Rules Only: Skill Bloat, Lockout & Why It Matters.

[Star Gazer]

From a GMs perspective, skills are awesome. They allow differentiation and customization and specialization. GMs see skills as 'things you're good at'. Under this idea, lockout mechanisms make a certain kind of sense - bailiwick protection as it were.

But, (and isn't there ALWAYS a 'but'?) players perceive skills as 'permission to'. And lockout conditions limit their imaginations and constrain the players, and the more skills there are, the more self-limiting their behavior.
Skill lists reduce player agency in direct proportion to the length of the list.

Example: CT has the Electronics skill and no standard lockout mechanism. Electronics lets you work on and operate electronic systems. When the comms gear breaks (pulled out of ship's stores on a tramp trader and it's FUBAR? Say it ain't so!), they'll break out their imaginations and raid the toolbox and use Electronics1 to go ahead and fix the problem. Laid out a sensor grid? Great! Electronics1 means you can get results quickly and accurately. Not having Electronics1 means very little, you just don't get the positive DM for having the skill.

MgT on the other hand has Electronics divided into separate skills - Comms, Remote Ops, Sensors &ct and ad nauseum. This sets up an expectation and renders PCs 'helpless'. The Player may well not even try to grab a stationary sensor pack from the next trade stop because they don't have the Sensors skill! Why? Because there's a -3DM unskilled lockout penalty. A standard roll goes from 8+ to 11+!!

Seriously, going from 42% to 8% isn't just a change in probability, it's a STRONG signal that if you don't have Sensors skill, you can't read sensors. Humans create heuristics, they don't keep percentages in their heads.

There are 'rules' in place that partially cover these events - Engineering (J-Drive)2 is Engineering(Everything Else)0, JoAT reduces modifiers or turns dangerous situations into "I have Required Skill0". But there's still a hole - these are cludgy fixes and can cause problems (JoAT being the center of a LOT of controversy).

At the same time, differentiation is a good - A 2-term Marine and a 4-term Scout (yeah, right!), should be capably different. My argument is that it's easy enough to create that differentiation with just a FEW skills and a minimal lockout penalty, and not a plethora of increasingly specialized minutia.

Also to take under consideration, there should be some skills that the players can NEVER have, this encourages them to seek out people (roleplaying!) and hire them (resource management!). Stuff like sages with esoteric science knowledge, starship construction experts, colony management specialists, imperial bureaucratics, manufacturing moguls and code-jockeys (yup, even CT has something I would cull).

Here's how I would address the issue:

• Reduce skills to no more than 20. No cascades. All skills are very broad in application.
• Everyone gets EveryWeapon0 and EveryLandVehicle0
• Unskilled Penalty: -1DM. Hand out a couple Level0 skills according to HW and TL.
• Moving up the time chart (taking longer): +1DM. (MgT has a clever little time chart) E.g. Going from 1-6 seconds to 1-6 minutes eliminates the "I don't have the skill" penalty. Now, skilled people are faster at their stuff and can be even faster when time is an issue, whereas the unskilled are slow and plodding.
• JoAT becomes: Pick any skill you like and don't already have, get it at Skill1

Boom. Done. The unskilled are slow. The skilled are fast and can get faster, nobody is locked out because 'they don't have the skill', and players have their all-important agency returned to them - because that's what this game is all about - Player Agency. We should be working towards maximizing it in interesting ways.

 

[kilemall]

I agree that the cascade skill thing is outta control, was just reading some takes on Engineering and pretty horrified at the idea that one can hire an engineer that cannot keep the Beowulf running.

Don't agree on the guns and vehicle statement, some backgrounds should preclude such (orbital colonies, law levels, barbarian planets, no roads due to terrain/water world, etc.).

The classic skills cannot exceed INT+EDUC rule puts a brake on bloat.

One way I have been considering simplifying some of these situations is 'cascade preference/familiarity'.

So for instance let's say we have Gun, Personal as a catchall for all handheld firing weapons, and that Gun skill level is 3.

The player would designate specific equipment as what they tend to use and are most familiar/comfortable with, get their pluses there and everything else is at a lesser level.

So the player picks
Gauss Rifle-3
Snub Pistol-2
RAM GL-1
and everything else at 0.

Switching gun skill breakdowns would require a LOT of combat and/or time at the range.

As for 'skill in proper place', I just don't see going to an everybody can do anything model. Reality just tells us skill sets are meaningful. I do believe in using the characteristics more, so they factor in highly into task rolls as 'native talent and ability', but there is just no way a 'smart' guy is going to get a reactor powered up in anything like safety or timeliness.

