Not to level 0 skill proficiency. But, to a level 1, probably.
Improving skills or characteristics
- Thread starter nats
- Start date
Not to level 0 skill proficiency. But, to a level 1, probably.
To put another eample, if you have only 3 skill levels, will you in 4 weeks learn medical or engineering 1. According to the rules as they're stated, you cold become a doctor (medical 2) in 3 weeks if you have no more skills, even if your intelligence is 2.
Also I didn't find what roll you need to succeed on learning. Is it automatic?
Hmm, so you could go from no skill to Med-2 in 3 weeks? Obviously flawed.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Flawed? Why? There is no claim that the system is there as a simulation and to me, it obviously isn't. Why is it this way then? I believe it is for game playability; to try and keep level the playing field between characters as they improve.
No reason people can't use a different system. Numerous ones have been posted and more can be posted for us to comment on.
Because, the rule contradicts the definitions of the various skills levels. Please see the MGT definitions for skill levels 1-3 for instance. This is commonly referred to as an internal rule conflict. In other words, internally inconsistent.
Even if it's for game playability, you must keep some realism on it. A character with no skills (or with 20 skills at level 0, for what is worth) may learn medical 1 in one week, and then medical 2 in three weeks more (he has 1 level of skills and wants one at level 2)(really it was flawed, you need 4 weeks, not 3
). As put on the example of skill levels (page 52 core book), he could be a doctor. See that those 2 levels of skill learned in 4 weeks are what he could have learned on a term (208 weeks!!) in character creation (by the way I keep my question as if this trainig is automatic or you need a roll to learn from the classes you take, as I havn't found that on the core book).I also want to insist in the difference of skill level and legal qualification. of course the character seen before, could not be a doctor, even if his skill level for playing pourposes was 2. he could, of course, if he learned them on character creation, taking him 4 years to learn them.
To put an example, I'm (in real life) a nurse with 20 years experience and more than 25 years as Red Cross volunteer. I guess I could keep someone alive as if medical skill 3-4 in an emergency, but that doesn't make me a doctor. I cannot legaly prescribe treatments, and God takes care of anyone that must rely on me to diagnose a cancer, let alone to make even the simplest surgery.
Last edited:
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Page 52? Not sure what you are referring to or things are different from my printing.Even if it's for game playability, you must keep some realism on it. A character with no skills (or with 20 skills at level 0, for what is worth) may learn medical 1 in one week, and then medical 2 in three weeks more (he has 1 level of skills and wants one at level 2)(really it was flawed, you need 4 weeks, not 3
Events can give a skill. How long is the event which allows gaining a skill through on the job "field training"?
---
Example: Scholars Scientist - not even a Physician - Term skill roll is a 4 on the service skills table increasing Medic from level 0 (basic training) to level 1. Roll event 8 and increase Medic to level 2. Succeed in advancement and gain a Physical Science Skill at level 1 (Scientist Rank 1 skill). Advancement roll is a 4 on the service skills table increasing Medic to level 3. When mustering out, 2 rolls of 5 for Scientific Equipment on the benefits table would allow another Science skill.
Medic 3, two science skills, plus 6 level 0 skills all in one term. So where does this 208 weeks comparison come from?
On the flip side, I once tried to create a Doctor and after 3 terms and no rolls of medic and no advancement the character still only had medic skill at level 0. Is it realistic to only have level 0 skill after 624 months?
---
Point buy.
One term = 24 points -10 for characteristics = 14 points = one skill at level 3 and two more skills at level 2 after just one term.
---
While I agree that the "game" should have a real feel, to me, the rules are a behind the scenes guideline. How often have we needed to come up with explanations for those odd UWP's. Explain the advanced learning speed away with a high tech sleep training headset.
Last edited:
Page 52? Not sure what you are referring to or things are different from my printing.
Events can give a skill. How long is the event which allows gaining a skill through on the job "field training"?
---
Example: Scholars Scientist - not even a Physician - Term skill roll is a 4 on the service skills table increasing Medic from level 0 (basic training) to level 1. Roll event 8 and increase Medic to level 2. Succeed in advancement and gain a Physical Science Skill at level 1 (Scientist Rank 1 skill). Advancement roll is a 4 on the service skills table increasing Medic to level 3. When mustering out, 2 rolls of 5 for Scientific Equipment on the benefits table would allow another Science skill.
