Topic: The lightest possible set of rules

[Spectre771]

I have a dislike for stat gains. They create a huge amount of work, especially for skills heavy characters and I have seen a player roll badly repeatedly on the same stat to the point where the magician had no powerpoints at all for three levels. I think the points based systems where if you want stat increases you have to pay for them is a better option. If you have a stat gain you wanted and paid for then you are going to be happy to recalculate all your skills.

We ran into the same issues and while it was funny at first, it quickly became almost painful to see it happen.  Then add the high mortality rate for 1st level PC's and having to go through the process repeatedly, we opted to make the PCs start at level 5.  "Usually" by level 5, all the stats are maxed at their potentials, or very close to it, so we gave the PCs their potentials.  And to help balance the huge number of skills with limited DP to spend (a hot topic in several other threads), we let the PCs have their maxed out DPs from level 0 through Level 5.  i.e.: 6 levels of development with max DP.  This method obviously tacks on a lot of creation time, but eliminates rapid leveling up and downtime to actually level up as the PCs need 20k XP to reach level 6.  From that point on, leveling up was very manageable and much quicker.

*-note: Later on in my GM-ing career, I made level 0 be the Temp stats and DPs, then for level 1+ I gave the players the stats at full potential and the DPs that go with them.  Level 1-5 was at full potentials and Level 0 was just the Temp Stat level.  I treated it as the adolescent level and they simply weren't fully developed yet.  The players liked that and it's stuck for quite a while.

[Peter R]

Later on in my GM-ing career, I made level 0 be the Temp stats and DPs, then for level 1+ I gave the players the stats at full potential and the DPs that go with them.  Level 1-5 was at full potentials and Level 0 was just the Temp Stat level.  I treated it as the adolescent level and they simply weren't fully developed yet.  The players liked that and it's stuck for quite a while.

I am very much in favour of the fixed DPs per level and breaking the link between stats and DPs (as is done in HARP and RMU). What you have done amounts to pretty much the same thing. One of the players in my PBP game has truely amazing temp and potential stats and has loads more DPs than any other character in the campaign. I can just imagine that character massively out stripping all the other characters within the first few levels.

[Spectre771]

I love the level progression and stat gains rolls and the increasing DP.  As you get older, you learn more, get better, pick up skills more easily.  It essentially boils down to level 0 is the Adolescent years.  Levels 1-5 are the "teens/high school through college years".  Level 6+ your young adult life and getting the career going, matured, so on.  But there are also plenty of instances where that method can be frustrating, particularly to a new player who already has a tainted view of RM.

Sadly, there were the occasions you mentioned, The magician with no PP.  Or the Temp stats being so low there simply weren't enough DP to develop a PC, or the Potential Stats were just so abysmal, he just couldn't get out of his own way.  (I rolled a PC one time who's highest Potential Stats were the two free 90's I had to take as the Prime Req's.)

Given the 'deadliness' of RM and the chance for a crit-kill, PCs sometimes drop like flies and there's just so much time required to make a new PC.  The argument can very easily be made for the automatic "max DP" (generated by the Potential Stats) per level.

I would be happy play testing a RM2 game with PCs getting DP/PP based on the Potential Stat starting at Level 1, but using the Temporary Stat to calculate the stat bonus for skills.  Each level, make the stat gain roll, recalculate the stat bonuses, but the DP/PP per level don't change... unless there is an event that specifically states "Lose/Gain ## to Potential Stat."

[Witchking20k]

I use RMX as my core RM rules.  It uses a stat array of 90, 80, 75, 75, 70 x2.  I have you spend DPs to raise stats 1:1 up to 90 2:1 up to 95 etc.  That way it's part of the DP process.  As mentioned before I limit the stat gains to 1 Mental & 1 Physical per level too.

[Peter R]

I love the level progression and stat gains rolls and the increasing DP.  As you get older, you learn more, get better, pick up skills more easily.

I am old and I don't learn skills more easily!

Sadly, there were the occasions you mentioned, The magician with no PP.  Or the Temp stats being so low there simply weren't enough DP to develop a PC, or the Potential Stats were just so abysmal, he just couldn't get out of his own way.  (I rolled a PC one time who's highest Potential Stats were the two free 90's I had to take as the Prime Req's.)

