NQ 42 RPG Preview! Get Hype!

[StJason]

Mundane professions? Sounds like the perfect first fan-made sourcebook.

[WarpedWolf]

Why not? I had a paladin with maxed ranks in Profession (farmer). She was a farmgirl before she was a paladin, and always saw herself as a farmer first, and a paladin second.

[Weaselcreature]

[the following is just a worry based on what little we know. I'm not premature rage-quitting. ]

So, after pondering it for a bit more, yes, I'm still a little disappointed. It feels as if they are Warmachining the RPG. It seems starting characters are more powerful than the 3.5 version (starting with a labor 'jack, as a Warcaster, with a magelock (I think GMs start with magelocks, but I may have imagined it)). Some of those accomplishments are great earlyish goals for a character...something to feel pride in and help get to know your character, especially for someone new to the world.

It's easy to decide to start more powerful ("Everyone starts at level 5; roll your character and advance accordingly."); it follows all the laid down rules for advancement. It's hard to start less powerful. ("ummm...OK. No one pick careers. You're all commoners that I made up rules for...here's 2 skill points to assign. I want you to earn your magelock and 1st 'jack, and I think the rules I made up are balanced.")

I dunno, maybe it's just me. But I STILL can't wait to get the books and get our campaign going again, either way!

[Sosthenes]

I would like to say that I have a nearly absolute hatred of this sort of thing. It just gives ammo to troublemakers.

Huh? Warcasters are okay, bakers are munchkins?

[Bumpy]

Huh? Warcasters are okay, bakers are munchkins?

It's more like Warcasters are okay, bakers are okay, players are ****-heads.

[Sosthenes]

Are we talking about the 14-year old pseudo-thespian "But I want to play a middle-aged baker with a limp and gout!" delusions of depth? Where you as a GM are supposed to integrate them into a dungeon bash in a meaningful way… Or in what other way are mundane professions ripe for abuse?

[Munindk]

I think there's a fine line between character depth and bogging the game down. Using a couple of levels to represent your pre-adventuring background can be a pain, there's all sorts of issues with HP, BaB, class/cross class skills and so on, its much easier to just buy a couple of ranks in profession, craft or whatever. If you want that kind of mechanical detail on your characters GURPS is probably better suited. From what I've seen so far the IKRPG 2 seems to be more about heroes than farmers.

In my games the players who really want to flesh out their background are free to do so, they can spend a few skill points to represent they previous profession and if they give me a good background story, I'll give them a few rewards, like an untrained knowledge roll on something that they might know as an ex farmer/baker/sailor. As long as its not game breaking, I'd rather wing it.

[Lachlan the Mad]

See, I generally don't want to start with a character who's seen the world before. I want to start with someone like Samwise Gamgee, who has seen abso-f*cking-lutely nothing of the world, and is constantly amazed and confused by the stuff going on around him. I want to play a monk who's spent his whole life in a monestary, or a half-ogre who grew up in a village on top of a mountain which had the religious belief that nothing existed below the clouds.

...and yes, this also appeals to my munchkin side, because I don't have to waste skill points on Knowledge or Profession skills

[Iron_Peanut]

But there's a definite need for a "secondary career" that isn't a "career" per se, i.e. just a vehicle to add some mechanical traits (skills, feats etc.), without changing my background. A generic "civilian" or "jack of all trades" mix-in, not 20 pages of butchers, bakers and warjack makers.

Yeah. Maybe a Tradesman who gets a relevant Craft, and some background abilities associated with it like Holding (House), Connections (Farmers/Butchers/Tanners), and/or Membership (Guild/Union). A similar Burgher (for lack of an English word) career could represent more white-collar characters.
One thing that hasn't been talked a lot is General Skills; the skills that aren't Military (like Pistol or Great Weapon) or Occupational (like Command or Mechanikal Engineering). The only examples I've been able to scounge up are Climb and Detection (which is probably something like Spot/Listen/Search/Notice), but it's easy to imagine the more generic skills like Athletics or whatever falling into here. A Tradesman might get a bonus to his starting allotment of General skills in lieu of more Occupational/Military skills to represent being more well-rounded.
Presumably, starting characters of any career will have some allotment of points to spend on General Skills, otherwise you might have Thieves who were very bad at Climbing. I haven't seen this addressed anywhere yet, though.

