Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: David Johansen on January 10, 2011, 08:53:35 PM
-
Okay, the more I think about it any deep redesign or revision is as likely to lose more people than it brings in. My basis for this thought is that preferences have shifted towards simplicity and are unlikely to return from it in the short term. Actually I think we'd need about ten years of a return to fundamentals in primary schools for things to turn around. But that's another flame war.
What may be the best approach is a middle of the road solution that tries hard to make the existing mechanics work for both parties.
I think if we consider training packages and talents to be strictly optional the divide comes down to the following things.
Stat Bonuses (Additive verses Averaged)
My understanding is that a major part of this is the desire to have two stats apply equally to some skills. We can probably solve this with a simple 1.5 multiplier for those special cases.
Skill Category Split and Skill Costs and Stats By Category
I want to hit this one in one fell swoop. I propose we could equivilate every RMMS style category to one skill. For instance Athletic Gymnastic to Climbing or Armor Medium to Chainmail. So, if we have a cultural or training package they could just reference the single core skill. If you are using the skill category split option, the character simply recieves a rank in the category and skill from the packages. I think, this essentially leaves both versions intact, though, of course, all the packages would have to be reworked.
Spell Lists, Body Development, and Power Point Development
I have often thought that giving these separate development rates got a bit confusing. I much prefer the RMSS Spell List Development but the limited bonus progression seems odd in context of the +50 special bonus to spell casting maneuvers I can see how it's better when looking at very high level characters but it probably isn't a really major issue.
Development rates are a bit more of an issue but it shouldn't be too hard to make a progression or die type work as alternate options. I might even like the die type better though most versions of D&D have moved to a fixed points per level system.
I certainly think getting the number of development rates down is important. Even if I do fantisize about replacing skill costs by profession by development rates by professions. :D
-
I think if a new version is taken on it must divide the gap between RM2/RMC and RMSS/RMFRP users. Otherwise, in my opinion, there would be little point to the endeavor. Yes, it would need to TRY and bring in new players, but I think it would need to succeed in the short run before it had the chance to do that in the long run and that means appealing to the existing RM fan bases. There will never be a point where everyone is happy, but I think we can all agree it should attempt the best middle ground possible.
Too simple and you get HARP. Don't need another HARP. Too complex and you won't get RM2/RMC players to buy in and probably no significant new customer buy in.
Stats I don't really believe there's any major difference between averaged or added. Six of one, half dozen of another. So long as it's balanced I don't care either way. It will simply be based on how important stats should be... if the stats are more important, you add. If less, you average. I would lean towards add because I think stats should be important, but like i said, I am unconcerned either way.
Categories are an interesting topic. I'd like to see them go to simplify things, but doing that might have wider reaching effects than people realize. Changes in one part of a system can have unexpected results in areas you wouldn't normally consider. Umbrella skills are a good idea, but really it's just a shell game when it comes down to it. Having one "Armor" skill that you need to develop separately for Soft Leather, Rigid Leather, Chain and Plate is really no different than having them as their own separate skill apart for the perception of someone looking at the size of each skill list. But then, a good number of the 'criticisms' of Rolemaster are merely such perceptions.
I don't quite understand your point about Spell Lists, Body Development and Power Point Development. They must have different development costs. You don't want a Warrior and a Magician to have the same costs for all those things.
By development rates what are you referring to? Each individual skill, or the number of development points you get per level?
Something everyone needs to keep in mind also... we, here on this board, are not the average customer. Even with as 'small time' as RM is these days, we are a fraction of the customer base and we are, essentially, the fanatics. We are possibly the vocal minority and that needs to be considered by all of us.
-
doh, I ment PROGRESSIONS. In RM2 you get a hit die type reflecting the size of your race. In RMSS you've got a racial progression rate like 0*6*5*4*3. What I'm suggesting is simply saying "Halflings get 4 hp per rank or Humans get 6 hp per rank.
I am in favor of trimming the skill and category lists a bit and don't think there will be much weeping wailing an gnashing of teeth if it's done. For instance if we just made Armor one skill category, it might be a good place for an exception to the one skill for the whole category thing. On the other hand I'd like a single Melee weapon category, so the old 1h edged etc would be the specific skills.
-
Send in a submission and see where it goes.
MDC
-
They've got enough on their hands at present. I just had a notion today of what might work to bridge the divide. I mean I've got a complete redesign I'd love to do but whether you could still call it Rolemaster is debatable. I even want to revise the crit charts so they work a little better for monsters and such.
But, I think it's beyond the scope of what would be widely accepted.
On the other hand, if we can find a way to make categories optional but fully supported, allow one two or three stats per skill as needed, cut things down to one progression rate, and tidy up the skill list I think we might actually be able to make everybody happy.
And adding new skills and professions wouldn't be too cludgy (a major issue of mine with RM2). You could assign new skills to a category and they'd just have the same cost as another skill. So, for instance, if you added tumbling it would have the same cost as climbing. And new professions would only need to have costs for the core skill list, not every skill ever added in any supplement.
-
David Johansen;
Is that not RMSS/FRP except with different progressions? IMHO it will be tough to get rid of different progression rates. I have tried and IMHO a few more different progression rates would make the game easier.
I can also say that it is tough to get one set of categories that work well with both RM2 and RMSS do to how they are built. Also a lot of RM2 players do not like categories in any way.
You can always take a look at the Dec GuildCompanion.com and see what someone did. I do not know if that is what you had in mind or not.
MDC
-
No, I'm talking about a fixed skill list with categories being absolutely optional. The idea is that the list determines the cost of the categories so there doesn't need to be two cost lists. So, all Athletic Gymnastic skills would use the Climbing costs. So, having profession bonuses that are purchased at the same cost would be an underlying rationale that wouldn't come to the surface in the core game.
I'm also thinking a master table similar to the RMSS Spell List Cost table could be used to construct the professions.
This way you'd have a list of specific costs by realm. So if the realms were Nature, Essence, Mentalism, Channelling, Subterfuge, Arms, and Practical, professions would be either pure or semi users and have their costs determined accordingly. I'll have to build a chart to show you what I mean.
-
Being more a RMSS fan than RM2... my bias would be obvious here.
The big differences are the Skill handling mechanism and the Profession Progression each level ( :) )
Surely there is a way that a simple option could be written into a set of Core rules to allow *either* method of dealing with skill mechanism?
If you dont like the idea of "categories" and the massive variety of skills within them, then simply treat each "Category" as a seperate skill... and Double the cost of purchasing them to cover the additional benefit of knowing all the activities that come under that umbrella.
(This is more or less the reverse of what David J has said above.... ;) ... instead of calling a skill "Climbing" you define it more loosely... and call it an "Athletic-Gymnastic" activity. ) This way, the "skill" becomes a "Generalised activity" rather than a defined "skill".
OK, so this perhaps over simplifies things, with respect to those skills in the "Combined" groups. The trouble is that these skills, appear so diverse yet (in RMSS) are covered by a category that defines them loosely enough that they fail to become similar enough... I've always thought that the "Combined" skills categories are the major problem with RMSS skill system.. because they are an exception. However, should they be treated as an exception?
-
I could easily accept the loss of standard progression and going back to combined progression for all skills. Catagories could still define skill cost for each profession.
-
If you dont like the idea of "categories" and the massive variety of skills within them, then simply treat each "Category" as a seperate skill... and Double the cost of purchasing them to cover the additional benefit of knowing all the activities that come under that umbrella.
(This is more or less the reverse of what David J has said above.... ;) ... instead of calling a skill "Climbing" you define it more loosely... and call it an "Athletic-Gymnastic" activity. ) This way, the "skill" becomes a "Generalised activity" rather than a defined "skill".
