Topic: Too many Classes/Professions?

[Frabby]

Roughly a year ago we switched from RMC to RMFRP in our long-standing (~7 years) campaign.
We did that because we felt the classic RM had become too unlear, confused and micro-organized to be easy to play. To me, one major aspect was the confusing sheer number of classes/professions with a specialisation into virtually every thinkable and unthinkable direction. One of the results was that the Bounty Hunter class had all important "adventuring skills" so cheap that it effectively made up for a solid third of all non-magical characters and had essentially supplanted "normal" classes like Rogue and Thief, being plainly superior. Another point was the absurd number of specialized pure spell users that were really hard to tell apart except for their base spell lists.

Who needs (or even wants) a choice among 120 character classes?
What is the purpose of a variety that is so great that it actually puts off potential new players (we've had that happening)?
Most importantly: Why introduce a new class for a difference that is so minor that you cannot really tell the "new" class apart from an existing one without peeking at the character sheet?

The fact alone that some groups have reverted to exclusively allowing "no profession" characters goes to show that this system hat outgrown itself.

When RMFRP came, I instantly fell in love with two aspects: The concept of skill categories and the fact that the professions (finally) had been reduced to a few, which where actually clearly different from each other.
Where classic RM had failed over the detailed differentiation of similar professions, the differentiation was to be tackled in RMFRP through training packages. I was enthusiastic.

But now ICE somehow got the notion that they have to pack a few additional professions into every new product. Why? I feel that the excellent RMFRP approach (that was the reason for switching over from RM2) is foiled here in a quantity over quality way.
It's unneccessary. On the surface, it seems to be a minor thing - but again we have to sift through too many sourcebooks. I fear that this is the beginning of the end of RMFRP, which is heading into the exact same direction where RM2 failed.

Well, so much for my opinion. Please discuss. 

(I already posted this on the German RMFRP board some time ago, and it sparked quite a discussion. Now I'd like to expand the scope by putting it here.)

[markc]

Frabby;
 Yes RM2 used the model of needing a new profession for basic changes to the skill profile. In RMSS and RMFRP changes were handled by Training Packages [TP] that reduced the skill costs by 25% as well as define some spell lists as TP lists. Like you I prefer the RMSS/FRP method of professions than the RM2/C/X method but others have the opposite tastes and like the RM2/C/X method.
 IMO it can seem like a lot of professions depending on your game style. Also remember that the GM has the option to not allow a profession or to change any profession to his game. I use almost all the professions from the RMSS book, Channeling Comp, Essence Comp, Mentalism Comp and Martial Arts Comp. I have them all in a chart for players to pick from and to see just how one differs from another. My game is such that the professions from the School Of Hard Knocks and the professions in The Elemental Companion: Fire and Ice in rare cases. But I do provide some of the spell lists from EC:F&I to some other spell users.

 I do like to have all material at my finger tips when creating my game world and when new products come out I do have to decide if I am going to use a new profession, use it in special cases or not allow it as it does not fit in my world.

 What do you consider too many professions? Or what professions do you feel do not fit your game?

MDC

[dutch206]

I play RM2/Classic.  All of the professions in the Companion books are optional.  In fact, I can't imagine a campaign where every profession from all seven books was allowed.  Those professions vary wildly in power level and playability.

As I have said on these forums before, what is the difference between a Rogue and a Bounty Hunter?  Instead of introducing a new profession every time you need an interesting NPC, repurpose an existing profession.

As for " the absurd number of specialized pure spell users that were really hard to tell apart except for their base spell lists.", that's true.  To most outsiders there is no difference between a Seer, Mentalist, Illusionist, Magician, Sorcerer, or Mystic.  To the average person, they would all fall under the category of "Mage".  (The spell user in question might find this insulting, but it is still true.)  They twiddle their fingers, say funny sounding words, and incredible things happen as a result.

