Thinking about Survival and Term Length

[Supplement Four]

I'm thinking about the Survival roll in CT CharGen...

Like most GMs I know, I've monkeyed with survival. I don't think I've ever let it "kill" a character during chargen. I'll wound him. I'll lower some of his stats. I'll force him into the game without further background developement. But, I've never said, "Hey, you failed survival. Roll up a new character."

I'm sure some of you GMs out there have done it. I just haven't.

Again, like most, I've figured some alternate rule for a failed survival. I'll "see if they're hurt", and then I'll let the character attempt to enlist in a second career (typically at a penalty).

But, is that a good plan? Letting PCs continue development after a failed survival?

I'm starting to think "not".

If you allow characters to continue developement after a failed Survival roll, what you end up with is, usually, a group in their 30's.

Yep, a player will, typically, take his character three terms and then muster out before he has to roll on the Ageing table.

Just look around at the PC's you've had in your games (I know I have in mine). The majority of them are 30 years old.

My philosopy on Survival is changing.

I'm still not thinking that a character should be "killed"--instead, the Optional Survival rule on page 18 of The Traveller Book seems appropriate.

But, I'm thinking that it should either be (A) hard to continue in another career, or (B) the failed survival roll signifies that some event has occurred in the character's life (he was fired from his job, discharged from a miltary service, or decided to make a career change) so that background generation is no longer possible. The character must begin at that point.

If I enact this type of view on the Survival roll, then we're going to get varied PC's in the campaign party. They're not all going to be 30 years old and have similar number of skills.

The group will be more life-like. You'll have characters of different ages. One character may have many skills while another has few.

I think I'm going to head that way with my game.

Right now, I have a rule in my game where, if a character bricks survival (he may be injured), he can still move on to another career.

What happens is this: The second career "try" recieves a -2DM on the enlistment throw. The third career "try" receives a -3DM. The fourth receives a -4DM, and so on.

For example, a Scout goes one term, makes survival, and re-ups. Second term, he fails survival. The character then decides to join the Army. He receives a -2DM on the enlistment roll, and fails enlistment. So, now he decides he want to be a Rogue. His enlistement is -3DM, and if he fails that, any fourth attempt at a career is a -4DM, and so on.

To be honest, I'm starting to shy away from this rule.

It doesn't make any sense to me that someone who is 30 years old, for example (when three terms in original career) can now join the Army for one term, pick up some combat skills, then muster out and start the game at 34.

My rule allows that. It needs to be changed.

The question is: How?

Should multiple-background-career characters be allowed in a CT game?

In spite of my "tone" here, I think the answer is "YES!".

There's a canonical reference (among several I've seen). Take Gvoudzon, the Vargr from The Traveller Adventure. He starts the game at age 38, having gone 5 terms, 2 as a Corsair and 3 as an Emissary.

So, I DO think that multiple career background characters should be possible ... I just think rolling one should be hard to accomplish.

Otherwise, we'll end up with average PC parties consisting of characters all in their 30's.

And ... maybe we should put some restrictions on which careers can be chosen as a second background career. I don't see too many 34 year olds, for example, going into the Marines.

Should we pick and label certain careers as "first-career-only"?

The sum of all these ramblings?

How do we implement this?

How do we make it possible that a character can attempt a second background career after failing a survival roll, yet make it unlikely that most characters will suceed in a second career enlistment?

I'm thinking a modifier (like what I mentioned above) to the enlistment roll of a second career attempt. But, we'll add to this the number of terms already served.

So, if a character goes two terms in the Scouts, musters out, and then tries to enlist in a second career, his modifier is -4. That's -2 for the second career attempt and -2 for the two terms he's already served in the Scouts.

If this character tried to join the Army, he'd need to roll 9+ (barring other enlistment DMs).

Thoughts?

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm thinking about the Survival roll in CT CharGen...

Like most GMs I know, I've monkeyed with survival. I don't think I've ever let it "kill" a character during chargen. I'll wound him. I'll lower some of his stats. I'll force him into the game without further background developement. But, I've never said, "Hey, you failed survival. Roll up a new character."

I'm sure some of you GMs out there have done it. I just haven't.

