Rolemaster: I need help with combat. I'm confused!
Chris Paladino
Hey, I played old rolemaster, but I just got back
into it, and I am kind of confused with all this snap action, normal,
and
deliberate stuff. Then full melee, and all that
too. I guess mostly the deliberate, snap stuff confuses me. I know snap
stuff
comes first but with a -20 to whatever skill your
using, but that example in the RMSR with the ogre and the elf and the
dwarf climbing up the ladder made no sense to me.
can someone go through and example of combat?
Thanks.
--
Chris Paladino
Di...@En.com
CPal...@Jcvaxa.jcu.edu
http://www.en.com/users/dino/index.html
Bryan Bankhead
In article <357BCE76...@En.com>, Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote:
> Hey, I played old rolemaster, but I just got back
> into it, and I am kind of confused.......
There is a very good reason for this Chris. It's because Rolemaster IS
CONFUSING.
I took one look at it and asked myself 'why wade through this Rube
Goldberg when there are plenty of simpler ways to do the same thing'?
Chris Paladino
Bryan Bankhead wrote:
> There is a very good reason for this Chris. It's because Rolemaster IS
> CONFUSING.
>
> I took one look at it and asked myself 'why wade through this Rube
> Goldberg when there are plenty of simpler ways to do the same thing'?
Well, mostly because it seems to be the most realistic game out there for
this stuff. I mean, AD&D, that's for kiddies, I want some sort of realism. I
just need to wade through the texts, and wanted to know if anyone out there
could help. I mean, this stuff can't be any harder than CHAMPIONS! (My fav.
RPG) Yeah, I AM a computer science major with a minor in math, so I can play
champs. *Laugh*
Y. Tremblay
In article <357D20B0...@en.com>, Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote:
>Bryan Bankhead wrote:
>
>> There is a very good reason for this Chris. It's because Rolemaster IS
>> CONFUSING.
>>
>> I took one look at it and asked myself 'why wade through this Rube
>> Goldberg when there are plenty of simpler ways to do the same thing'?
>
> Well, mostly because it seems to be the most realistic game out there for
>this stuff. I mean, AD&D, that's for kiddies, I want some sort of realism. I
>just need to wade through the texts, and wanted to know if anyone out there
>could help. I mean, this stuff can't be any harder than CHAMPIONS! (My fav.
>RPG) Yeah, I AM a computer science major with a minor in math, so I can play
>champs. *Laugh*
>
>--
>Chris Paladino
You see Chris, there are quite a few peoples around that for some
reason seem to have a teeth against Rolemaster. Maybe we should start
wondering if the poster that replied has a the ability to understand
something complex and his post was born from frustration at his lack
of abilities and jealousy that someone else might be able. So he
started a vendetta against rolemaster so that nobody anywhere use
something he can't understand.
Ok, not to start a flame war, the above is _irony_. But it is meant
to say: "If you have nothing worthwhile to say, just shut up"
Many of these anti-rolemaster type have only had a glance a the old
version and decided it looked to complex. One need to play for a
while with rolemaster to get comfortable with it. The new version
RMSS is a lot better organised which make the system look a lot more
accessible.
My opinion on rolemaster: a great system edging toward the overly
complex. One has to like complex thing to like this system.
Inexperienced GMs and players risk having combat taking too much time
but maybe it is a good thing since it cut down on the 5 PC vs 40 Orcs
kind of encounters.
Character development is very detailed and one of the great strength
of the system (with the combat system). Although there are level in
rolemaster, it is mostly skill based and allow to develop the
character you want. There are character classes too which some
peoples don't like but the rolemaster approach is that your profession
reflect your outlook on the world. A fighter can learn spells but he
will find it far more difficult than a mage would. If we take Ali as
a fighter, he had an innate ability to learn fighting and could become
good at it easily but for him to learn quantum mechanics, he might
have needed twice the time than the average university science
graduate needs. So like in the real world (tm) some peoples are
better at learning intellectual things, some are better at learning
physical things.
The combat system is among the best there is. Dangerous, can be slow
if you don't know the system (hint: xerox the tables and give a copy
of the relevant tables to your players), realistic (enough) while
still allowing for heroic kind of feel (e.g. I don't really like when
my character die from infection two week after combat). This is one
of the few system where different weapons have different strength and
effects. I must admit that the timings take some time to get used to.
Although some peoples complain about the lack of hit location, this is
not the philosophy of the system. The hit points represent concussion
and are relatively easy to heal. The real injuries come from the
criticals and these have hit location.
The magic system is average to above average. Not in the Ars Magica
league but then again ArsM is probably in a league of its own. The
idea of learning spell list instead of individual spells makes sense:
you learn to use magic in a certain way and as you gain experience,
you can use it in a similar way to obtain more powerful results.
As for your question, I am sorry, I can't really help you now (1).
But the best place to ask such question is in the mailing list at:
list...@tower.ml.net. To subscribe send an email to the list an
include in the body of the message:
subscribe rolemaster Your Name
The list is archived at http://www.reference.com/
and the FAQ is at http://homepage.interaccess.com/~echmyr/RMSSFAQ.html
A word of warning: the mailing list tend to have a high volume. You
may prefer subscribing in digest form. Also IMHO, this should really
be a newsgroup but many prefer the mailing list format since it mean
we don't have to cope with some idiots like the above Bryan and can
concentrate on enjoying one of the best game (although complex) there
is.
Yannick
Note 1: Yes, I see it coming: my intellectual capabilities might be too
low to answer to you. Alternatively, maybe I don't know the system
enough esp. the new RMSS and I don't have any book with me.
--
Y. Tremblay
Chris Paladino
Y. Tremblay wrote:
> As for your question, I am sorry, I can't really help you now (1).
> But the best place to ask such question is in the mailing list at:
> list...@tower.ml.net. To subscribe send an email to the list an
> include in the body of the message:
I tried the mailing list, and it had nothing to do with Rolemaster, they got
WAY WAY WAY off topic there, so I decided to try the newsgroup route. *Smirk*
Y. Tremblay
In article <357BCE76...@en.com>, Chris Paladino <Di...@En.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hey, I played old rolemaster, but I just got back
>and
> deliberate stuff. Then full melee, and all that
>stuff
> comes first but with a -20 to whatever skill your
>using, but that example in the RMSR with the ogre and the elf and the
> dwarf climbing up the ladder made no sense to me.
>can someone go through and example of combat?
>
> Thanks.
>
>--
>Chris Paladino
Ok, I'll see if I can help you (I don't have any books with me so it
is mostly from memory and I can't remember the example in the book):
In RMSS, a character can choose to act in three different ways: snap
actions, normal action and delibarate action. These represent the
priorities of the character. For example in combat, a character can
try to hit at the first possible opportunity that arise hopefully
disabling his ennemy before he can hit him. This is a snap action.
Since this first opportunity might not be as good as if he waited and
that he might be hurrying himself a bit much, he gets a -20 penalty.
He can also act normally and get a normal 0 modifier. Alternatively,
one can wait for the best possible opportunity, this best opportunity
results in a +10 bonus to the action taken. However, since he had to
wait to for it, his action will be resolved after any snap or normal
action.
In short:
--
1) Beginning of the round: everyone declares actions (up to three actions
per round, split 100% activity between them).
2) Roll for initiative.
3) Perform actions in the Snap Action phase. Don't forget to apply -20 to
all actions (except instant spells) in initiative order
4) Perform actions in the Normal Action phase in initiative order
5) Perform actions in the Deliberate Action phase. Don't forget to apply
+10 to all actions in initiative order.
--
So a character that decide to attack during the snap action phase will
always act before one that attack during a subsequent phase whatever
the initiative. If two opponents decide to attack during the same
phase, then the actions are resolved in order of initiative.
Hope this help, feel free to ask for a more specific case, I'll try to
help.
Yannick
BTW, yes the mailing list can be quitre noisy at time but it can also
be quite helpful if you are willing to filter through the messages.
As I said before, I'd prefer it to be a newsgroup. Two main reasons:
1- It allows peoples to pop-in for a look once in a while without
having to "commit" themselve to joining a mailing list. One bad thing
about it is that we are more likely to see lunatic coming to cause
trouble but OTOH we are more likely to interest new peoples in the
game too.
2- In general, newsreaders are better suited to browing through a
large amout of messages than mailers. Most do sort by subjects and
allow kill file, mail filters require some technical knowledge to
operate.
That said, there is a better alternative for someone looking for
answers on a particular subject: You can go to www.reference.com where
the mailing list is archived and do a search for the subject you
are looking for.
--
Y. Tremblay
Jason Mulligan
Chris Paladino wrote:
>
> Y. Tremblay wrote:
>
> > As for your question, I am sorry, I can't really help you now (1).
> > But the best place to ask such question is in the mailing list at:
> > list...@tower.ml.net. To subscribe send an email to the list an
> > include in the body of the message:
>
> I tried the mailing list, and it had nothing to do with Rolemaster, they got
> WAY WAY WAY off topic there, so I decided to try the newsgroup route. *Smirk*
Hmmm...when was that? admittedly some threads go of into general GMing type
stuff or occasionally into ICE politics, but with the volume of threads on
the list there is plenty of discussions for everyone to get involved in.
Actually, recently it's had to become moderated due to a major flame-war
over one of the ICE political issues I mentioned above. So, there is now a
general RM chatter list and a moderated Rolemaster list. On the moderated
list, there are several of the current Rolemaster authors along with the
Editor of the Rolemaster line. So, I would actively invite all Rolemaster
players over.
--
Jason Mulligan
"The path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the
devil's own satanic herd!"
- Edmund Blackadder
Steve C
On that topic, could someone please repost
the address to subscribe to the mailing list?
The notes on the ICE homepage are incorrect
AFAIK. As another note, perhaps its time to
update that page (hint, hint!) Thanks for the
help in advance!
--Steve C. "Every man is a god,
Every man is free!"
spc...@Itis.com --Aztech guy from MST3K
NOTE: Remove nospam in order to reply
Jason Mulligan
>
> On that topic, could someone please repost
> the address to subscribe to the mailing list?
> The notes on the ICE homepage are incorrect
> AFAIK. As another note, perhaps its time to
> update that page (hint, hint!) Thanks for the
> help in advance!
Actually, ICE is supposedly in the process of updating their page. The new
one is due up in the next week or so. For other Q's, here is the list FAQ
which I manage.
Steve Stair
Chris Paladino wrote:
> I mean, this stuff can't be any harder than CHAMPIONS! (My fav.
> RPG) Yeah, I AM a computer science major with a minor in math, so I can play
> champs. *Laugh*
Its funny, but I've got a masters in CS with a minor in math, I love Champs/Hero,
and I still found Chartmaster to be too complicated.
--
Steve Stair
sstair...@iname.com
Luc Maillet
Steve Stair wrote:
> Its funny, but I've got a masters in CS with a minor in math, I love Champs/Hero,
> and I still found Chartmaster to be too complicated.
It's amazing how a couple of simple operations (+,-) can give people
fits.
Rolemaster is easy as sin as long as you can add or substract two
numbers between
1 and 1000 together (I say 1000 because of the open-endedness
possibility).
---- Luc ------------------------------------------
"The roadway of evil is not to be tread when the
eighteen wheelers of goodness are driving on it"
Frank J. Perricone
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 07:55:20 +0100, Luc Maillet <lmai...@intelcom.fr>
wrote:
> > Its funny, but I've got a masters in CS with a minor in math, I love Champs/Hero,
> > and I still found Chartmaster to be too complicated.
> It's amazing how a couple of simple operations (+,-) can give people fits.
> Rolemaster is easy as sin as long as you can add or substract two numbers between
> 1 and 1000 together (I say 1000 because of the open-endedness
> possibility).
