I'm aware of that: that's why I keep trying to subtly point out that _we_ are the people complaining about this, and who are most likely to change this setup from the Default. I think that' Rune Levels' are in many ways a _good_ starting point for newcomers to the setup, since they will tend to be in reasonable accordance with their 'kayword stereotype', or at least be validly playable that way. If you have a concise character description that makes playing this 'stereotype' doable, then it gives you a fairly ready 'in' to the game world, in a way that trying to play a youngster who has to has figure how he's _supposed_ to act is more complex. (But as people keep (redundantly) telling me, in many ways more rewarding.)
> But. Children are going to idolise you, neighbours come to you with
> their problems etc etc. Untill you, as a player, have got your head
> around the culture it's going to be a tad tricky to role-play this.
Why? That merely screams "adventure hook" to me, not "playability problem".
> I see the journeyman stage as the most fertile ground for players.
I see no need to be proscriptive about this, nor would I necessarily prescribe the same remedy for all patients.
> Rune Level is a high status position, players should earn it.
That's a View, but one that has nothing at all to do with whether such are playable from start of play.
Once again I cite the (favourable) precedent of Pendragon. In KAP, the (recommended) First Knight character is a vassal knight, which is a _very_ high status relative to his societal base, somewhat more so than being a 'rune level' in an Orlanthi clan. It's also a very powerful sort of position to hold, with much more security than the average knight would have. But I haven't seen droves of complaints about it being a failing of the game that it gives new players "unearned" positions, or that these are infeasibly difficult to play.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail