Topic: Making RMSS and RMFRP better

[markc]

This is a topic split from the thread of the same name in the RM2/C/X section of the forums.

 Basicly a poster asked how can I make RM a better game? Or have it run more smoothly?

[So if you could post your comments here about RMSS/FRP and SM:P and your RM2/C/X comments there that would be great. I will be also asking this on the SM:P board but you can answer any of the two threads.]

MDC

[mibsweden]

Get rid of RMFRP, and go back to RMSS - at least the core books. The standard system should contain RMSR, SL and AL. The RMSS system where you could get the updated pages and just insert them in to a binder was brilliant. Of course these days you could just get a new PDF version of the game you bought for a small fee. Then try to make sure everything is very well thought out and extremely well balanced before new companions and rules are published. I think RMSS already is much better balanced than the old RM2 and maybe even RMC (haven't played RMC yet though).

Of course there are areas where RMFRP is better, not in the core rules but in some of the comapnions, and you could probably incorporate them in to the RMSS for example. Some of the comapion stuff is alos quite interesting and necessary, like channeling compaion rules for priests and religions, which RM does not cover very well in core rules. Also the idea of arcane magic is interesting, but i am not sure it would fit all campaign worlds, and not really sure how well balanced the spells and rules in there are.

And please, please make a world for it. Not that you should tailor-make RMSS for a specific setting, but it still needs an official setting. 97.3% of the reason i started playing RM2 was becasue of MERP campaign modules and adventures. There were so many of them and so much backround material.

Try to get some famous setting, like Wheel of Time (think WotC does not have it any more), or any other well-known world from books and maybe even films and computer games (not sure about the latter two though - they are usually not that well thought through as worlds that are created in books). The Russian author Nick Perumov's world is very nice too.

In my opinion, rules companions with extra skills, spell lists, training packages etc are far less important than adventures and campaign modules.

[David Johansen]

I strongly agree that a good setting with adventures is more likely to bring in new players than a new edition.  Shadow World and MERP certainly had their following among D&D players back in the day.

[Phil]

LOL now here's a can of worms! Trouble with a game like RM which is relatively modular in the application of rules supplements and very easy to tweak in small ways is that very few people play vanilla RM.

Personally I think RM would be improved by a range of small tweaks:

• Get rid of stat values and just use bonuses - values are useful for calculating potentials, but the bonuses are the bit that reflect true strength, agility, etc.
• Do a bit of work on balancing races and cultures - background options are a clumsy tool, and the system in GM Law for balancing races uses some odd values (e.g. having poor Essence PP Prog for a Dwarf Fighter is actually zero detriment and yet gets big racial cost break)
• Rationalise the skills a little - "realism" is one thing, but in reality skills are more closely linked than Categories currently allow them to be, so the proliferation of skills means characters need disproportionate investment to be, e.g. a good sailor (Sailing, Boat Pilot, Rowing, Navigation as a minimum)
• Mechanically, RM is actually a very easy game at its core, so I wouldn't propose changing much there. However, I think the whole combat mechanism and use of armour needs a second look - for a late 1st generation game, its combat system was hugely innovative. Now it looks a bit dated and inflexible.
• Background - RM has always been a game system first and a game second, much like Hero System in that regard. However, I think tying a specific background into the game a *bit* more strongly helps rationalise the game with a consistent metaphysic for the magic system and strong cultural element for the races. Eg RMFRP core races are 95% Middle Earth, but the magic system doesnt fit that culture and has no clear metaphysical rationale. The level of detail offered by HARP or D&D3 is sufficient, so it isn't a game definitely based on a single setting but there's at least some consistent world background visible through the gaps.
• Get rid of levels. Unnecessary, old school and requires a frankly messy XP system. 95% of games now just use session-based rather than activity-based XP, which reduces book-keeping and rewards players for contribution rather than dice rolling.
• Single resolution tables for SM/MM - probably still need separate ones for combat, but I personally like the HARP innovation of combining combat tables with crits. (NB: great optional supplement someone should work on: clear guidelines for building personalised critical tables, so that your warrior can have his own trade-mark moves!)
  

That'll do for starters. Is that what you wanted?!

[Phil]

Try to get some famous setting, like Wheel of Time

I'm not sure about this. Existing worlds function to their own rules that RPGs sometimes struggle to match. This was always the big issue with MERP - great game, sure, but it wasn't really Middle Earth as Tolkien wrote it.

In my opinion, rules companions with extra skills, spell lists, training packages etc are far less important than adventures and campaign modules.

