If you could revise Rolemaster?

[Psychic Warrior]

Make it a d20 version.

 

[Rasyr]

Well - that may be. But the official company line at ICE - EVERY TIME the issue of coming up with a master Arm's Law/Claw Law/Spell Law combat program was brought up was "that's the core of our system - it's copyrighted - do it and we sue you".

You may not like my answer - but the answer does not change to suit the audience. It needs to be computerized Tim: plain and simple.

umm... Have you looked in the Vault on ICE's website recently? There are at least one or two combat programs there.

Word is, its creator did not even use it (John did not use minatures in play, either).
I often wonder what he was actually running - because it clearly was not RMSS. Oh well.

Well, there is no comments that I can make here because I never gamed with Curtis. But then again, I had my own issues with him.

The skills do need to go back to the original RM2 Char Law versions. One in particular that must not ever surface again is Stunned Manuever. That thing should never have been permitted.

If/when we do a revision, we are already planning on going back to the RM2 Character Law skill list and using that as our starting point. We would then definitely rework that skill list adding and subtracting as needed. And no worries about Stun Maneuvering, that skill will not appear in future versions of RM, not so long as Heike and I are involved.

problem with all game systems is a need to sell more books and more rules. Rolemaster has been as much a victim of this as anything else - and it was worse under RMSS as the time ICE spent on settings with Shadow World was gone and Middle Earth had slowed down a lot. So we got rules with RMSS and a lot of them.

Note that it was Curtis who cancelled Shadow World, after convincing the folks in charge that SW was dead because of bad sales on the module, Kurse of Kabis. What I find amusing is that the first five words of that module are "Contained within this fatal product...". He did it so that he could create his own setting, Bladelands, which was based on the old Bladestorm minis game and started off with Shadow World exploding. Unfortunately that setting was not a good one, and contained many things obviously ripped off of other things, like different color days (kinda like the effect in the second chronicles of Thomas Covenant), an underground city rules by a dracolich, and much more. It was horrid, IMO. Luckily, it never saw the light of day either.

Whatever the case: I'm not ready for RM4 yet. Some day perhaps - but not now. I'm having too much fun with D20 3.5. When they try and sell us D&D4.0 - I'll be ready for a new look at RM. Until then - thanks but...I'm busy and I'm *already* having fun.

Soooo.... by 2008 then?

 

[Rasyr]

Make it a d20 version.

Huh? Do you mean make it use the "d20 System" like D&D, M&M, and others? Or do you mean make a version that uses d20 dice rather than d100 (percentile) dice?

 

[ashockney]

There have to be a ton of RM fans like me out there.

I'm a long-time D&D player and gamemaster. I played RM at conventions (as well as Fantasy Hero), and marvelled at the GM's ability to make this complex system easier to use than D&D, and more role-playing focused. I loved the concept of RM, and bought all the books (not sure which edition, but they were all "brown" covers. I tried to make characters, and frequently stole ideas from the game to put into D&D(coming up wiht the equivalent of power attack and expertise feats, long before the intro of 3rd edition, a direct theft on my part from my RM play).

What I couldn't do however, is convince my players to break away from D&D and try out a RM campaign. You need a compelling reason to break away. I think this would culminate from several key factors working in conjunction:
1) Easier char gen, with abilities that will matter
2) Basic conflict resolution rules that are well within the grasp of all players (in a 15 min playtest)
3) A compelling story and world, unique to your game system
4) Support, support, support! - magazines and accessible gaming accessories

Shadow World captured the imagination of only one of my players, but even it was too complex.

For what it's worth, character generation was too complex. We never made it through the process as a group. Further, I know my players wanted to be able to do more than "boil water" and "kill rats".

Before I go, here are some things I loved about RM:
1) Stages of conflict resolution (all rolls are not just a success or failure)
2) Criticals - funny, and austere
3) background options
4) magic system - scalable, specialized, power point pool
5) weapons, armor, and quickness work in a believable way

 

[Ozmar]

What is a must: keep the system as deadly as it is! Our group usually plays D20 and was astonished how fast one can die in Spacemaster. This actually reduced the number of conflicts and improved roleplay! How? Now even agressive players try to solve problems diplomatically before pulling the trigger! I found that to be true for Rolamester, too.

I've played RM for many years, and actually worked on the system at ICE for a brief period. (Dougal DeKree: I apologize. I edited some SM product, and didn't understand those rules either. If I had been working on it full time and dedicated to doing a decent job, I would have insisted on making sense out of those rules before they were published.)

Anyway, I just wanted to give an "Amen!" to this comment. Keep the system deadly! The character-creation system should remain detailed, but be streamlined and simplified. The combat system definitely needs to be streamlined and simplified, but it should stay relatively deadly. That is, I think, one of the biggest appeals of the RM system. And if character creation is less painful, then the deadliness will be more attractive because it will not have as much pain in character replacement.

Ozmar the ex-ICE Editor

 

[Steel_Wind]

Just as an aside to the discussion: I played with John Curtis in his games at Gen Con for, oh dear, 8 years or so. He didn't use miniatures, but he very much DID use all of the rules, and he knew them inside and out. As an even further aside, John's games were, by far, the best convention games, heck the best hours of roleplaying I've ever had. I've been lucky enough to run and play with a lot of good GMs, and John was the best. For one of the events I played with a group who had never played RM before, and John's GM style won over three hard core rules light players to buying and running RM. That says a lot!