Again, like most, I've figured some alternate rule for a failed survival. I'll "see if they're hurt", and then I'll let the character attempt to enlist in a second career (typically at a penalty).

But, is that a good plan? Letting PCs continue development after a failed survival?

I'm starting to think "not".

If you allow characters to continue developement after a failed Survival roll, what you end up with is, usually, a group in their 30's.

Yep, a player will, typically, take his character three terms and then muster out before he has to roll on the Ageing table.

Just look around at the PC's you've had in your games (I know I have in mine). The majority of them are 30 years old.

My philosopy on Survival is changing.

I'm still not thinking that a character should be "killed"--instead, the Optional Survival rule on page 18 of The Traveller Book seems appropriate.

But, I'm thinking that it should either be (A) hard to continue in another career, or (B) the failed survival roll signifies that some event has occurred in the character's life (he was fired from his job, discharged from a miltary service, or decided to make a career change) so that background generation is no longer possible. The character must begin at that point.

If I enact this type of view on the Survival roll, then we're going to get varied PC's in the campaign party. They're not all going to be 30 years old and have similar number of skills.

The group will be more life-like. You'll have characters of different ages. One character may have many skills while another has few.

I think I'm going to head that way with my game.

Right now, I have a rule in my game where, if a character bricks survival (he may be injured), he can still move on to another career.

What happens is this: The second career "try" recieves a -2DM on the enlistment throw. The third career "try" receives a -3DM. The fourth receives a -4DM, and so on.

For example, a Scout goes one term, makes survival, and re-ups. Second term, he fails survival. The character then decides to join the Army. He receives a -2DM on the enlistment roll, and fails enlistment. So, now he decides he want to be a Rogue. His enlistement is -3DM, and if he fails that, any fourth attempt at a career is a -4DM, and so on.

To be honest, I'm starting to shy away from this rule.

It doesn't make any sense to me that someone who is 30 years old, for example (when three terms in original career) can now join the Army for one term, pick up some combat skills, then muster out and start the game at 34.

My rule allows that. It needs to be changed.

The question is: How?

Should multiple-background-career characters be allowed in a CT game?

In spite of my "tone" here, I think the answer is "YES!".

There's a canonical reference (among several I've seen). Take Gvoudzon, the Vargr from The Traveller Adventure. He starts the game at age 38, having gone 5 terms, 2 as a Corsair and 3 as an Emissary.

So, I DO think that multiple career background characters should be possible ... I just think rolling one should be hard to accomplish.

Otherwise, we'll end up with average PC parties consisting of characters all in their 30's.

And ... maybe we should put some restrictions on which careers can be chosen as a second background career. I don't see too many 34 year olds, for example, going into the Marines.

Should we pick and label certain careers as "first-career-only"?

The sum of all these ramblings?

How do we implement this?

How do we make it possible that a character can attempt a second background career after failing a survival roll, yet make it unlikely that most characters will suceed in a second career enlistment?

I'm thinking a modifier (like what I mentioned above) to the enlistment roll of a second career attempt. But, we'll add to this the number of terms already served.

So, if a character goes two terms in the Scouts, musters out, and then tries to enlist in a second career, his modifier is -4. That's -2 for the second career attempt and -2 for the two terms he's already served in the Scouts.

If this character tried to join the Army, he'd need to roll 9+ (barring other enlistment DMs).

Thoughts?

 

[Supplement Four]

And, Terms. I didn't address Term length.

Does it always have to be 4 years? In the military, this would make some sense (but why not a 6 year term? Or a 2 year commitment?). But, this doesn't make sense for other types of careers--especially civilian careers.

What would be the game effect if the number of years spent in a "term" were rolled? 1-6.

Maybe military careers are a straight 4-Year committment. But if, say, a character is a Rogue, or a Bureaucrat, or a Scientist, Hunter, Doctor ... the length of that character's "terms" is rolled by rolling 1D.

I'm just thinking out loud here in this thread.

What are your thoughts on this stuff?

 

[Supplement Four]

And, Terms. I didn't address Term length.

Does it always have to be 4 years? In the military, this would make some sense (but why not a 6 year term? Or a 2 year commitment?). But, this doesn't make sense for other types of careers--especially civilian careers.

