Topic: Old School RM, No DP RM

[markc]

Warning, Danger.Crazy Thoughts Ahead.
 We were talking about old school game(s) (mainly D&D 1.0) in which there were no skills. IMHO this might work for RM in which you had very little options to pick from when leveling up. To do this you would have some sort of chart that listed the values of skills based on some sort of pick based system that would be much easier than DP, and a lot fewer options.
 The pick system would auto raise some skills and let you pick from broad categories to raise other skills. The problem I was having was what to do with spell lists or just how to work that out at all.


 Well that is all, just a crazy thought that someone might make use of or do something with.
MDC

[providence13]

Even way back when.. you did have Secondary Skills. This optional system was a chart in the original DMG, IIRC. Up to DM how these were implemented.
A natural progression of this was the skill system in 2nd ed, where you did have a choice of developing a good handful of skills that had a game related use.

Your auto raise option does sound like the +/lvl bonus in RM ver. before RMSS. As this reminds me too much of THACO, saves, etc, I'm glad it was dropped in later ver. Heck, I don't even use the /lvl "bonus" for spell affects. You have to buy each one after the 1st, w/PP.

With all that said, I think it could work! It's worth a try and I'd like to hear about it. With 2 games that play 1/month, each, I don't have much time for changing rules or hammering out many new ideas. Players don't like change, mid-stream.
  There are some ok rules, here and there, about choosing spells 1 at a time. I sort of like the SoHK Research method. This is akin to the old D&D "chance to learn each spell" for low Int/Wis casters. You could pick /spell like skills or give a discount, less picks required, for learning an entire List..
  You could do the same for Fighters, Thieves, Rangers, whatever, to give them a chance to excell in their chosen prof. I guess you'd go over what they have in the way of prof bonus (to use an example from RMSS/FRP) and give them a break on picks from those areas.

How about using Adolescence Ranks (or x2) and pick 5-10 skills that you excel in. After choosing a certain skill, the cost might be easier, 2Ranks/1 "pick used", to advance that skill. You're already familiar with the concepts.
This way, you have only a handful of skills that you're good in and even less skills if you want to start the game as a pro in that area.
Just some thoughts.

[Lord Garth]

 The pick system would auto raise some skills and let you pick from broad categories to raise other skills. The problem I was having was what to do with spell lists or just how to work that out at all.

Give spell users less options to chose from to balance things out?

[markc]

 The pick system would auto raise some skills and let you pick from broad categories to raise other skills. The problem I was having was what to do with spell lists or just how to work that out at all.

Give spell users less options to chose from to balance things out?

 I guess it might balance things out but I was just thinking that a lot of people do not like to get that into their PC and trying to make things as simple as possible but still keep the D100 system.
MDC

[intothatdarkness]

Look at the old Recon rules for simple d100.

[VladD]

Simplifying doesn't have to be a new work. I've been thinking about using the categories from RMFRP/ RMSS as skills. Just use the combined ranks return and presto! Cut DP by half, perhaps down by two-thirds (or so) and don't bother with Awareness.Search/Detect traps: simply use the category for any skills in that category.

I thought it was rather ok for making quick NPCs and allowing for easy PC generation.

[Lord Garth]

I've been giving this idea a bit of thought. I can't say I have an answer, if there is one, but I think I understand where you are trying to go. My biggest problem is that in the altar of simplicity you would sacrifice flexibility the way I see it, in a straight-line model. I've been going on over different ideas though and some I think could be workable.

[markc]

I agree that when you simplify you sacrifice a lot and it may not be worth it.
MDC

[RandalThor]

For a recent AD&D 1E game I ran, I did away with skills and just went with an attribute+level/2 bonus for all things not already covered by class abilities like thief skills and a Ranger's tracking. This could be further modified due to situation, of course.

Simplifying doesn't have to be a new work. I've been thinking about using the categories from RMFRP/ RMSS as skills. Just use the combined ranks return and presto! Cut DP by half, perhaps down by two-thirds (or so) and don't bother with Awareness.Search/Detect traps: simply use the category for any skills in that category.

I did this a while back (like 5-6 years ago) and even took one of the chargen programs in the Vault and altered it to fit. But, I also introduced specializations: you take any single skill under the category and you can specialize in it up to 3 times, each specialization grants a +10 and costs double the combined cost (i.e., 2/5 = 14 DP). [Alternatively, you could grant each profession a free skill specialization depending upon how many ranks they possess in the "category"; something like 1 specialization per 10 ranks could work.]

Now, if you want to take that and do away with picking and choosing of ones skills*, then all you have to do is determine which skills were primary, secondary, and tertiary for any given class. Like armor, combat maneuvers and weapons would be prime for fighters, but tertiary for mages.

All skills start out at 0 (zero) and are modified by the appropriate attributes, and professional modifiers (fighters get a +20 to all weapons and armor skills and things like that) and as follows:

Primary: +5/level
Secondary: +3/level
Tertiary: +1/level

I would let this just go without lessening the level bonus after so many levels, but if you do, I would suggest not dropping it until you get to level/rank 20; afterwards the skill can be classified as the next lower grade (primary start being like a secondary skill and getting only +3/level) for the next 10 or 20 levels. For tertiary skills, you go down to the dreaded +1 per 2 levels (only added on the 2nd level, no +.5s), which is a far as I would drop it.

With this method, you can really just glance at an NPC or PC and have a good idea of what they are capable of - excluding item mods, talents and such.

Personally, I think it defeats the purpose of playing RM in the first place, but each to their own.

