So, you've failed your survival roll...

[aramis]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Most of the GURPS players I know build remakably similar characters time and time again.

Likewise, I know a player who, if it's D&D in any stripe, plays a dwarf fighter. Every time.

So some people like playing the same sort of characters - since when is that a bad thing? Why is being lumbered with a character you don't necessarily want to play somehow "better" than having one you do want to play?
</font>[/QUOTE]better is a relative term. I, as a GM, despise carbon-copy characters. I'm in it to see a variety of different PC's succeed (or even fail, if they earn that failure).

Playing the same character in incarnation xx is BORING for me, as a GM, and Boring to those who try new things.

Players who take and resurrect a favorite character by going back to a "Saved Version" may as well be playng Paranoia or CRPG's.

In short, playing a particular archetype is a major bit of lazyness on the part of the player so doing. Fine, if the group acccepts it. Most of my players don't, and I as a GM don't.

In fact, I see determinism as the biggest flaw in most current games CG models.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In CT, you have some choices. You have a lot of chances.

You have very few choices in CT. Pretty much everything is down to chance, and that is what I find intolerable about it as a chargen system. </font>[/QUOTE]Lets see:
Roll atts, yup no choices
Pick service. That is a choice... could be overridden in next step.
roll to get into service: Hmm, chance rears ugly head.
if not in service now, take draft.
Roll commission, promo.
Pick tables to roll upon for skills. Chocies... 1 or more per term.
Roll skills.
Pick which skills from the cascades rolled.
Decide whether or not to attempt reenlisment.
Roll for reenlistment.

MT allowed somewhat more choices, by increasing the number of cascades.
TNE allowed even more choices; other than 1st term in a given service, skills are purchased.
2300: same as TNE, except that even 1st term has chosen skills purchased, in addition to the free ones.
TNE was a revamp of T2K 2E... and had essentially the same mechanics, along with DC.
T2K1E was very fatist in CG. Lots of rolling. And you knew you'd wind up US Army Infantry...

The common theme amongst most GDW games (Traveller; 2300; T2K; DC) was that you are NOT in total control of your charaacter's development, but that you have choices to make, and those choices are reflective of the types of choices and outcomes which the real world puts forth.

The few that didn't use fate in CG were oddballs, not the mainstream: Cadilacs and Dinosaurs, Space 1889. Both were fast to play, and well done, but lacked both the minigame aspects of Traveller CG, and the thrill of playing a character who at first looked unpromising.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Most of the GURPS players I know build remakably similar characters time and time again.

Likewise, I know a player who, if it's D&D in any stripe, plays a dwarf fighter. Every time.

So some people like playing the same sort of characters - since when is that a bad thing? Why is being lumbered with a character you don't necessarily want to play somehow "better" than having one you do want to play?
</font>[/QUOTE]better is a relative term. I, as a GM, despise carbon-copy characters. I'm in it to see a variety of different PC's succeed (or even fail, if they earn that failure).

Playing the same character in incarnation xx is BORING for me, as a GM, and Boring to those who try new things.

Players who take and resurrect a favorite character by going back to a "Saved Version" may as well be playng Paranoia or CRPG's.

In short, playing a particular archetype is a major bit of lazyness on the part of the player so doing. Fine, if the group acccepts it. Most of my players don't, and I as a GM don't.

In fact, I see determinism as the biggest flaw in most current games CG models.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In CT, you have some choices. You have a lot of chances.

You have very few choices in CT. Pretty much everything is down to chance, and that is what I find intolerable about it as a chargen system. </font>[/QUOTE]Lets see:
Roll atts, yup no choices
Pick service. That is a choice... could be overridden in next step.
roll to get into service: Hmm, chance rears ugly head.
if not in service now, take draft.
Roll commission, promo.
Pick tables to roll upon for skills. Chocies... 1 or more per term.
Roll skills.
Pick which skills from the cascades rolled.
Decide whether or not to attempt reenlisment.
Roll for reenlistment.

