"Actual" Skill Levels

[robject]

About 25% of the skills awarded in Classic Traveller are not quite the same as those used with a standardized task system. In other words, one level in a skill is not a DM+1 to a task roll.

To normalize skill levels for convenient use with a task system, adjust them as follows:

Admin = 1 + admin x 2
Engineering = engineering x 2
Forgery = forgery x 2
Forward Observer = f.o. x 4
Ship's Boat = s.b. x 2 for each level above 1
Vacc Suit = vacc suit x 2

 

[Supplement Four]

About 25% of the skills awarded in Classic Traveller are not quite the same as those used with a standardized task system. In other words, one level in a skill is not a DM+1 to a task roll.

To normalize skill levels for convenient use with a task system, adjust them as follows:

Admin = 1 + admin x 2
Engineering = engineering x 2
Forgery = forgery x 2
Forward Observer = f.o. x 4
Ship's Boat = s.b. x 2 for each level above 1
Vacc Suit = vacc suit x 2

The value of a skill in CT is situationally dependent. Medical-2 is needed to get a +1DM on reviving a low berth passenger, where Medical-1 receives no DM and Medical-3+ does not receive a bigger DM.

In a different situation, Medical is used differently. With non-human treatment, the Medical skill is used at -2 levels so that Medic-3 provides a +1 DM and Medic-4 provides a +2 DM.

Then again, the standard for all skills is to use a +1 DM per skill level, and there may or may not be a penalty for not having skill.



Above, you have Vacc Suit at x2 as a blanket, but, again, CT use of the skill is very situational. The roll to avoid a mishap while working in zero G is 10+, but the character is given a +4 DM per level of Vacc Suit skill.

Zero G work is a pretty common use of the skill. And, what's happening here is that the game is basically saying that Vacc Suit-2 is all that is needed to avoid mishaps while working in Zero-G (min roll 2 + 8 DM = 10).

Yet if an incident does occur, the roll to remedy the situation is 7+ with a +2 DM per skill level. Thus, it gets harder to remedy a situation than it is to avoid one.



Classic Traveller, to date, is the only Traveller game that looks at skills like this--situationally, where a skill becomes a different value dependent on the situation.

This is one of the charms and advantages of CT. To strip that away and make skills a blank, one-size-fits-all standard of 1 skill = +1 DM strips away one of CT's major strengths.

 

[robject]

This is one of the charms and advantages of CT. To strip that away and make skills a blank, one-size-fits-all standard of 1 skill = +1 DM strips away one of CT's major strengths.

I understand what you're saying, but it's all about implementation and standardization. To explain myself, I have two -- no, three -- points to add, and then some semi-rambling text that doesn't quite devolve into a rant, but does get kind of pedantic (

• adj. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.

).

So here we go.

1. Even given the exceptions you cite, play would usually be better off if the skill award were modified for the typical use. Fewer exceptions means smoother play. Yes, I am a casual gamer, despite what people call me.

2. "Situational application" (a good term) is the primordial form of the "Task Library". The difference is that CT has two independent axes whereas later rules move all the variability to one side. It's not as important as Point No.1, however, until we get to Point No. 3.

3. CT LBB1 works. It also limits itself to a couple dozen skills. If MT tried to do it the LBB1 way, I think the authors would go insane. I suspect that such flexibility becomes unusably noisy after, oh, let's randomly say approximately 32 skills. I do not consider this a necessarily bad feature of LBB1, by the way, but it is an observation.

SIDE OBSERVATION: At one point I noted that the skills list tends to track with the number of careers available, at a ratio of approximately 5.3 : 1.

So in CT, there are two ways to change the task difficulty: double the skill level, or add DMs to the roll, based on possibly more complex criteria. MT consolidates most of this. It is less flexible, since a change in difficulty changes the roll by approximately one die. On the other hand, fiddliness should not be an aspect of basic rules. Yes, I understand that that's an opinion and a preference, not necessarily a fact.

