Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: David Johansen on December 10, 2008, 07:50:39 PM
-
I've always been extremely opposed to costing skills individually. It's one of the many things that makes RM2 so completely unpalatable to me. Anyhow, I got to thinking today and I may have a solution to the problem as I see it. A little background first, according to the Spacemaster Datanet professions are designed by listing all the possible skill costs and then listing the professions in order from best at the skill to worst and pairing up the costs and professions.
It occurs to me that part of the problem is the role of the professions in the costing of skills.
Consider for a moment the following cost list:
Occupational 1/2 (the skill which is absolutely core to one's profession)
Everyman 1/3 (skills directly relating to one's profession)
General 2/5 (skills that are commonly available and relatively simple)
Professional 3/6 (skills that require training)
Specialized 3/8 (skills that require extensive training)
Restricted 12 (skills that aren't even found in your culture)
Really that's about half as many cost levels as you'd want and doesn't really cover the range of costs but it gives the general idea.
Professions would then have a short list of skills that they convert to Occupational and everyman and not a cost for every skill or even every category. Skill categories could contain skills with different costs. It would be easier to memorize and thus create characters without a rule book. And most of all, it would be easy and reasonable to add new skills and professions to the game which has always been a huge sticking point for me when it came to RM2.
-
Another advantage occurs to me. Training package costs would only have to be modified slightly from the base cost to tailor them to specific professions.
-
Why not got the HARP way, find it very easy.
Group the skills into Categories and give each profession a couple of categories that have a fixed cost and all the other categories cost the double.
Then you would only have 2 different costs, but then again maybe you should play HARP instead if you want to make it that easy. :micro:
-
I'm not sure if I've understood it correctly, skills would have a fixed cost each, based on difficulty, and then each profession would have some skills discounted to Occupational/Everyman?
-
Something like that!
Although in HARP for the example non-favoured categories have a skill cost of 4 dps, and the favoured categories have a cost of 2 dps for each rank. I'm pretty sure it's a viable option that you could work into RM with some tweaking, and especially if you wanna remove the profession bonuses and instead give a discount on the skills. I just brought it up since I thought you wanted to reduce the different amount of skill costs and making it as easy to keep track of the costs as possible. HARP only have 2 skill costs and thats 2dps or 4 dps not sure how easy it would be to incorporate this into RM but you could probably come up with something workable. And this way you could probably remove profession bonuses to reduce book keeping.
For example I take a fighter:
Favoured Categories would probably be something like this making those skill cheaper.
* Armor
* Body Dev
* Combat Man.
* Outdoor
* Weapon
At first it was only a lame attempt to lure you into HARP but the more I think about it you could probably work something similar into RM. There is so much more to keep track of in RM so not sure how much work it would take to do that though, prolly pretty easy to do for RMC not sure about RMFRP though since then you would have to take into account the standard progressions, combined progression and stuff like that.
-
Unfortunately, switching to a HARP-style system would cause problems with some of the current built-in limitations, particularly regarding spell development. The biggest distinction currently between the different categories of spell-users (pure, hybrid, semi- and non-) is the cost to develop spell lists. For that matter, there are variable costs based on realm-crossing, whether the list is open or closed, etc.
Another problem I would have with a HARP-style cost is dealing with the combat styles in the Combat Companion. That system allows you to build stronger styles by increasing the cost to develop them, showing a relative difficulty increase in the DP expenditure.
However, I do like (and have toyed with) the original posted idea of having a baseline Profession by category, and then tweaking it for customization. It works well if you have the time to deal with something like that, but it isn't for everyone.
For the most part, a balance could be struck for arms professions, but then someone like the Warrior Monk is actually out of whack underpowered, given his greatly increased armor costs, and relatively soft combat skill benefits.
Spell users are easier, since much of their distinction comes from the spells, rather than the cost of the skills.
-
I'm fine with individual costs of skills. Is it the individual costs of skills or the number of skills you have individual costs for really the issue? (ah man, that's a horrible sentence to try and read.)
-
I'm not saying it would be painless, but could probably be done. Although I'm in favor of that you should completely switch to HARP if you want simplicity. Why change something when something is already out there and done the job for ya. Anyway after all it was just an idea with not much thought behind it.
But thats just me I love both RM and HARP, we have been running a freshly started RM campaign but I recently stumbled upon HARP and realised it would suit my campaign even better so after the current adventure we are gonna rework the RM characters into HARP characters, funny enough the redesigning of the characters even suits the adventure that even suggest that you give the players the opportunity to do some minor redesigning of the characters to correct any mistakes they made. They are kind of taking the time to train in the areas they are lacking but in progress they loose some expertise in other areas. But in reality we are rebuilding the characters in a similiar way using the new system.
-
See, I'm not what you'd call a HARP fan.
Anyhow, Arioch, you've got the gist of it. Professions give a discount rate on a set of skills. I'd probably let them shift skills a number of places instead of just giving them the occupational and everyman costs. If you want a restricted skill at occupational prices it'll set you back a lot.
Justin, I'm afraid I like 600+ skills, one more thing that makes RMSS the best version IMO. Not that there aren't some skills that shouldn't be in there (Spell Mastery...) but I like the scope of the system very much.
Even so. You shouldn't have to create a chart every time you need to add a skill to a game.
-
See, I'm not what you'd call a HARP fan.
I don't know the system well enough to have an opinion.
Professions give a discount rate on a set of skills. I'd probably let them shift skills a number of places instead of just giving them the occupational and everyman costs. If you want a restricted skill at occupational prices it'll set you back a lot.
This I like. If possible, standardize it, so every profession gets x advantage in y categories and z skills. That way when one of your oldest and best gamers wants to invent a character there is simply no precedent for, it's no big deal. He gets x advantage in y categories and z skills, just like everybody else, he just focuses in different areas. That way minmaxing becomes largely pointless other than for defining the character concept. If you can figure a way to standardize it across arms user/semi caster/spellcaster lines, you'll also solve the power balance issues between arms users and spellcasters.
Justin, I'm afraid I like 600+ skills, one more thing that makes RMSS the best version IMO. Not that there aren't some skills that shouldn't be in there (Spell Mastery...) but I like the scope of the system very much.
Me too. The broader array of skills there is, the more the characters become individuals. And every added skill is an added clue to the GM on where and how he can add depth to his game.
For example, I had a magician character who came up with the idea of using carefully placed vacuum spells as flight aids. Spell Mastery was his friend. Needless to say, if your setting or tastes cause you not to use a particular skill, big deal, don't use it. No harm no foul. But better to have skills you'll never use than not have skills you need.
Even so. You shouldn't have to create a chart every time you need to add a skill to a game.
Once you figure out what skill *category* it's in, the rest should be standard and obvious, I'd think. It'd probably be a good idea to have standard rules for adding new categories as well, too. Neither a GM nor an RPG author can draw a box so big that a party of gamers can't figure out how to escape it, often unintentionally.
-
Anyhow, Arioch, you've got the gist of it. Professions give a discount rate on a set of skills. I'd probably let them shift skills a number of places instead of just giving them the occupational and everyman costs. If you want a restricted skill at occupational prices it'll set you back a lot.
I like the concept, maybe it would be even better making Restricted cost the "default" cost for any skill. Then to create a profession you receive a given number of "shift backs" to make basic skills for that profession cheaper.
You can create basic professions (fighter, thief, mage...) as templates, and then give rules for profession creation so that GMs can make those needed for their setting.
