Skill Improvement and "Experience"

[WistfulD]

Good DMs are able to ramp up the challenges to meet whatever the character can come up with. You seemed to have no issues doing so!

The old adage is, "the capacity for a DM to circumvent a game's failings does not make the game less perfect."

That said, I don't see the need for a maximum. The fact that it takes time to learn new skills is limitation enough because, moreso than other RPGs, Traveller reminds us that time is a vital commodity. Any time spent learning skills is time not spent earning money (and money, and the resultant equipment, is often as valuable as skills), or time "spent" by being younger and thus not needing aging rolls. Even though there is no experience point system, it is the Traveller characters that are constantly evolving and have character sheets with eraser marks all over them.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I realized you could play a parent and child team in Traveller. A 6 term retiree and a 1 term child. No real balance in roles or skills, but who cares as long as the players are having fun?

I mostly agree.

But there are lots of different "balance"

The first being a game with no rules which is complete make believe role playing balanced vs a game that has enough rules that it would take years just to read them. This touches on something I mentioned before; a game mechanic with lots of record keeping for experience/skill advancement which detracts from role playing balanced vs having no mechanic at all. The core rules has something extremely short and simple. Perhaps shifted a bit too far towards one extreme for some.

Another thing I touched on before is the realistic limit that people have (in varying degrees) in retaining and being able to recall a huge amount of information balanced to allow people to still learn new things. It may not be the most accurate game mechanism. I discuss this since it was brought up, but I don't recall the INT/EDU limit being part of the core rules? If so, a page reference would be appreciated.

Like you said, there could be characters with low level skills and they could still have fun. They still have a role. The child while others are adults. The one term character that may have a level 1 or even a level 0 skill that nobody else in the group has or maybe they play the assistant to another character. The point here is that characters have a role.

However, you are quite correct that Traveller is much less about 'balance' between the characters than most games ... a 1 term ex-Merchant and a 6 term ex-Navy are not really going to be 'balanced' in the traditional "3rd level party of adventurers" sense.

Perhaps "Game mechanic to preserve imbalance" instead of "Game balance"? Read on.

What if characters in the group had very similar skills as do the groups npcs and most anyone they encounter? I'm not sure if most people would enjoy that. Perhaps the "balance" is a game mechanic which helps limit learning skills and promotes characters being more unique and promoting each having a balanced role vs easily learning what everyone else knows.

There is also the concept of balancing between different aged characters and thus how fast or slow skills are learned. Balance between allowing older characters to be more talented without being so much more so that there is little use for the less skilled younger characters.

And thus we come to solutions that are likely not balanced the way 99% of the people would like but hopefully it is somewhere in the middle and at least people can live with it, ignore it (always an option), or use it to help guide their own system.

-----
Possible situation

In game, a character gets word that their uncle, a farmer on a nearby low law level agricultural world, was attacked and injured, a few employees killed, and his farm equipment stolen by a competitor. The group goes to help out. The adventure is dealing with the competitor and getting the farm equipment back but the group also stays a while to help out with the farm.

1) Pull out each characters sheet, check what their current skill level is in animals, document that you have x weeks of training and see if they gain a level before they are ready to leave.

Player 1: "Hey, we need to stay another week so that I can raise from Animals 0 to level 1."

This, to me, is playing the rule and not role playing.

2) Fast forward. GM to players: For your time on the farm you pick up Animals 0.

Player1: "Can I do some repairs around the farm and gain Mechanic 0?"

3) Skim quickly over role playing the time on the farm.
GM playing the uncle in his bed weakly telling his nephew "Go with John and hire new farm hands to replace those killed. It would be a great help if the others in your group can pitch in and divide up the chores."

Character 1: "I wouldn't know a pigs butt from their face so maybe I should drive the tractor." OOC: has no Animal skill but has Drive (Wheeled) 1

Character 2: "There were lots of farms where I grew up. I'll help with the livestock." OOC: Comes from a Agricultural World which gave a Background skill of Animals 0.

Character 3: "Unless you have varmint to kill, someone is going to have to show me what to do." OOC: ex marine and doesn't have skills useful on a farm.

As the GM rules that the characters will only be shown the most basic skills since there are still some farmhands to do the more skilled labor, Character 1 and Character 2 would not be learning anything. Character 3 could get some level 0 training.

Role playing using the skills they have to help out on the farm instead of playing the rules and trying to "level up".

