Character Retro Dancing
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Oh, contrare, pussycat.
Pg. 16, Book 1: "All player-characters have an innate weapon expertise, in all weapons, of zero.
Pg. 23, Book 1: "The referee may indicate that all individuals not otherwise skilled have [a default skill]. Skills appropriate for level-0 are: ....weapons.
Pg. 36, Book 1: "All player-characters automatically have an expertise of zero in all weapons shown in this book."
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Let me clarify: plain-Jane Citizen is a career (in MyT). This allows a wider range of NPCs (done through chargen), as well as some of my specialties (Colonist, Priest, Journalist) that might be PCable. These aren't really going to have combat skills as part of their CV, normally, but might still come by it honestly.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
First, tell me you're going to post your house chargen stuff in the Careers INDEX thread....
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
BTW, under Sup 4, it's Barbarians, Bureaucrats, and Doctors who don't get the Weapon-0 default in all weapons. See pg. 11 of Sup 4.
Strange Barbarians don't get Skill-0 in Blade weapons.
But, it does support the idea that your average housewife won't have Skill-0 in every weapon.
And, it does support the idea that your default skills must be appropriate to your background. It's easy to see that someone in the Marines would have Skill-0 with every weapon in Book 1. And, it's just as easy to see that a businessman (Bureaucrat) would only be trained in the weapons he knows how to use.
I submit this: That cascade skills should be governed by the character's background and expertise too.
Thus, a Trooper who spent 8 years in the Army, with Rifle-3, could easily pick up a autorifle and use it also as if he had AutoRifle-3, or a shotgun and use it as Shotgun-2 (skill minus one). Or, a pistol and use it as AutoPist0l-1 (skill minus two).
But, the Doctor with Rifle-3, using an AutoRifle, would use it at skill minus two (as AutoRifle-1), and any other gun combat weapon at Skill-0.
Two different rules for two different backgrounds. Cascades judged on the character's background.
Strange Barbarians don't get Skill-0 in Blade weapons.
But, it does support the idea that your average housewife won't have Skill-0 in every weapon.
And, it does support the idea that your default skills must be appropriate to your background. It's easy to see that someone in the Marines would have Skill-0 with every weapon in Book 1. And, it's just as easy to see that a businessman (Bureaucrat) would only be trained in the weapons he knows how to use.
I submit this: That cascade skills should be governed by the character's background and expertise too.
Thus, a Trooper who spent 8 years in the Army, with Rifle-3, could easily pick up a autorifle and use it also as if he had AutoRifle-3, or a shotgun and use it as Shotgun-2 (skill minus one). Or, a pistol and use it as AutoPist0l-1 (skill minus two).
But, the Doctor with Rifle-3, using an AutoRifle, would use it at skill minus two (as AutoRifle-1), and any other gun combat weapon at Skill-0.
Two different rules for two different backgrounds. Cascades judged on the character's background.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
weasel fierce
SOC-10
yeah, it changed between the two.
Also, I believe the archaic weapons from Citizens.. arent covered by 0 level skills either.
Also, I believe the archaic weapons from Citizens.. arent covered by 0 level skills either.
I like the more “valuable” skill levels of the original 4 year terms character generation system, but I like the detailed “color” of the 1 year term character generation systems (like Mercenary and High Guard). In My Universe, I generate characters using 1 year terms, but then limit the total skill levels to 2 per term (like the old Scouts). All other skills from the 1 year terms are converted to skill-0 (plus two standard background skills based on world of origin).
Another option I like is to roll one “Skill” for each passed roll (Survival, Decoration, Promotion or Skill) often linking the roll to a specific table: A Survival roll grants a “Life” skill, a Promotion roll grants an “NCO/Command/Staff” skill, a Skill roll grants an “MOS” skill, and a Decoration roll grants a skill from a table of the player’s choice. At the end, the character is still required to reduce the total number of skill levels to 2 per term (with all other skills converted to skill-0) but this gives the player more choice in “who” the character is and promotes a diversity of skills.
Another option I like is to roll one “Skill” for each passed roll (Survival, Decoration, Promotion or Skill) often linking the roll to a specific table: A Survival roll grants a “Life” skill, a Promotion roll grants an “NCO/Command/Staff” skill, a Skill roll grants an “MOS” skill, and a Decoration roll grants a skill from a table of the player’s choice. At the end, the character is still required to reduce the total number of skill levels to 2 per term (with all other skills converted to skill-0) but this gives the player more choice in “who” the character is and promotes a diversity of skills.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
My US$ 0.02 on level 0 weapon skills:
1. I like the idea. Let's face it, adventurers in movies and books use all kinds of weapons with no evidence that they learned them before the current encounter. Captain Kirk outfenced a musketeer (and he and his officers did pretty well with swords against trained Klingons). Luke Skywalker outshot trained imperial stormtroopers, with the stormtroopers' own weapons (as did Princess Leia). I see no reason to assume that adventurers wouldn't spend a little time learning the basics of how to use weapons.
