Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: GoblynByte on March 20, 2008, 02:15:54 PM
-
In attempting to create an assassin type character (per a thread in the RMC board) I thought I would also try to create the same character in RMSS (I'm always playing the two off each other for comparison purposes).
Well, I know that the assassin I'm trying to create is a bit of a tall order in regards to the number of skills he might need for a first level character, but I spent a little high on stats to get a lot of DPs (and to match the lucky rolls I made for the RMC version), but even with this help it seemed difficult to cover everything he would need even passing familiarity with.
To test the theory I worked up another character with a more realistic stretch of skills and even then, unless I was making a pure fighter, it seemed that I had trouble getting even one rank in things I felt were basic for such a concept.
I know they doubled potential DPs to cover the fact that you essentially need to spend one on the catagory and one on the skill to cover a one skill rank equivelent for a RMC character, but there are also probably three times as many skills. Is it just me, or is there simply too many skills to cover for the amount of DPs you get?
I'm certainly not suggesting that a character should have two or three ranks in absolutely every skill he or she would expect to use, but even with conservative considerations it seems you're spread awefully thin. Is this my imagination?
-
GB,
Yes thier are more skills ut IMO that is a good thing not a bad thing. Also I do condense some skills such as the make poison/use poison skills [I am not quite sure on the make portion but I think it is in thier.]. And yes thier are not enough to get the stuff you want at 1st level. Thier are just not enough points like you said unless you do some serous tinkering with the race creation rules in Talent Law, GM Law or what ever else is out thier.
In my game I start characters at 3rd-5th level and IMO it still would be tough to make a complete assassin. IMO an assassin is not a 1st level char but maybe a 5-10 level char as their are simply too many skills and spells required to do a good job. Your char might start as a spy, pick pocked, herblist, fighter, thief or rouge and then branch out into the areas of knowledge you are required to have as a assassin.
MDC
-
GB,
Yes thier are more skills ut IMO that is a good thing not a bad thing. Also I do condense some skills such as the make poison/use poison skills [I am not quite sure on the make portion but I think it is in thier.]. And yes thier are not enough to get the stuff you want at 1st level. Thier are just not enough points like you said unless you do some serous tinkering with the race creation rules in Talent Law, GM Law or what ever else is out thier.
In my game I start characters at 3rd-5th level and IMO it still would be tough to make a complete assassin. IMO an assassin is not a 1st level char but maybe a 5-10 level char as their are simply too many skills and spells required to do a good job. Your char might start as a spy, pick pocked, herblist, fighter, thief or rouge and then branch out into the areas of knowledge you are required to have as a assassin.
MDC
True, but like I said, even with a more conservative type of character with a more singular purpose (not quite so multi-role as an assassin would need to be) like a thief, fighter, or even a mage require even basic knowledge in a lot of the RMSS skills. If the skill list was condensed you'd probably have fewer skills but each with a wider scope so you wouldn't have to develop as many.
I agree, I think the list of skills is strong in RMSS (except for a few odd exceptions). I don't really have any complaints there (other than the catagory system, but that's another story all together). And I do think that 1st level characters should indeed be hardly able to wipe their own...boots clean. So, maybe it is appropriate to have so few DPs.
Hmmm...
-
GB,
Like I said if you are the GM take a look at the race creation rules. The rule I remember from Talent Law allows the GM to assign a number of ranks for background. I think the number is up to 65 ranks, but most of the races I saw only use around 40 something ranks. I could be wrong but my memory says that I remember that thier are around 20 additional ranks you can give for a racial background. IMO those 20 ranks go a long way in flushing out a PC with background skills. But if everyome gets the same number or around the same number it works out fair IMO.
I am thinking of having the additionl background skill ranks be GM ranks and by that I mean the PC gives me his background and together we place the ranks where we think they should go. I forsee some dickering but that is normal for PC gen. I also may be a little unusual as I help each player create their character to get the most out of the rules I use in my game.
Good Luck,
MDC
-
I know that the assassin I'm trying to create is a bit of a tall order in regards to the number of skills he might need for a first level character ...
I think this hits the nail on the head.
A first level character is not very skilled.
An assassin - like in Assassin's Creed - is well beyond first level, definitely into double digit levels.
A 'would be assassin' is someone starting to develop [at first level] a few of the aspects of what it takes to be an assassin.
Aach additional level see them develop the diversity of skills needed to be a full fledged assassin.
DonMoody
-
I agree with DonMoody here and also always found that if you are not able to develop everything to an expert level it supports team play as you will have to find people you can work together with as they might possess skills you don't. And on the other hand, in the long run, you wil be able to develop a broad spectrum of skills if you want to, which enables you to become more independent if you want that.
If you really want a character that is up to most of the jobs that you connect with his profession then you should start at about lebel five I would say. At that level he has got some expertise and if developed straightforward with a goal he will do just fine in his field of expertise.
-
I am thinking of having the additionl background skill ranks be GM ranks and by that I mean the PC gives me his background and together we place the ranks where we think they should go. I forsee some dickering but that is normal for PC gen. I also may be a little unusual as I help each player create their character to get the most out of the rules I use in my game.
I agree with this, but have taken matters into my own hands, changing the entire concept of race and culture from RMSS - but that's straying from this topic... Essentially I have taken the slightly more generalistic approach and merely added skills that I find "basic" to all characters to the set of Adolescence skills. These are skills like Jumping, Crafts and basic Influence skills. After all, it's for my own setting, so when I reason that all people there learn certain skills during adolescence, that's how it is! :)
If you're interested in my work, look here: Taras (http://www.rpgrm.com/rmsmf/index.php?board=53.0).
A first level character is not very skilled.
An assassin - like in Assassin's Creed - is well beyond first level, definitely into double digit levels.
Exactly this is modelled very well in the Warhammer FRP concept of Career Paths, I think. In Warhammer the Assassin is an "advanced career", requiring the completion of either one specific "basic career" or another advanced career. Completing a basic career takes about six "major objectives" worth of experience, and an advanced career about three times as much, so here, the assassin character will be quite skilled already at the start of his training.
I don't see why something similar could not be done in RMSS by having certain Training Packages (TPs) require other TPs. I'm working with this concept for religiously-related TPs for my setting, kind of building a career path tree for advancing through the "ranks". I am even thinking of reducing the prices of certain Lifestyle TPs if a character already has a set of relevant Vocational TPs.
Adopting this concept to a religious order or cult (as the real-world Assassins were/are commonly seen as - though I miss that part entirely from the WFRP assassin ;)), The Assassin TP should be a Lifestyle TP, requiring certain other TPs, e.g., Burglar, Scout and some religious TP. Also, leaving the Assassin Lifestyle TP should be quite dangerous to a character, as that would be the same as leaving the order/cult.
Of course, none of this helps create a level 1 Assassin character... ;D
//K
-
3 points:
1) 1st lvl character is only a novice one, so it can't be much skilled. If not, what is the utility of level up?.
2) Use TPs for having more ranks in main skills from lvl 1.
3) You can't know of everything, and this is true simply by observing the real life.
If you have a spell user, when you are developing spell lists, it is clear that you can't have all of them, so choose your speciality, there are many 'spell skills', as detection, defense, improvement, etc., but until very high level you can't have many of them.
That is the case of any other profession, an assassin can hide (stalk/hide of course) in shadows and trying ambush from the beginning, and with higher levels it can develop poison skills and others.
-
First level characters in RMFRP are weak, they've just started their career and are probably still very young. They're apprentice wizards, wannabe-fighters, etc...
I give a fixed amount of 100DPs per level, which allows players to buy more skills but first level characters must still sacrifice some skills in favor of others.
-
There is no such thing as a level one assassin. Trying to twist game mechanics around that will only bring you grief.
lynn
-
Well, as we are talking RMSS/RMFRP ... there IS Talent Law ... there ARE those rules with flaws for talents ... you COULD ... I suppose ... but that would be really bad working with the rules ... and would really screw up the character in terms of "realism" and playability in a normal sort of game ... BUT he would be a level one bad*** assassin ... ;D
-
There is no such thing as a level one assassin. Trying to twist game mechanics around that will only bring you grief.
lynn
Okay, I approached it with a bad example. Take the assassin out of the question. Because I agree; first level characters are largely unskilled in most areas and an assassin requires a lot of training in a lot of areas to be successful and this is out of range for even low- to mid-level characters.
But my real point is that the doubling of DPs (from RMC to RMSS, which, in theory share the same outlook in the power level of 1st level characters) seems inadiquate to cover the corresponding increase in the number of skills. This is evidenced by the fact that most (if not all) of the RMSS skills were produced out of Rolemaster Companions which developed for quite some time, being available for RM2 characters, but without any increase in DPs. The ability of a character at first level didn't decrease. The amount of things they needed to learn increased and thus shifting the power level of 1st level characters downward with each new Companion.
Again, I agree that 1st level characters should be "unskilled" and "untrained" but it seems that base power level had a steady downward spiral as each new expansion was released culminating in the massive skill lists of RMSS. In this latter form the doubling of DPs, meant to counteract the fact that you had to develop twice the DPs in a single skill to equal the skill ranks in RM2, was not enough to counter the fact that, even to reach the previous power level of a 1st level character, you had to learn a wider range of basic skills.
See what I mean?
-
I totally agree with you GB. When I was using the full RMSS skill list I was giving 100 DPs per level. It's not about making low level characters unskilled it's that there are so many skills that you really can't scratch the surface with taking a minimum number of skills. The end result is that 1st level characters have 0 ranks in many skills that should be a standard part of life.
Perhaps a better way to approach this, as someone mentioned above, is to increase Adolescence Ranks (or increase DPs for Adolescence if you use that method). This would give them a base level of competency without raising the power gained at each level. After all, pre-1st level covers many years (~16 to 20 or so), where much more is practically learned then in a single level which takes far less time than that.
I'm talking about basic skills here like many lores, cooking, rope mastery, jumping, a couple crafts, those skills which you learn basic competency at growing up.....NOT things like spells, combat, etc
-
The amount of things they needed to learn increased and thus shifting the power level of 1st level characters downward with each new Companion.
This is, in fact, one of the great missing links in RM for GMs: does a relationship between the number of skills available and the amount of Development Points of a character exist, and if so, what is that relationship? As already discussed, it has a great impact on the game if many skills are added to or subtracted from the "standard" set. In other words, it's fine to have new optional skills in Companions, but the rest of the system must adjust with the addition of those skills.
So if we could have some way to count the number of skills in a game (taking all the permutations of Culture Lore, Region Lore, etc. into account), we would be greatly helped. Then it could be left for the GM to decide what the rate of development points to skills would be, adding to the flavor of the game. Some GMs can then settle with a meager game with a lower-than-normal rate, while others can go for a generous game with a high rate, and because of the rates, characters from different games will be much more comparable than they are now.
//K
-
The amount of things they needed to learn increased and thus shifting the power level of 1st level characters downward with each new Companion.
This is, in fact, one of the great missing links in RM for GMs: does a relationship between the number of skills available and the amount of Development Points of a character exist, and if so, what is that relationship? As already discussed, it has a great impact on the game if many skills are added to or subtracted from the "standard" set. In other words, it's fine to have new optional skills in Companions, but the rest of the system must adjust with the addition of those skills.
So if we could have some way to count the number of skills in a game (taking all the permutations of Culture Lore, Region Lore, etc. into account), we would be greatly helped. Then it could be left for the GM to decide what the rate of development points to skills would be, adding to the flavor of the game. Some GMs can then settle with a meager game with a lower-than-normal rate, while others can go for a generous game with a high rate, and because of the rates, characters from different games will be much more comparable than they are now.
//K
I also think that this can be helped by culling out some of the rather redundant skills. This is, of course, my VHO, but some of the RMSS skills can be handled just as well by simply widening the scope of many skills to absorb the functions of more refined skills.
It seems that with the RM Companions they got onto a slippery slide with needing subtle variations of skills governed by stats different than those required for existing skills, so a different skill was simply created to cover actions of the same or similar aspect, but using different attributes. Eventually this just ballooned into a large number of skills that were ultimately only narrowly defined apart from other skills.
Take Alertness and Sense Ambush, for instance. Is there really a need for both? I mean, I understand that Sense Ambush is for detecting ambushes specifically, and that developing it denotes specific training in noticing specific signs of an ambush. But I happen to believe that, at a certain point in an RPG, you have to make a decision between realism and playability. Sure, one skill of this type won't make things overly complicated, but one after the other starts to add up until you have a list of skills too large for what you're given to spend on them. The only real defining feature between these two skills is that one feeds off In and the other feeds of Em. Understandable since ambushed involve predicting the actions of others, but arguments could certainly be made for using In instead of Em for Sense Ambush. So why confuse the issue with yet another skill.
I'm not really ranting...well...I guess I am. ;D I honestly think RMSS is a superior system to RMC in general (its more cohesive and consistant with better organization), but it's the character creation, with a focus on the skill development system, that repeatedly frustrates me and prevents me from using it.
-
There is no such thing as a level one assassin.
Trying to twist game mechanics around that will only bring you grief.
Bringing themselves grief was a past time of more than one player I've known in the years I've gamed ... ::)
DonMoody
-
There is no such thing as a level one assassin. Trying to twist game mechanics around that will only bring you grief.
lynn
Exactly. You are developing a 1st level character. The Mouser and Hans Shadowspawn were definitely not 1st level characters. Besides, I try not to get too caught up on skill development early since I really don't 'know' my character yet.
I do like however like the idea of bumping up background skill ranks just so you don't end up with -30 penalty. After all, I can see unskilled swimming but exactly what is unskilled jumping? Some thing like that seem a little silly not to mention it isn't that hard to fail even on the most routine of maneuvers if you are hobbled with unskilled use.
-
Grabbing a couple of skill talents could help alleviate your level 1 woes.
Get a few "+20 to skill category" talents..
The +20 category offsets the -15 for having no ranks in the individual skills you can't afford to buy at level one. Ergo the talents effectively simulating a rank in every skill in their category.
And by level 2, you've bought all those skills and they're pretty damn high bonuses.
------------------------------------------
I'm inclined to agree a lvl 1 character wouldn't be an effective assassin. It's like suggesting a navy seal is level 1. They trained up to higher levels in schooling.
-
But, bottom line, is that the number of skills has increased by a lot without an increase in DPs to match. Any way you slice it you're trying to cover a lot more ground with the same amount of points. This effectively decreases the power level of 1st level characters from RM2/C to RMSS.
-
I give 100 dp a level, and I have found that to be more than enough dev for developing any non spell user into a compentent level one PC.
If GM's are applying the -30 to any mnv a skill is not possessed for, well, those GM's are making a mistake. Many actions require nothing more than 3x appropriate stat mod, or a mix of any three stat mods. A PC is jumping a ditch? 3x Ag mod or Ag+Ag+St if he is carrying a load. Wanna sprint across the room before the guard can whirl and fre his xbow? 3x Qu should do the trick. Now, if the player has dumped a bunch of dev into SPRINTING , then that player deserves to be able to use the skill instead, even if other players are limited to 3x Ag mod.
