Posted on

Deconstruction: Rolemaster Arms Law. How often should you fumble?

 

Have you ever fought in a melee? With weapons? Every played around with nunchakus, flails, morning stars or just goofed off with chains, ropes, whips or similar objects? Ever chopped wood? Ever been in a fight? Have you been in a stressful dangerous situation where your heart raced, adrenaline kicked in and your palms started sweating?

If so, chances are you have also fumbled an object: it slipped out of your hands, bounced dangerously off a hard object, it was over-swung and you actually hit yourself or you missed a target completely and lost balance, tripped or even fell. That’s completely normal and expected. Wielding weapons in battle should be more difficult than playing around with mock combat.

Rolemaster has a system for fumbles: each weapon has a fumble range, generally between 1-10 with an optional rule that the # of skill ranks can reduce the fumble range (but never below 1). In practical terms, that means that by level 3-5 most fighter types will  have reduced their fumble to 1 in their chosen weapon(s).

Many people probably feel that fiddling with fumble ranges is like encumbrance and exhaustion: too much realism and/or record keeping for not a lot of benefit. I get that. However, swinging around a sharp object, as HARD AS YOU CAN, in a confusing and disorienting environment is incredibly dangerous!

kill bill GIF

Now imagine weapons even more unwieldy than a basic sword, club, mace or dagger. How about a 8′ glaive? A whip? A chained morning star? Should 2, 3 or  5 skill ranks in these weapons impart enough competency to reduce fumbles to a natural “1”?

As part of our expansion of weapon individualization, I’ve been tweaking weapon fumble ranges–some ranges as high as 20, 30 and even 50. This does several things: it models the actual ergonomics of a particular weapon, it adds a counterbalance to some exotic, dangerous weapons that should be difficult to wield correctly (kynac, chakram) and it ties expertise (not total bonus) into the proper handling of a weapon.

Let’s consider the Urumi. This weapon looks particular dangerous to wield doesn’t it! I give this a fumble range of “50”! Basically only a true master can wield it effectively–in normal progression that’s around 20-25th lvl. (But it also imparts a fairly low combat penalty against multiple opponents so there are benefits to using it as well). But even at 10th lvl and 2 ranks/lvl, it will still have a fumble range of 30! It’s one thing to twirl around and show off, but imagine using that in actual combat. Whipping it up to speed, recovering from a missed hit or withdrawing defensively.

Most common weapons have a fumble range of 10-20 so my players can reduce that to “1” by 5-10 level. That seems right to me. And if they want to use a “special” Shadow World weapon (Irgaak) to benefit from bonuses to AT or extra crits, they’ll probably have to deal with a much higher fumble range. Increased fumble ranges and weapon specific modifiers add a whole new dimension to weapon selection–more than just max damage, critical thresh hold and efficacy vs armor.

Posted on

Rolemaster Ambush Skill: How Could it work?

In the original Rolemaster, Ambush was one of the skills that worked differently than others. I’m sure at the time, they were just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole to get the desired result, but actually it was quit brilliant and should have been pursued in greater detail for other skills.

What do I mean? That the # of skill ranks can serve as a rule mechanic just like total skill bonus. RM made Ambush a skill rank only skill where the other skills were purely total skill bonus. But why not have both for all skills?

What does Ambush skill really entail? The skill description requires that the skill be developed with a specific weapon, but does that really make sense? Ambush is not about the weapon, it’s about surprise and the ability to target kill points on a body. A competent assassin can kill with a knife, a stapler or a pen by targeting soft spots or vulnerabilities. The type of weapon is irrelevant as long as it can physically carry out such an attack.

