Balanced Parties, Thoughts and Suggestions

[Polaris]

Sandman,

Hunter's posts are also getting unpleasent to read so it goes both ways, and I did not include Bruce or MDJ in that commentary so please do not put words in my mouth. If you value politesse, then you should know better.

The fact is that Hunter is wrong. Not about his opinion. He has a right to that like we all do. He is wrong about the facts. The fact is that I asked a perfectly valid question....one that you, and many others here said was a valid question addressing a valid point, and not only did Hunter not answer the question, but he denied the problem existed.

If you want Traveller but don't care about new players (because they won't play traveller anyway), then why make this into a d20 system? The d20 system is designed to draw new players that otherwise played so-called entry level games and the ruleset should reflect that if the game expects to prosper. This is really old stuff and it was something everyone (to my memory) agreed on 6 pages back!

The fact is that Hunter is being narrow because I am asking for an option geared towards inexperienced players and GMs and he is insisting that no option is needed which in effect forces everyone to play his way or houserule (which is not always a realistic option for new GMs).

Sometimes people really are wrong in fact. This is such a case.

-Polaris

P.S. FWIW, if I alienate everyone here over a matter of fact, then I will wear it as a badge of honor. I tend to be ornery that way.

 

[Polaris]

Guys,

In an attempt to get us back the the amicability of the first couple of pages, let's agree on a couple of points in principle:

1. Balanced Parties are easier to GMs to handle.

2. Balanced Parties are perceived to be fairer by players in general especially novice players or players from other RPGs that encourage balance.

3. The Prior History mechanic often gives unbalanced parties.

4. Because of the above three points, there is a definate risk of alienating new (or even returning) players from other systems because of the perceived imbalance. I note that CT in it's time did alienate many players when other SciFi systems were published. [The CT prior history rules have been lampooned many times on SJG's "Murphy's Rules" because of the often silly results it gave.]

Thus, what sort of system(s) should be included in the next printing or next edition of the game to give GMs the option of giving balanced parties while maintaining the CT feel?

Opinions aside, I would like to return to the crux of the topic at hand if at all possible.

-Polaris

P.S. I hate to doublepost, but Sandman is right in one respect. The temperature here is getting fairly high and I would like to do something about it.

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by 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.

Ok you want a more detailed response? You ain’t gonna like it but here goes:

T20 isn’t really going to bring in ‘new’ players that have never roleplayed before. There will be a few, but they will be a rare exception. Those who ARE newbies to RPGs are typically introduced to the game by other more experienced players. This goes for every other RPG on the market today barring D&D and possibly White Wolf. It has nothing to do with the ‘quality’ of the other work of other publishers in this industry rather this is based on economics and exposure. Those are the plain facts.

T20 wasn’t written to lure in newbies who have never played an RPG before. Why? because as I explained above, it isn’t a market easily reached economically. Instead we wrote T20 to introduce the existing d20 fan base to Traveller and to provide them a fairly generic science-fiction toolkit to run their campaigns with. By leveraging the d20 brand and thus the D&D brand by proxy, we ARE able to begin to reach those new fans that D&D is bringing in. By the time those players are discovering T20, they already have some experience in character development, rules mechanics, and styles of play.

Apparently you have failed to notice the lack of uproar over the subject by others. T20 has been out for over six months now, with over 5000 copies in circulation and over 3000 members of these boards. Until you opened this thread there has been no real mention of a problem. Seems to me folks taken the rules in stride and either don’t have an issue with varying party levels or have come up with their own house rules to cover it. Otherwise we would have heard about this before now.

Overall what this tells me is that it isn’t a problem with our target market. Thus I don’t see a need for a change. Of course I could always just put a single line in that says ‘If you don’t want to allow your characters to have varying levels of experience, restrict everyone to a maximum starting level or a maximum number of terms.’ But I tend to give the reader a little credit for common sense.

