First Impressions from MGT

[aramis]

Re: 3 month vacation:
studies have shown that the effect on children is 1.5 months of reteaching required; for adults, it is FAR less.

Re: Professional level of skill
CT defined employble as level 1, and level 3 as professional
MoTrav defines employable as level 1 and level 2-3 as professional, with 4+ being expert.

Re max skills:
Int+edu makes 14 levels for "joe normal"... meaning it starts to get full around mid-life. Skill retention is in part based upon practice and in part upon age of learning. If you learned you tae kwon do in your youth, you are likely to retain more of it long term than if you learned it solely as an adult. Learning and knowledge loss both slow with age.

I hardly ever shoot any more (0 practice) but I am just as good on targets as ever on the rare (annual) occasions I do shoot. I seldom program anymore (no time) but I'm better at coding efficiently than when I programmed more (Improved int and/or edu?). Probably never exceeded level 1, and quite possibly still am.

 

[Klaus]

The MGT Jamison served six terms, five as a merchant and one as a journalist (!)**. So to give MGT a fair comparison, I assumed a six term version of Jamison.

A 6 term CT Book 1 Merchant could acquire more than 14 skill levels, not just 12.

2 (term 1) + 1 (commission) + 5 (5 terms after the first) + 5 (5 promotion rolls*) + 1 (Pilot 1 for being First Officer) = 14, and then the possibility of getting more levels in a weapon via mustering out benefits.
*only 6 ranks.

That is actually not that different from MGT at all. (Take away connections and skills package and MGT characters get the same)

0-level skills may be statistically be 0.7 of a skill level, but you're not always using a task roll, and this is one area when I'm not too fussed that it may not be a perfect model of RL. They're needed because CT threw up lots of characters who couldn't really do their job, or basically couldn't live in high tech space environment without being klutzes at mundane things.

Such as the space marine without Vac Suit, or the merchant with no spacecraft skills. (I used Merchant Prince to produce rogue type characters as COTI rogues seemed more like plumbers, and my marine player was very embarrassed when he tried to save the day by a spacewalk and had to be rescued).

I say that MGT produces more specialist types because that is my experience with the character creation so far. Purely anecdotal, but so far there's been none of those lots of skill 1's jacks of all trades yet. Though, to be honest, not that many skill 4s either (lots of 3s tho).

I'm tempted to allow players to take an extra level in a skill they already have levels in (as long as it does not exceed 3) instead off making a skill roll for the term skill. This would increase specialisation even more.

** don't see why this is such a stretch. My art school lecturer spent many of his formative years on North Sea oil rigs (the equivalent of belter?) and the bible class leader and church canon (when I was forced to get confirmed in the Anglican Church as a teenager) had been born again while on submarines. Joseph Conrad was a sailor before becoming a writer (becoming a captain). There have been plenty of welders that become rock stars too.

 

[WhiteWolf]

Given that the typical doctor (and lawyer) works more than 40 hours per week (probably the average is 50+ hours), he'll still average >30 hours per week in a year even if he takes a 3 month vacation.

In any case, the fact that maintaining a professional skill level is pretty much a full time job makes it clear to me that it's pretty implausible for characters to have very many level 3+ skills in Traveller.

tbeard, I think you may want to take a step back and actually analyze what you are saying. It does not take a professional 40+ hours to maintain there skill level. The hours they spend working are primarily spent on ... working. The time they went to school is the time they spent to educate themselves in the field they desired to work in. Once they completed their education and went to work the first few years are spent applying the relativity to practicality, and after that it is a constant repetitive use of your skills; some you will use more then others. So if the person decided to take a 3 month or even a year vacation he would still have the ability to perform his task given the technology had not changed. He might need at most 320 man-hours of time to refresh himself. And if the technology has changed you might double or triple the man-hours to catch up, but it would depend on several factors.

What keeps a professional on his edge and up-to-date is the time spent reading material in his given field of study, talking to co-workers about their experiences and what the latest technology/trend is; attending seminars and workshops. A lot of this is done by spending an average of 10 man hours per week (+/- 5 hours depending on the profession).

