weasel_fierce
Mongoose
SableWyvern said:
yeah, its the same as New Era. Its a good idea though.
Announcing: The Open Playtest!
- Thread starter Se Chris
- Start date
yeah, its the same as New Era. Its a good idea though.
SableWyvern
Mongoose
weasel_fierce said:
I've got no other point of comparison, so I can't comment on what kind of improvement they are (over CT/MT/Any Other Not NE Traveller).
I do like the concept though, so kudos to Mongoose for lifting and integrating a good concept, but -- credit where it is due -- NE did it first. 8)
SableWyvern
Mongoose
Kilgs said:
You're not alone. I only ended up commenting on it because I've seen a number of people on different forums all making the same point, and I began to wonder if my recollections were in error.
For the record, Mongoose's implementation is simpler than the New Era method (some will say better, others worse).
In NE, you picked a ship class table (Scout/Courier, Trader, Yacht, Lab Ship or Warship), and rolled 2D6 + all combined Ship DMs. Very low results gave free High Passages, most rolls provided a further DM result, and really high rolls could give outright ownership.
Assuming you managed better than free High Passages, you could then roll on a final ship-type table, applying any negative DMs from the first roll. Alternately, you could convert those DMs into debt or damage instead, and/or add more debt or damage in order to get positive DMs.
Kilgs said:
Yeah the 'Ticks' system is AWEFUL! It looks like they are trying to do an 'Action Point' system and disguise it as an 'initiative' system.
Just go ahead and make it an action point system with something like 1+DX-7 Action Points per combatant. Create a 'Counterattack' or 'Interupt' action that can be held in reserve.
It will be alot smoother than this 'ticks' thing.
Halfbat said:
The character generation system is okay, but the build point option is horrible.
Skills shouldn't all have the same cost, Engineering-4 and Carousing-4 should not cost the same.
Also, you shouldn't have to buy "rolls" on the benefit table. Choice means actual choice not rolls. You should be able to build a good character based on what an "average" character in the random system can do. You should be able to 'buy' any Benefit you want.
I dont even think Stats should all cost the same. It should be simple to say something like:
Strength, Dexterity, Endurance, 1pt each. Any other Stat should be 1pt up to 7, 2-5 points thereafter.
Halfbat said:
Well I don't think admirals should be that common anyway ;-) I doubt there's tons of admirals running around
Getting that far should be archievement you feel proud off. I sure was happy about the character who ended up being general.If generator provides top rank characters too easily then that's not too good either.
Here is my reformat of the Character Generation Checklist. I think this one makes more sense...at least, it did to me.
Does this match with what you envisioned?
Code:
Generation Checklist
Basic character generation uses the following steps:
1. Roll characteristics and determine characteristic modifiers.
2. Choose a homeworld.
3. Choose a career.
a. Roll to qualify for that career.
b. If you qualify for that career, go to Step 4.
c. If you do not qualify for that career, then you can go to the Draft or enter the Drifter career.
4. If this is your first time on this career, get your basic training.
5. Choose a specialization for this career.
6. Choose one of the skills and training tables for this career and roll on it.
7. Roll for survival in this career.
a. If you succeed, go to Step 8.
b. If you did not succeed, then events have forced you from this career. Roll on the Mishap table, optionally, establish a Connection with another player character. Now go to Step 3 for your next career, or Step 13 if you wish to finish your character.
8. Roll for Events.
a. Optionally, establish a Connection with another player character.
9. Roll for Advancement, applying your Rank as negative DM
a. If you succeed, choose one of the skills and training tables for this career and roll on it. Increase your Rank and take any bonus skills from the Rank's table for this career.
b. If you roll a 2 or less, you must leave this career.
c. If you roll 12, you must remain in this career for one more term.
10. If you are leaving the career, roll for Benefits.
11. If your character is 34 or older, roll for Aging.
12. Go to Step 5 for your next term, or to Step 3 to choose a new career, or to Step 13 if you wish to finish your character.
13. Finalize any Connections with other characters.
14. Choose a Campaign Skill Pack and allocate skills from that pack.
15. Purchase starting equipment and, if you can afford it, a spacecraft.Does this match with what you envisioned?
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
tneva82 said:Halfbat said:
Well I don't think admirals should be that common anyway ;-) I doubt there's tons of admirals running around
If generator provides top rank characters too easily then that's not too good either.
