Highly skilled characters - or the lack thereof

[CosmicGamer]

Level 3 was described as expert to represent a higher degree of accomplishment than might be normally expected of a member of a profession

I understand your view here.

(a specialist rather than a GP).

This I don't agree with. In game mechanics, Level 3 [whatever name you want to call them] should be better than their level 2 [whatever name you want to call them] counterpart in all areas of their profession. Also game mechanics make all level 3's of the same skill equal [depends on characteristic DMs though]. To me, a real life specialist is better than their counterparts in one area of their profession. You probably wouldn't go to a brain surgeon for heart surgery and you would probably go to someone else for knee surgery.

Just my point of view.

However the book does say on page 6

Medic 4 is a famous surgeon or specialist

I just don't see how the term specialist is reflected in the game mechanics - other than certain skills that have specializations starting at level 1. Maybe here, specialist is something just for role playing and not roll playing?

 

[DFW]

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.

Um... yes? You don't think that an Engineer with a PhD (skill level 2)in his field qualifies as an experienced Professional?

 

[Myrm]

I work in a field (Biomed sciences) where people routinely have PhDs - there is a big difference between someone coming into their first post-doc with PhD still squeaking in their hands and someone with some experience in the job without the student training structure around them - thats despite having spent a number of years doing original research. My dad was reasonably senior management in a big oil company and had a fair amount to do with refinery operations and exploration and he always said the same thing - a qualification was useful, but there was a world of difference between the person who was qualified/trained in academic terms and the person who actually had worked on the floor as well.

So I would certainly accept that there is room for a difference between a PhD qualified person and the same person after even a small amount of experience actually using that PhD. I mean within my field that the difference between a new postdoc and a lecturer who runs a research group

 

[DFW]

I work in a field (Biomed sciences) where people routinely have PhDs - there is a big difference between someone coming into their first post-doc with PhD still squeaking in their hands and someone with some experience in the job

Yes, I'm sure. However, a PhD in Eng isn't awarded for study. It is EARNED by experience and actual accomplishment. It isn't just a piece of paper like in Biomed...

 

[Melbourne Accords]

Sorry, CosmicGamer – the illustration in parentheses was intended to do nothing more than offer a sense of medical expertise above that of a standard GP. It was not meant to carry the weight of the argument. In fact, I agree with you that specialist implies a narrow focus. It’s for this reason that we label level 3 as expert.

 

[alex_greene]

Others have asked about the non-qualified and street skills before. So I guess I'll have to do the best I can with a small selection.

Admin
0: Done some work experience in a reception area or a typing pool
1: Administrator / Assistant Administrator
2: Experienced MBA
3: Skilled bureaucrat / accountant
4: That short guy who used to harass Dr Sloan in Diagnosis Murder

Deception
0: Pretty good at blagging comps
1: Seasoned street hustler
2: Kriss Angel, David Copperfield
3: Career con artist/ Templeton "Face" Peck, The A Team
4: P T Barnum
5: Slippery Jim DiGriz, the Stainless Steel Rat

Persuade
0: The girl next door you could never resist in school
1: The girl next door, all grown up
2: Derren Brown
3: Inara Serra
4: Nikolai Dante
5: The Master

Gambling
0: Biff Tannen, the Back To The Future films
1: Ryan Wolfe, CSI: Miami
2: Lando Calrissian
3: Han Solo
4: Le Chiffre, Casino Royale
5: James Bond

Stealth
0: Childhood sneak
1: Wildlife hunter
2: Career burglar
3: Ninja
4: SAS soldier
5: Batman

As I said, only a small selection. Small, but pretty representative.

 

[alex_greene]

I was also thinking about psionics, and how they'd fit in with this scheme. Psionic Strength is not the only determinant of psionic ability - you need skill in the Talents as well:

Telepathy
0: Susan Ivanova, B5
1: Tuvok
2: Deanna Troi
3: Lwaxana Troi
4: Bester, B5
5: Lyta Alexander, B5

Teleportation
3: Nightcrawler
5: Gully Foyle

 

[rinku]

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.

