50% chance of survival

[san*klass]

Recently repurchasing and rereading "The Traveller Book" I am surprised as to how high the Survival rolls are in Character creation. Ignoring the bonus DM's, the Survival roll is around a 5,6,7 etc depending on career. Since you are rolling just 2D6, and so 12 is the highest possible roll that means you only have a (roughly) 50/50 chance of surviving a 4 year term!

Now although I appreciate that Imperial service is dangerous, 50/50 sounds a little steep? I also appreciate that instead of death, it could represent an discharge due to injury, which makes some sense. However, it still seems a bit high.

So, I assume that the Survival roll, as written, as well as serious injury, can also represent a major error which affects progress in your career. And, so, using 7 as an example, a modified total of 2-4 is discharge due to injury and a modified total of 5-7 is a career limiting error etc.

For this career limiting error option I suggest. Either -1 DM to Re-enlistment at the end of the current term(Others and Scouts) or a -1 to Promotion (or Commision if not yet an officer) this term (Navy, Marines, Army and Merchants).

I think it makes the Survival roll a bit less impactful, and (hopefully) more logical?

 

[SanDragon]

https://youtu.be/FoPTPe33PQY?t=39s

 

[Axe]

Hi. For a few reasons, I suggest to not over think the.survival rules:

Character creation, as written, is a fun game in and of itself. The risk of death vs attaining skills and benefits is exhilarating. Usually, new players want to keep rolling up new characters during session 0.

Risk (death) vs gain (skills, benefits, age, etc) during character creation is vital for keeping game balance.

Keep characters who died during creation for NPCs.

It is possible for a character to gain skills after creation, although lengthy, if a character is a little short on skills.

A powerful psion is young = fewer skills = balance

Really, if a character dies during creation, just start again. It's fun.

 

[mike wightman]

Four of the careers are 5+ survival, that's an 83% chance of survival.
Stick to those careers, better yet have the survival bonus stat and you will be ok.

 

[creativehum]

What Axe said.

And also this:

Don't ignore the Survival DMs!

Within the fictional world it is assumed recruits will be chosen who have the qualities of the best chance of survival.

But, more importantly, as Axe says, it is a game within a game. The Player character generation system as it stands angles the Player toward wanting that service. After all, with the survival DMs included the odds of survival jump to 97%, 92%, and 83% respectively, with the bulk of the services at 97%. That an amazing carrot to encourage players one way or another.

On the other hand, the player might make the choice, boldly, to go to a riskier service without the Survival DM for a certain chance of a certain gain that service. Without those lower base odds of survival those risks aren't stark. (And, as Mike points out, four of the services start at a base chance of survival of 83% without DMs, so the risks might be worth it.)

For me, the character generation system is a training ground for the game itself once play begins: looking for situational DMs to increase odds of survival and success; coming to grips with the game's lethal nature; understanding that one will have to choose one's battles carefully, weighing what one wants against the risk entailed to acquire it.

I think it's a brilliant sub-system as is, and works perfectly in the game as a whole for the reasons described above.

That said (and as noted in the first post), in the 1981 edition of the game the rules were changed from the original rule to this:

Optional Rule: If the referee or player so indicates prior to character generation, then a failure of the survival roll can be converted to injury. The character is not dead, but instead is injured, and leaves the service (after recovery) having served only two years of the four year term.

I've never understood the appeal of this rule. It guts the live risk of both choosing one service or another, and serving another term for more benefits at the risk of losing the character completely.

I think those two choices are best made when the risk is stark and dangerously clear, because, again, it echoes the nature of the game. But that's me.

 

[Genegeorge]

Death before dishonor.

I like the horrible survival rates.

Paying attention to the enlistment and survival DMs are the way to go. That being said when rolling up characters for fun (which besides painting miniatures is all I've done with CT for a couple of decades) one of the rules of thumb that I use is that a Soc of A+ "requires" Navy service.

The Navy is the prestige service for "nobles" and near noble social climbers, grants commissions to the nobles and gentry, and allows adds to Soc on table one/ High Rank/Mustering Out.

Many's the time I have "watched" a 34436C dumb, scrawny, inbred scion of some minor Barony shuffled off to the Navy to be irradiated/ blown out into the cold vacuum of space/ eaten by his space-wrecked shipmates/ etc. all because "The NAVY is what one joins when one is of a CERTAIN station, comme il faut, noblesse oblige, stiff-upper lip and all that, what?"

So unless overridden by IMTU and personal prejudices I always stick to the idea that a character would pick the job they're the most suited for. And... then fail to make the enlistment roll and get drafted into the Scouts (gulp.)

 

[ian54]

It's a valid game mechanic, like in Pass The Pigs, you make a choice to go for another term and get more skills but risk losing the character and starting all over again, as you progress the other element of ageing kicks in as well.

