Topic: Starting Level

[GrumpyOldFart]

When starting with a completely new party (when I was playing RM, anyway), I'd roll a d6:

Fighter, Thieves, Rogues: 1-2=1st, 3-5=2nd, 6=3rd
Semi-spellcasters:          1-2=2nd, 3-5=3rd, 6=4th
Spellcasters:                  1-2=3rd, 3-5=4th, 6=5th

By 10th level it would generally about even out as power goes. But also keep in mind that the above arrangement included the possibility of having a 1st level Thief aged maybe 9 or 10 years, too. A 1st level Fighter or Rogue was unlikely to be any older than 16 at the latest, more likely 13 or 14.

"1st level Knight" isn't the worst, to my mind. The way I see it, saying "1st level Archmage" makes no more sense than saying "1st level Sergeant Major". To me, "archmage" implies having gotten at least to the stage of competence in every major division of magic that exists on the archmage's homeworld. In other words, in an RM setting, a competent Mentalist and a competent Cleric and a competent Magician. So a "1st level Archmage" should be about 25th level or so at a minimum.

[RandalThor]

"1st level Knight" isn't the worst, to my mind. The way I see it, saying "1st level Archmage" makes no more sense than saying "1st level Sergeant Major". To me, "archmage" implies having gotten at least to the stage of competence in every major division of magic that exists on the archmage's homeworld. In other words, in an RM setting, a competent Mentalist and a competent Cleric and a competent Magician. So a "1st level Archmage" should be about 25th level or so at a minimum.

Good point, and an interesting idea, hmmmm....

At the very least, certain TPs should be level dependent. Of course, in game RPing can over rule the rules, at least IMO.

[smug]

TPs just reflectio context and skill synergy, it seems to me; you could make them level dependent, although I think it might make more sense to make them dependent on a bunch of entry skills (either ranks or bonuses), reflecting stuff you had to know or be able to do to take advantage of the synergies.

However, I don't use TPs; they appeared in RM2 (in the Combat Companion, my least favourite Companion) but made less sense than the RMSS ones. I tend to prefer contextual bonus ranks from background, like MERP did (except that was the apprenticeship ranks, as I recall, whereas I add them in extra based on source culture and species) and then later have each skill cost the same as RaW.

I like the idea of the TP synergy/context cheapness more than I like it in practice.

[markc]

  IMHO a TP title tree could be made like the ones in SM:P that progress you along the rout you would like to take; ie squire in training, squire, senior squire, knight in training, junior knight, knight, senior knight, etc.
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

TPs just reflectio context and skill synergy, it seems to me

And it could also be argued that it implies a future plan. A "Knight TP" doesn't necessarily dictate that you've been Knighted, that's a political decision. It's a safe bet that neither Sir Paul McCartney nor Sir Terry Pratchett were knighted for their combat skills.

It's a training package. It's something you trained for. That doesn't mean you necessarily succeeded in every particular of your plans. Some parts aren't up to you.

[RandalThor]

IMHO a TP title tree could be made like the ones in SM:P that progress you along the rout you would like to take; ie squire in training, squire, senior squire, knight in training, junior knight, knight, senior knight, etc.

Now we are getting into Warhammer FRP (1st & 2nd ED) territory. But I can see something like it working out.

And it could also be argued that it implies a future plan. A "Knight TP" doesn't necessarily dictate that you've been Knighted, that's a political decision.

All I say is call something what it is. If that TP is meant to say you are a knight in training, then call it "Knight in Training," not "Knight." Having clear, defines nomenclature helps keep confusion down, a lot.

It's a safe bet that neither Sir Paul McCartney nor Sir Terry Pratchett were knighted for their combat skills.

I dunno, you ever see Sir McCartney wield his "axe", or Sir Pratchett's weapon, that is mightier than the sword?

TPs just reflectio context and skill synergy, it seems to me; you could make them level dependent, although I think it might make more sense to make them dependent on a bunch of entry skills (either ranks or bonuses), reflecting stuff you had to know or be able to do to take advantage of the synergies.

Another good way to go with these.

I like the idea of the TP synergy/context cheapness more than I like it in practice.

Yes, they are a good idea to help give a setting flavor, and I agree that they are easier to think about than to put into practice, but that is just about everything, no?

[markc]

No Not Skill Synergy    Burn, Skill Synergy, Burn!


MDC

[Zat]

Personally, I like to start out at higher levels, say, like around 20+  (Lots of back-story possibilities then.)

I don't know what it is, but I really, really don't like starting at such a high level. I can't quite put my finger on why, exactly, but it has something to do with not earning the power.
I enjoy the build up of character and power from low levels. I enjoy the risk and the 'natural selection' of the group dynamics via character deaths. I enjoy the forming stories that unravel a the charcters progress through the adventues and campaign. I really enjoy the mish-mash of skills and spell list that are chosen, rather than the min/max of instant 20+ level charcters.

