While the 1D6 years per term is interesting I'm not sure it adds enough to the game to warrant the extra bookeeping. Anyway, on to the survival question...
How about this as a simple alternate survival rule. Failed survival simply indicates no skills and no commission or promotion roll for the term. Continue character generation normally if you make the re-enlistment roll.
In our games more characters ended generation from failed re-enlistment than failed survival the way I remember it. And contrary to your experience WJP most of us, given the choice, stayed in generation until term 5 if possible for the retirement bonus and extra muster rolls. Heck most of my characters kept at it till they failed a survival roll or re-enlistment roll, only rarely did I voluntarily leave a service. My Merchie's always hoped for 8 terms
(it was the only way to have a shot at a Free-Trader)
But then we all really liked the whole game within the game of character generation, even before we changed the survival roll failure from death to injured out. We'd all be sitting around kibbitzing as we rolled, bemoaning our cursed fates or hurrahing our lucky stars. By the time we were done we usually had "CHARACTERS" with history and some personality, and a passing familiarity with each other. All ready for a game or campaign.
Heck even with failed survival meaning death we had fun even with the ones who didn't make it.
As far as the 19 year old with no skills (we didn't roll skills until you completed the term, so a 19 year old washout in our games would have no skills) I agree, it's pretty pointless in Traveller. There's always the Experience chapter though, so they could bugger off for a few years and come back with some skill, of his/her choice to boot. Still the case of failed survival in first term is the one place I'd have no problem allowing a second career, just enter the draft lottery
Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plankowner:
I figured the failed survival roll meant you were done with character generation.
If that's the case, why would any player in his right mind pick the Scouts as a profession, then?
With that 7+ Survival throw (5+ if END 9+), you won't see too many Scouts with a lot of skills, even with their 2 skills per term base.
I think players will avoid Scouts if there's no chance to develop the character further in other careers.</font>[/QUOTE]Hey don't try to tell that to IISS DD Dan Solo. (You'll forgive the lame name, it was the late 70's, I had Han Solo on the brain, and my name was Dan. Voila, Han's long lost brother was born)
Anywho, as to who would enter a character in the Scouts with survival failure equal death, I did. The reason? I wanted a kick butt Marine of death for the game. I rolled a wimpy low Soc character. So, per our standard operating procedure, I enlisted in Scouts to kill him off so I could roll another character (we had a "roll it and play" rule). Well, after a couple terms he was still alive, and had improved some of his poor physique and picked up good skills. Nothing to lose I figured so I kept going. In the end he came out with good health and great skills, and a DD type S for the group to tool around in. I was happier with that character than any before and most since, happier than I'd have been I'm sure with the Marine I had wanted.
It's all what you make of it, like life. And that is why I love the Traveller character generation.
Anyway you're missing a critical point in your "why would any player in his right mind pick the Scouts".
There's not just the survival roll to consider, which allows a DM if you're suited to the career, but more importantly is that re-enlistment roll, which has NO DM. It's actually easier to go more terms in Scouts than it is in Navy, Marines, or Army. Other is about equal and even Merchants is barely better. My question would be if you want skills (and who doesn't) why would any sane player NOT choose Scouts? You're not looking at the whole picture here WJP.
