Topic: When are you a know-it-all?

[Justin]

I was going to put this under general RM, but then I thought "I don't run Lores they way they are supposed to be, so maybe this is a better question for House Rules." So first, let me describe how I handle lores.
The number of ranks represents how much you have learned. More complicated topics require more ranks. The bonus is only used to determine if you remember info at the drop of a hat, in pressured situations. Otherwise, I judge that you eventually remember or look up the facts. (I might have player roll to determine how long that takes, but success is automatic.)

So, if you do things like this, or can imagine doing so, how would you handle specifically what knowledge the character has per rank? For instance, would one rank in Herb Lore give you general information about all rarity 1 & 2 herbs, or general information about all rarity 1-3 herbs that grow in your home region? Or maybe you spend that one rank(ie the in-game time it took to study) to learn everything there is to know about one rarity 7 herb?
Depending on how you divide up the knowledge will determine when you have nothing left to learn.

What about the less academic skills? For instance, in my current game I have a Leader, and he is pumping the heck out of one of his Tactics. Or should this just be limited by the decreasing bonus already in the system?

[Warl]

I can see that working for Lores that have a definitive "ranking" system like Herbs and Demons and such, but how would you quantify things like Anatomy and and history and other such things that the RM books themselves give no  basic rating for? it once again ends up being either you arbitrarily deciding it OR you jsut let the roll decide if they know it.

[Justin]

OR you jsut let the roll decide if they know it.

And the reason I devised a system and didn't go with the quoted method is that it can lead to inconsistancies. Players should be able to have a consistent world, and esp. consistent characters. If they roll high and know really specific uncommon information about a specific herb, but then roll low for general information in some later session, those results are kinda conflicting. Yes, it could happen that way, but there isn't a mechanic for increasing the odds that you know the general info on something you've previously deteremined you know more specific information on. And that would be even more mechanics that feel superflorious.(sp?)

History for instance I handled originally by saying each block was 50 yrs of general info, and eventually with a later block learning more details. But this is the kind of stuff I'm wondering about how to do, cause I might change it. Right now, the player gets no choice in what they learn, but I want to change that so that they choose what they are studying. This is also so I can make books have their own level of knowledge, so I can use that as an in-game tool for how to increase lore ranks.

[twh]

Hmmm, what if you had multiple lore ranks for each subject, like Martial Arts?  Rank 1 covers general knowledge in that subject, Ranks 2 and 3 cover intermediate knowledge, Rank 4 covers advanced knowledge.  And, just as with MA, the number of skill ranks in any given knowledge rank cannot exceed the skill ranks in the next lower knowledge rank.

[Warl]

the thing I disagree with you on that is that I could Know alot about a really rare Herb, becuase i happened to study about it specifically, but little about most other herbs becuase I hadn't.

Herb Lore isn't Like Math. you COULD apply this method against most math becuase you need to know basic math before knowing advanced math, and advanced math before knowing Calculus.

But If I opened a Book about herbs and their Properties, and I started alphabetically Or even Just randomly, I might learn about A rare Herb before I got to MOST of the common herbs. Or My teacher Might, while teaching me the most common herbs, Teach me about a few Rare or unique Herbs becuase he feels they are really important.

Another easier method to deal with it is to apply Modifiers to the role. You as the GM determine a Herb is so Rare that few know about it OR that since you grew up in the Arctic, and this Herb grows in the desert, that there is little likely hood you would know of it, that you make it a Sheer folly (-70) static action to know something about it.

I just feel that by doing this you are eliminating the reality of individuality in Lores that do not require one to learn one thing before learning another. This is a Knowledge skill, not a practice application skill like Alchemy or Herbalism. Those skills would require you to know the basics before the advanced methods.

[Justin]

But If I opened a Book about herbs and their Properties, and I started alphabetically Or even Just randomly, I might learn about A rare Herb before I got to MOST of the common herbs. Or My teacher Might, while teaching me the most common herbs, Teach me about a few Rare or unique Herbs becuase he feels they are really important.

no no, you don't disagree with me, because this is one of the things I could more easily allow if I broke it up to just "buy a rank, study what you want."
But that still leaves me with a basic question: When have you learned it all? I guess the answer to this would be: when you've covered every single topic, whether that be 5 ranks or 500.
Let me be more general with my question: For any GM who has tried representing specific knowledge with lore ranks, do you cap it any where? Have they ever 'learned it all' (even if there is more to learn)?

[yammahoper]

There is a table in RMC II  Rolemaster Companion II that covers this very topic.

lynn

[markc]

 To put a number to it IMO it would be 50 ranks. But that is just my oponion.

MDC

[Temujin]

SoHK for RMFRP has a system where you can only roll a lore check once you have enough skill ranks to know this much obscure stuff.  21 ranks is required to roll an Absurd check.  Beyond that, you don't really have access to additional information, you just synthetise it better and quicker.  My GM Houseruled that the Sage TP required 10 ranks in 3 Lore categories and at least 15 ranks in 5 different lore skills before you could take it.  I kinda like the idea that you can't take the TP at lvl 1.

[dutch206]

I agree with Yama.  The table in RM Companion II is the way I would handle this problem.