Medic 3, two science skills, plus 6 level 0 skills all in one term. So where does this 208 weeks comparison come from?
On the flip side, I once tried to create a Doctor and after 3 terms and no rolls of medic and no advancement the character still only had medic skill at level 0. Is it realistic to only have level 0 skill after 624 months?
---
Point buy.
One term = 24 points -10 for characteristics = 14 points = one skill at level 3 and two more skills at level 2 after just one term.
---
While I agree that the "game" should have a real feel, to me, the rules are a behind the scenes guideline. How often have we needed to come up with explanations for those odd UWP's. Explain the advanced learning speed away with a high tech sleep training headset.
True, it's not page 52, is 51.
Your chaacter in 4 years has 5 skills(plus several at 0), true (after quite a lucky term, for two of them are by events or rolling twice on mustering out), but the example I gave invested only 4 weeks, if the 208 weeks are spending training he can end with more skills than make a character playable.
I still think the training for new (or better) skills is one of the flaws an MgT.
Fox's Master
SOC-9
Feedback ... ?
McPerth, Publius, et al,
I'm curious to hear your feedback on my analysis/presentation of a possible "fix" associated with the skill level progression "problem" found in MGT.
Thanks in advance.
Fox's Master
McPerth, Publius, et al,
I'm curious to hear your feedback on my analysis/presentation of a possible "fix" associated with the skill level progression "problem" found in MGT.
Thanks in advance.
Fox's Master
I see it as a good start point, though there are some points I don't know about this system:
-how is base algorythm calculed?
-experience points are general (like in T4, 1889, etc) or skill specific (as in Powers&Perils).?
-need all skills the same EP to reach the same level (is equaly easy to learn Engineering or Medical than Carousing, to put some examples?
-may Jack of all Trades be learned/increased through experience?
-how does instruction skill work?
(don take this as a bad crithicism, when all this is explained, someone (perhaps myself) whould think on more questions
. Your home rule seems a fine begining)
Last edited:
Fox's Master
SOC-9
Fix to Skill Progression
McPerth,
Very good questions, indeed. I basically displayed the final product, without any of the 'behind the scenes' math that went into it.
In essence, all skills, whether you're a doctor, lawyer, Indian Chief, have a gradual slope for learning...which gets more steep the higher you advance. To that end, most of us...you, me, and everyone else out here would probably have no more than a 0-level; in the 'Non-professional' skills that we use every day (i.e. driving and cooking come to mind ~ we can safely and efficiently handle a standard or automatic transmission, parallel park, and navigate the streets and highways to our destination. Complications would include weather, high speeds, etc. For cooking, most of us can competently put together a meal that won't cause someone to go the hospital (remember the -3 for "Untrained"), but we're not creating gourmet meals every day either.
So, while it might appear as a bit of heavy accounting, anyone with a modicum of understanding Excel can pull this off rather easily. Each skill has a number of successes one must obtain to garner a 'point.' For instance, a character has Stealth 0-level. The character needs to have successes equal to or greater than 50 to garner the first point. How does the character gain successes equal to or greater than 25. Every time the player rolls for that particular skill, the GM records the success (higher than the standard 8), and if it's a more or less difficult roll, certainly adjust accordingly. During one evening's adventuring, the character may call upon this skill three times. The first two checks require an "Average" roll of 8, and the last roll is determined to be "Difficult" requiring a roll of '10.' If the player's final 'rolls' (after all bonuses/penalties due to skill level and attributes) were 10, 6, and 9, the player would have earned 2 points for the first 'roll' but suffered -2 from the second roll, and a -1 for the last roll. Thus, for the night, the character would not have advanced the particular skill. Over time, more successes will advance the character closer to the required number (25 for advancement from levels 0 to 1 and 1 to 2; 50 for advancement from 2 to 3 and 3 to 4; and 100 from 4 to 5).
It's a system that works well for my friend and fellow Traveller ~ with whom I've played for more than 25 years. Hope you can find something in there that you like for yourself.
Fox's Master
McPerth,
Very good questions, indeed. I basically displayed the final product, without any of the 'behind the scenes' math that went into it.
