The Rolemaster Blog

Perhaps the most common criticism of Rolemaster over the years is that it is ‘Chartmaster’: overly reliant on charts for basic actions. I think everyone should rejoice to hear that RMu has now dispensed with the need for a chart to handle basic movement.

JDale just noted that the default method for movement in RMu is now what I call the ‘pay AP to move’ method (if you have a more succinct name for that by the way, please let me know!). Characters simply pay action points for movement, just as they would pay for any other action. You get to move up to your BMR for each point spent. Want to move 1x your BMR? Pay 1 point. 4x? Pay 4 points. There is a minor wrinkle in that to get to 5x (the maximum pace normally allowed), you have to spend your instantaneous action for the turn. But otherwise, the system is very simple. (In fact, it is similar to the system in Pathfinder2, though we started doing this in RMu first, before we’d even heard of Pathfinder2).

RMu does have an optional method if you want to try to combine movement with other actions. You can move at up to a run (x3 BMR) and combine your movement with another action, but those actions suffer the pace penalty (-25 x pace) if you moved during any phase while performing them. If you don’t like the complexity this adds, you can just not choose to use this optional rule.

You can read JDale’s description of how this works on the ICE forums, here: http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=19163.20

All of this makes for a much easier system that allows RMu players to dispense with the maneuver/pace chart altogether.

And there was much rejoicing!

Pathfinder 2 launched at Gen Con this weekend and I was lucky enough to play it there firsthand. The thing I liked the most about it was the action economy, which I think gives Rolemaster players (especially RMu players) a lot of food for thought. In fact, I think PF2 shows us the way towards a better solution for RMu’s ‘Walk and Chew Gum Problem’ than adding a Footwork skill. But more about that in a later post. Today, I just want to explain for you how the PF2 action economy works, because it is not only significantly different from DnD 5e and even from 3.5, but I think it is superior insofar as it is simultaneously easier to understand and richer in player choice and tactical depth.

First let me note that PF2 has so far gotten some mixed reviews overall. It seems to me that players who really liked the way DnD 5e pushed Theater of the Mind combat and went back to basics and simplicity tend not to like what PF2 is doing, while those who prefer greater depth in character customization and tactical choices are more sympathetic. One element of PF2 that has received near universal acclaim, however, is the action economy. Even negative reviews are praising the 3-action-and-a-reaction system of PF2 for being easy to pick up and fun to play.

Basically, the PF2 action economy works this way: each turn, your character gets 3 actions and a reaction, to spend in whatever order he, she, or it sees fit. Sound familiar? Yes, it’s not that different from RMu, in which characters get four action points and an instantaneous action each turn.

Nevertheless, there are some significant differences between RMu and PF2 beyond the fact that PF2 characters get 3 actions (and a reaction) while RMu characters get four action points (and an instantaneous action).

For one, PF2’s reaction is different than RMu’s instantaneous action. The PF2 reaction is a true reaction, i.e. one that you can use on another character’s turn rather than your own, whereas the RMu instantaneous action is more like what DnD 4e called a ‘minor action’, which is a quick action to be used on your own turn.

Another difference is that attacks in PF2 cost only one action. What?!?!?! Does that mean a PF2 fighter can attack three times in one turn? Yes, it does. But this is balanced by the fact that each action beyond the first suffers a cumulative -5 penalty. So if you had a +9 to hit bonus, your first attack would be at +9, second at +4, and third at -1.

Another big difference is that PF2 treats movement not like some different kind of action with its own rules, but rather just like any other action. This means that you don’t need different rules for movement; it is just a regular action. (Word, brother! Testify!) Each point you spend on movement allows you to move up to your movement rate, and you can use each of your three actions for either movement or attacks however you see fit. This is of course exactly what RMu does: give you action points that you can spend in any order on whatever you like. Unlike in earlier editions of Rolemaster, you don’t have to wait for the spell phase to cast a spell, the missile phase to fire a missile, the movement phase to move and the melee phase to melee. In PF2 terms, this means you could do a first attack at +9, a second at +4, and then move for your third action. Or instead you could move first, then do your first attack at +9, and second at +4. Or you could move twice, then finish with one attack at +9. You can even move three times if you like.

