A Criticism of the Bell Curve

[Supplement Four]

BTW, one of the things this discussion is proving, though is that it's not a good idea to mod Classic Traveller character generation.

More skills.

Higher skills.

Puts more stress on the system.

Classic Traveller characters typically have few skills--not even as much as an MT character (or the characters I posted from my campaign). If you start getting more benefits to the characters, then too many DMs hit the scene.

I've already decided not to allow characters to join other careers after a bricked survival throw. I did that a while back.

This discussion just affirms that I made the right choice.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
BTW, one of the things this discussion is proving, though is that it's not a good idea to mod Classic Traveller character generation.

More skills.

Higher skills.

Puts more stress on the system.

Classic Traveller characters typically have few skills--not even as much as an MT character (or the characters I posted from my campaign). If you start getting more benefits to the characters, then too many DMs hit the scene.

I've already decided not to allow characters to join other careers after a bricked survival throw. I did that a while back.

This discussion just affirms that I made the right choice.

I heartily agree. With a 2d6 system and 8+ being a success, a skill level of 3 is highly skilled.

Mercenary, High Guard and the other books wreaked havoc in my Traveller campaigns over the years. They did it in several ways.

First, they turned out some obscenely skilled characters (Cbt Rifle-7 in a few cases). Due to the random character generation system, they also tended to produce characters who could do nearly anything (often at skill level 2+). Nothing more depressing to ask "anyone have Admin skill?", then have 3/4 of the players say "yes". This violates a core rule of mine -- every player character should do one useful thing better than anyone else and every player character should have at least one useful skill that no other PC has.

My original solution -- beefing up the number of skills in Book 1 and COI character generation -- only addressed the imbalance between the Chargen systems. It did nothing to solve the problems arising from "skills bloat".

If I ever use Books 4+ for chargen again, I'll probably limit the number of skills per *term* to Book 2 levels (1 per term, +1 per promotion, +1 per commission). The player will roll his skills normally per Books 4+, then at the end of each term, discard skills until he gets down to the skill limit for that term.

And as I analyze the CT game mechanics, I am struck by the fact that (a) un-supplemented CT works very well; and (b) Books 4+ shatter the CT system. And since MT is really just a variant of CT, it suffers from the same problems (and adds a few of its own).

I've become intrigued with the idea of "fixing" Mercenary and High Guard so that they can be used with CT without crashing the CT system. I'll post when I have something concrete. My goal will be:

1. Add as few new rules as possible; change as few rules as possible. Anyone can replace the entire combat system (many of us have). But just for the challenge, make the flawed systems work instead. That said, weapon data is fair game.

2. Prefer simple and elegant fixes over complex ones.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
BTW, one of the things this discussion is proving, though is that it's not a good idea to mod Classic Traveller character generation.

More skills.

Higher skills.

Puts more stress on the system.

Classic Traveller characters typically have few skills--not even as much as an MT character (or the characters I posted from my campaign). If you start getting more benefits to the characters, then too many DMs hit the scene.

I've already decided not to allow characters to join other careers after a bricked survival throw. I did that a while back.

This discussion just affirms that I made the right choice.

I heartily agree. With a 2d6 system and 8+ being a success, a skill level of 3 is highly skilled.

Mercenary, High Guard and the other books wreaked havoc in my Traveller campaigns over the years. They did it in several ways.

First, they turned out some obscenely skilled characters (Cbt Rifle-7 in a few cases). Due to the random character generation system, they also tended to produce characters who could do nearly anything (often at skill level 2+). Nothing more depressing to ask "anyone have Admin skill?", then have 3/4 of the players say "yes". This violates a core rule of mine -- every player character should do one useful thing better than anyone else and every player character should have at least one useful skill that no other PC has.

My original solution -- beefing up the number of skills in Book 1 and COI character generation -- only addressed the imbalance between the Chargen systems. It did nothing to solve the problems arising from "skills bloat".

If I ever use Books 4+ for chargen again, I'll probably limit the number of skills per *term* to Book 2 levels (1 per term, +1 per promotion, +1 per commission). The player will roll his skills normally per Books 4+, then at the end of each term, discard skills until he gets down to the skill limit for that term.

And as I analyze the CT game mechanics, I am struck by the fact that (a) un-supplemented CT works very well; and (b) Books 4+ shatter the CT system. And since MT is really just a variant of CT, it suffers from the same problems (and adds a few of its own).

I've become intrigued with the idea of "fixing" Mercenary and High Guard so that they can be used with CT without crashing the CT system. I'll post when I have something concrete. My goal will be:

1. Add as few new rules as possible; change as few rules as possible. Anyone can replace the entire combat system (many of us have). But just for the challenge, make the flawed systems work instead. That said, weapon data is fair game.

