What's in the future for FG RMC ruleset? [Archive]

View Full Version : What's in the future for FG RMC ruleset?

Frunobulax

June 26th, 2017, 03:40

Dakadin, I know how busy you are, but I'm just curious - is there some kind of timeline/roadmap for features and additions to the RMC ruleset for Fantasy Grounds? Will there be additional resource books/modules released?

I know there is some kind of "suggestions" page, but is there going to be future development/improvement beyond bug fixes and minor changes? There is lots of stuff missing, especially a good character generation system that includes backgrounds, adolescence/apprenticeship and so on. Plus some basic supplements like Shadow World stuff. A character creation Wizard that steps you through it would be amazing. I'm not complaining, what's there is good and way better than using all the paper charts. But it seems to me that the other rulesets get a lot more love and are fancier. I guess that makes sense if they sell better, but I love RMC and would like to see it match the features of the other games. For example, in the 5e ruleset you can essentially click a button to level up your character and it automatically adds new abilities and so on. A "level up" button for RMC would be amazing, that let you pick skills and make all associated rolls (stat gain, spell acquisition, power points, body development, etc).

Thanks for all the hard work, again I'm not complaining just making suggestions! It must be tough if you're the only person working on it!

Dakadin

June 26th, 2017, 06:55

I've only been doing minor things until I can get the CoreRPG compatible version done but it is a huge undertaking and the existing ruleset is one of the more complex rulesets. I don't want to make any big changes until that is done because it will create more work in the long run.

A couple years ago I got a new job that requires a lot of over time. This has slowed things down because I have less free time and I do better developing when I can work on things without long breaks. I have made some progress recently but it still is going to be a while.

I would definitely like doing most of those things and I have a few ideas that I think people will appreciate. I just need to get over the hurdle of converting the ruleset to CoreRPG. ;)

Frunobulax

June 26th, 2017, 08:46

Cool. Sorry, I thought you were an employee of Fantasy Grounds. Thanks for all your work!

Ernoldo

July 16th, 2017, 06:21

Big thanks to Dakadin from our group also. You have really been doing a great job! :)

hawkwind

July 20th, 2017, 08:06

yes really appreciated

mPicart

March 23rd, 2019, 05:15

esmdev

March 23rd, 2019, 13:06

@Dakadin

So, the RMC ruleset is being updated to be CoreRPG compatible?
Does that mean we'll get to create Random Tables that link to other tables?
What else would that add to RMC?
With the FG Unity coming, would all that work go to waste, or does that just transfer over to the new engine?

The basic design principle of FGU is rulesets and modules from FG should continue to function in FGU. That is likely one of the things slowing FGU development down and and also limiting UI redesign. I believe it is a good way to go.

An updated RMC ruleset would be great, built on CoreRPG would be awesome, but ruleset development can be slow so I find meditation to be FG compatible. :)

GavinRuneblade

March 23rd, 2019, 19:35

ruleset development can be slow so I find meditation to be FG compatible. :)

= ^.^ =

Dakadin

March 23rd, 2019, 21:46

@Dakadin

So, the RMC ruleset is being updated to be CoreRPG compatible?
Does that mean we'll get to create Random Tables that link to other tables?
What else would that add to RMC?
With the FG Unity coming, would all that work go to waste, or does that just transfer over to the new engine?

Yes, that's the plan. It would include the Tables functionality from CoreRPG and the other basics included with CoreRPG like the Party Sheet.

It should all be compatible with FG Unity since they are working on making it backwards compatible but that doesn't mean I won't have to make changes at times.

JohnD

March 26th, 2019, 00:05

Dak, given that it's been almost two years since your initial answer in this thread (and even longer since talk of updating to the perpetually "in development" RMU), regarding updating Rolemaster to CoreRPG, I hope it's not considered impudent to ask/hope that there's been some progress along the path.

A move to CoreRPG compatibility would add so much to this ruleset... as it is right now, using Rolemaster is like taking a step back in time to 2013 give or take, which really drives home how much the ruleset is currently missing because of not being based on CoreRPG.

Can you share any details of progress since your initial answer in this thread?

Majyk

March 26th, 2019, 05:50

Thanks for all the love over the years, but let the community know if you can farm out smaller tasks to convert, sir.

I am in two groups with a few smart code-monkeys and even just data pushing can be thrown to the masses. Use and abuse us!

Dakadin

March 27th, 2019, 03:24

The problem is making the RMC ruleset based off of CoreRPG means having to completely rebuild it from scratch. Yes, you can use some of the existing ruleset but you have to refactor large sections because of how it was originally built compared to how CoreRPG does it. Unfortunately, I am not a programmer so it has been a challenge. CoreRPG uses a few approaches that can take me awhile to figure out. This requires me to be working on it consistently to make any progress but I started working at some jobs for the last 6 years where I had very little free time. Luckily, I started working at a new job last year that has allowed me a lot more free time but digging through my current attempt to figure out where I left off is the current challenge.

I could add some of the features of CoreRPG without making it based off of CoreRPG. It would ultimately be wasted work but it might be the best approach to get some features added to the ruleset.

One thing to realize is I only got involved in developing the RMC ruleset to try to improve it to help the community because it had some issues that I wanted to correct before running my own game. I do have a copy of the 1.2 version of the RMC ruleset if you want to see the state it was in when I took it over. :)

@Majyk, thanks for the offer but until I can get a base built, there isn't really anything to farm out. I can easily handle the data conversion and entry. It's just building the initial base.

Hopefully that helps.

esmdev

March 27th, 2019, 06:10

As much as it might slow things down, I would think moving forward to CoreRPG would be a awesome. It would bring the ruleset in line with the default ruleset and likely to make it easier to maintain in the long run. One thing you might check into is if Smiteworks might be able to get ICE to hook you up with the RMU beta 3 stuff. Maybe you could make an original ruleset and sell it in the store. Even if you just updated RMC to CoreRPG I would be willing to shell out for an upgrade.

Trenloe

March 27th, 2019, 15:40

Whereas, yes, RoleMaster on top of CoreRPG would be a nice step forward. As Dakadin has eluded to - this is a huge (and I mean HUGE) amount of work to do.

esmdev

March 27th, 2019, 16:54

Whereas, yes, RoleMaster on top of CoreRPG would be a nice step forward. As Dakadin has eluded to - this is a huge (and I mean HUGE) amount of work to do.

Which is why I said if he does it, he should do it as an for-sale upgrade so he makes something off the work. Personally, though I own the RMC ruleset, I don't use it because it because my player's feel it's too old and clunky compared to newer offerings. I love Rolemaster (played it since before it was Rolemaster) and would love a more modern, supported version.

I get that ruleset development is hard, slow and probably tedious, but shouldn't be a reason we can't ask for things to get better. It's not like I made an ultimatum, I gave my opinion.

My opinion is pretty simple, if you want the functions of CoreRPG then port it to CoreRPG because then anything new that comes along with CoreRPG is available to RMC. If you take bits of CoreRPG and translate them to RMC, that won't be the case.

Trenloe

March 27th, 2019, 17:20

Absolutely, people are entitled to opinions - I don't see anything in my post where I said otherwise. All I was was doing is trying to set people's expectations about the amount of work involved in this, I wasn't addressing my post to anyone in particular.

Trenloe

March 27th, 2019, 18:25

Personally, though I own the RMC ruleset, I don't use it because it because my player's feel it's too old and clunky compared to newer offerings. I love Rolemaster (played it since before it was Rolemaster) and would love a more modern, supported version.
Please provide some details on this. Are you purely asking for RMC to be ported to be layered on top of CoreRPG or are you asking for an interface redesign? A move of a ruleset to be layered on top of CoreRPG gives actually very little new functionality from a player's point of view - languages (which can be done via an extension now anyway), some aspects of the party sheet, maybe tables (if the GM gives the players access to tables), reference manuals (but then they all have to be built) and other minor things (like the ability to choose which campaign data buttons are displayed in the sidebar).

Most of the CoreRPG functionality is more relevant to a GM: data category icons replaced with group names, encounters, story templates, etc..