MT allowed somewhat more choices, by increasing the number of cascades.
TNE allowed even more choices; other than 1st term in a given service, skills are purchased.
2300: same as TNE, except that even 1st term has chosen skills purchased, in addition to the free ones.
TNE was a revamp of T2K 2E... and had essentially the same mechanics, along with DC.
T2K1E was very fatist in CG. Lots of rolling. And you knew you'd wind up US Army Infantry...

The common theme amongst most GDW games (Traveller; 2300; T2K; DC) was that you are NOT in total control of your charaacter's development, but that you have choices to make, and those choices are reflective of the types of choices and outcomes which the real world puts forth.

The few that didn't use fate in CG were oddballs, not the mainstream: Cadilacs and Dinosaurs, Space 1889. Both were fast to play, and well done, but lacked both the minigame aspects of Traveller CG, and the thrill of playing a character who at first looked unpromising.

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Originally posted by RobertFisher:
...something like GURPS where you have a A4 sheet full of stuff that actually makes a difference.

...Or even worse, doesn't make any difference!

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Originally posted by RobertFisher:
...something like GURPS where you have a A4 sheet full of stuff that actually makes a difference.

...Or even worse, doesn't make any difference!

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Playing the same character in incarnation xx is BORING for me, as a GM, and Boring to those who try new things.

Yes, but even as a GM, you don't get to tell your players what they find enjoyable. Most people nowadays like to have some control over their characters, in any RPG (even in computer RPGs). And if players like to play characters that are in the same mould in each game, then they will. If you don't like that in your games, then you won't get those players.

Players who take and resurrect a favorite character by going back to a "Saved Version" may as well be playng Paranoia or CRPG's.

Personally, I've never seen that happen, and I've played a LOT of GURPS.

In short, playing a particular archetype is a major bit of lazyness on the part of the player so doing. Fine, if the group acccepts it. Most of my players don't, and I as a GM don't.

I don't think it's lazy at all. Do you think that actors who play similar roles all the time are "lazy"?

In fact, I see determinism as the biggest flaw in most current games CG models.

So in your ideal world, every aspect of every RPG would be based on random chance?

Wow. Just when I thought I couldn't disagree with you on anything even more than I already do... do you see life as being entirely random too? That people have absolutely no control over what happens to them?

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Playing the same character in incarnation xx is BORING for me, as a GM, and Boring to those who try new things.

Yes, but even as a GM, you don't get to tell your players what they find enjoyable. Most people nowadays like to have some control over their characters, in any RPG (even in computer RPGs). And if players like to play characters that are in the same mould in each game, then they will. If you don't like that in your games, then you won't get those players.

Players who take and resurrect a favorite character by going back to a "Saved Version" may as well be playng Paranoia or CRPG's.

Personally, I've never seen that happen, and I've played a LOT of GURPS.

In short, playing a particular archetype is a major bit of lazyness on the part of the player so doing. Fine, if the group acccepts it. Most of my players don't, and I as a GM don't.

I don't think it's lazy at all. Do you think that actors who play similar roles all the time are "lazy"?

In fact, I see determinism as the biggest flaw in most current games CG models.

So in your ideal world, every aspect of every RPG would be based on random chance?

Wow. Just when I thought I couldn't disagree with you on anything even more than I already do... do you see life as being entirely random too? That people have absolutely no control over what happens to them?

 

[aramis]

No, generally said actors are often, to me, boring.

As a GM, I generally have had no problem finding new players. In fact, the problem has been finding players I can put up with.

Determinism as a facet of CG has a place... but not, IMO, being the sole force in CG.

People make choices; the outcomes are only semi-controlled. Let's say you decide to go to a Grad School. You apply, including interview, but the actual determination of acceptance is, for the most part, one of random elements. Are you of the needed ethnic/gender/social types? Are you of acceptable Academic proficiency? Are you in need of funding or will you be able to pay? Did you interview well ? Did the interviewer appreciate or despise your stye of answer? Did you place high enough on the standardized tests? How many people applied for how many slots? Lots of things, the control over which is beyond the applicant's control.

For character generation, the level of choice in MT is fine for me as a player, and is sufficient for most players to get a character with the key skills they wanted.

I should ammend my prior statement: Determinism as the sole mode of CG is, IMO, the worst flaw of modern game designs.

