Advancement on failed survival roll?

[Sword3274]

I seem to think I’ve seen the answer to this question before, but I can’t seem to find the answer currently.

If a person does not survive, but are not ejected from the career (in this specific example, the improper cryogenic freezing mishap from the Navy career), do they continue the process for possible advancement? I tried to look it up, and don’t see anything in the book that says that you don’t but I do understand that this could be the implication, because you wouldn’t normally roll for advancement if you fail your survival roll.

 

[Vormaerin]

I'm not sure if it says it explicitly but failing your survival roll functionally ends your term once you resolve the failure result. You might not be kicked out of the service and able to continue with future terms, but that term is over.

 

[Sword3274]

This specific result does not eject you from the career, but I could see that it immediately ends the term, thus no advancement roll. But I couldn’t find anywhere that said that specifically, which led to my confusion.

 

[Saladman]

The char-gen flow chart on page 10 says

Roll for mishap and leave career unless otherwise stated, in which case Start New Term

...and the arrows and boxes around that text take you back to "if ... basic training, otherwise choose a skill table and roll." Which is to say you don't roll for advancement*. Maximum clarity might have inserted a dash or something in between "career" and "unless", but it still seems pretty clear.

*Or even Event, which is almost as harsh, but seems to be RAW.

 

[Sword3274]

Okay, sounds pretty definite. That should be sufficient!

 

[Vormaerin]

Yeah, one annoying thing about MgT2e is that a lot of rules are in the flowchart and not in the descriptions of the process. It's always my first reaction to read the text not look at the quick reference chart.

 

[Saladman]

In a general way that's been a thing in both 1e and 2e, that not everything is written out in full every single time its mentioned in passing, the way some other modern rule sets do.

In itself, once I know the system, I kind of like it. Its got brevity, and avoids the legalistic and almost condescending tone of a few modern rule books.

I strongly suspect I'm in a minority on this though. And the tradeoff is clear, it can be harder to learn if you don't sit down and read the book in full before jumping into character creation and game play.

And its especially dangerous when you get a player with an a priori assumption that legalistic and repeated in full every time is the only way to write. I circled the drain once with a prospective player during character creation years ago for this reason. He was asking what began as fair and reasonable questions about how things worked, which I was answering off the cuff because they were things I had already looked up from the first game I played in, but then he was arguing and rules lawyering from whatever specific text he was looking at, and didn't want to hear that the answer was elsewhere. And I didn't flip on anything because I was both correct on RAW and happened to be okay with RAW, and we ended up not gaming together.

In that particular case I was okay screening him out, but its still a thing.

 

[Vormaerin]

I just expect that the missing parts are on the quick reference, not the full explanation.

 

[swordtart]

"EVENTS - If you are still in your career after resolving the survival roll, roll on the career’s Events table to see what interesting things befall you this term." P18 Core Rulebook Update 2022.

That reads to me like if your mishap let you stay in the career you continue on with character generation as normal. I think there is a missing comma between career and unless in the text box of the flow chart.

It also says "Go back to start new term" whereas the exit arrows take you to Mustering Out (which is correct) or Event. There is no exit arrow to Start New Term so that doesn't seem like a valid path to take.

 

[MasterGwydion]

In a general way that's been a thing in both 1e and 2e, that not everything is written out in full every single time its mentioned in passing, the way some other modern rule sets do.

In itself, once I know the system, I kind of like it. Its got brevity, and avoids the legalistic and almost condescending tone of a few modern rule books.

I strongly suspect I'm in a minority on this though. And the tradeoff is clear, it can be harder to learn if you don't sit down and read the book in full before jumping into character creation and game play.

And its especially dangerous when you get a player with an a priori assumption that legalistic and repeated in full every time is the only way to write. I circled the drain once with a prospective player during character creation years ago for this reason. He was asking what began as fair and reasonable questions about how things worked, which I was answering off the cuff because they were things I had already looked up from the first game I played in, but then he was arguing and rules lawyering from whatever specific text he was looking at, and didn't want to hear that the answer was elsewhere. And I didn't flip on anything because I was both correct on RAW and happened to be okay with RAW, and we ended up not gaming together.

In that particular case I was okay screening him out, but its still a thing.

For me, as a neurodivergent individual, I need the rules spelled out for clarity. People go hard against "rules-lawyers" but almost never consider that those "rule-lawyers" may have brains that require clarification or thing explicitly spelled out. How often have all of Us, on this site, talked about RAW and RAI? For Me, game rules are like the laws of physics that define the universe. The better I understand the laws of physics, the better decisions I can make in the world. For example, low grav, regular atmosphere world? Can I strap "wings" on My arms and generate enough thrust to fly? If the rules do not state the requirements for human-powered flight, how can I as a player or referee know? A person living in that universe would already know that, but I as a player or a referee have no way to know this unless a published book, such as the VH says so. Or how about what types of conditions are needed for parachutes to function?

Neurodivergent people such as Myself, need specificity.

 

[Condottiere]

It depends on how you define survival.

In the academic world, it could be publish or perish.

I sort of doubt any physical harm would take place, but you could lose your position in the institute.

In a bureaucratic environment, it might be losing the office politics game, that forces you out.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

but almost never consider that those "rule-lawyers" may have brains that require clarification or thing explicitly spelled out.

I suspect that for most of us the Rules Lawyers we run into in real life are just trying to twist the rules to be beneficial to THEM and when you try and use the twist that they insisted on in a way that hurts them they just apply a different twist and won't acknowledge what they are doing. Not neurodivergent, just doing whatever it takes so THEY gain advantages while denying the same to others. That being the case it is easy to assume that someone on line "rules lawyering" is just like those we met in real life which may not be fair in all cases.

This however makes ME like very clear rules so the type I've run into have little to no room to argue and get their way.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I suspect that for most of us the Rules Lawyers we run into in real life are just trying to twist the rules to be beneficial to THEM and when you try and use the twist that they insisted on in a way that hurts them they just apply a different twist and won't acknowledge what they are doing. Not neurodivergent, just doing whatever it takes so THEY gain advantages while denying the same to others. That being the case it is easy to assume that someone on line "rules lawyering" is just like those we met in real life which may not be fair in all cases.

This however makes ME like very clear rules so the type I've run into have little to no room to argue and get their way.

This is likely true. Thank you for the clarification.