Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: runequester on April 22, 2011, 06:19:02 PM
-
By the book?
A fixed amount?
A fixed multipler (by the book x2 for example)
Something else entirely?
Please specify whether you are talking about 2nd/classic or SS/FRP (I am interested in both)
-
For my RMFRP campaigns I let players average all temp stats, because I feel all stats are involved in the development process. This generated numbers for my current campaign of between 81 and 92. It seems excessive, but I like to see more rounded characters instead of stereotypes, or specialists in a single field.
-
well, one of the things I guess is that more DP doesn't give you higher numbers in your main skills, but a wider range of decent skills. (Since you are limited by level anyways).
-
I average the top 5 multiply by .75 average the 2nd 5 and multiply by .25.
Some in RMSS give 100 DP/level some in RMC give 40 DP/level IIRC, or a fixed amount. That amount is generally the max but they seem to like it better.
There are also times I give GM ranks or free ranks if I consider the skills are being used a lot. And sometimes I create a custom TP that I price cheaply at one DP cost for everyone as a option to buy.
MDC
-
(RMSS) I've been giving 100 per level. Everyone has enough to cover their bases that way.
With the limits on ranks per level, PC's end up with a large range of skills after buying training packages, something I like.
-
I tend to give DP by the book. In RMFRP, that is the average of the first five stats. In RM2, I used the single numbers (rather than averaged). For RM2 secondary skills, I added +25% of the DP and rounded mathematically. Mathematic rounding sends you to the nearest EVEN digit (8.5 rounds to 8 and 9.5 rounds to 10).
-
RMFRP
100 DP/lvl.
Don't forget the Languages and Lore skills...
The players definitely need a wide range of general skills in our games.
-
Just rules as written
-
We give 90 DP pr level, flat.
Just recently, one of the players asked me why we didnt just make it 100, as it would be easier math wise going from XP to DP after each session. I had the pleasure of telling him it was because he thought 100DP was too lenient when he was GMing ;D
-
So it looks like 90 or 100 is a small increase over the "by the book" in Standard system, but nothing that will break anything.
-
For us it doesn't break anything at all.
If you're traveling through a specific region, then it makes sense to put a Rank in Region Lore.
Can't interrogate orcs without Black speech.
The PC's are going to increase hits/spells and weapons, this just allows them to round out the character in other areas.
-
RM2
We use the first five stats, but we go off the total bonus for that stat.
So racial or background bonuses are included in the total Dev. Points.
The PC's end up with 40 - 44 normally since we allow the player to place their stats as they wish. But they ARE suposto be hero types so higher stats than NPC's makes sense.
I think we figured the average farmer gets like 25 DP or something .
-
RM2
We also use the total bonuses for stats (RmCo6 I think), but we also use all 10 stats, this averages out at around 60-70 st lower levels and 90+ at higher levels.
A lot of DPs, I know, but a hell of a lot of skills too ;)
-
So it looks like 90 or 100 is a small increase over the "by the book" in Standard system, but nothing that will break anything.
90 DP is not necessarily even an increase over the ruling in the books. In our group players set value on having a good amount of DPs and put a bit higher values on the 5 DP stats. Typical no. of DPs then is in the range of 92-96 points per level (a bit lower at levels 1-5).
-
RMSS/FRP: 100 DP/level
When we played RM2/C we used the rules as written, as we hadn't enough experience with them to start changing things...
-
I give 90DPs in RMSS.
We have just begun a RMC campaign. The GM gave us a flat 40 with a restriction that a minimum of 10 points must be spent on secondary skills.
-
I've always been under the assumption that the creators of the game made a conscious decision to base DP's on certain stats and balanced everything else to that end. If you just give flat DP amounts, what's the incentive to improve your memory and reasoning over strength or quickness? Memory in particular is useless enough as is, I don't know why people would bend the rules to make it even less important.
-
Generally speaking, all the times I've helped people make characters, they've tended to top load the DP stats, and then just kind of putter along with whatever they can afford for the rest. (Though Quickness is usually bought up pretty high...)
Plus, within a few levels, the stats are maxed out anyway, and aside for a stretch of unlucky stat gains, they are effectively getting a fixed DP total anyhow.
-
I've always been under the assumption that the creators of the game made a conscious decision to base DP's on certain stats and balanced everything else to that end. If you just give flat DP amounts, what's the incentive to improve your memory and reasoning over strength or quickness? Memory in particular is useless enough as is, I don't know why people would bend the rules to make it even less important.
On the flip side of this arguement, what if a player wants to run a sickly seer PC with low Co and Ag? Why should the seer suffer for having a 23 Ag and a 48 Co? Besides, memory and reasonong have plenty of use in lore skills.
Set Dev allows greater flexibility in creating a PC to concept. It also levels the playing field for everybody.
-
RM2
Only give what you get from your 5 traditional DP stats. (Hence PCs in the 38-45 range usually.) No major complaints to date, but I've been reigning in the "skill creep" and am even considering (ssh) MERP-izing the combat skills (buy 1-HS not a sword, buy 1-HC not mace, buy Martial Arts not Strike/Sweep .. ). So effectively more bang for your buck.
Regards,
Old Man
-
I've always been under the assumption that the creators of the game made a conscious decision to base DP's on certain stats and balanced everything else to that end. If you just give flat DP amounts, what's the incentive to improve your memory and reasoning over strength or quickness? Memory in particular is useless enough as is, I don't know why people would bend the rules to make it even less important.
well, if one wanted to give more DP, while keeping the importance of the stats as they are now, you could use a fixed bonus "DP as per stats +10" or multiplier "DP as per stats times 1.4" or whatever works :)
-
Similar to many here I would just give a flat 100 per level (using RMSS).
If you just give flat DP amounts, what's the incentive to improve your memory and reasoning over strength or quickness? Memory in particular is useless enough as is, I don't know why people would bend the rules to make it even less important.
I myself often play a Rogue due to the balance of it's abilities and Reasoning was always one of the attributes I would target to try and have a decent number in. Memory I agree there is not much use for over the span of all the skills, but Reasoning can be important in a lot of skills. Also, considering the skills "above the line" few would increase Memory with the normal amount of skill points anyhow.
-
Also depends on if the GM uses stat checks to remember something or figure something out in game.
-
We give 90 DP pr level, flat.
Just recently, one of the players asked me why we didnt just make it 100, as it would be easier math wise going from XP to DP after each session. I had the pleasure of telling him it was because he thought 100DP was too lenient when he was GMing ;D
Karma
-
Similar to many here I would just give a flat 100 per level (using RMSS).
If you just give flat DP amounts, what's the incentive to improve your memory and reasoning over strength or quickness? Memory in particular is useless enough as is, I don't know why people would bend the rules to make it even less important.
I myself often play a Rogue due to the balance of it's abilities and Reasoning was always one of the attributes I would target to try and have a decent number in. Memory I agree there is not much use for over the span of all the skills, but Reasoning can be important in a lot of skills. Also, considering the skills "above the line" few would increase Memory with the normal amount of skill points anyhow.
Intuition is a surprisingly useful stat...it's used in most perception and sense skills, some of which are Limited progress (0•1•1•0.5•0), which of course caps the Skill Bonus at +25.
-
I ran a quick summary of RMSS skill categories: Ag appears 30 times in the list of categories. This is followed by In (16), St (15), Me (11), and Re (10). The remaining five stats all appear 7 times or fewer, each. Of course, many of the St/Ag occurrences are weapon/MA based so, I would say that Ag/In/Me/Re are the most important stats for skills.
-
IMO a weighting would be necessary in order to determine the "most important" stats. And this probably depends on the style of the game. Also many skills introduced with the RM2 companions and which survived with RMSS are used not so often. E.g. when reducing the skills to count to the old RM2 primary skills (with the assumption that these skills are used more often than others) the counts are as follows:
-AG: 16
-ST: 8
-IN: 7
-SD: 4
-EM: 3
-RE: 2
-QU: 2
-PR: 1
-CO: 1
-ME: 0
This time it's Ag, St (both appearing multiple times in the weapon categories) and In which are the most important stats for the skills. Of course Qu is important for a good DB and Pr, Em or In are important for PPs.
-
I've always been under the assumption that the creators of the game made a conscious decision to base DP's on certain stats and balanced everything else to that end. If you just give flat DP amounts, what's the incentive to improve your memory and reasoning over strength or quickness? Memory in particular is useless enough as is, I don't know why people would bend the rules to make it even less important.
Depends on the campaign style. It's used in the various Lore skills, as well as many of the Trade skills.
-
Something I feel the original designers did very well is no one stat is dominant in all circumstances. Need DB? Get a high QU...but don't wear heavy armor. Need PPs? Focus on PR, IN, or EM. Want to multi-cast, focus on PR and IN, or IN and EM, or PR and EM. Need perception? Focus in IN. Need stealth? Focus on SD.
Etc. etc. I remember in Spacemaster feeling that EM was the weakest stat...until realizing that all of the medical skills used it.
-
I also like using the unique Stat for skills in RMSS so it just does not apply to a whole category. But I may be in the minority here.
MDC
-
I use the unique stat as the third stat. I liked the three stats thing from SM 2ed too much.
-
RMC, by the book but with some extra DPs for secondary skills. I also give cultural/racial skill ranks a la MERP.
-
RMSS. We go by the book. I LIKE that you have to make tough choices when levelling up. No "bonus" DPs here.
-
Just realized I never actually answered the original question...
I do 100 per level for any campaign I run. Nice and easy, no playing with your stats, you get an even playing field with the PC's, etc.
-
Just getting back into RM (RM2). I've played RM2 and RMSS in the past.
I give standard DPs based on the stats, per the rules. I also then give additional give additional DPs based on ME and RE stats, and those must be used on secondary skills.
-
Using RM2.
For primary skills, I go by the book (it being RoCo I, btw). OTOH, I give (1.625 x primary DPs) for secondary skills.
-
Standard DPs per stats for primary skills, and an additional 20% of standard DPs for secondary skills. We also reworked the skills, so some things previously buried in secondary skills are now primary.
-
I've always been under the assumption that the creators of the game made a conscious decision to base DP's on certain stats and balanced everything else to that end. If you just give flat DP amounts, what's the incentive to improve your memory and reasoning over strength or quickness? Memory in particular is useless enough as is, I don't know why people would bend the rules to make it even less important.
well, if one wanted to give more DP, while keeping the importance of the stats as they are now, you could use a fixed bonus "DP as per stats +10" or multiplier "DP as per stats times 1.4" or whatever works :)
Base Dev points with a bonus based on stats? I like that. I would increase the base to 75, though for several years in RM2/late 80's I did give base +20. I even invented a bg option for Base +30 or base + 40 and Base +50. Bright Cookie, Genius and Super Genius would have made great names for them. All before I went base, which also appeals to us who enjoy seeing what different shades of Mage I can make with the same set points. Set points are fair and do not damage the game, so Ilike em.
-
I Generally follow the rules for RMSS due to a character generator that I could not modify but was essential to creating characters (RMCS character Generator). That is no longer available and with the new ERA I can set DP values. I usually gave an extra few ranks in background story skills (secondary only) after character creation. Seeing how others work their DP's I think a flat 90 would work for me now (ERA allows this method with ease).
-
RMC
I go by the book. No bonus DPs from me.
-
RMC
I go by the book. No bonus DPs from me.
Ditto. The skill costs and the maximum number of ranks per level are all calculated into established average DPs available at PC creation. If all of the PCs suddenly have more DPs available to them than they should have, then all of the costs of the skills should go up as well to compensate. It's like economics. If the government suddenly gives everyone an extra $100,000 a year for no reason, then the economy is thrown out of balance. Everyone can buy anything they want and the actual money is worth less, the cost for everything goes up to compensate. A wheelbarrow of Italian Lira to buy a loaf of bread?
The beauty of RM is that you can choose to have a Jack-of-All-Trades with dozens of skills but rather mediocre at them, or you can focus on key skills and be excellent. You can have a spell user focused solely on magic, with two spell lists per level (20 DP for guaranteed list and extra DP for a second list) but who really NEEDS others around him to help him survive and adventure, or you can have a spell user with two or three spell lists but can actually fend for himself in the adventuring world. I love the fact that at PC creation, the player can choose to load the high value scores in the DP producing stats or he can put them in the stats that will impact the skills he will be using the most in gameplay: Good at what he does vs. good tool to have around.
By giving out the free DP, the balance goes out of whack and the PCs start to lose their uniqueness. If everyone has enough DP to get every skill they want, we start to move towards cookie-cutter PCs. It seems to me that it's just wanting more and more for free. Everyone wants the more powerful PCs at the outset but no one wants to pay the price for it; higher DP costs. I don't think thing giving free DPs is the answer.
Ynglaur nailed it perfectly: Something I feel the original designers did very well is no one stat is dominant in all circumstances. Need DB? Get a high QU...but don't wear heavy armor. Need PPs? Focus on PR, IN, or EM. Want to multi-cast, focus on PR and IN, or IN and EM, or PR and EM. Need perception? Focus in IN. Need stealth? Focus on SD.
Etc. etc. I remember in Spacemaster feeling that EM was the weakest stat...until realizing that all of the medical skills used it.
Just look at all of the input we (the players) were able to contribute to the 1st Beta of RMU. I'm sure a lot of that input is going be implemented in the 2nd Beta release and I'm sure that was at least this much effort in RM. Look at the incarnations original RM had. RM1, RM2, RMC. I will admit freely that I have very little playtime with RMSS, so much so that I won't even say I can have any qualified opinion on the PC creation and DP balance.
-
Arrgh! Yellow text = bad!
-
Arrgh! Yellow text = bad!
Purple Text?
OK, seriously, what is the accepted convention? I just wanted the text to stand out as someone else's quote. Should it be orange?
