Topic: What is wrong with Rolemaster?

[rdanhenry]

Deep in editing yes, but not play-tested based on various posts.  A lot can potentially change when that happens.

Which is exactly why there are no details forthcoming right now. Unfortunately, an announcement at this stage leads to wild speculation. Maybe if it spreads a little wider, that will be a form of publicity.

Actual playtesting is a far more useful form of feedback than random postings, so expect that playtesters are the ones who will have a say at shaping it at this point.

[pastaav]

Actually I realized one more thing that I think is wrong with RM. The idea of unmodified 100 being automatic success might sound nice, but in practice it short circuit the statistics and make it so the game can not represent tasks harder than 1% successrate. Get a few hundred guys on the street without any training to ask them to solve the Absurd task and a few of them will succeed due to the unmodified 100 rule. If the open ended dice roll itself was to handle everything then you can represent arbitrary difficulties..

I would be totally fine with the rule if it was an optional rule, but having the rule as part of the core system is IMHO simply wrong.

[rdanhenry]

Which is why I house ruled that UM 100 is only an Unusual Success if it is a success anyway (which with 100 + another d100 roll it usually will be, but there are those really hard tasks). If it still fails, it just fails. I treat UM 66 the same way: actual success/failure is determined normally, but then strangeness gets heaped on top of that.

[jaranka]

Actually I realized one more thing that I think is wrong with RM. The idea of unmodified 100 being automatic success might sound nice, but in practice it short circuit the statistics and make it so the game can not represent tasks harder than 1% successrate. Get a few hundred guys on the street without any training to ask them to solve the Absurd task and a few of them will succeed due to the unmodified 100 rule. If the open ended dice roll itself was to handle everything then you can represent arbitrary difficulties..

I would be totally fine with the rule if it was an optional rule, but having the rule as part of the core system is IMHO simply wrong.

The core rules do state that the GM is encouraged to disallow some things outright.  Not everything is possible, and the GM should be the arbiter of what is and is not.

[RandalThor]

Actually I realized one more thing that I think is wrong with RM. The idea of unmodified 100 being automatic success might sound nice, but in practice it short circuit the statistics and make it so the game can not represent tasks harder than 1% successrate. Get a few hundred guys on the street without any training to ask them to solve the Absurd task and a few of them will succeed due to the unmodified 100 rule. If the open ended dice roll itself was to handle everything then you can represent arbitrary difficulties..

I would be totally fine with the rule if it was an optional rule, but having the rule as part of the core system is IMHO simply wrong.

The core rules do state that the GM is encouraged to disallow some things outright.  Not everything is possible, and the GM should be the arbiter of what is and is not.

That, and bothering with detail down to a fraction of a percent is unnecessary, imo.

[GrumpyOldFart]

If there is nothing in either direction beyond 1-100, then one in a million chances cannot, by definition, succeed in your game. Likewise, things that are only one in a million to fail cannot fail. Not ever, not under any circumstances, unless the GM deliberately fudges the rules to create a space for chances of less than 1 in 100.

In other words, if you live in an apartment complex with 500 people in it (not uncommon in a major city), if what you'd like to do can't be done by 5 people in your complex, it's flatly not possible in your game world, period.

That's not enough granularity for me. There mere existence of life on Earth says that those 1 in a million chances come up regularly over a wide enough area and a long enough time span, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

 

That's my problem with 100 being automatic success and 01 being automatic failure, too. It cuts the most absurd possible chances to 1 in 100, which isn't nearly low enough for some of the stuff gamers try nearly every session.

[rdanhenry]

Most of the best RM stories involve multiple open-ended rolling.

[markc]

Which is why I house ruled that UM 100 is only an Unusual Success if it is a success anyway (which with 100 + another d100 roll it usually will be, but there are those really hard tasks). If it still fails, it just fails. I treat UM 66 the same way: actual success/failure is determined normally, but then strangeness gets heaped on top of that.

Great idea and house rule.
MDC

[pastaav]

Actually I realized one more thing that I think is wrong with RM. The idea of unmodified 100 being automatic success might sound nice, but in practice it short circuit the statistics and make it so the game can not represent tasks harder than 1% successrate. Get a few hundred guys on the street without any training to ask them to solve the Absurd task and a few of them will succeed due to the unmodified 100 rule. If the open ended dice roll itself was to handle everything then you can represent arbitrary difficulties..

I would be totally fine with the rule if it was an optional rule, but having the rule as part of the core system is IMHO simply wrong.

The core rules do state that the GM is encouraged to disallow some things outright.  Not everything is possible, and the GM should be the arbiter of what is and is not.

That, and bothering with detail down to a fraction of a percent is unnecessary, imo.

People are free to do it the HARP way and remove open ended low rolls too. Gives a game that work and all in all it is not a terrible game design choice...except if you want realism. One in a million might not be of practical benefit at the gaming table, but there are certainly cases when 1/1000 chance is much more appropriate than saying "you are disallowed from trying since this action is more difficult than 1/100".

RM with should IMO with core rules aim for realism. You should not nerf RMs tagline of realism just because some people can live with the limitations of realism. Arguments like "fraction of a percent is unnecessary" is pretty moot since I and many other says that these fractions are vital to the gaming experience.

[yammahoper]

The reaction of the players when they hit that rare 00 or 66 is just to valuable to toss from the game/mechanics.

