Balanced Parties, Thoughts and Suggestions

[Polaris]

Falkayn,

I think it would be more accurate to say that I am trying to address issue #3 without adversely affecting (and possibly enhancing) issues #1 and #2. I note that the current system also adversely affects #2 (character concept) as well as #3.

I would also like to note that I rather suspect that most of the players you game with are experienced in their own right. [Am I wrong on this? It seems to be a reasonable assumption given your prior posts.] I would note that even hightly experienced players have trouble ignoring that big neon "I am a PC" sign hanging over their character's head. IMHO it is too much for a base game system to ask new players to do that....so the Uber-Scientist is a real problem especially in a game that deemphasizes combat and emphasizes skills (like T-20).

-Polaris

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Polaris:
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.

No it wouldn't.

He's an adept at "Background Manipulation" meaning that he likes to "adapt" his character background to the situation and reaping the full benefits. Let just say that this player is in probation, and that it's a group decision.

 

[Polaris]

Sandman,

It is certainly your right to put him on probation, and given what you have said, I would be hard pressed to disagree. However, on your thread, read my response to Hunter after he clarified the university rules.

Since University doesn't count as a term, he would have started out as third level, and "background manipulator" or not, IMHO he would have been hard pressed to munchkinize at such a low level (rather than 9th). In short, had my system been in place, I sincerely feel that it would have been a lot easier for you to keep him under control. [Not a sure thing, just easier mind.]

-Polaris

 

[sandman]

I have a smallish houserule for Character's Prior History in my game. Here's the gist of it:

Every Terms duration is semi-random:

Instead of having every characters having a flat 4 years per term, I let them roll 1D3 and do the following:

1 - Term is 3 years
2 - Term is 4 yeras
3 - Term is 5 years

The only exception to his, and even then it is not a complete one, is with Service Classes. Since they basically enrolled for 4 years, I don't see any reason to add variance to those, unless the Character fails its Survival and get kicked out but. Off course, if he's kicked out and sent to prison for 4 years, I add no variance either

.

This makes the group have a little more realism, and not have every character with 4 terms being 34 years old. On the average they'll tend to be around that age, but not *ALL* the same age.

 

[Polaris]

Sandman,

Hmmm, this has possibilities. I dislike the extra die roll because it adds complexity, but your point about intervals of four years is well taken.

FWIW, my current T-20 GM reduced all term lengths to 2 years. I told him I thought that was a mistake, but the other two players liked it and the GM did too, so I was overruled. I find that rather amusing since I (with 10 terms) would have been hurt worse than they (with 8) would have.

BTW, before anyone yells "munchkin", there was a strict level cap on my character's developement based on the levels of the prexisting characters....and the final experience delta wound up being a mere 4,000 XP by GM design (average party level is 12th). It is simply that 10 terms fit (especially with the shortened terms!) the crusty old semi-honest engineer more than 7 or even 8 terms IMHO.

-Polaris

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Sandman,

Hmmm, this has possibilities. I dislike the extra die roll because it adds complexity, but your point about intervals of four years is well taken.

But isn`t that much troublesome and adds diversity. I just hated it when I first prepared PCs for a OneShot and saw them all within the same 8 years of age, with only three different age "group". Would be a lousy things if every terms is just like a rubber stamp in the "Age" lines of the sheet.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Polaris:
I would also like to note that I rather suspect that most of the players you game with are experienced in their own right. [Am I wrong on this? It seems to be a reasonable assumption given your prior posts.] I would note that even hightly experienced players have trouble ignoring that big neon "I am a PC" sign hanging over their character's head. IMHO it is too much for a base game system to ask new players to do that....so the Uber-Scientist is a real problem especially in a game that deemphasizes combat and emphasizes skills (like T-20).

My typical RPG group is highly mixed. Usually we have at least one newbie, sometimes several. My Traveller group has 3 players, one is experienced and a Traveller veteran, another is experienced but only knows other d20 stuff, the third is a newbie who played Star Wars once or twice with us and now plays Traveller. The d20 vet is the only one who min-maxed his character, the experienced Traveller player actually has the lowest level character (but is the team leader), the newbie actually has the best character background and roleplays well within it.