If you think a move to CoreRPG will suddenly change the way the RMC ruleset interface works, then that's probably not going to happen. For example: edit buttons won't suddenly appear - that's an interface redesign; targeting won't change, that needs to be coded for in the ruleset; the clunky stuff that is there specifically for RMC now won't suddenly magically change because of CoreRPG, etc..

I get this type of request/statement regularly with regards to the Star Wars: Edge of the Empire ruleset (i.e. I've stopped playing because we want a more modern ruleset) - and I need to set expectations there too. Hence why I'm genuinely interested in what has stopped you playing Rolemaster with this ruleset and what would make you start using it again? Like I said, "just" moving to being layered on top of CoreRPG won't change much, especially from the player perspective.

Dakadin

March 27th, 2019, 23:08

Even if you just updated RMC to CoreRPG I would be willing to shell out for an upgrade.

I appreciate the thought but working on this has never been about money. I just wanted to make it easier to play Rolemaster so things ran smoothly.

I need to wait on the RMU stuff until it's ready for release. When beta 1 came out I created an extension and module for it that included all the tables. When beta 2 came out they changed all those tables and I decided I didn't want to keep reinventing the wheel so I would wait until it was in a final state. Hopefully they get there soon but then again I don't have much room to talk. :p

esmdev

March 28th, 2019, 02:57

Please provide some details on this. Are you purely asking for RMC to be ported to be layered on top of CoreRPG or are you asking for an interface redesign? A move of a ruleset to be layered on top of CoreRPG gives actually very little new functionality from a player's point of view - languages (which can be done via an extension now anyway), some aspects of the party sheet, maybe tables (if the GM gives the players access to tables), reference manuals (but then they all have to be built) and other minor things (like the ability to choose which campaign data buttons are displayed in the sidebar).

Most of the CoreRPG functionality is more relevant to a GM: data category icons replaced with group names, encounters, story templates, etc..

If you think a move to CoreRPG will suddenly change the way the RMC ruleset interface works, then that's probably not going to happen. For example: edit buttons won't suddenly appear - that's an interface redesign; targeting won't change, that needs to be coded for in the ruleset; the clunky stuff that is there specifically for RMC now won't suddenly magically change because of CoreRPG, etc..

I get this type of request/statement regularly with regards to the Star Wars: Edge of the Empire ruleset (i.e. I've stopped playing because we want a more modern ruleset) - and I need to set expectations there too. Hence why I'm genuinely interested in what has stopped you playing Rolemaster with this ruleset and what would make you start using it again? Like I said, "just" moving to being layered on top of CoreRPG won't change much, especially from the player perspective.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?38929-What-s-in-the-future-for-FG-RMC-ruleset&p=431157&viewfull=1#post431157

Please refer to this post to answer your question about my expectations from a transition to CoreRPG.

Trenloe

March 28th, 2019, 06:52

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?38929-What-s-in-the-future-for-FG-RMC-ruleset&p=431157&viewfull=1#post431157

Please refer to this post to answer your question about my expectations from a transition to CoreRPG.
Thanks for the info. Personally, I don't see how the lack of CoreRPG tables and a party sheet (the specifics mentioned in that post) would result in not wanting to play Rolemaster in the current ruleset, especially as that has very little impact on the players, which you say is the main reason why you're not playing. I wouldn't let that get in the way of me gaming online with a system I love. But, hey, each to their own...

esmdev

March 28th, 2019, 13:09

Thanks for the info. Personally, I don't see how the lack of CoreRPG tables and a party sheet (the specifics mentioned in that post) would result in not wanting to play Rolemaster in the current ruleset, especially as that has very little impact on the players, which you say is the main reason why you're not playing. I wouldn't let that get in the way of me gaming online with a system I love. But, hey, each to their own...

I am curious, have you ever played Rolemaster? It is literally 90% tables that link to other tables.

It is sad, however, that in your last three posts on this forum my takeaway is don't ask for better, don't expect improvement, and just accept and be happy with what you get. Which is literally the opposite of what I would think someone representing SmiteWorks should be doing.

I know that it might take years, I know it might never happen at all, both outcomes are fine with me. Considering most of the posts in this forum are generated by Dakadin specifically starting he was working on migration to CoreRPG leads me to believe you didn't read the original posts before deciding to jump in with things are hard and don't ask for better. I've noticed you do that a lot. It's very off putting.

Collaboration between users and developers is how software generally improves, or at least that is what my experience in software development has taught me. If you need a real-world example of how well that works I would have you read the last 100 or so posts in the Traveller forums. The ruleset has improved tremendously through collaboration despite you also dropping in there to tell us to suck it up and be happy with what we got.

I would like to refer you to post 2 followed by post 7 in this thread for additional information about CoreRPG and Rolemaster, and then my feelings on ruleset development.

Talyn

March 28th, 2019, 13:32

Trenloe

March 28th, 2019, 16:22

I am curious, have you ever played Rolemaster? It is literally 90% tables that link to other tables.
Yes, I've played RMC a lot, both face to face and on FG - with JohnD and Dakadin, in fact. I know exactly how it works and how the tables work. What I fail to understand is what you expect the move to CoreRPG table to give you over how the tables are implemented in the current RMC ruleset? What don't you like about the current RMC tables?

It is sad, however, that in your last three posts on this forum my takeaway is don't ask for better, don't expect improvement, and just accept and be happy with what you get. Which is literally the opposite of what I would think someone representing SmiteWorks should be doing.
My take away is that I've asked you exactly what you want in an improvement and you basically haven't said much. I'm asking you to engage and tell us exactly what is missing and what you expect a RMC ruleset migration to run on top of CoreRPG would give you. In post #17 I asked "I'm genuinely interested in what has stopped you playing Rolemaster with this ruleset and what would make you start using it again?" But...

I would like to refer you to post 2 followed by post 7 in this thread for additional information about CoreRPG and Rolemaster, and then my feelings on ruleset development.
I fail to see any specific information in those two posts that helps a developer understand what you expect from a migration to CoreRPG.

Collaboration between users and developers is how software generally improves, or at least that is what my experience in software development has taught me. If you need a real-world example of how well that works I would have you read the last 100 or so posts in the Traveller forums. The ruleset has improved tremendously through collaboration despite you also dropping in there to tell us to suck it up and be happy with what we got.
I'm sorry you feel that I get in the way of software development. That's not my intent - I walk a fine line between managing expectations, assisting the community, and moderating this forums. I've been very supportive of the Traveller ruleset developer - perhaps I've been defending him too much and that has come across as me not wanting change. That can't be further from the truth - you'll see I contribute many extensions and code that provide new functionality, I've assisted dozens of FG community developers take their steps in FG customisation, including the Traveller ruleset developer. I whole heartedly support collaboration between the community and developers - but communication of what people want (details please) and what people expect have to be managed. That's what I'm trying to do here.

So, let's take a step back here and let's try to actually understand what it is you're wanting...

Have you tried to run a RPG game using purely the CoreRPG ruleset, nothing else? You'll see that there's very little there in terms of an infrastructure that is new and game changing to what is in the RMC ruleset. Sure, there are a few nice things and a more formal structure, I've mentioned a few of these things in post #17.

My concern is that the GM and player expectations are of what they've seen in other rulesets that are CoreRPG based (D&D 5E, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, etc.) and a lot of the bells and whistles in those rulesets are thought to be CoreRPG driven - when they're actually coded specifically in those rulesets, not CoreRPG. Like I've already said in this thread, I've tried to set expectations - knowing what you'd get from a CoreRPG migration (what would be the best way to do it in the RMC code, etc.), I'm pretty sure most of you would be disappointed, as I think you're expecting much more than you'll actually get. In post #1 the OP says "I love RMC and would like to see it match the features of the other games" - this is my concern in terms of expectations - that suddenly a move to CoreRPG provides all of the stuff people have seen in the top end FG rulesets. I'm sorry, but it won't for the majority of things, that still needs to be coded into the RMC ruleset - taking existing products and ongoing campaign data into account.

So, let's collaborate! Obviously I can't speak for Dakadin and what plans he has (although we've already communicated offline about a CoreRPG migration strategy). Please don't point to other posts (even if you've already provided full details there), or just say "what's in CoreRPG", let's start making the detailed list now. What is it GM's want from a migration to CoreRPG? What is it players want?