-
OK, seriously, what is the accepted convention? I just wanted the text to stand out as someone else's quote. Should it be orange?
Bear in mind that the forum has two themes, one with a white background and one with dark gray. Yellow is perfectly readable on the dark gray, but it's probably difficult on white. Your "purple text" actually showed up as orange on the dark gray background, not sure how that worked.
I like just plain italics myself, that avoids the color issues.
-
Arrgh! Yellow text = bad!
Purple Text?
OK, seriously, what is the accepted convention? I just wanted the text to stand out as someone else's quote. Should it be orange?
You can also just dump it into a quote box
and be done with it.
-
I feel that PC's are more cookie cutter with restricted DP's using only 5 stats. Face it anyone who makes a fighter will look very similar due to stat placement and skills development due to critical skills (Body Development, Weapons and armor) with nothing left for crafting and lores. Having a few more points that is designed for secondary skill development will make characters more unique and diverse even though the primary class skills are similar.
For example make 10 fighters with the by the book DP and Stat generation and see what different characters you get with skill diversity.
Make 10 fighters with set DP at max (50 or 100 depending on system) with 10 to 20 points in secondary skills dedication and see what kind of fighter combinations you see with skill diversity.
In no way are they a jack of all trades but maybe can be more than a gladiator only kind of character with no lores or craft type of skills.
-
In the games I'm in it's by the book DP's. But also three ranks in skills directly given as half level ranks (often Region Lore).
Also training packages along with talents and flaws help stop the cookie cutter effect. Along with adolescence ranks, and the "how on earth did you learn that?" question for some things.
-
Arrgh! Yellow text = bad!
Purple Text?
OK, seriously, what is the accepted convention? I just wanted the text to stand out as someone else's quote. Should it be orange?
You can also just dump it into a quote box
and be done with it.
I don't know how to add the quote from a 2nd post when I've already hit quote to the initial post and it's at the top of my reply. I just copy/paste the additional quotes and change the color to show that its not my words. I tried deciphering the HTML coding associated with the quotes and quite honestly, I'll copy/paste.
" quote author=intothatdarkness link=topic=10949.msg194152#msg194152 date=1432047864" with the added "/quote" is confusing as heck Then add nested quotes and trying to figure out the message ID number.... bleah.
-
It's fairly simple. To start the quoted section you put quote in brackets. To end the quoted section you put /quote in brackets. I just copy what I want and then surround it with those two commands. So...
I tried deciphering the HTML coding associated with the quotes and quite honestly, I'll copy/paste.
-
The original game was designed with DPs and without all those secondary skills. If no extra DPs are given, then primary skills costs should be reduced, not the other way around.
Not giving any extra DPs to round out the character will actually take away from primary skills or become cookie cutter, especially if using all the RoCoII skills and expecting the players to use them. Also encourages min/maxing
RMSS was designed for all the skills so no extra DPs needed there.
-
It's fairly simple. To start the quoted section you put quote in brackets. To end the quoted section you put /quote in brackets. I just copy what I want and then surround it with those two commands. So... I tried deciphering the HTML coding associated with the quotes and quite honestly, I'll copy/paste.
Oh geez. that's so much easier! Thank you. :D
I could never figure out how people did several quotes from several different posts all within one.
-
The original game was designed with DPs and without all those secondary skills. If no extra DPs are given, then primary skills costs should be reduced, not the other way around.
Not giving any extra DPs to round out the character will actually take away from primary skills or become cookie cutter, especially if using all the RoCoII skills and expecting the players to use them. Also encourages min/maxing
RMSS was designed for all the skills so no extra DPs needed there.
We've never had a problem with the cookie cutter PC with the given DP formula. Take the Fighter example that was used. Once the primary "bread and butter" skills are taken (weapon 1, weapon 2, armour, Body Dev, Stunned Man., etc.) there were enough DP left over to pick from the dozens of secondary skills, to give the PC unique flavor. And there is where I see the cookie cutter disappearing even more. With say 30 secondary skills to choose from... you would need to make 31 fighters before you saw a duplicate "cookie." It sounds like that you're also going under the assumption that 10 fighters also miraculously rolled the same 10 stat rolls and Stat potential rolls and have the exact same stats across the board.
Don't forget, even while it's cost prohibitive, magic skills are still an option for the fighter. We had one level 5 fighter who knew 1 spell list to level 5. He spent the 20DP at level 1 and just made a spell gain roll each time he leveled up and got lucky one time with a 96 dice roll.
Add to that, the 10 stats RM has. Those stats will also effect other skills and make the Fighter better/worse at some skills, primary and secondary. Selecting secondary skills that take advantage those good stats adds yet more variation.
As the PC levels up, there is diminishing returns on the Rank value. 5, 2, 1, 0.5 depending on the optional rule you use and Body Dev stops being useful once you reach Racial Max +CO Bonus, so no need to spend DP there. The fighter at Level 4 may decide that the 10 ranks in Weapon 2 is enough, now those DPs are freed up for more secondary skills adding even more flair to a PC.
Is the system perfect? Not for everyone. Does it have weak spots? Of course. Is it as constricting as "6 stat, 1D20, no DP" system? Nooooooooo.
-
I don't use all those added skills from the RoCos either so the by the book DPs go further.
I feel that PC's are more cookie cutter with restricted DP's using only 5 stats. Face it anyone who makes a fighter will look very similar due to stat placement and skills development due to critical skills (Body Development, Weapons and armor) with nothing left for crafting and lores. Having a few more points that is designed for secondary skill development will make characters more unique and diverse even though the primary class skills are similar.
For example make 10 fighters with the by the book DP and Stat generation and see what different characters you get with skill diversity.
Make 10 fighters with set DP at max (50 or 100 depending on system) with 10 to 20 points in secondary skills dedication and see what kind of fighter combinations you see with skill diversity.
In no way are they a jack of all trades but maybe can be more than a gladiator only kind of character with no lores or craft type of skills.
In more than 30 years of making characters with 'by the book DPs' we have never experienced what you are describing.
-
The example that I make is for very similar cookie cutter skills for each fighter developed regardless of stats and bonuses. There is only a limited number of DP's to spread out to the Professional important skills especially as lower levels and they resemble the same skills as each other. Not much flavor for the bang so to speak. Too many skills to by pass due to expense and not enough DP's. Simple knowledge skills like (region lore, Spell, Undead, racial, fauna, flora ect...), Alertness skills (combat awareness, direction sense, ect...), Crafing, Technical skills (first aid, gambling, tactics, sailing, Ect...). One can have normal combat skills but will lack flare as not investing in things they come across as a character that needs some attention. These are also very good roleplaying skills that PC's can invest in to round out their characters.
Just saying, I know my Players have more fun with these features.
-
I've never seen this, either, but that is likely a function of differences between gaming groups.
We did extra DPs for Secondary Skills based on the RM2 suggestion. Since they can only be used on Secondary Skills I don't see it as impacting balance (and since we use secondary skills I think it's only fair that DPs exist for them). It's a small pool for a lot of skills, so bonuses tend to be low as a result. Also, we reworked and weeded skills fairly heavily.
-
Fair enough. It is very much a case of what works for each GM and what you are used to.
Out of interest here are the bare nuts and bolts concept of 10 fighters as you suggested. Each implies a particular style of fighter and each could be bought with only a minority of a 1st level characters DPs by the book and leave enough for perception, body development and other skills.
- two weapon combo with broadsword and shield bash plus plate armour.
- two weapon combo with martial arts and katana plus chain or soft leather armour.
- two weapon combo with shortsword and knife in hand and thrown plus tumble attack and adr.mv speed.
- two weapon combo with quarterstaff fighting with each end plus longbow but no armour.
- two weapon combo with trident and net plus plate armour AT17.
- two weapon combo with two broadswords plus tumble attack and adr.mv strength.
- Plate AT17, shortsword, big old shield and pilum as a thrown weapon.
- Battle Axe, frenzy and no armour or maybe AT5 leather jerkin.
- Spear, Shield and AT20 and lace up sandles.
- War Mattock, Plate AT 20 and frenzy
-
The examples you give are what I was talking about.
Weapon, Armor, Combat Manuever, Body Development: Are the main DP usage with very few others for skill in lore, craft, Technical or communication skills. So having extra DP beyond the book say 10 points will make them more diverse and more fun to play. Most players will get up to around 90 in RMSS later in levels anyway so giving 90 to 100 DP standard is not a big deal... Or giving 50 points in RMC for that matter.
-
But the concepts in the list use less that half the characters DPs anyway, there is enough in the pot to build the character you want to play. You may not be able to do everything at first level but that is what levelling up is all about, letting the character evolve naturally as you grow into the game world.
I get the feeling that if you are a by the book person then 100DPs feels like you must all have 1st level do everything supermen.
If you are used to 100DPs then buy the book 35DPs must seem really restrictive.
It is just a matter of what we are all used to.
-
It depends on the Game System in use. I have gone by the book for most of my 34 gaming years and still found it restrictive. I eventually gave players free ranks in certain knowledge skills pertaining to the background of the character, where they live and things they should know in those areas not covered in adolescent ranks. again not much and only at first level. I felt that this enhanced the play ability of knowledge in the home area. The rest was by the book. This gave me the GM background for character knowledge in the home region of the character. The thought that others were doing 90-100 off the bat as standard does have an appeal to me.
-
But the concepts in the list use less that half the characters DPs anyway, there is enough in the pot to build the character you want to play. You may not be able to do everything at first level but that is what levelling up is all about, letting the character evolve naturally as you grow into the game world.
I get the feeling that if you are a by the book person then 100DPs feels like you must all have 1st level do everything supermen.
If you are used to 100DPs then buy the book 35DPs must seem really restrictive.
It is just a matter of what we are all used to.
100 dev points a level is a different beast when plying a thief versus a mage. A mage will eat up 49 dev in developing five list 3 lvls and one rank in pp dev. This pace of development allows a pure spell user to maintain 15 spell list to level (but 64 dev is spent every 3rd level of development to hand the five open/close list). The 41 dev points left can't cover everything Alertness is 6, perception is at least 4 more, directed spell a minimum of four more...the points go fast). A thief will be much better rounded with maybe even a few dev points to save for use during play.
But I have never seen 100 dev a level make unstoppable monster PC's. Besides, dev based on stats creates a arms race. Everybody NEEDS high stats for the dev AND notto be punished in skill totals. Divorcing the two allows players to be low health, wimpy, clumsy, stupid, absent minded hedonist without being double and triple punished for plying a PC with low stats.
-
Sorry fo the delay in replying, just been for a run.
It seems a lot of it is supply and demand. In RMSS there seem to be many more skills and as yammahoper says magic is handled so differently. There is a greater demand on your DPs so you are given more. If you are playing RM2 and have all the additional secondary skills than it seems that GMs are giving away either specific skills or a one off parcel of points. In RMC you have less skills so there is less demand for more DPs.
Comparing RMC or even RM2 to RMSS is not an apples to apples comparison.
-
Sorry, a fighter with an axe and chain and adrenal speed isn't a different build than sword and plate and adrenal strength It's still a weapon and armor = same thing. Those are primary skills. I can make two fighter exactly the same, but instead one uses long sword and another a short sword, and "Look! I have two different and distinct and unique characters" Blah.
DPs in the original rules work great for PRIMARY skills. Secondary skills really flesh out a character as tbigness said
-
I've never seen this, either, but that is likely a function of differences between gaming groups.
We did extra DPs for Secondary Skills based on the RM2 suggestion. Since they can only be used on Secondary Skills I don't see it as impacting balance (and since we use secondary skills I think it's only fair that DPs exist for them). It's a small pool for a lot of skills, so bonuses tend to be low as a result. Also, we reworked and weeded skills fairly heavily.
I love that idea. Can you tell me the Companion/section that rule is in? I'll definitely check that out. If there is a delineation between which skill sets points may be sent on, then the balance is maintained.
-
- Spear, Shield and AT20 and lace up sandles.
Darn you! I read this and laughed and shot milk out my nose! Something about the image of a huge manly fighter wearing the lace up sandals my 13 yo daughter has struck me as extremely humourous!
-
Sorry, a fighter with an axe and chain and adrenal speed isn't a different build than sword and plate and adrenal strength It's still a weapon and armor = same thing. Those are primary skills. I can make two fighter exactly the same, but instead one uses long sword and another a short sword, and "Look! I have two different and distinct and unique characters" Blah.
DPs in the original rules work great for PRIMARY skills. Secondary skills really flesh out a character as tbigness said
Actually I totally disagree with you. A character is not just a pile of numbers. The weapon you choose, the armour and the supporting skills help to define the whole style of fighting, how you are perceived. The speed verses strength change makes one fighter fast, nimble and would consider taking on two of my opponents at once. The strength user could be very frighting to engage. If everything else was equal the strength user would have a higher OB and deliver more hits of damage.
When people see plate armour they tend to think knight/tank who is going to be hard to take down, when you see lighter armours the character is often perceived to be a softer target.
That list encompassed a viking berserker, one of Robin Hoods merry men, a knight in the grand melee, a warrior trained in the Phalanx (with sandles), a centurion, gladiator and so on.
-
Sorry, a fighter with an axe and chain and adrenal speed isn't a different build than sword and plate and adrenal strength It's still a weapon and armor = same thing. Those are primary skills. I can make two fighter exactly the same, but instead one uses long sword and another a short sword, and "Look! I have two different and distinct and unique characters" Blah.
DPs in the original rules work great for PRIMARY skills. Secondary skills really flesh out a character as tbigness said
I have to disagree with one point, there is a HUGE difference in a Fighter with Adrenal Speed and one with Adrenal Strength. THe tactics, number of fighters, amount of "movement" available to each one is very different. Attack 2 opponents or double damage to 1? Attack and drop back or bull rush into a wall? Those are two very different styles of game play with a fighter.
The point that was being made is that there were still more than half the total DP available AFTER purchasing those skills. All of those skills, save for Maneuver in Armour are #/#, not #/*. There is a max number per level that can be purchased and that conserves DP for secondary skills. Keep in mind, Body Dev will also max out at some point and those DP will not be spent on that skill any longer. As the PC levels up more DP becomes available to round out the PC further. You cannot be awesome at everything at level one. That takes at least two levels :D Seriously, it takes a couple of levels to really start to flesh out a PC. It was one of the main reasons we ended up starting all of our PCs at level 5. But we had plenty of sessions where we started at Level 1. At that level, the Xp bonuses are higher and you level up much faster. There's bonus XP for 1st time encountering being of type "blah blah blah", and Bonus XP for first time kill, first time delivering high crit, so on. Leveling up in RM (RM2 at least) at low levels is pretty quick, and that's just following the simple guideline in ChL&CaL? I forget which book has that chart.
PeterR: You may not be able to do everything at first level but that is what leveling up is all about, letting the character evolve naturally as you grow into the game world.
This is exactly what leveling up is for; adding more flavor. I've always been a fan of and have always encouraged players to use Level 0 (Adolescent level) as the "GM Gift level" or the "freebie level." I've never seen another game system that allowed players to make a Level 0 PC. This is free points in my mind. This is where my friend dumped 20 points into a 5% chance at learning a spell list. This is where you buy the really neat secondary skills that will give your PC an interesting background. This is where you buy a rank in Swimming, Grappling, Rappelling, Brawl, Region Lore, etc. This is where my Cavalier learned Use/Remove Poison, Poison Lore, Poison Perception, Herb Lore, Foraging, Brewing, First Aid, Second Aid. He was the younger of two brothers and at *that* particular point in his life, he was in the monastery learning the scholarly arts while his big, strong, older, entitled brother (Sir Gowan III the Greater) was training to be a knight and learning all the cool combat arts.... until an unfortunate accident had him killed on a quest and the younger (Sir Gowan IV, The Lesser) was thrust into the knightly arts. I have a really awesome Cavalier with the high values in the "non-DP producing stats" who does a lot of subterfugey and "keep yourself alive healy" stuff that is entirely uncharacteristic of a Cavalier. At level 1, while not "exactly" the Fighter Profession we have been using as an example for these past few posts, he is a non-spell user, level 1 and very different from what a Cavalier is "supposed" to be. The GMs were all surprised my Cavalier had these subterfuge skills. I had a great back story for him and it fit in perfectly with the Adolescent level usage.
Gods, I miss playing him! I need someone to GM for me again!!!!!!
-
We are playing RMSS and using the rules as written.
-
Hmmm...so it's like (in Seinfeld's Soup Nazi voice) "NO DPs FOR YOU!"
But then, "Oh there's not enough DPs, so start at level 5."
It's a silly notion to think giving extra DPs for secondary skills only means PCs know everything. Ranks are still limited by level. And, there are so many skills in RM2 that it's impossible. Even using only the ChL secondary skills, no PC develops them all, or even close to it.
And differences in using sword/ad strength and whatever/ad speed, it's still just revolves around combat, and again those are still Primary skills. That's a good thought process for characters, but it doesn't stop there. Wanna be a fast fighter with good movement abilities, it doesn't stop at ad speed and light armor. Ok, utilize the faster movement, and now run at a fast sprint, ok add your Sprinting skill, don't have it, then -25. Wanna make a knight? Need more than just one weapon skill, and other skills like riding, animal handling (you were a squire), mounted combat, etiquette, perhaps religious doctrine, reading/writing, and/or other cultural or societal skills. A fighter should know a little more than just fighting, however he chooses to do it.
-
I've never seen this, either, but that is likely a function of differences between gaming groups.
We did extra DPs for Secondary Skills based on the RM2 suggestion. Since they can only be used on Secondary Skills I don't see it as impacting balance (and since we use secondary skills I think it's only fair that DPs exist for them). It's a small pool for a lot of skills, so bonuses tend to be low as a result. Also, we reworked and weeded skills fairly heavily.
I love that idea. Can you tell me the Companion/section that rule is in? I'll definitely check that out. If there is a delineation between which skill sets points may be sent on, then the balance is maintained.
It was in core RM2 if I recall correctly. It also shows up in RMC (p. 74) as Option 11.3, which suggests 25% of normal primary DPs for use with secondary skills only. I've got RMC in pdf close to hand, which is why I cited it, but RM2 had pretty much the same rule.
-
Hmmm...so it's like (in Seinfeld's Soup Nazi voice) "NO DPs FOR YOU!"
But then, "Oh there's not enough DPs, so start at level 5."
Actually not the reason at all. The DP availability was never an issue for us.
With the rate that low level PC leveled up and the lower power of the spell casters, we started our players at level 5 so it took longer to level up and we could make higher powered campaigns with more options and spells/spell lists available for the GMs and players to play around with. We tried to keep the level of the bad guys/creatures relative to the levels of the PCs who were playing. Looking at what's available for level 1 creatures vs. level 1 through level 6 creatures.... you have lots more to choose from and the campaigns really got interesting. There were GMs who wanted to use lesser dragons and some of the rare/stronger elemental creatures, and quite honestly, it wouldn't be fair to throw those high powered creatures at level 1 PCs.
When you play in college, there are limitations to the amount of free time you have, and summer vacation/winter vacation spread us out all over the United States. We wanted to run some long lasting campaigns and didn't want to waste 2 semesters of game time going through 5 levels to get to the bigger campaigns.
-
When you play in college, there are limitations to the amount of free time you have, (...)
Wait until you start working. Then, you shall realize that you never had more free time than when you were in college.
...and summer vacation/winter vacation spread us out all over the United States.
Once your friends and you start working, you shall get spread out all over the whole world for most of the whole year, but mayhap a couple days. A decade.
-
Wait until you start working. Then, you shall realize that you never had more free time than when you were in college.
;D Ah my friend, already done that. Including married and divorced and 3 kids, one of them now in college herself. But all three kids love RM2! (including the ex-wife)
but mayhap a couple days. A decade.
...or not at all. I haven't seen some or been able to get in touch with some since they graduated over 20 years ago.
-
We have never had a problem with a lack of DPs and yes we did/do buy secondary skills. I was just pointing out that less DPs do not make cookie cutter identical fighters every time. I was showing that you can easily produce 10 conceptually different fighters using less that half their DPs leaving enough left over for other things.
I start my players off at first level and the current party have been playing for about 30 gaming hours and most have just made third level with one at second.
At about 40DPs per level a third level RM2/RMC character will have spent about 160DPs and is probably as developed as a first level RMSS character.
Are they really so different?
I have played in many games where the GM has chosen to start the party at higher levels to fit with his idea of his game world and the challenges he has lined up for the party. The highest level start I have ever done was starting at 10th level. It was never to do with a lack of DPs. It was more to do with OBs, PPs and availability of spells.
There is certainly more to a knight than weapons and armour I agree but etiquette is more about role playing that dice rolling to use your example.
I spent part of last weekend creating a first level lay healer. The charater is called Otto and spent most of his youth working on barges. I bought the secondary skills of loading because he woild have had to stow cargo, animal handling because the barge was pulled up stream by oxen and penny whistle as they would have made their own emtertainment. I also bought weapon skills, spell lists, medical skills, body dev, perception and so on. The character had 37DPs. He is a viable rounded individual.
There are some skills I would love to have been able to buy but couldn't so I am learning them for second level. In that game we are using all the RM2 skills.
I think the total DPs available makes no difference as the player will spend everything you give them. It is only at the higher extremes that it will impact on the game when players have too many spell lists, PPs and everyone is fully trained in plate at level one. I don't believe anyone here would or has gone to that extreme.
-
RMSS as written
RM2: DP's were designed for basic char law skill set. I feel that as I use the whole RMC2 skill set PC's need more --> so DP's from bonuses (RMC 1 chart) times 1,2. Human PC chars have had between 44 and 54 DPs and Elves between 40 and 47. NPCs do not get multipler - PCs are the heroes.
-
RMSS as written
RM2: DP's were designed for basic char law skill set. I feel that as I use the whole RMC2 skill set PC's need more --> so DP's from bonuses (RMC 1 chart) times 1,2.
Exactly! Those additional DPs in my game are used ONLY for secondary skills, which is what RoCo1 suggests.
-
I suppose there are two ways of looking at it. Because there are more skills available does not mean you have to buy them, they just offer more choice or because there are more skills available you want to have more of them. I can understand both positions. As a fighter I would probably want blind fighting, iai strike, reverse strike and all the other combat skills.
The list given earlier of riding, animal handling, mounted combat, etiquette, religious doctrine, reading/writing, and other cultural skills in RMU has been largely rolled up into a single skill called Vocational Skills.
There is no right or wrong when it comes to DPs. It is just what works for your game and players.
-
More dev does mean more skills, and more skills gives players tools to interface with the game world. Players get creative.
I think an interesting point is romantic over gritty, wich do you prefer? A single skill such as Observation or Athletics can cover many skills sets, while swimming, sking, tightrope walk and sprinting really defines a more specific skill set, both approaches have strengths and weakness. One weakness of the romantic is to many dev results in to many skills that all cover a broad set of knowledge. At fairly low levels, they can do it all. Better defining skills increases their number and also limits the ability to be strong and dominating in all places. Chinks in the skill set a PC can cover encourages team play and results in shared limelight time for the players too.
So, lots of dev and lots of skills. A Paladin may need to invent a fauna lore: mythical monsters while a Mage may need Culture Lore: Elemental Planes (both romantic skills with broad definitions of knowledge). Culture Lore: Elemental Plane of Fire or Fauna Lore; Poisonous Creatures would be grittier and offer less in play use. The key is a small mix of romantic skills can help out a game but tomany and we return to the original problem of PC's being overwhelmingly able.
-
As a GM I like that each character has a few more skills available to help out the game experience. So a few more DP's do not hurt and the additional lores and other secondary skills help out with the game. I use a lot of game skills for PC's so this would work out great for me anyway. I am not a DP depriving GM as others like to be and the players are fine with it. So to each their own.
-
As a GM I like that each character has a few more skills available to help out the game experience. So a few more DP's do not hurt and the additional lores and other secondary skills help out with the game. I use a lot of game skills for PC's so this would work out great for me anyway. I am not a DP depriving GM as others like to be and the players are fine with it. So to each their own.
Each to their own is the key I think.
I don't feel I am a DP depriving GM but then the two other GMs I play with use ALL the RM2 skills and only DPs by the book. I use less skills with the same DPs so to all intents and purposes my players have less to spend those points on so they go a little further.
I think yammahoper makes a good point as to what is the GM asking his players to be.
-
By the book?
A fixed amount?
A fixed multipler (by the book x2 for example)
Something else entirely?
Please specify whether you are talking about 2nd/classic or SS/FRP (I am interested in both)
Initially, for RMC, I gave DPs by the book. When RM2 expanded the number of skills were expanded with RoCo2-7, we settled on giving DPs by summing all ten stats, then dividing by 10. This usually averaged, once stats hit Potential, about 85 to 95 DPs. We were always happy with this since it allowed characters to be more well rounded instead of archtypical professions.
With the new RMUS, on which I am basing a new campaign world, I give DPs according to the below table. Essentially, you get 50DPs for Adolescence, Apprentice, and Squire levels before becoming 1st level. Afterwards, you receive +1DP for each level, plus an additional +1DP for each 5th level.
| Level | DPs | Total | | Level | DPs | Total | | Level | DPs | Total | | Level | DPs | Total | | Level | DPs | Total |
| 1 | 51 | 51 | | 6 | 57 | 323 | | 11 | 63 | 625 | | 16 | 69 | 957 | | 21 | 75 | 1319 |
| 2 | 52 | 103 | | 7 | 58 | 381 | | 12 | 64 | 689 | | 17 | 70 | 1027 | | 22 | 76 | 1395 |
| 3 | 53 | 156 | | 8 | 59 | 440 | | 13 | 65 | 754 | | 18 | 71 | 1098 | | 23 | 77 | 1472 |
| 4 | 54 | 210 | | 9 | 60 | 500 | | 14 | 66 | 820 | | 19 | 72 | 1170 | | 24 | 78 | 1550 |
| 5 | 56 | 266 | | 10 | 62 | 562 | | 15 | 68 | 888 | | 20 | 74 | 1244 | | 25 | 80 | 1630 |
Levels 26+ follow this same pattern.
Bonus DPs
Additionally, the GM may award bonus DPs on each level acquistion. These bonus DPs are free and in addition to the normal DPs received as detailed above, and may be spent as desired.
rmfr
-
More dev does mean more skills, and more skills gives players tools to interface with the game world. Players get creative.
I think an interesting point is romantic over gritty, wich do you prefer? A single skill such as Observation or Athletics can cover many skills sets, while swimming, sking, tightrope walk and sprinting really defines a more specific skill set, both approaches have strengths and weakness. One weakness of the romantic is to many dev results in to many skills that all cover a broad set of knowledge. At fairly low levels, they can do it all. Better defining skills increases their number and also limits the ability to be strong and dominating in all places. Chinks in the skill set a PC can cover encourages team play and results in shared limelight time for the players too.
So, lots of dev and lots of skills. A Paladin may need to invent a fauna lore: mythical monsters while a Mage may need Culture Lore: Elemental Planes (both romantic skills with broad definitions of knowledge). Culture Lore: Elemental Plane of Fire or Fauna Lore; Poisonous Creatures would be grittier and offer less in play use. The key is a small mix of romantic skills can help out a game but tomany and we return to the original problem of PC's being overwhelmingly able.
I agree with this. But as others may have said in this thread, it is dependent upon what the GM and Players want. The people I played with tended to prefer a more gritty world instead of romantic. However, we also played in more romantic worlds where one skill covers many other skills, thus less DPs were received.
Although the more gritty based games allowed characters to be more able, it also allowed me (GM) to create episodes that focused on some of the more obscure skills as yamahopper listed as examples such as Fauna Lore: Venomous Snakes or Planar Lore: Seventh Plane of Hell. Using Planar Lore: Seventh Plane of Hell skill, I would eventually create an episode where that specific skill was needed for the episode, such as causing the PCs to need to visit the Seventh Plane of Hell. Other such obscure skills would also provide hooks for many other episodes I planned.
As said by others, it truly depends upon what the GM and Players want. With the current group I am discussing matters with, they are like me and prefer a more gritty world experience where the characters will eventually become "well rounded" with their skill set. Of course, at lower levels, the characters will tend to be more archtypical, but will become more "well rounded" as they progress.
For example, with the group that will start the campaign, most are archtypical. However, they are not like the professions listed in the RMUS. Instead, they are:
Holder: Blacksmith Apprentice/Brawler
Naldur: Woodsman Watch Apprentice
Makur: Animal Healer Apprentice/??/Visionist (only with Selara)
Keleb: Historian Sage Apprentice
Selara: Apothecary Apprentice/Empathic Reader/Visionist (only with Makur)
Rena: Herbalist Apprentice
Warkim: Baker
Saramanusa (NPC): Shangrala Protectorate
For my new campaign world of Onaviu, I use a Specialized No Profession "class" for players to create their own skill set with some DP Cost Adjustment, Skill Classification, Skill Level Bonus adjustments at player control with limits to "specialize" towards one of the more archtypical professions. And professions can change as does everyone's as life progresses. However, players are required to keep records of how these "specializations" change over time. You can even make up your own name for your profession. If you do not like Fighter, you call your profession Myrmidon. Or Geleka (HC: one who fights).
rmfr
-
Strangley, the more skills you add to the game the less capable the characters become.
What I mean is, take a skill like foraging. I only use foraging as a standalone skill. Buy that and you can snare rabbits, pick berries, recognise edible roots and so on. If you go with RoCoII (4.6) you suddenly have seperate skills for foraging,(and fauna lore, flora lore and region lore), one for every terrain type and climate. Within 6miles or 10k of my home you have 6 of the listed terrains. So a skill a ranger would be expected to have suddenly become 6 separate skills for every one. I do separate out region lore but not by terrain but by geographical region and that region could be as big as a country or even span an area that crosses many countries such as Region Lore:The spice road.
If you use seduction you don't also need diplomacy, public speaking etc. Do you need five different blind fighting skills, six if you include spacial location awareness? As soon as you break these skills down you create holes in the characters knowledge. That then means that the character has to learn more skills to fill those gaps and that drives the need for more DPs.
Once everything has gone full circle you have gained nothing but creating a character takes a lot longer because you have so much more to do.
I am not saying having skills is wrong, or even that having many DPs is wrong. It is just that without the huge list of skills you do not need the added DPs and it is possible that some or many skills are adding complexity to the game without adding any benefit to the GM, Players or their characters.
-
It's not just the number of skills, it's also how tightly defined they are in use. As a GM, when the player wants to do something, do you ask for their bonus in the most applicable skill, or do you ask them what skill they are using? E.g. I had a player who wanted to put some fear into a person they were interrogating. He proposed to use Tale Telling to explain how a lack of cooperation could turn out for this NPC's future. Why not? It gives the PC a little more personality in how he approaches this problem and makes an interesting story. And suddenly all the skills are overlapping, which makes it less critical if you don't have skill X. I put it on the player to justify how their skill can be applicable, and maybe give different modifiers, but if they make a case I see no reason not to use it.
-
It's not just the number of skills, it's also how tightly defined they are in use. As a GM, when the player wants to do something, do you ask for their bonus in the most applicable skill, or do you ask them what skill they are using? E.g. I had a player who wanted to put some fear into a person they were interrogating. He proposed to use Tale Telling to explain how a lack of cooperation could turn out for this NPC's future. Why not? It gives the PC a little more personality in how he approaches this problem and makes an interesting story. And suddenly all the skills are overlapping, which makes it less critical if you don't have skill X. I put it on the player to justify how their skill can be applicable, and maybe give different modifiers, but if they make a case I see no reason not to use it.
That sounds good for me, and I think adds to roleplaying and player creativity.
One bad Gm I played mandated use of all the RoCoII skills (and NO similar skill) but never gave any additional DPs was like this. "You want to use your Underwater Basketweaving skill? Ok, is you skill Underwater Basketweaving Lake, River, Swamp, Ocean or Pool? Oh, it's UB - Lake, sorry, you're at -25, you're in a pond, and it's not the same."
-
It's not just the number of skills, it's also how tightly defined they are in use. As a GM, when the player wants to do something, do you ask for their bonus in the most applicable skill, or do you ask them what skill they are using? E.g. I had a player who wanted to put some fear into a person they were interrogating. He proposed to use Tale Telling to explain how a lack of cooperation could turn out for this NPC's future. Why not? It gives the PC a little more personality in how he approaches this problem and makes an interesting story. And suddenly all the skills are overlapping, which makes it less critical if you don't have skill X. I put it on the player to justify how their skill can be applicable, and maybe give different modifiers, but if they make a case I see no reason not to use it.
This would have worked in my world too.
-
Strangley, the more skills you add to the game the less capable the characters become.
What I mean is, take a skill like foraging. I only use foraging as a standalone skill. Buy that and you can snare rabbits, pick berries, recognise edible roots and so on. If you go with RoCoII (4.6) you suddenly have seperate skills for foraging,(and fauna lore, flora lore and region lore), one for every terrain type and climate. Within 6miles or 10k of my home you have 6 of the listed terrains. So a skill a ranger would be expected to have suddenly become 6 separate skills for every one. I do separate out region lore but not by terrain but by geographical region and that region could be as big as a country or even span an area that crosses many countries such as Region Lore:The spice road.
In the RMFRP game I am currently running I have folded the Fire Starting, Foraging, Shelter Finding skill into the Survival [Region] skills, it just didn't make sense to have them seperate. I also use the lores to overlap a bit, such as local culture will have some information on regional and international stuff (usually), just not very detailed info, for which you need the specific lore skill (like artifact, spell, world politics, etc....)
I give 100 DP/level, to ensure that the PCs are not limited to just their basic professional abilities. (I also have them get 5 ranks in the Lore*General category, Own Culture Lore and Own Region Lore - it just didn't make sense that they would not know their local areas/people well.)
-
Strangley, the more skills you add to the game the less capable the characters become.
What I mean is, take a skill like foraging. I only use foraging as a standalone skill. Buy that and you can snare rabbits, pick berries, recognise edible roots and so on. If you go with RoCoII (4.6) you suddenly have seperate skills for foraging,(and fauna lore, flora lore and region lore), one for every terrain type and climate. Within 6miles or 10k of my home you have 6 of the listed terrains. So a skill a ranger would be expected to have suddenly become 6 separate skills for every one. I do separate out region lore but not by terrain but by geographical region and that region could be as big as a country or even span an area that crosses many countries such as Region Lore:The spice road.
If you use seduction you don't also need diplomacy, public speaking etc. Do you need five different blind fighting skills, six if you include spacial location awareness? As soon as you break these skills down you create holes in the characters knowledge. That then means that the character has to learn more skills to fill those gaps and that drives the need for more DPs.
Once everything has gone full circle you have gained nothing but creating a character takes a lot longer because you have so much more to do.
I am not saying having skills is wrong, or even that having many DPs is wrong. It is just that without the huge list of skills you do not need the added DPs and it is possible that some or many skills are adding complexity to the game without adding any benefit to the GM, Players or their characters.
I beg to differ on the foraging skill. I usually have foraging apply to a region/biome/climate. Just because you have learned how to forage in a hilly (region), forest (biome), Cfa climate will NEVER translate to being able to forage in a flatland (region), rain forest (biome), Af climate. Thus, yes, I require foraging skills to be developed for each individual region/biome/climate combination. Another example: Just because you can forage in New Mexico shall NEVER mean you could forage in the Florida Everglades. The environments are so drastically different, it could not happen that ONE forage skill would suffice. Just because you can forage in the rain forest of the Amazon shall NEVER mean you could forage in the Pine Savannas of North Carolina. Just because you can forage in northern highlands of Minnesota shall NEVER mean you could forage in the deserts of New Mexico. Need I go on?
I do agree that such skills as fire starting, shelter location, hunting, trapping, stalking, hiding, tracking, amongst others not listed, are cross skills as far as region/biome/climate. However, some skills just are NOT cross skills. And NEVER shall be.
As for the combat skills, I have never been a super rules nazi. If a character develops a TWC skill of Sword Right Handed and Dagger Left Handed, I have never penalized such a character if s/he decided to wield them Dagger Right Handed and Sword Left Handed. It is my experience that anyone who trains in combat will also cross-train their skills. As I have personally performed Kata with both a Katana and a Tanto, I have found that wielding either with either hand is similar enough that there would be no penalty doing such. Of course, I am ambidextrous. This definitely helps tremendously. However, I watched a friend who was right handed who was able to so quickly compensate for switching hands/weapons that it seemed as if no penalty was warranted. As said, Fighters will tend to cross-train. Non-fighters usually do not.
I know this sounds nit-picky, but my experiences have taught me that some things should be "exploded" into individual sub-skills, while others should not be. Then again, this always depends on the GM and his/her "real life" experiences. Someone who has done nothing but work in retail would NEVER know anything about Survival skills. Someone like myself who has served in the military WOULD. However, that military person may not be as knowledgable in Influence skills as the person in retail.
Strangley, the more skills you add to the game the less capable the characters become.
And this I completely disagree with. It would take a novel to discuss why. Or, at least a large text book.
It's not just the number of skills, it's also how tightly defined they are in use. As a GM, when the player wants to do something, do you ask for their bonus in the most applicable skill, or do you ask them what skill they are using? E.g. I had a player who wanted to put some fear into a person they were interrogating. He proposed to use Tale Telling to explain how a lack of cooperation could turn out for this NPC's future. Why not? It gives the PC a little more personality in how he approaches this problem and makes an interesting story. And suddenly all the skills are overlapping, which makes it less critical if you don't have skill X. I put it on the player to justify how their skill can be applicable, and maybe give different modifiers, but if they make a case I see no reason not to use it.
Hear. Hear.
One bad Gm I played mandated use of all the RoCoII skills (and NO similar skill) but never gave any additional DPs was like this. "You want to use your Underwater Basketweaving skill? Ok, is you skill Underwater Basketweaving Lake, River, Swamp, Ocean or Pool? Oh, it's UB - Lake, sorry, you're at -25, you're in a pond, and it's not the same."
And I have had the same thing happen. If I ever had a character develop Underwater Basketweaving, then it would apply to ANY underwater environment. The only thing I would have done is to apply modifiers depending upon currents, storms, etc.
It's not just the number of skills, it's also how tightly defined they are in use. As a GM, when the player wants to do something, do you ask for their bonus in the most applicable skill, or do you ask them what skill they are using? E.g. I had a player who wanted to put some fear into a person they were interrogating. He proposed to use Tale Telling to explain how a lack of cooperation could turn out for this NPC's future. Why not? It gives the PC a little more personality in how he approaches this problem and makes an interesting story. And suddenly all the skills are overlapping, which makes it less critical if you don't have skill X. I put it on the player to justify how their skill can be applicable, and maybe give different modifiers, but if they make a case I see no reason not to use it.
This would have worked in my world too.
Mine too.
In the RMFRP game I am currently running I have folded the Fire Starting, Foraging, Shelter Finding skill into the Survival [Region] skills, it just didn't make sense to have them seperate. I also use the lores to overlap a bit, such as local culture will have some information on regional and international stuff (usually), just not very detailed info, for which you need the specific lore skill (like artifact, spell, world politics, etc....)
I give 100 DP/level, to ensure that the PCs are not limited to just their basic professional abilities. (I also have them get 5 ranks in the Lore*General category, Own Culture Lore and Own Region Lore - it just didn't make sense that they would not know their local areas/people well.)
I also do this. However, if the character has the Ability - Special Training - Outdoorsman, then the bonuses for fire starting and shelter location would apply anywhere. However, the bonus for foraging would only apply in the trained region/biome/climate.
rmfr
-
If you start with the premise that with no secondary skills characters are perfectly capable of saving the world as soon as you start to add in secondary skills all you do is create wholes in the characters knowledge. The more skills, the more wholes.
I am not saying that they do not add realism but the more skills there are then proportionally the more skills the PC do not have.
-
That is fine if you like D&D not to have a diversity of skills, but in RM it is excepted as a broad part of the game to need skills to function.
-
If you start with the premise that with no secondary skills characters are perfectly capable of saving the world as soon as you start to add in secondary skills all you do is create wholes in the characters knowledge. The more skills, the more wholes.
I am not saying that they do not add realism but the more skills there are then proportionally the more skills the PC do not have.
It is true that if you add skills A to Z, and you choose to have only A that you do not, therefore, have B to Z. The alternative, to me, seems to either be an assumption that everyone can do A to Z automatically, or that no one can do A to Z at all. Either situation seems improbable.
So what do you do as the GM? If one character has a Nordic background, does he know how to ski if skiing isn't a skill? If he does, then what happens if another character, who came from a tropical climate, wants to learn when the party finds itself transported to a show covered mountain? He just can't, or he magically learns? Again, neither seems a good solution. The GM is placed into being a Deus ex machina whenever a character wants to do something that is not covered by a primary skill. The GM, and the GM alone, gets to decide if the player can achieve the goal. For me one of the great advantages of Role Master, and the variety of secondary skills, is that it removes that to a great degree. Want to read lips, learn the skill. Once you have learned the skill it would take a mighty authoritarian GM to tell you that you can't even try to do it.
