Does it make sense to choose skill speciality at skill 0 instead of skill 1?

[Varulv]

CRB p 56.

Some skills have specialities – specialised, more focussed forms of that skill. A Traveller picks a speciality when he gains level 1 in a skill that has two or more specialities.

For example, a Traveller might have Engineer 0, allowing him to make Engineer skill checks without the unskilled penalty. He might then gain a level in Engineer, at which point he would need to choose a speciality. For Engineer, this is a choice between jump drive, manoeuvre drive, power plant and electronics (should be Life Support).

This means that a fresh student at the Engineering school can handle all systems (J-Drive, M-Drive, Power plant and Life Support) at a rudimentary level. With practice and experience he will eventually specialize in e.g. J-Drive. This makes skill 0 very powerful and specialization in J-Drive is just a minor improvement (DM +1 in one out of four possible fields).

My idea that I would like to hear your opinions on is that specialization could be made already at skill 0, and that you don’t get any knowledge in related fields until you have reached skill 1. Example: The fresh student at the Engineering school learns Engineering (J-Drive) 0 but that does not give him any knowledge with M-Drive, Power plant or Life Support. With practice and experience he will eventually reach Engineering (J-Drive) 1 and can then also be expected to have picked up the basics (i.e. skill 0) in the other three fields. This makes skill 1 very powerful on the expense of skill 0.

Another example is Gun Combat. A recruit goes through basic training and learns to handle an assault rifle, Gun Combat (slug) 0. As his proficiency with weapons increases and he gains Gun Combat (slug) 1, he has also learned the basics of energy weapons and can use them with skill 0.

What pros and cons can you see with this approach?

 

[Vormaerin]

Depends on how you are looking at it. From a straight mechanics perspective, +1 on 2d6 is pretty significant but not earthshattering. If you look at it from a 'what does this represent' point of view, someone with skill 1 is capable of passing qualifying exams to actually work in the field. If you are looking at it from a 'what's good for player characters specifically', I think some of the specializations are pointless, Engineering in particular. I don't think that it is useful to make the Ship's Engineer need like all the specializations of Engineering, plus Mechanics to be competent at their job. Whether it makes sense for real life or not.

Ultimately, the answer to your question comes down to how competent do you want your PCs to be? The more you lean into specializations or restrict cross learning, the less broadly competent your protagonists will be. Given that Traveller already pretty stringently restricts skill gain, I don't find further restricting the skills they do have to be unduly useful. YMMV.

 

[Geir]

The thing that is significant is the lack of the -3 penalty across the board at skill 0, and it depends... You could argue for a gun, the basics could be taught with a wooden model: how to hold it, aim, squeeze, don't pull the trigger, etc.. For engineering, it could be a matter of learning how to read engineering screens and understanding the basics of power flow, startup and shutdown procedures, how to read error messages, etc., Basic training gives you a lot of skill 0 abilities, some of which are cascade,

From a game perspective, it lets you do more things with a single character. Other versions of Traveller have more cascade skills, more skills overall, so being able to be minimally competent across the board seems at least plausible.

 

[Condottiere]

I'm not against it on principle, though it would narrow down competence.

Engineer-life support/zero, as opposed to engineer/life support/one.

Salary would need adjustment.

 

[Saladman]

The game as written generates competent PCs, and allows for some overlap of skills between PCs rather than enforcing strict "class roles" where one person acts and everybody else shuts down and watches them roll instead of helping or thinking of task chains. These are good things.

If character creation were meant to be purely simulationist of how the whole game universe works in character, for all NPCs as well as generating PCs I might get behind it. But I've never taken that to be the point of character creation to begin with.

Varulv's suggestion isn't the worst I've ever seen, but it falls into the category of making changes to gamist rules for simulationist or even aesthetic reasons. I've never ended up using any such suggestions.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Level 0 skills are a powerful enabler, but a +1 is still a significant bonus to a bell curve distribution scale used with 2D6. The -3 penalty is a huge drop.