It's the flipping through charts that bothers people, which I've always
found strange. After all, what those charts really are is, a bunch of
complicated and realistic rules for combat, which take into account lots of
factors, all pre-calculated and pre-determined for you. The systems that
people prefer over this make you do those calculations over and over on
every roll ("let's see, this is a puncturing weapon, but the guy's armor
protects in this way against punctures, so that means this much of the
damage is changed into bashing damage...") or that simply leave them off.
Arms Law gives you simple resolution (roll and add) with the realism of all
the "optional" rules of other combat systems but without the need to
actually go through all the evaluation of cases and contingencies they
require. But because that takes up a larger number of sheets of paper
people call it excessively complicated. Go figure.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: public key: finger hawt...@maple.sover.net, or on my web page
iQB1AwUBNY+bYsyfEemBueK1AQEB8wL9FjYMz1WIkxQqrknbXO5S5+iJv1pUkP3T
2H47qmK5bFWMFrksg70kqvJ0fMa+3Ml8pz4pKRCs8ecSk1/V4C8Va0tYT/UxRFN6
FlRAqi7KI018El5px9S2XuMBf6RUXn3r
=Riuk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
* Frank J. Perricone * hawt...@sover.net * http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn
Prism: http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn/Prism/
Just because we aren't all the same doesn't mean we have nothing in common
Just because we have something in common doesn't mean we're all the same
bne...@aracnet.com
In article <358F3CBF...@iname.com>, Steve says...
>
>Chris Paladino wrote:
>
>> I mean, this stuff can't be any harder than CHAMPIONS! (My fav.
>> RPG) Yeah, I AM a computer science major with a minor in math, so I can play
>> champs. *Laugh*
>
>Champs/Hero,
>and I still found Chartmaster to be too complicated.
It is a bit complicated but no more so than many RPGs around, even Hero.
The system is one of the most internally consistent that I've seen.
Dice are nearly always d100 (and always are to resolve something) -- the only
exceptions being that you roll them as d10s for values sometimes. Modifiers are
always things you add to your die roll; there's never any confusion over whether
it adds to your roll, subtracts from your chance, etc. Stats are in a 1-100
range just as everything else is. Hero, GURPS, and Fudge probably come the
closest here to consistency. (I don't know enough about CORPS to judge.) Also,
modern games such as White Wolf and d6 do too, but Rolemaster is a few
generations older than any of them.
With something like Chaosium (another favored system of mine, just so you don't
think I'm ragging randomly), your stats might be 3d6, 2d6+6, 2d4+12 and you want
high (except for POW and SIZ if you want to be a thief-type); you roll d100 to
hit or succeed and want to roll low; for damage, it might be d4+1, 2d6,
d10+1+d4, etc., and you want to roll high to get more damage; hit locations are
on d20 and you want to roll... some number, depending on the target.
With Rolemaster, you roll d100 for just about everything and a high result
always indicates more effect. (I refrain from saying "You always want to roll
high" because a high roll on the fumble chart might not be something you
"want".) One roll in combat will tell you whether you hit or not; if you did,
how much damage you did; if you got a critical hit; if so, what type and
severity; whether you fumbled; and whether your weapon has a chance of breaking.
And you can determine this all in one second. That's complicated? :)
Sure, getting used to the static maneuver chart and the movement maneuver chart
takes a little bit, but once you have it down, the entire system boils down very
nicely to a set of simple guidelines.
Shade and sweet water,
Brian
------------------
Spam free Usenet news http://extra.newsguy.com
Christopher Casey
Frank J. Perricone wrote in message <35919a64...@news2.sover.net>...
>On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 07:55:20 +0100, Luc Maillet <lmai...@intelcom.fr>
>wrote:
>> It's amazing how a couple of simple operations (+,-) can give people
fits.
>> Rolemaster is easy as sin as long as you can add or substract two numbers
between
>> 1 and 1000 together (I say 1000 because of the open-endedness
>> possibility).
>
>It's the flipping through charts that bothers people, which I've always
>found strange. After all, what those charts really are is, a bunch of
>complicated and realistic rules for combat, which take into account lots of
>factors, all pre-calculated and pre-determined for you.
What bothers me, and I'm sure a lot of folks, is trying to add and subtract
two-digit numbers on the fly and THEN having to look it up. I'm kind of a
method actor RPG'er; when I'm the GM of a role-playing game, I don't like
being side-tracked from the stories and characters just so I can add 46 plus
77 in my head (or worse, with a calculator ... we're playing in medieval
times and I use an electronic gadget?) and then flip through a bunch of
dog-eared pages and THEN find a result on a chart (or two) and THEN apply
that result, which usually involves subtracting 13 from 61 in my head. By
the time that's over with, I'm out of the groove. Small combats can take
hours, and by the time all the number-mongering's over with, you're expected
to just pick up your role-playing as if nothing's ever happened. It's like
taking a remedial math test, with crib notes, in the middle of "Othello".
The detail level of Chartmaster is nice, but the rules damage the
role-playing immersion experience for me, IMHO. Give me Paranoia any day. :)
--C.
Jacob Boucher
I would like to add my experience with Role-Master.
I have played in several different systems over the years, and I had heard of
RM's bad reputation. Then one of my players invited me to be in his RM game.
This was the first time this person had EVER run a game, and I was astounded
at how quickly things went. Character creation was a bitch, but once we got
beyond that, things moved VERY quickly. We generally game from 6 to 10:00
once a week, and in those four hours, we can get through a lot. Combat is
actually very fast if your GM knows where to look, and had the foresight to
photocopy the most important sheets. It seems to me that although RM seems
daunting and complicated at first, the learning curve is very steep, and since
there is basically one mechanic for all task resolution, play is a snap. Now,
since I am playing and not running, my viewpoint is one of some ignorance,
especially since I do not own any of the books. However, if I was offered the
oppertunity to play in another RM game, I think as long as the GM knows what
he is doing and where to look, it would be a lot of fun.
As for those who "lose the feel" because they have to use a calculator to come
up with the results, well, go buy another game then. That's one of the great
things about having multiple systems around; one of them is not "best", but
one of them may be the best-suited for your style of gaming.
BTW, arguments over things like "best system" are kind of pointless unless one
places some qualifiers on it. AD&D is not the best system for a realistic
game with realistic results in a detailed manner, and RM is not the best game
for rules-light "theatrical" gaming sessions.
More power to the Role-Masters!
Jacob Boucher.
John Rudd
Not to mention that it's not REALLY that realistic. It does have some real
feel to it (like that a heavily armored character is easier to hit, but
harder to do real damage to.. and a lightly armored character is generally
harder to hit but easier to do real damage to once you've hit them), but the
charts aren't layed out according to some reproducable principle. They're
almost entirely arbitrary.
Thus, if you want to use RM/SM to run a particular type of campeign (and it
is general enough for that set of "particular type of campeign" to be a
pretty rich set), you're fine. But if you start adding things that don't
quite fit an existing chart, or if you're running a campeign of a completely
different flavor, you're SOL.
There are definitely some very cool things about the assumptions made in the
design of RM/SM. But unfortunately, the actual implimentation of those
assumptions gets in the way of actually enjoying them. (though, I will say I
find that the space ship and armored vehicle rules to be quite cool.. they
still suffer from "this paradigm only" kinda thought (ex: you can't build
star trek ships and have them come out the way you'd expect), but they are
the most comprehensive and playable set of rules I've come across in many
years of gaming).
I ran RM and SM games for about 5 or 6 years off and on (it was the only rpg
system I ran from about 1985 til 1991) before I gave up. If I had wanted to
keep running the same game world, or one just like it, I would have been
fine. But I started wanting to do some things that are very different.. and
RM/SM just didn't hold up to the modifications I was trying to make (ex: you
just can't do WH40k in Space Master.. you can get something that has some
similar feel to it, but it isn't the same). I was constantly left feeling
like the things necessary to my game world were barely held on to the system
with duct tape and bandaids.
I have since moved toward ultra-light weight game systems. FUDGE was a
god-send.
--
John "kzin" Rudd jr...@cygnus.com http://www.cygnus.com/~jrudd
Intel: Putting \"I want a pair of Daisy Eagle semi-auto paintball pistols
the backward in \in shoulder rigs. Who cares if you win the game as long
backward compatible\as you can John Woo as you dive over obstacles?" - anon
Michael T. Richter
John Rudd wrote in message <6mp0rv$fs3$2...@cronkite.cygnus.com>...
>Not to mention that it's not REALLY that realistic. It does have some real
>feel to it (like that a heavily armored character is easier to hit, but
>harder to do real damage to.. and a lightly armored character is generally
>harder to hit but easier to do real damage to once you've hit them), but
the
>charts aren't layed out according to some reproducable principle. They're
>almost entirely arbitrary.
That is, actually, untrue for RM itself. SM and its other brothers are much
more arbitrary, but the RM charts are the product of a computer program
which had many, many, many parameters for each weapon which was then
hand-tweaked a little to smooth out some oddities. (I have this from a
former ICE insider.)
--
Michael T. Richter
m...@ottawa.com
http://www.igs.net/~mtr
bne...@aracnet.com
In article <6mov1r$e...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>, "Christopher says...
>What bothers me, and I'm sure a lot of folks, is trying to add and subtract
>two-digit numbers on the fly and THEN having to look it up. I'm kind of a
>method actor RPG'er;
As am I, but I don't find that RM interferes with that at all. YMMV.
>when I'm the GM of a role-playing game, I don't like
>being side-tracked from the stories and characters just so I can add 46 plus
>77 in my head (or worse, with a calculator ... we're playing in medieval
>times and I use an electronic gadget?) and then flip through a bunch of
>dog-eared pages and THEN find a result on a chart (or two) and THEN apply
>that result, which usually involves subtracting 13 from 61 in my head. By
>the time that's over with, I'm out of the groove.
I figure my modifier, punch it into my calculator, roll, punch that in and add.
Maybe 2 or 3 more seconds. Good grief, if your RP time is that limited, don't
use rules at all, or better yet, relax and plan a long session sometime so you
don't have to be on edge counting each precious second.
As for employing anachronistic devices while playing... don't forget to use
nothing plastic, in your chair, table, pen or pencil, dice, beverage containers;
in fact, you probably shouldn't read or write anything either. See, it's sort
of a hypocritical point. If I'm already using plastic dice, writing on modern
paper, with a modern pencil, checking my wristwatch for the time, or worse still
the VCR clock, it's kind of contradictory to argue that a calculator is out of
place in all that.
>Small combats can take
>hours, and by the time all the number-mongering's over with, you're expected
>to just pick up your role-playing as if nothing's ever happened. It's like
>taking a remedial math test, with crib notes, in the middle of "Othello".
Combats can take hours, yes, but they can in most systems I've seen that bother
to go into any detail. If you're abstracting combat, you can do that with
Rolemaster too, using some of the MERP rules, and have it over in 20 minutes.
I wouldn't really say that using a calculator to add two two-digit numbers is
like a remedial math test, or that most roleplaying sessions are as serious or
as engrossing as Othello. I'd say it would be like reading a novel such as Dune
and flipping to the glossary in the back in mid-sentence to clarify something.
Maybe I've always been in the wrong groups.
Christopher Casey
bne...@aracnet.com wrote in message <6mp4nc$o...@edrn.newsguy.com>...
>I figure my modifier, punch it into my calculator, roll, punch that in and
add.
>Maybe 2 or 3 more seconds. Good grief, if your RP time is that limited,
don't
>use rules at all, or better yet, relax and plan a long session sometime so
you
>don't have to be on edge counting each precious second.
I s'pose what I'm trying to say is, I don't like having to use calculators
while playing. Plus, when I'm the GM, I tend to strew scratch papers and
game notes and charts (especially while playing RoleMaster) all over the
place, and the calculator always gets lost in the pile.
