CT Character creation question

[hallogallo]

Quick question. Is it possible to change career during character creation? If I choose to enlist as a Marine, can I later change to Navy for example? If so, how and where in Book 1 can I read about it?

 

[rancke]

Quick question. Is it possible to change career during character creation? If I choose to enlist as a Marine, can I later change to Navy for example? If so, how and where in Book 1 can I read about it?

You can't change career in CT character generation. I believe it's fairly commom for people to have house rules on the subject (I know I did), but that's all.


Hans

 

[aramis]

You can't change career in CT character generation. I believe it's fairly commom for people to have house rules on the subject (I know I did), but that's all.


Hans

Except when using one of the Alien Modules... AM3 Vargr (p8) permits Vargr to enlist in any career not previously enlisted in after being discharged.

 

[rancke]

Except when using one of the Alien Modules... AM3 Vargr (p8) permits Vargr to enlist in any career not previously enlisted in after being discharged.

Huh. You learn something new every day. Thanks, Wil.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

Wil and Hans are correct.

At the OP: Be careful with House Rules to switch careers. You don't want your players getting too many skills, and many of the careers load up on skills the first term. If I had a House Rule to change careers, I would not repeat freebies from the first term but rather treat the first term in a second career just like an additional term.

You're working with a 2d6 system. It's easy to break if you include too many (or too high) modifiers.

Look at characters provided in 1001 Characters. That's how CT characters should look. Notice that many of them have few skills. It's a different type of thinking from other games (even from MT and later editions of Traveller), especially skill heavy RPGs like d20 games where a charcters is constantly getting points to put into his skills.

CT has a more minimalist vibe. Think of the skills that a CT character has as the areas highlighting things he is very, very good at instead of the grand-sum of his experience.

If you read through the skill descritpions, many of them have no penalty if the character does not have a skill rank in that skill. Some of the skills do, but many don't. The method is not unlike d20 where a character is given every skill but has restrictions on those skills that require training.

Many/Most CT tasks give bonuses if a character has a particular skill, but there is no penalty if the character doesn't have the skill. To give you an example, look at the throw for bringing people out of low berth. Anybody can attempt the throw. There's no requirement that a character have Medical skill. If the character does have Medical skill, then he is given a bonus to the throw. But, really, anybody can attempt the throw (they just don't get the bonus).

Because CT is designed to work this way, characters with just one or two skills are viable.

When you start House Ruling, consider how CT works. If you insert characters with a lot of skills, you're changing the model a bit, and you need to be careful not to break your game.

 

[Icosahedron]

S4's caveat on being careful is a valid one, but assuming you are careful, houserule away.

CT can be played as written, but it was designed to be houseruled - it specifically says so - so don't feel tied to the rulebook. If you make a houserule that doesn't work, you can always change it.

Personally, I would allow career changes, but as S4 says, I wouldn't allow all the first-term bonuses - you already had those - and I'd add a bit of reality to it.
We all know how difficult it can be to change career: your new employer asks questions, wants references - why did you leave your last job? if you were sacked we don't want you, if you showed no staying power we don't want you, if you weren't promoted, why not? etc.
You could even role-play the interviews (but you might lose players fast, there's too much of that in RL...)

 

[Supplement Four]

CT can be played as written, but it was designed to be houseruled - it specifically says so - so don't feel tied to the rulebook.

This is true. If you've got Book 0, give it a read. There's a section that talks about house ruling and being careful about what you house rule. Sometimes you can break the system without knowing it.

If you House Rule so that characters are able to change careers, and the characters that come out of your new system look like the ones in 1001 characters, then you did a good job and maintained the original system.

If, OTOH, your House Rule consistently produces characters with many more skills than what you see, on average, in 1001 Characters, you'll probably want to re-think the house rule.

 

[hallogallo]

CT can be played as written, but it was designed to be houseruled - it specifically says so - so don't feel tied to the rulebook. If you make a houserule that doesn't work, you can always change it.

Well, I've played far to many indie rgps to just play Traveller as it is without trying to get it to do the things I get from games like Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Trollbabe, Sorcerer and at the moment Apocalypse World. But, before I bring in all these story game rules and try to apply them to Traveller, I want to understand the game as it is right out of the box.

 

[Supplement Four]

But, before I bring in all these story game rules and try to apply them to Traveller, I want to understand the game as it is right out of the box.

That's a very good rule to keep. I do the same, myself. Too many GMs read something and say, "I don't like that," and then change it, willy nilly, having no idea what they just did to their games.

The Law of Unintended Consequences has a far reach. And, if you're anything like me, you hate having your players get used to one thing, and then go back and change it on them--especially if they were happy with the way you originally presented it.