Trenloe

March 28th, 2019, 16:30

Not a RMC player myself, but I've repeatedly seen @JohnD state that he experiences crash-to-desktop after roughly 90 minutes of using the ruleset. He claims it's usually fine until he has to start rolling on the tables, at which point his memory consumption starts increasing until his PC crashes. Maybe there's a memory leak in the existing Lua powering the RMC tables?
It's funny you mention this. A memory leak in the PC skills tab in the RMC ruleset was what first got me looking under the covers of FG rulesets for the first time in 2011! Info here if you're interested: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?15783-High-CPU-use-and-memory-hog-using-grouped-skills

I very much doubt that in the initial migration to CoreRPG that the RMC ruleset current table rolling functionality would be changed to use the CoreRPG random tables code - they're different under the hood, have different functionality and requirements - the current table rolling is very specific to RMC, so I doubt that we'd see a jump from one code base to the other. But they'd be there (a long with store templates) for others to use for random generation of "stuff". Hopefully the issue JohnD has can be tracked down and identified - and fixed, maybe with some code from CoreRPG or just adjusting the RMC specific stuff.

Dakadin

March 28th, 2019, 17:07

esmdev

March 28th, 2019, 17:09

As I understand it from the FAQ, CoreRPG is the defacto standard for modern FG rulesets sold on the store. I assume, but again that is an assumption, that is because SmiteWorks designed CoreRPG to be a standard.

So, what would a transition from a complex custom system to a complex standard system provide?

First, I believe it would likely be easier for developers to support, easier for the community to extend, and insure a smoother transition to FGU when available.

Second, while the automation and other coolness of the modern rulesets are not a part of CoreRPG, they are likely much easier to implement through extension and/or theme under CoreRPG than a system that uses code from forever ago for a baseline that has long been retired.

Again, it is just an assumption but I assume that things would end up in consistent places, like module activation in the library. Characters in where they are in just about everything else, etc. I realize that they are all there in other places but the general format for those things in CoreRPG is much more intuitive.

My principle concern is ruleset endurance. You can see throughout the forums where rulesets have come and gone because community developers work on it for awhile and then move on to other games or life takes over. There's nothing wrong with that, really, but a ruleset written to the standard is more likely to be supportable by another than another. Too many systems get the response, we no longer have a community developer for that ruleset. So when a new FG update comes out there is always a chance that an unsupported ruleset will no longer function.

That is why, when I see a developer talk about a migration to CoreRPG I am always a cheerleader of that effort. Note, I didn't initiate the conversation about a migration to CoreRPG, I simply pointed out that I was behind the effort and thought it would be awesome. I also said I didn't expect it anytime soon.

Not once, ever, did I say that I wanted the bells and whistles of 5E. I have said that it is clunky and my players don't want that. If you open up a clean CoreRPG campaign everything is about the same as it is in 5E or Pathfinder or Starfinder or Traveller or Castles & Crusades, etc... That has nothing to do with a UI redesign, that's just the way it starts out.

Trenloe

March 28th, 2019, 17:31

Anyways, attack after attack by you has gotten me down, so I'm done with RMC. You win. Congrats. I will keep quiet and not try to encourage innovation.
Wow! Attacks? Have you read the stuff you said about me in your replies? You put a lot of negative words in my mouth! If anything, I could cry foul and accuse you of attacking me - but I don't! I've been trying to engage you and get requirements and details from you. Is asking questions attacking you?

You said: "I don't use it because it because my player's feel it's too old and clunky compared to newer offerings. I love Rolemaster (played it since before it was Rolemaster) and would love a more modern, supported version." I'm trying to help move towards a system that allows you to play the game you love - I know that just an upgrade to running on CoreRPG will not win your players back. What will win your players back? Asking you that is a genuine question, not an attack.

You win. Congrats. I will keep quiet and not try to encourage innovation.
There's no winners here - only losers if you don't want to actually engage and "collaborate" - a word you introduced to this discussion. That's all I'm asking - provide the details of what it is will help you play the game you love. You started to do this in your last post - great! Thanks for that. But now you've jumped to all sort of wrong conclusions and think I'm attacking you. No - I'm not. We're all losers if you walk away without telling us what you want.

esmdev

March 28th, 2019, 18:27

I wrote 8 paragraphs on my thoughts and concerns and you focused only on the 9th. In the first 8 paragraphs I defined my definition of 'modern supported ruleset.' I think that your idea of what I am looking for and what I am actually looking for are vastly out of sync.

Also I'm not trying to win players back. I have had, mostly, the same gaming group for over 35 years, our newest player joined our group about 22 years ago. We have games stacked up for the next two or so years using SWADE/ETU, 5E, Traveller, and Shadowrun 5 (yay, for that ruleset suddenly existing), we're also thinking about trying Pathfinder 2 sometime next year. Each campaign generally runs about 4-5 months. So I'm not super worried about my players, we play all sorts of games.

I'm sorry if you feel that my statement of how >I FEEL< about your statements is somehow mischaracterized. It is my feeling based on what you say. Intellectually I realise you don't want people to believe that a change of baseline is going to produce a score of rainbows that all have pots of gold at the end, but it is a downer when you consistently drop in with your setting expectations posts (which I see a lot of since I have read the forums daily for years).

I realise you have been around forever, and can do your own thing with the software. But for some of us customers, who mostly just buy stuff from the store, what we are looking for more than anything is consistency and sustainability in what we are spending money on. I don't have a problem spending money in the FG store (or maybe I do, it that's the same problem I have whenever I walk into a FLGS or log into DriveThruRPG :)) I just like to know it will work and continue to be supported and won't suddenly break without support in the middle of a 5 month campaign.

Dakadin

March 28th, 2019, 18:40

Again, it is just an assumption but I assume that things would end up in consistent places, like module activation in the library. Characters in where they are in just about everything else, etc. I realize that they are all there in other places but the general format for those things in CoreRPG is much more intuitive.

...

Not once, ever, did I say that I wanted the bells and whistles of 5E. I have said that it is clunky and my players don't want that. If you open up a clean CoreRPG campaign everything is about the same as it is in 5E or Pathfinder or Starfinder or Traveller or Castles & Crusades, etc... That has nothing to do with a UI redesign, that's just the way it starts out.

So does this mean that their main issue is that the sidebar buttons are in different than the CoreRPG rulesets?

Please let me know if there is anything else so I can put it on my list.

Thanks,
Dakadin

esmdev

March 28th, 2019, 19:02

So does this mean that their main issue is that the sidebar buttons are in different than the CoreRPG rulesets?

Please let me know if there is anything else so I can put it on my list.

Thanks,
Dakadin

Yes, that is one of their major complaints is that things aren't where they expect. It might seem arbitrary to FG experts, but for people who just want to connect and play, it can be disconcerting. Not all of them are the most computer savvy people in the world, we use FG these days so we can connect and game when separated by thousands of miles rather than everyone having to take plane flights to get together for a game. It is much more convenient to gather on FG but in other ways limits what we can play.

Trenloe

March 28th, 2019, 20:34

I think that your idea of what I am looking for and what I am actually looking for are vastly out of sync.
I completely agree. It's very easy to miscomprehend a very short statement that can have a broad meaning. That's why I was trying to get more details!

Also I'm not trying to win players back.
Sorry, I misunderstood.

I'm glad that you've now engaged constructively in what you're looking for in future versions of the RMC ruleset. Thanks! I'm sure the dev involved with this ruleset will keep them in mind when making decisions on the direction to go.

Moon Wizard

March 28th, 2019, 21:03

I agree with Dakadin's idea of slowly incorporating portions of CoreRPG features directly into RMC, as a way of getting closer to a full port.

If you can provide specific areas where you or your players really see the difference (such as sidebar button placement), then I think that will help Dakadin be able to prioritize.

Regards,
JPG

Dakadin

March 28th, 2019, 21:07

Yes, that is one of their major complaints is that things aren't where they expect. It might seem arbitrary to FG experts, but for people who just want to connect and play, it can be disconcerting. Not all of them are the most computer savvy people in the world, we use FG these days so we can connect and game when separated by thousands of miles rather than everyone having to take plane flights to get together for a game. It is much more convenient to gather on FG but in other ways limits what we can play.