[GrumpyOldFart]

With this method, you can really just glance at an NPC or PC and have a good idea of what they are capable of - excluding item mods, talents and such.

Personally, I think it defeats the purpose of playing RM in the first place, but each to their own.

Exactly. Back in the day, when people asked me why I played RM rather than AD&D, I had a standard answer:

"Take 10 D&D Fighters. Erase their names, their gender, their race and their treasure. Now shuffle the stack and pick yours out of the pile. You can't, can you? That's because they're all the same. You can shuffle my RM Fighter in with a hundred others and I'll still be able to pick him out. Why? Because he has the skills I thought were important for this Fighter, and nothing I thought was unimportant. He's not quite as individual as a fingerprint, but he's a lot closer than you'll get from D&D."

One of the things I always liked best about ICE's approach is the idea that just knowing he's a Fighter does not give you much insight into his capabilities. If you don't have that, NPC enemy fighters can't surprise you.

[yammahoper]

For old school RM, you want about 13 core skills, no more (with spell list and weapon skills being exceptions).

Grab an old Character Law and look at the development table.  I think it was 13 skills.  However, RM has ALWAYS had DP.  That IS old school RM.

[RandalThor]

GOF: When I was explaining to people why I like RM over games like D&D, it was that my character (no matter the profession) felt three-dimensional, an actual part of the world. Not some cardboard cut-out.

But, can empathize with the desire for more simplicity in a game; having tons of skills and numbers to crunch can get burdensome. Though, to be fair, I have almost always been too lazy to build an NPC from scratch and not just throw some numbers down that I felt were appropriate. Some crunch is fine, but when it can literally take over 2-hours to build a single NPC it is getting to be too much.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I can understand and sympathize with the desire for simplicity... but if you're trying to build a person, how simple can you expect it to get and still get a person?

[yammahoper]

Well, keeping with the original posters wish, here is my version of a simplistic RM.

Create Catagories that cover all skill checks.  How about:

Athletic
Magical
Lore
Outdoor
Combat
Subterfuge
Influence
Self Control

Now at each level, give five ranks.  No more than three may be applied to a single catagory in a level of advancement.

Every cat has a stat mod and each rank provides a linear +5 bonus.  Talents and prof may mod catagories.  Each prof recieves +30 in mods to apply to the catagories, split however the player desires.

Skill checks are handled normally using the bonuses from the appropriate catagory. 

Every rank in Athletic provides a hit die of the races type for RM2 games, or 7 for RMSS games.

[RandalThor]

I can understand and sympathize with the desire for simplicity... but if you're trying to build a person, how simple can you expect it to get and still get a person?

I think many peoples response would be: you don't need to have complicated rules to make a complicated character. You can play a rules-lite system and still have a character that is plenty complicated.

[jdale]

I can understand and sympathize with the desire for simplicity... but if you're trying to build a person, how simple can you expect it to get and still get a person?

I think many peoples response would be: you don't need to have complicated rules to make a complicated character. You can play a rules-lite system and still have a character that is plenty complicated.

It's just a question of whether the rules encourage it or discourage it.

"Old-school" games allowed cookie-cutter characters and encouraged play that was about simply killing things and taking their stuff. You could create well-thought out characters and play role-play heavy games, but nothing in the system encouraged you to do so. It was later systems that began to give you more control of character development, in more detail, and rewarded conduct more complicated than killing things and getting treasure. Personally I don't miss "old-school" although I do have friends who do.

[bennis1980]

I raised this idea (of simplifying) with my gaming group recently, and they shot it down straight away without giving me a chance to sell it to them. To them, a rules lite game would take away their characters' personality (along with their many skills and categories). The skills reflect what the path they have taken and give them some tangible as evidence.

I don't necessarily agree with them but I understand where they are coming from. I just wish they'd realise that they don't need their skills to roleplay their extremely interesting (and complicated) characters

[providence13]

That's interesting. My players have a few skills that they always take and some they never look at.
I believe the reticence stems from their past GM's not willing to put in the time needed to work out how the skill interacts with the world.

I often have NPC's using skills that the players don't develop and they look at me slack jawed asking "How the heck did he do that?"
I don't have to tell them that their rear attack was partially thwarted by the defender's Reverse Stroke skill. I just smile and tell them the DB.
  (But they don't always understand and waste game time looking for the obviously invisible magic trinket that gave him such great rear protection.) 

[Lord Garth]

Coming from a RM2 perspective, the first thing you'd need to do would be to consolidate the number of skills. If you add the core books and all the companions, including the arms companion which itself comes with a good 30 or so skills, there's somewhere around 200 or so skills (wild estimate). Whereas I've always loved options, some skills are redundant to the point of confusing though.

Back on topic about a simpler system, specially in regards to character generation, using the core books already brings the number of skills down significantly. From there on, you could have a simple pick method. Mostly any will do. You could go a strong-typed system where you could pick one rank/pick per level bonus, thus a warrior would have 3 picks in Combat for instance. Or you could attempt something allowing for more freedom, but almost surely more math-y. Or you could have the player's actions determine which picks they get. Or ...

[bennis1980]

Or you could have the player's actions determine which picks they get. Or ...

I really like the idea of player's actions determining their skill in something and developing their character's as they go. It would be an entirely different way of rewarding a player for their character's actions (eliminating the need for XP or DPs). The downside would be players would fail a lot more when trying to develop a skill. The upside, though, is they wouldn't have redundant skills (as providence13 inferred) as only skills they use would be developed.