-
Well, I want to be able to make being a physician harder than learning to ride a bicycle. But I'm thinking it would be better to have restricted be a level that you shift things to instead. I'd also need to introduce some three ranks per level scale stuff for spells, armour, and languages so there'd likely be a branching in the cost scheme.
-
Well, I want to be able to make being a physician harder than learning to ride a bicycle.
Yes, but do you want to make it harder than training to try out for the olympic bicycling team? Being a physician is not just one skill. And I don't see why learning to ride a bicycle would be any harder than, say, cutting accurately with a scalpel.
-
This thread makes my skin crawl. S0rry, but these skill diskussions most often point in the wrong direction imho.
-
Well, I want to be able to make being a physician harder than learning to ride a bicycle.
Yes, but do you want to make it harder than training to try out for the olympic bicycling team? Being a physician is not just one skill. And I don't see why learning to ride a bicycle would be any harder than, say, cutting accurately with a scalpel.
Totally agree with Grumpy on this.
-
Yes, it can be done that way but that means breaking down big skills into smaller ones and exacerbates skill bloat. In some cases I'm not sure it's worth it. Take, philosophy, in the real world it's a huge field that can be divided into ethics and extisentialism, and theology, and ad nausium. But I'm not sure any benefit is gained from doing so in an RPG.
One possiblity would be cost folding.
Philosophy costs 4/12, but you can unfold that into four 1/3 skills. I'm not sure if building something like this in wouldn't bee beyond the pale in terms of complexity.
-
Options could include spending dev to move a skill into a lower skill cost catagory. A use for training packages?
-
Ideally I'd like professions to be the only factor effecting skill costs.
Talents give bonuses. Training packages give ranks.
To my mind if there is a flaw in RMSS it's opperational overlaps.
-
Ideally I'd like professions to be the only factor effecting skill costs.
Talents give bonuses. Training packages give ranks.
To my mind if there is a flaw in RMSS it's opperational overlaps.
Yeah, I gotta agree with that one.
Yes, it can be done that way but that means breaking down big skills into smaller ones and exacerbates skill bloat.
Wait, what? What can be done what way? I'm for making the actual game mechanic as simple and standard as you possibly can, so you can *afford* to make the skill set it represents as complex as you need to in order to immerse your players in what they're doing.
I was just trying to point out that "being a physician" is harder than learning to ride a bicycle because *it is several skills.* It's diagnostics, 1st/2nd aid, biochemistry (pharmacology), surgery, etc., etc....
As opposed to "Operate machinery/piloting (bicycle)".
See what I mean?
And besides, I can be almost-but-not-quite-competent as a horseman or a locksmith, and no one minds letting me get up there and break my fool neck or make myself look stupid. But if I'm an almost-but-not-quite-competent physician, are YOU gonna bet your life on my skills?
-
Granted, I can see the point of "being a physician" being harder than "being a fighter". But I think that's because most of us, myself included, tend to underdefine "fighter".
I started a short, off the top of my head list above (diagnostics, 1st/2nd aid, biochemistry (pharmacology), surgery, etc., etc...). After some thought, it occurs to me that if you expected "a fighter" to be fairly well perfect EVERY TIME on tactics, logistics, grand strategy, psychology, games theory, leadership, etc, etc... in other words if you expected him to be to military matters as physicians are expected to be concerning healing....
....yeah, I could see it being about the same difficulty, and about the same time spent. The only difference between learning the two professions is who dies when the student gets it wrong.
-
I guess what I'm trying to say is that some skills aren't interesting enough to bother breaking down into a number of smaller skills but shouldn't be cheaper just because we don't need or want in depth details on animal husbandry.
Unless of course we want to work from the assumption that we're pricing things relative to their combat effectiveness and consider everything else to be window dressing.
Mind you animal husbandry can have combat applications. I once played a ex paladin come semi retired fighter who raised his own hunting dogs. I routinely took five maximum hit point war dogs in plate armour on adventures...
-
I guess what I'm trying to say is that some skills aren't interesting enough to bother breaking down into a number of smaller skills but shouldn't be cheaper just because we don't need or want in depth details on animal husbandry.
Absolutely. But which skills are "interesting enough" is a call for the individual gaming group, as you illustrated below.
Unless of course we want to work from the assumption that we're pricing things relative to their combat effectiveness and consider everything else to be window dressing.
Ugh. Let's not. I'm assuming that we're pricing skills in accordance to their relevance to the PC's *chosen* field of expertise. I like the idea of the "profession" being as freeform as the player wants, because the real world shows us daily that no reasonable number of professions can answer. We tend to think of Martial Arts and Maneuvering in Armor to be antithetical skills for example, when the merest glance at any football game will tell you that um, no, they aren't. And if a player wanted his profession to be "Linebacker", I'd try to figure out a way to let him.
Mind you animal husbandry can have combat applications. I once played a ex paladin come semi retired fighter who raised his own hunting dogs. I routinely took five maximum hit point war dogs in plate armour on adventures...
Exactly. But you wouldn't expect it to have the same relevance to a group playing Fremen in a Dune setting. How relevant a given skill is isn't up to the people who design the skill system.
One of the creatures in my game is a dog that averages about the size of an arabian horse. Dogies, they're called, with a long "O". Nice alternative to horses, they can operate in rougher country, they are less likely to panic, they treat most undead as "bones that play back". Watching an adventuring party's pack of riding and pack dogies encounter a swarm of zombies and/or skeletons can leave the party too busy snorting and giggling on the sidelines to actually help.
People in my game usually consider animal skills concerning dogies to be quite relevant, even if they don't personally ride them. Dogies are friendly enough, you probably don't have to worry about them eating you. More likely the problem is getting a dogie in a playful mood to stop dragging you around the campsite by your foot, or stop licking you from waist to crown, *without* having to cave in his skull. A 900 lb. dogie that wants to be a lap dog can make animal skills very important indeed.
The point is the addition of ONE domesticated creature into *my* game creates half a dozen or so skills that are very relevant to me and my players.... and no one else on the planet. A skill system has to address that for me and mine, without making the millions of the rest of you guys pay for it.
-
A couple of points I would like to make;
1) Just because I learn a begining skill does not mean others like it are easier.
2) Just because I have a high stat that a skill uses does not mean that I can learn it easier than anyone else.
Another thing is I think RMSS can be served batter if skills were related to professions so a GM has a nice easy list to look at and tell players what they need to have to have to get Y job. I also think that maybe having 3 sets of requirements would be good for each type of GMing style.
Also fighters IMO should have more skills than weapon, armor, thrown weapon, perception, ect. So just having a high weapon skill does not mean you can get a job with the army.
The above will also it will tell players that you should not just dump DP's into "adventure" skills.
MDC
-
As I think about it the best model for what I was proposing is that skills are priced at the category level with the category cost being three times the normal cost. All skills cost the same initially but professions bump the costs around. To bump a cost down you have to bump one up.
There are two sets of costs. One for normal skills and one for Languages, spells, and armour.
So for example Melee 3/12 would let you buy individual melee skills at 1/4.
Stat bonuses are applied to specific skills not categories. When using a skill you use the stat bonus from that skill whether you have ranks in it or the category.
Ranks are cumulative. 3 ranks in Melee and 3 ranks in Broadsword is the same as 6 ranks in Broadsword.