[Phil]

I agree with the general approach, and something not dissimilar to the language chart would do it for me, i.e. 10 ranks is fully fluent (although for Lore skills, perhaps 20 is a more appropriate level). To my mind this reflects not just learned knowledge, but ability to find things out or remember given time. It also saves rolling for "unimportant" stuff, akin to the Gumshoe mechanic.

For a lore, I would always *allow a roll. There's always a slim chance that someone might've heard a totally obscure fact whilst not knowing more well known general knowledge. Possible, but unlikely - hence the big penalty.

[Justin]

Well, I've looked at the table in RMC II, and I'm not terribly sure I like it. I guess the problem I have with it is that the character is a master by rank 9. For a character who rapid develops, that's being a know-it-all by lvl 4. Too early to be so knowledgable!

2 issues which are affecting this:
1) We do not play very often, so I give out the levels fairly easily. The characters started at lvl 1, have been adventuring for just under 70 days, and are already lvl 3! But that took a year real-time. As easy as I might be, they've only lvled twice in a year.
2) I previously ignored the DP cost modifier of lores and languages for simplification purposes. That was probably the cog I removed which threw everything out of wack. See, my primary issue is my Leader who has 15 ranks of one of the Tactics, and probably that many between the other sub-groups! (Leaders have 1/2/2* on Tactics.) I flat-out told him he would not be able to develop the top one until I told him so, and he has graciously accepted it but I can sense the grumbling inside. (I think he sees the open developement of Tactics and Leadership as his main abilities, and views my interference like gimping the spells of a Magician.)

[Phil]

It's in skills like Lore that RM's advancement system shows itself up as being a somewhat clumsy tool, particularly if you have PCs that are running an adventuring marathon, leaping from danger into greater danger, and racking up the XPs as they go. While an occasional rank or two of appropriate lores is justifiable, just how that Sage character adds another 12 ranks of miscellaneous gumpf is a mystery!

I would require some kind of downtime to build lore (characters dont have to spend DPs immediately do they?) and also expect PCs to show some commitment to learning whilst earning those DPs. You could always use the cheesy D&D3 justification of multi-classing (*bing* You now have a level of Mage! You might not have realised it, but secretly you've been studying all these funny magical squiggles before going to bed each night and it's all suddenly made sense!) but that leaves a rather nasty smell lingering in the air if you ask me...

[yammahoper]

Well, I've looked at the table in RMC II, and I'm not terribly sure I like it. I guess the problem I have with it is that the character is a master by rank 9. For a character who rapid develops, that's being a know-it-all by lvl 4. Too early to be so knowledgable!

2 issues which are affecting this:
1) We do not play very often, so I give out the levels fairly easily. The characters started at lvl 1, have been adventuring for just under 70 days, and are already lvl 3! But that took a year real-time. As easy as I might be, they've only lvled twice in a year.
2) I previously ignored the DP cost modifier of lores and languages for simplification purposes. That was probably the cog I removed which threw everything out of wack. See, my primary issue is my Leader who has 15 ranks of one of the Tactics, and probably that many between the other sub-groups! (Leaders have 1/2/2* on Tactics.) I flat-out told him he would not be able to develop the top one until I told him so, and he has graciously accepted it but I can sense the grumbling inside. (I think he sees the open developement of Tactics and Leadership as his main abilities, and views my interference like gimping the spells of a Magician.)

Simply mod the ranks required on the table because otherwise, it is perfect for explaining level of knowledge by ranks.

BTW, back in RM2, 10 ranks was a +50 bonus.  With a profession bonus and a good stat bonus, the total skill could push 100.  Also, far less skills were developed in that version.  Making mastery at 10 ranks was a nice way to be able to develop more lore skills, and it followed the prescedence set by languages.

lynn

[Balhirath]

It's in skills like Lore that RM's advancement system shows itself up as being a somewhat clumsy tool, particularly if you have PCs that are running an adventuring marathon, leaping from danger into greater danger, and racking up the XPs as they go. While an occasional rank or two of appropriate lores is justifiable, just how that Sage character adds another 12 ranks of miscellaneous gumpf is a mystery!

I would require some kind of downtime to build lore (characters dont have to spend DPs immediately do they?) and also expect PCs to show some commitment to learning whilst earning those DPs. You could always use the cheesy D&D3 justification of multi-classing (*bing* You now have a level of Mage! You might not have realised it, but secretly you've been studying all these funny magical squiggles before going to bed each night and it's all suddenly made sense!) but that leaves a rather nasty smell lingering in the air if you ask me...

I DO require that the PC's have time and access to knowlegde before they raise any lore-skill or most other skils that depend on learning from others and it have never been a problem. You just have to tell them this rule before you start the game and then you have to factor it into the campaign. You cannot require it from the players and then run some adventures where they doesn't have a chance of learning anything.
From time to time I tend to throw in some access to training (which usually cost the PCs some money, if it isn't a part of the reward for an adventure) and I use spellbooks and Lore books as part of a treasure/reward.
On the bright side it leaves a LOT of room for roleplaying and plots

Also it is quite funny it see the players reaction when they manage to build up a reputation and people start to ask Them for lessons.

[yammahoper]

Also it is quite funny it see the players reaction when they manage to build up a reputation and people start to ask Them for lessons.

One of my GM tricks that can haunt a PC or puff him all up.

lynn