Variant Character Generation

[tbeard1999]

I'm considering the following system for character generation.

Comments appreciated.

Roll 2d6 for attributes; arrange as desired. If total points is 36-, character can be re-rolled.

Run the character through character generation as normal, determining promotions, reinlistment, survival, etc.

Characters get any automatic skills. During each term, characters *choose* any skill from any skill chart that the character would normally be allowed to roll on.

Limits -- only 2 skills may have level 3+. Jack of All Trades may only be taken at level 1. Only 3 attribute bonuses can be taken (maximum +2 to any attribute).

Book 4+ characters can only select the number of skills that they would get using Book 1 (i.e., 1 per term, +1 for 1st term, +1 for commission, +1 for promotion).

The character does *not* get any automatic skills for special assignment. Special assignments will allow the character to choose a skill from the assignment's list. So if the character attends commando school during a term, he can pick from any skill listed for commando school (Brawling, Gun Cbt, Demolitions, Survival, Recon, Vacc Suit, and Instruction).

If a skill is available to the character *only* on the special assignment list, the character is limited to selecting 1 level per assignment served. So a character who served 1 year in commando school could only take a level 1 in a skill listed for commando school (unless the skill was also available in another chart that he qualified for).

College -- If character succeeds, he spends a term and gets +3 EDU. Failure to succeed loses no time and the character begins his career normally.

Medical School -- If character succeeds, he spends a term and gets +1 EDU and Medical-3. No extra skills for honors, though the honors grad gets the enlistment bonuses. Failure to succeed loses no time and the character begins his career normally.

Flight School -- If character succeeds, he spends a term and gets Pilot-1 and two levels chosen from Pilot, Ship's Boat, or Navigation. Failure to succeed loses no time and the character begins his career normally.

A failed survival roll means the character musters out at the end of the term.

If the character serves 2 terms or less before failing the survival or reinlistment roll, he can try to enlist in a different career. If he fails, he musters out. If he succeeds, he musters out of his first career, then goes through the new career normally. However, automatic skills in received in the new career count against the normal per term skill limit.

I don't apply the INT + EDU limit on skills because the CT limits seldom result in skill bloat. And I also think that the INT + EDU limit can still allow too many skill levels.

The idea is to let the player have more say in developing his character, yet still generate the normal Traveller-style background.

 

[tbeard1999]

I'm considering the following system for character generation.

Comments appreciated.

Roll 2d6 for attributes; arrange as desired. If total points is 36-, character can be re-rolled.

Run the character through character generation as normal, determining promotions, reinlistment, survival, etc.

Characters get any automatic skills. During each term, characters *choose* any skill from any skill chart that the character would normally be allowed to roll on.

Limits -- only 2 skills may have level 3+. Jack of All Trades may only be taken at level 1. Only 3 attribute bonuses can be taken (maximum +2 to any attribute).

Book 4+ characters can only select the number of skills that they would get using Book 1 (i.e., 1 per term, +1 for 1st term, +1 for commission, +1 for promotion).

The character does *not* get any automatic skills for special assignment. Special assignments will allow the character to choose a skill from the assignment's list. So if the character attends commando school during a term, he can pick from any skill listed for commando school (Brawling, Gun Cbt, Demolitions, Survival, Recon, Vacc Suit, and Instruction).

If a skill is available to the character *only* on the special assignment list, the character is limited to selecting 1 level per assignment served. So a character who served 1 year in commando school could only take a level 1 in a skill listed for commando school (unless the skill was also available in another chart that he qualified for).

College -- If character succeeds, he spends a term and gets +3 EDU. Failure to succeed loses no time and the character begins his career normally.

Medical School -- If character succeeds, he spends a term and gets +1 EDU and Medical-3. No extra skills for honors, though the honors grad gets the enlistment bonuses. Failure to succeed loses no time and the character begins his career normally.

Flight School -- If character succeeds, he spends a term and gets Pilot-1 and two levels chosen from Pilot, Ship's Boat, or Navigation. Failure to succeed loses no time and the character begins his career normally.

A failed survival roll means the character musters out at the end of the term.

If the character serves 2 terms or less before failing the survival or reinlistment roll, he can try to enlist in a different career. If he fails, he musters out. If he succeeds, he musters out of his first career, then goes through the new career normally. However, automatic skills in received in the new career count against the normal per term skill limit.

I don't apply the INT + EDU limit on skills because the CT limits seldom result in skill bloat. And I also think that the INT + EDU limit can still allow too many skill levels.

The idea is to let the player have more say in developing his character, yet still generate the normal Traveller-style background.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Roll 2d6 for attributes; arrange as desired. If total points is 36-, character can be re-rolled.

I'm a little more hardcore in this area. I say, "Roll 2D, and that's your STR." My players get one roll for each stat, and that's it.

If they roll low, then they need to roll on skill charts that allow increases to stats.

Other wise, a character like Russlin Suvarrii in my campaign, the ship's steward, with stats 324A76 would never happen.

If I could arrange to taste, I'd arrange those stats to 7A6342, and just play the character like he's come from a poor background.

Given this, you might want to re-think the "arrange to taste" bit and the "less than X" bit...that is, unless you don't want a character like Russlin possible in your campaign.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Roll 2d6 for attributes; arrange as desired. If total points is 36-, character can be re-rolled.

I'm a little more hardcore in this area. I say, "Roll 2D, and that's your STR." My players get one roll for each stat, and that's it.

If they roll low, then they need to roll on skill charts that allow increases to stats.

Other wise, a character like Russlin Suvarrii in my campaign, the ship's steward, with stats 324A76 would never happen.

