Topic: Level scales

[RandalThor]

But that's not how I do it, I give stats and levels to NPCs only when they have some kind of impact on the narration in the game.
What's the level of that random guy in the street? Or of a random baker? I don't know, nor I need to know.

But, you are forgetting your players. They may like to know, and need to know so that they can both gauge themselves for personal reasons and making decisions. Just about every player would like to know where their PC "stacks" in the worldwide level scale, and it doesn't hurt to give them a rough estimate. They cannot make some pretty-important decisions without that knowledge. Like, trying to sneak past the town guards (which they, as inhabitants of the world for their whole lives, would have an idea of the guards competence - i.e. experience/level) or "going the long way." Now, that doesn't mean they will have to know exact numbers, but a rough estimate would be appropriate.

[Mungo]

We tend to stay with our characters in the "below" 10 range, with most people not being higher than 5. Actually I like the system conveyed by non-RM adventure modules, where some people / monsters have high levels (some ridiculously high), but most people are far below.

BR Juergen

[thrud]

Maybe a little OT but than again maybe not so much?
How much EP would you award for
a) 1 day of resting?
b) 1 day of work?

[markc]

RandalThor;
 I do not give me players level as equivalence points, I give them skill bonuses like you quoted above.

 Also remember in  RM that you have the E,O,R classification that can go with skills, as well as TP's. Now I allow PC's to buy skills even if they get them in a TP so the # of ranks can add up. But lets say a 1st level farmer with the relevant skills will have some from adol, 2[TP] +6 [Eq from DP]= 8+ adol and they will have 8 ranks per level.
 I also us the skill difficulty chart to determine the skill score I think a professional should have. I just determine a task that I think they should be able to do well and the I assign it a difficulty level and then decide the % of time they should be able to do it, or if they can always do it except if they roll a fumble.

Does that help?
MDC

[Marc R]

RMFRP perhaps. . .the directed weapon master BGO can give 3/2 ranks in a weapon skill, nothing else (I think that's right) and there's a BGO for 5 ranks in a 2ndary skill.

So at most, ((level+1) x 2) + 5 ranks possible if I'm not mistaken on one of those details.

If you take the +15 to any 2ndary skill option also, you could

At say 5th level:

(5+1) x 2 = 12 + 5 = 17 ranks, +15 bonus. . .then you get any level or stat bonuses. . .a craftsman can usually be pretty good at their specialty without being too high a level.

[rdanhenry]

But I'd failed to notice this was the RM2/Classic/Express board and was thinking of the power and flexibility of the RMSS/FRP system.

I never noticed that in RMFRP you could take how many ranks as you wish in a skill, regardless of your level... 

Without Talent Law, which would make it even easier to build a high skill:

Layman, Common Man, 1st level. Blacksmith, since the skills required for a Merchant seem more arguable. We will just look at his Blacksmith skill. This is a Craft skill, so the stat bonus is Ag/Me/SD. He'll have a +2 from racial SD, I figure a Blacksmith would put a 90 into Strength, but figure he'd also put a 90 into one of his craft-supporting stats. +5. This has not gone anywhere near maxing out the stat bonuses, but it'll do. Now his Profession Bonus for Crafts is a mere +5. +12 at this point.

But we'll take a couple of ranks as hobbies in Adolescence development. For Apprenticeship, he'll take a couple of ranks, but now this is an Occupational skill for him, so he actually gets six ranks. That's 8 ranks. Now he also takes the Crafter training package and picks up two more ranks in Blacksmith. Now, if you ignored the silly rule that a training package can't take you over 10 ranks, he'd put another rank there, but I'm limiting myself to the RMSR book right now, so +50 from skill ranks. +62, which is a fine journeyman skill. But we aren't done yet.

As a Common Man, he has 6 Background Options. He immediately takes +10 to his Blacksmith skill. We're building strictly by the book, so no taking it more than once. Two background items are used to pick +20 Blacksmithing gear. The remaining three BOs go to buy a +3 stat bonus to a relevant stat. Let's make it Agility. That's another +33.

Total skill bonus, without abusing or modifying the system: +95. That is without anything outside the main book. As I said, with Talent Law it becomes trivial to pump up the skill. +95 is pretty darned good for some newly trained kid fresh out of Apprenticeship. If he lights his smithy well, he'll get a +10 situational modifier, too.

