3.5 vs Rolemaster

[Warbringer]

True20.

If they want realism, I'd go that way. Or Ken's Grim and Gritty rules.

stay away from Rolemaster... If you have a play that has memorized the crits, great.. if not...oh boy

 

[The Red Priest]

For what I read at Iron Crown forums, it will be a dead tree release -- very likely followed by pdf, if other ICE releases are a good model. I hope ICE will also issue hardcover editions, something I always wanted for these books.

Just so long as they don't promise a Limited Edition.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Our gaming circle played RM before there was an RM - all the way until when 3.0 was released. About 18 years.

We didn't like RMSS very much and were happy to make the jump back to 3.x. It had been a LONG time for us with ICE and virtually every one of us had left 1st edition and had sat out 2nd edition in its entirety. We were not fans of AD&D at the time.

The bankruptcy of ICE and lack of product sort of stalled our group and we were ready (aye, ready!) to jump to 3.0.

Recently there's been some suggestion of switching one of the weekly games back to RM2 for a bit. No real good reason - just looking for a change of pace.

I won't be switching from my 3.5 to RM for a while though. I am an enjoying 3.5 too much right now.

RM, for all the chartmaster bashing, is a pretty damn good system once you get to know it. When you understand the rules and the charts and everyone at the table knows the system well - combat can still fly relatively quickly.

I would not go back to RMSS for anything though. Character generation was just so complex to the point of being broken. Killing a character was akin to sentencing someone to character generation hell for three hours. Screw that.

Back in 2000, when people who LIKE complexity and have been playing the system for about 18 years (since before it was even published as a system) were complaining about the complexity...you've got a pretty serious problem on your hands. RMSS was horrible.

RM2, however, mostly rocked and Monte Cook's influence from RM2 can be seen in 3.x all over the place.

 

[Ranger REG]

If reality = gritty, then I'm confused about horror films like Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc.

 

[Ron]

If reality = gritty, then I'm confused about horror films like Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc.

Those movies are not gritty. Can you imagine how many hit points have Jason or Freddie?

 

[Ranger REG]

Those movies are not gritty. Can you imagine how many hit points have Jason or Freddie?

Not them. Their poor victims.

 

[Khairn]

RM2, however, mostly rocked and Monte Cook's influence from RM2 can be seen in 3.x all over the place.

I agree with almost everything that Steel Wind posted, especially the comment above. RM is D&D 3.?'s distant ancestor.

 

[Ron]

Not them. Their poor victims.

Those are mooks, Freddie and Jason are the actual PCs!

 

[Akrasia]

Actually, ICE has NOT been saying that a new Rolemaster is in the works. We have recently (since I added the forum specifically for discussing revision ideas) said that ICE is in the planning stages (i.e. no writing or actual development has actually been begun). We are only in the planning stages,hashing out various ideas.....

"Planning and hashing out ideas" does not amount to "working on a new version" or that "a new Rolemaster is in the works"????

Your claim makes no sense. Sure you might only be at a very preliminary stage, but insofar as you are 'planning and hashing out ideas' you are working on a new version.

 

[RFisher]

My question is how does rolemaster compare and is it really more realistic and is it a good balanced and playable system up to the high levels?

If you strip out all the optional rules, RM is much simpler than D&D. If you add enough options, it can be more complex. RM has lots of options. They basically published every idea anyone came up with.

Personally, I liked Arms Law in play better than nearly any other RPG combat system I've played. Don't let the charts scare you. They're actually pretty quick in use, & you can cram a lot more information into a chart than with just rules. Also, the way you split your skill between offense & defense is an excellent idea too infrequently appropriated by other games.

It has its own sets of quirks different from D&D's. e.g. The whole spell lists thing & the acquisition of them always kind of rubbed me the wrong way, just like lots of people dislike the D&D magic system.

More realistic? Nah. I don't think so. About the only RPG I've played that even comes close to being any "more realistic" than the others is GURPS, & it's still a far cry from realism.

(But why are we playing RPGs if we want realism? Tho', admittedly, I looked for realism for a long time.)

In the end, I'd probably recommend giving it a try just because I almost always think trying all the games you can is worth while.