Topic: What is wrong with Rolemaster?

[pastaav]

These are good recommendations for determining the sale price of the item, but they don't help establish the production cost for the item.  For example, what materials do you need to make a magic sword?  Per Treasure Companion, you need 64 gp worth of generic "supplies."  Personally, I reduce this by a factor of 10, but perhaps magic items just need the base item and lots of power points.

Personally I think a good baseline would be that materials should cost 60% of the final price to the customer. If it just takes lots of power points then the adventuring Alchemist might be loaded with magical items. Perhaps not the end of the world, but it gets more manageable if there is a production cost that is not salary.

60% of the final cost to the consumer doesn't work if the final cost to the consumer is based on demand (e.g., based on labor-savings).  For example, not all Level 2 wands are equally "useful," but the 60% rule would base the production cost on "utility" not on the fact that it's a Level 2 spell.

Sorry, but I do not follow your reasoning. You can most certainly have a setting where you both base the price on demand (labor-saving) and where production cost is 60% of the price. Of course it means some design for magic items are not cost effective and will very seldom be done. As long as there exist a set of magical items that are both cost effective and attractive I would say there is room for Alchemists in the setting..

[Kristen Mork]

Sorry, but I do not follow your reasoning. You can most certainly have a setting where you both base the price on demand (labor-saving) and where production cost is 60% of the price. Of course it means some design for magic items are not cost effective and will very seldom be done. As long as there exist a set of magical items that are both cost effective and attractive I would say there is room for Alchemists in the setting..

Consider the following example: an Alchemist could make a Wand of Warm Solid or a Wand of Create Water, and let's assume that both are level 2 spells.  He lives near a large (fresh-water) lake in a chilly climate.  Here, Warm Solid sells for 100 gp, while Create Water only sells for 20 gp.  Thus, the production cost of the former would be 60 gp, while the production cost of the latter would be 12 gp.

The Alchemist's cousin lives far away, near a blistering desert.  Here, Warm Solid sells for 5 gp, while Create Water sells for 400 gp.  Thus, the production costs are 3 gp and 240 gp.

Something doesn't make much sense here.  The Wand of Warm Solid costs both 60 gp and 3 gp to produce, and the Wand of Create Water costs 12 gp and 240 gp to produce.

These are the conundrums that Treasure Companion seeks to avoid by asserting that all Level 2 wands cost X gp to produce.  However, X is a pretty large number, and I was wondering if anybody had toyed with eliminating the gp cost (for production), relying entirely on the temporal cost.

(Also, if the production cost is 60% of the final price, then there's always a 40% profit to be made.  However, if the cost to produce a Level 2 Wand is always (for example) 50 gp, then the cost-effectiveness of the aforementioned wands are truly in question.)

[pastaav]

Sorry, but I do not follow your reasoning. You can most certainly have a setting where you both base the price on demand (labor-saving) and where production cost is 60% of the price. Of course it means some design for magic items are not cost effective and will very seldom be done. As long as there exist a set of magical items that are both cost effective and attractive I would say there is room for Alchemists in the setting..

Consider the following example: an Alchemist could make a Wand of Warm Solid or a Wand of Create Water, and let's assume that both are level 2 spells.  He lives near a large (fresh-water) lake in a chilly climate.  Here, Warm Solid sells for 100 gp, while Create Water only sells for 20 gp.  Thus, the production cost of the former would be 60 gp, while the production cost of the latter would be 12 gp.

The Alchemist's cousin lives far away, near a blistering desert.  Here, Warm Solid sells for 5 gp, while Create Water sells for 400 gp.  Thus, the production costs are 3 gp and 240 gp.

Something doesn't make much sense here.  The Wand of Warm Solid costs both 60 gp and 3 gp to produce, and the Wand of Create Water costs 12 gp and 240 gp to produce.

These are the conundrums that Treasure Companion seeks to avoid by asserting that all Level 2 wands cost X gp to produce.  However, X is a pretty large number, and I was wondering if anybody had toyed with eliminating the gp cost (for production), relying entirely on the temporal cost.

(Also, if the production cost is 60% of the final price, then there's always a 40% profit to be made.  However, if the cost to produce a Level 2 Wand is always (for example) 50 gp, then the cost-effectiveness of the aforementioned wands are truly in question.)