As for RoleMaster sucking up precious time ... you figure (3 sec), roll
percentile dice (5 sec), search for the right page (5 sec), search the chart
(3 sec), read the description out loud (10 sec), search another chart (5 sec
if it's on the same page), read THAT out loud (10 sec), figure the
collective penalties (3 sec) ... all those little things add up, and trying
to do them quickly leaves me feeling VERY harried. In, say, Paranoia, you
roll a d20 to hit (3 sec), roll for damage (3 sec) and look on a simple
chart (3 sec) ... bang, zoom, on to the next. You can have big battles
without feeling lost, which I do if I'm running more than about five NPC's
in RoleMaster. (I will admit my degree is in English with a speech minor,
not maths ... beyond trigonometry my eyes cross.)
>As for employing anachronistic devices while playing... don't forget to use
>nothing plastic, in your chair, table, pen or pencil, dice, beverage
containers;
>in fact, you probably shouldn't read or write anything either.
That's an odd argument to make. There WERE dice in medieval times. There
were tables, pencils (after a fashion), paper (again, after a fashion),
clocks and chairs. I can suspend my disbelief enough to overlook their
modern construction. Calculators are so obtrusively 20th-century that they
just jar with me. (So do phones ringing in the middle of a game. Talk about
a wet slap in the face with reality. "By my troth, Angar, yon infernal
device screams like a banshee!") Okay, so I get carried away in my
imagination sometimes ... but after spending several minutes building up a
great description of a dank and musty dungeon, with odd sounds and squeaks
emanating from the darkness, moss hanging from the ceiling, water dripping,
etc., to then lean over a calculator and go, "Okay, 17 plus 83 equals ..."
kind of takes away from the experience.
>I wouldn't really say that using a calculator to add two two-digit numbers
is
>like a remedial math test, or that most roleplaying sessions are as serious
or
>as engrossing as Othello. I'd say it would be like reading a novel such as
Dune
>and flipping to the glossary in the back in mid-sentence to clarify
something.
Apparently your mileage varied. :) Any ruleset that doesn't give a quick,
flowing gaming experience or that makes me feel like Lucille Ball in the
candy factory just isn't my bag. (Incidentally, I read Dune straight
through, THEN read the glossary to clarify points. :) )
--C.
Graham Wills
>Not to mention that it's not REALLY that realistic. It does have some real
>feel to it (like that a heavily armored character is easier to hit, but
>harder to do real damage to.. and a lightly armored character is generally
>harder to hit but easier to do real damage to once you've hit them), but the
>charts aren't layed out according to some reproducable principle. They're
>almost entirely arbitrary.
They were cerated using a computer program which factored in I
believe around 35 different characteristics of weapon and armor
combinations. Ask ICE if you want details.
>>Thus, if you want to use RM/SM to run a particular type of campeign (and it
>is general enough for that set of "particular type of campeign" to be a
>pretty rich set), you're fine. But if you start adding things that don't
>quite fit an existing chart, or if you're running a campeign of a completely
>different flavor, you're SOL.
Hmmm. So Middle-Eart, Science Fiction, CyberPunk, Pirates and Mythic
Egypt are all "a particular type of campeign"? They're all published available
supplemetns that work perfectly well. As people have pointed out, the
underlying mechanism is so simple that there's no problem adapting it.
As a quick example, here's a table for writing USENET posts:
< -100 Your post is a disaster. It is sent to net.kooks and
you will not be taken seriously again by anyone who
reads it for a year
-99 - -25 Your post is aweful. It sways opions againt you and
your position
-24 - 75 Your post fails to influence anyone
76 - 99 Some people make sensible replies to you and seem willing
to debate
100-174 Several people seem to agree with you. The opposite side
seems silly
175+ Your post is quoted many times as the "right way to think
about" your subject. Your opponet is reduced to flaming your
spelling, but it turns out he's wrong there too.
Any RM GM could produce the liek at the drop of a hat.
>I ran RM and SM games for about 5 or 6 years off and on (it was the only rpg
>system I ran from about 1985 til 1991) before I gave up. If I had wanted to
>keep running the same game world, or one just like it, I would have been
>fine. But I started wanting to do some things that are very different.. and
>RM/SM just didn't hold up to the modifications I was trying to make (ex: you
>just can't do WH40k in Space Master.. you can get something that has some
>similar feel to it, but it isn't the same). I was constantly left feeling
>like the things necessary to my game world were barely held on to the system
>with duct tape and bandaids.
Sure. Feel is very different from type of campaign. RM is best as a realistic,
down and dirty system. For superheroes, it's as bad as GURPS is for SciFi.
-Graham
--
----
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com
Luc Maillet
Christopher Casey wrote:
> I s'pose what I'm trying to say is, I don't like having to use calculators
> while playing. Plus, when I'm the GM, I tend to strew scratch papers and
> game notes and charts (especially while playing RoleMaster) all over the
> place, and the calculator always gets lost in the pile.
But how come so many people need a calculator to add two numbers in the
1-1000 range together? That skill is supposed to be taught at the age of
7 or 8... at most.
> As for RoleMaster sucking up precious time ...
figure (3s) : OK
roll dice (5s): you roll slowly. Say 3s at most.
search for the right page (5s): no. You're a sensible GM, you've xeroxed
the
pages you need (not many) in advance, and the players have their own.
search the chart (3s): well, why not.
Read out loud (10s): OK
repeat steps 3 to 5. No. You describe only once. Usually, after the
second loop, not the first.
Total: 27s
Paranoia: figure (which you've forgotten: GM always figure), roll a d20
(same as a d100), roll for damage (same), look on a simple chart
(3s)...
and describe, which you should do anyway.
Total: 22s
Wow. Big deal.
> etc., to then lean over a calculator and go, "Okay, 17 plus 83 equals ..."
100. I'm in a helpful mood today :-)
In essence, what is needed for GMing Rolemaster easily is:
- an understanding of the basics (d100, OE, standard SM and MM
procedures,
standard to hit/critical procedure, standard spellcasting/RR
procedure).
- a bit of organization. Arrange things into neat piles. Xerox the most
useful charts. Give your players those their characters will use most
often. Index your books. Whatever.
- use, don't be used. Charts are like dice and rules: tools. Helpful
assistants. Nothing more.
- practice simple mathematics. 172+35-50 = ??
- remember that Rolemaster underlying principles are few in number and
very systematic (non-attack? Simple method: d100OE +skill+ Mod, > 100
succeeds. Medium method [same roll], consult standard static or moving
manoeuver table) (attack: [same roll, with DB included in Mod],
consult
weapon/attack mode table, if Crit indicated roll d100 and consult crit
table) (non-elemental spell: roll BSC => modifier to RR, roll modified
RR and consult table: Y/N situation). Everything else is specific and
worthy of attention only as long as it doesn't take too much time.
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
In the late 8Ø's and early 90's, Rolemaster was the system of choice in
my RPG group. Some of my most fun gaming experiences have been with
Rolemaster. Still, in the end, several frustrations with the system
(many admittedly minor) and the discovery of HERO made us leave RM.
Some of my main frustrations (with the first edition, I'm not familiar
with 2nd ed.) were:
- Because the to-hit roll and the damage roll isone and the same (with
Strength as the bonus stat), the system doesn't allow both the basic warrior
types: The slow, strong ox who rarely hits but _really_ hits when he does,
and the quick, agile fencer who hits often, but rarely does heavy damage.
- Since the weapon charts end at 150, for some weapons a wide range of
severity of damage is crammed into a very small range of results (esp. vs.
heavy armor). For instance, for javelin vs. AT 20, a difference of 15 rolled
can mean a difference of not doing a critical and doing an E critical.
- There are no penalties associated with using heavy weapons as opposed
to light (no ST min, no fewer attacks per turn, no slower attack). Light
weapons do have a small advantage versus un-armored targets, but this is
more than out-weighed by their disadvantage versus heavily armored targets.
For this reason, everybody (even halflings) tends to use warhammers,
handaxes and falchions.
- A criticals can be fatal, while E criticals can have almost no effect.
This introduces, IMO, too much randomness into the results. Too many times
to count, characters have made really great attacks, easily hitting the
magic 150, and ended up with "+3 hits". I think that A crits should always
be mild, and E crits always severe.
- Low level characters have very few hits, while high level characters have
oodles of them. This seems a tad unrealistic, why should you become more
resistant to damage as you become more experienced. This is probably the
worst case of what I call "AD&D infection" in RM.
- Unless equipped with spell adders or PP multipliers, most spellusers will
only have PP enough to cast one or two spells at their maximum level. I
would prefer if their natural casting ability was greater, but less improved
by items.
In the end we made house rules to deal with many of the above-mentioned
problems, but doing so we moved further and further away from "real" RM,
and eventually gave it up as a lost cause.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Klaus Mogensen <klau...@get2net.dk> "Never and forever are neither for men,
Elbagade 11 1-th, DK-2300 S You'll be returning again and again."
Copenhagen, Denmark - Sheelba of the Eyeless Face -
bne...@aracnet.com
In article <ant24143...@s-171322.get2net.dk>, "Klaus says...
>
>In the late 8Ø's and early 90's, Rolemaster was the system of choice in
>my RPG group. Some of my most fun gaming experiences have been with
>Rolemaster. Still, in the end, several frustrations with the system
>(many admittedly minor) and the discovery of HERO made us leave RM.
I play both. :)
>Some of my main frustrations (with the first edition, I'm not familiar
>with 2nd ed.) were:
I can speak about 2nd Ed. and RMSS (3rd ed.), so I will. :)
>- Because the to-hit roll and the damage roll isone and the same (with
>Strength as the bonus stat), the system doesn't allow both the basic warrior
>types: The slow, strong ox who rarely hits but _really_ hits when he does,
>and the quick, agile fencer who hits often, but rarely does heavy damage.
Sure it does. Give the agile fencer a rapier or similar weapon which can hit
lesser armored folks pretty well and can hit tougher ones easily but do 1 or 2
points; give the ox a War Mattock, which has like 110+ to hit most armor types
but packs a wallop. The rest of it -- lumbering or agile -- comes from your
skill in maneuvering in your armor, your personal body weight encumbering you,
and your native Quickness and Agility. It's modeled just fine; it's just not
all modeled in the to-hit roll.
>- Since the weapon charts end at 150, for some weapons a wide range of
>severity of damage is crammed into a very small range of results (esp. vs.
>heavy armor). For instance, for javelin vs. AT 20, a difference of 15 rolled
>can mean a difference of not doing a critical and doing an E critical.
That's true, but take for example Hero. Let's say you need an 8 on 3d6 to hit
somebody. If you roll 9 or higher, nothing happens. If you roll 3, you kill
them. RM takes the approach that you might have hit but not done a killing
blow.
Another option, introduced in RM2 and commonly used in RMSS, is to extend the
charts beyond 150. Either subtract 150 from your roll and re-apply the
remainder to the chart, or figure out the progression of the amount of hits and
the criticals and do some math to extend it up to your roll.
>- There are no penalties associated with using heavy weapons as opposed
>to light (no ST min, no fewer attacks per turn, no slower attack). Light
>weapons do have a small advantage versus un-armored targets, but this is
>more than out-weighed by their disadvantage versus heavily armored targets.
>For this reason, everybody (even halflings) tends to use warhammers,
>handaxes and falchions.
Penalties associated with using heavy weapons: True enough. Most systems don't
have this either. AD&D sort of had it but didn't really have any rules on
actually using it. RuneQuest has about the best that I've seen for it. I'm
working on a better combat time and action system, as lots of people have done,
which will take those things into account.
>- A criticals can be fatal, while E criticals can have almost no effect.
>This introduces, IMO, too much randomness into the results. Too many times
>to count, characters have made really great attacks, easily hitting the
>magic 150, and ended up with "+3 hits". I think that A crits should always
>be mild, and E crits always severe.
