GMing Classic Traveller

[Supplement Four]

GMing Classic Traveller




I didn't realize it until I read a couple of the recent threads, but there really is a dichotomy of Traveller GMs out there in the world.

Speaking in general terms, the "older" crowd, used to putting games together the MacGuyver way with nothing but some sewing thread and chewing gum, are apt to come up with a rule or decision on the spot and run with it.

I've noticed that more modern GMs are more prone to require "proof" in the form of specific, written examples that they can point to in official game supplements.

This isn't a jab at either type of GM (and, as always, I'm sure the sterotype breaks down when compared to a living, breathing individual). It's just something I've noticed recently and haven't paid any attention before.




Maybe a better way to explain this is to reference Loren K. Wiseman's "From The Management" column in JTAS #2. There, Loren creates a laser pistol for Traveller by just extrapolating from the stats of the laser carbine. He states, "The above example indicates how the Traveller rules can be used to create something not present in the rules.... With a little imagination, a little research, and a lot of thought, almost anything can be made compatible with Traveller."

Classic Traveller rules are like that. I'll refer you to the last page of Book 3 where it is stated, "Traveller is necessarily a framework describing the barest of essentials for an infinite universe.... A group involved in playing a scenario or campaign can make their adventures more elaborate, more detailed, more interesting, with the input of a great deal of imagination.... The greatest burden, of course, falls on the referee, who must create entire worlds and societies through which the players will roam."

Modern gaming, buy contrast (and in my opinion only), has lead to a breed of GMs who rely on specfic examples listed in official game guides. They're less comfortable with doing as LKW promotes in the above citation, preferring instead to refer to an "offical" laser pistol printed in a Traveller supplement. If they do "build" a laser pistol for their games, they don't use the "informed opinion" method suggested by LKW. They want a design sequence in the form of Fire, Fusion & Steel, so that their designs are as "official" as possible.

These GMs refrain from creating die rolls on the spot (as suggested in many Traveller supplements, specifically noting pgs. 28-29 of The Traveller Adventure), instead relying on structured task systems to guide their player characters' actions. And, these GMs are loathe to stray from the structured rules on any particular throw.

In short, it is my opinion that "older" GMs will fly by the seat of their pants, ad-libbing an adventure, guided by their gut, with inspiration taken from what they know of the rules.

More "modern" GMs, on the other hand, prefer to have an official, in print, hard core, one-size-fits-all system which they can use to adjudicate their games.




I've always looked at the CotI forum in two ways: As a place where Traveller fans hang out and enjoy each others' company; and as a type of internet Traveller fan magazine with columns written daily by informed (and not so informed) Traveller writers (because the info gleaned here is at least as good, and as consistent, as any Traveller fan magazine I've seen).

My thought here is to take a nod in the second direction and start a column focussing on Classic Traveller GMs ref-ing Classic Traveller games.

How do we CT GMs do it? What choices do we make? Here's a specific example--how would you handle it.

I'll pipe in with my two cents, but other GMs should not refrain from listing a dissenting opinion. There's plenty of room on this thread for all to participate.

If you've got a situation in your game, list it here. We'll all discuss it. Fire when ready.

The point of this?

I see that there are those out there who are not comfortable with the "semi-unstructured" environment that is Classic Traveller. I thought it might be valuable to start a thread where some of these issues can be discussed from different points of view.

There are I-can't-count how many versions of Traveller now, and even with all those choices, the majority of Traveller players stick with Classic Traveller.

It's a game we love. It's my favorite rpg of all time. And, if I can share my passion with another Traveller fan, then I'm game to do it.

Any and all comments are welome in this thread.

 

[Supplement Four]

GMing Classic Traveller




I didn't realize it until I read a couple of the recent threads, but there really is a dichotomy of Traveller GMs out there in the world.

Speaking in general terms, the "older" crowd, used to putting games together the MacGuyver way with nothing but some sewing thread and chewing gum, are apt to come up with a rule or decision on the spot and run with it.

I've noticed that more modern GMs are more prone to require "proof" in the form of specific, written examples that they can point to in official game supplements.

This isn't a jab at either type of GM (and, as always, I'm sure the sterotype breaks down when compared to a living, breathing individual). It's just something I've noticed recently and haven't paid any attention before.




Maybe a better way to explain this is to reference Loren K. Wiseman's "From The Management" column in JTAS #2. There, Loren creates a laser pistol for Traveller by just extrapolating from the stats of the laser carbine. He states, "The above example indicates how the Traveller rules can be used to create something not present in the rules.... With a little imagination, a little research, and a lot of thought, almost anything can be made compatible with Traveller."

Classic Traveller rules are like that. I'll refer you to the last page of Book 3 where it is stated, "Traveller is necessarily a framework describing the barest of essentials for an infinite universe.... A group involved in playing a scenario or campaign can make their adventures more elaborate, more detailed, more interesting, with the input of a great deal of imagination.... The greatest burden, of course, falls on the referee, who must create entire worlds and societies through which the players will roam."

