Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: ironmaul on January 21, 2011, 09:56:32 PM
-
There has been talk about a more streamlined version of RM for an entry level for new players simular to RotG and ME RP. So I thought this would be a good place to express ideas and thoughts on the matter. In my mind it's not what to add but perhaps what to leave out. And also what good elements from other existing RM systems to add. I personally have RMC, RMSS and HARP to gleam ideas and info from. I'm not a rules lawyer so I won't have all the answers but with more imput from others will help.
Stats: For me you would still keep the 10 stats but leave out the potentials. I'd give 660 points to buy a characters stats using the HARP stat cost table.
Stat Bonus: I believe the stat bonus progression in HARP is the best out of all systems.
Development points: Grant a 1st level character the 100 DP as in HARP and the fixed 50 DP/level after that. I like this idea, makes it easy to make higher level charactes from scratch, especially if you use the Maximum Rank per Level table in HARP.
Hits: I like the base hit total(BHT) and the maximum hit total for a race in RMC but that's where it ends. I'd more than likly use Co + SD + skill rank bonus + BHT. I'm not sure on what I'd use as a Body Development skill rank bonus yet, probably RMSS race BD bonuses...?
Races: Human, Dwarf, Halflings and I guess we have to have those pansy Elves too.
Race Abilities: I'm not sure on this one, feel free to add your thoughts. But if it came to the crunch I'd probably go with RMSS.
Background Options Yep, have to add them.
Professions: Fighter,Thief, Rogue, Cleric and Mage.
Skill Progression Bonus: Going the RMC way is the easier option.
Anyway that's all I have for now, feel free to add your thoughts.
-
As much as I like Background Options and Talents and will gladly spent hours making a character... skip them in RM Lite. The point of RM Lite would be to get them used to the basics of the system and Background Options will complicate that.
-
Even old RM had some talents. A limited number would be a good idea. Players and GM's like some diversity.
-
As much as I like Background Options and Talents and will gladly spent hours making a character... skip them in RM Lite. The point of RM Lite would be to get them used to the basics of the system and Background Options will complicate that.
Cory, I understand where your coming from and I agree with you to a point. Looking at RMC BG options I think perhaps choosing just a few from the Special Item(non magical), Special Status and extra Language options may not be too bad. I'd drop the Special Abilities, Set Options and Special Wealth catagories. I think perhaps if you just stuck to three BG options above it wouldn't interfer to much with mechanics.
Cory, would you tolerate a few choice BG options from the Item, Status and Language list if they where perhaps helpful in an introductry adventure scenario?
-
I'd leave out much more than was put in.
Look at the absolute minimum to make the game playable.
Stats: Yes
races: yes
Skills: Yes but far fewer. perhaps just the base ones from RM1
Professions: maybe, but just 4 or 5
Magic: just a few simple lists.
Combat: 4 or 5 tables like Me Rp
-
Even old RM had some talents. A limited number would be a good idea. Players and GM's like some diversity.
Yes, even ME RP had some background options.
-
I respectfully disagree with the entire Lite/Express/Basics approach if it means leaving out most of what Rolemaster for me is all about: options.
It has been tried with RMX (and I dare ask: does anyone here remember RM: The Basics?) with, let's just say, limited succes. The main reason for my concern however is that these approaches, the way they have been executed in the past, always remove details and options while leaving the rules more or less the same, which in my opinion is the cardinal mistake to make when trying to clean up and make Rolemaster more beginner-friendly. I would never prefer a game with basically the same old rules but fewer options, and I don't understand why new players would want that either. I could be wrong, but I think new players should know right away what the game has to offer, and Rolemaster is about detail and options, and lots them.
Why only offer a few basic professions? Professions are not rules, they are detail. The only rule in play here is 'choose a profession'. The game doesn't get any easier to play if we offer players fewer choices, it only becomes less interesting.
Why only offer a few basic weapon tables? Weapon tables are not rules, they are detail, and are perhaps Rolemasters strongest and most distinguishing feature. Give new players an Arms Law book full of weapon and critical tables, and they will love it. I know I did. Again, no extra rules added, only options.
Why offer fewer spells lists and only to level 10 and deprive players of choices and a glimpse of the power that could await them in a distant future?
-
What was actually wrong with RMX? ICE still own it.
-
Yes, Aurigas/ICE owns RMX and all other RM versions (except the Middle Earth version).
-
I suppose a few basic options wouldn't be bad just to introduce the idea.
It has been tried with RMX (and I dare ask: does anyone here remember RM: The Basics?) with, let's just say, limited succes.
The problem there is Mjolnir did nothing to try and advertise or market the product, let alone any of the others. Doesn't matter how good something is if no one knows it exists.
I could be wrong, but I think new players should know right away what the game has to offer, and Rolemaster is about detail and options, and lots them.
The past criticism leveled at Rolemaster has been that it is too detailed, so a basic version targeting new customers has to take that into account. Although a small case can be made that ICE will be targeting NEW players (that weren't necessarily the ones that criticized RM in the past) there is still a left-over reputation that will need to be overcome.
Why only offer a few basic professions? Professions are not rules, they are detail. The only rule in play here is 'choose a profession'. The game doesn't get any easier to play if we offer players fewer choices, it only becomes less interesting.
"It takes way too long to make a character in Rolemaster..."
More professions equaling more choice means players take longer to make up their minds, mainly due to the fact that there will be somewhat subtle differences between professions that they do not yet grasp such as long term skill costs and spell selection. They will try to learn those things and weigh them out before making a choice, which will drag out character creation.
Why only offer a few basic weapon tables? Weapon tables are not rules, they are detail, and are perhaps Rolemasters strongest and most distinguishing feature. Give new players an Arms Law book full of weapon and critical tables, and they will love it. I know I did. Again, no extra rules added, only options.
"Rolemaster? You mean Chartmaster or Tablemaster (nerdy laugh)?"
Again, one of the primary criticisms you hear about Rolemaster.
Why offer fewer spells lists and only to level 10 and deprive players of choices and a glimpse of the power that could await them in a distant future?
Spell lists need to be offered through level 20 at least in my opinion. Save levels 21-50 for the expanded books.
Don't get me wrong Moriarty, I will never buy RM Lite, RMX, whatever you want to call the simplified version of RM. I doubt you or many people on these boards will. It's to attract the new customer. We probably wouldn't like it. But as such its entire purpose is to be cut down to a more basic makeup.
-
The one thing that bugs me the most about RMFRP is that the spell lists only go to level 10 in the core book. That virtually guarantees I will have to buy another book just to get the complete lists, even if they are the basic lists. Moreover, most of the lists only take one page when fully formed.
Maybe using fewer lists would work, but I wouldn't like to see stripped lists.
-
Don't get me wrong Moriarty, I will never buy RM Lite, RMX, whatever you want to call the simplified version of RM. I doubt you or many people on these boards will. It's to attract the new customer. We probably wouldn't like it. But as such its entire purpose is to be cut down to a more basic makeup.
I have the RMX .pdfs and am buying some hard copies to help new players get into it. I just hope the RMX Additions come back soon, so I can have a transition path to full-blown RMC.
-
I don't see how any Rolemaster Lite can ever fill the role that MERP once did, but if you're going to cut Rolemaster down, it needs to stay highly detailed in at least one area. I think that area should be combat (basically, Rolemaster Lite would be Arms Law+). The old model won't work:
1. Your Lite version needs to display the strengths of your system. Flexible character development used to be a Rolemaster strength, but these days even D&D has character customization out of the box. Thanks to the charts and table, it still has rich detail with simple rules.
2. You need something to sell people on your Lite version. Crits have always been a key advertising point for Rolemaster, so why not focus there? It can't come close to replacing the best license ever for a fantasy game, but it might bring some people in. "We've watered down a game whose whole reputation is based on its rich options and detail" sure isn't going to be much of a come on.
-
I don't see how any Rolemaster Lite can ever fill the role that Not-RM once did,
Why not? Of course the Middle Earth setting would miss. But that does not mean that a RM Lite would not work in bringing new players to the system.
but if you're going to cut Rolemaster down, it needs to stay highly detailed in at least one area. I think that area should be combat (basically, Rolemaster Lite would be Arms Law+).
I agree that combat is an area where RM shines and where a RM Lite should show this. But I don't think that this must mean that RM Lite would be Arms Law+.
The old model won't work:
...
2. You need something to sell people on your Lite version. Crits have always been a key advertising point for Rolemaster, so why not focus there? It can't come close to replacing the best license ever for a fantasy game, but it might bring some people in. "We've watered down a game whose whole reputation is based on its rich options and detail" sure isn't going to be much of a come on.
I agree that criticals are cool and a strength. I am not sure, though, whether this means that a RM Lite should include the complete RM critical tables. The reduced tables from ME RP or, quite similar, HARPer's Bazaar #11 might also work. At least I remember that, way back in the 80s, we found even the reduced critical tables of the ME RP rulebook cool. Of course the complete weapon tables and the more detailed critical tables from Arms Law were even cooler ;), but I think the condensed tables would be sufficient - and somewhere you have to condense the rules to have it all fit into one book. Of course, including "only" the full critical tables, and not all weapon tables, would add "only" about a dozen pages or so...
YMMV
-
It is my intension to highlight RM combat mechanics and critcal tables. That is what sold me on RM and those that I've shown in the past. IMO there is no need to include all weapons, just a few old favourites. I'd include the Slash, Krush, Puncture and MA Strkes tables. And I'd only have the AT table from Cloth-Skin Base to Ridgid Leather Base.
-
I have said it in a previous thread and I say it again here. I think that the merit of the level of detail for character creation in RM is not realized until you have progressed through a lot of levels. If we look at a first level character in RM then we are talking about a total newbie that if built correctly will have some areas when they have reasonable success chances. If the character is built badly then it will not have focus areas and suck at just about everything. Add in the total lack of good examples how RM rules are meant to play (a single paragraph about the importance of playing...without any examples about) and you have the very reason the game is labeled chartmaster and similar.
A stripped down version of the list of skills, professions and such can reduce the time needed to make choices during character creation, but it can't help with the problem that you are showing complexity without the detail that motivate the complexity. That it takes loads of time to make a character is yesterdays problem, RM lost the first round of the fight because length of character creation. Still the world changes and I very much doubt the time needed to make feats selection in that other game is smaller to what it takes to make choices in RM. RM lost the last round because few knew the RM continuing existence and story teller games has greatly raised the standard for how to explain rules and set up cool scenarios.
I think the RM lite should skip character creation as much as possible. Some approach inspired by Run Out the Guns, but for fantasy would be great. Suppose the players are presented with premade characters at different levels. A string of adventure is given that is chosen to touch all the areas of play when RM is great. Each of the major scenes is presented with GM-guides section that explains how likely obstacles can be handled with the rules. A possible starting scenario would be characters traveling through to enemy land hunted by militia. The goal is learn a secret from a spell user. In the next scenario they pick next version of the characters (say +4 levels or something similar) and progress with a classic dungeon crawl to get the magical object to defeat the enemy. Finally they take the next version of characters and proceed with the major battle with the villain that is aided by some powerful monster like a dragon or a demon. Each character could optionally have some development that is tied to the plot (for instance one of the players have a sister kept captive by the villain, but it is up to the GM to chose whom).
The difficulty of getting such a railroad scenario right is not trivial, but I do think that likelihood is much greater that newbies after it will say "this is awesome, let's buy the game and make our own campaign" than if they are presented with lobotomized version of the game and have to suffer playing the incompetence of first level characters without ever seeing the level of detail that exist in the full blown system..
-
Well, I've been able to get my hands on the boxed set of RotG, so I'll be going through that to gleem ideas off of. I agree that pre-gen characters in RM lite is a must but haveing it so one could make their own characters/NPC's is just as important...more so for the GM. Haveing a good pre-made adventure is also important, especaily one that incorporates a sense of involvment for each player/character highlighting primary skills etc. Keep the ideas coming folks.
-
For me the variety and depth of character generation is what sold me RM (not the charts) and also those that I've introduced to the system.. I feel that a "Lite" version should emphasise those points... not dismiss them.
If you want to make it "lite" then also ensure also that the book can be used and not just discarded, which is to say that anything in it should be used, as it is, without major modification in future projects.
Include one race, Human. Include all the "base" skill options available to make it viable for fantasy, historical or sci-fi character creation. Where there are cultural differences, then these should be dealt with at 1st level by the choice of the most appropriate adolecent skill table combined with a basic "human" template.
Introduce the concept of two free Training packages to be taken at 1st level. (Just like Run out the Guns). Obviously, these would need to be balanced, and provide certain generic items and some talents as part of the package, which need to be factored into the "balance". Purchase of TP past 1st level should be at the whim of the GM, based upon the activities of the characters, this time the actual cost being based upon the Profession chosen... and a quick system such as 10% DP discount be used. No items or Talents should be gained from their purchase after 1st level.
Professions, here I would say only THREE Generic Professions, Fighter, Thief and Academic. These three can be used unmodified in additional products and are imediately useable in Historical and Modern/Future campaigns, the addition (and complication) of the differing types of magic/Psionics can be left for specific sourcebooks. But then give examples of how the base class might be changed to produce the various other Professions available.
Stats, I'd keep a 660 base point buy, then simply improve each stat by +2 each level. Bonuses using RMSS advancement.
Skills, use Skill Categories as basic advancement at 1st level, with the option of purchasing specific skill ranks in them left to later levels. Don't bother applying any sort of non-proficency penalty unless the character has nothing in that category, in that case apply a blanket -30. When performing ANY kind of skill apply the most appropriate category to the task, don't bother with specifics. Apply stat, Profession and Talent bonuses to the Category as a block at 1st level.
Talents, allow these to be purchased at later levels. Increase the cost of the Talent purchased by the use of a simple table based upon the total cost of the talents that the character already has. Thus, starting players need not bother selecting talents until they have "settled in" to the character and it also balances those Races that come with Talents built in... again an example could be given, but not detailed. The talents should be more generic, so that the number is reduced to a managable size.
Rules and Charts. A (revised and reduced) MM Table, SM Table and Basic Activity Tables Only, with a table of modifications for both. Combat Tables should be 1 for each Category, with examples of modification of those tables for specific weapons. The detailed weapons, should be left to other supplements.
Critical tables should be trimmed and made more generic, but work in the same way.
-
I think it would be more useful to clean up the rules, have plenty of clear, correct, and illustrative examples (too often when examples have been used, they have had errors or been used to insert humor that only encouraged common misunderstandings of Rolemaster). What the novice needs from Rolemaster is not so much less, as more. More clarity, more guidance, more examples. What should be cut are the non-Rolemaster rule sections in Arms Law and Spell Law, which only serve to confuse. Other than that, for the purpose of easy introduction to Rolemaster, what you cut is going to be less important than what you add.
-
I've been re-reading RMX (as I have the .pdf) and, to be honest, I think that it's a better intro to RM than Not-RM was -- to RM2/C, I mean -- and that the RMX Additions, from what I've seen of them, allowed a smooth path to full RMC (and your characters would be easily adaptable).
