Background Skills missing?

[donm61873]

Ok, this is probably a very old question, and I just ran into it. I did do some searching, but came up empty handed.

In the Background Skills list on page 6 of the Traveller Core Rulebook, there are no entries for the "Low Population", "Non-Agricultural" and "Non-Industrial" trade codes.

Are these missing on purpose, is there errata, or a commonly used house rule?

 

[DFW]

Ok, this is probably a very old question, and I just ran into it. I did do some searching, but came up empty handed.

In the Background Skills list on page 6 of the Traveller Core Rulebook, there are no entries for the "Low Population", "Non-Agricultural" and "Non-Industrial" trade codes.

Are these missing on purpose, is there errata, or a commonly used house rule?

Look to the other descriptor (if any). ie: NA + Lo

 

[donm61873]

What if there isn't one?

And why do these three codes have no background skills?

 

[rinku]

A better question is, why is there a need for *every* trade code to map to specific background skills?

Some planets have no trade codes at all (eg, C553777-7). Should they generate specific background skills?

MegaTraveller introduced the concept of background skills based on homeworld UWP, but didn't use the trade codes to determine this as such. TNE expanded on this. Mongoose have chosen to simplify things by instead using the trade codes as a basis for background skills, but as a result there are a few oddities, such as homeworlds with trace atmospheres only giving Vacc Suit 0 when there is hydrographic of 1+. Simply put, Vacc Suit 0 should be a background skill for any homeworld of atmosphere 0-1 and 11-12 (i.e. those atmospheres that *require* environment suits).

By my reckoning, it is also questionable to give Seafarer 0 as a background skill to Fluid Ocean worlds, since on average they have less hydrographic coverage than similar sized worlds with water oceans. It seems silly that if you come from a world with 10% ammonia based seas that you'd automatically know how to operate a boat, while someone from a planet covered by 90% water won't. I'd make it than any homeworld of hydrographics 8+ should give Seafarer 0.

There is also an issue to me that Flyer (i.e grav vehicle operation) is absent from the background skills list. This should be based on tech level, probably from TL 9 or 10, but definitely from TL11.

You can also question how much contact with animals a character from some Poor worlds will have. Poor does not equal low tech; many are non-agricultural and none are agricultural. Someone from a planet with the UWP A120977-B knows how to ride a horse, but not how to pilot an air/raft? Suuuuure...

EDIT: Couldn't get this out on my head, so I've knocked up some rules. Posted on this thread:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=44641

 

[ScottyG]

As a house rule in my campaign I tend to allow players to substitute selected background skills where they seem inappropriate for more appropriate ones, and I normally treat (Flyer) Grav Vehicle as a background skill for Hi Tech planets.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

A better question is, why is there a need for *every* trade code to map to specific background skills?

Some planets have no trade codes at all (eg, C553777-7). Should they generate specific background skills?

MegaTraveller introduced the concept of background skills based on homeworld UWP, but didn't use the trade codes to determine this as such. TNE expanded on this. Mongoose have chosen to simplify things by instead using the trade codes as a basis for background skills, but as a result there are a few oddities, such as homeworlds with trace atmospheres only giving Vacc Suit 0 when there is hydrographic of 1+. Simply put, Vacc Suit 0 should be a background skill for any homeworld of atmosphere 0-1 and 11-12 (i.e. those atmospheres that *require* environment suits).

By my reckoning, it is also questionable to give Seafarer 0 as a background skill to Fluid Ocean worlds, since on average they have less hydrographic coverage than similar sized worlds with water oceans. It seems silly that if you come from a world with 10% ammonia based seas that you'd automatically know how to operate a boat, while someone from a planet covered by 90% water won't. I'd make it than any homeworld of hydrographics 8+ should give Seafarer 0.

There is also an issue to me that Flyer (i.e grav vehicle operation) is absent from the background skills list. This should be based on tech level, probably from TL 9 or 10, but definitely from TL11.

You can also question how much contact with animals a character from some Poor worlds will have. Poor does not equal low tech; many are non-agricultural and none are agricultural. Someone from a planet with the UWP A120977-B knows how to ride a horse, but not how to pilot an air/raft? Suuuuure...

