Balanced Parties, Thoughts and Suggestions

[Polaris]

People,

Alright, at Falkayn's suggestion I am divorcing this topic from the 'Navy Officer' thread in order to gain more useful input and to help with the signal to noise ratio on that thread.

I am firmly of the opinion (and frankly it is not so much opinion as common sense to me) that the baseline rules (those played straight out of the box) should produce equivalent characters (in d20 terms about the same level or in G:T terms about the same point total).

I have given many solid reasons why this is so, and I will add one more based on Falkayn's last post on the Navy Officer thread. New players and GMs do tend to be competative and do tend to emphasize either combat or simple solutions to problems. Lamentable or not, this is a simple fact of modern gaming (probably due to CRPGS but that is another issue).

As such, your players will want to min-max even at the cost of character developement, and a noob GM does not currently have the guidelines in T-20 to stop this. This in turn means there are several balance disasters just waiting to happen....the 10 term Vilani Navy Officer is simply the most obvious. Furthermore, either players will all want to be Vilani or Aslan or will resent those that are because of the real and quantifiable differences in power.

In short instead of "teaching" them that power doesn't matter (and not even the gaming grognards like most of us can say that completely and without qualification), you are instead alienating them from the system (and this happened with C-T as well).

OTOH, Falkayn is quite right in stating that you have to be conscious of your "core" Traveller audience as well. Like it or not (and I emphatically do not), the old Prior-History mechanic was part of the flavor of traveller and something that many missed in the GURPS version.

There, did I cover everyone here?

I have two suggestions to help deal with this problem:

1. (This is only a patch) The GM decides ahead of time what the maximum allowed level is going to be. Prior history is automatically ceased (regardless of die rolls) when this level is reached. In addition, those characters that are less capable (lower levels) are given XP until they are one level less than this maximum. Everything else about prior history remains the same (including mustering out benefits). Note: Alien Levels do count against your level maximum.

2. (A more comprehensive solution) Your starting level is determined by the number of terms you served in Prior History. (Terms +1 is my suggestion). You start at the minimum XP for that level. Alien levels do count against this level ceiling. In any case, the GM should enforce a set maximum number of terms for all players regardless of race. I recommend seven terms (Solomani standard). Keep the Prior History rules unchanged otherwise but ignore all XP benefits (since the starting XP will be set by starting level).

There....the flavor of Traveller is preserved and you can have very detailed character histories. Indeed in my second option, if the player chooses he can opt for a less powerful character (less terms) assuming that he, his fellow players, and the GM can agree on this. However, your starting level is not left to chance since even a term with a failed survival roll is still good for a level (after all you learn from your mistakes....especially your deadly ones).

I think the problem is very real, and I hope that these solutions will be taken in the spirit that they are intended.

-Polaris

 

[Falkayn]

Polaris,

Thanks for taking this up as a new thread!

I like both solutions you present, but I have a thrid option which matches the way some of my friends GM. Often at the start of a campaign thy will assign an arbitary amount of XP as the total available to each PC - now in D&D there are all sorts of multiclass costs in terms of XP that must be factored in, so the players each happily sit down and whir through their PC creation. So imagine this as the third option:

3. Your starting level is determined by the amount of XP assigned by your GM. Each player then 'spends' that XP in the prior history process to buy terms, promotions, decorations and XP bonuses (note that these cost XP, and therefore are only useful in reducing age). Players must choose duty assignments that allow them to gain promotions/decorations/XP bonuses if they wish to have them that term, and then must still make the cash bonus and survival roll for that term. Academic programs still require the PC to make the required INT/EDU rolls, and if successful they spend the XP necessary for what they manage to achieve.

So for example a brand new PC at 1st level (0 XP) who is allowed to spend 8,500 XP (to be 4th level), might do the following:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">XP Action
==============================
0 1st Level Rogue
0 Makes the Admission roll for Bachelors
3000 Makes the Graduation check for Bachelors
(EDU of 9 is raised to 12)
0 Fails Honors check for Bachelors
- PC is now 3rd level and takes 2 more levels of Rogue (must have cheated a lot!)
0 Spends a term with the Army, chooses the Internal Security assignment
4000 Makes their survival roll
1000 Buys a Decoration (in this case Purple Heart)
-500 Loses the rest of their XP as no XP bonus is available for Internal Security</pre>[/QUOTE]Starts play as a 4th level PC with 8,000 XP. Of course they could have chosen the Police Action assignment and thus kept the extra 500 XP (but had a 2 harder survival roll).