2. Prefer simple and elegant fixes over complex ones.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I've become intrigued with the idea of "fixing" Mercenary and High Guard so that they can be used with CT without crashing the CT system. I'll post when I have something concrete.

Give my Simple CT Combat thread a looksee, and check out the Scouts Honor thread. I'll be using my new/improved CT combat system when I get into personal combat in that adventure.

If you find it broken, then please point it out.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I've become intrigued with the idea of "fixing" Mercenary and High Guard so that they can be used with CT without crashing the CT system. I'll post when I have something concrete.

Give my Simple CT Combat thread a looksee, and check out the Scouts Honor thread. I'll be using my new/improved CT combat system when I get into personal combat in that adventure.

If you find it broken, then please point it out.

 

[tinker123]

Another two-penn'orth on the original topic.

Firstly, it's not that important. Among the elements that make a good RPG are:

1) Simple rules that work quickly while still allowing the simulation of varied situations
2) An engaging milieu in which the game takes place
3) Enough variety and complexity to provide interest
4) Immediate objectives for new characters

And 2d6 is probably good enough to meet (1).

However, what I dislike about it is that +1 is not worth the same value to every roll. If you needed to roll 12+ to succeed, and you get a +1 (so you only need 11+) then your chance of success is trebled. If you needed 8+ and you get a +1 your chance of success only goes up by 6/15 (6/36 new successful rolls vs the 15/36 that you had on 8+).

For those that care, there is a mechanic that is both easy and makes all plusses "equal". Roll 1d6 and if it's a 5 or 6 call it a 4 and re-roll it and add the result; if it's another 5 or 6 call it another 4 and keep going. I think it's close to a mechanic from Shadowrun.

To use it in Traveller, set the base success target to 4+ (instead of 8+) and add skill level. More difficult tasks simply increase the target (or give minuses).

 

[tinker123]

Another two-penn'orth on the original topic.

Firstly, it's not that important. Among the elements that make a good RPG are:

1) Simple rules that work quickly while still allowing the simulation of varied situations
2) An engaging milieu in which the game takes place
3) Enough variety and complexity to provide interest
4) Immediate objectives for new characters

And 2d6 is probably good enough to meet (1).

However, what I dislike about it is that +1 is not worth the same value to every roll. If you needed to roll 12+ to succeed, and you get a +1 (so you only need 11+) then your chance of success is trebled. If you needed 8+ and you get a +1 your chance of success only goes up by 6/15 (6/36 new successful rolls vs the 15/36 that you had on 8+).

For those that care, there is a mechanic that is both easy and makes all plusses "equal". Roll 1d6 and if it's a 5 or 6 call it a 4 and re-roll it and add the result; if it's another 5 or 6 call it another 4 and keep going. I think it's close to a mechanic from Shadowrun.

To use it in Traveller, set the base success target to 4+ (instead of 8+) and add skill level. More difficult tasks simply increase the target (or give minuses).

 

[chrisr]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
BTW, one of the things this discussion is proving, though is that it's not a good idea to mod Classic Traveller character generation.

More skills.

Higher skills.

Puts more stress on the system.

Classic Traveller characters typically have few skills--not even as much as an MT character (or the characters I posted from my campaign). If you start getting more benefits to the characters, then too many DMs hit the scene.

I've already decided not to allow characters to join other careers after a bricked survival throw. I did that a while back.

This discussion just affirms that I made the right choice.

Whatever happened to the maximum skills rule?
"...a character may have no more skills (or total of levels of skills)than the sum of his or her intelligence and education." Traveller Book p29. Not sure where or if this appears anywhere else but you're looking at an average maximum of 14 skill levels here.
I'd personally double the cost at level-4+ and treble at level-7+.

 

[chrisr]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
BTW, one of the things this discussion is proving, though is that it's not a good idea to mod Classic Traveller character generation.

More skills.

Higher skills.

Puts more stress on the system.

Classic Traveller characters typically have few skills--not even as much as an MT character (or the characters I posted from my campaign). If you start getting more benefits to the characters, then too many DMs hit the scene.

I've already decided not to allow characters to join other careers after a bricked survival throw. I did that a while back.

This discussion just affirms that I made the right choice.

Whatever happened to the maximum skills rule?
"...a character may have no more skills (or total of levels of skills)than the sum of his or her intelligence and education." Traveller Book p29. Not sure where or if this appears anywhere else but you're looking at an average maximum of 14 skill levels here.
I'd personally double the cost at level-4+ and treble at level-7+.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

The max skill level rule is still valid.
Getting older myself, I even have no problem with playing "saturated" characters, which have to drop one skill-level in order to get another new one.

