Author Topic: Making RMSS and RMFRP better  (Read 13173 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jolt

  • Seeker of Wisdom
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2008, 05:44:25 PM »
I'd just like to see some reformatting and consolidation.  Right now, let's say I have some question about some aspect of Mentalism.  It might be in the main book, possibly CL.  SL is more likely unless of course it's in the Mentalism Companion, or possibly ...of Mentalism.  Ugh.  The "new" Arms Law uses the smoothed out progression on the combat tables but the originals of both SS and FRP don't, and neither does the MAC.

Right now, you've got professions, TP's, skills, optional and pseudo-optional rules that, even on the same topic, are spread out over multiple books.  It can be a nightmare to find a specific ruling or option.

I would like to see the books organized so that you always knew where to look for a certain topic.  The main book should include character creation and all generic resolution tables.  Spell Law I would do away with and condense all the info into three books: one for each magic type (Arcane I'd leave for a PDF).  Right now, discounting Arcane and the main book itself, you still have seven(!) magic books: Spell Law and two books for each magic type.  That's just too much.  I understand how and why it ended up that way, but it's still a mess.  I shouldn't need five books just to do the magic for my pure essence user.

To second what others have said:

Clean up the Categories/Skills; a lot of things can be combined/dropped.

Static DP gains every level.  (Already did this in HARP; it certainly helps prevent "the rich get richer" syndrome)

A campaign book is great as long as the world is based on the rules and not the other way around (in other words, don't do what other companies have done and tie in all rules, races and classes etc. into your default setting thereby creating a lot of headaches for those who don't want to use that setting)

ESSENTIAL: The Nodwick(TM) combat table should appear in all future versions of Rolemaster and related products.  I can't imagine a game without it!  (Though I do think henchmen should have had it's own crit chart (e.g. Henchman wraps around foes head in fear.  Foes bashes own face to get him off.  Henchman dies but foe loses one round doing so and takes additional 'B' Krush critical.))

jolt
"Logic will take you from A to B.  Imagination will take you everywhere." ~Einstein

Offline Tolen

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2008, 10:50:50 AM »
Allow a lurker to step in here and maybe revive a topic everyone thought was dead...

If I were in charge of making RMFRP better, I'd hand the book to a new editor.  Someone who hasn't read or played the game for years.  There are things that seem to have slipped past the cracks in every edition I've managed to get my hands on.  I'm not talking about typos or dropped words (there are a few), but things like missed explanations.  A prime example is creature level.  Someone who has never played or read the rulebooks before will not be able to figure out how creature level compares to character level.  Do my four 1st level characters face a level 1 monster, or a level 4?  (As a general rule, subject to GM adjustments of course.)  In not one version of the rules I've read, have I found that particular answer.  A lot of folks have played for years and know the answer (either by seeing the intent in what is written there, or by trial and error), but new folks might get confused.  In fact, every rulebook seems to have the section on creature level cut and pasted without ever noticing that that one piece of info is lacking.  There are other examples of this, but this is the one that sticks out in my mind.

Sorry, that was a bit long-winded. :)  I'll keep my other comments shorter.

Character creation should be streamlined, but I don't like how streamlined HARP got.  I like the detail, not the amount of time it takes.  Most of that time is taken up in copying Dev costs onto record sheets, and then adding stat bonuses up for the categories.

Combat round timing.  I dislike the snap, normal, and deliberate rules.  This is another area that confuses my new players, especially when you layer in % activity. 

Critical hit charts.  I love the system, I love the way critical hits work, and I like the descriptions in each entry.  But...while there are a lot of different entries, long time players will tend to hit several of the same entries more than once.  It gets repetitive.

Talents/Flaws.  This is a real love/hate kind of thing.  It's a neat idea, but can turn toward munchkinism really easily. 

Better stat blocks for the creatures and monsters, please!  Is it really that big of a deal to put the quickness mod for init in the description as opposed to a code that refers back to another table?  And what about the stats?  How do we know what RR mods a given creature has?  I find setting up a monster encounter to be a pain (though it does go quicker than the d20 system...)