Thanks. That definitely helps. I plan on getting that all lined up in the conversion but it is actually going to be a lot of work doing that because of how much is tied to the chat is tied into the ruleset. The funny thing is I could easily rearrange the existing buttons in the current ruleset. The biggest issue would be the needed graphics but I can do that if people think it will help and it should only take a few hours.

JohnD

March 28th, 2019, 21:31

When other rulesets (SW, 3.5e, Pathfinder, 5e, C&C, WOIN, etc...) get a new feature, invariably we hear it is a CoreRPG item and is available because X ruleset is layered on CoreRPG. We also have heard, over the years, in response to "when will Rolemaster get X?", that Rolemaster is not a CoreRPG ruleset and that has, essentially been the end of "discussion".

So, this is likely from where the desire to see a Rolemaster ruleset that is layered on CoreRPG comes from (whatever the proper terminology is); quite simply the desire to have the same functionality that other rulesets benefit from as well as consistency of use across the board (i.e. where things are located and how they are accessed).

But, just here in this thread is the statement that a Rolemaster ruleset layered on CoreRPG won't really make much of a difference (or, people may be over estimating it's benefits).

So, personally, I scratch my head with a bit of confusion. As a non-programmer I have difficulty reconciling the two sides of this apparent coin, but I fully realize that I am not a SME in this topic.

On one hand, shiny new QoL advancements from the past 6ish years of FG development aren't in Rolemaster because it's not a CoreRPG ruleset (and they are in other rulesets at least in part because those rulesets *are* CoreRPG rulesets).

On the other hand, making Rolemaster a CoreRPG ruleset apparently won't make much of a difference.

I don't really understand that, but I need to put it out there as a preamble to my longer answer.

Things that would be nice which I personally rightly or wrongly attribute to the general concept of a "CoreRPG layered ruleset" include but are not limited to (i.e. I'm probably forgetting something):

- Party Sheet. Exactly what would be on the Main tab in my mind would need some further thought, but the essential concept would be the same as in other rulesets. An Order tab would be useful. An Inventory tab which would ideally function like it's counterparts in other rulesets. An XP tab which again, would function like it's counterparts in other rulesets (assign XP splits from encounters the GM drags in, create Quest entries, etc...).
- Parcel functionality. This needs to be dragable into the Party Sheet Inventory tab and coins automatically split, and players able to drag items into their own inventory. Identified and unidentified state for items with unidentified descriptions would be nice too. Just like other rulesets.
- Map pin functionality. Other rulesets I can create a map pin with information and share it with players - it then turns green so it is quite easy to see what's shared and what isn't. In Rolemaster pins stay red so the GM is operating blind.
- Rollable tables. Not "Arms Law" tables but regular rollable tables that could be used to generate exactly the things they're used for in other rulesets; random encounters, (complete with a link to said encounter if the GM has made one), random treasure parcels (complete with options of how to output the results into chat or directly into a newly created parcel) and other tables where any random selection might be needed (i.e. potion descriptions). Rollable tables also includes all of the basic text tables that are in Rolemaster such as background options, starting bonus equipment, etc.... Random tables that will give you an item already put together or generate say 6d20 GP and 4d50 CP or whatever.
- Switch from the little tabs at the bottom of everything (NPCs, Encounters, Maps, etc...) to the drop down method of organizing data with the search option. I loved the tabs myself when they were the way of doing things, but boy is the current method of approach from other rulesets a lot better comparing 2019 FG to 2013 FG.
- Background desktop decals. The ability to have multiple options and cycle through them like in other rulesets would be nice.
- Actual Random Encounter functionality that exists in other rulesets (i.e. 2d4 Orcs or 2*$PC+1 or whatever the proper nomenclature is).
- Sidebar button functionality (i.e. where you find "Y" in Rolemaster is roughly where you find it in the other rulesets). These are not things that had come to my mind before this, but now that they've been mentioned I think it is a valid point.

As for what the ruleset currently is, I think it handles Rolemaster as well as might reasonably be expected. The Resolver is a beautiful thing and generally puts all of the fiddly effects of critical hits and misses where they need to be, and applies them automatically. The CT does a great job of automatically handling everything you need as a GM, or allowing you to make a manual entry and then update on the fly going forward.

In fact, as I mention whenever it seems appropriate; how FG handled Rolemaster 7+ years ago is what sold me on the software in the first place. It's not been a decision I've regretted at any time.

Now it has been quite a while since I've had anything to do with Rolemaster. The lack of the above QoL features is a big part of that. Once you have the functionality ostensibly more or less everywhere else you look in FG, it's absence in this ruleset stands out more. Especially when from, in my opinion at least, CoreRPG is held up as a standard yet here's Rolemaster not going along with the standard.

Personally I don't think the general hope behind these questions and desires for QoL features is for FG to do Rolemaster "better" as much as it is for the Rolemaster ruleset to do FG better (i.e. on a level made "standard" by advancements across the other rulesets over the past number of years). In my mind this is a huge distinction to make.

Beyond this, I do want to address mentions of the crashing I was/am experiencing, but Drone Duty calls so that will have to be a post for later on.

Trenloe

March 28th, 2019, 21:50

- Party Sheet. Exactly what would be on the Main tab in my mind would need some further thought, but the essential concept would be the same as in other rulesets. An Order tab would be useful. An Inventory tab which would ideally function like it's counterparts in other rulesets. An XP tab which again, would function like it's counterparts in other rulesets (assign XP splits from encounters the GM drags in, create Quest entries, etc...).
- Parcel functionality. This needs to be dragable into the Party Sheet Inventory tab and coins automatically split, and players able to drag items into their own inventory. Identified and unidentified state for items with unidentified descriptions would be nice too. Just like other rulesets.
- Map pin functionality. Other rulesets I can create a map pin with information and share it with players - it then turns green so it is quite easy to see what's shared and what isn't. In Rolemaster pins stay red so the GM is operating blind.
- Rollable tables. Not "Arms Law" tables but regular rollable tables that could be used to generate exactly the things they're used for in other rulesets; random encounters, (complete with a link to said encounter if the GM has made one), random treasure parcels (complete with options of how to output the results into chat or directly into a newly created parcel) and other tables where any random selection might be needed (i.e. potion descriptions). Rollable tables also includes all of the basic text tables that are in Rolemaster such as background options, starting bonus equipment, etc.... Random tables that will give you an item already put together or generate say 6d20 GP and 4d50 CP or whatever.
- Switch from the little tabs at the bottom of everything (NPCs, Encounters, Maps, etc...) to the drop down method of organizing data with the search option. I loved the tabs myself when they were the way of doing things, but boy is the current method of approach from other rulesets a lot better comparing 2019 FG to 2013 FG.
- Background desktop decals. The ability to have multiple options and cycle through them like in other rulesets would be nice.
- Actual Random Encounter functionality that exists in other rulesets (i.e. 2d4 Orcs or 2*$PC+1 or whatever the proper nomenclature is).
- Sidebar button functionality (i.e. where you find "Y" in Rolemaster is roughly where you find it in the other rulesets). These are not things that had come to my mind before this, but now that they've been mentioned I think it is a valid point.
Thanks for taking the time to detail the things you're looking for. Most of these have been briefly mentioned as things that will come with a migration to running on top of CoreRPG. I'm glad that most of the things you list would come with a full migration to running on top of CoreRPG. :)

A couple of pieces of feedback:
1) Shareable links on an image. This functionality is already there - it's baked into the FG client executable image control, not CoreRPG. It's just that the RMC ruleset doesn't have the green pin icon graphic (image_pin_public.png in the graphics\icons directory of CoreRPG).
2) Sidebar button positions. To be frank, these are pretty much in the same locations - and themes very often change these anyway - so in many aspects there isn't actually a default "CoreRPG" button position at all. Additionally, in CoreRPG the user can select which of the larger buttons they see in the sidebar, the order in which they select them determines the order in which they appear. There's a default where these start, but it's now totally possible that after a few sessions in a campaign where a user adds/removes a couple of buttons, that there is not actually a standard order to the buttons in the sidebar. But at least the functionality is there to allow a user to put them in the order they want, so that's added flexibility.

Dakadin

March 29th, 2019, 01:48

Hi JohnD,

Thanks for putting that list together. It gives me a better idea of what people are looking for.