I have developed more than a few characters that I have had dificulty spending ALL the dev because I had covered all the skills I thought he should have, or had developed others as high as I thought they should be. Except for one, and sometimes two, I refuse to develop catagoeries above 20 ranks. The last +5 isn't worth the dev hit for those characters, while one or two catagories will demand it because the PC is suppossed to be as good as he can be in those areas.
The bloat in skills is not a RMSS issue, it is a GAMEMASTER ISSUE. I do not use sense ambush, only alertness, because I believe the skills are redundant. Your perception when you have no stated action of awareness IS your ability to sense someone sneaking up on you, or being spotted laying in wait up ahead. GM's get what they want, and if they demand both skills be deveolped, then the problem isnt the number of dev, it is the a mixture of the GM being silly and the players disapointment that his PC cant do everything he thinks it should be able to.Â
Which probably means the player has a 4th-8th level character conception in a level one body.
lynn
-
GB,
I also have cut a few skills but I think I have said this before. But I generally find that you assassin in my game might be 10th level or above to get all the skills he needs. I do not use any talents that would greatly help you from Talent Law but I am sure you could do it if you get your GM's permission. I seem to remember one talent called racial skills that gives you a set number of ranks to work with for PC generation. IMO this can be abused very easily. And you can get your assassin at 1st level.
Having said that, I think the basic number of skills in RMSS is good. I like to play a little more of a detailed game in which it is tough to be the expert at everything. The sheer range of skills makes char. need each other or seek out someone to fill in thier gaps. When they get to higher levels they can branch out and get some of these "second tier profession skills" so they do not need any help. IMO that is what char. growth is all about and is a good force to drive your game. In stead of gaining magic items or spell lists for PC growth. Also from what I have heard is that the Combat Comp is going to have some stuff to help arm's profession's gain some abilities at higher ranks, so the spell users do not grab all the glory.
MDC
-
I give a fixed amount of 100DPs per level, which allows players to buy more skills but first level characters must still sacrifice some skills in favor of others.
We use potential stats from lvl 1, so you have always the same amount of DPs, less bookeeping.
DPs are enough, you see many skills, and everyone want to have many of them, but see that is not possible and realistic. Developing 2 ranks per level is not the standard, and probably is the reason you have DPs for nothing, you ONLY MUST develop 2 ranks in 1 or 2 real MAIN SKILLS for your character, the others, 1 rank.
For example, a fighter should develop 2 ranks per level in body dev. and main weapon only for begin, but once it has enough HP then develop 1 rank/lvl for body dev., see that armor can develop 3 ranks per level at 1st rank cost.
Once you like the BONUS you have on those skills, then change to develop 2 ranks in other skill/s.
An assassin, for example, could develop 2 ranks/lvl in stalk and hide, and ambush only, see that for weapon it can deveop 1 rank/lvl only because usually it attacks from ambush (no DB for target + positional OB).
The problem, and all of us know about that, is that all of us want to have an assassin/fighter, this is, an assassin that can combat optimally, but in low level this is not possible.
As conclusion, is not few DPs problem, is that you must decide what you want more in any moment and develop it, when it has enough skill in that area, change to other and develop it, etc.
When you have played much time you will see that clearly, if in RM you have powers until lvl 50 (max spell lvl), then is usual that a character in lvl 10 doesn't have their skill at maximum yet.
Level is the KEY.
NOTE: for easier bookeeping and have ALL DPs available, we use a retroactive development, this is, you recover the DPs for 2nd ranks in next levels, maybe you agree with that.
This makes easy to remake a character because you only need to spend its DPs and not count how many 2nd ranks you developed in any time.
-
DS,
Could you explain this a little differently? I am not picking up your explanation.
"NOTE: for easier bookeeping and have ALL DPs available, we use a retroactive development, this is, you recover the DPs for 2nd ranks in next levels, maybe you agree with that.
This makes easy to remake a character because you only need to spend its DPs and not count how many 2nd ranks you developed in any time."
MDC
-
------------------------------------------
I'm inclined to agree a lvl 1 character wouldn't be an effective assassin. It's like suggesting a navy seal is level 1. They trained up to higher levels in schooling.
They trained up to higher levels in all the things they did before even going to (Navy) Seal School. In a modern game I would put a Navy Seal at a minimum level of 10th.
-
Another option could be giving more Hobby ranks to all characters, or multiply the amount of Hopbby ranks of each character by 1,5 or 2.
This way you should end up with more "competent" first level characters.
-
The bloat in skills is not a RMSS issue, it is a GAMEMASTER ISSUE. [...] GM's get what they want, and if they demand both skills be deveolped, then the problem isnt the number of dev, it is the a mixture of the GM being silly and the players disapointment that his PC cant do everything he thinks it should be able to.
Skill bloat becomes a system issue as soon as the system doesn't offer ways to deal with the addition (or subtraction) of skills. It is the same as if a stat was added or removed, but the amount of points for stat purchase stayed the same - except that the number of stats can easily be determined. And while experience will give an insight into what is a reasonable rate of DPs per number of skills, this cannot be expected from new GMs - who may never gain it if they inadvertently got the rate all wrong and thereby end up being turned away from the system.
I hope that the next revision of RM takes this matter into account and settles it as early as possible!
//K
-
Another option could be giving more Hobby ranks to all characters, or multiply the amount of Hopbby ranks of each character by 1,5 or 2.
This way you should end up with more "competent" first level characters.
OTOH instead of trying to tweak the rules - with all the risks of doing this the wrong way - why not simply start with 3rd or 5th level characters if you wish to have more competent characters in the beginning?
Skill bloat becomes a system issue as soon as the system doesn't offer ways to deal with the addition (or subtraction) of skills.
Agreed
I hope that the next revision of RM takes this matter into account and settles it as early as possible!
IMHO RMSS/RMFRP does already take the increased number of skills into account with its increased number of DPs per level. That a 1st level character cannot learn every skill he likes is certainly not proof of the opposite. But I think that a reduction of the number of skills would be a good idea for a future RM edition.
-
I totally agree with the OP. RM starves players of skill points. If you play by the book (and I think few do), you need very high bonuses in your skills to be able to do much of anything. You have to invest a lot in a skill to get 111 on a regular basis. The DP/skill ratio usually forces characters to focus on specific skills to the detriment of others.
A big issue is that RM gives 'untrained' skill use large penalties. This means that an adventurer also needs to put at least one rank in a lot of general skills. My guess is that many groups just ignore a lot of the skill rolls required by the RAW.
The problem is especially pronounced for spellcasters. There are lot of 'utility' spell lists that could come in quite handy once in a while, but spellcasters usually can't afford many of them. The '5-list limit' rule exacerbates the problem. It's hard to get the full fun out Spell Law.
After playing the RMFRP for a bit, I've lost a lot of interest, and certainly the skill acquisition system is one reason why. If I were to DM a game, players would get x1.5 DP.
D&D 3rd Edition has the same problem of too many skills, not enough skill points, although 'normal' actions can be attempted untrained without a penalty. In my D&D game I give everyone +2 to the skill ranks received by their class. Supposedly WotC is addressing this in 4th Edition.
RM's skill acquisition system encourages character specialization and contradicts RM's vaunted flexibility.
-
Several options are available to you, after all options is what Rolemaster has always been about. ;D
Scale up the number of DPs. D&D 3.x grants four times the normal number of skill points at 1st level. You could simply double the normal number of DPs but if you use Talents this could seriously destabalize the balance of your games. Alternatively, DPs spent on skills for both Adolescent and Apprenticeship count 2 for 1 this way characters can pump up their skills without abusing the talent system.
Granting freebie skill levels is always an option.
Instead of averaging attribute bonuses for skills you could add 'em instead. HARP does this although bonuses from Attributes are roughly half those of RMFRP. This puts a lot of emphasis on Attributes which could be a problem balance wise.
