Balanced Parties, Thoughts and Suggestions
- Thread starter Polaris
- Start date
BTW, to give you an update on my "problem child", we ended up switching characters around.
It wasn't to penalize this particular player, but to put more completely designed characters in the hands of those who find it difficult to make up a good background with abilities/feats/skills that fits the background.
The Muncking ended up playing a *VERY* normal Army Field Medic (highest stat = 16 IIRC) while his Action Engineer (as we like to call all his characters Action XYZ, because they nearly all can do more action per rounds than a Juiced-Up Anime SuperFighter) is in the capable? hands of someone who's not a techie.
I've decided that the next time one of those who have problems to come up with backgrounds would make up a character, it would be by pairing him with another player so they could add meat to the stats.
I've also fiddled with the idea of everybody making a character for another player, but didn't go thru with it... yet
It wasn't to penalize this particular player, but to put more completely designed characters in the hands of those who find it difficult to make up a good background with abilities/feats/skills that fits the background.
The Muncking ended up playing a *VERY* normal Army Field Medic (highest stat = 16 IIRC) while his Action Engineer (as we like to call all his characters Action XYZ, because they nearly all can do more action per rounds than a Juiced-Up Anime SuperFighter) is in the capable? hands of someone who's not a techie.
I've decided that the next time one of those who have problems to come up with backgrounds would make up a character, it would be by pairing him with another player so they could add meat to the stats.
I've also fiddled with the idea of everybody making a character for another player, but didn't go thru with it... yet
Sandman,
Hmmm, that is interesting and I am glad things are settling down for your own group. As for me, I am not sure I would like your system. I tend to identify with my characters (when I am in the game....or discussing it....of course!) and as such I craft my characters to my specifications (not just power but background and personality as well) as though it were a fine piece of art (as many of my GMs can tell you sometimes to their frustration...I tend to be slow when making new characters). As such, I would find it jarring (at best) to play a character I did not handcraft with my "loving touch"
-Polaris
Hmmm, that is interesting and I am glad things are settling down for your own group. As for me, I am not sure I would like your system. I tend to identify with my characters (when I am in the game....or discussing it....of course!) and as such I craft my characters to my specifications (not just power but background and personality as well) as though it were a fine piece of art (as many of my GMs can tell you sometimes to their frustration...I tend to be slow when making new characters). As such, I would find it jarring (at best) to play a character I did not handcraft with my "loving touch"
-Polaris
Well, when one say to me "I can Play *ANY* character you can throw at me", I take him up on his word and see him squirm with a not-so-well-made character
Anyway, we were reaching a point where, after 5 years with the same players, many were stagnating. Three of us thought it out and found it a good idea to jumpstart the games.
It's fun to see the player who's accustomed to be the most low-key, in-the-back character being handed out the sheet for the Ship's Captain
We know he can do it, he just need to get someone to push him sometimes
Anyway, we were reaching a point where, after 5 years with the same players, many were stagnating. Three of us thought it out and found it a good idea to jumpstart the games.
It's fun to see the player who's accustomed to be the most low-key, in-the-back character being handed out the sheet for the Ship's Captain
We know he can do it, he just need to get someone to push him sometimes
Getting sleepy and wordy
Well I don't have an inside track or whatever and I have no idea nor any desire to go by what game designers "feel", I can only go by the published material that I have and use. IIRC you've been referring back to core d20/SRDs for "balancing" t20 until now. Also what else beside Living "Name" and some OGL games states points values for generating characters and also follows the guidelines in DMG, d20 Modern, etc.?
Evidently Living Spycraft uses 36 points currently. The latest LG pdf uses 28 due to Greyhawk being considered a "Tougher Campaign" ala Table 2-2 pg. 20 DMG. Living Star Wars as well. That makes Living Kalamar and Living Spycraft High-powered campaigns or even higher in the latest Spycraft draft (superhero?). Not how I picture Traveller at all, which leans towards the average joe.
I'd either stick with the standard 25 or even go to 22 or 15 (challening/low-powered), modified for 8 stats and dependant on however you set default SOC (see below). Also I'm not personally interested in RPGA and/or tournament play, especially not for changing things in a core book. Nor do I (based on local opinion and observation) have quite the same opinion of RPGA events or other "sanctioned" tournament play in general that you do.
FWIW, the Standard Score Package with 25 points is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.
This would tend towards more "heroic" characters. And more points = easier to create min/maxed "unbalanced" characters.
There should be IMO differences in roleplay between even a SOC 8 and SOC 12 characters, changes to reaction rolls, etc. Not just applicable to Nobles. The entry for SOC in THB has some suggestions. However there is room for some more guidelines at the very least. A bit loathe to add more mechanics though. More opposed rolls say I wouldn't mind.
Still not sure what value I'd set SOC at. Too low and it'd penalize those (not just nobles) who want to be known as more than semi-skilled or skilled, too high and your powergamer/low society type PC would get more points to play with if you go with the various Living "Name" creation guidelines.
Finally assuming the character you stated out is the Engineer / Rogue, why would Dexterity be tied as the highest stat?
Casey
Casey,
Up until now we hadn't been discussing stat generation which is a contentious topic in d20. I note that the default for d20 is the random 4d6 drop the lowest which (on average rolls) actually works out to be about a 32 point buy! 25 points is considered way to low by almost everyone I have met and the fact that Living Greyhawk is supposed to be a 'tough' campaign and they give 28 is a sure-fire indicator. [Compare 25 points to 4d6 drop the lowest on average rolls, and you will see why 25 points is very unpopular. Most smart players would insist on a random char-gen if you insisted on 15 or 22 points!!]
A better indicator is Living Spycraft with 36 (this has increased from last I heard or I might have heard incorrectly).
