Topic: Changing Professions in Rolemaster (any version)

[thrud]

Arioch> Yes, that article has a lot of nice ideas and I would love to se an equivalent for RMC. In a way it would definitively put an end to a gazillion different professions with idividual DP costs and emphasize on the "profession" being a natural disposition, not just a job. Me like it very much.
It wold also make it so much easier to add new professions since you only have define the realm and the professional base lists. Yes... very good indeed.

DeathFromAbove>
3. Genetic disposition with cultural heritage and social upbringing. It is the RM way...
1. Big No-No, Anyone can choose any realm.
2. Averaging costs, I can see this working. I'm not sure it's needed but It would probably work.
3. Career path, hmmm... No, I don't like it. It's nothing wrong with the idea but it leaves a sour tast in my mouth.

[Arioch]

Arioch> Yes, that article has a lot of nice ideas and I would love to se an equivalent for RMC. In a way it would definitively put an end to a gazillion different professions with idividual DP costs and emphasize on the "profession" being a natural disposition, not just a job. Me like it very much.
It wold also make it so much easier to add new professions since you only have define the realm and the professional base lists. Yes... very good indeed.

Me too, I hope that in a future version of RM we'll have something similar instead of rigid professions...

[Nders]

I don't know if it has already been mentioned but maybe you could try to look at the rules 5.3 rolemaster companion V?
These rules present a method for designing cost individually for each character based on background and disposition. I tried using them once but my players all objected so I left it at that.

Hope you can use it.

[providence13]

Could Stats provide incremental skill costs?
Then you would have no professions. I know, it sounds scary to me too..

If you have a high Con and SD, then it's easier to by Body Dev.. If it is low, cause you put all of the points in Re and Me, the cost is higher and you can't advance as much per level. But with points in Mage-type stuff, it's easier to by PP Dev and Lores... Come to think of it, the game is sorta like this already.

We would still need a Realm for the character (if you  use realms..), 'still need race adolescence, hobbies; nothing else would really change...would it? Training packages could be based on stats... or better yet skills! You have this many of this Category and this many of that Cat so this package is cheaper for you.(?)

So, instead of building within the boundaries of a Profession, you could build towards the idea of a profession.

OK. This was off the cuff/not well thought out. Now call me crazy!

[thrud]

Now that will generate some serious book keeping.

[markc]

 I am not a fan of games that base skill cost an stats. In RM you get a bonus to the skill based on high stats and that seems close to RL to me. I do not think you can say that since a person has a high con they would make a good long distance runner or a long distance swimmer.
 So to me stats allow you to do something better and not learn something easier.
MDC

[RandalThor]

Could Stats provide incremental skill costs?
Then you would have no professions. I know, it sounds scary to me too..
<snip>
OK. This was off the cuff/not well thought out. Now call me crazy!

Actually, that is not bad and something I have looked into, just not with RM. Having the attributes determine what you are good (and not just with their bonuses) is a good idea and would go further as an explaination as to why someone is better suited to do certain jobs. Combine that with some skill-based talents - like you have a knack in learning and/or performing a specific skill or skill set - and you have a better way of determining someones "profession" than a level/class system. (IMO)

[providence13]

Just another thought,
could you pick some categories that your character does well in? 

This could be like the Own Base lists for spell casters..
Even if you don't have good stats, you could pick a specific skill or category in which you choose to excel.

Everyone gets 100 DP/lvl (not based on stats) but you buy skills based on stats and the "Own Base" Cat(s) that you chose. You could also purchase different rates (of skill development) with DP/Background Options to determine what the "Own/Other, etc. Base Cats are.

Perhaps something in an Excel Spreadsheet...haha

Also, I like to use linear stat gain progression; but if you don't, just don't change stats every level. Maybe only change with age/maturation. Just a thought.

[markc]

 From what I have seen in other games PC's will generally pick the combat categories or the ones that they would use the most.
MDC

[providence13]

I totally agree with you, MDC.
And in a way, that's what all the Professions do already.
What are a Fighters strengths; a Magicians; a Thiefs?
"You have a +50 spread to apply to the skills/cats of your choice." Wouldn't be a huge game upset...
Or, if Profession is centered around Realm;
Totally fictional :"If you pick Essence Dev (?) as a Open Realm Base Category, then you will pay the most for Armor skills as those two are fairly opposed. If you pick Essence Dev, Armor skills and Transcend, then you won't be able to do anything except cast spells in armor 'cause you won't have anything left." Or something like that..
It could be similar to the point spread for stats; 90+(stat-90)^2; diminishing returns on certain skills/cats if you picked certain, I dare say opposed skills/cats....

