Skill Frequency

[Badenov]

I was sure I had found, some years ago, a reference that said how common certain skill levels were. A 3 might have been 'best on a planet', a 4 might have been 'best in the subsector', a 5 might be 'best in the sector', or whatever, I can't recall the specifics, but it read something like that. The problem is, I can't find it anymore. I don't recall if it was a wiki entry or a forum post or something else, but searches of both can't come up with it. Am I crazed or was there such a reference once upon a time?

 

[TamsinP]

The explanation of skill levels in the MgT2e Core Rulebook is pretty close to that; I don't know if that was carried forward from an earlier edition.

 

[Spinward Flow]

a reference that said how common certain skill levels were. A 3 might have been 'best on a planet', a 4 might have been 'best in the subsector', a 5 might be 'best in the sector', or whatever

Considering that in CT, a college graduate with honors could enter medical school and automatically gain Medical-3 if they were successful in medical school. If you graduate with honors from medical school, you'll leave @ 26 years old with Medical-4 (LBB5.80, p15-16).

If you look at the (starship) computer programs table (LBB2.81, p41), if you want to write the programs yourself you're going to need Computer skill in the 1-4 range along with other skill requirements (such as pilot and navigation) that can reach up as high as 7!



Point being that such an overly simplistic hierarchy as you've described probably isn't that useful as a guide.
Simply because of how the chargen "allocates" skills, some will be easier to raise to high skill levels than others.

 

[Badenov]

Considering that in CT, a college graduate with honors could enter medical school and automatically gain Medical-3 if they were successful in medical school. If you graduate with honors from medical school, you'll leave @ 26 years old with Medical-4 (LBB5.80, p15-16).

If you look at the (starship) computer programs table (LBB2.81, p41), if you want to write the programs yourself you're going to need Computer skill in the 1-4 range along with other skill requirements (such as pilot and navigation) that can reach up as high as 7!



Point being that such an overly simplistic hierarchy as you've described probably isn't that useful as a guide.
Simply because of how the chargen "allocates" skills, some will be easier to raise to high skill levels than others.

So, I can calculate how likely the random occurrence of the same skill pick will be over several rolls, that's just math.

What I'm looking for is a statement in a world-building context stating that, PCs notwithstanding, certain skill levels were one per subsector or one per system or whatever. It may have been MgT-specific, because the skill level requirements in LBB2 are very high for some programs.

 

[TamsinP]

Considering that in CT, a college graduate with honors could enter medical school and automatically gain Medical-3 if they were successful in medical school. If you graduate with honors from medical school, you'll leave @ 26 years old with Medical-4 (LBB5.80, p15-16).

That's why I suspect that it's probably from Mongoose, rather than other editions; it definitely matches up with MgT2e, but I don't have MgT1e to check if it's the same there.

 

[Badenov]

That's why I suspect that it's probably from Mongoose, rather than other editions; it definitely matches up with MgT2e, but I don't have MgT1e to check if it's the same there.

MgT1 doesn't have any sort of comment like that, that I've found.

 

[TamsinP]

From MgT2e Core Rulebook (2024 update) p58:

If a Traveller has one or more levels in a skill (Skill
1, Skill 2, and so on.) then they are trained in
that skill. Each level represents several years of
experience using that skill and grants DM+1 per
level to all skill checks using that skill. A Traveller
with level 2–3 in a skill is a skilled professional in
that field. A Traveller with level 4 or 5 is probably
both well-respected and well-known in their field.

For example, a Traveller with Medic 1 may be a
paramedic or nurse, while another Traveller with
Medic 2 might be a doctor. If a Traveller had Medic 3,
they would likely be a very well-regarded doctor with
many years of practice under their belt. A Traveller
with Medic 4 or 5 would be at least world-renowned
and may well be known across several star systems
for their expertise.