Regardless, my points are valid regardless of the number of points although the problems show up soonest and with the most force at higher attribute totals. [A system is best underestood when it is most unstable.] I also note that my analysis for the most part has been attribute independant (because I have assumed the same sort of char-gen for both PCs and NPCs).
As for Soc, my character was definately envisioned to be plainly the 'lower decks type' in the mold of Horace Harkness. As such, IMHO the low Soc was especially appropriate, and I have been playing it accordingly. However, I do see some danger in having Soc be a 'dump stat' so some care is needed. It need not be rules, but IMHO some mechanical guidance is called for.
Finally, remember that Gani is an Engineer and a Rogue who likes to pick fights with off-duty marines and tends to get into sticky situations (esp with customs). In short, he is a rough and tumble sort of guy and engineering can be a very dangerous place (and not just because of the machinery). Given all of that, I envisioned him as a brawler as well as an engineer and so Dex IMHO was as important to the concept as Int (because the primary combat stat is Dex and he has had lots of 'unofficial' combat experience).
As an aside, why is it that the default assumption for a ship's engineer in T20 seems to be the Academic (or Professional)? While apt, that doesn't seem to fit a lot of the fictional stereotypes of ship's engineers that *I* am familiar with at any rate.
-Polaris
Up until now we hadn't been discussing stat generation which is a contentious topic in d20. I note that the default for d20 is the random 4d6 drop the lowest which (on average rolls) actually works out to be about a 32 point buy! 25 points is considered way to low by almost everyone I have met and the fact that Living Greyhawk is supposed to be a 'tough' campaign and they give 28 is a sure-fire indicator. [Compare 25 points to 4d6 drop the lowest on average rolls, and you will see why 25 points is very unpopular. Most smart players would insist on a random char-gen if you insisted on 15 or 22 points!!]
A better indicator is Living Spycraft with 36 (this has increased from last I heard or I might have heard incorrectly).
Regardless, my points are valid regardless of the number of points although the problems show up soonest and with the most force at higher attribute totals. [A system is best underestood when it is most unstable.] I also note that my analysis for the most part has been attribute independant (because I have assumed the same sort of char-gen for both PCs and NPCs).
As for Soc, my character was definately envisioned to be plainly the 'lower decks type' in the mold of Horace Harkness. As such, IMHO the low Soc was especially appropriate, and I have been playing it accordingly. However, I do see some danger in having Soc be a 'dump stat' so some care is needed. It need not be rules, but IMHO some mechanical guidance is called for.
Finally, remember that Gani is an Engineer and a Rogue who likes to pick fights with off-duty marines and tends to get into sticky situations (esp with customs). In short, he is a rough and tumble sort of guy and engineering can be a very dangerous place (and not just because of the machinery). Given all of that, I envisioned him as a brawler as well as an engineer and so Dex IMHO was as important to the concept as Int (because the primary combat stat is Dex and he has had lots of 'unofficial' combat experience).
As an aside, why is it that the default assumption for a ship's engineer in T20 seems to be the Academic (or Professional)? While apt, that doesn't seem to fit a lot of the fictional stereotypes of ship's engineers that *I* am familiar with at any rate.
-Polaris
Actually T20 refers you to the "standard d20 rules", and if you have the DMG (which you probably need to with T20) it gives you a range of means of generating attributes. The "Standard Point Buy" method (DMG p.19) gives you 25 points to spend over 6 attributes ... which would give you 33 1/3 points for 8 attributes (round down to 33). That's for a heroic character. Sure, you might get a better character rolling, but the point is surely that a bought ranking is more certain.
32 points might be standard for d20 games like Spycraft - but what do you expect of James Bond?
As far as people ignoring SOC, I told my T20 newbies that SOC would be an important part of character interaction, and could prove a useful or harmful influence in interaction with NPCs.
Going back to Star Wars:
* Classes all start with a min Defense of 3 (except the Soldier who has a 2!?!) to maximums at 20th level from 8 to 14. BAB advancement ranges between 3/4 and 1/1.
* Your class Defense bonus is added to 10 + DEX to give your AC.
* Damage is done to Vitality (T20's Stamina) unless a critical is scored, in which case it goes to Wounds (CON).
* Originally armor gave you an AC bonus in place of Defense, but in the revised rules it gives a DR (damage resistance) ranging from 2 to 7 (basically -2 to -7 damage per hit). The DR is applied when you take Wound damage, but not Vitiality damage (IOW you can get worn down by repeated hits, but you're harder to actually hurt - and critical hits do NOT bypass armor).
* Modern ranged weapons all do multiple dice damage (usually 3dx), but many have a stun setting (the only thing saving most newbie PCs).
Contrasted to T20, d20 Star Wars is about as lethal. The main difference being that most classes have good BABs, all classes have 'magic' defense bonuses and armor is not as good in some ways, but better in others. The difference in combat effectiveness between two Star Wars characters owes a LOT to their different levels - it is not just the attack roll that gets better, but the defensive number goes up too. Compare this to T20 where the difference depends a lot more on how the character is built (did they multiclass into combat classes, or take combat feats?), how they are equipped and less on what level they are.
I've gotta run (dinner's waiting to be cooked), but that's something to chew on ...
Falkayn,
Here are some return thoughts of my own.
32 points might be standard for d20 games like Spycraft - but what do you expect of James Bond?
</font>[/QUOTE]
First of all the 25 point buy is not the default method of choosing attributes. 4d6 drop the lowest is....and that gives you about the same stat distribution as a 30-32 point buy will. That is why IMX (note the qualifier) no one uses the WOTC 25 point buy....not even wotc (cost out their NPCs if you doubt this...especially their famous ones). Spycraft btw, uses 36 points for tourney play....I stand corrected on that. OTOH, Spycraft is the closest d20 game to T20 except perhaps Starwars.
