Crew Salaries
- Thread starter Terry Mixon
- Start date
CordwainerFish
Emperor Mongoose
Which doesn't sit well with me, nor should it sit well with anyone who's taken a math exam. But people get weird when I say there should be a mechanism for uncertain tasks.
I used to check my answers in physics exams (always got confused with converting between the various SI units). We always did rough orders of magnitude back of a fag packet double checks. In chemistry we did the same titration a number of times until we got several results close enough together. In maths there is generally several ways to approach a problem. If I had time I'd try a completely different technique with the same numbers. Same answer you are golden, different answer triple check.
In physics I (and several other pupils) once calculated that a 2kW kettle would take 24,000 seconds to boil a litre of water. Most didn't question it but I made the effort to check and realised this was over 6 hours and I know that a 2kW kettle boiling a litre of water is close to real-world usage and it doesn't take 6 hours to boil (not in the UK anyway). A quick check showed I had forgotten one of the figures we had been given was in hours and I needed to convert to seconds. I corrected but plenty didn't.
There is precedent in real life in comparing your answers vs. common sense. It did back fire once when my exams I had calculated the mystery salt in a titration as strontium but checked my results with a simple flame test and got orange rather than scarlet. I was very confused until 10 years later as a lab technician I was the one preparing the mystery salt solution for the exam. The examining board specified the molarity of a sodium salt solution for the technician but quoted a fake molarity in the exam so it would come out as a different salt. I gave 16 year old me a high five.
Of course not everyone passes exams
Talon Greyfeather
Banded Mongoose
I wouldn't say it offends me as much as it doesn't make sense. Using your examples - fail at the climb, the result is obvious. Missing the shot - again result is obvious. Re-trying the rumors roll - sure, but not on the same person. Fail the astrogation check - how do you know other than the roll failed? Even "double checking your work" may or may not help you catch it ... so what's the result if not a bad jump like for engineering? And why shouldn't the engineer get another chance? Why wouldn't it be that it just takes more time for them to trigger the jump because something just doesn't feel/sound right?The chance to re-roll is not unique to Astrogation. If you fail any roll you can have another go. Most of the time you simply waste time (that you might not have). Some skills will have a negative effect if you fail such as the engineering check to jump, that is a one shot, you either succeed and jump or you fail and misjump to some degree. If you are trying to climb a low wall and fail you can have another go, if you try to climb a cliff and fail you might fall to your death. You can make multiple attempts to shoot someone, each costs a bullet etc.
If it offends you, you could always apply the effects of the previous roll as a negative modifier to the new roll or simply introduce a negative consequence of failing the roll, or introduce a house rule that if you get an effect -6 you have failed so badly that you cannot recover. However with an easy skill check it is hard to justify a serious negative impact with an effect that might only be -1.
It annoyed one of my players that they could make several attempts to gather rumours at a party (every 1D hours) , but got only one and done roll to graduate after 4 years at university.
Skill checks are advised when one of 4 conditions apply:
• The Travellers are in danger, - not on the routine journey out to the jump point.
• The task is especially difficult or hazardous - the task is specifically Easy and not hazardous (though a badly botched roll might make it so).
• The Travellers are under the pressure of time - not usually.
• Success or failure is especially important or interesting. - This should not apply unless specific circumstances require it and not for something where failure is a one in a million chance.
If being chased by pirates and you choose to have another go then there will be a consequence (presumably the pirates get closer or maybe get some shots off), that doesn't mean that you deny the player the option to take that consequence.
I wouldn't not roll if failure was possible, even as a remote chance as if you don't then you reduce a remote chance to no chance. Do that and players will learn to cut corners assuming there is no consequence. If the players can get the skill check down to the point failure is impossible but it is still part of a task chain they could fail then we'll still roll it (it takes a few seconds and is usually in the boring part of the trip anyway so it won't break the flow of the narrative). If they choose to try again after failing then usually there will be some inter-character banter which isn't a bad thing. If they choose to risk it and end up failing the chain then there will be plenty of intercharacter banter and adventure.