Heck, it's even in D&D3E (You can make 3E characters comepletely non-randomly.... but not in my game!)

I don't see random chance as the primary determinant for many things in roleplay; I do, however, subscribe to the "A good narrative is worth a good DM on the roll" school of GMing. if its not OBVIOUSLY in the character's competency, I make them roll.

I've been GMing various games for over 25 years now... and I've seen the Carbon Copy Character far too often. More often in point based games (Hero, GURPS) than in template/priority pool games (WOD, Shadowrun), but when it occurs, it's a denial of the story which has happened so far. At least in Trveller, I've only seen it from someone too lazy (and stupid) to bother with CG a second time... he presented the character, and was promptly handed ripped shreds of paper. (I, too, keep track...)

I GM for my own amusement. Players who cease to be amusing cease to get invited.

Players who present a killed/incarcerated/otherwise-removed-from-game character as a replacement for self-same character earn my wrath; it is an insult. It's happened to me far too often.

Mind, however, I'm not opposed to players haivng concept characters; that indeed was part of the idea behind GURPS, Hero, CORPS, EABA, Shadowrun, Mechwarior 1E/2E.. etc... pick a concept, fit to the proposed campaign, and make a character to fit. The problem is that far too many players fail to show any signs of character nor personal growth; that is just bad literature... and RPG's should become oral literature.

 

[aramis]

No, generally said actors are often, to me, boring.

As a GM, I generally have had no problem finding new players. In fact, the problem has been finding players I can put up with.

Determinism as a facet of CG has a place... but not, IMO, being the sole force in CG.

People make choices; the outcomes are only semi-controlled. Let's say you decide to go to a Grad School. You apply, including interview, but the actual determination of acceptance is, for the most part, one of random elements. Are you of the needed ethnic/gender/social types? Are you of acceptable Academic proficiency? Are you in need of funding or will you be able to pay? Did you interview well ? Did the interviewer appreciate or despise your stye of answer? Did you place high enough on the standardized tests? How many people applied for how many slots? Lots of things, the control over which is beyond the applicant's control.

For character generation, the level of choice in MT is fine for me as a player, and is sufficient for most players to get a character with the key skills they wanted.

I should ammend my prior statement: Determinism as the sole mode of CG is, IMO, the worst flaw of modern game designs.

Heck, it's even in D&D3E (You can make 3E characters comepletely non-randomly.... but not in my game!)

I don't see random chance as the primary determinant for many things in roleplay; I do, however, subscribe to the "A good narrative is worth a good DM on the roll" school of GMing. if its not OBVIOUSLY in the character's competency, I make them roll.

I've been GMing various games for over 25 years now... and I've seen the Carbon Copy Character far too often. More often in point based games (Hero, GURPS) than in template/priority pool games (WOD, Shadowrun), but when it occurs, it's a denial of the story which has happened so far. At least in Trveller, I've only seen it from someone too lazy (and stupid) to bother with CG a second time... he presented the character, and was promptly handed ripped shreds of paper. (I, too, keep track...)

I GM for my own amusement. Players who cease to be amusing cease to get invited.

Players who present a killed/incarcerated/otherwise-removed-from-game character as a replacement for self-same character earn my wrath; it is an insult. It's happened to me far too often.

Mind, however, I'm not opposed to players haivng concept characters; that indeed was part of the idea behind GURPS, Hero, CORPS, EABA, Shadowrun, Mechwarior 1E/2E.. etc... pick a concept, fit to the proposed campaign, and make a character to fit. The problem is that far too many players fail to show any signs of character nor personal growth; that is just bad literature... and RPG's should become oral literature.

 

[Malenfant]

I don't recall how MT does chargen, I should have a look at that again.

People make choices; the outcomes are only semi-controlled. Let's say you decide to go to a Grad School. You apply, including interview, but the actual determination of acceptance is, for the most part, one of random elements. Are you of the needed ethnic/gender/social types? Are you of acceptable Academic proficiency? Are you in need of funding or will you be able to pay? Did you interview well ? Did the interviewer appreciate or despise your stye of answer? Did you place high enough on the standardized tests? How many people applied for how many slots? Lots of things, the control over which is beyond the applicant's control.

