Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Marrethiel on July 13, 2014, 10:48:21 PM
-
This quote got me thinking about a few things. You could say these thoughts and words are blasphemous, but oh well :)
Characters rarely parried in most of my games.
Combat was so swingy that many felt that a good offense was better than a good defense, much like what the OP said. Really, is another 30 points of defense going to help you when your attacker rolls a 97 + 68? He's pretty much assured to max out the chart. Far better, in many characters' minds, to stun your attacker and stop him from getting that attack altogether.
It would be an interesting experiment, though, to crunch some numbers on this. What are the odds that parrying will be better than trying to knock your opponent out via a stun or kill? I would like to see those numbers.
I've been looking at recruiting a few new roleplayers to RM but would like to reduce some of the crunchiness and modify the extremely random crts some what.
If I divide all the numbers in RM by 5 and used 3d6 instead of percentile, what would happen?
Crits would gravitate near the centre, which would reduce the annoying 01 and very lethal 100. ( I so hate rolling up on a surprise attack, then rolling 03 for the crit).
Positional combat modifiers might be more attractive.
Parrying might happen less but when it is used be more effective.
Caster level for base attack spells would probably matter more as it would be difficult to get a high roll (again, speding time to get a few modifiers would be more imprtant).
Would heavy armour suddenly be used again? I think it would be more powerful but this could easily be managed by actually using exhaustion penalties.
Smaller numbers would be easier for people to do math on the fly. I cringe when I see new players (and some old ones) reach for a calculator.
-
We just used Fate Points. :) All the crunch is still there, you just have a little padding in the way.
-
With that said, I would always remind your players that combat is brutal and not to be entered into lightly. I have seen too many players state they love the combat of Rolemaster, but that quickly turns to complaints when it is extricated against them.
Fate points is a good option for padding the results.
-
+1 for fate points.
-
We're doing fate points too.
On the original idea, optimally you would use two d8 dice numbered 0-7, and one d6 numbered 1-6 (standard). That would give you a range of 1-20, with a mean of 10.5. So, the same range as d20 but on a bell curve. With 3d6, you have a range of 3-18 so a lot of UM results on the tables are not merely going to be rare, they are impossible. E.g. you simply cannot fumble.
If you numbered the d6 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and the d8's 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, you can use standard tables. Doesn't solve the math issue but does change the probabilities. You can't roll below 5 so you have to treat 5 as your fumble and open-ended down.
-
I myself have thought of playing RM with a bell curve several times, mostly to eliminate the swinginess. But Marrethiel's post has also now made me think about the way that could make parrying and armor more useful.
Note that RMU has had some issues of the sort you identify, Marrethiel, in regards to base attack rolls. If you're interested in the numbers, there are a couple of threads I think in the RMU spell law forum that talk about that. Edit: clarification: I mean specifically the issue of spell attacks being more likely to be almost impossible to resist or trivial to resist on the ends of the spectrum.
If you are going to try this, though, I think you should avoid 3D6. I think there are easier ways to roll the numbers (Edit: Jdale has covered some of this, so my comments are just an addendum), and 3D6 is inherently hard to convert to percentile, as you've noted (no 1s, 2s, 19s or 20s). If you have a calculator and don't mind using that rather than rolling dice, I'm sure that you could easily set up a program to get a bell curve on it (e.g. 3d100/3). You might even want to start with a bit less of a bell-- say 2d100/2-- to see how much of a bell you want.
If calculators won't fly and you need to roll dice, there are a few things you could do to get a percentile bell, though these involve more calculations and again you will most likely run into the problem of no fumbles/open ends. Average 3d10 and multiply by 10, for example. Or 2d100/2.
I'm not math person, though, so I'm sure there are people here who have better suggestions. I think as an experiment, the calculator/random number generator is the way to go. I know there are dice rolling programs for the D20, and perhaps they could be modified so that people can actually have the sense of rolling dice by using these programs on their cellphones or tablets.
I'm interested to see what the results would be. It will of course not be a long-term solution I think for Rolemaster, since the percentile dice are part of the identity of the system. But I for one would love to see the results.
-
Oh, just thought of a simpler solution that might be better for the math-averse. This is based on the advantage/disadvantage mechanic used in the new edition of DnD:
--Roll two separate percentile rolls, and use the one closest to 50.
