Advancement in Traveller?

[simonh]

This is a discussion about one of those fundamental issues in roleplaying, to which there is no simple or perfect answer. Roleplaying games can in theory be about any characters in any kind of situation, but as a social game we as players and GM need to come to a mutually acceptable agreement and that means making compromises.

I think it's inevitable that this discussion very quickly got sidetracked from discussing character advancement to discussing character creation. The two are inextricably intertwined and I think it's not possible to comprehensively adress one without also addressing the other, so I don't see this thread as having genuinely drifted.

Roleplaying games are fundamentally about the player characters - who they are and what they do. Therefore character creation is of course a crucial stage. It's also far more crucial for the players than it is for the GM.

For a player not familiar with the setting, their own character sheet comprises the vast majority of what a player knows about the game world. The abilities their character has are, on the face of it, the only way the player can influence or affect the game world. Therefore a more competent and capable character gives the player more options for interacting with the game world. As a result, particularly for players not familiar with me as a GM and without an existing store of trust in my GMing style, I think it's reasonable for the players to feel more comfortable with a capable, experienced character.

I threw in a caveat at the beginning that last paragraph. If the player does know the setting very well, and also if they know the GM's style from previous games, this gives them a big advantage. If the player has plenty of information up front about the game setting, their character can use that information to help solve problems in the game and make informed decisions. If they know the GM's style, or intended style for this game, then they might be able to anticipate the kinds of challenges they might face and how NPCs are likely to behave. In this situation the player might reasonably be expected much more comfortable with a less capable character in terms of stats and skills. But that's an expectation in general, there's no requirement that players must feel that way.

So I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to run a game in which the players start out as just average joes or with few resources. However I wouldn't throw a situation like that at people I didn't already know and didn't have any reason to trust me as a GM. I've played in games run by awkward, arbitrary GMs on a power trip and it's not fun. A new bunch of players that haven't gamed with me have no reason to assume I'm any good.

The way I see it making sure the players have competent, capable characters costs me as a GM absolutely nothing. It costs me no extra money. It takes no options away from me in terms of the scenarios I want to run. Saying "yes you can" during character generation is no more difficult than saying "no you can't". In fact, I'd argue it makes my life easier. I can throw tougher challenges at the party, I can put them in tighter spots or against more opponents if they have better skills and are better equipped.

Which do you think is the more reasonable and understandable complaint.

1) A player complaining they were stuck with a no-hope character.

2) A GM complaining that their players whinged and complained about having no-hope characters.

I know where my sympathies lie. The GM has an unlimited budget and can give the NPCs whatever attributes, skills and resources they like, or even change the intended sequence of events and situation in the scenario behind the scenes as they see fit. The players have no such advantages. All they have is their character.

Character advancement during play doesn't interest me much to be honest. I like to make sure the players have decently capable characters from the get-go, so I don't see it as being very necessary. The rules in the TMB seem reasonable though, and I think it's reasonable in a long running game for the players to want to develop or evolve their character in interesting ways. This has always been a weakness in previous editions of Traveller. Maybe an evolution of the points-buy character generation system would work.

Simon Hibbs

 

[rust]

The GM has an unlimited budget and can give the NPCs whatever attributes, skills and resources they like, or even change the intended sequence of events and situation in the scenario behind the scenes as they see fit. The players have no such advantages. All they have is their character.

However, there is a limit to what the referee can hand out to the player
characters in skills and resources, and this limit is reached when the abi-
lities of the characters begin to contradict the basic assumptions of the
setting the referee prepared - "no wealthy nobles living in the slums of
the startown".

In my view this makes it prudent to discuss the setting and the limits it
may enforce on the characters before character creation, but once the
players have accepted the setting and its known restrictions, I would ha-
ve no sympathies at all for players who complain about something they
knew about and agreed to.

 

[IanBruntlett]

Something I encountered in AD&D was the idea of "game balance". The PCs need to be capable of taking on NPCs and vice-versa.

Sometimes campaign destructive/disruptive things would appear very rarely - Deities or their Avatars - also magic items such as artifacts.

I tended to run AD&D2E adventures from 0 level to about 7th level IIRC.

I did the same in MgT for a while - until Secrets Of The Ancients introduced Ancients. Having mega-powerful NPCs, in moderation, can give the PC a different perspective of the gaming universe they are in.

 

[simonh]

In my view this makes it prudent to discuss the setting and the limits it
may enforce on the characters before character creation, ...

Absolutely, I very much believe in giving the players plenty of information up front about the game I intend to run, and tuning character creation to suit it. That's one other problem I have with previous editions of Traveller character creation. It's not just that players have little control over the specifics of their character, I as GM have few tools available to tune the process for a specific game.

To be fair though, MGT is miles better in this respect than previous editions. Two mechanics achieve this. Firstly connections skills you get by forming a connection with other PCs. Secondly, skill packages.

Connections let the players bump up any skill to a max of level 3. That's really cool and is entirely at the player's discression.

By the book the players choose a package, but I'd probably use skill packages by constructing a custom skill package for the campaign I'm planning. I'd throwing in a few extra skills over the packages in the book as compensation for pushing it on them, as a sweetener to try and avoid the impression that I'm pushing them around. It's something I'd need to negotiate with the party.

So I have my problems with Traveller character generation in general, but MGT does go the extra mile to try and alleviate those issues. And after all, there's always the points-buy system.

Simon Hibbs

 

[simonh]

but once the players have accepted the setting and its known restrictions, I would ha-ve no sympathies at all for players who complain about something they knew about and agreed to.

Hmm. I let this pass me by when I first read your reply.

I always have sympathy when one of the players in my game isn't having fun. The only reason I run games is for me and the players to have fun. If that hasn't happened something has gone badly wrong, and as the referee since I have the vast majority of the power to determine the course of the game - I mean thousands of times more influence than any of the players - unless the player(s) are being real balls to the wall arse-holes it's almost a guaranteed dead certainty that it's my fault.

Sure some players can be awkward, anti-social pains in the butt. That happens. But I'd want to make absolutely dead certain that was the case rather than just assuming it. Even if the player is a bitter and twisted piece of work, so long as trying to make sure he has fun too doesn't compromise the fun of the other players, why not throw him a bone and be done with it? I don't view roleplaying sessions as being like pristine works of art that must not be sullied by sordid compromises. They're fun social activities. It's just a form of low culture entertainment, at the end of the day.

Now if throwing a bone to the awkward squad element would devalue or compromise the experience of other members of the party, I can definitely see that being a problem and I have personally been in situations like that. Sometimes my gaming style just doesn't fit with someone else's. There's not much to do but either part ways with that gamer, or if for various reasons you can't, try to come up with a strategy for coping with your differences that both of you can live with. It can be tough.

However I have a hard time imagining how a break down of trust or expectations like this can occur in character generation and it not be the GM's responsibility. I suppose if everyone agreed to use random roll methods with no fudge factors or re-rolls, and then someone complained their character turned out crap, that's kind of a 'breach of contract'. However I see that as being a legitimate complaint, born of the personal opinion that pure random generation for PCs is a fundamentally broken concept. Agreeing to use a broken system doesn't magically make the system OK or makes it's flaws and awkward consequences disappear. It's not as if the poor sap agreed up front to make crap rolls, or that he could be expected to anticipate that it could turn out that bad if he has little or no experience with Traveller character generation.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

In my view this makes it prudent to discuss the setting and the limits it
may enforce on the characters before character creation, ...

Absolutely, I very much believe in giving the players plenty of information up front about the game I intend to run, and tuning character creation to suit it.

Agreed, well worth describing the setting, discussing with the players what kind of story arc they would find interesting (merc, naval, scoundel etc), then rolling up characters.

Egil

 

[rust]

However I have a hard time imagining how a break down of trust or expectations like this can occur in character generation and it not be the GM's responsibility.

For example if a player insists that his character must have a certain skill,
although that skill is on the list of skills which are not available in that spe-
cific campaign, because it would damage the campaign (psionics are a ty-
pical case of this kind).

 

[simonh]

However I have a hard time imagining how a break down of trust or expectations like this can occur in character generation and it not be the GM's responsibility.

For example if a player insists that his character must have a certain skill,
although that skill is on the list of skills which are not available in that spe-
cific campaign, because it would damage the campaign (psionics are a ty-
pical case of this kind).

