Topic: Question about advancing levels

[alloowishus]

So the rules don't specify much in terms of how a PC trains when they go up a level. I have some house rules regarding the cost and time. I have a half-troll PC who is playing the RCIII profession of warrior. This profession is usually for creatures like orcs and trolls, so if the PC trains to go up a level in a regular human barracks, would it make sense the the skill costs would be used for the Fighter profession? I am assuming the costs of skills reflect the person who is training you?

[jdale]

If the DP costs depended on who was teaching you, anyone could change profession at any time, which would have some pretty big effects on balance. It's normally assumed that "profession" in the RM sense is a description of your inherent aptitudes which are not going to change.

[Jengada]

Like jdale, I interpret the costs as reflecting your background and aptitudes. I would go one step farther, though. They reflect the way you've trained your mind and body to operate, and are sort of "the best case." If you cannot find a trainer who truly understands your profession, or the skills you want to train in, it would be reasonable for them to cost MORE DP.
What I usually do is ask the players what skills they want to train on. If they are looking for a totally new skill, or to advance a skill they already have, but that isn't in the town/city they're training in, then it may be harder or not an option. Put another way, a thief doesn't need a thief to train them. If there are rogues or others around with "pick locks" skill, then the thief can get that as normal.

[Wolfwood]

I've always judged that if the skill is something that they have been using, extra training is not required at level advancement - they are learning from experience. If they are trying to pick up a skill that they have not developed before, spending time with a fellow adventure who knows the skill (in more esoteric skills a teaching skill may be required) will allow them to develop it the next time they level-up. In all other cases, a teacher is required. But even this doesn't take place in some sort of a hiatus between levels, but is something that the character actively engages in during their previous level so that they can then use DPs to advance the skill when they next go up a level.

[nash]

Maybe I'm just nice[1], but unless it's something really weird ("no your fighter can't pick up a rank in a Sorcerer base list while travelling") I just let characters pick up what they want at the listed cost.

I've asked players to get their characters to spend appropriate time or other resources to get appropriate training or materials, but that's about it.

My reasoning is that I don't want to penalise people from doing what they want with their characters.  RM already hits you hard enough to go out of your specialisation.  Increasing costs even more just isn't fun.

[1] Or most of my players are generally reasonable or something.

[alloowishus]

Okay, thanks. I usually have rules so the player has to pay for each rank that is advanced, gives the players something to do with their money.

Regarding professions being based on the trainer or the trainee, it is true that you can technically change professions at any time, I don't see anywhere that rules forbid this, but you would be starting over at 1st level.

[Spectre771]

TLDR:

I never saw the rationale behind "You can't level up because no one is here to train you" restriction.  Apart from the fact that this is just a fantasy game and meant to be played for fun so we can escape reality and hang out with friends for a while, why would anyone want to make having fun and going on the adventure more difficult than what it is?  Why add more restrictions and paperwork and side trips back to town to find a spell user who knows the same spell list you are trying to learn?  During down time, it's assumed the PCs are practicing, reviewing, training, honing skills on their own. Spell users would be practicing spells or reading scrolls/spell books, fighters would be sparring/training.  Just the mere fact that the PCs are out adventuring and learning from those experiences should be sufficient to explain how/why/when the PC levels up.

It's Long, Can Read:

The rules state that when a player meets x-# of XP, that PC goes up a level.  The reason for going up in a level is because they have been gaining experience along the way.  I get there are some things in the game the people want a rational explanation for.  I am one of those people!  I like a little bit (maybe MORE than a little bit) of reality in my fantasy world, I'm funny like that.  So here's how we handle these things:

Spells:
- A spell caster has his list of spells and information from someone (teacher, mentor, book stolen from a library).  It has spells listed from levels 1 - 10 or more.  The caster is only able to figure out how to cast Spell 1 through practice, trial and error, stick-to-it-tiveness, because it is the simplest of the spells to cast.  Eventually, the PC figures it out and is able to cast the spell.  Through practice, casting the base level spell, and trying to work on casting the Level 2 spell, he will eventually learn the level 2 spell.  The directions/instructions are there, he just needs to practice.  Maybe he slowly starts to grasp the magical essence flows and can manipulate them into what looks like the level 2 spell, then he can further finesse those magical floes to sculpt them into what resembles a 3rd level spell.