Also consider this. You want an ‘optional’ rule included. Ok so where do we stop? There are optional rules that can be dreamt up for just about everything. Am I to include every house rule that some referee would like to see included? Or are we to just accept yours and ignore everyone else? Or are we to selectively pick and choose which ‘optional’ rule we include? If we do that, then someone like yourself is going to be offended when we don’t include theirs. Sorry I’m not going that route.

As I said, you probably don’t like that answer, but there you have it. I guess you’ll continue to say that I have refused to respond and am in denial. So be it. Knock yerself out!

Bottom line is that as the owner, publisher, and co-author, I am the one who has to make the decisions and live with them. Unless you can convince me, it doesn’t get changed. Your arguments and ‘proofs’ so far have failed to do so. I will also note that your increasingly hostile attitude leads to want to ignore your posts in the future. You would do well to tone things down a bit rather than be ignored.

Hunter

 

[Polaris]

Hunter,

That is your right. However, by so doing, you are dooming T20 to being a niche product especially if you are trying to target the d20 market as a whole.

BTW, you are at least somewhat mistaken about the lack of response before on this issue. In January, shortly after this game was released, a rather scathing review on RPG.net addressed this very issue....and IIRC you were about as responsive to the point then as you have been now.

The fact that in the past 4-5 months, this issue has come up at least twice in a fairly public way should tell you (IMHO at least) that this is a matter of some concern, and while I won't say I have been greeted with enthusiasm here, it should be equally clear that I have made several cogent points on this issue that ought to be looked into.

I will also tell you from a playtest perspective (and I have to wonder if the playtesters told you the same), that the first time a person walks in with a 15th level character (Sandman showed how this could be done) that was simply better than everyone else, then people's tune will change. Even Falkayn (who has pretty much defended your position) admitted this.

Surely that is something to consider as well. BTW, while your sales figures are impressive for traveller, it still represents a niche market and I would hope all of us would like that to change.

-Polaris

P.S. This is an answer to the question and one that I pretty much expected. I get hostile when I am ignored especially when I ask a very valid question (and not just by my accounting either). I tend to be ornery and I happen to be proud of it. It gets things done.

 

[clementk]

Seriously, pipe down on the dogma, write up your ideas, expand them, and submit them as a TA proposal*/with a sample as a website article. (which I've already suggested)

"Bored now. Leaving now." - alt.Willow

last point I'll make on this thread/topic:

Originally posted by Polaris:
[The CT prior history rules have been lampooned many times on SJG's "Murphy's Rules" because of the often silly results it gave.]

Err, Murphy's Rules are a joke on silly exceptions and absurd rules combinations that usually never come into play in mainly classic and time-proven games. Like how a spoof in SNL is (or at least used to be) a sign you've "Made It".

My personal favorite is the fighter speed limit cartoon for Full Thrust submitted by the game's designer and all around Good Guy(tm), Jon Tuffley of GZG .

* I've already suggested elsewhere that a TA full of chargen options/expansions would be a good thing; a wide range of ideas/viewpoints might be best

EDIT: last bit expanded

Casey

 

[Polaris]

Casey,

That is actually the best suggestion I have heard in the past day or so. I will take you up on that in the next day or so.

Honestly, however, while the ideas on this thread have been very good ones, I suspect that one reason the temperature is rising is because everything substantative that can be said on this issue has been and so the signal to noise ratio is taking a severe hit as a result.

-Polaris

 

[Liam Devlin]

Polaris writes:
"1. Balanced Parties are easier to GMs to handle.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For tournament play, I'll cede the point. In campaign play, I (in hopes of staying in tune) CHEERFULLY disagree.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. Balanced Parties are perceived to be fairer by players in general especially novice players or players from other RPGs that encourage balance.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again, in tournament play, agreed. In general camapaign RPG, again, CHEERFULLY disagree.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. The Prior History mechanic often gives unbalanced parties.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In terms of levels, yes. Real Life does that too. for an example, I have in my ARNG army unit, men who make more money than others, have far more education than others, being led by men who have less money but more rank and ability. what makes it all equal? we can all be killed by the same bullets/ bombs/ shells, and we all wear the same uniform.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4. Because of the above three points, there is a definate risk of alienating new (or even returning) players from other systems because of the perceived imbalance. I note that CT in it's time did alienate many players when other SciFi systems were published. [The CT prior history rules have been lampooned many times on SJG's "Murphy's Rules" because of the often silly results it gave.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"the risk of alienating new players"..."because of perceived imbalance."