In essence, all skills, whether you're a doctor, lawyer, Indian Chief, have a gradual slope for learning...which gets more steep the higher you advance. To that end, most of us...you, me, and everyone else out here would probably have no more than a 0-level; in the 'Non-professional' skills that we use every day (i.e. driving and cooking come to mind ~ we can safely and efficiently handle a standard or automatic transmission, parallel park, and navigate the streets and highways to our destination. Complications would include weather, high speeds, etc. For cooking, most of us can competently put together a meal that won't cause someone to go the hospital (remember the -3 for "Untrained"), but we're not creating gourmet meals every day either.
So, while it might appear as a bit of heavy accounting, anyone with a modicum of understanding Excel can pull this off rather easily. Each skill has a number of successes one must obtain to garner a 'point.' For instance, a character has Stealth 0-level. The character needs to have successes equal to or greater than 50 to garner the first point. How does the character gain successes equal to or greater than 25. Every time the player rolls for that particular skill, the GM records the success (higher than the standard 8), and if it's a more or less difficult roll, certainly adjust accordingly. During one evening's adventuring, the character may call upon this skill three times. The first two checks require an "Average" roll of 8, and the last roll is determined to be "Difficult" requiring a roll of '10.' If the player's final 'rolls' (after all bonuses/penalties due to skill level and attributes) were 10, 6, and 9, the player would have earned 2 points for the first 'roll' but suffered -2 from the second roll, and a -1 for the last roll. Thus, for the night, the character would not have advanced the particular skill. Over time, more successes will advance the character closer to the required number (25 for advancement from levels 0 to 1 and 1 to 2; 50 for advancement from 2 to 3 and 3 to 4; and 100 from 4 to 5).
It's a system that works well for my friend and fellow Traveller ~ with whom I've played for more than 25 years. Hope you can find something in there that you like for yourself.
Fox's Master
I think, very simply, that the Instruction skill is for practical game purposes, geared toward the training of your 18 year old volunteers/conscripts who will have no skills beyond homeworld and background education skills. After all, it is in the Mercenary book and not the Core rules.
The problem with Skill Improvement and low-peak-rating skills systems is that any skill gain blows one or another of verisimilitude, ease of use, or play balance.
In looking at the official raising system and the character generation, taking a raw 18yo....
Term 1
We need 5 level 0 skills: 1 week each
1 term skill to level 1: 1 week to level 0, 1 week to level 1
1 rank skill to level 1: 1 weeks to level 0, 2 weeks to level 1
0-1 event skill to level 1: 2 weeks to level 0, 3 weeks to level 1
0-1 promotion skills to level 1: 3 weeks to level 0, 4 weeks to level 1.
that's 22 weeks. Of 208 for a 4 year term.
If we require months instead of weeks, it's 22 of 52 months.
Now, sustained term rates add 1 skill for term, 0-1 for promotion, 0-1 for event, 0-1 for
rank. Assuming they are all at level 1 already:
Term skill level 1 to 2: 4 to 6 weeks
Promotion skill level 1 to 2: 5 to 7 weeks
Event skill to level 1: 4 to 8 weeks.
Rank skill to level 1: 5-9 weeks
4 to 30 weeks
It fits pretty well for term 2 if we use months instead of weeks.
But it's pretty obvious the guys at mongoose never actually ran the numbers this way.
(I did, and I shot them the numbers. I was ignored.)
In looking at the official raising system and the character generation, taking a raw 18yo....
Term 1
We need 5 level 0 skills: 1 week each
1 term skill to level 1: 1 week to level 0, 1 week to level 1
1 rank skill to level 1: 1 weeks to level 0, 2 weeks to level 1
0-1 event skill to level 1: 2 weeks to level 0, 3 weeks to level 1
0-1 promotion skills to level 1: 3 weeks to level 0, 4 weeks to level 1.
that's 22 weeks. Of 208 for a 4 year term.
If we require months instead of weeks, it's 22 of 52 months.
Now, sustained term rates add 1 skill for term, 0-1 for promotion, 0-1 for event, 0-1 for
rank. Assuming they are all at level 1 already:
Term skill level 1 to 2: 4 to 6 weeks
Promotion skill level 1 to 2: 5 to 7 weeks
Event skill to level 1: 4 to 8 weeks.
Rank skill to level 1: 5-9 weeks
4 to 30 weeks
It fits pretty well for term 2 if we use months instead of weeks.
