Topic: Making Rolemaster Better!

[Dax]

Yes, RM goes with it one-roll-solution an other way.
And yes, it generates some issues.
But on the other side this systems does have its own merits,
(like if PC hit better she makes more damage, or the possibility to reflect an offensive or defensive stance).

As for the weapons:
I made a House Rule with light (Ag/Ag/St), medium (Ag/St) and heavy weapons (Ag/St/St), but fighter may change it one step to favored St. So light become (Ag/St), medium (Ag/St/St), heavy stayed the same.
Why I favored St ? Because it is what I encountered in stick fighting. With strength you can accelerate the weapon faster, hit first, hit stronger.
(Of course is the bastard sword for the troll only a light weapons (but should the troll roll therefore on the short sword table (with _ x damage) ? )

A possible solution would be a roll to hit and a roll to damage:
A roll on a table like the Base Spell Attack Table which results in a value (or a bonus) and a roll on the damage table (like the nowadays attack tables).
That way you could use Ag for the to hit roll and St for the damage roll.

see here for a thread about it
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=2647.msg34863#msg34863

But this doesn't make RM better, it changes the whole system ...

[rdanhenry]

Or something like a troll could be given a multiplier to the number of concussion hits that it does, which is justified by a greater force of impact, but not modifying crits, which are much more determined by placement of the blow.

[RandalThor]

I think that Justin has an idea here. I have always wondered about those cinematic scenes in movies and such where the hero is ducking and dodging around the cave (or whatever) keeping the huge dragon from smashing him - how do they do it? Whenever I look at games stats to reflect the situation I see that there is NO WAY that is possible, even with a full defense maneuver.
Now, I know I said "movie" but as we all know, it is things like that that give us inspiration. (That and novels - which describe the same thing!) We want our characters to be able to do the cool things we see or read about. But in every game I have come across, the game designers, in there zeal to make the monsters bad-buttied, have made it so that those scenes are impossible to play out.

A Great Dragon doesn't have to have a +300 OB to be tough. How about it is tough to hurt and if it does get a claw on you, well say high to your ancestors for me. All abilities don't have to scale up to make the creature (or NPC, for that matter) to be classified as tough.

BTW: I too feel that strength should not count so much in attack, but with the core mechanic as it is, there is no way around it. The only other way I see is by going more in the direction of HARP (though they don't do what I am going to suggest) and have some things affect the actual 'too hit' roll, and others the critical if you did get a hit, but only if you got a hit.

[pastaav]

But I'm talking about strength for purposes of hitting, not defending.  Strength for defense is a whole other ball of wax.

Is it really? You use OB to improve your DB...so why is another ball of wax? What about if the troll is so strong that he find it easy to defend himself. Because it is easy for him to defend he can be more offensive. The weak character does not give less damage because he hit weakly but since he must go for inferior openings in the enemy defense. He simply lack the strength to make a troll charge and survive. The RM combat abstracts this detail, but deliver consistent results with that some fighters are agile and that some are strong.

I don't think there is much to gain from separating to hit and to damage. We have other gaming systems that have done so and I totally fail to see any increased realism in their combat. The net result in my experience seem to be that the combat system becomes harder to model so you get more glitches when one type of attack is strangely better than another. 

[thrud]

pastaav's got it right, no need to mess with this.
And really, ranks and lv makes the difference not stats. St or Ag will only make so big a difference.

[GoblynByte]

Which I do not approve of, as you expected, Goblinbyte. Greater strength does help hit, by going thru parries, better control of blade, quicker attacks(QU may be fundamental in getting started sooner, but ST will bring the blade/head around faster), and general whole-body control/balance.

To be honest I wouldn't argue that a high ST helps penetrate defenses.  But with the example given before a troll with an OB isn't going to penetrate aything even though he has this massive strength.  He is no better at penetrating defenses because his ability to do so is dragged down by his AG.

My suggestion to balance out the troll kind of situation would be giving that creature a low OB but a hits and crit modifier, just like creatures currently have defensive crit and/or bleed modifiers. That is how I would suggest ICE handles that issue in the future.

I think that's a pretty good fix.  Treat it as an inverse of the the crit charts used against large creatures or the modifiers to crits that smaller creatures take.  Say a 'large' or 'huge' creature just doubles stun or knockback effects, or broken bones are more likely, or that shields have a higher percent chance of breaking, or things like that.