Hmmm ... now that I look at it, that's pretty messy. But it allows the player to build their PC from the ground up, including choosing some important aspects of their character's prior history.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Well, if I was playing in a campaign in which the ref decided to limit all of the characters to equivalent levels, I think I would prefer Falkayn's method.

 

[Falkayn]

In terms of what I'd recommend for newbie GMs I'd probably go for Polaris' second option. It is very simple, keeps the die rolling (meaning everyone is familiar with it in case you wanted to go back to standard T20 rules) and provides as good a result as any.

A fourth option is to ditch the prior history altogether and just create characters at whatever level/XP the GM chooses. You can then choose whatever prior history you wanted. This does allow for a bunch of 10th level 18 year olds

 

[Polaris]

People,

I appreciate the vote of confidence in my second method Falkayn. What I am attempting to do here is present a method, a baseline method I might add, that both preserves the flavor of traveller's prior history system yet gives balanced characters.

As for your fourth solution, that is simply (in effect) dropping the Prior History altogether and writing up the background from whole cloth (which is actually more normal for d20). There is no rule that says you have to start at 18 years of age, but there is nothing that says you will not either (so your point is taken).

I still feel that something like this needs to be the core mechanic of the game at the very least as a newbie GM option. Otherwise, you have some gaming disasters just waiting to happen. IMHO (but it is very strong opinion), you need to cater to the less experienced and less capable GMs and not the other way around because it is those GMs that need the help. Gack, repeating myself.

Anyhoo, please keep the comments coming.

-Polaris

 

[tjoneslo]

Polaris,
Let me try and understand your point. You are suggesting (or asking for suggestions) for game rule fixes to "re-balance" a set of rules (Prior History) which are, from their design, not balanced.

I think one of the great flaws of most RPGs is the assumption that all characters must be equivelent upon starting, and usually through most of the campaigns. This is the reason I like the Prior History system, as it produces characters that are not "balanced". But you make a good point, it takes a more experienced Refree to handle the unbalanced characters.

Back on topic. He is how I would handle the rules:

5. Characters don't get experience for going through the Prior History system. Characters roll through the Prior History system and create their character history as normal. When done, the GM hands out the starting XP for all characters, and the players spend them as normal.

 

[Polaris]

tjoneslo,

You are certainly right that IRL people aren't "balanced", but I always found that irritating in random die rolling for character generation (Original DnD or ADnD 1E anyone?) In short, an attempt for PC balance is desirable as a strong general rule (at least that is what 95%+ of the RPGs out there seem to think).

Let me get your proposal straight. You would simply run through the entire prior history and then everyone would get a lump XP sum at the end, correct? [Naturally you would not get XP during the prior history then.]

How is this any different than my second proposal. I am not trying to be hostile; I am just trying to ask an honest question. The only possible answer I can think of is that players would not be forced to take max terms for their prior history which IMHO might lead to characters that are "too young" for their level. That is a minor nit, but I thought I would lay it out.

-Polaris

 

[aravain]

Polaris

A good,clear, and polite post with some good questions and possible solutions!

Am I correct that you are looking for a replacement to the character generation rules that are currently being used and not as a 2ed Edition option? If so, I would go (in order) with Falkyn's suggestion, followed by your second.

With your clearer posting on this thread, I begin to see one of your concerns better: that for Traveller to really grow, you must attract those outside the current Traveller community and with the rules written as they currently are, you risk newbie players and GMs (with limited role-playing skills)being unable to compensate, leaving them either leaving the system completely and dismissing it as too flawed or playing the system like the majority of all rpgs out there.

A very valid concern!!

Would you then purpose a two tier (chose one) character system generation (your choice:newbies or old guard role playing player experience), with examples of both in the 2ed edition or would you completely revise the character system, leaving the old way as a one or two sentence explanation option?

