Career Jumpers

[Supplement Four]

This is kind of neat. From an article in Dragon #55. It's a system for allowing characters to change careers during CharGen.

The system makes it possible to do so, but choices are limited. And, there are age restrictions along with second career enlistment penalty DMs.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">2nd SERVICE 1st Career Max. Age DM
----------- -------------------- ---------- ----
Merchant Military 22 -1
Pirate 22 -2
Belter 26 -0
Bureaucrat 22 -1
Rogue 22 -2
Scout Navy 26 +1
Merchant 22 -0
Belter 22 -0
Other Rogue 26 -0
Barbarian 22 -1
Pirate Any 22 -1
Navy 22 +1
Scout 26 -0
Other 22 -0
Merchant 26 +1
Rogue 26 +1
Belter Scout 26 -0
Merchant 22 -0
Diplomat Educated 26 -1
Bureaucrat 30 -1
Noble 34 -0
Doctor Educated 30 -0
Navy (Medical Branch) 38 +2
Bureaucrat Educated -- -1
Noble -- +1
Rogue Any 26 -0
Other 30 +1
Pirate 30 -0
Noble Any 22 -3
Diplomat 26 -1
Doctor 26 -1
Scientist Educated 22 -1
Doctor 30 -0
Hunter Army 26 -0
Barbarian 26 +1
Any 22 -1</pre>[/QUOTE]NOTES

Doctors from the Naval Medical Branch moving into private practice (Doctor career) require one term spent in medical school (max. age of enrollment is 26), which is treated in all respects like Naval Medical School in High Guard.

Assume Nobles have a basic Enlistment Roll of 2+, but SOC requirements are still in effect.

"Military" is a group heading which refers to Army, Navy, Marines, and Scouts.

"Any" is a group heading which refers to all careers except those listed under the same service heading.

"Educated" is a group heading which refers to any career which is able to receive at least a +1 EDU result, either on the skills table or as a mustering out benefit (and the career is not already listed under the same service heading).

Characters may switch careers as many times as they like as long as their age doesn't exceed the max. age requirment and the enlistment throw for the new career, using the DMs from the chart, is successful. DMs are cumulative, making it much harder to start a third career even if the character is under the max. age limit.

All careers from Book 1 and Supplement 4 are considered in the chart above.




Example
Flash Indapan, after having spent two terms in the Scouts, fails his re-enlistment roll and is given the boot. He decides that he would like to become a Belter now and try to make his fortune mining asteroids. From the table under the service heading Belter, it is found that a Scout can indeed become a Belter aslong as he is 26 years of age or younger. Flash is 26, so he has no problem there. He attempts to make his enlistment roll for the Belter career with no modifications ("-0" under the enlistment DM), and manages to enter the new service. He would then continue in the Belters normally as if he had entered that service in the first place, except that he has already finished 8 years behind him.

 

[Supplement Four]

This is kind of neat. From an article in Dragon #55. It's a system for allowing characters to change careers during CharGen.

The system makes it possible to do so, but choices are limited. And, there are age restrictions along with second career enlistment penalty DMs.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">2nd SERVICE 1st Career Max. Age DM
----------- -------------------- ---------- ----
Merchant Military 22 -1
Pirate 22 -2
Belter 26 -0
Bureaucrat 22 -1
Rogue 22 -2
Scout Navy 26 +1
Merchant 22 -0
Belter 22 -0
Other Rogue 26 -0
Barbarian 22 -1
Pirate Any 22 -1
Navy 22 +1
Scout 26 -0
Other 22 -0
Merchant 26 +1
Rogue 26 +1
Belter Scout 26 -0
Merchant 22 -0
Diplomat Educated 26 -1
Bureaucrat 30 -1
Noble 34 -0
Doctor Educated 30 -0
Navy (Medical Branch) 38 +2
Bureaucrat Educated -- -1
Noble -- +1
Rogue Any 26 -0
Other 30 +1
Pirate 30 -0
Noble Any 22 -3
Diplomat 26 -1
Doctor 26 -1
Scientist Educated 22 -1
Doctor 30 -0
Hunter Army 26 -0
Barbarian 26 +1
Any 22 -1</pre>[/QUOTE]NOTES

Doctors from the Naval Medical Branch moving into private practice (Doctor career) require one term spent in medical school (max. age of enrollment is 26), which is treated in all respects like Naval Medical School in High Guard.