Again I think it's kinda wacky too.... But I'm intrigued by the idea; that's all.

[providence13]

In answer to the original post,
IMO if a deity finds favor in a person, it wouldn't be a stretch to change their further progression on some skills or even give a rank or so, in a new skill. This may not be the progression of a Cleric/Priest, but it would be better than what they had.

[markc]

In answer to the original post,
IMO if a deity finds favor in a person, it wouldn't be a stretch to change their further progression on some skills or even give a rank or so, in a new skill. This may not be the progression of a Cleric/Priest, but it would be better than what they had.

 Since what gods can and cant do is not expressed in the rules and is free for a GM to do with as he pleases then it is simply up to the GM.

 As to your pick and chose what you want to design your profession; when you pick something to be good at I would think the game designers also made some stuff harder as well. A simple profession creation system should take this into account.
 I do not remember who at ICE I think it was Hieke that Rasyr said has read the game design book that says "Do not take away from the players". IMO design your own profession IMO would go against that rule. But maybe times will change and players will not have a problem with that. Or maybe I have simply extended the rule to character creation by mistake, when it applies to after PC's have been created only.

MDC

[Cory Magel]

Cory Magel> That's harsh...

Well (and this is NOT direct at anyone on this thread let alone the entire forums), the only reasons I see to change profession are...
A) You're tired of your character.
B) You're seeing diminishing returns and just want to pay less for skills.

Reply to A) Make a new character. (we even let you start a character 1-4 levels [roll a 4 sider] below the one you retire).
Reply to B) Tough.

Now THAT'S harsh. 

Why are you opposed to the changing of professions?

There are a few reasons, but they all come down to this: The player suddenly has the ability to develop a set skills at far lower costs then they previously did.

Why on earth wouldn't I start off as a Fighter, gain enough levels to pump up a couple weapons, my endurance points, etc (basically become a pretty decent fighter) then switch to a pure caster of some type?  Anyone who thinks this should be allowed simply does not understand game mechanic balancing (or just doesn't care, in which case why even have rules?).

You can say it's unbalancing but is this really why? There are unbalancing factors all over the place? Real life isn't fair. Fairness is unrealistic.

As others have mentioned, we don't game to experience the realistic unfairness of life.  Cheat at Monopoly with your friends then try to justify it to them by saying life isn't fair.  I think that will almost always go over like a lead balloon.

Is it because you really believe in the archtypes? Allowing the change doesn't fit your view of the world?

Well, the destruction of purpose of archtypes is one of the side effects (and one of the few reasons I elude to at the start of my answer in this post), but I believe far less important than simple balance.  It has nothing to do with my view of the 'world' because in RM anyone can do anything... they just have to pay for it.  By allowing casual profession changes without harsh penalties or controls they effectively no longer have to 'pay for it'. (Yes, I realize they ARE paying for the skills, but going from paying 25-50 DP for a spell list level to only 3 DP is completely out of whack and would utterly destroy character balance).

One of the other reasons ties into archtype, and is a tabletop philosophical discussion we've had before.  We play to have fun as a group of friends. This almost always takes the form of a group of adventures (Players) against the world (GM).  This almost always needs to have some level of accomplishment to be fun for most players (and if we don't have a balanced game it's really not very fun for most people).  This almost always involves the need for teamwork among players.  If you can essentially develop whatever skills you want cheaply and quickly there is a problem with balance among the players unless they ALL do it.  If they all do it there is a problem with balance in the game, so you unless you just want them to amass huge amounts of power quickly and steam roll everything in the game you really just end up with an 'arms race' in your campaign.

You also start to see a problem where all the characters can do everything they want (fight, fly, throw firebolts, heal, etc, etc) which undermines the need for teamwork... which is part of the very reason archtypes exist.  So, I know it sounds to some like a 'the sky is falling' statement, but even if someone doesn't realize it allowing easy change of profession pretty much destroys the entire idea of why many of us play RPG's.  It's one of those things that you have to be able to see the bigger picture to really get your head around.  You have to REALLY ask yourself WHY you're playing and then you have to think about how the basic foundation of the game system accomplishes that.

