Topic: The Three Fold Path

[David Johansen]

So I had a nifty idea that'll probably never be used.

It occured to me that RM could be set up to allow the use of categories or skills or skills and categories.  It could at the same time be set up to use one two or three stats per skill though doing so would require the averaging of stat bonuses when using two or three stats.

Here's how it works.

All skills are priced by categories but with a much reduced list of categories.   I'm pretty obsessed with this one as it keeps the list of costs small.

Each category is tied to one stat.

Each skill is tied to two stats.

Development Points are awarded based on the level of complexity used.

If you use only the categories, each category has only one stat, you get about 40 DPs and you only use the category stat and use the combined progression.

If you use only the skills you get about 60 DPs, use only the two stats for the skills and use the combined progression.

If you use skills and categories you get 80 DPs, use all three stats and use the standard and category progression.

Training packages are required to provide ranks in skills equal to the ranks in categories so that they can be used with each method.  No, I still don't believe there should be a TP discount.

The only downside I see to doing it this way is that you absolutely have to use averaging for the stat bonuses to work at all.  The upside is that the difficulty of the math is tied directly to the complexity of the subsystem used.

The great thing about this is that you get compatible bonus levels across the scale.  I'd separate PPs, Hits, and Spells slightly.  Their costs would still work just like skills but I think I'd handle them separately in the rulebook since they progess at different rates.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I have mentioned something like this before..

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=6088.msg79991#msg79991

 

[David Johansen]

Yup, I know, you were looking at three tiers.  But its some of the implications of a specific implementation that I'm looking at.

This specific version would have the ability to integrate three different stat bonus methods and two progressions while maintaining numerical compatability.  Also, it gives you a version of the skills that can reduce the list to maybe a dozen categories allowing much more detailed npcs without much more bookkeeping.

Also, it cuts the list of skill costs down.  I really don't like how RM2 requires an entire table just to add a skill or alternately just giving a new skill the same cost as another skill which leads to categories anyhow.

I have to bow to averaging stat bonuses to get there though, sigh...

Of course, I'd still want professions built from talents and training packages without discounts

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

David, the main problem with your idea is that there is no easy transition to the category/skills level as there are numerous skills (in the knowledge area) that won't work well because of not really having an appropriate category that should provide a bonus to the skill.

And I am really not fond of the idea of having multiple progression rates for different categories. Then again, what I am "fond" of isn't really a consideration either -- what "works" is the consideration...

Though there are some skills I wouldn't combine for the lowest level, but should be under the same category at higher levlels (i.e. stalk/hide and the various thieving skills..).

[David Johansen]

Yeah, but that just means you play the version with skills, not categories.  I think the categories only version would mainly get used for pickup games and keeping npc and monster stat lines small.  Some people might prefer it but then some people prefer FUDGE, FATE, and RISUS so there is a market for zero detail gaming.

Keep in mind that I don't expect it to be used.  It just occurred to me yesterday that there was the potential to do it that way and it had some nice symetries to it.

In practice, I hate averaging.  My players can barely add as it is. 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

In regards to stat bonuses, I prefer additive over averaged as well.

One solution would be to provide 3 sets of stats, one for each tier. Your idea is basically doing this already, but why not keep it 3 stats for each tier, and keep it additive, and just alter which stats from tier to tier on the specific skills....

For example,
Theivery (Tier 1) might use Ag/Ag/In

Teir 2 might have

Theivery
* Pick Locks - Ag/Ag/In
* Disarm Traps - Ag/In/In
* Trickery (pick pockets) - Ag/Ag/In

And then Tier 3 might have

Theivery (Ag/In)
* Pick Locks - Ag
* Disarm Traps - In
* Trickery (pick pockets) - Ag

In all cases, the stat bonus is additive.... Just slight variations according Tier.

You mentioned in your first post that some skills might require special handling, and that would apply to those without a developable category as well. We could just lump those into a special category and they are treated as Tier 1 all the way across the board -  Except that they might also have a "category classification" in regards to  things like level bonuses -- but if the list of "special skills" is small enough, that shouldn't be a real issue anyways...

[David Johansen]

That would be reasonable though it would require more re-listing of stuff and could be confusing.  Though if tier one and two were in the core book and tier three was in a supplement it would help.  Of course then you're just about back to the RMSS / RM2 split.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

That would be reasonable though it would require more re-listing of stuff and could be confusing.  Though if tier one and two were in the core book and tier three was in a supplement it would help.  Of course then you're just about back to the RMSS / RM2 split.

Which is why it would have to be done carefully, and all in a single core product, one that treats RM as more of a toolkit.