-
You would have GURPS, which is no bad thing IMO. The systems are different but have some similar flavor for me. I tried to put together a sort of mashup system at one time but lost it. I just wish I was motivated enough to do a GURPS version for 3D12, to get a bit more granularity in the resolution system, a bit more like RM
-
Mathematically, that works, but it feels unsatisfying. You are always going to be saying, "I wish I could use this 96!" (Mathematically, middle of three 1d100 rolls is 50.5 with a standard deviation of 22.47, which gives you a nice curve: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mean+50.5+standard+deviation+22.47 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mean+50.5+standard+deviation+22.47).)
My solution, though weird, gives a standard deviation of 3.66 according to http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1d6+%2B+2d8 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1d6+%2B+2d8), it's slightly narrower compared to the range. The only downside is the loss of resolution, although in exchange you get easier math.
If you wanted the resolution, the best thing I can think of is 4d30-5. Or maybe have modified percentile dice to roll 1-50 so you can do 2d50. Either of those requires more adding, rather than less. I'm still solving it with fate points instead....
-
Or you could just have a program do the roll for you and you can shift the various factors as you wish.
MDC
-
3d6 ... I miss GURPS!
-
as far as fumbles and open enders, a roll of 3 to 5 and 16 to 18 is around five percent. These could be the new open ender probablities. Or a roll of 6 on an indivual dice is rolled again; this could work better for crits.
I could just do small, medium, large, chain (flails etc) for fumbles on 3 (0.5%), 4 (2%), 5 (3%) and 3 to 5 (5%). Keeping these rolls with in the normal fumble range would make it fit neater into the normal fumble ranges.
I'm more concerned about various modifiers, altho this could be agood thing. Situationslike flank, stunned and prone give a bonus and I feel that these might be more poweful as it helps get to the top of the chart.
-
We use Fate points too.
-
Why do you want to reduce the range? If you do that you cannot have modifiers that are not multiples of 5% or 1 on 3d6.
MDC
-
Why do you want to reduce the range? If you do that you cannot have modifiers that are not multiples of 5% or 1 on 3d6.
MDC
I can't think of many modifiers that are smaller than 5% but I've not had a close look at say the Base Spells attack table to see if that can neatly be divided up.
I might get our normal group to play test it this weekend and report back.
-
IIRC, there are mods less than than that, that were introduced in the RM2 Elemental Companion. Take a look at the elemental forge info towards the back of the book.
MDC
-
I am very interested in why people want to reduce the range? Is it a math problem for your players? Is it a way to try and convert RM to another system or another system to RM?
For me if I wan to play Pathfinder, GURPs, Shadowrun or D&D I will just do that, I prefer the granularity of the D100 range to give me the flexibility I need to run my game. I am not a fan in any way of simple systems, ie +1 gun or even +1 weapon, is all there is in a system. Give me options to use in my stories not generic stuff.
-
Most of the complaints you hear about RM are obviously made by people that obviously don't know the system well. One of the complaints I used to hear from anti RM people is that the d100 created too much math. This always makes me roll my eyes and I usually say "So you have a hard time figuring out a three digit number compared to a two digit number?" Also, only someone who has never actually played RM would think that you actually have less items to add up in D&D.
With the increase in complexity in the D&D system over the years, each time getting a little more like RM if you ask me (and there are some well known people that wrote for D&D that used to write for RM), to the point that I don't think D&D can claim to be such simpler anymore. As a result I often describe the new D&D as "RM divided by 5". We'll see what the new one is like... maybe they'll have gone back more to their roots.
-
I have seen the free D&D 5.0 play-test doc and it looks like D&D 4.0, now it may change with the players handbook and other guides but it looks very close to 4.0, IMHO.
MDC
-
Never saw the problem with RM and 2d10/d100 myself. Most things are divisible by 5 or 10, you only need one type of dice (and only two of them to boot), small atmospheric modifiers are easy to use without throwing off game balance... What's not to like?
-
/rant on
We had our Tuesday night game wrap up last week and we talked about what do play next; there are seven of us and only one hasn't gamed for more than a decade.
In the end some of those not wanting to play rolemaster sited too complicated, too much math and combat being too deadly... what can I say.
