Highly skilled characters - or the lack thereof

[BP]

... pushing him out to 10 terms ... skill 3 in Archaeology ... one other skill at level 2, half a dozen more at 1, and about the same at 0.

A 10 term PC with only 11 skill levels (the half dozen -0 should come from basic skills, plus homeworld skills normally provide more)... that sounds a bit low - he failed nearly every advancement and had no event skills?.

All my rolled PCs averaged about 2 skills per term. Really good rolls and choices could get 4 skills per term (normal, event, advancement, rank). Plus there is the package skills, and connection skills if one wants...

If one looks at the average skills per level, most skill levels represent about 2 years or less each (with less adept characters only getting 1 skill level per 4 years). So skill-3 may only be about 6 years of schooling/experience. I look at skill levels as simply a game mechanic - as that is really all they are - that only have a vague relationship to defined RW experience. This is similar to the fact that despite less actual time involved in a RW skill, one can still be more successful at related tasks...

 

[Treebore]

Besides, at least for PC's, it wold be pretty boring to play a character who is already the best they can be at everything.

For NPC's I don't randomly generate anything, I make them what I need them to be.

 

[CosmicGamer]

It's really hard to generate highly skilled characters using the normal character generation rules. I attempted to generate a 'professor' type character, expert in Xeno-Archaeology

The "normal" chargen rules are for fairly random characters. A character could fail their survival role the first term or even fail their qual.

I believe one of the alternate chargen methods already in the book should be used when trying to create a specific character.

 

[rinku]

According to basic "Each rank represents several years experience using that skill".

Consider that skill 4 means you offset two difficulty levels - difficult tasks are easy to this character.

The connection and skill package rules, as well as some of the event rolls, go a way toward allowing players to get those higher levels or massaging the character to what they hoped for. I had a player desperate to be a gun sniper, but who kept not rolling Gun Combat; ended up with level one. Picked up 2 levels in it from connections and one from the skill package and was happy with that.

 

[vitalis6969]

I had a player desperate to be a gun sniper, but who kept not rolling Gun Combat; ended up with level one. Picked up 2 levels in it from connections and one from the skill package and was happy with that.

This is why in our games the players can pick their skills and not roll them. I understand having the random dice roll, but letting them pick their skills each term hasn't broken our games.

-V

 

[rinku]

I'm a sucker for old-style rolled skills myself; gives the higher levels a bit more cachet if they're harder to get (likewise for high stats). Plus you often find that skill you didn't aim for coming in handy

 

[Gee4orce]

Yeah, I'm not sure how much MGT changed the balance of this but Skill-3 should be pretty much "highly skilled". It was in previous editions. Representing at least a full college grad degree (Skill-2) plus experience. That should be enough to qualify for your Professor of Xeno-biology. Extra levels beyond that should be increasingly rare. If you make it easier for anyone to have higher levels all you've done is move the marker of commonality. Now your "rare" gifted characters need Skill-8+ to stand out from the crowd and you've discovered skill inflation.

Well, not quite. This character is supposed to be at the top of his field. He's supposed to be "the authority" on his subject matter - so he is right at the top of the skill ranking (or should be). There's no need to shift other skill rankings to accommodate him.

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

It breaks skill into five levels from Novice to Expert. That nicely maps onto a lot of RPGs, such as the White Wolf Storyteller system, and - ta da - Traveller. I'm actually not sure if it's stated explicitly anywhere what the maximum traveller skill level is, but the rules reference levels 0 to 4, which happens to just be 5 levels

So I think 5 levels is the minimum you can get away with and still realistically model the differences between an expert and a beginner and all the stages in-between. (Of course, you can have more levels to finely detail the different grades in each level, if you so desire). But if it's nigh-on impossible to get to level 4 then you're really only left with 3 or 4 different skill levels to work with.

But yeah, if the levels bug you, use a point buy or choice creation system. The fault* lies in the random generation.

* feature imo, it's meant to prod the imagination, not stifle it... so your long tenured professor emeritus of XB never made it big, never got that break that would see them hailed as an expert in the field, bet that made them bitter and eager to prove that on their own (in play) they can finally show those stuffed shirts just how good they are (for example)

I like the random system too ! I think that a hybrid approach is a good compromise - you pick one skill to reflect your personal choices, but you get another random one to reflect what life happens to throw at you.

 

[alex_greene]

So when you assemble a party, it is important that no one skill dominates but you will still have your Fighters (aka Marine), Clerics (aka Medic) and Magic Users (better known as the Techies) but equally, your party may have the religious nut, the Rock Star, the Thief, or the Spoiled Brat. YTU may vary but the fundamental thing is that players are themselves, as well as someone else - it is this simplicity that has made Traveller very playable over the years.

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.

 

[CosmicGamer]

...in our games the players can pick their skills and not roll them. I understand having the random dice roll, but letting them pick their skills each term hasn't broken our games. -V

And as a bonus, there is a variant like this already in the core rulebook.

I like the random system too!

Certainly.

However I can understand a player having a certain character in mind. Also a GM might have a campaign already worked up and need specific types of characters. When the situation calls for it, there are already chargen rules that give more control over the outcome.

 

[Bense]

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.

Shadowrun wasn't the first. Traveller had people being assigned to different crew spots based on the tasks each performs long before.

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.

I'm not sure I agree.

 

[alex_greene]

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.

Shadowrun wasn't the first. Traveller had people being assigned to different crew spots based on the tasks each performs long before.

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.

I'm not sure I agree.

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?

