Topic: COSTS!COSTS!COSTS!

[Marc R]

IMO poisoning someone's cup while they are watching, without them noticing, is Trickery. . .like any other act of slight of hand would be.

[Warl]

IMO poisoning someone's cup while they are watching, without them noticing, is Trickery. . .like any other act of slight of hand would be.

I agree with LM on that.

[pastaav]

Actually it is not true that "any slight of hand is trickery"

One obvious example would be picking pockets. Why is this skill not folded into trickery if trickery is the generalized slight-of-hand-skill?

An possible answer for skills existance are that the RM designers aimed for extra skill bloat and overlapping skills. Another possible answer would be that trickery is strictly divertion when doing slight of hand movement and not the actual skill that is used. If you are picking pockets you use picking pocket skill and if you are applying poison you use using/removing poison. In both cases trickery increases your chances of success since it creates a divertion.

Obviously many other interpretations are possible for these overlapping skills, but a discussion about the intended use of skills must either be "here are my houserules" or "use skill list as written".

[Marc R]

In RMC/X picking pockets is covered by trickery. Shrug. Technically if it were a seperate skill, in order to pick your pocket, then make your wallet "dissapear" into my sleeve, I'd need to roll pick pockets, then trickery.

I suspect the issue comes down to "Is a skill a broad use of an ability, or a single task." if you choose the latter, you need a LOT of skills.

[Arioch]

I suspect the issue comes down to "Is a skill a broad use of an ability, or a single task." if you choose the latter, you need a LOT of skills.

And I have no problem in this sense, but I think that a generic system like RM should give both options, giving the opportunity of using any level of detail for each skill. Something like RMFRP/SS categories+skills, but more coherent and with the possibility of dropping the skills and using only categories to represent "broad use of an ability", or even dropping categories and using only skills...

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

And I have no problem in this sense, but I think that a generic system like RM should give both options, giving the opportunity of using any level of detail for each skill. Something like RMFRP/SS categories+skills, but more coherent and with the possibility of dropping the skills and using only categories to represent "broad use of an ability", or even dropping categories and using only skills...

Which is why I talk about using a multi-tier skill system with differing levels of complexity/detail  for each tier whenever I talk about a revision of RM.

Once we have built up our customer base to appropriate levels, then we can start worrying about actually revising both versions of RM into a single system that is flexible enough to handle things. It is one of those things that are always niggling at the back of my mind. 

For now, however, we are stuck with what we have, which is RMC and RMFRP. Both systems have quirks and foibles and we just have to deal with them until ICE is ready to work on a revision.

 

[Marc R]

If I read tim's posts correctly, he was talking about going to a 3 tiered system, with a small core of broad ability skills, then specializations out of that skill into more task oriented skills, then a third tier of highly specialized skills at the fine detail level, each requiring different levels of DP.

I like the idea in concept, though my experiences with "All out RM2 with the whole RoCo2 kit-n-kaboodle of skills" is that if you quadruple the number of skills, then give bonus DP to balance, in the end players tend to then have far more scope to game the skillset in a munchkinesque manner.

I guess it is possible to write a system that avoids or prevents it, but my experiences say to me that if you balance a system to say 50 DP to spend on 25 skills, that when it goes to 100 DP to spend on 100 skills the players seem far more inclined to create accounting nightmares, then complain when they can't do something related to a skill they have.

i.e.

"If I have a +150 bonus in pick pockets, why can't I do slight of hand?"
"Because you didn't bother to buy trickery"
blah blah etc.

Frankly, I think the slippery slope of similar skills (say that 5 times fast) is the bane of RM in all versions. . .and thinly sliced skills based on tasks rather than abilities invite it to happen.

[Arioch]

I guess it is possible to write a system that avoids or prevents it, but my experiences say to me that if you balance a system to say 50 DP to spend on 25 skills, that when it goes to 100 DP to spend on 100 skills the players seem far more inclined to create accounting nightmares, then complain when they can't do something related to a skill they have.

