Highly skilled characters - or the lack thereof

[CosmicGamer]

Level 0 = Bachelor's Degree
Level 1 = Masters Degree
Level 2 = PHD

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... ...I think we can work out a progression of skill that makes more sense when compared to real life training standards of today.

Masters degree in Streetwise? Brawling, Gun combat, Gambling, Carouse...

Skill levels seam to me to be a simple mechanic of the game for determining a characters ability to complete tasks. I'm not sure why there is a need to try and detail the number of classroom credits, independent study time, and hours of on the job experience each skill level represents.

As mentioned earlier

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.

 

[Treebore]

Level 0 = Bachelor's Degree
Level 1 = Masters Degree
Level 2 = PHD

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... ...I think we can work out a progression of skill that makes more sense when compared to real life training standards of today.

Masters degree in Streetwise? Brawling, Gun combat, Gambling, Carouse...

Skill levels seam to me to be a simple mechanic of the game for determining a characters ability to complete tasks. I'm not sure why there is a need to try and detail the number of classroom credits, independent study time, and hours of on the job experience each skill level represents.

As mentioned earlier

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.

I think this is being discussed in terms that it is so GM's can have a solid idea of what a PC or NPC would know at what rank. Granted there are examples of skills that do not neatly fit in, but it still would not change just how much they would know in a given skill area. So if you say someone is a brawler of 3 you know he or she is a top line competitor in street fighting or boxing or the like. If they are rank 4 they probably could have been a world champion.

So all this does is give us a better sense of scale so we have a better handle on expectations. The better the understanding we have of the sense of scale the better we can handle things like I deal with, such as a Psionic with super intelligence who is able to learn things to such a degree I have to measure their computational abilities on the scale of a ships computer.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Just as everyone ought to have at least some of the other guys' skills. Maybe not all of them, but a goodly spread.

The team's medic might pick up Stealth and Unarmed Combat; the face might learn some Medic and Computer; and everyone might learn Zero-G from the ship's Belter and space expert.

Not to mention the skills the Steward might be able to teach the rest of the crew, if she is given sufficient incentive to train them ...

But every character should learn how to handle himself in a crisis, including picking up a point or two in some kind of combat skill. If they did not know how to face crises, or did not want to face the dangers, why would they want to be Travellers?

Like the PC assumption that the steward is will be a "she"

More seriously, more can be made of 0 level skills, they are quite useful and give a sound level of proficiency. Not sure about the need for every traveller to be combat capable, that surely depends on the kind of campaign you are running. Thinking about our game, we have 2 very combat capable characters, a further one who can shoot straight, and two who hold the coats and apply the bandages (as well as fix computers, fly space ships, mend broken drives, broker and trade, steward (as it happens, a she) etc) That usually works well, but at times I add temporary characters to the group, essentailly combat capable NPCs, when there is going to be a lot of combat.

I think the MGT skills system, inc skills acquistion makes sense and leads to a good game. We tend to randomly generate the first skill each term, and I allow any additional promotion skill to be chosen from the relevent tables, the trouble with selecting all skills is players tend towards wanting level 4 skills in one area, and can be pretty unbalanced. In general I take a dim view of very high skill levels anyway, and level 4 is an unofficial cap for PCs and almost all NPCs.

MGT does have a mechanism for learning new skills, which can be applied sparingly. I tend to agree that if characters are working closely with each other for years they may pick up some level 0 skills from their team mates.

Suppose the other big theoretical problem is direct comparisons between, say, drive 2 and physics 2, I tend to think that becomeing a very good driver is much easier for most people than becoming a very good physicist, but for the purposes of the game it works fine.

Egil

 

[rust]

Suppose the other big theoretical problem is direct comparisons between, say, drive 2 and physics 2, I tend to think that becomeing a very good driver is much easier for most people than becoming a very good physicist, but for the purposes of the game it works fine.

In my settings I use a modified system for learning and improving skills,
where physical skills take a little less time to learn or improve than men-
tal skills.

During character generation, if a character is designed to become a doc-
tor, engineer or scientist, he has to spend at least one term at a universi-
ty [Spica Career Book 2, modified for the setting], usually followed by a
term at a graduate school [also CB 2] if he wants to have a doctorate.

Other characters can also develop high levels of academic, medical or sci-
entific skills, but without a formal education they cannot work as a doctor,
engineer or scientist - under normal circumstances no one would hire an
amateur or dilettante for the position of a professional, so without the do-
cumented education the chances are extremely slim.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Suppose the other big theoretical problem is direct comparisons between, say, drive 2 and physics 2, I tend to think that becomeing a very good driver is much easier for most people than becoming a very good physicist, but for the purposes of the game it works fine.

In my settings I use a modified system for learning and improving skills,
where physical skills take a little less time to learn or improve than men-
tal skills.