Just my thoughts, of course 

My campaigns begin at low level, low power and evolve into epics over the years that we play them...sometimes 

[GrumpyOldFart]

I don't know what it is, but I really, really don't like starting at such a high level. I can't quite put my finger on why, exactly, but it has something to do with not earning the power.

I don't care for it either, but I know why. For me, it's because the backstory a player makes up to cover those years getting to 10th or 20th level are never more than a pale shadow of the backstories they have after playing through those levels.

Quality takes time. 

[Athelstaine]

In my current campaign i started the players off at 7th level. I wanted casters to be able to cast at least a 1st level spell without difficulty. Also to reflect the nature of the campaign setting, which currently is the Dark Sun setting based off the old AD&D setting, not the garbage 4th edition setting.

I tend to hand starting levels dependent on campaign settings. For Ravenloft i like them anywhere between 1st - 3rd,so i can really play up the horror/fear mechanics and to reflect that my players are not from the demiplane and have no inclination of the peril they are truly in. (Holy run-on sentance Batman)

Also the majority of us are 40+ years of age and some have a hard time thinking like a youngster. Granted that's a flaw we have, it works for us though. I do retain tight control on any and all talents & flaws. We tend to just ignore TP's.

[Marc R]

IMO if you are of the proper bloodline to just expect to become a knight (rather than a base commoner raised up due to some grand reward) then indeed you may experience some sort of strange situation in which you may not actually be fully competent, and yet are granted full honors as if you were an adult.

Like, your 15 year old Samurai, or knight, have had quite a bit of training, and have power and authority of their title and position, but are likely very green.

So just because you're young master Sir Robin, doesn't mean you're not perhaps barely worthy of the title knight.

Or, in a more modern sense, just because the Queen made Paul McCartney a knight, doesn't mean his sword handling and jousting skills are over 50. It's a political / legal status of rights and obligations, not a skill level.

[smug]

No Not Skill Synergy    Burn, Skill Synergy, Burn!


MDC

It seems to me to be the logic underlying TPs, along with context. I like the idea more in practice than in principle.

[Ynglaur]

As a GM, I've often taken a character history given to me for a 1st level PC, said "This is an excellent back story for a 10th level character, now go back, think of this version as your goals in life, and re-write it as if you aspire to be this good, but are just starting out."

Of course, all of this is a bit off topic.....no surprise there. 

Agreed.  Figure out the characters and the story...then go to the stats.

By the magic of moderator splitting powers, the topic comes to the conversation.

This is a big issue in my group.  We are all experienced gamers (20 plus years).  The old first level background story doesnt often fly with us.  The result is starting at lvl 3 to 15 because we stress the characters story more than some rule set that demands a level one starting line.

Even so, I like starting with a level one PC, but he can be a complete incompetent.  I wanna play a hero, not a measuring stick for the effectiveness of experience points.

[smug]

No Not Skill Synergy    Burn, Skill Synergy, Burn!


MDC

It seems to me to be the logic underlying TPs, along with context. I like the idea more in practice than in principle.

Damnit, I meant to say "in principle more than in practice".

[GrumpyOldFart]

I like the concept, because it's believable. We all have too much experience of _____ task being made easier due to knowledge of _____ skill in our past, that before this situation came up we would have called unrelated. But I suspect it's a very delicate balancing act, and the more skills are involved in a given action the more delicate it gets.

[smug]

Yeah, it matches our experience, so has a nice simulationist feel to it. However, part of the art of game design -- or at least simulationist game design -- is getting stuff that simulates whilst works nicely in practice*, and I'm not sure TPs are the latter. Similar Skills in RM2 Companions approach it from a different angle -- not in learning, but in executing -- but it's clunky (GURPS skill defaults work better, I think, as they are based on a per-skill basis rather than requiring lookups tables that expand with every new skill).

Myself, I use RM2 Similar Skills done ad-hoc (which is to say, GM decision at the time, not based on table lookup although if the player knows the conversion I'll bear it in mind) based on bonus (rather than ranks). You could add TPs to have the other side of synergies and context -- not just in execution of the skill but in actually learning it -- but they weren't well-developed in RM2 (only in Arms Companion, as I recall, and clunky and unbalanced) and as I said earlier, I prefer using background ranks and just sticking all this stuff in chargen, which overlaps with some uses of TPs, particularly Lifestyle TPs, but doesn't cover the whole thing. In RMSS/FRP, where they're part of the game, I guess I'd use them although they also have the race/cultural background options as well (giving a fine-grained approach to chargen, but which comes at a cost, I think).

I'm not against TPs, but I don't think I like them enough to calculate a list of them for RM2. Although now I say it, it sounds like it might be an interesting project as it might encourage me to do data entry of skill costs for the RM2 DB-backed chargen web application I keep meaning to do.

