The most AMAZING CT character I've ever seen...

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

The seven-term limit does indeed seem somewhat odd; I think it fits the military careers but not the civilian ones, and I'm not really sure what it means for Nobles. I consider it one of those metagame rules that is eminently optional.

The "terms+ to re-enlist" is a ready alternate rule, we might have used that back in the day.

Note that Bureaucrats "must throw re-enlistment or higher to leave the service before retirement", which is an interesting twist, although at 3+ it essentially just re-implements the mandatory re-enlistment rule.

Also note "Barbarians cannot retire" ... once a barbarian, always a barbarian. You can lead a barbarian to water, but you cannot make him bathe ...

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

The seven-term limit does indeed seem somewhat odd; I think it fits the military careers but not the civilian ones, and I'm not really sure what it means for Nobles. I consider it one of those metagame rules that is eminently optional.

The "terms+ to re-enlist" is a ready alternate rule, we might have used that back in the day.

Note that Bureaucrats "must throw re-enlistment or higher to leave the service before retirement", which is an interesting twist, although at 3+ it essentially just re-implements the mandatory re-enlistment rule.

Also note "Barbarians cannot retire" ... once a barbarian, always a barbarian. You can lead a barbarian to water, but you cannot make him bathe ...

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by WJP:
This seems more like a game mechanic just for a rule's sake (to keep characters from doing what the one in my game did last night).

Yeah, this was definitely an anti-uber-geezer rule. Interestingly, it seems Marc has (now that he has aged, maybe?) come around to the idea of possibly liking uber-geezers.....

Though I think your suggested mechanic is decent, I would stick with the limit IMTU - just to discourage the attempt for an uber-geezer, especially one that ends up being unplayable in the end because he misses that last roll. Of course, all rules are fudgeable with good enough bribery.... er, uh, reasoning.

Originally posted by WJP:
I like coming up with stuff like this, too--these 'easter eggs'--and then springing them on the players mid-campaign. Having them discover something new about themselves just when they thought they knew everything about their characters.

It can also make your players plot to kill you - start watching for cyanide-laced pretzels. You might want to use this dice-god to taste all your snacks during the gaming sessions........

Yeah, you're going to need something for a monkey wrench in the works, though.

Originally posted by FlightCommanderSolitude:
You can lead a barbarian to water, but you cannot make him bathe ...

Though my Barbarian, Dejah, would take issue with that. And, when she takes issue with something you've said, you'd better watch out!

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by WJP:
This seems more like a game mechanic just for a rule's sake (to keep characters from doing what the one in my game did last night).

Yeah, this was definitely an anti-uber-geezer rule. Interestingly, it seems Marc has (now that he has aged, maybe?) come around to the idea of possibly liking uber-geezers.....

Though I think your suggested mechanic is decent, I would stick with the limit IMTU - just to discourage the attempt for an uber-geezer, especially one that ends up being unplayable in the end because he misses that last roll. Of course, all rules are fudgeable with good enough bribery.... er, uh, reasoning.

Originally posted by WJP:
I like coming up with stuff like this, too--these 'easter eggs'--and then springing them on the players mid-campaign. Having them discover something new about themselves just when they thought they knew everything about their characters.

It can also make your players plot to kill you - start watching for cyanide-laced pretzels. You might want to use this dice-god to taste all your snacks during the gaming sessions........

Yeah, you're going to need something for a monkey wrench in the works, though.

Originally posted by FlightCommanderSolitude:
You can lead a barbarian to water, but you cannot make him bathe ...

Though my Barbarian, Dejah, would take issue with that. And, when she takes issue with something you've said, you'd better watch out!

 

[Spiderfish]

Originally posted by Lord Iron Wolf:
Hmmm,

62 years old and a 14 strength, incredible luck and no real physical or mental degeneration... Sounds like Zhodani or something to do with psionics to me. Unrealized perhaps but still a practicing one a well known black science.

Well since strength 14 only gives you double the lifting capacity of the average strength seven character in CT rules in real life it's more than possible.

There are more than a few 62 year olds who could put up twice the iron of the average man. Of course most of them were much stronger in their thirties and forties.