So what might be a way to handle Ambush using both # of skill ranks and skill bonus? Here is how we do it. The ambush skill bonus is used for the Offensive Bonus-no matter what the weapon or object. The GM chooses the attack chart/size based on the weapon and type of damage it might inflict (a flail would not be great in close quarters, while a wooden splinter would be great but do very little damage w/o a great attack roll). Obviously this is a close quarter attack, ambush shouldn’t work for missile, or thrown weapons (that’s a called shot with surprise bonus). The skill bonus reflects the versatility of training using any weapon or object to kill. Also, it recognizes that the ambush weapon is being used to kill with a direct strike and perhaps not how the weapon is normally used. If the attack is successful, then the # of Skill Ranks is used to adjust the critical roll. A bit different than the original rules: some would argue that this allows the assassin to use any weapon or object to kill a target. Correct.

In any event, that’s how we play it. does it seem overpowered? The Assassin would need to get into striking range without being detected (a different skill/ability), have some type of damage inflicting weapon, and generate a critical result attack.

Just my take, using my own hybrid system (S.W.A.R.M.). What’s yours?

Posted on

Inherent ability or skill: another look at Perception.

Back in December I wrote a post about Perception and whether is was even a trainable skill. I think a lot goes into “perception” ( alertness, visual acuity, intuition, reasoning) and the way it’s used by Rolemaster makes it an incredible skill that covers a huge expanse of ability.

But even if you could make an argument (and many did) that perception is a trainable skill, it’s vast multi-disciplinary scope is harder to argue. For instance, while a fighter may be able to perceive an opponents sword skill, the apparent movement of troops or even a carefully laid ambush it’s harder to accept they might be able to detect a trap or secret door if they have no relevant experience in such.

Doesn’t that make sense? No matter how alert or perceptive you are, you can’t perceive small details or glean information on a subject with which you have no skill, training or education. I consider myself a perceptive person, but I can’t look at a horse and draw any conclusions the way Peter could. In other words, perception should be tied to subject matter fluency.

Of course one solution is to add a ton of perceptual sub-skills: perception: reality distortion, perception: traps, perception ambush etc. The list is virtually limitless and would add dozens of new skills to an already bloated system.

With that in mind, I’ve been trying something new and it’s working quite well: I’m using the SKILL RANKS of the appropriate skill/lore as a bonus or modifier to the perception check. If there are no ranks then it’s -25 (along with any difficulty modifiers). So the Thief with 18 ranks in locks/traps gets a +18 bonus to their perception roll related to locks/traps. It’s simple, makes sense and once again creates a use for skill ranks as a measure of proficiency.

Posted on

Thrown Weapons in Arms Law. A critical component of combat.

A recent thread over at the RMU Arms Law Beta Forums discussed the viability of thrown weapons. The general impression is that thrown weapons aren’t used regularly by most players; according to the poll over 60% of player use thrown weapons 0-20% of the time. There are a number of reasons stated or implied for the low use of thrown weapons:

  1. Limited damage.
  2. Limited range.
  3. Limited “ammo”; once you throw it, it’s gone for the remainder of combat usually.

But there might be a systemic problem within Rolemaster combat that minimizes the use of thrown weapons–I’ll get to that in a bit.

First, let’s distinguish between larger thrown weapons like spears and war hammers and smaller less potent weapons like daggers, darts, shurikens, needles or even ball bearings. All of these smaller weapons are cool, add personality to players and NPC’s and are portrayed as being quite deadly in popular fiction. But in many RPG’s, small thrown weapons aren’t that potent; or as seen in the forum thread, rarely used.

Terry includes a lot of thrown weapons in his NPC’s. Wrist dart guns, axes and  shurikens are frequently used, but they are often magical (return via long door) or have other bonus properties (exploding flame cartridges or sleep powder). These “add-ons” overcome some of the real or perceived  limitations of thrown weapons, but also reinforce the idea that mundane small thrown weapons aren’t that usable.

So solution 1 is to enhance thrown weapons with Weapon Runes, poisons, or powders/pastes. I like this solution as it adds even more utility to the Herb/Poison skill and can be a accessible solution for lower level players.