-
A couple of points I would like to make;
1) Just because I learn a begining skill does not mean others like it are easier.
Hmmm.... I'm not sure I agree with that one. If I learn the basics of windsurfing, I have also just learned *some* of the basics of both surfing and sailing, have I not?
I guess it depends on how you define "others like it".
2) Just because I have a high stat that a skill uses does not mean that I can learn it easier than anyone else.
Absolutely. It's just as hard for you as anyone, just your inexperience doesn't screw you as badly as most.
Another thing is I think RMSS can be served batter if skills were related to professions so a GM has a nice easy list to look at and tell players what they need to have to have to get Y job.
In any given profession, some skills are vital, some are important, and some are merely useful. For a fighter type, probably most would say that weapons, armor and perception are primary, vital skills. Secondaries would be things like riding, first aid, strategy/tactics. Tertiaries are things like logistics/supply, camouflage, defensive earthworks, etc.
Now we could debate what specific skills or skill categories should belong where, but that's the whole point, it's ALL subject to the setting. If your setting is North America circa 850 AD, having riding as one of the obvious and therefore cheap skills for a fighter type is nonsense. A thousand years later it would be irrational *not* to include them, but 150 years after that it's pretty much idiotic. Move across the ocean and whether cheap riding costs makes any sense depends on social status. The most violent peasant you can imagine (Europe 850 AD) is unlikely to know the first thing about *riding* a horse, but may know more about harnessing one to a cart or plow than a knight will ever learn.
I think there needs to be some "standard" templates to make things easy, yes. But I think more important is having a standardized, simple (as possible) set of rules for creating a template. What skills are vital, secondary, tertiary, etc. shouldn't all be the same for the infantryman, the tanker and the air cav, if you see what I mean. The player and GM should tweak the template to the character concept, not the other way around.
I also think that maybe having 3 sets of requirements would be good for each type of GMing style.
Not sure what you mean by that. So far as I'm aware, there are as many GMing styles as there are GMs.
Also fighters IMO should have more skills than weapon, armor, thrown weapon, perception, ect. So just having a high weapon skill does not mean you can get a job with the army.
The above will also it will tell players that you should not just dump DP's into "adventure" skills.
Sure, but that's not up to the guys who design the skill system. If there's more to being a fighter than being bad news in a fight, the GM has to make the fighter suffer for not having those other skills or the player won't get them, regardless of how cheap they are. As long as there are too few DPs to get *everything*, you aren't gonna get players to put points into skills they aren't using.
-
As I think about it the best model for what I was proposing is that skills are priced at the category level with the category cost being three times the normal cost. All skills cost the same initially but professions bump the costs around. To bump a cost down you have to bump one up.
There are two sets of costs. One for normal skills and one for Languages, spells, and armour.
So for example Melee 3/12 would let you buy individual melee skills at 1/4.
Stat bonuses are applied to specific skills not categories. When using a skill you use the stat bonus from that skill whether you have ranks in it or the category.
Ranks are cumulative. 3 ranks in Melee and 3 ranks in Broadsword is the same as 6 ranks in Broadsword.
DJ,
I hope you do not take this in any way other than providing a comment on your category and skill ideas, because that is what I intend to do.
Also IMO your skill system can change very dramatically depending on your purpose for the skill system.
1) Do you bump skill costs up and down after PC creation?
If so then you have to have a good way to track the changes or IMO you can have problems recreating a PC at a previous point.
I think we have all had a player decide to change their mind after going up a level or maybe decide to change training packages after PC creation.
If PC gen is done by computer then it is not so hard but if done by pen a paper IMO it could be tough to roll back some things.
2) Category vs. Skill cost:
I do not know about this one especially after your statement that skill bonus and category bonus are added together. I would have to see more of the categories and skills to make a better judgment call.
3) 2 sets of costs, normal skills, language, spells and armor:
Why two sets of costs?
4) Stat bonus applied to skill only:
If this is the case then IMO every PC will have at least 1 or more rank in a skill they want to use. This is so they can gain the stat bonus. But my opinion may also change depending on how big stat bonuses are.
Also I think you have to ask yourself, is this skill system realistic enough for your game? So if I train 1 rank in melee does it apply to all melee weapons?
I can also understand that there are some very strange melee weapons out there and there are some that it is very easy to apply your knowledge to. So it again depends on how accurate you want the system to be to real life.
GrumpyOldFart:
1) Wind Surfing vs. Sailing and Surfing:
I do agree that there are some crossover skills but if you have categories like RMSS some do not apply. Such as Endurance Sports swimming vs. running, both require great conditioning if you are good in one it does not mean you are good in another.
Or just because I am a good dart thrower it does not mean I am good at horse shoe?s or Bachi ball. [sp?]
Another one is just because I take a math class it does not mean I am good in biology, chemistry, physics etc.
2) Stats:
I guess what I am trying to say here is that some like to base skill costs or vary skill costs if the PC has a high stat. I am not really a fan of this type of game system.
3) Skill examples for job?s:
Yes I do agree that the skill requirements can vary a lot depending on the game setting. Or as a matter of fact they can vary depending on regions, cities, job titles, cast systems, etc in a game world.
The other problem here is that if an expansion comes out that has a big impact on your game world it can be tough to add a skill or skill?s to the list that your PC?s have been training in.
4) Prime Skills, Secondary Skills and Tertiary Skills; Also 3 skill set tables:
I do think this might be a good thing but again it might cause a problem depending on the GM and there setting. Or even how they GM there setting.
The 3 different complete skill sets were for how the GM runs his game or world. If they like very realistic then go for the most complete skill list requirements. If they want more variance then maybe a small skill list for the job or maybe something in between.
Also the 3 differing skill list idea was to show GM?s that they can vary their games ?job? skill requirements.
I can also tell you that some players will take it very badly when you tell them they should have skills X, Y and Z for job A.
5) Skill Requirements for Jobs or ?Why do I need skill ranks in math if I want to be a Doctor??
There are different ways for people to learn the same skill. You can look up the various different teaching styles that show teachers how to teach different students. Also sometimes a person does not know a skill will help them perform another skill better. So math can teach abstract thinking or problem solving to people, even if they are poor math students.
6) Other Systems:
I have seen some other systems out there that do have a set of basic skills given to a PC and then a skill list to pick from for Advanced Training or Related Skills or Specialist Skills. Maybe this is a good approach to take for ?skill templates? or however it fits into the game you are running.
MDC
-
I suggest to forget about how hard skills are in real life when thinking about their cost, imho it only make things more complex without giving anything in return.
Maybe in real life being a physician is harder than being a pro-cyclist (I'm not even sure about that) but, does it really matter? If I want to make a physician character I'll choose the profession with the lowest cost for skills related to that job, which would probably means that skills related to cycling would be more difficult to learn than those related to medicine for me. So it doesn't really matter that normally those skills would cost more.
Or, you could make "hard" skills cost so much that, even with the discount given by choosing the right profession they would cost more than "easy" skills. This is just bad imho as you're basically "punishing" players who want to build characters around those skills.
So I say, forget about reality, make base cost the same for every skill and then let profession (natural inclination) determine which skills will be easy or difficult to learn...
-
1) Do you bump skill costs up and down after PC creation?
If so then you have to have a good way to track the changes or IMO you can have problems recreating a PC at a previous point.
I think we have all had a player decide to change their mind after going up a level or maybe decide to change training packages after PC creation.