Since it's there, I might check the rules for some guidance. Did Character 3
a) Get some instruction but mostly did general labor. OOC: not enough time available to gain Animal skill
or
b) Learn enough to be helpful with the basic chores. OOC: enough time available to gain Animal skill

For myself and my face to face group we prefer # 3) and just doing what makes sense based on the situation. While there may be some time between adventures, the group is still usually doing something and it isn't down time for going to med school and gain Medic 2 or whatnot.

 

[salochin999]

snip

Some abilities will deteriorate unless you practice. For example my first career was in electronics and that was multiple decades ago. I certainly don't remember the various formulas anymore and would have to look them up. I can't even remember the values for the colors on a resister any more. Do resistors still exist?

The possible deterioration of unused skills is not something covered in the rules, or is it. One can think of hitting the INT EDU limit and learning something new and needing to drop a skill as forgetting the most unused skill one learned the longest ago.

Some knowledge needs to be kept up to date. My second career was in computers. I've been out of that career almost 10 years now. I have not kept up with the changes in server operating systems, programs, networking architectures, programing languages and so forth. Not much chance I could get a job now without freshening up my skills and getting the latest certifications.

You only have so much time for practice, reading trade magazines and so forth all while perhaps holding a job to pay the bills and trying to learn more skills.

As you say

That's how I see it. Over a lifetime a character might be able to learn every skill to rank 3 but not all at once as there's not enough time to practice everything. The current skills would be what they'd spent their time on in the recent past.

#

edit: the reason I'd have a limit on total skill ranks is it focuses the character. A limit effectively asks players to describe their character in terms of a certain number of skill ranks. For example if you visualize a character with

brawling-2 gambling-2 carousing-2 streetwise-2

it is is very different mental image to a character with

electronics-2 computers-2 comms-2 navigation-2

If every character has every skill - or even too many skills imo - then they lose that clarity original Traveller characters had.

#

same reason i'd count skill-0 as a rank also - make the player choose which of two skills is most important to their character

#


YMMV

 

[Leitz]

Characters 1, 2, and 3 go to the farm. Sounds like the start of a joke!

All three are first term Army and have basic combat skills. Character 1 has Animals 0 because this is where he grew up. Characters 2 is a city boy with Admin 0. Character 3 grew up on an asteroid world and has Vacc Suit 0. My Mongoose book is on loan so I'm guessing. All three have stats 777777, Army Skills of 0, and relevant Gun Combat of 1.

The DM plays the players. Character 1 had a high school problem with a bully. Character 2 meets an attractive member of the desired species and gender while in town researching who might have done the attack. Character 3 has to be taught how to do farm stuff but gets hooked up with a local adventure club and they do deep water exploration in suits.

Character 3 makes some new friends and contacts while showing off some skill in a Vacc suit. If the player wanted they could work on Instruction 0, Persuade 0, or building up social connections. Character 2 uses the contact to get the goods on the high school bully, who engineered the attack. Also inspires the attractive person of the desired species to further their development and join the team. Character 1 organizes the response to the attack, has to make ethical choices, and either learns Leader 0 if they mount a physical attack or Advocate 0 if they pursue a legal response.

Any of the characters could focus on skill development or on social interaction. Both would advance in the players perception of the character. Or they could just pitch hay, slop hogs, and work on their novel at night.

In ATPollard's CT game here I'm playing a Marine who is trying to instigate a world revolution. He is woefully unprepared for the task; his few relevant skills are at 0. INT/EDU/SOC are 885. The original game plan was for him to go in, help the team blow something up. and then he gets a Combat ribbon, maybe a promotion, and a pat on the back. He could have learned Survival 0 due to the weather conditions. Instead I'm choosing to not learn skills but maybe increase his Soc. His list of Contacts may grow. Arthur may decide he's gotten enough challenge to move Leader 0 to Leader 1.

Whatever a player does to characterize their PC tends to enhance the enjoyment of the game and give the DM opportunities to challenge the characters and further the story. Sometimes higher skills are the fun. Sometimes the rewards are different. If one character can get a 600 dTon fat trader why can't another get Pilot 4?

 

[Leitz]

The old adage is, "the capacity for a DM to circumvent a game's failings does not make the game less perfect."

Long ago I played in a Star Trek RPG game. This was the original percentage based game with lots of room for improvement in the rules. That was one of the best games I've ever played in; my character was challenged and grew. I had loads of fun with the story.

Rules provide a framework. I prefer a loose framework and more story. Others prefer a more defined structure. The structures are tools for everyone's enjoyment.