Where and when does one throw a weapon? The base 50′ movement rate/rnd allows players to shift from long distance ranged weapon use to melee in a single round. 50′ is usually too far for effective thrown weapon use, and within 10′ it’s basically melee engagement. Throwing while moving incurs fairly high penalties and basically removes the ability of the player to use a more effective melee attack at the end of the movement phase. It feels like a small window of opportunity and combined with low damage, makes thrown skill less important when allocating scarce development points. Certainly everyone modifies or house rules their combat rounds, so ask yourself how your methodology encourages or discourages thrown weapons.

Therefore, Solution 2 addresses issues that might be arising from the RM combat rules itself by allowing for thrown weapon use in melee. If we consider normal melee engagement distance to be between 5′ to 10′ then allowing small thrown weapons at the outer limits of that range, as an extra attack, to be advantageous. We’ve worked this into our system with the “combat sphere” in our initiative rules and our individual weapon modifiers. With this system, if the “thrower” wins the initiative they’ve created a small space/distance to effectively throw (similar to the combat sphere of a polearm wielder). That means an opponent with a shorter weapon will be at a disadvantage against the thrower.

However, you don’t need to add those extra rules –just permit  thrown small size weapon use in melee with the understanding that the small give and take positioning of combat allows for gaps needed to throw. Allowing more flexibility with thrown weapons and adding some enhancements can make these small, even innocuous, weapons quite deadly!

 

 

Posted on

Revenge is inevitable. The blowback of a murder hobo party.

 

Today I wanted to talk about unintended consequences of game play and connect two previous blog posts about “Newman Groups” and “Murder Hobos“.

Let’s be honest, PC’s in Rolemaster and other RPG’s kill a lot of people and creatures! Even if you focus on role-playing and noncombat situations, most game mechanics support adversarial and violent action. In our last session alone, the group killed (or incapacitated, maimed or left for dead) over 20 creatures–and that wasn’t a particular violent session. Not all of their opponents were purely evil or non-sentient; in fact, most were sentient humanoids or thinking creatures–they just happened to oppose the players or obstructed their goals. These opponents may have had family, friends or compatriots that would feel anger or loss, and probably want some sort of justice or revenge on the PC’s.

Now multiply that ten-fold or more. By the time a player is 20th level, they’ve probably killed THOUSANDS of people, creatures, monsters and animals.  In reality, the adventuring party is constantly creating new groups of enemies that might want to hunt them down.

I’m not making a moral point; Rolemaster is predicated on a detailed combat system with sometimes brutal or gruesome criticals. Killing is normal and common. But should there be consequences for years of endless murder and mayhem?

 

Posted on

Dividing loot. An early RPG mechanic.

For those taking note, my blog volume has decreased substantially over the last month or two. Luckily, we have new bloggers that can help fill the gaps as well as bring different perspectives to all things Rolemaster and RPG’s. Unfortunately, my schedule doesn’t free up for another month or two and I’m going to limit myself to shorter posts that are geared towards generating discussion rather than me presenting my own solutions.

Let’s talk about dividing loot. I was meandering through some old D&D material and realized that they actually developed some rules on how players should divide up treasure. I had never given it much thought and in all the years of playing, dividing treasure always seemed fairly simple and intuitive.

Here is the original text from the Players Handbook.

APPENDIX V
SUGGESTED AGREEMENTS FOR DIVISION OF TREASURE

Agreements:
1. Equal shares (share and share alike) is a simple division by the total
number of characters involved.
2. Shares by level is a division whereby all* character levels of
experience are added and the total treasure divided by this sum.
One share of treasure is given for each experience level.
3. Equal shares plus bonus is a method to reward excellence and
leadership. Treasure is divided by the sum of all characters, plus
two or three. The outstanding character or characters, as
determined by vote, each gain one extra share.
*For multi-classed characters add one-half of the lesser class(es)
levels to the greater class levels to determine total experience
levels for the division of treasure. Characters with two classes
receive shares for the class levels they are permitted to employ (cf.
THE CHARACTER WITH TWO CLASSES).

