In Which Your Obedient Servant, Having Thrown Rolemaster Over The Side, Attempts To Bring It Back On Board

I've been looking for ways to accommodate Rolemaster into the new material upcoming without stepping on any toes with regard to Intellectual Property...I know, I know, its been a grumbly theme of mine for a while now. Here is where I'm at: as noted in previous posts, I'm using characters built on the Single Set (Skill Costs)/Archetypal Builds model. I'm left with the issue of spells, spell lists and background options. I'm going to use converted OGL spells, spells from Project BASiL (you'll find these over at the Rolemaster Blog), plus several of my own creation, so characters won't actually be purchasing spell lists at all. Instead, they'll have a pool of spells associated with their Build. Thus, the Prophet build will have a set of - for example - some thirty or forty spells that they can unlock as they progress (using Prime Levels as a point of entry for spells of increasing power and complexity), and will have a casting skill roll based on certain stats and the type of magic they're using - I'll retain the four realms (Arcane, Essence, Mentalism and Channeling: this is supposed to be RM, after all!). It is a system intended to be lower magic than standard RM (the really potent magic will be the product of long, expensive and above all dangerous rituals). The aim is also to reduce reliance on spell lists as the source of magical power, as I'd prefer special Build/Race/Culture-based powers and talents to carry some of that weight.

I'm also looking at some other innovations: I want to change the structure of the combat round a bit, primarily to open up creative space for talents/background options. I also want to do the same around combat itself, by creating (and stealing, I mean borrowing) new maneuver-style options for combat (partly because I don't like the passivity of defense in RM, of which more in another post). Again, these will provide new spaces for talents and will not require the creation of new skills (although I adore the range of skills in RM, I recognise the need to keep them to a manageable level).

The obvious danger with all this is potential 'build bloat' and 'talent bloat' - a bit like issues with multiple feats and ever more classes in d20-type systems...but only if you consider it a 'danger' at all. Yes, you'll have Builds for every concept you can think of (I am currently working on the Botanist, Beggar, Administrator, Herald, Shepherd, Prophet and Guardian 'Profession' Builds along with the Peasantry, Woodsfolk, Moon Elf, Urban Poor, Winter Gnome and Wood Elf cultural builds)*, and talents/skill unlocks burgeoning alongside them, but to be frank, I consider this a good thing. A cornucopia of options enables players to create the characters they want, but more importantly and perhaps selfishly, enables me as GM to build the world I want.

* as an aside, I'm also looking into the possibilities of  - where appropriate - creating all these as classes for OSRIC, Swords and Wizardry and Labyrinth Lord.

Which Comes First: System or Setting?

The title of this post isn’t really a chicken-or-egg question: in most cases, I surmise, the system you’re using comes first, and, if you’re so inclined, you create a setting using the resources provided by the system. Until, that is, the tension between system and setting becomes too great. Then you’ve got the choice of shoehorning your setting into the rule box or opening out the ruleset with hand-waving and/or house rules. In my own games, most of the house rules that I create and apply come from my frustrations with the system. Against that, most of the house rules my players thrash out, create and apply arise from their frustrations with combat.

I’ll come out right now and own up: combat, while exciting and fun, isn’t my focus. I’ve played multiple systems and considered many more, and have found most rules for combat freighted with problems, whilst generally providing a great deal of enjoyment, regardless. Most of the combat-related issues I’ve had to consider over the years break down comfortably into two categories: the ones deemed by my players to be generally unfair, and the ones where one player thinks they’ve found an advantage only to discover that the rules can be interpreted for and against their funky idea. I’ve found this everywhere, and don’t expect it to change. Most rules simply can’t simulate everything and most are weighed down with internal contradictions, even where they seek a level of abstraction that ought reasonably to eliminate much of the problems apparent with more simulationist offerings.

So let’s get that out of the way.  As long as combat does an OK job and doesn’t perpetrate injustices that leave players grumbling for whole sessions – or longer – I’m content. My problem with systems is where they place strictures on worldbuilding. One of the reasons I’ve enjoyed Rolemaster so much over the years is that the basic structure of the game is a pretty good springboard for adaptation to the requirements of the setting. Hence the question, properly phrased: which should come first, the system or the setting?