Modern gaming, buy contrast (and in my opinion only), has lead to a breed of GMs who rely on specfic examples listed in official game guides. They're less comfortable with doing as LKW promotes in the above citation, preferring instead to refer to an "offical" laser pistol printed in a Traveller supplement. If they do "build" a laser pistol for their games, they don't use the "informed opinion" method suggested by LKW. They want a design sequence in the form of Fire, Fusion & Steel, so that their designs are as "official" as possible.

These GMs refrain from creating die rolls on the spot (as suggested in many Traveller supplements, specifically noting pgs. 28-29 of The Traveller Adventure), instead relying on structured task systems to guide their player characters' actions. And, these GMs are loathe to stray from the structured rules on any particular throw.

In short, it is my opinion that "older" GMs will fly by the seat of their pants, ad-libbing an adventure, guided by their gut, with inspiration taken from what they know of the rules.

More "modern" GMs, on the other hand, prefer to have an official, in print, hard core, one-size-fits-all system which they can use to adjudicate their games.




I've always looked at the CotI forum in two ways: As a place where Traveller fans hang out and enjoy each others' company; and as a type of internet Traveller fan magazine with columns written daily by informed (and not so informed) Traveller writers (because the info gleaned here is at least as good, and as consistent, as any Traveller fan magazine I've seen).

My thought here is to take a nod in the second direction and start a column focussing on Classic Traveller GMs ref-ing Classic Traveller games.

How do we CT GMs do it? What choices do we make? Here's a specific example--how would you handle it.

I'll pipe in with my two cents, but other GMs should not refrain from listing a dissenting opinion. There's plenty of room on this thread for all to participate.

If you've got a situation in your game, list it here. We'll all discuss it. Fire when ready.

The point of this?

I see that there are those out there who are not comfortable with the "semi-unstructured" environment that is Classic Traveller. I thought it might be valuable to start a thread where some of these issues can be discussed from different points of view.

There are I-can't-count how many versions of Traveller now, and even with all those choices, the majority of Traveller players stick with Classic Traveller.

It's a game we love. It's my favorite rpg of all time. And, if I can share my passion with another Traveller fan, then I'm game to do it.

Any and all comments are welome in this thread.

 

[Supplement Four]

Just to kick things off...




Consider yourself GMing a game. The PCs are in their ship, having just received a Signal GK. Triangulating the transmission, they find a derelict free falling in the system's asteroid belt.

It's time to go EVA. The players want to suit up and jump from one ship to another.

"No problem," you say as you flip out the rules listed under the Vacc Suit or Zero-G Combat skill (or even the Zero-G rules listed on pg. 45 of The Traveller Book, or the rules in Beltstrike), "who's got Vacc Suit skill?"

Not a single character has Vacc Suit skill written on their character sheets.

What do you do now? Rule that not one of these spacers knows how to operate a Vacc Suit? Use the rules mentioned above with the no-skill penalty?

Sure, if you want.

But, you could also take stock of common sense, and as the GM, award Vacc Suit-0 to any deserving character.

Check the character's homeworld. Does it makes sense that the character will probably have at least some expertise with Vacc Suit? If the character's homeworld is an asteroid belt, it certainly does. Certain atmo types might make it reasonable that the character may have some previous experience working with a Vacc Suit.

What about the character's prior career? Is there anything there that would make you think the character may have used a Vacc Suit before?

If so, allow the player to write the skill on the character's sheet, right then, at Skill-0.

Just use common sense.




I used Vacc Suit in this example because it's easy. But, take this idea with you into other areas of the game. If a character's background screams out, "I'VE GOT EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA!" then allow the character to have a Skill-0 with that skill eventhough the skill never popped up during chargen.

If the character if from a water world with a Type 6 atmo, then give him Swimming-0. Why not?





In my game, I consider every character to have any skill that can be had without special training at Skill-0. There's no need to even write this on the sheet because every character's got them.

So, every character has Bribery-0, because anybody can attempt a bribe. Admin-0. Streetwise-0. Steward-0. Carousing-0. These are all skills that don't require special training. It's in the spirit of Book 1 where it is stated that every character can pick up every weapon listed in that book and use it at Skill-0 proficiency.

Not all skill are covered under this rule, though. Skills that require specific training (like Pilot, Engineering, Swimming, Navigation, Medical)...all of these are not considered Skill-0 for every character. You've got to receive some training before you even get a Skill-0 in these types of skills.

This is the type of thing I consider, as well, when deciding whether to give a character Skill-0 expertise.

I'm much more prone to give a character Forgery-0 than I am Ship's Boat-0. The former anyone can try (and I'd still pop a negative on thier Forgery task throws), but the later requires formal training before any chance of success is possible.