And Hero isn't just as random? With a 12d6 attack, you could do 12 stun and 0
body all the way up to 72 stun and 24 body. A 3d6 killing attack could do 3
stun and 3 body up to 90 stun and 18 body. That's pretty significant --
scratching an average person as opposed to pulverizing them into mush. RM just
combines your to hit roll and your damage roll into one roll.
As for getting a lame critical result with a massive concussion attack, you
could have smacked your opponent really hard in the kneecap or temple with the
flat of your blade or with a straight-on smash, etc., but not actually done any
significant structural damage to their body. I see this as a pretty decent
combat model myself.
Rolemaster constantly says throughout its rules that you are completely and
totally free to institute your own rules or even toss out rules you don't want
to use. All A crits get -50 to their roll (minimum 01) and all E crits get +50
(maximum 100)? Fine, if that suits you.
>- Low level characters have very few hits, while high level characters have
>oodles of them. This seems a tad unrealistic, why should you become more
>resistant to damage as you become more experienced. This is probably the
>worst case of what I call "AD&D infection" in RM.
RM still has "hit points", "experience points", "experience levels", "armor
class", and "character class", yes. Remember, it was originally developed first
to add onto AD&D and then to supplant it. However, hit points are not as tied
to your level as you'd think. My party has a 1st level Fighter with around 60
hits, due to some background options and heavy spending on Body Development.
There's also a Dabbler (thief/mage) with about 20 hits. The fighter has trained
more on taking hits in stride. So? Other systems model this effect too.
You should become more able to take more hits as you are trained in combat, I
think. I'm not a trained boxer; I could only take a few punches. I bet Mike
Tyson could take a lot more; we're about the same age and have progressed in our
fields steadily. We just spent our experience points on different things.
>- Unless equipped with spell adders or PP multipliers, most spellusers will
>only have PP enough to cast one or two spells at their maximum level. I
>would prefer if their natural casting ability was greater, but less improved
>by items.
So make a new rule. RM is flexible enough that you can institute your own rule
wherever you want to.
I find that Power Point Development works out fine if the spellcasters take the
time to actually develop it. First level spellcasters are likely to have about
20 power points; that's enough to cast 20 first level spells in a day.
Considering that most pure spellcasters will learn up to level 6 in a spell
list, they could cast the 6th level spell 3 times and not go unconscious. Of
course, with the spell failure adjustment for a 5 level difference, casting it 3
times a day every day is rather risky.
>In the end we made house rules to deal with many of the above-mentioned
>problems, but doing so we moved further and further away from "real" RM,
>and eventually gave it up as a lost cause.
I've created house rules for every game I've GMd; RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu,
Hero, RM, AD&D; and most games in which I've played have had some rule somewhere
to fill in a blank in the game system or to supercede some rule that the GM
didn't want to use. I think if you take a look at RMSS, you'll see a lot of the
loopholes closed, a lot of problems fixed, a lot of additions made which really
improve the system over 2nd edition.
Bottom line: if you don't like it, don't play it.
bne...@aracnet.com
In article <6mpk6k$2...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, "Christopher says...
>I s'pose what I'm trying to say is, I don't like having to use calculators
>while playing. Plus, when I'm the GM, I tend to strew scratch papers and
>game notes and charts (especially while playing RoleMaster) all over the
>place, and the calculator always gets lost in the pile.
>
>As for RoleMaster sucking up precious time ... you figure (3 sec), roll
>percentile dice (5 sec), search for the right page (5 sec), search the chart
>(3 sec), read the description out loud (10 sec), search another chart (5 sec
>if it's on the same page), read THAT out loud (10 sec), figure the
>collective penalties (3 sec) ... all those little things add up, and trying
>to do them quickly leaves me feeling VERY harried. In, say, Paranoia, you
>roll a d20 to hit (3 sec), roll for damage (3 sec) and look on a simple
>chart (3 sec) ... bang, zoom, on to the next. You can have big battles
>without feeling lost, which I do if I'm running more than about five NPC's
>in RoleMaster. (I will admit my degree is in English with a speech minor,
>not maths ... beyond trigonometry my eyes cross.)
Okay... let's break this down according to how Rolemaster actually works.
Figure: what does this mean? Your OB minus their DB? It's written on your
character sheet's front page, if you bothered to do it. Saying or thinking
"+53-20" (or entering it into a calculator): 2 seconds.
Roll the dice: 5 seconds? I'll give you 3 if your dice are really worn and
accounting for average time spent making an open-ended roll.
Search for the right page: No one in my game has to do this. Every player has
photocopies of their weapons charts and other attack charts in a folder with
their character information. 2 seconds if they didn't have their folder open.
Search the chart: cross indexing one number with another. Okay, if you have
trouble with that, 3 seconds.
Read the description out loud: It takes you 10 seconds to say "twenty-two E
slash"? I can't even *make* myself take 10 seconds to say it. 2 tops.
Search another chart: if you get a critical hit, another roll and chart (though
a much easier chart to cross-index): total 8 seconds for a horrendously
unprepared player who had no charts handy. 5 if they did.
Read that out loud: Yes, it can take 10 seconds to read this out loud if it's a
long description. Otherwise, "+3 hits; stun no parry" takes 2 seconds maybe.
I'll grant you 8 for the sake of argument. :)
Figuring collective penalties: From the hit result? Your opponent does this. 0
seconds for you.
Total: for unprepared player, 28 seconds; prepared, 20. Compare to RuneQuest:
roll d100 to hit, accounting for modifiers; figure out severity of result
(normal, special, critical); roll d100 for opponent's parry; compare attack and
parry; if hit, roll damage dice; roll hit location. This involves no charts but
4 rolls and some negotiation if both the attacker and parrier were successful.
>That's an odd argument to make. There WERE dice in medieval times. There
>were tables, pencils (after a fashion), paper (again, after a fashion),
>clocks and chairs. I can suspend my disbelief enough to overlook their
>modern construction. Calculators are so obtrusively 20th-century that they
>just jar with me. [...]
A modern calculator is an abacus redesigned (with some technology based on the
loom thrown in).
>[...] Okay, so I get carried away in my
>imagination sometimes ... but after spending several minutes building up a
>great description of a dank and musty dungeon, with odd sounds and squeaks
>emanating from the darkness, moss hanging from the ceiling, water dripping,
>etc., to then lean over a calculator and go, "Okay, 17 plus 83 equals ..."
>kind of takes away from the experience.
If you're in a combat situation, most game systems switch to paper and dice and
numbers. If you don't want that, I might suggest you try out Amber or Theatrix
or another diceless game. It would probably flow a lot better for you.
>Apparently your mileage varied. :) Any ruleset that doesn't give a quick,
>flowing gaming experience or that makes me feel like Lucille Ball in the
>candy factory just isn't my bag. (Incidentally, I read Dune straight
>through, THEN read the glossary to clarify points. :) )
It sounds like you probably should try something other than Rolemaster. :)
Christopher Casey
Luc Maillet wrote in message <3590A29C...@intelcom.fr>...
>figure (3s) : OK
>roll dice (5s): you roll slowly. Say 3s at most.
Percentile dice, at least with my group, are flung wildly and then have to
be rounded up. My players are spirited types. :)
>search for the right page (5s): no. You're a sensible GM, you've xeroxed
>the
>pages you need (not many) in advance, and the players have their own.
When did I ever say I was a sensible GM? :) I'm a *disorganized* GM. 5
seconds is being generous to me.
>search the chart (3s): well, why not.
>Read out loud (10s): OK
>repeat steps 3 to 5. No. You describe only once. Usually, after the
>second loop, not the first.
You don't find or describe crits? Well, that would speed things up a little
....
>Total: 27s
Actually, your total is 24s. :) If you roll and read out the crit (which I
*thought* you were supposed to do), it's 37s, or 50s if there's a secondary
crit.
Yes, incidentally, I'm adding correctly in my head ... but that's because I
took several seconds to do so, and am double-checking myself so as not to
make some sort of foolish mistake and look stupider than I really am. :)
>Paranoia: figure (which you've forgotten: GM always figure), roll a d20
>(same as a d100),
Just one die, less stuff to chase. 3s.
roll for damage (same), look on a simple chart
>(3s)...
>and describe, which you should do anyway.
Paranoia's one chart's resolution *is* the description: unfazed, stunned,
wounded, unconscious, dead, vaporized. The most description you use is "All
right, Bill fell down and is smoking slightly." 5s max.
>Total: 22s
<adding on my fingers> You mean 17s, right?
>- practice simple mathematics. 172+35-50 = ??
(3s later) umm ... 157? Okay, now ask me that when I'm in front of a bunch
of friends who are waiting for me to come up with my damn sums so they can
get on with playing the game, after I've just been in "storyteller mode" for
ten minutes. Duuuuuh ... <panicked look>
>- remember that Rolemaster underlying principles are few in number and
> very systematic (non-attack? Simple method: d100OE +skill+ Mod, > 100
> succeeds. Medium method [same roll], consult standard static or moving
> manoeuver table) (attack: [same roll, with DB included in Mod],
>consult
> weapon/attack mode table, if Crit indicated roll d100 and consult crit
> table) (non-elemental spell: roll BSC => modifier to RR, roll modified
> RR and consult table: Y/N situation). Everything else is specific and
> worthy of attention only as long as it doesn't take too much time.
You know, I've seen C++ programs that made more sense at first glance than
that. :) I do see what you're trying to say, though. My group plays many
different types of RPG's, and the ones that are most popular are the ones
you don't have to spend too much time remembering how the rules work. If I
were a single-system guy, I'd take the time to learn RoleMaster and would
probably get really good and fast at it. Unfortunately, there are a
plentitude of other systems that aren't as rigorous and are just as much
fun, which has colored my view of RM a bit. I'm beginning to think I'm in
the minority, though.
--C.
liz...@mrlizard.com
>>- A criticals can be fatal, while E criticals can have almost no effect.
>>This introduces, IMO, too much randomness into the results. Too many times
>>to count, characters have made really great attacks, easily hitting the
>>magic 150, and ended up with "+3 hits". I think that A crits should always
>>be mild, and E crits always severe.
>
>And Hero isn't just as random? With a 12d6 attack, you could do 12 stun and 0
>body all the way up to 72 stun and 24 body. A 3d6 killing attack could do 3
>stun and 3 body up to 90 stun and 18 body. That's pretty significant --
>scratching an average person as opposed to pulverizing them into mush. RM just
>combines your to hit roll and your damage roll into one roll.
>
While I like RM and would love to find people willing to play it, the above
really isn't accurate. You're forgetting a thing called the bell curve. That
is, in RM, the roll is linear -- the odds of rolling '01' and the odds of
rolling '00' are exactly equal. In hero, or other 'roll multiple dice'
systems, the bell curve means that the average roll occurs MUCH more
frequently than the extremes -- and the more dice you roll, the more likely it
is that you'll hit the average.
The odds of rolling a '3' on 3d6 are one in 216. Rolling a '4' (or a '24') on
4d6=1 in 1296, and rolling a maximum or a minimum on 5d6 is 1 in 7,776.
But in RM, the odds of rolling any number, high, low, or middle, are always 1
in 100.
That makes RM a lot more random than Hero.
(BTW, for you D&D people, the odds of rolling a character with 2 stats at 18
on 3d6 are 1 in 216^2), or roughly 1 in 50,000. 1 in TEN MILLION would have 3
stats at 18.)
Frank J. Perricone
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 24 Jun 1998 10:27:18 -0700, bne...@aracnet.com wrote:
> Another option, introduced in RM2 and commonly used in RMSS, is to extend the
> charts beyond 150. Either subtract 150 from your roll and re-apply the
> remainder to the chart, or figure out the progression of the amount of hits and
> the criticals and do some math to extend it up to your roll.