As for myself, I divorced DPs from Attributes in both HARP and RMFRP some time back. Linking character improvement to Attributes is doubly rewarding/penalizing to those with high/low Attribute scores. For this reason I also use a simple distribution scheme for Attribute determination during character creation. From my point of view, random character creation is a thing of the past. As always, to each their own.
I agree the RMFRP skill list is a little bloated and could use some paring down to cut down on redundancies and long character building sessions. I'm a big proponent of converting some skills into talents, specifically combat styles and armor skills. YMMV.
>>ReaperWolf
-
I totally agree with the OP. RM starves players of skill points. If you play by the book (and I think few do), you need very high bonuses in your skills to be able to do much of anything. You have to invest a lot in a skill to get 111 on a regular basis.
But you don't have to get 111 to succed in your actions. A character must roll just over 75 to avoid failing, which is far easier than scoring 111. If you treat all results under 111 as failures then you're giving an additional -35 modifiers to every manuevers! It's no surprise then that 1st level characters cannot hope to succed in even the simpliest of tasks.
-
DS,
Could you explain this a little differently? I am not picking up your explanation.
"NOTE: for easier bookeeping and have ALL DPs available, we use a retroactive development, this is, you recover the DPs for 2nd ranks in next levels, maybe you agree with that.
This makes easy to remake a character because you only need to spend its DPs and not count how many 2nd ranks you developed in any time."
MDC
Yes, maybe an example:
- You buy in one level 2 ranks in a skills with cost 3/7, so you spend 10 DPs, at next level you don't buy rank, and then you recover 4 DPs, that is, 7 - 3 = 4.
So, it is easy to revise a character, because you have fixed amount of DPs (using a fixed value or potential stats since lvl 1), and you only need to count the number of ranks developed (remember that TPs, hobby and racial don't count).
It is simple, if you have level 10 and you has purchased 13 ranks, you need to spend DPs = 10 ranks at 1st cost + 3 ranks at 2nd cost.
This is usefull because every 3-4 lvls it is a good idea to revise characters, because is not rare that you have some DPs more or less assigned, in RM I think is typical (cumulative wrong align). So with this you can easily 'remake' your character, developing aprox. the same skills and adjusting well the DPs used.
I totally agree with the OP. RM starves players of skill points. If you play by the book (and I think few do), you need very high bonuses in your skills to be able to do much of anything. You have to invest a lot in a skill to get 111 on a regular basis. The DP/skill ratio usually forces characters to focus on specific skills to the detriment of others.
Remember that you have a result in 90, and GMs (you could talk about this to your GM) should use it. See that with this result you usually make the 80% of the maneuver, so you should adjust the result to gameplay.
Usually you can re-roll with a +10 get the 111 result, but if you don't do it, anyway you have made 80%, and it should be used by GM.
Again, the KEY is not having more DPs or big bonuses, is use the game mechanics, a result of 90 could be good for many skills; in awareness you could obtain most information, but not details, and the player must decide what to do; and for all-or-nothing rolls, if you have a 80%, you roll again a % roll, you have a 80% to complete the task. Is that not enough for low-medium level characters?.
-
DS,
Thanks, that finally got into my brain what you were doing.
I think the big thing here is the golden rule of RPGing. If you want to change something then do it and see how it goes, you are there to have fun after all.
MDC
-
As for myself, I divorced DPs from Attributes in both HARP and RMFRP some time back. Linking character improvement to Attributes is doubly rewarding/penalizing to those with high/low Attribute scores.
The group I started playing RM with had played RM for some time.
By the time I joined, they had already gone to a fixed amount of DPs per level, completely divesting DP totals from attributes.
I never saw a problem with that, while I could see some possible problematic aspects/issues with the RAW (such as the "doubly rewarding/penalizing" one mentioned above).
DonMoody
-
OTOH instead of trying to tweak the rules - with all the risks of doing this the wrong way - why not simply start with 3rd or 5th level characters if you wish to have more competent characters in the beginning?
I totally agree with this. Stop abusing the children and let the adults have a turn at adventuring. :D
I do also believe in tweeking rules. I give a set amount of DPs per level (I do not like the attribute reason as it gives a double bonus IMO) and I have made all standard skills combined skills - you do not train in the category, just the skill. When you are doing something you are unskilled in, you look to see if you have a similar skill in that category and use that at a -30 or the category bonus (with no modifier) whichever is higher.
-
But you don't have to get 111 to succed in your actions. A character must roll just over 75 to avoid failing, which is far easier than scoring 111.
OK but ...
I did not think "avoid failing" was the same thing as "succeeding".
DonMoody
-
One thing I ruled when GMing RMSS was giving a free TP to every first level character on top of adolescence and normal development. It was made to boost 1st level players as well as helping in defining them. Thus, a first level fighter with a City Guard TP was very different from one with a Knight TP. Back then, I used Rasyr's "irregular realms" as a guideline and the Free TP was also used to help define the professional bonuses and everyman skills.
-
But you don't have to get 111 to succed in your actions. A character must roll just over 75 to avoid failing, which is far easier than scoring 111.
OK but ...
I did not think "avoid failing" was the same thing as "succeeding".
DonMoody
So true!
-
But you don't have to get 111 to succed in your actions. A character must roll just over 75 to avoid failing, which is far easier than scoring 111.
OK but ...
I did not think "avoid failing" was the same thing as "succeeding".
DonMoody
So true!
It's not the same thing as succeeding completely, but a Partial Success (71-90 on Static Manuever table) is still a success. It means that the character efforts have produced something, maybe not the best result possible but it's better than nothing.
Again, IMHO if you treat all results under 111 as "failures" you're severly hindering the characters actions.
-
Yeah, like instead of falling 800' to a rocky doom, you are left hanging from the edge of the cliff by your fingernails. Got a few new scrapes and bruises ('A' Impact crit from banging the side of the rock cliff), but you are ALIVE and able to try and get back on the ledge.
Not getting 111 is not failing, it is just not completely succeeding in your first try. If it is something that is all or nothing, then maybe it sould be an RR, not a skill roll. But, in just about every case you can probably see how someone could nearly succeed, or partially succeed.
Take a case of possible surprise: The PCs in my game were travelling through a thick jungle with swampy surface area. A nasty beast suddenly burst forth from the muck to attack them. I had them roll Alertness (with negatives). One got a near success, the other a partial success. To me that meant that they were not totally surprised (as a failure would have indicated) and had the possibilty of acting in the first round. I just modified their initiatives by a number I felt appropriate due to the level of success they achieved on their Alertness rolls (a big -4 for near success, and a -8 for partial success). If they had been completely successful on the Alertness roll, I would have let them roll initiative normally.
-
Instead of averaging attribute bonuses for skills you could add 'em instead. HARP does this although bonuses from Attributes are roughly half those of RMFRP.
Was that changed back from RMSS? In RMSS the bonusses are also added, so I had the notion that averaging was a left-over from the past...
On a general note, I have never found that the system was so unbalanced in the development points to skills rate that it had to be fixed. Of course, I always run short on DPs, but that's just like what happens in some of the boardgames that I play - the so-called Euro-games - and then I know that I just have to make a choice.
Maybe it's also a matter of adjusting expectations: level one characters are very limitted, and maybe they seem weaker than first level characters in other systems. It would be great to have a setting that "showed" the standards... ;)
//K
-
It's not the same thing as succeeding completely, but a Partial Success (71-90 on Static Manuever table) is still a success. It means that the character efforts have produced something, maybe not the best result possible but it's better than nothing.
Again, IMHO if you treat all results under 111 as "failures" you're severly hindering the characters actions.
A Partial Success is 76-90, not 71-90.
