Topic: A Thought on Skill Costs

[David Johansen]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that some skills aren't interesting enough to bother breaking down into a number of smaller skills but shouldn't be cheaper just because we don't need or want in depth details on animal husbandry.

Unless of course we want to work from the assumption that we're pricing things relative to their combat effectiveness and consider everything else to be window dressing.

Mind you animal husbandry can have combat applications.  I once played a ex paladin come semi retired fighter who raised his own hunting dogs.  I routinely took five maximum hit point war dogs in plate armour on adventures...

[GrumpyOldFart]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that some skills aren't interesting enough to bother breaking down into a number of smaller skills but shouldn't be cheaper just because we don't need or want in depth details on animal husbandry.

Absolutely. But which skills are "interesting enough" is a call for the individual gaming group, as you illustrated below.

Unless of course we want to work from the assumption that we're pricing things relative to their combat effectiveness and consider everything else to be window dressing.

Ugh. Let's not. I'm assuming that we're pricing skills in accordance to their relevance to the PC's *chosen* field of expertise. I like the idea of the "profession" being as freeform as the player wants, because the real world shows us daily that no reasonable number of professions can answer. We tend to think of Martial Arts and Maneuvering in Armor to be antithetical skills for example, when the merest glance at any football game will tell you that um, no, they aren't. And if a player wanted his profession to be "Linebacker", I'd try to figure out a way to let him.

Mind you animal husbandry can have combat applications.  I once played a ex paladin come semi retired fighter who raised his own hunting dogs.  I routinely took five maximum hit point war dogs in plate armour on adventures...

Exactly. But you wouldn't expect it to have the same relevance to a group playing Fremen in a Dune setting. How relevant a given skill is isn't up to the people who design the skill system.

One of the creatures in my game is a dog that averages about the size of an arabian horse. Dogies, they're called, with a long "O". Nice alternative to horses, they can operate in rougher country, they are less likely to panic, they treat most undead as "bones that play back". Watching an adventuring party's pack of riding and pack dogies encounter a swarm of zombies and/or skeletons can leave the party too busy snorting and giggling on the sidelines to actually help.
People in my game usually consider animal skills concerning dogies to be quite relevant, even if they don't personally ride them. Dogies are friendly enough, you probably don't have to worry about them eating you. More likely the problem is getting a dogie in a playful mood to stop dragging you around the campsite by your foot, or stop licking you from waist to crown, *without* having to cave in his skull. A 900 lb. dogie that wants to be a lap dog can make animal skills very important indeed.

The point is the addition of ONE domesticated creature into *my* game creates half a dozen or so skills that are very relevant to me and my players.... and no one else on the planet. A skill system has to address that for me and mine, without making the millions of the rest of you guys pay for it.

[markc]

 A couple of points I would like to make;
1) Just because I learn a begining skill does not mean others like it are easier.
2) Just because I have a high stat that a skill uses does not mean that I can learn it easier than anyone else.

Another thing is I think RMSS can be served batter if skills were related to professions so a GM has a nice easy list to look at and tell players what they need to have to have to get Y job. I also think that maybe having 3 sets of requirements would be good for each type of GMing style.
 Also fighters IMO should have more skills than weapon, armor, thrown weapon, perception, ect. So just having a high weapon skill does not mean you can get a job with the army.
 The above will also it will tell players that you should not just dump DP's into "adventure" skills.

MDC

[David Johansen]

As I think about it the best model for what I was proposing is that skills are priced at the category level with the category cost being three times the normal cost.  All skills cost the same initially but professions bump the costs around.  To bump a cost down you have to bump one up.

There are two sets of costs.  One for normal skills and one for Languages, spells, and armour.

So for example Melee 3/12 would let you buy individual melee skills at 1/4.

Stat bonuses are applied to specific skills not categories.  When using a skill you use the stat bonus from that skill whether you have ranks in it or the category.

Ranks are cumulative.  3 ranks in Melee and 3 ranks in Broadsword is the same as 6 ranks in Broadsword.

   

[GrumpyOldFart]

A couple of points I would like to make;
1) Just because I learn a begining skill does not mean others like it are easier.

Hmmm.... I'm not sure I agree with that one. If I learn the basics of windsurfing, I have also just learned *some* of the basics of both surfing and sailing, have I not?
I guess it depends on how you define "others like it".