[GrumpyOldFart]

One in a million might not be of practical benefit at the gaming table, but there are certainly cases when 1/1000 chance is much more appropriate than saying "you are disallowed from trying since this action is more difficult than 1/100".

Exactly. And I still leave rolls open on both ends playing HARP.

Let's see, seems like a fair number of RM's table go to (or at least used to go to) 251+...

So 96 or better is 1 in 20 odds....

201+ requires two 96+ rolls in a row, so that'd be 20 * 20 = 1 in 400...

And the 51+ puts it in the upper half of the next roll, so that makes it 1 in 800. Actually a bit worse than that, as 96s will require slightly higher results on the 3rd roll than 100s will.

So in a practical sense, RM's tables have allowed for "one in a thousand" chances ever since the original Arms Law back in '81 or so.

Anybody want to rule that those awesome one-shot-kill results on the high end of the Super Large crit tables should be declared to be simply not possible at all?

Anyone?

[rdanhenry]

Anybody want to rule that those awesome one-shot-kill results on the high end of the Super Large crit tables should be declared to be simply not possible at all?

Anyone?

There's a group of giants and dragons raising their hands/claws in the back...

[Old Man]

The reaction of the players when they hit that rare 00 or 66 is just to valuable to toss from the game/mechanics.

+1 - I agree. Uprolls, 66s and Downrolls are Rolemaster.

[Old Man]

Most of the best RM stories involve multiple open-ended rolling.

In either direction.

[Arioch]

The reaction of the players when they hit that rare 00 or 66 is just to valuable to toss from the game/mechanics.

+1 - I agree. Uprolls, 66s and Downrolls are Rolemaster.

Completely agree.

[RandalThor]

Does changing the odds from 1 in 1000 to 1 in 100 really alter your game? Really? I guess, if every session each player is rolling the dice a hundred or more times - or anywhere near a hundred times - it does. If you sit down and tell someone that they have a 1 in 100 chance of survival their reaction will not be significantly different than if you tell them it is 1 in 1000. They are both horrible odds to have stacked against you, and if you have any imput to the situation, you had best look for a way to increase those odds.

But, I think that this idea is just another symptom of the epidemic of idolotry in the gaming industry I call the worshipping of the Gods of Chance, the Dice-Lords if you will. That everything must (EVERYTHING! MUST!) have a random chance of going wonky.

Personally, I believe the best games are a balance between the two extremes: 1) the random roll-fest, and 2) reading a novel. I do like the bit of randomness the dice can interject into a game, the way an odd roll can spur the imagination, but I do not believe that the dice should completely rule the game. (I don't even like calling them games, as it denotes a conflict between players of said game, and I do not like that attitude at all. As a GM or player, I am not against anyone at the table, and it is not a contest to be won or lost.)

So, when I run Rolemaster, I use 100's, 66's, roll-overs and roll unders - but I do not make the players roll a hundred tasks a session, so the unusual roll is unusual (not every session) and special and is treated as such. Also, if there is something that I believe is blatantly impossible, then they will fail, and no roll. (Unless I want to see if they make a complete a$$ of things.) If their skill is such and the difficulty of the maneuver is low enough, and they aren't being attacked at the time, I will rule that they succeed with no roll. (Like a master thief 150+ on Picking Lock, picking the lock to a chest in an empty room, no trap, no one trying to stab him, not hurried in anyway, etc... *Pop* in a few short seconds it is opened. There is just no reason - other than to make things take longer and to mess with the player - to make them roll that.)

[markc]

 I agree, there is a time to roll and a time to not roll.
MDC

[rdanhenry]

I agree, there is a time to roll and a time to not roll.
MDC

Which doesn't mean that the times you do roll can't reflect less than 1% chances.

I've seen a player roll open-ended down twice on one maneuver roll moving along a branch. He could have just fallen to his death, but the GM allowed him a chance of survival. If he rolled as high positively as he had rolled low negatively, he miraculously managed to catch something and save himself. The player then went on to open-end high twice.

[GrumpyOldFart]

The reaction of the players when they hit that rare 00 or 66 is just to valuable to toss from the game/mechanics.

As is the reaction of a player when he rolls.... grins and says, "Ooooo...", rolls again... reaches for a calculator, rolls again...

Granted, that may only be once every 10th game session, but that doesn't matter. If anything, the rarity of it makes it more special.

[pastaav]

Does changing the odds from 1 in 1000 to 1 in 100 really alter your game? Really?

Yes it does very much alter the game provided the enemy has a substantial number of minions...also if the situation is not life and death you either must rule something arbitrary about they only be allowed to make one attempt before they level up or live with consequence that players/NPCs can always solve the problem by devoting time enough to do a few hundred attempts. 

I guess, if every session each player is rolling the dice a hundred or more times - or anywhere near a hundred times - it does. If you sit down and tell someone that they have a 1 in 100 chance of survival their reaction will not be significantly different than if you tell them it is 1 in 1000. They are both horrible odds to have stacked against you, and if you have any imput to the situation, you had best look for a way to increase those odds.

Yet people still buy lottery tickets...

But, I think that this idea is just another symptom of the epidemic of idolotry in the gaming industry I call the worshipping of the Gods of Chance, the Dice-Lords if you will. That everything must (EVERYTHING! MUST!) have a random chance of going wonky.

Sure, everything can go wonky in real life too. Nothing prevent you as GM to make the choice if a roll is called for or if the narrative is better without the roll.

Of course if the statistics are short circuited by unmodified results then you must houserule if you want to leave something to the Dice-Lords.