Classic Traveller: An Adult Game/Attitude

[Morte]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
[QB] Now, I haven't got T20 handy, but if I open out a second class in classic D20 (or at least AD&D which isn't quite the same), don't I open up a range of new skills which I can buy without any 'out of class' penalties?

You always pay skill points for skills according to which class you're levelling in. It's only the maximum skill rank that's determined using the more favourable class.

In D&D, you might be a rogue with "Hide" as a class skill but not "Knowledge (Religion)". So you pay 1 point/rank for "Hide" and can buy up to level+3 ranks. The rogue pays 2 points/rank cross-class for "Knowledge (Religion)", up to a maxumim of (level+3)/2.

For a cleric it would be the other way round.

If your rogue then takes a level of cleric, then on that level-up he'll pay 1 point/rank for "Knowledge (Religion)" and 2 points/rank cross-class for "Hide" (which used to cost 1).

From now on the maximum rank he can buy for cleric or rogue skills will be level+3, whichever class he's in, but the cost per rank will depend on the class he's levelling in (1 for a class skill, 2 for cross-class).

Coming back to T20, you could alternate levels in say merchant and rogue to get a wider range of skills. But you couldn't afford them. An ordinary human merchant gets 8 skill points/level and has 14 class skills he can buy efficiently. For a rogue, it's 5 points and 17 efficient skills. A cannily played merchant/rogue could pick from 23 efficient skills (the lists overlap), but he'd have an average of 6.5 skill points/level to do it with.

So your merchant/rogue ends up with an unusually wide range of skills he could know, but actually knows more than a rogue and less than a merchant. He fights better than a merchant and worse than a rogue. In practice, you'd build a character like this if you either wanted (a) a lot of skills with limited mastery or (b) a character with a strong[1] elements from each class, e.g. a rogue with brokerage skills and commercial law or a merchant who can intimidate and search for secret compartments.

There's no magic "skills for free" jackpot to be had by multiclassing. You do get a modest "feats for free" boost by multiclassing at very low levels, but it's irrelevant at the levels trav uses.

and this is perhaps because of my many-years-formed idea that a class comes with certain training, skills, and knowledge base

Doubtless -- it did once work that way, after all. Once upon a time, your class was your job. With D20, it can be depending on the implementation.

Of course, it may be that my 'sledgehammer' is actually a tacking hammer, but my idea of a class (formed admittedly by the games from which D20 was birthed) is that it would take some very significant time and effort (and perhaps training) to acquire the class skills. Perhaps in D20 and T20, this is generally not true and a class is more of a 'collection class' for a few related skills, without the same heavy overtones.

You got it. T20 != 1st ed D&D. Class != job. Multiclassing != big character life change or big deal for player.

This low-granularity packaging into classes and levels, the "take all of this bundle or nothing" approach, is less flexible than CT/T5 or GURPS. But it's the mechanism that makes T20 more balanced (and less abusable) than the other trav systems. Some people value that. Others don't, which is cool.

[1] If you didn't want a strong mix, you just wanted a rogue with Broker skills or whatever, you could spend a feat on "Hobby (Broker)" to make that a class skill rather than multiclassing into something that gets it as a class skill.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
[QB] Now, I haven't got T20 handy, but if I open out a second class in classic D20 (or at least AD&D which isn't quite the same), don't I open up a range of new skills which I can buy without any 'out of class' penalties?

You always pay skill points for skills according to which class you're levelling in. It's only the maximum skill rank that's determined using the more favourable class.

In D&D, you might be a rogue with "Hide" as a class skill but not "Knowledge (Religion)". So you pay 1 point/rank for "Hide" and can buy up to level+3 ranks. The rogue pays 2 points/rank cross-class for "Knowledge (Religion)", up to a maxumim of (level+3)/2.

For a cleric it would be the other way round.

If your rogue then takes a level of cleric, then on that level-up he'll pay 1 point/rank for "Knowledge (Religion)" and 2 points/rank cross-class for "Hide" (which used to cost 1).