What you have been describing is what it would take for someone to learn from one field of study to another, un-related, field of study. You have not described what it would take a person to maintain that level of knowledge (at least from what I read).

 

[mbrinkhues]

Label me stupid but: What was the name of the Welder turned Rockstar?

I know a truckdriver turned King of RocknRoll, a Brit officer turned singer but who's the welder?

 

[far-trader]

To answer an earlier query somewhere...

...this is why some people not that thrilled with MGT follow the MGT threads There's ideas to mine here for every Traveller, and everyone has something that may be helpful to MGT even if they aren't using it.

I'd like to see this "skill" expansion discussed more generally so others may share in it's development and use. Anybody want to start a new thread?

In the meantime a few quick thoughts of my own possibly suited for CT and by association MGT...

How about referencing Int and Edu more strongly (making them more valuable) in the maintenance and best level as well as the usual maximum skills. Also makes it more individualistic.

Something like:

1 - Total skill levels allowed (zero level count as half) = Int + Edu

So average people will have about 15 skill levels, perfect specimens will have 30 skill levels.

Figuring a mix of half zero level into it will give about an average person about 17 areas of experience: 5 levels of expertise (skill level 2+, see next below) in two areas, 5 levels of competence (skill level 1) in 5 areas, and 10 levels of knowledge (skill level 0) in 10 areas.

2 - Best skill levels allowed (any skills greater than 1) = (Int + Edu)/3

So an average person can have about 5 levels of expertise. Probably a Skill-3 and Skill-2 (total = 5). A perfect specimen (max Int and Edu) could have 10 levels of expertise. Perhaps a Skill-5, Skill-3, and Skill-2 (or five times Skill-2 as another example)

3 - Maintenance requirements = 8 hours per skill level per week. Failing to meet the required maintenance in a week drops skills one level until maintenance is met.

So the average professional with Skill-3, Skill-2, five times Skill-1, and 10 times Skill-0 would need 80 hours per week to maintain those levels. About 40 hours per week for the professional skills and 40 hours more for the competency skills. The zero level skills require no maintenance.

The perfect specimen with 30 skill levels, for example expertise of Skill-5, Skill-3, and Skill-2, competence of 10 times Skill-1, and 20 times Skill-0 would require 160 hours per week to maintain all those skills at those levels. That's about 23 hours per day so some of those skills will suffer, probably a lot of the Skill-1 will be temporarily at Skill-0 but available at Skill-1 with a quick refresher of 8 hours per.

Just as a quick jot of ideas.

 

[Klaus]

Label me stupid but: What was the name of the Welder turned Rockstar?

I know a truckdriver turned King of RocknRoll, a Brit officer turned singer but who's the welder?

Actually, I was wrong, it was sheet metal worker. Tony Iommi from Black Sabbath. They weren't an art school band like most of the rest of the 60's lot; proper working class types them.

There is probably a welder cum rockstar out there though....

 

[tbeard1999]

A 6 term CT Book 1 Merchant could acquire more than 14 skill levels, not just 12.

But that assumes a higher rank than Jamison achieved. If Jamison had achieved the same rank in CT as in MGT, I counted 12 skills.

That is actually not that different from MGT at all. (Take away connections and skills package and MGT characters get the same)

0-level skills may be statistically be 0.7 of a skill level, but you're not always using a task roll, and this is one area when I'm not too fussed that it may not be a perfect model of RL.

That's your choice, but I think it's a bit of stretch to argue that zero level skills have little value compared to level one skills. And I think valuing them at 0.7 is pretty reasonable. By that measure, MGT's version of Jamison has ~20 skills or about 60% more skills than his CT equivalent.

I say that MGT produces more specialist types because that is my experience with the character creation so far. Purely anecdotal, but so far there's been none of those lots of skill 1's jacks of all trades yet.

Of course, Jamison, is just such a character. SEVENTEEN different skills...

 

[tbeard1999]

tbeard, I think you may want to take a step back and actually analyze what you are saying. It does not take a professional 40+ hours to maintain there skill level. The hours they spend working are primarily spent on ... working.

It's a fair point, but it is clear to me that a great deal of the time I spend working also maintains my high level of skill in law. And I do not know of many folks who can accurately claim expert levels of competence in more than two fields at the same time.