If I could arrange to taste, I'd arrange those stats to 7A6342, and just play the character like he's come from a poor background.

Given this, you might want to re-think the "arrange to taste" bit and the "less than X" bit...that is, unless you don't want a character like Russlin possible in your campaign.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Roll 2d6 for attributes; arrange as desired. If total points is 36-, character can be re-rolled.

I'm a little more hardcore in this area. I say, "Roll 2D, and that's your STR." My players get one roll for each stat, and that's it.

If they roll low, then they need to roll on skill charts that allow increases to stats.

Other wise, a character like Russlin Suvarrii in my campaign, the ship's steward, with stats 324A76 would never happen.

If I could arrange to taste, I'd arrange those stats to 7A6342, and just play the character like he's come from a poor background.

Given this, you might want to re-think the "arrange to taste" bit and the "less than X" bit...that is, unless you don't want a character like Russlin possible in your campaign. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I go back and forth on this issue. However, you're right...players will probably sleight SOC.

So you could roll 5 stats and organize as you see fit, but roll SOC. Even then, I'd probably let the player exchange the SOC roll with a higher roll from the 5 other rolls.

Currently, I'm in a more player-friendly mood when it comes to character generation. Traveller *can* be very frustrating if you want to run a certain type of character, after all.

Of course, my players always have the "throw-yourselves-on-the-mercy-of-the-referee" option. In that scenario, a player simply tells me what kind of character he wants and describes the one thing he's truly excellent at. If he lists two things, he'll be pretty good at both, but awesome at neither one. I then generate the character for him. Experienced players in my campaign know that they'll always get a decent character. The advantage for me is that I can seed certain critical skills or contacts in the characters. I can also fill serious skill deficiencies in the group as a whole.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Roll 2d6 for attributes; arrange as desired. If total points is 36-, character can be re-rolled.

I'm a little more hardcore in this area. I say, "Roll 2D, and that's your STR." My players get one roll for each stat, and that's it.

If they roll low, then they need to roll on skill charts that allow increases to stats.

Other wise, a character like Russlin Suvarrii in my campaign, the ship's steward, with stats 324A76 would never happen.

If I could arrange to taste, I'd arrange those stats to 7A6342, and just play the character like he's come from a poor background.

Given this, you might want to re-think the "arrange to taste" bit and the "less than X" bit...that is, unless you don't want a character like Russlin possible in your campaign. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I go back and forth on this issue. However, you're right...players will probably sleight SOC.

So you could roll 5 stats and organize as you see fit, but roll SOC. Even then, I'd probably let the player exchange the SOC roll with a higher roll from the 5 other rolls.

Currently, I'm in a more player-friendly mood when it comes to character generation. Traveller *can* be very frustrating if you want to run a certain type of character, after all.

Of course, my players always have the "throw-yourselves-on-the-mercy-of-the-referee" option. In that scenario, a player simply tells me what kind of character he wants and describes the one thing he's truly excellent at. If he lists two things, he'll be pretty good at both, but awesome at neither one. I then generate the character for him. Experienced players in my campaign know that they'll always get a decent character. The advantage for me is that I can seed certain critical skills or contacts in the characters. I can also fill serious skill deficiencies in the group as a whole.

 

[Jame]

I generally follow a rule where no PC attribute is allowed to be less than 4.

Primarily because I don't think that such characters (those with attributes with less than 4) make good adventurers, and that's what we want in the game. (I allow stats less than 4 for NPCs because these people are for the story.)

 

[Jame]

I generally follow a rule where no PC attribute is allowed to be less than 4.

Primarily because I don't think that such characters (those with attributes with less than 4) make good adventurers, and that's what we want in the game. (I allow stats less than 4 for NPCs because these people are for the story.)

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Oh, I go back and forth on this issue. However, you're right...players will probably sleight SOC.

I think INT and EDU will be slighted next, especially since you're not enforcing the Experience Limit rule.

So you could roll 5 stats and organize as you see fit, but roll SOC. Even then, I'd probably let the player exchange the SOC roll with a higher roll from the 5 other rolls.

I think what you'll find, doing this, is that the majority of your PCs, maybe all of them, will have thier highest roll in DEX and STR. Then END. Then INT & EDU. Then SOC.

There might be a few variations, but most of your characters will probably follow that pattern.

Currently, I'm in a more player-friendly mood when it comes to character generation. Traveller *can* be very frustrating if you want to run a certain type of character, after all.

I've had players start out wanting to play a certain thing...but, by the time we're done with chargen, they love what they've rolled.

I always go through chargen like it's a game session. "OK, you're 18 years old. You're from Aramis, the subsector capital and cultural center of the region. Aramis is fairly high tech, but you've spent all of your life underground. You've never actually seen a sunrise or breathed fresh air or swam in an ocean. You know about these things from the holos, of course, and you yearn to experience them."

I try to get the player in the frame of mind that his character would be at 18 years old on his homeworld.

"Being a Traveller is something that's always interested you. You know there's so much more out there than what you've experienced in your life of relative comfort on Aramis.

"What do you want to do? Aramis has some good colleges. You could go to school. Many of your friends have simply gone up to the starport and hired on with a tramp. There's plenty of companies on Aramis, both merchant companies and other business where you could try to get a job. The Imperial Navy operates the biggest base in the subsector here, with full Marine contingent and Army conjunction. The Scouts also maintain an adjacent facility, HQ for the subsector.

"And, there's a multitude of other pursuits to pursue here. You're lucky. Some of the players rolled Pysadi as a homeworld. You've got a lot of choices compared to them.

"What do want to do?"

Then, I'll let the player make his decisions. We'll "roll" play in a type of meta-game, basically like a real roleplaying session except that our die rolls are dictating years and not a single event that passes in a second.

