Topic: ROLEMASTER FOR THE WIN!

[Elton Robb]

My friend Greywulf and I have blogged about Rolemaster Classic and Rolemaster FRP being ahead of their times.  As you probably know, D&D 4's monks are going to be psionic based.  You know where this crops up again, don't you?

Here's the links to the articles on our blogs.

http://elton-atlantis.blogspot.com/2009/05/rolemaster-classic-head-of-its-time.html

http://blog.microlite20.net/2009/05/11/mentalist-monks-ftw/#comments

[Arioch]

ARMS is your basic warrior, beat them up sort of crew.

Channeling is power from the Gods, or God, or whatever.

Essence is the Unified Energy Field (also God if you look at Energy Quantum Mechanically and draw similiarities from what Religion teaches).

Mentalism is drawing the Essence through your mind, once again, Power Creation (also God, again, but then . . . I'm Spiritual. I see God in everything).

Yes, RM had the various power sources right from the beginning... and that's why now I'd like to see Arms Spell lists! 

[Elton Robb]

Well, Arioch, Rolemaster is the best game to play.  The numbers SCARE people, however.  That's why I wondered if we could push an "RM Lite" with the reduced numbers.  Apparently, someone *found* an RM Lite already.  Rolemaster in its first incarnation.

[thrud]

Arioch> Blood magic... 

[Arioch]

Arioch> Blood magic... 

I started to write down some "arms" spell lists (which used "physical" stats for PPs) using Gifts from EA as inspiration, but never finished them... 

[GoblynByte]

My friend Greywulf and I have blogged about Rolemaster Classic and Rolemaster FRP being ahead of their times.  As you probably know, D&D 4's monks are going to be psionic based.  You know where this crops up again, don't you?

Good.  That association means that I can take my two least favorite aspects of any fantasy RPG - psionics and monks - and chuck them from D&D 4e in one fell swoop. 

[Elton Robb]

Well, no one ever said you had to try it, GoblynByte.

[munchy]

Well, I would say that if you play DnD in general you are sort of obliged to try the new version. I would have if that group I played with had continued. At least tried it.
Would be the same for me with Rolemaster and HARP, if there is or was a new edition you at least have to try it ... you don't have to like and stick with it but trying is always nice.

[GoblynByte]

Well, no one ever said you had to try it, GoblynByte.

You mean try 4e?  Oh, I like 4e.  I've just never been fond of psionics or ninjas in fantasy settings.  I'll admit I'm rather Euro-centric with my taste in fantasy.

However, I've never really said 'no' to a player who wanted to play a monk (in any system) because, after all, it is fantasy and the point is for everyone to get to play whatever they can imagine.  But I usually say 'no' to psionics because it rarely fits in with my world view.  If a monk's power is now fueled by psionics than the monk gets thrown out with the bath water, so to speak.

Of course my bark is far worse than my bite.  In the end I'll probably still allow them.  I'm a sucker for players getting to play what they want.

[munchy]

Of course my bark is far worse than my bite.  In the end I'll probably still allow them.  I'm a sucker for players getting to play what they want.

Well, isn't that what gaming is sort of about?

[Nejira]

It?s not the first time neither. When 3rd edition came out they went from having skills as secondary based directly on attributes to having attributes providing a bonus and skills being based on ranks with each rank providing a bonus. Where did ya hear that one before? 

Not surprising tho, didn?t Monte Cook work for ICE back in the day? And he was one of the primary designers behind 3rd edition.

Still surprised they didn?t go with PowerPoints instead of spells per day. It seemed a oblivious choice.

Edit: Just a personal note, I agree with the byte sized Goblyn here. I don?t like monks, ninjas, samurais, and other Kungfu in my fantasy games either. Unless I am playing in an oriental setting, but the default western fantasy setting I don?t feel they fit in. Yes, it?s fantasy but it still have to be consistant and believable to a certain degree.

[Johan Wärlander]

Well, isn't that what gaming is sort of about?

I'd say gaming (of the roleplaying variety) is about players AND the GM having fun. If that isn't the case, it won't last long.. so if players' views of what they want to do differ too greatly from the GM's then the GM might have to find a different group of players rather than trying to run a game he doesn't enjoy.

