Topic: COSTS!COSTS!COSTS!

[RandalThor]

A couple of threads* have just driven a point home to me, again: the RM designers have this incessant need to stick more and more DP costs to characters. It gets a little ridiculous especially when it comes to having to develop 4 or 5 skills (usually with multiple versions of the same skill thrown in there) just to do one thing! Now if you say that it is totally normal for a character to have to get to 40th or 50th level in order to be classified as an elite member of that profession, OK. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense, in that what is supposedly a skilled individual doesn't have half the skills needed, and many of those they do are underdeveloped, to truly be classified as that skilled.

So RM/SM has a lot of skills. Got that. Let's not make them spend even more DPs on the same skills in order to use them another way. Lets just say that the "new" way falls under the purview of the skill in question. Or that by having these two or three skills already you can just use them together to accomplish the task at hand.

*In case you can't guess, the Two-Weapon Combat thread was one of them, but a while back there were others in which the RM game designers came in and said the same thing (more DP spending).

[naphta23]

One example is the spell list Rune Mastery and the skill Read Runes. One of my players was quite surprised and frustrated when he learned that he needs it to use the rune papers he just made himself.

Another example is poison. If I am not mistaken, a character being proficient with poison production and usage would need the skills Flora Lore, Prepare Poisons, Using / Removing Poison and perhaps Poison Lore. That's quite a lot, isn't it?

Sure, the DPs needed add up to an immense sum, but on the other hand you can use each and every skill for something other than just one kind of situation. After all, each character gets a whole bunch of DPs each new level and it is Rolemaster, not D&D.

If you do not like this skill system, you could easily narrow down the skills with house rules, merging several skills and perhaps even categories, this could speed up the game and shorten the character sheet and rules. On the other hand, I chose Rolemaster as my favorite RPG for exactly this reason: it is less abstract than other games and seems to be the most realistic Fantasy RPG. With very few exceptions, I can understand the reasons for so many different and yet interacting skills and the costs.

Sorry, but I cannot take your side. 

edit:
The players should be able to trust their GM, who in return has to advise and attend during character creation and development. It is his duty to be informed - about the rules and the needs & goals of the player. Me thinks.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I'm not sure whose side I'd be on in this one.

I do think that there is a degree of over-specialisation within most catagories... but those RMSS skills that use the Standard progression ARE catered for, since an element of "Similar Skill" is catered for... you simply as a player choose to spend DP to develop a Category rather than a specific skill, you haven't got the skill? then a -15 is applied to the category bonus. 

The major problem lies with those skills that use the RMSS/RM combined progression where each skill (or within that Category for rmss) is treated as a discrete skill (and even related skills within the same skill (like 2-weapon use and Spell Mastery..)).

I think this is because that different people have different perceptions on exactly how bonuses with skills in this group are derived and exactly how the bonuses should increase. Should these skills be defined as a skill per se or an improveable apptitude? If it is the later then ALL skills within a category should able to claim a certian amount of similarity bonus and the option to do a blanket improvement across the board.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

the RM designers have this incessant need to stick more and more DP costs to characters.

To be clear -- I did not, and was not involved in the design of RMSS/FRP. "RM Designers" are not trying to stick you with paying more DP costs. 

Interpreting the rules is part of my job. When I say that you are supposed to learn 3 skills to get two weapon combo, that is because that is what the rules say. And to me, trying to get around what those rules say comes across as power gaming.

If you are the GM, then there is no problem. Just change the rules to suit your interpretation. That is something that I wholly and fully recommend.

[twh]

To be clear (since I started the TWC thread), my question regarding TWC was specific to RMC, not RMFRP.  So it seems to me that transferring that discussion to RMFRP isn't fair.

While I do like the RMFRP concept of buying ranks in skill categories because of its natural 'similar skill' effect, I personally don't like the overabundant skills of minor variations:  all the different perception and awareness skills, for example.  That's just personal preference.

As for TWC, as well as disarming and subdual, I consider them extensions of the weapon skills already learned.  Subdual just gets an OB mod and tweaked criticals (e.g., sword--flat of the blade--does K crits instead of S, and at a lower severity).  I use SPAR's parry-as-you-go mechanism, and allow characters to over-parry to force the attacker's roll into his own fumble range, which can cause him to lose his weapon.

