Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: Thot on November 29, 2019, 03:12:12 AM
-
To me, NPC level distribution in game worlds is important for a variety of reasons, among them the availability of magic items, the PC place within the game world, and the meaning of threats to the general population.
Looking at the RMFRP XP guidelines, I'd assume that a regular NPC will, on average, make the equivalent of one medium difficulty maneuver per day, which will be routine to him, and failure will not put him in a dangerous situation most of the time. That would then translate into about 12 XP per day or 4380 XP per year.
Assuming level 1 is age 15, the NPC will reach level 6 at about age 29, and level 11 at age 52. Level 16 will be reached at about age 85, and for regular common men, that's about as high as it gets. (Level 21:132 years; level 31: 246 years; level 41: 360; level 50: 474 years.)
Apart from this are, of course, people who experience a lot more in their time: Soldiers at war, spellcasters of critical professions, generally people who are in danger often and are challenged by their circumstances, as well as especially ambitious people who just try more difficult things on a regular basis. But for the average person, these numbers seem sensible.
-
The awards for maneuvers seem high to me. The difficulty thresholds should be scaling. A 10th level character is not going to learn anything from a medium maneuver using their core skills. They certainly aren't going to learn the same amount as a 1st level character. The rules sort of reflect this by giving x0.5 XP for "routine" things but in my opinion it should be x0.
In play, you handle this by simply not rolling for things where the characters basically have no chance of failing and the consequences of failure are trivial. The characters get up, they have breakfast, they get on their horses and ride, etc. In principle they could be making some perception maneuvers, someone is making a cooking maneuver, there are riding maneuvers, etc. But they aren't important so you don't waste time on them, and you don't award XP for them. The game focuses on the important things that the player characters -- the important people -- are doing, and the player characters are expected to become heroic figures. The XP is designed around that focus. If you extrapolate it out to people who lack that focus, you're going to get odd results. A 16th level character is incredibly powerful and the idea that the old age home is packed with them is bizarre.
-
The awards for maneuvers seem high to me. The difficulty thresholds should be scaling. A 10th level character is not going to learn anything from a medium maneuver using their core skills. They certainly aren't going to learn the same amount as a 1st level character. The rules sort of reflect this by giving x0.5 XP for "routine" things but in my opinion it should be x0.
Well, I just used the RMFRP XP recommendations as written, and they get me to a conclusion that works pretty well for a world dominated by Common Men...
In any case, 12 XP per day isn't something I would deem implausible for a regular, peacefully living man who has to work for a living in one way or another.
A 16th level character is incredibly powerful and the idea that the old age home is packed with them is bizarre.
You haven't met many elderly, I guess. :D Sure, they suffer from all kinds of "aging criticals" and stat losses, but their skills are indeed impressive.
But what would be your preferred assumption for "average XP per day" for regular NPC's?
-
I should probably acknowledge this is a contentious topic, and I tend to lean towards the lower power level than some. That said, what do those higher levels mean? For your most important skills, 15 levels means 30-35 ranks (depending on TPs and cultures) which is bonuses (for standard progression skills) of at least +95. Throw in a profession bonus of +10 and assume a stat bonus of, say, +10, which is conservative since an RMSS character at 15th level will have hit all their potentials. Add up to +15 for background options. You're now at +130.
What does it mean to have a skill bonus of +130? It means that a task characterized as "medium" difficulty is trivial for you, you only need to roll a -19 or better (an open-ended down roll) for a complete success, and in many cases a -54 is good enough. You achieve an absolute success on a 46 or higher, so you achieve an absolute success more than half the time. For tasks that are Sheer Folly, you still need to roll an open-ended down roll to outright fail -- you are more likely to achieve absolute success on a Sheer Folly task than you are to suffer even a regular failure.
What sorts of things might you be routinely achieving on that basis? Depending on the skill you might be swinging from one rope to catch another rope 25' away, impersonating people to their own close family and friends, camouflaging things the size of a house, climbing 120 degree (i.e. you're upside down) smooth surfaces, negotiating deals where all concessions are made by the other party, diving off a bridge onto a moving horse, convincing someone to do something harmful like drinking a glass of acid, creating forgeries that cannot be detected without scientific or magical testing, throwing dice so you decide how they come up, hypnotically persuading someone to commit murder, juggling 9 objects, running long jump of 24 feet (based on average height and +7 St including the racial mod), maintaining morale after suffering 75% casualties, memorizing entire novels, etc. And, again, these are not just things you have occasionally pulled off but things that you almost always succeed at without any special preparation or quality tools, and are more likely to achieve some kind of additional (absolute) success as you are to fail.
I just don't think most people ever achieve those kinds of abilties in their lives. Those are the kinds of achievements that a person might reach if they train intensively and constantly push themselves. They aren't the kind of achievements of people who just go about their daily routines day after day. I think the latter group will be lucky to reach half that kind of skill bonus. And a bonus of +65 in RMSS is something you can easily reach around 5th level, sooner if you have training packages or a culture that includes those skills.
-
Which again raises the question: What do you assume a regular NPC to gain in XP per year? Surely it cannot be none?
But I believe the issue with your comparison is that
- Few people will spend two ranks per level on their professional skills or the skills they deem most important; especially once they have reached a level that gets them through the day safely.
- RoleMaster's level system isn't designed to mirror real life accomplishments anyway, but an easy way to assign experience in a fantasy game. Naturally, this will result in some deviations from real life (where what you can do also depends on you practicing just to keep your existing skill level). We will have to do some assumptions about how the game worlds represented in RoleMaster are different from real life - not just because of the magic.
-
Covered this in a blog musing based on conversations with Peter R/Hurin and other on RM blog
https://wordpress.com/block-editor/post/aspire2hopegm.wordpress.com/1815 (https://wordpress.com/block-editor/post/aspire2hopegm.wordpress.com/1815)
could work with the EP levels as well. I think adventurers would naturally be accelerated by the under-pressure skills so an adventuring NPC would be a higher level to a non-adventuring NPC of the same profession.
-
Covered this in a blog musing based on conversations with Peter R/Hurin and other on RM blog
https://wordpress.com/block-editor/post/aspire2hopegm.wordpress.com/1815 (https://wordpress.com/block-editor/post/aspire2hopegm.wordpress.com/1815)
could work with the EP levels as well. I think adventurers would naturally be accelerated by the under-pressure skills so an adventuring NPC would be a higher level to a non-adventuring NPC of the same profession.
You linked to the blog's admin interface. ;)
-
doh!
-
https://aspire2hopegm.wordpress.com/2019/04/09/skills-and-learning/ (https://aspire2hopegm.wordpress.com/2019/04/09/skills-and-learning/) That should be better :)
-
One thing to remember about all those level 16 folks in the old age home is that they probably have significant minuses due to stat loss and permanent injuries. Also, the OP talked about the regular NPC so you are probably looking at potential stats in the 55-75 range(in their area of expertise) modified by age based stat loss.
-
Stats are less important than skill ranks. +130 assumes only +10 stat bonus, maybe that falls to -10 but that still puts you at +110.
>Few people will spend two ranks per level on their professional skills or the skills they deem most important; especially once they have reached a level that gets them through the day safely.
I disagree. Most people don't actively train skills they aren't using regularly. Whatever your occupation is, you are going to be using its core skills constantly. Learning through use is natural, learning skills you aren't using takes discipline and intent that most people don't have.
