Topic: Can you help me get started...

[GoblynByte]

To add more of my $0.02 in...

[personal rant] Thoughout my RPG career I have worked under one primary rule: The subject of balance is not the job of the developers.  This is mainly due to the fact that I don't treat these like games I treat them like tools for telling cool stories.  The rules are their to create a system of expected "laws of nature" in the context of the world and are not there to give everyone an equal chance of "winning."  The reason is simple: Monopoly has to be balanced in order to give everyone an equal chance of winning.  If the goal is not to "win," why bother with balance?  Any campaign or session that degrades because of complaints of any lack of balance is not the fault of the game but of the group involved.  They should reevaluate why they're doing this and, if they can't come to terms with lack of balance in the system, should go back to playing Monopoly.  The endless (and absolute pointless) quest for balance, and the expectation that game companies must finalize and approve of that balance, has ruined so many RPGs in subsiquent editions that I can't even care to count them.  If the players want to "break" a system and find loop holes, let them.  They're going to do it no matter how hard you try to stop them.  Don't design Role Playing Games....design Role Playing Systems. [/personal rant]

Okay.  I've said my piece on balance.  Please don't let that rant disuade you from reading the relavent parts below.  Now onto the subject at hand. 

I see differing cultures to be only effective if truly separated by a genuine "rift" in cultural development.  So, in the case of the two mongols, they would both have the same adolescent development (basically the same education crammed involuntarily down their throats) and would have spent later years (the years in which they actually had a choice) developing their own paths.  So, really, the difficulties of developing non-socially acceptable skills is still there, but they would have also learned what would be inevitabely learned.  And we're talking about two or three ranks here.  For the most part this cultural impression would breed familiarity (knocking out that -25) and in only extreme cases (like if they practially grew up on horseback) would they get anything more than, say, 3 or 4 ranks.

So, no, two people growing up in the same town but different households, probably wouldn't develop all that differently in adolescent years.  Sure, one might milk cows and the other might tend the wheat fields, but, again, we're talking about subtle familiarities.  Not focused training.

I'm honestly not arguing to any point more than another, though, because I also see the concept of "profession" as being an abstract way of saying "cognitive apptitudes.  The idea that "profession" corelates to a "job" is a relic of RPGs gone past.  Instead I see it as simple way of saying "what that character is born capable of learning faster or slower due to natural talents and apptitudes." 

Of course, one could argue that this is what Attributes are for.  Attributes translate into natural talent.  You have higher attributes that lend bonuses to certain skills which leaves your culture to decide what forms of training you have been familiarized with (i.e. what skills in which you have developed a rank to remove that -25 of total unfamiliarity).

Both methods I see as having merit, but the use of the "fixed" adolescent costs just makes more sense to me.  Nature vs Nurture.  Certainly not a question to be answered on these boards.  But since Attributes fill the role of natural talent, and the choice of profession can represent your focus due to interest (as well as some measure of aptitude), I see Culture as being a third facet that is very valuable in developing each character in yet another way. 

So instead of Talent/Aptitude/Aptitude, you get Talent/Culture/Aptitude.  See what I mean?

[Setorn]

GoblynByte,

I agree with you about balance. It is often over rated.

However, I feel that a more free form method of adolescence  better represents the background and culture of the character.   

[Tarek]

The whole problem with pre-defined adolesence development is the sheer number of different 'cultures' you would need to define.

Take any given civilsed culture. A street urchin would have a very different set of skills to a labourer's son. A labourer's daughter would have a very different upbringing from a labourer's son. A merchant's son would have a very different......

Though in a less urban environment or a less advanced culture the levels may be different, you would still have similar problems (a fisherman vs a hunter, a son vs a daughter, rich vs poor).

Culture should play a part in early character development, but a free form approach with guidance from the GM will provide a character that fit's the background INCLUDING the culture, rather than limited by it.

There are several ways of doing this:
 - A list of required skills (nomads must take at least 1 rank of riding at lvl 0 and 1)
 - A restricted list of skills (city characters may not learn tracking at lvl 0 and no more than 1 at lvl 1)
 - A small number of bonus ranks (Wood Elves receive 2 ranks in longbow)
 - Selective lists (this culture must spend 1/2 their dp on skills in this list at level 0)
 - Just discuss the character concept and skills with the player (I find this works best)

 Rules are there to provide a structure. Making character devleopment too restrictive will just serve to make characters more two dimensional and with less imaginative backgrounds. It add's nothing to 'balance' and achieves nothing that can't be achieved more easily, with greater flexibilty, and more accuracy through a little discussion.

