In my group there was always a logical step, that was explainable in the game-world. We take the careers not as actual careers, but more rough guidelines on what someone is doing. But I always let my players explain, how it fits into the current adventure. Sometimes I make suggestions on their next step in regard to what they are experiencing atm.

I require careers to be logical, as in Soldier becomes Serjeant fine, but you want to develop special skills than (as in earlier WFRP editions) you need to find a tutor or otherwise explain how you learned those/joined that career and that also takes time.

This can feed into the game and stories and the plot. For example the noble wanting to become a knight gets an introduction to a member of the order he wants to join as a reward in a session, an older knight who will accompany group on a trip and (assuming he survives) can provide some instruction and introduction to Chapter House in city of destination, and if impressed, stand for PC being inducted. The group was making trip anyway (Middenheim to Altdorf in Enemy Within), this gives that PC an additional reason to. Also creates a fun NPC (he's basically an albatross/jinx, telling tales of all his comrades and how they died horribly - adds misfortune dice to fear checks etc. during the trip).

This means, Player - plan ahead, 4 advances from now you want that change, but now you are in a city with some time, make the connection you need to now, or wait and don't spend the advances until you can logically explain how you developed those talents, skills, new career whatever.

We do the same as socratim, we view careers as guidelines rather than the actual "job" you have. We see it more as a package of skills and abilities, and the career name is less important.

However in my experience, most of the time players want to progress logically in the same general type of career they have had earlier to specialize further in their given skill set. If my players want to change careers in a non-logical way, that's ok too. Often it's just about broadening your skill set, which most people do in real life from time to time as well. They pay more XP for the transition, and in my games moving into a new career doesn't change your social status. So I've really never felt the need to restrict the character development and force the player to advance into something else.

In my games transitioning to noble lord would not make you nobility, famous or change anything major about your character, except which advancements you can take for future XP and what career ability you got. But it's really something each gaming group should discuss together. Some groups might want the Noble Lord career to represent that you've become a Noble Lord, but that require a different sort of planning and approach to careers.

Ok, so in general this is rather opposite to what I understand was advised by the designers. From what I remember they suggest any new skill or talent just show up during the scene, just like a movie character suddenly recognises he is naturally gifted but never knew about that before. So probably one should realise he is now… a noble? I think I like your way much more.

Do you also require some kind of change in roleplaying the character when transitioning into new career? Do you suggest change of attitude based on “who you are today”

I'm generally blessed with Players who choose things based on what fits how they've been roleplaying.

I only require changing in roleplaying if the career really demands it. I have only had to push on this with a player manifesting magical ability, choosy Aqshy - Fire (Bright Wizard) who then kept being cowardly etc. and hardly "passionate" etc. Real issue is he pays little heed to the specific lore of the world - when he wanted to become a wizard that was hardly the wind I imagined him displaying - I told him it would have to be a time when his PC displayed changes in persona as he became more attuned to the wind of fire and gave him a list of attributes/traits associated with that wind, have been clear going a couple of sessions without manifesting those probably means misfortune dice on channelling. That sort of thing (winds affect personalty of users) and the religious connections, noble expectations are when I push most that careers mean something.

Usually the career Players choose is quite in keeping with the roleplaying (the most inquisitive PC at table wants to become an Investigator, well really you already are the way you've been playing your character so sure) or it blends in "the servant turns out to have been a witch hunter in disguise"..

That last is one thing to use at times - it's not "retroactive change" it's just "revealing something" if handled right. Just because we have never seen you swim doesn't mean you can't. As long as the "fiction" has not established "you can't", maybe you really always could and it's just now that it manifests. Just as in a TV show, after 10 episodes you learn one of the characters used to go hunting with his dad and knows what a real wolf sounds like not a fake one. Just because we never knew you were a witch hunter doesn't mean you weren't always one.... as long as you didn't act in a way making that implausible.

Personally, most careers I don't care much about. They pick peasant? Frankly, most are peasants of some description anyway. In fact, when i introduced the system to some friends one guy pretty quickly pointed out "this is 50 shades of peasant". So i mostly don't mind. No one has a career as a graverobber afterall, they just happen to have robbed a few graves, and probably picked up a thing or two doing it.

As for a person becoming a sergeant (i hate trying to spell that word), to me that's more a person having aquired or growing into the skills a sergeant has. Afterall, unless he's in the army or a mercenary company he has no rank.

Certain careers I have reservations and I've yet to meet any opposition from my players. Noble? You got to become a noble for that. We have a fop, he wants to be a noble lord and was told he'd need to own land or be given land to become a landed noble. He was fine with this, in fact he started scheming immediatly, which has me....concerned. But he went duellist, mostly because he had had a few fights and quickly found out that although he's skilled he's not....brave, and duells are thankfully not against chaos worshippers and undead. He also has the rich talent, which makes sense.

Frankly, this system is the best I've had for making players make characters and not combat sheets. In fact, most of the party (which is huge at the moment) is strenght 2, toughness 3 fellowship 4. They make people, they are afraid to die and they naturally make characters around a core concept.

The fop is foppish (willpower 2, because willpower is for peasants).
The gambler is a coward, he loves taking risks but hates taking the consequenses and works hard to avoid them.
The pitfighter is good at scaring people and fighting.

I'd only restrict careers with major impact on the character (hey, you're a witch hunter! or a knight, or a noble! or a slayer...) and the same with talents. Use common sense and talk with your players how they like that idea.

Personally, most careers I don't care much about. They pick peasant? Frankly, most are peasants of some description anyway. In fact, when i introduced the system to some friends one guy pretty quickly pointed out "this is 50 shades of peasant".

50 shades of peasant lol. Wish I'd thought of that. I'm gonna have to steal it

Agreed, I view most careers as a set of advancement opportunities, rather than something set in stone as your job. But with Witch Hunter, Slayer, Runesmith, knight and similar careers I'm more restrictive, as they represent a very specific job.