CT Character creation question

[aramis]

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.

It exists in CT; TTB p29, LC, ¶4:

Maximum Skills: As a general rule of thumb, a character may have no more skills (or total of levels of skills) than the sum of his or her intelligence and education. For example, a character with UPP 77894A would be restricted to a total of 13 combined skills and levels of skills. This restriction does not apply to level-0 skills.​

Also, Starter Traveller, Rules P16-17.

Hence why I refer to TTB as CT 2.1...

 

[rancke]

I thought the Int+Edu = max skill levels was silly, because it meant you couldn't have the low-brow combat monster, a very common adventurer archetype. A low-int guy with lots of strength an dexterity couldn't become an athlete until he got himself a good education. Preposterous!

So I divided skills into three groups: Physical, Mental and 'In between' (e.g. Mechanical), and I made maximum physical skill levels = Str+Dex and max mental skill levels = Int+Edu and max total skill levels = Str+Dex+Int+Edu. Worked fine for my campaigns. Which did do without the death during char-gen, so I guess out characters were a bit better on the average, but I've never minded player characters being a bit better than their NPC peers.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

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+.

Beautifully written.

I find that GMs from other games, used to modding them, come to CT with experience in d20, 3d6, or percentile games thinking that CT, with its 2d6 "decision space", as you put it, is the same beast that they've been used to. As you point out, it isn't.

This is what I tried to say in my original reply to the OP, but you said it so much better than I did.

 

[Supplement Four]

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.

Which brings us to something else that GMs who don't quite understand CT as well as they should, should know, which is: The "weight" of a +1 DM in CT is usually bigger than in other games.

That is to say, a +1 modifier in CT typically brings a bigger swing in favor of the skewed direction than in games with more outcomes. The 2d6 system, with it's 11 outcomes and 36 ways to get there, is very sensitive to modifiers, especially if the target number is around 8+.

Thus, a CT character with a +1 modifier throwing 2d6 will mostly likely have a greater benefit from the modifier than a D&D character throwing a +1 modifer on a d20--and significanlty more than a FASA Star Trek character throwing a +1 modifer on d100.

Translation: Skill-1 in CT is a fairly big deal. It's a decent sized modifier. But GM's and players used to, say, D&D, are not used to thinking much of a +1 modifier.

Which is why the game works with characters completing generation with so few skills.





In CT, a character who ends chargen with Rifle-1 and ATV-1 is a very playable character. He just doesn't get many modifiers on the throws he makes. And, he's pretty good with the rifle and driving ground vehicles.

Think of the skills on a CT character's sheet as a list of what he's best at--not the total sum of everything he can do.

 

[Supplement Four]

I thought the Int+Edu = max skill levels was silly...

I don't. Not at all. Reason is written in the posts by me and Whipsnade above.

...because it meant you couldn't have the low-brow combat monster, a very common adventurer archetype.

Well, CT chargen is random roll, not point-buy. But, why couldn't you end up with a INT-4, EDU-4 character (low brow enough?), who has SMG-6.

Sounds like a low brow combat monster to me.

 

[Whipsnade]

Beautifully written.

S4,

Thank you.

I find that GMs from other games, used to modding them, come to CT with experience in d20, 3d6, or percentile games thinking that CT, with its 2d6 "decision space", as you put it, is the same beast that they've been used to. As you point out, it isn't.

I'm sure I cribbed the term "decision space" from somewhere, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

A long time ago, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and I was still working on a master's degree by mail, I wrote a paper linking mathematical game theory with practical game design. All the stuff I wrote about 2D6, die roll modifiers, and "decision space" came from that.

Here's another little factoid to mull over; did you know that, from a mathematical standpoint, a wargame's odds-differentiated combat results table and a RPG's difficulty-differentiated task system are the same thing?

Wargames generally operate within an even smaller decision space than most RPGs; 1D6, instead of 2D6, d20, etc. Yet wargames expand the potential outcomes of that tiny decision space through the use of odds or force ratios. By separating all possible, legal attacks into different odds/ratio columns, the 1D6 decision space is "cloned" or "expanded" to provide more potential outcomes. The die roll of two, for example, will have possibly different results depending on the odds: failure in a 1:2 attack, stalemate in a 1:1 attack, success in a 2:1 attack, and so on.

