Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: arakish on August 29, 2012, 02:31:01 PM
-
There was also a Loremaster profession in one of the Shadow World products.
IIRC, though, the SW LoreMaster wasn't a "true" profession, as the LoreMasters was more of an organization one would join (similar to the Navigators), and in the process "merge" one's original profession with the LoreMaster profession, including "exchanging" some base lists of one's original profession with the LoreMaster's ones.
Now that you mention it, you are completely correct. It has been so long since I have read anything about Shadow World, I had forgotten that.
I just remember that Shadow World was off the deep end when it came to magic for my taste. I tend towards mid or low magic worlds. SW was so far beyond high magic end, there is no scale on which it could be placed. Except, perhaps into a new category of "so impossible as to be unplayable." Sorry SW fans, but not all like high magic worlds.
rmfr
-
Indeed all may not like high magic worlds, but that doesn't make them unplayable 8) In fact, they are easier to play.
Some players and GM's like really big scope. Take Dragon Age for example. Really big scope, saving the world from the Dark Spawn. Yet Dragon Age II was pawned as inferior by the majority, in no small part because they were only fighting to survive and succeed with their family in a city. A very limited scope must have been the reason because it was as limear as the first DA and the combat system had been improved (though the game was still to easy for mages imo, and lets not talk about the massive holes in DAII storyline).
Think of all the really good PC rpgs: their scope tends to be BIG. Two reasons. One revolves around the satisfaction of base human desire and ego, being the best, being great, being powerful and respected. Crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and listen to the lamentation of the women. You know, the usual, even if it is 12 or so, and I find it no coincidence most begin the march into adulthood at about the age of 12.
Reason two is the simple and easy; combat is easy to code compared to subtlties of human intereaction. Fighting is a challenge that is easier for a GM to deliver than suspense, intrigue, story, plot, character personality and development beyond leveling up, which is of course a simple measuring stick of success. Who doesn't remember their highest level or most powerful PC (pun intended).
Yes, a tight controled low magic game requires a 15 year old mentality over 12, but 12 ain't all that bad!
-
I'm with you, arakish. High magic was just never my thing. Nothing against those who enjoy it, of course, but I never cared for it. Luckily, most of my gaming group doesn't get into high magic settings, either. Ours tend to be a bit grittier. There's magic, and the scope can still be quite big, but I don't think scope has to be inevitably tied to magic. Take, for example, the discovery in my world that goblins still exist and that they have a technological advantage over the other groups. That had pretty major implications that weren't tied directly to magic at all. Of course, there was a magical threat moving at the same time....
-
Hard to have Big Magic and not have Big Scope. I also never hinted Low Magic Games couldn't have Big Scope, but when a single gate spell can increase scope to a multi-verse, Big Magic tends to win the big scope arguement.
-
First of all, perhaps this should be broken off into its own thread titled: High-Magic/Big-Scope vs. Low-Magic/Low-Scope, or something like that.
Some players and GM's like really big scope. Take Dragon Age for example. Really big scope, saving the world from the Dark Spawn. Yet Dragon Age II was pawned as inferior by the majority, in no small part because they were only fighting to survive and succeed with their family in a city. A very limited scope must have been the reason because it was as limear as the first DA and the combat system had been improved (though the game was still to easy for mages imo, and lets not talk about the massive holes in DAII storyline).
I don't know about DA, but I like high magic and scope in my games. Primarily because I have gamed for 30+ years and much of that was "low-level" for the start of campaigns that never continued, so I am jonesing for some high-level action. (Like 30, 40, or even 50+ in RM terms, or 1000+ point characters for GURPS, etc...) In the media, I think there is a problem with the "big-scope" equals win, scenario. As the producers will want to make a sequel to make more money if their first movie/book/whatever is a success, then where do they go from there? Does anyone remember the awesome movie that was The 13th Warrior? What were the stakes, again? A village? A few villages? And yet, it was a fantastic movie. (Though I would say, that by RM standards, the main characters of the story were all at least 15th+ level, so not newbies.)
Yes, a tight controled low magic game requires a 15 year old mentality over 12, but 12 ain't all that bad!
Hey! I resemble that remark! (Though not for liking high-magic and scope, as I don't think that those aspects mean having a lower mental age. Plenty of other reasons, though. :o)
-
Hard to have Big Magic and not have Big Scope. I also never hinted Low Magic Games couldn't have Big Scope, but when a single gate spell can increase scope to a multi-verse, Big Magic tends to win the big scope arguement.
I never said that it was competition between the two. Only that I don't like High Magic games.
-
I have a problem with the terms "high magic" and "low magic" thrown around without clarification. There are at least three aspects of magic that can be varied independently:
1. Power of magical spells.
2. Commonness of spell-casters.
3. Magicality of the environment (number and variety of "monsters", unusual phenomena such as floating islands, magical herbs, etc.)
The degree to which each of these is "high" or "low" influences the setting, but each in different ways. They are therefore worth distinguishing.
-
I have a problem with the terms "high magic" and "low magic" thrown around without clarification. There are at least three aspects of magic that can be varied independently:
1. Power of magical spells.
2. Commonness of spell-casters.
3. Magicality of the environment (number and variety of "monsters", unusual phenomena such as floating islands, magical herbs, etc.)
The degree to which each of these is "high" or "low" influences the setting, but each in different ways. They are therefore worth distinguishing.
I totally agree. For my tastes its a combination of casters being a rare breed, Low orientated magic environment, with minor spells that can become powerful(scaling in other words).
-
Hard to have Big Magic and not have Big Scope. I also never hinted Low Magic Games couldn't have Big Scope, but when a single gate spell can increase scope to a multi-verse, Big Magic tends to win the big scope arguement.
I never said that it was competition between the two. Only that I don't like High Magic games.
No, not a competition, rather that magic tends to increase scope all by itself.
Lets say the basics of magic include healing, protections and wards. A step up includes force spells like sleep, charm, confusion, distraction, touch of disruption, etc. Above that comes invisibility and information gathering spells. Then perhaps elemental attacks and area affect attacks, movement magic like fly and teleport, with gates and the like topping the list of powerful movement magic. Some where in that mix are changing spells, illusions, etc.
What ever order you put them in, spells increase power and scope by what they allow the villians and party to easily accomplish. Distance means less if a group can rely on teleport. Battles are less threatening wih magical healing. Information is less elusive with divination. A spell for every occassion, so to speak.
