Advancement in Traveller?

[Treebore]

I have always been a fan of letting players build the character they want.

So, for example, when the tell me they want to be a Navy Pilot I never roll for enlistment or re enlistment checks, except to determine if they are officer or enlisted.

I still do the survival checks, but only let it result in injuries, never death or early retirement.

Another thing I like about Traveller is that attributes aren't HUGELY important. Meaning if given enough time the skill ranks can make up for not having decent to great stats.

Also for PC's I tend to allow any stats rolled with a negative modifier be upped to a 5 if the players would like to. Which hey usually do, but I have had a few stick it out with their negative modifier.

 

[GamerDude]

Why do so many men go out and buy "big equipment" (in anything they do?) To make up for a lack of big 'equipment'. My equipment is just fine thank you, and I'm a ROLE player, not a over powered compensation for male inadequacies.

And yet you seem to be the person speculating about another man's 'equipment' size on an Internet message board... I think thou doth protest too much...

I mean, why bring penises into the discussion? Something on your mind dude? :lol:

ROFL... it's a quote from a Jud Nelson movie where he ends up impersonating a NYC Cop. He's a salesman in an electronics store and tells some dudes girlfriend that (embarrassing the dude) adding how bad their markup is.

Big equipment also means "your brain" as in "you don't have the equipment to process such bigh concepts as 1+1=2"

**laughs heartily as he goes to enjoy his actual RolePlaying game**

RE: Egil - Thank you, nice to see others get the point!

 

[GamerDude]

Ok, I'm tired of beating my head on the desk when I hear about "randomness kills what I want to play".

um, isn't this the same as what you are complaining about; an inability to handle the randomness of peoples posts and just deal with it and move on?

I have no idea when this concept of "No matter the system, I must be more 'uber' than the 'most uber possible character in the game' " crap came from.

This is ROLE-playing, take the rolls and work with them. Let me guess, everyone just re-rolls all their mishaps, their skill rolls, their events rolls until they get what they "WANT" instead of being a slave to the randomness of the dice.

I see this more as a problem with the GM/Players not being on the same page. If a player has a specific type of character in mind, the random rolls definitely can play a huge factor. "I want to be a scientist." Oops, one failed qual and you never get the chance.

Y'know what? if you don't like the dice rolling, that randomness... use the stinking point buy system and make the exact character you want!

Exactly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using one of the alternate chargen methods so that there is less randomness.

Oh wait, the points given won't let you get the skill levels you want and wahhhh you don't want to take more terms (making an older character). Pfftt crybabies all.

The point limit is up to the GM. And as always, whatever skill or stats the PC's have, their oponents can still be as good or better or more numerous or... being GM can be fun.

Yeah I hear ya.. gawd forbid you actually take on the challenge of playing a 'sub-par' character and making the best of it... yep, gawd forbid.

Perhaps I do want to play a sub par character but the random rolls make them far from it? Complaints about randomness are not always about being supermen.

I've seen GM's make players use premades or make a new player use the character left by a player who left the game because there is a character with specific skills/characteristics is needed to fit the adventure.

CG, I pretty much agree with you.. people have plenty of choices: What system they play, how the characters are created/generated, etc. And the GM plays a large part in that-a cooperative effort. In my D&D (and other sword&sorcery games) I tell players right up front that I'm low magic, like LotR (in general). And I don't say this then turn around with a bunch of enemies that require major magical items to defeat.

Just locally (and at many of the cons I attend) I see so many players day in day out who are so insecure that they won't play a character starting at the beginning, at first level... or not have magic items... or not have gobs of cash to go buy what the GM didn't hand over to them... etc. They don't want to play a character that has a personality (which differs from their own) or a background or has to actually follow any rules (society or just the concepts of what a 'good' person generally would do). They want to start with the 15th level Lawful Good Paladin who can kill anyone they feel slighted by and not be penalized for breaking that CHOSEN alignment.

In computer games you don't play a character, you control a killing machine that has certain abilities and lacks others, you just push buttons (or the keys/mouse). I play characters, they have a concept before the creation process even begins, I'm not busy searching across 15 books looking for the perfect min-maxed combination of features to get some sense of being powerful and yet have no sense of who the character is. I Role play, not ROLL play or 'just push buttons play'.