Even though it is called "Partial Success", it might be better named "You May Try Again": "Your attempt bears little fruit, but you appear to be on the right track. Perhaps more attention to detail will improve your chances." RMFRP p. 45
You can try again, BUT you still have to achieve a 111 in order to succeed. Partial and Near Successes give you some value for your efforts, but not succes.
If you find your group fudging this detail a lot, it might mean the characters could use more DPs.
-
It depends. If your character wants to disarm a trap or pick a lock, then a partial success indeed gives you little value. A near success at least lets you try again with a bonus, but still I agree that for these maneuvers only a success will help you.
But there are other maneuvers, like e.g. the perception skills, where a partial success or near success gives you some of benefit, in case of perception skills some of the details. And for moving maneuvers the 100% is mostly not required to make progress. When e.g. climbing a rope the 40% on the maneuver table also slowly get you up the rope a bit.
-
A Partial Success is 76-90, not 71-90.
Yes, you're right... ;)
It depends. If your character wants to disarm a trap or pick a lock, then a partial success indeed gives you little value. A near success at least lets you try again with a bonus, but still I agree that for these maneuvers only a success will help you.
Right, it really depends on the situation: if the manuever is "all or nothing" then you must reroll, and IMHO if you obtained a Partial Success you only need to a Near Success on the reroll to complete the manuever, because the table says that a Partial Success complete 20% of the manuever.
-
IMHO if you obtained a Partial Success you only need to a Near Success on the reroll to complete the manuever, because the table says that a Partial Success complete 20% of the manuever.
Or also at least 4 other Near Success, now that I think about it.
For example, your character is trying to pick a lock, while the others are keeping at bay the goblins who are chasing the party.
First attempt: he scores a 78 (Partial Success), completing 20% of the manuevers; he start picking the lock but he's far from opening it.
Second attempt: 80 (another Partial Success), he has now completed 40% of the manuever... just a little more and the lock will open!
Third attempt: lucky roll and he scores a 94 (Near Success), meaning that he reaces the 120% of the task, the door opens and the party rush in...
-
One thing I ruled when GMing RMSS was giving a free TP to every first level character on top of adolescence and normal development. It was made to boost 1st level players as well as helping in defining them. Thus, a first level fighter with a City Guard TP was very different from one with a Knight TP. Back then, I used Rasyr's "irregular realms" as a guideline and the Free TP was also used to help define the professional bonuses and everyman skills.
Then everyone choose the more expensive one, I think it is a good idea but changing it. So I think is better allow to all lvl 1 character choose any TP at half cost (DPs and time), not free.
It depends. If your character wants to disarm a trap or pick a lock, then a partial success indeed gives you little value. A near success at least lets you try again with a bonus, but still I agree that for these maneuvers only a success will help you.
I think you have a % of success (20%, 80%, see table), and then allow player to desist maneuver or try it, with a risk (if fail, you activate the trap!).
For pick lock, you could use the same, but if you fail you have the opposite % chance to BLOCK the lock, and then make it harder to open (increase dificulty).
For example, you roll 'partial success' in a medium lock, you have 20% to open, you fail, now you have 80% to block the lock, you lock it, now the dificulty is hard or very hard. As you not FAILURE, you can try again, roll again and obtain 'almost success' (91-110) (I don't know the 'english name' exactly), you have 80% to open, you fail again (with 80%, bad luck), you have 20% to block the lock, you lock it again :D, now the lock dificulty is ext. hard or sheer folly.
See that for any 'lock block' you broke your tool or is stuck (if it doesn't break, breaking roll), so you need another one or another 'pick lock' maneuver to recover the tool with no breaking it.
So, with imagination, game mechanics and versatility you can play with no problem low level characters. The diference with high skilled characters is that these can try more dificult maneuvers, low skilled characters (bonus about 20-40) can try maneuvers like easy or light, and maybe medium, with a regular chance of success. I think is not bad. Low level characters should not try many difficult maneuvers IMO, and game mechanics show this correctly.
If you use the HARP modifiers (that are the same in SOHK with some combination) this is more clear, this modifiers are in 20 increments: +60 +40 +20 +0 -20 -40 -60 -80 and -100.
-
I think the basic problem is not lack of DP but rather that the default difficulties in RM are far too hostile to the players. The penalties associated with difficulties mean you need plenty of ranks before you increase the likelihood of success.
SOHK has revised difficulties that makes much better sense. With these you need just a few ranks to beat the simplier difficulties but are out of luck on the higher difficulty levels.
-
IMHO RMSS/RMFRP does already take the increased number of skills into account with its increased number of DPs per level. That a 1st level character cannot learn every skill he likes is certainly not proof of the opposite. But I think that a reduction of the number of skills would be a good idea for a future RM edition.
But that doubling of DPs is countered by the fact that, in order to equal one rank from RM2 you have to devote two ranks (one in catagory and one in skill) in RMSS, generally at the same cost for the catagory AND the skill. So, at best, you're breaking even, and that's before you take into account that they added so many skills.
It's like your boss coming to you and saying "you now have to handle these fifteen extra tasks every day but we're not going to give you any more time during the day in which to complete them and you're pay isn't increasing." Suddenly you have more you're expected to cover with no more resources than you had before.
Skill bloat becomes a system issue as soon as the system doesn't offer ways to deal with the addition (or subtraction) of skills.
Exactly. And there is a certain level of expectation. There wasn't so much when these skills were simply "secondary" skills in the companions and they could largely be ignored, but once they were folded into "core" skills by RMSS there is a basic assumption that, if the skill is there, your GM has the right to call on it when the situation arises. So, as a player of a certain "role" you may be obliged to make sure that skill is covered. But without the extra DPs to account for the extra work you end up being spread too thin.
Now, yes, the GM has the right to take out any skill he feels is not needed. And, yes, the final arbiter of all that is good and holy in his game is the GM. But the skills presented in the book are assumed to be core to the rules system. Any tweaking done must face the scrutiny of players (who may feel cheated if you remove a skill they feel gives their character the defining edge) and be reconciled with any collateral damage it may cause to the rest of the system (i.e. are you removing a skill that was added to purposfully thin out otherwise potentially powerful professions?). Therefore I don't think its fair to blame the GM for "allowing" skills in his game that are assumed in the core rules.
The designers established the number of DPs in comparison with the their assumption of what skills would be included in character design. They must have felt this was a fair distribution of DPs for that number of skills. I just happen to disagree.
-
Let me put it another way...
In RM2 there were less than 40 core skills (not counting multiple itereations of the same skill like Riding).
In RMSS there are more than 200 core skills (again, not counting multiple iterations of the same skill).
The number of DPs in RMSS was doubled (roughly) from RM2, but the amount needed to be spent in order to equate the same rank bonus was also doubled (roughly).
Now, I do realize that probably 50% of those 200 skills are largely for flavor and appropriate for representation as background skills rather than true "adventuring" skills. But you're still not given any significant increase in DPs with which to add that flavor. Since you can generally only increase any given skill by 2 or 3 ranks per level there is less threat that someone would over specialize at the sacrifice of "flavor" skills, so why not allow more DPs? Perhaps there is a threat of using too many DPs on training packages that will allow development beyond the 2 or 3 ranks per level? If that's the worry I would think it would be easier to limit the number of training packages you can take rather than remove entire skills from the list. But that's just me. ;D
-
I totally agree with your analysis GB. But in my opinion giving more DP's isn't the answer because the number of DP's isn't the problem. RMSS simply had way too many skills, many of which overlap to a significant degree. If someone wants that many skills for their game that is fine, but the core group of skills should have been kept small, with those additional skills given as optional, rather then the way it was done which was to make all the skills core then tell the GM that if he thinks there are too many skills he should remove some. That's backwards IMO.