Skills also "overlap". You'll see this in various descriptions in Traveller. The Vacc Suit skill, for example, can be used to operate BattleDress. BattleDress can be used as "Vacc Suit" if needed. Those two are inter-changeable on a certain level.

The BattleDress skill, though, also covers some areas that the Vacc Suit skill doesn't--like operating equipment and weapons on the BattleDress.

Zero-G Combat (from Book 4) and Vacc Suit are also closely related, but different on some counts.

ATV and Wheeled Vehicle can be used interchangeably. Air/Raft and Grav Vehicle can as well.

As a GM, if a character has Air/Raft-1 and Grav Vehicle-2, you might as well clean up the sheet by erasing Air/Raft-1 and keeping Grav Vehicle-2.

And, some skills are related but weighted differently. For example, A character with Leadership-4 and a character with Recruiting-1 will have the same effect on hiring personel. Whereas Leadership tends to attract all types of people within the character's sphere of personality, the Recuriting skill is more discerning and would receive DMs on seeking hirelings for specific tasks or positions.

See, these are all examples from the books. When it comes to the game, use your noggin. Just because it doesn't "say" a skill is related in the Traveller books doesn't mean that you shouldn't make a rule to that effect.

In my game, I see a correlation between ship's sensors and the Navigation skill. I mean the navigator uses sensors for most of his job. So, Navigation, in my game, is the same as Sensor Ops.

Gunners, too. Much of their work in firing the weapons deals with sensor data. If you've got Gunner-2 in my game, you can use that skill as if you've got Sensor Ops-1.

They seem related to me, so that's how I call it.




There's plenty of precedent for this type of thing in Traveller, too. Many skills can be used as a different, related skill at a lower level. Liaison, for example, from Book 5, can be used as either Admin or Streetwise at the next lower level.

Carousing, in Book 5, can be used as Steward at one level lower. Pilot can be used as Ship's Boat at one level lower.

Sometimes, the connection between two skills might not be as strong. If so, consider the skill at 2 levels or more lower. Xeno-Medicine, for example, from Book 1, is used at two levels lower than the Medic skill.

In my game, I do this with weapons. Everyone's got all the Book 1 weapons at Skill-0. But, say a character has Rifle-3. I'll let that character use like weapons at the same skill level: AutoRilfe-3. I'll say some like weapons can be used at one level lower: SMG-2 or Shotgun-2. And, for long connections, I'll do the skill at two levels lower: Pistol-1.

I think you'll find, with all the overlap and connections that are made between like skills, that the CT character, with few skills, is actually much more skilled than you ever gave him credit for.

 

[Supplement Four]

Just to kick things off...




Consider yourself GMing a game. The PCs are in their ship, having just received a Signal GK. Triangulating the transmission, they find a derelict free falling in the system's asteroid belt.

It's time to go EVA. The players want to suit up and jump from one ship to another.

"No problem," you say as you flip out the rules listed under the Vacc Suit or Zero-G Combat skill (or even the Zero-G rules listed on pg. 45 of The Traveller Book, or the rules in Beltstrike), "who's got Vacc Suit skill?"

Not a single character has Vacc Suit skill written on their character sheets.

What do you do now? Rule that not one of these spacers knows how to operate a Vacc Suit? Use the rules mentioned above with the no-skill penalty?

Sure, if you want.

But, you could also take stock of common sense, and as the GM, award Vacc Suit-0 to any deserving character.

Check the character's homeworld. Does it makes sense that the character will probably have at least some expertise with Vacc Suit? If the character's homeworld is an asteroid belt, it certainly does. Certain atmo types might make it reasonable that the character may have some previous experience working with a Vacc Suit.

What about the character's prior career? Is there anything there that would make you think the character may have used a Vacc Suit before?

If so, allow the player to write the skill on the character's sheet, right then, at Skill-0.

Just use common sense.




I used Vacc Suit in this example because it's easy. But, take this idea with you into other areas of the game. If a character's background screams out, "I'VE GOT EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA!" then allow the character to have a Skill-0 with that skill eventhough the skill never popped up during chargen.

If the character if from a water world with a Type 6 atmo, then give him Swimming-0. Why not?





In my game, I consider every character to have any skill that can be had without special training at Skill-0. There's no need to even write this on the sheet because every character's got them.

So, every character has Bribery-0, because anybody can attempt a bribe. Admin-0. Streetwise-0. Steward-0. Carousing-0. These are all skills that don't require special training. It's in the spirit of Book 1 where it is stated that every character can pick up every weapon listed in that book and use it at Skill-0 proficiency.

Not all skill are covered under this rule, though. Skills that require specific training (like Pilot, Engineering, Swimming, Navigation, Medical)...all of these are not considered Skill-0 for every character. You've got to receive some training before you even get a Skill-0 in these types of skills.

This is the type of thing I consider, as well, when deciding whether to give a character Skill-0 expertise.

I'm much more prone to give a character Forgery-0 than I am Ship's Boat-0. The former anyone can try (and I'd still pop a negative on thier Forgery task throws), but the later requires formal training before any chance of success is possible.