2) Just because I have a high stat that a skill uses does not mean that I can learn it easier than anyone else.

Absolutely. It's just as hard for you as anyone, just your inexperience doesn't screw you as badly as most.

Another thing is I think RMSS can be served batter if skills were related to professions so a GM has a nice easy list to look at and tell players what they need to have to have to get Y job.

In any given profession, some skills are vital, some are important, and some are merely useful. For a fighter type, probably most would say that weapons, armor and perception are primary, vital skills. Secondaries would be things like riding, first aid, strategy/tactics. Tertiaries are things like logistics/supply, camouflage, defensive earthworks, etc.
Now we could debate what specific skills or skill categories should belong where, but that's the whole point, it's ALL subject to the setting. If your setting is North America circa 850 AD, having riding as one of the obvious and therefore cheap skills for a fighter type is nonsense. A thousand years later it would be irrational *not* to include them, but 150 years after that it's pretty much idiotic. Move across the ocean and whether cheap riding costs makes any sense depends on social status. The most violent peasant you can imagine (Europe 850 AD) is unlikely to know the first thing about *riding* a horse, but may know more about harnessing one to a cart or plow than a knight will ever learn.
I think there needs to be some "standard" templates to make things easy, yes. But I think more important is having a standardized, simple (as possible) set of rules for creating a template. What skills are vital, secondary, tertiary, etc. shouldn't all be the same for the infantryman, the tanker and the air cav, if you see what I mean. The player and GM should tweak the template to the character concept, not the other way around.

I also think that maybe having 3 sets of requirements would be good for each type of GMing style.

Not sure what you mean by that. So far as I'm aware, there are as many GMing styles as there are GMs.

Also fighters IMO should have more skills than weapon, armor, thrown weapon, perception, ect. So just having a high weapon skill does not mean you can get a job with the army.
 The above will also it will tell players that you should not just dump DP's into "adventure" skills.

Sure, but that's not up to the guys who design the skill system. If there's more to being a fighter than being bad news in a fight, the GM has to make the fighter suffer for not having those other skills or the player won't get them, regardless of how cheap they are. As long as there are too few DPs to get *everything*, you aren't gonna get players to put points into skills they aren't using.

[markc]

As I think about it the best model for what I was proposing is that skills are priced at the category level with the category cost being three times the normal cost.  All skills cost the same initially but professions bump the costs around.  To bump a cost down you have to bump one up.

There are two sets of costs.  One for normal skills and one for Languages, spells, and armour.

So for example Melee 3/12 would let you buy individual melee skills at 1/4.

Stat bonuses are applied to specific skills not categories.  When using a skill you use the stat bonus from that skill whether you have ranks in it or the category.

Ranks are cumulative.  3 ranks in Melee and 3 ranks in Broadsword is the same as 6 ranks in Broadsword.

DJ,
  I hope you do not take this in any way other than providing a comment on your category and skill ideas, because that is what I intend to do.
  Also IMO your skill system can change very dramatically depending on your purpose for the skill system.
1)   Do you bump skill costs up and down after PC creation?
  If so then you have to have a good way to track the changes or IMO you can have problems recreating a PC at a previous point.
  I think we have all had a player decide to change their mind after going up a level or maybe decide to change training packages after PC creation.
  If PC gen is done by computer then it is not so hard but if done by pen a paper IMO it could be tough to roll back some things.
2)   Category vs. Skill cost:
  I do not know about this one especially after your statement that skill bonus and category bonus are added together. I would have to see more of the categories and skills to make a better judgment call.
3)   2 sets of costs, normal skills, language, spells and armor:
  Why two sets of costs?
4)   Stat bonus applied to skill only:
  If this is the case then IMO every PC will have at least 1 or more rank in a skill they want to use. This is so they can gain the stat bonus. But my opinion may also change depending on how big stat bonuses are.
  Also I think you have to ask yourself, is this skill system realistic enough for your game? So if I train 1 rank in melee does it apply to all melee weapons?
  I can also understand that there are some very strange melee weapons out there and there are some that it is very easy to apply your knowledge to. So it again depends on how accurate you want the system to be to real life.


