Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Thot on September 22, 2013, 08:12:52 AM
-
How would you imagine the distribution of levels of NPC to be like in your world?
How many NPC's in your game world are level 0-1? How many 2-4? How many 5-9? How many 10-15? How many 16-20? How many above that? Why would you choose this or that distribution?
-
I prefer the bulk of NPCs below level 5, and super rare into the mid-20's. The PCs are more heroic by comparison, and it keeps powerful (and culture-changing) magic rare.
-
My tendency is to play HARP so it may or may not fit to an RM campaign.
For HARP, my average folk are general lvl 1-2
For special folk (above average in their role - merchant, craftsman, etc.) and they reach lvl 5-9
Adventuring folk range from 3-15
Ultimate performers like generals, heads of watches, kings, leader of thieves guild, high priests, etc. all would be 12-18
-
With OCC skills, I rarely see a need for NPC's to be higher than 5-8th level. A 5th level craftsman can have 30 ranks in his primary craft skill. Most of my NPC's are Laymen.
-
Your own unique world has a huge amount to do with it. Meaning if you're in a setting with widespread serfdom or the like odds are the typical person is only going to know what they need to to survive... and that could quite possibly mean the only real developed skill they have is how to plant and harvest particular crop and some pretty basic survival skills (that would relate specifically to their living conditions).
The general population has no 'level' in my little world. I don't bother worrying about that stuff until the NPC is going to have an impact on the characters (anything from haggling over purchases to all out combat). If they will not be involved in combat I only give them a skill total for the related skill (and only then if I want there to be some randomness to the result). If the players do something that requires more (i.e. try to use mental spells to help in haggling for example) I just determine a level based on the Layman profession. This is the ONLY time when a chart of level vs skill total might be at all useful to me (and age has little to nothing to do with it), however I'm likely just going to wing it at that point anyhow.
If the players initiate a physical confrontation with a random individual for, essentially, needless reasons then either that individual will surrender quickly or help will arrive that I've stated out for such occurrences (most likely whatever the local law enforcement consists of) unless the players simply kill the victim straight out.
If I had to guess what level the general population is a large percentage would only have adolescence ranks and the 'adult' population would only be 1st or 2nd level. 'Apprentices' would be 3rd-4th maybe. 'Professionals' would be getting up to 5th-6th level maybe. Skilled professionals 7th or 8th. Masters would be up to 10th maybe. But anything beyond 1st or 2nd would be unusual. Only in large population centers would most this come into play. Small towns might have one 'professional' blacksmith with one 'apprentice' working under them. Small villages would likely have to go to town to find one. A large city would probably have at least three blacksmiths in competition and some other less skilled ones doing more generic/mundane work.
-
I agree with your assesments, except this:
blacksmiths in competition
Guilds made competition illegal. Prices were set and anyone going astray would have to pay a fine. Guilds were common in all cities. They were essentially the only way to do business. Price control has been going on, probably, since the Mesopotamian city states.
Guildless areas had strong noble rule that cracked down on peasants banding together.
-
I do it a bit different, I believe. Let me give you the reasons why first:
RM is NOT D&D, I truly feel that most people who play it, bring over their preconceived ideas of that games level scale - primarily AD&D which was the big game around the time RM really got off the ground. With that said:
(A)D&D: harder to kill a higher than 1st level character in a single attack, and really high level characters might need 10+ battle-axe hits done by a strong individual.
RM: not very unusual for a high-level character to get killed in a single attack by a weaker/lower-level character.
(A)D&D: skills were much more of an afterthought, and in AD&D 1e mostly non-existent, becoming attribute checks in 2e.
RM: is a skill based game masquerading as a class (OK, profession)/level game, so how good you are at something really depends upon how much effort you have put into learning/training in that something. Meaning a 20th level Fighter may suck at the longbow because he never trained in it. This means that an RM character needs to use a lot of their DPs just to match an AD&D character. In fact, I think that in most cases it is not possible - particularly when talking about Fighters, there are far too many weapons for the RM version to be able to keep up with the AD&D version - not to mention all the combat skills like Disarm they should be good at performing.
Overall: for some reason, RM GMs are seriously intent on controlling the power level of the PCs; I would say more so than in most other systems. I find this kind of funny, since in RM it is so easy to kill a character (as noted above). Try killing a 20th AD&D Fighter vs. an RM one in a single round. To kill the AD&D one you need to do something special, in RM all you need to do to have a really good chance is to ambush them, a normal tactic.
My concepts on NPC levels:
Levels = what it means
0 = Basically babies and the very young.
1 - 2 = Adolescent
3 - 4 = Tweens/Apprentices
5 = Beginning adult/professional
6 - 10 = Majority of normal professionals (~70 - 80% of professional population)
11 - 20 = Range of above normal professional (~10 - 20% of professional population)
21 - 30 = Range of exceptional individuals (~5 - 10% of professional population)
31 - 50 = Range of very exceptional individuals (~0.1 - 2% of professional population)
50 - 80 = Range of beginning/pre-world shakers (~0.01 - 0.05% of professional population)
80 - 100 = Range of "average" world shakers (~0.001 - 0.005% of professional population)
101+ = Serious world shakers (~0.0001% of professional population)
-
Very interesting reads!
I must say I am astonished that so many seem to prefer low-level worlds where, for instance, spells beyond level 20 are essentially unknown. This, among other things, implies very, very few magical artifacts (as artifact research is a level 25 spell).
Personally, I am more inclined to have a distribution like the one RandalThor described, and I would base it on a concept I would call "XP gained by living long enough". An NPC might not go on an adventure, but just living regular life will earn him (or her) a few thousand XP per year - so most Elves will be very high in level, and even a seasoned human craftsman of 50 years will be well beyond 10th level, possibly even 20 or higher. This also implies many magic users who really know what they are doing, and thus more impact of magic on the world: More magical items, more healing, more resurrections, and so on. Religions are more powerful to help people against ordinary hazards, and forces of both good and evil shine out more.
-
In my games most of the world - 80% or so is level 10 or below, 15% would be level 10-20, with the remaining 5% being level 20 or more, and only about 1% being above level 35.
Again, power, like wealth, is relative. A level 50 individual is incredibly powerful in most settings, but more so if the PCs are below level 20. Since most my games have cut off at around the level 20 mark, I don't feel the need to populate worlds with more than a few demi-god level NPCs. My current campaign is the exception to this rule and my PCs are now levels 24-26, and I've decided to keep the level distribution I usually use and allow them to feel grand for a while. In ernst numbers will decimate you if you try something stupid, so I'm not too bothered with them being exceptionally powerful individuals, quite at the contrary it's proving a blast so far (experienced players here too, which helps)
-
I run counter to most of the people here, but that's also because I view level as more of an expression of occupational expertise than anything else. I've got a wide spread of levels throughout my world as a reflection of that view of level. For example, each town watch has a sort of SWAT team on hand to deal with rowdy adventurers or drunken minor nobles. They all run about 7th level, with the serjent in command being about 10th.
My worlds have never been locked into low-level NPCs simply because, given how I view levels, it makes no sense.
-
In my world average people are between 4th and 8th, Swat team member would be around 15th to 20th and others go up from there.
MDC
Note: That would be in RMSS as IMHO you would get a little different results if it were RM2 vs RMSS.
MDC (again)
-
RM: is a skill based game masquerading as a class (OK, profession)/level game...
Yeah, that. Every occupation has at least one or two skills that you have to be somewhat obsessive about in order to be good at your job. Those skills will be maxed. There will be several job related and local environment/culture related skills that will be at least one skill rank per level. Everything else will be incidental skills that are basically just flavor, and will rarely be more than two or three ranks. The exception is ranks in a skill a particular person gets passionate about for personal reasons, like the bartender who sings harmony to whoever is singing in the bar, and is usually better than any of his performers.... but sings so softly that you never hear him unless you're right up at the bar and listening closely. Not really germane to anything about the character, just something fun and special, like the cherry on top of a sundae.
Figure out what you think his max possible ranks should be in the vital skills for his position in your scenario. His level is basically the minimum at which he can attain that max. Keep in mind that one "oops" undoes the work of a thousand "attaboys", so figure necessary skill totals on the assumption that the d100 bell curve will yield 90% or better success rates, because you won't keep a job unless you're consistently good at it.
Beyond that, I never really cared about what level the gazillions of people are that my characters will never meet or interact with.
-
I agree with your assesments, except this:
blacksmiths in competition
Guilds made competition illegal. Prices were set and anyone going astray would have to pay a fine. Guilds were common in all cities. They were essentially the only way to do business. Price control has been going on, probably, since the Mesopotamian city states.
Guildless areas had strong noble rule that cracked down on peasants banding together.
Guilds don't work like that in my world.
-
...I view level as more of an expression of occupational expertise than anything else.
With me most the population will be Laymen and with their profession setup (i.e. you pick a trade and it has the bonuses associated with the profession) so they will have a much high skills in their chosen trade than equal level characters would (unless a character actually in a Layman with a trade focus). So they will get good at their trade without having to 'level up' as much.
-
I don't feel the need to populate worlds with more than a few demi-god level NPCs.
This is exactly the attitude I was talking about. Thinking that a 50th+ level character is a "demi-god" is just wrong in my opinion. In D&D, sure, they would be, but in RM not so much.
Yeah, that. Every occupation has at least one or two skills that you have to be somewhat obsessive about in order to be good at your job. Those skills will be maxed. There will be several job related and local environment/culture related skills that will be at least one skill rank per level.
And I think the number of skills needed to be classified as a professional in your given profession is more than a handful, and in some cases (like the magic using professions) a whole lot more. Plus, I feel that people don't really get the number of "incidental/cultural" skills that people pick up from their upbringing, just in order to not be considered weird by others of their culture. (And in a fantasy environment, being classified as weird could literally be a death sentence. So you don't want to be weird, you want to blend right in with everyone else.)
Also, about the limited magic, remember that RM doesn't require an individual to have a special talent in order to learn and cast spells, literally anyone can do it, so it would be as common-place in an RM-ruled setting as technology is today. I personally do not know how to program or build computers, but I use the heck out of them everyday. The idea that every nation wouldn't be massively supporting the learning of the greatest natural resource in the world is sort of silly.
so figure necessary skill totals on the assumption that the d100 bell curve will yield 90% or better success rates, because you won't keep a job unless you're consistently good at it.
This has been one of my points, as well, whenever this topic comes up. Only, I say higher than 90%, basically someone who is a full-on professional, say Thatcher, wouldn't be able to feed their family if 10% of their roofs leaked - or 10% of each roof leaked, however you want to look at the situation.
Granted, in RMSS/FRP this is more of an issue than in RM1/2/C, but I think the number of DPs per level in each edition somewhat balanced this out. (You generally got a few more DPs per level in RMSS/FRP.)
I do think that the biggest problem here is divorcing what would be "realistic" for people in the world and what the players generally do with their characters. We all know that PCs are a different beast than the "average/normal" individual in-game. Players game with certain assumptions that really are only true because the GM allows them to be. If a GM was to enforce more "realistic" rules for living on PCs then I believe you would see quite different PCs. (OK, first you would likely get a bunch of whining. ;D ) Along with this ideology, is the fact that we are talking about rules for a game, and rules that do not (can not) emulate reality perfectly, so there will be some "play" in how they work. That is OK, just so long as this "play" isn't taken to ridiculous levels (i.e. made to be so unrealistic that it is more silly than anything else - which is how I view really abstract rules systems like D&D).
-
I don't feel the need to populate worlds with more than a few demi-god level NPCs.
This is exactly the attitude I was talking about. Thinking that a 50th+ level character is a "demi-god" is just wrong in my opinion. In D&D, sure, they would be, but in RM not so much.
The 50th level spells feel pretty demi-god-ish to me. More than the demi-gods in Dieties & Demigods felt divine.
Yeah, that. Every occupation has at least one or two skills that you have to be somewhat obsessive about in order to be good at your job. Those skills will be maxed. There will be several job related and local environment/culture related skills that will be at least one skill rank per level.
And I think the number of skills needed to be classified as a professional in your given profession is more than a handful, and in some cases (like the magic using professions) a whole lot more. Plus, I feel that people don't really get the number of "incidental/cultural" skills that people pick up from their upbringing, just in order to not be considered weird by others of their culture. (And in a fantasy environment, being classified as weird could literally be a death sentence. So you don't want to be weird, you want to blend right in with everyone else.)
Also, about the limited magic, remember that RM doesn't require an individual to have a special talent in order to learn and cast spells, literally anyone can do it, so it would be as common-place in an RM-ruled setting as technology is today. I personally do not know how to program or build computers, but I use the heck out of them everyday. The idea that every nation wouldn't be massively supporting the learning of the greatest natural resource in the world is sort of silly.
I think this is the critical thing. How much magic do you want in the world? There are two choices you make which determine the answer. One choice is how common magical aptitude is, which really comes down to how common magic-using professions are. (To a lesser extent, how common is it for non-magic professions to learn a little magic on the side.) The second is the level distribution. Lots of mages at low level gives a setting where magic is common but not usually powerful. Few mages at high level gives a setting where magic is less common but mighty.
You're saying, if I understand correctly, that the RM system inherently means high magic. I disagree. It is not inconsistent with high magic, and you can certainly define a world that way, but you're making it sound like that is the only way. You can easily make different choices.
The typical level for non-spellcasters is less important. Raise the skill of everyone in the world by the same amount, doesn't make much net difference. Really only affects which monsters will be common, and how long it takes adventurers to become average and later special (e.g. 1st level characters take a long time to reach 15th level average than they do to reach average if average is 3rd level). It's magic where it really changes things.
-
Thinking that a 50th+ level character is a "demi-god" is just wrong in my opinion. In D&D, sure, they would be, but in RM not so much.
It's a tricky subject in a way. Our gaming circle typically 'retires' characters between around 12th-17th level (again, something I'm going to change in the campaign I run), so 25th level characters are seen as quite powerful and 50th levels ones would be outright feared (if you're on their bad side). However, when the characters get to 25th level a 50th doesn't look as scary as a 25th does to, say, a 15th and in almost all cases it's casting ability that will be the main driving factor of that fear or lack of it.
Also, about the limited magic, remember that RM doesn't require an individual to have a special talent in order to learn and cast spells, literally anyone can do it, so it would be as common-place in an RM-ruled setting as technology is today.
That is completely up to the GM. Magic isn't common or uncommon in "Rolemaster". It's common or uncommon in each RM users setting.
-
You're saying, if I understand correctly, that the RM system inherently means high magic. I disagree. It is not inconsistent with high magic, and you can certainly define a world that way, but you're making it sound like that is the only way. You can easily make different choices.
What I am doing, and sure I admit it may be a bit silly of me, is extrapolating what I believe a game world would be like by the RM rules - if a GM doesn't do something special to make it different (i.e., insisting that only 1% of the population even has a chance at learning magic, etc...). Plus, I am adding in my own ideology about skill levels and professionalism, I suppose.
-
I guess it depends on if you think the system rules are intended to apply to the average being in a given world. I don't think they are, but rather that they are intended to apply to 'adventurers', which are not the norm.
-
Which puts you in the position of making whole new rules for non-PCs, which I don't think is a great idea. While I am not above just throwing together some numbers on the fly, I do try to make them fit somewhat within the framework of my idea of the setting/situation. Otherwise, how do you know how the PC fits into it all? There needs to be a scale by which to rate the PCs and NPCs against each other as well as other things. Isn't that why there are character levels in the first place?
Now, using the rules at hand, I do believe that making a PC is a bit different than making your average NPC, but only so far as I think the average PC is of more heroic ability; stronger, faster, smarter, etc... in other words: more character points and DP for the equivalent level. (Obviously, that is a play choice.)
-
I guess it depends on if you think the system rules are intended to apply to the average being in a given world. I don't think they are, but rather that they are intended to apply to 'adventurers', which are not the norm.
So when a given being just decides to be an "adventurer", it suddenly transforms into a different being? ;)
I firmly believe a good rule system can and should display every character in the game with the same rules. The bartender and the archmage, the farmer and the demigod, the dog and the dragon, all should be describable in the same rules system. Not only because each of those might be a PC in some campaign, but also because the players can then conclude from their player-knowledge of the rules about NPC's they encounter, and thus have a more consistent system to learn, which is just easier.