And RPG PCs will also have to spend time "working". My estimate of ~77 hours per week should be reduced dramatically by the amount of time spent "working" rather than "maintaining".

So my point remains...high levels of competence require a tremendous investment in time and effort to obtain and considerable expenditures of time and energy to maintain. And it seems unlikely to me that most folks can have more than about two competencies that they exercise at high levels at the same time.

The time they went to school is the time they spent to educate themselves in the field they desired to work in. Once they completed their education and went to work the first few years are spent applying the relativity to practicality, and after that it is a constant repetitive use of your skills; some you will use more then others. So if the person decided to take a 3 month or even a year vacation he would still have the ability to perform his task given the technology had not changed. He might need at most 320 man-hours of time to refresh himself. And if the technology has changed you might double or triple the man-hours to catch up, but it would depend on several factors.

Whatever the final numbers are, it's very difficult to find examples of people who simultaneously maintain professional levels of competence in multiple fields. I submit that the reason for this is simple -- there are only so many hours in a day.

 

[tbeard1999]

To answer an earlier query somewhere...

...this is why some people not that thrilled with MGT follow the MGT threads There's ideas to mine here for every Traveller, and everyone has something that may be helpful to MGT even if they aren't using it.

Definitely a good point.

1 - Total skill levels allowed (zero level count as half) = Int + Edu

So average people will have about 15 skill levels, perfect specimens will have 30 skill levels.

Personally, I think that this probably overstates a person's ability a bit. But the methodology is reasonable IMHO.

I think that normal folks should not be able to maintain a level 3+ in more than 2 skills at a time. (I assume that 3+ is "professional" level).

I dunno how many level 2 skills one can reasonably have, but I note that I have maybe two level 2 skills -- Gaming-2, History-2 (both are serious hobbies for me and each complements the other), after, uh six terms. So I don't think I'd be comfortable with allowing more than two skills at level-2 in addition to the two skills at level 3+. (Or to say it better, four skills at level 2+, 2 of which can be level 3+). It seems unlikely to me -- though not inconceivable -- that I will add additional level-2 or level-3 skills in the next few years.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'd also note that Traveller makes a key assumption about skills that I think is dubious in the Real World -- that all skills require roughly the same amount of time/effort.

Let me jump in here, TBeard, and say that what you say above is true for versions of Traveller post CT, but it's not really true for CT.

Why do I say that?

Because skill levels have different values in CT.

Once MT came out, Skills were standardized to Skill-1 = +1 DM.

With MT, there are several examples where skills are treated differently. See my earilier post in this thread about that.

For example, the Vacc Suit skill is used at +4 per level when attempting non-standard maneuvers. The roll is 10+. So, at Vacc Suit-2, the attempt is automatic success.

OTOH, a Medical-2 skill will get you a +1 DM when you put someone into low berth. Anything less than Medical-2 nets you no bonus. Anything greater than Medical-2 nets you no additional bonus.

This is one of the things I really like about CT.

And, you're right, it does "fit" the real world better than a standardized Skill-1 = +1 DM mechanic.

 

[Jamus]

But that assumes a higher rank than Jamison achieved. If Jamison had achieved the same rank in CT as in MGT, I counted 12 skills.

That's your choice, but I think it's a bit of stretch to argue that zero level skills have little value compared to level one skills. And I think valuing them at 0.7 is pretty reasonable. By that measure, MGT's version of Jamison has ~20 skills or about 60% more skills than his CT equivalent.

I know that I have said MGT is CT+ but that does not mean that they are the same game, nor should they be. What I want to know is why you are using CT as a basis for comparing what MGT should be like? CT already exists and it is clear that you, like myself, really love CT but it is not fair to compare the two systems, especially when you are only doing so to point out what you consider to be flaws in the MGT system.

You want to talk realism between CT and MGT lets compare these two. one term each and lets assume they both are promoted.