Not an exact match, but pretty close to your OP.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The problem that you're going to run into is that subsectors have millions (if not billions) of people in them. That's a LOT of room for "exceptional specialists" in all kinds of fields.

Take medical skill, for example (and I'm going to use CT here for this because that's what I know).
The expectation there is that skill-1 is "basic first aid" while skill-2 is "nurse/EMT level" ... skill-3 is "doctor" and you need to have DEX 8+ on top of skill-3 to be a "surgeon" (LBB1.81, p20-21). Xeno-medicine is medical skill @ a -2 level. So if you want a "doctor level in xeno-medicine (basically, alien species, of which there are PLENTY in a Traveller setting) then you need skill-5.



If you try and say that skill-3 is a "one per planet" type of skill level, then there can be ONLY ONE DOCTOR (of medicine) on any given world ... by definition of the constraints that you are trying to impose. If a world has population: 6+ ... does that make any sense at all?

I would argue that the "category boxes" you're trying to squeeze skill levels into doesn't pass the "smell test" ... let alone the "laugh test" ...



Now, a much more practical assumption for a Referee is that the PCs might only "know" (personally) ONE person of skill-3 per planet in a particular field ... but there are plenty more people on that world with skill-3 that they DON'T KNOW and aren't acquainted with (or know how to get in contact with them). Basically a Referee version of "if you don't know them, they don't exist" (even though they obviously DO exist, somewhere).

It's a very different thing to say planets only get ONE skill-3 person per planet ... versus saying that the PCs are only acquainted with one skill-3 person per planet (there are more, they just don't know them "for free").

Such an interpretation has knock on effects for things such as starship crew recruiting.

• If you recruit the ONLY skill-3 person in an entire map hex to join your crew, that map hex no longer as a skill-3 person in that field ... because you hired the ONLY ONE THERE IS.
• If you recruit the ONLY skill-3 person that your PCs know on a particular world, they should have to expend a LOT of effort to be able to find (and recruit) a second skill-3 person (who isn't already gainfully employed in their field).

The first is an absolute statement of supply.
The second is a statement of availability/social networking along the lines of "Oh, I know someone..." for ease of accessing NPCs (and their skills).



An entirely different way to approach the question would be to make Social Standing a factor.
The higher your social standing, the "easier" it is to "know" the people with high skill levels in their respective field.

The way I would work it would be to roll a PC's Social Standing or less (so high social standing offers an advantage) to "know" who people with skills are that the PCs can go to ("I know somebody"). For the more criminal/unsavory skills (bribery, forgery, streetwise, etc.) the Referee can invert that (so that low social standing offers an advantage).

If you want to recruit someone to your cause/crew after you've "found" them ... make the Social Standing roll AGAIN, but this time with a DM. Count the skill level of the person as an adverse DM (working "against" the roll to reduce the odds of success) if the PC has the same skill as the person they're trying to recruit ... or if they don't have the same skill, double the adverse DM for the skill level of the NPC.

Examples:

1. A Social Standing: 9 PC wants to recruit a Pilot. They want someone who has Pilot-3.
   • Roll 9- on 2D to find a person with Pilot-3 skill.
   • If the PC also has Pilot skill, roll 6- on 2D to recruit them to join the PC's party.
   • If the PC does not have Pilot skill, roll 3- on 2D to recruit them to join the PC's party.
2. A Social Standing: 4 PC wants to recruit a (criminal) Forger. They want someone who has Forgery-3.
   • Roll 4+ on 2D to find a person with Forgery-3 skill.
   • If the PC also has Forgery skill, roll 7+ on 2D to recruit them to join the PC's party.
   • If the PC does not have Forgery skill, roll 10+ on 2D to recruit them to join the PC's party.

The point here is that higher skill people/NPCs are allowed to exist within the setting, but the PCs are "unlikely" to have "access" to them or are otherwise "unlikely" to be able to "convince" them to drop whatever they're doing in order to join the party of PCs.

