Topic: RMC character creation questions

[Marc R]

I never denied you couldn't officially declare anything to be as you wish it to be. . .if fact I asked up above if you were making an official declaration in your official voice to make the rule conform to your interpretation, and you said no. . .

It's my opinion that the rule in the book doesn't read the way you're interpreting it, but that's just my opinion. (There are more instances that support the logic I was pointing out, take a look at the examples of Linthea's 0 and 1st level skill development in CL for yet another reference to 20 ranks.). .

So it's officially the way you say it is. Shrug. I can't argue with that.

I'll say that in context of that rule my support for the individual spell SLA method is even stronger, as that interpretation of the core rule is scary in actual play.

Thrud, having played with "Try as many lists as you want" + "Add realm stat bonus to SLA roll" + "Skill At magic BGOs out of RoCo1" I've seen games go rather far against the arms players. . .to the point where you had two options:

"Pour forth the magic items of artifact status unto the arms characters, that they might also drinketh at the river of power"

or

"Stoppeth playing those non casters, for they doth be whack."

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I never denied you couldn't officially declare anything to be as you wish it to be. . .if fact I asked up above if you were making an official declaration in your official voice to make the rule conform to your interpretation, and you said no. . .

No, that wasn't what you asked. You asked if I was changing the rules in an official declaration.

Unless you're making an official change to the rules in your official voice?

To be perfectly clear -- the official interpretation did not and does not change the rules. The RMC Team changed the rules, and ICE accepted those changes -- all before the RMC books were printed.

The official interpretation only attempts to more clearly explain the rules as they are written in the RMC books (because the language was not as clear as originally thought). The official interpretation was and is based solely on the wording of ALL the rules invovled, and it does take the stat bonus option into consideration in making the interpretation.

Now, granted, perhaps that was not the manner in which the RMC Team intended to change the rules. But, it was also not something that was discussed in detail either, so it is also quite possible that both sides (RMC Team and ICE) were seeing different things in those changes and thinking the other side saw the same thing.

As for "scary"....

The way the old ICE did SLA, with "any number of lists" plus stats, etc.. -- yes, that is scary.

The way the current SLA is written - not really scary. The change is actually a minor one overall since the official interpretation only allows for 2 lists (and ONLY 2 lists) to be attempted to be learned in a single level, and that is ONLY if the first list was learned successfully.

Here is some examples showing how the official interpretation works.

Situation: Cormac is playing a Magicain and has 40 DPs and just made 2nd Level.

Example 1: Cormac buys 5 ranks in Fire Law (first list this level). He successfully rolls his SLA and learns that portion. He may now attempt to learn a second portion. There are only 3 possible outcomes
1-- He succeeds and he is done buy spells for the level.
2 -- He fails  and then decides to buy 15 more ranks to make sure he learns it. If he cannot buy all 15, then he cannot buy any.
3 -- He fails and decides to wait until next level to try again to learn that portion.

Example 2: Cormac buys 5 ranks in Fire Law (first list this level). He fails his SLA roll. That leaves him with only 3 choices.
1 -- Buy enough ranks to give him 20 and allow him to still learn the list, then begin his attempt to learn a second list portion.
2 -- Abandon those ranks (and the DP spent on them) and begin trying to learn a second list.
3 -- Wait until the next level, and do not attempt to learn a second list this level.

The only difference that I can see between the official interpretation and your interpretation is that you don't want to allow a second list to even be possible UNLESS the character spends at least 20 DP (if pure or hybrid) on the first list. Sorry, but that is not how the RMC rules read.

[Marc R]

My version also happens to show up not only in the option, but in the example character generation at the start of CL . .and a few other places.

Like under "unsuccessful roll" on P20 of SL:

An Unsuccessful Roll: If the SGR is not successful (i.e., less than 100), the skill ranks are not lost; rather it just means that the character has not gained a complete understanding of the forces to be utilized. After they have had time to ?ponder their experiences? and have gained further ?understanding of the universe? (i.e., when their experience level increases), they may make another Spell Gain Roll, gaining the full benefit of their skill ranks in the list (which they may increase by further develop- ment in the meantime).

seems to pretty clearly state that if you fail an SLA roll, you need to go up another level before you can try again. (I don't see how this allows for you to buy some more ranks this level to get up to 20 ranks) (Which, if you take that reference in context of the 2nd bullet point to the left, again rienforces that there is one, and only one method to get 2 lists in one level, as the opening para says)

Lets put it this way, if you assume that what I'm saying is a possible interpretation, the fact that all other casual references in the books rienforce that interpretation, even if you want to say each of those other points is tangential, as a whole, they seem to indicate which interpretation was intended.

