Topic: Are first level characters too weak?

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

in RM, like in real life, if you play the odds, eventually you lose, it's essentially statistically unlikely you'll survive 100 fights that are even remotely fair. . . .so if you kill 100 beings, you're either taking total advantage (like attacking from behind, or dropping rocks on them from off a wall) or executing them when they're unarmed, asleep or otherwise not in combat. . . .and PCs often kill hundreds or thousands of opponants in their careers. . . .

O_O
You and I don't play at the same scale. In my current RM2 campaign (on-going campaign that started about eight years ago --and about three years in game time), in a few hundreds sessions at least making the PCs go from 5th to 15th, I'm pretty certain the one with the most kills doesn't reach one hundred, and they're in the middle of a war!

Other than that, I think you're off the scale anyway. If we only take the one hundred years war, some people lived through an important part of it. With only three kills in a battle (something I think is low), and 1 battle every month (that also is probably low), that's 36 kills a year... and 360 kills in a ten year career.

I didn't start talking about warriors from ancient times (may it be Western medieval times or eastern) having reached legendary status, and said to have killed hundreds in a single battle.

[thrud]

1st level characters are supposed to be weak.
So, to answer the question... No, they are just right.
Otoh no one is forcing you to start your party off at lv 1.

We have implemented some house rules that boost the PC's somewhat but nothing huge.
You get to choose (GM discretion) ONE talent/background (if you can find it in a book we can talk about it) option (We play RMC but have most RM2/RMSS/RMFRP books for reference and inspiration).
After that we follow the gift rules from the EA's.
Background options (races with more than 2, it cost 2 to choose a gift) are mostly used for languages, skills, social class, stats, items and so on.

[Marc R]

Amusingly, I concur, the kill counts are far lower in my games, mostly because we do NOT fudge things, so players are properly fearful of the hand of murphy and critical die rolls.

But most games, in the more traditional fantasy mold, would not be unfamiliar with multiple combats per session

The vast majority of kills on the historical battlefields consisted of back shoting fleeing members of routed units, or coup de gras executed by 2nd echelon troops.

I'd refute the "Killed 3 per battle" logic, based on the fact that would mean that in every battle, on average, each unit killed 3x their own number of enemy forces. (i.e. each time a unit of 100 men took the field, it killed 300 of the enemy.) Wars don't last 100 years with that kind of kill ratio, that's sort of like a whirling storm of death. . .I suspect, at best, such kill counts could happen if you include killing the wounded, harrying fleeing troops with rear attacks, and ravaging the countryside for weeks while you march to and from the battlefield murdering pesants. (Like say if an angry mongol commander ordered a horde to clear the ground before it, I could see each man killing 3 men average.). . .

Check the stats, units were often broken on the field at 10-20% casualties. so if 100 men were facing 100 men, killed 20% and drove them from the field, that would be 20 kills among 100 soldiers or .2 kills per man per battle or 2.4 kills per year or 24 kills in 10 years. . .the roman army kept cavelry, often barbarian auxiliaries around, for scouting, but also to harry the enemy after they broke. . .that chasing folks down as they try to run usually inflicted the vast majority of the casualties in battle (other than dying of disease in camp, of your injuries due to no care, or having looters cut your throat after the battle).

Your average soldier during the 100 years war likely killed more than 2.4 people per year, but most of their kills were likely in that "stabbed in the back while fleeing" or "Fun with the pesants" categories.

Chasing someone down to shoot or stab them in the back, preferably from horseback, executing wounded prisoners or murdering pesants are not really "Combat fatalities" so much as organized murdering going on around the battle. . . .and all are much safer activities than actually fighting someone toe to toe.

Which likely is the reason most armies make it a point to chase broken enemies and grind them out before they can get their acts together and reform. Armies don't fight fair, because fair will get you killed. . .RM is realistic enough in combat flavor that if you fight fair, you will die when the odds pile up on you. . .so stab them in the back while they're fleeing, or shoot them from ambush when they're not paying attention, or sneak up on those troops attack them during their christmass dinner.

I think the logic that 1st level characters are weak is pretty universally accepted as true, I think the only issue here would be with the use of the word "too" in the question that forms the subject of this thread.

[Arioch]

Because fantasy RPGs happen in medieval times? You know, when life was cheap, dying was easy, force or social status meant justice in many cases, and people were summarily executed rather than judged in most cases?

No: fantasy RPGs are set in a fantastic time, otherwise they'd medieval rpg.
Fantasy is not middle ages, it can be inspired to them, but it can also be thousands of other things. It's fantasy, after all.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I'd refute the "Killed 3 per battle" logic, based on the fact that would mean that in every battle, on average, each unit killed 3x their own number of enemy forces. (i.e. each time a unit of 100 men took the field, it killed 300 of the enemy.)

