50% chance of survival

[Willie Dewitt]

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.

For some reason I'm thinking most characters in general are going to be in their 30's either way. Wouldn't a seasoned player's fear of losing their character work inspire them to keep things to three or four terms because the luck of the dice are going to run out sooner rather than later? Anyway, I dont' mind them all being near the same age. They got lucky rolls on their survival, but a couple more terms and I think that luck would have started running out. Of course, I'm pretty new to this so I'm open to trying things btb at some point.

If I ever get the chance to do a one-shot at a convention or something, I would certainly go for hard survival. For my regular players I just want them to get a character they like up and running without having to waste a certain amount of time starting over if the dice fail during char gen. Also, there is a very good chance this will be our only campaign, and any further character gen will be one at at time as they get fatalities in the game. I may just try the hard rule in that case!

 

[aramis]

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.

For some reason I'm thinking most characters in general are going to be in their 30's either way. Wouldn't a seasoned player's fear of losing their character work inspire them to keep things to three or four terms because the luck of the dice are going to run out sooner rather than later? Anyway, I dont' mind them all being near the same age. They got lucky rolls on their survival, but a couple more terms and I think that luck would have started running out. Of course, I'm pretty new to this so I'm open to trying things btb at some point.

If I ever get the chance to do a one-shot at a convention or something, I would certainly go for hard survival. For my regular players I just want them to get a character they like up and running without having to waste a certain amount of time starting over if the dice fail during char gen. Also, there is a very good chance this will be our only campaign, and any further character gen will be one at at time as they get fatalities in the game. I may just try the hard rule in that case!

My experience says most characters are in their 30's either way. Supplement 4 genuinely THINKS it's an issue; few agree with him.

He's more correct about it being an issue when using Bk4-7 Char Gen... but that issue is mostly solved by Bk7's adding the Int+Edu limit. Note that all post-CT editions make death the option rather than the standard rule. Sometimes (T20, MGT) with potential mutilations.

 

[Supplement Four]

My experience says most characters are in their 30's either way. Supplement 4 genuinely THINKS it's an issue; few agree with him.

I know it's an issue in my games. The reason that it doesn't seem that way is that, for all practical purposes, there are only three starting ages: 22, 26, and 30.

Why 30? Because players don't want to risk an aging crisis AND death of the character.

Players will risk two or three tries at Hard Survival, mainly because one term is not enough for most players.

But, if the Survival roll is barely made the first time, and the player likes the character, he will not risk it a third time and muster out at age 26.

And/Or, a player wants a desired skill. If he gets that early, he'll muster out because he doesn't want to risk killing the character and not having, say, the Pilot skill.

I've also seen the desire for a certain skill push the player to risk a fourth term, and even a fifth, trying to get a special school or some desired skill.

In general, those who use the Hard Survival skill will most likely see characters aged 24-30, 2-3 terms. Soft Survival encourages older characters because there is really not penalty for trying until you fail. With Soft Survival, players are more willing to risk aging crisis.

 

[aramis]

I know it's an issue in my games. The reason that it doesn't seem that way is that, for all practical purposes, there are only three starting ages: 22, 26, and 30.

Why 30? Because players don't want to risk an aging crisis AND death of the character.

Players will risk two or three tries at Hard Survival, mainly because one term is not enough for most players.

But, if the Survival roll is barely made the first time, and the player likes the character, he will not risk it a third time and muster out at age 26.

And/Or, a player wants a desired skill. If he gets that early, he'll muster out because he doesn't want to risk killing the character and not having, say, the Pilot skill.

I've also seen the desire for a certain skill push the player to risk a fourth term, and even a fifth, trying to get a special school or some desired skill.

In general, those who use the Hard Survival skill will most likely see characters aged 24-30, 2-3 terms. Soft Survival encourages older characters because there is really not penalty for trying until you fail. With Soft Survival, players are more willing to risk aging crisis.

I've seen plenty of 5 and 6 term characters even with the Hard mode. Your experiences are NOT definitive.

 

[Willie Dewitt]

I know it's an issue in my games. The reason that it doesn't seem that way is that, for all practical purposes, there are only three starting ages: 22, 26, and 30.