In some games these are termed 'farmers', characters that should have stayed on the farm.

If you break the connection between stats and DPs then you open the way for someone to have a forgetful mage or a sickly fighter (Elric?) without the character being penalised every level because they put a low number in a DP generating stat. That is one reason why I like the idea. It also levels the playing field so that all characters have an equal budget.

[tbigness]

I have gone full bore on a set amount of DP for that a few reasons.
- easy to calculate how many DP's per level if starting at a higher level
- ensure everyone has enough DP's to be productive and diverse
- leave stats for the purpose of character build and not dependent on DP development as this was always slanted in favor of stats that generate DP rather than character concept
- allows GM's control of skill levels of NPC's and PC's on a level playing field or higher/lower as GM sees fit

[Peter R]

I don't think I will ever go back to stat based  DPs.

[Witchking20k]

Me either.  DPs are the easiest way to control the relative power level of a game.  Less DPs generally means less diverse characters- more DPs means more diverse characters.   You can also create "Archetypes" by pre-spending DPs and just create a bonus matrix like D&D.  That seems to be comforting to new converts....lol

[Peter R]

So you are using them a bit like HARP style training packages then, a single cost buys a complete set of skills. The players then get to spend the left over DPs on their choice of skills.

Here is a question for you. Which of the mental stats (em, pr, in etc) would you all say are the most obvious to an outside observer if they met the character?

This is going back to GMing and prepping.

[Witchking20k]

Good Question.  I don't consider Pr, EM, In to be mental stats.  In my opinion they are more closely related to the characters psyche.  But, for the core RM point of view I would say Pr, Em, SD, In in that order.

As for the HARP observation- no not really.  I have thrown together levels 1-3 templates for fighter, thief, mage, etc. for week-ending and the pre spent the DPs for each level then I.  So, a first level fighter would have +20 in a primary weapon skill, +10 in a secondary weapon, and +5 in a tertiary weapon, +10 body development, +30 armour- basically ignore the ranks and express it as the actual bonus.

Then, advancing to 2nd level you could add +10 to a weapon, and +5 to another, +10 to body development etc.  Really, I guess it's closer to Hobby Ranks from RMFRP- but, keep in mind I am doing this because I am running pre-determined storyline that I have a good idea what skills the PCs will need.  We are sacrificing a lot of customizability to maximize the time we get to actually play.

[Spectre771]

In some games these are termed 'farmers', characters that should have stayed on the farm.

... and in RM2 they are called "Profession" and "Non-Profession."   

Sometimes they happen to be farmers, and in one instance, a Blacksmith.  He ended up being really handy in the game.

[Witchking20k]

Or the actual Farmer from one of the companions....lol

[Peter R]

Good Question.  I don't consider Pr, EM, In to be mental stats.  In my opinion they are more closely related to the characters psyche.  But, for the core RM point of view I would say Pr, Em, SD, In in that order.

As for the HARP observation- no not really.  I have thrown together levels 1-3 templates for fighter, thief, mage, etc. for week-ending and the pre spent the DPs for each level then I.  So, a first level fighter would have +20 in a primary weapon skill, +10 in a secondary weapon, and +5 in a tertiary weapon, +10 body development, +30 armour- basically ignore the ranks and express it as the actual bonus.

Then, advancing to 2nd level you could add +10 to a weapon, and +5 to another, +10 to body development etc.  Really, I guess it's closer to Hobby Ranks from RMFRP- but, keep in mind I am doing this because I am running pre-determined storyline that I have a good idea what skills the PCs will need.  We are sacrificing a lot of customizability to maximize the time we get to actually play.

Those first three stats, PR EM SD, are the same three I was thinking. I don't want to roll stats for every NPC the players will ever meet but just recording any stat bonuses for named NPCs for those three stats I am thinking would help flesh them out somewhat without having to think too much about them. An NPC Gate Guard with a higher SD would probably have a smarter uniform, turn up on time and stick to his patrol schedule more strictly. One with a higher presence may resist being brow beaten by the players quite so easily.

