Topic: What is wrong with Rolemaster?

[RandalThor]

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 am sorry, I don't understand this. Are you saying the difference between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 is the difference between fighting the big boss and fighting the big boss with minions? In either case, the answer is simple: RUN AWAY!!

Listen: When was the last time you did something - that had dire consequences for failure - when your chance of success was 1 in 100? Less? If we (and I feel pretty confident in including everyone here) have any idea that what we are about to attempt has less than a 50/50 chance of success, and failure means serious bodily harm or death, we look for a better way. Even daredevils build in all the safety they can to minimize their risk. So anyone that would willing do something that is less than 1 in 100 - with the corresponding effect of serious harm or death for failure - is seriously stupid, or completely out of options.

But, in either case: how do they know the chances? As a GM, I do not tell my players every modifier number, just general descriptions of difficulty, like: "This looks pretty-hard, do you want to try it?" They only know how good, or bad, they are at the skill in question and any obvious modifiers - like having injuries - there happen to be. Other than that, it is descriptive, not numeric. I, as GM, have the full numbers.

Yet people still buy lottery tickets...

Yes, but that is hopeful foolery. And the fact is, all the losers of a particular drawing aren't killed. (Try to get someone to buy those lottery tickets.)

[markc]

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.

 I allow OE up and down that is to say if you roll down and then roll an 01-05 I switch it to roll up again. The one I remember was a -150 that end up around a 150 after the skill bonus was added. So yes I agree that I like the rolling is less than a 1% chance. In fact I have thought about a d1000 roll or even changing the d100 to d1000 for specific types of rolls.
MDC

[jdale]

Shields could perhaps need to provide more db, but they definitely need to cause penalties to other actions. The shield penalty should apply to all moving actions that does not explicitly state that shield use is compatible (for instance weapon skills). Possibly there should be penalty to static actions also if the shield is strapped to you arm (lock picking is harder if you have a shield strapped to your arm.

Once I was running through the woods and suddenly stopped in alarm, with the thought, "where is my shield?" It was still on my arm, I was just so used to it at that point it was invisible to me. Like losing your glasses when they're on your face. This is a wooden heater type shield, perhaps a little bit on the small side but not by much, 1/4" plywood construction.

Definitely penalty to anything that is easier with two hands, but with a regular sized shield I don't think I would give penalties for typical moving maneuvers though. Unless those penalties were canceled out by your maneuvering in armor skill -- that could make sense. I used that shield for five years running, I was pretty familiar with it. (Still have it and use it but less often. It's maybe 30 years old now.)

Tower shields on the other hand, those are definitely in the way.

As for effectiveness, shields are really, really good. RM isn't bad about representing this. But they do actually get in your way a bit when you fight. Your posture is changing and you are giving up some reach and mobility. I could imagine a rule that made you lose some of that shield DB if you use less than, say, 25% parry. Not sure it's worth having a rule for, but it could make sense.

The other thing about shields is you have to learn how to use them. Most games don't represent this. But shield fighting is a technique you have to learn. They help everyone a bit but someone who is good with a shield will be helped a lot more. Representing shield DB as a skill would be a really big change to the system, though. It might be better to handle that as a style thing (see below).

Likewise there should IMHO be rules that tell the effect of doing crazy stuff like sleeping in your plate armor, getting your armor on without a squire to assist and doing stuff in armor in warm weather. You can balance the benefits of armor pretty well by realism. The flat quickness penalty that don't consider the details of the situation is very against the design spirit of RM. Make the base rule that no penalties apply beyond the difficulty to get in and out of armor and give us extensive optional rules that show how armor impact different situations and we would get something that is far superior to the current RM.

It probably takes me four times as long to put on my armor by myself, as it does with someone helping. I can do it myself, but some of those buckles are hard to reach. I would probably be faster if I did it more often. (Here's a picture in case you want to know: http://www.madreporite.com/rpg/armor.jpg  That's armor-weight leather with metal plates riveted underneath.) It would not be at all unreasonable to handle quick donning of armor by using the maneuvering in armor skills. Maybe with a moving maneuver roll, the difficulty based on the type of armor and the amount of time, and the result giving a partial value for how much protection you get.