Astrogation is such a niche skill you need to roll it every chance you get
Granted, anyone can home rule any of it, and no one is wrong. I prefer consistency ... but this is Traveller
I just take it as a task that may take a more variable amount of time than usual. Essentially the series of failed rolls are just adding time. From an in-universe perspective, it's one successful calculation that took (number of attempts)D6x10 minutes.
Most of the calculation is being done by the computer in any case. The Astrogator is setting parameters, making choices from the options presented and so on. From the way it all works, I suspect it's more akin to mining bitcoins than navigating a schooner or even a Mars probe; it takes time for the computer to crunch the parameters and the Astrogator's job is mostly refining those from attempt to attempt. Quantum may be involved (and sarcasm aside, quantum effects or other weird physics may very well be in play).
Essentially, as presented it's a task like shooting at a target with unlimited ammo. You can tell if you succeeded and can have another shot if you missed, but there's no inherent penalty for missing unless running out of time comes into it.
I also support MG's idea of sometimes rolling until you get an exceptional success (which typically won't need to be a 12 - even Astrogator 0 EDU +0 gets one on a roll of 10). But it will take time, for marginal benefit. Most of the time even a +1 to the Engineer roll from a marginal success will be enough. And the Captain might get a bit shirty if you make them wait for hours at jump point while you fiddle around trying to get a perfect jump plot ("...just another hour!")
Most of the calculation is being done by the computer in any case. The Astrogator is setting parameters, making choices from the options presented and so on. From the way it all works, I suspect it's more akin to mining bitcoins than navigating a schooner or even a Mars probe; it takes time for the computer to crunch the parameters and the Astrogator's job is mostly refining those from attempt to attempt. Quantum may be involved (and sarcasm aside, quantum effects or other weird physics may very well be in play).
Essentially, as presented it's a task like shooting at a target with unlimited ammo. You can tell if you succeeded and can have another shot if you missed, but there's no inherent penalty for missing unless running out of time comes into it.
I also support MG's idea of sometimes rolling until you get an exceptional success (which typically won't need to be a 12 - even Astrogator 0 EDU +0 gets one on a roll of 10). But it will take time, for marginal benefit. Most of the time even a +1 to the Engineer roll from a marginal success will be enough. And the Captain might get a bit shirty if you make them wait for hours at jump point while you fiddle around trying to get a perfect jump plot ("...just another hour!")
Last edited:
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
There are three aspects.
1. Figuring out the entrance point to jumpspace.
2. Figuring out the exit point (probably rather complicated).
3. Avoiding navigational hazards.
1. Figuring out the entrance point to jumpspace.
2. Figuring out the exit point (probably rather complicated).
3. Avoiding navigational hazards.
IMHO, it comes down to "what makes good gameplay?" I don't think the reroll until you succeed adds value to the game compared to just not bothering to roll and I think that if you are rolling, reroll until you succeed undercuts any value in high skill. I also think that making a required job position on a ship crew rely on a skill that has no game mechanic use except every few weeks you provide a bonus to someone else's roll is not good game design.
We can argue about whether computers do the astrogation or the astrogator is crucial in some fashion. About how long it takes and all the rest, but we don't actually have any reality to simulate. So all the answers are just made up.
Personally, I think that until Traveller actually makes Astrogation a skill with useful applications to adventures, it's better to use CT's formulation where the computer generates the plot or you just buy one at the starport before you leave. And the astrogator is really the sensor ops guy in actual play.
We can argue about whether computers do the astrogation or the astrogator is crucial in some fashion. About how long it takes and all the rest, but we don't actually have any reality to simulate. So all the answers are just made up.
Personally, I think that until Traveller actually makes Astrogation a skill with useful applications to adventures, it's better to use CT's formulation where the computer generates the plot or you just buy one at the starport before you leave. And the astrogator is really the sensor ops guy in actual play.
Well, the thing is that it's only an automatic job under ideal conditions. Once you get into time pressure situations it suddenly becomes REAL important as to how good your Astrogator is. Just like most of the time the Gunner doesn't make any rolls... until it becomes REAL important that they are able to.
A sudden encounter needing a crash jump within 100D, with a new plot delivered not in the next hour, but by the next round may not be common, but it's a real possibility.
