Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 3747587" data-attributes="member: 20741">I don't know why you would say that - other than a move away from Vancian magic and to the "per encounter" mechanic employed in SW: Saga edition.  But that's not a simulationist game design  as RM tried to be - that's a pure gameist design philosophy at work. It just happens to be a different gameist design mechanic than has been employed in D&D since the system was first published.  But that does not change what its design philosophy is all about.The only place where we see anything like that gameist influence in Rolemaster is with the bonus times per day free spells in the "adder" system employed  in some of RM's minor magic items.3E was in some way a step towards many of Rolemaster's mechanics in how it attempted to preserve a level based game while adding in a robust skill points system and the concept of "ranks" to a level based game. That's largely Monte Cook's hand in things, imo. Monte began in the industry as a designer for ICE and worked on RM2.If 4E adds in plusses per level to skill ranks - then I suppose that would be even more like the RM approach to skills. But that's about it.As for Rolemaster style combat, criticals, bleeding and complex stun for x rnds?? Nah. I don't see it. It's VERY heavy to run without player assistance (or computer automation, which would make ita no brainer but which ICE has always rejected as they can't figure out a way to make money on it). Moreover, RM as written certainly can kill things with an unapologetic random dice mechanic. That does model lethality of combat quite well - but D&D has never been about that.  Kids don't like dying in their first RPG adventure <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I think most modern designers would view that as a decidely unFUN from a "gameist" point of view.I think 4E will be a move towards many things - but the very dense details in RM (any version of it) is something that the market has decidedly moved away from. It might swing back towards simulationist design at some point - but I don't see that happening for another decade at least - and probably more.I still have an abiding affection for RM2. But I'm a dinosaur when it comes to that and I started in the hobby as a wargamer. Like many in the 70s, simulationism was my premise from the get go. Simulationist wargames aren't exactly ripping up the sales charts either, last I checked.  Hobby games have changed greatly in the past 35 years. Boardgame designs are dominated by fast play Euros with elegant and simple mechanics.   Modern AT boardgame design, at best, goes for plenty of chrome and deeper theme. But the rules are not simulationist and don't try to be. So even the boardgamers have rejected simulationism as a design premise.  Waragames are sold now by the hundreds and low thousands. Grognards are a dying breed.Computer games? Same thing. Wargames and even modern aircraft flight sim combat games have essentially vanished too. I would be quite surprised - nay - flabbergast if WotC takes another page out of Rolemaster for 4E. I just don't see it. 6th edition? Maybe the tide will have turned by then.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification