Highly skilled characters - or the lack thereof
- Thread starter Gee4orce
- Start date
kafka
Mongoose
alex_greene said:I'd prefer the classifications not to go along the lines of D&D, ta.
Shadowrun came up with the concept of character roles within the group based on the tasks each performs: CQB, infiltration, legwork, the face and so on. The face meets the Mr Johnson to arrange the mission and the terms, the legwork guy sniffs around for useful data concerning the mission (and checks up on the Mr Johnson wherever possible), the infiltration guy sneaks into the target area and opens the door for the CQB - or the infiltrator doubles as the CQB guy, in case he needs to bust a few heads on the way in or out, and so on.
A versatile group is one where a team has experience of multiple roles, not necessarily multiple skill sets - though an overlap of skills is highly desirable. Your Marine types might have experience of tinkering with a computer and injecting intrusion software into a terminal so he could take on the technician role for a mission; or he could be chosen to infiltrate a ship based on his previous experience of serving on board vessels of that same class, despite the fact that his Stealth-1 is nowhere near as good as the willowy team ninja's Stealth-3.
And just about every character must know how to handle themselves in a hostile environment, so no "fighter class." Everyone ought to be a fighter in Traveller.
In truth, it's not so much the individuals' skills that count. It's the ability of the team to work together to get the job done that earns them their reputation and assures them the jobs with the big money.
Agreed. But my point is all RPG parties are largely structured in the same way. D&D is written into the genetic code of most games...and Traveller is really not that different.
Careers and classes are not the same thing...for one...everyone in most cases in Traveller are retired. While, Traveller does suppose that everyone can fight...so does everyone other game...while it might make for interesting gaming...when was the last time you played a blacksmith in a FRPG Campaign?
Where Traveller broke new ground was in the acquisition of skills. This is what helps keep game balance on the correct footing.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Sir Brad said:
Do keep in mind that one actually goes from mook (no skill and -3; 11+ to succeed, 13 + if difficult ) to dude (skill-0, 8+ to succeed, 10+ if difficult) first.
Theres a big jump between no skill, and any skill. Skill zero is well trained. Traveller skips all the basic training levels before that and gets right down to it.
In cas it matters, here is what I givemy players to put it in perspective.
years to advance /cumulativeyears to date/ skill level/ example
-
Code:
0/ 0/ -3 No experience 1/ 1/ -2 Some training 1/ 2/ -1 Some More raining 2/ 4/ 0 Four years degree; professional entry position; local winner 3/ 7/ +1 Four years plus experience or Masters ;lead professional; regional winner 5/ 12/ +2 four years plus experience +graduate/postgrad (Ph.D./M.D.) senior professional; national winner 8/ 20/ +3 PhD +postdoc +experience world games winner 13/ 33/ +4 Guru, olympic winner 21/ 56/ +5 Godlike, olympic repeat winner
Obviously the physical stuff is a bit squirreley at the upper end for years trained, given that we have 16 year olds sweeping gold medals in gymnastics, but it gets the point across. 2 is good. 5 is best.
alex_greene
Guest
D&D is built into the expectations of the gamers, especially those who cut their teeth on D&D and who moved to Traveller expecting more of the same.kafka said:alex_greene said:I'd prefer the classifications not to go along the lines of D&D, ta.
no "fighter class." Everyone ought to be a fighter in Traveller.
Agreed. But my point is all RPG parties are largely structured in the same way. D&D is written into the genetic code of most games ... and Traveller is really not that different.
Traveller players are meant to be people, and people don't have character classes. You can meet people who are ex-cops, ex-Marines, former corporate types, medics, tailors and so on, but they're no more character classes than red apple trees are a different character class to green apple trees.
The roleplaying games I started with were Runequest and Traveller, bothalex_greene said:
of them skill based and without character classes and levels.
I tried D&D only rather late, and never liked it, because to me it always
seemed and still seems terribly artificial and mechanics driven instead of
roleplaying driven.
Without a D&D background to colour my expectations, I do not see that
Traveller and D&D would have much in common, from my point of view
they are almost at opposing ends of the scale.