Another note. I also understand that dividing a characteristic by 5 (or 4, or 3, or anything) is inherently fiddly, even if it can be streamlined a bit via pre-calculation. In my mind, it's better to use the STR/DEX modifiers from LBB1 for individual use DMs. In my mind, that is far more charming than writing unique rules (I hesitate to call them task 'systems' as in 'functionally related' when the function changes) for individual skills.

To beat the dead horse a bit more: the smallcraft tasks are a mini-game. While other skills don't go quite this far, having separate resolution rules for several skills is equivalent to writing perhaps half of a mini-game for them. Again, not really a bad thing when you have a small number of skills (and therefore six or fewer career choices by corollary). Kind of bad when you get beyond that.

It is obvious that CT LBB1, by not fixing the actual useful value of skill levels (or anything for that matter, except for the number of dice rolled), is more flexible; however, I suspect most of that flexibility is not useful, and that a DM is a DM and a difficulty is a difficulty, regardless of how to arrive at them.

 

[Orr]

To normalize skill levels for convenient use with a task system, adjust them as follows:

There's no a whole lot of "room" in a 2D6 roll.

If you combine the greater number of skills and levels awarded in CT's various advanced chargen systems with your "normalizations" you could end up with too many "automatic success' rolls.

Then again, I think we roll waaaaaaaaay too often in RPGs.

 

[robject]

Then again, I think we roll waaaaaaaaay too often in RPGs.

In practice, we don't roll unless we have to. Others may require more frequent reality checks.

 

[Supplement Four]

I like the fact, in CT, that a skill level can mean different things in different situations.

For most situations, EVA, in a Vacc Suit, Vacc Suit-2 is all you need, since the throw is 10+, and you get +4 DM per skill level.

Then again, let's say you are trying to jump, in zero G, from the open hatch of your spaceship to a float/sled that is moving past. This requires some Vacc Suit mastery, but it also requires a good DEX. So, the Ref sets the throw at 11+, but you get +1 DM per Vacc Suit skill and a +1 DM if DEX 9+ or a +2 DM if DEX 13+.

The Vacc Suit-2 character is skill enough with Vacc Suit that he won't go spinning out of control after he tries the jump, but there's stil a decent chance that he might miss hitting the moving floater.

And, yet again, the character's Vacc Suit is fitted with a head's up devices that allows enhanced targeting and sight. But, it takes Vacc Suit-3+ in order to use the device well enough in order to get a +1 DM on the attack.

Here, our Vacc Suit-2 character is not quite qualified enough to use the advanced equipment properly.



I love how elegant that all is.

I think to rob CT of that elegance is a shame.

But, hey, to each their own. Melt it all down into a standardized format, if that will help you enjoy the game more.

 

[GypsyComet]

I love how elegant that all is.

You and I have very different definitions of "elegant" when it comes to game mechanics. To me, "lots of time with the book open" is not elegant design.

 

[Timerover51]

About 25% of the skills awarded in Classic Traveller are not quite the same as those used with a standardized task system. In other words, one level in a skill is not a DM+1 to a task roll.

To normalize skill levels for convenient use with a task system, adjust them as follows:

Admin = 1 + admin x 2
Engineering = engineering x 2
Forgery = forgery x 2
Forward Observer = f.o. x 4
Ship's Boat = s.b. x 2 for each level above 1
Vacc Suit = vacc suit x 2

Hmm, I like the increased effect of the higher skill levels. I will have to see how that works.

 

[Supplement Four]

You and I have very different definitions of "elegant" when it comes to game mechanics. To me, "lots of time with the book open" is not elegant design.

That's just it. You don't look things up. You get a general idea of how you can work things, then call it as it seems right to you in a game.

CT isn't about looking things up all the time.

CT is about the Ref, knowing, generally, how things work in CT, coming up with a throw on the spot and running with it.

You shouldn't be a slave to the book, with CT. The CT Ref is an old school, "strong" GM who makes calls on the spot and keeps the game moving.

 

[GypsyComet]

That's just it. You don't look things up. You get a general idea of how you can work things, then call it as it seems right to you in a game.

CT isn't about looking things up all the time.