It's easy to decide to start more powerful ("Everyone starts at level 5; roll your character and advance accordingly."); it follows all the laid down rules for advancement. It's hard to start less powerful. ("ummm...OK. No one pick careers. You're all commoners that I made up rules for...here's 2 skill points to assign. I want you to earn your magelock and 1st 'jack, and I think the rules I made up are balanced.")

I'd like to see an option for playing more low-power characters at the outset, because I had fun playing heroic mortals in Exalted and dying horribly. Maybe you'd just get 1 career instead of 2, and few to no advancement points to boost your stats.

From what I've seen so far the IKRPG 2 seems to be more about heroes than farmers.

I don't disagree with this. I will argue that sometimes farmers can make really interesting heroes, though. My favorite characters are the ones who are not genius sorcerers, naturally-talented swordsmen, or the lost heirs to grand dynasties. My favorite characters are the ones who are average people who are elbow-deep in stuff they don't understand and push on because they don't have any choice, either because they need to do so to survive or because it's The Right Thing To Do.

[Iron_Peanut]

One question I would very much like to know the answer to, is if you have to use miniatures in the new rpg.

From reading the article, most statblocks refer to ranges in inches, so the assumption is that you're going to be playing with miniatures. That said, from what I've been able to glean, 1" = ~6 feet, and there are some references to that in the text. I think it's exactly like 3e DnD in regards to miniatures; You can play without them, but they'll come in handy if you want to want to emphasize the tactical combat angle and keep track of everyone's position relative to one another.
And if you want to use cardboard counters or spare dice or coins, the Fun Police aren't going to kick down your door. They've already met their quota for this month after they arrested those guys who were using third-party minis as proxies in friendly games and that kid who was mixing Megablocks with his Legos.

See, I generally don't want to start with a character who's seen the world before. I want to start with someone like Samwise Gamgee, who has seen abso-f*cking-lutely nothing of the world, and is constantly amazed and confused by the stuff going on around him. I want to play a monk who's spent his whole life in a monestary, or a half-ogre who grew up in a village on top of a mountain which had the religious belief that nothing existed below the clouds.

...and yes, this also appeals to my munchkin side, because I don't have to waste skill points on Knowledge or Profession skills

I'm confused. Your two statements seem at odds with one another. Are you saying that you prefer to play characters that have had most of the time in their prior life spent on non-adventuring pursuits, but that you dislike buying skills that represent a prior life spent on non-adventuring pursuits? Maybe both of your sides are your munchkin side?

[Munindk]

I'd like to see an option for playing more low-power characters at the outset, because I had fun playing heroic mortals in Exalted and dying horribly. Maybe you'd just get 1 career instead of 2, and few to no advancement points to boost your stats.

I enjoy playing low-powered characters too from time to time, but I dont think that rules for playing farmers or bakers belong in a heroic fantasy game any more than they do in a superhero game.
Although I suspect that you could probably make some very ordinary people in the IKRPG 2 if you dont take an archetype and limit yourself to just one career. Such a character would be considerably less powerful than a warcaster or gunmage, but could probably be very good at his chosen career. Granted you might have to make up a few mundane careers but that shouldnt be too difficult.

[Lachlan the Mad]

I'm confused. Your two statements seem at odds with one another. Are you saying that you prefer to play characters that have had most of the time in their prior life spent on non-adventuring pursuits, but that you dislike buying skills that represent a prior life spent on non-adventuring pursuits? Maybe both of your sides are your munchkin side?

No, the first half of your sentence is wrong there. See, the monk has spent his entire life in a monastery training about how to do acrobatics and punch stuff, and the half-ogre has spent his entire life literally climbing mountains to go to school. They're like Samwise Gamgee in personality, but not in combat ability.

But most of me is a munchkin yes

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

[the following is just a worry based on what little we know. I'm not premature rage-quitting. ]

So, after pondering it for a bit more, yes, I'm still a little disappointed. It feels as if they are Warmachining the RPG. It seems starting characters are more powerful than the 3.5 version (starting with a labor 'jack, as a Warcaster, with a magelock (I think GMs start with magelocks, but I may have imagined it)). Some of those accomplishments are great earlyish goals for a character...something to feel pride in and help get to know your character, especially for someone new to the world.

It's easy to decide to start more powerful ("Everyone starts at level 5; roll your character and advance accordingly."); it follows all the laid down rules for advancement. It's hard to start less powerful. ("ummm...OK. No one pick careers. You're all commoners that I made up rules for...here's 2 skill points to assign. I want you to earn your magelock and 1st 'jack, and I think the rules I made up are balanced.")