Really though, this is aside the point. Simply lowering the attributes does not negate any of my points about the lethality of combat with levels OR the undesirability of imbalance in a party to start with. High stats make the problem worse, but the problem is still there and still valid.
Fine. I chose low Soc because it fit my character. OTOH, we are talking about inexperienced players and GMs. You have to admit that to them the temptation to lowball Soc may well be overwhelming...especially since it gives you a real game mechanical benefit: lower cost of living!
And DnD ranges from 1/2 to 1/1 as does T20 if the players expect to see combat at all (see Martial Training Feat).
DnD has no class defense bonus so it is similiar to T20 in this respect. In both systems armor replaces class defense with the underlying assumption (more explicit in DnD) that the higher level you are, the more money you will have, and thus the better armor (and AC) you will get. In both cases (DND and T20), it is easy for high level characters to hit pretty much anything, but very hard for low level characters to get hit. When you add in the lethality of the life-blood mechanic, this is a major edge for high level characters.
Agreed. Spycraft is the same way. T20, however, is not.
And in T20, armor acts as DR vs lifeblood. The point is that both systems are about as deadly.
In DnD 3E, a character's defense is entirely based on how well equipped they are, so this is no different than T20 in that respect. Yet levels make a huge difference in DnD as well. I note that your combat effectiveness in Starwars also depends on how much and when you multiclass (you can lose several Bab due to bad MCing), and I note that armor in SWRPG does /not/ provide better defense. I also note that in Starwars, critical hits automatically go to wounds which is not so for T20.
I also showed that if you are going to have combat at all (and the players know it), then you can pretty much assume the standard 1/2, 3/4, and 1/1 babs. If you do, and you account for the increased wealth that high level characters have, then high level characters will only lose to low level ones if they are unlucky. Thus levels do matter even in T20 combat, so please don't imply that they don't. If nothing else, the high level characters can do called shots on the lower level characters......and I for one dislike called shots in a d20 game because it is problematic IMV but that is a seperate topic.
I hate to sound impolite, but when I hear people say that level doesn't matter in T20 over and over again when I can give specific reasons and examples why it does (to say nothing of skills!), then I have to wonder if some might be in denial.
-Polaris
Here are some return thoughts of my own.
Actually T20 refers you to the "standard d20 rules", and if you have the DMG (which you probably need to with T20) it gives you a range of means of generating attributes. The "Standard Point Buy" method (DMG p.19) gives you 25 points to spend over 6 attributes ... which would give you 33 1/3 points for 8 attributes (round down to 33). That's for a heroic character. Sure, you might get a better character rolling, but the point is surely that a bought ranking is more certain.
32 points might be standard for d20 games like Spycraft - but what do you expect of James Bond?
</font>[/QUOTE]
First of all the 25 point buy is not the default method of choosing attributes. 4d6 drop the lowest is....and that gives you about the same stat distribution as a 30-32 point buy will. That is why IMX (note the qualifier) no one uses the WOTC 25 point buy....not even wotc (cost out their NPCs if you doubt this...especially their famous ones). Spycraft btw, uses 36 points for tourney play....I stand corrected on that. OTOH, Spycraft is the closest d20 game to T20 except perhaps Starwars.
Really though, this is aside the point. Simply lowering the attributes does not negate any of my points about the lethality of combat with levels OR the undesirability of imbalance in a party to start with. High stats make the problem worse, but the problem is still there and still valid.
Fine. I chose low Soc because it fit my character. OTOH, we are talking about inexperienced players and GMs. You have to admit that to them the temptation to lowball Soc may well be overwhelming...especially since it gives you a real game mechanical benefit: lower cost of living!
And DnD ranges from 1/2 to 1/1 as does T20 if the players expect to see combat at all (see Martial Training Feat).
DnD has no class defense bonus so it is similiar to T20 in this respect. In both systems armor replaces class defense with the underlying assumption (more explicit in DnD) that the higher level you are, the more money you will have, and thus the better armor (and AC) you will get. In both cases (DND and T20), it is easy for high level characters to hit pretty much anything, but very hard for low level characters to get hit. When you add in the lethality of the life-blood mechanic, this is a major edge for high level characters.
Agreed. Spycraft is the same way. T20, however, is not.
And in T20, armor acts as DR vs lifeblood. The point is that both systems are about as deadly.
In DnD 3E, a character's defense is entirely based on how well equipped they are, so this is no different than T20 in that respect. Yet levels make a huge difference in DnD as well. I note that your combat effectiveness in Starwars also depends on how much and when you multiclass (you can lose several Bab due to bad MCing), and I note that armor in SWRPG does /not/ provide better defense. I also note that in Starwars, critical hits automatically go to wounds which is not so for T20.
I also showed that if you are going to have combat at all (and the players know it), then you can pretty much assume the standard 1/2, 3/4, and 1/1 babs. If you do, and you account for the increased wealth that high level characters have, then high level characters will only lose to low level ones if they are unlucky. Thus levels do matter even in T20 combat, so please don't imply that they don't. If nothing else, the high level characters can do called shots on the lower level characters......and I for one dislike called shots in a d20 game because it is problematic IMV but that is a seperate topic.
I hate to sound impolite, but when I hear people say that level doesn't matter in T20 over and over again when I can give specific reasons and examples why it does (to say nothing of skills!), then I have to wonder if some might be in denial.
-Polaris
In my experince as a Traveller Refree and as a T20 playtester/referee, I'll be happy to point out where you are mistaken about why T20 class levels are less important than class levels in other D20 games.