I’ve pretty much telegraphed my answer already, but I’ll make it explicit: for me as a GM, setting comes first, even if you end up with a brain-curdling mash-up/love child of ten different systems. I’ve tried to put this into practice around a Rolemaster base, but my patience is fraying a tad, primarily because I did a huge amount of work to bring what I considered the necessary flexibility to RM2 and then RMFRP, and now, I’m facing a new contraction of options as the new RM takes shape. I’m aware, of course, that new options will gradually come available, and that’s fine so far as it goes. But will the options serve my campaign world? Probably not, and for several reasons, which I’ll discuss below.

Spell Lists & Realms: I like RM’s spell list system, although I like other systems better. But as it’s presented in previous incarnations of RM (and in the playtest documents for the latest version), I’m finding it increasingly confining. Yes, I know you can adapt it: I’ve done that plenty.  However, the current system cuts down creativity for both GM and players. There’s a bit of a myth in RM that, if you have the Development Points you can do anything, but this is somewhat hyperbolic.  In the RM2 core rules – and more emphatically in the new system – you can’t learn lists from a realm that is not your own. RM2 introduced options whereby you could do so, and this was carried over to RMFRP Core Rules, but the problem has returned. But are realms the true source of the problem? Or is it, on the other hand, professions?

Professions: RM orthodoxy tells us that the development point costs obtained via professions are a reflection of aptitude and early training. Thus they are flexible, but not too flexible. If you make large sacrifices you can – rather pointlessly – master skills or magic beyond the ken of most members of your profession. I understand the reasoning, but I really don’t like it: if you are the sum of your early training and inherent aptitudes, cultures should be professions.  We should see 12^th level Wood Elves and 17^th level Ogres, not 12^th level Wood Elf Illusionists and 17th level Ogre Fighters. But we don’t. Culture is an add-on to professions, and of profoundly limited influence, usually granting no more than a few set skill ranks and a couple of bonuses or penalties to various activities. Race has a bit more of an impact, as racial stat bonuses create difficulties in some areas (think Elven Self-Discipline penalties, for instance. Elven Warrior Monks will always struggle to utilise some core abilities). To me, professions, whilst not infinitely elastic, should have greater flexibility, particularly with regard to access to magic.

One possibility is to ditch all professions and use one (‘No Profession’) set of DP costs (or, if that’s too extreme, a Non-Spell user, Spell-user and Semi-spell user set of costs). One could replace professions with cultural DP costs (but allow a couple of individual skill specialisations). Or one could simply abandon the whole professions-as-inborn-aptitude notion and treat ‘professions’ as ‘classes’, with all that that entails (multi-classing rears its head here!).

I find myself oscillating constantly between different options, but these days I find myself leaning ever closer to the one size fits all approach: one set of DP costs, for everyone. Allow extra rapid skill development for folks who want to be really good at a narrow range of skills. Allow players to choose their own realm(s) and base lists (maybe 1 Background Option per extra realm) and insist on a set amount of base lists (3?4?) coming from one ‘profession’ to ensure focus whilst encouraging diversity. Grant 60 DP a level to allow for better characters at lower levels and a point buy for stats. I’d marry it to the ‘Archetypal & Cultural Builds’ system that I’ve previously mentioned here, retaining the unique abilities and skill unlocks but drop all components to do with skill costs.

I like this method of - errrm - re-mastering Rolemaster because it is comparatively ‘low magic’ and guarantees a reasonably level playing field. But most of all, by eliminating the artificial flexibility of ‘professions’ with one set of skill costs, you get a kind meta-flexibility. Everything – players, NPCs, even, conceivably, monsters – is built on one base, but you then have all of those spell lists – and individual spells for ‘special abilities’ – from which to choose. Oddly enough,  in some ways, the less that is built into a system – the more torso-like it is – the more options you have (which is why I've been enjoying re/discovering the OSR).

