CT Only: Low Passage and You!

[rancke]

LBB 5 - 'The major traffic center in the system is the starport; all others are called spaceports.' Italic emphasis GDW's.

Very well. Then it is not a given that everyone who arrives at the Imperial upport of a world will use the Imperial downport rather than the spaceport that is most convenient for his ultimate onworld destination.


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

If he wanted my character to go to another world, he'd have to provide another option; otherwise I'd stay on the world I was on, thank you very much. Hans

Ok, that's what you would do.. but what would your character do?

It is a role playing game. Can you not think of any circumstance where a character might be short on the funds and have need or desire to get the heck out of dodge?

 

[rancke]

Ok, that's what you would do.. but what would your character do?

It is a role playing game. Can you not think of any circumstance where a character might be short on the funds and have need or desire to get the heck out of dodge?

It's a roleplaying game. Sure, that means I should be guided by the position my character finds himself in. But it also means that the referee shouldn't put me in a position to court a meaningless death without any alternatives. Role-playing is a cooperative process. If I invest a lot of time and effort into developing a character, I do not want to be faced with losing it in a trivial way and without contributing several mistakes along the way. As I said before, if I'm to lose a character, I want more input than merely deciding to travel by low berth into the disastrous events leading up to that sad fate.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't think it is necessary...

Oh, I think it's very necessary.

An easy test to prove why, take a couple of players and allow them to roll up a few characters using original rule where failing survival means death.

Then, allow the same group of players to roll up a like number of characters, but this time, allow them to use the optional rule where they serve 2 years and muster out.

Your first group of characters, on average, will be "weaker" than your second group.

Your first group of characters will match more closely the CT NPCs we see in supplements and adventures.

Using the optional survival rule, instead of the hard survival rule, produces super-human characters compared to those generated using the hard survival rule.

But, don't forget, even when the hard survival rule is used, the player still has the choice to attempt to kill a character he doesn't like, then start a new one. The hard survival rule doesn't stick a player with a character he hates (because the player will just kill him during chargen, then roll another). What the hard survival rule does do, though, is make the player protective and appreciate a character when he does roll one that the does like--the player will probably not take a chance on killing a character in another term, if the player likes what he's got.

The hard survival rule is definitely the way to go.





As for campaigns where specific skills are used, that should be the realm of the GM. He can altar first skills, but granting the skill needed to the character, allowing the character to roll normally for other skills. Or, the GM can allow the player to replace one skill with the needed skill after chagen is completed.

Also true is that the GM can make customized career charts. I used to do this all the time. For example, I might have one or a few homeworlds in mind when a campaign begins--let's say all PCs are from the same planet. Then, I might make some alternate career charts (not that hard to do at all when using Basic 4-Year character generation) based on the world. I might alter the Army and Marine charts to fit the world's TL or special conditions (a water world, for example, will probably have a few different skills than the standard Army and Marine career charts).

LBB 5 - 'The major traffic center in the system is the starport; all others are called spaceports.' Italic emphasis GDW's.

I'd have to look it up, but DGP may have done something with this in one of their supplements, allowing for more than one starport on a world. Grand Survey or Grand Census--one of the two--is what I'm thinking.

Ok, that's what you would do.. but what would your character do?

Excellent comment. We tend to forget this.

 

[rancke]

Oh, I think it's very necessary.

So I already gathered. Looks like we have different opinions on the subject, doesn't it?


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

An easy test to prove why, take a couple of players and allow them to roll up a few characters using original rule where failing survival means death.

Then, allow the same group of players to roll up a like number of characters, but this time, allow them to use the optional rule where they serve 2 years and muster out.

Your first group of characters, on average, will be "weaker" than your second group.

Using the optional survival rule, instead of the hard survival rule, produces super-human characters compared to those generated using the hard survival rule.

But then you say:

But, don't forget, even when the hard survival rule is used, the player still has the choice to attempt to kill a character he doesn't like, then start a new one. The hard survival rule doesn't stick a player with a character he hates (because the player will just kill him during chargen, then roll another).

