Topic: What is wrong with Rolemaster?

[Lord Garth]

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).

Same here. I want pencil and paper when gaming. I do of course use Excel to create character sheets which I print out, and Word to write in my campaigns, but no thanks, I don't want no computer/tablet/calculator on the table.
 
Each to its own though.

[Kristen Mork]

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.

Agreed.  I am not a fan of BAR tables and RR tables and SCSM rolls.  For my current game, your spell attack is your SCSM (using the combined progression) and the defender rolls an RR skill (using the combined progression).  Simple, and it reuses all of the existing mechanics.

[Lord Garth]

Casting times is another matter which I personally did away with almost twenty years ago. I don't like a caster spending a full round preparing a spell, and I don't think any player I have ever encountered did like it either, so we did a house rule on that and have been using it ever since.

I do like the BAR table, it takes no time to use it and quite frankly I know it by heart so I don't even need to look it up, and same goes for the RR table.

[RandalThor]

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.

I don't mind the skills being "grouped" into like skills, but the division, for training purposes, is unecessary. If you want to reflect the fact that a skill is like another one, but not exactly, and if they don't have the exact skill they perform at a lesser degree but not necessarily at a completely incompetant level, then take the next closest skill and have them use that at a negative. Example: Broadsword vs. shortsword; my character is skilled in broadsword, but not shortsword, unfortunately, after being captured and escaping, all he has is his former guards shortsword. When he uses it, he uses his broadsword skill, but at a negative. (The exact negative is up to the GM, but using RMFRP rules, I would say anywhere between -15 to -30. Of course, that modifier will just be another thing to lessen the total bonus, especially if the PC had a high-quality or magic weapon, so their total bonus is likely to be much less than normal.) I think something like that is much better than the skill/category system - but, I can play and run RMSS/FRP without much problem, so it is by no means a game killer for me.

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.

I don't think killing blows happen as often as you might think - except in those cases where they should*, killing blows almost always follow lesser blows that injure and/or incapacitate. I think that the problem you are facing (and I have faced it, and been the cause of it myself) is blood-thirsty players: Killing is the only option, so as soon as they have an opening they go for the kill instead of trying to capture (and maybe get info out of their opponent - provided that is possible). Also, the idea that every enemy, be they intelligence or not, seem to "fight to the death", which is totally not true in MOST cases. In other words: just don't play RM like it is D&D and you should be OK.



*Like, catching someone totally by surprise; if you are trying to kill the surprised person, then you are much more likley to do so, as someone without a defense is truly a sitting duck, and they should go down in one hit. It is that ability, to use actual real-world tactics and they do as they are supposed to do, which is the main reason I prefer RM over many other games.

[Dakadin]

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).

Same here. I want pencil and paper when gaming. I do of course use Excel to create character sheets which I print out, and Word to write in my campaigns, but no thanks, I don't want no computer/tablet/calculator on the table.
 
Each to its own though.

I can understand that.  I did fine without using a program for a long time.  I was just pointing it out for anyone that finds the table look ups slow or frustrating. 

[Dakadin]

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!

You guys did an amazing job! 

[pastaav]

I don't think there is much wrong with RM. The combat tables, charts and details are all the details that we love and for every person that dislike a feature there is also some who love it just because of the same aspects.

With that said I think the new edition need to focus on making the complexity worth the effort. If we are speaking in engineer speech there are linear effects and non linear effects. Going the path of making everything linear is a folly since then you can't really express more than what a straight dice roll can give you. On the other hand making the system such that each character can take a training package that give you different cost reduction depending on profession costs and training packages is a very non linear system that is extremely unfriendly to newcomers.

The new RM need to be designed so that the non linear effects are explained to the user. Having TPs that aid selection of suitable skills is a good idea provided that you either make the cost reduction as a flat reduction of the real price or if you specify for the user that a thief taking this TP get the equivalent savings of X%. Every impact of each choice presented to the user need to be understandable from either the mechanics itself or with an explanation that relate the choice to how the choice will impact play at the game table.   

[markc]

  IMHO I think it should be a table top as well as a CARP game. CARP is Computer Aided Role Playing.
MDC

[RandalThor]

As for Fantasy Grounds, I have it and don't use it. Not because I don't like the idea (I wouldn't have purchased it if that was the case), but because I just don't really know how to use it. Yeah, sure it is easy for you to figure out, but I am not a read to learn guy, I am an audio learner*, which means I learn by being taught and walked through. Just my thick skull, I suppose. But, being dependent upon a computer at the table isn't something I think is great, especially if an intenet connection is needed (not saying it is, just saying), because that cannot always be the case. Though, I have to admit, it is getting to be much more possible these days, to the point of having to have one isn't much of an incovenience.



