Topic: Base lists and professions? Q By Thrud

[thrud]

Yeah, I can agree to that. It's only when the player wants the character to evolve the problems begin.

[Arioch]

It's only when the player wants the character to evolve the problems begin.

Then I think that we should start from another point of view:
Why the player has radically changed his priorities? It's only a problem of in-game evolution of the character or is it because he's no more interested in his old priorities? Or maybe it's because he thought that his priorities were fulfilled by profession X and then discovered that profession Y was actually better at it? Or something else?
IMHO each of these questions would lead to a different answer.

[Dark Schneider]

It all boils down to one thing, do you think spell lists are genetically coded in the character?

That is not really so radical, base list means that you need some professional knowledges to learn them successfully with the profession base cost, for that exists the category other/base, you can learn them, but you have not the basic knowledge so you must pay more.

So, it is not genetic, it is knowledge (less radical as you can see).

Examples, a magician could learn how to manipulate essence into elemental form, a ranger learns how to pray his god to affect narute, etc. This can be a depth knowledge, for that is associated to a profession.

But, reading your doubts, I think your question goes for another way: I am not opposed to allow characters to selects their base list from a bigger group, i.e. a ranger could selects 'the hunter' (channeling companion) instead one of their fixed based. Simply you have the limit of 6 for semi-hybrid and 10 for pure spell users (remember, the 6 + 4 additional for pures).

And, maybe in this way you could allow non-spell users select 1 or 2 base lists and allow to learn them with base cost. But of course it should be well truthful (background option, stay in a magic school some time like a TP, etc.). Think that is the same if you allow a magician buy ranks in weapons with the cost of a thief, it must be really well truthful (like a talent to reduce the weapon cost).
And talking about talents, maybe you could use the one that allows to learn arcane list like own one, but for other/base.

[yammahoper]

10 dev is only for the first 5 levels of the list.  Cost increase after that.  Even if it does not, 50 dev a level to learn five spells allows for little other training.  The system is not broke.

[markc]

Yeah, I can agree to that. It's only when the player wants the character to evolve the problems begin.

 I agree with this and also think it is part of meta-gaming. As the template does not know how many DP it costs to learn something they only know that it takes more or less effort then someone else. So as in RL IMO people who find it takes more time and effort to learn something may decide it is not for them or they are not interested in spending so much time to learn the skill. Eventually there can/might become a point where someone cannot learn something for some reason.

 MDC

[Arioch]

So as in RL IMO people who find it takes more time and effort to learn something may decide it is not for them or they are not interested in spending so much time to learn the skill.

But professions have nothing to do with real life, and comparing them with RL situations has imho only a misleading effect and will not help us in finding a way to solve the problem.

[markc]

So as in RL IMO people who find it takes more time and effort to learn something may decide it is not for them or they are not interested in spending so much time to learn the skill.

But professions have nothing to do with real life, and comparing them with RL situations has imho only a misleading effect and will not help us in finding a way to solve the problem.

 Well I guess I should say that my statements are in that you want to have a RL type game. If you are just saying that my PC is boring to play as I have maxed out all my skills then IMO that is a problem.

 If in RMC a GM wants to provide a way to switch professions then IMO it should cost between 100 and 200 DP. Yes if you only get 40 DP per level it is going to take some time to fully change professions. Also IMO the higher level the PC is then it should be closer to the 200 point side. So it would be 5 levels at the high end and 2.5 at the low end if you get 40 DP per level.
 Why? Well IMO the more ingrained you are in doing something one way then it will take some time to change your ways.

 But again I would not allow it in my game as instead I would probably allow the player to change PC's at a 1-3 level penalty. I agree that some players will not like this but that is how I run my game.

MDC

[thrud]

Yeah, I can agree to that. It's only when the player wants the character to evolve the problems begin.

 I agree with this and also think it is part of meta-gaming. As the template does not know how many DP it costs to learn something they only know that it takes more or less effort then someone else. So as in RL IMO people who find it takes more time and effort to learn something may decide it is not for them or they are not interested in spending so much time to learn the skill. Eventually there can/might become a point where someone cannot learn something for some reason.

 MDC

markc>Yes, it is metagaming...sort of. But still. In this thread we assume the DP costs are unchanged. The discussion only covers what spell lists the character can count as his own base lists. If one works somewhat within the rules.
Non's have no baselists.
Semis have 5 baselists.
Pures have 10 baselists.