 

[BlackBat242]

In many ways, Books 4-7 "break" the skills system & form presented in Book 1... this has been discussed frequently, as the subject "basic character generation" vs "advanced character generation".

"Adv-chargen" tends to produce characters with around more skills... up to twice as many (sometimes more*).


The easiest way to control this is to enforce a "total skill level" limit... usually equal to the total of a character's Int & Edu scores.

Thus, a character with an int of 9 and an Edu of A (10) would be able to learn a total of 19 skill levels.

Alternatively, you could do 1/2Int+Edu... which would place a limit of 14 (15 if rounded up).

Revolver-2, Air-raft-1, Brawling-2, Vacc suit-1, and Mech-3 would total 9 skill levels.

New skills could still be learned after this point... if a previous skill/skill level were to be "dropped" for each additional skill/skill level.


As you can see, with this limit in place, allowing a second career won't then necessarily create "super-characters"... nor would keeping a character in a primary career for 4-5 terms.





* one of the first Traveller characters I created was made using Book 5... she retired (as a Rear Admiral) after 6 terms with some 25 skill levels... that was when we put the Int+Edu limit in place. I never actually played her... she is a "legendary" NPC in my world.

 

[Supplement Four]

In many ways, Books 4-7 "break" the skills system & form presented in Book 1... this has been discussed frequently, as the subject "basic character generation" vs "advanced character generation".

I disagree with that notion. I've discussed that, on occasion, too. For example, advanced chargen works if you enforce the Survival rule--a character dies when he bricks it. Too many GMs house-rule that rule and then complain when a character has too many skills.

And, when people speak of the attack bonuses in Book 4, they never look at the penalties associated with cover and concealment.

The easiest way to control this is to enforce a "total skill level" limit... usually equal to the total of a character's Int & Edu scores.

True. Isn't that in Book 4? I forgot.

 

[BlackBat242]

Well, I looked tonight and couldn't find that skills rule... although I swear I remember it being in the book.



Now, I have actually NOT seen very many characters fail survival rolls during chargen... the example I cited was one... not one failed survival roll in 6 terms!

We had so many people making every survival role for their multi-term careers, we actually began to use a bad roll on promotion to indicate disciplinary action that would prevent re-enlistment... and that WAS with the "fail & die" rule!

I don't know what it was, but low rolls were common on decoration, promotion, & skills... but hardly ever on survival.

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, I looked tonight and couldn't find that skills rule... although I swear I remember it being in the book.

I *think* it's in the Traveller book.

And...maybe Book 5.

Now, I have actually NOT seen very many characters fail survival rolls during chargen... the example I cited was one... not one failed survival roll in 6 terms!

Just like rolling all 18's for stats in D&D, it's possible!

I think that's a "plus" of the system, though.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I disagree with that notion. I've discussed that, on occasion, too. For example, advanced chargen works if you enforce the Survival rule--a character dies when he bricks it. Too many GMs house-rule that rule and then complain when a character has too many skills.

Certainly the use or non-use of the 'survival rule' creates different outcomes.

When creating all characters with the 'survival rule', the average number of skills per term or overall higher level of skills one system tends to generate vs the other is still present. I don't see how the survival rule alters this. Perhaps it lessens the possibility of older characters where the difference will be more noticeable. But there is still a difference.

 

[Whipsnade]

Perhaps it lessens the possibility of older characters where the difference will be more noticeable. But there is still a difference.

CG,

With that statement, you put your finger right on it.

The survival rule lessens the possibility of older characters and, seeing as older generally means more skills/skilled, the survival rule helps keep CT in balance.

I can't even count the number of times I saw players in CT chargen say "Okay, this one is good enough and I don't want to risk him, so I'm done.". Of course, the fact that CT is perfectly playable with skill amounts and skill levels that seem insanely low also figured into the player's decision. They could play a one term, two skill character while still making a contribution and having fun.

Because it was CT, I naturally had my own houserule in place of the survival rule. If a player failed their survival roll, the character didn't die. Instead, the character was "damaged" by the amount that the roll failed, aged two years, and removed from chargen with no skills from the failed term.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

I want to understand the game as it is right out of the box.

Hallogallo,

A laudable goal.

In my opinion, one aspect of Classic Traveller needs to be understood more than any other because it either controlled or constrained the design choices GDW made in 1977.

That aspect is: 2D6

2D6 provides all of eleven discrete numbers within 36 possible results. That means CT has a very small "decision space" compared to d20, 3D6, percentile dice, and most of the other RPG die rolling mechanisms. 2D6 means that the game's decision space is easily distorted by die roll modifiers on any type. If too many die roll modifiers are introduced, the die roll is quickly distorted into irrelevance because the target number is nearly always 8+.

Too many die roll modifiers in a 2D6 system lead to too many instances of automatic success or failure. If the roll is going to automatically succeed or fail, why throw the dice at all?