I suspect both WotC and Whitewolf sales figures would beg to differ on this one - in the current RPG marketplace splatbooks sell, adventures less so. In part I suspect this is because our games are much more mature and sophisticated than they were back in the 80s, in large part down to our greater experience (and age, alas!). This makes it harder to fit specific adventures into our campaign settings. The only module-based game I've run in recent years was a massive 3-act dimension-crossing superhero game that used a different game system for each act, and that used bits stolen from 2 existing modules with a whole load of stuff created by myself and other other co-GM. Modules are great for kicking a themed campaign off (Call of Cthulhu has always done this very well) and what I like after that are adventure ideas / skeletons that can help me shape my campaign but leave the details down to me - Torg published two or three really good examples of this, of which the Cassandra Files sticks in my memory.

[mibsweden]

@ Phil:

Mostly a more famous game setting would be used to "draw" people in to the RM game system. It would create attention. Much like MERP did for me.

And I agree, Middle-earth and the RM2 rules set was not very Tolkien-esque rules-wise, but I still had the Middle Earth feeling when I played. But that did not really matter to me really, I loved all the background material and adventures anyways .

Like now, I am GM:ing a campaign set in southern Middle Earth - with all kinds of incorporated C&T non-ME creatures. The wealth of material is just overwhelming in a good way and it fuels my own imagination.

[Arioch]

- Reorganize the manuals. Make just 3 core books: Character Law (basic rules and chara creation rules); Arms Law (rules on combat and weapon charts) and Spell Law (rules on spells and spell lists in one book) plus the various companion for optional rules/detail.
- Revise the talent/background option system.
- Drop RRs. Make them a skill, a DB or something else more coherent with the rest of the system. As they are now they seems to me a sort of rule by exception...
- Put a setting in the core book
- Revise the categories and the various skills, maybe dropping the reduntant ones...

[Phil]

Agree 100% with Arioch. Except that the Core Book should be called "Rolemaster", not Character Law

In that sense, I think RMFRP got it right in theory at least, altho not quite in practice.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

As I said in the wrong thread..

I feel that inherently that the RMSS system is ok as it is. However, much of what draws critism is due to lack of organisation and over complication.

Take the example of the the Categories and Skills. I would says that the Categories should be trimmed down and brought into line across both SM:P and RMSS.

(The Tech/Trade, Sci/Anal skills specifically need re-organisation).

If you can bring the number of Categories down to about thirty that should be sufficent to retain an adequate amount of complexity.

Then revise some of the skills so that they all advance the same way... PPD, Body Development, Spell List Development being the only exceptions. (i.e. Drop the combined skill progression).

The actual amount of skills that there are shouldn't really matter, but there should be a better defined list of the more frequent ones.

With the exception of the combat/critical/fumble tables, there should only be about three/four other tables actively used in play:

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.

The core system for dealing with combat is roughly the same in both RM and RMSS. I believe RMSS is better, because it allows better and more realistic control of skills.

Therefore rationalise both systems (RM2 and RMSS) so that they both can work together, the main difference between the systems is the skills/categories complexity.

Personally I believe that the categories used in RMSS should be adopted by RM2...but as much reduced generic skill sets. i.e. having ranks in Subterfuge/Steath is exactly the same as having ranks in Stalk/Hide and all the types of skills that would be included within the RMSS categories etc.

The result is a skills list similar to D&D, where a limited skill set is used for a wide variety of purposes.

If the GM/Players don't wish for the complexity then they can treat the category bonuses as would RMSS treats skill ranks. i.e. +3 per rank. If the GM, wants the complexity then use the +2 Category +3 Skill rank split but enforce the -15 for having no ranks in the specific skill.

This way the large numbers of individual skills in RM2 are made more generic/interchangable and either skill system can be used with the same basic rules.

Oops mentioned RM2.

The truth of the matter is the best way to make rolemaster better is to have one system cope with the two skills systems.

[David Johansen]

My list remains

Trim and clean up the skill category list.

Use a fixed number of development points per level.

Remove unspecified ranks from training and culture packages.

Replace the core background option System with the much less generous Character Law version of talents.

Replace the current item rolls on training packages with a simple, single roll chart or a list of gear that's received automatically.  I'm not so sure bonus items should ever be gained without spending a background option.

Set a single fixed discount for training packages and stick to it. 

Place a one bonus stacking limit on talents.  Or, better still, limit them to providing ranks rather than bonuses.

Tidy up the talents a bit more.  Totally remove talent points and stick to background options.

Get rid of Spell Mastery, and burn all books containing it.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Get rid of Spell Mastery, and burn all books containing it.

that got you both a Laugh and an Idea point!! 

[David Johansen]

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.


Spell mastery in particular.

[Phil]

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 that *does* remind me of something else I'd want to change, which is the whole balance of spells. Lists currently are balanced by a combination of factors, including:
 - open or closed
 - semi, pure, hybrid
 - the "theme" of the profession
 - level of the spell

I'd rather that spells were balanced purely by level, so that a 10th level spell has equal utility regardless of what list it appears on. That would get rid of the situation where one 6th level spell allows the caster to throw down bolts of lethal damage, and other 6th level spell gives a +20 to a single SM skill.