Give arms users a reason to continue developing weapon skills.  What I'd like to see is a Combat Style system somewhat similar to the Martial Arts Companion expanded to include all Pure Arms Users.  Doesn't have to exactly like it, but it needs to grant more benefits as you reach the higher ranks in a weapon or combat maneuver.

Initially I liked the combat styles in the MAC a lot. They open up a lot of options for the other fighters. But they have one really big shortcoming in my opinion, which is also a shortcoming of many of the other combat maneuver skills -- to be effective you really need to develop these from the beginning as your character, in parallel with your weapon skills, and if you don't do that they are going to hold you back. That means it's difficult for a character to change style later on, or change conception. The other characters in our current game didn't start with them and it would be really hard for them to correct that now, just because they didn't know all the ins and outs of the system when they made their characters. This would make it a lot easier to phase them into a game later on, or handle a character who changes style (e.g. someone who once focused on a two-weapon style transitioning to a shield style) or picks up something totally new (e.g. mounted combat).

What I would like to see is something like the combat styles, except that rather than getting a big package of things up front with an OB limit, you start with only a couple things but then add new advantages based on the number of ranks you have. Not unlike spell lists. (Although I wouldn't make them too much like spell lists. Too much uniformity of a system makes it bland, as D&D 4e so effectively demonstrated.) Some abilities might take a skill roll to activate either for the combat or for the round.

[markc]

jdale:
 I like the idea of losing some OB if you do not put at least 25% OB into DB for shield uses. I also like the idea of learning to use the shield or have it built into a Combat Style.


 Combat Style: Right now I have some abilities grow up until they get an OB of 50-60 (about 10 ranks) then after that they can buy other abilities at specific OB points. The abilities right now are sort of like the special abilities that are for styles in the MAC. Some of this is one paper but a lot is in my mind (which can cause some problems) but I plan on getting to it soon.


MDC

[pastaav]

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 am sorry, I don't understand this. Are you saying the difference between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 is the difference between fighting the big boss and fighting the big boss with minions? In either case, the answer is simple: RUN AWAY!!

Why are you speaking about fighting? The rules for UM 100 success and similar apply to maneuvers and even though they could happen during a fight you can hardly say that maneuvers only happen during fights or even that this this is the typical occasion when maneuvers are used.

If we should speak about figting I prefer to fight the boss alone than to fight the boss with minions. Superior numbers is game changer in RM combat for pretty much the same reason it make sense for the boss to have minions. More attempts equal more chance of success.

On the other hand I don't think we should talk only about fighting. If static maneuvers has a base successrate of  1% no matter the real difficulty it sucks to hire high level characters compared to hire lots of unskilled labour to just solve the task by pure chance. If the successrate can go below 1% then this is self regulating since you number of people needed become too large to be reasonable. With 1% as the worst possible case then the number of minions will always be managable.

It might be that if your game is limited to low level dungeon crawls the successrate does not matter much, but for those of us that have more high level campaign then what can be done in the setting has a great impact on the play.

Listen: When was the last time you did something - that had dire consequences for failure - when your chance of success was 1 in 100? Less? If we (and I feel pretty confident in including everyone here) have any idea that what we are about to attempt has less than a 50/50 chance of success, and failure means serious bodily harm or death, we look for a better way.

My game is not limited to situations when failure has dire consequences. You might be happy with such a limited game, but that ties back into my previous point. That some people want UM 100 short circuiting the statistics is a poor argument for including this as a core rule since there are others who are not fine with this design choice and want this to be an optional rule.

But, in either case: how do they know the chances? As a GM, I do not tell my players every modifier number, just general descriptions of difficulty, like: "This looks pretty-hard, do you want to try it?" They only know how good, or bad, they are at the skill in question and any obvious modifiers - like having injuries - there happen to be. Other than that, it is descriptive, not numeric. I, as GM, have the full numbers.

