Topic: Changing rank bonus

[markc]

 I have thought about changing the rank bonus to something like -15, -5, 5 [9 more here], 3 [10], 2[10], 1[10]. Why you migth ask? The reason is IMO 1 rank is a very limited understanding of the skill as I see it. You have a little knowledge but do not have the depth of understanding or experience for whatever you are trying to do. So you have a better chance than someone who knows nothing but still have a chance to do whatever you are trying to do wrong.

 Any thoughts?

MDC 

[RandalThor]

So, are you saying this?:

no ranks/skill = -15
1 rank = -5
ranks 2 to 10 = +5 (each)
ranks 11 to 20 = +3 (each)
ranks 21 to 30 = +2 (each)
ranks 31 to 40 = +1 (each)
then go to the +0.5/rank thereafter?

If so, it is fine if you really want to give differences at the lower skill levels. Personally, I try not to ever play/run RM at low levels (I prefer to start at a minimum of 5th level, preferably higher)  so it wouldn't affect my games too much. But, I am sure it can work just fine. I go with all skills being either Combined or Special, with no category development. (Of course, this only refers to the RMSS/RMFRP rules sets. )

[Arioch]

IMHO it's not a good idea, unless you want low-level characters being seriously impaired. I think that with the current progression 1 rank gives you a very limited understanding of what you are doing: it's just a +5 bonus.
If you want to stress the importance of having more ranks you could go with a progression like this:
0 rnks: -15
1 rnk: +0
2-10 rnk: +5
... and so on

[markc]

Rand Al Thor,
 Yes that was what I was trying to say in the small time I had to post it. Also I do start my games at between 3rd and 5th level [with the option to lose a level and gain talent points and some restrictions, I do not use the TP's from RMSS:TL as writen or as RMSS has writen.] so I know exzactly what you mean. But also IMO it might add some flavor as gaining 1 rank in the Cat and 1 in the skill and going up +40 points (RMSS).

Arioch,
 That is another option of lettiing the first rank give you +15 for each of the Cat and Skill (RMSS), +30 total. I was thinking of a little smother curve to the graph with it only going up +20 [total] or +10 for each of the ranks.


  My thinking is to force players to spend a little more DP's in other places than the standard areas. I do think it would be more of a problem in RMC/2/E than in RMSS/FRP, do to the smaller DP pool. But then again there are RM2/C/E games that are played like i currently play my RMSS game.

Thanks
MDC

[Arioch]

Arioch,
 That is another option of lettiing the first rank give you +15 for each of the Cat and Skill (RMSS), +30 total. I was thinking of a little smother curve to the graph with it only going up +20 [total] or +10 for each of the ranks.

I think it's a matter of intepretation of the "meaning" of ranks:
I see rank zero as "never studied the subject/have only a vague idea of what it's about" (for example I know that quantuum physics is a science about very small things: I have 0 ranks in it).
OTOH rank one means that the character has studied the subject for a while and know some basic notions about it (if I'd go to school and take some months of lessons about quantuum physics and read basic manuals about it, I would gain 1 rank in it).
Chance of success for actions in which you have zero ranks (assuming a total of +0 from stats) are almost non-existant: only by sheer luck (open ended roll) you can succeed in them and there is a good chance that you'll get a bad failure result.
With 1 rank your chances of success are very small (and you're probably going to get only "partial successes" in all but the simplest tasks), which is still a lot better than no chances at all.
IMHO this is a good reflection of the fact that with no ranks I don't know anything about the skill and with one I know only basic informations.

My thinking is to force players to spend a little more DP's in other places than the standard areas.

IMHO if you want players to buy "non standard" skills, lowering the bonus for rank one is not a good solution: it would only make them spend more DPs on "standard" skills, to be more effective in them, and none in the others.
Maybe you should force them to spend at least a certain % of their DPs in non-combat/non-spell skills, or make the progression of certain skil dependant on others (for example, you cannot have more than 5 ranks in broadsword if you don't have at least 3 ranks in Lore: Combat Styles or you cannot have more ranks in Fire Law than your ranks in Lore: Elemental Planes, and so on)

[Nejira]

My thinking is to force players to spend a little more DP's in other places than the standard areas.

You could divide the DP pool into two. One being the primary focus (profession-related skills) and the secondary focus (limited to "hobby" related skills, and languages).

Or simply give a DP bonus of 20 (or anyother amount you like) which can only be spend on secondary skills.

