Author Topic: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU  (Read 6301 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tbigness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,517
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« on: January 21, 2016, 01:41:42 PM »
After Beta testing the RMU system, I took a break and went back to doing a game sessions with RMSS/FRP and found a few opinions of this system in comparison:

RMSS System now feels:
-Character creation is easier as the material is mostly in the same area
-Characters are playable at first and second level with skills averaging 45-60
-Love the talents and flaws book
-Love the Training Packages with possible starting Items
-Took the advise of others and went to 100 DP's made character creation better for all classes
-Everyman skills are great for lower level characters but may not be necessary
-Love the upfront Professional bonuses for skill categories as they make a huge difference
-Professions seem more diverse in a sense but more specialized vs. other professions than RMU
-After playing around with the RMU combat, it felt good to go back to the Percent system and 3 phase combat (Snap, Normal, Deliberate)
-Combat was smoother and sticky combat was not even a worry or issue
-Using Combat Minion made the process and time for combat look like warp speed vs. normal without
-Disappointed in the Spell List with no spells at each level like in RMU
-Disappointed in the Spell Ritual definition vs RMU Spell Law
-Still hate the Exhaustion system and won't use it
-Encumbrance and how much a person can lift is not really defined. Use a rule in an old RM Companion for base lifting weight
-Love not having to be prepared a head of time with leveling monsters for random encounters. Using Creatures and Treasures of old is better overall for fast encounters for most of my campaigns, I need the info fast and ready without deciphering all the jargon of what a creature can do and what tables to use
-Love the Resistance Roll Chart for magic. It is easier to look up and no confusion for what is needed to save like in RMU, which was a nightmare and I am still confused on what is needed to resist
-Love having magic items ready to go for encounters or treasure without having to try and recreate the wheel and make what your looking for

I am OK with some complexity but I am not a numbers guy who needs physics to enjoy a game. There is not getting up to speed and how long it would take to go from a walk to a dash with me. That is a complexity for number crunchers and not needed in my games. I also don't need to invent the wheel on all aspects of creatures and treasure. Unique items now and again is fine but I need things as they happen.

I am not looking to penalize everything down to the weight of underwear to use a skill or ability such as (encumbrance, organic/inorganic material, exhaustion, Low PP or Hits) to make the game fun and playable the injuries do enough of that in the first place and the rest is just number crunching to penalize the players which at low levels makes them not very playable at all.

I got into the game from the critical charts and then the spell list concept, not the complexity of every aspect. I believe the combat system needs to be simple, challenging, easy to comprehend and fast of play per round. Obviously I house rule this entire area because the combat rules are way too complex for me and my players. The old Pathfinder round is actually a better model in my opinion but I do follow the percent combat system as written.

As far as the spell system I actually like the HARP spell system better. I would like to see a Hybrid system of HARP spell scalability with the RM Spell List. This would give lists less spells but the spells can be modified on the spot and instead of the individual spell development of HARP, you would use the list development system as to how many PP can be used with all spells on the list such as:

Fire Law
1 Lighter
2 Heat Object
3. Fire Emulsion
4. wall of fire

1 Lighter - Creates a 6 inch flame from ones hand to light an area as a small torch. Can be used to light a fire and will cause an A Heat Critical -20. Duration 1 min/LVL Range 6 inches.
 -Increase range +2 PP / increiment 1'/5'/10' max
 -Increase Heat +2 PP/ +5 bonus (Max +20)
 -Increase Severity +4 PP Delivers B Heat Crit -20

2 Heat Object- Increase the heat of an object up to 110 degrees at a rate of 1 degrees per second. at Higher than 110 can cause an A Heat crit -30. Duration Concentration Range Touch
 -Increase Range +2 / increment (5'/10'/20'/50' max)
 -Increase heat range +3 / 5 degrees (max 200) (+5 crit bonus/ 10 degree change)

3 Fire Emulsion- Body become as lit on fire in a 1' radius. This does not affect the caster or his equipment. Contact with caster will cause an A Heat crit. Touching objects other than on person will cause them to lite on fire as per fire starting rules. Duration 1 min / LVL, Range Self
 -Increase Heat +2 / +5 bonus (max +30)
 -Increase Severity B Heat +5
 -Increase Severity C Heat +10
 -Increase Severity D Heat +20
 -Increase Severity E Heat +40
 -Increase area of effect +5 / 5' radius

4 Wall of Fire- Create a 10' x 10' x 1' wall of fire. This wall is semi-opaque and cuts vision by  80% through the wall. Any attack through the wall is at -100 and if used by a melee attack will receive a B Heat Crit and flammable items may be ignited on fire. Duration 1 min / LVL Range 20'
 -Increase Dimension of Wall +2 PP / 5 x 10 x 1 addition
 -Circle of Flame 15' radius +5 PP
 -Increase Circle Radius +2 PP / 5' radius
 -Increase Severity B Heat +5
 -Increase Severity C Heat +10
 -Increase Severity D Heat +20
 -Increase Severity E Heat +40
 -Increase range +5 PP / 20 ' range addition

With these four spells many combinations can be made from the scaling that would replace missing or otherwise scaling of spells currently listed such as Sleep V, Sleep VII ect...

