Topic: What's the goal of training packages?

[Fullerton]

Preface: I'm a RM player from 20 years ago, so I don't have any experience with training packages. I am indifferent toward them, and I'm not interested in a discussion of why they are good or why they are bad.


From a game design perspective, what purpose do Training Packages serve?

Are they intended to:
- Make character generation easier? (If so, how?)
- Offer things a character can't get anywhere else? (If so, what?)
- Alter the rank/level limit? (If so, why?)
- Offer things more cheaply than a character could get elsewhere? (If so, why?)
- Something else?

I'm trying to understand (for example) whether it would be useful to add training packages to a version of RM that does not have them, OR remove training packages from a version that does have them.

Thanks!

[Dark Mistress]

My opinion is they typically made characters more well rounded and fit their background concepts better. Least that is my groups opinion.

[jolt]

It's also useful for knowing what types of skills a particular job might have.  Especially with a large skill list, a player might wonder, "What sort of skills would a detective have?"  Voila! The detective TP gives it right to you.  Not only that, it gives you at least the chance to pick up some items, contacts, whatever that a person practicing that job might logically possess.  It alos tells you how long it takes to develop all that.  Apart from the mechanical bits, it's a good role-playing aid as well.  And what Dark Mistress said.

jolt

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I'm trying to understand (for example) whether it would be useful to add training packages to a version of RM that does not have them, OR remove training packages from a version that does have them.

I think that the best way to do that would be to list good points and bad points both, and then decide if it is worth it to YOU to include them.

Good

• More well rounded characters
• Fewer choices make for quicker chargen & leveling
• Can be customized to your setting
• Can adds lots of flavor
• Can be used to flesh out backgrounds
• Can be used to give such non-tangible things as contacts/obligations

Bad

• Often treated as nothing more than a way to get skills more cheaply
• Obligations/restrictions often ignored/forgotten
• Has a different cost for each profession (take a look at the Master TP Cost Table in the RMSS/FRP section of the Vault to see how out of hand this can get!!!)

Personally, I would not give items or equipment though Training Packages.

As for what they were intended for, Sorry, but cannot answer that as I wasn't part of ICE when they were created.

[bottg]

I personally like TPs.  They do have a different cost for each profession, and they do offer skills more cheaply, but they also force that character to take all required skills.  I always play them so that the skills gained count towards the cost per lvl.  So if a TP gives climbing (1) to a character who has climbing at 2/6, the character gets the 2 rank free, and must pay 6 to get a second rank.  Of course, if the TP gives 2 climbing ranks, the character cannot buy any more.

However, i agree with Rasyr when he says that the obligations/restrictions must be played out and applied.  Otherwise they are just another munchkin tool.

I do think they work very well if the characters start with several levels, where they become something of a lifepath system.

[Kalu]

I'm trying to understand whether it would be useful to add training packages to a version of RM that does not have them, OR remove training packages from a version that does have them.

NB! In the following, the difference in capitalization of "profession" is intentional.

My take on training packages is that they remove focus from the names of the Professions, allowing for more specialized "profession titles". By doing this, the Professions are reduced to being mainly development templates (and should, IMHO, no longer be termed Professions), and effectively provide both a lot of different professions and an easy and painless way of allowing for profession changes for characters.

For example, the character Alpha has the Profession Fighter. This determines the development costs and similar aspects of him. Alpha's player states that Alpha has been a soldier, purchasing the relevant Soldier TP; Alpha's profession is Soldier. Years later Alpha retires to a life of horticulture, and Alpha's player purchases the Farmer TP, obtaining the profession Farmer.

This all works well with non-spell casters. For spell casters, I think the association of spell lists to Professions is wrong, and would much rather have spell lists on the Training Packages. Thereby, a Greek Elementalist who travels to live in China could purchase the Chinese Elementalist TP and start learning Chinese elementalism spells, giving up further development of his Greek elementalism spells. Or the Elementalist could even join a religious order, learning spells relevant to that order instead of the elementalism spells! I'm well aware that this places a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of the GM, but that should not stop us or ICE from producing the best system possible!

//K

[bottg]

I have used TPs in RMC and they pose no problems at all.  I think that they allow for more characterisation.  A fighter can be a guard, soldier, marine, watchman, archer........

[markc]

 First I would have to say I like Rasyrs words above on TP's.

