Topic: Rolemaster Lite

[jdale]

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....

[pastaav]

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.

 

[Marc R]

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.)

[jdale]

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.

[RandalThor]

People are strangely more excited about computing bonuses than penalties....

Ain't that the truth. 

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.

[intothatdarkness]

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.

[Cory Magel]

Shooting at a live (moving) target is VERY different than stationary ones even if they AREN'T shooting back at you too.

[ironmaul]

Looking in the archives I found a great idea 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.

[Cory Magel]

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.

[JimiSue]

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.

[Kristen Mork]

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.

[ironmaul]

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."

[ironmaul]

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

[Wōdwulf Seaxaning]

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.

[JimiSue]

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.

[Arioch]

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.

[ironmaul]

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.

[ironmaul]

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.

[GrumpyOldFart]

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. 

[JimiSue]

"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...