What would be the game effect if the number of years spent in a "term" were rolled? 1-6.

Maybe military careers are a straight 4-Year committment. But if, say, a character is a Rogue, or a Bureaucrat, or a Scientist, Hunter, Doctor ... the length of that character's "terms" is rolled by rolling 1D.

I'm just thinking out loud here in this thread.

What are your thoughts on this stuff?

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by WJP:
There's a canonical reference (among several I've seen). Take Gvoudzon, the Vargr from The Traveller Adventure. He starts the game at age 38, having gone 5 terms, 2 as a Corsair and 3 as an Emissary.

Vargr have a specific provision in canon that provides for multiple careers.

That said, I have no problem with player characters with multiple starting careers. The enlistment roll for the second career is subject to a roll modifier of -terms served in the previous career, and the character is permitted no more than a +1 bonus for high attribute scores.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by WJP:
There's a canonical reference (among several I've seen). Take Gvoudzon, the Vargr from The Traveller Adventure. He starts the game at age 38, having gone 5 terms, 2 as a Corsair and 3 as an Emissary.

Vargr have a specific provision in canon that provides for multiple careers.

That said, I have no problem with player characters with multiple starting careers. The enlistment roll for the second career is subject to a roll modifier of -terms served in the previous career, and the character is permitted no more than a +1 bonus for high attribute scores.

 

[Spinward Scout]

Easy solution to your problem: add a -1DM at the change of careers point cumulative for total terms served, no matter which service/career. This IN ADDITION to the DM for how many careers served. But only apply that DM to the change of career enlistment roll for a new career. But I think I'd change the careers served DM to be: second career = -1DM, third career = -2DM, etc... Probably the same for terms served, too: first term = no DM (of course), two terms served = -1DM, three terms served = -2DM, ad nauseum.

EXAMPLE

Scout goes through the Scout service for 3 terms and fails the survival roll. Then Scout tries to Go Navy (and earn the nickname Scout Squid) which would give him an enlistment roll DM of -2DM for 3 terms served, and -1DM for trying for a second career. For a total DM to the enlistment roll of -3DM. How does that sound?

Wait, does that come out to the same thing you said? (I'm running on low sleep)

Different careers DO have different lengths of term. Teachers have tenure, doctors have internships, etc... It all depends on how YOU want to run it for your players. If you want to go through all the trouble of finding out what career does what, it may take up too much of your quality time when you could be doing something more productive. It's just Prior History. But that's just my opinion.

Dameon

 

[Spinward Scout]

Easy solution to your problem: add a -1DM at the change of careers point cumulative for total terms served, no matter which service/career. This IN ADDITION to the DM for how many careers served. But only apply that DM to the change of career enlistment roll for a new career. But I think I'd change the careers served DM to be: second career = -1DM, third career = -2DM, etc... Probably the same for terms served, too: first term = no DM (of course), two terms served = -1DM, three terms served = -2DM, ad nauseum.

EXAMPLE

Scout goes through the Scout service for 3 terms and fails the survival roll. Then Scout tries to Go Navy (and earn the nickname Scout Squid) which would give him an enlistment roll DM of -2DM for 3 terms served, and -1DM for trying for a second career. For a total DM to the enlistment roll of -3DM. How does that sound?

Wait, does that come out to the same thing you said? (I'm running on low sleep)

Different careers DO have different lengths of term. Teachers have tenure, doctors have internships, etc... It all depends on how YOU want to run it for your players. If you want to go through all the trouble of finding out what career does what, it may take up too much of your quality time when you could be doing something more productive. It's just Prior History. But that's just my opinion.

Dameon

 

[Whipsnade]

WJP,

We experimented with survival rolls and differing terms lengths too. Most of what we did wasn't too different from what you wrote.

We also played around with mixed careers, especially after seeing the CT Vargr Alien Module. I recently posted a few mixed or split career MT PCs/NPCs to the TML(1). Playing around with such characters is certainly a great deal of fun and, if handled correctly, they do not suffer from 'skills creep'.