If you think what I'm saying is just impossible, then indeed the other references are meaningless.

Similarly, if your interpretation was the only possible one, you were making no changes, but if any other interpretation was possible, you were making a change to negate the other possability.

If you want, I can continue discussing this ad infinitum, but after the point where you declare an official ruling, I'm just whistling in the wind and wasting my time. (And indeed you're wasting your time.)

As to the overall effect. . .A 50% return on gambles. . .the most efficiant play on your interpretation would be good for 5 DP per level for Pures/Hybrids. . .and 5 DP per level (admitedly, on average) is nothing to sneeze at in RMC. . .thats a 2nd rank of PPD for instance. . .I personally feel casters already get too good a deal, an extra 12.5% DP per level is a "scary" push of balance even more in their favor.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

My version also happens to show up not only in the option, but in the example character generation at the start of CL . .and a few other places.

no it doesn't. It said the ranks were bought. It never gives any explanation why. It doesn't even imply a reason for buying 20 ranks, except

Unless you can provide a specific instance where the core rules (not an option) specifically and definitively says only 1 list per level unless you purchase 20 ranks in the first list, there is nothing further to discuss.

I pointed out before that the text was confusing and contradictory. I pointed out the specific reasoning and text used to make the official interpretation. The official interpretation goes with what is more strongly implied and what is likely to be more fun for the players. (i.e. slightly less restrictive than the other potential interpretation).

And it was left as an official interpretation, and not made an official ruling, so that others could interpret it as they wanted. By making an official interpretation, that allows a GM to look and say, "okay, here is how ICE says they would rather it be done, but I would rather do it this way".

And as I said before, what you and the RMC Team may have intended may not be how ICE was reading it. 

[Marc R]

Does this logic path make sense to you?

1) The text under "Unsucessful Roll" on SL page 20 right column.

An Unsuccessful Roll: If the SGR is not successful (i.e., less than 100), the skill ranks are not lost; rather it just means that the character has not gained a complete understanding of the forces to be utilized. After they have had time to ?ponder their experiences? and have gained further ?understanding of the universe? (i.e., when their experience level increases), they may make another Spell Gain Roll, gaining the full benefit of their skill ranks in the list (which they may increase by further develop- ment in the meantime).

states that if you fail a roll, you must wait until the next level to attempt that list again. It also states that you may further develop that list with more ranks at that next level.

2) Previously, you refuted the two bullet points could be the "One and only" exception, since, there are 2 of them.

3) On the previous page of this discussion, in reply #9 Moriarty pointed out that the 2nd bullet point was merely pointing out how to handle getting 20 ranks over multiple levels, and that therefore both bullet points merely lay out 2 variations of "20 ranks auto gain, then roll for 2nd list"

4) You refuted his interpretation in reply #10 as more strict than you'd choose to use, and not player friendly.

5) based on the quote in #1 of this reply. . .moriarty is actually exactly correct in his analysis.

6) If #5 is true. . .then the two bullet points do both lay out "20 ranks auto gain, then roll for 2nd list". . .they merely lay out starting from scratch, or starting with left over ranks from a failed roll of a previous level.

7) If #6 is true. . .then they seem to be the "One and only one" method the above reference, is referring to. . .which was the root of this entire discussion.

I think your logic chain has one provably false link at step 4 outlined above, and Moriarty's point at step 3 is provably true.

The game system is certainly complex enough where one misunderstanding or mistake can lead to a chain of false premises and conclusions.

It's good to have you around, because you can fix mistakes or misunderstandings with "Official Corrections" which sort them out. . .but as long as you're discussing this on a factual basis, rather than "I'm officially over-riding this to correct it." I thought it worthwhile to point out if you seem to be mistaken. . .