If you want ot avoid this you can limit the number of ranks a character may purchase in a skill from a given tier by the number of ranks in the previous tier...
I think that an example will explain better my idea:
You have
- Tier 1: Flora Lore (general skill about plants, herbs, flowers, plant-monsters,...)
- Tier 2: Herb Lore (specialized skill about healing herbs)
- Tier 3: Prepare Herbs (more specialization in actually preparing healing herbs for usage)

So Prepare Herbs (T3) cannot have more ranks than Herb Lore (T2), which cannot have more ranks than Flora Lore (T1).
Total bonus in a skill would be T1+T2+T3, so your bonus in a specialized skill will always be higher than your bonus in a general skill.

[yammahoper]

I played RM2 for well over a decade with Companion 2 skills and never increased dev points.  We had a carry over from MERP, hobby skills, were each PC selected 3-5 hobby skills and recieved five ranks each level to place in those skills, which were typically skills aimed at representing a "career", like tactics, military org and administration for a soldier (we used war law and incorperated some of the unit training skills which were frequent hobby selections), or blacksmith, advanced math, astrology, alchemy and metalurgy for a mage who wanted an alchemist bend for his PC.

Lots of skills does not mean more dev is needed, nor that all the skills have to be used.  I think Rasyrs tiered approach is very solid and will provide the sort of flexibility and options GM's are looking for in the core rules.

lynn

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I guess it is possible to write a system that avoids or prevents it, but my experiences say to me that if you balance a system to say 50 DP to spend on 25 skills, that when it goes to 100 DP to spend on 100 skills the players seem far more inclined to create accounting nightmares, then complain when they can't do something related to a skill they have.

When you increase the number of skills by 4 but only increase DPs by 2, of course there are going to be problems. There needs to be a specific ratio of skill costs to DPs gained, otherwise you will end up with all sorts of problems with balance  and other issues.

Actually, one of the best ways to handle a cat/skill would be to standardize the manner in which ALL categories are learned, in which the bonus from the category is figured.

For example -- Have the skill with the most ranks in it, provide a bonus to the category (which is in turn used to determine skill bonus for other skills.

Have a Subterfuge category that includes both pick pocket and trickery. +100 (say 25 ranks + 25 from stats) in Pick Pocket might give a bonus of +25 to all other Subterfuge skills (i.e. 25 points (1 per rank, in skill with most ranks) + 25  from category stats + -25 for no ranks in skill == +25 total). Then allow the +25 to be used if it is higher than the total skill bonus in any other skill in the category.

This same system COULD easily work just as well for lore skills as well. The bonus in the lores where no skill is had representing things that might have been picked up in the course of studying a given topic (i.e. through references to other docs, conversations with others while learning, etc...)

If the bonuses are too high (which would require testing to determine), then the bonus to the cat can be adjusted accordingly  -- we want the other skills to be usable, but not remove the desire to learn those other skills, so a bonus of 0.5 per rank in the skill with the most ranks (or 0.1 bonus from all ranks in all skills in the cat) might be more appropriate.

That is just one possibility of how to create a relatively simple, but effective cat/skill system, and it is just something tossed out off the top of my head (meaning it has NOT gone through any sort of testing or vetting process, so somebody who is looking to shoot it down will likely find a way to do so). The point is, if something like that can be created on the spur of the moment, then the possibilities are extremely good that when ICE selects a team and begins working on the revision in a few years (yes, a team, cause I sure as heck ain't doing it by myself - ), that we will be able to solve such issues.

If you want ot avoid this you can limit the number of ranks a character may purchase in a skill from a given tier by the number of ranks in the previous tier...

Actually, when speaking of Tiers, I am referring to something along the following lines:

T1 = few broad skills (rough guesstimate of about 25-30)
T2 = more skill, still pretty broad, but different types separated out (i.e. Animal Husbandry == Animal Handling + Animal Healing)
T3 = Category/skill system, similar to RMSS, but without quite so many skills and cats overall.

Each Tier would be "hot-swappable", so to speak, thus you could use take a Tier 1 character and easily convert it to Tier 3, thus allowing ICE to use a single Tier for its NPCs and such, and then GMs who like differing levels of detail would be able to still use without problems...

At least that is the current goal of such a system.

[Marc R]

I don't think the ratio of skills:DP as you increase specialization is 1:1.