In addition to increasing power levels, magic allows entire new universes to spring into existence. This is a massive potential increase in scope, something not achievable in mundane setting except for high tech settings, and in sci-fi tech simply replaces magic.
-
I think the availability of certain spells (invisibility, haste, detection, elemental manipulation) also is a big factor in determining the power and scope of a game world.
The effects of tightly controlled spells will be obvious and there are many ways of doing that. Simply throwing all spells out there and saying " pick what you like" is perhaps a recipe for high magic, and saying: no invis, haste, bolts and magical detection, even though a large portion of the population are spell casters (of one kind or another), will decrease the power of such casters by a large degree.
-
I agree with the above that magic opens the scope, and I have one quick point to make:
For those who like high magic / low scope settings, increase danger of magic considerable (and I don't only mean failure). If a caster opens a gate to another dimension, they could risk madness or digestion by a planar creature. A healing spell could have a risk factor for the recipient, for example mutation or addiction which puts players off it. Increase all chances of corruption, madness and other horrifying consequences of high powered magic as a counterbalance to it's existance.
"You want me to teleport, but what about teleporting my soul?!! I'll walk!"
-
I have a problem with the terms "high magic" and "low magic" thrown around without clarification. There are at least three aspects of magic that can be varied independently:
1. Power of magical spells.
2. Commonness of spell-casters.
3. Magicality of the environment (number and variety of "monsters", unusual phenomena such as floating islands, magical herbs, etc.)
The degree to which each of these is "high" or "low" influences the setting, but each in different ways. They are therefore worth distinguishing.
Yes, but they also influence one another, making it difficult t change one by very much without it "pulling the others along".
If spell casters are very uncommon, those capable of teaching those powerful magics are likewise very uncommon, making the average power go down. If powerful magic has been around and been fairly common for a long time, it's more reasonable to expect the 'magicality of the environment' to have risen. People experiment, after all. Commonness can change with the local culture, but power, risk and collateral effects on the environment cannot.
-
I have a problem with the terms "high magic" and "low magic" thrown around without clarification. There are at least three aspects of magic that can be varied independently:
1. Power of magical spells.
2. Commonness of spell-casters.
3. Magicality of the environment (number and variety of "monsters", unusual phenomena such as floating islands, magical herbs, etc.)
The degree to which each of these is "high" or "low" influences the setting, but each in different ways. They are therefore worth distinguishing.
I don't think that these are necessarily independant of each other - unless the designer of the environment goes out of his/her way to make them so. Otherwise, #3 dictates how much of #1 & #2 there are. It should look more like this;
I. Magicality of the Environment
A. Commoness of spell-casters/magical creatures.
B. Maximum Power Level of Spells.
C. The Ease/Complication of Casting Spells. (Ease for high-magic, complicated for low-magic - usually.)
Example: Shadow World is bathed in Essaence, so there is a lot of it thru out the world, in the plants, animals, peoples, and even the minerals. So it is to be expected that there are lots of spell-casters (full, semi, or even nons who do a spell or two), and that magic can have some very powerful effects - because it is everywhere. In Harnworld, though, magic is rare, and so are magic-users and they generally do not do "big magic". (I think that if they want to do something really big, it would take a very long and complicated ritual in order to gather the power needed - if they are able to do anything like that at all, I am not too familiar with magic in the Harn RPG.)
Now, me preference is for high-magic - Shadow World is one of my favorite settings, so go figure - but I can play and have fun in low magic settings, like the Conan setting.
-
IMHO if high magic is deadly then it is just a matter of time before they die. As IMO when practicing spell casting you have the same failure results. Even if you are doing the spell wrong you can get very bad results. This would limit the number of people who could teach the high level spell and even if they did survive the learning process they would be hesitant to cast the spell.
I guess what I am trying to say is knowing the words, phrases, mental states, hand and body movements and positions; and anything else I forgot, does not mean to me you know how to cast the spell.
If you are thinking of a scroll and a spell embedded in the scroll, then it is MHO that the embedding process allows a unknowing caster to cast a spell he does not know and without all or some of the side effects. But that is just my game and world.
MDC
-
I prefer more magic than Low, but perhaps not so much to be considered High. I usually draw the line at visiting other Planes.
One of my GMs (for D&D 3.x) was a lover of Low Magic setting (namely, he loves the Black Company books). So casters are few and far between. Magic items are nearly unheard of, or Artifacts in NPC hands.
If you're running a Low Magic game, keep in mind that the PC caster may want role-models to look up to, learn from, aspire to be like, etc. Don't make the scarcity of magic penalize them when training, make it just like any other skill. Make sure the world reacts accordingly as well. If it's very rare, there should be a lot of "ooh, ahh" reaction, or people scared out of their wits, or torches and pitchforks. ;)
One side effect we didn't see until it was too late (and wouldn't be a problem in RM). D&D 3.X assumed a certain level of magic items boosting AC and such by certain levels. Instead, our defenses stagnated, but our Attacks went up. The fighter could auto hit (with first attack anyway), but our opposition could auto hit as well. It was impossible for the Cleric to keep up with the damage.
I think RM could handle a Low Magic, all Arms character style of game (since we took a stab at playing a modern era game with Firearms Law once). But without healing magic (at the least) it would be too short lived for my tastes.
-
We played an extremely low-magic campaign not too long ago, and I loved it. PCs were only allowed to be non-magic users, and those they heard of who knew magic could be counted on one hand. But like Dougansf pointed out; RM is designed with access to healing in mind, so we allowed herbs and potion-making to at least partially make up for the lacking healing-spells.
-
I ran a several year campaign in which the only magic was herbs and bonus items. Worked very well, I really enjoyed running it. The PC's eventually all learn foraging and herb lore, along with first aid, second aid and even surgery. Diagnostics also became a very important skill to detect the serious internal injuries. It certainly did keep the scope down: one enemy kingdom was more than enough to provide constant sources of adventure, with of course the wilderness/frontier.
-
When spells replace a mundane skill, then that is classed as a high magic setting IMO.
-
When spells replace a mundane skill, then that is classed as a high magic setting IMO.
Like First Aid? Hard to think of any game with magic where healing is primarily done with skills. I think I would set a slightly stricter standard....
