Topic: How many XP will an average NPC earn per year?

[Thot]

To me, NPC level distribution in game worlds is important for a variety of reasons, among them the availability of magic items, the PC place within the game world, and the meaning of threats to the general population.

Looking at the RMFRP XP guidelines, I'd assume that a regular NPC will, on average, make the equivalent of one medium difficulty maneuver per day, which will be routine to him, and failure will not put him in a dangerous situation most of the time.  That would then translate into about 12 XP per day or 4380 XP per year.

Assuming level 1 is age 15, the NPC will reach level 6 at about age 29, and level 11 at age 52. Level 16 will be reached at about age 85, and for regular common men, that's about as high as it gets. (Level 21:132 years; level 31: 246 years; level 41: 360; level 50: 474 years.)

Apart from this are, of course, people who experience a lot more in their time: Soldiers at war, spellcasters of critical professions, generally people who are in danger often and are challenged by their circumstances, as well as especially ambitious people who just try more difficult things on a regular basis. But for the average person, these numbers seem sensible.

[jdale]

The awards for maneuvers seem high to me. The difficulty thresholds should be scaling. A 10th level character is not going to learn anything from a medium maneuver using their core skills. They certainly aren't going to learn the same amount as a 1st level character. The rules sort of reflect this by giving x0.5 XP for "routine" things but in my opinion it should be x0.

In play, you handle this by simply not rolling for things where the characters basically have no chance of failing and the consequences of failure are trivial. The characters get up, they have breakfast, they get on their horses and ride, etc. In principle they could be making some perception maneuvers, someone is making a cooking maneuver, there are riding maneuvers, etc. But they aren't important so you don't waste time on them, and you don't award XP for them. The game focuses on the important things that the player characters -- the important people -- are doing, and the player characters are expected to become heroic figures. The XP is designed around that focus. If you extrapolate it out to people who lack that focus, you're going to get odd results. A 16th level character is incredibly powerful and the idea that the old age home is packed with them is bizarre.

[Thot]

The awards for maneuvers seem high to me. The difficulty thresholds should be scaling. A 10th level character is not going to learn anything from a medium maneuver using their core skills. They certainly aren't going to learn the same amount as a 1st level character. The rules sort of reflect this by giving x0.5 XP for "routine" things but in my opinion it should be x0.

Well, I just used the RMFRP XP recommendations as written, and they get me to a conclusion that works pretty well for a world dominated by Common Men...

In any case, 12 XP per day isn't something I would deem implausible for a regular, peacefully living man who has to work for a living in one way or another.

A 16th level character is incredibly powerful and the idea that the old age home is packed with them is bizarre.

You haven't met many elderly, I guess. Sure, they suffer from all kinds of "aging criticals" and stat losses, but their skills are indeed impressive.

But what would be your preferred assumption for "average XP per day" for regular NPC's?

[jdale]

I should probably acknowledge this is a contentious topic, and I tend to lean towards the lower power level than some. That said, what do those higher levels mean? For your most important skills, 15 levels means 30-35 ranks (depending on TPs and cultures) which is bonuses (for standard progression skills) of at least +95. Throw in a profession bonus of +10 and assume a stat bonus of, say, +10, which is conservative since an RMSS character at 15th level will have hit all their potentials. Add up to +15 for background options. You're now at +130.

What does it mean to have a skill bonus of +130? It means that a task characterized as "medium" difficulty is trivial for you, you only need to roll a -19 or better (an open-ended down roll) for a complete success, and in many cases a -54 is good enough. You achieve an absolute success on a 46 or higher, so you achieve an absolute success more than half the time. For tasks that are Sheer Folly, you still need to roll an open-ended down roll to outright fail -- you are more likely to achieve absolute success on a Sheer Folly task than you are to suffer even a regular failure.

What sorts of things might you be routinely achieving on that basis? Depending on the skill you might be swinging from one rope to catch another rope 25' away, impersonating people to their own close family and friends, camouflaging things the size of a house, climbing 120 degree (i.e. you're upside down) smooth surfaces, negotiating deals where all concessions are made by the other party, diving off a bridge onto a moving horse, convincing someone to do something harmful like drinking a glass of acid, creating forgeries that cannot be detected without scientific or magical testing, throwing dice so you decide how they come up, hypnotically persuading someone to commit murder, juggling 9 objects, running long jump of 24 feet (based on average height and +7 St including the racial mod), maintaining morale after suffering 75% casualties, memorizing entire novels, etc. And, again, these are not just things you have occasionally pulled off but things that you almost always succeed at without any special preparation or quality tools, and are more likely to achieve some kind of additional (absolute) success as you are to fail.