Also, if you are only developing 1 rank per level in your skills, that frees up a lot of DP which means instead of crazy high bonuses, you'll have incredible skill breadth. (And at 16th level you'll still have a skill bonus greater than +100 anyway, which is still well above normal performance levels.) Neither is realistic for ordinary people.
-
I am a bit confused how people seem to go out of their way to avoid the simple base question: How many XP will an average NPC gain per day, on average?
-
Simple answer none because they are not adventurers and only adventurers get XP. If you are talking adventuring NPCs then your average (in your game) for each adventure times the number of quests they are likely to participate in each year. So if your players are averaging 10,000 XP per quest and they manage 3 a year, then let your NPC get the same subject to racial modifiers.
-
Stats are less important than skill ranks. +130 assumes only +10 stat bonus, maybe that falls to -10 but that still puts you at +110.
>Few people will spend two ranks per level on their professional skills or the skills they deem most important; especially once they have reached a level that gets them through the day safely.
I disagree. Most people don't actively train skills they aren't using regularly. Whatever your occupation is, you are going to be using its core skills constantly. Learning through use is natural, learning skills you aren't using takes discipline and intent that most people don't have.
Also, if you are only developing 1 rank per level in your skills, that frees up a lot of DP which means instead of crazy high bonuses, you'll have incredible skill breadth. (And at 16th level you'll still have a skill bonus greater than +100 anyway, which is still well above normal performance levels.) Neither is realistic for ordinary people.
That was kind of my premise for study skills time rather than levels. But there is also a natural limit to the learning based on access to the next level of skill knowledge. In teaching, they call it the zone of proximal development (ZPD) where you need something or someone to build the next bit of skill/knowledge. You could eventually work it out for yourself (convergent invention happens a lot) but it takes more time and dedication because of it being a bit trial and error; and serendipity.
-
Simple answer none because they are not adventurers and only adventurers get XP.
Which again raises the question: What do you assume a regular NPC to gain in XP per year? Surely it cannot be none?
Zero.
NPCs (in our gaming world) are not the stars of the game, the PCs are. We are not gaming for the sake of non-existent players so all of the focus is on the PCs. NPCs are at best, seasonings added to make a rich story line and a colorful gaming world. At worst, they're canon fodder, or even a bandage to help the party along a difficult quest line. The only long term, consistent NPCs we use are quest givers (Guild Master, Mayor, Guard Captain, etc) or they are shop keepers, tavern owners, healers. A party may hire a scout to assist them, but once the quest is completed, the scout wouldn't have a reason to continue on. Again, they are only flavoring. When an NPC is created, it's at the level it needs to be, with the skills needed to supplement the party's weaker skills. At level-up, the players should be rounding out their PCs to bolster their shortcomings thereby making the NPC (in this case, the scout) a superfluous party member and as such.... canon fodder. :D
-
A few issue here:
First is the question of life expectancy - how many live long enough to head into higher levels?
Second issue is the diminishing returns on activity over time, so what gets 12xp this year, will net less in a few years time.
Third the period of no longer being active due to age and decrepitude. What age does some one stop practising there trade and while having a lot of knowledge can't do much more than that.
Forth - the spending of xp on others skills and hobbies, this happens for us all, and is something that I'd suggest needs factoring in.
-
For normal people, I grant 12000 XPs per year for the first three years. I then reduce it by 500 each year, until it reaches 0. Why three? I consider that the first three years of one's professional life, is when everything is a novelty and one learns from every little experience, as it constitutes the apprenticeship's years. From then, you're starting to learn less as everything becomes routine. Note that, according to this scaling, one stops gaining XPs after twenty-six years, which isn't bad for me, as I don't think one learns anything any longer after twenty-six years of the same activity.
As people in my world start their professional experience at age 14, when they first become apprentices, it means they stop learning at age 40, which is becoming old by medieval standards anyway, as most would die in their fifties.
-
Simple answer none because they are not adventurers and only adventurers get XP. [...]
So... there are no people who aren't in dangerous jobs in your world than can actually do anything (like casting spells), because they lack experience?
-
[...]
there is also a natural limit to the learning based on access to the next level of skill knowledge. In teaching, they call it the zone of proximal development (ZPD) where you need something or someone to build the next bit of skill/knowledge. You could eventually work it out for yourself (convergent invention happens a lot) but it takes more time and dedication because of it being a bit trial and error; and serendipity.
So you'd rather say most NPC's will have an upper limit of skill ranks?
-
For normal people, I grant 12000 XPs per year for the first three years. I then reduce it by 500 each year, until it reaches 0. Why three? I consider that the first three years of one's professional life, is when everything is a novelty and one learns from every little experience, as it constitutes the apprenticeship's years. From then, you're starting to learn less as everything becomes routine. Note that, according to this scaling, one stops gaining XPs after twenty-six years, which isn't bad for me, as I don't think one learns anything any longer after twenty-six years of the same activity.
Hm, but the XP rules already cover that it becomes less effective of a tool for learning with time, by giving 5 times as many XP when you first do something, down to half the standard XP when it's become routine for you.
As people in my world start their professional experience at age 14, when they first become apprentices, it means they stop learning at age 40, which is becoming old by medieval standards anyway, as most would die in their fifties.
Okay, so 36,000 until they're 17, which means they'll be level 2-3 by then (assuming they start at level 0), another 34,500 by the age of 20 (at which point they'll be level 5), then another 33,000 until they're 23 (level 7 now), then 31,500 until they're 26 (level 9), another 30,000 until they're 29 (level 10), and until they're 40 they gain another 55,000, at which point they'll stop at around level 12.
I, being 43, don't quite see why one would stop learning at age 40, though. :D
-
A few issue here:
First is the question of life expectancy - how many live long enough to head into higher levels?
[...]
Third the period of no longer being active due to age and decrepitude. What age does some one stop practising there trade and while having a lot of knowledge can't do much more than that.
[...]
Hm... Elves can get a few thousand years old...
-
[...]
there is also a natural limit to the learning based on access to the next level of skill knowledge. In teaching, they call it the zone of proximal development (ZPD) where you need something or someone to build the next bit of skill/knowledge. You could eventually work it out for yourself (convergent invention happens a lot) but it takes more time and dedication because of it being a bit trial and error; and serendipity.
So you'd rather say most NPC's will have an upper limit of skill ranks?
I would say that each rank requires more time (resources) to acquire. A level 20 spell takes longer to learn than a level 1 spell so a non-adventurer spell user is less likely to achieve this without many years of specific study. I'm assuming here that you are thinking about believable NPC ages and level rather than an absolute mechanic for moving NPCs along as the adventurers grow.
-
A few issue here:
First is the question of life expectancy - how many live long enough to head into higher levels?
[...]
Third the period of no longer being active due to age and decrepitude. What age does some one stop practising there trade and while having a lot of knowledge can't do much more than that.
[...]
Hm... Elves can get a few thousand years old...
Yes Elves can do so, but they find concentrating on something for a long time difficult (as laid out in MERP and RMFRP notes on the races). So apart from the technically immortal races these would still be valid questions to ask.
-
A few issue here:
First is the question of life expectancy - how many live long enough to head into higher levels?
[...]
Third the period of no longer being active due to age and decrepitude. What age does some one stop practising there trade and while having a lot of knowledge can't do much more than that.
[...]