GrumpyOldFart:
1)   Wind Surfing vs. Sailing and Surfing:
  I do agree that there are some crossover skills but if you have categories like RMSS some do not apply. Such as Endurance Sports swimming vs. running, both require great conditioning if you are good in one it does not mean you are good in another.
  Or just because I am a good dart thrower it does not mean I am good at horse shoe?s or Bachi ball. [sp?]
  Another one is just because I take a math class it does not mean I am good in biology, chemistry, physics etc.
2)   Stats:
  I guess what I am trying to say here is that some like to base skill costs or vary skill costs if the PC has a high stat. I am not really a fan of this type of game system.
3)   Skill examples for job?s:
  Yes I do agree that the skill requirements can vary a lot depending on the game setting. Or as a matter of fact they can vary depending on regions, cities, job titles, cast systems, etc in a game world.
  The other problem here is that if an expansion comes out that has a big impact on your game world it can be tough to add a skill or skill?s to the list that your PC?s have been training in.
4)   Prime Skills, Secondary Skills and Tertiary Skills; Also 3 skill set tables:
  I do think this might be a good thing but again it might cause a problem depending on the GM and there setting. Or even how they GM there setting.
  The 3 different complete skill sets were for how the GM runs his game or world. If they like very realistic then go for the most complete skill list requirements. If they want more variance then maybe a small skill list for the job or maybe something in between.
  Also the 3 differing skill list idea was to show GM?s that they can vary their games ?job? skill requirements.
  I can also tell you that some players will take it very badly when you tell them they should have skills X, Y and Z for job A.
5)   Skill Requirements for Jobs or ?Why do I need skill ranks in math if I want to be a Doctor??
  There are different ways for people to learn the same skill. You can look up the various different teaching styles that show teachers how to teach different students. Also sometimes a person does not know a skill will help them perform another skill better. So math can teach abstract thinking or problem solving to people, even if they are poor math students.
6)   Other Systems:
  I have seen some other systems out there that do have a set of basic skills given to a PC and then a skill list to pick from for Advanced Training or Related Skills or Specialist Skills. Maybe this is a good approach to take for ?skill templates? or however it fits into the game you are running.

MDC

[Arioch]

I suggest to forget about how hard skills are in real life when thinking about their cost, imho it only make things more complex without giving anything in return.
Maybe in real life being a physician is  harder than being a pro-cyclist (I'm not even sure about that) but, does it really matter? If I want to make a physician character I'll choose the profession with the lowest cost for skills related to that job, which would probably means that skills related to cycling would be more difficult to learn than those related to medicine for me. So it doesn't really matter that normally those skills would cost more.
Or, you could make "hard" skills cost so much that, even with the discount given by choosing the right profession they would cost more than "easy" skills. This is just bad imho as you're basically "punishing" players who want to build characters around those skills.
So I say, forget about reality, make base cost the same for every skill and then let profession (natural inclination) determine which skills will be easy or difficult to learn...

[David Johansen]

1)   Do you bump skill costs up and down after PC creation?
  If so then you have to have a good way to track the changes or IMO you can have problems recreating a PC at a previous point.
  I think we have all had a player decide to change their mind after going up a level or maybe decide to change training packages after PC creation.
  If PC gen is done by computer then it is not so hard but if done by pen a paper IMO it could be tough to roll back some things.

The skill cost thing would be fixed by profession.  The bump system is a profession creation system.  If you allow changing professions and PCs to change professions then it will mess up book keeping.  I'm not a big fan of multiclassing.  Especially in a game like RM where your profession represents inherent aptitudes developed over an eight to ten year apprenticeship.  But you could do it, if back checking the book keeping was important to you you'd have to require players to keep a log of what skills they bought ranks in at what cost each level.

2)   Category vs. Skill cost:
  I do not know about this one especially after your statement that skill bonus and category bonus are added together. I would have to see more of the categories and skills to make a better judgment call.

If we had a Standard / Category cost like RMSS it would be beter but ICE has been pretty clear that's not an option they'll be taking.  Buying ranks in the category in this system is literally buying ranks in the whole category.  If you're buying more than two skills there is absolutely no reason to not buy the category.  On the other hand some of the cascading skills would become categories themselves.

3)   2 sets of costs, normal skills, language, spells and armor:
  Why two sets of costs?

to allow three rank per level development on things that have always allowed multiple rank development.  Alternately it could go back to RM2's 4* set up with unlimited development per level but since it's used for spell lists I like the three rank limit.