I just don't think most people ever achieve those kinds of abilties in their lives. Those are the kinds of achievements that a person might reach if they train intensively and constantly push themselves. They aren't the kind of achievements of people who just go about their daily routines day after day. I think the latter group will be lucky to reach half that kind of skill bonus. And a bonus of +65 in RMSS is something you can easily reach around 5th level, sooner if you have training packages or a culture that includes those skills.

[Thot]

Which again raises the question: What do you assume a regular NPC to gain in XP per year? Surely it cannot be none?


But I believe the issue with your comparison is that

• Few people will spend two ranks per level on their professional skills or the skills they deem most important; especially once they have reached a level that gets them through the day safely.
• RoleMaster's level system isn't designed to mirror real life accomplishments anyway, but an easy way to assign experience in a fantasy game. Naturally, this will result in some deviations from real life (where what you can do also depends on you practicing just to keep your existing skill level). We will have to do some assumptions about how the game worlds represented in RoleMaster are different from real life - not just because of the magic.
  

[Aspire2Hope]

Covered this in a blog musing based on conversations with Peter R/Hurin and other on RM blog
https://wordpress.com/block-editor/post/aspire2hopegm.wordpress.com/1815
could work with the EP levels as well. I think adventurers would naturally be accelerated by the under-pressure skills so an adventuring NPC would be a higher level to a non-adventuring NPC of the same profession.

[Thot]

Covered this in a blog musing based on conversations with Peter R/Hurin and other on RM blog
https://wordpress.com/block-editor/post/aspire2hopegm.wordpress.com/1815
could work with the EP levels as well. I think adventurers would naturally be accelerated by the under-pressure skills so an adventuring NPC would be a higher level to a non-adventuring NPC of the same profession.

You linked to the blog's admin interface.

[Aspire2Hope]

doh!

[Aspire2Hope]

https://aspire2hopegm.wordpress.com/2019/04/09/skills-and-learning/ That should be better

[netbat]

One thing to remember about all those level 16 folks in the old age home is that they probably have significant minuses due to stat loss and permanent injuries. Also, the OP talked about the regular NPC so you are probably looking at potential stats in the 55-75 range(in their area of expertise) modified by age based stat loss.

[jdale]

Stats are less important than skill ranks. +130 assumes only +10 stat bonus, maybe that falls to -10 but that still puts you at +110.

>Few people will spend two ranks per level on their professional skills or the skills they deem most important; especially once they have reached a level that gets them through the day safely.

I disagree. Most people don't actively train skills they aren't using regularly. Whatever your occupation is, you are going to be using its core skills constantly. Learning through use is natural, learning skills you aren't using takes discipline and intent that most people don't have.

Also, if you are only developing 1 rank per level in your skills, that frees up a lot of DP which means instead of crazy high bonuses, you'll have incredible skill breadth. (And at 16th level you'll still have a skill bonus greater than +100 anyway, which is still well above normal performance levels.) Neither is realistic for ordinary people.

[Thot]

I am a bit confused how people seem to go out of their way to avoid the simple base question: How many XP will an average NPC gain per day, on average?

[Aspire2Hope]

Simple answer none because they are not adventurers and only adventurers get XP. If you are talking adventuring NPCs then your average (in your game) for each adventure times the number of quests they are likely to participate in each year. So if your players are averaging 10,000 XP per quest and they manage 3 a year, then let your NPC get the same subject to racial modifiers.

[Aspire2Hope]

Stats are less important than skill ranks. +130 assumes only +10 stat bonus, maybe that falls to -10 but that still puts you at +110.

>Few people will spend two ranks per level on their professional skills or the skills they deem most important; especially once they have reached a level that gets them through the day safely.

I disagree. Most people don't actively train skills they aren't using regularly. Whatever your occupation is, you are going to be using its core skills constantly. Learning through use is natural, learning skills you aren't using takes discipline and intent that most people don't have.

Also, if you are only developing 1 rank per level in your skills, that frees up a lot of DP which means instead of crazy high bonuses, you'll have incredible skill breadth. (And at 16th level you'll still have a skill bonus greater than +100 anyway, which is still well above normal performance levels.) Neither is realistic for ordinary people.

