Topic: A Thought on Skill Costs

[GrumpyOldFart]

Note: I am not trying to bash any game or company.

There wouldn't be any point, as it's all subjective. The only reason to play any particular brand of RPG is because it best fits what you want out of your fantasy universe. I like gritty realism and lots of detail, and I think RM fits that well. But as much as I like RM, I would NOT recommend it to someone who was looking for a replacement for, say, Exalted.

[markc]

GOF,
 As to my bashing comment, since I am a mod on this site I try and put my best foot forward and when I do say why I do not like something I also try and point out that it is my opinion and in no way connected to my volunteer moderating of ICE?s website.

 As to others and there game systems I also agree that RM is not the right system for some types of RPG experiences. Besides the example you game I could not see the RM system being used for a Paranoid type game. PC?s did to fast [from my memory], so why spend 1-4 hours creating a PC.
?Define what you mean by "evolving".? From GOF;
 What I mean is skill cost that change during game play, change because of stat increases, change because of level acquisition or in such a way as to make recreation of a PC difficult to recreate.
?Skill adjustments..? From MDC;
 What I was trying to say here is when is the PC?s skill template created or their skill cost table?
?Amount of Skill?s and Depth?;
 I also think this is important and how that it is achieved in a RPG game is also important. RMSS has Adolescence Skill Background table to choose a culture from and I think there is something close to that in RMC and the Express Additions.
 Also in Talent Law [I know people are rolling their eyes] there is a method of creating the Adol. Skill Back. Table. Just guessing off the top of my head I think it is 40-60 ranks for free. I also think that results of making a custom table for you game will vary widely depending on the type of game your group plays.
?I don't specify skills per se,..? GOF;
 From your comments here I say that you and I may do things the say way. But what about others that do not have such a rich knowledge or detail of their campaign world? I know I have played in games like this and sometimes they implode with in the first few sessions and sometimes the GM does say your PC background is not going to work within my setting.

?..getting cardboard cutouts.? GOF;
 I also agree here and it is one of the reasons I like RMSS?s wide range of skills compared to other systems. At my age now I like detail over fuzziness and so do most of my past players and having found a new group since I moved I realized again that some others do not like a lot of detail in their RPG characters.
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

GOF,
 As to my bashing comment, since I am a mod on this site I try and put my best foot forward and when I do say why I do not like something I also try and point out that it is my opinion and in no way connected to my volunteer moderating of ICE?s website.

Oops. I tend to forget to pay any attention to who's who. I see your point.

As to others and there game systems I also agree that RM is not the right system for some types of RPG experiences. Besides the example you game I could not see the RM system being used for a Paranoid type game. PC?s did to fast [from my memory], so why spend 1-4 hours creating a PC.

I agree. For that reason, and because Paranoia is *supposed* to be cartoonish. It's the Animaniacs of the RPG world, the very thing that makes it fun is how farcical it is. Trying to make it even slightly realistic would kill it.

?Define what you mean by "evolving".? From GOF;
 What I mean is skill cost that change during game play, change because of stat increases, change because of level acquisition or in such a way as to make recreation of a PC difficult to recreate.

Thought so. And I really don't see any way to do it that doesn't massively increase the housekeeping of character development, *and* tend to make PCs more and more the same the higher level they go.
I don't see any advantages to evolving skill costs worth either of those problems, much less both.

Also in Talent Law [I know people are rolling their eyes] there is a method of creating the Adol. Skill Back. Table. Just guessing off the top of my head I think it is 40-60 ranks for free. I also think that results of making a custom table for you game will vary widely depending on the type of game your group plays.

I liked Talent Law. The only problem it has is that it requires a GM to go through and decide how "heroic, high fantasy" he wants his campaign to be before he allows any of it. And then he has to put his foot down when his players try to get him to change his mind.

?I don't specify skills per se,..? GOF;
 From your comments here I say that you and I may do things the say way. But what about others that do not have such a rich knowledge or detail of their campaign world?

