Free skills?

[weasel fierce]

well, the skills are determined normally by the players.

but if the referee wanted to ensure a certain type of play what would be wrong with giving everyone a particular skill ?

Want to run a game of Solomani marine commandos behind enemy lines, but dont fancy rolling dice untill everybody gets the required skill set ? Roll up some Mercenary characters, then give everybody Recon 1 and whatever other stuff they need to have.

Heck, CT already gives everybody a 0 level in every friggen gun known to man, unless they are conan the barbarian or a doctor. If I can buy that Bob the Merchant knows how to fire a plasma gun, then I can buy that Bob learned how to gamble, after a near-explosive decompression incident that led him to meet Sergeant Stubbles of the Solomani marines

 

[Supplement Four]

If I can buy that Bob the Merchant knows how to fire a plasma gun, then I can buy that Bob learned how to gamble, after a near-explosive decompression incident that led him to meet Sergeant Stubbles of the Solomani marines

Bob the Merchant wouldn't automatically be able to fire a PGMP or a FGMP because the Level-0 skills you refer to are only the weapons in Book 1 (not Book 4).

Bob the Merchant, without a skill, would be subject to the non-weapon proficiency rule of -5 DM to hit.

 

[sablewyvern]

Sup4, I can't believe you are seriously going to try and argue that a couple extra skills of the player's choice have any functional equivalency with being handed a pre-gen and having no input as to the character's skills. If anything, removing some of the random element makes extra skill generation less like receiving a pre-gen, rather than more.

The only legitimate point of similarity you have actually been able to provide us is that you don't like either extra skills or preg-gens. By that logic, I might as well call the UGM equivalent to task resolution by GM-Fiat (which, btw, it clearly isn't), given that neither is my preferred option.

As to why giving away two (or a couple more with the group package) skills is not the same as giving away 10 - 20 skills of the player's choice, I'll leave you to work that out yourself.

Fortunately, there is a bright side to all this. For any player who really does feel that being able to choose a couple extra skills is somehow like receiving a pre-gen, or in some way limiting his ability to develop his character the way he wants, he can always forgo taking those extra skills.

 

[weasel fierce]

Bob the Merchant wouldn't automatically be able to fire a PGMP or a FGMP because the Level-0 skills you refer to are only the weapons in Book 1 (not Book 4).

Bob the Merchant, without a skill, would be subject to the non-weapon proficiency rule of -5 DM to hit.

Ah my bad

 

[Supplement Four]

As to why giving away two (or a couple more with the group package) skills is not the same as giving away 10 - 20 skills of the player's choice, I'll leave you to work that out yourself.

Say you've got three players. Not a bad number. Quite average for a gaming group, I'd say.

They go through chargen, and all of them decide to be Marines. Two of them make it, and the other ends up in the Navy. Now, the two Marines decide they served with each other, and the Navy character jumps in saying he crewed their vessel they served on.

So now, that's 2 extra skills each. On top of what they got in chargen.

Now, before the adventure begins, they all opt for the Traveller skill package. There's 8 skills there.

That means two characters will get 3 more skills each and one character will get only 2 more skills.

So, what you're ending up with is...

Character 1: 5 extra skills on top of chargen.

Character 2: 5 extra skills on top of chargen.

Character 3: 4 extra skills on top of chargen.



In some cases, this will effectively double the number of skills the character earned in chargen.


As I said, these are a couple of poorly thought-out rules. Stupid. Bad game design.







EDIT: What those two rules are doing, in effect, is giving each character 1-2 terms worth of free skills. Of course, with more players, the effect slackens some. With two players, though, you'll end up with some beefed-up hombres without using the munchkin rules.

 

[aramis]

The "package" skills only grant level 1, no higher. One player (of 5) got only one skill... since he had all the others in the package that had not been taken when his turn came up at level 1+ already.

It's cinematic, yes, but it's not going to make the skill levels impressive, only employable.

