Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: David Johansen on March 11, 2008, 11:00:06 PM
-
Some people like even fives.
Some people like averaging.
Some people like adding.
Some people like one point steps.
Some people want racial stat bonuses to add to stats instead of stat bonuses.
Some people want three stats per category.
Some people want two stats per skill.
Boy and you thought skill categories were divisive. It surprises me that people who like even fives also want to average values.
The RM2 table is easier to memorize than the RMSS one. I've always thought that the reason racial stat bonuses are added to the stat bonus is that it results in a much smaller table which is easier to memorize.
The thing about the RMSS table is that it introduces a bit of a curve to the bonuses. I like this but it doesn't make the chart easy to remember or extend. Not that you're supposed to extend it, that's what special bonuses are for.
Of course, if you did add racial stat bonuses to stats, you could do bonus = stat - 50 and then average any number of stats per skill, yes this boosts stat bonuses but then I'd just balance that out by dropping profession bonuses. You already need 90+ in prime stats so it's redundant really. (I'd also scrap professions for cost modifying talents but you already knew that.)
Alternately you could just go (stat-50)/10 and have additive stats.
It would also make superheroes easier to do.
-
the stat is subjective, in terms of your status vs other members of your race.
The bonus is objective, the actual usefullness of the stat.
As long as one is subjective and the other objective, they both have meaning.
If you make the stat linear and objective, ala (Stat-50)/10. . .why bother having both, drop the stat and just keep the bonus, since the stat adds no additional data into the situation.
Having the stat curve in relation to the bonus, while the bonus itself is always linear (a +10 bonus is twice as good as a +5 bonus) creates a situation in which both have a meaning, and a use. . . .if you make both linear, the stat no longer has any meaning.
-
Also, saying profession bonuses are redundant: I disagree. Without prof. bonus, there's really no point in picking pure arms when you can have a semi with the same BO + spells.
-
I second that on the pure arms users, Temujin, this especially would become a problem in HARP although that is not the topic here.
I really loved those arms experts from Arms Companion although that book had a lot of problems.
BTW, I really like adding and not averaging (so, again, HARP is my system of choice here).
-
In terms of ease of math, the move to adding the bonuses, rather than averaging them, was an improvement in RMSS. There was some inflation in averaging them up.
I beleive that would be fixed if you smoothed the bonuses first. I always prefered the smoothed bonus in RM2 (i.e. . . .-3,-2,-1,0,+1,+2,+3,+4,+5. . . rather than . . .-5,0,+5,+10. . .)
Which kind of answers two of the other questions you asked.
-
I prefer single stats, the original and best ;)
1. Can actually remember stat used for most skills, without having to look them up.
2. No adding or averaging stat bonuses.
3. Stats have greater impact on gameplay and more meaning. (E.g. if a skill is based on Ag/Re/In, the fact that you have super high bonus in one of the three stats doesn't make much of difference).
-
See, I'm not so fond of one stat because it creates dump stats and I hate dump stats.
-
I don't like adding racial bonuses directly to the stats. One thing I like about the RM2 structure (not familiar with RMSS) is that it makes the bonuses fit approximately to a bell-curve - 50% of the general pop. has no bonus, 15% has +5, 5% has +10, etc. By adding racial bonus to the bonus, you preserve that bell-shaped distribution, moving it one way or the other, so that the peak is at +5 or +10 instead of at no bonus.
-
See, I'm not so fond of one stat because it creates dump stats and I hate dump stats.
I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this, please explain.
If by dump stat you mean useless stat, my answer would be that with multiple stats all stats are dumb to some degree, because their effect on any skill and hence on gameplay is diminished by the other stats used.
With one stat some stats are totally dumb, I admit, but other stats are totally "not dumb" - those stats considerably improve a subset of your skills and more distinctly define what you are and what you can do.
-
I prefer the 3 stat method because it spreeds out the bonus over a range of stats and prevents 1 stat from overpowering the game.
For example in an game I played before (system x), 1 stat was very good for defense and I happeded to roll it for my character even though I planed on playing a spell caster. The GM said I should have chosen that stat to move to my prime spell casting stat. I said no I will pay a spell caster that want to be a fighter. So I was a sort of good spell caster and not a good fighter. But I could parry until the other fighters could come and rescue me. I was able to do this because of that high stat in a prime defense area. The other spell casters in the game had lots of trouble when anyone broke through the line and into the back area. It was fun but he thoguht I was min-maxing and I thought I was not since I did not move the stat to one that would help me more.