Point is, my players are not being forced to spend lots of DPs on these things.

[Cormac Doyle]

TWC *is* an extension of the existing skill in RMC ! (there is no TWC skill in RMC - it appears in RoCo2 and in RMSS)

[Arioch]

To be clear (since I started the TWC thread), my question regarding TWC was specific to RMC, not RMFRP.  So it seems to me that transferring that discussion to RMFRP isn't fair.

I think the reference was to this TWC topic:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=6675.0

So RM/SM has a lot of skills. Got that. Let's not make them spend even more DPs on the same skills in order to use them another way.

Nobody force you to do that: RM has lots of skills, if you don't like one, just don't use it! 

[twh]

To be clear (since I started the TWC thread), my question regarding TWC was specific to RMC, not RMFRP.  So it seems to me that transferring that discussion to RMFRP isn't fair.

I think the reference was to this TWC topic:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=6675.0

You are correct, I was looking at the wrong thing.

[Marc R]

This is a tengential comment to

One example is the spell list Rune Mastery and the skill Read Runes. One of my players was quite surprised and frustrated when he learned that he needs it to use the rune papers he just made himself.

I am pretty sure that when an alchemist crafts an item, they do not need to roll attunement to use it, I'm not sure if the same logic would apply to runes. Then again, someone could work on the assembly line at Ford for 40 years, work every job on the line, and be capable of making/assembling a car by themselves, and not know how to drive a car.

That said, I'm also in favor of a slim skill set. If you think poison lore is tough, how about Herbalism. . . ."I need a skill to know how to properly take an asprin?" The herbalist wrote "Brew 1 TBsp herbs in one cup hot water as a tea, allow to cool, drink."

Though that may come down to dice happy GMs who don't know when to just say "Routine action don't roll."

[naphta23]

Great and fitting examples, Lord Miller!

[Warl]

If I am not mistaken, a character being proficient with poison production and usage would need the skills Flora Lore, Prepare Poisons, Using / Removing Poison and perhaps Poison Lore. That's quite a lot, isn't it?

Production would vary Dependant on what type of Poison they were trying to produce.
A chemical Poison wouldn't need Flora lore necessarily, but would need Alchemy instead. in RM2/RMC there isn't a Prepare poison skill, that would fall under the preview of the alchemy skill or the herbalism skill or just the Use/remove poison. (as preparing it could be considered using it.)

A person might need the flora Lore skill to FIND the plants he needs, but if he justs goes to a herbalist shop or Apothecary he might find what he needs there with out knowing where it is found.

So for chemical poisons, on a minimum, to make them, would need alchemy, poison lore and use remove poison.

For a flora/plant poison, minimum skills would be Herbalism, poison lore, use/remove poison.

For a Natural Creature poison, would just need poison lore and Use remove poison.

Now finding the poison sources ones self would add an additional skill sure.

Flora lore for Plants and Animal or monster type lore for natural creature poisons.

Not sure alchemy would need anything more than Poison lore, mabey some kind of stone or geology or something for knowing where to acquire the chemicals.

My point is, to get back on the subject, It is up to the GM and mabey each GM sees a need and others don't. I personaly Hate meta gaming, So I require my players to HAVE a Lore skill to know anything about something.

[Marc R]

fauna lore makes most of those 3 skills again.

A lot depends on stability of a toxin and how good the directions are.

A stable toxin thats well understood so it has good directions is easy.

Case and point:

"Roundup". . .spray directly on weeds, wear gloves, wash hands thouroghly after using, wear mask if spraying extensively. Use away from face, do not inhale, drink or ingest. Keep out of reach of children. Active shelf life 2 years.

The annoying to use poisons will be 1) The ones that degrade fast so they need to be obtained prepared and used fast. . .like most snake venoms, that are protien or enzyme based and will degrade fast out of the snake if not kept airtight and/or refrigerated. 2) the ones that you want someone to ingest and be affected without anyone knowing they were poisoned or 3) having a specific non lethal effect on someone.

The vast majority of poisons would fall under the "Are you mentally capable of dipping a french fry in ketchup?" and/or the "Do you know how to open a bottle and pour?" category. . . .

Poisoning an arrow/knife is not rocket science, and the odds of poisoning yourself are close to zero if you take basic precautions and do it sober.

