Quote from: RPGPunditSo if you want to claim that Monte Cook borrowed something good from RM, that's fine. But then you also have to admit he had the good sense not to borrow all the things about RM that made it crappier than D&D 3.0.

RPGPundit

Well, yeah that's pretty much what we *are* saying. The point is that RM was "live", popular and influential in the late 90s, as were a number of other trad games, despite this "swine war" or whatever it is that you keep banging on about.

(It's worth pointing out (EDIT: fucking obvious, really) that RM was heavily influenced by AD&D1, so the traffic between those two has gone both ways. I thought D&D3e (which I love, btw, but have now played to death) was very close to an "ideal" Rolemaster, for many of the reasons you highlight in your post. If they'd found a way to put RM-style crits in there, then ICE might as well have shut up shop.)

Ned

Quote from: RPGPunditMy one and only experience with playing Rolemaster. It was not a good one; mind you the DM was an idiot, too.

Yeah, well, an idiotic DM can ruin anything.

Quote from: RPGPundit... But then you also have to admit he had the good sense not to borrow all the things about RM that made it crappier than D&D 3.0...

Since you've never played RM, how can you claim that it is 'crappier' than D&D 3.0?

(If you're referring to RMSS/RMFRP, i.e. the 3e RM, then I agree somewhat: that is an overly complicated, tiresome system.  But RM 2e rocks.)

I prefer Rolemaster 2e/Classic over D&D 3.0, and think it is a superior system for many reasons (although I will not go into this here).  I can understand why someone might prefer D&D 3.0, but to suggest that this is 'obvious' or a 'fact' is bullshit.

Let me clear: I am not anti-3.0 D&D.  I've run the game before, and while I would prefer not to DM it again (although I wouldn't rule it out), I am still happy to play 3.0 or 3.5.

However, claiming that Rolemaster 2e is 'inferior' to D&D is 3.0 is merely a statement of your subjective preferences -- not a fact.

I think RM plays better than D&D at higher power levels. All the buffing and what have you adds huge layers of complexity in D&D once you get over level twelve or so. D&D3e has a sweet spot between levels 3-12ish, which is very sweet indeed, but it gets to be a bit of headache after that, especially for the GM. RM is simpler because it's just a matter of higher numbers, pretty much, with very little in the way of new powers to consider.

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely Donkey... I thought D&D3e (which I love, btw, but have now played to death) was very close to an "ideal" Rolemaster, for many of the reasons you highlight in your post...

Well, my experience definitely differed from yours.  I found feats to be an unnecessary complication (Rolemaster 2e essentially accomplishes everything feats do in 3e by means of its skill system alone).

Rolemaster 2e also has skill-based weapon bonuses, instead of the idiotic BAB system D&D 3e does.

Rolemaster 2e's combat system ensures that wearing heavy armour makes you easier to hit, but [much] harder to hurt, whereas 3e retains the bizarre notion that armour makes you harder to hit.

Rolemaster 2e uses a power point system for magic, which I vastly prefer to the 'memorization/preparation' system in 3e.

And so forth.

If I want to play D&D, I'll break out my Rules Cyclopedia and play some fast and furious D&D.  If I want a game with a detailed combat and skill system, I may as well go with Rolemaster 2e.  D&D 3e seems like an awkward attempt to combine these things.

IME and IMO of course.  

Quote from: Sosthenes... Various stuff ....

Quote from: RPGPundit... various stuff ...

"I am positive you are in the wrong in many of your Speculations, especially where you have the Misfortune to differ from me."

— David Hume, in a letter to Adam Smith, 20 August 1769

[Edited to include the misguided Pundit]

Quote from: AkrasiaRolemaster 2e's combat system ensures that wearing heavy armour makes you easier to hit, but [much] harder to hurt, whereas 3e retains the bizarre notion that armour makes you harder to hit.

Not really, heavy armor in D&D limits your dex bonus.
L
ook at AC in D&D like this: AC= your charcters ability to avoid damage.
 
Some players break it down like this:
 
If you roll to attack
 
>10+dex bonus = You missed
>10+dex+armor(and other protective items)= you hit but did no damagae.
[/SIZE]

Wow, it's just like "Let's agree to disagree" but it has Quotes and Capitalization!

Quote from: AkrasiaWell, my experience definitely differed from yours.  I found feats to be an unnecessary complication (Rolemaster 2e essentially accomplishes everything feats do in 3e by means of its skill system alone).

See, I thought feats were a good answer to RM skill bloat. Two-weapon fighting is a good example - in RM it's a fucking nightmare of combining three skills (two weapons and a separate two weapon fighting skill) in D&D, just buy the feat (okay, two feats, probably a balance thing). My idea for a revised RM was to have only categories and individual skills as one-time purchase feats - D&D3e is pretty close to that.