[GoblynByte]

I think that Justin has an idea here. I have always wondered about those cinematic scenes in movies and such where the hero is ducking and dodging around the cave (or whatever) keeping the huge dragon from smashing him - how do they do it? Whenever I look at games stats to reflect the situation I see that there is NO WAY that is possible, even with a full defense maneuver.
Now, I know I said "movie" but as we all know, it is things like that that give us inspiration. (That and novels - which describe the same thing!) We want our characters to be able to do the cool things we see or read about. But in every game I have come across, the game designers, in there zeal to make the monsters bad-buttied, have made it so that those scenes are impossible to play out.

Exactly.  To me it doesn't make sense for a dragon, giant, or some other large creature to actually make contanct and not squish the guy into paste.  A 'glancing blow' with a troll fist just doesn't cut it in my perception and, as stated before, absorbing such a blow with a shield or weapon would cause minimal results for the target.

Yes, a troll should be able to muscle his way through defenses, but with a low OB he's not doing that with anything, let alone defenses.

[GoblynByte]

Is it really? You use OB to improve your DB...so why is another ball of wax? What about if the troll is so strong that he find it easy to defend himself. Because it is easy for him to defend he can be more offensive. The weak character does not give less damage because he hit weakly but since he must go for inferior openings in the enemy defense. He simply lack the strength to make a troll charge and survive. The RM combat abstracts this detail, but deliver consistent results with that some fighters are agile and that some are strong.

But if the troll, dwarf, and elf have almost the same OB than you're losing something in the translation.  They could all defend or not defend to the same degree and will cause roughly the same amount of damage.  It is a different ball of wax because I'm talking about strength as a factor in aiming and accuracy, not in the ability to withstand a blow.  The ability to cause a blow.  I don't see how you can argue the point of "how does strength help someone hit" with "because it increases his ability to defend."

I don't think there is much to gain from separating to hit and to damage. We have other gaming systems that have done so and I totally fail to see any increased realism in their combat. The net result in my experience seem to be that the combat system becomes harder to model so you get more glitches when one type of attack is strangely better than another. 

But think of all the wonky patches that had to be developed in RM to compensate for the oddities of the fact that degree of success is tied to damage.  Things like ambushing, sniping, targeting hit location, and several others all had to have special cases tacked to simulate the idea of causing more damage with greater effort.  To me they just feel patched in.

[GoblynByte]

"Current" and "house rules" completely misses the point of the thread. This thread is about ideas for improvements/changes for RM in the future. GB can handle it anyway he wants for now, but he is suggesting something for the future.

And that's my only angle.  I don't mean this to sound like I'm trying to completely discredit RM.  I'm just pointing out an aspect that has never really sat well with me.  Sure the abstract nature of this mechanic is neat and tidy, but it tends to break down when you get away from a certain realm of circumstances.  That's when the patches start to appear to cover those circumstances.

I want to point out that I'm not saying that the current method is wrong.  Only that I don't agree with it.  Rolemaster should be made into the best form for the majority of its fans and if that means keeping things the way they are I'll still be proud to be a part of it.  But only by questioning the way things are can we make sure that they're the best they can be or be made better. 

[GoblynByte]

Hmmm...okay, this is interesting.  Just got this thought from another thread.  I suppose there is a large argument for strength factoring into the reposte of an attack.  A low strength would mean they wouldn't be able to get that weapon back around for an effective attack.

[Dax]

And really, ranks and lv makes the difference not stats. St or Ag will only make so big a difference.

But a better stat-bonus is like a booster in the beginning and an advantage in the end (diminishing return).

pastaav's got it right, no need to mess with this.

I see one need:
If the market demands for a split between attack and damage, ICE should give it to the gamers.
ICE shows how to do it (there are 4 attack systems for HARP out and two for RM - AL and CC).

[Dax]

I suppose there is a large argument for strength factoring into the reposte of an attack.  A low strength would mean they wouldn't be able to get that weapon back around for an effective attack.

And the comment in the HARP section

So it could be assumed that a combatant with a dagger might be able to slip a dagger into the foe's armpit while he reaches back to bring his sword to its target.  Hmmm...I just realized something...be right back...

It seems you try to introduce weapon speed and close-combat rules to RM.
I have such debates to the "blood" with a RQ-fan.
To be honest IMHO RM wasn't created to simulate a realistic combat, but "realistic" damage.

I think that Justin has an idea here. I have always wondered about those cinematic scenes in movies and such where the hero is ducking and dodging around the cave (or whatever) keeping the huge dragon from smashing him - how do they do it? Whenever I look at games stats to reflect the situation I see that there is NO WAY that is possible, even with a full defense maneuver.
Now, I know I said "movie" but as we all know, it is things like that that give us inspiration. (That and novels - which describe the same thing!) We want our characters to be able to do the cool things we see or read about. But in every game I have come across, the game designers, in there zeal to make the monsters bad-buttied, have made it so that those scenes are impossible to play out.

I do have the same problem or better did have it:
I grew up with a system that also differs between hit and damage; there the mummy achieves much damage but seldom hits. What about the giant wielding a tree ? RM couldn't copy this - or ?

And as always, there are different ways to solve it:

Conflict action: Call for movement maneuver rolls for that "ducking and dodging" around (remember the hero doesn't make an attack). With a good result the GM may allow a counter attack with 10% OB or the like.

Look at the description of the Displacement spell, give the hero against slow critters a displacement (that never wears off).

Or give the critter a big OB bonus which is only applied after the achievment of a Crit result. This would be that comment:

To me it doesn't make sense for a dragon, giant, or some other large creature to actually make contanct and not squish the guy into paste. 

[rdanhenry]

Well, for a giant wielding a tree, the Rolemaster solution would be to create a Tree weapon attack chart.

Note, however, that *any* weapon can score a glancing blow that doesn't do much damage. And it is true that Rolemaster is somewhat less deadly than is realistic. But let us consider the most obvious case: missile weapons. Do you really want to roll up new characters every time you get caught in a missile ambush?

Trolls and giants tend to use big, scary-looking clubs, but because they use such big weapons, they really don't get that much more speed behind them than a good warrior with a human-sized weapon does. It is the speed that makes them deadly. Mass just makes you move. So a giant club will knock you back, but unless he has you trapped against a hard surface, you can easily take less damage than from a well-aimed club from a smaller, but skillful warrior. But it isn't easy to avoid that club; because of the size a glancing blow is likely, or even an injury while trying to avoid the club (read Bruce's account of his recent injury... he did more damage to himself avoiding the wasps than the wasps did with their stingers).

[RandalThor]

I don't think there is much to gain from separating to hit and to damage. We have other gaming systems that have done so and I totally fail to see any increased realism in their combat.

I had this problem when we tried to play Hollow Earth Expedition. They combine the attack numbers with the damage numbers to boil it down to a single check against the combined avoidance numbers and toughness defense numbers. It became D&D. There was no way to reflect a guy who is slow and/or uncoordinated but strong with a big weapon from a fast and accurate guy with a sewing needle! Of course, that is a bit of an extreme example, but that is how the game did it, and it felt horrible!! I COULD NOT PLAY IT ANYMORE WITHOUT MUCH ALTERATION TO THE RULES. Seriously. Tasted that bad. I guess the new World of Darkness works the same way, which is probably the biggest reason I haven't even tried to sit down and put together a WoD campaign - even though I love some of their settings (not the new Vampire, Werewolf, or Mage - just the main WoD stuff).

The ability to reflect differences in the varous aspects of accomplishing tasks, and this goes for things other than combat as well, is something I care about greatly. I want to know that even though I may not hit very often, my immensly strong, half-giant, warrior will do some serious damage when he does. JMO.

Too much abstracting gets to be too much unrealism (or surrealism, if you will) and makes play much harder - for me at least. My tactical capabilities run to the "natural" not the rules dependant, which is why I am not good at miniatures games and the like.

 

The net result in my experience seem to be that the combat system becomes harder to model so you get more glitches when one type of attack is strangely better than another. 

First of all: You are always going to get glitches and ways in which Power Gamers will try to get the maximum bonus or the minimum cost. That's going to happen. It is something that every individual GM is going to have to deal with in their own way (see the thread on Marauding Psychopaths for an extreme example). So long as every GM is capable of making individual judgement calls at their table (and they will until WotC, gains the ability to actually reach into our homes and control us as we game so that we dare not mess with their holy rules......sorry, personal issue coming out there.....back to the regularly scheduled rant) is not only impossible, it is uneccessary. Just get close as you can. BTW: Some attacks are better than others, hence the constant evolution of weapons, armor, & tactics.

[RandalThor]

Oops! I accidentally quoted myself instead of modifing... My post-fu is weak at 4am.. Here at work....boy this blows.......

[GoblynByte]

Here?s how I would do it if I had my druthers.  This breaks down my opinion on the matter of strength and accuracy.  Please keep in mind that this assumes that strength does not affect accuracy unless you are not strong enough to wield the weapon efficiently.  It assumes that once you reach a certain level of strength the advantage you have on controlling a blade (or whatever) plateaus.  Others may not agree with that, but please assume that it is ?correct? for comments about this ?fix.?  This combines a little bit from HARP.

