Specialists and advancement

[Gulla (Håkon Gaut)]

@The Fixer

Well, this is fine, for grogs, guild members and all these, who are quite active characters, with detailed sets of skills and (usually) regular training (the turb training under its captain is a staple of almost all covenants). This won't nescessarily do for everyone.

Anyway, we were talking about specialists, characters defined by only 1 skill, and who, usually, don't have the enforced focus on one skill that grogs have.
=> Whatever the total amount of XP specialists gain, be it 5 or 50, it is irrelevant, only those going into their main skill is.

Ah,
If you "pay" for them during covenant creation I treat them like a vis-source, location, aura or building: Unchanging unless there is a story.

So if our covenant has a smith +7 and a carpenter +5 and no-one bothers to generate and play them they provide their skill (7 or 5) constantly as long as no story happens or they get generated as a character. Very simple and saves lots of work. And as long as no-one bothers to generate them this also takes care of any trouble with recruitment, training, retirement etc.

[LuciusT]

@Gulla

@The Fixer

Well, this is fine, for grogs, guild members and all these, who are quite active characters, with detailed sets of skills and (usually) regular training (the turb training under its captain is a staple of almost all covenants). This won't nescessarily do for everyone.

Anyway, we were talking about specialists, characters defined by only 1 skill, and who, usually, don't have the enforced focus on one skill that grogs have.
=> Whatever the total amount of XP specialists gain, be it 5 or 50, it is irrelevant, only those going into their main skill is.

Ah,
If you "pay" for them during covenant creation I treat them like a vis-source, location, aura or building: Unchanging unless there is a story.

Well, that's just rediculously simple and sensible.

[Faern]

That craftsmen should only gain exposure exp over their lifetime is absurd. Why would a master take on an apprentice if they never plan on training him? So under normal circumstances an apprentice should spend at least one free season on training his craft, but more realistically, both. There is also no requirement that both his work seasons is put into exposure in the craft. An apprentice (or any craftsman for that matter) could also earn his keep by running errands, taking care of customers or making bargains which means he can gain exposure in other areas.

Once they become journeymen things would change. Now it becomes a question whether or not he has ambition to become a master. If he does he is likely to take a practice season here and there, otherwise only exposure. And in turn, a master will likely only take a practice season if they really want to excel in their craft.

This is a much more logical way to see it. Deviations from this would require good reasons. Like the apprentice is really lazy
and workshy and the master stopped taking pride in his work years ago so he lets his apprentices do as they please.

If there's a situation when there is only one craftsman with a low ability score who spends most of his free seasons carousing
instead of practicing, there would also need to be a valid reason. Normally you don't keep a person like that.

Seasons are abstracted. This means that a craftsman does not work for 10 hours per day to gain exposure and then heads off to "exp" (use his free seasons) in the evening. With this type of faulty thinking i can see how only exposure exp seems logical. Like
someone else in the thread said earlier, the person spreads this out over the day.

If we need put things in numbers to visualize it easier the correct way to do it would be that the craftsmen only use 5 hours
per day to gain exposure exp. This is because 2 seasons of exposure exp is spread over a full year. And all of the sudden you can also train your craft for 5 hours each day while still fitting it into your regular workday.

[Jabir]

@LuciusT

Well, that's just rediculously simple and sensible.

It certainly prevents the tedium of totaling points for everyone in the vicinity every season!

@Faern

Once they become journeymen things would change. Now it becomes a question whether or not he has ambition to become a master. If he does he is likely to take a practice season here and there, otherwise only exposure. And in turn, a master will likely only take a practice season if they really want to excel in their craft.

That's a key point -- whether he has the ambition and concentration to keep building skill. I would add, whether he has a limit to his potential. Player characters don't have such limits so we don't see them in the game rules but most people seem to reach a level of ability and stay there. Otherwise, just by knowing someone's age we could be sure of his skills and anyone who lived long enough would inevitably end up a Leonardo or a Michelangelo.

[Faern]

@Jabir

I would add, whether he has a limit to his potential. Player characters don't have such limits so we don't see them in the game rules but most people seem to reach a level of ability and stay there. Otherwise, just by knowing someone's age we could be sure of his skills and anyone who lived long enough would inevitably end up a Leonardo or a Michelangelo.

