In Defense of Dying in Traveller Chargen

[aramis]

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.

ALL post-CT editions removed death as the norm. All post CT editions use short-term-and-out except MGT and T20, both of which add mishaps on failure, but don't automatically result in expulsion from service on failed survival.

MT: Short term of 2 years and out. (PM p.14) Death optional.
TNE: no survival throw!
T4: was short term of 1d3 years and out. Death optional.
GT: No prior service system
T20: survival mishap, which can include force-out. No death option.
MGT: mishap & out. (CRB p.8) Death optional.

 

[Khan Trav]

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

I meant that if you roll a character with stats that mean if he has gets a nosebleed he dies as well as having intelligence roll so low he can't figure out how to open the door to his stateroom. This type of character could be rolled on your first attempt and you would be stuck with it under those rules, not a comic book superhero but quite the opposite.

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.

That is a great idea and I would be good with it in a campaign, I have tried different methods including pre-generated ones. I like CT setting the best but as for the character gen, I prefer the enhanced system like you see in mercenary, merchant prince and scouts. I wouldn't call them supermen but then again each player group has their own ideas about what is a fun fit for them. I saw a version of Traveller that has pre generated templates that you can customize so obviously someone else liked your idea as well.

 

[far-trader]

ALL post-CT editions removed death as the norm. All post CT editions use short-term-and-out...

Even CT had it as an option*

* except maybe in the first printing (i don't recall) so I really don't get all this grief over the rule unless EVERYONE was an early adopter

And The Traveller Book introduced (afaik) a couple other rules to avoid "useless" characters. Disability retirement for any character with a physical stat of 1* or total physical stats of 10 or less.

* in fact, and despite being tired and caffeine deprived, that has twigged a brilliant idea for anyone who still thinks they need an escape clause, make failed survival injury be a physical stat reduced to 1 (a true disability per the rules) and give the player the option to retire and reroll, or play on with it, that should still be incentive wise a decent caution like death

And then there is CT's very limited skill sets, zero level skills, and education/experience to pretty much eliminate any "useless" character claims.

Your Marine who upon mustering wants to be a Merc but his MOS was Admin (3) and he never advanced past basic firearms (zero level)? No problem, "weapon expertise" then post char gen. Bump that Cutlass-1 to Cutlass-2 and choose any Gun-0 to bump to Gun-1. And so on...

The one point I do agree on is skill redundancy among the group, to a point. It can be good to have more than one Navigator if the usual one ends up out of commission temporarily. As long as there is something for the backup to do most of the time in other areas. This is a referee problem. As in it shouldn't be a problem, the referee is there to build the story around the players, not hammer the players into the story. So you have 2 Navigators. The good ref works with that. The bad ref leaves the backup feeling like a fifth wheel. Sounds to me like some players have had bad refs and blame the game rules, probably because the bad ref put the fault on the rules. I can hear the "Gee, that's too bad but that's what the rules say."

Yeah, I should stop and get some caff Getting ranty and I have stuff to do and miles to go...

 

[BytePro]

Yeah, suspected all other editions dropped death mechanic as baseline

Khan Trav, we initially played PCs exactly like that - with 'serious disjoints between characteristic stats and skills' and ones which would die from paper cuts.

By supermen, I refer to munchkin PCs with 12+ stats and outrageously high skill levels. Generating 10-30 characters which randomly muster out (when an option) exactly per the rules ended up with typically several that a Player would want to play. Not necessarily because they weren't lame (er, the PC), but because they appealed to the Player for roleplay. So, at their own choice, my Players didn't generate their characters, so much as pick them - and the lists tended to expand upon what the Player would decide to roleplay.

It also meant that we could get together for a session and begin the adventure with all new PCs within minutes - even with new Players.

 

[BytePro]

Far-Trader, I began play in the '80's with used LBBs (all I ever had till the Re-Prints), and don't recall a formal option (at least in books 1-3) - but I wouldn't be surprised at all that it was included later.

Its funny Traveller still has the stigma as the RPG where PCs die in chargen. I do recall reading (wonder if it was in the earlier editions), a recommendation that crappy stat PCs could enter the Scouts as they had a better chance of dieing! DOH! o:

Don't recall zero level (ala Mongoose) in CT, except in very explicit skills... and the adjusting factors you mention are still dependent on lucky die rolls or Ref fiat/house rules.