Thanks,
Dakadin

Elvedui

March 29th, 2019, 14:44

I need to jump in. I appreciate all the work Dakadin has put in and I have communicated with him in the past, but yes the current ruleset does discourage players and there is a lot of functionality that isn't currently in the ruleset. Hard core RMC players might be fine with it in its current state, but it is harder to recruit new players. I know that porting this to CoreRPG is hard and takes time and I am aware of the dysfunction by the publishers trying for 7 years to update RMU. Being able to modify equipment/automate equipment (currently you cannot implement some special items using the ruleset such as spell adders or multipliers - you need to track manually), no auto range calculation for ranged wpns, there could be some functionality added to spells or even combat mechanics without the need for mods.

None of this is a criticism of Dakadin's work, but it absolutely impacts new players. I am running a campaign with new players and it is challenging. I am sure there is other CoreRPG functionality that would be beneficial for a GM and ultimately help a GM run things more smoothly. Making things easier for a GM would make things smoother for the players. I think that is what we all hope for in a new version of RMC. I am no programmer, but I stand ready to help Dakadin in any way possible as he moves forward and if Guild Publications would get their act together and publish RMU we could potentially grow the player base. I was one of the original bidders on the IP assets of ICE and I regret not buying the assets. I even offered numerous times to help get RMU out the door and they keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Dakadin

March 29th, 2019, 18:44

Hi watters,

Just to clarify, the things you listed won't be part of the CoreRPG conversion. Those are things that I hope to implement after the CoreRPG conversion. I have ideas for how to implement those and a few other things that I haven't even mentioned to anyone but that all takes a backseat to getting the conversion done.

Thanks,
Dakadin

Elvedui

March 30th, 2019, 12:22

Oh I totally get that Dakadin. I am sure there is basic functionality that I will love with CoreRpg. You have done a great job considering this is a labor of love and not a full time job. I wish ICE were more helpful and that is very frustrating. I just know that the unfortunately reality for RMC is that it needs more work to help grow the player base and improve the game flow. The crunchiness of the game and detail of the game I love, but I do want a computer to assist managing all the detail otherwise the game gets bogged down too much or you have to toss out detail and new players are turned off.

GavinRuneblade

March 30th, 2019, 19:39

To clear up confusion, the RMC attack, critical, fumble, MM, and RR tables will not be something you can create within the ruleset after being converted to CoreRPG. As Trenloe mentions the RMC tables and the CoreRPG tables are very different. They will exist side by side but you won't be able to mix and match them. The most complex portion of the RMC ruleset is the table resolver. It just isn't possible to integrate the two at least by me.

Can you explain a little bit more what this means? For example, does it mean knowing how to resolve both column and row? Would we need 20 tables for every weapon so it could resolve attack rolls against the correct AT? I assume there's no issue outputting the string of text to chat? Or is it that effects can't be parsed from the output? Or is it not handling a d100 plus modifiers on a 1-150 spread of results? All of the above?

I haven't tried RMC in fantasy grounds, nor CoreRPG, but my players and I stopped playing it because of the math making it so slow that story never happened. Here is what I know my players would want before they tried rolemaster again, and feedback from new players I tried to introduce to the game tabletop.

The biggest situation was how many mistakes were being made levelling up and spending development points on skills. I had to basically do it one-on-one with every player every time. Second was in combat when they had to add up all the bonuses on them, the penalties on the enemy, plus parry/attack choices. When I corrected their mistakes they'd end up preferring a different action. This bogged down combat to an unplayable degree.

With tables and a skill page that 1. Knows the costs per skill per character class and whether they are allowed to buy one, two or three boxes with each box cost correctly indicated 2. calculates the development points from the character's stats 3. applies them to skills in a checkbox manner like picking proficiencies in other systems 4 and finally calculates the total bonuses correctly with the diminishing returns. Just this one thing I know would be huge both as a coding effort and as an effect on new players' willingness to try the system.

The ability to write my own effects and abilities into the character sheet to handle some automation in battle would be critical for me to be willing to GM in the system again. Like tracking that 2 hits/rnd and -20 to db for 3 rounds, or half speed for 1 round. etc. Having the binary "if target has <<area of body>> armor then" critical results automatable would be ideal but not necessary, defaulting to the "yes everyone is armored" value and making the DM take an action to add the heavier result would be good enough if it is possible for me to add the extra -2hp/rnd" from the "no body armor" result and have it deduct the total of 4 hp/round automatically.

I know part of the problem is likely to be non-standard wording (attack spell fumble table has "is stunned for x rounds" "unable to function for 6 hours" and "slips into a coma for 1 week" which all mean "this character cannot take actions" but parsing every possible variation into one effect would be... nightmarish.

Then how to even do an effect for "paralyzed from the waist down"? That one doesn't even have mechanics associated with it. So for all these things that rely on the GM storytelling and improvising, having an automated text reminder slapped on the target would be a really big time saver. I cannot talk and type something different than what I am typing at the same time. So play stops while I add a custom effect. A way to drag and drop text or have the parser say "this is an effect but it has no automatable mechanics so I'm just dropping it as text on the target" and do that automatically... this would be my biggest dream request.

Being able to roll an attack and have it resolve automatically both the hit and the appropriate crit would be pretty much mandatory to shave enough time that combat becomes playable again. This includes having some fast way for reminding players and GMs of all the bonuses and penalties to be applied to the roll. Doesn't have to be as fancy as the way 5e effects can automate things, but if the bonus or penalty is in the formulas at the bottom of the table, a player or GM needs some way to set it as an effect or ability or button to click in the modifier box or something (yes I know those are all using FG 5e terms).

If RMC as it exists already does this, great I can talk to my players and maybe get some to try it. If it doesn't then I already know none of them will give it a shot, and I can't play a story that moves that slow again even with new players. I need some automation to make the system faster. No matter how much I love shadow world, I just can't GM another campaign where every encounter takes 2 sessions to resolve.

JohnD

March 30th, 2019, 23:27

Gavin, the Resolver as it already exists resolves rolls vs the appropriate table and applies the results of critical hits and fumbles automatically to the recipient. The CT then knows and automatically takes into account things like bonuses and penalties as well as bleeding, stun etc.... Things like broken limbs or movement penalties you need to adjudicate as a GM on the fly.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, largely I personally feel that FG does Rolemaster reasonably well considering the complexity. What the current Rolemaster ruleset needs to do better is Fantasy Grounds.

Way back, I was running a game with 8 players and a similar number of adversaries, and we often completed 6 to 8 full rounds of combat in a 2.5 to 3 hour session. Doing this will require the GM to have ideally some assistance from his/her players. Things like % Activity table for example, it would be very handy to have someone responsible for figuring those things out so the GM can concentrate on other things.

I have more to say but my defective brain just forgot it. Hopefully it will come back to me.

Dakadin

March 31st, 2019, 01:02

Hi GavinRuneblade,

The current RMC ruleset in Fantasy Grounds handles most of what you are describing pretty well. Let me see if I can address the points you bring up.

Can you explain a little bit more what this means? For example, does it mean knowing how to resolve both column and row? Would we need 20 tables for every weapon so it could resolve attack rolls against the correct AT? I assume there's no issue outputting the string of text to chat? Or is it that effects can't be parsed from the output? Or is it not handling a d100 plus modifiers on a 1-150 spread of results? All of the above?

I haven't tried RMC in fantasy grounds, nor CoreRPG, but my players and I stopped playing it because of the math making it so slow that story never happened. Here is what I know my players would want before they tried rolemaster again, and feedback from new players I tried to introduce to the game tabletop.

The biggest situation was how many mistakes were being made levelling up and spending development points on skills. I had to basically do it one-on-one with every player every time. Second was in combat when they had to add up all the bonuses on them, the penalties on the enemy, plus parry/attack choices. When I corrected their mistakes they'd end up preferring a different action. This bogged down combat to an unplayable degree.

With tables and a skill page that 1. Knows the costs per skill per character class and whether they are allowed to buy one, two or three boxes with each box cost correctly indicated 2. calculates the development points from the character's stats 3. applies them to skills in a checkbox manner like picking proficiencies in other systems 4 and finally calculates the total bonuses correctly with the diminishing returns. Just this one thing I know would be huge both as a coding effort and as an effect on new players' willingness to try the system.

