CT Experience Revisited

[Golan2072]

I was thinking about a few "rules of a thumb" regarding personal improvement and skill progression in Classic Traveller.

First, the question should be asked: How do you learn "skills" in real-life? It seems to me that there are 5 general categories of such learning:
1) Direct experience
2) Self-education through manulas/books/vids (and in TL8+, VR).
3) One-on-one instruction/teaching.
4) A course or class in a specific subject (one teacher per several students, as opposed to 3).
5) A wide education (i.e. most academic studies - they teach you several distinct subjects plus "general knowledge" AKA EDU).

The Instruction skill (LBB4 pp.13-14) covers 3 very well; 2 and 4 could be extrapolated from it by giving the book/tape or teacher a level in the skill and in Instruction, and increasing the learning times. 5 is similar to the "college" and "medical school" described on LBB5. The real question is how to fit 1 in while keeping it in line with CharGen learning rates.

 

[Golan2072]

I was thinking about a few "rules of a thumb" regarding personal improvement and skill progression in Classic Traveller.

First, the question should be asked: How do you learn "skills" in real-life? It seems to me that there are 5 general categories of such learning:
1) Direct experience
2) Self-education through manulas/books/vids (and in TL8+, VR).
3) One-on-one instruction/teaching.
4) A course or class in a specific subject (one teacher per several students, as opposed to 3).
5) A wide education (i.e. most academic studies - they teach you several distinct subjects plus "general knowledge" AKA EDU).

The Instruction skill (LBB4 pp.13-14) covers 3 very well; 2 and 4 could be extrapolated from it by giving the book/tape or teacher a level in the skill and in Instruction, and increasing the learning times. 5 is similar to the "college" and "medical school" described on LBB5. The real question is how to fit 1 in while keeping it in line with CharGen learning rates.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Where is "3)"?

CT already covers 1 somewhat by allowing you to learn 1 skill per term. Which sorta corresponds to CT chargen (actually a little worse than chargen). See LBB2, pp42-43.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Where is "3)"?

CT already covers 1 somewhat by allowing you to learn 1 skill per term. Which sorta corresponds to CT chargen (actually a little worse than chargen). See LBB2, pp42-43.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Where is "3)"?

My omission; corrected.

CT already covers 1 somewhat by allowing you to learn 1 skill per term. Which sorta corresponds to CT chargen (actually a little worse than chargen). See LBB2, pp42-43.

I'd make that 2 skills per 4-year term to correspond with my CharGen rules for rank-less carrers (see the link in my sig); this would be in addition to anything learned by direct instruction, i.e. by a PC with Instruction, by books/tapes/VR or by taking a course; if you spend a term (4 years) in an institute of higher learning, you won't get these 2 skills, only 1, but will possibly get others from your studies.

On a related subject, I see each CT skill-level as a significant increment (sp?) of knowledge; as noted by someone in a previous thread on this subject, each level increases you chances of success by about 17%, which is ALOT (note that UGM might have a different percentage).

On another related subject, I think that learning a skill-0 should be quite easier and faster than learning a skill-1.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Where is "3)"?

My omission; corrected.

CT already covers 1 somewhat by allowing you to learn 1 skill per term. Which sorta corresponds to CT chargen (actually a little worse than chargen). See LBB2, pp42-43.

I'd make that 2 skills per 4-year term to correspond with my CharGen rules for rank-less carrers (see the link in my sig); this would be in addition to anything learned by direct instruction, i.e. by a PC with Instruction, by books/tapes/VR or by taking a course; if you spend a term (4 years) in an institute of higher learning, you won't get these 2 skills, only 1, but will possibly get others from your studies.

On a related subject, I see each CT skill-level as a significant increment (sp?) of knowledge; as noted by someone in a previous thread on this subject, each level increases you chances of success by about 17%, which is ALOT (note that UGM might have a different percentage).

On another related subject, I think that learning a skill-0 should be quite easier and faster than learning a skill-1.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I agree, 2-4601. I would add that sitting down with some books and instructional holos should never really get you above 0 in a skill. You can never really learn enough from a book (except in some academic areas like History) to get anything more than a passing familiarity.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I agree, 2-4601. I would add that sitting down with some books and instructional holos should never really get you above 0 in a skill. You can never really learn enough from a book (except in some academic areas like History) to get anything more than a passing familiarity.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
You can never really learn enough from a book (except in some academic areas like History) to get anything more than a passing familiarity.

I completely disagree. Hands-on experience is extremely valuable, but you can learn a great deal from just reading.

I'm an independent filmmaker, and at least 50% of what I know I've learned from reading books. (50% is kinda low, but I'll stick with that number.)