I find that, every time I do this, "play" character generations this way (rather than the usual way of just hitting the tables in the books pre-game), the player comes out knowing something about his history, his homeworld, the "universe" the campaign will be set in...and I also find that even if the player had something in mind for the character before we started dicing, he's much more attached to what actually turned out with his PC because he's already "played" with him.

The player has "lived" the PC's life up to the point where the campaign starts.

I find this type of chargen so invaluable that I always run it this way. The benefits are enormous.

Check the link in my sig. I wrote an article about some of the things to think about when "roleplaying" and "living" chargen this way.

It takes a little more prep work on your part as GM, but it's well worth it in the benefit you'll see in your players.

And, the prep work can also be used as background material for your campaign.

If you try it, I bet you'll never go back to the usual, impersonal chargen you see in CT and most rpgs.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Oh, I go back and forth on this issue. However, you're right...players will probably sleight SOC.

I think INT and EDU will be slighted next, especially since you're not enforcing the Experience Limit rule.

So you could roll 5 stats and organize as you see fit, but roll SOC. Even then, I'd probably let the player exchange the SOC roll with a higher roll from the 5 other rolls.

I think what you'll find, doing this, is that the majority of your PCs, maybe all of them, will have thier highest roll in DEX and STR. Then END. Then INT & EDU. Then SOC.

There might be a few variations, but most of your characters will probably follow that pattern.

Currently, I'm in a more player-friendly mood when it comes to character generation. Traveller *can* be very frustrating if you want to run a certain type of character, after all.

I've had players start out wanting to play a certain thing...but, by the time we're done with chargen, they love what they've rolled.

I always go through chargen like it's a game session. "OK, you're 18 years old. You're from Aramis, the subsector capital and cultural center of the region. Aramis is fairly high tech, but you've spent all of your life underground. You've never actually seen a sunrise or breathed fresh air or swam in an ocean. You know about these things from the holos, of course, and you yearn to experience them."

I try to get the player in the frame of mind that his character would be at 18 years old on his homeworld.

"Being a Traveller is something that's always interested you. You know there's so much more out there than what you've experienced in your life of relative comfort on Aramis.

"What do you want to do? Aramis has some good colleges. You could go to school. Many of your friends have simply gone up to the starport and hired on with a tramp. There's plenty of companies on Aramis, both merchant companies and other business where you could try to get a job. The Imperial Navy operates the biggest base in the subsector here, with full Marine contingent and Army conjunction. The Scouts also maintain an adjacent facility, HQ for the subsector.

"And, there's a multitude of other pursuits to pursue here. You're lucky. Some of the players rolled Pysadi as a homeworld. You've got a lot of choices compared to them.

"What do want to do?"

Then, I'll let the player make his decisions. We'll "roll" play in a type of meta-game, basically like a real roleplaying session except that our die rolls are dictating years and not a single event that passes in a second.

I find that, every time I do this, "play" character generations this way (rather than the usual way of just hitting the tables in the books pre-game), the player comes out knowing something about his history, his homeworld, the "universe" the campaign will be set in...and I also find that even if the player had something in mind for the character before we started dicing, he's much more attached to what actually turned out with his PC because he's already "played" with him.

The player has "lived" the PC's life up to the point where the campaign starts.

I find this type of chargen so invaluable that I always run it this way. The benefits are enormous.

Check the link in my sig. I wrote an article about some of the things to think about when "roleplaying" and "living" chargen this way.

It takes a little more prep work on your part as GM, but it's well worth it in the benefit you'll see in your players.

And, the prep work can also be used as background material for your campaign.

If you try it, I bet you'll never go back to the usual, impersonal chargen you see in CT and most rpgs.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Oh, I go back and forth on this issue. However, you're right...players will probably sleight SOC.

I think INT and EDU will be slighted next, especially since you're not enforcing the Experience Limit rule.[/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]Well, high EDU and INT are useful in certain careers. Also, I use INT as an analogue for perception, so my players know its value. And I use EDU rolls to turn up research data (research is a common element in my adventures, I guess a Call of Cthlhu influence).

So I'm not too worried about that.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
So you could roll 5 stats and organize as you see fit, but roll SOC. Even then, I'd probably let the player exchange the SOC roll with a higher roll from the 5 other rolls.

I think what you'll find, doing this, is that the majority of your PCs, maybe all of them, will have thier highest roll in DEX and STR. Then END. Then INT & EDU. Then SOC.

There might be a few variations, but most of your characters will probably follow that pattern.</font>[/QUOTE]

I've let my player arrange their rolls for decades and haven't had any problems. In any case, I was more interested in whether there were mechanical flaws in the skill selection system (or things I hadn't considered).

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Currently, I'm in a more player-friendly mood when it comes to character generation. Traveller *can* be very frustrating if you want to run a certain type of character, after all.

I've had players start out wanting to play a certain thing...but, by the time we're done with chargen, they love what they've rolled.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, my players are good enough that they can roleplay nearly anything. But some of them like to run certain types of characters and I don't mind obliging them.

Nor do I care to *force* some of them to play utterly hopeless characters (an occasional hazard of the Traveller chargen system). Most of them could do it very well, but why make them?

And I've seen the suicidal CT character many times over the years -- "my character sucks, so I'm gonna get him killed off as fast as possible so I can get a better character". Heck, I even had a few characters like that back in the day. (Mustered out after *1* term, which was mostly spent on garrison duty [no skills]...jeez).

Amusingly, getting such characters killed can be difficult considering the CT damage system

One hellish experience was having a 1 termer in a campaign in which the referee simply would not kill anyone off. Kinda like an immortal getting a life sentence. It's funny now, but the hilarity escaped me at the time.

