not for publication, you don't need to worry about the branding - even a generic thing like "Basic Fantasy Roleplaying System" will do. I've had the book for RMFRP for years, but only in the last couple of days have I got it out and started to look through it. There are some things in there that I really like - for example the way spells are done (the number of skill ranks you buy in a spell list = the level of spell you have access to from that list - this is so simple I might apply that to the SM Psion lists - my new player is struggling slightly with the list concept). However, on the flip side is the skill category bonus - I had to read that section three or four times because it's not really that clear in the book how to calculate it. I support the idea, but for me it's added on a whole other layer of complexity into what is already the crunch point of character creation, the skill calculation.

It's worth thinking about presentation though. It's been said before that RM is not really that rules heavy for players (or rather, doesn't need to be). I made some notes the other day on how I would approach the character creation process in Space Master, and I thought the best way would be to keep numbers out of it as much as possible. Give the players general descriptions of the professions and races, and what they are good at, but avoid giving absolute bonuses. Then go through the stat block, which again is fairly straightforward... but then you hit the skills, and it all goes a bit freeform. Which is why I have said above that races and professions aren't really an issue for me because the main bottleneck that takes a90% of the time in charcfter creation is deciding on skill sets and determining bonuses - so that is the main area I would look at simplifying. Yes attack resolution is a bit charty, but at the end of the day it's just roll + OB - DB, look up on table, roll for critical, do victory dance while foe tries to cheer you on through a crushed windpipe.

It's worth I think looking at options within the game to see if there is already a simple solution. For example, static/moving maneuver resolution. Yes, there are nice tables and charts, but there's nothing wrong with a 'break 100' mechanism to determine success.

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

I would never run a CAMPAIGN with pre-made characters and if you tried to 'quick-start' a campaign in my group they'd think you were crazy.  But when introducing players to RM it's a good idea to run a MOCK combat... i.e. it doesn't count, it's just a test fight.  You do this to demonstrate how different RM combat is from something like D&D and you don't hold back.  You show them first hand why they should do things like parry and why they shouldn't take a 'mere troll' lightly.

I’d say there is also far more in RM than combat. RM goes where many rpg never tread. And that’s something newcomers should be aware of.

[pastaav]

Regarding professions and my proposal, I’d be so happy if my proposal was just read and remembered whole.
If I want to put archetypes (call them professions if you want, words don’t matter but the ideas, mechanics and concept they translate do) in there, it’s for all those people who need or want rails. Those who don’t can do without them.

Yet if they don't want rails at all I totally fail to see why they are not better off playing for instance Gurps? If they want rails to a degree but not strict like RM then Harp sound like a perfect match...   

"Personne" (French for nobody AND person) is a rogue in my campaign. His player chose a rogue for he wanted to play a man of the wilds, illiterate, unwilling to live among me but open minded and good hearted. Personne was agnostic, and did not really care about anything religious to be honest. He lived many adventures and, during one of those, discovered the folk of Earth, who prayed the All-Mother. The player took interest in her, and thus so did his character. After hanging with the folk, becoming friend and witnessing miracles, he decided to take up arms to champion her cause. And here comes the frustration.
The player asked me: is there any way to become a kind of priest of the wilds, or a shaman, or a witchdoctor? He really wanted this. And he can’t. There is no way this can be done, for all his dp costs should be changed, his profession bonuses too, and some skills would change their class (e, o, r). He’s locked. That’s what I call an hindrance.

I think you missing a important distinction there. The players asked if there is a way and you game him the incorrect answer that there is no way. I say that it is bullshit, you can always as GM send him on a epic quest that include him finding the legendary components that allow the character to get the miracle of a new start. This is always possible in a narrative gaming style since it is a good narrative and the gaming system is secondary to the story.

