Rolenaster-BRP hybrid?

Trond · March 10, 2019, 12:11:56 PM

Did any of you try this? I find that BRP is an easy way to create characters with skills in the 1-100 range. And I always kinda liked the Rolemaster tables to get interesting results for both combat and use of skills (maneuvers). Using BRP stats you now have an easy way to use stat rolls together with Rolemaster tables as well. Sounds like a good idea?

Let’s call it Basic Rolemaster

Damn this phone, just noticed the typo in the title

Eisenmann · March 10, 2019, 05:07:03 PM

I have and it worked really well.

Here's where I posted a bit about my findings:

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/1028-spicing-up-brp-combat/?tab=comments#comment-21205

Arioch · March 10, 2019, 05:49:14 PM

Yes, we toyed with the idea and even tried it out a couple of times. It was fun but in the end we always went back playing either one or the other (but mostly RM

).

Trond · March 10, 2019, 06:55:37 PM

Quote from: Eisenmann;1078489I have and it worked really well.

Here's where I posted a bit about my findings:

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/1028-spicing-up-brp-combat/?tab=comments#comment-21205

Interesting! My idea was a bit different. In my case I’d use all the RM combat and maneuver tables.

HappyDaze · March 10, 2019, 07:01:25 PM

Those are two systems that I've played a few times (more Rolemaster than BRP) but actively tried to avoid in recent years. OK, to be honest, "recent" here means the last two decades.

David Johansen · March 10, 2019, 07:32:08 PM

I think Palladium plugs into Rolemaster a bit better as it has levels. Even so, yeah, it's an easy merger. Rolemaster character creation really isn't that bad. Honest. RMSS is better of course but it comes at the cost of being more time consuming.

Trond · March 14, 2019, 03:26:53 PM

I think RM character creation is pretty fiddly if you don't have software for it. Having said that, I also think that it doesn't add much to the fun, in classic version (RMSS training packages were a bit different, and it might actually add to the fun, though it's been long time).

Anyway, I guess levels are useful for some of the tables, but not all. I would also change how to use the armor types a bit ( AT1 is too good, so I usually leave it for heroic scantily clad barbarian type PCs)

Mankcam · March 17, 2019, 06:11:58 PM

About a decade or so ago we were going to look at meshing RM into my old BRP/RQ3 campaign, I think rolling on the Crit Tables and such.

But then HARP arrived and our RM GM went with that instead. HARP Fantasy is still our preferred version of the ICE mechanics, although we do wish RM's setting of Shadow World should have been used.

These days I'm not sure I would want all the complexity as a GM

Trond · March 20, 2019, 06:12:48 PM

However, what I find IS fun in Rolemaster, is the use of combat tables, and also the "maneuver" tables. They are actually more fun if the characters are a bit more competent (IMO).

Another thing I have done in the past is to create quick 3-5 lvl characters is using the online RM1 character generator, and then interpret the skills as rather wide categories. We usually started around lvl 4.

David Johansen · March 20, 2019, 07:50:36 PM

AT1 is only good against low OB foes or if you have a high DB because if they do hit you, you're pretty much done.

The tables are lots of fun.

Training packages are a good concept but the implementation could have been better. Personally, they should include some experience points or require a level to stack or something or better still, be a fully loaded level so you can just slap them on and be done picking skills. I strongly advocated that idea for RMU but it was left for later supplements or ditched.

Did you ever look at Run Out The Guns? You picked two packages and totaled the bonuses.