Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: Tywyll on May 13, 2022, 10:06:22 AM
-
I know one of the optional rules is all secondary skills costing 2/5. I was wondering if anyone has used this rule and if so, what was it like/impact did it have? Especially on skills like Transcend Armor and Power Perception?
-
I never used it, because I didn't like the way it eroded the differences between the professions.
If you want more of a no-profession feel to your game without going all-in on no-professions, it might be good.
-
I don't like that rule either.
-
I guess I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think the simplicity is great. I don't mind that it 'erodes the difference between professions' because honestly, the more skills that are added and costs are jacked up, the more RM moves away from the selling point of 'create any kind of character regardless of profession' (like, as an aside, when you add stuff like PP Progression, not only is it a 'tax' on casters assuming it works like RMC2 and you can only buy one rank a level...basically spending points to do something you already did, but by making it extremely expensive for Semi and Non-casters you make it harder for them to fulfill their role or dip their toes into the concept).
But on the other hand the idea that a Bard doesn't get cheap music skills, and a Dancer can't dance better than a Wizard, does feel wierd.
-
But on the other hand the idea that a Bard doesn't get cheap music skills, and a Dancer can't dance better than a Wizard, does feel wierd.
Yes, that's the reason I keep individualized costs.
-
I never used it, because I didn't like the way it eroded the differences between the professions.
If you want more of a no-profession feel to your game without going all-in on no-professions, it might be good.
Hear, hear!
There, there!
Where, where??
Anyway.... Agreed. 100%!
-
But on the other hand the idea that a Bard doesn't get cheap music skills, and a Dancer can't dance better than a Wizard, does feel wierd.
That is because of the specific tags associated with the professions (which, once again, should not be named professions...). In fact, professions most often associated with a specific field of action and/or magic. In original RM, professions were linked to primary skills and available spells only. The "secondary" (or "flavour") skills were not included in the mix, and professions were adventuring stereotypes.
Which could have another, completely unrelated "real-life" stereotype added on top of them - you could be a magician-dancer, or a fighter-moneylender, and no one would bat an eye, because the real-life stereotype and the adventurer stereotype were unrelated.
Introduce secondary skills, but link them to professions, and you remove the flexibility, because you assume that stereotypes are in fact real-life occupations. Which, in addition, requires to create additional stereotypes (professions).
As it is, RM is less flexible than D&D as far as skills are concerned, which is somewhat surprising.
We've come from a "Bard" being called that because they are a semi spell user which specialises in information and mind-affecting skills, to a "Bard" being called that because they are a wandering minstrel that happens to have spells (because, you know, adventuring). Same name, but different impact.
-
In original RM, professions were linked to primary skills and available spells only. The "secondary" (or "flavour") skills were not included in the mix, and professions were adventuring stereotypes.
To be clear, Secondary Skills did not exist if 1E. When they were added -- which was in second edition (RM2) -- they were explicitly linked to profession in the core rules. Their cost depended on the profession, with for example Thieves having a lower cost for Acrobatics (1/3) than Clerics (2/7). There was an option to make all Secondary Skills cost 2/5, though that was presented as an alternative.
I agree that 'profession' is probably not the best name. 'Aptitude' or something like that might be better.