4)   Stat bonus applied to skill only:
  If this is the case then IMO every PC will have at least 1 or more rank in a skill they want to use. This is so they can gain the stat bonus. But my opinion may also change depending on how big stat bonuses are.
  Also I think you have to ask yourself, is this skill system realistic enough for your game? So if I train 1 rank in melee does it apply to all melee weapons?
  I can also understand that there are some very strange melee weapons out there and there are some that it is very easy to apply your knowledge to. So it again depends on how accurate you want the system to be to real life.

Nope, you don't need the skill to get the stat bonus.  Mostly I put it on the skill because that's one of the louder complaints I've heard from the RM2 guys and because it would let me trim the number of categories a bit more.  As far as the categories go, skill overlap in the real world can be huge and it's hard to separate out distinct skills.  Most western martial artists and SCA folks seem to believe that weapons just aren't that different and raise that as an issue with rpgs presentation of combat.  The footwork and moves are all pretty much transferable.

[GrumpyOldFart]

GrumpyOldFart:
1)   Wind Surfing vs. Sailing and Surfing:
  I do agree that there are some crossover skills but if you have categories like RMSS some do not apply. Such as Endurance Sports swimming vs. running, both require great conditioning if you are good in one it does not mean you are good in another.
  Or just because I am a good dart thrower it does not mean I am good at horse shoe?s or Bachi ball. [sp?]
  Another one is just because I take a math class it does not mean I am good in biology, chemistry, physics etc.

True. Point taken.

2)   Stats:
  I guess what I am trying to say here is that some like to base skill costs or vary skill costs if the PC has a high stat. I am not really a fan of this type of game system.

Me neither.

3)   Skill examples for job?s:
  Yes I do agree that the skill requirements can vary a lot depending on the game setting. Or as a matter of fact they can vary depending on regions, cities, job titles, cast systems, etc in a game world.
  The other problem here is that if an expansion comes out that has a big impact on your game world it can be tough to add a skill or skill?s to the list that your PC?s have been training in.

Yes it can. I think if we can have a "design your own profession template" system that has already used that system to design the "standard" fighter, mage, mentalist, etc. templates, it will allow the freedom to make the template fit the character concept and world setting. An experienced player can *choose* what his primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. skills are during character generation, adjusting costs accordingly. The "bumps" David was talking about, basically.

4)   Prime Skills, Secondary Skills and Tertiary Skills; Also 3 skill set tables:
  I do think this might be a good thing but again it might cause a problem depending on the GM and there setting. Or even how they GM there setting.
  The 3 different complete skill sets were for how the GM runs his game or world. If they like very realistic then go for the most complete skill list requirements. If they want more variance then maybe a small skill list for the job or maybe something in between.

Keep in mind that any given GM is welcome to use the templates already provided. The only difference between character creation via template and via "homebrew your character" is that what skills are primary, secondary, etc. have already been chosen for the template, and therefore which skills are cheap and which are expensive has already been decided.

Also the 3 differing skill list idea was to show GM?s that they can vary their games ?job? skill requirements.
  I can also tell you that some players will take it very badly when you tell them they should have skills X, Y and Z for job A.

I don't think a GM can make a ruling on anything that *some* players won't take badly. But keep in mind that "when you tell them they should have skills X, Y and Z for job A" that's specific to the setting. Can I play a fighter who has no skill in riding? Absolutely. Can I get a job as a soldier in the local lord's personal guard with no skill in riding? Absolutely not.

"Well that sucks, that's not fair."
"You're right. The local lord is a sucky person, he is not a fair minded man. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should train as an assassin instead."

If you allow changing professions and PCs to change professions then it will mess up book keeping.  I'm not a big fan of multiclassing.

Me neither, nor do I think it's necessary. The points I've been making have been based on the assumption that there is no multiclassing. If your fighter wants to learn spells, he can.... as a fighter would learn them. If he wanted to be a fighter/magic-user, he should have created a warrior mage.

Most western martial artists and SCA folks seem to believe that weapons just aren't that different and raise that as an issue with rpgs presentation of combat.  The footwork and moves are all pretty much transferable.

In a lot of ways, they aren't. But RM has addressed a lot of the differences that *are* there. For example, bladed weapons tend to be balanced, mass weapons (concussion) tend to be tip heavy. This does change your shot selection in combat, but changes your footwork very little. Overall, I think the current selection of weapon categories is pretty accurate in terms of the learning curve. Although I could see the sense in expanding the category/skill tiering to include groups as well. So for example, 2/5 spent in the weapon group can either give you a +1 for everything in the group, a +2 for 1HC or a +3 for Mace.

