Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8620322" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think I mentioned upthread that I enjoy RM more than RQ. One reason for that is that its implementation of attacking and defending is different from RQ's.In RQ you have a to-hit percentage and a parry percentage for each melee fighting technique. When an attacker succeeds on their roll to hit, the defender then has to check for their parry.In RM, though, you have a pool - equal to your skill bonus in the melee attack form in question - and you have to allocate the pool to attack and to defence. This means that a player can choose to risk it all on a big attack, or to approach a combat cautiously, or anything in between. It's not the most narrativist/&quot;story now&quot;/dramatic needs mechanic of all time, but it does offer the opportunity for the player to inject &quot;stakes&quot; in a way that RQ doesn't.Spell casters have a somewhat similar sort of choice they can make around how quickly they cast a spell, how powerful a spell to cast, etc. And both for melee and casting, there are additional bells and whistles (found in various Rolemaster Companions) that elaborate on what I've mentioned, that allow more player control over the risk the PC takes to achieve their goal.Archery doesn't have anything comparable, which is why it's relatively boring in RM compared to melee or casting.I mention all this not to contradict your post, but to show that mechanics designed for one purpose can find themselves drifted, sometimes without much difficulty, to a different purpose. To me the somewhat-narrativist drift of RM seemed very natural. On the other hand, as I've posted not too far upthread, I can't really countenance the simulationist drifting of hit points that some in this thread seem to be suggesting!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8620322, member: 42582"] I think I mentioned upthread that I enjoy RM more than RQ. One reason for that is that its implementation of attacking and defending is different from RQ's. In RQ you have a to-hit percentage and a parry percentage for each melee fighting technique. When an attacker succeeds on their roll to hit, the defender then has to check for their parry. In RM, though, you have a pool - equal to your skill bonus in the melee attack form in question - and you have to allocate the pool to attack and to defence. This means that a player can choose to risk it all on a big attack, or to approach a combat cautiously, or anything in between. It's not the most narrativist/"story now"/dramatic needs mechanic of all time, but it does offer the opportunity for the player to inject "stakes" in a way that RQ doesn't. Spell casters have a somewhat similar sort of choice they can make around how quickly they cast a spell, how powerful a spell to cast, etc. And both for melee and casting, there are additional bells and whistles (found in various Rolemaster Companions) that elaborate on what I've mentioned, that allow more player control over the risk the PC takes to achieve their goal. Archery doesn't have anything comparable, which is why it's relatively boring in RM compared to melee or casting. I mention all this not to contradict your post, but to show that mechanics designed for one purpose can find themselves drifted, sometimes without much difficulty, to a different purpose. To me the somewhat-narrativist drift of RM seemed very natural. On the other hand, as I've posted not too far upthread, I can't really countenance the simulationist drifting of hit points that some in this thread seem to be suggesting! [/QUOTE]

Verification