Equally importantly, this expansion also allows the combat results table to use more die roll and other modifiers. Because the decision space has been expanded, modifiers can now be more easily used to effect the combat factors involved, effect the die roll, effect the column being chosen, or any mixture of the three.

A difficulty-differentiated task system does the same thing to an RPG's decision space. By assigning different difficulty ratings to different RPG skill rolls, we are doing the same thing mathematically that we do when assigning different odds/force ratios to different wargame combat result table rolls. And, just as with expanding a wargame's decision space, expanding a RPG's decision space allows for more die roll modifiers.

After all, die roll modifiers appeal to a very human characteristic; the need for control or even the illusion of control. Adding die roll modifiers to a game, if not taken to extremes, can make a game more enjoyable.

This is what I tried to say in my original reply to the OP, but you said it so much better than I did.

That same thing happens to me all the time. I'll bloviate for several paragraphs on some point only to read some smarter fellow make the same point far more cogently with a sentence or two. Occasionally I can come up with the pithy phrase, but more often I end up "borrowing" it from some other, smarter guy.


Regards,
Bill

 

[aramis]

2d6+skill for 8+ is only explicit for combat.

Many defined rolls are 9+ or 7+, a few are 6+ or 11+. The only consistent pattern is that, in the rulebooks (as opposed to adventures), it's 2d6 for X+ and usually some modifier for skill, and almost always a harsh penalty for lacking it.

Compared to other 1977-79 skill based designs (Runequest, mainly), the system is both far more schematic and far less consistent.

I played in 4 different CT games over the years; aside from combat, only one was routinely using 2d6+skill throws, and that was after he'd gotten the DGP task system. One was using 2d for stat or less, DM's for difficulty and skill in excess of difficulty penalty. One was using Xd6 vs Stat+skill (I quit quickly). One was using 3d6 for 11+... but CT mods throughout... including for combat... an obvious house rule.

CT is robust to changes because it's so schematic. The only areas it isn't are when one sticks with either a 2d consistent task system, or the various 2d specific skill resolutions in the skills chapters and in combat, then one can't up the skill rates much without breaking things.

 

[rancke]

I don't. Not at all. Reason is written in the posts by me and Whipsnade above.

I wish I could express my point of view a little better, then. Let me try again: A low-int guy with lots of strength an dexterity couldn't become an athlete until he got himself a good education. Preposterous!

Well, CT chargen is random roll, not point-buy.

I don't see the relevance of that argument.

But, why couldn't you end up with a INT-4, EDU-4 character (low brow enough?), who has SMG-6.

Sounds like a low brow combat monster to me.

Well, CT chargen is random roll, not point-buy, so that sort of skill concentration is highly unlikely. Most INT 4, EDU 4 characters will "waste" some of their eight skill levels on irrelevant stuff like Air/Raft and Blade Combat and Electronic and Medical.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

I wish I could express my point of view a little better, then. Let me try again: A low-int guy with lots of strength an dexterity couldn't become an athlete until he got himself a good education. Preposterous!

EDU correlates to actual book learning, true. But, I also think it correlates to just, well, learning.

Thus, a person who goes to nursing school for 4 years and a person who simply assists a doctor on a low tech world without any formal training for the same period of time--one the job training, if you will--can still have her EDU raised because of her "education" even though she didn't go to a university.

So, I think your Athlete would need to learn a thing or two about being an athlete. Not so preposterous, I think.

Plus, even with low INT and EDU, as I pointed out in my last post, the person could still have some strong athletic skills. There's room for them, but not much else.

 

[Whipsnade]

Gents,

While Hans' system has the potential to double the amount of skills/levels a character may have, it worked for him and that's all that really matters in a houserule. Using my goofy terminology, he knew the possibility of "distorting the decision space" too much and took what were adequate precautions for his games.

LBB:1 only has 52 skills counting the various cascades with Blade and Gun combat, plus their cascades, taking up 21 of those. While I understand the reasoning behind the idea, I'd find it hard to assign many of the skills listed to either a Mental or Physical category. While requiring both INT and EDU, wouldn't Vehicle-Winged Aircraft require DEX too? Cudgel most certainly requires little but STR, but another melee item, Foil, is more of a purely DEX weapon and a case can be made for INT to be involved with Foil too.

Even if I could pigeonhole the skills in one of two broad categories, using STR+DEX as a limit for one set of skills and INT+EDU for the other would have run the risk of adding too many skill levels to my campaigns, even with my version of the hard survival rule.