Personally I prefer somewhat low-magic settings.
-
I think there are many aspects of high magic. If we look at Shadow World there are plenty of locations where there is an ancient complex that it littered with apparant non functional uses of Laen and other expensive materials. The functional bits where they exist are almost always things that can not realistically created with existing technology.
A setting might be high magic because there are plenty of natural magical environment wonders (flying mountains etc)
A setting might be high magic because there are lost technology of the science fiction type but that is explained as powered by magic.
A setting might be high magic because ordinary spell users have visible magic that can have a great impact on encounter.
A setting might be high magic because spell users can get god like abilities and reshape the world as they see fit.
Speaking about just low vs high magic does IMO miss much of the intersting differences between settings.
-
When spells replace a mundane skill, then that is classed as a high magic setting IMO.
Like First Aid? Hard to think of any game with magic where healing is primarily done with skills.
Personally I prefer somewhat low-magic settings.
Note: Edited out a sentence of above quote.
This would be a very deadly setting and healers, healing skills, herbs and magic herbs would be worth lots of $.
Since I use the Channeling Companion and some additional rules note every cleric in my game has healing spells or access to healing spells. It does make for a lot more thinking and marshaling of resources when confronted by something.
MDC
-
Years ago, I had a guy who wanted to play a 1 on 1 campaign, starting at 1st level.
He created an illusionist as his character. ::) "Yeah okay dude, if you're sure that's what you want... just remember, you have no backup unless you hire somebody..."
There are few PCs to be found in any RPG that can bring a whole new dimension to "helpless" like a 1st level Illusionist. And it's a 1 on 1 campaign, the party consists of him, nobody else. And not being a wealthy 1st level Illusionist, even healing herbs are mostly out of his price range...
...In Rolemaster, where there are crits that leave permanent disabilities unless they are healed by more than mere herbs. Herbs don't set broken bones, for example.
Needless to say, there was more game time spent planning, finding a spot from which to hide and observe, running away, and recovering from previous attempts, than everything else in the game combined.
And yet with the sole PC being an illusionist, and magic (and magically altered herbs) freely available, just outside the budget of a starting character, it hardly qualified as a "low magic setting."
"This would be a very deadly setting..."
Yes it is. And it takes a different kind of roleplay to survive it.
I was proud of the guy, he created a character who thinks his way out of problems instead of fighting his way out of them, and that's exactly what he played. And he knew up front that would have a high cost in many ways, and he charged in gaily and paid it joyfully.
He was a treat to GM for, he really was.
-
You hit it on the head. You have to know what you are in for. ;D
I do not know what I am in for with the new version of RM and I am starting to twitch a bit. :o
MDC
-
I not really fond of instant heals, Teleports and easy access to Lifegiving..
I think it takes away some of the challenge.
My players have these, sure. And I set up the game. But "high" magic will be more tightly controlled/harder to learn in the next campaign. ;)
-
Yes, life keeping yes, life giving very very rare and up to your divinity as well as other factors.
MDC
-
I not really fond of instant heals, Teleports and easy access to Lifegiving..
I think it takes away some of the challenge.
My players have these, sure. And I set up the game. But "high" magic will be more tightly controlled/harder to learn in the next campaign. ;)
A lot of that kind of thing can be done by the GM setting boundary conditions for his world.
Of course the example that pops into my mind is one I use, that "instant" herbs don't just make the medical benefits "instant", they also make all the collateral effects instant, like how much extra water the herb uses doing its job, the purging of wastes, etc. For spells, if the healer gains his power from religion, then it's not the healer's wants you have to satisfy, it's his God's. And while the availability of Teleport can vastly change a game, if you're not doing the teleporting yourself there's always the question of how much you trust the person who is.
As a game breaker, Teleport can easily have its teeth pulled just by making inaccuracy dangerous.
I suppose doing any or all of those things, or anything like them, counts as tweaking your campaign towards the "low magic" end of the spectrum. Personally I like the idea of limiting magic use by what you dare to attempt. In other words, make it risky enough and, while it will technically still be possible, only a fool will actually try to do it. Adjust the danger and you adjust both how common it is and generally how powerful it is. World-shakingly powerful magic is still possible and may still occasionally happen, when someone gets desperate enough to try it and lucky enough to succeed. But 1) it will definitely be the exception rather than the rule, and 2) magic use will have social consequences, even if you succeed.
-
I always liked the long recovery times for a RM Lifegiving spell. The lvl 12 spell might not be common but I never thought at such an easily attainable level it would be rare either. The spell is also less effective than many other systems since the damage that caused death must be repaired or the target will simply die again, which prevents Lifegiving as an answer to old age. I charge 12sp for the spell if the target is a menber in good standing of the priest casting the spell, though admittedly the situation rarely accurs (most deaths happen to far away for access to the priest). Access to higher level Lifegivings cost more and are limited to only the more devout of followers.
I ran a campaign that required spell users find crystals to cast specific spell list. These crystals were inspired by RQ and as such were dried blood of gawds and powerful dimensional beings left from the time of the Elder Wars. Some crystals were more coveted than others, and I was able to exercise incredible control over access to magic through what crytals I allowed to be discovered and their inherient power/knowledge granted. This mechanic allowed me to have a high magic background and setting while keeping the effective magic much lower, and in turn keep the scope smaller than would otherwise be expected.
Another game I ran set in modern times involved opening the Gate of Time that the gawds of the ancient world had been locked behind, returning both the gawds and magic to the Earth. Yet another setting defined magic as worlds that intersected with the ethereal plane, which irradiated those worlds with esseance. Ther half life of such worlds was around 500 years, and the ethereal plane did shift and move. That was a SM/RM mix going way back to Legacy of the Ancients with RM2/SM2, which I aborted for dead space, only to find I did not like Dead Space very much.
Magic increases scope, but mechanics and plot devices can limit the increase, even for some powerful magics. Ever hand out a 1xmonth item instead of 1xday, or 1xweek? Plot devices are even easier as there is no need to explain them with mechanics (and yes, some players need everything to be explainable. If you have that type of player, it is best to accept it and make it so, or big time pain is on the horizon...or kick hin out...I'm just saying you HAVE options ;) ).