If PC gen is done by computer then it is not so hard but if done by pen a paper IMO it could be tough to roll back some things.
The skill cost thing would be fixed by profession. The bump system is a profession creation system. If you allow changing professions and PCs to change professions then it will mess up book keeping. I'm not a big fan of multiclassing. Especially in a game like RM where your profession represents inherent aptitudes developed over an eight to ten year apprenticeship. But you could do it, if back checking the book keeping was important to you you'd have to require players to keep a log of what skills they bought ranks in at what cost each level.
2) Category vs. Skill cost:
I do not know about this one especially after your statement that skill bonus and category bonus are added together. I would have to see more of the categories and skills to make a better judgment call.
If we had a Standard / Category cost like RMSS it would be beter but ICE has been pretty clear that's not an option they'll be taking. Buying ranks in the category in this system is literally buying ranks in the whole category. If you're buying more than two skills there is absolutely no reason to not buy the category. On the other hand some of the cascading skills would become categories themselves.
3) 2 sets of costs, normal skills, language, spells and armor:
Why two sets of costs?
to allow three rank per level development on things that have always allowed multiple rank development. Alternately it could go back to RM2's 4* set up with unlimited development per level but since it's used for spell lists I like the three rank limit.
4) Stat bonus applied to skill only:
If this is the case then IMO every PC will have at least 1 or more rank in a skill they want to use. This is so they can gain the stat bonus. But my opinion may also change depending on how big stat bonuses are.
Also I think you have to ask yourself, is this skill system realistic enough for your game? So if I train 1 rank in melee does it apply to all melee weapons?
I can also understand that there are some very strange melee weapons out there and there are some that it is very easy to apply your knowledge to. So it again depends on how accurate you want the system to be to real life.
Nope, you don't need the skill to get the stat bonus. Mostly I put it on the skill because that's one of the louder complaints I've heard from the RM2 guys and because it would let me trim the number of categories a bit more. As far as the categories go, skill overlap in the real world can be huge and it's hard to separate out distinct skills. Most western martial artists and SCA folks seem to believe that weapons just aren't that different and raise that as an issue with rpgs presentation of combat. The footwork and moves are all pretty much transferable.
-
GrumpyOldFart:
1) Wind Surfing vs. Sailing and Surfing:
I do agree that there are some crossover skills but if you have categories like RMSS some do not apply. Such as Endurance Sports swimming vs. running, both require great conditioning if you are good in one it does not mean you are good in another.
Or just because I am a good dart thrower it does not mean I am good at horse shoe?s or Bachi ball. [sp?]
Another one is just because I take a math class it does not mean I am good in biology, chemistry, physics etc.
True. Point taken.
2) Stats:
I guess what I am trying to say here is that some like to base skill costs or vary skill costs if the PC has a high stat. I am not really a fan of this type of game system.
Me neither.
3) Skill examples for job?s:
Yes I do agree that the skill requirements can vary a lot depending on the game setting. Or as a matter of fact they can vary depending on regions, cities, job titles, cast systems, etc in a game world.
The other problem here is that if an expansion comes out that has a big impact on your game world it can be tough to add a skill or skill?s to the list that your PC?s have been training in.
Yes it can. I think if we can have a "design your own profession template" system that has already used that system to design the "standard" fighter, mage, mentalist, etc. templates, it will allow the freedom to make the template fit the character concept and world setting. An experienced player can *choose* what his primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. skills are during character generation, adjusting costs accordingly. The "bumps" David was talking about, basically.
4) Prime Skills, Secondary Skills and Tertiary Skills; Also 3 skill set tables:
I do think this might be a good thing but again it might cause a problem depending on the GM and there setting. Or even how they GM there setting.
The 3 different complete skill sets were for how the GM runs his game or world. If they like very realistic then go for the most complete skill list requirements. If they want more variance then maybe a small skill list for the job or maybe something in between.
Keep in mind that any given GM is welcome to use the templates already provided. The only difference between character creation via template and via "homebrew your character" is that what skills are primary, secondary, etc. have already been chosen for the template, and therefore which skills are cheap and which are expensive has already been decided.
Also the 3 differing skill list idea was to show GM?s that they can vary their games ?job? skill requirements.
I can also tell you that some players will take it very badly when you tell them they should have skills X, Y and Z for job A.
I don't think a GM can make a ruling on anything that *some* players won't take badly. But keep in mind that "when you tell them they should have skills X, Y and Z for job A" that's specific to the setting. Can I play a fighter who has no skill in riding? Absolutely. Can I get a job as a soldier in the local lord's personal guard with no skill in riding? Absolutely not.
"Well that sucks, that's not fair."
"You're right. The local lord is a sucky person, he is not a fair minded man. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should train as an assassin instead."
If you allow changing professions and PCs to change professions then it will mess up book keeping. I'm not a big fan of multiclassing.
Me neither, nor do I think it's necessary. The points I've been making have been based on the assumption that there is no multiclassing. If your fighter wants to learn spells, he can.... as a fighter would learn them. If he wanted to be a fighter/magic-user, he should have created a warrior mage.
Most western martial artists and SCA folks seem to believe that weapons just aren't that different and raise that as an issue with rpgs presentation of combat. The footwork and moves are all pretty much transferable.
In a lot of ways, they aren't. But RM has addressed a lot of the differences that *are* there. For example, bladed weapons tend to be balanced, mass weapons (concussion) tend to be tip heavy. This does change your shot selection in combat, but changes your footwork very little. Overall, I think the current selection of weapon categories is pretty accurate in terms of the learning curve. Although I could see the sense in expanding the category/skill tiering to include groups as well. So for example, 2/5 spent in the weapon group can either give you a +1 for everything in the group, a +2 for 1HC or a +3 for Mace.
Nope, you don't need the skill to get the stat bonus.
Maybe not, but you lose a lot of it because of the -25/-30 for having no skill. A lot of players do that, buy one rank in everything just because it makes a 30/35 point difference in their skill total all at once. Personally, I'm okay with that. I'm good with players wanting the bare bones basics of every skill they think they'll use.
-
DJ and GOF;
In your system how would you model the following idea in your proposal?
1) A farmer who goes to college and becomes an engineer, finishes off pay for college by serving in the navy and then retires, goes back to school for a MBA and then works in the computer field. [This is based off a person I know and IMO it can be done well in RMSS]
MDC
-
Well from the list of training packages you've given me I'm guessing that the profession with no bumps in any direction, Layman, best describes his profession.
I will agree freely that the term "profession" as it is used in Rolemaster Standard System is inacurate and misleading. I'd change it to "Archetype" in a new edition and have background and professional skill packages.
One way to change up the category ranks would be to allow one rank in five to be a category rank at the normal cost. This gets rid of the two cost rates, gives a related skills modifier, keeps the single rank bonus progression and isn't particularly top heavy.
Either way, since there's only one progression rate and ranks are cumulative a single category rank gets rid of all the -25 or -30 unskilled modifiers for the whole category. From where I sit a total bonus of less than thirty is already punishingly bad without bumping it into negative numbers with an extra modifier.
-
David Johansen;
1) I am sorry but I did give you a zinger to figure out. It was based partly or mostly on my father?s career path and decisions. I also think it can show just how complicated things can become depending on the game world people are playing in.
2) I guess I would just have to see how all the numbers and rules work together to give the player and GM a personal framework to game with.