For creating characters and leveling them up, there are a few tools that help with it.

Race and profession can be chosen using drop down lists for each of the fields. These are populated by the Character Law module. The race bonuses for stats and resistance rolls will automatically fill in the appropriate field.

All the dice rolls for stats can be done with just a few clicks from the main tab to open the Stat Generation window. It will automatically calculate the bonuses and development points for the appropriate stats and total them up. Stat gain rolls are handled by clicking the Stat Gain button to open a window where you can click one button to roll them all and another to apply them all to the character. Messages are sent to the chat for the initial stat generation and stat gain when they are applied.

The profession is used when you add skills to character to automatically determine the cost of the skill. There is a Skill Dev button that opens another window to help doing the skill development that basically helps with adding skills and allows you just put how many ranks to increase each skill while it totals up the development points spent on primary and secondary skills. It won't prevent going beyond the limits for a skill or the total development point though because I didn't want to prevent GMs from running games the way they want. A message is sent to chat with a summary of the skills gained when they are applied. Rank and total bonuses are calculated automatically for all except for a couple skills like body development because it requires manually rolling hit points for each skill rank and adding them to the field. It will handle the constitution multiplier for the body development skill though.

The ability to write my own effects and abilities into the character sheet to handle some automation in battle would be critical for me to be willing to GM in the system again. Like tracking that 2 hits/rnd and -20 to db for 3 rounds, or half speed for 1 round. etc. Having the binary "if target has <<area of body>> armor then" critical results automatable would be ideal but not necessary, defaulting to the "yes everyone is armored" value and making the DM take an action to add the heavier result would be good enough if it is possible for me to add the extra -2hp/rnd" from the "no body armor" result and have it deduct the total of 4 hp/round automatically.

I know part of the problem is likely to be non-standard wording (attack spell fumble table has "is stunned for x rounds" "unable to function for 6 hours" and "slips into a coma for 1 week" which all mean "this character cannot take actions" but parsing every possible variation into one effect would be... nightmarish.

Then how to even do an effect for "paralyzed from the waist down"? That one doesn't even have mechanics associated with it. So for all these things that rely on the GM storytelling and improvising, having an automated text reminder slapped on the target would be a really big time saver. I cannot talk and type something different than what I am typing at the same time. So play stops while I add a custom effect. A way to drag and drop text or have the parser say "this is an effect but it has no automatable mechanics so I'm just dropping it as text on the target" and do that automatically... this would be my biggest dream request.

The ruleset handles the penalty, hits/round, must parry, stun and stun unable to parry effects. It doesn't handle the coma, death, paralyze and other related effects except to keep track of them on the combat tracker. So you can see that someone is "paralyzed from the waist down" because you applied it from the critical table. It will just be one of the listed effects on the character but it doesn't have any automation around it like apply a damage each round for hits/round or automatically reducing stun each round.

Being able to roll an attack and have it resolve automatically both the hit and the appropriate crit would be pretty much mandatory to shave enough time that combat becomes playable again. This includes having some fast way for reminding players and GMs of all the bonuses and penalties to be applied to the roll. Doesn't have to be as fancy as the way 5e effects can automate things, but if the bonus or penalty is in the formulas at the bottom of the table, a player or GM needs some way to set it as an effect or ability or button to click in the modifier box or something (yes I know those are all using FG 5e terms).

Let me see if I can give you a better idea of how this works. The PCs would have all the basics calculated ahead of time for their OBs on the Combat tab of their character sheet. When the GM drags the character to the combat tracker (BTW I leave them PCs on the combat tracker all the time), those OBs and even the shield bonus is added to the combat tracker and linked to the character sheet. Unlike most rulesets the PCs do their attacks and parry amount directly on the combat tracker. Other modifiers for range, flanking, etc would need to be added using the modifier stack. Then the PC targets an opponent and rolls the attack. This will add the attack to the table resolver. The GM then chooses which attack to resolve which will show the roll and all the modifiers (including the defenders modifiers) with the total for the attack. The GM can make modifications to the modifiers and the attack table will automatically open and select the appropriate row and column based on the current results. From there you just drag the result to the token on the map or the target in the combat tracker. It will apply the hits automatically and put a message in the chat. For the criticals, you right click to resolve them from the radial menu. This allows the handling of large, super large, additional or multiple criticals like a J lightning bolt critical. When you select the appropriate critical it opens the table just below the attack table. Have the PC rolls 1-100 and drag the results to the critical table and it will select the appropriate cell. Just drag that to apply the critical results to the target just like you did for the attack results and it will add a message in the chat.

Unmodified rolls are handled automatically including fumbles. For fumbles, you right click to open the fumble table and drag a 1-100 result to the table. Unfortunately, these can't be applied directly to the PCs/NPCs at this point. What I do to handle them is drag it to the chat, right click on the target to add a blank effect, drag the text from the chat to that effect, and then add the stun rounds in the stun column for the effect. It is something I plan to add but haven't done it yet.

If RMC as it exists already does this, great I can talk to my players and maybe get some to try it. If it doesn't then I already know none of them will give it a shot, and I can't play a story that moves that slow again even with new players. I need some automation to make the system faster. No matter how much I love shadow world, I just can't GM another campaign where every encounter takes 2 sessions to resolve.

You will find that combat can be much faster using the RMC ruleset for FG so you can spend more time in the story. At first combat will be a bit slow but once you get the hang of it you can resolve combat pretty quickly. I can run a combat that would normally take 3 to 4 hours in about an hour to an hour and a half using FG.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks,
Dakadin

GavinRuneblade

March 31st, 2019, 04:49

That's a lot more than I expected. Thanks I'll have to find time to play with this.

I have literally dragged all my rolemaster books with me from California to Iowa, from Iowa to Washington, and from Washington to Hawaii without playing them. I just kept them because I couldn't bring myself to let go. Some of them are held together by duct tape after surviving a fire.

Dakadin

March 31st, 2019, 07:01

Yeah, as JohnD mentioned it handles Rolemaster very well. It just has a few quirks that have developed over the years as FG has continued to evolve and doesn't have some of the bells and whistles but it can make the details of running Rolemaster go a lot smoother.

That's great news that you still have the books.

Please let me know if you have any other questions and I will try to provide you with specifics.

Elvedui

March 31st, 2019, 18:46

Majyk

April 1st, 2019, 07:06

Dakadin

April 1st, 2019, 18:54

The only thing the ruleset doesn't handle for combat at the moment are calculating range penalties for thrown or missile weapons, special abilities of certain weapons and armor (such as extra criticals for a special weapon or leather armor that protects like chain - you have to deal with that manually). Also spell casting non-elemental attack spells isn't automated as much, but elemental attacks work well. And I am not sure any ruleset automates bonuses for flank attacks or downed foes, but there is an extension that helps. Otherwise the ruleset handles combat well. It is helpful if the players know the rules and can deal with activity % which is a huge challenge I have since most of my players don't know the rules and I get bogged down trying to manually do that as well.

Additional criticals for a special weapon like heat criticals on a flaming sword are already handled in the ruleset. I just used it on Saturday for an additional code critical. To set it up you need to add the additional critical table to the item here:
26911

Then when resolving the criticals by right clicking you can select the additional critical here:
26912

You do have to resolve each critical separately but it does work.

Base Attack Spells are partially automated. You just need to add it from Spell Law to the character sheets.
26913

It will pull up the Base Spell Attack Table(BSAT) with the row select for the roll but you will need to select the appropriate column manually. Then you can right click on it to bring up the RR table. It will select the row and column of the RR table so you can see the RR target number. Then you can just drag the modifier from the BSAT to the modifier stack, roll an open ended roll, and then compare it to the RR table target number.

None attack spells don't have any automation since you roll a d100 and just try not to roll a 1 or a 2 so you don't fumble with a normal casting.

