Topic: Question about advancing levels

[Hurin]

In case it is useful, some of us playtesters (and maybe a developer or two? can't remember) did talk about what skills you would use for RRs in RMU: i.e., each rank you bought in the skill gave you a +1 to the RR (much like the passive bonus system RMU uses for DB too). The suggestions I liked were Mental Focus skill for Mentalism RRs, Power Projection for Essence, and Channeling for Channeling.

That also had the effect of making some rather niche skills more widely applicable.

[GrumpyOldFart]

It's nice to see an unapologetically adversarial GM.

A GM's job is to challenge the players, no? How do you do that without being adversarial?

And besides, I'm the guy who the Gods don't dare tick off.

[katastrophe]

But because RM is a level system that has to be represented somehow so you get DPs every so often.

Honestly, it wouldn't have to be, especially now that everything but RRs is skill rank-based. Technically, one could merely add one or several RR skills and get rid of the level system, using an alternate XPs system such as giving the DPs once every few game sessions…

I don’t disagree. We love levellesss systems actually. But since the whole xp, DP system is tied to lvls in RM it is what it is. We’ve  just not found the need nor time to rewrite that much of the system (if we were to do so we’d likely just play something else altogether).

We’ve thought about disassociating RR and spell casting from lvls but never got around to doing so. It never made sense to us that things like resistance to magic or poison should be somehow based on how much xp you’ve earned rather than your stats (not sure skills would make you less likely to die from poison).

But that’s a RMism that we’ve learned to live with. I won’t complain about it since the RM traditionalists will come out the woodworks and attack me for not singing the praises of RM.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

But since the whole xp, DP system is tied to lvls in RM it is what it is.

There were a lot of discussions on the forums about the matter and, well, when it comes to the XPs, many GMs don't go with them, merely rewarding levels every few game sessions. As such, since each level pretty much merely grants matching DPs, a GM may just hand them to his players every few game sessions. Not much rules to "rewrite".

We’ve thought about disassociating RR and spell casting from lvls but never got around to doing so.

In later RM versions (and, IIRC, as an optional rule in RM2), spell lists are developed as skill ranks, a PC's proficiency in a given spell list equalling his number of ranks in said list. There's not much to "rewrite" to consider his caster's level in the aforementioned list actually is his number of ranks as well.

It never made sense to us that things like resistance to magic or poison should be somehow based on how much xp you’ve earned rather than your stats (not sure skills would make you less likely to die from poison).

There are already in RM2 itself rules NOT to have a poison's effects depend on a character's level (thus NOT to depend on a RR), namely the constitution-based severity and the luck-based severity. Once again, there's nothing to "rewrite" as the rules already exist!

That only leaves the RR to resist spells, so, really, IMO, there's not much to rewrite.

[Elrich Maltah]

That only leaves the RR to resist spells, so, really, IMO, there's not much to rewrite.

RMC6 had two different options (section 4.2) for dealing with spell RRs without levels, either based on your stat bonus for the realm or by developing ranks in new Resistance skills. The DPs required for those new skills in that section were flat across all professions, so it makes more sense to me to use the costs later in section 10.6 from the Unified Skill System.

[cdcooley]

You could also argue that improving resistance should be handled as a tiered talent in RMU. If we're spending DPs on talents, then it's the easiest way to represent those specialized things that don't need variable profession costs.

[MisterK]

It's nice to see an unapologetically adversarial GM.

A GM's job is to challenge the players, no? How do you do that without being adversarial?

Not in my opinion. The GM's job is to make the characters' lives interesting (and so, make the players' time enjoyable). Challenging them is only useful if what they want is a challenge. I've met far more players who were interested in a good story than were interested in a good challenge.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

RMC6 had two different options (section 4.2) for dealing with spell RRs without levels, either based on your stat bonus for the realm or by developing ranks in new Resistance skills. The DPs required for those new skills in that section were flat across all professions, so it makes more sense to me to use the costs later in section 10.6 from the Unified Skill System.

Thank you. I forgot RM2's Golden Rule™: "For any rule you'd like to make, there's probably an optional rule somewhere in one of the complements."
The hardest is just to remember or find said optional rule.