[Where I Read] A Mythras cultist reads RMX for the first time

[pawsplay]

While that looks like a nice way to manage scaling, it means unnecessary maths during play. Better, IMO, to give the dragon x8 hit points (calculated once, outside of play). Same maths, but done outside play time, and in a direction most people find faster (multiplication vs division). Also, having the damage you do 'reduced' feels bad. I'd have to read RMU to see if they went with that or not - I've skimmed it, but if they did that I didn't notice at the time.

RMU went with actually multiplying hit points for larger creatures.

 

[David Johansen]

While that looks like a nice way to manage scaling, it means unnecessary maths during play. Better, IMO, to give the dragon x8 hit points (calculated once, outside of play). Same maths, but done outside play time, and in a direction most people find faster (multiplication vs division). Also, having the damage you do 'reduced' feels bad. I'd have to read RMU to see if they went with that or not - I've skimmed it, but if they did that I didn't notice at the time.

Yeah, that was my argument at the time but someone was determined not to dumb it down to cater to the lowest common denominator.

But yeah, Rolemaster didn't scale all that well and fixing that was one of the goals.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Wait, the tables were per weapon?

Here is my folder of attack tables -- including weapons, spells and crit tables (to be fair, over a third of the folder is for firearms, which run from pea shooters up to .50 cals, plus shotguns and new crit tables).

They're also a single-page per table, with crit tables on the back, so you could nearly have the space if you weren't doing that.

 

[Sharrow]

Here is my folder of attack tables -- including weapons, spells and crit tables (to be fair, over a third of the folder is for firearms, which run from pea shooters up to .50 cals, plus shotguns and new crit tables).

They're also a single-page per table, with crit tables on the back, so you could nearly have the space if you weren't doing that.

View attachment 81426

RM2's Arms Law just has the tables at one per page, and one copy of the critical tables at the back. Not as convenient, perhaps, but considerably slimmer.

 

[AsenRG]

Chapter 6 (actually 6.1) is about rewarding playing the game. The idea is to have major and minor goals for each adventure, with the minor goals being "stepping stones" for the major goal, or "life-changing personal goals", or "sidequests".

...let me get this straight, a life-changing personal goal of a PC is less important than defeating the Big Bad Evil Guy.
This basically means that the authors didn't consider a mode of play where the party sets up as a goal "Helping PC #2 realize his Life-Changing Personal Goal"...

This ain't meant to be run in sandbox mode, got it.

Also, the suggestion is to award bonus XP for fights, but the difficulty of the fight is only estimated after the fact. So a couple good roll or good planning would mean you get less XP...which hits a personal pet peeve of mines!
IMO, if you want to teach your players not to use tactics, that's the way to achieve it! "You planned too much for the final battle, you can have 500 XP for completing the adventure!"
"But we got 750 for defeating those no-name mooks on the way!"
"Because it was a harder plan due to you not having planned about it!"
"...dude it was a random encounter, we couldn't have planned!"
All according to the XP table - a random fight it suggested to be at Hard difficulty, and all random encounters are Minor Goals...

Also, completely avoiding fights is likely a non-starter. Why would you miss out on XP? That gives you less bonus XP at the end, if the GM is applying the rules strictly!
(I'd make "avoiding that fight" a minor goal and give you the XP, but do you want to count on that?)


OTOH, at least you can get bonus XP for the non-combat encounters, explicitly. Difficulty depends on the difficulty of the manoeuvres you used in achieving them. So, if you achieve it all with talking, conniving and swindling - which has no Manoeuvres AFAICT - you'd make it hard for the GM to estimate any difficulty... let's hope you'd get him to throw at least a Static Manoeuvre check or two your way. Otherwise, you could be SOL when it comes to the XP.

Well, at least the table is a general one, you just decide whether a session event is worth a Major or Minor designation, determine difficulty, cross check, rinse and repeat for the next goal.

...mind you, a Major Goal at Hard (i.e. the default) is worth 1500 XP, but a Minor Goal at the same difficulty is only 750 XP, and a new level is 10k XP away until 6th level. Then you need 20 000 XP to get 6th level. So there's going to be lots of sessions between levels!


That's going to be all for today, folks, at least I managed half a chapter!