House rule: take the amount over 150, divide by 5, round down, apply as a
bonus to the crit roll.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: public key: finger hawt...@maple.sover.net, or on my web page
iQB1AwUBNZFz1cyfEemBueK1AQFvKwL/ebgASn/1MzJyv6PTMqS60sh/xdV7Jkgl
9Xm0J4UjM/3MoQFc1cC8Op5V5DTZc7I0ix2BWdrKVYXQ2oB8hojRSlRen/0gRVqO
ozpcWdTDxZuppkyOAeN4JFk1+51NUgPK
=CHXN
Jim Davies
bne...@aracnet.com wrote:
>In article <ant24143...@s-171322.get2net.dk>, "Klaus says...
>>- Because the to-hit roll and the damage roll isone and the same (with
>>Strength as the bonus stat), the system doesn't allow both the basic warrior
>>types: The slow, strong ox who rarely hits but _really_ hits when he does,
>>and the quick, agile fencer who hits often, but rarely does heavy damage.
>Sure it does. Give the agile fencer a rapier or similar weapon which can hit
>lesser armored folks pretty well and can hit tougher ones easily but do 1 or 2
>points; give the ox a War Mattock, which has like 110+ to hit most armor types
>but packs a wallop. The rest of it -- lumbering or agile -- comes from your
>skill in maneuvering in your armor, your personal body weight encumbering you,
>and your native Quickness and Agility. It's modeled just fine; it's just not
>all modeled in the to-hit roll.
But in this example, the ox is an ox because he has a mattock. Give
the mattock to the fencer and you suddenly have an ox in a frilly
shirt.
My gripes with RM are basically threefold:
1) You almost always have to do the maths and get it right. Because 1%
can make a difference, sometimes a significant one, you need to
remember the modifiers and do it right. In most other games,
approximate is OK (eg in D&D, you might need about 12 to hit. Roll 14:
hit. Roll 9: missed. Roll 10-13: check the maths). This approximation
allows a huge increase in speed.
2) Percentile dice. I see no point in them for 99% for applications.
Consider the static maneuver and critical tables. Except for some
special cases, you could just roll a d20 instead as the figures are
granulated to 5% anyway. It's rather unnecessary to keep track of
people's skills to 1% precision, considering that FUDGE gets along
fine with something more like 20% (rough guesstimate).
3) Charts. You _have_ to have the combat charts, or you're just
winging it. The maneuver charts can be memorised quite easily, but the
detail on the combat charts is so extreme that you can't possibly do
so. The best you can do is estimate the base number at which you start
to do damage and the steepness of the slope - for each weapon and AT -
and then derive some measure of damage from that.
RM combat is fine in concept (barring the ox problem which can be
worked around somehow, possibly by multiplying the concussion damage)
but belongs in a computer, which would have the complicated equations
built-in, obviating any requirement for charts.
Dr Jim Davies
----------------------------------
Keep out of the reach of children.
Brian Newman
Jim Davies wrote in message <35917...@news.power.net.uk>...
>bne...@aracnet.com wrote:
>
>>Sure it does. Give the agile fencer a rapier or similar weapon which can
hit
>>lesser armored folks pretty well and can hit tougher ones easily but do 1
or 2
>>points; give the ox a War Mattock, which has like 110+ to hit most armor
types
>>but packs a wallop. The rest of it -- lumbering or agile -- comes from
your
>>skill in maneuvering in your armor, your personal body weight encumbering
you,
>>and your native Quickness and Agility. It's modeled just fine; it's just
not
>>all modeled in the to-hit roll.
>
>the mattock to the fencer and you suddenly have an ox in a frilly
>shirt.
Well, it depends more upon the concept of the character in RM than on some
sort of "I'm an ox" stereotype. If you want your character to be big,
strong, bulky, and tough, you can build it that way; if you want your
character to be agile, quick, and wily, you can build it that way. And you
can use a War Mattock if you like. In RM, it doesn't all come across on
your weapon type or your to-hit roll or anything else; your character
concept is really built into the numbers on the sheets, from the stats you
choose to the skills you buy.
>My gripes with RM are basically threefold:
>
>1) You almost always have to do the maths and get it right. Because 1%
>can make a difference, sometimes a significant one, you need to
>remember the modifiers and do it right. In most other games,
>approximate is OK (eg in D&D, you might need about 12 to hit. Roll 14:
>hit. Roll 9: missed. Roll 10-13: check the maths). This approximation
>allows a huge increase in speed.
Well, I don't buy this. In AD&D, you can estimate about what you need to
hit if you know your opponent's Armor Class. It's the same with RM. If
you're attacking someone with AT 17-20, you know that even a low roll is
going to hit, so just get ready with the total on the chart. If you know
your wearpon reasonably well enough, you might also know that you're not
going to hit AT 1-4 with less than 85, for example, so don't even bother to
look it up. It sounds the same to me.
You should try to get the math right, though. One number off could be 0 to
a few points of concussion damage and a difference in the critical. Same
with AD&D; if you use the rule that a 20 is a critical hit, then a 19 might
hit just as much but it's one number off from 20. In RQ, if you need 04% to
get a critical and you roll 06, that's 2 off but very close. In a lot of
systems, the number you roll on the dice is significant.
Systems like AD&D and Hero don't model combat the same way RM does. In
those, you either hit 100% or miss 100%; after you hit and you determine
your damage, you may find out then that you really only got a glancing blow
or you got a really solid smack. In RM, the one roll tells you both whether
you hit and how good your hit was, and it carries the possibility that your
hit was glancing, ineffectual, mild, serious, or fatal.
>2) Percentile dice. I see no point in them for 99% for applications.
>Consider the static maneuver and critical tables. Except for some
>special cases, you could just roll a d20 instead as the figures are
>granulated to 5% anyway. It's rather unnecessary to keep track of
>people's skills to 1% precision, considering that FUDGE gets along
>fine with something more like 20% (rough guesstimate).
1. Percentile dice allow the possibility of something like a +3 modifier.
That's hard to model on a d20 without rounding. For instance, if you have
+3 and +3, with percentile that's +6; with d20, do you round it to (+3 = +1)
and (+3 = +1) = +2 or do you round it to (+3 +3 = +6) = +1? It's that
ever-elusive one point "math" difference again. :)
2. In RM, you need a set of percentile dice and that's it. Not 20d6, not
1d4 and 1d12 and 1d8 and 1d20 and 1d30 and 1d3 just in case, not 10 black
d10s with red numbers. You only need to know how to read one kind of dice,
and gallons of dice don't clutter up the table. I've seen novice gamers
endlessly confused in AD&D by the myriad different dice, read different
ways, used for different things.
>3) Charts. You _have_ to have the combat charts, or you're just
>winging it. The maneuver charts can be memorised quite easily, but the
>detail on the combat charts is so extreme that you can't possibly do
>so. The best you can do is estimate the base number at which you start
>to do damage and the steepness of the slope - for each weapon and AT -
>and then derive some measure of damage from that.
Of course you have to have the combat charts. That's like saying, "GURPS.
You _have_ to have the rulebook or you're just winging it." Duh. That's
why the rulebook is there, to provide you with some rules on how to play
this game.
Memorize the maneuver chart? Eek, not on your life, and I've been playing
RM for ages. :)
You might want to check out the MERP combat rules; they're designed to fit
into RM in place of the chart system and give you a swift off-the-cuff
combat resolution.
Yes, there is detail on the charts; that's what makes each weapon and attack
style have different characteristics. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any
point to the charts.
>RM combat is fine in concept (barring the ox problem which can be
>worked around somehow, possibly by multiplying the concussion damage)
>but belongs in a computer, which would have the complicated equations
>built-in, obviating any requirement for charts.
I'm certainly not the smartest person on the planet, and I can handle it
just fine. So can my players, 3 of whom are novices at gaming and two of
whom don't deal with numbers as well as others.
Iron Czar
In rec.games.frp.misc, "Christopher Casey"
<mir...@ix.spamguard.netcom.com> spoke thusly:
>As for RoleMaster sucking up precious time ... you figure (3 sec), roll
>percentile dice (5 sec), search for the right page (5 sec), search the chart
>(3 sec), read the description out loud (10 sec), search another chart (5 sec
>if it's on the same page), read THAT out loud (10 sec), figure the
>collective penalties (3 sec) ... all those little things add up, and trying
>to do them quickly leaves me feeling VERY harried. In, say, Paranoia, you
>roll a d20 to hit (3 sec), roll for damage (3 sec) and look on a simple
>chart (3 sec) ... bang, zoom, on to the next.
If you're actually this slow, I'd suggest using some kind of stimulant
during the game session. Drink a couple pots of coffee, eat a bag of
chocolate-covered coffee beans, and wash down some uppers with a can
of Jolt.
It sure doesn't take *me* 5 second to roll a pair of dice.
Iron Czar
http://www.erienet.net/~ironczar
Iron Czar
In rec.games.frp.misc, "Klaus Æ. Mogensen" <klau...@get2net.dk> spoke
thusly:
>- Low level characters have very few hits, while high level characters have
>oodles of them. This seems a tad unrealistic, why should you become more
>resistant to damage as you become more experienced. This is probably the
>worst case of what I call "AD&D infection" in RM.
True to a point, but remember that character death in RM is seldom due
to concussion hit damage. About 75% of the time, in my experience,
it's due to critical results.
>- Unless equipped with spell adders or PP multipliers, most spellusers will
>only have PP enough to cast one or two spells at their maximum level. I
>would prefer if their natural casting ability was greater, but less improved
>by items.
This has been changed with the RMSS. Now you develop power points
just as you do hits.
Iron Czar
http://www.erienet.net/~ironczar
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
Frank J. Perricone wrote:
> On 24 Jun 1998 10:27:18 -0700, bne...@aracnet.com wrote:
>
> > Another option, introduced in RM2 and commonly used in RMSS, is to extend
> > the charts beyond 150. Either subtract 150 from your roll and re-apply the
> > remainder to the chart, or figure out the progression of the amount of hits
> > and the criticals and do some math to extend it up to your roll.
>
> House rule: take the amount over 150, divide by 5, round down, apply as a
> bonus to the crit roll.
Reminds me of another house rule: Bonus armor doesn't make you harder to
hit, instead it reduces criticals (-2 per "+5 bonus").
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
Brian Newman wrote:
> Well, it depends more upon the concept of the character in RM than on some
> sort of "I'm an ox" stereotype. If you want your character to be big,
> strong, bulky, and tough, you can build it that way; if you want your
> character to be agile, quick, and wily, you can build it that way. And you
> can use a War Mattock if you like. In RM, it doesn't all come across on
> your weapon type or your to-hit roll or anything else; your character
> concept is really built into the numbers on the sheets, from the stats you
> choose to the skills you buy.
What? "You can build it that way"? Does RMSS have a point based chargen
system? As I've mentioned in an earlier posting, I'm only familiar with the
old RM. This only has a random chargen system. A good point system would be
a vast improvement.
Luc Maillet
Iron Czar wrote:
>
> In rec.games.frp.misc, "Klaus Æ. Mogensen" <klau...@get2net.dk> spoke
> thusly:
>
> >- Low level characters have very few hits, while high level characters have
> >oodles of them. This seems a tad unrealistic, why should you become more
> >resistant to damage as you become more experienced. This is probably the
> >worst case of what I call "AD&D infection" in RM.
>
> True to a point, but remember that character death in RM is seldom due
> to concussion hit damage. About 75% of the time, in my experience,
> it's due to critical results.
