Balanced Parties, Thoughts and Suggestions

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Polaris:

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."

So, what you're saying there is not enough material on how to gamemaster Traveller?

Maybe the Astrogator is experienced but does not have the leadership skill to command, whereas the ship captain must have fast-tracked his career. The Astrogater could be a veteran Warrant Officer or CPO.

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).]

Yeah, I pretty much take back my previous post's statement.

 

[Polaris]

Reginald,

In fact I don't think there is enough guidance to gamemaster T-20, but that is tangential to the main point. While it is possible, I suppose for a 6th level character to be the captain, while the 14th level character is the astrogator, I simply find it unlikely.

For one thing, if you take several service terms, it is dead easy to get a commission. Indeed if you serve more than 3 or 4 terms, you are likely to be commissioned. [I note that Imperial warrents are not part of the core rules although we use them in the game I am in. Indeed my chief engineer is a retired CWO-3.]

More to the point, why would such a superbly qualified Astrogator even bother serving with a captain of minimal qualifications? I can assure you that by 14th level, said Astrogator could no doubt write his own ticket when it came to berths.

Then there is simply the idea of fairness. In my very strong experience, players, especially those new to a system, are very sensitive to the appearence of fairness. It seems (and I for one think is) unfair for a 6th level character to have to adventure with a 14th level one.

I also ask you to read Sandman's post above. It is possible to really twist the rules beyond all recognition because there isn't a real limit to how much XP you can earn per term. A properly twinked out Academic can earn 10000+ XP per term easy. The same is true for a Navy officer with a very high EDU score (which is not hard to get).

Finally, I note that by making T-20 a d20 system, you are trying to get (apparently anyway) new blood into the Traveller Community. This is a good thing! However, you also want to keep them in after they start playing. A few encounters with 10 or 12 term starting characters not to mention the abomination of the current rules mentioned by Sandman (or even unbalanced parties in general coupled with an inexperienced GM/Players) could (and I argue probably will) drive them away again.

-Polaris

 

[MJD]

You can put in all the rules you like about min-maxing and munchkinism but it's up to the referee in the end. Parties are never balanced. Give everyeone identical characters and some will be miore effective than others becasue the player finds ways to use his abilities better (or exploits the rules....)

Point is, we presented a game system that parallels CT and works with the D20 system. It's up to refs to use it as they wish.

If a player has a character concept (and a genuine RP one, not a munchkin paradise) then the ref can surely bend the rules to allow that character to exists. In the example litsted here, the simple answer is to say "okay, put one level into Navy, the rest into Scouts and you HAVE to switch to Scout prior history from next term!.

That's within the spirit of the T20 rules, and it gives the character desired.

The alternative is to say okay well, this character isn't exactly what I had in mind when I started. But it's interesting, I'll play it.

Who in life is what they wanyted to be at 18?

CT didn't give you what you wanted every time using the random system.

 

[Polaris]

MJD,

I think you are missing the point here. The point is not that you can not exploit the rules. Naturally any rule-set can be exploited.

Rather, my point was that there should be hard and fast limits at least for new players as to just how badly you can exploit the rules. You bring up CT and thus so shall I. A lot of your fellow gamers felt the CT prior history was at best a joke in poor taste because of the imbalances it created (as well as other non-sensical things such as a Navy Doctor with 20 years experience and no ranks in Medicine).

You say that you want to keep the flavor from CT. Fine. I have done this. I have created a very simple system that gives both balanced parties (or at least strictly controls the imbalance) AND gives the same background flavor mechanic that all of you want from CT.

What else could you want? Do you want to possibly alienate new players with poorly balanced rules?

-Polaris

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by Polaris:
tjoneslo,

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

The difference is, if I understand your proposal correctly, my version there will not ever be any difference between the starting level of two characters.

For example, two players roll through prior history. The first gets through 7 terms of prior history and their character is 8th level. The other blows a survival roll in their first term and end up at 2nd level. Is this correct?

Under my suggestion, both characters would be given a set amount of experience, and start at the same level. Which is what you want, correct? In my system, prior history acts as a guide for writing character histories.

It has been my experience that not everyone can write a good character history, and still make it consistent with a complex world.

 

[Polaris]

tjoneslo,

No, that is not quite correct.

First of all AFAIK, just because you blow a survival roll does not mean that you have to cease your Prior History generation. In CT it did, but (again AFAIK) in T-20 it does not.

Secondly, you get your level regardless of whether you survived the term or not.