Um... yes? You don't think that an Engineer with a PhD (skill level 2)in his field qualifies as an experienced Professional?

I probably didn't make myself clear; by "experienced professional" I meant someone who has a PhD equivalent *and* many subsequent years of experience. Most such people wouldn't be described as "world class"; I was just saying that that label seems more suited for the next skill bracket up (level 4). The rulebook does mention L4 as being "famous surgeon or specialist". A competent (but not brilliant or highly experienced) heart surgeon would be Medic 3 by my reckoning.

@CosmicGamer:

When the rulebook refers to a "famous surgeon or specialist" it is using the medical context, referring to a fully qualified doctor who has then gone on to specialise in an area and acheived specific extra qualifications to do so. It's not talking about skill specialisation in the game context; its using a technical title akin to military rank or noble title. Most Specialists would be Medic 3, with really good ones Medic 4 (per the rulebook). There is also the possibility of Specialists that aren't as good as they should be (or think they are) being rated lower...

 

[apoc527]

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?

I'm a bit late on the response here, but Mutant Chronicles by Heartbreaker Hobbies/Target Games used a very Travelleresque character generation system. You picked background jobs, did "career repetitions" and earned skills and rolled Events during each background rep. Sounds familiar...

 

[rinku]

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?

I'm a bit late on the response here, but Mutant Chronicles by Heartbreaker Hobbies/Target Games used a very Travelleresque character generation system. You picked background jobs, did "career repetitions" and earned skills and rolled Events during each background rep. Sounds familiar...

Yes

Still, that appears to be a 1993 game, which is a long time down the track in terms of RPG history. Considering how much D&D and the early point addition systems were aped, it's a curiosity, considering how big Traveller was at the time.

 

[Myrm]

I work in a field (Biomed sciences) where people routinely have PhDs - there is a big difference between someone coming into their first post-doc with PhD still squeaking in their hands and someone with some experience in the job

Yes, I'm sure. However, a PhD in Eng isn't awarded for study. It is EARNED by experience and actual accomplishment. It isn't just a piece of paper like in Biomed...

Er, thats just grossly insulting, on top of being untrue.

 

[zero]

^ Seconded. I have nothing really to add to the topic as the point has been solved, but that comment is pretty offensive.

 

[rust]

Er, thats just grossly insulting, on top of being untrue.

While the comment is indeed quite impolite, I have to admit that I see the
point.
At least over here the requirements for an "independent contribution to
science", which is normally the condition for a doctorate, are comparati-
vely lower for medical doctors than for doctors of the natural sciences or
of engineering.

 

[DFW]

Er, thats just grossly insulting, on top of being untrue.

Well, just going by what I was just told in the previous post. Don't have a CLUE as to why you'd be miffed.

Remember this? "there is a big difference between someone coming into their first post-doc with PhD still squeaking in their hands and someone with some experience in the job"

YOU are the one who said NO real job experience. Time for you to mentally track what you are stating throughout a thread. It might result in you getting less upset when someone believes what you yourself post... :shock:

 

[hdan]

Guys, really? Traveller handles this distinction already.

Equating Skill Level with Education is a weird and artificial thing to do. They may or may not track each other, depending on the individual in question.

We all know professors who are super knowledgeable about a subject but haven't done "the job" for real. I saw sometimes with my Computer Science Professors - TONS of useful knowledge to help us understand the theory behind WHAT we were doing, but very little practical advice on those little tricks we all learn or are forced to do to "make things work" in the field.

And we've probably all had colleagues who are absolute wizards at their job but almost seem to work from sense of smell more than any academic understanding of the subject.

I'm not knocking my profs or colleagues - far from it, but Edu is not Skill, and vice-versa.

