Topic: Level scales

[rdanhenry]

I dont think dying off-screen is a good idea, but I see why it was there in Traveller (to prevent too much min/maxing). Speaking of dying offscreen, I am the only one in my group that ever had a character who died in his background story

Having a character die during character generation wouldn't be so bad in a fantasy setting with resurrection magic. You might then be indebted to the church that provided the service and they could call in that big favor you owe them any time.
Or if undead characters are allowed, that could work, too.

[markc]

 Instead of dying I generally give them a fairly strong flaw.

Back to RM.
MDC

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

ok, fair enough. Would you be comfortable with presenting us with an example or two?

Well, let's look at those excerpts from my tables:





The first column gives the year, the second is for "normal life", the third for "adventurous/elite life/training" and the fourth for "extraordinary/heroic life". Let's suppose a character is level 8, with 120.000 XPs. If he lives a normal life, he gains 7500 XPs a year up to 121.500 then 7000 XPs a year up to 128.500. If he lives a dangerous, adventuring life, it's 22.500 XPs a year up to 141.000. If he lives a heroic life, it's 35.500 XPs a year up to 143.500.

Personally I dont think that´s a good idea because you end up with a math mess, and if you opened for that particular can of worms you get reasoning as "elves should have much more exp than humans on account on their great age, etc". One of the reasons I dont view exp as only experience but more a statement of the character´s level of power. Plus this reasoning never take into account that elves are often more laidback than humans, and thus wouldn´t be in as much as a hurry as humans tend to be. Humans most likely would view elves as lazy nogood bums:P

I remember a GM who had a exp system set up for age and such. Only he forgot that dwarves and elves can become much older than humans. So even a little exp per day/week/etc can wrack the system when having races who can become very old.

Or not. I have another table for long-lived beings, under the premise that "short-lived live more intensively because their lives are so short."
I don't think that assuming that GMs with an experience system may "forget that (some beings) can become much older than humans" since they probably would have such beings as PCs or NPCs thus encounter the problem... and solve it.

As an aside, even with a different table for any being reaching eternal life, sorry but I do consider that a being should have "much more exp than (normal) humans on account on their great age." To me, it's but silly to think a thousand years old being can be less knowing/powerful/experienced than a 20 years old being, no matter how intensively the latter lives, and how laidback the former lives.

[vroomfogle]

I do something very similar to OLF and have presented it here on a few occasions.

I start with a baseline curve that shows how many DP's folks get over time.   The assumption is that one slows down as they get higher level.



I then apply a multiplier, for example:
On bed-rest: x0.1
Mundane: x0.5
Minor goals accomplished/minor events: x2
Major goals accomplished/major events: x3


The problem with immortals is you don't want to slow down their leveling rate because that adversely affects those characters during a campaign.  Instead I assume that immortals can advance just as quickly as mortals over some periods of time...but then they go through long periods of relatively mundane life.   In addition over those long time periods they actually *lose* the development from those earliest experience levels.   A 1000 year old elf may have taken up basket weaving when he was 50, but that was so long ago he probably even forgot he ever did it...and he certainly no longer has the skill rank in it anymore.

I like this approach to immortals because over the time-span of a campaign you can just treat them as everyone else.   I think many people make assumptions that an immortals memory would work jut like ours, but that can't be the case.   Their memory of very old events will end up fading to nothing so they will have spotty recollection of the oldest things.

It also solves the issue of why would any knowledge of events would ever be lost if there are still eye-witnesses around.   For instance the Wars of Dominion was 6000 years ago, sure there are some elves around who actually fought in it but they would remember very few details.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

The problem with immortals is you don't want to slow down their leveling rate because that adversely affects those characters during a campaign.

Well, in my world, people with eternal life are became so after they entered the service of some god of another (and were granted eternal life) so they usually already were at the highest levels a normal person could reach anyway...

Instead I assume that immortals can advance just as quickly as mortals over some periods of time...but then they go through long periods of relatively mundane life.   In addition over those long time periods they actually *lose* the development from those earliest experience levels.   A 1000 year old elf may have taken up basket weaving when he was 50, but that was so long ago he probably even forgot he ever did it...and he certainly no longer has the skill rank in it anymore.