CT RAW did result in 'useless' characters - or very old or dead ones - a notable percentage of the time. To me, that just meant it was 'balanced' and statistically random. Because of this, though, it was also quite easy to get 'useful' characters (munchkin-ism aside) following the RAW, by simply rolling enough up. An easy option with a program - rather annoying, I would presume, without. From what I've seen, a lot of folks came up with house rules, instead. (But that happens in many games, regardless.)

 

[skyth]

It can be good to have more than one Navigator if the usual one ends up out of commission temporarily. As long as there is something for the backup to do most of the time in other areas. This is a referee problem.

And also a rules problem. There is a difference between having something to do and being able to get the spotlight. It is possible to generate a character with his only skill being nav-1 while another character generates nav-2 as his only skill. It's hard to shine when the only thing you can do, someone else can do better. Sure, the character could do grunt work like moving cargo around but is that fun for the player?

Oh, and education and furthering skills don't really happen in CT games. It's time consuming and expensive. It's the same reason that item crafting and spell research isn't done a lot in D&D campaigns.

 

[aramis]

Far-Trader, I began play in the '80's with used LBBs (all I ever had till the Re-Prints), and don't recall a formal option (at least in books 1-3) - but I wouldn't be surprised at all that it was included later.

Its funny Traveller still has the stigma as the RPG where PCs die in chargen. I do recall reading (wonder if it was in the earlier editions), a recommendation that crappy stat PCs could enter the Scouts as they had a better chance of dieing! DOH! o:

Don't recall zero level (ala Mongoose) in CT, except in very explicit skills... and the adjusting factors you mention are still dependent on lucky die rolls or Ref fiat/house rules.

CT RAW did result in 'useless' characters - or very old or dead ones - a notable percentage of the time. To me, that just meant it was 'balanced' and statistically random. Because of this, though, it was also quite easy to get 'useful' characters (munchkin-ism aside) following the RAW, by simply rolling enough up. An easy option with a program - rather annoying, I would presume, without. From what I've seen, a lot of folks came up with house rules, instead. (But that happens in many games, regardless.)

Any system requiring 3-10 attempts to get a "playable" character has issues I'm unwilling to cope with.

And Level 0 skills were present in CT - but were explicitly left to GM call. Bk 4 allowed instructors to teach them

 

[BytePro]

Any system requiring 3-10 attempts to get a "playable" character has issues I'm unwilling to cope with.

And Level 0 skills were present in CT - but were explicitly left to GM call. Bk 4 allowed instructors to teach them

One could generate 'playable' characters in CT - but that often required retirement aged geriatrics (and anti-aging drugs). When we first started, I ended up being pretty lenient in game play to offset deficiencies (and overlaps) in chargen. But, yeah, the autogen list option allowed me to sidestep having a bunch of houserules like I've seen mentioned in many CT games (though I've seen similar in other versions and games, even in MgT).

Yep, Level-0 was explicit for a handful of skills only - not like Mongoose where it is pretty ubiquitous and a major part of chargen. GM fiat is just a hack and always available, of course. My bunch actually liked not having to bother pursuing the equivalent of XP or trying to pump up stats or skills- so we never did the Bk4 instructor stuff or CT training.

 

[aramis]

One could generate 'playable' characters in CT - but that often required retirement aged geriatrics (and anti-aging drugs). When we first started, I ended up being pretty lenient in game play to offset deficiencies (and overlaps) in chargen. But, yeah, the autogen list option allowed me to sidestep having a bunch of houserules like I've seen mentioned in many CT games (though I've seen similar in other versions and games, even in MgT).

Yep, Level-0 was explicit for a handful of skills only - not like Mongoose where it is pretty ubiquitous and a major part of chargen. GM fiat is just a hack and always available, of course. My bunch actually liked not having to bother pursuing the equivalent of XP or trying to pump up stats or skills- so we never did the Bk4 instructor stuff or CT training.

Level 0 was a minor but significant part of MegaTraveller CGen, as well.

Not many are given, but all are eligible for level 0. And skills lost due to the experience limit never drop below it, either.

DEFAULT SKILLS
Characters receive default skills for their homeworld tech codes and careers.
Industrial Wheeled __ Vehicle-0.
Pre-Stellar Wheeled _ Vehicle-0.
Early Stellar _______ Computer-0, Wheeled Vehicle-0.
Average Stellar _____ Grav Vehicle-0, Computer-0.
High Stellar ________ Grav Vehicle-0, Computer-0.
Navy ________________ Vacc Suit-0.
Marines _____________ Vacc Suit-0.
Flyers ______________ Vacc Suit-0.
Scouts ______________ Vacc Suit-0.
All But Barbarians __ Gun Combat-0.​

Mongoose really just takes this to a logical conclusion.

 

[BytePro]

Not surprising, as the Task System in MgT seems to have its roots in the MT/DGP system. (Which is far better than what I found in some MgT playtest docs!)

 

[Enoki]

Yeah, suspected all other editions dropped death mechanic as baseline

Khan Trav, we initially played PCs exactly like that - with 'serious disjoints between characteristic stats and skills' and ones which would die from paper cuts.

By supermen, I refer to munchkin PCs with 12+ stats and outrageously high skill levels. Generating 10-30 characters which randomly muster out (when an option) exactly per the rules ended up with typically several that a Player would want to play. Not necessarily because they weren't lame (er, the PC), but because they appealed to the Player for roleplay. So, at their own choice, my Players didn't generate their characters, so much as pick them - and the lists tended to expand upon what the Player would decide to roleplay.

It also meant that we could get together for a session and begin the adventure with all new PCs within minutes - even with new Players.

I prefer this method too. Basically use something like a simple spreadsheet program with macros to build hundreds of characters and then let the players choose the one they want.
I personally don't particularly care if they do the same: so long as the generation rules are followed.

I can't see forcing someone to play with a character teetering on the brink of death or one that is all but useless. Sure, there are those who want some "super" character. The problem is that such characters generate problems of their own if the refree is smart about it. That is a over the top character attracts alot of attention..... not all of it wanted by any means.....

With reasonable players this gives them a useful character for the game. Is it really reasonable or realistic that some weak, sickly, incompetent person would be found in the sort of situations Traveller envisions? After all, not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.....

 

[PFVA63]

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).

Hi,

Thanks for the suggestion

Pat

 

[Khan Trav]

Is it really reasonable or realistic that some weak, sickly, incompetent person would be found in the sort of situations Traveller envisions?

In my experience, this only applies to real world supervisors.

 

[PhilB]

In my experience, this only applies to real world supervisors.

Ah, the Peter Principle at work again.

I've always thought that the die-in-chargen bit was a nice piece of balancing. The only significant difficulty has been mentioned above: it can be hard to pick a particular type of character, and I don't see any reason not to house rule around that.

Other RPGs had similar issues. Some people try to generate D&D characters with the rolls being assigned in a fixed order to attributes, which then causes class selection issues.

-Phil.

 

[Khan Trav]

Good News I just received my copy of Scouts & Assassins in the mail today and there is a rule for character generation death called: Unfit for Service

It provides options that range from death, desertion, mutiny, insubordination, unfitness/physical, striking a superior, drunkeness, other disciplinary reason, unfitness/psychological, transfer at service's request roll on transfer table, transfer at own request chose from transfer table. Each also provides a modifier for your mustering out rolls.

 

[nats]

I like the death possibility during chargen but have to admit to having fudged it for characters I really wanted to not die. Its a great system because it is a great way of encouraging thinking of your character as more than just a load of numbers. You take the character through his past life and you worry like hell about him dying and it also forces you to make an important decision every new term - to continue and risk death or to muster out and save your character before he goes too far.

Its essential Traveller and I cant imagine not having it in any Traveller system. In fact I would argue that if it isn't there the game cant really be considered Traveller.

 

[aramis]

Its essential Traveller and I cant imagine not having it in any Traveller system. In fact I would argue that if it isn't there the game cant really be considered Traveller.

By that approach, only CT is Traveller.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I like the death possibility [... clip ...] Its essential Traveller and I cant imagine not having it in any Traveller system. In fact I would argue that if it isn't there the game cant really be considered Traveller.

By that approach, only CT is Traveller.

I can't speak for all the other versions, but Mongoose does have chargen death as one of multiple chargen methods.

 

[aramis]

I can't speak for all the other versions, but Mongoose does have chargen death as one of multiple chargen methods.

Not the default one, tho'.
In fact, no non-CT edition has death as the default mode for failed "survival."

 

[CosmicGamer]

Not the default one, tho'.
In fact, no non-CT edition has death as the default mode for failed "survival."

Why does that matter?