Like, if you went from 50 DP for 25 skills where all skills are broad, to 200 DP for 100 skills that are more narrow. . .it would have to be done very carefully, or it is too easy to abuse.

Even the RM2 expansion from Primary to Secondary skills, which was as much as x4 the number of skills in play, suggested no more than a 25% pop in DP. (Many of us didn't actually use ANY boost of extra DP for using 2ndary skills at all due to the dangers of too many DP in play.)

The problem being that it opens the door to ignoring subtlety and spending all that extra DP on a focused combat monster. . . .this is especially true due to the fact that the most important skills don't end up being split up into sub skills.

Like a weapon, or climbing, etc.

It is possible to do it 1:1, but you'd need to break all skills evenly. (i.e. if you have 25 skills going to 100 skills, each and every one of the initial 25 has to break into 4 seperate, fairly uniform in utility sub skills.)

I guess that's possible, but it sounds hard to get done right.

[Fullerton]

I don't think the ratio of skills:DP as you increase specialization is 1:1.

Like, if you went from 50 DP for 25 skills where all skills are broad, to 200 DP for 100 skills that are more narrow. . .it would have to be done very carefully, or it is too easy to abuse.

...

The problem being that it opens the door to ignoring subtlety and spending all that extra DP on a focused combat monster.

Exactly. More DPs generally means a character just spends more in the sorts of categories he was already good at, but *not* spending more in other categories. More points generally leads to a character being better at skills that already existed in the game (before the new skills were added), but which he couldn't afford with the original DP total.

Example: If I only have N DPs to spend, I might be able to afford 2 ranks per level in weapon A and weapon B. If I have 2xN DPs to spend, I'll probably afford 2 ranks per level in weapon A, B, C, and D, but *not* increase subterfuge skills at all, because that's not my specialty.

[Fullerton]

My example was kind of crummy. Let's try again...

Let's say the game usually gives you 50 DPs to spend on the standard set of skills, and I build a fighter-type character that doesn't (need to) take any social skills.

Let's say the GM decides to add a bunch of new social skills to round out the available skills, and let's say the GM allows us to spend 5 extra DPs per level. Well, my fighter-type character still doesn't need any of those social skills, so I'm going to spend those 5 extra DPs per level on combat skills, so I'm going to be better at combat simply because of how the GM handled the addition of extra social skills.


If you want to add extra social skills, and if you want characters to take some of those skills, then you have to do something more than (or other than) giving a general DP boost. There are a variety of things that can be done differently to make this sort of situation work correctly, but a general DP boost is not it.

OR, if you're going to give a general DP boost, you need to make sure you add new (and presumably necessary) skills to *all* categories, not just one or two categories.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I don't think the ratio of skills:DP as you increase specialization is 1:1.

1) Please note that I said that DPs have to be balanced against skill costs to DPs, not # of skills to DPs.

There needs to be a specific ratio of skill costs to DPs gained, otherwise you will end up with all sorts of problems with balance  and other issues.

2) What this means is that if a character spends 3% of his DP on 2 ranks of weapon skills, that when there more skills and more DPs involved, he should still be spending 3% of his DPs to get the equivalent of those 2 ranks. The same applies to the other skills as well.

A specific percentage of DPs have to purchase the equivalent bonus for each skill that is broken down into a group of skills. It is one of the core aspects of the Tiered skill system that will be required for a future revision of RM.

The problem being that it opens the door to ignoring subtlety and spending all that extra DP on a focused combat monster. . . .this is especially true due to the fact that the most important skills don't end up being split up into sub skills.

3) Your comment proceeds from one (or more) incorrect assumptions. The first being that you are using a number of skills versus number of DPs ration while I used a different ratio (detailed above), and the second that you are apparently assuming that skill costs would be the same and thus require spending the same amount of DPs.

There are likely other incorrect assumptions, but I am not going to worry about it, especially since the system being discussed is only in its earliest possible design stages, so there is no way to really have any sort of full discussion on unless you know fully and exactly every little detail (it being in the earliest design stages also being why I won't talk in more than generalities regarding the system's goals for the most part). 