MDC
-
Dump stats are stats that have little or no impact on what your character's specialty is. In D&D for instance Strength for a magic-user and Charisma for everyone who's not a Bard or Sorcerer. The problem with one stat systems is that it's so very easy to just take the minimum.
One of the things I love about Rolemaster is that it lets your character have some texture without sacrificing effectiveness.
-
I like using multiple stats when more than one statistic seems relevant to a skill, but I would opoose using multiple stats for play balance where there's no logic behind the choices. Actually, it seems to me that Empathy is far more of a dump stat for most characters than Charisma is in D&D. Low charisma should be a significant drawback in any seriously roleplayed campaign even in AD&D, let alone 3.0 where it affects skills like diplomacy and bluff.
Of course, dump stats are less of an issue if you're using a character creation system with a high degree of randomness. I realize that's not fashionable these days, but I liked coming up with my character concept and history after I saw his rolls and using them as inspiration. Sometimes I think too much game flavor is sacrificed on the altar of game balance. Since roleplaying games don't have winners and losers and players are usually not pitted against one another, I don't have a problem with some characters starting with inherent advantages over others.
-
The most beautiful thing about RMSS is that you buy your stats and roll your potentials.
The three stats thing makes a lot of sense when you think what taking a +8 special ST bonus Greater Talent) and ST100 on a fighter would give you if there was a weapon with only ST as an attribute. You could argue for every last stat adding something to your melee bonus if you really wanted. "Empathy lets me catch on to feints faster and predict his style" for instance.
As RMSS stands, Empathy is important to Essence spells, Influence, Artistic and Animal skills. Not the most important thing in the world but if you want to ride a horse into combat a low Empathy can really suck.
-
Of course, dump stats are less of an issue if you're using a character creation system with a high degree of randomness. I realize that's not fashionable these days, but I liked coming up with my character concept and history after I saw his rolls and using them as inspiration. Sometimes I think too much game flavor is sacrificed on the altar of game balance. Since roleplaying games don't have winners and losers and players are usually not pitted against one another, I don't have a problem with some characters starting with inherent advantages over others.
Well said.
We actually use randomly generated stats, so that might explain why I like a single stat system more than the average poster seem to. It's not totally random of course, because there are ways to improve your random potentials during character generation. But sometimes you will get a very high stat in, say, Empathy where you didn't expect it because you were going to be a fiece warrior, and this can lead to a change of mind about profession or it can lead to a warrior who just happens to be very socially skilled (and/or just a good rider).
A system where you buy every stat by assigning points is supportive of dumb stats, because you obviously don't assign any points to the stats you are not going to use. The attempt to 'fix' this by making every stat matter across a broad range of skills (by using multiple stats) is actually futile because min/maxing still apply to stat design.
I admit that to some skills more than one stat do seem relevant. And some stats (Me, Re, In or Ag) matter more or less to all skills.
It's really only a question of where to draw the line.
-
There are only two advantages to averaged stats, which I'm not sure outweigh the disadvantages, but they do exist:
1) Variable number of stats: If you can have 1,2,3,4, etc stats per roll, you can average any number of stats together to get a number.
2) Actual stat bonus meaning. . .Truthfully, the lowest possible stat bonus is a -100 bonus. . .the system does actually have you KO or Die at zero Stat, but it should really be the point at which a stat reaches -100 bonus. (i.e. -100 Con Bonus means dead). By adding logic that would be -33.3 bonus. (This of course presumes that you say that -100 is the modifier than means "Impossible" or "Incapable" akin to the "Down" modifier.)
-
I'm on the fence about RMSS style vs RMC style, mostly leaning toward the RMSS style of -10 to +10. However LM pointed out the main advantage I think of RMC style averaging stats, that any number of stats can contribute to the skill. This is a big advantage too. Granted, having more then 3 stats is not that big of an advantage as it would seldom be used....but you may decide that a skill should be affected equally by two stats. Well you can't do that in RMSS. RMSS can handle 1 stat, or 3 stats, but not 2. RMC can handle 1, 2 or 3.
It's not that big of a deal to average stats, but the additive stats are nice in cases where a stat bonus might change temporarily through a spell of some effect (e.g. adrenal strength). If you are averaging stats it's a problem figuring out what the impact is on a specific skill but with the additive bonus it's simplistic.
