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

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

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.

That gives level 3 at 17, level 5 at 20, level 7 at 23, level 8 at 26, level 9 at 29 and level 10 at 40.

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

You live in a medieval society, with the matching life expectancy and education level?

[Thot]

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

You live in a medieval society, with the matching life expectancy and education level?

Do most Kultheans? I mean, that's our reference point here, right? The ONE official setting for RoleMaster.

Besides, a farmer in 1300 AD did usually live another 20 years (at least) while being productive. Life expectancy was low because of childhood maladies, but if you got past that, the difference to today's wasn't that big any more.

[Peter R]

I use a rule of thumb that people living relatively safe lives gain one level for every 5 years beyond the age 16. Those who live stressful lives with significant amounts of mild peril would gain one level for every 3 years and those living in constant danger gain a level a year.

So an academic in their 50s may be 7th or 8th level,  a farmer in their 40s living in a harsh region could 8th or 9th, a ranger in their mid 20s, protecting villages in orc infested borderlands, could already be 10th level.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Besides, a farmer in 1300 AD did usually live another 20 years (at least) while being productive. Life expectancy was low because of childhood maladies, ...

Plus diseases (plagues!), wars, famine, yeah, lots of reason not to live long, if you were not of nobility.

Anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing this. You asked a question, I answered and gave my reasoning. If you don't agree, fair enough, just discard my opinion. *shrugs*

[yammahoper]

Thot, you and I think alike,

First, assume most NPCs will develop their profession skill as EV or OCC. So even if an adult is level 5, that's 15 to 30 ranks in a given skill or spell list. If you have access to the RM2 Spell Users Companion, there is an entirely new sphere of magic called PROSAIC. These are essentially magics developed to make the mundane far less so, with list like MENDING WAYS. This magic is available to commoners, family traditions, craftsmen, etc. Guilds could and would undoubtedly form around their learning and use.

In my games superior goods are far more common than magic weapons, if for no other reason than economy. When a noble has to choose between 200 swords, 60 superior swords or one magic sword; the choice is obvious. Same logic applies to just about everything, from leather goods to wagon makers. Most mundane stuff cost to much to make with magic yet making a +15 superior set of cook ware can be done with simple skill.

I of course have developed a leveless RM, as skill and its effect on the game world are very real. If an NPC has to be level 15 to have enough engineering skill to make working aqueducts, there wont be many of them. In RMSS there is a learning table that shows how much time in training is required to gain a skill rank. Check it out. I believe it will answer a lot of problems you face fleshing out your societies.

My first post on my new PC. I should read back and edit this fat fingered monstrosity of a post. New keyboard too! 6 years without a PC was to long.

[MisterK]

Providing a personal answer to this question is basically impossible for me because
1) I do not use XPs
2) I do not use level as an indication of mundane skill, but as an indication of how much the person knows about the hidden workings of the world and how much they have actually experienced those.
3) the level spread is not regular, i.e. there are glass ceilings and cutoff points - in other words, doing the mundane, even if you strive to better yourself, does not get you past a certain point.

But hypothetically, I would use the common soldiers of the military charts provided in the setting to determine average "level" and corresponding proficiency. Not the guards, elite soldiers or other exceptional individuals, mind you (since those are, by definition, exceptions to the common rule). My reasoning is that, if your average soldier (whose job puts their life on the line at least occasionally) is level 3 or 4, it stands reasonable to believe that those who do not have a more serious incentive to become more proficient at what they are will likely be at the same level or lower on the average.
Mind you, this is for an *average* soldier - probably garrison type who sees combat infrequently, but trains pretty much everyday. Your weathered veteran mercenary will be of higher "level" because they are on the edge more often, simple as that.

But your average city merchant or craftsman ? Level 2-3 seems a fair average, regardless of age. The basic criterium is not what you do routinely, but how often you are on the edge. The more often you are, the higher "level" you can potentially be - if you survive the experience.

Basically, this was my rationale to change the meaning of level and decouple level from skill expertise. As for the thresholds, my version of Shadow World has basically two : 10 (beyond which you *need* to deal with the hidden world voluntarily on a regular basis) and 20 (beyond which you must strive to understand the deeper inner workings of the world and how to act on them to pursue your own ideals). For player characters and most "exceptional" NPCs, 10 is almost a default assumption, but 20 is a critical threshold - I know several PCs who would never get higher simply because they do not have the mindset for it.

[Ecthelion]

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.
...
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.

Amen. Surely we can find some kind of mechanics for assigning a daily number of XP based on race, profession, danger level or whatever. But the question for me is whether this does any good in the game. When I am using NPCs in my game it's in most cases not relavant at all which level they have. E.g. I don't remember any player ever asking for the level of an innkeeper. And in cases where the level is relevant, e.g. for an NPC character that should accompany the party, then - just as Spectre771 said - I assign the level it needs to be. My fear would be that any kind of mechanics for calculating a pseudo-realistic amount of XP per day might rather stand in the way than help me when creating an NPC.