OK, so this perhaps over simplifies things, with respect to those skills in the "Combined" groups. The trouble is that these skills, appear so diverse yet (in RMSS) are covered by a category that defines them loosely enough that they fail to become similar enough... I've always thought that the "Combined" skills categories are the major problem with RMSS skill system.. because they are an exception. However, should they be treated as an exception?
Have you seen the Guild Companion article about simplifying the RMSS skill system (http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2010/dec/rmss-jahnke-simplified-skill-system.html). What about a solution like that?
-
Any revision will create a third "faction" of RM fandom, not unite those who are already split. Any discussion of a new revision must accept that (unless it is essentially going to be a repackaging -- and I think RMSS/FRP would be better off with another set of revision, one that clearly separated rules and content and discussed how to adjust content for a specific setting: not just race and culture creation, but creating, modifying, and removing Professions, creating Training Packages, adjusting the skill list [including adding skills, removing skills, moving skills to different categories, adding new categories of skills, and combining/removing skill categories], etc. Make the presentation of the underlying engine as clear and precise as possible, then not only provide some "stock fantasy" content to work with, but guidance on how to use the "kit" aspect of Rolemaster to make that engine run everything from Stone Age Survival to Steampunk Vampire Hunting.)
If the new version was ABSOLUTELY AMAZING, you might get a substantial number of old RM gamers to buy a new set of books and change over. If it is simply very good, they'll justify buying books to lift ideas for their RM2 or RMSS campaigns. But trying to "unify the fan base" for Rolemaster is not going to happen, so the purpose behind any new version needs to be something else, like appealing to a new audience. Frankly, I think RMSS/FRP could do that if it were carefully revised to have high standards of editing and organization so that it was clear, careful demarcation of rules ("this little bit is what you actually need to digest before getting started") versus content ("this is the masses of cool stuff you can look up when you need it"), and marketed properly. That last part is really the tricky bit.
-
Well, partly I don't think buying new books is a major barrier anymore. A $5 pdf simply isn't in the same ball park. People will buy it just to see what's been done.
Secondly I think the fan bases can be unified, the gap isn't really all that great. The big debate is over how much stuff RMSS adds at the core.
I'll admit the profession bonuses are a bit of a problem between the two but all told I think the approach can be blended. Even RM2 fans would probaby be okay with a bit higher bonuses at first level.
I think even RMSS fans would go for a version that gave 100% compatability with a smaller, easier to use core. Don't get me wrong, I'm not willing to settle for less than 100% compatability between the no categories and categories options. It's really not that hard to strip RMSS down if you don't care about compatability.
Lastly I don't think you'll find a more rabid RMSS fan than myself.
-
One thing I do think would be wise is to have two core books. One, Entitled Rolemaster would cover only half a dozen professions and races, would include Arms Law in its entirety and as much of Spell Law as can be crammed in with a toilet plunger. This book would have the skills only version of the rules.
Character Law would be a book of equal size with nothing but character creation options including at least two dozen races and profession, as well as training packages, talents and flaws. With no space dedicated to combat, GMing, or anything else it might even contain Space Master material (though that would not be the prime goal)
-
The best way to kill the factions is ONLY SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL CORE LINE of RM book.
The rest get posted in the sales vault and left to rot.
-
Yes, but ideally in doing so one unites them rather than sending 40% of them off to play and buy something else. I've got a good 80% complete d% sf game sitting on my hard drive that has accumulated over the last couple years of RMBS and honestly, if working with the new ICE doesn't pan out I will publish it and aggressively court RM fans.
But
I really believe a united, revised core system is possible and essential.
See RMSS was dead when the bankrupcy hit. I'm pretty sure there's a stack of republication royalty issues on art and writting that's absolutely unresolvable. (IRRC the old ICE generally payed royalties based on sales, not a one time fee.)
RMSS is not new user friendly. Heck I've seen a fair bit of evidence over the years that it wasn't even RM veteran friendly, perfect and less complex though it was :D
Still, ultimate compendiums are fun as long as they support a viable point of entry so I think the two book solution would be worthwhile.
-
Any revision will create a third "faction" of RM fandom, not unite those who are already split.
I disagree. I think that a compromise between RM2 and RMSS is possible and, if RM wants to continue as a viable system long term, a new version is a requirement anyhow.
But trying to "unify the fan base" for Rolemaster is not going to happen, so the purpose behind any new version needs to be something else, like appealing to a new audience.
I see absolutely no reason why both things can't at least attempt to be accomplished with a new version. RM cannot continue to support two versions that both need revamping regardless and even if they did there's not much life left in them as they stand. If you think someone like myself (an RMSS user) isn't going to buy an entirely new version why on earth would I buy a revamped version of what I already have?
-
By the way, as an RMSS fan, I could easily live with no categories and I could live with RM2 Profession bonuses of +X% per level rather than an up front one time bonus. I actually like the idea of the RM2 Profession bonuses as it alleviates some of diminishing returns problem.
-
I could live without Profession bonuses altogether. However, dropping the skill categories would lose me unless some elegant solution so far unproposed appears which performs the same functions even more gracefully.
-
Just out of curiosity... what's so attractive about the categories? The only benefit I see from them is that they allow you to gain small amounts in every skill in that category. Something that could easily be re-accounted for in a new skill cost and advancement setup.
-
I think the category system is brilliant if, yes, a bit forced in places.
It allows so many options. You can develop a skill and category at full pace, or just get one rank in each and then stick to the skill to specialize, or build just the category to generalize, or buy one or the other each level to slowly build proficiency.
It lets you really control how your character develops in detail. It also makes adding new skills easier and cuts down the size of the skill cost list. You only have to total your stat bonuses once per category so it speeds things up a bit (no, I don't think categories are the main culprit that slows RMSS chargen down).
-
Hmmm. I agree it's easier to add the stat bonuses, however the stat bonuses could be more realistic and geared towards individual skills if they weren't tied to the categories. For some reason it's one of the things that RM2 users dislike. I could really take or leave them. My inclination to lean towards getting rid of them in a potential revision/revamp is to help trim down the system for new users.
-
It is in my experience the Category system in RMSS was more confusing for new players. Remove the need to have to purchase ranks in the Skill Category and go back to RM2 where only the skill needs to be purchased.
-
My players have more trouble with RMSS style stat gain rolls. Personally it's brilliant and gets rid of a chart reference but it is one place I'd probably go back to RM2's method without too much complaint.
I think categories as a supported option is the only way to make everyone happy. And at this point the only way a revision will succeed is if it makes everyone happy somehow.
-
The problem with out categories is that Level Bonuses from RM2 are lost when and if you add new skills and you have to reprint a sheet every time you add skills.
IMHO I do not like level bonuses as you have the possibility to change a lot of skills during a level. If you do not use a computer program to do this there is a great chance of an error.
Stats some like 2 some like 3 some like 3 on the category and some like 2 on the category and 1 in the skill (my preference as it adds flavor to each skill and makes for a more variable bonus).
IMHO when RMSS was done people looked at D&D and AD&D and saw they jumped D&D and moved to AD&D. So they made the game more robust. IMHO the trick is to create a simple game and an advanced version that people will like and buy. Then it is the task to create other products that show off the best of both systems.
I am a RMSS man with mods from SM:P and the MAC, Elemental Comp, Ch Comp, Ess Comp, Ment Comp and CC. I do not use the Arcane Comp much so I did not list it.
MDC
-
I'm a great fan of categories as well...(they are realistic albeit a little cumbersome to the uninitiated) but would like the categories all working the same way.
This may require a little "re-tooling" of the mind set.
Given that they are grouped as similiar skills, then there must be some sort of common ground between them. This could be either that they utilise the same learning processes or that they are similar activities linked by a common aptitude/talent.
Secondly, in the grand scheme of things, the majority of the skills in these groups are just not that important in play to warrant the confusion of being treated differently.
There should be two exceptions: PPD and Body Development, these work fine and are not difficult concepts to understand.
