Topic: Not enough DPs?

[Urbannen]

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.

[Ecthelion]

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.

[Arioch]

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.

[Arioch]

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...

[Dark Schneider]

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  , 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.

[pastaav]

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.

[GoblynByte]

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.

[GoblynByte]

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. 

[vroomfogle]

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.

[GoblynByte]

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!! 

[Cormac Doyle]

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.

[GoblynByte]

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.

[mocking bird]

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.

[vroomfogle]

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.

[mocking bird]

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.

[vroomfogle]

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).

[GoblynByte]

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.

[GoblynByte]

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.

[mocking bird]

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.

[GoblynByte]

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.