Topic: Thoughts on levelless RMU

[AshLands]

We are playing an almost levelless RM2 campaign for about 11 years, using skill costs of 1/*, 2/*, 3/* etc based on the corresponding stat bonusses. (Consequently, classes are redundant to some extent, too.) DP are granted for every session and can be spend immediately to improve skills. My observation on character development is that especially at low levels characters are more similar in the sense that every character is proficient with at least one weapon. At higher levels characters differ to a larger extent as they don't have to waste their DP on 'general' skills that they are not interested in such as perception because they couldn't use them otherwise. This leads to more focussed skills and fragmentary knowledge, e.g. a spell list developed to rank/level 50 but no expertise in Attunement. This works for us but I must admit that we don't care much on min-maxing and skills should only support the character's role.

However, we didn't find a solution for the spell RRs mentioned here and we still use levels only for that purpose (derived from the total DP spend).

Level based RR is core, as you say, and both sides (caster and resister) get a level based bonus. But the caster actually gets a second bonus that increases with level so long as the caster spends points in the skill: the ranks in the spell list.

So the simplest solution would be to get rid of that second bonus and simply attack and resist with Stat-based bonuses. Casters would still often have the advantage, as they usually have better stats in their magic realm Stats, but not necessarily.

So far, this seems to be a valid option to me as it doesn't favour certain classes but I am missing that the expertise of the spell list is not considered. It should be harder to resist a spell cast by someone having 20 ranks in that list than by someone having only one rank.

[Wolfwood]

...higher levels characters differ to a larger extent as they don't have to waste their DP on 'general' skills that they are not interested in such as perception because they couldn't use them otherwise.

This may go off on a tangent, but I'm surprised to see Perception mentioned in this context. Isn't it often one of the most important skills for situational awareness (or do you use a separate skill for that?), detecting ambushes, hints or clues in the environment etc. etc.?

[Hurin]

Level based RR is core, as you say, and both sides (caster and resister) get a level based bonus. But the caster actually gets a second bonus that increases with level so long as the caster spends points in the skill: the ranks in the spell list.

So the simplest solution would be to get rid of that second bonus and simply attack and resist with Stat-based bonuses. Casters would still often have the advantage, as they usually have better stats in their magic realm Stats, but not necessarily.

Yes, generally, though note that the benefits to the defender from armor can be substantial: up to +15. So I would say your solution is definitely the simplest, with the one downside that it might actually give a slight advantage to the defender. And neither side being able really to increase their bonus beyond items (there is no skill that gives a benefit to it).

But if you're happy with that, then yes, that's a good suggestion.

[AshLands]

...higher levels characters differ to a larger extent as they don't have to waste their DP on 'general' skills that they are not interested in such as perception because they couldn't use them otherwise.

This may go off on a tangent, but I'm surprised to see Perception mentioned in this context. Isn't it often one of the most important skills for situational awareness (or do you use a separate skill for that?), detecting ambushes, hints or clues in the environment etc. etc.?

Of course, players select useful skills if DP are left. This results in a set of skills that all characters share and that is what I mean by 'general' skills. In our current group, I think, only the Thief and the Seer developed Perception. This may be affected by the usage of the skill, too, since I use Perception mainly as a conflicting skill for Stalking. Whenever any other information/knowledge than pure detection of a hidden object is involved, I would prefer another, appropriate skill, e.g. Stonecraft or Stone Lore to find a raw diamond.

However, I think, a levelless Rolemaster would result in a smaller set of 'general' skills in general, even if you allow restricted skill development (e.g. costs of 2/5) in shorter time intervals (which would approach costs of 2/* if the time intervals are small enough).

[MisterK]

This may go off on a tangent, but I'm surprised to see Perception mentioned in this context. Isn't it often one of the most important skills for situational awareness (or do you use a separate skill for that?), detecting ambushes, hints or clues in the environment etc. etc.?

I've gotten rid of perception as a catch-all skill... and of all perception skills as well. I've tried using the active skills as perception skills. The rationale being, if you're good at something, you probably also learned to notice things related to that. So if you want to detect someone trying to sneak on you ? Roll an opposed Stealth skill. You want to know if someone is lying through his teeth ? Roll an opposed Befuddle skill. And so on.

The good thing: it seems to works.
The less good thing: there is no attribute difference between the active use of the skill and the perceptive use of it. I could compute it, but it would generate two different scores (one active score and one perceptive score) and I'm not sure this is something I need to have.
The thing that might annoy some people : you cannot simply be good at detecting things - you also have to be good at doing them as well (or vice versa).