I am a ROLE player, and I'm proud of it (waits for the 'I am Sparticus' like chorus of other players to start).

 

[captainjack23]

(waits for the 'I am Sparticus' like chorus of other players to start).

Uhhhh....centurion ? HIM - Over there. HE is Spartacus the role player.

Now get me off this cross.....pretty please ? And pull out the foot nails first, if you don't mind.....

 

[rust]

Uhhhh....centurion ? HIM - Over there. HE is Spartacus the role player.

Now get me off this cross.....pretty please ? And pull out the foot nails first, if you don't mind.....

I wonder whether the Roman legions had a term for "collateral damage"
or an abbreviation for "erroneously crucified" ...

 

[rust]

They want to start with the 15th level Lawful Good Paladin who can kill anyone they feel slighted by and not be penalized for breaking that CHOSEN alignment.

I think this is a normal, almost natural beginner's mistake. Almost all ga-
mes people know are competitive in the sense that someone can win the
game, so the wish to have a powerful character that is likely to win even
if one does not know the game well does not come as a surprise.

Besides, there are more than a few experienced roleplaying gamers who
also enjoy that style, even see roleplaying games as a competition be-
tween their characters and the referee's characters and monsters. It is
not my kind of fun, but I would not consider it as "badwrongfun" - it is
just a different way to play.

 

[hector]

Might I point out that it only takes three or four rolls of a given skill to make you an expert in game terms? That takes time; years of your life, most likely. Combine that with the compromise above (pick which table you want the skill roll to apply to after making the roll), and while you may not start as an expert at your chosen profession, you won't be far off. As to events, well, they add something to your character's background that you may not have considered.

Frankly, I think it comes from the conceit that the PCs ought to be a touch above NPCs of the same experience (which I consider to be a load of <something I'm not sure I can actually say on this forum>), while the idea of the Traveller system is that your character starts out with near enough the average amount of natural talent and training any other person would have at their age. This conceit is a new thing, and and believe it or not, your average Traveller PC starts of at Par. Not subpar, but par itself; most characters have a little knowledge in several areas; not lots of knowledge in two or three areas, which is the same situation as the NPCs are in.

The type of character you want to create is up to you; the exact details are down to how he lived his life. And if you don't like random, use point buy. As a GM, I'd allow point buy for anyone who didn't want to use the die rolling system; providing they write up a suitable background that explains their expenditures, since if they want to be uber specialised, they're welcome to it, and all the weaknesses it brings.

 

[captainjack23]

Uhhhh....centurion ? HIM - Over there. HE is Spartacus the role player.

Now get me off this cross.....pretty please ? And pull out the foot nails first, if you don't mind.....

I wonder whether the Roman legions had a term for "collateral damage"
or an abbreviation for "erroneously crucified" ...

Almost certainly -remember, they had technical terms for killing every tenth person, and for different degrees of Sacking cities. Great people. They invented Concrete, you know? That says much, I think.

BTW, I looked it up. CPC = Crucified per casus. Amazing.

 

[GamerDude]

I really don't care how other people play their RPG's. I do care when I read/hear that attitude the likes of which I originally replied to in this thread.

I also don't appreciate it when someone thinks it's ok to shove their style of play down my throat as the only way they'll play. I'm flexible. Tell me what game you're running and if I like the concept etc. I'll play-if I don't like it then I just will gracefully decline.

And I'm serious when I say I've been given some serious grief for starting brand new campaigns with 1st level/beginning chars, or not allowing some crazy dice rolling convention for stats that almost guarantees very high numbers (16+ in D&D for example).

As RUST said, play the game you want, but there is no "right" and no "badwrongno" way to play.

 

[Matian]

Really, I think it comes down to player maturity. I've been very clear about what sort of campaign I want to run, and told everyone going into it what I expected of them. That was when they decided to stay on the ship and then whined and moaned whenever I tried to throw plot at them because I was "railroading" or "handholding" them, and why can't I let them play the game they want to play?