Not at all. Your point is based on the fact that each unit of one camp killed three units in the other, which is fallacious. If a four persons unit meets a four unit person unit, and in each camp someone kills three in the other, the survivor in each unit would have effectively kill three opponents however neither unit killed twelve.

Your average soldier during the 100 years war likely killed more than 2.4 people per year, but most of their kills were likely in that "stabbed in the back while fleeing" or "Fun with the pesants" categories.

I really doubt that anyone who survives a war lasting one year, with battles every month would have killed less than three persons because it means he just didn't kill anyone in most battles.

[yammahoper]

Even by core RM2 rules, you could pour five bg options into a natural 100 and get a 110 stat.  That's a +75 mod without racial mod added in.  So, if that is put into Re, is the PC as powerful if it was put into St?

All depends on the GM.  In a game were lore skills are more important than combat skills, the PC with an amazing Re mod will be more powerful and effective than the PC with the big St mod.

[Marc R]

True, but if you check the stats, combined casualty levels of 75% are not the norm, even remotely. . .and that most war deaths are not from combat, but from one sided slaughter of the fleeing, helpless or aside bystander casualties. . . .and even then battlefield casualties would almost never come anywhere close to 75% of combined combatants. . .when 400 vs 600 happened, it would not be typical to have 750 killed, and the idea of 750 killed in stalwart toe to toe combat would only really be possible if both units were super elite forces trapped in terrain that precluded fleeing, like perhaps in an arena.

As to the odds. . . .I don't find it absurd to think that any individual, or many individuals on a given battlefield failed to make a single kill. . .some flee, some are wounded or kileld early in the battle, some end up never making it to the front line or point of contact between formations, some only manage to wound one or more enemy in battle. . .

It does seem contrary to common sense, but check the facts, most units are broken in combat at or below 25% casualties (and that's killed, fled, or wounded out of combat, not just killed). . . it was far more common for any given unit of troops to withdraw, flee or rout from the field than it was for a unit to be wiped out to the last man.

It's rare enough, that when it does happen, you end up with legendary stories like the Spartan 300, or Custer's Last Stand. . . .because being killed to the last man is freakishly rare.

My point above was that in attempting 100 combat kills at anything approaching even odds, you'd be dead. . .not 10 combat kills and 90 executions-of-fleeing-enemies / executions of helpless wounded / peasants murdered while raiding for supplies. . . .

In real life, like RM, any "even" combat, spread over 100 incidents generally = way over 100% chance of being mortally wounded or killed.

I'd add another real life thing to that. . .green units, or green replacement troops to seasoned units, suffer massively disproportionate casualties. . .so being 1st level, you should not go tangling with enemies on anything like an even basis. (And don't go out for soldier and make yourself a hit point of damage on the War Law or Star Strike tables.)

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Even by core RM2 rules, you could pour five bg options into a natural 100 and get a 110 stat.

No, you cannot.

Character Law & Campaign Law, §14.2.3. Background options, table 15.7.3. Background option table, p90.

5) Increase one stat by 2 or three stats by 1 each; both temporaries and potentials (to a maximum of 101).

[kevinmccollum]

Even by core RM2 rules, you could pour five bg options into a natural 100 and get a 110 stat.

Lol. I get a lot of this. People who don't know what they are talking about and don't read the rules.

Per the set options category in the Character Law: Increase one stat by 2 OR three stats by one; both temporaries and potentials (to a maximum of 101)

direct quote.

I ran into several groups that did what you said, it created a heck of a toon but was totally off base as far as rules go.

[kevinmccollum]

Face it, the stats about kills, etc don't really apply in a fantasy rpg where there is magic/herbs around that can kill the most grievous of wounds and the fact that we are talking about small elite units (adventurers ARE elite units. they combine in a tiny force a huge mix of talents and abilities that aren't generally available in the general populous) with near suicidal levels of morale.

[providence13]

Herbs and magic do totally skew the numbers on what the average "realistic warrior" can accomplish.
If these guys from this battle killed 3:1 or those guys from that battle killed 2.4:1, IMO, it doesn't have everything to do with a fantastic setting like RM.
RM numbers would be interesting to crunch, however. How many times were the PC's absolutely going to die, but didn't because of "herbs/magic, etc."

I'm not saying that this is the case, but I often forget what I've changed and just assume "that's the rules." I've thought it was for so long that when people quote the rules, sometimes I have to remember,"oh, yeah, not everyone plays that way."