In the end, I'd prefer that the system be "cleaned up". RMSS addresses many of the things that I was uncomfortable with about RM2, mainly that it seemed to be a system that was unresolved with the addition of all the options in the companions (skills in particular) but didn't work the way I wanted it to without them. RM Classic may have addressed some of these issues, but like some others have said here.. I'm unlikely to change back.
Having said that, a "revised" core rules, with the inclusion of the modern and sci-fi skills of SM... would be of immense interest to me. Combat tables, Equipment, Magic and Races could all be dealt with in genre books.
-
Some kind categorization of skills is a good thing IMO. The category can determine the costs of a skill, the stats it uses and the level/professional bonus for it. In order to add a new skill later it is only necessary to describe the skill and state the category it belongs to.
What I think is unnecessary is the additional development of ranks also for the skill categories, which RMSS introduced. Combined with a large number of skills, it made character development and level advancement needlessly complex.
Therefore I'd like to keep the categories that RMSS introduced, but I think developing ranks in skill categories, along with the additional rank progressions introduced for this, can be ditched.
YMMV
-
The categories as skill bonus contributors provide the same function as RM2 "similar skills" bonuses, but in a sane and manageable way. This is a very good thing.
-
Yes, in comparison to RM2's "similar skills" rules the introduction of skill categories and skill category development in RMSS was a very good thing. But OTOH RM2 core (without RoCo2) worked well without skill category development and without skill similarities. So the question is whether the added complexity introduced with skill category development is worth the benefits. And I see the benefit "only" in a simulation of skill similarities. And this is IMO not worth the efforts, at least in the implementation used in RMSS/RMFRP which is IMO flawed (what the heck have Sailing and First Aid or Religion and Region Lore in common?).
-
I think the primary factionalism divides according to how you rate simplicity of use vs. granularity of results against one another. For those who want their granularity badly enough to give up the simplicity for the sake of it, yes there should probably be a product to keep them happy, which would be all of RMSS/FRP and probably part of the RM2/RMC fanbase.
For those who value simplicity higher than granularity, you should be able to keep them by tweaking HARP, no?
I'll admit I don't really know, it's not as if I've followed the factionalism or have the data so see how it ebbs and flows. But trying to manage more than 2 factions seems silly to me.
-
I think that getting a functional document together without ICE committing to it would make it possible to test the water without driving anyone off. I'll put something together. It may take me a little while, I've got far too many irons in the fire but I've got rough notes and a chart already. I'll do up a couple professions and description and post a link for discussion. Even if it doesn't fly it will be clearer than my ramblings and help move the discussion forward.
-
I have a recommendation for stat bonuses (one that I already am using); all skills have a primary & secondary stat; but the secondary stat is only added for Extraordinary Stats (ei. 90+) and they are always eqaul to 1/2 the stat bonus. So, a character with a 90 (+10) in ST, uld add +5 to all other ST based skills.
As for revision: I think it has to be done. It's going to upset some people along the way, but the reality is supporting two systems is probably too much right now. I think as fans we can accept a revision if it means ICEs efforts can be focused on IP material like Shadow World or Genre products etc that would allow ICE to garner more fans and build up the old war chest. A simplification is in order IMO but one that still keeps the spirit of RM.
I would prefer an Core & Advanced set of rules approach where an interested gamer could purchase (or download a free) basic ruleset and run through a dungeon with a fighter/cleric/thief/mage within a few minutes. This could be accomplished fairly easily; because the things that make RM are probably never going to change (ie. Critical Table & Spell Lists), but a reworking of character creation & skill development would probably be in order. I have other ideas, but fear the collective retribution of my peerss, so I won't bother stating them....LOL
-
IMHO I must say categories is one of the main reasons why RMSS is superior over RM2. Imagine a long time going campaign when Counterfeiting becomes a major theme at the later parts of the campaign. Without categories you can't model that the thief character can pick up Counterfeiting quickly since he is a master thief. That the master thief can save a few DP over another profession is really not satisfying enough since all characters will have DP to spare at high levels and they will never get enough levels for them being able to get a decent skill bonus. Maybe you can argue that the profession bonuses of RM2 partly compensated for this problem, but front loaded profession bonuses is another of the major improvements to RMSS over RM2 I don't personally buy that argument.
Additional benefits comes from the simplicity of adding new skills that is trivial with RMSS, but tricky business for RM2.
The critique with the RMSS categories are of course well founded since the great idea of categories was horribly executed in practice. The division of skills over categories is partly retard. A few examples are the skill bloat for the awareness skills that is a well known problem that we have covered on the forum more times than I can count. Other common complaints are that the skills in TechTrade General is not very related to each other. More than handful of categories are pointless, examples would be having two artistic categories, having both TechTrade Professional and TechTrade Vocational, having 3 awareness categories etc). Additionally the progression of categories was badly chosen in that there was a penalty if you had zero ranks making newbies or old RM2 players pretty much bound to be hit by forgetting to buy some category ranks and get very negative feelings about the category system. Having 0 as bonus for 0 ranks and increase the penalty for the skills themselves is a much more sensible solution that is more forgiving to players.
Looking forward I can't see that the categories is really an issue for bringing the edition camps together. In the unofficial RM revision discussions Vroomfogle showed that you can create a scalable point system that allow the costs of both RM2 and RMSS style professions be recreated. There is of course some loss of precision when you codify things, but it was minor stuff and it can be easily be described as increased balance. The categories and category progression would of course be an option so that RM2 users can ignore them.
As for the matter of additive stats or average stats I see no difficulty in having two ways to handle the stats. If using average stats you average the bonuses and otherwise you add them. Of course as a RMSS user I see very little reason in keeping the average stat option. Adding stats is much more easy and gives approximately the same value so why force the hassle of trying to figure out what 25/3 or 15/2 is on the player?
The cost formula for Training packages in RMSS is another major error that slows down development of characters. This has been covereed lots before, but basically the system need to be redone so that you get a flat discount on the real cost instead of a variable discount that depend on the profession costs and how many ranks you have. Still I firmly believe that with a fair costing scheme and some thought how to handle the different skill sets you could create a book that would be of equal use to RMSS and RMC users.
There are also stuff in RMSS that I think are questionable if they should be kept. The complicity of the everyman, restricted and occupational statuses is for instance rather horrible unless you use a character sheet that does have extra columns to track of both the basic value and the mutiplied value. I can see the value of having them in daily play, but also agree that they make things much more complicated than needed.
The only really hard problem is IMHO to handle the variable skill lists in the different editions. The long skill of RMSS is something that some like and some hate. A new joint edition would need to have a minimal skill list can be expanded to RMSS length for those that prefer so, but provided the DP can be calculated from the length of the skill list this should not be a problem.
-
In a nut shell I don't have the time to commit to RMSS. I think that has to be a consideration. There should be a bench mark in time for making a character! ha ha ha ha!
-
There should be a bench mark in time for making a character!
Regardless of time benchmarks, I think if you can't fit a pretty complete character on both sides of a single sheet (one side if possible), from there on you'll start losing people. It's too intimidating for the newbies.
-
Really the Tech Trade General category's contents are fine. What's not so good is the use of the standard progression for it. It really should be combined.
I really prefer three stats per skill because it helps fight stat dumping and the single attribute specialization. I'd be tempted to suggest three different stats per skill.
Speaking of things that make you recalculate your whole character sheet when you level up, Stat Gain rolls need to be trimmed somehow. Next to having all your stats change and cascade through, RM2 profession bonuses are a pretty minor issue.
-
I've changed Tech Trade General to combined progression and used Steven Carpenter's 2003 Guild Companion article "Crafting Skilled Professionals" to break out the crafts and the vocational/professional skills into related groupings. That done, the only part of the skill category structure I ponder changing the Armor group into a single category, but I can live with the Armor group.