But it's pretty obvious the guys at mongoose never actually ran the numbers this way.
(I did, and I shot them the numbers. I was ignored.)
Fox's Master
SOC-9
Skill Improvement
Aramis,
I appreciate the post. In most games (D&D, Top Secret, Star Wars, etc.), you start as a young, fresh recruit (fighter/ranger/thief, investigator, Jedi, etc.), and develop/advance your character during game play. In Traveller, you're already quite the experienced "fill-in-the-blank" when you being to "adventure" around the galaxy. Thus, I understand why there's no deliberate development schema for skill improvement. But, as a long-time gamer, I can't help but to appreciate the advancement of characters.
This is exactly why I've 'blended' Serenity and Traveller as a hybrid which works quite well.
FM
Aramis,
I appreciate the post. In most games (D&D, Top Secret, Star Wars, etc.), you start as a young, fresh recruit (fighter/ranger/thief, investigator, Jedi, etc.), and develop/advance your character during game play. In Traveller, you're already quite the experienced "fill-in-the-blank" when you being to "adventure" around the galaxy. Thus, I understand why there's no deliberate development schema for skill improvement. But, as a long-time gamer, I can't help but to appreciate the advancement of characters.
This is exactly why I've 'blended' Serenity and Traveller as a hybrid which works quite well.
FM
BardicHeart
SOC-12
I'm currently experimenting with the following house rule for improving skills. Feel free to try it out, comment, etc.
Improving Skills
Training Time: 4d6 weeks + New Skill Level d6 weeks
Make a Routine Attribute Check (generally Int or Edu, depending on skill being developed, GM discretion), add levels of a qualified Instructor as +DM.
Exceptional failure, no skill improvement, cannot attempt to improve any skill for 2 months
Failure, wasted time, no skill improvement
Success, learned skill
Exceptional Success, learned skill at +2 levels
Example: Attempting to learn Athletics as a new skill, roll an Attribute Check against Str, Dex or End. Player chooses Dex for a +2 DM on 7+. Rolling a 9+2 = 11 (Effect of 3), the player gets a Success and is able to open Athletics 0 after training for (1+3+6+6=16) 16 weeks.
Example: A player wants to improve their characters Medic from 3 to 4. This will take 4d6+4d6 weeks or (1+1+2+5=9 weeks + 6+3+3+2=14 weeks) 23 weeks. Rolling and 11 with Edu +2 and an Instructor with 3 gives a modified 16 and an Effect of 8 for an Exceptional Success. The character's Medic increases 2 levels to 5!
Improving Skills
Training Time: 4d6 weeks + New Skill Level d6 weeks
Make a Routine Attribute Check (generally Int or Edu, depending on skill being developed, GM discretion), add levels of a qualified Instructor as +DM.
Exceptional failure, no skill improvement, cannot attempt to improve any skill for 2 months
Failure, wasted time, no skill improvement
Success, learned skill
Exceptional Success, learned skill at +2 levels
Example: Attempting to learn Athletics as a new skill, roll an Attribute Check against Str, Dex or End. Player chooses Dex for a +2 DM on 7+. Rolling a 9+2 = 11 (Effect of 3), the player gets a Success and is able to open Athletics 0 after training for (1+3+6+6=16) 16 weeks.
Example: A player wants to improve their characters Medic from 3 to 4. This will take 4d6+4d6 weeks or (1+1+2+5=9 weeks + 6+3+3+2=14 weeks) 23 weeks. Rolling and 11 with Edu +2 and an Instructor with 3 gives a modified 16 and an Effect of 8 for an Exceptional Success. The character's Medic increases 2 levels to 5!
I think that's a good starting point, but I think it must be moe closely defined. I still stay on the subject skills must be divided on sevral classes to be improved.
Another question is about learning 0 level skills. I'll assume they are learned as one skill rank (succes on a skill you doesn't have). If so, what skill level do you use to determine time? 0? -3?
Let's imagine some examples that I think illustrate what has to be refined:
One character having no vehicle skill tries to learn weeled vehicle (tries to obtain driving licence). Aplicable stat is 7 (average). Instructor level is 2 (average too).