I don't think that HARP's a bad taster, either, although one might feel that in moving to RM you'd end up giving up some of what you liked about HARP; it's more of a cousin product.
If the context is a need for a Lite introduction to the next iteration of RM, if there is to be one, then I'd be inclined to follow the RMX model.
-
"Rolemaster? You mean Chartmaster or Tablemaster (nerdy laugh)?"
It's funny because its true. :)
I don't want to take the thread in a direction away from its topic or purpose, I have made my point, but I would like to comment on this:
Don't get me wrong Moriarty, I will never buy RM Lite, RMX, whatever you want to call the simplified version of RM. I doubt you or many people on these boards will. It's to attract the new customer. We probably wouldn't like it. But as such its entire purpose is to be cut down to a more basic makeup.
I believe that if you aim to produce something new based on a perceived reputation; what you have heard people didn't like about RM before, some of whom might have their opinion from others and not directly from their own experience with RM, and if you know that you, yourself wouldn't like the new thing, buy it, or enjoy it if you had it, but would rather have something else, then the project destined to fail.
It is my intension to highlight RM combat mechanics and critcal tables. That is what sold me on RM and those that I've shown in the past.
Ironmaul, what, in your opinion, are the strengths of RM combat mechanics - not counting the weapon and critical tables - compared to combat mechanics of other roleplaying games?
-
Greetings
I dug out my copy of RMX the other day and it is actually pretty good.
For my own purposes it needs some of the material in some of the EA's (though I've only got 1-5) mainly to give a few more character options - that is a few more professions, Mentalism and a few more secondary skills, as well as being able to try to use some of your 11 PPs on higher level spells.
Our group stopped playing RM/SM many years ago for a variety of reasons but masses of tables was one of them, so more tables are not a surefire way to attract new - or even returning - players.
Regards
Edward
-
I don't think that HARP's a bad taster, either, although one might feel that in moving to RM you'd end up giving up some of what you liked about HARP; it's more of a cousin product.
I also like HARP. But IMO it has one area where it is quite weak - and that's combat (not by chance there are 4 or 5 different combat systems available for HARP), where RM OTOH shines. And, to get players introduced to RM, a rulesbook where the combat system is more akin to the RM one would IMO be the better choice.
-
There are good things in HARP I agree but I have to side with Ecthy about the combat. I aslo don't consider HARP not to be Rolemaster either. I have been taking elements from all three systems and buy the end of it I hope to come up with something workable.
On a side note: I've had a quick read through of RotG. No wonder it was a big success, it's brilliant! I can't understand why the special abilities weren't added into RMSS they are fantastic story generators for a game. I think I'll cut all races from the list and only have humans as someone suggested here.
It is my intension to highlight RM combat mechanics and critcal tables. That is what sold me on RM and those that I've shown in the past.
Ironmaul, what, in your opinion, are the strengths of RM combat mechanics - not counting the weapon and critical tables - compared to combat mechanics of other roleplaying games?
To be totally honest with you, I have only palyed AD&D back in the day. Once RM came along I was content and very happy with it so much so I had no desire to look further. That's not to say RM is perfect but I believe/know it suits me. The d100 just seems to make sense to me...with percentages you can make it simple as you want or as complex as you want.
-
I've been kicking around an idea for what might be called a "Super Lite" version of Rolemaster, at least as far as character generation goes.
It just involves using templates that give stat bonuses, without even using the percentage values for stats.
Pick a race, that gives you certain stat bonuses, and maybe a few skills.
Pick a culture, maybe gives some additional stat bonuses and some additional skills
Pick a profession, get some additional stat bonuses and more skills.
Maybe allow for Training packages or something like that as well, and away you go.
Behind the scenes I'd probably be working with a set matrix of stat values and DP points so that you could actually create the same characters using full Rolemaster rules, but I've never really spent the time to work out the details on how I would do this. I believe Run Out the Guns actually did use a system sort of like this, although in that case all the Characters had a base class of Fighter or Rogue or something.
The RMFRP Races and Cultures book, and the ShadowWorld Master Atlas 4th edition had some rules on splitting out Race and Culture that could also be mad use of in something like this.
-
For a while I couldn't work out how they did it in RotG as the stats and bonuses didn't add up, until I read the small paragraph that stated they used the Rogue (levels 3-4)as a template with training packages.
Pre-gen characters would be the way to go but aslo an explanation on how to make your own would be essential too.
-
Considering HARP SF has 10 stat points to distribute between the 8 stats. I'm wondering for a RM lite would 12 stat points to distribute between the ten stats with a max of 4 points to one stat be over kill? or have it max at 3 points per stat? I'm thinking the later...
-
Remember "Using the Rules without RM"... Well put that in the front of the book. Let them know that this ain't RM. This is a watered down version of this cool game that will only reach it's potential when you add some/most/all of the rest of the rules. (I don't use PP Exhaustion; there, I said it.)
But, you can play the "basic" set of these rules if that's as far as you want to go. When and if you're ready, the other ~280 pgs are waiting. All of the extra rules are optional.
-
I know it's been awhile since I've posted on this thread but I'v come back to as I have found people curious about RM and I want to see if I can get the basics of this lite version in a solid format. My purpose is to highlight the combat/critical aspect that sold me on the game. I have since droped the idea of magic palying a role in this version(frankly, I don't like RM spell system at all).
Stat Bonuses and Development Points Assignment.
I've been looking through a number of RM systems (RMC. RMSS, MERP and HARP SF), I found that there's multiple variations of the bonus and DP allowcation which is understandable. I've come up with my own table and would like some feedback. The issue I had with some of the above mentioned systems is the upper and lower end progression of the scale, particulary the upper end with DP progression. Keeping with the format of the HARP stat cost table the higher that one develops the stat the more expensive it is...so there should be a greater bonus and DP reward. So this is what I propose below in stat vs. reward. It is based on the RMC CharLaw page 74.
Stat / Bonus / DP.
102 / +35 / 18,
101 / +30 / 16,
100 / +25 / 14,
98-99 / +20 / 12,
95-97 / +15 / 10,
90-94 / +10 / 9,
85-89 / +5 / 8,
75-84 / +3 / 7,
60-74 / +2 / 6,
40-59 / +1 / 5,
25-39 / +0 / 4,
15-24 / -3 / 3,
10-14 / -5 / 2,
5-9 / -10 / 1,
3-4 / -15 / .75,
2 / -20 / .5,
1 / -25 / .25.
Thanks for looking,
Rick.
-
My feedback : it’s one more chart. I’d rather go for chartless mechanics.
-
My feedback : it’s one more chart. I’d rather go for chartless mechanics.
Agree. As few charts as possible as combat requires enough to make the system inheirently chart heavy.
-
As a rule of thumb, replacing charts by clever mechanics is a plus. Not only for a light version of the game.
-
This is just a foundation for the make up of pre-gen characters. My attempt is to produce something along the lines of "Run Out the Runs" but perhaps in a barbarian/Conan like theme.
It'll be a long process as other GCP commitments will have me busy.
I agree, less charts. In fact by the time I'm finished there wil be even less charts than whats found in ROtG. One thing I will be adding is the Vice chart along with a Superstition chart...just love that idea in ROtG.
I want something that I can quickly make up characters...even at high levels without much fuss. I have most of what I need...fleeced and adjusted from the best bits from MERP/RM/HARP systems ;)
As a rule of thumb, replacing charts by clever mechanics is a plus. Not only for a light version of the game.
That's the aim.
I'll more than likely start up another thread for feedback in the near future.
Disclaimer: This is in no way linked to ICE/GCP. These are my own mussings.
-
I personally feel that a lot of this thread has been focusing on the wrong area. Someone above posted (I think Moriarty) that if you remove races or professions, that is only reducing choice and detail, not making the game any easier. From my experience new players *like* choice and detail, but where the headache comes in is figuring out the math. When I advise players to come to the game with a calculator, I'm not kidding.
The trend with new games these days is for very rules light systems (e.g. 2 stats - physical, and mental; a handful of generic skills or spells; etc) so presenting hefty mechanics first day off is probably not going to win you many favours. I would:
1) Keep races and professions, talents and so on - players like all of that and it isn't very rules heavy
2) ditch temporary & potential stats, but keep some mechanism to allow them to increase at level up time
3) Slim down the skills list, including weapons. MERP worked very well at the level of having a 1H slashing skill, for example. The skills is where having a choice becomes intimidating, you don't need an enormous skills list to have a functional character.
4) Do something to the point buy skills scheme. I don't know how many times I have to explain that to new players, but you could keep choice and variety by having skills groups (e.g. combat, social, magical etc) and have each profession have a skill cost that applies to all skills in that category, so fighters would have 1 in combat skills, rogues might have 3, wizards would have 5, and so on. Spend double that amount for a second rank or something.
5) Simplify the mechanics for calculating skill totals. It is enough to have a skill bonus, stat bonus, 'special' bonus, and profession bonus (and even that last one is dubious as it can be reflected in skill cost). You don't need to worry about skill caps, or diminishing returns - at low levels the game functions perfectly well without them.
6) get away from the huge amount of chart lookup in combat. You can develop some simple calculation to determine success (e.g. hits = the amount you exceed opponent DB by, divided by Armour Type; crits = amount exceeded minus 50, divided by 5, negative = no crit, 1-10 = A, 11-20 = B, etc - note those figures are pulled from the air, no idea if they would actually work).
7) Critcally important (pun intended) is keeping detailed criticals - new players absolutely love them, since most games do abstracted damage it makes a nice change. And gamers (even the proto-gamers we are talking about here) love that detail.
To engage interest from players used to simple, fast-flowing systems, you have to create a system that is simple and fast-flowing (really!). It helps if character creation is also fast but that isn't as important - what's important in character creation is that the time is focused on the actual character, not the numbers that make it work.
Also remember that gaming is an activity that usually appeals to a certain type of individual - imaginitive and above-averagely intelligent (yes, I know there are exceptions :) ) so don't be too afraid of providing choice and colour, as that will be appreciated. If you can hook them into an easier system early on, then they will see it as a personal achievement to 'graduate' onto the more complex full version - much as, back in the day, we progressed from D&D to AD&D.
-
In counterpoint, "Hackmaster Basic" isn't all that basic -- it's limited to the first five levels, though -- and has been pretty well-received (and the Hacklopedia could be the best monsters book ever, although it's not "Basic" but rather part of "Advanced"). Pathfinder's basic set, which was very well-received, limited to five levels but did also simplify rules; most significant, perhaps, it adopted a different format based on presenting the game to beginners (and had a level of presentation and design that I think would be out of reach for smaller companies).
I think that RMX was a good model for an intro RM game, although it apparently won't come back or even be open-licensed. It felt like Rolemaster and had some rules in (hit points, say) that were better than the equivalent in RMC. I liked the model of a series of transitional rules that could pave the way to RM2, but that's probably not everyone's cup of tea.
Making a Lite game, anyhow, looks like a lot of work, to me and it requires that the people making it are very familiar with the rules they're simplifying. It seems to me that we'd need two (perhaps similar) Lite versions, one for RM2/C and one for RMSS/FRP, at least unless we're going to have to wait for a completely new version of RM (which, when it happens, probably will want a Lite version itself).
-
I think that RMX was a good model for an intro RM game, although it apparently won't come back or even be open-licensed.
Given that we cannot ever publish it in its current form for legal reasons, there is no way that it could be open-licensed.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
I think that RMX was a good model for an intro RM game, although it apparently won't come back or even be open-licensed.
Given that we cannot ever publish it in its current form for legal reasons, there is no way that it could be open-licensed.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
I can't really comment, as you won't say what the legal reasons are. I've read it pretty thoroughly and didn't see any obvious fatal issues (ie, ones which wouldn't be fairly easy to fix) and I thought it was a work to which the rights were owned.
-
Smug, the reasons don't need to be explained but please take it on faith that it cannot be republished.
If you have ideas for RM lite, I'd be more than happy to hear them :)
-
Well, my question would be "which parts can't be republished"? In my opinion it's the best product out of ICE for over a decade and if, say, most of it were OK I'd have thought that the effort to make the rest whole would be worthwhile. As for ideas for RM Lite, they'd be similar to RMX, which I think is cleverer every time I GM it. If something had to be completely different because the original can't be republished, that'd be pretty tricky, given that a fair amount of it is the obvious stuff you'd do to Lite-ise RMC (indeed, part of the cleverness, I think, is picking a consistent set of those simplifications).
-
My attempt is to produce something along the lines of "Run Out the Runs" but perhaps in a barbarian/Conan like theme.
Now that would be a messy campaign. ;D :o
rmfr
-
My attempt is to produce something along the lines of "Run Out the Runs" but perhaps in a barbarian/Conan like theme.
Now that would be a messy campaign. ;D :o
rmfr
That it would! My intentions are to highlight the critical tables and the graphic nature of them. Also I want to show character diversity even if I only choose three professions and human race only.
-
I personally feel that a lot of this thread has been focusing on the wrong area. Someone above posted (I think Moriarty) that if you remove races or professions, that is only reducing choice and detail, not making the game any easier. From my experience new players *like* choice and detail, but where the headache comes in is figuring out the math. When I advise players to come to the game with a calculator, I'm not kidding.
Cory, on the first page of this topic makes a good point about the time players make up there mind. The idea is to have a focus, to have a taste of what RM is like. Too much diversity will not make it a streamline experience. The details come in later with a full blown RM lite. Remember this is an introductory game like ROtG. I want to have the basics first the rest can come later.
The trend with new games these days is for very rules light systems (e.g. 2 stats - physical, and mental; a handful of generic skills or spells; etc) so presenting hefty mechanics first day off is probably not going to win you many favours. I would:
1) Keep races and professions, talents and so on - players like all of that and it isn't very rules heavy
I'd only keep the bare minimum of professions...fighter, thief rouge, cleric and magic user. Races are world specific, better to have simple guidelines to make your own races IMO. All the ten stats will stay, this is a RM holy cow.
2) ditch temporary & potential stats, but keep some mechanism to allow them to increase at level up time
Agreed. I have it so you increase your stats with DP like in HARP. I feel this would work well.
3) Slim down the skills list, including weapons. MERP worked very well at the level of having a 1H slashing skill, for example. The skills is where having a choice becomes intimidating, you don't need an enormous skills list to have a functional character.
Agreed.
4) Do something to the point buy skills scheme. I don't know how many times I have to explain that to new players, but you could keep choice and variety by having skills groups (e.g. combat, social, magical etc) and have each profession have a skill cost that applies to all skills in that category, so fighters would have 1 in combat skills, rogues might have 3, wizards would have 5, and so on. Spend double that amount for a second rank or something.
I think the standard system is fine, perhaps it's the explaining that needs to be clearer with examples.
5) Simplify the mechanics for calculating skill totals. It is enough to have a skill bonus, stat bonus, 'special' bonus, and profession bonus (and even that last one is dubious as it can be reflected in skill cost). You don't need to worry about skill caps, or diminishing returns - at low levels the game functions perfectly well without them.
Agreed. Just two stat bonuses plus rank bonus and your roll, simple.