If you use the Experience rules (Book 2 Page 42-43), and, to a lesser extent the Instruction skill (Mercenary), combined with long periods of travelling (1 week per jump, plus 1 week in system) where self-improvement and training can be performed, it is very easy over a simple campaign to accumulate several years of game time and several additional skills, at some point the advantages of youth emerge by avoiding ageing whilst the disadvantage of inexperience diminishes through improvement, this is how the game could or should work.

Even single adventures can often take several months of game time with long journeys, the one that springs to mind is Safari Ship which takes you across District 268 and back, and if you do take characters from one adventure to another they will easily accumulate time which can become experience.

Of course, this is assuming a campaign style game is used, for one shot games you probably would not use Survival rolls anyway, either to expedite character generation or because ready-made characters are used or preferred.

 

[atpollard]

That said (and as noted in the first post), in the 1981 edition of the game the rules were changed from the original rule to this:

Optional Rule: If the referee or player so indicates prior to character generation, then a failure of the survival roll can be converted to injury. The character is not dead, but instead is injured, and leaves the service (after recovery) having served only two years of the four year term.

I've never understood the appeal of this rule. It guts the live risk of both choosing one service or another, and serving another term for more benefits at the risk of losing the character completely.

I think those two choices are best made when the risk is stark and dangerously clear, because, again, it echoes the nature of the game. But that's me.

I find myself drawn to both the injury and the death rules.

On one hand, the risk of death adds a certain excitement to that decision "Do I stop at Term 2 or try for a third term?". It certainly is more interesting than just ignoring survival all together and rolling until they kick your 7 term character out with mandatory retirement. As a purely practical matter, those survival bonuses are not that hard to get and can bring the survival roll to 3+ which is practically the same as guaranteed survival anyway ... and rolling a 2 term basic chargen character really isn't THAT time consuming that having one or two or three die in chargen will cost you all that much time. For advanced Chargen (LBB4+), the time invested per character is higher so "injury, not death" begins to make more sense.

On the other hand, why can't a character start a game as a retired Marine with a mechanical leg ... a souvenir of his last deployment and the 'golden wound' that sent him home with a 100 Credit per month stipend. It is that sort of color that would hardly unbalance a game, but would add a little special interest to the character. Currently, there is no game mechanism for determining this except referee fiat. The "injury, not death" option creates a mechanism for awarding a consolation prize for a hard ending to a career. Not everyone retires with a party and a gold watch.

Strictly IMTU:
I like both possibilities and the basic idea behind Rule 68A. So for my preference, I say why not make the survival roll or higher be safe, two less than survival be "wounded" and more than 2 less than survival be death ... with snake eyes always being death so nobody is completely safe no matter what their ability bonuses.
So for the Navy, Army, Merchant and Other, Survival = 5+, Wounded = 3+ and dead = 2.
For the Marines, Survival = 6+, Wounded = 4+ and dead = 3 or less.
For the Scouts, Survival = 7+, Wounded = 5+ and dead = 4 or less.
... but like I said, strictly IMTU stuff because I like using rolls to create background color ... the more possibilities, the better.

 

[Selandia]

With DM the risk is fairly low. Even if rated high, it is (like aging) an antidote to the 70 yo "super character". Unchecked greed must not be the best councellor IMTU.

have fun

Selandia

 

[Supplement Four]

IN DEFENSE OF THE SURVIVAL THROW.


One must remember, when playing Classic Traveller and generating characters that the Survival throw is part of the mini-game. It's there by design.

A player has no control over his starting stats. It's a brutal 2D throw, and snake eyes does happen.

This isn't a game where a player can build his PC using some point system. The only way to improve the character is through the experience charts.

So, if a player just doesn't like the character he rolled up, his only recourse is to get the character killed--by trying to fail the survival throw.

But, even that's not guaranteed.

LBB1 works so that a player rolls stats and gets to attempt entry into one of the six careers. If enlistment is failed, then the character is randomly put into one of those six careers using the draft.

Once a character has a couple of terms under his belt, the player may begin to "get into" the character. I've seen it happen. Many times, a character that a player intends to kill via the Survival throw ends up becoming an unexpected character that the player really likes, through the charm of the Classic Traveller chargen system.

Or, the player may indeed intend to kill the PC through the Survival Throw and never actually do that. The Survival throws are made, and on a term, no re-enlistment is allowed. Boom. The character is put into play.

Most of the time, though, the player is able to kill the character with the Survival Throw if that is what is intended. Smart Refs then scoop up the character to put into the "random NPC" bin, and the player is allowed to try a new character.

A player can attempt as many characters as he likes, and keep killing them as long as he wants to, as long as the dice cooperate. That's the player's input on the character. (And, as I just said, the time spent on "dead" characters isn't wasted--those are NPCs for the Ref to use later).