So while I don't advocate a GURPS-style approach, I don't object to letting players have significant input into what their characters look like.

And remember...they still randomly generate the same background information -- terms, promotions, assignments, awards, etc. So I don't think I lose so much by letting the player have a bit more say in how his character looks. Seems fair to me...after all, the player has to run the character.

If you try it, I bet you'll never go back to the usual, impersonal chargen you see in CT and most rpgs.

Well, my campaigns don't match up to these dire predictions, so I'm not too worried about that. As it happens, it's hard for my group to get together regularly, so when we do, I prefer to spend time on the adventure, not on a series of 1 on 1 character generation sessions (which would bore my players to death unless they were rolling the character).

If I had more time, I might feel differently, of course.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Oh, I go back and forth on this issue. However, you're right...players will probably sleight SOC.

I think INT and EDU will be slighted next, especially since you're not enforcing the Experience Limit rule.[/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]Well, high EDU and INT are useful in certain careers. Also, I use INT as an analogue for perception, so my players know its value. And I use EDU rolls to turn up research data (research is a common element in my adventures, I guess a Call of Cthlhu influence).

So I'm not too worried about that.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
So you could roll 5 stats and organize as you see fit, but roll SOC. Even then, I'd probably let the player exchange the SOC roll with a higher roll from the 5 other rolls.

I think what you'll find, doing this, is that the majority of your PCs, maybe all of them, will have thier highest roll in DEX and STR. Then END. Then INT & EDU. Then SOC.

There might be a few variations, but most of your characters will probably follow that pattern.</font>[/QUOTE]

I've let my player arrange their rolls for decades and haven't had any problems. In any case, I was more interested in whether there were mechanical flaws in the skill selection system (or things I hadn't considered).

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Currently, I'm in a more player-friendly mood when it comes to character generation. Traveller *can* be very frustrating if you want to run a certain type of character, after all.

I've had players start out wanting to play a certain thing...but, by the time we're done with chargen, they love what they've rolled.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, my players are good enough that they can roleplay nearly anything. But some of them like to run certain types of characters and I don't mind obliging them.

Nor do I care to *force* some of them to play utterly hopeless characters (an occasional hazard of the Traveller chargen system). Most of them could do it very well, but why make them?

And I've seen the suicidal CT character many times over the years -- "my character sucks, so I'm gonna get him killed off as fast as possible so I can get a better character". Heck, I even had a few characters like that back in the day. (Mustered out after *1* term, which was mostly spent on garrison duty [no skills]...jeez).

Amusingly, getting such characters killed can be difficult considering the CT damage system

One hellish experience was having a 1 termer in a campaign in which the referee simply would not kill anyone off. Kinda like an immortal getting a life sentence. It's funny now, but the hilarity escaped me at the time.

So while I don't advocate a GURPS-style approach, I don't object to letting players have significant input into what their characters look like.

And remember...they still randomly generate the same background information -- terms, promotions, assignments, awards, etc. So I don't think I lose so much by letting the player have a bit more say in how his character looks. Seems fair to me...after all, the player has to run the character.

If you try it, I bet you'll never go back to the usual, impersonal chargen you see in CT and most rpgs.

Well, my campaigns don't match up to these dire predictions, so I'm not too worried about that. As it happens, it's hard for my group to get together regularly, so when we do, I prefer to spend time on the adventure, not on a series of 1 on 1 character generation sessions (which would bore my players to death unless they were rolling the character).

If I had more time, I might feel differently, of course.

 

[Klaus]

I've completely rewritten chargen.

Taken the best of basic and the best of advanced. Basically, this amounts to taking LBB1 or COTI, then adding another skill table (Specialist) to add all the skills that that career should have available but wasn't when it was designed, or just left out. (ie: Recon for Marines).

When you roll for each term, there are a couple of extra rolls, depending on your career. Promotions are available for enlisted. Decorations are available for military and a few other professions. Reputation (with or without cash bonus) is available to the rest. All get to roll a special duty category. If the roll is made, the character can get a hobby skill, if it is high, they roll on a school table. For those careers with officers and promotion, getting a hobby skill is uncommon and a school is rare; for those without advancement, like Scout or Rogue, a hobby skill is common, and a school result merely uncommon.

School results allow 2 skill rolls on the applicable school (such as Commando or Intelligence), and that table then becomes one of the characters regular tables. Officers recieving commision or promotion can roll on an officer table (skills such as Leader, Admin, Gun Combat).

With the basic skill per term, ie, the one the character recieves with or without promotions or other bonuses, the player can choose to add expertise to an already existing skill that can be rolled from the regular tables (includes, for example, Commando school if that has been attended, but not Officer). However, no skill can be raised to above 3 like this. Skill ratings of 4 or more must be rolled.

I've modified the skills somewhat. Gravitics no longer exists (incorporated into Mechanical, Electronics, or Engineering). Commo becomes Sensor/Comms, incorporating sensor operations. Gun Combat has a reduced amount of cascades: Marksman, Combat Rifle, Lasers. Stealth is handled by the skills Recon, Hunting, and Streetwise, depending on the situation. 8 new skills: Creative, Performance (includes sports), Astrophysics, Xeno-Biology, Planetology, Xeno-Archeology, Socio-History, Linguistics.

On mustering out, characters can use 1 point to increase expertise in a service skill as per above (no skill more than 3), and can use a point to gain a hobby skill.

Hobby skills are Education dependent.