Now if in your experience being a hero and saving the world is solely accomplished through combat, then the primary skills may well be sufficient. (And if that is what you enjoy far be it from me to suggest you not do so.) But if some diplomacy, bribery, knowledge of the inner workings of the Imperial Administration, the lesser passwords of Amaladon, and skill with a grappling line are more how your hero saves the world, then the secondary skills are, IMHO, necessary.
-
Firstly to be clear I am not advocating 'no skills'. I use secondary skills although maybe less than some other people. I simply pointed out that as more and more skills are added the proportion that any one player or entire party have gets smaller. If the GM adds skills and then 'demands' through play that the skills are used then the players will naturally buy them. The greater the demand for skills that need to be bought then feeds the demand for more DPs which is why I happened to mention it in this thread.
Now in the case above of the skiier and non-skiier. I would assume that the skiier would have bought Athletic Games as a skills (not skiing) to cover his skiing. The non skiier would just be making a mm with a difficulty rating when he first went on skis but if his companion was there to help him then that difficulty would be somewhat less. If he wanted to learn to ski then he learn Atheltic Games. One skill but with varying difficulties depending on the characters experience with the physcal activity in question. I don't have skiiing, distance running, sprinting I just use Athletic Games and the player takes it to help create their vision of their character.
Foraging as mentioned above with the different envioronments; there are some general principles that are global such as water flows down hill, vegetation grows more lushly when water is available, valleys that are V shapped were carved by rivers, U shaped valleys were carved by Glaciers (and are often dry). All rodents are edible as are all birds and their eggs and so on. If a party were magically transported to an unknown envioronment of which they had no prior knowledge then any foraging would be with a massive minus the first few days and bad failures would leave the party feeling probably very ill. As time passed the difficulty factor would deminish as the forager learned what to avoid and the best signs of where to find clean water and so on. If the party were travelling by ship or other mundane method then they would probably be able to glean small bits of useful knowledge on the way such as seeing the fruits in the markets, pelts for sale and learning that they make good eating and so on. In that case the difficulty when they are on the ground would not be so severe. I could be completely wrong but this is just a game played for fun and no one is really going to starve.
With the lip reading I use that as a skill.
To my mind a skill must add something to the game that could not be done with an existing skill for me to consider adding it.
-
Now in the case above of the skiier and non-skiier. I would assume that the skiier would have bought Athletic Games as a skills (not skiing) to cover his skiing. The non skiier would just be making a mm with a difficulty rating when he first went on skis but if his companion was there to help him then that difficulty would be somewhat less. If he wanted to learn to ski then he learn Atheltic Games. One skill but with varying difficulties depending on the characters experience with the physcal activity in question. I don't have skiiing, distance running, sprinting I just use Athletic Games and the player takes it to help create their vision of their character.
For many of the Lore skills, I've adopted the rule that the skill applies to the areas for which you have Region Lore. So, for example, if you have History and Law, you effectively have those skills for the areas you also have general knowledge about. If you go to a new area and study Region Lore there, you are also learning how its local history ties in with the history you already know, and how the local law resembles and differs from laws in regions you know. You don't pick a region when you learn History, Law, Heraldry, etc.
This could also apply for athletic games. The skill applies to the athletic pursuits of the regions with which you are familiar. It does mean that an already-athletic character from the tropics can pick up skiing really quick if he takes the time to learn the region, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
This obviously could also apply to an outdoor skill like Foraging. (Although in that case I went the other way and just made it part of Survival, which encompasses foraging, fire starting, finding camp sites, hunting, etc, and I do make them learn it per environment type.)
If you wanted to apply a limit, you could limit the other skills to being no higher than region lore for the appropriate region. I don't think it's necessary, but it's an option.
-
Now in the case above of the skiier and non-skiier. I would assume that the skiier would have bought Athletic Games as a skills (not skiing) to cover his skiing. The non skiier would just be making a mm with a difficulty rating when he first went on skis but if his companion was there to help him then that difficulty would be somewhat less. If he wanted to learn to ski then he learn Atheltic Games. One skill but with varying difficulties depending on the characters experience with the physcal activity in question. I don't have skiiing, distance running, sprinting I just use Athletic Games and the player takes it to help create their vision of their character.
So here is my problem with that solution. What happens if my tropical PC has Athletic Games as a skill? He didn't learn it for skiing or anything remotely Nordic, he learned it for the kind of athletic pursuits that his culture did in their tropical climate. But he has the skill. It seems to me that this would mean that either, A) the GM would have to say, "Well, your Athletic Games doesn't include skiing", which begs the question as to how the PC can get it to include skiing, or B) that it automatically includes skiing. For me both those situations can be avoided by having skiing as a separate skill, which is what I do in games I run.
Everyone has to do what they think is best for their game, but my overall personal theory is that you are more likely to avoid interpretive questions if you have more sills. I'm also a big believer and user of Similar Skills, which further gives the PCs a wider number of skills that they can perform without the untrained penalty.
In the end I feel that having more skills reduces the number of instances where I, as the GM, have to make a ruling on if a PC has any skill in performing a certain task and/or how much skill that might be. I find those decisions can be very arbitrary, and when I am on the receiving end of them I often feel the decision is not very fair. Having the large amount of secondary skills available for learning takes the onus away from the GM and places it firmly where I feel it belongs, on the player to fully develop his character to be able to do the tings he wants it to do.
To further develop on that theme, I, and many of the people I have played with, greatly enjoy being able to use the secondary skills to develop our characters in ways that may never impact game play, but show them to be a complete individual. I had one character that had acquired many many skill ranks to make painted pottery. I can't lay my hands on his character sheet, but he worked every level on those skills to find clay, refine it, pottery skill, painting, etc. He had started to learn chemistry to make better glazes. Other characters would take skill in a musical instrument. With the appropriate skill its not just that you know how to play the lute, it tells you exactly how well you play the lute. We enjoy this level of immersion. And it often leads to interesting things happening in game as well.
Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
-
Back to the skiing, your non-skier would still roll their athletic games skill but with a major difficulty modifier because they were unfamiliar with skiing but the spacial awareness skills, or balance or coordination from the sports they have learned would help them. As they grew more familiar the minus would diminish.
If we take this one step further how would the character learn to ski without leveling up twice? Unless they were already learning to ski before they ever knew they would need to do it they would need to start learning when they level up the first time and gain the skill the second.
I checked earlier and I have around 75 skills in my game but every one of those I feel added something to the game and that excludes lores and crafts where the players can learn anything they like to represent their characters knowledge base.
-
Back to the skiing, your non-skier would still roll their athletic games skill but with a major difficulty modifier because they were unfamiliar with skiing but the spacial awareness skills, or balance or coordination from the sports they have learned would help them. As they grew more familiar the minus would diminish.(emphasis added)
This, especially the bold part, is what I like to avoid. Why? Because it is, to me, arbitrary and decided by the GM.
I'm happy that this works for you and your group. You decided that no additional DPs would be awarded for secondary skills. You then created a structure where a group of skills are bundled together, the Athletic Game skill for example. This allows your PCs to have a wide variety of skills available to them. Fair enough.
I suspect that the end result is fairly similar to having 200 secondary skills and giving 50% extra DP just for secondary skills (which is what I do). Those I game with seem to like the wide variety of skills much better than the skill groupings. As a GM I like it better as fewer decisions are left to my caprice. Each to their own and we all win.
-
Back to the skiing, your non-skier would still roll their athletic games skill but with a major difficulty modifier because they were unfamiliar with skiing but the spacial awareness skills, or balance or coordination from the sports they have learned would help them. As they grew more familiar the minus would diminish.
If we take this one step further how would the character learn to ski without leveling up twice? Unless they were already learning to ski before they ever knew they would need to do it they would need to start learning when they level up the first time and gain the skill the second.
I checked earlier and I have around 75 skills in my game but every one of those I feel added something to the game and that excludes lores and crafts where the players can learn anything they like to represent their characters knowledge base.
I dunno, Peter, that ends up being more complicated than just going with "does he have skiing skill?" If not use a similar skill rule (if applicable)
The way you're doing it is another way of "they develop the skill but instead of just using DPs we'll do it a different way"
-
Back to the skiing, your non-skier would still roll their athletic games skill but with a major difficulty modifier because they were unfamiliar with skiing but the spacial awareness skills, or balance or coordination from the sports they have learned would help them. As they grew more familiar the minus would diminish.
If we take this one step further how would the character learn to ski without leveling up twice? Unless they were already learning to ski before they ever knew they would need to do it they would need to start learning when they level up the first time and gain the skill the second.
I checked earlier and I have around 75 skills in my game but every one of those I feel added something to the game and that excludes lores and crafts where the players can learn anything they like to represent their characters knowledge base.
I dunno, Peter, that ends up being more complicated than just going with "does he have skiing skill?" If not use a similar skill rule (if applicable)
The way you're doing it is another way of "they develop the skill but instead of just using DPs we'll do it a different way"
Actually it is significantly simpler in day to day gaming and that is exactly how RMU works with it's catch all Vocational Skill. You must remember that RM did not start life with all the skills that exist now, they were added piecemeal in companion after companion. (In RM2 that is)
-
And of course companions will add new skills for RMU as well. But it would be ideal if they minimize the number of truly new skills, and mostly focus on details and mechanics for how to apply the existing skills.
-
Actually it is significantly simpler in day to day gaming and that is exactly how RMU works with it's catch all Vocational Skill. You must remember that RM did not start life with all the skills that exist now, they were added piecemeal in companion after companion. (In RM2 that is)
[/quote]
Yes, I am fully aware RM started with just primary skills, and this thread I have been a big proponent if giving additional DPs for secondary skills, because the game was designed for certain number of DPs for PRIMARY skills.
I'm not familiar with RMU, so I don't have an opinion yet. But hey if it works. It's still dealing with the skill bloat problem of RM2 instead of not recognizing an issue. I've played in a game with a Gm that gave no extra DPS (actually hurt PCs on their stats too giving them less than what they normally would get) then mandated specific skill use with all the bloated skills, and used no similar skills at all. That interfered with the fun of the game, and looking back now he wasn't a good GM.
-
DP's also make great treasure. They are great rewards and can be used to express growth as a character too. For example, the party arrives at the mythical ELVEN HOME. While amazed with the civilization but unhappy with the endless "bottomless saladbowls" for food, they receive 20DP to spend on things learned while in the city.
Of course, I add in training time for DP's so gained, but typically this easily covered by the two weeks spend making this or that or healing.
DP's can also be saved and spent at an opportune moment. A fate point cost 8dev for example, or an odd but need magic weapon is found and skill needs to be developed.
I also hand out ranks as rewards or just cuz I think it makes sense. I consider a day in a culture equal to four hours training when dealing with languages and how quickly I hand out free ranks in them. Besides the possible learning rolls or other secondary skill checks, of course. Armor skills reciee a simular treatment.
-
Actually it is significantly simpler in day to day gaming and that is exactly how RMU works with it's catch all Vocational Skill. You must remember that RM did not start life with all the skills that exist now, they were added piecemeal in companion after companion. (In RM2 that is)
Yes, I am fully aware RM started with just primary skills, and this thread I have been a big proponent if giving additional DPs for secondary skills, because the game was designed for certain number of DPs for PRIMARY skills.
I'm not familiar with RMU, so I don't have an opinion yet. But hey if it works. It's still dealing with the skill bloat problem of RM2 instead of not recognizing an issue. I've played in a game with a Gm that gave no extra DPS (actually hurt PCs on their stats too giving them less than what they normally would get) then mandated specific skill use with all the bloated skills, and used no similar skills at all. That interfered with the fun of the game, and looking back now he wasn't a good GM.
Green Maishnali , you are right this deals with the precieved bloat problem but as I understand it that is only a problem for RM2 players. RMSS/RMFRP was designed in right from the start to have multi tiered skills and a higher DP count than RM2/RMC. I don't actually use RM2, I am primarily RMC GM, but even in RM2 a selection of approximately 45-50-ish secondary skills were there right from the beginning. The DPs as given were not necessarily intended just for the primary skills.
-
DP's also make great treasure. They are great rewards and can be used to express growth as a character too. For example, the party arrives at the mythical ELVEN HOME. While amazed with the civilization but unhappy with the endless "bottomless saladbowls" for food, they receive 20DP to spend on things learned while in the city.
Of course, I add in training time for DP's so gained, but typically this easily covered by the two weeks spend making this or that or healing.
DP's can also be saved and spent at an opportune moment. A fate point cost 8dev for example, or an odd but need magic weapon is found and skill needs to be developed.
I also hand out ranks as rewards or just cuz I think it makes sense. I consider a day in a culture equal to four hours training when dealing with languages and how quickly I hand out free ranks in them. Besides the possible learning rolls or other secondary skill checks, of course. Armor skills reciee a simular treatment.
I am sure you are right, I have never done this (giving away DPs like that) but I have given away free skill ranks. In one session a PC was kidnapped, brainwashed and turned into a sleeper agent come assassin and as part of the brainwashing has certain deadly skills inserted. the skills were only available once the character had been 'activated'. In the end the heroes saved the day, disaster was averted and the character eventually was able to use those skills in day to day life.
On the other hand I am not sure that solution would work for everyone. RickinVA feels that my assigning a difficulty factor to broad based skills could become artibrary, giving away a <GM decided amount> of DPs could for some be seen as equally arbitrary.
-
And of course companions will add new skills for RMU as well. But it would be ideal if they minimize the number of truly new skills, and mostly focus on details and mechanics for how to apply the existing skills.