From now on the maximum rank he can buy for cleric or rogue skills will be level+3, whichever class he's in, but the cost per rank will depend on the class he's levelling in (1 for a class skill, 2 for cross-class).

Coming back to T20, you could alternate levels in say merchant and rogue to get a wider range of skills. But you couldn't afford them. An ordinary human merchant gets 8 skill points/level and has 14 class skills he can buy efficiently. For a rogue, it's 5 points and 17 efficient skills. A cannily played merchant/rogue could pick from 23 efficient skills (the lists overlap), but he'd have an average of 6.5 skill points/level to do it with.

So your merchant/rogue ends up with an unusually wide range of skills he could know, but actually knows more than a rogue and less than a merchant. He fights better than a merchant and worse than a rogue. In practice, you'd build a character like this if you either wanted (a) a lot of skills with limited mastery or (b) a character with a strong[1] elements from each class, e.g. a rogue with brokerage skills and commercial law or a merchant who can intimidate and search for secret compartments.

There's no magic "skills for free" jackpot to be had by multiclassing. You do get a modest "feats for free" boost by multiclassing at very low levels, but it's irrelevant at the levels trav uses.

and this is perhaps because of my many-years-formed idea that a class comes with certain training, skills, and knowledge base

Doubtless -- it did once work that way, after all. Once upon a time, your class was your job. With D20, it can be depending on the implementation.

Of course, it may be that my 'sledgehammer' is actually a tacking hammer, but my idea of a class (formed admittedly by the games from which D20 was birthed) is that it would take some very significant time and effort (and perhaps training) to acquire the class skills. Perhaps in D20 and T20, this is generally not true and a class is more of a 'collection class' for a few related skills, without the same heavy overtones.

You got it. T20 != 1st ed D&D. Class != job. Multiclassing != big character life change or big deal for player.

This low-granularity packaging into classes and levels, the "take all of this bundle or nothing" approach, is less flexible than CT/T5 or GURPS. But it's the mechanism that makes T20 more balanced (and less abusable) than the other trav systems. Some people value that. Others don't, which is cool.

[1] If you didn't want a strong mix, you just wanted a rogue with Broker skills or whatever, you could spend a feat on "Hobby (Broker)" to make that a class skill rather than multiclassing into something that gets it as a class skill.

 

[aramis]

Level limits, under stock d20, as I understand it are based upon Currentl levelling class and CHARACTER level:
for a class skill for the level currently being taken: Character Level+3 is maximum level.
For a cross-class skill for the level currently being taken: Max Level is half that, rounded down, of a class skill.

Also, the hobby feat should make the skill a class skill for the CHARACTER, not just one class, but I don't recall if its worded that way.

 

[aramis]

Level limits, under stock d20, as I understand it are based upon Currentl levelling class and CHARACTER level:
for a class skill for the level currently being taken: Character Level+3 is maximum level.
For a cross-class skill for the level currently being taken: Max Level is half that, rounded down, of a class skill.

Also, the hobby feat should make the skill a class skill for the CHARACTER, not just one class, but I don't recall if its worded that way.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Level limits, under stock d20, as I understand it are based upon Currentl levelling class and CHARACTER level:
for a class skill for the level currently being taken: Character Level+3 is maximum level.
For a cross-class skill for the level currently being taken: Max Level is half that, rounded down, of a class skill.

Also, the hobby feat should make the skill a class skill for the CHARACTER, not just one class, but I don't recall if its worded that way.

Yes. "Level" is normally read as "character level" rather than "class level" unless there's a reason to do otherwise. But I should probably have spelled it out, under the circumstances.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Level limits, under stock d20, as I understand it are based upon Currentl levelling class and CHARACTER level:
for a class skill for the level currently being taken: Character Level+3 is maximum level.
For a cross-class skill for the level currently being taken: Max Level is half that, rounded down, of a class skill.

Also, the hobby feat should make the skill a class skill for the CHARACTER, not just one class, but I don't recall if its worded that way.

Yes. "Level" is normally read as "character level" rather than "class level" unless there's a reason to do otherwise. But I should probably have spelled it out, under the circumstances.

