Topic: Levels of NPC's throughout the population of your game world.

[Thot]

How would you imagine the distribution of levels of NPC to be like in your world?

How many NPC's in your game world are level 0-1? How many 2-4? How many 5-9? How many 10-15? How many 16-20? How many above that? Why would you choose this or that distribution?

[jdale]

I prefer the bulk of NPCs below level 5, and super rare into the mid-20's. The PCs are more heroic by comparison, and it keeps powerful (and culture-changing) magic rare.

[Thom @ ICE]

My tendency is to play HARP so it may or may not fit to an RM campaign.

For HARP, my average folk are general lvl 1-2
For special folk (above average in their role - merchant, craftsman, etc.) and they reach lvl 5-9
Adventuring folk range from 3-15
Ultimate performers like generals, heads of watches, kings, leader of thieves guild, high priests, etc. all would be 12-18

[yammahoper]

With OCC skills, I rarely see a need for NPC's to be higher than 5-8th level.  A 5th level craftsman can have 30 ranks in his primary craft skill.   Most of my NPC's are Laymen.

[Cory Magel]

Your own unique world has a huge amount to do with it.  Meaning if you're in a setting with widespread serfdom or the like odds are the typical person is only going to know what they need to to survive... and that could quite possibly mean the only real developed skill they have is how to plant and harvest particular crop and some pretty basic survival skills (that would relate specifically to their living conditions).

The general population has no 'level' in my little world.  I don't bother worrying about that stuff until the NPC is going to have an impact on the characters (anything from haggling over purchases to all out combat).  If they will not be involved in combat I only give them a skill total for the related skill (and only then if I want there to be some randomness to the result).  If the players do something that requires more (i.e. try to use mental spells to help in haggling for example) I just determine a level based on the Layman profession.  This is the ONLY time when a chart of level vs skill total might be at all useful to me (and age has little to nothing to do with it), however I'm likely just going to wing it at that point anyhow.

If the players initiate a physical confrontation with a random individual for, essentially, needless reasons then either that individual will surrender quickly or help will arrive that I've stated out for such occurrences (most likely whatever the local law enforcement consists of) unless the players simply kill the victim straight out.

If I had to guess what level the general population is a large percentage would only have adolescence ranks and the 'adult' population would only be 1st or 2nd level.   'Apprentices' would be 3rd-4th maybe.  'Professionals' would be getting up to 5th-6th level maybe.  Skilled professionals 7th or 8th.  Masters would be up to 10th maybe.  But anything beyond 1st or 2nd would be unusual.  Only in large population centers would most this come into play.  Small towns might have one 'professional' blacksmith with one 'apprentice' working under them.  Small villages would likely have to go to town to find one.  A large city would probably have at least three blacksmiths in competition and some other less skilled ones doing more generic/mundane work.

[VladD]

I agree with your assesments, except this:

blacksmiths in competition

Guilds made competition illegal. Prices were set and anyone going astray would have to pay a fine. Guilds were common in all cities. They were essentially the only way to do business. Price control has been going on, probably, since the Mesopotamian city states.

Guildless areas had strong noble rule that cracked down on peasants banding together.

[RandalThor]

I do it a bit different, I believe. Let me give you the reasons why first:

RM is NOT D&D, I truly feel that most people who play it, bring over their preconceived ideas of that games level scale - primarily AD&D which was the big game around the time RM really got off the ground. With that said:

(A)D&D: harder to kill a higher than 1st level character in a single attack, and really high level characters might need 10+ battle-axe hits done by a strong individual.
RM: not very unusual for a high-level character to get killed in a single attack by a weaker/lower-level character.

(A)D&D: skills were much more of an afterthought, and in AD&D 1e mostly non-existent, becoming attribute checks in 2e.
RM: is a skill based game masquerading as a class (OK, profession)/level game, so how good you are at something really depends upon how much effort you have put into learning/training in that something. Meaning a 20th level Fighter may suck at the longbow because he never trained in it. This means that an RM character needs to use a lot of their DPs just to match an AD&D character. In fact, I think that in most cases it is not possible - particularly when talking about Fighters, there are far too many weapons for the RM version to be able to keep up with the AD&D version - not to mention all the combat skills like Disarm they should be good at performing.