I find people learn the "I am a PC" stuff. Bad GMs encourage it with weak plots that require PCs do this just to stay together, good GMs discourage it - and IME the experience of the GM has no bearing on whether they do this or not.

 

[Polaris]

Falkayn,

I see, but that brings us right back to the problem of new/inexperienced GMs. As both Dave Naille (a game designer I play with in Austin) and Scott, a member of my DnD group, both said this:

"The first time a person walks in with a 15th level uber-character within the rules, they will change their tune."

Mind you, this is the same Dave who cautioned me that I was not considering the traditional flavor of Traveller enough in my critique. [Dave Naille btw is the lead designer of Ysgarth.] He flat out said that unbalanced parties do not work well in d20. That is virtually a direct quote.

So in short, I am still firmly of the opinion that the baseline rule needs to produced balanced characters and that the possibility of imbalanced parties should be reserved as an option. Sandman's example simply hardened my view on this...and I personally am shocked it hasn't changed some other minds since my proposed system would have fixed that nonesense so easily.

-Polaris

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Polaris:
"The first time a person walks in with a 15th level uber-character within the rules, they will change their tune."

Heh, that's usually true - the dark side is quicker, easier, more powerful - but also is often less fun. It also depends on how everyone reacts to the uber character - picking apart a high-level but weak character is often fun. "Riiiight ... he's 15th level and cast Fireball in his sleep? So where does he live? Who are his friends? Who does he care about?" Usually these characters are the ones that end up being evil - just so they have an excuse for zero relationships outside of the PCs.

Originally posted by Polaris:
Mind you, this is the same Dave who cautioned me that I was not considering the traditional flavor of Traveller enough in my critique. [Dave Naille btw is the lead designer of Ysgarth.] He flat out said that unbalanced parties do not work well in d20. That is virtually a direct quote.

I've rarely found I needed to use CRs to balance encounters for my PCs in Traveller (in D&D I usually had to, just because the raw power difference is so huge between 5th and 15th level). Even experienced Traveller PCs should avoid combat (unless they're wearing battledress), it is far too deadly to have it happen as regularly as it does in most D&D games.

 

[Polaris]

Falkayn,

The thing is though (and this is true with any d20 system even one that discourages combat like T20 or even Spycraft does), levels do matter for encounters which leads to some sort of CR system (even it that is not what it is called).

The reason is because there is a 1:1 correspondence between the DCs a character can expect to make in their "tag" skills or abilities (or both) and their character level.

This problem becomes especially acute in situations where the system relies on fixed DCs. The damage control rules are a classic example of this (see my thread there). A high level engineer will pretty much always make those DCs solo...even for jump engines. OTOH, a low level character often doesn't have a chance...even with a roll of '20'. Let me tell you that in starship combat, always being able to make those damage control DCs (or super-powering the weapons or engines) makes a huge difference in the lethality (read CR) of the encounter. That is just one example that I know of personally.

-Polaris

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Falkayn,

The thing is though (and this is true with any d20 system even one that discourages combat like T20 or even Spycraft does), levels do matter for encounters which leads to some sort of CR system (even it that is not what it is called).

The reason is because there is a 1:1 correspondence between the DCs a character can expect to make in their "tag" skills or abilities (or both) and their character level.

This problem becomes especially acute in situations where the system relies on fixed DCs. The damage control rules are a classic example of this (see my thread there). A high level engineer will pretty much always make those DCs solo...even for jump engines. OTOH, a low level character often doesn't have a chance...even with a roll of '20'. Let me tell you that in starship combat, always being able to make those damage control DCs (or super-powering the weapons or engines) makes a huge difference in the lethality (read CR) of the encounter. That is just one example that I know of personally.