[Cormac Doyle]

The original intent of the rule was that a character would only receive a single Spell Gain Roll per level ... the only way to gain more than one list was to purchase 20 ranks in the first list, and then a smaller number of ranks in the second.

I had never actually met anyone who had read the passages in the way you have interpreted them ... allowing an undefined/unlimited number of Spell Gain Rolls.

Note that the rules for allowing the "Buy 20 ranks and you get the list" specifically state that even if you have stats/etc that would otherwise add to your Spell Gain Roll, they are not counted and you must purchase ALL of the 20 ranks ... as otherwise you would have to roll for the first list, and thus you would not be able to roll for another list

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I have deleted my original post because I was approached privately by an Assistant Administrator and told that they felt that I have come across too strongly. They were right. I wish to offer a public apology to Cormac for that previous response. I shouldn't have let a bit of frustration color my post.

The original intent of the rule was that a character would only receive a single Spell Gain Roll per level ... the only way to gain more than one list was to purchase 20 ranks in the first list, and then a smaller number of ranks in the second.

Please see my earlier comments regarding the intentions of the RMC Team versus the way that the rules were written.

I had never actually met anyone who had read the passages in the way you have interpreted them ... allowing an undefined/unlimited number of Spell Gain Rolls.

Please note that I have never advocated that. I have always advocated no more than 2 lists per level. You can see this in my very first posts on this thread and in my response near the top of the page.

Note that the rules for allowing the "Buy 20 ranks and you get the list" specifically state that even if you have stats/etc that would otherwise add to your Spell Gain Roll, they are not counted and you must purchase ALL of the 20 ranks ... as otherwise you would have to roll for the first list, and thus you would not be able to roll for another list

Again, this has already been addressed in previous posts. Please refer to them.

[yammahoper]

The two list per level was how we played it back in the day, until SUC was released and the optional individual spell level development rules were in it.

I played mages mostly, so I based my entire level designs on this rule.  Of course, we allowed the realm stat mod to be added to the learn roll, which made a high Em mod very nice indeed.

lynn

[Marc R]

I'm sorry to be a pest, but you keep using "Interpretation" rather than "Ruling" as if you're not changing anything. . . .you have the right to change whatever you want, but some things here are more than interpretation:

Bullet point 4 directly contradicts the text of "Unsuccessfull roll" in the right column.

Bullet point six is elimiating the "Still" from that text.

All of this clips out the "One and only one" portion of the text.

I'm merely confused as to why you're avoiding baldly stating that you're making a change, and keep stating it's a "clarification". . .if you just say you're changing it, we won't have to keep pointing out that you're changing it.

A few non RMC team members seem to have "read" the rule the way I've stated it (They replied on the first page as such in context) so to state that your version (which in a few points directly contradicts the text in the book) is the only clear way to rule it seems off. This is the way you "choose" to rule it, not the "way it's written". You could just as easily "choose" to rule it the way the RMC team meant it, or the way average posters like Moriarty read it.

You have the authority to cut across the gordian knot, to make the rule whatever you want or need it to be, I don't understand the reservation at doing so. If the above is what ICE wants, then make it so, but since it directly contradicts the text on at least one point, it's not merely an unbiased, factual interpretation of the text as written.

Is there any reason not to just close this with "I am changing the rule to the bullet points as given, as this is what ICE wants?"


In the end this:

Nor is that "exception" explicitly determined/explained, which leaves it totally open to interpretation. That means that it could be the comments in the next paragraph, or the bullet points 2 or 3 paragraphs later. However, those 2 bullet points form a list and a list is a single item. But, those 2 bullet points also talk about 2 different things, which makes it unlikely that a single bullet point would be considered as the "exception".

Seems to be the point of contention in the difference in the rule interpretation you're making. . . .answered in reply 24 above.

They're not two different things, they merely cover the one exception, depending on if you started the level with ranks left over from a previous level. . . .which was understood clearly by some people who read it. (also as laid out in #24 above.)

Shrug. . .the funniest part of this is that I personally hate random SLA, and never use it. . . .we both prefer the same non random SLA by individual spells option to the core rule in question. . .

[Lazvon]

--Moderation--

This thread has started turning into statements dangerously close to telling others what to do. I'm making this as a general warning here in the thread and not calling any specific individuals out at this time. If it continues, I will though.

