Topic: What I Would Like to See in the Unified RM

[arakish]

First, I hope this is the correct place for posting.

Second, I hope you accept this as constructive criticism.

With this new system, please put the spell description with each and every spell.  Not a reference to another spell.  Regardless if the spell is the same as another spell on a different list.

Nothing is more frustrating than to look up a spell under one profession only to find a reference to another profession's spell that is the same, sometimes in a different book.

This is especially frustrating with the digital books.  I like to print out the just the spell lists my character knows.  I really hate having to print two, three, sometimes four different spell lists just to get the descriptions for one spell list.

Example: On the Mana Fires lists in RoCo1, the spell description for "Woodfires" is: As Woodfires on the Magician Base Spell List: Fire Law.  Which then means I have to go to first edition Spell Law, or Spell Law Classic, or Of Essence.

I would rather pay extra to have the spell description with every spell, regardless if the spell is exactly the same as another spell on a different list.

If anything, this is the one thing I would say is wrong with any of the RM systems.  I know there are those who don't mind it, but it was complete frustration for me.

Thanks for the understanding.

rmfr

[providence13]

I believe this is less prevalent in the later additions of RM.
Although there is a problem with certain spells of same/similar name being slightly different.
This could be explained as a different List/Profession has a different spell. Mystics require an elemental source for Bolts, Magicians don't, for instance. Just an observation.



 

[rdanhenry]

RMSS pretty much identified crosslist references. References within the same list were retained, including in places where said references were not helpful. "Same as spell Blah, except completely different effects." In some cases, where a fairly lengthy bit of mechanics is included in a spell description, it is a useful thing to refer back to an early spell in the same list (esp. cases where it is a series of increasingly powerful version of the same effect).

[bennis1980]

I wish RMU would do away with all of the repeated spells, and instead expand on the Spell Mastery skill.

For example, for every augmentation you make to a spell, whether it be extra targets or options (as in the Phantasm spells), or additional range or area of effect, add penalties as per normal Spell mastery rules. Obviously, you could end up with a very high penalty, this can be offset by spending PPs (and thus also increasing the level)

This way you wouldn't have rediculous amount of repetition and you have one system for augmenting, bending, changing and generally adding colour to your spells.

[ironmaul]

I wish RMU would do away with all of the repeated spells, and instead expand on the Spell Mastery skill.

For example, for every augmentation you make to a spell, whether it be extra targets or options (as in the Phantasm spells), or additional range or area of effect, add penalties as per normal Spell mastery rules. Obviously, you could end up with a very high penalty, this can be offset by spending PPs (and thus also increasing the level)

This way you wouldn't have rediculous amount of repetition and you have one system for augmenting, bending, changing and generally adding colour to your spells.

Yep, like he said.
What I'd also like to see is options on rules, character generation etc that can be used for different game styles. Also options with the use of magic levels of low, medium and high power in a game setting(Not everyone likes to have Harry Potter magic in their games). Something else I'd like to see is the removal of the LotR influence in races. I'd like to see it be generic with the option of tweaking it to my own game world. That's about it from me atm.

[markc]

Yep, like he said.
What I'd also like to see is options on rules, character generation etc that can be used for different game styles. Also options with the use of magic levels of low, medium and high power in a game setting(Not everyone likes to have Harry Potter magic in their games).

 Can you expand a bit on those two ideas? (ie how would you?)
Thanks
MDC

[providence13]

IIRC, Cyberspace 2020 had some of the best (workable) rules as foot notes and side bars.
RMU could do the same thing. Skills are given in a generalized fashion and then a sidebar on optional rules: Skill Categories, for instance..(like RMSS/FRP). They're there if you want to use them..

DP/lvl may be derived from XYZ stats. Or the GM could decide a set number/lvl.

But I don't want to placate everyone. Make the changes then print the rules! I'll take what I want for my game and leave the rest.

[ironmaul]

Hmmm, I think something like Races & Cultures(don't own book) but very watered down added in. Something that is adaptable to a game world instead of LotR as it currently is.
Regarding the magic issue...I'm not sure how that could be done. I'm not a games mechanic I just make the pretty pictures for them I guess it depends on how the new rules pan out, otherwise I can't see the point of trying explain how I would do it.

It's all out of our hands anyway regarding the rules, and most likely whatever is said here and elsewhere really doesn't make a scrap of difference(which is probably a wise choice).
Don't think me being negative, I'm excited for the new version coming out. So I'm just going to sit back and see what happens, throw in what I'd like to see and let them worry about the mechanics, as that's what they do best.

One thing I do wonder about is what the target age group their marketing for. Reason I say this I have a couple of kids I could introduce this to. Two are aged 10, one 14 and the other 19. It's the younger ones that would be the problem, so it would be good to have something that could be integrated for a younger audience.

[markc]

It's all out of our hands anyway regarding the rules, and most likely whatever is said here and elsewhere really doesn't make a scrap of difference(which is probably a wise choice).