 

[WistfulD]

There's a faction in the Old School D&D movement that are the epitome of loose rules = better story. The thinking is 'having a skills system discourages PC creativity by telling the players that there are certain things that their characters can't do.'

 

[DickNervous]

There's a faction in the Old School D&D movement that are the epitome of loose rules = better story. The thinking is 'having a skills system discourages PC creativity by telling the players that there are certain things that their characters can't do.'

That is only true if the players aren't creative.

One of the things I love about Traveller is that even if you have never seen a Jump Drive before in your life, there is a chance (albeit tiny) that you could fix it. You may have to roll a natural 12, but the chance is still there. While in games like D&D if my Paladin wants to open a locked door his choices are "bash it down, bash it down, or bash it down" even if he has (for some strange reason) a set of Thieves Tools.

Someone asked for a page reference for the INT+EDU max skill levels, and I can't find it now, but I know I saw it somewhere. However, it does make a certain amount of sense to have a maximum number of either skill levels or skills, after all you can't know everything. Though I think it would make more sense as a limit to the total number of skills (including level 0) that someone can know, or at least a guideline. After all, someone with an INT 2 and EDU 2 wouldn't likely be capable of learning 10 different skills to level 2, would they?

Think of it this way. Each point of INT and EDU represents a "block" of memory. Each skill family (I'll define that in a moment) requires 1 block of memory for you to be proficient in it. Since there are many skills with a great deal of overlap you could create "skill families". For example, "Gun Combat: Slug Pistol", "Gun Combat: Slug Rifle", and "Gun Combat: Shotgun" probably have 90% overlap with each other, so knowing all three would be just one "block". This could be the same for most of the skills that have specializations as long as you use a little common sense when determining it.

This is the type of thing that I probably wouldn't even discuss with the players but just use it as a guide and only bring it up if it becomes an issue.

 

[McPerth]

Someone asked for a page reference for the INT+EDU max skill levels, and I can't find it now, but I know I saw it somewhere. However, it does make a certain amount of sense to have a maximum number of either skill levels or skills, after all you can't know everything. Though I think it would make more sense as a limit to the total number of skills (including level 0) that someone can know, or at least a guideline. After all, someone with an INT 2 and EDU 2 wouldn't likely be capable of learning 10 different skills to level 2, would they?

Think of it this way. Each point of INT and EDU represents a "block" of memory. Each skill family (I'll define that in a moment) requires 1 block of memory for you to be proficient in it. Since there are many skills with a great deal of overlap you could create "skill families". For example, "Gun Combat: Slug Pistol", "Gun Combat: Slug Rifle", and "Gun Combat: Shotgun" probably have 90% overlap with each other, so knowing all three would be just one "block". This could be the same for most of the skills that have specializations as long as you use a little common sense when determining it.

This was in CT and MT, but I don't remember any reference on it in MgT.

 

[whulorigan]

Someone asked for a page reference for the INT+EDU max skill levels, and I can't find it now, but I know I saw it somewhere. However, it does make a certain amount of sense to have a maximum number of either skill levels or skills, after all you can't know everything. Though I think it would make more sense as a limit to the total number of skills (including level 0) that someone can know, or at least a guideline. After all, someone with an INT 2 and EDU 2 wouldn't likely be capable of learning 10 different skills to level 2, would they?

House Rule Alternative:

Let [Max # of skill-levels] = INT + EDU + #Terms

Roll everything up as normal during CharGen, but afterward impose the limit above, and let the player decide which skills to reduce to bring the character within the above limit at the conclusion of CharGen. Note that a skill can be reduced to "Level-0", which does NOT count against the limit (i.e. you can have any number of 0-Level Skills). In other words, as you get older, you begin to get less proficient with things that you are not regularly practicing, while at the same time, once you learn a skill, you never entirely forget it (you are always at least "familiarized" with it).

This was in CT and MT, but I don't remember any reference on it in MgT.

It is not in MgT. It is explicit in MT (and I believe in one of the later iterations of the Classic Traveller Core Rules).

 

[mike wightman]

IIRC it was not a rule in 77 CT or 81 revised. It first appeared in the Traveller book and the alien modules.

There are several examples of characters who break this rule in 1001 characters, CotI and one of the resumes in LBB4 Mercenary.

I never use it.

I could see maybe using Int + Edu + no. of terms, and or using it (Int+Edu)as a limit on number of skills but not total skill level (eg an Int 2 Edu 2 character could have four different skills max, but be skill level 2 in each). A final alternative I would consider is Int is the maximum level you can get a skill to, while maximum number of skills is Edu + terms served.

