When have you reached "System Mastery"?

[weckar]

It's a term that comes up a lot, but I've never seen anyone talk about what System Mastery REALLY means. And I have the odd feeling many people have strong opinions on it, here. So: go nuts.

[noce]

If for System Mastery you mean "know rules and how they synergize better than WoTC designers", then you only need to read rulebooks once.

[Azoth]

System Mastery is the degree to which one understands the rules and mechanics of the game. It is also used to refer to how well one can use the aforementioned rules and mechanics to their benefit.

[EldritchWeaver]

"System Mastery" is for me that you know enough of the rules and their interactions that you can create optimized characters and actually use them efficiently. As there are many rules, one can manage system mastery for just a single class only, while being bad at the rest.

[Recherché]

It's a sliding scale or a yes or no question. Heck it's not even one scale, there are people out there who can build an incredible bard that would have no idea where to start on building a monk; they still have system mastery of a sort its just specialized.

System mastery just means that you understand the whole or a particular part of the game really well and can make it do what you want. This doesn't always mean more power, it means that you aren't doing things by accident.

[Mordaedil]

When you sit down with the books and redo the skill, toughness and saving throw feats and make them actually worth taking and then cry because it's just homebrew nobody will ever use.

[Eldariel]

Never. As said, it's a sliding scale. Nobody will probably ever reach perfect system mastery but the more time you spend tinkering with the options, the closer you get. Eventually you might know enough to functionally be close to perfect even if you don't remember some minor details or niche options. Functional level is what I'd aim for: all you need is to be able to realize character concepts. Though for DM you need to also know the stuff your players are using, and generally a wider array of options since you need to be able to throw NPCs and altered monsters off the shelf.

I'd say basic level everyone should strive for though is just understanding the dynamics of the different options and different encounters and campaigns in the system, and being able to reconcile them in a way that you are a pleasant fellow-player/DM to the rest of the group in whatever ways the group functions, and hopefully are capable of helping the others and receiving help for the stuff you aren't that well-versed in.

[johnbragg]

IT's a sliding scale, of knowing the rules, the mechanics, the conditions, the spells and how they interact.

My example of LACK of system mastery is a 3.0 campaign I played, where my wife's Barbarian kept getting dominated by vampires, and none of us realized that the new 3E protection from evil text would solve that problem pretty easily.

[Korahir]

I agree with everyone on the sliding scale. I thought I simply provide an example what system mastery means to me:
The first step is to know that summons are great. The second step is to know that spell slots shouldn't be wasted. The third step is little trickier: in Pathfinder Lantern Archons are on the Summon Monster III list. Lantern archons have the continual flame SLA at will. Since the effect of continual flame is permanent it doesn't matter that the Lantern Archon returns to its home plane after casting continual flame, the flame will burn on. The minimum CL for Summon Monster III is 5, so the Lantern Archon stays for five castings of Continual Flame (1 standard action per cast). This way anyone with Summon Monster III can create five Everburning Torches per casting of Summon Monster III which sell for 55 GP per torch (they cost 110 GP). A regular torch to cast the flame on costs 1 CP. So everytime you didn't cast Summon Monster III (or higher) you can use it to create some Everburning torches and earn money.

[eggynack]

Snip
I don't think this works. The text of the conjuration (summoning) subschool says, "When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire," and no exception is made for spells of permanent duration. The only counterargument I can see is that SLA's aren't included in the category of spells, which seems halfway plausible but weird. That'd be interesting. My handbook originally had mention of how permanent image from summoned pixies offers a bunch of long term utility, but I removed it on this basis (which is, incidentally, where I learned this particular thing from). It'd be neat to add it back.

This is a lot of what system mastery means to me, incidentally. As you get more of it, you gain more and more the ability to make these fast semi-intuitive evaluations of the rules, as well as how good various things are, and can generally produce an incredibly fast citation. Often, people ask me rules questions regarding rules I've literally never seen, and I'm able to come to what I consider a reasonable answer in a pretty small amount of time. Sometimes I miss stuff, sometimes huge stuff, but that happens less and less the more I do it.

[logic_error]

If for System Mastery you mean "know rules and how they synergize better than WoTC designers", then you only need to read rulebooks once.

Pretty much this. Unfortunately, there are too many instances of this.

