More Char Gen Queries...

[far-trader]

Exactly. Which is why most player characters are not retirees out & about in their RVs (and somewhere I found the Traveller RV based on the cutter but heck if I can find it again)

Here ya go

http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/Traveller/

(if it's the one based on and including the Trader Jim's Mobile Bar and Grill example you're looking for... )

 

[Supplement Four]

S4, My experience is that most players I've run for will keep going until they get that 4+ term guy they want, UNLESS you use the alternate survival rule.

Short term tends to put YOUNGER characters in play.

I've experienced the opposite, although I see where you're coming from.

I think the difference is that, with the people I've played with, they will rarely just try to kill off a character just because they didn't like him.

If I saw that happening as a GM, I'd impose a little house rule. Something like: "If you fail Survival, you take a negative DM to a random stat equal to the number of character's you've tried. Character #2, you'll roll 2D for five stats and 2D-1 for the sixth. Character #3, you'll roll 2D for four stats and 2D-1 for fifth and sixth random stats, and so on."

The thinking here is: If the players need a reason to respect the Survival Rule (and they don't already), then give it to them.



My experience, though, has been that this type of thing isn't necessary. I've never implemented a rule like that. But, then again, the people I play with don't try to kill of characters just because they don't like them, or rolled low, or didn't get Pilot skill, or whatever.



And, I should note...

Even if a player does play that way--to where he will roll stats, not like what he gets, and then join the scouts, reenlisting until he dies--so what?

He will finally get some stats he likes--and make a "connection" with that character. And, when that happens, he'll fear the Survival Rule and have it color his choices just as it should.



A GM suggestion...

If generating Classic Traveller characters by the book, I suggest using the rules as written (no house rules, and no optional Survival Rule), but do this with the group as a whole.

If you've got a player who will tend to kill character after character until he gets what he wants, there will be a certain amount of peer pressure to not act that way. It's much easier to keep rolling up characters when it's just the GM and one player.

Plus, character generation takes longer when doing it as a group. Don't work with one person individually. Work in terms. Do Term 1 with the first player, then the second player, then the third, etc. Then, go through and do Term 2 with all of them.

This allows the player time to think about what he's doing as he watches you work with the player to his right.



One last thing...

Even if a player kills off a couple, I've seen a player start a Term, trying to get his character killed, and then...some type of...magic happens. The character won't die. And, the player begins to make a "connection" with the character because of this.

All of a sudden, the player is trying to keep him alive--and you hear something like, "Oh, I'm not going to re-enlist. I like this guy. He turned out OK after all."

 

[atpollard]

This is true.

If you don't use the Survival Rule, as written (not the alternate rule), it really changes chargen.

Definitely stick to your guns and make PCs die if they fail Survival throws. The player has to start over with a new character.

Do this, and you'll see it influence his choices of career and such.

The same basic result can be achieved by increasing the rate that characters are booted out of a career. Apply a cumulative -1 per term to survival and reenlistment rolls and use the "alternate" survival rule. Few characters will make it to 5 terms - even without the fear of death.

Personally, I find the 'fear of death' to be overrated. Yes it has an effect, but a player intent on creating a 5 term character will simply hunker down and accept that it will take generating multiple characters to achieve. A chargen program or spreadsheet will make even that painless (Oh, no. I have to hit enter again!)

If you are going to accept a house rule, I would suggest "an absolute limit of two skill levels per term with all additional skills converted to level-0" and then let them use basic, advanced, multiple careers, whatever they want. Cheat, don't cheat - it doesn't matter. In the end, the characters will be "CT LBB1-3 Level" with respect to skills. [I personally like to cap the skill level at 1+terms/2, so a 2 term character can have a skill-2, a 4 term character can have a skill-3 and a 6 term character can have a skill-4.]

The alternative is typically roll characters until you get someone with about 80% of the maximum possible skill levels. Just look at the PbP characters and divide the number of skill levels by the number of terms. Are any under 2 skills per term? How many have 3 skills per term? How many have 4 skills per term?

 

[Supplement Four]

The same basic result can be achieved by increasing the rate that characters are booted out of a career. Apply a cumulative -1 per term to survival and reenlistment rolls and use the "alternate" survival rule. Few characters will make it to 5 terms - even without the fear of death.

Personally, I find the 'fear of death' to be overrated. Yes it has an effect, but a player intent on creating a 5 term character will simply hunker down and accept that it will take generating multiple characters to achieve.

But, without enforcing the hard Survival Rule, you never, ever get a character that serves one term. Never.

When the hard Survival Rule, this is definitely an option. The player rolls some stats he likes, so he doesn't want this character to die. The player also wants to be a pilot, and the surest way to that end is the Scouts.

But, the Survival Throws scare him.

First term, he gets his two skills, one of which is Pilot, and he barely passes Survival.

So, the character decides to muster out.

And, then he uses the Experience Rules to boost his character a bit.

Boom. Good character with great stats, young, serving only one term.



You never, never see that type of thing if you don't enforce Survival.

 

[aramis]

But I've had players play a 1/2 term character, and a 1 term character, with the soft survival rule. The latter due to failed reenlistment.

Again, your hyperbolic extreme distorts the nature of the discussion needlessly.

about 1/4th of all rolls result in failed survival. I prefer to have those character's played, with a distinctive injury and a short term. Even when it's a 1/2 term.

Failure points to continuance in CT/MT CGen:
1: Survival
2: Reenlistment

if we assume 75% make survival, and 75% make reenlistment, we get 56.25% make it through per term... pretty severe.

1 in 4 who survive get RIF'ed out.

 

[Supplement Four]

All-in-all, I think GDW knew what it was doing when they wrote the Survival Rule (and probably added the optional rule due to people who didn't like the hard rule).

There is no penalty for killing off a character and trying again because they wanted a player to play what he wants...sort of.

At the same time, they figured the control was in place because, whatever character the player ended up with is what he rolled. He may have a high DEX with one character but not get Pilot. He trashes that character, gets a low DEX, builds that up, and gets Pilot, at the expense of the skills he would have gotten had he not had to focus on DEX.

What I'm saying is: Even if a player kills a character on purpose, checks and balances are in place to keep the character from being uber.

Plus, the player has to weigh options. He knows what he has with one character, and there's no guarrantee that the next will be any better. At some point, the player will decide, "This isn't exactly the character I wanted, but it will do."

But, hey, that's Traveller.

 

[Merxiless]

I've always been a big fan of Survival roll failure = death.

I run it that way, because it just makes for a gritty game, and Char Gen is a mini game in itself.

love it.