I can understand from a meta-gaming standpoint the early CT survival roll and aging roll mechanisms. The only other RPG of note in the period; D&D, had the players start off as barely skilled young adults who 'matured' by gaining levels. Traveller OTOH had the players start off as 'retired' middle aged adults with all the skills they would ever learn. D&D PCs 'earned' their maturation by risking death in play in various adventures. Traveller PCs 'earned' their maturation by risking death in chargen. Chargen in most versions of Traveller has always been a game within the game!

As for the idea of different length terms, being navy nucs who had signed up for six years for a specific program we used that idea without batting an eyelash. One twist we added was the idea of an automatic school in addition to the longer term. A six year hitch using the yearly chargen would then be made up of 1st year 'boot camp' and 'basic training'; the automatic two rolls on your branch or MOS tables, follwed by a 2nd year 'advanced training'; the special duty schools associated with your branch/MOS, and finally the last 4 years determined normally.


Have fun,
Bill

1 - Alas, a system crash a few months back means I lost the DriveThruRPG MT freebie along with other materials! Don't be a dope like me, back up your hard drives!

 

[Whipsnade]

WJP,

We experimented with survival rolls and differing terms lengths too. Most of what we did wasn't too different from what you wrote.

We also played around with mixed careers, especially after seeing the CT Vargr Alien Module. I recently posted a few mixed or split career MT PCs/NPCs to the TML(1). Playing around with such characters is certainly a great deal of fun and, if handled correctly, they do not suffer from 'skills creep'.

I can understand from a meta-gaming standpoint the early CT survival roll and aging roll mechanisms. The only other RPG of note in the period; D&D, had the players start off as barely skilled young adults who 'matured' by gaining levels. Traveller OTOH had the players start off as 'retired' middle aged adults with all the skills they would ever learn. D&D PCs 'earned' their maturation by risking death in play in various adventures. Traveller PCs 'earned' their maturation by risking death in chargen. Chargen in most versions of Traveller has always been a game within the game!

As for the idea of different length terms, being navy nucs who had signed up for six years for a specific program we used that idea without batting an eyelash. One twist we added was the idea of an automatic school in addition to the longer term. A six year hitch using the yearly chargen would then be made up of 1st year 'boot camp' and 'basic training'; the automatic two rolls on your branch or MOS tables, follwed by a 2nd year 'advanced training'; the special duty schools associated with your branch/MOS, and finally the last 4 years determined normally.


Have fun,
Bill

1 - Alas, a system crash a few months back means I lost the DriveThruRPG MT freebie along with other materials! Don't be a dope like me, back up your hard drives!

 

[Supplement Four]

Term length is easy. I don't see any reason why Term length can't be 1D long instead of a 4 year stint. "4" is average on 1D anyway.

I think I might switch to that.

At least character ages will be varied that way. And, you can end up with a Merchant character, for example, who did three terms and is 22 years old, and another Merchant character, who is 24 years old and only did 2 terms.

I like that. It seems more realistic to me ... not breaking the 4th wall and maintaining the suspension of disbelief, and all that.

I don't see a "game" reason that the mechanics have to put characters through in 4 year blocks.

 

[Supplement Four]

Term length is easy. I don't see any reason why Term length can't be 1D long instead of a 4 year stint. "4" is average on 1D anyway.

I think I might switch to that.

At least character ages will be varied that way. And, you can end up with a Merchant character, for example, who did three terms and is 22 years old, and another Merchant character, who is 24 years old and only did 2 terms.

I like that. It seems more realistic to me ... not breaking the 4th wall and maintaining the suspension of disbelief, and all that.

I don't see a "game" reason that the mechanics have to put characters through in 4 year blocks.

 

[Supplement Four]

As far as enlistement in another career before the character is playe in the game, though, I'm thinking of basing this on the character's "opportunity".

And, that means his SOC.

Enlistment in a second career is a 2D for SOC or less proposition. DMs to the roll: +number of terms previously served; +career enlistment target number; +multicareer penalty.

+number of terms previously served = the number of terms the character has lived in previous careers.

+career enlistment target number = the roll required to enlist in the career.

+multicareer penalty = +2 for the second career attempt; +3 for the third career attempt; +4 for the fourth career attempt; and so on.

================
Example
================

Charli enters the Navy, serves two terms, then musters out. He's 25 years old (served 1 year in Term 1 and 6 years in Term 2).

Having been in the Navy for 7 years, he decides to join up on a Free Trader as a Merchant.