 

[Sharrow]

I don't know if it made it into RMX, but the full versions gave out a x5 multiplier for the first time you did something and a x2 multiplier for the next time. We used to say the first time you succeeded in an adventure counted for the x5 bonus, as well as 'first kill of race XXX' and so on, so the first couple of levels were pretty quick.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

The original (RM2/RMSS) experience rules are complex and thorough, and I used to enjoy calculating them as a teenager but, these days, I find the payoff for the work isn't there. Although the big rewards for taking crits are a really nice touch, and my players enjoyed that a lot. "Why did X get so much EP? Oh, yeah, it would be from when that treant whaled on him."

It's actually really interesting seeing the contradictory emotions when a character is getting fucked up. The player isn't happy at being stunned and having bones broken or whatever, but they're simultaneously excited about all the experience they're earning.

It sounds like RMX recognised a need to streamline things, but did so by falling back on a number of pretty wishy-washy concepts, the complete opposite of the original system.

Last time I ran RM, I ended up just giving out fixed amounts per session that slowly increased as the PCs levelled, but it was a bit sad losing out on those crit-taken EPs.

 

[AsenRG]

I don't know if it made it into RMX, but the full versions gave out a x5 multiplier for the first time you did something and a x2 multiplier for the next time. We used to say the first time you succeeded in an adventure counted for the x5 bonus, as well as 'first kill of race XXX' and so on, so the first couple of levels were pretty quick.

Doesn't seem to be in it, no!

The original (RM2/RMSS) experience rules are complex and thorough, and I used to enjoy calculating them as a teenager but, these days, I find the payoff for the work isn't there. Although the big rewards for taking crits are a really nice touch, and my players enjoyed that a lot. "Why did X get so much EP? Oh, yeah, it would be from when that treant whaled on him."

It's actually really interesting seeing the contradictory emotions when a character is getting fucked up. The player isn't happy at being stunned and having bones broken or whatever, but they're simultaneously excited about all the experience they're earning.

It sounds like RMX recognised a need to streamline things, but did so by falling back on a number of pretty wishy-washy concepts, the complete opposite of the original system.

Last time I ran RM, I ended up just giving out fixed amounts per session that slowly increased as the PCs levelled, but it was a bit sad losing out on those crit-taken EPs.

Talk about mixed messages!

 

[David Johansen]

The core RMSS experience system rewards points for skill use by difficulty, spell casting by level, inflicting and taking hits and critical hits, kills, and miles travelled and ideas. Naturally the miles travelled is altered somewhat for Spacemaster. There are multipliers x5 for the first timed doing something, x2 for the second, and x 1/2 after it becomes routine. I quite like it and let it become a contest, announcing experience at the start of each session was quite popular.

Most people don't like it or find it a lot of book keeping. It is enough work that I had to take 15 minutes sometime during the week to work it out. I just make notes on my GM scratch sheet, with headings by player rather than by monster.

 

[Sharrow]

Last time I ran RM, I ended up just giving out fixed amounts per session that slowly increased as the PCs levelled, but it was a bit sad losing out on those crit-taken EPs.

Likewise, though my lot went with a huge handout for the first adventure (to reflect that x5 for 'first time'), a big one for the next few ('x2'), and then a set rate that was fixed so that the rising XP cost of levels meant progression slowed over time. If games had ever gone on that long we might've knocked the handout in half (for 'x1/2 if routine') for high level characters (by which I mean well over L20, which we never got anywhere near).

 

[Sharrow]

The core RMSS experience system rewards points for skill use by difficulty, spell casting by level, inflicting and taking hits and critical hits, kills, and miles travelled and ideas. Naturally the miles travelled is altered somewhat for Spacemaster. There are multipliers x5 for the first timed doing something, x2 for the second, and x 1/2 after it becomes routine. I quite like it and let it become a contest, announcing experience at the start of each session was quite popular.

Most people don't like it or find it a lot of book keeping. It is enough work that I had to take 15 minutes sometime during the week to work it out. I just make notes on my GM scratch sheet, with headings by player rather than by monster.

I made players track damage and crits given and received. No records, no XP. This improved the quality of their tracking of their injuries and hits lost considerably. (Then we went to fixed awards as mentioned above.)

 

[AsenRG]

Well, let's at least finish Chapter 6...

But it seems there might be some minor mistakes here, or else I've missed something. It has happened before, but I don't think I have.

"Characters finish character generation and begin play at 10,000 experience points and 1st level."
So far, so good. Then they gain XP and go up in levels...we all know the drill.

