Topic: What is the Essence of Rolemaster?

[RandalThor]

For me, RM was: Crits (able to kill in a single blow - even if that was relatively rare), skills matter, and it was the main rules system for Shadow World.

I totally agree with the armor situation, and think that RM should just switch to the way HARP does armor - as a DB bonus. It still can/does affect quickness and skill / maneuver rolls, just not quite so complicated. Plus, you don't need an entire page for a single weapons table, you can have multiple weapon-type tables on a single page, making the multi-page look up situation much less of a problem.

[jdale]

Let me pick up this gauntlet!

They are outdated.
For starters: the penalties received from wearing armor debilitate most players. Only a select few armor types, such as AT 15 and 16 and AT 19 and 20 would be worth your while to wear it, because AT 1 was so darn good that a 35 quickness bonus would yield better protection than all the other ATs. All the penalties for most armors should at least be halved to be on par.

Expanding on this part, the issue is that the armor tables include the idea that heavier armor slows you down. While valid, this is redundant with the quickness penalties. But the quickness penalties are easier to adjust for armor skill and for strength. If you are extremely strong, a chain shirt really isn't going to slow you down at all. If you're a 90-lbs weakling ( = mage!), it may. But on the broadsword table hits start 20 earlier for AT13 than AT1! That's like a -20 quickness penalty built into the table that strength and skill cannot compensate for. It's huge.

That's part of why martial artists are so good in RM. The tables are built to favor them.

This also creates weird situations like surprise attacks. The target doesn't get their Qu bonus, but they still get the inherent mobility assumed in the table. I would take the mobility part out and deal with it entirely as a Qu modifier. That will make it a lot more clear what is going on.

The tables are also strange in terms of how they treat weapons and other attacks. The advantage of martial arts also comes because there is a tremendous difference in how easy it is to get hits with different weapons and types of attacks. A broadsword is a good weapon. Hits against AT 1 start at 80, criticals start at 85. Martial arts strikes start at 40 and criticals start at 55! That's like a +30 bonus built into unarmed combat! Huge! Put a martial artist against a swordsman of equal skill, who would seriously argue it is significantly easier for the martial artist to get a hit?

The easiest weapon to get a hit with is the quarter staff. Hits start at 61... but criticals not till 100. Then rapier... then short sword... then morning star. It's easier to get hits with a short sword than a broadsword. Why? Makes no sense.

I've played with making my own tables. You can too! http://www.madreporite.com/rpg/combat_table_generator.zip  (Excel file)

Even though we use software that does all the table lookups for you, I still would like to see these streamlined a lot. And if they are retained, make them more consistent.

[markc]

Essence of RM:
1) D100
2) Individual Weapon tables
3) Crit tables based on weapon damage type
4) Professions that can buy any skill
5) System became very easy to adapt to any game world, ie very modular and easy to add rules.
7) Creating PC's took long but gave the player lots of background info.
  It was rare that 2 PC's looked the same, vs. other games in which all PC's became to look the same after a time based on the best skill, talent, spell, power, ability, etc picks.


What I would like to see:
1) Integration of scaling in RM spell lists: I said a long while back that I would like to see a limited set of options included in each spell that would "power up" the spell but cost significantly more PP than higher versions of that spell. For example a Rank 1 spell: Light 10' radius might have an option to increase its radius to 20' for an extra 4 PP. The Rank 2 spell: Light 20' costs 2 PP with other options. Why does it cost 4 PP to pump up the Rank 1 Light 10' radius to 20' radius? Because the spell is not designed to do that and the PC has not learned the technique to cast the harder Rank 2 spell yet. This gives some scale-ability by adding extra PP costs but to off set this spells might cost more PP than in RM2/C or RMSS/FRP.
2) Going on the above I would like to see some cantrips added, so that rank 1 spells now would cost 5 PP and then cantrips could be added at the lower PP cost.
3) Spell Lists the provide "job" aid (I did not want to use profession) are very reasonable PP cost but low power level. Such as Black-Smithing Law that provides for spells that just aid in the crafting of that task, no great benefit to crafting magic items but great help to the everyday blacksmith who had PP and the ability to learn the list.
4) Universal Spell List: Some lists that every realm could by at the same cost. Sort of like the TP Spell Lists in RMSS/FRP.