-Polaris

I can see a problem if the 'normal' engineer isn't the one with the highest engineering skill, so that when you give a hard DC to the engineer (intending to make it a challenge) the uber-engineer steps in and solves the problem. However, that's a pretty weird case, and I'd imagine the uber-engineer must have some other important task to do (otherwise why isn;t he doing the engineering?).

But in combat all is fair, if the PCs have a great engineer aboard (much better than their pilot or gunner) then that is their good luck. They'll be able to fix damage as it happens, but will still be in trouble because of their (relatively) poor piloting/gunnery skills. Perhaps I'd have a problem if I wanted to assign a CR to each encounter based on the DCs involved, but in the example you give I would be assigning the CR based on the relative level/equipment of their opposition compared to the PCs, and not taking account of skill DCs at all.

 

[Polaris]

Falkayn,

I understand you, but I was simply using that as an example of what fixed DCs do to the assumptions of scaling challenges. Since I play an engineer in my current T-20 campaign, this is the example I thought of

Having said that, it is a good one because it skews the challenges in a very level dependant manner regardless of the skill of the other guy (except for the fact that he can do it too). Specifically with the combination of PMOS and 12th level (Navy), a chief engineer can "roll" a 33 [or even more] without even touching the dice (which fixes everything but the jump drive on an auto-take 10). This /same/ roll *automatically* can add extra 10 dice to the energy weapons of a far-trader which enables it to take out a mercenary cruiser! [That is extra 10 dice per energy weapon mind.]

Mind you, I am not trying to "min-max" anything, rather IMHO PMOS, high T/Eng skill ranks, and other such things are logically what such an engineer would have! That means (in this particular example) that a ship with a high level engineer has a gross advantage over one that does not even if the ship itself is totally outclassed. Engineers are good; not that good IMHO. The problem, again is the fixed DC and the scaling from it. [It is problem that the GM has houseruled a solution to, but we are talking about the core rules.]


This is typical in d20 (and not just T20 either so I am not trying to be overcritical of T20 only). In short, high level characters can simply do things that are impossible for lower level ones which makes unbalanced parties even more problematic (again the engineer example above was only that...an example).

Once more, obviously I am not going to force my way into your gaming table and force you to have balanced parties For that matter, I really don't want to. I do think and strongly feel, that rules for balanced parties should at least be a core option (and IMHO the default option) for Prior History. [Just to get this back on topic.]

-Polaris

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Polaris:
I understand you, but I was simply using that as an example of what fixed DCs do to the assumptions of scaling challenges. Since I play an engineer in my current T-20 campaign, this is the example I thought of

This is a basic d20 problem - and I'm not sure it's meant to be fixed (at least not for D&D - not sure what d20 Modern does with this). I thought of this the other day, and I guess part of MY houserule for this is likely to be that there is a ceiling on how much skill can be used with a given set of equipment/circumstances.

That is, an insanely good engineer will likely be limited in how much they can do with a Far Trader's engineering section, given that it is designed to be operated by the lowest common denominator engineering crew (which for most small merchants can be pretty bad). For example a modern car mechanic is limited in how much they can do with a broken bit in a modern car - often it is simply a case of replacing a black box, and not tinkering with its insides.

Some of the problem with the examples you give is the amount of effect that a good engineer is allowed to have in the T20 combat rules - I'm not even sure how much of that I would dispute on closer reading of the rules and no Far Trader threatens a mercenary cruiser in my campaign! (then again MY mercenary cruisers have armor! ) Frankly, I think you'd have the same problems if your high level engineer was part of a party of high level PCs - these are problems that would happen with any high-level party.