Modifiers:
1. Non-player characters who are henchmen of a player character
count as one-half character or for one half of their levels and
cannot gain bonus shares.
2. A character incapacitated or killed (but subsequently brought back
to life) is eligible to share only in treasure gained prior to such
incapacity or death.
3. Characters who are uncooperative, who obstruct the party, attack
party members, or are the proximate cause of the incapacitation or
death of a party member shall forfeit from one-quarter to all of
their share(s) as penalty for their actions.

Magical Treasure:
While it is a simple matter to total coins and precious items which can be
sold for an established amount of money, the division of magic items is far
more difficult. It is therefore necessary for party members to determine
how magic will be divided. As the number of items which will be gained is
unknown, selection of a system of division is not possible until after the
adventure is concluded.
1. If but one or two items of magic are gained these can be grouped
singly or paired to equal  share of treasure. If one is of relatively
small worth, it can be grouped with money to equal one share.
2. Three or more magic items:
a) best item
b) next best item
c) third + fourth items
d) “x” amount of money as compensation for not getting any
magic items
3. Three or more magic items, alternate method:
a) best item
b) second item + “x” amount of money
c) fourth item + “3x” amount of money

Magic items thus parceled are then diced for, the character with the
highest roll selecting first, and then the second highest scoring character
choosing next, etc. It is suggested that each character be given a number
of rolls equal to his or her level of experience, the highest of these rolls
being the one retained. Non-player character henchmen are typically
allowed but a single roll.
Variations on the above systems are, of course, possible. Systems should
always be established prior to the inception of the adventure whenever
possible.

To me, these rules are a curiosity- a remnant of D&D’s wargaming roots. I wonder if any game since has actually created or quantified a similar system of loot division? A few thoughts I had:

  1. It seems impersonal in a game generally played by a group of friends in a cooperative group. For a convention game or playing in a group of strangers it might make sense?
  2. While it may seem impartial rules would reduce group conflict, shares by level or equal shares with a bonus are begging for player disagreement. The modifiers seem a bit qualitative as well.
  3. I like the fact that it’s mentioned that henchmen get a share as well. That reinforces the importance of henchmen and retainers in D&D that isn’t really found in Rolemaster.
  4. The “shares” reminds me of loot and spoil agreements used by pirates, freebooters and privateers.

I suppose in a game system that quantifies everything and uses 1gp = 1xp, having hard rules about dividing treasure makes sense. Is this a legacy of a simpler time in RPG’s or a needless complexity that has been ignored by most other game systems since? Did you ever use official loot splitting rules for your group? Do these rules foster teamwork and collaboration or create problems? In a game that is based on group problem solving, is it strange to lay out these rules? Maybe it’s just quaint but unnecessary now–like wearing hats in the old timey days.

What other original D&D rules are “outliers” or seem obsolete now?

Posted on

Revisiting Spell Law: Spell Casting Mechanics Pt. 4 Notational Magic

Welcome to the fourth part of my Spell Law Series.  In Pt. 1 I discussed Spell Law and BASiL in overview. In Pt. 2 I delved into the mechanics of the Essence realms, Pt. 3 into Channeling and now is Pt. 4 I wanted to discuss “Notational” Magic, or written/inscribed magic. Rather than offer my own solutions, I want to open the conversation up from a deconstructive standpoint.

So what is Notational Magic? It’s any magic that requires pictograms, symbols, drawing or writing as part of it’s mechanic; in short, “written or inscribed magic”. In Rolemaster that could include Runes, Glyphs, Sigils, Heiroglyphs, Circles, Magical Tattoos, Blade Runes, Marks, Signatures, Signs and Wards. Over time with various optional rules, settings and companions, many of these words have been used interchangeably and muddied the rule mechanics. For instance, typical “Runes” are written on special paper, can be used to learn a spell or can be cast which then depletes the Rune. Battle or Weapon Runes (RMCI) are temporary spell charges that are cast on weapons and armor. Obviously these are two different mechanics with differing functions, but both are called “Runes”. However, these Runes and the other types listed above share a single trait: all imply a functionality  based on a written/drawn parameter. This similarity is be enough to group these types of magic under a cohesive mechanic, rather than shoehorn it into Essence, Channeling or even Mentalism.