EDIT: Couldn't get this out on my head, so I've knocked up some rules. Posted on this thread:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=44641

Agreed! I suppose the get out is that there are only a small number of background skills only 5 slots at best, for most characters 3, and a certain amount of choice. Sometimes I ignore the compulasary skill if the character wishes to take something else from the general background skills list, and can justify it, which can very helpful to a low edu character in particular.

Egil

 

[rust]

And why do these three codes have no background skills?

I suspect that it is impossible to define specific cultural skills that all Low
Population, all Non-Agricultural or all Non-Industrial worlds likely have in
common, because these descriptions only give informations about what
the worlds are not like, but no information about the actual environment
and living conditions there.

Someone from a desert environment is indeed likely to know a little about
survival, and someone from a sea environment should indeed know a bit
about seafaring - but what could be expected of and be typical for some-
one from a low population environment ?
I only could think of possible skill restrictions, for example I doubt that
such a person would have Streetwise skill, but otherwise ...

As for house rules, my settings are usually so small that I can detail all
the planets and assign a short list (up to three) of specific cultural skills
to each of them, based upon the planet's environment and society.
For example, the water world Pandora has Athletics (Swim) and Seafarer
as its cultural skills, while the religious fanatics who settled Hecuba make
sure that every citizen has Social Sciences (Theology) and Language (He-
brew).

 

[rinku]

Worth pointing out that level 0 skills don't get specialisations (rust may well be allocating sub-skills or giving L1 ones in his campaigns under his own house rules).

 

[rust]

Worth pointing out that level 0 skills don't get specialisations (rust may well be allocating sub-skills or giving L1 ones in his campaigns under his own house rules).

It is more a restriction than a specialization.

For example, someone from Pandora has "Athletics (Swim) 0" to show
that he is a good swimmer, but not also a good runner or climber, as
"Athletics (no restriction) 0" would imply.

 

[rinku]

Yeah, thought that's what you meant. Good house rule, but I just wanted to point out it is a house rule.

 

[far-trader]

A better question is, why is there a need for *every* trade code to map to specific background skills?

I could not agree more. More to the point, why is there a need for *any* trade code to map to background skills at all?

...Vacc Suit 0 should be a background skill for any homeworld of atmosphere 0-1 and 11-12 (i.e. those atmospheres that *require* environment suits).

Why? No, really, why the assumption that everyone living on such a world ever goes "outside" in the first place? What would possibly make them leave the nice safe dome/arcology/cave with its climate controlled shirtsleeve comfort? Or does someone imagine everyone living on such a world lives in drafty houses or even simpler dwellings where they are exposed and have to live and work 24/7 in Vacc Suits?

By my reckoning, it is also questionable to give Seafarer 0 as a background skill to Fluid Ocean worlds, since on average they have less hydrographic coverage than similar sized worlds with water oceans. It seems silly that if you come from a world with 10% ammonia based seas that you'd automatically know how to operate a boat, while someone from a planet covered by 90% water won't. I'd make it than any homeworld of hydrographics 8+ should give Seafarer 0.

Again why? Not picking on you rinku, you're just providing excellent points for me to rant against

But why should someone have any skill just because part of their homeworld presents an opportunity? There are sailors who don't have the first inkling of how to swim, yet I'm sure that makes no sense to those who promote homeworld skills. While the sailors who don't know how to swim simply never learned because they didn't need to know how to swim, they work on a boat not in the water. Same argument for all of the frankly silly (imo of course) ideas of "homeworld" skills I've seen...

"Let's see, John, your character is from a high tech vacuum world so you get Computer and VaccSuit background skills."

"But my character is dirt poor and a Luddite, he couldn't afford a computer even if he wanted one, and he does not! And he never leaves the comfort of his home arcology except for the occasional trip by the underground train. Having those skills makes no sense."

"Sorry, but that's what the rules say. Jane your character is from a mid tech standard world with no special notes so you get no background skills."

"But we said my character was a Navy brat and spent her life on the HighPort base. I think she'd have VaccSuit, Zero-G, and maybe even Pilot background skills."

"Nope, the rules say no background skills."

There is also an issue to me that Flyer (i.e grav vehicle operation) is absent from the background skills list. This should be based on tech level, probably from TL 9 or 10, but definitely from TL11.