-
I think Pastaav nailed it on the head. The category system was flawed in execution, not concept. A trimming down and reworking would solve the complexity issue and decrease the time needed to create a character.
Some other random thoughts:
There needs to be only one core book. No basic or advanced. Lets face it, Rolemaster is pretty much never going to be someone's first time role playing game. The new ICE needs to reassert its dominance in the niche of "advanced" RPGs. How many of us came to RM because we were seeking a decrease in rule's granularity? I'm guessing few to none.
There is a big resurgence in toolkit systems. Everything from original 3LBB D&D (OD&D to the OSR initiated ;)) to Strands of Fate. Rolemaster has always been a toolkit system. This should be exploited by the new ICE.
Related to the first point, I agree that the entirety of Arms Law should be included in the core book(s). Arms Law is the coolest part of RM. Don't neuter it like the old ICE did by going to a condensed combat system in the core book. At the least, the corebook could come with a cd or a code to download all the Arms Law charts as pdfs. That would also help resolve the issue of newbies not knowing/being able to speed up combat by giving players print outs of their weapon charts.
A free character creation program available from the get go.
Enough rambling.
ps - Its nice to be back on the forums!
-
In a nut shell I don't have the time to commit to RMSS. I think that has to be a consideration. There should be a bench mark in time for making a character! ha ha ha ha!
I'm not sure what you mean by not having the time to commit to RMSS. Are you talking about learning the system in general or just creating a character? Creating a character doesn't seem to be any more difficult in one version or another to me. RM2 has just as much (more really) optional additional materials than RMSS ever got the chance to publish before revision to RMFRP or by the time RMFRP was effectively abandoned.
-
I think Pastaav nailed it on the head. The category system was flawed in execution, not concept. A trimming down and reworking would solve the complexity issue and decrease the time needed to create a character.
Huh, that's interesting. How many RM2 players actually think categories are workable if brought back into a better focus?
There needs to be only one core book. No basic or advanced. Lets face it, Rolemaster is pretty much never going to be someone's first time role playing game. The new ICE needs to reassert its dominance in the niche of "advanced" RPGs. How many of us came to RM because we were seeking a decrease in rule's granularity? I'm guessing few to none.
Speaking from the standpoint a company would likely look at it, I can say that I do think there needs to be an effort to make a toned down version. This is really what MERP used to accomplish and it is gone. You also don't have the large potential customer base of experienced younger players looking to find the next great RPG that will pull them away from D&D. There has been a serious gap in table top gamers over the last couple decades for a couple primary reasons (CCG's and MMORPG's). The active fan base has diminished and there has been little in the way of replacements. Still, I think D&D players are the primary target. Actually, in my opinion, the existing RM users should be target number one, D&D players target number two, and new players target number three (Online or Card gamers).
It would be nice if there was a genre that was popular with youngerish people today, which did not require a license, that could be turned into an expansion or setting (although likely not the MAIN one) book for RM. I have one primary idea there that I think has promise, but I'm going to keep it under wraps for now and see what people can come up with. Who knows, maybe some day I'll submit a proposal for it. :)
Rolemaster has always been a toolkit system. This should be exploited by the new ICE.
I agree. If we ever see a full new version I think it could do well to have a modular theme to it. Partially because this is what helped develop the popularity of the original RM with existing D&D users. Might be worth a shot to try and repeat the GOOD part of RM's history.
Related to the first point, I agree that the entirety of Arms Law should be included in the core book(s). Arms Law is the coolest part of RM. Don't neuter it like the old ICE did by going to a condensed combat system in the core book. At the least, the corebook could come with a cd or a code to download all the Arms Law charts as pdfs. That would also help resolve the issue of newbies not knowing/being able to speed up combat by giving players print outs of their weapon charts.
I'm more inclined to say keep Arms Law seperate for a number of reasons. Hate to say it, but it will make more money as a separate book - and we are talking about a business here. However... I don't want a huge main book. I also think a huge main book will scare people off. I like having a separate book to be able to thumb through regardless. I also like the idea of potentially using a separate Arms Law book to provide optional combat system material.
A free character creation program available from the get go.
Absofreakinlutely. Not only would it be welcome in general, but this is the computer age and it almost a requirement regardless.
-
I'd like to weigh in on this discussion, even though I don't post here much. I lurk a lot, though.
In my neck of the woods, folks are pretty open to trying new things. It's not the complexity of the game that concerns most of the people I talk to. What it comes down to is getting them to suspend their DnD games long enough to try. No one is interested because of the Current Big Thing.
As for myself, I love RM. I've read all of the core rulebooks for each edition, as well as HARP, Middle Earth, Spacemaster, and even the cyberpunk book. And all of them have something good to take away. But I keep coming back to RMSS. Flaws and all, it still does what I most want.
It's the flaws, though, that have me interested in this discussion. I'm reasonably quick at character generation, for myself. With all of the bells and whistles, including Talent Law. But things slow down horribly when I have to teach someone else. Because there are so many steps, and each step has so many choices. Add in Talents and Flaws, and it takes even longer. Most people are okay with it, once they get to understand it, once they become familiar with it, but it's pretty overwhelming for a newbie. I think things need to be scaled back, for beginners.
Fewer categories would be a start. I agree that some of the categories seem pretty strange (like two artistic categories). A lot of the skills are so similar in scope and effect that they really don't need to be under separate categories. And honestly, Everyman, Occupational, and Restricted skills come up so rarely as to be pointless in the games I've played in. Better, I think to find some other way to benefit those skills on the few occasions that they do come up.
What I don't think needs to happen to simplify things for beginners is what happened in RMFRP. Taking some of the skill categories out, and then having to spend a large chunk of space in future books to add them back in seems pointless, and only intended to force people to buy the next book.
I like how stats are assigned in RMC (both temp and potential), but I dislike the way skills are purchased. As a player, I love to take advantage of the talents and flaws, but as a DM, all I see them adding is extra paperwork and munchkinism.
If I see a revised RM on the shelves, I'll buy it if it is complete out of the box, no hiding chunks in other books, like RMFRP. (And I don't mean I'm against new professions, etc. being in future books, just that I don't want to open the next book and find Skill X, which was left out for space reasons.) Instead of a combat chart for every single possible weapon, perhaps just one per category, with slight modifications applied to the results to vary the weapons themselves. Four or five core races, a few representative professions, and all the spell lists you need for those professions. Maybe as a boxed set, or slipcase set.
Finally, as regards software, I don't think it's a necessary project. If the number of steps and the amount of information needed can be reduced without going too far in the direction of 'simple', keeping paper forms, to me, is preferable. That does not mean, however, that I don't look around to see if there is something available (I google every RPG I play in to see what options are out there). I just don't think it needs to subtract resources from the revision itself.
I think I'm done rambling. I may think of more later. Just remember that RM around here isn't as difficult a sell as it might be elsewhere, which means that not everyone turns it down for it's complexity. Most often, RM just falls under "never heard of it." Maybe that's your biggest hurdle.
-
I spend at least as much time on character concept as mechanics (although there is back and forth between the two, so in practice they intertwine), but if you want to min-max, a computer is very useful to try different character builds to push the skill(s) of interest to the limit.
-
O thinl each weapon in arms law should be available as a download in the rm shop. 99c downloads anyone? It worked for apple! And it would increase the revenue stream for ice.
-
Weird i never really thought that rolemaster was hard per se. I can crank out a charcater in under an hour. Then i had to remember that i been playing RM for almost 20 years so it is easier. Like everyone else,i feel if any changes are to be done is should be with category consolidation.
I have a mix group of players. Half likes RMFRP the other half are hard core RM2. My RM2 friends the only thing they dont like are the categories, mainly for lack of consoliditaion and honestly having to double spec their points.