Except in combat. Tables of weapons vs range and armor (Book 1), tables of large weapons fired at targets very far away (High Guard), tables of possible actions (Snapshot and AHL). Oh yes, and tables for those weapon specific characteristic DMs.

And tables and formulae for trade, and for animals, and patrons, and those many pages of tabular data we call sectors.

Traveller is ALL ABOUT looking things up. More than most, even in the CT era, it is a game of data.

CT is about the Ref, knowing, generally, how things work in CT, coming up with a throw on the spot and running with it.

You shouldn't be a slave to the book, with CT. The CT Ref is an old school, "strong" GM who makes calls on the spot and keeps the game moving.

I remember those days. They required that a Ref be a paragon of gamers because if you weren't, you were a horrible Ref. Some people attribute the "Old School" to Gygaxian attitudes toward what was essentially competitive play, but a lot of those Old School games had no such luck. They were often just incomplete thoughts about games written by people who had no idea how to express themselves on paper and never managed to get more than 30% of their "amazing" game out of their heads and onto the page.

Traveller is neither of these things, and never has been. As the first sandbox game of any note, Traveller expressly put more power in the hands of players than any of the God Given Scenario games (dungeon crawls and quests) even while supporting those modes of play with Patrons.

The GM as God simply does not work in Traveller unless you force the meme with unexplored space or a completely crippled or absent stellar civilization. Once Library Data enters the picture, the GMaG tools of fear and, especially, ignorance become much weaker. The idea that Traveller, and specifically CT, openly embraced DM Fiat in the face of so much opposing design philosophy manifest in the rules just does not wash with me.

But.

This is Traveller. Thousands of different games, each different, and all with the same name. We're all right, too, even though many do not comprehend this.

 

[Supplement Four]

Except in combat. Tables of weapons vs range and armor (Book 1), tables of large weapons fired at targets very far away (High Guard), tables of possible actions (Snapshot and AHL). Oh yes, and tables for those weapon specific characteristic DMs.

Well, I assumed that you were talking about CT Books 1-3, not the tactical point version of combat or space combat in Book 5.

Even with the combat tables from Book 1, though, there's little to look up. You know that 8+ hits. Most CT players I know, write down their common mods for weapons (Skill + STR/DEX mod). I'll write that next to my NPC stats. Range DM is typically the same for the entire combat. Same goes for Armor mod. Since combat typically is at one range, then you've got one armor mod to deal with per type of armor.

It's not a lot of looking up at all--no more than any other game. Most players I know memorize their PC's mods.

Traveller is ALL ABOUT looking things up. More than most, even in the CT era, it is a game of data.

With regards to playing the game, that hasn't been my experience at all. My CT games flow like water. When throws are needed, I rattle something off, and boom, we're down the road. Nothing hardly ever to look up.

I remember those days. They required that a Ref be a paragon of gamers because if you weren't, you were a horrible Ref. Some people attribute the "Old School" to Gygaxian attitudes toward what was essentially competitive play, but a lot of those Old School games had no such luck. They were often just incomplete thoughts about games written by people who had no idea how to express themselves on paper and never managed to get more than 30% of their "amazing" game out of their heads and onto the page.

We have a greatly different experience. If that's what you think of a strong, all powerful, Ref, you should really play in my game sometime and see how fun it can be.

Traveller is neither of these things, and never has been.

Traveller requires a very strong Ref. One who knows the rules and can pull off, comfortably, throws that make sense on a consistent basis.

I many ways, the standardized task system is a crutch for weaker Ref's, imo.

The GM as God simply does not work in Traveller....

Again, I take the exact opposite view. Traveller is more about GM is God than many other games.

Player: I open the hatch.

GM: Well, you try. It's stuck. But, there is some "give".

Player: I'll try to shoulder it open.

GM: OK, roll 3D for STR or less.



No looking up. GM is God.

 

[Supplement Four]

A little more about CT and "GM is God"....


Just look at how GDW wrote their adventures. The Ref gets an outline. It's up to the Ref to decide how to best use the idea, whatever it is (the Research Station, the lost spacecraft, the discovered pyramid), in his game.

