I understand your objection better now.
However, my NPCs tend to be competent in their domain of expertise. Few of them have more than one mastery (and in fact only the mature adults in their 30s tend to have that single mastery). I don't like fantasy worlds peopled with "groundlings" (zero level characters or whatever). In my Glorantha heroes (lower case) stand out because of their values, goals, responsiblities and expertise in unusual areas (combat, magic etc.) not because of their generic competence.
It seems to me that your problem with mastery inflation could be solved simply by calling them "half-mastery, full-mastery, super-mastery ...or <insert better terms here>). Unless you also object that a competent person can't fumble unless at a penalty (and this seems to boil down to the "how bad is a fumble" issue which also divides the list).
I think I'll definitely stop now. I think this isn't a rules issue per se, but a different view of what the rules should represent.
Thom
Thom Baguley
Human Experimental Psychology
Human Sciences, Loughborough University
Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK.
Tel: +44(0)1509 223049 Fax: 223940
http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~hutsb/
Powered by hypermail