The Rolemaster Blog

Not a real post this morning, just wishing you all a Merry Christmas.

I am about to spend the first hour stood in a field feeding horses. Friends of ours have young children who are likely to have been up several hours ago excited at Father Christmas having left gifts. We are feeding their horses so they don’t have to haul all the kids up to the barn.

As a consequence I have every pocket in my jacket stuffed with apple’s and carrots to treat the horses. So I am doing my own little Santa delivery round feeding treat to the horses that have been good this year.

I cannot imagine I will be doing anything RPG related today, although one never knows, I may bash out a quick blog post while Queenie is droning on.

Have a great day everyone.

Rather than responding via comments on my last post, I thought I would just post another blog addendum. For those that haven’t read one of my older posts on Channeling, you can find it HERE.

So a few thoughts, but first, a clarification! When I suggested the idea of no spell failure, I didn’t mean to suggest an automatic SUCCESSFUL spell casting. I was probably too vague; it was a new idea and I threw together the blog post in a rush. What I meant was no spell failure roll–so while the Diety might not grant the spell (to be discussed in a minute) there might not be a negative effect normally attributed to a failed SCR. The concept akin to a surge protector–the diety acts as a buffer to any negative backlash. Of course an “active” god can always punish a follower in a number of ways at anytime…

Per my previous Channeling blog, we have a Channeling SCR due to a casters attempts to cast a higher level spell, cast quicker than normal, or under other non-optimal conditions. But now I’m thinking that if they don’t make a successful SCR that’s it, no failure roll, they just don’t get any reaction from their god. In some ways that adds more cinema to the action than a purely mechanical resolution.

A few other thoughts:

1. Great feedback. My “deconstruction” posts are about stripping away memes, tropes and mental models, so I appreciate everyone that is willing to think outside their comfort zone. One of the great benefits of the RMBlog is the differing viewpoints, and the willingness to absorb other peoples ideas!
2. The ongoing debates between rules among the various RM versions really woke me to caring less about rules. To me, Rolemaster will always be a versatile and fundamental toolkit and game engine no matter what version. I feel the lack of adventure material (not rule companions) is the real challenge. RMU may not convert everyone, or even sell that well, but new adventures, campaign books and modules will continually expand the RM ‘verse.
3. I think everyone hit on a key point: Channeling is SO specific to setting that RM/Spell Law might be better to eliminate the realms in the primary book and create a framework where spells could be allocated to differing magical systems.
4. I would also re-iterate that the concept of Channeling may require a re-think of imbedded scrolls and magical items. Should you be able to imbed a Channeling spell onto a scroll and then have ANYONE (even an evil opponent of the Diety) use Runes to cast the spell. Does that make any sense? Not to me.
5. Ultimately, Channeling works best for me if it’s in direct correlation with the God(s) and their aspect and power. That requires a Channeling Realm to be developed simultaneously with the settings Divine plan. The idea that all clerics, followers or holy warriors have access to the same base powers is pretty boring and un-original.

I will start by saying I haven’t thought this through but it could be interesting.

There are two ideas that have come up this week and sort of clashed in my imagination. The first was about spell lists, spell failures and such inspired by Brian’s last article and the other was from Ken’s RMU setting thread. In that thread I said that a generic game should be able to be used with any fictional world/setting in its genre.

I have read a lot of fantasy fiction where the core idea of magic is that people either have it or not and magical instruction is more about control than learning spells.

The idea of learning spells and learning more powerful spells, to me, comes across as a very DnD thing.

So the idea I had was about turning spell lists, or just the first 20 levels upside down.

In my first thoughts I was only really thinking about magicians base lists and possibly a world in which magicians and clerics are about the only casters. So there is an implied setting here!

So I am think that the first level caster say with Earth Law as a list would only have Unearth, basically every time they try to cast a spell they vapourise a 100 cubic feet of earth.

It also takes a massive chunk of their power points, so this may be more suited to RMU than RMC if your first spell takes 20PP!

As a character levels up and gets more practiced with their list there spells get ever more controlled and subtle.

Fireballs would start with things like triad of fire but with a terrible OB and over time they would be able to control that to create a single fireball and eventually a single firebolt.