I tried explaining that they get a heck of a lot more DP's that they would in RM2 even including the extra 50% option. Once that was proven the new argument was the increased cost of some of the skills, like the crafts all being 5/12. Once again i pointed to the extra DP's.
So what i did was doled out a few extra dp's based off their stats.What i did was take their stat mods for their dev stat and treated it as a percentage of extra dp's they could use for skill and categories they do not get profession bonuses in and that seemed to placate them.
-
I've always thought that the skill category system was flawed... but only in it's explaination and execution not its purpose in character creation.
Those skills that "sit uncomfortably" are potentially those ones that people could concievably learn in the same manner rather than having any direct correlation as to subject matter. Perhaps these are skills that are better learnt by those with a aptitude...(which is why certain professions have different development costs in the first place).
Let's take the Lore skills (which to me actually sit fairly comfortably together). So Religion and Region Lore don't have any apparent or obvious similarity? Most people know a little about geography from religion and vice versa, the same could be said for culture lore and religion or region lore and culture lore.
I think it is vitually impossible to learn something without either learning a titbit of information about learning another... or by utilising the same methods/practices when learning a skill. Without specialising and dedication you won't be an expert.. but equally you won't be completely ignorant either.
To me, purchasing ranks in a Lore category, rather than specific skill ranks simply means to have a "gradual increase in general knowledge", whilst having them in a Tech/Trade category indicates "an improvement with manual routine techniques", Combat Manuevers indicates "learning general techniques that enhanse positional combat", Craft skills "improving general crafting methods" etc.. I'm not sure there is a skill which is so alien that it cannot be related to another in some way. The fact that that one skill is paid for with DP as a "skill" shouldn't mean that other subject matter doesn't, in some way benifit from it's improvement.
-
I love the idea of categories. But, I also love the idea of being able to make a character without a spreadsheet. I played RMSS for over 10 years; and the categories were a huge part of the reason why. But, at this stage in life, I can't be bothered for a bunch of math that is rarely used. I only game for 5-6 hours a week, and am loath to commit more than 1/2 hour to character creation & leveling up etc.
-
I do agree about it being possible for an expert to generate a character in say an hour or less, but it takes loads of more with a newbie. I would add that the same is true for leveling up. The critical difference is very much that when I need to level up a character a very large part of the DP is tied up for skills that I know are essential. I don't need to consider every single DP, but will just have to make an active choice about the few spare DP that remains after I have bought all the essential skills.
The implication of this is that a newbie friendly version of RM should not have fewer skills, professions or similar, since you won't reduce the time needed for the character creation by doing this. Instead we should give the newbie good suggestions about what they need to look at and what is not so important. For instance it would not very hard to give a suggested list of useful skills for a dedicated arms user. The Master NPC table already build on these kind of templates so why not present them to the newbies so they get how the experienced RM users think?
The same kind of aids can be created for spell list selection. It is harder there since there are so many spell lists, but I think it is pretty simple to determine a limited set of builds that will be used for just about every character of a certain profession.
-
Speaking of things that make you recalculate your whole character sheet when you level up, Stat Gain rolls need to be trimmed somehow. Next to having all your stats change and cascade through, RM2 profession bonuses are a pretty minor issue.
Bah...that is nothing compared to the rules about Concussion drain. Having a rule that require you to recalculate large part of your character during the actual play session due to nonlinear cascading effects is simply insane.
It always has surprised me why not every RM GM added something like my house rule:
Life drain
*undead life drain ability does not change the constitution stat but instead affect the life level of the
target.
*life level is 75 modified by constitution bonus of the race
*penalties from life level apply to all actions and is three times the life level loss, example a life
drain of 50 would give the target -150 on all rolls. An almost dead character has a penalty of around
-225.
*When a target reach 0 in life level he dies
*life levels can be regained by magic, herbs and rest (natural healing rate is 1 life level of each day
with activity and 2 life levels of each day of rest)
-
I love the idea of categories. But, I also love the idea of being able to make a character without a spreadsheet. I played RMSS for over 10 years; and the categories were a huge part of the reason why. But, at this stage in life, I can't be bothered for a bunch of math that is rarely used. I only game for 5-6 hours a week, and am loath to commit more than 1/2 hour to character creation & leveling up etc.
I agree.. but I suspect the majority of that "Speadsheet stuff" when leveling up is actually due to where attribute changes affect everything, and that happens with both RMSS and RM2, particulalry at low levels where the changes are more marked. Because there are less categories than skills the calculation takes less time since all the skills in the category use the same stats and cost the same. Once established they also provides an easy reference on the occasions when a character attempts a skill that they do not have on their character sheet.
Part of the reason I changed from RM2 after getting RMSS was that skills system made more sense and was less "D&Dish" being tied to level.. i.e. you only increase in skill when you pay for it rather than automatically increasing with level.
The beauty of it, if you really want to simplify, is that the category CAN actually be used for the skill, rather than fussing around selecting individual skills, you simply need to decide what the cost of treating like that is and what the "+" per rank purchased is. This massively reduces the number of "skills" on the character sheet.
This is only a rough idea.
It might be as simple as doubling the current Skill Category DP cost, retaining the +2 per category rank purchased progression, but ignore the normal -15 penalty for not having a rank in a specific skill. (That way all skills within the category are effectively treated as being trained to the Skill category bonus). If the character then chooses to specialise in a specific skill then, it costs the same as the category cost, and recieves a simple +5 for each time. However, I would suggest they can only be able do this max number of times equal to thier level (and a maximum of once per skill per level)
-
I have been using my own skill system for a few years now. I use a skill tree.
As an example Awareness is a single skill that develops at 5/rank; the cost is 1/3. The player can develop up to 10 ranks in Awareness. Detect Secret Opening (or the like) is a Skill Focus that reduces difficulty mods by -5 per rank. It Costs 4/ rank and a character can develop up to 5 ranks in it. The skill focus does not add to an Awareness roll; it just reduces the difficulty of it. So, a character with +50 Awareness & +15 Locate Secret is searching a room; behind a mirror is a hidden safe (-10). The player rolls normally but the GM reduces the penalty to Zero.
Like all skill systems it has its flaws; notably characters without a x/x cannot develop a specialization. But, no one has ever complained, and it creates some rather stark separation in "who does what" well.
-
Am I the only one who thought Rolemaster Express and Express Additions were trying to bridge the gap between RMC/2 and RMSS/FRP? I thought they were meant to offer a minimum ruleset and then bunch of both RMC/2 friendly and RMSS/FRP friendly options modular enough to satisfy your taste.
Actually, I really thought they were not bad, and, if handled properly, would be able to make the two RM streams into one whole as a simple ruleset with two large groups of rich options.
-
I do agree about it being possible for an expert to generate a character in say an hour or less, but it takes loads of more with a newbie.
I really don't think D&D would be any different anymore. I've seen what characters are like in 3.5/4.0 and, even being a former D&D user, it would take me a while to create a well thought out character for it now.
-
I just finished running a brief 3.5 adventure, and I can tell you nothing about 3.5 is simpler than RM.
Young players seem less willing to try new games the way we all seemed to back in the heyday of TT, but it may also have to do with these dnd'ers have STACKS of books. With an investment like that, I'd wanna play mostly that too I guess.
-
Ask them if they'd rather have ten dates with really ugly women or one date with one really hot one. ;)
-
But, at this stage in life, I can't be bothered for a bunch of math that is rarely used. I only game for 5-6 hours a week, and am loath to commit more than 1/2 hour to character creation & leveling up etc.
Heh, we rarely play more than 6 hours a MONTH and we'll happily spend a couple hours or more developing a character. But we tend to run characters for a minimum of six months, sometimes a few years.
Do you not reuse characters in multiple adventures?
-
I like making characters.
-
Me too.
If I ever get a face to face group going again, I have plenty of pre-made characters for them to use while they lean the system. Afterwards, they can learn how to design a character of their own.