[Marc R]

Even with RM2, assuming a +10 stat bonus.

1st level.

2 ranks 0
2 ranks 1
5 ranks BGO

9 ranks or +45

+10 stats
+15 BGO 2ndary skill

+70

You could go for some BGO items as well, and get about the same result of +90 or +100 also.

If using latter book profession bonuses, a +1-+3 depending.

Not much distinction in the result between versions.

That's still pushing it, to create someone who later in life, as a master, is the best possible smith. . .even not maximizing, by 5th level they should be skillfull enough to run their own forge, if perhaps not quite up to stunning examples of masterwork. (By 5th level, the maxamized smith would be verging into that kind of area).

OTOH, I'd say a 20th level smith would be notable. . .might not be a heroic legend of the land, but smiths and people interested in smithing (like merchants, or nobles who like quality gear) would have heard of this paragon of smithing. . .a 20th level smith should be a someone with serious back orders, and laying down very high prices for high end products, not turning out horseshoes by the dozen in a small town.

[markc]

 So IMO you could talk about skill ranks in stead of levels in determining just how good they are. So IMO you could have a table that says if you have X ranks in a skill you can hold Y job or for Y job you need a min of X-z ranks in the skills they use.
 It can get a little crazier with category and rank skill picks but IMO that is not a big deal. Or you could just go off the numbers [with or with out items] to let you know what title they should have in a particular job.

MDC

[Arioch]

But, you are forgetting your players. They may like to know, and need to know so that they can both gauge themselves for personal reasons and making decisions. Just about every player would like to know where their PC "stacks" in the worldwide level scale, and it doesn't hurt to give them a rough estimate. They cannot make some pretty-important decisions without that knowledge. Like, trying to sneak past the town guards (which they, as inhabitants of the world for their whole lives, would have an idea of the guards competence - i.e. experience/level) or "going the long way." Now, that doesn't mean they will have to know exact numbers, but a rough estimate would be appropriate.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
If level depends on in game fiction, it's pretty easy for players to estimate their PC place in the world, as well as that of the NPCs. They just have to interact with the surrounding world...

[RandalThor]

Actually it's not easy for them to do if you do not let them know. They may be assuming, especially if they are players you have gamed with for a while, but those assumptions could be quite varied. No matter what, if you don't let them know what 'average' is, they won't know. Think of attributes. We all know what average is for them because there is a table that tells/shows us. Not so with levels. Add in what this thread has shown us (different perspectives by different GMs) and you really don't know.

[markc]

 I agree that you should as a GM explain this to players at the start of the game especially if they are not used to RM and think all average people are zero level or have skills in the 20's and 30's.
 As I said I find that skill bonus works better then level but you can back track that number to give people an actual number or range. It will just take some time.

 Also I consider average people to have most there stats around the zero mod range, with maybe one or two in the 70's and 80's. In my game I also do not require any profession to have stats in the 90's in specific places. This also allows normal people to have a un-normal professions [ie fighter, etc] if they have low stats or average stats. I guess you could also use the Layman profession in RMSS/FRP to partially create another profession in the core book.
  How I would go about it:
0) Pick a skill # that would relate to all the titles you want to relate to [ie apprentice, journeyman, crafter, master, etc.]
1) Pick profession possibilities
1a) decide on any profession mods that need to be done [ie layman profession]
2) figure out best adol, app and TP's for the job.
3) Then level up until you get to the numbers you have picked for the chart.
4) I would not have any stat bonuses, items, magic or such mods. Just the raw skill score and others can mod it for there game, as well as other races.

MDC

[Arioch]

No matter what, if you don't let them know what 'average' is, they won't know.

Oh, sure! There must be some kind of connection between fiction and rules, to let players estimate their place in the world. Something like the scale proposed by Olf or others in this thread. For example, if the GM tells you that the PCs will begin at 5th level, as ordinary members of a guild, you'll assume that most members of the guild will be around that level, people covering higher positions will be probably higher in level, etc...

[Nejira]

I never liked the level=experience idea,

I don't agree here. In every game that has levels, experience and levels are intricately linked, a symbiotic relationship as it were.

I didn´t say I didn´t get it. I just don´t like it

But level doesn't only equate to age, but to power. The squirrel vs bear is a great example. The bear has a higher "level" than the squirrel mostly so that when (if) it is defeated by the PCs it will grant more XP than the squirrel but also to reflect that it's abilities (such as a very mean right hook, oh and left hook) are greater than the those of the squirrel - who is excellent at annoying pets and homeowners (+85, I think  ).

Yep I agree. Level=power modified by Age IMO. Reminds me of the NPC skills in the old Chutulu adventures where you would find a NPC with a skill of "being a pest" 

Just because your character is starting out their adventuring career, doesn't mean they are starting their life from scratch.

Exactly! I kinda like the old Warhammer rpg in that regard. When making a character it was all about what you did before you began your life of adventuring. But you could argue that adolence/TPs are that in RMFRP. I allow two TPs (one of each) in my campaigns, and they have a zero DP cost IF the player writes them into his background with all the whys n hows explained.

Almost always starts my campaigns at lvl5 to allow both for more "skilled" PCs but also to allow room for some previous experience in a non-adventuring capacity. Also lvl5 PCs have a higher survival rate than lvl1, but then I don´t balance encounters so that may have something to do with it

[Nejira]

Frankly, any 20th level character in my games is going to have a signifigant backstory. . .I might not bother for every 1st level dingleberry, but if I actually stick a 20th level character into play, odds are they would actually have a character sheet.

Used to be my way as well, but now I just have the thumbnail stats of the NPCs. If its a spellcaster I got the ranks of the spelllists but honestly rarely have a full sheet for an NPC. I do give them backstories tho since I can easier improvise stats than come up with a backstory on the fly.

That being said. Poor 1st level dingleberries. No love for em

[RandalThor]

Nejira, remember the old Traveller char-gen? You could actually die before you got to play your character! Hilarious! Something they did that I really liked was to allow you to keep going, choosing more and more professions until you either were ready to play or you died. One player could have a 20-something PC while another was running a 50, or even, 60-something PC. That was also one of the games that had more randomness in char-gen - you only picked the profession, what skills (and/or other stuff) you got depended upon a die roll.

I am totally with you on starting out at 5th level, that is about where I (generally) like to start them at also. Gives them enough ability to be survivable, but still young/fresh enough for many things to be a challenge.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Maybe a little OT but than again maybe not so much?
How much EP would you award for
a) 1 day of resting?
b) 1 day of work?

To be honest, I don't go so low as a day level, but I do reward XP by period (usually months) using a table taking into account the current level of the characters, and the "expertise level" of said period (normal busy period that most people of the profession would experience, intense working that only elite units would experiment, and heroic adventuring that only exceptional characters could accomplish).

[thrud]

ok, fair enough. Would you be comfortable with presenting us with an example or two?
Extraplating day/week/month/year experience is just a matter of math.
It would be fun to see how other people value day to day experience.

[markc]

 I seem to remember seeing a table like that in a RM book somewhere but I just do not know what book. It also may have been an extrapolation from the normal [older] RM experience point chart.
 I will see if I can find it in one of the books later on after the SD Vs. Den game if I am still awake.

MDC

[Nejira]

Nejira, remember the old Traveller char-gen? You could actually die before you got to play your character! Hilarious!

I remember making characters and maybe playing a session or two until we caved and went back to ad&d:P But I like the concept in Travellers char-gen, just not the randomness in it. There was a rpg called "viking" where you had off seasons in which you performed your occupation outside being on raids/adventure. You would get exp in the skills under the occupation, some coins or what seemed appropiately but you could also die. 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

Maybe a little OT but than again maybe not so much?
How much EP would you award for
a) 1 day of resting?
b) 1 day of work?

To be honest, I don't go so low as a day level, but I do reward XP by period (usually months) using a table taking into account the current level of the characters, and the "expertise level" of said period (normal busy period that most people of the profession would experience, intense working that only elite units would experiment, and heroic adventuring that only exceptional characters could accomplish).

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.

Better IMO to just give off-time DP for raising skills than actually give exp. IF you absolutely feel the need for it

[markc]

 I was just in RoCo II and they had a formula for leveling up per year. I did not record the page # but it is in the first part of the book.
MDC