Topic: RMSS needs fewer skills!

[Mordenkainen]

One of the things which keeps me away from RMSS is the vast list of skills. It makes it difficult for new players, especially, to create a character.

Has anyone attempted to rationalise the list to something short enough for a new player to quickly grasp, without disabling any of the professions? How would you do so?

[markc]

One of the things which keeps me away from RMSS is the vast list of skills. It makes it difficult for new players, especially, to create a character.

Has anyone attempted to rationalise the list to something short enough for a new player to quickly grasp, without disabling any of the professions? How would you do so?

 IMO it is what I like about RMSS, the skills and the fact you cannot buy a few ranks here and there and be a super hero. PC's actually need other PC's and NPCs to get things done sometimes.

 What I do is ask the player what their PC concept is going to be and then make a list of skills that I think might be appropriate for the character. Those are going to take X DP and I let the player spend the rest as needed or as wanted. I should not say let as the player can spend the DP any way they want.
 Also some skills are more important in my game than in another GM's game and in fact I have removed some skills that do not apply and added some skills that do apply.
 
 Another option which I do is start PC's at higher levels than 1 so they have enough DP to broaden their skill scope and can do more stuff than a first level PC could.
 I have also in the past given my players PC's a set of skills that I thought they should have based on their background worth a 50 DP TP. Yes that is give and I the GM make them so they are not just ranks in BD, PPD and weapon skills.

 So IMO the answer to your Q is to make a set of skills that are important for each profession so the players can concentrate on those areas. And you can always just give some DP away to make things look right or make it more survivable.

Does that help?
MDC

[RandalThor]

The big problem with paring down the skills in RMFRP/RMSS is the way they handle skill categories. By having to actively increase the category and individual skills, you are basically requiring that the individual skills be more narrowly focused. This is because when you do not have the exact skill in that category, you use the category bonus.

The number of skills is due to the ideology that you must actively train in and increase each skill that makes up a profession, instead of just going up in level and automatically getting better at those skills. I understand this philosophy, and mostly agree with it - so long as you go with a profession-less & level-less system. No reason to go halfway, in my opinion. If you are going to have professions and levels, you might as well have a number of abilities that automatically increase with them, particularly those abilities that are key to that profession. For the sake of convenience as well as to better dictate what it means to be a (blank) in your setting/game. As for a game with an abundance of skills that must be individually increased, you might as well go with no profs or levels and just say that the character's "profession" is determined by the skills he possesses. Example: I spend over half of my XP on combat related skills and abilities, therefore I am a "fighter." You spend them on stealth and burglary skills and abilities, therefore you are a "thief."

[providence13]

Tell the players that they can't have every possible skill they're going to need. Relax. Get a concept in mind and spend the points. Now, just play. If you have a totally different concept in mind by the next level, there are enough skills to allow that to happen.


As for the GM, IMHO, find a reason for them to use their skills. The characters only have certain, limited, skills. Remind them how important Development Points are without making them feel like they've picked skills they'll never use. It's not totally up to the GM, but they can help. "5 ranks in Body Painting! You fool, those points should have been placed in all of the Categories where you're really awful. Then, by the time you actually put ranks in the skills, you won't have as far to go!"
...other groups may help each other differently...

[Ecthelion]

Has anyone attempted to rationalise the list to something short enough for a new player to quickly grasp, without disabling any of the professions? How would you do so?

IMO this is quite a difficult task since the number of skills and the number of DPs are closely linked, and one should not be changed without the other also being modified. Also things like Training Packages would need to be recalculated if skills from the TPs were removed.

But removing a few skills or even skill categories will probably not be a problem. What you could also do is preparing a list of the most important skills, the skills of medium importance and the skills that will seldom be used. Then you players can concentrate the skills development on the more important skills.

Which version do you currently play? RMC should suit your needs, since its core skill list is very short.

[Mordenkainen]

Which version do you currently play? RMC should suit your needs, since its core skill list is very short.

I've always played RM2/Classic, except for a brief flirtation with RMSS a few years ago as a player. Now looking at RMSS/FRP is starting to tempt me - I think I would prefer it in a lot of ways, but the skill list is a sticking point, as is the proliferation of training packages.

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

I've checked up the complete list of skills for RMSS and I found a few that are redundant. The rest is OK, even though I would not have organized the skills the way they were but since you can't change categories without rebalancing all the professions, I've let them as they were designed.

Overall, I removed a dozen of skills from my game.

Now, sure, there are too much skills for a newcomer. But do you really tell the guy : "here is the book, pick your skills" ?

What I do : ask them to describe their character, what they believe in, who their parents were, what they learned, what they know to do, what they want to become. And then I create the character and we review it together. This way, the player has the time to learn the game, the skills ad all he needs to know while playing, and not beforehand. Plus, he has no chance to commit some mistake during the creation process : he plays the character he asked for, not the character he failed to design properly.


The training packages list should not even reach the player's eye when he creates a character. It's the game master's job to know what will best fit the player's design for his character.

[Winterknight]

Mord, you might consider doing a hybridization of the two systems.  E.g., use PP development, stat mods, races, HP development, and even spell lists from RMSS, but keep the class/skills from RMC. You'd use the reduced number of DP stats like in RMC, of course. 

Really, the only thing I can see that you'd really need to do is go through the skill list from RMC and make sure you have the same number of stats used for each skill to account for the additive stat bonus from RMSS, versus the averaged stat bonus from RMC.

Hard to say exactly, without knowing which elements you prefer, but that's the kind of thing I do. 

[Arioch]

I try to make a list or tell the players which skills will be considered "common" (will be tested more often than others) in a campaign, before starting to make characters. Nothing stops them to buy ranks in other skills, but they know that those not in the list won't be used very much.
I've found that this helps out a lot: RMFSS has lots of skills, but you don't have to always use all of them 

[Greyaxe]

I give all the skills a character picks up by TP in the first two levels to be Everyman or Occupaional. (a mix between the two or three most inportant skills per TP, not including spell lists BD or PP)  I also lift the restriction on non lifestyle skills. It makes the progression fo key skills rapid and allows caharcters to deveop quality skill bonuses relativly quickly but does not turn them into superheroes overnight.

If this is used, use character background discussions to limit the TP to only those that fit, this makes interesting and skillfull characters who are very adept in their professions, but are still dependant on other characters. 

[markc]

Which version do you currently play? RMC should suit your needs, since its core skill list is very short.

I've always played RM2/Classic, except for a brief flirtation with RMSS a few years ago as a player. Now looking at RMSS/FRP is starting to tempt me - I think I would prefer it in a lot of ways, but the skill list is a sticking point, as is the proliferation of training packages.

 If you do not like TP's do not use them in your game.
MDC

[mocking bird]

We came to the revelation that simply ignoring many of the skills that never get used or taken was much easier that trying to overhaul the system and remove them. 

That being said we had the exact opposite experience - the large skill list actually made it easier to create a character.  Where you run into trouble is when players see the skill list and assume they need to take everything in order to do everything.

For new players we just ask them what kind of character they want and built it accordingly rather than seeing the huge amount of options and guessing what skills are 'necessary' and trying to make a character out of the skill list.

[David Johansen]

If you don't use TPs you need to give out more DPs at first level and possibly at every level.

[providence13]

If you don't use TPs you need to give out more DPs at first level and possibly at every level.

While that ain't a bad recommendation, be careful where ya point the "you need to" finger. 




We are currently using 100DP/level (i.e., not dependent on Stats), but that may not work for everyone.

[Marc R]

My objection to TPs was the discount itself. . .so if you take an easy path and a pre-package of skills you get a DP break/bonus. . .but if you come up with a list of skills that perfectly fit your character concept, you pay full cost.

I get their use for speeding up the process of picking skills, but the bonus essentially rewards using larger blocks and punishing imagination and crafting a character to fit a concept of your own.

I've heard the argument that TPs force you to:

a) take non combat oriented skills you never would
and
b) take a rounded set of skills

I find that a) you save more in DP than you spend on skills you weren't going to take, and b) anyone taking a non rounded character to the table is punished when things move off their focus.

I've never been happy allowing the discount, to be fair, if players create characters that are really well made and on concept, they should just get the discount to the whole level. . . .Training Package "Your third level, executed perfectly to your character's concept."

[RandalThor]

I get their use for speeding up the process of picking skills, but the bonus essentially rewards using larger blocks and punishing imagination and crafting a character to fit a concept of your own.

Or they encourage you to partake more in the society in which your character hails from. Of course, this is really only the case if the GM  has specific TPs for specific races/cultures.

[Marc R]

I find that comes into "building to concept". . .if a character from a sailing culture that spends 90% of their time on the sea in boats or in the water. . .and then doesn't have sailing, swimming or any of the other appropriate skills, I'd probably bounce the character back to the player for a re-do.

I recall, once, a character in a Dark Conspiracy game. . .background of famous race car driver. . . .could barely drive. . .the GM should have tossed that one back for a fix, either of the skill, or the background.

[providence13]

This used to be an issue with me an RM..
Slacker the Ranger doesn't have to take Tracking, Stalking... or anything "Rangery". If you expect this concept to carry over from other games... it won't.

But I agree that GM's should pay attention to these important aspects of a characters background.
A player recently asked me if they could pick up Lofty Ways for their next level of development. He would have to get to around 16th lvl for the spell he wanted on the Monk's List and wanted to pay more DP but cut a corner, so to speak.
Sure! I said. But tell me this: How did you pick up this List on horseback on the road for the past three days? Do you have an item that casts any spell on the List? Is it written down in your backstory, Talents, etc?
When I put it that way.. he totally understood and said he'd be on the lookout for that sort of thing in the future.

So, yeah. There are a great number of skills and there's no reason you have to use all of them. But they are there if you do.

[markc]

 I like training packages as they provide the player a set of skills the most of the time fit the job description.
 Building to concept is good but I have found that often player concepts are loftyer than their DP will allow or sometimes even levels. But that is another problem.

MDC

[runequester]

last time we played RMSS/FRP, I just gave everybody an appropriate training package for free at level 1. That seemed to work pretty well, and it helped make sure they had some core competency.