What is a skill rank really worth?

[Burkin]

I've been a big fan of RM for decades, love the game.
As a player, my biggest complaint is that the value placed on a skill rank is far too high. In reality, +5 equates to an imperceptible improvement in the skill.
To put it in perspective, imagine you just learned how to use a bow and arrow, equivalent to 1 skill rank. At this point there is some target that you can hit 1 out of 4 times at a given range. Then you go to a week long archery camp. If you come back and can now hit that same target 2 out of 4 times, most people would be disappointed at that small of an improvement, but it's equivalent to 5 ranks in the skill.
Of course the challenge of improving the skill gets harder as you get better, but IMO for the first 10 ranks or so, less than a single day with an experienced trainer would be enough to gain 1 skill rank.
Has anyone else ever thought about the effort needed to gain a skill rank, or considered a mechanic that would allow real time skill improvement? Some examples could be learning a few ranks of region lore as you travel with an experienced scout, or learn a skill from an experienced party member while camping for a night.

[Majyk]

Many GMs allow free ranks doled out by them during play for amazing results(usually open-enders x3), and for other skills the extremely high results may do the same - at least in RMFRP's SoHK charts, they did.

That said, don't forget 'no skill at all' vs 1 rank is worth much, much, more due to the removal of the '-25' mod for no ranks. 
Some GMs are even more punitive and don't allow the stats to be used for not having developed a skill rank - so there's even that as a negative mod!

That can sway the difference from say 40 to 50+, all in, for (N)PCs with great stats.

[Spectre771]

In addition to what Majyk states, having a skill rank not only removes the -25 (-50 for our group), or the inability to even attempt a skill without a skill rank, the PC also receives stat bonuses, and possibly level bonus, and profession bonuses.  If background options are used, there is also the possible added bonus to a stat and/or skill.

I understand what you mean by 1 rank equates to +5 in the grand scheme of things.  But the opportunity is usually there to purchase two ranks per level.  If the skill is the "bread and butter" for a PC, it's normally affordable and something the player would invest in at two ranks per level.  A knight buying two ranks of broadsword each level is getting +10, +stat bonus, +level bonus and would probably be expected to purchase two ranks per level.

Where I start to weigh the cost vs. reward is at ranks 11-20 and again at levels 21-30.  +2 per rank is not much and +1 per rank is something the player really has to consider and something I probably wouldn't do.

The example you give in "hitting a target 1 in 4 times" doesn't really fit as RM uses total roll amount - defense and not probability to hit a target.  Buying 1 rank gives the PC 5 more points added to the roll of the dice.  If it were probability based system, 10 ranks = 50 points = 1/2 of 100%  With 10 ranks the PC only has a 1 in 2 chance to hit the target regardless of the dice roll.  Either the PC hits or doesn't.   The reality is that the PC adds 50 points to the dice roll for a better total, not a better probability to hit the target. 

Unless you are playing RM as a probability system.  That would make for a very interesting game system.  10 ranks = 1 in 2, probability (.5) to hit.  20 ranks = 7 in 10, probability (.7) to hit.  30 ranks = 4 in 5, probability (.8 ) to hit.  But then you do away with stats bonuses, level bonuses, etc.

[Burkin]

Thanks, I appreciate the input.
I am aware of the -25, which is why I refer to ability after getting over that initial hump.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying about hitting a target 1 in 4 times. When you know how to use the bow a little, say 1 rank in the skill, there is some target at some distance where after all bonuses and penalties are accounted for you have a 1 in 4 chance of hitting it. This is equivalent to  hitting on a roll of 76 or higher. Suppose after a week of dedicated training you try to hit this same target at the same distance and you find you hit it 1/2 times, now this is equivalent to hitting on 51 or higher or an increase in your skill by +25 or going from 1 rank to 6 ranks. My argument is that for a beginner, this is a small improvement from a week of training, but rapidly gaining 5 ranks in a skill is essentially unheard of in RM.

[Cory Magel]

+5 on d100 roll is basically the equivalent of +1 on a d20.  YMMV in combat of course.
How often do you recall rolling a 19 on a d20 and saying "Oh! Almost a crit!"
+5 isn't imperceptible imo.

[B Hanson]

A few other thoughts on this topic and related:

https://www.rolemasterblog.com/deconstruction-character-creation-game-modeling-skill-systems-rm/

https://www.rolemasterblog.com/rm-optional-rules-alternate-skill-rank-bonuses-aptitude-bonuses/

https://www.rolemasterblog.com/nature-vs-nurture-emphasis-stats-professions/

[jdale]

It's hard to think about modeling how people learn unless you also look at how fast they are earning levels. 5% is not a huge jump, sure, but you have to go in small increments if you are going to develop through many of them. My PCs have gone from level 2 to level 9 in less than a year of in-game time. I think from a realism standpoint it's not that they are learning too slow, they are learning too fast. The +5's are adding up really quick, especially for skills that are purchased 2 ranks/level.