The chance of achieving Rank 6 (in six terms) in a career path with an advancement target number of 4+ is...
0.6% - No characteristic bonus to the Advancement roll
3.7% - Assuming +1 bonus
13% - Assuming the unlikely event of a +2 bonus
However, the chance of actually surviving six terms as a Navy flight officer (or any career with a Survival roll of 8+) is...
1% - Assuming a +1 characteristic bonus to the Survival roll
7% - Assuming a +2 bonus
32% - Assuming the unlikely event of a +3 bonus
So the chance of getting an Admiral is vanishingly small, unless you have very good characteristics and are lucky on the Events table!
Actually, I think is probably by design... I would think that an average guy (i.e. average stats) without the right experience and allies (i.e. no Events that give advancement bonuses) is an unlikely candidate for Admiral.
This question has already be asked on the rules clarification thread, but I personally think this is incorrect. Using this version of the rule, you are more likely to have unqualified characters actually have longer careers than those that are qualified and get promoted.
Applying the number of terms as -DM means that everyone is forced out sooner or later, but qualified people (those with stat bonuses) tend to last longer whether or not they get promoted.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
To be honest, at least in the US airforce and army, the policy is up or out. if you don't qualify for a promotion, you are very likely to get riffrd (reduction in forces).
AND certainly amongst fighter pilots, promotion is a mixed blessing - there are lots of officers available when the budget needs cutting, and cuts are generally in reverse senority.
So, yes, at least from this stand point its pretty realistic.
Remember, the military hierarchy is a not so steep pyramid - there are supposed to be LOTS less bodies at every increasing rank level.
AND certainly amongst fighter pilots, promotion is a mixed blessing - there are lots of officers available when the budget needs cutting, and cuts are generally in reverse senority.
So, yes, at least from this stand point its pretty realistic.
Remember, the military hierarchy is a not so steep pyramid - there are supposed to be LOTS less bodies at every increasing rank level.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Eris said:I noticed that, too. There are still some of us who prefer to "work for a living"...right?SableWyvern said:
Eris
Go tell the airforce: the officers fly off to fight, leaving the enlisted at home....not that that is safe, BUT....
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
JimG said:
Very true!
However, remember that those numbers were for careers with Advancement values of 4+. Those that have an advancement value of 6+ have next to no chance of ever reaching Rank 6 (its something like 1 in 35,000), and those with 8+ cannot reach greater than Rank 4 (without a characteristic bonus)... and in reality the PC would be lucky to even achieve Rank 1.
The mathematical penalties are very harsh for higher advancement values. It is even technically impossible for the average Drifter to achieve the Rank 4 lvl of Chieftain!
Although I quite agree that that admirals should be rare, it is a bit worrying that a character generation system where being promoted is so important for the bonus skills and mustering out benefits is so badly skewed in favour of military careers (i.e. the ones with advancement values of 4+). PC's who are scientists, entertainers, nobles, etc get badly buggered in terms of total number of skills learned in comparison with the navy, marines, army etc.
What also strikes me as being somewhat strange is that it is far harder to become a captain in the Merchants, than it is in the Navy. Why!? The number of merchant ships must be at least several orders of magnitude greater than military ones, and the personnel hierarchy a lot leaner. Thus there would be far more opportunities for merchants to achieve captaincy.
Personally I feel that the total number of terms a PC can serve should be limited by the GM, and not simply left to random dice results. A guideline could be added to the rules to help GMs control campaign balance.
Count me firmly in the Advancement should be DM- Rank, not DM-Terms.
In either case, without a positive DM, a base 8+ maxes at rank 4, and base 6 at 6.
In the case of DM-Terms, the odds of making rank 5 are REALLY low, and ALL the flag officers will be the "Bright Boys" who made it in fast AND are high-stat.
In the case of DM-Rank, the Target 8+ is still going to require the bright boys, but now, many of the flag officers will be grizzled vets, as it should be.
In either case, without a positive DM, a base 8+ maxes at rank 4, and base 6 at 6.
In the case of DM-Terms, the odds of making rank 5 are REALLY low, and ALL the flag officers will be the "Bright Boys" who made it in fast AND are high-stat.
In the case of DM-Rank, the Target 8+ is still going to require the bright boys, but now, many of the flag officers will be grizzled vets, as it should be.