[B Hanson]

This may go off on a tangent, but I'm surprised to see Perception mentioned in this context. Isn't it often one of the most important skills for situational awareness (or do you use a separate skill for that?), detecting ambushes, hints or clues in the environment etc. etc.?

I've gotten rid of perception as a catch-all skill... and of all perception skills as well. I've tried using the active skills as perception skills. The rationale being, if you're good at something, you probably also learned to notice things related to that. So if you want to detect someone trying to sneak on you ? Roll an opposed Stealth skill. You want to know if someone is lying through his teeth ? Roll an opposed Befuddle skill. And so on.

The good thing: it seems to works.
The less good thing: there is no attribute difference between the active use of the skill and the perceptive use of it. I could compute it, but it would generate two different scores (one active score and one perceptive score) and I'm not sure this is something I need to have.
The thing that might annoy some people : you cannot simply be good at detecting things - you also have to be good at doing them as well (or vice versa).

This is great, agree wholeheartedly. We talked about this back in 2018 but your approach is spot on.

https://www.rolemasterblog.com/inherent-ability-or-skill-another-look-at-perception/

https://www.rolemasterblog.com/rolemaster-skill-deconstruction-perception-skill/

[jdale]

I notice that second link is essentially just suggesting the use of appropriate complementary skills, which I think is great.

I do like the idea of using an appropriate subject matter skill. E.g. if you are noticing natural things in a familiar environment, Survival is very appropriate and I could see using that in place of Perception.

On the other hand, if you take it too far, you stop hiring city guards from anywhere besides the town prison because only thieves will notice thieves sneaking around. I don't think that quite makes sense. Maybe in that case a guard vocation would be a reasonable alternative?

[MisterK]

On the other hand, if you take it too far, you stop hiring city guards from anywhere besides the town prison because only thieves will notice thieves sneaking around. I don't think that quite makes sense. Maybe in that case a guard vocation would be a reasonable alternative?

You can do that, i.e. having several active skills covering the same perceptive scope.
Or you can say that only by being adept at hiding can you really be an expert in noticing people in the shadows.

I would tend to use the former if the skill system was based on vocations and not on specific, limiited-scope skills (kind of a BoL-like skill-as-profession system). You could even have different modifiers to indicate deeper or more superficial familiarity (e.g. the "burglar" skill covers searching at +0, as is the "investogator skill", but the "guard" skill covers searching at -20).

If I use a discrete skill list with little to no overlapping, I would use the second interpretation. If you want to be good at detecting traps, get ranks in Mechanisms skill. If you want to be good at noticing sneaky bastards, get ranks in Stealth.

It's not ideal, but then again, I moved away from perception-only skills for a reason, and I find the trade-off more acceptable than the previous status quo.

[MisterK]

Forum fumble, ignore the present post :-/

[Hurin]

I like being able to use Herbalism rather than Perception to find herbs in the wild.

[jdale]

I like being able to use Herbalism rather than Perception to find herbs in the wild.

RAW is Perception or Survival, with Herbalism or Region Lore as complementary skills. So if you dropped Perception, it would be Survival as the skill for searching for natural things in a natural environment.

[MisterK]

RAW is Perception or Survival, with Herbalism or Region Lore as complementary skills. So if you dropped Perception, it would be Survival as the skill for searching for natural things in a natural environment.

Which, if you think about it, makes all kinds of sense.

Maybe it comes from our way of thinking: there are (at least) two ways of learning how to do something. The first is by actually learning that particular thing. The second is by being immersed in an environment where you have to do that thing to thrive, even if you don't learn it specifically.
The first leads to one or more perception skills.
The second leads to one or more active skills that happen to include perception in the corresponding environment.

For those who don't mind the bookkeeping and the long skill list, having both makes sense (but then again, it would probably be better to have perception skills cost a fraction of the DPs of active skills to balance things out a bit).
For those who prefer to keep a short skill list (including specialties), then the second option is probably preferable.

The same logic can also be applied to knowledge in a number of cases. You have an apothecary skill ? You probably know something about herbs, and something about reagents as well, and a fair deal about poisons and diseases, and basic medicine, though at various 'equivalence levels' if you want to nitpick. You have a guard skill ? You certainly know how to look for suspicious activity, and to discern lies, but you also know the basics of the most common trade languages in the area, and basics of administrative work, and common trade routes and what usually is traded. This really favours a 'occupations as skills' kind of system, which I find easy to use but requiring quite a bit of on-the-fly judgment call (but then again, that's GMing for you).

