Topic: Static vs Moving Maneuvers

[dutch206]

RMC gives BMR but does not provide for calculating other maximum physical feats, such as jumping.  This leads to the problem of someone declaring an impossible jump in hopes of getting a small percentage success.  I have read it suggested elsewhere to base such things on real world feats, and even for the GM to have a copy of Guinness World Records handy at the game table for reference.

Using the jump example, the men's world record long jump is 8.95 m, which is about 29 feet.  I would call that the absolute maximum for a character with 102 QU (ST and AG might figure in, as well) with specialized gear and perfect circumstances, then extrapolate from that what a PC in a cave might reasonably be expected to do.  That would then be "100%" on the MM table.

It would be a good idea, probably, to have some common actions--jump length & height, swim speed, and so forth--worked out ahead of time to avoid in-game delays.  Some other game systems also might help figure those things out; now that I think of it, my copy of HERO 5e might help (since I need to work these things out myself).

It should be noted that the above world record was established by someone wearing running shoes, shorts and a tank top.  There's no way you could do that same jump with standard adventuring gear.

[pastaav]

A 19' wide river, with a row of 2' diameter rocks 5' apart. . .so it's:

Shore-5'gap-2'rock-5'gap-2'rock-5'gap-shore

Have fun trying to cross that with the MM table. . .you fall in the river if you under or overshoot each jump.

Jumping and landing without loosing balance is a very different scenario than jump as far as you can. If the movement chart should be used for this it does not make sense to have distance jumped as the measure. You would not expect anyone to fail to jump the distance 5', would you?

A more reasonable interpretation is that the percentage in this situation should be the likelihood that you keep your balance when you land.

So if you said "Oh that's easy" then the pcs will keep OverJumping into the river, or if you said "Oh that's hard" then the PCs will keep UnderJumping into the river.

Then don't make such stupid ruling and instead say
"jumping 5' and keeping balance without any gear that is an easy maneuver" and
"jumping 5' and keeping balance with a massive backpack is an very hard maneuver"

This discussion without doubt show that you need to think about how you apply the maneuver tables. The static maneuver chart is more easy for all or nothing cases, but it IMHO silly to use flawed examples of maneuver chart application to argue for that the moving maneuver chart itself is useless.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

In the example given, I would not make each jump a separate maneuver at all. The gaps are quite easily jumped without gear, so you just add in the difficulty for doing it with gear and for keeping balance and making crossing the river a single maneuver.

Then an 80% result means that you only made it approximately 80% of the way across (to the stone nearest the 15-16' mark -- though I would also most likely also increase the fumble range by half the value of the difficulty mod as well -- i.e. ruling this an Extremely Hard Maneuver (-30), I would have the character fumble on a 1-20 (01-05 + 15) roll).

A GM who takes a maneuver like "crossing the river" and breaking it down into lots of smaller maneuvers is, IMO, specifically looking for the player to fail.

IMO, maneuver rolls should be sparse, and not required for every little detail.

[Fidoric]

A GM who takes a maneuver like "crossing the river" and breaking it down into lots of smaller maneuvers is, IMO, specifically looking for the player to fail.

Some GM do that kind of things ? 
Can't believe it...

[diesalher]

My soulition as GM is whitchever chart I come upon first.

Mine, too! Lol! 

Are we not heading straight to Harp Maneuver table here ? 

I love the HARP manuever table and I would be very happy to see something similar in RM!

http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2003/feb/irregularmaneuvers.html

Hi, i was looking for something similar to this unique table...is this fully compatible with RMC? is there any balance problem using this table instead the original ones from RMC? i'm a newbie at RMC and maybe the answers are trivial, thanks for your patience.

[buddha]

Hi, i was looking for something similar to this unique table...is this fully compatible with RMC? is there any balance problem using this table instead the original ones from RMC? i'm a newbie at RMC and maybe the answers are trivial, thanks for your patience.

You can check out HARP for yourself by downloading HARP Lite.
The maneuver table is in there somewhere.

http://www.harphq.com/free_downloads/3000L_HarpLite.pdf

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Hi, i was looking for something similar to this unique table...is this fully compatible with RMC? is there any balance problem using this table instead the original ones from RMC? i'm a newbie at RMC and maybe the answers are trivial, thanks for your patience.

That table was based on the RM Movement & Maneuver table, which has not appreciably changed from version to version of Rolemaster, so yes, it should work just fine with RMC.

This table WAS the predecessor of the HARP Maneuver table.

[Marc R]

I'll get 50# packs and set up the rocks 5' apart if you think it's casual in full adventuring gear, but the example could as easily be: (Just a note, but in sneakers-jeans-tee shirt, playing around in the housatonic river, I've near busted my head enough times not to think 5' jumps onto river rocks is something you should consider casual.)

A 31' wide river, with a row of 2' diameter rocks 9' apart. . .so it's:

Shore-9'gap-2'rock-9'gap-2'rock-9'gap-shore.

