GOF,
As to my bashing comment, since I am a mod on this site I try and put my best foot forward and when I do say why I do not like something I also try and point out that it is my opinion and in no way connected to my volunteer moderating of ICE?s website.
Oops. I tend to forget to pay any attention to who's who. I see your point.
As to others and there game systems I also agree that RM is not the right system for some types of RPG experiences. Besides the example you game I could not see the RM system being used for a Paranoid type game. PC?s did to fast [from my memory], so why spend 1-4 hours creating a PC.
I agree. For that reason, and because Paranoia is *supposed* to be cartoonish. It's the Animaniacs of the RPG world, the very thing that makes it fun is how farcical it is. Trying to make it even slightly realistic would kill it.
?Define what you mean by "evolving".? From GOF;
What I mean is skill cost that change during game play, change because of stat increases, change because of level acquisition or in such a way as to make recreation of a PC difficult to recreate.
Thought so. And I really don't see any way to do it that doesn't massively increase the housekeeping of character development, *and* tend to make PCs more and more the same the higher level they go.
I don't see any advantages to evolving skill costs worth either of those problems, much less both.
Also in Talent Law [I know people are rolling their eyes] there is a method of creating the Adol. Skill Back. Table. Just guessing off the top of my head I think it is 40-60 ranks for free. I also think that results of making a custom table for you game will vary widely depending on the type of game your group plays.
I liked Talent Law. The only problem it has is that it requires a GM to go through and decide how "heroic, high fantasy" he wants his campaign to be before he allows any of it. And then he has to put his foot down when his players try to get him to change his mind.
?I don't specify skills per se,..? GOF;
From your comments here I say that you and I may do things the say way. But what about others that do not have such a rich knowledge or detail of their campaign world?
My first instinct is to say, "If you can't be bothered to know the details of your world, why do you want to GM?" But really, the bottom line is that detail-oriented skill systems only work well in detail-oriented settings. In a setting that is not detail oriented, that wide selection of skills is nothing but ballast.
If the GM wants his game to be fast, simple, very broad strokes, he should get the most cut-down version of RM he can lay hands on, or go to another system entirely. And his players should be prepared to be told, "Sorry, you just can't" when they step outside the box. As we all know, no GM can draw so big a box that his players won't step outside it. You can either know your world well enough to create on the fly, or you can force them to stay in the box. I don't really see any third choice.
I know I have played in games like this and sometimes they implode with in the first few sessions and sometimes the GM does say your PC background is not going to work within my setting.
Well I'm not bashful about pointing out problems with a character concept. I had a guy who wanted to be a human-dragon cross once. I told him okay, that means you were born and raised in a lab, and you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO social skills of any sort, including things as basic as the concept of money and buying things. Good luck becoming part of the party without being killed as a monster. For that matter, good luck staying with the party once they find out about your fabulous people skills. But if that's what you want, you go.
The guy was serious enough that he ended up playing the character. And I was serious enough that he didn't have any noticeable advantages over anyone else. The druid was the only person who would put up with him for any length of time.
?..getting cardboard cutouts.? GOF;
I also agree here and it is one of the reasons I like RMSS?s wide range of skills compared to other systems. At my age now I like detail over fuzziness and so do most of my past players and having found a new group since I moved I realized again that some others do not like a lot of detail in their RPG characters.
I'll freely admit I'm personally biased in favor of RM. There's no money or anything involved, there's just 27 years of using it and being comfortable with it. A lot of people want broader strokes. White Wolf's "skill dot" system is a good choice for a lot of them, because it's simple and fast and surprisingly customizable for what it is. It'd be nice to have basic rules for RM that are *that* simple but could expand infinitely to accommodate the most obsessive realism geek ever, so GM and players could extend their depth and realism as they developed a taste for it. But that strikes me as one of those "in a perfect world" remarks....