Of course this brings up the inadequacies of CT physical stats, people make bones about the possibility of a Marine never getting skills in vac suits or rifles but fail to notice that the system is sort of broken the moment the first d6 hits the table.

Of course when i'm playing I don't actually worry about this I just don't regard F as the arbitary limit of human strength.

 

[Spiderfish]

Originally posted by Lord Iron Wolf:
Hmmm,

62 years old and a 14 strength, incredible luck and no real physical or mental degeneration... Sounds like Zhodani or something to do with psionics to me. Unrealized perhaps but still a practicing one a well known black science.

Well since strength 14 only gives you double the lifting capacity of the average strength seven character in CT rules in real life it's more than possible.

There are more than a few 62 year olds who could put up twice the iron of the average man. Of course most of them were much stronger in their thirties and forties.

Of course this brings up the inadequacies of CT physical stats, people make bones about the possibility of a Marine never getting skills in vac suits or rifles but fail to notice that the system is sort of broken the moment the first d6 hits the table.

Of course when i'm playing I don't actually worry about this I just don't regard F as the arbitary limit of human strength.

 

[Prospero]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
[QB] WJP, one other thing you're changing is the (admittedly spottily documented) INT + EDU limit. This guy has 25 skill levels! Plus all those stat bonuses he rolled.... BTW, did you incorporate the +2 only rule for attributes?

Does any one have a page reference for the INT +EDU rule in CT? That and the +2 attribute rule? I remember them from MT but haven't been able to find the refs in CT.

Thanks
NT

 

[Prospero]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
[QB] WJP, one other thing you're changing is the (admittedly spottily documented) INT + EDU limit. This guy has 25 skill levels! Plus all those stat bonuses he rolled.... BTW, did you incorporate the +2 only rule for attributes?

Does any one have a page reference for the INT +EDU rule in CT? That and the +2 attribute rule? I remember them from MT but haven't been able to find the refs in CT.

Thanks
NT

 

[mike wightman]

I can't find the +2 attribute rule in MT, can anyone point me to it?

The Int + Edu limit first appeared in the core rules in the ©1982 Traveller Book - the ©1981 revised edition didn't have it in.

 

[mike wightman]

I can't find the +2 attribute rule in MT, can anyone point me to it?

The Int + Edu limit first appeared in the core rules in the ©1982 Traveller Book - the ©1981 revised edition didn't have it in.

 

[jfetters]

I think the +2 attribute rule is a TNE thing (Update - Found on TNE page 20). I don't recall it from CT or MT.

INT + EDU is in MT on p.15 of the Players Manual.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

LBB7, pg 31, under Skill Limitations. Also, LBB8, pg 35, last paragraph (yes, it mentions it in the Robot book...).

I don't think it was ever an issue with LBB1 rules, as you only got (max) a couple of skills per term. By LBB7, I'm sure they were seeing munchkin Mercs and Scouts.

 

[jfetters]

I think the +2 attribute rule is a TNE thing (Update - Found on TNE page 20). I don't recall it from CT or MT.

INT + EDU is in MT on p.15 of the Players Manual.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

LBB7, pg 31, under Skill Limitations. Also, LBB8, pg 35, last paragraph (yes, it mentions it in the Robot book...).

I don't think it was ever an issue with LBB1 rules, as you only got (max) a couple of skills per term. By LBB7, I'm sure they were seeing munchkin Mercs and Scouts.

 

[mike wightman]

Unfortunately the resumes of the mercs in LBB4 break the rule, as do several NPCs in the Veterans supplement

If I search through 1001 characters there's probably some examples in there that break this rule too
[edit] Merchant 135 First Officer [/edit]

 

[mike wightman]

Unfortunately the resumes of the mercs in LBB4 break the rule, as do several NPCs in the Veterans supplement

If I search through 1001 characters there's probably some examples in there that break this rule too
[edit] Merchant 135 First Officer [/edit]

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, that's probably why it first shows up in LBB7....

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, that's probably why it first shows up in LBB7....

 

[mike wightman]

LBB7 is ©1985, it first shows up in rules in the ©1982 Traveller Book , although it may have got a mention somewhere earlier...

 

[mike wightman]

LBB7 is ©1985, it first shows up in rules in the ©1982 Traveller Book , although it may have got a mention somewhere earlier...