The thing is, I'm not sure what to do about any of those problems.  But hey, you asked.
I'm in Southern Illinois.
No, further than that...
Try South of Mt. Vernon, where Southern Illinois really begins.

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2008, 03:49:51 PM »
Tolen,
 Good points.

MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline Sho

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2008, 01:31:00 PM »
Opinions. I'll let RMFRP be as it is. Has it several things to improve?... Of course. As every other system. Just change them yourself & ***STFU***.

That is if U want a RM-way system. If U want the easy and "don't kill me with thousands of rules & books & so on" way, U can go back to MERP or HARP or whatever U want (which, at the end, will also have thousand of rules, BTW xD But that's another topic).

Have moaR fun  ::)
RoleMaster 4life

Offline Arioch

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,903
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Blood & Souls for Arioch!
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2008, 06:48:56 AM »
Opinions. I'll let RMFRP be as it is. Has it several things to improve?... Of course. As every other system. Just change them yourself & ***STFU***.

That is if U want a RM-way system. If U want the easy and "don't kill me with thousands of rules & books & so on" way, U can go back to MERP or HARP or whatever U want (which, at the end, will also have thousand of rules, BTW xD But that's another topic).

Have moaR fun  ::)

I disagree, there are lots of ways to improve RM without turning it into another system.
I suppose a magician might, he admitted, but a gentleman never could.

Offline Nejira

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 403
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2008, 04:57:47 PM »
#1 I got nothing against a level based system but maybe it would be an idea to have characters start at lvl5 as thats when they are done with being an apprentice. The first couple of levels are left in to detail apprentice level characters (NPCs and PCs). Could be lvl 5 Journeyman, lvl 15 Expert, lvl 30 Master.

#2 Get rid of all skills which mimics what can be done with powers, spells, and so forth. Talking about the adrenal skills, spell mastery, channeling, transcend armor, etc. Its really confusing when you pick up the game, and wonder why there are skills doing what spells do (and in some cases better).

#3 Start off a bit easier with the first rank progression bonus, and give a little more later on to spread out the expertise of skill ranks. Also reduce the bonus gained from Stats, it should be the ranks in a given skill that means more than a high score in a stat.

#4 Define expertise levels of ranks. Journeyman, Skilled, Expert, Master, Grandmaster with each level of expertise granting a bonus in reducing the time it takes to make a skill maneuver (usually how it is in RL, the highly skilled can do the same job faster than a less skilled person).

#5 Remove Everyman, Occupational skills from professions. Their level of expertise should be measured in the cost of developing said skills not as a bonus.

#6 Spread out the spells on the spelllists, so that the spells are more evenly spread out. The spells tend to cluster at the first levels, and then really thin out to be levels apart.

#7 Make ranks in the spelllists count as effective level and not the characterlevel. That way its the character?s knowledge of a specific spelllist which demostrates his power, and not his overall level.

#8 Redo Talents if they must be in. If not get rid of them.

#9 Get rid of Temporary and Potential stats. Just have one set of stats for ease of play if nothing else.

#10 Make spell multiplier have a smaller bonus. Eg x2 becomes x1.25; x3 becomes x1.5, and so forth. As I understand it you had fewer PPs in RM2 where it made sense multiplying with 2, 3, 4 but with higher numbers it seems to be toomuch. EG: A lvl10 has about 100PP which are double, or tripple using the old. Thats a lot of extra spells for a relatively common item (appears on many TP).

#11 Remove Snap and Deliberate actions. Maybe I am not reading them right but it seems that a character with a high Qu should almost chose deliberate actions all the time as he is probably the quickest anyway so its no disadvantage for him to select that action and he even gets a nice bonus to his OB.

#12 Rework initiative to work in phases. Each round would have 10 phases, and your action takes the percentage as written. So if you want to move 20%, you move in the first and second phase. Then attack for 60% which is executed in phase 8 (2+6). If two or more react in the same phase compare Qu, highest goes first. Combat Awareness continues to work as previous.