Assume Nobles have a basic Enlistment Roll of 2+, but SOC requirements are still in effect.

"Military" is a group heading which refers to Army, Navy, Marines, and Scouts.

"Any" is a group heading which refers to all careers except those listed under the same service heading.

"Educated" is a group heading which refers to any career which is able to receive at least a +1 EDU result, either on the skills table or as a mustering out benefit (and the career is not already listed under the same service heading).

Characters may switch careers as many times as they like as long as their age doesn't exceed the max. age requirment and the enlistment throw for the new career, using the DMs from the chart, is successful. DMs are cumulative, making it much harder to start a third career even if the character is under the max. age limit.

All careers from Book 1 and Supplement 4 are considered in the chart above.




Example
Flash Indapan, after having spent two terms in the Scouts, fails his re-enlistment roll and is given the boot. He decides that he would like to become a Belter now and try to make his fortune mining asteroids. From the table under the service heading Belter, it is found that a Scout can indeed become a Belter aslong as he is 26 years of age or younger. Flash is 26, so he has no problem there. He attempts to make his enlistment roll for the Belter career with no modifications ("-0" under the enlistment DM), and manages to enter the new service. He would then continue in the Belters normally as if he had entered that service in the first place, except that he has already finished 8 years behind him.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm thinking seriously about incorporating this into my game. The age limits go a long way to preventing abuse.

And, this goes well with my house rule on max. terms: CT says that a character can go a max. of 7 terms before mandatory retirement, unless a 12 is rolled on the re-enlistment throw.

I've changed that in my game, allowing longer stays in careers by changing re-enlistment, after the 7th term, to the number of terms served. So, after the 7th term is survived, the re-enlistment throw to go an 8th term is 8+. For a 9th term, it's 9+, and so on.

Of course, characters who spend extra terms like this may be doing themselves a disservice due to the ageing table.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm thinking seriously about incorporating this into my game. The age limits go a long way to preventing abuse.

And, this goes well with my house rule on max. terms: CT says that a character can go a max. of 7 terms before mandatory retirement, unless a 12 is rolled on the re-enlistment throw.

I've changed that in my game, allowing longer stays in careers by changing re-enlistment, after the 7th term, to the number of terms served. So, after the 7th term is survived, the re-enlistment throw to go an 8th term is 8+. For a 9th term, it's 9+, and so on.

Of course, characters who spend extra terms like this may be doing themselves a disservice due to the ageing table.

 

[Golan2072]

I like this - far more flavourful than the T4 system (a -2 DM per career change) I currently use.

 

[Golan2072]

I like this - far more flavourful than the T4 system (a -2 DM per career change) I currently use.

 

[ditzie]

It's very nice - it allows some decision-making along with flexibility. And the age limits are helpful too. Good balance.

 

[ditzie]

It's very nice - it allows some decision-making along with flexibility. And the age limits are helpful too. Good balance.

 

[rogermccarthy]

Can't see why you need yet another table - personally I just use a -1 DM to enlistment per term completed.

Double these DMs for army, marines, navy and scouts and you eliminate the need for a maximum age.

For ranked second careers I allow transfers at -1 to previous rank except for navy to merchants who can transfer at full rank.

I've also experimented with reserve assignments in advanced chargen - after leaving one of the four military services you roll against your term numberx2 and if you exceed it you get called up to serve one assignment in your old service.

This is always the last assignment in a term and effectively represents multiple reserve call-ups over the term unless there was a war on.

So a marine who left after two terms to join the merchants could be called back to serve an assignment as a marine on rolling 7+ in his third term, 9+ in fourth term etc.

This also means that you can't get recalled after term five or age 38 which sounds about right.