 

[robject]

CT has never been able to put a price on skills. Unless Andy Slack made a way. The decision has always been whether to specialize or generalize.

 

[robject]

CT has never been able to put a price on skills. Unless Andy Slack made a way. The decision has always been whether to specialize or generalize.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by robject:
CT has never been able to put a price on skills. Unless Andy Slack made a way. ...

Of course he did. That is what Andy Slack does. Pick up a copy of Traveller lite rules on his site.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by robject:
CT has never been able to put a price on skills. Unless Andy Slack made a way. ...

Of course he did. That is what Andy Slack does. Pick up a copy of Traveller lite rules on his site.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
Sadly, this is true. However, we've slowly learned that monocultures are not good in either argiculture and operating systems. I also believe that they are not good for RPGs too. Coke or Pepsi, Republican or Democrat, GURPS or d20, all of that merely illustrates a dearth of choices. I'd much rather have many choices and with desktop publishing it may still occur. We're beginning to see it happen in wargaming, hopefully role-playing isn't too far behind.

Hmm... I see what you are saying. But I think there is a natural tendancy to winnow down the prevailing choices to just a few. Having too many choices can get confusing, or make making an informed decision too overwhelming such that folks just pass.

My own thoughts: I like having a common game mechanics. I really don't care if its GURPS, D20 or what have you. The mechanics, how the outcomes of actions are determined are less important to me than the actual outcome, and the story as a whole.

Obviously, the simpler the system of outcome resolution is, the better off for everyone (up to a point. If it is too simple, or not variable enough, that can cause limitation problems in its own right.)

Tuning mechanics for a specific and particular setting or genre seems like a wasted effort IF you want to play in another world. If you have to learn another gaming system altogether, it can get confusing, and annoying and is a waste of braincells. Trying to remember the different game mechanics, especially for an old fart like me, is frustrating.

Some of the feats, like Ambitextrous and such, I like, and will use. Some of the more munckin stuff, won't exist in my game.

Classes and levels in T20, I am still not at all comfortable with. And really, the whole class/level stuff is a bit more abstract and I really don't like. I like systems that are more "down to earth" and realistic, and less abstract.

My son and I had this discussion about levels and such right after T20 came out, and we rolled up characters. His complaint was that unless you take the past history rolls, you end up with a new kid, that did not have anywhere near the capabilities of an old grizzled veteran, who ends up as a 10th level character before play. Which makes it hard for the two characters to play together.

Trying to explain that this was a feature not a bug was not helpful. But he is still looking for a copy of the T20 book. (They've been sold out at all the gaming stores in the area since about two months after it came out.)

I don't think the levels belong in T20. But that is my opinion. YMMV

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
Sadly, this is true. However, we've slowly learned that monocultures are not good in either argiculture and operating systems. I also believe that they are not good for RPGs too. Coke or Pepsi, Republican or Democrat, GURPS or d20, all of that merely illustrates a dearth of choices. I'd much rather have many choices and with desktop publishing it may still occur. We're beginning to see it happen in wargaming, hopefully role-playing isn't too far behind.

Hmm... I see what you are saying. But I think there is a natural tendancy to winnow down the prevailing choices to just a few. Having too many choices can get confusing, or make making an informed decision too overwhelming such that folks just pass.

My own thoughts: I like having a common game mechanics. I really don't care if its GURPS, D20 or what have you. The mechanics, how the outcomes of actions are determined are less important to me than the actual outcome, and the story as a whole.

Obviously, the simpler the system of outcome resolution is, the better off for everyone (up to a point. If it is too simple, or not variable enough, that can cause limitation problems in its own right.)

Tuning mechanics for a specific and particular setting or genre seems like a wasted effort IF you want to play in another world. If you have to learn another gaming system altogether, it can get confusing, and annoying and is a waste of braincells. Trying to remember the different game mechanics, especially for an old fart like me, is frustrating.

Some of the feats, like Ambitextrous and such, I like, and will use. Some of the more munckin stuff, won't exist in my game.