But then it notes that when the character advances a level, a player must perform several actions, the first of which is "DP are gained based on the temp Development stats at their new levels".
...OK, didn't we establish - both by the text and in this thread - that RMX dispensed with the variable DP numbers? Is there anything I'm missing?

I hope it's just a holdover from a previous edition. Especially since the text also says you get 35 DP and spend them.


...either way, once you have your points, you spend them. Well, you have that table already. Shouldn't be an issue.

But then you must "re-total any skill rank bonuses whose components have changed".
...is that just an overwrought way to say "if you bought more skills, re-calculate the stats that have been impacted"?

Oh, and BTW, don't forget to add your Level Combat/Spellcasting bonuses. Thieves get 2/level, Warriors 3/level, Magicians and Animists get +1/level to their spellcasting die rolls.


I'll leave the Creatures chapter for tomorrow.

 

[AsenRG]

I'll leave the Creatures chapter for tomorrow.

It ended up being longer!


And there isn't much to say about the Creatures chapter, actually. It's just an extended clarification how to read the creature entries, basically, with minumal descriptive text for some creatures.

The first table gives you average values for what skills an NPC of a certain level would have. I wish more games had these, actually!
Also, some GMs could use reading a table like this...
That's for humanoid NPCs, though.

For non-humans, rules-wise, you have Size, Crit (how to read crits inflicted on the creature, not what crits it inflicts!), base number of hits, Armour-equivalent*, attack numbers (including size of the attack).
Additionally, you have Numbers encountered, Treasure guarded, Outlook (i.e. expected reaction), and Special Abilities (which are at the end, after the descriptive text - stuff like poison and Undead Regeneration is here...)

Then you have a table with stats, and 4 pages with descriptions. Thanks to them, I learn that the Cat (Small) isn't actually a housecat, but a bobcat or the likes.
That's a good thing, because I'd just noted it's higher level than a Goblin (and right below an ogre), and was going to ask whether it's a joke with the D&D's Wizard-Eating Housecats!
As a note, wild animals are dangerous. Small bear is stronger than ogre, for example. I approve, but it fills me with respect for RM Big Game hunters!


*All attacks against creatures are rolled on the same armour tables as against NPCs.


Then we get to Treasure Chapter.
It's short enough, I'll add my notes on it here.

So, it has separate entries for Monetary and Magic treasure. Both range from Very Poor to Very Rich, at 5 "wealth levels".
After a quick check, Young Drakes and Gargoyles are the way to go! A young Drake is level, but has Rich monetary rewards and Very Rich magical ones. A Gargoyle is Level 5, but has Normal and Rich, respectively...

Amusingly, you're quite likely to fall on a rune paper. OTOH, I don't see any mention of magic rings, unless they're in Daily (X) category. Maybe? I guess a less powerful version of The One Ring would allow you to become invisible X times per day. Actually makes sense, come to think of it...

Note: only Very Rich creatures stand a chance at having an artifact, and then only at a roll of 100. Those won't feature often at all, if you generate everything procedurally!


After that we get to the adventure In Search of Vallen. Do you really want me to cover the adventure, guys, or do I call it a day?

I mean, most of you know that I have my own criteria for adventures, and from the XP awards system we went over, I strongly doubt this one would fit them. Might be better to just skip it, but I'll let the Rolemaster crew tell me whether you want me to continue!

 

[sharps54]

I’m interested in your thoughts. I still feel a book like this should have been released for RMU, the current version they have only partially rolled out.

 

[AsenRG]

I’m interested in your thoughts. I still feel a book like this should have been released for RMU, the current version they have only partially rolled out.

Fine, I'm going to do it before Easter!

 

[sharps54]

Fine, I'm going to do it before Easter!

lol, maybe Easter of 2026 if they actually get the core books out!

My number one complaint about RMU isn’t the art it is the way they are rolling it out. There should have been some creature stats to start with, either a QuickStart or a sample adventure with pregens.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

The generic, class based stat lines are indeed really, really helpful.

 

[AsenRG]

lol, maybe Easter of 2026 if they actually get the core books out!

I think you misunderstand me. I'm Orthodox, Easter is this week-end for me.

I guess I could have said "until the end of the week", but usually everybody I speak with knows when Easter is!

My number one complaint about RMU isn’t the art it is the way they are rolling it out. There should have been some creature stats to start with, either a QuickStart or a sample adventure with pregens.