Hm... Elves can get a few thousand years old...
Yes Elves can do so, but they find concentrating on something for a long time difficult (as laid out in MERP and RMFRP notes on the races). So apart from the technically immortal races these would still be valid questions to ask.
But also according to Tolkein the wisest (Noldo) and mirthful (Wood-elves) which never really fits with the descriptions. I suspect that they actually could concentrate very effectively at need, but when you have eternity to learn and appreciate the wonders of the world, your need to accomplish a short-term aim is greatly reduced.
-
Hm... there is also the notion of making explicitly different learning rules for "regular people NPC's", where they remain level 1, but gain a number of ranks (or even just special skill bonuses) for their regular life, capping them out at something like +50 or so. What do people here think of that?
-
This must be where I get my RP ideas for using stats to tell a character’s flightiness as an Elf.
Rolling SD checks when something interesting comes up a la an “oooOooOo, Butterfly/Puppy/Kitty” moments, despite the Player *not* wanting to wander off is the stuff of further adventure!
...more often it is just straight Death and Destruction, but boy does it make great hilarity when the Elf in the party declares quietly to herself:
“Leeroyyyyyy mmm-Jennnkinnns!”, but comes out, “It’s just so...Beautiful...BBBZZZZTTT!”
For Elven skill/bonus adoption, add the Total negative SD modifier elves(and even Halflings?) have as a % of extra time/XP it takes them to gain such increases due to this racial flightiness.
A few issue here:
First is the question of life expectancy - how many live long enough to head into higher levels?
[...]
Third the period of no longer being active due to age and decrepitude. What age does some one stop practising there trade and while having a lot of knowledge can't do much more than that.
[...]
Hm... Elves can get a few thousand years old...
Yes Elves can do so, but they find concentrating on something for a long time difficult (as laid out in MERP and RMFRP notes on the races). So apart from the technically immortal races these would still be valid questions to ask.
-
If you suppose each level takes longer to achieve than previous levels (which is the same as saying the rate at which you earn experience is dropping as your level increases), by some function, it could address the elven lifespan issue. For example if the number of years required to earn your next level is the square of your current level, then:
Age Level
15 1
16 2
20 3
29 4
45 5
70 6
106 7
155 8
219 9
300 10
400 11
521 12
665 13
834 14
1030 15
So that puts your ordinary human at a maximum level of 6-7, while a thousand year old elf has only reached 14th (and a 2000 year old elf is only up to 18th). This kind of exponential curve gets you the early levels pretty quick but then it slows down a lot.
You can tweak that formula, for example if years to next level is level^2.2 it's just a little slower:
Age Level
15 1
16 2
21 3
32 4
53 5
87 6
139 7
211 8
308 9
434 10
592 11
788 12
1025 13
Of course there has to be some variability added in here too.
-
Companion II in RM2 covered this well enough in my opinion. You don't bother with tracking XP. Everyone has a percentage chance of gaining a level if they're actively focused on trying. Also, your training is focused on a couple areas only, so you're not nuilding up your stealth, magic, combat, and athletics all at once.
-
Nice JDale -
Thot - you need to ask yourself why are you doing this? Only if you intend to "kill" an NPC or have them cast a spell do you need to worry about levels. Everything else boils down to skill levels so knocking up an NPC is really about what skills you need them to have and how long it would take to acquire in a certain setting. Our master mystic Elf (nominal level 20) would have a number of lores all to rank 50 without even burning through a large portion of his/her life. In contrast, a human might only have a couple at 50 for a nominal level of 20 by the age of 40+. These aren't handled well by the XP/level system and really in your NPC levels/xp are irrelevant to the game. They are, as mentioned above, not the stars of the show.
-
[...]
Thot - you need to ask yourself why are you doing this?
No, I don't. I know the answer already, and knew it before I started.
Only if you intend to "kill" an NPC or have them cast a spell do you need to worry about levels.[...]
I am sorry, but, with that attitude, how do you find out what the relative position of the PC's in the game world is? How do you know how common certain types of artifacts are?
Without having a clear idea what the level distribution in the game world is, you don't know these things. Without knowing the level distribution, you don't have a clear understanding of your game world's dynamics, in fact. That may work for some styles of play, but most certainly not for mine. I need to know what options the NPC's have, and for that, their competence and available magic are highly, HIGHLY relevant even if they never see combat happening, in fact even if they are dead for a thousand years - because it affects their legacy.
A world where the average 50-year-old soldier is 15th level does PROFOUNDLY differ from one where the average 50-year old soldier is 4th level. Even more so with alchemists: Knowing whether those 1000-year old bachelors are 10th or 100th level is crucial to understanding what the artifacts they forge will look like.
I seriously don't understand how people play without at least having a rough feeling about what kind of level distribution their game world has, and I am not even sure I want to.
As I asked in my previous post, I am curious about people's thoughts about differing approaches to learning of NPC's and PC's. I personally don't like them, but knowing how other people feel about it here helps me understand their positions.
-
If you suppose each level takes longer to achieve than previous levels (which is the same as saying the rate at which you earn experience is dropping as your level increases), by some function, it could address the elven lifespan issue.[...]
IF you believe it to be an "issue" in the first place. Why being adverse to high level NPC's? What does this add to the game, other than making the PCs' relatively quick progression a little goofy?
-
I am sorry, but, with that attitude, how do you find out what the relative position of the PC's in the game world is? How do you know how common certain types of artefacts are?
Without having a clear idea what the level distribution in the game world is, you don't know these things. Without knowing the level distribution, you don't have a clear understanding of your game world's dynamics, in fact. That may work for some styles of play, but most certainly not for mine. I need to know what options the NPC's have, and for that, their competence and available magic are highly, HIGHLY relevant even if they never see combat happening, in fact even if they are dead for a thousand years - because it affects their legacy.
A world where the average 50-year-old soldier is 15th level does PROFOUNDLY differ from one where the average 50-year old soldier is 4th level. Even more so with alchemists: Knowing whether those 1000-year old bachelors are 10th or 100th level is crucial to understanding what the artifacts they forge will look like.
I seriously don't understand how people play without at least having a rough feeling about what kind of level distribution their game world has, and I am not even sure I want to.
As I asked in my previous post, I am curious about people's thoughts about differing approaches to learning of NPC's and PC's. I personally don't like them, but knowing how other people feel about it here helps me understand their positions.
Perhaps because as many have pointed out its the levels of skill that are more important than the actual level of the character in the game-play. For that reason, I pitch for my player's level the adventure, the items of treasure, the difficulty of the enemy/NPC at that moment. Time to develop to level 5 is immaterial as far as the players are concerned. If I tell them that Bob is a 15-year-old boy who is super-keen and will act as a guide then they play to that until they discover "he" is a 25-year-old noble lady who is handy with a rapier. They don't actually ask me what level is Bob and I don't tell them until we are totalling up XP at the end of a session if it is relevant.
-
If you suppose each level takes longer to achieve than previous levels (which is the same as saying the rate at which you earn experience is dropping as your level increases), by some function, it could address the elven lifespan issue.[...]
IF you believe it to be an "issue" in the first place. Why being adverse to high level NPC's? What does this add to the game, other than making the PCs' relatively quick progression a little goofy?
I'm not averse to high level NPCs, but they are exceptions, just like the PCs. It's the average person who should be low level.