Rolemaster Companion II officially tackled part of the issue with rules around Summoning Circles. While the spells themselves followed standard casting mechanics (SCR, Class I-III etc), there was an acknowledgement that drawing a 10′ diameter circle of arcane symbols might take longer than the 30 seconds it might take to cast a Class III spell. But don’t Runes, Glyphs, Symbols or Sigils need to be “drawn” as well? Or do you feel that the spellcasting itself creates the resulting shapes or symbols?

But stepping back a bit further, we should ask what is actually being drawn or written? A written language? Forms that hold/create power? Power symbols? Is it a written magical short-hand? Something else? Is the shape or form of “scroll runes” different than Glyphs or Symbols? How can a channeling spell be imbedded into an object or rune paper if the spell requires the basic consent of a God? Doesn’t that amount to a work around? If each is it’s own language do casters need to learn different written forms similar to magical languages?

For me, the number and type of the above questions indicates that there is already a massive gap in the rule constructs for written magic. Essence we can subscribe to chanting and waving hands, Channeling to prayer and Mentalism to mental focus and concentration but the similarities AND the established differences in these varying types of magic require quite a bit more organization work.

Finally, if a rune or symbol spell requires writing or drawing, shouldn’t the spellcasting roll be based on the casters skill in writing or drawing? As previously argued regarding magical languages, you can’t use magicial languages to cast high level spells if you have a 1st grade ability in a magical language. Shouldn’t the same be true for written magic? If you can’t draw, write cursive, do calligraphy or draft how can you effectively draw a working summoning circle?

What are other possible issues around notational magic?

  1. Surfaces. What can notational magic be used on? Runes require a special paper. Glyphs can be written on a flux: fluid or air? Symbols require a large heavy stone, blade runes require a weapon but depends on size. Basically it’s all over the place.
  2. Mediums. Is there a medium needed to inscribe the spell? Ink? Paint? Oil? Blood? What about acid etching, chiseling, carving or tattoos? How does the strength or permanency of different mediums interact with the spell, spell casting for general duration? Should it matter?
  3. Analysis. If notational magic has structure should a skill like Runes or Rune Language allow someone to interpret the rune or similar symbol? Should they be able to decipher the rune, it’s power, effect or level?
  4. Visibility. Which types of notational magic or visible to the naked eye? Do they glow, do they fade until triggered?
  5. Casting Time. How long should it take to write and cast notational magic? It should probably depend on the type of writing, the surface and the medium, right? That means a varied system of casting times that break out of the standard Spell Law mechanic. In some respects this is closer to the rules around ritual magic.

Compared to other realms, notational magic has some real disadvantages: needed materials, complexity, casting time etc. This should be offset by some advantages: duration, power or flexibility. That will need some thought.

Finally, last thought. This is really setting dependent but there are opportunities to create some really unique magic styles that could differentiate your campaign. So what are your thoughts? If you could start from scratch (deconstruction) would Runes and similar types of magic work differently than the 3 realms? What other types of notational magic can you think of?

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Bone Weapons in Rolemaster & Shadow World

Figure 1.

Last October I posted up some of my work with “Special Armor“: cultural armor that utilizes special materials that is specific to various Shadow World cultures or groups. Since then, I’ve been building on this idea with weapons, and specifically weapons made of bone.

While bone may seem too fragile or may splinter too easily to make good weapons, there are historical precedents. The picture at the top are human bone daggers utilized by tribes in New Guinea. Not only is the idea of human bones cool/grim, the “Runes” carved into the daggers lends itself to a fantasy RPG setting. The tribes also made daggers from bones of the Cassowary, a large flightless bird similar to an Ostrich. For inspiration, check out this article on real weapons made from animal components. Some of these are quite intimidating!

Figure 4.