While explicit in D&D, this is not true in T20. Note the prior history system gives, as mustering out benefits, access to starships worth tens of millions of credits. If you are using the speculative trade system and don't end up with a million credit after the first dozen trades, you are not (ab)using it correctly. Hell, you can roll up a first level character with SOC 18 who rules billions of sentients and commands an entire fleet of Imperial Navy ships. So level is not an indicator of access to money and therefore not a limit to the best armor and weapons.
This is wrong. Damage in T20 always goes to both Viality and Wounds (Stamina and Lifeblood). Armor reduced the damage done to lifeblood but not stamina. Play experince has shown that low level characters are more likely to be knocked out before being killed, while high level character are going to be killed before they are knocked out.
This (and sniper attacks) are an (ab)use of the combat system. And a case where turnabout is fair play. If my players start doing called shots, so do the NPCs. It usually stops pretty quickly. If your players are doing called shots against each other, that's another problem entirely.
Your entire argument about unbalanced characters is based around two areas. Combat and skill use.
Combat, If I have a 2nd level character to compare to your 12th level Navy/Rogue uber-engineer, your character will have a overall BAB of +5 to +14 better than mine, all other things being equal (same armor, same weapons). So your character can hit more frequently and, in some cases, do more damage.
You keep neglecting the effects of technology on combat. In comparison, my character can barely hit the broad side of a barn. Using a grenade launcher, I don't need to be any better. Inside a lightly armored G-carrier, I'm pretty much invulnerable to any hand held weapon you have. Neither if these is difficult to obtain. And while we could argue back and forth about who has xyz-uber toy, my point here is that T20 make no assumption about level being a limitation to access to powerful weapons (or armor).
Skills: Again, between the 2nd level character and the 12th level character, the spread between skill ranks for a specific skill would be +8 to +14 (including abilities and feats). Enought to move from beginning professional to miracle worker.
Here is where I get confused about your argument. Take your 12th level character, who has many engineering skills. If my low level character wants to have engineering skill, they will be inferior to yours. Granted. Are you also saying that your character's secondary skills would be better than mine if I choose to be a pilot, merchant, noble, or a commando? How about all four?
Another assumption you are making (and it may not be unfair), is that my character must be as good at their primary skill as your charater. That is, to be balanced, if your character as a +24 for their T/Engineering, my character must have a +20-+25 in Piloting (for example).
In my point of view, if I'm speclized in piloting and your specialized in engineering, it should not matter how much better you are at engineering than I am at piloting. I view my 2nd level pilot with piloting-5 equal to your character, because I can contribute to the group in a way that you can't. And, in theory, no one else can.
Is this the hurdle that new to gaming player/GMs you are concened about? That is, to be balanced, all the numbers on the character sheets must come out to be about the same values?
In my experince as a Traveller Refree and as a T20 playtester/referee, I'll be happy to point out where you are mistaken about why T20 class levels are less important than class levels in other D20 games.
</font>[/QUOTE]
Less important, perhaps, although I am not willing to conceed that point. They are not unimportant, however, which is what some people (hunter comes to mind here) are attempting to claim.
While explicit in D&D, this is not true in T20. Note the prior history system gives, as mustering out benefits, access to starships worth tens of millions of credits. If you are using the speculative trade system and don't end up with a million credit after the first dozen trades, you are not (ab)using it correctly. Hell, you can roll up a first level character with SOC 18 who rules billions of sentients and commands an entire fleet of Imperial Navy ships. So level is not an indicator of access to money and therefore not a limit to the best armor and weapons.
</font>[/QUOTE]
Replace Money with "Personal Resources" and you will see that I am in fact right. Starships are "McGuffins" that allow you to travel from System to System without outside aide. Other than that, it really isn't a resource that improves an individual character. The same applies to all the 'invisible' resources that a high Soc gives you.
The fact remains that higher level means more muster rolls and that as a very general (but good) rule means more money. That is especially true for some type of terms (such as rogue).
This is wrong. Damage in T20 always goes to both Viality and Wounds (Stamina and Lifeblood). Armor reduced the damage done to lifeblood but not stamina. Play experince has shown that low level characters are more likely to be knocked out before being killed, while high level character are going to be killed before they are knocked out.
</font>[/QUOTE]
This is right, just incomplete. Damage is always done to Stamina in the DnD style (unlike Starwars which is what we were comparing to). If you have a high AR, then very little (if any) damage will make it to lifeblood. I note that a person wearing any kind of armor at all over reflec is basically immune to lifeblood damage from laser weapons.
This (and sniper attacks) are an (ab)use of the combat system. And a case where turnabout is fair play. If my players start doing called shots, so do the NPCs. It usually stops pretty quickly. If your players are doing called shots against each other, that's another problem entirely.
</font>[/QUOTE]
*Technical Foul* You don't get to opt out of a part of the combat rules that you find inconvenient for your argument by calling it "abuse". If called shots are abusive in d20 (and I will agree with you that they are) then they should not have been included in the system in the first place! Since those rules exist, it is perfectly fair to use them, and they strongly favor high level characters.
Certainly do more damage you mean because I will have (in general) more money as well (read AP ammo). In addition, that higher attack bonus means that I will hit you more often and attack more often which I can translate into either more hits (your 2nd level character will be down in a couple of rounds guaranteed) or more lethal hits or both.
In short, the only way a low level character beats a high level character in combat is if the low level character gets lucky. Why is this even in dispute?
What carrier and what rocket launcher? Your low level character won't have access to these neato toys because they will in general lack the resources this implies. That is not so for the higher level character.
You don't see this as a problem? In d20 (that I am familiar with anyway) all partymembers should expect to see about the same target numbers for their particular specialities. Otherwise, the adventure gets to play (and look) contrived.