If ordinary people are, say, 10th level, that changes everything about the world. The quality of all the products is improved (everything gives a bonus), all the guards are hyper-aware, wild animals are not a threat, etc. And, the players are usually not needed because there are plenty of ordinary people around who can handle whatever the problem is. If magic isn't incredibly rare, miracles like teleportation and lifegiving are not just possible but routine, since the average caster is capable of them.
If ordinary people are, say, 4th level, they really have to look to elites such as the players to help them. The players don't have to be the only elite individuals, but people will look to those individuals and they will tend to be leaders and influencers. Ordinary magic will be lower powered while miraculous effects are actually miraculous and rare.
-
[...]
Perhaps because as many have pointed out its the levels of skill that are more important than the actual level of the character in the game-play.
If NPC's follow the same rules as PC's in levelling, NPC level and skill ranks will be related, and moreover, it is highly relevant for spellcasting.
They don't actually ask me what level is Bob and I don't tell them
That is entirely different than not knowing it in the first place.
-
[...]
I'm not averse to high level NPCs, but they are exceptions, just like the PCs. It's the average person who should be low level.
In each and every campaign, on each and every game world?
Anyway, even if that is the case, you must have some idea of what the actual level distribution will be, even if it is just "everybody except a very few are level 5 or less". You could answer the original question backwards, like " I don't want ordinary people to be higher than 5th level even if they are experienced, so I assume something like 1 XP per day at most, if not less".
If ordinary people are, say, 10th level, that changes everything about the world.
[...] If magic isn't incredibly rare, miracles like teleportation and lifegiving are not just possible but routine, since the average caster is capable of them.
But there are game worlds, such as Kulthea, where exactly this is the case. How else could the Navigators Guild exist without a LOT of high-level spellcasters?
-
I don't want ordinary people to be higher than 5th level even if they are experienced, so I assume something like 1 XP per day at most, if not less
-
In each and every campaign, on each and every game world?
No, but for the campaigns I run. This is a matter of personal preference, not a statement of what kind of campaigns YOU should run.
But there are game worlds, such as Kulthea, where exactly this is the case. How else could the Navigators Guild exist without a LOT of high-level spellcasters?
But those high level spellcasters aren't necessarily "average people."
As we were discussing in another thread, a historically appropriate average level of income can be counted in a handful of silver. But that doesn't mean you won't encounter any rich nobles, or even that you'll never encounter a group or household or organization filled with them.
-
[...]
But those high level spellcasters aren't necessarily "average people."
If they are numerous enough to build a lot of skyships, and a lot of portals, and a lot of Navigator Compasses... well, by definition, that greatly raises the average, doesn't it?
-
[...]
But those high level spellcasters aren't necessarily "average people."
If they are numerous enough to build a lot of skyships, and a lot of portals, and a lot of Navigator Compasses... well, by definition, that greatly raises the average, doesn't it?
Depends on which average you are using:
- it increases the mean average as there are a few more outliers at the higher level
- the median average will be a little higher, as the midpoint in the level range is raised, however what may really be happening is that only the upper quartile is been raised and extended with the others remaining about the same
- the mode average may not be effected at all as the majority of the individuals levels are not effected
All depends again on what you are looking for, is it the exceptional few who can do great things, or the general level of those who toil the fields every day. (all of this also working on the bases of a quasi-medieval fantasy setting)
-
Does Kulthea qualify as "quasi-medieval"? I wouldn't say so.
I do believe it would be wise to offer such a setting for RoleMaster, though.
-
Okay, so 36,000 until they're 17, which means they'll be level 2-3 by then (assuming they start at level 0), another 34,500 by the age of 20 (at which point they'll be level 5), then another 33,000 until they're 23 (level 7 now), then 31,500 until they're 26 (level 9), another 30,000 until they're 29 (level 10), and until they're 40 they gain another 55,000, at which point they'll stop at around level 12.
That gives level 3 at 17, level 5 at 20, level 7 at 23, level 8 at 26, level 9 at 29 and level 10 at 40.
I, being 43, don't quite see why one would stop learning at age 40, though. :D
You live in a medieval society, with the matching life expectancy and education level?
-
I, being 43, don't quite see why one would stop learning at age 40, though. :D
You live in a medieval society, with the matching life expectancy and education level?
Do most Kultheans? I mean, that's our reference point here, right? The ONE official setting for RoleMaster.
Besides, a farmer in 1300 AD did usually live another 20 years (at least) while being productive. Life expectancy was low because of childhood maladies, but if you got past that, the difference to today's wasn't that big any more.
-
I use a rule of thumb that people living relatively safe lives gain one level for every 5 years beyond the age 16. Those who live stressful lives with significant amounts of mild peril would gain one level for every 3 years and those living in constant danger gain a level a year.
So an academic in their 50s may be 7th or 8th level, a farmer in their 40s living in a harsh region could 8th or 9th, a ranger in their mid 20s, protecting villages in orc infested borderlands, could already be 10th level.
-
Besides, a farmer in 1300 AD did usually live another 20 years (at least) while being productive. Life expectancy was low because of childhood maladies, ...
Plus diseases (plagues!), wars, famine, yeah, lots of reason not to live long, if you were not of nobility.
Anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing this. You asked a question, I answered and gave my reasoning. If you don't agree, fair enough, just discard my opinion. *shrugs*
-
Thot, you and I think alike,
First, assume most NPCs will develop their profession skill as EV or OCC. So even if an adult is level 5, that's 15 to 30 ranks in a given skill or spell list. If you have access to the RM2 Spell Users Companion, there is an entirely new sphere of magic called PROSAIC. These are essentially magics developed to make the mundane far less so, with list like MENDING WAYS. This magic is available to commoners, family traditions, craftsmen, etc. Guilds could and would undoubtedly form around their learning and use.
In my games superior goods are far more common than magic weapons, if for no other reason than economy. When a noble has to choose between 200 swords, 60 superior swords or one magic sword; the choice is obvious. Same logic applies to just about everything, from leather goods to wagon makers. Most mundane stuff cost to much to make with magic yet making a +15 superior set of cook ware can be done with simple skill.
I of course have developed a leveless RM, as skill and its effect on the game world are very real. If an NPC has to be level 15 to have enough engineering skill to make working aqueducts, there wont be many of them. In RMSS there is a learning table that shows how much time in training is required to gain a skill rank. Check it out. I believe it will answer a lot of problems you face fleshing out your societies.
My first post on my new PC. I should read back and edit this fat fingered monstrosity of a post. New keyboard too! 6 years without a PC was to long.
-
Providing a personal answer to this question is basically impossible for me because
1) I do not use XPs
2) I do not use level as an indication of mundane skill, but as an indication of how much the person knows about the hidden workings of the world and how much they have actually experienced those.
3) the level spread is not regular, i.e. there are glass ceilings and cutoff points - in other words, doing the mundane, even if you strive to better yourself, does not get you past a certain point.
But hypothetically, I would use the common soldiers of the military charts provided in the setting to determine average "level" and corresponding proficiency. Not the guards, elite soldiers or other exceptional individuals, mind you (since those are, by definition, exceptions to the common rule). My reasoning is that, if your average soldier (whose job puts their life on the line at least occasionally) is level 3 or 4, it stands reasonable to believe that those who do not have a more serious incentive to become more proficient at what they are will likely be at the same level or lower on the average.
