Differences between 0 and 1 level skills when you gain another level.

[joshualevy]

In Cepheus Engine, how does one go from Skill-0 to Skill-1 and how is that different from going from not having the skill at all to having the skill at 1?

For example, lets compare a character who has Computer-0 as a primary education skill to a character who does not. If both characters get the Computer skill in a term of service later in character generation, do they both have it at 1? If so, a character should try to get zero level skills in things they are never going to improve, because the minute they improve it, the zero level is worthless.

Joshua Levy

 

[sfchbryan]

To quote the Rules......

If a character has no level in a skill, then he is untrained and will suffer a –3 Dice Modifier when trying to use that skill.

If a character has zero level in a skill (Skill 0), then he is competent in using that skill, but has little experience. He does not get any bonus from his skill ranks when using that skill but at least he avoids the penalty for being untrained.

So, in essence, a skill level 0 means you don't suffer a -3 DM on your roll.

In your example, a Computer-0 means that they can use a computer, and possibly even use (or write) basic macros, for instance.

Untrained would mean that they can log into the internet & check their facebook, but that is about it.

Yes, in character generation, both characters would go to skill level 1.

For my usage, I'd go for level 0 in cascade skills i.e., if I am an engineer, I'd want Mechanical-0, Computer-0, and Electronics-0 as a minimum. This way, if something goes wrong in Engineering, I don't want to be rolling with a -3 DM that untrained brings to the table.

I also don't want to waste skill slots. In my CE Universe (Call of MegaCepheus Engine), characters have the same skill level restrictions as in MT (skill levels can not exceed INT + EDU).

Real life example......

The unit I deployed with for Joint Endeavor was an officer heavy notational unit that was only issued 9mm pistols. Up to that point, I had never fired one, being one of the rifle armed enlisted swine.

I was given 5 minutes of instruction literally as I was preparing to go to the firing line. A quick how to load the magazine, set the site picture, and charge the weapon. That's it. I already knew how to use a site picture, so it was simply applying what I knew to the new weapon. I promptly qualified expert (since I had no bad habits to unlearn) and did so for the rest of my career.

Auto-pistol-0.

Had I not gotten that 5 minutes of instruction, I wouldn't have been able to qualify, because I certainly wouldn't have been able to swap magazines in the allotted time, much less how to hold the weapon to get a proper site picture.

Untrained (-3 DM)


Hope that helped.

 

[joshualevy]

Hope that helped.

You focused on the 0 vs -3 DM rule, which I understand just fine, and which makes perfect sense to me.

The problem for me is in character generation.

Suppose character "A" learns computers in primary school (Computer-0) and then learns computers in a service. They are now at Computer-1.

Suppose character "B" learns computers in a service. They are now at Computer-1, just like character "A". That doesn't make sense to me.

Suppose character "C" learns admin in primary school (Admin-0) and then learns computers in a service. They are now have Admin-0 and Computer-1.

Why would any character follow the path of "A", when they could follow the path of "C". (And also why would any player do this?)

That is the part that does not make sense to me.

I'm thinking about a "house rule" that says something like "Moving a skill from zero to one takes less work than learning a skill at one from nothing. Therefore, when a character increases a skill from zero to one, it is assumed that they also get a new skill at zero (which they gained in the extra time available to them). This new skill must be in the same section as the skill they increased from zero to one (ie. service, specialist, or advanced education).

Joshua Levy

 

[kilemall]

Makes perfect sense to me.

Medical-0 is took a CPR class, basic first aid, a few hours of instruction.

Medical-1 is at medical assistant level. Medical-2 nurse/paramedic, Medical-3 doctor.

Learned the first in primary school say, then picked up Medical-1 in the service.

From a character every possible slot used perspective, perhaps not optimal, but I don't really see a big min/max deal here.

 

[sfchbryan]

You focused on the 0 vs -3 DM rule, which I understand just fine, and which makes perfect sense to me.

The problem for me is in character generation.

Suppose character "A" learns computers in primary school (Computer-0) and then learns computers in a service. They are now at Computer-1.

Suppose character "B" learns computers in a service. They are now at Computer-1, just like character "A". That doesn't make sense to me.

Suppose character "C" learns admin in primary school (Admin-0) and then learns computers in a service. They are now have Admin-0 and Computer-1.

Why would any character follow the path of "A", when they could follow the path of "C". (And also why would any player do this?)

That is the part that does not make sense to me.

