Advancement and Rank bonuses

[CosmicGamer]

Well, I may be out of line here, but thought I'd take the opportunity to suggest a more substantial change.

Currently some ranks have a bonus (usually a skill), and some careers offer more than others.

I suggest that all ranks have an associated level skill or characteristic bonus or perhaps even a ship share, TAS membership, weapon or other appropriate bonus. Things that a character in that profession at the rank advanced to should know or have.

For now I won't go through every career and offer up my suggestions for each rank, but one thought is that for some ranks it could be something like "Specialist skill (any) 1" Where you can choose from one of the 6 skills on the Specialist table for your current assignment.

Optionally you could remove the default advancement skill roll and change it to only rolling if you already have the skill at the specified level or higher, then you do get to roll so that you don't come away with nothing.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I think it should just be consistent. Some careers offer only a couple of skills, while others offer 4 or more.

I suggest that a consistant 3 skills (every other rank level) be used.

 

[hdan]

Advancement does already offer an extra roll on the Skills table.

Though I agree that the extra rewards should be a bit more even between services.

I have not, however, cross referenced the odds of advancement with the rewards. It's possible that "reward dense" advancement tracks are harder to advance in.

 

[grauenwolf]

I rarely benefit from the rank based skills. They are at a fixed level, so usually I already have the skill at or above what it offers.

So instead of a bonus, I see it as a failsafe in case I'm missing something critical.

 

[-Daniel-]

I rarely benefit from the rank based skills. They are at a fixed level, so usually I already have the skill at or above what it offers.

So instead of a bonus, I see it as a failsafe in case I'm missing something critical.

This is how I saw them. Make sure they have at least a minimum in a particular skill.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

BUT, you should also be able to roll up any skill listed in the Advancement bonus. Don't give a Traveller Vacc Suit-1 if none of the career tables allow you to roll Vacc Suit. (I'm looking at you Scouts...)

 

[-Daniel-]

BUT, you should also be able to roll up any skill listed in the Advancement bonus. Don't give a Traveller Vacc Suit-1 if none of the career tables allow you to roll Vacc Suit. (I'm looking at you Scouts...)

Scout Courier has Vacc-Suit at slot 6 on their table. :wink:

But you do make a good point.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I think it should just be consistent. Some careers offer only a couple of skills, while others offer 4 or more.

I suggest that a consistant 3 skills (every other rank level) be used.

I'm not a fan of equality, symmetry, or homogeneousness.

 

[anselyn]

I think it should just be consistent. Some careers offer only a couple of skills, while others offer 4 or more.

I suggest that a consistent 3 skills (every other rank level) be used.

I'm not a fan of equality, symmetry, or homogeneousness.

Is that because this is a simulationist set of rules and so you desire inequality, asymmetry and inhomogeneity to better model the facts, known to you, of the generic underspecified universe of MgT2?

Or is it because you want a very gamist experience with good and bad choices where player skill is tested in career selection?

Or what?

I was rather hoping for a system that would provide all players with equally interesting viable characters. I suggest that this balance (for want of a better word) is achieved by a rough parity in output skill levels - from some E/S/H in the career tables.

BTW: I agree with you on not enforcing a balance or symmetry of totals for Survive and Advancement rolls. There is no equivalence on the probability of surviving and advancing on a 7+/7+ roll compared to a 10+/4+. Outcomes are what count.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Two notes on this.

First, life is not fair, and nor is Traveller creation (to an extent at least). Some careers have better rewards than others (Noble). Traveller is about doing the best with what you have.

But.

The _only_ reason the rank bonuses are there is to make sure there is a basic level of competency among those of elevated position. So you do not have a complete twit in charge.

 

[Raskul]

Hi This would probably make a difference somewhere. I would have separate advancement and rank lists. Rank is something that you earn. but you should still have something for years of service. A Manager and a worker is not the same thing.

 

[Cugel]

Two notes on this.

First, life is not fair, and nor is Traveller creation (to an extent at least). Some careers have better rewards than others (Noble). Traveller is about doing the best with what you have.

But.

The _only_ reason the rank bonuses are there is to make sure there is a basic level of competency among those of elevated position. So you do not have a complete twit in charge.

Are we trying to model some ideal state, because this never happens in the RW...I can easily see (and have seen and heard) Capt.'s with Leadership-0, despite every attempt to train them. 8)

Semi-joking aside, the careers are already dissimilar enough that just standardizing the "auto rank every other level" would seem to be simple enough. Say at ranks 2, 4 and 6.

 

[nawara]

Semi-joking aside, the careers are already dissimilar enough that just standardizing the "auto rank every other level" would seem to be simple enough. Say at ranks 2, 4 and 6.

I like the current system, since some skills really are necessary at certain early levels (e.g., the Marine tables). It doesn't seem to encourage anyone to avoid any particular career, which would be the only reason to adjust it in my view.