Mind you, this is for an *average* soldier - probably garrison type who sees combat infrequently, but trains pretty much everyday. Your weathered veteran mercenary will be of higher "level" because they are on the edge more often, simple as that.
But your average city merchant or craftsman ? Level 2-3 seems a fair average, regardless of age. The basic criterium is not what you do routinely, but how often you are on the edge. The more often you are, the higher "level" you can potentially be - if you survive the experience.
Basically, this was my rationale to change the meaning of level and decouple level from skill expertise. As for the thresholds, my version of Shadow World has basically two : 10 (beyond which you *need* to deal with the hidden world voluntarily on a regular basis) and 20 (beyond which you must strive to understand the deeper inner workings of the world and how to act on them to pursue your own ideals). For player characters and most "exceptional" NPCs, 10 is almost a default assumption, but 20 is a critical threshold - I know several PCs who would never get higher simply because they do not have the mindset for it.
-
The only long term, consistent NPCs we use are quest givers (Guild Master, Mayor, Guard Captain, etc) or they are shop keepers, tavern owners, healers.
...
When an NPC is created, it's at the level it needs to be, with the skills needed to supplement the party's weaker skills.
Amen. Surely we can find some kind of mechanics for assigning a daily number of XP based on race, profession, danger level or whatever. But the question for me is whether this does any good in the game. When I am using NPCs in my game it's in most cases not relavant at all which level they have. E.g. I don't remember any player ever asking for the level of an innkeeper. And in cases where the level is relevant, e.g. for an NPC character that should accompany the party, then - just as Spectre771 said - I assign the level it needs to be. My fear would be that any kind of mechanics for calculating a pseudo-realistic amount of XP per day might rather stand in the way than help me when creating an NPC.
YMMV
-
[...]
Surely we can find some kind of mechanics for assigning a daily number of XP based on race, profession, danger level or whatever. But the question for me is whether this does any good in the game. When I am using NPCs in my game it's in most cases not relavant at all which level they have.
Wait, I need to wrap my mind around this notion a bit more explicitly. Is it that you don't know what the level distribution in your game world is, or is it that you don't know what a specific NPC's level is?
Because what I am trying to do here, obviously, is to deduce the answer to the first questions as per the RAW. Of course, I will then use the thus deduced level distribution to assign a level to a given NPC... if most NPC's of a certain age are within levels 10-15, that is an entirely different situation than one where most NPC's will never reach level 6 in their whole lifetime. Either way, I might have a level 10 innkeeper whose haggling skill can keep up with the PC's, but the message of WHO THAT INNKEEPER IS in terms of importance in the game world is totally different between these two scenarios, as the players themselves can conclude a rough level from the innkeeper's relevant skills.
And it goes on: The level distribution is needed to tell me how easy it is to purchase or sell enchanted items, which in turn will heavily influence how hard that minor villain is to defeat, or what the loot they found in that tomb is actually worth.
I am totally puzzled how people would know these things for a consistent world without known what the level distribution is.
Or do you determine level distribution in a different way? If so, how?
-
I am totally puzzled how people would know these things for a consistent world without known what the level distribution is.
Consistency isn't about numbers for my games, it's about society. Magic items are as easy to buy as they should be based on the world's intended power level. If it's high magic, like Eberron, they're easy to find. If it's low magic, make it yourself.
Nobody, not even me, needs to know the average level for wizards to decide if someone can buy a +1 sword. I need to decide the level of the specific person they're talking to. Even that isn't absolutely necessary. "He's high enough" is plenty answer for me.
I definitely don't need to know every peasant's level to decide these things.
-
I am totally puzzled how people would know these things for a consistent world without known what the level distribution is.
Consistency isn't about numbers for my games, it's about society. Magic items are as easy to buy as they should be based on the world's intended power level.
That doesn't make sense at all. You are basically saying "consistency is doing whatever the GM likes in a given moment", which is kind of the exact opposite of consistency.
Consistency means that the various parts and bits of your game world fit together. How can that be the case when they don't fit together? And how can they fit together when you don't even know what the parts and bits are like?
Nobody, not even me, needs to know the average level for wizards to decide if someone can buy a +1 sword. I need to decide the level of the specific person they're talking to. Even that isn't absolutely necessary. "He's high enough" is plenty answer for me.
I definitely don't need to know every peasant's level to decide these things.
No, but you need to know what the drought in your campaign plots means for the peasants in general. Can they just work around that with their superior farming skills, or is the drought going to kill them?
If you just make up that decision by declaring they can, and a few adventures later, there is another drought which suddenly cannot be handled, players will wonder if you are actually taking this serious. I would.
I mean, it's great as this all works fine for you. But I'd be feeling like presenting all smoke and mirrors on a very... superficial level.
-
Some interesting questions have been raised here.
From my perspective, I am most concerned with the fact that the XP guidelines might not match the level distribution of the characters in the world. Even a small amount of XP gained per day is going to result in ordinary characters reaching very high levels in their middle age. I don't like that, nor do I like systems that treat NPCs and PCs differently. I prefer consistency.
Given all that, it would seem prudent to me to further diminish the returns on actions that have become routine. The x1/2 modifier on XP for routine actions (as enunciated in RM2) could be increased to x1/10th, and a new category of x0 introduced for exceptionally routine actions. This would help to bring more consistency between xp and character levels, and allow us to treat PCs and NPCs in the same way.
-
Consistency means that the various parts and bits of your game world fit together. How can that be the case when they don't fit together? And how can they fit together when you don't even know what the parts and bits are like?
Except that I do know what they look like. They look like peasants.
No, but you need to know what the drought in your campaign plots means for the peasants in general. Can they just work around that with their superior farming skills, or is the drought going to kill them?
If you just make up that decision by declaring they can, and a few adventures later, there is another drought which suddenly cannot be handled, players will wonder if you are actually taking this serious. I would.
That consistency has nothing to do with levels and everything to do with story line consistency. I agree completely that if one drought is fine then the next should be, too. Unless there are other factors involved.
I mean, it's great as this all works fine for you. But I'd be feeling like presenting all smoke and mirrors on a very... superficial level.
That's cool. :) I'm looking to game, not crunch demographic numbers to figure out if Bob the bartender makes a good drink. My players have never needed that, either. If it works for you and yours, awesome. :)
-
[...]
Given all that, it would seem prudent to me to further diminish the returns on actions that have become routine. The x1/2 modifier on XP for routine actions (as enunciated in RM2) could be increased to x1/10th, and a new category of x0 introduced for exceptionally routine actions. This would help to bring more consistency between xp and character levels, and allow us to treat PCs and NPCs in the same way.
That would definitely make sense. You don't learn much from doing the same stuff a hundredth time. But then, the question just gets back at us slightly rephrased: How many XP will 20 year old usually have gained, how many a 25year old, and where does it usually stop for ordinary, adventure-avoiding people?
-
But then, the question just gets back at us slightly rephrased: How many XP will 20 year old usually have gained, how many a 25year old, and where does it usually stop for ordinary, adventure-avoiding people?
Can you clarify if you're asking me to crunch numbers or give my ideals?
I can't really crunch the numbers for RMSS very well, since I am an RM2 guy (and an RMU guy now). But for ideals, I would say I prefer to have them on the lower end of the spectrum, something like:
--An average 20 year old would be a young journeyman/woman, so maybe level 2-4.