So a smaller core group of skills, with a list of optional skills and rules on how to add skills AND DPs (as they go hand in hand) to your game should have been the approach.
-
I totally agree with your analysis GB. But in my opinion giving more DP's isn't the answer because the number of DP's isn't the problem. RMSS simply had way too many skills, many of which overlap to a significant degree. If someone wants that many skills for their game that is fine, but the core group of skills should have been kept small, with those additional skills given as optional, rather then the way it was done which was to make all the skills core then tell the GM that if he thinks there are too many skills he should remove some. That's backwards IMO.
So a smaller core group of skills, with a list of optional skills and rules on how to add skills AND DPs (as they go hand in hand) to your game should have been the approach.
And I think this is what they tried to do in many ways with HARP. Now if they could combine the simplified skill list of HARP (maybe beefed up a little bit more) with the extra detail of RM they'd have the ultimate game!! ;D
-
Of course, the people saying that RMSS/FRP requires TWICE the number of DP's as RMC/X/2 are missing the point
If you only develop ONE skill in a category, then the cost in RMSS = the cost in RMC
- Specifically; the "supposed" Avg DPs in RMSS = 70; RMC = 35;
- skill costs did not change, with some exceptions ... skills with no skill category ("combined skills" had their cost doubled)
==> Thus for categories where you only develop one skill; RMC cost is effectively the same as RMSS cost in percentage of available DPs.
==> However, most characters actively develop more skills per category ... and that's where the cost "savings" are incurred.
Finally - remember that RMSS is not a re-codified version of RMC; it is a recodified version of RMC + RoRo2 ... these two together had (more or less) the SAME number of skills as RMSS has.
-
Of course, the people saying that RMSS/FRP requires TWICE the number of DP's as RMC/X/2 are missing the point
If you only develop ONE skill in a category, then the cost in RMSS = the cost in RMC
- Specifically; the "supposed" Avg DPs in RMSS = 70; RMC = 35;
- skill costs did not change, with some exceptions ... skills with no skill category ("combined skills" had their cost doubled)
==> Thus for categories where you only develop one skill; RMC cost is effectively the same as RMSS cost in percentage of available DPs.
==> However, most characters actively develop more skills per category ... and that's where the cost "savings" are incurred.
Finally - remember that RMSS is not a re-codified version of RMC; it is a recodified version of RMC + RoRo2 ... these two together had (more or less) the SAME number of skills as RMSS has.
That's true. I guess you would get a price break to some degree in the catagory system. Would it really be enough to cover a quadrupaling of skills, though?
RoRo2? What's that?
I don't really mean to imply that I think the problem rests in RMSS, though I guess that is what I was implying. The problem, I think, started with the Companions. They added more and more skills as secondary skills but with no real attention (that I'm aware of) to an increase in points to spend on them.
One problem, though, is that it seems an unfair expectation from one profession to the next. I mean, if a fighter now has access to reverse stroke he wouldn't need to develop it at all and he'd still be a fromidable combatant. But suddenly the ranger has tracking, survival, hunting, reading tracks, and a random smattering of lore skills; all now core skills, all of which I would argue would be part of basic training for someone of his profession just out of apprenticeship.
-
The number of skills is pretty irrelevant as well since you are not required to take them all. From the initial post the problem was wanting a first level character to be good at everything, i.e. good at many skills, not with the number of skills available and the shortage of DP's to take them all which the discussion has mutated into.
One problem, though, is that it seems an unfair expectation from one profession to the next. I mean, if a fighter now has access to reverse stroke he wouldn't need to develop it at all and he'd still be a fromidable combatant. But suddenly the ranger has tracking, survival, hunting, reading tracks, and a random smattering of lore skills; all now core skills, all of which I would argue would be part of basic training for someone of his profession just out of apprenticeship.
So if these skills weren't even offered, how then would they be included as 'basic training'? Not to mention handling 'flavor' skills non included as core brings about its own problems.
-
The extra skills are not always flavor skills. In many cases the addition of new skills really does change the scope of the more basic and often core skills. When you add skills that perform a function that had previously been covered by an existing skill the number of skills does become important, because what they were able to learn before at a lower cost is now spread out over several skills. Tracking/Read Tracks is a good example, as is Foraging/Hunting, not to mention all the Herbalism skills.
The scope of the core group of skills should cover most in-game uses. Further adding of skills often dilutes the use of the original skills, they don't necessarily just add new capabilities that weren't there before.
-
Using the above examples, sense ambush and alertness do serve separate purposes. Although sense ambush as used often resembles alertness although which is not as the skill is written.
The strange thing about tracking/readig tracks (and hunting/foraging) is that in RMSS the two skills are actually cheaper as you are getting double DP's but since they are in the same catagory, you only need to spend those DP's once, i.e. double DP's but spending only x1.5.
-
Sense Ambush only serves a separate purpose from Alertness if you use the skill. Many GM's have Alertness include Sense Ambush. RMSS wanted two skills so had to have descriptions that were different. They could have just as easily only included Alertness as a core skill and have it include the ability to sense ambush.
So maybe if you look at the cost of all these related skills they will about the same cost as the single original skill, but I have a feeling that won't be the case across the board. My gut feeling is the same as what GB has stated above, that with the RMSS skill set there isn't enough DPs for what I expect should be a normal level of competence for an adolescent. If I were to keep such an expanded skill set I would increase ranks gained at adolescence but keep the regular DPs/lvl.
But I still think a core skill set should start basic and expand, rather then the other way around. It's easy to break Tracking or Herbalism into multiple skills if you wish, but harder and more confusing to combine them (especially in the case of herbs in RMSS where the different herb skills appear in different categories).
-
The number of skills is pretty irrelevant as well since you are not required to take them all. From the initial post the problem was wanting a first level character to be good at everything, i.e. good at many skills, not with the number of skills available and the shortage of DP's to take them all which the discussion has mutated into.
Actually, that wasn't the "problem" in the original post. You have it backwards in the direction the conversation mutated. The problem was that, in general, I see too many skills to cover with the available DPs even for conservative PCs just trying to cover the basics of their beginning training (i.e. apprenticeship). The creation of the assassin was simply the project I was working on when I noticed this and this was later confused as the point of the post. I agree that a well rounded assassin is above and beyond the scope of a first level character.
-
So if these skills weren't even offered, how then would they be included as 'basic training'? Not to mention handling 'flavor' skills non included as core brings about its own problems.
I'm not suggesting the lack of these skills in RM2 is the answer. I'm suggesting that the number of DPs in RMSS should be increased to cover the increased list of skills. I think the "flavor" skills should be there. While I do think there are a few in the mix that are redundant, I do indeed prefer a list that is a bit closer to that of RMSS. But to increase that number of skills, and thus increase the burden of knowledge and training on the character, and not provide some compensation is...well...odd.
-
Actually, that wasn't the "problem" in the original post. You have it backwards in the direction the conversation mutated. The problem was that, in general, I see too many skills to cover with the available DPs even for conservative PCs just trying to cover the basics of their beginning training (i.e. apprenticeship). The creation of the assassin was simply the project I was working on when I noticed this and this was later confused as the point of the post. I agree that a well rounded assassin is above and beyond the scope of a first level character.
(Emphasis mine)
That is a little different then. I don't see it as a problem at all as still your definition of 'basics of their beginning training' is much broader than mine.
What I see that was done is an attempt to specialize skills rather than have too many 'big bucket' ones, and eliminate or at least better codify similar skills, out there which did expand the character sheet immensely and the success of which has been debated across numerous other threads.