I am thinking it take but a moment when plotting out an adventure to just roll three stats and jot them against each named individual. I feel that the mental stats probably tell us more about how to play an NPC than anything else after maybe their race.

[Witchking20k]

I agree- but I very rarely stat NPCs anyway.  There are no interaction rules in RM as far as I know- well, I guess the Influence/Interaction column of the old SM table.  But, that is reliant on skill....which seems silly

[Peter R]

I agree- but I very rarely stat NPCs anyway.  There are no interaction rules in RM as far as I know- well, I guess the Influence/Interaction column of the old SM table.  But, that is reliant on skill....which seems silly

I don't normally stat sundry NPCs either but I an thinking that just 3 stats may improve my NPCs with minimal effort. I would like to move away from generic gate guards called Bob who are instantly forgetable. I would like a stronger feel of consistency between sessions and that if there are three guards mannng a gate and a player asks "Do any of them look concerned over how wounded we are?" at a glance I tell that the guards really don't give a toss.

[Inez Hull]

I've just posted a blog entry with my own take on how to make Rolemaster as rules light as possible. http://deathanddismemberment.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/old-schoolifying-rolemaster.html?m=1 it's possibly worth reading the preceding post to put it into context. The audience is more for OSR folks who have played Rolemaster in the past but I reckon it's worth a read for RM folks interested in a lighter ruleset.

[Spectre771]

I agree- but I very rarely stat NPCs anyway.  There are no interaction rules in RM as far as I know- well, I guess the Influence/Interaction column of the old SM table.  But, that is reliant on skill....which seems silly

I'll give bare essential stats for factors I think they'll need.  QU (and a stat bonus),  DB, OB for the weapons.  Then if he's a specialist like a horseman, I'll throw some Riding stats and maybe some animal related skills.  The "guard" type NPC's will get stats for Sense Ambush Assassin, General Perception, Hearing Perception, and such, but I won't roll up all 10 stats, all stat gains, spend all the DP's, etc.  (We do have a GM who does do all of that and gets to the microscopic level, but that's what he loves to do.)

When I'm really in a pinch I grab Heroes and Rogues and that book is loaded with tons of awesomeness.

[Witchking20k]

Yes- one of the better aspects of RM is the NPC table that gives you stock NPCs at levels 1/2/5/7/10 etc.  I have actually reformatted these into "characters" for one offs.  Pretty handy. 

[Peter R]

I've just posted a blog entry with my own take on how to make Rolemaster as rules light as possible. http://deathanddismemberment.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/old-schoolifying-rolemaster.html?m=1 it's possibly worth reading the preceding post to put it into context. The audience is more for OSR folks who have played Rolemaster in the past but I reckon it's worth a read for RM folks interested in a lighter ruleset.

I read your post and what really struck me was how easy it is to try and tackle the same objective by such radically different approaches.
Your Section 1 I don't really feel is necessary. There are basically two parts to it. The descriptive solution to skill resolution comes down to different play styles and that in itself is covered by "The GM is the final judge as to what is a maneuver and requires a roll, and what is normal activity and does not require a roll" from the RAW. Some players enjoy the describing the actions of their characters and others sometimes don't, other players may use knowledge they have that their characters may not such as significant understanding of physics or engineering to solve problems.

I am a fan of fewer, more broadly defined skills. I only use the skills from character law and RoCo1 and I have even removed some of those. The only additional skill in my game is the Vocational skill taken from RMU. That basically does what you are suggesting as making professions into skills.

For my taste your hack goes too far down the road that ends in the resulting game not being RM. I am working up a houseruled game that is based on no profession and also level-less but that is not what I am looking to achieve here.

Finally your take on the way that spells are bought in RMU (spells as skills) is something that I will never, ever allow into my game again as it produces kind of genericaly boring spell casters and that is something I don't like.

[Peter R]

Yes- one of the better aspects of RM is the NPC table that gives you stock NPCs at levels 1/2/5/7/10 etc.  I have actually reformatted these into "characters" for one offs.  Pretty handy.

Yes, that is in my GMs reference PDF as one of the most useful tables in all the rule books.