In Defense of Dying in Traveller Chargen

[Golan2072]

I've written an article about the "survival" mechanic in Classic Traveller and the reasoning behind it. Read it here:

http://spacecockroach.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-defense-of-dying-in-traveller.html

 

[Mithras]

I heartily agree! Thanks for posting!

 

[CosmicGamer]

I like the ability to die in chargen but not for any reason mentioned. It's nice to be able to kill off week characters and not be forced into playing them. Just keep rolling up new ones until I get one I'm happy with.

 

[Golan2072]

Here is the full article for your enjoyment and discussion:

A common complaint about Classic Traveller is that characters can die during character generation. At the surface of it, it looks like a very strong and robust complaint - why should character generation be based on chance rather than the player's choice, and why should a character die even before starting the game?

However, there are actually good reasons to follow this controversial, and lethal, rule.

First of all, Classic Traveller game starts not after character generation, but rather at the beginning of character generation. It is a mini-game all by itself - a game of chance, if you will. And like all gambles, it has its own thrill in it. Will your character survive multiple terms of combat as a Marine? Will you muster out a General, or, alternatively, finish your career at a state funeral reserved to military heroes? Go on, gamble!

Another thing to keep in mind is that, as long as you stick to Book 1 and Supplement 4, Classic Traveller character generation is FAST. VERY FAST. Once you know the system well, generating a character takes a mere five minutes. So even if your character dies, you don't lose much time - in fact, you've only played a little game of dice for several moments, no harm done.

But the real reasons for the chances for character death in Classic Traveller character generation are twofold: from a setting perspective and from a game-mechanics perspective.

From a setting perspective, a military career, especially in actual combat service (when you can learn all these nifty combat skills), is a risky thing. Combat is no picnic, after all. You don't earn combat experience by sitting behind a desk, but rather by shooting and being shot at. Soldiers die in many cases; that is the nature of war. And the game reflects that.

From a game-mechanics perspective, keep in mind that Classic Traveller - like most versions of Traveller - uses the 2d6 curve for task resolution. This curve is highly sensitive to modifiers, so even a mere +1 is significant; high skill levels will skew the curve much towards the character's favor, and thus are highly valuable. The chance of death during character generation, therefore, exists in order to make higher skills rarer and more valuable. Otherwise, why not just stick in, say, the Scouts for terms and terms on no end and have a character with Pilot-5? This presents the player with a choice: do you muster out now alive but with a smaller amount of skills, or risk a certain chance of death in the line of duty to earn better combat experience? Are you determined enough to become an officer to risk your life in the line of duty, or do you muster out as a Private and stay alive for the time being? Choices. Choices. And risks. This is the essence of Classic Traveller character generation.

I hope that these few arguments would make you think again about the reasoning behind these seemingly arbitrary mechanics.

 

[Murph]

I always used instead of dying they were gravely injured and forced out of the service at that point, thereby starting the game.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

I may have mentioned this before (but since there have been several threads along these lines over the years I can't remember where) but over the years I kind of started looking at things as follows.

You roll up a character, and whatever happens, happens. If the character dies during generation, then he dies at that point. However, if you want to "take over" that characters life at some point prior to that, then you can. The effect being kind of like "this was the life path that the character would have followed if fate (or something similar) intervened. By taking over his/her life at some point prior to their death you have in effect "caused the character to turn left instead of right" (or something similar) at some point in his/her life and now their future may unfold differently.

In essence yoy could also do this with characters that don't die in generation.

This way, I kind of figure that I can use any character that I had rolled up as an NPC as needed. Specifically if I had a character that was rolled up as a retired "Merchant Captain" but I need an NPC for a junior merchant officer, in theory you could maybe just grab him at some mid-point in the rolling up process and use him then.

I guess to do so you kind of have to save the records of things as they happen when rolling the character up (ie, this term he gained Nav skill, or in this term he almost missed in survival roll, etc) but in general I tend to kind of do that anyway, so its really just a matter of keeping those records clean and legible (hopefully).

Just some thoughts

Pat

 

[Frankymole]

Intercepting a character before mustering-out can be useful if you need in-service NPCs - after all, all those "1001 characters" servicepersons aren't going to be retired. Let alone the law enforcers (etc) you meet from Citizens.

And it can be fun to start and adventuring group as a joint-service mission or task group. After the mission (or several...) they can always go back into char gen for a few more years / terms. Their shared adventure can give them a good reason to team up later, provided they all leave the service(s) at the same time.

The most important thing about being able to die in char gen is that it reinforces how deadly Traveller can be. It's a dangerous universe.

 

[Khan Trav]

I agree that the rules are very clear. If you roll a certain number you die. One thing I have been doing is role-playing the mustering out. All of my games in the last ten years have been play by email (PBEM). I receive the character, apply house rules, coordinate the character's back story and commence the game with an opening move that takes the character from the point they decide to retire. I also incorporate travel from their current duty station to the main administrative base on Regina. The character is assigned working passage on a courier or an xboat or whatever. On occasion they will be assigned a mission such as escort a vip of some sort, such as a relative of the sector admiral who is traveling to begin his mid-shipman studies at the naval academy. This mini-adventure can result in the character dying prior to making it to admin HQ on Regina. Scout Characters who receive a scout ship as part of their mustering out rolls will report to the DD office and roleplay the entire process.