It will take 4d6 (assuming skill modifier 0) to learn it: 4-24 weeks, average 14. Quite in acordance on time most people I know meeded to obtain it. If skill mod was -3 (his modifier to drive, as he has no skill), it whould learn it on 1d6 weeks (average 3.5), too short a time, IMO.
If he tries to obtain profesional licence (level 1), it will take similar time (unless he rolled exceptional succes on the first roll).
Now imagine this example on some one that tries to become a doctor (or engineer, or any other universitary career). Instructor whould probably be better, as he's going to a university, so exceptional succes is more likely, and probably his stat whould be higher if he enteren the university...
Let's imagine his stat modifier is +1, and instructor level 4. Total mod +5. exceptional succes on 9+.
Fist time he rolls 4 (+5=9): success, learns skill 0 Takes 14 weeks (average).
Second roll is 9 (+5=14). Level 6 succes (extraordinary succes). Takes 20 weeks (quite more than average). He's now medical skill 2 (a full doctor, according to page 51 on core book).
He has become a doctor in 34 weeks on the university (about 8 months)...
And quite less if -3 modifier is used to learn skill 0 (I assumed it's not)
Let's say you divide skills on several classes, among which is 'universitary studies' (or whatever you want to call it), on which months are used instead of weeks. 34 months, assuming 9-10 months of actual classes every year: 3-4 years. And that with an extraordinary succes... Quite closer to what takes one to become a doctor, IMO.
Of course, we're only talking about formal skill improving, what I miss more sorely on MgT is a way to improve skills through experience (if using the formulas abrove, it will take 6D6 (average 21 months) of studies to up his skill to 3 (4 if exceptional success).
Last edited:
BardicHeart
SOC-12
Learning a Skill at Level 0 (which is where I start all new skills, that is, first you learn it at Skill 0, then improve to Skill 1, Skill 2 and so on), is 4d6 weeks +0d6 weeks for Skill 0... or simply 4d6 weeks. You don't make a skill check to learn it, you use a base attribute check... whichever the GM thinks is most relevant. That might be Int or Edu for academics skills, or as in the case of Athletics it might be any of the physical characteristics (Str, Dex or End). There is no -3 to the attribute check.
Looking back at my example, I think I should have clarified that when opening a NEW skill at Skill 0 its an attribute check. For improving a skill you already have, it would be a normal skill check. Heh... editing
Another thought I have tinkered with was that during play, any skill which gets either an Exceptional Success OR an Exceptional Failure gets a +1 DM on the next skill improvement attempt. But I'm concerned that's going to drift toward a lot of book keeping again with lots of "check marks" on the skill sheet to keep track of them.
I'm still tinkering with the rule. Mainly I wanted to get away from the official method which I thought was completely unrealistic and required too much book keeping. I'm still not sure if I'm happy with my solution but as you said, its a starting point. Figured I'd put it out here and let you lot kick it around and toy with it.
I have considered another possible method that would require weekly skill checks and a cumulative Effect to be tracked, requiring a character to accumulate X of Effect points to improve the skill by 1 level. That might be more realistic but would require more book keeping, though if I reprinted the skill sheet to include a small space in brackets to note the current "Training Progress" (total number of effect points) it wouldn't be much book keeping I don't think. That would allow several skills to be progressing at the same time as a combination of training and practical experience (combat, research, doing your job, etc.) gradually accumulated "experience" towards the improvement of various skills. That would more simulate how we learn in reality.
Such a system would probably look something like this...
Learning a New Skill (Open at Skill 0)
Make an Charcterisctic Check (Attribute determined by GM) per week of training. Accumulate a total of 16 Effect.
At GM discretion, some skills cannot be learned without either an Instructor, study materials, or a relevant skill prerequisite (still considering this, MGT doesn't have prerequisites and this might be over complicating things even if it is realistic).
Improving an Existing Skill (Skill 0+)
New Skill Level x 20 Effect Total
Make one Skill Check per week and add Effect result to Total
Hiring an qualified Instructor (possesses both Instructor skill and skill being taught at least 1 level higher than character's desired skill level) adds Instructor level as a +DM to Skill check.
Negative Effect totals from Failure can reduce the Total (study harder next time).
An Exceptional Success OR an Exceptional Failure from skill use during play gives a +1 DM on next training check (we learn as much from our failures as our successes rule).
