Skill Improvement and "Experience"

[McPerth]

What I find odd in MgT about learning skills (CB, page 59) is that the total skill levels are used to increase the weeks you need to learn a new one.

So, the fact you're a good doctor (or pilot, or whatever), having level 3 on it, makes you 3 weeks harder to learn to drive a car (or to shoot a rifle, or whatever you're trying to learn).

OTOH, if you are fully untrained (or have only 0 level skills), you can become a doctor in 3 weeks (1 week to learn skill level 1, 2 more weeks to learn it at level 2, that is a full doctor according sidebar in page 51) :CoW:.

Another thing that seems odd to me is the uselesness of Instruction Skill (as described in LBB1:Mercenary, page 38). Not only it just makes you the learning process 1-6 days shorter (when it is measured in weeks), but it makes the process requiring an INt or EDU task, while learning without instructor, while taking some days more, does not require any task (as written in CB page 59 it seems an automatic process).

 

[DickNervous]

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 meant that he has 18 different skills total, that includes the Level 0 skills and the ones he acquired during his career.

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.

In addition to that, someone also suggested INT+EDU+#Terms as an option as with a limit on any single skill not being more than the characters EDU. So someone with INT 5 and EDU 3 that did 4 terms could have 12 (5+3+4) different skills (including 0 level), but none could be higher than a 3.

A limit of 18 skills is a pretty good INT + EDU character with average 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.

... and that was exactly my concern. But I think it is fair to say that Level 0 skills shouldn't be counted either way.

 

[Leitz]

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).

Ah, I assume there have been subsequent Trek games and this one was the original, the one that was a percentage game. It probably took a bit from the RQ rules.

 

[Galadrion]

Personally, I don't really agree with the idea of limiting the number of skills - the human brain/mind appears to have nearly limitless capacity, provided the person in possession of said brain is willing to keep using it.

If the group appears to actually want such a rule, I prefer to use INTxEDU as a limit. Even the dimmest of functional morons can be trained to an acceptable level in several skills (although they'll probably be useless - or worse - outside of those areas) and a strictly average individual is probably more limited by available training and practice time than by their own capability. (A strictly average person - 7 INT, 7 EDU - could have 49 skill levels under this limitation. They're unlikely to have the time to acquire all those skill levels.)

 

[GypsyComet]

Ah, I assume there have been subsequent Trek games and this one was the original, the one that was a percentage game. It probably took a bit from the RQ rules.

Probably. There was a *lot* of design cross-fertilization in that first decade of RPGs.

To further confuse the issue, FASA Trek was only the original *licensed* Trek RPG. There were several blatantly derivative early RPGs.

There have been three licensed attempts at the official TV and movie Trek universe. None of the later licensees did anywhere near as well as FASA did, or for as long. Last Unicorn Games' version (1998-2002), often referred to as "LUG Trek", is the one many recent gamers remember, but Paramount has apparently only gotten harder to deal with over the years, and LUG Trek died before it could get very far. Decipher's attempt (2002-2005) didn't get much farther.

The other licensed RPG is Prime Directive, which is attached to the only lasting Trek license in gaming: Star Fleet Battles. It isn't set in the movie/Next Gen version of the Trek universe, but a somewhat more violent tangent based solely on the original TV series and the Animated series that followed. Unlike the others, Prime Directive has largely used existing RPG engines, and you can get a GURPS version, a D20 version, and a D20 Modern version. A Mongoose Traveller version remains in development. PD started with its own mechanics (a dice pool described as similar to West End's d6 or Shadowrun) in 1993. Whether Prime Directive is truly "Star Trek" is an argument for somewhere else, and I'm sure it has already played out on the internet many times.

One note on the original Prime Directive in Wikipedia suggests that it had a mechanic for picking up odd skills through creative ret-con in-game, echoing the tendency of the series writers (of not just Trek, to be sure) to add competencies to support the plot of that episode.

 

[WistfulD]

One note on the original Prime Directive in Wikipedia suggests that it had a mechanic for picking up odd skills through creative ret-con in-game, echoing the tendency of the series writers (of not just Trek, to be sure) to add competencies to support the plot of that episode.

What, you mean that Sulu wasn't a master fencer the whole time? :devil:

 

[aramis]

Probably. There was a *lot* of design cross-fertilization in that first decade of RPGs.

To further confuse the issue, FASA Trek was only the original *licensed* Trek RPG. There were several blatantly derivative early RPGs.