Let's rack it up to mental potential. The Semi only have the mental capacity for learning 5 baselists, after that things get more difficult.
So, a character who abandones his previous career still have the restrictions in place but maybe he can learn other lists due to a in game career change?
If a Semi have already bought ranks in 5 baselists he's out of luck but if he's only used 2 "slots" maybe he could gain access to 3 other lists?
Just toying with the idea here...

Including a penalty for changing professions is just fair and servs to deter the munchkins. Nothing wrong with that. Exactly what the penalty is may  vary from GM to GM.

Arioch> A game can never fully mimic RL but imo it should feel realistic and thus one should model it as much as possible from RL. Make it logically sound and reasonable. When rules don't make sense people tend to complain...

[markc]

Thurd;
 If you are going to change something about base lists then I would say that they can learn any list but only the base lists git the reduced DP cost. Other base lists cost more then closed lists and open lists. Now IIRC I think that Rasyr said that only Pure Spell users and Hybrids can learn closed base lists. IMO this would also have to go to make things work so again anybody can learn any list for increased DP cost. I bet their is a table in one of the RoCo's that provide for this style but my RM2 books are burred at the moment so I can not look it up.
 Once you have all that done then essentially you are using the RMSS style of everyone being able to buy every skill.

 Now if you are asking can I just go and pick any lists to be my base list. I would say no. But that does not mean that a GM can shift some of the base lists around. Again it is in the hands of the GM because of balance issues. Do I think that every player will pick the power lists? No but IMO most will and the GM should put a stop to it before there is a problem.

 Examples:
 In my game I get rid of the Rangers Summon Animal ability and sub in the Animal Bonding spell list from the Ment Comp or the Wyrd Bow list from the Guild Companion.
 And I allowed a Paladin to switch out lists based on his god and info from the Chan Comp. I also think there was a rule in the Chan Comp that allowed the Hunter spell list to be learned as a base list if you took the TP.

MDC

[Dark Schneider]

Maybe TPs are the solution, instead adquiring new base list, that is too much for me, you could allow to learn spell lists as TP list.

Look that the term base means that, "base", and the number of base lists are computed for any profession in a balanced system taking into account other restrictions, like less HPs, greater costs for other skills (athletics, outdoor, armor, etc.), so chaging this balance it could affect the entire game system.

IMO TPs are the perfect way to change your career for spells.

Using your case as exmaple, that thief could does a TP that allows to learn 1 or 2 magician base spell lists (it is the usual), as are adquired by TP, you pay them as TP list (same or other realm depending on the character realm).

For changing the complete DPs cost set, the best option is the profession change.
It probably doesn't exists, but that is no problem, maybe you can use elementalists TPs as template.

[Arioch]

Arioch> A game can never fully mimic RL but imo it should feel realistic and thus one should model it as much as possible from RL. Make it logically sound and reasonable. When rules don't make sense people tend to complain...

Yes, rules must make sense, be logical, coherent and reasonable. I think everyone agrees here.
On "feeling realistic": what does it means? what is "realistic"? There's no single answer to this question: everyone has a different idea on that and everyone wants something different from his game experience.
Replicating RL with game rules is, as you said, impossible. No matter how hard you try, you'll never be able to fully mimic reality.
Trying to model games rules on RL is not only a waste of time, since you'll never be able to reach that result, it's also a "false" goal.
I'd say that when you're designing a specific rule, you're not trying to mimic reality, you're trying to get coherent rules which enforce a specific idea/behaviour you'd like to see in your game.
You may think that your goal is obtaining something more close to RL, but the truth is that you're trying to obtain something more close to your game priorities, things you like and want to be part of your game.
This is why I said that starting from the comparison between professions and RL is misleading: it tells us nothing about what you really want.
So why do you want rules for changing profession? What you really want from them?

[thrud]

Arioch> I think we're pretty close to agreement on that. we just express ourselvs differently.

markc> Yes, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. Substituting some baselists due to in-game reasons.

[markc]

  I also think the Dark Schneider has a great solution! Use TP spell list from the Chan Comp, Ess Comp and Ment Comp. As a GM you can create a list that is less powerful than than base lists by maybe 3 ranks or even model them after open lists and closed lists.


