If you could revise Rolemaster?

[Rasyr]

Okay, I have started threads like this on both rpg.net and the ICE forums over the past few months. In short, this is my way of collecting data and opinions on what could be revised in Rolemaster for its next edition (last new edition was about 10 years ago).

Please note that ICE is NOT working on nor even planning a revision of Rolemaster right now. It IS something that we would like to do, but resources (read time and manpower requirements) prevent us doing a revision at this time.

However, this does not stop me from periodically starting threads asking for opinions and ideas, which I can later use once we do get to the point that a revision would be possible. Considering the number of replies in another thread, pertaining to Rolemaster, I figured that I would start one of these threads here....

So.........

What parts did you like, what parts did you not like, what would you change if you could?

Before we get started, I would like to point out that critical tables in RM seem to be the equivalent type of "sacred cow" that the vancian magic system is in D&D, so any revision will have them in one form or another.....

 

[Savage Wombat]

Automate it.

Seriously. Those tables are cool, but it's too many rolls. Make it a one click laptop application, and people might use it.

 

[Odhanan]

Get rid of all these damn tables. Make the game playable without having to shuffle through the rulebook all the time.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I think that the skill system should have one teir instead of two. Perhaps an advanced version of RM should retain the specialty tier. Skill lists need to be slimmed down too, as do the number of stats.

Now that's only if you want the system to be easier to use and understand for newcomers.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I'm with Odhanan on this one.

Kane

 

[Thunderfoot]

This doesn't have to do with me does it?

Another on the tables bandwagon...ditch 'em or automate 'em. - both good ideas.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Second on the automate. It's not the number of rolls that's really the problem, it's the lookup time - especially for the poor GM. Really the problem is all the page flipping you have to do; find a way to reduce/eliminate it and it'd be good.

This is *especially* true for monsters - a simple claw/claw/bite routine could involve as many as 4-6 tables, and that's before considering all the secondary/tertiary/conditional attack compilications. Another problem are the Magic/Large/Super-large crit tables - I feel that these should ideally be expressed as modifiers to the normal crit rolls rather than as separate tables.

On a different, slightly related note, how to RMSS and HARP hit points compare, scale-wise?

 

[mcrow]

I guess if you are keeping the chart one way or another try to minimize the # used. HARP has charts but each character will only use 2-3 of them, that I can work with. I can't think of anything off had other thatn that, don't remember any specifics from my one session that i played. I do plan on giving it a read this weekend , so I'll let ya know what comes up.

 

[der_kluge]

Is it any surprise that d20/D&D players wouldn't like all those tables?

I don't know much about RM, but I assume it's like HARP. I think HARP would make a great CRPG system. There's a lot of complexity there that would work well in a computer game. It's too much for tabletop, though.

 

[mcrow]

Is it any surprise that d20/D&D players wouldn't like all those tables?

I don't know much about RM, but I assume it's like HARP. I think HARP would make a great CRPG system. There's a lot of complexity there that would work well in a computer game. It's too much for tabletop, though.

I don't think that HARP would be any more complex or slower to play than D20. Crap, the time you save from not messing with minis would more than make up for a couple tables.