As I said, I have only thought about this as a twist for magicians, not sure it would work for illusionists or others but it was an interesting idea.

Happy Holidays! A couple interesting threads over at the RMForums worth reading, but many of them touch upon a favorite subject here on the RMBlog: the relationship between rules and setting.

Someone raised the issue of the realms (Essence, Channeling, Mentalism) as being integral to a setting. I’ve already ret-conned my own version of Spell Law to better fit into Shadow World but continually tweak it as my views change or someone raises a compelling argument.

My most recent thought, part of my attempts to REALLY differentiate the realms, is whether Channelers should even be subject to spell failure. If you see all the realms as relatively the same (casting time, casting roll, etc) then this wouldn’t make sense. However, if you see each realm as functioning quite differently, then casting times, casting rolls and even spell failure can be adjusted. That gives each realm clear advantages and disadvantages. If Channeling spells are drawn from a Diety you could make the argument that the caster will either have the spell “bestowed” upon them or not, but it shouldn’t work as capriciously as Essence or Mentalism spells. The outside agency the Diety represents might shield the caster from mundane failures.

It’s just a thought–not fully fleshed out yet but worth pondering further.

I had not realised that an entire week had gone by with not new posts to the blog!

This blog is inspired by Hurin’s experience with 5e.

So right now Randomisers are really popular. I have blogged recently about one of mine with the catchy name of Normal People, JDale is developing his Random NPC script. Egdcltd is looking at creating random generators as apps. Incidentally I have created all the core functionality of my first android app this weekend and I am now just writing the fluff like instructions and help.

There is an entire MeWe group dedicated to RPG randomisers from random dungeons to encounters to towns and cities.

The oldest randomiser of them all is the wandering monster. It is random at the top level as we roll every x hours to see if a random encounter occurs. We then roll on a table to see what the encounter should be and then there is the No enc., number, the dreaded 2d8 zombies.

I have been thinking a lot about random encounters. In a recent adventure I published rather than specifying who or what was in each location I used a 1d6 table. This is the table from one location:

Random Location Events

Location 1

1. An Idiyva archer is instructing young warriors in caring for their bows.
2. A pair of lookouts are suddenly alert, they think they have seen something unusual outside.
3. A female Idiyva arrives hauling a great bundle of firewood. She replenishes the stock of kindling before moving on.
4. An Idiyva lookout on duty is being replaced by a change of guard.
5. An Idiyva guard has a shoulder basket of arrows. He visits each guard and offers them replacement arrows. He visits each guard in turn then moves on.
6. Two Idiyva guards are playing a game of dice rather than paying attention to their watch post. The game is good natured at the moment.

The intention is that the random events should tell the GM what is happening. I actually never explicitly say roll a d6 and you could just as easily have most of them happen sequentially or in parallel.

At no point do I ever state how many are encountered in terms of a die roll. It is simply natural that two guards would play a game to pass the time. Beyond that these are really just ones and twos.

Some of the encounters are intentionally repeated, the female with the kindling turns up repeatedly as she is walking the entire settlement restocking firewood.

The adventure this is from is not intended to be a hackfest, but rather one where the characters are either lead through as guests or are sneaking through as thieves in the night. In both of these cases having guards and civilians moving around make planning an incursion or trying to avoid guards much more challenging. That is the point of course, avoiding a fight and increasing the tension makes for good roleplaying. Sometimes you want a challenge that does not involve putting everyone to the sword.

Brian posted some themed Shadow World encounters and in that situation I think random encounters can really reinforce the setting and bring the world to life.

The only think I don’t like about wandering encounters is the number encountered. This is doubly true in Rolemaster where it is not necessarily the creature that is the deciding factor in how dangerous an encounter is but the number encountered. Lets take the cliche of 2d8 Zombies.

For most heroes or party’s 2 Zombies is not really a challenge. They are slow and not exactly the greatest of tacticians. On the other hand 16 zombies is a potential death sentence for most party’s who would be facing two, three or even four against one and everyone would be outflanked, they could not parry everyone and still attack effectively. In my world magical armour is not common, in fact no PC has any kind of DB boosting magic or superior quality items at all and they are now 6th level. The point is that the Zombies can and will hit them and can and will deliver criticals even without open ended rolls. If you are taking criticals then you WILL get stunned at some point. Once you are stunned, outnumbered and surrounded you will die!