Here is where I get confused about your argument. Take your 12th level character, who has many engineering skills. If my low level character wants to have engineering skill, they will be inferior to yours. Granted. Are you also saying that your character's secondary skills would be better than mine if I choose to be a pilot, merchant, noble, or a commando? How about all four?
Another assumption you are making (and it may not be unfair), is that my character must be as good at their primary skill as your charater. That is, to be balanced, if your character as a +24 for their T/Engineering, my character must have a +20-+25 in Piloting (for example).
In my point of view, if I'm speclized in piloting and your specialized in engineering, it should not matter how much better you are at engineering than I am at piloting. I view my 2nd level pilot with piloting-5 equal to your character, because I can contribute to the group in a way that you can't. And, in theory, no one else can.
Is this the hurdle that new to gaming player/GMs you are concened about? That is, to be balanced, all the numbers on the character sheets must come out to be about the same values? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I am extremely concerned about it (that and the contrived natures of adventures and parties which is a related issue) because it looks extremely unfair and in a strict mathematic sense it is! That feeling needs to be discouraged and balanced creation rules help do that. The fact remains that d20 doesn't work very well with parties of grossly disparate level, no matter how many people try to claim otherwise. [To use a sport analogy: If winning didn't matter then why keep score? Likewise, if level doesn't matter, then why hand out experience?]
-Polaris
Polaris,
One point you seem to be missing with resources is that with an imbalanced party, they are likely to have the similar equipment - either because equipment is supplied by the employer (e.g. in the case of a Navy crew), or because the characters are cooperating (and you don't want your young friend going out there in a flak jacket when you can buy/loan them combat armour), or because the law level of the milieu restricts what they can wander around with.
More than that, how many members of the party need to have an APC? If one of them has, then the whole party can use it ... regardless of their level. Also, even one term can be sufficient to give a character tens of thousands of credits, or a series of bad dice rolls can give the highest level character next to nothing. Yes, higher levels increase the odds of getting something - but it's not like D&D where higher level starting characters are assigned a set amount of GP to 'spend' on magic items, etc.
One point you seem to be missing with resources is that with an imbalanced party, they are likely to have the similar equipment - either because equipment is supplied by the employer (e.g. in the case of a Navy crew), or because the characters are cooperating (and you don't want your young friend going out there in a flak jacket when you can buy/loan them combat armour), or because the law level of the milieu restricts what they can wander around with.
More than that, how many members of the party need to have an APC? If one of them has, then the whole party can use it ... regardless of their level. Also, even one term can be sufficient to give a character tens of thousands of credits, or a series of bad dice rolls can give the highest level character next to nothing. Yes, higher levels increase the odds of getting something - but it's not like D&D where higher level starting characters are assigned a set amount of GP to 'spend' on magic items, etc.
Falkayn,
I am not missing the point. I will conceed that in T20 the difference in gear tends to be less extreme than in DnD, but it is there nevertheless as you admitted. The gear is just one factor that favors high level characters over low level ones and not the most important one at that.
What I am saying is this:
When you look at any one thing, you can argue that being of radically lower level isn't that bad a disadvantage, but it always is a disadvantage it is often a quanifiable one. Now when all these little edges get added up together, the high level character has a pretty overwhelming advantage. Consider it the 'death of a thousand cuts'.
-Polaris
I am not missing the point. I will conceed that in T20 the difference in gear tends to be less extreme than in DnD, but it is there nevertheless as you admitted. The gear is just one factor that favors high level characters over low level ones and not the most important one at that.
What I am saying is this:
When you look at any one thing, you can argue that being of radically lower level isn't that bad a disadvantage, but it always is a disadvantage it is often a quanifiable one. Now when all these little edges get added up together, the high level character has a pretty overwhelming advantage. Consider it the 'death of a thousand cuts'.
-Polaris
Yes, they have a quantifiable advantage. But IMHO it is not enough to preclude mixing PCs of different levels in the same party. When the GM throws a combat encounter at them, he has to consider not just the PCs' average levels, but also their equipment status, etc. etc.
Perhaps I'm a lazy GM, but I tend to follow the school of thought that my NPCs should have appropriate levels for the job they are doing - irrespective of the PCs. Frankly, I'd rather not ensure the good guys always win. If an under-equipped party of PCs chooses to take on the local SWAT team, or Battledress equipped Marine squad, then they will die - unless they run away, or surrender. Perhaps that's why my naval intelligence team chose to indulge in fisticuffs with their local gun-toting thugs, rather than go cruising the mean streets with hidden gauss pistolas and being able to blow the badguys away. They knew the local law level prohibited weapons, and that they couldn't afford to have the police pissed off at them. I would have thrown the same attackers at them if they were 10 levels higher - and expected the same result. YMMV, but I find it works for me, and it works for my players (newbies to ol' pros).
Falkayn,
Now really, I am going to have to call a 'technical' here. You are conflating two distinct issues here:
1. Should parties face the consequences of their actions? Absolutely. If a party of pretty much any level decides to take on a fully equipped squad of Imperial Marines, then let the chips fall where they may.
2. Should NPCs have levels appropriate to their jobs? Absolutely. However, this actually makes my point rather than refuting it. A high level party should *be* more qualified and can breeze through challenges that a lesser level party could not by this logic. A high level character can (if he is a roguish type for example) breeze past even the strictest customs with ease because even the best trained customs officials are unlikely to be much above 5-8th level or so. Thus this becomes a non-encounter for the higher level party yet is a deadly one to a lower level one. [The weakest link analogy comes firmly to mind.] Furthermore, a high level group of PCs will be a crack crew. Why would they tolerate someone who is not up to standards in an important position? [They wouldn't if they could help it.]