6) get away from the huge amount of chart lookup in combat. You can develop some simple calculation to determine success (e.g. hits = the amount you exceed opponent DB by, divided by Armour Type; crits = amount exceeded minus 50, divided by 5, negative = no crit, 1-10 = A, 11-20 = B, etc - note those figures are pulled from the air, no idea if they would actually work).
Hehe, that sounds even more complex than a chart look up :D Just a few charts is needed for a normal combat if there is not an overwhelming of weapon types etc.
7) Critcally important (pun intended) is keeping detailed criticals - new players absolutely love them, since most games do abstracted damage it makes a nice change. And gamers (even the proto-gamers we are talking about here) love that detail.
Totally agree with this and is the main focus.
To engage interest from players used to simple, fast-flowing systems, you have to create a system that is simple and fast-flowing (really!). It helps if character creation is also fast but that isn't as important - what's important in character creation is that the time is focused on the actual character, not the numbers that make it work.
Totally agree with this.
Also remember that gaming is an activity that usually appeals to a certain type of individual - imaginitive and above-averagely intelligent (yes, I know there are exceptions :) ) so don't be too afraid of providing choice and colour, as that will be appreciated. If you can hook them into an easier system early on, then they will see it as a personal achievement to 'graduate' onto the more complex full version - much as, back in the day, we progressed from D&D to AD&D.
Also agree.
-
I would have auto skill gains and a limited number or DP.
MDC
-
Something that might be useful is an entirely pre-prepped combat scenario. Hand out a pre-made character to each player and have a set of foes (which will vary based on the number of player characters).
The reason I say this is because one of the first things we did when we decided to try out the RM line as a full fledged system (we'd been using pieces in D&D for years) was to run a 'mock' combat. This taught us a LOT about the system. Everything from how skills develop and are used, to all the various combat stuff, to the fact that a certain creature in D&D was NOTHING like the same creature in RM (Trolls for example).
I ran a chariot racing event at GenCon many years ago that used RM. Only one of the players (out of 10 I think?) realized we were using RM. I handed out a set of pre-created characters for them to choose from, let them select their own chariot type (I think I had five) and quickly explained how their skills worked and how attack resolution played out. Considering they really only needed to know their charioteering skill, offensive and defensive numbers it seemed very simple to them. Once a player learns that kind of thing, see's how simple it is, THEN learns they were playing Rolemaster they tend to open their eyes a bit.
-
I'm not a big fan of pre-mades for novice players. If the players can create their own character they can identify with it far better. Pre-mades are fine for quick-starting more experienced roleplayers who can more easily drop into the character, but for those without experience that's not so easy. Sometimes you can drop players into play too quickly - and while character customisation does take some time, it gives them more time to get comfortable with their character and role.
-
About professions, you’ll actually have more choice if you simply drop them and use a skill based character creation. Why ? Because professions tend to set a character on rails. Of course, even with professions, Rolemaster allow for an outstanding variety, but a fighter won’t be able to switch to becoming a priest or thief, something you can do in a snap of your fingers with Warhammer 1 or 2 or Rêve de dragon (which was translated as Rêve: the Dream Ouroboros but I don’t own it and thus don’t know if the translation is faithful to the original), a game that beats any game I know of in terms of diversity with a system so light that character creation holds on 12 pages (of course the game also has shortcomings).
To sum it up, when it comes to character creation and diversity, Warhammer does better than Rolemaster with a system that is lighter but also flawed (it’s easy to be outrageously overpowered in this game) and eats a lot of paper to run.
Rêve does far better (you basically can’t beat it in diversity) with a system that is ultra light, doesn’t have loopholes that allow overpowered characters and holds on far less pages than RM.
My point:
1) create a professionless system that relies on skill selection and progression (all the skills won’t have the same chance to gain rank).
2) since many people won’t know how to use it, create archetypes for character creation that will help people make up their minds.
3) limit the access to magic with talents, (flaws disappear, each talent comes with a drawback)
4) give guidelines about how to create a new archetype, give other ones to just do without them.
You’ll look like you keep professions while getting even more character diversity and, on top of that, give the long, long awaited guidelines to create character professions. All that in a lighter system.
Seriously, I’ve been reading complaints about DP, the number of professions, their balance and so on for years. If DPs are a problem, drop them and do something else. If you can’t create another great type of character without creating a profession, then they are an hindrance, not an asset, because players don’t have the keys to professions and can’t even jump from one to another.
I'm not a big fan of pre-mades for novice players. If the players can create their own character they can identify with it far better. Pre-mades are fine for quick-starting more experienced roleplayers who can more easily drop into the character, but for those without experience that's not so easy. Sometimes you can drop players into play too quickly - and while character customisation does take some time, it gives them more time to get comfortable with their character and role.
I don’t agree. I rule games for complete beginners in a ludothèque (it’s like a public library, but with tons of games and no books) in Bordeaux and pre-made characters are great for newcomers. If I had to create characters, it’d take the whole night.
-
My point:
1) create a professionless system that relies on skill selection and progression (all the skills won’t have the same chance to gain rank).
2) since many people won’t know how to use it, create archetypes for character creation that will help people make up their minds.
3) limit the access to magic with talents, (flaws disappear, each talent comes with a drawback)
4) give guidelines about how to create a new archetype, give other ones to just do without them.
You’ll look like you keep professions while getting even more character diversity and, on top of that, give the long, long awaited guidelines to create character professions. All that in a lighter system.
Seriously, I’ve been reading complaints about DP, the number of professions, their balance and so on for years. If DPs are a problem, drop them and do something else. If you can’t create another great type of character without creating a profession, then they are an hindrance, not an asset, because players don’t have the keys to professions and can’t even jump from one to another.
Funny you should mention this, I was actually thinking the same thing at work today. It's the skills that actually define the profession, not the other way round. Your points are valid Fenrhyl, and I will seriously look into it, I'm very pleased you mentioned it.
I'm not a big fan of pre-mades for novice players. If the players can create their own character they can identify with it far better. Pre-mades are fine for quick-starting more experienced roleplayers who can more easily drop into the character, but for those without experience that's not so easy. Sometimes you can drop players into play too quickly - and while character customisation does take some time, it gives them more time to get comfortable with their character and role.
I don’t agree. I rule games for complete beginners in a ludothèque (it’s like a public library, but with tons of games and no books) in Bordeaux and pre-made characters are great for newcomers. If I had to create characters, it’d take the whole night.
Same here. My first experience with RM was rolling up characters...and it did in fact take ALL night!!! we didn't even get to have a game. :-\
-
If RM is going to continue with a % activity based round; make sure all actions are in increments of 10%. WTF do you do with 5%?
-
Thoughts on initiative.
I've used this with RMSS and seemed to work well,
Qu bonus + In bonus + 1 per two levels aqcuired + 1d10.
Do you think useing the Snap/Normal/Deliberate phase would cause much issue?
I like it because it allows the slower PC's to be able to jump in first if they wish. I thought that this would be confusing for my players at the begining but they seemed to catch on fast when I gave a few gladitoral mock battles with this mechanic.
-
If RM is going to continue with a % activity based round; make sure all actions are in increments of 10%. WTF do you do with 5%?
Agreed. I think you could leave this out of a lite version of RM. Alternatly one could do a quick and simple roll off vs the GM i.e roll higher than him and you get what you wanted done(all within reason of course). I guess each situation is different so it would be a case by case event.
-
Actually changing professions (or progressing through careers) in Warhammer isn't just "snapping your fingers." It's a long-term process if you're doing it according to the original GW rules, and not everyone can do everything.
From what I've seen, most of the confusion and complexity comes when people start adding everything in the various Companions into RMC without taking the time to determine what works in their world and what doesn't. I do use archetypes in a way, but they're determined by a mix of profession and the culture a character comes from. And to me that gets to the heart of one issue with RM...it doesn't have a solid world/setting basis. With nothing to tie the rules to, they become more shifting and open to complication, especially as stuff from the Companions (which tends to come from the settings of various GMs) flows into games that aren't suited for those additions.
I've played a few of the non-profession style games, and my experience has been that characters tend to end up scattered and diluted as players try to do everything with one character. Granted everyone has their own experiences with that sort of system...mine wasn't good. And don't get me started on the strange pile of skills and such that makes up Spycraft.
My groups have never had a problem with stat generation or DPs. I overhauled the RM Professions and skills to balance better in my setting, and no one had problems. It should be easy to come up with a lite RM, but IMO it needs to be tied to a setting of some sort. There needs to be a framework, a logic for how things work the way they do. That makes it easier for players to understand and buy into the rules.
-
've played a few of the non-profession style games, and my experience has been that characters tend to end up scattered and diluted as players try to do everything with one character. Granted everyone has their own experiences with that sort of system...mine wasn't good. And don't get me started on the strange pile of skills and such that makes up Spycraft.
It happens, but not because the system is flawed, but because the players develop their character in a poor way. It’s up to the GM to give them guidelines.
-
About professions, you’ll actually have more choice if you simply drop them and use a skill based character creation. Why ? Because professions tend to set a character on rails.
Actually I would say that is exactly the point with professions. They give the player rails so that you get a better gaming experience when different characters fulfill different purposes in the gaming group. The point with RM is that is rails, but the rails are only guidelines unless you try do munchkin stuff like changing from fighter to mage. It is weird that people always insist they should get the best of both worlds and get upset...
If the argument is that a good GM can direct the players to develop a working gaming group despite not having any rules that support this then I would counter with suggesting that if the GM is good there is no reason to use a set of fixed rules to begin with. People who find it so easy to create a balanced game experience would be much better off using a Narrativist game system and not try to dumb down a Simulationist game until it is light.
Seriously, I’ve been reading complaints about DP, the number of professions, their balance and so on for years. If DPs are a problem, drop them and do something else. If you can’t create another great type of character without creating a profession, then they are an hindrance, not an asset, because players don’t have the keys to professions and can’t even jump from one to another.
Why should they want to jump from one to another? In what way is gaming experience made better if the fighter can switch to magican? Why would not every character make this transition if it is allowed?
Also I have a little problem understanding of why professions would be obstacle. The hard work with creating new professions is entirely in the creation of the spells. When the spells are done you have a realm and the differences between semis or pures from within a realm is pretty insignificant.
To complete the circle...suppose you are a good GM with mature players that like Narrativist style gaming so much so that they don't mind if one of the players get very much better benefits than the others....nothing stops you from using your eraser mark to change the name of the profession without any hard rules about it. Further nothing stops you from saying "okay, you want to play pirate ninja that can fly. In that case, let me just write up some suiting cost then you can go on." There is nothing wrong with Narrativist gaming and from time to time and enjoy it lots...but RM or any Simulationist heavy game makes a horrible starting point to get Narrativist gaming.
-
Now where have I heard this before?
1) create a professionless system that relies on skill selection and progression (all the skills won’t have the same chance to gain rank).
Funny you should mention this, I was actually thinking the same thing at work today. It's the skills that actually define the profession, not the other way round. Your points are valid Fenrhyl, and I will seriously look into it, I'm very pleased you mentioned it.
Oh yeah, here:Reply #2 on: January 03, 2010, 11:08:09 pm »
The number of skills is due to the ideology that you must actively train in and increase each skill that makes up a profession, instead of just going up in level and automatically getting better at those skills. I understand this philosophy, and mostly agree with it - so long as you go with a profession-less & level-less system. No reason to go halfway, in my opinion. If you are going to have professions and levels, you might as well have a number of abilities that automatically increase with them, particularly those abilities that are key to that profession. For the sake of convenience as well as to better dictate what it means to be a (blank) in your setting/game. As for a game with an abundance of skills that must be individually increased, you might as well go with no profs or levels and just say that the character's "profession" is determined by the skills he possesses. Example: I spend over half of my XP on combat related skills and abilities, therefore I am a "fighter." You spend them on stealth and burglary skills and abilities, therefore you are a "thief."
;D
Funny thing is, I sort of understand and agree with the use of levels as a way of dealing with those things that aren't trained, but learned only through experience. Example: the combat boot (new guy) is generally much slower to react when stuff happens than the guy who has been through several battles/situations. That is one way level affects a character's performance, Initiative/Reaction, in this case. RRs are another aspect of a character where a sill generally not only doesn't, but cannot be used in the place of a level/attribute combination. (Though HARP has tried.)
But, if you are going with a game that focuses on skills, then classes and levels aren't necessary, and those things that come with experience will have to be attained through spending experience. What skills and abilities the character has will determine if they are a fighter, wizard, thief, arceologist, chef, police officer, etc.... Training packages will help in this regard.
But, for ease of getting new people into the game, I would suggest levels/professions, but with more aspects being "fixed" - though not quite as many as D&D. Hands down, it is easier to look in a book and see what you have, than it is to look in a book and pick-and-choose what you have.
Also, I am a big believer in pre-made one-shots to get new players acclimated to the rules and ideas of character types. I just did for the AD&D game I am running and I think it helped shake out several bugs (for me, as well).
-
Personally I think the goal of any RM Lite system must not be to reduce choice, but remove blind choices. Taking a Simulationist game and remove the full range of options simply means that you have same mechanical upkeep as before but less in return for suffering from the mechanics upkeep.
What I mean with blind choices is that RM is hard for a newbie because you must make choices without knowing if you can compensate for them further down the character creation process. If I want to be an good archer does that mean I must optimize my stat allocation to fit the classical archer stereotype? Must I take talents that aid archery or are skills enough? Is it necessary to max my archery skill during adolescent development or am I better off to spread out at this point? Is there a training package that will deduce my total cost to become a good archer so I get more opportunity to spread out or will the training packages force me to spread out in the wrong direction compared to my available DP?
With enough experience all the previous questions are reasonably simple to answer, but there is no way to make up for lack experience with current incarnations of RM. The root of it is that stacks of feats and prestige classes that exist in a certain other game is horribly more complex than RM with every possible options added, but complexity is secondary to presentation. What differs is that RM fail to give the players building blocks that are explained in terms of their gaming impact. The idea to say "it is hard but read books enough times and then you will get it and realize it is easy" only works in the audience of would be game designers. You get the reputation RM has when you make that kind of bad choices about presentation.
All in all I think the proper way to design a better RM is not to simplify by removing choices but to apply all lessons learned from designing UI for computer programs. Easy to learn games are not easy because they are less complex, but because the developer didn't leave it up to chance to make sure the user experience was good.
-
Anyway, I see 2 different idea happening here:
1) Streamlining Rolemaster: I can see the appeal here and would love to see how you all go about it. (So I can take it for my own, muaahahahahahahhaha....) But, I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with:
2) Enticing new Players: For the most part, I feel there are 2 main areas to deal with here:
A. Disuading preconceptions: These are the "chartmaster" and other negative ideas that existing gamers have for
RM. The only way to do this, I believe is to show them - but getting them to sit down and play it the first time is the
thing. But, the sheer plethora of skills is something altogether different, and a much more understandable objection (IMO).
This can only be handled by reworking/cutting back on the number of skills. I do agree, also, that RM can cut back on the
number of charts, we really don't need multiple 1-handed edged weapon charts; just the one with with mods for the actual
weapon used.