4) You will also always have the possibility of a player trying to create a combat monster who ignores other skills. It is possible now. So, nothing changes. If there is a munchkin in the group, he will find any possible exploit of the rules that he can. The rules can reduce the chances of munchkinism (such as limiting the number of ranks gained each level, like they do now), but they cannot remove the munchkin himself or his efforts to subvert the rules, so trying to say that a set of , as yet undefined/undeveloped, rules will open the way to munchkinism is a very specious argument at best. You cannot know any such thing until the rules have actually been written.

And to assume (which is how your post is coming across) that a future revision will not take this (reducing the potential for munchkinism) into account is doing a great disservice to ICE, and to the individuals who will be asked to be part of the revision team when ICE decides it is time to revise RM.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Let's say the GM decides to add a bunch of new social skills to round out the available skills, and let's say the GM allows us to spend 5 extra DPs per level. Well, my fighter-type character still doesn't need any of those social skills, so I'm going to spend those 5 extra DPs per level on combat skills, so I'm going to be better at combat simply because of how the GM handled the addition of extra social skills.

Okay, you seem to be discussing something different than what was being discussed in posts above. I had been discussing a future modular skill system for the next revision of RM, where there are 3 levels/tiers of detail. Where each tier has more skills and more DPs than the one before it, with the 3rd tier being some sort of category/skill system that allowed for RMFRP-like detail without an overpowering number of skills.

You have valid points, regarding  a GM adding new skills.

However, such sort of across the board additions are not always going to be feasible.

That is one reason that I recommend adding 1 DP for every 2 skills added (the costs of the skills being determined by profession normally). This gives a minimal increase to DP, which allows for a profession who will be using such skills a lot to have a better chance of getting them without giving an overpowering amount of DP to the other professions.

The problem is, when you give additional DPs (and you really ought to if you are upping the number of skills being used), you cannot control how the player will spend them (and IMO, you shouldn't). A GM can always "chastise" such players through adventures that require those "ignored" skills". The level/purchase limits also work to prevent too much munchkinism in that regard.

Being able to use 1 additional weapon is not a real benefit if the character isn't carrying the weapon (which would count against encumbrance, etc..).

[Fullerton]

Actually, one of the best ways to handle a cat/skill would be to standardize the manner in which ALL categories are learned, in which the bonus from the category is figured.

For example -- Have the skill with the most ranks in it, provide a bonus to the category (which is in turn used to determine skill bonus for other skills.

Have a Subterfuge category that includes both pick pocket and trickery. +100 (say 25 ranks + 25 from stats) in Pick Pocket might give a bonus of +25 to all other Subterfuge skills (i.e. 25 points (1 per rank, in skill with most ranks) + 25  from category stats + -25 for no ranks in skill == +25 total). Then allow the +25 to be used if it is higher than the total skill bonus in any other skill in the category.

It's not entirely clear to me which of two things you mean, but both have problems:

If you mean the +25 total in the example *replaces*, say, my Stalk/Hide skill (which only has a +15 bonus based on my own Stalk/Hide rank development), then the system provides a *disincentive* to pick up a rank here or there in various other subterfuge skills. I'm not sure a disincentive is a good thing. Or rather, I may later discover that I "wasted" DPs that I spent on Stalk/Hide at 1st-level once the generic subterfuge skill replacement bonus exceeds that. In turn, that means a PC build specifically for Nth level will probably be better optimized (meaning: just better) compared to a character that developed organically up from 1st level to Nth level. That's also not a good thing, since players often replace a dead PC with a newly generated one of Nth level.

If you mean the +25 total in the example *adds* to other subterfuge skills, then you have a problem where my Pick Pocket skill has higher ranks than Stalk/Hide, but Pick Pocket ends up with a lower bonus than Stalk/Hide because Stalk/Hide got a +25 extra bonus, but Pick Pocket did not.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

illerejug -- see my other notes in that post, which were regarding what you just quoted. 


but simply put, the +25 is basically to be used if there are no ranks in the other skills, or if total bonus is below the cat bonus. It is not added to any other skills.  And I do specifically point out that that particular idea id off the cuff and has no testing and that changing the amount used in creating cat bonus may need changing to prevent the cat bonus from making the acquisition of skill ranks less desirable...

