Rules Only: Why Classic Traveller is My Favorite SF RPG...

[ShawnDriscoll]

Sure.

1) Are these people typical or are they outliers?

2) Do we want to model a universe where people always fail routine tasks outside their training? Is that more fun or less?

I admit that the second question in #2 is up in the air, and probably goes to personal preference.

Those people, that I tend to bump into, live in a higher class. They have people that they pay to do what needs to be done for them. Their concerns are elsewhere, so they don't have the time to tinker with things that they don't actually use themselves on a daily basis. Someone else does that work.

In Traveller, I just make them a noble character with lots of stewards.

 

[Hyphen]

I also forgot to mention, "All player-characters have an innate weapon expertise, in all weapons, of zero." (Bk 1, p16)

I guess I have Handgun-0? ;-) ;-)

As for using Mechanical vs EDU, the rules give you an "out":
"Mechanical expertise allows a character the ability to operate mechanical devices easily, as well as to repair them quickly and efficiently. [...] Success in any mechanical enterprise is also affected by such variables as tool availablity, personal strength and dexterity, education, and situation." (Bk 1, p20)

So without Mechanical but with Dex & Edu, you can still attempt repairs, you'll just be slow and inefficient. And maybe the repair will break down on GM's whim^k^k^k when you can least afford it^k^k^k^k just at the right time to serve the needs of the plot.

>:-D

 

[Hyphen]

In Traveller, I just make them a noble character with lots of stewards.

ROFL!!!

 

[SanDragon]

I can believe that. I've never fired or even handled a handgun. Well, that wasn't a toy.

I know which is the dangerous end. I know not to put my finger on the trigger. I know there is a safety switch somewhere on the weapon, although I would have to hunt around for it. I *think* I have to pull the slide on top back to cock it, although I know some automatics do not need this done - and I have no idea how to tell which is which. I know that ammo goes in a magazine which slides out, but I don't know how to make it do that. I do not know how to inspect it, clear it, and make it safe.

So, your example is probably not a good example of an objection to, "you have no skill, therefore can't do this".

Now, if I was an American, well...

;-)

I do protest, sir!!

I am well acquainted with an M-16A1 and would be most comfortable with its operation and maintenance. I qualified with it! (Barely!)

But, other than the AK-47 being sort of a counterpart, I would think I would be unfamiliar and uncomfortable with it.

It has everything you pointed out. A boomy end, trigger, safety, magazine release, etc. But, I'm not sure I would be able to find any of it without an awkward and possibly dangerous handling, other than keeping the boomy end pointed in a safe direction.

 

[atpollard]

I think you over-estimate the mechanical complexity of a firearm. I am pretty sure that given a few minutes to figure it out, I could get any firearm to shoot a hole in a water tank.

 

[kilemall]

If I have an electric tooth brush, should I use Mechanical-0 or Elecronics-0 to successfully remove all of the plaque? :devil:

Medic-0 of course.

 

[rhialto]

I also forgot to mention, "All player-characters have an innate weapon expertise, in all weapons, of zero." (Bk 1, p16)

I guess I have Handgun-0? ;-) ;-)

Yes, if you are a Traveller PC from Bk1.

 

[ffilz]

I also forgot to mention, "All player-characters have an innate weapon expertise, in all weapons, of zero." (Bk 1, p16)

I guess I have Handgun-0? ;-) ;-)

I think it's important to note the "player-characters" qualification to the skill-0 in all weapons statement. It says the PCs are different. Not all NPCs will have skill-0 in all weapons.

On the other hand, in Book 3, we have this statement:

"Weapon skill is generally considered to be 1 for all encountered persons"

I think that applies to the weapons indicated for the encountered NPCs.

But they still may not have skill-0 in all weapons. The GM is free to decide case by case, and note that even that skill-1 comment is qualified with "generally considered".

These two comments are awesome stuff. They tell us something about the setting ("Travellers" have a general familiarity with weapons, and the random thug you encounter in the alley has cudgel-1). It also gives the GM latitude to assign NPC skill as appropriate.

Frank

 

[creativehum]

I think it's important to note the "player-characters" qualification to the skill-0 in all weapons statement. It says the PCs are different. Not all NPCs will have skill-0 in all weapons.

