CT+ Careers

[Golan2072]

I'd go with an extended system and simply have each sub-career as a "branch" of that system, as Marines, Infantry, Support, Cavalry, Artillery and Commando are in Mercenary.

 

[zakrol]

I think we have a fundamental question here as there do seem to be two distinct camps.

What is CT+ aiming at? Are we going for a simple is best system? Or is extra size and complexity ok if it leads to a well balanced system? Can we even try and satisfy both camps with a basic and advanced chargen as with CT/MT?

There are merits in both approaches but we probably need to decide on our underlying aims - then decisions like this will be easier to make.

 

[Berg]

As long as we don't have advanced chargen for half the careers

Tom

 

[Golan2072]

This depends on how we do the specialised careers (such as "agent" and "repo" under Law Enforcement); you might include them only in the advanced system as branches, which will mean that we have (virtually) all of the basic chargen systems (LBB1 plus Citizens plus MT) and will only have to do a little work to consolidate them.

About the Advanced systems, CT already has Scouts, Merchants, Marines, Army (we will have to add a few branches to it) and Navy. Fritz88 has a Law Enforcement advanced chargen almost ready, and I have an advanced Belter generation system on paper which will be typed next week. So all we have to do is, besides consolidation, is create 4 advanced chargen systems (Rogue, Noble, Scholar and Civilian). The rest will be sub-branches for existing systems.

 

[zakrol]

Originally posted by Berg:
As long as we don't have advanced chargen for half the careers

Agreed. Advanced chargen should be available for all careers if included, even if as a branch of an overarching career.

So, four more doesn't sound so bad.

 

[mike wightman]

I still don't think advanced careers should be part of CT+.
Here's Hunter's original vision:

If it happens what you'd see is an updated version of the CT rules with a slightly modified MT task system that is compatible with the T20 task system on 'terms of difficulty' (ie: Easy, Hard, Average, etc.).

The personal combat system would be changed over to be compatible with the task system. Armor and Damage would likely be very similar to T20's system.

Characters would not change much as far as background goes, but the randomness would be optional meaning you could randomly generate your character pretty much like original CT or you can pick and choose everything instead. Adding optional rules like Advantages and Disadvantages is something I would also consider.

Vehicles, Starships, etc. would use the T20 systems which are already CT compatible, though these systems might get updated slightly.

New techs would also probably be added, but noted that some campaign settings may only use some of the technological concepts detailed in the rulebook. This would allow us to specify for example in the OTU, nanobots, cybernetic enhancements, FTL communications and such are not used. If a referee wanted to use them, they of course could but the referee would know that the published material for the OTU will not be written with these technologies in mind.

The main idea would be to update the more 'dated' game mechanics and streamline things a bit more, but keep it 100% compatible with the original CT and make it easy to dual stat supplementary for both the updated CT rules and T20.

I'm not looking to dump T20, but I do see a potential market for a more streamlined set of mechanics like what the original CT had to offer.

Adding Citizens characters to LBB1 is only a matter of adding about eight sides to LBB1.
That would give character generation a page count of about 30 sides using the LBB format, and that includes skill descriptions, mustering out benefits etc.
Each advanced career takes up at least three sides - so that's thirty sides of character generation before even explaining how to generate the character, mustering out benefits, skill descriptions which would amount to another twenty sides.
Keep it for a supplement

 

[zakrol]

Ideally I'm with Sigg on this one. Basic chargen is clean and crisp. Advanced is nice to have but not essential.

Of course we have to reach a consensus so whilst I'm shouting for basic, it's not too loudly.

And we have two supplements sorted out now - advanced chargen and setting material

 

[robject]

I concur. This project is a Long Shot as it is, and I'd rather keep it simple and get something done than add-more and have it bog down.

 

[jappel]

I am in the "modified MT Basic" camp. (And FWIW, that already includes the special duty roll, unless Sigg is talking about something different.)

But... with a follow-on project providing advanced generation for the different careers. Think in terms of the various DnD "Prestige Class Books". Wouldn't you just kill to see The Complete Scout on the shelves of your FLGS?

I like Employee's suggestion to make the specialized sub-careers branches under the advanced generation.

- John

 

[mike wightman]

Nope, a tweeked MT it is

 

[robject]

I like the idea of branched careers. However, I think they are beyond the scope (K.I.S.S.) of CT+.

However, they are fair game for a CT+ supplement.



We have enough to worry about, what with the combat rules and task systems to somehow decide on.

 

[erisred]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Eighteen to twenty four expanded character generation systems?

Eighteen to twenty-four *basic* character generation systems!

 

[robject]

And for CT+, ten or eleven.

Or twelve...

 

[erisred]

Originally posted by Zakrol:
I think we have a fundamental question here as there do seem to be two distinct camps.

What is CT+ aiming at? Are we going for a simple is best system? Or is extra size and complexity ok if it leads to a well balanced system? Can we even try and satisfy both camps with a basic and advanced chargen as with CT/MT?

There are merits in both approaches but we probably need to decide on our underlying aims - then decisions like this will be easier to make.

Do Basic Career Generation for all the careers in CT+. If someone wants to do advanced, more complex , careers then that's a separate thing. Like Berg, though, I don't think any "advanced" career method should produce better, or worse, characters than the basic method.

 

[robject]

Then you're pretty much of the same opinion of the rest of the gang, here.

 

[jappel]

Well, in CT the advanced tracks definitely gave you better characters. That's one of the reasons Mercenary was so popular! High Guard, Scouts and Merchant Prince all generally gave you more powerful characters, and often more flexilibility, than the basic tables. This held true even where the CotI careers were concerned.

The MT system fixed that for the most part, between the base of two skills per term for careers without promotion tracks & the special duty roll. Of course, you could still have the lucky guy who went through Commando school twice and managed to roll a ton of 5s and 6s, but it certainly evened out.

You still had a couple of skills only available via the advanced chargen rules. It's only a couple, one being Naval Architect, which I think could be scrapped without losing much.

(I have a matrix of what skills are available from which careers in MT if anyone would like a copy. It's a product of playing around with Don Mckinney's point-based chargen for MT.)

You also still had the problem where sticking with purely random generation not-infrequently yielded unviable characters, or ones without a key skill a player wanted. I think we've addressed that problem adequately.

- John

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by jappel:
Well, in CT the advanced tracks definitely gave you better characters.

Ohhh, yeah, they did!

I have to insist on 12 careers with basic chargen. I mostly like the MT chargen, but here is my 0.02Cr from this other thread:

Pregen term
3 skills initial term
2 skills per term - all off certain skill lists
Promotion for every term after making Position/Commission roll, with 1 extra skill for promotion - off the Advanced Educ (or 8+) table
1 Life Pursuit/Hobby skill level allowed per term

Random term
2 skills initial term
1 skill per term
1 skill for Position/Commission
1 skill/promotion + 1 if promotion+4
Special Duty roll - 1 skill + 1 if SpecD+4
OR SPecial Duty can take a school - say 5 hard to get skills, but no others for term
2 Life Pursuit skills per term, unless school (then 1)

The idea is to give a benefit to risking the random chargen with a broader range of skills, the chance of something cool like a school, and more ability to have outside interests.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
I have to insist on 12 careers with basic chargen.

Sounds good to me too

 

[Takei]

I'll also chime in with the modified MT basic careers call.
One thing I'd probably change would be to adopt the T4 one skill per year ruling (six skills per term for careers with no ranks).

 

[Berg]

Remember, once we figure out careers, we need to find the average # of skills acquired to set the task system appropriately.

No Rambo's or Wusses here

Tom