Sell me on science skills in CT

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Klaus:
have general skills like:

Xeno-Biology
Astrophysics
Planetology
Socio-History
Xeno-Archeology
Linguistics

This is a decidedly functional approach - these are the kinds of skills that travellers are most likely to want or need.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Klaus:
have general skills like:

Xeno-Biology
Astrophysics
Planetology
Socio-History
Xeno-Archeology
Linguistics

This is a decidedly functional approach - these are the kinds of skills that travellers are most likely to want or need.

 

[Klaus]

Well indeed. Players don't want redundant skills.

 

[Klaus]

Well indeed. Players don't want redundant skills.

 

[Golan2072]

Im my modified CharGen system, the following is placed in the Science cascade category:

- Biology (includes Xeno-Biology)
- Chemistry
- Physics
- Parapsychology
- Sophontology (Sociology combined with Anthropology and Psychology)
- Archeology
- Planetology (Geology, Geography and Ecology combined)
- Linguistics
- Forensics
- Civil Engineering

My view is that EDU stat denotes theoretical knowledge of any kind; the Science skills encompass methodological and practical knowledge. For example, high EDU would probably include a good amount of knowledge about the genetic theory, the structure of the DNA and so on; the Biology skill encompasses the use of technical lab methods (at the character's homeworld's TL) of sequencing DNA, manipulating plasmids, cloning genes (PCR), cloning organisms (late TL7+) and so on.

This is exactly how, in basic CT, high EDU encompasses the knowledge of computing theories, software structures etc, while the Computer skill deals with practical programming methods, troubleshooting, repairing/modifying computer hardware and so on.

A person with purely theoretical knowledge will have high EDU alone; a lab-tech will have mid-EDU (6-8) and a skill; a researching scintist will have boith a high EDU stat and a high skill.

 

[Golan2072]

Im my modified CharGen system, the following is placed in the Science cascade category:

- Biology (includes Xeno-Biology)
- Chemistry
- Physics
- Parapsychology
- Sophontology (Sociology combined with Anthropology and Psychology)
- Archeology
- Planetology (Geology, Geography and Ecology combined)
- Linguistics
- Forensics
- Civil Engineering

My view is that EDU stat denotes theoretical knowledge of any kind; the Science skills encompass methodological and practical knowledge. For example, high EDU would probably include a good amount of knowledge about the genetic theory, the structure of the DNA and so on; the Biology skill encompasses the use of technical lab methods (at the character's homeworld's TL) of sequencing DNA, manipulating plasmids, cloning genes (PCR), cloning organisms (late TL7+) and so on.

This is exactly how, in basic CT, high EDU encompasses the knowledge of computing theories, software structures etc, while the Computer skill deals with practical programming methods, troubleshooting, repairing/modifying computer hardware and so on.

A person with purely theoretical knowledge will have high EDU alone; a lab-tech will have mid-EDU (6-8) and a skill; a researching scintist will have boith a high EDU stat and a high skill.

 

[Plankowner]

If you treat the EDU stat as education, then just about any character with a hi EDU would also have some specialization within the sciences (or something).

A Bachelor's Degree (EDU 9) should allow for some kind of specialization (major). MIGHT be science, could be art history or Underwater Basketweaving, but they would get some kind of specialization.

A Master's Degree (EDU B) would give even higher specialization (Underwater Basketweaving in Tainted Atmospheres) which may or may not be a Science Skill.

PhD's and Post-Docs get even more specialized.

I would say that a player and GM should work out what areas of study the character had and maybe give them some science skills if it is agreed upon.

My tendancy would be to generalize the sciences even more that was suggested above:

Biological Sciences
Physical Sciences
Planetary Sciences
Historical Sciences
Psychological Sciences

Let the player decide on any specialties within those category.

 

[Plankowner]

If you treat the EDU stat as education, then just about any character with a hi EDU would also have some specialization within the sciences (or something).

A Bachelor's Degree (EDU 9) should allow for some kind of specialization (major). MIGHT be science, could be art history or Underwater Basketweaving, but they would get some kind of specialization.

A Master's Degree (EDU B) would give even higher specialization (Underwater Basketweaving in Tainted Atmospheres) which may or may not be a Science Skill.

PhD's and Post-Docs get even more specialized.

I would say that a player and GM should work out what areas of study the character had and maybe give them some science skills if it is agreed upon.