-
Personally I like the idea of limiting magic use by what you dare to attempt. In other words, make it risky enough and, while it will technically still be possible, only a fool will actually try to do it. Adjust the danger and you adjust both how common it is and generally how powerful it is. World-shakingly powerful magic is still possible and may still occasionally happen, when someone gets desperate enough to try it and lucky enough to succeed. But 1) it will definitely be the exception rather than the rule, and 2) magic use will have social consequences, even if you succeed.
You can also adjust the social consequences separately from the rest by adjusting whether the danger inherent in failure affects just the caster, his immediate companions, up to everything on his side of the horizon for thousands of years into the future.
Given failure in the exact same spell, failure which sterilizes the ground for 3 miles in all directions is going to have a lot greater social consequences than failure that just turns you into a greasy mist and a lot of high-speed bone shrapnel.
;)
-
First, thanks to whomever split this into a separate topic.
Second, now that I have the time and topic, I guess I should have defined what I mean by high/low magic.
I define high magic on two factors: how many power users are there per capita (1000 persons), and how common are magic items.
I consider SW to be unplayable because (just using what I remember from the 1st Editions) it seemed that there were about 100 power users per capita. 1 in 10! To me, that is ridiculous. I prefer settings much like GRRM's "A Song of Ice and Fire" series. In that setting it seems like there might be about 0.01 power users per capita (about 1 in 100,000). That is much more to my liking. Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with settings where everyone can use magic (Piers Anthony's Xanth comes to mind). I have played in such worlds and found them to be as much fun as a world without any magic. I just prefer to keep the number of magic users very rare because it means less book work for me as a GM.
It also seemed like almost every person in SW had a magic item. Much too many for my liking. I prefer maybe 1 in 10,000 persons may have a magic item. And the same holds true in this factor. Less magic items means less book keeping.
On the other factors, I do not consider an abundance of magic to be high magic. In all my worlds, magic actually existed within everything. Similar to the Force in Star Wars, it is in the air we breath, in the rocks, the trees, other persons, the grass you walk upon, EVERYTHING. And, it is everywhere. It is just that those who can sense it, feel it, tap into it, etc. are very rare. Wouldn't Star Wars be a very different place if everyone could use the Force?
However, even in my new world of Onaviu, one could say it is a high magic setting due to the number of Hatharnd females that exist and can use power. However, the Hatharnd are NPCs only, and they have used their power to subdue and enslave the peoples in such a way that only Hatharnd are power users.
OTOH, one can make the case where Onaviu is low magic because there are no power users amongst the playable races. At least in the beginning of the campaign. However, in all truth, Onaviu would be considered to be high magic since the empires that existed before the Great Demik were highly organized into developing those who could wield the power. In fact, before the Great Demik, low powered general magic items were quite common. And I mean things like the Self Sweeping Broom, the Self Scrubbing Brush for washing dishes, the Self Washing Wash Tub for cleaning clothes, etc. I think you get the picture. The list would literally be limitless. And there would be about 25 power users per capita (1 in 40). However, most were low level power users, meaning they were limited in the amount of power they could use, like 1-5 level Open Lists spells only. It was still rare for high level power users (1-50 level of any spells).
Thanks to the Great Demik, however, all that has been lost in the anals of ancient history. The Hatharnd now rule and keep the surviving peoples upon the anvil underneath their hammer. Any who may show the slightest signs of being able to wield the power are immediately put to death under pretense of being carriers of the Demik. Long story and I won't bore you.
I do not hate high magic worlds, it is just that I prefer to start a world as low magic because it does tend to be less book keeping on me.
Thanks for all the comments. I loved them all.
rmfr
-
I do not hate high magic worlds, it is just that I prefer to start a world as low magic because it does tend to be less book keeping on me.
Thanks for all the comments. I loved them all.
rmfr
You bring up an interesting option: high magic world with very limited access. Similar to the social repercussions mentioned above, but your example takes it to another level.
How would you deal with a player who wants to play a caster of some kind? Would you allow them to change professions later in life? Or would they suffer through low levels in a caster profession without spells? Or is everyone some kind of Pure Arms profession and they gain access to magic items.
I'm also curious what book keeping you're avoiding here.
-
RPGs tend to have nothing inherent in the mechanics to keep spell users rare. I mean yes, there are minimum stats that need to be met (in most systems)... which limits it to about 1 in 4 people. The GM can and sometimes does throw in cultural/social minima needing to be met, such as education, etc. Still, that hardly cuts the rarity to any more than the number of people in your apartment complex who work in electronics.
:o
I consider SW to be unplayable because (just using what I remember from the 1st Editions) it seemed that there were about 100 power users per capita. 1 in 10! To me, that is ridiculous.
See above.
It also seemed like almost every person in SW had a magic item. Much too many for my liking. I prefer maybe 1 in 10,000 persons may have a magic item.
But you can't sacrifice the internal logic of the game for it. If the potential is there to use magic, but hardly anyone ever does, there has to be a reason why not. Otherwise the players characters can't really be made to make sense in the context of the world.
OTOH, one can make the case where Onaviu is low magic because there are no power users amongst the playable races.
There you go. There has to be a reason why not, and if it isn't in the mechanics it has to be in the setting.
At least in the beginning of the campaign.
After magic using PC races become available, will there still be a reason to play any of the races incapable of using magic? Or will the setting go the "everyone always plays an elf, because they're better magic users and they live forever" route?
In fact, before the Great Demik, low powered general magic items were quite common. And I mean things like the Self Sweeping Broom, the Self Scrubbing Brush for washing dishes, the Self Washing Wash Tub for cleaning clothes, etc. I think you get the picture. The list would literally be limitless.
Then there has to be a reason why the current culture isn't using their hand-me-downs. Do magic items wear out?
Any who may show the slightest signs of being able to wield the power are immediately put to death under pretense of being carriers of the Demik.
Exactly. The mechanics don't provide a "brake" on magic use, so you install one in the setting.
I prefer maybe 1 in 10,000 persons may have a magic item.
Really to make any sense, how common this is should be fairly reflective of how common magic use is in the current culture or the one that preceded it. The problem is all your variables make items more common, never less so. If in the present magic items are cheap and common then they're cheap and common, even if they weren't in the previous culture. Likewise if they were cheap and common before, they're still fairly much so even if magic use is now uncommon unless they a) wear out, b) run out of power or c) become taboo in some fashion, possibly to the extent of being deliberately destroyed.