And, again, the dice do not always cooperate. Brick a re-enlistment roll, and the character is mustered out and put into play despite the player's efforts to kill the character off.

Many times, these become extremely fun and enjoyable characters--surprising the player who didn't originally want the character.

I've run CT chargen like this, as written in the rules, for many years, and I'd say it's my favorite character creation system. It's not really a tool to create desired characters the fulfill some concept the player may have. It's actually a tool to create individuals--real people--and it's a process for the player to discover the character he'll play.

I find it extremely fun.

 

[aramis]

IN DEFENSE OF THE SURVIVAL THROW.


One must remember, when playing Classic Traveller and generating characters that the Survival throw is part of the mini-game. It's there by design.

And the designs obviously had second thoughts by 1981, where it became optional to injure and out, and by 1987, it became standard to injure and out, instead.

 

[Supplement Four]

And the designs obviously had second thoughts by 1981, where it became optional to injure and out, and by 1987, it became standard to injure and out, instead.

Which is a HUGE mistake, imo.

I, too, liked that rule when I first saw it, but experience with the system has shown me how the Survival Throw, with death as a result of a failed throw, also acts to limit the number of skills a player attempts for his character.

If the dice cooperate, and a player gets the character--or close enough to the character--that he wanted, the player will become protective of that character. It will be a true decision: "Do I want to risk not playing this character at all because of his death and try for another term?"

When the Survival rule was turned soft, and a Ref allows players to have their characters muster out after two years with an injury (that fully heals), there is no real risk in going as many terms as possible. The player just keeps re-enlisting until he gets a good number of skills because the consequence of failing Survival is minimal.

The next real pressure to stop character creation are the aging throws. Therefore, most players try to go three terms and then quit before aging kicks in.

The net result is that you end up with a big population of 30 year old Traveller characters.

Use the hard Survival rule, where bricking Survival means death, and then you start to see more variation, like the player who wanted his character to be a pilot, gets it, and goes only one more terms because he doesn't want to risk not playing a pilot. This character musters out after two terms.

The soft Survival rule is there as an option, for Ref's who want to use it. And, options are always good. But, I'm not sure all CT Refs understand the effect it has on character generation, with and without hard Survival.

 

[Genegeorge]

Many times, a character that a player intends to kill via the Survival throw ends up becoming an unexpected character that the player really likes, through the charm of the Classic Traveller chargen system.

(...)these become extremely fun and enjoyable characters--surprising the player who didn't originally want the character.

This.

Sometimes it's hard to remember that Traveller is a ROLE-PLAYING-GAME not a min/max/zero-sum game.

You can waive or convert the survival roll to injury as needed by referee fiat, but I like it.

 

[Supplement Four]

Four other things for new Classic Traveller Refs to remember...



I CT Characters do not have many skills.

Today's gamers are used to having a skill for everything. If you don't have the skill, then you get a penalty. This isn't necessarily so in Classic Traveller. In fact, the CT system shows the skills that a character has--but these are the skills where the character excels. The character's skill list is only a list of the things that the character does well.

There are several default skills that are not listed on the sheet.

And, there are several tasks that a character can attempt where having no skill is not a detriment (or, the penalty is not having a bonus with a skill level).

For example, in order to revive someone out from a cold berth, it's a 5+ throw. No skill is needed. Anybody can attempt the throw.

If you're in a zero-g environment, and you attempt a risky maneuver like jumping from one hull of a vessel to another, the throw is 10+ to avoid going out of control. You don't need a skill. You can just do it. Of course, having a skill, though, really helps. In this case, it helps a lot because the modifier is +4 per level of Vacc Suit skill

In the game, if its reasonable that a character from a certain background should be able to attempt a skill throw, even if he doesn't have the skill, then the Ref should allow the throw--straight dice, with no penalty.

The skill descriptions give examples of when it is appropriate to apply penalties. Many times--although the task can be attempted--the penalty is just not having the skill.

If the M-Drive is knocked out, anybody can attempt to fix it. If you have the Engineering skill, then you get a DM of +2 per level of Engineering. But, if you don't have the skill, you can still attempt the throw.

An example where not having a skill will hurt you is with the Bribery skill. There's a big penalty on the NPC reaction table roll if the character doesn't have at least Bribery-0.





II. Skills have different values, dependent on the situation.

In this day and age of gaming, we're used to skill levels being equal among all skills. Classic Traveller recognizes that a minimum level of experience in one skill may be different than that in another skill. CT also realizes that skills should have a different influence on a situation, based on the circumstances.

Thus, Engineering skill will get you a +2 modifier per level when working on an engineering problem. This says that Engineering skill is pretty important when fixing engineering problems.

