Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Marc R on January 15, 2011, 12:43:56 PM
-
Another issue that arises in these multi-party discussion threads is when a basic term means different things to different people, and thus people end up agreeing, or disagreeing. . .when in fact they're actually talking about apples and oranges. . .or at least apples and pears.
Take this for example:
I think we can sum up the category issue in the following:
*having categories is essential to RMSS player, that the categories make it easy to add things to the system is no excuse to leave category users with extra work to integrate new material into the category system
*the exact list of categories is not necessary to keep, in fact there are categories that probably should be combined or pruned
*the division of skills over categories is also not necessary to be kept, the important thing is the category concept and not current details
*if categories are part of the core or an option is not that big issue, but the complete category system should be in the main book.
I would add that not only skill list, but category structure, should vary by genre/setting. Lumping together various disciplines into Science/Analytic*Specialized is fine for a fantasy setting, but any realistic or semi-realistic modern or sci-fi setting should have it broken up to where most of those disciplines become categories with skills for various sub-disciplines. In a wuxia setting with some added skills, I might break Self Control into Self Control*Physical and Self Control*Mental. Obviously, weapon categories change with available weapon sets, and modern/sci-fi RM versions have always accounted for this. A cyberpunk setting might add Awareness*Virtual. It isn't just that the existing categories, skill list, skill assignment to categories, and other detail are imperfect (although they are), it is that no single set of choices about the details will be correct for any given game, so there should be guidelines for adjusting the skill system written into the core rules (and these should be followed by genre books, including the new SpaceMaster).
Is a Category:
1) A group of skills that share a thematic concept?
2) Is it a grouping you can learn together with category Ranks?
3) is it skills that share the same cost?
4) is it skills that use the same stats (or 2 of the same stat with one differing?)
All of you are definitely using "Category" to mean #1. . .but some of you are using it to mean #2, some of you mean#3, and some of you to mean #4. . .and most definitely that is apples and pears and oranges. #1 generally determines things like professional bonuses and can freely vary between games and genres, it's not game breaking if the "Soldier" gets a different set of professional bonuses than the "Fighter". . . .but #2, #3 and #4 mean any shifts or changes will break compatibility between games where changes are made. . .
IMO if the category bonus, skill costs or stat bonuses differ by genre, then they're not genres, they're versions.
So likely, it'd be a good idea to stay on top of what the definitions of these base terms mean, like:
What does "Skill Category" mean?
-
At its most basic it should be a collection of skills in which learning one would actually provide insight and possibly skill in another as a result.
The problem with this is that you can come up with all kinds of cross-skill relations that would result in some seriously mixed up categories.
As an example: You're a geologist and have learned all about the various kinds of Rock. You are a climber. You are a stonemason. Each of these can potentially help you in the understanding of the other, however you don't want a 'catagory' that includes a science skill, an athletic skill, and an artistic skill.
As much as I like the idea that I can buy a 'catagory' rank and advance a little in multiple skills, I think that the mechanics of it fail the test of being worth the realism.
-
Is a Category:
1) A group of skills that share a thematic concept?
2) Is it a grouping you can learn together with category Ranks?
3) is it skills that share the same cost?
4) is it skills that use the same stats (or 2 of the same stat with one differing?)
All of you are definitely using "Category" to mean #1. . .but some of you are using it to mean #2, some of you mean#3, and some of you to mean #4. . .and most definitely that is apples and pears and oranges. #1 generally determines things like professional bonuses and can freely vary between games and genres, it's not game breaking if the "Soldier" gets a different set of professional bonuses than the "Fighter". . . .but #2, #3 and #4 mean any shifts or changes will break compatibility between games where changes are made. . .
IMO if the category bonus, skill costs or stat bonuses differ by genre, then they're not genres, they're versions.
So likely, it'd be a good idea to stay on top of what the definitions of these base terms mean, like:
What does "Skill Category" mean?