-
I feel a high magic campaign is bound to happen as time progresses, given magic capabilities that can be taught and magic items that are eternal.
I've ran many campaigns in Middle Earth in every Age. I've always kept a balance between many magic users and less magic items in the 1st and 2nd age and more magic items and less magic users in the later ages.
But with the spread of teachable magic in the world, there are bound to be more tomes written and schools started and even lesser gifted students will receive magic training. Its only logical in my view, but in Middle Earth, the waning of the Elves and the downfall of the Numenoreans caused a great hiccup in the spread of magic and in fact it became frowned upon.
Eternal magic items, however, are still being built in every age and culture and they survive in one way or another. Although many might only be thought of as nice looking items, or lucky shields or family heirlooms, they become part of the world.
-
Another limiting factor might be that only magic users can teach magic users. Books help to learn if you have a rank in the spell list but it is almost impossible to learn a spell list from a book on your own. This is sort of like ancient lore and lost knowledge in many books.
MDC
-
RPGs tend to have nothing inherent in the mechanics to keep spell users rare. I mean yes, there are minimum stats that need to be met (in most systems)... which limits it to about 1 in 4 people. The GM can and sometimes does throw in cultural/social minima needing to be met, such as education, etc. Still, that hardly cuts the rarity to any more than the number of people in your apartment complex who work in electronics.
That's what you get when you assume the character generation system generates "normal" people for the world. This is always a dangerous assumption.... There are some games where it is explicitly false, e.g. in Mage the Awakening the players all have magic (and magic is super powerful) but it's still rare in the setting. But even in RM, I would never presume that characters are "normal." They are exceptional, and magic is one of the aspects of that. At least for the kind of setting I prefer.
-
That's what you get when you assume the character generation system generates "normal" people for the world. This is always a dangerous assumption.... There are some games where it is explicitly false, e.g. in Mage the Awakening the players all have magic (and magic is super powerful) but it's still rare in the setting. But even in RM, I would never presume that characters are "normal." They are exceptional, and magic is one of the aspects of that. At least for the kind of setting I prefer.
+1!!!
PC's are the exception to the rule. And it helps to treat them as such.
In our game, casters are a dime a dozen. Arcane capable casters are much more rare. And Agents of Fate (able to use Fate Points) are quite rare. Even very old beings that are very powerful, may no longer be Agents of Fate, and rely on the current generation to affect real change.
-
Sure, but that's the point. The game mechanics are to create and interact with "normal" player characters. This may or may not be, and usually is not, equal to or even that close to what GMs want as "normal" for NPCs and "scenery peoples", the ones that are there but you don't really interact with them.
So if you want your party of 6 (2 spellcasters, 2 semi spellcasters and 2 non spellcasters) to logically fit into your setting, there has to be a reason why 2/3 of the party uses magic in an environment where magic users are 1 in 1000 or so. In short,
The mechanics don't provide a "brake" on magic use, so you install one in the setting.
So you end up doing things like
Any who may show the slightest signs of being able to wield the power are immediately put to death under pretense of being carriers of the Demik.
It doesn't change the minima required to be a spellcaster under the game mechanics in the slightest. There's no reason at all that 4 of your party of 6 can't still be magic using.... if they dare.
But because the GM has thought that through and made that tweak, things make more sense within the setting. If spellcasters are no more common in any one area than lightning strikes, and the locals see a group of 6 containing 4 lightning strikes coming down the street, their reactions now have a context in which they make sense. The guy playing the spellcaster may still be annoyed that he gets treated like a pariah (at best), but while he's annoyed he's not surprised or confused by it.
-
My players start out as normal people and then progress from their, it is their experience after this normalcy that makes them "adventures".
On magic, I have in the past charged TP to become a semi and more TP for pure and more TP for Hybrid and it was a fun game. I got the idea from Shadowrun PC gen and from a custom home brew system a friend of mine created.
MDC
-
There is that... what if your PCs start out as "scenery people"?
For that matter, what do you do if a PC dies and the player just wants to take over one of the NPCs already in the game? Having a distinction in the mechanics between PCs and everybody else creates its own problems. But if the distinction is in the setting as above, the only difference between PCs and everybody else is that PCs are being played by people who dare to take the risks PCs take. The problem solves itself.
-
How would you deal with a player who wants to play a caster of some kind? Would you allow them to change professions later in life? Or would they suffer through low levels in a caster profession without spells? Or is everyone some kind of Pure Arms profession and they gain access to magic items.
This is one of my big problems with class/level games; they are hard to fit with the natural progression a person goes through in life. Just because I started out my career life in the USMC, doesn't mean all my skill costs are of a fighter. I picked up the tech skills for film and video production quickly and well (according to my teachers, graduating at the top of my class) and currently have a job in that field at a major company. (Scripps Networks) So, those types of games do not take into consideration the fact that we change as we grow, they keep us "locked into" a "set" way of learning, that is entirely for two reasons: carry-over/concervativism, and for the sake of ease. But, it destroys realism. And, it ruins any sort of heroic story telling where the young hero starts out as a farmer, but ends up becoming the greatest magician in the land. (Unless you played him as a Magician pretending to be a farmer the whole time - which is just silly. And no, I dont' think that the adolescent development is enough to say a person has gotten to his "majority" (approx. 15-18 yrs of age) prior to gaining their "true" profession, there are just too many skills they need to know and know well.)
I'm also curious what book keeping you're avoiding here.
Me too.
That's what you get when you assume the character generation system generates "normal" people for the world. This is always a dangerous assumption.... There are some games where it is explicitly false, e.g. in Mage the Awakening the players all have magic (and magic is super powerful) but it's still rare in the setting. But even in RM, I would never presume that characters are "normal." They are exceptional, and magic is one of the aspects of that. At least for the kind of setting I prefer.
I am with you here, 4-show! I don't mind it if the character's think of themselves as normal people, but they are the ones who will be going out and dealing with the big-bad world and getting into all manner of dangerous situations and hopefully succeeding. They need to be above average (n either capabilities or luck, preferrably both) to have even the slightest of chances of survival. This is another thing RM doesn't do well, as everything in the game "rounds" against the PC.
-
IMHO what makes a PC more then average is the skills they pick and why they picked them.