A sudden encounter needing a crash jump within 100D, with a new plot delivered not in the next hour, but by the next round may not be common, but it's a real possibility.
That's still pretty much down to your Engineer. Other than the time factor, none of those things actually affect the Astrogator's roll. You want to make a J2 in 1d6 minutes (aka one space combat round)? "Average" 8+ roll that is only a DRM for your Engineer. For a rather rare circumstance that would be just as exciting without an astrogation roll because that player could be making a Sensor Ops roll to stop missiles or break a targeting lock and the Engineer player is still making the "please don't explode" roll.
I can imagine a situation when any skill might actually be important. It doesn't make it useful to make that a mandatory character role. And it doesn't make the structure of the Astrogation skill well done just because I can imagine a time when it might be interesting to use.
I can imagine a situation when any skill might actually be important. It doesn't make it useful to make that a mandatory character role. And it doesn't make the structure of the Astrogation skill well done just because I can imagine a time when it might be interesting to use.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Have a dozen crewmembers calculate out astrogation.
One will get it right.
One will get it right.
Correct, but it all compounds. If it's a hasty jump within 100D (which was the scenario I suggested), it does make a difference as to what degree of success the Astrogator got, and if the Engineer gets a +1, +2 or +3 from the Astrogation task.
But that is a bit beside the point. The Astrogator position is required because that is a job that has to be done on the ship by a qualified crewmember. Stewards rarely need to make task rolls either, but their presence is mandatory to carry High Passengers.
There needs to be a steward if there are middle passengers as well. But roleplaying and story opportunities for Stewards should only feature if that is interesting to your players and referee, sometimes you just want to get on with getting to the site of the next adventure. Sessions that focus on only one player's character can get tedious for everyone else.
On a typical jump (not pirate encounter) in a typical small ship where there might be 4 characters during the transit and the jump:
The Pilot makes no rolls except maybe to land.
Any Gunners will make no rolls at all.
The Engineer makes one roll for the jump.
The Sensor op may make a checks on emergence.
The Astrogator may make a couple of rolls to plot the jump.
On the 1 in 6 chance there is an encounter then everyone gets a bit more busy until it turns out that it is one of the vast majority of beneign or neutral encounters that can be resolved without any die rolls at all (unless the crew are involved in piracy themselves and then the encounters sort of flip and combat becomes more common).
Giving Stewards rich opportunities for roleplay and skill checks is unbalanced.
If you have skilled crew they can achieve all these things automatically. Frankly unless you decide to be a pirate or a pirate hunter then every mandated position on a ship is going to be a pretty dull play experience and a ship that has professional crew is going to have an uneventful career. This may be why Traveller typically focusses on what happens when you get to the planet, few published scenarios dwell on shipboard operations and those that do generally drop you into a disaster that is already happening. These are fun for one-shots, but characters well suited for them are rarely much fun in the majority of planet based scenarios.
Where it all becomes interesting is not for commercial ships who have all this covered, but player run ships where they prefer to focus on skills they are likely to use rather than the boring mandated ones. With a single term in the Scouts (or Scavenger) you can get half the skills you need at level zero even if you don't survive. With Worker you get the rest. Background skills can fill in gaps. If they plan to run cargo or passengers a single term in Merchants will cover those off. Thus 3 Characters who don't even survive their first terms can be a credible (if shaky) crew.
Having those ship skills at level zero is maybe better for player ships. Every aspect of ship board operations becomes that little bit harder, and they can concentrate their other skill table rolls on getting more generally useful skills for the planet based adventures. It may also explain why they are running their own ship rather than enjoying lucrative and low risk careers on commercial vessels. Since a ship's license appears to require level 1 in a skill these characters will have had to get registered by nefarious means or in a polity with lower standards. This means even those non-combat ship encounters become a challenge as there is always the chance that a customs check will reveal that they don't actually hold the appropriate paperwork.