It probably should be limited to one level per character, and if not rolling up as a group, it is so limited.

 

[sablewyvern]

In some cases, this will effectively double the number of skills the character earned in chargen.

For small groups with low numbers of terms, quite possibly. MGT seems predicated on much higher overall skill levels and numbers of terms served than CT, though (and, I'm guessing you don't like that, either).

As I said, these are a couple of poorly thought-out rules. Stupid. Bad game design.

I disagree. They are bad rules in particular circumstances, for people looking for a particular style of play. For me and my group, they're excellent rules.

EDIT: What those two rules are doing, in effect, is giving each character 1-2 terms worth of free skills. Of course, with more players, the effect slackens some. With two players, though, you'll end up with some beefed-up hombres without using the munchkin rules.

Quite possibly. I will grant you that you are now presenting some valid reasons to dislike the way these particular rules work. They are very subjective objections, however, and given the ease with which these extra skills can be eliminated from games where they're not wanted, you seem to be rather excessive in your vehemence.

 

[atpollard]

S4,

Just grant the "I Know You" and "The Group Needs These" skills at level-0 instead of level-1. This will add CT Ref FIAT type 'background skills" without inflating the skills too much. If one of the skills MUST be Skill-1 for the game to work (ie. the ship MUST have a Medical Officer at Medic-1) then the Ref can still exercise his Fiat and bump it to level-1.

The point actually seems moot, since you are the reigning proponent for USE CT AS WRITTEN. I don't imagine that a lot of GURPS fans will suddenly want to change systems either.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

basically, its just a way of rewarding the players for creating a more interesting background for their characters.

That should be its own reward.

 

[Supplement Four]

I will grant you that you are now presenting some valid reasons to dislike the way these particular rules work.

I felt it was obvious before--that it wasn't necessary to spell it out.

They are very subjective objections, however, and given the ease with which these extra skills can be eliminated from games where they're not wanted, you seem to be rather excessive in your vehemence.

Let's say you're not playing with mature gamers who like to do what the GMs says no matter what the rules say.

Another reason why its bad game design is that players will look at the rules and say, "Hey! More skills! Let's do this!" And, that put the GM in a bad position as he says, "No, no. That rule leads to skill bloat. You can't use either of those rules."

It just shouldn't be in there.

 

[Supplement Four]

The point actually seems moot, since you are the reigning proponent for USE CT AS WRITTEN.

That is me.

But, I was answering the OP.

And...just because I'm a CT lover doesn't mean I didn't want to be blown away by MGT. I had high hopes. I'm disappointed.

 

[sablewyvern]

I felt it was obvious before--that it wasn't necessary to spell it out.

Possibly. Your "might as well use pre-gens" comment, and then your attempt to defend it as a legitimate comparison was what caught my attention, though.

Let's say you're not playing with mature gamers who like to do what the GMs says no matter what the rules say.

I don't game with people like that, and I have absolutely no interest in whether or not an idiot can abuse a rule, or use it as an excuse for idiocy. If a rule works for reasonable people, then it works, as far as I'm concerned. I certainly don't want rules I like (such as the one in question) being removed just because some people are douches.

Another reason why its bad game design is that players will look at the rules and say, "Hey! More skills! Let's do this!"

Again, I wouldn't play with somone who said "the rules offer X, so we should do Y as well and ruin the game". Therefore, I do not want my game systems limited by the assumption my players might be disruptive and contrary. Sounds to me as if you're just scarred by bad experiences with idiots, and that's colouring your perspective.

It just shouldn't be in there.

Yeah, it should.

Look, maybe it shouldn't be there. But you've yet to make a case -- your objections boil down to stating that you don't like it, it detracts from the beauty that is random Traveller chargen, and it might lead some unspecified player (that I don't even want to associate with in the first place) to throw a tantrum if he doesn't get his way.