I dunno, maybe it's just me. But I STILL can't wait to get the books and get our campaign going again, either way!

At this point we don't know enough to even worry about that. After all, it would probably just take one page to say "here's how you start with less-experienced characters," and since they've hyped the adaptability of the rules in that regard from day one, I think it's probably a safe bet that page will be in there.

[Sosthenes]

I enjoy playing low-powered characters too from time to time, but I dont think that rules for playing farmers or bakers belong in a heroic fantasy game any more than they do in a superhero game.

While I partially agree with the sentiment, I'd like to add one thing: Don't tie the Iron Kingdoms too tightly to heroic fantasy. Sure, on the Warmachine level it's all about weird mages in superhero armor fighting soul-fueled undead or cold war cliches. But beyond that, we have a mostly human-centric setting on the brink (or slightly beyond) industrial revolution, with some really big cities. Crime, poverty, the aftereffects of war and feudal regimes. This is an enticing slice of the pie, too. And often less well served by Big Dang Heroes. A lot of people didn't find the D20 incarnation very fitting for the game, and I would dare to say that this was mostly due to the lower end of things – D&D always did Epic Heroes pretty well.

PP seems to target the somewhat higher end of the spectrum, and that's ok by me. Concentrate on one "strata" of the playing experience, no need to overextend oneself. I probably won't use the rules anyway, and as long as it brings in some players and funds further fluff…

[bouncymischa]

While I partially agree with the sentiment, I'd like to add one thing: Don't tie the Iron Kingdoms too tightly to heroic fantasy. Sure, on the Warmachine level it's all about weird mages in superhero armor fighting soul-fueled undead or cold war cliches. But beyond that, we have a mostly human-centric setting on the brink (or slightly beyond) industrial revolution, with some really big cities. Crime, poverty, the aftereffects of war and feudal regimes. This is an enticing slice of the pie, too. And often less well served by Big Dang Heroes. A lot of people didn't find the D20 incarnation very fitting for the game, and I would dare to say that this was mostly due to the lower end of things – D&D always did Epic Heroes pretty well.

PP seems to target the somewhat higher end of the spectrum, and that's ok by me. Concentrate on one "strata" of the playing experience, no need to overextend oneself. I probably won't use the rules anyway, and as long as it brings in some players and funds further fluff…

I'm reminded of AnotherPoet's sewer-crawling campaign. Now there was a great low-level campaign, although I only ever just got to read his logs of it.

[Weaselcreature]

Maybe you'd just get 1 career instead of 2, and few to no advancement points to boost your stats.

Yes, this is probably how I'd handle it, and the characters would earn a 2nd career at some appropriate time. Just have to wait and see the books.

[Whimper]

I don't feel attacked, Bumpy, but could you elaborate on how allowing mundane professions is ammo for troublemakers? In D20, it was as simple as 4 skill ranks in a Profession or Craft skill, and points that couldn't really break anything.

[moorg]

Looking at the article, it's almost like Divine spellcasting no longer exists.

[Munindk]

A lot of people didn't find the D20 incarnation very fitting for the game, and I would dare to say that this was mostly due to the lower end of things – D&D always did Epic Heroes pretty well.

My main issue with the D20 incarnation is that it adds a lot of extra rules to an already complicated system, so for me its okay for low level stuff (which I think D20 does really well) but it gets unwieldy somewhere around level 7-8 (more so than regular D20) and/or whenever mechanika is involved. In my experience high level D20 is more about managing your characters vast amount of abilities and calculating their many different bonuses. I know that good storytelling isnt necessarily rules dependant but I feel that D20 actually bogs my storytelling down, the rules are simply too much work.

It might be a tall order, but I hope that the IKRPG 2 will allow anything from low level to epic level play, without the need for a big damn calculator. I've read the savage worlds system a few times (and I've run a few games in the old Deadlands system) and I think that system can handle both ends of the spectrum very well, my only problem with SW is the lack of character progression.

[Burrowowl]

A couple quick observations:

The Iron Kingdoms has long played it fast-and-loose with the terms "wizard" and "sorcerer." The distinction between these two words as types-of-RPG-characters is largely artificial and a way that 3rd edition D&D attempted to blunt some of the obnoxious elements of "prepare your spells in the morning" arcane spellcasting that was the norm in previous editions. The "sorcerer" is just a "player's option" book channeling wizard with a cap on spell selection in the interest of balance.

