Polaris,
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but ...
There is nothing that says that every skill roll must have the same DC, or that every task needs to have the same importance. A PC may have a minor skill that when used appropriately serves to save the day, despite that PC being less 'potent in their specialty' than other PCs in the party.
In summary: Having greatly different levels (say 3rd and 15th) in the same party can create problems for the GM and leave the 3rd level player feeling like a 5th wheel, but as you yourself point out, T20 character generation will rarely lead to such disparaties, unless the players have greatly different character ideas (which is the sort of thing a GM always has to manage anyway) and choose to be so different. Min-maxing players will end up taking similar character ideas - fine, that is their prerogative - but I feel it is up to the GM to ensure the players really roleplay 60-70 year old characters, rather than just act like 24 year olds with old brains.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but ...
OK, as long as we agree that it was a deliberate decision and not a system flaw. The system seems to work the way the game designers intended it to.Originally posted by Polaris:
I strongly disagree with your assertion that balance is not important in traveller. While I will agree that the system attempted to recreate the feel of generating your character background from C-T, I also feel that that was one part of C-T that they probably should have kept buried in the gaming graveyard where it belongs.
I can see that experience would sour you to the idea of non-balanced PCs. Please just be aware that it is not a universal experience. I have played many games like this (not just Traveller) and had a lot of fun, I've also played games where the PCs were 'balanced', but the GM centered the game around someone else's PC, leading to not much fun for everyone else.Originally posted by Polaris:
Also having played CT from very long ago, I distinctly remember that gross imbalances in skill and mustering made for some very bad games with a lot of rancor between players right from character creation which is not fun.
So on the one hand you suggest that everyone will take maximum terms, and then you suggest that people will end up with a 3rd level and a 15th level PC - having both taken 'maximum terms'?! Surely the difference will be closer than that? More to the point, is the 3rd level PC a 22 year old ensign, and the 15th level character a grizzled 60 year old veteran? If so, then I'd expect good roleplaying would ensure some measure of balance (not to mention age effects on the old guy's physical stats).Originally posted by Polaris:
In T-20, you pay the price once for your age and every character pays it if they wish to take their full terms (which of course they will).
<SNIP>
I also want to point out that in my T-20 group (which is a fine group that I just got back from a short while ago), all of us are 12th level (see above house-rule) which means that in our "tag skills" all of us can expect to roll in the mid-thirties or so. In addition, all of us have about the same number of feats as well. This allows the GM to scale the encounters and NPCs to our abilities without making anyone feel useless or overpowered. That would not be true if one of us was 3rd level, one 7th, and the other 15th (which can happen).
<SNIP>
Edit: One more difference I just remembered. In C-T, once you failed a reenlistment check or mustered out, you were done regardless of how many terms you served. In T-20, this is not true. You are free to MC and enter careers if you qualify which means that even if you don't make a reenlistment roll for say the Navy doesn't prevent you from taking your next several terms as Merc, Scout, or even Traveller. That makes it dead easy to get your maximum terms in and also not so conincidentally encourages multiclassing.
This is a good point. The GM bears responsibility for ensuring that encounters allow individual PCs to shine, no matter what their skills. Surely any GM needs to do that, even if the PCs are all the same level? Take one 12th level Marine and three 12th level Merchants, the GM better be careful when creating combat encounters, and also not rely on each character making certain skill rolls (thet Marine will have far fewer skill points). I GM a group which ranges from 5th to 7th level - the least experienced PC is actually the team leader, their combat abilities differ wildly, as do their skill sets. I see my job as giving each of them a chance to shine in their chosen field - and I give good roleplaying and imagination a lot of weight when playing, allowing a well run low level character significant more effectiveness than a cardboard cutout higher level character.Originally posted by Polaris:
I also want to point out that in my T-20 group (which is a fine group that I just got back from a short while ago), all of us are 12th level (see above house-rule) which means that in our "tag skills" all of us can expect to roll in the mid-thirties or so. In addition, all of us have about the same number of feats as well. This allows the GM to scale the encounters and NPCs to our abilities without making anyone feel useless or overpowered. That would not be true if one of us was 3rd level, one 7th, and the other 15th (which can happen).
Player balance matters a lot when the players are competing, and in many RPGs they do just that, whether it be explicitly or in terms of their role (or importance) in solving the problem, or even their time with the GM. Good team play starts with ensuring that nobody's PC is redundant, and goes on to appreciate each characters strengths and weaknesses, whether they be in game terms or in pure roleplaying terms.Originally posted by Polaris:
In short, Falkayn, character balance matters and it matters a great deal. It isn't some passing fancy that some game designers liked. Instead it reflects an underlying principle in games in general (and 'G' in RPG stands for game): The rules should be fair for all players which means that all players should have the potential to build equally potent characters in their own specialties.
This is true for 99% of all game systems out there (even WW games!). The fact that T-20 doesn't hold itself to that standard should be a mark of shame in T-20 and be considered a flaw not the feature that you are attempting to make it.
-Polaris
There is nothing that says that every skill roll must have the same DC, or that every task needs to have the same importance. A PC may have a minor skill that when used appropriately serves to save the day, despite that PC being less 'potent in their specialty' than other PCs in the party.
In summary: Having greatly different levels (say 3rd and 15th) in the same party can create problems for the GM and leave the 3rd level player feeling like a 5th wheel, but as you yourself point out, T20 character generation will rarely lead to such disparaties, unless the players have greatly different character ideas (which is the sort of thing a GM always has to manage anyway) and choose to be so different. Min-maxing players will end up taking similar character ideas - fine, that is their prerogative - but I feel it is up to the GM to ensure the players really roleplay 60-70 year old characters, rather than just act like 24 year olds with old brains.