Improving skills or characteristics

[nats]

As mentioned in the errata posting here is a discussion post about Improving Skills.

In the core rulebook on page 59 learning skills it says sum level skills levels and it takes that long in weeks plus total skill new skill level desired to improve a skill level.

But most player characters have at least 15-20 skill points not just 2 or 3 which would mean they would have to train at least 16-21 months per skill point which is a heck of a long time when you consider the only training time you will get is probably time spent in weekly jumps.

So I was wondering whether you may be better changing it to perhaps days x 1d6 with the characters Intelligence Mod as a DM reduction on this? Would make more sense I think as it would range, for a 20 skill level character which would be around the norm for player characters, from around 21 days up to max of perhaps 161 days (just over 5 months) depending on your dice throw and Int DM?

Also there is presently no way to improve charcters physical and metal characteristics - anyone have any house rules they use for this at all? I would guess it should be more difficult than improving skills.

 

[HG_B]

So I was wondering whether you may be better changing it to perhaps days x 1d6 with the characters Intelligence Mod as a DM reduction on this? Would make more sense I think as it would range, for a 20 skill level character which would be around the norm for player characters, from around 21 days up to max of perhaps 161 days (just over 5 months) depending on your dice throw and Int DM?

Could you learn to be an airline pilot (Pilot-1) in 21-161 days with no prior training? Or, a nuc power plant engineer (Engineering 1 (Power Plants)) ?

Consider you aren't in full time college type environment.

 

[far-trader]

Interesting. I'd not got to that bit yet in slowly, with many interruptions, reading the rules.

I again find something to applaud Mongoose for. That method is simple genius! I'd advise not messing with it one iota.

It matches well with prior history skill progression which makes it more consistent.

Taking your option instead you have to invent a reason why people in careers dedicated to working a skill (prior history) progress significantly slower at it than people post career engaged in other pursuits at least part time (adventuring).

It permits young characters who somehow didn't pursue a long career to catch up with the older characters by gaining skills more quickly once adventuring.

Using your option that difference is negligible and in effect further penalizes short termers and favours long termers. Which goes against the old wisdom of you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

In short, I don't see this as errata. It appears well considered in the completeness of the game. You can of course house-rule it if your group wants more skills more quickly gained. Nothing wrong with that. I'm simply arguing some points and considerations before you choose that. Often, house-rules fail to consider consequences and end up biting one later on.

As for characteristic improvement, they should follow a similar model. Months or years to improve, just like in prior career, and any characteristic that can be improved in prior career gen should be optioned for improvement post career gen. I also think there should be some mechanic here that favours younger characters for Str, Dex, End, Int, Edu, and Psi but not Soc. So it can't work quite the same as the excellent skill improvement method. Maybe (off the cuff) something like...

Characteristic Improvement:

Individuals may improve their characteristics in game play. The time and method varies by the following:

Hard Characteristics: (new Non-Soc characteristic level) + (age in years) = weeks to reach goal

Costs vary but average Cr100/week. Note that this cost may have to be paid in full in advance for materials. Any downtime may be used in pursuit of improvement but an interruption of more than a week results in loss of a week of progress. Time in lowberths does not count as an interruption. If the interruption exceeds the total time to reach the goal all progress is lost and the whole training/study must be started from scratch. For example:

a) During jump the character trains/studies for a week, then has a week of work while in port. They would not loose the week of training/study and be able to continue through the next jump and add another week of training/study. Total time = 3 weeks. Total training/study time = 2 weeks. Total cost = Cr200. Total time towards improvement = 2 weeks.

b) During jump the character trains/studies for a week, then has a week of work while in port. Then during the next jump the ship is hijacked and the character can't train/study while they are held captive and plot to retake the ship. The character manages to escape and retake the ship. They quickly fuel and jump again. Resuming training/study in jump (week 4 of the scenario) after the 2 week interruption they are penalized 1 week of progress. It takes the week in jump (week 4) to get back to where they were before the hijacking (back at the end of week 1). Total time = 4 weeks. Total training/study time = 2 weeks. Total cost = Cr200. Total time towards improvement = 1 week (lost 1 week for interruption).

Social Standing: (new Soc characteristic level) - (terms of service) = weeks to reach goal

Cost varies but averages (new Soc squared)x(Cr1000) over the improvement time. This improvement is limited to a maximum of Soc 10. The cost is spent on contacts, social events, and property/investments that must remain untouched and immobile to retain the new Soc. Such property/investments may be sold for half the value at any time, resulting in loss of Soc associated with them. No more than 25% of the costs may be property. It must be non-rental property (not rented by the character or rented to others for revenue) but may be used as a base of operations or home by the character and family.