--An average middle aged person, say 30-40 (middle aged for a medieval society comes earlier, since life expectancies were lower), maybe 4-6.
--An elder, say 40+, maybe 6-8.
Only exceptional individuals in my worlds make it beyond level 10. This is partly because, if you want to make it that high, you will have to be risking some pretty dangerous experiences, and that will weed out a lot of people.
These of course are just my preferences. I like PCs to start weak but then get strong, and by the time they are approaching level 10 (we don't usually go beyond level 10 in our campaigns), then I want them to feel quite powerful, even if they should be aware that there are still many things much more powerful than they lurking about the world.
-
Thanks, a (to me) perfectly comprehensible answer. :)
-
I am a bit confused how people seem to go out of their way to avoid the simple base question: How many XP will an average NPC gain per day, on average?
As few or as many as I, the GM, want them to. ;)
I don't think any one person can answer your question due to the fact that every GM/group is going to differ in how they handle all the various reasons why an NPC exists in their specific campaign and/or world.
-
I am a bit confused how people seem to go out of their way to avoid the simple base question: How many XP will an average NPC gain per day, on average?
As few or as many as I, the GM, want them to. ;)
[...]
And how much is that?
-
I am a bit confused how people seem to go out of their way to avoid the simple base question: How many XP will an average NPC gain per day, on average?
As few or as many as I, the GM, want them to. ;)
I don't think any one person can answer your question due to the fact that every GM/group is going to differ in how they handle all the various reasons why an NPC exists in their specific campaign and/or world.
Best answer I've seen to date on this question. Bottom line, at least in my world: it doesn't matter. RM's XP model is skewed toward combat in any case, making such comparisons unwise at best and possibly foolish at worst. An NPC smith should still, for example, be better than 99% of PCs with Smithing skill. Why? Because it's what he or she does for a living. Every single day. But using the level XP logic, most PCs will be better smiths because they're spending DPs every time they go up a level, while a 40 year old smith will be (at best) level four using one model presented. Most Mannish PCs who reach that age in my games (and I hate equating level to age...) will be at most 22 (assuming a starting age of 18) at fourth level.
I'm not going out of my way to avoid answering the question...I'm saying it doesn't matter in the least based on how I run my setting. If you go over to event-based XPs it works a bit better, but the standard XP model simply doesn't work for modeling advancement for non-adventurers. So I ignore it. I prefer to use skill bonus, with an experienced village smith having a Smithing bonus of at least +60 or more (along with some associated Animal Handling skills if they happen to be a blacksmith). If that strikes some as arbitrary, that's ok by me. It works for my world and my groups.
-
I am a bit confused how people seem to go out of their way to avoid the simple base question: How many XP will an average NPC gain per day, on average?
As few or as many as I, the GM, want them to. ;)
I don't think any one person can answer your question due to the fact that every GM/group is going to differ in how they handle all the various reasons why an NPC exists in their specific campaign and/or world.
Best answer I've seen to date on this question. Bottom line, at least in my world: it doesn't matter. [...]
It is isn't an answer. It is the statement "I don't wan to answer that". And if those who see it that way had just not answered, it would have been much more useful.
Sorry, this is just impolite of you guys.
-
It is isn't an answer. It is the statement "I don't wan to answer that". And if those who see it that way had just not answered, it would have been much more useful.
Sorry, this is just impolite of you guys.
You're simply overthinking this in my opinion.
'As many as I want them to' isn't not answering. It means it exactly that: It depends on how many I want them to. There is no automatic, intrinsic, formula that determines this for the entire setting.
Simplest answer is (which prevents you from doing a lot of pointless work): How much exp an NPC makes would only matter in a case where the players are going to interact with it and, even then, it only matters if there is some form of contested interaction with the NPC that I want left to a roll of the dice.
For example: If the PCs want something from an NPC the NPC's level only matters if I want the availability of that thing to be left to chance. If I don't want it left to chance the NPC's level is irrelevant. Now, if they decide they want to kill the NPC for potentially not providing what they want the next question is; Does this NPC stand a chance against the PCs? If not, again, its level doesn't matter. If I expect a confrontation and I want the NPC to be able to do something about that then I might worry about what level the NPC is... but even then, there's no all encompassing formula that is going to determine that NPCs level by default.
Some NPCs will be uninspired bums and never do a damn thing. Some will pick up a specific trade and 'level up' in that specific trade, like a blacksmith. Some will learn many things, like a politician. Some will become adventurers. Etc, etc, etc. They'll earn exp at different rates based on their own, individual, lives.
-
It is isn't an answer. It is the statement "I don't wan to answer that". And if those who see it that way had just not answered, it would have been much more useful.
Sorry, this is just impolite of you guys.
You're simply overthinking this in my opinion.
[..]
You're simply underthinking things, and want to compel others to play the same way. I did not ask for that.
-
To be clear: A lot of interesting points have been raised here, thanks for that. Glass ceilings, XP not for mundane tasks, but only important experiences, etc., all that is quite interesting to think and talk about, and has done a fair bit to inform my current campaign preparations.
But the "huh, why bother" talk is really starting to go on my nerves. If you don't think about the whole problem complex addressed here, that's it. Don't think about it, that's fine. But please don't post about it either, at least not in this thread. Open another one where you can discuss your style of campaign planning, if you want (but beware, that might end you up thinking about things), but here, my explicit request is to think about the matters of XP for NPC's in one way or another, even if it is "they are all level 1, and the rate of XP gaining is 0".
Thank you.
-
Actually I'd say you are conflating two issues that are raised by this thread:
Issue 1 - the general level distribution of the game world. This requires ether the GM to set it, or for a mechanic to be used to determine the distribution.
Issue 2 - the level of individual NPC's encountered in the game world.
Issue 2 is shaped and effected by Issue 1; however is not tied solely to it. There will be those who are above and below the average (else all will be the same).
Also not all individuals will develop in the same way - based on the underlying nature (stats and the influence on DP's in game mechanics). Along with this matters of race and culture will effect the development of some aspects of an individual.
There is also I'd see a flaw in having all NPC's develop at the same rate - those who lead a more varied life would most likely develop a wider understanding and skill base. Those who have access to training, teaching and resources would also develop differently to those who don't.
The addressing of Issue 1 is what your mechanics seem to be look at - however they seem to lack any granularity, and reference to different types of life situations. Thus producing a very average result, but neglecting small groups of skilled individuals (the artisan and noble classes of history; along with the magical wielding class of a fantasy setting) who can have a disproportionate impact compared to their number.
Many of those who are looking at the "why bother" approach seem to be addressing Issue 2, and the question of the level of the individual standing in front of the party and does that need to be calculated and the full process of level development gone through, or is it possible knowing the general level distribution (as already set) and the general availability of resources - both for training and production of any items - what would the appropriate skill level be for them.
[NB as a personal note, when a thread is opened on a public forum, then individuals are free to answer the questions as they would see fit. The answer for some when it comes to NPC XP, is that they do not work in levels and give the appropriate skills to undertake the tasks required of the NPC within the narrative of the story been told - a utilitarian approach to NPC XP]
-
You're simply underthinking things, and want to compel others to play the same way. I did not ask for that.
I think you're the one trying to force your perspective here by calling us 'impolite' for not answering your question in the way you want us to because we don't design like you do.
-
You're simply underthinking things, and want to compel others to play the same way. I did not ask for that.