That's as much of a 'what is the game about' thing as much as it's about the character. Still, it's a valid example.

I've never had any time for psionics in SF myself, with a possible exception the whole game/setting is really about psionics.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Nidhogg]

While I think valid point have been made on a number of topics including:
-Role- vs roll- playing
-GM vs player expectations
-The correlation of "equipment size" to gaming style
-A variety of other issues

I too would like to see some more discussion on the OPs topic (the link between char gen and advancement in play not withstanding) ie how to handle character advancement in play.

I also find this problematic. The default system is reasonable I suppose but really falls apart in settings where there is not a lot of downtime or where keeping track of the passage of time exactly is not desirable (I am notoriously bad at this across all systems so tieing character progression to it is a recipe for disaster in my game). I suppose if I do use the system as written I will just get one of the players to track the number of weeks elapsed.

So what are the alternatives? Someone posted that having players get a dozen odd ranks in skills in 16 years then the same again in one year as being undesirable and I am inclined to agree. There has to be some limit to it to avoid an arms race between the NPCs and the PCs just making that Gun Combat (Rifles) 3 that they fought so hard to get in character creation totally meaningless. On the other hand no progression at all across a long compaign is somewhat unrealistic (though obviously very easy).

I have played in a game where some bonuses were awarded for particularly spectacular successes in play but I think this is probably also not ideal as it can quickly lead to feelings of favouritism when Player A happens to get two such bonuses whilst Player B has had none (even if the GM hasn't even noticed the fact). Plus it just isn't really a system is it!

One idea that occurs to me might work is something like the way that BRP handles advancement. Ie player gains a "check" to a skill when they succeed in exceptional circumstances and then at the end of a scenario/session they get to roll against that skill again and if they FAIL then they learnt something new they didn't already know.

For example:
Alex and Boris are using Athletics (Jump) to cross a ravine when under pursuit by carnivorous animals of some sort. The difficulty is 8.
Alex has STR 12(+2) and Athletics (Jump) 3 so he rolls 2d6+2+3. He succeeds and earns a check.
Boris has STR 5(-1) and no Athletics (Jump) (-3) so he rolls 2d6-1-3. But it is his lucky day and he rolls a 12, sailing over the ravine just barely. He also earns a check.
At the end of the session the DM calls for checks.
Given Alex's high level of skill in the area already he can learn more about Athletics (Jump) only on a roll of a 2. He tries and gets 4. Better luck next time. His skill does not improve.
Boris however is a woeful jumper and needs 11 or lower to advance. He rolls a 7 and gains Athletics (Jump) 0 having learned something from the experience.

Obviously this is pretty hastily grafted onto Traveller from BRP... but I can see it might work. Though is potentially problematic in some ways. What do people think?

Apologies for the TL;DR post!

 

[rust]

Obviously this is pretty hastily grafted onto Traveller from BRP... but I can see it might work. Though is potentially problematic in some ways. What do people think?

I have used a BRP conversion of Traveller that included experience checks
for a couple of years, and it worked quite well - especially if the system al-
so includes a rule for skill reduction of skills that were not used for a long
time, because this helps to avoid serious "skill creep".

The main problem with experience checks is that quite a few players tend
to try to use each of their characters' skills as often as possible, whether
it makes any sense or not, in the hope to get a few additional experience
checks. So experience checks work best if they are only awarded for ac-
tions that carry a serious risk, not only of failure but of injury to the cha-
racter - "no risk, no gain".

 

[locarno24]

I too would like to see some more discussion on the OPs topic (the link between char gen and advancement in play not withstanding) ie how to handle character advancement in play.

I also find this problematic. The default system is reasonable I suppose but really falls apart in settings where there is not a lot of downtime or where keeping track of the passage of time exactly is not desirable (I am notoriously bad at this across all systems so tieing character progression to it is a recipe for disaster in my game). I suppose if I do use the system as written I will just get one of the players to track the number of weeks elapsed.

Well - the 'keeping track of downtime' is as precise as you want it to be, I guess. If you want to assume that there's a week of down-time between each game (or whatever) then that works well enough.

To be honest, we've never really done much on skill development, unless someone has identified a specific skill (which is usually Language or Engineer) that they absolutely, positively have to have.
Most of the time, the character development 'rewards' generally come in the form of contacts, social standing or shiny toys.



