Topic: The Revised Ranger

[Arioch]

I prefer the skills. First the skill and then if the player acts out, fine.

I agree, it seems more right to me: after all, players are not asked to do anything when their characters are trying to accomplish physical feats, using lores or casting spells, why should social interactions be different? If you spent points to make your character influencing, then he should be able to influence others (even other PCs!) even if you are not a good speaker or roleplayer...

[PiXeL01]

Yes, I agree with Arioch on this one, but some GMs seems to forget it and focus too hard on the player`s performance instead of the characters abilities. Of course there should still be like a general idea of where you want to conversation to go or what your goal is when using social skills, and it shouldnt all become just another role without any interaction at all.

[Antalon]

It does seem only fair not to overly penalise non-verbal / extrovert players when it comes to influencing people.

I think one of the strengths of rolemaster is that it promotes / requires a GM to judge the difficulty of tasks and select the type of action (MM/SM).  I've found that this creates a dialogue between players and GM: what do you want to do? Player: Scale the wall.  GM: how, the surface is quite smooth although there appear to be battlements at the top. Player: I'll use some spikes to hammer into the wall...  This sort of discussion helps develop the actions, set the scene with props ("is there anything I can stand on?..There's a wagon nearby) and help to set a difficulty level.  Its this sort of interaction that I find many systems miss (I want to climb the wall, PHB says its DC 15,  I rolled 18 - am I at the top?).

Hmmm...I'm sounding like a fanboy 

John

[dutch206]

In regards to skill bloat:  Take Midol.  My sisters tell me it does wonders for bloating. 

[Hawkwind]

One of the most common things in most RPGs, in my experience, is the lack of certainty as to how to use the non-physical stats. If your character comes across a lowered portcullis, nobody expects you to actually demonstrate that you can lift it - although for your 18 strength fighter its not a challenge. But when the party comes across a riddle or a puzzle, the players are generally left to figure it out, without being able to say "My mage has an 18 intelligence, this would be simple".

But, if the GM did allow that, it does remove some of the enjoyment of the game.

Hawk

[Pit Ote]

...But when the party comes across a riddle or a puzzle, the players are generally left to figure it out, without being able to say "My mage has an 18 intelligence, this would be simple".
But, if the GM did allow that, it does remove some of the enjoyment of the game.

I do it.. more or less...
You can allow to the players to use skills or reasoning to get clues, so they can be closer to the solution of the riddle. You don't reveal the enigma, only clues. The players will feel they make progress and the character's abilities take importance without excluding the player's abilities. This also helps when the players go blank, above all, in those riddles that the GM says "hey, the solution is very easy..." and the players "yes.., easy into your mind, you made up the riddle!, but we begin to feel a kind of helplessness that is slowly turning into a kind of inner rage...".

[runequester]

I think you should give a bonus for a good effort or good idea. Sure the player might be shy or stuttering or whatnot, but if he gives me the basic rundown of what he wants to do, I apreciate that more than a "Can I roll fast talk to get past the guard"

[dutch206]

But when the party comes across a riddle or a puzzle, the players are generally left to figure it out, without being able to say "My mage has an 18 intelligence, this would be simple".

But, if the GM did allow that, it does remove some of the enjoyment of the game.

Remember Gandalf trying to figure out how to open the gate to the Mines of Moria?  The riddle actually became harder to solve because of how smart he was.

[magritte@shaw.ca]

I think you should give a bonus for a good effort or good idea. Sure the player might be shy or stuttering or whatnot, but if he gives me the basic rundown of what he wants to do, I apreciate that more than a "Can I roll fast talk to get past the guard"

Well, if I were GM, I would definitely determine whether the action was difficult or easy depending on the plausibility of the lie he tells the guard. 

[runequester]

Well, if I were GM, I would definitely determine whether the action was difficult or easy depending on the plausibility of the lie he tells the guard. 

Exactly yeah. The player doesnt have to give a big speech or anything. Something like "I pretend that an angry troll is chasing me, in hopes of confusing the guards so I can slip past" is fine with me.

If you do want to do the big speech and wave your arms around, then its propably because you have more fun that way, and thats good too.

[Arioch]

But when the party comes across a riddle or a puzzle, the players are generally left to figure it out, without being able to say "My mage has an 18 intelligence, this would be simple".

But, if the GM did allow that, it does remove some of the enjoyment of the game.

Remember Gandalf trying to figure out how to open the gate to the Mines of Moria?  The riddle actually became harder to solve because of how smart he was.

Hmmmm... Ok, but you can't assume that it will always work that way! 

[Marc R]

The social skills are a sticky one. . .on one hand you'll allow people to play a character who can climb sheer walls or whallup 4 foes with their sword. . .but not be diplomatic or seductive. . .if you take the logic of "It's roleplay" you could dump Empathy and Presense and all related skills and toss the onus for all that back on the player.

Only problem being when a doof is playing a suave character, it can at times be painful. "Just stop talking and roll seduction."

Then again, I've had in game moments of weirdness with that 101 memory character who's player only remembers their name becasue they write it down.

It's not an easy call to make.

[runequester]

The flipside is that in combat we're already rewarding the player for his skill, particularly in highly tactical games.

A guy with some understanding f how guns work, will do better in a GURPS firefight, and for D&D there's a mile of difference between someone who has mastered the combat system, and someone that hasnt.

So we have an interesting element where certain elements are heavily affected by player performance (killing things) and its generally consensus that others shouldnt (talking to things).

Sort of odd huh

[magritte@shaw.ca]

Some roleplayers will insist on playing dumb if their character has low intelligence.  In fact, I play on a Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World where you're explicitly expected to do so.  I had a rather entertaining role-playing challenge when my character's wisdom was drained to 2 by an Allip.

But it's easier for a smart person to play dumb than the other way around.  I feel comfortable playing high intelligence, but high wisdom and charisma are hard to play.

[smug]

Mental stats are always tricky. I wouldn't feel confident describing myself, personally, as high or low in any of the stats (and, in any case, they're obviously a shonky approximation of our own facilities). Stat mods to skills make it play out rather easier, however.

[mathhatt]

Is the revised ranger available for RMSS/RMFRP too, or only for RMC ?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Is the revised ranger available for RMSS/RMFRP too, or only for RMC ?

Only for RMC, though it shouldn't be too hard to adapt to RMFRP. It was released in an issue of Express Additions, which is for RMX/RMC.