All of this makes for a very interesting action economy, because it often requires you to make some tough tactical decisions. Do you want to use your last action of the turn to move into a better position and thus set up a flank attack on the dragon for next round? Or do you feel lucky enough that you’ll connect with a last attack despite the big -10 penalty? Will you try to finish off that dragon and be the one to save your dying party member, or do you leave him to fend for yourself as you set up a your coup de grace? In practice, making these choices was a lot of fun, and added greatly to the drama at the table. I overheard two fighter-loving players saying they really liked the way this gave them more to do than just ‘one move, one attack; one move, one attack’ ad nauseam (which is essentially what 5e does to Fighters, especially at low level).

Everyone I played with at Gen Con picked up this new action economy very easily. Three of the guys I played with had no prior PF experience at all, and by the end of the session it was second nature. I will also note that no one complained that there was no pace chart to consult 🙂

This then is what Pathfinder 2 does, and by most accounts, it is great. It is an innovation that makes the game easier to play while also presenting players with interesting tactical options. The fact that RMu already has a similar economy bodes well I think for RMu, and I think has some lessons for us RMu players too. But I’ll save them for a (near) future post.

The Charm Spell. One of the four foundational spells that are required in fantasy RPG’s. (Sleep, Fireball, and Fly being the other 3). Rolemaster Spell Law includes several type of “Charm” magics, but they don’t feel well thought out in requirements, applications or effects. Charm types spells should not only be differentiated by their Realm assignment, but should also have specific mechanics: mechanics that might break the standard SCR/RR counter play.

Charm type spells can have a potent impact on gameplay: they can create an ally, remove an adversary from the “table” or bypass normal gameplay by using an NPC’s actions to further player goals. Charm spells can have a variety of effects: control, persuasion, influence or distraction. One well cast Charm spell can upend the course of an encounter or combat quickly. Basically it’s a force multiplier: take a combat of 4 on 4 and one successful Charm spell can tip it to a 5 on 3. That’s a winning advantage; especially in a combat system like Rolemaster.

For purposes of this blog and my recent work on BASiL (a complete rewrite!) I see “Charm” spells as covering a spectrum of effects and mechanics:

Charm. I see “Charm” as spells that act as a magical friendship. This may limit what the caster can ask the target to do and excessive requests may break the magical bond.

Enslavement. These type of “control” spells are most often used for controlling Demons, Elementals and other entities, but could also be used in Evil spell lists to enslave a subject. While this might be considered evil, it’s also very potent and conceivably allows a caster to have the target do most anything.

Master. I would classify these types of spells as sitting between Charm and Enslavement. The caster can ask the target to put themselves in harms way–even against their friends, but not unduly put themselves in danger for no reason.

Enthrall. This is more akin to Charm, but the target has an unnatural attraction or focus on the caster. These types of spells are like “Bewitching”, “Love”, or “Seduction”.

Mesmerize. A broad range of spells that subsumes the targets senses. Similar to hypnotism, but could be simple spells like “distraction” or “blind spot” or “tunnel vision” or more potent spells that act like a combination of Charm and Enthrall.

Certainly, my classifications might seem like a distinction without a difference, but they can also be used to differentiate these types of spells among the various Realms. Since I try to incorporate different functionality into the standard RM Realms, I would argue that these spells might also work differently even adopting standard RM (and not BASiL). What might these differentiations be? Here are a few ideas in no particular order of relevance:

1. Most Charm type spells of any sort should be Mentalism or Channeling. Essence could have control spells for Demons and elementals, but the fundamental basis of charm spells is the subsumption of will or spirit. This is distinctly in the Realms of will, spirit and soul.
2. Charm spells should have a range of efficacy. Charm, Enthrall and Mesmerizing should require the caster to be in intimate or interactive range (and a supportive environment) to cast. You can’t just mesmerize a target hundreds of feet away in a crowded combat can you?
3. Some of the spells may require the constant presence of the caster to maintain the duration?
4. Failure could mean that the target is aware that they were being magically influenced?
5. Are there any other inputs that could cancel the spell’s influence or require a check of some sort?
6. Do “third parties” (even the other PC’s) impact the influence of these spells or is it meta gaming?
7. Should any Channeling based “Charm” spells incorporate the moral implications of the spell and the host Diety?

What I’m trying to get to here is a system–a protocol for most every spell that maintains the logical coherence, game balance and uniqueness of player ability. Yes, it’s magic so by it’s nature it doesn’t require logic. Right?

Anyway, appreciate any thoughts. As I’m finishing up BASiL: Mentalism these issues have become pre-eminent.

I’m here at Gen Con in Indianapolis, and hope write several blogs about my experiences. I’ll talk about what I’ve learned about mechanics — action economies, playstyles, and my personal favorite, shield usage — in later blogs, but since this is my first time here, I thought I’d just post general impressions first.

