Topic: RM vs SM game complexity

[markc]

 It has been talked about a lot that some like small skill sets and some like larger more inclusive skill sets. To me the break point comes in a Modern or Sci Fi game in which you suddenly need more skills to cover the various areas of knowledge.
 So what I am trying to say is that I see a need for a Sci Fi game to have a more complex skill system like RMSS vs the simple skill system in RMC. Any thoughts?

P.S. Both skill systems are fairly easy IMO but I enjoy the RMSS one do to the level bonus issue. Yes it has become easier with computer programs but IMO it is still a pain. 

 Also I am not trying to initiate a version war I just would like to hear what you have to say about the question above. So please keep it civil.
Thanks
MDC

[Marc R]

I don't particulalry think SM is more complex than RM. . . .it has vastly greater mundane scope, not complexity.

At high levels, RM can reach the same scope, but your average normal citizen in SM can travel from planet to planet. . . .It can sometimes be a chore to travel a couple hundred miles in RM.

The complexity issue is bogus in my mind, if only because SM tech doesn't reach magical levels.

Admitedly, anyone can use tech. . .and any sufficiantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. That said, many SM games include a lot of hand waving near magical tech, but it's not star trek. . .so I find that Spell Law adds a heck of a lot more overall complexity than the Tech book does. . .

[markc]

 I was just thinking in the terms of the skill system. Any comment on that?
MDC

[Marc R]

Skill system adds more complexity, psions are far more simple than magic, net seems to be neutral.

[kevinmccollum]

I find SM games to be much more complex, not so much for the players and their skill sets but from the GM side. Multiple star systems each with their own sets of laws, governments, imports/exports, etc. It takes a lot more from the GM to make a viable game "universe". I don't know anything about the new SM system since I used the old second edition one but the skills were pretty well rounded out and didn't seem to have a lot more skills than RM.

[markc]

 I agree that there are a lot more things for the GM to deal with in a space game and you are right as the PC's can more far and fast if they want to. And essentially generating whole new worlds, world maps, societies, etc is a huge pain that is only a small part of a fantasy game.

 IMO I just think that the skill category and skill method is easier to add skills to than tacking it on in RMC/2/X. In RM2/C/X you have to decide if it gets a level bonus, what to price it at and if everyone can learn it or is it a special skill just for a single profession or maybe a small group of professions.
 I was also thinking that some people like talking about RM and then Advanced RM. IMO RMSS style would work great for those who do not like expanded skill sets. Also in larger skill sets you generally need a different way to organize them do to their size.
 
 For Example:
 In my new space game I have approx. 641 lines in Excel that represent Skill Categories and skills them selves. That is a lot more then in RMC/2, it also includes the new Psi  system of SM:P in which each power is a skill under a skill category so that is partially why it is bigger. There are also some spaces just for ease of reading that add to the blot but that may just trim it by 20%. There are also all the skills from RMSS, RMSS Black OP's as well as some from the various RMSS Comp and some skills from the RM2 Elemental Comp. 
 Anyway the sheer size of it would be vastly harder to work with in a RMC/2 system, where as here you just decide on the skill category, skill type [E,O,R] and you are done. The profession bonus is already added to the skill category if needed, you can add a skill in the middle of the game with only a few pencil strokes and it can mesh with the spells in SL and the Companions well if it is a category that is specified in the spells description.


 Anyway I was just seeking others opinion on the skill system question to get some posts going.
 Please keep commenting as I am curious to what you have to say no matter what system you are using, or have used in the past or present.

MDC   

[David Johansen]

Well, when ever I run SPAM I have very smart people getting very confused by the following categories:

Science /Analytic Technical
Tech /Trade General
Tech /Trade Vocational
Tech /Trade Professional

[pastaav]

My thought is that fantasy or sci fi is totally secondary to the style of play. If we take a skill like fletching, it is clearly something that is useful to adventurers. On the other hand there are many campaigns when this skill does not add a thing to the narrative. I am fairly certain Legolas made his own arrows, but it is not like the Lord of the Rings spent any time on describing how good Legolas was on fletching and keeping his bow working compared to those that was not professional archers.

In every campaign there is choice about what parts of it that should be automatic and what parts that should require skills. Sci fi has lots of more technical areas that potentially can require a skill, but on the other hand things like mathematics is in sci fi a bit like tying your shoelaces. Even though both is something that you need to train to do it is not given that they should be skills.

[Arioch]

My thought is that fantasy or sci fi is totally secondary to the style of play. If we take a skill like fletching, it is clearly something that is useful to adventurers. On the other hand there are many campaigns when this skill does not add a thing to the narrative. I am fairly certain Legolas made his own arrows, but it is not like the Lord of the Rings spent any time on describing how good Legolas was on fletching and keeping his bow working compared to those that was not professional archers.

In every campaign there is choice about what parts of it that should be automatic and what parts that should require skills. Sci fi has lots of more technical areas that potentially can require a skill, but on the other hand things like mathematics is in sci fi a bit like tying your shoelaces. Even though both is something that you need to train to do it is not given that they should be skills.

I completely agree with Pastaav here

[rdanhenry]

So my berserking Deathseeker out of a primitive lost colony should be able to do calculus just because it is a sci-fi campaign? I think, rather, that you have certain skills you don't roll against, but still should have. An archer who keeps up his fletching skill can be assumed to have a full quiver, without needing to roll to see if he has to redo an arrow now and then. A scientist who keeps up his advanced math skill can be assumed to have the number-crunching ability to back up his physics skill. But they still influence who the character is and what he can do; there are others in the same setting who cannot do these things. I would not abandon them, even if I were not planning to roll skill-checks often. (Although a character with much skill might want to roll to make superior arrows for an OB boost or craft an original mathematics article to get published and invited to a conference he wishes to attend.)