Charli is SOC-7, INT-5, STR-6. In order to enlist in a new career, Charli has to roll 7 or less on 2D. But, there's mods: +2 for the two terms he's already served in the Navy; +7 for the Merchant enlistment roll; +2 for the second career penalty.

The roll is 2D +10 for 7-.

Obviously, Charli won't be following the Merchant career path.

================

I like this. I like this a lot.

What this will do is preclude a character from enrolling in a second career most of the time. BUT, if a character has a high SOC, he'll probably have more opporutnities in life, and he might be able to move into another career before the character is played in the game.

Maybe a roll of snake eyes means that a second career IS possible, no matter the DMs. This would give everybody a chance, no matter their SOC.


================
Example
================

Riick is SOC-A, STR-7, INT-7, and he's just completed 1 Term in the Army.

Riick wants to attempt to be a Merchant as well, for a second career.

He must roll 10- on 2D.

DMs: +2 for second career penalty; +1 for previous terms; +7 for Merchant enlistment; -1 for STR bonus; -2 for INT bonus.

His adjusted roll is: 2D +7 for 10-.

So, Riick will make it if he rolls a "2" or a "3".

But, let's say Riick rolls a "5". No second career in the Merchants for him.

Now, let's say that Riick attempts a third career, as an Other.

His roll is 2D for 10-.

DMs are: +3 for Other enlistment; +3 for third career attempt; +1 for previous Terms.

Riick needs to roll 2D +7 for 10-.

Again, Riick will become an "Other" for at least one term if he can roll a 2 or 3 on 2D.


Ladies and Gents, I think this is my new rule for multiple careers in chargen. It makes it very hard to do another career, but the possibility is still there--it can happen.

I like it.

 

[Supplement Four]

As far as enlistement in another career before the character is playe in the game, though, I'm thinking of basing this on the character's "opportunity".

And, that means his SOC.

Enlistment in a second career is a 2D for SOC or less proposition. DMs to the roll: +number of terms previously served; +career enlistment target number; +multicareer penalty.

+number of terms previously served = the number of terms the character has lived in previous careers.

+career enlistment target number = the roll required to enlist in the career.

+multicareer penalty = +2 for the second career attempt; +3 for the third career attempt; +4 for the fourth career attempt; and so on.

================
Example
================

Charli enters the Navy, serves two terms, then musters out. He's 25 years old (served 1 year in Term 1 and 6 years in Term 2).

Having been in the Navy for 7 years, he decides to join up on a Free Trader as a Merchant.

Charli is SOC-7, INT-5, STR-6. In order to enlist in a new career, Charli has to roll 7 or less on 2D. But, there's mods: +2 for the two terms he's already served in the Navy; +7 for the Merchant enlistment roll; +2 for the second career penalty.

The roll is 2D +10 for 7-.

Obviously, Charli won't be following the Merchant career path.

================

I like this. I like this a lot.

What this will do is preclude a character from enrolling in a second career most of the time. BUT, if a character has a high SOC, he'll probably have more opporutnities in life, and he might be able to move into another career before the character is played in the game.

Maybe a roll of snake eyes means that a second career IS possible, no matter the DMs. This would give everybody a chance, no matter their SOC.


================
Example
================

Riick is SOC-A, STR-7, INT-7, and he's just completed 1 Term in the Army.

Riick wants to attempt to be a Merchant as well, for a second career.

He must roll 10- on 2D.

DMs: +2 for second career penalty; +1 for previous terms; +7 for Merchant enlistment; -1 for STR bonus; -2 for INT bonus.

His adjusted roll is: 2D +7 for 10-.

So, Riick will make it if he rolls a "2" or a "3".

But, let's say Riick rolls a "5". No second career in the Merchants for him.

Now, let's say that Riick attempts a third career, as an Other.

His roll is 2D for 10-.

DMs are: +3 for Other enlistment; +3 for third career attempt; +1 for previous Terms.

Riick needs to roll 2D +7 for 10-.

Again, Riick will become an "Other" for at least one term if he can roll a 2 or 3 on 2D.


Ladies and Gents, I think this is my new rule for multiple careers in chargen. It makes it very hard to do another career, but the possibility is still there--it can happen.