I'm thinking about a "house rule" that says something like "Moving a skill from zero to one takes less work than learning a skill at one from nothing. Therefore, when a character increases a skill from zero to one, it is assumed that they also get a new skill at zero (which they gained in the extra time available to them). This new skill must be in the same section as the skill they increased from zero to one (ie. service, specialist, or advanced education).

Joshua Levy

Because most characters don't know that after they finish their prior careers they will become Travellers.

You have to distinguish between what the player knows vs. what the character knows.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

If you follow RAW, there may be many factors during character generation that thwart you getting a desired combination of skills such as

- Rolling a low EDU thus granting less background skills unless you REALLY want a specific skill at the expense of other skill choices.
- Failing to enter the career you desire to get to that combination of skills and then suffering the Draft or going Drifter and that skill is not available.
- Low EDU and the skill is only on Advanced Education for that career.
- Rolling for skills never getting that skill by the time you retire or fail to re-enlist.

As an example relating to your scenarios
Aerospace Defense and Drifter does not offer offer Computer as part of basic training or later as a service skill, only on Advanced Education. If you have a low EDU, well no Computer for you. Perhaps you should have studied it a little during school.

 

[atpollard]

Because most characters don't know that after they finish their prior careers they will become Travellers.

You have to distinguish between what the player knows vs. what the character knows.

While I agree with what you say about the difference between player and character (avoiding making this about min-maxing characters), he is making a valid CHARACTER point underneath his comment.

Two characters draw a mechanic MOS in the Army, but one had Auto shop training (Mechanic-0) in High School while the other has never held a wrench. It seems like the Character with Mechanic-0 at the start will have an easier time learning Mechanic-1 than the character who never held a wrench. It may not be unreasonable to imagine that by finishing his assignments faster or showing greater initial skill in the class that the character had either the free time or the more advanced work to allow him to advance from Mechanic-0 to [Mechanic-1, Electronics-0] in the same time it took a character with absolutely no prior mechanics familiarity to learn [Mechanic-0, Mechanic-1 = Mechanic-1].

 

[pendragonman]

While I agree with what you say about the difference between player and character (avoiding making this about min-maxing characters), he is making a valid CHARACTER point underneath his comment.

Two characters draw a mechanic MOS in the Army, but one had Auto shop training (Mechanic-0) in High School while the other has never held a wrench. It seems like the Character with Mechanic-0 at the start will have an easier time learning Mechanic-1 than the character who never held a wrench. It may not be unreasonable to imagine that by finishing his assignments faster or showing greater initial skill in the class that the character had either the free time or the more advanced work to allow him to advance from Mechanic-0 to [Mechanic-1, Electronics-0] in the same time it took a character with absolutely no prior mechanics familiarity to learn [Mechanic-0, Mechanic-1 = Mechanic-1].

I offer this reason for not allowing the extra skill zero choice.

Skill bloat. There is no defined maximum number of allowed zero level skills, and a zero added to any number is still that number so they don't count against the maximum number of skill levels of (Int+EDU).

So if you are not careful, you could end up with a try JOT master with skill zero in so many skills that the character is rarely subjected to the non-skilled penalty.

Then there is the problem of fitting all those zero skills on a character sheet in an orderly, concise manner for easy correlation.

And just to be clear, we all know a player who would do this (usually the person who is a min/maxer)

 

[Chaos]

While I agree with what you say about the difference between player and character (avoiding making this about min-maxing characters), he is making a valid CHARACTER point underneath his comment.

Two characters draw a mechanic MOS in the Army, but one had Auto shop training (Mechanic-0) in High School while the other has never held a wrench. It seems like the Character with Mechanic-0 at the start will have an easier time learning Mechanic-1 than the character who never held a wrench. It may not be unreasonable to imagine that by finishing his assignments faster or showing greater initial skill in the class that the character had either the free time or the more advanced work to allow him to advance from Mechanic-0 to [Mechanic-1, Electronics-0] in the same time it took a character with absolutely no prior mechanics familiarity to learn [Mechanic-0, Mechanic-1 = Mechanic-1].

You have to keep in mind that Mechanic-1 represents about two years´ full time work. Some Auto shop training in high school isn´t going to make much of a difference.

 

[atpollard]

You have to keep in mind that Mechanic-1 represents about two years´ full time work. Some Auto shop training in high school isn´t going to make much of a difference.