  There is more but that is enough for now.
MDC 

[markc]

Another I would like to see is an integrated approach to making creatures more PC like.
MDC

[TAK]

Essence of RM:
1) D100
2) Individual Weapon tables
3) Crit tables based on weapon damage type
4) Professions that can buy any skill
5) System became very easy to adapt to any game world, ie very modular and easy to add rules.
7) Creating PC's took long but gave the player lots of background info.
  It was rare that 2 PC's looked the same, vs. other games in which all PC's became to look the same after a time based on the best skill, talent, spell, power, ability, etc picks.

Agree 100%
I don't wanna see any of this stuff gone, especially the individual weapon tables and crits, that I feel is the whole basis of the what makes Rolemaster stand out. That and professions can buy any skill/spell they want.

[bennis1980]

...
1) Integration of scaling in RM spell lists: I said a long while back that I would like to see a limited set of options included in each spell that would "power up" the spell but cost significantly more PP than higher versions of that spell. For example a Rank 1 spell: Light 10' radius might have an option to increase its radius to 20' for an extra 4 PP. The Rank 2 spell: Light 20' costs 2 PP with other options. Why does it cost 4 PP to pump up the Rank 1 Light 10' radius to 20' radius? Because the spell is not designed to do that and the PC has not learned the technique to cast the harder Rank 2 spell yet. This gives some scale-ability by adding extra PP costs but to off set this spells might cost more PP than in RM2/C or RMSS/FRP.
...

I would like to see something similar done. There are alot of repeated spells in most lists, but at higher level and with a "Spell I, Spell II ... Spell X" format. I think there is far too much repetition (on a single list, not in general). I would like to see less spells, but more emphasis put on the Spell Mastery skill. More PPs could be used to reduce the penalties to the skill - which would leave you with the same spells / PP cost, but less clutter when looking for a juicy spell.

Let me say how much I love the spell mastery skill and how I encourage all my spell users to develop it and use it. I love the challenge and imagination when they extend, bend, shape, stretch and augment a spell. It makes my spell casters play less generic characters, and I never know what they will come up with. THAT is the magic of RM spell law (IMHO)

[Hurin]

Ok, I see why some peole have problems with the armor penalties. Those could probably be revisited. I like the idea of having strength bonuses negate some of the quickness penalties.

I would definitely not want to eliminate all the different armor types, however... those to me seem to be part of the essence of Rolemaster. I think some of the lamellar and brigandine/byrnie armors can be incorporated into the existing system. Ringmail on a byrnie seems pretty close to studded leather to me, or perhaps you could make it AT 15 with a DB bonus or something. I'm not saying the existing system is perfect, but you can't have 50 different types of armor, and I don't like the idea of eliminating AT altogether, as that would make it more like DnD, where there is no difference at all between a quick monk in robes and a slow warrior in plate.

[VladD]

That being out in the open: I have a little question...

Now that unified is coming; I have a supplement that I wrote for RMFRP (and RMC could use it too) that incorporates 126 real life armors in to the 20 ATs system. They are statted out for RM and for D&D 3.75E.
To go with that I also have a table with almost all weapon types in existence (179) and because I had some time back then, with all the missing attack tables included. I intended it to be for publication, but that's now out of the question.
Would people be interested if I gave it to Peter Mork so he could fill a few issues of TGC?

I'm asking because it will double up some articles and tables recently published, but I'm sure my take on it will be of interest.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

To go with that I also have a table with almost all weapon types in existence (179) and because I had some time back then, with all the missing attack tables included. I intended it to be for publication, but that's now out of the question.
Would people be interested if I gave it to Peter Mork so he could fill a few issues of TGC?

I'd be! If only because I've always been highly unsatisfied with the current choices of weapons offered!! Not sure I'd agree with their paradigm (I always disagreed with AL&CL's paradigm putting hacking weapon [e.g., two-handed sword] over piercing weapons against heavy armours whislt, afaik, it was the opposite and even swords gave more and more focus on the piercing aspect as armours evolved into heavier ones).