My first instinct is to say, "If you can't be bothered to know the details of your world, why do you want to GM?" But really, the bottom line is that detail-oriented skill systems only work well in detail-oriented settings. In a setting that is not detail oriented, that wide selection of skills is nothing but ballast.
If the GM wants his game to be fast, simple, very broad strokes, he should get the most cut-down version of RM he can lay hands on, or go to another system entirely. And his players should be prepared to be told, "Sorry, you just can't" when they step outside the box. As we all know, no GM can draw so big a box that his players won't step outside it. You can either know your world well enough to create on the fly, or you can force them to stay in the box. I don't really see any third choice.

I know I have played in games like this and sometimes they implode with in the first few sessions and sometimes the GM does say your PC background is not going to work within my setting.

Well I'm not bashful about pointing out problems with a character concept. I had a guy who wanted to be a human-dragon cross once. I told him okay, that means you were born and raised in a lab, and you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO social skills of any sort, including things as basic as the concept of money and buying things. Good luck becoming part of the party without being killed as a monster. For that matter, good luck staying with the party once they find out about your fabulous people skills. But if that's what you want, you go.
The guy was serious enough that he ended up playing the character. And I was serious enough that he didn't have any noticeable advantages over anyone else. The druid was the only person who would put up with him for any length of time.

?..getting cardboard cutouts.? GOF;
 I also agree here and it is one of the reasons I like RMSS?s wide range of skills compared to other systems. At my age now I like detail over fuzziness and so do most of my past players and having found a new group since I moved I realized again that some others do not like a lot of detail in their RPG characters.

I'll freely admit I'm personally biased in favor of RM. There's no money or anything involved, there's just 27 years of using it and being comfortable with it. A lot of people want broader strokes. White Wolf's "skill dot" system is a good choice for a lot of them, because it's simple and fast and surprisingly customizable for what it is. It'd be nice to have basic rules for RM that are *that* simple but could expand infinitely to accommodate the most obsessive realism geek ever, so GM and players could extend their depth and realism as they developed a taste for it. But that strikes me as one of those "in a perfect world" remarks....

[David Johansen]

The reason a system that can simply recreate the current professions is of little utility is simply that ICE has no intention of sticking with the current system.

Yes, I strongly favour a very light handed rationalization of RMSS.  But that won't happen.  There are also those who would favour a RM2 with upgrade supplements.  That might happen but I doubt it.

ICE will do a new edition and it will create a fourth camp in their fractured fanbase.

The problem is that RM is many different things to many different people.

I've said before that ICE would probably be wise to bury RM2 and RMSS and just make advanced HARP the new RM and move forward on new product.  And I don't like HARP very much.

I had the notion the other day that you could do a simple profession building system that used list placement bumps and associates difficulty with pricing so I thought I'd mention the idea here.

Most of my writing goes elsewhere because I've so completely lost faith in ICE.  I'd been thinking of writing up a free RM Character Law based on the idea.  So people could play with it.  But mostly I've been reminded of how futile it is.  No I'm not mad at anyone, but discussions like this leave me with little hope for the future of ICE.

So I'm back to my sfrpg work.

[thiha]

Seeing the new (or 4th, so I heard) incarnation of the Big Name in this industry and considering the fact that it still bears the same name 'jubilantly' in spite of the de-facto tremendous differences between its predecessor and itself, I bet nobody would blame you for saying....

Hey, say HARP is Rolemaster, say Rolemater is HARP!!

HARP is Rolemaster in their affinity, compatibility/conversionability and tradition, and you can say vice versa if you love the elegant name, HARP, after seeing the Big Name's recent incarnation.

(oh-oh, who's saying ME*P is Rolemaster and vice versa!? Shhhh, the Witch King might hear you somewhere....(k)nock on wood)


Oops, let's stay on topic, ...stay on topic.