Umm...you mean to hide the fact that there are a 100 UM rule from the players? Never allow them to look at the tables would allow you hide the rule and its implications but then I must ask what is the point of the rule really?

[GrumpyOldFart]

As for effectiveness, shields are really, really good. RM isn't bad about representing this. But they do actually get in your way a bit when you fight. Your posture is changing and you are giving up some reach and mobility. I could imagine a rule that made you lose some of that shield DB if you use less than, say, 25% parry. Not sure it's worth having a rule for, but it could make sense.

I could also see your shield affecting your Perception, subject to the penalty being negated by training. An untrained shieldman is carrying around his own blind spot, and if it's a large shield it's a monstrous blind spot. To be sure, so is the trained shieldman, but the guy who is trained has likely had people try to hide in that blind spot before.

I know this because I've hidden in that blind spot myself a time or two. 

[RandalThor]

Why are you speaking about fighting? The rules for UM 100 success and similar apply to maneuvers and even though they could happen during a fight you can hardly say that maneuvers only happen during fights or even that this this is the typical occasion when maneuvers are used.

Well, I referred to fighting because you mentioned minions, but, it is certainly plausible that the maneuver attmpted would be to avoid a fight....often a good idea in RM.

It might be that if your game is limited to low level dungeon crawls the successrate does not matter much, but for those of us that have more high level campaign then what can be done in the setting has a great impact on the play.

Actually, I prefer higher-level games and that is where you find less chance of any particular action being anywhere around 1% or less, I believe. And I still fail to see how having one 1-in-1000 or so chance of success in 4-6 game session to have a "great impact" on the campaign. Because, if the characters are facing those types of chances each session, then the character turn over much be "great".

My game is not limited to situations when failure has dire consequences. You might be happy with such a limited game, but that ties back into my previous point. That some people want UM 100 short circuiting the statistics is a poor argument for including this as a core rule since there are others who are not fine with this design choice and want this to be an optional rule.

No, not all consequences are dire, but there really do need to be some sort of onsequences to an action (and not ones that would be dealt with easily, like a little lost time) to bother making the player roll for success/failure. The only reason to make players roll for everything is to ensure they fail at something. Because, no matter how good there characters are at what they do, if they are forced to roll several score skill checks per session - be it in combat or otherwise - they are bound to fail several times. And failing things while living the life of an adventurer, means a short career, and very likely a short life. (Which, I admit, would be realistic in a world such as the typical fantasy world. But it would hardly make for a great campaign if the players were forced to make new characters every 3rd session or so.)

Oh, and lest I forget: Every rule is an optional rule.

Umm...you mean to hide the fact that there are a 100 UM rule from the players? Never allow them to look at the tables would allow you hide the rule and its implications but then I must ask what is the point of the rule really?

Funny, but I am sure you know what I mean. The fact is, you don't know the odds of something when you attempt it, you can guess and that can be an educated guess that gets close, but you won't/don't know the exact odds. So, why must the players? (The GM must because he is running the game.) There is mystery, tension, and drama all before you even pick up the dice.

And the point of the UM 100 rule is like many other attributes of most games, a hold over from earlier role-playing ideals where a special roll was treated, well, special. Which is not a bad thing, and it does help to have that special be a little more often than 1-in-1000 (or so), but not be so often as 1-in-10 (or so) which is too much and takes away from the "special" idea. I think that 1-100 is just about the perfect range; you can have a good amount of detail, and not get so bogged down. just a good range, imo.