The math wasn't too difficult for thoset that know the system but didn't want to play, it was just too much for them to enjoying roleplaying in. While dnd has got more complicated in the bonusses it is still simpler because you have a single number to add to a single number, both of which are tens and units only. It is also worth noting that dnd 5e is less number intensive than the last two editions.
Now I'll always love RM as does everyone reading this, but look at the poll on this site showing how long people have played this game. Not nearly enough were less than 5 years; once we stop so will RM if something doesn't change.
/rant off
:o
So don't think I'm attacking RM when I want to change it. I have said before that I think RMU is on the wrong path (on several levels) and if you look at how much dnd has changed over its iterations compared to RM, it is easy to see which brand is willing to take risk (most admit dnd 4e was a fail) and which isn't...
-
For an RM geared towards new players I think it needs simplification, or maybe more accurately, the appearance of simplification.
Me? If I wanted simple I'd go back to 2nd Ed AD&D.
-
Marrethiel,
I am sorry to say that it sounds like RM is not for them. I have seen a few players in my days that have problem adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, etc (1,2 and 3 digit numbers) and various people helped them out. Some stayed and some left our group for various other groups and game systems.
It can be said that RM is not for everyone even if/when/they are trying to make the rules as simple as possible for people. RM is simply not going to be a game where you get a +1 melee weapon or a +1 handgun and you can play from there. At least I hope RM does not go in this direction as it would lose the flavor of the game.
Also people get used to specific things and do not want to change, it is simply easier to keep on doing what you have always done and not push forward into new things. I have seen/heard of quite a few gaming groups have this happen, especially when a new player arrives and starts asking questions the group has not asked ever. "Why, does this work this way?" Has often caused problems for various people when I have asked the question during a Con, at a game store or at a table.
I can say sorry that RM does seem to be too hard for your group.
MDC
-
Mods of +5 and +10 are incredibly easy to add. Never understood that complaint. One thing I will say, though, is that I run a streamlined RM compared to the impression I get of some games. RM CAN be very complex and math-intensive, but it doesn't HAVE to be. A poor GM, or a group that's obsessed with using every rule and every skill roll possible can make RM very complicated and unappealing very quickly, but that's not something that's necessarily inherent to the game. Unlike D&D, which is known for its basic inflexibility, RM is very flexible. Sometimes that's good, but other times it can be bad.
Then again, I got into gaming using a d100 system. I never cared for having to haul around tons of dice, and really dislike the whole d20 mechanic. d10/d100 seems more natural to me because I grew up using it.
-
For an RM geared towards new players I think it needs simplification, or maybe more accurately, the appearance of simplification.
Me? If I wanted simple I'd go back to 2nd Ed AD&D.
+1, especially with the appearance of simplification. That's more a matter of identifying the rules you REALLY have to use to play RM at a basic level. Then you identify what to add in next. So you'd take out things like exhaustion/fatigue for a basic game, streamline the use of maneuver rolls (to special situations) and maybe limit caster professions to a degree (some basic ones). It's actually easy to do, but one thing that has usually been lacking in all versions of RM is rulebook organization.
-
Do you not have trouble with skill rank progression using d6? Or do you simply have ranks 11-20 be a 1/2 bonus and higher rakes being even lower?
MDC
-
Do you not have trouble with skill rank progression using d6? Or do you simply have ranks 11-20 be a 1/2 bonus and higher rakes being even lower?
MDC
I was thinking of developing normally and diving the final number by 5. This way stats, prof etc don't change, just the final number.
Alternatively you could do something like dnd 3e did and have a certain number of ranks = +5.
1-10, 1 rank is +5
11-20 3 ranks is +5
Or something like that.
Another thing is that if you promoted the system as d20, you would instantly increase market share, even though it is the same game... such is the nature of search engines.
But really, this is all far away from my OP... I was hoping for more constructive ideas on what I want, and things to look out for.
-
I think most people here moved away from D20 or 3d6 to D100 and RM get more from our games, I cannot speak for ICE but maybe they wold like to move in that direction.
The main problem I see is that it would look like a D20 clone and there are too many of those out there, IMHO.
How do you think a D20 or 3d6 version of RM would stand out from the crowd?
MDC
-
How do you think a D20 or 3d6 version of RM would stand out from the crowd?