So far there are 18 careers: Navy, Marine, Army, Scout, Merchant, Rogue, Field Scientist, Professional, Law Enforcer, Diplomat, Bureaucrat, Belter, Corsair, Technician, Colonist, Courier, Solomani Party Activist, SolSec Agent.

Noble is no longer a career, but a table available to all with SOC 10+ along with their service tables.

I will get round to posting them up somewhere sometime soon..

 

[Klaus]

I've completely rewritten chargen.

Taken the best of basic and the best of advanced. Basically, this amounts to taking LBB1 or COTI, then adding another skill table (Specialist) to add all the skills that that career should have available but wasn't when it was designed, or just left out. (ie: Recon for Marines).

When you roll for each term, there are a couple of extra rolls, depending on your career. Promotions are available for enlisted. Decorations are available for military and a few other professions. Reputation (with or without cash bonus) is available to the rest. All get to roll a special duty category. If the roll is made, the character can get a hobby skill, if it is high, they roll on a school table. For those careers with officers and promotion, getting a hobby skill is uncommon and a school is rare; for those without advancement, like Scout or Rogue, a hobby skill is common, and a school result merely uncommon.

School results allow 2 skill rolls on the applicable school (such as Commando or Intelligence), and that table then becomes one of the characters regular tables. Officers recieving commision or promotion can roll on an officer table (skills such as Leader, Admin, Gun Combat).

With the basic skill per term, ie, the one the character recieves with or without promotions or other bonuses, the player can choose to add expertise to an already existing skill that can be rolled from the regular tables (includes, for example, Commando school if that has been attended, but not Officer). However, no skill can be raised to above 3 like this. Skill ratings of 4 or more must be rolled.

I've modified the skills somewhat. Gravitics no longer exists (incorporated into Mechanical, Electronics, or Engineering). Commo becomes Sensor/Comms, incorporating sensor operations. Gun Combat has a reduced amount of cascades: Marksman, Combat Rifle, Lasers. Stealth is handled by the skills Recon, Hunting, and Streetwise, depending on the situation. 8 new skills: Creative, Performance (includes sports), Astrophysics, Xeno-Biology, Planetology, Xeno-Archeology, Socio-History, Linguistics.

On mustering out, characters can use 1 point to increase expertise in a service skill as per above (no skill more than 3), and can use a point to gain a hobby skill.

Hobby skills are Education dependent.

So far there are 18 careers: Navy, Marine, Army, Scout, Merchant, Rogue, Field Scientist, Professional, Law Enforcer, Diplomat, Bureaucrat, Belter, Corsair, Technician, Colonist, Courier, Solomani Party Activist, SolSec Agent.

Noble is no longer a career, but a table available to all with SOC 10+ along with their service tables.

I will get round to posting them up somewhere sometime soon..

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Also, I use INT as an analogue for perception, so my players know its value.

I do too.

There, we have something in common.

Nor do I care to *force* some of them to play utterly hopeless characters (an occasional hazard of the Traveller chargen system). Most of them could do it very well, but why make them?

I don't have a single player who doesn't like his character, even if what he got is not what he was hoping to get.

I try to find things about the character that will ignite the player's imagination. Some of my players have "secrets" that only he and I share.

The Marquis in my group, Terran Tukera, has his own agenda that the other players know nothing about. He's also starting to worry that he's a clone--and only thought he was the real Terran Tukera. I'm screwing with his head, but this is just between me and him. He hasn't let it out. And, man, does he dig his character.

The Marquis' bodyguard is secretly in Army Intelligence, placed within House Tukera specifically to get close to the Marquis. The Army doesn't trust him. Again, this is between me and my player only. No-one else in the group even has an inkling this is going on. And, the bodygaurd is torn, because, over the year and a half of the campaign, the character has become quite fond of the Marquis--views him as a real leader.

Of course, this is a GM's wet dream, and I'm enjoying every minute of it.

Another player is secretly part of an ancient Knighthood, not unlike the Bene Gesserit from Dune. They've been around for centuries, helping guide the human race to attain perfection. These "Knights of the Watch" embrace psionics, and this player, secretly, is also psionic. He's the traveller equivalent of an undercover Jedi Knight. Yet, he's been loathe to use his powers for fear of letting the cat out of the bag. His mission is to "watch" the power-shaker of the Aramis subsector, Terran Tukera.

With another player (the one with all the skills we've got to cut back to enforce the Experience Limit rule), I've established this deep background with him...where his ship came from (it was a Tukera vessel, sold to a merchant captain, and not the current owner is the ship's third captain), his subsidized "route", his connections with those he's known through his life and some of which he's hired to crew his ship....the terrible accident, at his hands, that left Russlin Suvarrii physically handicapped...and there's this whole background about how this character has had numerous organ replacements and lived on a regimine of life-extending drugs so that his body acts as if it were 20-30 years younger. It's a sci-fi thing, giving the character a cool "story" that pays dividends on player involvement. This character has a personal agenda to find anagathics. And, right now, he's not getting along to well with his charter...the Marquis.

Another player's character is an ex-Scout who failed a survival roll and mustered out. We made up this whole story about him, about how he "lost it" as he floated in space after the accident, oxy nearly gone, coming to terms that he was dieing. Now, the player plays him as if he's afraid of wide-open spaces. When we go dirtside on an Atmo-6 world, it's a hoot.

Another thing I do is typically give each player two characters. One is their main character. The other is there so that the player is always involved. If someone stays on the ship, then he's got a second character to be in the action of the game. If a character is shot and wounded, laid up for a while, he's got a second character to play until the one is healed.

And I've seen the suicidal CT character many times over the years -- "my character sucks, so I'm gonna get him killed off as fast as possible so I can get a better character".

I had a player do that once, way back in the day, during a D&D game.