*A former girlfriend of mine "diagnosed" me after she heard me "sing" the words to several songs, from several genres with no errors - even songs I hadn't heard in years. (But I forget things I read just last week, or even the day before - though often the gist/feeling of what I read will still be there, just not the words themselves.) As she was a special education teacher, I will choose to believe she knew what she was talking about. Go ahead, start the jokes now, I have both heard and used them.

[TAK]

I've been thinking about this and apart from the horrible order of rules in RM2(.5), the only thing I can think of is the slightly abstract armor system, but even that is not a huge issue.

Considering the movement penalties, in the heavier armor, it would be interesting to know how much they actually help in combat. And of course they don't seem worth it to me, as most time you die from the crits anyway and while they tend to be less severe, the advantage just isn't explained well enough.

Compare to RuneQuest where you see directly the advantage of heavy armor with the higher damage absorb.
Maybe the heavy armor should reduce the crit severity to make the advantage more obvious, maybe this is an optional rule somewhere and I just don't remember.

[RandalThor]

Perhaps what armors can do is decrease the crit type - provided you have armor covering the area hit. Though, that doesn't make much of a difference with certain crit rolls. (90+ sucks down the board.)


Dag-gum-it! I didn't read to the end of TAK's post. Scooped.

[intothatdarkness]

Heavy armor does reduce crits in a way, as they tend to occur much later in the roll cycle. This is most apparent with combat involving lower OBs, because PCs in heavy ATs get nickled and dimed to death with concussion hits but don't get critted near as often as the lighter armor types. Of course, the lighter armor gets critted earlier, but tends to take little or no damage with the lower rolls. On the scimitar table, for example, AT 13 starts taking concussion damage at 65, while AT 20 starts at 30. However, the crit threshold for AT 13 is 95 (a 6AS), while AT 20 doesn't start until 125 (6AK there). AT 13 tops at 14EK, while AT 20 is 7EK.

From my experience, the utility of heavy armor depends almost completely on your party or your character. I've played a cavalier using AT 20 and a full shield and done quite well in combat terms, but I was also the party tank. If you think you can wear AT 20 and be as agile as a warrior monk, you'll likely end up Ogre chow.

[RandalThor]

Heavy armor does reduce crits in a way, as they tend to occur much later in the roll cycle. This is most apparent with combat involving lower OBs, because PCs in heavy ATs get nickled and dimed to death with concussion hits but don't get critted near as often as the lighter armor types. Of course, the lighter armor gets critted earlier, but tends to take little or no damage with the lower rolls. On the scimitar table, for example, AT 13 starts taking concussion damage at 65, while AT 20 starts at 30. However, the crit threshold for AT 13 is 95 (a 6AS), while AT 20 doesn't start until 125 (6AK there). AT 13 tops at 14EK, while AT 20 is 7EK.

Along with that lower number for getting hit/hurt with a higher AT, you get a lower DB because the armor is inhibiting your quickness. So, your opponent has less of a modifier on his attack roll. (Yes, if you have a character with no Quickness bonus it really doesn't matter, but who doesn't? Everyone of my and everybody elses characters I have ever played with have had quickness bonuses of some sort.)

I still like the way HARP does it: Leather armor (+20 DB), Plate armor (+60 DB). This also demonstrates better, imo, the protective ability of heavier armor: look on the crit table and see the difference between an attack resulting in a 40-point difference in results. I can assure you, it will be a big difference. Yes, it also had quickness mods for heavy armor, which I don't like and was working on a house rule that did armor more like shield training; without it, you only got a small armor DB bonus (to reflect the way it is inhibiting you, and you don't know how to use it to its full effect - maybe half of what is listed now), with the training, it was much better (full of what it is currently). Perhaps, there could even be an advanced, or expert armor talent, where the character gets even more DB bonus out of the armor (though not much more than what is classified as the DB bonus right now).

[GrumpyOldFart]

(OT)

A former girlfriend of mine "diagnosed" me after she heard me "sing" the words to several songs, from several genres with no errors - even songs I hadn't heard in years. (But I forget things I read just last week, or even the day before - though often the gist/feeling of what I read will still be there, just not the words themselves.)

I can remember the phone number at the house where I lived as a child, some 45 years ago. On the other hand, I have forgotten lyrics of songs that I wrote.

Go figure. Time wounds all heels.

(/OT)

[vroomfogle]

With straight DB bonuses due to armor though you completely lose the differences of armor between different attack types (unless of course you have different DB bonuses based on attack type).   Chainmail is just as effective vs. arrows as it is vs. swords, etc.