Found this quite a nifty way of building merchant characters who have a more useful set of skills for your typical Traveller adventure than a crew of pure merchants would have.

It also helps solves the question of why exactly a navy captain, an army major, a marine gunnery sergeant and a scout senior supervisor would be crewing a far trader.

 

[rogermccarthy]

Can't see why you need yet another table - personally I just use a -1 DM to enlistment per term completed.

Double these DMs for army, marines, navy and scouts and you eliminate the need for a maximum age.

For ranked second careers I allow transfers at -1 to previous rank except for navy to merchants who can transfer at full rank.

I've also experimented with reserve assignments in advanced chargen - after leaving one of the four military services you roll against your term numberx2 and if you exceed it you get called up to serve one assignment in your old service.

This is always the last assignment in a term and effectively represents multiple reserve call-ups over the term unless there was a war on.

So a marine who left after two terms to join the merchants could be called back to serve an assignment as a marine on rolling 7+ in his third term, 9+ in fourth term etc.

This also means that you can't get recalled after term five or age 38 which sounds about right.

Found this quite a nifty way of building merchant characters who have a more useful set of skills for your typical Traveller adventure than a crew of pure merchants would have.

It also helps solves the question of why exactly a navy captain, an army major, a marine gunnery sergeant and a scout senior supervisor would be crewing a far trader.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by alte:
It also helps solves the question of why exactly a navy captain, an army major, a marine gunnery sergeant and a scout senior supervisor would be crewing a far trader.

What? You didn't see FORREST GUMP?

The fartrader, "ISS JENNY".

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by alte:
It also helps solves the question of why exactly a navy captain, an army major, a marine gunnery sergeant and a scout senior supervisor would be crewing a far trader.

What? You didn't see FORREST GUMP?

The fartrader, "ISS JENNY".

 

[Supplement Four]

The more I look at this chart, the more I like it. When I roll up characters for Trav games, my chargen sessions are more like roleplaying sessions than your ususal bookeeping type work.

I'll start off and say, "Ok, you've rolled your homeworld, and you've rolled our SOC. You've lived your whole life here (insert description of world). What do you want to do?"

And, we take off from there. Instead of gaming in combat rounds of 15 seconds, we game in years of the character's life (usually blocks of 4 years).

We live through the character's background. What I did with my current campaign can be seen in the doc in my sig below.

I find, doing chargen this way, the player comes "attached" to his character on game session one. He's already had some wins and losses. No, they weren't gun combat shootouts, narrow escapes in space combat, or brawling combat bar fights, but they were no less meaningful. They were attempts to get into college, failed scenarios to have his character go into a particular direction, and maybe success at certain parts of the character's life.

My players come to game session one attached to their characters because game session one really isn't game session one. It's game session two.

Game session one was played in a meta-style of gaming during chargen.

So, what I like about this chart is that it plays into that. If a character fails re-enlistment, then there is a role-playing decision to be made. Does the character go into another career?

I like how the chart is limited (although I may alter choices abit for my campaign). Heck, I do that now. You can see it in the doc in my sig. Some careers just aren't possible on some homeworlds--and career choice depends on where the character grows up.

So, yes. I think I'm going to use this chart from now on.

...Or, some S4-ized version of it.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

The more I look at this chart, the more I like it. When I roll up characters for Trav games, my chargen sessions are more like roleplaying sessions than your ususal bookeeping type work.

I'll start off and say, "Ok, you've rolled your homeworld, and you've rolled our SOC. You've lived your whole life here (insert description of world). What do you want to do?"

And, we take off from there. Instead of gaming in combat rounds of 15 seconds, we game in years of the character's life (usually blocks of 4 years).

We live through the character's background. What I did with my current campaign can be seen in the doc in my sig below.

I find, doing chargen this way, the player comes "attached" to his character on game session one. He's already had some wins and losses. No, they weren't gun combat shootouts, narrow escapes in space combat, or brawling combat bar fights, but they were no less meaningful. They were attempts to get into college, failed scenarios to have his character go into a particular direction, and maybe success at certain parts of the character's life.