Please be sure you remember this part of the ROC in future postings:

Do not tell others how to act or what to do: Only the Admins and the Moderators of the ICE forums are empowered to tell others to act in a specific fashion. If you are not a Moderator or Admin, then you should not be telling others how to think, act, or anything else. Wording of what you say is very key here. The Admins and Moderators cannot read intent or infer what you meant to say, they can only read your specific wording.

--End Moderation--

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

The official interpretation does not change the rules. The rules were changed when RMC was published. All I have been doing is to attempt to better explain that rule as ICE interprets it from the wording in the published product.

The official interpretation was derived from reading the rules involved, with absolutely no bias or preconceptions about what was or was not intended. That is all that it is, an attempt to better explain what is already there.

It appears as if you looking at it through the filter of what you intended, so to you, it likely does appears that I am changing things. However, what you intended was not what ended up being printed, and I made the interpretation based on what was printed.

[Cormac Doyle]

I want to apologise to Tim - he is correct in stating that he had not advocated developing more than two lists in a given level.

I would state an alternate ruling that could be made official -

Only one Spell Gain roll can be made per level, and this occurs AFTER all DP's have been allocated.

This is similar to the way in which Hit's are determined *after* you have spent all of your DPs ... you don't (shouldn't ?) buy one rank ... roll to see how many hits you get ... buy another rank ... roll ... buy another rank ... roll.

Note that in Character Law, where the levelling up process is detailed, it is clearly stated that all dps are spend prior to rolling for any of these elements.

Note: with the "Two list limit" ... do you get 2 Spell Gain Rolls or just one?

Finally - we need to clarify whether this two-list limit affects the various individual spell acquisition methods ... as a corollary - RMSS allows up to 3 ranks in up to 5 lists without penalty (any ranks purchased after this point are increased in cost).

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I would state an alternate ruling that could be made official -

Only one Spell Gain roll can be made per level, and this occurs AFTER all DP's have been allocated.

The problem is that the rules never state that, and do explicitly state something else.

This is similar to the way in which Hit's are determined *after* you have spent all of your DPs ... you don't (shouldn't ?) buy one rank ... roll to see how many hits you get ... buy another rank ... roll ... buy another rank ... roll.

This was another point that was actually addressed early on in the thread. 

Note that in Character Law, where the levelling up process is detailed, it is clearly stated that all dps are spend prior to rolling for any of these elements.

Can you point out where it specifically says that? I wasn't able to find it. I found a spot in Chapter 2 (which is basically a walk through example and meant to show a method of creating a character, so is more organized than actual level development would proceed in practice) about where it says that the player is allowed to make SGR after expending the DPs for each of both levels. At best, that implies what you are stating, but only implies. It could also be implying that ALL the SGR are made after spending DPs from both levels (and it never says "all" in reference to the DPs).

As I have stated previously -- the wording in both Character Law and Spell Law is not as clear and concise as it should be -- and ICE is the one ultimately responsible for that. I have only been attempting to interpret the existing published text in a coherent and complete manner, after taking all of the text into consideration.

The important part, IMO, is that the text on page 19 (RMC Spell Law) says that with a successful SGR, you may start buying for a second list. That is an explicit statement. There is nothing explicit that counters that. And half of the "implied" things are in examples or options, or places other than the core rules of the text. And the other half are worded in such a manner that they could work with either interpretation.

Note: with the "Two list limit" ... do you get 2 Spell Gain Rolls or just one?

Is there any spot in the book that specifically states you are only allowed 1 Spell Gain Roll? Not 100% positive, but I am fairly sure there isn't (yes, I could be wrong in that).

 I would say you get 1 SGR per list that you are allowed to buy ranks in, but that they have to be made in order -- i.e. you buy ranks in first list - make SGR -- results determines what your can do next:

Success -- may buy ranks in second list and then roll to see if you learn it.
Failure -- 1) may buy enough ranks in first list to bring to 20 and then start second list; 2) may lose ranks in first list and start second list; or 3) may wait until next level and try again for first list.

