Topic: Who's the Master?

[GoblynByte]

In reading the various HARP books I sometimes come across phrases that elude to "mastery" of a skill and often comparing the social status of a character by their level of mastery.  This is actually stated rather flatly in the Craft skill.  I get the impression that this is a pretty informal use of the word (i.e. I don't think there is any actual "master" level of skill in HARP), but it got me to thinking that it would be pretty easy to gauge such levels of expertise and training that was all too often the way of social labeling in midievil times.

Now, it would be obvious to say that someone with 10 ranks would have more experience/training than someone with 5 ranks.  But what would their respective titles be?  I don't really see this labeling as a "meta rule" as such labels actually were used and were probably bestowed with a rather stratified definition of what was an apprentice, what was a journyman, and what was a master.  So, how many ranks would divide each line?  Perhaps the following?

1-5 ranks = no formal title
6-10 ranks = apprentice
11-15 ranks = journeyman
16-20 ranks = master

I many be waaaay off on  these assumptions.  Perhaps getting the label of mastery at 16 ranks is too easy.  Just tossing out some numbers with the hopes that others, more experienced with the RM/HARP system can help me out.   Also, I would assume that simply because you have the ranks to become a journeyman you wouldn't be known as a journeyman of every skill in which you meet the requirments.  Otherwise you'd have a 10th level character with 26 titles in his name.  But for characters that, in their backgrounds, actually engage in a formal apprenticeship program within the context of the setting, such titles may actually apply.

Any thoughts?  Have there been things like this done before for RM/HARP?

Keith

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Actually, I wouldn't tie it to a specific number of skill ranks. Being a "master" of a craft is more often awarded through years of service in the lower echelons of the guild organization.

Also, consider such characters as the Orlando Bloom character from Pirates of the Caribbean. At the start of the first movie he is what I would call an apprentice (very senior) or journeyman to the town's smithy. Yet he is obviously more skilled than the older man, and capable of much better works, but he takes none of the credit because he has not yet been elevated to the level of master.

As for using ranks, I would make the break points as follows:
1-10 = dabbler
11-30 = apprentice
31-50 = journeyman
51-70 = master
71+ = grandmaster

Remember, 50 skill ranks means that you will get a completed product every time, unless you fumble (I would say that this marks the beginning of the level of Master). Having more ranks than that means that you can start dealing with even more complicated or fancy work (i.e. the works of a true master).

Now, in my numbers, I am using a basic stat bonus of zero, for the average person (adventurers are never average).

[GoblynByte]

Actually, I wouldn't tie it to a specific number of skill ranks. Being a "master" of a craft is more often awarded through years of service in the lower echelons of the guild organization.

Also, consider such characters as the Orlando Bloom character from Pirates of the Caribbean. At the start of the first movie he is what I would call an apprentice (very senior) or journeyman to the town's smithy. Yet he is obviously more skilled than the older man, and capable of much better works, but he takes none of the credit because he has not yet been elevated to the level of master.

Good point.  You're right on both points, I think, but for the purposes of "assuming" a character's background as evident of their ranks it would be a functional aspect.

As for using ranks, I would make the break points as follows:
1-10 = dabbler
11-30 = apprentice
31-50 = journeyman
51-70 = master
71+ = grandmaster

Remember, 50 skill ranks means that you will get a completed product every time, unless you fumble (I would say that this marks the beginning of the level of Master). Having more ranks than that means that you can start dealing with even more complicated or fancy work (i.e. the works of a true master).

Now, in my numbers, I am using a basic stat bonus of zero, for the average person (adventurers are never average).

Excellent.  Exactly what I was looking for.  Thank you, again! 

[GoblynByte]

As for using ranks, I would make the break points as follows:
1-10 = dabbler
11-30 = apprentice
31-50 = journeyman
51-70 = master
71+ = grandmaster

Do you think it would be fair to say this same scale would apply to the entire RM family?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

yes

[Witchking20k]

We don't want a double standard.  Otherwise this young HARP game may grow into a snot nozed teenager.  It need to have the same standards and values as its 20 year older sister/brother.