I now I get what you mean, but I think we have been miscommunicating.

My point was not that 60% of the final price based on only demand, but that for items that are typically sold we should have 60% production cost. Thus a set production cost based on the level of the spells involved that is determined by the baseline that 60% of the cost should be production expenses in the typical situation.

As for your examples the wand of heat solid would not be that easy to sell in a desert. I did cover this in my previous posts when I pointed out that some magic items would not be cost effective and thus never made. Labor saving is one of parameters to decide the price. This would be a case when the demand price is lower than the actual production price.

Finally I disagree there is 40% profit to be made, the alchemist wlll have lots of living expenses that he need to cover. Like Shadowruns upkeep for a certain style of living. The concept is brilliant and capture something important, it cost money to live and it is something that would be very useful to add to RM. When I speak of base production cost I mean money the Alchemist must pay somebody else for being able to make the magic item. 

[Nortti]

Example: My setting is the Rocky Mountains from northern New Mexico up through Yellowstone.

Copper ore is common. Zinc ore is common. Tin ore is nearly nonexistent. Therefore,

1. Tin will be a major trade consideration internationally.
2. Local "bronze" will not be traditional copper/tin alloy but "arsenic bronze".
3. Most of what people use bronze for elsewhere, the locals will use brass for instead.
4. The local money will not use bronze pieces, and bronze pieces of other currencies will tend to be hoarded.
5. Price listings that assume 100 CP = 10 BP = 1 SP won't make any sense in the local economy.

Either that or I have to "discover" (in other words, invent) a new source of tin ore in the central Rockies.

See? In order to work correctly, price listings have to be a result of the setting.

You and I have worlds where the prices can change with the campaign. For us it gives that bit more realism that our players maybe also expect. I guess we expect that from ourselves, as we know that prices would change to this direction then we must do it for the campaign to stay true to ourselves as GMs.

However I think that a rulebook needs to serve the wide audience that is happy with ready-made standard price lists. I guess thats what works for the most groups.

Still it would be nice if the rules could at least mention that GM can, at his discretion, make adjustments to the prices due to supply and demand as he sees fit.

Like you said, prices are dependent on the game world and I agree. Prices can also be a factor that affect the campaign. Prices of magic, weapons, work force, soldiers, materials can favor certain actions and make others less profitable. It depends on the style of the campaign. If adventures are hero-action in different locations prices wont matter so much. Kingdom-building that involves material-gathering, construction and war could be different story.

In the end the prices and currencies should not make gaming more difficult and I guess it is better to make it simpler rather than too complex.     

[GrumpyOldFart]

You and I have worlds where the prices can change with the campaign.

Actually I think everyone does, just some GMs haven't realized it.

If you've set an adventure in a gold mining camp way high in the mountains, although you may not be aware of it you've either figured out a way food can be grown up there just as easily as down on the plains, you've figured out how to transport food up the mountain at no cost whatsoever, or you've thrown off the values in your equipment list. For a decent breakfast or a bale of hay to cost less than half a gold piece simply doesn't make any sense in such a context. 4 grams of gold is a lot easier to find on that mountaintop than ham and eggs.

To be sure, if neither you nor your players ever spot (or care about) the logical fallacy you've created in your setting, then no harm no foul.

For us it gives that bit more realism that our players maybe also expect. I guess we expect that from ourselves, as we know that prices would change to this direction then we must do it for the campaign to stay true to ourselves as GMs.

And that's my point. If you plan on selling it to RM GMs, your target market is by definition a group of detail oriented people who are likely to want to change things around the edges to make them fit the scenario better.

However I think that a rulebook needs to serve the wide audience that is happy with ready-made standard price lists. I guess thats what works for the most groups.

Sure. If there are 5 books (Characters, Arms, Spells, Creatures, Treasures) then I'd expect to find the "standard price list" in the character book. But if it's RM, and therefore can be assumed to be detailed and tweakable, I'd also expect to find a "how to build a price list" section in the Treasures book as well.

In the end the prices and currencies should not make gaming more difficult and I guess it is better to make it simpler rather than too complex.