I have the same experience, except for a character a friend designed
during
a campaign I ran: he was a Minotaur legionnaire (freebie point to the
first
who finds which setting we were using) with about 350 hits and more than
100 OB in several heavy weapons, and usually disabled his foes by
smacking
them repeatedly on the head (excessive hit loss) since the player in
question
had a 33 average on a d100, and as such couldn't count on the crit. Put
the
line 'beat someone to death' in a new light.
ste...@access.digex.net
liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
> (BTW, for you D&D people, the odds of rolling a character with 2 stats at 18
> on 3d6 are 1 in 216^2), or roughly 1 in 50,000. 1 in TEN MILLION would have 3
> stats at 18.)
Actually, that's the odds of rolling 18s on two stats _specified in
advance_. The odds of rolling 18s on _any_ two stats are that multipled by
the number of ways to pick two items from a set of six (6*5/2! = 15), or
roughly 1 in 3,000. Similarly, the latter figure should be multipled by the
number of ways to pick three items from six (6*5*4/3! = 20), or roughly 1 in
500,000. That will still arouse your GMs suspicions. (I am reminded of the
_Knights of the Dinner Table_ bit where BA got sick of it and required all
character creations to be witnessed and signed. Bob and Dave brought in
characters with all 18s and 18/100 strength, signed and witness by each
other.)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Brian Newman
Klaus Ć. Mogensen wrote in message ...
>Brian Newman wrote:
>
>What? "You can build it that way"? Does RMSS have a point based chargen
>system? As I've mentioned in an earlier posting, I'm only familiar with the
>old RM. This only has a random chargen system. A good point system would be
>a vast improvement.
Indeed it does have one, and if you include Talent Law, every single aspect
of your character is "built" on an allotted pool of points. If you email me
at bne...@aracnet.com, I'd be happy to go into more detail on the new parts
of RMSS.
liz...@mrlizard.com
In article <6mtsce$d98$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ste...@access.digex.net wrote:
>liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>
>> (BTW, for you D&D people, the odds of rolling a character with 2 stats at 18
>> on 3d6 are 1 in 216^2), or roughly 1 in 50,000. 1 in TEN MILLION would have 3
>> stats at 18.)
>
> Actually, that's the odds of rolling 18s on two stats _specified in
>advance_. The odds of rolling 18s on _any_ two stats are that multipled by
>the number of ways to pick two items from a set of six (6*5/2! = 15), or
>roughly 1 in 3,000. Similarly, the latter figure should be multipled by the
>number of ways to pick three items from six (6*5*4/3! = 20), or roughly 1 in
>500,000. That will still arouse your GMs suspicions. (I am reminded of the
>_Knights of the Dinner Table_ bit where BA got sick of it and required all
>character creations to be witnessed and signed. Bob and Dave brought in
>characters with all 18s and 18/100 strength, signed and witness by each
>other.)
Correct. Sorry. Mathematics not Lizards' skill.
Lance
ste...@access.digex.net wrote:
Several problems with this. One, few XD&D character to my knowledge were
ever created as straight rolls. At a minimum, the suicide system was used; keep
rolling until you get a character you like. How long you ar willing to keep this
up
and what you are willing to settle for becomes a factor. Limiting this a bit was
the
"roll six sets of stats and pick your favorite" system...
Second, most DMs allow at least "Roll six stats, place in any order," in an effort
to
let you play the character class you want, so you _never_ have that "specified in
advance" problem.
The addition of the Comeliness stat meant you were picking out of 7 instead of 6
(and boy were there a lot of Ugly characters generated, with the low stat being
dumped here where it wouldn't interfere with the mechanics...)
Also popular was the old "reroll ones." Suddenly, you were rolling D5+1s. Or
Reroll 1s and 2s, so you had D4+2s in use. Odds of rolling a 12 on 3d4 are
significantly better than odds of rolling 18 on 3d6.
Hmm, also saw 6d6 pick best three, and many other iterations of this concept.
You haven't taken into account racial bonuses, so that a player who rolled a 17
or even a 16 in some cases may have an 18 stat.
I believe the second edition PH actually lists several of these cheats for your
consideration. Personally, I went over to a Build based system and almost
never go back... What if you just got 63 points (average for 18d6) and put
them wherever you wanted, within racial limits?
--
Lance Berg
http://empyre.net
Alan D Kohler
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:40:34 -0400, Lance <emp...@success.net> wrote:
>
>
>ste...@access.digex.net wrote:
>
>> liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>>
>> > (BTW, for you D&D people, the odds of rolling a character with 2 stats at 18
>> > on 3d6 are 1 in 216^2), or roughly 1 in 50,000. 1 in TEN MILLION would have 3
>> > stats at 18.)
>>
>> Actually, that's the odds of rolling 18s on two stats _specified in
>> advance_. The odds of rolling 18s on _any_ two stats are that multipled by
>> the number of ways to pick two items from a set of six (6*5/2! = 15), or
>> roughly 1 in 3,000. Similarly, the latter figure should be multipled by the
>> number of ways to pick three items from six (6*5*4/3! = 20), or roughly 1 in
>> 500,000. That will still arouse your GMs suspicions. (I am reminded of the
>> _Knights of the Dinner Table_ bit where BA got sick of it and required all
>> character creations to be witnessed and signed. Bob and Dave brought in
>> characters with all 18s and 18/100 strength, signed and witness by each
>> other.)
>
> Several problems with this. One, few XD&D character to my knowledge were
>ever created as straight rolls. At a minimum, the suicide system was used; keep
>rolling until you get a character you like. How long you ar willing to keep this
>up
>and what you are willing to settle for becomes a factor.
Or in the case of the more munchkinesque, how long your it takes
before the spots wear off of the dice. ;-)
Spam Filter Notice: Remove "REMOVE2REPLY" to reply by email.
Alan D Kohler <hwk...@REMOVE2REPLYpoky.srv.net>
(6/1) Updated Players guide for Starfarer free net SFRPG system!
General: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/homepage.html
SF: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/SFRPG.html
Wayne Imlach
How about the following compromise, which allows players to generate
characters with roughly the required stats, but doesn't allow them to
manipulate the rules too much:
Choose the order of preference for characteristics.
Make an appropriate number of rolls, noting down each result.
Apply the results to the characteristics, with best result on most prefered
characteristic, down to lowest result on least prefered characteristic.
To avoid players designating looks/charisma/comliness/least-used-stat as the
lowest, just have them roll this seperately if they designate it last.
Works a treat.
Lance wrote in message <35930A22...@success.net>...
> Several problems with this. One, few XD&D character to my knowledge were
>ever created as straight rolls. At a minimum, the suicide system was used;
keep
>rolling until you get a character you like. How long you ar willing to
keep this
>up
>and what you are willing to settle for becomes a factor. Limiting this a
bit was
>the
>"roll six sets of stats and pick your favorite" system...
>
>Second, most DMs allow at least "Roll six stats, place in any order," in an
effort
>to
>let you play the character class you want, so you _never_ have that
"specified in
>advance" problem.
>
>The addition of the Comeliness stat meant you were picking out of 7 instead
of 6
>(and boy were there a lot of Ugly characters generated, with the low stat
being
>dumped here where it wouldn't interfere with the mechanics...)
>
>Also popular was the old "reroll ones." Suddenly, you were rolling D5+1s.
Or
>Reroll 1s and 2s, so you had D4+2s in use. Odds of rolling a 12 on 3d4 are
>significantly better than odds of rolling 18 on 3d6.
>
>Hmm, also saw 6d6 pick best three, and many other iterations of this
concept.
>
>You haven't taken into account racial bonuses, so that a player who rolled
a 17
>or even a 16 in some cases may have an 18 stat.
>
>I believe the second edition PH actually lists several of these cheats for
Jim Davies
"Brian Newman" <bne...@aracnet.com> wrote:
(snip)
>In RM, it doesn't all come across on
>your weapon type or your to-hit roll or anything else; your character
>concept is really built into the numbers on the sheets, from the stats you
>choose to the skills you buy.
This sounds like a change from the version 1 I have.
>>My gripes with RM are basically threefold:
>>
>>1) You almost always have to do the maths and get it right.
>Well, I don't buy this. In AD&D, you can estimate about what you need to
>hit if you know your opponent's Armor Class. It's the same with RM. If
>you're attacking someone with AT 17-20, you know that even a low roll is
>going to hit, so just get ready with the total on the chart. If you know
>your wearpon reasonably well enough, you might also know that you're not
>going to hit AT 1-4 with less than 85, for example, so don't even bother to
>look it up. It sounds the same to me.
The point is that in you're far more likely to have to do the maths
and get it right. There's only about a 1 in 5 chance in D&D that you
need to work it out (when a hit is in doubt); in RM, you need to do it
every time you might hit, whether in doubt or not. And the extra
precision of the d100 makes it that much harder (add 1 or 2 seconds
and about double the error rate) to do said maths.
>You should try to get the math right, though. One number off could be 0 to
>a few points of concussion damage and a difference in the critical. Same
>with AD&D; if you use the rule that a 20 is a critical hit, then a 19 might
>hit just as much but it's one number off from 20. In RQ, if you need 04% to
>get a critical and you roll 06, that's 2 off but very close. In a lot of
>systems, the number you roll on the dice is significant.
But only in certain areas. On AD&D, a 20 is a crit (usually-it's not
official AFAIK) only if it's a rolled 20. Likewise in RQ: if you need
about 60% or less, only in the areas 01-15, 50-70 and 96-00 (crit,
impale, hit and fumble areas) do you need to do the maths. And I have
some of the same complaints about RQ, BTW.
>Systems like AD&D and Hero don't model combat the same way RM does. In
>those, you either hit 100% or miss 100%; after you hit and you determine
>your damage, you may find out then that you really only got a glancing blow
>or you got a really solid smack. In RM, the one roll tells you both whether
>you hit and how good your hit was, and it carries the possibility that your
>hit was glancing, ineffectual, mild, serious, or fatal.
True, but whether it's a good thing is another matter, especially as a
good proportion of hits need another roll anyway for the critical.
>>2) Percentile dice. I see no point in them for 99% for applications.
>>Consider the static maneuver and critical tables. Except for some
>>special cases, you could just roll a d20 instead as the figures are
>>granulated to 5% anyway. It's rather unnecessary to keep track of
>>people's skills to 1% precision, considering that FUDGE gets along
>>fine with something more like 20% (rough guesstimate).
>1. Percentile dice allow the possibility of something like a +3 modifier.
>That's hard to model on a d20 without rounding. For instance, if you have
>+3 and +3, with percentile that's +6; with d20, do you round it to (+3 = +1)
>and (+3 = +1) = +2 or do you round it to (+3 +3 = +6) = +1? It's that
>ever-elusive one point "math" difference again. :)
But how often you you add multiple increments of 3%? Only in the
chargen part, where each level gives you +5%, +3%, +2% or +1% (from
memory here) depending on level. That can be simulated by making skill
levels harder to get.
Note how the weapon bonuses in, frex, C&T, are all +5n%. The extra
precision is irrelevant.
>2. In RM, you need a set of percentile dice and that's it. Not 20d6, not
>1d4 and 1d12 and 1d8 and 1d20 and 1d30 and 1d3 just in case, not 10 black
>d10s with red numbers. You only need to know how to read one kind of dice,
>and gallons of dice don't clutter up the table. I've seen novice gamers
>endlessly confused in AD&D by the myriad different dice, read different
>ways, used for different things.
This is true. AD&D is a particular offender here and has probably been
responsible for 95% of polyhedral dice sales other than d10s. OTOH, I
still think that for most purposes you could get the same effect with
a d20.
>>3) Charts. You _have_ to have the combat charts, or you're just
>>winging it. The maneuver charts can be memorised quite easily, but the
>>detail on the combat charts is so extreme that you can't possibly do
>>so. The best you can do is estimate the base number at which you start
>>to do damage and the steepness of the slope - for each weapon and AT -
>>and then derive some measure of damage from that.
>Of course you have to have the combat charts. That's like saying, "GURPS.