Nope, you don't need the skill to get the stat bonus.

Maybe not, but you lose a lot of it because of the -25/-30 for having no skill. A lot of players do that, buy one rank in everything just because it makes a 30/35 point difference in their skill total all at once. Personally, I'm okay with that. I'm good with players wanting the bare bones basics of every skill they think they'll use.

[markc]

DJ and GOF;
 In your system how would you model the following idea in your proposal?
1)   A farmer who goes to college and becomes an engineer, finishes off pay for college by serving in the navy and then retires, goes back to school for a MBA and then works in the computer field. [This is based off a person I know and IMO it can be done well in RMSS]

MDC

[David Johansen]

Well from the list of training packages you've given me I'm guessing that the profession with no bumps in any direction, Layman, best describes his profession.

I will agree freely that the term "profession" as it is used in Rolemaster Standard System is inacurate and misleading.  I'd change it to "Archetype" in a new edition and have background and professional skill packages.

One way to change up the category ranks would be to allow one rank in five to be a category rank at the normal cost.  This gets rid of the two cost rates, gives a related skills modifier, keeps the single rank bonus progression and isn't particularly top heavy.

Either way, since there's only one progression rate and ranks are cumulative a single category rank gets rid of all the -25 or -30 unskilled modifiers for the whole category.  From where I sit a total bonus of less than thirty is already punishingly bad without bumping it into negative numbers with an extra modifier.

[markc]

David Johansen;

 1) I am sorry but I did give you a zinger to figure out. It was based partly or mostly on my father?s career path and decisions. I also think it can show just how complicated things can become depending on the game world people are playing in.

 2) I guess I would just have to see how all the numbers and rules work together to give the player and GM a personal framework to game with.

  3A) If I remember right this was brought up before and people had in mind a system that started a PC with some base skill costs. Then they would adjust the skill costs for upbringing, adolescence, apprenticeship and first job. I am not so sure about the last one but it does stick in my mind for some reason. Or maybe someone talked about how there first job affected them so much.

  3B) Again the above method could be a pain for the non computer crowd depending on how it all worked out.

  3C) But for a computer game it might work fine. Also I get the feeling that computer game designers often look at forums like these to get ideas and test things out.

  3D) The above system might also complicate PC generation for new comers and make it harder for them to see the outcome of their choices during PC generation.

MDC

[pastaav]

Just out of curiosity...are you aware that Vroom with the aid of the rest of us developed a system that can recreate the current professions almost?

I think the differences mostly come from that we did not pay that much attention to the second cost of the skills and that the talents/Background options and race abilities are not really very consistent in the current RM versions.

[sunwolf]

I'm currently working on a system that gets 2/3 (aprox) of its cost from a base decided at character creation and the other 1/3 from a profession template.  I'm making by using current professions dividing and looking for commonalities (at least with a little tweaking) the idea being if you start with the right base + Profession templates you get the current  professions if you change things around you can custom create and/or switch without (hopefully) unbalancing or breaking the system.  Currently I'm calling them Aptitudes (the part that can't change) and Professional Focus.  How many ranks you can buy at a given level is controlled by Professional Focus.

[GrumpyOldFart]

DJ and GOF;
 In your system how would you model the following idea in your proposal?
1)   A farmer who goes to college and becomes an engineer, finishes off pay for college by serving in the navy and then retires, goes back to school for a MBA and then works in the computer field. [This is based off a person I know and IMO it can be done well in RMSS]

MDC

When I was playing RM2 heavily during the late 80s/early 90s, I had had to come up with "adolescent skill ranks" on my own, as they didn't exist in RM at the time. What I had done was have the GM assign 20 skill ranks in "cultural freebies", skills the PC had picked up just by virtue of growing up as he/she did. What those 20 ranks were in varied with chosen profession, parental social status and PC starting point. It also served to balance things, as RM had grown to about 15 times the number of skills to spend points on from RM1, but the number of points available to spend on said skills had not changed.
In other words, I (the GM) defined those "freebies" according to the player's character concept, leaving the player free to spend his points where his own interests lie, rather than where his environment pushes him.