Skills also "overlap". You'll see this in various descriptions in Traveller. The Vacc Suit skill, for example, can be used to operate BattleDress. BattleDress can be used as "Vacc Suit" if needed. Those two are inter-changeable on a certain level.

The BattleDress skill, though, also covers some areas that the Vacc Suit skill doesn't--like operating equipment and weapons on the BattleDress.

Zero-G Combat (from Book 4) and Vacc Suit are also closely related, but different on some counts.

ATV and Wheeled Vehicle can be used interchangeably. Air/Raft and Grav Vehicle can as well.

As a GM, if a character has Air/Raft-1 and Grav Vehicle-2, you might as well clean up the sheet by erasing Air/Raft-1 and keeping Grav Vehicle-2.

And, some skills are related but weighted differently. For example, A character with Leadership-4 and a character with Recruiting-1 will have the same effect on hiring personel. Whereas Leadership tends to attract all types of people within the character's sphere of personality, the Recuriting skill is more discerning and would receive DMs on seeking hirelings for specific tasks or positions.

See, these are all examples from the books. When it comes to the game, use your noggin. Just because it doesn't "say" a skill is related in the Traveller books doesn't mean that you shouldn't make a rule to that effect.

In my game, I see a correlation between ship's sensors and the Navigation skill. I mean the navigator uses sensors for most of his job. So, Navigation, in my game, is the same as Sensor Ops.

Gunners, too. Much of their work in firing the weapons deals with sensor data. If you've got Gunner-2 in my game, you can use that skill as if you've got Sensor Ops-1.

They seem related to me, so that's how I call it.




There's plenty of precedent for this type of thing in Traveller, too. Many skills can be used as a different, related skill at a lower level. Liaison, for example, from Book 5, can be used as either Admin or Streetwise at the next lower level.

Carousing, in Book 5, can be used as Steward at one level lower. Pilot can be used as Ship's Boat at one level lower.

Sometimes, the connection between two skills might not be as strong. If so, consider the skill at 2 levels or more lower. Xeno-Medicine, for example, from Book 1, is used at two levels lower than the Medic skill.

In my game, I do this with weapons. Everyone's got all the Book 1 weapons at Skill-0. But, say a character has Rifle-3. I'll let that character use like weapons at the same skill level: AutoRilfe-3. I'll say some like weapons can be used at one level lower: SMG-2 or Shotgun-2. And, for long connections, I'll do the skill at two levels lower: Pistol-1.

I think you'll find, with all the overlap and connections that are made between like skills, that the CT character, with few skills, is actually much more skilled than you ever gave him credit for.

 

[flykiller]

... award Vacc Suit-0 to any deserving character.

well, once this is begun there is no end to it, and the consequences are 1) skill 0 becomes functionally equivilant to skill 1, and 2) during chargen no-one ever takes any level in certain skills such as vacc suit and airraft, because such skills will be awarded in-game.

there are two approaches that are more effective. 1) make sure the group is well-rounded in skills, especially vital ones such as vacc suit - if necessary mandate that the characters receive them during chargen. certain career paths really should pick up certain skills. 2) read the players' character sheets _before_ plugging them into a planned adventure.

if all else fails and the players really want to attempt something in which they have no competence, tell them, "there's the equipment, there's the operator's manuals, roll vs intelligence/education with a couple of mods and we'll see how you do in this particular instance." this approach retains game integrity and player involvement without requiring any referee fiat.

 

[flykiller]

... award Vacc Suit-0 to any deserving character.

well, once this is begun there is no end to it, and the consequences are 1) skill 0 becomes functionally equivilant to skill 1, and 2) during chargen no-one ever takes any level in certain skills such as vacc suit and airraft, because such skills will be awarded in-game.

there are two approaches that are more effective. 1) make sure the group is well-rounded in skills, especially vital ones such as vacc suit - if necessary mandate that the characters receive them during chargen. certain career paths really should pick up certain skills. 2) read the players' character sheets _before_ plugging them into a planned adventure.

if all else fails and the players really want to attempt something in which they have no competence, tell them, "there's the equipment, there's the operator's manuals, roll vs intelligence/education with a couple of mods and we'll see how you do in this particular instance." this approach retains game integrity and player involvement without requiring any referee fiat.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by flykiller:
well, once this is begun there is no end to it, and the consequences are 1) skill 0 becomes functionally equivilant to skill 1, and 2) during chargen no-one ever takes any level in certain skills such as vacc suit and airraft, because such skills will be awarded in-game.

Not if the GM only awards Skill-0 to those chacacters that would logically have it.

If the character is from Pysadi, for example, in the Aramis subsector, why would have have access to vacc suits?

The GM should use common sense. And, even with Skill-0, that doesn't necessarily mean penalties aren't applied to any throw. The Bribery skill mentions a -5 DM penalty without the skill. I still enforce that eventhough every character in my campaign has Bribery-0. It's at Bribery-1 that the penalty stops and the bonus begins.