Classes and levels in T20, I am still not at all comfortable with. And really, the whole class/level stuff is a bit more abstract and I really don't like. I like systems that are more "down to earth" and realistic, and less abstract.

My son and I had this discussion about levels and such right after T20 came out, and we rolled up characters. His complaint was that unless you take the past history rolls, you end up with a new kid, that did not have anywhere near the capabilities of an old grizzled veteran, who ends up as a 10th level character before play. Which makes it hard for the two characters to play together.

Trying to explain that this was a feature not a bug was not helpful. But he is still looking for a copy of the T20 book. (They've been sold out at all the gaming stores in the area since about two months after it came out.)

I don't think the levels belong in T20. But that is my opinion. YMMV

 

[Straybow]

I'd say that "monoculture" for a game system is only bad when establishing and defending canon becomes more important than playability and flexibility.

AD&D systems have much greater compatability across 3+ versions than Traveller has across its 6+ versions. Neither Gygax et al. nor WotC tried to make milieu (Greyhawk) an integral part of any version of AD&D.

 

[Straybow]

I'd say that "monoculture" for a game system is only bad when establishing and defending canon becomes more important than playability and flexibility.

AD&D systems have much greater compatability across 3+ versions than Traveller has across its 6+ versions. Neither Gygax et al. nor WotC tried to make milieu (Greyhawk) an integral part of any version of AD&D.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Drakon:
His complaint was that unless you take the past history rolls, you end up with a new kid, that did not have anywhere near the capabilities of an old grizzled veteran, who ends up as a 10th level character before play. Which makes it hard for the two characters to play together.

Thanks for the considered post. One small note meant more for onlookers than as a reply:

To start at level 10 in T20, you'd probably be about 50 years old with 32 years of experience (average rolls). That really is a grizzled veteran, and it's no surprise that they know the ropes. But because of the way XP gives diminishing returns (you need more for each level), you'd hit level 4 at about age 22-23 after 4 or 5 years.

Because D20 gives quadruple skills at level 1, that 23 year old level 4 character actually has just over half the skills of the 50 year old at level 10. And because "power" is fairly linear with level in T20 (D&D tends to a square law), the gap is not so huge. They can still adventure together within reason -- if the kid is an engineer and the old guy is a pilot, each will be better than the other at their respective jobs.

And finally, the youngster will level more than twice as fast as the old guy during play (because of those declining returns for XP). He'll have the advantage of picking his skills to meet what is actually needed in the campaign, whilst the old guy gets whatever he guessed during chargen.

What imbalance there is is really down to Traveller, and the fact that it has prior history, rather than to T20. Because of that packaging into classes and levels, the "if your class gets X cheap then Y will cost double" factor, T20 actually balances characters of a given age more closely than GT or CT/T5.

It's not really surprising -- to a fair extent, D20 was designed to be balanced, with things like D&D tournament games at conventions in mind. Whereas GURPS is designed to be realistic, and life does not make everybody equal. I'm don't think CT was designed, it just kind of happened, hence the many quirks (which many find charming).

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Drakon:
His complaint was that unless you take the past history rolls, you end up with a new kid, that did not have anywhere near the capabilities of an old grizzled veteran, who ends up as a 10th level character before play. Which makes it hard for the two characters to play together.

Thanks for the considered post. One small note meant more for onlookers than as a reply:

To start at level 10 in T20, you'd probably be about 50 years old with 32 years of experience (average rolls). That really is a grizzled veteran, and it's no surprise that they know the ropes. But because of the way XP gives diminishing returns (you need more for each level), you'd hit level 4 at about age 22-23 after 4 or 5 years.

Because D20 gives quadruple skills at level 1, that 23 year old level 4 character actually has just over half the skills of the 50 year old at level 10. And because "power" is fairly linear with level in T20 (D&D tends to a square law), the gap is not so huge. They can still adventure together within reason -- if the kid is an engineer and the old guy is a pilot, each will be better than the other at their respective jobs.