During character generation, if a character is designed to become a doc-
tor, engineer or scientist, he has to spend at least one term at a universi-
ty [Spica Career Book 2, modified for the setting], usually followed by a
term at a graduate school [also CB 2] if he wants to have a doctorate.

Other characters can also develop high levels of academic, medical or sci-
entific skills, but without a formal education they cannot work as a doctor,
engineer or scientist - under normal circumstances no one would hire an
amateur or dilettante for the position of a professional, so without the do-
cumented education the chances are extremely slim.

Yeah, I have thought along similar lines, or ruling that "mental" skills take twice along to learn, i.e., if you get medic 1 on a career roll, what you actually have is medic 0.5, which counts as medic 0 on rolls. However, haven't actually tried either and am happy to tolerate the unreality for a simple game mechanic that gives a good game! As much as anything else, don't want to spend hours ruling on advocate, broker, sensors etc, and arguing whether learning to fly is twice as hard, or only 1.5 times as hard, as driving, etc etc ad nauseaum, then trying to convince the players!!. Would rather spend my GM time creating wierd worlds and exciting adventures!

Egil

 

[far-trader]

...Suppose the other big theoretical problem is direct comparisons between, say, drive 2 and physics 2, I tend to think that becomeing a very good driver is much easier for most people than becoming a very good physicist, but for the purposes of the game it works fine.

Egil

Quite, but I also think people over-rate their skill at driving Especially in North America. I've seen a lot of Traveller players who think they have Drive-2 or better when in fact they are likely more Drive-0. I'd put Drive-0 at what most daily drivers have, even after years, just because they never improve. A comprehensive course and much practice of defensive driving would get you to Drive-1, if you passed. It depends on what you imagine skill levels encompass and how you assess yourself. I also know people for whom Physics-2 was a breeze but Drive-0 eludes them.

Besides the direct comparison of different skill realms there is also (possibly) the legacy of CT where even the skill level had a different impact depending on the skill in question. Some skills were a 1 level to 1 DM effect, while others were more, or less.

And of course one can also make a point from the availability of a skill(s) in char-gen. A skill that shows up 1 time in 6 might be more difficult to learn (for that type of character at least) than one that shows up 3 times in 6. Or it might just be the opportunities to learn are different.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Besides the direct comparison of different skill realms there is also (possibly) the legacy of CT where even the skill level had a different impact depending on the skill in question. Some skills were a 1 level to 1 DM effect, while others were more, or less.

Never really played CT, but that sounds fiendishly complicated.

Egil

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

And of course one can also make a point from the availability of a skill(s) in char-gen. A skill that shows up 1 time in 6 might be more difficult to learn (for that type of character at least) than one that shows up 3 times in 6. Or it might just be the opportunities to learn are different.

Good point, but rather lost if using points or picking skills in char gen.

Egil

 

[far-trader]

Besides the direct comparison of different skill realms there is also (possibly) the legacy of CT where even the skill level had a different impact depending on the skill in question. Some skills were a 1 level to 1 DM effect, while others were more, or less.

Never really played CT, but that sounds fiendishly complicated.

Egil

It wasn't. But of course at the time there were only a dozen or so skills, and fewer than that which didn't use DM = Skill

As skill bloat crept into the game (post LBB1-3) some skills changed, and the more skills there were, the more people house-ruled simpler mechanics of DM = Skill, which later (MT) became the official standard.

 

[Melbourne Accords]

Gee4orce noted at the start of this thread that this question is as old as Traveller itself. This is a very good observation. CT led our first group to engage with the issue in 1985. The original text of LBB 1 (p.21) states that Medical-3 enables a character to be a doctor. It adds that Dex 8+ is required to be a surgeon. To my mind, the MGT approach is superior; a surgeon should have a higher level of skill than a GP.

In 1989, Travellers' Digest #15 (p.19) linked each level of skill to an adjective. Five tiers were used. A five point scale serves the game well, as does the MGT distinction between basic training and level 1.

Drawing all of this together, players will receive this list for our new campaign (different adjectives have been trialled over the years):

Level 0: Basic
Level 1: Proficient
Level 2: Professional
Level 3: Expert
Level 4: Renowned

I hope that this is of use to other groups.

 

[Gee4orce]

Level 0: Basic
Level 1: Proficient
Level 2: Professional
Level 3: Expert
Level 4: Renowned

Yep - this is very similar to the Dreyfus model which I linked to higher up, which would break down to :

0:Novice
1:Advanced Beginner
2:Competent
3roficient
4:Expert

although, you see the problem with adjectives: I have proficient as 3, and yours is 1 !

 

[CosmicGamer]

Like I said before, not sure what is with all the labels. Yes, I do understand it's to put things in real world terms but words are less precise than numbers and foster more misunderstanding.

Geeforce and Proficient seam to agree on the concept yet one has Proficient at level 3 and the other has it at level 1.