THEN, along with the RM Toolkit, there would also have to be a release of several other things.

1) RM/Setting Combo, much like we are doing with RM Cyradon.

2) RM Bible -- a list of the rules we are using in the rules/setting combo, and the rules that we are using for adventures and other products. This would be versioned, so that if/when updated, a GM only has to download the proper version to know what creation rules were used, and then he can adjust things to suit HIS campaign accordingly.

This Bible would also allow for an easier time at conventions and such, as folks would know explicitly, beforehand, what rules are going to be used and then can create characters ahead of time if required.

Yes, this will all take a lot of planning and such, which is why I am thinking about these things now even though ICE has absolutely no intention of even thinking about revising RM for a couple more years at least.

[David Johansen]

The Body Development, Power Points, and spells always wind up being the spoiler.  That's what I've learned from trying to build a lite version of RMSS.  In both of our schemes they'd need to be costed separately for each tier.

True you can go the route I did with the accelerator and be 100% system compatible.  The problem is that in doing so, you become 100% incompatible with the material in the books in that you can't just add the professions and training packages to the accelerator, you have to decompress the packages and use the full system.

I mean, you could do a SPAM Lite using the accelerator no problem, but you couldn't upgrade it by buying the existing books.  I guess that could be a marketing advantage since there'd basically be another product line, much like you're selling bits of RM2 coverted to RMX.

(one odd note on confusion, for the longest time before it came out I thought RMX referred to the next edition and not the lite version)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

(one odd note on confusion, for the longest time before it came out I thought RMX referred to the next edition and not the lite version)

for a while, it did, but the abbreviation was only used for such here on the forums, it wasn't  in official use. (there is no official abbreviation for the next version because for ICE, the next version currently does not officially exist nor is it even under official consideration at the moment)

When RMX first came out, it used the abbreviation RME, but Heike and Bruce didn't like that, so they decided to change it to RMX...

[Moriarty]

All skills are priced by categories but with a much reduced list of categories.   I'm pretty obsessed with this one as it keeps the list of costs small.

Why are you obsessed with a short list of skill costs?

Yes RM2 has a long list, or rather a table as you say, with skill costs for each skill listed for each profession, and I understand you don't like that but I do.
Here is why:

• If you make a short list, it is still a list nonetheless, which means that players would still have to look costs up. What difference does it make if they look it up on a long or a short list? Think about it. They would still forget what the cost of Subterfuge skills is for their profession, and they would forget which category Fly Fishing skill belong to, and from time to time they would have to look these things up.
• By demanding, in the interest of 'shortness', that a large number of skill costs become identical, you kill some profession design space - it becomes more difficult to make new professions different and unique. Roughly put, once you've given the warrior cheap costs in weapons and armor, the magician in magic, and the thief in subterfuge, you have almost used up the design space for professions.

[vroomfogle]

When you make all skills in a cat identical cost you also lose the ability to make skills that are harder or easier to learn.  Or, you are resigned to using a system like E/O/R, but then you lose all the benefits of having identical costs.    Even if the system decides that Spell Mastery is the same cost as Attunement (which is not a good idea IMO), a particular GM may decide it should cost more.   In that event there are no allowances for tweaking, much the same problem RMSS has in this regard.   

Introducing E/O/R skills is a worse solution because
- it only introduces 4 possible different costs, rather then any cost like you could have if they were priced individually
- it completely changes the dynamics of what ranks are possible with what level

I think a suggested DP cost for skills in a category is a good idea, and in fact many skills will have that same cost, but if you strip away individual costs then you lose flexibility in the game design, and the GM loses flexibility in adapting it to his setting.

[Gladius]

1) RM/Setting Combo, much like we are doing with RM Cyradon.

2) RM Bible -- a list of the rules we are using in the rules/setting combo, and the rules that we are using for adventures and other products. This would be versioned, so that if/when updated, a GM only has to download the proper version to know what creation rules were used, and then he can adjust things to suit HIS campaign accordingly.

I like this a lot!

[David Johansen]

But you see, the long lists of skill costs in RM2 are one of the many reasons I never played it and never will.

I look at RMSS and I say to myself, "Self, there's way too many skill categories.  It's not the skill categories that are the problem it's the number of the things."

There's probably as many skill categories in RMSS as there are skills in RM2.  And when you hit Spacemaster even smart database engineer guys get befuddled by the Scientific/Analytic*Technical - Tech/Trade*Vocational split.  So I figure on stripping down the category list a bit.  Especially putting all melee weapons and combat maneuvers in one category and armour in another.

[Arioch]

But you see, the long lists of skill costs in RM2 are one of the many reasons I never played it and never will.

