Topic: What's the goal of training packages?

[vroomfogle]

I think another big problem with Training Packages is they very much assume you use the standard set of skills in RMSS.  Once you start rearranging skills and/or removing skills, Training Packages start quickly dropping off in utility as now they need to be tweaked to account for skills that no longer are in use.

Since skill sets are one of the most widely tweaked things for RM GMs I think this is one of the more serious flaws of them.

[David Johansen]

Well, as currently presented they have that problem.  A lot of it could have been mitigated by equalizing the number of ranks in the category with the number of ranks in the skills and providing a standard number of skills in each category.  For instance two skills per category would make it so you could just drop the categories or skills while maintaining compatabilty.

[Warl]

I am with Vroom that I do not like the TP of RMSS, when you combined the TP with the Cultural Packages, it was one of the MAIN concerns that made me NOT switch when RMSS first came out.

I do like the Idea of having a "Cultural" or "apprentice" days Package. I am working on something like this for a Online  game I am looking to start up. My packages would basically replace the "hobbies" given in RM2/RMC, and actually may give more than that option did in the first place. These packages can only be chosen at the beginning of character creation and are a one time reward. They represent the Every man skills learned in a specific culture and the skills one Truly would have learned from ones apprenticeships.

The actually number of skills received would be small and some would Costs 0 level DPS.

A Human PC who started out in a city might have a different racial package than a human who started out in a rural community or even a barbarian tribe. Could even have a package for the Abandoned in the wild orphan.
The apprenticeship packages would be things like scholar, Merchant, Farm boy, Blacksmith and street urchin. These would help flesh out the skills of a beginning character. Development of the character after his early years moves as he chooses to learn.

[markc]

 I do like that TP give a 25% discount [I think] on skills to represent constant use or advanced training. That said I think the 25% could also be expanded to teaching in some way. I kow there are rules for learning from teachers but I do not remember any that really jump off the page to me.

 If you as a GM are simply looking to provide a way to "well round" the PC's, I would just give them ranks and say you can spend them in X categories or what ever system from RM2 you use.

MDC

[Dark Schneider]

IMO is for enrich the character creation, you know that you can make different characters with the same profession, simply by ranks, but with background options (using talents, but carefully, is better) and TPs you can create a great different types of characters using the same profession as base.

I see that for lvl 1 characters this is very important, for example you can see that a MA user is very different in lvl 1 if use TP Ninja or use any other based on increasing its MA mainly.

Later (greater lvls), I see that is a good method of trainning, if you have a character some time out of play, you can do a TP and save some DPs.

[Pit Ote]

I don't like TPs, I think it's basically used to give away ranks and various things. If you want a character without TP, you lose means that characters with TPs do get. Besides that, I don't like to drive the characters towars a second pattern, I think the costs by profession are more than enough.


OTOH I think it's an element that breaks the so-beloved balance in RMSS/FRP, but I'm not the best to speak about it since I don't use TPs and play RM2 

[Right Wing Wacko]

I like the TP's. However, I only allow them to be chosen at chargen, and only 1 lifestyle package may be taken, but as many vocations as the PC can afford. I treat TP's more like a background or past experiences.
Like many others, I believe they add to a PC's background and character concept...

[smug]

The idea makes sense -- there are skillsets that have synergies so that you can advance further in a basket of skills in a particular time than you would expect from considering them alone -- but the execution looks pretty bad, to me (although better than it was in Arms Companion, where they comprised perhaps the worst element of the worst RM Companion). They made sense in MERP as the equivalent of the RM adolescence packages, too, based on race/culture.

Maybe the problem is just that the RM skill-buy system (which I generally like, even the idea, in principle of the RMSS/FRP category/skill divide) wasn't designed with ease of conversion to a potentially large number of training packages across a wide number of professions. Also, people that see training packages as alternatives to professions (ie, classes), which are not about cost synergies but about personal qualities relating to what particular individuals can learn quickly versus what they can't, would be, in my opinion, misusing them.

Arguably, as well, some Training Package costs for vocational style TPs that are attained through an organisation, are lower than the sum of their parts in part because of an established teaching regime with teachers who are good at their job. That's a complicated road down which to go, however.

[jolt]

I like the TP's. However, I only allow them to be chosen at chargen, and only 1 lifestyle package may be taken, but as many vocations as the PC can afford. I treat TP's more like a background or past experiences.
Like many others, I believe they add to a PC's background and character concept...

That's exactly how we did it.  In fact, it never occured to me, or anyone else in my group, to allow someone to take a package after creation.  Such a character would effectively be leaving the party to pursue this career path (unless your groups have vastly longer downtimes between adventures than ours ever did).  One-shot adventures typically have characters specifically designed for that adventure making the issue rather moot, IMO.  I've certainly never come across an instance where a TP "broke " the game.

Also, people that see training packages as alternatives to professions (ie, classes), which are not about cost synergies but about personal qualities relating to what particular individuals can learn quickly versus what they can't, would be, in my opinion, misusing them.

