First evening of playtesting

[ShawnDriscoll]

My players would respond: "Ok, in that case I'll try to hurry it since I've already got a bane and the rules don't let you penalise me any further"

Once a Boon/Bane is applied to a skill check, that's it. Time for the roll. Players don't continue to dogpile more items onto their skill check. So there is no hurrying allowed. Too late for player to change their mind.

 

[FallingPhoenix]

I could see an argument of a chain of specialisation at each level, possibly, where you may start Level with Science (Biology) 1, or 2, and then change the specialisation when you step up - Science (Genetics) 3, say.

This would be pretty cool, but maybe too 'granular' for this Traveller game.

To be honest there isn't much point having a 'Biology' speciality in 'Life Science', or a 'Physics' Speciality in 'Physical Science' as they pretty much mean the same thing anyway. And, as I say, at a basic level (0), you tend to get taught a broad overview of all Sciences. The one point of doubt is that 'Social Sciences' like History, Economics and so on could be listed separately as they have a different basic set of methodologies.

So what about the skill being Science(Physical, Life, Social) with only three specializations? Are there any sciences that wouldn't at all fit into one of these categories? If something overlapped, you could address it based on the established character's background (e.g. Talizar got an advanced degree in the effect of stellar temperature and distance on local culture, so I should be able to use (1/2) my Social Science specialization for stars instead of my general 0).

 

[FallingPhoenix]

Two of the things that happen during playtest is:

1) Playtester states which rules are unclear and/or confusing to players.
...

I would add "or GMs" to the end of this sentence.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I could see an argument of a chain of specialisation at each level, possibly, where you may start Level with Science (Biology) 1, or 2, and then change the specialisation when you step up - Science (Genetics) 3, say.

This would be pretty cool, but maybe too 'granular' for this Traveller game.

To be honest there isn't much point having a 'Biology' speciality in 'Life Science', or a 'Physics' Speciality in 'Physical Science' as they pretty much mean the same thing anyway. And, as I say, at a basic level (0), you tend to get taught a broad overview of all Sciences. The one point of doubt is that 'Social Sciences' like History, Economics and so on could be listed separately as they have a different basic set of methodologies.

So what about the skill being Science(Physical, Life, Social) with only three specializations? Are there any sciences that wouldn't at all fit into one of these categories? If something overlapped, you could address it based on the established character's background (e.g. Talizar got an advanced degree in the effect of stellar temperature and distance on local culture, so I should be able to use (1/2) my Social Science specialization for stars instead of my general 0).

I personally don't have a problem with an open-ended list of Science specialities myself. It is a Science fiction RPG afterall. The problem with categorising them all into Physical, Life and Social is that many specialities overlap into multiple categories. Biomechanics, for example.

 

[paulsnow]

Two of the things that happen during playtest is:

1) Playtester states which rules are unclear and/or confusing to players.

2) Playtester asks what the rules mean.

I think you're right that we should just stick to finding confusing stuff so AndrewW and Matthew can correct them. Let AndrewW know which examples will need to be updated so that they make sense with any revised rules.

A third possibility is that there is a lack of coherence in a rule set meaning that while sub-parts function individually there is inconsistency across the whole ruleset. The playtesters (players and GM) have to take a holistic view to consider this - more than nit-picking on a rule-by-rule basis.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Two of the things that happen during playtest is:

1) Playtester states which rules are unclear and/or confusing to players.

2) Playtester asks what the rules mean.

I think you're right that we should just stick to finding confusing stuff so AndrewW and Matthew can correct them. Let AndrewW know which examples will need to be updated so that they make sense with any revised rules.

A third possibility is that there is a lack of coherence in a rule set meaning that while sub-parts function individually there is inconsistency across the whole ruleset. The playtesters (players and GM) have to take a holistic view to consider this - more than nit-picking on a rule-by-rule basis.

Hopefully, playtesting will find out if that is the case or not before the game is shipped. Matthew says he'd rather delay publishing than release it on the date planned.

 

[-Daniel-]

I personally don't have a problem with an open-ended list of Science specialities myself. It is a Science fiction RPG afterall. The problem with categorising them all into Physical, Life and Social is that many specialities overlap into multiple categories. Biomechanics, for example.

