How Much Rolemaster in D&D?

[Akrasia]

....
Hell, D&D 3.x is less complicated than MERP, and MERP is a rules-lite version of RM!
...

This is just not true. MERP is considerably less complicated than 3e D&D. It is actually a pretty simple, and flexible, system. As far as I can tell, the only reason people claim that it is very complicated is because it requires charts for its combat system, and for most of its static maneuvers (and that it was inspired on RM 2e, which was/is a relatively complicated system). But requiring charts (and MERP requires far less than RM, by a long-shot) does not make a system complex.

Anyway, when I first read the 3e rules, my initial reaction was: "Wow -- this is the MERP skill system, but with a d20 instead of a d100".

So much appears to be directly lifted from MERP (or simplified from RM): the idea of a certain number of skill points per level for each class; the cost of paying more for 'nonclass skills'; the unified mechanic of rolling 1d100 and adding modifiers in order to beat a certain difficulty class; the system of adding attribute modifiers to the relevant skills; and so forth. There were a few minor differences, of course, but the similarities are IMO quite impressive. The new 3e saving throw system is also quite similar to MERP (based on attribute modifiers; same rolling high mechanic; etc.).

I am very familiar with many other RPGS -- e.g. 2e Runequest, CoC (and BRP more generally), GURPS, etc -- but the similarity with MERP really amazed me when I first read the 3e PHB.

As for Monte Cook's disavowals concerning RM (and MERP) -- well, whatever. I simply can't imagine that someone could design materials for a game system and then be unaffected by that experience in later game design work. Either his subsequent work would be a reaction against that system (if he did not like it, as was the case, I believe, with the HERO system), or it would incorporate ideas that he liked about that system into his later work (as I suspect was the case with RM2/MERP). Perhaps he has the special mental ability to block out his knowledge of his earlier work. I certainly don't have that ability, and don't know anyone who does.

Given my profession, which requires people to acknowledge any and all sources that have influenced their arguments and views, I find myself somewhat sceptical of claims that RM 2e (or its related game, MERP) had very little or no influence at all on 3e D&D, or at least on its skill system (the influence may be far less, or nonexistent, in other aspects of 3e, e.g. the combat system).

(All IMO & IME of course...)

 

[JoeGKushner]

MERP was my favourite game in the mid-1980s. My high-school group played it for 3 years straight.

We tried Rolemaster a few times, but never got into it. We didn't hate RM, but we definitely were not 'fans'.

My group was the opposite. We took everything from RM and put it into MERP because we hated the simplicity of MERP.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'd just like to point out that seeing things in D&D that appear as if they may have stemmed to some degree from RM influences is a long way from claiming D&D3E is based on RM.

I think very few people would claim 3E has more in common with RM than it does with previous incarnations of D&D. Coincidentally or not, however, D&D3E certainly has more in common with RM than previous incarnations of D&D had in common with RM.

Oh, and 3.x is formatted better than MERP. It is certainly not less complex.

 

[Henry]

Ladies and Gents, let's step back and curb any rudeness and hostility towards one another please. This isn't the place for it.

Nisarg, I think it's a far cry from "influenced by" which is what Rasyr said, to "Ripped Off", which is what you said. Though it's often been said that one game DID NOT influence the other, everything you experience and come in contact with, and especially work on, influences you at least a little. However, the influence is likely more, "this game, AND this game, AND this game, all use points + mods vs. target, and it's a good system, so we'll use it too" and less, "this game uses it, so let's copy it."

To hijack Rel's analogy, (nature/evolution/god/the powers that be) tends to re-use the "four limbs, head, backbone, and tail" schematic in living creatures a lot, so it must have something going for it - same idea with game design.

 

[Rasyr]

I don't believe that to be the case.
Hell, D&D 3.x is less complicated than MERP, and MERP is a rules-lite version of RM!

Cannot comment on the first part of this remark. I have never played MERP nor owned the book.

While you choose to ignore the various other systems that can, collectively, account for every mechanic you claim was "taken" from RM. Systems that the designers of 3.x DO credit with being a direct influence. The argument for claiming Ars Magica as a direct influence on D&D is quite a bit stronger, for instance, than that of RM.

Please note that I have never claimed that other systems may or may not have had influence. Tweet confirms that Ars Magica influenced HIS work on D&D3.

Likewise, you could consider that it would be common sense that the largest influence on D&D would be... D&D.