There is much you say that is true but the overall analysis does not fit the way I see things. All people are not the same. Even with only the one option, different people will be more of a risk taker than others.

For me, if I have to take the very first character rolled, because they don't die, on average, I'd get a much LESS powerful character. No killing off a character because you don't like the stats. No killing off the character because they didn't get into the career and skills you wanted. It's too easy to keep killing off characters until you get the so called super-human. I see no need to be protective of this character because you can just keep on rolling up more if necessary.

A limiting factor, for me, is aging effects if not using anti aging drugs, which we don't. This also is slightly less applicable to the "kill them off" method of chargen because you can have the mentality "let me go one more term and hopefully my aging rolls will be high". If "darn it, there goes my dex" you have the option to try killing the character. I find with no such option, I'm less likely to risk more aging rolls.

So I think kill them off chargen can produce characters with higher characteristics and higher number of terms. Also, it lets players create characters closer to what the they want. This includes killing off the characters with high stats until you get one with low stats, if this is what the player wants.

Just how things appear to be for me.

 

[Supplement Four]

So I already gathered. Looks like we have different opinions on the subject, doesn't it?

Definitely not the first time, huh, Hans?

But then you say:There is much you say that is true but the overall analysis does not fit the way I see things. All people are not the same. Even with only the one option, different people will be more of a risk taker than others.

Absolutely.

For me, if I have to take the very first character rolled, because they don't die, on average, I'd get a much LESS powerful character. No killing off a character because you don't like the stats. No killing off the character because they didn't get into the career and skills you wanted. It's too easy to keep killing off characters until you get the so called super-human. I see no need to be protective of this character because you can just keep on rolling up more if necessary.

Well, the GM might want to put a reasonable limit on how many times a player can attempt a new character.

The power to kill of a character that the player doesn't like should not be taken away from the player. Some games have safe guards for very poor characters. d20 3.5 has a minimum bonus (I forget exactly how to do it--at up all bonuses, and if they don't amount to X, the player can re-roll). Plus, the character can arrange stats to taste after the six numbers are generated.

CT has a like player customization. The CT player has to keep a single 2D for each stat. He cannot arrange to taste. But, he can, if he doesn't like the player, keep re-enlisting until the character is dead.

This is the CT player's tool to get a character he likes.

For example, maybe the player really wants to play a pilot. He could attempt a few characters until he gets Pilot-1.

The balance is that his stats may not be as high as a character he trashed that didn't have the Pilot skill.

Or, a player may get some killer stats, but then end up with few skills.

Remember, in CT, stats have less effect than skills. So, even a character with stats FFFFFF, he'll have a lot of hit points, but the bonues he gets on most skills throws come from his skills only. I'd say only a third, or so, of the skill throws in CT reference a character's attributes.

In may cases, a character with low stat and high skill is much more valuable to a player than a character with high stats and no skills.

For example, take the Low Berth roll we've been talking about in this thread. That 5+ throw to bring a character out of cold sleep is the same no matter if the character has EDU-2 or EDU-F, INT-2 or INT-F.

It's the skill that matters (in a vast majority of cases). Medic-2 is needed to get the +1 DM.

CT is mainly a skill driven game. Stats do influence some throws, and they represent character hit points, but the influence of attributes in Classic Traveller is less than that of skills.

So, if a player rolls a character with excellent skills--a character that the player likes, he'll be more and more hesitant to risk the character with the Survival Throw.

And, even if a player does try to kill off a character he doesn't want, the kill-off method isn't fullproof. If the character survives and then rolls so that he his not elligible for re-enlistment, the player is stuck with that character.

A limiting factor, for me, is aging effects if not using anti aging drugs, which we don't.

If the hard survival throw is used, many times the limiting factor is character death. Players who get the character that they want (or close enough to what they want) will usually not go five terms or more--too much of a risk.

So I think kill them off chargen can produce characters with higher characteristics and higher number of terms.

This would only be true if a player does not care at all what type of character he plays. And, it doesn't necessarily mean that the character would have higher stats. The player will keep rolling up characters until he gets one that lives a while and has a lot of skills (which is, basically, the problem with not enforcing the Hard Survival Rule).

And...if the player can re-try a character an unlimited number of times.

And...the player doesn't survive until the character is not elligible for reenlistment.

In most cases, as I've said, a character will roll something he likes (high stats, or probably a specific skill he wants), then the player will try to protect the character so that he can play him and not have to start over again.

 

[Frankymole]

Not really the right thread for a chargen discussion, but I don't mind the soft-survival/maimed rule leading to higher-powered characters (with scars or injuries!). After all, the PCs would be some of the more exceptional people around, and they're going to have a lot of death to defy yet when they go adventuring.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

If I invest a lot of time and effort into developing a character, I do not want to be faced with losing it in a trivial way and without contributing several mistakes along the way. As I said before, if I'm to lose a character, I want more input than merely deciding to travel by low berth into the disastrous events leading up to that sad fate.

This. I might be wrong, but a possibility for why the high risk was included was to induce the players to *not* travel via low berth. That way they get some roleplaying done while aboard ship, rather than just once they reach their destination.

"Hmmm, I'm a bit low on funds. But, the referee could friggin' accidentally kill me if I go via low berth. And, did he just describe the 'medic' as someone I wouldn't want serving me a hamburger? OK, I guess I'll pay for a mid passage...."

 

[RockyMountainNavy]

Working Passage

There is always working passage; good for no more than three jumps. Just make sure that you don't pick up a girl with better engineering skill than you and try to rock her world where the Captain will find you....

 

[SpaceBadger]

Just make sure that you don't pick up a girl with better engineering skill than you and try to rock her world where the Captain will find you....

Yeah, that kid got to see the downside of working passage - you might end up "left ashore" in someplace you don't especially want to be.

 

[Supplement Four]

Not really the right thread for a chargen discussion, but I don't mind the soft-survival/maimed rule leading to higher-powered characters (with scars or injuries!). After all, the PCs would be some of the more exceptional people around, and they're going to have a lot of death to defy yet when they go adventuring.

That is what many think about the topic, but one of the (often not considered) hidden problems is the 2D6 system. When rolling 2-12, there's only so many modifiers that can be used before the system breaks. A +1 DM, on this scale, is a huge modifier (percentages vary because the distribution is a pyramid).

Since characters generated using the soft Surivial Rule tend to have higher skill levels than those generated with the Hard Survival Rule, PCs often get to the point where they're successful no matter what they roll.

Look through Supplement 1 (1001 Characters). CT characters should mirror those in that book. If you notice, many (most) of those characters only have a few skills.

The reasons for this are everything I've been saying.

Remember that CT characters, in most situations, don't need skills in order to make a throw. Skill-0 or above is a requirement for only a few types of throws, and sometimes, the character is considered to have Skill-0 (as with all characters generated in Book 1 are conisdered to have Skill-0 with every weapon in Books 1-3).

Take the very first character you see in Supplement 1, on page 1.

Captain 7777A7 Age 26 2 Terms
Rifle-1, Pistol-1, Brawling-1

This is what CT characters should look like. This character is extremely playable.

Look at the first character in the charts, starting on page 2.

Starman 569AA9 Age 22 1 Term
Pilot-1

Again, a very playable character.

Modern games and other versions of Traveller have conditioned us to think that a character must have a lot of skill in order to be playable. That is not Classic Traveller.

The same can be said for the characters being better than NPCs. That's a thought from some other game, like D&D, where even a 1st level character is better than a kobold or a goblin.

That's not Classic Traveller. There's no rule anywhere that makes PCs better than any NPC. Both NPCs and PCs are generated using the same chargen system.

 

[atpollard]

There's no rule anywhere that makes PCs better than any NPC. Both NPCs and PCs are generated using the same chargen system.

I agree with everything you said.

IMTU: Personally, I like to generate characters using the Advanced Chargen systems so they have lots of background and skills and skill levels. Then I cut all skills back to a cap of no skill higher than the number of terms. Then I trim the total number of skill levels back to 2 skill levels per term with many of the skills converted to skill-0. The end result is some player selection of skills to shape his character, few really high skill levels, a character with no more skills than a LBB1-3 retired Scout and a list of Skill-0 that are based upon the character's history and actual assignments and experiences.

The only potential caveat to the quoted statement is the famous "Big Damn Hero" trope. Not an 'official rule' but it captures the feelings of many players and referees.

 

[Supplement Four]

The only potential caveat to the quoted statement is the famous "Big Damn Hero" trope. Not an 'official rule' but it captures the feelings of many players and referees.

Absolutely. I'm talking "By The Book", here. There's nothing wrong with a GM making changes to his game to fit a particular taste.

If a GM wants to play a less gritty, more swashbuckling, Star Wars type of game, that's when I think the Soft Survival Rule should be used--and maybe some GM House Rules.

 

[BytePro]

Atpollard,

Nice ideas for converting Advanced chargen to Basic.

As to 'Big Damn Heros' trope - I think I know what you mean, but the actual trope is about timing and 'saving the day' (well, intending to, at least). Not about being extraordinary characters in any real way.

That is what many think about the topic, but one of the (often not considered) hidden problems is the 2D6 system. When rolling 2-12, there's only so many modifiers that can be used before the system breaks. A +1 DM, on this scale, is a huge modifier (percentages vary because the distribution is a pyramid).

I have to disagree with that last part... a +1 DM is only around 17% max. Lower, if you are not using that DM against a target of 8. If that was my discount on a purchase, I certainly wouldn't call that huge.

That is the reason, when skill really comes into play, CT often uses +2 per skill level - to provide a significant enough difference. (Which 'advanced' chargen sorta trampled on. )

Now, as to 'so many modifiers ... before the system breaks'... Yeah, combining even a few positive DMs together, that gets to be 'huge'. 2D6 can only take that with low targets. So net DMs have to be used to keep them from stacking and 'breaking' the 2D6 range, or to avoid a more munchkin stye outcome (legitimate if that is one's game, mind - though more appropriate when using levels of success).

More skills and more DMs mean more complexity. More figures and associated rules to account for. So more to recall, memorize, track and calculate. Structured mechanics compound the problem to allow fixed targets to be modified to fit the 2D6 range and the infinite variety of situations roleplaying can generate. Universally using +1 for skill levels, dilutes the power of skills on a differing curve (as target adjusts) and trying to mix in attribute DMs over saturates.

This is the bane - and the blessing - of 2D6.

The original 3 CT books elegantly relate to the limits of 2D6.

But puts a burden on the Ref to recognize those limits and learn to work them - and provides mostly just 'examples' intrinsic to rules, rather than giving guidance backed up by examples. Further, that same burden falls to writers of rules (even more so). Book 4 fundamentally changed the finely balanced relationship - it enhanced chargen, but ignored the subtle and not so subtle impact to the rules in the first three books, IMO and in mathematical fact.

An entire Basic chargen based PC team will often have less skills than a single PC in any other edition. Individually, they are generally experts, at best, in one thing, with proficiencies in a few others. Everyone, including the Ref knows what these are in very short order. The Ref can accommodate those skills dynamically without breaking stride. Each Player can focus on character building and role playing a very manageable character 'sheet'. Team members can relate more easily as a team with regard to knowledge of each other.

 

[atpollard]

Atpollard,
Nice ideas for converting Advanced chargen to Basic.

Thanks

As to 'Big Damn Heros' trope - I think I know what you mean, but the actual trope is about timing and 'saving the day' (well, intending to, at least). Not about being extraordinary characters in any real way.

In theory, but which character from Firefly would you describe as 'just an average Joe caught up in extraordinary circumstances'?
Enterprise officer on TOS?
Crewman on the Millenium Falcon?

The closest that I can think of an ordinary character as the protagonist in extraordinary circumstances is '1984' and 'One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich'. I would not enjoy a campaign based on being the helpless witness in a world of oppressive totalitarianism trying to find happiness without being executed by the state (although there are games based on that premise, so somebody must like playing that way), or the man stealing food to survive another day (I actually tried this once, the character started the game as a broke, homeless ex-sniper stranded at the starport and trying to find employment before he starved ... it didn't end particularly well. )

 

[Vladika]

...a broke, homeless ex-sniper stranded at the starport and trying to find employment before he starved ...

Sounds like a "Rambo" Trope, and the very makings of a 'Big Damn Heros' game.

I might borrow it and take it another direction. Small group of survivor Mercs who missed repatriation? Hmmm

 

[Vladika]

I got my BBB yesterday and like the "spacer bunk" (hot bunking or not) and "steerage passage" as a very realistic alternative to low passage.

 

[Supplement Four]

I have to disagree with that last part... a +1 DM is only around 17% max.

Which is a HUGE modifier.

It's over a +3 DM on a d20.

It's a +17 DM on a Percentage Based system.

That's my point.

A +1 DM doesn't sound like a lot, because it's only a single point. But, in CT, a +1 DM is a bigger modifier than most rpgs use as the smallest modifier on a task throw. Make it a +2 DM, and now you could be talking a HUGE improvement to a character's chances of succeeding on the throw. This is why the system, as written, doesn't generate characters with high skill levels (or many skills). Again, CT character should mirror those shown in Supplement 1.

Most throws a CT character makes on in areas for which the character has no skill at all. He just rolls 2d6.

See the two example characters above from Supplement 1. Most of the time, those characters are not getting DM modifiers to the many task throws that they make.

This makes the +1 DM an even BIGGER DEAL than what I saw a few lines up.

Skills, in CT, do not represent a character's total sum of training. Skills represent where that character excells.

This character:

Captain 7777A7 Age 26 2 Terms
Rifle-1, Pistol-1, Brawling-1

Excels in shooting a rifle and pistol, and in hand-to-hand combat. But, the character is trained and can do many, many other things. He's just average at those things, though.

A +1 DM to this character, is A BIG DEAL.

A +1 DM to the following character is even a BIGGER DEAL.

Starman 569AA9 Age 22 1 Term
Pilot-1

That is the reason, when skill really comes into play, CT often uses +2 per skill level - to provide a significant enough difference. (Which 'advanced' chargen sorta trampled on. )

I'll have to disagree that a "+2 per skill level" is often used in CT. There are a handfull of situations only--not a big percentage of all the throws mentioned in the core Traveller rules.

Now, as to 'so many modifiers ... before the system breaks'... Yeah, combining even a few positive DMs together, that gets to be 'huge'. 2D6 can only take that with low targets.

And most example targets shown in CT are in the 3-11 range, or there abouts. There's not many examples where the target is higher than 12. There's a few, of course--the throwing rule comes to mind where an 18+ is needed, but the character uses his entire DEX as DM. But, that's one of the few throws where the target is higher than 12.

MT changed this a bit, often allowing for higher targets. But, we're talking about CT here. (Well, actually, the UTP was originally developed for CT by DGP. It's just widely known as the MegaTraveller Task System, though that is a misnomer.)

 

[Carlobrand]

...That's not Classic Traveller. There's no rule anywhere that makes PCs better than any NPC. Both NPCs and PCs are generated using the same chargen system.

Technically true, but a bit problematic in a few narrow areas. For example, if you assume the character generation rules represent the norm, then there are a heck of a lot more nobles and SEH holders than one would expect.

I tend to think of the character generation rules as the rules by which I generate the actors in my play, both PC and NPC. Henry V by its nature had a lot of nobles showing up on stage, but of course it did not represent a demographic profile of England's armies of the time.

Occurs to me that, in the Far Future, you shouldn't have too much trouble dragging up a Chilton's or an Idiot's Guide for whatever it is you're trying to do. Heck, you can even translate languages - roughly, with great effort and a high probability of being wide of the mark, but still possible. Unless you're stranded in the wilderness of a low tech world or your gamemaster's being a real [favorite pejorative here], you should have at least a fighting chance of figuring out how to do most stuff.

As I recall, the great Han Solo, that fine exemplar of the adventurer sort, didn't have a wide array of noteworthy skills. Good pilot, pretty good with the streetwise bit, but his engineering skills were maybe adequate at best, and his idea of gun combat was to send as much energy downrange as possible and hope something got hit. He mostly survived on wits.