And that the SGR is made when the player decides that he has spent enough DPs on the list (if he is wrong, then he has to buy enough ranks to give him 20 ranks in that list if he wants to learn it this level and/or go on to learn a second list).

And also, all of the text implies no more than 2 lists, maximum, may be learned per level. So that puts a limit of  no more than 2 list portions maximum each level, regardless of how many were actually learned.

Finally - we need to clarify whether this two-list limit affects the various individual spell acquisition methods ... as a corollary - RMSS allows up to 3 ranks in up to 5 lists without penalty (any ranks purchased after this point are increased in cost).

I don't see why they should or would be changed. (though I usually don't allow more than the first 5 lists myself).

[Tarek]

Two clear quotes that seem to indicate that onlt one SGR per level is intended:

Spell Law page 19:

When a character expends development points to acquire skill ranks, they may attempt to study one, and only one, list of spells by developing skill ranks for that list (see below for the only exception).

The use of only clearly indicates that there is only one exception (page 20):

If a character is able to allocate development points for a total of 20 skill ranks with a list (ensuring its gain without the use of a stat bonus), they learn the first list immediately and may begin to develop skill ranks for a second spell list and are entitled to make a Spell Gain Roll for the second.

Also, from ChL page 27:

Characters are entitled to make spell gain rolls after expending the development points for each of the two levels

so the SGR is made AFTER all DP are spent, so reallocating points is not possible.

[Fidoric]

Hello everybody,
I can't understand how such wondeful people as those writing in these forums can become so aggressive when it comes to rules details... It's all still a game, isn't it ?
Maybe we should consider sticking to the spirit of the law rather than the text ? And if there is a point left unclear despite the great efforts of the writers, maybe each of us can decide which interpretation he likes the best after reading everybody's mind in the forum. No ?
I know I am neither Admin nor Moderator and offer my apologies if I am offending someone with this post.
Respectfully,
Fidoric, ICE games & authors fan

[Lazvon]

Hello everybody,
I can't understand how such wondeful people as those writing in these forums can become so aggressive when it comes to rules details... It's all still a game, isn't it ?
Maybe we should consider sticking to the spirit of the law rather than the text ? And if there is a point left unclear despite the great efforts of the writers, maybe each of us can decide which interpretation he likes the best after reading everybody's mind in the forum. No ?
I know I am neither Admin nor Moderator and offer my apologies if I am offending someone with this post.
Respectfully,
Fidoric, ICE games & authors fan

Fidoric,

I cannot imagine that you have offended anyone with your post. I think you stated things very well. I also appreciate a forum member stating the most important thing in this entire discussion which is that it up to each GM to determine how to interpret the rules for their game.

Things did get a little aggressive... but I think it speaks volumes to ICE as a company that they are willing to communicate with fans and authors so very openly; that allows others to get a glimpse into ICE author's thoughts and interpretations and then use that to influence their own game play if they so wish.

Remember even authors and ICE employees are on equal footing just as all forum participants, customers, and fans when discussing matters. We're all human, and our opinions are all equal. The only time there should be more weight given to something is if there is an official ruling or official errata which can only come from ICE and they will make it clear if it is. Even then, remember the first rule of gaming: the GM is the final say to throw out, change, or add to any rule he likes. This irritates the rules lawyers to death... I say, don't game with them, there is more fun to be had elsewhere.

[Fidoric]

Exactly my point, thanks Lazvon.

[NulSyn]

[Wayne Campbell] Do these guys know how to party, or what?[/Wayne Campbell]

[dutch206]

Dutch206 cautiously swims out into the deep water, wary of shark attacks:

Regarding the spell acquisition debate in this thread:  If one spell gain per level was the intention of the rules, then how do you explain the NPC Table on page 158 of Character Law Classic?

Pure Essence User NPC Spells per level
NPC Level / Lists to 10th level /Lists to 20th level
1                 3
3                 6
5                 9
7                 12
10               16
15               8                           8
20               3                           15


As I see it, the only way to get sixteen spell lists by 10th level is to have at least 6 levels where two successful spell gain rolls were made.


dutch206 quickly heads back to shallower water

[Marc R]

Nobody was denying more than 1 list per level was possible, merely if one needed to 20 rank the first list to have a chance at a 2nd list.

Don't forget 0 level.