 

[Father Fletch]

Polaris-5 Stars for being challenging and persistent.
Begin random late night thinking…
For the newbie Traveller (Referee or Player) offer a set of $20 lite rules (Traveller HB-Referee HB). This allows them to get in cheaper and see if they like it.
In addition offer 5-$4 pre-generated adventures on the line of the AEG Adventure Keep Modules (Let's call them Travellers Aid Society Dispatches [TASD]). These would include a set of pre-gen characters (Similar to the old DGP series with Kerenstein, Aybee, Dur, and Akidda).
The THB would have enough to run encounters, combat, simple trade and some goodies (Ships, guns, some background, etc.).
The TASD would have some pre-gen characters set to the appropriate level for the adventure. If you wanted to use your own then the THB would have enough to make them. In the THB there would be mention of 3-4 possible ways to generate attributes. There would be 3-4 ways to make up backgrounds. All the classes would be listed up to 10th level. The basic PC would usually be no more than mid-20s and no more than 1st-2nd level (Encourage this through the examples given in the book)
Of course with the caveat that, as Hunter says
The ONLY rules to T20. Everything else is a suggestion...
…1) The Referee is right.
…2) If the book says one thing and the referee says another, see rule #1
…3) Argue about it AFTER the game
It's your game folks, play it however YOU want to play it
This would enable a budding Ref and set of players to become involved for $24+tax. There would be enough in THB and the TASD to get 'em hooked and if they liked it then they would buy the RHB, the rest of the TASD and all the other goodies.
YMMV but I agree that we need new Traveller Players. And they need to be comfortable playing without a grognard (self included here) to show them the ropes. Certainly the old hand showing the new kid what to do is a great way for people to learn all kinds of stuff (even IRL!) it isn’t always possible. While we all will likely differ on the details, I believe, and indeed I gave you at least 3 of those stars because I can read your passion for Traveller in your posts, that we all want to see Traveller live beyond our time as roleplayers.
Long live the Emperor! (Insert Williams' Imperial March theme here. Or Holst’s the Planets, Jupiter movement. Actually probably Beethoven’s 9th, Movement 4, Presto. Yeah, that’s it)
...End random late night thinking...I have work tomorrow!

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by Polaris:
This is typical in d20 (and not just T20 either so I am not trying to be overcritical of T20 only). In short, high level characters can simply do things that are impossible for lower level ones which makes unbalanced parties even more problematic (again the engineer example above was only that...an example).

Once more, obviously I am not going to force my way into your gaming table and force you to have balanced parties For that matter, I really don't want to. I do think and strongly feel, that rules for balanced parties should at least be a core option (and IMHO the default option) for Prior History. [Just to get this back on topic.]

The one thing I think you are missing is that T20 has changed a large number of base D20 rules, delibertly, in ways that makes the unbalanced parties less of a problem.

First, the Life Blood mechanic ensures any character is equally easy to kill in combat regardless of level.

Seond, T20 add a huge number of skills, and then requires characters to have all of them. For example, running a starship requires at least six skills (Pilot, T/Astrogation, T/Engineeing, T/Communications, T/Sensors, Gunnery) and really should have 13 (Add Broker, Trader, P/Admin, P/Steward, T/Computer, T/Medical, T/Mechanical).

The D20 skill system allows a character to have a few skills at high level, or a many skills at low level.

True, T20 does not solve the D20 problem of higher level characters with insane skills being able to perform miracles. But that is in keeping with the D20 high fantasy concept.

I do think the long time D20 player who picks up T20 will recongnize the fact that while the prior history system allows them to (legally) produce a 17th level uber-character, the other T20 rules makes them a whole lot less uber.

And given the scope of chanages that other D20 games have made to the base D20 rules, T20 can hardly be called unique.

So, back on topic: Thus far, the suggestions to fix Prior history involve changing the amount of experience given (none, fixed overall, fixed per term, capped overall, capped per term). I did like Falklan's suggestion about using experience to buy your way through the prior history system.

One additional suggestion I have: Divide the XP given for all of the Prior history steps by 2, 4 or 8. That is, instead of giving 4,000XP for surviving a term, give only 1,000XP, with all the other rewards divided accordling. This solves two problems: Characters start at 3rd to 5th level, with a much smaller spread than the normal system. Second, because the characters start a lower level, their skills are not yet at the Perform Miracles level.