CT BK1 army 1 term Rifle-2 Vehicle(ATV)-1 Tactics-1

MGT
Home world Hi-tech Vac Ast Home skills Zero-G-0 Computer-0 Vacc suit-0
Army infantry 1 term Drive(tracked)-0 Athletics()-1 Gun combat()-0 Recon-1 Melee(unarmed)-0 Heavy weapons(launcher)-0 Stealth-1 *Leadership-1

event roll 6 Brutal war throw End8+ gain Gun Cbt-1 or Leadership-1 I would take leadership-1*

Which of these two characters do you think more realistically represents a Ex soldier and the skills he would possess after a four year tour? As a ex-infantryman I bet you can guess which one I think is a more accurate depiction.

 

[Supplement Four]

You want to talk realism between CT and MGT lets compare these two. one term each and lets assume they both are promoted.

CT BK1 army 1 term Rifle-2 Vehicle(ATV)-1 Tactics-1

MGT
Home world Hi-tech Vac Ast Home skills Zero-G-0 Computer-0 Vacc suit-0
Army infantry 1 term Drive(tracked)-0 Athletics()-1 Gun combat()-0 Recon-1 Melee(unarmed)-0 Heavy weapons(launcher)-0 Stealth-1 *Leadership-1

event roll 6 Brutal war throw End8+ gain Gun Cbt-1 or Leadership-1 I would take leadership-1*

Which of these two characters do you think more realistically represents a Ex soldier and the skills he would possess after a four year tour? As a ex-infantryman I bet you can guess which one I think is a more accurate depiction.

I would mention that it is expected in CT that the GM would establish homeworld, so you'd have HW stats for your character (although no skills). DGP has a magazine article that brings in those types of HW skills for CT characters, though.

I also want to point out that not all my posts about MGT are negative. I actually really like what I'm hearing about character generation. I like the inclusion of "Events".

I already know, if I ever become "sold" on MGT that I will not allow arranging stats to taste, and I will use my simple "fix" for the stat bloat issue in the task system.

I'm waiting for Golan to post more stuff on his review of MGT to see if I like other parts of it.

And, I'm waiting for him to answer some of the questions I had about combat earlier in the thread.

 

[tbeard1999]

I know that I have said MGT is CT+ but that does not mean that they are the same game, nor should they be. What I want to know is why you are using CT as a basis for comparing what MGT should be like?

For the simple reason that I think CT (at least LBB1 and Supp 4) got the average number of skills right for a 2d6 based system.

And to make the point that the decision to average increase the number of skill levels per character is a substantive change from CT*.

*It actually isn't new; Book 4+ chargen could produce characters with as many skills as MGT, as could the MT derivatives of those systems. But I think that those products are flawed as well.

CT already exists and it is clear that you, like myself, really love CT but it is not fair to compare the two systems, especially when you are only doing so to point out what you consider to be flaws in the MGT system.

On the contrary, I think a comparison with CT is highly relevant if the question is whether MGT represents an improvement over CT -- which is, of course, how it's being billed.

Now, for what it's worth, I do not unconditionally love CT anywhere near as much as some folks apparently unconditionally love MGT. I replaced CT's combat system decades ago, so obviously I think it can be improved.

Nor do I unconditionally hate MGT. I've already stated that I like its chargen system and that I am confident that the flaws I think exist in it can be easily fixed. Of course, there's some disagreement over whether these are really flaws...

You want to talk realism between CT and MGT lets compare these two. one term each and lets assume they both are promoted.

Not particularly interested because my objection is more a game mechanic and roleplaying objection than a "realism" objection.

As I said before, I prefer for there to be relatively little overlap between characters. Also, I prefer for each character to be the best in the group at one or two important skills. Systems that produce characters with SEVENTEEN different skills frustrate this.

Now, as it happens, I am skeptical that 42 year old people can plausibly be good at that many different things. But that assertion cannot be proven, since there's no way to evaluate claims of competence by folks. So this is a tertiary issue for me, but one that I think bears consideration.

CT BK1 army 1 term Rifle-2 Vehicle(ATV)-1 Tactics-1

MGT
Home world Hi-tech Vac Ast Home skills Zero-G-0 Computer-0 Vacc suit-0
Army infantry 1 term Drive(tracked)-0 Athletics()-1 Gun combat()-0 Recon-1 Melee(unarmed)-0 Heavy weapons(launcher)-0 Stealth-1 *Leadership-1

event roll 6 Brutal war throw End8+ gain Gun Cbt-1 or Leadership-1 I would take leadership-1*

Which of these two characters do you think more realistically represents a Ex soldier and the skills he would possess after a four year tour? As a ex-infantryman I bet you can guess which one I think is a more accurate depiction.