[Ecthelion]

As for using ranks, I would make the break points as follows:
1-10 = dabbler
11-30 = apprentice
31-50 = journeyman
51-70 = master
71+ = grandmaster

Do you think it would be fair to say this same scale would apply to the entire RM family?

Two comments on the whole topic:
a) IIRC HARP's Martial Law already defines, in the section on creating superior non-magic weapons, some break points as to when a character can be regarded as "master" etc. - which differ from those given above. Perhaps it would be better to consistently use one scale only.

b) While HARP allows 3 ranks per level to be developed RM allows only 2. Therefore I am not sure whether it would be wise to use the same, rank-based break points for both systems. I'd rather use break points for RM which are a bit lower, or perhaps only use a skill bonus based approach.

[Witchking20k]

Yes and no.

Craft professions generally use their craft skills as either Everyman (2 ranks/1 purchased) or Occupational (3 ranks/1purchased) meaning you could be developing between 1-6 ranks /level.  So, a fifth level Blacksmith developing as Occupational could have 30 ranks in skill, not including Adolescent Development & hobby ranks.

[Ecthelion]

True. So my statement that RM allows for only 2 ranks per level is a bit too simplified. The later RMSS & RMFRP versions allow up to 6 ranks per level, depending on the skill and its Occupational/Everyman/Restricted rating. For RM2 & RMC it is IIRC true that only 2 ranks per level are possible. In any case the maximum number of ranks per level does differ from HARP's number, so that I still think it could be problematic to use the same break points for RM & HARP.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

a) IIRC HARP's Martial Law already defines, in the section on creating superior non-magic weapons, some break points as to when a character can be regarded as "master" etc. - which differ from those given above. Perhaps it would be better to consistently use one scale only.

Incorrect. Those skill rank breakpoints are given for the required number of rank for making an "Improved" or "Master" quality weapon or armor. They were not meant to be used in the manner of the table given above (for guild rank level considerations).

In fact, going back and checking, the "master" level in skill ranks begins at 40+ ranks, this is the higher end of the Journeyman Range. This makes sense to me. The Journeyman can equal the work of a Master, but has not been confirmed in his position yet.

In any case the maximum number of ranks per level does differ from HARP's number, so that I still think it could be problematic to use the same break points for RM & HARP.

The only reason it should be problematic is if you try to force the little table given into a level measure. I specifically avoided including level as any sort of measure because each system got different number of skill ranks per level. By using ranks, we are saying, specifically, that Person A must have put in enough time and effort to learn XX ranks in the skill in order to achieve a certain level of mastery.

Am I making any sense here?

[Ecthelion]

a) IIRC HARP's Martial Law already defines, in the section on creating superior non-magic weapons, some break points as to when a character can be regarded as "master" etc. - which differ from those given above. Perhaps it would be better to consistently use one scale only.

Incorrect. Those skill rank breakpoints are given for the required number of rank for making an "Improved" or "Master" quality weapon or armor. They were not meant to be used in the manner of the table given above (for guild rank level considerations).

In fact, going back and checking, the "master" level in skill ranks begins at 40+ ranks, this is the higher end of the Journeyman Range. This makes sense to me. The Journeyman can equal the work of a Master, but has not been confirmed in his position yet.

To be honest, I don't quite unterstand this. In Martial Law a crafter who has 40+ ranks can create a "Master" quality weapon or armor. But according to your table these 40 ranks only make him a "journeyman". Only with 51+ ranks he would be a "master". But what is this rating worth if with 40+ ranks this "journeyman" can already craft with the quality of a master crafter .

In any case the maximum number of ranks per level does differ from HARP's number, so that I still think it could be problematic to use the same break points for RM & HARP.

The only reason it should be problematic is if you try to force the little table given into a level measure. I specifically avoided including level as any sort of measure because each system got different number of skill ranks per level. By using ranks, we are saying, specifically, that Person A must have put in enough time and effort to learn XX ranks in the skill in order to achieve a certain level of mastery.