RAW states that abilities normally don't pass 10, unless there is an exception. I think 10 is a pretty good guideline to what the average person could reach. Beyond that would require an exceptional person.
There is also a huge difference between being able to understand a subject or perform a task and discovering something new which adds to the subject or task.

[ndkid]

@Faern

@Jabir

I would add, whether he has a limit to his potential. Player characters don't have such limits so we don't see them in the game rules but most people seem to reach a level of ability and stay there. Otherwise, just by knowing someone's age we could be sure of his skills and anyone who lived long enough would inevitably end up a Leonardo or a Michelangelo.

RAW states that abilities normally don't pass 10, unless there is an exception. I think 10 is a pretty good guideline to what the average person could reach. Beyond that would require an exceptional person.
There is also a huge difference between being able to understand a subject or perform a task and discovering something new which adds to the subject or task.

Just to tack on, if we assume that 10 is a general maximum, and that someone works at their job for 40 years, they only need about 7XP/year to hit that max at the end. In the world where a 20-year-old spends 12XP/year for 40 years on a skill, they'll end up with a skill of 13 at the end of their life. If they were taught or trained before 20, that number gets higher.
To me, what this suggests is that no, craftsmen don't spend their whole lives single-mindedly working on their craft. They spend their free time enjoying themselves. If a 20-year-old apprentice starts with a skill of 4 in his craft, and just puts 4 XP in it every year for 40 years, he'll end with a skill over 8.

[Cuchulainshound]

@ndkid

... if we assume... that someone works at their job for 40 years...

Which, given that "middle age" is around 25-30 or so, may not be the safest assumption.

[Tellus]

@Cuchulainshound

Which, given that "middle age" is around 25-30

Not really. The period is infamous (not necessarily fairly so) for having an average life expectancy of about 35 years.
We must remember this includes the positively huge number of children that didn't survive their first five year, or even their very first winter.

If you can survive to adulthood and avoid death by violence (2 big 'if's in ths period), you can expect to live much longer than that.

[LuciusT]

@Tellus

@Cuchulainshound

Which, given that "middle age" is around 25-30

Not really. The period is infamous (not necessarily fairly so) for having an average life expectancy of about 35 years.
We must remember this includes the positively huge number of children that didn't survive their first five year, or even their very first winter.

If you can survive to adulthood and avoid death by violence (2 big 'if's in ths period), you can expect to live much longer than that.

In reality, yes, but in the game? Has anyone actually worked out the "average" life span of a mundane using the current aging rules?

[gerg]

@LuciusT

Has anyone actually worked out the "average" life span of a mundane using the current aging rules?

Now's a good time to recall The Ultimate Aging and Twilight Simulation!
For example, among mundanes who survive until age 35, the median age of death is at age 56 according to the simulation. I would imagine that the same simulation would show that among mundanes who survive until age 20, the median age of death is between 41 and 45. However, note that the simulation assumes a nonzero chance of dying of (non-story-related) accident or illness every year. If you don't implement this possibility in your saga, then the lifetimes are going to be much longer, as in the simulation only 27% of mundanes die due to old age.

[Tugdual]

@LuciusT

In reality, yes, but in the game? Has anyone actually worked out the "average" life span of a mundane using the current aging rules?

durenmar.de/aging/

@Cuchulainshound

Which, given that "middle age" is around 25-30

Median age at death: 56

[Cuchulainshound]

@Tellus

@Cuchulainshound

Which, given that "middle age" is around 25-30

Not really. The period is infamous (not necessarily fairly so) for having an average life expectancy of about 35 years.

Which would imply a "middle age" of around 18 years - which was nothing near what I said, so what are you disagreeing with?

Perhaps my chosen wording was poorly defined - "middle age" can be a subjective social perception, and that would be based on several factors, not all relevant to this discussion. If a person was not crippled or die from disease or virus, or as a result of violence or accident, or from famine related causes, or from some work in an unknown-danger profession (lead, mercury, etc.) and had good health and luck in general (no cancer/etc), they might well live to be in their 70's or older - but most simply were not able tot dodge all those dangers. So, what is "middle age" when those conditions for a "natural death" are simply too hard for most to meet?