Mr Polaris, i find that an Imbalanced GM/ i.e. an inexperienced one, will make mistakes. Even a Die hard grognard makes mistakes. Players make mistakes.
Alienating in a game can come from say, other PC's versus one PC.
Thing is, are ya trying to level the playing field in a quasi socialist way, and have control over how EACH player progresses?
Cuz this sounds like a control issue. And making a mountain out of a mole hill. Your ideas, have their place. if i was making/ writing tournament style adventures, and wished to create stock PC's, your system would be one I'd use.

As I am not, however, I prefer the chaos of the dice/ ala "Life's lottery".
IT is my DUTY as a GM to be impartial and fair as possible to ALL my player's PC's. (Check out the ISS URSULA synopsis pages on random Static- this is an online T20 RP game.)
Now in case I fail, we have a failsafe- My co-GM. And vis a versa.

In our campaign, we have(playing)
1x `14th/3rd Navy/Nobleman CPT (An O-6)
1x 10th/2nd Lv Navy/merchant Aslani(female) CDR
1x 1st Sct/1st Rogue/1st Traveller1st Academ./10th Mercenary
2x 7th lv Marines (two separate players)(SGT's)
1x 8th level marine (sniper)
1x 4thMarine/ 4th Ace pilot (a FLT LT)
1x 1st Navy/7th rogue Vargr (An E-6)
1x 4th level navy Ensign Vargr (An O-1)
1x 9th level CDR navy vargr(An O-5)
1x 1st belter/5th marine officer (O2) LT.
1x 1st belter/6th traveller engineer (civilian)
1x 3rd Alien/3rd traveller, dancer (entertainer)
1x 1st Academic/9th professional-Ship's DR.
1x 1stSct/1st Traveller (sculptor)/6th reporter
1x 3rd level professional (Steward/Nurse)
1x 1st professional/1st Navy/ 4th rogue genamod human.
1x 10th/1st/2nd level (IMOJ)profess./Traveller/ Noble

three Players have died thus farand rolled up new ones)
1x Navy O4, 8th level
1x Navy/Ace pilot O2, 1st/7th.
1x Navy/merchant 1st/ 8th.


Thus, what sort of system(s) should be included in the next printing or next edition of the game to give GMs the option of giving balanced parties while maintaining the CT feel?'

the sort of thing you suggest is being utilized already in 76 Gunmen- stock NPC's. You can do the same for players if ya like.
I don't.

YMMV.
HERETICALLY, yours

 

[Polaris]

Liam,

For your games, that is certainly your right. I actually abhor socialism IRL but in a game I feel that some sort of balance has it's place.

If you feel that this is best suited for tournament play, then I will cheerfully agree with you. In fact, one of my concerns is tournament play. [While I dislike tourney play for various reasons, it is a major draw for some players.]

If you feel that my system is a 'tournament' system, then I will cheerfully conceed that point as well. In fact when I submit this officially, I may call it just that: "Prior History: Tournament Option" because then the balance issue becomes that more apparent and important.

Thanks for the tip.

-Polaris

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Liam,

For your games, that is certainly your right. I actually abhor socialism IRL but in a game I feel that some sort of balance has it's place.

If you feel that this is best suited for tournament play, then I will cheerfully agree with you. In fact, one of my concerns is tournament play. [While I dislike tourney play for various reasons, it is a major draw for some players.]

If you feel that my system is a 'tournament' system, then I will cheerfully conceed that point as well. In fact when I submit this officially, I may call it just that: "Prior History: Tournament Option" because then the balance issue becomes that more apparent and important.