-
Isn't it more that the high end of the bell curve are detailed because they get special abilities. The average folk and lower end of the bell curve don't have special abilities so they don't need extra documentation. Your setting determines how steep the bell curve is, and where the midpoint is in comparison to when the special abilities begin.
Rolemaster is not designed for only one style of play. Rolemaster is designed to be able to be applied to any setting. What Rolemaster does require is not a specific setting, but rather a specific game play style - a style that is detailed and "realistic" (to whatever extent you can add magic and dice roll representations of combat into a game).
-
I would certainly agree with that!
Coming back to the original question and looking at my rules set, I see that a successful average maneuver gives you 50 Experience Points... and certainly an NPC will have and opportunity to make one or more in his daily job an life each day?
Assuming it is just one such roll, or 50 Experience Points per day, we are talking about about one (early) level per 5 years.
-
You underestimate. At 50 experience points per day, 10th level is achieved in 8 years. Even 10 experience points per day makes 10th level after 40 years of adulthood. As for elves and the like, after 1000 years, even 1 experience per day is level 16; 2 per day reaches Lord level (20) in 700 years.
(If it hadn't been for the emergence of the RMU project, I'd have been writing a GC article on the implications of the RM rules for levels for NPCs. The more narrative experience rules of RMU are looser and make it easier for a 10,000 year old elf to not have a triple-digit level, but everyone is the hero of his own story. Anyone not in a coma is gathering experience at some pace.)
-
And I think the number of skills needed to be classified as a professional in your given profession is more than a handful, and in some cases (like the magic using professions) a whole lot more.
Meh... varies with the profession, as you noted. However, not every "professional skill" is going to need to always be maxed out in order for you to be competitive in your job. A computer repair tech probably needs to have his software knowledge and his troubleshooting skills maxed out. Soldering? He should be at least competent, but probably not vital for him to be constantly at the peak of his abilities. Theory of digital logic? He needs to have the basics, but it's doubtful he will ever have the need for more than the basics during his entire career.
And yes, the number of skills that fall into those categories varies not only with profession, but with the local environment within which the character operates. That why I said "at least one or two skills" that are vital and several that aren't vital, but still job related. How many, and which, skills fall into which category are determined by how that character properly fits into the scenario, which is a judgment call you or I can't possibly make from here.
Only, I say higher than 90%, basically someone who is a full-on professional, say Thatcher, wouldn't be able to feed their family if 10% of their roofs leaked - or 10% of each roof leaked, however you want to look at the situation.
That only holds true if you don't count Perception as a job related skill. If he catches 90% of those errors (assuming you consider Perception not only job related but"vital") and fixes them before his customer ever finds out, the bell curve that gives him 90% success rate gives him a total 99% after failures perceived and corrected are factored in.
You're saying, if I understand correctly, that the RM system inherently means high magic.
I dunno what he's saying, but I'll throw in my 2cp here. In RM1 & 2, if you had a 75 or above in any of 3 out of 10 stats, you potentially had PPs available. Thus, if you're living in a village of 100, the bell curve says a handful of those people are potentially spellcasters. Any further limitation than that on how common spellcasters are is imposed by your scenario (danger of being known as a caster, difficulty of finding training, etc.), there is no further limitation inherent in the mechanics.
My familiarity with RMSS/FRP is much more limited, so I dunno to what degree that applies to them. RMU? We'll see.
Assuming it is just one such roll, or 50 Experience Points per day, we are talking about about one (early) level per 5 years.
I figure the typical peasant could count on making a level every year or two, eventually slowing down to 1 every four or five years, so someone in his late thirties to early forties is probably 10th-20th level. However, mortality rates being what they are, a peasant living long enough to get past 25th level, in his late fifties or early sixties, is probably pretty unusual.
-
Not really. Sure, medieval life expectancy was low, but given infant mortality was high, that doesn't mean the old were as rare as people seem to think.
If the average life expectancy is 30 and half the population dies in infancy, that means those who survive are living to 60 years on average. Which allows for plenty of mysterious old strangers.
-
I guess it depends on if you think the system rules are intended to apply to the average being in a given world. I don't think they are, but rather that they are intended to apply to 'adventurers', which are not the norm.
So when a given being just decides to be an "adventurer", it suddenly transforms into a different being? ;)
No, the opposite: when a being is different, they become an adventurer. Different in the sense of better aptitude (e.g. earning XP faster), willing to take on greater risks, acting at the limits of their abilities instead of repeating the humdrum. Of course not all of them become adventurers. Some might become leaders (of nations, ventures, expeditions, etc), some might become villains.
If people just kept consistently getting better all their lives, no one over the age of 40 would ever get in a car accident. In practice, people do get better over maybe the first 5-10 years of driving experience, but after that they aren't pushing themselves and they don't improve to any meaningful degree. I think for many skills, that is typical. You reach a plateau and without anything to push you, it's perfectly possible to stay there forever. Some people do push themselves further (e.g. professional race car drivers and stunt drivers) and reach a higher level, but it's not just number of miles driven that does it.
-
My NPC vs PC 2 cents:
I will use RMSS as my main example but also give some RM2 notes.
1) I have changed the fact that you need to have a specific Stat score for a profession. This has allowed for NPC's to have lower stats and take any profession (if appropriate for the game world, but in general in my world most average people are Layman profession doing every job there needs to be done)
2) The affect of 1) above is that average people do not have as high of stats as an adventurer (not always the case). So on average they have lower DP per level than adventures.
3) In the experience system doing the same task time and again does not generate the same experience in RMSS and I think RM2 vs the RMU rules.
4) IMHO RMSS and definitely RM2 do not give enough background skills, who ever heard of children not knowing how to run.
So #3 above provides diminishing returns for experience in RMSS and RM2 for doing the same thing day in and day out, this slows level advancement for NPC's. This can also slow level advancement for PC's as well if they keep doing the same thing over and over but in general from my game experience this does not happen very often.
#1 (house rule) and #2 (result of house rule) above means that NPC's will not have as many free DP's to spend on other skills besides those that make them $ and that they need to live. Where as the PC will be able to broaden the scope of the skills they know and break out of the mold of the average person.
#4 above makes PC's and NPC's less realistic IMHO but giving everyone more skills as an adolescent and apprentice is not liked by some people as they like to game will PC's and NPC's at low levels having very low skill score (I am not judging just stating what I have noticed others posting over the years since being on this forum). IMHO this is more of a problem for RM2 players than it is a problem for RMSS players, IMHO.
So those are my observations on why NPC's tend to slow in leveling faster than PC's do but in general I think NPC's live longer than most PC's if resurrection is cheep and readily available.
MDC
-
[...]
If people just kept consistently getting better all their lives, no one over the age of 40 would ever get in a car accident.
There are ciritical failures. Also, you are assuming that people put more DP's into car driving when they are already sufficiently competent, and don't learn other skills instead from their XP.
Of course, many models are thinkable on how to apply the RM system to a given game world... none are invalid. But I don't like yours as much as mine. ;D
-
I guess it depends on if you think the system rules are intended to apply to the average being in a given world. I don't think they are, but rather that they are intended to apply to 'adventurers', which are not the norm.
So when a given being just decides to be an "adventurer", it suddenly transforms into a different being? ;)
The average shmo is different from the average player character. I don't think anything needs to be super detailed that isn't going to interact with the PC's in any meaningful way. If something other than the average shmo is going to interact with the PC's then you probably planned it and have an NPC for it (and, in my view, will probably be a Layman). Are you going to FULLY build an NPC blacksmith that the PC's only do as much as haggle about the cost of purchases or repair as a full on character? Probably not. If you are, are you going to build it the same way you would a PC? Probably not. Firstly, you only need to know their crafting skill levels if you intend to leave the results to chance. Secondly, if you do want to leave the results to chance what skills will you want to know? Unless they are going to pick a fight with the random blacksmith (who is probably going to surrender in the face of an armed and experienced adventurer) you only need to have a handful of skill totals. If the blacksmith is secretly a 10 level alchemist then it obviously has an official place in your setting and isn't just the average shmo. If it's some random blacksmith in some small town you need what? Crafting skill, trading/haggling skill... that's about all I'd need, and only if I didn't want control of the outcome.
I firmly believe a good rule system can and should display every character in the game with the same rules. The bartender and the archmage, the farmer and the demigod, the dog and the dragon, all should be describable in the same rules system. Not only because each of those might be a PC in some campaign, but also because the players can then conclude from their player-knowledge of the rules about NPC's they encounter, and thus have a more consistent system to learn, which is just easier.
They use the same rules, but they do not always apply in the same way. An uneducated potato picker who lives in a flimsy shack and works for a landlord all their life isn't going to learn much more than how to live the way they do (cooking, fire-starting, how to tell when and where you need to pick a potato, a little haggling maybe...). A craftsman is going to be a Layman, but you're only going to bother with that in situations such as the blacksmith mentioned above - i.e. someone that interacts with the PC's and, again, you're only going to BUILD the NPC as you would a Layman PC if you want to leave the interactions to chance.
Now, if you want to build a set of NPC's for random use in your world that's great, but I wouldn't bother doing that in most cases because I don't want the PC's effectively dealing with the same blacksmith every time they go looking for one. Even city guards, while I would have some pre-preped, I don't want to be the same guards they run into in any locale.
-
I dunno what he's saying, but I'll throw in my 2cp here. In RM1 & 2, if you had a 75 or above in any of 3 out of 10 stats, you potentially had PPs available. Thus, if you're living in a village of 100, the bell curve says a handful of those people are potentially spellcasters. Any further limitation than that on how common spellcasters are is imposed by your scenario (danger of being known as a caster, difficulty of finding training, etc.), there is no further limitation inherent in the mechanics.
<snip>
I figure the typical peasant could count on making a level every year or two, eventually slowing down to 1 every four or five years, so someone in his late thirties to early forties is probably 10th-20th level. However, mortality rates being what they are, a peasant living long enough to get past 25th level, in his late fifties or early sixties, is probably pretty unusual.
This seems pretty reasonable to me, though you might want to do the math again after you hear this: You don't imagine that peasants avoid all contact with hostile entities, both in creature form and/or civilized being form, do you? The typical fantasy world is filled with dangerous creatures and beings (much more so than our world) so the typical farmer, craftsman, sage, etc... is going to have to deal with something like this from time to time. I wouldn't be surprised if every year at least one such event is encountered, likely more. I imagine that things like this would bump up their XP/year significantly, and be a great reason why they need to have some combat/action skills along with their normal professional abilities. (And in high enough levels to help ensure their survival.)
My familiarity with RMSS/FRP is much more limited, so I dunno to what degree that applies to them. RMU? We'll see.
In RMSS/FRP PPs are gotten like Hits, they are developed as a skill - that anyone can learn.
If people just kept consistently getting better all their lives, no one over the age of 40 would ever get in a car accident.
There are ciritical failures.
That was what I was thinking. check this:
Disproportionate Population / Fatality Ratio: Teens make up 10% of the population but represent 12% of car crash fatalities
Teens = Highest Risk Group: For every mile driven, teens between the ages of 16 and 19 are four times as likely to be involved in a car crash
Found here: http://www.autos.com/driving-and-safety/car-crash-statistics-based-on-age-and-location (http://www.autos.com/driving-and-safety/car-crash-statistics-based-on-age-and-location)
Of course, many models are thinkable on how to apply the RM system to a given game world... none are invalid. But I don't like yours as much as mine. ;D
Ditto. ;)
-
If people just kept consistently getting better all their lives, no one over the age of 40 would ever get in a car accident.
There are ciritical failures.
That was what I was thinking. check this:
Disproportionate Population / Fatality Ratio: Teens make up 10% of the population but represent 12% of car crash fatalities
Teens = Highest Risk Group: For every mile driven, teens between the ages of 16 and 19 are four times as likely to be involved in a car crash
Found here: http://www.autos.com/driving-and-safety/car-crash-statistics-based-on-age-and-location (http://www.autos.com/driving-and-safety/car-crash-statistics-based-on-age-and-location)
Yes, that's why I said people do improve over their first 5-10 years of experience. 9 years gets you to age 25, which is the last point where you'll get an insurance discount based on years of driving experience. The insurance industry does not think the next 30 years of driving experience make a meaningful difference in your chance of an accident.
-
[tangent]Not in the past, but they are beginning to now. "Safe driver discounts."[/tangent]
-
Limiting spell users; Prime Stats of 90. Like any rule, this can be ignored. By DESIGN, it presents a very real limit.
On exp; when a mnv becomes routine, it is 1/2 exp. When it becomes familiar, it is zero exp. For day to day living, this is a real limitation on gaining levels.
-
I don't feel the need to populate worlds with more than a few demi-god level NPCs.
This is exactly the attitude I was talking about. Thinking that a 50th+ level character is a "demi-god" is just wrong in my opinion. In D&D, sure, they would be, but in RM not so much.
Your opinion is different from mine, but I wouldn't call you out as being wrong or having a wrong attitude for viewing the game world one way or the other.
Back on topic, in the end it's going to come down to how you want your PCs to interact with the world during a campaign, their starting level, and how long it's going to last. Every single GM I've gamed with, and myself as a GM, knows that in the end it's about the players having fun. Give them a clear vision of the world from the get-go and populate the world accordingly. Personally, I've never ever gamed, or had the desire to do so, an average Joe, but at the same time I don't want my PCs to do as they wish all the time. Thus, I place a few over-powering figures, Archmages, Warlords, kings, minor deities ... in my games, and then have important but not all powering NPCs hover around the 20-40 level mark. In most campaigns my PCs will at most aspire to equal these figures over time, yet still be significantly less powerful than the greater ones, what with campaigns starting at level 1 and coming to a conclusion around the level 20 mark.
Local Militia will be around level 5-8 and a captain of the guard will be level 12-ish or so, for instance.
-
The idea that every nation wouldn't be massively supporting the learning of the greatest natural resource in the world is sort of silly.
Nations would... for the elite. I mean, it wasn't for the past few centuries that mere literacy wasn't a matter of the elite so do you really think they would teach peasants magic whilst they wouldn't even teach them to read and to write? If anything, the existence of magic would reinforce the class separation between the elite and the low classes, since the argument "noblemen/clergymen aren't really different form us" would be wrong. They would: they can manipulate magic. But, teach lower classes magic and give them the potential to rebel? Oh, come on.
What I am doing, and sure I admit it may be a bit silly of me, is extrapolating what I believe a game world would be like by the RM rules - if a GM doesn't do something special to make it different (i.e., insisting that only 1% of the population even has a chance at learning magic, etc...).
The GM wouldn't have to do anything: the world would do it itself. I don't know if you realize but, in our real, actual world, access to mere guns is restricted, especially in about 99% of the world (i.e., save for a few countries such as the USA), access to heavy weaponry (bazookas, tanks, etc.) is even more and access to nuclear weaponry is restricted at a country, international level. Therefore, I think it'd be pretty obvious that powerful magic, were it to exist, would be restricted, if not because of its destructive power, at least because it would upset the economy (and history proved again and again that lobbies like to remain lobbies and crush people who would threaten them).
Which puts you in the position of making whole new rules for non-PCs, which I don't think is a great idea.
Not really. Existence != access. A game that takes place in the modern world may have rules for nuclear weapons and ultra-modern fighter jets to which the PCs and NPCs may have access (say in a James Bond kind of game). However, how many people in the world do you think would have access to such items/technologies?
-
In the end, NPC's level and skills are determined just like a PC's. Their position in the world/community, career and life choices.
So I see definition in each of our respective games for what is average, skilled, below average, or exceptional as being the guiding factors to determining any NPC's level.
-
LG: My bad, man. I just get frustrated as I cannot seem to find anyone of similar mindset, and certainly not to game with in my area. Also, it sounds like your ideas on NPC levels are fairly close to mine; the example of the local militia sounds good to me.
Sure there would be restrictions and some nations would be more strict than others, but you also have to take into consideration the extremely dangerous world in which these people live. (The only reason our world is more dangerous overall, is due to the presence of nuclear* weapons; on a day-to-day basis, most of our world is much less dangerous than the typical fantasy world.) A small group of trusted individuals are not enough when every settlement you have is threatened by: orcs, goblins, dragons, manticores, displacer beasts, winged panthers, great boars, horse vipers, ihl wolfs, strider birds, tatzelwurms, hydras, sea serpents, chimeras, darkhunters, ice spiders, minotaurs, mist monsters, panthersharks, thraxx (I really dig these guys), will 'o the wisps, demon whales, hippocampus, mercats, nators, raths, red jaws, spinesharks, spiderbats, winged eels, banshees, blacksnakes, harpys, griffons, roc, sirens, sky sharks (hey, these guys don't need a tornado!), viperhawks, winged wolves, and all the things that can be summoned from other planes or the other peoples that inhabit the world with humanity.