I look at RMSS and I say to myself, "Self, there's way too many skill categories.  It's not the skill categories that are the problem it's the number of the things."

I agree with David: I think that the main problem is not the skills or categories bloat, is the costs bloat.
There are really too many different costs (both in RM2 and in RMFRP IMHO) and, while I like the fact that this gives us the possibility of making unique character concepts, it also has drawbacks.
First so many costs are difficult to memorize, then to actually make possible to have many different character concepts, you have to introduce a lot of different professions. Wouldn't it be nicer if we could do the same thing using just few core professions?

Especially putting all melee weapons and combat maneuvers in one category and armour in another.

Like in the Combat Companion? 

[Moriarty]

There are really too many different costs (both in RM2 and in RMFRP IMHO) and, while I like the fact that this gives us the possibility of making unique character concepts, it also has drawbacks.
First so many costs are difficult to memorize, then to actually make possible to have many different character concepts, you have to introduce a lot of different professions. Wouldn't it be nicer if we could do the same thing using just few core professions?

How short do you suppose a list would have to be in order for players to be able to memorize it? 4 different costs, maybe?

And given that ultra-short list, how do you propose to do 'the same thing' in terms of flexibility in design space, depth of player choices, and RM level of detail?
I say you can't, not without introducing new dimensions in design space, such as E/O/R skills that Vroomfogle mention. These are new rules that have to be learned and memorized as well, and this goes against what you were trying to accomplish in the first place.

I think you and David Johansen are seriously underestimating the power of long lists (of skills costs, in this case).
They are not just long lists for their own sake, or for the pleasing of number geeks. They span a huge design space that allow virtually infinite freedom in profession design and hence in character creation, and they accomplish this without introducing any new rules. This is very important.

The many detailed lists, charts, and tables is one of the reasons why RM can be said to be, at the core, a simple game.

[David Johansen]

I really like the combat companion for some odd reason.

Anyhow, I'd probably reduce the costs to five different levels to reflect difficulty and then assign them to maybe fifteen categories.

Of course, I'm also in favour of completely stripping professions from the core of the game and building them with talents.

I think training packages are a much better concept than professions as they presently exist, especially if one can also add a few cost adjusting talents to the training package.  This also makes multi-classing a viable in game concept as a character has to train for years to change their skill costs.

[Gladius]

Of course, I'm also in favour of completely stripping professions from the core of the game and building them with talents.

I think professions lend a certain consistency to a setting, but if we are going to get a "tool-kit" style rule book (and I hope we do) I'd be happy with good rules on creating professions so you can make your campaign world unique with a few common professions thrown in for examples.

[jolt]

I never took the term "Profession" all that literally.  To me, Profession meant what your character is naturally good at (or not so good at) rather than your character's actual job.  Way back when if I got asked what my character was I responded with 'Detective' because that's what my character did and it's how he would have viewed himself.  I would never have said 'Thief', his actual profession, because he wasn't a Thief.  The Thief profession just represented those areas that he was naturally good at.  I wouldn't want the professions to go away and have never been overly fond of classless systems to begin with.  I like GURPS and Hero System but they tend to be too open.  Everyone learns a skill at the same cost, in the same time, with the same ease.  The only distinction, typically, being one stat.  That's what I really like about the RM profession (which is perhaps a slight misnomer)/training package method as opposed to, say, D&D's rather rigid class/prestige class structure.

As for skill lists, I like the long lists as I find it easier to remove/ignore unneeded or unwanted skills rather than try to shoehorn something in that was never intended.

jolt

[markc]

David Johanson,
 IMO I think the talent idea for defining a "profession" could be a large stumbling block. As new talents could vastly damage characters allready in play. IMO it is better to have some basic building blocks claerly defined at the begining of the game ot prevent problems later on.
 Also I think you can allrerady do this is RM now with the no-profession being the basis of you PC and defining talents to adjust the DP costs. IMO it will take some work but I think it can be done.

 As to the profession idea and the job idea talked about above it is a comon problem that IMO most RM game have. I tell my players that they have nothing to do with what your PC has to do, or thier job. It is the skill numbers that define what job you are qualified for and can do. Not you profession. The same also holds true if I have the fighter profession it does not mean I have any ranks or a few ranks in weapons/armor etc.
 IMO if you take this view than what TP's you have do define what profession you are or are likely to be able to do. Also in SM:P some TP's are required to take other TP's. For example a lawyer needs college. A military fighter pilot needs military basic training. But a GM may over rule any area. For example the last TP case maybe the military is in a war an need fighter pilots so they wave the requirement for militarty basic training and let pilots who have some skill jump ahead of those who do not.

MDC