YMMV

[Thot]

[...]
Surely we can find some kind of mechanics for assigning a daily number of XP based on race, profession, danger level or whatever. But the question for me is whether this does any good in the game. When I am using NPCs in my game it's in most cases not relavant at all which level they have.

Wait, I need to wrap my mind around this notion a bit more explicitly. Is it that you don't know  what the level distribution in your game world is, or is it that you don't know what a specific NPC's level is?

Because what I am trying to do here, obviously, is to deduce the answer to the first questions as per the RAW. Of course, I will then use the thus deduced level distribution to assign a level to a given NPC... if most NPC's of a certain age are within levels 10-15, that is an entirely different situation than one where most NPC's will never reach level 6 in their whole lifetime. Either way, I might have a level 10 innkeeper whose haggling skill can keep up with the PC's, but the message of WHO THAT INNKEEPER IS in terms of importance in the game world is totally different between these two scenarios, as the players themselves can conclude a rough level from the innkeeper's relevant skills.

And it goes on: The level distribution is needed to tell me how easy it is to purchase or sell enchanted items, which in turn will heavily influence how hard that minor villain is to defeat, or what the loot they found in that tomb is actually worth.

I am totally puzzled how people would know these things for a consistent world without known what the level distribution is.

Or do you determine level distribution in a different way? If so, how?

[Ginger McMurray]

I am totally puzzled how people would know these things for a consistent world without known what the level distribution is.

Consistency isn't about numbers for my games, it's about society. Magic items are as easy to buy as they should be based on the world's intended power level. If it's high magic, like Eberron, they're easy to find. If it's low magic, make it yourself.

Nobody, not even me, needs to know the average level for wizards to decide if someone can buy a +1 sword. I need to decide the level of the specific person they're talking to. Even that isn't absolutely necessary. "He's high enough" is plenty answer for me.

I definitely don't need to know every peasant's level to decide these things.

[Thot]

I am totally puzzled how people would know these things for a consistent world without known what the level distribution is.

Consistency isn't about numbers for my games, it's about society. Magic items are as easy to buy as they should be based on the world's intended power level.

That doesn't make sense at all. You are basically saying "consistency is doing whatever the GM likes in a given moment", which is kind of the exact opposite of consistency.

Consistency means that the various parts and bits of your game world fit together. How can that be the case when they don't fit together? And how can they fit together when you don't even know what the parts and bits are like?

Nobody, not even me, needs to know the average level for wizards to decide if someone can buy a +1 sword. I need to decide the level of the specific person they're talking to. Even that isn't absolutely necessary. "He's high enough" is plenty answer for me.

I definitely don't need to know every peasant's level to decide these things.

No, but you need to know what the drought in your campaign plots means for the peasants in general. Can they just work around that with their superior farming skills, or is the drought going to kill them?

If you just make up that decision by declaring they can, and a few adventures later, there is another drought which suddenly cannot be handled, players will wonder if you are actually taking this serious. I would.

I mean, it's great as this all works fine for you. But I'd be feeling like presenting all smoke and mirrors on a very... superficial level.

[Hurin]

Some interesting questions have been raised here.

From my perspective, I am most concerned with the fact that the XP guidelines might not match the level distribution of the characters in the world. Even a small amount of XP gained per day is going to result in ordinary characters reaching very high levels in their middle age. I don't like that, nor do I like systems that treat NPCs and PCs differently. I prefer consistency.

Given all that, it would seem prudent to me to further diminish the returns on actions that have become routine. The x1/2 modifier on XP for routine actions (as enunciated in RM2) could be increased to x1/10th, and a new category of x0 introduced for exceptionally routine actions. This would help to bring more consistency between xp and character levels, and allow us to treat PCs and NPCs in the same way.

[Ginger McMurray]

Consistency means that the various parts and bits of your game world fit together. How can that be the case when they don't fit together? And how can they fit together when you don't even know what the parts and bits are like?

Except that I do know what they look like. They look like peasants.

No, but you need to know what the drought in your campaign plots means for the peasants in general. Can they just work around that with their superior farming skills, or is the drought going to kill them?

If you just make up that decision by declaring they can, and a few adventures later, there is another drought which suddenly cannot be handled, players will wonder if you are actually taking this serious. I would.

That consistency has nothing to do with levels and everything to do with story line consistency. I agree completely that if one drought is fine then the next should be, too. Unless there are other factors involved.

I mean, it's great as this all works fine for you. But I'd be feeling like presenting all smoke and mirrors on a very... superficial level.

That's cool. I'm looking to game, not crunch demographic numbers to figure out if Bob the bartender makes a good drink. My players have never needed that, either. If it works for you and yours, awesome.

[Thot]

[...]
Given all that, it would seem prudent to me to further diminish the returns on actions that have become routine. The x1/2 modifier on XP for routine actions (as enunciated in RM2) could be increased to x1/10th, and a new category of x0 introduced for exceptionally routine actions. This would help to bring more consistency between xp and character levels, and allow us to treat PCs and NPCs in the same way.