I think you're the one trying to force your perspective here by calling us 'impolite' for not answering your question in the way you want us to because we don't design like you do.
I think that's because of the way the initial question was worded.
The explicit question was in the thread title : "How many XP will an average NPC earn per year?"
But... the real question, as far as I understand, is the one related to the level distribution in the setting.
And while I can understand answering "I don't do it that way" to the first question (I did it, in a way), I think the underlying issue of level distribution is much more difficult to disregard. The thing is, it does not need to be solved by XP allocation, and that's what most people apparently focused on.
It kind of reminds me a core tenet of my real-life job: "do not mix specification and design". The title question implicitly assumes that XP allocation is used to answer the real question, and thus introduces a design bias in the wording.
-
I think that's because of the way the initial question was worded.
The explicit question was in the thread title : "How many XP will an average NPC earn per year?"
Which seems, to many of us, a pointless effort. Will the party constantly be meeting completely generic and random NPCs that are pretty much all the same level based on a specific factor like age? I certainly hope not.
Could also depend on what each person considers an NPC.
A) Is it every intelligent being in the entire setting?
B) Is it only the ones that the party could potentially meet?
C) Is it only the ones that you intend the party to meet?
But... the real question, as far as I understand, is the one related to the level distribution in the setting.
And this will vary from GM to GM based on a myriad of factors. For example, some here think of the standard world inhabitant as 0 Level while some think age should correlate strictly to level. I think both of those are far too simplistic.
I terms of an NPC, that will actually be part of the story, most will create that NPC with a specific reason in mind and have little to no use for a preexisting, all encompassing, generic method.
-
As an example as to how I use such data: I have made a few considerations about the starting point of my next campaign, which is the "county of Aran", just east of the Isthmus of Aranos, on Jaiman (Kulthea, Shadow World). The area is in direct neighborhood to the Lugroki to the West and is often fending off their attacks. About 20,000 adult people live there (at about the population density of medieval Germany), and I have settled for the following level distribution, after looking at some of the points raised here and the military charts for a hint how Shadow World might be intended to be like:
1 1,00 %
2 3,00 %
3 5,00 %
4 10,00 %
5 20,00 %
6 20,00 %
7 10,00 %
8 5,00 %
9 3,00 %
10 2,00 %
11 2,00 %
12 1,90 %
13 1,80 %
14 1,70 %
15 1,60 %
16 1,50 %
17 1,40 %
18 1,30 %
19 1,20 %
20 1,10 %
21 1,00 %
22 0,90 %
23 0,80 %
24 0,70 %
25 0,60 %
26 0,50 %
27 0,40 %
28 0,30 %
29 0,20 %
30 0,10 %
People above level 30 will be so rare that they're not part of the statistic.
So it's basically a bell curve maxing at 5-6 with a long, very narrow tail towards the higher levels.
Now, this combined with the profession distribution that derives naturally from the prerequisite stats (assuming NPC's roll them completely randomly), where about 75% of the population end up as "no profession" (due to no stat at 90, or only one, or a combination of two for which there simply is no profession) and any given two-stat combination of 90 or higher makes up 1% of the overall population, now allows me to answer a lot of questions about the county of Aran:
- How many alchemists are there and, more importantly, what can they do? (About 600, of which 5%, or 30 people in all of Aran, will be higher than level 20 and can make quite impressive artifacts. This in turn has repercussions for the county's nobility and, of course, their equipment, and of course, what PC's might be able to commission to them.)
- What is the profession and level composition of the county's 400 strong standing army? (About 100 of them are true fighters, another 100 are barbarians, the rest being other arms professions, and we'll probably have 5 really experienced level 20+ fighters and another 5 level 20+ barbarians in there, see the above table. So at least one crack commando unit - they might serve as the inspiration for an adventure hook. Also, what the general strength of that army is can now be concluded from these figures.)
- Same as above for the 50 noble fighters of the county, but here the availability of enchanted equipment comes in. (+10 magic swords and shields for each of them isn't unrealistic; the county certainly has people who can create such stuff)
- What is a likely income level for the general population, assuming level sais something about competence, and competence can, to some extend, say something about income?
- What is a realistic level for a given random NPC they meet, like a soldier? If I have them meet a level 10 guy, how many of his buddies are, for instance, going to avenge him if necessary, and with what competence?
The list could go on for a while. Now, the most important thing about the table is: It gives me a good impression of the county's general "feel", which is totally different from a case where I would have used, say, level 20 as the middle of the bell curve.
-
You're simply underthinking things, and want to compel others to play the same way. I did not ask for that.
I think you're the one trying to force your perspective here by calling us 'impolite' for not answering your question in the way you want us to because we don't design like you do.
Again, I agree. If you crunch things strictly by level and insist that NPCs should have a correspondingly low level when compared to PCs, you end up with a world where PCs are omnipotent and (interestingly) they will likely never find NPCs who can make superior gear for them, research questions, or otherwise function because they will be too low level to have decent bonuses in the skills required.
Frankly, you can allocate NPC levels based on competence without spending tremendous amounts of time deciding how many XPs each NPC will earn per year and so on and so on. Most of the watch members in my world, for example, are about fifth level (assuming they're trained...if it's some kind of peasant volunteer collective the levels are usually lower), with a sergeant of some kind at about seventh level. That's based on my determination of the level of competence they'd need to maintain order in a border town or larger city. A skilled smith in the same town will have lower hits, but higher skill bonuses. Why? Because they need them. The level mechanic as it exists in RM doesn't really deal with this, so I modify it. When you scale competence in this way, XPs are irrelevant. Sure, it means the smith is likely easy to kill, but if the party kills a town's only smith, they're going to have bigger problems in very short order.
If you really want to model profession distribution, I believe RMC I had a very good table for this very thing. It was based on town population as well.
-
As an example as to how I use such data: I have made a few considerations about the starting point of my next campaign, which is the "county of Aran", just east of the Isthmus of Aranos, on Jaiman (Kulthea, Shadow World). The area is in direct neighborhood to the Lugroki to the West and is often fending off their attacks. About 20,000 adult people live there (at about the population density of medieval Germany), and I have settled for the following level distribution, after looking at some of the points raised here and the military charts for a hint how Shadow World might be intended to be like:
1 1,00 %
2 3,00 %
3 5,00 %
4 10,00 %
5 20,00 %
6 20,00 %
7 10,00 %
8 5,00 %
9 3,00 %
10 2,00 %
11 2,00 %
12 1,90 %
13 1,80 %
14 1,70 %
15 1,60 %
16 1,50 %
17 1,40 %
18 1,30 %
19 1,20 %
20 1,10 %
21 1,00 %
22 0,90 %
23 0,80 %
24 0,70 %
25 0,60 %
26 0,50 %
27 0,40 %
28 0,30 %
29 0,20 %
30 0,10 %
Its an interesting bell curve, but don't you think the percentage at levels 1-3 should be higher? Everyone who is 3+ was once at 3. If only 1% of the population is level 1, that would create an extremely tight bottleneck in the population between children/adolescents and adults. I know you're talking only of adults, but of course children and adolescents are a very large percentage of the population in premodern societies, and with high infant mortality rates, the curve overall should look less like a bell and more like a down ramp, as many developing societies still are today.
Take a look for example at the population graph of Egypt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Egypt#/media/File:Bev%C3%B6lkerungspyramide_%C3%84gypten_2016.png
-
[...]