Thanks for the tip.

-Polaris

Well, it seems best to call it a tournament prior history thing, cuz in an unfamiliar setting with say random drawn players to yer table, ya want to have some controls. An at a Con, Tournament players expect stock PC's.
Its the "open game" tables where God-knows-what comes in-making it more my style of play- a challenge to maintain balance in the adventure/ attention each Player gets, and of course let the dice fall as they do.
Your certainly welcome to hepp yeseff to the idea. I am a heretic, after all!

 

[Polaris]

Liam,

Well the beauty of my proposal is you still get to make all those die rolls that help define your character and you still have characters "balanced" for tournament play.

I am not just talking about Cons either. Spycraft and DnD both have "Living" campaign settings. Why should Traveller be left in the cold? While I am no fan of RPGA and other such organizations, they do wonders for gathering new players and advertising the product. That is one more reason why some sort of "Tournament" Prior History rule is IMHO a useful addition to the game.

Well enough rambling. I should get some sleep and then get started on my article for COTI tomorrow morning.

-Polaris

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Polaris:
That is your right. However, by so doing, you are dooming T20 to being a niche product especially if you are trying to target the d20 market as a whole.

Hate to break it to you, but until someone with a few tens to hundreds of millions to blow comes along, Traveller always will be a niche product. It is a rather large niche, but a niche nonetheless.

As far as being a niche product among d20 products, so far that sure hasn't been the case. I have the numbers to back up my case. Show me yours.

BTW, you are at least somewhat mistaken about the lack of response before on this issue. In January, shortly after this game was released, a rather scathing review on RPG.net addressed this very issue....and IIRC you were about as responsive to the point then as you have been now.

Jeremy's review. Quite familiar with it. Here is the quote from it in fact so we can all be on the same page:

Another interesting idea, but flawed (or so I think) is how characters gain past experience, called Prior History. This is similar to past versions of Traveller, and is almost a game of it's own. But in essence, the problem is it ends up producing characters that have a wide variety of character levels (each year of prior history, they get 1000 xp, plus possible bonuses). One PC might have a 3rd level character. Another might have a 10th. While this is perhaps realistic (though honestly, older is not always better), it largely defeats the whole purpose of having character levels (which is to make combat ability easier to gauge, as well as general

You'll note the point that he does agree it is more realistic, though yes he does mention that he feels that it defeats the purpose of making combat and competence easier to gauge.

That is one out of 3 at RPG.net. Neither of the other two complain about it, and in fact speak well of the Prior History system.

Then there are the reviews over at ENWorld. Two 5 out of 5 stars, and one 3 out of 5 stars. It should be noted that the lower review is actually a copy of the Jeremy review on RPG.net. The two 5 star reviews again speak well of the Prior History system.

A great review in Valkyrie Quarterly (#26) with no mention of a Prior History problem.

Then there is the write up on T20 in Dungeon/Polyhedron by Johnny Wilson.

Let's see that's 6 to 1 just off the bat against you. There are others I can cite in favor of the system.

The fact that in the past 4-5 months, this issue has come up at least twice in a fairly public way should tell you (IMHO at least) that this is a matter of some concern, and while I won't say I have been greeted with enthusiasm here, it should be equally clear that I have made several cogent points on this issue that ought to be looked into.

You admit they haven't been greeted with enthusiasm yet I am supposed to consider them simply because you believe you bring up cogent points? If your points are so obvious and needed, why hasn't there been more enthusiasm?

I will also tell you from a playtest perspective (and I have to wonder if the playtesters told you the same), that the first time a person walks in with a 15th level character (Sandman showed how this could be done) that was simply better than everyone else, then people's tune will change. Even Falkayn (who has pretty much defended your position) admitted this.

Ask the T20 playtesters. They are all on these boards. You've been arguing with some already in this thread.

I played a game the other day where my character was 5th level and the highest level in the party was 12th. Guess who had the most action in the game...It wasn't the 12th level guy.