>You _have_ to have the rulebook or you're just winging it." Duh. That's
>why the rulebook is there, to provide you with some rules on how to play
>this game.
But I can and often have played AD&D, CT and GURPS for hours at a time
with almost no reference to the books at all. Sometimes I didn't
bother to take them. It's possible to learn said systems, and they're
by no means simple ones - compare FUDGE or OTE.
>Memorize the maneuver chart? Eek, not on your life, and I've been playing
>RM for ages. :)
I'm was thinking of the static maneuver table in MERP here. It's been
a while. RM1 has an 'alternative' table that does the same thing. It
took me 10 minutes to find it (in ChL&CaL via a ref in RC2). I do hope
the books have been cleaned up.
>I'm certainly not the smartest person on the planet, and I can handle it
>just fine. So can my players, 3 of whom are novices at gaming and two of
>whom don't deal with numbers as well as others.
I can handle it - I just can't be bothered. I also have players who
drink while gaming (yes it does annoy me) and they couldn't handle it.
They can't even play SFB.
Graham Wills
>>>My gripes with RM are basically threefold:
>>>1) You almost always have to do the maths and get it right.
>>Well, I don't buy this. In AD&D, you can estimate about what you need to
>>hit if you know your opponent's Armor Class. It's the same with RM. If
>>you're attacking someone with AT 17-20, you know that even a low roll is
>>going to hit, so just get ready with the total on the chart. If you know
>>your wearpon reasonably well enough, you might also know that you're not
>>going to hit AT 1-4 with less than 85, for example, so don't even bother to
>>look it up. It sounds the same to me.
>The point is that in you're far more likely to have to do the maths
>and get it right. There's only about a 1 in 5 chance in D&D that you
>need to work it out (when a hit is in doubt); in RM, you need to do it
>every time you might hit, whether in doubt or not. And the extra
>precision of the d100 makes it that much harder (add 1 or 2 seconds
>and about double the error rate) to do said maths.
I'd agree with the 'far more likely' part which you state here and disagree
with the 'almost always' part stated above. I think there are two issues here;
combat rolls and non-combat rolls. For non-combat rolls, it's easy to memorize
the critical values of the static action tables - and often whole adventures
have nothing but static actions with the occasional moving action. Even a novice
can get by with "0-75 simple fail, 100-150 simple success, look the rest up"
which means that way less than 1 in 5 get looked up.
For moving actions, you can use the table or just figure the % result is the
percentage of the action done. Close enough for most purposes - especially
for NPCs.
Now combat does require the PCs to look up just about everything. However
the players all do it at once on their table and just yell out the result. The
GM has the hard job and, frankly, I doubt if there's an RM GM out there who
doesn't go "80 just hit for a crit last time last time, I rolled a 75 - call it
6 hits" quite a lot of the time.
I would make an upfront statement about this:
ROLEMASTER COMBAT IS HARD ON THE GM. CUT CORNERS IN LARGE FIGHTS
AND DON'T BE AFRAID TO GUESS A RESULT TO KEEP THE ACTION FLUID.
IF you want fast, fluid combat in RM, w away arms law and photocopy the
relevant 4 pages of MERP tables.
>>Systems like AD&D and Hero don't model combat the same way RM does. In
>>those, you either hit 100% or miss 100%; after you hit and you determine
>>your damage, you may find out then that you really only got a glancing blow
>>or you got a really solid smack. In RM, the one roll tells you both whether
>>you hit and how good your hit was, and it carries the possibility that your
>>hit was glancing, ineffectual, mild, serious, or fatal.
>True, but whether it's a good thing is another matter, especially as a
>good proportion of hits need another roll anyway for the critical.
PCs often have to make the extra crit rolls. If you are regularly making
crit rolls for NPCs, then it's going to be a short campaign.
>>>2) Percentile dice. I see no point in them for 99% for applications.
>>>Consider the static maneuver and critical tables. Except for some
>>>special cases, you could just roll a d20 instead as the figures are
>>>granulated to 5% anyway. It's rather unnecessary to keep track of
>>>people's skills to 1% precision, considering that FUDGE gets along
>>>fine with something more like 20% (rough guesstimate).
>>1. Percentile dice allow the possibility of something like a +3 modifier.
>>That's hard to model on a d20 without rounding. For instance, if you have
>>+3 and +3, with percentile that's +6; with d20, do you round it to (+3 = +1)
>>and (+3 = +1) = +2 or do you round it to (+3 +3 = +6) = +1? It's that
>>ever-elusive one point "math" difference again. :)
>But how often you you add multiple increments of 3%? Only in the
>chargen part, where each level gives you +5%, +3%, +2% or +1% (from
>memory here) depending on level. That can be simulated by making skill
>levels harder to get.
>Note how the weapon bonuses in, frex, C&T, are all +5n%. The extra
>precision is irrelevant.
To a large extent I agree with this. Actually, I wouldn't mind if RM were on a
1-20 system and agree it would make little difference to the play. It does make
a difference in two important respects:
1) It makes smoother skills a possibility. Your suggestion of making skills
harder to get at high levels means that it would take 5 levels (on average) to
improve a high level skill by a relatively large amount, rather than making
small improvements regularly. This has two problems:
a) It's unnatural. People don't study hard for ages to get a sudden large
improvement.
b) It means that each time you spend points you buy only a few skills
rather than spreading out the points. RM characters tend to have many
more skills than other game systems and the increasing cost method
vs. decreasing effect is not conduisive to it.
2) Percentages are esily understood by people. 85% chance is clearer than
13 chances out of 20. I undertsand people may disagree, but that has been
my experience.
>>>3) Charts. You _have_ to have the combat charts, or you're just
>>>winging it. The maneuver charts can be memorised quite easily, but the
>>>detail on the combat charts is so extreme that you can't possibly do
>>>so. The best you can do is estimate the base number at which you start
>>>to do damage and the steepness of the slope - for each weapon and AT -
>>>and then derive some measure of damage from that.
>>Of course you have to have the combat charts. That's like saying, "GURPS.
>>You _have_ to have the rulebook or you're just winging it." Duh. That's
>>why the rulebook is there, to provide you with some rules on how to play
>>this game.
>But I can and often have played AD&D, CT and GURPS for hours at a time
>with almost no reference to the books at all. Sometimes I didn't
>bother to take them. It's possible to learn said systems, and they're
>by no means simple ones - compare FUDGE or OTE.
And I've often played RM for hours at a time with no reference to the
books. That's not in question.
>>Memorize the maneuver chart? Eek, not on your life, and I've been playing
>>RM for ages. :)
>I'm was thinking of the static maneuver table in MERP here. It's been
>a while. RM1 has an 'alternative' table that does the same thing. It
>took me 10 minutes to find it (in ChL&CaL via a ref in RC2). I do hope
>the books have been cleaned up.
Yes they have. Fortunately. They now have a nice index too. I love Deadlands,
but I HATE THE FACT IT HAS NO INDEX. Browse a copy and look for explosive
damage, frex.
>>I'm certainly not the smartest person on the planet, and I can handle it
>>just fine. So can my players, 3 of whom are novices at gaming and two of
>>whom don't deal with numbers as well as others.
>I can handle it - I just can't be bothered. I also have players who
>drink while gaming (yes it does annoy me) and they couldn't handle it.
>They can't even play SFB.
Umm. I think for the players, SFB is *massively* harder than RM. For RM you
ask the GM for your 1 or two combat charts and then all you need to know is
that if you roll skill +d100 > 100, you succeed at medium hard tasks.
Brian Newman
Jim Davies wrote in message <35942...@news.power.net.uk>...
>"Brian Newman" <bne...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>>In RM, it doesn't all come across on
>>your weapon type or your to-hit roll or anything else; your character
>>concept is really built into the numbers on the sheets, from the stats you
>>choose to the skills you buy.
>
>This sounds like a change from the version 1 I have.
It is a change in RMSS (3rd ed). You have a certain number of points to
distribute among your stats; the catch is that values above 90 cost more and
more.
>>>1) You almost always have to do the maths and get it right.
>
>>Well, I don't buy this. In AD&D, you can estimate about what you need
[...]
>
>The point is that in you're far more likely to have to do the maths
>and get it right. There's only about a 1 in 5 chance in D&D that you
>need to work it out (when a hit is in doubt); in RM, you need to do it
>every time you might hit, whether in doubt or not. And the extra
>precision of the d100 makes it that much harder (add 1 or 2 seconds
>and about double the error rate) to do said maths.
Yes, but, in D&D, do you "have to get the math right" on the damage roll?
It helps, doesn't it? One pointof damage can be a big difference. The RM
"to hit" roll combines the to hit roll and the damage roll, so it's
important to get it right. If you're rolling and estimating about what you
rolled and what your modifiers are and reporting that to me as GM, I think
I'd ask someone else to watch your die rolls, no matter what the system. :)
If you're not worried about the number rolled on the dice, don't use dice.
>>[...]In a lot of
>>systems, the number you roll on the dice is significant.
>
>But only in certain areas. On AD&D, a 20 is a crit (usually-it's not
>official AFAIK) only if it's a rolled 20. Likewise in RQ: if you need
>about 60% or less, only in the areas 01-15, 50-70 and 96-00 (crit,
>impale, hit and fumble areas) do you need to do the maths. And I have
>some of the same complaints about RQ, BTW.
Still, if you're not really worrying about the numbers you roll on the dice,
why use the dice? Use rock-paper-scissors, draw-a-poker-hand, or something
more "grainy" like Fudge.
>True, but whether it's a good thing is another matter, especially as a
>good proportion of hits need another roll anyway for the critical.
That's still two rolls, which is at the very least what most systems use,
and many use more.
>>1. Percentile dice allow the possibility of something like a +3 modifier.
>>That's hard to model on a d20 without rounding. For instance, if you have
>>+3 and +3, with percentile that's +6; with d20, do you round it to (+3 =
+1)
>>and (+3 = +1) = +2 or do you round it to (+3 +3 = +6) = +1? It's that
>>ever-elusive one point "math" difference again. :)
>
>But how often you you add multiple increments of 3%? Only in the
>chargen part, where each level gives you +5%, +3%, +2% or +1% (from
>memory here) depending on level. That can be simulated by making skill
>levels harder to get.
>
>Note how the weapon bonuses in, frex, C&T, are all +5n%. The extra
>precision is irrelevant.
Okay, so use d20. It doesn't change anything at all. It's still a flat,
one-die roll, with as much randomness as d100 has. I don't see how it
validates your point.
>>Of course you have to have the combat charts. That's like saying, "GURPS.
>>You _have_ to have the rulebook or you're just winging it." Duh. That's
>>why the rulebook is there, to provide you with some rules on how to play
>>this game.
>
>But I can and often have played AD&D, CT and GURPS for hours at a time
>with almost no reference to the books at all. Sometimes I didn't
>bother to take them. It's possible to learn said systems, and they're
>by no means simple ones - compare FUDGE or OTE.
I've played RM with no reference to the charts for hours too, even sessions,
even *with* die rolls necessary for resolution of situations. It goes for
any system. I've played Call of Cthulhu when nobody even *had* rulebook or
dice handy.
The learning curve for RM is daunting -- at first. It's one of the most
rules-heavy games around, especially for character creation. It requires
lots of time and some simple math. Once you get past that and start
playing, you realize how internally consistent the system actually is. It's
all based on a handful of simple concepts that run throughout the entire
system. Most systems get more and more complex the more you learn and
delve.
>>Memorize the maneuver chart? Eek, not on your life, and I've been playing
>>RM for ages. :)
>
>I'm was thinking of the static maneuver table in MERP here. It's been
>a while. RM1 has an 'alternative' table that does the same thing. It
>took me 10 minutes to find it (in ChL&CaL via a ref in RC2). I do hope
>the books have been cleaned up.