This is where I use the education stat as the base for knowledge skill checks for 'I've read about doing this crazy thing in the engineering journals' but still requiring the engineering skill and intelligence to wing it for more then routine fixes/powerups.

So disagree about JoAT. The power of the scout lies in their MacGyverness. Have to watch not gifting them with ridiculous abilities, but it should still be a premium skill that gets one out of jams without being Lensman superman competent.

 

[salochin999]

Mostly agree. I like the characters to be like characters in movies so there's the cliched tech guy, the combat guy etc with fewer but broader skills.

I think part of it is the basic CT chargen produced characters with broad skills but often too few in total so there were too many gaps (unless they went through 5+ terms) but then the advanced chargen went a little too far the other way for me where the characters had lots of more specialized skills.

Reduce skills to no more than 20. No cascades. All skills are very broad in application.

I wouldn't have an upper limit but I'd compress skills cinematically i.e. in a movie a character who is a good driver is a good driver so Driver() is the cinematic skill.

So
- Driver(Raft)-1 becomes skill-1 with rafts and skill-0 with all the rest.
- Driver(ATV)-2 becomes skill-2 driving ATVs and skill-1 with the rest.

The cascade part is just the specialty / favorite out of the list and the rest are simply one lower.

Other examples might be Animals()
- so Animals(Bantha)-2 is skill-2 with Bantha and skill-1 with other animals

or Melee()
- so Blade-1 is skill-1 with a blade and skill-0 with the rest.

 

[aramis]

Note that MGT's cascades are not "Engineer (Power) 1 is unskilled at Engineer (Jump)"... it's "Engineer (Power) 1 is Engineer (Jump) 0, and Engineer (MDrive) 0"...

So, for a basic engineer, he can do the maintenance. He's not totally unskilled. And MGT's skill 0 is not the same as CT/MT Skill 0. It's about halfway between CT/MT 0 and CT/MT 1 conceptually. (For the steward skill, it's explicitly half as good as level 1.)

 

[McPerth]

Example: CT has the Electronics skill and no standard lockout mechanism. Electronics lets you work on and operate electronic systems. When the comms gear breaks (pulled out of ship's stores on a tramp trader and it's FUBAR? Say it ain't so!), they'll break out their imaginations and raid the toolbox and use Electronics1 to go ahead and fix the problem. Laid out a sensor grid? Great! Electronics1 means you can get results quickly and accurately. Not having Electronics1 means very little, you just don't get the positive DM for having the skill.

MgT on the other hand has Electronics divided into separate skills - Comms, Remote Ops, Sensors &ct and ad nauseum. This sets up an expectation and renders PCs 'helpless'. The Player may well not even try to grab a stationary sensor pack from the next trade stop because they don't have the Sensors skill! Why? Because there's a -3DM unskilled lockout penalty. A standard roll goes from 8+ to 11+!!

Just a comment here about the specific skill you choose: Electronics equivalent in MgT is Engineering (electronics), so giving you also all other engineering specialties at 0.

Seriously, going from 42% to 8% isn't just a change in probability, it's a STRONG signal that if you don't have Sensors skill, you can't read sensors. Humans create heuristics, they don't keep percentages in their heads.

Well, IIRC in CT being unskilled meant a -4 DM, so making the usual needed roll (8+) to become a 12+...

And MGT's skill 0 is not the same as CT/MT Skill 0. It's about halfway between CT/MT 0 and CT/MT 1 conceptually. (For the steward skill, it's explicitly half as good as level 1.)

I disagree here, at least about MT. In MgT, skill 0 means that for an average task, an average stat person (stat at 7) would need toooll 8+, while in MT, this same person with skill llevel 0 would need a 6+ (7+, with a stat DM +1).

And as for Steward specifically, in MgT a Steward 0 can care for 2 High or 5 Mdm Passengers (while raising skill raises it), while in MT a steward (skill level irrelevant) amy care for 8 High or 50 Mdm passengers (according formula in page 82, and in CT this same steward (again skill level irrelevant, from 0 up) can care for 8 high Passengers...

 

[aramis]

Just a comment here about the specific skill you choose: Electronics equivalent in MgT is Engineering (electronics), so giving you also all other engineering specialties at 0.



Well, IIRC in CT being unskilled meant a -4 DM, so making the usual needed roll (8+) to become a 12+...



I disagree here, at least about MT. In MgT, skill 0 means that for an average task, an average stat person (stat at 7) would need t oroll 8+, while in MT, this smae person with skill llevel 0 would need a 6+ (7+, with a stat DM +1).

