Not for me. I always found I'd created characters that I'd never have thought of otherwise. That's the beauty of a random system.
Just got old traveller.
- Thread starter iron warrior
- Start date
Not for me. I always found I'd created characters that I'd never have thought of otherwise. That's the beauty of a random system.
Same here. Tho' I found MegaTraveller's extensive use of non-weapon Cascades to be the best compromise position... and the biggest lack in MGT is the lack of non-weapon cascades.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Cascades can be a PITA. They're ok in moderation, but in LBB-1 it was fairly easy to roll up a 'Scotty' with Engineering-5 who can fix anything aboard the ship. Try that in a cascade ruleset and you have problems - especially with a random chargen. Sure, it makes Scotty one in a million, which is more realistic, maybe, but if you want that sort of realism, don't bother with roleplay, just take a walk in the street.
In the beginning, cascades were a good idea, but then the writers started to split them down too much and created cascades for everything, and now you get the guy who's a crackshot with a shotgun, but doesn't know which end of a rifle the bullet comes out of - no way is that realistic.
I've rewritten my own cascades to the original spirit of the idea.
In the beginning, cascades were a good idea, but then the writers started to split them down too much and created cascades for everything, and now you get the guy who's a crackshot with a shotgun, but doesn't know which end of a rifle the bullet comes out of - no way is that realistic.
I've rewritten my own cascades to the original spirit of the idea.
So what? What's wrong with being a lazy roleplayer? The important bit is to have fun. If you can have fun playing a character with Navigation-1 and Computer-1[*] then that's fine -- for you. But if some of us prefer to have our fun with characters who are a little less of a challenge to play, who are you to imply that doing so is Hurting Wrong Fun?No such thing [as an unplayable character]! Just lazy roleplayers!
[*] Especially in the company of characters with, say, "Foil-1, Computer-1, Pilot-2, Vacc-2, Ship's Boat-1, Admin-1, Navigation-2, Shotgun-1" and "Cutlass-2, Revolver-1, Dagger-1, Computer-2, Medical-1, Tactics-1, Admin-2, Leader-1, Vacc-0".
Hans
nats
SOC-12
I play using ct chargen but 2 skills every term for non advanced characters (those from book 1 or supp 4) plus additional skills for commissions or promotion seems to work well plus I have created my own colonist, police and bounty hunter careers (took an hour) and added some extra default skills for homeworld types plus changed some minor skills around to add things like equestrian to the hunter career and barbarians only allowed on tech 0 or 1 worlds, plus I altered the vehicle cascade to be compatible with book 4 and 5 - now got a good system. Try doing that in Mongoose Traveller. Its what I like about the original system. ;-)
Looking at "challenging" player characters from another perspective, you sometimes have to wonder why the OTHER player characters associate with someone like that. Why does the hard-up free trader captain living his hardscrabble hand-to-mouth existence carry around someone with no skills that are useful to the running of the ship? Someone who is essentially dead weight but still consumes Cr2000 worth of life support per jump. Sure, you can come up with role-playing reasons ("My mother told me on her death-bed to take care of my idiot brother"), but what if the other players don't want to play along with that?
And in a similar vein, as a referee I sometimes have a hard time coming up with reasons why a patron would hire a bunch of unknown footloose wanderers for a delicate and confidential job. Coming up with an explanation for hiring a bunch of incompetent unknown footloose wanderers is even harder.
Hans
And in a similar vein, as a referee I sometimes have a hard time coming up with reasons why a patron would hire a bunch of unknown footloose wanderers for a delicate and confidential job. Coming up with an explanation for hiring a bunch of incompetent unknown footloose wanderers is even harder.
Hans
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
I was looking for that limit over the last couple of days and not finding it. Can you point me to it in the books?
It's in:
TTB p.29
Starter Traveller pp.16-17
CT Bk.7 Merchant Prince pp.31
MegaTraveller
It is not in:
CT 2E Bk.1-3
CT Bks.4-6
TNE
T4
T20
A different skill limit exists in GT, but it is widely ignored (no more than Age x2 points in skills is a core rule for G3E...).
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Has this ever happened in your game? Where said air-waste was not a PC?
Anyway you answered your own question more than adequately. Just come up with a RP reason...
"I saved his life and my code makes me responsible for them until that is balanced (they save my life)."