[Fullerton]

That is one reason that I recommend adding 1 DP for every 2 skills added (the costs of the skills being determined by profession normally). This gives a minimal increase to DP, which allows for a profession who will be using such skills a lot to have a better chance of getting them without giving an overpowering amount of DP to the other professions.

Yes, I've seen you mention that before in various places, and to put it bluntly, I think it's bad advice ... at least all by itself. Not every reader/GM is going to realize the power curve escalation that such a technique can cause, and I think it's best if an example of the power curve escalation goes with the advice so people don't have to find out the hard way. ("Why are my PCs breezing through this adventure?" "Why are these pregenerated PCs so much weaker than my campaign's PCs?" "Why is my custom adventure that I'm running at a Convention so hard for these players' PCs?")

you really ought to [give additional DPs] if you are upping the number of skills being used

That's not generally true. Or rather, that's only true if the PCs *need* to take those skills in order to work properly in the context of the campaign.

Example: When RM added the martial arts striking skills, the number of DPs per level was not increased at all. Martial arts striking skills can be bought with the normal DP quantity, because Martial arts striking skills are usually purchased *instead* of other combat skills.

Example: I want to add a new skill to reflect expertise with catapults because some characters *might* want to use them. Since it's also okay if no character has the catapult skill, then no DP increase needs to be given. Ditto for a skill like Disguise or Seduction.

The level/purchase limits also work to prevent too much munchkinism in that regard.

Those help a bit, but...

Being able to use 1 additional weapon is not a real benefit if the character isn't carrying the weapon (which would count against encumbrance, etc..).

1 additional weapon skill isn't the interestingly relevant case. (Which was one of the reasons I posted again.) The problem is a PC's ability to gain ranks in a skill like Adrenal Defense, when he would otherwise not be able to. Per-skill level/purchase limits don't help here.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Yes, I've seen you mention that before in various places, and to put it bluntly, I think it's bad advice ... at least all by itself.

I disagree, and I think that you are worrying to much... 

However, I do also want to point out that in regards to RMC, that I have also stated (though not as fequently) that the additional points shouldn't exceed 50 DP maximum. And that such additions to DPs should be done for the inclusion of secondary skills.

Example: I want to add a new skill to reflect expertise with catapults because some characters *might* want to use them. Since it's also okay if no character has the catapult skill, then no DP increase needs to be given. Ditto for a skill like Disguise or Seduction.

I might agree with the catapult skill, but disguise and seduction are quite likely to be used by several different professions, and often more frequently than the catapult skill, so would definitely increase DP by 1 point for those 2 skills. 

Example: When RM added the martial arts striking skills, the number of DPs per level was not increased at all. Martial arts striking skills can be bought with the normal DP quantity, because Martial arts striking skills are usually purchased *instead* of other combat skills.

I am going to presume you mean in RMX. There are several factors to consider regarding RMX. First of all, the total number of skills involved, as well as the fact that RMX gives a static number of DPs. When the MA skills were added, there were also the considerations involving the utility of the skills and how they fit in with the other skills.

Plus, this was a primary skill, and didn't fall under the basics that I followed in adding DPs either. 

In another issue of EA, we added about 10 skills, and suggested increasing DP by 5 points when doing so. Those were all secondary skills.

1 additional weapon skill isn't the interestingly relevant case. (Which was one of the reasons I posted again.) The problem is a PC's ability to gain ranks in a skill like Adrenal Defense, when he would otherwise not be able to. Per-skill level/purchase limits don't help here.

A skill that costs 15 or 20 points for all but 2 professions (the Monk and Warrior Monk)? That has specific restrictions on its usage? A couple of extra DP per level are not going to make that much of a difference, unless you are adding a tons of skills, which is something that I would heartily recommend against doing at ANY time.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Oh! One additional point.....

My comments about increasing DP 1 point for every 2 skills added (up to a max of 50 DP per level), is meant solely as a general guideline, not some hard and fast rule.

Each GM is intended to determine what is right for his campaign, and the general guideline gives them a starting point for them to balance things out. This sort of guideline is essential for newer GMs, not for experienced GMs.

So..... YMMV