Topic: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU

[arakish]

Isn't this the wrong place to be discussing this?

Move to a RMU board.

rmfr

[tbigness]

I was really hoping for a newer Magic system with the new edition of RM. With the onset of HARP and the way they have gone to individualize spells and make the spells scale in usability made me actually contemplate changing spell systems to the HARP way. The lack of organized lists became an issue as the HARP spells would then need to be classified as OPEN, CLOSED, BASE and Other for developmental purpose and the DP cost became an issue. I was hoping for a combination or mix of the systems for a NEW edition using the best of both worlds. Instead the spell systems stays the same with filling in the blank slots which is better than the other editions but more of the same thing we all know.

[tbigness]

I was disappointed in the combat system as it sounded great but the mechanics had too many factors that unsettled the concept of combat (Action vs. Time of Action). Sticky combat or clash of arms became a huge issue that the community is still confused about and either needs to be scrapped or be redeveloped. Older version combat was at least competent in any system with clear rules for each action with the GM as the deciding factor. The new system puts subjective in with action and makes the decision unclear as to the appropriate action and becomes mostly a judgement call in most cases. A more appropriate system may be a 5 AP or second by second system that forgoes the standard round. This would give the devil in the details look at what is going on in combat and make it more fluid. A second option would be to make the round by AP which was suggested in other forums.

[tbigness]

Character development is very weak in the system as there is no benefit to having a profession be designed for an archetype character. One can play a ranger type character with a Ranger, Rogue, Thief, Fighter, Laborer, and Druid. In most cases the only difference in the make up is weather a player wants spells or not. I know the goal is to make the professions more diverse but it has blurred the lines between professions greatly.

Limiting the professions to only get the "Professional Bonus" in 10 skills is very limiting vs the skill bonus in skill "Categories" as previous editions. The bonus at first level is too low to matter anyway. The use of "Knacks" is ok but is limited to 2 or 4 if using the higher power levels. This could be cut out in my opinion as it is like a talent in the other editions or could be applied to the 10 skills as the Professional bonus and then the professional bonus can be applied to categories. This I would support. The issue is 1st through 3rd level characters are almost laughable with the incompetence in being played at those bonus levels.

[Hurin]

Character development is very weak in the system as there is no benefit to having a profession be designed for an archetype character. One can play a ranger type character with a Ranger, Rogue, Thief, Fighter, Laborer, and Druid. In most cases the only difference in the make up is weather a player wants spells or not. I know the goal is to make the professions more diverse but it has blurred the lines between professions greatly.

Limiting the professions to only get the "Professional Bonus" in 10 skills is very limiting vs the skill bonus in skill "Categories" as previous editions. The bonus at first level is too low to matter anyway. The use of "Knacks" is ok but is limited to 2 or 4 if using the higher power levels. This could be cut out in my opinion as it is like a talent in the other editions or could be applied to the 10 skills as the Professional bonus and then the professional bonus can be applied to categories. This I would support. The issue is 1st through 3rd level characters are almost laughable with the incompetence in being played at those bonus levels.

Some of the things you have problems with are changing, so we need to see exactly how this all shakes out. But I agree with you on several points, most notably:
--The boundaries between classes have been blurred, especially in the categories of Crafting, Lore, and Vocational skills, where the costs are very similar for all members of an archetype (Arms, Semi, Pure spell).
--First level characters are very weak. This is the first edition of RM in which I am seriously contemplating not starting at level 1.

[tbigness]

To it makes no sense to start out higher than level one to start a game. If a level one character cannot survive reasonably with a low level encounter then there is an issue and that needs to be addressed. This was done in RMSS with training packages, Everyman/Occupational skills, Professional bonuses front loaded, ECT.... This did not diminish the game and by the time a character got to 10th level it evened out with non-front loaded basics due to diminishing returns and bonus points per level for professional skills in RMC.

[Hurin]

I generally agree, but I do think that some groups might actually like the challenge of starting out at level 1 (the 'Fantasy Vietnam' approach).

I suggest that RMU might add another column on the Power Level chart (11-1, on p. 106) to advise that people start at different levels depending on the campaign's power level. Thus the recommended starting levels would be:
Average     1
Superior     2
Heroic        3
Legendary  4
Epic           5

It isn't as good as having level 1 be more viable, but at least it would give more guidance to groups that just assume they start at level 1.