 

[srogerscat]

And yet, a character combining absolutely vital tech skills with the combat ability of a meat loaf can lead to loads of hilarity and genuinely interesting situations. Lots of fun for all, if the players have a sense of humor.

 

[rust]

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?

It depends a lot on the style and focus of the campaign, as Traveller can
just as well be used for adventures without any combat at all. For the di-
plomat involved in political intrigue on Capital (and many other possible
and interesting character concepts) combat skills can be a most useless
waste of potential.

 

[alex_greene]

You know, I've seen successful groups come and go, and absolute failures of groups.

If I can say one thing as a Ref, it's this - characters in a good group do complement each other. It doesn't matter about the levels of skill or not. What matters is the team working together to get the job done. And this is what the Patrons IMTU look for.

I treat the Patrons the same way as I look on potential employers interviewing candidates for a vacancy. First, are they competent to do the job? That's what the testimonials are for. Second, are they going to be able to do the specific job the Patron wants them to do?

Patrons with an ounce of nous would have an instinct for the kinds of guys who would get the job done, especially if things go Rimwards halfway through the job, and those who'd flake and bottle out, first sign of things going sour.

And I mean it about the cross-pollination of skills. Crewmates spend days in each other's company in Jump. It just makes sense that everyone would pick up some relevant and useful skills from each other, even if the Engineer can only pick up Medic-0, Gun Combat-0 and Computer-0 from his shipmates to prevent him making an idiot of himself, and the Medic can only pick up Unarmed Combat-0 and Athletics (Endurance)-0 from jogging along the corridors with his shipmates to keep fit.

 

[rinku]

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.

Shadowrun wasn't the first. Traveller had people being assigned to different crew spots based on the tasks each performs long before.

QFT. Traveller is the original skill based system. Careers don't equate to classes, and what you *were* before play started is really just background detail. Even your role within a party is going to be based on your relative skill set. As characters come and go "the" pilot may find themselves "the" engineer, or "the" medic may become "the" captain.

 

[Myrm]

I had a player desperate to be a gun sniper, but who kept not rolling Gun Combat; ended up with level one. Picked up 2 levels in it from connections and one from the skill package and was happy with that.

This is why in our games the players can pick their skills and not roll them. I understand having the random dice roll, but letting them pick their skills each term hasn't broken our games.

I've found in chargen that weapon skills specifically were surprisingly available picked up for gun bunny types who had extended careers. Mostly as about halfway through the practise generations I spotted the extra text in the benefits section which gives you the ability to dump off multiple weapon/gun/blade benefits for extra skill levels covered those options remarkably well. So 4 terms and rank 3 in a military career gives a fair chance of a rank or two - failing that equipment to get that rank or two.

This worked for the merchanty type in my group who generated and had no combat skills at all - but is now happy with having got two blade benefits.

Now while this is limited in the core rules to the fighting skills I have toyed with the idea of allowing other benefits to be dropped for skill ranks in related areas and Im currently mining through the specialist career books to see if thats done anywhere else for ideas.

I do however allow any player to select a roll result on the skills table once during generation. That means if they want a particular skill from their career they are guaranteed to be able to have it at level 1 at least. Helps ameliorate the chance of never seeing it - Skill 1 and a DM and they are at least competent. Or if a player has a very specialist idea that will rely on precisely the right skills then I point them right at the Character Building option.

 

[Gee4orce]

If I can say one thing as a Ref, it's this - characters in a good group do complement each other.

Yep - don't forget the "Skill Packages" rule on pg 37 where each player takes it in turn to select a skill from a list that's themed for the campaign. This means that the party at least has the basic skill covered that they are going to need then Travelling.

 

[DFW]

And yet, a character combining absolutely vital tech skills with the combat ability of a meat loaf can lead to loads of hilarity and genuinely interesting situations. Lots of fun for all, if the players have a sense of humor.

Which is exemplified by this quote from Book 3 - Scouts, "Where combat is unavoidable, Scouts have a reputation for being dangerous in a fight. In truth, this is due to their extremely amateurish over-response to the smallest provocation as well as their extreme unpredictability caused by complete panic and lack of any preconceptions or standard tactics based on training
or experience."

:lol:

 

[Cleon the Mad]

I had a player desperate to be a gun sniper, but who kept not rolling Gun Combat; ended up with level one. Picked up 2 levels in it from connections and one from the skill package and was happy with that.

This is why in our games the players can pick their skills and not roll them. I understand having the random dice roll, but letting them pick their skills each term hasn't broken our games.

Now while this is limited in the core rules to the fighting skills I have toyed with the idea of allowing other benefits to be dropped for skill ranks in related areas and Im currently mining through the specialist career books to see if thats done anywhere else for ideas.

.

I've done this myself. The way I see it, if someone get's let's say a vacc suit with an armor mustering out benefit, and yet has no vacc suit skill, getting the second mustering out benefit IMO indicates that they got some free training on how to use their surplus vacc suit they got free from their former career, if they don't wish to take a second suit of armor. Likewise with a result like "air/raft" or "vehicle", especially if they don't have the skill to drive/pilot said vehicle.

 

[Bense]

I've done this myself. The way I see it, if someone get's let's say a vacc suit with an armor mustering out benefit, and yet has no vacc suit skill, getting the second mustering out benefit IMO indicates that they got some free training on how to use their surplus vacc suit they got free from their former career, if they don't wish to take a second suit of armor. Likewise with a result like "air/raft" or "vehicle", especially if they don't have the skill to drive/pilot said vehicle.

Isn't that already the rule as written?