On the other hand, in Book 3, we have this statement:

"Weapon skill is generally considered to be 1 for all encountered persons"

I think that applies to the weapons indicated for the encountered NPCs.

But they still may not have skill-0 in all weapons. The GM is free to decide case by case, and note that even that skill-1 comment is qualified with "generally considered".

These two comments are awesome stuff. They tell us something about the setting ("Travellers" have a general familiarity with weapons, and the random thug you encounter in the alley has cudgel-1). It also gives the GM latitude to assign NPC skill as appropriate.

Frank

Which goes to my point (back in my original post) about "Straightforward Player Character Designer for Making Adventurers." I understand that some people want to use the Classic Traveller rules to emulate any sort of person who might exist as a PC -- which is how we get lengthy threads about interstellar shoe salesmen. But per the original intent of the game making a shoe salesmen wasn't the point of the game.

By the way, I'm not saying people shouldn't make a Traveller game to have a campaign about a group of traveling shoe salesmen... if that's what you want, go for it. I am making a point that Traveller, in its many editions, has been around for so many decades, in so many editions, and taffy pulled so many ways, that man people get frustrated that the rules don't do what they think they should do (model all things as if it were modeling reality) rather than looking at them for what they are.

And here, in this subform, with the Tag "Rules Only" we're talking about the Classic Traveller rules. In turn the rules model were not built to model "reality" but the adventure SF fiction of Vance, Pournelle, Tubb, Piper, Norton, Bester, and so on. And thus the PCs are the sorts of protagonists who populate such fiction.

Even if we expand to Supplement 4: Citizens of the Imperium we end up with Belters, Barbarian, Pirates, as well as less adventurous types such as Doctors and Belters. Something that has been forgotten in the mists of time (and which has opened the doors to conversations about shoe salesmen PCs) is that the default purpose of Supplement 4 was not to expand the potential types of Player Characters.

From the first page...
"In the course of Traveller adventures, both players and referees constantly need additional characters for use in patron or random encounters... This supplement is intended to fill that void."*

Again, this is original Traveller under discussion, with its early years sensibilities. The game has changed through the editions, along with expectations. But the focus of my original post was original Traveller. And with that comes with a set of expectations.

Within the ellipsis of the quoted text from Supplement 4 states... "or to fill specific campaign game needs..." So if the group wants to create Medical ship and staff it with doctors for the campaign, Supplement 4 now makes this easy. But it is still, per the text, a drift from the original assumptions of play -- which consists of experienced men and women with gumption, skills, and general competency heading out into the vast gulfs of space where adventure awaits.

As rhialto pointed out in the matter the general competence of PCs having a default of 0 for firearms...

Yes, if you are a Traveller PC from Bk1.

Remember that not having any weapon expertise costs a character a DM -5 on any combat rolls. Thus, pulling Frank's post back in: encountered NPCs will have an expertise of 1 with whatever they carry... but be quite inexperienced with anything else. PCs, by contrast, can pick up most weapons with familiarity. They are a breed apart; they are travellers.

Thus, the original intent was never to model "The guy you knew once down the street" as a PC. The original rules of Traveller were built to model and emulate a certain type of fiction and the protagonists that populate such tales.

 

[Terquem]

I think you over-estimate the mechanical complexity of a firearm. I am pretty sure that given a few minutes to figure it out, I could get any firearm to shoot a hole in a water tank.

Zorg - "I hate warriors, too narrow-minded. I'll tell you what I do like though: a killer, a dyed-in-the-wool killer. Cold blooded, clean, methodical and thorough. Now a real killer, when he picked up the ZF-1, would've immediately asked about the little red button on the bottom of the gun."

 

[exedore6]

I tend to give 0 level skills like candy. "I think I should know how to do this because of ..." - hell, 15 minutes orientation could grant level 0.

Bk-1 p23
"A level 0 indicates an orientation to the skill by an experienced person"

So to take the pistol angle (Note - I've never fired a pistol, have fired rifles though)

Pistol-0
Would know boomy end, trigger, magazine (but might call them clips), safety. Would have to figure out what's what. Would know that it needed to be cleaned, would need a manual (and skill check) to do it successfuly.

Pistol-1
Knows all that in their sleep, could figure it out on an unfamiliar weapon.

Wheeled Vehicle-0 - Able to drive, knows that there's usually a spare tire and that people can change it. Could follow instructions, might miss an important step though, making it harder or less safe.