And as for Steward specifically, in MgT a Steward 0 can care for 2 High or 5 Mdm Passengers (while raising skill raises it), while in MT a steward (skill level irrelevant) amy care for 8 High or 50 Mdm passengers (according formula in page 82, and in CT this smae steward (again skill level irrelevant, from 0 up) can care for 8 high Passengers...

Comparing it conceptually, rather than mathematically. You're comparing mathematically- wherein you left out that in MT, the Level 0 vs unskilled is a 4 point hit, while in MGT, it's only a 3 point hit...

MGT, however, uses level 0 VERY differently. It represents an employable skill in MGT, where in CT and MT, it's explicitly NOT employable - that would be level 1. (Steward isn't on the short list of allowed level 0's.)

 

[McPerth]

(Steward isn't on the short list of allowed level 0's.)

And yet the requisite to be a steward in a ship is set at Steward-0 in LBB2 page 11 ot TTB pg 55, while all the rest of jobs being set at minimum of skill-1...

 

[mike wightman]

There are a lot of skills in CT that have no penalty at all to attempting them unskilled.

All of these should be written on your character sheet to remind you.

I long ago scrapped separate weapon skills in CT in favour of handgun, rifle, brawling, short melee, long melee.

The reason for this is that skills in CT are vastly unbalanced - you get one skill 'pick', do you try for engineering or pilot or do you dump it into using one type of gun? The worth of a skill 'pick' needed balancing IMHO hence the reduction of the weapon skill list.

 

[Star Gazer]

I agree that the cascade skill thing is outta control, was just reading some takes on Engineering and pretty horrified at the idea that one can hire an engineer that cannot keep the Beowulf running.

Excellent response, btw. Engineering is also what explicitly set me off. It's silly.

Don't agree on the guns and vehicle statement, some backgrounds should preclude such (orbital colonies, law levels, barbarian planets, no roads due to terrain/water world, etc.).

EveryWeapon0 is straight out of CT. It's there as a hint towards something that quite a few people forget - the Characters are not average. EveryLandVehicle0 is just an extension of that. No matter how complex civilization gets, it's only going to take a few hours to learn how to drive a car - they're designed explicitly to be easy to use. We let our children drive them.

The classic skills cannot exceed INT+EDUC rule puts a brake on bloat.

Don't quote me, but I'm not sure that rule shows up until TTB.

One way I have been considering simplifying some of these situations is 'cascade preference/familiarity'.

This is almost precisely how I do it for my mercenary campaigns - EveryWeapon0 and each skill is a specific weapon, but cascaded down and divvied up. Non-merc campaigns use Slug Longarm, Slug Shortarm, Energy Longarm, Energy Shortarm, Close Combat, Heavy Weapons, Gunnery. Merc campaigns have to assign their points in each category to specific weapons.

As for 'skill in proper place', I just don't see going to an everybody can do anything model. Reality just tells us skill sets are meaningful. I do believe in using the characteristics more, so they factor in highly into task rolls as 'native talent and ability', but there is just no way a 'smart' guy is going to get a reactor powered up in anything like safety or timeliness.

A couple of points here. This argument of yours is good, but it really misses the thrust of my OP. To players, skills are perceived as 'permission to'. We want them engaging their imaginations, not looking at skill lists thinking 'what can I do?'

Secondly, the PCs being special and overly knowledgeable about stuff is already the case though, per RAW. Yokel from a TL5 backwater frozen wasteland knows how to, not just fire, but use, a Laser Carbine, backpack and all.

And the lockout penalty is still there, just reduced to 9+ from 11+, or back down to 8+ if you want to fix something in 10-60 hrs instead of 1-6 hrs. Maybe that's too small for you (in fact, it's the mechanical equivalent of giving everyone MgT-Style JoAT2), reduce it by one so that the lockout penalty is -2DM, and now, what a person with Skill1 can do in 1-6hrs, the unskilled can do in 1-6 DAYS.

This seems reasonable to me given the amount of tech available. Heck, the ship's computer is measured in dTons! You'd better be getting a LOT of stuff for something that large, and help diagnosing drive trouble seems like that would be one of those things you get.

So disagree about JoAT. The power of the scout lies in their MacGyverness. Have to watch not gifting them with ridiculous abilities, but it should still be a premium skill that gets one out of jams without being Lensman superman competent.

Yeah, the Scout does lose some MacGyveriness. They're still the only CT profession to get a ship free and clear with one roll, so I'm sure they'll be fine. Great response, man, well thought out.

 

[McPerth]

EveryWeapon0 is straight out of CT. It's there as a hint towards something that quite a few people forget - the Characters are not average. EveryLandVehicle0 is just an extension of that. No matter how complex civilization gets, it's only going to take a few hours to learn how to drive a car - they're designed explicitly to be easy to use. We let our children drive them.