The most important factor in getting a proper character is to develop the character BEFORE you start rolling the dice, let alone developing the skills. That way the required cultural skills will be obvious.

[Setorn]

Another way that assists (I have used it in the past but not right now) is creating a list of skills that for that culture do not take the -25 for not knowing it.  It shows basic understanding that comes from living in the culture without extra ranks or bonuses and if/when the player developes the skill the bonus fades away. 

[Marc R]

IMO, Tim's point about the comparrison to modern k-12 education is exactly on point. In this modern era, you can reasonably expect the vast majority of people in a modernized country to be:

Literate
Share a basis in literature with people of the same language. (Each language having it's defined "Classics")
A basic understanding of the sciences.
Basic Math Comprehension up to simple algebra.
Basic knowledge of history, from the perspective of their nation.
Basic understanding of their national sports per Gym class.
Simple tech: Ride a bike, swing a hammer, turn a screw, use a wrench, drive a car.

That's a pretty solid "Cultural package" that defines a group of assumed skills all say "Americans" or "Germans" could be expected to know. Other than a few sub cultural elements (American Amish say) you can make that generalization and make it stick with evidence.

OTOH, this is fantasy roleplay, usually in a frame of time from Bronze age to Reinnesance. . .

Only the barest hints of standardized education began to appear near the end of that period, and universal compulsary education appears in the late 19th to mid 20th centuries.

We live inside that perspective, so it seems to make a lot of sense to us, but really, it would apply only to a tiny minority of potential game worlds. The vast majority of all game worlds will exist in some variation of a "Caste society" or a "Craft Society" in which vast social and educational differences exist between reigons in the same nation, or quarters in the same city, or social classes in the same quarter, or occupations within the same social class. . .

Only very monolithic pre-industrial societies would exhibit anything like the common backgrounds we moderns experience via k-12 compulsary education. . .almost all of those societies will be nomadic barbarians or subsistance hunter gatherers, who have no productive surplus to allow for diversification of labor and complex social forms that ensue from "Civilization".

[GoblynByte]

True, but we're talking about cultures that are markedly different.  Yes, I suppose the argument could be made that a street urchin would not get the same exposure as a noble, even if they're both in an urban setting.  But I'm talking about a much larger and general culture, not narrow caste or social status.

For instance, those from an Arabic culture from roughly the middle-ages would have a slightly better understanding of certain sciences when compaired to someone from Europe in the same era.  Europe at large was in the midst of a Dark Age where everyday life was focused on survival rather than the betterment of life through study.  The Arabic nations were far more comfortable (relatively speaking) and had more advanced understanding of medicine and other sciences.

Also consider the fact that someone who lives a rural lifestyle would inevitabely learn some form of skill or trade involving that type of region whereas those in an urban setting would learn a completely different set of trade skills to survive.  Can you generalize and say that every person of a rural culture learns Farming?  Well, probably not.  But, again, we're not talking about 5 or 6 ranks (the level at which a dedicated farmer would probably need to at least be considered a "professional farmer" and have the skills to make a living as a farm), we're talking about one or two ranks which, I think, is an appropriate number of ranks for someone who would absolutely grow up with some farming experience (every rural home in the middle-ages would have done SOME farming even it wasn't their primary source of income).  Just as every person who grew up in an Urban setting would at least have some familiarity with survival on the street (they would know which streets to avoid if they were well off), at least better than a person who never set foot in city walls.

But, to go back to the mongol reference, if you assume that profession is an inborn aptitude, isn't the idea that the "mage" mongol would have trouble learning fighter skills assuming that mongols are all born with the same aptitude for learning the same skills?  I don't see that as even likely.  Instead it would be the cultural pressures pushing certain skills on a character who had the aptitude to maybe be a mage.  So he'd get a handful of ranks from his culture (in this case mongol-ish skills revolving around combat and horseback riding), but these would not contribute to his desire to be a mage.  This would come from his own self study later in life...because unless he had a rather unusual life as a youngster (escaped and grew up in another culture) he would most likely not be able to escape the cultural pressures of learning the things mongols are expected to learn.  Kids simply aren't usually given that choice.