I let him kill off the character, but I didn't allow him to create a new one. He got what I decided he should have--no input from him. I slid him one of the under-developed NPCs. It was his job to make the NPC a PC and interesting. But, no...I'm not going to reward a player for killing off a character just because he doesn't like them. That wouldn't fly very far in my game.

Well, my campaigns don't match up to these dire predictions, so I'm not too worried about that.

Dire preditions or no. The "role play chargen" pays huge dividends in many areas. It's the only way to go, as far as I'm concerned.

As it happens, it's hard for my group to get together regularly, so when we do, I prefer to spend time on the adventure, not on a series of 1 on 1 character generation sessions (which would bore my players to death unless they were rolling the character).

My "role play chargen" sesssions are done with the whole group. I skip around, jumping from player to player, just like a real session.

And, it wasn't boring. Our initial chargen session stands as one of our most interesting game sessions last year. I wouldn't agree, but one player as stated several times that it was out best.

Why?

Because I made chargen fun.

I made it part of the "game".

Remember the supplement that came out for T4 called Pocket Empires? I run chargen like that. Like a type of meta-game, but it's still a game. You can also liken it to a game session of Trillion Credit Squadron. They're very close.

A turn in Pocket Empires is one year. You roll for wars. You roll for economy. You roll for all sorts of things. It's like playing a war game or the computer game Medieval Total War.

I've turned chargen into that. Players have some leeway, too. If they want to take a trip to another planet during chargen, changing their homeworld, I'll ref it to see if it's possible. Does the character have the money at that point in his life? Was he transferred in a Military service? Dropped off and switched ship in the Merchants? Got a new job as a Bureaucrat in the middle of the term on another planet?

And, do I need to make the character roll something.

It's like GMing a game.

But, I do it, because it's fun. Not boring, like you say, with typical chargen.

It doesn't take extra time...it's a game session.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Also, I use INT as an analogue for perception, so my players know its value.

I do too.

There, we have something in common.

Nor do I care to *force* some of them to play utterly hopeless characters (an occasional hazard of the Traveller chargen system). Most of them could do it very well, but why make them?

I don't have a single player who doesn't like his character, even if what he got is not what he was hoping to get.

I try to find things about the character that will ignite the player's imagination. Some of my players have "secrets" that only he and I share.

The Marquis in my group, Terran Tukera, has his own agenda that the other players know nothing about. He's also starting to worry that he's a clone--and only thought he was the real Terran Tukera. I'm screwing with his head, but this is just between me and him. He hasn't let it out. And, man, does he dig his character.

The Marquis' bodyguard is secretly in Army Intelligence, placed within House Tukera specifically to get close to the Marquis. The Army doesn't trust him. Again, this is between me and my player only. No-one else in the group even has an inkling this is going on. And, the bodygaurd is torn, because, over the year and a half of the campaign, the character has become quite fond of the Marquis--views him as a real leader.

Of course, this is a GM's wet dream, and I'm enjoying every minute of it.

Another player is secretly part of an ancient Knighthood, not unlike the Bene Gesserit from Dune. They've been around for centuries, helping guide the human race to attain perfection. These "Knights of the Watch" embrace psionics, and this player, secretly, is also psionic. He's the traveller equivalent of an undercover Jedi Knight. Yet, he's been loathe to use his powers for fear of letting the cat out of the bag. His mission is to "watch" the power-shaker of the Aramis subsector, Terran Tukera.

With another player (the one with all the skills we've got to cut back to enforce the Experience Limit rule), I've established this deep background with him...where his ship came from (it was a Tukera vessel, sold to a merchant captain, and not the current owner is the ship's third captain), his subsidized "route", his connections with those he's known through his life and some of which he's hired to crew his ship....the terrible accident, at his hands, that left Russlin Suvarrii physically handicapped...and there's this whole background about how this character has had numerous organ replacements and lived on a regimine of life-extending drugs so that his body acts as if it were 20-30 years younger. It's a sci-fi thing, giving the character a cool "story" that pays dividends on player involvement. This character has a personal agenda to find anagathics. And, right now, he's not getting along to well with his charter...the Marquis.

Another player's character is an ex-Scout who failed a survival roll and mustered out. We made up this whole story about him, about how he "lost it" as he floated in space after the accident, oxy nearly gone, coming to terms that he was dieing. Now, the player plays him as if he's afraid of wide-open spaces. When we go dirtside on an Atmo-6 world, it's a hoot.

Another thing I do is typically give each player two characters. One is their main character. The other is there so that the player is always involved. If someone stays on the ship, then he's got a second character to be in the action of the game. If a character is shot and wounded, laid up for a while, he's got a second character to play until the one is healed.

And I've seen the suicidal CT character many times over the years -- "my character sucks, so I'm gonna get him killed off as fast as possible so I can get a better character".

I had a player do that once, way back in the day, during a D&D game.

I let him kill off the character, but I didn't allow him to create a new one. He got what I decided he should have--no input from him. I slid him one of the under-developed NPCs. It was his job to make the NPC a PC and interesting. But, no...I'm not going to reward a player for killing off a character just because he doesn't like them. That wouldn't fly very far in my game.

Well, my campaigns don't match up to these dire predictions, so I'm not too worried about that.

Dire preditions or no. The "role play chargen" pays huge dividends in many areas. It's the only way to go, as far as I'm concerned.

As it happens, it's hard for my group to get together regularly, so when we do, I prefer to spend time on the adventure, not on a series of 1 on 1 character generation sessions (which would bore my players to death unless they were rolling the character).

My "role play chargen" sesssions are done with the whole group. I skip around, jumping from player to player, just like a real session.