Its an interesting bell curve, but don't you think the percentage at levels 1-3 should be higher? Everyone who is 3+ was once at 3. If only 1% of the population is level 1, that would create an extremely tight bottleneck in the population between children/adolescents and adults.
Well, my assumption is that most people will relatively quickly reach level 5-6, and then stay there for a long time because they are not learning much any more. 1% of the adult population is basically 200 people who have currently just finished their initial training. A few months later, they will have learned a lot already, and join the 600 people who are level 2, and so on. If there was a standardized age to finish your training, we'd be looking at half the amount of people who are, say, 20 years old. Which is pretty much 1% of the adult population, assuming you stay an adult for 50 years and then die.
I know you're talking only of adults, but of course children and adolescents are a very large percentage of the population in premodern societies, and with high infant mortality rates, the curve overall should look less like a bell and more like a down ramp, as many developing societies still are today.
Well, these would be level 0, strictly speaking, but I don't need to know level distribution there, because it is immediately obvious who belongs to this group and what their level is.
Take a look for example at the population graph of Egypt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Egypt#/media/File:Bev%C3%B6lkerungspyramide_%C3%84gypten_2016.png
Egypt is growing quickly. Medieval and quasi-medieval societies don't. (I would propose that healing magic and the constant raids by Lugroki in Aran cancel each other out in that respect.)
-
Doesn't EXP per day fall to pieces as an idea once elves, or even dwarves get involved?
-
Doesn't EXP per day fall to pieces as an idea once elves, or even dwarves get involved?
Depends on the amount of XP per day, I'd say. If, as in the example above, there is a "glass ceiling" once a certain level of competence is reached, the average across all members of a society will approach 0, after all.
-
Well, my assumption is that most people will relatively quickly reach level 5-6, and then stay there for a long time because they are not learning much any more. 1% of the adult population is basically 200 people who have currently just finished their initial training. A few months later, they will have learned a lot already, and join the 600 people who are level 2, and so on. If there was a standardized age to finish your training, we'd be looking at half the amount of people who are, say, 20 years old. Which is pretty much 1% of the adult population, assuming you stay an adult for 50 years and then die.
Does this not contradict the default RM character generation assumption ? You are level 1 after *apprenticeship*, not after adolescence. Apprenticeship is not a few week's worth of initial training in medieval times, it is several years long (I would assume 3-5 for most crafts). At the end of it, you are a young adult and level 1, but you already have significant experience under your belt. They would not become level 2 "in a few months" unless they have exceptional experience in the meantime (i.e. adventurers or similar). Rather, they would probably work towards it at least a few years more. If a 16-year-old is level 1, I would expect the same person to become level 2 around 20-22, and level 3 around 27-30.
-
Egypt is growing quickly. Medieval and quasi-medieval societies don't. (I would propose that healing magic and the constant raids by Lugroki in Aran cancel each other out in that respect.)
Medieval and developing societies have a similar profile though. High infant mortality rates mean the majority of the population has to be younger, or else the population can't replace itself. The societies that look like bell curves in profile are the ones that have reached zero or negative population growth. You need large numbers of babies and children because many of them will not survive. Any bottleneck, especially among the younger generations, means massive population loss. So a bell curve is not the norm here; a downward ramp is (which in profile gives a pyramid shape).
-
Apprenticeship is not a few week's worth of initial training in medieval times, it is several years long (I would assume 3-5 for most crafts).
Yes, medieval apprenticeships lasted years. Children were often sent out to other families quite young (12-14) and lived in these other homes for years before they reached journeyman status. They often lasted longer than 5 years.
-
[...]
At the end of it, you are a young adult and level 1, but you already have significant experience under your belt.
If that is how you read it, then the above level distribution probably won't work for you. However, I would like to point out that people with significant experience in a field should end up with bonuses significantly higher than what a level 1 character usually has in their primary skills.
They would not become level 2 "in a few months" unless they have exceptional experience in the meantime [...]
You can only answer that by answering the question how many XP they would usually get per time period. ;) My answer for the upcoming campaign is that they initially get a lot, but by the time they reach level 5 or 6, it slows down significantly.
-
Apprenticeship is not a few week's worth of initial training in medieval times, it is several years long (I would assume 3-5 for most crafts).
Yes, medieval apprenticeships lasted years.
Modern apprenticeships last years, too. At least where I live.
-
Egypt is growing quickly. Medieval and quasi-medieval societies don't. (I would propose that healing magic and the constant raids by Lugroki in Aran cancel each other out in that respect.)
Medieval and developing societies have a similar profile though.
Huh? No, not at all. Medieval populations were stable for centuries. After the Plague of 1348/49, it took Europe 100 years to regrow the third of the population it had lost. Egypt today would do that in about 20 years, and without thinking much about it, probably.
High infant mortality rates mean the majority of the population has to be younger, or else the population can't replace itself.
Uh, no? It just means your women don't give birth to 1-3 children, but to 6-10, of which only 1-3 survive.
-
Medieval and developing societies have a similar profile though.
Huh? No, not at all. Medieval populations were stable for centuries. After the Plague of 1348/49, it took Europe 100 years to regrow the third of the population it had lost. Egypt today would do that in about 20 years, and without thinking much about it, probably.
Sorry, but they do have similar profiles: they both look like pyramids. The reason Egypt can grow faster is due to modern medicine, which reduces death rates due to illness/disease/malnutrition/childbirth, but if you brought modern medicine to a medieval population, it would grow just as quickly.
High infant mortality rates mean the majority of the population has to be younger, or else the population can't replace itself.
Uh, no? It just means your women don't give birth to 1-3 children, but to 6-10, of which only 1-3 survive.
And what sort of graph do you think that produces? It produces a graph with many more infants than children, many more children than adolescents, and many more adolescents than adults.
It produces a downward ramp, not a bell curve. The only difference is the slope of the ramp.
It never produces a bell curve.
-
Medieval and developing societies have a similar profile though.
Huh? No, not at all. Medieval populations were stable for centuries. After the Plague of 1348/49, it took Europe 100 years to regrow the third of the population it had lost. Egypt today would do that in about 20 years, and without thinking much about it, probably.
Sorry, but they do have similar profiles: they both look like pyramids. The reason Egypt can grow faster is due to modern medicine, which reduces death rates due to illness/disease/malnutrition/childbirth, but if you brought modern medicine to a medieval population, it would grow just as quickly.
Ah, now I get what you're saying. Yes, of course the age-distribution in both cases is a pyramid (though for very different reasons). BUT in my above example, level does not map to aging linearily, so that is not of much consequence.
So the AGE distribution in the county of Aran will of course be a pyramid, too. But that doesn't tell us the level distribution of the people, because my assumption is that most people won't increase in level once they are in the level 5-6 range.
-
Yes, I was talking about age distribution; glad we understand one another now.
If you are tying xp more or less linearly to age, though, I'm not sure why characters won't continue to increase in level beyond 5-6. Is that because you are adopting the rule that mundane experiences stop giving xp? Or is there some other reason?
-
Yes, I was talking about age distribution; glad we understand one another now.
If you are tying xp more or less linearly to age, though, I'm not sure why characters won't continue to increase in level beyond 5-6. Is that because you are adopting the rule that mundane experiences stop giving xp? Or is there some other reason?
But that was the point, I am not doing that, as a result of the discussion in this thread.