My tendancy would be to generalize the sciences even more that was suggested above:

Biological Sciences
Physical Sciences
Planetary Sciences
Historical Sciences
Psychological Sciences

Let the player decide on any specialties within those category.

 

[Plankowner]

Second thought on selling the Science Skill.

It is up to the GM to make scenarios that would actually USE those science skills. Nothing will sour a player on something faster than never getting to use it. If a player wants science skills, then the GM should come up with ways for them to use it.

Using the example above of the Rapacious Three-Toed Snagglewortz, a character with a hi education might know that they are famed for a perfume made from their body parts.

The Xenobiologist knows that the perfume is made from fermenting the sweat gland with nail clippings from the center toe. Can be done in the field and produces a 1000cr/l perfume.

If the GM doesn't give credit for the specialized knowledge, then don't bother having a science skill.

When I used to GM, we had former scout players with Planetary Science skills. I tried to give them the info on quirky planetary characteristics and if something was weird about the system/world, those characters were told privately and they got to share the info with the rest of the group, if they chose.

 

[Plankowner]

Second thought on selling the Science Skill.

It is up to the GM to make scenarios that would actually USE those science skills. Nothing will sour a player on something faster than never getting to use it. If a player wants science skills, then the GM should come up with ways for them to use it.

Using the example above of the Rapacious Three-Toed Snagglewortz, a character with a hi education might know that they are famed for a perfume made from their body parts.

The Xenobiologist knows that the perfume is made from fermenting the sweat gland with nail clippings from the center toe. Can be done in the field and produces a 1000cr/l perfume.

If the GM doesn't give credit for the specialized knowledge, then don't bother having a science skill.

When I used to GM, we had former scout players with Planetary Science skills. I tried to give them the info on quirky planetary characteristics and if something was weird about the system/world, those characters were told privately and they got to share the info with the rest of the group, if they chose.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Well, many moons later...

I received the last JTAS reprints book a few months ago, and decided to introduce the advanced scientist chargen from Challenge 25 IMTU. This includes a variety of science skills.

To ameliorate the effect of making these new skills available only to scientist characters, I'm allowing characters generated using other careers to replace any +1 Edu roll with an approrpiate science skill - a merchant, for example, could repalce a +1 Edu result with Sophontology-1, for example.

One of the characters in our game is a scientist generated using the advanced rules, a Bwap doctor specializing in xenomedicine - Dr. Weepkeka's promising career as a research physician was cut short by the inadvertent use of fraudulently obtained data in a study of K'kree genetics, and now the Newt has turned to working as "ship's surgeon" aboard a free trader while searching for a new path in life...

(The player saw the picture of the Bwap on the cover of Grand Census and said, "Can I play one of those?" After making a breakthrough while working at an Imperial research station, the doctor rolled snake-eyes for re-enlistment - we determined that the blood and gene data used in the study were obtained under false pretexts from the K'kree, which created a diplomatic incident and sullied poor Weepkeka's reputation in the scientific community.)

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Well, many moons later...

I received the last JTAS reprints book a few months ago, and decided to introduce the advanced scientist chargen from Challenge 25 IMTU. This includes a variety of science skills.

To ameliorate the effect of making these new skills available only to scientist characters, I'm allowing characters generated using other careers to replace any +1 Edu roll with an approrpiate science skill - a merchant, for example, could repalce a +1 Edu result with Sophontology-1, for example.

One of the characters in our game is a scientist generated using the advanced rules, a Bwap doctor specializing in xenomedicine - Dr. Weepkeka's promising career as a research physician was cut short by the inadvertent use of fraudulently obtained data in a study of K'kree genetics, and now the Newt has turned to working as "ship's surgeon" aboard a free trader while searching for a new path in life...

(The player saw the picture of the Bwap on the cover of Grand Census and said, "Can I play one of those?" After making a breakthrough while working at an Imperial research station, the doctor rolled snake-eyes for re-enlistment - we determined that the blood and gene data used in the study were obtained under false pretexts from the K'kree, which created a diplomatic incident and sullied poor Weepkeka's reputation in the scientific community.)

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
(The player saw the picture of the Bwap on the cover of Grand Census and said, "Can I play one of those?" After making a breakthrough while working at an Imperial research station, the doctor rolled snake-eyes for re-enlistment - we determined that the blood and gene data used in the study were obtained under false pretexts from the K'kree, which created a diplomatic incident and sullied poor Weepkeka's reputation in the scientific community.)