And, it wasn't boring. Our initial chargen session stands as one of our most interesting game sessions last year. I wouldn't agree, but one player as stated several times that it was out best.

Why?

Because I made chargen fun.

I made it part of the "game".

Remember the supplement that came out for T4 called Pocket Empires? I run chargen like that. Like a type of meta-game, but it's still a game. You can also liken it to a game session of Trillion Credit Squadron. They're very close.

A turn in Pocket Empires is one year. You roll for wars. You roll for economy. You roll for all sorts of things. It's like playing a war game or the computer game Medieval Total War.

I've turned chargen into that. Players have some leeway, too. If they want to take a trip to another planet during chargen, changing their homeworld, I'll ref it to see if it's possible. Does the character have the money at that point in his life? Was he transferred in a Military service? Dropped off and switched ship in the Merchants? Got a new job as a Bureaucrat in the middle of the term on another planet?

And, do I need to make the character roll something.

It's like GMing a game.

But, I do it, because it's fun. Not boring, like you say, with typical chargen.

It doesn't take extra time...it's a game session.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Supplement Four:

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Also, I use INT as an analogue for perception, so my players know its value.

I do too.

There, we have something in common.

Nor do I care to *f3orce* some of them to play utterly hopeless characters (an occasional hazard of the Traveller chargen system). Most of them could do it very well, but why make them?

I don't have a single player who doesn't like his character, even if what he got is not what he was hoping to get.

I try to find things about the character that will ignite the player's imagination. Some of my players have "secrets" that only he and I share.

<snip of much good stuff>

And I've seen the suicidal CT character many times over the years -- "my character sucks, so I'm gonna get him killed off as fast as possible so I can get a better character".

I had a player do that once, way back in the day, during a D&D game.

I let him kill off the character, but I didn't allow him to create a new one. He got what I decided he should have--no input from him. I slid him one of the under-developed NPCs. It was his job to make the NPC a PC and interesting. But, no...I'm not going to reward a player for killing off a character just because he doesn't like them. That wouldn't fly very far in my game. </font>

Then we have a philosophical difference. I'm not much interested in forcing a player to play a character he doesn't want to. As I said before, my players are very talented, so it isn't a question of *ability*, just one of desire.

And -- at the end of the day -- I see my job as an entertainer for my friends. Forcing a player to play a mostly randomly generated character he doesn't want to play is in serious tension with that goal. It's also a great way to annoy a friend, something I try to avoid.

Nor am I my players' parent. It isn't my job to "punish" a player for doing something that I myself might do in similar circumstances. Indeed, something that I *did* do.

Nor is it my job to "punish" a player for refusing to let me force him into running a character he doesn't like. Particularly when he had very limited control over how that character turned out.

I see nothing wrong with allowing a player to play a character he wants to play. And it's even a rather condescending for me to assume that my players *need* a randomly churned out character to enhance their roleplaying. As noted, my players can roleplay nearly anything. I trust them to create interesting and fun characters and I am seldom disappointed.

That said, if a player is okay with randomly creating a character, I got no problem with that.

Well, my campaigns don't match up to these dire predictions, so I'm not too worried about that.

Dire preditions or no. The "role play chargen" pays huge dividends in many areas. It's the only way to go, as far as I'm concerned.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As it happens, it's hard for my group to get together regularly, so when we do, I prefer to spend time on the adventure, not on a series of 1 on 1 character generation sessions (which would bore my players to death unless they were rolling the character).

My "role play chargen" sesssions are done with the whole group. I skip around, jumping from player to player, just like a real session.

And, it wasn't boring. ...

But, I do it, because it's fun. Not boring, like you say, with typical chargen.

It doesn't take extra time...it's a game session. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I actually said that *my* players would find it boring...which they would. But obviously, others might love it.

A long time ago, I ran true "roleplaying" adventures, with complex plots, memorable encounters and lots of opportunity for "roleplaying" in the game. I sneered at "hack and slash" gaming. And I never had trouble attracting players. And they seemed to enjoy themselves.

One day, I decided to take an anonymous survey of my players. With my band new Macintosh 512K Enhanced, I created a fairly detailed questionnaire. I handed it out to my players at the start of the session and left the room while they filled it out. I came back a bit later and ran the game.

When I collated the responses, I was shocked. *My* players apparently didn't care so much for all those sophisticated plots and suchlike. They wanted more combat and action -- a *lot* more. They wanted the "roleplaying" limited to important events. In other words, they wanted a far different game than I was running.

But, since they considered me an effective game master they played my game. And that was what was happening -- it was MY game, not theirs.

So the next session, I ran a Chamax Plague inspired bug hunt. And they had a blast. I simplified my complex plots, stopped wasting time with so-called "roleplaying" activities that added nothing to the plot, and put in a *lot* more automatic weapons. And grenades. I decided that my job was more akin to a movie director than to a novelist. And the players were not just my cast, but also my *audience*.

That turned into the best campaign I have ever run. My buddies still call it The Grand Old Campaign. It's the standard by which I measure all subsequent campaigns. It's never been bettered and only rarely equalled. Now I had a stunning amount of player talent. Every one of them was a very good roleplayer. And 3 of them had that rare ability to be utter flakes, yet do so in an entertaining way that only occasionally got people killed. Anyhow, I deserve little of the credit. But the one thing I did was let my players play in the kind of game they wanted.

When I started designing my campaigns to suit my players, my campaigns got a lot more fun. So anytime I launch a campaign (as I'm doing now, which explains my activity in this forum), I try to design the game that my players want to play.