Look through your characters you've generated and see what happens if you divide their XP by four or eight. Does this produce the "more balanced" range of characters you are looking for?

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Father Fletch:

For the newbie Traveller (Referee or Player) offer a set of $20 lite rules (Traveller HB-Referee HB). This allows them to get in cheaper and see if they like it.

All IMO.
There already is T20 Lite for free or printed for under $10. IMO d20 (unless you deviate from the SRD a lot) true lite rules would be hard to do, but it'd be interesting to see if it could be done. For example a "basic D&D" would be great but you'd have to remove and rewrite quite a lot. $20 these days doesn't get you much in d20 rulebooks.

In addition offer 5-$4 pre-generated adventures on the line of the AEG Adventure Keep Modules (Let's call them Travellers Aid Society Dispatches [TASD]). These would include a set of pre-gen characters<snip>.

Sounds like some good ideas for several Traveller's Aides. It might be better to keep the page count up (ala TA) or combine two or so and put them in one TA. (or have a bunch of adventure seeds, nuggets, or patron encounters) Not sure how well those mini-modules have done $$wise, I don't see a bunch of new ones coming out at my FLGS.

The THB would have enough to run encounters, combat, simple trade and some goodies (Ships, guns, some background, etc.).

IIRC T20 lite does pretty much all this except for ship combat. Depending on just how much detail you want.

The TASD would have some pre-gen characters set to the appropriate level for the adventure. If you wanted to use your own then the THB would have enough to make them. In the THB there would be mention of 3-4 possible ways to generate attributes. There would be 3-4

That's already covered in the requisite core book needed with the existing THB. Likely to be in the Player's book though, since it's OGL, at least I'd hope that's the case.

ways to make up backgrounds. All the classes would be listed up to 10th level. The basic PC would usually be no more than mid-20s and no more than 1st-2nd level (Encourage this through the examples given in the book)

Yeah I could've used a few more examples of chargen and combat for example. Hopefully covered more in the Player's Book. THB already has some example characters and 76 Gunmen compliments it well.

This would enable a budding Ref and set of players to become involved for $24+tax. There would be enough in THB and the TASD to get 'em hooked and if they liked it then they would buy the RHB, the rest of the TASD and all the other goodies.

Well you can buy T20 Lite printed for under $10 IIRC. And free setting and adventure on the website. Some of the TA's are due to be printed as well. You'd still need a d20 Core book unless you made the new THB OGL, though you can probably assume most t20 players already have such a book or will be buying one or the Player's book once it's out.

YMMV but I agree that we need new Traveller Players. And they need to be comfortable playing without a grognard (self included here) to show them the ropes. Certainly the old hand showing the new kid what to do is a great way for people to learn all kinds of stuff (even IRL!) it isn’t always possible. While we all will likely differ on the details, I believe, and indeed I gave you at least 3 of those stars because I can read your passion for Traveller in your posts, that we all want to see Traveller live beyond our time as roleplayers.

Only been playing RPG's since the early 80's so I don't consider myself a grognard, more Young Guard perhaps. But yeah, new players welcome.
1st paragraph of the THB prior history section and T20 Lite Characters chapter both state that starting characters out at level 1 is fine. Combined with the options in the various d20 Core books for creating characters at higher levels, I just don't see the "balance" problem as being as serious as some. Now there should be some mention in the Player's Book since it is OGL and from what I understand can be used with THB without the need for a core book.

If you want to use Prior History it's there, if not start the characters at level 1*. Both in the THB/T20 Lite already. And THB even explicitly states skipping Prior History entirely if you don't want to use it. Now I like options and a TA or two of nothing but chargen options and expansions would be well worth the money. Maybe even put some excerpts up on the website for free.

* or by extension start everyone at a higher level, etc.

Long live the Emperor! (Insert Williams' Imperial March theme here. Or Holst’s the Planets, Jupiter movement. Actually probably Beethoven’s 9th, Movement 4, Presto. Yeah, that’s it)

If you add in the option of Wendy Carlos' versions of the last two (and her version of the 2nd movement), I'm with you. (need to contribute to the Traveller music threads)

Casey
"Singing in the rain, what a glorious feeling I'm happy again."