If you are playing a game style that lean more towards Simulationism or Gamism then the issue of fair pricing becomes a much greater obstacle. In RM today there is no mechanism to support balanced changing of professions. There has been no absence of tries to come up with such mechanics...how many attempts has we seen during the years? All of them has been very failed since the concepts of strong archtypes like RM does them and diminishing returns mean that there will always be point when the pure arms fighter has mastered the combat field enough so that any DP cost is acceptable if it opens the realm of magic. Reducing it to a "the setting need to box the fighter so he can't take the logical step to become a spell caster" is possible, but there is little gain compared to saying "changing professions is house rules/gaming group issues" and be done with it.

Actually it is wrong to say that all attempts at coming up with a mechanics for switching profession where total failure...some of them is the background that lead to HARP. In Harp you have professions, but by fact that these are weak archtypes with little cost difference between them and the addition of professional abilities it is possible to have profession change. The gain of changing profession is there, but it is reasonably easy to price the switch since the professionsal abilities are there to balance the mix.

Personally I totally fail to see the point with trying to come up with a RM Lite product that cuts into the same room as Harp. I am die hard RM fan for fantasy games, but if I ever get around playing my sci fi game then I will use the excellent Harp SF that IMHO feels like RM enough to satisfy me. What I am going for is that Rolemaster Lite and Harp seems to have pretty much the same design goals. What is missing is not another Lite product so much as a RM on steroids. A way of using the RM rules that gives the players building blocks that make sense at the first reading. The skill list is too long...but the answer is not just to prune the skill list until it is just long, but instead give the GM and gaming group the means to make a educated choice if they should include a certain block of skills that is suiting for a certain gaming style or if they are better off skipping those skills.

[RandalThor]

FW: I agree that the lack of lateral motion is a drawback of the RM system. It flies in the face of the cool fantasy trope of discovering a new aspect to yourself; like the young peasant warrior actually turning out to be a great mage. But, like Jimisue said, you can always to that yourself. I really think you should give HARP a try, they have the mechanic for switching professions built right in, and even if you don't the costs of learning something outside of your favored spheres aren't all that bad - at least not as bad as in RMFRP/SS, where it can go from 1/5 to 9, or 2/7 to 20 DP per rank.

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

Harp? Good game indeed, but no match for RM. Good ideas for a RM revisions therein, though.

Now, I can tinker something for my player. But I need to assess if it will make him over or under powered or not. But that’s not the point.

The point is that people don’t buy games for what-they-can-add-to-it-but-isn’t-in-the-book, but for what they have to offer. RM does not allow flexibility because of a closed profession system. That’s a hard fact. And with lots of games out there that allow it, it’s what I call a flaw.

Look at Oblivion and Skyrim. Oblivion was flawed, clumsy and had giant loopholes in its rules. On top of this, autoscaling ruined the game. And there was people that kept saying "It’s a good game once it’s moded." \o/ I spent 50 € for a game I have to make good myself. Boy, was I disappointed.
Bethesda listened to the critics, changed the gameplay and here is Skyrim, which is a far, far better game. It’s still Elder scrolls. What makes the game an elder scrolls game is there. It was changed for the better.


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

And let’s take the logic to the next step. If a GM can add whatever he likes to his game, why would he buy anything else than old D&D? Because most GM don’t bother with rule engineering.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Yet if they don't want rails at all I totally fail to see why they are not better off playing for instance Gurps? If they want rails to a degree but not strict like RM then Harp sound like a perfect match...

I've seen a variation on this same question several times, and I feel like it's time to answer it.

If you don't want set archetypal "classes" or "professions", why not play GURPS? Because so far as I can tell, in GURPS all skills are equally difficult (and equally simple) to learn.

The reason I'm currently modifying HARP for my purposes is to have a system where anyone can learn anything, and it's possible to have a "profession" that doesn't quite fit any of the combinations of favored/non-favored skill categories that HARP provides as archetypes... and yet nonetheless, the basics of how you learn and how you process information does affect what skills are easy and what skills are difficult.