 I am with you as I know nothing about RMU or URM (and I was surprised as everyone else when it was announced), but you comment was interesting so I asked for more info.
MDC

[ironmaul]

Yeah no worries. Another thing that strikes me is everyone is calling it RMU. I'm not sure this is a good idea, although it's something that I don't think can be helped. I say this because people will get confused again with all the abbreviations already out there...perhaps? Anyway it looks like the Unification War is near it's end! 

I've never like RM spell system and the players I had hated it. It was one of the biggest disappointments with RM for me. But I understand and respect those that love it...whatever floats your boat, hey. Until the new Rolemaster comes out and I see what it has to offer regarding it's spell system I'm not going to concern myself with tweaking a system for myself. If it's similar to spell list system then I wouldn't buy the book(Spell Law I assume it'll be called?)personally, I'd do my own thing.

[craggles]

Yeah no worries. Another thing that strikes me is everyone is calling it RMU. I'm not sure this is a good idea, although it's something that I don't think can be helped. I say this because people will get confused again with all the abbreviations already out there...perhaps?

Although it adds to the list of abbreviations, I think it needs one otherwise simply calling it 'Rolemaster' could be even more confusing for new people not knowing what System it's meant to be with, not realising it's a brand new system.

Unless it's the only System that ICE is selling (which would mean zero confusion for new players), I think there needs to be clearer instructions on the front page of the website outlining what each system is and which is current or not and why.

[Thom @ ICE]

Well it appears I can comment on a few things...

1 - Website is in process of revision, and Rolemaster version issue will be addressed for clarity
2 - Intent is to refer to it as Rolemaster...  Use of unified at this time is simply to emphasize what is happening with it. In the end, expect a Rolemaster product with RM as the common reference.
3 - Target audience is not early teens.  Rolemaster is aiming for the experienced gamers who would appreciate the simplicity and completeness that RM offers.  That doesn't mean that teens couldn't handle it, because really the math should be in reach for 99% of most 10-year olds the issue is more in the fact that Rolemaster is a very complete system that takes 5 books to present fully and most of the teen market these days is not going to read that much material in order to play the game.  Of course, the lite version will help some but the lite version doesn't dictate the target audience for the overall product.

[Nortti]

I agree that spell-list should have full description of the spell instead of having to go through books. How about making some changes too to match the profession and give spell-lists a little different feel?

Clearest for those that are not so familiar with RM yet would be to use Rolemaster and then number. Like Rolemaster 4 or 5. How do you count different editions in this case? We have RM1, RM2, RMSS and RMFRP. Next would be 5 then? Then there are express and classic too. For those that are familiar with RM the word "unified" is clear. For others I think not. Would be better to think of those possible new gamers.

DnD is now 4th ed with 5th coming soon and RQ up to 6.

My suggestion for new RM ed: Rolemaster 5
                   

[markc]

 I do not know but I think that the spell list issue was to save space and an issue with author authorization to reprint material. But I could be wrong also.
MDC

[jdale]

I really don't think there are any cross-references left in RMSS/RMFRP. Only for spells on the same list. They did a good job updating them.

The idea of spell scaling, ala HARP, rather than a strict list is interesting. It captures some of the sense of what Spell Mastery does. I always felt there was too much overlap between spell mastery and higher level spells. Unification could be good there. It's a pretty substantial change though and I don't expect to see it here. Seems like good material for the Guild Companion though....

[arakish]

I really don't think there are any cross-references left in RMSS/RMFRP. Only for spells on the same list. They did a good job updating them.

RMSS pretty much identified crosslist references. References within the same list were retained, including in places where said references were not helpful. "Same as spell Blah, except completely different effects." In some cases, where a fairly lengthy bit of mechanics is included in a spell description, it is a useful thing to refer back to an early spell in the same list (esp. cases where it is a series of increasingly powerful version of the same effect).

For clarification.  What I meant was spell descriptions that forced you to either refer to a completely different book, or you have to flip a hundred pages backward through the same book.

I never minded the descriptions for say, Fire Ball I, and Fire Ball II, on the same list, where the description for Fire Ball II is "As Fire Ball I, except radius is 20 feet."

I meant like the Mana Fires spell Woodfires as in the initial post.

I can understand the need to reduce file size, or number of pages, but as I said, I would rather pay more for the product just to have the description of each and every spell with each and every spell.

Also, as I said, nothing is more frustrating than the need to print two, three, sometimes four different spell lists just to have the descriptions for only one spell list.

Sorry for ranting, but it seemed some missed the point.

Thanks again for the understanding.

Another nice thing would be a more unified attack tables for weapons.  Say, use the same table for all sword like weapons, just give bonuses and penalties for differing weapons.  Say, a long sword has a +0 modifier where a Broad sword would have a +20 due to being a larger blade, and a short sword would have a -20 for being a smaller blade.  Just a thought that popped into this mind of mine.

The idea of spell scaling, ala HARP, rather than a strict list is interesting. It captures some of the sense of what Spell Mastery does. I always felt there was too much overlap between spell mastery and higher level spells. Unification could be good there. It's a pretty substantial change though and I don't expect to see it here. Seems like good material for the Guild Companion though....

I also like this idea.  Been working on such.  But doubt I'll ever get around to doing it for the complete product line.

rmfr

[GrumpyOldFart]

I never minded the descriptions for say, Fire Ball I, and Fire Ball II, on the same list, where the description for Fire Ball II is "As Fire Ball I, except radius is 20 feet."

I meant like the Mana Fires spell Woodfires as in the initial post.

I can understand the need to reduce file size, or number of pages, but as I said, I would rather pay more for the product just to have the description of each and every spell with each and every spell.

Also, as I said, nothing is more frustrating than the need to print two, three, sometimes four different spell lists just to have the descriptions for only one spell list.

Yeah, that. It's not a big deal to refer to a description elsewhere in the same list, on the same page. Even a different list on the same page. If a page has the water elemental spells list and the fire elemental spells list, I don't mind if _____Ball reads, "as _____Ball (which is right next to it on the page) except it does _____ crits" (cold vs. fire, for example.) Having to shift my eyes 2 inches to the left to read the description of the Water Ball spell and apply it to the Fire Ball spell 2 inches to the right of it.... I can get over that. Especially when printing out my spell list won't lose any of the descriptions.

Another nice thing would be a more unified attack tables for weapons.  Say, use the same table for all sword like weapons, just give bonuses and penalties for differing weapons.  Say, a long sword has a +0 modifier where a Broad sword would have a +20 due to being a larger blade, and a short sword would have a -20 for being a smaller blade.  Just a thought that popped into this mind of mine.

I'm not so sure about this one. There's a fair amount of difference between how a long blade plays and how a short blade plays, as well as the difference in play between 1 and 2 handed weapons and the difference between blunt, single edged, double edged and multi-edged weapons. Being able to model that reasonably well is the only thing that gives the complexity of refining attack forms down to 'this weapon against that surface' any value, AFAIK. Throwing in a lot of "it's just like _____ only with modifiers" while keeping multiple attack forms and multiple ATs would seem to me to be the worst of both worlds.

The idea of spell scaling, ala HARP, rather than a strict list is interesting. It captures some of the sense of what Spell Mastery does. I always felt there was too much overlap between spell mastery and higher level spells. Unification could be good there. It's a pretty substantial change though and I don't expect to see it here. Seems like good material for the Guild Companion though....

I also like this idea.  Been working on such.  But doubt I'll ever get around to doing it for the complete product line.

Me too. Actually, reworking Spell Mastery to do the job of scaling would probably make more sense for RM. That way you get scaling, in a way, and you still keep lists.

[markc]

+1 here for adding scaling to each spell and having SM plan another role.
MDC

[rdanhenry]

Yes, well the references to other spell lists haven't been around since RM2. No worries there.

Even getting balance crudely right on a system replacing spell lists with HARP-like scaling would take at least an extra year, allowing for the fact that you'd have to completely rewrite every spell. If you really think you can do it, make it balanced, and provide just as much magic as Spell Law, go ahead. It'd make a great supplement as an alternative magic system.

Spell Mastery became one of the most broken aspects of later RM. In fact, most RMSS/FRP balance complaints were either about Talent costs or Spell Mastery.

Individual weapon tables are part of what makes Rolemaster Rolemaster. Indeed, it is in many ways the very heart of Rolemaster.

It sounds like a few people in this thread would simply prefer HARP. Good news, HARP already exists. Do not expect RM to become HARP.

[GrumpyOldFart]

It sounds like a few people in this thread would simply prefer HARP. Good news, HARP already exists. Do not expect RM to become HARP.

I'm already playing HARP, and already tweaking it to fit just as I did with RM for decades. No worries. However since ICE games from their inception deliberately targeted people who wanted a system that could be tweaked to fit, what to do for the folks who want the combat of one and the magic of the other is a valid question. Because sure as sunrise, given the nature of ICE's fan base, those folks already exist.

Spell Mastery became one of the most broken aspects of later RM. In fact, most RMSS/FRP balance complaints were either about Talent costs or Spell Mastery.

Fine and good. If anything is "the heart and soul of HARP magic", it's scalable spells. If someone is determined to 'port that into RM, there is probably no better vehicle than Spell Mastery, not least because 1) it's already written into the system and 2) as you noted, the mechanics governing its use are poorly defined in already extant versions so it needs to be rewritten anyway.

If you really think you can do it, make it balanced, and provide just as much magic as Spell Law, go ahead. It'd make a great supplement as an alternative magic system.

I'm not saying it'll be me (it probably won't), but somebody's going to, count on it. From what I read on the forums, I'd suggest it's already happening.