The more Ranks put into the list the more scaling options one can use such as:

10 ranks in Fire Law (above) one could have: 5' flamethrower at B Heat -20

Lighter 1 PP
5' increment 4 PP
B severity 4 PP
 
or

Circle of Flame 15' Radius

Any way I am coming up with many spell revisions such as this but will take some time to finish.

In conclusion to my lengthy post, it will be hard for me to switch to RMU if all the features are not at least close or become better presented in the system. I like RMSS and have used it since it came out in the revised edition in the 90's. I hope they keep some of the elements and don't make the system a numbers crunch like most on these forums continue to post as the system should be fun but crunching how fast a person can go with increments of speed and cost of AP per round per increment x the BRM = disaster and you lost me and my players attention at increments. Keep it simple and have good character creation tools (background, talents, flaws, training packages) and I will be happy with the system. Until then RMSS will be there for me and my players.
Knowledge is unimagined Power

Offline Ecthelion

  • ICE Forum Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,497
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Character Gallery
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2016, 04:28:14 PM »
+1, I am also hoping for improvements in some areas.

Offline Thom @ ICE

  • Aurigas Staff
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,810
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Thom@ironcrown.com
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2016, 08:31:33 PM »
Thanks for the feedback.  While I think some of your findings are due to comfort and knowledge of the rules (not needing to look things up and such), I do think you have some interesting points, and I hope the designers will review your comments with an open mind.


Thanks!
Email -    Thom@ironcrown.com

Offline OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,221
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2016, 05:25:12 AM »
-Love not having to be prepared a head of time with leveling monsters for random encounters. Using Creatures and Treasures of old is better overall for fast encounters for most of my campaigns, I need the info fast and ready without deciphering all the jargon of what a creature can do and what tables to use
I don't understand this part: you have tables at the end of the RMU Creature Law if all you need is a default creature. Why the need "to be prepared a head (sic.) of time with leveling monsters for random encounters"? It's not as if you could level up monsters without preparing ahead of time in RM2/RMSS either (though, admitted, there was little reason to do so, considering they would only gain some few OB and hits...)
The world was then consumed by darkness, and mankind was devoured alive and cast into hell, led by a jubilant 紗羽. She rejoiced in being able to continue serving the gods, thus perpetuating her travels across worlds to destroy them. She looked at her doll and, remembering their promises, told her: "You see, my dear, we succeeded! We've become legends! We've become villains! We've become witches!" She then laughed with a joyful, childlike laughter, just as she kept doing for all of eternity.

Offline tbigness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,517
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2016, 09:38:44 AM »
I have tried to use the tables in the RMU Creature book and it was hard to decipher the stats and creature abilities. I could not just pull them out and use them, I had to look everything up and this slowed play down tremendously. A simple page with stats, creature abilities and treasure code is perfect.
Knowledge is unimagined Power

Offline Thom @ ICE

  • Aurigas Staff
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,810
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Thom@ironcrown.com
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2016, 09:48:07 AM »
OK, so it sounds like formatting needs work, and perhaps focusing on the standard version of each creature with the modification support as a secondary option, or even in a second book allowing for GMs to customize the creatures...
Email -    Thom@ironcrown.com

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2016, 10:36:38 AM »
OK, so it sounds like formatting needs work, and perhaps focusing on the standard version of each creature with the modification support as a secondary option, or even in a second book allowing for GMs to customize the creatures...

I think it might go a little beyond that Thom. I think the problem is the talents. It was a noble idea to try to balance everything in the game via talents, giving each creature a set of them that explained and balanced their special abilities. But the implementation is in many cases too complex: creatures simply have too many talents. A simple Horse (Wild), for example, has a dozen talents, literally. I certainly can't remember them all, and I guarantee that my players won't. It is even going to be difficult simply write them on paper, and to include them all in the stat block (just from a formatting/layout perspective).

I'm not sure what the solution is, but it seems that this is a level of complexity that some groups will find overkill and will make it hard to create and especially print the Creature Law book. In many cases, RMU seems to be working hard to streamline the rules and make them easier to use; but Creature Law is much harder to use than its RM2 equivalent.