Trust me, I have thought about this topic a lot over the years. Sure you would have those nations** that are really strict and all of that, but then you would have others that aren't - just like now. (And it is a much different beast keeping a physical item out of peoples hands than ideas and knowledge, which has been shown in our own history.) And when your family's survival is likely predicted upon you being able to kill the beast breaking down your door right NOW, you might be inclined to make sure you can.
*Of course, there is nothing saying that there isn't the magical versions of such weapons.
** I don't think that you would have these nations spanning tens of thousands of square miles, or more, in such a world though. I think it would be more like city-states and large tracks of wild lands. Largely because, unlike in our world, the wild lands would actively resist our encroachment.
Edit: Got this thread confused with the magic affecting your game world one. D'oh!
-
Limiting spell users; Prime Stats of 90. Like any rule, this can be ignored. By DESIGN, it presents a very real limit.
On exp; when a mnv becomes routine, it is 1/2 exp. When it becomes familiar, it is zero exp. For day to day living, this is a real limitation on gaining levels.
Prime stats will effectively limit both Essence and Mentalism without any GM intervention. GMs can easily (if they wish) control access to Channeling spells by requiring them to come through gods or some similar mechanism. And that's in addition to the PR hurdle. And there's a fair amount of lower-level magic in RM that's effectively civilian magic. All that's needed aside from the PRs is a good idea of how that magic is accessed and shared or passed on.
None of this is especially difficult if the GM puts some early, basic thought into the setting. Done well, or at least with some consistent planning, it creates a "real" environment that's both fun and challenging for players. I always did some leveled NPCs just because. After all, who's to say that a high-level fighter might decide that she wants some quiet life and retires unnoticed to a small village in a nearby province that might not have heard of her?
-
LG: My bad, man. I just get frustrated as I cannot seem to find anyone of similar mindset, and certainly not to game with in my area. Also, it sounds like your ideas on NPC levels are fairly close to mine; the example of the local militia sounds good to me.
No worries. About players in your area ... I just lost one of my players for at least two years (he's going to be a father again) so go figure... Anyhow, rethinking my position (I wish I could game MORE and think LESS about gaming) on high-level NPCs it probably boils down to the level of detail I need to bring into the game. To clarify, there would a substantial amount of level 50-100 in any game world, what with gods, demigods, demons, arcane drakes, archmages, undeads ... the thing is that PCs will rarely get to explore the whole world. Thus, as a lazy GM, I don't flesh out the complete world, just the parts they, my players, need for their own gaming.
-
One of my favorite topics and apologies for jumping in late here. For my world, I used to do general categories:
Ordinary folk - levels 1-5
Important folk - levels 6-10
Heroes/Villains - levels 11-15
Epic Heroes/Epic Villains - levels 16+
Percent-wise, for the "adventuring" populace - those that PCs tended to run into in the field, I would use the following:
1d100: 1-95 Ordinary Folk, 96+ roll again
1d100: 1-95 Important Folk, 96+ roll again
1d100: 1-95 Hero, 96+ Epic Hero
You can scale within the 1-95 accordingly and even move the "roll again" breakpoint as you see fit.
Regards,
Old Man
-
One of my favorite topics and apologies for jumping in late here. For my world, I used to do general categories:
Ordinary folk - levels 1-5
Important folk - levels 6-10
Heroes/Villains - levels 11-15
Epic Heroes/Epic Villains - levels 16+
Percent-wise, for the "adventuring" populace - those that PCs tended to run into in the field, I would use the following:
1d100: 1-95 Ordinary Folk, 96+ roll again
1d100: 1-95 Important Folk, 96+ roll again
1d100: 1-95 Hero, 96+ Epic Hero
You can scale within the 1-95 accordingly and even move the "roll again" breakpoint as you see fit.
Regards,
Old Man
Out of curiosity, You really would roll to determine the NPCs the PCs meet? I don't run "scripted" games, but I always have a clear idea of what the world is doing in the campaigns I've GM'd, so I've never, ever, rolled chance on NPCs. There might be a percentage change of my players bumping into A or B, but their chances of bumping into an out-of-context (in my games) NPCs are none.
-
...
Out of curiosity, You really would roll to determine the NPCs the PCs meet? I don't run "scripted" games, but I always have a clear idea of what the world is doing in the campaigns I've GM'd, so I've never, ever, rolled chance on NPCs. There might be a percentage change of my players bumping into A or B, but their chances of bumping into an out-of-context (in my games) NPCs are none.
Yep. I had a mix of "adventure-driven" players and "situation-driven" players. The latter group were always poking about in towns and wondering who they might wander into. One, a thief, like to establish contacts in each town. Hence I'd randomly generate race/class/level (see ROCO IV for early RM2 based sample random people tables) even random names at times.
-
In RMSS and RMFRP Power Points are divorced from Stat Bonuses, this frees up a lot of things that can be done with the system. Everyone from the least intuitive (In) to the most intuitive can access Channeling magic, which IMHO is how it should be. There are no stat barriers to say you can do this or you can do that. The difference is your profession determines the base DP cost for skills and you can spend your DP's as you wish. This means your Layman (profession) can be working as a Church Priest (Channeling his choice of magic) and then go on to study as an Essence User. Is he going to be as good as a Cleric, no he does not have the professions bonuses to the skills, is he going to be as good an Essence Caster as someone who's choice or magic is Essence? No because his choice of magic is Channeling so it will cost him a lot more DP to learn the spells Essence Casters can learn cheaply. But he can do it if he wishes. And IMHO this is more life like as you can have people take the same classes (school) or have the exact same experience (life) but have different levels of skill. IMHO that is the strength of RMSS vs that of RM2 and one I hope makes it into RMU.
MDC
-
[...]
Ordinary folk - levels 1-5
Important folk - levels 6-10
Heroes/Villains - levels 11-15
Epic Heroes/Epic Villains - levels 16+
Percent-wise, for the "adventuring" populace - those that PCs tended to run into in the field, I would use the following:
1d100: 1-95 Ordinary Folk, 96+ roll again
1d100: 1-95 Important Folk, 96+ roll again
1d100: 1-95 Hero, 96+ Epic Hero
[...]
Well, I am not much into random encounters, but... So you say that in your game worlds, 95% of the population are level 1-5, 4.8% are level 5-10, 0.19% are level 11-15, and 0.01% are level 16 or above? So if you have a large medieval town of 10,000 people (which is quite big for that period), you will have a total of 19 people in the 11-15 range, and only a single one above that?
Does this affect the type and number of magical items available in your game worlds in any way?
-
[...]
Ordinary folk - levels 1-5
Important folk - levels 6-10
Heroes/Villains - levels 11-15
Epic Heroes/Epic Villains - levels 16+
Percent-wise, for the "adventuring" populace - those that PCs tended to run into in the field, I would use the following:
1d100: 1-95 Ordinary Folk, 96+ roll again
1d100: 1-95 Important Folk, 96+ roll again
1d100: 1-95 Hero, 96+ Epic Hero
[...]
Well, I am not much into random encounters, but... So you say that in your game worlds, 95% of the population are level 1-5, 4.8% are level 5-10, 0.19% are level 11-15, and 0.01% are level 16 or above? So if you have a large medieval town of 10,000 people (which is quite big for that period), you will have a total of 19 people in the 11-15 range, and only a single one above that?
Does this affect the type and number of magical items available in your game worlds in any way?
Thot, yeah, that would be the rough breakdown.
Item-wise, I have a method for doing items for unique NPCs and PCs. For each level, I gave a random roll to generate a number of "+5s" for the NPC. Those +5s could be allocated to gear (with no one piece having more than say a +15 or +20 - limited based on the PC/NPC levels). The +5s could be grouped to be turned in to be Adders/Multipliers/Special Abilities/etc. That allowed me to generate NPCs of X level with Y items. (I think ROCO IV or VII may have an example, but I'd need to check.)
So a level 1 has a chance of one +5 item. A level 5 likely has a couple +10s and perhaps a couple +5s. Etc.
-
[...]
Ordinary folk - levels 1-5
Important folk - levels 6-10
Heroes/Villains - levels 11-15
Epic Heroes/Epic Villains - levels 16+
Percent-wise, for the "adventuring" populace - those that PCs tended to run into in the field, I would use the following:
1d100: 1-95 Ordinary Folk, 96+ roll again
1d100: 1-95 Important Folk, 96+ roll again
1d100: 1-95 Hero, 96+ Epic Hero
[...]
Well, I am not much into random encounters, but... So you say that in your game worlds, 95% of the population are level 1-5, 4.8% are level 5-10, 0.19% are level 11-15, and 0.01% are level 16 or above? So if you have a large medieval town of 10,000 people (which is quite big for that period), you will have a total of 19 people in the 11-15 range, and only a single one above that?
Does this affect the type and number of magical items available in your game worlds in any way?
You need to remember that he's rolling for random encounters. The players aren't just walking up to every manor/hall/castle they see to find out how powerful the residents are.
I don't know how most people do it, never really thought about it, but most magical items in my game are pre-existing and wouldn't really have anything to do with the current population so I wouldn't need to explain or figure out how many there are. It's just not necessary in the first place however.
There are more basic alchemists who might make scrolls, potions, oils, basic stuff like that. But you'd need to be in a very large population center to have a decent chance of finding someone like that. As for full on magical items, there are rare alchemists who might make the players more powerful items, but that would pretty much entail at least one or two adventures to either gather up the needed stuff or do some serious favors for the alchemist. They'd also need to be in an extremely specific place to find that alchemist - at the least in one of the worlds largest population centers, if not have to climb a monumental mountain to find the secret cave type deal.
-
Limiting spell users; Prime Stats of 90. Like any rule, this can be ignored. By DESIGN, it presents a very real limit.
The thing is, the prime stats are only for the profession, not for being able to learn and cast spells. While that does a good job of ensuring only the best get to be magicians, mentalists, sorcerers, etc... it does nothing to stop others from learning and casting spells.
... the thing is that PCs will rarely get to explore the whole world. Thus, as a lazy GM, I don't flesh out the complete world,
Yeah, and with the fact that none of my games have lasted more than 6 sessions in the last 8 to 10 years, neither do mine and neither do I.
-
Item-wise, I have a method for doing items for unique NPCs and PCs. For each level, I gave a random roll to generate a number of "+5s" for the NPC. Those +5s could be allocated to gear (with no one piece having more than say a +15 or +20 - limited based on the PC/NPC levels). The +5s could be grouped to be turned in to be Adders/Multipliers/Special Abilities/etc. That allowed me to generate NPCs of X level with Y items. (I think ROCO IV or VII may have an example, but I'd need to check.)
So a level 1 has a chance of one +5 item. A level 5 likely has a couple +10s and perhaps a couple +5s. Etc.
That's something I keep fairly strict control over myself. When characters are created they have a chance of getting something, but after than I want to control the power and pace of the game, so they only get what I allow. I'm not stingy mind you, but I don't want it to be random. I can also intentionally tailor items that pop up to certain players, especially if it draws on their character history. The players divvy up loot, but it's usually going to be obvious when something should go to someone and I've picked my group from people I know won't have greed conflicts about treasure. One of my pet peeves has always been someone who insists on 'dicing' for loot even when it's damn obvious where certain items should go (i.e. a bow that should obviously go to the Ranger who has no magical weapon and the Mage, with a crappy bow skill, wants to roll for it).
-
...
I don't know how most people do it, never really thought about it, but most magical items in my game are pre-existing and wouldn't really have anything to do with the current population so I wouldn't need to explain or figure out how many there are. It's just not necessary in the first place however.
...
I was considering everything including things like +5N or +5M items/tools/swords which could be heirlooms or come from talented crafters from craft guilds. (That was one thing I forgot in my reply to Zut, the +5s are +5N to start and you trade 2 to get a +5M for example.)
-
Ah, yeah, I didn't think about the fact that a lot of my lower end 'magic' items are really just master-crafted or material based bonuses. +5 will almost always be like that. +10 might be a master-crafted unusual material. +15 might be a combination of those, but to work the material would likely still require an alchemist to work with the crafter (if they are not the same person).
-
[...]
Item-wise, I have a method for doing items for unique NPCs and PCs. For each level, I gave a random roll to generate a number of "+5s" for the NPC. Those +5s could be allocated to gear (with no one piece having more than say a +15 or +20 - limited based on the PC/NPC levels). The +5s could be grouped to be turned in to be Adders/Multipliers/Special Abilities/etc. That allowed me to generate NPCs of X level with Y items. (I think ROCO IV or VII may have an example, but I'd need to check.)
So a level 1 has a chance of one +5 item. A level 5 likely has a couple +10s and perhaps a couple +5s. Etc.
Ah, I was asking more from a simulating point of view. Because, well... with only so many level 10+ people in your world... are there even any high-level alchemists and other artifact-crafting spellcasters to make all the stuff you roll for?
In other words... it seems to me that by basically using only the lower third of the level scale, you throw a way a lot of interesting, player-affecting spells and abilities.
-
Ah, yeah, I didn't think about the fact that a lot of my lower end 'magic' items are really just master-crafted or material based bonuses. [...]
What level would the master crafter be?
-
...
Ah, I was asking more from a simulating point of view. Because, well... with only so many level 10+ people in your world... are there even any high-level alchemists and other artifact-crafting spellcasters to make all the stuff you roll for?
In other words... it seems to me that by basically using only the lower third of the level scale, you throw a way a lot of interesting, player-affecting spells and abilities.
Ah I see. Well, there doesn't have to currently be lots of 10th level alchemists, but they just have to have existed across the world since the beginning of time. :)
Also, consider the affect if you use Ritual Magics to allow multiple alchemists to collaborate.
-
Ah, yeah, I didn't think about the fact that a lot of my lower end 'magic' items are really just master-crafted or material based bonuses. [...]
What level would the master crafter be?
(I'd ask how ranks they'd require, especially if ranks can be acquired by working w/o level gain, to be considered a master. 10? 20?)
There's a good question there - what bonus or # of ranks do you need to succeed at making a +5 or +10 item? (Apologies if I've forgotten that one of the earlier Laws covered such ... )
-
Ah I see. Well, there doesn't have to currently be lots of 10th level alchemists, but they just have to have existed across the world since the beginning of time. :)
Well, most will be lost after some time - lost at sea, destroyed by violence or accident, buried with the honored dead, buried under a volcano eruption... even if you assume all magical items are immune to the forces of time (which even bronze swords are not, much less those made from iron or steel that isn't covered in crome or something like that), you will need a steady influx of new stuff to replace the lost ones.
And remember, the same forces that inhibit leveling up in NPC's now will have done that at all times, so the overall rarity of magical or even just masterfully crafted items will be comparatively higher than on worlds that regularily see higher levels.
Low level NPC populations and high level magical items... they just don't seem to fit each other in my view.
Also, consider the affect if you use Ritual Magics to allow multiple alchemists to collaborate.
That would imply that there are enough of them at high enough level to meet each other and having time to do the stuff together.
-
Ah I see. Well, there doesn't have to currently be lots of 10th level alchemists, but they just have to have existed across the world since the beginning of time. :)
Well, most will be lost after some time - lost at sea, destroyed by violence or accident, buried with the honored dead, buried under a volcano eruption... even if you assume all magical items are immune to the forces of time (which even bronze swords are not, much less those made from iron or steel that isn't covered in crome or something like that), you will need a steady influx of new stuff to replace the lost ones.
And remember, the same forces that inhibit leveling up in NPC's now will have done that at all times, so the overall rarity of magical or even just masterfully crafted items will be comparatively higher than on worlds that regularily see higher levels.
Low level NPC populations and high level magical items... they just don't seem to fit each other in my view.
Also, consider the affect if you use Ritual Magics to allow multiple alchemists to collaborate.
That would imply that there are enough of them at high enough level to meet each other and having time to do the stuff together.