However I can understand, and go along with, the shortcomings in 'basic' skills - like running and jumping for exmample - that don't get good coverage in adolescence or racial background ranks. This could easily be resolved by modifying those or the addition of more hobby ranks. Right after you convince your players that spell lists or weapon skills are not considered hobbies.
-
What I see that was done is an attempt to specialize skills rather than have too many 'big bucket' ones, and eliminate or at least better codify similar skills, out there which did expand the character sheet immensely and the success of which has been debated across numerous other threads.
I think that's a key point as well. In some cases the RMSS skill system was developed out of a sort of "legacy" from the RM Companions. I think this got them into some "iffy" logic in some of the catagories and may be the reason for a few of the redundant skills. The down side is that this "legacy," while perfectly logical to RM veterans, can be lost on people looking at it with newer eyes (such as myself). Not to say the logic is "flawed" just that it comes from a starting point that is unavailable to those coming into RM more recently. I've learned numerous times in my re-education of RM (via HARP) that many things about the ICE family make more sense if you understand the foundations created back in the original RM.
Though I still can't see the relation between panhandling and sailing. ;)
However I can understand, and go along with, the shortcomings in 'basic' skills - like running and jumping for exmample - that don't get good coverage in adolescence or racial background ranks. This could easily be resolved by modifying those or the addition of more hobby ranks. Right after you convince your players that spell lists or weapon skills are not considered hobbies.
Yeah, I think the hobyy ranks are exactly the sort of thing to "fix" the issue (just maybe a few more of them). They would be better served if kept away from the 'needed' skills and spent on 'flavor' skills. I see the hobby ranks as being similar to the "DPs for Secondary Skills" in Character Law (though I am aware that there were also hobby points in RM2/C). It was nice in RM2/C that you could spend all your primary attention (read: DPs) on the "core" skills that are needed by any adventurer and that you got some extra DPs just for "flavor" skills. That way you could make your character viable in the skills that you need and not be tempted to ignore the skills that make your character interesting.
-
That is a little different then. I don't see it as a problem at all as still your definition of 'basics of their beginning training' is much broader than mine.
And I'm not even going to get into the number of skills you'd have at "graduation" in Spacemaster: Privateers. lol
Well, tell me this; how does the skill list compare in RMFRP (core book only)? Is the number of skills a lot smaller than in RMSS?
-
Boy I do not look at this lost for a while and suddenly it has added two pages!
IMO the number of skills in RMSS/FRP is one thing, the number of skills that are used in a game is another. IMO you cannot say and you are not trying to say; double the # of skills so double the # of DP's.
I also agree that there are quite a few skills in the core book that GM's do not use or are under utilized by some games. But I think the golden rule of GM?ing still applies; if you want to change something you should. I also understand that when you first get a system you do not know what to swop out or keep in.
As I said before in my game I have condensed some skills into others and it has made a big difference in the game and how PC?s spend their DP?s. I also start PC?s at 3rd to 5th level depending on their basic class; pure arms, semi or pure spell casters. It has worked fine and very well. I also use the same system for SM:P.
I think what is needed is better communications between the GM and the PC?s, asking what skills are used most in your game? And then once you have input from the GM design your PC.
MDC
-
The problem with the number of skills and DPs are really not an issue that is solved by increasing the DP. If we look at life-essential adventuring skills this set of skills are rather similar between RM2 and RMSS. If you give the player 120 DP he will spend the bulk of those on skills like body development, weapons and spells because those will increase the likelihood of survival. With normal DPs the semis must make a hard choice between the second rank in life-essential skills and covering all bases in the character concept.
RMSS and the RM2 Companions basically added secondary skills and split secondary skills into more. Almost every of these changes can be motivated by some theoretical example of character concepts...but the cost structure does not mesh with the bloat of skills.
Possible solutions are...
1 Reduce the number of used skills in your game. I am pretty certain this is done by almost all veteran GMs. The skill might theoretically exist in the skill list, but the style of play does not punish neglecting the skill so in practice the skill is not used. (The right thing to do would basically be that the book should instruct you to do purge unwanted skills or give you a basic set of skills with optional sets of extra skills.)
2 Split skills in the primary and secondary skills and give extra DP that can only be spent on the secondary skills.
I have many time said that the problem of RMSS is one of presentation. If you really analyze the cost structure you realize that the primary and seconday skills are there really even while they are not explictly listed.
As a sidenote we can note that most of the real loopholes in the RMSS set up (everyman status to weapon skills or adrenal defence, hobby ranks applied to counter character concept skills to give best benefit, TPs giving different discounts to different professions etc) are caused by authors forgetting to pay attention to the cost structure when they extended the game. Had RMSS used the same skill list but presented it as primary skills, secondary skills and optional skills the authors would probably have stopped and said for instance "the new everyman skill rule about double ranks instead of half cost should only be used for secondary skills and optional skills because the primary skills have a special impact on balance."
-
Pastaav,
I am going to have to have the opposit oponion that you have stated above. I do not like how they do it in RM2 and have not had a chance to pick up the RMC/X books yet so I cannot speak about that.
I think the basic thing is what ever you do; if it is fun keep it up. Or if you do not like it change it up and let the plsyers know that it is a test and that you might change back. I agree it is a pain to change Char. gen. on the fly but it can be done.
MDC
-
I think what is needed is better communications between the GM and the PCÂ’s, asking what skills are used most in your game? And then once you have input from the GM design your PC.
MDC
So that's going under the assumption that the original RMSS designers expected you to cull out various skills. I'm not really arguing that theory. They may very well have assumed that. I think Vroomfongle is right...that's a bit backwards. They should have presented a core set of skills that were appropriate for the number of DPs then later presented optional skills to be added.
But I honestly don't see the problem with adding more DPs. For most RPGs this would be a problem because players may focus on just a few skills and neglect the skills that fill out their backgrounds. However, RM already has the perfect self-regulating limt on how many ranks you can devote to a specific skill forcing players to diversify the skills they must take. If they're spending those precious few DPs on skills they need they won't spend them on skills that really flesh out the character.
And the problem of players overspending on skills they need is just as much a "user" problem as GMs neglecting to remove some skills for purposes of game balance. If the GM is trusted to oversee issues of balance, fair play, and storytelling why can't the players be trusted to do the same? Give them the DPs. If they choose to take ths shallow route and devote those extra points to tweaking out their characters as combat wombats then that's their loss. But a lot of players will feel freed up to actually develop their character as a whole instead of spending all their time just trying to catch up. And, again, it seems far easier a fix to me to increase available points than remove skills. At worst you'll have a few skills that are higher than you may like. At best you'll have PCs with skills that support their character background.
Though I don't really think that more DPs is the only answer...or even the best answer. I'm not experienced enough in the system to really see the real potential for abuse there. But I would think some mechanism for more hobby skills, or maybe more background skills would be interesting.
I'm certainly not presenting any of this to be argumentative or critical of RMSS. I simply express these thoughts out of interest and curiosity. I appreciate very much the input from everyone thus far and have enjoyed this conversation.
-
Really there are many skills, for example, MAC we have new 'vital points lore' and others, how can we combine it with another? I think it is not possible. the posibilities are infinite, but this is as in the real life.
In real life, a profession usually takes 40 DPs in skills, for example, a doctor, once developed the medical and lore skills, it can use the other DPs in its hobby skills, all of us develop our professional skills, and then our hobbies.
There are skills that are combination of others, for example, 'evaluate armor' is combine 'trade lore', 'metal lore', and 'blacksmithing' (to evaluate designs), but surely an 'armor worker' likes more to develop this some-in-one skill.
You don't need all the skills, if characters wants to do something, you only need to see the characters skills and how it can does it.
RM is a system where a character is really a 'character' from since about level 5, looking that we have lvl 50 spells...so evaluate your characer skills at that level, lvls 1-4 are still learning. And then the XPs for lvl up are increased, your basic learning is finished.