Estimates for medieval life expectancy seem to vary (see "statistics" ), but (generously?) assuming that the average life expectancy after 21* is about +25-35 years** or so, then that means an average of not much over 50 - and so, yes, really, a "middle age" of 25-30.

[i](* i.e. once a person reaches 21 years, how much more they'll live, on average)

(** This seems supported by some admittedly shallow web research: hyw.com/books/history/Fertilit.htm
sarahwoodbury.com/?p=453
wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_life ... eval_times)[/i]
(If you include infant/child mortality, "middle age" drops at least 10 years, depending - but most sources seem to agree that the non-aristocrat who lives to be 60+ was the exception, not the rule.)

And that's "life expectancy", not "productive life expectancy". So, assuming a 13th century person works at their job for maybe 30 years might be more reasonable.

(Of course, if you are of that ilk of folk who, today, believe that in the western world "middle age" starts around 45-50 regardless of the fact that we have very few nona- and centegenarians around, then we simply have different working definitions of that term.)

[gerg]

My intuition (backed up by the first dictionary I consulted) is that "middle age" refers roughly to the midpoint between adulthood and death, not birth and death.

[The_Fixer]

@ndkid

To me, what this suggests is that no, craftsmen don't spend their whole lives single-mindedly working on their craft. They spend their free time enjoying themselves. If a 20-year-old apprentice starts with a skill of 4 in his craft, and just puts 4 XP in it every year for 40 years, he'll end with a skill over 8.

Which, aside from the occasionnal character who received training or else, seems mostly coherent with published characters and suggested limits.

[Tellus]

@Cuchulainshound

Which would imply a "middle age" of around 18 years - which was nothing near what I said, so what are you disagreeing with?

Perhaps my chosen wording was poorly defined

This. Please note gerg's post above for the proper usage of the word "middle age".
Also, if you mean "mid-point of expected life", then yes, it's closer to 18, except we were talking about specialist, so we should ignore everyone who died before they were 5 (or more likely, everyone who died before they were 18-21), as well as take into account that these are not the social group most likely to die from violence.

Their "mid-point of expected life" is rather higher.

[Cuchulainshound]

@Tellus

Please note gerg's post above for the proper usage of the word "middle age".

One proper usage, of several.

I believe I adequately clarified the use I intended. If this devolves into a quibble about that one non-game term, deal me out.

[DIREWOLF75]

@Tellus

@Cuchulainshound

Which, given that "middle age" is around 25-30

Not really. The period is infamous (not necessarily fairly so) for having an average life expectancy of about 35 years.
We must remember this includes the positively huge number of children that didn't survive their first five year, or even their very first winter.

If you can survive to adulthood and avoid death by violence (2 big 'if's in ths period), you can expect to live much longer than that.

Mmm, using the average life expectancy is really a quite bad thing when looking at historical ages, as it´s nearly always highly misleading. Too many times have i seen people truly believe that folks in medieval time (and much later as well) actually died of old age in their 30s. It´s embarassing.

As an example from historical statistics here, late 18th century average life expectancy on birth was ~34, but at age 50 it was 68 and at age 65 it went up to 75...
I dont have all the data at hand but i know that looking at ALE at age 10 instead of at birth, the number jumps massively up, to something in the 60s IIRC.

And really, death by "violence", only reason we dont have massively more of those today is because we have access to far better medical facilities and treatment.

For example, among mundanes who survive until age 35, the median age of death is at age 56 according to the simulation. I would imagine that the same simulation would show that among mundanes who survive until age 20, the median age of death is between 41 and 45. However, note that the simulation assumes a nonzero chance of dying of (non-story-related) accident or illness every year. If you don't implement this possibility in your saga, then the lifetimes are going to be much longer, as in the simulation only 27% of mundanes die due to old age.

That´s too low. At age 35 the ALE should probably be in the mid, maybe high 60s.
At age 20 it should probably be in the high 50s.
My guess is that the probability of death from accident or illness is too severe.