Buying stats and rolling potentials is a good method of stat generation, but I think that's minor as you can mix and match the method of stat generation no matter what system you use.
In the RMX discussions we talked for many many pages about racial stat bonuses and stat distributions and I recall posting lots of statistics. Though I had started liking the idea of adding racial bonus to stat directly (or even just removing the stat entirely and just having a "bonus"), my conclusion was that racial bonuses really needed to be added to the bonus after all for basically the reason magritte stated above. The stat distribution table represents a normal population and if you start adding to the stat directly then it really whacks that out. For instance a normal dwarf should be stronger then a normal human. But if you add to the stat directly your average dwarf will be of the same approximate strength as a human, while your very strong dwarf is going to be far stronger then a strong human. Adding to stats doesn't shift the curve. It should.
-
There are only two advantages to averaged stats, which I'm not sure outweigh the disadvantages, but they do exist:
1) Variable number of stats: If you can have 1,2,3,4, etc stats per roll, you can average any number of stats together to get a number.
2) Actual stat bonus meaning. . .Truthfully, the lowest possible stat bonus is a -100 bonus. . .the system does actually have you KO or Die at zero Stat, but it should really be the point at which a stat reaches -100 bonus. (i.e. -100 Con Bonus means dead). By adding logic that would be -33.3 bonus. (This of course presumes that you say that -100 is the modifier than means "Impossible" or "Incapable" akin to the "Down" modifier.)
One DISadvantage I see with averaging stats is that there are a couple of occasions where two stats are called for when three is the norm. Keep in mind that I may be completely misunderstanding RMSS in this respect, but hybrid spell RR bonuses use two stats whereas everything else uses one stat x3. It seems you're shorted a third of your potential bonus here.
With averaging you're spared this because whether it's two stats, three stats, or forty five stats, you're always going to have a relative stat bonus.
-
That point is where Will allways seemed odd, since it Adds all those stat bonuses. . . .you'd be able to average it to get a "Will" that resembled any other realm or attack type bonus, instead of a much larger figure.
-
That point is where Will allways seemed odd, since it Adds all those stat bonuses. . . .you'd be able to average it to get a "Will" that resembled any other realm or attack type bonus, instead of a much larger figure.
Is Will a RMSS RR?
-
That's a good example GoblynByte of what I was saying above (WRT to hybrid realm stats). Even in RMSS there are a couple cases of needing two stats (hybrids) so the stats have to be averaged. So it tried to get away from averaging but couldn't completely.
-
GoblynByte,
If I remember correctly Will is from the Treasure Comp and it is a mesure of how a char can deal with intelegent magic items. But having said that I think the rule is the same in The Alc Comp of RM2 fame.
Lord Miller,
Where is the -100 stat topic you are quoting? Is it new in RMC?
As to all the ideas if you are short a stat or have extra stats you just use a multiplication factor to make it right. I can understand that it may trouble some people but it can be fixed IMO which a simple chart so everyone does not have to be a math wiz. So no matter what system or style you use you can have it fit the mold of the game system.
MDC
-
As to all the ideas if you are short a stat or have extra stats you just use a multiplication factor to make it right. I can understand that it may trouble some people but it can be fixed IMO which a simple chart so everyone does not have to be a math wiz. So no matter what system or style you use you can have it fit the mold of the game system.
MDC
'Cause, really, what's one more chart in Rolemaster? ;D
-
Will works like this;
Method one (official); Item has a level, say 70. PC attempts to resist items influence or dominate the item, needs to resist level 70 attack, adds WILL to rr, subtracts items will, how much rr is made or missed by is refered to the will contest results table.
Method two (house rule); Player roles open ended d100 and adds will, item rolls open ended d100 and adds will, subtract lower from higher, refer to will contest table.
lynn
-
Will scale: If it's 5 stats added, or 5 stats averaged, the only difference is that if there is a difference, it tends to be exagerated in "add" form.
i.e. average of 5 +20 stats vs 5 +5 stats. . .if you average, you are adding 20 and subtracting 5 from the RR if you add then you are adding 120 and subtracting 25 from the RR. . .which makes for two rather different RR results.
Just seemed an odd "Off" method. . .then again, it makes for "Artifacts" with +25 stats and +125 Wills used at say 70 or 100 level rather hard to resist. . .(can anyone say "One ring to bind them"?)