Well, since I am not an ex-infantryman I am unqualified to evaluate your assertion. And since 22 year old characters aren't very common in my campaign, the issue is moot anyhow. I would note that I'd definitely prefer to play the MGT character if I was unfortunate enough to wind up with a 22 year old character. But that's a false dilemma (and moot as noted). Nor does the fact that I would naturally prefer a more capable character get us very far.

A far more relevant question would be whether a Traveller campaign is better off with characters that average 20 skills or 12 skills. I think that the answer is the latter, unless you are running a game for a very small number of players (two or so).

 

[tbeard1999]

Let me jump in here, TBeard, and say that what you say above is true for versions of Traveller post CT, but it's not really true for CT.

Why do I say that?

Because skill levels have different values in CT.

...This is one of the things I really like about CT.

And, you're right, it does "fit" the real world better than a standardized Skill-1 = +1 DM mechanic.

I never really considered it, but I think you're right. This goes a long way towards explaining my visceral dislike of "universal" task resolution systems as well.

However, there *are* benefits to standardized task systems. And if there were hundreds of skills, I'd be the first to agree that a standardized system is appropriate. But LBB1-3 had a relatively small number of skills (~25 IIRC) and customized resolution mechanics weren't a big deal. But Books 4+ added more and more skills (13 in Book 4, fewer in Books 5+). At some point, I think it became a reasonable game design decision to standardize task resolution.

Anyhow, I think you make a goods point.

 

[WhiteWolf]

It's a fair point, but it is clear to me that a great deal of the time I spend working also maintains my high level of skill in law. And I do not know of many folks who can accurately claim expert levels of competence in more than two fields at the same time.

And RPG PCs will also have to spend time "working". My estimate of ~77 hours per week should be reduced dramatically by the amount of time spent "working" rather than "maintaining".

So my point remains...high levels of competence require a tremendous investment in time and effort to obtain and considerable expenditures of time and energy to maintain. And it seems unlikely to me that most folks can have more than about two competencies that they exercise at high levels at the same time.



Whatever the final numbers are, it's very difficult to find examples of people who simultaneously maintain professional levels of competence in multiple fields. I submit that the reason for this is simple -- there are only so many hours in a day.

Ok, I think I see what is happening. It looks as if you are taking a single premise, your profession in law, and applying as a general premise, being every profession. This instantly makes the statement false unless you are specifically talking about law. I agree with you that law, and a very few other professions, do require a large amount of time because the laws are modified constantly; but you can not take that single premise and apply it to every profession. If you learn how to fly an airplane, follow it up with stunt lessons, and logged a massive amount of flight time doing combat flights in the military your knowledge of how and what to do does not necessarily fade away after you stop flying, you may forget a few things over time but they will come back once you start flying again. What does fade is your reaction. A very good example would be someone in a Special Forces unit. They are required to learn and master a lot of skills, and regardless of how long they stay in they will know these skills for the rest of their life. The only thing that would prevent them from function the way they use to is if they let their body deteriorate.

In past post here you have mentioned Tae Kwon Doe and how you learned it in your teens (maybe sooner), but approximately after the age of twenty you stopped practicing. You also mentioned that you still remember a lot of the moves and steps, but your speed is not what it use to be and it would take you a while to build back if you worked at it. Well, you are not talking about the skill of Tae Kwon Doe; you are talking about your attribute, such as Dexterity, Strength, and Reaction. The attributes are what you should be explaining.

 

[tbeard1999]

Ok, I think I see what is happening. It looks as if you are taking a single premise, your profession in law, and applying as a general premise, being every profession.

Actually, I know a number of other professionals as well -- doctors, CPAs, etc. And I know a fair number of business owners. And airline pilots. Most of them do one thing very well -- their job. They may also have a couple of things that they do at a fairly high level as hobbies. But that's about it. So if anything, I'm generous in allowing that few people can perform two major skills at a professional level.