 I do use them in my game but I have seen a down side also. Just because you take the weapon master TP does not mean you are a weapon master.
 But I also see them have a strong impact on my game in a positive light. Another option is if you have Talent Law or other product that has race creation rules there is an area in which there are a number of free ranks to be givin for adolesent development. I use TL because that is the one I reember the varable #'s of skill for background development. For RMSS a GM can give the racial background up to 60 skill ranks for free if I remember right but most give around 40 or so. So as a GM I can go in a provide more ranks in areas that need it or have more backgruond ranks for PC's to place. IMO it is a great way to flush out the begining PC but IMO it has to be closely watched by the GM as it can be broken quickly by vetern players. ie I put 10 ranks in spells etc.

 All in all I am glade I use them and I have even thought of having a TP package for each adventure providing a discount on the skills used during the adventure and maybe proding the player to up some skills instead of looking for a NPC specalist.

MDC

[Fullerton]

Thanks for the responses so far. More questions:

Is it true that training packages allow you to "break" any rank-per-level limits that otherwise exist? For example, if my cost to develop a skill is 2/7, I could normally only get two ranks per level. But if I can buy two ranks for 9 points (total) and also get one (or two or more) additional ranks by buying a training package, then the *real* rank-per-level limit is no longer 2.

Could an alternative training package system meet the background/characterization and ease-of-leveling goals if they were essentially just a wrapper around conventionally developed ranks? In other words, in this alternative system, buying a training package doesn't give you anything that you couldn't get by just spending all your development points on ranks normally. Or rather, you could build exactly the same character (with exactly the same final bonuses) by using training packages AND by not using training packages.


Also, I'm not sure training packages really reduce the choices necessary for char gen & leveling. It seems like the opposite to me. Without training packages, you choose from amongst N skills and need to understand the trade-offs associated with those N items. With training packages, you choose from among N skills and M training packages, and thus need to understand the trade-offs associated with N+M items. (Not to mention the apparent complexity of finding the master costs tables.)

[vroomfogle]

Also, I'm not sure training packages really reduce the choices necessary for char gen & leveling. It seems like the opposite to me. Without training packages, you choose from amongst N skills and need to understand the trade-offs associated with those N items. With training packages, you choose from among N skills and M training packages, and thus need to understand the trade-offs associated with N+M items. (Not to mention the apparent complexity of finding the master costs tables.)

Nicely said, this is one of the my main reasons I stopped using Training Packages.    It just makes everything more complex, and It's a lot of bookkeeping to even maintain which ones are valid and their costs.   I don't feel they add anything since they are just a mechanism for picking skills.  it's not like you can't duplicate the same effect by making a sensible character that matches their background and experiences.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

In RMFRP, the skill ranks gained from Training Packages do not count against those purchased for the level because the ranks themselves are considered to be a side effect of the package. And you are buying the package, not the individual skills (because the TP gives OTHER benefits as well).

In regards to the # of options

I should of have said "can", not implied that it "does". It actually depends on how you use talents. I have seen it where the GM allows only 2 TPs per level, and no individual skill purchases at all. He also created a number of TPs for those professions with spells, that allowed them to get some ranks in base spell lists.

Or, as you mentioned it CAN increase the number of choices as well (knew there was something I forgot to mention on the Bad side... heheh).

[markc]

 Also the TP has a time factor in it so in general it is tough to buy during a level if adventuring. If you do not use the time factor it can become broken real quickly.

MDC

[Fullerton]

Also the TP has a time factor in it so in general it is tough to buy during a level if adventuring. If you do not use the time factor it can become broken real quickly.

IMO, game world time costs are a poor balancing factor.

There are character-building situations where time is not relevant: Characters for a one-shot game, or leveling a character just before an intentional two-year campaign advancement (which happened just after an adventure's climax).

If time costs are the only balancing factor, then it means characters who level in different out-of-game circumstances are not balanced against one another.

[Ecthelion]

Also, I'm not sure training packages really reduce the choices necessary for char gen & leveling. It seems like the opposite to me. Without training packages, you choose from amongst N skills and need to understand the trade-offs associated with those N items. With training packages, you choose from among N skills and M training packages, and thus need to understand the trade-offs associated with N+M items. (Not to mention the apparent complexity of finding the master costs tables.)

OTOH when doing development without TPs, you have to make development choices for ~90 DPs (in RMSS/RMFRP where TPs exist). With TPs this amount can be dramatically reduced. For new players this can be quite nice as they might have to care about only 10-20 DPs or so when  creating their 1st level PC and choose 2 or 3 TPs. Therefore I agree to Rasyr that fewer choices have to be made for chargen (and perhaps also leveling).