[Gnaeus]

I don't think this works. The text of the conjuration (summoning) subschool says, "When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire," and no exception is made for spells of permanent duration. The only counterargument I can see is that SLA's aren't included in the category of spells, which seems halfway plausible but weird. That'd be interesting. My handbook originally had mention of how permanent image from summoned pixies offers a bunch of long term utility, but I removed it on this basis (which is, incidentally, where I learned this particular thing from). It'd be neat to add it back.

This is a lot of what system mastery means to me, incidentally. As you get more of it, you gain more and more the ability to make these fast semi-intuitive evaluations of the rules, as well as how good various things are, and can generally produce an incredibly fast citation. Often, people ask me rules questions regarding rules I've literally never seen, and I'm able to come to what I consider a reasonable answer in a pretty small amount of time. Sometimes I miss stuff, sometimes huge stuff, but that happens less and less the more I do it.

:-)

And let's not forget different rules sets. I was unaware of Eggynacks rule cite (which means I may not be able (depending on if SLAs are spells) to make my summoned Djinni cast wind walk for me, dang it). I thought it didn't work because summoned creatures can't cast spells or use SLAs with expensive components. Which is a PF rule and I had to check the SRD to see if it was a change. (Which it is, but a good one). Add to that the kinds of houserules you get from regular play (like the action cost to feed a potion to a conscious ally is one that comes up in our game), and you wind up in cases where you may have 4-5 very very similar rules sets for your tabletop games. (In my case, 3.5, PF, 5e, houserules for 4 different DMs).

Thanks for the education Eggynack. I learned something.

[Darrin]

The Five Stages of System Mastery

1. Denial: "What are you talking about? Monkey Grip is awesome! It lets me wield a fullblade in each hand!"

2. Anger: "You people suck! Monkey Grip is worth it and I can prove it! You hide behind all that Tier bullcrap and GNS Theory but you're all just small-minded jerks who can't imagine playing anything except a wizard!"

3. Bargaining: "But... but what if I just take a Flaw for Monkey Grip? That's still okay, right?"

4. Depression: "Fine, just ban me. I don't care anymore. You people don't even play this game, you just like stomping on puppies for fun."

5. Acceptance: "My wizard turns your fullblade-wielding barbarian into a toad. {Yawn} Nope, you don't get a save."

[eggynack]

I thought it didn't work because summoned creatures can't cast spells or use SLAs with expensive components. Which is a PF rule and I had to check the SRD to see if it was a change. (Which it is, but a good one)
Weird. Looking through it, I guess PF ditched XP costs in general, and traded off the original rule about just no XP costs with a now kinda broader rule regarding just expensive material components.


Thanks for the education Eggynack. I learned something.

Rules be neat.

[Goaty14]

Why is monkey grip bad again? Dual Fullblades (2d8 each) on a fighter dip barbarian sounds good.

System mastery is the ability to recall 3.5 material such that you can optimize a player to what they want to do, a good example of doing this is the diplomancer, and how many different things are involved.

True system mastery is when you make a handbook on whatever you mastered, because it shows you know your stuff.

[Psyren]

To answer that, we need to know what mastery - or before that, literacy - even means. Extra Credits did a couple of useful videos on this topic - they were speaking more about video games, but these principles apply to tabletop just as well.

Basic Game Literacy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNV2xtiBk5U)
Advanced Game Literacy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXjJu8eauHo)

In a tabletop meidum, these benchmarks are different but still apply. Whereas for video games, basic literacy means things like knowing how to use a controller and being comfortable navigating a simulated 2d or 3d space, in tabletop those would include things like knowing what kind of information a character sheet is meant to convey, being able to tell dice apart, being comfortable with adding modifiers to a dice roll and comparing them to a target number, and so on. Then advanced literacy would be things like being able to understand the order of rules applicability, knowing what characters with magic can do, understanding the various types of resources and actions available to classes, and so on.

System Mastery then is just the level of Advanced Literacy where you have an idea of what kind of challenges and conflicts a specific tabletop game expects you to be able to resolve, and the tools you have available (both in building and in piloting a character) to solve those challenges. It builds on the two forms of literacy above, to the point that you're able to solve specialized or complex problems (assuming the dice cooperate of course) or teach others.