For me, the biggest draws to RM tend to be uniqueness... in the form of Professions, Spell Lists (that are fairly unique to professions) and Attack Results (read: Criticals). I think all those primary items can be very well done in a D20 style if only to draw in the "D&D" crowd. D&D has really already embraced the professions uniqueness to some extent, but throw together some spell lists that go to level 20 and make some critical hit charts based on rolling a 20 or a certain amount over the required number to hit, but limit the extent of them (i.e. really just mini crit charts). I could go into way more detail, but that'd be the core of it.
-
Thinking about it I can see more problems trying to convert RM/C to a non-d100 system than RMSS/FRP, with the main reason being level bonuses. If you keep level bonuses, you would essentially be calculating a RM2 PC every level and then dividing the total skill bonus by 5. You do not make it easier but essentially add a step, the divide by 5 step at the end of every level to get a new skill bonus total.
Also if you keep with the divide by 5 mantra then PP's would be come a problem as they use a non standard skill progression in RMSS and in RM2/C they are based on high Stat's.
You are also going to have to spend a lot of time converting creatures to the new /5 (divide by 5) system and play-test each one as IMHO you can lose a lot of granularity by reducing the RM system down to a D20 system.
Now sort of in line to what Cory Magel said above, I would try and convert Arms Law and Spell Law for use in the system of your choice as that IMHO would be an easier time than re-creating RM with a /5 system.
But that is just my opinion.
MDC
-
If you use a spreadsheet to make characters, the additional work of dividing by 5 would be automatic.
I don't think you would divide the PP, or level, AT, hits. Only things that you would normally add to a 1d100 roll.
For creature stats, rounding to the nearest +5 increment would be equivalent to changing their bonuses by no more than +3. I can't imagine that having significant effects.
-
One big boost to helping people pick up Rolemaster would be an electronic character sheet (Excel or similar). I am hoping RMU will have a robust yet simple one; the ones that were made for the beta were serviceable, but a bit user unfriendly. But if you can get a simple version of the character sheet working, I think it would speed character creation along immensely.
-
Speaking of which on the DrivethroughRPG newsletter they had a Crit Book for D&D/PathFinder as one of their featured items, I wonder how it compairs to Arms Law?
MDC
-
If you use a spreadsheet to make characters, the additional work of dividing by 5 would be automatic.
Hero system has an excellent program called Hero Designer, costs $25 which also links into a combat program for another $25.
-
Are you not just looking fir some simple rule replacements, instead of doing all of the divide by 5 math?
MDC
-
Are you not just looking fir some simple rule replacements, instead of doing all of the divide by 5 math?
MDC
I don't know what I want... But this has all got me thinking enough that I've started putting pen to paper on my version of "RMU". I'll post a rough draft in another thread some time (for people to mock and decry etc).
-
to simplify RM : calculate all skills as normal
round off all skills to the nearest 10
press play.
((n.b. if you want to make it even simpler, round off all 1d100 rolls to the nearest ten.))
-
Most of the complaints you hear about RM are obviously made by people that obviously don't know the system well. One of the complaints I used to hear from anti RM people is that the d100 created too much math. This always makes me roll my eyes and I usually say "So you have a hard time figuring out a three digit number compared to a two digit number?" Also, only someone who has never actually played RM would think that you actually have less items to add up in D&D.
I have to agree with you here. I have been playing D&D with a great group of guys for over a year now and I find that math/dice system a pain in the rear end. Sure, the numbers are lower. The highest numbers I've seen in D&D/Pathfinder are high 30's (unless I crit, confirm, and do double damage), but the spell damage, the crit damage, the variable numbers/types of dice make a basic attack round a 3rd Grade Math test.
1D20 + 3D6 +1D6 cold damage +2 from Inspiring Aura +1 from Bless. That's my first attack... I get a 2nd attack.
One of the spells our mage uses is 8D4 + Level Bonus + Focus + whatever else. Really??? Eight freaking dice???
How is that simpler than D100 + OB - Foe's DB? (And the GM subtracts the Foe's DB for you)
The couple of complaints I've seen about math being too much in RM make me shake my head as well. Didn't we learn how to add and subtract in 1st grade? Didn't we start using 3-digit numbers in 2nd grade? I apologize if I've offended anyone, but the addition/subtraction of RM is simply not an excuse. And you are 100% correct, Cory. The complaints are from people who don't know the system well. Once the PC is created, it's roll and add. The GM subtracts the DB. 100 percentile dice seems so much more natural and workable.