It's a game mechanic, first and foremost. As such, #3 is the most important aspect, although #4 is very useful as well. #2 is true in most cases, Combined progression deals with the cases where this is implausible (and where I would break out the science for sci-fi, I'd also change each of the new categories to Standard progression - although they'd generally all keep the same skill cost and stats). You left out, "a set of skills to which magic bonuses and Talents can add in a standard way". #1 is important where it can justify the others, but you could use the same description for a Training Package, which is a different kind of game mechanic, so I don't think that it is nearly exact enough. Since the game mechanic of skill categories does more than one thing, it is going to have slightly different meanings in different cases, just as "skill" itself does if you try to define it beyond "something that you can improve by spending DP on".
-
Well, in RMSS it's all those things and does some better than others.
If we really wanted to go crazy we could build a three dimensional association system where skills can be related in three different ways.
In a sense, professions and categories are already two dimensions. It's one of those things that gives RMSS character creation unmatched nuance and finesse.
So if we had, professional relationship, similar topic relationship, and similar activity relationships we could represent each in a different way because even I don't want three category ranks to juggle.
Professional Relationship sets the skill cost of course.
Activity Relationship sets the category.
Topical Relationship is reflected by talents.
-
The complications arise on if a skill belongs in it's category and ONLY in that category.
To offer one specific example:Traps should be Subterfuge: Mechanical or Outdoor or Crafts or Technical or Vocational . . .and similar instances where a skill seems to belong in more than one place, but must be assigned to one category and not appear in any others.
#1, it can be all of them without any issue, or it can be moved from one to the other with little complication
#2 raises the issue of "Does the category bonus for this skill by buying ranks in all five categories it belongs to stack?"
#3 makes skill assignment to a category mutually exclusive, or else putting a given skill in different categories is saying that they are different skills with the same name. (i.e. the one that uses X/Y/Y as the stat, vs the one that uses A/B/C as the stat bonus, etc, etc.)
#4 is definitely mutually exclusive, unless you go with #3 above and say Traps is 5 different skills, with 5 different sets of bonus stats and 5 different costs depending on which version you develop.
I could be mistaken, someone might come to a great way to work it, but it appears to me that you can either have strong categories (ones that use three or four of the above meanings in combination) and the assignments are fixed and immutable, or you can have weak categories (ones that use only one or two of the above meanings in combination) and the assignments of skills to categories can be loose or changeable. Or you can create multiple versions of each skill to fit every applicable category (a solution most people are unlikely to be happy with).
Once you stick some skills in a category and say it only sits in that category, people will start arguing it belongs in a different category more.
Someone might come up with a "eureka!" moment to make it work, but until someone does, it does come down to a choice of strong or weak categories. . .saying "and we can do both" without actually coming up with an answer that makes that work is just hand-waving satisfying everyone without actually making that hard choice. . .a choice that's likely to have some people like the answer, and some people hate it.
If it was simple, I doubt the issue would be one that's created so much controversy over the decades.
If I had the ideal answer (or thought I had it) I'd offer it. . .but I suspect it's a bad idea to pretend it's a non issue and just slide past it.
-
But what's wrong with representing those relationships in a couple different ways and sticking with things that already exist in some form?
Just because Traps are related to mechanical skills and subterfuge skills and outdoor skills, is it wrong that the category only represents one type of relationship while the profession and talents represent others which apply in different ways?
-
A lot of people do not like change and if they have a lot of time put into something then they will not change. Also if they do not have anytime then they will not change either.
I myself do like categories and use them for many things and many of the special things I do or mod to my game.
MDC
-
I never said it was "wrong", I merely said in reading the thread, comments like the quote up top. . .I suspect that when people say "Skill Categories" they mean different things. . .and what may seem like agreement or disagreement may simply reflect the fact you're talking apples and oranges. "We all agree" until you actually clearly state what you mean, then you find that you don't actually agree as much as you thought you did.
My post above is not judging, either of the two methods have flaws and benefits. . .and the question of right or wrong is a subjective one.
You can have strong categories, which mean the skills within share a lot, in terms of cost, stat and shared category ranking. . .or you can have weak categories which are flexible. . .unless someone's not sharing a brilliant idea, you can't have both at the same time.
