hero vs rolemaster

[steph]

just for the combat what system do you think is more realistic and why?

just want your opinion

excuse my english again my friends

stef the french canadian

[tkdguy]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

They both have their merits and drawbacks. The Rolemaster critical chart can be very detailed, but they are described for you. You don't get to choose any called shots to a desired location. Also, you could theoretically end up rolling percentile dice several times if you roll high enough.

 

HERO allows maneuvers that modify your OCV and/or DCV. Called shots are possible. However, you end up rolling lots of dice for damage.

 

My point is: It's all a matter of taste. I'd say they're equally realistic (or unrealistic, if you like). Keep in mind that the HERO system started out as a way to emulate comic-book superheroes, while Rolemaster is definitely a high fantasy game with more spells than that game which uses a twenty-sider for combat.

[Vanguard]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Rolemaster is the more realistic of the two systems (IMO).

 

tkdguy is correct, in Hero, you can make called shots that modifier your DCV and such but you can also do the same in Rolemaster with the appropriate adjustments your your OB (Offensive bonus) and DB (Defensive Bonus).

 

In my old Rolemaster game, when you did a called shot, if you managed to hit, the GM would just alter what the Crit and the affect to one appropriate to the location.

[arcady]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Rolemaster is so absurdely unreal it is just silly.

 

The critical charts have no basis in anything remotely resembling serious gaming or a practical look at how things happen.

 

Hero is a bit more abstracted, and this actually helps it to be more real - it isn't so typed into silly premade results and you can describe what goes on giving it a greater level of realism.

 

Rolemaster is the most unreal and bizzarre RPG I've seen in print, to be frank about it.

[Theron]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Neither reflects the realities of fighting (on a man to man basis, anyway) particularly well, though with Hero, there's sufficient abstraction to move it into a more realistic direction (IMHO).

 

The best system for "realistic" combat is probably The Riddle of Steel, which oddly enough combines a lot of dice rolling with some charts reminiscent of but less involved than, RoleMaster. Of course, the game has other issues, but I have to give props for the combat system.

 

Honestly, I prefer something fairly abstract and simple like Pendragon. It still manages to be fairly brutal without becoming overly detailed.

[philnicau]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

I've played both Rolemaster (and MERP) as well as Hero many times over many years and find they both have their pluses and minuses,

Rolemaster is quick with combat resolved on D100, no rolling for damage, and often fun results on the critical charts,

Hero has more modifiers, its easier to individualise your character, but there's a lot of dice rolling.

if you want to know which is my favourite combat resolution system its neither, my favourite is Harn by Columbia games, while character design can be long (especially armour by location) its simple resolution system based on success levels (moderate success, critical success etc) and reduction in physical abilities by wounds and fatigue.

[tkdguy]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

During my pre-HERO days, my gaming group used the MERP critical hit and fumble charts for our 2nd Edition AD&D game. It definitely livened things up.

[The Horror]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

In RM sooner or later the enemy will roll a 66 on the critical tables and kill you (or with a high roll on a high level critical). Death is only a matter of time if your character engages in combat. Note that the bulk of experience in RM also comes from fighting.

 

I hate the game. I've played it for way too many years. Hero is by far the superior game.

 

 

The Horror

[cutsleeve]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Shouldn't it be Rollmaster instead of rolemaster.

[tkdguy]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Shouldn't it be Rollmaster instead of rolemaster.

 

Here's a word of advice about Rolemaster: NEVER run an extended battle while playing a solo game. I once ran such a battle. It took me hours to finish.

[arcady]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Here's a word of advice about Rolemaster: NEVER run an extended battle while playing a solo game. I once ran such a battle. It took me hours to finish.

Yeah but the same thing can be said about Hero - I rarely if ever ran a super hero combat that took less than three hours, and had one go up to twelve - ending only when I got sick of it and cheated.

 

And those were all normal skirmishes, and not battles.

 

Fantasy Hero on the other hand, lacks most of the issues that slow up Champions.

[Turin]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Shouldn't it be Rollmaster instead of rolemaster.

 

Well maybe Tablemaster, but since it usually involves a lot less rolling then other RPGs rollmaster would be ironic I guess.

[badger3k]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Oddly enough, I've played both games from the begiining. I switched from AD&D to Rolemaster, and played Champions for my superheroics. I switched from my RMSS campaign (well, to 3e, but then) Fantasy Hero because it is easier to run (and combat does take less time) when dealing with several voice-chat players. When I ran into problems with the 8-or-9 person group I had, where one combat took the whole session, I went looking for a faster one. I got back into Hero with the fifth edition books and so far have had very few problems.