My players come to game session one attached to their characters because game session one really isn't game session one. It's game session two.

Game session one was played in a meta-style of gaming during chargen.

So, what I like about this chart is that it plays into that. If a character fails re-enlistment, then there is a role-playing decision to be made. Does the character go into another career?

I like how the chart is limited (although I may alter choices abit for my campaign). Heck, I do that now. You can see it in the doc in my sig. Some careers just aren't possible on some homeworlds--and career choice depends on where the character grows up.

So, yes. I think I'm going to use this chart from now on.

...Or, some S4-ized version of it.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

One thing to guard against though...

For years, like so many other Traveller players, I'd ignore the Survival roll. I'd use the optional rule in Traveller so that the character is not dead. Sometimes, I'd implement a rule to where the character was wounded, and sometimes the bricked survival roll would just mean that something happened during the character's life that caused him to switch careers. Maybe the Bureaucrat was simply fired from his job.

Wounded or not, the character could just attempt another Traveller career, with some enlistment DMs.

But, now, I realize there's a problem with that. I don't do it anymore. I may not kill the character off. I may not even wound him (as a penalty for bricking the Survival roll).

What I will do though is state: Whenever a Survival roll is failed, that's it. No more chargen. The character starts play at that time.

Why do I do this now?

For one, it's because allowing CT characters to continue chargen that way tends to unbalance the game. Characters come out with too many skills compared to the people they will meet on their journey through the rest of their lives.

I fooled myself for a time, saying, "That's OK. I want the main PCs to surivive. And, they're ordinary people caught up in extraordinary events...but, they're also heroes of the story. They should have a little bit of an edge."

But, have you noticed that, when a GM allows players to ignore the Surivival roll this way that you end up with a lot of characters all the same age? Yep, they're always 30-34 years old. That's because they served 3-4 terms, got as many skills as they could get, and got out before the aging table did too much damage to their stats.

In D&D, the complaint is that characters are usually novice 15 year old boys out to kill the dragon. In Traveller, when you ignore the Survival roll, it's 30 year old men, going through a mid-life crisis, switching careers.

If a Traveller GM enforces the Survival Rule, then what you get is a more realistic spread of ages among the player characters. Traveller has always had one foot in the realism sandbox, yes?

Another thing to think about (and why I've started to enforce the Suvival rule...unlike what you will read in the doc in my sig) is that, when a GM enforces the Survival rule, then players will respect the dangerous careers. That's right. They might not attempt a scout career, even though the skills are neat and you can get two per term, because the survival rate is so low. It's so hard to beat that Scout survival number, term after term.

Doing this, you might even find that some of the more neglected careers, like Bureaucrat, or Diplomat, or even Hunter, move up the choice ladder when a player is deciding what his 18 year old pre-enlister is going to be.

As noted above, I do use an alternate Mandatory Retirement rule so that characters can go more than 7 terms without having to roll box cars on their re-enlistment checks (but the re-enlistment roll is harder...roll number of terms already served or better to reenlist), but I doubt that's going to be much of an issue in my future games. Why? Because I'll be enforcing the Survival rule (actually, the Survival optional rule...I'm not going to kill the character. I'm just going to use the Survival rule as a point in the character's life where the player loses control of future chargen choice. Failing a chargen roll will mean, "This is it pal. This is where your character starts the game."

When a Survival roll is bricked, though, I don't really think it's necessary to use the unrealistic rationale that the character served 2 years out of the four and then enters the game.

I think I'll roll. Something like this:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">D6
1. Less than one year.
2. 1 year.
3. 2 years.
4. 2 years.
5. 3 years.
6. 4 years.</pre>[/QUOTE]I've skewed the roll so that a "2 year" result happens more often than anything else as a nod to the official rule. But, I don't see why a character couldn't brick a Survival roll and say it was only a couple of months into the term (result of "1"), or that maybe the character acutally almost finished the 4-year block of time (result of "6").

