Topic: Making Rolemaster Better!

[fiolnir]

Rolemaster has been around for some time.  Through all of it's incarnations it has stayed basicaly the same.  What I would like to know is what can be done to make an already great game even better!?  I know there are some hard core fans that have been playing this game for 20+ years, and I am sure they have some really great ideas on how to make Rolemaster better.

So what can be done to make Rolemaster run faster and smoother without sacrificing it's depth or complexity (excluding RMX)?

How can Rolemaster be tooled to appeal to a larger fan base?

Finaly, what has been sorely missing from the RM line that should be included in it's arsenal.

Thx

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Yes, everybody please chime in. I think that it would be interesting to see/hear everybody's opinions on this. 

[dutch206]

I personally think that Rolemaster's strength is that it provides a more real-feeling alternative to the "high fantasy" games, such as Castles and Crusades, former editions of D & D, etc...  I would be against any changes which made Rolemaster feel more like other game systems.

What I would like to see is a new version of RM that puts all Rolemaster people in the same camp again.  Save "edition wars" for that other game company.

[GoblynByte]

Here's my input...

1) Go back to the physical organization of RM2/C and RMSS.  One of the things I liked best about RM2 and RMSS was that you had very little duplication of information.  I hate having some spells and combat charts in one book and other spells and combat charts in another.  Also, the one-page reference for each race and profession was really cool.  The "lighter" one-book organization works for a "lighter" system like HARP but I dislike it considerably in RM (i.e. RMFRP).  One book has basic rules, one has spells, one has combat, one has monsters, one has treasure, etc.  Done.

2) Strike a balance between the skill list and uniformity of HARP and that of RMSS.  HARP could use a few more skills but the RMSS list is excessive IMO.

3) Use the RM style of skill development but drop the RMSS skill catagory system.  It's a nice thought, but overcomplicates character creation.  Skill organization closer to HARP would be cool, but I like the point cost structure of RM2/C more than that in HARP.

4) Use the combat system from Combat Companion but take advantage of the revision of RM to build it from the ground up.  I saw a few aspects of the Combat Companion that stumbled over some sacred cows that would be better off if just slaughtered and removed.

Really, other than a few nips and tucks here and there, that's it.  In general terms I'd have to say I like absolutely everything in RMSS except the skill catagory system and the absolute glut of skills.  If it weren't for that factor alone I'd be sold on it 100%!  So take RMSS as the blue-print and mix in the Combat Companion.

[GoblynByte]

What I would like to see is a new version of RM that puts all Rolemaster people in the same camp again.  Save "edition wars" for that other game company.

I admire your optimism, but that is never going to happen.  Everyone will always have their "pet" system and a sack of reasons why the others don't stack up in comparison.  But on their worst days, the various RM camps are far more civil and supportive to each other than any other community on its best day.

[fiolnir]

Some of my own thoughts on the subject:

 I think Rolemaster would greatly benefit from getting rid of some of the more cumbersome rules that really throw back new players to the game.  How many of you had to read and reread the  section on deteremening base hit totals and concussion hits?... and then read it again when someone leveled up?
 Also, scaling numbers down makes any game run smoother, and RM has always worked at the top of the dice pool.  Now I am not saying the RM should go from percantile to a d20 or anything like that.  As an small example: reduced skill costs creates a smaller alotment of DPs, which in turn reduces the amount of math involved, making skill selection easier.  The new combat charts in the new Arms Companion reduced the size and cross referencing of what RM generaly uses.  This new system has greatly sped up the game without sacrificing what is essentialy RM.
  Rolemaster also needs, IMHO, a deeper explanation of the rules and concepts.  As it stands now, RMC Character Law, is presented in a way that is relatively clear for veteran gamers, but in the hands of someone new to gaming in general, might find it hard to follow.
  Rolemaster is truly one of my favorite games, and I really  would like it to succeed.  What I don't want is for it to continue it's reputation as an "after market" game for curious or burnt out D&D fans.