Overall: for some reason, RM GMs are seriously intent on controlling the power level of the PCs; I would say more so than in most other systems. I find this kind of funny, since in RM it is so easy to kill a character (as noted above). Try killing a 20th AD&D Fighter vs. an RM one in a single round. To kill the AD&D one you need to do something special, in RM all you need to do to have a really good chance is to ambush them, a normal tactic.

My concepts on NPC levels:

Levels = what it means     
0 = Basically babies and the very young.
1 - 2 = Adolescent
3 - 4 = Tweens/Apprentices
5 = Beginning adult/professional
6 - 10 = Majority of normal professionals (~70 - 80% of professional population)
11 - 20 = Range of above normal professional (~10 - 20% of professional population)
21 - 30 = Range of exceptional individuals (~5 - 10% of professional population)
31 - 50 = Range of very exceptional individuals (~0.1 - 2% of professional population)
50 - 80 = Range of beginning/pre-world shakers (~0.01 - 0.05% of professional population)
80 - 100 = Range of "average" world shakers (~0.001 - 0.005% of professional population)
101+ = Serious world shakers (~0.0001% of professional population)

[Thot]

Very interesting reads!

I must say I am astonished that so many seem to prefer low-level worlds where, for instance, spells beyond level 20 are essentially unknown. This, among other things, implies very, very few magical artifacts (as artifact research is a level 25 spell).

Personally, I am more inclined to have a distribution like the one RandalThor described, and I would base it on a concept I would call "XP gained by living long enough". An NPC might not go on an adventure, but just living regular life will earn him (or her) a few thousand XP per year - so most Elves will be very high in level, and even a seasoned human craftsman of 50 years will be well beyond 10th level, possibly even 20 or higher. This also implies many magic users who really know what they are doing, and thus more impact of magic on the world: More magical items, more healing, more resurrections, and so on. Religions are more powerful to help people against ordinary hazards, and forces of both good and evil shine out more.

[Lord Garth]

In my games most of the world - 80% or so is level 10 or below, 15% would be level 10-20, with the remaining 5% being level 20 or more, and only about 1% being above level 35.

Again, power, like wealth, is relative. A level 50 individual is incredibly powerful in most settings, but more so if the PCs are below level 20. Since most my games have cut off at around the level 20 mark, I don't feel the need to populate worlds with more than a few demi-god level NPCs. My current campaign is the exception to this rule and my PCs are now levels 24-26, and I've decided to keep the level distribution I usually use and allow them to feel grand for a while. In ernst numbers will decimate you if you try something stupid, so I'm not too bothered with them being exceptionally powerful individuals, quite at the contrary it's proving a blast so far (experienced players here too, which helps)

[intothatdarkness]

I run counter to most of the people here, but that's also because I view level as more of an expression of occupational expertise than anything else.  I've got a wide spread of levels throughout my world as a reflection of that view of level. For example, each town watch has a sort of SWAT team on hand to deal with rowdy adventurers or drunken minor nobles. They all run about 7th level, with the serjent in command being about 10th.

My worlds have never been locked into low-level NPCs simply because, given how I view levels, it makes no sense.

[markc]

 In my world average people are between 4th and 8th, Swat team member would be around 15th to 20th and others go up from there.
MDC
 Note: That would be in RMSS as IMHO you would get a little different results if it were RM2 vs RMSS.
MDC (again)

[GrumpyOldFart]

RM: is a skill based game masquerading as a class (OK, profession)/level game...

Yeah, that. Every occupation has at least one or two skills that you have to be somewhat obsessive about in order to be good at your job. Those skills will be maxed. There will be several job related and local environment/culture related skills that will be at least one skill rank per level. Everything else will be incidental skills that are basically just flavor, and will rarely be more than two or three ranks. The exception is ranks in a skill a particular person gets passionate about for personal reasons, like the bartender who sings harmony to whoever is singing in the bar, and is usually better than any of his performers.... but sings so softly that you never hear him unless you're right up at the bar and listening closely. Not really germane to anything about the character, just something fun and special, like the cherry on top of a sundae.