2. In a 2d6 system like CT, a skill level of 3 is huge. Effectively, you'll hit most of the time (and just about *all* the time if you have the advantageous DEX). So to keep PCs from being able to effectively hit all the time with large categories of weapons (i.e., all pistols), I think that Marc Miller compensated by limiting weapons skills to specific classes of weapon - an Autopistol skill does not work with Revolver, for instance. As a game balancing tool, it's a reasonable choice. However, it is a bit unrealistic. So giving everyone a skill level of 0 mitigates the worst effects of this approach. (As an aside, the reasonably well considered CT system was wrecked by the weapons, skills, and character generation system that appeared in Book 4).
3. I think some folks overestimate the difficulty of attaining a basic degree of competency with firearms. To quote James Dunnigan, "With a $400 dollar .223caliber, bolt action rifle (and scope), a shooter with a few hundred rounds of practice shots should be able to his the target 90 percent of the time, which is what the DC sniper has done. ..." Seems likely to me that most adventurers will spend some time target shooting and it isn't unreasonable to give them a level 0 in most firearms. If you want to be pedantic, you could give them a level 0 in all firearms *if* they have a level 1+ in any firearm skill.
4. Paradoxically, I think most folks underestimate the amount of training required to use a firearm *well* in a combat situation. The Dunnigan quote above refers to a trained sniper. In CT, a person with Rifle-0 and a non-evading, unarmored target will hit 84% of the time at medium range. However, in non-sniper adversarial combat situations, the average to hit rate is far less, even with trained shooters. Unfortunately, there is no easy fix for this problem in a 2d6 system unless you're willing to ruthlessly pare down to hit modifiers. Plus, it's defensible as "dramatic license". It's the same reason no one drives around looking for a parking space in movies...it's boring and adds nothing to the plot.
5. Melee weapons *are* much harder to learn to use compared with guns, but an automatic level 0 is still okay with me for the simple reason that CT allows the opponent's skill as a negative DM. Someone with Halberd-0 is only going to be very dangerous to someone with no melee weapon skill (or no melee weapon). Against a trained opponent (skill level 1), he'll hit on a 9+ (28%) and be hit 58% of the time. Against a highly skilled opponent (skill level 2) he hits 17% of the time and is hit 72% of the time. Against an expert (skill level 3) he hits 8% of the time and is hit 83% of the time. And again, someone who chooses a life of adventure might try to pick up some useful fighting skills.
1. I like the idea. Let's face it, adventurers in movies and books use all kinds of weapons with no evidence that they learned them before the current encounter. Captain Kirk outfenced a musketeer (and he and his officers did pretty well with swords against trained Klingons). Luke Skywalker outshot trained imperial stormtroopers, with the stormtroopers' own weapons (as did Princess Leia). I see no reason to assume that adventurers wouldn't spend a little time learning the basics of how to use weapons.
2. In a 2d6 system like CT, a skill level of 3 is huge. Effectively, you'll hit most of the time (and just about *all* the time if you have the advantageous DEX). So to keep PCs from being able to effectively hit all the time with large categories of weapons (i.e., all pistols), I think that Marc Miller compensated by limiting weapons skills to specific classes of weapon - an Autopistol skill does not work with Revolver, for instance. As a game balancing tool, it's a reasonable choice. However, it is a bit unrealistic. So giving everyone a skill level of 0 mitigates the worst effects of this approach. (As an aside, the reasonably well considered CT system was wrecked by the weapons, skills, and character generation system that appeared in Book 4).
3. I think some folks overestimate the difficulty of attaining a basic degree of competency with firearms. To quote James Dunnigan, "With a $400 dollar .223caliber, bolt action rifle (and scope), a shooter with a few hundred rounds of practice shots should be able to his the target 90 percent of the time, which is what the DC sniper has done. ..." Seems likely to me that most adventurers will spend some time target shooting and it isn't unreasonable to give them a level 0 in most firearms. If you want to be pedantic, you could give them a level 0 in all firearms *if* they have a level 1+ in any firearm skill.
4. Paradoxically, I think most folks underestimate the amount of training required to use a firearm *well* in a combat situation. The Dunnigan quote above refers to a trained sniper. In CT, a person with Rifle-0 and a non-evading, unarmored target will hit 84% of the time at medium range. However, in non-sniper adversarial combat situations, the average to hit rate is far less, even with trained shooters. Unfortunately, there is no easy fix for this problem in a 2d6 system unless you're willing to ruthlessly pare down to hit modifiers. Plus, it's defensible as "dramatic license". It's the same reason no one drives around looking for a parking space in movies...it's boring and adds nothing to the plot.
5. Melee weapons *are* much harder to learn to use compared with guns, but an automatic level 0 is still okay with me for the simple reason that CT allows the opponent's skill as a negative DM. Someone with Halberd-0 is only going to be very dangerous to someone with no melee weapon skill (or no melee weapon). Against a trained opponent (skill level 1), he'll hit on a 9+ (28%) and be hit 58% of the time. Against a highly skilled opponent (skill level 2) he hits 17% of the time and is hit 72% of the time. Against an expert (skill level 3) he hits 8% of the time and is hit 83% of the time. And again, someone who chooses a life of adventure might try to pick up some useful fighting skills.
Last edited:
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
You didn't watch the Sopranos final episode, did you? :file_28:
Heh. :file_22: And, that's why I haven't closed the door on it....In some of the neighborhoods I’ve lived in, every ma & pa grocer has Shotgun-2.