[tbigness]

I also like the Martial Arts in RMSS better than any other edition. With the Martial Arts Companion, the Warrior Monks, Monks and Fighter Types get unique ways of becoming more unique. As a GM I can also identify areas in my world where certain styles are used whether it be Martial Arts or Weapon styles. This makes a big impact in my world as the Kung Fu styles vs. other form styles or Weapon Styles are different in each area. It gives quest ideas to achieve the learning of different styles or scrolls of learning to teach the styles. This also give Fighters opportunity to have increased effects or capabilities for using weapon styles and gives players a willingness to research different styles through game play.

[Hurin]

Is there anything that would prevent the Martial Arts Companion from being adapted into RMU, as an expansion?

[tbigness]

As far as I can tell they have striped all the martial arts from the previous editions out and used the skills as talents (Adrenal Defense). They are trying to trim the amount of skills so why they did not include the Style skills for weapons and martial arts is very disappointing. Again the professions do not reflect the previous editions for martial arts as they are now in the combat category rather than martial arts category so any profession can get them as cheap as monks and warrior monks. There is no increase for martial arts specialty damage even if it was divided in ranks like the old rank 1-4 developed individually or by martial art styles that have limits on the ranks based on style most often rank 2-4. Everyone does the same table damage no matter the expert in the skill or profession. So they really should take out the monk and warrior monk from the list of professions as they are not even specialized enough to matter any more.

[jdale]

I hope that some kind of fighting styles get added in a future companion. I thought they added some good depth. One limitation in the MAC was that you really had to start training your selected fighting style from the beginning. I would rather something that gives the Arms characters new directions to start developing later on in their careers. The design of the combat expertise skills works well for that, maybe the fighting styles can take some inspiration there.

None of that was core in RMSS either, of course.

[yammahoper]

One limitation in the MAC was that you really had to start training your selected fighting style from the beginning. I would rather something that gives the Arms characters new directions to start developing later on in their careers.

I think this is more a reflection of how skill ranks are developed by level. In concert with requiring time per rank, I allow rushed development, say lvlx2, so the eighth level pc could train 16 ranks right away if willing to spend the dev and time.

[jdale]

That's one solution -- as a house rule in RM2/RMSS and a listed optional rule in RMU. But it comes from the need to keep the fighting style at the same level as the OB skill. The combat expertise skills in RMU don't require that matching, once you have developed one sufficiently there is a point where you don't need to develop it any more, freeing up points to learn something different. Unlike OB skills where there is always a reason to keep putting points in.

[tbigness]

For me the big issue is the uniqueness of the professions in all RM editions have a set difference (monks had MA skills and Adrenal Defense cheap, Fighters had heavy armor and more weapon skills cheap, rouges the jack of all trades for fighter-thieves, Thieves had stealth and deadly arts, Rangers had animal control and outdoor skills, Magents had stealth and poisons, Bards had music and entertainment as well as influence, and the Mages all had their own specialties. In RMU this is not so as there is very little to differentiate each of these professions from the rest.

[jdale]

I'm not sure it's worth complaining about things that we already know are going to be changed.

[tbigness]

The last comment was that they were going to keep the bases of the Professions in RMU the same as the Beta 2 with a few tweeks. That is not the same as having a template that is different for each profession. At lower levels there is not much separation except with the Knacks. After 10th level the Knacks are almost invisible but the Professional bonuses will have a greater effect. Still at low levels there is not much difference between most like professions.

[Cory Magel]

Normally I tend to write a lot... but I'm going to try and simply touch on my overall thought on the various versions and how the fans behave in their preference of them.  There there are definitely specific parts of RMU I highly dislike, I want to cover broadly rather than get into specifics here.

There are things I like about RMU compared to RMSS and things I don't like.  Now, there is a balance of one over the other that sways more towards RMSS in general, however if that were not the case there's still a serious issue that I think needs to be overcome for RMU to pull the RM2 and RMSS users in in the numbers desired and that is...