Yes, but chances are that you're not applying for just the one job. Therefore, if you were serious about job hunting, you'd probably have multiple interviews within a few weeks. In CT, if you fail the enlistment roll then that's it - you don't get another chance for four years, and you submit to a random draft where you end up probably doing something military instead.

Say I'm a PC trying to join the Merchant Service. According to CT if I fail to find a trader to work on, then I've got a 5 in 6 chance of being drafted into some completely different job, and possibly won't get out of that for several four-year terms.

For all you say that you have to play what you're dealt with, CT is presenting a ridiculously extreme situation. Are we really expected to believe that if you can't find something on your very first attempt then you would automatically be drafted? That there's absolutely no chance of you finding another merchant interested in hiring you before the military drags you screaming into boot camp?

And do I understand correctly that in CT you can't even leave the service you're in and join another one? That if you leave the service, you HAVE to muster out and start play? Heck, it even looks like if you leave before your fifth term you don't get any retirement pay (no wonder most CT characters are old guys

).

And people like this system?! And you claim it's realistic?!

 

[Malenfant]

I don't recall how MT does chargen, I should have a look at that again.

People make choices; the outcomes are only semi-controlled. Let's say you decide to go to a Grad School. You apply, including interview, but the actual determination of acceptance is, for the most part, one of random elements. Are you of the needed ethnic/gender/social types? Are you of acceptable Academic proficiency? Are you in need of funding or will you be able to pay? Did you interview well ? Did the interviewer appreciate or despise your stye of answer? Did you place high enough on the standardized tests? How many people applied for how many slots? Lots of things, the control over which is beyond the applicant's control.

Yes, but chances are that you're not applying for just the one job. Therefore, if you were serious about job hunting, you'd probably have multiple interviews within a few weeks. In CT, if you fail the enlistment roll then that's it - you don't get another chance for four years, and you submit to a random draft where you end up probably doing something military instead.

Say I'm a PC trying to join the Merchant Service. According to CT if I fail to find a trader to work on, then I've got a 5 in 6 chance of being drafted into some completely different job, and possibly won't get out of that for several four-year terms.

For all you say that you have to play what you're dealt with, CT is presenting a ridiculously extreme situation. Are we really expected to believe that if you can't find something on your very first attempt then you would automatically be drafted? That there's absolutely no chance of you finding another merchant interested in hiring you before the military drags you screaming into boot camp?

And do I understand correctly that in CT you can't even leave the service you're in and join another one? That if you leave the service, you HAVE to muster out and start play? Heck, it even looks like if you leave before your fifth term you don't get any retirement pay (no wonder most CT characters are old guys

).

And people like this system?! And you claim it's realistic?!

 

[Elliot]

Point taken about changing careers - as someone who has moved jobs radically in my life, it is highly limiting. Of course, everyone used to fudge that rule by just re rolling enlistment again (but that was never official).

The main differences with MT is that you get: (a) more cascades, so you can pick your skills, (b) in basic CG more skill 'points' so you have less chance of producing a complete dork that you pray is snuffed out in CG, (c) brownie points, so you can fudge rolls.

I still say that a hybrid random/points CG system is the best - that way you get a character the player wants and one that has some forethought in creation. It beats the level one D&D syndrome (which is why a common fudge in 1st ed AD&D, at least in my neck of the woods, was to roll 1d4 to get your starting level).

You also have the maligned action points which, to me (I was moderately generous) was a fairly good way of improving a character over the campaign.

 

[Elliot]

Point taken about changing careers - as someone who has moved jobs radically in my life, it is highly limiting. Of course, everyone used to fudge that rule by just re rolling enlistment again (but that was never official).

The main differences with MT is that you get: (a) more cascades, so you can pick your skills, (b) in basic CG more skill 'points' so you have less chance of producing a complete dork that you pray is snuffed out in CG, (c) brownie points, so you can fudge rolls.

I still say that a hybrid random/points CG system is the best - that way you get a character the player wants and one that has some forethought in creation. It beats the level one D&D syndrome (which is why a common fudge in 1st ed AD&D, at least in my neck of the woods, was to roll 1d4 to get your starting level).