Bense
Cosmic Mongoose
I love both D&D and Traveller, and they are quite similar. Six attributes, characters defined mostly by their occupations, both originally designed as a generic genre-based system but later focusing on one setting, psionics are present, combat rules are quite detailed while personal interaction receives next to no attention, money and possessions as major character motivations, and many of the early Traveller aventures (Shadows, Kinunir, Annic Nova, Research Station Gamma) are basically dungeon crawls - IN SPACE!!! Some of the later ones are too.
Bense said:
Some good points, and you forgot that in original Trav that armour worked by reducing the chance to hit rather than by reducing damage (same as D&D).
However the differences are telling, too. OT has no levels, no experience points and no hit points in the D&D sense. Oh, "terms served" can loosely be equated to levels, but you don't add terms in play.
Even with the quite generous MGT experience system, character progress is slow. In classic D&D you mainly progress by killing stuff; in Traveller there is no direct reward for doing so.
Character progression (one more level!) is probably more of a motivation in D&D than the accumulation of wealth. The designers of Traveller were certainly influenced by D&D, but that is a major part of it that they chose to avoid.
Well, in my view the bizarre concept behind mechanics with results likeBense said:
"I can level up and then improve my skill in Architecture with the XP I
get for killing one more orc" is not even remotely similar to Traveller,
and I simply cannot take such nonsensical concepts seriously enough
to enjoy D&D. However, this is surely a matter of taste.
vitalis6969
Mongoose
alex_greene said:D&D is built into the expectations of the gamers, especially those who cut their teeth on D&D and who moved to Traveller expecting more of the same.kafka said:alex_greene said:I'd prefer the classifications not to go along the lines of D&D, ta.
no "fighter class." Everyone ought to be a fighter in Traveller.
Agreed. But my point is all RPG parties are largely structured in the same way. D&D is written into the genetic code of most games ... and Traveller is really not that different.
Traveller players are meant to be people, and people don't have character classes. You can meet people who are ex-cops, ex-Marines, former corporate types, medics, tailors and so on, but they're no more character classes than red apple trees are a different character class to green apple trees.
Except lawyers...
yep... definitely except lawyers. :wink:
far-trader
Mongoose
rust said:
You're forgetting leveling up for looting corpses and stealing
It's probably a bit late to convert you (and off topic
), and I'm not really trying to convert you, but for what it's worth I've always abstracted the whole D&D experience concept to swallow those bits myself...For example: The Wizard casts a spell, feels the magic course through his being as it creates flames burning the zombie to ashes. Sifting through the ashes he finds several coins and a gem.
For you (I guess) that translates as "The Wizard gets better at magic for killing and looting." For me that translates as "The Wizard gets better at magic more quickly by using it under duress and putting the valuables towards more arcane lore and supplies aids his understanding."
The interesting thing I find is that one of the most singular systems in Traveller, the character generation one, has not been copied by later games to any great degree. For one of the seminal RPGs, that's surprising.
About the only game I can think of that has anything like it is Cyberpunk, with the lifepath system. Even then, it just adds background colour and you mainly design your charcater from scratch.
Possibly the point addition concept pioneered by Champions (1981), which tended to dominate through the later eighties had an effect?
About the only game I can think of that has anything like it is Cyberpunk, with the lifepath system. Even then, it just adds background colour and you mainly design your charcater from scratch.
Possibly the point addition concept pioneered by Champions (1981), which tended to dominate through the later eighties had an effect?
Original D&D didn't really have skills you got better at being a fighter by fighting, however I can see what Rust means, in its more modern incarnation gaining xp from killing goblins etc allows you improve any skill including ones you haven't used in the course of your adventures.
The second RPG I got after recieving D&D for my birthday was Runequest it made sense to me that I got better at swordsmanship by using my sword. The lack of hit dice as well was a revelation, it encouraged smarter play.
The second RPG I got after recieving D&D for my birthday was Runequest it made sense to me that I got better at swordsmanship by using my sword. The lack of hit dice as well was a revelation, it encouraged smarter play.
far-trader
Mongoose
rinku said:
That's long been a head-scratcher for me too. Of course I've applied it myself in some other games after a fashion at one time or another. I expect others have too.
This I could accept, but how can it make the wizard better at climbingfar-trader said:
walls ? - I cannot get over my prejudice that one learns to climb walls
by climbing walls, not by casting spells or killing creatures.
