dvang said:

If I spent the advances to change from the lifeguard career to the senior programmer career, then yes, yes they would. Or perhaps after spending some time as a lifeguard, I decide that I miss the life of a programmer, but my originial company still bitter with my sudden departure to pursue lifeguarding refuses to rehire me. Not to turned away, I then head over to my original companys greatest competetor, who is more than happy to hire a high a skilled programmer who can bring the knowledge from their competition.

The problem with using the careers as an absolute guide to my current employment in game is that the game mechanics are linked to the career. Therefore when I earn enough XP and am entitled to change careers, I am forced as a character to find a new job? If the careers are infallibly linked to employment, then why doesn't the career card have a salary listed on it? If I'm a solider, shouldn't I be getting paid to be a soldier? Also, if I quit my job, then do I loose my career?

As a lifeguard, while contemplating another career change, I win the lottery, and never need to work again, so I suddenly loose all professions? Since in WFRP a character cannot be without a career at anytime, then unemployment does not exist in the old world?

It seems much more plaussible, and seems to fit within both the mechanics and lore of the game, if careers are treated more as a character spending time focused in a mindset, rather than an actual term of employment.

Following the logic of career = employment, then in Fresnel's example shouldn't Fredric have been forced to change career the moment his master assigned him to a possition in the Army?

If the carrers of WFRP followed a more free form advancment scheem, then it would be a lot more plaussible to use the careers in that way, but since they are (extremely) limited in the amount of advancement you can gain from each career, it just doesn't make sense. Now if you can come up with an advancement/career system that allows for a character to continue meaningful and flexible progression, while remaining in the same career for their entire lives, I would like to see it, and use it, because I like the concept of the career being more meainingful then simply a means of progression, but right now the mechanics of the game simply make impracticle, hampering, and run contrary to the lore of the world.

@Dvang: The events of Shadows Over Bögenhafen takes place over 4 game days. Much of Power Behind the Throne takes place over the 8 game days that the Carnival lasts. I seem to recall that back when we played PBtT, that 8 days took weeks of gaming to get through. While many adventures may take place over longer in-game time periods, and certainly in an episodic campaign you can allow for lots of down time between adventures, other campaigns styles exist and many adventures do occur over relatively short time spans. Most of the campaigns I've run or have played in have been of the more structured plot variety that did not play out over months or years of in-game time. YMMV of course; however, the idea that "most" adventures take place over weeks or months is highly subjective. Most in your experience maybe, but not in mine.

The rules only tell us that the average XP award is 1 XP per session, but they offer no guidance on how long a typical session should last. If a group tends to play shorter sessions, an adventure like SoB could easily take more than 4 sessions and if you allow for bonus XP, completing a career in a week is quite possible. As I've said before, game time is malleable. So even in a campaign with a mix of adventures, one could easily advance an entire rank in one week, then spend months of game time getting through the next rank, only to zip through the following rank, depending on what type of adventures the GM is running and the pacing required by the story at the moment. There is no game world rationalization for why someone could excel at learning/completing their first and third rank, but struggle for months getting through their second, because (wait for it), advancement is not based on game time, but play sessions.

Different groups have different play styles as well. If you want to strictly enforce the career = job and adventuring is just something done on the side, then you either have to run a very free form campaign where you always work your player's chosen career advancements into the story, or restrict careers that don't make sense for the story you are telling. What options are open to the Watchman that is out on an adventure when the time comes to change careers? Is Boatman or Dockhand an option? What about Barber-Surgeon or Bailiff? If your play style is to force PCs to find mentors or actually enlist in the militia to become a Soldier, then this clearly won't be as big an issue if you run an episodic campaign, but it will limit their options (possibly severely) in a structured adventure/campaign. So if the party is on a trek through the mountains, many careers may be out of the question. Now, how about that wizard? Is he able to advance or not? If the party is stuck in the middle of the mountains for several game sessions (in game time irrelevant), does the Wizard just accumulate XP with no way to spend them (other than two non-career advances) until he can get back to his mentor/College? When the current adventure wraps up and he heads back to school, does he now burn through 6 or 7 accumulated XP during down time? This may be in keeping with the setting, but goes against the game's idea of improving your character is some small way nearly every session. Or does he just move up his tree automatically and continue to learn on his own without the need of additional training/mentoring? This may be easier to accommodate under the current game circumstances, but is that breaking the setting suspension of disbelief that Wizardly advancement is strictly controlled and only available via the Colleges?

I'm not saying that there is a single right way or that there is even a wrong way. Each group/GM has to decide for their game. One group may feel that it is quite reasonable for the wizard to advance naturally without further mentoring when they are stuck for weeks in the mountains during an adventure. Another group/GM might not. Likewise, the same group/GM that can't rationalize the Wizard advancing on his own without further mentoring may have no problem with the Wizard becoming a Hunter or Scout while stuck in for weeks in the mountains, with every intent of resuming his wizardly studies just as soon as the campaign permits. You do whatever makes sense for the stories you are trying to play, but if you make hard and fast rules, you potentially limit your options for story-telling.

@Fresnel

It seemed to Fredric that his master was losing his mind. The study materials Fredric brought with him he had studied. His arcane skills were honed in battle and exercised daily. The idea that Fredric in any way neglected his arcane skills was utterly absurd. His life and the lives of his comrades depended on them. He was twice the wizard he had been when he left.

However, Fredric exercise the disciple he had learnt and kept these thoughts to himself. He would pass any test his master cared to put before him. He would be the greatest Battle Wizard of his age, it was his destiny."

I have nothing further to add. We'll have to agree to disagee on this.

Except that he did *not* in fact keep up his skills. He is lagging way behind. If he hadn't gone mercenary, and spent all his time training as a mercenary, he would already be the next rank of wizard and be trying for another rank of wizard. So, Acolyte->mercenary->battle wizard ... when he should be Acolyte->battle wizard->master wizard (or whatever the names are. I forget right now and don't have my books). The Master is expecting Fredric to be ready (or nearly so) for master wizard skills, yet he is only just beginning to learn battle wizard skills. Far below the skill level of what is expected for Fredric's experience.

@All

Yep, in the end it comes down to the GM and how the GM wants to handle it. I was just pointing out that, from all the WFRP lore and the FFG FAQ, it is extremely difficult for a wizard/priest/slayer to leave their career, do another career, and then return to their wizard/priest/slayer career. It is a matter of the RP societies of those careers, not of the career system. Other careers it doesn't matter nearly as much. Now, if appropriately roleplayed, it could rarely happen (assuming GM allowance). I was just trying to point out that those 3 career paths are basically exceptions to the rule, and are not quite so free-form as other careers, and require a much more linear path of completion. As a GM, I would discourage such atypical behavior (which also reduces munchkinism), and make it a difficult roleplaying experience for the player (and point it out ahead of time when they leave the career path). It should not be something the player just says they do, without any reprecussions ... they will need to roleplay it. I personally think GMs need to be *very* careful letting wizards/slayers/priests change careers willy-nilly.