For activity % there is a field on the combat tracker. It doesn't do anything except reduce it by 100 after your turn. I use it for those actions that will take longer than a round. For 2 rounds of spell prep and casting on the 3rd round, I enter 275 in the activity %. I allow them 10% activity the round they declare it since spell prep normally uses 90% activity. The activity % field will then reduce to 175. The next round I tell them they have prepared 1 round and give them 10% activity again. The activity % reduces to 75. On the third round I know they are casting because there is only 75 left in the activity % field which is the activity needed to cast a spell. It doesn't really automate anything but it can help keep track of things.

Also I drag a copy of the Activity Percentage table to the hot key bar so I can pull it up quickly and I just tell the players how much it takes when they describe their actions. You can find the table in Arms Law's Quick Combat Reference:
26914

Hopefully that helps.

Dakadin

April 1st, 2019, 19:04

Agreed having range boni calculated from targeting a token on a map would be sublime!

Another is keeping “Hide Roll” functionality when a skill is dragged to the bottom of the screen(hot bar). Currently, it doesn’t do this and so one has to continually swap back to the Skill tab to roll Perception(Gen. Perc.) or Subterfuge skills(Hide/Stalk) that can be in use dozens of times / session.

One thing I know would be a time killer is going through all of the criticals and adding +1 round of Stun for “foe stunned *NEXT* round.”
As it is, once a player’s round or turn occurs, the Stun total in the combat tracker decreases this number and so misapplies the correct duration for these to occur, where one(especially NPC foes where someone might not be watching) slips out of being incapacitated sooner and thus a threat sooner, too!

I keep posting to Dakadin’s wish list, though, as often as ideas come up so make sure to check there for further broken/not-so-broken things the community would like to see for all the eyeballs fixed on this thread.

Thanks for everyone’s time involved. <3

The adding +1 round of stun issue that you are encountering might be resolvable with a preference change. I am guessing that you stun something that has already acted for the round and when the round ends it reduces the stun by 1 round for everyone so they never actually miss their turn. In the preferences try changing Effects at End of Turn field to Yes instead of No in the Combat Tracker Options.
26915

It will then apply bleeding and reduce stun when someone completes their turn instead of at the end of doing it at the end of the round for everyone.

Dakadin

April 1st, 2019, 19:38

BTW I do check those postings to the wish list so please keep adding to it. I love it when someone comes up with something that never occurred to me but can definitely be added to the ruleset.

Dakadin

April 2nd, 2019, 17:35

Hi Blackmage,

Are you referring to RMC or RMFRP since some of the things you are mentioning seem to be from RMFRP?

The current ruleset is based on RMC. Ardem created an extension for RMFRP that makes some basic changes but isn't a full ruleset implementation.

Thanks,
Dakadin

Blackmage

April 2nd, 2019, 18:02

Hi, Dakadin

I mean RMFRP

LG

Trenloe

April 2nd, 2019, 18:11

Hi, Dakadin

I mean RMFRP

LG
Created a new thread for your RM FRP questions/requests here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?48742-Rolemaster-FRP-questions-requests

Please be aware that RM FRP is not officially supported, the FG ruleset is for Rolemaster Classic (RMC). There is some community support for RM FRP.

GunnarGreybeard

April 2nd, 2019, 18:45

I bought the RMC Ruleset way back in 08 iirc and never really got a chance to use it in a regular group so I can't comment on any issues a user may encounter. Having said that, just from occasionally poking around and playing in it, I have to commend anyone who had a hand in the combat table lookup stuff. That part in itself is a work of art.

Dakadin

April 2nd, 2019, 18:51

I bought the RMC Ruleset way back in 08 iirc and never really got a chance to use it in a regular group so I can't comment on any issues a user may enocunter. Having said that, just from occasionally poking around and playing it, I have to commend anyone who had a hand in the combat table lookup stuff. That part in itself is a work of art.

Agreed. The original developers did an amazing job putting it together. It is easily the most complicated code in the ruleset and took me a long time to understand.

JohnD

April 2nd, 2019, 19:45

Add in automatic re-rolling of initiative at the start of every round and perhaps even different dice methodologies for generating initiative (i.e. 2d10, d100, etc...).

Dakadin

April 2nd, 2019, 19:59

It might not be in the initial release but I do plan on letting the GM configure the dice used for initiative. I will make sure to add in an option to automatically reroll the PCs initiative since it currently only does it for the NPCs.

Elvedui

April 3rd, 2019, 12:14

[QUOTE=Dakadin;432035]Additional criticals for a special weapon like heat criticals on a flaming sword are already handled in the ruleset. I just used it on Saturday for an additional code critical. To set it up you need to add the additional critical table to the item here:
26911

Hmm...how do you make the additional critical work. When I click on that section for a weapon I cannot edit it??

Trenloe

April 3rd, 2019, 14:01

Hmm...how do you make the additional critical work. When I click on that section for a weapon I cannot edit it??
One of the FG "golden rules" - drag/drop.

Dakadin

April 3rd, 2019, 15:10

Yes, you just drag the table from the tables list to the appropriate field. If you can't edit the weapon at all it is likely because you opened it from a module instead of a character sheet.

Elvedui

April 3rd, 2019, 18:28

Ahh...lol...thanks

Elvedui

April 3rd, 2019, 18:34

ok since I didn't know this...is there a way to automate if a weapon does 2xthe normal hits.

Dakadin

April 3rd, 2019, 21:09

Not currently. I end up just dragging the result to the target twice if it is 2x hits.

Mystocles

April 8th, 2019, 06:25

Will the RMC DLC work with FG Unity?

Trenloe

April 8th, 2019, 07:36

Will the RMC DLC work with FG Unity?
Yes, as one of the main goals of FG Unity to be backwards compatible with all DLC.

Mystocles

April 8th, 2019, 07:37

Thanks, great news.

tomka42

April 12th, 2019, 19:57

I would love to see a RMU beta module (Rolemaster Unified). I would like to help with that if possible.

GunnarGreybeard

April 12th, 2019, 22:59

IMHO, I think one of the biggest obstacles with the RMC ruleset is it still uses the old 'tabbed' menu format and not the dropdowns (although in all honesty it's been a while since I last fired it up and poked around). For ayone who has only been around here for the last few years, its probably looks alien and confusing to them. I've used FG since 2010 so was well used to that layout before the latest major FG design changes.

Stuart

April 13th, 2019, 06:40

Absolutely agree! Personally my two biggest bugbears are: 1) the format available for those who create/mash their own modules and 2) the map/combat tracker "disconnect".

As Gunnar says - tabs are now a clumsy and awkward system (that are also difficult to name) and there is a lack of easy to see text formatting (bold?). At my age I'm afraid I could do with a bigger text size too! Lastly, I've never been able to target, select, roll during combat using the map. I'm not even sure if it is possible?

That said, I've been running a campaign for well over a year now and had a huge amount of fun and I think it true to say that all seven of us would rather use this system than 5E or anything else out there and the RMC and FG have allowed us to do so. A slicker interface and I'll happily post all the adventure modules I've made over the years for free; RMC is a great system.

Dakadin

April 13th, 2019, 06:53

You can target and select using the map. To target, click the attacker so the dark gray circle highlights the token and then Ctrl+Click the target. You should see the target line drawn between the attacker and the target.

The rolling is on the combat tracker but you can drag the dice to the target on the map if you wait for the name of the token to appear. You can also drag the damage and critical results to the tokens on the map.

Hopefully that helps.

dunadan

April 17th, 2019, 03:00

Yes, as one of the main goals of FG Unity to be backwards compatible with all DLC.

You say DLC's. I have created a module that includes many extra races, professions and spell lists. Would this be usable with Unity?

Dakadin

April 17th, 2019, 03:14

Yes, it should work fine.

Trenloe

April 17th, 2019, 18:25

You say DLC's. I have created a module that includes many extra races, professions and spell lists. Would this be usable with Unity?
DLC is commercial, community created and stuff you make yourself. If it works in FGC then the FGU backwards compatibility should mean it will work in FGU.

Dakadin

April 22nd, 2019, 21:41

Beyond this, I do want to address mentions of the crashing I was/am experiencing, but Drone Duty calls so that will have to be a post for later on.

Hi JohnD,

Can you post details of the crashes you are experiencing since I haven't had any crashes in years?

I am guessing that the memory is hitting the max FG is able to handle so I would like to help you pinpoint what is using the memory since I am guessing that I have more Rolemaster based modules loaded up when I run my games.