Time spent must be on a world and only full weeks count. There is no penalty for interruption and actual time to reach goal may exceed the minimum required.

Social maintenance costs must be born at the new Soc level throughout the improvement or all benefits are lost. Social maintenance costs are (Soc)x(Cr100) per month. This cost is spent and non-recoverable. Failing to maintain this cost results in loss of 1/2 Soc (round down) until maintenance is restored and a penalty is paid equal to 1 month of maintenance per Soc (Soc 7 would drop to Soc 3, and would require Cr700 x 7 = Cr4900 to restore). Money may be banked to automatically debit this maintenance cost as needed to avoid being caught short and suffering the embarrassment of not maintaining ones Soc.

Synergy:

Training related characteristics together speeds things up. There are two groups that may benefit from this synergistic training: Physical (Str, Dex, and End) and Mental (Int and Edu). Soc and Psi are not eligible for synergistic bonuses.

When training synergistic characteristics subtract one week from each characteristic for each additional synergistic characteristic for total training time and costs. For example:

a) Raising Int to 8 would normally take a 30 year old 38 weeks and cost Cr3800. Raising Edu to 6 would take the same 30 year old another 36 weeks and cost an additional Cr3600. For a total of 74 weeks and Cr7400. By combining the training it would take the same 30 year old (8-1) + (6-1) + 30 = 42 weeks and Cr4200. A savings of 32 weeks and Cr3200.

b) Raising Str, Dex, and End all from 5 to 6 simultaneously (though one could do just any two for a lower synergistic bonus) would take a 30 year old (6-2) + (6-2) + (6-2) +30 = 42 weeks and Cr4200.

 

[nats]

Could you learn to be an airline pilot (Pilot-1) in 21-161 days with no prior training? Or, a nuc power plant engineer (Engineering 1 (Power Plants)) ?

Consider you aren't in full time college type environment.

Well you would have to get to zero first then 1 I would presume. Days seem a bit too short possibly and but weeks seem far too long if you have lots of skills already. I am sure I could learn to fly a plane/glider in 21 days if solid training, as I could learn to drive an ATV or learn the basics of engineering in 21 days if solid training. Of course it would take longer to get up to level 1 but then thats what level 0 is for. A fully qualified airline pilot would surely be classed as being around level 2 at least.

 

[HG_B]

I am sure I could learn to fly a plane/glider in 21 days if solid training, ... A fully qualified airline pilot would surely be classed as being around level 2 at least.

Qualified to carry passengers on a starship is Pilot-1 Takes ~2 years.

 

[aramis]

For raising characteristics, I just used the same Total_Skill_Levels + Level_Being_Purchased...... It more than adequately made it hyper-expensive.

 

[Vile]

It's basically the same as RuneQuest 3 training translated into the 2d6 MGT system.

Which means it's brilliant.

 

[nats]

For raising characteristics, I just used the same Total_Skill_Levels + Level_Being_Purchased...... It more than adequately made it hyper-expensive.

Hyper expensive is right - if you only trained during jumps (reasonable expectation) and you had a character with 20 skill levels and wanted to train from a level zero to a level 1 skill it would take you 21 weeks or 21 jumps worth. I suppose thats not unreasonable considering it takes you a year or two during the chargen per skill level.

Its a real shame though there isnt a levelling up facility in Traveller where you can get experience points for using skills/weapons/characteristics/solving puzzles etc in actual games - I have always liked that part of D&D really makes you feel you are developing your character rather than having a relatively fixed one. I think its something that is missing that would really improve the whole Traveller experience - especially long campaigns. At least MGT have tried to deal with it.

I suppose there is always the Instruction skill...but that of course is even worse allowing characters to pass on increased and new skills after only 1-6 days. There seems to be some sort of inbalance there to me...!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Its a real shame though there isnt a levelling up facility in Traveller where you can get experience points for using skills/weapons/characteristics/solving puzzles etc in actual games - I have always liked that part of D&D really makes you feel you are developing your character rather than having a relatively fixed one. I think its something that is missing that would really improve the whole Traveller experience - especially long campaigns. At least MGT have tried to deal with it.

It is not something I would like to see integrated at a core level with the rules - but as a campaign option? Not a bad idea. I'll get the guys to look into it!

 

[Icosahedron]

I houseruled levelling up. I figured any spectacular success counted as a week's training.

 

[nerubin]

I think the development per core rules is best jused for an episodic kind of campaign were a number of weeks or month pass between adventures and you only zoom in (aka play) the interesting bits. So you can approximate the learning time at about one half or one third of the ellapsed time. Unless you are taking a holliday and lie on the beaches of some tropical island paradise that is .

A day to day kind of play necessitates lots of action and therefore lots of practical learning (instead of training and studying). So in this case learning should be roughly proportional to the number of throws on a given talent, as those represent difficult situations mastered (or failed) by the player. You could make a INT or EDU throw after a hard skill test (as opposed to every skill test) and gain learning points in said skill if succesfull. The number of necessery learning points could be (skilllevel+1)².

I'am not quite sure if this a good or bad idea, maybe someone tried something like this before ?

 

[Fox's Master]

Skill Improvement ~ A reasoned approach

For those of you who are interested, I spent some time last year performing some analysis on both the Serenity Role Playing Game and Traveller with an eye toward developing a set of rules to govern skill improvement...this is the result:


Skill advancement, though not as slow as either Serenity or 2300 A.D. shall remain realistic and expensive at the highest levels. Characters may advance skills through the expenditure of earned experience points (EP). The algorithm used to for advancement is set using the following set of experience point values:


______________Lvl 0 _Lvl 1 _Lvl 2 _Lvl 3 _Lvl 4 _Lvl 5
Base Algorithm _1 _____3 _____3 _____5 _____5 _____7
EP Cost ________3 _____9 _____9 ____15 ____15 ____21

Based on the number of skills learned at 0-Level during a character’s initial term of service, coupled with the possible addition of one or two skills through the balance of the term (additional skill due to advancement), the average number of points earned per year averages at about 12-15. Characters hoping to advance their skills beyond 2-Level, will require a significant amount of experience and number of successes.

 

[Apparition]

I suppose there is always the Instruction skill...but that of course is even worse allowing characters to pass on increased and new skills after only 1-6 days. There seems to be some sort of inbalance there to me...!

Im pretty sure you misread that skill. In the Mercenary book, it says that it takes 1-6 days less then it normally would to learn a skill with instruction. I would assume that the benefit is that you can learn a skill normally while you are also learning skills from instruction, hence quicker development.

 

[Publius]

Im pretty sure you misread that skill. In the Mercenary book, it says that it takes 1-6 days less then it normally would to learn a skill with instruction. I would assume that the benefit is that you can learn a skill normally while you are also learning skills from instruction, hence quicker development.

You know, I had not thought of that. That would make some sense.

The 1-6 days sooner thing is a joke. It takes what, a number of weeks equal to the total number of skillpoints you have? Say 16 weeks for a decent character (112 days). Then shave off 1-6 days, so it would only be 111 to 106 days. Wooo-Hoo. Gee, what a great benefit, so glad I thought of that. Thanks for the long weekend teach'.

I've always thought that a Ref might want to adjudicate this skill by reducing the "week" period by the effect number (up to 6), so that rather than 16x7 it is 16x(7-Effect number). Thus the "number of weeks" is retained in spirit, but shrunk in size. An Instruction roll with an Effect number of 3 (rolled consistently, I'd suggest more than one check over the training period) then would make it 64 days (16x4); and even an effect number of just 1 (again, rolled consistently) would shave 16 days off the total length of training time.

Note that this is not what the rules say to do, not arguing that, but how I would interpret the skill to make it more effective. It can be a significant advantage, but remember the very sharp limiting factors: have to have Instruction Skill high enough, Instructor has to themselves have the skill and happens to have it higher than the student yada yada. That cuts instances where this is even useful down immensely.

 

[HG_B]

You know, I had not thought of that. That would make some sense.

The 1-6 days sooner thing is a joke. It takes what, a number of weeks equal to the total number of skillpoints you have? Say 16 weeks for a decent character (112 days). Then shave off 1-6 days, so it would only be 111 to 106 days. Wooo-Hoo. Gee, what a great benefit,

I think reducing by 1/3 would be equitable for instruction vs. self taught.

 

[Publius]

I think reducing by 1/3 would be equitable for instruction vs. self taught.

It would, completely agreed. Reducing a 112 day task to 106 days however is a what, 5% drop? That was what I was commenting on.

 

[HG_B]

It would, completely agreed. Reducing a 112 day task to 106 days however is a what, 5% drop? That was what I was commenting on.