What I'm going for could be called "professionless" HARP, but would be more accurately called "DIY professions". Come up with a system that allows creation of any of the traditional archetypes, or archetypes that don't even exist in the game system as given, in line with the power balance between professions that is already inherent in the RAW. Given that, I wouldn't allow "changing professions" at all, because your "profession" doesn't define your job, it defines how you think and how you learn, which really doesn't change much.

Of course, for every rule there is an exception. Even when "profession" defines how you think and how you learn, I could see a situation where I could allow a player to redefine how his character processes information and acquires skills... for example, after a major brain injury.

[pastaav]

Yet if they don't want rails at all I totally fail to see why they are not better off playing for instance Gurps? If they want rails to a degree but not strict like RM then Harp sound like a perfect match...

If you don't want set archetypal "classes" or "professions", why not play GURPS? Because so far as I can tell, in GURPS all skills are equally difficult (and equally simple) to learn.

My understanding is that GURPS have the cost categories Easy, Average, Hard, and Very Hard. The cost of advancing a skill depend on what cost category it belongs too. Not that I any way recommend that anyone here should switch to GURPS...my question is merely mean as thought exercise. I believe that RM and HARP give much better play experiences than GURPS.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Well the reason I said "so far as I can tell" is because I haven't played GURPS enough to be certain either. But even if there are cost categories, unless there are ways by which, for example, combat related skills can be Easy for some and not so easy for others, the problem remains the same.

[pastaav]

Harp? Good game indeed, but no match for RM. Good ideas for a RM revisions therein, though.

Actually I am not sure I agree that it is good source of RM revision or that the game is no match for RM. I see Harp as a variation on RM, but with a very different kind of flavor. How spells work and how professions work in the games has a big gaming impact.

Now, I can tinker something for my player. But I need to assess if it will make him over or under powered or not. But that’s not the point.

In what scenario could the character possibly end as under powered??? I fail to follow at all.

The point is that people don’t buy games for what-they-can-add-to-it-but-isn’t-in-the-book, but for what they have to offer. RM does not allow flexibility because of a closed profession system. That’s a hard fact. And with lots of games out there that allow it, it’s what I call a flaw.

I would argue that it also is a fact that RM gives superior possibility to match opponents of different levels. Something I think very much comes from not allowing flexibility in a number of places.

I must admit that my experience in the field of games with few rails are limited, but my experiences from these games are not very positive. They all have sweet spots when they work pretty well, but compared to RM it is a very limited sweet spot area of gaming. High level differences mean the high level character gets too much possibility to game the system and get a massive advantage over the low level character.

Practical game design always include trade offs. You can't cover all bases, but must find a mix of rules that work reasonably well together. 

And let’s take the logic to the next step. If a GM can add whatever he likes to his game, why would he buy anything else than old D&D? Because most GM don’t bother with rule engineering.

That seems like an argument for the change of presentation that I think is the way forward....

...also the argument "I already have my game with perfect houserules, why should I buy something new I can just add what I think is missing" is very much the mentality that caused the edition wars for RM...

[Marc R]

I never had much of a problem playing RM "No profession".  . .one of the nice things about RM is it's modular structure and versatility. If I want to rip all the archetype push of the professions out of play, I just declare the "No profession" the only allowable profession, and we've had some really cool games playing that way. It literally takes just one sentence spoken by the GM to make that massive and global change in the way the game works.

It certainly changes the paradigm to "What do you spend your DP on" creating your archetype. . .on the flip side, NP characters tend to kinda suck if thrown into a mixed environment with other professions. . .you can't "out mage" a magician with a NP, or "out fighter" a fighter. The heavy archetype professions definitely allow you to push harder out to an extreme than the enforced middle ground of the NP.

I've played RM under variant house rules where the game was widely different on totally different sides of many spectrums of measuring game style. I don't think anyone in this discussion could be described as being wrong, in that whatever is fun for you, is fun for you. . .but what's fun for you may not be what's fun for that guy, or me. . .which I suspect often is the root of the heat in the arguments that arise on a lot of these threads.