I tried to run a game where everyone started out before their first career with only background and connection skills and it worked well enough. It fell apart due to scheduling conflicts and when players began reading the rulebook and began obsessing about becoming "good" at things rather than accepting that level 1 is just a +1, the main thing to achieve is level 0 as that removes the -3 which has far greater effect on dice rolls. They also focussed on getting ship skills and chose careers that provided them but then missed out on more useful skills. Trying to get a particular character (rather than taking what comes) also meant that many of their background and connection skills duplicated the ones they would get as basic training so they ended up with only 7-8 unique skills rather than the dozen or so their high educations allowed.
I am now just going to run a single player game with my youngest daughter and she isn't keen to run a 40 year old veteran. I am probably going to suggest a single career and create a background where she starts that career at 10 years rather than 18 (tapping into the child prodigy trope). That will give her 6-12 skills at level zero. If she needs to travel it can be as a passenger and she likes the idea of droid helpers so they can do the heavy lifting entirely as she directs. Her character development will be upgrading her droids to cover the "boring" skills that might only be needed rarely. If she gets a ship it can be entirely droid run (as they are cheaper than virtual crew and allow some manual handling).
Last edited:
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Here is another example of Traveller not keeping it's charts the same from book to book.
This is from page 179 of the FFW book.
This is from page 179 of the FFW book.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
Consistency? Perish the thought!
Talon Greyfeather
Banded Mongoose
The failure here is in trying to rank the grouped professions. I get that they all use the Medic skill, but the AOC modifier is skewed trying to differentiate the professions rather than the NPC's skill level within that profession.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Should be based on skill + ability. That just makes sense. Who will do a better job the guy with 1+1 or the guy with 1+2? Both have skill/1, but the second guy will consistently do a better job.
Trying to explain equivalents without addressing the skill check is also rather flawed. If we assume a Professional is level 1, they should be making their skill checks regularly. The usual check for a Paramedic in game terms will be first aid. That is an average check. A usual check for a Nurse is probably the long term care check which is... an average check. The check to treat poison or disease, which should be the realm of the Doctor is... an average check. The check to conduct surgery, the domain of the Surgeon, the most esteemed medical professional is... an average check. There is no difference in the skill requirement for these very different tasks that are traditionally the domain of very different professionals.
The whole argument is flawed in trying to explain real-world professional qualifications which have many different factors into terms of a single skill level. In reality the difference between someone who has a workplace first aid certificate and a consultant surgeon is not just their Medic Skill. The surgeon has to have attended specialised education for many years and we can assume their EDU needs to be higher than average if nothing else. The task they conduct is also intrinsically more complex on average than bandaging someone up or treating shock. The trouble is that if you make the surgery task much more difficult then even qualified surgeons will fail regularly. In reality first aid and surgery should be separate skills, but then you will end up with skills bloat. You could maybe do it with specialisations, but that can quickly get out of hand (like Science).
Of course explaining NPCs using the same simplistic terms required by PCs isn't really necessary. You could do this by making the Profession skill a uniquely NPC skill and then assigning "Profession(Surgeon)". PCs should never be professionals as by definition they are gad-abouts. The effects of a professionals actions also shouldn't be subject to a dice roll anyway. They are paid by results and have the equipment, support and skills to stack the odds in their favour. In real-life surgeons make mistakes and people die, but statistically it is far below the level we can simulate with a 2d6 roll.
This is hard enough within broadly related professions, it is pretty much impossible across professions. A ships Medic needs to make average checks, but a ships Astrogator only needs to make an easy one. If the Astrogator fails he gets another go, if the Medic fails he can make the situation worse. To add insult to injury the Astrogator earns significantly more than the Medic and could complete his task in a few minutes and spend the rest of the trip in his bunk.
The whole argument is flawed in trying to explain real-world professional qualifications which have many different factors into terms of a single skill level. In reality the difference between someone who has a workplace first aid certificate and a consultant surgeon is not just their Medic Skill. The surgeon has to have attended specialised education for many years and we can assume their EDU needs to be higher than average if nothing else. The task they conduct is also intrinsically more complex on average than bandaging someone up or treating shock. The trouble is that if you make the surgery task much more difficult then even qualified surgeons will fail regularly. In reality first aid and surgery should be separate skills, but then you will end up with skills bloat. You could maybe do it with specialisations, but that can quickly get out of hand (like Science).