Regular characters don't become muchkins IMHO even when saturated...well, perhaps experts or professionals in one or the other topic, but still human like

regards,

TE

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

The max skill level rule is still valid.
Getting older myself, I even have no problem with playing "saturated" characters, which have to drop one skill-level in order to get another new one.

Regular characters don't become muchkins IMHO even when saturated...well, perhaps experts or professionals in one or the other topic, but still human like

regards,

TE

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
The max skill level rule is still valid.
Getting older myself, I even have no problem with playing "saturated" characters, which have to drop one skill-level in order to get another new one.

The problem I have with this is that it's strictly a game mechanic. It has not "logic" in the real world, because in the rw, people tend to learn more and more things as their life goes on. They don't reach a certain level and stop....especially if they're 26 years old and not 86 suffering from Alzheimers (sp?).

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
The max skill level rule is still valid.
Getting older myself, I even have no problem with playing "saturated" characters, which have to drop one skill-level in order to get another new one.

The problem I have with this is that it's strictly a game mechanic. It has not "logic" in the real world, because in the rw, people tend to learn more and more things as their life goes on. They don't reach a certain level and stop....especially if they're 26 years old and not 86 suffering from Alzheimers (sp?).

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by ChrisR:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Supplement Four:
BTW, one of the things this discussion is proving, though is that it's not a good idea to mod Classic Traveller character generation.

More skills.

Higher skills.

Puts more stress on the system.

Classic Traveller characters typically have few skills--not even as much as an MT character (or the characters I posted from my campaign). If you start getting more benefits to the characters, then too many DMs hit the scene.

I've already decided not to allow characters to join other careers after a bricked survival throw. I did that a while back.

This discussion just affirms that I made the right choice.

Whatever happened to the maximum skills rule?
"...a character may have no more skills (or total of levels of skills)than the sum of his or her intelligence and education." Traveller Book p29. Not sure where or if this appears anywhere else but you're looking at an average maximum of 14 skill levels here.
I'd personally double the cost at level-4+ and treble at level-7+. </font>[/QUOTE]Your idea addresses the problem of getting outrageously high skill levels, but it doesn't really solve the "everyone can do everything" problem.

I don't recall the INT+EDU rule appearing in the little black books, but it doesn't help as much as it might seem.

"Only" 14 skills may still be too many to be plausible. And if you let characters arrange their attribute rolls (I do) and when you consider the possibilities for INT and EDU bonuses during their career, 20+ skills isn't incredibly unusual.

Consider that a skill level of 3 is considered equivalent to professional competence. "Medical-3 is sufficient for a character to be called doctor..." (Bk1, p20).

And in a 2d6 system with 8+ being the typical roll required for success, a +3 modifier is big. (Success goes from 41% to 83%).

In theory, an average character could be, simultaneously, a physician (Medical-3), expert with a rifle (Rifle-3), a professional engineer (Engineering-3), a master Navigator (Navigation-3) and still have a few slots available for other, more modest skills. Of course, the dice would have to fall pretty oddly for this precise mix, but I have seen (and rolled up) Mercenary and High Guard who were experts in 3-4 things ("expert" being a skill level of 3+). Worse, Mercenary and HG can generate characters with *lots* more skills than 14. The player, presumably, chooses which skills to discard. This can allow him to create highly skilled characters by simply discarding the lower valued skills.

Here is a skill set produced by a quick run of the MT version of the Mercenary character generation system (no brownie points used):
C688A5 Cmbt Rifleman - 4, Tactics - 2, Heavy Weap - 2, Forward Obs - 1, Computer - 3, Cmbt Engineer - 1, Mechanical - 3, Medical - 1, Instruction - 1, Forgery - 1, Streetwise - 1, Bribery - 1 (5 terms)

21 skills, which would be reduced to 18. I think that this is a bit much. Note that Jamison, in book 1 has 10 skills after 5 terms. And he received almost all the skills it was possible to get (10 out of 11). I think that this is about right.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by ChrisR:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Supplement Four:
BTW, one of the things this discussion is proving, though is that it's not a good idea to mod Classic Traveller character generation.

More skills.

Higher skills.

Puts more stress on the system.

Classic Traveller characters typically have few skills--not even as much as an MT character (or the characters I posted from my campaign). If you start getting more benefits to the characters, then too many DMs hit the scene.

I've already decided not to allow characters to join other careers after a bricked survival throw. I did that a while back.

This discussion just affirms that I made the right choice.

Whatever happened to the maximum skills rule?
"...a character may have no more skills (or total of levels of skills)than the sum of his or her intelligence and education." Traveller Book p29. Not sure where or if this appears anywhere else but you're looking at an average maximum of 14 skill levels here.
I'd personally double the cost at level-4+ and treble at level-7+. </font>[/QUOTE]Your idea addresses the problem of getting outrageously high skill levels, but it doesn't really solve the "everyone can do everything" problem.

