Topic: No-Profession Profession

[80sGamerGeek]

I saw someone mention the idea of all the PCs in a campaign using the No-Profession Profession (unfortunately, can't find the thread or post now).  I think this is an interesting idea and wonder if anybody has tried it?  How'd it turn out?

I am thinking that the next time I run RM (which will probably not be for a while, as it will have to be PbP/PBEM and I am already running a PBEM now), I may try this.  In fact, I may eliminate the other professions entirely, making all characters in the campaign (PC and NPC alike) No-Profession Profession. 

I can think of 4 different ways I might do this, and would appreciate feedback (bear in mind that I only play RM2, with most of the Companion books, not RMFRP or RMSS), and that I don't use Training Packages:

1) Use the No-Profession Profession as is, no modifications.  The only difference between two characters (in terms of profession -- not Stats or Background Options) would be what skills they choose to purchase (e.g.: want to play a Fighter type, sink your DPs into weapon skills).

2) As 1, but allow the players to assign level skill bonuses to represent "aptitudes" for particular skills (skill costs would be unchanged), assuming that the rule applying level bonuses to different categories of skills (not just weapon skills, which is how it is in the core rules, IIRC) is used (e.g.: someone who wants to play a Ranger type might sink his highest level bonuses into Outdoor and Weapon skills, but would still pay the same DPs as any other character to develop ranks in those skills).

3) As 2, but use the optional Skill Specilization rules from one of the Companions (4 or 5, I believe) that allows a character to reduce the DP cost ("specialize in") of a small handful of skills.

4) Mix and match skill costs between the No-Profession Profession and the standard Professions, using whichever cost is better (only for those skills that I, as a GM, consider core for that character type -- e.g.: weapon and armor skills for Fighters, magic skills for Wizards, etc.).  A character would be better at the skills that define his profession, but would be no worse at non-core skills than the average person (if we assume that the No-Profession Profession represents the average person).

The No-Profession Profession is a semi-spell using profession, so, no matter which option I chose, if a player wanted to play a Pure or Hybrid spell user, he would have to sacrifice a Background Option to represent greater than average aptitude with one realm of magic (2 Options to be a Hybrid? - not sure about that).  I might grant an extra Background Option to players who choose to be non rather than semi spell users (again, not sure about that).

[markc]

IMO #2 would work the  best.
MDC

[Fornitus]

For the last decade or so we have been using no-profession profession for the Adolescent costs. The theory is that to get those specialized costs there is study time as wizards learn the basics BEFORE they kill themself with real spells and warriors need the basics BEFORE they are "familiar" with their tools. It also allows one or two ranks in the odd skill from childhood to add different flavors to each PC. Works great.

[Marc R]

I have done this before, I would suggest doing 1 or 2. . .doing 3 or 4 kind of breaks a lot of the reasons for doing this at all.

If you go with 2, I'd suggest using the actual level bonus structure of one of the already made professions. (i.e. a ranger would be no profession costs with ranger level bonuses, magician would be no profession costs with magician level bonuses).

Things will seem a little slow compared to specialist play, this is fine, since everyone is slow, but if you want to up pace it to eliminate that feeling, up the DP level a little (I tend to play flat 40 DP/level, for a no-profession game 50 DP/level will make the speed level out to standard specialist play).

[RandalThor]

You could go with 1, but with them using thier BO (or talents/flaws) to help determine which path they are on (fighter, mage, priest, etc).

For example: Player A wants to make a fighter, so he choses a couple of talents that give him bonuses and/or speeds up rank development in his weapon skills. Player B wants to play a magician, so he chooses talents to give him better magical skills. In neitgher case would this fully replicate the class system in "regular" RM, just be a good way to somewhat differentiate the characters, imo.

[dutch206]

I tend to use the No Profession for the "civilian who suddenly finds himself in the middle of things" or the "Princess who doesn't work for a living".

[Marc R]

I dunno NP is fairly magical, and better in martial skills than most. . .it's not really a casual civilian profession ala the RMFRP Layman. It's more like the "Jack of all trades" you see in many game systems, even more so than the Rogue.

[80sGamerGeek]

For the last decade or so we have been using no-profession profession for the Adolescent costs.

I've toyed with the idea of doing that in the past, but never tried it.

I have done this before, I would suggest doing 1 or 2. . .doing 3 or 4 kind of breaks a lot of the reasons for doing this at all.

I thought about 3 to allow players a little extra wiggle room to customize their PC's aptitudes (besides the level bonuses).

If you go with 2, I'd suggest using the actual level bonus structure of one of the already made professions. (i.e. a ranger would be no profession costs with ranger level bonuses, magician would be no profession costs with magician level bonuses).

If someone wanted to play a "classic" Ranger or Magician, etc., they could certainly assign the bonuses that way, but I don't think I would want to require a player to do so.  I'd rather let them customize a little more (e.g.: a player who wants to play a Ranger type who focuses more on developing their Ranger spell lists might shift one of the normal bonuses to Magical skills).

You could go with 1, but with them using thier BO (or talents/flaws) to help determine which path they are on (fighter, mage, priest, etc).

Yeah, I figured B.O. would play a significant role in allowing players to tailor the No-Profession Profession towards certain more classic archetypes if they choose.

I dunno NP is fairly magical, and better in martial skills than most. . .it's not really a casual civilian profession ala the RMFRP Layman. It's more like the "Jack of all trades" you see in many game systems, even more so than the Rogue.

Is it?  To be honest, I've never taken a really close look at the profession (which I suppose I should have done before I started this thread), as no one in my group has ever really considered playing it.  From some of the references to it in some of the companions, I gathered it was very "middle of the road," representing statistical average rather than jack-of-all-trades.

[Marc R]

Well, JoaT is the result of midline costs. . . the rogue has fairly cheap everything but magic, the NP has no cheap costs, but nothing is really expensive either. . .they do anything fairly well, excel at nothing. . .which to me is JoaT.

I'd be wary of letting players pick their level bonuses, hence the suggestion of using one of the lengthy list of already made sets unless you're very careful.

[80sGamerGeek]

Well, JoaT is the result of midline costs. . . the rogue has fairly cheap everything but magic, the NP has no cheap costs, but nothing is really expensive either. . .they do anything fairly well, excel at nothing. . .which to me is JoaT.

Yeah, I reckon.  I guess in my head I think of "middle of the road" as neither positive or negagtive, while "jack of all trades" has a positive connotation to me (even though a JoaT is also a "master of none"), so I didn't really equate No-P as JoaT.  Tomato, tomato. 

I'd be wary of letting players pick their level bonuses, hence the suggestion of using one of the lengthy list of already made sets unless you're very careful.

I may have been spoiled by my regular group of players.  They wouldn't have been likely to abuse the privelege if allowed to assign bonuses.  (My regular group "once upon a time" -- I haven't really had the opportunity to play with them in quite a while.)

[RandalThor]

To me it sounds like it does work great as adolescent development reflecting their learning prior to specializing in a particular field. And it sounds good to be the true JoTs, the character that truly doesn't attach themselves to a single ideology. Sort of like the Journeyman in Earthdawn, able to pick from all the disciplines (what classes are called in ED).