[Winterknight]

Hi Frabby,

Express Additions #9 offers a nice system for reducing the spell casters to 3 core classes, from which GM's can create different guilds/orders to customize the availability of spells by social association, rather than by class.  So, you could be a Mage of the Illusionist's guild, with spells suited to that group, or you could be a Mage of the Illustrious Order of Fire, with spells that focus in fire, light, destruction.  The combinations are anything your GM (you, if that's the case) can dream up.  With very little work, this could be adapted to RMFRP -simply choose 3 core RMFRP classes for base skill costs, instead of the stats offered for the Mage/Priest/Mentat in EA#9.

Many folks overlook the EA's, but there's a lot of good info in them for RMC, not just RMX.  Especially from about #6 on.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Couple of things to point out.....

First of all, most of what you are describing was done by the old ICE, which is NOT the same company as the current ICE.

RM2 is not the same as Rolemaster Classic. Please keep that in mind. And most especially, all of the expansion/companion products from RM2 are not a part of RMC and are not considered to be part of RMC.

The current ICE considers the RM2 Companions to be the equivalent of third party products. The current ICE has no hand in their creation, and for the most part consider that a lot of what is in many of products was unbalanced against the core rules (due to methods used by the old ICE, which basically never clarified what was core and what was optional).

The wealth of professions in both RM2 and RMFRP comes from the manner in which the Spell System of the game is designed. In short, the only way that they could allow new Base spell lists was to create new professions to use them. At least that was the feeling back then.

Express Additions #9 kinda changes that thinking by introducing three new professions that are meant to replace most of the Pure/Hybrid professions. Unfortunately, the same concepts do not currently lend themselves as well to semi-spell users and non-spell users.

Also, RMSS/FRP as a system is close to 14 years old right now. And in my personal opinion does need to be revised (along with RMC) into a new system, one that is flexible enough to allow for customization, and still keep the base profession down to a minimum.

[jdale]

The truth is, you can't sell books unless they have content targeted at players.

Even the best book, if it is written for gamemasters only, will have ~20% the target audience as compared to a book for players. That's why every game system now spreads out character generation between all of their books.

RM2 was especially bad because the professions were not created systematically or balanced. (RMC may be better about this, I haven't read it.)

As for professions that are identical aside from base lists, it might be better that way, rather than have them also different in ways that are unbalanced.

[rdanhenry]

The additional non-spell-user Professions were largely unnecessary and simply appeared designed to evade paying the costs for a skill selection that had no "perfect" Profession already existing to get all the desired skills quite cheaply. But I never understood the objection to pure/hybrid casters that were "almost the same except for the Base lists". For a pure or hybrid caster, the Base lists are the most important skills developed. They certainly represented a greater change than from Thief to Burglar, that's for sure! I did not like the new casters where most of the lists were not new. I think a concept for a new spell-casting Profession ought to generate a full set of new lists (or maybe repeat one or two at the most -- and then for a Semi- where themes of combat and the like often overlap). For Semis the non-spell skills tend to vary more, but then those are more important to the concept of a Semi.

There's really very little difference between having an Illusionist and a Magician and having a Mage of Illusions and a Mage of Elementalism that differ only in Base lists, except that two actual Professions do allow for some tweaking of costs for the few skills that actually would be more appropriate for one or the other.

[Ecthelion]

From a player's perspective I actually like additional professions. After years of playing Rolemaster I don't want to play the third Ranger or Fighter but instead try something new. And from a GM's perspective I am flexible enough to sometimes let a player try some new profession and take a look at this new profession. And if you don't want the additional professions, then simply don't use them. They are optional.

[Arioch]

Frabby I agree with you: there are too many professions in RM (any edition) and many of them are just slightly modified versions of others professions. Sure, you can ignore the ones you don't like but this doesn't change the fact that there are lots of unnecessary professions and that the space they take up on the books could have been used for something of more useful...

OTOH as Rasyr said these books are quite old now and were written by people who doesn't work at ICE anymore. I hope that a future RM revision will make this spread of professions unnecessary, by making professions more flexible/customizable.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Express Additions #9 offers a nice system for reducing the spell casters to 3 core classes, from which GM's can create different guilds/orders to customize the availability of spells by social association, rather than by class. 

Yep.
That's what I have done.
ES #9 is an awesome product!