As far as doing this type of thing, its encouraged in the basic rules. Look at pg. 23 of Book 1: "Often, some characters will have no skills approriate to a given situation. A journey across a vacuum plain may be called for, and no one has vacc suit skill. In such cases, the referee may indicate that all individuals not otherwise skilled have Vacc Suit-0."

That's pretty much what I'm recommending to CT GMs.

And as far as my comments about Bribery above and using the penalty with Bribery-0, that same section of Book 1 goes on to say, "A level of 0 for a skill indicates that the individual can undertake ordinary activities, but is not experienced enough to try dangerous activities or fancy actions. Level-0 indicates an orientation to the skill by an experienced person; it should not be taken as a stepping stone to Level-1."

I won't automatically give Level-0 competence all the time, in every situation. It depends on how strong the pull of the character's backgroud is--how good the case the player makes.

For example, a character from a TL 9 society, high population world, with a atmo 6 might have a good case for Ground Vehicle-0. Like here in the real world, just about everybody I knows drives. So, why not slap a Ground Vehicle-0 skill on that individuals (because there are plenty of Traveller examples where Ground Vehicle probably isn't important).

But... that wouldn't be enough for me as a GM. I can make a case about people in New York and Tokyo who do not drive, and they're right in the thick of the "big city".

So, if a player made that case, I probably wouldn't give it to him automatically--what I'd do is give him a roll. "Roll 2D for EDU or less. If you make it, you've got Ground Vehicle-0".

I did this type of thing recently for characters in my campaign who went through basic training in the Imperial Army. If they did, I gave them a 2D for EDU or less roll. Those that made it got to switch their Rifle skills that they got from Book 1 chargen to Combat Rifleman that first appeared in Book 4.

And, in my game, I've tweaked Combat Rifleman. Not only does it allow the use of multiple rifle-type weapons, but I also allow it's use in Blade Combat...an infrantry man trained to use his rifle to block, it's butt to strike, and it's bayonnet to stab.

I'm not suggesting that CT GMs follow exactly what I do in my game. I'm just trying to point out that Classic Traveller encourages "broad" skill definitions. There's plenty of overlap and "like" skills. And, GMs should use common sense when awarding Level-0 skills to characters.

And, they shouldn't ignore this aspect of Traveller GMing.







Also remember that GMs should create their own skills when necessary. Don't worry about overlap. Just focus the skill on what is needed for your game. If overlap occurs, then simply consider the two skills are interchangeable--or that one can be used at a lower level than the other.

The Navigation skill in Book 1 is not only used as the "astrogation" skill. If you read the description, sailors on worlds can use Navigation too to read their charts and plot their courses. The Sailor career in Supplement 4 awards the exact same skill.

Now, a GM may look at that and decide to change it for his game. Maybe he doesn't like the idea that sailors on world oceans would have the skill to navigate a starship through jump space. Heck, that makes sense to me--maybe I'll really do this in my campaign.

This GM may create a new skill call Wet Navigation, and then replace the Navigation skill on the Supplement 4 career charts. Wet Navigation refers to just sea-going and planet-bound navigation, where as Navigation refers to both that and starship navigation.

The GM, in this case, rules that Navigation and Wet Navigation are used inter-changeably on a planet's surface, but Wet Navigation cannot be used in space.




Which leads me to another point I should describe for new CT GMs. Consider changing character generation tables if needed.

There's no reason at all to always use the same Army table for every type of army in existence. Maybe you want to create a career for a dirtside Army on a TL 6 world. Maybe you're creating one of the armies of the balkanized world of Aramanx in the Aramis subsector of the Spinward Marches.

Should the same skills be avaialbe to these troops on TL 6 Aramanx as is available to Imperial Army regulars?

That's up to the GM to decide.

But, if the GM decides to change that, it's a simple matter. Do as LKW suggests above in the Laser Pistol example. Take the Army career from Book 1, change a die roll here, a skill there, and, wa-laa, you've got an entirely new career for those people becoming soldiers on Aramanx.




Traveller is a creative endeavor. These are some of the tools a GM has to separate his campaign from the stale and create a living breathing universe for his players to romp around in.

Look at that quote from the last page of Book 3.

My point, in this whole thread, is that a GM doesn't have to sit around and only use published material. Change it. Mold it. Make it your own.

This is really a big aspect of Traveller.

If a GM reads Dune and gets excited about the Bene Gesserit in that book, then create them in your game. You can slap together a couple of skill tables! It's easy. Just think what would be important to the BG's (Brawling comes to mind), and create the new career.

If a GM re-watches Star Wars and wants to create the Psionic Knights for his campaign, based on the Jedi, then do it.

You've got the tools to do it.

Just do it.