If you "trim down" RM so it perfectly fits your style of play, then likely a lot of people will consider the result to be really really crappy. That's not because your style is crappy, or because their style is crappy, but because straight-jacketing the system and lashing it down to only fulfill the narrower scope of what works at your table makes it no longer fit a lot of other tables.

If the entire concept of a "lite" product is to be an introductory version of the game, should it be trimmed down to the broadest common denominator, or trimmed down to an exact fit for one, and only one style of play? It might be worth considering if there's a difference between the concepts of "The smallest possible RM that works perfectly for me" and "The smallest possible RM that works for the most possible people". . .likely if you're advocating the narrow version, a lot of people have metaphorical rocks to throw at you.

You might want to consider if forcing people to play the way you play is the best idea, or just seems like a great idea because it fits your style of play so well it must be a good idea?

[Cory Magel]

The target audience is going to play a big role.  I suspect the current targets would be D&Der's and WoWer's.  So, the "Lite" version probably needs to find a way to bend RM towards their comfort zone as much as possible without losing what is RM.

[ironmaul]

I dosen't really matter what system is used there has to be a setting that will grab them. What setting...who knows?? An already existing IP would be ideal but that is a problem all on it's own.

[RandalThor]

I don't think anyone in this discussion could be described as being wrong, in that whatever is fun for you, is fun for you. . .but what's fun for you may not be what's fun for that guy, or me. . .which I suspect often is the root of the heat in the arguments that arise on a lot of these threads.

I, too, think that this is likely the biggest stumbling block in these discussions. It would serve the system better if we stopped discussing our own personal "perfect" system, and tried to work out the system that will best fit the most number of people, and still be versitile enough to house-rule into our "perfect" system.

If the entire concept of a "lite" product is to be an introductory version of the game, should it be trimmed down to the broadest common denominator, or trimmed down to an exact fit for one, and only one style of play?

I think the broadest common denominator is the best way to go here.

Your skill is the relevant stat + number of levels purchased. The stat can have more impact than RM stats. But there are fewer stats, so that doesn't provide as much of a distinction as it sounds. GURPS does have a nice "default" system. If you want to use a skill related to a skill you have, you treat it as the first skill minus a modifier for how similar it is. E.g. if you have broadsword at 16, you're treated as if you have shortsword at broadsword -2, or 14. The interesting part is that if you want to learn shortsword, you start at 14 instead of from the base. So to some extent, it's easier to learn skills related to what you know. Similar to RMSS's category system in that regard, but more flexible. To some extent that creates something like professions where the system encourages you to get clusters of related skills. It's a good system for modern and realistic SF in my opinion.

Agreed. I have played GURPS (4E) several times and it can be a fun game, and definitely a good fit for modern and sci-fi campaigns.  (Emphasised word: No can about it. Your stat is absolutely paramount. Example: I had a guy that was really good with energy weapons, largely because he had a good Dexterity (DX), but truly because I had a high IQ which added +2 to my base skill. In a 3d6 bell-curve system, +2 is very good. combined with tech mods I had a base Energy Pistol skill of 18- at character gen. Meaning I had to roll under an 18 (not including range and other situational modifiers) to hit by target.

It seems to me, that RM did the easy to difficult stype skills as well, only they added in the "archetype" ideology to the mix. In their effort to get extremely real for this aspect of the game, they got rid of the cool fantasy feel. IMO. Of course, if you want a gritty fantasy (like running Harn - though the magic system would have to be seriously neutered, in this case) it is perfect for you. But if you want - I will dare to challenge you, that most gamers want this - a more heroic fantasy, you have to do some serious tweeking or make the PCs some powerful, awesome and capable individuals in order to get that feel.

Class changes in RM are problematic because you can easily abuse them.