[Dark Schneider]

RMSS/RMFRP was a good change, look for it.

[GrumpyOldFart]

ICE will do a new edition and it will create a fourth camp in their fractured fanbase.

The problem is that RM is many different things to many different people.

Yes, RM is many different things to many different people.

I believe it's possible, at least in theory, to fairly well unify ICE's fanbase AND make inroads into other RPG company's market shares with a new edition of RM.

BUT

In order to do so, it would have to accomplish something I'm not sure is possible in practical application:

1) It has to be so simple, so streamlined, so "ready to go outta the box", that someone who has played an RPG once or twice and never GMed can get together with half a dozen of his friends who know nothing about RPGs and, within an hour or two, run a simple gaming session. It MUST be that easy in order for you to get new gamers without requiring old gamers as cadre to recruit and train them.

2) THE SAME SYSTEM has to be customizable/expandable to the point where D&D 4.0 players will see it as having as many options, as much depth, as the system they are used to, otherwise RM won't be able to compete against the product that has been #1 in the marketplace for decades. Granted, that game has changed a LOT over the decades, and it is ludicrous, in one sense, for it to have the same name. In another sense, it's not ludicrous at all. They are taking advantage of 30+ years of name recognition. If you're going to compete with that, your product has to be *at least* as good in the opinion of those who use the other guy's system, or you won't get them to abandon it for what you're selling.

3) THE SAME SYSTEM has to be customizable/expandable to the point where RMSS/RMFRP reality junkies still get something with the realism and depth *they* demand as well.

In short, they/we will have to come up with a system that can be made as simple as Paranoia, as heroic as Exalted, and as grittily realistic and complex as RMFRP, *all at once*. To be honest, I don't know if that's possible. If it is, it's certainly a tall order.
I've been giving this some thought, I'll post any ideas I have on the subject when and if I get any ideas that aren't complete and utter pipe dreams....

[GrumpyOldFart]

What will be harder still is to come up with a magic use structure that uses spells weak enough to seriously reward innovative use, yet powerful enough that someone playing the cut down version (and satisfied with cookie cutter spell use) won't justifiably feel that magic is too weak to be useful.

 

[markc]

 When ever some one asks if you can do somethings in a shorter amount of time it always reminds me of an old joke sheet I saw in 84. It was in the form of an job entrance exam and had about 8 different questions. The one that sticks in my mind basicly goes likes this "Use 1 piece of paper to explain the genisis of life from its most microscopic levles as well as the compete evolution of all species. Be sure your answers are complete."
 It is just soemthing that cannot be done with what they gaive you. O I also seam to remember that you had only 1 hour to answer 2 questions.

MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

"Use 1 piece of paper to explain the genisis of life from its most microscopic levles as well as the compete evolution of all species. Be sure your answers are complete."
 It is just soemthing that cannot be done with what they gaive you. O I also seam to remember that you had only 1 hour to answer 2 questions.

Yeah, that. Nonetheless, if you're going to try to sell to the Paranoia players, the Exalted players, the GURPS players, etc... heck even just within ICE itself there's so broad a range of opinion on how heroic, how high fantasy, how detailed a system "should be"... the fact that it's impossible isn't the point, if that's what your target market wants.
I suppose you could aim for one simple system and one detailed system and try to have them meet in the middle, so conversion from one to the other is easy. So far as I can tell, that's what they've attempted in HARP/RMFRP. If you expect the next incarnation to be an *improvement*, where do you go from there except into the impossible?

[GrumpyOldFart]

You'd have to come up with a CharGen/skill system that, in it's simplest incarnation, is as simple as Paranoia. But with __________ set of optional rules, it's effectively HARP. Add _________ set of optional rules on top of that, it becomes equivalent to RMC. Add _________set of further optional rules, it's pretty much RMFRP.

Tall order. It would have to be incredibly well thought out, and playtested nearly to destruction before it ever saw the light of day.

Hmmm.....