I am afraid my simulationist vein that demands a plausible connection
between cause and effect is just too much of a mental handicap to ma-
ke D&D (and similar games) an attractive option for me.
Nathan Brazil
Banded Mongoose
Within the discussion of skill levels being "trained" and "experienced", within the Traveller rule set, how does one explain the Skill Level 0 received due to homeworld and education prior to entering a career? The skill levels received are certainly not for a formal education trained individual if
Level 0 = Bachelor's Degree
Level 1 = Masters Degree
Level 2 = PHD
I don't have any real opinion, I just had not seen this brought in the thread yet.
Level 0 = Bachelor's Degree
Level 1 = Masters Degree
Level 2 = PHD
I don't have any real opinion, I just had not seen this brought in the thread yet.
Bense
Cosmic Mongoose
Oh yes, I did forget that one.rinku said:
Differences, shmifferences. The next things you're going to tell me are that Traveller doesn't have magic or dragons.
Actually in 1st ed. AD&D the loot was worth much more XP than killing the monsters.
Except that in 1st edition AD&D you progressed mainly by accumulating wealth, so they're more similar than you might think.
The definition isn't "bachelor's degree", but "several years of experience".
Computer-0 could be gained by someone from a low tech world doing formal study and receiving qualifications, or by someone from a high tech world having spent all their life using computers on a daily basis.
Also, there is such a thing as natural talent; not all Medic-2 characters have formally spent 8 years competing an MD (in fact, technically only those who have done terms in Scholar (Physician) can claim to be "doctors" in the MD sense. Everyone else are paramedics or medtechs).
Computer-0 could be gained by someone from a low tech world doing formal study and receiving qualifications, or by someone from a high tech world having spent all their life using computers on a daily basis.
Also, there is such a thing as natural talent; not all Medic-2 characters have formally spent 8 years competing an MD (in fact, technically only those who have done terms in Scholar (Physician) can claim to be "doctors" in the MD sense. Everyone else are paramedics or medtechs).
Bense
Cosmic Mongoose
Yeah, first of all that's only 2nd edition D&D or later - it didn't work that way in 1st - the one I'm comparing to its contemporary Classic Traveller - and the explanation is "he was practicing climbing walls between adventures while you weren't looking".rust said:
Also, note that a Wizard is going to have trouble getting very good at climbing walls compared to a
Why didn't other systems copy Traveller's character creation? Because the trend was towards less randomness in character creation, not more. Lots of role-players didn't like going five terms without getting the Gun skill they were after and then dying (see this very forum for some).
MGT is less random than its original, and provides many more skills.
Someone who is 18 years old usually has picked up a couple of skills at aNathan Brazil said:
level that is the equivalent of a few years of training - in fact, he often had
a few years of training.
For example, the belter kid will have learned to use a vacc suit early on,
and at age 18 he will have more experience and knowledge than some-
one who has just learned the skill.
It is similar with other physical and technical skills that are a vital part of
a culture and therefore are learned very early in life. Computer could be
another example, or Animal for an agricultural society.
It seems more difficult with academic and science skills, here I would see
them perhaps as special interests of the character. I know a few young
amateur astronomers who - in my view - do have the equivalent of a le-
vel 0 skill because they have been actively interested in this hobby for
several years.
I think skill-0, and even skill-1 accounts for on the job training up to 2 year degree programs. Skill-2 is 4 year degree or equivalent, and skill 3 actually should probably reflect Masters degrees and equivalent, but I am pretty sure the Doctor/Surgeon example I gave earlier in this thread show Skill 3 as 8 year/PHD level, in fact as Surgeon level, which is done with I think it is 2 year residency after you finish your med school. So skill 3 seems to be more in line with 10 years of intense training and experience.
Then again I believe skill (-3) is supposed to represent no training, so if we scale that up through skill (-2), (-1), then zero, then up to 3, I think we can work out a progression of skill that makes more sense when compared to real life training standards of today.
Then again I believe skill (-3) is supposed to represent no training, so if we scale that up through skill (-2), (-1), then zero, then up to 3, I think we can work out a progression of skill that makes more sense when compared to real life training standards of today.
Similar threads