I confess I'm not following you here.  How are they being misused; compared to what?

jolt

[Arioch]

I like TPs, they add character depth and make easier to figure out what skills would certain NPCs have. I agree that they also make chargen quicker.
I think that TPs should not make skills cheaper: IMHO they should be used only for flavor (and maybe give a few items/ benefits) or as templates to build character quicker.

[Defendi]

I'm a pretty big fan of TPs as well.  I don't mind the reduced cost because it promotes people buying skills that round out there characters.  In addition, there might be skills in a TP that the character doesn't really need (or even want), and the cost reduction mitigates him having to take them.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I'd actually prefer a system where there were less professions and MORE emphasis on TP's and Talents to create the "fringe" professions.

Limit the number of professions to, say about 5.

Non, Arms, Semi, Hybrid, Pure.

That would simplify the DP costs tables both for basic skills purchases and those for TP's.

[yammahoper]

I'd actually prefer a system where there were less professions and MORE emphasis on TP's and Talents to create the "fringe" professions.

Limit the number of professions to, say about 5.

Non, Arms, Semi, Hybrid, Pure.

That would simplify the DP costs tables both for basic skills purchases and those for TP's.

I so agree.  Five templates would be perfect.

lynn

[Arioch]

I'd actually prefer a system where there were less professions and MORE emphasis on TP's and Talents to create the "fringe" professions.

Limit the number of professions to, say about 5.

Non, Arms, Semi, Hybrid, Pure.

That would simplify the DP costs tables both for basic skills purchases and those for TP's.

I so agree.  Five templates would be perfect.

lynn

Or less skill costs ...

[Jatravartids]

I'm starting a game campaign shortly (Echoes of Heaven) and I'm making the players take two TPs to encourage well-rounded characters, give the characters basic professional skills and to help shape the character background.
I'm actually making the TPs even cheaper so the players spend the remaining DPs on broadening their professional and general skills (this will be enforced) rather than feeling they have to concentrate their DPs on only a few skills.

[smug]

Also, people that see training packages as alternatives to professions (ie, classes), which are not about cost synergies but about personal qualities relating to what particular individuals can learn quickly versus what they can't, would be, in my opinion, misusing them.

I confess I'm not following you here.  How are they being misused; compared to what?

jolt

Professions are about individuals and their capabilities and talents, with particular regard to how they can learn to do things. TPs are about skill synergies, reflecting that it can be easier to learn skills A and B together than completely seperately, and can also be used to reflect the learning context. Using TPs to reflect professions is to confuse the skills with the ability to learn skills.

As for only five templates, that seems bizarre to me. I don't see how the whole of humanity in <em>our</em> world, let alone a fantasy world including other species, would have their learning capabilities described by five categorisations. You could have five categories and then the ability to shuffle skill costs to individualise, of course, but that means many <em>more</em> professions, just expressed with less explicit lists. It'd also allow epic munchkinising, of course, so maybe there'd be a complex additional set of rules to prevent that (although I'm not a game-balance fanatic, myself).

Incidentally, the choice of the word 'profession' as a name was pretty poor, I think. Professions are chosen, but learning capabilities are not.

[Fidoric]

When I GMed RMSS intensively, one of my house rule was to use Rasyr's irregular realms (in TGC IIRC) and giving each player a free TP at chargen. For more example, you can follow that link to TGC (http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2003/jan/integrat.html).
That way characters were well rounded and defined. That's the main interest for TPs IMHO.

[Kalu]

Incidentally, the choice of the word 'profession' as a name was pretty poor, I think. Professions are chosen, but learning capabilities are not.

Which is why I always capitalize "Profession" when using the term from the rules. A term like "Aptitudes" would, IMHO, have been better.

//K

[yammahoper]

I don't see how the whole of humanity in our world, let alone a fantasy world including other species, would have their learning capabilities described by five categorisations.

This is a game, not the real world.  No game will ever portray the real world well.  Not even RM does.  RM is great and fun, but a lousy simulation of real life.

Forgoing a long and dull arguement about the shortcomings of rpg's to simulate reality, five templates could easily simulate any profession a player wanted.  The profession is either a non spell user, a semi spell user, a pure spell user or a hybrid spell user.

Each template can them be better defined by choosing specializations, such as a non spell user specializing in stealth and athletic skills, or combat and stealth, or knowledge and stealth, or perception and combat, etc.  The other templates could provide for the same specialization, creating a vast array of possible professions far greater than 20+ pre-set professions.  Training packages could fit right in that design.

lynn

[markc]

I'm starting a game campaign shortly (Echoes of Heaven) and I'm making the players take two TPs to encourage well-rounded characters, give the characters basic professional skills and to help shape the character background.
I'm actually making the TPs even cheaper so the players spend the remaining DPs on broadening their professional and general skills (this will be enforced) rather than feeling they have to concentrate their DPs on only a few skills.

 I did this also in a SM:P game. I gave everyone the high school TP for free and let them go on from there.

MDC