Well, that's fine, but I want to run the game I want to run. Some players have a real problem with accepting that someone else is in charge, and that there may be rules they don't like. The mature thing to do is to accept that the GM is in charge, and play and try to make the best of it, and maybe learn something in the process. The common thing to do is scream, cry, moan and try to bring the game to a grinding halt until they get their way.

Encouraging player mutiny simply because one person dislikes a portion of the ruleset is self-defeating, both to the game and the hobby as a whole.

 

[opensent]

Encouraging player mutiny simply because one person dislikes a portion of the ruleset is self-defeating, both to the game and the hobby as a whole.

There is no such thing as a one player mutiny. The fact that your players felt the need to spend a game year ramping up their skills, shows that there’s a big disconnect between what players want from their character, and what you and Mongoose think is acceptable.

For all this talk of how simple and stupid we ‘immature’ ‘roll’ players are… keep in mind that gaming is about fun. Your players didn’t think that was going to happen until they ramped up their skill.

EPIC FAIL

Maybe next time, don’t be so tone deaf and give ‘em a slice of what they want. That might also be a mature thing. Quite frankly, the whole 'shutup and accept that I'm in charge'; argument seems immature to me. Perhaps, finding a way forward with your players might be the way to go. No one says the game has to be easy, but a player should be comfortable and confident with their character.

The Halo franchise alone has sold more than 23 million units and grossed 1.7 billion dollars in merchandise sales. It’s mainstream and you’ll attract a lot more player by setting your players up for a similar experience than you will on trying to sell them the joys of playing a UPP 668382 – 0.5 term Marine/3 term Drifter.

 

[Matian]

Why do you keep posting and playing if you have such a problem with the rules? This board is very friendly, with people offering up helpful suggestions and house-rules for tweaking the system to make it better suited to your individual game style. I do not understand your hostility to Mongoose and the Traveller ruleset.

WRT my case, yes, the game is about fun. That includes fun for the GM as well - the person who is spending multiple hours per week setting up the adventures for the party to blow through. They are not computers designed to give you the "best" gaming experience; they're humans who deserve to have their desires taken into account. As I stated earlier, if you'd bothered to read my post, I told the players in advance what sort of game I was interested in running and what some general story arcs would be. They agreed, and then proceeded to ruin my and several of the other players' experience by refusing to play the game I'd outlined. That's like going to an action movie and complaining it's not a rom-com.

I don't play D&D and complain because it uses polys and I don't have a laser gun. I don't play Shadowrun and complain because it mixes cyberpunk and fantasy. I don't play Traveller and complain because the system is predicated on real people with varied lives.

You keep referencing Halo in your posts. Perhaps roleplaying simply isn't the right hobby for you. The combination of people, personalities, and random dice rolls means most of the story is out of your control. If a controlled and tightly mapped experience is what you're after, you're best off sticking to video games.

 

[rust]

The Halo franchise alone has sold more than 23 million units and grossed 1.7 billion dollars in merchandise sales. It’s mainstream and you’ll attract a lot more player by setting your players up for a similar experience than you will on trying to sell them the joys of playing a UPP 668382 – 0.5 term Marine/3 term Drifter.

Pardon me, but according to that logic we should all play Monopoly. It is
the overall best selling game of all times, it is definitely mainstream, and
we could attract a lot more players by setting our players up for a similar
experience ... :lol:

 

[FreeTrav]

Pardon me, but according to that logic we should all play Monopoly. It is the overall best selling game of all times, it is definitely mainstream, and we could attract a lot more players by setting our players up for a similar experience ... :lol:

... and as a game, it leaves quite a bit to be desired - it is, when you sit down and analyze it, poorly designed.

This, however, is not the correct forum for discussing it; if you'd like to follow-up privately, PM me or drop me an email; if you want a public discussion of it, ping me in Random Static over on CotI.

 

[hector]

To be fair, if someone ended up with a UPP that bad, I'd have them reroll it. As to the careers, three terms as a drifter isn't too bad; you're already a competent marksman from the half term as a marine, and the drifter grants a few different skills. Besides, you can always do what I did; pick a career from the mercenaries book. Or, one could simply offer the point buy system as an alternative.