From a fun, narrative standpoint, it's fine though.

[pastaav]

At a fundamental the level the cap of number of ranks is not about realism, but to make it easier to design game encounters. If all players dump their DP into combat skills with no caps you can counter this by doing the same for all NPC. Nothing wrong with these kind of setups, but it will have profound impact on the setting and the possible encounters if your average farmer can have unlimited combat ability if they are so inclined. You can add additional constraints on farmer needing to get food so he cannot get the training required, but a nobleman would not be such constrained and could exploit unlimited training quite easily. In essence if you skip level caps on skills you need something else that balances the setting.

Speaking about the example from the opneing post of one day of training being enough to equal 10 ranks of training. My experience from LARPs does not match this at all. A moving target is whole different kind of difficulty compared to a static target. Making an attack roll with your bow is trying to land an arrow on a weak armor spot on a moving target. IMHO this is virtually impossible after a single days training. Hitting the static target on a training range is not an attack roll but a much simplier skill check with a suiting difficulty. The difficulty for the check of course depend on the distance and how precise you want the hit to be. If you constantly hitting your mark after a single day of training your "bull's eye" is very large or very close.

Additionally I would like to make the comment that in the real world people can build their stats quickly, much quicker than in RMU. You hit your potential for physical skills after you turn 20-something and after this the starts start to decline. In RMU there is a deliberate choice to limit the stat advances so you need to be really high level to reach you potential. The seasoned RM general can be assumed to have superior physical stats compared to the young recruite that in the real world are at optiumum age to do physical feats. The benefit of the RMU approach is that the game turns more interesting when characters are more different from each other and restricting stat increases gives the characters flavor and reduce the risk that all characters hit approximately the same potentials after a while.

[Hurin]

My argument is that for a beginner, this is a small improvement from a week of training, but rapidly gaining 5 ranks in a skill is essentially unheard of in RM.

It's actually a core rule in RMU. See the 'Intense Training' rule in Core Law, p. 83. You can buy more than 2 ranks if you meet the level requirements.

[EltonJ]

Isn't a skill rank essentially an abstraction to facilitate game play?

[EvilWilliam]

I read somewhere it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in a field: that's about four years study (which is pretty much akin to a degree course), some simple skills might be learnable substantially in a short time, but the marginal gains require growth and will soon begin to tell versus a competent beginner.

You can learn to play chess in a day, but to play well takes years.

[Burkin]

A few other thoughts on this topic and related:

https://www.rolemasterblog.com/deconstruction-character-creation-game-modeling-skill-systems-rm/

https://www.rolemasterblog.com/rm-optional-rules-alternate-skill-rank-bonuses-aptitude-bonuses/

https://www.rolemasterblog.com/nature-vs-nurture-emphasis-stats-professions/

Thanks Brian, I figured you would have some good insight. It sounds like Peter R (from the first blog post) uses a similar system to what I proposed to my GM where skill ranks are learned more directly through training/use. We even made the same video game analogy that Hurin made (although Skyrim was our comparison).
In general it sounds like many various ways to think about skill advancement have been developed and discussed between the forum and the blog. One big variable is the speed that skill ranks are obtained. Is there a general consensus on how fast a character should gain dp or skill ranks? Does that change with character level?

Thanks again everyone for getting me up to speed.

[MisterK]

I must admit that, if I wanted to get rid of levels and DPs and draft an alternate skill learning system, I would use something along the lines of:
- ranks are earned by accumulating learning units (LU).
- each skill has a base cost in LU to gain one rank. This is determined by natural affinity with the skill, which is determined at birth - some people are simply more attuned to some domains than others.
- to this cost is added *the current number of ranks in the skill*. So learning your first rank requires the base cost in LU, learning the second requires the base cost +1, and so on.
- each meaningful situation in which the character uses a skill (one or more times) earns them a LU. Meaningful usually means stressful, but can also mean significant in another way. It doesn't matter if the skill use is a success or a failure, or how many times you use the skill.
- training or research earns the character a number of LUs per time unit depending on the training/research conditions (learning material, teaching ability of trainer and compatibility with character, environmental disturbances...). The time unit is a fixed value that is set by the GM according to how easily they want the characters to progress by training.
- it is possible to train several skills in parallel. the total number of skills one can train in parallel depends on their base LU cost - the sum of those cost must be lower than a set limit (or a limit depending on stats ?). Basically, the more affinity one has with a skill, the easier it is to learn by doing something else on the side.

All strictly off the top of my head, so it requires tuning, balancing, and all that jazz. But that would be the framework I would likely start from.

It is inspired by purely skill-based improvement systems such as the BRP, Bushido, and others. It requires a bit of bookkeeping, but since you can only gain one LU per skill per situation, this remains manageable.