Surely that is something to consider as well. BTW, while your sales figures are impressive for traveller, it still represents a niche market and I would hope all of us would like that to change.

As I said, unless someone comes along with more than a few million to toss as an advertising budget, or barring someone licensing the rights from Marc and making a blockbuster film, that ain't likely to happen.

You've been suggest by other to write a TA based on your ideas. I endorse the idea. But understand, you are subject to the same rules and guidelines as everyone else. Just because you submit the idea and even a manuscript doesn't mean it will see print. The quality of the work determines that, and that one is Martin's call.

Hunter

 

[Polaris]

Hunter,

As for the submission, I don't expect any special treatment in particular. I have been through the process before. I hope that my idea w/regard to a TA submission would be judged on it's own merits and I am sure it will be.

As for the rest, I actually tend to agree with Jeremy's review more than the rest because it tends to match my own experiences with d20 as a rule. Mind you, I did not agree with that review entirely, but I did on this issue.

As for the playtesters I was "arguing" with, near as I can tell they conceded that:

1. High level characters had a definate skill advantage.

2. High level characters could do miraculous things because of some fixed DCs in the game because of their skill advantage. This is an artifact of d20.

3. High level characters had an advantage in combat. How much was a matter of some dispute.

Futhermore, near as I can tell, everyone agreed that the aging rules in T20 do not sufficiently discourage people from taking their maximum number of terms nor do the rules prevent characters from taking their maximum number of terms (because of a failed survival roll). These are both important changes from CT. How serious a problem this was, was again subject to some dispute, but the fact that aging is a non-issue in d20 was not nor was there any dispute that this was a major change from CT.

Pulling back into just what I feel, I wonder if part of the problem is that the idea of "level" and "traveller" was always IMHO a fairly poor fit. I note that no prior edition of traveller (not even CT) had any concept of competence being directly tied to a nebulous character level. IIRC, CT depended on skills and if your stat got too low (see my point about aging), then a high skill couldn't save you.

That was just a personal thought of mine.

-Polaris

Edit: When I say "I have been through the process", I should clarify that I have been through the process of publication before but not with Traveller or COTI in particular. That is a nit, but I felt it was important to clarify it.

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Hunter,

As for the submission, I don't expect any special treatment in particular. I have been through the process before. I hope that my idea w/regard to a TA submission would be judged on it's own merits and I am sure it will be.

It will be. I have at no point said you didn't have some good and interesting ideas. You have. They are definately the possible makings of a good TA. But the main core book has to follow one basic standard. Supplements such as the TA series are where 'optional' rules need to go.

Hunter

 

[Falkayn]

Polaris,

I want to pull my head in and indulge in some more creative output rather than debate, but I did find something interesting in my Star Wars RPG books last night. On pg. 192 (of the original not revised rules) it has a section titled "Keeping the Game Balanced", the first para reads like this:

Game balance ensures that most hero choices are relatively equal. A balanced game is one where one hero doesn't dominate over the rest because of a choice that he or she made (species, class, skill, feat Force power, weapon, etc.). It also reflects that the heroes aren't too powerful for the threats that they face, yet netiher are they hopelessly overmatched.
Two things drive game balance: good management and trust.

I suspect, that this is the essence of your argument. This section goes on to talk about the GM managing everything the PCs get so that balance is maintained, and them trusting the GM to make 'fair calls'.

I think you'll find little disagreement by anyone on the CotI boards with the basic ideas expressed in the above quote, but the point of difference is that some of us feel that game balance can be maintained without requiring all of the PCs to be the same level. For some styles of game (e.g. heavy on personal combat) this might be harder than for others (e.g. heavy on story). Perhaps we are all simply defaulting our responses based on the style of game we normally play.

FWIW, I'd be interested in seeing these ideas (and lots more, TA's are BIG) fleshed out in a TA. I'm sure there are a lot of other things that could be explored in this sort of TA.

 

[Polaris]

Gentlemen,

This may be off-topic (and if so I apologize), but since I haven't written for traveller before, would it be better to submit my article to COTI using their submission guidelines or to JTAS (via SJG) using their submission guidelines?