Do you not think a Character who receives science would need such granular specializations in game play? Is there a level of granularity you do think no longer serves the game?

What if we used a core short and simple list to cover the Character skills and left uber-specializations for those NPCs we might want to have the Characters meet? Sort of like my lowly HS science teacher meeting Stephen Hawking? Both clearly have science skills but one is a generalist and the other is a specialist. Would that work?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, yes, possibly. Say somebody wants to play someone who is at the forefront of, say, Xenology in a game. Just having 'Life Science' on his character sheet won't cut it. Moreover, Xenology (study of aliens) quite probably has a mix of biology and social science in it. Indeed, you could argue that aspects of biology (psychology; ecology) are indeed social sciences in effect.

A 'science' is literally a 'knowledge' (etymology 'scientia' from latin = 'knowledge'). Just like the Language skill, there can be an open-ended amount of different specialities. In the core rules they have currently listed 16, but there could be a million+.

The core sciences we teach today (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Social) are really just broad churches of inter-related ideas. Indeed Chemistry is a branch of Physics, Biology is a broad church of all sorts - a geneticist won't necessarily know much about botany, for example, but at least on one level is a branch of chemistry. Social Science, again on one level, is just applied biology. All are applied maths and applied philosophy in terms of the induction/experimentation.

If we are just considering Basic training (level 0) then having one Science is fine. If you want character to move beyond that level, then they have to specialise. The more skilled they become, the more specialised they become. That mirrors exactly what happens in real world science, and in game terms is what is actually offered here.

If you want to simplify it, you could do what they did in the Languages skill and point out that there are a multitude of sciences out there - but these are the most common....Physics, Chemistry and Biology. However, if you do that, you should at least mention a bunch of other examples too.

 

[-Daniel-]

Well, yes, possibly. Say somebody wants to play someone who is at the forefront of, say, Xenology in a game. Just having 'Life Science' on his character sheet won't cut it. Moreover, Xenology (study of aliens) quite probably has a mix of biology and social science in it. Indeed, you could argue that aspects of biology (psychology; ecology) are indeed social sciences in effect.

If you came to me asking for this as a player in my game, I would just give you Science (Xenology)-3 or 4 and then start to panic trying to think of how to add this into the game so you would have fun playing this "Rising Star" of Xenology. :wink:

A 'science' is literally a 'knowledge' (etymology 'scientia' from latin = 'knowledge'). Just like the Language skill, there can be an open-ended amount of different specialities. In the core rules they have currently listed 16, but there could be a million+.

Yes, I agree, but in my opinion we are discussing modeling real life and that is not what a role playing game does. We have a single skill called Electronics (Computer) that covers the programing, use, and repair of every computer from the Commodore 64 to the state of the art AI main frame. Yet we, the gamers, seem ok with the lack of granularity. It is ok that the same skill used to program a game for the Play Station 20 would be used to repair a space ships main frame. So what does this have to do with Science? Simple. When you think science, you think of real life. You see the shades of color that is the wide and vast fields of science. Just like the vast number of real and fictional computers covered by the Electronics skill.

What I am suggesting is that while having millions of specialties for Science, while maybe accurate from a real life perspective, it just is not playable nor realistic for the level of game play 99% of the games I have seen or played in.

The core sciences we teach today (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Social) are really just broad churches of inter-related ideas. Indeed Chemistry is a branch of Physics, Biology is a broad church of all sorts - a geneticist won't necessarily know much about botany, for example, but at least on one level is a branch of chemistry. Social Science, again on one level, is just applied biology. All are applied maths and applied philosophy in terms of the induction/experimentation.

Again, I would never argue with this statement, but Role Playing Games really never can model real life. They offer a fictional frame for fun by those at the table. I propose that while those four "core sciences" really are just inter-related, we could use them to cover the basic ideas that most gamers would need to play in their games. Thus cutting the specialties down to four from sixteen. Now of course this assumes someone really wants to cut the specialties down as well as the number of skills. While it seems that is what they have done, I do not know that it is really a goal of the design team.