I don't doubt that there will be companions for RMU but this is not a decision I would like to have to make. One of the 'failures' of RM as percieved by the outside world is that RM is a massively overweight system where you have to buy dozens of books. The other percieved issue is the 'chartmaster' label. If the Aurigas Aldebaron business model is to sell the core system and then sell ever more books to that userbase then they will inevitably fail, as ICE failed.
I spend hours every week in non-ICE roleplaying communities and RMU is not being seen as a new game but as just another iteration of RM. None of those that have played RM in the past and abandoned the system are intending on trying RMU. They have 'done RM' and are not coming back.
The more companions that are released the more that will justify the false impressions of bloat and chartiness (if that is a word) because you can guarantee that the companions will contain both pages of text and charts. The people doing the mud slinging will probably not have read a single book but that does not diminish their influence.
When RMSS came out a great many players did not move over from RM2 and when RMC was released most RM2 players again did not make the move. The same is true of RMU. Most existing players will not move over because we have invested too much of ourselves in our games and worlds.
-
[/quote]
Green Maishnali , you are right this deals with the precieved bloat problem but as I understand it that is only a problem for RM2 players. RMSS/RMFRP was designed in right from the start to have multi tiered skills and a higher DP count than RM2/RMC. I don't actually use RM2, I am primarily RMC GM, but even in RM2 a selection of approximately 45-50-ish secondary skills were there right from the beginning. The DPs as given were not necessarily intended just for the primary skills.
[/quote]
My understanding is the original Character Law did not have secondary skills, just the primary skills only.
-
In the oldest Character Law/Campaign Law I have (Stock number #1300) that definitely had the secondary skills. There may have been an even earlier version that predates my experience. I first played M*RP and that also had the secondary skills in the early/mid 80s.
The RMC Character Law also has the secondary skills and expands on them in the RMC Companion One.
I am not adverse to adding skills to the game if they really do add something to the game. I have added two weapon combo to RMC and I have more recently added the Vocational skill from RMU.
-
I don't doubt that there will be companions for RMU but this is not a decision I would like to have to make. One of the 'failures' of RM as percieved by the outside world is that RM is a massively overweight system where you have to buy dozens of books. The other percieved issue is the 'chartmaster' label. If the Aurigas Aldebaron business model is to sell the core system and then sell ever more books to that userbase then they will inevitably fail, as ICE failed.
On the contrary, no gaming company can support itself by releasing a core set of game rules and no supporting books for it. Books that are necessarily full of text and charts, and not merely, uh, pictures I guess? If they did, aside from having no continuing revenue, the game would appear to be unsupported, abandoned. And don't suggest the solution is modules, because modules sell proportionally fewer copies than companion rule material.
On the other hand, if you compare the companions for RM2 to the companions for RMSS/RMFRP, there is a big difference. The RM2 companions were compilations of house rules. They included material in the order it was dreamed up, and it was imbalanced. But when you get to RMSS/RMFRP, the core system was developed with that background already in place. The core included many of RM2's new added skills, so the companions had fewer to add. E.g. the Essence Companion spends two pages discussing how existing skills can be used, but only adds 8 new skills; the Mentalism Companion adds 7; RM2's Companion 1 added 17. The companions were not just collections of alternate rules from different people's campaigns, they were thematic, with the luxury of picking and choosing old and new material that actually fit together. That material was also refined and balanced.
RMU will also have the opportunity to refine and focus companion material in the same way. Much as some of RM2's companion skills became part of RMSS's core, some of RMSS's companion skills are now part of RMU's core (e.g. spell trickery).
But certainly I still will want to see more professions and spell lists updated for the new edition.
-
I don't doubt that there will be companions for RMU but this is not a decision I would like to have to make. One of the 'failures' of RM as percieved by the outside world is that RM is a massively overweight system where you have to buy dozens of books. The other percieved issue is the 'chartmaster' label. If the Aurigas Aldebaron business model is to sell the core system and then sell ever more books to that userbase then they will inevitably fail, as ICE failed.
On the contrary, no gaming company can support itself by releasing a core set of game rules and no supporting books for it. Books that are necessarily full of text and charts, and not merely, uh, pictures I guess? If they did, aside from having no continuing revenue, the game would appear to be unsupported, abandoned. And don't suggest the solution is modules, because modules sell proportionally fewer copies than companion rule material.
On the other hand, if you compare the companions for RM2 to the companions for RMSS/RMFRP, there is a big difference. The RM2 companions were compilations of house rules. They included material in the order it was dreamed up, and it was imbalanced. But when you get to RMSS/RMFRP, the core system was developed with that background already in place. The core included many of RM2's new added skills, so the companions had fewer to add. E.g. the Essence Companion spends two pages discussing how existing skills can be used, but only adds 8 new skills; the Mentalism Companion adds 7; RM2's Companion 1 added 17. The companions were not just collections of alternate rules from different people's campaigns, they were thematic, with the luxury of picking and choosing old and new material that actually fit together. That material was also refined and balanced.
RMU will also have the opportunity to refine and focus companion material in the same way. Much as some of RM2's companion skills became part of RMSS's core, some of RMSS's companion skills are now part of RMU's core (e.g. spell trickery).
But certainly I still will want to see more professions and spell lists updated for the new edition.
Firstly I will say that when I wrote 'ever more books' I was thinking rule books such as companions not just books of any sort. My mistake.
I have never seen a RMSS companion so I cannot comment. I totally agree that the earlier RM2 companions were a dogs dinner of ideas all thrown together.
Some companions are inherently 'good' and amongst these would would include things like the Romans, Arabian Nights and that sort of setting related material. Any GM who picks up a book such as that either wants to take is party to those lands or wants to set a game there and wants contextualised material.
I was in a discussion last week with someone who complained that it took his group an entire evening to level up because all the skills were scattered through so many books. I suggested scanning just the pages with the additional skills and putting them all together in one place but it was too late, they had abandoned RM in favour of PathFinder (There is no helping some people).
IMHO To survive I admit that Aurigas Aldebaron has to produce more books but can you honestly say that constantly throwing more and more rules at the GMs is desireable? HARP has Cyradon and RM2 has Shadow World, these two campaign setting give the opportunity to create and sell content without bloating the system. You can use RMSS with Shadow World obviously but for a new GM being faced with having to rework every NPC before they can start play is a daunting task. With an attached campaign setting, whether it is optional or not, then those modules you dismissed so quickly become viable. Some of the D&D modules I have converted to RMC are as little as 40 pages. Yes they sell relatively less but the speed to produce is proportionally less as well.
Without some compelling reason to buy additional material, RMU will just march off into oblivion. Companions can only ever be part of the solution.
-
RMC is RM2 just organized in a new series of books. ;D
MDC
-
RMC is RM2 just organized in a new series of books. ;D
MDC
You keep saying that despite the fact that it isn't true. They are extremely close but there are a great many small differences. RMC is an minor iteration of RM2. What you are really getting is RM2 with parts of the companions built in.
-
The companions are RM2 or I should say a part of RM2.
MDC
-
The companions are RM2 or I should say a part of RM2.
MDC
The differences are small but many, for example, in rm2 arms law you have the octopus rule that allows you to fight with a melee weapon (at -20), with a thrown weapon (80%OB) and use your shield all in the same round. You also have the 9 phase combat round.
In RMC you get no octopi but you do get one handed spears.
In spell law you get different spell descriptions, one example is with Telepathy, In RM2 the spell comes with a built in chance of the spell caster being detected, in RMC there is no such rule.
And so on and on.
So if you are saying that RMC is exactly the same as RM2 but with different rules I would agree with you.
-
I am saying that small changes do not make a new system. And as most would expect of rules that are rewritten that there are some differences other wise people would not buy them, unless as most RM2 players have been saying "My books are falling apart can I get the RM2 rules books in print or PDF?".
MDC
-
I would also point out that if RMSS were published with my house rules it would also not be a new game but a derivative of RMSS, even if the changes were fairly extensive.
MDC
-
But you also have to take into account the comments from those same people who had the falling apart books that once they have bought the RMC books that they find they are not actually directly compatible.
As I said it is, in my opinion, a minor iteration. RM2≠RMC
-
I would also point out that if RMSS were published with my house rules it would also not be a new game but a derivative of RMSS, even if the changes were fairly extensive.
MDC
This describes RMU.
-
I was in a discussion last week with someone who complained that it took his group an entire evening to level up because all the skills were scattered through so many books. I suggested scanning just the pages with the additional skills and putting them all together in one place but it was too late, they had abandoned RM in favour of PathFinder (There is no helping some people).
This seems a bit ironic, given the number of Pathfinder books that the character creation rules are split between. I just started playing in a small Pathfinder game and our three PCs are based on material spread out over at least a dozen books. Finding just the right feat or trait could mean combing through many more -- it's only manageable because there are good online and software resources for it. The GM, who is a long-time D&D and Pathfinder veteran, and has only played a few sessions of RM in my RMU game, says that RMU is the simpler game of the two.
That said, for our RMSS game, I did exactly what you said and set up a couple folders that have all the character creation material in one place, organized into professions, trainining packages, races, etc.
-
I usually use RCMS character generator for RMSS but this is no longer supported or downloadable. I have a folder with character creation steps and photo copied pages of all the race, stat, profession, background options and skills all in one place. This also has a step by step creation process that is dummy proof and allows 1st level generation in about 30-45 minutes if someone knows what they are doing with no books needed except Spell Law to create or level up. This has been a great success and allows me to help out all players as they level up or create new characters.
-
But you also have to take into account the comments from those same people who had the falling apart books that once they have bought the RMC books that they find they are not actually directly compatible.
As I said it is, in my opinion, a minor iteration. RM2≠RMC
I have to agree with this, especially since I may have been one of those who posted that the two are not fully compatible. (Old brain, can't remember all the posts.) The most recent campaign I ran for eight newbies proved this point. One of the players purchased the RMC books at my recommendation because I had read in the threads many many times that RMC is just RM2 reworked with "minor changes" to be easier to read. This is not true. Luckily I added the caveat to the player "I have not read any RMC books, but I am told they are compatible. If there is a discrepancy RM2 rules will be used."
He purchased a couple of books and come game night, he started throwing these little curveballs at me that were really breaking game balance and he kept saying "RMC says this, says that, says here." Even his PC creation was way off and his PC was too "out of place" in the RM2 world I was running. Add to that, he wasn't supposed to make a NEW PC with the unfair RMC rules, he did it because he saw the advantages he was going to have over the other players by doing so. I don't want to say "overpowered" but the PC certainly had unfair advantages that weren't available to the other PCs at character creation and it was, well, unfair.
Unfortunately, he didn't like my answers and my responses and that ruined the RM experience for him because his special, "overly unfair" PC was nerfed. He stopped playing after that night because his RMC rules didn't fit into the existing RM2 game world. The remaining seven players continued for another 5-6 weeks and we even picked up a new player along the way and there were no issues.
-
All rodents are edible as are all birds and their eggs and so on.
Are you sure about this?
Although it has never become an overwhelming problem, I have a rodent that is a pestilence problem. Even if you were to completely cook it, its DNA still gets into your system. As you eat more of this rodent, which also tastes wonderfully, more of its DNA gets into your system. Enough of it, and your system will begin to convert into more of these rodents on an equal-mass conversion. The biggest problem with this is that "animal intelligence" creatures never learn this effect. Thus, the rodent keeps reproducing through getting eaten. For intelligent species such as humans, elfs, dwarfs, etc., they do learn, and they learn well enough to only kill the rodent, then burn its remains.
This concept can also be applied to birds, their eggs, or whatever...
Then there is the possibility that such could be poisonous, no matter what you do to prevent the poison...
And, as you said, there is the illness(es) to contend with...
To my mind a skill must add something to the game that could not be done with an existing skill for me to consider adding it.
ALL skills will always add to the game. Regardless. It just depends on how both the GM and the Players are willing to use and incorporate them into the game. As others have said, it also depends on how one applies the basic mechanics to compensate.
For many of the Lore skills...
And one has to also remember that some Lore skills also have a no knowledge modifier equivalent to a -100 (or lower) modifier rather than the standard -30 modifier. Example, I serioulsy doubt a Knight (in equivalent Medieval) would have any knowledge of Cosmic Strings, or Interphasic Rifts; thus, s/he would have a -100, perhaps -200, modifier for such a Lore skill.
This could also apply for athletic games. The skill applies to the athletic pursuits of the regions with which you are familiar. It does mean that an already-athletic character from the tropics can pick up skiing really quick if he takes the time to learn the region, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Exactly. If one is already athletic with extensive athletic training, then other athletic based skills are easier to learn. Thus, the reason why I loved the category skill bonus. I am sure there are others out there who have accomplished such, in high school, I played American Football, Basketball, Baseball, Track & Field, Soccer, and Tennis. I starred in Football, Tennis, Track & Field, and Baseball. Then I ruined this by joining the US Navy. Yes, that athleticism helped me in the Navy, but the Navy required a different form of athleticism. And to top it off, I also known as a Nerd/Geek/Dweeb while in high school.
This obviously could also apply to an outdoor skill like Foraging. (Although in that case I went the other way and just made it part of Survival, which encompasses foraging, fire starting, finding camp sites, hunting, etc, and I do make them learn it per environment type.)
If you wanted to apply a limit, you could limit the other skills to being no higher than region lore for the appropriate region. I don't think it's necessary, but it's an option.
What I did in the RMFRP system is to apply a restriction that no individual skill can have more ranks than what are in the category. As for foraging, fire starting, finding camp sites, hunting, etc., I have also combined them into the Survival skill. However, I also allow players to focus into one particular region, such as Forage: Pine Savannas: SENCland, then they could use that skill instead of the Survival skill for Temperate Forest.