All the items are in crypts. :) Actually I would posit that the higher level bonus items (15/20/++) are less likely to suffer from the elements and hence can be found intact (as usually happens in literature of all sorts).
The level spread of the population wouldn't necessarily be the same across the history of the world. So the current level spread in a specific place/time would not apply elsewhere (say for even for example long-lived races vs. short-lived races or peaceful vs. violent cultures or one plane(t) vs. another).
Given the business of alchemy, I could see an Arcane Guild (or a country and/or business) actively assembling Alchemical teams to build items. (The ROCO III Ritual rules work well with casters swapping out - on-shift/off-shift - plus Alchemical rituals can be suspended easily.) Actually, if I recall correctly, a 10th level Alchemist with 10-20 ranks in Alchemical Ritual, probably can easily do a 20th level spell via ritual. So +20 bonuses are not out of reach.
But, as usual, YMMV - you can always expand the level ranges and/or raise/lower percentages to your liking.
-
Limiting spell users; Prime Stats of 90. Like any rule, this can be ignored. By DESIGN, it presents a very real limit.
The thing is, the prime stats are only for the profession, not for being able to learn and cast spells. While that does a good job of ensuring only the best get to be magicians, mentalists, sorcerers, etc... it does nothing to stop others from learning and casting spells.
... the thing is that PCs will rarely get to explore the whole world. Thus, as a lazy GM, I don'tpot flesh out the complete world,
Yeah, and with the fact that none of my games have lasted more than 6 sessions in the last 8 to 10 years, neither do mine and neither do I.
In my game a 90 or higher stat is required, or perhaps a +5 mod if I feel generous. Note that a bg option can buy 20 points in potential stat gains, so a mixed man can always increase a realm stat pot to 90 at level one. If an evil mentalist drains a realm stat below 90, the spell user loses the ability to cast spells until the stat is healed/recovered. Note that there are no stat requirements to use magic items (unless keyed to demand them).
OTOH, opinions will vary.
-
You underestimate. At 50 experience points per day, 10th level is achieved in 8 years. Even 10 experience points per day makes 10th level after 40 years of adulthood. As for elves and the like, after 1000 years, even 1 experience per day is level 16; 2 per day reaches Lord level (20) in 700 years.
(If it hadn't been for the emergence of the RMU project, I'd have been writing a GC article on the implications of the RM rules for levels for NPCs. The more narrative experience rules of RMU are looser and make it easier for a 10,000 year old elf to not have a triple-digit level, but everyone is the hero of his own story. Anyone not in a coma is gathering experience at some pace.)
I agree wholeheartedly. Level 0 seems to be for adolescents; the first few levels for young adults who are just starting out. Average people, whose daily lives don't provide much experience, I still put in the 3-5 range. Mundane leaders and master crafters might be in th 5-10 range. Higher leaders, like a town's council or captains of the military or heads of organizations might be normally in the 10-15 range. Above 15 I do reserve for unusual individuals, but even there, you are going to have quite a few if your society involves immortals or creatures that can live for hundreds of years. The basic math to me dictates that there are a lot more high level people running around than other games (e.g. DnD) seem to expect. This seems a bit more realistic to me. Just my 2 cents though.
-
Note: for RM2/C you need 90's+ to have any power points in RMSS/FRP you do not.
As for population level density affecting magic items yes it does in my game. Now there is a big difference in material having a "bonus" and an item having a magic bonus. The magic bonus as well as any magic items would have to be enchanted by an alchemist. Note I have decided in my new game to have magic items created differently then in the books as they are written, I would like to move away from the spell list idea of creating magic items to something different.
The same thing goes for smiths trying to work with materials providing higher bonuses they need to have specific skill ranks to work the material (or a specific skill bonus with out special items helping). Now there will be some concentration of these skilled workers in some areas as they tend to go where the material is to work or where people will pay a lot to have them around.
MDC
-
Note: for RM2/C you need 90's+ to have any power points in RMSS/FRP you do not.
...
IIRC, if you used the Smoothed Stats from ROCO I, you have PP down to 60-63. But most would do the "swap lowest for a 90 in prime" anyway, I'd hazard.
-
Ah, yeah, I didn't think about the fact that a lot of my lower end 'magic' items are really just master-crafted or material based bonuses. [...]
What level would the master crafter be?
(I'd ask how ranks they'd require, especially if ranks can be acquired by working w/o level gain, to be considered a master. 10? 20?)
There's a good question there - what bonus or # of ranks do you need to succeed at making a +5 or +10 item? (Apologies if I've forgotten that one of the earlier Laws covered such ... )
Well, that's the thing... just my personal outlook here... I don't bother trying to figure that out. It's just needless information unless I want to leave things to random chance. The players don't need that information and not even I need it unless there's meaningful interaction between the crafter and the players. If there's a +5 Arrow sitting on the shelf in a high end shop or in a treasure pile it doesn't matter how it was made or by who, the only thing that matters is it exists.
Most higher end magic items are going to have been made a long time ago and sometimes by one or more unknown crafters. Either that or they were created by a deity or some kind of unique event.
The only time I need to explain how an item came into being is if they themselves (the players) initiate it's creation. I may have a history for major items (and surely will for epic stuff), but a +5 arrow? No way. It was made by a skilled craftsman or it was made of X material... nuff said.
If it's a fairly basic item (+5 Door Spike or Horse Shoes) they are just going to have to find the local (and that's relative) master crafter that even I don't need to know anything about because I'm either going to say they can find it or not, there's no randomness involved in it. I decide if I want the players to have +5 Horse Shoes then the horse shoes are either available or they (the players) commission their creation. The crafter will make them. If he fails once or a dozen times the players wouldn't even know it, because the crafter took the commission and will make what was ordered.
Now, if it's something grand, then they are going to have to find a very specific person who is likely already a full fledged NPC I've designed for the setting... and just finding that individual might be an adventure in itself. Lastly, while I might actually have designed that NPC fully, it doesn't really matter what it's exact ability is... it matters if I, the GM, want him to succeed in what he's trying to do.
Unless a character is at odds with an NPC I just don't need that information. It's when you start dealing with opposed actions, that is when I need to know real numbers, skill levels, etc. Combat, trying to charm someone, interrogation, seduction... that's when I need that stuff.
-
Cory,
What if the player wants to make a +5 item?
-
[...]
Well, that's the thing... just my personal outlook here... I don't bother trying to figure that out. It's just needless information unless I want to leave things to random chance. The players don't need that information and not even I need it unless there's meaningful interaction between the crafter and the players.
That depends on one's playstyle. See, I like to have the little facts in my game world fit together, so that at some point, the players have that moment of sudden revelation about this or that. Such as in "that shopkeeper has lots and lots of magical items to sell - we came here to look for an ancient and very powerful magic user, who might know something about the Artifact of McGuffin - the shopkeeper must know (or be?) someone who can help us!". And that's just a very obvious example.
Moreover, when it gets into epic play, such as "the evil necromancer of Troos tries to take over the world, please, mighty heroes, lead our armies to stop them", I obviously need to know the composition of the necromancer's and the players' army - not only fighters and their average and median levels (troop quality), but also the availability of competent support - clerics to resurrect people, alchemists to enchant all the troops' equipment, healers, etc.
Actually, the cleric is a fine example - how many 12th level clerics will there be in a given world? I definitely need to know that, because my players will conclude things... like "dammit, PC#1 is dead... there is a small town two days from here, we are likely (or unlikely) to find someone to resurrect him there. We should go there or maybe rather go 3 days in the opposite direction, there's a larger town there." And of course, if there is a 12th level in every mid-sized town, that will affect the availability of even higher-level clerics (with better resurrection spells), too. Or if it won't, I need to know that, too.
And of course, I need to know if 15th level PC's are "mighty heroes" (who will be asked to lead armies), or just "barely competent adventurers". For that, I need to know what the rest of the game world is like, level-wise.
Consistency in a game helps me make it more believable, and even without me noticing opens new avenues of action and new levels of immersion for the players.
Most higher end magic items are going to have been made a long time ago and sometimes by one or more unknown crafters. Either that or they were created by a deity or some kind of unique event.
[...]
That is, of course, a very popular fantasy trope. "Everything was bigger, better, brighter in the good old times". However, I don't like it or my games - it is not realistic in any way (in Earth's history, people get smarter every generation, and even when they don't, it is just a temporary setback that at most lasts two to four centuries, with even faster improvements following the recovery - thus, I believe in progress).
For a "this age is but a shadow of those before" campaign, low levels now and higher levels back then are obviously required. But for my consistency approach, even then I'd need to know how the level distribution was back then - because that will have affected everything the old times left behind - from buildings to magical items, and of course, including a "surviving evil archmage", who I need to be able to know what he was (in relative terms) in his own time - is a 15th level archmage from the days of old a former evil overlord, or a former captain in the evil overlord's army, or was he just a lab assistant?
-
Of course, the people of the current age could just believe that a prior age was greater than their own...
That is like one of the Malazan Books of the Fallen by Steven Erickson; in it an ancient, undead powerful creature is woken and begins a bit of a rampage of destruction - right up until it meets a current being of power. Ultimately, it learned the hard way that magical progress had continued on while it slept its undead sleep.
-
That depends on one's playstyle. See, I like to have the little facts in my game world fit together, so that at some point, the players have that moment of sudden revelation about this or that. Such as in "that shopkeeper has lots and lots of magical items to sell - we came here to look for an ancient and very powerful magic user, who might know something about the Artifact of McGuffin - the shopkeeper must know (or be?) someone who can help us!". And that's just a very obvious example.
I don't see the players needing to know what skill total or level that shop keeper is, only that he has a bunch of magic items and therefore may have related information. As a matter of fact, I'm never going to answer the question "What level is that guy?" or "What's his skill level?" with an actual number. I'm going to say "He looks like he knows his stuff" or whatever. Then I'm going to give them the information I want them to have. The only time I need to know much about the shop keeper is if he has the info, doesn't want to give it up, and the players exert some type of non-friendly effort to obtain it. The shop keepers stats have no real impact unless there is some form of opposition (i.e. using skills on, casting spells on, or attacking him). Now, if the shopkeeper is a re-occurring NPC that the party is going to interact with on a regular basis, that changes things slightly. But it definitely does not mean I need to know what level the rest of the shopkeepers in the world are.
Moreover, when it gets into epic play, such as "the evil necromancer of Troos tries to take over the world, please, mighty heroes, lead our armies to stop them", I obviously need to know the composition of the necromancer's and the players' army - not only fighters and their average and median levels (troop quality), but also the availability of competent support - clerics to resurrect people, alchemists to enchant all the troops' equipment, healers, etc.
You're getting into combat related information here. In this you need to know skill totals and levels, but the players aren't privy to that until they confront it and get to judge for themselves based on the results of the encounter. It does not mean I need to know what level that random peasant wandering down the street is or how well he can handle a sword and the players will never know until they attack him or he is being attacked by something they need to save him from... and even then all I need is an OB, DB and how many hits he has, his actual level is likely almost completely irrelevant to me because I don't really care and there's no way for the players to know for sure.
Actually, the cleric is a fine example - how many 12th level clerics will there be in a given world? I definitely need to know that, because my players will conclude things... like "dammit, PC#1 is dead... there is a small town two days from here, we are likely (or unlikely) to find someone to resurrect him there. We should go there or maybe rather go 3 days in the opposite direction, there's a larger town there." And of course, if there is a 12th level in every mid-sized town, that will affect the availability of even higher-level clerics (with better resurrection spells), too. Or if it won't, I need to know that, too.
With me the question would simply be: Do I want them to find a level 12 cleric and, if so, how far do I want them to have to go or what do I want them to have to do to find it? The players will have to ask around, if they do not already know, and the answers I provide that were given by the individuals asked will give them the information they need. It doesn't matter how many there are, only where I want there to be one... and the players would never know how many there are anyhow even if I had the number per-determined. It will never be as simple as "There's a level 12 cleric every X many square miles".
And of course, I need to know if 15th level PC's are "mighty heroes" (who will be asked to lead armies), or just "barely competent adventurers". For that, I need to know what the rest of the game world is like, level-wise.
But you already know that if it's your own game. I don't need to populate my entire world with essentially stat'ed out NPC's to know such a thing.
Most higher end magic items are going to have been made a long time ago and sometimes by one or more unknown crafters. Either that or they were created by a deity or some kind of unique event.
[...]
That is, of course, a very popular fantasy trope. "Everything was bigger, better, brighter in the good old times". However, I don't like it or my games - it is not realistic in any way (in Earth's history, people get smarter every generation, and even when they don't, it is just a temporary setback that at most lasts two to four centuries, with even faster improvements following the recovery - thus, I believe in progress).
I don't think there's any 'of course' about it. It's the GM's call how they want that to work. If you have 10 ages of 'modern' man that were able to make magic items then 9 out of 10 came from a previous age on average. It's simple math. The current magic item makers are not going to flood the world with more epic magic items than the rest of the previous ages combined.
Keep in mind when I said most the items would be very old I was talking about major or epic magic items in my setting. Don't don't get created every day... so most of them will be very old.
For a "this age is but a shadow of those before" campaign, low levels now and higher levels back then are obviously required. But for my consistency approach, even then I'd need to know how the level distribution was back then - because that will have affected everything the old times left behind - from buildings to magical items, and of course, including a "surviving evil archmage", who I need to be able to know what he was (in relative terms) in his own time - is a 15th level archmage from the days of old a former evil overlord, or a former captain in the evil overlord's army, or was he just a lab assistant?
Why create so much work for yourself? What you want there is there. What level someone needed to be to do it is largely irrelevant if the actual creator no longer has any impact on the current age. Only what they created matters if it's still around.
I could have a magical castle that's 2000 years old created by some long dead powerful wizard. But since the wizard is dead it doesn't matter what level or skill totals he achieved, only that his castle is still around and what it's properties are. If some player wants to knock themselves out trying to figure out what level said wizard needed to be to create whatever magical property the castle has I would just shake my head in wonder. Until they try to make some kind of opposed action (dispel something for example) it's pointless and, if they do try to, I'll assign an appropriately high target level. But it doesn't mean I need to know what level craftsman every building in the town required to build them.
-
Cory, What if the player wants to make a +5 item?
If it's a player you already have a level and skill total and the rules already exist for that. I don't need to determine it, it's already a fully fleshed out character. Completely different than thinking I need to have a fleshed out character for every individual the character lay eyes on let alone in the world.
-
[...]
I don't see the players needing to know what skill total or level that shop keeper is,
How common or easy to make his items are for the general NPC population they will have to know (for my style of play). If an item that requires a 15th level alchemist in a world where there is essentially only one 15thlevel alchemist is buyable there, then the shopkeeper will know how to contact that alchemist - but if every 35-year-old alchemist is 15th level, then a 15th level alchemist obviously isn't the one rare individual the PC's are looking for. So I need to know that kind of stuff.
I am not advocating "stat out every NPC". I am just saying "I need to know how common certain types and levels of abilities are".
Moreover, when it gets into epic play, such as "the evil necromancer of Troos tries to take over the world, please, mighty heroes, lead our armies to stop them", I obviously need to know the composition of the necromancer's and the players' army - not only fighters and their average and median levels (troop quality), but also the availability of competent support - clerics to resurrect people, alchemists to enchant all the troops' equipment, healers, etc.
You're getting into combat related information here. In this you need to know skill totals and levels, but the players aren't privy to that until they confront it and get to judge for themselves based on the results of the encounter.
"How many of our clerics can resurrect the dead, and how often per day" is a very relevant question for a responsible general to ask. The same goes for "how many of our healers and lay healers can have you regrow a limb in what time".
I need to be able to give an answer to that. Even if nobody in the game world knows it, the information will be retrievable, and I as the GM need to be able to deliver it.
With me the question would simply be: Do I want them to find a level 12 cleric and, if so, how far do I want them to have to go or what do I want them to have to do to find it?
If it works for your group, then more power to you! But for me, as a player, that would smell bad - as if the GM wasn't letting me acting out my character in a believable world, but manipulating me into jumping through a hoop.
And of course, I need to know if 15th level PC's are "mighty heroes" (who will be asked to lead armies), or just "barely competent adventurers". For that, I need to know what the rest of the game world is like, level-wise.
But you already know that if it's your own game. [...]
If and only if I have made up my mind about the level distribution question beforehand.
[...]
That is, of course, a very popular fantasy trope. [...]
