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

[Thot]

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.
[..]

You're simply underthinking things, and want to compel others to play the same way. I did not ask for that.

[Thot]

To be clear: A lot of interesting points have been raised here, thanks for that. Glass ceilings, XP not for mundane tasks, but only important experiences, etc., all that is quite interesting to think and talk about, and has done a fair bit to inform my current campaign preparations.

But the "huh, why bother" talk is really starting to go on my nerves. If you don't think about the whole problem complex addressed here, that's it. Don't think about it, that's fine. But please don't post about it either, at least not in this thread. Open another one where you can discuss your style of campaign planning, if you want (but beware, that might end you up thinking about things), but here, my explicit request is to think about the matters of XP for NPC's in one way or another, even if it is "they are all level 1, and the rate of XP gaining is 0".

Thank you.

[gog]

Actually I'd say you are conflating two issues that are raised by this thread:

Issue 1 - the general level distribution of the game world. This requires ether the GM to set it, or for a mechanic to be used to determine the distribution.

Issue 2 - the level of individual NPC's encountered in the game world.

Issue 2 is shaped and effected by Issue 1; however is not tied solely to it. There will be those who are above and below the average (else all will be the same).

Also not all individuals will develop in the same way - based on the underlying nature (stats and the influence on DP's in game mechanics). Along with this matters of race and culture will effect the development of some aspects of an individual.

There is also I'd see a flaw in having all NPC's develop at the same rate - those who lead a more varied life would most likely develop a wider understanding and skill base. Those who have access to training, teaching and resources would also develop differently to those who don't.

The addressing of Issue 1 is what your mechanics seem to be look at - however they seem to lack any granularity, and reference to different types of life situations. Thus producing a very average result, but neglecting small groups of skilled individuals (the artisan and noble classes of history; along with the magical wielding class of a fantasy setting) who can have a disproportionate impact compared to their number.

Many of those who are looking at the "why bother" approach seem to be addressing Issue 2, and the question of the level of the individual standing in front of the party and does that need to be calculated and the full process of level development gone through, or is it possible knowing the general level distribution (as already set) and the general availability of resources - both for training and production of any items - what would the appropriate skill level be for them.

[NB as a personal note, when a thread is opened on a public forum, then individuals are free to answer the questions as they would see fit. The answer for some when it comes to NPC XP, is that they do not work in levels and give the appropriate skills to undertake the tasks required of the NPC within the narrative of the story been told - a utilitarian approach to NPC XP]

[Cory Magel]

You're simply underthinking things, and want to compel others to play the same way. I did not ask for that.

I think you're the one trying to force your perspective here by calling us 'impolite' for not answering your question in the way you want us to because we don't design like you do.

[MisterK]

You're simply underthinking things, and want to compel others to play the same way. I did not ask for that.

I think you're the one trying to force your perspective here by calling us 'impolite' for not answering your question in the way you want us to because we don't design like you do.

I think that's because of the way the initial question was worded.

The explicit question was in the thread title : "How many XP will an average NPC earn per year?"
But... the real question, as far as I understand, is the one related to the level distribution in the setting.

And while I can understand answering "I don't do it that way" to the first question (I did it, in a way), I think the underlying issue of level distribution is much more difficult to disregard. The thing is, it does not need to be solved by XP allocation, and that's what most people apparently focused on.

It kind of reminds me a core tenet of my real-life job: "do not mix specification and design". The title question implicitly assumes that XP allocation is used to answer the real question, and thus introduces a design bias in the wording.

[Cory Magel]

I think that's because of the way the initial question was worded.
The explicit question was in the thread title : "How many XP will an average NPC earn per year?"

Which seems, to many of us, a pointless effort. Will the party constantly be meeting completely generic and random NPCs that are pretty much all the same level based on a specific factor like age? I certainly hope not.

Could also depend on what each person considers an NPC.
A) Is it every intelligent being in the entire setting?
B) Is it only the ones that the party could potentially meet?
C) Is it only the ones that you intend the party to meet?

But... the real question, as far as I understand, is the one related to the level distribution in the setting.

And this will vary from GM to GM based on a myriad of factors. For example, some here think of the standard world inhabitant as 0 Level while some think age should correlate strictly to level. I think both of those are far too simplistic.