In other words, you can use Social Standing as a proxy for the old saying of "birds of a feather flock together" in order to put some constraints on who the PCs "ought to know" and how open/amenable those NPCs might be towards "helping" the PCs with ... whatever.

Note that this kind of approach, rather than using a(n artificial) "scarcity" threshold like you were assuming, winds up being much more flexible/amorphous in that there are no DEFINITIVE answers to the question of "how many people have skill levels at what level?" ... but rather hinges upon "how many people might be RELEVANT to the PCs at any given skill level?" when it comes to interacting with NPCs.

For example ... I never met Stephen Hawking while he was alive, let alone asked him to work on a project for me ... but I know that he existed and he was at the top of his field of research. That kind of "exist but are inaccessible to the PCs" factor is really all that matters with respect to a Referee and Players in a Traveller setting. For storytelling purposes, all you need to know is "how many NPCs are 'gettable' by the PCs?" which is going to be a much narrower subset than the total number that exist (and when you're talking sectors, that can be hundreds of billions of people!).



Besides, there really need to be more excuses reasons for Social Standing to be relevant to gameplay ... and making "recruiting" of NPCs one of those considerations has all kinds of knock on effects. Taken to its logical conclusion (and applied to NPCs as well, not just PCs) it can have some interesting effects on starship crew recruiting (difficulties) to be able to fill out a payroll roster.

 

[Condottiere]

Syncretism.

A combination of different, but related skills.

Where the whole (resulting outcome) is greater, than in part.

So, collect those Pokémon cards.

 

[Enoki]

The problem that you're going to run into is that subsectors have millions (if not billions) of people in them. That's a LOT of room for "exceptional specialists" in all kinds of fields.

Take medical skill, for example (and I'm going to use CT here for this because that's what I know).
The expectation there is that skill-1 is "basic first aid" while skill-2 is "nurse/EMT level" ... skill-3 is "doctor" and you need to have DEX 8+ on top of skill-3 to be a "surgeon" (LBB1.81, p20-21). Xeno-medicine is medical skill @ a -2 level. So if you want a "doctor level in xeno-medicine (basically, alien species, of which there are PLENTY in a Traveller setting) then you need skill-5.



If you try and say that skill-3 is a "one per planet" type of skill level, then there can be ONLY ONE DOCTOR (of medicine) on any given world ... by definition of the constraints that you are trying to impose. If a world has population: 6+ ... does that make any sense at all?

I would argue that the "category boxes" you're trying to squeeze skill levels into doesn't pass the "smell test" ... let alone the "laugh test" ...



Now, a much more practical assumption for a Referee is that the PCs might only "know" (personally) ONE person of skill-3 per planet in a particular field ... but there are plenty more people on that world with skill-3 that they DON'T KNOW and aren't acquainted with (or know how to get in contact with them). Basically a Referee version of "if you don't know them, they don't exist" (even though they obviously DO exist, somewhere).

It's a very different thing to say planets only get ONE skill-3 person per planet ... versus saying that the PCs are only acquainted with one skill-3 person per planet (there are more, they just don't know them "for free").

Such an interpretation has knock on effects for things such as starship crew recruiting.

• If you recruit the ONLY skill-3 person in an entire map hex to join your crew, that map hex no longer as a skill-3 person in that field ... because you hired the ONLY ONE THERE IS.
• If you recruit the ONLY skill-3 person that your PCs know on a particular world, they should have to expend a LOT of effort to be able to find (and recruit) a second skill-3 person (who isn't already gainfully employed in their field).

The first is an absolute statement of supply.
The second is a statement of availability/social networking along the lines of "Oh, I know someone..." for ease of accessing NPCs (and their skills).



An entirely different way to approach the question would be to make Social Standing a factor.
The higher your social standing, the "easier" it is to "know" the people with high skill levels in their respective field.

The way I would work it would be to roll a PC's Social Standing or less (so high social standing offers an advantage) to "know" who people with skills are that the PCs can go to ("I know somebody"). For the more criminal/unsavory skills (bribery, forgery, streetwise, etc.) the Referee can invert that (so that low social standing offers an advantage).

If you want to recruit someone to your cause/crew after you've "found" them ... make the Social Standing roll AGAIN, but this time with a DM. Count the skill level of the person as an adverse DM (working "against" the roll to reduce the odds of success) if the PC has the same skill as the person they're trying to recruit ... or if they don't have the same skill, double the adverse DM for the skill level of the NPC.

Examples:

1. A Social Standing: 9 PC wants to recruit a Pilot. They want someone who has Pilot-3.
   • Roll 9- on 2D to find a person with Pilot-3 skill.
   • If the PC also has Pilot skill, roll 6- on 2D to recruit them to join the PC's party.
   • If the PC does not have Pilot skill, roll 3- on 2D to recruit them to join the PC's party.
2. A Social Standing: 4 PC wants to recruit a (criminal) Forger. They want someone who has Forgery-3.
   • Roll 4+ on 2D to find a person with Forgery-3 skill.
   • If the PC also has Forgery skill, roll 7+ on 2D to recruit them to join the PC's party.
   • If the PC does not have Forgery skill, roll 10+ on 2D to recruit them to join the PC's party.

The point here is that higher skill people/NPCs are allowed to exist within the setting, but the PCs are "unlikely" to have "access" to them or are otherwise "unlikely" to be able to "convince" them to drop whatever they're doing in order to join the party of PCs.

In other words, you can use Social Standing as a proxy for the old saying of "birds of a feather flock together" in order to put some constraints on who the PCs "ought to know" and how open/amenable those NPCs might be towards "helping" the PCs with ... whatever.

Note that this kind of approach, rather than using a(n artificial) "scarcity" threshold like you were assuming, winds up being much more flexible/amorphous in that there are no DEFINITIVE answers to the question of "how many people have skill levels at what level?" ... but rather hinges upon "how many people might be RELEVANT to the PCs at any given skill level?" when it comes to interacting with NPCs.

For example ... I never met Stephen Hawking while he was alive, let alone asked him to work on a project for me ... but I know that he existed and he was at the top of his field of research. That kind of "exist but are inaccessible to the PCs" factor is really all that matters with respect to a Referee and Players in a Traveller setting. For storytelling purposes, all you need to know is "how many NPCs are 'gettable' by the PCs?" which is going to be a much narrower subset than the total number that exist (and when you're talking sectors, that can be hundreds of billions of people!).



Besides, there really need to be more excuses reasons for Social Standing to be relevant to gameplay ... and making "recruiting" of NPCs one of those considerations has all kinds of knock on effects. Taken to its logical conclusion (and applied to NPCs as well, not just PCs) it can have some interesting effects on starship crew recruiting (difficulties) to be able to fill out a payroll roster.

I can't see social standing alone being a way to do this. You'd need to know the average social standing for a particular job skill and then use that as a comparison to the standing of the PC doing the hiring or whatever.

Examples:

If criminals are low Social, then you being low social is a big +. A noble trying to hire a criminal would be difficult or impossible directly. That is, a noble can't be seen associating with such scum or it could hurt their reputation. So, they'd have to use an intermediary like a trusted assistant or something to do it.

If say ship's engineers are typically 6 or 7 social, then being around that level helps when trying to hire them. Being low soc scum would hurt but being a high soc would too.

If something required a high soc to do, then being a noble or high soc helps. Say you want to hire an academic or professional with a long pedigree and respect in their field. Being a noble would be a big +, while being low soc would make it nearly impossible.

Fitting in is far more important in such transactions than straight. Some societies and races have much stricter rules and social etiquette than others. You have to know your place in such societies and stay in it--OR ELSE!

 

[atpollard]

I was sure I had found, some years ago, a reference that said how common certain skill levels were. A 3 might have been 'best on a planet', a 4 might have been 'best in the subsector', a 5 might be 'best in the sector', or whatever, I can't recall the specifics, but it read something like that. The problem is, I can't find it anymore. I don't recall if it was a wiki entry or a forum post or something else, but searches of both can't come up with it. Am I crazed or was there such a reference once upon a time?

What that reminds me of is MgT 1ed Dilettante: Social Standing

Social Standing = Region of Influence = Possibly Known in...
10 = Capital = Surrounding Continent
11 = Continent = Rest of the World
12 = World = Rest of the System
13 = System = Neighbouring Systems
14 = 2–3 Systems = Entire Subsector
15 = Subsector = Entire Empire

If we assume that SOC 7 is average and equates to a SKILL-3, then that might yield a guesstimate of ...
SKILL = Region of Influence = Possibly Known in...
6 = Capital = Surrounding Continent
7 = Continent = Rest of the World
8 = World = Rest of the System
9 = System = Neighbouring Systems
10 = 2–3 Systems = Entire Subsector
11 = Subsector = Entire Empire

 

[Badenov]

The problem that you're going to run into is that subsectors have millions (if not billions) of people in them. That's a LOT of room for "exceptional specialists" in all kinds of fields.

I never said it was a realistic or reasonable table, just that it existed. And for worlds of Pop 3-4, they could very well have just one Medic -3 or -4. Taken across a subsector where populations can be in the tens of billions, the likelihood of high stats is of course higher as well as multiples of the less-than-max values.

Besides, there really need to be more excuses reasons for Social Standing to be relevant to gameplay ... and making "recruiting" of NPCs one of those considerations has all kinds of knock on effects. Taken to its logical conclusion (and applied to NPCs as well, not just PCs) it can have some interesting effects on starship crew recruiting (difficulties) to be able to fill out a payroll roster.

This is actually an interesting observation that I like.

 

[atpollard]

As a quick and dirty RULE OF THUMB, you might want to set the POP digit of a world/region as the highest skill level found there.

So a village of POP 3 (thousands of people) would have someone with up to skill-3; while a planet of POP 9 would have a doctor of SKILL-9 as the best doctor on the planet. A subsector of POP 12, might have an Engineer-12 heading up the Navy Research Center.

 

[Badenov]

What that reminds me of is MgT 1ed Dilettante: Social Standing

Social Standing = Region of Influence = Possibly Known in...
10 = Capital = Surrounding Continent
11 = Continent = Rest of the World
12 = World = Rest of the System
13 = System = Neighbouring Systems
14 = 2–3 Systems = Entire Subsector
15 = Subsector = Entire Empire

If we assume that SOC 7 is average and equates to a SKILL-3, then that might yield a guesstimate of ...
SKILL = Region of Influence = Possibly Known in...
6 = Capital = Surrounding Continent
7 = Continent = Rest of the World
8 = World = Rest of the System
9 = System = Neighbouring Systems
10 = 2–3 Systems = Entire Subsector
11 = Subsector = Entire Empire

The problem with Soc is that 1 in 36 randomly rolled characters have Soc C. That seems wildly out of sync with the stated description number of barons in any population, so I don't think Soc is a very good metric.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I can't see social standing alone being a way to do this.

I was providing a "quick and dirty way" to explain the concept which would be easy for Referees to adjudicate simply ... rather than reaching for some kind of Theory Of Everything™ to explain the whole Simulation at every level and in every context.

If criminals are low Social, then you being low social is a big +. A noble trying to hire a criminal would be difficult or impossible directly. That is, a noble can't be seen associating with such scum or it could hurt their reputation. So, they'd have to use an intermediary like a trusted assistant or something to do it.

EXACTLY.
Working As Intentional.

If you need plausible deniability, how do you obtain it?
Simple ... you delegate/work through intermediaries.

Note that exactly the same kind of thing happens in the realm of economics.
Ever heard of "shell companies" that get used to foil the tracing of criminal activities ...?

If something required a high soc to do, then being a noble or high soc helps. Say you want to hire an academic or professional with a long pedigree and respect in their field. Being a noble would be a big +, while being low soc would make it nearly impossible.

Exactly.
You need to know Who's Who in order to know What's What.

And this is something that can be inverted, such that high skills in "disreputable/criminal professions" ought to require low social standing, rather than high social standing.

There can be exceptions (in both directions) of course, but those are Context Modifiers that depend on what the PCs are after (and how they're trying to obtain whatever they're after). If everything's above board/legal then high social standing ought to be a positive ... if everything's "shady" or unscrupulous then low social standing ought to be a positive.

That way, high or low social standing isn't a "blanket win/lose" in all circumstances.
As with so many things, what you really want are "the right people for the job" ... which can vary depending on the "job" ...

 

[McPerth]

This is in fact, IMHO, quite version related, as the skill levels vary with the version.

As a rule of thumb, I assume the skill level in CT/MT is the quivalent of one more than in MgT. I mostly base this in two details: As I will use CT/MT levels in this post, take this in mind.

• In CT/MT skill 1 allows you to take a job on it, while in MgT this requirement is skill 0
• In CT/MT a Medical 3 is specified to be a doctor, while MgT states this is Medical 2

This said, and again based mostly on this statement about Medic Skill, I assume CT/MT level 3 is the equivalent to a University studies (a medical doctor, a lawyer, etc). This is, again IMHO, reinforced by the fact in CT/MT advanced CharGen, as someone has already stated in this thread, you finish the Medical school with Medical 3 (4 if honors graduate). Also, in CT half the graduates in the flight school will have Pilot 2, while in MT about 1/6 of its graduates will finish with Pilot 3, and another 1/6 with level 2. And all of those characters are fresh out of their schooling, without real experience yet…

See also that Instruction rules allow you to teach a skill up to your level in the skill and in instruction -1. So, for the medical school to teach you level 3, the instructors must have Instruction and Medical at level 4… So I guess we may assume this being the minimum for university teachers…

See also that, again in CT HG, a ship commander will increase the effective computer number from Ship Tactics -3 up, and the pilot will increase the effective Agility from Pilot 3 up.

This makes me think that level 3 is not so rare. Again as already states, how many (medical) doctors are in your city? And how many lawyers? All of them are assumed to have a minimum level 3 in their specialties, as I would assume most Capital Ships OCs and Pilots. It’s more difficult to evaluate it in other specialties…

Of course, other skills are more difficult to evaluate, as they do not imply such a clear titles, but I guess an army (or police) sniper(marksman to have also a minimum level of 3-4, evaluating from their score rates. Again how many of those exist?

So I’d assume levels 3-4 are not uncommon, and I’d set the world wide known people at levels 6+ at least, though this point may be quite more subjective.

 

[kilemall]

This is in fact, IMHO, quite version related, as the skill levels vary with the version.

As a rule of thumb, I assume the skill level in CT/MT is the quivalent of one more than in MgT. I mostly base this in two details: As I will use CT/MT levels in this post, take this in mind.

• In CT/MT skill 1 allows you to take a job on it, while in MgT this requirement is skill 0
• In CT/MT a Medical 3 is specified to be a doctor, while MgT states this is Medical 2

This said, and again based mostly on this statement about Medic Skill, I assume CT/MT level 3 is the equivalent to a University studies (a medical doctor, a lawyer, etc). This is, again IMHO, reinforced by the fact in CT/MT advanced CharGen, as someone has already stated in this thread, you finish the Medical school with Medical 3 (4 if honors graduate). Also, in CT half the graduates in the flight school will have Pilot 2, while in MT about 1/6 of its graduates will finish with Pilot 3, and another 1/6 with level 2. And all of those characters are fresh out of their schooling, without real experience yet…

See also that Instruction rules allow you to teach a skill up to your level in the skill and in instruction -1. So, for the medical school to teach you level 3, the instructors must have Instruction and Medical at level 4… So I guess we may assume this being the minimum for university teachers…

See also that, again in CT HG, a ship commander will increase the effective computer number from Ship Tactics -3 up, and the pilot will increase the effective Agility from Pilot 3 up.