In the above, I'd define the character's adolescence as farmer. Obviously he chose engineer as a career path, so I'd call that his profession.
Your father chose the Navy, mine chose the Army. Actually mine was already out of college with a degree in Mathematics when Korea called. So he became what would technically be called a soldier, but the military is fairly good at putting people where their aptitudes lie. He became an Army Intel paymaster. In other words, he learned to be a soldier, but pretty much he learned it *as a mathematician would*. I'd say the same with your father, he adds various military skills, but he learns them at an engineer's costs.
Your father got into computers, as did mine. Mine learned them as a mathematician, yours as an engineer, which both probably yielded a more thorough understanding with less work than if a soldier learns computers.

In short, very much as you'd do it in RMSS/RMFRP right now:
Background/adolescence/lifestyle pkg: Farmer
Profession (probably custom rather than template to get more accurate results): Engineer
Later in life, he takes Squid and Computer Nerd TPs at Engineer costs.

[markc]

GrumpyOldFart and David Johanson;

1)   Does your system take into account that people go into career paths and fail miserably?

A)   I think the above situation is one reason that I do not like evolving skill costs. But then again it may be why someone else likes it.
B)   I know your system does not have costs for skills based on stat bonuses but again I do not like those systems as what happens when a PC?s stat goes up? Do you recreate all the PC?s skill costs? Do you recreate skill costs if the PC has a always on magic item that changes their stat? Why do you not as it should be the same as a PC with the same stat bonus. [Sorry for his post if it does not apply but it is one of those things that I avoid in RPG games]
2)   When does the player decide on his skill adjustments? Is it going to be like GOF says at PC generation? Or is it more of a RPing solution as players go through the various stages of life?
  As a side note I do like the fact that there are ?not enough? DP?s to go around. Why? Well IMO it makes players plan a little better and realize that they possibly need other PC?s or NPC?s. I also realize again that this may not be valid for all RPG games out there.
  I also realize that there are some skills that will never be used in some games. The selection of skills for the GM?s game world can be very hard on new GM?s as well as players if not specified at game outset. As I am sure everyone has possibly had a player a little peeved for dumping a lot of DP?s into a skill that they will not use in the game.
  I also like that you GOF sit down and work with players to get the right mix of skills and maybe talents or background options for each players written background. I do this also with my players and after they get over the initial shock that they cannot just have any old background and expect it to fit in my game world things go better. But there are always those problem players that cannot handle the interaction between GM and Player. And I have found in general that this type of player is generally not good for my game world.
MDC

[David Johansen]

markc?  Why are you playing a class and level game instead of BRP or GURPS again?

[GrumpyOldFart]

GrumpyOldFart and David Johanson;

1)   Does your system take into account that people go into career paths and fail miserably?

Thus far, my game doesn't, nor do I see why it should. If you start from concept, are you going to create that concept on the assumption that his/her early years will be a failure? To me that's like making allowance for the PC who is born to pig farmers, grows up to be a pig farmer, dies as a pig farmer, and never does ANYTHING. Sure it's realistic, but who's gonna want to play him?

A)   I think the above situation is one reason that I do not like evolving skill costs. But then again it may be why someone else likes it.

Define what you mean by "evolving". Meaning that he starts as a farmer, averages with engineer, averages again with sailor, averages yet again with computer geek? Ugh. Sounds like an awful lot of housekeeping just to make everyone trend more and more toward Layman/No Profession the higher level they go...

B)   I know your system does not have costs for skills based on stat bonuses but again I do not like those systems as what happens when a PC?s stat goes up? Do you recreate all the PC?s skill costs? Do you recreate skill costs if the PC has a always on magic item that changes their stat? Why do you not as it should be the same as a PC with the same stat bonus. [Sorry for his post if it does not apply but it is one of those things that I avoid in RPG games]

Again, ugh. That's yet another reason why I don't like the idea of stats affecting skill costs.

2)   When does the player decide on his skill adjustments? Is it going to be like GOF says at PC generation? Or is it more of a RPing solution as players go through the various stages of life?

I think I would be okay with adjusting as you go if it weren't for two things:
1) LOTS of extra housekeeping, the players would rebel if I didn't.
2) The higher level you go, the more everyone becomes the same.

And to be honest, I don't see how to avoid either of em, much less both.