 

[captainjack]

From my soapbox/fantasy heartbreaker :

I strongly advocate that characters that fail the survival roll should die, in keeping with both the setting ethos, and play balance, and not just because I hate all players. The tables as written are intended to avoid skill bloat, as happened with many later iterations of Traveller, and dying during chargen is one way to keep skills valuable. Greedy players kill characters, both by taking too many terms, and entering careers that are unsuited for their characters survival, just to get the MaD SkilZ.

 

[BytePro]

We started Traveller after having gotten tired of D&D with ever higher level PCs and focusing on low level PCs, instead, who typically faced higher level adventures - and thus died a lot. In effect we had made D&D more 'deadly', ala Traveller. It was more challenging and encouraged more RP instead of just 'gaming' for XP, especially since we started with new PCs each new adventure instead of campaigning.

So, by the time we began playing Traveller, skill bloat never had any attraction. Wasting time redoing PCs also didn't hold much attraction - so death just became early discharge (with potential injury - though we never formalized that, Players just made it up). Since we were focused on 'character' instead of stats, and teenagers yet, our idea of 'old' PCs usually meant 3 terms.

The arguments that such a mechanic somehow adds 'risks' to keep meta-gamers from high skills doesn't pan out if they can just start another character and push it till they get what they want, or die trying. Term limits probably would do the trick more effectively (with less time wasted) - a house rule I've heard often.

Early discharge with grave injury (ala Murphy above) would seem a much more daunting mechanic for the meta-gamers. They may then have the skills, but be forced to play an attribute weakened PC - definitely not a munchkin's dream.

As to re-inforcing that Traveller is 'more deadly' in chargen - sure, but its a pretty wasteful way of doing it and obviously a turn off to some. Plus it has nothing to do with any of the other mechanics being 'deadlier'. Its best aspect is actually probably that it makes Traveller somehow unique, though its obviously also a double edged sword (Hey - isn't that the game where you can die in chargen?!).

To quote Jayne - What'd you all order a dead guy for?

 

[skyth]

I've always found the dying in character generation to be fine for the solo-game of creating a character and seeing what happens.

For groups and actual play, I've never been impressed with Traveller's character generation system (Especially CT). It is extremely easy to get a lopsided group because someone got lucky. It's also possible to effectively make a character useless because it's a one person skill (Navigation for instance) and another character got a better skill level.

If you have one player who's only skill is Navigation-1 and another who's only skill is Navigation-2, then the only way for either character to spotlight is to make the other character useless.

I really think the only solution is to have the GM do the character-generation game until he comes up with a group of pre-rolled that work well together, are flexible, and are well balanced against each other. Then let the players pick which ones they want.

 

[rancke]

For groups and actual play, I've never been impressed with Traveller's character generation system (Especially CT). It is extremely easy to get a lopsided group because someone got lucky. It's also possible to effectively make a character useless because it's a one person skill (Navigation for instance) and another character got a better skill level.

If you have one player who's only skill is Navigation-1 and another who's only skill is Navigation-2, then the only way for either character to spotlight is to make the other character useless.

I think CT would have benefitted from an alternate character design system that allowed a much greater degree of control over the design. Not necessarily a point buy system, but better than average stat total, ability to shift points between stats, choice of career path and skills (with suitable limitations), that sort of thing. (Suggestions are just off the top of my head). Some way for a player to say "I want an ex-Navy officer with great astrogation skill, decent gun combat, and a hobby as an archeaologist" and get it.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

I agree with you completely, and in a way it does - it's called the referee.

It says in lots of places in the rules that the referee can pretty much do what he/she likes with the rules.

So if a player has a character type in mind let them roll it - I've seen and used loads of different house rules over the years:

pick 1 skill per term instead of rolling for one of them (only useful if you receive more than 1 skill roll that term)

or

roll for the skill then pick the table

are my two favourite ways of giving players more choice.

 

[Khan Trav]

I agree with you completely, and in a way it does - it's called the referee.

It says in lots of places in the rules that the referee can pretty much do what he/she likes with the rules.

That sounds right to me, but I have seen people take the position that you must play anything dealt. The point of play is to enjoy and if the beginning character sucks then the player is probably not going to like it. Running a game is fun for the referee but the players should be allowed to have a little fun also.

I had a player who mustered out of naval service with medical-3, in his character description his character was interested in obtaining med-4. We then began the process by having an adventure that began with him shooting for his goal. He joined Doctors Without Borders and shipped off to the outback of Yori and gave up a bit of his time and energy helping at a surgical center working under a world class surgeon who trained him in advanced surgical techniques. Now granted before it was over he did learn Med-4 but he also learned about getting shot at and nearly getting eaten by Taino. (Taino is a long story but trust me you do not want him eating you)

 

[skyth]

That sounds right to me, but I have seen people take the position that you must play anything dealt. The point of play is to enjoy and if the beginning character sucks then the player is probably not going to like it. Running a game is fun for the referee but the players should be allowed to have a little fun also.