So to go back to your example, if the second character blew his survival roll, that's fine...he just goes on to reenlist (or change professions) and goes on with his third and subsequent terms.

In short both of our systems would guarantee that you would start at a given level depending on how many terms you wanted. Is my system clearer to you? [Honest question]

Actually, that is the one thing about T-20 that can be abused badly as it is currently written: You are assured of taking as many terms as you want up to your racial limit. That was never the case in C-T. This makes Aslan and Vilani characters even more attactive.

-Polaris

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by Polaris:

What else could you want? Do you want to possibly alienate new players with poorly balanced rules?

-Polaris

No one has claimed your system is wrong, bad or incorrect. Your point is correct, the prior history system can produce, even under fair conditions, characters of wildly different (unbalanced) capabilities.

There are two solutions to this challenge.
1) Fix the rules so it beomes harder (or impossible) for players to create the unbalanced characters. This is your approach.

2) Assume the players and GM know (or can learn) that characters of different levels and capabilities can each have equal time in the spotlight.

This second option requires players who are willing to play fair and a GM who can create challenges designed for the characters. Your argument suggests that, from your experience, this is a very rare (or non-existant) combination. Therefore, the solution must be option 1. We're arguing this is wrong, because in our experince, the players and GM are capable of playing nice so everyone has a good time.

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by Polaris:
tjoneslo,

In short both of our systems would guarantee that you would start at a given level depending on how many terms you wanted. Is my system clearer to you? [Honest question]

-Polaris

It is clear. The difference ends up being the player who is either having a bad day with the dice or feel's their characters prior history is complete, is still the same level as everyone else.

 

[Polaris]

tjoneslo,

Actually what I am really getting at (and even my critics said I had a distinct point here) is that:

1. Min-Maxing and competition is encouraged in modern gaming in general. Thus it is reasonable to assume that new players and GMs will (at least at first) approach T-20 in the same fashion.

2. It requires experienced GMs and players to handle imbalanced parties well. This should really be uncontested.

All that implies that the default rules should limit the imbalance in the first place. Even if I were to agree with your assessement tjoneslo, I would still argue that new players have to be weaned off the idea of balanced parties....and that requires a baseline system that is balanced alongside the more usual system. I would also say that it would require a masterful GM to pull this off....and (to my knowledge) nowhere in the T-20 book does it state that T-20 is supposed to be for expert Traveller players only....yet the rules by their very nature imply just that (which defeats the purpose of making T-20 a d20 system in the first place!)

-Polaris

 

[Polaris]

Originally posted by tjoneslo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Polaris:
tjoneslo,

In short both of our systems would guarantee that you would start at a given level depending on how many terms you wanted. Is my system clearer to you? [Honest question]

-Polaris

It is clear. The difference ends up being the player who is either having a bad day with the dice or feel's their characters prior history is complete, is still the same level as everyone else. </font>[/QUOTE]Then I do not think I made myself clear. In my system, if you want to start at 7th level, you roll for 6 terms, period. If you want to start at 8th level, you go through 7 terms.

Just because you have a bad day rolling dice, does not mean that your prior history ends with that term....not even with the current T-20 system.

Now mind you, your system has some merit because it forces everyone to be at the same level. The problem of course is that this is inflexible. I was attempting to allow for an imbalance under strict GM control (not subject to die rolling). Of course with your system, it is a very small step to just assigning a starting level and then having the player write their character backgrounds from whole cloth (more normal for d20).

-Polaris

Edit Afterthought: As I understand it, tjoneslo, your proposal doesn't match the flavor of CT as well either. The whole point (as I understood it anyway) was that people with less experience tended to be less competant overall (that is often untrue btw but I digress). As such making a 2 term and 7 term character both have the same character level while balanced may be construed as contrary to the CT flavor.

 

[remoh]

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

Ok, now what happens to this character when 12 Vagr corsair's board his ship? Or jump him in a bar? All those skill points won't matter in a gun fight or a melee battle.

This a main difference from D&D. Where all class have some combat skills, whether spells or weapon abilities. In Traveller, there are classes like Academic or Merchant without much combat ability.

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by Polaris:
tjoneslo,

Actually what I am really getting at (and even my critics said I had a distinct point here) is that:

1. Min-Maxing and competition is encouraged in modern gaming in general. Thus it is reasonable to assume that new players and GMs will (at least at first) approach T-20 in the same fashion.

This assertion is wrong. The D&D3rd Ed. PHB expressly includes the idea of cooperative parties, where each character (Fighter, Mage, Thief, Cleric) have a specific role to play. And the characters must cooperate to survive the challenges the GM thows at them. And I can quote you similar sentiments from fifteen different game systems.