[ironmaul]

What I would like to see:
1) Integration of scaling in RM spell lists: I said a long while back that I would like to see a limited set of options included in each spell that would "power up" the spell but cost significantly more PP than higher versions of that spell. For example a Rank 1 spell: Light 10' radius might have an option to increase its radius to 20' for an extra 4 PP. The Rank 2 spell: Light 20' costs 2 PP with other options. Why does it cost 4 PP to pump up the Rank 1 Light 10' radius to 20' radius? Because the spell is not designed to do that and the PC has not learned the technique to cast the harder Rank 2 spell yet. This gives some scale-ability by adding extra PP costs but to off set this spells might cost more PP than in RM2/C or RMSS/FRP.
2) Going on the above I would like to see some cantrips added, so that rank 1 spells now would cost 5 PP and then cantrips could be added at the lower PP cost.

AMEN!!

[markc]

That being out in the open: I have a little question...

Now that unified is coming; I have a supplement that I wrote for RMFRP (and RMC could use it too) that incorporates 126 real life armors in to the 20 ATs system. They are statted out for RM and for D&D 3.75E.
To go with that I also have a table with almost all weapon types in existence (179) and because I had some time back then, with all the missing attack tables included. I intended it to be for publication, but that's now out of the question.
Would people be interested if I gave it to Peter Mork so he could fill a few issues of TGC?

I'm asking because it will double up some articles and tables recently published, but I'm sure my take on it will be of interest.

 I personally would love to see it either by email or in the Guild Companion monthly. I also think that I am not alone and many others would like to see what you have done.
MDC

[Arioch]

That being out in the open: I have a little question...

Now that unified is coming; I have a supplement that I wrote for RMFRP (and RMC could use it too) that incorporates 126 real life armors in to the 20 ATs system. They are statted out for RM and for D&D 3.75E.
To go with that I also have a table with almost all weapon types in existence (179) and because I had some time back then, with all the missing attack tables included. I intended it to be for publication, but that's now out of the question.
Would people be interested if I gave it to Peter Mork so he could fill a few issues of TGC?

I'm asking because it will double up some articles and tables recently published, but I'm sure my take on it will be of interest.

I would love to see it!

[RandalThor]

Oooh. I thought of another essence: The way you can play RM and not go into artificial/abstract thinking mode. By that I mean that I can use real-world tactics and they are effective in RM (provided it is the right tactic for the situation, that is), unlike in D&D where it only behooves you to slug it out, hoping your HP last longer. The ability - nay, the encouragement to be sneaky when needed, or suicidally brave when it is called for, and they have in-game/rules consequences, is the essence of RM.


Perhaps, for me, this is the One-True-Essence. (Or Essaence?)

[Lord Garth]

The things that stand out for me are:

-Billions of spells
-Lethal crits which encourage "realistic" fight-styles (ie. Parry)
-Abundance of professions.

There are many more things which make Rolemaster Rolemaster, but those are my stand-outs.

[Dakadin]

Oooh. I thought of another essence: The way you can play RM and not go into artificial/abstract thinking mode. By that I mean that I can use real-world tactics and they are effective in RM (provided it is the right tactic for the situation, that is), unlike in D&D where it only behooves you to slug it out, hoping your HP last longer. The ability - nay, the encouragement to be sneaky when needed, or suicidally brave when it is called for, and they have in-game/rules consequences, is the essence of RM.


Perhaps, for me, this is the One-True-Essence. (Or Essaence?)

Good point!  I love the fact that there are times when I will hesitate going into a situation where I am out numbered because I know I am going to be in big trouble unless I have some other tactical advantage. 

You will definitely learn a health respect for combat playing Rolemaster.

[vroomfogle]

The perfect example I will give to people is that, in D&D if you've got several guys pointing crossbows at you, you just charge them and duke it out.  In RM, if you've got one guy pointing a crossbow at you, you are more likely to throw down your weapons.