 

To me, Rolemaster is more detailed in combat, and can be very detailed if you include various rules with encumberance, armor, etc, etc - depending on which version of the game you are using. I like the skill "trees", and weapon combat is pretty easy, although I needed a detailed form to account for all the damage options (hit modifiers, bleeding, stun, etc). While this may not be that realistic (read the critical charts) it is fun, but sometimes it can require a calculator unless you are good at math (OB 93, roll 81, modifiers +25, -10 for distance, etc) - do that for 18 or more characters in a combat, and it gets old and slow.

 

Hero combats (fantasy again) have generally been faster. I like the different abilities and skills, especially martial arts. In RM, martial arts goes something like "I'll strike, {rolls, checks damage, reads crit result for details}". Hero is like "I'll Cobra-Strike his head{rolls, damage}". While RM can use aimed shots, Hero is simpler, and the variety of maneuvers, while basically similar in structure, allows for more dramatic variety (at least under player control). Both games have options for basic maneuvers such as parrying, dodging, and all out attacks (by varying OB/DB, Skill levels, etc). Hero also has optional rules for bleeding, critical hits, etc, but they are not as detailed as they are in RM (well, I find RM is more detailed -as written - than Hero). Hero really demands more individual interpretation of results by providing less detail.

 

Both systems can be lethal. Combats typically make it easier for people to die than in other systems. Armor in Hero stops damage, while in RM it affects both chance of hitting and modifies damage. Rolemaster weapons are differentiated a bit more in damage and type of results by the rules as written - Hero still leaves it more or less up to the GM if there are differences between slashing, piercing, bludgeoning, etc. Whether one is more realistic than the other in these regards really depends on the way you view such things.

 

Which is better overall depends on how you see Realism in the game(Game Ruled or Individual Judgement, Armor is harder to hit or stops damage) and what you want the system to do. If detailed combat results but less flexibility in dramatic options is what you want, RM is probably it. If you want a more free-flowing system that allows more individual interpretations of maneuvers and results, then Hero is probably it.

 

Looking at D&D (especially older versions, but it applies to 3e), Hero, and Rolemaster, D&D and Hero are the ends of the spectrum, with level-based/classed systems (including such effects on combat) and Point-based Skill-oriented systems (ditto). Rolemaster combines the two types of systems, with the benefits (and some disadvantages) of each type.

[tkdguy]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

I haven't had much experience with GURPS, but I was told that 3E was meant for realistic scenarios. Someone in here (I think) mentioned 4E was designed to be more cinematic.

 

But going back to the topic, I had thought about doing a Rolemaster (not RMSS) campaign with no magic, just to see how it would run. It's not a new idea. When ICE owned HERO, they came up with the Robin Hood sourcebook, which removed almost everything supernatural.

[HewhoisMatt]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Fact is you just can not make a game that is both life like and fun. I have yet to see any game give a good version of real combat. I think Hero is my fav out of the two cause if you get a group of 6-8 people playing rulemaster, a good sized encounter will take all day to sort out.

[Theron]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

As I mentioned earlier, I think The Riddle of Steel comes closest. The problem is that the realism it reflects flies in the face of the expectations of most gamers and fans of the fantasy genre. It's not the sort of game where your hero can wade through a mob of orcs with impunity. In fact, two vs. one pretty well constitutes overwhelming odds, depending on the terrain (I've faced four opponents by myself with a practice rapier, and while victory is possible, you spend a LOT more time moving trying to keep from being hit than you do fighting).

 

TROS does fall down a bit when introducing non-humanoid opponents. There's only so much that realism can accomplish when you introduce dragons and the like. But it's an interesting little game with some very intriguing mechanics to it (particularly the Spiritual Attribute rules). Combat is very much a game within a game, and a canny player can use his understanding of how it works to his character's advantage.

 

But ultimately, the quest for realism is a bit of a fool's errand. When the average gamer talks about realism, he's discussing wound effects and damage mechanics, but generally speaking, not the implications derived from the same.

 

IMHO, YMMV, ONGITSORIOTTOPR, etc.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

As I recall, the first edition of Cyberpunk, with its Friday Night Firefight combat rules, was pretty damn realistic. Unfortunately, it wasn't too fun to play, because once you were wounded, if you weren't flat out out of the fight, you were so impaired that you didn't matter much anymore.

 

Twilight:2000 also had pretty realistic combat rules, but they took forever to play out. Way longer than any Hero combat I've ever run, with the possible exception of one Champions fight where one guy on each side had 75% Damage Reduction.

[Turin]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Twilight:2000 also had pretty realistic combat rules, but they took forever to play out. Way longer than any Hero combat I've ever run, with the possible exception of one Champions fight where one guy on each side had 75% Damage Reduction.