[Wolfwood]

Interesting points and I tend to agree with many of them, but perhaps I'd not go all the way to "professions equal skills" thinking. That's too D&D for me. In real life different people may have the same profession (e.g. teacher), but specialise in very different specific skills and abilities (some are better at relational competence, some are better in their subject field knowledge, some have good knowledge of pedagogical models and teaching methods etc. etc.). Similarly, one guard may be better at human relations, while another is great at smacking them over the head. So, professions are better as training packages that provide lower rank costs (or bonuses, free/low-cost ranks etc. depending on the system) to a variety of skills, but a player can still choose which professional skills their character focusses more on.

In the example of a guard or an apothecary, I'd see it as a profession or a training package that provides skills or possibilities to develop in the mentioned areas, rather than simply saying, for example "you are a guard and thus you can detect lies".

Insofar as getting rid of the Perception skill and simply using opposing Stealth rolls, I'd argue that someone may be trained (or forced to learn in order to survive) to pay attention to their surroundings, but still be too clumsy at moving stealthily themselves. But I admit it is a strange skill covering perhaps too many things... :/

[MisterK]

Interesting points and I tend to agree with many of them, but perhaps I'd not go all the way to "professions equal skills" thinking. That's too D&D for me. In real life different people may have the same profession (e.g. teacher), but specialise in very different specific skills and abilities (some are better at relational competence, some are better in their subject field knowledge, some have good knowledge of pedagogical models and teaching methods etc. etc.). Similarly, one guard may be better at human relations, while another is great at smacking them over the head. So, professions are better as training packages that provide lower rank costs (or bonuses, free/low-cost ranks etc. depending on the system) to a variety of skills, but a player can still choose which professional skills their character focusses more on.

In the example of a guard or an apothecary, I'd see it as a profession or a training package that provides skills or possibilities to develop in the mentioned areas, rather than simply saying, for example "you are a guard and thus you can detect lies".

Insofar as getting rid of the Perception skill and simply using opposing Stealth rolls, I'd argue that someone may be trained (or forced to learn in order to survive) to pay attention to their surroundings, but still be too clumsy at moving stealthily themselves. But I admit it is a strange skill covering perhaps too many things... :/

Fair enough - you are of those who think that skills must have a reduced scope of applicability because it creates more variety. I must admit that I am not, or at least, that skills that are the drivers for the way the game is played should be in very limited numbers (two dozen, tops) and that others should be background only in use. I also think that variety is not provided solely by technical definition of a character, but also (and I would say mostly) by his demeanour, behaviour, and cultural background quirks. Which means that a reduced number of skills that have a wide scope is manageable and actually easier to handle.

I must admit that it is also a reaction from previous RM games where my players had an idea of what their character was (which is good) and invariably fell short in terms of skill allocation ("but my character should have this skill given what they did"). *and they were right*. I went through a phase where I simply told the players to define the characters as they wished ("tell me how good or bad you are with the various skills, and you'll have the corresponding number of ranks") except for spell lists, which worked fine for the particular campaign but was probably not easily portable. So I went back to the "limited resource available" method of character development (DP spending), but I compacted the skill list and removed all non-active skills by either merging them with active skills (perception skill, notably) or make them background skills (all knowledge skills) that work from a different point allocation that is age- and -background- based instead of being based on field experience (and those background skills are not rolled - either you know, or you don't).

[Wolfwood]

Fair enough - you are of those who think that skills must have a reduced scope of applicability because it creates more variety. I must admit that I am not, or at least, that skills that are the drivers for the way the game is played should be in very limited numbers (two dozen, tops) and that others should be background only in use. I also think that variety is not provided solely by technical definition of a character, but also (and I would say mostly) by his demeanour, behaviour, and cultural background quirks. Which means that a reduced number of skills that have a wide scope is manageable and actually easier to handle.

Indeed, I've always preferred skill-based systems, such as MERP/Rolemaster and Runequest/BRP/Cthulhu. I can understand the kind of system you prefer and I must say that I also abhor too long skill lists, since they make it impossible to remember all the skills that are available both for the GM and especially for the players. In my own non-magic system (inspired by MERP/RM/BRP), I've cut the number down below 50, but I hope to get under 40 as playtesting continues.