There have been three licensed attempts at the official TV and movie Trek universe. None of the later licensees did anywhere near as well as FASA did, or for as long. Last Unicorn Games' version (1998-2002), often referred to as "LUG Trek", is the one many recent gamers remember, but Paramount has apparently only gotten harder to deal with over the years, and LUG Trek died before it could get very far. Decipher's attempt (2002-2005) didn't get much farther.

The other licensed RPG is Prime Directive, which is attached to the only lasting Trek license in gaming: Star Fleet Battles. It isn't set in the movie/Next Gen version of the Trek universe, but a somewhat more violent tangent based solely on the original TV series and the Animated series that followed. Unlike the others, Prime Directive has largely used existing RPG engines, and you can get a GURPS version, a D20 version, and a D20 Modern version. A Mongoose Traveller version remains in development. PD started with its own mechanics (a dice pool described as similar to West End's d6 or Shadowrun) in 1993. Whether Prime Directive is truly "Star Trek" is an argument for somewhere else, and I'm sure it has already played out on the internet many times.

One note on the original Prime Directive in Wikipedia suggests that it had a mechanic for picking up odd skills through creative ret-con in-game, echoing the tendency of the series writers (of not just Trek, to be sure) to add competencies to support the plot of that episode.

Actually, FASA-Trek was the SECOND licensed Trek. Heritage Models' Star Trek was first. And was little more than a minis game with a nod to RPG use. But it was earlier.

And, technically, Prime directive was 3rd - the courts upheld the ADB sub-license.

So:

Licensed	Unlicensed
Heratige Models Star Trek FASA: Star Trek: the Roleplaying Game (STRPG) TFG, later ADB: Prime Directive (1E) ADB: GURPS Prime Directive LUG: Star Trek: The Next Generation LUG: Star Trek: Voyager LUG: Star Trek: The Original Series ADB: Prime Directive d20/d20M Decipher: Star Trek	Zocchi & Kurtic: Space Patrol (Includes phasers by name) Zocchi & Kurtic: Star Patrol (same game as space patrol) ?: Embattled Trek (Derivative of SP) FGU: Starships & Spacemen Twerps Twek

Those are the commercial ones I know of.
And I'm leaving out the obvious "wink-n-nod" "you could do trek with this" non-references, like CORPS, EABA, Star Hero, GURPS Space, and MGT Psion (seriously, it's where the transporter rules are).

 

[DickNervous]

Personally, I don't really agree with the idea of limiting the number of skills - the human brain/mind appears to have nearly limitless capacity, provided the person in possession of said brain is willing to keep using it.

If the group appears to actually want such a rule, I prefer to use INTxEDU as a limit. Even the dimmest of functional morons can be trained to an acceptable level in several skills (although they'll probably be useless - or worse - outside of those areas) and a strictly average individual is probably more limited by available training and practice time than by their own capability. (A strictly average person - 7 INT, 7 EDU - could have 49 skill levels under this limitation. They're unlikely to have the time to acquire all those skill levels.)

I look at it not as a limit to what a person is capable of learning, but more a function of the time required to maintain skills at a particular level. We all have heard the saying "use it or lose it" and know that, to an extent, it is true. For instance I took AP Chemistry in High School back in the 80s and was very good at it, you could even say at least a skill level 1. But it is not something that I have used in the time since and at best I would say I am now a Level 0 at Chemistry.

Every skills a person knows requires a certain amount of regular use to maintain, and the higher the skill level, the more practice you need. That is where I think the limitation comes into play, not a persons capacity to learn new things.

 

[GypsyComet]

Actually, FASA-Trek was the SECOND licensed Trek. Heritage Models' Star Trek was first. And was little more than a minis game with a nod to RPG use. But it was earlier.

I actually edited out an "IIRC" from my post after Wikipedia failed to turn up the Heritage game. I don't recall ever seeing the rules as anything more than you describe: a skirmish system disguised as an RPG. I do have a pack of the Skorr from the Heritage line. As bad as the Heritage line was, it was better than those horrible emaciated transporter accidents that FASA had made.

Also, sublicense or not, I consciously separated the ADB effort from the others, just as most people would separate an RPG based on Abrams Trek from the others.

 

[Galadrion]

I look at it not as a limit to what a person is capable of learning, but more a function of the time required to maintain skills at a particular level. We all have heard the saying "use it or lose it" and know that, to an extent, it is true. For instance I took AP Chemistry in High School back in the 80s and was very good at it, you could even say at least a skill level 1. But it is not something that I have used in the time since and at best I would say I am now a Level 0 at Chemistry.

Every skills a person knows requires a certain amount of regular use to maintain, and the higher the skill level, the more practice you need. That is where I think the limitation comes into play, not a persons capacity to learn new things.