Mundane utterly-nonheroic occupations are absolutely the domain of ****-disturbers and troublemaker players. Not munchkins, just troublemakers. I'm frequently guilty of making characters that have to overcome various built-in obstacles to effectiveness in the interest of making more interesting characters to play. Sometimes it has the effect of producing a character that is actively counterproductive during tense situations, which is a sign I took things too far and really should have eased back a bit. Find me a compelling reason to roll dice to make cheese, convince me that this is something that would reasonably come up during an adventure in the setting, and I'll agree that a means of making my character a proficient cheesemaker is needed in the rules. If a player at my table says he bakes a loaf of bread, and there are appropriate materials reasonably likely to be at hand, you won't find me reaching for dice or looking up tables. You spent a few hours and have some bread now. Awesome. Now that everybody's tummy-tums are happy can we get back to busting this trade cabal before the town's economy collapses and the Duke provokes a war to distract the civilians from his incompetence? Thanks.

[scc]

The Sorcerer career represents a spellcaster who began the mastery of her art without formal education. Willworkers/Focusers is effectively the delineation between standard arcanists and those with the warcaster talent.

Are Willworkers/Focusers the new terms for Sorcerer and wizard and thus only one of them an become warcasters (most likely wizards) or am I getting something wrong here?

[Whimper]

Mundane utterly-nonheroic occupations are absolutely the domain of ****-disturbers and troublemaker players. Not munchkins, just troublemakers. I'm frequently guilty of making characters that have to overcome various built-in obstacles to effectiveness in the interest of making more interesting characters to play. Sometimes it has the effect of producing a character that is actively counterproductive during tense situations, which is a sign I took things too far and really should have eased back a bit. Find me a compelling reason to roll dice to make cheese, convince me that this is something that would reasonably come up during an adventure in the setting, and I'll agree that a means of making my character a proficient cheesemaker is needed in the rules. If a player at my table says he bakes a loaf of bread, and there are appropriate materials reasonably likely to be at hand, you won't find me reaching for dice or looking up tables. You spent a few hours and have some bread now. Awesome. Now that everybody's tummy-tums are happy can we get back to busting this trade cabal before the town's economy collapses and the Duke provokes a war to distract the civilians from his incompetence? Thanks.

But can you see how you are being prescriptive there about the sort of story and game I should have to enjoy? Busting up a trade cabal might be the bee's knees for you, but not every GM wants to tell that story, and not every player wants to be a part of it.

I'm not demanding Privateer publish a book with four hundred pages of cheese-making power progressions. I'm saying that an IKRPG that provides a framework for the mundane would be better than one that just insists that everything non-heroic be handwaved.

[Whimper]

Are Willworkers/Focusers the new terms for Sorcerer and wizard and thus only one of them an become warcasters (most likely wizards) or am I getting something wrong here?

If you read the thread, it seems that Willworkers are all your arcane magic users (sorcerers, necromancers, wizards, gun mages, warbards maybe, etc) and Focusers are your warcasters (and anyone with Focus manipulation kind of ability).

They are separate, so being a wizard or sorcerer isn't a prerequisite for being a warcaster. Since you get two careers, you don't have to have them both be magicky ones.

[Sosthenes]

The Iron Kingdoms has long played it fast-and-loose with the terms "wizard" and "sorcerer."[...]The "sorcerer" is just a "player's option" book channeling wizard with a cap on spell selection in the interest of balance.

While I agree about the rather mechanical origin of the sorcerer (the casting man's barbarian), the terms have been pretty specific in Iron Kingdoms magical theory. Definitely more so than in some "classic" D&D settings, where you had to retcon it in.

What it means being born a sorcerer is pretty clear, what it implies is a bit more vague, as you had to fit in with the system, i.e. still use the same spells, scrolls etc.
No more excuses with a system that's totally your own, although what little I've seen of Warmachine makes me think that we'll continue in the valley of vagueness a bit more.

Find me a compelling reason to roll dice to make cheese, convince me that this is something that would reasonably come up during an adventure in the setting, and I'll agree that a means of making my character a proficient cheesemaker is needed in the rules.