That would definitely make sense. You don't learn much from doing the same stuff a hundredth time.  But then, the question just gets back at us slightly rephrased: How many XP will 20 year old usually have gained, how many a 25year old, and where does it usually stop for ordinary, adventure-avoiding people?

[Hurin]

But then, the question just gets back at us slightly rephrased: How many XP will 20 year old usually have gained, how many a 25year old, and where does it usually stop for ordinary, adventure-avoiding people?

Can you clarify if you're asking me to crunch numbers or give my ideals?

I can't really crunch the numbers for RMSS very well, since I am an RM2 guy (and an RMU guy now). But for ideals, I would say I prefer to have them on the lower end of the spectrum, something like:

--An average 20 year old would be a young journeyman/woman, so maybe level 2-4.
--An average middle aged person, say 30-40 (middle aged for a medieval society comes earlier, since life expectancies were lower), maybe 4-6.
--An elder, say 40+, maybe 6-8.

Only exceptional individuals in my worlds make it beyond level 10. This is partly because, if you want to make it that high, you will have to be risking some pretty dangerous experiences, and that will weed out a lot of people.

These of course are just my preferences. I like PCs to start weak but then get strong, and by the time they are approaching level 10 (we don't usually go beyond level 10 in our campaigns), then I want them to feel quite powerful, even if they should be aware that there are still many things much more powerful than they lurking about the world.

[Thot]

Thanks, a (to me) perfectly comprehensible answer.

[Cory Magel]

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?

As few or as many as I, the GM, want them to.

I don't think any one person can answer your question due to the fact that every GM/group is going to differ in how they handle all the various reasons why an NPC exists in their specific campaign and/or world.

[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?

As few or as many as I, the GM, want them to.
[...]

And how much is that?

[intothatdarkness]

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?

As few or as many as I, the GM, want them to.

I don't think any one person can answer your question due to the fact that every GM/group is going to differ in how they handle all the various reasons why an NPC exists in their specific campaign and/or world.

Best answer I've seen to date on this question. Bottom line, at least in my world: it doesn't matter. RM's XP model is skewed toward combat in any case, making such comparisons unwise at best and possibly foolish at worst. An NPC smith should still, for example, be better than 99% of PCs with Smithing skill. Why? Because it's what he or she does for a living. Every single day. But using the level XP logic, most PCs will be better smiths because they're spending DPs every time they go up a level, while a 40 year old smith will be (at best) level four using one model presented. Most Mannish PCs who reach that age in my games (and I hate equating level to age...) will be at most 22 (assuming a starting age of 18) at fourth level.

I'm not going out of my way to avoid answering the question...I'm saying it doesn't matter in the least based on how I run my setting. If you go over to event-based XPs it works a bit better, but the standard XP model simply doesn't work for modeling advancement for non-adventurers. So I ignore it. I prefer to use skill bonus, with an experienced village smith having a Smithing bonus of at least +60 or more (along with some associated Animal Handling skills if they happen to be a blacksmith). If that strikes some as arbitrary, that's ok by me. It works for my world and my groups.

[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?

As few or as many as I, the GM, want them to.

I don't think any one person can answer your question due to the fact that every GM/group is going to differ in how they handle all the various reasons why an NPC exists in their specific campaign and/or world.

Best answer I've seen to date on this question. Bottom line, at least in my world: it doesn't matter. [...]

It is isn't an answer. It is the statement "I don't wan to answer that". And if those who see it that way had just not answered, it would have been much more useful.

Sorry, this is just impolite of you guys.

[Cory Magel]

It is isn't an answer. It is the statement "I don't wan to answer that". And if those who see it that way had just not answered, it would have been much more useful.
Sorry, this is just impolite of you guys.

You're simply overthinking this in my opinion.

'As many as I want them to' isn't not answering.  It means it exactly that: It depends on how many I want them to.  There is no automatic, intrinsic, formula that determines this for the entire setting.

Simplest answer is (which prevents you from doing a lot of pointless work): How much exp an NPC makes would only matter in a case where the players are going to interact with it and, even then, it only matters if there is some form of contested interaction with the NPC that I want left to a roll of the dice.

For example: If the PCs want something from an NPC the NPC's level only matters if I want the availability of that thing to be left to chance. If I don't want it left to chance the NPC's level is irrelevant. Now, if they decide they want to kill the NPC for potentially not providing what they want the next question is; Does this NPC stand a chance against the PCs? If not, again, its level doesn't matter.  If I expect a confrontation and I want the NPC to be able to do something about that then I might worry about what level the NPC is... but even then, there's no all encompassing formula that is going to determine that NPCs level by default.

Some NPCs will be uninspired bums and never do a damn thing. Some will pick up a specific trade and 'level up' in that specific trade, like a blacksmith. Some will learn many things, like a politician. Some will become adventurers. Etc, etc, etc. They'll earn exp at different rates based on their own, individual, lives.