RM is, I think most of us will agree, traditionally a veterans game and started as a piecemeal system that you assembled to fit your tastes.  While it evolved so did the users, creating their own version of RM.  If they didn't like something they used one of the published options or created their own material/rules/design.  So a lot of people that started with RM2 didn't really NEED to move to RMSS.  We had used RM1/RM2 material to modify D&D over the years, moved from D&D to MERP, then when RMSS was just coming out we decided to go to RM fully.  We looked at both systems and saw that RMSS was going to be easier to learn as a full system as RM2 was scattered and bloated (and unbalanced in some cases).  From that point we then went through the same evolution that RM1/RM2 players did, if to a slightly lesser degree because RMSS was not so piecemeal.  But in the end we find ourselves in the same position RM1/RM2 users did when RMSS came out.  Is there a enough good reason for us to buy into the new version?

Let's just say I liked 50% of RMSS and I like 50% of RMU.  I've fixed the 50% of RMSS I didn't like.  RMU now has to not only meet my version of RMSS, it has to improve upon it.  It has to do that for all its target demographic and its target demographic all have different ideas of what the 'perfect' system is like... so you can't possibly accomplish that goal.  This is why RM lost a lot of its users going from RM2 to RMSS and why I think it will lose a lot of RMSS users in going to RMU.  The first post in this thread is a good look at how one, of many different possible players styles, viewpoint is going to compare the versions.  The basic comparison, then the comparison of how they've modified their own version.  I think if RM intends to become a product capable of supporting a true company it needs to forget about the old customers and focus on new ones and RMU, in my opinion, does NOT do that.  Of course, then we get into if that's even possible these days... but I digress.

[tbigness]

That is a good rendition of some of my thoughts as I went through MERP, RM 1, RM 2, and RMSS/FRP. Although I generally went with the newer version as it was coming out with high anticipation for learning a new system. I was the same with the Beta testing but I feel it was not to my liking with many of the components. Although like you, I do like many portions of the system in general. I like the consolidation of the skills instead of 6 different one to do many slight different effects such as with Medicine skills. The character gen had some issues for me but the movement and combat sequence was a stickler. The Creature and Treasure laws looked to needing a degree to decipher simple creatures or items from them. The overall feel of it was kinda disappointing. I will probably get it anyway but will house rule almost too many features to justify the cost of the new system in my opinion. But that is me coming from a piece meal system from the beginning to now.

[Hurin]

Yeah, that was a pretty good description of my own evolution as a RM player. My group never made the jump to RMSS because we despised things like the category system and training packages (which looked too much like DnD for us).

For me, one of the advantages a new version has is that it will be fully supported, with new adventures, new tools, and nicely formatted new books. No one will have to go searching on Ebay for that one splatbook no one has. So that's a big plus for my group.

To me, the existential question for RMU right now is whether to simplify or to retain a high degree of complexity. Simplification will make the system more accessible to new players, but obviously turn some of the grognards off (I consider myself a grognard, but generally favor simplicity when it can be achieved without too much damage). In any case, I think RMU needs to choose one or the other, either simplicity or complexity, or risk getting the worst of both worlds: Character Law leans towards simplification, whereas Creature and Treasure Law favor complexity.

[Cory Magel]

Although like you, I do like many portions of the system in general.

(Referencing RMU)

Oh yeah, there are things I really like about RMU.  Profession bonuses moved back to more like RM2 for example.  I love that the spell lists were redone to fill in all the blanks, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to use them with RMSS due to the nature of some of the ways some spells now work (like Haste).  I'm just going to have to see how easy those 'fixes' would be and ensure the rest doesn't throw the overall balance off.  There are even things I think were the right way to go that I personally wouldn't use, like combined skills.  I prefer the RMSS system, but I think combined is the right way to go for a new version as it addresses something RM2 users didn't like about RMSS, isn't all that big a deal to RMSS users, is easily modified anyhow, and best of all... a little simpler for new users.  Although a reasonable argument can be made it's still somewhat like RMSS when you start talking about specializations.

However, most the stuff l like about RMU are things we'd already done with 'our' RMSS, hence the problem of getting people like me to change over.  The bigger issue is the things I don't like that can't easily be fixed.  RM2 and RMSS are fairly convertible.  I don't think RMU is, which may potentially result in losing even 'partial' buyers, but we'll have to see what the final product looks like.

Still, in the end, if I liked both equally well why change?  To support the 'cause'?  That's no business model.