Thats all I got for the moment.. I have more to comment on later.

[fiolnir]

As an observation:  The Problem of NOT Changing anything because it is  perfect as it stands.

  Rolemaster needs to generate new players to the game.  Providing support material to the current fan base is not really working (as far I can tell...please correct me if that is a way off assumption!!).  The more people that play the game, the more sales it generates, which in turn increases the profits, creating a larger talent pool, more resources, more quality product, and so on.
  What is it about Rolemaster that is not making the overly simplified reasoning above to happen? 

[mibsweden]

I like both the RMC/2 and the RMSS/RMFRP versions of Rolemaster. I do prefer the whole system, like RM2/C and RMSS, RMFRP has way too many books, and the core rules do not feel complete.

I do, however, like the skill category system and the training packages, though I feel the numer of skills could probably be tuned down a litte - not much though, I like skills!

Rolemaster in it's current form will probably never be commercially succesful in a huge degree (though it could be to a limited extent). The system simply does not appeal to the masses. I like it however, and if they changed it to cater to the masses it would probably have to be made in a way that would not appeal to me.

[markc]

 IMO RM strengths are also it weekness. Buy this I mean that the game is made to be very moduler. You can add the things you want or take away things, change rules and have that mean something. But this is also a weekness in that almost every game is different from everyones elses. So IMO it is a good tool kit that allows you to build many things but if you are not a builder then you can have trouble.

 Also IMO a setting would and will help. I think Rasyr has anounced that RMC Craydon will be published and IMO this will help the game a lot if the setting does well. Shadow World is also a good world to run RMC in and can help other find RMC and enjoy it.

 As to things that speed up the game. PDF's in whicg you can print the pages you need to hand out to PC's. IMO this is huge in RM and goes a long way to fixing problems people have with the system. You can print race, profession, spell lists, weapon charts and any other info you want to give to a player so they do not need a book or to look in books for the info.

 RM is also very different from most RPG's out there and this is a plus IMO as well as a minus. In that sometimes new poeple have trouble adjusting to the rules but one they do they generally stay with the game and adapt other game products to RM.

MDC 

[dutch206]

One thing I really like about RMSS/FRP is "Creatures and Monsters".  It has the best of Creatures and Treasures I to III (and then some) all in one package.

[thrud]

I didn't read anything except the question so I could give you my unbiased opinion.
Rolemaster quirks that people complain about.
- To many tables
- You can't aim
- Armor by the piece didn't exist
- Overall complexity

In my opinion
1. In the beinning all you see are tables but when you get to know the game you pretty much wing it. Roll +111... you made it. Roll +101 you get another go at it...
2. You can't aim. This is a difficut one. No solution to this problem except using ambush. Maybe come up with some ruling that allow ambush to be used  in battle with heavy penalties? I don't know and Idon't know if it would actually mprove the game either.
3. Armour ny the piece, fixed maybe? I haven't got the new book yet.
4. Maybe RMX cured this one?

[Arioch]

My two cents:

- A better organizations of the books (RMC did a good job in this sense IMHO).
- Unification of system mechanics: all things should be resolved more or less at the same way (skill+roll), without having to use unusual parameters like levels (yes, I'm talking about RRs ).
- A better way to manage manuever based only on stats (like pure St manuvers).
- A core setting, where by core I mean "included in the core manual".

Maybe this topic should be moved in the general RM section?

[GoblynByte]

- A core setting, where by core I mean "included in the core manual".

Oh, please no. 

[Arioch]

- A core setting, where by core I mean "included in the core manual".

Oh, please no. 

I couldn't really care less of having a setting included in the core book, but I think that it would really help in getting new people to RM.

[Crypt]

I didn't read anything except the question so I could give you my unbiased opinion.
Rolemaster quirks that people complain about.
- To many tables

RM is a system based on margins. The more you roll vs difficulty/foe roll, the more successfull you are.
In any RPG using margins of success can sometimes be painfull because, depending on the action, the margin/bonus effect ratio is not always the same. It can sometimes be very complex.
====> RM avoids this complexity by using tables. You don't have to think about the mecanisms during play. You roll, add & check a table, that's all and that's the main strength of RM.

