If you could revise Rolemaster?

[Silverleaf]

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?

MERP was a lighter version of Rolemaster 2nd edition (RM2) and a pretty good game if I may say so. Instead of the dozens of attack and crit tables, the MERP rulebook only had a few, so it was pretty quick to reference them. Less page flipping and all that. Heck, I think the GM screens they sold had all the tables on them. But I didn't have a screen and instead just photocopied that stuff and kept it front of me, which worked just as well.
The Moving Maneuver table you're talking about is only for resolving critical actions, *not* everyday stuff like walking around. But say, your PC tries jumping over a chasm. So the GM assigns a difficulty level to the action (eg, "hard") and then you roll your skill check, total up the modifiers, and then he cross-references the "hard" column with your numeric result. That gives the result, and tells you not only if you succeeded or failed, but also by how much. In the chasm-jumping situation, succeeding by say 75% means you plummet down helplessly, but if you got 95% maybe there's a chance you could have grabbed the ledge on the other side and tried to hand on (another action). And depending on the nature of the action, some can be retried many times, and even partial successes are helpful there.
There was also a Static Maneuver chart, for resolving actions which were strictly pass/fail in nature. Actually it wasn't so much a chart as a collection of typical modifiers, IOW the same kind of things given in the d20 SRD skill section. To resolve a static maneuver you just made your skill roll, added any appropriate modifiers, and if the total was over 100 then you succeeded (otherwise you failed).

 

[Rasyr]

The Snap/Normal/Deliberate phase business

That and the Restricted/Occupational/Everyman skills are my two biggest pet peeves with the current RM.

I don't know if RM could be redesigned in such a way as to retain its fanbase and yet pare down the combat system into something a lot simpler (and therefore more quickly resolved).

Well, we have already figured out that no matter what we do, we will lose some of the existing fanbase. The trick will be to make the game good enough so that we can attract more players than we lose. My idea for the combat system, as I mentioned above, is to provide something that is relatively quick and easy to use, but may also be expanded into something much more detailed (in a supplement, NOT in the core rules) for those who want it.

I hope that some of that might be helpful to you, Tim. Despite some less than pleasant dealings with ICE in the past (before the current administration), I hold great fondness for the system and I wish you guys the best of luck.

Thanks, it is helpful. All the comments so far have been helpful. Who knows, maybe I'll try to conscript you and your group as playtesters at some point.

That looks good. I'd go with a separate roll for crits though (levels A through E), because the crits are one thing I really like about Rolemaster.
I'd probably base it on armor type rather than attack size. Or possibly expand things to have one table per attack form (crush, slash, puncture, possibly grapple and more) per size (so you'd have Tiny puncture, Small puncture, Medium puncture...). But that might be too much, in which case it's better to just use size as a modifier.

Actually, what I am picturing (in my mind), would be something along the lines of 5 or 6 columns for the Attack Matrix (the part on the left), Each column would represent a number range. One thing that a revised RM will have is rules for armor by the peice. So.. If we just use a simple rating system, you can then add the numbers together to give the total armor value, and then the column rolled on would be based upon the total AV of the character. There would be a single page for each attack type (puncture, slash, etc..) and the Attack Matric could have break points for each attack size (i.e. a Tiny might max out at 120 on the attack matrix, and a Small at 135 or 140, etc..)

For the criticals, in the core book, I would most likely want to go with something like what is there in the sample, but it would be easy enough to have adjustments (i.e. A = -20 on crit table, B = -10, C = +0, D = +10, E = +20), or perhaps something similar.

I do like the way RM's attack tables make it so someone in heavy armor is gonna take a lot of hits that do a few points of concussion damage but no crits, while an unarmored guy has a much better chance of not being hit at all, but gets a lot more hurtin' if they do connect - and that kind of thing is pretty hard to do in HARP, I think (though I admit I've only read the book once or twice).

In HARP, armor adds to the DB, so is pretty much incorporated into it, nust in a slightly different manner.

