RMC: so many steps to complete an attack with a critical hit?

[Galdor]

I'm sure there are ways to make the combat in FG RMC slicker, and Dakadin has improved the FG ruleset greatly and continues to do so, but you can't dumb it down into a single click mechanic.

Dakadin did a great job on FG RMC, and I seldom played RMC on tabletop: I am not a 30+ years RM player, even if I definitely am a 30+ TTRPG player.
Anyway, my point is that FG automatons could offer the possibility to play RMC smoother, "with just one click". For you that means "dumb it down", for me it means speeding it up!
What I really do like of RMC is the great variery of its criticals results and I'd like to enjoy them without wasting time with so many "check this, check this" steps, which are totally uninteresting for me.

[Rainbird]

I'm sure there are ways to make the combat in FG RMC slicker, and Dakadin has improved the FG ruleset greatly and continues to do so, but you can't dumb it down into a single click mechanic.[/QUOTE]

For me, Quirky has skewered the issue with his response. Accommodating as Dakadin is, I can't see how he could modify RMC to a one roll critical system without a whole shopping list of optional tick boxes as long as your arm.

I could see how you could take the MERP critical tables and use those with no modifiers allowed (ambush etc) for a quicker result but I think you'd be talking of a whole new system on FG not 'just a few modifications' to the existing (and IMHO as close to perfect) ruleset.

Much as long time players of RMC (I've been playing MERP and RM since the 80s) encourage people new to the system to try it out, it's very different from D&D/DCC et la and granted, the transition is a bit of a hill to climb. But, the view from the top is magnificent.

Long story long; keep using the current system and you and your players will get quicker and may come to enjoy that critical roll (as Quirky alluded to) you appear so keen to remove.

Rainbird

[Galdor]

Much as long time players of RMC (I've been playing MERP and RM since the 80s) encourage people new to the system to try it out, it's very different from D&D/DCC et la and granted, the transition is a bit of a hill to climb. But, the view from the top is magnificent.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions, Rainbird, but I don't have to make any transition from D&D/DCC (or similia) to RMC: in my 30+ years of TTRPGs experience I played a great variety of different systems (including Merp/RM/Harp/Starmaster etc), both 'old school' systems and 'indie/the_forge' ones.. I do know RM logics and I think to be able to appreciate its strenghts: as I wrote, from my humble point of view the only one reason I would play RMC is for its great variety of critical results. Full stop. I do not want to waste time in some 'rear attack bonus + this other bonus' tactics/logics:

Anyway, my point is that FG automatons could offer the possibility to play RMC smoother, "with just one click". For you that means "dumb it down", for me it means speeding it up!
What I really do like of RMC is the great variery of its criticals results and I'd like to enjoy them without wasting time with so many "check this, check this" steps, which are totally uninteresting for me.

What I think could be a great improvement (for RMC ruleset) is to get all that bunch of different criticals in just one click, to exploit them in the fiction with ease!
Let the system makes all the calculations and just give me the final result

[QuirkyBirky]

Anyway, my point is that FG automatons could offer the possibility to play RMC smoother, "with just one click". For you that means "dumb it down", for me it means speeding it up!

Unfortunately it amounts to the same. Speed it up by automating things and you lose some of the complexity that makes Rolemaster what it is.

The criticals, and fumbles, are often what people remember about Rolemaster. Unfortunately I think you'd lose out by automating that side of things. The anticipation of making a high attack roll, then being told you've scored an E critical. Then making the critical roll, hoping for something in the 90's or that elusive 66.

In my group, we still talk of the time I defeated the bad guy NPC with an incredibly fortuitous 'A' Unbalancing critical (maybe 28 years ago?). With an automated system, the relevance of the type of critical, the critical severity and the roll itself would be lost in the chat window, and you'd simply have the critical result and it would be forgotten in an instant.