The question of if it's preferable to have strong or weak categories is one of opinion and preference, and likely doesn't have a "wrong" answer. There are things you get from the strong category system that are hard to build into a weak category system, and there are things you get from a weak category system that are hard to do in a strong category system. . .the question is if you prefer what you get out of one, or the other, not if you're right or wrong. . .
-
In Caveman Adventure campaign it probably would make sense to eliminate Subterfuge*Mechanics and move the trap skills there to an Outdoor category, but those trap skills in that campaign are *not* the same trap skills as the ones with identical names and mechanics in a dungeon-crawling campaign, because the traps involved are quite different in both internals and in context. Just as a historical medieval campaign's "science" skills will be different from those of a 22nd century star-faring campaign. They differ not only in content, but in fundamental assumptions and techniques.
So one question is, do you write the core as a generic fantasy rules set and develop the best skill set and category structure you can for fantasy, or do you write a universal rules set and develop the best skill set and category structure you can for as broad a range of settings as you can, and accept that this will provide a structure that is sub-optimal for generic fantasy?
-
If you then say that Mechanical Traps are a Subterfuge: Mechanical skill, and things like dead-falls, snares and snap traps are an Outdoor skill. . .that would be applicable in context to a fantasy game for the City thief vs the Barbarian Hunter. . .
That would seem to indicate this is not merely a genre issue.
I can come up with many examples of how skill similarity via the RMSS style categories are a benefit. . .I can also come up with many examples where they fall short. . .
I can objectively assess that there are upsides and downsides to strong categories, and can argue it both way as a result. . .but I'm not interested in arguing the flaws of strong categories while you defend them. . . .are you willing to argue the flaws of strong categories while I defend them?
Because as I said in this thread:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=10635.0
If you can't see the flaws in the system you prefer, conversation just becomes fighting.
It's more constructive for RMSS fans to delve the flaws in strong categories and propose fixes. . .much like it'd be more constructive for RM2 fans to delve the flaws of similar skills and propose fixes. . .merely advocating the system you prefer as if it were flawlessly perfect . . . .just invites fighting.
-
IMHO you could have special rules for each situation listed in the skill. So for example if you were talking about outdoor traps, under the Sub Mech Traps skill you would have a note that said when X occurs then your get a bonus of Y.
But then again you would be redefining the skills with each genre book and that could be a problem for simplicity of the rules. As it was said above it would be like having a different game for each era of play.
MDC
-
As usual we seem to be talking right past each other Marc R.
What I'm saying is that its possible to represent multiple forms of skill relations in the framework of the rules. I'm pointing to RMSS and saying, "It already does this to an extent in these ways perhaps we can extend and broaden that to cover the weak spots."
Because I'm pretty sure nobody thinks it makes any sense for Begging skill to help with Data Entry.
As I've said before, I think this discussion can't really progress without solid examples of structure that can be picked apart because anything less concrete is insufficiently precise. Unfortunately building such a structure is time consuming and some weeks time is in short supply.
The problem with 'weak' categories is the more flexible you make a subsystem the more ways people will find to abuse it.
The problem with 'strong' categories is that they are more prone to incongruities created by forcing things to fit as RMSS shows us.
-
I don't want to mark your conversation in the other thread a as mine, and dominate it with my frequent presence/posting around here and title of RM Line Editor as an overbearing shadow. . . .It's just people talking, and often around here some good comes of that. . .
But I have no objection to making aside comments, like this thread. . .in which I'm not attacking the RMSS strong category system, despite what some people may think I am saying.
I am advocating that if you want anything good to come of your conversation, you be wary that you're on the same page in terms of what you mean by basic things like "Skill Category" rather than assuming you agree. . .the term "Skill category" means a lot of things to different people, but RMSS Style Strong Skill Categories are a specific thing.
It's very easy for a crowd of people to broadly agree about diffuse, poorly defined conversation. . .The problem laying in the fact that rules need to be specific, exactly defined terms and interactions.