OTOH, I like that there is some non-random influence in the mix. I'm not attached to Traveller tradition, and I like the mainly-random with a few guarantees system found in MGT. The system works. It may not do what you want it to do, but it does do what I want it to do.

Further, I have a player who generally dislikes random character generation. We did a sample character over the weekend, and he enjoyed the process, but he would be much happier having more control over the end result when it comes to making the PC he uses in the game. He's going to play, without complaint, in any case, and use the random char gen, because he really wants to play some more Traveller and he trusts me as GM. So, it's nice to be able to throw him a small bone and provide him with a few options to flesh out his character exactly the way he wants to.

Not everyone is enamoured of random chargen, and I would guess that, overall, most people these days prefer point buy or other methods where they are offered more control than Traveller traditionally does.* Allowing a few fixed skill choices is potentially going to go a long way towards making Traveller more appealing to those people.

In any event, there's no objective right or wrong to including these skills - it's a matter of taste. Presenting your case as if it is anything other than subjective at its heart really isn't going to win anyone over to your cause.

*And, yes, I could be wrong about that. I don't think anyone has conclusive evidence as to what type of char gen is most popular in the RPing hobby.

 

[weasel fierce]

THats the question though. Does it lead to skill bloat ?

Remember, this isnt classic traveller, where you can begin play with Rifle 1, Admin 1 and nothing else.
Mongoose's game is its own beast (just like the other editions have been, all of which provide more skills than the original game, unless you count books 4-7 which hand them out pretty handsomely as well)

At that point is it "skill bloat" ? Particularly considering that having extra skills also means you are slower at learning or improving skills further into the game

 

[Supplement Four]

At that point is it "skill bloat" ?

It is.

You're still dealing with a 2D6 system. From the modifiers and the 8+ throw, the system can't stand too many characters with hordes of skills or it will break.

The -3 DM (or is it -4?) for being unskilled helps. But, the way the game is set up, there will be someone in the party, most likely, that has the needed skill.

Three characters go through chargen. That gives 'em a good number of skills (way more than CT). Then, you're talking about giving them another 4-5 skills on top of that.

There will be no weak characters with this system.

Some people will respond to that saying, "Waaaa! But, these are PCs! They're SUPPOSED to be heroes!"

And, I would remind this person that this isn't D&D. Players will never have the challenge of playing a weak character.

That's the problem with point-design systems and systems like MGT where a plethora of skills is granted the player characters. Every fighter is a good fighter. Every scientist is a good scientist. Every engineer is a good engineer. Every pilot is a good pilot...

If you're playing Star Wars, I'm all for that. If you're playing D&D, I'm all for super heroes. If you want your CT game to be like that, then throw some rules like this into the mix, and you'll get it.

At best, these are munchkin rules for munchkin gamers.

If even considered as part of the main rules, they should be in the "alternatives" sections where the point-chargen rules are for the munchkins.

These rules are definitely not for the serious Traveller player.

 

[Foxroe]

I've been mulling it over, and here's what I think...

Opinion: The free skills based on "who you know" and "what did we not get during CharGen" are unnecessary.

Reasons:

1. The skills obtained during CharGen should be more than adequate for play. They were for CT, and the RTT system doesn't appear to be so far removed from the original CT mechanics. It seems to me that if the game designers wanted to add more skills for the sake of adding them... then why not during "normal" character generation?

2. If the free skills were added as a method to allow players to choose skills, rather than roll for them, then why not let players choose during CharGen instead of roll? Or as another option, any skills earned, above the initial skill gained per term, are chosen from the lists instead of rolled (or a some such similar method). This would make characters less random and would improve the chances that they obtain a "needed" skill. Besides, there is a points-based character build alternative if players didn't want to use the random method.

3. Part of role-playing is learning what your character's limitations are, and learning how to adapt to that. This is one of the fundamental ingredients to character development. It seems unfair to the players and boring for the referee if we just throw a few more non-career related skills at the characters.