Now, I will concede that PC Creation is challenging with so many options available for a PC. You do have to use averages and there is math involved in creating a PC, but with a veteran helping a newbie, that should be a wash because the math is still considerably simpler once gameplay starts. And there are now so many Character generators that use spreadsheets and do all the math for the player. The player no longer has to do math since some amazing people put a ton of time and effort into creating some really complex spreadsheets that calculate EVERYTHING for the player.
The only dice system I've seen that is simpler is that of White Wolf's series. #D10 = degree of success or failure. 10 = auto success. 1 = Auto failure. 10's and 1's cancel each other out. If you have at least one die that succeeds the difficulty level set by the Storyteller, you succeed. The more dice that are successful, the more spectacular you look while you succeed.
*** - Please read this with a grain of salt. I have been working in a college/university for the past 25 years. I have seen the level of education that comes out of high schools into college level and the math skill set is atrocious. Maybe this is a little bit of a sore spot for me as I really get frustrated when I see college freshmen who still can't divide without using a calculator or those who don't even know multiplication tables. I do have a degree of frustration when I hear players complain that RM has too much math. It's 100 percentile. It's based on D100. Cory, you didn't cause my frustration. Your post simply highlighted a recurring frustrating theme that makes me really sad to see and I couldn't agree with you more. RM math isn't the problem. ***
-
In general I agree with most of the above comments... it doesn't however change the fact that there is a perception that RM is too math heavy and complicated. Other than Base Spell casting, RM is almost beautiful in its elegance and simplicity, what ever version you are playing. You buy the ranks, add the bonus, roll the dice.
There are for example many quirks that make the game fun and memorable. In one RM2 game a while ago I was going to play a straight up Human Magician. As a group we didn't use similar skills as the GM just gave more Devs instead. I said to the GM that instead of developing Body dev I wanted to have similar skills from Distance Running (half ranks). So my character became "The Running Mage" and went for an hour long jog every day while the rest of the group were on horses or in wagons.
It was fun, not overly powered, made for a good story and could only ever be done in Role Master...
-
In general I agree with most of the above comments... it doesn't however change the fact that there is a perception that RM is too math heavy and complicated. Other than Base Spell casting, RM is almost beautiful in its elegance and simplicity, what ever version you are playing. You buy the ranks, add the bonus, roll the dice.
I agree. There is the perception and it's 90% of 120% valid for 12% of the remaining 3% of the time. But other than that, it's absolutely beautiful in it's simplicity.
I would also concede that "Chart Master" is a fitting moniker too. Perhaps that is where some of the math-heavy woes come from? But even that cross is for the GM to carry.
There is a chart that does show conversion between the different dice systems. I believe it's in ChL&CaL. I'm pretty sure it's listed in another companion as well, but I don't have my books to verify. 3D6 worked great for GURPS as the entire system was written with that in mind. RM was written with 1D100 in mind and the stats and charts all reflect that. As pointed out in earlier posts, 3D6 doesn't allow for rolls of 1, 2, 19, 20... which could be accounted for in a 1D20 system by multiplying by 5. That system does simplify the dice rolls. The biggest issue is that 18 does not divide into 100 evenly the way 20 does.
I still fail to see the math complaint during gameplay. Roll, add skill bonus, tell the GM. GM adds/subtracts modifiers and tells you the results. It's still much simpler than D&D and Pathfinder as far as the turns go. Math during Character creation looks like a bear, but the reality is that you have ## Development Points. You subtract the cost from those DP for each skill rank you purchase when you level up. That's basic subtraction and is only done at level up not during normal game play.
Worse comes to worst... use a calculator. I make all the players use one for speed and accuracy. My kids can do the math quickly enough, but when you're in the heat of battle or laughing your butt off because someone is bleeding to death from an A-Tiny crit, the math can sometimes get sloppy.
MarkC, you're correct in saying that RM is probably not for them (From original poster reply). They would be too hung up on the "math" to even give the system a fair chance to see how simple it can be. If they go into the "new" game system with a sour attitude, it will just carry over unfairly and RM will never get a fair chance with them. I have been paying D&D and Pathfinder for well over a year now. I think I am experienced enough to complain about that dice system now. LOL.