Following discussion on 'just how complex is Rolemaster' here, I remembered this and just had to post it...The review is of Call of Cthulhu, but I find it quite fascinating for the light it sheds on Rolemaster; its from ICE Quarterly #7, 1990 and is by 'Kevin' at ICE.

Highlights here, for me include: 'Movement and maneuver options are practically non-existent..." and the bit at the end where the receiver gives his opinion on lots of tables/complexity being needed to help newbie DMs. (Does anyone thing this has any validity).

Bonus points to the reviewer for "That attack has absolutely no chance of taking me out..."...maybe the only time in history someone has complained that CoC Investigators are too tough...and extra credit too for misspelling 'Cthulhu'.

Posted as attachment so hope this works! Here goes!

Seemed pretty fair to me... and I love CoC.
The rules are simple but there are pitfalls for beginning Keepers or folks that have only played dungeoncrawl games. The various misinterpretations of CoC's rules... all PCs end up dead or insane, it's railroady, there's a high 'whiff' factor... the stuff about missing 'vital' clues... implies that a lot of folks either aren't reading the rules completely (such as when the reviewer suggests that a skill of 100% will never fail) or are misunderstanding them.
So I think he's right that it's a good game for new PLAYERS but not so much for brand new GMs... unless you just want to play it as the 'monsterbash' game he mentions.

Actually yes. Though I only partially share his POV, it seems rather fair to what CoC was at the time.

Quote from: Simlasa;385288Seemed pretty fair to me... and I love CoC.
The rules are simple but there are pitfalls for beginning Keepers or folks that have only played dungeoncrawl games. The various misinterpretations of CoC's rules... all PCs end up dead or insane, it's railroady, there's a high 'whiff' factor... the stuff about missing 'vital' clues... implies that a lot of folks either aren't reading the rules completely (such as when the reviewer suggests that a skill of 100% will never fail) or are misunderstanding them.
So I think he's right that it's a good game for new PLAYERS but not so much for brand new GMs... unless you just want to play it as the 'monsterbash' game he mentions.

I'll grant that I agree CoC would be hard for new GMs. I'd get that conclusion for very different reasons than the reviewer though - because it needs a mastery of setting and atmosphere rather than because there's not enough tables!

I was less interested in the reviewers take on CoC than in how it seemed his POV was influenced by playing just Rolemaster, actually. 'This attack has no chance of taking you out' seems to me pretty much a critique of anything that's not Rolemaster, with its multitude of critical hit tables and open-ended rolls that can have a peasant chuck a rock at you and kill you with a type ? crit.
Likewise, 'not enough manuever options' was interesting to me since from what I know RM has manuever rolls for e.g. how far you move in a round, whether you trip over running down stairs etc.

So, to me, this review was *really* interesting since most people seem to start with D&D or similar, and then judge other systems by that benchmark. This guy is different with his RM focus - would someone turn out differently as a gamer if they started with...I dunno Feng Shui or Traveller? I also wonder if this guy has the slant he does because he's working for ICE and wants to pimp ICE products, or if he just hasn't played anything else.  

Quote from: Benoist;385378Actually yes. Though I only partially share his POV, it seems rather fair to what CoC was at the time.

Well, OK. I'd agree with what he says about setting and atmosphere say, but would CoC benefit from tons of detailed tables?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;385494Well, OK. I'd agree with what he says about setting and atmosphere say, but would CoC benefit from tons of detailed tables?

Yeah, well. I did say "from his point of view". I didn't say I shared his point of view on that one.

I didn't take him as so much saying he thought CoC NEEDED loads of tables or combat maneuvers... just that those things might seem like "weak points for hard core, system-oriented gamers".

I can see where the guy is coming from. And around that time, Rolemaster was briefly the No #2 system in popularity, so he wasn't alone in being RM-centric. As I remain to some extent even now.

OK...well I guess its likely that anyone reading the review at the time would be ICE players ...RM, MERP or HERO...particularly if rolemaster was #2 at the time. Doing it for their PoV is probably a fair call, then. I hadn't realized RM was ever that popular.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;385553...particularly if rolemaster was #2 at the time... I hadn't realized RM was ever that popular.

During the mid-1980s MERP was the second most popular FRPG.  I don't think that Rolemaster itself was ever quite as popular.  But since MERP was a stripped down version of RM, many people played MERP-RM hybrid games.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;385553particularly if rolemaster was #2 at the time. Doing it for their PoV is probably a fair call, then. I hadn't realized RM was ever that popular.

To correct myself slightly, I think that ICE was the 2nd biggest RPG company for a while, somewhere around 1988-91. Not quite the same as RM being the second most popular system after AD&D, but close.