As a side note I do like the fact that there are ?not enough? DP?s to go around. Why? Well IMO it makes players plan a little better and realize that they possibly need other PC?s or NPC?s. I also realize again that this may not be valid for all RPG games out there.

As do I, I don't think there should ever be enough to go around. But at the same time, there have to be enough to create a character with some depth. If you transpose Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos into RM, he'll be an assassin, a rogue variant, sure. But if you don't give him the background in cooking and running a restaurant, as well as the subsidiary skills in organized crime, he's a cardboard cutout.
If I was satisfied with cardboard cutouts I'd play Dragonball Z or Pokemon.

I also realize that there are some skills that will never be used in some games. The selection of skills for the GM?s game world can be very hard on new GM?s as well as players if not specified at game outset. As I am sure everyone has possibly had a player a little peeved for dumping a lot of DP?s into a skill that they will not use in the game.

I don't specify skills per se, instead I describe the character of the country and the type of cultures. There are a few I demand, but only a *very* few. If you know that 1) your father is an opal miner, your mother is a hooker, 2) you live in an area of semiarid temperate high plains, kinda like present day Wyoming, and 3) the "country" you are a "citizen" of is actually a collection of city-states, each a law unto itself. The local Lord is a scumbag, but since his troops never come this far into the sticks you don't care about him much, except the rare times you go to town.... well from there, even the greenest of players can get a fair notion of which skills fit and which don't. Granted, they can still surprise you, like when someone says they want to be able to snowboard, should that be skiing or surfing? And they can still get annoyed when you point out that hey, you're the child of a miner and a hooker.... you know how to use snowshoes. Sucks to be you.

I also like that you GOF sit down and work with players to get the right mix of skills and maybe talents or background options for each players written background. I do this also with my players and after they get over the initial shock that they cannot just have any old background and expect it to fit in my game world things go better. But there are always those problem players that cannot handle the interaction between GM and Player. And I have found in general that this type of player is generally not good for my game world.
MDC

See Dragonball Z, above. Doing this stuff is the price of *not* getting cardboard cutouts. It has its nice points, too. Right outta the gate, characters tend to react like *people* instead of cartoon characters.

[David Johansen]

A big part of what draws me to Rolemaster is that I've found over the years that most players can't really handle a truely open character creation system like GURPS.  Don't get me wrong, GURPS 4 is mavelous but most players just make a laundry list of half the book and then try to buy it all.  And their character never, ever matches the setting in the least bit.

Rolemaster Standard System gets them to make a big choice first.  But it's just one choice.  Profession, what do you want your character to do?  Then it fills in your background details with an adolescence package, gives you a few neat toys from background options, and then the training packages burn a good chunk of their development points.  Better still most players can figure out a good deal for their character from a bad one by just comparing costs.  And wow, you've got a character that fits the setting, is competent, has the skills they're going to need in their role and you're ready to go.

Is it super duper realistic?  Nope?  Can I build your dad in it?  Maybe, like I say, I see a Layman with lots of training packages.

[markc]

markc?  Why are you playing a class and level game instead of BRP or GURPS again?

Note: I am not trying to bash any game or company.

 I used to play Runequest a lot. In fact I altered the rules quite a bit to fit anything I wanted to play or to add to my game world from other systems. I used the Runequest rules to run a T2000 type game, a modern and early 20 horror game, a fantasy game.
 I also looked at GURP's back in the early 90's to see if I liked it better then Runequest or to see if it had any elements that were better for me to convert to Runequest. The big ones were White Wolfs Vampire, Werewolf, Mage and any Horror or CoC elements. I did run one GURP's game for a test run and I just did not like how the rule set played out. I also had a lot of time on my hands after hurting my back in 95 and waiting for variuos treatments to play out. During this time I bought a few things as well as looked at the rule sets closely. It was not until I had a chance to play in a RM2 [modified] game that I had a chance to again look at RM. Back in the mid 80's a fellow game player bought the box set and gave it to me as he thought it was too confusing for him to play. Any way during my time playing I had a chance to pick up RMSS as well as a lot of RM2 stuff and the system just clicked in what and how I wanted to run a game. I should also say that I do not use the RM combat system but a home combat system.

 To cut it short I did like how in RQ a player could develope any skill as well as hit locations. In GURP's I loved the fact that you could alter the base system to include almost anything or to reflect any situation. But after I looked at RMSS they other systems did not seem to have the right parts for a game I wanted to run.
MDC