They have been cleaned up a great deal. Yes, you can memorize the generic
static maneuver table, and it's probably not a bad idea to do so. Most
systems have a rule, a chart, an equation, or some other such thing that is
central to the system that you will save time by memorizing.
>I can handle it - I just can't be bothered. I also have players who
>drink while gaming (yes it does annoy me) and they couldn't handle it.
>They can't even play SFB.
Drinking while gaming is definitely not something that combines well with RM
or SFB, unless you don't mind tossing out all the rules after an hour or so,
and possibly tossing a few hundred dollars worth of ruined gaming stuff too.
:) That group should probably stick with Alma Mater and Magic.
Jim Davies
"Brian Newman" <bne...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>Jim Davies wrote in message <35942...@news.power.net.uk>...
snip
>Yes, but, in D&D, do you "have to get the math right" on the damage roll?
>It helps, doesn't it? One pointof damage can be a big difference. The RM
>"to hit" roll combines the to hit roll and the damage roll, so it's
>important to get it right.
But the maths is trivial, eg 1d8+3.
>Still, if you're not really worrying about the numbers you roll on the dice,
>why use the dice? Use rock-paper-scissors, draw-a-poker-hand, or something
>more "grainy" like Fudge.
Because most of the time, the number doesn't matter; eg in RQ, it's a
crit, impale, hit, miss or fumble, and where in each of those
categories is irrelevant.
>Okay, so use d20. It doesn't change anything at all. It's still a flat,
>one-die roll, with as much randomness as d100 has. I don't see how it
>validates your point.
It's quicker. My homebrew started with d100s; after a couple of years,
I changed it to d20s. Chargen is much quicker and doesn't benefit from
(I won't say 'need' because it didn't need one before) a calculator;
play is noticeably quicker.
>The learning curve for RM is daunting -- at first. It's one of the most
>rules-heavy games around, especially for character creation. It requires
>lots of time and some simple math. Once you get past that and start
>playing, you realize how internally consistent the system actually is. It's
>all based on a handful of simple concepts that run throughout the entire
>system. Most systems get more and more complex the more you learn and
>delve.
I appreciate that. It's like GURPS in that respect, but in GURPS you
don't need the charts.
>Drinking while gaming is definitely not something that combines well with RM
>or SFB, unless you don't mind tossing out all the rules after an hour or so,
>and possibly tossing a few hundred dollars worth of ruined gaming stuff too.
>:) That group should probably stick with Alma Mater and Magic.
They went to play Magic. I left them to it. Shortly after that, most
of them started going to football matches. It's a slippery slope.
I think we can agree to disagree about RM; I've been a bit poisoned by
the organization of the 1st edition which makes a sharp learning curve
ferocious.
Jim Davies
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com (Graham Wills) wrote:
>In article <35942...@news.power.net.uk>, j...@moose.powernet.co.uk wrote:
>>The point is that in you're far more likely to have to do the maths
>>and get it right. There's only about a 1 in 5 chance in D&D that you
>>need to work it out (when a hit is in doubt); in RM, you need to do it
>>every time you might hit, whether in doubt or not. And the extra
>>precision of the d100 makes it that much harder (add 1 or 2 seconds
>>and about double the error rate) to do said maths.
>I'd agree with the 'far more likely' part which you state here and disagree
>with the 'almost always' part stated above. I think there are two issues here;
>combat rolls and non-combat rolls.
Agreed.
>Now combat does require the PCs to look up just about everything. However
>the players all do it at once on their table and just yell out the result. The
>GM has the hard job and, frankly, I doubt if there's an RM GM out there who
>doesn't go "80 just hit for a crit last time last time, I rolled a 75 - call it
>6 hits" quite a lot of the time.
I can well believe this.
>I would make an upfront statement about this:
> ROLEMASTER COMBAT IS HARD ON THE GM. CUT CORNERS IN LARGE FIGHTS
> AND DON'T BE AFRAID TO GUESS A RESULT TO KEEP THE ACTION FLUID.
I'm usually the GM, and would happily not have it hard on me.
snip
[d20 vs d100]
>To a large extent I agree with this. Actually, I wouldn't mind if RM were on a
>1-20 system and agree it would make little difference to the play. It does make
>a difference in two important respects:
>1) It makes smoother skills a possibility. Your suggestion of making skills
>harder to get at high levels means that it would take 5 levels (on average) to
>improve a high level skill by a relatively large amount, rather than making
>small improvements regularly. This has two problems:
> a) It's unnatural. People don't study hard for ages to get a sudden large
> improvement.
But it's still fairly smooth; 1 in 20 is not a major jump. The vast
majority of other games have increases of this order, and some much
more: compare a 6th level AD&D cleric to a 7th.
> b) It means that each time you spend points you buy only a few skills
> rather than spreading out the points. RM characters tend to have many
> more skills than other game systems and the increasing cost method
> vs. decreasing effect is not conduisive to it.
I doubt it would make much difference, especially at low skill levels.
>2) Percentages are esily understood by people. 85% chance is clearer than
> 13 chances out of 20. I undertsand people may disagree, but that has been
> my experience.
Not much in it, I expect.
snip
>>I can handle it - I just can't be bothered. I also have players who
>>drink while gaming (yes it does annoy me) and they couldn't handle it.
>>They can't even play SFB.
>Umm. I think for the players, SFB is *massively* harder than RM.
Well, that's true enough.
Brian Newman
Jim Davies wrote in message <35951...@news.power.net.uk>...
>"Brian Newman" <bne...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Jim Davies wrote in message <35942...@news.power.net.uk>...
>>Yes, but, in D&D, do you "have to get the math right" on the damage roll?
>
>But the maths is trivial, eg 1d8+3.
But your point was that one point on the dice could make a lot of
difference. I was just pointing out that in RM the to-hit and damage rolls
are the same roll, therefore, if the math matters on the damage rolls, it
matters on the RM roll.
>>Still, if you're not really worrying about the numbers you roll on the
dice,
>>why use the dice? Use rock-paper-scissors, draw-a-poker-hand, or
something
>>more "grainy" like Fudge.
>
>Because most of the time, the number doesn't matter; eg in RQ, it's a
>crit, impale, hit, miss or fumble, and where in each of those
>categories is irrelevant.
But if the amount by which you made each of those categories determined how
much damage you did, it would suddenly matter quite a bit, wouldn't it? I
don't know how I can explain this any better. In RM, you roll once, and
that tells you whether you hit and how much damage you did, all at once. If
it only mattered that you roll between 80 and 150 to hit, and a second roll
determined how much damage you did, then the exact number on the first roll
wouldn't matter.
>>Okay, so use d20. It doesn't change anything at all. It's still a flat,
>>one-die roll, with as much randomness as d100 has. I don't see how it
>>validates your point.
>
>It's quicker. My homebrew started with d100s; after a couple of years,
>I changed it to d20s. Chargen is much quicker and doesn't benefit from
>(I won't say 'need' because it didn't need one before) a calculator;
>play is noticeably quicker.
If that's what you intended, then that's good. :)
>I appreciate that. It's like GURPS in that respect, but in GURPS you
>don't need the charts.
If GURPS had charts, you'd need them. :) They are part of the rules in RM.
You can play without them, but it takes something away from the system as a
whole.
>>Drinking while gaming is definitely not something that combines well with
RM
>>or SFB, unless you don't mind tossing out all the rules after an hour or
so,
>>and possibly tossing a few hundred dollars worth of ruined gaming stuff
too.
>>:) That group should probably stick with Alma Mater and Magic.
>
>They went to play Magic. I left them to it. Shortly after that, most
>of them started going to football matches. It's a slippery slope.
Hey, I watch football! :) I like the compexity of the rules and the
strategy and tactics. Hmm, need some football Rolemaster charts...
>I think we can agree to disagree about RM; I've been a bit poisoned by
>the organization of the 1st edition which makes a sharp learning curve
>ferocious.
Well, if you ever visited my area of the world, I'd show you how it's
changed. Maybe you can tell me what you like about your favorite system.
Jim Davies
"Brian Newman" <bne...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>Jim Davies wrote in message <35951...@news.power.net.uk>...
>>
>>They went to play Magic. I left them to it. Shortly after that, most
>>of them started going to football matches. It's a slippery slope.
>Hey, I watch football! :) I like the compexity of the rules and the
>strategy and tactics. Hmm, need some football Rolemaster charts...
That's American football, I assume. I'm talking about soccer. The
sporting equivalent of the daytime soap opera.
Medicant
>3) Charts. You _have_ to have the combat charts, or you're just
>winging it. The maneuver charts can be memorised quite easily, but the
>detail on the combat charts is so extreme that you can't possibly do
>so. The best you can do is estimate the base number at which you start
>to do damage and the steepness of the slope - for each weapon and AT -
>and then derive some measure of damage from that.
I have played RoleMaster for several years and have found it best to photocopy
the sheets and place them in a binder for with tab clips marked with the weapon
name.
I also included several of the other charts in this binder. I own all of the
books and found it to be REALLY tiresome to delve and remember where everything
was at.
One note about the maneuver tables: I think they are good, but take to long to
use in a regular game. I usually pick an appropriate number in my head and have
the character roll the dice and add on any applicable bonuses for skills or
stats. It makes the game go faster and smoother. Combat get bogs down a bit,
but I also do not let the characters use the sheets to determine their hits or
misses. I do all of the figuring and let them know of any results in a "REAL
WORLD" sense (i.e. character gets a stun result, "Your opponent looks dazed".
Simple, but straitforward.)
I especially like RoleMaster due to the fact that a minor character (level 1 or
2) can in all probability kill a higher level character without reducing their
hits. I have always had a problem with the AD&D concept of bashing things out
and the person with the best weapon and most hits (usually the higher level
character) win.
David Starcher
Medicant
>What bothers me, and I'm sure a lot of folks, is trying to add and subtract
>two-digit numbers on the fly and THEN having to look it up. I'm kind of a
>method actor RPG'er; when I'm the GM of a role-playing game, I don't like
>being side-tracked from the stories and characters just so I can add 46 plus
>77 in my head (or worse, with a calculator ... we're playing in medieval
>times and I use an electronic gadget?) and then flip through a bunch of
>dog-eared pages and THEN find a result on a chart (or two) and THEN apply
>that result, which usually involves subtracting 13 from 61 in my head. By
>the time that's over with, I'm out of the groove. Small combats can take
>hours, and by the time all the number-mongering's over with, you're expected
>to just pick up your role-playing as if nothing's ever happened. It's like
>taking a remedial math test, with crib notes, in the middle of "Othello".
>
>The detail level of Chartmaster is nice, but the rules damage the
>role-playing immersion experience for me, IMHO. Give me Paranoia any day. :)
>
>
I wouldn't worry about the calculator. We only play in a medieval time. Anyone
who has actually read about those time will realize that they are far from the
idealic times that most fantasy gamers think. This is just a note.
The main reason for this reply is that if your small combat sessions (equal
numer of PCs vs. NPCs) is taking hours, then you are being entirely to
complicated and giving yourself more work than you need and it is small wonder
that you sound frustrated at the system.
My suggestion would be to initiate some house rules or borrow some from others.
My favorite is that I know in my head what sounds like a good roll (counting in
modifiers on the fly) and I just have the PCs roll for that number (not telling
them what I have them rolling for or what their target numbers are).
In combat I have a more simplified version. Characters roll the dice for
initiative (all characters and add their quickness bonus to this). The highest
PC or NPC goes first. (I have always had a problem with characters with bows or
spells going before or after someone else just due to their version of attack.
If they have a high enough quickness, then why should they not also have the
same chance as anyone else wih a similar stat.)
Then I resolve everything based on the standard charts. Combat for 5 PCs and
NPCs takes about 20 minutes tops. Assuming no other factors (i.e. characters
needing to look up something, etc...)
David Starcher