Talk:Rolemaster

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rolemaster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Role-playing games Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"I'm only qualified to talk about the 3rd edition. Need info about Rolemaster Fantasy Roleplaying (RMFRP)."

RMSS and RMFRP aren't significantly different enough to warrant a separate entry or detailed description--I have both and they're interoperable and interchangeable although RMFRP is the "replacement" for RMSS, according to ICE.

"Rolemaster differs from the better known Advanced Dungeons and Dragons in that only two ten-sided dice are needed to play it (compared to well over a hundred of various shapes that can be found in a typical AD&D player's briefcase), and more importantly in that Rolemaster strikes an optimal balance between realism and playability in its skill, magic and combat mechanics."

This paragraph is rather POV.. Ausir 15:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Rolemaster differs from the better known Advanced Dungeons and Dragons in that only two ten-sided dice are needed to play it (compared to well over a hundred of various shapes that can be found in a typical AD&D player's briefcase), and more importantly in that Rolemaster strikes an optimal balance between realism and playability in its skill, magic and combat mechanics."

This whole paragraph is useless. You certainly don't need "well over a hundred" types of dice to play AD&D (if that many types of dice even exist), and the second sentance is NPOV. I enjoy playing Rolemaster too, but I'm certainly not going to claim it is the "optimal" system. I'm going to remove this paragraph. I'm also going to remove the superfluous note about the distinction between RMSS and RMFRP since the article is accurate for both systems. --Jfbolus 12:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Middle-Earth Role-Play is based on RM (it is a scaled-down version) should be mentioned.

Also, the fact that ICE nowadays offers HARP as an improved simplified RM alternative.

85.227.226.250 18:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a new classic edition released this year.

"Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)."

Rolemaster Classic is claimed on the ICE website as different things on different pages. On one page it's described as a revision of the Standard System, on another it's a "revitalization" of RM2. ICE's site is similarly confusing regarding all of their products; for all the sins visited on the Wikipedia article by the unsourced authors, this article is clearer and more precise than ICE themselves. Hopefully the same crew can add the Rolemaster Classic info to the article in an equally useful way. The text of this article tends to charge at the issue in a roundabout way; I'd really like to see a harder analysis as to how the mechanics of each game differ, and how any of them differ from AD&D, the game they were meant to replace. Essentially, WHY do so many versions exist? How did the "basic game mechanics" change from version to version (you've presented us with one set of mechanics; which version do these belong to?). I understand now when they were released and have a vague sense of how they were received, but I still don't understand why it was thought necessary to ditch the original system and go with a new one. Giving us empty adjectives like "expandable" and "customizable" don't really tell us anything. What specifically has changed? How does this affect gameplay over the previous version? How does any of this compare to other game systems? What is the "skill system" that is frequently mentioned but only described in the vaguest possible terms? How well is this skill system designed when in fact the game is a class-based system? When you start answering these questions, you will have a top notch article. 12.22.250.4 17:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolemaster Classic is a "revitalization" of RM2 and not a revision of the "Standard System", could you point out where on their website it is mentioned as being a revision of "Standard System". A large chunk of this page is based on an article that I originally wrote, so once I find some time I'll try and add in some of the details you've requested. Unfortunately, one answer I don't have is why they decided to make the change to the new system, but maybe there is a quote in one of the books or on one of the old mailing lists that I can use to explain it. Ob1knorrb 22:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have included info now on both Rolemaster Classic and the derived Rolemaster Express. RhinoMind (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where the flag about Copy Editing comes from? It doesn't seem to give any specific information about what is wrong with the article. I suspect it is from an automated process that doesn't recognize a lot of the words used so tagged them as being spelling errors. Does anyone know if that is likely the case?

Ob1knorrb 22:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RM2 also tried to expand into more "strategic" areas with War Law (dealing with massed land combat) and Sea Law (covering both sea combat and nautical adventuring). There were also a number of "add ons" for historical settings (the Old West, Norse settings, Egypt, Robin Hood, and some others) intended for both RM2 and Fantasy Hero.

The numbered companions also ran 1-7, with 3 adding a number of new professions and trying to revamp parts of the combat system. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vast swaths of the History section of this article are identical to this page: https://www.icewebring.com/what-is-rolemaster/ Does anyone know whether this article was copied by the site or vice versa? V2Blast (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which edition of the four editions is being referenced? Is this rather large section even necessary? Guinness323 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A new version, called "Unified", will (supposedly) come out this year, according to the ICE website. This will rectify all previous editions, and will be the only supported edition going forward post-release. Or, at least, that's what they're saying. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RMU has been published. Intothatdarkness 14:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has a general issue in that it's written as a summary, as if the 1st and 2nd editions are the only ones that exist. For instance, there are reviews of the main books of the first edition and the following compilations, whereas RMU gets two sentences. So it's written as if Rolemaster was a set of books that were published, rather than an ongoing game line. I don't know if I want to tackle it right now, but I think a general re-ordering, and use of sub-headings, would help, along with a reduction of in-text detail from some of the sources, and an expanded description of what RMU is. Pawsplay (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is RMU actually covered in multiple RS? If so, the article can expanded. If not, we're kind of stuck with what's here. Intothatdarkness 23:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]