The point wasn't in the distances, it was in the fact that the MM table just doesn't model that type of situation well. . .say you aim for the middle of each rock, making it a 10' jump, any result less than 90% (9') or more than 110% (11') misses the target and puts you in the river.

As to P's answer, that works, but just doesn't work for me in terms of flow. You roll, get a 70%, then roll again to see if you loose your balance, using the % of success as the target. . .which is requiring another roll, and another decision. . .what target roll means you fall down on the rock, what target roll means you fall down off the rock. . . .why not just use a static maneuver for each jump?

[yammahoper]

Rather than reading a 110% result as over jump by 10%, why not read it as "have 10% activity left (in addition to any other activity that might have been left)".

The MM Table is one of RM strongest attributes.  It offers a dynamic methodology for resolving any type of mnv imaginable.  What is needed is flexibility and imagination.

For some, a multijump mnv across a river from stone to stone would require just one mnv roll (I am in that group), while others might want each little/slightly bigger/biggest jump rolled for.  The MM Table handles each choice equally well...I just do not want to spend that much time rolling dice, since in my experience multiple roll mnvs take away from the flow and drama of the game, not add to it.

lynn

[Marc R]

I happen to like the MM table, I think the expanded uses of it in the companions, later in SS and FRP also offer a lot of benefits, but I dislike all the "and roll again" as much as most people do.

The "All or nothing" variation of the MM table is roll the MM, get the result, if it's 100 or better you made it, if it's 100 or less, roll again to do a pass/fail on making it. (i.e. roll MM, get a "60" result, roll again, under 60 succeeds, over 60 fails.)

I don't like multi rolling of that sort, it's definitely bad for dynamic flow.

I'll simplify the example again, as having to do it multiple times merely makes the odds of blowing it readily obvious. (If you need to do 3 maneuvers of this sort over a few hours, the odds are just as bad, it's just not "in the frame" of an example so easily.)

You're on a roof, there's a 2' diameter pilliar 9' away, you want to jump there. . .same problem with overs and unders.

I guess you could go the route the books offer and call it a hard MM, jump D100OE -10 (hard) + Acrobatics. . .call 100 or better landing on the pilliar, and less than 100 means you're not "standing" on the pilliar, you've flubbed it a bit and are scrabbling to stay on (either doing the pinwheel arms "woah" or hanging on my your fingernails.). . .so now you have this utterly random d100CE to recover tagged onto the end.

It's just funny how we all use slightly different variants of the actual rules.

At my house it'd be:

D100OE -10 (hard) + Acrobatics. . .beat 100 and you made it, beat 75 and you're at partial success (hanging on the edge of the pilliar). . .frankly, if it was a fatal fall I'd likely let "beat 50" mean you're hanging on by your fingertips and slap you up with a medium bash attack as you crash into the side of the pilliar. (I'd prefer to beat up a PC and provide some drama than snuff them on a jump.). . .one roll and move on.

That's essentially a SM roll though.

[pastaav]

The point wasn't in the distances, it was in the fact that the MM table just doesn't model that type of situation well. . .say you aim for the middle of each rock, making it a 10' jump, any result less than 90% (9') or more than 110% (11') misses the target and puts you in the river.

Again...it is all about intentions. If you start with the assumption that your ideal solution is an all or nothing resolution you should go with that and don't start complaining about the MM not giving you what you want.

As to P's answer, that works, but just doesn't work for me in terms of flow. You roll, get a 70%, then roll again to see if you loose your balance, using the % of success as the target. . .which is requiring another roll, and another decision. . .what target roll means you fall down on the rock, what target roll means you fall down off the rock. . . .why not just use a static maneuver for each jump?

If the GM has the goal "the players must succeed with the jump so they oversee the encounter with the merchant" he should go with automatic success.
If the GM has the goal "the players that invested the DP wisely should get away easlily while the others must trust good luck or have take the more troublesome way to exit" he should go with the static maneuver.
If the GM has the goal "players should really go this way, but if they insist they can go take the risky jump instead, if they fail they will suffer the consequences" he should go with the moving maneuver so he can really track what happens if they fail.

None of the latter two really indicate a given difficulty. The static maneuver can have absurd difficulty while the moving maneuver gaming situation can be built around the feeling "what if I fumble any of the easy jumps...I must hurry before the persuers arrive" 

[Marc R]

The problem isn't the level of difficulty, it's the "Over/under fail". . .

i.e. in the "Jump to a 2' diameter pilliar 9' away" it changes the normal MM results of:

fumble
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
super success

to

fumble
10-70 Under jumped, fall
80 (hit the side of the pilliar and perhaps grab on)
90 near edge
100 Bullseye in the middle of the pilliar
110 far edge
120 Over jumped and fall
super success

I'm not to keen on that at all. . .the succeed. . .fail. . .supersucess seems rather silly too.