The problem is that we have a habit of slavishly following the number encountered die roll.

For the past few years I have eschewed random encounters. The thought process I went through was to ask myself “What purpose does this encounter serve?” If it was just to grind the party down or to use up party resources then was a random encounter the best mechanism to achieve that?

My solution to that question or dilemma was to start being more fuzzy with my numbers encountered in my scripted encounters. By this I mean if I wanted the characters to fight, defeat or outwit the guards in the barracks then I would have an idea of how many guards I needed. If the fight was going too easily for the characters then I would do something like have a fresh guard rush into the barracks from the latrines still doing up his britches. Despite his comic entrance he is still a fresh combatant that could look at where he was most needed and join the fight. I could introduce a few more guards from here or there as needed to increase the threat level as long as I did not over power the encounter from the start.

This approach made encounters more fluid. They were not railroaded. I never hinged the plot on a fight being lost and the characters captured. If they won the fight then fair play to players. On the other hand I could put the party under more pressure especially their resource management including power points.

To me this doesn’t feel like ‘fudging’. If there is a castle full of guards then it is entirely consistent that someone should at some point be in the latrines or had been sent from the barracks to deliver a message and is now returning. Castle guards are not rooted to the spot, they should move around so I can have as many as I want. The same is true of orcs in an orc hold or lizardmen in a swamp. Once I introduce a guard then it is all above board and legitimate and he fights are full ability.

That was then, this is now.

I have swung back the other way and I am more a fan of random encounters but I am making them much more hand crafted and their function is the colour in the setting, not just at a world level but at a very local level.

In that Idiyva settlement I wanted to make a coherent settlement and by observing the Idiyva going about their daily business you could figure out how they lived, worked, and how the family unit operated. The random encounters were each a little window into their world, or that was the thinking behind them.

Does this create more work? Yes it certainly needs more prep to hand craft random encounter tables. It does mean that I could create a near infinite settlement and populate it with threats and challenges as a backdrop to the characters mission and the whole thing would be coherent and cohesive.

I keep coming back to the thought that the only thing that is bad about random encounters is the number appearing. That is the challenge in building these ‘wandering monster’ type tables. That is the thing that needs fixing.

The first page of this chapter I had to read twice just to check I hadn’t missed something.

The opening topic is a four step, three page and multi-table process on how to make wandering monster checks. This flows into encounters by terrain tables and then a key to the the monster stat tables. There are just two sentences on the idea of the GM actually planning encounters and that they may be used to advance a story. Maybe, I certainly hope so, there will more on that side of things in the GMing chapters?

So, that gripe aside, the actual content is quite a nice random encounter process. The first table has modifiers for terrain types cross referenced with movement types and conditions. So being in a hostile area makes encounters more likely as does traveling fast, being slow and careful makes an encounter less likely. There are a nice range of situations and conditions covered by the table.

The mechanism is roll d100 OE add the modifiers from the table and if the result is 101+ then there will be a random encounter.

The next section is determining the encounter. Here HARP is better placed than off the shelf Rolemaster as it is assumed that HARP will be being played in Cyradon so the mix of people and monsters are presumably right for that setting. They are also pretty generic enough to be used just about anywhere.

We then get into a basic starter bestiary. There are 35 included monsters, they are presented as a single table of stats. Do you remember the original Arms Law Claw Law where there was one page of monster stats at the back? If you do then this is almost identical. Following this are monster descriptions. I have included one of them here. You can see how the DB is broken down into its individual sources, remember that armour is represented as DB in HARP. You also get all the ‘talents’ that build up the creatures.

I mention the DB because of the ongoing RMU passive bonuses debate. If DB was listed in this way with all the sources then GMs would be able to tell what applies and what doesn’t.

All the monsters from Ant, Giant to Zombie take 8 pages and then you get all the talents used to build the monsters fully explained in two and a half pages and the creature stats, as if they were playable races in a page.

The final page deals with mounts and domesticated animals. These get basic stats should you want to kill one but also a basic set of skills so you can roll the tracking skill for your bloodhound or let your horse lead you to water.