However, on that note, although I'm not a big fan of spell lists, I would keep that structure, as its one of Rolemasters "USPs", to use business jargon.

[markc]

DJ,
 I am the opposite of you, I hate BO and love TP's as it allows me to tweek it just right for my game. I have never used the BO in the books even when I just had the RMSS Core books.

Phil,
 IMO I think the spell lists could benifit from trying to keep things equle along the lines of type of spell list. So all open lists will try and have a balance at 6th, 15th and 20th rank. But I fully realise that that can be a very daunting task.

 I can also say that I love and hate Talent Law. I love that I have a good way to make races but I dislike many of the talents for PC's. I also like that after a little work [a lot] that I have a fairly good talent system down for my RMSS and SM:P game. That is if I can find them again.

MDC

[David Johansen]

yeah, some of the racial traits really stick out horribly

I really like the random option being cheaper though it's probably not enough cheaper.  Really I'd probably make selected Talents cripplingly expensive because they're so open to abuse.

[Phil]

I don't have an issue with talent law as such, but as someone else has mentioned, I'd rationalise it a bit. So there arent different talents to give Weapon Skill bonuses, Weapon Category bonuses, specific weapon bonuses, Weapon skill everyman etc.. Make it easier to preserve game balance by having talents do one thing: + to skill, or + to ranks, but not both.

In fact, on that point, in a new edition I'd consider reviewing Everyman, Occupational and Restricted skills. While I do quite like them, I think they over-complicate character generation and I'm not always convinced of the rationale behind professional everyman skills. Sure, I can understand that Dwarfs learn swimming at half the rate of other races due to some innate weakness, but I don't understand why I can learn Lock Lore 3x faster than my colleague just because I chose a particular profession. That I might have a higher skill is understandable, but that I should continue to learn it faster?

And re: spell lists, Mark may be right that balancing lists within the broad categories of Open and Closed would be enough of a challenge and would probably be sufficient! Although I'd like to see some balance across Base lists too.

[markc]

Phil,
 I am in full agreement with base list balancing also but only at specific points. This is because if they are all balanced IMO you will get something like D&D 4th with a lot of flavor text but the same base ability. [This is my experience from playing 4th yours may differ, hopefully.]

 I like and dislike the E,O and R skills, I can rationalise them but someone had the idea of changing the DP cost for them which is a better way IMO. But it does require moer bookkeeping and the option to change DP skill costs for skills in spreedsheets.

MDC 

[Joshua24601]

I'd like to see some sort of lore system developed that's less random chance of knowing something and more learning based.
For example I don't care for the idea that one day a PC uses fauna lore to identify an animal and rolls a 90, then the next week rolls to ID it again and rolls a 30, forgetting what he'd known merely a week before, or he might roll a 150, remembering much more info on the creature.


I'd also like to see skills rolled on a chart similar to the MM chart, rather then the current system.  As a GM, looking up a table and seeing that the PC rolled a 60% success rather then a "failure" gives me a lot more to work with.  Also the ally inspiring successes and injury inducing failures give me more to work with.


ICE could introduce some software for PC's, Palm Pilots, PSP's, iPhones, iTouch, DS's or other portable systems to make managing all the charts and tables more easy.


Reorganize all the books... Get the skills ALL in one location.  Get the weapon charts ALL in one location, same with the crit charts, and any other charts that are spread out across a dozen books.

[markc]

Joshua24601,
 Thier is a table for Designing in SM:P that might be right up your ally. It breaks the task down on difficulty and then you roll to see how much of the design you have done in a specific time peroid.
 But it does not layout the "you know these facts at this rank". IMO that is a tough one to do and it might have to be designed into each skill description or some other way. For example an easy claculus task may be a hard algerbra tasks or a hard claculus task may be an easy differential calc task. etc.
 But if it could be done I think the game would be better for it, especially in the good lore examples you give above.

 I can say that I often use the MM chart for skills even when it is not called for and give the PC what I think is the % knowledge. But I have to say that I am not infallable and make mistakes so sometimes I give more info than I did bedore or I judge the % knowledge wrong or my understanding of the knowledge is off.
 
 MDC
 

[ToM]

These are the things I think must be looked at in a possible RMSS/RMFRP revision.

- Dramaticaly cutting down the number of useless skills AND skill categories
- Reducing cost for non-tactical skill categories such as Crafts and Technical/Trade
- Modifying developement points per level adding to a fixed a mount a slight variable amount depending on the stats as it is right now, but in a 2 on 1 ratio
- Streamlining all critical and attack tables, reworking broken ones and eliminating unused charts. Also canceling some frankly useless variant weapons (As a note: I admire the work beneath 10.000 Ways to Die and will point at it as a possible inspiration)

This would be sufficient, adding to it a reformatting of the base handbooks on the lines traced by RMSS: a single "character-and-action-resolution" book, then a Spell Law sort of, and, I agree with the first posters, a campaign book. Not a generic one. A spcifically designed one.