True, except that many of the aspects of D&D3.x were not the same as those in previous editions. It is a given that AD&D was a huge influence, and nobody argues that, I think. However, it most certainly was not the only influence. That is the point of this thread, I think, to attempt to figure out what some of those other influences are. It is natural to think that those influences are systems that the designers have used or worked with in the past.

Having read both HARP and RM, it appears to me that HARP is significantly less complicated than RM. Trust me that coming from me its a compliment...

hehehe.... Yes, knowing your usual attitude against non-d20 games (most especially from your time on rpg.net), I know that it is a BIG compliment..

I find it amusing that you seem to equate the word "lite" with "bad".

No, I don't equate "lite" with "bad". However, I do find using the word "lite" as you are using it as inaccurate and misleading. Sorry, but I am going to be a stickler on this one. I have already stated my definition of what constitutes a "Lite" version of a game. HARP Lite (link in my sig) meets the definition I used. GURPS Lite meets the definition of a lite game as well, as they are both stripped down versions of a larger system. In fact, Basic D&D also meets the criteria I used for a Lite version of D&D.

However, HARP does not meet that criteria (the criteria I gave) for your claims about it being a Lite version of RM. HARP is as much RM-Lite as d20 Modern is D&D-Lite. In both cases, you have two systems that come from the same core roots, but they go in different directions, and are games in their own rights. In both cases, neither meets the criteria I defined for a "lite" game. Neither is a stripped down version of a larger game, neither requires you to own the larger game in order to play it. (by this last bit, MERP falls out of the definition of a "lite" game as well).

Saying that MERP and HARP are "related to" RM is more accurate in the way that you categorizing them. I have no arguments there, and do not deny that they are related, just as D&D and D20 Modern are related, are somewhat compatible, but different systems.

Most people may or may not be (I would presume the person who started the thread to be).
But RM-fanatics, and, say, the guy who designed the current "inheritor" to RM, might have just a bit of a vested interest in trying to claim that D&D ripped off RM.
I could imagine that say, someone who designed the "Heir Apparent to Rolemaster Presently" would be particularly interested in being able to claim such a connection, as it would make it easier to convince people to try out his own system.

ROFLMAO!!!! You are ascribing motives to me that are not true. First off, have you ever seen try to push such a connection as a method of getting folks to try HARP? IIRC, the most that I might have said is that D&D and HARP use similar mechanics, so the learning curve would not be great. I really doubt that I have EVER tried to get people to try HARP becuase D&D may or may not have been influenced by Rolemaster.

Secondly, outside of threads like this, and these threads are nothing but pure speculation (remember that), about the only time I mention Rolemaster and D&D together is when I try to point out that D&D has far surpassed RM in complexity and the number of various optional rules.

Third, please remember that I was not the one who brought HARP into this conversation. Looking back, it was Rel and Sablewyvern who first mentioned it. To which I made a replay, and then you came in and started ranting, which has really sidetracked the conversation, which is what I can only guess was your goal.

That wouldn't be a problem if it weren't a deception, but unfortunately claiming such a connection is no more true than claiming that say, BRP or GURPS or any other pre-existing system was an influence on D20 (and a lot less true than claiming that a few games like Ars Magica or Gamma World 4th were influences).

Please note that I have not claimed such a connection. I have said that I think RM has influenced D&D, but I have not really said in what manner nor how directly. Who knows, perhaps it was influenced by something else, which was influenced by something else, which was, in turn influenced by something else, which also had an influence on RM. That gives you two separate things, ultimately influenced by the same thing...

Whether or not that influence is actually there is not really the point either. What is the point is that a number of folks are seeing that D&D now resembles RM (more specifically, RM2) in many ways. Does it really matter what prompted the changes, or where the influences actually came from? I don't think so. The end result is the same. There is a resemblance, whether you like it or not.

You want to hear a funny story? A few years ago, I wrote an alternate spell system for D&D -- http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2002/apr/matrix.html --, one that was heavily influenced by RM. It even included rules for overcasting. Not long after, out comes Arcana Unearthed, and guess what? I have people telling me what I wrote had some elements in common with the magic system in AU. Personally, I can see them sharing some elements. RM was a big influence on what I wrote, and I can presume it was an influence on what was in AU as well, since the authors of both systems are/were involved in RM at one point. Personally, I don't know as I have never looked at the AU system.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'd just like to point out that seeing things in D&D that appear as if they may have stemmed to some degree from RM influences is a long way from claiming D&D3E is based on RM.

I think very few people would claim 3E has more in common with RM than it does with previous incarnations of D&D. Coincidentally or not, however, D&D3E certainly has more in common with RM than previous incarnations of D&D had in common with RM.

