Topic: Skills limited to 10 ranks

[Dark Schneider]

Personally I don't buy the idea that math is hard to learn really

Not for basic maths, but I think maths for mathematician craeer is as hard as any other science career, I don't know exactly but I think so, in computing we learn some adv. maths and I think are not so trivial as ones used in high school (and this last one includes integrals and many theorems used for derivation, function analysis, etc.).

Then I see more reason to split them in 2, beucase is true that there are maths that are easy to learn but there are others that are harder, and increasing the cost for an unique maths skill doesn't follow this way, because we are increasing the cost for learn "easy maths" too.

[pastaav]

Personally I don't buy the idea that math is hard to learn really

Not for basic maths, but I think maths for mathematician career is as hard as any other science career, I don't know exactly but I think so, in computing we learn some adv. maths and I think are not so trivial as ones used in high school (and this last one includes integrals and many theorems used for derivation, function analysis, etc.).

Then I see more reason to split them in 2, because is true that there are maths that are easy to learn but there are others that are harder, and increasing the cost for an unique maths skill doesn't follow this way, because we are increasing the cost for learn "easy maths" too.

Well...like I have said before there in this discussion seems to be a confusion about complexity vs fast solutions. 

From my point of view (person taken a master of science in electrical engineering) just about everything at high school level is pretty trivial mathematical speaking. There is a clear emphasis on training the students to solve standard problems in a quick way, and very little focus on making them able to deal with real problems.

Should this kind of training really be handled by spent DP...not too sure about that. A more reasonable way to model reality would IMHO be that the character has two or three ranks in Math at most, but that he for a very limited set of situations has already solved the exact problem before and gets a much lower difficulty than what is normally reasonable.

This is exactly the same kind of situation as in other science when you below university level always assume no friction, suiting angles for movement and a ton of other stuff so that the student does not really has exercise any math knowledge or deep understanding of physics to able to solve the problem.

To me this kind of training has very little to do with actual ranks and very much to do with only dealing with a very limited set of tasks that you have already solved before so that you lack of deeper understanding doesn't matter. Give them a real world problem and they totally chance less.

At the end of the day the critical question is if your setting demand archtypes that differ between different expertise in mathematics. For many settings I suspect that the best option would be that being able to count is a talent/flaw like thing that you either have or totally miss. The likelihood that a hard mathematical problem will appear during regular play that does not depend on chemistry or some other professional skill is probably close to insignificant for typical gaming groups.

[Dark Schneider]

All this can be summarized in that in typical RM game set adv. math is not necessary, I am agree with that as we don't use adv. math, the more complex math in a fantasy medial is usually compute a volume, a trigonometry problem or things like that and all that is included in basic maths.

[markc]

 I am going through the skills for a modern-future game so that is why I asked the Q. I think I am going to combine the skills of math and advanced math as other skills do the same. For example there is no organic chem or physical chem just chemistry. Physics is all lumped together as well even though IMO it could be split into different areas as well.
 Also after going through my excel workbook I have more than enough skills so dropping a few will not matter in the long run IMO. In fact after going through the skills and removing the ones I generally do not use I am much happier with the skill set. 

 Just a note: Almost all mistakes in Calculus are in fact Algebra mistakes.

MDC

[rdanhenry]

If and when I get hold of SM:P, I will probably do a reorganization of skills to reflect the specialization in modern, not to mention even more advanced, sciences. I agree that if you pretend "Chemistry" is a single skill, then "Math" might as well be, too. Although I suspect chemistry is a science that may be complete some day, whereas mathematics is certainly open-ended. If you're going space opera instead of realistic, however, you are better off ignoring specializations.

I had kind of assumed the new Spacemaster would have had categories like Science*Physics, Science*Biology, etc. with a Science "group", allowing a three-level hierarchy (with only Talent and Professional bonuses crossing the highest level of "Science"). This seems the minimum to reflect the structure of scientific knowledge and work with some accuracy.

[RandalThor]

Personally I don't like limiting them for RM at all. That has always been one of the strong points of the system for me: nigh-unlimited development. But, if you truly felt that you had to, then I would go with 30 ranks in individual skills and 20 ranks for categories (provided you are playing RMFRP/RMSS and not RMC or RM2, of course - then just go with the individual skill ranks of 30).