Rolemaster Deconstructed: Action Resolution Mechanics

Happy Holidays and Seasons Greetings! This is going to be a short post and not as well thought out; I wanted to link to a few RMForum comments and the ICE website is still down with an expired domain. (That’s not good for brand equity). So while I wanted to dive deeper into skill bonus and penalty ranges I’m going to skim over that for now and just open up any thoughts on d100 resolution.

While Rolemaster is a d100 system, success is measured in a variety of ways and using some different mechanics.

Maneuvers: This is probably the most “pure” mechanic where a success is a 100/101 or better modified by penalties and skill bonuses.

Combat: Weapon tables go to 150 and there is no real emphasis on a 100+ result. There are a number of penalties and skill bonuses.

Resistance Rolls: RM uses a lvl vs lvl chart to generate a threshold number the resister needs to make.

SCR: hmm..I haven’t used this one is so long I forgot how it worked in RM and RM2…some sort of table?

Anyway, the point is that those are 4 different mechanics that seem close..maybe close enough to “unify”? Can we design a 101+ mechanic for all action resolution? The hardest one would be combat; giving up the individual weapon charts would be hard for me! Has RMU mostly done this? Does this need be fixed?

Playing for time

Have any of those reading this ever played an adventure backwards?

What I mean is, your group sits down, you hand out the character sheets and then say “You are stood on the rocky ledge with a precipice falling away into darkness at your feet, opposite you the rock cliff face disappears up into the darkness above your heads. Waves of heat emanate from the depths below. The only sound is the approaching beat of leathery wings, you have found the subject of you quest, the Dragon Lord is coming. What do you do?”

Having played out the finale you can then retrospectively go back and reveal how the players got there.

To take this one step further you could just suddenly reference an NPC they have never heard of, one that didn’t feature in that first/last scene. As soon as someone notices this new NPC, you put the current scene on hold and play a flashback to how the party met that NPC and how they joined the party. Once that is played out you then pick up the previous scene exactly where you left off.

If you use miniatures then you could prepare tableaus of the key scenes and reveal them every time there is a cut in the action.

If you were playing this traditionally the session(s) may go like this.

  1. The players get given a quest to slay a dragon
  2. they adventure into the mountains
  3. they meet a hermit/ranger who can show them the way into caves
  4. battle with dragons kin/defenders
  5. hermit dies
  6. adventure further into caves
  7. dragon lord end of level boss
  8. joyous return to the starting point.
  9. Deliver whatever thing the quest giver demanded
  10. Start next adventure

To play it in an alternative manner could go like this.

<session 1>

7. dragon lord end of level boss
1. The players get given a quest to slay a dragon
2. they adventure into the mountains <cut scene>

<Session 2>
4. battle with dragons kin/defenders <cut short>
3. <flashback> they meet a hermit/ranger who can show them the way into caves
4. <concludes>battle with dragons kin/defenders
5. hermit dies

<Session 3>
8. joyous return to the starting point.
9. Deliver whatever thing the quest giver demanded
10.Start next adventure

So why even attempt this?

What I am thinking is that sometimes ending a session with the successful conclusion of the quest can seem a little contrived. It is a bit like when you know the perilous scene in a movie isn’t the end because you still have an hour to run. Ending the session at the end of a quest can sometimes rob the end scene of some of its energy, or even, if you know that your players have to leave at a particular time to catch trains or planes then you could hurry a scene up to get to a convenient stopping point. Putting the end of the quest at the front of the session means that for an action ending (point 7 above) it gets a real wow! factor. For a story ending (point 9 above) ‘the end’ is obviously not ‘the end’ and so does not bring with it a loss of energy.

So imagine again that you took your players character sheets and made multiple copies. To one you tippex out their primary weapon and replace it with “Blade of the Balrog”. As soon as your player notices you stop the scene and play a flashback where the players play out a scene that ends with the character acquiring the Blade of the Balrog. If someone dies you pass a prepared note to one character saying that “You have a vial that contains a shard of a saints soul, if someone on the point of death is anointed with it they will be restored to life.” If anyone questions where this came from then, you guessed it, cut scene back to before the character died and you have a challenge where the prize is the vial.

I have painted this very much in a hack and slash sort of way but then my main group is a hack and slash group. It actually works even better in a role play heavy session. In a hack and slash group if someone dies in the opening/quest completing battle then it doesn’t matter as they were alive and well in all the flashbacks so they are still included. You may have to keep people alive through some mechanism if they were alive at the start of the battle; they must arrive in that state. Without the hack and slash element then chopping and changing the time line is easier.