- A fighter (or other non-spell user) wants to learn a spell list.  It's extremely difficult and requires far more time and practice at the expense of his other skills (i.e.: fewer DP to spread around to the other skills.)  Eventually, through hard work or just dumb luck, he succeeds at casting the spell.  He gets the feel for manipulating magic energies but never quite grasps it fully and the really complex spells (level 6+) are just beyond his scope.

Fighters:

- Practice, practice, practice.  Repetition.  It is often said that to truly master a technique, it needs to be practiced 10000 times.  A teacher/trainer doesn't change the fact that the PC needs to practice on his own, without the oversight of a higher-up.

- Real life experience.  There is no substitute for experience.  I don't care what you learn in classes, I don't care what you read from books, and even sparring in a class with fellow students does not prepare you for a real world fight where someone genuinely wants to hurt you.   You learn a lot very quickly when your first real fight comes at you.  Adventuring, fighting, killing orcs and goblins, getting beat up by a better fighter are all learning experiences that cannot be taught by a sword master or trainer.  The PC learns these lessons and improves.  You, the PC, whomever, picks up little moves or techniques from their opponent that they in turn try out for themselves and add to their skill set.  "Hey, in that fight, I noticed he kept his left elbow lower to protect his flank.  I usually slip a sword strike there but his elbow was in the way.  I should try that."

* - I started Martial Arts in 1983 and I have quite a bit of experience.  Quite some time later in life I was in a real fight and things were very different in a real fight.  Training helped me tremendously, but it is very different having that practical experience.

Thieves:

- Someone (spy master, guild member, crooked uncle) teaches the PC how to pick a lock or to pick a pocket, but that only goes so far.  It's still down to the PC to practice on their own (Tightrope walking, rope mastery, acrobatics, gymnastics, etc.).  All the talk in the world won't improve the ability until the PC tries it and practices it over and over.  Reading a book about picking a lock isn't going to help me pick a lock faster until I practice picking a lock.  The PC would be practicing on their own, or learning something from "real world" experiences.  "That style lock is pretty popular in this region.  I found this lock pick with a slight bend at the tip seems to open the lock quicker.  The lock maker must have tried to thwart would-be thieves by changing this design a little.  I'll have to try that in the future, I bet I can pick similar locks faster."

- Practice, practice, practice.  I can pick simple combination pad locks.  I started on my own bike like back in high school because I noticed the lock was very loose and my mother must have bought me a crappy lock and chain to save money.  I used to practice opening that lock at night, in the dark just for fun.  I noticed my friend had the same lock I had so I picked his bike lock.  He was surprised, thought it was cool, and wanted to know how i did it.  At school, I noticed another friend had the same lock I had so I picked that one too, moved his bike, then locked it again.  He thought it was less cool and was pretty pissed.  The next day he had a Kryptonite lock.  No one taught me, I just did it.  I practiced, I observed, I practiced more.  Pickpockets..... I never learned how to do that.  I tried on friends and family, but I never ever got the hang of it.  I was really interested in magic as a child and had the magic sets as-seen-on-TV, the works.  In those books were the sleight of hand tricks, and reverse pickpocketing to plant the "card" on the audience member.  I just never got the hang of it.  Not enough practice or real world experience.

----
This is just what we do in our group and it's worked for decades.  I have die-hard players from that D20 gaming system and they often ask "Can we head back to town so I can find someone to train with so I can level up?"  Or they find they have enough XP to level and up they don't.  After a bit I notice they are still rolling the same stats and haven't leveled up yet and I ask why.  "We haven't been back to town, so I didn't level up yet."  But it's been 3 sessions since you leveled up!  Why do you have to be in a town in order to learn from your experiences?

[Hurin]

I am 100% with Spectre.

I don't even require my players' characters to rest to level up. Sometimes, indeed, oftentimes, you improve in the actual doing, not in the 'sleeping on it' phase.

[Wolfwood]

I don't even require my players' characters to rest to level up. Sometimes, indeed, oftentimes, you improve in the actual doing, not in the 'sleeping on it' phase.

Depends on the skills or competence in question. Everyone probably has experience of having tried something and failing repeatedly - but then having an epiphany in the middle of the night, or in the morning and solving the problem. It is not that you need a lot of rest, but just some time for your brains to rest and work on it - to reflect.