[Temujin]

You'd have to come up with a CharGen/skill system that, in it's simplest incarnation, is as simple as Paranoia. But with __________ set of optional rules, it's effectively HARP. Add _________ set of optional rules on top of that, it becomes equivalent to RMC. Add _________set of further optional rules, it's pretty much RMFRP.

No!  Please, don't!  Seriously.

[GrumpyOldFart]

No!  Please, don't!  Seriously.

Okay... why not? Not that I have any say in what the next incarnation of RM is, just wondering.

[David Johansen]

The reason that comes to my mind is that only the bottom levels will get product support because they take less space.  Also, in the day of the micro pdf supplement those who want to have the higher level of detail will be expected to buy more stuff.

One place where the RMSS crowd tends to diverge from the RM2 crowd is the value of standardization.

In defense of a STANDARD SYSTEM I'm going to point a finger at Fuzion as an example of a game system with built in internal incompatability and imbalance.  And we all know what a flop Fuzion was.  This is also the problem with RM2.  Nobody was even playing the same game.

[GrumpyOldFart]

The reason that comes to my mind is that only the bottom levels will get product support because they take less space.  Also, in the day of the micro pdf supplement those who want to have the higher level of detail will be expected to buy more stuff.

Hmmm... That could be avoided by still having 3 basic systems. The only difference from now would be that the RMC equivalent assumes the inclusion of X option set to basic HARP rules. The only difference in the RMSS equivalent is the assumption that X and Y option sets are in use.

One place where the RMSS crowd tends to diverge from the RM2 crowd is the value of standardization.

I like standardization myself as well. That was the whole point of the idea, to be able to start from any of the 3 and, as you and your players become more familiar with the system's options, you can decide on which compromise between simplicity/speed and depth/detail you want. So if your long standing group of "HARP" players decide they want more depth, they can move toward "RMC" without having to ditch their "HARP" books, characters or setting and start over. Same with "RMC" to "RMSS". In the other direction, if your "RMSS" group wants more speed of play, you can move in the "RMC" direction without having to quit using anything you already spent $$$ on and without having to scrap parties and settings already in use. Just stop using _______ options that are assumed as part of "RMSS".

In defense of a STANDARD SYSTEM I'm going to point a finger at Fuzion as an example of a game system with built in internal incompatability and imbalance.  And we all know what a flop Fuzion was.  This is also the problem with RM2.  Nobody was even playing the same game.

Well that's why I called it a very tall order. In order to work it would have to be balanced and compatible across the board, regardless of which options you are/are not using. The advantage is that if you could achieve it, someone who has played the HARP equivalent would be able to drop into an RMSS equivalent campaign with no more difficulty than anyone having to learn a new set of "house rules".
As for "nobody even playing the same game", that's pretty much the case in all RPGs, regardless of the system used, is it not? Every GM tweaks their game to fit their needs. The idea here is to have the vast majority of those "tweaks" already standardized and playtested for compatibility and balance, and already in an easy to find place in one or more of the 3 "core" rule sets. That way a group that finds RMC too simplified but RMSS too slow and complicated can customize something in between, and yet both RMC players and RMSS players can look at it and say, "Oh. Yeah okay, that makes sense." And even a HARP player looking at it already knows half or more of what he needs to function in that setting.

[David Johansen]

Actually I'm a horribly by the book GM but I may be unique in that.  I feel that the rules exist to protect the players from the GM and therefore it's beyond the pale for the GM to alter the rules.  But then, I've played under several dreadful GMs over the years.  In fact the first thing I'd look into before joining the group is whether they're using lots of house rules.  The more house rules they use, the worse the GM is guaranteed. 

A good GM will either find a system that works and stick with it or write a new game.  No, by my definition there are no good D&D DMs why?