Of course explaining NPCs using the same simplistic terms required by PCs isn't really necessary. You could do this by making the Profession skill a uniquely NPC skill and then assigning "Profession(Surgeon)". PCs should never be professionals as by definition they are gad-abouts. The effects of a professionals actions also shouldn't be subject to a dice roll anyway. They are paid by results and have the equipment, support and skills to stack the odds in their favour. In real-life surgeons make mistakes and people die, but statistically it is far below the level we can simulate with a 2d6 roll.
This is hard enough within broadly related professions, it is pretty much impossible across professions. A ships Medic needs to make average checks, but a ships Astrogator only needs to make an easy one. If the Astrogator fails he gets another go, if the Medic fails he can make the situation worse. To add insult to injury the Astrogator earns significantly more than the Medic and could complete his task in a few minutes and spend the rest of the trip in his bunk.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Ummm... The AOC is skill + ability, so it covers the first part of your issue. The second part is certification. Do you know that you do not technically have to go to law school to become a lawyer? You just have to pass the bar exam. You are confusing ability with certification. They are not the same thing. Ability is universal, certification depends on bureaucracy.
You have a very narrow definition of what a Traveller is. You seem to think that they are all drifters. Never seen a disgraced doctor or a doctor without borders? Are the people who summit Everest not usually professional people instead gadflies? Also, paid by results? Have you never been out in the real world? What do you think malpractice insurance is for? It is because professionals screw up too... So, to say that professionals shouldn't be subject to a die roll is just ridiculous. Statistically is it between 3% and 15%. That is well within what is possible to simulate with 2d6
from https://www.forbes.com/advisor/lega...s/#key_medical_malpractice_statistics_section
"Medical malpractice is generally defined as medical care that falls below the accepted professional standard of care. Any healthcare provider can be held liable if a patient can prove they had a duty to provide services, failed to perform as a similarly trained professional would and that they caused damage as a result.
Unfortunately, medical malpractice happens daily in hospitals, clinics and other care settings throughout the United States. To understand just how often healthcare providers make errors, check out these comprehensive medical malpractice statistics from 2022 and prior years:
- One in three care providers is sued for medical malpractice during their care.1
- Care providers make avoidable errors in 3% to 15% of all medical interventions.2
- Misdiagnosis is one of the most common types of malpractice. Cancer, infections and vascular events are the conditions most likely to be misdiagnosed.3
- Prescription errors are also prevalent. Insulin and morphine are the two most error-prone medications.4
- Surgeons are the care providers most likely to be sued for malpractice.5
- 96.9% of successful medical malpractice claims are settled out of court.6"
As I said before, the problem is that treating Task Checks as something related to the normal practice of the profession. They are only intended for dramatically relevant situations. Any 2d6 roll will give an abnormally high failure rate, especially since most RPGs (and players) tend to treat failed rolls as failure of skill rather than circumstance.
(By which I mean, when an EMT's first aid "doesn't work" it isn't normally because they did the wrong thing or did the right thing badly, it's because it was too late for first aid or first aid wasn't sufficient for the task.)
Skill systems are intrinsically a massive simplification of real life. Being a great basketball player does not intrinscially make you any good at tennis or football, but it isn't worth being that granular in a game. EMTs, Nurses, and Doctors all share the Medic skill, though they use it differently. They can all have 1-3+ranks in the skill. But that's irrelevant unless the game is about a hospital ship or something. The profession skill exists for when that level of granularity is useful in your game and you ignore it when it isn't.
(By which I mean, when an EMT's first aid "doesn't work" it isn't normally because they did the wrong thing or did the right thing badly, it's because it was too late for first aid or first aid wasn't sufficient for the task.)
Skill systems are intrinsically a massive simplification of real life. Being a great basketball player does not intrinscially make you any good at tennis or football, but it isn't worth being that granular in a game. EMTs, Nurses, and Doctors all share the Medic skill, though they use it differently. They can all have 1-3+ranks in the skill. But that's irrelevant unless the game is about a hospital ship or something. The profession skill exists for when that level of granularity is useful in your game and you ignore it when it isn't.