There are some argeable points here...

1) the point about the characters being not average is quite argeable. In Traveller there does not exist the difference ambout "character class" and "normal people" that exists in other RPGs. A Traveller character is an ordinary person, just more or less trained (and with a Little biased CharGen, making it easier to reach high status in their job). I don't see why a doctor, or an attoney should know how to use a FGMP (not even a revolver)...

2) EveryLandVehicle0. As land vehicles become rarer, I don't see any reason for it. I agree with MT defaults by homeworld, where ground vehicle 0 is given to industrial, pre-stellar and early stellar TLs (TLs 5-11, IIRC), and grav vehicle at higher ones. After all, how many people do you know that can drive a cart?

OTOH, some level 0 skills may be given due to homeworld, as MT did (streetwise and manybe carousing for HiPop, computer for TL 9+, watercraft to wáter world, etc...)

 

[Star Gazer]

There are some argeable points here...

1) the point about the characters being not average is quite argeable. In Traveller there does not exist the difference ambout "character class" and "normal people" that exists in other RPGs.

I don't think that's a very well supported statement. The rule in CT is that all PCs get EveryWeapon0, not characters. This is a direct contradiction to the idea that the PCs aren't special in some way.

Here's the relevant passage:

CT Bk 1, p16: All [b]player characters[/b] have an innate weapon expertise, [b]in all weapons,[/b] of zero.  Acquisition of a weapon skill boosts this to level-1.

A few pages later, it mentions just giving the PCs skills if they need them and sure enough, if you look at the sample party on p25 of Bk1, several have VacSuit0, even though it's not possible to get that except by GM fiat. Heck, the 3-term ex-Army Captain has VacSuit1... The possible ways to get skills by training give Level2 (Sabbatical) or Level1 (correspondence courses). By implication, normal characters would just die horribly or, more likely, not attempt to make the trip at all and fail the mission.

Clearly, there's some sine qua non that PCs have that regular characters do not, and it's been there from the beginning. The game is called Traveller, not Clerks.

2) EveryLandVehicle0. As land vehicles become rarer, I don't see any reason for it. I agree with MT defaults by homeworld, where ground vehicle 0 is given to industrial, pre-stellar and early stellar TLs (TLs 5-11, IIRC), and grav vehicle at higher ones. After all, how many people do you know that can drive a cart?

Meh, I'm seeing this as one of those 'failure to justify' problems that crop up now and again in RPGs. It's not that Joe Traveller from TL-F World full of grav-belts knows how to drive a 20th century car because he's had training. It's that any competent human being can figure it out quickly enough that just giving them EveryLandVehicle0 is a good enough simulation of that. Remember, we let children drive these things. Yes, here in the US you get training, but that's not even close to universal. Someone competent enough to know innately how to use any weapon you put in their hands isn't someone who's going to have trouble figuring out the difference between the gas, brake and clutch.

 

[McPerth]

I don't think that's a very well supported statement. The rule in CT is that all PCs get EveryWeapon0, not characters. This is a direct contradiction to the idea that the PCs aren't special in some way.

Here's the relevant passage:

CT Bk 1, p16: All player characters have an innate weapon expertise, in all weapons, of zero. Acquisition of a weapon skill boosts this to level-1.

But in the Book 1 most careers (in fact all but merchants and other) are of miliatry or paramilitary nature (and Other is assumed to be of criminal nature). Also this refers to weapons given in LBB1, I'm not sure it aplies to those in other books' (e.g. LBB4) weapons.

And IIRC in Citizens of the Imperium this changed, as not all players so generated ger all weapons at 0

A few pages later, it mentions just giving the PCs skills if they need them and sure enough, if you look at the sample party on p25 of Bk1, several have VacSuit0, even though it's not possible to get that except by GM fiat. Heck, the 3-term ex-Army Captain has VacSuit1... The possible ways to get skills by training give Level2 (Sabbatical) or Level1 (correspondence courses). By implication, normal characters would just die horribly or, more likely, not attempt to make the trip at all and fail the mission.

Of course you can. I use to give all skills in the Service Skills table at 0 (MOS in Advanced Chargen, as I don't believe (to give you an example) there is any comptent spacer without vacc suit skill at leat at 0 (see that MgT did the same, many years after, for your first career)

Clearly, there's some sine qua non that PCs have that regular characters do not, and it's been there from the beginning. The game is called Traveller, not Clerks.

Well, you can also play clercks on it if you (and your players) so want...