This could be a very interesting thread, since it appears that we have a good dialogue between some experienced gamers dealing with the question of how do you keep attracting and retaining new fans while not losing your current fan base.

 

[Polaris]

Aravain,

If it were just up to me, I would probably ditch the prior history altogether and write the character histories from whole cloth.

However, as it is (and given it is important not to alienate the current fan base), I am looking for a system that would replace the prior history mechanic as the default. I would leave in the rules for XP gain per term as an optional rule for advanced players.

Is my basic position clearer on that point? I find it is important that all parties understand exactly what the others are talking about to communicate effectively, and I will admit that I dismissed the 'old guard' effect out of hand....as a friend of mine (and game designer) Dave Naille reminded me. So I will try to do better here.

Of all the systems presented, I think my second proposal is the best. Falkayn's isn't bad (you are in effect buying bennies from prior terms with XP assuming I understood it correctly), but the point of this is to write up good balanced Prior History rules that maintain the flavor of C-T while generating balanced characters (for ease of new Traveller players). Given this goal, I think that Falkayn's system is just too complicated. [I am a big believer in K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).] Mind you I appreciate Falkayn's thoughts and I hope he continues to contribute, but I feel that is honest criticism directed at his proposal.

I am looking forward to more of your thoughts.

-Polaris

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Of all the systems presented, I think my second proposal is the best. Falkayn's isn't bad (you are in effect buying bennies from prior terms with XP assuming I understood it correctly), but the point of this is to write up good balanced Prior History rules that maintain the flavor of C-T while generating balanced characters (for ease of new Traveller players). Given this goal, I think that Falkayn's system is just too complicated. [I am a big believer in K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).] Mind you I appreciate Falkayn's thoughts and I hope he continues to contribute, but I feel that is honest criticism directed at his proposal.

This mimics my thinking too. I stated the 3rd option as a possible alternative, but it deviates too far from T20 to be worth considering (and is messy and complicated).

I do like the random nature of prior history generation, it reminds me of Cyberpunk 2020's lifepath - although those rules also covered relationships, allies and enemies. Having some parts of that out of the control of the player adds to the fun, a sort of mini-game within the context of the T20 game itself. BUT, I think the GM needs to be involved to help players when the dice go very, very bad - and to provide alternatives to what the bad dice rolls represent (somesitmes players just get pessimistic and sulky, when there is actually a great background hook that the GM can help them see).

I'd like to see the normal prior history rules developed further, perhaps with each year beig rolled, so that characters do not end up as 18 + 'multiples of 4' years old, and so more real life detail is provided like the Cyberpunk lifepath rules.

 

[Polaris]

Falkayn,

Unfortunately the randomess of the Prior History system can get in the way too. In my current group (the one where the GM put a level cap on everyone), both myself and another player are old C-T vets from waay back (even though I hadn't played CT since I was in the Air Force some ten years ago). Unfortunately, his wife while an experienced gamer in her own right had no prior Traveller experience.

She had a particular background type in mind for her character (we all did, that is how we play...it gives us incentive and direction). In her case she wanted to play a scout that had some minimal naval experience before deciding that the navy life just wasn't for her.

Problem: During her first term as "Navy", she rolled 'conflict' (top of the chart), survived, got the cluster of heroism (the highest possible decoration), and got a maximum roll on her random extra experience.

*Bam* She was now a sixth level naval officer with no chance of buying the scout levels she needed and wanted for her background. Even without the level cap, her first term already insured that she had too many navy levels. I trust you see the problem.

Now because we are all very experienced gamers in general (including the GM who is a big Traveller fan), he simply told her to buy the needed scout levels anyway and ignore what the prior history/terms said. That would not happen in all liklihood with a newbie GM.

That is one more reason why some default and balanced system perhaps like my second option is needed. Had my second system been in use, this would not have been a problem. Her first term would have given her one navy level (which is what she wanted) and then she could have taken the rest of her terms as scout and have been (with 7 terms) a 1Navy/7Scout character like she wanted in the first place.