Mm... In-game, I haven't actually run across many situations where a character neglects a skill long enough to lose levels. Such a loss would probably need months or (more likely) years of non-use before the skill actually declines, and most characters I've seen in games tend to use their listed skills on a regular basis. And that leaves aside down-time; in most games, there's plenty of time for a character to maintain skill levels if they really want to. Thus, I'd rule that, unless circumstances were really unusual, skill loss is unlikely to be a problem.

As I was trying to imply earlier, time is the real limitation on acquiring skills; each skill level (including 0-level skills) is the equivalent of about four years of on-the-job training, although a character could probably acquire several such levels in a single four-year term - they do in basic training, after all. So let's say that a character is unlikely to gain more than an average of three skill levels per term: a six-term character, at age 42, is unlikely to have much more than eighteen or twenty (once you factor in background skills) skill levels, and probably won't have that many. But my point is that mental capacity for most workable characters isn't likely to be approached by the skills a character acquires in the normal order of things.

 

[Timerover51]

.
As I was trying to imply earlier, time is the real limitation on acquiring skills; each skill level (including 0-level skills) is the equivalent of about four years of on-the-job training,

Hmm, learning to drive a vehicle takes 4 years of on-the-job training? Learning to fly a small plane takes 4 years? FAA requirement is 40 hours until solo, instrument time is addition, as it multi-engine time. Main problem is cost of training and aircraft time, but not 4 years. Learning how to fire a rifle/shotgun/pistol requires 4 years? The Army takes one week. Familiarization fire, which would equate to Skill Level "0" is one day. Training a child to operate a computer takes 4 years? How long does it take to learn how to operate a Jet-Ski, a snowmobile, a farm tractor with hay baler attached, or basic automotive repair?

To learn how to safely operate a naval nuclear reactor onboard of a submarine took roughly 9 months for two of my brothers. Based on your 4 years of on-the-job training, they would not have even reached Skill Level "0". I was on a cruise around Hawaii, where they were teaching basic scuba diving to people who had never done it before in one day. I would assume that would be Skill Level "0". In World War 2, if you spent four years operating a radar, you were not view as having only Skill Level "0", but one of the experts. The Air Force is not taking 4 years to teach a fighter pilot to fly a jet with Skill Level "0".

 

[atpollard]

IMO skill-0 is learned quickly, skill-1 in 4000 hours of training and experience, higher skill levels in more time.

How long would it take to go from learning to drive a car (wheeled vehicle-0) to being qualified to work as a professional stunt driver (wheeled vehicle-1)?

Medic is typically used as the yardstick because Medic-3 = M.D. ... a quantifiable skill level.

Using the FAA 40 hours to solo as the basic unit, would you be comfortable with a 40 hour 'Certified in First Aid' (medic-0?), an 80 hour 'Paramedic' (medic-1?), a 120 hour 'Nurse Practitioner' (medic-2?) and a 160 hour 'M.D.' (medic-3)?
... Yes, you too can be a Doctor in only 4 weeks! (Financial aid available to those who qualify.)

Personally, I would prefer a more exponential scale:
skill-0 = 10 hours = hours
skill-1 = 100 hours = weeks
skill-2 = 1000 hours = months
skill-3 = 10,000 hours = years
skill-4 = 100,000 hours = decades
... But that does not agree with the basic Chargen rules.

 

[Timerover51]

How long would it take to go from learning to drive a car (wheeled vehicle-0) to being qualified to work as a professional stunt driver (wheeled vehicle-1)?

Medic is typically used as the yardstick because Medic-3 = M.D. ... a quantifiable skill level.

Using the FAA 40 hours to solo as the basic unit, would you be comfortable with a 40 hour 'Certified in First Aid' (medic-0?), an 80 hour 'Paramedic' (medic-1?), a 120 hour 'Nurse Practitioner' (medic-2?) and a 160 hour 'M.D.' (medic-3)?
... Yes, you too can be a Doctor in only 4 weeks! (Financial aid available to those who qualify.)

Personally, I would prefer a more exponential scale:
skill-0 = 10 hours = hours
skill-1 = 100 hours = weeks
skill-2 = 1000 hours = months
skill-3 = 10,000 hours = years
skill-4 = 100,000 hours = decades
... But that does not agree with the basic Chargen rules.

My daughter will be graduating in May with a degree in nursing and then taking the RN exam. I would assume that would equate to about Medic-2.

I would not rate a professional Stunt Car driver at Skill Level 1. By so doing, you are trivializing the issue. Someone who can safely operate a motor vehicle in either downtown Chicago or downtown Los Angeles probably would be more like Skill Level 1, or maybe 2. I have friends that flatly refuse to drive in downtown Chicago as it exceeds their comfort level.