And..have fun.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by flykiller:
well, once this is begun there is no end to it, and the consequences are 1) skill 0 becomes functionally equivilant to skill 1, and 2) during chargen no-one ever takes any level in certain skills such as vacc suit and airraft, because such skills will be awarded in-game.

Not if the GM only awards Skill-0 to those chacacters that would logically have it.

If the character is from Pysadi, for example, in the Aramis subsector, why would have have access to vacc suits?

The GM should use common sense. And, even with Skill-0, that doesn't necessarily mean penalties aren't applied to any throw. The Bribery skill mentions a -5 DM penalty without the skill. I still enforce that eventhough every character in my campaign has Bribery-0. It's at Bribery-1 that the penalty stops and the bonus begins.

As far as doing this type of thing, its encouraged in the basic rules. Look at pg. 23 of Book 1: "Often, some characters will have no skills approriate to a given situation. A journey across a vacuum plain may be called for, and no one has vacc suit skill. In such cases, the referee may indicate that all individuals not otherwise skilled have Vacc Suit-0."

That's pretty much what I'm recommending to CT GMs.

And as far as my comments about Bribery above and using the penalty with Bribery-0, that same section of Book 1 goes on to say, "A level of 0 for a skill indicates that the individual can undertake ordinary activities, but is not experienced enough to try dangerous activities or fancy actions. Level-0 indicates an orientation to the skill by an experienced person; it should not be taken as a stepping stone to Level-1."

I won't automatically give Level-0 competence all the time, in every situation. It depends on how strong the pull of the character's backgroud is--how good the case the player makes.

For example, a character from a TL 9 society, high population world, with a atmo 6 might have a good case for Ground Vehicle-0. Like here in the real world, just about everybody I knows drives. So, why not slap a Ground Vehicle-0 skill on that individuals (because there are plenty of Traveller examples where Ground Vehicle probably isn't important).

But... that wouldn't be enough for me as a GM. I can make a case about people in New York and Tokyo who do not drive, and they're right in the thick of the "big city".

So, if a player made that case, I probably wouldn't give it to him automatically--what I'd do is give him a roll. "Roll 2D for EDU or less. If you make it, you've got Ground Vehicle-0".

I did this type of thing recently for characters in my campaign who went through basic training in the Imperial Army. If they did, I gave them a 2D for EDU or less roll. Those that made it got to switch their Rifle skills that they got from Book 1 chargen to Combat Rifleman that first appeared in Book 4.

And, in my game, I've tweaked Combat Rifleman. Not only does it allow the use of multiple rifle-type weapons, but I also allow it's use in Blade Combat...an infrantry man trained to use his rifle to block, it's butt to strike, and it's bayonnet to stab.

I'm not suggesting that CT GMs follow exactly what I do in my game. I'm just trying to point out that Classic Traveller encourages "broad" skill definitions. There's plenty of overlap and "like" skills. And, GMs should use common sense when awarding Level-0 skills to characters.

And, they shouldn't ignore this aspect of Traveller GMing.







Also remember that GMs should create their own skills when necessary. Don't worry about overlap. Just focus the skill on what is needed for your game. If overlap occurs, then simply consider the two skills are interchangeable--or that one can be used at a lower level than the other.

The Navigation skill in Book 1 is not only used as the "astrogation" skill. If you read the description, sailors on worlds can use Navigation too to read their charts and plot their courses. The Sailor career in Supplement 4 awards the exact same skill.

Now, a GM may look at that and decide to change it for his game. Maybe he doesn't like the idea that sailors on world oceans would have the skill to navigate a starship through jump space. Heck, that makes sense to me--maybe I'll really do this in my campaign.

This GM may create a new skill call Wet Navigation, and then replace the Navigation skill on the Supplement 4 career charts. Wet Navigation refers to just sea-going and planet-bound navigation, where as Navigation refers to both that and starship navigation.

The GM, in this case, rules that Navigation and Wet Navigation are used inter-changeably on a planet's surface, but Wet Navigation cannot be used in space.




Which leads me to another point I should describe for new CT GMs. Consider changing character generation tables if needed.

There's no reason at all to always use the same Army table for every type of army in existence. Maybe you want to create a career for a dirtside Army on a TL 6 world. Maybe you're creating one of the armies of the balkanized world of Aramanx in the Aramis subsector of the Spinward Marches.

Should the same skills be avaialbe to these troops on TL 6 Aramanx as is available to Imperial Army regulars?

That's up to the GM to decide.

But, if the GM decides to change that, it's a simple matter. Do as LKW suggests above in the Laser Pistol example. Take the Army career from Book 1, change a die roll here, a skill there, and, wa-laa, you've got an entirely new career for those people becoming soldiers on Aramanx.




Traveller is a creative endeavor. These are some of the tools a GM has to separate his campaign from the stale and create a living breathing universe for his players to romp around in.

Look at that quote from the last page of Book 3.

My point, in this whole thread, is that a GM doesn't have to sit around and only use published material. Change it. Mold it. Make it your own.