Still, even if the character goes the 4-years as a result of a "6" being thrown on the chart, the term would not count towards mustering out benefits. It's still the term in which the character failed survival.

This brings me back to the beginning (actualy, to the previous post, above). Yes, I am going to use this chart in my games (or some version of it). The age restrictions will keep the choices in balance.

But, no, I won't allow the chart to be used if a Survival roll is failed. That roll has come to mean (to me), not the death of the character, but the death of the character's current career.

Whatever happens in his life that forces him to be in the circumstance that he is at the beginning of the campaign, on game session one, happens then, during that part of the character's life.

We can try to guide our destinies, but we can't always control (or even predict) where we end up.

My suggestion to you is: Whether you use this chart above in your Traveller game, don't use it after a Survival roll is failed.

Enforce the Survival rule in your games to keep them CT-balanced.

At least, the optional Survival rule.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

One thing to guard against though...

For years, like so many other Traveller players, I'd ignore the Survival roll. I'd use the optional rule in Traveller so that the character is not dead. Sometimes, I'd implement a rule to where the character was wounded, and sometimes the bricked survival roll would just mean that something happened during the character's life that caused him to switch careers. Maybe the Bureaucrat was simply fired from his job.

Wounded or not, the character could just attempt another Traveller career, with some enlistment DMs.

But, now, I realize there's a problem with that. I don't do it anymore. I may not kill the character off. I may not even wound him (as a penalty for bricking the Survival roll).

What I will do though is state: Whenever a Survival roll is failed, that's it. No more chargen. The character starts play at that time.

Why do I do this now?

For one, it's because allowing CT characters to continue chargen that way tends to unbalance the game. Characters come out with too many skills compared to the people they will meet on their journey through the rest of their lives.

I fooled myself for a time, saying, "That's OK. I want the main PCs to surivive. And, they're ordinary people caught up in extraordinary events...but, they're also heroes of the story. They should have a little bit of an edge."

But, have you noticed that, when a GM allows players to ignore the Surivival roll this way that you end up with a lot of characters all the same age? Yep, they're always 30-34 years old. That's because they served 3-4 terms, got as many skills as they could get, and got out before the aging table did too much damage to their stats.

In D&D, the complaint is that characters are usually novice 15 year old boys out to kill the dragon. In Traveller, when you ignore the Survival roll, it's 30 year old men, going through a mid-life crisis, switching careers.

If a Traveller GM enforces the Survival Rule, then what you get is a more realistic spread of ages among the player characters. Traveller has always had one foot in the realism sandbox, yes?

Another thing to think about (and why I've started to enforce the Suvival rule...unlike what you will read in the doc in my sig) is that, when a GM enforces the Survival rule, then players will respect the dangerous careers. That's right. They might not attempt a scout career, even though the skills are neat and you can get two per term, because the survival rate is so low. It's so hard to beat that Scout survival number, term after term.

Doing this, you might even find that some of the more neglected careers, like Bureaucrat, or Diplomat, or even Hunter, move up the choice ladder when a player is deciding what his 18 year old pre-enlister is going to be.

As noted above, I do use an alternate Mandatory Retirement rule so that characters can go more than 7 terms without having to roll box cars on their re-enlistment checks (but the re-enlistment roll is harder...roll number of terms already served or better to reenlist), but I doubt that's going to be much of an issue in my future games. Why? Because I'll be enforcing the Survival rule (actually, the Survival optional rule...I'm not going to kill the character. I'm just going to use the Survival rule as a point in the character's life where the player loses control of future chargen choice. Failing a chargen roll will mean, "This is it pal. This is where your character starts the game."

When a Survival roll is bricked, though, I don't really think it's necessary to use the unrealistic rationale that the character served 2 years out of the four and then enters the game.

I think I'll roll. Something like this:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">D6
1. Less than one year.
2. 1 year.
3. 2 years.
4. 2 years.
5. 3 years.
6. 4 years.</pre>[/QUOTE]I've skewed the roll so that a "2 year" result happens more often than anything else as a nod to the official rule. But, I don't see why a character couldn't brick a Survival roll and say it was only a couple of months into the term (result of "1"), or that maybe the character acutally almost finished the 4-year block of time (result of "6").

