Topic: The lightest possible set of rules

[Witchking20k]

Preaching to the choir here.  I use RMX and a custom cross over of skills based on the MM table.  Want to make an appraisal roll for a sword you founf- Roll Lore General and add a bonus based on your Sword skill (using the Very Hard column: ie +21-40 gives a +5).  Want to use TWC same approach different column....

Oh and totally agree to reducing the rolls used- although I am a big proponent of using skills other than combat and spell casting skills to encourage well rounded game play.

[Peter R]

I agree- but I very rarely stat NPCs anyway.  There are no interaction rules in RM as far as I know- well, I guess the Influence/Interaction column of the old SM table.  But, that is reliant on skill....which seems silly

I'll give bare essential stats for factors I think they'll need.  QU (and a stat bonus),  DB, OB for the weapons.  Then if he's a specialist like a horseman, I'll throw some Riding stats and maybe some animal related skills.  The "guard" type NPC's will get stats for Sense Ambush Assassin, General Perception, Hearing Perception, and such, but I won't roll up all 10 stats, all stat gains, spend all the DP's, etc.  (We do have a GM who does do all of that and gets to the microscopic level, but that's what he loves to do.)

When I'm really in a pinch I grab Heroes and Rogues and that book is loaded with tons of awesomeness.

I am not suggesting rolling up everyone in the world. I want nothing more than a single Post-it note for any or all NPCs I am not expecting the players to try and kill (I know that doesn't always narrow down the list that much). Funnily enough it was the mental stats that I felt were more important as these can colour the interactions with the players and even the choice as to which NPC the players choose to interact with.

[Peter R]

Preaching to the choir here.  I use RMX and a custom cross over of skills based on the MM table.  Want to make an appraisal roll for a sword you founf- Roll Lore General and add a bonus based on your Sword skill (using the Very Hard column: ie +21-40 gives a +5).  Want to use TWC same approach different column....

I like the "skills as lore" ruling. If you want to appraise as sword you can roll your sword skill if you have it. I assume that a trained swordsman would recognise a decent sword when they saw one.

[Witchking20k]

I interpret lore general as general knowledge and worldliness- so it really encourages players to develop it too.  Then use it as the basis fo the cross over roll more often then not.  When I first started playing RMX that was part of the challenge- reverting to 28 skills and keeping the game within those.   In fact I use armour as a single skill and only 2 weapon costs (1 for melee weapons, and 1 for missile weapons) too, so really I use about 20 skills.  I also like interpreting knowledge based on character type ( a combination of race & profession)  So a Wood Elf Fighter might have an easier time making knowledge rolls based on Weapons & Armour and Flora/Fauna Lore for example.  If you make your players write a background of some sort you can pull these directly from it.

[Peter R]

I have one player who writes his character background as if he has never seen hs charactersheet or the other way around. His current character is 4th level as has only spent DPs on weapons, spells, Body Dev and perception plus two skills I insisted he bought. He character background has him as a "deep thinking" and problem solver!

I keep putting him in situations where his lack of general knowledge keeps putting him in a bit of a hole.

[Witchking20k]

heh- typical

[Inez Hull]

The descriptive solution to skill resolution comes down to different play styles and that in itself is covered by "The GM is the final judge as to what is a maneuver and requires a roll, and what is normal activity and does not require a roll" from the RAW.

I agree with this as an ideal, however my own experience has suggested that games with highly detailed skill systems tends result in over reliance on dice. The previous post on my blog discusses some of my experiences and thoughts on that. Also my intent was to present Rolemaster in a format appealing to OSR gamers who tend to be suspicious of games favouring character ability over player skill and too much rules detail. It's the kind of advice only aimed at folks who have only played "roll for everything".

For my taste your hack goes too far down the road that ends in the resulting game not being RM. I am working up a houseruled game that is based on no profession and also level-less but that is not what I am looking to achieve here.

You've had some great stuff at TheRolemasterBlog lately, look forward to seeing what else you put up. It's funny, I never considered going level-less, for me that would be going to far from Rolemaster!

Finally your take on the way that spells are bought in RMU (spells as skills) is something that I will never, ever allow into my game again as it produces kind of genericaly boring spell casters and that is something I don't like.

I agree with your sentiment that individual spells can lead to the same spells getting cherry picked, however I'm also leary of enforcing diversity in character design.

[Peter R]

I actively encourage spell research in my game and the use of spell mastery as a skill.