God, I love the CT chargen system. As many years as I've been roleplaying, I've never found another system that leads to so much creativity in character backstory.

IMO, it's so much better than "rolling up" a certain type of character (the strong fighter...the smart mage...etc).

With CT chargen, you "discover" a character more than create a certain type.

Still one of the best character generation mechanics to ever hit any rpg.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
(The player saw the picture of the Bwap on the cover of Grand Census and said, "Can I play one of those?" After making a breakthrough while working at an Imperial research station, the doctor rolled snake-eyes for re-enlistment - we determined that the blood and gene data used in the study were obtained under false pretexts from the K'kree, which created a diplomatic incident and sullied poor Weepkeka's reputation in the scientific community.)

God, I love the CT chargen system. As many years as I've been roleplaying, I've never found another system that leads to so much creativity in character backstory.

IMO, it's so much better than "rolling up" a certain type of character (the strong fighter...the smart mage...etc).

With CT chargen, you "discover" a character more than create a certain type.

Still one of the best character generation mechanics to ever hit any rpg.

 

[Whipsnade]

Gents,

FWIW, I've never had a scientist PC in any of my games, but I did have the occasional scientist NPC. I ran skill and specializations much like 2-4601 does. What I really wanted to bring up is the delightful research rules from MT's 'Referee's Companion'.

GDW suggested that the goal of a research project be assigned a number greater than 1. The difficulty of the project would determine the number. Something like 'Cure this disease' might have a target number of 5 while 'Identify soure of pollutants' would have a target of 2 and 'Invent teleportation device' would have a target of 100.

Each whole number in the target number had ten discrete steps called hypotheses. The PCs would begin at Hypothese 1 and advance through 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and so on to the projects target number.

Advancing up this hypothese 'ladder' depending on task rolls. IIRC, the tasks were rated 'Formidable' in the MT task system. Naturally the rolls would require certain skills, lots of time to 'perform', and information gleaned from other lesser tasks. Fumble one of these tasks and you'd slip back down the ladder; modeling the many blind alleys scientific research takes. Roll exceptional success and you'd jump up the ladder more than one step; modeling the breakthroughs that sometimes occur.

The beauty of this system is that the players wouldn't know what they research project's target number was! They wouldn't know how many steps were needed or even how well they were doing until they got very near their goal!

I loved the very idea of this system. It would allow scientist PCs to fully use their skills. Non-scientist PCs would be fully involved too in all the 'leg work' and minor research each advance up the hypothese ladder required. I couldn't wait to use it.

In two separate campaigns, I carefully mapped research projects each with a target of 4. I detailed most of the 'steps' involved; what sort of information or leg work was required, and penciled in both blind alleys and breakthroughs; twice of the former over the latter.

Then, in each campaign, my players inadvertantly avoided the entire research project angle! AGGHHHHH!

Sheesh, did I ever want to use those rules!


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Gents,

FWIW, I've never had a scientist PC in any of my games, but I did have the occasional scientist NPC. I ran skill and specializations much like 2-4601 does. What I really wanted to bring up is the delightful research rules from MT's 'Referee's Companion'.

GDW suggested that the goal of a research project be assigned a number greater than 1. The difficulty of the project would determine the number. Something like 'Cure this disease' might have a target number of 5 while 'Identify soure of pollutants' would have a target of 2 and 'Invent teleportation device' would have a target of 100.

Each whole number in the target number had ten discrete steps called hypotheses. The PCs would begin at Hypothese 1 and advance through 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and so on to the projects target number.

Advancing up this hypothese 'ladder' depending on task rolls. IIRC, the tasks were rated 'Formidable' in the MT task system. Naturally the rolls would require certain skills, lots of time to 'perform', and information gleaned from other lesser tasks. Fumble one of these tasks and you'd slip back down the ladder; modeling the many blind alleys scientific research takes. Roll exceptional success and you'd jump up the ladder more than one step; modeling the breakthroughs that sometimes occur.

The beauty of this system is that the players wouldn't know what they research project's target number was! They wouldn't know how many steps were needed or even how well they were doing until they got very near their goal!

I loved the very idea of this system. It would allow scientist PCs to fully use their skills. Non-scientist PCs would be fully involved too in all the 'leg work' and minor research each advance up the hypothese ladder required. I couldn't wait to use it.

In two separate campaigns, I carefully mapped research projects each with a target of 4. I detailed most of the 'steps' involved; what sort of information or leg work was required, and penciled in both blind alleys and breakthroughs; twice of the former over the latter.

Then, in each campaign, my players inadvertantly avoided the entire research project angle! AGGHHHHH!

Sheesh, did I ever want to use those rules!


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
It is up to the GM to make scenarios that would actually USE those science skills. Nothing will sour a player on something faster than never getting to use it. If a player wants science skills, then the GM should come up with ways for them to use it.

An additional use, especially for things such as Chemistry and Civil Engineering, would be designing and/or manufacturing stuff - someone with Chemistry-3 could create explosives quite easily (well, you could do so with Chemistry-0, but that will have a great probability to explode at your face), and, with better equipment, to manufacture pharmaceuticals as well.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
In two separate campaigns, I carefully mapped research projects each with a target of 4. I detailed most of the 'steps' involved; what sort of information or leg work was required, and penciled in both blind alleys and breakthroughs; twice of the former over the latter.

Then, in each campaign, my players inadvertantly avoided the entire research project angle! AGGHHHHH!

I actually like the method you're outlining - it seems like a fun and useful model of scientific work to include in a sci-fi RPG. I might find it handy as my girlfriend has expressed interest in playing a scientist character in Traveller (she was annoyed at the fact that CT was geared towards military careers and asked if a scientist is possible to play). As she likes to speculate and dream about the scientific causes for sci-fi and even fantasy phenomena (as well as about alternate evolutionary pathes), I think it will fit her well.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
It is up to the GM to make scenarios that would actually USE those science skills. Nothing will sour a player on something faster than never getting to use it. If a player wants science skills, then the GM should come up with ways for them to use it.

An additional use, especially for things such as Chemistry and Civil Engineering, would be designing and/or manufacturing stuff - someone with Chemistry-3 could create explosives quite easily (well, you could do so with Chemistry-0, but that will have a great probability to explode at your face), and, with better equipment, to manufacture pharmaceuticals as well.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
In two separate campaigns, I carefully mapped research projects each with a target of 4. I detailed most of the 'steps' involved; what sort of information or leg work was required, and penciled in both blind alleys and breakthroughs; twice of the former over the latter.

Then, in each campaign, my players inadvertantly avoided the entire research project angle! AGGHHHHH!

I actually like the method you're outlining - it seems like a fun and useful model of scientific work to include in a sci-fi RPG. I might find it handy as my girlfriend has expressed interest in playing a scientist character in Traveller (she was annoyed at the fact that CT was geared towards military careers and asked if a scientist is possible to play). As she likes to speculate and dream about the scientific causes for sci-fi and even fantasy phenomena (as well as about alternate evolutionary pathes), I think it will fit her well.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
I actually like the method you're outlining - it seems like a fun and useful model of scientific work to include in a sci-fi RPG.

2-4601,

I liked it too, although I never got to use it!

Like you, I thought the process of incremental gains coupled with routine setbacks, regular blind alleys, and the occasional breakthough modeled actual scientific inquiry very well for an RPG. One of the example given in the Referee's Companion illustrates this rather well.

The researcher in question wants to cure a plague. The GM sets a target number and the researcher goes through a couple of the hypothesis cycles. He doesn't completely solve the riddle of the plague, but he does learn enough about it to defeat it which counts as a success of sorts.

IIRC, the plague in the example is carried by mites on fleas on rats(1). The final hypothesis is 3, but the researcher only gets to 2.6 or so. That's good enough because 2.6 was "The plague is carried by fleas on rats". The researchers kills the fleas and the plague is defeated.

The researcher didn't get the whole picture, but het did get something that explained what needed to be explained as well as it could be explained right now. I think that is a good model of scientific inquiry. Scientists know their theories aren't the whole picture, they're just the best picture we have right now. True scientists are forever updating, changing, and otherwise tweaking their theories to get a better and better picture.

Another example in the book dealt with a drop in crop yields in a certain farming region. The 'solution' is that a kind of certain industrial run-off is effecting soil productivity. In this example, the authors discussed what sort of things the non-scientist players could to to assist the scientist player in making the task rolls to move 'up' the hypothesis 'ladder'. It amounted to fact gathering, sample collection, and other kinds of leg work.

One of my research projects would have dealt with orbital 'deep radar' technology. (I stole the name and most of the idea from Larry Niven.) It was supposed to be a intergrated densitometer and active/passive EMS array that could give a detailed picture of perhaps ~50km deep into a planetary body. The idea was supposed to be more evolutionary than revolutionary, IMTU existing set-ups could only go ~5km deep.

Anyway, the players were supposed to get neck deep in all sorts of 'legwork' for the project like field testing, equipment installations, calibrations, cross checks, regular core drilling, seismic sensing, all sorts of things. Among the planned setbacks, there were some bad geology survey sets that would bollux them for a while (Drat, the equipment says there is X a kilometer under there but the IISS survey found Y back in 706.) and some people 'polishing' the certain results out of good intentions. As I said up thread, I had a breakthrough planned too but I can't remember the details.

Of course, I never got to use it at all. The players went off in an entirely different direction and I wasn't able to 'boomarang' them back onto my planned project. They didn't go off in a bad directions mind you, just a different one.

The book inquestion must be on the MT CD-ROM.

Have fun,
Bill


1 - GDW was having fun with both the Black Death; which was carried by fleas on rats, and an English-speaking children's nonsense song about a 'Hole in the Bottom of the Sea'; i.e. there's a flea on the wart of the frog on the bump on the log in bottom of the sea, there's a mite on the flea etc., etc., etc.)

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
I actually like the method you're outlining - it seems like a fun and useful model of scientific work to include in a sci-fi RPG.

2-4601,

I liked it too, although I never got to use it!

Like you, I thought the process of incremental gains coupled with routine setbacks, regular blind alleys, and the occasional breakthough modeled actual scientific inquiry very well for an RPG. One of the example given in the Referee's Companion illustrates this rather well.

The researcher in question wants to cure a plague. The GM sets a target number and the researcher goes through a couple of the hypothesis cycles. He doesn't completely solve the riddle of the plague, but he does learn enough about it to defeat it which counts as a success of sorts.

IIRC, the plague in the example is carried by mites on fleas on rats(1). The final hypothesis is 3, but the researcher only gets to 2.6 or so. That's good enough because 2.6 was "The plague is carried by fleas on rats". The researchers kills the fleas and the plague is defeated.

The researcher didn't get the whole picture, but het did get something that explained what needed to be explained as well as it could be explained right now. I think that is a good model of scientific inquiry. Scientists know their theories aren't the whole picture, they're just the best picture we have right now. True scientists are forever updating, changing, and otherwise tweaking their theories to get a better and better picture.

Another example in the book dealt with a drop in crop yields in a certain farming region. The 'solution' is that a kind of certain industrial run-off is effecting soil productivity. In this example, the authors discussed what sort of things the non-scientist players could to to assist the scientist player in making the task rolls to move 'up' the hypothesis 'ladder'. It amounted to fact gathering, sample collection, and other kinds of leg work.

One of my research projects would have dealt with orbital 'deep radar' technology. (I stole the name and most of the idea from Larry Niven.) It was supposed to be a intergrated densitometer and active/passive EMS array that could give a detailed picture of perhaps ~50km deep into a planetary body. The idea was supposed to be more evolutionary than revolutionary, IMTU existing set-ups could only go ~5km deep.

Anyway, the players were supposed to get neck deep in all sorts of 'legwork' for the project like field testing, equipment installations, calibrations, cross checks, regular core drilling, seismic sensing, all sorts of things. Among the planned setbacks, there were some bad geology survey sets that would bollux them for a while (Drat, the equipment says there is X a kilometer under there but the IISS survey found Y back in 706.) and some people 'polishing' the certain results out of good intentions. As I said up thread, I had a breakthrough planned too but I can't remember the details.

Of course, I never got to use it at all. The players went off in an entirely different direction and I wasn't able to 'boomarang' them back onto my planned project. They didn't go off in a bad directions mind you, just a different one.

The book inquestion must be on the MT CD-ROM.

Have fun,
Bill


1 - GDW was having fun with both the Black Death; which was carried by fleas on rats, and an English-speaking children's nonsense song about a 'Hole in the Bottom of the Sea'; i.e. there's a flea on the wart of the frog on the bump on the log in bottom of the sea, there's a mite on the flea etc., etc., etc.)