A witcher and their apprentice…

Question

In an upcoming game set in the Northern Realms of the Witcherverse, two of my players decided to come up with this character concept: One plays an older established Witcher, the other plays their in-training apprentice. Said apprentice might even be pre–trial of the grasses thus leaving something exciting to do in-game.

The concept does not violate any of the game prerequisites so I want to allow. However, I have a massive concern about it: the master Witcher will be clearly much better at everything than his apprentice. After all they are the master, right? While I care little about game balance, I want all the players to have equal screen-time and have their characters shine in and of themselves. Having one character that can do everything another can only much better is worrisome: what is left to do for the apprentice that the master cannot do better?

How can a combination of master and apprentice work?

---

_{Why a system tag and a system agnostic one? I care specifically about answers set in the Witcher setting, but any arbitrary RPG system -- e.g. freeform, or in Fate rather than the specific Talsorian Witcher RPG system aka Fuzion. I do not care about artificial system psuedo-balance, I care about system-agnostic Witcherverse answers, and shared narrative significance.}

Answer 1

Actually, the master don't have to be better at everything. For example he may have been targeted by a curse which makes him unable to use magic/less good at combat. Maybe despite all his years of experience he remained very socially awkward and the apprentice will have to do most of the social interactions with NPCs. Maybe the apprentice has a special gift that makes him better than his master in some specific situations (he can be able to speak with animals, to underwater-weave, etc)

Even if the master is strictly better in all fields of competence, the game can still be interesting. The master wants his apprentice to become better, so he won't do everything for him, even if he is more qualified. He will have to estimate the difficulty of each task to determine if he can let the apprentice do it alone or if he has to take care of it. If he keeps the apprentice too far from danger, the apprentice can dramatize about his master not having enough trust in him. This brings interesting RP scenes !

Answer 2

The assumption that the master is better in everything because he is the master is false. The master is better in the relevant aspects of his craft. There is no need to weaken him, simply make the pair face challenges a bit outside the craft.

A master witcher will be better with the sword and will know more about monsters and magic, but being feared and called a mutant tends to hamper normal social interaction quite a bit. Also, while Witcher schools tend to teach the same "curriculum" to their students, depending on the backstory of the characters the trainee might have had a different focus than his master (master is great at Signs, trainee is very good at Alchemy etc.) Or the trainee could have picked up skills before he has gone to school, and depending on those he could have fields where he outstrips his master.

In the usual trio of Combat-Social-Intellectual challenge, the master will be better in two, but it is believable that the apprentice has an edge in the third. Build it in during character creation, and you have a dynamic (if mismatched) duo where one won't outshine the other.

On your specific example: Witchers are generally social outcasts, and a pre-Trial trainee — one who doesn't show signs of mutations — could get a lot of knowledge out of the locals that his master won't. Or he could gather a lot of intel which would be hidden from a true witcher until the end, like the fact the villagers don't have the money to pay for their services.

Answer 3

Master and apprentice is a popular scheme. Whether it's Jedi or medieval knights, stories are full of those pairs. Obviously the master is better in whatever he is a master in. On the other side he has sacrificed something to get there. Most popular (probably because very realistic) is that he sacrificed time. The master is no 20 year old healthy guy, he's older, wiser but less healthy and less athletic. Maybe less inclined to charm young members of the other sex.

As you tagged this system-agnostic, let me add examples of D&D games: I have participated in a few games where there was a master/apprentice duo. As D&D is very dependent on levels, it just would neither be fun nor working very well, to have one player be many levels below the other. So we picked other classes instead of levels for the apprentice. That way the apprentice is more athletic, charming and "seems" more young compared to the master, without even using rules for age.

For example:

• Master: wizard, apprentice: bard.
• Master: fighter (as knight), apprentice: thief or scout (as squire).
• Master: cleric, apprentice: cleric/monk

They have different focus and the master is always better at his core domain. But the game balance is still there (assuming the balance was there from the start, this is not about whether wizard and bard are balanced in D&D).

Answer 4

I'll start a bit from afar.

If I remember psychology of Witchers correctly they are a set of ideologically and socially motivated specialists who strive to produce effective result. If this model is correct then cultural reason for Master to have Apprentice would be one of these two:

1. Help. In real-world trades of martial arts and survival trades Master + Apprentice > Master. In martial aspect - two pair of arms with swords are more dangerous than one. In survival aspect - it is stupid to go to woods alone as you can have someone to keep a guard at night or help you when some incident or decease reduces your mobility.

2. Reproduction. As apprenticeship is the only way for Witchers to propagate their culture and trade, Master must take care of producing a proper Witcher from Apprentices. To produce a proper Witcher who will survive in their chaotic lifestyle, Apprentice must be ready to overcome chaotic and everyday challenges of his trade, thus he mustn't be clutz. Thus on his own skin, Apprentice must gain familiarity with those situations and become complex enough to become a reliable help to Witcher's cause rather than useless asset.

Now, to the point: how that model can be useful for you case:

"1" could be interpreted as situations when Master + Apprentice work together to break through problems that would be impossible for Master alone to handle. That must be highlighted - Apprentice made difference as minor as it was.

"2" could be interpreted that Master have to make Apprentice work and develop. Thus Master must delegate his Apprentice to do some practical tasks. Ergo Apprentice will be capable to snatch highlight for himself while doing those.

Generally they can play around a question - which problems are solvable only by Master and which could be solved by delegating those to Apprentice. Master can't solve them all - and if he tries and fails - they are in trouble. "So choose carefully... And yeah, clock is ticking!" :P

Also this problem could be approached from another angle: Although Witchers' trade is very close to natural selection, which should produce Masters who should be quite keen and experienced there are some catches. First of all natural selection is not "what doesn't kill you makes you strong". Rather than that, natural selection is "what doesn't kill you makes you a crippled mess". Master could have long-term problems like missing limbs or concussion.

Another aspect I clashed with while dealing with kids is - all people are different. Apprentice could be more useful than his Master for approaching different social/physical situations because of his (for example):

• race,
• size(perhaps he can sneak into the hole his Master can't),
• weight (perhaps can climb to the tree higher before it breaks, perhaps can pass through the flimsy bridge),
• youth(seduction attemts? health checks?),
• friends,
• naiveness(he can lie to guard better about things that Master lied to him because he really-really believes that those are truth :P).

Also Witchers are not that sociable creatures so Apprentice with good "charisma" (which stems from his character born from the way his brain works) whose personality is good for connection to people could be more useful sometimes than angry, cold, effective and slightly insane Master.

Answer 5

Master being better than the apprentice is not inherently bad. I will expand one point of Anne's answer that I find extremely important.

The master wants his apprentice to become better, so he won't do everything for him, even if he is more qualified.

This allows for a lot of situations which do not arise in the conventional "all-players-are-equal" setting.

• At the start of the task, the apprentice will ask for the master's advice. The player who is roleplaying the master will have to come up with some in-game lore-based advice.
• Even if the apprentice is good, he is bound to fail at some point. After that, the master will have to take his turn at the problem, starting from an unfavourable condition (think an apprentice knocked senseless by a Troll, or put under an effect of some evil mage's charm). This allows the apprentice to have his part of screen-time (with easier tasks), as well as some time for the master to shine and make use of his better skills (with harder tasks).
• An apprentice failing a task is also a perfect opportunity for a GM to introduce a side plot line, should you wish to introduce any.
• After the completed quest, some blamestorming has to happen: a master analyzing the actions of his apprentice, which is also not a part of usual roleplay.
• An apprentice, should the GM say so, could also get more experience from encounters, reflecting his younger age and peaking ability to learn.

Answer 6

The Master Can't Be Better at EVERYTHING

So, the previous points are great regarding the self-restriction of the master. Master and Apprentice is cool, but if you do it like Star Wars, its generally better to do it NPC and player. A way you can do it however, although it requires roleplaying on behalf of the players, is to give the master and the apprentice very different high points. Doing this, instead of Obi Wan and Luke, you go for a more Podrick and Tyrion Lanniester feel. Maybe the master is very intelligent and powerful, but lacks certain skills. Maybe he easily overlooks things that the apprentice notices.

If you don't want to go for this, an alternate way to go is a sort of branch. Say they're both wizards. I'm going to use a D&D example, but of course tweek it for whatever system. Maybe the master is a necromancer, terribly powerful in his field. His apprentice is far less powerful, but is (either secretly or openly) more interested in studying the similar, but far rarer art of Nethermancy.

In conclusion, everyone has strengths and weaknesses, but everyone is different too. Play on both the master and the apprentices strengths AND weaknesses, and your players should feel meaningful.