Well, first of all, a cheesemaker, as any worker or craftsman isn't just defined by one core skill. There's probably a plethora of supporting skills and traits that enables you to function in a rural or urban setting, sell your stuff, maybe a small accumulation of wealth, etc.. Your interaction, survival, persuasion skill, your contacts, your money -- I see no problem of all of that contributing to a campaign. Especially if it's about "busting a trade cabal", where your ivory tower wizard, your ice elf barbarian and your border town gunslinger might have their interpersonal issues.

And never mind that a cheesemaker is just a smelly weaponsmith. One career with a bit of specialization in a few aspects would serve a whole bevvy of pseudo-medieval jobs. Sometimes the core skill is relevant, sometimes less so.

And finally: Secondary careers. While it might come in handy for NPCs (I'm a big fan of unified systems) or the odd "lower decks" campaign, this isn't just about purely mundane PCs. My core career is Alchemist, but I don't want a military background, I'm not a full-fledged wizard, I'm definitely not a warcaster, I wasn't "rescued" from the streets and thus possessing a "rogue" background. I'm not friggin' Kvothe.
I made potions, I sold them, I'm ready for something more challenging, as no one's appreciating my talents, the old gypsy women prophesied my imminent rise in the world, my girlfriend left me, guild politics etc.
So what do I pick after "Alchemist"? Taking it twice would be great. But if not, something mundane like "Merchant", "Middle Class", "Craftsman" or "University-Educated" would be just spiffy. I don't know where all the bad pie makers and potters touched you guys ("troublemakers"?), but if that's a big bother, make some careers "Secondary Only" for PCs. Problem solved.

[themocaw]

Sosthenes: I think you're looking at this the wrong way. A character's career isn't their background. It's their path in life.

Once I made that realization, everything clicked for me. Your character's background can be that they're the son of a cheesemaker or the daughter of a pig farmer, but considering that you're an Iron Kingdoms RPG PC, you're destined for bigger and greater things. Luke Skywalker's background is that he's a farm boy from a desert planet. His careers, however, are Rebel Commander and Jedi Knight. Will Turner's background is that of a blacksmith. His careers are Pirate and Swashbuckler. Samwise Gamgee's background is that of a gardener. His careers are Adventurer and Badass.

If you think about it that way, you really don't need mundane careers at all. Mundanity is what your character is supposed to rise above, not continue to be. It might even be what they go back to being once their adventuring days are done. It could even be an interesting part of their personality during their adventuring days. It shouldn't define them.

Of course, this is just, like, my opinion, man.

[WarpedWolf]

Sosthenes: I think you're looking at this the wrong way. A character's career isn't their background. It's their path in life.

Once I made that realization, everything clicked for me. Your character's background can be that they're the son of a cheesemaker or the daughter of a pig farmer, but considering that you're an Iron Kingdoms RPG PC, you're destined for bigger and greater things. Luke Skywalker's background is that he's a farm boy from a desert planet. His careers, however, are Rebel Commander and Jedi Knight. Will Turner's background is that of a blacksmith. His careers are Pirate and Swashbuckler. Samwise Gamgee's background is that of a gardener. His careers are Adventurer and Badass.

If you think about it that way, you really don't need mundane careers at all. Mundanity is what your character is supposed to rise above, not continue to be. It might even be what they go back to being once their adventuring days are done. It could even be an interesting part of their personality during their adventuring days. It shouldn't define them.

Of course, this is just, like, my opinion, man.

Seconded. Probably the best explanation of the difference between background and career I've ever read.

[Sosthenes]

Sosthenes: I think you're looking at this the wrong way. A character's career isn't their background. It's their path in life.

Which is determined by the *player* at *character creation*.

No, thanks.

[Iron_Peanut]

Find me a compelling reason to roll dice to make cheese, convince me that this is something that would reasonably come up during an adventure in the setting, and I'll agree that a means of making my character a proficient cheesemaker is needed in the rules.

If nothing else, I've become convinced that a cheesemaker is now my ideal character for my Llaelse Resistance campaign. Cheesemaking is French as hell, Llael has a strong France vibe, and he's got an absolutely brutal signature weapon in the cheese wire - perfect for choking Winter Guard to death with.


I don't think anyone wants a Craftsman career that is six ranks in largely useless niche crafting skills. I just want the abilities that are going to be applicable to play, presented in a way that reflects a more civilian or specialized background.

[Whimper]

Maybe it's the word "career" that I'm getting caught up on, since it's really just "character class" without wanting to say "character class", right? Themocaw's explanation helped put that straight, but I still think it's too prescriptive to say that mundane pursuits are what your character did before rising to greatness as a PC Adventurer.