Note: If you'd prefer a different method for increasing skills as time goes on, you could always try abusing the recruitment and basic training rules in Mercenary - if the players are getting some instruction as a group, you can do the training roll to see what % of them pick up the resultant level 0 skill - either let them pick who, or do it in descending order of the appropriate stat.

 

[DFW]

Obviously this is pretty hastily grafted onto Traveller from BRP... but I can see it might work. Though is potentially problematic in some ways. What do people think?

Apologies for the TL;DR post!

I could see it being workable for skills of the type in your example. Not however for skills that would require the gaining of info that isn't obtained by practice. EDU based skills that is.

 

[Matian]

Obviously this is pretty hastily grafted onto Traveller from BRP... but I can see it might work. Though is potentially problematic in some ways. What do people think?

Apologies for the TL;DR post!

I could see it being workable for skills of the type in your example. Not however for skills that would require the gaining of info that isn't obtained by practice. EDU based skills that is.

As someone whose RL skills are all based on Edu, I can say that this would work pretty well. You need to keep up on research in the field as well as personal research and experimentation, so an experience check would represent increasing your knowledge in the field. Publishing a paper, figuring out a complicated bit of Zhodani syntax, streamlining a cybernetics prototype, etc.

I've used a modified version of experience checks. Once you've accrued a certain amount of natural 12s (it varies by game pace) you automatically skill up. This represents both the training you put in in your day to day, and some variety of personal excellence in the skill.

I find this approach works well for a roleplaying-focused group, as players are eager to describe what their accomplishments are.
- "Look, my paper on the physiology of the yrkoltak got peer-reviewed!"
- "My last surgeries went so well the University of Mora wants me to give a presentation on combat injuries and recovery!"
- "It was a close call, but I figured out the supply lines for tusal for the entire sector. The Regina Chief of Police is giving me an honorary position - under an assumed name, of course."

 

[DFW]

As someone whose RL skills are all based on Edu, I can say that this would work pretty well. You need to keep up on research in the field as well as personal research and experimentation,

Right. So, simply trying something once and rolling a check wouldn't cut it as the proposed system doesn't cover that.

 

[rust]

So, simply trying something once and rolling a check wouldn't cut it as the proposed system doesn't cover that.

No, and most of the BRP versions also do not use experience checks for
knowledge skills. To improve a knowledge skill a character usually has to
receive some additional training or to spend some time and money on re-
search, only in rare cases a successful skill use alone could lead to an im-
provement of a knowledge skill. An example could be a biologist using his
stealth skills and his biology skill to watch the behaviour of a previously
unknown animal in the wild - although I would see this more as a kind of
field research.

 

[Nidhogg]

Obviously this is pretty hastily grafted onto Traveller from BRP... but I can see it might work. Though is potentially problematic in some ways. What do people think?

I have used a BRP conversion of Traveller that included experience checks
for a couple of years, and it worked quite well - especially if the system al-
so includes a rule for skill reduction of skills that were not used for a long
time, because this helps to avoid serious "skill creep".

The main problem with experience checks is that quite a few players tend
to try to use each of their characters' skills as often as possible, whether
it makes any sense or not, in the hope to get a few additional experience
checks. So experience checks work best if they are only awarded for ac-
tions that carry a serious risk, not only of failure but of injury to the cha-
racter - "no risk, no gain".

I agree that skill creep is a serious risk with this system but I'm not sure how workable a skill reduction system would be. The reason I say this is that knowing my players they would just go out of their way to excercise their skills regularly at the risk of derailing the point of the session, e.g. "Oops I just broke this door on the spaceship practiticing my Melee (Bludgeon) I guess I better use my Mechanic skill on it" etc. Plus I think unless you do extensive book keeping on what people do and don't use then you are going to get into an argument when you tell a player to drop their Athletics (Jump) because they haven't used it for three sessions when they maintain that they did. I guess ultimately I'm not sure if I want to be taking character advancement off of players as it puts me in a GM vs player position which just isn't desirable.

You are entirely right about the issue of people using random skills just to get a check. I have always found this a big issue in BRP. "I just did X can I have a check" can get pretty annoying. But on the flipside players shouldn't really be rolling for anything that doesn't carry some meaningful chance of failure.