Thus while not everyone on the ship's crew should be of the same level, all the departement heads should be (or at least close) and this is based not just on game balance but on RL Navy practice (all Dept Heads must be command qualified).
3. The above two points in no way excuses or allows for gross level imbalance. I have already stated that in T20, a couple of levels in inbalance is probably alright (GM depending), but a 10 level difference (which can easily happen) simply is not. Indeed you second point actually serves as a counter-example.
In short, and I am trying to be as polite as possible, I think you conflated this valid balance issue with two other issues, and I have to call you on that.
-Polaris
P.S. I note that baring player stupidity (which happens from time to time), the challenge should be appropriate to the party which is much easier to do with a balanced party (and we are talking about new GMs).
Edit: Changed 'conflagrated' to 'conflated' and made a wording change to clarify (and not change) my meaning.
Now really, I am going to have to call a 'technical' here. You are conflating two distinct issues here:
1. Should parties face the consequences of their actions? Absolutely. If a party of pretty much any level decides to take on a fully equipped squad of Imperial Marines, then let the chips fall where they may.
2. Should NPCs have levels appropriate to their jobs? Absolutely. However, this actually makes my point rather than refuting it. A high level party should *be* more qualified and can breeze through challenges that a lesser level party could not by this logic. A high level character can (if he is a roguish type for example) breeze past even the strictest customs with ease because even the best trained customs officials are unlikely to be much above 5-8th level or so. Thus this becomes a non-encounter for the higher level party yet is a deadly one to a lower level one. [The weakest link analogy comes firmly to mind.] Furthermore, a high level group of PCs will be a crack crew. Why would they tolerate someone who is not up to standards in an important position? [They wouldn't if they could help it.]
Thus while not everyone on the ship's crew should be of the same level, all the departement heads should be (or at least close) and this is based not just on game balance but on RL Navy practice (all Dept Heads must be command qualified).
3. The above two points in no way excuses or allows for gross level imbalance. I have already stated that in T20, a couple of levels in inbalance is probably alright (GM depending), but a 10 level difference (which can easily happen) simply is not. Indeed you second point actually serves as a counter-example.
In short, and I am trying to be as polite as possible, I think you conflated this valid balance issue with two other issues, and I have to call you on that.
-Polaris
P.S. I note that baring player stupidity (which happens from time to time), the challenge should be appropriate to the party which is much easier to do with a balanced party (and we are talking about new GMs).
Edit: Changed 'conflagrated' to 'conflated' and made a wording change to clarify (and not change) my meaning.
I don't think I'm burning anything - but I think you mean 'conflating' (I had to look both of those up).
I'll have to give the bad news to my team then. It's a shame that they're not all my level, but we want the best IT consultancy we can get. I can't "tolerate" having people lower than my level working with me. And I suspect that the other project managers here don't have quite my level of experience, so I'll have to get the boss to pay them less than me. NOT.
You are conflating the idea that in game the PCs would expect to be working with people of appropriate experience with the meta-game idea that PC levels should be the same.
Meaning what? They've passed an exam? They've been subjectively found appropriately qualified? They have demonstarted an apprpopriate amount and variety of skills? It sure as hell doesn't mean they are all the same level, not that they are all the same in terms of ability or skills - just that some minimum has been met.
OK, let me put it another way. Given the way I GM (as stated above), what is wrong with PCs having grossly different levels? Let me make that even easier for you, what aspect of the roleplaying experience are my players going to miss out on?
The way I GM, and it is a tad lazy. I don't worry so much about what is supposed to be an 'appropriate' challenge. I mean, my current party has all the resources of naval intelligence behind them - I have no qualms making their opposition 20th level (if that's what is appropriate for the NPC involved), and giving him 12th level thug bodyguards. The players' goal is not to slay the monster, or roll 38 on their best skills. The goal is an in game objective that the PCs have chosen. Their performance will be measured in shades of gray - with something never quote being perfect, and other things being completed better than expected. The XP they earn is decided based on the actions they take and their steps towards completion of the story, not some jimmied up CR figure (although I may use those as rough guides to ensure I'm not overly generous or stingey). There is nothing in that method that a newbie GM cannot do - in fact it is closer to RL and therefore common sense - which should make it easier to do. I think the mechanical way d20 handles XP requires balanced parties for newbie GMs because it doesn't work any other way, not because it is easier.
I don't think I'm burning anything - but I think you mean 'conflating' (I had to look both of those up).
</font>[/QUOTE]
You're right. I meant conflating. :blush: Sorry about that.
I'll have to give the bad news to my team then. It's a shame that they're not all my level, but we want the best IT consultancy we can get. I can't "tolerate" having people lower than my level working with me. And I suspect that the other project managers here don't have quite my level of experience, so I'll have to get the boss to pay them less than me. NOT.
</font>[/QUOTE]
Sarcasm aside, this is actually quite true for small 'tiger team' shops as you should know perfectly well. A good military example are special operations (like the US Delta Force). You simply do not become Delta Force until and unless you meet certain minimums, and only certain teams will be assigned to certain missions based on experience and expertise.
The same is true for a sub crew or any other place where less than superior performance is not only sub-optimal but can put everyone else's life at risk. In short, I feel I am on very firm ground here. A crack team will not tolerate anyone that can not pull their weight. I know this to be true in crack military units (and Traveller Free Trader Crews are actually quite close to this) and I have seen this in the civilian market as well.
Actually I am not. It is called the "Peter Principle". That is to say that people tend to rise to their level of incompetance. Thus more competant party members can handle challenges that their less competant mates can not. Result: They get more and better opportunities to work with people until the relative competance level balances out. In d20, relative competance is directly tied to character level so my point stands!