Much the same could be said of Treasure Law.

I think it is important that RMU take a consistent approach to the idea of the complexity of the rules. Is the goal to streamline things and make them easier to use? Then the decision to go to a category system for skills is understandable, but Creature Law and Treasure Law are not. Is the desire to maintain complexity to distinguish RMU from other systems and give it a unique appeal? Then Creature and Treasure Law are fine, but Character Law is going to need some work.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline bpowell

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 528
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2016, 10:36:56 AM »
tbigness,

Thank you for giving us an overview of what you have seen.  May i ask the make up of you play test group?  Were they all RM veterans?  The reason I ask is that mine is not and I had some issues getting over the "This is not like Pathfinder..." mind set and I was wondering how you handled that.

-BP

Offline Thom @ ICE

  • Aurigas Staff
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,810
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Thom@ironcrown.com
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2016, 10:55:44 AM »
OK, so it sounds like formatting needs work, and perhaps focusing on the standard version of each creature with the modification support as a secondary option, or even in a second book allowing for GMs to customize the creatures...

I think it might go a little beyond that Thom. I think the problem is the talents. It was a noble idea to try to balance everything in the game via talents, giving each creature a set of them that explained and balanced their special abilities. But the implementation is in many cases too complex: creatures simply have too many talents. A simple Horse (Wild), for example, has a dozen talents, literally. I certainly can't remember them all, and I guarantee that my players won't. It is even going to be difficult simply write them on paper, and to include them all in the stat block (just from a formatting/layout perspective).

I'm not sure what the solution is, but it seems that this is a level of complexity that some groups will find overkill and will make it hard to create and especially print the Creature Law book. In many cases, RMU seems to be working hard to streamline the rules and make them easier to use; but Creature Law is much harder to use than its RM2 equivalent.

Much the same could be said of Treasure Law.

I think it is important that RMU take a consistent approach to the idea of the complexity of the rules. Is the goal to streamline things and make them easier to use? Then the decision to go to a category system for skills is understandable, but Creature Law and Treasure Law are not. Is the desire to maintain complexity to distinguish RMU from other systems and give it a unique appeal? Then Creature and Treasure Law are fine, but Character Law is going to need some work.

I am with you... having played a significant role in the HARP updates, specifically on the monster updates, I really like the idea of building everything from the same structure from the ground up - but I fully hear your concern.  Using the horse as an example, the horse has a whole bunch of talents (abilities) that a normal average human does not, but there are also a lot of things that the horse is not capable of (speech, high level intellect, etc.).  The baseline may need to be brought down to the Family level, which would then provide certain base abilities/weaknesses - and then build from there with development points. 
Email -    Thom@ironcrown.com

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2016, 11:01:46 AM »

I am OK with some complexity but I am not a numbers guy who needs physics to enjoy a game. There is not getting up to speed and how long it would take to go from a walk to a dash with me. That is a complexity for number crunchers and not needed in my games.

If you go with a simple turn (counting down 4 AP at a time), you could simply dispense with the acceleration/deceleration rules, and allow creatures simply to move up to their BMR x Pace each round. E.g., for 0 AP they can move up to BMR; for 1 AP up to 2x BMR; for 2 AP up to 3x BMR, etc.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2016, 11:04:48 AM »
The baseline may need to be brought down to the Family level, which would then provide certain base abilities/weaknesses - and then build from there with development points. 

That might work. You might run into some of the same problems that you run into with the category system though: i.e., if all animals in a family have the same talents, you might find that some animals have to be given talents that don't really fit. But it might be worth trying, if it makes Creature Law easier to use and print.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline tbigness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,517
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2016, 11:56:37 AM »
I think to have the basic elements of a creature family in one setting and then expanding it individually as a specific talent for the breed would go far in my opinion.

Having the base for Feline traits that support all Felines then in the individual creature description capture the other traits or talents such as Cheetah having increased speed or the Leopard climbing with a carcass ability would separate the animal from the species nicely.
Knowledge is unimagined Power

Offline tbigness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,517
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2016, 12:07:14 PM »
tbigness,

Thank you for giving us an overview of what you have seen.  May i ask the make up of you play test group?  Were they all RM veterans?  The reason I ask is that mine is not and I had some issues getting over the "This is not like Pathfinder..." mind set and I was wondering how you handled that.

-BP

Two of the players were veteran RM players for years, but have played multiple systems besides. The others have played other systems but pretty new to RPG's. I am very instructional and ask questions on what they would like to do or give hints that things can be done. I find that once someone is invested in their character from creation that the will to play is high. Then put them through a tutorial of how skills are used and a combat situation with hints as to what can be done during a turn (I use the Percent based round). By the time the critical tables are read out they are hooked.