[eggynack]

Why is monkey grip bad again? Dual Fullblades (2d8 each) on a fighter dip barbarian sounds good.
I'm not even sure how this works, for one thing. Fullblades were never updated, and while that's not technically a problem in terms of whether something is legal to use, the fullblade doesn't seem to interact with size rules in this way. The equivalent in 3.5, I think, would be a large bastard sword. The underlying rules seem identical, so I don't know why we'd rule one interaction different from the other. So, I'ma assume that's what we're working with. A bastard sword in your size requires EWP to use in one hand, so now we're at two feats to pull this off. Even with the feat though, a bastard sword is decidedly not a light weapon, so your secondary weapon is still going to be some crappy light weapon lest you eat even more of a penalty. And we need TWF just to get us to -4 to hit, because TWF still leaves you with the normal penalty, and monkey grip applies an extra -2. And you're using two different feats just to get to this point

There's probably more to say on this, but it seems more straightforward to just go with some basic arguments. TWF sucks, generally speaking. There's a whole other argument related to that one, but it's a generally agreed upon claim. Monkey grip does not, in any way, seem to make TWF better, so, even with monkey grip, you're going to be better off using THF. This means that I feel safe in just evaluating monkey grip in a THF zone, where the reasons it's bad are really clear cut. In particular, one of the best THF weapons, damage die speaking, is a greatsword. Monkey grip pushes a greatsword from 2d6 to 3d6, for 3.5 additional damage. However, you're eating a -2 penalty to get that damage. Use power attack instead, and you can trade a -2 penalty for +4 damage, while also having the option to take a -1 penalty for +2 damage, or any higher trade. Power attack also interacts with various powerful things. While monkey grip does technically allow you to go above the limit of power attack in a sense, there's not that much utility in that capability. Not a feat's worth, anyway. There're some higher size breakpoints where monkey grip has more utility, because the damage goes up non-linearly, but even then it's just okay rather than great as compared to other heavy damage oriented builds.

[Kaleph]

I think the problem is, that monkey grip isn't really working with the "secondary hand". Also, I agree that a large bastard sword would be the best conversion of a fullblade.

But I fail to see the point of the discussion, here, since even if we would find some specific build that makes a readonably good use of monkey grip, this feat remains anyhow a good example of an ability that looks great the first time you see it, and then drops very quickly in the chest of lower-tier semi-useless stuff, as soon as you get some more game-mastery.

[Eldariel]

Monkey Grip penalty and details kill it. Like not actually being able to TWF bigger weapons. Use Power Attack or Strongarm Bracers instead - 8000gp is quite cheap and Strongarm Bracers don't have the drawback of -2 which makes Power Attack for -2 pretty much always better.

[Celestia]

Attaining System Mastery is a long and perilous journey. It begins by reading the invisible ink hidden throughout every copy of the Player's Handbook. Be warned: each copy uses a unique invisible ink that is revealed through its own chemical mixture, so you can't get help from other System Masters. Once you've uncovered the invisible ink, it will yield an encoded riddle that you must first decrypt and then solve. That riddle will lead you to some place within the world where you will find a uniquely constructed mock D&D dungeon. Fight and explore your way through it to reach the end where you will be awarded a medal of System Mastery.


Though, I'm pretty sure Wizards has abandoned the 3.5 dungeons by now, so there may not even be anyone there to give you your medal anymore. I guess you'll just have to invent time travel first. Or send them a strongly worded letter asking for it. Either one works, I guess.

[eggynack]

How did this become about weapons
Folks, myself included, like talking about how dumb monkey grip is, I suppose. It's this beautiful combination of super iconic and interesting flavor, and total or near total worthlessness.

[flappeercraft]

System mastery I think more than a sliding bar is more of a variety of spectrums in which you are based on. Chances are you are not good at every kind of system mastery spectrum and even if you're good at making arcane casters you're probably good at some parts but not others. You might be able to make a good blaster build but maybe can't make a good summoner build.

There is no time where you reach "True" system mastery because no such thing is obtainable, you can't be good at everything, you can approach it on your own path you make and learn on.

[Hackulator]

System Mastery is a journey, not a destination. it has various notable levels

Idiot - The first step on your way to system mastery, this is when you have no idea what the **** you are doing. You make random characters with random feats and random spells because you don't know anything. Your characters are a joke, and the subject of much ridicule from other players.

Moron - At this level, you have learned a few things about the system. You understand the concept of feat trees and are able to build a character that at least does something on purpose. It may not be good at what it does, but at least it KNOWS what it does.