Meaning what? They've passed an exam? They've been subjectively found appropriately qualified? They have demonstarted an apprpopriate amount and variety of skills? It sure as hell doesn't mean they are all the same level, not that they are all the same in terms of ability or skills - just that some minimum has been met.
</font>[/QUOTE]
Actually the Navy tries to assign people with a certain amount of experience and expertise (judged by their service records and OPRs) to fulfill certain jobs. As such, you can be pretty sure that in game terms the levels would be pretty close. This is a point that Sandman conceded to me a couple of pages back.
OK, let me put it another way. Given the way I GM (as stated above), what is wrong with PCs having grossly different levels? Let me make that even easier for you, what aspect of the roleplaying experience are my players going to miss out on?
</font>[/QUOTE]
Fairness (and even the appearence of Fairness is very important to a GM as you no doubt know). 'nuff said. Remember too that we are talking about new players and new GMs and no player likes to feel like a fifth feel...and that is what you will get when one player sees that he is 5th level while his fellow player is 15th. You said yourself that you would change your tune if that would happen. You call it the "dark side" of roleplaying: I call it being human [and an unwarranted judgement of a particular playstyle].
The way I GM, and it is a tad lazy. I don't worry so much about what is supposed to be an 'appropriate' challenge. I mean, my current party has all the resources of naval intelligence behind them - I have no qualms making their opposition 20th level (if that's what is appropriate for the NPC involved), and giving him 12th level thug bodyguards. The players' goal is not to slay the monster, or roll 38 on their best skills. The goal is an in game objective that the PCs have chosen. Their performance will be measured in shades of gray - with something never quote being perfect, and other things being completed better than expected. The XP they earn is decided based on the actions they take and their steps towards completion of the story, not some jimmied up CR figure (although I may use those as rough guides to ensure I'm not overly generous or stingey). There is nothing in that method that a newbie GM cannot do - in fact it is closer to RL and therefore common sense - which should make it easier to do. I think the mechanical way d20 handles XP requires balanced parties for newbie GMs because it doesn't work any other way, not because it is easier. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually newbie GMs and players need guidance that that is easier done with balanced parties and some sort of benchmark. Given what you have said, I almost guarantee that you adjust your adventures on the fly to account for PC actions and abilities. Am I wrong?
Is it realistic to expect a newbie GM to do the same with unbalanced parties while suffering from possible player resentment therin? I think not!
Let me ask you what I have already asked Hunter and MDJ (and they have not deigned to reply):
What harm could it do to have a balanced system of prior history alongside the prior history system that currently exists?
For the third time in this thread: I would like an honest answer!
-Polaris
Hunter,
You are wrong and in denial. You have never bothered to answer the question at all. You would rather pretend as though the problem does not exist. Even Falkayn and others have disagreed with you (at least in part) on this one.
I am not asking everyone to agree with me. I am asking what harm would it do to put a balanced system for prior history alongside the current one. I am not forcing you (or anyone else) to change anything, and I take umbrage at the suggestion that I am.
The real problem which you have not even bothered to address comes in two parts:
1. You transcribed a lot of C-T rules over into a d20 format without properly considering how the change in the system would affect these rules. I even quoted a passage from the T20 handbook that proved it.
2. (This is related to one) In the CT system your roll was a 2d6 with your skill acting as a modifier against a GM determined target. As such statistic losses meant a great deal. This was the primary balance mechanism in CT to prevent 10-12 term characters from dominating the game. It was called age.
In CT, after the fifth term or so (IIRC), you stood to lose stat points every year of your term. That meant that if you rolled a 10 term character (and survived), you had to undergo twenty stat loss rolls per stat (IIRC). That almost insured that these high term characters were too feeble to adventure....and it also insured that their total 2d6+skill rolls were no better (and indeed often worse) than their younger partymembers.
None of this is true in T20. In T20, the worst you can be is middle-aged coming out of character creation. That is a -1 to Str,Dex,Con and a +1 to Wis,EDU,Int. This is hardly crippling and can actually be an advantage in a skill heavy game (like T20!)
In addition the skill mechanism in d20 is completely different than in CT. In d20, your primary source of skill bonus is your skill rank and the system really is skill ranks+stat bonus (which is much less sensitive to stat loss)+feat/other mods+d20 against a certain target number.
Just in terms of skills, a high level character will blow a lower level one away....this point was conceded. Since T20 is supposed to be skill based, that means that high term characters are simply better.
If anyone is being narrow minded and forcing their vision of gaming on anyone, it is you (Hunter). By failing to give a fair and balanced option (and several good ones have been proposed on this thread), you are forcing your ideas of T20 balance into every group that wishes to play T20 especially those that are least able to cope (the new players and GMs) because they lack good alternatives.
So who is being narrowminded? Considering that I want to offer new players an official choice and you, Hunter, would rather deny there is a problem, that answer is frankly pretty damn obvious, and not to your credit either.
-Polaris
You are wrong and in denial. You have never bothered to answer the question at all. You would rather pretend as though the problem does not exist. Even Falkayn and others have disagreed with you (at least in part) on this one.
I am not asking everyone to agree with me. I am asking what harm would it do to put a balanced system for prior history alongside the current one. I am not forcing you (or anyone else) to change anything, and I take umbrage at the suggestion that I am.
The real problem which you have not even bothered to address comes in two parts:
1. You transcribed a lot of C-T rules over into a d20 format without properly considering how the change in the system would affect these rules. I even quoted a passage from the T20 handbook that proved it.
2. (This is related to one) In the CT system your roll was a 2d6 with your skill acting as a modifier against a GM determined target. As such statistic losses meant a great deal. This was the primary balance mechanism in CT to prevent 10-12 term characters from dominating the game. It was called age.