In my RMSS game I recently decided to add a youth level with about 100DP worth of skills that I pick based on environment, status, family and events. I have also upped the adol to 100DP again most of the skills are picked by me the GM. So most everyone has ranks in sprinting, climbing etc as IMHO a kid would have in RL.
MDC
-
IMHO what makes a PC more then average is the skills they pick and why they picked them.
That doesn't make sense, imo. Above average is not just different, and someone chosing a different skill than someone else is just that, different, not above average. They could only be classified as above average if they got more skill points than the average, in that case.
In my RMSS game I recently decided to add a youth level with about 100DP worth of skills that I pick based on environment, status, family and events. I have also upped the adol to 100DP again most of the skills are picked by me the GM. So most everyone has ranks in sprinting, climbing etc as IMHO a kid would have in RL.
This is a good idea, as I also feel that the current adolescent development skills are lacking in many of the basics, such as knowledges and art skills, like dancing & singing, and weapon skills. (I really feel they are lacking in these, unless you are portraying a modern environment or one pulling directly from our own middle-ages without orcs, goblins, dragons, ghosts, bugbears, trolls, etc... I believe that in a world with all of those, the nobility wouldn't mind it if the commoners could defend themselves somewhat, especially since most of the time, the commoners would act as a barrier between the nobility and such creatures - and the nobility could/would have more access to better and more specialized training, like magic, to keep their edge.
-
While I have no problem with high magic games (having played in a few and had much fun), I find that when I'm writing, I tend to go for very low magic games (not intentionally, it's just how the stories write!). So yes, prists can cast divine magic... but only that maqic specifically suitable for their deity - a priest of Valir (goddess of weather & elemental forces) could summon a lightning bolt from a clear blue sky, or shelter himself from rain or sunburn, or walk unhindered through a hurricane, and so on, but only if he is properly pious, spreads the word and does all the goddess asks. And that particular goddess is not entirely reliable either, so the high pirest of the biggest temple in the land might call for a bolt of lightning to smite his enemy, only for nothing to happen.
Non-divine casters are present, but they are disliked, feared, and shunned. They have to work years to attain any significant power, and all but the most powerful require rituals and lengthy castings to cast even quite mundane spells. But I do allow for magical effects such as teleport - if the mage has the dedication to attain the knowledge.
I actively dislike settings like the standard D&D 3.5 where all clerics are carbon copies of each other, where magic items are so common they are bought and sold like any other commodity, and spell casters are common. The identify spell is first level, and tells you everything there is to know about an item. Too powerful. In my game it literally gives the item's name (and since 75% of the items in my game are made up by me, book knowledge probably won't help too much :))
That said, every game has it's own level of magic. Runequest for example is high magic in that magic is everywhere, but low magic in that almost all of it is pretty mundane stuff - only the reallty dedicated priests, sorcerors and shamans get to use the world-changing toys - and there aren't a huge number of magic items either. It's difficult to say if any combination is better, because every world is shaped by the level of magic within it, so comparisons are impossible to make. Any level of magic works, it just changes the flavour of the game accordingly. And while I prefer the flavour of low magic, I do sometimes like to taste the richness of high magic. Or a combination of the two.
And regarding the PCs as average Joes & Janes - I prefer it when the PCs are in some way exceptional. For example, a PC in D&D might be rolled using 4d6 choosing the best 3 for stats, but the normal people only get 3d6. In RM/SM PCs get to ignore any roll under 20, and replace the two prime stats of their professions with 90s if they wish - regular people can't do that. So the PCs are still within the boundaries of what is normal - they are just better at it than other people. This kind of character tends to rise to the top - so I would create my significant NPCs using the same method, and also any hirelings etc - they are also taking the same risks azs the PCs, they are just not being played by a Player sat around the table. That also makes it easier if someone wants to take over the NPC and start playing them properly.
-
IMHO what makes a PC more then average is the skills they pick and why they picked them.
That doesn't make sense, imo. Above average is not just different, and someone chosing a different skill than someone else is just that, different, not above average. They could only be classified as above average if they got more skill points than the average, in that case.
I think that we can agree here to disagree as IMHO more DP/skill points does not mean they are above average.
MDC
-
Its the skill set that matters, but having better stats and thus more DP does make such a person above average. It doesn't make them super men, but above average describes a really huge swathe of people that aren't average, or below average. Having more skills, than average, or better trained skills, than average, makes one above average, IMHO.
The skill set is important, though. A craftsman trained in 2 crafting disciplines, while not sacrificing actual skill, might be considered above average, but what sets adventurers apart is their "danger survival" skills. That makes them other than average. Some tend to think it is better than average.
Movies are made about criminals, mutants, veteran action heroes, etc, but no one makes a movie about average Joe, who doesn't even have a comedian talent. Above average can mean just that: having some feature; skill, stat, talent, whatever, that makes him stick out from the crowd.
-
I think that we can agree here to disagree as IMHO more DP/skill points does not mean they are above average.
If I am not mistaken (a distinct possiblity :o), what you are saying, markc, is that by choosing "adventuring" skills over "civilian" skills that a PC is above average. And that is true, but only as it pertains to adventuring skills; for civilian life purposes, they will be seriously below average, as those skills had to be slighted - usually, by a lot - in order to have all those cool adventuring skills. (Like, athletic, combat, magic, etc...)
What I am saying is this (emphasis mine):having better stats and thus more DP does make such a person above average.
In otherwords, if everyone is given the same stuff (attributes, DPs, talents, etc...), then they are all average, because there is no one higher, or lower. Just because GUY A has 12 ranks in broadsword, verses GUY B's 8, doesn't make A above average, it just makes him more skilled in broadsword, GUY B is certain to have placed those points elsewhere to make him better than A in something else.
So, when I say above average, I am meaning someone who has more of something (whatever it is we are talking about) than the average person. If they are given the same, they are not considered above average, no matter how they spent their points. That is just my definition of the term. (And, I believe, the dictionary's.)
Now, in RM, it is possible to become above or below average due to excellent or poor potential rolls...
-
RandalThor,
You are right in that I am stepping away from the rules and just thinking about characters in a story. Who are the average people? Who are the above average people? Are the nobles above average compared to those who work their fields? Can the nobles survive if they have no one to work the fields.
So IMHO the non-average person/PC is one who does not have the standard set of skills or spends their time doing everything everyone else does. Or I should say the majority of what people do.