Understand, I am a harsh game master. People die in my campaigns...a lot. There's great reward but great risk. Things always fall apart. So I'm not suggesting that game masters should pander to players and give out absurd, unearned rewards in the best Monty Haul tradition. I expect my players would laugh their collective...parts off if someone suggested that I was a Monty Haul GM. Classic line from one of my players after finding a fully charged PGMP in a locker in an abandoned starship: "Oh shit...there must be something really bad on this ship if Ty let us have a plasma gun this easy..." He was, of course, correct. I guess my players know me at least as well as I know them.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Supplement Four:

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Also, I use INT as an analogue for perception, so my players know its value.

I do too.

There, we have something in common.

Nor do I care to *f3orce* some of them to play utterly hopeless characters (an occasional hazard of the Traveller chargen system). Most of them could do it very well, but why make them?

I don't have a single player who doesn't like his character, even if what he got is not what he was hoping to get.

I try to find things about the character that will ignite the player's imagination. Some of my players have "secrets" that only he and I share.

<snip of much good stuff>

And I've seen the suicidal CT character many times over the years -- "my character sucks, so I'm gonna get him killed off as fast as possible so I can get a better character".

I had a player do that once, way back in the day, during a D&D game.

I let him kill off the character, but I didn't allow him to create a new one. He got what I decided he should have--no input from him. I slid him one of the under-developed NPCs. It was his job to make the NPC a PC and interesting. But, no...I'm not going to reward a player for killing off a character just because he doesn't like them. That wouldn't fly very far in my game. </font>

Then we have a philosophical difference. I'm not much interested in forcing a player to play a character he doesn't want to. As I said before, my players are very talented, so it isn't a question of *ability*, just one of desire.

And -- at the end of the day -- I see my job as an entertainer for my friends. Forcing a player to play a mostly randomly generated character he doesn't want to play is in serious tension with that goal. It's also a great way to annoy a friend, something I try to avoid.

Nor am I my players' parent. It isn't my job to "punish" a player for doing something that I myself might do in similar circumstances. Indeed, something that I *did* do.

Nor is it my job to "punish" a player for refusing to let me force him into running a character he doesn't like. Particularly when he had very limited control over how that character turned out.

I see nothing wrong with allowing a player to play a character he wants to play. And it's even a rather condescending for me to assume that my players *need* a randomly churned out character to enhance their roleplaying. As noted, my players can roleplay nearly anything. I trust them to create interesting and fun characters and I am seldom disappointed.

That said, if a player is okay with randomly creating a character, I got no problem with that.

Well, my campaigns don't match up to these dire predictions, so I'm not too worried about that.

Dire preditions or no. The "role play chargen" pays huge dividends in many areas. It's the only way to go, as far as I'm concerned.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As it happens, it's hard for my group to get together regularly, so when we do, I prefer to spend time on the adventure, not on a series of 1 on 1 character generation sessions (which would bore my players to death unless they were rolling the character).

My "role play chargen" sesssions are done with the whole group. I skip around, jumping from player to player, just like a real session.

And, it wasn't boring. ...

But, I do it, because it's fun. Not boring, like you say, with typical chargen.

It doesn't take extra time...it's a game session. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I actually said that *my* players would find it boring...which they would. But obviously, others might love it.

A long time ago, I ran true "roleplaying" adventures, with complex plots, memorable encounters and lots of opportunity for "roleplaying" in the game. I sneered at "hack and slash" gaming. And I never had trouble attracting players. And they seemed to enjoy themselves.

One day, I decided to take an anonymous survey of my players. With my band new Macintosh 512K Enhanced, I created a fairly detailed questionnaire. I handed it out to my players at the start of the session and left the room while they filled it out. I came back a bit later and ran the game.

When I collated the responses, I was shocked. *My* players apparently didn't care so much for all those sophisticated plots and suchlike. They wanted more combat and action -- a *lot* more. They wanted the "roleplaying" limited to important events. In other words, they wanted a far different game than I was running.

But, since they considered me an effective game master they played my game. And that was what was happening -- it was MY game, not theirs.

So the next session, I ran a Chamax Plague inspired bug hunt. And they had a blast. I simplified my complex plots, stopped wasting time with so-called "roleplaying" activities that added nothing to the plot, and put in a *lot* more automatic weapons. And grenades. I decided that my job was more akin to a movie director than to a novelist. And the players were not just my cast, but also my *audience*.

That turned into the best campaign I have ever run. My buddies still call it The Grand Old Campaign. It's the standard by which I measure all subsequent campaigns. It's never been bettered and only rarely equalled. Now I had a stunning amount of player talent. Every one of them was a very good roleplayer. And 3 of them had that rare ability to be utter flakes, yet do so in an entertaining way that only occasionally got people killed. Anyhow, I deserve little of the credit. But the one thing I did was let my players play in the kind of game they wanted.

When I started designing my campaigns to suit my players, my campaigns got a lot more fun. So anytime I launch a campaign (as I'm doing now, which explains my activity in this forum), I try to design the game that my players want to play.

Understand, I am a harsh game master. People die in my campaigns...a lot. There's great reward but great risk. Things always fall apart. So I'm not suggesting that game masters should pander to players and give out absurd, unearned rewards in the best Monty Haul tradition. I expect my players would laugh their collective...parts off if someone suggested that I was a Monty Haul GM. Classic line from one of my players after finding a fully charged PGMP in a locker in an abandoned starship: "Oh shit...there must be something really bad on this ship if Ty let us have a plasma gun this easy..." He was, of course, correct. I guess my players know me at least as well as I know them.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Then we have a philosophical difference.

You hit the nail on the head. We definitely do.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Then we have a philosophical difference.

You hit the nail on the head. We definitely do.