And finally, the youngster will level more than twice as fast as the old guy during play (because of those declining returns for XP). He'll have the advantage of picking his skills to meet what is actually needed in the campaign, whilst the old guy gets whatever he guessed during chargen.

What imbalance there is is really down to Traveller, and the fact that it has prior history, rather than to T20. Because of that packaging into classes and levels, the "if your class gets X cheap then Y will cost double" factor, T20 actually balances characters of a given age more closely than GT or CT/T5.

It's not really surprising -- to a fair extent, D20 was designed to be balanced, with things like D&D tournament games at conventions in mind. Whereas GURPS is designed to be realistic, and life does not make everybody equal. I'm don't think CT was designed, it just kind of happened, hence the many quirks (which many find charming).

 

[Drakon]

Thanks Morte for your response. I will pass it along.

I may have the exact levels wrong, so kind of bear with me. But I think you have given me a good argument to pass along. The character I rolled up took 1 term as a Belter, then 5 Navy terms. Throw in a couple medals, (How did I win that one while on shore duty, I gotta figure out.) and I think it came out to almost 10 full levels.

I think the real problem is more in style of play. My son is a gamist, interested in XPs, skills, stats, levels and building an uber character. He's playing against the DM and the other players. I am more of a narrativist, the point is to create a fun, interesting and entertaining story. I don't care about XPs. I do care about in game wealth, because that is part of the in game reality, while I see XPs, levels, class and the like as more "metagame" than anything.

Some of my most fun games, I have had rather weak or limited characters, who got killed in the most silly ways. But try to explain that to these kids today....

 

[Drakon]

Thanks Morte for your response. I will pass it along.

I may have the exact levels wrong, so kind of bear with me. But I think you have given me a good argument to pass along. The character I rolled up took 1 term as a Belter, then 5 Navy terms. Throw in a couple medals, (How did I win that one while on shore duty, I gotta figure out.) and I think it came out to almost 10 full levels.

I think the real problem is more in style of play. My son is a gamist, interested in XPs, skills, stats, levels and building an uber character. He's playing against the DM and the other players. I am more of a narrativist, the point is to create a fun, interesting and entertaining story. I don't care about XPs. I do care about in game wealth, because that is part of the in game reality, while I see XPs, levels, class and the like as more "metagame" than anything.

Some of my most fun games, I have had rather weak or limited characters, who got killed in the most silly ways. But try to explain that to these kids today....

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Drakon:
I think the real problem is more in style of play. My son is a gamist, interested in XPs, skills, stats, levels and building an uber character. He's playing against the DM and the other players.

Ah, I see you're another Forge disciple.

I think T20 will serve gamists tolerably well if they come to some metagame agreement like "we're all going to create 34 year old characters and do chargen for backstory, then reset them to the start of level six and give them Cr30,000. Then we'll ignore rules and realism where they conflict with playability." It really needs a true gamist conversion for those who play that way, with fundamental mechanics something like Shadowrun + space - magic.

I am more of a narrativist, the point is to create a fun, interesting and entertaining story. I don't care about XPs. I do care about in game wealth, because that is part of the in game reality, while I see XPs, levels, class and the like as more "metagame" than anything.

Just wait until they finish the SF conversion of "The Riddle of Steel".

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Drakon:
I think the real problem is more in style of play. My son is a gamist, interested in XPs, skills, stats, levels and building an uber character. He's playing against the DM and the other players.

Ah, I see you're another Forge disciple.

I think T20 will serve gamists tolerably well if they come to some metagame agreement like "we're all going to create 34 year old characters and do chargen for backstory, then reset them to the start of level six and give them Cr30,000. Then we'll ignore rules and realism where they conflict with playability." It really needs a true gamist conversion for those who play that way, with fundamental mechanics something like Shadowrun + space - magic.

I am more of a narrativist, the point is to create a fun, interesting and entertaining story. I don't care about XPs. I do care about in game wealth, because that is part of the in game reality, while I see XPs, levels, class and the like as more "metagame" than anything.

Just wait until they finish the SF conversion of "The Riddle of Steel".