Thanks,
Dakadin

JohnD

April 23rd, 2019, 01:32

Well this is hard to answer now. I am on a new computer, which is a juggernaut compared to the old one from 2010. On the new one I have not had any crashes yet. That said, I have not done extensive testing as I'm waiting for those QoL updates to hit.

It wouldn't surprise me that I was hitting the maximum memory usage though from what I remember the ram allocation just kept going up and up and up as soon as we started doing anything that involved using the resolver.

Dakadin

April 23rd, 2019, 05:03

Sulimo

April 28th, 2019, 06:30

Interesting thread.

I am curious if anyone (Dakadin, Trenloe, etc.) could offer any suggestions on a guide to ruleset programming (I've seen the anatomy of a ruleset PDF, but I was thinking something more advanced)?

I was thinking I would offer any assistance to help out. But first, I was thinking of implementing the MERP (RMC lite basically) ruleset to see if I can actually offer any assistance.

Of course, that would depend on free time being found. :) However, it has been something I have been thinking about from time to time.

Dakadin

April 28th, 2019, 22:15

The Developer Guide (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Developer_Guide) in the Wiki has some good information for developing rulesets. Look through the Rulesets section.

damned

April 29th, 2019, 00:47

Majyk

April 29th, 2019, 19:52

Please post in these forums if you are having any issues with the ruleset so I can try to resolve them.
Thanks, Dakadin

Ardem just had a dump of us last session on Wed.
Will ask if it was just a network issue that had us lose connectivity, or if a crash itself.

JohnD

April 29th, 2019, 20:16

Thanks for the update. It's good to hear that it isn't occurring now. I know the ruleset hasn't been updated to CoreRPG but I have been resolving issues when I hear about them. If Talyn didn't mention it, then I would have never known that it was an issue you were having. Please post in these forums if you are having any issues with the ruleset so I can try to resolve them.

Thanks,
Dakadin

I've thought about it a bit more and had a discussion with someone who was playing at the time and was reminded of what I had said at the time; as soon as any rolls that required the Resolver started to take place, memory usage just kept on increasing and nothing would stop it. If we went for a time without any rolls, it would still keep increasing, and heavily roll intensive sessions would drive the number up quickly.

That computer only had 6 gb of ram, and I remember FG would always hit 3 gb at crash. I had done everything I could to reduce memory usage; no tokens in the folder, no tokens shared, minimal maps etc... shared and unshared as soon as not needed, etc... but it never made a difference.

This was the same computer I began using RMC on back in 2012 when I first bought FG... so it seemed like something had changed in how memory was being used/managed in the ruleset, but as I've said previously, on a new computer and I've yet to see any crashing (although I'm waiting for the ruleset to enter 2019 before I seriously begin to use it again).

Dakadin

April 29th, 2019, 23:05

Ardem just had a dump of us last session on Wed.
Will ask if it was just a network issue that had us lose connectivity, or if a crash itself.

Can you replicate it or provide me details of what you were doing at the time along with any extensions being used so I can try to track it down?

Thanks,
Dakadin

Dakadin

April 29th, 2019, 23:27

I've thought about it a bit more and had a discussion with someone who was playing at the time and was reminded of what I had said at the time; as soon as any rolls that required the Resolver started to take place, memory usage just kept on increasing and nothing would stop it. If we went for a time without any rolls, it would still keep increasing, and heavily roll intensive sessions would drive the number up quickly.

That computer only had 6 gb of ram, and I remember FG would always hit 3 gb at crash. I had done everything I could to reduce memory usage; no tokens in the folder, no tokens shared, minimal maps etc... shared and unshared as soon as not needed, etc... but it never made a difference.

This was the same computer I began using RMC on back in 2012 when I first bought FG... so it seemed like something had changed in how memory was being used/managed in the ruleset, but as I've said previously, on a new computer and I've yet to see any crashing (although I'm waiting for the ruleset to enter 2019 before I seriously begin to use it again).

Thanks that helps. I've barely touched the table resolver since I took over the ruleset and unfortunately, it's the most complicated portion of the ruleset. I will see if I can track it down since it is likely to continue in a CoreRPG version of the ruleset.

Ardem

May 2nd, 2019, 02:25

Have not tested it out yet to see exactly what it was, but it was a mood dump. So upon changing the mood it crashed to desktop. We are playing FRP but FRP has no changes around the mood settings, so it be using FG/RMC code, also was using the Test version of FG and everyone else was using the Live version.

I would not worry until I test it out, and figure out exactly what it was, I tend not to use Moods much. It was repeatable twice.

It could be a bunch of things, so ignore for now till I sort out, if it was a FG test exe issue.

Trenloe

May 2nd, 2019, 02:30

Have not tested it out yet to see exactly what it was, but it was a mood dump. So upon changing the mood it crashed to desktop. We are playing FRP but FRP has no changes around the mood settings, so it be using FG/RMC code, also was using the Test version of FG and everyone else was using the Live version.
Reported a couple of months ago and should already be fixed - see here (post #6 describes the issue and post #8 is where Dakadin says he thinks he's fixed it): https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?48245-FG-Problem

It was fixed in the March 12th update: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?48352-Release-Updates-for-March-12th-2019

Ardem

May 2nd, 2019, 02:45

Which I was running, but as I said ignore till I really look into it. Just not had the time yet.

Majyk

October 19th, 2019, 19:41

Dakadin

October 21st, 2019, 06:06

Just thinking about the new version to be and wondering aloud about an improvement to the tables where Chaining rolls on tables for combat could be setup and auto “spit out” to the chat window.

This would speed play even more - immensely so - and free up the GM from the tedious, repetitive task of looking up the result with a click, dragging the result to a crit table, copying the result, then pasting it to the chat window.
There might even be another few steps in that process.

Maybe for those that want more control, still have stops/pauses for GM interaction if they wish to edit DB modifiers with player-missed environment or situation mods, but otherwise let’r’rip for auto results being ported to the chat window with a single map icon/combat tracker targeted PC/NPC.
There or in the Combat tab that imports into the Combat Tracker.

Hopefully that is a dream that can become a reality for our poor beleaguered RM GMs.
I think that would drive even more players in becoming GMs themselves for our favourite 40+ish yr old game!

Heck, even if possible for this version, as an easy update in the backend! :o

Yes, I definitely plan on adding options like this. It might not be in the initial conversion but should be one of the first updates. I've been keeping it low key but I've been making much better progress now.

EDIT:
even expanding upon this, having a checkbox for Shield/Metal Or Leather Armour/Helmet section vs just mere entries in the Combat Tracker.
This would then be easier to “lookup” being attached to NPCs/PCs and auto-trigger these kinds of table lookup mods for BAR rolls for spell efficacy, too!

I actually already have a plan for this in my current working code. It might change but you can currently select the items you have equipped for armor, helmet, primary hand, secondary hand, and adder/multiplier.
29503
The items keep track of whether the material is none, leather or metal for a few locations. Here is an example of the Leather Breastplate:
29504
I do still need to review a list of criticals that apply to certain locations to make sure I've covered all the bases though.

The items still need a lot of work but they are finally coming together and I still have a lot to do but I've been able to play my game with it for a few months. We've been encountering bugs and I've been adding new CoreRPG functionality and new features periodically.

I am hoping to run a few one shots in a month or two just to see if I can track down any other bugs once I have most of the current bugs worked out and major features in place. I have to take care of the 46 open issues first though. The effects will be the next major hurdle at this point but Trenloe pointed me in the right direction a few months ago. I just have had so much other stuff to work on that I haven't gotten around to it. :P

Majyk

October 21st, 2019, 07:24

Very, very, sexy Good Sir!

This should have us lemmings jazzed like crazy with those snazzy snaps you posted. Thanks a tonne for throwing out these breadcrumbs we’re all starvin’ for. Much appreciated.

I am in multiple streaming groups that are keen to help in any kind of playtesting you need - just let us know when ready.

Dakadin

March 28th, 2020, 02:05

This is the future of the RMC ruleset: RolemasterClassic-ruleset-v2-0-(based-on-CoreRPG) (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?55141-RolemasterClassic-ruleset-v2-0-(based-on-CoreRPG)&p=486780#post486780)