That depends on what skill-0 is. That non-prof penalty suggests that it is more than almost nothing. [shrug]

For me this is a non-issue. I grant all of the general service skills at skill-0 just because I think that a character who COULD have learned that as one of the 6 skills available in their service is probably not completely unfamiliar with it. It makes more sense to me that a Pilot-2 knows Nav-0 for free just from being a scout, than he knows Halberd-0. :rofl:

 

[sfchbryan]

Two characters draw a mechanic MOS in the Army, but one had Auto shop training (Mechanic-0) in High School while the other has never held a wrench. It seems like the Character with Mechanic-0 at the start will have an easier time learning Mechanic-1 than the character who never held a wrench. It may not be unreasonable to imagine that by finishing his assignments faster or showing greater initial skill in the class that the character had either the free time or the more advanced work to allow him to advance from Mechanic-0 to [Mechanic-1, Electronics-0] in the same time it took a character with absolutely no prior mechanics familiarity to learn [Mechanic-0, Mechanic-1 = Mechanic-1].

That isn't how the learning process actually works. (I used to do this for a living.)

You are assuming that the character with shop training in high school got quality training AND retained it. The character that never held a wrench has no bad habits to unlearn. That matters - it matters A LOT.

I used to teach both hard and soft skills in the US Army. The best students were inevitably the ones that had no prior knowledge:

1. They had no bad habits to unlearn.
2. They knew that they had no prior knowledge, therefore they paid attention.
3. Due to their lack of prior knowledge, their brain didn't unconsciously short-circuit the learning process. (This is a major issue in education, right up there with the "Some people learn by listening, some by seeing, others by doing" nonsense.)

It's even worse in BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship). The worst shooters were those that shot a lot before they joined the military. What they learned growing up impeded their ability to fire their weapon, because of the muscle memory knowledge they had with the weapon they grew up with. "Kentucky windage" doesn't actually work on an assault rifle.

Oh, and that "finished early and learned more" in the military.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[pendragonman]

snip...
Oh, and that "finished early and learned more" in the military.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Exactly. With military training everyone in the class does everything and completes everything together. None of it is self-paced. So there isn't really any time to learn something else. Except maybe additional PT for not paying attention in class, or falling asleep in class (because you are shorting your sleep to read some other TM)

 

[Chaos]

That depends on what skill-0 is. That non-prof penalty suggests that it is more than almost nothing. [shrug]

I dunno.

Medic-0 is perhaps the equivalent of a first aid class that is kept current - say a two day course once or twice per term.
Medic-1 is the equivalent of what? A Nurse? An EMT? Either way, something that takes a lot of time to learn.

Computer-0 means knowing how to start up a computer, use Internet Explorer, send and receive e-mails, use Office and do a Google search.
Computer-1 means you can set up a website, for example, write code, set up a computer network.

Either way, there´s a much bigger jump from 0 to 1 than from nothing to 0. Getting to 0 basically means learning the merest basics and being told how to avoid the really dumb mistakes. With Medic-0 you know that shaking the guy with a neck injury awake is a bad idea; with Computer-0 you know that this waste basket thing on the desktop is a bad place to store important files. That can easily represent not getting a -3 penalty.

 

[atpollard]

That isn't how the learning process actually works. (I used to do this for a living.)

People don't leave the Navy and buy shares in a ship to become an adventurer with their shotgun and cutlass either. A lot of things don't work the same in real life like they do in a RPG.

You are assuming that the character with shop training in high school got quality training AND retained it.

... and you are assuming that they didn't. So to learn Medic-3, should we first assume that they need to unlearn Medic-2, unlearn Medic-1 and unlearn Medic-0, and then be retaught, correctly this time, Medic-0, Medic-1, Medic-2 and Medic-3?

Oh, and that "finished early and learned more" in the military.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hammers Slammers.
Honor Harrington.
Halo.

You do remember that the general goal is to model popular Sci-Fi worlds to play in them.

 

[Chaos]

People don't leave the Navy and buy shares in a ship to become an adventurer with their shotgun and cutlass either. A lot of things don't work the same in real life like they do in a RPG.

Even in an RPG, things have to make some amount of sense.

... and you are assuming that they didn't. So to learn Medic-3, should we first assume that they need to unlearn Medic-2, unlearn Medic-1 and unlearn Medic-0, and then be retaught, correctly this time, Medic-0, Medic-1, Medic-2 and Medic-3?

How do you get that from what he wrote?

 

[atpollard]

How do you get that from what he wrote?

His statement was learning skill-0 made learning skill-1 harder based on his experience as an instructor because the learner first needed to unlearn all of their bad habits. He stated that people without skill-0 learned skill-1 faster. I just extrapolated that same logic assumption past skill-0. It was intended as sarcasm to illustrate the weakness of assuming that some training makes future learning harder rather than easier (the core of his response).

