DICE PACKS BUNDLE
Page 3 of 7 First 12345 ... Last
  1. #21
    Sorontar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    531
    Hmm you would expect to find it in 4.2 Base Attack Spells wouldn't you but I'm not seeing a link.

    You have the Range Mods and Cover etc but when it describes the Base Attack Table there's nothing.

    One that got away perhaps?

  2. #22
    Foen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Suffolk, England
    Posts
    2,007
    It looks like the table got missed - sack those play-testers!

    We'll see what we can do to fix this one.

  3. #23
    I was just about to push out an updated RMC ruleset to support the FG changes for 2.5.1. I'll wait until Stuart has this in before doing so.

    Thanks for catching this one!

  4. #24
    Mask_of_winter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA Eastern Time Zone (GMT -5/-4)
    Posts
    2,479
    Blog Entries
    1
    No problem. I'm looking forward to the update.

  5. #25
    GMBazUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Gloucestershire, England
    Posts
    148
    I haven't posted in... a while, but would like to add, that this new ruleset saw me running my first session (off line) in over twenty years, for my two nephews (aged 10 and 13) who were die hard role playing cynics (even though they had never played), but following the session they are complete converts, and contrary to my efforts to disuade them, have insisted we carry on this weekend.

    We followed the Character Creation write-up, and before their curiosity could wane (which isn't very long), we had our first encounter up and running, having grabbed a couple of bad guys from the monsters section. Their favourite "bits" were the crit' descriptions, especially once they understood that high roles "ramped up the fun".

    Two things accomplished:
    1. An old time Rolemaster GM got to acknowledge that those fond memories of the critical system were actually based on some truth.
    2. I finally introduced Huwy and Duwy (not their real names) to roleplaying so they can at last agree with me that roleplaying is at least as much fun as their good friend Mr Xbox and Mr PS3. RESULT!

    Baz

  6. #26
    Stuart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    741
    Good to get a thumbs-up Baz for this ruleset. Thore is well aware that shortly after joining DA I started badgering him to do an RMC ruleset and obviously, there was a personal agenda in doing so.

    I started my son on 2nd Ed D&D a month back but I'm not sure he is quite ready for Rolemaster just yet... 10 years is a bit young to handle all of the rules and I balked at trying to explain Feats etc with 3.5. I'm pleased to hear your two neophytes found the ruleset helpful; the hope was that the ruleset would be of use to FG users on and off-line.

  7. #27
    There seems to be a few issues with the tracker.

    It removes No Parry and must parry results together.

    It also separates up Stun and No parry (or must parry) results when inflicted from the one crit.
    They should effect and expire together.

    As the round ends it removes the No Parry and/or Must parry result before the stun result.

    Even if they are separated (which they shouldn't be) the worst effect (out, down, stunned, no parry, must parry) applies and expires first irrespective of what order they were applied in.

    The only thing I would suggest is an additional 2 fields in the combat tracker which combine the stun effect with both No Parry/must parry additonal when applied from the same crit. and the order of removal of effects to be corrected.

    This is all ref page 50 of RMC Arms Law.

  8. #28
    Hi everyone - I've had a hand in the creation of this RM ruleset - being the resident RM expert I am very familiar with all the different incarnations of RM, the various supplements, as well as the RM community and typical house rules. I have also created 2 different programs of my own to handle combat management and tracking and so had some experience with some pitfalls.

    Rolemaster has never been your typical RPG in the sense that when you sit down and play D&D3.5, or Savage Worlds with a new GM you can pretty confident you know the rules. Sure there might be some house rules here and there, which are easily covered, but Rolemaster has always been more like an RPG toolkit and if you take 5 Rolemaster GM's you will see 5 different versions of Rolemaster. For example my own 'house rules' document is more then 30 pages, though granted that is a bit heavy.

    Since joining DA for this project I was continually pushing this point, (perhaps sometimes to Foen's consternation!) as I saw this as the major obstacle with a Rolemaster ruleset. I felt it was very important to note pigeonhole users into a narrowly defined Rolemaster. It was a careful balance between automation and flexibility and I think in the end we (mostly Foen!) struck a great balance between the two.

    watters - on the issue of character creation you state:
    "The idea the RMC is so customizable that it would be to hard is a weak excuse because there are alot of core rules that could be automated."