The problem is that we want to have our fighter at lvl 5 with >100 OB, and all us are happy, but that has a price, characters much specialized have few skills, but with high bonus. If you see books like 'monsters & creatures' you see that really the bonuses are lower, for example, powerfull creatures have bonuses like 120 or 130 (RM is a 100 based system).
So, where is the problem of having many skills in +50 bonus?, using the result rolls >76 are perfectly usable.
Surely the problem are not DPs, is the level, you need lvl 10 to have a character 'good' in its profession skills, and medium in 'others skills'. But RM is a system that is hard to increase levels for low-level characters, you need 10000 XPs to increase to lvl 2, and that is hard for a lvl 1 character that has few and low bonus skills.
Note: for STANDARD skills we use CATEGORY bonus as minimum, so we don't apply the -15 if you have not skill rank developed. This allows to have many skills with some acceptable bonus (more versatile).
Maybe you want to change the XP system, for example in D&D increase level for low-level characters is easier, it uses a geometric system, while RM uses a linear system.
A primary aproximation could be multiply ALL the XP (maneuvers, criticals, etc.) by a number (like 10-20) and then divide it by character lvl. This makes a lvl system more like D&D, so you will have rapidly a medium-lvl character, but you will suffer to achieve higher (like epic) lvls. For 'fatal blows' XPs you can use always the lvl 1 line, if not you are reducing multiple times likes you increase the lvl (using other line that gives you less XPs and the dividing by character lvl).
Looking some MERP adventures, we see characters that says:
- Before xxx war: lvl 12.
- After xxx war: lvl 25.
So it increase many lvls in a war (I think is exagerated in any case), but this give us the idea that they are not using their own XP system, and that surviving in a bloody war gives you many (and many) XPs. If you use the core XP system, you surely increase your lvl by 2 or 3 as maximum.
But, there are not characters higher than level 30, so it give us the idea that increase lvls at that point is very hard.
Take in mind that if you increase the DPs, a lvl 30 character could have all-of-anything (150 DPs x 30 lvl = 4500 DPs :o ), and that is not possible really.
-
RM is a system where a character is really a 'character' from since about level 5, looking that we have lvl 50 spells...so evaluate your characer skills at that level, lvls 1-4 are still learning. And then the XPs for lvl up are increased, your basic learning is finished.
The problem is that we want to have our fighter at lvl 5 with >100 OB, and all us are happy, but that has a price, characters much specialized have few skills, but with high bonus. If you see books like 'monsters & creatures' you see that really the bonuses are lower, for example, powerfull creatures have bonuses like 120 or 130 (RM is a 100 based system).
So, where is the problem of having many skills in +50 bonus?, using the result rolls >76 are perfectly usable.
See, I don't really agree with that. If that's the case the designers built in a misconception by using the word "apprenticeship." The application of DPs is supposed to be the development of their time as apprentices in their profession. Now, I realize that can't always be taken literally, if for no other reason that not ALL professions actually have a formalized apprenticeship program. But, to me, this implies that they have the basic training to handle basic situations.
I'm not expecting a first level fighter to have an OB of 100+. To be honest I'm not even wanting a first level fighter with an OB of 50+. Two ranks in a single (maybe two) weapon skills is just peachy with me. In fact, I see two ranks, gained during apprenticeship, to be an appropriate number for a "focused" skill, and one rank as an appropriate number for an incidental skill (a skill learned simply through "accident" as a basis for other areas of knowledge).
It's the ability to develop the range of skills I see as "basic" for apprenticeship that is the limitation. Not the overdevelopment of a few focused skills.
-
I think the basic problem is not lack of DP but rather that the default difficulties in RM are far too hostile to the players. The penalties associated with difficulties mean you need plenty of ranks before you increase the likelihood of success.
Indeed, I think too much is often required of low-level characters: they are often only capable of achieving Easy and Light maneuvers with Medium maneuvers being quite a challenge for them. So by lowering the expectations to low-level characters (and thereby adding a maneuver difficulty bonus to the roll), exceptionally high skills are not always vital. Of course, as the characters gain levels they can take on harder challenges, which seems quite reasonable to me...
//K
-
Looking some MERP adventures, we see characters that says:
- Before xxx war: lvl 12.
- After xxx war: lvl 25.
So it increase many lvls in a war (I think is exagerated in any case), but this give us the idea that they are not using their own XP system, and that surviving in a bloody war gives you many (and many) XPs. If you use the core XP system, you surely increase your lvl by 2 or 3 as maximum.
But, there are not characters higher than level 30, so it give us the idea that increase lvls at that point is very hard.
Take in mind that if you increase the DPs, a lvl 30 character could have all-of-anything (150 DPs x 30 lvl = 4500 DPs :o ), and that is not possible really.
I think this touches on the problem as I see it: everyone seems to think that the only levels to play are 1-20 (like a game I know and I don't like). I have said before that the levels in RM cannot be thought of the same as in that other game. You need to basically double the levels of that game to get the levels in RM. Then you will have enough DPs to have the skills you want at the bonuses you want. Allow the levelling of characters. Don't hamstring them by forcing other game ideals on this one.
For example: The big mucky-mucks of Greyhawk, like the Circle of Eight, would all be in the 40 - 60 level range (maybe even higher) if you ran that setting in RM. In the original game they are, what, in the 20's to 30's? That does not translate to RM.
You have to allow the opening up of the range of levels more. Just what I feel/believe is the best answer to the number of DPs "problem."
-
One thing I ruled when GMing RMSS was giving a free TP to every first level character on top of adolescence and normal development. It was made to boost 1st level players as well as helping in defining them. Thus, a first level fighter with a City Guard TP was very different from one with a Knight TP. Back then, I used Rasyr's "irregular realms" as a guideline and the Free TP was also used to help define the professional bonuses and everyman skills.
Then everyone choose the more expensive one, I think it is a good idea but changing it. So I think is better allow to all lvl 1 character choose any TP at half cost (DPs and time), not free.
Or... you allow everyone the *same* free TP (an "adventurer" TP to cover the sort of general skills like Climbing, Jumping, etc. you think every character needs at least some ability with, but might not cover with DPs). This can be useful also for campaigns where everyone is brought together by professional circumstances. If "you're all in the same army unit", everyone can have Soldier TP free or maybe they are all City Guards.
Or... you only allow a choice to a character of TPs with about the same cost for his character (even in extreme powergamer mode, I'm hardly like to choose a 19 DP TP over a 17 DP TP if the 17 DP TP covers more of the skills I actually want and the balance won't be far apart; the thing to avoid is fighters taking a mage TP to pick up spell use, selecting gross TP like Weapon Master, and the like).
Or... you pick the TP based on what would fit the character's background.
Or... you pick one TP for each Profession, maybe even making up your own TPs in "basic Fighter training", "basic Thief training", "basic Magician training", etc. I don't like that, because that goes the path of turning Professions into vocations, but some might prefer that approach.
Or... you make a chart with reasonably priced and appropriate TPs to give away free as part of the campaign and you roll the free TP randomly. This is a good way to not only give out some more skills but provide some twists to the background of a character.
"Half price" is as subject to exploiting for the most free points as "free" is, if the only constraint is player choice.
You might even handle sub-cultures within a culture by allowing a choice of free TP: "Okay, your Urbanman can be a Street Kid, Working Class, Merchant Class, or Aristocrat." (It's probably a bit less work to handle subcultures with a TP than with separate cultures and it allows modeling a background of a merchant class family that bought its way into the aristocracy by purchasing the second TP at normal cost.)
-
I also sometimes give out GM points to players for good RPing or other stuff and they can be used as DP's.
MDC