"They did me a solid (valuable favour) in the past and called in the marker for a place to live (aboard ship)."
etc...
My feeling is it is the refs responsibility to tailor the adventure or campaign to the characters such that they are the right people for the job, whatever that may be. Rather than try to come up with some reason the Patron would hire incompetents, change the requirements to fit the PCs talents.
There's no way a Patron would hire the characters if they didn't have the required talents needed to get the job done. He'd go somewhere else for someone else. At least no in my game, unless...
In a twisted evil genius mood I might present a Patron with a job for the characters where that wasn't the case. Hoping the PCs would wonder why they were hired for something they have no talent for, but be greedy and/or desperate enough to take it anyway. Only realize too late that they were expendable bait/distraction/fall-guys for the real operation of which they were never a real part of beyond that :devil:
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Skill limits...
And in my experience is only very rarely required in those as the char-gen is limited enough to not very often exceed a few skill levels. Unless you un-luck out with both low Int and Edu. So it wasn't really needed, and imo need not be applied retroactively for those.
Not sure about TNE, T4, and T20. My memory is too foggy and/or my experience too limited to make a solid assessment.
In fact the only character I ever had a Int+Edu vs Skill Levels issue with was a MT character that went several (10+) terms (solo play in service as a Merchant) using the Anagathics rules.
And in my experience is only very rarely required in those as the char-gen is limited enough to not very often exceed a few skill levels. Unless you un-luck out with both low Int and Edu. So it wasn't really needed, and imo need not be applied retroactively for those.
Not sure about TNE, T4, and T20. My memory is too foggy and/or my experience too limited to make a solid assessment.
In fact the only character I ever had a Int+Edu vs Skill Levels issue with was a MT character that went several (10+) terms (solo play in service as a Merchant) using the Anagathics rules.
When the only reason why we accepted a companion was that he was wearing the PC medaillion? That has happened, yes.
Except that it's not always adequate.
Not always possible. More often not possible with PCs of inadequate skills than with competent PCs.
Exactly my point. So why force a player to play an incompetent character with talk about how satifying it casn be to role-play a challenging character?
Hans
Evil Steve
SOC-10
The Traveller Book is what got me back into the old school joy. Didn't realize how much I missed it. I like the random generation, its quick and relativly painless.
As for "Corporal Bonehead", I have my players roll 12d6 and pair them up, and give them a "two terms-you can't die" during generation. They still roll for survival, just for background story.
As for "Corporal Bonehead", I have my players roll 12d6 and pair them up, and give them a "two terms-you can't die" during generation. They still roll for survival, just for background story.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I guess I'm just not seeing your point or issue Hans 
I think we're looking at it from different schools of thought on gaming. My view might be better explained by example. Not Traveller but it's the first to come to mind from past gaming...
One day our group all decided we wanted to play an all Paladin band of adventurers. No problem said the DM for the day. So we rolled up our Paladins and went seeking deeds of glory.
Did the DM throw us into a published adventure that would require a Mage and a Thief? No, that would have been silly. We would have been "incompetent" in such an adventure.
I think where you see incompetence I see the flavour of the game. I'm not forcing a player to play an incompetent character just because they don't have the skills the player wanted. But I am required to fit the game to the skills available.
You seem to think that if the character doesn't have the skills the player wanted or for the adventure the ref wants to run they are incompetent. At least the way I'm reading it.
Suppose your players all wanted to play Mercenaries. It's pretty darn easy to gen them by the book and be competent as guns-for-hire. But that doesn't fit your Merchant adventure, heck they don't even have a ship to get your Patron from planet Arglebargle to planet Omicron Persei 8. What a bunch of incompetents. Why is the Patron hiring them? Who would want to play such obviously flawed characters in the first place?
Know what I mean?
I think we're looking at it from different schools of thought on gaming. My view might be better explained by example. Not Traveller but it's the first to come to mind from past gaming...
One day our group all decided we wanted to play an all Paladin band of adventurers. No problem said the DM for the day. So we rolled up our Paladins and went seeking deeds of glory.
Did the DM throw us into a published adventure that would require a Mage and a Thief? No, that would have been silly. We would have been "incompetent" in such an adventure.
I think where you see incompetence I see the flavour of the game. I'm not forcing a player to play an incompetent character just because they don't have the skills the player wanted. But I am required to fit the game to the skills available.
You seem to think that if the character doesn't have the skills the player wanted or for the adventure the ref wants to run they are incompetent. At least the way I'm reading it.
Suppose your players all wanted to play Mercenaries. It's pretty darn easy to gen them by the book and be competent as guns-for-hire. But that doesn't fit your Merchant adventure, heck they don't even have a ship to get your Patron from planet Arglebargle to planet Omicron Persei 8. What a bunch of incompetents. Why is the Patron hiring them? Who would want to play such obviously flawed characters in the first place?
Know what I mean?
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Thank you for those references. I do not have TTB and ST and never really used Book 7 much. This explains why I never found or used that rule. All the Traveller I played back in the 1980s was done without any use of it, and we experienced no issues. I did not play after that (regrettably). I can still remember sometime back in 2003/2004 when someone pointed out that the rule existed and I was absolutely furious at learning that during CT, while I had been playing, that such a late-breaking retroactive rule had been introduced that I had never discovered. I ignored it after I learned about it, but it hardly mattered, as by that point I was not rolling up characters or playing. I think I would allow a higher limit. Int+Edu might work for Book 1 and Supplement 4, but that limit would not work for Books 4 and 5 except to render the superior character generation systems in them to be rendered pointless. Maybe (Int + Edu) x 2 in skill points, at least, if I ever did CT again.
I have reviewed the content of many GT products, as they are outstanding, but ironically, I don't like the GURPS system much, so I am quite shaky on those game rules.
The whole point of the INT+EDU rule WAS/IS to nerf the Bk4/5/6/7 characters!!!
Bks 4-7 make significantly more skills available than do Bk1 and S4... almost a whole skill level a term more on average. Bk1 gives out only about 1.5 skills per term; Bks 4-7 give out about 2.5 per term...
Bk 1 has a maximum of Term+First Term+Comission+Promotion+Rank+Service=6 in one term, and sustained Term+promotion+rank=3 per term absolute system maximum.
Bk4 has a maximum per term of 24.... four schools of 6 each... and that can be sustained (but is incredibly unlikely to be), and a very real possibility of 4 per term indefinitely.
The Bks.4-7 systems are likely the source of most peoples misconceptions of incompetence... by giving out so many skill levels, it makes the value of a given level look lower.
The reason MT gives out bonus skills and adds special duty is to bring the averages in line with the Bks.4-7 systems... but that brings the need right to the forefront.
Bks 4-7 CGEn systems are, design wise, piss-poor for use with the core rules. The other elements in them, mostly good stuff, but the CGen was never balanced against Bk1 nor S4. Some people (like the user known as S4) don't see that normal extra skill per term as unbalancing... others do. But the potential for 7+ per term requires some other balance factor.
Bks 4-7 make significantly more skills available than do Bk1 and S4... almost a whole skill level a term more on average. Bk1 gives out only about 1.5 skills per term; Bks 4-7 give out about 2.5 per term...
Bk 1 has a maximum of Term+First Term+Comission+Promotion+Rank+Service=6 in one term, and sustained Term+promotion+rank=3 per term absolute system maximum.
Bk4 has a maximum per term of 24.... four schools of 6 each... and that can be sustained (but is incredibly unlikely to be), and a very real possibility of 4 per term indefinitely.
The Bks.4-7 systems are likely the source of most peoples misconceptions of incompetence... by giving out so many skill levels, it makes the value of a given level look lower.
The reason MT gives out bonus skills and adds special duty is to bring the averages in line with the Bks.4-7 systems... but that brings the need right to the forefront.
Bks 4-7 CGEn systems are, design wise, piss-poor for use with the core rules. The other elements in them, mostly good stuff, but the CGen was never balanced against Bk1 nor S4. Some people (like the user known as S4) don't see that normal extra skill per term as unbalancing... others do. But the potential for 7+ per term requires some other balance factor.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
The whole point of Books 4 and 5 was to eliminate the awful characters from Book 1 and Supplement 4.
As I have mentioned, I rarely used Book 6 or 7 to create characters. Since the rule was introduced in Book 7, the idea that it existed to nerf the generation system in Book 7 (or 4, 5, and 6) itself would be somewhat circular. Why not just leave out the character creation system in Book 7 and point people back to the Merchant career in Book 1? That way, the rule regarding Int+Edu as a skill limit would have stood out because it would, along with the reference pointing back to Book 1 to generate merchants, be one of only two lines in the whole section.
From my standpoint, that's about right.
shadowcat20
SOC-12
I am not getting the whole skill problem.
Skill level 0* means you can do the job. (Drive the vehicle, hit the target, fix the broken grav gen) You just do not get any bonuses for it.
Skill level 1 means you are better than average at a job. Most old adventures only required a skill lev of 1 to qualify for the job. (Pilot, Nav, Steward, Gunner)
Skill level 2 or better is an expert in the field and Rarely should you see a 3 or 4.
Is the issiue people want a super character who is and expert in 3 or more fields? Or are they looking for a character who can hold his own in may fields?
Also JoT used to be a useful skill when you had 2 or more.
As for the character skill vs the job issue, Characters pick their own jobs just like real life. If they relize their skill sets are not compatable then only fools would bet their life or freedom trying to do it. They always have the option of walking away from a Patron if the job is a bad fit.
There is also a learning curve for the characters. Just because they muster out does not mean they no longer can learn anything. I used to allow them to study or practice something for a chance to learn 1 new skill every year. Stacking on top a already learned skill was a -1 mod per level.
So learning pilot 0 may mean a roll of 7+, going to Pilot 1 becomes 8+ the next year. A few years later going to Pilot 2 would take a 9+ and so on. Add bonus mods for a year of classes or professional training, or just heavy on the job training. But no bonus for normal day to day stuff.
Othewise the young kid who had 2 terms will never be able to Match the 7 term vet. Even if he gets to be as old as the vet.
EDIT:* Not sure I remember seeing Skill 0 in CT but have seen it in lots of other rules.
Skill level 0* means you can do the job. (Drive the vehicle, hit the target, fix the broken grav gen) You just do not get any bonuses for it.
Skill level 1 means you are better than average at a job. Most old adventures only required a skill lev of 1 to qualify for the job. (Pilot, Nav, Steward, Gunner)
Skill level 2 or better is an expert in the field and Rarely should you see a 3 or 4.
Is the issiue people want a super character who is and expert in 3 or more fields? Or are they looking for a character who can hold his own in may fields?
Also JoT used to be a useful skill when you had 2 or more.
As for the character skill vs the job issue, Characters pick their own jobs just like real life. If they relize their skill sets are not compatable then only fools would bet their life or freedom trying to do it. They always have the option of walking away from a Patron if the job is a bad fit.
There is also a learning curve for the characters. Just because they muster out does not mean they no longer can learn anything. I used to allow them to study or practice something for a chance to learn 1 new skill every year. Stacking on top a already learned skill was a -1 mod per level.
So learning pilot 0 may mean a roll of 7+, going to Pilot 1 becomes 8+ the next year. A few years later going to Pilot 2 would take a 9+ and so on. Add bonus mods for a year of classes or professional training, or just heavy on the job training. But no bonus for normal day to day stuff.
Othewise the young kid who had 2 terms will never be able to Match the 7 term vet. Even if he gets to be as old as the vet.
EDIT:* Not sure I remember seeing Skill 0 in CT but have seen it in lots of other rules.
Last edited:
It's in there, but not always as Level 0. Some early printings use level ½.
and Level 0 means you have minimal training...
CT has a number of abilities which only can be done if you have level 1+ or level 2+.
@ROS in re air raft... it's pretty explicit the roll is for non-routine conditions. At least in later printings.
I find Bk1 lacking only in choices... and books 4-7 CGen painfully slow, and grossly prone to overskilled characters... like Broker 7, or the guy with Rifle 1 and Recon 5... and I think the avoidance of that kind of bloat is one of the things Mongoose is doing right (and MWM is going the wrong-way with in T5)...
I had the same issue with skill inflation in a number of other games, as well... GURPS and Special Ops... d20 prestige classes... Shadow Elves in Mystara... D&D 2E and splatbooks...
As a GM, I always wanted the PC's to be a little more above average, I wasn't adverse to having them re-roll bad stats or throwing out extra skills (like if they are from a vacuum or high TL world then to get air/raft - 1 or vacc suit - 1, it is logical to assume this.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Skill-0 is from the default skill list, nothing more. You do not actually have any Skill-0 at anything, you have default-0 for a certain restricted list of skills. That is it.