2D6 means that the game needs to limit all the different ways die roll modifiers can be produced. Mechanisms producing DRMs like skill levels, attribute bonuses, feats, perks, advantages, and so on will either produce "automatic" success/failure or produce a welter of DRMs which balance out. In the first case, there would be no need to roll at all. In the second place, the GM and players would be identifying and adding up DRMs for no use whatsoever. Either way, the "Many DRMs" method wouldn't work.

(I'm not suggesting that in 1977 GDW examined and discarded mechanisms like feats, perks, ads/disads, and the like. Many DRM-producing mechanisms hadn't been developed yet. I am suggesting that, if those mechanisms existed in 1977, GDW would have still limited their use in CT because of the limited decision space 2D6 creates.)

As for the number of skills in CT, the game is not "skills-lite". "Skills-lite" is a 2010 perception. If you don't count D&D's spells as skills, CT had more skills than any other RPG on the market at that time. GDW did not design a "skills-lite" game. Instead, GDW designed a game with few skill levels because too many levels will distort the small decision space I mentioned above.

When CT's skills were designed, GDW was looking more for general categories than precise applications. CT has Handgun, not Revolver(TL11) and CT has Navigation, not Interstellar Navigation-FTL/Jump Drive(TL12). It was fully expected that GMs and players would apply the skills in a fashion that seemed obvious and plausible to them. It was fully expected that most of the actions undertaken by the players wouldn't require skills and rolls at all. In those cases where a roll was believed to be required and no existing skill seemed to fit, GDW provided GMs and players with the perennial misunderstood Jack of all Trades "skill".

In the end, it all comes back to 2D6 and the small decision space it creates. CT has a limited numbers of ways to modify a die roll because a 2D6 die roll can be so quickly modified to the point of irrelevance. When we houserule in our CT games, and the rules suggest frequently that we should do so, we need to keep in mind just how easily and quickly the 2D6 roll can be distorted.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Supplement Four]

Certainly the use or non-use of the 'survival rule' creates different outcomes.

Yes.

I don't see how the survival rule alters this.

In two ways: First, players sometimes get attached to their characters through chargen--dicing for something, like a promotion or a particular desired skill--obtaining it, then bonding a bit with the character just like they sometimes do in gameplay.

So, when the risk of the Survival throw comes up, they decline, because they already like what they've got.

Thus, the character doesn't go as long in the career than if the Survival is merely used to indicate when the character stops chargen and begins adventuring.

The second way is the pure fact that the chance of making several Survival throws and going several terms is against the character. The longer a character stays in a career, the more likely that character will die in that career. Thus, the Survival rule brings down the average terms served by characters. Survival gets pretty risky starting at Term 3.

Thus your total number of skills, on average, is much lower than if you don't enforce the Survival rule.

 

[ShapeShifter]

Hallogallo,

A laudable goal.

In my opinion

....

Regards,
Bill

A great, great post!
This should be stickied for all to see.

Coming from more complex RPGs my first impression of CT was that it's lack of granularity made it austere or "Spartan" in design, but now I see it as having the indispensable virtue of flexibility.

 

[JAFARR]

I just looked at my reprint copy of the LBBs, which is second edition for the Int + Edu limit, specifically in the Acquiring skills and expertise section of Books 1, 4, 5, 6, & 7. LBB 1 - no. LBB 4 - no. LBB 5 - no. LBB 6 - no. LBB 7 - no. Yet I clearly remember the first time I played, the referee stating that it was a limit. Can this be from first edition rules and was left out of the subsequent rules sets?

It does exist in MT. Player's Handbook pg 15 in basic chargen rules.

 

[Whipsnade]

Coming from more complex RPGs my first impression of CT was that it's lack of granularity made it austere or "Spartan" in design...

ShapeShifter,

Exactly. Our experiences with later RPGs can lead us to the mistaken assumption that CT was designed to be austere or spartan. That's putting the cart before the horse, however.

CT actually has more skills than other RPGs of the same vintage while the granularity of the small decision space produced by 2D6 limits the utility, and even the advisability, of a large number of die roll modifiers.

The austere or spartan nature of CT flows from the game's design process. They were design results, they were not design goals.

... but now I see it as having the indispensable virtue of flexibility.

Again, exactly. A simpler, no simplistic, but simpler system more easily accepts houserules. Because CT was originally designed as "settingless", not "setting-free"(1), creating a system which accepted houserules was a design feature.


Regards,
Bill

1- CT was not "setting free". The many technological assumptions within the rules and the famous statement regarding "No FTL comms apart from ships" within the first paragraph on the first page of the first book meant that the game's possible settings were always constrained. There would be no warp drives, phasers, blasters, subspace radios, and all the rest without the GM making wholesale changes to the rules.