Much of it is intertwined.  Archtypes exist to encourage teamwork and to balance the game. Without teamwork and without balance, why are you playing a RPG with a handful of friends around a table?  Why not go buy the latest computer game, jump online and immediately find a hack to make your characters all powerful?

Is it because other players would object? If the pc's are more powerful you just chuck a couple of extra monsters at them...

It is because if you only have a limited number of players do it they would become far more power than those who did not, which would lead to everyone doing it, which undermines the entire reason for much of the system mechanics.

So, what is the real reason?

It lets you have everything... and in the end that makes the game boring.

[Ecthelion]

Fully agreed, Cory.

[thrud]

A funny side effect of this discussion has occured.
We've never had anyone change profession so this is mostly theoretical on my behalf. Even though I've argued for changes I doubt we'll ever do it ourselves unless there are some very strange cirkumstances.
No, this discussion made me realise I'll never play a non-magicuser unless the setting is without magic. Mostly because I like options. I'll gladly pay a few extra DP's for the chance to learn some magic later on. And furthermore if I were to play a fighter up to level 10 when I realise I'm growing bored with bashing trolls over the head and there is not much else to do. Forget about magic, there might be some skills as a leader or something? That would suck bigtime, having a PC whom you really like and realising you're at a dead-end.

Today I can't really find any good reasons why one should allow changing professions but it's been a good discussion.
In the end it's more important to have the players choosing professions carefully to avoid issues later on.
My new favourite profession is probably the no-profession profession.

I guess those who would like to try should give it a go and see how it works out? If for no other reason than curiosity they can always tell us about the experiment later on?

[Arioch]

No, this discussion made me realise I'll never play a non-magicuser unless the setting is without magic.

Actually, there are really no reasons to play a non magic user in RM, unless the setting is without magic. For everything that a non-user can do, there's a user that can do it better, and then some. 

[jolt]

One of the balance issues I see in RM is that warrior/skill type characters see diminishing returns on the investment they put into their strengths whereas spell-users see increasing return.  There just isn't anything comparable in the warrior/skill character to compare with level 25 and 50 spells (apart from Thor saying, "Here brave warrior, take Mjolnir; you can use it far better than I.")

jolt

[markc]

 IMO I think the MAC and RMC: CC make the arms vs spell user debate a little more even. But those are not in the core rules either.

 I also think that arms users are very important in keeping the spell users alive to make it to higher levels. A semi could do it but again IMO pure arms just do it so much better.

MDC

[Cory Magel]

Probably the most enjoyable character I ever played in Rolemaster was an RMSS Rogue.  We played until level 14 if I remember correctly and I slowly developed many skills, so that I was quite diversified. Had a very good Rune Reading skill (this is a big customized system in our games) and a handful of open mentalism spell lists within the 1-6th level range (Spell Resistance, Damage Resistance, Brilliance, Attack Avoidance and took Cloaking up to 10th).  He was good with a 2H Sword, Rapier/Whip Combo, Crossbow, Quarterstaff, an excellent gymnast/acrobat, was a pretty darn good thief and had a pretty good amount of 'low magic' talents.  It took several levels to be as good as most the characters in the group, but in the end his versatility surpassed all of them in my opinion.

Now, aside from that, I have always played a Semi-Spell User.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

While I agree with Cory about a need for the PCs to be fairly balanced (so that one doesn't get the whole fun while another feels useless), I think it's more something up to the GM that to the rules themselves. My problem is: world building. What I like most in RM2 is that the rules don't put the created characters as some invincible heroes when compared to normal people, so you can create every NPC the way you create the PCs (e.g. using the exact same rules). This is great when compared to, for instance, AD&D where everyone save the PCs and main NPCs are Fighters level 1.
When, as a GM, I build my world, I appreciate being able to create characters who are inherently more powerful or less powerful than your average person, because of his profession : a Merchant isn't, adventure-speaking, balanced with a Fighter, and what about the only rumoured to exist Death Mage that it is said that even apprentices are deadly?
While I feel that balance between PCs is good for team-work, I also feel that general balance in professions in the rules is detrimental to the game. The GM should just keep in mind the professions' power level, so that PCs can balance their characters.

...may be a whole new topic, though.