 

[Rasyr]

Silverleaf - HARP does that, but has both types of tables combined into a single small (1/4 page) table. The Maneuver Table in HARP (which you can actually see in the HARP Lite free download), was based on a section in one of the RMC's that described various uses of the M&M table. I boiled the ideas down to their core ideas, and used them as the basis for making the HARP table.

Of course, I also based it in part for a RM table of a similar nature that I devised and published on The Guild Companion a while back.

 

[Staffan]

One thing that a revised RM will have is rules for armor by the peice. So.. If we just use a simple rating system, you can then add the numbers together to give the total armor value, and then the column rolled on would be based upon the total AV of the character.

I'm not so sure that's a good idea. One of the advantages of splitting things up by armor type is that you can represent the way different types of armor interact with different types of attacks - e.g. chain mail protecting very well against slashing attacks, but very poorly against crushing.

For the criticals, in the core book, I would most likely want to go with something like what is there in the sample, but it would be easy enough to have adjustments (i.e. A = -20 on crit table, B = -10, C = +0, D = +10, E = +20), or perhaps something similar.

That's pretty much exactly what MERP did.

In HARP, armor adds to the DB, so is pretty much incorporated into it, nust in a slightly different manner.

Actually, that's the opposite of what I mean, if I understand correctly how things work. Having armor add to DB means that quickness and armor gives the same sort of benefit, just in different amounts (and to a degree, armor reducing the effects of speed).

In Rolemaster, if I have a broadsword and attack a naked person (AT 1), I have to get an attack total of 80 to hit. If I do, I do 8 points of damage. I have to roll 85 to get any sort of crit, and a 122 to get the most lethal type (E). If I instead attack someone wearing full plate (AT 20), I'm gonna have to do a pretty poor job in order to miss completely - a 30 is enough to do 1 point of damage. However, I'm going to have to work my way up to 125 to get any crits (which is enough for an E crit on a naked person), and only a 150 is enough to get an E crit. That kind of "easy to hit but hard to really hurt" thing can't be done when you have a linear relationship between damage avoidance (quickness-DB) and damage absorption (armor-DB). Basically, having armor add to DB sort of turns the game into D&D, but rolling a d100 instead.

 

[Steel_Wind]

As for tables, personally, I do not see RM as "selling tables", I see it as a highly flexible game system. However, there are those who actually like all the tables.

Well - that may be. But the official company line at ICE - EVERY TIME the issue of coming up with a master Arm's Law/Claw Law/Spell Law combat program was brought up was "that's the core of our system - it's copyrighted - do it and we sue you".

You may not like my answer - but the answer does not change to suit the audience. It needs to be computerized Tim: plain and simple.

Don't get me wrong. I **like** all the attack tables and critical charts. I know them well but looking through them and keeping track of +/-, Stunned/Bleed/Prone during combat slows things down too much.

Conmputerize it and the problems go away. The fun returns without the baggage.

The age-old problem with RM2 was Haste. Haste is what broke RM2's system. It was too powerful. Instead of subtly adjusting the rule - the new system in RMSS just went way too far. Word is, its creator did not even use it (John did not use minatures in play, either).

I often wonder what he was actually running - because it clearly was not RMSS. Oh well.

The combat system itself was always bulky in RM2 - but liveable. RMSS just DESTROYED IT. It became unworkable and we stopped playing. Add in RMSS character generation... oiy!

The skills do need to go back to the original RM2 Char Law versions. One in particular that must not ever surface again is Stunned Manuever. That thing should never have been permitted.

The problem with all game systems is a need to sell more books and more rules. Rolemaster has been as much a victim of this as anything else - and it was worse under RMSS as the time ICE spent on settings with Shadow World was gone and Middle Earth had slowed down a lot. So we got rules with RMSS and a lot of them.

I somehow doubt that will change with a successful RM4.

Whatever the case: I'm not ready for RM4 yet. Some day perhaps - but not now. I'm having too much fun with D20 3.5. When they try and sell us D&D4.0 - I'll be ready for a new look at RM. Until then - thanks but...I'm busy and I'm *already* having fun.