I think the HARP treatment of creatures is another one of its strengths. The orc shown above is detailed in that you get the skills side of it, the monsters are sophisticated because of the talents used to build them but at the same time they are nice and simple. You do not have to ‘build an orc’ because you run every simple encounter.

For a one volume core book I think the monsters are adequate and you could probably run a wide range of adventures with just these. I can also see why people would be desperate for the new bestiary that Nicholas keeps hinting at. There have been quite a few monsters published via the guild companion so far which would widen the range available.

I cannot help but make comparisons with RMU. The monsters are built in the same way, starting with a playable race, they all have skills and they all have a raft of talents to represent their unique features.

HARP gets 35 monsters in 8 pages, so about 4 per page. If a RMU Creature Law had a similar density then a 200 page book would showcase something like 800 creatures with basically the same overhead of having to define the creature talents. There is clearly the same design logic going on in both games. So is the 600 page Creature Law, and that is without art whereas HARP has art included in the page count, just trying to do too much? Does it need 52 pages of small print to fit all the talents in?

So that is HARPs core set of monsters.

This post is inspired by a SubReddit I found on Reddit.   It’s called Unpopular Opinion.  The beauty of that sub is that someone is allowed to express their opinion there, specifically because it’s unpopular, without fear of reprisal.  It’s a ‘safe haven’ (as safe as any opinion on the internet is able to be) for a person to get off their chest, that which they have been keeping inside.

To those ends, and owing to the fact that my brutal, orcish, task master has given me a break from Devil’s Staircase: the Wild West, I’ve found that I’m sitting here anxiously wanting to type something.  It’s partly owing to the fact that I spent so much of the past few weeks just buried in the DS:tWW, that I’ve come to see more failings in another gaming system.  So brace yourselves, because here comes the unpopular opinion.  And bear in mind that it is exactly what I advertise:  Opinion, unpopular,  merely my own.

RMU is not impressive at all.

This isn’t the first time you’ve heard me voice my thoughts on the latest hot topic on RMU.  The most recent topic is the discussion of the use of an Action Point to move a weapon from one hand to the other to start casting a spell.  There has also been the initiative system.  There has also been the DP cost for skills and the severe lack of variability between the professions.  There has been the stat buying system, but this one is just a general dislike that I have in any system and unfair to pin specifically to RMU.  The list is simply growing the more attention I give to the system.  Bear in mind, I’ve deliberately stayed out of the Beta2 Spell Law and Beta2 Creature Law forums and have very lightly dabbled in the Beta2 Treasure Law recently.  All of my displeasure has been limited to Beta2 Arms and Character Law.

I limited myself to the single forum for a several reasons.   RMxx (Insert favorite flavour here) is a huge, daunting, RP simulation-style system.  The entirety of RMU would have been too much to take in all at once to still be able to offer educated, in depth responses.  Now it’s been years and I’ve started to expand to the other sub-forums and rather than adding to the awe and excitement I had, it’s been adding to the dismay and confusion.  The more of the RMU system I explore, the more disappointed I am, not more excited.

The new armour system: Awesome!  I thought that was a great change and I like the mix and match type armours.  Clearly more ‘realistic’ and simulationist.

Simplified initiative:  Amen!  It’s still not as simple as I’d like though.  I use an extremely simplified initiative system for RM2.   D100+QU bonus.  Resolve from highest to lowest.  A fumble is simply a failure to act that round.

Slimmed down skills:  OK.  That’s a good thing.  Some people claim there is skill bloat and/or lack of DP to cover the skills available.  I’ve started to write a post on several occasions addressing that topic but never finished it.  I’ll save that for another time.  (Spoiler alert:  There’s no skill bloat and/or lack of DPs especially since I’ve recently picked up GURPS 4th ed!!!!  Holy Crap.)