This time imagine an adventure where the players start trapped in a collapsed mine. Where you would normally describe the setting and NPCs if the players were in a normal scene, this time you do the same but you put much more emphasis on the NPCs, as if the characters know them. It soon becomes apparent that someone has triggered the mine collapse trapping the characters and NPCs here. As the characters talk to each NPC it triggers a series of flashbacks as to who they are and the players learn why they are here in the mine and what part of their back story. Think alone the lines of a TV detective in the final scene where they reveal who the killer is.

As a session format it certainly is challenging and something different. Any thoughts or experiences?

Rolemaster Skill Deconstruction: Perception, is it even a skill?

PERCEPTION: This skill affects how much information and how many clues a character gets through observation. It may be used to notice the right things, to find carelessly hidden objects, to see that pile of old clothes in the corner, to notice the imperfection in the wall that hides the secret door, the trigger for the trap ahead, the ambush. These are the type of things that the GM cannot mention to the players because to do so would call them to special attention that the character’s perception might not allow. (ref. Character Law)

Arguably one of the most important skills for any character to have is Perception. At least in my player groups, it’s a skill that is taken at least 1 rank every level. Why is it so important? Perception is the gateway for the game narrative. This is critical for table top role-playing where most information is provided by a GM through exposition. Information can be provided or withheld based on a players perception skill–it’s a throttle that can increase or decrease the game experience!

Like many elements of Rolemaster, the perception skill was probably based on the “find traps” or “detect secret door” ability in D&D. But RM perception is a massive expansion of that specific ability and it’s not just an active skill, but can be used as a passive one which greatly improves it’s utility. In my game it’s almost automatic that a player will announce that they are going to make a perception check. Basically what they are asking, is for any “hidden knowledge” based on a skill roll. For me, that’s very reductionist, it lowers the roleplaying experience down to a randomized game mechanic. And because every character in the group has perception, it’s also not uncommon for every player to make a perception check to maximize the probability of a successful result. Even if every character has an average +50 skill bonus, one of 4 or 5 players is going to roll high. At higher levels every character is a “crack observer”. No absent minded or myopic mages in my groups!

As a GM, I usually WANT the group to find secret doors and other mysteries to enhance their enjoyment or reward them. So having them able to perform successful perception checks can be important. On the other hand, these rolls also take some of the narrative control from me. Either way there is no denying the importance or impact of the Perception skill.

So what makes up perception? Quality of eyesight? Tactile sensitivity? Smell? Hearing? If that’s the case, than perception is based on innate physical abilities. Can you train up better vision? Teach yourself better hearing? Probably not. Perception should be purely physical based with an added emphasis on any racial ability.

Or is perception a trainable skill with “rules”, “systems” and processes that can be taught and learned? Aren’t spies taught the ability to notice small details? Are policemen taught to “detect” things? Aren’t soldiers taught to detect tripwires and boobytraps?

If perception is mostly physical capacity then perhaps it shouldn’t be a skill at all. However, if it is a trainable skill shouldn’t it be considered quite specialized and not classified as a general skill? Shouldn’t it be left to professions like thieves, assassins or mystics? Wouldn’t that make it more interesting for game play and give a cool niche role for certain profession types?

What are your thoughts?

The Monster Wiki

This morning the monster wiki was born.

So right now there are only about four or five monsters in there. I have two dozen more to add just to bring it up to date with the monsters I have converted over so far.

I also need to organise the navigation to make them findable. I need category pages and links to individual monsters. The basic site search will find them but as you can imagine searching for Orc will find a lot of pages not just the monster description.

In theory anyone who is logged into the blog should be able to edit any monster, add any monster and so on. If you want player races then get stuck in! Over this weekend I will try and bring this up to date with the monsters I have so far. Having said that I am away this weekend so progress could be limited! If anyone has any thoughts then fire away. I will do anything and everything to make this as useful as possible.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that none of us own these monsters, they are a gift to the RM community and free for anyone and everyone to use.

Diversity vs. Playability: Skills in Rolemaster

Today I’m looking at the ‘problem’ of skills in RM: consolidated skills (of which RMFRP is the paradigmatic version, and which appears to be a certainty in the new version, although with far less skills) or individual skills, each with their own development cost, as was the case in RM2. Let me nail my flag to the mast: I am rather more in favour of individual skill costs, primarily for the tremendous variety and granularity they offer. You simply can’t get that under the skill category system (although the RMFRP rules do allow a certain amount of tweaking, and my rather freewheeling interpretation of the talent rules enabled more).