Vacc Suit skill grants a +4 bonus per skill level when a character is trying to avoid a dangerous situation in space. But, Vacc Suit skill only grants half that, +2 per level, when a character is trying to remedy a situation that does occur. What does this say? It says that a lower Vacc Suit skill is needed to generally avoid problems in zero-G, but if a problem occurs, it takes a higher skill level to get yourself out of the problem.

Of course, many skills are used at the standard +1 per level. But, some skill levels are needed only as a requirement. If a character has Medical-2 or better, then he gets a +1 DM when reviving an NPC from low berth. Medical-0 or Medical-1 doesn't help the character at all--it's the same as having no skill. And, Medical-3 or Medical-5, even, would provide no more benefit than Medical-2.

A CT Ref should consider carefully how to apply skills to a situation.

Is skill needed at all?

Should the skill provide a modifier higher than +1 per level?

Or, like the low berth example above, should a certain level skill be required without any other benefit coming from higher skill?

Should a penalty be applied if the character does not have a skill?

A good CT Ref should think in these terms.





III. Experience and Training.

If you read the Experience rules, you can see that it's possible, if the dice cooperate, to start a character fresh from character generation, with two more skills or two higher skills.





IV. A "2" stat does not mean the character is unplayable.

We're also used to a minimum stat being a number that represents an invalid. That's not true in Classic Traveller. A Marine with STR 2 can make it out of basic training. He's just a slight person. He's weak when compared to other Marines. I think of character like this like Corporal Upman from Saving Private Ryan.

A "2" STR is weak, yes. The guy can carry his personal armor, clothes, and miscellaneous equipment, plus another 2 kg (4.4 lbs), with no problems. Or, he can carry all the usual stuff plus 4 kg (8.8 lbs) equipment and be encumbered. This isn't a guy in a wheel chair. It's a slight, skinny, not very strong dude.

If you want to make up an impediment to give the character some "character" because of a low score, don't go overboard. END 2 might mean the character has asthma. EDU 2 might mean the character has learning disorder like dyslexia.

 

[pendragonman]

Four other things for new Classic Traveller Refs to remember...

This.

This is why CT is still the favorite version.

 

[creativehum]

Four other things for new Classic Traveller Refs to remember...

This.

This is why CT is still the favorite version.

I concur. It took a while for me to wrap my head around this style of play and this style of Refereeing. But it is my sweet sauce now.

 

[BlackBat242]

If you want to make up an impediment to give the character some "character" because of a low score, don't go overboard. END 2 might mean the character has asthma. EDU 2 might mean the character has learning disorder like dyslexia.

My high school chemistry teacher* had dyslexia - her introductory speech to our class in 1977 was the first time I had ever heard the term - as she warned us not to blindly trust the correctness of the formulae she wrote on the board!

Let me assure you that we paid more attention to the details of her chalkboard writing than in any other class (an error in math doesn't run the risk of blowing up a beaker in your face o: )! And yes, throughout the year (and the next year) she did occasionally transpose letters/numbers when writing on the chalkboard!

She taught the AP (college intro-level) Chem class my junior year (I was one of 2 to get the full college credit for the course) - and then we had a different chem teacher my senior year (I was not present, as there were no additional chemistry courses I could take), as she had returned to BYU to complete her Masters Degree work in chemistry!


* Diane Luke - an attractive redhead.

 

[BwapTED]

I play it straight. Failure of a survival roll= death.

 

[Willie Dewitt]

I'm pretty new to CT (actually played in some games as a kid back in the day, but new to me again now), but decided to revisit it as a alternate game now and again for my D&D group.

While I think death in the mini game if fine under some circumstances and with certain groups, I decided to go with injury instead for a couple reason. We have limited play time. A weeknight at about three hours a pop. Spending 20 minutes or more on character work, seeing that player get interested as this persons life unfolds before them and getting inspired to begin interjecting their own ideas based on the background that is being created, just to "oops you died, start again" would seem a bit of a shame to me. My players aren't whiners or "take it too seriously" types of gamers, but I didn't think the concept of dying within creation would have been fun for them or made the experience any better.

I liked the idea that they might be a little beat up though. Eye patch here, artificial limb there. Funny thing is though, everybody got into their 30's before finishing up and nobody failed a survival roll, including somebody in the scouts. So it was moot anyway.

 

[Supplement Four]

I liked the idea that they might be a little beat up though. Eye patch here, artificial limb there. Funny thing is though, everybody got into their 30's before finishing up and nobody failed a survival roll, including somebody in the scouts. So it was moot anyway.

Well, the soft survival rule is definitely an option. I'm sure it's more popular than the hard survival rule.

If you keep playing with the soft, you'll find that the vast majority of your characters are all 30 years old with 3 terms under their belts.

When you get a chance, just try the hard survival rule with your players. I think you'll be amazed at the difference it makes with their decisions during chargen.