Topic: Starting Level

[kevinmccollum]

Then start above first level. Don't give a lot of skills/gear/pp/etc and call it first level.

[kevinmccollum]

Oh, another "issue" I have with RMSS/RMFRP. creatures/monsters weren't adjusted to follow the new generation/development.

For example. RM2 orcs have a 40 ob. That is pretty much what they should have for a second level "character".  (six ranks of skill, +6 for level, +3 for stat) But they never adjusted that for the RMSS system.

[yammahoper]

I think it would be the same to say RM2 1st level PC's failed to establish a respectable level of competence for a 15-18 yr old.

Tomato, tomatoe.

[Marc R]

I like a weak 1st level. . . .if you jack up 1st level too high, then you can no longer have 12 year old pickpockets and 15 year old street thugs. . . .if you don't leave some room for inexperience at the bottom, you get sucked into the OD&D trap where 99% of the population are 0 level muggles with 1d4 hp.

[rdanhenry]

Don't allow Training Packages if you want fairly low competencies at 1st level. And control Talents.

[RandalThor]

I think it would be the same to say RM2 1st level PC's failed to establish a respectable level of competence for a 15-18 yr old.

I think this stems more from the modern sensibilities of the designers. I am pretty-sure that in a middle-ages type setting, people don't have the luxury of wasting their tween & teen years. Weren't they on to an apprenticeship by the age of 9 or so (I imagine it depends upon the profession though), getting married by the age 13-14 (women girls sometimes younger), and generally ending apprenticeships/starting professional careers by age 15-16? Obviously, the apprenticeship length is determined by the complication of the profession itself - if it even required an apprenticeship. (I don't imagine farmers had to go through it, they just worked for their family until they took over the farm themselves.) So, the competency (and, more importantly, the maturity) of the average "youngster" in a middle-ages type setting is likely to be quite a bit greater than in a modern one. (Though, I imagine that the modern youngster has the edge on general knowledge, and a big edge on scientific-type knowledge.)

I like a weak 1st level. . . .if you jack up 1st level too high, then you can no longer have 12 year old pickpockets and 15 year old street thugs. . . .if you don't leave some room for inexperience at the bottom, you get sucked into the OD&D trap where 99% of the population are 0 level muggles with 1d4 hp.

But in all versions of RM a 10th level fighter can still be killed by a commoner. The chances of that happening in a D&D system - any - is so low as to be not even worth contemplating. The sheer amount of bad luck that would have to happen on the part of the fighter, as well as good luck on the part of the commoner means that the commoner had better buy a lotto ticket. So, having a younger competence level is OK in RM (IMO); just because they are good at what they do (which they need to be in order to have a chance at surviving) is not an automatic win in RM. Which is why I much prefer to use the hell out of talents and stuff and have really competent characters. (I am sure most of you would say too competent, bordering on superhero, but it beats the alternative of being a dirt farmer in Warhammer....when I found out that was a real profession I laughed my rear off!) Having more competence at lower levels also helps alleviate the level discrepancy between RM and D&D - that I notice anyway. As it is, I thing an RM character has to be around twice the level of a D&D one in order to equate. (Just look at how many points it would take to emulate all the D&D fighters weapon proficiencies, sheesh!)

[Marc R]

True, but while it's fairly easy to juice up a weak 1st level to be stronger, it's harder to nerf a strong 1st level down to inexperienced sub competence. . . PCs are often the 1%, so I have less problem with them being exceptional examples of 1st level builds than with generally making 1st level default too strong.

[smug]

RM2 characters are fine for a young person, I think. If we all went out adventuring, I expect a lot of us would die pretty damn quickly, which is why most people wouldn't do it (it's bloody dangerous).

As Marc R says, scaling up, if that's the preferred model, is pretty easy (and I'd say quicker to scale up an RM2 character to third level, say, than create an RMSS/FRP, or RM2 plus lots of options, first levrl character).

I love a weak starting default. If it's not appropreiate to a given campaign, we just start at a higher level.

[yammahoper]

I take the approach that all people require a job, profession or career OTHER than adventurer.  Even a level one schuck is going to have made a living.  Herding, farming, a craft, whatever.  Having a skill of 5-20 is unacceptable (understanding there are always exceptions).

In the modern world, this is truer.  No one wants even a level one sugeon to have a 20 surgery skill (or 40 if he has an exceptional stat mod).