 

IMO Twilight:2000 has very un-realistic damage, we always increased damage delt by weapons and decreased the amount it took to get to critical wounds. Then again the combat always seemed to go real fast for us. T2K has always been one of my favorites but getting others interested has always been hard, I own all the T2K books except for the Black Madona.

[badger3k]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Don't forget the original Aftermath by FGU. That combat system was hard on characters (IIRC - it has been a long long time).

[Captain Obvious]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

IMO Twilight:2000 has very un-realistic damage' date=' we always increased damage delt by weapons and decreased the amount it took to get to critical wounds. Then again the combat always seemed to go real fast for us. T2K has always been one of my favorites but getting others interested has always been hard, I own all the T2K books except for the Black Madona.[/quote']

 

 

Your game must have had a lot of one shot kills then. As I recall, most military grade firearms would cause a pretty serious wound at short range with only one bullet.

[Turin]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Your game must have had a lot of one shot kills then. As I recall' date=' most military grade firearms would cause a pretty serious wound at short range with only one bullet.[/quote']

 

Oh ok since you are talking about range effecting damage dealt by weapons you must be referring to version 1, where weapons were much more deadly then in version 2 or 2.2.

 

In version 1 an average person would have a hit capacity of 10 for the head, 30 for the chest and 20 for arms, legs and abdomen. A M16 would do 8 + 4d6 points of damage per shot (each shot being 3 rounds/bullets). It would take a doing twice the capacity in damage to an area to make it critically wounded. So a good hit to the head at short range with an M16 could kill an average person. If you hit any where else it would take more. To kill someone with a chest or abdomen shot you would have to do 4 times the capacity to kill them out right, 2 times would be enough to knock them un-conscious. The only problem with version 1 was that damage dropped significantly at range. So a M16 would do 8 + 4D6 up to 50 meters, 6+3D6 51 -100 meters and 4 + 2D6 101 - 200 meters.

 

In version 2 and 2.2 they changed how damage worked so that it was a base number of D6 and range only determined how well a bullet pierced armor. A M16 in version 2 and 2.2 did only 3D6 and a 9mm only did 1d6. The damage capacity and effects were the same for an average person Head 10, chest 30 and all others 20. So we added an extra 2d6 to all weapon damage so that people would be afraid of a 9mm pistol as well as a M16.

 

In Version 1 there was a character that got hit 8 times from M60 and didn't go down since the damage was so evenly spread over his body. Of course he wasn't an average person being a PC and all.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

I played champs and RM through the eighties until GURPS came out. I then played that for many years until the crafting of our worldbook began. When all the dust settled, here we are nearly complete with a Fantasy Hero setting. I mention this because realism vs. cinematic systems played an important part in our selection of Hero System to host our setting.

 

I don't think RM combat is realistic in its implementation, only, possibly, in its results. RM combat can be a lot of fun, but by and large it is a spectator sport with the player only marginally in control of the situation.

 

GURPS is far more realistic and perhaps the best balance of realism and playability I have ever experienced. 4th edition (just released) fixes a lot of issues that existed, making it an even better game. Additionally, they added cinematic options to enhance that level of play.

 

d20, for me, is the least enjoyable combat-wise. I very much like the game, and how it works, and there are options in UA that can enhance combat. But, by and large combat is a specatator sport, not unlike RM, although with a bit more control. Unfortunately, the gritty/tastey outcome of combat you have in RM ala crits doesn't exist in d20. Our last playtest game for our setting in d20 was a 4 hour combat involving 6 players, 1 bad guy (powerful), and a handful of troll minions. The trolls were largely irrelevant and we spent the entire time slugging it out back and forth. Finally he fell. We all looked at each other and said,"You know, if we're going to spend 4 hours in combat I'd like to at least enjoy the combat beyond the simple win at the end."

 

Which brings me to Hero.

 

Hero does a great job of creating an impression of reality, enhanced action movie-style. You have enough control of your character's actions that you feel a part of the situation, not a spectator. At the same time the system is generous enough to not turn your character into guacomole because it realistically makes sense.

 

Take a fight with a dragon, something I have run/played in all 4 systems.

 

RM: Combat is crazy tense. You know you are 1 crit away from maiming. At the same time you threaten the dragon with just as much pain. If not, you shouldn't be fighting him. Aside from the spectator aspect, few systems can compare with Spell Law for magic, and the detail of combat RESULTS.

 

d20: Pretty much a hit point fest unless you have 5th level spells, which then devolve into check spell resistance to see if the spell affects the dragon and then forcing a save or die/paralyze/incap. result.