 

[Polaris]

tjoneslo,

As usual you make an interesting point with an interesting proposal so let me do you the justice of responding to it point by point so I don't miss anything.

Originally posted by tjoneslo:


[My original post snipped for space.]

The one thing I think you are missing is that T20 has changed a large number of base D20 rules, delibertly, in ways that makes the unbalanced parties less of a problem.

I haven't missed this at all. The thing is that many other d20 systems have tried similiar approaches as well and while they work to some degree, they don't really eliminate the problem. I am referring of course to the wound/vitality systems out there which are just about as deadly as T-20's lifeblood mechanic. StarWars and Spycraft at are noted in d20 for having very deadly combat, yet both consider balanced parties to be important.

First, the Life Blood mechanic ensures any character is equally easy to kill in combat regardless of level.

See above.

Seond, T20 add a huge number of skills, and then requires characters to have all of them. For example, running a starship requires at least six skills (Pilot, T/Astrogation, T/Engineeing, T/Communications, T/Sensors, Gunnery) and really should have 13 (Add Broker, Trader, P/Admin, P/Steward, T/Computer, T/Medical, T/Mechanical).

The thing is though, you really don't need all of these. Your party should have these, but no one person needs them (see my prior point about specialists). An engineer, for example, really only needs T/Engineer, T/Mech, T/Elect, T/Comp, T/Gravitics. This cover the build/repair skills for all the systems on a ship. In addition, on large ships, only the chief engineer should have all of them, and will likely specialize in T/Engineer. To be watch qualified, he has to have the skill (even at '0' ranks...an interesting T-20 concept btw) for things like T/Communication, T/Astrogation, and Pilot.

So an engineer (just as an example...but this is really the worst case one since engineers have to be skill heavy) is required to have only five skills to be an engineer. Navy covers this easy before considering other bonuses such as Human or Int. In short individual PCs need far fewer skills than you might imagine which means those skill ranks can be much higher as you have noted.

The D20 skill system allows a character to have a few skills at high level, or a many skills at low level.

See my point above. If you allow party members to 'specialize' within ship roles (and almost all Traveller parties I have seen do this....with at secondary qualification), then you can (and often will) get away with high skill levels since you don't need that many skills.

True, T20 does not solve the D20 problem of higher level characters with insane skills being able to perform miracles. But that is in keeping with the D20 high fantasy concept.

Ah, now we come to it I think. There is a subtle genera conflict going on, or so I think. Traveller at least as I understand it was always meant to be low fantasy a'la Space Opera. That is to say that real people took real risks, and could get really hurt in Traveller. This is one point where I think GURPS modeled Traveller better than d20.

I do think the long time D20 player who picks up T20 will recongnize the fact that while the prior history system allows them to (legally) produce a 17th level uber-character, the other T20 rules makes them a whole lot less uber.

I don't completely dispute this. What I dispute is that the rules do this enough to justify the uber-characters. I don't think they do especially for new players and GMs which is really the whole point I think.

And given the scope of chanages that other D20 games have made to the base D20 rules, T20 can hardly be called unique.

It's not unique except in so far as all d20 games can be called individually unique. I note that Spycraft and Starwars both attempt to deal with many of the same problems in largely similiar ways to d20. T20 is unique in it's insistance on allowing severely unbalanced characters as though it were alright (if Hunter's reaction is any indication at all).

So, back on topic: Thus far, the suggestions to fix Prior history involve changing the amount of experience given (none, fixed overall, fixed per term, capped overall, capped per term). I did like Falklan's suggestion about using experience to buy your way through the prior history system.

One additional suggestion I have: Divide the XP given for all of the Prior history steps by 2, 4 or 8. That is, instead of giving 4,000XP for surviving a term, give only 1,000XP, with all the other rewards divided accordling. This solves two problems: Characters start at 3rd to 5th level, with a much smaller spread than the normal system. Second, because the characters start a lower level, their skills are not yet at the Perform Miracles level.