-Polaris

 

[Bruce]

"*Bam* She was now a sixth level naval officer with no chance of buying the scout levels she needed and wanted for her background. Even without the level cap, her first term already insured that she had too many navy levels. I trust you see the problem."

This is where your problem happened and you found the solution even though you did'nt think so.

When you level up in a CAREER, or a SERVICE, you can take a level in any class that you want. Bound by restrictions.

So, if she had taken her first level as a scout and went into the NAvy, she could take any of those 5 levels in scout or navy or mix them up or take some in other classes that are not restricted.

Part of this misunderstanding stems from the use of the D20 liscense that does not allow us to say certain things about character creation.

On the question of balance.
I think inbalanced parties give a nice feel. I think they promote the TEAM concept more. They give you the opportunity to have the young apprentice jedi and the old Jedi master in the same party, they both have things they can do and they do them well. I know this is not an exact example because it's star wars and not Traveller, but it's one that people can understand.

I think if you want to play with totally balanced characters then you should, it's YOUR game.
That's the beauty of it, you can modify it all you want. If you read these message boards with regularity, then you know that there are MANY, MANY thoughts on style and use here.

But I have had no complaints about the diference in level between my part memebers. And I have a mix, but most have never played Traveller before.

Bruce
The Man Behind the Curtain

 

[Polaris]

Bruce,

The problem is that she wanted her first term (and initial character level) to be "navy" because it fit her character. That meant that she could not take scout levels because she didn't have any prior to her first term. Is the problem clearer now?

As for imbalanced parties, how imbalanced are you talking about? Attempting to be polite, given what you have said, I am quite sure you never had a min-maxer (and this actually shows good interest in the rules and so should be encouraged to some degree) walk up and create a 10 term Vilani character or a twelve term Aslan character and simply be better than anyone else.

I am not trying to denigrate your experience, but trust me on this one: This matters in d20 and it matters a great deal. In particular, the one reason to pick d20 is because it appeals to a wide market base...especially those weaned on DnD. You tell a typical DnD player that he is stuck playing a 5th level character in a 10th level party and the reaction will be......interesting.....I will leave it at that. In addition, newbie GMs will not be able to handle the difference in power as well.

Result: You are alienating the audience you want to attract.

At the very least this should concern you from a marketing standpoint and from that standpoint would it do anyone any harm to add my second system (which seems to keep the feel of CT quite well) alongside the existing system (I would say as a default myself)?

What is more important: Appealing to new players and GMs or promoting a "team feeling"? [I guarantee you that new players will not give the system enough time because of lack of patience if you tolerate inbalanced parties.]

-Polaris

 

[Bruce]

Well I've been running some form of RPG since, well, since many were born.

I have been running 3e since it began. I have had my fill of min-max'ers. I know there type.

Now when you have a 10th level party member and a 5th level party member, that 5th level player is going to go up faster than the 10th level player. Just by the mere fact that they take less EXP's to level up.

I don't see a problem there.

Another point, 5 levels can make a big difference depending on class in T-20.
Is the 10th level PC a Academic? Or a MErc?
When you say balanced characters do you mean balanced in combat abiities or skills?

I think level is not so important in T-20 because of it's lethality. A 10th level PC can die just as easily as a 5th level PC.

I think that mitigates the need for balanced character levels to some extent.

And, as always, in ANY RPG, there are ways to mitigate a PC being TOO powerful, put them in situations that they are not good at.

But these are just my thoughts, it's YOUR game, that is what I said before, you play with what rules you want and what mods you want.

Bruce
The Man Behind the Curtain

P.s. I'm waiting for some other GM's to chime in here on level diferences.

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Result: You are alienating the audience you want to attract.

I love this. Prove your assertion. The sales numbers and reviews would disagree with you...

Until you can show me hard numbers that dispute the ones we have, I'll have to call you in error on this one.

Hunter

 

[Polaris]

Hunter,

As Samuel Clemmons once put it, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

How many people that have bought the T-20 system have never bought another traveller product before?

How many people that have bought T-20 intend to buy another T-20 product?

How old is the median (not mean) age of the people that buy the product?

How many years of gaming experience have they had?

