I'm going to make a slight tangent to this discussion, but I don't think it i completely off the subject. (Or, rather, this thread opens up a lot of interesting discussions which I think are pertinent.)
Having skills gaps in the crew id the primary reason to recruit NPCs - who are ideal as referee methods for information to be introduced, as well as intrigue (as they may have hidden motivations or secret pasts/enemies pursuing them) and plot points (again, the NPCs background can inform or lead the options for, or direction of, the story at various points).
There is the valuable notion of NPCs as employees and part of adventures. It is an extension of the notion of hirelings in original
Dungeons & Dragons, and hirelings and henchmen in later editions of D&D. (I think original
Dungeons & Dragons has of information about how to approach original
Traveller, as
Traveller obviously
leaned on original D&D for a lot of its assumptions and underlying logic.)
Remembering, too, the tradition of miniatures games that both games grew from, the idea that the PCs were the "leaders" of a sometimes larger unit of forces would make sense. And certainly the rules assume that not only can PCs be hired on as crew on someone else's ship, but that the PCs might hire NPCs as crew. (This is detailed in Book 2, but expanded in Book 4.)
Also,
Traveller (and original
Dungeons & Dragons) assumed PC death was a given possibility. There are no levels or buttons or bennies found in most modern RPGs to protect the PCs or keep them elevated from harm's way. A fickle roll of the die means -- BLAM! -- that's it, the PC is dead. In these cases that means (in both games) the NPCs can easily be taken over by a Player in need of a Player Character.
This all flies in the face, of course, of the notion of "The Crew" that I've often seen on blog sites devoted to
Traveller games just getting underway. By that I mean a campaign is beginning and a group of Player Characters (often with elaborate backstories) is created. The campaign assumes that
these characters will be the focus of the game. This setup assumes, obviously, that these Player Characters
will not die.
But, again, this is
the opposite assumption of how early RPGs were played. Characters had slight backstories. Death was always on the table. A Player might end up playing several PCs over the length of long term play. (Backstory is what gets built during the first sessions, as the Players decide their goals, and who they want to hurt most for having hurt them!)
With all this in mind, the other thing I think about for
Traveller is this:
The 1977 edition of the game assumed you would most likely be rolling more than one character -- since death was on the line in character generation itself. That notion that that "
this character I'm rolling" is "my character for play" is a notion introduced in RPG play as the hobby continues, and in the rewrite of
Traveller character creation rules in the 1981 edition.
But if we start with the original assumption (you will be rolling multiple characters) and given that character creation is fun, fast, and frankly addictive is that it makes sense (to me) to have Players create several PCs. Each Player then picks one (or maybe two or three) PCs to have in play, probably focusing on one in particular. But, in any case, a "stable" of PCs (either actively in play, or holding some in the wings) makes sense to me.
There are several advantages to this:
• It avoids the problems mentioned up thread of particular skills missing for the campaign focus. With multiple characters created the Players will have the characters they need to get the game as desired up and running.
• By having multiple PCs death is always allowed to be on the table as a risk, since new PCs are ready to go right away. This means the Referee is never in the position of having to fudge rolls or manipulate events to keep a PC alive. (I believe this is one of why the 1977 edition of the rules placed death front and center as a possibility -- to make clear how the game worked and that death was always lurking.) Having death be an active risk has fallen out of favor in RPG play and design over the years. But in the
Lamentations of the Flame Princess game I'm running right now (an OSR game based on Basic D&D) I'm finding that death on the table is much more awesome than I would have thought -- for the Players. They are engaged and alert and invested in every action and decision. I think
Traveller was designed to work this way originally. While the game has certainly changed over the years with different expectations (and play styles have changed drastically as well), I think Books 1-3 would work well with this style of play.
• Whether because of healing, or sabbaticals, or imprisonment or whatnot, in
Traveller a character can be taken out of play for a while, whether from choice or by force. The game simply makes this a possibility in the very rules. Having several characters to choose from means that one PC can be put on the sidelines for a while, even as another character moves to the center of play. Again, this isn't how most people play now, but the rules seem to assume that a PC might take off for two years to learn a new skill. What does the Player do during that time? Another PC solves that problem.
• Finally, filling out the roster. As Frankymole said, NPCs can be hired on to fill out the needs of a group (either as crew or as a strike force). But it is also possible to have each Player in charge of two to three PCs, just as hirelings or henchmen worked for D&D in the past. Or the Referee can run some of them as hirelings (less loyal, prone to more moral checks and such) and the Players run some of them as retainers (more loyal, capable of becoming PCs if required). The dynamics can be worked out by the group. But basically, this lets the Players a) create a bunch of characters; and b) decide what sort of group of PCs and NPCs they want to use for form their group of adventurers.
The terms used for this purpose would probably change from Hirelings to "Crew" or "Team" or "Mercenaries" or "Employees" whatever is appropriate and feels right.
Here is the description of this concept from LotFP, using the word "Retainers":
An adventuring party is often more than just the sum
of the player characters. A support network of NPCs
is often necessary to really allow an expedition into
the unknown to reach its full potential. Once the
expedition reaches its destination, who is going to
excavate the area around the Pharaoh’s tomb so that
the entrance can be discovered? Afterwards, who is
going to carry all that treasure back? Are the pack
animals efficiently utilized? Who is guarding the
camp? And what is to be done with all that treasure
after it has been recovered? Surely the player characters
are not a traveling gold caravan? Where do the
player characters live? Surely not in a hovel if they
have become successful treasure seekers. If so, who
looks after their household when they are away?
These support characters are called Retainers.
Later, a specific type of Retainer is describe, the Henchman:
Henchmen are different in that they are not exactly
hired help, but actually adventuring sidekicks. They
also are classed characters. Characters can only hire
henchmen that are at least two levels below their
own. Henchmen are often found during adventures
as allies, and make for great replacement player
While Traveller does not have levels, I think the concept of the difference between "employees" and "adventuring sidekicks" is a notion that could fit very well into the game.
Again, this might be a bit of a tangent from solving the problem of how to guarantee a Pilot skill if the focus is one PC per Player. But I think this other way of thinking about the matter removes the problem entirely and opens up a bunch of other positive results.
A final note: I'm not suggesting this is the "right" way to play the game. As I've noted above several times, what people expect RPG play to be like has changed a lot since 1977. That said, if and when I get a Classic
Traveller game going, I'll be hewing as close as I can to the sensibility of the play style the rules encourage. It just seems like things will run more smoothly. And the notions above all seem to flow easily from the rules as written, from Character Creation, to Salaries, to Death, the Experience, and more.