[croakerdogboy]

I prefer to start at a minimum of 5th level, preferably higher

Why? I like to start them at lowest first level, I have done zero level (young teens who hadn't had their apprenticeship yet). I feel like that gives them time to get to know their characters. It also allows them to build skills that it may not have occurred to them that they would need. Or to focus in areas that perhaps they were unsure of when they first developed their character concept.

I have noticed this is stated a lot. I was just curious as to why you would want to start them at a higher level and miss all the low powered action.

[markc]

I prefer to start at a minimum of 5th level, preferably higher

Why? I like to start them at lowest first level, I have done zero level (young teens who hadn't had their apprenticeship yet). I feel like that gives them time to get to know their characters. It also allows them to build skills that it may not have occurred to them that they would need. Or to focus in areas that perhaps they were unsure of when they first developed their character concept.

I have noticed this is stated a lot. I was just curious as to why you would want to start them at a higher level and miss all the low powered action.

 I start them at 3rd to 5th level depending on profession, 3rd for pure arms, 4th semi and 5th pure spellcasters. Why well quite often we have changed from a higher level game to a low level game after the finish of a champaign and it is quite tough to get to good averge skill level's with out taking talents or other mods. [I have a talent list that I use but it is very very mello compaired to the one in RMSS or RMSS TL] Also i have tended to notice that players have trouble because the new PC's fail almost 3/4 of the time when they try and do anything. Also I should note that an average person in my game is between 3rd-8th level and most players are not used to that in a RPG. In fact in most RPG's the players are at the top of the skill pool instead of in the middle when they start out. Also I sort of use as a guage of what skill bonus do you need to accomplish an easy task [+50 I think but maybe +60] without fumbling. So roll 06, a +50 easy skill bonus+55 skill bonus=111, a success. So I say to my players to get a job as X you need the job's skills at 55 or better and that will basicly determine your pay and ability to get a job or perform one.
 Also when you play SM:P talent packages define where your PC has been and done. I did a test for a doctor PC and it took 4-6 levels for them to get all the TP's they needed to actually be a doctor. He was also a psionic so that did take some of the DP's away that he would have needed to be a doctor sooner but I think being a psi was a lot better in the long run to heal wounds not matter what there medical supplies were like.

 BTW, I am going to be changing a lot of the culture skill ranks in my new game and that might have me lower the levels a bit but I do not think so as most of the new ranks I am going to place in the culture are going to go in athletic skills and maybe some profession ranks as well. I am mainly looking at a SM:P game but that may shift by the time I get there.

 Hope that helps if not post more questions or drop me a PM.
MD

[Dark Schneider]

IMO ranks should be more linear, a progression like 4-3-2-1, who pays for 1 rank to increase +0.5 bonus?.

You can increase differences between low and high lvl characters.

[Winterknight]

Perhaps an easier math solution would be to require players to spend 2 DP ranks to get 1st rank in a previously unlearned skill.  You might make exceptions for "core" class skills, that they would already have had exposure to.  Keep the -25/+5/+3/+2/+1 if you like that progression; I've seen it used in slightly higher-powered campaigns in the past.

For example, a fighter is attempting to learn Hide, which (example purposes only) costs 2/6.  For his first rank, he would have to pay 8 points, and that would be the only development in this skill he could achieve when he learns it.  Next character level, he could learn a second rank for 2 DP's, as normal, and a third for the additional 6, if he desired.

A thief, by contrast, would be able to start learning the Hide skill at normal DP costs and progression, because the concepts would have already been part of his past training/affinity.  For him, he just needed to work on technique and self-study to master the basics that he had been shown, but never practiced.

[Langthorne]

I think that the difference between 0 ranks and 1 rank is a good reflection of what it is like to begin learning a new skill. Generally (a big generalisation), there is a big initial improvement in skill, then efforts result in less improvement vs input over time.

If you want players to develop 'non-standard' skills, just use them more in your games:

"I want to know if there are any villages in that forest" - "make a Region Lore (big green forest) roll

"I want to cut through the forest instead of using the path" - "make a Survival (forest) roll"

"Is that mushroom edible?" - Fauna Lore (big green forest), "We need food!" - foraging. "I'm cold" - fire starting. Set a watch - surveillance (when on watch), time sense (for determining when it is time to wake the next watcher), situation awareness sleep (for being better aware of trouble when asleep). "We travel North" - direction sense.

Every skill can be useful, even crucial, in the right setting - if you put players into those settings, and they want to be effective, they will develop a wider range of skills.

