Not everyone can be a master (What I feel is a very important balance idea)

[Lightzy]

I suggest that not every pawn will be able to get to 14+ in skill in something.
Getting to 14+ will depend on background, passion etc.

I suggest this because it breaks the economic game when you have a builder at level 20 cranking out masterwork art chairs. At that point it just doesn't make sense anymore.

Also it'll cause even more attachment to pawns, cuz they're more special. (right now they're nearly all the same, because they all can get to max level in anything they practice enough)

[Toast]

Gotta disagree with this one. There's already enough limitation of pawn abilities via "incapables," body part loss or dysfunction, and constant skill point loss. Getting a pawn to level 20 in anything (and *keeping them there*) is still an accomplishment. And in the particular example of furniture crafting, A17 even nerfed the sell price of furniture.

[niklas7737]

I think your suggestions is already implemented in some way. Getting someone to skill-level 20 (and keep them there) without the pawn having a passion for the job seems nearly impossible.

I'm not sure if passions are caused by backstories though ...

[Draconicrose]

This would be terrible. It's hard enough to train pawns without passions as it is. Compound with 'incapable of' and you have a balanced system.

[Ice_Pic]

I also think having a pawn with 20 in skill can be a bit ridiculous, especially with crafting/constructing skills.

What i think could be a bit better is to cap the skill depending of the passion like capped to 11 without passion, 16 with one flame, and no cap with double flames. This makes sense to me since IRL you won't become the best in the world at something if you're not really passionate by it. You also could have a trait that removes these caps.

[Bolgfred]

Actually you can say, this limitation already exists. At Skill 11+ there is a constant experience loss. Any pawn without a flame or two can barely keep their skill at a high level.
By that you can call it a restriction with exceptions.

Personally I would prefer if there would be a small but stacking mood penality if a pawn uses a skill where he has no flames. This can only be prevented/healed by performing some action where he actually has a passion for.

[b0rsuk]

It depends on skill in question. Some offer far fewer opportunities for training, like Animals. So a colonist training Animals will have a very hard time getting to 20 without at least a flame of passion. Numbers are getting tweaked and their train rate may yet be positioned in such way that they won't be feasible to master without passion or a neurotrainer.

I don't think any explicit limitation is needed - just tweak the numbers.

[TheMeInTeam]

Without just "interested" it requires nearly constant work at something to sustain 19-20 skill range.  Possible but not if you're wanting that pawn doing much else.  Passionate has a somewhat easier time.

Without at least 1 flame, it is functionally (and maybe technically) impossible to accrue enough XP against decay to hit anywhere near 20...decay quickly overtakes xp growth and keeps them closer to half that.

If anything you could look at XP growth rates between tasks.  Elite crafters and constructors are much simpler to train than doctors or shooters.

[Neotic]

wouldn't it make it possible for a pawn who can absolutely useless?

[AngleWyrm]

Way back in the middle of the last century, before the invention of computers or internet, a couple guys invented a dice game called Dungeons & Dragons -- and we've been stuck with their poor perspective on the math ever since. (Wanna see what rolling 12d6 + 20 looks like? It looks like 62 +/- 6.) They did not notice that 3 + 1 is a 1/4 more, but 99 + 1 is only 1/100th more. Instead they simulated that reduction of proportional influence on top of what was already happening. Because they had no convenient way of seeing the results (computers weren't invented yet) they just blundered on ahead assuming any difficulty in leveling up was the system working as intended and just needed maybe some variables tweaked, thus marring the RPG genre for generations.

Many games, some of them multi-million dollar projects, have explored that avenue and discovered the same pattern: They have to give up on exponential experience points after a handful of levels and switch to boss monsters, special quests, end of chapter/level bonuses and other methods to advance character level progression.

We're only just barely beginning to recover; League of Legends was the first popular title to feature a linear experience point system.

Do you enjoy having characters that are skill-20 everything, or does that mess with your sense of order? And the harder part of the question: What would you be willing to pay in order to be free of that self-imposed disarray? Could you afford to say there's only enough levels to get to skill-10 everything, then it's all about swapping? Would it be too much to bear to bump the level cap up?