[Trenloe]

What I think could be a great improvement (for RMC ruleset) is to get all that bunch of different criticals in just one click, to exploit them in the fiction with ease!
Let the system makes all the calculations and just give me the final result

As Rainbird mentions, to do a "one click" operation, to keep the Rolemaster RPG system operating correctly, there would then need to be "a whole shopping list of optional tick boxes as long as your arm" - and it still probably wouldn't cover all options.

Rolemaster on Fantasy Grounds is an official product that needs to maintain the features and functionality of the official RPG system. To do this fully the FG ruleset can't comprehensively resolve attacks, damage and criticals all with a single click - unless you heavily load the front end with a big long list of tick boxes/number entry fields (which still probably wouldn't cover all possible options within the whole process). If you want to run combats differently then that's fine, but I doubt something like this will be put in the official ruleset - and therefore I refer you to Dakadin's reply in post #18: "One other option is you could make an extension to run the combat the way you want it to run." That's what's great about Fantasy Grounds - if you want to run something your way then you have the option to learn how to make modifications in Fantasy Grounds and write your own extension.

[QuirkyBirky]

Of course Rolemaster started off as various tables intended to be used with D&D. If you've got the relevant skills, you could potentially take the necessary tables and call them from a DCC/D&D game.

[JohnD]

You have to be careful making changes to Rolemaster because of that invisible turtle that's always getting in the way and tripping people up.

[Galdor]

The criticals, and fumbles, are often what people remember about Rolemaster. Unfortunately I think you'd lose out by automating that side of things. The anticipation of making a high attack roll, then being told you've scored an E critical. Then making the critical roll, hoping for something in the 90's or that elusive 66.

In my group, we still talk of the time I defeated the bad guy NPC with an incredibly fortuitous 'A' Unbalancing critical (maybe 28 years ago?).

Different perspectives: in my groups we still remind that critical with the dwarf morning star which broke the jaw of the troll, not the 93 + 44 + 26 - 15 - 27 + 5 which conducted to that fiction result..

if you want to run something your way then you have the option to learn how to make modifications in Fantasy Grounds and write your own extension.

Unfortunately I barely know what an extension is, and I have absolutely no time (neither proficiency) to learn it. I would like to pay a (RMC) ruleset which could make a "one click" operation (like other rulesets do), a ruleset which makes all the attack calculations letting me enjoy the final result of them: if such operation is (at the moment) impossible to realize, I simply will not buy a 'too-many-steps-to-make-an-attack' ruleset..

I could understand the RM grognard players point of view, but I would like to point out that FG automatons could (one day?) offer the possibility to play RMC smoother, making all the calculations behind the screen without bogging down with them, just enjoying the final results and maybe widening the fan base doing so..

[Trenloe]

Different perspectives: in my groups we still remind that critical with the dwarf morning star which broke the jaw of the troll, not the 93 + 44 + 26 - 15 - 27 + 5 which conducted to that fiction result..

That's not at all what QuirkyBirky was saying. Nowhere does he mention raw numbers - he describes the process adding to the anticipation of the final result. Doing all of this in one go, and just looking at the final result would detract from the anticipation of the series of successful (or unsuccessful in the case of a fumble) steps that lead to the final result.

I would like to pay a (RMC) ruleset which could make a "one click" operation (like other rulesets do), a ruleset which makes all the attack calculations letting me enjoy the final result of them: if such operation is (at the moment) impossible to realize, I simply will not buy a 'too-many-steps-to-make-an-attack' ruleset..

The Fantasy Grounds design philosophy for all rulesets that have a multi-step attack process (e.g. roll to hit/succeed in the attack, do a follow up damage/critical) has been to have the process be multi-step within Fantasy Grounds - so that the GM can adjudicate between each step and ensure that everything is applied correctly - players forget things sometimes, special abilities might need to be applied, the GM may want to use GM FIAT as part of the story, etc., etc..

