But what does <insert component here> actually do?

The Profession skill for me is a "covers all the boring stuff" and "quick build NPC" mix of skill. The system is not detailed enough / does not provide enough skills to break up all the tasks a crewman has (In GURPS terms: 1 point in deck scrubbing, 1/2 in potato peeling, 1/2-2 in climbing around in the masts, 1/2-2 in properly touching your forehead when an officer comes by...) so they lump it under "Profession: Crew in Nelsons Navy" and rate them from 0 (Landman) to 2 (Able Seaman)

We use the career based point buy so the players have a bit more freedom of choice and we give a few more points. So a Profession:<Your career> is a requirement and used to cover all the "does my character know" basic roles in a "on the job" situation. "Where do I find a spare part for x" is Profession:Crewmember while "Handling the finances of the lab craft" is Profession:Researcher etc...
 
It's a macro approach to character capability.

I kinda suspect that's why you get six service skills at mostly factor/zero, after four years - this is what your character should be able to do at that stage of his life, having undergone that training and experience.
 
Except very few careers get Profession. The only military career that gets it is Army and then only for those on a support assignment. For the rest it is Citizen, Drifter, Entertainer and Prisoner. I am ignoring the Profession 0 as background skill as that is so low level as to be irrelevant.

You can spend your entire life in the Navy and at no point will you acquire Professional(Crewmember) - and by that token Profession(Soldier) is not achievable either though Profession(Army Cook) might be. Soldier is a thing I made up, but Crewman is there in the Companion.

I think that the Companion went the wrong way in trying to make it more useful by specifying specific bonuses for particular specialisms. It should have simply remained your ability to monetize the skills and innate abilities you have. That monetisation just happens by you putting yourself into the workplace, not because you have X skill. We have all seen Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares where some idiot who couldn't cook instant noodles is being paid to be a professional chef or some noodle is styling themselves as a professional restaurateur.

If I had to tie the Profession to anything it would not be a skill. It appears to me to be more a work ethic or level of self-confidence to charge normal working stiffs for your services. I know many very competent people who might be offered a financial incentive to undertake a package of work but usually do it as a favour for friends. I have an entire business directory of potentially less competent people who will do it for money for anyone and then move on.
 
Except very few careers get Profession. The only military career that gets it is Army and then only for those on a support assignment. For the rest it is Citizen, Drifter, Entertainer and Prisoner. I am ignoring the Profession 0 as background skill as that is so low level as to be irrelevant.

You can spend your entire life in the Navy and at no point will you acquire Professional(Crewmember) - and by that token Profession(Soldier) is not achievable either though Profession(Army Cook) might be. Soldier is a thing I made up, but Crewman is there in the Companion.

I think that the Companion went the wrong way in trying to make it more useful by specifying specific bonuses for particular specialisms. It should have simply remained your ability to monetize the skills and innate abilities you have. That monetisation just happens by you putting yourself into the workplace, not because you have X skill. We have all seen Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares where some idiot who couldn't cook instant noodles is being paid to be a professional chef or some noodle is styling themselves as a professional restaurateur.

If I had to tie the Profession to anything it would not be a skill. It appears to me to be more a work ethic or level of self-confidence to charge normal working stiffs for your services. I know many very competent people who might be offered a financial incentive to undertake a package of work but usually do it as a favour for friends. I have an entire business directory of potentially less competent people who will do it for money for anyone and then move on.
We handle background skill different. They are not restricted to "what you did before 18" and not free. As said - we did some work on the system prior to using it.
 
I spent a couple of years as a lab technician at a college. I was a graduate Physicist and had also studied Chemistry at school and did electronics as a hobby. I was able to cover those aspects of the job with some flair. I also had to cover Biology for which I had no qualification and only the broad level of knowledge imparted in a general science class when I was 10. In Traveller terms I had Science 0 in biology (but frankly even that is an overestimate).

I was however fully capable however after very little training able to make and safely dispose of petri-dishes, catalogue and identify the various biological indicator solutions, prepare specimens etc. When I was called on to do something outside my expertise I either asked someone to show me (and I learned it by rote) or I looked it up in a book and actually learned it.
As Lazarus Long points out, a big chunk of science is button sorting and bottle washing (but he seemed to think that's a bad thing; I don't.) Nobody just sits around all day with their feet on their desk until they have a eureka moment. Well, Paul Erdős.
 
So my proposal. Profession does not grant any specific skill. If you can convince the referee that the task might reasonably encompassed by the job description then at best you can apply the Profession Skill level as a mitigation against the normal -3 for an unskilled. If you have the skill then you use the Skill level instead, the Profession Skill does not help. In this way Profession skill is a limited sort of Jack Of Trades skill. You still apply the full skill level on the test to make income for the Profession.
I really like this approach. Even basic Profession/0 is good enough to find employment & earn credits each month -- and it is assumed that a person is using default skills in a non-stressful situation, with task chains & extra time.

Oh yes, the REASON I was exploring Profession so much is because Profession(Labourer) 2 is such a bargain for the Basic Brain. Now I was considering Profession(X) 2 as the basic for a lot of basic utility droids for my Space Port commercial concourse (see I got it back on topic). Now for simple revenue generation engines this works wonderfully since the Profession Skill generates income without lots of complicated supply and demands maths (but I'll be applying the Passenger Availability modifiers).

This led me to query what other professions a basic droid might perform and I considered Soldier. I am thinking Star Wars Battle Droid level of competence here. Suitable for suppressing civilian populations and throwing en-mass into battle, but easily outsmarted (unless led by a competent commander) and with limited initiative. Clearly the ability to reliably hit targets with a weapon is not a pre-requisite :) as if you roll 1000 2d6 you will still get plenty of 12's.
And I think this is brilliant. I am looking at Profession (Starship Crewmember)/2 for a shipboard droid -- they can be assumed to be able to make vacc-suit, damage control, and maintenance skill rolls with only a -1. With Vacc-suit/1, or Mechanic/1 they are more competent -- but Profession (Starship Crewmember)/2 includes all manner of general knowledge & standard procedures that accompany good spacemanship.
 
...and it is assumed that a person is using default skills in a non-stressful situation, with task chains & extra time.
Absolutely this. That earnings check covers a months worth of activity a lot of it presumably talking round the water cooler or checking your phone.

There is a wonderful story (that I hope is true) about a musketry officer in colonial warfare. Having trained all his men such that they can knock down a coconut at 50 yards every time he is disappointed by their performance in their first actual fight and asks his native sergeant why his men who were such good shots on the range failed to hit anything in the firefight. The sergeant replies that "the coconuts weren't shooting back!".

Lindy Beige said there is evidence to suggest that only about 2% of soldiers in WW2 shot to kill. The suggestion it that is was because drill at the time consisted of shooting at round targets. Once you got an actual man in the sights it all became a bit too real. Later armies practiced shooting at man shaped targets and the proportion of soldiers shooting to kill is now far higher.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top