 Arioch;
 I fully disagree with your statements as I tend to like a system as close to RL as can get. In fact the only part of RMSS IMO that is lacking is maybe a body location hit system.
 I am not a fan of systems that just have an arbitrary framework that allows for every increasing power in any direction that the PC wants. Also the GM has to come up with ever more powerful situations for the PC's to take part in as they grow to super-humandom or demi-godhood. I like the level of minute detail that RMSS possesses and find something missing when playing other games.
 For example I am playing in a skills light system right now and often we have to scramble to decide on what skill to use as it is possible for an action or situation to fall under many of them depending on how the action in done. 
 Another system we were playing in that was rules light had very few stats for "monsters" and not a lot of rules for adjusting them. So the big dino we fought had armor every where, even its eye ball. The adventure provided some examples on how to kill it and all involved huge amount of damage and no examples of strikes to week spots. So almost everyone died and we switched back to the main system the GM uses for his campaign world.

 I am probably not the average gamer in that sense as I do not look for systems that are solely based on the super PC concept. But that does not mean that there are not others out there that do not love these games. It is just that I am not in that camp.

MDC

[Arioch]

marck: I think you misunderstood what I said. I'm not saying that rpgs should be rules-light (I like crunchy games), nor that characters should be super-heroes.
What I'm saying is that game mechanics will never be able to replicate RL natural laws. No game will be ever able to do that.
Designing game rules starting from the concept that they should mimic RL in this sense (that they should have the same "function" of physical laws in RL) is a big error because, as I said in my other post, this is a misleading premise.
With this I do not mean that games should not be gritty, lethal or detailed. In fact, imho these are all good premises for a game (and that's why I play RM, I think  ).

thrud: glad to hear that 

[providence13]

So, if I'm a Thief (Essence Realm) and pay for Amateur Mage (assuming it's allowed) at Char Gen, then those are my Base Lists...

If I'm a Thief (Essence Realm) and pay for Amateur Mage after Char Gen (assuming it's allowed and time/money/whatever spent), then those are my Base Lists...

I hope that I'm not being stubborn/arrogant/stupid ( ), but I have to side with Arioch. Professions don't exist. They are just a way to explain "it" in game terms. Training Packages don't exist. Different skill costs- the same answer.

Substitute for in-game reasons! That sounds like fun. A Magic sword that allows better dev cost for Magicians... Perhaps a broach that allows Fighters to learn/use Fire Law even at a Magicians cost...
Or magic leprachaun boots that let you progress like a hobbit thief in Stalking!
Why not!! I just need specific reasons I guess...

[markc]

providence13;
[Note 1: RMSS/FRP comment]
[Note 2: Be sure you use the up to date TP cost sheet from the Vault instead of the one in the book.]
 If you were a thief and were using Talent Law and picked a talent that let you have some spell lists I as the GM might say ok for X more TP you can have Magician base lists.
 A thief taking the Armature Mage TP before or after PC gen I would let them take open lists only maybe closed lists depending on the game.
 
 I know that it says in RMSS that using Hobby Ranks you cannot buy a skill with a DP cost of  higher than 40 [Going from Memory]. I might use the same rational for TP's and "pick your skill". But using J Dales TP creator I could go back and plug in the type of spell list that I wanted to make a custom TP for my PC with the open, closed or base list that I wanted.

 As to your ideas about items that allow you to learn other professions skills cheaper. In the past I did do something close to that with rings dedicated to a specific profession. They were very powerful in that they gave the person extra "Profession Bonuses" as well as other good stuff, depending on there power level. Was it fun yes. Was it powerful yes. Did the  players know about it at the time? No. They suddenly knew they were making skill rolls better for what ever reason. The did not have a lot of time to figure out what they were for or there abilities as I stated a cross campaign that would have intersected there world at a point in the future. But we had to quite before we got there as I had to move away. O well they did like that info at the end, and were very surprised at where it was all going.

MDC

[Dark Schneider]

If I'm a Thief (Essence Realm) and pay for Amateur Mage after Char Gen (assuming it's allowed and time/money/whatever spent), then those are my Base Lists...

Not, are TP lists for you. They have different cost but for non-spell user is better than their "base" (as non-spell users don't have base lists).

It is a good example but, with Amateur Mage TP you usually can't choose base lists, only TP lists (listed in companions), you could use the elementalist TP (in Fire & Ice) as template for learning magician lists as TP lists.