I don't much like the point buy system, because I like how character generation also gives your character a background with very little effort required, but from a purely mechanical point of view, it's quite well balanced with the die roll system and a point buy character gets just as much benefit from starting older as a standard character.

 

[Bense]

Really, I think it comes down to player maturity. I've been very clear about what sort of campaign I want to run, and told everyone going into it what I expected of them. That was when they decided to stay on the ship and then whined and moaned whenever I tried to throw plot at them because I was "railroading" or "handholding" them, and why can't I let them play the game they want to play?

Well, that's fine, but I want to run the game I want to run. Some players have a real problem with accepting that someone else is in charge, and that there may be rules they don't like. The mature thing to do is to accept that the GM is in charge, and play and try to make the best of it, and maybe learn something in the process. The common thing to do is scream, cry, moan and try to bring the game to a grinding halt until they get their way.

Encouraging player mutiny simply because one person dislikes a portion of the ruleset is self-defeating, both to the game and the hobby as a whole.

I see that as the wrong attitude from start to finish.
The GM is not "in charge" in any sense of the word.
The mature thing to do is to give the players what they want. Your goal, after all, is to entertain them, not enforce your will. You will be entertained only if they are. But part of the secret is that players are partial masochists. They will not be entertained if everything is too easy.

Had I been in your place I would have worked out some sort of compromise before beginning play. If your players aren't happy with their stats then figure out where you can give them a few more points without ruining the power level you wanted, so that everyone is happy.

 

[apoc527]

This is funny, because I was hoping for a discussion about advancement in Traveller, something that my group finds to be a serious omission in the core rules. I came up with a type of XP system that incorporates the training requirements, but to address what this thread has become, I'll offer up this:

The "roleplayer" vs. "rollplayer" argument is so ancient that it really doesn't deserve this kind of attention. Both types of gaming are valid and most groups, if they are being really honest with themselves, regularly engage in both types. I know that we certainly do. When we were younger, about 17 years ago, we tended towards rollplaying, but yet still accomplished a fair bit of roleplaying. These days, it just depends.

In my most recently run MGT game, I was recreating an origin story for the X-com computer games. I had the players roll up their PCs, but I gave them a +4 on their Advancement Rolls, an extra skill that they could choose every term, AND the ability to choose their skill with their normal career pick (though if they wanted Personal Development, they had to roll).

The PCs are extremely competent, even though I limited them to 4 terms (and two players went only 3 terms). That's because no player failed an Advancement Roll, so each PC got 3 skill rolls/choices per term not including Events, Connections, and the Package at the end.

Would this system be good for every game? Absolutely not, but for this premise, it was essential. You try fighting TL12 aliens with TL7-8 gear...

 

[hector]

Well of course no one failed if everyone got a +4 to their rolls; what was the total needed on the dice, 3?

Increasing skills is simple: you spend your downtime training your skills. That's it. No need for XP or the like; you increase your skills by learning how to do it better. I'd suggest a number of weeks equal to double the current value for increasing a characteristic, since that seems to be missing in the system. The way to get people to do adventures rather than simply sit on the ship? You point out to them that the Type S ship they're sitting in is costing them a little under a hundred and twenty thousand credits per month and will continue to do so for the next forty years, which if they don't pay, they're going to have some very upset people with guns come looking for their money. That's not including fuel to keep the power plant running and to keep jumping from system to system (a good idea if you've skipped a couple of months' payment on the mortgage).

Incidentally, I count time in jump space as downtime; it's a week during which relatively little is happening, so they get a week to spend on a given skill.

 

[apoc527]

Well, there are no ships in my game and the entire campaign has spanned about a month so far, so the stock training rules aren't very effective. They were obviously meant for a typical Traveller game with the week-in-jump between adventures a standard time to train (assuming you let your PCs train in jump).

At any rate, the XP was an additional requirement that has the advantage of letting the PCs "skip" training time by spending it.

 

[Bense]

I don't like the idea of a PC serving 4 terms (16 years) and receiving around a dozen skill levels and then suddenly, when he starts adventuring, he gains a dozen skill levels in one year.