Like the table in RMX?
But yeah, I'd expect any serious core book to have at least some creature stats, indeed...

Admittedly, I didn't really understand the art complaints, either, but there's a thread about them!

I mean, you're looking at a system with scores of tables, but your big issue with it is the art isn't appealing enough to you? If I was the head of ICE, I'd have made some fantasy-looking vignette to put at the edges of tables...

The generic, class based stat lines are indeed really, really helpful.

Totally agreed. The table of "monsters" is also quite helpful, and leaves space for the descriptions, which are a nice touch!


Amusingly, I find that a lot of heavily-mechanised systems forget to add such descriptions, which are definitely helpful for a new GM.
OTOH, some rules-light systems lean too heavily on those, instead of mechanics. Looking for the balance is important, or ought to be...

Of course, the only problem is that it's difficult to estimate where to put the balance point. In fact, some would claim that different balance points would appeal to different people!

 

[Sharrow]

Of course, the only problem is that it's difficult to estimate where to put the balance point. In fact, some would claim that different balance points would appeal to different people!

Crazy talk, that's what that is.

 

[sharps54]

I communicated poorly. I meant it would be 2026 before you would be able to compare RMX and RMU as the RMU books are huge and not all the core books are out yet.

 

[AsenRG]

I communicated poorly. I meant it would be 2026 before you would be able to compare RMX and RMU as the RMU books are huge and not all the core books are out yet.

Oh, sorry...yeah, if not all the books are out yet, that might be a bit of a problem...

But then I wouldn't agree to compare RMX and RMU! I'm reading, what, my second RM ruleset ever? That's not enough for a good comparison, especially with so many RoleMaster experts on the site.

Now on to the RMX adventure!

 

[AsenRG]

Finally: I'm going to read the "In Search of Valen" adventure as well.
Obviously this is all a spoiler!

Spoiler: Spoilers included for the adventure

It begins with an "introduction" that left me more perplexed than before reading it. All I can say is that someone got kidnapped.
But then it shifts into a more "GM instructions" mode. I can work with that.
"The son of a wealthy merchant has disappeared, and he has hired your group to search for and rescue the child. After several days of searching, you finally find a trail that leads to the mouth of a cave. This is where our adventure begins."

First surprise: there's no tracking through wilderness or anything. You start at the cave mouth.
So, basically, you have a "get in Dungeon, get the MacGuffin out" adventure, except the MacGuffin is a scared 10-year old.
I must commend the descriptive text, though. "The tracks end at the mouth of the cave and disappear on the cave's hard floor. Pale light appears within. Strange clicking and a whiff of something vile come from the cave opening."
You can have players use either tracking or perception to check the tracks.

Then we have a full-page map of the cavern. The text continues at the next page with info on how much information to give depending on level of success. (Hmm, this reminds me of James Bond RPG, a descendant of which I'm reading now). That's good!

...but then it adds one of my most-disliked advice in RPG theory: "Depending on the strength of PCs, you can add more opponents". Fuck no...
I mean, points for pointing out how to change the information given depending on what you changed. But that advice isn't something I condone - the number of enemies should depend on the setting, not "how many the GM thinks we can deal with"!

The second location is a fight. Giant Ant, surprise is unlikely, the ant is prone to running. Fine. I'm getting Fallout 2 vibes, but that's a good thing.

Third location, Pit. Medium Perception to find, Tiny critical, climbing out.

Fourth location is called The Ambush. Odds are good the Lesser Orcs and Goblins would have surprise and the LOs have bonuses (+25) to their crossbow attacks when shooting from cover. Makes sense to me.

OTOH, they "will attempt to surrender if two or more Goblins are down and out or if all of them are wounded and the battle is clearly lost". So at least it's not fighting to the death. That's a rather important point for all high-lethality games with long recuperation, like the ones I like!

OTOH, "if the characters allow them to parley, they will offer the coins from their stash in the wall and the orders that they were acting on". Well, let's hope...

And of course, if the PCs do not negotiate (why wouldn't they, excessive murderhoboism or the Dwarven animosity to Goblins?) or seem intent on killing them all, they will attempt to use the child as a hostage. Makes sense.

"The child is bound and gagged in the nook in the back. He is hungry and bruised but otherwise fine".

...but, just in case the PCs do indeed kill everyone, there's a Perception check for spotting the money and orders.