First thing that struck me was how large it was. It took us over an hour to get our badges (they wouldn’t send them to us by mail because we are in Canada), but the system was actually quite efficient; it just took long because there are tens of thousands of people here (I read something like 60,000, but can’t confirm whether that is accurate or not). One of my friends who is with me is a bit weirded out by crowds, so he is struggling a little, and going to take a break tonight.

I, however, am energized. I can’t help but remember that famous dialogue from Clerks, where Dante tells Randall, ‘You love crowds’, and he responds, ‘Yes, but I hate people.’

It is both unexpected and wonderful to be sitting in line at Starbucks, and instead of overhearing conversations about shoes or horrible bosses, you stumble upon people arguing about initiative order or debating whether they should make their Rogue ranged or melee. These are my people.

The vibe is happy and positive, and all the people we’ve played with so far have been really nice. The show floor is huge and I’m about to head out to the Pointy Hat Games booth to check out the Rolemaster stuff. I am GMing my Rolemaster session tomorrow, so I’ll have lots more to say later in the week. And I’ve learned a lot, mechanics-wise, that is going to shape my houserules for Rolemaster. So far, this is everything I hoped it would be, and I’m really glad my wife let me come 🙂

I’ve blogged quite a bit about game setting driving rule mechanics over the years, and one of the fundamental issues of Shadow World is how “magic” works in a world that exists in our own reality and universe. I expanded on our own views of Essence three years ago on this BLOG POST, but wanted to dive a little deeper now that I’m working on a few related projects for SW.

Ostensibly, the Essaence permeates Kulthea through a tear in our universe into another; the same universe from which the Orhanians originated. This is all well and good, but is really not much more than a hand wave that does little to ground the mechanics of magic in Shadow World. Plus, it raises an important question: where is the “source point’ of this tear? In my mind it needs to be on either Kulthea, one of the moons or on some artifact or techno-artifact somewhere in the system. Let’s examine the pros and cons of several of these options:

1. On Orhan. This probably makes the most sense. The Gods live on this moon and being the choke point of this power helps explain their ability to channel to their followers on Kulthea–they basically control the well-head. We can than extrapolate that this fifth energy follows gravitational waves and therefore encompasses Kuthea’s magnetosphere as well.
2. On Kulthea. Does it make sense to have the source of Essaence on Kulthea? The Pillar of the Gods would be the most likely location–it is a physical manifestation of the arrival of Essaence on Kulthea (via a wormhole/blackhole/etc) and would explain the power fluctuations around the region.
3. Techno-artifact. I originally had the source of Essaence encased in some object (it was a mcguffin and I never identified it) at the Lagrange point of Kulthea/Orhan. This split the power between the planet and moon and allowed for a ebb and flow of power I use in my campaign.

However, I’ve been re-thinking my “Lagrange Point” solution and now am leaning towards #1. This still allows me to play with varying Essaence levels and solidifies the basis for the Orhanian’s “god-like” powers.

I’m pretty weak on orbital mechanics, but I understand that Orhan is on a ecliptic orbit and Charon is on a polar orbit. In my campaign this allows for a variance in Essaence (channeling) powers for followers of Orhan and the Dark Gods of Charon. Therefore:

1. The Dark Gods are outcasts from Orhan. They were banished to Charon because it acts as a prison and limits their access to the Essaence.
2. Charon only has normal access to the Essaence when it crosses the ecliptic–otherwise it has limited access to the Essaence elsewhere in it’s orbit. Thus the weakened nature of the Charon Gods and their powers on Kulthea. Channelers of the Dark God don’t have full access to their powers about 1/2 of the day.
3. When Charon fully eclipses Orhan, then it is both ascendant with full access to the Essaence and it also disrupts Orhans connection to Kulthea. This is the “Night of the Third Moon”. Channelers of Orhan lose access to some of their powers. This makes the Night of particular relevance to Channelers all over Kulthea.

There are probably a few flaws in my approach, and while I don’t get the orbital timings exact during my game play it does add another strategic and narrative element to my SW campaign. It also creates a “moon magic” mechanic that meshes in with current RM spell law without the specific lists found in the RM Companion. It also adds another unique setting driven mechanic to shadow World.

Anybody else do anything like this?

I just had a strange idea. I was thinking of the normal Rolemaster positional bonuses (+15 for a flank attack, +35 for rear), and what they represent. It seemed to me that characters got these bonuses because targets would find it more difficult to parry, dodge, and block attacks from these awkward directions, due to the fact that it is harder to see them coming and to turn to parry, block, or dodge. But what about a target such as a giant amoeba, that does not have eyes and does not parry, block, or dodge? Why should the amoeba’s attackers get positional bonuses against it?

