>From: "Rich Crofts" <glarkhag_at_...>
>
>From a real world experience, I've rarely heard soldiers who just
>finished boot camp described as "competent". Liabilities, yes.
>The IT graduates I've seen have been very green and not what I would
>call "competent".
Well, I think that's a somewhat cynical viewpoint. But we're really agreeing on the level of competency. What we're disagreeing on is at what life stage the character in question is at. And, actually I agree with you that for a guy who was a "liability" coming out of his training, that he won't be at the level in question for a while - for him, perhaps the starting level is a couple of years down the road.
But for characters we're terming "heroes" here, I tend to get a vision of the kid who shows a lot of early potential. The one who the squad really is glad to have gotten, or who actually knows his IT stuff to some small extent right out of the chute. And who does have a thing or two that they know how to do particularly well. I think the majority of player heroes will tend to be this sort.
But "real experience" is shown, I think, not by having one or two things that the character can do well, but that they can do most everything competently. Where they're keyword is at a level above one mastery, not just a skill or the ability to Think Quick or something. This is confirmed by the fact that the NPCs are listed this way to explain experience (though I've seen arguments that this is just for ease of notation, I've seen it even with characters who are fully fleshed out).
Anyhow, just a perspective, and these were just examples (some people think that the 17/13 levels are actually incompetent). Everybody can figure out what the levels mean to them. I'm really only suggesting that they do, and not start at the default level unless that's an intentional decision to start at whatever you see that level as being.
Mike
Powered by hypermail