What level is "I'm a pretty good mechanic" is open to each individuals interpretation in real life as well as in game roll playing. When it comes to game mechanics things need to be less fuzzy and most people reading the rules understands level 4 is better than level 3 is better than level 2 is better than level 1 is better than level 0.

Here are some more for you junkies that need another fix of level labels:

0 Junior apprentice
1 Apprentice
2 Novice
3 Master
4 Grand Master

0 Practice squad
1 Second string
2 First string
3 Pro Bowl
4 Hall of Fame

 

[DFW]

Here are some more for you junkies that need another fix of level labels:

0 Junior apprentice
1 Apprentice
2 Novice
3 Master
4 Grand Master

This one doesn't jibe with MGT rule set at all.

 

[DFW]

Here's a list more in line with MGT RAW:

Skill level- Descriptor
0- Beginner/Novice/Minimally competent
1- Experienced/Journeyman/Certified
2- Professional/Master/Expert
3- Elite/World-class/Ace

 

[CosmicGamer]

Here are some more for you junkies that need another fix of level labels:

0 Junior apprentice
1 Apprentice
2 Novice
3 Master
4 Grand Master

This one doesn't jibe with MGT rule set at all.

Hmm, why not? As I pointed out before, it's just words. It still jibes with MGT because level 0 isn't as skilled as level 1 which isn't as skilled as level 2 and so on.

In some professions you need a certain amount of on the job training to become a "professional". Once you have completed this training you are level 2 but are still a novice compared to any other trained professional who has been doing this type of work for years.

Take Medic. Some people might look at level 0 as novice medic but another way of thinking of it is a someone who just completed all their education and residency is a novice doctor.

 

[rinku]

Here's a list more in line with MGT RAW:

Skill level- Descriptor
0- Beginner/Novice/Minimally competent
1- Experienced/Journeyman/Certified
2- Professional/Master/Expert
3- Elite/World-class/Ace

I'd make level 3 more like "Veteran professional/Highly trained specialist" and bump your descriptor of level 3 to level 4. If a normal doctor is level 2, a specialist brain surgeon or one with many years of general practice would be level 3. Rare, but not especially so. Level 4 is getting to "world class" level, IMHO.

 

[DFW]

Here's a list more in line with MGT RAW:

Skill level- Descriptor
0- Beginner/Novice/Minimally competent
1- Experienced/Journeyman/Certified
2- Professional/Master/Expert
3- Elite/World-class/Ace

I'd make level 3 more like "Veteran professional/Highly trained specialist" and bump your descriptor of level 3 to level 4. If a normal doctor is level 2, a specialist brain surgeon or one with many years of general practice would be level 3. Rare, but not especially so. Level 4 is getting to "world class" level, IMHO.

An MD with 8 years of training is level 2. That would be considered a doctorate level of training. A PhD in Engineering for example. That is considered an expert and/or professional. In the US at least.

 

[far-trader]

What is this "real-world skill theory" you mentioned? Sounds Newage mumbo jumbo

The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_model_of_skill_acquisition

A belated thanks for the link Gee4orce, interesting reading.

 

[rinku]

Here's a list more in line with MGT RAW:

Skill level- Descriptor
0- Beginner/Novice/Minimally competent
1- Experienced/Journeyman/Certified
2- Professional/Master/Expert
3- Elite/World-class/Ace

I'd make level 3 more like "Veteran professional/Highly trained specialist" and bump your descriptor of level 3 to level 4. If a normal doctor is level 2, a specialist brain surgeon or one with many years of general practice would be level 3. Rare, but not especially so. Level 4 is getting to "world class" level, IMHO.

An MD with 8 years of training is level 2. That would be considered a doctorate level of training. A PhD in Engineering for example. That is considered an expert and/or professional. In the US at least.

Um... yes? I think we agree on skill level 2 and under. I was commenting that I thought "world class" would be level 4 and up, with level 3 being an experienced professional.

Alternately:

0: n00b
1: d00d
2: sk1773d
3: 4axx0r
4: 733t
5: OMG

 

[Melbourne Accords]

These are all useful contributions (Drefus makes interesting reading). A five point scale captures the needs of our game. We find adjectives useful because they help to explain the numerical values, manage expectations (particularly for players who are new to Traveller) and expedite the creation of NPCs.

The descriptors that caused us least concern were those for 0 (Basic), 2 (Professional) and 4 (Renowned). The descriptor for level 0 was chosen to underscore the basic training of MGT. We used to follow this with competent (as per Gee4ofce). This is the term used in TD #15. This was recently changed to proficient as it can be reasoned that basic training counters incompetence. On the other hand, competent may better encapsulate training and experience. I'll give this more thought - thank you. Level 3 was described as expert to represent a higher degree of accomplishment than might be normally expected of a member of a profession (a specialist rather than a GP).

In the final analysis, each word forms part of a sequence. The terms are read in relation to each other. The key thing is to achieve internal logic.