[rafmeister]

     My group in Pittsburgh had a simple solution. The GM said NO! We tossed out ALL the companions, and went back to the basic core rules. The power creep disappeared, and our Astrologer did fine until he botched a perception test and convinced himself that an army of orcs was an illusion.

     This was done after playing in a "free for all" game, where the GM tried to use every rule from every companion that was out. In a Middle Earth campaign.

[RandalThor]

One of the ways I like to deal with the "Too many professions situation" is to really tie certain professions to specific cultures and enforce the cultural quirks - which can concidered flaws by some. Of course, if you have a very homogenous setting, like, say the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, this really isn't possible. (Who cares if you are from Furyondy or Keoland, for role-playing purposes there is no difference.)

For example: if the Player wants to be a Warrior-Mage, he HAS to be a Mernochian Warrior-Mage which are noted for their extremely obnoxious behaviors (like farting loudly, burping) or taboos, like they can't wear armor and/or never use missile weapons. They don't have to be flaws, per se, but whatever they are you must enforce them for them to mean anything. So that only those Player's who are willing to put up with the cultural quirks you put into place will choose that profession.

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

I always considered the profession list to be an indication of what you may play, not something that was mandatory in an universe.

So, I just wrote a list of professions that were available in my universe. Nobody ever complained.

[solmead]

I agree that there are too many professions in the base game.
In my game (played with RMSS) I only have 13 professions total
Fighter, Thief, Rogue, Warrior Monk, Layman, Barbarian, Outrider, Sage, Swashbuckler, Ninja, Priest, Technician, Diplomat

Anyone wanting to be a spell caster has to spend talent points (semi=10, partial=20, pure=30) and then they pick their base list based on what type caster from the books they want to be (magician, bard, etc all books are available, if you want to mix and match base lists you can but it is subject to gm, and you need a good reason in game why you ended up not getting the standard training)

So for instance you want to be the traditional Magician class, then you would be the Sage profession and buy the Pure Essence Talent.
A Hybrid type caster would buy a partial in the first realm and a partial in the second realm. (And yes at 40 Talent Points, Hybrids are rare)
A Arcanist would need to buy a partial in all three realms. (Extremely Rare)

My feeling has always been that the profession is what your good at, and Training Packages are what careers you have done.

[RandalThor]

Anyone wanting to be a spell caster has to spend talent points (semi=10, partial=20, pure=30)

I really like this idea and have used as well. It does 2 things: 1) it makes it so that not anyone can be a spellcaster - which I really,really like, and 2) it means that some of those important development points are used so that at the start spell-users are sort of below non-spell users which I like as well.

[Steve_990]

I think that any games that has a massive amount of skills / professions / spells / options.... etc ... etc... are usually both the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the game.

On of the best games I played in was a Rifts game... a game where most people hate due to the incredible power creep. EVERY book had to outdo the last. But it FIT the game we were playing... it was hyperdimensional and time travelling where we could be anything and do anything. Story was more complex, but it worked because we weren't power gamers. That concept with power gamers would make a terrible game.

I view RM2 the same with all the companions. I like to run RMC/RM2 based games and LOVE the large options. It totally removes the "oh look ANOTHER mage" feel from the game.

There are certain skills that are cheaper for a profession that an old one, but usually they have another area where they are most expensive. But being cheaper doesn't mean better. If one character with a 3/6 cost has better stats than a 1/2 costed character and both develop equally -  the one with the more appropriate stats for that skill with have the higher outcome.

The best thing about power creep in Rolemaster (and I'm not saying it isn't there) is that criticals treat all men (and women!) the same I've never worried about overpowered characters as they all have the same weakness to dying as the next.

I also do not use ALL professions. Some I feel just do not fit my game, so they are out. I think it's in the hands of the GM to limit and enforce the game they wish to run and it's up to the group as a whole to come to a consensus on what they want in to enjoy it the most.

Think of real live Doctors for example. They are all doctors, but some are specialists. The specialists are not as good at some of the generalized practices (due to not performing them all the time) but they ARE excellent at their medical specialization. This is the way I view many of the overlapping Professions.

And that is the greatest strength of Rolemaster and why I will always play it over other games of narrower scope.

[markc]

 Hay I am working on a game world where I have 35 playable professions and 2 Evil only professions. Now that is quite a few but I do not see anyway I can cut them down unless I do a general Priest, Mage, Mentat like in one of the EA's.

MDC

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

As for " the absurd number of specialized pure spell users that were really hard to tell apart except for their base spell lists.", that's true.  To most outsiders there is no difference between a Seer, Mentalist, Illusionist, Magician, Sorcerer, or Mystic.  To the average person, they would all fall under the category of "Mage".  (The spell user in question might find this insulting, but it is still true.)

But the point of the spell user in question finding this insulting is the point of having distinctive naming for the distinctive professions. RL case in point: To most outsiders there is no difference between the "guy working in computers" and the "other guy working in computers", yet anyone "working in computers" knows that a network admin. isn't the same than a security specialist who isn't the same than a software developer who isn't the same than a tech. support. Does that mean, though, that's it's completely useless to make a distinction between the latter ones? I don't think so.
More down-to-earth, all swords are, well, swords. Doesn't that mean it's totally useless and serves no purpose to make a distinction between them?

Sure, most spell users only differ by their base spell lists, but that's the very point of giving them different naming. Classification, categorization, the very reason why such matters are done, because they make understanding of an unknown factor easier. On the meta level, that makes communication between players (and GMs) easier: if one speaks about his "Forcemage", every knows roughly what's he able to do, and in which fields he specializes, removing the need for "So, I play a mage"/"Oh? And what can you do, exactly" because a "mage" would be such a vague term, it wouldn't help much understand what a character does. On a meta-level, it also helps a GM defining his NPCs: instead of writing "mage" for all his mages, of writing "mages specialized in (paragraph detailing said specializations)...", he could just write "Magician", "Forcemage", "Runemaster" and immediately understand the kind of characters they are.

On a meta level applied to actual gaming, this same help is given for spells giving information about "profession"; while it's true that such spells probably merely give an understanding of what a character can do ("According to the spell, the guy is a mage, and knows about Essence magic dealing with the fire, ice, air, earth, water and light"), it helps understanding to rather give distinctive names.

On a gaming level, mages are among the most educated professions, and in most worlds are formed in magic schools, universities and the like. As such, I do personally think they're organized by abilities/school options/classes and make the distinction, the same way WE do make a difference in naming between a first year in literature studies, a first year in computer sciences, and a second year in business administration. So, the same way, magical students would make a difference in naming between a Magus, a Magician, a Shadow Mage and an Alchemist.

[StrongInTheArm]

I agree.
IMHO, there's no need of so many spell-user professions. They're pretty similar between them and the only difference is the base lists and several skills-costs.
For the pure's, the Mage/Mentat/Priest I think the templates presented in EA#9 (for RMC/X, I know, but you can adapt the concept for RMSS) are the way to solve that. GM can design the folios for each "spell-user specialist" and even borrow the "favored skills" concept from religious orders to apply it for the Mage/Mentat also.
Thinking about the semi's brings to my head the semi-psychic/fusion concept. Don't you think it could be neat idea to have a semi- template to mix with the non- professions? This way, a Ranger can be a semi-Scout, a Warrior Mage a semi-Fighter, a Paladin/Champion yet another semi-Fighter... and then you can apply some variation to the folio concept in order to assign the spell lists.
With this idea, you still have so many professions (as many as you can combine) without having a lot of templates to deal with.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

With this idea, you still have so many professions (as many as you can combine) without having a lot of templates to deal with.

And everytime you find a neat concept with an associated combination of skills, skill costs, and spell lists and want to save it, what would you do? Save it under a "name", which would refer to such a "combination of skills, skill costs, and spell lists".
There, you've done exactly what was done: you've create a "new profession". Then, someone comes and asks that ICE/people on the forum should post good-working concepts of "combination of skills, skill costs, and spell lists". How would you group all of them, if not under a "name", meaning a "profession"?