The strong GM is charged with implementing the idea in his game, creating NPCs and enemies, vehicles, and equipment.

Sure, the Research Station has robots in it, but a Ref adds scientists and Imperial Marines. The Lost Spacecraft is full of crazy robots that are infected with a strange programming virus, and while the PCs are exploring her, a Zhodani patrol boat swings along side. Inside the pyramid, the PCs find what they think are lowberth chambers, but dating puts them at several thousand years old...and some of them are openened and empty.

It's the Ref's world that the players explore--not some plan with the entire scenario all laid out.

CT = Strong GM

 

[GypsyComet]

Well, I assumed that you were talking about CT Books 1-3, not the tactical point version of combat or space combat in Book 5.

Classic Traveller is eight Books (regardless of actual published format), more than a dozen Supplements, and a stack of Adventures, Double Adventures, and magazines, as well as several "support" games. To talk of "Traveller" is to talk about the whole.

In many ways, the standardized task system is a crutch for weaker Ref's, imo.

A loaded statement for someone with a sig full of unified mechanics, it nonetheless says nothing about the use of such things by strong Refs. You, for example, *are* using a "standard" task system in your Traveller games. That it is fully written in your head and only implied by the rulebook makes no difference. You finished writing it in your head.

"Weak" vs "Strong" Refereeing has exactly nothing to do with having a codified task system, and everything to do with how much control the Ref exercises within whatever system is in use. Every edition of Traveller provides tools to control tasks instead of having them control you, though not every edition has every tool.

As Rob implies above, a Task Library is a trap. Having your Task Bookshelf all be in one language, however, is not.

 

[Supplement Four]

Obviously, Gypsy, we're coming at this from two different angles, and it doesn't look like the math we use will add up.

I can't say I agree with much you've said in this topic (though I usually do agree with much that you say), and it's obvious that you think I'm coming at it via Mars.

That's just the way it goes, sometimes.

 

[aramis]

Except in combat. Tables of weapons vs range and armor (Book 1), tables of large weapons fired at targets very far away (High Guard), tables of possible actions (Snapshot and AHL). Oh yes, and tables for those weapon specific characteristic DMs.

And tables and formulae for trade, and for animals, and patrons, and those many pages of tabular data we call sectors.

Traveller is ALL ABOUT looking things up. More than most, even in the CT era, it is a game of data.




I remember those days. They required that a Ref be a paragon of gamers because if you weren't, you were a horrible Ref. Some people attribute the "Old School" to Gygaxian attitudes toward what was essentially competitive play, but a lot of those Old School games had no such luck. They were often just incomplete thoughts about games written by people who had no idea how to express themselves on paper and never managed to get more than 30% of their "amazing" game out of their heads and onto the page.

Traveller is neither of these things, and never has been. As the first sandbox game of any note, Traveller expressly put more power in the hands of players than any of the God Given Scenario games (dungeon crawls and quests) even while supporting those modes of play with Patrons.

I wouldn't say it was the first sandbox game - D&D happens to have had a lot of sandbox elements in Volumes I, II, and III... and expected you to have a miniatures wargame as well (Chainmail). Plus, Traveller as presented in the 1981 and later printings doesn't look all that sandboxy... at least, not by comparison to the contemporaneous hex-crawling of D&D

The GM as God simply does not work in Traveller unless you force the meme with unexplored space or a completely crippled or absent stellar civilization. Once Library Data enters the picture, the GMaG tools of fear and, especially, ignorance become much weaker. The idea that Traveller, and specifically CT, openly embraced DM Fiat in the face of so much opposing design philosophy manifest in the rules just does not wash with me.

But.

This is Traveller. Thousands of different games, each different, and all with the same name. We're all right, too, even though many do not comprehend this.

That was a common enough problem, but it's not exclusive to Traveller... more below

Well, I assumed that you were talking about CT Books 1-3, not the tactical point version of combat or space combat in Book 5.

Even with the combat tables from Book 1, though, there's little to look up. You know that 8+ hits. Most CT players I know, write down their common mods for weapons (Skill + STR/DEX mod). I'll write that next to my NPC stats. Range DM is typically the same for the entire combat. Same goes for Armor mod. Since combat typically is at one range, then you've got one armor mod to deal with per type of armor.