 

[TheGM]

Significantly reduce or eliminate prep rounds for spellcasting. Sure, if you get high enough level they go away, but man to survive when you have to stand there and chant for four rounds to get a spell off is tough unless you've got some tanks around to protect you.

The negatives of that part of the system outweigh the positives, IMHO.

It seems that nearly every monster has a DB, but that few non-fighters do without parrying. That should change too. You don't need fifty mods to a roll.

Though I like the parrying concept a LOT.

 

[Rasyr]

Please remember that any thing that I say it would likely have may be changed at any time as nothing has even hit the drawing board yet.

 

[SteveC]

The age-old problem with RM2 was Haste. Haste is what broke RM2's system. It was too powerful. Instead of subtly adjusting the rule - the new system in RMSS just went way too far. Word is, its creator did not even use it (John did not use minatures in play, either).

I often wonder what he was actually running - because it clearly was not RMSS. Oh well.

Just as an aside to the discussion: I played with John Curtis in his games at Gen Con for, oh dear, 8 years or so. He didn't use miniatures, but he very much DID use all of the rules, and he knew them inside and out. As an even further aside, John's games were, by far, the best convention games, heck the best hours of roleplaying I've ever had. I've been lucky enough to run and play with a lot of good GMs, and John was the best. For one of the events I played with a group who had never played RM before, and John's GM style won over three hard core rules light players to buying and running RM. That says a lot!

Sorry for the interruption...

--Steve

 

[Morte]

Well - that may be. But the official company line at ICE - EVERY TIME the issue of coming up with a master Arm's Law/Claw Law/Spell Law combat program was brought up was "that's the core of our system - it's copyrighted - do it and we sue you".

You may not like my answer - but the answer does not change to suit the audience. It needs to be computerized Tim: plain and simple.

Yeah, spot on. ICE need to live in the real world on this one.

 

[Dougal DeKree]

This post is Privateers-heavy, sorry!

First off: Thanx for asking at all, Rasyr!

About RM however: I only own the RM-Version that came out first, but i guess that RMSS is the same system SMrivateers is using. If that is correct, I have to say the following:

- The skill system is way too complex and at the same time a player always has too few development points to build a char that can fulfill a certain roll.

- About character generation: even including a fully automated excel-spreadsheet it takes several hours. This is _no_ fun at all for the GM nor the player.

- Weapons skills should only be a group and a (+/-) to the table - so a weapons master need not learn gazillion skills to be a professional with all daggers there are.

Something about Privateers: Having to do skill-development for a robot like "ordained" by the Robot Manual is horrible. In old Spacemaster you bought the computer, then had a look at what programs could be afforded - which feels realistic. Not having any example-standard-robots at all didn't help either! Which is something i found to be true about all books of the privateers series: The examples, if given at all, tend to evade the most complex parts.While i like the rules for building starships nearly as much as the old ones, I feel cheated by the exmples given. Take a look at the Vehicle Manual's rules to create a Starship. Mr. Defendi gives one example, where he builds an under 100t spacefighter. How convenient - this leaves the reader alone in figuring out, how that big table concerning percentages for reinforcements is thought to work (it took me several tries to come to a sensible solution). Later on several other aspects, that only come up with bigger ships, this becomes even more annoying. After a week of i thought i had found out how it works - and tried to rebuild the ships stats in the other chapters - i didn't succeed once. Such inconsitencies _really_ shouldn't occur.

Give the reader a chance to understand the system he wants to work with!

What you should not do: Change tables in RM like what happened in Blaster Law. One table for each single weapon with the instructions to create your own tables. No way. Lots of gamers tend to have little time (one needs to work to be able to buy all these books, right?) and the table you attached goes into the right direction, i think. One table for projectiles, one for energy weapons etc. _must_ suffice!

What is a must: keep the system as deadly as it is! Our group usually plays D20 and was astonished how fast one can die in Spacemaster. This actually reduced the number of conflicts and improved roleplay! How? Now even agressive players try to solve problems diplomatically before pulling the trigger! I found that to be true for Rolamester, too.

So, enough ranting for now. I hope i didn't anger anyone (especially Robert J. Defendi!)
Dougal