There is a point of perspective on it. If you have no training in Engineering at all, most people are not going to take the risk of rolling because failed rolls could be disastrous in some circumstances. Once you have a basic training, you are offsetting a significant amount of risk, while more skilled performers can then start to specialise accordingly.

 

[Condottiere]

It's pretty specific, so you could have such programmes for shipboard drones, or virtual crewing.

In a more Forty Kayesque campaign, you have such large numbers of crewmembers, you can spend less resources to just train narrow specialists.

 

[Subzero001]

zeros don't count against your max skills but ones do, if your talking about players. if its NPC the it doesn't really matter.

 

[Varulv]

Depends on how you are looking at it. From a straight mechanics perspective, +1 on 2d6 is pretty significant but not earthshattering. If you look at it from a 'what does this represent' point of view, someone with skill 1 is capable of passing qualifying exams to actually work in the field. If you are looking at it from a 'what's good for player characters specifically', I think some of the specializations are pointless, Engineering in particular. I don't think that it is useful to make the Ship's Engineer need like all the specializations of Engineering, plus Mechanics to be competent at their job. Whether it makes sense for real life or not.

Ultimately, the answer to your question comes down to how competent do you want your PCs to be? The more you lean into specializations or restrict cross learning, the less broadly competent your protagonists will be. Given that Traveller already pretty stringently restricts skill gain, I don't find further restricting the skills they do have to be unduly useful. YMMV.

Good analysis.

I think that PCs generally are a bit to competent (or broad in their skills) which means that even a small group of characters covers most skills, and as a consequence normally doesn’t need to get help from NPCs or find the right equipment the help them overcome any shortcomings. Whether this is good or bad is of course a matter or preferences, what suits one group doesn’t suit another.

 

[Varulv]

Level 0 skills are a powerful enabler, but a +1 is still a significant bonus to a bell curve distribution scale used with 2D6. The -3 penalty is a huge drop.

There is a point of perspective on it. If you have no training in Engineering at all, most people are not going to take the risk of rolling because failed rolls could be disastrous in some circumstances. Once you have a basic training, you are offsetting a significant amount of risk, while more skilled performers can then start to specialise accordingly.

Good point.

 

[Varulv]

The game as written generates competent PCs, and allows for some overlap of skills between PCs rather than enforcing strict "class roles" where one person acts and everybody else shuts down and watches them roll instead of helping or thinking of task chains. These are good things.

I agree with you even though I think they often are a bit too powerful.

If character creation were meant to be purely simulationist of how the whole game universe works in character, for all NPCs as well as generating PCs I might get behind it. But I've never taken that to be the point of character creation to begin with.

Neither have I and I believe most people don’t.

Varulv's suggestion isn't the worst I've ever seen, but it falls into the category of making changes to gamist rules for simulationist or even aesthetic reasons. I've never ended up using any such suggestions.

You are wrong in your classification of my suggestion. Your comment is totally unnecessary and is counterproductive if this is intended to be a friendly forum for exchange if ideas – good or bad. I am glad that you came to your senses and edited your original post which was outright offensive. So unnecessary, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[dragon3r]

In 44 years of playing I find that a more competent character makes for a more fun and longer lasting game. The median roll should be around 2/3rds chance of success. That being said usually I am more of a fan of +1 skills vs 0 lvls, esp in the fact there is little advancement in the game compared to D&D or such, power levels are rather flat, unchanging.

 

[Vormaerin]

Good analysis.

I think that PCs generally are a bit to competent (or broad in their skills) which means that even a small group of characters covers most skills, and as a consequence normally doesn’t need to get help from NPCs or find the right equipment the help them overcome any shortcomings. Whether this is good or bad is of course a matter or preferences, what suits one group doesn’t suit another.

I'm assuming you copied the wrong post here and weren't complimenting yourself?