MarKc,
the -100 bonus is nowhere in the rules, it's just something that came up when we did 40 pages of "Linear stat logic" discussion. . . .
-100 is the "Down" penalty, implying that -100 is ultimately the penalty that means "neigh impossible".
Contrasted to the way vs stat issues come up, like say:
Undead drain on a human and dwarf, both have 90 Con (+10 bonus). . .human has +5 racial bonus, Dwarf has +20 bonus.
Technically, the way Con drain from undead, or stat drain from evil spells work, both will go down at 0 con at the same moment if drained equally. . .but, the dwarf objectively has more Con (more bonus) so he should take longer to drain down.
Now, way up above we already resolved that the bonus is the objective measure, and stat is just the subjective measure within your race. . .
So drains, an "objective" event. . .should drain bonus, not stat. . .and you should get progressibely weaker (or stupider, or whatever) trending toward a collapse point at -100 bonus (or -33.3 bonus in RMSS scale). . .i.e. at RM2 -100 strength bonus you are too weak to move, much like if you are "down" you are at -100 to everything and too incapacitated to do anything useful without a heroic roll.
Currently the system uses stat for these. . .with 0 stat meaning incapacity. . .which means if you drain 10 temp Con from a Cyclops vs 10 temp con from a pixie, you've drained a lot more from the cyclops than the pixie. (It means spells and effects drain a subjective percentage of the creature's total, rather than an objective amount.)
The "Percentage of total" may work OK, but it just seems to make more sense to me that a Con Drain should take down twinks faster than giants.
-
GB,
I agree that what RM needs are more charts, after all you can copyright charts but not words. Just kidding.
LM,
Thanks, for the heads up. I have used a life point system that is based on Con and other stats for undead draining and sometimes forget it is a house rule and the offical undead rules are -100 stat.
Also as you point out that drain effects are vastly different in big creatures than in small ones. But IMO the only way that it would work is if you have a system that believes that thier is more life in a giant than in the smallest creature. Or are you draining the soul in which you have to rule if one soul is bigger than another.
MDC
-
well, technically the core system has you "Down" at 0 stat. . . .
If the undead drain is "Con" which seems to be vitality. . .and in any other instance, Con means bonus. (Like vs poison or for hits).
But, if a "robust" (high con) human takes longer than a "sickly" (low con) human. . .shouldn't a more "robust" dwarf take even longer?
Try not to get too sidetracked into the logic of Con drains, even though it's the easiest example to use, since so many people house rule it. . .like the "Life Levels" rule is good if you define it as life force drain, which has a seperate logic. It's more a general issue of how stats go down or up when you use an effect against them directly.
If you make those changes to the stat, then apply the bonus, they have a totally different look than if you do it to the final bonus.
For instance, the dwarf above, with his +20 con bonus, will slide from +30 to +20 fast, then remain very robust (+20 con) all the way across that big +/-0 area at the center of the table, and only begin dropping toward "normal" as they are about to die. . .
The human above will slip from +15 to +5 fast, then stick at +5 for a long time, and drop to "Normal" quite fast. . .
And both characters at 1 Temp con will be at penalties scaled to about "Stunned". . .you'd think that right on the cusp of dying from a con drain, a character would be barely functional, at say. . .-99?
If drains are objective and apply directly to the bonus. . .then the dwarf would merely be +15 ahead of the human in how much Con drain they could take. . .both would get progressively weaker in a more linear manner, getting more and more impaired as they slide down the negatives before completely failing into impotence at -100 bonus.
-
Nobody ever said that RM's stats were done logically... heheh
-
LM,
I agree I adjust the life pont total for racial mods as you said it only makes sense. I have also tened to find that in my case the penalty of -1 per point of life point lost works very well. But as you can tell the more you have the bigger your possible penalty and I still keep the "death" point at 0. This also makes the PC's look for someone who can heal life points quickly as I generally have it take 1-2 weeks [adjusted by race and talents] to heal 1 life point. And if you use the optional lists for clerics [and paladins in my game] your cleric may not have learned the list.
As you also state the Con example is the most common but for spells IMO you almost have to work out a code or something to make sure you get all the skills that the stat covers. Of course it is harder in RMSS/FRP than in RM2/C/E because of the # of skills. I generally play it by ear with tempory effects on stats for PC's and monsters.
MDC