Creating a Navy Officer

[Falkayn]

Polaris,

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but ...

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.

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:
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.

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:
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.

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:
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).

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:
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

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.

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.

 

[milescca]

I have played D20 games since it's inception. Level 3 and level 15's have a place in every game.

The gamemaster must take care to give a shining moment to every character and that no character can do a job to the point of rending other character obsolete.

It makes great games to make another player be a mentor to a low level. Perhaps the GM might award special "training" xp to the low level.. You never know.

It's about good roleplaying. I personally tend to make other players groan because I stick to my guns and will roleplay even if I bring down the house in flames. Everybody should be like that and not care about the little things written on their sheets.

Sure, you have +30 in astrogation. But can you push the button to go in an uncharted system? Would you be still doing this at age 50? Would you want to do adventures at age 50? or do you want a vacation?

Munchkins vs roleplayers. It's all about that in the end.

 

[Polaris]

Gentlemen,

If I can not convince people of what is obvious (IMHO), that it is a bad thing for 14th level and 3rd level characters to adventure together in a d20 system (which is essentially a DnD varient), then I simply can not help you. It is blindingly obvious at least to me.

I will note that maximum terms range from 5 to 10. It is quite possible to wind up with a 1st level character with even 5 terms. Remember that if you fail a survival check, you get no XP. Likewise a 5 term character is unlikely to be much above 5th or 6th level (more for a military career, less for a civilian one).

So in short, even if all the players take maximum terms (and there is no reason not to in T-20 (unlike C-T), then you can still have a gross level imbalance. This is a flaw not a feature. Just because it existed in C-T does not make it any less of a flaw.

Finally, I note that it not "poor RPing" or "munckinism" to ask that a game, a game mind, be fair to all players. That is simple common sense. Such ad hominem attacks do tell me that the policy itself can not be defended.

-Polaris

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Gentlemen,

If I can not convince people of what is obvious (IMHO), that it is a bad thing for 14th level and 3rd level characters to adventure together in a d20 system (which is essentially a DnD varient), then I simply can not help you. It is blindingly obvious at least to me.

I am convinced it os obvious to you, but am asking you to look at it from a different viewpoint.

Originally posted by Polaris:
even if all the players take maximum terms (and there is no reason not to in T-20 (unlike C-T), then you can still have a gross level imbalance.
<SNIP>
Finally, I note that it not "poor RPing" or "munckinism" to ask that a game, a game mind, be fair to all players.

These two statements make it clear that you miss the point - why would you maximise prior history? Simply, because you have no idea of what sort of a person you want to roleplay, and just want to maximise your in-game advantage.

RPG designers usually want at some level to model reality, because it makes it easier for players to suspend disbelief and get into the roleplaying. There is however a dynamic tension between modelling reality, and achieving playability. You're claiming that with T20 the designers erred on the side of reality (people in the party being of different experience levels) and this affects the playability in a negative way. I disagree, partly because the lack of balance need not be a negative aspect, and partly because in practice it is unlikely that PCs will be such disparate levels.

IMO* it is 'munchkinism'/bad roleplaying to always strive to min-max your PC, it is good roleplaying to strive to match a PC's attributes to a role/personality. Sometimes it is fun to play in a munchkin game, but in those cases balance must be carefully maintained ... that is not required when you are roleplaying. I don't want to disparage min-maxing, it has its place, but it does not constitue all that roleplaying is about. On this, we may well have to agree to disagree.

* I won't add the H because I'm honest enough to admit that I'm not being very humble about it.

 

[Polaris]

Falkayn,

I am just a little insulted by your last post.

1. T-20 is a game and I can tell you that it does not model reality very well in many instances. Suggesting that it errs on the "side of reality" here is a bit disengenous at best. At worst it is an excuse.

2. The term "munchkin" is generally considered to be a insult and one at poor taste at that. I am insulted. In order to play a game, to some degree a player should min-max within their characer concept. To say that to "min-max is to be a munchkin" is the height of very poor taste.