Putz - Now your characters have started to become legitimately powerful. You understand PrCs, various synergies, how to pick spell lists and what feats are best. You can avoid a lot of trap decisions in building your character and you can handle yourself in almost any dungeon.

Jackass - You have reached true system mastery. Your characters reach previously unknown levels of optimization. You clear entire dungeons on your own while the rest of your party does nothing. You know more about the rules than the DM, whoever he is, and you are not at all shy about telling him. You are able to constantly give other players "helpful" tips on what they should do with their characters. Very few gamers make it past this stage.

Idiot - Those who surpass the level of Jackass realize the truth and return to the beginning. Having reached the understanding that being powerful has little to do with having fun, your level of optimization drops back to whatever the baseline is for your games. You make random characters with random feats and random spells because why not, you've already tried everything. Your characters are a joke, the subject of much ridicule from other players, and everyone laughs about it and has a good time, yourself included.

[Jay R]

When have you reached "Football Mastery"? Never. You may have mastered the game better than everybody else you're playing with, but there are other players in the world, and we all have more to learn.

Furthermore, you can "master" one aspect and be pretty unsure about others. I'm pretty good on my characters' abilities, but having never played a druid, I have no mastery of those rules at all.

This is (part of) why a good DM listens respectfully to a player's argument before deciding. That player may know one fact the DM doesn't, even if the DM has far more overall "System Mastery".

[Darrin]

Why is monkey grip bad again? Dual Fullblades (2d8 each) on a fighter dip barbarian sounds good.


Monkey Grip was just a convenient punching bag. 95% of the people who post on here about using Monkey Grip don't realize that you can't use it to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. They just have an image set in their mind of what it does based on something they saw in an anime or video game and think it does something based on that image rather than by what it says in the actual text. When you get down into the math of how it works, it's not a very good feat except in certain circumstances.

It is possible to dual-wield a pair of fullblades, but it requires a considerable amount of system mastery beyond taking a single feat to pull it off and still be able to reliably hit something.

The really sad part is, Monkey Grip has been officially updated at least three times, and in every case the designers completely failed to get it to do what everyone thought it was supposed to do.

[Hackulator]

Monkey Grip was just a convenient punching bag. 95% of the people who post on here about using Monkey Grip don't realize that you can't use it to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. They just have an image set in their mind of what it does based on something they saw in an anime or video game and think it does something based on that image rather than by what it says in the actual text. When you get down into the math of how it works, it's not a very good feat except in certain circumstances.

It is possible to dual-wield a pair of fullblades, but it requires a considerable amount of system mastery beyond taking a single feat to pull it off and still be able to reliably hit something.

The really sad part is, Monkey Grip has been officially updated at least three times, and in every case the designers completely failed to get it to do what everyone thought it was supposed to do.

A large longsword is just a greatsword, so you pretty much can wield a 2 handed weapon in one hand with monkey grip.

[Kaleph]

A large longsword is just a greatsword, so you pretty much can wield a 2 handed weapon in one hand with monkey grip.

In 3.5 it has been updated and it's formally two separate things, although the damage is probably the same.

Or was it what you've meant?

[Hackulator]

In 3.5 it has been updated and it's formally two separate things, although the damage is probably the same.

Or was it what you've meant?

It's exactly the same damage, the only mechanical difference is I think you might technically take a -2 penalty wielding a large longsword 2 handed.

[Darrin]

In 3.5 it has been updated and it's formally two separate things, although the damage is probably the same.


There is an "equivalent weapon stats" rule somewhere... PHB or Complete Warrior? I forget. But it's an optional rule.

Yes, a large-sized longsword has almost identical stats compared to a medium-sized greatsword, but by RAW it's still considered a different weapon and still incurs a -2 size penalty. Monkey Grip has no effect on the size penalty. Outside of Powerful Build and Strongarm Bracers, there are very, very few methods to get rid of a weapon size penalty.

[Pex]

To be able to build a coherent character in your head without need to reference the rulebooks.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In 3.5 it has been updated and it's formally two separate things, although the damage is probably the same.

It's exactly the same damage, the only mechanical difference is I think you might technically take a -2 penalty wielding a large longsword 2 handed.

There is an "equivalent weapon stats" rule somewhere... PHB or Complete Warrior? I forget. But it's an optional rule.
"When you get involved in arguments like these" is a pretty good checkpoint :p

[Jay R]

"When you get involved in arguments like these" is a pretty good checkpoint :p

Not really. People who've read half the PHB and misremembered it get in arguments like this all the time.