You also have the maligned action points which, to me (I was moderately generous) was a fairly good way of improving a character over the campaign.

 

[clementk]

The ability to switch careers almost ad hoc in T20 is one thing I would like to see in a Revised CT. Also that in T20 you can be serving in the Navy say but as a shifty depot clerk (Navy/Rogue multiclass) or an ex-barbarian cargo hand (Barbarian/Traveller multiclass) for example.

Interestingly D&D3E (and by extension d20) has a d100 lifepath option of sorts in Unearthed Arcana based on year.

Casey

 

[clementk]

The ability to switch careers almost ad hoc in T20 is one thing I would like to see in a Revised CT. Also that in T20 you can be serving in the Navy say but as a shifty depot clerk (Navy/Rogue multiclass) or an ex-barbarian cargo hand (Barbarian/Traveller multiclass) for example.

Interestingly D&D3E (and by extension d20) has a d100 lifepath option of sorts in Unearthed Arcana based on year.

Casey

 

[robject]

In fact, the Navy Depot Clerk sounds like a career + a "Life Pursuit". Perhaps CTR should allow players to "major" in a particular skill as a life pursuit. Thus you get Naval doctors, Army doctors, heck, even Rogue doctors. Etc.

 

[robject]

In fact, the Navy Depot Clerk sounds like a career + a "Life Pursuit". Perhaps CTR should allow players to "major" in a particular skill as a life pursuit. Thus you get Naval doctors, Army doctors, heck, even Rogue doctors. Etc.

 

[RobertFisher]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
For all you say that you have to play what you're dealt with, CT is presenting a ridiculously extreme situation. Are we really expected to believe that if you can't find something on your very first attempt then you would automatically be drafted? That there's absolutely no chance of you finding another merchant interested in hiring you before the military drags you screaming into boot camp?

It's a game.

And people like this system?! And you claim it's realistic?!

Yes. I like the system. Because it is a fun game.

Realistic is relative. Arguably, I like CT because it is unrealistic more than I like it because it is realistic.

And while CT chargen is a fun game as written, it is also a part of a roleplaying game. The referee & players can treat chargen as guidelines that don't need to be strictly adheared to.

 

[RobertFisher]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
For all you say that you have to play what you're dealt with, CT is presenting a ridiculously extreme situation. Are we really expected to believe that if you can't find something on your very first attempt then you would automatically be drafted? That there's absolutely no chance of you finding another merchant interested in hiring you before the military drags you screaming into boot camp?

It's a game.

And people like this system?! And you claim it's realistic?!

Yes. I like the system. Because it is a fun game.

Realistic is relative. Arguably, I like CT because it is unrealistic more than I like it because it is realistic.

And while CT chargen is a fun game as written, it is also a part of a roleplaying game. The referee & players can treat chargen as guidelines that don't need to be strictly adheared to.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by RobertFisher:
It's a game.

So? People have been saying that this sort of system is realistic because you supposedly can't choose where you end up in real life. So when I point out that real life is nothing like this at all, the best response you can come up with is "it's a game?".

Realistic is relative. Arguably, I like CT because it is unrealistic more than I like it because it is realistic.

Well no, it's not really relative. You can objectively define a realistic system as one that makes an effort to model the real world as closely as possible. An unrealistic system doesn't do that, and given the observations above I don't see any reason to believe that - in terms of character generation at least - CT could justifiably called 'realistic'. But it sounds like you accept that it isn't, so I'm not arguing with you

.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by RobertFisher:
It's a game.

So? People have been saying that this sort of system is realistic because you supposedly can't choose where you end up in real life. So when I point out that real life is nothing like this at all, the best response you can come up with is "it's a game?".

Realistic is relative. Arguably, I like CT because it is unrealistic more than I like it because it is realistic.

Well no, it's not really relative. You can objectively define a realistic system as one that makes an effort to model the real world as closely as possible. An unrealistic system doesn't do that, and given the observations above I don't see any reason to believe that - in terms of character generation at least - CT could justifiably called 'realistic'. But it sounds like you accept that it isn't, so I'm not arguing with you

.