How Much Rolemaster in D&D?

[Twowolves]

I can tell you exactly how feats came about, but I feel like I'm really digressing at this point.

Oh go ahead, digress just a little! I'll make it easy for you, if it came from Fallout, just say "yes"!

Twowolves Howling

 

[Monte At Home]

Oh go ahead, digress just a little! I'll make it easy for you, if it came from Fallout, just say "yes"!

Twowolves Howling

Nope, sorry.

Early on in the design process, we divided the skills (still called proficiencies at this point) into three categories, creatively called A, B and C.

A skills were background skills, like shipbuilding or shoemaking.

B skills were adventuring skills, like climbing, lockpicking, or jumping (mostly the 1E/2E thieves' skills, plus some others we came up with).

C skills were skills that you didn't roll for success. They were just abilities that "turned on" when you took them and were "always on." Like blindfighting or some of the things were were calling "combat styles" at the time (things that turned into Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and so on).

Eventually, A and B skills were folded back together, but C skills were too different. We decided that they weren't skills at all but "heroic feats." Eventually we dropped the "heroic" moniker.

One thing that I don't think people always realize when talking about 3E is that the 3E that got published wasn't the first iteration of what we came up with. The game evolved considerably from 2E to 3E, but the evolution all happened "behind the curtain." There was a 3E class, for example, called the Spirit Master, that never made it into the finished game. For a while, gnomes were taken out. There were about seven different initiative systems. At least two different saving throw iterations. And lots more.

 

[Malic]

Geez Nisarg, what's your problem?

I haven't noticed anyone saying "and because there are these similarlites between RM and D&D, RM must be better, come and play it!"

There are some elements where 3.x seems very similar to RM. Perhaps this is due to mutual influence from another game, convergent design, or whatever. Perhaps there are direct influences, not on Monte's work as he says but on some of the designers.

In particular the skills system and the flexibility of character design eg through cross class skills, multiclassing and the lack of class and race specific ceilings (which we always found very illogical) seemed similar to RM when we came over to 3e. The magic system, feats, and lack of juicy critical hits are very different.

Without making any attempt to seduce players away from D&D, it is interesting to hear other similarities and links to other games discussed by people who know the systems well.

PS. RM has lots of tables and lots of details in character creation, but in terms of mechanics to run the game I definitely don't see it as more complex than 3.x. I would say it was a bit simpler to actually run if anything.

 

[Akrasia]

.... PS. RM has lots of tables and lots of details in character creation, but in terms of mechanics to run the game I definitely don't see it as more complex than 3.x. I would say it was a bit simpler to actually run if anything.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. At least if you are referring to RM 2ed (I don't know RMSS well enough to comment). RM never struck me as 'more complex' than 3.x -- quite the opposite. And, as I have already noted, MERP is a lot simpler than either RM or 3x.

Charts (though perhaps annoying) do not equal complexity.

 

[Psion]

Reading the new Warhammer and looking over Advanced Careers, it reminded me of them in the previous edition. Did other games have advanced careers in them or are prestige classes pretty much a direct lift off of that idea?

I considered the similarity, but D&D's own prior editions influence, in the form of classes like Bard and Thief Acrobat, seem a more direct influence in producing prestige classes.

 

[Psion]

PS. RM has lots of tables and lots of details in character creation, but in terms of mechanics to run the game I definitely don't see it as more complex than 3.x. I would say it was a bit simpler to actually run if anything.

I have to disagree with this. RM, if anything, had become considerably more complex (particularly in the area of skill modeling) since its early days.

And the complexity of skill purchasing itself was what put my players off the game in the first place BEFORE RMSS.

 

[Rel]

Yeah, I have to agree with this. At least if you are referring to RM 2ed (I don't know RMSS well enough to comment). RM never struck me as 'more complex' than 3.x -- quite the opposite. And, as I have already noted, MERP is a lot simpler than either RM or 3x.

Charts (though perhaps annoying) do not equal complexity.

RM2 had its own set of things that began to grate on me but it was running the RMSS combat system for several years that finally convinced me that "there's got to be a better way". The whole "Snap/Normal/Deliberate" phase thing combined with the multitude of very specific actions "Full Attack, React & Melee, etc." made it so that a single combat round took at least 15 to 20 minutes for us to resolve. And this was with a group of only 4 players who were all very experienced with the system (two of us were authors for the system!).

Our campaigns were becoming more and more focused on intrigue and roleplaying without much combat, not because we really wanted them to but because the combats had become so laborious. We began to identify the fact that we missed "mixing it up" more than we had realized.

After we were exposed to 3E, we quickly began to try and incorporate elements of the combat system (cyclic initiative and fewer action options for example) as a means of speeding things up. But we soon realized that this was way too much work and we'd do better to try out 3E on a "trial basis" for a while.

Well we haven't played a single session of RM since that night and none of us are interested in going back there.

 

[Ron]

I have to disagree with this. RM, if anything, had become considerably more complex (particularly in the area of skill modeling) since its early days.

And the complexity of skill purchasing itself was what put my players off the game in the first place BEFORE RMSS.

It depends of what version you are talking. RM2 sans Companions is a pretty much simple game, much simpler than d20. A lot of complexity was introduced in the Companions as optional rules and many were incorporated later as main rules to the current edition. But the core RM2 rules are still very simple, if table intensive.

 

[Akrasia]

It depends of what version you are talking. RM2 sans Companions is a pretty much simple game, much simpler than d20. A lot of complexity was introduced in the Companions as optional rules and many were incorporated later as main rules to the current edition. But the core RM2 rules are still very simple, if table intensive.

Exactly.

RM2 had its own set of things that began to grate on me but it was running the RMSS combat system for several years that finally convinced me that "there's got to be a better way"....

You seem to have this habit of quoting one of my posts, and then replying to it on the basis of a game/edition that is not the one I discuss in the post!

(E.g. I post something on MERP, your reply disputes my claims by relying on RM; I post something on RM 2e, your reply disputes my claims by relying on RMSS.)

I have no problem if you disagree with me. But if you're going to quote what I say and reply to it, at least reply to the content of the quote.

------------------------

Anyway, I think 'core' RM 2e is a simpler system than 'core' 3e D&D. But I wouldn't want to GM either system these days. If I want a 'RM-ish' game, I will go with either MERP or HARP; if I want a 'D&D-ish' game, I will go with C&C.

 

[Rel]

I have no problem if you disagree with me. But if you're going to quote what I say and reply to it, at least reply to the content of the quote.

I'm sorry, Akrasia. I wasn't meaning to do that and I don't strongly disagree on the points you were making. It was more that I had a slightly different point to make and I used your post as a "leaping off" point rather than as a contrast. I'll try to be more careful about that in the future.