I apologize in advance if that seems like a silly question, but I would rather ask and be laughed at then get it wrong and have my ideas rejected out of ignorance.

-Polaris

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Polaris:
This may be off-topic (and if so I apologize), but since I haven't written for traveller before, would it be better to submit my article to COTI using eheir submission guidelines or to JTAS (via SJG) using their submission guidelines?

Not a silly question at all. From what I understand you would be best going through CotI as they concern themselves with a range of Traveller versions, primarily T20, whilst JTAS are more GURPS focussed.

 

[Polaris]

Falkayn,

Thanks for tip. That is sort of what I figured myself, but I would rather be sure. I still have to edit and polish it a bit, but I should submit it by the end of the week if all other things go well.

Thanks again.

-Polaris

 

[TKalbfus]

One thing I did notice about T20 after a little game is that healing does not occur very fast. A field medic can triple your rate of natural healing and your lifeblood takes weeks, not days to heal. D&D Clerics could do better than this. The consequences of this is that a Traveller "Dungeon" would be a very deadly environment. You'd have one encounter after another with very little time to heal your wounds.
Any Traveller dungeon would have to be fairly empty at low levels with a few combat encounters among the ruins. The greatest treasure one can collect would be a starship, any starship that works is worth more than any pile of gold coins, any gem, or item of jewelery or any object that one could conceivably carry in ones pocket.
A 20th level character in Traveller is much easier to kill than a 20th level D&D character. A Traveller character has an "Achillies heal" called Lifeblood points, even a 20th level character is not going to have a constitution score much above 20, and any 1st level character with a fusion gun can do him in if he gets lucky.
In space level counts for something up to a point, but huge starships loaded with weapons will beat out high levels if the starship the 20th level character is onboard gets destroyed. One must be more careful in a Traveller game than in a D&D one.

 

[ninthcouncil]

Tom makes a good point about the levelling effect of heavy weaponry and fixed "kill" damage points in combat. Your 18th level marine is not the invincible monster that a 18th level fighter is in D&D, because he can be taken down with a good shot, especially if he doesn't have access to full military armour.

The other point I'd like to make is that Traveller games should be much more about ideas than a D&D game. It should be possible to go for long stretches in a game of this type without touching your dice, let alone combat. The "Room 15 is 20' x 30' and contains a beholder, roll Initiative" approach doesn't hold much appeal for me, which is why generally I prefer SF games to fantasy ones.

In a "thinking-led" environment, a player with a 4th level character may come up with more and better ideas than the 12th level tank. Once the fighting starts, the tank may take the fore, but that's what he's there to do, isn't it?

When I and my players generated characters a couple of weeks ago for my Hinterworlds campaign, I didn't issue any instructions as to what level they were aiming at - but they're all in the level 5-7 range, because that sort of 30-something age range was what they were comfortable with. Possibly I have an unusual bunch of players, but they didn't try and munchkin stupid 15th level Vilani characters. OK, so I didn't go out of my way to point out the Vilani ageing advantage... If you're afraid that your players may do this, set an age or term limit different to the ones in the book.

I do think there are some drawbacks to the char gen in T20 (it's very time consuming, and the information the players need to make their choices about feats in particular, is not presented as well as it could be) but I don't have a problem with the balance.

 

[Polaris]

Ninthcouncil,

Since your players all wound up in the 5-7th level range, of course you wouldn't have a problem with balance in that game. I note, however, that you went out of your way not to point out the Vilani age advantage to your players. That, to me at least, indicates a problem.

In addition, there is a metagaming issue. It is all fine and good to talk about T20 being a "game of ideas", but realistically and in character why would a Barbarian with a Wisdom and Charisma of 8 and no ranks in Diplomacy come up with the best way to handle a diplomatic situation? If you discount mechanical differences in level and skills, then you encourage this sort of metagaming.

-Polaris

P.S. I have to get back to my article now.