#13 Remove the bonus from TPs. Let them work as a help to define a character, and not a way to gain extra dev.points. Redo the items with a cost in dev.points instead of a percentage so that the player can "buy" those he wants instead of relying on a random roll.

#14 Attempt to make spellcasting and non-spellcasting professions more equal. As it is now, its slow playing a spellcaster at the lower levels but once you start to pick up, the fighter more or less remains the same. Maybe give the fighter (and his other non-spellcasting friends) something to continue developing. If using the skill expertise idea, it could be a handy fighting trick which could either be purchased with dev.points or learned at every 10th rank in a weapon skill. Could make an expertise tree for every weapongroup/skill (must have Mighty Strike I before Mighty strike II, etc). These tricks could be fueled by expeniture of Fatigue points as adrenal skills.

Sorry if this got a bit long. Anyways this is my two coppers worth  ;)
"I'd Rather Be a Rising Ape Than a Fallen Angel"

Offline Arioch

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,903
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Blood & Souls for Arioch!
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2008, 02:28:03 AM »
Quote
#11 Remove Snap and Deliberate actions. Maybe I am not reading them right but it seems that a character with a high Qu should almost chose deliberate actions all the time as he is probably the quickest anyway so its no disadvantage for him to select that action and he even gets a nice bonus to his OB.

Characters acting in the deliberate phase will always end up acting later than characters acting in the snap and normal phases, so for a PC with a high Qu is not a big deal choosing to act in the deliberate.  ;)
I suppose a magician might, he admitted, but a gentleman never could.

Offline Nejira

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 403
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2008, 03:29:32 AM »
Ah, must have misunderstood it then :)
"I'd Rather Be a Rising Ape Than a Fallen Angel"

Offline rdanhenry

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,590
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • This sentence is false.
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2008, 02:41:58 AM »

M/M, S/M, Spell casting and RR. Ensure that all four are adequately described with examples. For example, ALL skills should either use the S/M OR M/M tables, it does not require a seperate table for each skill. A few verbal examples would suffice.


RMSS does not require a separate table for each skill (category). You could use the generic SM table for all SMs and the MM table for all MMs. The tables for the skill categories just add suggested detail/flavor. These could easily be moved to the Skill Companion or whatever the SOHK analog is in the new version. This would clear out some room to include rules *and* guidelines for creation of your own Training Packages, Races, Classes, etc. and some guidelines and examples of how to adjust game content to your world, such as reducing the skill list. You can easily cut herb skills down to two or, with a little more difficulty, to one. But if you want to represent the actual difficulty of traditional medicine and demand some serious investment of DPs to become  essentially a physician (and explain why the skills are rare enough people will visit the strange old woman who lives outside of town to get remedies), the full skill set is the way to go. A game of diplomacy, spying, and court intrigues deserves a different skill set than a game of dungeon crawling. A set of suggested skill set simplifications for some common types of games would be a big help to less experiences GMs.

I really think RMSS is pretty solid and RMFRP was not the repackaging it needed. Basic Rules, Spell Law, Arms Law... that'll get you started. The rule book should include some basic advise and critical rules (like TP cost formula) to tweak the rules for your setting and campaign type.

Organization and presentation could be improved over RMSR, but Arms Law and Spell Law were already solid. Make everything easy to find.

Provide tips on running a game efficiently.

Clean up some of the old oddities in the rules, like being harder to hit with an arrow because you have a weapon you are skilled with. And shields ought to be better -- I hate to say this, but they deserve to have another skill added. Or maybe we just need combat styles in the core rules and allow some nifty shield abilities with the right style. Anyway, shields deserve respect.

I do not need a campaign setting. I need nicely arrange kit to create my own. Or I can adapt a setting that uses some rules I don't like so much; some might benefit from guidance how to do that.

I love being able to craft characters in detail, but I can see the utility of an *optional* quick-build method to get people started.

Don't simplify, simplify. Rolemaster will never compete for the rules-light crown. So make it the Rolls-Royce of detailed games and sell it on that basis. Keep a lighter version to fill the MERP/HARP role, so ICE can pull in money from the folks who don't want as much detail.