B. The new gamers: Well, fundamentally, the newer batch of gamers seem to be all about story control. They want their
characters to have some control over the story, more than what us old-schoolers are used to anyway. Some of that can be
dealt with by the GM, but some of it they want "hard-wired" into the rules so they (the players) can more easily determine
"how" they can affect the storyline. Personally, I feel that the GM has overall control of the story by virtue of the fact that
they are the ones spending hours putting things together. More work equals more control, in my book.
PS: Actually there are 3:
C. Make the game look good and then get the game out there! By look good, I mean when you see it on the shelf it practically
makes you pick it up to look at*. The more that pick it up, the more that buy it, it is a simple as that. By get the game out there,
I mean: GET THE GAME OUT THERE, and into stores, on Amazon, etc... If people have to search hard to find it, the less it will sell.
Again, simple. (Yes, I understand there have been financial problems, I am just saying that when you get through them and are
ready to start putting product out there, you need to put product out there.)
*Like the Shadow World Player's Guide and the HARP products put out recently.
-
I'm not a big fan of pre-mades for novice players. If the players can create their own character they can identify with it far better. Pre-mades are fine for quick-starting more experienced roleplayers who can more easily drop into the character, but for those without experience that's not so easy. Sometimes you can drop players into play too quickly - and while character customisation does take some time, it gives them more time to get comfortable with their character and role.
I don’t agree. I rule games for complete beginners in a ludothèque (it’s like a public library, but with tons of games and no books) in Bordeaux and pre-made characters are great for newcomers. If I had to create characters, it’d take the whole night.
Same here. My first experience with RM was rolling up characters...and it did in fact take ALL night!!! we didn't even get to have a game. :-\
Well, OF COURSE it takes all bloody night if you're doing Rolemaster characters. I thought the whole point here was creating a light version? However, it seems you're looking to essentially change pretty much everything about Rolemaster... and when you change everything about something... it ends up nothing like the original. You need to strike a balance between what you're changing and what you're keeping. Aside from the critical tables and 10 stats in number, I can't really see a whole lot you're keeping. And crit tables and having the right number of stats is not the basis for a game. You're not creating "Rolemaster Lite" here, you're creating "A whole new system based on replacing anything slightly clunky about RoleMaster". Which can also be seen as just cherry-picking the best bits.
I can imagine players being introduced on this "lite" system and then wanting to try the big version, only to be stuck thinking "hang on, this is a completely different game." Which means you'll have not succeeded at all in your original goal of making RM more accessible. Don't get me wrong, there are some cool ideas in this thread, I just think that you shouldn't be trying to use absolutely all of them in one go.
But, good luck with it :)
-
've played a few of the non-profession style games, and my experience has been that characters tend to end up scattered and diluted as players try to do everything with one character. Granted everyone has their own experiences with that sort of system...mine wasn't good. And don't get me started on the strange pile of skills and such that makes up Spycraft.
It happens, but not because the system is flawed, but because the players develop their character in a poor way. It’s up to the GM to give them guidelines.
And this same position applies to a standard RM character. Frankly, I'd prefer it if the system worked to minimize those poor choices. Not every GM is going to be good at guiding players, after all...
-
I'm not a big fan of pre-mades for novice players. If the players can create their own character they can identify with it far better. Pre-mades are fine for quick-starting more experienced roleplayers who can more easily drop into the character, but for those without experience that's not so easy. Sometimes you can drop players into play too quickly - and while character customisation does take some time, it gives them more time to get comfortable with their character and role.
I don’t agree. I rule games for complete beginners in a ludothèque (it’s like a public library, but with tons of games and no books) in Bordeaux and pre-made characters are great for newcomers. If I had to create characters, it’d take the whole night.
Same here. My first experience with RM was rolling up characters...and it did in fact take ALL night!!! we didn't even get to have a game. :-\
Well, OF COURSE it takes all bloody night if you're doing Rolemaster characters. I thought the whole point here was creating a light version? However, it seems you're looking to essentially change pretty much everything about Rolemaster... and when you change everything about something... it ends up nothing like the original. You need to strike a balance between what you're changing and what you're keeping. Aside from the critical tables and 10 stats in number, I can't really see a whole lot you're keeping. And crit tables and having the right number of stats is not the basis for a game. You're not creating "Rolemaster Lite" here, you're creating "A whole new system based on replacing anything slightly clunky about RoleMaster". Which can also be seen as just cherry-picking the best bits.
I can imagine players being introduced on this "lite" system and then wanting to try the big version, only to be stuck thinking "hang on, this is a completely different game." Which means you'll have not succeeded at all in your original goal of making RM more accessible. Don't get me wrong, there are some cool ideas in this thread, I just think that you shouldn't be trying to use absolutely all of them in one go.
But, good luck with it :)
You are right, but with all the topics about mechanics and such, it’s hard to stay focused :p
However, the point is not to change everything. There is an incredible number of mechanics that work marvelously well in Rolemaster. Skills, for one. Critical hits, the way combat puts enouch pressure on the players to make them THINK before getting in over their heads, and magic is awesome, even though I am not a great lover of spell lists (but I admit Fire & Ice did a marvelous job in this area, the spell mechanics in this book are really good) - actually I never met a French player that liked spell lists, but all my players love all the rest of RM magic.
In my opinion, the way actions are dealt with, the probabilities and game mechanics that revolve around them are more RM than professions and DP.
A. Disuading preconceptions: These are the "chartmaster" and other negative ideas that existing gamers have for
Oh my, what a pain it is.
I had the new players in the ludothèque play Rolemaster. They loved it.
Right after, I have a chat with the staff of the ludothèque and one of their friends, who also works in a ludothèque in a town next to Bordeaux (When I say next, I mean "on the other side of a boulevard").
Guy: So you have people play PnP rpgs here? That’s great!
Me: Yes. They actually loved it. I had them play a bunch of norse teenagers that come back to their village just to find it was plundered and burnt to the ground during the night.
Guy: So they had to inspect the place and ask around to piece what happened.
Me: Exactly. It worked beyond my expectations.
Guy: And what system did you use.
Me: Rolemaster, 4th edition, full version.
Guy: You did? But it’s too complicated!
Me: It’s not. The GM manages the rules, the players play their role, they don’t have to deal with them, so who cares if the rules are heavy?
Guy: Beginners can’t start with this game, they won’t hook on rpg with this.
Me: They did. Both.
Guy: No way!
Me: Ask them. They are here, look. Go ahead, I’m confident.
The guy never did ask. That’s the kind of reaction I get too often. Fun part, RMFRP wasn’t ever translated in French. The guy just does not know what he talks about.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding professions and my proposal, I’d be so happy if my proposal was just read and remembered whole.
If I want to put archetypes (call them professions if you want, words don’t matter but the ideas, mechanics and concept they translate do) in there, it’s for all those people who need or want rails. Those who don’t can do without them.
Here is an example of why I want to allow my players to switch to other ways:
"Personne" (French for nobody AND person) is a rogue in my campaign. His player chose a rogue for he wanted to play a man of the wilds, illiterate, unwilling to live among me but open minded and good hearted. Personne was agnostic, and did not really care about anything religious to be honest. He lived many adventures and, during one of those, discovered the folk of Earth, who prayed the All-Mother. The player took interest in her, and thus so did his character. After hanging with the folk, becoming friend and witnessing miracles, he decided to take up arms to champion her cause. And here comes the frustration.
The player asked me: is there any way to become a kind of priest of the wilds, or a shaman, or a witchdoctor? He really wanted this. And he can’t. There is no way this can be done, for all his dp costs should be changed, his profession bonuses too, and some skills would change their class (e, o, r). He’s locked. That’s what I call an hindrance.
If it was all about power leveling and min maxing, I’d refuse. But that’s a logical development of the character, who discovered a faith that resounded with his soul. He heard the call, and I can’t let him heed it because there is a hole the size of a meteor impact in the character development rules.
Now to answer Pastaav, about the fact that every player would just pick what they want here and there to do a character that can do everything, and the point about the access to magic.
First: that’s something that is monitored by the rules and by the setting. In DD3, you can easily multiclass but there are rules to prevent the mess.
Second: the access to magic should be regulated. Always. Let’s have a look about it.
Arcane: need a power source, or a mentor. In my setting, you also must have the necessary talent.
Channeling: you need to obey a god. Give commands. Let the players that overlook them feel the fury of their divine patron.
Essence: already covered in essence companion, but a talent would also be useful.
Mentalisme: same than essence.
Then, there is the way to acquire talents. Can you acquire it during the campaign, why? How?
It is obvious you can’t have everybody become a magician because they want to fry goblins with fireballs. That’s when the setting and things like the source of power and apprenticeship come in handy. That’s the job of the GM to decide what, how and when character devlopment occurs. An examble from RMSS/FRP: even if a fighter has the necessary DPs, he won’t be able to buy ranks in an arcane base spell list if I say he can’t.
-
And according to my experience. You only need to use light character sheets to have new players discover the game.
What a RM light game should do is making like easy for the GM. RM is already really easy for the players (declare action, roll dice if need be. End of the story.)
-
@ JimiSue - Our argument was not against character generation. It was in favour of having pre-gen characters for an introductry game. :)
I think there is aways room for improvements in RM and it's versions(past and present), some things may need ironing out but that's why I'm asking for opinions.
It dosen't matter what is done with a RM lite, your never going to please 100% of the people 100% of the time...that's life. And to be honest, it's just a game, and there are greater things in real life to get emotional about.
@ Randal - Totally agree with your last post. For me the best marketing statergy would not call it RM lite or even any mention of the word Rolemaster on the product cover. Just have the ICE logo with a catchy name. But anyway this isn't relevent.
-
@ Fenrhyl - this is why we play pen and paper RPGs rather than the computer ones. You can change things at a whim. Personally I would have let him change. From the simple mechanic of freezing his rogue professional bonuses, reassigning his skill costs and being an X level rogue/1st level shaman, to the more intensive process (more work for the GM) playing a level or two of transitional costs that move more slowly towards his new class. It sounds like it could have been a cool roleplaying opportunity and definitely some nice material to create adventures around.
And generally about the whole multiclass thing in D&D. Yes it's very easy to do - you just decide (subject to certain constraints) that you want to take a level in whatever class, and there you go. However, it is pretty rare to see a character who has done that to any great extent. It's the old argument of a specialist vs a generalist - and on the whole a level 10 single class character is likely going to be more dangerous than a level 10 multiclass who has gone for a 5/5 split. More often you see characters who have done things like taken 9 levels in rogue, but have a level in fighter to give them access to more weapons and shields; or a fighter with a level in wizard to give access to the arcane archer prestige class, and so on.
-
...You're not creating "Rolemaster Lite" here, you're creating "A whole new system based on replacing anything slightly clunky about RoleMaster". Which can also be seen as just cherry-picking the best bits.
I can imagine players being introduced on this "lite" system and then wanting to try the big version, only to be stuck thinking "hang on, this is a completely different game." Which means you'll have not succeeded at all in your original goal of making RM more accessible. Don't get me wrong, there are some cool ideas in this thread, I just think that you shouldn't be trying to use absolutely all of them in one go.
Yes, you right. Perhaps calling it RM lite is not the best term. Considering there is two different versions of RM, in which direction would you go?!? I'd say neither considering what you've said above. And I haven't even mentioned HARP in that mix.
Since RMX will not be republished it would be fair to say any lite/express/streamlined RM would have to be a RM Hybrid. But then you get another system which fractures the production focus. But like some have mention before some will not buy any new version which is fine. Any new version would have to solely market towards new folk. For me I'd like to create something that appeals to those that like there RPG experience gritty and low magic setting style. As I've said before, I'm not considering magic at this stage. Also to refresh, although I freelance for ICE/GPC this is for my own purpose and not related to ICE or GPC.
-
I'm not a big fan of pre-mades for novice players. If the players can create their own character they can identify with it far better.
I would never run a CAMPAIGN with pre-made characters and if you tried to 'quick-start' a campaign in my group they'd think you were crazy. But when introducing players to RM it's a good idea to run a MOCK combat... i.e. it doesn't count, it's just a test fight. You do this to demonstrate how different RM combat is from something like D&D and you don't hold back. You show them first hand why they should do things like parry and why they shouldn't take a 'mere troll' lightly.
-
Yes, you right. Perhaps calling it RM lite is not the best term. Considering there is two different versions of RM, in which direction would you go?!? I'd say neither considering what you've said above. And I haven't even mentioned HARP in that mix.
RM Lite is here a tag of convenience really. As this is for your own purposes and not for publication, you don't need to worry about the branding - even a generic thing like "Basic Fantasy Roleplaying System" will do. I've had the book for RMFRP for years, but only in the last couple of days have I got it out and started to look through it. There are some things in there that I really like - for example the way spells are done (the number of skill ranks you buy in a spell list = the level of spell you have access to from that list - this is so simple I might apply that to the SM Psion lists - my new player is struggling slightly with the list concept). However, on the flip side is the skill category bonus - I had to read that section three or four times because it's not really that clear in the book how to calculate it. I support the idea, but for me it's added on a whole other layer of complexity into what is already the crunch point of character creation, the skill calculation.
It's worth thinking about presentation though. It's been said before that RM is not really that rules heavy for players (or rather, doesn't need to be). I made some notes the other day on how I would approach the character creation process in Space Master, and I thought the best way would be to keep numbers out of it as much as possible. Give the players general descriptions of the professions and races, and what they are good at, but avoid giving absolute bonuses. Then go through the stat block, which again is fairly straightforward... but then you hit the skills, and it all goes a bit freeform. Which is why I have said above that races and professions aren't really an issue for me because the main bottleneck that takes a90% of the time in charcfter creation is deciding on skill sets and determining bonuses - so that is the main area I would look at simplifying. Yes attack resolution is a bit charty, but at the end of the day it's just roll + OB - DB, look up on table, roll for critical, do victory dance while foe tries to cheer you on through a crushed windpipe.
It's worth I think looking at options within the game to see if there is already a simple solution. For example, static/moving maneuver resolution. Yes, there are nice tables and charts, but there's nothing wrong with a 'break 100' mechanism to determine success.
-
I would never run a CAMPAIGN with pre-made characters and if you tried to 'quick-start' a campaign in my group they'd think you were crazy. But when introducing players to RM it's a good idea to run a MOCK combat... i.e. it doesn't count, it's just a test fight. You do this to demonstrate how different RM combat is from something like D&D and you don't hold back. You show them first hand why they should do things like parry and why they shouldn't take a 'mere troll' lightly.
I’d say there is also far more in RM than combat. RM goes where many rpg never tread. And that’s something newcomers should be aware of.
-
Regarding professions and my proposal, I’d be so happy if my proposal was just read and remembered whole.
If I want to put archetypes (call them professions if you want, words don’t matter but the ideas, mechanics and concept they translate do) in there, it’s for all those people who need or want rails. Those who don’t can do without them.
Yet if they don't want rails at all I totally fail to see why they are not better off playing for instance Gurps? If they want rails to a degree but not strict like RM then Harp sound like a perfect match...