Full admission of bias: I am in favour of including as much non-combat character options as humanly possible as a reaction in opposition to IKRPG MK2 being "Warmachine the RPG". If a cheesemaker is getting pooh poohed as "not viable" before we've even discussed the adventure genre, then we're going to have a problem here.

[The Happy Anarchist]

Which is determined by the *player* at *character creation*.

No, thanks.

Why is that a problem? Would you prefer not to be able to pick a character class at character creation, and instead have it decided for you later? Maybe on a random chart? Also, what is with the asterisks?

We decide all manner of things for our *characters* at *character creation* - why is deciding what you want your character to become any worse?

[jdripley]

This debate isn't about mundane vs super heroic. This debate is about "some people like all-in combat adventures" and "some people like all-in interpersonal adventures." Of course there are people in the middle ground, but they tend to be less passionate about this whole thing than those who want all this or all that.

So far the IKRPG2 info has largely been about combat - at least when it comes to stats and rules that have been previewed. Those players who like a less combat-heavy approach to roleplaying are rightfully nervous about that. Having Cheesemaker as a career isn't about really really wanting to roleplay the ins and outs of making cheese as a lower middle class Cygnaran in Bainsmarket. It's about wanting there to be more to IKRPG2 than "I shoot you in the face with a magic gun and I expect that to make me win!"

The Iron Kingdoms are great for a variety of reasons - partly because of guns and trains and steam powered awesome, and partly because of the complicated political situations, the gritty industrial revolution feel, etc. Hopefully IKRPG2 carries both ends of that spectrum forward.

That's my take on what this debate is all about.

[StJason]

Having Cheesemaker as a career isn't about really really wanting to roleplay the ins and outs of making cheese as a lower middle class Cygnaran in Bainsmarket. It's about wanting there to be more to IKRPG2 than "I shoot you in the face with a magic gun and I expect that to make me win!"

The Iron Kingdoms are great for a variety of reasons - partly because of guns and trains and steam powered awesome, and partly because of the complicated political situations, the gritty industrial revolution feel, etc. Hopefully IKRPG2 carries both ends of that spectrum forward.

jdripley wins the forums!

[PrudentMantis]

Wow, haven't been on the PP boards for awhile. My computer didn't know what my password was - I formatted it ages back.

Anyway, what I wanted to ask was, Will-worker/Focuser - it's been established that Focusers are the only ones who can become warcasters, and also that focusers use ambient magic, while will-workers use runes and such and spend fatigue points.

Well, for those of us that play WM/H, a lot of the Hordes Warlocks use runes, and fatigue points that may be artificially renewed by potions/whatever kind of sounds more like the Fury mechanic than a Focuser does, so...

Does that mean that Focusers can link with the cortexes of 'jacks, but Will-Workers might be able to get a pet Argus or something?

[Iron_Peanut]

The Iron Kingdoms are great for a variety of reasons - partly because of guns and trains and steam powered awesome, and partly because of the complicated political situations, the gritty industrial revolution feel, etc. Hopefully IKRPG2 carries both ends of that spectrum forward.

jdripley possesses the wisdom of Solomon and the strength of Hercules.

Wow, haven't been on the PP boards for awhile. My computer didn't know what my password was - I formatted it ages back.

Anyway, what I wanted to ask was, Will-worker/Focuser - it's been established that Focusers are the only ones who can become warcasters, and also that focusers use ambient magic, while will-workers use runes and such and spend fatigue points.

Well, for those of us that play WM/H, a lot of the Hordes Warlocks use runes, and fatigue points that may be artificially renewed by potions/whatever kind of sounds more like the Fury mechanic than a Focuser does, so...

Does that mean that Focusers can link with the cortexes of 'jacks, but Will-Workers might be able to get a pet Argus or something?

This is some interesting conjecture, dude! It would quickly make Warcasters and Warlocks mutually exclusive, and I can't see a druid trying to connect to a piece of mechanika anyways, unless they were connecting it to the business end of a hammer.
Regretfully, it remains conjecture for the foreseeable future, since the book that has Warlocks in it is scheduled third in line for a release, with no date mentioned.

I'm more interested in how divine characters fit into this whole hierarchy. I don't think they're Gifted, since the term refers to Thamar's Gift of arcane magic.