3A) If I remember right this was brought up before and people had in mind a system that started a PC with some base skill costs. Then they would adjust the skill costs for upbringing, adolescence, apprenticeship and first job. I am not so sure about the last one but it does stick in my mind for some reason. Or maybe someone talked about how there first job affected them so much.
3B) Again the above method could be a pain for the non computer crowd depending on how it all worked out.
3C) But for a computer game it might work fine. Also I get the feeling that computer game designers often look at forums like these to get ideas and test things out.
3D) The above system might also complicate PC generation for new comers and make it harder for them to see the outcome of their choices during PC generation.
MDC
-
Just out of curiosity...are you aware that Vroom with the aid of the rest of us developed a system that can recreate the current professions almost?
I think the differences mostly come from that we did not pay that much attention to the second cost of the skills and that the talents/Background options and race abilities are not really very consistent in the current RM versions.
-
I'm currently working on a system that gets 2/3 (aprox) of its cost from a base decided at character creation and the other 1/3 from a profession template. I'm making by using current professions dividing and looking for commonalities (at least with a little tweaking) the idea being if you start with the right base + Profession templates you get the current professions if you change things around you can custom create and/or switch without (hopefully) unbalancing or breaking the system. Currently I'm calling them Aptitudes (the part that can't change) and Professional Focus. How many ranks you can buy at a given level is controlled by Professional Focus.
-
DJ and GOF;
In your system how would you model the following idea in your proposal?
1) A farmer who goes to college and becomes an engineer, finishes off pay for college by serving in the navy and then retires, goes back to school for a MBA and then works in the computer field. [This is based off a person I know and IMO it can be done well in RMSS]
MDC
When I was playing RM2 heavily during the late 80s/early 90s, I had had to come up with "adolescent skill ranks" on my own, as they didn't exist in RM at the time. What I had done was have the GM assign 20 skill ranks in "cultural freebies", skills the PC had picked up just by virtue of growing up as he/she did. What those 20 ranks were in varied with chosen profession, parental social status and PC starting point. It also served to balance things, as RM had grown to about 15 times the number of skills to spend points on from RM1, but the number of points available to spend on said skills had not changed.
In other words, I (the GM) defined those "freebies" according to the player's character concept, leaving the player free to spend his points where his own interests lie, rather than where his environment pushes him.
In the above, I'd define the character's adolescence as farmer. Obviously he chose engineer as a career path, so I'd call that his profession.
Your father chose the Navy, mine chose the Army. Actually mine was already out of college with a degree in Mathematics when Korea called. So he became what would technically be called a soldier, but the military is fairly good at putting people where their aptitudes lie. He became an Army Intel paymaster. In other words, he learned to be a soldier, but pretty much he learned it *as a mathematician would*. I'd say the same with your father, he adds various military skills, but he learns them at an engineer's costs.
Your father got into computers, as did mine. Mine learned them as a mathematician, yours as an engineer, which both probably yielded a more thorough understanding with less work than if a soldier learns computers.
In short, very much as you'd do it in RMSS/RMFRP right now:
Background/adolescence/lifestyle pkg: Farmer
Profession (probably custom rather than template to get more accurate results): Engineer
Later in life, he takes Squid and Computer Nerd TPs at Engineer costs.
-
GrumpyOldFart and David Johanson;
1) Does your system take into account that people go into career paths and fail miserably?
A) I think the above situation is one reason that I do not like evolving skill costs. But then again it may be why someone else likes it.
B) I know your system does not have costs for skills based on stat bonuses but again I do not like those systems as what happens when a PC?s stat goes up? Do you recreate all the PC?s skill costs? Do you recreate skill costs if the PC has a always on magic item that changes their stat? Why do you not as it should be the same as a PC with the same stat bonus. [Sorry for his post if it does not apply but it is one of those things that I avoid in RPG games]
2) When does the player decide on his skill adjustments? Is it going to be like GOF says at PC generation? Or is it more of a RPing solution as players go through the various stages of life?
As a side note I do like the fact that there are ?not enough? DP?s to go around. Why? Well IMO it makes players plan a little better and realize that they possibly need other PC?s or NPC?s. I also realize again that this may not be valid for all RPG games out there.
I also realize that there are some skills that will never be used in some games. The selection of skills for the GM?s game world can be very hard on new GM?s as well as players if not specified at game outset. As I am sure everyone has possibly had a player a little peeved for dumping a lot of DP?s into a skill that they will not use in the game.
I also like that you GOF sit down and work with players to get the right mix of skills and maybe talents or background options for each players written background. I do this also with my players and after they get over the initial shock that they cannot just have any old background and expect it to fit in my game world things go better. But there are always those problem players that cannot handle the interaction between GM and Player. And I have found in general that this type of player is generally not good for my game world.
MDC
-
markc? Why are you playing a class and level game instead of BRP or GURPS again?
-
GrumpyOldFart and David Johanson;
1) Does your system take into account that people go into career paths and fail miserably?
Thus far, my game doesn't, nor do I see why it should. If you start from concept, are you going to create that concept on the assumption that his/her early years will be a failure? To me that's like making allowance for the PC who is born to pig farmers, grows up to be a pig farmer, dies as a pig farmer, and never does ANYTHING. Sure it's realistic, but who's gonna want to play him?
A) I think the above situation is one reason that I do not like evolving skill costs. But then again it may be why someone else likes it.
Define what you mean by "evolving". Meaning that he starts as a farmer, averages with engineer, averages again with sailor, averages yet again with computer geek? Ugh. Sounds like an awful lot of housekeeping just to make everyone trend more and more toward Layman/No Profession the higher level they go...
B) I know your system does not have costs for skills based on stat bonuses but again I do not like those systems as what happens when a PC?s stat goes up? Do you recreate all the PC?s skill costs? Do you recreate skill costs if the PC has a always on magic item that changes their stat? Why do you not as it should be the same as a PC with the same stat bonus. [Sorry for his post if it does not apply but it is one of those things that I avoid in RPG games]
Again, ugh. That's yet another reason why I don't like the idea of stats affecting skill costs.
2) When does the player decide on his skill adjustments? Is it going to be like GOF says at PC generation? Or is it more of a RPing solution as players go through the various stages of life?
I think I would be okay with adjusting as you go if it weren't for two things:
1) LOTS of extra housekeeping, the players would rebel if I didn't.
2) The higher level you go, the more everyone becomes the same.
And to be honest, I don't see how to avoid either of em, much less both.
As a side note I do like the fact that there are ?not enough? DP?s to go around. Why? Well IMO it makes players plan a little better and realize that they possibly need other PC?s or NPC?s. I also realize again that this may not be valid for all RPG games out there.
As do I, I don't think there should ever be enough to go around. But at the same time, there have to be enough to create a character with some depth. If you transpose Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos into RM, he'll be an assassin, a rogue variant, sure. But if you don't give him the background in cooking and running a restaurant, as well as the subsidiary skills in organized crime, he's a cardboard cutout.
If I was satisfied with cardboard cutouts I'd play Dragonball Z or Pokemon.
I also realize that there are some skills that will never be used in some games. The selection of skills for the GM?s game world can be very hard on new GM?s as well as players if not specified at game outset. As I am sure everyone has possibly had a player a little peeved for dumping a lot of DP?s into a skill that they will not use in the game.