If the goal is old school gaming/dungeon crawl scenario then the fact that you can just charge a bunch of crossbow-men is fine, however if you want more of a story where it's more then one slug-fest after another I find that very hard to do.  I've been playing Castles & Crusades and no matter it's nearly impossible to capture the players, there's just no real risk other then a death, but since you can see death coming (as your HP's drop) there's nearly always time to a) take potion, b) call for cleric, or c) run.    In RM even if you turn tail and run you can get dropped instantly.   That's key.

[intothatdarkness]

The perfect example I will give to people is that, in D&D if you've got several guys pointing crossbows at you, you just charge them and duke it out.  In RM, if you've got one guy pointing a crossbow at you, you are more likely to throw down your weapons.

If the goal is old school gaming/dungeon crawl scenario then the fact that you can just charge a bunch of crossbow-men is fine, however if you want more of a story where it's more then one slug-fest after another I find that very hard to do.  I've been playing Castles & Crusades and no matter it's nearly impossible to capture the players, there's just no real risk other then a death, but since you can see death coming (as your HP's drop) there's nearly always time to a) take potion, b) call for cleric, or c) run.    In RM even if you turn tail and run you can get dropped instantly.   That's key.

+1. I always had more fun in games where there WAS that chance of sudden death and you had to plan accordingly. Things like Top Secret and Recon (high damage with no magic healing meant a character could be killed in one round or BY one round in the case of Recon) forced you to either make sound tactical plans or run Paranoia style (as in a rack of pre-rolled characters waiting in the wings). Nothing is worse than a Gamma Word fight when both sides have clubs.

[markc]

The perfect example I will give to people is that, in D&D if you've got several guys pointing crossbows at you, you just charge them and duke it out.  In RM, if you've got one guy pointing a crossbow at you, you are more likely to throw down your weapons.

If the goal is old school gaming/dungeon crawl scenario then the fact that you can just charge a bunch of crossbow-men is fine, however if you want more of a story where it's more then one slug-fest after another I find that very hard to do.  I've been playing Castles & Crusades and no matter it's nearly impossible to capture the players, there's just no real risk other then a death, but since you can see death coming (as your HP's drop) there's nearly always time to a) take potion, b) call for cleric, or c) run.    In RM even if you turn tail and run you can get dropped instantly.   That's key.

+1


 I fully agree and if you want some help for the players you can use Hero Points or something close to that to make the game how you want it.
MDC

[TAK]

The perfect example I will give to people is that, in D&D if you've got several guys pointing crossbows at you, you just charge them and duke it out.  In RM, if you've got one guy pointing a crossbow at you, you are more likely to throw down your weapons.

+1

Funny, I just used crossbow in RM vs. crossbow in D&D as an example, on tuesday while talking to my soon to be RM GM. I've also mentioned before that the deadliness enhances roleplay as you can't just rush into combat all the time.

I think the system also makes you more interested in the world and actually living there (roleplaying) and this demands a lot from the GM as there tends to be a lot more improvisation.

[RandalThor]

The perfect example I will give to people is that, in D&D if you've got several guys pointing crossbows at you, you just charge them and duke it out.  In RM, if you've got one guy pointing a crossbow at you, you are more likely to throw down your weapons.

I, too, have used the crossbow example, but more often now I go with the following: On one episode of Enterprise (the most recent TV series, set futher in the past of the Star Trek universe) the entire bridge crew of the Enterprise is held hostage by a single Andoran with a (phase-pulse-or whatever) rifle. That is blatantly impossible in D&D, and games like it. That is probably why, even when I was playing D20 (way back when), I never was interested in Modern D20 - I just can't imagine getting shot 12 times by a .50 pistol, and still running around like I am Okay-dokay. Give me a "death-spiral" over "fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-fine-dead", everytime.

Oh, and intothat darkness, my very first Top Secret character was killed with a single round: after 2-3 hours of creating the character, he was killed in the first round of combat (about 10-15 minutes into the game) by a single bullet to the head. So TS could kill with a single round, and not only in a single round, as well.

The fact that you want (need) to approach situations in a "realistic" manner, is key to me - I am not smart enough to translate everything into abstract game-rules (and, no, I am not great at chess, either), so I need/like my games to be as simulationist/realistic/versimilitude-ish as possible. RM does that for me.