I agree with that, though it doesn't bother me as much since, in such a case, I wouldn't create my 1000 year old with the basket weaving skill --and it's not as if I would create him at 50 either!

I like this approach to immortals because over the time-span of a campaign you can just treat them as everyone else.

Since my PCs aren't usually divine servants, when/if a being gifted with eternal life is with them, he certainly isn't like "everyone else". :p

I think many people make assumptions that an immortals memory would work jut like ours, but that can't be the case. Their memory of very old events will end up fading to nothing so they will have spotty recollection of the oldest things.

I agree with that, though I consider some knowledge (and skills) to be "a subconscious part of them" because they did, experienced or saw the same thing so many times.

[thrud]

OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol> Ok, what it boils down to is 7000Xp á year for an ordinary life with multiples 3 and 5 for adventurous and heroic lifes?
It's easy enough to calculate a daily/weakly/monthly XP rate from that.

Vroomfogle>DP's? Is there a specific reason hy you use DP's instead of XP's?
In RMC there is an option for training for a skill each half level. You recieve 1DP per week of training. But you are limited to rtaining in one skill per half level.

Ok, I can add a lttle thought of my own too.
Let's assume a normal citizen tops of at LV 10 before he dies. For comparrisons sake we can assume he's 60yrs old.
Lv10 = 150 000 Xp
That would make it 2500Xp per year of everyday life. Hmm most people would say you begin at Lv 1 and 16 yrs of age.
150 000 - 10 000  140 000 over 44years, i.e. 3182 Xp per year.
Lets just say 3000 Xp per year for a standard professional. (After entering adulthood)

An adventurer might reach Lv 20 perhaps @ 500 000 Xp. -> Let's say 11000 Xp per year to keep things simple.

A real hero might reach Lv 50 @ 2,000,000 Xp -> A staggering 45000 XP per year.

Ouops... we just achieved x3.66 and x15  multipliers. Let's say x4 and x15.

This is just playing with numbers...

7000Xp per year would result in Lv 15 being the maximum for a regular citizen. Lv 28 for an adventurer and Lv 40 for a bigtime hero.

Counting DP's is just to complex.
I'll leave that to the pros.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol> Ok, what it boils down to is 7000Xp á year for an ordinary life with multiples 3 and 5 for adventurous and heroic lifes?

It's a bit more complex than that but, yeah, more or less. To be more accurate, my scale starts with 12.000, with multiples of x2 and x3 for adventurous and heroic lives then erodes by 500 each new year independently until it reaches 0... which is when someone is too old to level up (much) and is rather on the decaying step. For normal people, it's reached at 40.

This scale blocks normal people at level 10 (at age 40), elite people at level 16 (at age 64) and heroic people at... well, if they're able to live past their 64th birthday while having lived ONLY heroic adventures every single week of their lives, they had surely become Eternals by now, so this basic table doesn't apply to them any longer. :p

[vroomfogle]

Oops I totally forget to explain that.  I don't use XP and instead just award DP's directly.  That way the progression from one level to the next is steady.   When PCs get DPs they can either spend them on skills (that they have been using or actively studying) or save them until they have enough for whatever they want to purchase for skills.

[lev_lafayette]

Average person at what age? Hero at what age? If the twins John and Jeff start out as 1st level at age 15 and John goes out and becomes a hero and Jeff stays home on the farm living a "dull, ordinary life", the difference in their levels increases over time as John levels swiftly, while Jeff levels slowly.

Check out sections 6.2 (Simplified Experience Point System), 6.3 (Development Without Levels), 6.4 (Activity Based Level-Skill Development), 6.5 (Forgetting Skills) and 6.6 (Starting Race, Age, and Level) from RoCo VI.

That was built around the premise of a normal person would gain 1 level per year in normal life and in typical 'adventuring' 3 levels per annum. Obviously that could be higher. There was also rules for forgetting skills, based on SD (if I remember correctly). Elves gained levels very slowly...

[RandalThor]

Average person at what age? Hero at what age? If the twins John and Jeff start out as 1st level at age 15 and John goes out and becomes a hero and Jeff stays home on the farm living a "dull, ordinary life", the difference in their levels increases over time as John levels swiftly, while Jeff levels slowly.

