I voted for both RMC and RMSS but to be honest I don?t really play either of them (well, I played RM2 ages ago). The reason being I can?t decide which one. I?ve been comparing and reading them both for quite some time now and I keep bouncing back and forth. Each has its benefits and drawbacks.
For instance, RMC is a bit more user friendly in many ways, though its skill list is a bit ?adventurer-centric? (with a focus on only the skills an adventurer would need) than I usually enjoy?unless you adopt various optional rules. On the other hand, I like RMSS?s development of spell lists better than RMC (the concept of the Spell Gain Roll is rather goofy to me and, IMO, inconsistent with other skills). I like the completeness of RMSS?s skill list, but I have very mixed feelings about the skill category system. It?s a good system and far more logical, but too overwhelming unless you have digital assistance (i.e. a spreadsheet). I also appreciate RMSS?s adolescent skill development being based on culture rather than RMC?s development points (which is more a function of profession).
So, in the end, I guess the ONLY thing that really puts me back to RMC is the lack of the skill category system?which I can see positive points about anyway. I?d have to say that, point for point, every change in the ?What?s New in the RMSS? article in RMSR was a positive change with the conditional exception of the skill development system.
As a side note, HARP, I think, bridges the gap quite well. It has a good, complete list of skills, and avoids a lot of the mess of the skill category system, though it doesn?t have the detail of Arms Law that I like. However, the only thing I would really change about HARP is its organization which falls more along the lines of RMFRP than RMC and RMSS.
In fact, the single most attractive point that draws me to any form of RM (other than RMFRP) is its organization which I think is slightly better in RMSS than RMC (I like the full page descriptions of the races and professions as it is conducive to having a cool little character book when you?re all done). It eliminates greatly on repeated information or information scattered across several books. It was something unique to ICE and something that should be emulated by other companies?not the other way around. I really wish they would adopt it for all their lines in the future. I understand the need for a game-in-one-book concept, but I would MUCH rather have the basic concepts (Characters, Campaigns, Combat, and Casting?the four ?C?s? of RPGing) split entirely into their own books and, if possible, compiled into a box set.
That?s, of course, my very humble opinion. Okay?I?m done rambling now.
