Topic: The Three Fold Path

[Fidoric]

I may be missing something, but I find that most of the problems being pointed at in that thread have already been adressed... HARP has only two different cost, a light but efficient definition of professions...
That is why after so many years of being a RM afficionado, HARP has stolen my soul.

[Arioch]

I may be missing something, but I find that most of the problems being pointed at in that thread have already been adressed... HARP has only two different cost, a light but efficient definition of professions...
That is why after so many years of being a RM afficionado, HARP has stolen my soul.

I like HARP, but I prefer a little more detail, something in between HARP an RM (like a system with 4-5 different costs) would be perfect for me

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I like HARP, but I prefer a little more detail, something in between HARP an RM (like a system with 4-5 different costs) would be perfect for me

I have actually been moving in that direction myself (preference-wise). -- perhaps using the following costs: 1/3; 2/5; 3/7; 4/9; 5/11

[Arioch]

I like HARP, but I prefer a little more detail, something in between HARP an RM (like a system with 4-5 different costs) would be perfect for me

I have actually been moving in that direction myself (preference-wise). -- perhaps using the following costs: 1/3; 2/5; 3/7; 4/9; 5/11

Glad to hear that. 

Mind, I really like RM and the fact that there are so many professions that allow you to develop every character concept you want. But I also think that so many different costs just add complexity to the system, without giving much in return.
Furthermore IMHO some skill costs are just against the concept that in RM you can develop every skill you want regardless of your profession. Special Defenses and Spell lists for non users in RMFRP are a good example IMHO. Having to pay 40+ DPs for just a rank in a list or in adrenal defense is really too much...

[Moriarty]

The fact that there are so many different skill costs in RM does not add to the complexity of the system.
It adds detail to the system. To me, that is an important difference.

The complexity of the RM2 skill system is: "Skill costs for your profession are listed in Table X".
This is an extremely low order of complexity!
Adding anything to that, such as skill categories or a "definition of a profession", increases complexity.

Restricting yourself to five different costs reduces complexity in game design.
But players still have to consult Table X, so it does not reduce the complexity of the system.
It does however reduce the level of detail in the system.

[Arioch]

But players still have to consult Table X, so it does not reduce the complexity of the system.
It does however reduce the level of detail in the system.

You don't have to use a table, you see. With fewer costs you can say: you have X skills in which you're very good (cost 1); Y in which you're good (cost 2); Z in which you're bad (cost 3); the rest you're average (cost 4). This way you even eliminate the need for professions (still usable as templates) and let you create exactly the the character you want.
As for detail: I don't think that the dozens of different costs of RM add very much detail or, at least, not very much enjoyable detail. They're only a lot of numbers which are difficult to remember... Even if we love those numbers, as they're part of our favourite system! 

[Moriarty]

You don't have to use a table, you see. With fewer costs you can say: you have X skills in which you're very good (cost 1); Y in which you're good (cost 2); Z in which you're bad (cost 3); the rest you're average (cost 4). This way you even eliminate the need for professions (still usable as templates) and let you create exactly the the character you want.

Ah, but I don't want to be able to create exactly the character I want. Nor do I want other players to be able to create exactly the character I have.
I could get that in GURPS (to name one example). That is a different discussion, but let me just say here that I see fully detailed, backgrounded, plausible, unique (and not templated) Professions as the backbone of RM in many ways, and not as some heavy rules luggage that I would ever want to 'eliminate the need for'.

On the topic of skills costs, what I mean when I say you still need a Table X with only four or five different costs, is: As a player, I still have to look the costs up when I create a character, or if I gain a level and want to develop a new skill. I would still not be able to memorize everything. I would have to consult the book on such things as existance of certain skills, what their costs are, what group/category they belong to, and so on. And, because the player still would have to consult the book on these issues, the complexity of the system, from the player's point of view, would be the same.

[Arioch]

Ah, but I don't want to be able to create exactly the character I want.

I don't understand why, but this is probably a matter of tastes.

On the topic of skills costs, what I mean when I say you still need a Table X with only four or five different costs, is: As a player, I still have to look the costs up when I create a character, or if I gain a level and want to develop a new skill. I would still not be able to memorize everything. I would have to consult the book on such things as existance of certain skills, what their costs are, what group/category they belong to, and so on. And, because the player still would have to consult the book on these issues, the complexity of the system, from the player's point of view, would be the same.

I'm not sure about this: this is undoubtely true if you have dozens of different costs (as with the current system), but if you reduce the number of costs it's more likely that players will memorize them. Some of my players have memorized the cost of their "main" skills, of costs had been fewer they could have memorized all of them. 

[MidKnight]

I really liked the example or direction for skills and stat usage that I read in a another post some-where on this board, with my own personal twist...

Category (tier 1) - A grouping of similar or like skills (Stealth, Martial Combat, Woodcraft, etc).  No stats drive a category, but character classes / professions would provide a bonus to learning and using skills.  # of ranks in a category is equal to the sum of all skill ranks in the category (this would likely mean a revision to category bonus progression as the number of ranks would be much higher).

Skills (tier 2) - The actual skills (Stalk, Hide, Pick-Pocket, etc.)  2 stats anchor each skill and the character invests development points to 'learn' or develop more proficiency with an individual skill.

Usage Modifiers (tier 3) - Usage modifier aligned with stats.  Use Memory to remember Lore about a skill, use Agility, Strength or Quickness to perform some of the skill manuevers, use Reasoning to learn new concepts of the skill or category, etc.

So, a simple example is that the player wants the character to be good at the Stealth Category of skills.  He develops a thief arch-type with a +10 bonus to the Stealth Category (this applies to all Stealth skills), he develops 3 Skill ranks in Stalking, 2 skill ranks in Hiding, and 3 skill ranks in Lock-Picking.  This makes him have 8 ranks in the Stealth Category (which provides a bonus to all skills in it), which helps to associate concepts of a skill in a category to other skills in the category in my opinion.  Then, the action specific modifier is applied by the GM for an action request from the player.

"I want to try to remember all I can about 7 tumbler locks"..."Okay roll Lock-Picking + Memory" translates into

Category (Profession Bonus plus bonus of all the sum of all skill ranks in the category)
  2 pts per rank from 1 to 10
  1 pt per rank from 11 to 20
  1/2 pt per rank from 31 to 50

Skill (2 stat bonuses plus developed skill rank bonus)
  3 pts per rank from 1 to 10
  2 pts per rank from 11 to 20
  1 pt per rank from 31 to 50

Action Modifier is the addition of the Stat bonus.

Those are just examples, and I haven't thought it all the way out, but that's what I'd like to see.

[Koraq]

That sounds very complicated in play.

[Koraq]

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 already in play. IMO it is better to have some basic building blocks clearly defined at the beginning of the game to prevent problems later on.

What? Why would new talents damage characters in play? Power creep? Some careful thinking should take of that. Clearly defining what talents could do would help that, and be just what you ask for.

In fact, David, that defining Professions by talents sounds like one of the best ideas mentioned so far in this thread!