This one is even easier to poke at. Why should everyone get Flying? Or Driving? Or anything. Taking Earth today as an example, there are a lot of people who don't have Driving-0. Even in rich car crazy cities. They don't need it, they use public transport. Or walk. Or cycle. Hey! Where's my Bicycle-0 background skill!?

You can also question how much contact with animals a character from some Poor worlds will have. Poor does not equal low tech...

Now you're getting it ...

...many are non-agricultural and none are agricultural. Someone from a planet with the UWP A120977-B knows how to ride a horse, but not how to pilot an air/raft? Suuuuure...

...or not :? (again, remember, I'm just using your posts as counterpoints, nothing personal intended )

Do you see the illogic of saying that not every Poor worlder will know Agriculture but that every HighTech worlder will know Grav Vehicle Flying?

My point is NOT against background/homeworld skills. Quite the opposite. I think they help make the character interesting and unique, and improve on the history and backstory. Or they COULD if they weren't so stupidly limited by some vague narrow-minded definitions. Just permit all characters to have a number of chosen background skills suitable to their character concept, agreed to by the ref of course. Don't tell me I can't have Pilot-0 as a background skill and have to take Sailing-0 instead, just because my character's homeworld has some water on it.

Rant over

 

[far-trader]

...but what could be expected of and be typical for some-
one from a low population environment ?

That's easy. I think Jack-of-all-Trades is perfectly suited to a small population civilization. Everyone has to know a bit about everything just to survive, and the exposure to every neighbour's trade is there from birth.

But I must emphasize again, I would never IMPOSE a skill based on homeworld. I much prefer to allow players to CHOOSE a skill based on their imagined background. So if they wanted to be the colony layabout in the Low pop example above and the rules tried to tell me that Low pop meant J-o-T while the player wanted Carousing instead I'd side with the player, not the silly rule. In fact I wouldn't even be telling the player about the silly rule, I'd just be asking for a description of the character's background and taking or making suggestions for skills based on that.

 

[DFW]

But I must emphasize again, I would never IMPOSE a skill based on homeworld. I much prefer to allow players to CHOOSE a skill based on their imagined background. So if they wanted to be the colony layabout in the Low pop example above and the rules tried to tell me that Low pop meant J-o-T while the player wanted Carousing instead I'd side with the player, not the silly rule. In fact I wouldn't even be telling the player about the silly rule, I'd just be asking for a description of the character's background and taking or making suggestions for skills based on that.

Good idea; choose home world, do one paragraph back story and go from there...

 

[rust]

I agree that general homeworld skills for planet types do not make much
sense, especially if the rules are treated as written in stone and non-ne-
gotiable for the players - in my view, no character generation rules should
be seen this way.

However, specific societies often have a tendency to make specific skills
mandatory, and it would take a rather strange character background to
avoid learning those skills.
For example, it is almost impossible to grow up where I live without lear-
ning to swim and at least broken basic English, because these skills are
mandatory subjects of all schools. I would not be surprised if learning to
swim would be a mandatory subject on a water world.
Another example, until not so long ago each and every medical doctor of
each and every Western nation had to learn at least a bit of Latin. To be-
come a medical doctor without it simply was not possible, although know-
ledge of Latin is not really directly related to medical skill.

So, while general homeworld skills for all worlds seem an absurd idea,
specific homeworld skills for specific planets (or societies, if a planet has
more than one society) seem quite plausible to me. Not as enforced skills
that each character from the planet or society must have, but as the de-
fault skills he is most likely to have, requiring a good background story to
explain his lack of these skills.

Apart from that, if one can accept the overly general world generation sy-
stem, the equally general trade system or the also very general technolo-
gy levels of Traveller, the current homeworld skills are really only a very
small problem - almost everything else is even more general. :wink:

 

[rust]

That's easy. I think Jack-of-all-Trades is perfectly suited to a small population civilization. Everyone has to know a bit about everything just to survive, and the exposure to every neighbour's trade is there from birth.

Without detailed rules for the limitations of the Jack-of-all-Trades skill
this could easily become highly implausible. For example, why should
someone from a low population world find linguistics or xenology ea-
sier to deal with than someone from a high population world ?

But this is another can of worms, I have deleted JoT skill from my set-
tings skill lists because of this ...

 

[hdan]

I see this as one of the downsides to MgT's "Skills Bloat" and Level-0 skills. I know modern RPG players like to have catalogs of what their character can do rather than just the things they're particularly good at.