    I disagree that this is a weak excuse. In fact as I have laid out, this is the main reason for not doing more automation. You may think there are a lot of core rules that could be automated but what you consider core rules may not be considered as such by other GMs.

    As an example, take the issue of Development Points which are probably the most often house ruled part of the game. Some GM's may use fixed DPs, some may want to use all stats to compute them, some may adjust the DP by stat table, some may use a fixed amount plus some variable. If the RM ruleset assumed any one of these things and could not be easily overridden then the ruleset would have been useless for a very large number of users. There are countless other examples. Character creation is too variable and would have required substantial more effort to add a flexible creation functions to the ruleset.

    Now this is not to say that over time, we will not be able to add more functionality and features to the ruleset, but I think most everyone would agree that they would rather have the existing product in hand then wait another year for us to add more features before release.

    incarn - I will take respond to your issue with stuns in my next message.

  9. #29
    incarn - thanks for the attention to detail here. Foen and I did go back and forth quite a bit on this and it's certainly possible something was missed, or is a bug in the code. I've pulled up my archive of emails on the topic...let's take a look!

    Quote Originally Posted by incarn
    There seems to be a few issues with the tracker.

    It removes No Parry and must parry results together.

    It also separates up Stun and No parry (or must parry) results when inflicted from the one crit.
    They should effect and expire together.

    As the round ends it removes the No Parry and/or Must parry result before the stun result.

    Even if they are separated (which they shouldn't be) the worst effect (out, down, stunned, no parry, must parry) applies and expires first irrespective of what order they were applied in.

    The only thing I would suggest is an additional 2 fields in the combat tracker which combine the stun effect with both No Parry/must parry additonal when applied from the same crit. and the order of removal of effects to be corrected.

    This is all ref page 50 of RMC Arms Law.
    You are correct here, but the additional fields aren't necessary. I think when the tables were entered the "Stunned and Unable to parry" result was entered as both a Stun result and an Unable to Parry result. Foen do you remember what might have happened here?

    Actually the "Unable to Parry" result actually INCLUDES a stun result, but "Stunned and Unable to Parry" was too long and so "Unable to parry is the shortcut" There are no cases where you would actually get an Unable to Parry without also being stunned. Similarly with the Must Parry result, you will never get that result from the same crit that delivers a stun...since a stun implies that you must parry, or flee, since you can't attack.

    So what we have, excluding down and out are 3 individual possibilities from a crit:

    - Must Parry
    - Stunned
    - Stunned and Unable to Parry

    which appear on the Tracker as
    - Must P. (sometimes combined with Par. At which means the penalty the parry is at)
    - Stun
    - Can't P.

    Now if a critical shows up as having a result from two of those possible results, then that is incorrect and we will have to fix the underlying data.

    Concerning the Must Parry result. In the core rules this does not actually decrement at the end. It decrements at the same time unless you are using Option 15, which makes "Must Parry" a stun result and then the durations do stack. Also note that while the durations don't stack in the core rules, the penalties actually do stack....clear as mud?

    So, with normal penalties: If you have a penalty of -20 for 2 rounds, then -5 for 1 round you are at -25 for 1 round then -20 for 1 round.

    Must Parry does not work this way. The durations of Must Parry add together (it stacks with itself). So if you Must Parry for 2 rounds @-20 then Must Parry for 1 round @-5 then you Must Parry for 3 rounds, the first @-20 and the last one @-5.


    Now, if you do want to use Option 15, I'm sorry but the current combat tracker cannot allow for that unless you want to fiddle with the guts of the ruleset. Ideally we'd have these various options set up as preferences (or extensions in some cases) that can be turned on and off.

    I'll keep an eye on these forums now that the ruleset is out to be available to answer any rules questions anyone may have, but you can also come by the ironcrown forums which is also a very friendly place.

    - V

  10. #30
    Stuart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    741
    Vroom was a great source of "Aha but Option X allows ..." and "Yes but if you read that rule carefully, what it usually means is ..." After 10 years of playing Rolemaster I thought I knew the system ...

    All those involved tried hard to create a ruleset that supported all the options presented in the RMC and create as detailed a Combat Tracker as possible. However, creating a totally flexable ruleset and a Tracker that would not crash the average PC was always going to be a problem; if there are things that people consider to be lacking, apologies ... but it *is* a useable ruleset and certainly one that I fully intend to use to run a campaign in December.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
STAR TREK 2d20

Log in

Log in