 

[WistfulD]

One of the things I love about Traveller is that even if you have never seen a Jump Drive before in your life, there is a chance (albeit tiny) that you could fix it. You may have to roll a natural 12, but the chance is still there. While in games like D&D if my Paladin wants to open a locked door his choices are "bash it down, bash it down, or bash it down" even if he has (for some strange reason) a set of Thieves Tools.

That's actually part of the argument. For these folks, the "first three LBB" (Little Brown Books in this case) are the true game, and things have been going downhill for D&D since they introduced things like the thief class, which had rules for opening locked doors and hiding in shadows, which implied that other characters couldn't.

 

[mike wightman]

Which could have easily been dealt with by saying any class can try any action, but certain classes get bonuses to certain actions due to training.

Fighting men get a bonus to hit, AC , HP, damage
Thieves get a bonus to sneak attacks, sneaking about etc.

Pretty much how it works in 5e to be honest.

But back to MgT - many actions can be attempted with no skill, but your chance of success is down to luck. Having the skill gives you a much better chance to succeed, which was just as true in CT days.

 

[DickNervous]

This was in CT and MT, but I don't remember any reference on it in MgT.

Ah! That explains it. When I was trying to decide with rules to use for my campaign I did a LOT of reading of different versions and I probably got it mixed up because I liked the idea.

House Rule Alternative:

Let [Max # of skill-levels] = INT + EDU + #Terms

Roll everything up as normal during CharGen, but afterward impose the limit above, and let the player decide which skills to reduce to bring the character within the above limit at the conclusion of CharGen. Note that a skill can be reduced to "Level-0", which does NOT count against the limit (i.e. you can have any number of 0-Level Skills). In other words, as you get older, you begin to get less proficient with things that you are not regularly practicing, while at the same time, once you learn a skill, you never entirely forget it (you are always at least "familiarized" with it).

Using INT+EDU+Terms = Max Skill Levels would put the average character in the area of 16-20 levels of skills. That's not to bad since the 0-level skills wouldn't count. And you are so dead on with the you never completely forget bit. I find that is so true as I "mature".

I could see maybe using Int + Edu + no. of terms, and or using it (Int+Edu)as a limit on number of skills but not total skill level (eg an Int 2 Edu 2 character could have four different skills max, but be skill level 2 in each). A final alternative I would consider is Int is the maximum level you can get a skill to, while maximum number of skills is Edu + terms served.

Using INT+EDU=Max Skills might be a little restricting if you count 0-level skills. One character that I have in front of me would be limited to 18 skills, which he already has with the 0-level skills from his homeworld and basic training. But if they don't count then it would be fine.

I like the EDU as the max skill level, though so far all the characters have an EDU of 6 or higher so it wouldn't be an issue. But I will keep it in mind if anyone comes along with a really low EDU.

Fighting men get a bonus to hit, AC , HP, damage
Thieves get a bonus to sneak attacks, sneaking about etc.

Pretty much how it works in 5e to be honest.

And yeah, I am playing a 5e campaign (which is the bug that bit me to get me back to Traveller) and the skills system is very similar in how it works to MgT and CT, which has led to one of the characters doing some very, *cough* interesting things. And that guy is in my Traveller campaign, I can't wait to see what he comes up with.

 

[salochin999]

There's a faction in the Old School D&D movement that are the epitome of loose rules = better story. The thinking is 'having a skills system discourages PC creativity by telling the players that there are certain things that their characters can't do.'

A learnable skill system says any character can learn anything (with time and practice) but can't learn everything at once so they partly define their character by their choices.

 

[rancke]

The rather dimwitted combat expert is common to all action/adventure genres. I've always considered the inability to generate that sort of character to be a flaw in the rules.


I changed the rule to dividing skills into physical skills, mental skills and practical skills (e.g. mechanic, engineering) and allowed characters STR+DEX physical skill levels, INT+EDU mental skill levels, and STR+DEX+INT+EDU skill levels total (i.e. practical skills could be 'charged' against either physical or mental limits).


Hans

 

[salochin999]

That is only true if the players aren't creative.

One of the things I love about Traveller is that even if you have never seen a Jump Drive before in your life, there is a chance (albeit tiny) that you could fix it. You may have to roll a natural 12, but the chance is still there. While in games like D&D if my Paladin wants to open a locked door his choices are "bash it down, bash it down, or bash it down" even if he has (for some strange reason) a set of Thieves Tools.