If Joe villian hands Jim the assassin a small jar of a black tarry substance and says "Dip your arrows in this just before you shoot the king" does anyone really think that Jim the assassin should be making a skill roll to do so? At worst, if this is not a rushed situation, I might perhaps make Jim roll an agility maneuver of the "Don't roll open ended down" variety.

If Sam villian hands Sandy sabateur a jug with a cork in it and says "Go and pour this into the well at the royal barracks, don't get any on yourself or you'll die." do you really think Sandy needs to roll a skill for that? If he's not rushed, and takes his time, and wears gloves, it seems almost impossible for him to fail. . .another, perhaps "Roll an agility maneuver and don't roll open ended down."

90% of instances where you'd use poison, it's akin to having a "Put toothpaste on toothbrush" skill, or a "pouring a bottle of beer in a cup without spilling" skill.

The complexities and subtleties of poison involve a tiny minority of all instances where someone would use it in a game. . . .Non lethal drugs, where you want someone to behave in a certain way, or fall asleep for a given duration. . . .those would be uses of an art, a skill, and a freaking hard one. . . .even knowing your exact body weight, using pure and very safe drugs, with O2 masks and defribulators a certain tiny number of people die in anesthesia. . .it's hard to guestimate bodyweight using impure drugs to get a chosen reaction. . .and that's pharmacology, or "Herbalism". . . .I have serious doubts about poison use as a skill at all.

The best call for it I can think of is the "I want the poison to be undetectable, and I want everyone to think he had a stroke" kind of thing. . .and that still feels more like the dark side of medicine/herbalism than a poison skill.

[Warl]

I would agree with you LM that the use/remove poison would be the least needed skill of those sets. Unless it also covered the process of preparing/making the poison itself. That process is more likely to have a bad result than the actual Use of the poison on the user. So many more things can go wrong while gathering, processing, containerizing the poison.

[Fullerton]

90% of instances where you'd use poison, it's akin to having a "Put toothpaste on toothbrush" skill, or a "pouring a bottle of beer in a cup without spilling" skill.

That may be so, but I think the real point is that the rules aren't very good at explaining that concept. Rather, the rules tell you so many things that the poison-related skills *allow* you to do that it's hard to see that you could potentially do those things without the skill.

Without spending too much time looking through my books, it's hard to find good guidelines on what needs a roll and what doesn't. (The answer might depend on the specific skill being used, for example.)

And then combined with the original point about so many individual skills to cover one skill "theme" (like poison), one's ability to adjudicate the game starts to feel more like trying to gain membership in the old boy's club. You don't really know how to do it unless you know how to do it. You know?

I appreciate the fact that RM offers more complexity/detail than other games, and I also appreciate the fact that RM isn't necessarily intended to be a player's first rpg. But at the same time, it's possible to be complex *and* less confusing at the same time.

A less confusing set of skills makes adventure design more approachable. It widens the set of potential authors who can make officially-correct adventures to more than just those who understand the finest points of the system.

[Dax]

LordMiller's examples show the problem.
But the problem is not within the skill, it is in the skill use that is based on the description of that skill. I don't own SohK (yet), but I have an assumption of the skill description.
First time I read this skill I could instantly imagine what my RM-loathing friend will say (He makes jokes about RM skills like Breathing, Eating and others not-namable).
But I read the second part of it "remove poison", I imagine a Rogue scratching an unused poison from a blade for later ...

In RM the GM have to choose a difficult column for a skill use or a modification.
This modifcation could be a straight +250 !

But the standard use shouldn't be rolled (because of the mods) and in other instances it may be roleplayed:
"I add the poison powder to the water of the target." "You remember the description of the poison?" "A dark powder ... oh it would be visible, changing the color of the water. I have to use it differently."
(OK, it is a little bit meta gaming.)

It is like other skills (more social ones) role or roll them.

In my example the GM could have let the player roll "use poison" and tell her that the poison would change the color of the water.

The application might be more like Pick Pockets or Trickery.

[markc]

 As a chemist I can say that chemisty is a lot like baking. Even if you follow the recipee you might not get what you want. Now do I use all of the poison skills no. But I can see the need for them in some games.

 The big thing I think is a Rolemaster GM has to comfertable cuting or adding rules in as needed to fit there game world.