I don't think there's any 'of course' about it. It's the GM's call how they want that to work.
I beg to differ. What is popular or not in our general western culture's fantasy literature and movies is not subject to GM fiat. :)
If you have 10 ages of 'modern' man that were able to make magic items then 9 out of 10 came from a previous age on average. It's simple math.
Don't you need to factor in how many items get lost per year (or age) to the forces of entropy (such as fire, malicious intent, the inevitable chasm where things get dropped into, etc...)?
[...] is a 15th level archmage from the days of old a former evil overlord, or a former captain in the evil overlord's army, or was he just a lab assistant?
Why create so much work for yourself?
Actually, it saves work. I know the level of the PC's, I know what place that level has in the current world, and what place it would have had in the world back then, so I immediately know what kind of role the villain would have had - so I already know something about his story, his personality, and his motives, and thus his tactics.
What you want there is there. What level someone needed to be to do it is largely irrelevant if the actual creator no longer has any impact on the current age. Only what they created matters if it's still around.
A few years back, I ran a campaign on Middle Earth. The villain of that campaign was the dragon Rutaug, one of Morgoth's captains in the First Age (essentially, sort of a junior partner of guys like Sauron), who had been buried along with his company of First-Age-high-level-orcs when Morgoth's fortress fell, and who put himself and his subordinates into a magical stasis - to be awakened when something frees them from their underground prison, which a friend of the PC's, a dwarf and his clan, eventually did while digging for silver in the Iron Mountains. The campaign (which started by sneakingly freeing the imprisoned Dwaves, and then spread from the Iron Mountains over Rhovanion up into Dorwinion, and both the Mountains and the Sea of Rhûn, and ended in the Northern Wastes, where Rutaug had built and army) involved some fighting, both the dragon's minions and the dragon himself. From the start, I had an idea how powerful the dragon and his minions were, and plenty of opportunities to display the (initial) difference in power levels to the PC's without having them killed. Not exact stats in each and every case, but a precise enough idea to handle those NPC's convincingly. All I needed for this was to know where those NPC's came from, what they were back then, and what they were now, relative to the general population. The rest basically happened by itself - quite naturally, just because the initial conditions were well-defined.
I heard there are GM's who can just make this kind of stuff up on the fly so that it looks believable, though I've never met one. That's not me. I need some structure first, or it becomes too much work.
-
Cory, What if the player wants to make a +5 item?
If it's a player you already have a level and skill total and the rules already exist for that. I don't need to determine it, it's already a fully fleshed out character. Completely different than thinking I need to have a fleshed out character for every individual the character lay eyes on let alone in the world.
Actually, that was an aside as I didn't recall the rules to make bonus items by crafting. Anyone have a reference handy for RMC/RM2? Thanks ...
-
Thot: I guess what it comes down to is are you going to let the setting or system dictate to you how available something is? I don't think many experienced GM's are going to put up with that. When I run a game I want it to be my game, not just something that is handed to me and I'm merely the referee looking up information, statistics and rules.
Unless you want someone/something else dictating it to you how many clerics/healers are available to a general in a battle/war it is up to you the GM to decide what that number is. Do you want the general to win? Then there are more. Do you want the general to lose? Then there are less. Do you want to leave it to chance? Then set a number up front or just let it be dictated to you and what happens happens.
In terms of magic items it doesn't matter to me how many are lost over time - they are lost. It only matters to me how many are available right now and I am the one that's going to decide that. I don't want the game/system determining for me how common high end alchemists are and, therefore, how common high end magic items are. I want to decide that for my game. Even with simple +5 utility items... do I want the players to be able to buy any +5 master-crafted item willy nilly and effectively just ramp up the whole game by +5 or do I want to control that escalation over the course of the game? It has nothing to do with believability. What I determine is the reality for the world/characters.
I heard there are GM's who can just make this kind of stuff up on the fly so that it looks believable, though I've never met one. That's not me. I need some structure first, or it becomes too much work.
We have a GM in our group of gamers that needs to have everything written before he even starts the game. He actually has the campaign (as it stands now) completely finished before we even start. We have a GM that only writes the next session after we've completed the last one. I am somewhat in the middle. I have an outline for the long term campaign, but I'm not going to fully detail it out in advance. Choice the players make will change the course of things sometimes, so I'm not going to plan out in detail what they could possibly derail.
There are professional writers who MUST have the story planned out in their head, ones who have a basic outline, and ones who completely just write what they think should happen next (Steven Brust is one of those).
We have GM (that we really don't game with much anymore) that was completely inflexible in what he had prepared. If we tried to go down a road that he had nothing planned for we would, literally, supposedly run into a road block of some kind. If there was a turn in a dungeon he didn't want us to take there's be an "under construction" sign. Literally. It was often humorous, but it showed a lack of ability to control the situation in a believable manner, it told us we had little to no choice in what happened. Then we have a GM would would COMPLETELY free-form his game, and he did well enough. There was no long term goal or plot, but it was fun enough. With me, I will have the session mapped out and I will give some freedom in how the players want to proceed, but if a certain event needs to happen it will likely happen no matter what road they go down. There will be no road block forbidding them to pass, but choosing that road will eventually lead to that event anyhow. Even in the even that something MUST happen, they have the appearance of choice at least.
If an NPC will never have any impact on the game (which almost always means the players come into conflict with or are allied with that NPC in a meaningful way) I'm just not going to worry about the specific details. To me trying to figure that out is far more work than winging it and I'm not about to have the system dictate it to me. When they ask "Where is a cleric who can resurrect" I am not going to get out a booklet that says "A town has to be X size in order to have X level cleric which will appear every X miles: So they need to travel HERE to get what they are looking for." I am going to say "You'll have to ask around" and when they do some random person who finally has relevant info will say "In X town in Y direction I've heard there's a powerful healer." and the players are going to head that way. The players don't have all the info for the whole world at their hands, so they shouldn't know if I'm just winging it or referencing an insanely large and all knowing world almanac (personally I would find the GM having to refer to statistics less immersing). I you don't need to do that then you already knew the answer in the back of your head and don't need it determined for you.
So, again, for me the first question is: Do I want them to find said cleric? The second question, if the first is yes is: How hard to I want to make them work to find that cleric? They should never know if I knew that answer at the very start of the game or if I just pulled it out of a hat.
-
Thot: I guess what it comes down to is are you going to let the setting or system dictate to you how available something is?
Uh, there is no "dictatorship" in making a few decisions before you start the campaign and then sticking to them?
When I run a game I want it to be my game,
To me, it is not "my", but "our" game. Because the players have certain expectations, and rightly so. What exactly those expectations will be differs from group to group, of course.
In terms of magic items it doesn't matter to me how many are lost over time - they are lost.
You yourself stated it was simple math to conclude how many magical items are available from earlier times. If every age, there are about, say 50% of items which do not make it into the next age, and you have ten ages, including the current one, then that will mean that there are only 0.1% of the original items left at the end of the tenth age - they will simply not be relevant for today's magical items stock. You can easily see how the number of items that gets lost is very relevant here.
It only matters to me how many are available right now and I am the one that's going to decide that.
If your players are fine with that, that's cool! Mine wouldn't be, and I wouldn't be when I play, either.
We have a GM in our group of gamers that needs to have everything written before he even starts the game.
Please don't change the subject. ;)
Do I want them to find said cleric? [...]
My players might have checked out the availability of clerics before they even went to that dragon cave. When GM fiat then suddenly changes what they rightfully assumed to be game-world fact, they might be a little upset. I would be.
-
Thot: I guess what it comes down to is are you going to let the setting or system dictate to you how available something is?
Uh, there is no "dictatorship" in making a few decisions before you start the campaign and then sticking to them?
There you are thinking what I'm thinking. You determine this. You make the choice what there is and isn't. Maybe the difference is you feel you need to have it all documented and maybe even symmetrical (thinking that's less work for you) when I would just rather do it naturally at the time it becomes needed (which, by my thinking, is far less work for me).
To me, it is not "my", but "our" game. Because the players have certain expectations, and rightly so. What exactly those expectations will be differs from group to group, of course.
My players don't know there will be a 12th level Cleric every X many square miles. They only know what they've learned and/or what is relevant to them. They know that, if they don't already know where one is, they'll have to figure out where the next one is. Not that they just need to travel to the nearest specific sized community because it must have a X level cleric because the community is Y large. I don't want my players to feel entitled to the availability of a certain non-standard NPC type or item.
You yourself stated it was simple math to conclude how many magical items are available from earlier times. If every age, there are about, say 50% of items which do not make it into the next age, and you have ten ages, including the current one, then that will mean that there are only 0.1% of the original items left at the end of the tenth age - they will simply not be relevant for today's magical items stock. You can easily see how the number of items that gets lost is very relevant here.
Depends entirely on if you think major/epic magic items don't survive well. I think if it's a powerful item it is going to last and it is going to be kept safe by whoever owns it.
If your players are fine with that, that's cool! Mine wouldn't be, and I wouldn't be when I play, either.
I don't understand why players would be concerned with how many magic items have dissapeared never to be found again throughout the ages. What purpose would that information serve?
We have a GM in our group of gamers that needs to have everything written before he even starts the game.
Please don't change the subject. ;)
That is on subject. You seem to be saying you want to know how much of everything there is and how far you'll need to reach it and that the players are owed that information. If my players ask me "where is the nearest 50th level alchemist" my answer is not going to effectively be "There's one in X city because that's how big a city has to be to have one and as such there is one guaranteed to be there."
My players might have checked out the availability of clerics before they even went to that dragon cave. When GM fiat then suddenly changes what they rightfully assumed to be game-world fact, they might be a little upset. I would be.
Different. They looked for it. They didn't just assume they need to travel X miles and they'll magically find one when someone gets hurt.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong... I just don't understand how someone could think having a strict formula for something and documenting them all up front is less work and why information that seems completely irrelevant to the players current situation is owed to them. I'd go nuts doing that amount of prep work.
Course, I have had a GM where you could actually walk 50 miles, dig a hole and he could tell you what's there. I thought he was nuts. :)
-
If it's a player you already have a level and skill total and the rules already exist for that. I don't need to determine it, it's already a fully fleshed out character. Completely different than thinking I need to have a fleshed out character for every individual the character lay eyes on let alone in the world.
Actually, that was an aside as I didn't recall the rules to make bonus items by crafting. Anyone have a reference handy for RMC/RM2? Thanks ...
I'd use the RMSS Treasure Companion and maybe pull some info from Castles and Ruins or maybe ...And A Ten Foot Pole in that I'd just want to determine the success role needed and if they hit one of the upper end totals (unusual success and so on) I'd give a possible craftsmanship bonus. We've never needed to however as the players tend to rarely have an all out full on trade skill in crafting of some sort. The campaign I'm working with right now they all have a non-adventuring skill, but they tend towards non-crafting things such as sailing related skills or the like.
As far as material bonuses I've pulled that info from various RM2, RMSS and Shadow World books. I have non-magical materials that range from +5 to +15 and magical materials that range up to +25 and +30 in rare cases. Materials +20 or more require an alchemist to work along side the crafter (assuming the creator is not both).
-
[...]
you feel you need to have it all documented
[...]
I think you may want to re-read my posts of you believe that.
-
One thihng you can do is ask the players. Get them involved in the creation somewhat and see were and how it goes.
MDC
-
With things like the level of the general populace, it should all lie in the hands of the GM.
Some GMs, like myself, follow Dan Henry's train of thought, with XP being doled out for things people experience and even if it is only 10 XP per day, in the end that will be 3600 xp per year, or one level per 3 years for the first 5 lvls. Then it is 1 level per 6 years. So an old craftsman, who made guild elder in the Candeliers guild will be 8-11th lvl. It makes sense to have PCs level up, and as they level up, that will become part of the upper echelons of society. The paupers will still be like minions, averaging 2-4th lvl, but the baron is lvl 10-15. His son perhaps lvl 7. Some experienced guard captains might have accrued 15-20 lvls during their career, etc. Challenges to the PCs power can still come from society and it matters if Sewy the seamstress is lvl 10 or 12 if she can handle that delicate brocade and turn it in a stunning evening gown for the player character.
Other GMs might stress such development less and wish the PCs to outgrow "society" relatively fast, so they can get to the real business of the campaign. It shouldn't matter in such a campaign if Smitty the smith is lvl 0, or 5: as long as he got a forge and is churning out swords and breast plates for other cannon fodder up to the final climactic battle.
The choice is what kind of campaign are you planning: a truly epic campaign, where the players do battle with extra dimensional gods trying to take over this plane of existence or the campaign is nitty gritty and the threat comes from a neighboring realm invading the PCs homeland.
Epic campaigns suffer from muggles turning out to be bosses: as a GM you want the campaign to surge forward; from finding the ancient scriptures, to visiting the alien temple, to discovering the summoning to be nearly completed, to the drawn out battles with all the extra dimensional demi gods, etc, etc. Some stupid official telling the players they don't have the required permit to acquire 2 tons of mercury to stop the next demigod is a total anticlimax in such a campaign.
While an evasion by a neighboring state where lvl 8 special forces try to lower a drawbridge of the PCs home town, after which they discover that a lvl 10 sorcerer is holed up nearby, where they face a lvl 13 caged beast, but they need to bribe the 14th lvl official to get their hands on some rare herb to defeat it is an acceptable nitty gritty campaign build up (or it is in my eyes).
While players might have acceptable ideas, and as a GM you may take a hint when players pose suggestions, it should finally depend on the kind of story you want to tell. Muppets or Bosses?
-
With things like the level of the general populace, it should all lie in the hands of the GM.
Some GMs, like myself, follow Dan Henry's train of thought, with XP being doled out for things people experience and even if it is only 10 XP per day, in the end that will be 3600 xp per year, or one level per 3 years for the first 5 lvls. Then it is 1 level per 6 years. So an old craftsman, who made guild elder in the Candeliers guild will be 8-11th lvl. It makes sense to have PCs level up, and as they level up, that will become part of the upper echelons of society. The paupers will still be like minions, averaging 2-4th lvl, but the baron is lvl 10-15.
Why would the paupers be 2-4th level? If you make these assumptions, all your 60-year-old winos and bums will also be level 15 and up.
-
With things like the level of the general populace, it should all lie in the hands of the GM.
Some GMs, like myself, follow Dan Henry's train of thought, with XP being doled out for things people experience and even if it is only 10 XP per day, in the end that will be 3600 xp per year, or one level per 3 years for the first 5 lvls. Then it is 1 level per 6 years. So an old craftsman, who made guild elder in the Candeliers guild will be 8-11th lvl. It makes sense to have PCs level up, and as they level up, that will become part of the upper echelons of society. The paupers will still be like minions, averaging 2-4th lvl, but the baron is lvl 10-15.
Why would the paupers be 2-4th level? If you make these assumptions, all your 60-year-old winos and bums will also be level 15 and up.
LOL. For a different style, I don't deal out DPs per day for the general populace. But they can gain DPs as they work (via time rather than allocated XP->Levels). So your low "experience" level crafter can still be a master in their trade (10-20 ranks).
-
[...]
Why would the paupers be 2-4th level? If you make these assumptions, all your 60-year-old winos and bums will also be level 15 and up.
Indeed - shouldn't NPC level be based on age alone, with a bonus for having gone through hardships, such as "survived the siege of her city thirteen years ago, +2 levels" or somehting like that.
Unless, of course, the society in question is a meritocracy that somehow makes you a higher class if you are more capable... then your level would indirectly translate into your social status. Otherwise, I don't see how the baron wil be necessarily of a higher level than the beggar of the same age - in fact, the beggar has a tougher life, so he will quite likely be higher in level.
-
[...]
LOL. For a different style, I don't deal out DPs per day for the general populace. But they can gain DPs as they work (via time rather than allocated XP->Levels). So your low "experience" level crafter can still be a master in their trade (10-20 ranks).
What's the purpose of this special rule? To keep the NPC's from resisting spells and such?
-
I think all of this is why I have drifted away from class/level systems. They are just too unrealistic in portraying "real" people.
Unless it is done more like Skyrim / Earthdawn leveling, where how much you have increased your skills (Talents in Earthdawn) dictate what level (Circle in Earthdawn) you, and they don't have to be X times your level maximum or whatever. (Though there is a little of that in Earthdawn.) Basically, if I ramp up a few skills and you spread out your skills we can both be the same level. That more accurately represents people, I believe; the "15th level beggar" is that high of level, but only because his begging and other street survival skills are X-high, while he has a moderate capability in these other skills, etc...