2. It requires experienced GMs and players to handle imbalanced parties well. This should really be uncontested.

True. But the player competitive min-maxing is also learned. And, I think, it is easier to learn to play fair than it is to play munchkin-like. Keep away from the dark side.

All that implies that the default rules should limit the imbalance in the first place. Even if I were to agree with your assessement tjoneslo, I would still argue that new players have to be weaned off the idea of balanced parties....and that requires a baseline system that is balanced alongside the more usual system.

Either weaned off, or taught how to play that way in the first place.

I would also say that it would require a masterful GM to pull this off....and (to my knowledge) nowhere in the T-20 book does it state that T-20 is supposed to be for expert Traveller players only....yet the rules by their very nature imply just that (which defeats the purpose of making T-20 a d20 system in the first place!)

I contest both assertions here. The skill required of the GM to handle an unbalanced party is directly proportional to the players level of cooperation with each other and the GM. If the players are a bunch of min-maxing, backstabbing munchkins, no GM/Rule set in the world will keep them in line.

The reason for making T20 a D20 system game in the first place was the same as all of the hundreds of other D20 games now in existance. Marketing potential.

I would argue that the price of the T20 book is high enough that anyone who buys the system has more than just a passing interest. And that the numerous pages of rules (as opposed to background) are a clue that this game will not play the same as D&D. Anyone who pays $45 for a rule book then wades through 350 pages of rules to play Traveller, or Space Opera game or SF game, or an alterate D&D universe, has a vested interest in makeing the rules work for them.

You do bring up a good point, the Prior History system does produce characters who are not balanced with each other. It is your insistence that this makes T20 unplayably broken and must be fixed that irks people.

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Edit Afterthought: As I understand it, tjoneslo, your proposal doesn't match the flavor of CT as well either. The whole point (as I understood it anyway) was that people with less experience tended to be less competant overall (that is often untrue btw but I digress). As such making a 2 term and 7 term character both have the same character level while balanced may be construed as contrary to the CT flavor. [/QB]

Half of the point of the Prior History system is to generate the background of the character. I wanted to keep that part of the system, while still keeping the game balance aspects of similar character levels.

Under you system, I must roll through 7 terms (to be 8th level and 46 years old) or go through 3 terms (to be 4th level and 30). If I want only three terms, I'm now (Still) penalized in terms of game balance. Which is what I thought the whole point of this exercise was.

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by remoh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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

Ok, now what happens to this character when 12 Vagr corsair's board his ship? Or jump him in a bar? All those skill points won't matter in a gun fight or a melee battle.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes I know.. That's why there's some grunts in the game too

All I was saying is that lowering Max terms wouldn`t to jack to a determined and dice happy Munchkin.

[edit: moved part of the reply to another thread]

 

[Polaris]

Originally posted by tjoneslo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Polaris:
tjoneslo,

Actually what I am really getting at (and even my critics said I had a distinct point here) is that:

1. Min-Maxing and competition is encouraged in modern gaming in general. Thus it is reasonable to assume that new players and GMs will (at least at first) approach T-20 in the same fashion.

This assertion is wrong. The D&D3rd Ed. PHB expressly includes the idea of cooperative parties, where each character (Fighter, Mage, Thief, Cleric) have a specific role to play. And the characters must cooperate to survive the challenges the GM thows at them. And I can quote you similar sentiments from fifteen different game systems.
</font>[/QUOTE]

Actually it's not. DnD 3E encourages Powergaming. A powergamer does not seek to be the best at everything. In fact the term "min-max" refers to minimize-maximize. Instead you pick something (skills, magic (or psi), combat) and you excell at that while spreading the price you pay for that across as many other aspects of the character as possible or in areas that aren't important (covered by another character) or both.

Indeed, in DnD 3E as in most modern gaming systems, a party of specialists is encouraged and that means min-maxing.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
2. It requires experienced GMs and players to handle imbalanced parties well. This should really be uncontested.

True. But the player competitive min-maxing is also learned. And, I think, it is easier to learn to play fair than it is to play munchkin-like. Keep away from the dark side.
</font>[/QUOTE]

The point is that everyone should be approximately equivalent not that people shouldn't have specialized roles. Why are so many people confounding the terms equivalent with equal? They are not the same. Equivalence in a game system is just a matter of fairness and ease of play. Equality is a much different thing.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
All that implies that the default rules should limit the imbalance in the first place. Even if I were to agree with your assessement tjoneslo, I would still argue that new players have to be weaned off the idea of balanced parties....and that requires a baseline system that is balanced alongside the more usual system.