The other thing that got me thinking of positional bonuses is DnD 5e’s system of positional bonuses — or lack thereof. (My group plays DnD about half the time and about Rolemaster half the time, so I am always comparing the two systems.) The 5e player handbook, which contains the core combat rules, uses no positional bonuses at all — not even flanking. That is of course terrible. However, the Dungeon Master’s Guide lays out optional rules for flanking and facing. Flanking provides advantage (i.e. you get to roll 2 d20s for your attack and take the higher one), which is neat, but can become a bit overpowering; and the downside is that to gain flanking, you have to be on the exact opposite end of the target square/hex from an ally who is also attacking your target. This leads to odd combats that devolve into the famous ‘conga line of death’, a long line of combatants, alternating ally – enemy – ally – enemy, as everyone tries to get the flank bonus by aligning exactly on the opposite edge of an enemy. That isn’t really very realistic and kind of makes a mockery of formations.

The 5e DMG also offers optional rules for facing: attacks through the rear arc benefit from advantage and the target does not get a shield bonus. The shield bonus only applies to attacks through the front and shield side arcs. This is better, and also contains the stipulation that some creatures, such as ‘an amorphous ochre jelly’, do not have rear arcs, as well as more detailed rules for playing on both a square and a hex grid. The downside of the 5e DMG facing rules, however, is that 5e does not have sufficiently developed rules for ‘sticky’ combat: characters only get attacks of opportunity when opponents leave their zones of control too hastily, not just when they move through them too hastily. This means that in 5e, you can circle strafe to an enemy’s rear and attack with advantage all in the same turn with virtually no penalty. Oops — this is the reason why turn-based systems need some ‘stickiness’ to their combat, so that characters have a reasonable chance to react to the actions of their enemies.

To fix DnD 5e’s rules, I’ve brought back 4e’s rule about moving through an enemy’s zone of control: moving through or out of an enemy’s zone of control now provokes opportunity attacks if the movement is hasty (i.e. not using the ‘withdraw’, ‘disengage’ or ‘5-foot-step’ action). This houserule change largely solves the strafing issue. I can now use 5e’s facing rules without getting too annoyed.

But making this change also got me thinking of an innovation to eliminate the ‘conga line of death’ and make formations matter more again: instead of giving advantage in the case of two combatants being on exactly different sides of their opponents, I would only give them a +2 flanking bonus. Similarly, attacks from the flanks (back left and back right on a square grid) would only get a +2 flanking bonus. To get advantage (i.e. the right to roll 2 d20s and take the higher one), you would have to attack through the rear arc only, because advantage can be a huge bonus.

Then I went a bit farther, and thought, instead of flanking bonuses, why not just say that targets don’t get the benefit of any Dexterity bonus against attacks through the flank? Because really, the flanking bonus is meant to represent the fact that it is harder to dodge/block/parry an attack that you can’t really see coming very well. So wouldn’t it be easier just to eliminate the set ‘flank bonus’ altogether, and instead just say that targets don’t get a Dex bonus vs. flank attacks?

Thinking of how I would fix DnD 5e’s positional rules in this way also led me to think about an experiment in applying a similar rule to Rolemaster. What about instead of set bonuses (+15 for flank, +20 for rear) for positional modifiers, we tailored the bonus to the situation and the abilities of the combatants in a more realistic way? What if we said this:

–A Flank attack is an attack made through the left flank or right flank hex. Because such attacks are harder to see and therefore defend against, the target cannot benefit from any shield bonus, and receives only half his quickness and/or parry bonuses.

–A rear attack is an attack made through the rear hex. Because such attacks are especially hard to see and defend against, the target cannot benefit from any shield, quickness, or parry bonuses.

Rather than giving creatures set bonuses, then, we would instead be limiting their defenses in a more realistic way. There would no longer be any abstract ‘flank’ or ‘rear’ bonus that worked the same for every creature and combination of battlefield conditions; rather, flank and rear attacks would be deadlier against combatants that rely on seeing attacks coming and actively defending against them, and less deadly on creatures that don’t defend or even see at all. Amoebas, Gelatinous Cubes, and amorphous ochre jellies everywhere would rejoice (though we’d never hear them, since they don’t have mouths). And we will no longer have any conga lines of death!

Has anyone ever tried anything like this?