If you want to simplify it, you could do what they did in the Languages skill and point out that there are a multitude of sciences out there - but these are the most common....Physics, Chemistry and Biology. However, if you do that, you should at least mention a bunch of other examples too.

Truth is, if it were up to me I would try and simplify it, but down to how many, I don't know. But it is not up to me.

Of course maybe Science is the exception to prove the rule. Reduce skills and specializations on many of the skills, but allow science to remain with 16 (or 17 if they add in the Astronomy that was pointed out is missing). :mrgreen:

 

[AndrewW]

We have a single skill called Electronics (Computer) that covers the programing, use, and repair of every computer from the Commodore 64 to the state of the art AI main frame.

But what if I wanted to program an ENIAC or Colossus (Not the Forbin Project one), guess your Electronics (Computer) doesn't cover that...

 

[-Daniel-]

We have a single skill called Electronics (Computer) that covers the programing, use, and repair of every computer from the Commodore 64 to the state of the art AI main frame.

But what if I wanted to program an ENIAC or Colossus (Not the Forbin Project one), guess your Electronics (Computer) doesn't cover that...

Nope, those are covered by Electronics (Vacuum Tubes) :wink: :lol:

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

It's still the same computer "skill". Just at a different tech level which has no integrated circuits yet. If you're EDU or INT enough, you could probably still figure out how to repair/program a RAND computer. May be easier to just use the hand-size computer you carry with you.

 

[TrippyHippy]

...Role Playing Games really never can model real life. They offer a fictional frame for fun by those at the table. I propose that while those four "core sciences" really are just inter-related, we could use them to cover the basic ideas that most gamers would need to play in their games. Thus cutting the specialties down to four from sixteen. Now of course this assumes someone really wants to cut the specialties down as well as the number of skills. While it seems that is what they have done, I do not know that it is really a goal of the design team.

Truth is, if it were up to me I would try and simplify it, but down to how many, I don't know. But it is not up to me.

Of course maybe Science is the exception to prove the rule. Reduce skills and specializations on many of the skills, but allow science to remain with 16 (or 17 if they add in the Astronomy that was pointed out is missing). :mrgreen:

Isn't the simplest thing what they are doing already? - have one catch all Science skill with as many specialities as needed, in an open ended sense, to handle whatever players wish their characters to be specialised in? On your character sheet you're only going to take a single slot with a single speciality (unless you want multiple specialities). Before you had four different skills all listed separately.

Having a bunch of specialities within the remit of a single Skill is still fulfilling the objective of reducing the overall number of basic skills on offer. They aren't reducing the number of specialisations on other skills like Art, Languages or Profession in actuality, either, so Science has a few more specialisations than these others but it's not an exception to the rule. I don't see it as a problem.

 

[-Daniel-]

Isn't the simplest thing what they are doing already?

In my opinion? No. I just made a five term scholar that ended up with three Science skills to assign. With the present 16 this means they could not even select enough to make sense with the role they would play on a ship.

But this is clearly one area you and I will never see eye to eye. But that is OK, because even if it stays the 16 specialties, I bet I will still play the game and have fun. :mrgreen:

On a side note, I have enjoyed our exchange, I liked reading your point of view and it made me think about how hard it must be to be a real "scientist" today with both the pace of new information and the need to specialize while keeping a level of understanding in the other areas that overlap yours.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Isn't the simplest thing what they are doing already?

In my opinion? No. I just made a five term scholar that ended up with three Science skills to assign. With the present 16 this means they could not even select enough to make sense with the role they would play on a ship.

But this is clearly one area you and I will never see eye to eye. But that is OK, because even if it stays the 16 specialties, I bet I will still play the game and have fun. :mrgreen:

On a side note, I have enjoyed our exchange, I liked reading your point of view and it made me think about how hard it must be to be a real "scientist" today with both the pace of new information and the need to specialize while keeping a level of understanding in the other areas that overlap yours.

I'm happy that we've had a pleasant exchange.

I don't understand the point you make though - just choose one specialisation and stick with it? If a Scholar has, say Science (Astrophysics) 3 then it would also mean he had a pretty good grounding in general science (Level 0) and physics (Level 1 and 2), but did most of his research about the stars (level 3). Why does this need to be complicated?