As far as gaping holes in knowledge - I'd leave that up to the player. The PhD who can't change a tire, can't change a tire because he chooses not to learn. Getting Mechanical-0 would take literally 15 minutes with the car's book and an Edu or Int based throw(I'd lean towards edu), or have someone show him.

 

[aramis]

Which goes to my point (back in my original post) about "Straightforward Player Character Designer for Making Adventurers." I understand that some people want to use the Classic Traveller rules to emulate any sort of person who might exist as a PC -- which is how we get lengthy threads about interstellar shoe salesmen. But per the original intent of the game making a shoe salesmen wasn't the point of the game.

By the way, I'm not saying people shouldn't make a Traveller game to have a campaign about a group of traveling shoe salesmen... if that's what you want, go for it. I am making a point that Traveller, in its many editions, has been around for so many decades, in so many editions, and taffy pulled so many ways, that man people get frustrated that the rules don't do what they think they should do (model all things as if it were modeling reality) rather than looking at them for what they are.

And here, in this subform, with the Tag "Rules Only" we're talking about the Classic Traveller rules. In turn the rules model were not built to model "reality" but the adventure SF fiction of Vance, Pournelle, Tubb, Piper, Norton, Bester, and so on. And thus the PCs are the sorts of protagonists who populate such fiction.

Even if we expand to Supplement 4: Citizens of the Imperium we end up with Belters, Barbarian, Pirates, as well as less adventurous types such as Doctors and Belters. Something that has been forgotten in the mists of time (and which has opened the doors to conversations about shoe salesmen PCs) is that the default purpose of Supplement 4 was not to expand the potential types of Player Characters.

From the first page...
"In the course of Traveller adventures, both players and referees constantly need additional characters for use in patron or random encounters... This supplement is intended to fill that void."*

Again, this is original Traveller under discussion, with its early years sensibilities. The game has changed through the editions, along with expectations. But the focus of my original post was original Traveller. And with that comes with a set of expectations.

Within the ellipsis of the quoted text from Supplement 4 states... "or to fill specific campaign game needs..." So if the group wants to create Medical ship and staff it with doctors for the campaign, Supplement 4 now makes this easy. But it is still, per the text, a drift from the original assumptions of play -- which consists of experienced men and women with gumption, skills, and general competency heading out into the vast gulfs of space where adventure awaits.

As rhialto pointed out in the matter the general competence of PCs having a default of 0 for firearms...

Remember that not having any weapon expertise costs a character a DM -5 on any combat rolls. Thus, pulling Frank's post back in: encountered NPCs will have an expertise of 1 with whatever they carry... but be quite inexperienced with anything else. PCs, by contrast, can pick up most weapons with familiarity. They are a breed apart; they are travellers.

Thus, the original intent was never to model "The guy you knew once down the street" as a PC. The original rules of Traveller were built to model and emulate a certain type of fiction and the protagonists that populate such tales.

That doesn't quite jive with the instructions (in TTB), "Many NPCs must have as detailed a character development as player characters do, and should be given a great deal of careful attention if they are intended to stay around for a while. NPCs are often needed on the spur of the moment; use the characters you generated while learning to use the system."

While it's clearly not, "Every NPC should be fully rolled out", it is an implication of "If they're more than color or a one-scene wonder, use the CGen system"

 

[ffilz]

That doesn't quite jive with the instructions (in TTB), "Many NPCs must have as detailed a character development as player characters do, and should be given a great deal of careful attention if they are intended to stay around for a while. NPCs are often needed on the spur of the moment; use the characters you generated while learning to use the system."

While it's clearly not, "Every NPC should be fully rolled out", it is an implication of "If they're more than color or a one-scene wonder, use the CGen system"

Well, there's more of the system drift from 1977 to The Traveller Book... But it doesn't really counter 1977. There was nothing in 1977 to suggest you couldn't use the chargen rules for NPCs (and in fact, Supplement 1 - 1001 Characters does just that). In the fiction Traveller was modeled on, there were other "travellers" beside the main character (Dumarest often hooked up with other people, he just had the best luck and survival).