This makes me think that level 3 is not so rare. Again as already states, how many (medical) doctors are in your city? And how many lawyers? All of them are assumed to have a minimum level 3 in their specialties, as I would assume most Capital Ships OCs and Pilots. It’s more difficult to evaluate it in other specialties…

Of course, other skills are more difficult to evaluate, as they do not imply such a clear titles, but I guess an army (or police) sniper(marksman to have also a minimum level of 3-4, evaluating from their score rates. Again how many of those exist?

So I’d assume levels 3-4 are not uncommon, and I’d set the world wide known people at levels 6+ at least, though this point may be quite more subjective.

I too am coming at this from CT and the whole experience vs Instruction skill matrix.

Pretty easy to get skill-0 as the instructor only has to have that skill-1 plus instruction-1 (adult ed class level). My interpretation, how characters can get zero skills quickly.

Gets more difficult to get that level of instruction starting at Skill-2, becomes very much a rarefied medical school thing to get instructors with skill-4/instruction-4 to impart skill-3 (doctor level).

Past that point IMO you get into either experience improvement or having to find a sensei, a master teacher at 5+ willing to spend precious time on your character. Very rare and at the top of their profession, they are going to have to be impressed with the student candidate who may have to pass an arduous test or quest to be deemed worthy.

So not a direct demographics descriptive, but we can say skill-3 is a doctor/senior professional, skill-4 is a top professional/senior doctor, skill-5 is a rare individual and skill-6+ is legendary, probably rare in terms of era as well as frequency in population.

As I recall DaVinci was rated mechanical-6.

 

[Dragoner]

I had a friend who's Dad was an MD, and he had a saying: "You know what they call the person who graduated at the bottom of the class? Doctor." It makes me leery of any regimented system of assigning values to skill levels. Some people are just naturals, like a race car driver that operates the controls of a vehicle in the same way a master fine arts painter handles their brushes.

 

[Condottiere]

Diagnosis is figuring out what's wrong, if anything, with you.

Treatment involves factors that could be outside the control of the practitioner.

 

[atpollard]

I too am coming at this from CT and the whole experience vs Instruction skill matrix.

Pretty easy to get skill-0 as the instructor only has to have that skill-1 plus instruction-1 (adult ed class level). My interpretation, how characters can get zero skills quickly.

Gets more difficult to get that level of instruction starting at Skill-2, becomes very much a rarefied medical school thing to get instructors with skill-4/instruction-4 to impart skill-3 (doctor level).

Past that point IMO you get into either experience improvement or having to find a sensei, a master teacher at 5+ willing to spend precious time on your character. Very rare and at the top of their profession, they are going to have to be impressed with the student candidate who may have to pass an arduous test or quest to be deemed worthy.

So not a direct demographics descriptive, but we can say skill-3 is a doctor/senior professional, skill-4 is a top professional/senior doctor, skill-5 is a rare individual and skill-6+ is legendary, probably rare in terms of era as well as frequency in population.

As I recall DaVinci was rated mechanical-6.

Even within CT ... a LBB2 Character is very different from a Book 4-7 Character with all those Schools and Special Assignments. I can get just a little lucky and create an Army sniper with Rifle-6 in just 3 terms of Advanced Chargen (it happened). What you discover is a +6 breaks the 2d6 curve ... impossible shots become average and average shots become automatic. It changes the game dynamics dramatically.

At SKILL-4 and above, you really start encountering the "Grendel's Mother" problem and the game needs to be custom tailored for that situation.