My brother is a manager at Merrill Lynch, and he reads a financial-related book about once a month--and has learned tons (sometimes you learn as much from what you don't agree with in what you read as what you do).

I definitely think that reading (and holos..whatever) can bring a studious student up past Level-1.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
You can never really learn enough from a book (except in some academic areas like History) to get anything more than a passing familiarity.

I completely disagree. Hands-on experience is extremely valuable, but you can learn a great deal from just reading.

I'm an independent filmmaker, and at least 50% of what I know I've learned from reading books. (50% is kinda low, but I'll stick with that number.)

My brother is a manager at Merrill Lynch, and he reads a financial-related book about once a month--and has learned tons (sometimes you learn as much from what you don't agree with in what you read as what you do).

I definitely think that reading (and holos..whatever) can bring a studious student up past Level-1.

 

[aramis]

I put limits on instructional media... as with Instruction skill, a book is limited by the level of skill of the authors.

For general availability texts, I use the following table
For a "10 hour course":
Cr10 level 0
Cr100 Level 1
Cr1000 Level 2
Cr5000 Level 3
Cr10000 Level 4
Cr50000 Level 5

Of course, I randomize for instructor skill and instructors skill in field, and treat it just like any other instruction skill useage.

 

[aramis]

I put limits on instructional media... as with Instruction skill, a book is limited by the level of skill of the authors.

For general availability texts, I use the following table
For a "10 hour course":
Cr10 level 0
Cr100 Level 1
Cr1000 Level 2
Cr5000 Level 3
Cr10000 Level 4
Cr50000 Level 5

Of course, I randomize for instructor skill and instructors skill in field, and treat it just like any other instruction skill useage.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, WJP, I think I agree for knowledge-only skills (you know, academic ones). However, you simply can't learn to fly a plane (or pilot a starship) by reading. Oh sure, you can learn enough not to kill yourself the first time out. But, you actually have to train yourself to do things (crosscheck, calculate remaining fuel, guage winds, etc.) to have the skill. You can read all the books you want about programming, but you can't really talk about a skill unless you have actually wrapped your head around making something happen with some code.

Now, simulations could certainly stand-in for some level of practice. However, I certainly wouldn't allow them (IMTU, obviously) to raise your skill above 2. Above that, you need RW activity. (Shooting guns in a video training session is terribly useful, but won't get you very far if you don't know what happens when the weapon actually goes BANG! and jumps in your hand!)

No offense to you or your brother, but neither of the items you related is much of a skill activity. You need to know lots of theory and math to do those things, but both also require a lot of intuition and reasoning - the INT score. Where that gets simulated with a Traveller skill, then I say, by all means, allow book larnin' to get you past Finance-0 or Cinematography-0.

I apologize for not making the distinction clearly before.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, WJP, I think I agree for knowledge-only skills (you know, academic ones). However, you simply can't learn to fly a plane (or pilot a starship) by reading. Oh sure, you can learn enough not to kill yourself the first time out. But, you actually have to train yourself to do things (crosscheck, calculate remaining fuel, guage winds, etc.) to have the skill. You can read all the books you want about programming, but you can't really talk about a skill unless you have actually wrapped your head around making something happen with some code.

Now, simulations could certainly stand-in for some level of practice. However, I certainly wouldn't allow them (IMTU, obviously) to raise your skill above 2. Above that, you need RW activity. (Shooting guns in a video training session is terribly useful, but won't get you very far if you don't know what happens when the weapon actually goes BANG! and jumps in your hand!)

No offense to you or your brother, but neither of the items you related is much of a skill activity. You need to know lots of theory and math to do those things, but both also require a lot of intuition and reasoning - the INT score. Where that gets simulated with a Traveller skill, then I say, by all means, allow book larnin' to get you past Finance-0 or Cinematography-0.

I apologize for not making the distinction clearly before.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
I agree, 2-4601. I would add that sitting down with some books and instructional holos should never really get you above 0 in a skill. You can never really learn enough from a book (except in some academic areas like History) to get anything more than a passing familiarity.

I disagree with this as well, I'm afraid.

First, from a rule mechanics standpoint, the methods for learning a new skill are different from the methods for improving on an existing skill - improving a skill requires instructional holos et al. and possibly a tutor whereas learning a new skill requires either an instructor or time spent in a trade school-like setting. In the former case, the rules assume a level of competence already, upon which the character is building, rather than starting from scratch. In this context distance learning, canned programs, simulations, and so on make sense - the character isn't attempting to learn how to fly a startship by watching a video, but rather improving reaction time through sims, et cetera.

Second, I get the impression that you're assuming that there is no advancement in the efficacy of teaching aids beyond what we have available to us today. Imagine a holodeck-like environment in which to run sims, or improved hypnosis learning techniques, or drugs that enhance the formation of neural pathways while studying or practicing.

I don't think that only academic knowledge and skills can benefit from study and simulation - at the same time, I agree that a character can't learn a completely new skill without some form of more traditional instruction, short of memory (including muscle memory) augmentation. I think the rules-as-written capture this pretty well.

Also note that weapons skills are enhanced differently - the effect is similar to the enhancement of other skills, but the rationale as spelled out in LBB 2 is specific to weapons-related ability.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
I agree, 2-4601. I would add that sitting down with some books and instructional holos should never really get you above 0 in a skill. You can never really learn enough from a book (except in some academic areas like History) to get anything more than a passing familiarity.

I disagree with this as well, I'm afraid.

First, from a rule mechanics standpoint, the methods for learning a new skill are different from the methods for improving on an existing skill - improving a skill requires instructional holos et al. and possibly a tutor whereas learning a new skill requires either an instructor or time spent in a trade school-like setting. In the former case, the rules assume a level of competence already, upon which the character is building, rather than starting from scratch. In this context distance learning, canned programs, simulations, and so on make sense - the character isn't attempting to learn how to fly a startship by watching a video, but rather improving reaction time through sims, et cetera.

Second, I get the impression that you're assuming that there is no advancement in the efficacy of teaching aids beyond what we have available to us today. Imagine a holodeck-like environment in which to run sims, or improved hypnosis learning techniques, or drugs that enhance the formation of neural pathways while studying or practicing.

I don't think that only academic knowledge and skills can benefit from study and simulation - at the same time, I agree that a character can't learn a completely new skill without some form of more traditional instruction, short of memory (including muscle memory) augmentation. I think the rules-as-written capture this pretty well.

Also note that weapons skills are enhanced differently - the effect is similar to the enhancement of other skills, but the rationale as spelled out in LBB 2 is specific to weapons-related ability.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Well, WJP, I think I agree for knowledge-only skills (you know, academic ones). However, you simply can't learn to fly a plane (or pilot a starship) by reading.

You don't think you could learn how to fly a plane (I agree that some pratical knowledge is preferrable and probably necessary) from a high-tech simulation that could be loaded into the ship's computer?

Joystick. Computer. Learning-sim-app. Pedals. Guage box.

If you have all the controls in front of you, and you have a good learning program, I'd argue that you could learn quite a lot about piloting planes.

Heck, the terrorists used off-the-shelf flight sims in real life as a precursor to learning how to fly the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center.

I bet that learning curve (and quality of learning) could be increased at higher tech.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Well, WJP, I think I agree for knowledge-only skills (you know, academic ones). However, you simply can't learn to fly a plane (or pilot a starship) by reading.

You don't think you could learn how to fly a plane (I agree that some pratical knowledge is preferrable and probably necessary) from a high-tech simulation that could be loaded into the ship's computer?

Joystick. Computer. Learning-sim-app. Pedals. Guage box.

If you have all the controls in front of you, and you have a good learning program, I'd argue that you could learn quite a lot about piloting planes.

Heck, the terrorists used off-the-shelf flight sims in real life as a precursor to learning how to fly the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center.

I bet that learning curve (and quality of learning) could be increased at higher tech.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
You can read all the books you want about programming, but you can't really talk about a skill unless you have actually wrapped your head around making something happen with some code.

Any reason you think, at TL 12, you could buy a computer program that will teach you code? Where there are exercises that you acutally have to program--and the computer "grades" what you've done. It probably would speak to you as a teacher, suggesting this and instructing that.

You know where your argument would make the most sense (to me) though? That would be with something like gun combat.

I can see reading about how to aim, breathe, and hold our weapon--but nothing takes the place of actually firing the weapon.

I think that would be a good example of a skill that would be hard to learn while a ship is in jumpspace.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
You can read all the books you want about programming, but you can't really talk about a skill unless you have actually wrapped your head around making something happen with some code.

Any reason you think, at TL 12, you could buy a computer program that will teach you code? Where there are exercises that you acutally have to program--and the computer "grades" what you've done. It probably would speak to you as a teacher, suggesting this and instructing that.

You know where your argument would make the most sense (to me) though? That would be with something like gun combat.

I can see reading about how to aim, breathe, and hold our weapon--but nothing takes the place of actually firing the weapon.

I think that would be a good example of a skill that would be hard to learn while a ship is in jumpspace.