Nothing you've said alters that observation. Yes, I use my own profession as a benchmark because that's what I'm familiar with. But it is clear to me that the principle applies generally across the board. And if athletic skills were so easy to maintain, then why do professional athletes practice constantly? And my pilot buddies are unanimous that a good way to get killed is to fly infrequently. (I'll be testing this out soon, as I intend to get my pilot's license this year or next year). They seem to feel that competence at flying requires constant exercise. I think that this is true of most major skills. (Note that I never claimed that you forget a skill. Rather, I believe that you will lose the professional level of competence without regular use of the skill, which I contend takes a lot of time.)

Of course, you can subdivide major skills and change the conclusion, but I've already covered that in a previous post.

In any case, I have serious in-game reasons to dislike characters who can do almost everything. The observation that professional levels of competence in most fields requires a serious expenditure of time is a tertiary issue. Nor can it be disproven by bald claims of competence. Over the years, I've found that many gamers, when they "stat themselves out" tend to come out looking like homo superior rather than normal folks.

In addition, I've found that people tend to have an inflated idea of how much they actually know about a subject (and a correspondingly overoptimistic idea of how much you have to know about something to do it at a professional level).

So all I can say is that I find it rather difficult to accept some of the claims of competency I get in discussions like this...

And since I was able to learn to play racquetball at a fairly high skill level after abandoning Tae Kwon Do, I reject your contention that my Tae Kwon Do skills suffered due primarily to a lowering of my DEX. They atrophied from neglect, not a reduction in DEX. And while I could get them back in far less than eight years of practice (with normal reductions due to aging), the time expenditure would be significant. As it happens, we had an "old guy" in our class that came back in his late 30s. He was a black belt in his early 20s (in those days, black belts took about 4-5 years to get) and it took him about 2-3 years to get up to a respectable level of competence. If I were to do the same, I'd have to significantly curtail my other hobbies, like gaming...

 

[Ishmael]

this discussion has sparked an idea...

perhaps skills should have 'aging rolls' based on how much times passes between uses. Players would HAVE to continually work to keep skills at their previous levels through the advancement rules.

 

[GypsyComet]

this discussion has sparked an idea...

perhaps skills should have 'aging rolls' based on how much times passes between uses. Players would HAVE to continually work to keep skills at their previous levels through the advancement rules.

That has annoying meta-game consequences. Runequest used a mechanic like that for experience (RQ being a more "normal" growth-through-experience-in-play game) and players all over began finding the silliest excuses to exercise skills that the current adventure hadn't called for, just to get the experience tic.

That, and Traveller already has plenty of accounting.

As an optional rule, I might consider implementing such a rule for exceptional skill levels. 1s and 2s aren't a huge deal in most (CT/MT/T4/MGT) cases, but I could see needing to constantly practice/train/do/etc to maintain a 4 or higher.

 

[tbeard1999]

That has annoying meta-game consequences. Runequest used a mechanic like that for experience (RQ being a more "normal" growth-through-experience-in-play game) and players all over began finding the silliest excuses to exercise skills that the current adventure hadn't called for, just to get the experience tic.

That, and Traveller already has plenty of accounting.

As an optional rule, I might consider implementing such a rule for exceptional skill levels. 1s and 2s aren't a huge deal in most (CT/MT/T4/MGT) cases, but I could see needing to constantly practice/train/do/etc to maintain a 4 or higher.

I think that the most hassle-free approach would be to allow PCs to roll skills normally. But at any given time, limit the number of level 3+ skills (two is appropriate IMHO) and a few more level 2+ skills (two IMHO). All other skills are parenthetically reduced to level 1 or 0. Between adventures, allow characters to reshuffle which skills they have at high levels. So at various times, you might have been a doctor, lawyer, ace fighter pilot and sniper. But you can't do them all at the same time.

 

[rust]

And my pilot buddies are unanimous that a good way to get killed is to fly infrequently.

I do not know how this is handled in your country, but in Germany even a
hobby pilot loses his pilot's license if he does not fly at least a certain num-
ber of hours per year, and can prove that he did so.