One real checkpoint is when your arguments regularly include citations, with page numbers.

[I'm an academic. Can you tell?]

[logic_error]

Not really. People who've read half the PHB and misremembered it get in arguments like this all the time.

One real checkpoint is when your arguments regularly include citations, with page numbers.

[I'm an academic. Can you tell?]

Good academics don't memorize ****. They use reference managers. 😈

[Jay R]

Good academics don't memorize ****. They use reference managers. 😈

Agreed. I have no interest in memorizing page numbers. When I've cited rules, I looked them up.

[atemu1234]

TBH I think system mastery is when you can build a semi-competent character with minimal internet access.

[Kaleph]

My definition of system mastery is: being able to translate a character concept into a build, that ends up being effective.

The first check point consists in realizing some basic contour condition of the game, e.g. class=/=role in 3.5.

Subsequent gates are, in random order, understanding how the rules of the game work, being able to identify a trap, finding out which options fit into a role and which not, and ultimately learning how to combine all these pieces together.

[Feantar]

I believe there is one true answer.

When you are able to memorise the rules without a rulebook.:smallamused:

[LordOfCain]

My opinion is that system mastery is recognizing the line between broken and unbroken and being able to tread on both sides of that line.

[Cluedrew]

I'm going to have to through in that whatever it is, it is not knowing the rules, not even knowing them really well even if that is an ingredient. I am pretty good at learning rules, I'm a living encyclopedia for several systems. And importantly, I can still recite large swaths of the war-game I played before I removed, I knew those rules way better than anyone else I played with. Which is not to say I was the best player, I could correct the better players on the rules, but I couldn't beat them. They could still use the rules better than I could, don't know why.

[Crake]

There is an "equivalent weapon stats" rule somewhere... PHB or Complete Warrior? I forget. But it's an optional rule.

It's in the DMG page 27, and is indeed an optional rule.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho System mastery ain't just memorizing 3.5 contend. Sure, you should have a good overview of most important stuff, but you ain't need to memorize all content.
The more important part is to get how to read RAW (or Laws, cause both work on the same basis) and to distinguish between real broken rules where the designers really failed and those rules that are just hard to gasp/read and where a big part of the community has wrong impressions on it (e.g. different stacking rules between regular bonus types - unnamed bonuses and non-bonus effects).

Most people even have problems to distinguish RAW from RAI to begin with.

Further, another common mistake is that many people look up rules on the wrong place. The Rule is "Specific Trumps General" and not "Specific becomes General". This means that you look up combat rules in the combat section (unless part of class description, e.g.: monk unarmed strike. but even that is several times mentioned/referred in the combat section) and not in "specific" rules of a spell (unless you are actually using that spell). Imho this causes the most problems in the community so far from experience in the forums and in actual game play. People often remember some "specific" rules and assume or misremember em as general rules.


Imho System Mastery doesn't always mean that you are 100% perfect. It's just that you are most likely that you have a perfect answer to a given situation. Further it means, that you are able to talk about rules without wish-thinking (for your next character^^) and accept it if someone can "really" point out with the rules, that you where wrong.

[Sagetim]

I'm not even sure how this works, for one thing. Fullblades were never updated, and while that's not technically a problem in terms of whether something is legal to use, the fullblade doesn't seem to interact with size rules in this way. The equivalent in 3.5, I think, would be a large bastard sword. The underlying rules seem identical, so I don't know why we'd rule one interaction different from the other. So, I'ma assume that's what we're working with. A bastard sword in your size requires EWP to use in one hand, so now we're at two feats to pull this off. Even with the feat though, a bastard sword is decidedly not a light weapon, so your secondary weapon is still going to be some crappy light weapon lest you eat even more of a penalty. And we need TWF just to get us to -4 to hit, because TWF still leaves you with the normal penalty, and monkey grip applies an extra -2. And you're using two different feats just to get to this point