Further to this is the issue of the dreaded skill bloat. It seems that many folks object – quite reasonably, I feel – to the tremendous explosion in increasingly fine-grained skills introduced by the RM2 companions (and carried over to RMFRP, although restrained and managed by the category system). I understand the objections: if you have, say, 300 skills and 50 professions, that’s a lot of trawling through tables in order to generate a character, and a lot of skills to study up on, in order to decide whether your Burglar is better off taking Defensive Manoeuvre, Feinting or Tumbling Attack, or just ignoring it all and retiring to a farm after buying ranks in Horticulture, Herding, Animal Handling, Animal Healing and Weather-watching.

I only wanted to play Rolemaster!

But, and here’s the thing, I love having that range of options – ridiculous though that may seem – simply because of the ways in which, as a GM, I can fine-tune races, cultures, professions and NPCs. I can understand how you might justify having a Prepare Herbs, Herb Lore and Using Prepared Herbs skill, or a Using/Removing Poison, Poison Perception and Poison Lore skill. I can imagine a rough-and-ready soldier who knows nothing of herbs, but has grown used to applying unguents to wounds. I can equally imagine a scholarly-type who has learned a bit about poison but has never handled it – or even considered using it! That argument makes sense to me, although there is, conceivably, a limit beyond which realism need go.

There are ways of managing skill bloat without consolidating or eliminating skills. The last RM2 campaign I ran I divided skills into Core, Professional and Extra-Professional skills. Everyone, regardless of profession, race or whatever had instant and permanent access to the Core skills. Then, each profession had 25 professional skills to which they had access. All skills outside that group of Core + Professional were restricted, requiring the expenditure of Character Points (which accumulated as the character reached Prime Levels, of which more on another occasion).

I’m including a link to a table showing an example of what I did in my attempts to manage skill bloat whilst maintaining breadth and diversity. This is the RM2 Hunter from the Arms Companion. I’ve not included the development point costs for copyright reasons, but the table is hopefully sufficient to demonstrate the idea. The listed skills show those available to the Hunter at level 1. They can’t consider new skills until reaching their next Prime Level (i.e. level 3). At each Prime Level, a character gains Character Points equivalent to 3 + the modifier derived from their Prime Statistic (the first appearing of their Prime Requisites, in this case Quickness), as if it were a Power Point stat, rounded down. (For example, if Bhorg the Hunter has a Qu stat of 95, he’d gain an extra 2 Character Points, giving him 5 in total. Bhorg could then spend his Character Points unlocking access to an Extra-Professional skill, or buying talents, or saving them for later).

I thought it a reasonably elegant solution, although like all my solutions, it generated a fair amount of work to get it up and running. I’d be interested in your thoughts on possible futures for this approach, any problems you locate and any possible fixes.

Rolemaster Races & Monsters: Friends or Foes?

I’m curious and interested about exploring niches of Rolemaster and fantasy RPG’s in a novel way–subverting tropes, high level adventures, monsters as PC’s, eliminating the Profession system etc. In my last blog I discussed some one-off adventures I’m working on that consists of a party of “monsters” and both Peter and I have written blogs about certain creatures being classified as a Race or Monster. All of this touches upon whether various creatures or traditional monsters would make good PC’s–a subject I’m looking forward to exploring much like I’m doing with 50th lvl characters.

But these questions ignore the broader issue–why are certain races and creatures “Monsters” or adversaries to begin with? Should PC appropriate races be determined by a race’s intrinsic morality? Does RMU’s creature creation system open the door for any creature (assuming a base level of  intelligence) to be played as a PC? Assigning levels, special abilities and skills to creatures draws them into the Character Law system–why not open the door a bit wider for PCs–not just more traditional races, but “monsters” as well?

 

Perhaps the residue of Gygaxian Naturalism reinforces our views that monsters reside outside the natural world and setting. Without a childhood, ecosystem, culture and hopes and dreams these monsters lack the foundations of “Personhood”–they are merely there to be obstacle to the players. But what if that weren’t the case? Perhaps your game world would be like the cantina setting in ANH or TFA–filled with an endless variety of races, creatures and monsters anthropomorphized for the purposes of a working game narrative. Perhaps “monsters” aren’t inherently evil, but motivated by the same self-interest and beliefs that direct us all.

 

Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue

I sometimes worry that with all the deconstructions and house ruling that we can end up not supporting Rolemaster but character assassinating it.

I also worry a bit about the fact that we all agreed to a non disclosure agreement to not discuss RMU publicly and now that is very much what we do.

I have also been up since 4am and I am not feeling particularly mentally scintillating right now so I want to point out something that may or may not have happened, not with a bang but with a bit of an under the radar whimper.

Way back when, many moons ago, BriH suggested 50 in 50 we tossed a few emails about and someone suggested that things like new monsters, new spells and new magic items were one of the things they always liked about the original D&D modules.

So when I wrote one of my contributions to the 50 in 50 adventures I create a new monster. I then promptly forgot about the monster and moved on.

The point of making the monster was that it would be my intellectual property, not ICE’s. Therefore I was perfectly entitled to publish its stats as long as we skirted around the fact that it was a Rolemaster adventure.

Well, on Saturday, when Azukail Games, published Where Eagles Dare I believe they published the first ‘free’ monster, that is free as in speech not free as in beer. As it happens I have written and published other RM adventures with more monsters in the Fanzine between writing Eagles and now but that is not the point.

Monsters, monsters everywhere!

I have had another one of my thoughts. I have a set of conversion rules I have created for getting from D&D 5e to a sort of generic RM, based upon the starting characters I was sent. It was suggested that the monsters would be better if they had skills and I think that is probably right. It was also suggested that giving monsters professions would be good. I think that is probably would be good as well.

So, what I was thinking was  this. I am going to install a wiki plugin for the blog. I will then create a page for every monster I have created so far and continue to do so for all future monsters.

The advantage of the wiki is that if for example you think a monster should have Ambush as a skill then you can edit the monster yourself and add the skill. From that moment on everyone can then see that skill. Furthermore, for skills that work significantly differently such as expertise in RMU vs skills in RM2 for example, you can add a modification to a monster and mark it as for a particular version.

Also, if I have created one or two basic versions of a monster but you want a shaman, that I haven’t created then you can add yours as either an additional monster or add it on to the bottom of the monsters page.

If anyone wants to use these monsters in their own adventures they can then link directly to the monsters page. This way they always get the most up to date version.

Another advantage is with magic and innate spell lists. So far I have listed genuine RM spell lists but anyone can go back over the monsters and reference the BASiL list that best fits.

This new monster section will appear on the menu navigation some time this week and I will start adding in the monsters.As with most wikis you will be able to see the change history and previous versions should you have to.

Is Arms Law Broken?

The only things that RM really has that no other system comes close to is Arms Law with its descriptive criticals and black humour. Everything else is pretty run of the mill, the skills are the same skills found in just about every rpg, stats are stats. The spells are for the most part just reworkings of standard fantasy fare. The only stand out feature is the combat system.

But Arms Law doesn’t work and really has never really worked. How many times have you had someone stood behind a wall get hit in the leg? Why can you never shoot a dragon in the wing? Ignoring Size rules for a second why does a glancing blow from  the jaws of a Tyrannosaurus Rex do the same damage as a glancing  blow from a mouse? The promise or the premise was that to hot and damage were combined so a good hit did more damage than a hit that barely succeeded but you can roll a 1000+ with an open ended roll followed by a poor critical and do no more damage than a mediocre roll followed by a decent critical. In fact a roll totalling 150 is identical to a roll totalling 1000+ unless you start adding in optional or house rules. The promise of the better the attack roll the greater the damage doesn’t really work.

The criticals are supposed to add flavour and a gritty realism to combat but if the text refers to a body part that is impossible to hit, due to cover or doesn’t exist it just makes more work for the GM to translate the critical text into something viable.

I don’t think one can really call 10th level ‘high level’ in a game where there is an explicit range of 1st to 50th but a combat centric character can easily have an OB up around the +150 by 10th to 15th level with 20-30 ranks, plus a stat bonus, level bonus and superior weapon. So as long as you can roll more than the targets DB you will max out the table almost every single time.

Then there are the criticals against super large creatures. The whole idea of weapon specific damage does out the window at that point and everything from martial arts to crossbows do exactly the same damage effects.

Then we get to tiny through to huge attacks and rank one to four in martial arts. The idea of damage caps work for maximum damage but not for minimums, mice can out bite dragons.

One of the things that people asked for was attack tables that went over the 150 cap. The 175 cap really did nothing to solve the problem that caused the complaint in the first place. If anything the fact that RMU kicks off play at 3rd level makes the problem worse as characters will have table busting OBs sooner. The RMU solution is DB inflation with actively-passive-running-footworky-shieldy-dodgy-parryingmajiggy.

Arms Law does not work but we put up with it like an old dog that smells like a damp rug and farts constantly, because we love it and we could not imagine living without it.

The size rules attempted to  solve the problem of an identical final attack roll from a mouse and a dragon bite doing the same damage, while removing the damage caps. This is the only thing that the size rules did well. If we use the compound tables with a bulk of the most common sizes all one table then you get a sticking plaster that functions in this particular instance.

The flaw is in the core Arms Law mechanic.

Roll the dice + skill + mods – DB -> look up the result, roll critical (if any).

This has never changed and is the core problem.

I am not suggesting this as a fully thought out solution, I am writing it on the hoof but…

If you took the bit that says +mods and moved it so that you get…

Roll the dice + skill – DB -> look up result, roll the critical (if any) + mods.

I have cheated a bit there as things like cover and magic and being stunned would effect DB but that is not what I want to focus on.

By adjusting the critical for size, something like +/-10 for each size step difference may work. Rearrange the results so the lowest critical results are feet and shins and the highest are shoulders, neck and head and you have a result that mice would be really pushed to ever bite a giant above the knee and if a dragon takes a swipe at you it is unlikely to hit your foot.

One of the breaking 150 options was to add +1 to the critical roll for every 10 over 150. This would work perfectly well. Now rolling up in the multiple hundreds would make a difference. You would not be rolling 500+ and then getting a critical of 01 and no bonus.

You can scrap criticals A to E and just have 100 possible critical results on a linear scale, maybe 2% or 5% apart. Now all criticals can be open ended!

Size need not be the only critical mod. If DB is about hit or miss, that is where parry belongs. Shields on the other hand can be used to turn a blow away, thus adding to DB, or by putting the shield in the way thus protecting the person so that can be used as a critical mod.

Cover may not add to your DB but it could protect against criticals from 01-30 for a low wall or from 31-80 if you are stood behind a cart with your head and feet visible but the rest of your middle section hidden.

Weapons could come with a critical mod. You are highly unlikely to stab someone in the foot with a dagger as you would have to really reach down intentionally to do so. A battle axe though is probably more likely to do a wound to the lower half of the body, (I stand to be corrected there as I am just spieling off ideas as they come to me). I can imagine parrying an axe coming down at my head or shoulders but the momentum and follow though taking the axe head down to the legs or even feet. As long as the size mods out weighed the weapon adjustments you are still most likely to get stabbed by a hobbit in your leg or abdomen, not the neck or shoulder.

All of a sudden you don’t need the size based multiples and reading up or down a critical tables in multiples of +/-10 is much much easier to do on the fly.

We no longer need this forced size multiples such as charging adding +1 size, now that becomes a critical mod. You even get to finesse things by making charging a penalty to hit, after all you are running around, but a bonus to the critical.

You do not even need the attack table any more. The attack roll becomes a 101+ skill check. You can combine the damage that would have been on the table into the critical descriptions so the skill roll is little more than a pass/fail/fumble roll.

If you combine armour references into the criticals e.g. If foe has a helm then +12 hits, otherwise foe is stunned 3 rounds +22hits. You now can roll out location specific armour and armour by the piece. Imagine an electricity critical  ‘Strike to the upper arm, if foe has metal armour then it is fused into a single piece -20 to all actions using that arm +20 hits, stunned 2 rounds. If organic armour then armour is destroyed +10 hits else, +15hits and burning 1 hit/rnd.’

We can add in breakage so all attacks are two d100 rolls either attack/fumble, attack/breakage check or attack/critical. That is nice and consistent with every action being two rolls ALWAYS.

Another alternative is that you have a traditional attack table of sorts but scrap criticals A-E. You now rename the columns Legs, Arms, Abdomen, Torso, Neck/Head. This makes it relatively easy to do called shots, you take a penalty to hit but choose the column for the critical. Weapons tables skew the columns to match the sort of weapon. So knives and daggers that are unlikely to hit something out of arms reach, like the feet do more arm, abs and torso criticals. Cover exclude unreachable criticals and position shifts the column left or right so attacking from above is more likely to hit the head than the feet. In this system you could have a single page of additional  Krush, Puncture and Slash Criticals but with columns for Wing, Tail, Tentacle and Fin. If a beast doesn’t have legs then the GM can substitute the tail column, if there are no arms then you attack the fins. Another creature may be all tentacles, head, body tail.

Arms Law was probably conceived on a wet Wednesday afternoon are a particularly dissatisfying D&D combat. Since that time it has remained basically unchanged for going on 40 years and not one of its shortcomings have ever been addressed.

The ideal solution may well be a combination of all of the above or things I have not even dreamt of but the fiddling around the edges of RMU’s Arms Law is not the right solution and solves nothing.

 

Extending the maximum result to 175 compared to 150 does nothing especially if people walking around with a +285OB. The 175 cap is a drop in the ocean. The most powerful PC I ever had had an OB of +193. It was extremely unusual for me not to do an E critical on almost every round. I don’t thinking going to 175 would have changed that.

To round it off, I think Arms Law is the heart of Rolemaster and unless it is looked at really critically and made fit for purpose then all the tweaks in the world will just make it slower and more cumbersome and not solve the real problems.