Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7750394" data-attributes="member: 42582">RM combat is ambiguous in some respects. The 10-second rounds, together with the parry mechanics, suggest a round of jostling for advantage just as Gygax (in his DMG) described for 1-minute AD&D rounds.But other features of the system - the crit results, the Bladeturn spell - suggest that what is being deleivered, or defended against - is one particular blow.And in any event, where there is no ambiguity is in the fact that suffering a loss in combat - that is, being "hit" - corresponds to a clear state of affairs in the fiction, namely, taking some definite injury (blood loss, brusing, and other physical trauma).This feature of RM is also relevant to the discussion about "cooldowns", MMOs etc.There are three main components that contribute to the basic appeal of the "process sim"/"purist for system" FRPGs like RM, RQ, etc. They are summed up in the slogan "Get Real, Get Rolemaster!"One of those components is the one I was just discussing - in place of an AC/hp method of resolving hand-to-hand combat, they have a parry-and-injury based system, with armour providing some form of damage reduction (literally in RQ; in RM, via its place on the weapon charts and its role in resolving various crit resuts). This can cause issues for gameplay, given the tendency for combat to be a central feature of FRPGing (ie the reasons Gygax gave in his DMG for favouring a hp approach aren't silly one), but it nevertheless is a key element in the appeal of RM, RQ etc.A second component is the replacement of class-based PC build with "open" PC building: fully open in RQ, while RM still uses "classes" but as devices for establishing the points cost for particular abilities. This non-class-based approach to PC building brings with it generic skill lists, and the inclusion of combat ability and (moreso in RM than RQ) magic ability as just another skill to be developed. This is a complete rejection of blanket rules like "wizards can't use swords or armour" and "only thieves can pick pockets".The third component is the replacement of D&D's "Vancian" spell system with points-based casting (RM takes this further than RQ). Playing a spell caster no longer involves assembling a "hand" of resources which must be managed over the course of an episode of play.What is striking to me is that the respects in which 4e is called out as "being like an MMO" are all respects in which it utterly repudiates the RM/RQ approach and instead doubles down on the alternative D&D approach. So we have no injury system; instead we build on the hp system by adding in a healing surge mechanic that further reduces the long-term consequences of hit point loss and turns them primarily into an encounter resource rather than an "expedition" resource.We have no spell point system but instead keep the "hand of resources" model and generalise it across all classes. And, as with hp, make the encounter rather than the expedition the focus for managing those resources.And so far from having "open" PC-build, the importance of class to PC building is reinforced, with each class having its own mostly unique set of abilities (powers, feats, etc) that favour the creation of recognisable archetypes, or - if one prefers - game pieces with clearly distinguished roles to perform. (Much like Gygax's apparent vision for character classes in his PHB and DMG.)This is why I find that particular line of attack on 4e from D&D players so weird. It would make sense coming from players of RM, RQ or similar games, because it is a reinforcement of all the core elements of D&D that those systems are built on recting.Whereas I can't make sense of D&D players posting as if D&D already answered to the concerns of "purist for system" RPGing up until 4e was published. Maybe this has some connection to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s idea of "backwards simulation".(There is one fearure of RM that is very close to 4e martial encounter powers: Adrenal Moves, especially in conjunction with rules for sustaining them, which I thin may frist have been in RMC IV. I remember discussing these as a precedent for martial encounter powers on ENworld back in 2008.)</blockquote>

Verification