Meh, I'm seeing this as one of those 'failure to justify' problems that crop up now and again in RPGs. It's not that Joe Traveller from TL-F World full of grav-belts knows how to drive a 20th century car because he's had training. It's that any competent human being can figure it out quickly enough that just giving them EveryLandVehicle0 is a good enough simulation of that. Remember, we let children drive these things. Yes, here in the US you get training, but that's not even close to universal. Someone competent enough to know innately how to use any weapon you put in their hands isn't someone who's going to have trouble figuring out the difference between the gas, brake and clutch.

First of all, while I have driving licence, I don't think I really know how to drive. So shoould I put muself as not compentent or as not human being :devil:?

I agree most people can drive today, at least in developed countries where cars are common, if it has some interest on it (something I don't) but only after some training (see that an instructor can teach you a skill in about 6 weeks in Traveller, that's about what a driving course lasts in Spain).

And it's true that young people (not children) are allowed to drive them (age depends on countries, usually among 16 and 18), but I heard the US army had problems to find competent drivers when the car was not automatic... And don't forget traffic accidents are among the highest causes of injury and death on such young people...

And that's when cars are of common use, imagine in the future, when young people only sees them in historical holovideos...

I repeat, how many people do you know that can drive a cart (and it has less controls than a car)?

 

[Star Gazer]

But in the Book 1 most careers (in fact all but merchants and other) are of miliatry or paramilitary nature (and Other is assumed to be of criminal nature). Also this refers to weapons given in LBB1, I'm not sure it aplies to those in other books' (e.g. LBB4) weapons.

And IIRC in Citizens of the Imperium this changed, as not all players so generated ger all weapons at 0

The 'exception' is for 'barbarians, bureaucrats and doctors', who still have a universal Skill0 with bladed weapons.

Travellers are still exceptional people. Not Clerks.

I use to give all skills in the Service Skills table at 0 (MOS in Advanced Chargen, as I don't believe (to give you an example) there is any comptent spacer without vacc suit skill at leat at 0 (see that MgT did the same, many years after, for your first career)

Correct, and this reinforces my point that PCs are special. The GM is encouraged to hand out necessary skills - to PCs. Not to characters in general.

First of all, while I have driving licence, I don't think I really know how to drive. So shoould I put muself as not compentent or as not human being :devil:?

Agreed, I'm no exceptional driver myself.

That said, I never took Driver's Ed and got my license at 18.

At 19, after only having a couple of hours at most behind the wheel of a car, I taught myself to drive stick in about 5m flat. I had to, I had just borrowed a friend's pickup to move my and my girlfriend's stuff across base so it could be shipped out. Truck was fully loaded, there was only him and me in the barracks at the time and he was on duty. Basically, there was only me. Ground the gears once, stalled it once out of the parking lot and never looked back.

I'm no great shakes, and if I can essentially teach myself, so can anyone.

I repeat, how many people do you know that can drive a cart (and it has less controls than a car)?

Lemme know when cars come equipped with animal to worry about and I'll let you know. :devil:

 

[McPerth]

I understand you have some military background. Could you use a flintstock arquebus?

That's why I belive most uoutdated equipment will not be so easy to use by most people. Even if you had never drived a car, you have seen lots of people doing it, and probably knew already the traffic signals, etc... This will not be the case for people used to grav vehiles, that have not to deal with obstacles nor traffic signals, and who are likely to have so many electronic controls that they need hardly to care.

Lemme know when cars come equipped with animal to worry about and I'll let you know. :devil:

You mean aside from the driver :devil:?

(sorry, I could not refrain myself)

 

[SanDragon]

That animal...

Isn't he usually referred to as "James" or "Jeeves" and is called a Chauffeur?

 

[Leitz]

I understand you have some military background. Could you use a flintstock arquebus?

Well, given a little help most people could. It's the aiming and trigger control that count. I started shooting flintlocks after getting one and reading about it on-line.

 

[aramis]

And yet the requisite to be a steward in a ship is set at Steward-0 in LBB2 page 11 ot TTB pg 55, while all the rest of jobs being set at minimum of skill-1...

That's so that your Steward 1 Pilot 1 can function as a steward while also the pilot, because he functions one level lower in both.

 

[SanDragon]

I don't recall mid passengers requiring a steward.

Am I in error?

 

[aramis]

I don't recall mid passengers requiring a steward.

Am I in error?

Not in most editions. MGT does require them.

Well, to be more correct, its not required under CT nor MT until you have large numbers of them. IIRC 1:120.

 

[casquilho]

I don't recall mid passengers requiring a steward.

Am I in error?

Not sure about all editions, but in 1st ed Mongoose you do, just not as many for the mid passengers. "One steward skill per two high or five middle passengers".