Eeeeerrrrr.....shreeeeeccchh, CRASH! Nope. I don't buy this, not one bit, and never had. This argument that just because it is a rule book makes it sacrosanct is in correct. It is impossible to abuse a game. IMPOSSIBLE. If the GM allows it, it isn't abusive, it is allowed. If the GM doesn't, then no amount of grabbing up a rule book and pointing to a page and saying, "blah-blah-blah-rule-blah-page-blah-blah" is going to change the fact. The GM, by virtue of spending hours and hours working on the game, has overall control of such matters, and if he says not only can you be 2 professions, but you can take the best cost of those 2 professions and add the professional bonuses, etc... it is OK and not abuse. The fact that anyone at the table (if you have a table to play on, I currently don't) can geet up an leave, means there is no abuse going on.

I have a friend, and he is phenomenal at finding all the little things of a game to break it, and make the uber character (or the totally un-uber character). Now if he does that, and I let him, then all is OK in game land.

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

I dosen't really matter what system is used there has to be a setting that will grab them. What setting...who knows?? An already existing IP would be ideal but that is a problem all on it's own.

Exactly.

I’d go for something with a strong identity to which players would easily connect. You don’t necessarily need elves, dwarves and so on, but to appeal to the mass.

RM would do marvels with knights and damsels. I know my campaign, that revolves around this kind of stuff, does marvel.


@RandalThor

It was perfectly legit in Warhammer V1 to play a Giant slayer with more endurance than a Demon or Dragon.
Once again, books are bought for their content, not for how you can twist or ignore it.

[markc]

My idea for an easier game:
1) Fixed DP
2) set skill gains with limited DP expenditures
3) no auto skill gains (ie level bonuses to skills +2/Level to skill)


Why
1) Do not have to figure math for stats to DP's
2) reduce time on PC creation if you get a block of skills and then a small amount to customize your PC.
3) just go with stat or stats and skill rank = bonus. IMHO it reduces the math and cuts out a step the can be added back in during an advanced game.


The above keeps combat, RMSS style spell acquisition, and game resolution in full. It cuts down on PC gen time and math but it does have the limitations in that the skill packages have to be designed before hand, there needs to be a number of packages to represent a number of options for each profession and it is different from RM now.


MDC 

[pastaav]

My idea for an easier game:
1) Fixed DP
2) set skill gains with limited DP expenditures
3) no auto skill gains (ie level bonuses to skills +2/Level to skill)

Why
1) Do not have to figure math for stats to DP's
2) reduce time on PC creation if you get a block of skills and then a small amount to customize your PC.
3) just go with stat or stats and skill rank = bonus. IMHO it reduces the math and cuts out a step the can be added back in during an advanced game.

The above keeps combat, RMSS style spell acquisition, and game resolution in full. It cuts down on PC gen time and math but it does have the limitations in that the skill packages have to be designed before hand, there needs to be a number of packages to represent a number of options for each profession and it is different from RM now.

Interesting choices. Number two I think would be a boon to the regular game also.

I think RM lite if it should exist need a setting that don't require so much explanation. Shadow World is some senses brilliant, but it is also a setting that has zero weight outside the SW cycles and there are simply a massive number of ways that a skeptic customer can decide "sounds mostly good, but all this talk is turning boring I do something else".

One alternative is trying to tap into some well known setting that has great brand recognition, like Game of Thrones. Problem is that if it is popular then ICE is too small fish to catch it, and if it is not popular then there is not much point really. Predicting if a setting will become a hit is difficult at best.

The second alternative is to base the game on some IP that is well recognized and are in the public domain. Robin Hood, The knights of the Round table, Norse Mythology, Greece Mythology or One Thousand and One Nights all probably has enough recognition but there are of course more to choose from if you really think about it. There is of course a gap between these classic IPs and RM, but perhaps this is not such a big deal. Alternate fiction that the real world and insert fantasy elements is pretty big these days and if you are open with that ICE is not aiming to recreate somebody else version of the tales but are building some unique fantasy style then I think there is possibility for a happy marriage.

The hard part would of course be to decide how to pack the setting in a way that it can be sold also to us old-timers that already has our own settings. Without the current customers backing it there is little possibility of making it work financially. Not sure if it is possible...perhaps with some kind patron approach when people pledge to buy it and get input in what material that are produced....