It's not a lot of looking up at all--no more than any other game. Most players I know memorize their PC's mods.





With regards to playing the game, that hasn't been my experience at all. My CT games flow like water. When throws are needed, I rattle something off, and boom, we're down the road. Nothing hardly ever to look up.







We have a greatly different experience. If that's what you think of a strong, all powerful, Ref, you should really play in my game sometime and see how fun it can be.





Traveller requires a very strong Ref. One who knows the rules and can pull off, comfortably, throws that make sense on a consistent basis.

I many ways, the standardized task system is a crutch for weaker Ref's, imo.







Again, I take the exact opposite view. Traveller is more about GM is God than many other games.

Player: I open the hatch.

GM: Well, you try. It's stuck. But, there is some "give".

Player: I'll try to shoulder it open.

GM: OK, roll 3D for STR or less.



No looking up. GM is God.

See, most players I knew never wrote down the weapon mods, because the Ref had them copied off, and they relied upon the GM to do the lookups. My Ref had them copied, by hand, on notebook paper. And when I got the rules, I only had the stats copied when I was Ref...

Once the stats were reduced by my switch to Striker/AHL combat mechanics, suddenly, players started writing weapon Pens and Ranges down...

Likewise, the T&C was heavily table driven.

Ship combat wasn't so much, but still, the stacks of modifiers, if one wasn't of your particular "rules are just guidelines" mentality, Traveller lead to either incessant rules-open Reffing, or Ref simplification to a Stat Mod for high or low, and add skill.

I was a "book open" CT ref. I memorized several of the systems. And the ones I didn't, I had players who had... so lookups were expected.

The migration to the DGP task system got me out of the book except for combat and T&C.

It's not a crutch for bad/weak GM's. It's a tool for busy, lazy, or rules-lawyer-afflicted GM's to use a task system. And DGP's was in THE best CT 3rd party supplements (GS/GC), as well as one of the best known of the 'zines (Traveller's Digest)...

And I was all three (busy, lazy, and rules-lawyer afflicted).

I ran AD&D the same way - and missed a lot of buried rules.
Likewise, there's a lot of detail that Refs of Ken's type are prone to gloss over, and those details can be interesting in themselves.

 

[robject]

That's just it. You don't look things up. You get a general idea of how you can work things, then call it as it seems right to you in a game.

CT isn't about looking things up all the time.

CT is about the Ref, knowing, generally, how things work in CT, coming up with a throw on the spot and running with it.

You shouldn't be a slave to the book, with CT. The CT Ref is an old school, "strong" GM who makes calls on the spot and keeps the game moving.

S4, this is primarily a sign that you know and love the rules, and that's exactly what makes for a good referee.

I'll add that this is also Don's preferred argument for using Traveller5's task mechanic: it's fast to learn and easy to use, the no-slave-to-the-book kind of thing.

I think it's probable that, had I picked up Classic Traveller when I was 11, I would be more in your shoes.

 

[Ulsyus]

I'll add that this is also Don's preferred argument for using Traveller5's task mechanic: it's fast to learn and easy to use, the no-slave-to-the-book kind of thing.

Here here! CT was a great game, MT gave the gaming world the task-system, and the thing's been evolving since then. In the end it's all just ways of expressing probability, so it can be done plenty of different ways. But the means for doing it with T5 is just that bit easier to apply to different situations.

Or so it seems to me.

This is Traveller. Thousands of different games, each different, and all with the same name. We're all right, too, even though many do not comprehend this.

How great is that! All the elements you pointed out GC

 

[GypsyComet]

I can't say I agree with much you've said in this topic (though I usually do agree with much that you say), and it's obvious that you think I'm coming at it via Mars.

No, I've met Martian DMs. They're much worse. You wouldn't like them, either, I suspect.

 

[robject]

No, I've met Martian DMs. They're much worse. You wouldn't like them, either, I suspect.

They're always waving those antennae in your face. Plus their absurd breathing requirements.