MDC

[Emaughan]

Being a Pharmacist I agree with markc.  Many of the skills can be complicated to develop well and would require combinations of different diciplines.  Poisoning someone should be simple - if one is simply given the poison and following instructions.  Making the poison and knowing how to best deploy it - that should be complicated.  Using two weapons in combination well is a very valuable skill, and a complicated one to learn well (ask any of the maritial arts guys in this forum). This should cost more based on benifit to cost ratio.  Even with the high cost, with many of my characters I would still spend the points to get proficient in TWC. 

Some streamlining may be needed - but it is so easy to house rule skills into groups if the GM wants.  Power game all you want, or make it as realistic as you want; either/or.

[Arioch]

That may be so, but I think the real point is that the rules aren't very good at explaining that concept.

I partially agree.
The problem is, IMHO, that RM rules are a bit old and in many cases are not very "user friendly". When the books came out that was OK, as many games took for granted certain rules/principles or left them to the GM's discretion. But now the RPG standard is more "plug & play" and often even basic concepts of RPG are explained very clearly.
You can compare HARP to RM for a quick example, in the first core rulesbook explain everything very clearly, giving examples and suggestions. In RM rules are often poorly organized (save for RMC books,that was really a great job! ) and often skills, spells, etc are not extensively explained.
That's IMHO one of the points to keep in mind when (if! ) planning a future revision: clear rules, with lots of examples and detailed description of skills and spells.
And put a big, red disclaimer before the skill lists: "Here are the skills. All of them are optional. Use them at your own risk. ICE isn't responsible for bad DPs spending and PCs minmaxing." 

[Marc R]

I actually agree with both our chemist and pharmacist. . . .and I actually think their points illustrate the point quite well.

Lethal toxins, either weapon coating or ingested are intended to be lethal. . .if poison A has a lethal dosage of 10mg and you give someone a dose like 10g, it's sloppy, unskilled and doesn't have the elegance of being the right dosage to get the effect (i.e. 10mg = dead), but if all you intend to do is kill them then 10g will still flat out kill them. Essentially, in the level of overkill, there's not much of a risk to being unskileld and overdosing the target. I will admit that with some ingested toxins if 10mg will kill you, then 10g of the toxin will cause the victim to puke up the poison and end up surviving, but most poisons will kill regardless. (Household chemicals are dangerous enough, actual poisons are really nasty stuff)

I'll agree that there's all sorts of subtleties involved in chemicals. . .but in terms of making them I'd still call it chemistry/alchemy/herbalism. . .and in terms of predicting the results and determining what drug and dosage to use I'd call it Medicine/Pharmacology. . . .

I'm just saying that how to apply poison to an arrow or pour it into food isn't a skill. . . .any more than "Oiling and sharpening dagger" isn't a skill, nor "Applying salt to food". . . .not knowing that one shake of poison is enough, and anything more is overkill and likely to allow the target to detect the poison (or make them puke it up) would again seem to be the lore/medicine/pharmacology skill, which can be easily transmitted for an individual instance:

i.e. the poison maker gives you ten tiny paper packets of a white powder "pour one packet into a cup of wine, water or beer and swish it around until it dissolves. . .don't put it into a hot drink like tea or it won't work."

I would say that the character now has everything they need to know to use the poison. . .the poison maker might need some serious chemistry or medical skills, but using those packets and instructions to poison someone doesn't seem much more complicated to me than self medicating with asprin, which doesn't seem to be a skill either.

[pastaav]

I think that a skill like using/removing poison is not to apply the poison with plenty of time and free movement...anyone can do that. Rather it is the skill to poison the kings cup without him or the guards seeing what you do. If done properly the guards will suspect you but can not prove you did it.

BTW realistic poisons mean any character will die if exposed to enough of the substance. Your experience does not matter if you are exposed to ten times a lethal dose or radioactivity.

My view of it are that the only reasonable explanation for how poisons work in RM are that the listed poisons are the tasteless variants or poisons that are stable. An unlimited number of things can poison you if you ingest them but these regular poisonous substances will taste bad and thus seldom fool the victim. Similarily there are many poisonous substances to cover your weapon with that is more potent than the listed poisons, but these are unstable and will be applied the moments before you make the attack.