I don't specify skills per se, instead I describe the character of the country and the type of cultures. There are a few I demand, but only a *very* few. If you know that 1) your father is an opal miner, your mother is a hooker, 2) you live in an area of semiarid temperate high plains, kinda like present day Wyoming, and 3) the "country" you are a "citizen" of is actually a collection of city-states, each a law unto itself. The local Lord is a scumbag, but since his troops never come this far into the sticks you don't care about him much, except the rare times you go to town.... well from there, even the greenest of players can get a fair notion of which skills fit and which don't. Granted, they can still surprise you, like when someone says they want to be able to snowboard, should that be skiing or surfing? And they can still get annoyed when you point out that hey, you're the child of a miner and a hooker.... you know how to use snowshoes. Sucks to be you.
I also like that you GOF sit down and work with players to get the right mix of skills and maybe talents or background options for each players written background. I do this also with my players and after they get over the initial shock that they cannot just have any old background and expect it to fit in my game world things go better. But there are always those problem players that cannot handle the interaction between GM and Player. And I have found in general that this type of player is generally not good for my game world.
MDC
See Dragonball Z, above. Doing this stuff is the price of *not* getting cardboard cutouts. It has its nice points, too. Right outta the gate, characters tend to react like *people* instead of cartoon characters.
-
A big part of what draws me to Rolemaster is that I've found over the years that most players can't really handle a truely open character creation system like GURPS. Don't get me wrong, GURPS 4 is mavelous but most players just make a laundry list of half the book and then try to buy it all. And their character never, ever matches the setting in the least bit.
Rolemaster Standard System gets them to make a big choice first. But it's just one choice. Profession, what do you want your character to do? Then it fills in your background details with an adolescence package, gives you a few neat toys from background options, and then the training packages burn a good chunk of their development points. Better still most players can figure out a good deal for their character from a bad one by just comparing costs. And wow, you've got a character that fits the setting, is competent, has the skills they're going to need in their role and you're ready to go.
Is it super duper realistic? Nope? Can I build your dad in it? Maybe, like I say, I see a Layman with lots of training packages.
-
markc? Why are you playing a class and level game instead of BRP or GURPS again?
Note: I am not trying to bash any game or company.
I used to play Runequest a lot. In fact I altered the rules quite a bit to fit anything I wanted to play or to add to my game world from other systems. I used the Runequest rules to run a T2000 type game, a modern and early 20 horror game, a fantasy game.
I also looked at GURP's back in the early 90's to see if I liked it better then Runequest or to see if it had any elements that were better for me to convert to Runequest. The big ones were White Wolfs Vampire, Werewolf, Mage and any Horror or CoC elements. I did run one GURP's game for a test run and I just did not like how the rule set played out. I also had a lot of time on my hands after hurting my back in 95 and waiting for variuos treatments to play out. During this time I bought a few things as well as looked at the rule sets closely. It was not until I had a chance to play in a RM2 [modified] game that I had a chance to again look at RM. Back in the mid 80's a fellow game player bought the box set and gave it to me as he thought it was too confusing for him to play. Any way during my time playing I had a chance to pick up RMSS as well as a lot of RM2 stuff and the system just clicked in what and how I wanted to run a game. I should also say that I do not use the RM combat system but a home combat system.
To cut it short I did like how in RQ a player could develope any skill as well as hit locations. In GURP's I loved the fact that you could alter the base system to include almost anything or to reflect any situation. But after I looked at RMSS they other systems did not seem to have the right parts for a game I wanted to run.
MDC
-
Note: I am not trying to bash any game or company.
There wouldn't be any point, as it's all subjective. The only reason to play any particular brand of RPG is because it best fits what you want out of your fantasy universe. I like gritty realism and lots of detail, and I think RM fits that well. But as much as I like RM, I would NOT recommend it to someone who was looking for a replacement for, say, Exalted.
-
GOF,
As to my bashing comment, since I am a mod on this site I try and put my best foot forward and when I do say why I do not like something I also try and point out that it is my opinion and in no way connected to my volunteer moderating of ICE?s website.
As to others and there game systems I also agree that RM is not the right system for some types of RPG experiences. Besides the example you game I could not see the RM system being used for a Paranoid type game. PC?s did to fast [from my memory], so why spend 1-4 hours creating a PC.
?Define what you mean by "evolving".? From GOF;
What I mean is skill cost that change during game play, change because of stat increases, change because of level acquisition or in such a way as to make recreation of a PC difficult to recreate.
?Skill adjustments..? From MDC;
What I was trying to say here is when is the PC?s skill template created or their skill cost table?
?Amount of Skill?s and Depth?;
I also think this is important and how that it is achieved in a RPG game is also important. RMSS has Adolescence Skill Background table to choose a culture from and I think there is something close to that in RMC and the Express Additions.
Also in Talent Law [I know people are rolling their eyes] there is a method of creating the Adol. Skill Back. Table. Just guessing off the top of my head I think it is 40-60 ranks for free. I also think that results of making a custom table for you game will vary widely depending on the type of game your group plays.
?I don't specify skills per se,..? GOF;
From your comments here I say that you and I may do things the say way. But what about others that do not have such a rich knowledge or detail of their campaign world? I know I have played in games like this and sometimes they implode with in the first few sessions and sometimes the GM does say your PC background is not going to work within my setting.
?..getting cardboard cutouts.? GOF;
I also agree here and it is one of the reasons I like RMSS?s wide range of skills compared to other systems. At my age now I like detail over fuzziness and so do most of my past players and having found a new group since I moved I realized again that some others do not like a lot of detail in their RPG characters.
MDC
-
GOF,
As to my bashing comment, since I am a mod on this site I try and put my best foot forward and when I do say why I do not like something I also try and point out that it is my opinion and in no way connected to my volunteer moderating of ICE?s website.
Oops. I tend to forget to pay any attention to who's who. I see your point.
As to others and there game systems I also agree that RM is not the right system for some types of RPG experiences. Besides the example you game I could not see the RM system being used for a Paranoid type game. PC?s did to fast [from my memory], so why spend 1-4 hours creating a PC.
I agree. For that reason, and because Paranoia is *supposed* to be cartoonish. It's the Animaniacs of the RPG world, the very thing that makes it fun is how farcical it is. Trying to make it even slightly realistic would kill it.
?Define what you mean by "evolving".? From GOF;
What I mean is skill cost that change during game play, change because of stat increases, change because of level acquisition or in such a way as to make recreation of a PC difficult to recreate.
Thought so. And I really don't see any way to do it that doesn't massively increase the housekeeping of character development, *and* tend to make PCs more and more the same the higher level they go.
I don't see any advantages to evolving skill costs worth either of those problems, much less both.
Also in Talent Law [I know people are rolling their eyes] there is a method of creating the Adol. Skill Back. Table. Just guessing off the top of my head I think it is 40-60 ranks for free. I also think that results of making a custom table for you game will vary widely depending on the type of game your group plays.
I liked Talent Law. The only problem it has is that it requires a GM to go through and decide how "heroic, high fantasy" he wants his campaign to be before he allows any of it. And then he has to put his foot down when his players try to get him to change his mind.
?I don't specify skills per se,..? GOF;
From your comments here I say that you and I may do things the say way. But what about others that do not have such a rich knowledge or detail of their campaign world?
My first instinct is to say, "If you can't be bothered to know the details of your world, why do you want to GM?" But really, the bottom line is that detail-oriented skill systems only work well in detail-oriented settings. In a setting that is not detail oriented, that wide selection of skills is nothing but ballast.