Someone asked for a page reference for the INT+EDU max skill levels, and I can't find it now, but I know I saw it somewhere. However, it does make a certain amount of sense to have a maximum number of either skill levels or skills, after all you can't know everything. Though I think it would make more sense as a limit to the total number of skills (including level 0) that someone can know, or at least a guideline. After all, someone with an INT 2 and EDU 2 wouldn't likely be capable of learning 10 different skills to level 2, would they?

Think of it this way. Each point of INT and EDU represents a "block" of memory. Each skill family (I'll define that in a moment) requires 1 block of memory for you to be proficient in it. Since there are many skills with a great deal of overlap you could create "skill families". For example, "Gun Combat: Slug Pistol", "Gun Combat: Slug Rifle", and "Gun Combat: Shotgun" probably have 90% overlap with each other, so knowing all three would be just one "block". This could be the same for most of the skills that have specializations as long as you use a little common sense when determining it.

This is the type of thing that I probably wouldn't even discuss with the players but just use it as a guide and only bring it up if it becomes an issue.

IIRC the Int+EDU thing was in the CT errata but I don't know if it got in anywhere else so it might not be in MgT. It does make sense to use those two stats but personally IMTU I'll use the two highest stats as I'd want players to be able to create a strong and tough but dumb, and uneducated dude 979622 who has grenades-4, heavyweapons-4, spaceaxe-4 battledress-4 etc

you could create "skill families"

I like the char sheet as sparse and uncluttered as possible so what I do is if the character picks a skill from a group they automatically have the other skills in the group at one rank less e.g. the melee group if the character has blade-2 then I say he's automatically skill-1 with the rest. Keeps it simple.

 

[salochin999]

The rather dimwitted combat expert is common to all action/adventure genres. I've always considered the inability to generate that sort of character to be a flaw in the rules.


I changed the rule to dividing skills into physical skills, mental skills and practical skills (e.g. mechanic, engineering) and allowed characters STR+DEX physical skill levels, INT+EDU mental skill levels, and STR+DEX+INT+EDU skill levels total (i.e. practical skills could be 'charged' against either physical or mental limits).


Hans

Dividing it makes sense.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Using INT+EDU=Max Skills might be a little restricting if you count 0-level skills. One character that I have in front of me would be limited to 18 skills, which he already has with the 0-level skills from his homeworld and basic training.

I'm having some trouble with this based on my understanding of the rules and would like some clarification.

First off, you probably mean Background skills and not just Homeworld.

you get a number of background skills equal to 3 + your Education DM (1 to 5, depending on your Education score).

If one has a EDU of 12 for a +2 DM (max at this point in chargen for humans) they could get 3+2, max 5 level 0 Background skills.

First career is 6 basic training skills. A couple career changes would be another two level 0 skills.

That would be 5 (background) + 8 (basic training) = 13 level 0 skills. <== NOTE: EDITED as I got the numbers mixed up.

Please do explain how the character got "18 skills, which he already has with the 0-level skills from his homeworld and basic training". It seams to be a fairly extreme case or maybe I'm missing something in the rules. Is this 18 level 0 skills or 18 total if adding up all skill levels and level 0 skills count as one? Or something else?

I think we are comparing
A) INT+EDU=Max Skill Levels with skills counted at their level (0 level skills count as 0).
B) INT+EDU=Max Number of Skills with each skill, level 0 or level 5, each counting as one.
C) Please correct me if I have misinterpreted and it is something else? I'm getting a bit confused as people are giving different house rules and rules from other versions of Traveller so I may not be getting peoples frame of reference right.

A limit of 18 skills is a pretty good INT + EDU character with averae of 9 in each characteristic.

I'd think your point, as I understand it, is more valid for the character with lower stats. Maybe a INT 3 and EDU 6 for 9 max. Background 3 + 0DM for EDU 6, Basic Training 6 for 9 level 0 skills so they are already maxed out.

Assuming one is counting the level 0 skills like in option B above.

 

[rancke]

It's INT+EDU max skill levels. So you can have as many Skill-0 as you like.


Hans

 

[GypsyComet]

Long ago I played in a Star Trek RPG game. This was the original percentage based game with lots of room for improvement in the rules.

Original Trek game, yes, published in 1982. It certainly was not the first percentage system (Runequest, 1978), though it was among the first well known percentage systems in SF (for which 1982 to 1984 were bumper years).