Different skills require different learning times. A CPR class takes about 4 hours, and certifies a person to perform CPR competently. My son is certified in Scuba Diving down to 130 feet, so presumably would be about Diving-2, but has not spent anywhere near 1,000 hours on it, more like 100. To train someone how to safely fire a rifle with some expectation that he/she/it will hit near the target should take about a week or so. To teach someone how to handle a mortar effectively is going to take a bit longer.

As for your examples of Medic, there were Pharmacist Mates in the US Navy in World War 2 that did appendectomies while onboard of submarines. I would have to check on how long the training for corpsmen assigned to the Marines takes, which probably would be at least Medic-1, not sure about Medic-2 based on my daughter's nursing training.

Using the Medic as the standard for skill level training is not viable.

 

[Leitz]

Personally, I would prefer a more exponential scale:
skill-0 = 10 hours = hours
skill-1 = 100 hours = weeks
skill-2 = 1000 hours = months
skill-3 = 10,000 hours = years
skill-4 = 100,000 hours = decades
... But that does not agree with the basic Chargen rules.

Exponential, with effort.

0 = 20 hours
1 = 100 hours active study
2 = 1,000 hours, some roll for dedication, field experience
3 = 10,000 hours, plus above. This is 5 years of full time work.

I'd cap it at the 5 year mark. I don't know lots of skill 4s and 5s, but they could happen.

 

[atpollard]

My daughter will be graduating in May with a degree in nursing and then taking the RN exam. I would assume that would equate to about Medic-2.

No real argument from me.
Medic has too few data points, so your guesstimate is as good as mine.
However, in a way, you make my point.
Setting LPN at Medic-1 and RN at Medic-2 and M.D. at Medic-3
(or feel free to insert Paramedic as Medic-1 if you prefer)
... it is clear that one cannot use the time from 'unskilled' to medic-0 as the constant time value and just multiply it by three to be an RN (Medic-2).
Even stretching basic first aid training to medic-0 out to a month, it clearly takes more than two additional months to improve that to a Medic-2 RN.

I would not rate a professional Stunt Car driver at Skill Level 1. By so doing, you are trivializing the issue. Someone who can safely operate a motor vehicle in either downtown Chicago or downtown Los Angeles probably would be more like Skill Level 1, or maybe 2. I have friends that flatly refuse to drive in downtown Chicago as it exceeds their comfort level.

Probably a fair criticism.
Basing skill-1 as qualified to be employed at that task (ie. vehicle-1 is a professional driver = paid to drive for a living), then how long would it take, in your opinion, to reach the skill and confidence to drive in Chicago as a vocation? A taxi-driver or chauffeur?
This would be minimum skill to be competent.
A great taxi-driver would have a higher skill level.

Different skills require different learning times.

(Note: I have no quibble with the deleted part.)
And there is the rub.
In Traveller, a skill is a skill.
You learn so many in a 4 year term.
So how do you assign real world values that have at least a chance to map reasonably to the chargen rules.

Spoiler:

For me, the whole thing starting with Classic Traveller Book 4 and extending right up to Mongoose Traveller is troublesome.
I tend to view skills as BIG THINGS ... Skill one is roughly the combined experience of two years of life at a career.
So Medic-1 was a year of school and a year on the job, or two years of on-the-job training and experience. Driving-1 is 2 years of driving a truck or working as a cab driver or driving General Patton around in a Jeep.
I also recognize that few people are such a monomaniac that they spend all of their time and energy on a vocational skill. So I tend to limit skill level to the number of terms.

This is not how most people view Traveller skills, hence hiding it in the spoiler.
But I view skills as a mini-profession, not a task mastered.
YMMV

 

[CosmicGamer]

So how do you assign real world values that have at least a chance to map reasonably to the chargen rules.

Just don't do it.

In Traveller, a skill is a skill. You learn so many in a 4 year term.

I don't think you should use a term as a measurement for skills at all. It is not 4 years learning something, or multiple somethings.

A term is 4 years, yes, but there is absolutely nothing I am aware of in the rules that identifies how much time during a term was spent training vs performing duties both skill related and menial like sweeping up and taking out the trash, chasing after tail, playing video games, watching net-flicks, arguing in forums...

Then you have skill packages, a finishing touch where one could perceive chargen provides instantaneous "learning" of skills after the career portion of chargen is over.

Chargen rules and real world = Oxymoron to me.

 

[salochin999]

The question of skill limits relates to two things which may not matter to some or most.

1) If you want a system where characters can learn or improve skills after char gen then the rate they can learn and a limit on the total are the two ways to go about it.