Additionally I use 'special effects' to differentiate spells. I mean things that have no impact on the game mechanics but make a great deal of difference to how the magic is perceived. As an example two characters cast Fly and one would have translucent wings grow from his back whilst the other steps upon a cloud that forms by their feet. The special effects are worked out between the player and I to reflect how they see their character'sheets magic.

My level-less game, so far in testing, plays just like RM with a slightly restricted skill set. The only time the level-less nature comes up is when we are at the point where you would normally dish out experience.

[Witchking20k]

I love a level-less game.  I have a draft based on RMX that I have never play tested.

[Peter R]

I am using the same basic method as runequest and call of cuthuhu uses, roll d100 and if you roll more that your current skill you gain a rank. You get to roll for every skill you have used during the adventure.

The old level bonuses are now applied to ranks not levels.

Spell Law uses rank not level and spell lists are learned one spell at a time as you gain ranks in the list.

PowerPoints use the skill for progression.

[Witchking20k]

That would work well. 
I used a XP=DP break down based on so every 500XP = 1DP and adjusted the stat bonuses to make the game more stat driven (70-79=+5, 80-89=+10, etc).  Skills costs are cumulative and based on the 1st number in the classic RM cost so 1/5 = 1DP for rank 1, 2DP for rank two, 3DP for rank 3 etc..  a skill of 2/7 would be 2/4/6/8 etc...Level bonuses were flat 5*+/level so, +3/level  would be +15.   I'm sure there would eb all kinds of hiccups with it; but, hey you never know until you try.....

[yammahoper]

I love a level-less game. 

+1

[Witchking20k]

I ran a very long campaign doing 1/2 levels; where you could spend 50% of your DPs at a half level and develop 1 rank in a skill.  We liked the flow, but the constant character updates were a pain

[Peter R]

Half levels seem like a lot of work unless you are playing a very high level game where leveling up happens very infrequently.

[Peter R]

That would work well. 
I used a XP=DP break down based on so every 500XP = 1DP and adjusted the stat bonuses to make the game more stat driven (70-79=+5, 80-89=+10, etc).  Skills costs are cumulative and based on the 1st number in the classic RM cost so 1/5 = 1DP for rank 1, 2DP for rank two, 3DP for rank 3 etc..  a skill of 2/7 would be 2/4/6/8 etc...Level bonuses were flat 5*+/level so, +3/level  would be +15.   I'm sure there would eb all kinds of hiccups with it; but, hey you never know until you try.....

I am quite tempted to use an RMU style stat bonuses where the bonuses are smaller but added together rather than averaged. I would combine that with a smoothed stat bonus table so the bonuses start sooner. If I go that way I may consider a point buy stat system with maybe 700 points for the 10 stats and an additional 100 points to spend on potentials.

Stat gains would work the same way as skills in that at the end of each adventure, roll d100 if you roll over your current stat it goes up by one.

[Witchking20k]

It would be interesting to differentiate between the rate of skill development by having to have multiple successes to increase them.

So, for example: a "warrior" might need to have 3 successes in Runes or Staves/Wands before you can increase the skill by 1%.  Eache skill could have 3 boxes next to it to track the cumulative successes...

[Peter R]

It would be interesting to differentiate between the rate of skill development by having to have multiple successes to increase them.

So, for example: a "warrior" might need to have 3 successes in Runes or Staves/Wands before you can increase the skill by 1%.  Eache skill could have 3 boxes next to it to track the cumulative successes...

Yes you could do that. I am looking at a 'No Profession' game so there would be no Warrior to differentiate in that way. If you use a skill and succeed then you can tick it and then roll to improve it. If you roll greater than your currency skill you gain a rank.

The starting character will be built with 50DP for apprenticeship and 50DP for 1st level. That will enable the player to set the toneof the character. If you want to play a mage type then you buy Runes, Staves/Wands and Magical Lore which means that when you attempt these skills you have a greater chance of success and they will continue to improve. Your fighter type can also attempt to read a rune but chances are he/she will need an open ended roll to succeed but then they have a very good chance of getting that first rank in the skill.

Increasing skills a rank at a time maintains the RM way of skill progression and using Rank as Level for RRs and Spell effects, durations etc.

[Witchking20k]

Interesting.   How do you handle partial successes from MM & SM for example- the single biggest difference between RM and other systems is the partial success mechanics

[Peter R]

Interesting.   How do you handle partial successes from MM & SM for example- the single biggest difference between RM and other systems is the partial success mechanics

If you mean would a partial success earn you a chance at improving a skill then yes I would count that as a successful  use.

[Witchking20k]

That is exactly what I meant.