So you get a level-less skill improvement system that 1) takes into account the natural affinities of the character, 2) integrates training, 3) integrates actual field experience. Since the character's natural affinities are taken into account, you can remove professions as well.

[Wolfwood]

Speaking about the example from the opneing post of one day of training being enough to equal 10 ranks of training. My experience from LARPs does not match this at all. A moving target is whole different kind of difficulty compared to a static target. Making an attack roll with your bow is trying to land an arrow on a weak armor spot on a moving target. IMHO this is virtually impossible after a single days training. Hitting the static target on a training range is not an attack roll but a much simplier skill check with a suiting difficulty. The difficulty for the check of course depend on the distance and how precise you want the hit to be. If you constantly hitting your mark after a single day of training your "bull's eye" is very large or very close.

I just want to quote the above to draw attention to it (since there is no "like" option on the forum). Target shooting is very different from combat. I've done a fair bit of archery and I can hit my target pretty well after I have had a couple of practice rounds each spring. However, I doubt I could hit a moving target very well.

[Thot]

Personally, I find the level progression that most people seem to prefer too slow, and that this is the core of the issue.

One should be happy to dish out XP left and right. Yes, that will result in PC's who reach level 20, 30, 50, even 100 after not that much time. But RMU is built in such a way that you never have enough DP when levelling. Don't be afraid to let people level.

[Wolfwood]

For a smoother skill progression, I'd take some hints from BRP (Basic Roleplaying) and its kin:
- each successful use of a skill earns an experience mark by the skill. When the character has time to relax/reflect, they can roll to advance those skills that they have earned an experience mark for.

For even more smoothness:
- a fumble automatically increases a skill by 1% (not sure how RM character progression could be used to account for this)
- each natural 01 roll increases that skill by 1%

Of course, this would be even better if one were to drop levels entirely.

[MisterK]

I just want to quote the above to draw attention to it (since there is no "like" option on the forum). Target shooting is very different from combat. I've done a fair bit of archery and I can hit my target pretty well after I have had a couple of practice rounds each spring. However, I doubt I could hit a moving target very well.

I think you can still use the same resolution. Just take into account the state of the target : immobile, does not defend in any way, unaware of attack. So 0 DB, and all of the above bonuses apply : Flank, Rear, Surprise, and I would throw in Stunned at least as well. In old RMSS that translates into a +75 modifier. The only negative modifier you get is range (and reload if you're shooting as fast as you can). I's fairly difficult to miss in those conditions, except at long ranges - and it's a 100 modifier difference with combat situation against a target that has a shield ready (even if they are not actually defending).

Of course, where it breaks down is that there is no reason why AT1 would be harder to hit than ATx (10 or 20) on a target dummy. But that's a problem with the Armour system in general (the armour ratings assign a DB penalty for wearing armour *and* the combat table makes it easier to hit someone in heavier armour - harder to wound, but easier to hit. You get the impression that the encumbrance penalty for armour is applied twice).

[Thot]

For a smoother skill progression, I'd take some hints from BRP (Basic Roleplaying) and its kin:
- each successful use of a skill earns an experience mark by the skill. When the character has time to relax/reflect, they can roll to advance those skills that they have earned an experience mark for.

For even more smoothness:
- a fumble automatically increases a skill by 1% (not sure how RM character progression could be used to account for this)
- each natural 01 roll increases that skill by 1%

Of course, this would be even better if one were to drop levels entirely.

But you might want to keep the professions even in levelless RMU.

You could add up markers per skill, and spend those marks according to your profession's learning cost. So if you have a cost of 2/5, you need 2 markers for the first rank, and 5 more for the next, and then 2 again for yet another, etc. This works in RMU because every skill category has a x/y cost, unlike earlier versions of RM where there were some costs of type "x/*" and "x".

My personal experience with the original BRP rules is, however, that it makes all the PC's develop into the same general direction and takes away agency on what the PC should learn from the player and places it in the hands of the situation, i.e., the GM.

[MisterK]

My personal experience with the original BRP rules is, however, that it makes all the PC's develop into the same general direction and takes away agency on what the PC should learn from the player and places it in the hands of the situation, i.e., the GM.

That's true for the field experience rules. Most GMs will throw a variety of situations at the characters, though. Furthermore, I wonder if there was a limit on the number of skills you could improve that way in a given session (but maybe it's from another system).
Training is still a player's choice, however (unless you consider that training access removes player agency, but I wouldn't go that far).

[Thot]

[...]
That's true for the field experience rules. Most GMs will throw a variety of situations at the characters, though. Furthermore, I wonder if there was a limit on the number of skills you could improve that way in a given session (but maybe it's from another system).
Training is still a player's choice, however (unless you consider that training access removes player agency, but I wouldn't go that far).

I would argue that just giving out DP would be an easy way to avoid such issues, if you want to go levelless. Eitherway, be generous with them, so that players can use the system in a fun way.