As to player use of Supplement 4, I allow it, but don't encourage it in my campaign. As a player, I was playing a Noble in one campaign because I rolled a Social 10 and thought I'd try it out (and maybe get a ship). I've got a player who is going to try out a Barbarian (will be interesting to see how that plays out), but by and large, the characters are from the Book 1 careers and I think that's perfect.

Frank

 

[creativehum]

[Cross-posted with Frank's post]

That doesn't quite jive with the instructions (in TTB), "Many NPCs must have as detailed a character development as player characters do, and should be given a great deal of careful attention if they are intended to stay around for a while. NPCs are often needed on the spur of the moment; use the characters you generated while learning to use the system."

While it's clearly not, "Every NPC should be fully rolled out", it is an implication of "If they're more than color or a one-scene wonder, use the CGen system"

I think you are misreading the post and conflating points to reach conclusions about things I did not say.

Yes, certainly, some NPCs should be more detailed. But rhialto and I are both referring the guidelines for NPC Encounters found in Book 3. These are spur of the moment Encounters.

Further, in the same post you quote I make the point that S4 exists to create detailed NPCs as needed by the Referee. So, clearly I would never state that an NPC should not be created with detail. I'm all for NPCs being more detailed if desired by the Referee. I would never say otherwise and did not say otherwise.

But the run of the mill NPC that the PCs meet in a random encounter or the police force? The rules suggest they might have a weapon, and if so they'll be at a expertise rating of 1 in the weapon. More details can be added later of course. For example, an NPC the PCs meet might turn out to be a Farmer. So he'll know lots about farming. No new skills and rules need to be cooked up for that. The Referee can simply adjudicate as it makes sense as to what the NPC knows and can do in that field.

 

[aramis]

No, frank, we are not. Traveller has always come across, and Marc has implied strongly, as treating PCs and NPCs equally under all the rules. Military PCs and NPCs should all have the level 0 in all weapons. This looks very much like basic training to me. Basics of knives, firearms, spears (bayonet, guidon), and cudgels (pugel stick). Truth be told, tho, the passage i quoth implies that even the level 0 goes with for detailed bk1 career npcs... because they are repurposed PCs.

The short form for encounters is a space saver, and time to make minor encounters easier, not a dividing line drawn in the rules.

Travellers differ in motivation and opportunity, not ability, from dirt-huggers.

Other is a monkeywrench either way, and merchat somewhat of one as well. Neither is likely to be given comprehensive weapons training.

Marcs written games are all simulations to some degree, always imprecise for playability. He has said as much. Frank was of similar mind on how rules work, but not where that balance lay, based upon Frank's corpus. And by comparison to D&D of the era, in 77 to 83, only a scant few games were more simulationist in rules. (TriTac, Web, and Chivalry & Sorcery.)

There is no PC differentiation mechanically other that the weapons expertise, and military NPCs should also have same.

 

[whartung]

My roommate had a SPAS-12 shotgun ala "The Terminator". Being a combination pump/semi auto, I found I wasn't able to figure out how to cycle the (unloaded) action. Mind, I didn't spend a lot of time (couple minutes), and this was a low stress situation. On a Mossberg, you can't open the action without clicking a release once it's been cycled and cocked. I assume that's common to many pump shotguns, but most semi-automatic and bolt action firearms that I've encountered do not lock the action like that (the safety may lock it).

The simple point being that while there are some fundamental aspects shared by many personal arms, here's an example that despite my "general firearm knowledge", I wasn't able to get it to operate in the short time I was messing with it.

I, myself, am not "very" mechanical. I know what a wrench is, I know how to use a pair of vice grips to send searing heat to the palm of my hand, but I'm not mechanical. I can change a tire. I can change a car battery.

Well, I thought I could.

My wife's car battery up and died on her yesterday, and we called for service. They were prepared and kind enough to replace the battery right then and there.

The detail, is that on her car, the battery is in the trunk (on my car, the battery in below the passenger seat -- I honestly can not say how to access it, I'd have to google it). The tech had to partially disassemble the trunk trim and lining to get the battery out. This involved removing clips and fasteners, as well as unbolting fixtures before he was finally in the battery compartment, where he removed yet more fasteners and things that hold the battery in place.

Where my "mechanical" skill is lacking is the lack of experience in how to disassemble these things with out breaking something. Had I have to do that myself, I couldn't say how long it would have taken me to pull that trunk apart to replace the battery.