The orders are signed by someone named Stark. The "loose ends" text suggests that Valen's father has no idea who Stark is or why he might want to kidnap his son, but he is willing to hire the PCs to attempt to find out.
It also provides instruction. "In order for them to succeed, they will need to back-track the merchant's path to other villages and towns. It will take a while, but they can eventually find out."
Following are a couple of ideas, some of which I find less persuasive then others. I mean, how do you steal a trading route by kidnapping? A trading route depends on contacts, not what family is waiting for you back at home!

But either way, the adventure tells you "the search for Stark is an excellent jumping off point for the GM to use in the continuing adventures of the PCs". That I agree with, it can serve as a jump-off point. So, task accomplished, I guess?

And then we get to the rewards and it tanks!

Why? Well, it tells you how much the father pays, how much the goblins had. Fine.
Then it gives you different levels of XP rewards depending on the success of the tests, 100-500 XP for the Perception test, 500 XP for the ants... fine so far.
Then we have 150/250/500 XP for the pit, depending on whether you rescued someone in it (150), he escaped alone (250), or you avoided it altogether (500). Please note, in this case the best option for the adventurers also brings them the most XP.

But then the fight with the goblins and lesser orcs gives them 1500 XP if they decided to parley, or 2000 XP if they killed them all. Remember: that's despite the fact that they're going to use the kid you're there to save as a hostage!

So, 500 XP for relentless murderhoboing that screws up your goals? Nah, that's NOT a good idea for how to divide XP rewards!

My thoughts:
The adventure is literally a dungeon that consists of two fights separated by a trap, and the map makes me think you don't have many options other than passing them in order. Not a very complicated dungeon, nor offering much when it comes to variety, but it does the job when it comes to a start-off point.

OTOH, it is written well, not omitting important instructions to the GM, so even a new GM could run it easily.

Not a fan of the suggested "loose ends". I'd make it something like "a rival wants to delay the departure of the trader on his next trading trip, hoping that he would miss the favourable winds and thus, need to give up for this year".

The reasons might be many and varied, including jockeying for position in the Merchant Guild.

Or both of them trying to impress the same noble enough that he would agree to marry his daughter to one of them.

But that's campaign building, and goes far beyond the level I'd expect in an adventure. So, I'd say "2,5 out of 5". It would be 3 if not for the suggestion to change the number of NPCs, which I feel builds bad habits in new GMs...and those are the most likely ones to use such an adventure; and it woud be a 3,5 if there wasn't the XP rewards part.
To get more than that in my estimates, you'd have needed some more variety; 4 out of 5 is the ceiling for a linear adventure.

And that's all there is to the RMX. The rest is an Appendix RMC Compatibility, an index and a character sheet.

 

[Rasyr]

Well the idea of behind the adventure, IIRC, was to provide a small example of how the system works, especially combat. The advice to add more foes is intended to keep the combat challenging rather than the PC perhaps being too powerful overall. Looking back, I likely should have advised cutting back the number of foes for smaller groups too...

At least, I think that was the idea... it was a bit of a while ago...

 

[Sable Wyvern]

The starter adventure in MERP involved rescuing captured kids from trolls. If you test the combat system in that adventure, the only thing you are likely to learn is that it is very lethal and unfair.

 

[David Johansen]

Yeah, a whole lair of trolls will trouble a tenth level party, let alone a first level group.

 

[Sharrow]

The 'adventure' used in MERP for the combat example is more the speed for beginning characters, and how it went down was very much like how the game plays (including the caster spending many round preparing a spell that's a really poor choice for the situation, and basically doing nothing all fight).

 

[Armchair Gamer]

The 'adventure' used in MERP for the combat example is more the speed for beginning characters, and how it went down was very much like how the game plays (including the caster spending many round preparing a spell that's a really poor choice for the situation, and basically doing nothing all fight).

The bit that stuck with me is the mage looking out for 'Shards', a monster that's not only not in MERP, but not even in core RM--it shows up in RMC1.

EDIT: Mea culpa; I was wrong. Shards are in Creatures & Treasures. Still, magical disk-hurling constructs that move like the Flash seem out of place for Middle-Earth.

 

[Sharrow]

And if a party of that level runs into shards (or a shard), it should be taken as a sign that the GM is tired of running the game.

 

[AsenRG]

And if a party of that level runs into shards (or a shard), it should be taken as a sign that the GM is tired of running the game.

...or, maybe, that he's curious what you'll come up with this time?