Anyway, I don't think PCs are too broad. It is true that skills in general are much broader than they are in real life, but I think that's useful for the game. A character with 4 terms is gonna have like 5 to 10 ranks in skills, depending on events and mustering out rolls? And maybe an equal number of Rank 0 skills. In my experience, most people have more skills than that, but those skills are individually narrower.

For instance, I'm very good at some kinds of computer tasks. I have, for instance, designed databases and complex spreadsheet functions for small businesses. Which is Electronics (Computers) in Traveller. But I couldn't actually write the Excel program. or operate a US Navy radar station, both of which are also Electronics tasks. On the other hand, I have a lot more than 5 or 10 of these narrow skills. So I think narrowing the skills in Traveller would need a broadening of the number of skills a character gets.

I also think that there are way too many science, profession, and other such skills for the group to actually run into the problem of not needing to consult experts or otherwise need outside resources.

But, as you say, YMMV

 

[Varulv]

I'm assuming you copied the wrong post here and weren't complimenting yourself?

Ha ha, sorry about that. Credit where credit's due. I have updated the post.

 

[Varulv]

In 44 years of playing I find that a more competent character makes for a more fun and longer lasting game. The median roll should be around 2/3rds chance of success. That being said usually I am more of a fan of +1 skills vs 0 lvls, esp in the fact there is little advancement in the game compared to D&D or such, power levels are rather flat, unchanging.

Yes, I also find that the group prefers competent characters (and after 40+ years of gaming nobody thinks that a character is old after just 4 or 5 terms ).

I have no problem with the concept of skill 0 but we do use an experience system based upon GDWs 2300AD experience system (this predates the experience system introduced in the companion). It gives the players the possibility to increase skills that they have used successfully in game, and it is quite easy to increase a skill from 0 to 1, much harder to increase it from 2 to 3. IMTU the power levels are neither flat nor increase to rapidly, but there is a “need” for skills that can be increased. (Personally I could live without the XP system, but it’s important to my players.) Anyhow, this is a sidetrack that really doesn’t have much impact on my original question.

 

[dragon3r]

Yes, I also find that the group prefers competent characters (and after 40+ years of gaming nobody thinks that a character is old after just 4 or 5 terms ).

I have no problem with the concept of skill 0 but we do use an experience system based upon GDWs 2300AD experience system (this predates the experience system introduced in the companion). It gives the players the possibility to increase skills that they have used successfully in game, and it is quite easy to increase a skill from 0 to 1, much harder to increase it from 2 to 3. IMTU the power levels are neither flat nor increase to rapidly, but there is a “need” for skills that can be increased. (Personally I could live without the XP system, but it’s important to my players.) Anyhow, this is a sidetrack that really doesn’t have much impact on my original question.

Yes, I think the added benefit of giving the players the 0 to 1 like you say, is that they feel like like they are gaining something. By power levels remaining flat, I mean such as an opponent in Battle Dress with a FGMP is always that existential threat which growth really never changes. It is part of the game one sort of has to deal with, which is fine imo, though some notice it.

 

[Condottiere]

Reconnaissance and tactics/military should allow you to have an opportunity to avoid such a confrontation.

 

[dragon3r]

Which may mitigate the threat some, though the absolute value of the threat remains the same. Similar to skills, it is about player character or game focus, as such in real life, for example a working pilot will always have more skill by practice, than someone who was a pilot 20 years ago, who at that point has probably forgotten more than they know, even though skills don't work that way. Same as when people want to use skill as a rank qualification, even though in reality, people in charge can and often are not as qualified as those under them.

 

[Saladman]

You are wrong in your classification of my suggestion. .... . So unnecessary, you should be ashamed of yourself.

A - what are the non-aesthetic, non-simulationist reasons for your proposed change?

B - Not at all.

 

[Shadowblayde99]

I'm currently GM for 2 players. When creating characters, they end with level 1 and level 0 skills which is fine and gives them a broad skill set but I wonder if it would be better for them to specialise more and get level 2 or even level 3 skills. Is there much effect of one over the other?