Oh, and 3.x is formatted better than MERP. It is certainly not less complex.

That would be interesting to check. After all, RM itself has some things similiar to D&D so if there's something that D&D 3rd shares with AD&D 2nd, it might still share that with RM.

Levels? Check for both.
Random rolled hit points? Check for both.
Hit dice type determined by race? Check for monsters in D&D and PCs in Rolemaster.
Skills? RM check mark.
Random XP determined by cross reference? RM check mark.

 

[Darkness]

Actually, IIRC, Rolemaster (1e and 2e) had breakdowns of standard NPCs for levels 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 20 (maybe more). That was in 1980, I think.

*nods* So I heard; that's why I mentioned it.

 

[Azgulor]

Well since most people have hit on the major similarities between RM and D&D3/3.5, I'm left with the cosmetic one:
Low-light vision for elves and Dark-vision for dwarves, etc. is a direct port from RM. All earlier incarnations of D&D had all demihumans and humanoids with enhanced vision using Infravision.

And although hardly limited to RM, the racial weapons idea is consistent with RM as well.

 

[Rel]

So much appears to be directly lifted from MERP (or simplified from RM): the idea of a certain number of skill points per level for each class; the cost of paying more for 'nonclass skills'; the unified mechanic of rolling 1d100 and adding modifiers in order to beat a certain difficulty class; the system of adding attribute modifiers to the relevant skills; and so forth. There were a few minor differences, of course, but the similarities are IMO quite impressive. The new 3e saving throw system is also quite similar to MERP (based on attribute modifiers; same rolling high mechanic; etc.).

I must reiterate that I don't consider these similarites as striking as you do. Consider:

RM does NOT give a certain number of Development Points based on the "class" (or "profession" as it is called in RM) of the character. Your DP are determined by your stats.

There is no such thing as a specifically defined "Non-Class Skill" in RM. You might pay 1DP for a skill that is strongly associated with your profession, 5DP for one that is loosely associated with your profession and 20DP for one that is largely foreign to someone of your profession. This is further limited by how many ranks of a skill that you can purchase at each level. Some skills that are strongly associated with your profession allow you to purchase up to three ranks each level and some are limited to a single rank. This is a far cry from D&D's "1 point for Class Skills, 2 for Cross-Class, buy as many as you can afford" mechanic.

There is no such thing as a "DC" in RM though there are set thresholds for various set difficulty levels. In some ways this is less flexible than D&D where you can say "The DC is 19". In RM the difficulty would be something like "a Medium maneuver" that requires rolling a 111 or better with the next threshold being a Hard Maneuver requiring a roll of 121 (i.e. a 10% granularity rather than a 5% granularity).

RM and MERP also both have a maneuver table to track how far along you are on a maneuver that could require multiple rolls. So you might accomplish 10% of your maneuver on the first roll, 40% on the second roll and 50% on the third roll. There is nothing similar to this in D&D.

RMSS incorporated individual "Maneuver Tables" for most skills that gave results for critical success and critical failures as well as "unusual results" (on a roll of 66) in addition to the typical thresholds for "Failure", "Partial Success", "Success", etc. D&D has no such concepts except those added by the GM via house rule.

Also, many things that D&D incorporates as "Class Features" are included in the skills section of RM. Things like Hit Points (which are a fixed amount per rank and based on your race), spells, increases in general weapon skills, martial arts maneuvers, "Adrenal" skills, special weapons maneuvers and so forth are all incorporated as skills.

Suffice it to say that I think the differences are large and significant. I only make this as an observation based on my experience with both systems and not as a value judgement. While I gave up RM (in part due to getting tired with the many, many charts one had to consult for simple things like a dagger thrust) for 3E, I had a great many years of fun with it. That is not diminished by the fact that I moved on to something else.

Nor do any minor similarities with RM lessen my enjoyment of D&D.

It does rather sadden me that some in the roleplaying community seem to have a rather large chip on their shoulder about the issue though (I'm not pointing fingers at anybody in this thread). One reason why I left behind the RM online community that I was part of for many years was because of how angry some of them seemed to get whenever the subject of D&D was brought up. The idea that some mechanics shared by RM were incorporated into D&D was cause for them to make accusations of WOTC being "copycats" or "trying to mimic the superiority of RM" rather than simply acknowledging that these were solid, useful and flexible mechanics that many games could benefit from.

 

[Krieg]

All earlier incarnations of D&D had all demihumans and humanoids with enhanced vision using Infravision.

*cough* Ultravision *cough*