Just as each suit of armor has a minimum and maximum maneuver penalty each weapon has a minimum and maximum ?size? penalty.  This is a penalty to hit that can be cancelled, but cannot exceed the minimum penalty, by your strength bonus.  So characters with a low strength will significantly be affected by a broadswords (example) -20 ?size? penalty while those with a +10 strength bonus will only be affected by half of it, and those with a +30 strength will not be affected by it at all (but will not receive any bonus for accuracy due to their strength).  Really unwieldy weapons like halberds might have that minimum penalty that can never be cancelled (much like plate armor has its minimum MM penalty).

Now, the hero rolls the dice with his AG bonus for all weapon types (and all the other usual bonuses, but not strength).  If the hero reaches a certain ?zero? mark on this roll (minus the enemy?s DB) they hit (think of this like HARP where they have to reach a certain level to achieve a hit, but this ?zero? mark may not even need to be added to the RM mechanic due to the next step).  If they hit then the attacker?s strength bonus is added before damage is factored.  Now, the agility is still helping them get more damage (depending on how much they exceed that ?zero? mark) but there will be a huge jump in damage for those with large strength bonuses.

This will mean that: agile characters will hit more often but cause less damage than stronger characters, less agile (read: coordinated) will hit less often, but if they have high strength they will still cause damage.  And quickness will still be a huge factor in avoiding being hit at all thus avoiding those massive trolls that can crush on impact.  They just hit the pillar behind the target and smash it to pieces.

I?m on sure if a ?zero? mark would need to be added to the RM charts or not.  I?m thinking it wouldn?t.  Just run this mechanic and work the charts as-is for less modification.  The ?grazing hit? could still be a factor then - it?s just that those with large ST bonuses won?t cause them as often as they?ll cause high concussive damage and larger crits.

This preserves most of the existing RM mechanic with what I see as an important (and simple) fix.

[GoblynByte]

To handle defenses (cause I ran out of time earlier to add this) I'd say, maybe, the ability for the combatant to 'dodge' or 'parry' in a given round.  Each 'action' is factored into the percentage of a round just like any other action.  Maybe a dodge takes, say, 30% of a round and a parry takes like 20%.  These are just very crude estimations.  Anyway, dodge would simply add Ag to your DB and subtract from the enemy's to-hit total and parry would be based on Ag/St or some form of the weapon skill (the latter probably being more realistic) and also subtract from the the to-hit total (or to the amount added to damage from the attacker's ST to represent absorbing the physical strength behind the blow).  Either action would 'eat up' some of the percentage of the round to devote to a 'full attack' so there would still be some measure of taking up attack ability in exchange for defense.

So, in the end, you still end up with a single roll attack/damage system but also clean up a lot of the logic problems that (I see) crop up in the current method (i.e. the troll, who would be able to 'blast through defenses' only having an OB of 38 because his Ag drags it down and thus can't 'blast through' anything).

This is just a rough idea, mind you, so I'm sure it has more holes in it than a moth eaten sweater.  But if global changes are happening fo a new RM anyway, it would be easy (if, again, I had my druthers) to take that time to make any  minor snips that would be able to accomodate such a change.

All of this is, of course, my very humble opinion.

[pastaav]

To be honest IMHO RM wasn't created to simulate a realistic combat, but "realistic" damage.

Actually I think there is a rather strong connection between "not very realistic combat, but detailed and game affecting criticals" and "heroic gaming when the players can defeat the dragon/demonlord".

You really can't fight things like a dragon if it is allowed to throw its weight into the attack and ignore injuries like so large beasts are supposed to do.

[GoblynByte]

To be honest IMHO RM wasn't created to simulate a realistic combat, but "realistic" damage.

Actually I think there is a rather strong connection between "not very realistic combat, but detailed and game affecting criticals" and "heroic gaming when the players can defeat the dragon/demonlord".

You really can't fight things like a dragon if it is allowed to throw its weight into the attack and ignore injuries like so large beasts are supposed to do.

Than ICE needs to get rid of the slogan "get real, get Rolemaster." 

[Dax]

Heretic. Burn him on the stake !

"Get real" is about the damage IMO (as I stated).
And the offensiv <-> defensiv stance, of course.

To give the (N)PCs an attack skill and a parry skill *, only seems to be more
realistic/correct (IMHO), like giving exact numbers and/or many decimal digits.

And don't forget the skills.
And the poison/desease chart in the Character/Campaign Law is something,
that other systems are still missing in their numbered companions.
(This is one of the things I loved from the beginning 25 years ago, and our GM
just adapted such thing lately and believes he is soooo innovativ  )
___

* It is of course also an acceptable approximation of combat ability.