Topic: What is wrong with Rolemaster?

[gandalf970]

Like everyone else I got the news on a new edition and sat down and asked myself, what is wrong that we need a new edition?  For me nothing!  This game has been so modular that we added any concept we didn't like and continued to march.

Now I am an old fart as far as Rolemaster goes so I figured the stuff out with the help of my friends and these forums.  The one thing I can see is reaching a new audience with ease of play and dynamic fun. 

I will support everything they throw out as I could never repay all of the enjoyment this great game has brought me.

[jdale]

I think the biggest thing wrong is the impression a new visitor gets when they come to the site and try to sort out what books they would need to play...

But having two separate lines (RMC and RMFRP) is also a problem for producing new material. The customer base is cut in half.

[bpowell]

I do not think there is anything "wrong" with RoleMaster.  As I mentioned in a post about the Unified System, I have been playing Rm since it was a set of mimeographed pages.  I have played all variants and enjoyed something of all of them.  While there is nothing wrong, when a person at my table picks up a book we must ensure that it is the "right" book for the rule I am making the ruling.

I have a hybridized system working with a little from column A and a bit from column B.  I think the unified system is a method to say..."Here is a single version we will support going forward."  I do not think anyone is saying you must use this going forward.

I for one will support anything that ICE puts out and try to get it inot my game.

[Steel Rabbit]

I think the books need to be laid out better and be clearer. I was surprised to find out, when I first got into Rolemaster, that most of the actual rules in the rulebook were in the appendices.

[Arioch]

I think the books need to be laid out better and be clearer. I was surprised to find out, when I first got into Rolemaster, that most of the actual rules in the rulebook were in the appendices.

Mostly this (and in RMC the rules are spread out in many different volumes, which makes things even worse).
Plus, I think characters generation takes a little too long, compared on how easily they usually die.

[Lord Garth]

What's wrong with Rolemaster? I could say there's a few things here and there that in my mind could need at least a revision. Is Rolemaster perfect though? Are we so set that there is nothing whatsoever that could improve the system? I digress. I think there's room for improvement and I'm really looking forward to see what's in store.

[gandalf970]

I couldn't agree more with everyone.  Laying the game out better, putting the rules in one easily accessible place and clearly explaining them would encourage play.  An easier character creation method (thanks so much for Jonathon Dales Excel spreadsheet) and more players.

If we have more fans we get more product. I too will buy anything ICE puts out as I am a long time supporter of this product and appreciate these forums.

[RandalThor]

I find that there are things "wrong" with RM - at least from my perspective.

1. Overly complicated skill system. By that, I do NOT mean the category/skill division (though, I don't think that this division is necessary), I mean the wide variety of costs. That could/should be simplified into something like: Occupational (1/2/3), Everyman (2/3), Normal (3/5), Restricted (10), Forbidden (not allowed or 20). Just a quick method, of the top of my head as I write this.

2. Armor - as was mentioned on another thread, I feel that the armor rules are very clunky. Instead of AT and a single weapon chart per page in Arms Law, armors should just grant a DB bonus. The lessened damage one gets from wearing Plate (+60 DB) vs. Leather (+10 DB) will go a long way as to show why Plate was used.

3. Tables, tables everywhere, and not the one I need - people have been talking complaining about Chartmaster since its inception. Perhaps, while D&D went with  the axiom "One Die to Rule Them All", RM could go with "One Chart (or Table) to Do It All." A single table which would be used for everything, combat, skills, maneuvers, spells, RRs, etc... Not exactly sure how to do this, but I am sure it can be done.

Also:

I think the books need to be laid out better and be clearer. I was surprised to find out, when I first got into Rolemaster, that most of the actual rules in the rulebook were in the appendices.

I agree. I especially did/do not like the 3.1, 4.7, 11.2 system when it was the only way of looking things up in a book. (I have recently been looking at the old "Loremaster" series of campaign modules and finding things in them is a real bee-ahch.) At least ICE finally went with pages and an index.