I terms of an NPC, that will actually be part of the story, most will create that NPC with a specific reason in mind and have little to no use for a preexisting, all encompassing, generic method.

[Thot]

As an example as to how I use such data: I have made a few considerations about the starting point of my next campaign, which is the "county of Aran", just east of the Isthmus of Aranos, on Jaiman (Kulthea, Shadow World). The area is in direct neighborhood to the Lugroki to the West and is often fending off their attacks. About 20,000 adult people live there (at about the population density of medieval Germany), and I have settled for the following level distribution, after looking at some of the points raised here and the military charts for a hint how Shadow World might be intended to be like:

1   1,00 %
2   3,00 %
3   5,00 %
4   10,00 %
5   20,00 %
6   20,00 %
7   10,00 %
8   5,00 %
9   3,00 %
10   2,00 %
11   2,00 %
12   1,90 %
13   1,80 %
14   1,70 %
15   1,60 %
16   1,50 %
17   1,40 %
18   1,30 %
19   1,20 %
20   1,10 %
21   1,00 %
22   0,90 %
23   0,80 %
24   0,70 %
25   0,60 %
26   0,50 %
27   0,40 %
28   0,30 %
29   0,20 %
30   0,10 %

People above level 30 will be so rare that they're not part of the statistic.

So it's basically a bell curve maxing at 5-6 with a long, very narrow tail towards the higher levels.

Now, this combined with the profession distribution that derives naturally from the prerequisite stats (assuming NPC's roll them completely randomly), where about 75% of the population end up as "no profession" (due to no stat at 90, or only one, or a combination of two for which there simply is no profession) and any given two-stat combination of 90 or higher makes up 1% of the overall population, now allows me to answer a lot of questions about the county of Aran:

• How many alchemists are there and, more importantly, what can they do? (About 600, of which 5%, or 30 people in all of Aran, will be higher than level 20 and can make quite impressive artifacts. This in turn has repercussions for the county's nobility and, of course, their equipment, and of course, what PC's might be able to commission to them.)
• What is the profession and level composition of the county's 400 strong standing army? (About 100 of them are true fighters, another 100 are barbarians, the rest being other arms professions, and we'll probably have 5 really experienced level 20+ fighters and another 5 level 20+ barbarians in there, see the above table. So at least one crack commando unit - they might serve as the inspiration for an adventure hook. Also, what the general strength of that army is can now be concluded from these figures.)
• Same as above for the 50 noble fighters of the county, but here the availability of enchanted equipment comes in. (+10 magic swords and shields for each of them isn't unrealistic; the county certainly has people who can create such stuff)
• What is a likely income level for the general population, assuming level sais something about competence, and competence can, to some extend, say something about income?
• What is a realistic level for a given random NPC they meet, like a soldier? If I have them meet a level 10 guy, how many of his buddies are, for instance, going to avenge him if necessary, and with what competence?

The list could go on for a while. Now, the most important thing about the table is: It gives me a good impression of the county's general "feel", which is totally different from a case where I would have used, say, level 20 as the middle of the bell curve.

[intothatdarkness]

You're simply underthinking things, and want to compel others to play the same way. I did not ask for that.

I think you're the one trying to force your perspective here by calling us 'impolite' for not answering your question in the way you want us to because we don't design like you do.

Again, I agree. If you crunch things strictly by level and insist that NPCs should have a correspondingly low level when compared to PCs, you end up with a world where PCs are omnipotent and (interestingly) they will likely never find NPCs who can make superior gear for them, research questions, or otherwise function because they will be too low level to have decent bonuses in the skills required.

Frankly, you can allocate NPC levels based on competence without spending tremendous amounts of time deciding how many XPs each NPC will earn per year and so on and so on. Most of the watch members in my world, for example, are about fifth level (assuming they're trained...if it's some kind of peasant volunteer collective the levels are usually lower), with a sergeant of some kind at about seventh level. That's based on my determination of the level of competence they'd need to maintain order in a border town or larger city. A skilled smith in the same town will have lower hits, but higher skill bonuses. Why? Because they need them. The level mechanic as it exists in RM doesn't really deal with this, so I modify it. When you scale competence in this way, XPs are irrelevant. Sure, it means the smith is likely easy to kill, but if the party kills a town's only smith, they're going to have bigger problems in very short order.

If you really want to model profession distribution, I believe RMC I had a very good table for this very thing. It was based on town population as well.

[Hurin]

As an example as to how I use such data: I have made a few considerations about the starting point of my next campaign, which is the "county of Aran", just east of the Isthmus of Aranos, on Jaiman (Kulthea, Shadow World). The area is in direct neighborhood to the Lugroki to the West and is often fending off their attacks. About 20,000 adult people live there (at about the population density of medieval Germany), and I have settled for the following level distribution, after looking at some of the points raised here and the military charts for a hint how Shadow World might be intended to be like:

1   1,00 %
2   3,00 %
3   5,00 %
4   10,00 %
5   20,00 %
6   20,00 %
7   10,00 %
8   5,00 %
9   3,00 %
10   2,00 %
11   2,00 %
12   1,90 %
13   1,80 %
14   1,70 %
15   1,60 %
16   1,50 %
17   1,40 %
18   1,30 %
19   1,20 %
20   1,10 %
21   1,00 %
22   0,90 %
23   0,80 %
24   0,70 %
25   0,60 %
26   0,50 %
27   0,40 %
28   0,30 %
29   0,20 %
30   0,10 %

Its an interesting bell curve, but don't you think the percentage at levels 1-3 should be higher? Everyone who is 3+ was once at 3. If only 1% of the population is level 1, that would create an extremely tight bottleneck in the population between children/adolescents and adults. I know you're talking only of adults, but of course children and adolescents are a very large percentage of the population in premodern societies, and with high infant mortality rates, the curve overall should look less like a bell and more like a down ramp, as many developing societies still are today.

Take a look for example at the population graph of Egypt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Egypt#/media/File:Bev%C3%B6lkerungspyramide_%C3%84gypten_2016.png

[Thot]

[...]
Its an interesting bell curve, but don't you think the percentage at levels 1-3 should be higher? Everyone who is 3+ was once at 3. If only 1% of the population is level 1, that would create an extremely tight bottleneck in the population between children/adolescents and adults.

Well, my assumption is that most people will relatively quickly reach level 5-6, and then stay there for a long time because they are not learning much any more. 1% of the adult population is basically 200 people who have currently just finished their initial training. A few months later, they will have learned a lot already, and join the 600 people who are level 2, and so on. If there was a standardized age to finish your training, we'd be looking at half the amount of people who are, say, 20 years old. Which is pretty much 1% of the adult population, assuming you stay an adult for 50 years and then die.

I know you're talking only of adults, but of course children and adolescents are a very large percentage of the population in premodern societies, and with high infant mortality rates, the curve overall should look less like a bell and more like a down ramp, as many developing societies still are today.

Well, these would be level 0, strictly speaking, but I don't need to know level distribution there, because it is immediately obvious who belongs to this group and what their level is.

Take a look for example at the population graph of Egypt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Egypt#/media/File:Bev%C3%B6lkerungspyramide_%C3%84gypten_2016.png

Egypt is growing quickly. Medieval and quasi-medieval societies don't. (I would propose that healing magic and the constant raids by Lugroki in Aran cancel each other out in that respect.)

[Peter R]

Doesn't EXP per day fall to pieces as an idea once elves, or even dwarves get involved?

[Thot]

Doesn't EXP per day fall to pieces as an idea once elves, or even dwarves get involved?

Depends on the amount of XP per day, I'd say. If, as in the example above, there is a "glass ceiling" once a certain level of competence is reached, the average across all members of a society will approach 0, after all.

[MisterK]

Well, my assumption is that most people will relatively quickly reach level 5-6, and then stay there for a long time because they are not learning much any more. 1% of the adult population is basically 200 people who have currently just finished their initial training. A few months later, they will have learned a lot already, and join the 600 people who are level 2, and so on. If there was a standardized age to finish your training, we'd be looking at half the amount of people who are, say, 20 years old. Which is pretty much 1% of the adult population, assuming you stay an adult for 50 years and then die.

Does this not contradict the default RM character generation assumption ? You are level 1 after *apprenticeship*, not after adolescence. Apprenticeship is not a few week's worth of initial training in medieval times, it is several years long (I would assume 3-5 for most crafts). At the end of it, you are a young adult and level 1, but you already have significant experience under your belt. They would not become level 2 "in a few months" unless they have exceptional experience in the meantime (i.e. adventurers or similar). Rather, they would probably work towards it at least a few years more. If a 16-year-old is level 1, I would expect the same person to become level 2 around 20-22, and level 3 around 27-30.