So here is my problem with that solution. What happens if my tropical PC has Athletic Games as a skill? He didn't learn it for skiing or anything remotely Nordic, he learned it for the kind of athletic pursuits that his culture did in their tropical climate. But he has the skill. It seems to me that this would mean that either, A) the GM would have to say, "Well, your Athletic Games doesn't include skiing", which begs the question as to how the PC can get it to include skiing, or B) that it automatically includes skiing. For me both those situations can be avoided by having skiing as a separate skill, which is what I do in games I run.
Simple enough with the RMSS/FRP systems. Although no skill in Nordic Skiing, the category bonus would help to offset the negative modifier. As said above, just having athleticism will make learning other athleticism based easier. Now this would only apply to similar skills such as someone learning skateboarding, then trying skiing. However, with dissimilar skills, such as skateboarding, then trying rings in gymnastics, it would not.
Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
Say, about 24 laughs per gallon of beer...?
Back to the skiing, your non-skier would still roll their athletic games skill but with a major difficulty modifier because they were unfamiliar with skiing...
Yep. That is how I have always done it.
I don't doubt that there will be companions for RMU but this is not a decision I would like to have to make. One of the 'failures' of RM as percieved by the outside world is that RM is a massively overweight system where you have to buy dozens of books. The other percieved issue is the 'chartmaster' label. If the Aurigas Aldebaron business model is to sell the core system and then sell ever more books to that userbase then they will inevitably fail, as ICE failed.
Which is why I suggest putting it all into just three, maybe four, core books. Put ALL the info into just those books. ALL the skills, ALL the spells and spell lists, and ALL the arms and armor. Use the companions to list alternative methods for dealing with what is in the core books instead of adding "bloat" to the basics.
Of course, this would mean a drastic increase in the price of the core books, but that is something I am willing to pay for. As I and others, have said, it does get quite tiresome to print out a dozen or so books, then collating them into separate ring binders. It would be nice to print just one book and have all related "charts" in that book.
When RMSS came out a great many players did not move over from RM2 and when RMC was released most RM2 players again did not make the move.
Can't say much about RMSS, but when I saw RMFRP for the first time, I realized that that was the way RM should have been from the start. However, that is 20/20 Hindsight. I loved the way one could apply a category bonus to a similar skill that has no ranks.
As mentioned above, and continuing to use the athletics example, someone who is athletic will find other similar athletic skills easier to learn, provided they are similar enough.
Most existing players will not move over because we have invested too much of ourselves in our games and worlds.
And that is also true. With my world of Udava, that my wife and I created, spanning an eighteen year period, and after her death, I found we had accumulated so much information (about 19 DVDs worth), that by myself, I could not resurrect that world. I found it much easier to recreate that world, with some modifications, from the ground up. On one hand, I wished I had just stayed with the RM2 based Udava world, but on the other, I am glad to have the opportunity to complete rework it over into a different, yet similar, world. Don't know if many others can understand...
rmfr
-
Regarding the rodents and foraging I was just trying to demonstrate that there can be global similarities. I once adventured in a world where water did not flow down hill under gravity rather smaller bodies of water flowed to larger bodies. In that world the genrral principles of living off the land would have to necessarily different. But there still could be global rules that you could follow. Also what I said about gathering small bits of lore as the players move into the areas could offer clues.
-
This seems a bit ironic, given the number of Pathfinder books that the character creation rules are split between. I just started playing in a small Pathfinder game and our three PCs are based on material spread out over at least a dozen books. Finding just the right feat or trait could mean combing through many more -- it's only manageable because there are good online and software resources for it. The GM, who is a long-time D&D and Pathfinder veteran, and has only played a few sessions of RM in my RMU game, says that RMU is the simpler game of the two.
We did D&D Beta for several months then a stint of Pathfinder that ended around Christmas time. All totaled, about 20+ months of the two. All I will say is that I stopped caring about going up levels in both systems. I just let the longtime players tell me what would work well for my PC. If I had options, they offered them and I picked. If there was one feat I wanted, I had to make sure I had Minimum # in Stat A, feat B, Feat C, Improved Feat C, then maybe I had all the pre-reqs to get Feat D. And that info was spread out over several books. It was too much of a pain in the behind to look for the feats that were spread out all over the place.
I was not impressed and I thought it was worse then RM2. Yes, I know the RM2 system better so maybe not a fair comparison, but after 9 months of Pathfinder, it was nothing more than D&D. I thought we were still playing D&D early on until one of the guys said "You can't do that. That's only in D&D. Pathfinder does this." I honestly thought Pathfinder was a D&D expansion pack or something.
That being said, leveling up in RM can be made "not daunting" if the GM does a little preemptive work and says "as you go through the list of skills, write down on your character sheet the ones you would like to get at a later date and put the cost next to it. That way, when you level up, if you still want to buy 1-2 ranks in it, you already have the info." It started to make a huge difference and leveling up was no longer as big a bear to tackle. Once the Temp stats maxed out to the Potentials, it was even easier. :)
I've also photocopied all of the Skills and Skill Descriptions from the extra Companions and stuck them in a binder. If a player wants to see what skills are out there, I hand him/her one binder and RMC-II and everything is there. All those Companions are optional anyway and not needed to play the core game. Having RMC-II is a must and can easily be the furthest one has to go as far as Companions are concerned. There's a large selection of skills included, the costs, the descriptions, the charts and any optional Professions that are included in newer Companions all say "Refer to <base Profession> for costs" and those base Professions are all listed in RMC-II. Piece of cake.
I've played D&D Beta and Pathfinder steadily for over two years. I think that is enough time for me to form an educated opinion on the game system. It's just as complex and as confusing to a new player as RM2 is to a new player. It has the same flaws as RM2 with multiple books and rules all over the place. I just don't like the D&D/Pathfinder game system and I think RM2 is a much better game system. It's more complex and more detailed but allows so much more freedom. I found a way to make RM2 work for me and found ways to make it easier for my players. Of the nine new players to RM2 from a few months ago, I would say 4 love the system, 3 really liked it and would give it another go, 1 I'm not sure on but he had a blast playing, and 1 is a definite 'no' because he had RMC books and didn't like that I had to nerf his PC and had to change some of his RMC rules so he quit playing. And these are ALL die hard, 35+ years gaming together, D&D players, so 8 out of 9 D&D'ers adjusted to and enjoyed playing RM2.
-
We never had issues leveling up, mainly because I did the same thing Spectre771 did and had players plan their future skills to a degree. I also put together Profession-specific handouts that listed the skills and such and made sure each player had one (we redid the skills and Professions to a degree, so handing them the Companions wouldn't have been much help).
-
Foraging as mentioned above with the different envioronments; there are some general principles that are global such as water flows down hill, vegetation grows more lushly when water is available, valleys that are V shapped were carved by rivers, U shaped valleys were carved by Glaciers (and are often dry). All rodents are edible as are all birds and their eggs and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_bird
Your skill in one environment just led to your confidently poisoning the whole party in another. Maybe environment does matter.
-
Foraging as mentioned above with the different envioronments; there are some general principles that are global such as water flows down hill, vegetation grows more lushly when water is available, valleys that are V shapped were carved by rivers, U shaped valleys were carved by Glaciers (and are often dry). All rodents are edible as are all birds and their eggs and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_bird
Your skill in one environment just led to your confidently poisoning the whole party in another. Maybe environment does matter.
GM trumps wikipedia every time.
-
Foraging as mentioned above with the different envioronments; there are some general principles that are global such as water flows down hill, vegetation grows more lushly when water is available, valleys that are V shapped were carved by rivers, U shaped valleys were carved by Glaciers (and are often dry). All rodents are edible as are all birds and their eggs and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_bird
Your skill in one environment just led to your confidently poisoning the whole party in another. Maybe environment does matter.
The toxin is in the skin and feathers which you shouldn't eat any way. The probability of fumbling a cookery roll is far greater than finding an extremely rare toxic bird or fictional genetically toxic rodent so I would just blame the party cook. If I had to find the food there is no way I am going to cook it too. What am I the party slave?
-
It depends on how good the rest of the party is at cooking.
MDC
-
Not really, I can still blame the cook. I could swear blind on the paladin's life there was nothing wrong with the bird when I handed it over. It must be something the cook did to it. Just think how many dungeons, swamps and planes beyond the pale he has been through and he still has the same bag of herbs and spices he had when the character was created.
It must be his fault.
-
Actually what I was saying is that if no one else can cook, you just might catch and cook.
MDC
-
And my point was that there are general principles that can be followed, they may change from planet to planet but they are just general principles not fundamental principles of the universe. The only examples of breaks in those general principles that have been offered are a fictitious rat and and parts of an extremely rare bird that you shouldn't eat anyway. I do not see how that proves the general principle is wrong.
Earlier someone said that all skills add something to the game and I don't think that is true. Take Interrogation. You have two choices as I see it. You can role play it or you can roll the dice. I have chosen to use the roleplay route.
In my current game the sorceress (a PC) tried to get information from a captured half orc. As it happened the orc knew its bosses would probably kill it for failing in its mission so was willing to talk but neither of them spoke a shared language.The sorceress cut off three of the orcs fingers before getting frustrated and cutting his throat. There was no dice rolling involved and no need to find an alternative, similar skill. Just role play.
In other games the GM can use the Interrogation skill and that is fine but I feel it detracts from the roleplaying so I have chosen to exclude it.
-
Actually what I was saying is that if no one else can cook, you just might catch and cook.
MDC
If no one in the party can cook then I also do not see why it should fall to me. I'm out all day trying to put food on the table and when I get home you expect me to do the cooking too? I can imagine Markc's character could end up being asked to sleep in the spare room!
-
Wow ;D , I was just trying to say that I like good cooking and prefer to eat good cooking. So even if I went out and caught the food and everyone else was a poor cook I would generally cook the meal also.
Good food prepared badly tends to make me a sad person, that me an not my PC's.
I am sorry you took my comments the wrong way.
MDC
-
I didn't take it the wrong way. I was joking. It seemed funny from when I was typing it.
No offence was taken I assure you.
-
It depends on how good the rest of the party is at cooking.
MDC
"Cumin! I need more Cumin!!!"
If I cooked the fishes, you clean the dishes. That's the rule in my house.
-
Peter R and markc bring up great points that can be "rolled" out even further in gameplay. If the animal "is" poisonous, could the cook use Detect Poison? Fauna Lore to know what parts are poisonous? Look at the Japanese blow fish. Sushi delicacy and a death sentence if the sushi master screws up. How about Use/Remove Poison? Does Cooking Skill remove the poison? There is a plant called a Fiddlehead that is toxic when fully grown, but delicious when it's tiny. The fully grown plant is still edible, but the "goo" has to be boiled out of it then it becomes edible again.
There are some liberties that can certainly be taken with Foraging Skill and it really does come down to the GM and the gamestyle. I would allow 1 rank in Foraging to apply to all regions, but I would make the difficulty very high for severe regions like desert and frozen tundra. The player can certainly specialize in Foraging-Tundra, Foraging-Desert when buying skills and RM2 allows for specialization and in those instances, I let the player use the higher skill. I allow players to Take General Perception, Hearing Perception, Smell Perception. If they spend the points on it, I will find a way to let them use it. If they don't have it, I let them make an attempt with a penalty. If they cross planes, then the difficulty is extreme.
-
Earlier someone said that all skills add something to the game and I don't think that is true. Take Interrogation. You have two choices as I see it. You can role play it or you can roll the dice. I have chosen to use the roleplay route.
In my current game the sorceress (a PC) tried to get information from a captured half orc. As it happened the orc knew its bosses would probably kill it for failing in its mission so was willing to talk but neither of them spoke a shared language.The sorceress cut off three of the orcs fingers before getting frustrated and cutting his throat. There was no dice rolling involved and no need to find an alternative, similar skill. Just role play.
In other games the GM can use the Interrogation skill and that is fine but I feel it detracts from the roleplaying so I have chosen to exclude it.
As with many things, I do a bit of a combination. The player will get to roleplay out as much as they want (I will not force them to RP situations they might not like). If they do something particularly good - which depends upon the target of the interrogation (or whatever social skill being used) as much as the situation at hand - then I will give them a bonus to the roll, if they do something particularly bad, the opposite. It is entirely possible that they still mess up and I find that part of the fun is using my (and the players) imagination to come up with an entertaining description of how. I see the appeal of just roleplaying it, but we are talking about real people sitting down at a game table who likely don't have anywhere near the types of skills their characters do, so punishing the player who isn't great at interacting with others (and there are plenty of them out there, yours truly can be counted among them) by not allowing them to even have access to a part of the game doesn't seem right.
As far as the Foraging/Survival goes, yeah, I too think there are general principles that carry over which is why I generally go with using the most similar skill and just giving it a modifier. It helps keep down the skill bloat and doesn't nerf the PCs, imo.
-
As with many things, I do a bit of a combination. The player will get to roleplay out as much as they want (I will not force them to RP situations they might not like). If they do something particularly good - which depends upon the target of the interrogation (or whatever social skill being used) as much as the situation at hand - then I will give them a bonus to the roll, if they do something particularly bad, the opposite.
I do similar as well with Interrogation and Social skills. Starting out as a GM, a player wanted to disarm a trap so I asked what he did. He said "I do what I need to to disarm it." I pressed him for details and he replied with "I look at the trap and roll Disarm Trap. I don't know what the trap looks like and I don't know how to disarm a trap, that's why I bought the skill."
Touché.
He was right. He was a biology student in college, not a master art thief in Rome. He bought the skill so the PC could disarm traps, not so David L. would have the knowledge to disarm traps.
Fast forward to the most recent experience with D&D/Pathfinder I just came out of. The GM was a stickler for roleplaying. My Barbarian wanted to use Intimidation skill to threaten the inn owner into letting me stay the night for reduced cost.