"Personne" (French for nobody AND person) is a rogue in my campaign. His player chose a rogue for he wanted to play a man of the wilds, illiterate, unwilling to live among me but open minded and good hearted. Personne was agnostic, and did not really care about anything religious to be honest. He lived many adventures and, during one of those, discovered the folk of Earth, who prayed the All-Mother. The player took interest in her, and thus so did his character. After hanging with the folk, becoming friend and witnessing miracles, he decided to take up arms to champion her cause. And here comes the frustration.
The player asked me: is there any way to become a kind of priest of the wilds, or a shaman, or a witchdoctor? He really wanted this. And he can’t. There is no way this can be done, for all his dp costs should be changed, his profession bonuses too, and some skills would change their class (e, o, r). He’s locked. That’s what I call an hindrance.
I think you missing a important distinction there. The players asked if there is a way and you game him the incorrect answer that there is no way. I say that it is bullshit, you can always as GM send him on a epic quest that include him finding the legendary components that allow the character to get the miracle of a new start. This is always possible in a narrative gaming style since it is a good narrative and the gaming system is secondary to the story.
If you are playing a game style that lean more towards Simulationism or Gamism then the issue of fair pricing becomes a much greater obstacle. In RM today there is no mechanism to support balanced changing of professions. There has been no absence of tries to come up with such mechanics...how many attempts has we seen during the years? All of them has been very failed since the concepts of strong archtypes like RM does them and diminishing returns mean that there will always be point when the pure arms fighter has mastered the combat field enough so that any DP cost is acceptable if it opens the realm of magic. Reducing it to a "the setting need to box the fighter so he can't take the logical step to become a spell caster" is possible, but there is little gain compared to saying "changing professions is house rules/gaming group issues" and be done with it.
Actually it is wrong to say that all attempts at coming up with a mechanics for switching profession where total failure...some of them is the background that lead to HARP. In Harp you have professions, but by fact that these are weak archtypes with little cost difference between them and the addition of professional abilities it is possible to have profession change. The gain of changing profession is there, but it is reasonably easy to price the switch since the professionsal abilities are there to balance the mix.
Personally I totally fail to see the point with trying to come up with a RM Lite product that cuts into the same room as Harp. I am die hard RM fan for fantasy games, but if I ever get around playing my sci fi game then I will use the excellent Harp SF that IMHO feels like RM enough to satisfy me. What I am going for is that Rolemaster Lite and Harp seems to have pretty much the same design goals. What is missing is not another Lite product so much as a RM on steroids. A way of using the RM rules that gives the players building blocks that make sense at the first reading. The skill list is too long...but the answer is not just to prune the skill list until it is just long, but instead give the GM and gaming group the means to make a educated choice if they should include a certain block of skills that is suiting for a certain gaming style or if they are better off skipping those skills.
-
FW: I agree that the lack of lateral motion is a drawback of the RM system. It flies in the face of the cool fantasy trope of discovering a new aspect to yourself; like the young peasant warrior actually turning out to be a great mage. But, like Jimisue said, you can always to that yourself. I really think you should give HARP a try, they have the mechanic for switching professions built right in, and even if you don't the costs of learning something outside of your favored spheres aren't all that bad - at least not as bad as in RMFRP/SS, where it can go from 1/5 to 9, or 2/7 to 20 DP per rank.
-
Harp? Good game indeed, but no match for RM. Good ideas for a RM revisions therein, though.
Now, I can tinker something for my player. But I need to assess if it will make him over or under powered or not. But that’s not the point.
The point is that people don’t buy games for what-they-can-add-to-it-but-isn’t-in-the-book, but for what they have to offer. RM does not allow flexibility because of a closed profession system. That’s a hard fact. And with lots of games out there that allow it, it’s what I call a flaw.
Look at Oblivion and Skyrim. Oblivion was flawed, clumsy and had giant loopholes in its rules. On top of this, autoscaling ruined the game. And there was people that kept saying "It’s a good game once it’s moded." \o/ I spent 50 € for a game I have to make good myself. Boy, was I disappointed.
Bethesda listened to the critics, changed the gameplay and here is Skyrim, which is a far, far better game. It’s still Elder scrolls. What makes the game an elder scrolls game is there. It was changed for the better.
---------------------------------------------------
And let’s take the logic to the next step. If a GM can add whatever he likes to his game, why would he buy anything else than old D&D? Because most GM don’t bother with rule engineering.
-
Yet if they don't want rails at all I totally fail to see why they are not better off playing for instance Gurps? If they want rails to a degree but not strict like RM then Harp sound like a perfect match...
I've seen a variation on this same question several times, and I feel like it's time to answer it.
If you don't want set archetypal "classes" or "professions", why not play GURPS? Because so far as I can tell, in GURPS all skills are equally difficult (and equally simple) to learn.
The reason I'm currently modifying HARP for my purposes is to have a system where anyone can learn anything, and it's possible to have a "profession" that doesn't quite fit any of the combinations of favored/non-favored skill categories that HARP provides as archetypes... and yet nonetheless, the basics of how you learn and how you process information does affect what skills are easy and what skills are difficult.
What I'm going for could be called "professionless" HARP, but would be more accurately called "DIY professions". Come up with a system that allows creation of any of the traditional archetypes, or archetypes that don't even exist in the game system as given, in line with the power balance between professions that is already inherent in the RAW. Given that, I wouldn't allow "changing professions" at all, because your "profession" doesn't define your job, it defines how you think and how you learn, which really doesn't change much.
Of course, for every rule there is an exception. Even when "profession" defines how you think and how you learn, I could see a situation where I could allow a player to redefine how his character processes information and acquires skills... for example, after a major brain injury.
-
Yet if they don't want rails at all I totally fail to see why they are not better off playing for instance Gurps? If they want rails to a degree but not strict like RM then Harp sound like a perfect match...
If you don't want set archetypal "classes" or "professions", why not play GURPS? Because so far as I can tell, in GURPS all skills are equally difficult (and equally simple) to learn.
My understanding is that GURPS have the cost categories Easy, Average, Hard, and Very Hard. The cost of advancing a skill depend on what cost category it belongs too. Not that I any way recommend that anyone here should switch to GURPS...my question is merely mean as thought exercise. I believe that RM and HARP give much better play experiences than GURPS.
-
Well the reason I said "so far as I can tell" is because I haven't played GURPS enough to be certain either. But even if there are cost categories, unless there are ways by which, for example, combat related skills can be Easy for some and not so easy for others, the problem remains the same.
-
Harp? Good game indeed, but no match for RM. Good ideas for a RM revisions therein, though.
Actually I am not sure I agree that it is good source of RM revision or that the game is no match for RM. I see Harp as a variation on RM, but with a very different kind of flavor. How spells work and how professions work in the games has a big gaming impact.
Now, I can tinker something for my player. But I need to assess if it will make him over or under powered or not. But that’s not the point.
In what scenario could the character possibly end as under powered??? I fail to follow at all.
The point is that people don’t buy games for what-they-can-add-to-it-but-isn’t-in-the-book, but for what they have to offer. RM does not allow flexibility because of a closed profession system. That’s a hard fact. And with lots of games out there that allow it, it’s what I call a flaw.
I would argue that it also is a fact that RM gives superior possibility to match opponents of different levels. Something I think very much comes from not allowing flexibility in a number of places.
I must admit that my experience in the field of games with few rails are limited, but my experiences from these games are not very positive. They all have sweet spots when they work pretty well, but compared to RM it is a very limited sweet spot area of gaming. High level differences mean the high level character gets too much possibility to game the system and get a massive advantage over the low level character.
Practical game design always include trade offs. You can't cover all bases, but must find a mix of rules that work reasonably well together.
And let’s take the logic to the next step. If a GM can add whatever he likes to his game, why would he buy anything else than old D&D? Because most GM don’t bother with rule engineering.
That seems like an argument for the change of presentation that I think is the way forward....
...also the argument "I already have my game with perfect houserules, why should I buy something new I can just add what I think is missing" is very much the mentality that caused the edition wars for RM...
-
I never had much of a problem playing RM "No profession". . .one of the nice things about RM is it's modular structure and versatility. If I want to rip all the archetype push of the professions out of play, I just declare the "No profession" the only allowable profession, and we've had some really cool games playing that way. It literally takes just one sentence spoken by the GM to make that massive and global change in the way the game works.
It certainly changes the paradigm to "What do you spend your DP on" creating your archetype. . .on the flip side, NP characters tend to kinda suck if thrown into a mixed environment with other professions. . .you can't "out mage" a magician with a NP, or "out fighter" a fighter. The heavy archetype professions definitely allow you to push harder out to an extreme than the enforced middle ground of the NP.
I've played RM under variant house rules where the game was widely different on totally different sides of many spectrums of measuring game style. I don't think anyone in this discussion could be described as being wrong, in that whatever is fun for you, is fun for you. . .but what's fun for you may not be what's fun for that guy, or me. . .which I suspect often is the root of the heat in the arguments that arise on a lot of these threads.
If you "trim down" RM so it perfectly fits your style of play, then likely a lot of people will consider the result to be really really crappy. That's not because your style is crappy, or because their style is crappy, but because straight-jacketing the system and lashing it down to only fulfill the narrower scope of what works at your table makes it no longer fit a lot of other tables.
If the entire concept of a "lite" product is to be an introductory version of the game, should it be trimmed down to the broadest common denominator, or trimmed down to an exact fit for one, and only one style of play? It might be worth considering if there's a difference between the concepts of "The smallest possible RM that works perfectly for me" and "The smallest possible RM that works for the most possible people". . .likely if you're advocating the narrow version, a lot of people have metaphorical rocks to throw at you.
You might want to consider if forcing people to play the way you play is the best idea, or just seems like a great idea because it fits your style of play so well it must be a good idea?
-
The target audience is going to play a big role. I suspect the current targets would be D&Der's and WoWer's. So, the "Lite" version probably needs to find a way to bend RM towards their comfort zone as much as possible without losing what is RM.
-
I dosen't really matter what system is used there has to be a setting that will grab them. What setting...who knows?? An already existing IP would be ideal but that is a problem all on it's own.
-
I don't think anyone in this discussion could be described as being wrong, in that whatever is fun for you, is fun for you. . .but what's fun for you may not be what's fun for that guy, or me. . .which I suspect often is the root of the heat in the arguments that arise on a lot of these threads.
I, too, think that this is likely the biggest stumbling block in these discussions. It would serve the system better if we stopped discussing our own personal "perfect" system, and tried to work out the system that will best fit the most number of people, and still be versitile enough to house-rule into our "perfect" system.
If the entire concept of a "lite" product is to be an introductory version of the game, should it be trimmed down to the broadest common denominator, or trimmed down to an exact fit for one, and only one style of play?
I think the broadest common denominator is the best way to go here.
Your skill is the relevant stat + number of levels purchased. The stat can have more impact than RM stats. But there are fewer stats, so that doesn't provide as much of a distinction as it sounds. GURPS does have a nice "default" system. If you want to use a skill related to a skill you have, you treat it as the first skill minus a modifier for how similar it is. E.g. if you have broadsword at 16, you're treated as if you have shortsword at broadsword -2, or 14. The interesting part is that if you want to learn shortsword, you start at 14 instead of from the base. So to some extent, it's easier to learn skills related to what you know. Similar to RMSS's category system in that regard, but more flexible. To some extent that creates something like professions where the system encourages you to get clusters of related skills. It's a good system for modern and realistic SF in my opinion.
Agreed. I have played GURPS (4E) several times and it can be a fun game, and definitely a good fit for modern and sci-fi campaigns. (Emphasised word: No can about it. Your stat is absolutely paramount. Example: I had a guy that was really good with energy weapons, largely because he had a good Dexterity (DX), but truly because I had a high IQ which added +2 to my base skill. In a 3d6 bell-curve system, +2 is very good. combined with tech mods I had a base Energy Pistol skill of 18- at character gen. Meaning I had to roll under an 18 (not including range and other situational modifiers) to hit by target.
It seems to me, that RM did the easy to difficult stype skills as well, only they added in the "archetype" ideology to the mix. In their effort to get extremely real for this aspect of the game, they got rid of the cool fantasy feel. IMO. Of course, if you want a gritty fantasy (like running Harn - though the magic system would have to be seriously neutered, in this case) it is perfect for you. But if you want - I will dare to challenge you, that most gamers want this - a more heroic fantasy, you have to do some serious tweeking or make the PCs some powerful, awesome and capable individuals in order to get that feel.
Class changes in RM are problematic because you can easily abuse them.
Eeeeerrrrr.....shreeeeeccchh, CRASH! Nope. I don't buy this, not one bit, and never had. This argument that just because it is a rule book makes it sacrosanct is in correct. It is impossible to abuse a game. IMPOSSIBLE. If the GM allows it, it isn't abusive, it is allowed. If the GM doesn't, then no amount of grabbing up a rule book and pointing to a page and saying, "blah-blah-blah-rule-blah-page-blah-blah" is going to change the fact. The GM, by virtue of spending hours and hours working on the game, has overall control of such matters, and if he says not only can you be 2 professions, but you can take the best cost of those 2 professions and add the professional bonuses, etc... it is OK and not abuse. The fact that anyone at the table (if you have a table to play on, I currently don't) can geet up an leave, means there is no abuse going on.
I have a friend, and he is phenomenal at finding all the little things of a game to break it, and make the uber character (or the totally un-uber character). Now if he does that, and I let him, then all is OK in game land.
-
I dosen't really matter what system is used there has to be a setting that will grab them. What setting...who knows?? An already existing IP would be ideal but that is a problem all on it's own.
Exactly.
I’d go for something with a strong identity to which players would easily connect. You don’t necessarily need elves, dwarves and so on, but to appeal to the mass.
RM would do marvels with knights and damsels. I know my campaign, that revolves around this kind of stuff, does marvel.
@RandalThor
It was perfectly legit in Warhammer V1 to play a Giant slayer with more endurance than a Demon or Dragon.
Once again, books are bought for their content, not for how you can twist or ignore it.
-
My idea for an easier game:
1) Fixed DP
2) set skill gains with limited DP expenditures
3) no auto skill gains (ie level bonuses to skills +2/Level to skill)
Why
1) Do not have to figure math for stats to DP's
2) reduce time on PC creation if you get a block of skills and then a small amount to customize your PC.
3) just go with stat or stats and skill rank = bonus. IMHO it reduces the math and cuts out a step the can be added back in during an advanced game.
The above keeps combat, RMSS style spell acquisition, and game resolution in full. It cuts down on PC gen time and math but it does have the limitations in that the skill packages have to be designed before hand, there needs to be a number of packages to represent a number of options for each profession and it is different from RM now.
MDC
-
My idea for an easier game:
1) Fixed DP
2) set skill gains with limited DP expenditures
3) no auto skill gains (ie level bonuses to skills +2/Level to skill)
Why
1) Do not have to figure math for stats to DP's
2) reduce time on PC creation if you get a block of skills and then a small amount to customize your PC.
3) just go with stat or stats and skill rank = bonus. IMHO it reduces the math and cuts out a step the can be added back in during an advanced game.