That's why I also allow normal progress for anything that the character might have plausibly practiced or read up on when sitting by a campfire or travelling on a cart etc. But more esoteric skills and competence need some reasoning (you cannot just work up your occult skill while travelling - you need books or someone who tells you tall tales of mysterious events).

[GrumpyOldFart]

It has been a long while since I have had the free time to run a game.

But for quite a while, I had done away with levels and XP entirely. Every now and then I'd award a development point. Spend it whenever you please, as long as you don't slow down the game.

[jdale]

The need for training can be a useful way to advance the story. It gives reasons for the PCs to interact with people, make contacts, need to do favors. And then in the future those contacts may come to them for help, offer them jobs, give them information. They might need to navigate a bit of guild politics. It also establishes bonds between the characters in the party, when one character is able to teach another character. You don't have to spend a lot of time on those interactions but they can help give the characters ways to show their respect for each other and reasons to cooperate. And sources of information can become a type of treasure, another kind of reward aside from loot. And you might want to restrict access to some kinds of knowledge, for example languages spoken only by the adversaries.

If none of those things are useful for the style of game you're running, by all means just skip over it.

I always try to keep a high-level narrative view of training rather than a strict and detailed mechanics view. I do want those connections, but I'm not worried about whether a teacher has exactly the right spell on exactly the right list, it's good enough if they know something closely related so they can discuss the underlying magical theory. Similar for lore, they should know something that is closely related so they can impart some knowledge the PC didn't already have. For skills the PCs already have, so they are just improving, that are not lore-based, I don't require training at all.

[katastrophe]

We’ve always taken and pretty simple view of this.

Firstly, no one in life actually has levels, you just get better at things you do. But because RM is a level system that has to be represented somehow so you get DPs every so often. We presume that PCs don’t actually know what level they are, just get good at stuff. So, there’s no specific training that goes along with leveling up. Generally you just level up when xp are reward sufficient for it to occur.

Now there are some skills you have get training on, a language you have no access to, a spell or spell list you don’t already know or a skill you don’t already have or you’ve no way to improve (blacksmithjng could be an example). Those likely require some downtime to get to spend DPs

But generally for the most part, it’s just assumed that throughout the prior levels PCs know something they wanna practice and go about doing so when they have a chance. Traveling on ship, plenty time to read, spar and practice stuff. No need to really track that time. Just assume it’s filled with something aside from sleep.

We rather not get caught up in unnecessary minutiae that has little or no real game impact.

[brole]

so if the PC trains to go up a level in a regular human barracks, would it make sense the the skill costs would be used for the Fighter profession?

The troll training in the human barracks sets the plausibility and availability of skills not normally accessible to a warrior troll 'in the wild' rather than altering costs.
Example skills could be signalling or heraldry lore or human languages become available as there is now a story how the character got those skills.
Also is there suitable size equipment available at the barracks? This could in turn reduce access to certain skills if the character doesn't physically have the equipment to practice with, for example armour.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

But because RM is a level system that has to be represented somehow so you get DPs every so often.

Honestly, it wouldn't have to be, especially now that everything but RRs is skill rank-based. Technically, one could merely add one or several RR skills and get rid of the level system, using an alternate XPs system such as giving the DPs once every few game sessions…

[cdcooley]

As written, the rules say experience determines level which then determines DP, but I agree it really doesn't have to be that way and I wish RMU had just gone ahead and ditched the idea of experience points.

But levels do server a purpose beyond RR bonuses and knowing when to award DPs. The core idea of levels is both to give players a sense of progression over time and more importantly a way for the GM to measure relative strengths of characters (and creatures). One important feature to help maintain that relative balance is limiting how much you can increase any single skill at a time, i.e. a maximum of two increases with increasing costs for the second rank each level. And without that limit forcing a certain amount of diversity in skill selection far too many players would create a master swordsman with no other skills with that first set of DPs.

But it works just as well to allocate DPs instead of experience and then calculate the character's level based on the number of DPs. In RMU that would be a new level (and ability to learn more about the same skill cheaply) after every 60 DP earned. (Those racial bonus DP for the first level or two need to be handed out as bonus for each of the early DP awarded to maintain the same balance, but that's a minor issue.)

[MisterK]

But it works just as well to allocate DPs instead of experience and then calculate the character's level based on the number of DPs. In RMU that would be a new level (and ability to learn more about the same skill cheaply) after every 60 DP earned. (Those racial bonus DP for the first level or two need to be handed out as bonus for each of the early DP awarded to maintain the same balance, but that's a minor issue.)