[Arioch]

So my berserking Deathseeker out of a primitive lost colony should be able to do calculus just because it is a sci-fi campaign?

No, because he has the "primitive" flaw.
That's why we have flaws (and talents): to make characters who "break" the standard assumption of a campaign.
"This is a SF campaign, everyone knows what a balster is and how to use it. Except you, since your character comes form a primitive world and you selected the primitive flaw"
"In this campaign you're gonna be soldiers, every PC will be able to tend to their weapons, made his arrows, etc. Except you: you are a scholar and have selected the "pacifist" flaw."
And so on.

Besides, what's the point of having a skill bonus, if you're not rolling for using that skill?

[RandalThor]

So what I am trying to say is that I see a need for a Sci Fi game to have a more complex skill system like RMSS vs the simple skill system in RMC. Any thoughts?

Uuuhhh??......

In my new space game I have approx. 641 lines in Excel that represent Skill Categories and skills them selves. That is a lot more then in RMC/2, ....

Sounds to me like you got it covered already.

But, I propose to go another way:

Instead of purchasing knowledge skills, you use the character's active skills as knowledge skills (replacing the attribute mods, of course) for those areas. Such as Spellcasting. A Magician with 15 ranks in spellcasting an illusion list, has 15 ranks in knowledge of that list and things it deals with, i.e. illusions.

Culture and region lore are represented a little differently:

Culture lore should be a base knowledge check (Me/Re/Me) +50 if you are from that culture, plus a bonus equal to the ranks in a skill that pertains (like a warrior trying to recall info on a famous swordsman uses his 15 ranks in one-handed edged as a +15 bonus - for a total bonus of (Me/Re/Me)+65). The key here is that technical knowledge (the ability to care for your weapons & armor) is different from general knowledge (such as knowing the stories of the famous warriors your people have produced). The former would be handled as a normal knowledge check using the skill ranks of your particular arms & armor to tell you how to care for them, and the latter is a piece of cultural history that you would have picked up while hanging around all the warriors during training.

This way you don't have to dedicate DPs for so many knowledge/lore skills, only a few, such as a greater knowledge of history, would be learned without a practical skill to go along with. Even math is a practical skill and a knowledge.

[markc]

RandalThor;
 The problem I have with your method is that PC's can tend to look the same after a while. Which IMO is a problem with systems that have only a few skills.
 By having more skills you get different PC's and the players tend to play them differently.

MDC

[mocking bird]

I suggest before getting to caught up in skill bload you should first start by clearly defining the skills.  There was much to-do about this a while back as to what a rank in a craft or academic really means, i.e. how much calculus do you need to know if you have 15 ranks in physics - not to mention then what branch of physics you are talking about.

What just occurred to me is treat skills almost like training packages.  You could group the primary skills together and link in their minimum requirements of secondary skills.  For example at the start you need a minimum of 1:4 rank ratio of advanced math:physics ranks with a max need of 6.  In other words you need 4 ranks a minimum in adv math (calculus) before you get 16 ranks in physics.  Sounds about right since all we did was look up the various integers in the CRC handbook.  When the imaginary square root of pi started showing up it really got bizarre.

Now you just have to figure out how many ranks in basic math you need per advanced math rank...

So to solve that issue why not make secondary skills, like basic math, not directly developable?  You start out with a default number and when you purchase ranks in more advanced/cross skills you get some of these with a pre-determined maximum?

Or just elimiante second skill development all together and just use the advanced mod with a modifier - a simple math roll would be calculus +30.

Not sure if it helps or is anything you were looking for at all - I just started rambling.  But clearly defining the skills first still seems a good place to start.

[RandalThor]

markc:

There are tons of skills in RM, even lessening the number of knowledge skills won't really make a dent, so that characters will be able to be different still. Remember, you wouldn't be getting rid of lore/knowledge skills, just having fewer dedicated ones. I always think that these people aren't learning these skills in a vacuum. Even more so than now, learning a particular skill used to be learning the history associated with it and all sorts of incidental information.

[markc]

MB,
 I have gotten rid of a few skills as well as a category. As I removed basic math and relocated research. There are a few other skills that are also gone but I do have 47 craft skills, some doubling up in Lore Academic and Lore General, approx 87 Psi skills and the Sub Mechanics skill cat also grew with the addition on modern and future skills. Also note I just did a quick look and did not remove and #'s for the spaces and categories, so the actual # is less.
 I am also going to use a combined version of the Combat Companion and the MAC for weapon and H to H styles so those can all be removed as well. I will just have to design some mods for modern and future weapons as well as support weapons using the basic system.

 I also tend to have a problem with saying ok you buy X skill and it is also worth Y in this area and Z in this other area. Just make the separate skills and let the PC's buy what they want.

MDC 

[mocking bird]

I also tend to have a problem with saying ok you buy X skill and it is also worth Y in this area and Z in this other area. Just make the separate skills and let the PC's buy what they want.

MDC 

Then you run into DP issues - especially in modern/future settings - where many of the tech skills do overlap because in order to acheive X in a skill you should already have experience in areas Y and Z.  Otherwise you end up with a physicist without any advance math or a computer engineer without any basic tech skills.  It essentially turns the advanced skills into what martial arts degrees 1 to 4 are.  If you want to avoid that DP sink simply ramp up background ranks if various 'everyday' skills that would be setting specific.