That is a point that should always be remembered. Most of the time, you also hear the person that doesn't play the same labeled something (Typically 'munchkin' or something else deragatory). The whole elitism and 'right' way to play are a bane on the gaming community.

 

[BytePro]

Yeah, Ref controls the game - not the dice (nor the rules).

I made programs early on for CT - step by step choice ones for PC gen and then instant ones (full random) for NPCs by selecting a category and 'level' (approx expertise). Ended up, players liked just picking from the NPC generator (which had options for certain roles - like Pilot or Soldier.) I always meant to expand it, but even very simple it seemed to appease my players.

Another thing was to allow skills to stand-in for other skills (i.e. Pilot would have some computer or the like) when reasonable - I wasn't too fussy and my players weren't unreasonable about it...

 

[Khan Trav]

I think we are getting somewhere for sure. I like the idea of dying during chargen because it is as far as I know anyway a traveller thing. I prefer traveller to all other games and consider it to be bragging rights that the game is so badazz that even generating the character can get him killed.

As for some other ideas presented here, I also see merit in a system that allows for a more custom career path. If you use CT and generate a bunch of vanilla characters you would find some of their skill sets simply don't make sense. That doesnt mean it isnt realistic, heck I know people right now that have a group of skills that make no sense. Normally however the person is not going to be the ace adventurer of a group.

Someone (not me) should run an 'Ironman' Campaign where you get only one roll for stats and take any skills that you get with no alternatives. It would be interesting to watch.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

I've always found the dying in character generation to be fine for the solo-game of creating a character and seeing what happens.

For groups and actual play, I've never been impressed with Traveller's character generation system (Especially CT). It is extremely easy to get a lopsided group because someone got lucky. It's also possible to effectively make a character useless because it's a one person skill (Navigation for instance) and another character got a better skill level.

If you have one player who's only skill is Navigation-1 and another who's only skill is Navigation-2, then the only way for either character to spotlight is to make the other character useless.

I really think the only solution is to have the GM do the character-generation game until he comes up with a group of pre-rolled that work well together, are flexible, and are well balanced against each other. Then let the players pick which ones they want.

Hi,

With respect to lopsided characters, one issue that I've encountered is winding up with characters that have spent time in the Navy or as a Merchant, or a Marine, but seem to lack some skills that seem like they should have been at least semi-basic, like Zero Grav or Vacc Suit or something like that.

Also I kind of grew to feel that sometimes it would be too hard to make up a quick NPC for certain specific tasks (like say if you needed an NPC to be a skilled Pilot or something, but you kept rolling up characters that either didn't make it into the Navy or Merchants, or who mustered out before getting the skills that you hoped for.

As such, I've been thinking of maybe moving away from the traditional Traveller method of making die rolls and then defining your character from them and instead, trying to see if there might be a way of 1st roughly defining who the character is supposed to be and then trying to derive what general skills and characteristics they may have, based on that.

Pat

 

[aramis]

Pat, Traveller Navy, Merchant, and Marine characters probably shouldn't get Zero-G normally - unless in a TL8-9 setting. The TL10 gravitics are cheap, everpresent, and keep working unless something goes wrong with the PP.


That said, the easiest way, I've found, is to start by defining service, rank, and terms, grabbing the default skills, giving any required role skills at level 1 each, and then generating the rest of the skill list pretty much normally.

I did this to make an entire marine regiment in MT... and it worked quite well. (Aside from the BD troops & recon troops - all of whom had to be either term 2 or have made their special duty roll in term 1).

 

[BytePro]

...
Someone (not me) should run an 'Ironman' Campaign where you get only one roll for stats and take any skills that you get with no alternatives. It would be interesting to watch.

Not sure what you mean, but when we started, that is exactly what we did - roll and it is what it is.

Which, as others have mentioned, left holes and senseless overlap of skills between characters, not to mention serious disjoints between characteristic stats and skills and, as you mentioned, odd skill combinations. And, of course, from many players' perspectives, very limited option to play 'the character they wanted'. This could, in turn, encourage rolling older PCs to get a desired skill set (and bump up stats).

Which, with the chargen waste mechanic, er, death, could be frustrating. Hence, there seem to be a lot of house rules and fudging in this area, not to mention dropping the death mechanic (and later editions provided more skill options, and, in the case of Mongoose, did eliminate standard chargen death). I had no problem with the death mechanic, on principle, but for players who weren't trying to be munchkins, it was a waste of game time.

In my CT games, after creating automatic char generators, players just used my NPC generators - which explicitly followed the rules ala 'Ironman' if you will. However, they picked from the resulting random list who they wanted to play, instead of just going with the first thing that came along.

Since the chargen mechanics are so well balanced (CT creators knew their statistics), and my players weren't interested in playing comic book superheros anyway, this resulted in interesting and 'believable' characters.

It also nicely addressed everything I mentioned above.