Why 30? Because players don't want to risk an aging crisis AND death of the character.

Players will risk two or three tries at Hard Survival, mainly because one term is not enough for most players.

But, if the Survival roll is barely made the first time, and the player likes the character, he will not risk it a third time and muster out at age 26.

And/Or, a player wants a desired skill. If he gets that early, he'll muster out because he doesn't want to risk killing the character and not having, say, the Pilot skill.

I've also seen the desire for a certain skill push the player to risk a fourth term, and even a fifth, trying to get a special school or some desired skill.

In general, those who use the Hard Survival skill will most likely see characters aged 24-30, 2-3 terms. Soft Survival encourages older characters because there is really not penalty for trying until you fail. With Soft Survival, players are more willing to risk aging crisis.

I think these issues would be more prevalent with seasoned players, who know more about how to "game the system." My players barely had any time to let anything sink in. I told them that survival was btb a death thing, but that I would be using injuries of some kind. And though I said high age might affect them I did not give specifics. But they staggered through the first couple of terms rolls with my help, then in the final term or two did it on there own and some of it was starting to sink in. I was rather hoping for an older group in their 40's or 50's, and an injury or two of some kind to give them a little something extra to talk about around the galley table, but I genuinely think they stopped where they did (in their 30's) because that tends to be a common age bracket for roll playing characters who aren't assumed to be total adventure rookies like D&D characters often are. They were satisfied what unfolded in char gen, had good backgrounds coming to the forefront before the dice were even done rolling, so they stopped at that. A role play choice more than fear of old age or wounding.

I for sure think for a seasoned group (especially one that doesn't have females in it, which mine does. They have a tendency to find character death less amusing than guys in my experience) you have to look at all these factors and min-maxing and such. As a kid in the game shop where I played all the older guys (especially ex-military war gamers) were very into BTB method. Lots of hooting and hollering when a worked on character died, or somebody made it to middle age. But what was good for them was not really what was good for my group, IMO. Not by a mile.

And one possible way to keep ages different if they all muster out at the same age is to ask a couple of the players to volunteer that their character either entered the military several months or even a year early (or lied with fake ID) or a year later. Certainly there is wiggle room there?

 

[kilemall]

I've seen plenty of 5 and 6 term characters even with the Hard mode. Your experiences are NOT definitive.

I've seen them too, and made some myself, especially given the skill-centric style of CT and to max on rolls for ships, a multimillion credit 'win' and 'wheels' for travelling.

 

[kilemall]

As for my handling this, I do the soft 1-year out on failure, and allow a 1d6 additional roll for every two stats below 7.

This because my players are very suicide-prone with characters they hate, and it still renders weaknesses, especially with my statcentric task resolution.

On thinking about it a bit, maybe what I will do in the future is age them 4 years on a fail without skill or benefits or rank, to simulate a serious accident/illness/combat wound and healing/rehab/moping time.

 

[SanDragon]

Shall I point out my 19-term character again?

 

[Supplement Four]

I've seen plenty of 5 and 6 term characters even with the Hard mode. Your experiences are NOT definitive.

They're definitive enough. Go through 1001 Characters. That's a good sample.

 

[Supplement Four]

On thinking about it a bit, maybe what I will do in the future is age them 4 years on a fail without skill or benefits or rank, to simulate a serious accident/illness/combat wound and healing/rehab/moping time.

4 years? That's a hell of a long time. My back was cracked in three places. I was bed bound for about three months, and very, very slow for another three. After about 6-9 mos, I was good as new, unless I put a lot of pressure on it (couldn't do exercises like the Militray Press with a lot of weight).

1 years, or the Soft Survival Rule of 2 years with no skill is plenty.

 

[kilemall]

4 years? That's a hell of a long time. My back was cracked in three places. I was bed bound for about three months, and very, very slow for another three. After about 6-9 mos, I was good as new, unless I put a lot of pressure on it (couldn't do exercises like the Militray Press with a lot of weight).

1 years, or the Soft Survival Rule of 2 years with no skill is plenty.

Yes, but you aren't exactly the same like before (sorry to hear it). That's what I am getting at more then 'years lost', I'd be just as happy with elapsed time 1 year, aged 4.

The effects of such events often loom much larger later in life.