I only state this to preface every post I'll make from now on

[Marc R]

Very true, shifts in what you use and don't, especially the magic level, can create dramatic shifts in what to expect. I rarely play games where low level characters casually carry loads of herbs, or have PP multipliers.

Face it, the stats about kills, etc don't really apply in a fantasy rpg where there is magic/herbs around that can kill the most grievous of wounds and the fact that we are talking about small elite units (adventurers ARE elite units. they combine in a tiny force a huge mix of talents and abilities that aren't generally available in the general populous) with near suicidal levels of morale.

Emphasis added in color is mine.

I think this entire statement is very key to the issue of 1st level PCs getting themselves killed. . . .assuming the GM is not being evil, and the PCs are not trapped into a combat with no options against opponants over their power level. . . .I suspect that all to often the PCs have actual suicidal levels of morale.

It's a game, characters are paper with numbers on them, so there's considerably less downside for a player to talk trash and/or refuse to take crap and/or stalwartly refuse to flee, and/or take suicidally high risks. . .it's not like they're actually going to be maimed or killed. . . .and if the GM isn't bending fate to save their character, odds are some, even many of the PCs will die. The player probably wouldn't stick their head in that bear trap, but faced with 90% chance of a character getting killed, often they go for it.

Also, players are less invested in a 1st level character than a 5th or 10th level. . .they just rolled them up, they haven't been playing them for months/years. . . so they're a bit more likely to do risky things.

Then again, I've known players who should have business cards with "Full OB" printed on them. . . they make very mighty combatants, they have loads of fun hewing up the enemy. . . and roll up a new character fairly regularly. . .they go up more levels in the GM starting their replacement characters at a level close to the rest of the party than they do in experience points. . .if you choose to play that way, you'll kill characters regularly. . .and that may be an extreme example, but I'd say that most players are somewhere between average and reckless, and RM can be unforgiving about that.

The only way I really see that applying to 1st level characters though, is in that access to healing spells or herbs. . .at 5th or 10th level, if the party has a channeler, they can expect access to some decent to high end healing magic as a given, regardless of if the GM is generous or stingy with magical herbs.

I don't really think 1st level characters are too weak, I think RM is a dangerous combat system, every crit gives an 8-10% chance of a mortal wound (or 2-3% odds of instand death within that). The system is not very forgiving of people who don't weigh the odds carefully, and those odds will eventually catch up with you whatever level you are, so every fight has a touch of fear that it could be the character's last. . .

but then, isn't that touch of fear one of the central selling points of RM, one of the reasons we all play it. . .it certainly adds to the fun, that touch of fear.

[mibsweden]

Edit: others beat me to it about the maximum of 101.

[yammahoper]

Edit: others beat me to it about the maximum of 101.

Yeah, I forgot that one.  Been away from RM2 a long time now.

[RandalThor]

You can have my power point multiplier when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

Ok, I had to give a laugh point, hesty.

[RandalThor]

You don't pull a sword or gun to fix most problems in real life, why so in RPG? You won't get killed if you're not fighting. . .plenty of things to do in any game world other than fighting.

Because in real life NONE of the problems happen to be orcs, or dragons, or slime-beasts from alternate dimensions.

You most assuredly can (and people in the real world do) get killed if you are not fighting. In fact it is the best way to kill someone - when they aren't fighting.

Oh yeah thier are plenty of other things to do in a game, and pretty-much everyone of them requires a skill roll, that the lower level characters will likely not be able to make. At least in combat you have a more graduated scale (see the HARP thread on Combat vs. Skill use - sorry, I don't know how to link, not that cool) where you don't need 111+ to succeed.

But, personally I feel you need to mix it up if to do nothing else but to add variety (can I offer anyone in a little Spice of Life?)

[RandalThor]

A group of 1st level characters, if considered as apprentices, could be involved in adventures, but would be under some supervision of their mentors. In some cases, the apprentices will be running errands which just happen to prove more challenging than they'd thought. In other cases, they may be sent on missions to "test them".

All of these things are excellent methods of "actual" 1st-level adventures. I had worked on something like this for a fantasy game set in the Paizo campaign world of Golarion.

[phydaux42]

There may be an issue of GM's who don't know how to balance an encounter/adventure with a 1st level party.

Bingo!

[providence13]

Unless your fun is killing of 1st lvl characters.. :'(

grumble, grumble....darn spontaneous human combustion tables....

[RandalThor]

grumble, grumble....darn spontaneous human combustion tables....

Yeah, that Reading a Foreign Language Table is kinda harsh....