If you could revise Rolemaster?

[Rasyr]

Like I have mentioned earlier, for the combat system, for the core rules, I (me, personally - nothing official here) want to go with condensed tables.

Then in a supplement, expand this. My idea for this expansion, would not be a single table for each weapon, plus a bunch of generic crit tables, but attack and crit tables tailored to each weapon!! For example, we would have a Dagger Attack Table, and a Dagger Critical Table, and all dagger-like weapons could use it, or have the base dagger tables, and then in yet another supplement, have a stiletto table, and a kris table, etc. I figure put the most common weapons in the first Arms supplement, and then go ahead and do more exotic weapons in additional books.

This is just a thought about a way to proceed, one that would allow those who want more detail and more criticals to add them if they want them...

I have a few ideas on how to make chargen both quicker and more freeform as well, but I don't have all the details worked out for it yet. In short though, I was thinking of something along the lines of Training Packages, or Skill Sets (i.e. select one or two each level - (OR go freeform and select x number of skills - within certain guidelines). Using this method, it would basically mean a first level character could be created in 5-10 minutes, and a fifth level character would be possible in approximately the same length of time (most of that time spent totalling bonuses).

Again!!! I would like to stress that this is just an idea, and not even one that I have presented to the bosses yet as a possible way to go....

 

[buzz]

Alternatively, you could repackage RM as a supplement for HARP – i.e. RM could become a set of rules that modified HARP into a ‘RM form’. I know that this would upset many RM fans, but I wonder about the business logic of trying to support two distinct FRPGs – unless they were highly compatible with each other (essentially different versions of the same underlying game).

This sounds like a perfect solution to me. Either make RM "Advanced HARP" or HARP "Basic/Core RM". Two FRPG lines = bad idea. HARP is simply a better starting point for an RM revision.

 

[Rel]

This sounds like a perfect solution to me. Either make RM "Advanced HARP" or HARP "Basic/Core RM". Two FRPG lines = bad idea. HARP is simply a better starting point for an RM revision.

Quite honestly I was under the impression that this was the path that had already been undertaken (even if it was not explicitly stated). I thought HARP was intended to address many of the shortcomings of RM but staying true to some of the core structure of the system (thereby pleasing the old guard of RM players) while shedding much of the baggage that RM had picked up over the years (thereby drawing new players). My perception was that to at least some degree these goals had been achieved.

I'm not trying to flame anybody in particular but I encountered a bunch of folks on the Guild Companion boards and some on the new ICE boards who considered the complexity of RM to be a mark of sophistication. They certainly viewed D&D as being a "simplistic" or "basic" game and I heard it referred to as "remedial" on a number of occasions. These individuals were quick to come down on anybody who suggested that the huge numbers of skills and charts the system had accumulated were unwieldy and lessened the fun of the system. They were elitist and proud of it. It was perhaps this attitude as much as anything else that made me happy to leave RM behind.

I understand that these folks were the epitome of the "vocal minority" but the attitude was prevalent enough that I'm willing to call it a trend, if a minor one. Those folks are not going to be happy with anything that streamlines the system by sacrificing complexity for playability. I don't suggest that they make up the majority of the RM playership by any means, but I think that many of the folks who were less extreme and more willing to change have likely already adopted HARP as their new system of choice. As a result, they may view another version of RM similarly to how many D&D fans (including myself) viewed the coming of 3.5: A slight tweak that meant buying a whole new set of books not so long after they'd just invested in a new and improved system that in most ways worked fine.

Just some more food for thought.

 

[Rasyr]

Actually Rel, HARP was meant to be to RM like the old MERP system was. An easier, entry level system into the ICE family.

ANy Revised RM and HARP will have a great deal of compatibility. That compatibility is there already, but it is not full. A RM revision would increase that compatibility, that would be one of the requirements for it.

And in case, you missed it, we actually put out a revised version of HARP 6 months after its initial release. Somethings that worked fine in playtesting, were not quite what those early adopters wanted. So we made corrections, added 32 pages of new material, and republished it. We also made all the changes available as free PDFs on the HARP website, and gave all those early adopters a $15 discount (which equals 60% of HARP cover price) which they could use on ANY products that they wanted.

We made sure that they knew that we were not trying to get them to repurchase the book. If/when we revise RM (and I am not expecting such a thing to happen for a couple more years at least), we will let the fan-base know what is going on, just as we do now.

As for that vocal minority, well, unfortunately, we cannot make everybody happy. The Arms supplements that I mentioned as a possibility above would be for those who like lots of tables, and they would be a straight swap for whatever goes in the core book (which WOULD be a condensed system).

 

[JoeGKushner]

Streamlining experience points would also be a solid deal.

The whole xp vs monster code vs player level sucks.

xp per critical per killing strike, per spellcasting, per mile travelled, etc... also resulted in too much paper work.

If there was one thing 2nd ed and basic D&D did well, it was making sure that xp was simple to give out.

 

[Rasyr]

Joe, streamlining XPs would be a given. In fact, any RM revision would most likely just lift the XP system straight from HARP. Thus be a goal oriented XP system. That allows for the most flexibility overall, as then those who want combat oriented games can have them, while those who want to play politically oriented or non-combat games can still use the same system without any modifications.

 

[Rel]

Joe, streamlining XPs would be a given. In fact, any RM revision would most likely just lift the XP system straight from HARP. Thus be a goal oriented XP system. That allows for the most flexibility overall, as then those who want combat oriented games can have them, while those who want to play politically oriented or non-combat games can still use the same system without any modifications.

I agree that this is key. One of our long standing house rules for RM was to ditch the existing XP system to something that rewarded roleplaying more than getting smacked by a big axe. Back in the day, surviving an E Crit was cause for celebration both for the mere fact that you survived and also the fact that you just raked in 500XP.

 

[Rasyr]

Back when I was GMing RM2, I moved to using the Daliy Activity Level XP system from one of the companions. When RMSS first came out, I continued to use it.

When it came time to design HARP, I examined it more closely and decided that it was still a bit vague. I knew I wanted an XP system that was flexible and that could reward players who did not want hack-n-slash campaigns, and yet also handle those who do want it.

I also had a habit, when GMing to ask players to give me a list of goals for the characters, personal goals that they want their characters to attempt to accomplish.

After some thought, I came up with the Goal Oriented XP system that HARP now uses. With it, just about anything can be a goal. Rescue the princess; slay the dragon; negotiate the treaty between two nations; find your long lost brother; discover who murdered the butler; figure out the enigmatic puzzle box left to you by some stranger; and many more possibilities.

Almost anything can be a goal. You can have Personal or Party goals, they can be of minor or major importance, and they can be of any degree of difficulty.

Rel - do me a favor and send me an email please - I have a question for you.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I agree that this is key. One of our long standing house rules for RM was to ditch the existing XP system to something that rewarded roleplaying more than getting smacked by a big axe. Back in the day, surviving an E Crit was cause for celebration both for the mere fact that you survived and also the fact that you just raked in 500XP.

The funniest part used to be the low level pure spellcasters who couldn't really cast spells rushing into combat and trying to get some xp from criticallying the enemy or surviving the attacks against them.

Good times...

 

[Rasyr]

Or even worse, such as going and killing cows just to get the XP from criticals delivered and such. <shudder>