In RM, the fact that I go up in level, then have a pool of DPs to spend on my skills, which I can only go so far in before I have "maxed out", means that I will artificially be better at other things just because I have to spend the points. I just don't care for that model anymore. I can play it and not die or anything like that, just not my preference anymore. In RM, a 15th level beggar is likely a pretty good fighter or something else too, which is probably why many of you like to keep the levels low, because it keeps you from having to deal with that very situation. Which I think is better dealt with by not having classes or levels.
-
LOL. For a different style, I don't deal out DPs per day for the general populace. But they can gain DPs as they work (via time rather than allocated XP->Levels). So your low "experience" level crafter can still be a master in their trade (10-20 ranks).
This method agrees with how I usually view experienced crafters. Not that I usually need to flesh these guys out too much, but in a combat situation a master crafter will still be a rather easy target in my games. Of course, someone who's good, or very good, at crafting something will make enough money to hire a couple of competent bodyguards, who won't be as easy to overcome.
-
Yep...the opportunity for RM to go leveless is gone. To bad.
-
Yep...the opportunity for RM to go leveless is gone. To bad.
Levelless HARP (as RRs and HP are already divorced) would be interesting ...
-
Yep...the opportunity for RM to go leveless is gone. To bad.
Levelless HARP (as RRs and HP are already divorced) would be interesting ...
That's easy enough to do. Start giving DPs instead of XPs.
Max Ranks = (total DPs to date/17)+3 (51 DPs to a "level"). You have to track total DPs, but you had to track total XPs before, so it's really no change in the amount of bookkeeping.
Tweaking the "17" upward (more DPs per Max Ranks increase) will increase the spread of skills and presence of talents (as players reach max ranks in primary skills and still have DPs left over), downward (fewer DPs per Max Ranks increase) will cause the skill spread to become more focused on primary, "vital" skills to the exclusion of all else.
Personally, I rule that you can spend DPs at any time as long as you can do so without slowing the game down, or you can save them for later. My only limitation on spending DPs is that if you're saving for a talent, I require you to let me know when you start saving the DPs for it, rather than when you spend them and get the talent. That gives me time to work the idea into the scenario. (Note for the sake of giving a time perspective: A 10 DP talent in my game is likely to take you 2 or 3 sessions to save the DPs for it.)
I also tend to give DPs 1 or 2 at a time, perhaps half a dozen or so per player per session, so in the normal course of the game a player can get a rank of skill in something while his character sleeps or whatever.
1 DP for doing something exceptionally well. 1 DP for surviving a fumble. 1 DP for achieving a session goal. 2 DPs for "carrying the party," where everyone is still alive and effective because of the actions of one particular player. 2 DPs for a campaign goal.
-
[...]
Why would the paupers be 2-4th level? If you make these assumptions, all your 60-year-old winos and bums will also be level 15 and up.
Indeed - shouldn't NPC level be based on age alone, with a bonus for having gone through hardships, such as "survived the siege of her city thirteen years ago, +2 levels" or somehting like that.
Unless, of course, the society in question is a meritocracy that somehow makes you a higher class if you are more capable... then your level would indirectly translate into your social status. Otherwise, I don't see how the baron wil be necessarily of a higher level than the beggar of the same age - in fact, the beggar has a tougher life, so he will quite likely be higher in level.
I like the idea of +x levels for going through a major trying time. Although I wouldn't apply it uniformly to everyone in the city. But certainly something like +2 levels for being a veteran soldier during the ___ campaign.
In general I think the rate at which people develop depends on their level of focus, the quality of instruction they receive, and how hard they push themselves past their limits. All factors where adventurers have an advantage (except maybe not instruction). Instruction will favor your nobles, focus may or may not, and anyone in a leadership position will tend to be pushed more by circumstances than followers. Your bum on the street may accumulate a lot of years but they probably have poor focus, no instruction, and push themselves as little as possible (although circumstances may intrude upon them), which explains why they are not typically 15th level. Though some bums on the street started out as something else. (E.g. even in the US right now, about 13% of the adult homeless population are military veterans.) And some aren't really bums (e.g. professional pickpockets).
Meritocracy isn't necessary as a trait for the whole society, it could be a trait of a guild (talent is recognized and respected by peers) or a military organization (with the possible caveat that officers may be selected only from the nobility).
-
Yep...the opportunity for RM to go leveless is gone. To bad.
Levelless HARP (as RRs and HP are already divorced) would be interesting ...
That's easy enough to do. Start giving DPs instead of XPs.
Max Ranks = (total DPs to date/17)+3 (51 DPs to a "level"). You have to track total DPs, but you had to track total XPs before, so it's really no change in the amount of bookkeeping.
Tweaking the "17" upward (more DPs per Max Ranks increase) will increase the spread of skills and presence of talents (as players reach max ranks in primary skills and still have DPs left over), downward (fewer DPs per Max Ranks increase) will cause the skill spread to become more focused on primary, "vital" skills to the exclusion of all else.
Personally, I rule that you can spend DPs at any time as long as you can do so without slowing the game down, or you can save them for later. My only limitation on spending DPs is that if you're saving for a talent, I require you to let me know when you start saving the DPs for it, rather than when you spend them and get the talent. That gives me time to work the idea into the scenario. (Note for the sake of giving a time perspective: A 10 DP talent in my game is likely to take you 2 or 3 sessions to save the DPs for it.)
I also tend to give DPs 1 or 2 at a time, perhaps half a dozen or so per player per session, so in the normal course of the game a player can get a rank of skill in something while his character sleeps or whatever.
1 DP for doing something exceptionally well. 1 DP for surviving a fumble. 1 DP for achieving a session goal. 2 DPs for "carrying the party," where everyone is still alive and effective because of the actions of one particular player. 2 DPs for a campaign goal.
I've had level RM for years. Easier in RMSS with the category designs. This is a topic discussed many times. They should be in the archives, I imagine 8)
When I say the chance is gone, I am referring to RMU...another can of worms I find best left alone.
-
Indeed - shouldn't NPC level be based on age alone, with a bonus for having gone through hardships, such as "survived the siege of her city thirteen years ago, +2 levels" or somehting like that.
In my book: Absolutely not. Not even getting to the subject of education and training, levels are based on experience and, when you are looking at the bigger picture, meaningful experience. Age often appears to pace it, but that does not mean it is tied to it. It's kind of like saying "Well, that car is 10 years old so it obviously must have 150,000 miles on it." That is obviously wrong. My cars will have half of that. Even if you want to try and say "Well, it's an average." the average could be most people put 25,000 or 275,000 miles on their cars (peasant vs adventurer)... so the average is not representative of what you will actually find.
Most of the population will only learn what they need to to survive. What that is is hugely dependent on your setting. In mine, for most of them that's pretty boring stuff. When the players ask "What level is that farmer?" I will never say, even to myself, "Well he's 45 years old so he must be 20th level." I will determine it based on what he does now or did in the past, what his surroundings are, how he lives based on those things (and others of course) etc. Also I will only bother doing that if it really matters and lastly, if they are the ones asking, I still won't answer the players question because there's no way for them to know. Maybe that 45 year old farmer is a nobody that never did anything other than what he's doing or maybe he's a retired adventurer that could kick all their butts with one hand behind his back. They'll have to find that out for themselves and, hopefully, will be smart enough (which our group is) to not assume it's someone who is a X level layman who only knows how to wield a hoe.
Unless, of course, the society in question is a meritocracy that somehow makes you a higher class if you are more capable... then your level would indirectly translate into your social status. Otherwise, I don't see how the baron wil be necessarily of a higher level than the beggar of the same age - in fact, the beggar has a tougher life, so he will quite likely be higher in level.
Experience in leadership, politics, financial knowledge, probably proper training in combat, plus everything he/she had to learn at earlier stages, all the things it took to get and stay where he/she is, against someone who begs for a living. Speaking generically I see it as; they may not have the the same skills - the beggar is probably way better at finding non-standard shelter (survival skill of some kind) - but the Baron will be likely higher level at the same age. Although, as with the farmer, it also hinges of it that bum is a former adventurer who turned into a slob because he couldn't handle his group being wiped out by some random threat.
-
When the players ask "What level is that farmer?" I will never say, even to myself, "Well he's 45 years old so he must be 20th level."
I will be perfectly truthful and say, "I have no idea." ;)
I will determine it based on what he does now or did in the past, what his surroundings are, how he lives based on those things (and others of course) etc.
Exactly. I'll figure out what skills he has according to who he is (where he fits in the setting/scenario), not what he is (_____ level _____ profession).
Maybe that 45 year old farmer is a nobody that never did anything other than what he's doing or maybe he's a retired adventurer that could kick all their butts with one hand behind his back.
Yeah, that. Who he is, not what he is.
-
Obviously I wasn't talking about a hard translation from years to levels that would apply to anyone anywhere. ::)
-
Obviously I wasn't talking about a hard translation from years to levels that would apply to anyone anywhere. ::)
Actually there was a whole discussion of this up in the playtest forums, and there are some (not including me) who feel that levels do translate in many ways into age.
-
I don't think anyone was saying the correspondence should be strict. But, for extensive debate, see http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=12174.0 (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=12174.0)
-
Oddly enough, in an RM PBEM, I am playing a 70+ year old level 1 PC. :) As he gains XP, he relearns skills lost as he grew old, senile (and while imprisoned but that's part of the plot) ...
-
When I say the chance is gone, I am referring to RMU...another can of worms I find best left alone.
When I said it's easily done, I was referring to HARP.
-
Oddly enough, in an RM PBEM, I am playing a 70+ year old level 1 PC. :) As he gains XP, he relearns skills lost as he grew old, senile (and while imprisoned but that's part of the plot) ...
I always thought that was a good way to play a thousand-year-old elf. ;D
-
Interestingly I found this snippet from some text (by Monty Cook) talking about his design of Numenera. I thought it applied fairly well to this topic.
If I’m the GM and I decide that there’s a fat old woman running a shop that sells weapons and armor in a particular town, I don’t need rules for that. She’s just there. I don’t have to check a rulebook to find out how many children she has running around the shop annoying customers, how many rooms she has in her apartment over the shop, nor how many shelves of gauntlets she has. The GM creating that (often on the fly, but sometimes ahead of time) is, to me, just a part of the rpg experience. It’s the imagination engine–rather than the rules engine–that drives the whole game.
There’s nothing wrong with rules for stuff like that, but the game moves faster–and provides space for far more creativity–without them. Rules shouldn’t get in the way, slow things down, or encumber the game. They shouldn’t prevent amazing and cool things from entering the story. Maybe that fat old woman has an uncanny ability to spot shoplifters in her shop. Maybe the kids are actually her eyes and ears that way. Or maybe she’s psychic. There’s no rule for either case, it’s just the GM inserting his creativity.
This is what I think of it as unneeded to have a chart that says "X age so-and-so is Y level" or "X age so-and-so has Y skill total in Z skill". I don't need the system to tell me this stuff. It is what I say it is - and if that actually does become unbelievable for my players, to the extent that they leave the game, there's probably a bigger problem than the level or skill total of my NPC's. :)
-
No one is saying that you have to have all your NPCs stated out. (At least, I don't think so.) But, a chart giving you an idea of what those NPCs could be like cannot hurt. I think it is more likely to help speed up play for those times when the PCs get ornery - and we all know they get that way from time to time.
Plus, I believe it is pretty well established that Monte Cook's method of gaming is quite different from the average Rolemaster players method.
PS: Creativity is creativity, whether it happens before the game or during.
-
Interestingly I found this snippet from some text (by Monty Cook) talking about his design of Numenera. I thought it applied fairly well to this topic.
If I’m the GM and I decide that there’s a fat old woman running a shop that sells weapons and armor in a particular town, I don’t need rules for that. She’s just there. I don’t have to check a rulebook to find out how many children she has running around the shop annoying customers, how many rooms she has in her apartment over the shop, nor how many shelves of gauntlets she has. The GM creating that (often on the fly, but sometimes ahead of time) is, to me, just a part of the rpg experience. It’s the imagination engine–rather than the rules engine–that drives the whole game.
There’s nothing wrong with rules for stuff like that, but the game moves faster–and provides space for far more creativity–without them. Rules shouldn’t get in the way, slow things down, or encumber the game. They shouldn’t prevent amazing and cool things from entering the story. Maybe that fat old woman has an uncanny ability to spot shoplifters in her shop. Maybe the kids are actually her eyes and ears that way. Or maybe she’s psychic. There’s no rule for either case, it’s just the GM inserting his creativity.
This is what I think of it as unneeded to have a chart that says "X age so-and-so is Y level" or "X age so-and-so has Y skill total in Z skill". I don't need the system to tell me this stuff. It is what I say it is - and if that actually does become unbelievable for my players, to the extent that they leave the game, there's probably a bigger problem than the level or skill total of my NPC's. :)
Yep.
-
Plus, I believe it is pretty well established that Monte Cook's method of gaming is quite different from the average Rolemaster players method.
To say nothing of what anyone can generically say about RM players methods, Monty wrote some of RM.
-
Plus, I believe it is pretty well established that Monte Cook's method of gaming is quite different from the average Rolemaster players method.
To say nothing of what anyone can generically say about RM players methods, Monty wrote some of RM.
... and before that, iirc, an Intern at ICE.
-
And I am perfectly sure he wouldn't miss the point of a thread as spectacularily as some here do.
The question at hand is not "what is the level of a given NPC", but "how common are the various levels in the game world". If you have no idea about the latter, then how do you know anything at all about your game world?
-
If you have no idea about the latter, then how do you know anything at all about your game world?
The same way I don't have to know the world is round to know what direction "down" is.
-
Plus, I believe it is pretty well established that Monte Cook's method of gaming is quite different from the average Rolemaster players method.
To say nothing of what anyone can generically say about RM players methods, Monty wrote some of RM.
... and before that, iirc, an Intern at ICE.
...and now someone who's gaming philosophy seems very far from those days.
Numenera has 3 skill "levels": untrained, trained and specialized. Does that sound at all like RM?
-
...
Numenera has 3 skill "levels": untrained, trained and specialized. Does that sound at all like RM?
Sure. The GM can assign a level (or a # of ranks in prime skill) to each and go from there. For me - 0 ranks, 10 ranks, 20 ranks perhaps ( or 1, 5 and 10th level perhaps). YMMV
-
And I am perfectly sure he wouldn't miss the point of a thread as spectacularily as some here do.
The question at hand is not "what is the level of a given NPC", but "how common are the various levels in the game world". If you have no idea about the latter, then how do you know anything at all about your game world?
I was always more interested in the distribution of Professions, actually. That, in my worlds, often drove the concentration of levels (which if you think about it have the potential to remain fairly static as higher level NPCs die and are replaced by up-and-coming NPCs, so there's always going to be a larger number of first through 15th level NPCs and progressively fewer of the higher levels). That, combined with settlement patterns and population needs, will tell you more than about anything else.
-
I also prefer to look at profession "density" over average level. Each of my cultures has listings for Common Prof, Restricted Prof and all others are Uncommon by default (and typically unavailable unless Hedge Wizard or similar bg is developed).
As for Monte; RM could use a writer of his talent. Check out his blog/website. The man is prolific.
-
...
Numenera has 3 skill "levels": untrained, trained and specialized. Does that sound at all like RM?
Sure. The GM can assign a level (or a # of ranks in prime skill) to each and go from there. For me - 0 ranks, 10 ranks, 20 ranks perhaps ( or 1, 5 and 10th level perhaps). YMMV
Yeah, that's stretching it, and I would like to see how that plays out at a table of RM players - not casual ones, the ones who want to play Rolemaster. I have a feeling it would go well at all.
As for profession density, that is just another factor to be determined I guess. Not a big deal in my opinion, and certainly not as big a deal as the levels of said people.
-
Yeah, that's stretching it, and I would like to see how that plays out at a table of RM players - not casual ones, the ones who want to play Rolemaster . I have a feeling it would go well at all.
As for profession density, that is just another factor to be determined I guess. Not a big deal in my opinion, and certainly not as big a deal as the levels of said people.