[intothatdarkness]

Along with that lower number for getting hit/hurt with a higher AT, you get a lower DB because the armor is inhibiting your quickness. So, your opponent has less of a modifier on his attack roll. (Yes, if you have a character with no Quickness bonus it really doesn't matter, but who doesn't? Everyone of my and everybody elses characters I have ever played with have had quickness bonuses of some sort.)

I still like the way HARP does it: Leather armor (+20 DB), Plate armor (+60 DB). This also demonstrates better, imo, the protective ability of heavier armor: look on the crit table and see the difference between an attack resulting in a 40-point difference in results. I can assure you, it will be a big difference. Yes, it also had quickness mods for heavy armor, which I don't like and was working on a house rule that did armor more like shield training; without it, you only got a small armor DB bonus (to reflect the way it is inhibiting you, and you don't know how to use it to its full effect - maybe half of what is listed now), with the training, it was much better (full of what it is currently). Perhaps, there could even be an advanced, or expert armor talent, where the character gets even more DB bonus out of the armor (though not much more than what is classified as the DB bonus right now).

True enough, but most folks I knew who used heavy armor also had a shield, offsetting some of that DB reduction due to the quickness penalty. Tanks also tended to dump high scores into ST and CO in my experience, so a quickness penalty wasn't a huge deal for them. YMMV, of course. I just never saw the armor system as that big of a problem, at least in part because it worked to the players' advantages from time to time, too.

The part that really got me were some of the firearms crit tables they came out with. But that's a different rant...

[RandalThor]

True enough, but most folks I knew who used heavy armor also had a shield, offsetting some of that DB reduction due to the quickness penalty. Tanks also tended to dump high scores into ST and CO in my experience, so a quickness penalty wasn't a huge deal for them. YMMV, of course. I just never saw the armor system as that big of a problem, at least in part because it worked to the players' advantages from time to time, too.

Well, I don't see it as a huge deal, just something that can be done a little better - and to me, better means easier/smoother, and not loosing too much...uuhhh... I guess, "realism".

I also feel that shields get the short end of the stick in the defense department. I mean, really, a yard across piece of steel that you interpose between you and your enemy, and that you can move to intercept your enemy's attacks should do better than a +20 DB bonus. (IMO.)

[frodolives]

RM was my primary game from 1983-1988. We dropped the game because of the d100 roll-over mechanic. We just got sick of adding 76+19+54 (etc). I wish that mechanic would change, but I realize there is no chance of it.

[jdale]

Along with that lower number for getting hit/hurt with a higher AT, you get a lower DB because the armor is inhibiting your quickness. So, your opponent has less of a modifier on his attack roll. (Yes, if you have a character with no Quickness bonus it really doesn't matter, but who doesn't? Everyone of my and everybody elses characters I have ever played with have had quickness bonuses of some sort.)

I still like the way HARP does it: Leather armor (+20 DB), Plate armor (+60 DB). This also demonstrates better, imo, the protective ability of heavier armor: look on the crit table and see the difference between an attack resulting in a 40-point difference in results. I can assure you, it will be a big difference. Yes, it also had quickness mods for heavy armor, which I don't like and was working on a house rule that did armor more like shield training; without it, you only got a small armor DB bonus (to reflect the way it is inhibiting you, and you don't know how to use it to its full effect - maybe half of what is listed now), with the training, it was much better (full of what it is currently). Perhaps, there could even be an advanced, or expert armor talent, where the character gets even more DB bonus out of the armor (though not much more than what is classified as the DB bonus right now).

True enough, but most folks I knew who used heavy armor also had a shield, offsetting some of that DB reduction due to the quickness penalty. Tanks also tended to dump high scores into ST and CO in my experience, so a quickness penalty wasn't a huge deal for them. YMMV, of course. I just never saw the armor system as that big of a problem, at least in part because it worked to the players' advantages from time to time, too.

That's a character design choice forced on you by the system, though. Of course when you make a fighter who is going to wear heavy armor you don't bother with Quickness, because the bonus is going to be canceled out. It constrains character designs. You don't make the quick and agile fighter because it's not functional.

[jdale]

RM was my primary game from 1983-1988. We dropped the game because of the d100 roll-over mechanic. We just got sick of adding 76+19+54 (etc). I wish that mechanic would change, but I realize there is no chance of it.

I don't think you find any takers on that crazy idea. It's pretty fundamental. Personally I like it. Any time I roll open-ended up, I am pretty motivated to do that math! Admittedly, less so when I roll open-ended down.

However... supposing you don't like it... an easy fix would be to roll 1 die for that second roll. If you roll 8, say, add 80. Even better if you have the dice labeled 10, 20, 30, etc. The addition is still there, but simpler.