Either weaned off, or taught how to play that way in the first place.
</font>[/QUOTE]

Now (at the risk of sounding impolite) you are sounding like some of the so-called "RP Nazis" that WWGS made famous with V:TM. You can not assume that new gamers that buy T-20 will "not play the dark side" as you put it. Indeed, you are making a judgement call about playing that that is simply both unfair and unwarrented. I am not asking for you to give up prior history or the concept of imbalanced characters if that is what you want. Rather, I am asking all of you to recognize the obvious: The default rules should be fair and easy to play for a person with limited d20 experience. That implies balanced parties almost by definition.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
I would also say that it would require a masterful GM to pull this off....and (to my knowledge) nowhere in the T-20 book does it state that T-20 is supposed to be for expert Traveller players only....yet the rules by their very nature imply just that (which defeats the purpose of making T-20 a d20 system in the first place!)

I contest both assertions here. The skill required of the GM to handle an unbalanced party is directly proportional to the players level of cooperation with each other and the GM. If the players are a bunch of min-maxing, backstabbing munchkins, no GM/Rule set in the world will keep them in line.
</font>[/QUOTE]

It also takes an experienced GM to recognize Min-Maxing when he sees it. You can not tell me in good conscious that a GM new to T-20 will see how the system can be abused the first time it is played. Thus the default rules should discourage that at least to some degree. I ask everyone to look back honestly at their own gaming experience before telling me I am wrong on this point.

The reason for making T20 a D20 system game in the first place was the same as all of the hundreds of other D20 games now in existance. Marketing potential.

Exactly. Marketing potential which will only be realized to it's fullest if T-20 not only draws new people into the Traveller community but keeps them there. Unbalanced parties are not a good way to do this (very severe understatement there). Let the grognards and the experienced GMs houserule the level differences back in, but keep the basic system at least reasonably balanced. This is essential for new players if you want to keep them.

I would argue that the price of the T20 book is high enough that anyone who buys the system has more than just a passing interest. And that the numerous pages of rules (as opposed to background) are a clue that this game will not play the same as D&D. Anyone who pays $45 for a rule book then wades through 350 pages of rules to play Traveller, or Space Opera game or SF game, or an alterate D&D universe, has a vested interest in makeing the rules work for them.

As a tangential point, I think the T-20 book is too big and (thus) too expensive because the price discourages new players who might otherwise want to try it. Having said that, it makes no sense to just market to your core customer base...at least not if you want to stay in business as anything more than a niche game (and right now Traveller is only a niche game).

You do bring up a good point, the Prior History system does produce characters who are not balanced with each other. It is your insistence that this makes T20 unplayably broken and must be fixed that irks people.

It can make T-20 unplayably broken. Frankly, I see just as many people who can not see reality even if it hits them with a proverbial 2x4. About the first time you (as the GM) have to deal with that 12 term Aslan character or the abomination that Sandman mentioned, you will change your tune. Of that I am quite confident.

-Polaris

 

[Polaris]

Originally posted by Sandman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by remoh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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

Ok, now what happens to this character when 12 Vagr corsair's board his ship? Or jump him in a bar? All those skill points won't matter in a gun fight or a melee battle.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes I know.. That's why there's some grunts in the game too

All I was saying is that lowering Max terms wouldn`t to jack to a determined and dice happy Munchkin.

[edit: moved part of the reply to another thread] </font>[/QUOTE]Sandman,

While you can never remove min-maxing entirely, a system such as the one I proposed would have made your problem a lot less egregious. Since your character would have been limited to 6th level, he would have had less feats and less skill points (and one less attribute gain) to play with.

The point is that part of what made your munchkin so unbalanced wasn't the number of terms (on this we agree) but rather how much XP was being handed out per term. My system solves that problem too.

-Polaris

 

[Polaris]

Originally posted by tjoneslo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Polaris:
Edit Afterthought: As I understand it, tjoneslo, your proposal doesn't match the flavor of CT as well either. The whole point (as I understood it anyway) was that people with less experience tended to be less competant overall (that is often untrue btw but I digress). As such making a 2 term and 7 term character both have the same character level while balanced may be construed as contrary to the CT flavor.

Half of the point of the Prior History system is to generate the background of the character. I wanted to keep that part of the system, while still keeping the game balance aspects of similar character levels.

Under you system, I must roll through 7 terms (to be 8th level and 46 years old) or go through 3 terms (to be 4th level and 30). If I want only three terms, I'm now (Still) penalized in terms of game balance. Which is what I thought the whole point of this exercise was. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]tjoneslo,

That is an excellent point. It all depends, of course, on what is more important....the flavor of tying in age with level or simply having balanced starting levels.

If I was just concerned about levels, then your system has merit. In short, you just use the prior history to write in the character's background. This is fine, and if I were playing, I would have no problem with your system.

OTOH, I was attempting to do a two-shot: I was attempting to allow the GM to balance the party (or at the very least control the imbalance) while also preserving the flavor of CT. Even more I was trying to make it into a dead-easy system that even the greenest GM could apply easily. With all due modesty, so far, I think I have suceeded which is why I am urging Hunter and MJD to include my system (or something like it) alongside the current prior history rules for new GMs.

Again, what's the harm in so doing?

-Polaris

 

[Linwood]

I'm not particularly fond of Polaris' system, but his main point is a good one. T20 in its current form does implicitly assume that one has some prior RPG experience. This isn't a bad thing -- Shadowrun (and Dangerous Journeys, if anyone remembers THAT one....) were similar.

Prior history has always brought with it something of a balance problem; lucky (or unlucky) die rolls always had the capability to skew a character in one fashion or another. I don't think it's entirely a bad thing (in fact, I've been more than tempted to build prior history systems for other games in the past), but then I've never played with gamers lucky enough (or determined enough) to truly max out the system.

Maybe it would be worthwhile to add some text as guidance to new GMs to future editions -- in the section about running the campaign, for example. Several RPGs have both basic and advanced rules; perhaps something like that would work, with the basic version starting everyone at a set level and prior history clearly labelled as advanced. I know that there are some mentions here and there in the current edition to the point that you don't have to use prior history; if there's room, a paragraph at the start of the Prior History chapter on that topic might be all it takes.

 

[Polaris]

Linwood,

Thanks for your thoughts. You said you were not fond of my system, but you recognized the basic problem I was getting at. Do you have a suggestion of your own? [That was one reason I opened this as a seperate thread.]

In addition, I will quibble with you about one thing you said: I think it is bad for game systems to presume and assume prior game experience especially if it is an implicit assumption (as T-20's is). If a game (or any enterprise) is going to succeed in the long term, then it has to attract and keep new players (customers). I note that all the systems you mentioned (and I will add Rolemaster to this list as well) either went belly-up at one point or another, are in dire financial straights, are purely niche games with very small markets, or any combination of the above. [I note that Shadowrun was in fact bankrupt prior to WizKids getting a hold of the license.]

I also note that one of the points of the d20 sytem was to get new people into the game. The idea (as I understand it anyway) behind T-20 as a d20 system is that people who love DnD (which is still by far the largest RPG out there) could easily switch over to a traveller game with few problems.

I agree with you that a one or two paragraph blurb at the begining of the prior history section is all that is really needed. I laid out my entire system in a single paragraph so it could easily be done. Again, since it is so easy to do and the benefits are obvious, why not do this?

-Polaris

 

[Falkayn]

Can I suggest that there are three useful ways of seeing Traveller character generation:

1. Organic Creation
The character is developed through their history to a point where the player would like to begin playing the character. The T20 rules give us this as they stand.

2. Character Concept
The player has a concept for a character, and simply needs GM permission to create that character. This is the standard d20 way of creating non-1st level characters. Pick and choose clasees as you want, in the order you want - then make up a background history that explains how this occurred. Usually with a set XP or level limit, at least for each character concept (teams of PCs may well be unbalanced).

3. Balanced Team
The GM sets out some sort of limit (XP or level or terms) and an alternate prior history method is used to organically grow a character to that limit. The intention is to have a balanced team, but to also maintain some of the fun of the prior history system.

I see this thread as addressing #3.

There are (of course) other complexities to consider, such as whether you roll abilities, buy them with points or have pre-set ability numbers that can be simply allocated as you like.

As an aside, I have stated previously that newbie GMs might find unbalanced parties hard to handle - but I can remember playing other games with newbie GMs that managed to have a lot of fun, without really having this problem. The issue is really how the players choose to see each other's characters.

In the case that Sandman brought up above, the uber-Navy Scientist, most players I know would handle that situation in character. He can handle the ship alone? Either they let him, and go get another ship, or they abuse his willingness to do it all (let him do all the work!), but force him to accept the group's decisions about what to do and where to go ... DON'T treat him like he has some "PC badge" on.