[GrumpyOldFart]

I've played under a very few bad GMs. Most of them were fair to good, one or two were excellent. I've made a fair number of house rules over the last 30+ years as well, some of which were remarkably similar to options or revisions that appeared in later versions of RM. And yes, of course you try to find a system that is as close to what you want as you can get. But everyone has their own set of priorities in what they want *just so* and what they aren't too terribly picky about. When I've made a house rule, it has always been a case of either me or one of my players saying, "Okay this isn't working" or "This doesn't make any sense". My players and I get together and brainstorm about how to make it work the way we want, playtest it and, if it works, implement it. Sometimes it has to be changed or scrapped later. I'm not really a God, I just play one on game nights.

A good GM will either find a system that works and stick with it or write a new game.

If, for example, my players and I thought RMs skill system was as perfect as I thought I'd ever get, but the initiative system was idiotic, why in the world would I either a) stick with an initiative system we all considered stupid, or b) throw the baby out with the bathwater and redesign an excellent skill system just to have a new method of determining initiative? Especially considering that since I don't have the resources of ICE, my "newly designed" skill system is unlikely in the extreme to be better than the one I just abandoned, and is more likely than not to be "crippled" compared to the original?
I suspect that the bad GMs who have turned you off of house rules may have failed to brainstorm with their experienced players to find out what worked for *everyone involved*. Just because the GM plays God in his own pocket universe doesn't make him omnicognizant in *this* universe, and the same must be said of the authors of this or any other game system. Otherwise there would never be such a thing as a 2nd Edition. Ultimately the only standard is how well it works with your particular setting, GM and gaming group. But regardless, a set of RPG game mechanics that are intended to be *marketed to a broad spectrum of players* has to take into account that no two groups are going to want the exact same things from their game.

[Temujin]

No!  Please, don't!  Seriously.

Okay... why not? Not that I have any say in what the next incarnation of RM is, just wondering.

Its something to have a basic system with a few core and non-core options.  Its another to have a basic system with options who each have their own sub-options who in turn have a degree of extra complexity in them, etc.

Also, add in the fact that I like to have different systems for different genres.  I would not want to buy a game that pretended to be the sum-of-all-RPGs, because ultimately that game would probably pale in comparison to all other RPGs in their own area of specialty.  Yes to a game system that is flexible and can be tweaked to my liking.  No to a game system where each rule is optional.  Seriously, last thing I want to buy is a game which goes from rock-scissor-paper complexity to RMFRP and beyond complexity.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Yes to a game system that is flexible and can be tweaked to my liking.  No to a game system where each rule is optional.

Okay, but how does someone designing a game mechanic define the difference between the two? Without going to each individual GM and asking for his/her take on what is "core" and what is "optional"?

Really all I was suggesting was that the "speed and simplicity trumps everything" players should be able to recognize their game as the core of the medium complexity game, who should in turn be able to recognize their game as the core of the "depth and detail is king" game. The idea being that compatibility and balance are maintained throughout, and someone who wants something in between two of the three has standard, already playtested and known to be compatible options to get the game *he* wants as well.

Sorry if I'm not explaining it clearly.

[Temujin]

Keep in mind I was objecting to this:

You'd have to come up with a CharGen/skill system that, in it's simplest incarnation, is as simple as Paranoia. But with __________ set of optional rules, it's effectively HARP. Add _________ set of optional rules on top of that, it becomes equivalent to RMC. Add _________set of further optional rules, it's pretty much RMFRP.

I do not want a Paranoia-HARP-RMC-RMFRP set of rules.  HARP is one good game.  RMFRP is one too.  Paranoia has its own fun genre.  Can't say about RMC, but I'll trust the judgement of those who play it   Having a new Rolemaster eventually with one set of standard rules, and an extra optional complexity on the skills level linked to extra DP as has been hinted to for exemple, is one thing I'd consider a plus.  Having a set of rules which goes from Paranoia-level complexity to RMFRP complexity is one thing I'd not be too happy about.  I'd like HARP and RM to remain 2 different takes on a genre, as they are now, for that matter.