Look through your characters you've generated and see what happens if you divide their XP by four or eight. Does this produce the "more balanced" range of characters you are looking for?

Ah, now these are the sorts of suggestions that I have been looking for! Given that XP totals explode in the higher levels, even a division by two reduces the level difference and more crucially the experience point difference by a considerable amount. I did some tests and the level difference problem is reduced considerably, so this approach has real possibilities although it does make parties less competant overall (not a bad thing IMHO...it gives you something to work up to). I won't say it is sufficient, yet, but my preliminary data suggests that 8 is far too much and 4 may be as well (but 2 may be too little). Thanks for the food for thought.

-Polaris

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Father Fletch:
YMMV but I agree that we need new Traveller Players. And they need to be comfortable playing without a grognard (self included here) to show them the ropes.

Count 7 more players... I think I've managed to corru^H^H^H^Hnvince my players for a good while. There are even two who eventually want to Ref in T20.

As for the Grognard helping the Young Pup, lets say that the TML, the JTAS and CotI Board is easy of access and has loads of tricks, information and things NOT to do

Long live the Emperor! (Insert Williams' Imperial March theme here. Or Holst’s the Planets, Jupiter movement. Actually probably Beethoven’s 9th, Movement 4, Presto. Yeah, that’s it)
...End random late night thinking...I have work tomorrow!

/me adds Orff's Carmina Burana and Amadeus's Requiem to the Mix

 

[lightsenshi]

I can't recall if I mentioned this already or not. Experience level isn't as skewed as it is for other d20 systems. CR can not be used for determining experience awards because a sixth level NPC can be just as dangerous as a twentieth level one.

Granted, a higher level character has more skill points and more stanima BUT in terms of combat the only difference between a high and low level character is that a high level character might survive being shot whereas a low level one probably won't.

A more experienced character will likely be older, even if the player rolls phenominally well on the prior history. If you feel the need to limit somehow, limit everyone to the same number of terms.

 

[Polaris]

lightsenshi,

Let me respond point by point:

Originally posted by lightsenshi:
I can't recall if I mentioned this already or not. Experience level isn't as skewed as it is for other d20 systems. CR can not be used for determining experience awards because a sixth level NPC can be just as dangerous as a twentieth level one.

The problem is that this isn't entirely true. The lifeblood system in Traveller is about as deadly as the wound/vitality system from both Spycraft and Starwars and neither of these systems makes any bones about the fact that it is better to be high level than low level. Also base attack bonuses matter and that makes the high level NPC much more dangerous because he is much liklier to hit.

Granted, a higher level character has more skill points and more stanima BUT in terms of combat the only difference between a high and low level character is that a high level character might survive being shot whereas a low level one probably won't.

Considering that dead is dead in T-20, I would say that this is an important difference! Also again the life-blood system is similiar to vitality/wound and that means that in combat the high level character has an overwhelming advantage because of his vastly superior stamina and greatly increased attack bonus. It isn't as extreme as DnD 3E I grant, but it is comparable to Spycraft.

A more experienced character will likely be older, even if the player rolls phenomenally well on the prior history. If you feel the need to limit somehow, limit everyone to the same number of terms.

As I proved many times already, age is a non-issue in T-20. It was a very strict balancing factor in CT, but at worst a character will start out the game as middle-aged, and this is actually an overall advantage. [-1 Str,Con,Dex and +1EDU,Int,Wis] I note that if you have enough terms to be middle aged, then you probably have enough levels to nix the physical disadvantages of age. That is before getting extra stat bonuses from the superior mustering out benefits.

Limiting characters to the same term can limit the damage somewhat, but not all terms are created equal (just ask Sandman with his Navy-Scientest o'Doom). In some professions (and class combinations) you can get 10,000 XP per term easy. For others (like Rogue), you are lucky to get more than 4,000.

-Polaris