Heh ... Only 1 category less than what I use ... Ordinary folk , Important folk, Heroes/Villains, Epic Heroes/Epic Villains
-
The question at hand is not "what is the level of a given NPC", but "how common are the various levels in the game world". If you have no idea about the latter, then how do you know anything at all about your game world?
Because it's my game world and it will have what I put in front of the players. They only know what they experience/learn and they will have to make their own assumptions based that.
I don't need to know that there are 12,094,083 level 5 people in the world (and surely the players don't) to put one in front of you and, other than the one in front of you, it doesn't matter how many level 5 people there are... cause they aren't all in front of you. The players will likely never have a clue how many there are even if I assigned such a statistic. What are they going to do? Run around asking all the NPC's they ever lay eyes on what level they are? Firstly, the NPC's reaction would be "What's a level?" Now, they could take a swing at them and try to determine what level they are based on their combat abilities... but that doesn't really help when you're attacking a level 50 oil/canvas artist does it? What the players know about a NPC is what I tell them or, if they use some kind of skill or detection spell, they'll learn game mechanic measured information, but that's not going to give them a baseline for the population in general.
In the end, imo, the people who need this kind of help are the people who are unable or unwilling to use their own judgement and want the system to do it for them... so I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the odds are they are going to just take the chart at face value and rarely modify it much, which I think would lead to a very stale world.
What I need to have documented for my world is what the players know about my world, not what it is or could be in my own mind. Hell if I'm going to document out my entire worlds population. I've got a job, one that pays better than GM'ing. I'll save statistics work for that.
-
I don't need to know that there are 12,094,083 level 5 people in the world (and surely the players don't) to put one in front of you and, other than the one in front of you, it doesn't matter how many level 5 people there are... cause they aren't all in front of you.
Exactly. Or in other words,
The same way I don't have to know the world is round to know what direction "down" is.
-
...
In the end, imo, the people who need this kind of help are the people who are unable or unwilling to use their own judgement and want the system to do it for them... so I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the odds are they are going to just take the chart at face value and rarely modify it much, which I think would lead to a very stale world.
...
A glorious world where we can agree to disagree. I like to craft the ranges for my world and sometimes assign levels (especially if I clone a handy existing PC sheet) and sometimes roll random (PC asks, how many armorsmiths in town and are any masters? d100 ... ).
YMMV, IMHO, YGWYPF etc.
-
Oh I can totally see a GM designing his/her world down to the last detail, I know a couple that do it (one is a very good friend, but I think he's nuts to do that). But they did not use a chart published in a book for the system they are using, they just did it themselves (although they are STILL not pigeonholing large groups). It looks like you pretty much do this. I could be wrong, but my point is people simply using the existing chart without question are probably not the people who are going to design their own world down to the last detail. Therefore, I think those who will most likely benefit from the chart will be newer to the system and more inclined to view it as a hard guideline - which, I feel, creates a pretty generic style of NPC. The important NPC's in my world will be fairly unique. The unimportant ones I really don't need to know very much at all about and will make up on the fly. I will have a few sets of generic things like "City Guard" but they are going to differ from area to area and won't all be "2nd Level Fighter w/Broadsword and X-Bow at so-and-so skill".
-
On one side, I don't view it has a hard guideline for unique NPCs, but since I wrote a chart (see ROCO IV), I did use it for generic NPCs and/or mass generation of NPCs (for towns and cities and gangs/group encounters like a manor house). The key then, as I think I mentioned earlier, is to direct the GM to have a sense of level range of his or her world (are ordinary folk 1-2 or 1-10?) and modify the table to suit their needs.
-
Cory, I think you are still missing what Thot said above. He was not talking about getting an exact census of the population of your world, but having an idea of the distribution of levels in it, because this influences the overall power of the world and can help you decide what level typical villagers, soldiers, or dukes might be.
If I create a world where roughly 50% are below level 5, and 90% are below level 10, I can better decide how many high level NPCs there are in a particular town. On the other hand, if instead 50% are below level 10, and 90% below level 25, well that changes things quite a bit.
Now of course they aren't all going to be the same in all towns or kingdoms, but roughly knowing that distribution is a pretty basic thing and I would agree with thot on this. Are your kingdoms ruled by folks who are level 10, or by folks who are level 30? At least, I think this is what he was saying above.
-
That's what I took away from it, and the reason why I think having an idea of the average level of NPCs should be is a good idea.
-
I think profession density is a very important factor when considering average level of NPC's. If an area has lots of a profession, then the infrastructure to support that profession will develop. Thieves Guild, Fighting Schools, Universities for magic or science, Merchant guilds of all sorts, etc. The common profession will be more skilled, and thus be of higher level, than those professions that are shunned or absent for whatever reason(s).
Facts such as profession density help determine average level, and profession density is determined by a nation/kingdoms needs and resources, which further helps shape the game world. Yet I agree I do not even think of the specific average of NPC's. Most will be between 2-8th level, understanding most are laymen and by 5th level can have 30 ranks in a skill if it is occupational. Many would never feel much of a need to learn more experience after having mastered a craft or three.
-
1. The densely populated capitol city of a nation with a long standing pacifist tradition.
2. An isolated monastery in the midst of a 100 mile stretch of howling wasteland between 2 countries that have been at war more often than not throughout their history.
I submit that for one thing, the range of levels in one place bears little if any relationship to the range of levels in the other. Even if that range is identical in both places, they are so for completely different reasons. In addition, the range of levels across the game world as a whole are not a useful indicator of the range of levels in either of those specific places within that same game world.
Therefore I don't see a lot of point. Also, all of that is subject to change over time. The old king dies, the regents hold things together, the young prince comes into his majority and is crowned. The master of the monastery is dismissed in disgrace, his advisors scattered to the four winds, and new leaders put in their place. The ranges that were accurate 10 years ago are useless today.
-
GOF, that is all true, but replace the word 'world' above with 'current setting/adventure/backdrop'. If your campaign is taking place in that city in the year 900, you probably do have a good idea of the current spread of levels in the city. It doesn't matter what it was 10 years ago, or what it will be. To the GM and the players the world effectively is the current time and place, be it a city or monastery. You're right, the spread of levels in the kingdom next door doesn't really matter.
-
GOF, that is all true, but replace the word 'world' above with 'current setting/adventure/backdrop'. If your campaign is taking place in that city in the year 900, you probably do have a good idea of the current spread of levels in the city. It doesn't matter what it was 10 years ago, or what it will be. To the GM and the players the world effectively is the current time and place, be it a city or monastery. You're right, the spread of levels in the kingdom next door doesn't really matter.
Exactly. But if you have a long standing campaign, it may start in that city, but may progress to a completely different country, you may end up spending time at that monastery... none of it can be counted upon to have an effect on the spread of local levels of anywhere else.... and if, 10 game years later, you come back to the city you started from, it may or may not bear any resemblance to what the spread was when you left.
So I get a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) of what the spread of levels are, in the piece of the setting that concerns my current scenario arc. Precision of that SWAG? I don't really care, because unless we're talking about some one dog town, isolated mining camp or some such, the players are never going to meet enough of those people for precision to matter. I'll probably make a few notes concerning my SWAG, in case the players return there someday and things haven't already changed enough to render my SWAG useless... but a few notes is all I'll bother with, because there's too little likelihood of it remaining that static, unless the players keep returning there often, in which case the evolution of the scenario does the updating of that SWAG automatically, as it were.
So I feel like if it's a one-shot, it's pointless to care at all about that spread on more than a local and current level, but if it's an evolving, ongoing campaign... well, then it's still just as pointless on more than a local and current level. As soon as you stop looking at it, it will change.
The one-eyed view of our universe says you must not look far afield for problems. Such problems may never arrive. Instead, tend to the wolf within your fences. The packs ranging outside may not even exist.
- The Azhar Book; Shamra 1:4
-
GOF gets what I am saying. It seems to be GMing philosophy more than anything from the responses here however.
Power level is, largely, your skill totals, not your actual level. So a chart would need to have variations based on profession as each one will increase in their various skills differently. If it doesn't every level 5 Joe Dirt will have the same OB right? And if the reply to that is "Unless I change it." then you didn't really need the chart in the first place.
These statements are from my perspective:
- If I'm going to go to the trouble to know what the majority of the population is in terms of level I'm probably not the kind of person who is going to rely on a generic chart to do it.
- If I want my important NPC's to have real depth I'm not going to use such a chart. I'm going to have a full on character for them, almost as complete as a PC.
- If the NPC is going to interact, on an opposing basis not involving combat, I just need to assign an appropriate skill total based on my chosen desired range of success/failure for the opposing action.
- If the NPC is going to interact, on a friendly basis, with the PC's I only really need to know if I want them to receive the desired result and possibly give a range of success/failure if I want some randomness to it.
- If the NPC is just some random Joe Dirt that doesn't matter why do I even care until the players interact with him in some way where a roll is needed? I don't need to know anything about that NPC until it becomes integral to the game.
The only use for a generic set of skill totals/character level chart, for me, is for combat purposes for combats that I did not plan on... and I'm not the type of GM where you're going to run into random encounters regularly. There will be certain areas that have roving patrols or monsters, but the whole world won't. Even in those areas with roving patrols or monsters it still comes down to if I want there to be randomness to the process (meaning I don't care of there's a conflict or not and I'm allowing random chance to determine it for me).
I really don't mean this as an insult to anyone here, so please don't take it that way, but I simply don't understand why you would need such a chart unless you were inexperienced or lazy but still want a pre-detailed world. That does not mean I don't think it should exist at all, but for the inexperienced GM odds are that person is going to take the chart more literally than they should unless there is a very clear and obvious 'disclaimer' that's more than just a couple sentences... and, really, I think it should direct the GM to something like a Gamemaster Companion/Law book to learn more about such details.
-
GOF gets what I am saying. It seems to be GMing philosophy more than anything from the responses here however.
Indeed that seems to be the case. My mindset wants to deliver a plausible series of events. I understand yours as being more along the lines of playing a boardgame that wants to deliver good challenges - and as such, your mindset will have all the meaningful NPC's level along with the PC's, and thus you will have no use for such a chart of level distribution across your game world. No need to say more, I guess.
Among those for who this thread is useful, though, a majority seems to place the majority of their game world populations in the "below 7th level" area. I find this very interesting to observe, because it implies "low fantasy" worlds with little powerful magic and few magical artifacts.. so, do people prefer low fantasy?
-
Be aware that you can play high fantasy games in a low fantasy setting. You can have your characters in the top 1% but interacting with (and against) the rest of the top 1%.
That tends to be my preference for gaming. I like heroes to be heroes. There are times when characters in my games do interact with the general populace, but they are far more likely to have meetings with the Captain of the Watch, then with a common guard. That's not to say that they won't single out a member of the watch at a tavern and buy them a few drinks to get info from them.....
-
My mindset wants to deliver a plausible series of events. I understand yours as being more along the lines of playing a boardgame that wants to deliver good challenges...
That's not how I understand it at all. I think it's still wanting to deliver a plausible series of events, it's just a difference in either how you define "plausible," what tools you think can realistically be expected to deliver that, or both.
Note that in my earlier post I described the effect that I believe both time and distance will have on the spread of experience. It's not that I don't think some idea of the experience range of those the party encounters is helpful in presenting a plausible series of events.... it's just that I think having that idea in more than general terms applied to local, current conditions is wasted effort. The farther away you get from the place you made that scale, both in space and time, the less accurate it will be. Therefore, to deconstruct the title of the thread, "levels of NPCs" is useful and even necessary... but "throughout the population of your game world" renders the vast majority of it pointless, IMO.
See what I mean? I still want a plausible series of events.... I just don't think knowing that spread of levels on more than a local, current scale serves the end of delivering that plausibility. In fact, I consider it destructive of plausibility, by tempting you to be lazy and stick with a scale that grows more inaccurate with every step and every minute, rather than coming up with a new estimate for this town on this day.
-
My experience has always been that I get a more plausible series of events by understanding how professions are distributed and concentrated than a focus on level does. If you have a high concentration of mages in one area, you need to understand what drew them there. If it's a school of magic, you'll in turn have higher-level mages in the area. High-level teachers draw students, and that teacher in turn needs to hire (or train) mid-level instructors to keep up with the demand for teaching. Turn that to a warlike kingdom with a high concentration of fighters. You need a spread of levels to deal with the need for subordinate commanders and the like, while a more peaceful realm would have fewer high-level fighters simply because they're not needed. It's also possible that the kingdom with few fighters relies more on magic and stealth for its defense, having a higher concentration of mages and rangers (and thus higher levels).
I understand that some people focus on levels to do this, but I've never found that to be a complete or compelling solution. I usually have a rough idea of levels, but they always vary based on what I just said. A rural area's high level mage, for example, might be considered a middling apprentice in an area with an active college of magic or guild. I think the most I ever did was develop a snapshot of level ranges based on realms or regions (a mid-level thief in a predominantly rural realm might be 3-6, while in a more urban realm or city-state the range might be 9-12, for example - it's also possible that in a city with a strong thieves' guild mid-level might actually be 15-20).
-
Be aware that you can play high fantasy games in a low fantasy setting. You can have your characters in the top 1% but interacting with (and against) the rest of the top 1%.
That tends to be my preference for gaming. I like heroes to be heroes. There are times when characters in my games do interact with the general populace, but they are far more likely to have meetings with the Captain of the Watch, then with a common guard. That's not to say that they won't single out a member of the watch at a tavern and buy them a few drinks to get info from them.....
Yes, this. The PC's are no longer 'normal' people in my world. They are the ones who, for whatever reason, became something more than just an average person muddling their way through life, whether it was by choice or circumstance. Low magic is slightly common, but most of them do not realize this is what they are doing. Spell casting profession level magic is not common and is one of the things which will almost surely turn a person into more than a farmer or basic crafter.
I know the large majority of my population will be farmers and basic craftsmen. I don't really need to know what level they are however... I just need to know how well I want them to be able to fend for themselves and, even then, only if it matters at all to the campaign. Know, I have a rough guess as to what levels they would be, but that may look NOTHING like what someone else's world population is.
Now, if you are in a very large city - of which there are only a handful in my world - the average population are going to be higher level in general. They are going to be more worldly (more experiences) and have more access to training and education. However, this does not translate into a person who is going to be able to stand up to a hardened adventurer. A level 20 librarian will likely get his butt handed to him by a level 5 fighter... so on a combat level it becomes moot. However, if the PC's need some information that level 20 librarian might become invaluable. But I only need to know what 'level' (i.e. skill total) the librarian is if I want to leave the obtaining of said information to chance. If they need a certain piece of information and I need them to have that information to drive the plot... they will get that information. No roll, no level/skill total needed.
-
Be aware that you can play high fantasy games in a low fantasy setting. You can have your characters in the top 1% but interacting with (and against) the rest of the top 1%.
Ah, I just checked online sources, and my definition of "High Fantasy" is apparently different from the usual one. What I was meaning was not "Heroes interact with heroes on an epic level", but "Fantasy RPG with lots and lots of Magic".
Which a World with only few people ever reaching levels 8+, let alone 50, will not be able to have. There simply won't be enough capable spellcasters.
-
My experience has always been that I get a more plausible series of events by understanding how professions are distributed and concentrated than a focus on level does.
Certainly that is also an important factor.
If you have a high concentration of mages in one area, you need to understand what drew them there.
Well, if they are all 1st level, they might just be hobbyists. If they are all more close to 50th level, well, that is an entirely different matter.
I think the most I ever did was develop a snapshot of level ranges based on realms or regions (a mid-level thief in a predominantly rural realm might be 3-6, while in a more urban realm or city-state the range might be 9-12, for example - it's also possible that in a city with a strong thieves' guild mid-level might actually be 15-20).
I believe nobody was asking for any more detail than that. ;)
-
Ah, I just checked online sources, and my definition of "High Fantasy" is apparently different from the usual one. What I was meaning was not "Heroes interact with heroes on an epic level", but "Fantasy RPG with lots and lots of Magic".
Understood - you're playing a high fantasy game in a high fantasy setting. In other words, the entire setting is high fantasy - whereas my version the setting is not, but the game is. It's all just a bunch of words, but I understand what you mean, and while that style can be fun, I often find too much magic in the setting takes away the mystery of it all.