Example... Player wants their character to Open Athletics as a new skill (Skill 0). The GM decides any physical characteristic is relevant. The characters best physical attribute is Dex at 9 (+1). The character does some exercises, tumbling and gymnastics in the cargo hold during the week spent in Jump Space and gets a Skill Improvement check. The player rolls a 9 + 1 = 10 - 9 = Effect 2. A [2] is noted next to athletics to indicate 2 Effect points have been accumulated towards opening Athletics at Skill 0. During their next jump, a passenger turns out to be a gymnist and offers to help train the character. The Gymnist has Instructor 2 and Athletics 4, which makes them a qualified Instructor for a +2 DM to the check. The player rolls an 8 + 1 +2 = 11 - 8 = 3 Effect, this is added to the running total for a [5]. During their next port of call, the character gets in a fight and tries some gymnastics to get out of a pinch... and fails spectacularly... suffering some injuries and learning a lesson in what NOT to do... add +1 to the next check. This time the character talks to the Gymnist teacher who has Instructor 4 and Athletics 4, giving an additional +4. The player gets a lucky 11 + 1 (Dex) + 1 (for learning the hard way), +4 (instructor) = 17 - 8 = 9 Effect! This raises the total to [14]. The player decides one more week spent training on his own in the cargo hold will be enough and bid's his gymnists friends fairwell. The following week in Jump Space gets a roll of 9 + 1 = 10 - 8 = Effect 2 which raises the total to 16. The character opens Athletics at 0 and erases the Effect total. To go from Athletics 0 to Athletics 1 will require a total of 20 Effect points.... maybe one of those self training courses in the adverts would be a good investment...
In the example, the character Opened Athletics at skill 0 in just 4 weeks of training. This was with the help of two different instructors, one of whom was very skilled, and a lucky die roll. Had one of those checks been a failure with -4 effect, it would have set the character back 2-3 weeks.
An average character, without instruction would take 8-16 weeks to open a new skill. With a +2 instructor that same character would take 6-8 weeks.
Going from Medic 3 to Medic 4 would require an Effect Total of 4 x 20 = 80. So assume Int 8 and Edu 8 and Medic 3 would give an average skill check each week of training of (7+3 = 10 - 8 = 2 Effect), thus requiring 40 weeks to improve the skill. However, a high Edu or Int character (12+ for a +3 bonus) would get an average of 5-6 Effect and make the same improvement in 14 to 16 weeks. This doesn't include bonuses for Instructors or practical experience. Not sure if the Effect Total should be raised or not. Thoughts?
Training doesn't have to be consecutive... you could train in one skill one week and a different skill the next week, the Effect Total doesn't go down (not entirely realistic but I don't want to add another rule mechanic for skill degradation over time, too much book keeping).
I'm thinking I like this second method better, but still pondering. Feedback welcome of course.
Looking back at my example, I think I should have clarified that when opening a NEW skill at Skill 0 its an attribute check. For improving a skill you already have, it would be a normal skill check. Heh... editing
Another thought I have tinkered with was that during play, any skill which gets either an Exceptional Success OR an Exceptional Failure gets a +1 DM on the next skill improvement attempt. But I'm concerned that's going to drift toward a lot of book keeping again with lots of "check marks" on the skill sheet to keep track of them.
I'm still tinkering with the rule. Mainly I wanted to get away from the official method which I thought was completely unrealistic and required too much book keeping. I'm still not sure if I'm happy with my solution but as you said, its a starting point. Figured I'd put it out here and let you lot kick it around and toy with it.
I have considered another possible method that would require weekly skill checks and a cumulative Effect to be tracked, requiring a character to accumulate X of Effect points to improve the skill by 1 level. That might be more realistic but would require more book keeping, though if I reprinted the skill sheet to include a small space in brackets to note the current "Training Progress" (total number of effect points) it wouldn't be much book keeping I don't think. That would allow several skills to be progressing at the same time as a combination of training and practical experience (combat, research, doing your job, etc.) gradually accumulated "experience" towards the improvement of various skills. That would more simulate how we learn in reality.
Such a system would probably look something like this...
Learning a New Skill (Open at Skill 0)
Make an Charcterisctic Check (Attribute determined by GM) per week of training. Accumulate a total of 16 Effect.