[All the above are standard marketing questions that need to be answered before you can say that you are not alienating newbies. All I said was that this could happen and IMHO would happen based on the current rules. I am sure I am leaving a few key questions out as well.]

See the point yet? At least three other people that defended you in the Navy Officer thread have out and out said that I had a very valid point. Doesn't that mean anything?

Doesn't the fact that mainstream RPGs all involve (at least hypothetically) balanced character creation schemes while those that don't are niche games at best mean anything to you?

I will grant that you probably exceeded your initial sales projections. Indeed I know that to be true. However that does not mean that the product can not be improved.

Instead of lashing out at me, why don't you read my initial post on this thread. Isn't it at least a sensible approach for a 2nd Edition of the game if not a needed addition for a reprint? [I personally would say that something like this would be mandatory for the reprint, but I will not get ahead of myself.]

Let me ask you the same question I asked Bruce:

What harm would it do to present a balanced character creation system alongside the one you currently have? Please, I would like a straight answer.

Bruce,

I have already talked about the XP issue and any Min-Maxer will recognize it within 2-3 sessions of play.

1. The rate you advance is independent of level because the XP award is porportional to party level.

2. The fifth level character will never catch up with the 10th level character no matter how long the game is played. [This is a simple fact of d20.]

3. The lower level character actually hurts the rest of the party when it comes to XP awards and makes everyone else work harder (because he is by definition less competant).

Hunter and Bruce,

If you don't believe me on this, then you have never had the experience of having a powergamer walk in and create 10 term Vilani character that was simply better than everyone else (and this is quite easy to do under the rules that exist). If that is coupled by new players and an inexperienced GM (at least in T-20) then I assure you that the reaction will be, "This game 'blows'" and you will never sell a T20 product to them again.

FWIW, it is precisely this reason why I stopped playing CT all those years ago. I found the Prior History mechanic to be obnoxious. Furthermore (go read SJG's Murphy's Laws sometime) most gamers that I am familiar with also regarded that system as at best a joke in poor taste.

Please note that I am not asking you to scrap the idea. All I am saying is that for new players and GMs, the written option needs to be there to create balanced parties....or even for the GM to have a tighter control over any imbalance. [I note that my second proposal allows for imbalanced parties....but that has to be specifically planned and allowed for.]

Think about it this way: Experienced GMs can houserule better than inexperienced ones. Thus, shouldn't the burden of houseruling be on the experienced GM? In short, it is indisputably easier for a newbie GM to handle a balanced party...so why force the newbie to houserule to do this? That to me smacks of bad design.

-Polaris

Edit: If you read my response to Bruce carefully, you will note that I did not assert that you were in fact alienating your target audience. Rather, I said that *if* you intended to attract DnDers and *if* they had the negative experience of imbalanced parties *then* that would be the logical result. In short it was the conclusion of a logical construction and not an assertion. Please try to read my posts more carefully.

 

[Reginald]

Personally, if this had been a traditional fantasy game, then I would agree with you.

But this is a science fiction genre game, with a leaning toward modern-day genre game than the the traditional fantasy genre. I doubt we can make a ship's crew makeup where the ensign is just one experience level behind the most experienced ship captain. That'd be too weird.

We should relax the perception of D&D level, instead of enforcing it. Many newbie gamers who come to this game via D&D may be in for a rude awakening but that's the way it is for other games (I have played FASA and LUG versions of Star Trek with a crew of various experience).

Remember, it is better to make the rules fit the setting rather than make the setting fit the rules. And if you got to tweak the rules, then do it.

 

[Polaris]

Reginald,

First of all, as an aside, "level" in d20 reflects the general competance of the character. If it should be deemphasized, then why use it at all?

Having said that, I certainly see where you are coming from. You are saying (just to be sure I understand you correctly) why should a security ensign be the same level as the captain?

I have several thoughts on this:

1. In my second proposal, I do not mandate (although I suggest) that everyone have the same level. If some players want to start off with less experience (and level) and the GM agrees, then they can. However (and this is the important part), it does not turn on the dice. That leads me to point 2.

2. Suppose you have a group of players, and one has his heart set on being the captain (and the others agree), and one wants to be the chief engineer, and one wants to be the doctor, etc etc. IMX this is what often happens in space based fantasy (which is what Traveller really is when you get down to it).