Sorry for the interruption...

--Steve

Glad to hear it. I met John a few times at Gencon and he was a pleasant engouh fellow with me. As for events in John's life since then - well - let's leave that be, shall we?

I did sit in on one of John's sessions and he seemed to be a decent enough GM. Perhaps you and I met at one of those sessions.

The one RM GM I met at Gencon who WAS the best-GM-I-ever-did-see name escapes me. He was from Chartlottesville (or near by) and worked for ICE for a short time just in the year or two prior to the bankruptcy. He was a large sort of man with a BOOMING VOICE. One Gencon (as a joke) he introduces another GM for a Run out the Guns discussion with the collected ICE fans. Best-GM-Evar strides in to the room and looks about with hands on hips and then says in a BOOMING voice:

"Ladies and Gentlemen! I give you... the Governor of Port Royal!" And he walks away with a grin. I gather he was supposed to talk longer than that.

The guy being introduced was totally surprised; a deer in the headlights. The look of "Ohmigod...what-do-I-say-now??" was classic

 

[Azgulor]

Having been a GM and player that played RM almost exclusively for 6 years (before ultimately abandoning it due to the time required for character creation):

Keep the tables! We're talking basic math here folks - addition & subtraction. Consolidating the tables weakens the Rolemaster Flavor. I want a different critical table for a battle-axe and a dagger for crying out loud!

Condense the skill list. The detail is good, but I had a hard time convincing players that it was worth blowing development points on Basic Math. There are a lot of other games that can get the same character-concept-mileage out of fewer skills. Skills should provide an in game purpose and should be unique where it's appropriate. For example, I don't have an issue with First Aid and Second Aid, but I think Heal would probably fit the bill just as well.

Enable multi-classing or free-form character development. Deciding that you war-weary fighter wants to become a priest and then be constrained by the Fighter's advancement scheme doesn't cut it. I've never had a player who felt it was worthwhile.

Either integrate the Talent system better in character generation or scrap it. Right now it fluctuates between "Not-worth-the-trouble" and "Munchkin's Dream" depending on the options selected.

Scale the abilities better. Why have a 100-point scale if every fighter has to have a 90 in Str (as an example)? It's too similar to AD&D where every fighter had 17, 18, or 18/% strengths. It dilutes the diversity of character concepts/character generation.

Settle on a few classic archetypes but provide mechanics for tailoring the archetypes. Especially on the spell-user side. Mage, wizard, sorcerer, summoner, etc. Allow broader selection of the spell lists to provide the customization, don't build a new class!

Final thoughts: I wish you'd move forward with the new edition. I miss my critical tables!

Azgulor

 

[Vonlok The Bold]

I'm torn I do love the tables, but I sometimes and nervous about a combat becaue of the time it will take to resolve it.

Don't ditch the tables, but I will agree that having an ICE combat tracker and computer program for them might speed things up.

If you did it well perhaps you could have joint ventures with Fantasy Grounds, or some of the other virtual tabel top programs available. The programs and RM could be co-marketed. IT would widen the base of RM players and probably help sell supplements. It would also be the Chart organizer, tracker of stunned and bleeding combatants program that might help also.

The other idea that I have seen suggested here is the 'one book' idea. Maybe two books would be ok as well. The second book would be all charts.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I would say that RM needs to keep charts and tables - they're some of the "sacred cows" of RM, in my opinion. As others have said, though, a way to streamline them, or to make them easier to use in play, is necessary. Matter of fact, when I first saw this thread, I was tempted to simply say: "Make HARP the new edition of RM; it streamlines things very nicely."

 

[Akrasia]

Most of my experience is with RM 2e and MERP, played from 1984-1992 (though not continuously). I tried RMSS a few times for a campaign in 1999, but eventually abandoned it because it was too clunky. So I agree wholeheartedly with going back to RM 2e as much as possible for any new version.

... I always thought the spell system was awesome. I like the idea that you focused on a spell type and got better and better at it. ...

I agree. Some version of the RM spell list system should be retained IMO.

I would say that RM needs to keep charts and tables - they're some of the "sacred cows" of RM, in my opinion. As others have said, though, a way to streamline them, or to make them easier to use in play, is necessary. Matter of fact, when I first saw this thread, I was tempted to simply say: "Make HARP the new edition of RM; it streamlines things very nicely."

I agree that the tables should be kept, albeit in a condensed form – at least in the basic rules (maybe in the same way that the MERP rules had basic charts for ‘slashing, piercing, crushing’ weapons). Expanded and additional tables would be fine for supplements.

But those charts are the heart of RM. Take those away, and you’ve lost something essential.

I would also make RM as compatible with HARP as possible. Something like the kind of compatibility that existed between RM 2e and MERP would be a good idea.

Alternatively, you could repackage RM as a supplement for HARP – i.e. RM could become a set of rules that modified HARP into a ‘RM form’. I know that this would upset many RM fans, but I wonder about the business logic of trying to support two distinct FRPGs – unless they were highly compatible with each other (essentially different versions of the same underlying game).