-
So I get a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) of what the spread of levels are, in the piece of the setting that concerns my current scenario arc. Precision of that SWAG? I don't really care, because unless we're talking about some one dog town, isolated mining camp or some such, the players are never going to meet enough of those people for precision to matter. I'll probably make a few notes concerning my SWAG, in case the players return there someday and things haven't already changed enough to render my SWAG useless... but a few notes is all I'll bother with, because there's too little likelihood of it remaining that static, unless the players keep returning there often, in which case the evolution of the scenario does the updating of that SWAG automatically, as it were.
So, basically, you are saying do, do what we do, only that you wait until the PCs go to said place to do it. That's fine, too, and I probably do much the same.
The one-eyed view of our universe says you must not look far afield for problems. Such problems may never arrive. Instead, tend to the wolf within your fences. The packs ranging outside may not even exist.
- The Azhar Book; Shamra 1:4
[/quote]That is one narrow-minded way of looking at things, and I for one, am very glad not everyone thinks that way. Not that I think you should paralyze yourself with worry, just that being prepared for bad things is a good thing. I am assuming you have insurance of all kinds...
Power level is, largely, your skill totals, not your actual level. So a chart would need to have variations based on profession as each one will increase in their various skills differently. If it doesn't every level 5 Joe Dirt will have the same OB right? And if the reply to that is "Unless I change it." then you didn't really need the chart in the first place.
Except that in a game with professions and levels, those levels help one determine the baseline from which the GM extrapolates the exact numbers - if they are going to bother changing them at all. And having a baseline isn't necessarily lazy (I do often subscribe to the Lazy GMs ideology and have no shame in doing so ;D), though it certainly can be of assistance to new GMs, which is a good thing.
Among those for who this thread is useful, though, a majority seems to place the majority of their game world populations in the "below 7th level" area. I find this very interesting to observe, because it implies "low fantasy" worlds with little powerful magic and few magical artifacts.. so, do people prefer low fantasy?
Not for me. I would say the average level of an NPC, a professional NPC that has been practicing their trade for at least a few years, but isn't one of the exceptional NPCs is around 15th level. One of the exceptional ones would be 20th to 25th, or even 30th level.
You may be able to determine from this that I don't think a 1st level character is a full-grown adult, I like the idea that a 5th level one is, like in the age chart of RMU. JMOT.
-
I am the kind of person who would define the level distribution in my world. From a simulationist point of view, when people say they define the levels of normal people on the fly according to the needs of the adventure, I wonder if that means essentially that wherever the players go, everyone is magically and conveniently in the same range of levels they are. So the players go up in levels but never actually become powerful because GM fiat is raising everyone's level to the same degree.
That's not an unavoidable result of deciding on the fly without a framework, but it is the trap which, in my opinion at least, needs to be avoided to be fair to the players. Having a defined level distribution reduces the room for GM capriciousness, and in that sense it's useful to a GM who is not skilled or has not yet developed the high level of trust it's important to have from your players.
-
I am the kind of person who would define the level distribution in my world. From a simulationist point of view, when people say they define the levels of normal people on the fly according to the needs of the adventure, I wonder if that means essentially that wherever the players go, everyone is magically and conveniently in the same range of levels they are. So the players go up in levels but never actually become powerful because GM fiat is raising everyone's level to the same degree.
Oddly enough, MMOs are exactly like that eh? My 80th level Paladin walks into new territory and all the locals are in that 70-90 range as well. :)
-
Well, if they are all 1st level, they might just be hobbyists. If they are all more close to 50th level, well, that is an entirely different matter.
I would never assume a large concentration of mages that were just hobbyists...at least not in any world I created. Magic in my worlds is something that is either taught or granted through a deity, so for a large concentration of mages you'd need a school of some sort, a significant shrine or temple, or some natural focus point that (if it was powerfully magical) would quickly draw higher-level characters into the region, thus disrupting the focus on low level characters.
Focusing on levels is, in my view, the wrong yardstick for general world development and understanding. That flows from groups and concentrations of professions, which in turn helps drive the possible level spread. That said, higher-level PCs would certainly attract the attention (sooner or later) of higher-level NPCs, but that has little to do with the general population and profession/level distribution and more with the fame (or infamy) of the PCs and the efficiency (or lack thereof) of your region's communication systems. In a standard world construction, your level spread will remain quite static, driven more by the need for skilled workers or teachers as well as resources and population density.
RoCo I had a pretty decent table for this, but it focused on the city or village level (as well as a specific type of game, although that type was never clearly stated). It started with distribution of professions and then took level into account. I'd think that concept would be more useful for a starting GM than something that focused solely on level.
-
I am the kind of person who would define the level distribution in my world. From a simulationist point of view, when people say they define the levels of normal people on the fly according to the needs of the adventure, I wonder if that means essentially that wherever the players go, everyone is magically and conveniently in the same range of levels they are. So the players go up in levels but never actually become powerful because GM fiat is raising everyone's level to the same degree.
That's not an unavoidable result of deciding on the fly without a framework, but it is the trap which, in my opinion at least, needs to be avoided to be fair to the players. Having a defined level distribution reduces the room for GM capriciousness, and in that sense it's useful to a GM who is not skilled or has not yet developed the high level of trust it's important to have from your players.
Exactly what I would prefer to avoid, as well. That sort of play style makes it impossible to go back and beat up the bully that used to pick on you, because when you go back, he/she/it will magically be tougher too. Character growth has to do more than just mean more skills and spells and items.... oh and Hits and PP. How they compare to the world around them, I think, is a better gauge than, "can I cast a 15th level spell now?" (Not that that is bad, just can't be the primary way of determining a character's power level, imo anyway.)
-
I am the kind of person who would define the level distribution in my world. From a simulationist point of view, when people say they define the levels of normal people on the fly according to the needs of the adventure, I wonder if that means essentially that wherever the players go, everyone is magically and conveniently in the same range of levels they are. So the players go up in levels but never actually become powerful because GM fiat is raising everyone's level to the same degree.
For me, the power level of the average local population will depend not on the level of the PC's, but rather where they (the NPCs) are in the world, what they do there, and how many of them there are. A whole bunch of peasants in a good sized rural farming community are going to be a level appropriate to the surrounding conditions (just like any other population). If there are no real monsters around and it's always in the 70's with enough rain and water for good crop growing and safe herding they are going to be on the lower end because they have an easy life. Almost everyone will have basic agriculture knowledge of some form but only some people will be good cooks, maybe only one person in the family will be a decent fire builder, etc. Essentially there aren't a lot of super important skills that everyone needs to know... outside of the actual farming the fields and tending the flocks they'll divvy up the responsibilities and, therefore have less skills to develop and gain less overall experience. So they'll be on the lower end of the scale. Now, if they are a small group of nomads who constantly travel in an area with regular bandit issues, need to compete for resources with other groups, and/or have to actually hunt their food they are going to tend to be at least a few levels higher. The PC's have nothing to do with it, they just happen to be passing through.
-
From a simulationist point of view, when people say they define the levels of normal people on the fly according to the needs of the adventure, I wonder if that means essentially that wherever the players go, everyone is magically and conveniently in the same range of levels they are.
For me at least, (being one of the people who do this), no it doesn't. It means if the description of _____ in my notes or in my head is basically "old fart who has run in the same rut all his life," he's probably only 5th-10th level regardless of how old he is. On the other hand, if he was born in the camp of a besieging army and for practical purposes hasn't had a moment's rest since, then he may have gotten into the 5-10 range before he got out of his teenage years. A lot depends on how variable his life has been as well. If his situation has been constantly changing, he has learned a lot. If "camp of a besieging army" is all he knows, he's in a rut and never learning anything new just as much as the old fart is.
That's an example of what I mean when I say the level of accuracy and detail is directly proportional to how germane to the scenario a given character is. If he's "just some guy," most of this stuff never matters. If he may become central enough to the scenario that you need to know his backstory, you've just rendered your SWAG on level distribution moot as far as this guy goes.
-
That's an example of what I mean when I say the level of accuracy and detail is directly proportional to how germane to the scenario a given character is. If he's "just some guy," most of this stuff never matters. If he may become central enough to the scenario that you need to know his backstory, you've just rendered your SWAG on level distribution moot as far as this guy goes.
Except when they are just "some guy" who the PCs decide to interact with in a more meaningful way than just chatting. It is then the numbers come into play, and having a baseline keeps you from completely ad-libbing it (though I am not totally opposed to this, it just gets bothersome time after time), or taking up a bunch of time creating them - also a pain. So, even though the NPC isn't central to the story, having some numbers on them comes in handy.
Like CM said above, what the NPCs levels and such are depend upon their environment; a safe/civilized environment (something I don't think exists in large amounts in the typical fantasy setting) would mean lower levels and capabilities than those living in one teeming with monsters. But, having a baseline for these areas (something you don't have to bother with until you think the PCs are headed in that direction) means you have at your disposal all the numbers you should need if it comes up.
-
I think you and I are saying the same thing.
But, having a baseline for these areas (something you don't have to bother with until you think the PCs are headed in that direction) means you have at your disposal all the numbers you should need if it comes up.
Sure. I'll bother having my SWAG for that, but it only applies in general, and only to that area at that time. It will serve as a guideline for the same area at a later date, but there's no reason to think it will still be the same, and often plenty of reason to think it won't be.
Except when they are just "some guy" who the PCs decide to interact with in a more meaningful way than just chatting.
Which so far as I can tell is exactly the same as
If he may become central enough to the scenario that you need to know his backstory, you've just rendered your SWAG on level distribution moot as far as this guy goes.
Picture a small, rural backwater at the foot of a mountain out in the middle of a howling wasteland. Let's call it Virginia, Nevada Territory, and give it a population of, say, 22. There are a dozen and a half prospectors, just enough service infrastructure to sell them food, tools, etc., and enough extra to serve folks passing through on the way to California, which most times is the majority. Here, getting a solid idea of level distribution may actually matter, because if the party comes into town at all, they're liable to end up meeting and interacting with nearly every one of those 22 people.
Okay, let's go back to the exact same town 6 months later. The same 22 people are still there, but there's one tiny little detail that has changed since the last time the party was here: The Ophir mine has struck silver. Those 22 people are now scattered among a population of over 10,000, and the distribution of skills and levels bears almost no relation at all to what it was 6 months before.
But if you deal with those same people because they're the ones you know, while their place in the distribution of skill as levels has probably changed drastically, the distribution of skill and level among any given individual of those 22 probably hasn't changed much, if at all.
See? The SWAG of skill/level distribution may be useful in giving you a feel for the big picture, but it has no impact whatsoever on the skill/level distribution of the NPCs with whom the party interacts, as those are driven by the needs of the scenario, not by the needs of the overall setting picture. If the party had never been there before, and the skill/level distribution of the town of over 10,000 is their first experience... well, the skills/levels of the people they deal with are still driven by the scenario, and the skills/levels of the 9,000+ they don't deal with is largely moot. Its only real value is in showing you where the ones you've "made 3D" fit into the larger picture.
-
All I am saying - lets not even get into "the place changes dramatically between then and now" thing because that would be handled like anything else that is story important - is that if I know the rough numbers of one of those miners, then when the PCs decide to pick-pocket him, or whatever, you got some framework to use. Now, that miner wasn't/isn't critical to story enough to even have a name (though I will likely try to give them one, even if the PCs are just going to talk to him for a few minutes), but because the PCs decided to interact with him in a more meaningful way - and in a way I did not expect - those numbers become useful and even necessary. That is not the same thing as being central to story, but it does mean you need some stats on them, they are just not fully fleshed out like a special NPC would be.
The key to this is that players will very often do things that you have not anticipated (oh, so very often), and being prepared for as much as I possibly can be, has been driven into me; that and ad-libbing when needed. (And it will be needed, every session.)
-
All I am saying - lets not even get into "the place changes dramatically between then and now" thing because that would be handled like anything else that is story important - is that if I know the rough numbers of one of those miners, then when the PCs decide to pick-pocket him, or whatever, you got some framework to use. Now, that miner wasn't/isn't critical to story enough to even have a name (though I will likely try to give them one, even if the PCs are just going to talk to him for a few minutes), but because the PCs decided to interact with him in a more meaningful way - and in a way I did not expect - those numbers become useful and even necessary. That is not the same thing as being central to story, but it does mean you need some stats on them, they are just not fully fleshed out like a special NPC would be.
The key to this is that players will very often do things that you have not anticipated (oh, so very often), and being prepared for as much as I possibly can be, has been driven into me; that and ad-libbing when needed. (And it will be needed, every session.)
I let my dice do the talking in these situations, usually announcing the range of possibilities prior to the roll, though sometimes rolled in secret: PC fumbles his Mingle skill check and encounters a (d10, odd male...4) female. a big group of individual....2, an individual. her initial reaction to PC (-6 to roll +4 for PC's Pr mod)...8-2= 6, NPC female likes what she see and is friendly)..."HEY you big lug, you stepped on my foot! (single or involved...1, single and maybe lonely...7 indicates a girl not despeate or hunting). "I think you owe me a drink big fella, or a dance, you choose!" PC now wishes to make an influence check, so I need a level (d10+2...7), she is level 9.
The dice have steered my story and world in directions I never would have chosen :)
-
I tend to let the dice do the talking as well. They want to pick a miner's pocket? Okay, let me figure out a rough idea of where that particular miner is in terms of his ability to detect and respond. Unless I've already committed to that particular guy being in a particular place on the local power scale, I still don't really need to know what that local power scale is, at least not to any degree greater than my original SWAG concerning the entire area. When and if the party ever knows enough people there to have a feel for that local power scale, then they'll know where that particular guy fits into it, and so will I.
-
Ditto with yamma and GOF. I don't feel as if I need something telling me what the odds should be. I should be able to say "Ok, well this guy travels a good amount and has been around the block a few times, so I'll say you need to hit a target of 80 to succeed." or "Ok, well this is just some backwoods yokel who digs ditches for a living, so you need a 50 to succeed." then the player will have to rely on their pick-pocket skill to get there.
-
I have done that, as well, and sometimes that is a fun way to go, but sometimes it is nice to have some stuff ready to go, too. Plus, some of that can still be done even if you have some of the numbers done ahead of time.
-
Just arbitrarily setting a difficulty for picking pockets is ok, if you are comfortable doing it that way, and you have earned the trust of your players. But the difference is that you are making a judgment call that is directly "how hard should this player's action be" whereas if you have an idea of the level distribution you have a more objective way to make that decision. In the latter case you can say, e.g. level is 1d10+3, and therefore alertness skill is X. In the former case you might be thinking how alert is the miner and how often does he deal with pickpockets, but you might also be thinking about how often you want the player to waste your time with pickpocketing rolls and is this your buddy and did he bring the snacks this time etc. All ways in which the decision can become subjective and therefore in which you can end up favoring some players over others, or some actions over others. You can to some extent address that by rolling but even then you are effectively defining a range subjectively and on the fly.
Again, this is not a problem for all GMs. But I think having a level distribution takes away those concerns, and is very useful to many types of GMs.
-
I see figuring out the difficulty of the action as a better gauge than a level. As I hinted at in my example above, an NPC might be 25th level and oblivious or 10th level and have developed their alertness as much as they could have. Their level is of less importance than how much I think that particular NPC would have developed the skill in question... which hinges on life experiences. So the farmer might be clueless while the street vender is quite attentive.
-
That's basically what I'm saying, but I extend it to the scenario and its setting.
Take the example of the mining camp. When it's as generic as "a mining camp," my instinct is to say the largest group will be in the 5-10 level range, the next largest group will be the low level apprentice types, and there will be a scattering of seriously experienced people.... but most of them will know nothing at all about anything but mining. There will be a certain amount of "service sector," keeping them fed, bringing in supplies, assaying ore, etc. They will be good at what they do, know something (maybe even a lot) about mining, and little else. Fine and good, until you put it in the setting.
When it's in the coal mines in the center of the country, they know mining, know hardly anything about combat... but boy, they sure know about fighting fires, dealing with explosions, and first aid for burns. When it's in the gold mines out on the frontier, where they're subject to raids at any time, yeah, they're middling good at combat, and probably higher level on average as well. But at the gem mine right at the edge of a major node's magical interference pattern, the actual mining is almost a sideline, the business of the day is surviving all the monsters long enough to get a chance to dig.
Whatever that particular camp has as a "service sector" for those miners changes in similar ways.
That's what I mean by having the setting and the scenario drive those decisions rather than a broad generalization.