[Hurin]

Egypt is growing quickly. Medieval and quasi-medieval societies don't. (I would propose that healing magic and the constant raids by Lugroki in Aran cancel each other out in that respect.)

Medieval and developing societies have a similar profile though. High infant mortality rates mean the majority of the population has to be younger, or else the population can't replace itself. The societies that look like bell curves in profile are the ones that have reached zero or negative population growth. You need large numbers of babies and children because many of them will not survive. Any bottleneck, especially among the younger generations, means massive population loss. So a bell curve is not the norm here; a downward ramp is (which in profile gives a pyramid shape).

[Hurin]

Apprenticeship is not a few week's worth of initial training in medieval times, it is several years long (I would assume 3-5 for most crafts).

Yes, medieval apprenticeships lasted years. Children were often sent out to other families quite young (12-14) and lived in these other homes for years before they reached journeyman status. They often lasted longer than 5 years.

[Thot]

[...]
At the end of it, you are a young adult and level 1, but you already have significant experience under your belt.

If that is how you read it, then the above level distribution probably won't work for you. However, I would like to point out that people with significant experience in a field should end up with bonuses significantly higher than what a level 1 character usually has in their primary skills.

They would not become level 2 "in a few months" unless they have exceptional experience in the meantime [...]

You can only answer that by answering the question how many XP they would usually get per time period. My answer for the upcoming campaign is that they initially get a lot, but by the time they reach level 5 or 6, it slows down significantly.

[Thot]

Apprenticeship is not a few week's worth of initial training in medieval times, it is several years long (I would assume 3-5 for most crafts).

Yes, medieval apprenticeships lasted years.

Modern apprenticeships last years, too. At least where I live.

[Thot]

Egypt is growing quickly. Medieval and quasi-medieval societies don't. (I would propose that healing magic and the constant raids by Lugroki in Aran cancel each other out in that respect.)

Medieval and developing societies have a similar profile though.

Huh? No, not at all. Medieval populations were stable for centuries. After the Plague of 1348/49, it took Europe 100 years to regrow the third of the population it had lost. Egypt today would do that in about 20 years, and without thinking much about it, probably.

High infant mortality rates mean the majority of the population has to be younger, or else the population can't replace itself.

Uh, no? It just means your women don't give birth to 1-3 children, but to 6-10, of which only 1-3 survive.

[Hurin]

Medieval and developing societies have a similar profile though.

Huh? No, not at all. Medieval populations were stable for centuries. After the Plague of 1348/49, it took Europe 100 years to regrow the third of the population it had lost. Egypt today would do that in about 20 years, and without thinking much about it, probably.

Sorry, but they do have similar profiles: they both look like pyramids. The reason Egypt can grow faster is due to modern medicine, which reduces death rates due to illness/disease/malnutrition/childbirth, but if you brought modern medicine to a medieval population, it would grow just as quickly. 

High infant mortality rates mean the majority of the population has to be younger, or else the population can't replace itself.

Uh, no? It just means your women don't give birth to 1-3 children, but to 6-10, of which only 1-3 survive.

And what sort of graph do you think that produces? It produces a graph with many more infants than children, many more children than adolescents, and many more adolescents than adults.

It produces a downward ramp, not a bell curve. The only difference is the slope of the ramp.

It never produces a bell curve.

[Thot]

Medieval and developing societies have a similar profile though.

Huh? No, not at all. Medieval populations were stable for centuries. After the Plague of 1348/49, it took Europe 100 years to regrow the third of the population it had lost. Egypt today would do that in about 20 years, and without thinking much about it, probably.

Sorry, but they do have similar profiles: they both look like pyramids. The reason Egypt can grow faster is due to modern medicine, which reduces death rates due to illness/disease/malnutrition/childbirth, but if you brought modern medicine to a medieval population, it would grow just as quickly. 

Ah, now I get what you're saying. Yes, of course the age-distribution in both cases is a pyramid (though for very different reasons). BUT in my above example, level does not map to aging linearily, so that is not of much consequence.

So the AGE distribution in the county of Aran will of course be a pyramid, too. But that doesn't tell us the level distribution of the people, because my assumption is that most people won't increase in level once they are in the level 5-6 range.