If the GM wants his game to be fast, simple, very broad strokes, he should get the most cut-down version of RM he can lay hands on, or go to another system entirely. And his players should be prepared to be told, "Sorry, you just can't" when they step outside the box. As we all know, no GM can draw so big a box that his players won't step outside it. You can either know your world well enough to create on the fly, or you can force them to stay in the box. I don't really see any third choice.
I know I have played in games like this and sometimes they implode with in the first few sessions and sometimes the GM does say your PC background is not going to work within my setting.
Well I'm not bashful about pointing out problems with a character concept. I had a guy who wanted to be a human-dragon cross once. I told him okay, that means you were born and raised in a lab, and you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO social skills of any sort, including things as basic as the concept of money and buying things. Good luck becoming part of the party without being killed as a monster. For that matter, good luck staying with the party once they find out about your fabulous people skills. But if that's what you want, you go.
The guy was serious enough that he ended up playing the character. And I was serious enough that he didn't have any noticeable advantages over anyone else. The druid was the only person who would put up with him for any length of time.
?..getting cardboard cutouts.? GOF;
I also agree here and it is one of the reasons I like RMSS?s wide range of skills compared to other systems. At my age now I like detail over fuzziness and so do most of my past players and having found a new group since I moved I realized again that some others do not like a lot of detail in their RPG characters.
I'll freely admit I'm personally biased in favor of RM. There's no money or anything involved, there's just 27 years of using it and being comfortable with it. A lot of people want broader strokes. White Wolf's "skill dot" system is a good choice for a lot of them, because it's simple and fast and surprisingly customizable for what it is. It'd be nice to have basic rules for RM that are *that* simple but could expand infinitely to accommodate the most obsessive realism geek ever, so GM and players could extend their depth and realism as they developed a taste for it. But that strikes me as one of those "in a perfect world" remarks....
-
The reason a system that can simply recreate the current professions is of little utility is simply that ICE has no intention of sticking with the current system.
Yes, I strongly favour a very light handed rationalization of RMSS. But that won't happen. There are also those who would favour a RM2 with upgrade supplements. That might happen but I doubt it.
ICE will do a new edition and it will create a fourth camp in their fractured fanbase.
The problem is that RM is many different things to many different people.
I've said before that ICE would probably be wise to bury RM2 and RMSS and just make advanced HARP the new RM and move forward on new product. And I don't like HARP very much.
I had the notion the other day that you could do a simple profession building system that used list placement bumps and associates difficulty with pricing so I thought I'd mention the idea here.
Most of my writing goes elsewhere because I've so completely lost faith in ICE. I'd been thinking of writing up a free RM Character Law based on the idea. So people could play with it. But mostly I've been reminded of how futile it is. No I'm not mad at anyone, but discussions like this leave me with little hope for the future of ICE.
So I'm back to my sfrpg work.
-
Seeing the new (or 4th, so I heard) incarnation of the Big Name in this industry and considering the fact that it still bears the same name 'jubilantly' in spite of the de-facto tremendous differences between its predecessor and itself, I bet nobody would blame you for saying....
Hey, say HARP is Rolemaster, say Rolemater is HARP!!
HARP is Rolemaster in their affinity, compatibility/conversionability and tradition, and you can say vice versa if you love the elegant name, HARP, after seeing the Big Name's recent incarnation.
(oh-oh, who's saying ME*P is Rolemaster and vice versa!? Shhhh, the Witch King might hear you somewhere....(k)nock on wood)
Oops, let's stay on topic, ...stay on topic.
-
RMSS/RMFRP was a good change, look for it.
-
ICE will do a new edition and it will create a fourth camp in their fractured fanbase.
The problem is that RM is many different things to many different people.
Yes, RM is many different things to many different people.
I believe it's possible, at least in theory, to fairly well unify ICE's fanbase AND make inroads into other RPG company's market shares with a new edition of RM.
BUT
In order to do so, it would have to accomplish something I'm not sure is possible in practical application:
1) It has to be so simple, so streamlined, so "ready to go outta the box", that someone who has played an RPG once or twice and never GMed can get together with half a dozen of his friends who know nothing about RPGs and, within an hour or two, run a simple gaming session. It MUST be that easy in order for you to get new gamers without requiring old gamers as cadre to recruit and train them.
2) THE SAME SYSTEM has to be customizable/expandable to the point where D&D 4.0 players will see it as having as many options, as much depth, as the system they are used to, otherwise RM won't be able to compete against the product that has been #1 in the marketplace for decades. Granted, that game has changed a LOT over the decades, and it is ludicrous, in one sense, for it to have the same name. In another sense, it's not ludicrous at all. They are taking advantage of 30+ years of name recognition. If you're going to compete with that, your product has to be *at least* as good in the opinion of those who use the other guy's system, or you won't get them to abandon it for what you're selling.
3) THE SAME SYSTEM has to be customizable/expandable to the point where RMSS/RMFRP reality junkies still get something with the realism and depth *they* demand as well.
In short, they/we will have to come up with a system that can be made as simple as Paranoia, as heroic as Exalted, and as grittily realistic and complex as RMFRP, *all at once*. To be honest, I don't know if that's possible. If it is, it's certainly a tall order.
I've been giving this some thought, I'll post any ideas I have on the subject when and if I get any ideas that aren't complete and utter pipe dreams....
-
What will be harder still is to come up with a magic use structure that uses spells weak enough to seriously reward innovative use, yet powerful enough that someone playing the cut down version (and satisfied with cookie cutter spell use) won't justifiably feel that magic is too weak to be useful.
???
-
When ever some one asks if you can do somethings in a shorter amount of time it always reminds me of an old joke sheet I saw in 84. It was in the form of an job entrance exam and had about 8 different questions. The one that sticks in my mind basicly goes likes this "Use 1 piece of paper to explain the genisis of life from its most microscopic levles as well as the compete evolution of all species. Be sure your answers are complete."
It is just soemthing that cannot be done with what they gaive you. O I also seam to remember that you had only 1 hour to answer 2 questions.
MDC
-
"Use 1 piece of paper to explain the genisis of life from its most microscopic levles as well as the compete evolution of all species. Be sure your answers are complete."
It is just soemthing that cannot be done with what they gaive you. O I also seam to remember that you had only 1 hour to answer 2 questions.
Yeah, that. Nonetheless, if you're going to try to sell to the Paranoia players, the Exalted players, the GURPS players, etc... heck even just within ICE itself there's so broad a range of opinion on how heroic, how high fantasy, how detailed a system "should be"... the fact that it's impossible isn't the point, if that's what your target market wants.
I suppose you could aim for one simple system and one detailed system and try to have them meet in the middle, so conversion from one to the other is easy. So far as I can tell, that's what they've attempted in HARP/RMFRP. If you expect the next incarnation to be an *improvement*, where do you go from there except into the impossible?
-
You'd have to come up with a CharGen/skill system that, in it's simplest incarnation, is as simple as Paranoia. But with __________ set of optional rules, it's effectively HARP. Add _________ set of optional rules on top of that, it becomes equivalent to RMC. Add _________set of further optional rules, it's pretty much RMFRP.
Tall order. It would have to be incredibly well thought out, and playtested nearly to destruction before it ever saw the light of day.
Hmmm.....