 

GURPS: You better kill the dragon in the first few seconds of combat or people will get broken. Tail bashes, broken shields/arms, vicera, it's all pretty gruesome. Incredibly fun, but gruesome. I have never, and I mean that, never played a GURPS combat that wasn't entirely exciting, fun, and rich. Ever. However, I have accidentally killed a character involved with a grapple, seen characters milk a grenade only to blow their arms off, people run over by vehicles, brave paladins with shattered shields->arms->knockback against a wall->broken leg, severed limbs a-plenty, broken weapons, yada, yada, yada. All good stuff, but hardly heroic.

 

Hero: The dragon is grim. You can get dead pretty quick. However, most will get taken out because of stun. The flow of the combat will be exciting, for sure, with tail bashes, wing buffets, breath attacks, swords, spells, running, screaming, everything. Characters leaping onto the back of the dragon, brutes grabbing the oncoming smashing foot of a dragon and wrestling with it (probably losing, but still).

 

I just had a fight: 5 115pt characters vs. 1 700pt demon. Two party members died, because of the Hellfire aura (2d6 NND - Heat Damage). That constant ticking of the STUN finally dropped them. However, the demon was so beat up he ate two of them and then ran as others started to come to.

 

In another fight a 30 STR Orog (one of our iconic characters) wields a 9d6N club enchanted to do knockback. While charging up to the evil villain, he bashes a mook, sending him flying. The villain suddenly became worried, so he held his action. The orog came in for the big swing, and the villain springs into action, forcing a contest of DEX, and wins. He then does a grab for the club, succeeding, attempting to wrest it from the Orog's hands. While he was strong enough to grab the weapon (25 STR), he couldn't seem to get it out of the Orog's hands, especially since it was being wielded 2H. They stood there for a phase or two attempting to figure out what to do when the Orog decides to just grab him and throw him into the inferno they were fighting in front of. Good stuff.

 

We have had so many epic fights in Hero it has been great. Subtle things too, like getting stunned sets up a nice coup de grace, forcing other players to Dive for Cover to take the hit for you. Very cool stuff. Stuff that no other system has, although with 4th edition GURPS has taken on many things Hero has had. Still far more deadly than Hero, though.

 

I like that I can throw some serious badness at my players, have a great fight, and not have people walk away with missing limbs (if they can of course).

 

As for lots of dice. In champions maybe, but not so much at the FH level. Most weapons/attacks in FH are killing damage so 2-4 dice is about the norm. We don't do random location (chest shots) against/by mooks, which helps speed play. Placed/Called shots are still allowed, and heroes/villains still roll random against each other, but there generally isn't more than one of those in a single combat.

 

One final thing. Of those 4 systems how many of them allow you to resolve a combat without landing a single blow? GURPS maybe, although in all my experience nothing quite has the fluidity and ease of play as a PRESENCE attack. Even players new to Hero picking up a game at a convention (this just happened at GenCon) can resolve a "fight" by the appropriate application of moxy.

 

So, my opinion? If I'm going to play crunchy realism, like a janitor trapped in a mall full of zombies, and one misstep can kill me (or break my ankle), GURPS is for me. Something realistic/cinematic (ala Robin Hood - stories or movie) could take me either way. Epic fantasy however calls for Hero in a very big way, as do modern/sci-fi action movies.

 

If you want to check out the characters we use in our games, take a look at our site, specifically here.

 

Good luck.

[tkdguy]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Just for completion, what do you guys think about the combat mechanics of Runequest and Warhammer FRP?

 

And BTW, what is this Riddle of Steel game?

[lemming]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

Just for completion, what do you guys think about the combat mechanics of Runequest and Warhammer FRP?

 

And BTW, what is this Riddle of Steel game?

I like the simplicity of WFRP. It's just very nice and straight forward.

[Markdoc]

Re: hero vs rolemaster

 

>>>Just for completion, what do you guys think about the combat mechanics of Runequest and Warhammer FRP?<<<

 

Well, don't get me wrong, I love Runequest, help publish various RQ fanzines, and we've just completed a 2 year RQ game, but the combat system seriously sucks. It's lethal enough, but your options are pretty limited unless you start to mutate the rules and at higher levels, it takes *forever* (hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, score a hit do 3 HP through armour and protection magic, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, Special! - and someone falls over) Basically, you're waiting to see who rolls the first critical or special success with the 2nd/3rd Ed. rules. Strong characters with lots of armour rule! There is, essentially no way to play a light fighter type, unless you don't mind making up new characters on a regular basis

 

Also it's all too easy to lose a limb in RQ - we ran multiple characters in the game to make up for the fact that at any time, we'd have a third of the team on the bench, regenerating limbs....

 

I haven't played Heroquest enough to make a definitive assessment, but I dislike almost every aspect of those rules.

 

If I ran another RQ game I'd use Hero system rules - which oddly enough, seems to suit RQ play style better than the RQ rules do.

 

With regard to WH, it's so long since I played in WHFRP, I don't recall.....

 

cheers,Mark