The above keeps combat, RMSS style spell acquisition, and game resolution in full. It cuts down on PC gen time and math but it does have the limitations in that the skill packages have to be designed before hand, there needs to be a number of packages to represent a number of options for each profession and it is different from RM now.
Interesting choices. Number two I think would be a boon to the regular game also.
I think RM lite if it should exist need a setting that don't require so much explanation. Shadow World is some senses brilliant, but it is also a setting that has zero weight outside the SW cycles and there are simply a massive number of ways that a skeptic customer can decide "sounds mostly good, but all this talk is turning boring I do something else".
One alternative is trying to tap into some well known setting that has great brand recognition, like Game of Thrones. Problem is that if it is popular then ICE is too small fish to catch it, and if it is not popular then there is not much point really. Predicting if a setting will become a hit is difficult at best.
The second alternative is to base the game on some IP that is well recognized and are in the public domain. Robin Hood, The knights of the Round table, Norse Mythology, Greece Mythology or One Thousand and One Nights all probably has enough recognition but there are of course more to choose from if you really think about it. There is of course a gap between these classic IPs and RM, but perhaps this is not such a big deal. Alternate fiction that the real world and insert fantasy elements is pretty big these days and if you are open with that ICE is not aiming to recreate somebody else version of the tales but are building some unique fantasy style then I think there is possibility for a happy marriage.
The hard part would of course be to decide how to pack the setting in a way that it can be sold also to us old-timers that already has our own settings. Without the current customers backing it there is little possibility of making it work financially. Not sure if it is possible...perhaps with some kind patron approach when people pledge to buy it and get input in what material that are produced....
-
The second alternative is to base the game on some IP that is well recognized and are in the public domain. Robin Hood, The knights of the Round table, Norse Mythology, Greece Mythology or One Thousand and One Nights all probably has enough recognition but there are of course more to choose from if you really think about it. There is of course a gap between these classic IPs and RM, but perhaps this is not such a big deal. Alternate fiction that the real world and insert fantasy elements is pretty big these days and if you are open with that ICE is not aiming to recreate somebody else version of the tales but are building some unique fantasy style then I think there is possibility for a happy marriage.
I think this was tried with the Campaign Classics line. Not sure how they sold, though. Some were really good (I like the Norse one especially, but the Pirate one and Outlaw were both also pretty good).
-
My idea for an easier game:
1) Fixed DP
2) set skill gains with limited DP expenditures
3) no auto skill gains (ie level bonuses to skills +2/Level to skill)
Why
1) Do not have to figure math for stats to DP's
2) reduce time on PC creation if you get a block of skills and then a small amount to customize your PC.
3) just go with stat or stats and skill rank = bonus. IMHO it reduces the math and cuts out a step the can be added back in during an advanced game.
The above keeps combat, RMSS style spell acquisition, and game resolution in full. It cuts down on PC gen time and math but it does have the limitations in that the skill packages have to be designed before hand, there needs to be a number of packages to represent a number of options for each profession and it is different from RM now.
MDC
This is pretty much what I already have on paper atm.
Regarding skill development, I have chosen three levels of skill purchase. Common skills cost 2/3, Uncommon cost 3/5 and Rare sklls cost 5/8. This way I can cusomize it to any game world I chose and also a way to throttle back for a poor/low magic scene. It also allows for easy traning pakages too.
So far, what I have takes little time to make up a characters primary attributes. A little math is involved but nothing out of the ordinary from my POV. I have yet to playtest this with others which I hope to do soon...I want to see if my system/alterations are easily followed.
-
I think RM lite if it should exist need a setting that don't require so much explanation. Shadow World is some senses brilliant, but it is also a setting that has zero weight outside the SW cycles and there are simply a massive number of ways that a skeptic customer can decide "sounds mostly good, but all this talk is turning boring I do something else".
Agreed, and very probmatic for expanding sales.
One alternative is trying to tap into some well known setting that has great brand recognition, like Game of Thrones. Problem is that if it is popular then ICE is too small fish to catch it, and if it is not popular then there is not much point really. Predicting if a setting will become a hit is difficult at best.
There are always old movie favourites that are in the future pipeline coming in. But it's like a "who you know", than "what you know", these days that will get a foot in the door. But the major advantage of having an IP license is it also draws in the non-gamers, collectors and zelot fans to sales. IF an appropriate IP was obtained then one could use that as a spin off marketing tool for other products.
-
With a very few exceptions, all of my most memorable gaming experiences have taken place in home brew settings.
-
My idea for an easier game:
1) Fixed DP
2) set skill gains with limited DP expenditures
3) no auto skill gains (ie level bonuses to skills +2/Level to skill)
Why
1) Do not have to figure math for stats to DP's
2) reduce time on PC creation if you get a block of skills and then a small amount to customize your PC.
3) just go with stat or stats and skill rank = bonus. IMHO it reduces the math and cuts out a step the can be added back in during an advanced game.
The above keeps combat, RMSS style spell acquisition, and game resolution in full. It cuts down on PC gen time and math but it does have the limitations in that the skill packages have to be designed before hand, there needs to be a number of packages to represent a number of options for each profession and it is different from RM now.
MDC
This is pretty much what I already have on paper atm.
Regarding skill development, I have chosen three levels of skill purchase. Common skills cost 2/3, Uncommon cost 3/5 and Rare sklls cost 5/8. This way I can cusomize it to any game world I chose and also a way to throttle back for a poor/low magic scene. It also allows for easy traning pakages too.
So far, what I have takes little time to make up a characters primary attributes. A little math is involved but nothing out of the ordinary from my POV. I have yet to playtest this with others which I hope to do soon...I want to see if my system/alterations are easily followed.
I hope your play test goes well and be sure to let tPtB know how it goes as it might be something they want to pursue.
MDC
-
With a very few exceptions, all of my most memorable gaming experiences have taken place in home brew settings.
That's where ICE/GPC could hit it lucky. If there was authors that could write such settings than you have a foundation to attach a system too. So far there is only two...Shadow World and Cyradon, not much for the fractured audience out there.
-
I hope your play test goes well and be sure to let tPtB know how it goes as it might be something they want to pursue.
MDC
That's something I haven't ruled out ;)
-
That's where ICE/GPC could hit it lucky. If there was authors that could write such settings than you have a foundation to attach a system too. So far there is only two...Shadow World and Cyradon, not much for the fractured audience out there.
I dunno, most GMs I know mine official setting materials, or apply adventure instances to their game worlds but modify some details to fit in, but they don't use an official world at all. . .in other words I'm not sure how much it matters if ICE sells licensed "Conan" or "Game of Thrones" material vs a house world like "Shadow World" or "Cyradon", most GMs I know are playing in "Joe's world" anyway.
I do know a few people who buy gaming materials simply to follow a gameworld, but I don't think hordes of people were so loyal to the Conan brand that they left GURPS to go play the Mongoose game, I think that people tend to be more loyal to the game system than to the game world. A lot of the gameworld brand loyalists seem to be more about collecting perfect collections of the materials than actually using them.
Licencing deals like that may draw in attention or new blood, but it's rare for one to totally make or save a game company in what I've ever seen. It's the game that tends to make or break the game, not the fact the official setting is "Conan".
-
You make a pretty good argument there Marc, so it's back to selling the system with hardcore in your face criticals ;D And to do this you need a convention friendly intro pack with bells, whistles and dice! well maybe not the bells and whistles :D
-
Anyway, back to some of my thoughts. I've been thinking of useing DP's as instead of XP. A set number is decided and they are handed out during game play that can only be spent after a scenario. I already have an idea on how to determine total DP handout per level.
Also, a round is a given amount of time 10secs? or 2secs? what is best? Well I thought why not both, have an active round(2 secs) and a passive round(10secs), does that makes sense?
This is starting to be a hybrid system I guess, so I should forget it being a lite intro to RM.
-
I've been using DP as XP for a while, you level up at every increment of DP. (i.e. if it's 40 DP/level, you go up levels at 40/80/120/etc) and you are one level ahead of where common sense would put you. i.e. if 3rd level, including 0 level, is 4 levels, you might think it's 160-199 DP, but actually it's 120-159, since in the current system you spend all those DP the moment you hit a level, so "3rd level done" is the 160 point, not "third level starting" at the 160 point.
Level is needed just to resolve costs so if you're paying X/Y for a skill, if you purchase 1 rank at X, you have to wait to level up to purchase another rank at X, if you purchase another rank without waiting for level up, you pay Y.
It's a bit more bookeeping intensive, since you essentially have to do a mini level up after each session, and some players seem to prefer just spending it all in one chunk rather than having to fiddle around with spending (or choosing to save for something big) 5 or less DP at a time, so it's not 100% upside.
-
Also, a round is a given amount of time 10secs? or 2secs? what is best? Well I thought why not both, have an active round(2 secs) and a passive round(10secs), does that makes sense?
A round is currently setup (and therefore balanced) to be 10 seconds. You can change that obviously if you want (I've heard of people using a six second round), just keep in mind it will alter the balance of some things, spell durations being the most obvious one.
-
Marc, I'm totally %100 with you on that. I find this method simple and more realistic.
Cory, I see where your coming from and will have to think about it more in regard for spell casting/duration etc. At the moment I'm concentrating on non-spell casting characters. I do have notes on an alternate spell system but that can wait for now.
I'm going to hunt through the archives during the RM revision discussion and see what interesting notes I can find. I think I left the forums around that time so I missed alot.
Thanks for your imput guys, does mean alot.
-
Class changes in RM are problematic because you can easily abuse them.
Eeeeerrrrr.....shreeeeeccchh, CRASH! Nope. I don't buy this, not one bit, and never had. This argument that just because it is a rule book makes it sacrosanct is in correct. It is impossible to abuse a game. IMPOSSIBLE. If the GM allows it, it isn't abusive, it is allowed. If the GM doesn't, then no amount of grabbing up a rule book and pointing to a page and saying, "blah-blah-blah-rule-blah-page-blah-blah" is going to change the fact. The GM, by virtue of spending hours and hours working on the game, has overall control of such matters, and if he says not only can you be 2 professions, but you can take the best cost of those 2 professions and add the professional bonuses, etc... it is OK and not abuse. The fact that anyone at the table (if you have a table to play on, I currently don't) can geet up an leave, means there is no abuse going on.
I have a friend, and he is phenomenal at finding all the little things of a game to break it, and make the uber character (or the totally un-uber character). Now if he does that, and I let him, then all is OK in game land.
This mostly works, if the GM is skilled and understands the game at least as well as the player. If the player understands how the system works better than the GM, the GM can be taken advantage of.
The principle concern, though, is not the power level per se or surprising the GM with your mightiness. The principle concern is if one character obtains advantages that let them hog the story. If they are too much better at too many things, leaving other characters too little to do. Again, this is a concern that a skilled GM can handle. And if you feel up to it and want to introduce unbalancing house rules, sure. But a system needs to be written to help a less experienced GM.
-
@ Marc, do you use the option of fixed DP per level for players characters?
I was thinking of the stat DP bonus per level for players wanting to customize a PC of their own(perhaps after a sample game or two). I would use the fixed DP per level creating NPC's, less hassle IMO. For players own PC I'd just see if they would spend the 20DP on stat gain, then calculate that for a guide to how much DP they get up to the next level of course they can't purchase anymore for stats. I hate typing my ideas out, easy to get people confused.
-
I think DP as XP tends to need fixed DP, as otherwise you get caught between a rock and a hard place.
The rock is if you reward play with an even hand i.e. "Your play today was worth 5 DP" then it's actually to the player's advantage to dump all DP generating stats. If my stats give me 30 DP/level and your stats give you 45 per level, then I'm going to cycle my levels 33% faster than you are. If we both reach 450 DP at the same time, I'll be 14th level while you're 9th. It creates a perverse benefit where the worse your stats are the faster you progress.
The hard place is trying to avoid that rock you find yourself as GM having to bias reward, like using the same stat examples as above, we both do equally well in the same session, the GM gives you 6 DP, and me 4 DP. . .which creates a hassle for the GM to remember to bias rewards and by how much, and can create resentment and strife among the players.
-
Cory, I see where your coming from and will have to think about it more in regard for spell casting/duration etc. At the moment I'm concentrating on non-spell casting characters. I do have notes on an alternate spell system but that can wait for now.
It's a little messy too... you can't just assume spell power will become more or less powerful across the board. Overall it's not a HUGE problem... but once in a while you'll find a situation where it can be.
For example, if you make rounds shorter in timed length (say, six seconds instead of ten) most spells that have a true "timed" duration (i.e. 1min/lvl) will become more powerful when using a shorter round. A 1min/level spell cast by a 5th level caster will last 50 rounds in a six second round campaign, while they would only last 30 rounds in a ten second campaign. However, will a combat ever last long enough for this to become an issue? Also, will the characters have multiple combats in quick succession so that this spell might actually last long enough to impact near future combats?
Now think about spells that have a number of "rounds" for duration... or instant spells... and how semi's might use spells that impact their combat effectiveness... etc.
-
A good demonstration of Cory's point can be found in comparing RM to HARP in terms of buff spells. A duration of 1 round/level for a 10th level caster in RM is going to last 1 minute 40 sec, while in HARP it lasts 20 sec. . .either is of equal utility in combat lasting 10 rounds, but the RM spell is far easier to cast off in safety, then walk into the fight, than the HARP spell, making it a lot easier to do something like "OK, out here in the woods the cleric casts a blessing on us, then we come out of the woods and attack the goblins." . . .in HARP 50% or more of the spell will have worn off before combat starts, while in RM 10-20% will have worn off.
-
Marc, I see your pionts with fixed DP...you make sense if I followed you right. Is there any preference to the amount of DP per level? I had 100 DP for first level and 50 DP for each level afterwards, should I stick with that or go less? I guess the less the number the quicker the level up but having a flat DP handout to all players it wouldn't really matter. This concept is new for me.
I had thought about the implications of combat with a 2 second round. It makes it even more deadlier with the bleeds per round on the crit tables...ouch!
I've thought about having a 3 second round. With this you could impliment the snap/normal/deliberate mechanic if desired. But still makes combat bleeds really deadly.
The thing I have always found ridiculous is the duration/level mechanic in RM and in HARP. I hate power/potency link to actual level/ranks, it should be link to PP expenditure.
I have to clarify in my earlier post, I don't have a spell system... rather a spell creation system. And much simpler than found in CoM. I dug it out of storage last night to go over it again. It could be used with any system that uses a Power Point mechanic and it is also scaleable. All I need to do is write up some more spells and playtest them.
-
Actually I've just found an archived thread with you guys discussing rounds...interesting read.
-
Marc, I see your pionts with fixed DP...you make sense if I followed you right. Is there any preference to the amount of DP per level? I had 100 DP for first level and 50 DP for each level afterwards, should I stick with that or go less? I guess the less the number the quicker the level up but having a flat DP handout to all players it wouldn't really matter. This concept is new for me.
I use fixed DP. 80 DP per level for normal characters, 100 DP for heroes and 120 DP for gods. These numbers are large because we play RMSS where the average is about 90 DP per level once you've reached your potentials (around level 5 or 6).