I don't recall the INT+EDU rule appearing in the little black books, but it doesn't help as much as it might seem.

"Only" 14 skills may still be too many to be plausible. And if you let characters arrange their attribute rolls (I do) and when you consider the possibilities for INT and EDU bonuses during their career, 20+ skills isn't incredibly unusual.

Consider that a skill level of 3 is considered equivalent to professional competence. "Medical-3 is sufficient for a character to be called doctor..." (Bk1, p20).

And in a 2d6 system with 8+ being the typical roll required for success, a +3 modifier is big. (Success goes from 41% to 83%).

In theory, an average character could be, simultaneously, a physician (Medical-3), expert with a rifle (Rifle-3), a professional engineer (Engineering-3), a master Navigator (Navigation-3) and still have a few slots available for other, more modest skills. Of course, the dice would have to fall pretty oddly for this precise mix, but I have seen (and rolled up) Mercenary and High Guard who were experts in 3-4 things ("expert" being a skill level of 3+). Worse, Mercenary and HG can generate characters with *lots* more skills than 14. The player, presumably, chooses which skills to discard. This can allow him to create highly skilled characters by simply discarding the lower valued skills.

Here is a skill set produced by a quick run of the MT version of the Mercenary character generation system (no brownie points used):
C688A5 Cmbt Rifleman - 4, Tactics - 2, Heavy Weap - 2, Forward Obs - 1, Computer - 3, Cmbt Engineer - 1, Mechanical - 3, Medical - 1, Instruction - 1, Forgery - 1, Streetwise - 1, Bribery - 1 (5 terms)

21 skills, which would be reduced to 18. I think that this is a bit much. Note that Jamison, in book 1 has 10 skills after 5 terms. And he received almost all the skills it was possible to get (10 out of 11). I think that this is about right.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Hi !

The max skill level rule is still valid.
Getting older myself, I even have no problem with playing "saturated" characters, which have to drop one skill-level in order to get another new one.

Regular characters don't become muchkins IMHO even when saturated...well, perhaps experts or professionals in one or the other topic, but still human like

regards,

TE

My objection isn't really Munchkinism. That is its own reward and game masters who run games for Munchkins get what they deserve.

My problem is that when nearly everyone can do nearly everything, roleplaying suffers. I firmly believe that every character should ideally be able to do 1 useful thing better than anyone else in the group. And everyone should be able to do at least one useful thing fairly well that no one else in the group can do. This encourages teamwork and cohesion.

These goals are frustrated by the Books 4+ character generation systems.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Hi !

The max skill level rule is still valid.
Getting older myself, I even have no problem with playing "saturated" characters, which have to drop one skill-level in order to get another new one.

Regular characters don't become muchkins IMHO even when saturated...well, perhaps experts or professionals in one or the other topic, but still human like

regards,

TE

My objection isn't really Munchkinism. That is its own reward and game masters who run games for Munchkins get what they deserve.

My problem is that when nearly everyone can do nearly everything, roleplaying suffers. I firmly believe that every character should ideally be able to do 1 useful thing better than anyone else in the group. And everyone should be able to do at least one useful thing fairly well that no one else in the group can do. This encourages teamwork and cohesion.

These goals are frustrated by the Books 4+ character generation systems.

 

[atpollard]

I would suggest that only a very minor "reinterpretation" of the official rules is needed to restore the LBB 1-3 balance lost in Book 4+. Simply allow only 2 new skills per term during character generation and require that they be different skills.

For Example, four years in Mercenary might grant rolls indicating Rifle-1, Tactics-1, Battledress-1, Strength-1, and Cutlass-1. Allow the character to pick any 2 skills to keep and convert the remainder to skill level-0. This will restrict the total number of skill levels and require that no skill level can exceede the number of terms served.

 

[atpollard]

I would suggest that only a very minor "reinterpretation" of the official rules is needed to restore the LBB 1-3 balance lost in Book 4+. Simply allow only 2 new skills per term during character generation and require that they be different skills.

For Example, four years in Mercenary might grant rolls indicating Rifle-1, Tactics-1, Battledress-1, Strength-1, and Cutlass-1. Allow the character to pick any 2 skills to keep and convert the remainder to skill level-0. This will restrict the total number of skill levels and require that no skill level can exceede the number of terms served.

 

[aramis]

Having run parties where everyone had very similar skill sets, I've found no basis for TBeards assertion.

Roleplaying can stem from rules play, or from character play. Diversity of skill sets breeds specialization, not cooperation. In that, in the specialist party, everyone has their field, and the others are often left cold during that character's "Limelight."

Overlapping skills AND players who are willing to cooperate breeds cooperation in play.

A ballance of the two is needed.

Munchkins don't seek either... they simply want to hog all the face time.