But, let me try another tack, as to why I think bothering with chances less than 1% is unecessary: Because the 1% chance of success odd comes up so infrequently (or, at least, it should), it is always something special when you succeed against anyway. Saying it was 1-in-1000 instead, doesn't make the joy of success 10x greater, but it does help bog down the game as one tries to determine that level of chance. (Though, I will say, not 10x as much either.) It is all about cost vs. pay-off. Like the fact that we cannot currently make a TTRPG to exactly replicate real-life and all its various attributes, because to do so would make an unplayable game, as it would take 2+ hours to do something in-game which takes 2-seconds in RL. It is about the balance between playability and accuracy, both have to give and take. I think that bothering with worrying about percentages less than 1% (not that they won't be there from time-to-time, just don't go out of your way to ensure they are there) is too much, and takes away from the playability/fun of the RP-ing session.

[RandalThor]

I could also see your shield affecting your Perception, subject to the penalty being negated by training. An untrained shieldman is carrying around his own blind spot, and if it's a large shield it's a monstrous blind spot. To be sure, so is the trained shieldman, but the guy who is trained has likely had people try to hide in that blind spot before.

I know this because I've hidden in that blind spot myself a time or two. 

That is interesting. I think it is exactly why in 7th Sea when you learn a swordsman school style, you automatically learn the weakness of that school to exploit.

I like the idea of shield skill, but I think I would prefer it to be a training talent, maybe tiered to show increased ability, where the more training you get a better DB mod, and less perception/mm mods. Of course, in regular RM it could just be a skill like you already have in armor and even, the shields could be placed in the most appropriate armor category (for RMSS/FRP), like small goes in light armor, medium goes in medium armor, and large/wall shields go in heavy armor.

[GrumpyOldFart]

When I was playing RM2 I had shield as a weapon skill, and yes, it took the penalty for the off hand. I could see the sense in a "Trained Shieldman" talent or some such, but I think I'd have it just negate the "no skill" penalty and maybe the off hand penalty, so you'd still want to learn actual skill ranks in shield.

It's held in your hand, how you move it and where and how it's placed when metal meets meat defines its effectiveness, you can smack someone with it and do damage... it's a weapon skill, regardless of the fact that it's primarily used as armor. You can use it to block, hook, lever, punch or slash... like pretty much every other weapon. Unlike, say, a broadsword, it's extremely good at blocking (try blocking incoming arrow fire with a broadsword), but sucks at slashing. Noticeably better at hooking and levering, noticeably worse but still effective used to punch.

You might consider putting "self bow used as a parrying weapon" in the same weapon category.

I think it is exactly why in 7th Sea when you learn a swordsman school style, you automatically learn the weakness of that school to exploit.

I like that. I played with a 2 handed sword for years, but I was specifically taught the basics of "sword and board" just so I'd know what his options are and are not. And yes, every weapon has (at least one) weakness, and there should be a mechanic to exploit that.

[Kristen Mork]

The other thing about shields is you have to learn how to use them. Most games don't represent this. But shield fighting is a technique you have to learn. They help everyone a bit but someone who is good with a shield will be helped a lot more. Representing shield DB as a skill would be a really big change to the system, though. It might be better to handle that as a style thing (see below).

You might be interested in Ars Certo (http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2011/mar/arscerto.html), which introduces several new defensive skills.

[jdale]

The other thing about shields is you have to learn how to use them. Most games don't represent this. But shield fighting is a technique you have to learn. They help everyone a bit but someone who is good with a shield will be helped a lot more. Representing shield DB as a skill would be a really big change to the system, though. It might be better to handle that as a style thing (see below).

You might be interested in Ars Certo (http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2011/mar/arscerto.html), which introduces several new defensive skills.

There are definitely some ideas in there I like. E.g. the idea of gaining maneuvers based on ranks. I won't pretend the idea of tying combat style abilities to ranks is completely independent. The full system there is more bulky than I would want, though. We actually don't use the distinction between Press, Full, and React actions at all.

[ioticus]

I'm just starting to learn Rolemaster now.  The main problem that I see is the rules are poorly written and scattered all over the place. Figuring out your max HP (at least in RMC), for example, should not be so confusing. Also, they require too much guess work from the GM, especially for a lot of the spells.  They should provide more guidelines about how to interpret difficulty levels.  See my questions at the top of the RMC forum for some specific examples.  I have many more questions but I'm not going to ask them because I know the answer will be "whatever the GM decides".  For me that is unacceptable.