Sure, PCs with low INT and DEX stats are penalized through the skill level cap. However, PCs with low STR and DEX scores are penalized on the weapons tables, in the aging process, and when it comes to taking injuries. In my opinion, it balances out.

The system worked for Hans, it wouldn't have worked for me, and neither way is more 'correct" than the other. If Hans' system works for someone else or solves an issue their group is having with CT, then it's a very good that he mentioned it here.


Regards,
Bill

 

[BlackBat242]

It exists in CT; TTB p29, LC, ¶4:

Maximum Skills: As a general rule of thumb, a character may have no more skills (or total of levels of skills) than the sum of his or her intelligence and education. For example, a character with UPP 77894A would be restricted to a total of 13 combined skills and levels of skills. This restriction does not apply to level-0 skills.​

Also, Starter Traveller, Rules P16-17.

Hence why I refer to TTB as CT 2.1...

Ahhh... that's it!

The Ref I learned from had only the LBB1-5 set, and it wasn't until after my initial experiences rolling up characters (including Rear Admiral "Miracle Worker"*), that I went to buy my own. The local game store didn't have a LBB1-3 set, but did have TTB**, so I bought it & LBB4 & 5.

Apparently, that's when we found & applied the "Int + Edu = skills" rule!

We never saw Starter Traveller, nor have I bought one since, so I have no idea what is in there.


* with engineering skills of Jump 5, PP 5, Man 5, Mech 4, Comp 3, Ship's Boat 3, Vacc Suit 3, Commo 2, Ship's Tactics 2, etc... 39 skill levels in all (I just dug out her character sheet) she could "out-Scotty" Montgomery Scott!

** for hallogallo: The Traveller Book. It is a compilation of LBB 1-3 with added rules, tables, etc. Mine was stolen in 1988 and I replaced it with a LBB 1-3 set, so I hardly remember what the extras were.

Thanks, Aramis

 

[rancke]

While Hans' system has the potential to double the amount of skills/levels a character may have...

It's a little more complicated than that. For someone with high STR/DEX and low INT/EDU, it has the potential to triple or quadruple the number of skill levels that character may get. For someone where the reverse is true, the potential increase is much less. For someone with high scores in all four attributes, the potential to double may be there, but it does require the character to rake in so many skill levels that it exceeds the INT/EDU limit.

Also, assuming for purposes of argument that the system works for someone with INT+EDU equal to twenty or more, there should be absolutely no problem for someone with INT+EDU equal to or less than ten getting another ten or 12 potential levels, right? In fact, the system should not be in peril of breaking down unless my amendment brings the character up to more than 30 skill levels, right? The system ought to work for INT = 15 and EDU = 15, right? Oh, all right, let's just say that it should work for INT+EDU = 24 -- that's certainly a situation that the system ought to be able to handle. So how many times have you generated a character with the CT CGS that received more than 24 skill increases along the way?

Or just impose a hard limit of, say, 24 skill levels. It won't prevent the occasional character with skill-6 from distorting the decision space, but then, the original rules didn't do that either. In fact, my experience was that when someone had to reduce a skill level, he invariably chose to reduce one of his level one skills; I don't believe this rule ever prevented anyone from getting a high skill level if the CGS gave him the opportunity to acquire it.

...it worked for him and that's all that really matters in a houserule. Using my goofy terminology, he knew the possibility of "distorting the decision space" too much and took what were adequate precautions for his games.

Let's say it worked better. I was never happy with the limited decision space provided by a mere two dice (although I did grow to appreciate it slightly more after I'd tried playing Space:1889 ). After a while I changed to throwing 3D (that was after the task system showed up; I made the difficulties go up in steps of three, of course), and eventually I changed to my own house rules, which resembles GURPS but uses D20s.

For me, Traveller has always been chiefly about the OTU, not the rules.

LBB:1 only has 52 skills counting the various cascades with Blade and Gun combat, plus their cascades, taking up 21 of those. While I understand the reasoning behind the idea, I'd find it hard to assign many of the skills listed to either a Mental or Physical category. While requiring both INT and EDU, wouldn't Vehicle-Winged Aircraft require DEX too? Cudgel most certainly requires little but STR, but another melee item, Foil, is more of a purely DEX weapon and a case can be made for INT to be involved with Foil too.