Just a few more thoughts.

[yammahoper]

Use Culture Lore-Cultural Literacy to cover the skills and base knowledge the PC should have.  8 ranks at level one sounds right.

Or just roleplay such situations.  A middle ages serf will have a ton of cultural knowledge regarding religion, legends, animal husbandry, fire strting, cooking, skinning and prepping, making cloths, etc.

It is just to cumbersome in a game to try and express all a PC's base knowledge with skill development.

lynn

[GoblynByte]

Use Culture Lore-Cultural Literacy to cover the skills and base knowledge the PC should have.  8 ranks at level one sounds right.

Or just roleplay such situations.  A middle ages serf will have a ton of cultural knowledge regarding religion, legends, animal husbandry, fire strting, cooking, skinning and prepping, making cloths, etc.

It is just to cumbersome in a game to try and express all a PC's base knowledge with skill development.

lynn

But not when  that is expressed as practical skill.  Farming would be a very practical skill as would Streetwise, Caving (for cave dwelling humans), and Foraging (for forest dwelling humans).  We're talking about skills that would be more or less unquestionably exposed to the character in their childhood and that would not, by nature of the environment and culture in which they grew, be introduced to most characters outside that environment/culture.

Now, I will say that the question still comes to my mind of "should these inevitable experiences still be subjected to the same scrutiny of aptitude as skills learned through personal study or interest (the profession)?"  Well, again, if you assume that the aptitudes gained through profession are inborn and thus in place at childbirth, yes.  But that depends on how you percieve the aptitudes of profession.  I think that's where Rasyr, if I understood right, was coming from.

I can see it both ways.  But, in my mind, since natural aptitude (as opposed to expediated learning due to interest and personal focus) is also handled by attributes, I see room for allowing adolescent development be independant of aptitude.  You'd still have both mongols genetically predisposed to being a fighter (higher physical attributes bonuses) and the mage would still be "going against the grain" since the attributes bonuses supporting magic would be low.  But can I see such cultural taboos regarding what is taught to children as being more inescapable than just saying "he wanted to be a mage so he trained to be a mage."  If it were truly that taboo his parents wouldn't have stood for it and force the "standard" body of knowledge on him.  The skills that "every good mongol would learn."

By the way, I'd like to say I'm enjoying this conversation very much.  Interesting ideas have been presented in both directions.  I'm sad that I won't be able to add much to the conversation after tomorrow as I will be out of town for a week.    Look forward to reading the replies when I get back.

[Marc R]

The arabic medieval pack might make sense for an upper or middle class arab of Damascus. . . .

I think the street urchin in damascus is not going to have much of a scientific or math education, probably not much in the way of history or reigon lore beyond the slum they never leave.

A barbary pirate would vary greatly, though an outsider would call them "Arabs"

A bedouin would vary greatly, though an outsider would call them "Arabs"

A non captured, local, ethnicly arab slave would be different.

The variation in even the urban, middle to upper class "Arabs" would be very different in the sweep of geography from persia to morocco and spain. . .we see desert cutlures, coastal cultures, inland cultures, hill or mountain cultures, occupational variations from agriculture, to hearding, to trade, to military. . . . .and even within the "Arab world" outsiders thought they could see, dozens of local languages and cultures existed inside the overall umbrella of the caliphate.

The world tends to be dynamic and chaotic. . .there was no monolitic single "Arab" identity shared by all, any more than there was a single monolithic "Roman" identity inside the empire. People tended to live very varied lives before universal education and broadcast media homogonized them.

[PiXeL01]

So basically it seems some people want players to develope lvl 0 "for the cultural flavor" and in consistance with the characters background, show that to the GM, let the player tell his story and then see if the GM agrees or wants to change it because it isnt cultural enough?

/rant Personally I am sick of people trying to stick so much realisme or base a game of FANTASY on earth facts and historical events and developments. leave alot of that if not all at the door when you enter the realms of RPGs ... please ... Like someone said I believe in another tread this isnt a simulator/rant

I actually like the cultural packages. they give players and characters a bunch of skills to fall back on which the average person in this Fantazy realm knows and can use. What you could do is create a bunch of average package for the cultures in your world and then based on the characters story adjust it, but not too much from the cultural archetype.

