Topic: Not enough DPs?

[markc]

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 

[Dark Schneider]

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.

[markc]

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

[RandalThor]

------------------------------------------

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.

[Arioch]

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.

[Kalu]

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

[Ecthelion]

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.

[Urbannen]

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.

[ReaperWolf]

Several options are available to you, after all options is what Rolemaster has always been about. 

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

[Arioch]

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.

[Dark Schneider]

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?.

[markc]

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

[DonMoody]

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

[RandalThor]

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.  

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.

[DonMoody]

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

[Fidoric]

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.

[Urbannen]

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!

[Arioch]

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.

[RandalThor]

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.

[Kalu]

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