Topic: High Magic vs Low Magic

[RandalThor]

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.

[JimiSue]

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.

[markc]

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

[VladD]

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.

[RandalThor]

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  ), 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...

[markc]

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

[GrumpyOldFart]

[If I am not mistaken (a distinct possiblity  ), 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]

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!  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.

[VladD]

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.
 

[intothatdarkness]

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.

[GrumpyOldFart]

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.

[Bilo]

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