Anyway, just my opinion. I'm sure that if I have the opportunity to play RTT (I do love that acronym), I may learn to like those rules... or at least accept them. After all, what's a little more hand-waving in a SciFi RPG?

(Edit: I posted without having read S4's previous post... I guess that this pretty much echoes what he was saying.)

- Fox

 

[pendragonman]

...Some people will respond to that saying, "Waaaa! But, these are PCs! They're SUPPOSED to be heroes!"

And, I would remind this person that this isn't D&D. Players will never have the challenge of playing a weak character.

That's the problem with point-design systems and systems like MGT where a plethora of skills is granted the player characters. Every fighter is a good fighter. Every scientist is a good scientist. Every engineer is a good engineer. Every pilot is a good pilot...

If you're playing Star Wars, I'm all for that. If you're playing D&D, I'm all for super heroes. If you want your CT game to be like that, then throw some rules like this into the mix, and you'll get it...

I object to the characterization of all D&D players being whiny-must-have-super-hero-character twirps. That has evolved since WOTC/HASBRO's take over of the game, or maybe since Unearthed Arcana.

Those of us old-school first edition tyrannosaurs can, and often do, play characters with straight 9's for stats just to show the console-gaming drones that it doesn't matter what your stats are, but how you role-play that makes the difference.

But then again, I am a CT guy too. So I guess like goes with like. Otherwise, S-4, you are right on the money.

 

[aramis]

You'd likely have been disappointed no matter what it looked like WJP...

... since the most frequent complaint about CT is that the skills were too few, and I've read that complaint from the guy designing MoTrav.

He wanted to ensure that a party can run a ship, or a merc unit, whether or not they are random rolled. The extra skills do that.

 

[Supplement Four]

He wanted to ensure that a party can run a ship, or a merc unit, whether or not they are random rolled. The extra skills do that.

Yep. He accomplished that. The MGT PCs can do it all.

But, that's the point I've been making, isn't it.

 

[sablewyvern]

Courtesy of the Twilight 2013 developer's blog:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

Personally, I pitched MGT to my players as a game where they would have the opportunity to play highly competent, grizzled veterans, and I am happy that I'm getting a system that will let me meet my promises without requiring significant tweaking. And, contrary to some of the views posted in this thread, having highly competent PCs has nothing at all to do with whining/spoiled/munchkin players. For those with that experience, I once again question the sort of people you're gaming with.

Playing "weak" characters is not some higher plateau of gaming. It's simply one stylistic choice amongst many (and, in fact, low powered games are the ones I've run predominantly until the last couple of years).

 

[Supplement Four]

Playing "weak" characters is not some higher plateau of gaming.

Ah, but it usually is (with competent gamers).

Not too often would a competent gamer decide to play something weak. I mean, why? Every once in a while, sure, a player may have a neat idea in his head that involves weakness, but usually, that weakness is more than made up for in some other strength.

But...

Provide a system where a hot rolling player ends up with a hot character. Now! That's something to get excited about! Why? No, it's not because everybody and their joe can make an exceptional character. It's because the dice fell that way. It was a combination of player choices during chargen and hot dice throws.

Compare that to munchkin MGT where EVERY character is extremely competent.

Milktoast.

I hope I don't have to spell that one out.




And...I've got to say, some of the most fun times I've had playing Traveller is when a player rolled really, really bad during chargen and ended up with a weak character.

Those types of characters are actually harder to play because the player has got to rely on pure strength of personality to survive. In a way, in the hands of a capable player, a weak character is a higher form of gaming. Why? Because it's such a challenge to play a weak character.

It's simply one stylistic choice amongst many (and, in fact, low powered games are the ones I've run predominantly until the last couple of years).

If you're using MGT, then chances are your weakest party member is a pretty competent fellow.

Gone are the "everyman" involved in unusual events, as Traveller is known for. "In" is the super hero, decked out and ready for anything the GM throws at him.



It changes the entire flavor of the game.

No thanks.