The thing I have always found ridiculous is the duration/level mechanic in RM and in HARP. I hate power/potency link to actual level/ranks, it should be link to PP expenditure.
I have to clarify in my earlier post, I don't have a spell system... rather a spell creation system. And much simpler than found in CoM. I dug it out of storage last night to go over it again. It could be used with any system that uses a Power Point mechanic and it is also scaleable. All I need to do is write up some more spells and playtest them.
I, too, dislike duration (et al.) per level. But, I do like basing it off of ranks. I.e., if you have 20 ranks in a spell list, you are level 20 for purposes of duration, etc. I tried basing it on PP, but that caused such rapid PP drain, that mages were always wanting to rest to regain PP.
-
It depends on how many skills you have in play to make a well rounded character, Old school RM2 with a short skill list I'd do 40/level, RM2 with the Companion 2 skill set, or RMSS/FRP I'd go with 50/level.
If you use a 0 level, then it's 40/50 across the board, if you don't then 1st level is 80/100.
While bleed and spell durations become worse in shorter rounds (even if the duration is 1/pp spent a 10 round spell still wears off faster in 2 sec rounds than 10 sec rounds), stun becomes more mild. . .like if you fall off a wall in a fight, take 10 hits and are stunned for 5 rounds, the odds that the guy fighting you can circle down the staircase, out the gate and attack you while you're still stunned are far less if that stun wears off in 10 sec rather than 50.
-
Lots of similarities with our system here. Here's my opinion..
1) We use 100DP/lvl. Level when the story needs it. Stop tracking xp. Tracking XP should go under Optional Rules. I frquently ask for Lore skills and remind the players if they don't have "life skills". If you put everything into adventuring skills, it's going to come back to bite you. One Rank in Riding is not enough.
2) Casting lvl is based on Ranks in each specific List. No overcasting.
But now, everyone can cast their spells, most of the time. I don't use auto-casting.
3) Duration/lvl, etc al is based on PP expenditure; but the first increment comes with the casting. I played with limits based on Ranks in List and heard of limits based on Ranks in PP. Both interesting. Right now we have no limit. If you want to pour all your PP into one spell for longer duration, etc al, go right ahead. The players wanted this version. Hope you don't want to cast any more spells that day.
(Have toyed with the idea of using emergency PP as Con drain. Not officially implemented. This could be how some undead are created.)
This is all related to RM lite because it's obvious where you get the numbers. Level of character isn't important in a skill based game system. RM Lite doesn't require that complication.
4) We use 6 sec rounds. Everything just seemed to fit better. 10 sec was too much IMHO. 6 sec works for us.
-
I dislike using DPs instead of XPs, but that's just me I suspect. I've been in games where the DP-type stuff was abused.
-
I here what you're saying, but would like some examples.
For my RMFRP campaigns, you can only increase so many Spell Lists before the expense becomes prohibitive.
I don't allow characters to pick up new skills at their leisure; new skills require an instructor or it could be at a higher cost.
Skills like Adrenal Deflection are unlikely to be learned at all. You must have this as a character concept and work it into the background at the start.
The constant reminder of "you really need to increase basic skills to survive in this world" helps to spread out the DP. Otherwise, you must hire people to take care care of horses, mend socks, cook a decent meal.. etc. These services are inexpensive for the average adventurer, but they add up quick. If you want to save cash, learn the skill.
-
The constant reminder of "you really need to increase basic skills to survive in this world" helps to spread out the DP. Otherwise, you must hire people to take care care of horses, mend socks, cook a decent meal.. etc. These services are inexpensive for the average adventurer, but they add up quick. If you want to save cash, learn the skill.
I like to encourage this by calling for rolls on skills that I know hardly any of the characters have. They want to trade for a better resale value on some loot? Fine, that's a roleplaying possibility, but it's going to be modified by your Trading skill... you don't have it? Well, the merchant is smiling *very* broadly as you agree what was clearly a fair price... Or they want to go to the library to research some newsreel archives (this being spacemaster)... Computer Use... Well, you manage to find a really funny video involving a talking dog and a cat wearing pyjamas... and so on. Players soon learn - they're not as dim as they look you know :)
-
Quite. I also used cultural background skills to point them toward skills that people from their background would find useful. Odd how they often started adding to those skills during the course of play.
-
On the flip side, I was playing in a game where the PCs were basically the best of what the village had to offer, and we all really clicked with the setting so much that yes, now and then we would go on an adventure to get some more loot, but we pushed that loot back into the local economy, funding a defensive wall for the village, paying for a school building and a teacher for the kids, starting a stud farm to provide employment for the adults... we really got into social improvement. Because we had engaged so much with the setting we started to spend lots of DP on acquiring skills to support that, such as stoneworking, administration, accountancy, and of course the animal skills necessary to breed those horses. It was actually a lot of fun.
-
True, if you approach adventuring as a sideline to a settled life, rather than roving mercenary work, it definitely changes the character's goals and mindset.
-
I, too, dislike duration (et al.) per level. But, I do like basing it off of ranks. I.e., if you have 20 ranks in a spell list, you are level 20 for purposes of duration, etc. I tried basing it on PP, but that caused such rapid PP drain, that mages were always wanting to rest to regain PP.
In my perception that is the trade off for doing supernatural wonders. I'm a strong advocate that magic always should have a conceqence or a cost i.e. you raise one that has died, so a life must be taken in exchange...or you take the essence from the environment to power your spells, then the vegetation withers and dies around you.
There's some good things posted that I want to absorb before I comment.
-
I really like doing leveling this way...
I decide when you level.
You all get 100 DP to level with.
Simple and I control the pace of the campaign in regards to progression.
-
It depends on how many skills you have in play to make a well rounded character, Old school RM2 with a short skill list I'd do 40/level, RM2 with the Companion 2 skill set, or RMSS/FRP I'd go with 50/level.
If you use a 0 level, then it's 40/50 across the board, if you don't then 1st level is 80/100.
Never thought of it that way...excellent idea, thanks! Since I'm going the way of non-profession, I've eliminated the primary and secondary skills mechanic and have them pick to what may suite thier initial background. I think there will be about 40/50 skills overall at the most, I'm going to compact skills like jump, climb, athletics, diving etc. under one skill called "parkour" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkour). And have other skills with a broader scope with a well rounded description of what can be done.
While bleed and spell durations become worse in shorter rounds (even if the duration is 1/pp spent a 10 round spell still wears off faster in 2 sec rounds than 10 sec rounds), stun becomes more mild. . .like if you fall off a wall in a fight, take 10 hits and are stunned for 5 rounds, the odds that the guy fighting you can circle down the staircase, out the gate and attack you while you're still stunned are far less if that stun wears off in 10 sec rather than 50.
I was reading some of the archives that had some interesting viewpoints on rounds and % of actions etc.
I had an idea that rather say a specific action takes x% of a round...why not say this action takes x seconds to perform, i.e. loading a bow may take two seconds to load and can be fired in one second, that's close to reality...isn't it. So that's a total of three seconds to load and fire..of course a penalty would occur for firing so quick, which is much like the snap action in RMSS. I still like the three seconds per round but I understand others may not. That's why I think actions should be described in seconds, this at least gives a foundation to a GM when knowing what can be done in his seconds of his prefered round.
Actually, I don't mind the idea if stun being mild in combat.
-
3) Duration/lvl, etc al is based on PP expenditure; but the first increment comes with the casting. I played with limits based on Ranks in List and heard of limits based on Ranks in PP. Both interesting. Right now we have no limit. If you want to pour all your PP into one spell for longer duration, etc al, go right ahead. The players wanted this version. Hope you don't want to cast any more spells that day.
That's the way I see it too.
(Have toyed with the idea of using emergency PP as Con drain. Not officially implemented. This could be how some undead are created.)
I've notes on this useing the Ambient concept in CoM. Below is a snipet from a 20 page document that I wrote years ago useing CoM with RMSS...it'll give you an idea on my thoughts.
As I have previously stated that mana resides in all things living, it is reasonable to say that an Ambient mana user has a certain amount of residual mana within his body. In much the same way as a Fixed mana user draws mana from an item, an Ambient mana user draws the residual mana from himself to power the spell.
To determine how much residual mana a mage has or any living being*, could be calculated by the Temporary Constitution Stat.
* modifiers would need to be applied for each size category which is calculated as follows; (Temporary Constitution Stat) ÷/x (Size Category modifier) = Residual mana.
Tiny ÷ 5
Small ÷ 3
Medium x 00
Large x 2
Huge x 4
For each Power Point that is used in the instantaneous spell will reduce the mages residual mana which in turn reduces the Temporary Constitution Stat. To determine the current Constitution Stat for a mage is to total a mages residual mana after casting then reverse the calculus of the creature size modifier. i.e. Let us say that we have an Ambient spell casting Fairy with a Constitution Stat of 76, by dividing this number by 5 (Tiny) we find he has 15PP(15.2) of residual mana. If he cast an instantaneous spell requiring 3PP his residual mana total will be 12PP (12.2); if we now multiply this number by 5(Tiny) then his Temporary Constitution Stat will now be 61. A mage will recover 1 Constitution point for each 12 hour period of rest. This is obviously the downside of being an ambient mana user but again they have the advantage over the mana withdrawal syndrome of personal mana users which I feel balances out.
-
i.e. loading a bow may take two seconds to load and can be fired in one second, that's close to reality...isn't it. So that's a total of three seconds to load and fire..of course a penalty would occur for firing so quick, which is much like the snap action in RMSS.
Technically yes a bow might be firable in one (three second) round, but you have to locate and get the arrow, get the nock lined up with the string, make sure the cock feather is pointing away from the bow (or it will catch when you fire and either strip off or knock the arrow - either way the arrow is going nowhere near your target), secure the nock on the string in the right place, draw and aim the bow (which itself takes longer than 3 seconds even when you don't really aim properly) and release the arrow. Compressing all this into a 3 second process, even with modern equipment, means your penalty would be massive, if of course we were shooting in the real world :) . You could probably get this faster with practice, but it's still not easy.
However, sometimes game mechanics have to overtake real world mechanics for the sake of playability, so it's not something I worry about too much when playing a specialist bow user in a game :)
-
I guess you could say "Unless you have the arrow notched ready, it'll take you two rounds(6 seconds) till you can loose the arrow. That's where those familar with the real life skills are needed to iron out the wrinkles. :)
-
In the second edition of *that* game, specifically later on just before the 3rd edition and the rules mods TSR were coming out with were getting closer to what would become 3rd ed, an archer who had bow specialisation and who also had an arrow nocked and ready, could get a free attack before any initiative result.
Rounds in that game were a minute long. The justification there is that a typical combat round consists of many activities, and a swordsman might swing his sword many times but only once will he have the opportunity to make a telling attack. More attacks as they increase in level was handled by the logic that a good swordsman could make more of those attacks, feints and parries into a possibly lethal strike. This length of round and those explanations easily accommodate all the preliminary stuff that firing a bow would entail. Shorter rounds though would begin to be problematic if you were attempting realism to any degree.
I personally would say that you could:
fire a bow from cold and unprepared in 1 round is a sheer folly activity, at a -70 penalty
fire a bow if the arrow is nocked and you're ready to fire in 1 round is a very hard activity, at -20
fire a bow using 1 round in between shots to prep the shot - also Hard, at -20
fire an arrow every 3 rounds is a normal +/- 0 activity.
If you want, you could modify it such that if the character has 10 or more ranks in the bow, then the penalties are reduced to -50 from cold, and zero to fire every 2 rounds.
Something else to consider with short combat rounds is other activities. In 2 seconds, is there really enough time to have a movement phase as well as a melee phase? I would say no to that - you only get one action in a round unless hasted or under some other speeding up influence, or have some esoteric skill like 'shooting on the run' to combine a move and shoot action.
But, while that's a more realistic scenario, all your bow users are going to be irritated that the melee types get twice as many attacks as they do. Death at range needs to be easy, apparently :)
I note that many games go for rounds of 5-10 seconds in length, which seems to me to be a more workable scenario than very short 2 second rounds.
And for those players who insist their characters can maintain full draw on a bow while exploring, point out that even a modern recurve bow pulls between 30 and 40 lbs (Olympic bows are about 42 pounds). A medieval longbow could have a pull weight from 60 lbs all the way up to a massive 200 lbs. Try keeping that at full draw for longer than a few seconds and you're going to get one heck of a workout. Plus, the longer you hold at draw, the more tired your muscles become, and the more inaccurate the eventual shot becomes. This is why the Olympic bows draw to 40-odd - they could draw to more, but they would sacrifice accuracy - 40 is the optimum point of trade off between power and accuracy (note - when using modern materials for bow manufacture - it would be higher for a medieval bow).
-
I don't care for the very short combat rounds, it gets into too much "nit-picking" and certainly isn't a good idea for what is supposed to be a "lite" version of an RPG. But, also, 1-minute long is way too long, imo.
6-seconds is the minimum, what I am doing with my AD&D group, is making a combat round 12-seconds long (1/5th normal). I think having a time-frame in which you could reasonably assume the actions possible (attack, defend, move, talk, etc.) is the best way to go. It gives you room to move, so to speak in adjudicating the actions in each round.
If you feel the need to represent each individual action within that round, go with phases, shorter segments of time within the round itself. Like in mine, I am going with 3-second phases, so there are 4 of them each round. If you are going with a 6-second CR, then maybe you t 2 or 1-second phases. From there, just determine how long each individual action takes in phases - like you did with the bow, above. And, yes, I think that a more skilled/experienced individual would be able to drop the amount of time it takes to perform an action, but I don't think you should give them lower mods for doing so on the fly - their increased OB is for that. If you want to make a talent, racial ability (uber elven bowmen, for example), or something like that, cool, I believe that is the better way to go, there.
But remember what initiative is (I prefer to say a character has a reaction score that helps determine their initiative in the CR): It is how the character is reacting to the situation at hand. Everyone has a natural faculty with dealing with scary situations; some do well, others not so much. In Twilight 2000, it was called "coolness under fire" and is a great way to look at it; a character with more combat experience, hesitated less in combat, and thusly got more actions because they did less of the "deer in headlights" reaction that newbies tend to do. (Of course, if you want to throw some serious realism in there, you can have people with low personalities/willpowers maybe get "gun-shy" and their reaction is can get worse the more they get into danger - but I would classify that as a flaw, these are supposed to be heroes, after all.) But, for game purposes, I like the idea that experience/level increases a characters Reaction (Initiative) because they are more confident/familiar with danger. Also, skill with what they are doing could play a part, as well.
But, again, all of this might be better for the more advanced version of the game, and keep the lite version simple: die roll + Quickness/Intuition mods = Initiative.
-
I've never cared for actions representing actual time, seconds. But I see that would be necessary in a very short (2-3 sec) round.
Cyberpunk 2020 had 3 sec rounds and worked great as a near future combat game where everyone has guns.