It's a rough system, sure. The granularity of CT is low enough that I don't sweat things like the influence of INT on Foil or giving someone a dex-type skill because he has a high STR. For those where it is less easy to distinguish between physical and mental, I had the "in-between" category. IMO plenty good enough for the level of detail Classic Traveller embodies.


Hans

 

[JAFARR]

It exists in CT; TTB p29, LC, ¶4:

Maximum Skills: As a general rule of thumb, a character may have no more skills (or total of levels of skills) than the sum of his or her intelligence and education. For example, a character with UPP 77894A would be restricted to a total of 13 combined skills and levels of skills. This restriction does not apply to level-0 skills.
​

Also, Starter Traveller, Rules P16-17.

Hence why I refer to TTB as CT 2.1...

OK, I got lazy. The reprint set was laying beside my computer chair and I didn't bother to go to the CD ROM where I could have found both of your listings. I think My first ref. did have Starter Traveller. TTB came out after I had been playing a bit. Someone else in the group actually bought it so I never owned a hard copy, just the CD.

 

[Icosahedron]

I tend to be a little more arbitrary. I just decide on a skills limit for the game or campaign I'm running.

It's not quite as arbitrary as it sounds, because I mostly like characters to have skill levels somewhere in the teens, so characters from one game could probably be used in another game without tweaking, or at least without much tweaking.
Mr Average's INT-EDU limit of 14 skill levels is about what I end up with, though. I just didn't hear of that rule until comparatively recently, since I'm working with 1st ed rules. I'd retcon, but too many old favourite characters would have to be altered.
Incidentally, true to 1st ed, I treat level-0 skills as 0.5 skill points.

One house rule I made early on, though, is that Edu shouldn't exceed Int. if it does, I transpose the numbers.
My thinking was that if intelligence relates to the capacity to learn, then the actual learning achieved shouldn't exceed the available capacity.
YMMV. Depends on your definition of Intelligence, but it prevents a 'low-brow' from getting a PhD...

 

[Supplement Four]

One house rule I made early on, though, is that Edu shouldn't exceed Int.

That's not just a house rule...hmmm...where did I see that? I think, with college in Book 6, it says that, when improving EDU, it cannot be raised higher than INT. If not there, then elsewhere--read it a long time ago.

Of course, with your random stats, EDU can be rolled higher than INT.

 

[dean]

Edu > Int is certainly possible. Think upon the differences of skull sweat and effort required to obtain a Masters of Arts in (just about anything) and a Bachelors of Science in Engineering. No offense intended, of course, but I have frankly met some pretty damn ignorant MBAs as well.

There's a reason many Lib Arts majors are asking "You want fries with that?" while people who simply have a AA in computer science are earning a decent living.

 

[Supplement Four]

Edu > Int is certainly possible.

I was talking in terms of game rules. Maybe Wil will give us a postive reference. But, I remember--I think it was in the College rules--that EDU cannot be raised higher than INT, and the only way to get EDU higher than INT was to random roll it when the character is initially created or through the +1 EDU results during the career path.

Maybe it was in my namesake, Supplement 4. I'm not sure where, but it was a CT reference.

 

[Jame]

The only time I ever used the Int + Edu limit was when we ran a skip-tracer campaign using MT. Beyond that I don't care for the limit.

 

[aramis]

I was talking in terms of game rules. Maybe Wil will give us a postive reference. But, I remember--I think it was in the College rules--that EDU cannot be raised higher than INT, and the only way to get EDU higher than INT was to random roll it when the character is initially created or through the +1 EDU results during the career path.

Maybe it was in my namesake, Supplement 4. I'm not sure where, but it was a CT reference.

Edu ≤ Int is Not in B1, TTB, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, S4, A13, A3

on the Int+Edu limit: it's also in B7 and B8.
B7p31 includes the skill limit of Int+Edu.

 

[Whipsnade]

Gents,

EDU < or = INT isn't in MT's Player Manual either. Both the Basic and Advanced chargen sections have no mention of it.

Interestingly, graduating with Honors from College provides you with at least an EDU of 10. Honors grants you EDU 10 or current EDU + 1, which ever is higher.


Regards,
Bill

P.S. Either just noticed this or had forgot it, but on the Court Martial Table, being either in command, in combat, or senior enlisted (E7-E9) gives you a better chance of a prison or death sentence while being in training or a general/admiral gives you a better chance of getting off free. I can understand the latter, but the former?