In CT, after the fifth term or so (IIRC), you stood to lose stat points every year of your term. That meant that if you rolled a 10 term character (and survived), you had to undergo twenty stat loss rolls per stat (IIRC). That almost insured that these high term characters were too feeble to adventure....and it also insured that their total 2d6+skill rolls were no better (and indeed often worse) than their younger partymembers.
None of this is true in T20. In T20, the worst you can be is middle-aged coming out of character creation. That is a -1 to Str,Dex,Con and a +1 to Wis,EDU,Int. This is hardly crippling and can actually be an advantage in a skill heavy game (like T20!)
In addition the skill mechanism in d20 is completely different than in CT. In d20, your primary source of skill bonus is your skill rank and the system really is skill ranks+stat bonus (which is much less sensitive to stat loss)+feat/other mods+d20 against a certain target number.
Just in terms of skills, a high level character will blow a lower level one away....this point was conceded. Since T20 is supposed to be skill based, that means that high term characters are simply better.
If anyone is being narrow minded and forcing their vision of gaming on anyone, it is you (Hunter). By failing to give a fair and balanced option (and several good ones have been proposed on this thread), you are forcing your ideas of T20 balance into every group that wishes to play T20 especially those that are least able to cope (the new players and GMs) because they lack good alternatives.
So who is being narrowminded? Considering that I want to offer new players an official choice and you, Hunter, would rather deny there is a problem, that answer is frankly pretty damn obvious, and not to your credit either.
-Polaris
Polaris.
Sorry if this seems rude.
All I see here is that you don't like some parts of the T20 system as it is designed.
Well, tough luck. You can change whatever you want, but shouting and whining that "Hunter didn`t do it right" again and again will only alienate every other users on the board (if it hasn`t happened already).
I`m taking the time to type this instead of ignoring you because you seem to be able think. But that doesn`t mean that if you seen something wrong it is necessarily wrong... and if nobody else seems to think that it is wrong then maybe it isn`t.
I didn`t buy T20 for the Game Mechanics.
I bought T20 because it was a Sci-Fi RPG which had a NAME and a Legacy behind it.
I'm pretty new to Traveller (bought the book in december) but as far as I can see while reading CotI and the TML, No Traveller Rules are Perfect. There is ALWAYS something that will annoy one or the other.
The Only Constant is: We Like Traveller.
And let's face it. The marjority of Newbies from D&D D20 that want Sci-Fi WON'T buy Traveller. They'll go for StarWars and the likes. What Newbies we get buying T20 will normally be at a level where they KNOW more than just the basic Roleplaying/system.
We should show them what traveller has to offer for a Good Plain Fun, not take them by the hand and treat them like babies, watching every steps they make and stop them before they learn from themselves.
Heck, I don't even OWN a Core book nor knows more than half the rules (and that`s a strech) What I know is that I don't care as long as me and my players are having Fun.
For the Newbies it's the same. If they really really really want a very very very balance game, they should stick to playing board games from Parker Brothers.
Again I repeat, I don't want to be percieved as being rude, but your posts DOES seem to be more and more filled with venom against those who don't see anything wrong or don't care about that particular problem.
By calling Hunter, MJD, Bruce and the rest of CotI Narrow-Minded, Wrong and in Denial your posts are beginning to become very unpleasant to read.
If you don't like the system as it is, change it for yourself in your games. Failing that, Win the Lottery, Buy QLI, and publish a "revised" edition which will anger about 90% of the customer base.
I will now cease to answer about any question/comments on that line of thought. It has become a budding flameware and is more and more arrogant with each passing comments.
Let us Roleplay the way we like, we'll let you roleplay the way you like without any criticism.
Sorry if this seems rude.
All I see here is that you don't like some parts of the T20 system as it is designed.
Well, tough luck. You can change whatever you want, but shouting and whining that "Hunter didn`t do it right" again and again will only alienate every other users on the board (if it hasn`t happened already).
I`m taking the time to type this instead of ignoring you because you seem to be able think. But that doesn`t mean that if you seen something wrong it is necessarily wrong... and if nobody else seems to think that it is wrong then maybe it isn`t.
I didn`t buy T20 for the Game Mechanics.
I bought T20 because it was a Sci-Fi RPG which had a NAME and a Legacy behind it.
I'm pretty new to Traveller (bought the book in december) but as far as I can see while reading CotI and the TML, No Traveller Rules are Perfect. There is ALWAYS something that will annoy one or the other.
The Only Constant is: We Like Traveller.
And let's face it. The marjority of Newbies from D&D D20 that want Sci-Fi WON'T buy Traveller. They'll go for StarWars and the likes. What Newbies we get buying T20 will normally be at a level where they KNOW more than just the basic Roleplaying/system.
We should show them what traveller has to offer for a Good Plain Fun, not take them by the hand and treat them like babies, watching every steps they make and stop them before they learn from themselves.
Heck, I don't even OWN a Core book nor knows more than half the rules (and that`s a strech) What I know is that I don't care as long as me and my players are having Fun.
For the Newbies it's the same. If they really really really want a very very very balance game, they should stick to playing board games from Parker Brothers.
Again I repeat, I don't want to be percieved as being rude, but your posts DOES seem to be more and more filled with venom against those who don't see anything wrong or don't care about that particular problem.
By calling Hunter, MJD, Bruce and the rest of CotI Narrow-Minded, Wrong and in Denial your posts are beginning to become very unpleasant to read.
If you don't like the system as it is, change it for yourself in your games. Failing that, Win the Lottery, Buy QLI, and publish a "revised" edition which will anger about 90% of the customer base.
I will now cease to answer about any question/comments on that line of thought. It has become a budding flameware and is more and more arrogant with each passing comments.
Let us Roleplay the way we like, we'll let you roleplay the way you like without any criticism.