Each game book should be laid out - as much as possible, anyway - in a "I use this first, then this, then this, and this last" sort of way. Or as much as possible, anyway. Like for the main corebook, the usual intro, table of contents, and stuff, but then a quick glossary of used terms. Then, character creation, explanation of skills and abilities (like talents, flaws, special abilities, etc..), equipment, basic spells, and then go into GM stuff (story/adventure creation, NPC creation and use, story pacing, etc...), and some creatures and treasures to use right away. Of course, an introductory adventure with small campaign location (village/town with surrounding area of 20 - 30 miles radius), some NPCs, encounter-sites, and small random encounter table would be great!

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

To the list people already posted, I'd add: the C&T itself. Since there isn't an unified system for monsters and characters (except for the AT... and even then!), there's no real coherency between the creatures, and there's no guidelines for creating them (I don't call the few lines about the matter "guidelines"), creating original creatures for a world is a pain. Determining hits? DB? OB? Level? Bonus EP? And the variability letter (for level and hits)? Uh?!?! How can someone hope to do that in a balanced and coherent manner?
I'm not even talking about managing a creature when it comes to non-combat actions, since it has neither stats, nor skills...

[MariusH]

My greatest concern is the lethality of crits. I don't mind crits that put you out of action, and even makes you die if you don't get help within, say, ten minutes, but instantly dying beyond repair happens too frequently with the current crits. I'm not saying it should NEVER happen (players SHOULD be careful!), but it happens too frequently. We fix this with "fate points", but that's just us.

[GrumpyOldFart]

1. Overly complicated skill system. By that, I do NOT mean the category/skill division (though, I don't think that this division is necessary), I mean the wide variety of costs. That could/should be simplified into something like: Occupational (1/2/3), Everyman (2/3), Normal (3/5), Restricted (10), Forbidden (not allowed or 20). Just a quick method, of the top of my head as I write this.

Personally I like the category/skill division, but I agree, I think the costs should be simplified. One of the reasons I have gone to HARP is because when you're increasing skills, you don't have to look up anything. It's either 2 or 4, the progression is 5/2/1. Period, paragraph, for every skill in the book.

2. Armor - as was mentioned on another thread, I feel that the armor rules are very clunky. Instead of AT and a single weapon chart per page in Arms Law, armors should just grant a DB bonus. The lessened damage one gets from wearing Plate (+60 DB) vs. Leather (+10 DB) will go a long way as to show why Plate was used.

I like the distinction between the armor qualities of the surface being hit and the likelihood of being hit in the first place. I agree that it's clunky and broken, and if I knew how to fix it I'd have offered already.... but I'd want to keep that distinction if it could be done.

3. Tables, tables everywhere, and not the one I need - people have been talking complaining about Chartmaster since its inception. Perhaps, while D&D went with  the axiom "One Die to Rule Them All", RM could go with "One Chart (or Table) to Do It All." A single table which would be used for everything, combat, skills, maneuvers, spells, RRs, etc... Not exactly sure how to do this, but I am sure it can be done.

There are certainly ways to streamline it... but I dunno if it could be brought down to one. Radar sees farther than the eye, but it doesn't see with as much definition. The more you demand the upside (speed and ease) of simplification, the more you're volunteering for the downside (loss of granularity, "cookie cutter" results). No doubt there's a workable compromise in the middle someplace.

Each game book should be laid out - as much as possible, anyway - in a "I use this first, then this, then this, and this last" sort of way.

I'm no expert on the publishing industry, so I may be wrong here, but this appears to me to be as much or more in the editor's area of authority as the author's. Assuming that's so, you can look at the table of contents of HARP SF and see how the current editorship tends to do things. Compare and contrast with your old RM books, and maybe it'll give you ideas... or give you a "oh good, they saw that and fixed that."

My greatest concern is the lethality of crits. I don't mind crits that put you out of action, and even makes you die if you don't get help within, say, ten minutes, but instantly dying beyond repair happens too frequently with the current crits. I'm not saying it should NEVER happen (players SHOULD be careful!), but it happens too frequently. We fix this with "fate points", but that's just us.

Hmmm... not sure you'll get much love for this idea. It's not up to me obviously, but I wouldn't change the lethality of RM one bit, and I suspect there's a majority here who agree with me.

[intothatdarkness]

RMSS. I NEVER liked RMSS. To me it took the weaknesses of RM2 and made them worse without any payback.

I also never expected a system as sprawling and modular as RM2 to be put together cleanly. That's why I redid core elements of it for my world. The armor system never bothered me much, either. Nor did the skills. They're certainly better than anything in, say, Spycraft. Not crazy about the one chart idea, either. You either end up with one HUGE chart done in font size 4 or something that is (to my mind) horrible...like D&D's core idea.

I like the fatal crits, but also don't mind the idea of fate points (but I also came into gaming from Top Secret so am used to the idea). You have to remember, though, that those fatal crits can work in the players' favor, too. They provide balance.

[jdale]

The category/skill arrangement is an attempt to relate similar skills, so you are automatically good at related things. It's not necessarily the only way to achieve that goal, but it's a good goal and I don't think it's an inherently bad approach. There may be simpler ones though.

The sheer number of skills is too much though, IHMO.

I already said a lot about the combat tables elsewhere but I do like the fact that armor doesn't just reduce the chance of a hit, it also reduces the severity of a hit. That makes sense to me.

[providence13]

These likes and dislikes are just a personal opinion. Remember that there's no accounting for taste. Everybody's different. 

  I kind of liked the simplified tables from the core RMFRP book. Although I might be alone in that respect. If you really look at all of the bolt charts, they're very similar. If you look at all the ball charts, they're very similar. The same could be said for weapon categories. Just make them cap off at different values.
  With that said, we will be using the Arms Law charts in the game. Players just like the variety, even though it's with in a few points.

I also like the separation of AT and DB. High DB means you can't be hit; not likely any way. This is incredibly powerful and I'm waiting for crits to strip my players of all the unbalanced magic crap I've given out over the years.  Starting over with what I know now, I'd make "magic" (light, less MM penalty, Transcend Armor bonus) armor more prevalent and high DB bonuses more rare.

Weapon OB shouldn't help with missile DB. MM/Acrobatics/Diving for cover (50%Act = +50DB), or something.. but my skill in rapier isn't likely to help make me harder to hit with a crossbow. Or use 10% or something. Now if you're being flashy to psyche out your opponent, I could see the benefit, but that bonus should be in melee range. And RAW states that missiles can't be used in melee range.. There goes all the bullet-time crossbow gunfu..

I'm totally ok with the randomness (locations) of crits. How else do you simulate a 10 sec round; unless it's sec by sec, which I don't mind but I don't use for my RM.

I also like Skill Cats in addition to skills, subskills.

What I don't like about RM is that you have to hunt and search, scan and reread then get someone else's opinion on so many RAW issues. The cut and paste editing process is appalling!
If that damn "shield bonus chart" is in the new RM... well it just shouldn't be. Why do you need a chart to say "if you use all of your OB for DB, then you get a little +5 bonus"?

On that note, remove rule examples that suck. You can find the same examples with numbers that don't work in every version of RM. Only the names change.

There are so many instances of "well that chart/rule/wording/number combination has been in the game since 1982+; we just keep putting it in there for nostalgia".

I don't like "/lvl" bonus for spells. RM2/C might have them (in general- professions) and I do see how they could be used with the old D&D mindset.  But RMSS/FRP seems skill based and not level based; imho. I don't like LEVEL at all, but I can easily edit that out of any rules.

I don't like variable DP based on stats. I like it to be a set #.
I don't like touchy feely Empathy Mages.

[arakish]

In my humble and honest opinion, there is nothing wrong with RM.  Ever since I got the first copy of Arms Law back in 1980 (?1981?), I have never looked back to that Rookie's rpg system.