At GM discretion, some skills cannot be learned without either an Instructor, study materials, or a relevant skill prerequisite (still considering this, MGT doesn't have prerequisites and this might be over complicating things even if it is realistic).
Improving an Existing Skill (Skill 0+)
New Skill Level x 20 Effect Total
Make one Skill Check per week and add Effect result to Total
Hiring an qualified Instructor (possesses both Instructor skill and skill being taught at least 1 level higher than character's desired skill level) adds Instructor level as a +DM to Skill check.
Negative Effect totals from Failure can reduce the Total (study harder next time).
An Exceptional Success OR an Exceptional Failure from skill use during play gives a +1 DM on next training check (we learn as much from our failures as our successes rule).
Example... Player wants their character to Open Athletics as a new skill (Skill 0). The GM decides any physical characteristic is relevant. The characters best physical attribute is Dex at 9 (+1). The character does some exercises, tumbling and gymnastics in the cargo hold during the week spent in Jump Space and gets a Skill Improvement check. The player rolls a 9 + 1 = 10 - 9 = Effect 2. A [2] is noted next to athletics to indicate 2 Effect points have been accumulated towards opening Athletics at Skill 0. During their next jump, a passenger turns out to be a gymnist and offers to help train the character. The Gymnist has Instructor 2 and Athletics 4, which makes them a qualified Instructor for a +2 DM to the check. The player rolls an 8 + 1 +2 = 11 - 8 = 3 Effect, this is added to the running total for a [5]. During their next port of call, the character gets in a fight and tries some gymnastics to get out of a pinch... and fails spectacularly... suffering some injuries and learning a lesson in what NOT to do... add +1 to the next check. This time the character talks to the Gymnist teacher who has Instructor 4 and Athletics 4, giving an additional +4. The player gets a lucky 11 + 1 (Dex) + 1 (for learning the hard way), +4 (instructor) = 17 - 8 = 9 Effect! This raises the total to [14]. The player decides one more week spent training on his own in the cargo hold will be enough and bid's his gymnists friends fairwell. The following week in Jump Space gets a roll of 9 + 1 = 10 - 8 = Effect 2 which raises the total to 16. The character opens Athletics at 0 and erases the Effect total. To go from Athletics 0 to Athletics 1 will require a total of 20 Effect points.... maybe one of those self training courses in the adverts would be a good investment...
In the example, the character Opened Athletics at skill 0 in just 4 weeks of training. This was with the help of two different instructors, one of whom was very skilled, and a lucky die roll. Had one of those checks been a failure with -4 effect, it would have set the character back 2-3 weeks.
An average character, without instruction would take 8-16 weeks to open a new skill. With a +2 instructor that same character would take 6-8 weeks.
Going from Medic 3 to Medic 4 would require an Effect Total of 4 x 20 = 80. So assume Int 8 and Edu 8 and Medic 3 would give an average skill check each week of training of (7+3 = 10 - 8 = 2 Effect), thus requiring 40 weeks to improve the skill. However, a high Edu or Int character (12+ for a +3 bonus) would get an average of 5-6 Effect and make the same improvement in 14 to 16 weeks. This doesn't include bonuses for Instructors or practical experience. Not sure if the Effect Total should be raised or not. Thoughts?
Training doesn't have to be consecutive... you could train in one skill one week and a different skill the next week, the Effect Total doesn't go down (not entirely realistic but I don't want to add another rule mechanic for skill degradation over time, too much book keeping).
I'm thinking I like this second method better, but still pondering. Feedback welcome of course.
Looking back at my example, I think I should have clarified that when opening a NEW skill at Skill 0 its an attribute check. For improving a skill you already have, it would be a normal skill check. Heh... editing
I think you'd keep it as stat task, not skill task, even if you have this skill. By being skill tak, you make it easier to earn those points as you're more skilled, and I think it shouldn't.
As it is, if you have skill 0 and stat mod +1, an average roll gives you a 0 level success (marginal success: +1 skill level), if your skill was 6, it gives you a level 6 success (extraordinary success: +2 skill level)
Another example you should use it as stat roll instead of skill roll:
You try to augment your skill without an instructor from 0 to 1, stat mod 0. Roll weekly. Average roll 7 = 1 level failure. You're lucky you cannot 'unlearn' the skill...
