If you could revise Rolemaster?

[Thunderfoot]

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 would describe HARP as RM light, but people might take it the wrong way. It is a lot more streamlined.

 

[The_Gneech]

I'm only familiar w/ the MERP version of RM, but my overall suggestion would be to CONDENSE things whenever possible (i.e., make one table do as many things as possible, rather than having twenty different tables), and include a quick "if it don't matter, don't roll it" mechanic akin to Take 10/Take 20. My main memory around RM is the idea of somebody rolling on the "Move and Maneuver" table to cross an empty field ... WTF?

-The Gneech

 

[Voadam]

Spell lists should not have empty slots.

Have d20 conversion rules in the book. The spell ones I have from pre 3e have some rules for applying to other systems but some actual d20 coversion would not hurt, and would go well with the monster books. I'm tempted to get the pdf RM and HARP monster books, but I only play d20 so it is nowhere near the top of my monster book wish lists (I have about fifteen on my wishlist right now on rpgnow that would be first I would guess).

 

[Rasyr]

One thing that I, personally, am positive of, is that a revised version of RM needs to be a single book. And that this book contains everything needed to play (except perhaps a setting ).

In discussions on the ICE forums, I have mentioned that I think that this means truncated combat tables, with the attack matrix and the crits on a single page (much like the HARP product 'Hack & Slash'). With something like that, we could then do an Arms Law supplement that expands upon this, and allows players to get the extra, larger tables if they want.

I am also planning that there should be only a single table for other maneuvers (again much like HARP). As this would make it easier to fit with the one book goal.

The question then becomes more focused on the skills, and on spells...

 

[Shallown]

Develop a take 10 take 20 rule like 3.5 just take 50 or take 100.

The charts can be cut down. One chart could handle several crit types. When I ran spacemaster I was always changing the crit to fit the scene but using the numbers given so if it was heavy leg slash across the thigh +10 hits and bleed 3 a round. I kept the +10 hits bleed 3 and change dthe description. Perhaps more examples to aid in this could cut down charts so the same old crit isn't the same old crit.

I think crit caps worked well wear a certain weapon could only crit up to a certain level. They were used in Space master If I remember correctly. I think if you get it down to a page worth of charts per character then it would be stream lined enough. With say 3 charts on a single page.

Later

 

[Rasyr]

When I ran spacemaster I was always changing the crit to fit the scene but using the numbers given so if it was heavy leg slash across the thigh +10 hits and bleed 3 a round. I kept the +10 hits bleed 3 and change dthe description.

Actually, that IS how you are supposed to use the critical tables.. hehe

 

[mcrow]

One thing that I, personally, am positive of, is that a revised version of RM needs to be a single book. And that this book contains everything needed to play (except perhaps a setting ).

In discussions on the ICE forums, I have mentioned that I think that this means truncated combat tables, with the attack matrix and the crits on a single page (much like the HARP product 'Hack & Slash'). With something like that, we could then do an Arms Law supplement that expands upon this, and allows players to get the extra, larger tables if they want.

I am also planning that there should be only a single table for other maneuvers (again much like HARP). As this would make it easier to fit with the one book goal.

The question then becomes more focused on the skills, and on spells...

yeah, having everything you need to play a basic game in a single book is the best way to go. If you could get the tables on down to what would fit on a page or two (front & back) that would be better. I think overall (and I admit that I have limited experience with RM) it seems that a lot of the stuff that makes HARP cool could be used for RM and still keep the RM feel.

I'll try not to get off topic here but could you check out my post here on the ICE forums:
http://www.ironcrown.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6945

 

[HellHound]

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.

And for those of us who don't waste time messing with minis? D20 works quite fine without minis, in my experience.

Honestly, I like the attack tables - I like how heavy armor is easier to hit than light armour, but way harder to deal damage through.

Reduce them to a quicker / smaller set of tables though - based on the weapon skill perhaps (1H Slashing table, 2H Slashing table, one to three tables for natural attacks at most, etc).

 

[buzz]

I'd replace RM with HARP.

Seriously, HARP is basically the "get rid of all the damn tables" revision of RM. And why split your fan base between two relatively-similar product lines? It'd be like the AD&D/BD&D split all over again.

That, or take all the best bits of HARP and RM and mash them togther into a single game line and call it Rolemaster... or HARP.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I'd replace RM with HARP.

My sentiments exactly.