Still, even if the character goes the 4-years as a result of a "6" being thrown on the chart, the term would not count towards mustering out benefits. It's still the term in which the character failed survival.

This brings me back to the beginning (actualy, to the previous post, above). Yes, I am going to use this chart in my games (or some version of it). The age restrictions will keep the choices in balance.

But, no, I won't allow the chart to be used if a Survival roll is failed. That roll has come to mean (to me), not the death of the character, but the death of the character's current career.

Whatever happens in his life that forces him to be in the circumstance that he is at the beginning of the campaign, on game session one, happens then, during that part of the character's life.

We can try to guide our destinies, but we can't always control (or even predict) where we end up.

My suggestion to you is: Whether you use this chart above in your Traveller game, don't use it after a Survival roll is failed.

Enforce the Survival rule in your games to keep them CT-balanced.

At least, the optional Survival rule.

-S4

 

[Liam Devlin]

I tend to not kill off in Chargen either.

On failure rolls, its a matter of how long hospitalized, and recovery/ rehabilitation time back to where you left off...

The other option is of course, imprisonment, and going to the hoosegow for a term or not for a stint at Criminal, and possible skills acquired there.

Failure to get "promoted" here in prison could be another 4-year stretch ..failure to survive, well we hope where ever it is your PC's at has a prison hospital

 

[Liam Devlin]

I tend to not kill off in Chargen either.

On failure rolls, its a matter of how long hospitalized, and recovery/ rehabilitation time back to where you left off...

The other option is of course, imprisonment, and going to the hoosegow for a term or not for a stint at Criminal, and possible skills acquired there.

Failure to get "promoted" here in prison could be another 4-year stretch ..failure to survive, well we hope where ever it is your PC's at has a prison hospital

 

[hurrahbro]

The group I play with take 2 attitudes.

1) The book, Roll character as normal, A failed survival roll need not mean death. It means either a serious injury (and invalided out of the service with a small pension) or in some careers, the character was on the losing side of some company in-fighting/power struggle (eg merchang line may have been bought out and was laid off, A broker may have lost a clash of personalities with a manager or he took the rap for a dodgy deal etc)

2) Write up a background.
It just has to be plausable & Fit with the cannon. GM has the final say, and normally asks for 2 or 3 such write ups, you get to use the one he likes.

One current character was a "load safety specialist". Starting dock side as a docker loader/unloader, specialised in the law and safe practice/health and safety of dealing with hazardous loads in dock and in transit. He also had a split term in the forces (2 years national service, and 2 years call up in logistics during a planet side war).

In short, bar a stint as a conscript on a war prone baklanised homeworld, he's a working class lad from a poor background, worked in the docks like many before him, but found a way for him to escape his lot through a specilisation and hooking up with a small line that needs his services for delicate cargos and high law level worlds.

 

[hurrahbro]

The group I play with take 2 attitudes.

1) The book, Roll character as normal, A failed survival roll need not mean death. It means either a serious injury (and invalided out of the service with a small pension) or in some careers, the character was on the losing side of some company in-fighting/power struggle (eg merchang line may have been bought out and was laid off, A broker may have lost a clash of personalities with a manager or he took the rap for a dodgy deal etc)

2) Write up a background.
It just has to be plausable & Fit with the cannon. GM has the final say, and normally asks for 2 or 3 such write ups, you get to use the one he likes.

One current character was a "load safety specialist". Starting dock side as a docker loader/unloader, specialised in the law and safe practice/health and safety of dealing with hazardous loads in dock and in transit. He also had a split term in the forces (2 years national service, and 2 years call up in logistics during a planet side war).

In short, bar a stint as a conscript on a war prone baklanised homeworld, he's a working class lad from a poor background, worked in the docks like many before him, but found a way for him to escape his lot through a specilisation and hooking up with a small line that needs his services for delicate cargos and high law level worlds.