Of course, D&D3e now has a perilous feat bloat, but that's more to do with the nature of the open license, I think, than an inherent weakness of the systems.

EDIT: Armour's been dealt with, but if you don't like fire and forget play a sorceror (I have no problem with fire & forget myself, I quite like it, even) and weapons-as-skills massively contributed to RM skill bloat - I mean do you really need separate skills for broadsword, bastardsword, two-handed sword, short sword &etc?

Further EDIT: But of course, whatever floats your boat. No skin off my nose.

Ned

Quote10+dex+armor(and other protective items)= you hit but did no damagae.

The complication is that even if you do "damage" and make your opponent lose hp, it's a bit vague as to whether you actually hit -- because hp are an abstract that includes dodging, combat skill, etc.  (At least in some versions)

Quote from: StuartThe complication is that even if you do "damage" and make your opponent lose hp, it's a bit vague as to whether you actually hit -- because hp are an abstract that includes dodging, combat skill, etc.  (At least in some versions)

Yeah, that's where my friends and I go "Yup, that's D&D, of course it doesn't make sense!".
 
I know in Star Wars they tried to explain it with Hit Point and Wound Points (Wound oints were where your character actually took damage).
 
Describe it how you want, when it all comes down to it though, it's a game. Once you run out of hit points, your dead.
 
Why? 'cause that's the rules

Quote from: SosthenesWow, it's just like "Let's agree to disagree" but it has Quotes and Capitalization!

The 'Capitalization' is in the original quote -- blame Hume, not me, for that.  They wrote English funny back then.

(Unless your quip regarding 'capitalization' referred to Smith, in which case you're 32 precent more witty than I had previously though.  )

And no, it is not like: "Let's agree to disagree".

Rather, it's like: "you're fucking wrong, but I can't be arsed to correct the error of your ways right now."

:joecool:

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeySee, I thought feats were a good answer to RM skill bloat. ...

The RM 'skill bloat' is only due to people using the Rolemaster Companions.

Using core RM, there is no 'skill bloat' -- the list is quite reasonable.

And yet, it can accomplish pretty much everything 3e combat feats can -- and more -- while staying with a single unified mechanic.

Wow.  Reading this thread has suddenly become like peeking into an alternate reality.

I've found the portal to Bizarro World.

Quote from: Ned the Lonely Donkey... Of course, D&D3e now has a perilous feat bloat, but that's more to do with the nature of the open license, I think, than an inherent weakness of the systems...

Analogously, the 'skill bloat' in RM 2e and RMSS is the fault of unncessary 'companions' (the equivalent to 'splatbooks' for 3e).

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyEDIT: Armour's been dealt with,

No it wasn't.  That answer was simple 'hand waving' IMO.

Quote from: Ned the Lonely Donkeybut if you don't like fire and forget play a sorceror (I have no problem with fire & forget myself, I quite like it, even)

I don't have a problem with 'fire-and-forget' in most cases.  Indeed, I love it for Basic/RC D&D (a game I really dig).  

My argument had to do with the alleged 'complexity' of RM 2e.  'Fire-and-forget' involves more 'fiddly bits' than RM 2e's spell system.  And limiting 3e to sorcerers seems absurd (esp. since I tend to GM).

Quote from: Ned the Lonely Donkeyweapons-as-skills massively contributed to RM skill bloat - I mean do you really need separate skills for broadsword, bastardsword, two-handed sword, short sword &etc?

Whether it involves more 'bloat' to have separate skills for different weapons (and half-skill bonus for 'similar' weapons, as per RM 2e), or more 'bloat' to require different 'feats' to use different bundles of weapons, and additional 'feats' to gain 'specialisation' and 'focus' in particular weapons, is an open question.

Myself, I find sticking with a single, unified skill system more consistent and coherent than introducing a crapload of different 'feats' to do the same job.

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyFurther EDIT: But of course, whatever floats your boat. No skin off my nose.

Obviously.  I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone here.  And I'm not a Rolemaster 2e 'fundamentalist' by any stretch of the imagination.  I like Basic/RC D&D, C&C, and True20 very much as well.

I just get damn tired of the bad rap that the core rules for Rolemaster 2e get from people who know shit about the system (you are obviously not one of these people!).  They're not really 'heavier' than 3e, and IME actually easier to run.  

(YMMV, and other obvious platitudes.)

Quote from: J ArcaneWow.  Reading this thread has suddenly become like peeking into an alternate reality.

I've found the portal to Bizarro World.

Thank you for your 'valuable' contribution.

:confused: