Mandatory Stats?!

[Solo]

merchant must have:
"Strength 12+ and Intelligence 14+, or must make a Wisdom check (DC8) to become a Merchant."

Shades of previous versions of D&D? Not d20. Is this kind of thing true of all the classes?

(Note: I realize that classic used something similar but that isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

[T. Foster]

A level of uncertainty in the prior experience process (rolls for enlistment, survival, promotion, and reenlistment) is fundamental to the 'feel' of Traveller char-gen -- sometimes things just aren't going to work out the way you planned. That's what the Wisdom check to enlist represents, and those stat 'requirements' are really just a somewhat awkwardly worded equivalent of the T4 'preferential enlistment' compromise rule: if your stats are high enough, you can enlist automatically without having to pass the test. So, it may feel a bit different from standard d20, but it does so in a way which feels very much more like Traveller, so I don't see it as a flaw.

That said, the rule IS awkwardly worded, giving the impression that all, or at least a great majority of, merchant characters will be Str 12+ and Int 14+, which (assuming I'm understanding the intent of this rule correctly) isn't really the case -- most merchants will be average folks who gained enlistment by succeeding in the Wisdom check; those extra-strong and -smart ones are exceptions from the norm, 'scholarship cases' so to speak.

 

[phydaux]

Originally posted by T. Foster:
A level of uncertainty in the prior experience process (rolls for enlistment, survival, promotion, and reenlistment) is fundamental to the 'feel' of Traveller char-gen

So, does that mean there will be a mechanism for characters to die DURING character creation?

In G:T, what we do is when a player first hands his character sheet to the GM, the GM rolls a D6. On a 6, the GM tears it up and has the player make a new character.

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by phydaux:
So, does that mean there will be a mechanism for characters to die DURING character creation?

T20 adapts the failed survival roll to mean something bad has happened, ususally just mustered out of the service (or thrown out). The really mean GM could easily re-introduce the failed survival roll = death rule.

 

[T. Foster]

For what it's worth, Traveller hasn't really killed characters during char-gen since 1987 at the latest. By MT the failed survival roll had been officially redefined as 'forced early retirement,' and IIRC it had been around as an optional rule for even longer.

And while we're on the subject, since char-gen in Traveller has more the flavor of an actual solitaire adventure than the simple number-crunching exercise of D&D/GURPS/etc., don't think of failed survival rolls so much as 'dying during char-gen,' but rather as equivalent to all those D&D characters who never survive past 1st or 2nd level (which, assuming the dynamic is the same as it was back when I played, has gotta be at least a quarter of the total!).

 

[bozzutoman]

Originally posted by phydaux:
...what we do is when a player first hands his character sheet to the GM, the GM rolls a D6. On a 6, the GM tears it up and has the player make a new character.

Why not just keep handing him photocopies of the same character until he survives?

Honestly... do people still kill characters in the construction phase? It seems so silly. We imediately changed it to -1 to a random stat. Then I got a copy of a Paranoia Press article that replaced it.

 

[daryen]

Honestly... do people still kill characters in the construction phase? It seems so silly. We imediately changed it to -1 to a random stat. Then I got a copy of a Paranoia Press article that replaced it.

Heck even in CT you didn't have to kill the character in chargen.

CT always prominently displayed the optional rule that a failed survival roll meant you mustered out / got kicked out early. The last term only counted 2 years, you got the skills, but got no mustering out benefits.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by daryen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Honestly... do people still kill characters in the construction phase? It seems so silly. We imediately changed it to -1 to a random stat. Then I got a copy of a Paranoia Press article that replaced it.

Heck even in CT you didn't have to kill the character in chargen.

CT always prominently displayed the optional rule that a failed survival roll meant you mustered out / got kicked out early. The last term only counted 2 years, you got the skills, but got no mustering out benefits.</font>[/QUOTE]Not to be unnecesarily picky but your statement is untrue. The first edition of the LBBs did not include that optional rule. It did however make it's way into the second edition (the version selected for the reprints book.)

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by bozzutoman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by phydaux:
...what we do is when a player first hands his character sheet to the GM, the GM rolls a D6. On a 6, the GM tears it up and has the player make a new character.

Why not just keep handing him photocopies of the same character until he survives?

Honestly... do people still kill characters in the construction phase? It seems so silly. We imediately changed it to -1 to a random stat. Then I got a copy of a Paranoia Press article that replaced it.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, i know TNE GM's who kill PC's in CG. Out of Spite, I think.