If you go that way, and have an alternate method to compute RR bonuses, you can dispense with levels altogether: the number of DPs is a measure of a character's theoretical power (I say theoretical, because it is fairly irrelevant in practice: a character's power depends on *how* the player spends DPs as well, and there are plenty of ways to make an interesting, but not powerful, character).

My issue with levels is that they tend to promote a certain kind of games: those where combat power is the ultimate measure of a character's usefulness. I would rather see RM move away from that and make combat skills (and combat spells) less important.

I know I can do it in my games. But this is one of the reasons why I've drifted away from RM in the first place: I don't GM combat-intensive games. And I would rather see RM put less emphasis on combat and more emphasis on other skill domains *as a system*.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

The core idea of levels is both to give players a sense of progression over time and more importantly a way for the GM to measure relative strengths of characters (and creatures).

There are zillions of level-less RPGs, meaning that you hardly need such a notion to "give players a sense of progression over time and more importantly a way for the GM to measure relative strengths of characters (and creatures)". Honestly, I think that the notion of levels in RPGs is very 80s or even 90s and that modern RPGs are better without. In RM, the skill bonuses are more an indication of said progression and strength. I mean, even in RM2, a creature's level hardly mean anything with some, such as the tyrannosaur (merely level 8 but 500 hits/SL with +200 HBi) and the vile (merely level 10 but 200 hits/LA with immunity to stuns, a freaking 150 DB!, +200HCl/+180 LBi attacks, and, to boot, mindless thus immune to M spells… and being encountered in packs of up to ten creatures) being freaking powerful for their levels. It's kinda hard for a GM to throw them at his players then, when they're able to defeat them (which is especially hard for the viles, as, being constructs, they don't feel anything thus don't flee nor can one discuss with them), award them very little if following the rules as they don't give any treasure bonus, are only level ten and only provide a F experience bonus…

[GrumpyOldFart]

And without that limit forcing a certain amount of diversity in skill selection far too many players would create a master swordsman with no other skills with that first set of DPs.

To which I say, go ahead. If you create a cardboard cutout character who is amazing at one thing and useless at everything else, I'll make sure you regret it. Learn the setting, learn how to function within it, or be prepared for your character's life to really suck.

[Barner Cobblewood]

And without that limit forcing a certain amount of diversity in skill selection far too many players would create a master swordsman with no other skills with that first set of DPs.

To which I say, go ahead. If you create a cardboard cutout character who is amazing at one thing and useless at everything else, I'll make sure you regret it. Learn the setting, learn how to function within it, or be prepared for your character's life to really suck.

It's nice to see an unapologetically adversarial GM.

[Barner Cobblewood]

But it works just as well to allocate DPs instead of experience and then calculate the character's level based on the number of DPs. In RMU that would be a new level (and ability to learn more about the same skill cheaply) after every 60 DP earned. (Those racial bonus DP for the first level or two need to be handed out as bonus for each of the early DP awarded to maintain the same balance, but that's a minor issue.)

If you go that way, and have an alternate method to compute RR bonuses, you can dispense with levels altogether: the number of DPs is a measure of a character's theoretical power (I say theoretical, because it is fairly irrelevant in practice: a character's power depends on *how* the player spends DPs as well, and there are plenty of ways to make an interesting, but not powerful, character).

My issue with levels is that they tend to promote a certain kind of games: those where combat power is the ultimate measure of a character's usefulness. I would rather see RM move away from that and make combat skills (and combat spells) less important.

I know I can do it in my games. But this is one of the reasons why I've drifted away from RM in the first place: I don't GM combat-intensive games. And I would rather see RM put less emphasis on combat and more emphasis on other skill domains *as a system*.

I agree with your point about conflict, but I think that for say playing with social capital, levels are a more useful measure than skills - a person's standing in a society is not simply that they are skilled, but something both less abstract and less concrete than skills. So it's not because you're skilled at manipulation that you become respected, but the what of who you are and what you've done. I guess you could have stat for something like reputation, but why not just use level as a measure of that what? What would you suggest is easier in its place? 

Idea: It's more stressful to battle a living legend than an insignificant, and easier to make mistakes against them, which is why their levels give them bonuses for their status, and so a high level character in disguise or unknown doesn't get as many bonuses, but the opposite for a fakir the player believes in. Lot of book-keeping though.