No need to "force" them by stating how many DPs they must spend in certain skills. If a player wants to play a one dimensional hacking machine that is their prerogative (but they have to accept that there is a reason these types don't generally rule the - your - world).


 

[Right Wing Wacko]

I think that the difference between 0 ranks and 1 rank is a good reflection of what it is like to begin learning a new skill. Generally (a big generalisation), there is a big initial improvement in skill, then efforts result in less improvement vs input over time.

If you want players to develop 'non-standard' skills, just use them more in your games:

"I want to know if there are any villages in that forest" - "make a Region Lore (big green forest) roll

"I want to cut through the forest instead of using the path" - "make a Survival (forest) roll"

"Is that mushroom edible?" - Fauna Lore (big green forest), "We need food!" - foraging. "I'm cold" - fire starting. Set a watch - surveillance (when on watch), time sense (for determining when it is time to wake the next watcher), situation awareness sleep (for being better aware of trouble when asleep). "We travel North" - direction sense.

Every skill can be useful, even crucial, in the right setting - if you put players into those settings, and they want to be effective, they will develop a wider range of skills.

No need to "force" them by stating how many DPs they must spend in certain skills. If a player wants to play a one dimensional hacking machine that is their prerogative (but they have to accept that there is a reason these types don't generally rule the - your - world).

I agree 100% and that is also how I run my games. There are so many skills in RM that it would be difficult to find a situation where at least one skill wouldn't pertain...

[markc]

RWW,
 The breadth of skills is one reason I like maybe even love RM. Right now I am playing in another game with quite a bit fewer skills and it seams like cheating as the skills are so broad. But it is what it is and it is fun to game generally no matter what the system is.

MDC

[Moloch]

We use a house rule, regarding the +x/level.
This is the "James" or "Jbuca rule" ;-)

For secondary skills (only) the +/lv is for each skill rank, instead for the level of the PC.

ie : a 4th level thief, developps Pickpocket and Stalk/hide skills, at 2 SR per level.

With his 10 SR in pickpocket, a secondary skill, (developped at 2 rank each level, from lvl 0 to lvl 4) he'll get a 50(5*10)+30 (10*3)= +80 in his pickpocket skill, but only a 50(5*10)+12(4*3)=+62 for his stalk/hide wich is a primary skill.

This way, small players are encouraged to developp their secondary skills, and will quick be reasonnably skilled, without needing to profundly change the system.

[Dark Schneider]

For secondary skills (only) the +/lv is for each skill rank, instead for the level of the PC.

The problem is that on new RM versions there is no 'secondary skills' concept, as any skill can be primary in the proper situation, and I am agree with that.

i.e. is trade skill 'secondary' for a merchant?, is 'diplomacy' secondary when is the only option you have for survival?.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

In RMC, Primary Skills are made up of the following:

Maneuvering in Armor   
   Soft Leather
   Rigid Leather
    Chain
   Plate
Weapon Skills   
   One-Handed Edged
   One-Handed Crushing
    Two-Handed
   Missile
   Thrown
   Pole Arms
General Skills   
   Climbing
   Swimming
   Riding
   Disarm Traps
   Pick Locks
   Stalk & Hide
   Perception
Magical Skills   
   Spell Lists
   Channeling
   Runes
   Staves & Wands
   Directed Spells
Special Skills   
   Ambush
   Linguistics
   Adrenal Moves
   Adrenal Defense
   Martial Arts
   Body Development

Everything else is a secondary skill, regardless of the situation....

I think (and this is only a guess) that the above list was considered Primary skills because they were considered required for every game, while the Secondary Skills are those that a GM added to flesh things out a bit more. At least that is the impression I got from it.

[pastaav]

I think (and this is only a guess) that the above list was considered Primary skills because they were considered required for every game, while the Secondary Skills are those that a GM added to flesh things out a bit more. At least that is the impression I got from it.

My guess is that the primary skills are those skills that is needed to do a D&D style dungeon crawl. The first versions of RM was essentially thought about as a add on for AD&D and that might be the explanation to the strange division of primary and secondary skills.

[Temujin]

Its the "secondary skills" which made me interested in RMSS.  I liked the idea of a fantasy game where your character would actually care about things like Lores, Crafts(maybe), social & outdoor skills, etc.  I have a game where we almost don't adventure, and although there are fights on a semi-regular basis, the game is mostly social whereas we're running a shop.  I wouldn't go back to a game where all you had were your weapon skills and your spells.

[Dark Schneider]

That's right, in RMC, but for new versions of RM I talk about RMSS and above.