-
As several people have noted... different skills in different categories can be related to each other but are also skills that shouldn't necessarily be associated in the same category.
Thats the strength of a category system, because where a "precise and discrete" skill system doesn't allow easily for such opportunity, where the possibilty exists it should be catered for.
In most cases the exact skill required for the completion of a task can be a fairly defined requirement, where the exact skill doen't exist then there should be a variety of "defaults" available for the player to test against, obviously none of these should result in a character recieving a greater "skill rating" than if they had the exact skill. Generally, the best default is the category bonus because it represents the exact "raw talent (attribute bonuses and talent), aptitude (profession) and methodology (category ranks)" utilised by the skill itself.
In such cases, the player should thus either fall back upon the category "bonus" that required skill comes from, or perhaps the category that another "related" skill that they do possess comes from. The use of the second option being subject to the gm's whim and/or players suggestion. This is where the skills discriptions in rulebooks could be broadened to include such suggesstions.
-
If we are not talking about skill categories in the context of a specific system where the term already has a well defined, game mechanical meaning (thus leaving no room for interpretation) but are instead assuming that we can talk about the general idea of skill categories in RM, I would say that a skill category is an ordering of the total set of skills in a game into subsets, using either:
1) thematic relation between two or more skills, e.g. picking locks and stalk/hide are both associated with a 'subterfuge' theme, so they could be put in the same 'subterfuge' category for this reason, or
2) similarity relation between two or more skills that could make it easier to learn one of them if one is already familiar with the other, e.g. according the movie Karate Kid, waxing a car is to some extent similar to learning karate, even though the two are not in any way thematically related, or
3) both 1) and 2), e.g. many weapon skills are both thematically related and similar.
-
GB,
You're the GM in an RMSS game, a bunch of PCs are locked inside metal boxes the size of a phone booth that can be opened with a key from the inside or outside. They have their usual gear with them, including light sources and tools suitable to lock picking with them.
#1 is a thief, has ranks in S:M and Lock Picking, and a +100.
#2 is a clockmaker, has ranks in Crafts, and Crafting: Clockwork devices, total bonus of +100. No ranks in S:M or Lockpicking.
#3 is a locksmith, has ranks in Technical Trade / Vocational and Locksmith, total bonus of +100. No ranks in S:M or Lockpicking.
Most GMs would allow #1 to pick their way out at +100, then let #2 and #3 attempt it at some penalty. . .likely #3 at less of a penalty than #2. Only the most hardcore "Rule as written" GMs would make #2 and #3 make their attempts at an effective bonus of -25 "no skill".
Would you make them both roll against -25 "no skill" or use your judgement, apply a penalty to their applicable skill and let them use it?
Moriarty,
I'd add another vector there.
1) Skills can share a "Theme" like being "Sneaky skills".
2) Skills can share aspects in being "Similar" in how they work.
3) Skills can share stats, like say Dancing and Martial Arts. . . on the assumption that practicing martial arts will strengthen your muscles and make you more flexible, which will make you a better dancer, and vice versa. Two skills that are completely unrelated in any other way, may be related by stat, which will make them share that aspect also.
-
Marc R;
In your example above I would allow the other two to assist the lock picker and give the lock picker a bonus.
If they were alone and trying to pick the lock I would do the following, Clock maker increase the difficulty and add a penalty and Lock Maker increase the difficulty with a slight penalty.
MDC
-
To be clear, the three of them are locked in separate boxes, per your latter reply, not all locked in the same box together.
-
To be clear, the three of them are locked in separate boxes, per your latter reply, not all locked in the same box together.
Then I hope the person with the Lock Pick skill gets out and helps the other two out as well. ;D
MDC
-
I'd likely rule it the way you did, which is to apply a difficulty/penalty to the locksmith, and a big penalty/difficulty to the clockmaker.