I think having a maximum number of total skill ranks is only likely to matter (in the context of skill learning) if you want skill learning and also want it quite fast - like one rank per session or completed adventure (because you don't want to do any book keeping).

In a more steadily paced system as described in the OP a fixed limit may not matter.

#

2) The second reason is more general i.e. if you just like the idea of total skill ranks as a method of characterization i.e. sharpening the players view of their character i.e. describe your character in 12 skill ranks (or 16 or 21 or whatever). I like that but it's a personal preference.

#

Exponential, with effort.

0 = 20 hours
1 = 100 hours active study
2 = 1,000 hours, some roll for dedication, field experience
3 = 10,000 hours, plus above. This is 5 years of full time work.

I'd cap it at the 5 year mark. I don't know lots of skill 4s and 5s, but they could happen.

That seems like a good way to look at it.

So how do you assign real world values that have at least a chance to map reasonably to the chargen rules.

Leaving aside whether it's a good idea or not I'd say you'd have to divide the skills first
- physical skills
- academic skills
- artisan skills
- knack skills
(or something like that)

edit: for example characters could get a different number of rolls depending on what table they rolled on.

 

[CosmicGamer]

So how do you assign real world values that have at least a chance to map reasonably to the chargen rules.

Just don't do it.

I take this back. I was thinking of the standard random chargen.

There is the optional Point Allocation chargen system that may be helpful. Certainly not 100% realistic as no simple system can cover the complexity of real life and how different advancing various skills can be. But perhaps adequate for some people, or a good starting point. Just convert your method of advancing into points.

For examples
- You like a per game session system, you can give point(s) out each game session.
- You like advancement based on time spent studying/practicing, you can give out points based on such
- You want to stay with something close to the rules, the rules indicate 10 points per term

This also provides a system for those who want a way to work out or otherwise improve characteristics.

Some might want to consider having skill level points be cumulative. For example, to go from unskilled to skill level 2 would not be 4 points; it would be 1 to get L0, another 2 to go from level 0 to level 1, and another 4 to go from level 1 to level 2 for 7 points total to go from no skill to skill level 2. Provides more escalation in points for higher levels and going from no skill to level 2 being somewhat similar to several years of schooling and/or training before becoming a professional. Still allows accumulating many different low level skills - up to 10 level 0s in one "term".

 

[CosmicGamer]

First off, there is a big difference between it takes X amount of generic days/weeks/years to learn vs X amount of dedicated study hours.

There is a big difference between all you are doing is studying for that one thing, like going to college, vs it takes X amount of time to learn while also doing your normal daily work, like working a job or adventuring.

To learn how to safely operate a naval nuclear reactor onboard of a submarine took roughly 9 months for two of my brothers.

I was in a technical field in the service too. I know this is long hours dedicated to learning. It would take a lot longer if you had a separate 9 to 5 job too.

I know that the military only teaches you what you need to know for the job. The breadth of knowledge in the field of study is narrow compared to the breadth of knowledge one would get from something like college. After completing the Navy nuclear program, the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges degree program for the Navy requires additional study to even obtain an Associate in Applied Science degree in nuclear engineering technology. Traveller skills are even broader. Engineer 0 in Traveller would provide a level 0 skill in all of the Engineering specialties. Jump, Manuever, Life Support, Power, Electronics.

I was not in the nuclear program but some quick research indicates officers going through the program are required to have college-level courses in calculus and calculus-based physics before 3-6 months of Nuclear Field "A" School and then 6mo Nuclear Power School and then 6mo NPTU. Easily over a year of dedicated schooling as was my experience in another Navy technical field.

Additionally, level 0 is the lowest level of skill. After their training, your brothers were the most junior and unskilled nuclear tech on their very first day on the job. There was nobody less skilled than them unless they did not complete training and were still unskilled. What skill level does that make a graduate? In Traveller terms, with it's broad Engineering skill, it is not hard to equate this to Trade(operate and repair nuclear sub powerplant) 0.

They are very tough schools. Even an average INT EDU person may not qualify let alone make it through. But it is hard to equate this directly to Traveller skills.

Congratulations to your brothers. Thank them for me for their service.

 

[mike wightman]

The problem with the CT skill list is that the skills do not have equal weighting.

A technical skill takes 4 years of college study to get to level 2, while a combat skill can be learned in a few weeks with an instructor (although personally I think the instruction skill in LBB4 is broken).

A skill level of 1 in a technical skill can be earned during character generation by on the job training, representing training and experience no doubt but not spelled out, in a four year term, with luck you could earn a second level in it or level one in a different technical skill.