Topic: [RMU] Alternative spellcasting

[jdale]

Combat balance isn't the only way to assess balance, I would say it's not even a very good way when it comes to PCs. A magician can't replace a lay healer, and vice versa. They have very different roles.

On the other hand if you allow the lay healer to trade in their one of their spell lists (probably prosthetics) for a magician base list, now the lay healer is seriously stepping on the magician's toes. The magician doesn't have as much unique to contribute. They become less important to the party and the story. Less fun. If you also now give the lay healer twice as many PP and a big bonus in directed spells they start to be a better magician than the magician (or just make them higher level). Now when a magician is needed, the lay healer may be the one to do the job, and the magician is extraneous.

Balance within the party is having something you excel at, something that lets you get the focus and which lets you contribute. If other party members are better than you at the thing you do best, that's when the imbalance is a real problem.

The concern here is if access to those higher level spells makes non-magical solutions irrelevant. Why pick a lock when you have a spell for that, or Undoor? Why fight when you can kill your foes with spells? Why climb when you can fly?

[Thot]

But that's an issue you'll always have with magic. There really is no way around it, either you want magic, or you don't. That for a few levels you might be better off as a non-spellcaster for many tasks doesn't help at all with "balance", because those few levels inevitably pass by.

[MisterK]

But that's an issue you'll always have with magic. There really is no way around it, either you want magic, or you don't. That for a few levels you might be better off as a non-spellcaster for many tasks doesn't help at all with "balance", because those few levels inevitably pass by.

Indeed, two of the only ways to keep the mundane skills relevant are either to make the spells costly enough that you want to use the mundane alternative whenever you can (to save the 'big guns' for when you'll really need them), or to remove all non-combat-focused magic. RM is more or less on the first option depending on the PP options you use, but the DP spending makes sure that a mage cannot be decent at mundane skills if he wants to be a decent mage (so the mage basically 'saves themself' for when PP spending is really needed). If I remember well, an example of the second option is the Iron Kingdoms RPG (not the D&D version): spells are an alternative to guns, not to non-combat skills, and, as such, non-combat skills remain relevant.

The problem with the first option is that a mage would expect to be able to use their spells whenever the situation requires it, or at least, as often as a non-mage can use their mundane skills, and it leads to frustration on the part of the players (I've had this issue a number of times using RM, which is one of the reasons why I moved to house rules where magic is both easier to learn and less exclusive, and mages have easier access to mundane skills). The problem with the second option is that you can always easily imagine mundane uses for magic and suspending disbelief becomes more difficult.

All in all, I think the issue lies with systems that are based on archetypes that aim at providing specific niches for each archetype. Systems that allow any character to access any skill (magical or not) do not intrinsically suffer from this problem - balance between characters is provided by equal access to abilities.

[jdale]

But that's an issue you'll always have with magic. There really is no way around it, either you want magic, or you don't. That for a few levels you might be better off as a non-spellcaster for many tasks doesn't help at all with "balance", because those few levels inevitably pass by.

Yes and no. The spells exist. But if the caster doesn't have those spells until higher level, then the character with the skills has some time to develop them and be good enough that they can still be relevant, before they are available. It's harder to render a +80 skill irrelevant than a +20 skill.

but the DP spending makes sure that a mage cannot be decent at mundane skills if he wants to be a decent mage (so the mage basically 'saves themself' for when PP spending is really needed).

That sounds like you want the mage to be good at the spells and also good at the skills. That's the opposite of the point. The mage should not overshadow other party members at whatever they do best. If the mage is as good at whatever skill, then you definitely don't need the non-mages in the party.

[MisterK]

That sounds like you want the mage to be good at the spells and also good at the skills. That's the opposite of the point. The mage should not overshadow other party members at whatever they do best. If the mage is as good at whatever skill, then you definitely don't need the non-mages in the party.

You kind of prove my point: the problem exists as soon as you have archetypes that are intrinsically better at something than others, because you then *have* to keep those ability areas relevant and you *have* to make sure other archetypes do not overshadow those who are *supposed* to be good in that specific area. And even if the mage wants to spend time being good at lockpicking, they won't be as good as a regular thief because the archetypes prevent it in order to keep the archetypes relevant.

Purely skill-based systems, without archetypes, avoid this pitfall. They have another one that archetype-based systems avoid, which is homogeneisation (characters all tend to migrate towards the skills that are the most relevant and efficient for the problem at hand, leading to characters that could end up being technically similar), but you don't have the case where the system creates a problem (archetypes having predefined specialisations) then tries to sell a solution to the problem (making sure that some archetypes do not overshadow others). It's not specific to RM - all systems that use archetypes have a similar problem.

As a matter of fact, I'm firmly on the side of "yes, if magic gives you the ability to fly, climbing becomes a poor man's solution in most circumstances" I have no problem with magic being the superior tool if all PCs can access it equally. Which brings us back to the archetype issue.

[jdale]

I don't think it's a problem of archetypes per se. In a purely skill based game, if one player makes an outstanding combatant and another player makes an outstanding sneak, then a third player who makes a combatant/sneak is going to be outshined in both areas. It's more about party design.

Rolemaster has a lot of archetypes, and many of them overlap. For example you've got Thief as a stealthy character but also Dabbler and Magent. You can make a party where everyone steps on each other's toes, or a party where everyone has their unique strength. I find that the archetypes are helpful for that planning.

I have previously run a lot of GURPS which is classless and level-less, just skills and advantages/disadvantages, and I don't agree that it solves this problem at all.

[MisterK]

The combatant/sneak may be outshined in both areas, but they will never be powerless in either.

In my opinion, time in the spotlight is not decided by technical abilities, it is decided by GM scene setup and player cooperation. Your combat monster might be very busy slaughtering minions somewhere while the spotlight is on the guy who struggles to fend of a technically superior opponent and protecting a hapless NPC, or a key device - the combat monster does the technical heavy lifting, but the spotlight is not on them. "Moment to shine" is a scene building decision, not a technical one.

On the other hand, not being powerless *is* a technical decision. If you create a system where characters are overly specialised and each action *requires* the specialist to be done properly, you end up with a series of scenes where, each time, some people are busy while others wriggle their thumbs. That's why I don't like the healer classes, by the way (and the Healer class specifically): their area of expertise is purely reactive and not one where you want to put the spotlight on.

Additionally, not having archetypes ensure that the characters can develop according to what they have lived and what they want to do, instead of developing according to what their archetype tells them to do. It's much more organic.

And if you say "but everyone can develop any skill, it just requires more effort for some than others", I think you're missing the point - that's a more like a band-aid on a bleeding wound: it can prevent immediate death, but your patient still requires serious medical attention :p

Honestly, the best RM-like campaign I GMed was the one in which I removed all skill costs and simply provided my players with a list of skills and attributes and asked them to tell me what their characters were good at. Giving back complete control over over character design (unhindered by system restrictions) was the best decision I ever took, because players could think of their characters in terms of background, story and affinities instead of thinking in terms of what they could afford. Doing it collectively ensured that people had the same sense of scale in mind and that expertise niches and overlaps were the result of conscious decisions instead of being by-products of the system archetypes (yes, I also let them mix-and-match spell lists almost at will, providing it made sense in their background story).

[pastaav]

Ironcrown has two major games. RM allows you to take any skill but is designed as an archetype heavy so that costs will enforce the stereotype strongly. HARP, on the other hand, has archetypes in some sense, but the limited differences in costs and spell selection associated with profession choice mean the enforcement of the archetype is much weaker. From another perspective, HARP is designed so you can do a professional switch at level up, while such does not make sense at all with RM.

It sounds to me like the stated goals from MisterK align much better with HARP than RM. Why go with the game that is deliberately made to be archetype-strong if your desire is to not have such strong archetypes?

[MisterK]

It sounds to me like the stated goals from MisterK align much better with HARP than RM. Why go with the game that is deliberately made to be archetype-strong if your desire is to not have such strong archetypes?

I use RM mostly because I started playing and GMing in Shadow World with that system back in '86 (when it was still called "World of the Loremasters"), and my regular players have told me that changing the magic list-based system would feel really weird (I'm still GMing Shadow World, and the setting has been the same throughout the years - different time points, different locations, different characters, but same world). So I'm tweaking and hacking the various systems but I keep basically keep the Spell Law I don't use RM out of that specific context.
As I said elsewhere, I'm slowly moving away from an archetype based system, bit by little bit (I'm also moving away from the combat system as it is in the RAW, among other things). It's a back-and-forth process, that will probably never end because my tastes evolve over the years as well and because I like to experiment and hack mechanisms.
Ideally, if I could hack the RM spell lists subsystem with an occupation-based subsystem along the lines of what WHFRP or IK propose and with a combat subsystem close to what I currently have (which is a hack of HarnMaster, with a wound effect variability inspired from RM) and a completely different initiative system, this would probably be a good starting point. But given that I have other hobbies besides TTRPGs, it will probably have to wait until I'm retired, in a few years - and my tastes will likely have evolved again in the meantime

[AshLands]

What is your opinion about these alternative magic rules? What is your gut feeling about it, what do you think will happen in a campaign that does this, or have you even tried something similar?

Thanks for sharing your idea! I talked to my players about this and they agreed almost immediately - it's the first time we have changed rules in our campaign (which as been running for 12+ years, or so). In our case, spell levels are still learned by ranks and overcasting makes things harder but we all appreciate using the same mechanics as other skill checks. Spell casting feels natural and more challenging, as it should. Let's see how it works after the first session...