I would expect any Masters Degree holder to have Level-0 or more and any PhD to have Level-1 or more in their relevant skills. Researchers and practitioners (MDs, etc.) would most likely have considerably higher levels of skills to accompany their high Edu. Professors would have "professing" skills like Teaching and Admin in addition to their focus skills.

Does that make sense?

 

[Ishmael]

imho, a character's skill at an activity is the sum of natural ability, knowledge, and hands-on experience.
Stat DM's account for natural ability and Edu accounts for knowledge ( which is often or mostly informal as opposed to formal education ) which is the abstracted total of all knowledge the character has learned and remembers throughout his life from newspapers and tv, to interaction with others.
What Traveller refers to 'skill' levels is the measure of hard experience in the field.

With this in mind, a young steady-handed lad could be an excellent sharpshooter after a short time and might even out shoot a grizzled veteran who has failed several aging rolls. But the gun-3 veteran would still be a better gunsmith, for example.
A young fresh med graduate doing his internship ( Edu-10 and med-0 ) might be less effective than a high school dropout who ended up being a combat medic in a hot war somewhere ( Edu-6 and med-2 ).... at least until the med graduate had some experience handling actual trauma cases under his belt.
The unskilled DM's keep inexperienced pc's from using their high stats to blunder through things at the same level as experienced pc's
There is no substitute for experience.

slapping degrees and the like to various 'skill' levels is a waste of time as any piece of paper is only worth a piece of paper until the holder proves its worth.

btw, I also feel that Int+Edu limit on number os 'skill' levels should be strictly enforced. (hmmmm Megatraveller gives Int+Edu the term 'experience'..how about that...)

------------------------------------------

Yes, I'm sure. However, a PhD in Eng isn't awarded for study. It is EARNED by experience and actual accomplishment. It isn't just a piece of paper like in Biomed...

Remember this? "there is a big difference between someone coming into their first post-doc with PhD still squeaking in their hands and someone with some experience in the job"

YOU are the one who said NO real job experience. Time for you to mentally track what you are stating throughout a thread. It might result in you getting less upset when someone believes what you yourself post...

It looks to me that the only indication that DFW believed what Myrm posted was "Yes, I'm sure."
The rest of DFW's statement clearly indicates that he feels a Biomed degree is only a piece of paper that is not earned by "experience and actual accomplishment".
What a rude and trollish thing to say. Especially when Myrm indicated that Biomed science is the field he works in.

 

[DFW]

It looks to me that the only indication that DFW believed what Myrm posted was "Yes, I'm sure."

Get glasses.

 

[iainjcoleman]

While there is indeed a difference between a newly graduated Dr and a researcher with several years of postdoctoral experience, it is nonetheless the case that all PhDs are earned by experience and actual accomplishment. I would concur that it is very insulting to suggest otherwise, whether the suggestion is based on intentional malice or mere ignorance.

And for some reason, DFW has decided to BACAI once again.

 

[DFW]

it is nonetheless the case that all PhDs are earned by experience and actual accomplishment.

Actually, not true.

http://www.cs.odu.edu/~home_g/grad_home/grad_info/handbook/hand/node32.html

For MANY PhD's there is NO requirement that you be able to actually produce an end product that would be required if you were working in the field. For many it is simply study and a thesis. So, your statement isn't correct.

 

[rinku]

it is nonetheless the case that all PhDs are earned by experience and actual accomplishment.

Actually, not true.

http://www.cs.odu.edu/~home_g/grad_home/grad_info/handbook/hand/node32.html

For MANY PhD's there is NO requirement that you be able to actually produce an end product that would be required if you were working in the field. For many it is simply study and a thesis. So, your statement isn't correct.

No, his statement is correct; your definition of "actual accomplishment" is too narrow. A doctorate in an academic discipline such as history or mathematics is only going to produce a thesis, but the "end product" is just as valid as what is produced in an engineering or chemistry one. For that matter, a mere bachelor's degree in fine art will typically produce far more tangible "end product" than any doctorate (and no, I'm not equating any kind of BA with any kind of PhD. Quite the opposite).