3. A game (of any kind) should be F-U-N. It is no fun to play a fifth wheel....and playing a character several levels down engenders this feeling because it is unfair and unfair in a highly objective and quantifiable way.

No amount of "real RPing" or calling names (and this is precisely what you have done) will change this. I will state right now, that I would never play in any of your games because I find your attitude reprehensible.

-Polaris

P.S. OK, perhaps I was a more than a 'little' insulted.

Edit: You mentioned the "old guy's physical stats". In C-T this was a real issue and the aging rules were so severe that it made taking maximum terms a real problem...which is why almost no one did it.

In T-20, the most you can start play out is at middle-age. You lose 1 pt of Str, Dex, and Con and you gain 1 pt of Edu, Int, and Wis. In T-20, this is actually a gain....and because you can start at nearly 12th level (or even more), you can make up the physical loss if you really want to. In short, age is a non-issue in T-20 which is one reason this is a serious problem.

I also note that if you do throw personal combat in the mix (and I know you do based on another thread), then the level difference becomes criminal because those extra stamina dice and extra bab makes a huge difference.

 

[sandman]

I think we should all agree to disagree and not let this thread descend into the Flaming Pits.

This is a Game, There are basic rules to the game. If one is not comfortable with those rules (I have gripes with some) then it's the responsibility of the GM, seconded by the Players (because no players will support a GM meddling with the rules 200% and not being consulted. After all, the GM needs the players*) to change the rules according to their percieved "Balance Point".

If for some group "Player Equality" is important, then let them all make X terms with Y XPs. If not, let them have all the Terms they want and all the XPs they get. Just like I've decided to go for the 1/2 Jump Fuel requirement.

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Polaris:
3. A game (of any kind) should be F-U-N. It is no fun to play a fifth wheel....and playing a character several levels down engenders this feeling because it is unfair and unfair in a highly objective and quantifiable way.

What is Fair to one isn't for another. If someone feels comfortable playing a very low level PC when everyone is playing LVL 8+, I souldn't drop the maximum level of the game, nor force this player to go to level 8+

But that's my way, you have your own. As long as you're all having fun in your games, it's great

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Polaris:
I am just a little insulted by your last post.

Not my intent - perhaps 'munchkin' is too emotive a term, but it is the one that would be used by many of my roleplaying buddies. Sometimes it is fun to min-max to compete with other players, but that is not why I play Traveller (it is why I'd play Mutants & Masterminds).

Originally posted by Polaris:
1. T-20 is a game and I can tell you that it does not model reality very well in many instances. Suggesting that it errs on the "side of reality" here is a bit disengenous at best. At worst it is an excuse.

Sure, in many cases the game designers have made it game-like. But the choice of classes, and the nature of prior history, make it more realistic than say D&D, or many d20 variants (e.g. Spycraft).

Originally posted by Polaris:
2. The term "munchkin" is generally considered to be a insult and one at poor taste at that. I am insulted. In order to play a game, to some degree a player should min-max within their characer concept. To say that to "min-max is to be a munchkin" is the height of very poor taste.

Again, not my intent. Min-maxing within a character concept is fine, but IMO that concept will include some idea of how old the character is and their relationship to the rest of the party.

Originally posted by Polaris:
3. A game (of any kind) should be F-U-N. It is no fun to play a fifth wheel....and playing a character several levels down engenders this feeling because it is unfair and unfair in a highly objective and quantifiable way.

No amount of "real RPing" or calling names (and this is precisely what you have done) will change this. I will state right now, that I would never play in any of your games because I find your attitude reprehensible.

I agree that it could be unfair, and the bottom line is that it is up to the GM to ensure it is not unfair. Within the group of roleplayers I play with there is no shame in admitting that a lousy set of dice rolls ended up ruining a great character concept and having another go - because it is fun we are after. I'm not interested in trading insults with you - perhaps you would not want to play in one of my games, then again, if we'd never had this communication, perhaps you would have and would have enjoyed it - despite other PCs not being exactly your level.

Originally posted by Polaris:
Edit: You mentioned the "old guy's physical stats". In C-T this was a real issue and the aging rules were so severe that it made taking maximum terms a real problem...which is why almost no one did it.

In T-20, the most you can start play out is at middle-age. You lose 1 pt of Str, Dex, and Con and you gain 1 pt of Edu, Int, and Wis. In T-20, this is actually a gain....and because you can start at nearly 12th level (or even more), you can make up the physical loss if you really want to. In short, age is a non-issue in T-20 which is one reason this is a serious problem./QB]

You're right about the age being less of a problem, and that may well be a weakness int he system - but it's inherited from the base d20 rules. But Str, Dex and Con are the combat stats and one point difference can reduce the bonus by +1. OTOH I find most players I know are in their 30s and don't find the concept of roleplaying a 50 year old very appealing.

Originally posted by Polaris:
[QB]I also note that if you do throw personal combat in the mix (and I know you do based on another thread), then the level difference becomes criminal because those extra stamina dice and extra bab makes a huge difference.

Hey, a 20th level Merchant has a BAB of +5 and a 10th level Marine has a BAB of +10 ... but I'd still rather be the Marine in a combat situation. The level difference is like any other difference, the PC who is better at combat (whether that be because of class or level) handles the more dangerous tasks, whilst the others do less. Now, that may be a problem if you have a 15th level Marine and a 3rd level Marine in the same squad - but I have already said that I assume we are not talking about a group of characters that should be the same experience level. It is less of an issue on a free trader where the 15th level Marine is the head of security and the 3rd level Marine is his nephew, who is along as a cargo handler.

Polaris, I really don't care how you want to play the game, and for the record I DO NOT get the impression that you are a munchkin, or a powergamer, but I do not regard the T20 rules as irrevocably broken in this aspect. It is in fact one of the things I like about them. Please feel free to differ in your opinion, but be aware that other opinions do exist - and have the same weight as your own in the minds of those that hold them.

 

[aravain]

Hopefully, this ends this thread, since I think we have established the two sides of an arguement that was a tangent of the initial question. I'm glad that this did not get out of hand and degenerate into a flame war where words like "disengenuous", "poor taste","insulting", "unfair", "reprehensible', "pretentious,egotistical snobs", or "real r.p. nazies", or other negative terms were used!

*****ducks back into his redoubt for the next incoming barrage*****

 

[Polaris]

Aravain,

For the most part there has not been flaming. There is a difference between honest criticism, even when it is insulting and flaming, and that difference generally revolves around information content.

In fact by that standard (gratutitous insults even if implied without real information content), I would say that your last post is the only one that might even remotely qualify.

FWIW, if you consider this to be a "flame-fest", then you are very new to the various chat rooms and boards.

-Polaris

 

[aravain]

******takes a deep breath to calm down*******

Sorry, Polaris, but the majority of your posts to this site are at the best hostile, at the worse...... I had a great written arguement to put on this thread, but after several e-mails from other posters, I decided it would be a waste of time for both myself and others. So, continue to post away. I do find your posts to be well written and , at if not pleasant nor non-hostile, at least somewhat well thought out. I, too, find certain aspects of T20 need to improved. I think you will get a more receptive audience, however, if your written tone is changed. That being said, you always have to be yourself (unless you are playing a RPG)

 

[hunter]

Polaris,

While you are entitled to your opinion on the Prior History system, you seem to be unwilling to accept that there are folks that don't agree with you.

I am one of those. If the issue is really a problem for you simply cap the number of terms a player can run through before play. You will still have some difference in level but not as great.

Yes higher level characters will have some advantages over lower level characters, but the distinctions are not that great in play. A character no matter how high in level will be able to focus on only so many skills, leaving gaps in other areas that the other character's skills fill in.

Also those lower level characters will 'level up' much faster than the higher level characters, quickly reducing the disparity in levels.

You don't like the rules the way they stand? Read my sig...

Hunter

 

[Polaris]

Hunter,

What I can not accept are those that refuse to admit that 1+1=2 and other such statements of fact. The fact is that when you have a significant level difference you have a character that is simply better than the others in virtually all respects.

Either they will be:

Better in combat (and be as good otherwise such as skills and feats)

Better in their 'tag skills' (and their combat ability will be about as good as everyone else)

Better in their skill versitility (and will have the same ranks in more skills than their lower level counterparts not to mention about the same combat ability)

Hunter, I consider this to be a matter of fact and not subject to opinion. This is why DnD (and d20 is DnD in effect) has levels. Just as scores matter in sports (else why keep score), so too do levels matter in d20 (or else why use the mechanic)?

I guess what it boils down to is this:

Why did you bother using the d20 system at all? It is quite clear that you (apparently) dislike the central premises in it (one of which is level based character balance).

There, while pointed, I felt this was a very firm but polite rebuttal.

-Polaris

Edit PS: As for the fact that lower level characters 'level up' faster, did you not read my response to that? First of all, the XP difference remains the same (and that is what really matters in d20). Secondly if the XP difference is 20,000 or more (and that is actually typical unfortunately), then the lower leveled PCs will never catch up. This is a simple mathematic fact of the d20 system.

 

[hunter]

I'm not disputing that the characters can have wildly varying degrees of ability, but rather that it makes a difference in play.

No one character regardless of level is going to be able to do everything. That's what fellow PCs are for, to fill in the gaps. In all the years of playing CT and now T20, the variances in PC abilities has never been a major issue. Each PC usually ends up with an area that they specialize in and when those types of issues come up, that PC takes the lead.

You are bothered by the fact of disparity between character levels and refuse to accept that other disagree that it is an issue in play. I and I assume most of the others disagreeing with you on this respect that you don't like it, but rather than simply adapt the rules to fit your own style you prefer to tell us that we are wrong and that the rules should be changed to suit your preference instead.

Again, if you don't like the way that works either start everyone at 1st level or cap the maximum number of terms someone can go through in Prior History. Nothing anywhere says you can't do that. The rules as they stand support doing it either way.

Hunter

 

[far-trader]

So why am I jumping into this? Oh yeah that's right, I like my debates warmed up

I've been following this since it started its meander off topic. No offense intended in the slightest, that's the norm for many of my favorite chats with friends, and can lead to new thoughts. Its been interesting.

Right now I do have one observation, taken from my short work into d20 D&D campaign building. The way I interpreted the reward vs risk aspect of challenge ratings and experience point awards would address the lower level catch up problem. I'm pretty sure the Dungeon Master's guide implied it if not out right spelled it out. Naturally some of the T20 players and more importantly GM's (sorry, I forget, what is it called now?) won't have that book. However, and this addresses one of the reasons Hunter and company chose d20, the target audience for T20, hard core d20 gamers, will have it.

Basically in a party of mixed levels if the challenge of the encounter is set at the average of the levels the low levels will be very challenged and earn an experience bonus while the high levels will find it much easier and have their experience penalized. This is likely to lead to the group splitting and going their seperate ways, since the high level players may find the slow progress relative to the low level up and comers hard to bear. Unless... the high level characters take on the role of mentors and leaders fully accepting that they will be gaining less experience since much of what they get involved with will be old hat for them.

Eventually the older and/or more experienced characters will have passed on all they can (i.e. the low level characters have or nearly have caught up to the high level characters) and the party will be evenly experienced and able to fully exploit that in tougher encounters, ones that everyone will find challenging.

 

[Polaris]

Hunter,

Actually I am not forcing anyone into any style of play...mine or otherwise. Rather I am stating what should be obvious: games should be fair

Asking different players to have widely different character levels is unfair. The difference can be papered over with a one level difference easily and up to a three level difference with some effort. I was not suggesting a straight-jacket by any means.

However, when you start talking about a ten level difference, then this supposition breaks. A thirteenth level character is quite able to be almost twice as good as a third level character in his "tag abilities" and still be just as good as the other characters in their own "tag abilities". That is simply characteristic of d20.

In addition, I want to touch on a point Far Trader brought up with a different emphasis. The CR system assumes that character level is a measure of balance. That is why certain races in the T-20 book have "virtual racial levels" (called ECL in the SRD) to balance them out. However, the ECL/CR system assumes that the party will be roughly of equal level. Otherwise you are in effect punishing the Sollie player with a +3-5 ECL (which any d20 player will tell you is outrageous) compared to the Vilani player for no real gain.

In short 13th level characters are superior in just about every respect to 3rd level characters (and are supposed to be in d20). That is a simply fact and not something I regard as subject to opinion.

Far-Trader,

Your point about CR is interesting (see above), but I also note that the XP award for an encounter is based on the average level of the party. That means that when you have a group of 10th level characters and one 3rd level character, that third level character can bring down the overall party level by as much as two full levels (sometimes more). That means that the higher level characters actually advance faster than they should which exacerbates the problem. [In Neverwinter's Nights, this was known as the 'Dire Badger' cheese technique because it garnered a spell user far more XP than he should have earned otherwise.]

-Polaris

 

[Polaris]

Hunter,

I hate to double-post, but I had a very honest question for you in all of this (that got buried) in spite of the rancor.

If you wish to be human in T-20, is there any reason not to be Vilani?

You said it yourself that more terms equates to more capable characters. I also note that unlike C-T, the worst you can be (in terms of age) is middle-aged (that is true of anyone doing max terms btw) and that is just -1 Dex,Con,Str and +1 EDU,Int,Wis (which actually seems to be a gain given the way T-20 is written).

As you no doubt know, in C-T, you paid a severe price if you wanted your 8th, 9th, and 10th terms as a Vilani which does not exist in T-20.

So to recap, is there any good reason not to be Vilani (if you wish to be human) and get 10 terms rather than a poor Solli who only gets 7?

-Polaris

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Actually I am not forcing anyone into any style of play...mine or otherwise. Rather I am stating what should be obvious: games should be fair

Asking different players to have widely different character levels is unfair.

And we are telling you that we don't find it 'unfair'. Likely because we aren't interested in who is 'more powerful or skilled' among us when we play. We all play to our own character's strengths.

Life ain't fair.

So to recap, is there any good reason not to be Vilani (if you wish to be human) and get 10 terms rather than a poor Solli who only gets 7?

Nope. Not if all you are interested in doing is having a maxed out character. They live longer too so you get a longer opportunity to even further max your character.


Hunter

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Polaris:
If you wish to be human in T-20, is there any reason not to be Vilani?

Oh, that's easy, unpronounceable names.

I haven't GMed a player who wanted a PC to be Vilani. Nor have I had one want to go beyond the racial maximum number of terms.

Personally I'd ignore the term limit on prior history if I wanted to run a campaign with very experienced, older PCs. Hasn't happened yet.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Polaris:

Far-Trader,

Your point about CR is interesting (see above), but I also note that the XP award for an encounter is based on the average level of the party. That means that when you have a group of 10th level characters and one 3rd level character, that third level character can bring down the overall party level by as much as two full levels (sometimes more). That means that the higher level characters actually advance faster than they should which exacerbates the problem. [In Neverwinter's Nights, this was known as the 'Dire Badger' cheese technique because it garnered a spell user far more XP than he should have earned otherwise.]

-Polaris

Hmm, never played NN, but it sounds like it suffers the same problem of many automated versions of rpgs, a strict adherance to a formula. There is no other way with the current (lack of) AI tech but it leaves the system open to such cheap tricks. A DM is supposed to use judgement in awarding xp's.

It has been a while, and Odin knows I've had my fair quarrel with D&D 'rules' through the ages, so mayhaps some of what I speak was my own fix for the party of diverse levels. I may be missing something (like sleep ) but I don't see how the effect of lowering the CR (and hence the total xp's per encounter) because of a newbie in an experienced party can allow the high levels to rise faster?

The way I remember doing it I'd calculate the encounter xps, then divided it evenly between all, award individual bonus xps if warranted and then do the CR calculation for each individual, multiplying or dividing to get the actual xp award for each character.

So the students would go "Wow! That was incredible, I have learned so much." and the mentors would say "Hah, that was nothing, you don't know fear till you've faced a whole pack of full grown ones, now that's a challenge! This little fracus, phah, I didn't even break a sweat!"