[yammahoper]

The conflict as I see it is lays in the original form of RPG's, as dungeon crawls and combat simulators with varying levels of story but absolutely no concern for the rest of the world, consistency or whatever.  RPG's are seen as a game just like any other, and often a tactical simulation by most.

Current RPG forms stress games with solid frame works and a wealth of details about the game world, in game meta mechanics such as spell casting and the orgins of magic, history and time lines to show how the world progressed, monsters that makes sense, both in their respective ecology AND biology, because all these details are used to add a sense of verasimilitude and back ground for story archs.  Today, the story reigns supreme, killing off a PC just cuz the dice say so or for a frivilious combat, hordes of treasure on the corpes of the giant spiders, hordes of treasure at all..."more realistic" is the mainstay, if not in the mechanics due to complexity, most certainly in the setting details and story arch.

lynn

[Marc R]

I agree with lynn, if you're going to just assign skills, whatever, if you're going to decide to take your game to the point where "Culture" means something and affects your development, then you've stepped beyond the character sheet into story and context. . .at which point the points brought up here apply.

[Tarek]

So basically it seems some people want players to develope lvl 0 "for the cultural flavor" and in consistance with the characters background, show that to the GM, let the player tell his story and then see if the GM agrees or wants to change it because it isnt cultural enough?

No, I like level 0 simply because it lets the player tell his story. Cultural lists either limit the character or require a huge amount of work to develop properly.

Taking RMFRP cultures as an example, a street urchin would be an Urban Man. So how does he develop all tose magical skills? What about he nomad who was raised from birth to be the shaman's apprentice? would he really be as proficient on horseback or with weapons if he spent his early life in the back of a wagon being schooled in magic?

I prefer level 0 development because it allows the flexibility for a player to develop exactly the character he wants, rather than being limited by a predefined notion of what a skills character from his cultural background should have. The characters culture should guide his skills not dictate them.

Having said all that, I do allocate 6 ranks to cultural skills, to allow for higher than normal starting skills where appropriate (nomads with horseriding, wood elves with long bow being obvious examples) as well as skills such as culture lore and region lore for free. These are skills that absolutely any character from that race would have, without taking an absolutely arbitary approach to level 0 development.

[pastaav]

Nope, never owned nor played MERP. However, I did play RM2 under one GM who had setup his world with a culture system like that found in MERP (I have looked through the book before ). And you know what? It never, ever, caused any problems, and we played using those cultures for something close to 10 years (several different campaigns, dozens of characters).

I have played MERP. RM2 and RMFRP and agree there are no real problem caused by how the books give culture ranks that a GM can not work out with his group. If nothing else this is not a problem if everyone or nobody exploit this loophole.

Still there are potential problems with such approach that both I and for instance Lord Miller has pointed out. These problems might not be game breaking, but they suggest some thought should be taken before such apporach is taken to model cultures. The barbarian mage is the most obvious sanity check to verify if the new culture will create problems or not.

An no, I wasn't using the meta order of anything.. I was saying that the character (not the player) absorbs his culture before he grows up and can decide what profession he will follow as a result.

Umm...are you talking about profession in the RM sense or profession as in synonym to real world occupation of the character?

If you mean occupation I do agree that is something you learn after you grow up in a culture. Myself I most certainly was talking about RM professions and I have great difficulty to think of the choice of profession as anything else than a meta choice. The difference between fighter and thief does seem very hard to attribute to what character did between say 13-16 years age, such a large difference in aptitudes seem for me far more fundamental.
 

And the cultures as I described them replace 1 level of development. But they still have another level of development before they hit first level. So yes, two characters will be similar because they come from the same culture, but they won't be identical.

Let's hope the game does not include two children then. That latter development blurry things is kind of given. Your post give me the mental picture of MMORPG character that materalize full grown and runs out to start bashing monsters.

If you wanted to relate Culture to something modern - it would be the equivalent of primary school (grades 1-8 in the US). Everybody basically gets taught the same thing (and then this is where hobbies would come into play to allow for minor variations), and then once they go to high school, they are doing their apprenticeship development, to learn their profession for when they reach adulthood.

No, I don't want to do that. You fantasy world may have the equivalent of a US primary school that everyone take, but mine does surely not. A more dynamic world where some children get education while others live on scraps on the street make the game much more interesting IMHO.