Also I am suddenly interested in Animi! They're unique to each type of beast, right? Are monsters suitable for use as beasts all going to have Animi associated with them? I'm kind of reminded of the Counting Coup feature in Deadlands - a weird sidebar on every monster that is only relevant to one character type.

[HerrDeux]

I'm more interested in how divine characters fit into this whole hierarchy. I don't think they're Gifted, since the term refers to Thamar's Gift of arcane magic.

I thought that PPS Simon already stated that Gifted is required for all spell casters, including priests/shamans/druids/witchdoctors?

[Sosthenes]

Why is that a problem? Would you prefer not to be able to pick a character class at character creation, and instead have it decided for you later?

Two things: Yes, I would prefer to play without fixed character classes. I find them overly restrictive and don't buy into the whole "niche protection" argument. I am kinda-sorta okay with systems where I at least can freely multi-class and my whole future adventuring career isn't determined by one choice I made at the very onset of the campaign, before I really knew what was going on.

But that's not even the part that's really germane to the discussion. As presented/interpreted by themocaw, it wouldn't just about a D&D-like class, representing your abilities, it's about your whole destiny, your future lifepath. And in my opinion, that shouldn't be that set in stone in an RPG. This isn't a cheap pastiche novel where the chosen main character is following his destiny, with the mandatory Campbellian tropes.

We've got a bunch of people who's future is uncertain, who possess free will, who will face challenges and experiences that might shape their lifes into yet unknown and unimaginable ways.

If my Alchemist has to pick "Gun Mage" because I can slightly imagine picking up firearms in the future and becoming a badass gunslinger, this isn't much different from the horrible D20 disease of "builds". And it encourages too much meta-gaming. Never mind that as a GM, I'm not willing to totally buy into the wish fulfillment fantasies of each and every player.

Also, what is with the asterisks?

Emphasis. You see me now, a veteran of a thousand usenet flamewars.

We decide all manner of things for our *characters* at *character creation* - why is deciding what you want your character to become any worse?

I don't believe that determining your future is a right of the player. You can wish for what you want, but there shouldn't be a mechanical guarantee.

Still, "careers" in RPGs usually means something different, so apart from an intense dislike, my stance on this "future heroic path" interpretation is still Citation Needed.

[Weaselcreature]

Yeah, I think that the achetype Gifted and Thamar's Gift are two separate things. They just happen to both use "gift."

jdripley did more-or-less boil it down, but I think that's what the worry is for people; that both ends of the spectrum aren't being carried forward.

Yes, the combat portion of any RPG does tend to need more rules written down than the RP portion, as that is mainly interaction between people, but there should be good framework and in-game options for the non-combat aspects of the game.

[themocaw]

So I read the actual article on the IKRPG, and picked up something interesting: you start with 2 careers, but can pick up additional careers as time goes on.

So careers aren't so much character classes so much as, "This is what my character did for X amount of time and learned X, Y, and Z." Sort of what the old-school "Traveller" RPG used to do.

This implies:

1. Careers are smaller and more modular than typical D&D style character "classes."

2. Smaller and more modular = easier to homebrew.

So on the offchance that Privateer doesn't include sufficient non-adventuring careers for your taste, you should be able to homebrew one.

There you go.

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

So I read the actual article on the IKRPG, and picked up something interesting: you start with 2 careers, but can pick up additional careers as time goes on.

So careers aren't so much character classes so much as, "This is what my character did for X amount of time and learned X, Y, and Z." Sort of what the old-school "Traveller" RPG used to do.

This implies:

1. Careers are smaller and more modular than typical D&D style character "classes."

2. Smaller and more modular = easier to homebrew.

So on the offchance that Privateer doesn't include sufficient non-adventuring careers for your taste, you should be able to homebrew one.

There you go.

I think this is a pretty solid way of interpreting the info we have. I understand Sosthenes' misgivings, but I think they're misplaced. "Careers" in IKRPG seem almost like "Jobs" in some of the Final Fantasy games (FF Tactics, for example) only you have access to all your abilities at the same time.

[Sosthenes]

I understand Sosthenes' misgivings, but I think they're misplaced.

My misgivings about this "calling" interepretation were quite independent from the likelihood of seeing that implemented. But there are some things you've got to rage against

(Going against the WFRP/Traveller precedence regarding the definition of "career" did increase in likelihood a bit considering that we're talking about a company who's using the term "willworker" with a straight face )