-
Greetings
I'm currently rereading a lot of my old RM material including RM2, RMSS and HARP. I bought RMX a couple of years ago and this looks like a reasonable basis with a couple of EA additions and some tweaks.
I've looked at categories in relation to this - primarily in relation to 'secondary skills' and am working on the basis of making some RMSS skills that would be useful for what I am contemplating into single merged secondary skills with the possibility of additional focus.
I have two potential groups of players. One is my son's friends who are at university stage now who play a mix of D20 games with me GMing occasional games of RQ and Dresden Files. The other is a group of friends of mine from university who play a range of things including Ars Magica/Call of Cthulu - many of us used to play RM - but more SM - decades ago. Neither of these groups is going to spend much time on development (so premades beckon) but more importantly in time spent in game finding one out of a large number of skills. If the key details can't be seen on one side of a sheet of A4 paper (equipment, background, spell details etc can be on the back) then I don't think it wll work for them. This either means using categories as skills with the potential for drilling into specialised aspects or just a limited list of skills.
On a slightly related note, one aspect that struck me last night was the difference in PP acquisition - RM2/RMX 10+x/lvl (where x = 1 for stat 75-94 etc) without any cost vs RMSS with PP development skill and progession - looking at the NPC charts this leads to widely disparate PPs between the two with similar PP expenditure on spells (albeit with RMSS exhaustion rules). What do people think an appropriate middle ground is here?
Regards
Edward
-
We reuse characters until they die actually.....which can be a little more often than you would like. But, we take turns running a game so, we can end up making new characters every couple of months based on a new world setting.
Trust me I can still make an RM/RMSS character in a half hour to an hour max(RMSS using Talent Law). But, RM has to simplify this process a bit to allow newbies to play with minimal hassle.
I agree whole heartidly with you thiha! I love RMX. It is what brought me back to RM after a couple years of Hero/HARP/D&D/M&M. I believe that a tight package like that is what RM has to become (at least as an entry level product) inorder to garner new players. IMO RMX with a reworked skill system & single stats would probably do the trick.
Oh, and re-balanced races. And......he he he, ah the slippery slope.
-
Greetings
I'm currently rereading a lot of my old RM material including RM2, RMSS and HARP. I bought RMX a couple of years ago and this looks like a reasonable basis with a couple of EA additions and some tweaks.
I've looked at categories in relation to this - primarily in relation to 'secondary skills' and am working on the basis of making some RMSS skills that would be useful for what I am contemplating into single merged secondary skills with the possibility of additional focus.
I have two potential groups of players. One is my son's friends who are at university stage now who play a mix of D20 games with me GMing occasional games of RQ and Dresden Files. The other is a group of friends of mine from university who play a range of things including Ars Magica/Call of Cthulu - many of us used to play RM - but more SM - decades ago. Neither of these groups is going to spend much time on development (so premades beckon) but more importantly in time spent in game finding one out of a large number of skills. If the key details can't be seen on one side of a sheet of A4 paper (equipment, background, spell details etc can be on the back) then I don't think it wll work for them. This either means using categories as skills with the potential for drilling into specialised aspects or just a limited list of skills.
On a slightly related note, one aspect that struck me last night was the difference in PP acquisition - RM2/RMX 10+x/lvl (where x = 1 for stat 75-94 etc) without any cost vs RMSS with PP development skill and progession - looking at the NPC charts this leads to widely disparate PPs between the two with similar PP expenditure on spells (albeit with RMSS exhaustion rules). What do people think an appropriate middle ground is here?
Regards
Edward
I prefer skill based pp's.
It provides a little extra punch for beginning spell users. If they survive long enough, those points become far less abundant in appearance and reality.
Of course, thats the spell users primary limit: sooner than later they run out of power. Like a loaded gun, no one wants to take the first bullet, but once out of bullets, spell users are so very easy to tackle and stomp to death.
To few power points undermines the often dramatic releationship between spell users and mundanes. A spell user needs mundanes. The fewer pp's, the more the need and the more the spell user will be beholden to the mundanes. To many pp's and mundanes will have wizzard kings instead of the typical mundane king and spell user advisor.
PP skill also eliminates the essential need for multipliers and abundant spell items. A lack of pp drives the mass market magic item industry that seems to develop in many game worlds. If the spell user can cast sufficient spells, the lack of magic items won't be mised. When the spell user is forced by the necessity of survival to hoard his pp, then players clamor for potions, scrolls, daily items, wands, etc.
The ability to learn how to collect power rather than it being a reflection of only innate talent means there will be a lot more spell users in the world, which increases the ready availability of spells and further reduces the need of magic items. With lots of spell users, suddenly the item of magic becomes rarer and more precious.
-
Am I the only one who thought Rolemaster Express and Express Additions were trying to bridge the gap between RMC/2 and RMSS/FRP? I thought they were meant to offer a minimum ruleset and then bunch of both RMC/2 friendly and RMSS/FRP friendly options modular enough to satisfy your taste.
Actually, I really thought they were not bad, and, if handled properly, would be able to make the two RM streams into one whole as a simple ruleset with two large groups of rich options.
I agree that I think that was the plan, but I think they were limited by Mjolnir repeatedly saying they were not revising stuff. At the heart of it quite much of the EAs were neither RMC or RMSS materials. In some sense they were periodicals where Mjolnir tested stuff without ever committing about to what degree the material was tested for prime use or if they were meant to be kept in the next edition.
I think the reason the concept failed to get off the ground is pretty much that the feedback loop became too weak. Nice to have have a profession or a new race, but you don't make characters very often and you won't generate any buzz over something that even the interested buyer won't have use of until months or years later.
I think the way forward is having a very tight core and having complete supplemental parts. If these part are chapters in a books or individual products that you can buy is not something that I have much opinions about. Yet I do think it is essential that you get the complete deal in one product.
-
Okay, a new input. One thing that is different in the editions is how stats are selected. I think the RMSS point by system has its good point, but I also think that the balance aspect of the point buy is rather overrated.
In my experience players generally spend crazy much time on the first characters to find out how to evaluate the benefit of different stat builds. At later characters they can cut time, but I would argue the spent learning the point buy system is pure waste of time. The gaming experience does IMHO not get better due this complexity. I think the simple random system of RM2 make more sense in the core system.
If you want to ensure that all players get a certain quality in their stats this can better be handled by having some rules for mulligan if the stats are too bad instead of trying create a fair point buy system.
-
If random is 40+6D10 I would be into that. But, having a pure percentile roll is a little harsh. Starting stats of 46-100 give players a wide range and a mean of 70-75ish (without doing the math)
-
I simply allow the players to roll randomly for all the stats in order, apply 90's in the two prime stats, then add up the total, if it is less than 660, then they can points buy with the remainder.
-
purchased stats seem to be the prevalent method in most games now a days.
certainly it can't be difficult to present 2-4 mechanics to generate stats: random, point and pre-established set quickly come to mind. the rule book then states which method it considers official and will use in making NPC's in modules.
-
Well, I guess I stand in the categories should be a compatible option camp.
This doesn't mean there is a basic and advanced set.
What I'm talking about is about 50 pages of core character creation rules in a single volume with Arms Law and some spell lists as a single volume entry point. Character Law would contain those 50 pages and then about 200 pages of additional material including the skill categories option.
But I think beyond that the category split is wearing thin, so let's talk about other things we'd like to see in the system.
For myself I love spell lists. I know many people want scalable or even free form spells and I think those would be great as optional material but spell lists condense things beautifully and codify them. I like the way different professions develop different things at different rates, it's very flavorful and makes the different magic using professions unique and characterful.
-
What I'm talking about is about 50 pages of core character creation rules in a single volume with Arms Law and some spell lists as a single volume entry point. Character Law would contain those 50 pages and then about 200 pages of additional material including the skill categories option.