While scientists have concluded that the human thigh bone has excellent properties for use as a piercing weapon, a fantasy game setting opens up the opportunities for bone weapons made from magical creatures: Dragons, Shards etc.  So let’s take it one further: combining magical bone with Weapon Runes. These become totemic cultural weapons that can help define a unique culture. Special bone weapons are common in other game systems and fantasy computer games, but not really represented in Shadow World. I added  a tribe for my Shadow World campaign:

Igata – Triangle Glyph. Outer islands. The Igata are a reclusive tribe living on the long island south of the Demon Gap. They will trade with passing ships but their isolation from the mainland makes them cautious of strangers. The Igata consider themselves caretakers of the waters of the Ssoei’dawass and the Sea Serpents that travel to the sheltered bay to spawn, and eventually, die. The Igata collect shell fragments and bones from the bay and carve them with powerful runes and fashion them into potent weapons. Their main hall is framed with the rib bones of an enormous serpent.

The Igata skills combining Sea Serpent bones with ritual and inscribed magic (Runes and such) to make charms, weapons, staves, rods and other powerful items that are sought after. The magically infused and unnaturally strong Sea Serpent bone lends itself to enchantment. (see my post and chart on enchantment and material strength; I use a single number for both material strength and enchantment capacity). While bone items may be better for Crushing or Piercing weapons,  I also allow the magical properties of special bone to be used for Slashing as well–or alternatively by utilizing an  “Edging” Weapon Rune.

With so many cool magical metals and alloys in Shadow World, it probably doesn’t seem necessary to add enchanted bone weapons, but I think it adds a lot of cultural flavor to the game. Have you used Bone Weapons? What SW or RM creature would have “good bones” for use in these weapons?

 

 

Posted on

Rolemaster Deconstruction: Familiars. How should they work?

 

Familiars are not only a staple of fantasy fiction but a core visual ingredient of Rolemaster book covers–specifically the ongoing series of Angus McBride covers from earlier RM books that featured a cast of PC’s with several small animal Familiars.

Familiars had a more sinister aspect in early fiction; most often a demonic imp, crow or other dark-aspected animal tied to an evil antagonist. Early D&D applied this concept to any M-U, and broadened it to a simple servitor or animalistic henchmen of a spell-caster.

First, let’s differentiate between “animal control” spells and “familiars”. Animal control spells are featured in the Animist, Beast Master, Druid and similar professional lists in Spell Law and Companions. These are spells that summon/call, control/master and sometimes allow the caster to sense through a controlled animal. These are all powerful affects, in in some ways SUPERIOR to the limitations and penalties associated with Familiars. So how does Rolemaster deal with Familiars? Fairly easily, in fact, so easy that it behooves a caster to immediately have one.

So why would a caster have a Familiar?

Familiars have a symbiotic connection to the caster where animal control is just a magical charm or affect on a creature. So what is the symbiotic relationship? What benefit does it provide besides cinematics? How does it work, mechanically via the rules?

The basic premise is that there is a REAL benefit to the caster, but at the cost of INVESTITURE. In other words, if the relationship is severed there is a real, physical or psychosomatic cost to the caster. Otherwise isn’t it just easier and less risk to control creatures when needed?

So what is the benefit, or possible benefits, of a familiar that differentiate it from other animal control spells? Here are a few ideas:

  1. Communication. The Familiar bond should allow for free two way communication between the caster and creature. This may not be actual “language” but at least a strong empathic bond.
  2. Awareness. The caster and familiar should have some base awareness in terms of location/distance of each other at all times.
  3. Shared Awareness. With concentration the caster might be allowed to project sensory ability and awareness through their Familiar.
  4. Control. The caster, with concentration, should be able to have some control over their familiar or, at least, give simple instructions for a Familiar to execute.
  5. Shared abilities. A caster might gain some extra-abilities through the Familiar relationship. Perhaps better vision, languages, strength, sensory etc. On the flip side, a Familiar could gain some intellectual ability bestowed by the Familiar bond.

Most of these benefits mirror other animal control spells. But those are temporary spell effects; a Familiar is permanent.