[intothatdarkness]

I'm just starting to learn Rolemaster now.  The main problem that I see is the rules are poorly written and scattered all over the place. Figuring out your max HP (at least in RMC), for example, should not be so confusing. Also, they require too much guess work from the GM, especially for a lot of the spells.  They should provide more guidelines about how to interpret difficulty levels.  See my questions at the top of the RMC forum for some specific examples.  I have many more questions but I'm not going to ask them because I know the answer will be "whatever the GM decides".  For me that is unacceptable.

You have to understand RM's roots as a set of modular rules to be used in other games. Doesn't excuse some of the poor organization, but it does go far toward explaining the "GM's discretion" portion of things. That's what makes it acceptable in this context. I honestly don't think RM (as originally written/conceived) was intended as a entry or beginner's set of rules.

[ioticus]

You have to understand RM's roots as a set of modular rules to be used in other games. Doesn't excuse some of the poor organization, but it does go far toward explaining the "GM's discretion" portion of things. That's what makes it acceptable in this context. I honestly don't think RM (as originally written/conceived) was intended as a entry or beginner's set of rules.

I realize all that but if you're going to market it as a complete RPG system it needs to stand on its own feet.

[intothatdarkness]

I realize all that but if you're going to market it as a complete RPG system it needs to stand on its own feet.

That, IMO, is one of the reasons it didn't get the traction it should have, and one reason it needs to be (and is being) fully revised. There are other reasons for some of the disconnect, IMO, but that has more to do with what did Rolemaster lack as opposed to what's wrong with it.

[markc]

I would also like to see some rules fore firing into combat that had some realism to them.
MDC

[intothatdarkness]

I would also like to see some rules fore firing into combat that had some realism to them.
MDC

This is an interesting issue. I know with firearms combat I assessed a "Moving Target" penalty for anyone wishing to shoot into a melee situation, and if they missed there was a chance that they'd hit someone they didn't intend. Note that the penalty was fixed, so it tended to hurt those with less skill.

[pastaav]

Why are you speaking about fighting? The rules for UM 100 success and similar apply to maneuvers and even though they could happen during a fight you can hardly say that maneuvers only happen during fights or even that this this is the typical occasion when maneuvers are used.

Well, I referred to fighting because you mentioned minions, but, it is certainly plausible that the maneuver attmpted would be to avoid a fight....often a good idea in RM.

Maybe it is time to drop this discussion since we are obviously using very different references. Still...one more attempt.

You are stuck on talking about the players doing stuff despite that I repeatedly have pointed out that the minions of the enemy (or for that matter NPC that the players hire) are what I am talking about. These characters are also doing maneuvers...often at the instruction of the players or the bad guy and in my game such interactions do matter.

It might be that if your game is limited to low level dungeon crawls the successrate does not matter much, but for those of us that have more high level campaign then what can be done in the setting has a great impact on the play.

Actually, I prefer higher-level games and that is where you find less chance of any particular action being anywhere around 1% or less, I believe. And I still fail to see how having one 1-in-1000 or so chance of success in 4-6 game session to have a "great impact" on the campaign. Because, if the characters are facing those types of chances each session, then the character turn over much be "great".

The number of sessions have no real impacts since the decisive factor is how many attempts are made. This is something that very much depend on how many minions/npc are around.   

My game is not limited to situations when failure has dire consequences. You might be happy with such a limited game, but that ties back into my previous point. That some people want UM 100 short circuiting the statistics is a poor argument for including this as a core rule since there are others who are not fine with this design choice and want this to be an optional rule.