[GoblynByte]

It?s not the first time neither. When 3rd edition came out they went from having skills as secondary based directly on attributes to having attributes providing a bonus and skills being based on ranks with each rank providing a bonus. Where did ya hear that one before? 

Not surprising tho, didn?t Monte Cook work for ICE back in the day? And he was one of the primary designers behind 3rd edition.

Still surprised they didn?t go with PowerPoints instead of spells per day. It seemed a oblivious choice.

I can't count on both hands the number of RPGs that used skills based on attributes and skill ranks prior to 3rd edition.  If I cared to look I could probably find one that did so prior to Rolemaster.  So I think it's unfair to call a foul on D&D for doing the same.

[GoblynByte]

Well, isn't that what gaming is sort of about?

I'd say gaming (of the roleplaying variety) is about players AND the GM having fun. If that isn't the case, it won't last long.. so if players' views of what they want to do differ too greatly from the GM's then the GM might have to find a different group of players rather than trying to run a game he doesn't enjoy.

Perhaps.  But I can usually work with just about anything.

[Nejira]

I can't count on both hands the number of RPGs that used skills based on attributes and skill ranks prior to 3rd edition.  If I cared to look I could probably find one that did so prior to Rolemaster.  So I think it's unfair to call a foul on D&D for doing the same.

Not calling foul on D&D, just found it interesting.

[GoblynByte]

Of course my bark is far worse than my bite.  In the end I'll probably still allow them.  I'm a sucker for players getting to play what they want.

Well, isn't that what gaming is sort of about?

That's actually the biggest quality that keeps me roped into D&D (if even only a little) despite the systems' eccentricities.  I can let the players toss in the kitchen sink without needing to consider its impact on the integrity of everything it touches.

[jolt]

To me, fantasy is fantasy.  Why allow a mage and not a ninja?  Why allow a ninja and not a mage?  What's the difference?  In my gameworld there is no equivalent to the Orient.  But my world still has ninjas and samurai and martial arts; why wouldn't it?  I don't understand the "it's not Western/Euro-centric" viewpoint.  The mage/wizard isn't inherently Western or Euro-centric either.  What makes a dwarf paladin more acceptable than a dwarf samurai?

By all means, if you don't like martial arts (or whatever) then don't include them but I don't understand the distinction that's being drawn here.

jolt

[GoblynByte]

To me, fantasy is fantasy.  Why allow a mage and not a ninja?  Why allow a ninja and not a mage?  What's the difference?  In my gameworld there is no equivalent to the Orient.  But my world still has ninjas and samurai and martial arts; why wouldn't it?  I don't understand the "it's not Western/Euro-centric" viewpoint.  The mage/wizard isn't inherently Western or Euro-centric either.  What makes a dwarf paladin more acceptable than a dwarf samurai?

By all means, if you don't like martial arts (or whatever) then don't include them but I don't understand the distinction that's being drawn here.

jolt

Lord of the Rings was fantasy...but I'd still find it a little odd if a ninja showed up.

What I really mean is that it depends on the world that is being used or developed.  To me the feel of the environment is very important and the culture of the setting can add significantly to that feel.  If I want it to feel like Europe in the Middle Ages I don't want a bunch of kung-fu kickin' going on.  That's only if I'm developing a setting which is concerned about such things, though, and, in such cases, I simply explain to folks who want to play a ninja or psion why such things simply don't 'work' in the setting.

When I play D&D or similar 'kitchen sink' settings, however, all bets are off.  They could play a ninja rabbit for all I care because the setting (and rules) don't make it an odd thing.

So, I agree with you...unless the setting makes it unusual.

[Arioch]

Lord of the Rings was fantasy...but I'd still find it a little odd if a ninja showed up.

Well it's quite easy to explain why you haven't seen them... they're ninjas! 

[GoblynByte]

Lord of the Rings was fantasy...but I'd still find it a little odd if a ninja showed up.

Well it's quite easy to explain why you haven't seen them... they're ninjas! 

...I'm speachless in the brilliance of that reply...so I'll just give you a laugh point on that one.