As mentioned, the only thing that could be said to be wrong is having two different, but still similar, systems: RM and RMFRP.  Although I missed keeping up with the Rolemaster system for several years after my family's death (1998 to 2005), I have always felt that the RM system is the BEST "believably realistic" rpg system on the entire Earth.  Of course, that is only my opinion.

rmfr

[Dakadin]

3. Tables, tables everywhere, and not the one I need - people have been talking complaining about Chartmaster since its inception. Perhaps, while D&D went with  the axiom "One Die to Rule Them All", RM could go with "One Chart (or Table) to Do It All." A single table which would be used for everything, combat, skills, maneuvers, spells, RRs, etc... Not exactly sure how to do this, but I am sure it can be done.

Anyone that feels that the number of charts is an issue might want to look into the Rolemaster Classic ruleset for Fantasy Grounds.  It speeds up the process tremendously.  Here is a quick rundown of how it works.

• Modifiers are applied and an attack is rolled.
• If the table resolver isn't already opened,  it will be opened for the GM.
• The GM selects the attack from the list if there is more than one there and chooses Resolve.
• The attack table is automatically opened to the correct location cross-referencing the final result with the AT.
• The GM then drags the result to the target of the attack to apply any hits to that target.
• If a critical results, then the GM can select to open the critical table.
• The critical table will be opened with the appropriate column selected.
• A 1d100 is rolled and the GM can drag the results to the critical table to find the result.
• The GM can then drag the critical result to the target where it will be applied and tracked for most things.

It actually only takes a fraction of the time it used to take me without using Fantasy Grounds.

If you are curious or have any questions, then you can get more information on the Rolemaster Classic Fantasy Grounds forum (http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=65).

[vroomfogle]

Having been one of original coders on the FG-RM ruleset I'm glad to see that it has evolved and has a growing community! 

[yammahoper]

3. Tables, tables everywhere, and not the one I need - people have been talking complaining about Chartmaster since its inception. Perhaps, while D&D went with  the axiom "One Die to Rule Them All", RM could go with "One Chart (or Table) to Do It All." A single table which would be used for everything, combat, skills, maneuvers, spells, RRs, etc... Not exactly sure how to do this, but I am sure it can be done.

Anyone that feels that the number of charts is an issue might want to look into the Rolemaster Classic ruleset for Fantasy Grounds.  It speeds up the process tremendously.  Here is a quick rundown of how it works.

• Modifiers are applied and an attack is rolled.
• If the table resolver isn't already opened,  it will be opened for the GM.
• The GM selects the attack from the list if there is more than one there and chooses Resolve.
• The attack table is automatically opened to the correct location cross-referencing the final result with the AT.
• The GM then drags the result to the target of the attack to apply any hits to that target.
• If a critical results, then the GM can select to open the critical table.
• The critical table will be opened with the appropriate column selected.
• A 1d100 is rolled and the GM can drag the results to the critical table to find the result.
• The GM can then drag the critical result to the target where it will be applied and tracked for most things.

It actually only takes a fraction of the time it used to take me without using Fantasy Grounds.

If you are curious or have any questions, then you can get more information on the Rolemaster Classic Fantasy Grounds forum (http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=65).

I don't want to use a computer when gaming.  I've accepted character sheets on lap tops, but not for me.  The only program I accept is for character design, but I need a hard copy to go into my folder for play.

By all means develop away.  I'm sure new age players will love that stuff ( a few old age too lol). 

[dutch206]

The only thing I dislike about RM (any system) is casting spells.  Variable casting times, multiple die rolls, multiple charts....UGH!

[jdale]

The only thing I dislike about RM (any system) is casting spells.  Variable casting times, multiple die rolls, multiple charts....UGH!

Get rid of the BAR table, get rid of the RR table and rework all resistance rolls as simple Static Maneuvers (with a simple modifier for level difference)... faster and fewer tables. I suggested this 9 years ago... http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2002/oct/simplifyingresistancerolls.html  It could probably be simplified even further than that as part of a system overhaul.