-
You'd have to come up with a CharGen/skill system that, in it's simplest incarnation, is as simple as Paranoia. But with __________ set of optional rules, it's effectively HARP. Add _________ set of optional rules on top of that, it becomes equivalent to RMC. Add _________set of further optional rules, it's pretty much RMFRP.
No! Please, don't! Seriously.
-
No! Please, don't! Seriously.
Okay... why not? Not that I have any say in what the next incarnation of RM is, just wondering.
-
The reason that comes to my mind is that only the bottom levels will get product support because they take less space. Also, in the day of the micro pdf supplement those who want to have the higher level of detail will be expected to buy more stuff.
One place where the RMSS crowd tends to diverge from the RM2 crowd is the value of standardization.
In defense of a STANDARD SYSTEM I'm going to point a finger at Fuzion as an example of a game system with built in internal incompatability and imbalance. And we all know what a flop Fuzion was. This is also the problem with RM2. Nobody was even playing the same game.
-
The reason that comes to my mind is that only the bottom levels will get product support because they take less space. Also, in the day of the micro pdf supplement those who want to have the higher level of detail will be expected to buy more stuff.
Hmmm... That could be avoided by still having 3 basic systems. The only difference from now would be that the RMC equivalent assumes the inclusion of X option set to basic HARP rules. The only difference in the RMSS equivalent is the assumption that X and Y option sets are in use.
One place where the RMSS crowd tends to diverge from the RM2 crowd is the value of standardization.
I like standardization myself as well. That was the whole point of the idea, to be able to start from any of the 3 and, as you and your players become more familiar with the system's options, you can decide on which compromise between simplicity/speed and depth/detail you want. So if your long standing group of "HARP" players decide they want more depth, they can move toward "RMC" without having to ditch their "HARP" books, characters or setting and start over. Same with "RMC" to "RMSS". In the other direction, if your "RMSS" group wants more speed of play, you can move in the "RMC" direction without having to quit using anything you already spent $$$ on and without having to scrap parties and settings already in use. Just stop using _______ options that are assumed as part of "RMSS".
In defense of a STANDARD SYSTEM I'm going to point a finger at Fuzion as an example of a game system with built in internal incompatability and imbalance. And we all know what a flop Fuzion was. This is also the problem with RM2. Nobody was even playing the same game.
Well that's why I called it a very tall order. In order to work it would have to be balanced and compatible across the board, regardless of which options you are/are not using. The advantage is that if you could achieve it, someone who has played the HARP equivalent would be able to drop into an RMSS equivalent campaign with no more difficulty than anyone having to learn a new set of "house rules".
As for "nobody even playing the same game", that's pretty much the case in all RPGs, regardless of the system used, is it not? Every GM tweaks their game to fit their needs. The idea here is to have the vast majority of those "tweaks" already standardized and playtested for compatibility and balance, and already in an easy to find place in one or more of the 3 "core" rule sets. That way a group that finds RMC too simplified but RMSS too slow and complicated can customize something in between, and yet both RMC players and RMSS players can look at it and say, "Oh. Yeah okay, that makes sense." And even a HARP player looking at it already knows half or more of what he needs to function in that setting.
-
Actually I'm a horribly by the book GM but I may be unique in that. I feel that the rules exist to protect the players from the GM and therefore it's beyond the pale for the GM to alter the rules. But then, I've played under several dreadful GMs over the years. In fact the first thing I'd look into before joining the group is whether they're using lots of house rules. The more house rules they use, the worse the GM is guaranteed.
A good GM will either find a system that works and stick with it or write a new game. No, by my definition there are no good D&D DMs why?
-
I've played under a very few bad GMs. Most of them were fair to good, one or two were excellent. I've made a fair number of house rules over the last 30+ years as well, some of which were remarkably similar to options or revisions that appeared in later versions of RM. And yes, of course you try to find a system that is as close to what you want as you can get. But everyone has their own set of priorities in what they want *just so* and what they aren't too terribly picky about. When I've made a house rule, it has always been a case of either me or one of my players saying, "Okay this isn't working" or "This doesn't make any sense". My players and I get together and brainstorm about how to make it work the way we want, playtest it and, if it works, implement it. Sometimes it has to be changed or scrapped later. I'm not really a God, I just play one on game nights.
A good GM will either find a system that works and stick with it or write a new game.
If, for example, my players and I thought RMs skill system was as perfect as I thought I'd ever get, but the initiative system was idiotic, why in the world would I either a) stick with an initiative system we all considered stupid, or b) throw the baby out with the bathwater and redesign an excellent skill system just to have a new method of determining initiative? Especially considering that since I don't have the resources of ICE, my "newly designed" skill system is unlikely in the extreme to be better than the one I just abandoned, and is more likely than not to be "crippled" compared to the original?
I suspect that the bad GMs who have turned you off of house rules may have failed to brainstorm with their experienced players to find out what worked for *everyone involved*. Just because the GM plays God in his own pocket universe doesn't make him omnicognizant in *this* universe, and the same must be said of the authors of this or any other game system. Otherwise there would never be such a thing as a 2nd Edition. Ultimately the only standard is how well it works with your particular setting, GM and gaming group. But regardless, a set of RPG game mechanics that are intended to be *marketed to a broad spectrum of players* has to take into account that no two groups are going to want the exact same things from their game.
-
No! Please, don't! Seriously.
Okay... why not? Not that I have any say in what the next incarnation of RM is, just wondering.
Its something to have a basic system with a few core and non-core options. Its another to have a basic system with options who each have their own sub-options who in turn have a degree of extra complexity in them, etc.
Also, add in the fact that I like to have different systems for different genres. I would not want to buy a game that pretended to be the sum-of-all-RPGs, because ultimately that game would probably pale in comparison to all other RPGs in their own area of specialty. Yes to a game system that is flexible and can be tweaked to my liking. No to a game system where each rule is optional. Seriously, last thing I want to buy is a game which goes from rock-scissor-paper complexity to RMFRP and beyond complexity.
-
Yes to a game system that is flexible and can be tweaked to my liking. No to a game system where each rule is optional.
Okay, but how does someone designing a game mechanic define the difference between the two? Without going to each individual GM and asking for his/her take on what is "core" and what is "optional"?
Really all I was suggesting was that the "speed and simplicity trumps everything" players should be able to recognize their game as the core of the medium complexity game, who should in turn be able to recognize their game as the core of the "depth and detail is king" game. The idea being that compatibility and balance are maintained throughout, and someone who wants something in between two of the three has standard, already playtested and known to be compatible options to get the game *he* wants as well.
Sorry if I'm not explaining it clearly.
-
Keep in mind I was objecting to this:
You'd have to come up with a CharGen/skill system that, in it's simplest incarnation, is as simple as Paranoia. But with __________ set of optional rules, it's effectively HARP. Add _________ set of optional rules on top of that, it becomes equivalent to RMC. Add _________set of further optional rules, it's pretty much RMFRP.
I do not want a Paranoia-HARP-RMC-RMFRP set of rules. HARP is one good game. RMFRP is one too. Paranoia has its own fun genre. Can't say about RMC, but I'll trust the judgement of those who play it ;) Having a new Rolemaster eventually with one set of standard rules, and an extra optional complexity on the skills level linked to extra DP as has been hinted to for exemple, is one thing I'd consider a plus. Having a set of rules which goes from Paranoia-level complexity to RMFRP complexity is one thing I'd not be too happy about. I'd like HARP and RM to remain 2 different takes on a genre, as they are now, for that matter.