In Game Terms:
I have to remember that my game is not like others in that long ago I said it was not in my games best interest if you had to have specific scores for stats to get a profession. I instead after some thought said you can take a profession as long as you have a score of 60 in a stat. Then I thought why not just say you should not have a negative as a stat bonus before applying any racial stat mods and that is what I go with today. But I guess if someone asked me to play a PC with a negative stat mod I would say ok also.
I also tend to work out some basic numbers for each race that gives the % of pure arms, semi, pure spell, hybrid and any special professions in the races general population. I also tend to break out the % of no profession in pure arms for each race as well. This gives me a good idea of what skills they will have and even what society might look like. For example think about a race that has 9% No-Profession, 1% Pure Arms, 70% Semi Spell Users, 10% Pure Spell Users, 8% hybrid Casters and 2% other. IMHO that racial society would look drastically different from 50% No Profession, 30% Pure Arms, 10% Semi, 7% Pure Spell, 2% Hybrid and 1% other.
I also tend to think of professions as genetic types and something that cannot be switched unlike some others on the boards. But again that works well for my game.
But like some others I am eagerly awaiting the new version to see just what was done in the new version and to see if it will work for a new game world that I am working on. RMU being a union of RM2 and RMSS might make it work and it might not for what I need from a system for my idea's.
But again I cannot wait to see what they have done.
MDC
-
[If I am not mistaken (a distinct possiblity :o), what you are saying, markc, is that by choosing "adventuring" skills over "civilian" skills that a PC is above average. And that is true, but only as it pertains to adventuring skills; for civilian life purposes, they will be seriously below average, as those skills had to be slighted - usually, by a lot - in order to have all those cool adventuring skills. (Like, athletic, combat, magic, etc...)
In other words,
...the only difference between PCs and everybody else is that PCs are being played by people who dare to take the risks PCs take.
"Above average" in this usage actually means "above average in a skill set most people don't ever learn to be competent in." But it also means "less than competent in many of the 'typical' skills of the culture." You haven't maxed out your skill ranks in Farming or Hunting or Animal Handling (Sheep) like most of the populace does.
I also tend to think of professions as genetic types and something that cannot be switched unlike some others on the boards. But again that works well for my game.
I have long had a problem with the idea of "classes" or "professions". The concept is okay, but the label is misleading to me. If your "cost" (however measured, whether in DPs or time, hassle and stress) to learn a particular type of skill is X and never changes, that says to me that your "profession" has nothing to do with what you do for a living, it's an assessment of how you learn, how your mind processes information. I'm not going to revisit the old "nature vs. nurture" argument to say whether or not it's genetic, but nonetheless it's inherent in your personality and is unlikely to change except in response to something catastrophic, like a brain injury.
The problem with that idea in game terms is that (in game terms) the entire middle of a bell curve of learning types is going to be "No Profession", something like half or two thirds of the whole. The difference between the average fighter and the average spell user isn't going to be the relative difficulty of the skills they learned, but merely the fact that the fighter chose to learn weaponry and the spell user chose to learn spells. Learning the spells isn't any more difficult for the fighter than, say, tactics. Learning the weapons isn't any more difficult for the spell user than, say, the dance moves that have to be absolutely perfect for the ritual to work.
At the extremes you end up with the guy who can do differential calculus in his head, but can't tie his shoes.
-
RandalThor,
You are right in that I am stepping away from the rules and just thinking about characters in a story. Who are the average people? Who are the above average people? Are the nobles above average compared to those who work their fields? Can the nobles survive if they have no one to work the fields.
So IMHO the non-average person/PC is one who does not have the standard set of skills or spends their time doing everything everyone else does. Or I should say the majority of what people do.
And that is fine. My point is: please use terms correctly. It is a pet peeve of mine*, I guess, that will help in communications in mediums such as message boards, where we don't have access to our non-verbal communication skills. So, by using the term average, without any qualifications (like: in my game world), I am meaning the dictionary definition of the word as it pertains to what we are talking about (in this case, the general RM rules), and I am assuming you (and everyone else) is too - again, barring any qualifications tacked on. I just think it helps immensly if we do not assume our own personal idiosyncrasies when we are discussing topics, unless those are what we are discussing and it is made clear so.
*You should here me rant at work about some of the stupid TV commercials and shows I have to see & hear! ;D And if I use a term incorrectly, please let me know, I want to convey my point as correctly as possible, so as to avoid any confusion. (Many of my posts are really long because I am trying to make sure that my point is correctly conveyed - I guess I don't have faith in my communication skills, particularly punctuation...*sigh*... and I would like to be a professional (read: paid) writer...*sigh*...)
In Game Terms:
I have to remember that my game is not like others in that long ago I said it was not in my games best interest if you had to have specific scores for stats to get a profession. I instead after some thought said you can take a profession as long as you have a score of 60 in a stat. Then I thought why not just say you should not have a negative as a stat bonus before applying any racial stat mods and that is what I go with today. But I guess if someone asked me to play a PC with a negative stat mod I would say ok also.
I also tend to work out some basic numbers for each race that gives the % of pure arms, semi, pure spell, hybrid and any special professions in the races general population. I also tend to break out the % of no profession in pure arms for each race as well. This gives me a good idea of what skills they will have and even what society might look like. For example think about a race that has 9% No-Profession, 1% Pure Arms, 70% Semi Spell Users, 10% Pure Spell Users, 8% hybrid Casters and 2% other. IMHO that racial society would look drastically different from 50% No Profession, 30% Pure Arms, 10% Semi, 7% Pure Spell, 2% Hybrid and 1% other.
I also tend to think of professions as genetic types and something that cannot be switched unlike some others on the boards. But again that works well for my game.
I really like things like this in a game setting; it helps give flavor. I am totally Ok with saying, "Sorry, but that race/profession combo is not allowed because there are no such in this world. If you want to be profession X, then you need to choose from the following races..." Also, I am totally fine with enforcing social problems on a PC that decides to go against his own culture in such a way. Like a drow elf becoming a paladin, s/he is not going to be very welcomed back home. (Assuming the typical drow=evil scenario, of course.) Flavor trumps rules as far as I am concerned. And the only reason I generally go with the 90s in prime stats is because I want the PCs to be really cool, and have the chance of being tops in their respective fields of endeavor.