[dutch206]

Think of a RM Training package as kind of like a "Job" in Warhammer FRPG or a Kit in A D & D 2nd edition, except you get all the upgrades at once.  It's a way to turn a generic character class into a unique person.  (A mercenary and an adventurer are both fighters, but have different skills)

[markc]

Also the TP has a time factor in it so in general it is tough to buy during a level if adventuring. If you do not use the time factor it can become broken real quickly.

IMO, game world time costs are a poor balancing factor.

There are character-building situations where time is not relevant: Characters for a one-shot game, or leveling a character just before an intentional two-year campaign advancement (which happened just after an adventure's climax).

If time costs are the only balancing factor, then it means characters who level in different out-of-game circumstances are not balanced against one another.

 I can say in a fantasy game I only allow TP's for the App Dev level and they can pick 1 TP. To get another one at level App costs 10 talent
points. IMO if you do allow more than this it can be unbalancing if some take it and some do not. But aside from that IMO it also gives players a good idea on what skills a job might require instead of buying the standard weapon, spell, armor, hits and awareness.
 So in my case I do not allow them to be bought for higher levels unless I am playing in SM:P where they are a must as it makes background better and more full. I also have players make a backgound that has to be approved by me the GM. So no more I am a Navy SEAL at adol. type stuff.

MDC

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Also the TP has a time factor in it so in general it is tough to buy during a level if adventuring. If you do not use the time factor it can become broken real quickly.

IMO, game world time costs are a poor balancing factor.

There are character-building situations where time is not relevant: Characters for a one-shot game, or leveling a character just before an intentional two-year campaign advancement (which happened just after an adventure's climax).

If time costs are the only balancing factor, then it means characters who level in different out-of-game circumstances are not balanced against one another.

 I can say in a fantasy game I only allow TP's for the App Dev level and they can pick 1 TP. To get another one at level App costs 10 talent
points. IMO if you do allow more than this it can be unbalancing if some take it and some do not. But aside from that IMO it also gives players a good idea on what skills a job might require instead of buying the standard weapon, spell, armor, hits and awareness.
 So in my case I do not allow them to be bought for higher levels unless I am playing in SM:P where they are a must as it makes background better and more full. I also have players make a backgound that has to be approved by me the GM. So no more I am a Navy SEAL at adol. type stuff.

MDC

I take a different path... the character is encouraged to purchase as many TP's as they can, since I generally start characters at 2nd level... with a maximum of 4-6 TP's total.

This makes the characters with a well-rounded skills set (including those the players might think a waste of DP but the character should have... and the character has a background story to explain a good 3-5 years of pre-game time.

The balance issue is only a issue if you as a GM let it be.

[Fullerton]

I've gathered some key points:

1) Sometimes it's useful to have pre-built groups of skills to help players (especially new players) understand which skills are useful for certain roles, or help give flavor to their characters.

2) Sometimes it's useful to have pre-built groups of skills to help a character achieve well-roundedness in their skill set. (This is close to #1, but a bit different.)

3) Some people appear to dislike the cost discount, or at the very least some people can point out problems with the discounts. (I've observed that here and in other threads.) Nobody explicitly said the training package cost discount is a good thing. (But I see some people flirting with the idea.)

4) Consequence of 2 & 3: If well-roundedness is a desirable goal in the game, and if it is primarily achieved through training packages, perhaps that means skill costs are too high*, or there are too many skills in the game.

Or to put it another way, for some future version of RM, it's worth eliminating training packages as they exist today in favor of other mechanisms that directly solve any problems that today's training packages happen to indirectly solve.


* Or maybe development points are too low. But increasing development points in order to increase breadth can backfire, since those extra points can be spent very optimally on things *other* than breadth. So I'm not really in favor of increasing development points. There are probably better ways to solve a problem that seems to be solvable via increasing development points. Or at the very least, if you think you need to solve a problem by increasing development points by 5, you can/should probably try to solve the problem with just 1 or 2 points instead.

[runequester]

I actually like that the package gives you a slightly discounted bundle. You get them a bit cheaper, and with the capacity for exceeding level limit, at the downside of having to buy the whole bundle (which may not be what you always wanted)

I wholeheartedly love the TP's and would hate to see them disappear.

[smug]

Training packages were designed to annoy Rasyr.