You're going to duplicate 50 pages of material between books? That'll make any observant customers feel ripped off. Bad idea.
-
Bearing in mind that we're looking at character creation rules with lots of charts that everyone needs a copy of to make a character? I don't think it'll be an issue. Besides, if the book primarily exists as a .pdf it's pretty easy to ommit the duplicate part when printing it out if it bothers you.
A three book core is great for the hardcore RM fans but it's a real put off to the new comer. I feel it's essential to have a complete and functional entry point and a massive complete compendium to please both groups. In the day of $10 ebooks it seems like a reasonable course.
-
Nonetheless, that's one of the things that irks me so much about RMFRP vs. RMSS. You buy "Spell Law of..." and pay again for the last quarter of the book you got with the last one.
However, I agree with you about the spell lists. That's one of the major selling points for me, too. Scaling spells would be nice. I can understand, however, how they might be somewhat mutually exclusive ideas.
One of my friends is mostly sold on the idea of playing RM, but he keeps asking if there are other options for the use of magic. He dislikes a certain other games' "Arcane/Divine" split, and RM is only worse in that regard. I sat down last week to port Ars Magica's system over, feeling that it would be the easiest to merge into RM's skill system, but I didn't have much heart for it.
Using RM as a toolkit, though, could be beneficial. Give our GM's and gaming groups several choices across the board, let them choose what they want to use. Two or three stat rolling options (I use the RM2 method myself), two or three spell casting styles, and so on. I'd probably have an even easier time selling new players on the system if they knew I could build a system they'd like, or even replicate a game they like a lot, with RM style.
That's one of the biggest things I like about RM, it is (usually) easy to swap different systems in and out. Maybe a potential revision should try to embrace that?
-
Basic Spell Law should be a revision of existing version, but should probably include a few guidelines for customizing magic to your setting. However, I see room for a book or books on alternative approaches to magic, since the only major points of integration are really the character creation system (you need to have spells as skills in some sense) and combat (use of RRs and combat tables with cool critical results, tactical casting needs to fit combat round structure), the spell system can be replaced in full with the vast majority of the effort being in working the spell system into shape rather than fitting it to the rest of the game.
-
I think there should be two magic systems for the new RM. One should be existing list approach while the other should be College of Magics from Harp. College of magic is a scalable spell system where you can make your own spells, the spells are divided into spheres. I can't honestly see any real gain in developing a parallel scalable spell that by nature will serve the same goals.
-
Nonetheless, that's one of the things that irks me so much about RMFRP vs. RMSS. You buy "Spell Law of..." and pay again for the last quarter of the book you got with the last one.
Why not have a print-on-demand product that is Spell Law Rules and having the lists in one or more separate print-on-demand books?
-
I think we can sum up the category issue in the following:
*having categories is essential to RMSS player, that the categories make it easy to add things to the system is no excuse to leave category users with extra work to integrate new material into the category system
*the exact list of categories is not necessary to keep, in fact there are categories that probably should be combined or pruned
*the division of skills over categories is also not necessary to be kept, the important thing is the category concept and not current details
*if categories are part of the core or an option is not that big issue, but the complete category system should be in the main book.
-
Another question...should Combat Companion be an extra book or should be the material be integrated into the RM core?
-
One of my friends is mostly sold on the idea of playing RM, but he keeps asking if there are other options for the use of magic. He dislikes a certain other games' "Arcane/Divine" split, and RM is only worse in that regard.
I think there should be two magic systems for the new RM. One should be existing list approach while the other should be College of Magics from Harp.
I think HARP College of Magics already came up with a good answer for this one, that being varying ways of tapping power:
Personal - Limited by the caster's will
Granted - Limited by the caster's influence with a granting entity
Ambient - Limited by the caster's ability to tap the energy budget of the planet he's on.
Fixed - Limited by the caster's ability to find/combine the proper ingredients.
I've most commonly seen the problem in Druids. I honestly can't blame the player who thinks any rule that requires a Druid to draw power from God(s), and more importantly denies him the option of drawing power from the natural flow of his world's energies or from components ('eye of newt and toe of frog', etc.) is too simplistic and too limiting.
-
For myself I love spell lists. I know many people want scalable or even free form spells and I think those would be great as optional material but spell lists condense things beautifully and codify them.
However, I agree with you about the spell lists. That's one of the major selling points for me, too. Scaling spells would be nice. I can understand, however, how they might be somewhat mutually exclusive ideas.
Spell Lists and the idea of scalable spells can also be combined. And this even results in somewhat condensed Spell Lists. An article (http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2011/jan/rmss_jahnke_scalable_spells.html) of mine with such a concept was just recently published on TGC. You might want to take a look.
-
I'll have to take a look at that, thanks.
-
I think we can sum up the category issue in the following:
*having categories is essential to RMSS player, that the categories make it easy to add things to the system is no excuse to leave category users with extra work to integrate new material into the category system
*the exact list of categories is not necessary to keep, in fact there are categories that probably should be combined or pruned
*the division of skills over categories is also not necessary to be kept, the important thing is the category concept and not current details
*if categories are part of the core or an option is not that big issue, but the complete category system should be in the main book.
I would add that not only skill list, but category structure, should vary by genre/setting. Lumping together various disciplines into Science/Analytic*Specialized is fine for a fantasy setting, but any realistic or semi-realistic modern or sci-fi setting should have it broken up to where most of those disciplines become categories with skills for various sub-disciplines. In a wuxia setting with some added skills, I might break Self Control into Self Control*Physical and Self Control*Mental. Obviously, weapon categories change with available weapon sets, and modern/sci-fi RM versions have always accounted for this. A cyberpunk setting might add Awareness*Virtual. It isn't just that the existing categories, skill list, skill assignment to categories, and other detail are imperfect (although they are), it is that no single set of choices about the details will be correct for any given game, so there should be guidelines for adjusting the skill system written into the core rules (and these should be followed by genre books, including the new SpaceMaster).
-
Still with the categories...
Well, I want full compatability between genres so I'm in favor of dividing up the sciences and tech / trades, however I would want to get rid of the unfortunate overlaps that occurred between the sciences and tech / trades as they get helluva confusing. Is power systems in Tech/ Trade Vocational or Science Analytic / Technical? In reality I think the division point is pretty obvious at least. We drop the "Technical" aspect and just have Trades and Sciences.
Spell lists are already scalable with a list of spells that does the scaling and takes into account powerpoint increases along the way. I do think it should be available to other realms than essence though.
-
Tossed this poll up just out of curiosity...
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=10643.msg134917#msg134917
-
Personally, I think that Categories are a decent execution (they had something similar in Shadowrun, of course). I just like Similar Skills because it feels right, to me; I never had anyone write them all out beforehand, though, and it's begging for me to write a computer program to at least select the best similar skill. Of course, this would just be part of my planned but yet-to-be-executed character generator.
-
Okay, on stat selection. I think potential stats and stat gains should be optional. Yeah I know, it's a really classic feature of Rolemaster but it also means people have to recalculate all their skills every time they level. I'd like to have it be spend 600 points and then determine a random factor similar to RMSS in the core because I like the potential for a dump stat to get bounced to an exceptional level. (one of my very favorite things actually) Even so, just allowing pure random generation and points as viable methods would be okay too.
The Combat Companion is a pretty mixed bag of options and revisions. The only thing that would need to be implemented from the start if it were to be used is the revised armor type scale for attack tables. While in principle I understand why it's wanted, the whole point of attack tables in the first place is simulating the advantages of various weapons verses various armor types. Really the Combat Companion method should be taken to its obvious conclusion, removing the attack tables entirely, if it is implemented.
-
Greetings
I agree that stat potentials and stat gains should be options - I've never been wholly convinced by the mechanics.