Figure out what you think his max possible ranks should be in the vital skills for his position in your scenario. His level is basically the minimum at which he can attain that max. Keep in mind that one "oops" undoes the work of a thousand "attaboys", so figure necessary skill totals on the assumption that the d100 bell curve will yield 90% or better success rates, because you won't keep a job unless you're consistently good at it.

Beyond that, I never really cared about what level the gazillions of people are that my characters will never meet or interact with.

[Cory Magel]

I agree with your assesments, except this:

blacksmiths in competition

Guilds made competition illegal. Prices were set and anyone going astray would have to pay a fine. Guilds were common in all cities. They were essentially the only way to do business. Price control has been going on, probably, since the Mesopotamian city states.

Guildless areas had strong noble rule that cracked down on peasants banding together.

Guilds don't work like that in my world.

[Cory Magel]

...I view level as more of an expression of occupational expertise than anything else.

With me most the population will be Laymen and with their profession setup (i.e. you pick a trade and it has the bonuses associated with the profession) so they will have a much high skills in their chosen trade than equal level characters would (unless a character actually in a Layman with a trade focus).  So they will get good at their trade without having to 'level up' as much.

[RandalThor]

I don't feel the need to populate worlds with more than a few demi-god level NPCs.

This is exactly the attitude I was talking about. Thinking that a 50th+ level character is a "demi-god" is just wrong in my opinion. In D&D, sure, they would be, but in RM not so much.

Yeah, that. Every occupation has at least one or two skills that you have to be somewhat obsessive about in order to be good at your job. Those skills will be maxed. There will be several job related and local environment/culture related skills that will be at least one skill rank per level.

And I think the number of skills needed to be classified as a professional in your given profession is more than a handful, and in some cases (like the magic using professions) a whole lot more. Plus, I feel that people don't really get the number of "incidental/cultural" skills that people pick up from their upbringing, just in order to not be considered weird by others of their culture. (And in a fantasy environment, being classified as weird could literally be a death sentence. So you don't want to be weird, you want to blend right in with everyone else.)

Also, about the limited magic, remember that RM doesn't require an individual to have a special talent in order to learn and cast spells, literally anyone can do it, so it would be as common-place in an RM-ruled setting as technology is today. I personally do not know how to program or build computers, but I use the heck out of them everyday. The idea that every nation wouldn't be massively supporting the learning of the greatest natural resource in the world is sort of silly.

so figure necessary skill totals on the assumption that the d100 bell curve will yield 90% or better success rates, because you won't keep a job unless you're consistently good at it.

This has been one of my points, as well,  whenever this topic comes up. Only, I say higher than 90%, basically someone who is a full-on professional, say Thatcher, wouldn't be able to feed their family if 10% of their roofs leaked - or 10% of each roof leaked, however you want to look at the situation.


Granted, in RMSS/FRP this is more of an issue than in RM1/2/C, but I think the number of DPs per level in each edition somewhat balanced this out. (You generally got a few more DPs per level in RMSS/FRP.)

I do think that the biggest problem here is divorcing what would be "realistic" for people in the world and what the players generally do with their characters. We all know that PCs are a different beast than the "average/normal" individual in-game. Players game with certain assumptions that really are only true because the GM allows them to be. If a GM was to enforce more "realistic" rules for living on PCs then I believe you would see quite different PCs. (OK, first you would likely get a bunch of whining.  ) Along with this ideology, is the fact that we are talking about rules for a game, and rules that do not (can not) emulate reality perfectly, so there will be some "play" in how they work. That is OK, just so long as this "play" isn't taken to ridiculous levels (i.e. made to be so unrealistic that it is more silly than anything else - which is how I view really abstract rules systems like D&D).

[jdale]

I don't feel the need to populate worlds with more than a few demi-god level NPCs.

This is exactly the attitude I was talking about. Thinking that a 50th+ level character is a "demi-god" is just wrong in my opinion. In D&D, sure, they would be, but in RM not so much.

The 50th level spells feel pretty demi-god-ish to me. More than the demi-gods in Dieties & Demigods felt divine.