However, what happens when the captain (who wants to be a Solli) winds up character creation at 6th level, while the Vilani astrogator winds up at fourteenth?! Should the Vilani suddenly be the captain just because of the die rolls in spite of the players wants and desires?

Of course an experienced GM will step in at this point and set things right either by limiting the Vilani, by adding XP to the Solli character, or by some other means....but I am not talking about experienced GMs. The inexperienced GM is likely to say (and we've all seen them) "well, that's what the rules say, sorry."

3. Finally, I note that it is not unrealistic for the important officers of the crew to be within a level of the captain, especially when you factor in non-service classes into the mix. For example, the Captain and the Chief-Engineer could both be level 12 characters, yet the Captain has levels in pure Navy (for example) while the Chief Engineer has a few levels of Rogue (for example). Even though both are of the same level does not mean that both have the same ability to hold a command slot.

In short, even it you have the same number of terms with the same level, you can quite easily retire with very different ranks (assuming service classes for the moment) and be qualified for very different position. [In addition IRL, Navy Dept Heads are quite capable (indeed must be capable of being quite competant captains) which implies a fairly low level difference between them and the captain (if any).]

-Polaris

 

[sandman]

Well... Character terms mean Jack for powergames.

They finds new way to f**k up the balance even with LOW terms

Ex: I've got a Navy Scientist here (rolled up by a player) who a 9th level character after only TWO terms.

That damned player rolled up two VERY high D20 for his decoration roll, earning him the Starburst TWICE. Coupled with University (to Doctorate), survival (twice) promotion (twice) bonus XP (twice, 3k and 4k for a total of 7000) and some other rolls, he came up with 40k XP after Uni + 2 terms.

His prime class is Academics. he had access to the "Advanced Knowledge" feat, which he took. twice (once for two skills). He started with EDU 18. Homeworld = TL15. Twice Honor Graduate (+2 EDU) Rolled up +1 EDU etc... He's got an EDU of 22.

that gives us a +6 Bonus.


Now, for the really interesting part:

Using his Class skill limit of 12 (Char Level 9 +3) and with his "Advanced Knowledge" permitting him to buy two skills with a rank of 18 (Class Skill Limit + Advance Know (EDU Bonus) of 6 = 18)

We now have a character who has a Skill totals of 24, not including any other feats or synergy bonus.


And that's at 9th Level. with only two terms


How's that for an imbalance?


I call this Munchkinism. If said player would play the character as a closed-up, no-social life techy-dweeb, I might have had no problem with. Unfortunately, not he was running the ship mostly alone, even bypassing the other characters, he had a broad social-life and no problem whatsoever. His only purpose was to have the highest skill ranks and rank in the roll successes.

 

[Polaris]

Sandman,

I agree which is all the more reason why my second option or something very much like it needs to be in the core mechanic. Had my second option been in play, he still would have had all his academic bennies *but* he still would have only been a third level character which would have stopped your little 'munchkin' (I hate to use the term but I have to agree that it applies in this case) in his tracks.

You have just seen the carnage that could be pulled of in just two terms, now just imagine 8 more terms of this. For the true 'munchkin' (I assume he is Vilani, right?), there is no reason not to do this.

I simply said that the 10 term Vilani Navy Officer was the most obvious way to unbalance the party. I did not say it was the only one. I do note once more that my second proposal would have stopped this problem as well.

-Polaris

Edit 2: B.S.+M.S.+PhD count for three terms so he would have been sixth level rather than 3rd, but it is still much better than 9th

Edit 3: University doesn't count as a term after all (my bad). The above post is edited to correct that. It actually enhances my point since the munchkin is now six levels lighter (which is a lot in d20!).

Edit Afterthought: Hunter, please read Sandman's post even if you dismiss mine. Sandman just gave a superb example of just how badly a determined player can break the existing Prior History rules. If nothing else convinces you that some sort of baseline rule to insure character balance is needed, then his horror story ought to do the trick. I note that is easy to dismiss the need for balanced parties until a grossly imbalanced character messes things up. Just read Sandman's post above if you doubt this.