%Act may be more of a generalization and game mechanic, but I'm ok with sacrifice a little realism to speed things along. For me, a quick round would be difficult when considering DB, when to resolve instant spells, etc. But I'm sure this works fine for the people who use it and if I gave it more thought, it'd work. ;)
Dangerous Journeys, Mythus had different time increments to represent different actions. IIRC..
CT: 3 sec Combat Turn- Actual Combat, inst. spells, 10' walk/30' run
BT: 30 sec Battle Turn-load x-bow, dig through pack, search prisoner
AT: 300 sec Action Turn- walk 1000'/run 1000yds, search area
As you can see, this system also made generalizations on actions, but it was easy for a GM to rule.
I'm not suggesting a RM Lite use 3 time-keeping increments, just showing examples from other systems which worked for that game.
For AD&D (back in the 90's), I think we decided on a 10sec round.
I did like Twilight 2000's CUF stat.
-
The basic problem with length of combat rounds is that of integrating very quick actions (like gunfire) with very deliberate actions (like cracking a safe.)
If the fastest possible action you have in your game is loading or firing a bow, you have a lot more room on the minimum necessary length of a combat round compared to the GM of a game with full auto firearms or continuous beam energy weapons. How much damage can a continuous firing laser do in a second? How about if you're waving it around? But on the other hand, the shorter the combat round is the more rounds the safe cracker's player has to wait to find out if he's successful.
-
The basic problem with length of combat rounds is that of integrating very quick actions (like gunfire) with very deliberate actions (like cracking a safe.)
If the fastest possible action you have in your game is loading or firing a bow, you have a lot more room on the minimum necessary length of a combat round compared to the GM of a game with full auto firearms or continuous beam energy weapons. How much damage can a continuous firing laser do in a second? How about if you're waving it around? But on the other hand, the shorter the combat round is the more rounds the safe cracker's player has to wait to find out if he's successful.
Exactly what I was thinking.
MDC
-
Technically yes a bow might be firable in one (three second) round, but you have to locate and get the arrow, get the nock lined up with the string, make sure the cock feather is pointing away from the bow (or it will catch when you fire and either strip off or knock the arrow - either way the arrow is going nowhere near your target), secure the nock on the string in the right place, draw and aim the bow (which itself takes longer than 3 seconds even when you don't really aim properly) and release the arrow. Compressing all this into a 3 second process, even with modern equipment, means your penalty would be massive, if of course we were shooting in the real world :) . You could probably get this faster with practice, but it's still not easy.
We often do 30 second speed rounds at 20 yards. I consider myself to be doing well if I get 6 shots (starting with an arrow on the string, so 6 seconds per shot). People who are very good can easily do 10-12. At the high end of that, you are shooting every 3 seconds. This is certainly shooting at a penalty - not as accurate as taking time to aim. I still get my arrows on a 3' target, just maybe not the scoring part of it. Experts will still be getting a lot of bullseyes. But that's with a static target, at close range. Stack up the penalties and that will change.
Partially you get faster due to practice. You know where the arrow is when you are reaching for it. Having the right equipment helps, as well as familiarity with it. A side quiver is faster than a back quiver (slightly), arrows need to be loose, etc. With practice you can basically just slap the arrow down on the string. The orientation of the feathers is not important enough to bother with for 20 yard shooting, during a speed round. Perhaps this carelessness contributes a bit to the penalty, especially if the range is longer.
In practice, a less skilled archer will simply be unable to shoot at the fastest speeds. As a game mechanic, I don't think it is worth a separate mechanic beyond applying the activity penalties.
If rounds are really short, I think it might make more sense to make 1 shot per round the standard, with all modifiers assigned on that basis, and then have an "aim" action the player can choose to reduce the penalties. People are strangely more excited about computing bonuses than penalties....
-
If we are talking about standing still well prepared and shooting on a static target and it is indeed possible to get very quick. Problem is just that in combat we are talking about everything except a static target and you will running around meaning you arrows will bounce around in the quiver. This means you can't except them to be properly aligned if you pick them blindly. All in all I have a problem seeing why the length of the round could be an real issue. If we change to science fiction and automatic and semiautomatic weapons then the length of the round is a real issue, but in fantasy I think longer rounds only give benefits.
-
The modern crossover also tends to raise a lot more questions, along the lines of "A skilled user with a revolver probably can make 4 or more aimed shots on separate targets in ten seconds. (Those "Cowboy shooter" contests have people making a lot more shots than that on a lot more separate targets, so it's one of those points where reality begins to break it's ability to model into game mechanics.)
-
If we are talking about standing still well prepared and shooting on a static target and it is indeed possible to get very quick. Problem is just that in combat we are talking about everything except a static target and you will running around meaning you arrows will bounce around in the quiver. This means you can't except them to be properly aligned if you pick them blindly.
This really depends. If you are an adventurer and get jumped, sure. If you hear something around the corner and get ready, I think you could be well prepped. If you are standing on a castle wall waiting for the enemy to begin their assault, you have plenty of time to get everything laid out. I think the differences in these cases are better to handle by requiring some activity to be devoted to movement, perhaps alertness checks, etc, rather than building the limitation into archery per se.
The moving target is going to be harder to hit but it's not going to slow you down.
The one thing I think realistically should slow you down will be an opponent behind cover. Games tend to model this as a penalty, as if the opponent was stationary but with a smaller exposed area. In practice someone behind cover, if they are aware of the attacker, is going to be moving so that at different times they have less or more protection. And if the cover happens to be other people (e.g. the archer is shooting past allies) those people are moving too. It would probably be more realistic to make a maneuver roll each round to see how good a shot you have. I don't know that it is justified to slow the game for that, though. A simpler mechanic would be to assess a cover penalty but allow the archer to reduce it by half if they take an extra round to aim.
-
People are strangely more excited about computing bonuses than penalties....
Ain't that the truth. :o
The moving target is going to be harder to hit but it's not going to slow you down.
I don't think this is really true, the shooter will likely have to take extra time to aim in order to get off the best shot they can. Now, if they don't want to bother, then, perhaps double the range modifier..
Pretty-much all RPGs break down a bit when you try to involve modern/sci-fi equipment with fantasy, though in both you can rule that because you are trying to also not get hit (i.e., using your DB), as well as maneuvering for your attack (part of your OB, I would imagine), is why you don't get to shoot 12 times with an automatic pistol while the swordsman swings once.
-
The modern crossover also tends to raise a lot more questions, along the lines of "A skilled user with a revolver probably can make 4 or more aimed shots on separate targets in ten seconds. (Those "Cowboy shooter" contests have people making a lot more shots than that on a lot more separate targets, so it's one of those points where reality begins to break it's ability to model into game mechanics.)
I don't count any "action shooter" stuff when looking at rules for one basic reason: No one's shooting back at those folks.
-
Shooting at a live (moving) target is VERY different than stationary ones even if they AREN'T shooting back at you too.
-
Looking in the archives I found a great idea (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=489.msg6449#msg6449) you had Cory, regarding weapons skills. I'm so sure on the styles as that can be somewhat complex from my POV. I do like the idea of gaining special abilities at certain pionts as you progress up in ranks. So...here's what I think is a complete list of combat skills...
All one handed weapon skills have the sheild training added. So you have as follows...
1 handed edge - long blades,
1 handed edge - short blades,
1 handed crushing,
1 handed flexible,
2 handed edge,
2 handed crushing,
Polearms,
2 weapon combo (for each specific combo...could have the two shield combo?),
Missile - thrown,
Missile - slings,
Missile - drawn,
Missile - triggered,
Missile - artillery,
Unarmed - brawling,
Unarmed - martial arts.
Mounted combat (in conjuction with one of the above categories).
I don't think I've missed anything?
Seems a lot be I think it would a good deal of variaty.
-
I've been toying with ideas for years on how to make Pure Arms Users more attractive and to give a reason to continue progressing in weapon skills even after diminishing returns make them virtually pointless. There's a reason to progress to level 50 in a spell list... but not in a weapon. About the time I came up with a solid plan I got really busy with life in general and it hasn't let up much since. One of these days I'll work it up and either submit it to Nick for RM expansion materials or submit it to the Guild Companion.
-
Seems a lot be I think it would a good deal of variaty.
You could potentially have a single 2H melee category - both 2H edged and crushing use the same mechanism of momentum to deliver their damge to the target, so they are actually more similar to each other than those two 1H edged categories.
Also, brawling and martial arts. Yes, the purists will say they are different, but I would contend that they could be considered as just different styles of hand to hand fighting, with the same goals. I would say that a street fighter might technically be classed as a good brawler, but they are still using technique and practice to achieve the best results, in the same way that a karate student is. The only difference with "actual" martial arts is that the training is more formalised.
-
I've been toying with ideas for years on how to make Pure Arms Users more attractive and to give a reason to continue progressing in weapon skills even after diminishing returns make them virtually pointless. There's a reason to progress to level 50 in a spell list... but not in a weapon. About the time I came up with a solid plan I got really busy with life in general and it hasn't let up much since. One of these days I'll work it up and either submit it to Nick for RM expansion materials or submit it to the Guild Companion.
Ars Certo (http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2011/mar/arscerto.html) tries to make it interesting to keep learning weapons.
-
Seems a lot be I think it would a good deal of variaty.
You could potentially have a single 2H melee category - both 2H edged and crushing use the same mechanism of momentum to deliver their damge to the target, so they are actually more similar to each other than those two 1H edged categories.
I was thinking one for slash criticals the other crush criticals. I agree they do use simular methods of delivery :)
Also, brawling and martial arts. Yes, the purists will say they are different, but I would contend that they could be considered as just different styles of hand to hand fighting, with the same goals. I would say that a street fighter might technically be classed as a good brawler, but they are still using technique and practice to achieve the best results, in the same way that a karate student is. The only difference with "actual" martial arts is that the training is more formalised.
I class MA as useing hands and feet in a controled manner.
Brawling I class as useing hands and feet in a not so controled manner and anything that one can get there hands on.
"Every so often some people need a high-five...in the face...with a chair."
-
I've been toying with ideas for years on how to make Pure Arms Users more attractive and to give a reason to continue progressing in weapon skills even after diminishing returns make them virtually pointless. There's a reason to progress to level 50 in a spell list... but not in a weapon. About the time I came up with a solid plan I got really busy with life in general and it hasn't let up much since. One of these days I'll work it up and either submit it to Nick for RM expansion materials or submit it to the Guild Companion.
Go for the expansion option...it gives me more work ;)
-
Personally I prefer Rules Lite rules & loved what they did with RMX.. But since it's not able to be published again , I hope they can emulate what it did with out violating the legal issues . It needs to be compatible with RMC & potentially RMSS/FRG. As other people have said before Rules Lite games are not meant for players (except newbies) but for the GM who like less complexity when running a game..like me.
-
I class MA as useing hands and feet in a controled manner.
Brawling I class as useing hands and feet in a not so controled manner and anything that one can get there hands on.
Alternatively... brawling is people learning to fight who have not yet learned how to control their hands and feet properly, which is reflected in a low skill rank in martial arts, especially if you're using the 1-4 tier structure from the original RM - I do own RMFRP but it's in another room and my arms aren't that long to check if it's in there too :).
At the end of the day it's about hitting your enemy without using a weapon - given some of the other skill compressions (which I believe are mentioned earlier in the thread but too far back now for the topic summary to show them), it seems bizarre to me that these two skills are still quite specific.
-
I've been toying with ideas for years on how to make Pure Arms Users more attractive and to give a reason to continue progressing in weapon skills even after diminishing returns make them virtually pointless. There's a reason to progress to level 50 in a spell list... but not in a weapon.
IMHO HARP Martial Law had a simple but effective way of solving this issue: gaining more ranks in a weapon permits you to use more advanced combat maneuvers with it.
-
I class MA as useing hands and feet in a controled manner.
Brawling I class as useing hands and feet in a not so controled manner and anything that one can get there hands on.
Alternatively... brawling is people learning to fight who have not yet learned how to control their hands and feet properly, which is reflected in a low skill rank in martial arts, especially if you're using the 1-4 tier structure from the original RM - I do own RMFRP but it's in another room and my arms aren't that long to check if it's in there too :).
At the end of the day it's about hitting your enemy without using a weapon - given some of the other skill compressions (which I believe are mentioned earlier in the thread but too far back now for the topic summary to show them), it seems bizarre to me that these two skills are still quite specific.
Perhaps it would be simpler to just call it unarmed combat and just ditch MA and brawling.
-
Personally I prefer Rules Lite rules & loved what they did with RMX.. But since it's not able to be published again , I hope they can emulate what it did with out violating the legal issues . It needs to be compatible with RMC & potentially RMSS/FRG. As other people have said before Rules Lite games are not meant for players (except newbies) but for the GM who like less complexity when running a game..like me.
There was a lot of talk of a RM revision years back that never came about. Some were for, others against and some indefferent. It's hard to tell what the best course would be, but I'd like to think there is room for a new introductry RM hybrid system to add to the ranks. What I would personally like to see is something that is purely arms/combat. No magic involved in the system at all...this can be an expansion product. I like the ideas mentioned in this thread which is a good start IMO but t's all hear say.
-
I class MA as useing hands and feet in a controled manner.
Brawling I class as useing hands and feet in a not so controled manner and anything that one can get there hands on.
Alternatively... brawling is people learning to fight who have not yet learned how to control their hands and feet properly, which is reflected in a low skill rank in martial arts, especially if you're using the 1-4 tier structure from the original RM - I do own RMFRP but it's in another room and my arms aren't that long to check if it's in there too :).
Hmmm... I had it down in my head as "Brawling is combat using an improvised fighting style and improvised weapons." In other words, no, you never had any formal training in melee bar stool or thrown beer mug. Instead, by learning Brawling skill you got training in how to improvise, and how to incorporate any move and/or any object into a fighting style.
Someone who has skill in Martial Arts can still be deadly with a bar stool. But in order to do so, he needs to not only know Martial Arts, he needs enough Brawling skill to know how to formulate his "impromptu whatever-solid-object-is-within-reach kata" on the spur of the moment.
"Tactical Improv", if you will. ;)
-
"Tactical Improv", if you will. ;)
Tactical Improvisation sounds like a good skill to go with unarmed combat that you could also apply to melee, missile, thrown, mounted and vehicular combat:
Player: Ack! My Lance broke on that fumble. I look around for *anything* I could use instead.
GM: Well, youi spot a peasant standing nearby leaning on a leaf rake as he watches the combat.
Player: Perfect! Steer the horse towards him and snatch it out of his hands, and use that instead.
** cue ... Riding roll; "Is peasant surprised" roll; Disarm roll (with bonus... for some reason RM doesn't have a skill to cover the snatching of weapons from bystanders - a clear oversight IMO) **
GM OK. Roll me a Tactical Improv.
Player: *rolls poorly, gets a 16, mods up to a 45*
GM: That means you can use 45% of your Lancing skill to attack. Make your run up...
-
To me, that's what Brawling skill is for. Combat using hands, feet and other body parts is Martial Arts. Combat using _____ (fill in the blank according to what's available from the environment of the moment) is Brawling. It's the "all energy is a potential weapon, all matter is a potential target" mindset.