I like it.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by WJP:
Penalties to Multi-Career Throw (2D for SOC or less)

+number of terms previously served = the number of terms the character has lived in previous careers.

+career enlistment target number = the roll required to enlist in the career.

+multicareer penalty = +2 for the second career attempt; +3 for the third career attempt; +4 for the fourth career attempt; and so on.

I'm thinking that last bit about multi-career penalty is not needed. The rolls are hard enough.

I think just number of terms and enlistment number is all that's needed.

It makes a second career a little more likely to be attained without it happening often.

Let's drop the multi-career DM.


So...

2D for SOC or less.

DM: + number of terms previously served; + enlistment number of new career.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by WJP:
Penalties to Multi-Career Throw (2D for SOC or less)

+number of terms previously served = the number of terms the character has lived in previous careers.

+career enlistment target number = the roll required to enlist in the career.

+multicareer penalty = +2 for the second career attempt; +3 for the third career attempt; +4 for the fourth career attempt; and so on.

I'm thinking that last bit about multi-career penalty is not needed. The rolls are hard enough.

I think just number of terms and enlistment number is all that's needed.

It makes a second career a little more likely to be attained without it happening often.

Let's drop the multi-career DM.


So...

2D for SOC or less.

DM: + number of terms previously served; + enlistment number of new career.

 

[Maladominus]

Originally posted by WJP:
I'm thinking about the Survival roll in CT CharGen...

Like most GMs I know, I've monkeyed with survival. I don't think I've ever let it "kill" a character during chargen. I'll wound him. I'll lower some of his stats.

This is the same thing I do. As a GM, it makes no sense for "kill" a character, only to waste the next 20 minutes trying to re-roll a similar character again for that same player.

If the player fails Survival roll, I will permanently dock off 1 point of a physical attribute. I will also dock off ONE mustering out roll, telling the character that he must pay for his HOSPITALIZATION EXPENSES, due to his traumatic service injury.

And each time that happens I remind the Player: "Umm you realize that the older you get and the more terms you serve, you'll end up with an old weakened crippled multiple-injury character, right? You really should cut your losses and consider mustering out now while you're still healthy."

The point is that IF the GM allows the characters to serve LOTS of terms, the characters are bound to end up with a ridiculous amount of Skill Points. This is why Traveller GMs are given a way to discourage players from seeking the "tons of terms, tons of skill" ambition. It all comes down to game balance.

 

[Maladominus]

Originally posted by WJP:
I'm thinking about the Survival roll in CT CharGen...

Like most GMs I know, I've monkeyed with survival. I don't think I've ever let it "kill" a character during chargen. I'll wound him. I'll lower some of his stats.

This is the same thing I do. As a GM, it makes no sense for "kill" a character, only to waste the next 20 minutes trying to re-roll a similar character again for that same player.

If the player fails Survival roll, I will permanently dock off 1 point of a physical attribute. I will also dock off ONE mustering out roll, telling the character that he must pay for his HOSPITALIZATION EXPENSES, due to his traumatic service injury.

And each time that happens I remind the Player: "Umm you realize that the older you get and the more terms you serve, you'll end up with an old weakened crippled multiple-injury character, right? You really should cut your losses and consider mustering out now while you're still healthy."

The point is that IF the GM allows the characters to serve LOTS of terms, the characters are bound to end up with a ridiculous amount of Skill Points. This is why Traveller GMs are given a way to discourage players from seeking the "tons of terms, tons of skill" ambition. It all comes down to game balance.

 

[kafka47]

If the characters IYTU, have not yet retired and still and are in "Active Duty" the survival roll can sometimes be the same as a "Take 20" rule. This simulates the cinematic and dramatic moments that one can always have in the course of one's careers.

Term length, I tend to go with Advanced Chargen, one year assignments tend toward better adventuring with without building ubercharacters.

 

[kafka47]

If the characters IYTU, have not yet retired and still and are in "Active Duty" the survival roll can sometimes be the same as a "Take 20" rule. This simulates the cinematic and dramatic moments that one can always have in the course of one's careers.

Term length, I tend to go with Advanced Chargen, one year assignments tend toward better adventuring with without building ubercharacters.