I think the big difference here isn't so much as the levels gained, but the professions (and, hence, skills) those levels reflect.

Using the above example, Jeff goes up as a commoner/layman while John goes up as a Fighter/Wizard/Thief - whatever. (Let's say Fighter.) While John increases his combat abilities, Jeff increases his farming skills equally. Does that mean Jeff is as tough as John? No, he's not. John would wipe the floor with him in a fight, but Jeff is able to out farm John.

It is my belief that the idea that the farmer cannot possibly be as high in levels as the adventurer is a hold over from an antiquated system where the only way to increase your abilities is to go out and kill, steal, and otherwise have some life-or-death conflict. I did not go through anything like a life or death conflict in college and I am sure I learned and grew during that time. (I.e., increased levels.)

In DnD increased levels mean automatic increased abilities, but not so in RM. Which is why, in my mind, this old ideal needs to be put to rest. Just because a farmer is 20th level doesn't mean that he is able to stand toe-to-toe in combat with the 20th level Fighter (the Magician maybe).

[markc]

RandalThor;
 I agree and have an example from a few weeks ago. Some players wanted to check out RMC so they got a PC generator and went to work. one created a 6th level halfing with one rank in Body devel. So he had about 8 hits or so. He did not understand why his hits did not go up whit his level as in most every game before this they did. Anyway I nixed the PC as he would have died in the first few min of the adventure.
 But it just goes to show you how some people think.

MDC

[rdanhenry]

It is my belief that the idea that the farmer cannot possibly be as high in levels as the adventurer is a hold over from an antiquated system where the only way to increase your abilities is to go out and kill, steal, and otherwise have some life-or-death conflict. I did not go through anything like a life or death conflict in college and I am sure I learned and grew during that time. (I.e., increased levels.)

In DnD increased levels mean automatic increased abilities, but not so in RM. Which is why, in my mind, this old ideal needs to be put to rest. Just because a farmer is 20th level doesn't mean that he is able to stand toe-to-toe in combat with the 20th level Fighter (the Magician maybe).

I'll bet while you were in college, you were having new experiences and going new places frequently (like an adventurer). While you can gain some good experience in combat, that's really not the most efficient way under the rules to gain levels in RM if you're playing without fudging or steady supplies of instant healing. You get a big pile of experience for combat and then nothing while you get your bed rest to heal up. Meanwhile, the more peaceful types gather a steady supply of maneuver and spell-casting experience. And don't lose it all by dying. The main way to get extra experience is to keep trying new things (experience multipliers) and keeping on the move (travel experience). A farmer is not lower level because he is a farmer, he is lower level because he stays in one area living a life which is largely routine. He gains experience, but not very rapidly, because he is not challenging himself as much. A Fighter who spends his time marching in parade might well find himself outclassed by a Farmer who has been surviving on the monster-infested frontier, both in terms of level and in terms of combat effectiveness.

Of course, a lot depends on how the GM wants to reward player actions. There is enough wiggle room in the experience system as written to make combat clearly the poorer choice or to make it the no-brainer way to advance. But even if I'm favoring combat, the extra experience for a mobile life plus x5 multipliers for encountering new situations mean that a life of *adventure* beats a life of *routine*. The difference is not about combat or Profession or life-and-death risk (although risk does matter, since people focus better when they feel something is at stake). The difference is in range of experiences.

[Marc R]

I think that a farmer who farms one crop on a patch of land with little variation learns slowly. . .they will become a master farmer, but by double ranking and going up levels slow.

A farmer with a more mixed crop, and constant issues to resolve, like say a homesteader in the border areas, is likely to level up faster, but might not be double ranking farming every level. . . He'll have a broader skill set, and not be a master of any until later in life. . . the 25 year old master anything is mostly a settled area thing, where you can afford to focus on 4-5 skills and double rank them out. . .the master farmer on the frontier is likely older and higher level than a master famer in a settled area, but they have equal ranks in the farming skills. . .the border farmer just has a lot more skills in different areas, since he has to do a lot more for himself instead of farming and buying everything else.