They shouldn't demand that your game become more complex, but they should allow for it, otherwise you'll lose players who feel like it's "too cookie cutter", as D&D lost customers to RM when it first appeared. It's easier to simplify from an existing complexity than add complexity to something that is not only simple, but complete in that form. Something like how if you cut a board too long, you can always make it shorter, but once it's too short it's too short forever.

If the characters in someone's scenario consist of thieves, counterfeiters, maybe a jeweler or lapidary, a few spies... I'm not gonna tell that group they're stuck with a standard price list and exchange rates will always be one to one wherever they go. They'll never go for it. To be sure, a gaming group picking up RM for the first time is unlikely to have that kind of composition, fair enough. But when they get far enough into it to have those kinds of ideas, you don't want them to drop RM for something else because RM is "too cookie cutter", right?

[GrumpyOldFart]

It affects more than just pricing, too.

If war is coming because Noble A from Country X insulted Noble B from Country Y, it sounds a little thin, a little contrived, on the GM's part. But if Country Y is sitting on the only decent source of coal suitable for steel making, which happens to come from mines owned by Noble B, suddenly it all clicks into focus. It still sounds contrived, but it sounds contrived on the part of Noble A, not on the part of the GM.

 

[Dougansf]

Maybe these have been addressed elsewhere on the boards, but these are hiccups I've found that are surprising blind-spots in such a detail oriented system.

1) XP - everyone seems to have their own method, instead of using the one in the book.  That's a sign, isn't it...

2) Shield use - Not only is it a low DB bonus, but it's only usable against 1 opponent.  I like the idea of a skill (ala Martial Arts Companion) to improve Shield usage.  There's not even a shield skill, it's what you do with your off hand when you have a 1-handed weapon.

3) Movement speed DB modifier - when being attacked, shouldn't there be a DB benefit for moving fast (relative to the firer).  I admit, I have not seen many games where that does come into consideration, but I'm surprised RM isn't one of them.

4) Area Effect at L/SL targets - I think there should be more damage for a target that takes up more than one hex of an Area of Effect attack.  Casting Fireball at an Elephant and a goblin should not cause both of them for equal damage.

5) The examples given need to be far more direct and simple... and accurate.

6) Magic item creation - could use some good examples of how it's done, and example items that match the rules and prices given.  I'd also rather it took days instead of weeks...

7) Spell descriptions referencing spells from other lists.  We print out the single page of the list, and put that into a binder.  So referencing a totally different list is a pain.

[intothatdarkness]

Moving target mods are far more common in games where firearms are used. I agree it is an issue in RM games.

[Dougansf]

Moving target mods are far more common in games where firearms are used. I agree it is an issue in RM games.

Absolutely, because nearly everyone is using "Missiles" instead of Melee.  In Fantasy setting, the reverse is true, so it's less of an issue.

It just surprised me that there wasn't a rule for it in the books.

[intothatdarkness]

Correct. I think it also has something to do with the concept of combat rounds in RM. Many firearm-centric games use 5 second or one second rounds/phases as opposed to 10. I used house rules to deal with missile combat, especially since I modified some other games (Top Secret for one) to use RM rules and systems.

[JimiSue]

7) Spell descriptions referencing spells from other lists.  We print out the single page of the list, and put that into a binder.  So referencing a totally different list is a pain.

I have recently run into this. I was going to introduce high stat abilities into my Space Master Game (I think RMC3?) Only to find that for a lot of them it was "works like spell X from the Y class's spell list. Which meant that to do that I had to lug along spell law and most of the companions (later updates in RMC 6 (??) in addition to the Space Master books. And really, would it have been so hard to reprint the description for the Monk spell Edgerunning?

I used to work in publishing, and I am currently doing a science degree as a mature student (alongside a full time job, is much fun), and I think that cross-referencing makes publishers and scientists both feel like they are being clever, when actually they are just being a pain in the rear.

If it's just a couple of lines, don't cross-refer, just restate. Or at least, summarise.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

AFAIK, this used to be a problem in RM2, but that was corrected in later edition (RMSS and RMFRP). The one that wasn't, though, was the use of sections rather than pages (or, better, both). "Read section XXX for more details" isn't as helpful as "Read section XXX, page YY, for more details."

[markc]

 I agree that you should reference sections and provide page #'s or now a-days links to sections.
MDC