Yeah, that. Every occupation has at least one or two skills that you have to be somewhat obsessive about in order to be good at your job. Those skills will be maxed. There will be several job related and local environment/culture related skills that will be at least one skill rank per level.

And I think the number of skills needed to be classified as a professional in your given profession is more than a handful, and in some cases (like the magic using professions) a whole lot more. Plus, I feel that people don't really get the number of "incidental/cultural" skills that people pick up from their upbringing, just in order to not be considered weird by others of their culture. (And in a fantasy environment, being classified as weird could literally be a death sentence. So you don't want to be weird, you want to blend right in with everyone else.)

Also, about the limited magic, remember that RM doesn't require an individual to have a special talent in order to learn and cast spells, literally anyone can do it, so it would be as common-place in an RM-ruled setting as technology is today. I personally do not know how to program or build computers, but I use the heck out of them everyday. The idea that every nation wouldn't be massively supporting the learning of the greatest natural resource in the world is sort of silly.

I think this is the critical thing. How much magic do you want in the world? There are two choices you make which determine the answer. One choice is how common magical aptitude is, which really comes down to how common magic-using professions are. (To a lesser extent, how common is it for non-magic professions to learn a little magic on the side.) The second is the level distribution. Lots of mages at low level gives a setting where magic is common but not usually powerful. Few mages at high level gives a setting where magic is less common but mighty.

You're saying, if I understand correctly, that the RM system inherently means high magic. I disagree. It is not inconsistent with high magic, and you can certainly define a world that way, but you're making it sound like that is the only way. You can easily make different choices.

The typical level for non-spellcasters is less important. Raise the skill of everyone in the world by the same amount, doesn't make much net difference. Really only affects which monsters will be common, and how long it takes adventurers to become average and later special (e.g. 1st level characters take a long time to reach 15th level average than they do to reach average if average is 3rd level). It's magic where it really changes things.

[Cory Magel]

Thinking that a 50th+ level character is a "demi-god" is just wrong in my opinion. In D&D, sure, they would be, but in RM not so much.

It's a tricky subject in a way.  Our gaming circle typically 'retires' characters between around 12th-17th level (again, something I'm going to change in the campaign I run), so 25th level characters are seen as quite powerful and 50th levels ones would be outright feared (if you're on their bad side).  However, when the characters get to 25th level a 50th doesn't look as scary as a 25th does to, say, a 15th and in almost all cases it's casting ability that will be the main driving factor of that fear or lack of it.

Also, about the limited magic, remember that RM doesn't require an individual to have a special talent in order to learn and cast spells, literally anyone can do it, so it would be as common-place in an RM-ruled setting as technology is today.

That is completely up to the GM.  Magic isn't common or uncommon in "Rolemaster".  It's common or uncommon in each RM users setting.

[RandalThor]

You're saying, if I understand correctly, that the RM system inherently means high magic. I disagree. It is not inconsistent with high magic, and you can certainly define a world that way, but you're making it sound like that is the only way. You can easily make different choices.

What I am doing, and sure I admit it may be a bit silly of me, is extrapolating what I believe a game world would be like by the RM rules - if a GM doesn't do something special to make it different (i.e., insisting that only 1% of the population even has a chance at learning magic, etc...). Plus, I am adding in my own ideology about skill levels and professionalism, I suppose.

[Cory Magel]

I guess it depends on if you think the system rules are intended to apply to the average being in a given world. I don't think they are, but rather that they are intended to apply to 'adventurers', which are not the norm.

[RandalThor]

Which puts you in the position of making whole new rules for non-PCs, which I don't think is a great idea. While I am not above just throwing together some numbers on the fly, I do try to make them fit somewhat within the framework of my idea of the setting/situation. Otherwise, how do you know how the PC fits into it all? There needs to be a scale by which to rate the PCs and NPCs against each other as well as other things. Isn't that why there are character levels in the first place?

Now, using the rules at hand, I do believe that making a PC is a bit different than making your average NPC, but only so far as I think the average PC is of more heroic ability; stronger, faster, smarter, etc... in other words: more character points and DP for the equivalent level. (Obviously, that is a play choice.)