Topic: Not enough DPs?

[GoblynByte]

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?

[markc]

 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

[pastaav]

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."

[markc]

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 

[GoblynByte]

  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.

[Dark Schneider]

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  ), and that is not possible really.

[GoblynByte]

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.

[Kalu]

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

[RandalThor]

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  ), 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."

[rdanhenry]

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.)

[markc]

 I also sometimes give out GM points to players for good RPing or other stuff and they can be used as DP's.

MDC