[RandalThor]

I think we are assuming that the life of a farmer would be nigh-uneventful in the average fantasy world. But, beyond that, I do think that the individual that has an "eventful life" will end up learning more than one that doesn't. But, it is just that we need to realize that this isn't DnD (or any other hardwired level/capability game) and that a 20th level farmer, while maybe tougher than the 1st-5th level fighter, isn't equal to the "adventurer" of the same level when it comes to surviving through tough scrapes.

I do believe that the old model would lead to total annihilation of a population if it is ever assaulted by an enemy force of warriors instead of there being those that are able to flee or are just injured (to varying degrees). If all non-adventuring classes (farmers, smiths, politicos, etc.) were limited to levels 1-5, then there would be 80-100% casualty rates in these scenarios. (When a 20% casualty rate is actually quite high.)

Also any leader that wants to hold on to any power would need to take years to adventure and gain levels/power. Otherwise they would too easy to overthrow.

[Marc R]

I agree that most adults wouldn't be 1st level. . . .but 20th level farmers would likely be fairly tough. . .

I'm much rather pick on a 20th level jewler, or a 20th level librarian. . . .

Though, in a fairly sedentary existance a 20th level character might be older and not so tough as they were.

Since, I do beleive that challenge leads to development, and you'd see more challenge in rougher areas than in more civilized ones. . .then again, while the average frontier farmer might be higher level do to the more challenging environment and tougher due to taking more combat skills than the average civil land farmer. . .the latter likely has more soldiers around to do the fighting for them.

Challenge doesn't have to equate to combat, but in a fantasy low tech setting, your toughest environments will tend to be the frontiers, the urban poor sectors, and the gentry, if they're militant, leading to the most higher level people focused there. . .

[markc]

 Coming form a family of farmers it can be fairly "exciting" at times. At other times it is very boring and tedious. Both conditions can wear out people very quickly.

 I like the ave limit I set in my game to between 3rd and 8th but like I said I think I am going to expand it to 3rd to 10th after reading the various comments above. Now IMO in RMSS it would not have as big an impact as in RMC but it still will keep the players thinking and on their toes. 

MDC

[pastaav]

I would love to hear the dialogue between the players when they realize their spell users are too low level to affect the level 20 farmer, but they have decent shoot at the warlord that is threat to the realm....

[thrud]

Yeah, but don't forget there are old heros settling down to live a quite life.

The old lv 35 fighter buying a farm to live out the rest of his life in peace and quitet.

[RandalThor]

Yeah, but don't forget there are old heros settling down to live a quite life.

The old lv 35 fighter buying a farm to live out the rest of his life in peace and quitet.

...is unable to because of the numerous injuries he has endured has made him nearly infirm.  

Coming form a family of farmers it can be fairly "exciting" at times. At other times it is very boring and tedious. Both conditions can wear out people very quickly.

And in a fantasy world you would have many more problems - in addition to the regular ones. No matter how far deep into your civilized lands you are there is no way to stop all the monsters that want to eat you (unless they are shielded by a magical barrier) and that is not to mention those that would specialize in infiltrating civilizations or those "home grown" problems. (Like the evil priest raising the dead of that village's cemetery.) Yes, frontier life would be even more dangerous / exciting and the skills of those that live there would reflect it.

I like the ave limit I set in my game to between 3rd and 8th but like I said I think I am going to expand it to 3rd to 10th after reading the various comments above. Now IMO in RMSS it would not have as big an impact as in RMC but it still will keep the players thinking and on their toes.  

I still think that RMSS/FRP are meant to be of a higher scale (average professional around 10th, highly skilled pro around 15th, etc..) but each to their own.

I would love to hear the dialogue between the players when they realize their spell users are too low level to affect the level 20 farmer, but they have decent shoot at the warlord that is threat to the realm....

If the PC is the "typical" start at first and retire around 20th then yeah, there would be a problem with the scale. But, as mentioned, I believe in a higher scale. That 20th level magician casting (with all of his bonuses) against that 20th level farmer (with nothing extra to resist with) would likely do well. Unless he rolled poorly - which is a whole other situation.