We use to get a good chuckle over all the 5-30 starting skill totals and suffered them willingly as long as it was possible to have a handful of higher skills, such as OB, or hits, or stalk, etc.  This was the RM2 way (a few 40+ skills, the rest very low).  Yet when a skill check is needed, even routine mnv's fail more often than not (sTATIC MNVS AT LEAST, THE mNm TABLE IS MUCH FREINDLIER...damn cap locks).

[smug]

I generally have the difficulty of standard profession execution as pretty low, where rolls are required at all; additionally, qualification to perform an actual trade was often pretty timeconsuming.

You can get extra ranks in a secondary skill with background options too, of course, but I tend to just chuck a few extra ranks of that sort at first level characters anyhow.

I don't think it's hard to fix without a large-scale change, let alone a new edition (but then, of course, I don't think it was the main reason we got a new edition).

[RandalThor]

No one wants even a level one surgeon*

Amen, brother! 


*Spelling corrected to (hopefully) make the joke better.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Yeah but a level one surgeon isn't a surgeon, that's a candy striper.

[RandalThor]

Yeah but a level one surgeon isn't a surgeon,

Let's hope not.

But on a (slightly) more serious note:

Yet, I can as a level 1 fighter take the TP of Knight, and be a level 1 Knight. Even though the majority of us would not think of a 1st level character as a knight. Also, Doctor is just a little vocational TP available for characters at 1st level. Yes, there is a difference between a Doctor and a Surgeon (you have to be one to be the other, but not the reverse), but not in the game.

RM was originally designed to be a bit like D&D in this fashion; professional level began at 1st. Unfortunately, this ideology starts to go sour when one sits and thinks about it for just a whee bit.

Of course, all of this is a bit off topic.....no surprise there. 

[Marc R]

1st level fighter, TP of "Knight" works the job "Squire", and junior squire at that.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Yeah, that. 1st level Knight is Page, working at becoming a Squire.

[Marc R]

As a GM, I've often taken a character history given to me for a 1st level PC, said "This is an excellent back story for a 10th level character, now go back, think of this version as your goals in life, and re-write it as if you aspire to be this good, but are just starting out."

Of course, all of this is a bit off topic.....no surprise there. 

By the magic of moderator splitting powers, the topic comes to the conversation.

[yammahoper]

As a GM, I've often taken a character history given to me for a 1st level PC, said "This is an excellent back story for a 10th level character, now go back, think of this version as your goals in life, and re-write it as if you aspire to be this good, but are just starting out."

Of course, all of this is a bit off topic.....no surprise there. 

By the magic of moderator splitting powers, the topic comes to the conversation.

This is a big issue in my group.  We are all experienced gamers (20 plus years).  The old first level background story doesnt often fly with us.  The result is starting at lvl 3 to 15 because we stress the characters story more than some rule set that demands a level one starting line.

Even so, I like starting with a level one PC, but he can be a complete incompetent.  I wanna play a hero, not a measuring stick for the effectiveness of experience points.

[Marc R]

Makes total sense to me, if you don't want to deal with boot camp and being a noob, skip to 3rd level and you're more "Street Ready", or 5th for Veteren, or 10th for hero, or 15th for a storied hero.

[pastaav]

Yeah, that. 1st level Knight is Page, working at becoming a Squire.

I totally agree.

I usually have level 2 or 3 as starting level, but would not be shy of starting a character at higher level if it was required.

[RandalThor]

1st level fighter, TP of "Knight" works the job "Squire", and junior squire at that.

Yeah, that. 1st level Knight is Page, working at becoming a Squire.

Yet, when I am making my 1st level RM Fighter, and choose the "Knight" TP - I am called a Knight. Not, Squire, not Pleeb, or whatever, a Knight. Nomenclature matters. Especially, when all manner of benefits come with such nomenclature. Like: respect, rights of domicile, etc... Knights got all kinds of perks other than training; they also had all manner of responsibilities.

If a game is going to have levels, and those levels dictate an overall character level of competence, then it has to do that. If we are saying a character isn't able to be a Knight until they are at least 5th level, then the Knight cannot be an players starting character - provided you are starting at less than 5th level. The guy wanting to be the Knight, sure. It is totally OK to say, "Sorry, you cannot start out as a Knight, but you can be a Knight's Squire." Of course, that limits the PCs freedom to adventure - but also builds in a handy method of saving their butt if they get in over their head.

All I am saying, is that if you are playing a 1st level character, particularly if they are a fighter, rogue, or thief, then you are likely playing a young-to-middle teens (13-15) individual. )I can totally see the mage, priest, etc... being older, though.) Not the 16+ TP training time.

Personally, I like to start out at higher levels, say, like around 20+  (Lots of back-story possibilities then.)