Regards
Edward
-
I don't mind if they're optional, so long as they're in there somewhere. I always found the Rolemaster system for stat gains a lot more flavourful than "can't really increase stats normally" (AD&D) and "regularly increase/have option to increase stats" (D&D3+, Savage Worlds, etc). I also prefer rolled stats.
-
Rolled vs set stats is an easy baseline option that I think should be included from the get-go. This isn't one of those things that has an obvious preference from gamers and is just too simple to not provide the rules for both in the core book.
Stat gains is, potentially, another story. I think having two options for that would be a good idea too. Basically random vs purchased.
-
Here's a .pdf of some notes I've made, it's very rough and doesn't really show what I'm talking about for categories, but for the moment assume as it does that the progression is the combined rate and there are no categories.
http://www3.telus.net/public/uncouths/RevLists.pdf
All I'm asking for is a category rank option that maintains compatability with the rest of the system. At present I think the best way to do that is simply have the standard and category progressions as part of that option as it allows the total bonuses to come out the same in the end.
The assumption with the racial stat bonuses is that they are directly added to the stat rather than the bonus. I don't know if I like it that way but it would open up the system for doing superheroes a bit. Whether that's a good thing or not I don't quite know.
-
One thing about options in core is that it's pretty sweet if you grok the game -- GURPS and BRP are both like that -- but it can make a game pretty confusing to read. On the other hand, options in separate books comes with its own problems (I personally prefer that approach, but it's not a slam-dunk as to what's better). Stat roll versus point-buy, however, isn't one of those things that can't be in the core book, as it's a pretty natural thing for which to offer options.
-
if you grok the game
Translation?
MDC
-
Easiest explanation is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok
word coined by Robert A Heinlein in novel Stranger in a Strange Land.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
Thanks;
I read Stranger in a Strange Land so long ago that I forgot the word.
I thought it was some new term that was not in the dictionary.
Thanks again.
MDC
-
It's one of those words I never realised I needed until I learnt about it.
-
I think that we should be looking at a new version of Rolemaster and not a revision of any existing version. I am very fond of RM2 and RMSS, having played both over a good few years (first RM2 and then RMSS), but I don't think tweaking either or both of them and calling it new is the way forward.
Many of these issues have been discussed years ago (probably refiled in an archive somewhere), but I'll gladly drag them out again...
For me there are two questions to address:
1. What is essential to "Rolemaster"? (Are there consistencies throughout all incarnations?)
2. What would each person like to see?
Armed with the answers to these questions, a new version might begin to emerge.
If someone wants to see RM2 or RMSS then I have great news - they have already been produced and are widely available! Go forth and slay dragons!
-
1. What is essential to "Rolemaster"? (Are there consistencies throughout all incarnations?)
I've moved to HARP, so it's not like there's any future in pleasing my particular tastes. However, I started playing RM back at the very beginning, so I think I can give you an answer to this one, if not the answer.
I've seen two things that stayed consistent from the early 80's through RMFRP. Other things tended to stay similar and got adjusted more or less between revisions:
1. Make the mechanics as standardized and modular as possible, so no one ever has to wonder what dice they roll, and the roll result gives you a fair idea of how well you did before you ever look at a table. The mechanics of _____ work exactly the same as the mechanics of everything similar to _____. It keeps the learning curve from being a pain, and if someone rolls 00 three times running, they don't have to look anything up before they say,
"Woohoo!" ;D
2. No matter who you are, there is nothing anyone else can do that you simply cannot learn to do. It may not be cost effective, you may never be any good at it, but there is absolutely nothing that the GM replies to with, "You just can't, that's the rules." No matter how foolish you're going to look, or how high the likelihood is of you killing yourself, the rules allow you to at least try.
My 2 coppers. ;)
-
I think that we should be looking at a new version of Rolemaster and not a revision of any existing version. I am very fond of RM2 and RMSS, having played both over a good few years (first RM2 and then RMSS), but I don't think tweaking either or both of them and calling it new is the way forward.
the more I think about it, the more I'm unsure that a new version makes sense, personally. Who is it aimed at? New players are a much harder sell than in the past, I reckon, and RM2/C and RMSS/FRP players seem to me to be pretty dogged in terms of their support for an existing system.
-
The greatest asset Rolemaster has at the moment other than some great rules (and a few that could use kicking into better shape), is a loyal fan base who can help others feel the love. Now, it is true that this asset is diluted somewhat by the RM2/C-RMSS/FRP divide (which is probably in most cases a preference rather than anything stronger, despite the polarizing effects of the occasional debate). Any new version is just going to aggravate that problem, unless it provides a smooth synthesis of all existing versions, which would be a pretty big feat. I don't think people are going to get excited about a new version of a game that's not on their radar to begin with. Let's work on improving what we have until the polish is so bright that it really deserves to have all the improvements printed between one set of covers and called a new version.
-
I hope we can encourage older players to open their minds to a different version. I used to be a die-hard RMSS fan, but looking over the RMC books, it's easily 75% the same if not more.
It'll help if we can get everyone past the feeling that "if it won't be like version X, I won't like it." Especially if we can find a good way to turn the parts that make each version unique options that can be more or less plugged into the core of whatever revision we end up with.
If we can't get rid of the division in our own ranks, how can we hope to attract new players?
-
I hope we can encourage older players to open their minds to a different version. I used to be a die-hard RMSS fan, but looking over the RMC books, it's easily 75% the same if not more.
It'll help if we can get everyone past the feeling that "if it won't be like version X, I won't like it." Especially if we can find a good way to turn the parts that make each version unique options that can be more or less plugged into the core of whatever revision we end up with.
If we can't get rid of the division in our own ranks, how can we hope to attract new players?
The division exists, I think, because there are two games and given that one of those was commercially dead for a decade or so and the division didn't die off, I think it's a genuine division. I'm dubious that a new version is going to do more to bring us together than it would to increase the amount of division; in the end, people like what they like. Unless a new version is going to appeal to people not currently playing RM -- and maybe it will -- then I'm not sure that I see the point of it.
-
As Corey has observed - the posters here are a very small sample of the whole potential market. Most of us have our own preferred system and could survive without any more material from ICE (let's face it, we've survived this long).
For some of those who are happy with their existing set up, maybe there is no point trying to please them. Any revision would need to be 'just like or compatible with version X' - just play version X!
Unifying the versions should not be the aim - bringing out a great new product that potentially appeals to many should be the aim. When a new version comes out, that should be it for the old one.
-
I do not believe the division exist amongst most RMSS/FRP players. WE already changed once. I know I'm willing to change again.
-
I'm only willing to change if the new version represents some substantial improvement over RMSS. Most of the ideas proposed for a new version have tended to go off in directions that don't interest me. I am open to adopting a new version, if it appeals to me more than the old, but I will not do so merely because it is the "current version".
-
My group has always been die-hard RM2 people.......... with some alterations...... :)
as time goes by as GM I realized that most of those "alterations" were what RMSS/FRP was after when written.
we just never went over since we were ballparking stuff that was slightly off for so long its automatic.
our version works great so we never put in the effort to really dive into a new set of books to find the (sometimes small) differences.
I bought RMC Spell Law with high hopes........ but it sits on the shelf and the players use the stained,beaten, and torn RM2 Spell Law since they can find it all faster. (and the book kinda falls open to the right places. ;) )
So, the only way our group is gonna go 'New Version' is if it has one hell of a world and mythos attached to it.
(kinda like the game that shall not be named, which I dont like but my players love. :) )
-
I think a rewriting & rebranding are due. I would focus on making the dice rolling system as stream lined as possible. RRs for example could be handled better. Trim the core skills down to 25-30 and explain in detail how to use them in a few different ways. One thing I would do (and do myself) is provide an "adapting rolemaster' sectioin that would give you options for using the same material in a more heroic scale of game.