Careful editing. Well proof-read and consistent text is a rarity in the gaming industry. Rolemaster deserves it.
Rolemaster: When you absolutely, positively need to have a chance of tripping over an imaginary dead turtle.

Offline Arioch

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,903
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Blood & Souls for Arioch!
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2008, 04:01:08 AM »
Don't simplify, simplify. Rolemaster will never compete for the rules-light crown. So make it the Rolls-Royce of detailed games and sell it on that basis. Keep a lighter version to fill the MERP/HARP role, so ICE can pull in money from the folks who don't want as much detail.

So true, I completely agree!
I suppose a magician might, he admitted, but a gentleman never could.

Offline Nejira

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 403
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2008, 07:16:05 AM »
Quote
Careful editing. Well proof-read and consistent text is a rarity in the gaming industry. Rolemaster deserves it.

All games should have it. Always wondered if RPGs are proof-read or what happens. Especially considering turning in a paper for an university where a single error will reduct points, and there you don?t get paid for being consistant.

If need be, I don?t think it would be that difficult to find some playergroups willing to read through the manuscripts before printing to find such errors if finding a professional editor is difficult.

Tolen wrote
Quote
If I were in charge of making RMFRP better, I'd hand the book to a new editor.  Someone who hasn't read or played the game for years.

Which is a really good idea as you tend to go blind to a system or a text you been writing yourself. Maybe expanations seems oblivious to you (because you know what you meant) but this might not be the case with someone else.

Thats the one thing I would really like to see.
"I'd Rather Be a Rising Ape Than a Fallen Angel"

Offline Tolen

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2008, 11:09:09 AM »
I have to agree with the last few posts.

When I mentioned possible simplifications, I didn't mean to make RM a simple game.  I really like the level of detail.  My son is working on his second character, and he loves the process (he does wish there were more opportunities to roll dice, but then he's ten.  He likes dice).  The changes I look for would simply give us more room for things that should be in the core rulebook (like all of the skills).

One thing that I did notice recently, was on the record sheets that come with the book.  The one from the RMFRP book does not have all of the possible categories on it.  I realize that this is because not all of the categories are in RMFRP, but when you get character law (or even school of hard knocks), the default sheet is less than effective as a result.  If you combine some of the tables (like the SM/MM tables), and reprint less information you'd have room to include an updated 'official' record sheet.

Anyway, I'm not looking for broad sweeping changes.  This thread asked for an opinion, so I gave it.  ;)

BTW, in regards to asking fans to proof your books...sign me up!  I'll do it.
(Note: The above statement is not meant to be any kind of remark against the new ICE staff.  I haven't read any of your new books yet, so you may have fixed those problems I've noticed.  If so, good job!)
I'm in Southern Illinois.
No, further than that...
Try South of Mt. Vernon, where Southern Illinois really begins.

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2008, 07:47:06 PM »
 Tolen,
 One thing I do is borrow a rule from Traveller in which PC roll for mishaps on TP's. Now I as a GM have to decide what the threshhold numbers are going to be and jost how bad or good the effect is going to be for the PC. This adds a little tension to the PC gen process and allows for some die rolls. Plus it prevents people from taking the Navy Seal/Ranger TP every time in my space game and allows me to add some special touch if they roll very high.

MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline Tolen

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #33 on: August 03, 2008, 08:40:05 PM »
That's not a half bad idea there.

In fact...The Traveller universe with the Spacemaster rules...yoink!
I'm in Southern Illinois.
No, further than that...
Try South of Mt. Vernon, where Southern Illinois really begins.

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2008, 12:59:26 AM »
That's not a half bad idea there.

In fact...The Traveller universe with the Spacemaster rules...yoink!

 I have used Traveller adventures for my SM:P game. It took a little manipulation but it worked well, the only think was Starship combat as I was not sure if I wanted the de[pth of Traveller Fire Fusion and Steel or use Star Strike, Armored Assault and SM:P VM. [I had also considered at one point using Battle Tech rules for vehicles.]
 The main point is IMO RM and SM can be used with just about any product out there with a few mods and tweeks.

MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline jps

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2008, 07:37:33 PM »
I like RMFRP the way it is but RMSS is much easier to read and use because all the relevent information are in the core book. When I roll a character using RMFRP I need the core book and character's law, plus I have no Character sheet that includes the additional categories introduced in the Character law (okay I'm using RMMS CS ^^). Some data are not easy to find out for instance, the other day I was looking for falling damage rules and it's a footnote in the Falling/Crushing damage chart ... it's quite tricky to find out : when you're looking for rules like that  you usually search in the combat section or the damage section.

Aside from organization I'd say that there is one thing Rolemaster should include: the possibility of casting a bunch of baddies against your PCs. Rolemaster's combat is fine but quite detailed, thus, I noticed that most of the time, GMs prefer a big bad ennemy (or a couple of dangerous creatures) to loads of opponents. If your characters are lvl 15, GMing a fight opposing them to 20 lvl 5 NPCs would be very time consuming thus we usually prefer a high level creature. I'm not sure how you could cope with this but maybe we could use rules that treat a band of NPCs like some kind of swarm, easing and speeding up the combat process while allowing the GM to feature different kind of combats that would be to lengthy under the current rules.

Offline Karizma

  • Seeker of Wisdom
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #36 on: August 31, 2008, 12:36:04 AM »
If there is one fault in RMSS that I will freely admit to it is the presence of skills that serve the same function as specific spell lists and do a better job of it.
Actually, my gripe is the exact opposite.  Bards don't really need ranks in Lore skills when they can just use Item Lore and Lores spell lists.  While we're looking at Bard lists, here's Entertaining ways.  Spotlight Creates an illusion.  Showman buffs the caster.  Enthrall and Volunteer from the Audience are both spells that force the will of a target.  Why bother actually using talent or skill to get a volunteer or capture someone's attention when you can spend Power Points?

My main complaint is the structure of the spells in spell lists.

What I love about Rolemaster is that it's a very open-ended system (sorry for the appropriate pun), allowing the GM to fit it into any campaign world he chooses.  However, I find the spells are mish-mashed together in lists on the only basis of theme, with little organization based on what the caster would need to know how to execute.  For example, is creating a spot light the same as making yourself better at Artistic*Active?  They fit in the Bard's theme of entertaining, but they don't quite mesh well together as far as forms of magic.

I'm using Bard as an example, I see the same issues all over the Spell Laws.

But this is a personal gripe and I'm already working on it for my own campaign world  ;).

As Tolan said,
Quote
But hey, you asked.

As far as levels go, I like levels.  I think it's fun to finally hit that new level.  It's so satisfying to hit that new tier of awesome, roll your stat gains, purchase skills, erase that cruddy ol' weak level and etch in that new number to show the world that I'm awesome.

In short, I think RolemasterSS/FRP is a great system, and I'm working on fixing the only major flaw I see.

Offline David Johansen

  • Wise Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 832
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #37 on: August 31, 2008, 09:42:48 AM »
Bards are pretty scary that way.  But yes, some spells like "Running" are also redundant with spells.  I'm mainly opposed to the Channelling skill, Magic Ritual, and Spell Mastery on the skills that do things spells do front.

But yeah, there's more spells that make skills irrelevant.

Offline Dax

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 354
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #38 on: August 31, 2008, 02:42:27 PM »

But yeah, there's more spells that make skills irrelevant.

I have to contradict:

The skills are for the non-spell-user and of course for the instant when the caster haven't any PP to spend ...

No skill is irrelevant (OK, the ones that are too similiar to each other).
R.I.P.    rpgrm.com

Offline Karizma

  • Seeker of Wisdom
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Making RMSS and RMFRP better
« Reply #39 on: August 31, 2008, 02:58:31 PM »
Bards are pretty scary that way.
And they've always been my favorite profession *sigh*.

I'd rather have skills replace spells than spells replace skills.