 

[egor045]

His statement was learning skill-0 made learning skill-1 harder based on his experience as an instructor because the learner first needed to unlearn all of their bad habits. He stated that people without skill-0 learned skill-1 faster. I just extrapolated that same logic assumption past skill-0. It was intended as sarcasm to illustrate the weakness of assuming that some training makes future learning harder rather than easier (the core of his response).

It sounds like you're suggesting a house rule along the lines of "pick another skill at level 0 if you're training from level 0 to level 1". If that works for you, fine. From the exchanges in this thread, there are some who want to stick with "level 0 is no benefit when being educated to level 1" and that's fine too.

I'm inclined to think that high school auto shop guy either gets KP for not paying attention in his MOS training, or he gets to spend more time saluting things that move and painting stationary things green.

 

[atpollard]

Even in an RPG, things have to make some amount of sense.

Sure, here is some sense:

Joe Average (non-proficient): roll 8+ on 2d6-3 = 8.3% success rate
Joe Average (skill-0): roll 8+ on 2d6 = 41.7% success rate
Joe Average (skill-1): roll 8+ on 2d6+1 = 58.3% success rate
Joe Average (skill-2): roll 8+ on 2d6+2 = 72.2% success rate

So Joe is driving along and his car breaks down. He has never lifted the hood to even check the oil (non-proficient), so he has only about an 8% chance to fix his car. Determined never to let this happen again, Joe decides to take a course in basic familiarity (skill-0) which depending on who we ask could take no more than a few hours of familiarization. Joe's chance to repair his car the next time it breaks down is now almost 42%, an improvement of around 34% based on his pre-enlistment training.

Joe enlists in the Imperial Marines and is taught to repair all sorts of vehicles (skill-1). Joe enlists with his best friend Bob, who knows nothing about vehicle repair (non-proficient). Bob spends two years being trained and working from non-proficient (8% success) to skill-1 (58% success) for an personal improvement of 50% in his chance to perform the task. Joe has two years to be trained and working from his current skill-0 (42% success) to skill-1 (58% success) for a personal improvement of 16% in his chance to perform the task.

Is it really NO amount of sense to suggest that it will take Joe less time to improve his skill by 16% than it will take Bob to improve the same skill by 50%?

 

[Leitz]

(I used to do this for a living.)

Me too. Oh, wait. I still do it as a part of life.

Your assumption seems to be that people with Skill-0 cannot disengage their ego to learn Skill-1. I've seen a lot of "good old boys" pop some caps and never get better but there are those who know some and are willing to learn more. Teachability, not pre-existing skills, is the issue.

"Kentucky windage" doesn't actually work on an assault rifle.

Did for me when I borrowed an FAL when some dingbat "adjusted" the sights right before I went to the firing line.

For the game I'm running, I follow Josh Kaufman's "20 hour" rule. The basics of a new skill, to level 0, can come in a well applied 20 hours or so. I've taught NRA classes in a weekend and the students did well. I've also taught other skills and the basics can usually be learned well if the teacher does well and the student wants to learn.

From Skill-0 to Skill-1 is a year, and then from Skill-1 to Skill-2 is two years, etc. Unless you roll well in Chargen. Since I've seen no reasonable basis for the "Int + Edu" rule and since I don't think random dice rolled games can be called "balanced", I don't bother with it.

Really, the skills allowed are more a matter of what time of game the DM and players want. Use the rules as guidelines.

 

[atpollard]

It sounds like you're suggesting a house rule along the lines of "pick another skill at level 0 if you're training from level 0 to level 1". If that works for you, fine. From the exchanges in this thread, there are some who want to stick with "level 0 is no benefit when being educated to level 1" and that's fine too.

It is actually the OP poster that suggested that. I play CT:LBB1-3 stripped down to Rule 68A. I am simply pointing out that he makes a valid point about the game mechanics and common sense that skill-0 to skill-1 should be easier than non-proficient to skill-1.

(And I am being told that I have it backwards, skill-0 makes learning skill-1 harder.)

I'm inclined to think that high school auto shop guy either gets KP for not paying attention in his MOS training, or he gets to spend more time saluting things that move and painting stationary things green.

A term is 4 years and there are a lot of skills gained in the first term (RAW). Does everyone leave the MOS training with the same knowledge or do some people learn better/more in the class than others? Does MOS training take the full two years, or does the soldier continue to learn 'on the job' while actually performing MOS duties?