Yep, a 5% drop doesn't jibe with real world comparison of time to self teach complex skills vs. using an a knowledgeable instructor.

 

[Apparition]

The 1-6 days sooner thing is a joke. It takes what, a number of weeks equal to the total number of skillpoints you have? Say 16 weeks for a decent character (112 days). Then shave off 1-6 days, so it would only be 111 to 106 days. Wooo-Hoo. Gee, what a great benefit, so glad I thought of that. Thanks for the long weekend teach'.

Yeah I totally agree with you. I was quoting the book as written because the person I quoted seemed to misunderstand it. I agree that 1-6 days is pretty rediculous, which leads me to two possible ideas.

1) Scrap the 1-6 days entirely. Instruction allows for multiple skills to be learned at once(i.e. The one you are learning yourself, and one for every teacher)

2) This skill replaces the one you are working on yourself, but shaves off weeks as you suggested.

I dont know if combining the two would be broken or not.

Edit: On second thought, your point on the limited usefulness of instruction skill may be a balancing factor in and of itself.

 

[McPerth]

Could you learn to be an airline pilot (Pilot-1) in 21-161 days with no prior training? Or, a nuc power plant engineer (Engineering 1 (Power Plants)) ?

Consider you aren't in full time college type environment.

You're quite right on those skills, but, do you need 16 weeks to learn how to shoot a rifle if you have 15 levels of skills? Perhaps there should be different classes of skills... (one of the few things I liked from T4)

I think the development per core rules is best jused for an episodic kind of campaign were a number of weeks or month pass between adventures and you only zoom in (aka play) the interesting bits. So you can approximate the learning time at about one half or one third of the ellapsed time. Unless you are taking a holliday and lie on the beaches of some tropical island paradise that is .

A day to day kind of play necessitates lots of action and therefore lots of practical learning (instead of training and studying). So in this case learning should be roughly proportional to the number of throws on a given talent, as those represent difficult situations mastered (or failed) by the player. You could make a INT or EDU throw after a hard skill test (as opposed to every skill test) and gain learning points in said skill if succesfull. The number of necessery learning points could be (skilllevel+1)².

I'am not quite sure if this a good or bad idea, maybe someone tried something like this before ?

Quite a good idea to my oppinion. One of the things I missed from MgT was the lack of skill improvement through use. You also should learn points from from failed trainign courses (you also learn something, even if failing to learn all you should). (In ths aspect I liked MT character developement rules).
Even so, you should realize that one thing is knowledge and another licence to work on it. Even if you learned (throug use) pilot5, You should pass some quind of exam (probably requiring courses about some aspects of the skill not learned on use) to be licenced to pilot a star liner. Another example is that a quite veteran nurse might be pushed his medical skill to 4 for play effect, but he whould no be a doctor (and so be licenced to prescribe drugs or make surgery), even if rules say you may be a doctor with skill medical 2 (experience vs formal training).

You know, I had not thought of that. That would make some sense.

The 1-6 days sooner thing is a joke. It takes what, a number of weeks equal to the total number of skillpoints you have? Say 16 weeks for a decent character (112 days). Then shave off 1-6 days, so it would only be 111 to 106 days. Wooo-Hoo. Gee, what a great benefit, so glad I thought of that. Thanks for the long weekend teach'.

I've always thought that a Ref might want to adjudicate this skill by reducing the "week" period by the effect number (up to 6), so that rather than 16x7 it is 16x(7-Effect number). Thus the "number of weeks" is retained in spirit, but shrunk in size. An Instruction roll with an Effect number of 3 (rolled consistently, I'd suggest more than one check over the training period) then would make it 64 days (16x4); and even an effect number of just 1 (again, rolled consistently) would shave 16 days off the total length of training time.

Note that this is not what the rules say to do, not arguing that, but how I would interpret the skill to make it more effective. It can be a significant advantage, but remember the very sharp limiting factors: have to have Instruction Skill high enough, Instructor has to themselves have the skill and happens to have it higher than the student yada yada. That cuts instances where this is even useful down immensely.

What about rolling each week of course and adding effect number days to the period of learning achived? This will add a sense as how's going the trainig course and a sense of continuity to it.

 

[Publius]

What about rolling each week of course and adding effect number days to the period of learning achived? This will add a sense as how's going the trainig course and a sense of continuity to it.

That sounds perfectly reasonable for slower moving (internally, time-wise) games. The sort of campaign that says "okay, 3 weeks after the last adventure you find yourself..."