This is really a big aspect of Traveller.

If a GM reads Dune and gets excited about the Bene Gesserit in that book, then create them in your game. You can slap together a couple of skill tables! It's easy. Just think what would be important to the BG's (Brawling comes to mind), and create the new career.

If a GM re-watches Star Wars and wants to create the Psionic Knights for his campaign, based on the Jedi, then do it.

You've got the tools to do it.

Just do it.

And..have fun.

 

[Supplement Four]

Hey, here's something interesting...

Check out pg. 11 of Supplement 4. There's a corrected Gun Combat note there.

Remember, Book 1 states that all Traveller characters are proficient with all the weapons in Book 1 to Skill-0.

This is changed in Supplement 4. There, it says that the proficiency is dependent on the character's career.

Interesting.

If you're a soldier in the Army, or a Scout, or even someone fluffing through life in the Other career, you're proficient to Skill-0 with every weapon in Book 1.

But, if you're a Doctor, or a Barbarian, or even a businessman in the Bureaucrat career, you should be treated as totally unskilled in every type of weapon, regardless of Book 1, by default. The only weapons you are trained to use are the ones you pick up during character generation (or manage to get using the Experience rules).

Interesting.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Supplement Four]

Hey, here's something interesting...

Check out pg. 11 of Supplement 4. There's a corrected Gun Combat note there.

Remember, Book 1 states that all Traveller characters are proficient with all the weapons in Book 1 to Skill-0.

This is changed in Supplement 4. There, it says that the proficiency is dependent on the character's career.

Interesting.

If you're a soldier in the Army, or a Scout, or even someone fluffing through life in the Other career, you're proficient to Skill-0 with every weapon in Book 1.

But, if you're a Doctor, or a Barbarian, or even a businessman in the Bureaucrat career, you should be treated as totally unskilled in every type of weapon, regardless of Book 1, by default. The only weapons you are trained to use are the ones you pick up during character generation (or manage to get using the Experience rules).

Interesting.

Makes sense to me.

 

[flykiller]

Traveller is a creative endeavor.

completely agree, but "creative" doesn't mean "out of the blue". spur-of-the-moment insertions can lead to problems later on.

 

[flykiller]

Traveller is a creative endeavor.

completely agree, but "creative" doesn't mean "out of the blue". spur-of-the-moment insertions can lead to problems later on.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by flykiller:
completely agree, but "creative" doesn't mean "out of the blue". spur-of-the-moment insertions can lead to problems later on.

...and sometimes what you think of as well-thought out decisions can lead to similar problems as well. Note how I thought it a good idea a year and a half ago, when I started my campaign, to allow players to attempt other careers after mustering out of one or failing a re-enlistment roll.

Now, I've got three of them that I have to go back and enforce the Experience Limit rule, now that I've decided to do that.

I'm correcting my mistake, though. My players will understand, and the game will be better for it.

GMs are human. Yes, keep an eye on the changes you make, and try to foresee unintended consequeces...

...but don't let that stifle decisions like this in a game.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by flykiller:
completely agree, but "creative" doesn't mean "out of the blue". spur-of-the-moment insertions can lead to problems later on.

...and sometimes what you think of as well-thought out decisions can lead to similar problems as well. Note how I thought it a good idea a year and a half ago, when I started my campaign, to allow players to attempt other careers after mustering out of one or failing a re-enlistment roll.

Now, I've got three of them that I have to go back and enforce the Experience Limit rule, now that I've decided to do that.

I'm correcting my mistake, though. My players will understand, and the game will be better for it.

GMs are human. Yes, keep an eye on the changes you make, and try to foresee unintended consequeces...

...but don't let that stifle decisions like this in a game.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by flykiller:
there are two approaches that are more effective. 1) make sure the group is well-rounded in skills, especially vital ones such as vacc suit - if necessary mandate that the characters receive them during chargen. certain career paths really should pick up certain skills.

Consider a Scientist, isolated in a station in the Patinir system (asteroid system in the Aramis subsector of the Spinward Marches), doing research, or a Doctor, native to the system, making his rounds to the various asteroid camps when tending the belters.

Vacc Suit isn't listed on those career tables. Unless the GM changes it, it's not possible for a character in those careers to get Vacc Suit.

But, doesn't it make sense that if a character spends his whole life in the various habitats of an aseroid system that he'd have at least some experience with a Vacc Suit?

The Diplomat can get Vacc Suit during his career but the Bureaucrat can't?

See, this is where the GM should step in and at least give a character a chance to get a Level-0 skill...if it makes sense that the character would have the skill.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by flykiller:
there are two approaches that are more effective. 1) make sure the group is well-rounded in skills, especially vital ones such as vacc suit - if necessary mandate that the characters receive them during chargen. certain career paths really should pick up certain skills.

Consider a Scientist, isolated in a station in the Patinir system (asteroid system in the Aramis subsector of the Spinward Marches), doing research, or a Doctor, native to the system, making his rounds to the various asteroid camps when tending the belters.