Perhaps combining this with a RQII type system of improvement rolls might work? So the players get a "check" for any skill they use successfully... but you give them only an average of two points each time a rolls are called for (with bonuses for exceptional play and so on). Afterwards all checks are wiped clean ready for the next session/adventure. That way they can only improve skills they have used but there is a limit to how many, thus stopping the ridculous use of any and all skills just for a check.

As for your point on EDU based skills DFW... I would think yes and no depending on the nature of the skill use. For example if they roll Physical Sciences (Chemistry) + EDU on the spot to remember a chemical formula, that clearly doesn't work. However if they are making a roll over a longer timeframe to reflect analysis of an unknown compound or the like taking 1-6 days or the like. Then I'd say that would work fairly well... possibly.

 

[rust]

I agree that skill creep is a serious risk with this system but I'm not sure how workable a skill reduction system would be.

In the end this depends entirely on the players' preferred style of role-
playing, I think. If they prefer a more simulationist approach, like "my"
players do, they are likely to accept a skill reduction rule, simply becau-
se it is realistic. If the players are more into power play, they will hardly
like such a rule, and players with a tendency towards munchkinism will
hate it outright.

 

[Iron Guardian]

In my campaign, I borrowed some ideas from other RPG's for character improvement as most players I know like to see their characters improve over time. In essence, I award anywhere from 1 to 3 experience points per session (the amount depending on some combination of roleplaying, plot advancement, and combat) which they can bank to buy improvements to their character. Improving skills tends to be cheaper than improving attributes with some exceptions as I feel that one can earn educational degrees/certificates faster than developing an olympic level physique (other RPG's seem to support this as well -- D&D, White Wolf's storyteller system, etc.). There is also a cost in credits as well to represent the study materials and/or equipment needed to achieve the improvement. The exceptions I made were for Social Standing (combination of roleplaying and paying more over time for one's monthly living expenses; achieving Noble status or higher more dependent on roleplaying and character achievement in assisting the "crown") and the Jack of Trades skill (very expensive in experience points spent and credits). Psi ability and training improvements work the same, but only if one gets the testing/training to begin with of course.
I generally consider the downtime needed for such activities to be occurring while in hyperspace during jumps, the assumed quiet moments that occur between the "scenes" of actual activity during the session, and in some cases, actual time spent in a training facility. So far this system has been accepted by my players and seems to be working for all concerned. 8)

 

[Gee4orce]

Traveller has a very different feel to many other RPGs in that skill levels are pretty much 'professional level qualifications', and represent many years of study and experience. It's unrealistic to imagine a character suddenly developing new skills overnight just because he's now an active Player Character.

I think this whole idea of characters advancing in-game goes right back to the original DnD, and it has coloured player's expectations ever since. It really is nice to have a character that improves in ability as you play it, but really can you think of any examples in literature or film where this happens during the story ?

It's hard to think of examples where characters materially gain new skills or abilities, unless you're watching a superhero genesis movie. Even if you look at the journey Pippin or Aragorn goes through in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, neither actually gain abilities or new skills they didn't already have - what they gain is advancement in status and responsibility.

I think that's the answer for Traveller - characters gain a reputation, new responsibilities and status (SOC stat ?), new gear and equipment - but at heart their characteristics and skills are pretty much static.

A really nice approach the FATE system has is for skills to be arranged in a pyramid - in order to have a skill ranked 3 you must have two more more skills at rank 2, and therefore three or four or more skills at rank 1, etc. For advancement, you can swap two skills on adjacent tiers - ie. move your rank 3 skill down to a 2 and promote one of your 2 skills to a 3.

It also has 'aspects', which are phrases that describe your character or motivations, and give a bonus when applicable to the current situation. At advancement, a character can alter an aspect, or replace one with a new one. Aspects are something that all RPGS should rip off shamelessly !!

This means that in FATE, advancing characters change but don't necessarily get more powerful.

 

[AndrewW]

I think this whole idea of characters advancing in-game goes right back to the original DnD, and it has coloured player's expectations ever since. It really is nice to have a character that improves in ability as you play it, but really can you think of any examples in literature or film where this happens during the story ?

Yes I can.