Am I making any sense here?

Yes, this makes sense. It would also mean that a typical journeyman in HARP could be around 10th level while in RMC it would probably be around 15th level, right?

[GoblynByte]

To be honest, I don't quite unterstand this. In Martial Law a crafter who has 40+ ranks can create a "Master" quality weapon or armor. But according to your table these 40 ranks only make him a "journeyman". Only with 51+ ranks he would be a "master". But what is this rating worth if with 40+ ranks this "journeyman" can already craft with the quality of a master crafter .

Hmmm...the way I had originally thought of this was as a measure of training rather than skill.  So, in some sense, actual skill would be less of a factor.  Hence the use of ranks rather than actual skill.  But I suppose that they would be hesitant to "graduate" a student from Journyman to master if they couldn't actually "cut the mustard" in their skill.  They could have 51 ranks in a skill, denoting the amount of training they've put into it, but, due to poor attributes, they might have less of a skill than another "master."

But if it is through years of service as Rasyr suggested...  (I have to plead ingnorance on how such guild matters actually worked in the real world)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

To be honest, I don't quite unterstand this. In Martial Law a crafter who has 40+ ranks can create a "Master" quality weapon or armor. But according to your table these 40 ranks only make him a "journeyman". Only with 51+ ranks he would be a "master". But what is this rating worth if with 40+ ranks this "journeyman" can already craft with the quality of a master crafter .

The break points in Martial Law represent the number of skill ranks required to create a certain quality level of weapon.

That is completely separate and not related in any way on the apprenticeship/journeyman/master rankings utilized by a guild system.

They are two separate things.

In fact, being able to product a "master" quality (i.e. the very highest quality possible for the item) would quite likely be a requirement for attaining the title of Master.

This make any more sense now?

Yes, this makes sense. It would also mean that a typical journeyman in HARP could be around 10th level while in RMC it would probably be around 15th level, right?

 HARP -- minimum of 9th level
 RMC -- minimum of 14th level

Don't forget that you actually do 2 levels of development before making first level.

And please, don't forget, that what I am saying here is MY opinions, not official opinions (see the note in my sig...)

[Cormac Doyle]

*Historically*, the requirements for moving from one "grade" to another were more flexible.

An "Apprentice" would sign on with a master for an indefinite period of time, and it would be at the master's discretion if the apprentice was <i>ever</i> granted the title of Journeyman. The apprentice would often have to PAY for the right to learn, and even if he did not, he would rarely get much more than pocket money above bed and board. Young apprentices often had no direct skill, performing auxiliary tasks such as cleaning, etc. Older apprentices are often highly skilled, and may at times exceed the skill of their teacher(s). Note that many of these "masters" are only "journeymen" themselves.

The title of journeyman implied that the person is FULLY TRAINED, and have sufficient skill to reliably perform any task expected of them (and have been released from their apprenticeship by their master). Once conferred with the title of Journeyman, they can go and work for whomever they like, (within the wider restrictions of the guild) but must request permission from the guild to take on an apprentice.

The title of Master or Grand Master are at least as much political titles as they are skill-based. A guild may well apportion the title of Master to someone with less skill, but more political nouse. The Grand Master is the administrative and/or titular head of the guild in a region or territory, and as such is chosen from the "master's in good standing" by some mechanism that is almost always purely political.

Do not confuse political titles with level or skill ...

That's like assuming that a peasant is level 1; a Knight is level 5 and a King is always level 20 - rubbish ... the king is likely to be LOWER level than the peasant ...

[Ecthelion]

That is completely separate and not related in any way on the apprenticeship/journeyman/master rankings utilized by a guild system.

OK, got it.

Don't forget that you actually do 2 levels of development before making first level.

I was fully aware of that. That's why I wrote "around" 10th/15th level.

[Witchking20k]

LOL
Do we see the depth of our universe.  When we spend such effort defining the perameters of non-adventuring professions!

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]