But like some others I am eagerly awaiting the new version to see just what was done in the new version and to see if it will work for a new game world that I am working on. RMU being a union of RM2 and RMSS might make it work and it might not for what I need from a system for my idea's.
But again I cannot wait to see what they have done.
Me too, but I am not expecting it to be much different, so it is very likely that I will be house-ruling the RMU rules, like I do the current ones.
-
What I am saying is this (emphasis mine):having better stats and thus more DP does make such a person above average.
In otherwords, if everyone is given the same stuff (attributes, DPs, talents, etc...), then they are all average, because there is no one higher, or lower. Just because GUY A has 12 ranks in broadsword, verses GUY B's 8, doesn't make A above average, it just makes him more skilled in broadsword, GUY B is certain to have placed those points elsewhere to make him better than A in something else.
So, when I say above average, I am meaning someone who has more of something (whatever it is we are talking about) than the average person. If they are given the same, they are not considered above average, no matter how they spent their points. That is just my definition of the term. (And, I believe, the dictionary's.)
Now, in RM, it is possible to become above or below average due to excellent or poor potential rolls...
I belief that last conclusion is precisely what I said: Better stats, better DP, so more than the average guy.
av·er·age (vr-j, vrj)
n.
1. Mathematics
a. A number that typifies a set of numbers of which it is a function.
b. See arithmetic mean.
2.
a. An intermediate level or degree: near the average in size.
b. The usual or ordinary kind or quality: Although the wines vary, the average is quite good.
3. Sports The ratio of a team's or player's successful performances such as wins, hits, or goals, divided by total opportunities for successful performance, such as games, times at bat, or shots: finished the season with a .500 average; a batting average of .274.
4. Law
a. The loss of a ship or cargo, caused by damage at sea.
b. The incurrence of damage or loss of a ship or cargo at sea.
c. The equitable distribution of such a loss among concerned parties.
d. A charge incurred through such a loss.
5. Nautical Small expenses or charges that are usually paid by the master of a ship.
adj.
1. Mathematics Of, relating to, or constituting an average.
2. Being intermediate between extremes, as on a scale: a player of average ability.
3. Usual or ordinary in kind or character: a poll of average people; average eyesight.
4. Assessed in accordance with the law of averages.
The dictionary doesn't talk about average persons, as we would. An NPC with all 50 stats and a normal life DP distribution and a level between 2 and 4 is considered average. Anything deviating from the norm; being better: above average, deviating below the norm: below average. Its not so hard to understand. Its not about having equal skill, or matching DP's, but average Joe, is just average Joe: he has skills to make friends, not stumble on a dead imagined turtle and to make a living. Above average Harry's might have some broadsword skill and walk around in armor, desecrating crypts and burning the Undead and he's above average because Joe likes to read about Harry and Harry never heard of Joe (unless he runs a shop dealing in holy water and stakes), ow and Harry has dinged (leveled) a few times, because selling holy water isn't as rewarding as using it on Joe's ancestors.
-
I have long had a problem with the idea of "classes" or "professions". The concept is okay, but the label is misleading to me. If your "cost" (however measured, whether in DPs or time, hassle and stress) to learn a particular type of skill is X and never changes, that says to me that your "profession" has nothing to do with what you do for a living, it's an assessment of how you learn, how your mind processes information. I'm not going to revisit the old "nature vs. nurture" argument to say whether or not it's genetic, but nonetheless it's inherent in your personality and is unlikely to change except in response to something catastrophic, like a brain injury.
The problem with that idea in game terms is that (in game terms) the entire middle of a bell curve of learning types is going to be "No Profession", something like half or two thirds of the whole. The difference between the average fighter and the average spell user isn't going to be the relative difficulty of the skills they learned, but merely the fact that the fighter chose to learn weaponry and the spell user chose to learn spells. Learning the spells isn't any more difficult for the fighter than, say, tactics. Learning the weapons isn't any more difficult for the spell user than, say, the dance moves that have to be absolutely perfect for the ritual to work.
At the extremes you end up with the guy who can do differential calculus in his head, but can't tie his shoes.
Coming into FRP from more "realistic" RPGs (espionage and Old West stuff), I guess I brought a different take on Profession to the table. I always saw profession as both a character's inclination/occupation and a measure of how that occupation made training available to them. In other words, a fighter would have reason to focus on sword training, and would also have better access to trainers and facilities based on his "occupation," making his skill cost lower. On the flip side, his identification as a fighter would make it harder for him to learn spells and the like (Guild considerations, magician bias against the "dumb sword-swingers" and so on). As far as I'm concerned, the genetic disposition or whatever you call it takes place when stats are assigned. Of course, I also let players change professions (with some requirements and so on, of course...it wasn't easy).
Agree on the limits to professions based on culture. That's a key component of my setting.
-
In other words, a fighter would have reason to focus on sword training, and would also have better access to trainers and facilities based on his "occupation," making his skill cost lower. On the flip side, his identification as a fighter would make it harder for him to learn spells and the like (Guild considerations, magician bias against the "dumb sword-swingers" and so on). As far as I'm concerned, the genetic disposition or whatever you call it takes place when stats are assigned. Of course, I also let players change professions (with some requirements and so on, of course...it wasn't easy).
But that's all cultural limitations, and as such are subject to variation according to the GM's setting. The local bully of a mining camp totaling 2 dozen people isn't going to have any of the access or any of the prejudice described above, but he'll still have the ease and difficulty in various skills of a "fighter".
Agree on the limits to professions based on culture. That's a key component of my setting.
Sure. I just don't care for them being built into the mechanics. If it's how you learn, it shouldn't be subject to change much except very gradually or under catastrophic conditions. That could be modeled in the mechanics. If it's a function of vocational and environmental factors and therefore can be changed relatively quickly through time, money and work, then any profession system you build into the mechanics is guaranteed to be inadequate, because it presupposes the setting to be within certain limits.
-
few years late but hey :)
I homebrew my SW setting, I never cared for flowstorms, elements from space master or over the top aproach to magic. the fight between the forces of good and the unlife still rages bit toned down a notch or 2.
in my vision of the world 1% of the total population of a specific city or region are casters ( be it semi or pure or hybrid)
so a city of 50000 will have 500 casters from the rangers, paladins, monks to the magicians clerics, etc