-
They had as much chance to purchase Lock Picking as the thief did and chose not to. It seems like quite the oversight for a lock smith. Even so, I'd probably let him try to completely disassemble the mechanism :D
What you're really asking about there is how discrete skills are. I like them as discrete units, though there are a few WTF ones like Tracking and Reading Tracks in RMSS. I generally rule that one can give the other a synergy bonus with a second static maneuver as per the static maneuver table.
-
In general I think the concept of weak categories is something worth keeping in mind when the new edition is done. I have earlier referred to Vroomfogles great work at reverse engineering the present costs. There was a couple of skill costs that was hard to replicate correctly without the skills being in different categories. Even if it is possible to work around those there might be other reasons why weak categories is wanted.
On the other hand I think it perfectly possible to set up the skills and categories so that strong categories work. If we take the example you are discussing in this thread then the real problem is that you are using a skill list that is flawed. The idea that a character might be expert in fine mechanics like locksmithing, but not being able to use his other skill in anything other is stupid. The correct skill list would have the skills lock lore and the skill fine mechanics. If the thief is great at lockpicking then he should also be able to use his skills for related crafts. The same applies to dealing with traps. To say that a character is unable to use wood tools for making a house, but a master on using wood tools to construct a trap is silly. On the reverse the lock picking lore knowledge would be essential for opening the lock in any timely fashion. The reason lockpicking can open the lock is because it is assumed some part of the lore about locks is gained through practice. Imagine a the master clock maker with a master skill in lock lore...would he really be unable to combine his two skills to solve the problem?
It is great when you can have a skill that include everything about a task, this is true for swimming and a number of other skills. The downside of enforcing a single skill for a task is that then you end with situations when the skills become so narrow that you need another skill just because it supposed to be taken by another professional. In many cases the system already has a lore skill and a "skill" skill, but the RM designers didn't follow things to their logical conclusion. Make a better skill list/ category list and the problem go away.
Looking at the starting questions
1) A group of skills that share a thematic concept?
This is true for those categories that have category progression. Need not to be true for categories that use the combined progression.
2) Is it a grouping you can learn together with category Ranks?
In some cases yes and in some cases no. RMSS shows with great success that there is need for both and that they can coexist with minimal bookkeeping.
3) is it skills that share the same cost?
For the first printing of RMSS that was not true. Yet, I do think all skills within a category should share the same cost.
4) is it skills that use the same stats (or 2 of the same stat with one differing?)
I think it is a good idea for the skills to share the same stats, but really this has nothing to do with the category concept. You can have skills share stats totally independent on categories.
If we sum it up...there are plenty of relationships between skills. In some cases the skills are very tightly connected to an archtype like thief, athlet, diplomat etc. those cases the category ranks are essential to model reality. Other types of relationships is more tied to them sharing stats. In yet other cases the skills are tied together better by belonging to training packages. You could have a set up when you get some extra benefit if you buy a certain set of skills (beastmaster spells can be taken during a lever if you also buy skills related to animal handling).
The idea that you need to nail down exactly what is meant by categories before discussion can happen is IMHO not correct. Communication is about understanding the context of what is said. The category mechanics will serve different purposes for different categories, I think the forum readers are well equipped to handle any ambiguity that is caused by this.
-
GB,
You're the GM in an RMSS game, a bunch of PCs are locked inside metal boxes the size of a phone booth that can be opened with a key from the inside or outside. They have their usual gear with them, including light sources and tools suitable to lock picking with them.
#1 is a thief, has ranks in S:M and Lock Picking, and a +100.
#2 is a clockmaker, has ranks in Crafts, and Crafting: Clockwork devices, total bonus of +100. No ranks in S:M or Lockpicking.
#3 is a locksmith, has ranks in Technical Trade / Vocational and Locksmith, total bonus of +100. No ranks in S:M or Lockpicking.
Most GMs would allow #1 to pick their way out at +100, then let #2 and #3 attempt it at some penalty. . .likely #3 at less of a penalty than #2. Only the most hardcore "Rule as written" GMs would make #2 and #3 make their attempts at an effective bonus of -25 "no skill".
Would you make them both roll against -25 "no skill" or use your judgement, apply a penalty to their applicable skill and let them use it?
Ah...I'd never make them roll at -25 unskilled. It would be -30, modified by the applicble stat bonuses . ;)
#1 unmodified, #2 at +70 and #3 at +100!
Because both #2 & #3 acceptable similar specific skills... I might even of allowed someone with specific Surgery or Mechanisation a reasonable attempt ;) because the tools are available.. Pick locks is simply a "dumbed down" of Locksmith, which costs far more to develop as a skill.
If any have the Lock Lore skill then I'd actually give them a SM roll using that (or the Lore:Technical category bonus at -15 if they havent) first to see if they recieve a bonus!
But then again I'd have treated the Locksmith "skill" as a Craft in the first place. As a GM I do use category ranks in Crafting and all Tech/trade skills.. I don't treat them as combined...;)
My point was that even without a specific "skill" the system could concievably allow a player to use a trained category bonus (at -15) as a replacement for a untrained skill in another category. Obviously there would have to be some sort of rationale behind the attempt, and as in the cases you mooted, it may just be that there is a similar skill to the one being tested in that category.
There is more than one way to cook and egg... most people do it the best way they can.
-
I agree. . .and I do see a lot of good in the RMSS skill system, but if you have a RAW GM, they will tell you "You should have purchased lock picking, wait for jimmy to get himself out, then he can let you out."
OTOH I still recall the chain of similarity where 20 ranks of Dance = 1 rank of Arcane Lore. That logic got completely and utterly wacky out of control in RM2. . .I can just see a master dancer interjecting "That there is an arcane rune used to open the necronimicon's final resting place, the tomb of K'tal B-ehar. . .just something you pick up dancing, you know."
But all that said, I was just saying you should all be clear when discussing revision. . .because eventually people figure it out, that's when the fighting starts over "That's not what I said" or "That's not what I meant.". . .better to be clear up front. . .and to be open to the fact that we all bend the rules to make sense at times, and do it so often that we assume that is the rule. . .but it's not, except in the sense that "The GM can change whatever they want" has always been in the rule. . .
Often, we get into these discussions and say things like "Skill categories work smoothly in all situations." when what we mean is "Skill categories plus my judgement as a GM work smoothly in all situations.". . . .they key being that the first statement is not 100% true unless we can capture your judgment as the GM in the rules as written somehow.
-
I always thought that the cross between Dancing and MiA was a little strange.
MDC
-
I think that trying to create categories will always have moderately serious problems in explanation. Better to make stats more important, which simulates being good at partially related skills.
A case could be made that skills might raise your potential stats once you reach a certain level in that skill rather than skills cross-relating due to category. Say, somewhere between 30-50 ranks in a skill you gain 1 potential point in it's primary stat. You learn 30 ranks in Dancing, your potential AG goes up by one, which in turn leads to a slightly better MA:Strikes skill due to it's Primary stat being AG. No category needed. Course, we're creeping back towards 'complicated' again. Maybe a future optional rule.
A semi-side comment. Those who think they are losing potential DP's and skill gain by going from having categories to not having them, this could be easily made up by the fact that you are gaining 5 when developing a specific skill (instead of 3) and the fact that skill costs will most likely get tinkered with it categories went away. You wouldn't really be losing much, if anything.
-
I always thought that the cross between Dancing and MiA was a little strange.
MDC
I always thought it was unusual that someone might try... though not necessarily the reasoning behind why there is :)
To me the MIA categories are just there to calculate the effects that experience of wearing armour have on the attempts to practice other skills, they are not there to be used in exclusion.
-
I always thought that the cross between Dancing and MiA was a little strange.
MDC
I always thought it was unusual that someone might try... though not necessarily the reasoning behind why there is :)
To me the MIA categories are just there to calculate the effects that experience of wearing armour have on the attempts to practice other skills, they are not there to be used in exclusion.
I was also surprised how many warriors in a game I played in were great dancers. They should have maybe done a dance show for $ when were were poor instead of what we usually did. ;D