Just thinking out loud here:
It might be amusing to roll for homeworld skill the same way you do for psionic talents - your world's Trade codes can give +DMs to certain skills.

Roll Edu+ Average tests for each skill, taking a -DM for each skill past the first. Marginal success gives you Level-0, Phenomenal success gives you Level-1 (you're a prodigy). Failure means you don't get the skill, but still get the -DM for having made the attempt. I suspect you'd wind up with a similar sized set of skills, though more in keeping with the random nature of chargen.

Hmm. Might be worth doing some more detailed thinking next time I'm around my rules....

 

[BP]

Interesting idea - pretty darn sure players would probably like that (especially if JoT were included)

And it gives some control over picking skills (even if only level 0).

 

[rinku]

...Vacc Suit 0 should be a background skill for any homeworld of atmosphere 0-1 and 11-12 (i.e. those atmospheres that *require* environment suits).

Why? No, really, why the assumption that everyone living on such a world ever goes "outside" in the first place? What would possibly make them leave the nice safe dome/arcology/cave with its climate controlled shirtsleeve comfort? Or does someone imagine everyone living on such a world lives in drafty houses or even simpler dwellings where they are exposed and have to live and work 24/7 in Vacc Suits?

Basic training required of them since they were kids. With corrosive and insidious atmospheres, a seal breach is just as (if not more) dangerous than in a vacuum. That was my thinking, anyway.

I'd make it than any homeworld of hydrographics 8+ should give Seafarer 0.

Again why? Not picking on you rinku, you're just providing excellent points for me to rant against

No offense taken, always welcome polite debate Yeah, thinking about this specific one I'll concede that even 90% water is a heck of a lot of land. And may provide less incentive to go sailing. Leave it to the proper water worlds...

But why should someone have any skill just because part of their homeworld presents an opportunity?

Well, firstly, because there is precedent from previous editions of Traveller, specifically MegaTraveller and TNE. My own gripe is about how it was done, but see my own thread about my own take on it.

Secondly, we should clarify that characters generated by this system are PLAYER characters, by definition adventurers. Nope, not every person from a Water world can drive a boat, nor will every person raised on an asteroid know how to put on a vacc suit (though I really think the latter is going to be close to 100%). These are PC, not NPC rules, as are all the subsequent career generation rules.

Thirdly, certain environments do dictate some of these skills as basic survival or deep cultural proficiencies. The obvious one is Vacc Suit for a Vacuum world. Even if you never intended to ever go outside, you're going to be forced to attend safety courses from childhood, and be surrounded by people that do know how to operate a vacc suit. Survival for Desert worlds, Seafaring for Water worlds and Zero G for Asteroids all fall into this criteria. Also, since Animals takes in farming as well as other animal related areas, I'd expect pretty much everyone from an Agricultural world to know it, even if they hate it and never want to see another porcuswine again That point also applies to Trade for Industrial and Streetwise for High Population.

However, I DO take your point about player choice for most of them. I just realised that there is a subtle difference with the MGT version from previous ones, in that the required skills were actually bonus ones. TNE then allowed some extras with homeworld limits and actual skill levels on top of that (but TNE had a bigger skill list and different skill range - MGT is correct to limit its background skills to level 0, in context). That may be driving some of this discussion. Perhaps the "survival" skills should be free bonus ones? Or would that just make all the players choose to be belters?

 

[Melbourne Accords]

The MGT approach to background skills offers a starting point for discussion between players and referee. It appears to be at its most effective in a vast setting such as the Third Imperium. In a setting with a limited number of worlds (such as our upcoming Interstellar Wars / 2300 campaign) a higher degree of differentiation is valuable. It is a worthwhile approach to ask players to nominate skills and defend these choices. Hopefully, this makes for depth. After all, background need not necessarily mean homeworld.

The example of Australia in the other thread is useful. In our campaign it continues to be a highly urbanised society with access to ocean, bush and desert environments. One of our characters has acquired Scuba (a house rule skill) exploring seas once occupied by the Great Barrier Reef. This is useful because it tells us about both the character and the setting. Another character from the same nation-state might have no abilities related to non-urban environments.

 

[Bense]

Jack of all Trades is useless as a background skill, because J-o-T 0 doesn't give you any in-game benefit.