So here's the takeaway, for the purposes of this blog: henceforward, a reasonable portion of the fairly small amount of material for RM (see this post) I publish here will be based on the approach noted above: it sure ain't RAW, and if anyone wants to use it, it'll require adaptation for regular RM (whatever your flavour). But its a system I can carry over to the new generation RM, and its simplicity enables it to map across nicely to OSR games (and, when I'm feeling particularly complex, to Pathfinder.) 

A Not-so-Tangential Leap: Archetypal Packages for Professions and Cultures

I've been participating in an interesting conversation over at The RolemasterBlog about the best way of representing variation within and between Rolemaster professions. I put forward the idea of a mild union between d20 and RM: namely, using unique talents/abilities in the manner of Pathfinder classes whilst retaining the primacy of the skill/list structure.

The following options are archetypal packages for several species of Ranger, Bard and Barbarian, with a few cultural packages (Wood Elf and Urban Poor) thrown in for good measure. They're built for Rolemaster Classic, and based on the notion that whilst the chosen 'parent' profession provides a set of development costs, spell lists (where appropriate) and level bonuses, these are malleable according to the archetype chosen. Cultural packages are based on the 'No Profession' development costs.

I'm taking a few liberties with the core rules, as well: I'm allowing 'rapid skill development' to include up to four ranks per level, and to allow for a certain level of specialisation, there are 20 'points' that may be used to alter a few skill development costs. Each archetype has access to unique skill-related 'skill unlocks', based on the amount of ranks they have in particular skills. Every package is built using the Flat Development Point rules from RMC Character Law  (though with 50 DPs rather than the usual 40 DPs per level), whereas cultural packages are built using 100 DPs. Finally, each archetype is associated with a pool of talents that are only accessible to those choosing to follow the archetype.

It should also be noted that these archetypal packages are not intended to be an adjunct to normal character development. Ideally, they'd replace apprenticeship development at level one, whilst race/culture packages replace adolescence development. (For the uninitiated, 1st level characters in 2nd edition Rolemaster and Rolemaster Classic spend two levels' worth of development points at level one, divided into adolescence and apprenticeship). Characters can still develop in a unique way at first level due to the use of Hobby Skills and Background Options, and after level one, players are free to develop in whatever way they wish, within the parameters of their profession's conventional limits. One nice outcome of using this system is that first level characters are more well-rounded and more competent in areas often neglected while they concentrate on maximizing combat or magical capabilities.

Finally, I've altered some of the more overpowered Background Options - no instant lists to 50th level with no ESF mods - replacing them with their less unbalancing RMFRP equivalents.

The relevant document  - very much a work-in-progress - may be found here. This document outlines an optional rules framework and gives an example with the Primal Ranger, a variant whose abilities lie principally in a mystical bond with nature and are expressed through meditation and frenzy. Further updates to the document should such as the above mentioned cultural packages and the Botanist Ranger should be added soon.

A Brief Guide As To What To Expect

As the New Kingdoms campaign has evolved over the last three decades, there have been a number of changes: the greatest was the shift from RM 2^nd edition to RMFRP. When this occurred in our group, we switched over, root and branch – although I was sad to see the end of 2^nd edition. I then ported over much of what I did not wish to lose from 2^nd edition and spent plenty of time on conversions – professions, races, spell lists and optional rules. Now, with the new Rolemaster looming, my group has moved again, using the Beta playtest rules: you can register as a member and download copies of these at the ICE forums.

I’m left, therefore, with a huge body of work that – once again – is a bit obsolete. In some sense much of the current material for this blog is a legacy project, and when the new rules are released, will be superseded and updated, but the themes will remain the same: bringing the system into harmony with the setting, and vice versa. I stress however, that where setting conflicts with system, it is the system that I modify wherever possible. I’m happy doing a certain amount of violence to the rules in order that the New Kingdoms remain as originally conceived.

So you’ll see references to spell lists, optional rules and professions that don’t exist in RMFRP. I’ll post the profession conversions from time to time, but due to IP considerations, I won’t be able to reproduce the spell lists. I will always, however, reference the source. For instance, I retained the elements from the 2^nd edition Elemental Companion and some of the professions and lists. Here and there among the talents and race/culture guides those lists will be mentioned, but you’ll need to track the source down, if you don’t already have it. Where feasible, I’ll offer RMFRP alternatives.