I just ensure I include different things to keep their attention and add or take out different rolls for skill use. Anything other than routine gets a roll otherwise does not need one (unless I feel comical at the time). Combat Minion has helped alot with the pace of combat and table/book use so my games run faster and less referencing to boot. I just judge the pace of the game by the story and mood of the players and give options. I don't play killer GM but don't let anyone get away with out feeling the effects of stupidity either.

Basically it comes down to keeping the game concepts simple and easy and involve the players. I tell then they don't need to know all the rules, that is my job.  :D
Knowledge is unimagined Power

Offline bpowell

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 528
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2016, 01:22:16 PM »
Thank you for the info.

My group is all over the board, but long time RP players with two exceptions.

I actually am using the RMU AP round, but I am using it where you tell me what you are doing and we more or less spend AP through the round.  So it someone does something that costs 3 Ap, the affects of someone else's 1 AP action might go before them.  A bit of a blending of the Ap based turn and the percentage turn.

Offline tbigness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,517
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2016, 01:42:22 PM »
That was what I was using before going back to the percentage based. I use the Snap, Normal and Deliberate actions along with the percentage. This allows for quicker actions or more deliberate with the penalties or bonuses  based on that action.
Knowledge is unimagined Power

Offline bpowell

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 528
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2016, 01:50:38 PM »
The percentage method seems to much like "Calculus" in the game to me.  While it worked well of I was using a Combat Computer Program to keep track it was just too difficult on a sheet of paper.

During the game we are telling a story, i try not to let the system get in the way.  But i like the ability to ask..."Give me a Research Skill test with a concentration in Engineering to see if the modification to the catapult should work..."  And turning to another character in the same downtime event at the Inn ..."Give me a Medicine test to see if the sutures in Bob will hold and help him heal..."  I hope both characters feel they made differences and moved the story along with their different abilities.

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2016, 01:52:21 PM »
For me the central problem with the talents is the absolute number of them. That's why I worry a bit about talking about families getting a certain core of talents: You would then have talents by family (all felines have night vision and other) and then by individual (lions have special attacks or whatever). That wouldn't necessarily reduce the absolute number of talents.

Say what you want about Dungeon and Dragons 4th edition (and I know a lot of people hated it), but they did a good job of giving each creature about 3 different combat-related abilities/powers that made the monsters feel more unique. I think ideally you want to shoot for about 3 to 5 talents. Less than 3 means the monsters become more like they are in 5th edition DnD, which is largely just sacks of hitpoints with little differentiation in the way the fight; more than 5 means you simply can't remember them all. So for me the sweet spot is around 3-5, and of those, I would prioritize talents that have an affect on combat.

'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2016, 01:53:28 PM »
The percentage method seems to much like "Calculus" in the game to me.  While it worked well of I was using a Combat Computer Program to keep track it was just too difficult on a sheet of paper.

My group is the same. Percentages involves too much math for them, which is why I went to an action point system.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline tbigness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,517
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2016, 02:07:32 PM »
Well seeing that I never took Calculus then I understand more than I thought. I just ask for what are you doing and then get a percentage of action, any left over they can start a new action that bleeds over to the next round percentage. I do like the AP system but with modifications to 5 AP's to represent time based activities. But the whole problem with clash of arms and movement and penalizing everything gave a bad taste. So I went back to what I know and already used successfully keep the venturing going.
Knowledge is unimagined Power

Offline arakish

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,579
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • A joy of mine
Re: Basic opinion after Play Testing RMU
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2016, 08:16:00 PM »
Reading.

The gist I get is a "basic" model of creature.  Additional XP is only gained by "age" of the creature.

No problem.  Have standard "age" ranges such as Newborn, Young, Juvenile, Early, Elder, Middle, Old, Ancient.

All creatures go through these stages, especially mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, et. al.

Insectoids deviate greatly in having Egg, Larval, Nymph (if), Adult.

Mollusks may also deviate.  Protozoa definitely do.  Protozoa are basically binary.  They exist or they don't.

Companion "creatures" DO earn XP.  Regardless.  Some can even learn certain things to do when a certain "thing" is done, such as a tongue click followed by a certain whistle.  The companion animal then does those "things" trained to do.

Some can even learn "spoken" commands, such as "regaltha" meaning to "take point and protect."

Thus, yes, give us a table showing a more divisional separation between the "age" of a creature; rather than, giving us a "how to build a creature from scratch."  Add that in a supplement.

rmfr
"Beware those who would deny you access to information, for they already dream themselves your master."
— RMF Runyan in Sci-Fi RPG session (GM); quoted from the PC game SMAC.