Vacc Suit isn't listed on those career tables. Unless the GM changes it, it's not possible for a character in those careers to get Vacc Suit.

But, doesn't it make sense that if a character spends his whole life in the various habitats of an aseroid system that he'd have at least some experience with a Vacc Suit?

The Diplomat can get Vacc Suit during his career but the Bureaucrat can't?

See, this is where the GM should step in and at least give a character a chance to get a Level-0 skill...if it makes sense that the character would have the skill.

 

[ravells]

I'm a 'seat of the pants' GM, through and through. For me the most important part of the game is player enjoyment. That means fluency in the suspension of disbelief as opposed to long pauses while you look up rule 23(b)(iii). To the players it shouldn't matter whether you have a library of tomes behind your screen, or a single scrap of paper with a few broad ideas jotted onto it.

The other advantage of GMing by the seat of your pants is that you don't have to railroad your players. The adventure is created around them, often as a result of their decisions. Also, without a detailed pre-written adventure it is much easier to alter the pace the of the adventure. If things are getting a little slow, there's nothing stopping you from adding a bit of excitement.

I think that there is a perception that 'having lots of stuff' in the form rule books, illos etc. makes a better adventure - I think that's not always the case, but you are right in saying that these days, having more props and rules is more common.

Ravs

 

[ravells]

I'm a 'seat of the pants' GM, through and through. For me the most important part of the game is player enjoyment. That means fluency in the suspension of disbelief as opposed to long pauses while you look up rule 23(b)(iii). To the players it shouldn't matter whether you have a library of tomes behind your screen, or a single scrap of paper with a few broad ideas jotted onto it.

The other advantage of GMing by the seat of your pants is that you don't have to railroad your players. The adventure is created around them, often as a result of their decisions. Also, without a detailed pre-written adventure it is much easier to alter the pace the of the adventure. If things are getting a little slow, there's nothing stopping you from adding a bit of excitement.

I think that there is a perception that 'having lots of stuff' in the form rule books, illos etc. makes a better adventure - I think that's not always the case, but you are right in saying that these days, having more props and rules is more common.

Ravs

 

[Psion]

I think that the OP here presents a false dichotomy. There is plenty of space between supplement-heavy and "fudge-heavy", and lots of people play in that gap. IME, only those who are invested in one end of that scale pretend that there is no gray area.

Unfortunately, this thinking is frustratingly common and I've seen it lead to both countless arguments and bad GMing. I'm of the mind that the rules are there for you to use, not to control your game. Having the benefit of forethought and exploiting the ideas of others can be a boon to your game, as can consistency of experience and the enjoyment of shared experience that comes from working out of a common set of rules. But as many of you are alluding to, being a slave to the rules also limits your fun, and it's no fun waiting while the GM flips through looking for a rule. (A simple solution to this last problem is to set a short time limit to look anything up, if you can't find it, make a note to look it up later, make something up, and move on.)

On another board, to remind people of this, my sig mantra is:
The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa.
Use the rules, but don't let the rules use you!

Ravs has another false dichotomy. Some people never use published adventures but use many rules. I sometimes use published adventures, but I feel a bit more confined when I do use them unless the adventure is written in a manner to accomodate flexibility in story flow (the cinematic nugget format in MegaTraveller helps facilitate this sort of adventure design.) That said, I frequently find myself making some changes to an adventure; once I do that, it's all downhill from there. I often only use adventure for some interesting maps, NPCS, or encounters, and basically strip it for parts.

 

[Psion]

I think that the OP here presents a false dichotomy. There is plenty of space between supplement-heavy and "fudge-heavy", and lots of people play in that gap. IME, only those who are invested in one end of that scale pretend that there is no gray area.

Unfortunately, this thinking is frustratingly common and I've seen it lead to both countless arguments and bad GMing. I'm of the mind that the rules are there for you to use, not to control your game. Having the benefit of forethought and exploiting the ideas of others can be a boon to your game, as can consistency of experience and the enjoyment of shared experience that comes from working out of a common set of rules. But as many of you are alluding to, being a slave to the rules also limits your fun, and it's no fun waiting while the GM flips through looking for a rule. (A simple solution to this last problem is to set a short time limit to look anything up, if you can't find it, make a note to look it up later, make something up, and move on.)

On another board, to remind people of this, my sig mantra is:
The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa.
Use the rules, but don't let the rules use you!

Ravs has another false dichotomy. Some people never use published adventures but use many rules. I sometimes use published adventures, but I feel a bit more confined when I do use them unless the adventure is written in a manner to accomodate flexibility in story flow (the cinematic nugget format in MegaTraveller helps facilitate this sort of adventure design.) That said, I frequently find myself making some changes to an adventure; once I do that, it's all downhill from there. I often only use adventure for some interesting maps, NPCS, or encounters, and basically strip it for parts.