Even worse, were I to have done it myself, I could have easily got the wrong battery. The model car comes with two different kinds of batteries, depending on whether it has the auto engine stop/start feature. The engine stop/start feature requires a different, larger battery. I can easily have seen me going in to the auto parts store, giving them the make and model of the car (with no mention of the stop/start feature, why would I mention that?), and coming home with the wrong battery.

Push comes to shove, I could have probably googled it and come up with a Youtube video of how to perform this.

But the point being that even "routine tasks" today can be more than they seem.

 

[creativehum]

There is no PC differentiation mechanically other that the weapons expertise, and military NPCs should also have same.

This sentence makes no sense. The rules explicitly state that Player characters have level-0 default for all weapons, which you note correctly... and then go on to say "except in the matter of weapons"... which is exactly the point (weapons) that the rules make an exception for for PCs. (Of course, PCs are PCs... not NPCs that happen to have the values generated during PC generation.)

In the same way you are contradicting the rules here: "Other is a monkeywrench either way, and merchat somewhat of one as well. Neither is likely to be given comprehensive weapons training." Except, per the actual rules, Player Characters from the Others or the Merchant Marines do have comprehensive weapons training -- because they are Player Characters. You may not like that rule. You can easily change it. But it isn't what the rules state.

Listen, if you want to have NPCs that have a full range of weapon-0 expertise, go for it. If I wanted an awesome NPC for the PCs to encounter I might well do it too.

But the text of Books 1-3 say one thing. You want something else. You're left grasping at, again, "Marc has implied..." and tossing around the word "corpus."

The last time you did that (in this very thread) you insisted that the Classic Traveller adventures have plenty of instances of situation Throws of 1D, 3D, 4D in some weird attempt to prove I was wrong about 2D being the default for Classic Traveller Throws. It turns out, however, that in all of the GDW Classic Traveller adventure there was only one instance of a non-2D Throw. Whatever point you were trying to make fell apart when looking at the actual books.

Which, again, isn't that big a deal. What I am getting confused about is what you're trying to get at? You state things that aren't true, that contradict the text in front of you, and draw on the Refereeing style of different people for a game where EVERY REFEREE must determine how he wants to use the rules, which hardly makes it some sort of writ-in-stone contradiction to the rules as they stand.

Why are you fighting so hard to make points against people who are literally stating the rules?

 

[creativehum]

Well, I thought I could...

An excellent example.

As I keep saying, it depends on the specifics of the situation. Is a car tire easy to replace? Is a battery? It depends on the car. It depends on the tools available. And so on. And the rules of Book 1 say exactly this.

As for your point about weapons, this is why I have alway thought EXPERTISE for different weapons makes perfect sense. Gaining that extra point on a 2D6 curve for a hit is a big deal. It's about the weapon being so familiar in your hands that you can handle it in combat situations without having to give it a second thought. Which is a big deal.

 

[kilemall]

As I keep saying, it depends on the specifics of the situation. Is a car tire easy to replace? Is a battery? It depends on the car. It depends on the tools available. And so on. And the rules of Book 1 say exactly this.

As for your point about weapons, this is why I have alway thought EXPERTISE for different weapons makes perfect sense. Gaining that extra point on a 2D6 curve for a hit is a big deal. It's about the weapon being so familiar in your hands that you can handle it in combat situations without having to give it a second thought. Which is a big deal.

The way I'm doing it is main generic skill, then equipment familiarization. So Gun-4 means +4 to hit, with X weapons learned so far.

As to no skill vs. skill-0 vs. skill-1+, absolutely there should be a difference, with the no skill person in particular perhaps having to roll several times for success due to time-consuming learning as they go and risking breaking/wrecking/wounding in the process.

 

[mike wightman]

I would go with:
0 - familiarity with service weapons, a few minutes of instruction or google to learn the basics for something unfamiliar
1 - familiar with service weapons and weapons that are similar, a few minutes of instruction or google for something unfamiliar
2 - familiar with most common weapons thanks to spending too much time on youtube, a few minutes instruction or google for something out of the ordinary
3 - familiar with just about any weapon ever documented in the Imperial gun ⌧ database, a few minutes instruction or alien artifact google for something totally unknown
4 - pick it up, shoot it, field strip it, put it back together and shoot it again, a few minutes instruction or alien psionic google for something totally alien