Unifying the crit tables:  It’s a nice tweak to have a 84 E-Slash Crit target the same area as an 84 E-Puncture Crit, etc.   But it really wasn’t that difficult for the GM to change the word in the crit description to match.  “Slash to foe’s thigh… and you puncture his nose…”  Simply change it to “Slash to foe’s thigh… and you puncture his other thigh…”

Apart from a couple of other minor tweaks that I like, the wheels start to come off the wagon.  I don’t care about a set date for the Singularity Event.  I would rather see a fully developed, or extremely well-developed RMU, when it’s ready, not before.  I don’t want to see something rushed out the door that’s loaded with broken rules, things that need to be house-ruled, things that simply don’t make sense.  That would be more detrimental to the brand than the moniker of ChartMaster or RollMaster.  So the time delay is not the issue.

I, and I think maybe a good majority of us old-timers, have to look at the new RMU as decidedly Not-RoleMaster.  It’s a different game system, just as Vampire:the Masquerade is different, just as GURPS is different, just as D&D 5th is different.  It will not be the RM that we know.  I have to do this because if I try to trick my mind into thinking this is RM, the whole system breaks down.  To get fresh, new players, the RM brand needs to re-invent itself.  (This was also a topic of discussion.)  RM can’t half-ass its way between holding onto the existing RM community and trying to bring in the new generation.  It was generally accepted that if it tried to do both, it would fail at both.  Let’s face it… the RMxx brand isn’t going to bring in many new players because the system is so old.  Therefore, RMU has to be new and different.

So now I look at this as a brand new gaming system that I’m going to learn.  The only real ties to the old RM systems will be the crit tables and the ‘realism’ it brings vs. a board game or an arcade game.  Some people call this “grit.”  If it wants to be any type of competition in the RPG market, I don’t think RMU it’s going to succeed.  If it wants to pull players from the D&D franchise, it’s going to need to appeal to that crowd.  It’s going to need to shake its stigma of ChartMaster.  It’s going to need support material!  Bundle it with Something from Terry’s Shadow World collection!  Work out a deal to include Green Gryphon Inn.  What a great book that is for having a small, manageable region with plenty of starting adventures and plenty of room to expand into a grander adventure with well-fleshed out NPCs.

RMU is going to need to appeal to the masses, not the dedicated fan-base it currently has.   RM and ICE need to pull in NEW and younger players, not appease us old-timers.  I accept that fact.  I also accept that I have to forget what I know and love of the RMxx systems.  I have to learn a new game system.  For the record, I’m all for “Adventure Title – *Powered by RMU game engine”  That was another great idea that was brought up.

To put things in perspective.  I just spent nearly $90 on GURPS 4th ed., only to find out, I only needed one of the four recommended books… of which I only purchased three anyway.  It’s looking like RMU is a minimum of three books and probably a fourth book where I can run GURPS from one book.

For Christmas gifts, I purchased three copies of RMC-II and three copies of Elemental Companion for less than $50 total.  Of those copies, two of them are nearly New Condition, two look Used but still great, and two are brand new.  I purchased the new hardcover of Jaiman.  When Haalkataine comes out, I’m getting the hardcover as well.  I’m going to be extremely hard pressed to even consider buying RMU, even in electronic version.

Now where’s my revised copy of Devil’s Staircase???  Before I start going off on another rant.

I went back through our posts to refresh my brain on our crowd-sourced adventure.  Apart from the quick blurb we had for the “Park and Deadly Tree”, our last post was July 31st!

I’ve been reading through “The Folklore of Discworld” and it mentioned banshees (banh sidh) as horrible spirits who herald the coming of Death.  If you’ve not read Discworld novels, Death is the anthropomorphic representation of Death… and He loves cats.  That’s why they have nine lives.

Given the Gallows in the courtyard area, and the amount of death and corruption, there should be a banshee or two wailing through the night to terrify the players.  A ghostly visage, combing her long white hair, wailing at the coming of Death.  This undead would fit wonderfully into this area of the adventure.  The party could mistakenly believe the banshee is responsible for the petrified apple attack that is coming from the tree. 

The banshee could even be harmless.  It’s merely the herald of Death, not the cause of it.  However, they are vengeful spirits.  As told in the Folklore of Discworld, (I’m paraphrasing) “A man stole the banshee’s comb and it haunted him until he returned it.  He put the comb on the end of a pitchfork and put it through a window.  The banshee took the comb and the pitchfork.  The pitchfork was a twisted mangled mess outside the house.”