"Well what do you say?"
I tell him the he should let me stay the night for 1 silver.
"But what do you say?"
I say "You're going to let me stay the night for a silver."
(Keep in mind, the party was already level 7-8 and well known in the town for having cleared out 2-3 major bad guy havens and had a huge reputation and following. My PC's STR was 20, I had ridiculous fighting skills, huge weapons, a loin cloth, and was known for 1-swing kills. We had bards follow us so they could retell our adventures!!!)
"OK, I got that, but what do you say?"
Can't I just roll Intimidation skill?
"Well, I need to know what you say."
WTF!!!! I say "Let me stay for 1 silver or I kill you!" (Now I'm getting ticked off at the GM)
(GM rolls some dice) "Yeah, the inn keeper says you don't frighten me, get out."
We had players new to gaming where this was the first RPG they had ever played, and were joining a group who had been gaming for 30+ years together. The new guys felt out of their element, really didn't understand the game, let alone felt comfortable "acting out" the scenes, and the GM penalized them for not being good actors. The reason we play FANTASY games is that it is a fantasy, not real, not me, not you, but "Fendar the Great" and "Bondo the Dwarf" and "Merollin the Poor Wizard". THOSE are the guys who have to succeed or fail in the game world, not Jim, not David, not Kevin.
I don't force players to role play either, but it is fun when they do. If they chose to ad-lib a bit and they throw in some funny zingers, then I give them a bonus to their Interrogation roll. If they come up with something I hadn't thought of, I give them bonus XP at the end of the session. I encourage the added fun, but I certainly don't penalize them if they didn't convince me they were going to kill me if I didn't let them have a room for 1 silver.
-
Diddo here. If a character has the skill bought and paid for then roleplaying it out is only flair to the story. The roll is what really counts on success or failure. That is why skills are important and players need to have DP's enough to get skills to be able to be playable.
-
Would you also let a player skip describing and specifying their actions in combat because they have Strategy skill and just want to roll against that? There has to be something that you describe or play out, otherwise it's clearly a roll-playing game and not role-playing.
The exact balance is something that needs to be worked out between the GM and players, and you don't want it to be a barrier to participation, but I think it's a fundamental part of the game. That said, working together could mean, for example, that if the player says "I have no idea how I would handle a trap", when the player rolls the GM can describe what actions they take and what happens based on how well they rolled and how skilled they are. Now, next time it comes up, the player knows something about how it works and about what the GM expects.
Same thing with intimidation, in your example after rolling the GM might say "you look the innkeeper in the eye for a long moment, and then lean in so close he can feel your breath on his face, and is uncomfortably aware of how much bigger you are than he is, and speaking very slowly in a low tone you repeat 'you're going to let me stay the night for one silver'. He squeaks out 'ok, second door on the right!'." Or maybe it ends, "He looks unimpressed, and you hear the sound of a bell that must be located behind the counter, maybe he hit it with his knee or something. He says, 'five silver and not a tin piece less' as the biggest half-orc you've ever seen comes in through a side door. It says, 'trouble boss?'." Either way, the GM has given the player some guidance about how the skill can be played, and that will encourage the player to step up their game.
-
Would you also let a player skip describing and specifying their actions in combat because they have Strategy skill and just want to roll against that? There has to be something that you describe or play out, otherwise it's clearly a roll-playing game and not role-playing.
There is a stark contrast to telling a GM that you would like to do this and that and describing what you want to do for the round by trying to lure the army down this pass, and telling the innkeeper I want the room for a silver piece.... versus acting on stage at the community theater house. The GM I had, penalized the players for not ACTING. Actually not ACTING out the role. I bought a skill, why do I need to take drama classes in college for 3 semesters just to get a room for 1 silver piece for one night? Why do I need to start a career in petty theft just to learn how to pick a lock or disarm a trap?
In the example of the trap I gave, I was early on in my GM-ing experience and *I* knew what the trap looked like, I created in my head. I wanted the player to tell me what he does to disarm it. Well, that just wasn't fair of me to ask of him. He had the skill, he rolled it and succeeded. I told him how he went about disarming the trap.
As for the innkeeper, I tried the acting out a portion of it, but my acting skills weren't good enough for his liking. "I go up the innkeeper, and stand at my full 6'8" height and look down at him, clenching my muscles, making sure he sees the blood of my enemies and battle scars and I tell him 'you will let me have the room for a night.'"
That, to the GM, was just saying what I wanted to do... I wasn't acting it out well enough for him. I lost interest in the game at that point.
For the Strategy roll, I listen to the idea, have them roll Strategy, if it's a high roll, I give them some ideas that "this may work better, you look over the map and notice this here, so that may work better" and I'll give a bonus to the ambush, or to defense, or whatever. I don't make them go out to the back yard and build mountains and drag a cart laden with goods around so they can show me their strategy, then act out the planning process. Any GM needs to know where the armies, groups, players are set up and I'll give a bonus somehow for good Strategy rolls as well as good strategy (thinking/planning). To me, that's more fair.
Adding flair is great is often times rewarded (I try my best to encourage it), but I don't penalize people if they can't act, or don't use flair, or just aren't comfortable being so flamboyant. Case in point, my son is very shy and soft-spoken and very self conscious, but he loves RM. His sister is younger and outgoing, colourful and very active. She stands up and dances around, brings her own props to the session and acts out the part. She's the funniest thing to watch! I want the players to be comfortable. I know now that three players have left that group and no longer bother gaming because they were uncomfortable and didn't like feeling 'shunned' for not getting up and dancing and prancing with Shakespearean accents and I don't blame them.
Now I have had players say "I roll Strategy to come up with a defense plan." Eh, ok. They are allowed to do that, is it as much fun? No, not really. But I wasn't a <insert colorful descriptor here> about it and made them suffer for it. He rolled Strategy and I gave him some suggestions, those got the wheels in his mind turning, and then he got into the scene. Doing the opposite... penalizing players for not acting, caused three players to leave the gaming group.
The exact balance is something that needs to be worked out between the GM and players, and you don't want it to be a barrier to participation, but I think it's a fundamental part of the game.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I couldn't agree with you any more, except for maybe 'a millions times, yes.' :) Balance has to be there, and flexibility. I hate to be bashing this GM because he was one of the most colorful, creative, in depth GM's I've ever met, but he was inflexible. He's an awesome player as well and a fun/funny person, almost as grand as he is a GM, but he too is an actor, and he gets into the role and goes all out. That's just not for everyone. When I GM, I add some accents and voice changes, and maybe stand up and move around, but that's the extent of my on-stage presence.
-
If they tried using Strategy skill in a Tactical encounter, I'd let them try it and then have the bandits kick their butts... ;)
It all depends (for me, at least) on the background knowledge and abilities of the players. If they have the background, I will expect more in the way of explanation and the like...if not, I try to keep it simple for them. And for those of you who expect detailed descriptions and the like...how would you handle it if the character is more competent than the player? Say the characters are having the Cavalier plan an ambush. The Cavalier has a massive Tactics bonus, but the player running the character wouldn't have the faintest idea how to check for a clear field of fire for the party's bowmen, let alone some of the finer points of (say) an L-shaped ambush. I've also had the reverse happen (the player knew far more than her character did about tactics), and in that case I asked for a die roll based on the character's skill bonus rather than what the player knew. Simulating lack of knowledge is sometimes harder than simulating knowledge.
The situation also changes when you have people new to RPGs in the group. Until they're comfortable with the whole dynamic (and have seen others in the group actually role-play), I'll let them make rolls instead of forcing them to "play the part." As they get more comfortable, the rolls fade into the background. It's always a mix.
-
If they tried using Strategy skill in a Tactical encounter, I'd let them try it and then have the bandits kick their butts... ;)
It all depends (for me, at least) on the background knowledge and abilities of the players. If they have the background, I will expect more in the way of explanation and the like...if not, I try to keep it simple for them. And for those of you who expect detailed descriptions and the like...how would you handle it if the character is more competent than the player? Say the characters are having the Cavalier plan an ambush. The Cavalier has a massive Tactics bonus, but the player running the character wouldn't have the faintest idea how to check for a clear field of fire for the party's bowmen, let alone some of the finer points of (say) an L-shaped ambush.
Hear hear.
Here here?
Yes, definitely. I hope the more experienced players will add flair, but I don't require it. It truly does make the experience more fun, if the player is comfortable with it. This is where it can fall into meta-gaming too. I award more XP if the players play the PCs to character. Kevin knows there's an ambush. He knows it's a trap. Bondo the Dwarf Who Bounces Back does NOT know it's an ambush. There's been so many times I've said "Aw crap. <sigh> I open the door and walk through..." or "... I pull the first lever too..." because that's what the PC would have done because the PC has no idea that the guy before him pulled the first lever and fell through the floor into the spike pit. At least I'll have company in the pit. I love when players keep the PC as close to character as possible.
I've also had the reverse happen (the player knew far more than her character did about tactics), and in that case I asked for a die roll based on the character's skill bonus rather than what the player knew. Simulating lack of knowledge is sometimes harder than simulating knowledge.
Yes, I (personally as the GM) have to default to the PC's skills too. The character simply does not have the meta world knowledge the player has. While we are the ones playing the game, it's the PC in the game world doing these things. The PC simply doesn't know about military tactics the way my Marine Staff Sargent friend who is playing the PC does. And it usually defaults to a discussion of how this works and that works and how this was done in the Battle of Ardennes and how this army held off that army.... <sigh> Bondo the Dwarf doesn't know that though! He may get lucky with an open-ended roll and say "Hm... maybe if we set up this way and stick some guys here, this may work!" and bonuses apply. The hardest thing is making your PC walk into what you already know is a trap. Grrrrr....
-
It all depends (for me, at least) on the background knowledge and abilities of the players. If they have the background, I will expect more in the way of explanation and the like...if not, I try to keep it simple for them. And for those of you who expect detailed descriptions and the like...how would you handle it if the character is more competent than the player? .
You bring up a great point and one I think a lot of GMs miss. The character has the skills, not the player. If your character played guitar (let's say really well, 20 ranks), and you wanted to impress the serving girl by playing to her, would the GM make you get a guitar and start playing it to "role-play?" If you the player didn't pick up an actual guitar and play did you fail your attempt or get a big penalty to the roll? Now imagine a juggling character, and the GM says "Here are the knives, start juggling to see if your character succeeds."
That kind of thing isn't fair. Sometimes as a player we make characters that are NOT like us, so we should be penalized for it?
-
Reading some of these posts about some experiences, a GM I played with years ago was like some you posted (being unfair to players.)
I call those types the "griefer" GMs, the anti-player, do it "my way" and having to describe disarming traps? Really? To those GMs, why don't you make the player stand up and simulate the attack their doing against that orc? Or maybe show you how they are going to dodge that arrow, or parry?
Or better yet! Have them show you how they are going to cast that fireball, and when the player doesn't cast a fireball, have him automatically fail.
Man, there's a lot of bad GMing habits
-
Would you also let a player skip describing and specifying their actions in combat because they have Strategy skill and just want to roll against that? There has to be something that you describe or play out, otherwise it's clearly a roll-playing game and not role-playing.
I usually let them describe how they want to proceed but ultimitaly most players do not have experience with tactics and the roll will help with getting information on if what is described would be sound or a disaster. Then the can rethink or I would give hints to the situation according to the roll for a more sound tactical option. Not everyone is a master in the skills a character may have so you have to use your judgement as a GM to have the rolls give the assist that is needed in the situation. I will not penalize the player for lack of real knowledge for character knowledge on the skill sheet.
-
Reading some of these posts about some experiences, a GM I played with years ago was like some you posted (being unfair to players.)
I call those types the "griefer" GMs, the anti-player, do it "my way" and having to describe disarming traps? Really? To those GMs, why don't you make the player stand up and simulate the attack their doing against that orc? Or maybe show you how they are going to dodge that arrow, or parry?
Or better yet! Have them show you how they are going to cast that fireball, and when the player doesn't cast a fireball, have him automatically fail.
Man, there's a lot of bad GMing habits
To be fair, the old-school (OS) games did not generally have skills as we see them today. The only things rolled were specific class abilities that really could not be replicated without being illegal in just about every nation on the planet. As I said to some new gamers recently, the OS games, the early ones that began the hobby relied heavily on the player learning how to do certain things. For example: The Tomb of Horrors worked (by being absolutely terrifying to players all over the world) not because the characters didn't know what to expect or how to handle the situation, but because the players didn't. In a more realistic take on the adventure, where the characters should know a whole lot more about, well everything, it wouldn't be as scary, just as if you play it in a more new-school way with skill checks taking the place of players testing things, poking idols with a 10' pole and all that. So, there is something to be said about that style of gaming, only it is hard to say you are doing one part of the game this way, and another another way in modern gaming.
Back "in the day" it was all we knew, while some individuals would actually make characters with character, most were just making mechanical humanoids with certain abilities that they put their own brains and personalities into - even the mental and social stats were really there just for mechanical reasons, to give pluses or minuses to certain abilities/events. I started back then, and I see some of the appeal of that, but I like character and personality too, and that comes with understanding that my character can do certain things at different ability levels, just as much as they cannot do other things. Plus, with the natural flow of how games work metagame knowledge is always around, so learning how to not let it influence your decisions is critical in modern gaming.
I think this is why I like to say I use a combination of styles, some old, some new as I see value in both and try to pick those parts that I value from each. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out too well. :o
-
I have played in both types of games and I prefer the one in which the PC knows the skills and the player does not have to know them.
IMHO it also depends on the GM and their playing style but often I have found that if the GM expects the players to know something and then they get into an area they do not have the same knowledge they often gloss over that. So IMHO the same rules have to apply to the GM as the player.
MDC