I'm not aware of any FG ruleset, with a multi-step process, that has code to do the whole process with one click. You mention DCC does this - I'm only vaguely familiar with DCC, but doing a quick check - weapons have the standard attack roll, then (if a hit) a separate roll for damage. For spells, the check on the table is rolled, but then the resulting damage/effects need to be applied with additional button clicks. See in the screenshot below - the roll of 29 on the spell table displays the resulting text in the chat window and it's up to the player to apply the damage and effects with the action buttons in the spell.



Coding a ruleset is already a monumental task just to get it to a usable state, without trying to add a high level of automation that could need to be rolled back if there was something that needed to be changed for many different reasons (errors, abilities triggering, etc.) - having the two-step process gives everyone more flexibility in how they adjudicate actions (and maybe apply house rules, etc.) and reduces the amount of development time considerably.

I know you want a single click process - but, for the reasons outlined by multiple people above, this is just not realistic (in terms of the amount of development work), can cause issues with having to roll-back the result, and doesn't lend itself to representing the RPG system correctly. I don't want to put words in Dakadin's mouth, but based off his responses in this thread I highly doubt whether he is going to spend a considerable amount of development time doing something like this - especially as the majority of the ruleset users aren't clamouring for this feature.

In the end, there's no wrong way to play an RPG - do what is best for you and your group. But, when it comes to Fantasy Grounds, the design philosophy for things like this is to make the process use multiple steps as it allows more flexibility (cater for errors, abilities, house rules, GM FIAT, etc., etc.) and keeps already considerable ruleset development times down.

[Galdor]

That's not at all what QuirkyBirky was saying. Nowhere does he mention raw numbers - he describes the process adding to the anticipation of the final result. Doing all of this in one go, and just looking at the final result would detract from the anticipation of the series of successful (or unsuccessful in the case of a fumble) steps that lead to the final result.

If the steps you are talking about are the followings...

Has the attack roll taken into account the OB/DB split; has it included rear/flank bonus; have any applicable penalties due to previous criticals been taken into account; has the player targetted the correct NPC/monster (my players have done this more than once)

...well, I am not interested in these not so exciting steps

Joking apart, I fully understand what follows:

The Fantasy Grounds design philosophy for all rulesets that have a multi-step attack process (e.g. roll to hit/succeed in the attack, do a follow up damage/critical) has been to have the process be multi-step within Fantasy Grounds - so that the GM can adjudicate between each step and ensure that everything is applied correctly - players forget things sometimes, special abilities might need to be applied, the GM may want to use GM FIAT as part of the story, etc., etc..

Some remarks about you wrote:
- Basically most of the rulesets have a 2 steps combat structure:
1 - "to hit" roll
(if the character hits)> 2 - "damage" roll

My call to DCC is that such ruleset, if you hit and make a critical, automatically rolls the critical and depicts the results. You have to make the damage roll anyway, but the critical is automatically rolled if triggered.. I think it's a great time saver.

- I personally find surmountables the following reasons to structure the combat in the (above) 2 steps:

Has the attack roll taken into account the OB/DB split; has it included rear/flank bonus; have any applicable penalties due to previous criticals been taken into account; has the player targetted the correct NPC/monster (my players have done this more than once)

If the reason should be to check if all the modifiers have been correctly applied, well, I think it could be more convenient to invest programming time in enhancing the corrrect application of such modifiers (correcting/limiting such system errors?)..

If the reason to structure the combat in the (above) 2 steps is to give to the player a chance to decide if and how many optional special abilities to involve, well, it could be a plausible reason to make two steps..

I guess that the main reason to structure the combat in the (above) 2 steps - in most of FGU rulesets - is (was) to reproduce what happens in the real gaming table (in presence): a player makes 2 rolls in real life/game, just that.
My point is that FGU could go beyond this 'traditional' structure: since it's a programme, it could speed up all the calculations/steps!
I (we?) play rpgs to tell stories, not to make algebra exercises..

I can't remember so well (I tested RMC ruleset some months ago, then I gave it back for the reasons I am trying to clarify) but my impression was that it has too many (unnecessary) steps to resolve a combat...do I remind wrongly?