My belief is that GM’s are reluctant or adverse to Familiars. Why? Familiars are really NPC’s for the benefit of the PC’s. That really complicates the narrative.  GM’s not only have to manage normal NPC’s but a constant stream of Familiars that can upend the storyline unless the GM takes the Familiars into consideration!!! At that point, who is the audience? Additionaly, Familiars can change the challenge/reaction of normal adventures–familiars act as scouts or agents with heightened senses that can off-set the normal challenge-balance. At the least, Familiars can be the “canary in the coal mine” and alert the group of traps or other imminent obstacles.

Some additional thoughts:

  • Familiars are GM agents. You can better control the narrative through them.
  • They should be of animal intelligence. They may act with pro-forma intelligence via their caster, but their base ability should be simple animal intelligence.
  • Size. Should they be of smaller size? Should a caster have a bull as a familiar? Probably not. I would restrain the spell limits using the size rules to Small or less.
  • The penalty for losing a familiar should be EXTREME, or at least cautionary. The tie that binds should snap back accordingly and in proportion. This could be loss of temp CO. or even a permanent CO pt, a general activity penalty and even worse.

Again, this goes back to risk/reward. No GM wants to manage intelligent Familiars that run the unknown gauntlet, trip the traps and distract the monsters. At that point, who is playing? Familiars should be carefully hoarded resources–a cool benefit that needs to be defended! Are familiars a great resource in you game?

Of course, if easy and beneficial, every player will have a Familiar. But if the risks and rewards are balanced, would it be different? Maybe the whole concept should be reduced to a simplified, professional agnostic “Animal Bond” mechanic and spell list. That eliminates the whole D&D Magic-User familiar trope and become a generic but specific rule-set that could be used by a variety of PC’s or classes: Magician, Animist, Druid, Beast Master, Barbarian etc. What are your thoughts?

 

 

 

Posted on

Two philosophies of RMU: rebuild or reorganize?

While it’s  much too late to change the course of events, there are still a number of detailed conversations going on at the RM Forums regarding the RMU Beta test.

For me the endless rules debates became too deep a rabbit hole that I didn’t want to go down any longer and there are still many players who are fiercely engaged. So rather than discuss actual rules, I thought I would discuss the rules making process. A bit of a meta-debate if you will.

I think the RMU development process has become a rorschach test for the RM community. It’s clear that there are variety of differing and strongly held beliefs about the rule resolutions and they are mostly the product of an individual’s ideas on versimilitude and their own tolerance for complexity. I discussed Chargen complexity in a previous POST, but I wanted to broaden the scope of my question into 2 parts. First, does RMU rebuild the ruleset or just reorganize and streamline it? Second, are peoples suggested rule changes a rebuild or a reorganize?

I think the answer to the first question is easy. RMU stayed “inside the box” and merged, streamlined and tinkered with core mechanics without any significant rebuild. Perhaps the only rebuild mechanic that was introduced was the size rules and those were discarded after community input.  Arms Law still kept weapon tables, crit charts and the basic combat structure. Does the round sequence or initiative rules rise to the definition of a rebuild? I think it was evolutionary, but certainly not revolutionary. Spell Law was left almost as-is, with some spell mechanics rewritten or clarified, spell slots filled but little else. Character Law seemingly reduced RMSS skill bloat (but not really) and added to the Chargen process with pages and pages of talents and flaws–rules for rules!

So my second question–are your solutions rebuilding or just tinkering around the edges? It seems like many rule suggestions (including mine) are just an attempt to get RMU to adopt house rules in some fashion. But are these suggestions meant to truly revise RM or are you painting within the lines? I think RMU met it’s name: it’s attempted to unify a diverse community within the established mechanics.

But did RMU need more? If so what?

Did rule changes take you out of your own comfort zone?

Are proposed rules to the benefit of growing the community or appealing to the current user base?

Do RMU rules advance the system into the contemporary gaming community?

I negotiate for a living and a saying in my profession is that the best possible deal is when both parties walk away somewhat dissatisfied.