Amusingly enough, I use individual spell SLA also. . .and highly reccomend it over the random method. . .heheh.
As do I (Option 2.2 on page 22 of Spell law)...
And I just checked with Bruce. The old ICE never put any limits on how many lists may be learned in a given level, nor did they require 20 ranks per list either when they played. They actually did what the book says not to do (buy ranks in lots of lists and then made rolls trusting in lots of luck with the dice, and they did use the stat bonus option while doing this).
It is important to remember though, that most of their game rules were added on the fly and then codified later. Makes me think that the wording perhaps came from somebody abusing the method that they used...
Here are 2 items of interest as well. I just went back to my RM2 spell law and looked at it. There are 2 major differences between RM2 and RMC in regards to development and learning spell lists.
1) In RM2, once you went up a level, you immediately spent the DPs for the next level fo development, even though you did NOT gain any of those skills or even make your spell gain roll until you hit that next level (i.e. when you got enough XP to reach 3rd level you gained the skills purchase right after getting enough XP for 2nd level, and then you spent DPs for 4th level). Thus, the buying of 20 ranks also gave you the first spell off the portion you wanted right then (i.e. there was a reason for buying 20 ranks), and you got the rest of the list later on at the next level break.
2) RM2 Spell Law also contains some boxed text, which never made it into the RMC Spell Law, that
recommends (i.e. it wasn't a rule, it was a suggestion) that pure and hybrid caster learn only a single portion per level and have a small chance of learning another. Basically telling the GM that the number of portions allowed to be learnable in a level helped set the power level of the game.
However, item #1 was completely changed so that you purchased you ranks when you went up a level, not right after going up the previous level and then waiting until the next level break to actually get what you purchased. This did require a number of changes of wording throughout all of the books.
However, both ICE and the RMC Team apparently missed some of the nuances of that change. So, while the "buy 20 ranks" is still there, the original reason FOR buying them (to get the first spell off the portion right away) was no longer there. That removed a big reason for a character to want to purchase 20 ranks in a list.
The boxed note (#2) was also completely dropped from Spell Law. And the actual mechanics of spell list acquisition were changed slightly in RMC (because of changing when the skills purchased were gained), and while some of the SLA text was changed, it wasn't changed enough (some of it still uses the same RM2 wording) for it to be fully clear and specific, and the new (RMC) wording DOES include contradictory text, and has spots that imply both interpretations.
So, what you have been arguing for would have been mostly correct, if the rules were still exactly like they were in RM2. Since those rules were changed (and you were part of the team that changed them), I have to go by the how the rules are currently written, not how they were written 20 years ago, not with what the rules originally may have intended or said. I have to go with what is written in the current version.
And the current version contains text that implies both 2 lists per level and 1 list per level. However, since that text that implies 1 list per level is inside an option, while the text that implies 2 lists per level is in the core portion of the rules, that means that the 2 lists per level implication wins, and will continue to win out.
You and the rest of the RMC Team changed the rules. Whether or not you intended to change them in the fashion that they ended up being changed is, at this point, a mute topic. You changed them and ICE accepted those changes, and what is posted up above is the official interpretation of those
current rules as they are written.
You can continue to discuss this if you want, but unless there are new questions or issues raised, I am likely not going to respond again.
The official interpretation still stands and will continue to stand because it is based on what the
currently published RMC text says.