No, not all consequences are dire, but there really do need to be some sort of onsequences to an action (and not ones that would be dealt with easily, like a little lost time) to bother making the player roll for success/failure. The only reason to make players roll for everything is to ensure they fail at something. Because, no matter how good there characters are at what they do, if they are forced to roll several score skill checks per session - be it in combat or otherwise - they are bound to fail several times. And failing things while living the life of an adventurer, means a short career, and very likely a short life. (Which, I admit, would be realistic in a world such as the typical fantasy world. But it would hardly make for a great campaign if the players were forced to make new characters every 3rd session or so.)

The consequence of failure need not to be anything at all. If you don't have the UM 100 and similar results then the player will make a some attempts and give up if they don't make any progress. With the UM 100 rule in play any player with a minimal understanding of statistics will know it is trivial to solve the problem if you just hire enough unskilled labor. They also know that they can solve any problem by devoting enough time to it. The question if the players know the exact chance in a particular case matters little if the players understand the implications of the UM 100 rule. My guess is that your players do not understand the implications...and then of course they will never exploit the rule.

Oh, and lest I forget: Every rule is an optional rule.

I think the word "optional" should be included for it to be an optional rule, but YMMV.

And the point of the UM 100 rule is like many other attributes of most games, a hold over from earlier role-playing ideals where a special roll was treated, well, special. Which is not a bad thing, and it does help to have that special be a little more often than 1-in-1000 (or so), but not be so often as 1-in-10 (or so) which is too much and takes away from the "special" idea. I think that 1-100 is just about the perfect range; you can have a good amount of detail, and not get so bogged down. just a good range, imo.

Fancy talk but older versions of RM did not have the rule. Changing the old rules with 100 as target and no UM results was IMHO one of the major faults of later revisions of RMs.

But, let me try another tack, as to why I think bothering with chances less than 1% is unecessary: Because the 1% chance of success odd comes up so infrequently (or, at least, it should), it is always something special when you succeed against anyway. Saying it was 1-in-1000 instead, doesn't make the joy of success 10x greater, but it does help bog down the game as one tries to determine that level of chance. (Though, I will say, not 10x as much either.) It is all about cost vs. pay-off. Like the fact that we cannot currently make a TTRPG to exactly replicate real-life and all its various attributes, because to do so would make an unplayable game, as it would take 2+ hours to do something in-game which takes 2-seconds in RL. It is about the balance between playability and accuracy, both have to give and take. I think that bothering with worrying about percentages less than 1% (not that they won't be there from time-to-time, just don't go out of your way to ensure they are there) is too much, and takes away from the playability/fun of the RP-ing session.

I don't understand the problem really. If you think less than 1% chance are too small to bother with you are free to say "automatic failure". You are also free to set the penalties so that the players never will need to worry about really hard tasks. Also possibly the UM results could be kept a optional rule called "Heroic style dice rolls" with suiting explanation and warnings how it might affect if included.

[markc]

  I guess in cases of little auto success you could set the number at UM200, which would be a natural 100, 1 or more roll ups to give you a second result of 100. For harder tasks you could just raise the UMXXX value as you needed.
MDC

[JimiSue]

I don't see a problem with keeping both the UM roll of 1/100 and also open ended rolls for the 2-5 and 96-99 rolls. There are times for example when to get an unqualified success (in combat for example where there can be some hefty negatives, especially if the foe is parrying) you need more than 100 on the dice. And likewise there are times (happens in real life too) where you blunder spectactularly on something that normally you're quite good at.

However, the real thing for me is not about the mechanic or the exact definition of a less than 1 in 100 chance. For me it's about the glow in a player's eyes when they get an OE high and know what they do is going to be awesome, confident that RM as a system rewards for high successes as well as punished for really bad failures. At the other end as well, it's the dread of rolling OE low, the relief when it comes out not too bad (had a player last week roll a 04 followed by an 06 - and he still succeeded - easy task in a skill he was good at).

For me, OE rolls improve the player experience. And as a GM, for that reason alone they will stay in regardless of what any rule revision says. There are a lot of games now with exploding dice - it seems silly that the game that has had exploding dice for longest, would no longer have them.