There's probably more to say on this, but it seems more straightforward to just go with some basic arguments. TWF sucks, generally speaking. There's a whole other argument related to that one, but it's a generally agreed upon claim. Monkey grip does not, in any way, seem to make TWF better, so, even with monkey grip, you're going to be better off using THF. This means that I feel safe in just evaluating monkey grip in a THF zone, where the reasons it's bad are really clear cut. In particular, one of the best THF weapons, damage die speaking, is a greatsword. Monkey grip pushes a greatsword from 2d6 to 3d6, for 3.5 additional damage. However, you're eating a -2 penalty to get that damage. Use power attack instead, and you can trade a -2 penalty for +4 damage, while also having the option to take a -1 penalty for +2 damage, or any higher trade. Power attack also interacts with various powerful things. While monkey grip does technically allow you to go above the limit of power attack in a sense, there's not that much utility in that capability. Not a feat's worth, anyway. There're some higher size breakpoints where monkey grip has more utility, because the damage goes up non-linearly, but even then it's just okay rather than great as compared to other heavy damage oriented builds.

If you want to push this to an extreme, and you're starting at sufficiently high level, you could mix in half giant (ecl +1, expanded psionics handbook) which has Powerful Build, allowing them to act like a large creature, but only when it Benefits them to do so. So you get +4 on grapples from size, but not the -1 size penalty to ac, can use large sized weapons as if they were medium, and, for example, get wings if you are also a half dragon with the half dragon template (which gives you wings and a fly speed if you are large or bigger). Now, stacking both of those together is going to net you +10 to strength from racial modifiers, some natural armor, an energy immunity and breath weapon, wings, and so on. Is that necessarily worth a trade off of 4 levels? Maybe. If you were going full fighter, that's 2 feats worth of levels, up to 40 hp +con modx4, skill points, and so on. The trade off is that you're hitting things with a 17ft long sword that should really be giving you an embarrassing amount of reach and hitting things for at least 4d6 + 5 damage, assuming you dumped a 10 into strength. Depending on your available books, you can slide your character along the scale of optimization based on class choice, where classes like Warblade will help you to spike more damage out by adding on to your 4d6 weapon's baseline, where Fighter levels would give you more consistent flat bonuses from fighter exclusive feats like specialization, and Duskblade gives you options for different kinds of spiking. Furthermore, if you drop half dragon out of that build, you still net a +2 str, Powerful Build's ability to use a 4d6 greatsword for just 1 ecl, which you may be able to buy off if your gm is willing to allow the use of the rules for that from Unearthed Arcana.

So, that wall of text that I wrote there is stuff I recalled from memory. It helps* that I ran a character in a +4 ECL side game where we started at level 12 and ignored the +4ecl, and had some battles and fun and what have you. A fair amount of that information became relevant for me because I was running a fighter/dervish, and without using monkey grip was still doing 3d6 +someembarassinglylargeflatnumber. Now, that example of system mastery isn't some complete and all encompassing mastery, there are other options out there that I either a) don't know off hand, or b) didn't care to mention or c) Wasn't aware of to begin with. I can have system mastery, but still be outdone in system mastery by others. It's more like the difference between being a player character and an npc. If you have any level of system mastery, no matter how little, you are better at doing what you want to get done than someone who has none.

*This then, is the easiest way to get system mastery. Exploring books and options with the intent of creating a character you are going to play, playing that character and getting emotionally invested in that character is going to help your brain to form stronger connections with details of that character, be they on the character sheet or in the story told. It also helps to read from books, because the texture of the page gives more sensory information for your brain to pick up on than from the surface of a screen, be it visual information as the texture of the page has more minute variety than that presented by computer screen, or tactile texture that comes from handling the page. The point is that engaging in multiple senses will help things to stick in your memory better.

[Endarire]

+1 to it's a gradient thing.

But more likely, it's when you feel a great, legitimate need to ask your GM hundreds of questions before/while making a character (and before playing your first session) to ensure it's legal, working as intended, and the GM is OK with it.

[Florian]

"System Mastery" is an escalating thing with circles within larger circles. Where it starts and what it should include is the thing that´ll spark most debates on it.

The basics (for a mechanics heavy system) are being able to gauge success of an action, understanding that options are not equal (and why that´s so) and understanding why and how there can be synergies, so that 1+1 = 3.

The advanced form has already been mentioned, it´s developing a deeper understanding on how the math works, the difference between RAW and RAI, how "Specific beats General" should be applied and what consequences deviating from the base-line system will have.

The least talked about level of system mastery goes beyond the character and takes the social aspect of the game into account. For example, having even a tiny bit of narrative control or player agency will also mean that you can "master" the enjoyment or fun of all people involved.