That was kind of my premise for study skills time rather than levels. But there is also a natural limit to the learning based on access to the next level of skill knowledge. In teaching, they call it the zone of proximal development (ZPD) where you need something or someone to build the next bit of skill/knowledge. You could eventually work it out for yourself (convergent invention happens a lot) but it takes more time and dedication because of it being a bit trial and error; and serendipity.

[Spectre771]

Simple answer none because they are not adventurers and only adventurers get XP.

Which again raises the question: What do you assume a regular NPC to gain in XP per year? Surely it cannot be none?

Zero.

NPCs (in our gaming world) are not the stars of the game, the PCs are.  We are not gaming for the sake of non-existent players so all of the focus is on the PCs.  NPCs are at best, seasonings added to make a rich story line and a colorful gaming world.  At worst, they're canon fodder, or even a bandage to help the party along a difficult quest line.  The only long term, consistent NPCs we use are quest givers (Guild Master, Mayor, Guard Captain, etc) or they are shop keepers, tavern owners, healers.  A party may hire a scout to assist them, but once the quest is completed, the scout wouldn't have a reason to continue on.  Again, they are only flavoring.  When an NPC is created, it's at the level it needs to be, with the skills needed to supplement the party's weaker skills.  At level-up, the players should be rounding out their PCs to bolster their shortcomings thereby making the NPC (in this case, the scout) a superfluous party member and as such.... canon fodder.

[gog]

A few issue here:

First is the question of life expectancy - how many live long enough to head into higher levels?

Second issue is the diminishing returns on activity over time, so what gets 12xp this year, will net less in a few years time.

Third the period of no longer being active due to age and decrepitude. What age does some one stop practising there trade and while having a lot of knowledge can't do much more than that.

Forth - the spending of xp on others skills and hobbies, this happens for us all, and is something that I'd suggest needs factoring in.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

For normal people, I grant 12000 XPs per year for the first three years. I then reduce it by 500 each year, until it reaches 0. Why three? I consider that the first three years of one's professional life, is when everything is a novelty and one learns from every little experience, as it constitutes the apprenticeship's years. From then, you're starting to learn less as everything becomes routine. Note that, according to this scaling, one stops gaining XPs after twenty-six years, which isn't bad for me, as I don't think one learns anything any longer after twenty-six years of the same activity.
As people in my world start their professional experience at age 14, when they first become apprentices, it means they stop learning at age 40, which is becoming old by medieval standards anyway, as most would die in their fifties.

[Thot]

Simple answer none because they are not adventurers and only adventurers get XP. [...]

So... there are no people who aren't in dangerous jobs in your world than can actually do anything (like casting spells), because they lack experience?

[Thot]

[...]
there is also a natural limit to the learning based on access to the next level of skill knowledge. In teaching, they call it the zone of proximal development (ZPD) where you need something or someone to build the next bit of skill/knowledge. You could eventually work it out for yourself (convergent invention happens a lot) but it takes more time and dedication because of it being a bit trial and error; and serendipity.

So you'd rather say most NPC's will have an upper limit of skill ranks?

[Thot]

For normal people, I grant 12000 XPs per year for the first three years. I then reduce it by 500 each year, until it reaches 0. Why three? I consider that the first three years of one's professional life, is when everything is a novelty and one learns from every little experience, as it constitutes the apprenticeship's years. From then, you're starting to learn less as everything becomes routine. Note that, according to this scaling, one stops gaining XPs after twenty-six years, which isn't bad for me, as I don't think one learns anything any longer after twenty-six years of the same activity.

Hm, but the XP rules already cover that it becomes less effective of a tool for learning with time, by giving 5 times as many XP when you first do something, down to half the standard XP when it's become routine for you.

As people in my world start their professional experience at age 14, when they first become apprentices, it means they stop learning at age 40, which is becoming old by medieval standards anyway, as most would die in their fifties.

Okay, so 36,000 until they're 17, which means they'll be level 2-3 by then (assuming they start at level 0), another 34,500 by the age of 20 (at which point they'll be level 5), then another 33,000 until they're 23 (level 7 now), then 31,500 until they're 26 (level 9), another 30,000 until they're 29 (level 10), and until they're 40 they gain another 55,000, at which point they'll stop at around level 12.

I, being 43, don't quite see why one would stop learning at age 40, though.