Same trying to augment from 2 to 3. Average roll 7+2=9. Level 1 success. You need 60 points, average 60 weeks.
Same for skill 6 to 7. Average roll 7+6= 13. Level 5 sucess. You need 140 points. average 28 weeks (without risk to lose points for failures).
Should they were stat rolls, this character should better hire a good instructor if he wants to learn, as the average roll in any case whould be a level 1 failure. Or better yet, relly on experience he accumulates by using the skill.
And, to make it even harder for the high skilled ones that want to up them even more, I'd use the skill he has as a negative DM for training (no effect on experience, aside from needing more points). If you have level 5 on any skill, quite a few instructors can teach you more. You'd better learn by your own experience, and even perhaps you'd teach others...
Last edited:
Hey there...
After something like 15 years since I last ran a Traveller game (TNE), I just got the Mongoose version of these rules. I was thinking about skill development as well, and remembering back to the first Traveller game I ever played, which was Megatraveller. The GM of that game used this system:
Each game you get two tally marks to put next to two skills you either used or received instruction on. At the end of the session, you made a roll for each skill, +skill level, -# of tally marks. If you FAIL the roll with a target number of 6 (routine task) you gain a level of the skill.
1>Skills get harder to learn as time goes on since the skill level is basically a penalty in this case.
2> it adds an element of "gambling excitement" when you get to roll at the end of the session
3> it minimizes book-keeping. No keeping track of how many weeks you've studied or how many times you've succeeded at a skill.
4> It paces skill progression based on play-time, not in-game time, which meant that *I*, as the player, experienced the effects of the skill progression regardless of what my character was going through. Maybe not the most realistic way to do it, but if you're in the kind game where every session is only a couple of days of in-game time, you could go for a long time before you ever saw a skill increase when you base it on weeks or months of IG time.
Just my 2 cents.
Kashre
After something like 15 years since I last ran a Traveller game (TNE), I just got the Mongoose version of these rules. I was thinking about skill development as well, and remembering back to the first Traveller game I ever played, which was Megatraveller. The GM of that game used this system:
Each game you get two tally marks to put next to two skills you either used or received instruction on. At the end of the session, you made a roll for each skill, +skill level, -# of tally marks. If you FAIL the roll with a target number of 6 (routine task) you gain a level of the skill.
1>Skills get harder to learn as time goes on since the skill level is basically a penalty in this case.
2> it adds an element of "gambling excitement" when you get to roll at the end of the session
3> it minimizes book-keeping. No keeping track of how many weeks you've studied or how many times you've succeeded at a skill.
4> It paces skill progression based on play-time, not in-game time, which meant that *I*, as the player, experienced the effects of the skill progression regardless of what my character was going through. Maybe not the most realistic way to do it, but if you're in the kind game where every session is only a couple of days of in-game time, you could go for a long time before you ever saw a skill increase when you base it on weeks or months of IG time.
Just my 2 cents.
Kashre
Hey there...
After something like 15 years since I last ran a Traveller game (TNE), I just got the Mongoose version of these rules. I was thinking about skill development as well, and remembering back to the first Traveller game I ever played, which was Megatraveller. The GM of that game used this system:
Each game you get two tally marks to put next to two skills you either used or received instruction on. At the end of the session, you made a roll for each skill, +skill level, -# of tally marks. If you FAIL the roll with a target number of 6 (routine task) you gain a level of the skill.
1>Skills get harder to learn as time goes on since the skill level is basically a penalty in this case.
2> it adds an element of "gambling excitement" when you get to roll at the end of the session
3> it minimizes book-keeping. No keeping track of how many weeks you've studied or how many times you've succeeded at a skill.
4> It paces skill progression based on play-time, not in-game time, which meant that *I*, as the player, experienced the effects of the skill progression regardless of what my character was going through. Maybe not the most realistic way to do it, but if you're in the kind game where every session is only a couple of days of in-game time, you could go for a long time before you ever saw a skill increase when you base it on weeks or months of IG time.
Just my 2 cents.
Kashre
Well, precisely MT is the version of Traveller I've played that has better (IMO) rules for character development, and they differ quite a lot from what you describe here.
I personally whouldn't change MT rules for character development, but that's my oppinion, and may be as erroneous as anyone else's...
If those rules went well for you playing group, they were of course well done and applied