*Which is basically why I think Runequest is the best-designed game, although it doesn't do TPs (although it does aggregate skills at chargen based on background and I guess you could use something similar for years spent doing a particular profession rather than adventuring). The game as a whole, though, simple but feels right, over 30 years since it was .

[RandalThor]

My campaigns begin at low level, low power and evolve into epics over the years that we play them...sometimes 

I would like that too.......if it ever happened. In my 30+ years of gaming that has happened for me, approximately, 1 time. In AD&D, back in the 80's, I had a dwarven fighter go from 1st level to 10th. (He died in the Expedition to the Barrier Peaks when one of the waiter robots stuffed irradiate/poisoned food down his throat. Ick!)

Since then, I have not gone more than 3-5 levels in anything I have played, and a game/campaign has never lasted more than a year. Mostly they last from 2-3 months before collapsing. It doesn't matter if I am GM or a Player, they all just end and everyone (but me) wanting to go on to something "new." So, I am sick of "1st level" and want to do something epic. (About 6 years back I jumped into a D&D 3E game - well after I stopped liking the system - just because it was 26th level.)

Now, when I see someone say they are starting out at 1st level, I run the other way. Plus, if the setting has been played before, particularly for a long campaign, and the Players have good knowledge of it, then starting out at higher level is fine. The only problem of starting out at higher level, for me, is the inherent knowledge the character would have of the setting. (But that is always a problem, and can be dealt with in several ways; like transporting the character to a totally new world.)

As far as TPs go, of course they are all setting dependent. If the setting says that only those of high-blood can be a Knight, then you are out of luck as a peasant. And if a GM wants to reflect that only those more experienced can be a Knight, then the 1st level guy is also out of luck. (The 1st level peasant is really out of luck.  )

One of the reasons I like RM is because the 1st level characters do seem to be more "real," as in, they have more skills and abilities to reflect the fact that they have lived in their world for years already. (I still would rather start out higher, though.)

[Athelstaine]

My campaigns begin at low level, low power and evolve into epics over the years that we play them...sometimes 

I would like that too.......if it ever happened. In my 30+ years of gaming that has happened for me, approximately, 1 time. In AD&D, back in the 80's, I had a dwarven fighter go from 1st level to 10th. (He died in the Expedition to the Barrier Peaks when one of the waiter robots stuffed irradiate/poisoned food down his throat. Ick!)

Since then, I have not gone more than 3-5 levels in anything I have played, and a game/campaign has never lasted more than a year. Mostly they last from 2-3 months before collapsing. It doesn't matter if I am GM or a Player, they all just end and everyone (but me) wanting to go on to something "new." So, I am sick of "1st level" and want to do something epic. (About 6 years back I jumped into a D&D 3E game - well after I stopped liking the system - just because it was 26th level.)

Now, when I see someone say they are starting out at 1st level, I run the other way. Plus, if the setting has been played before, particularly for a long campaign, and the Players have good knowledge of it, then starting out at higher level is fine. The only problem of starting out at higher level, for me, is the inherent knowledge the character would have of the setting. (But that is always a problem, and can be dealt with in several ways; like transporting the character to a totally new world.)

As far as TPs go, of course they are all setting dependent. If the setting says that only those of high-blood can be a Knight, then you are out of luck as a peasant. And if a GM wants to reflect that only those more experienced can be a Knight, then the 1st level guy is also out of luck. (The 1st level peasant is really out of luck.  )

One of the reasons I like RM is because the 1st level characters do seem to be more "real," as in, they have more skills and abilities to reflect the fact that they have lived in their world for years already. (I still would rather start out higher, though.)

I can understand that. We all feel the same way. One of the other players in my group also runs RM. In his campaign we started at 7th level and if we wrote a history more than a couple of sentences we began at 8th. We have been playing that campign off and on now close to 18 years now, and the majority of us are 17th level now.

On a different note, that character is my very first RM character ever made and is my favorite to this day. Common Man/Fighter(Teutonic Knight) with the requisite first time mistakes when putting characters together. I would not change a thing either, the flaws just give him that lil bit of character.

[Zat]

Well, my campaign is just over 3 years old and took about 3 years from conception to play. We game very regulalry, each Saturday for around 4-5 hours, so by my own reckoning, that around 225 hours game time. The party ranges from level 13 to 21.

...and they all began at first level.

I have already begun working on a follow-up campaign. Same world, just 300 years into the future, but I don't expect it to begin for quite soem time yet.

[RandalThor]

The party ranges from level 13 to 21.

When a character dies, do you make them start their new one at 1st level? Because, while it isn't as big of a difference as in D&D, the difference in power level between a 13th level character and a 21st level one is pretty-big. I can't imagine that Players the lower level characters don't feel outmatched and somewhat useless.