Actually tables are what makes RM a very smooth and easy game to play compared to other games which aim the same level of details.

[David Johansen]

I'm afraid that I'm in the camp that is put off by changes that move Rolemaster into the generic mainstream.

In reality it is already a much simpler and more elegant game than D&D or GURPS.

There is, as I've suggested before, some clean-up that could be done.  I'd like to see a reorganization and cleaning up of RMSS and SPAM that would fix a few problematic issues.  I think a careful clean-up jobs could reunite the two camps without simply throwing out (any yes making them optional pretty much throws them out) all the features like skill categories, culture, and training packages.

But it doesn't matter really because it's settings that sell games and at the moment ICE doesn't have a single setting that's resonating with the consumer.  I'm not saying Shadow World, Echoes of Heaven, and Cyradon aren't good, solid settings.  I'm saying people aren't falling over themselves to play in them.  No I'm not sure why or how Ebberon is successful.

[Crypt]

I'm afraid that I'm in the camp that is put off by changes that move Rolemaster into the generic mainstream.

Trying to make a linear-system generic is very tricky.    (it depends on how much generic you think "genericness" should be.  RM's one would not be broad.)

This is the old problem of granularity vs genericness.

[GoblynByte]

I'm afraid that I'm in the camp that is put off by changes that move Rolemaster into the generic mainstream.

In reality it is already a much simpler and more elegant game than D&D or GURPS.

There is, as I've suggested before, some clean-up that could be done.  I'd like to see a reorganization and cleaning up of RMSS and SPAM that would fix a few problematic issues.  I think a careful clean-up jobs could reunite the two camps without simply throwing out (any yes making them optional pretty much throws them out) all the features like skill categories, culture, and training packages.

But it doesn't matter really because it's settings that sell games and at the moment ICE doesn't have a single setting that's resonating with the consumer.  I'm not saying Shadow World, Echoes of Heaven, and Cyradon aren't good, solid settings.  I'm saying people aren't falling over themselves to play in them.  No I'm not sure why or how Ebberon is successful.

I've heard several interviews with the group of people who sell products of various RPG companies to distributors (not sure what that type of job is called).  At any rate, on two occasions I've heard them say that the products that get the most attention are those that are tie-in products to popular media.  Serenity, Battlestar Galactica, and so on were the ones that were expected to shine in the coming months.  Of course, these interviews were about a year old, so that may have changed.  It seems like a tie-in can get the game "in the door," but only a good system can keep it in the hearts and minds of the loyal gamers.  Sadly, ICE has a distinctly foul taste in its mouth for such things.  Not that I blame them, but it may limit the ability to really get a large customer base.

That is, of course, my less-than-educated take on the subject.  But I suppose that's off track.  I think the goal of this thread is how to improve the system of RM, not the sales.

[croakerdogboy]

For my part having played RM2 for years and recently gone to RMSS, I love the RMSS system. If it's just a matter of improving the game, not bringing in new customers, then I don't see much that could do it. I tend to think that more world books, tie in's with popular novels and television shows would be the only thing I could think of that would make it better. As it stands now, most of us do it and have to make our own house rules. It would be nice to have setting books that suggest things we may not have known about  the books or movies.

For instance D20 took Game of Thrones, Black Company, Wheel of Time, etc. I bought these setting books just for the setting information, whether I liked the game mechanics or not (I dont). To me this would be the only way that you could improve RMSS. More worldbooks.

[Justin]

I think the goal of this thread is how to improve the system of RM, not the sales.

How can Rolemaster be tooled to appeal to a larger fan base?

That question sounds like improving sales, not the system to me. Which is very similar to another thread. Fiolnir, which were you asking? Rasyr, which were you anticipating seeing?