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
I agree, but I think perhaps you meant to write DM-Rank here?AKAramis said:
Thanks for the numbers, Pete. They match closely my own number-crunching. The promotion system is a little broken in places so needs to be sorted. I don't have any problems with characters not coming out as Generals or Admirals, just as long as they are nicely skilled and interesting.
On the answers thread an option with promotion/re-enlisting was mentioned, but I don't think it needs separating. Maybe Up or Out is valid in the US services (I'm not sure it is in the UK - I know of a fair few apparently long-serving Majors) and i svalid in some US style consultancies but it certainly isn't in many other areas and, for many jobs, long term _competent_ level-0's and -1's (supervisors as opposed to managers) are really useful as they know so much (also see the alternate UK model of the NCO backbone).
Maybe it's worth a lower promotion roll, or even stepped DMs, leading to a chance of a bonus rolled skill for failing promotion by, say, 3 BUT for characters who did not try for promotion but tried to develop expertise in their field they get to _choose_ a specialist skills table skill....?
Edit: Left off a bit of a sentence!
On the answers thread an option with promotion/re-enlisting was mentioned, but I don't think it needs separating. Maybe Up or Out is valid in the US services (I'm not sure it is in the UK - I know of a fair few apparently long-serving Majors) and i svalid in some US style consultancies but it certainly isn't in many other areas and, for many jobs, long term _competent_ level-0's and -1's (supervisors as opposed to managers) are really useful as they know so much (also see the alternate UK model of the NCO backbone).
Maybe it's worth a lower promotion roll, or even stepped DMs, leading to a chance of a bonus rolled skill for failing promotion by, say, 3 BUT for characters who did not try for promotion but tried to develop expertise in their field they get to _choose_ a specialist skills table skill....?
Edit: Left off a bit of a sentence!
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
Glad to help!Halfbat said:
I was thinking about this a few days ago when I rolled my first couple of characters. I think it might be nicer to perhaps re-jig the 'Skills and Training' table titles a little so that you have...Halfbat said:
On the top row - Personal Development, NCO Skills and Officer Skills
On the bottom row - three Service Skills tables according to which branch of the service you're in.
(Use the EDU 8+ as an entry requirement into the commissioned officer track. Effectively the Advanced Education table is officer training anyway!)
Then add a new column to the military career 'Ranks and Skills' tables listing NCO ranks. This would add a little work, but the other non-military careers have multiple columns according to service, so it shouldn't be a problem.
I'd also grant two rolls on the 'Skills and Training' table per Term, and remove the bonus roll for being promoted. Advancement would still give bonus skills at some levels and mustering out benefits anyway.
This way you'd get more rounded PC's and the skills learned by the CO's and NCO's wound be different. Promotion, although a nice bonus, would no longer be necessary or unbalancing in terms of skills learned.
Does that sound like a good recommendation?
SableWyvern
Mongoose
Pete Nash said:I was thinking about this a few days ago when I rolled my first couple of characters. I think it might be nicer to perhaps re-jig the 'Skills and Training' table titles a little so that you have...
On the top row - Personal Development, NCO Skills and Officer Skills
On the bottom row - three Service Skills tables according to which branch of the service you're in.
(Use the EDU 8+ as an entry requirement into the commissioned officer track. Effectively the Advanced Education table is officer training anyway!)
Then add a new column to the military career 'Ranks and Skills' tables listing NCO ranks. This would add a little work, but the other non-military careers have multiple columns according to service, so it shouldn't be a problem.
I'd also grant two rolls on the 'Skills and Training' table per Term, and remove the bonus roll for being promoted. Advancement would still give bonus skills at some levels and mustering out benefits anyway.
This way you'd get more rounded PC's and the skills learned by the CO's and NCO's wound be different. Promotion, although a nice bonus, would no longer be necessary or unbalancing in terms of skills learned.
Does that sound like a good recommendation?
I like all these ideas a great deal, as long as the NCO promotion tables and associated bonus skills take into consideration that NCOs in first-world militaries are also leaders.
In fact, I'll probably be disapointed if something along these lines doesn't end up in the finished product (although, I am leaving open the possiblity that I'll be pleasantly surprised by an alternate idea that makes the final cut).
If the promotion systems ends up staying pretty much as it is now, I think I've got my first house rules in order.
