Jack of all Trades?...
- Thread starter Oaty_bars
- Start date
"Run Rampant" = Referee failure and poor understanding of the rules (also a Ref failure).
The skill only allows, at maximum, a zero-level skill ability and if you don't like the way a player tries to use it, simply say 'no'. This is not a problem with the mechanic it's a problem with you and the player.
The skill only allows, at maximum, a zero-level skill ability and if you don't like the way a player tries to use it, simply say 'no'. This is not a problem with the mechanic it's a problem with you and the player.
Gaidheal said:
No. not at all, there is no written limit to how far this skill can be applied,
Get JoAT's at three, and you have EVERY skill at Zero/0
Now considering what Zero skills are to a game like this, do you think that is fair, because the rules as written state its so,
And you can't simply say No, without cheating the player of that right to use that skill, the skill is meant to be used in that way,
The limit is precisely what you just outlined, zero-level, next remember that players can only attempt skill-rolls that you call for and permit.
In other words, if you find players trying to use it to get around having a sensible skill-set, firstly they are going to perform very poorly at anything but basic level task and secondly they can only even attempt a roll at those taks you permit them to try, so just say no to "I use j-o-a-t to write my doctorate on Nuclear Physics in the 20th C", okay?
Players 'running rampant' is always a failure of the GM/ST/Ref/Whatever-you-call-yourself and it boils down to a combination of not engaging the players in the story you want to tell and not being firm enough with what the PCs are capable of doing in the universe you have created.
In other words, if you find players trying to use it to get around having a sensible skill-set, firstly they are going to perform very poorly at anything but basic level task and secondly they can only even attempt a roll at those taks you permit them to try, so just say no to "I use j-o-a-t to write my doctorate on Nuclear Physics in the 20th C", okay?
Players 'running rampant' is always a failure of the GM/ST/Ref/Whatever-you-call-yourself and it boils down to a combination of not engaging the players in the story you want to tell and not being firm enough with what the PCs are capable of doing in the universe you have created.
Gaidheal said:
Its ZERO in EVERYTHING, now do you see a lack of limit?
Gaidheal said:
Techinical, yes it is, and you can't say it isn't because it states it can be used that way,
Gaidheal said:
Then you must be basing this on your assumption of 'running rampant'
and you trying to embellish your misperception to serice your needs in this discussion (bad form old man in every sense of the word, lol)
By 'running rampant' in relation to the JoAT's skill it was implied that the skill can be used for every single skill, and to get every single skill in the game will ever have to the equivalent level of ZERO,
(Now, a zero level skill is something to be noted)
Thats what it says in the rules, so if playing "by the book" you can not argue against this point, hence 'running rampant' unlimited,
If used as written, a JoT skill of level 3 indeed provides the character
with level 0 in all skills, and without any further modifiers this gives
him a success chance of ca. 42 % with all normal actions of all skills
- which may be welcome in some campaigns, but really is too much
for my setting and campaign.
Besides, I try to reduce arbitrary GM decisions in order to give the
players the opportunity to let their characters act according to clear
rules that enable them to judge their probable chances of success,
so too much "leeway" in deciding the meaning of the JoT skill in a
case by case way would run against our style of gaming.
So, in the end, while JoT as written may be fine for your setting and
campaign, it is definitely not useful for mine.
with level 0 in all skills, and without any further modifiers this gives
him a success chance of ca. 42 % with all normal actions of all skills
- which may be welcome in some campaigns, but really is too much
for my setting and campaign.
Besides, I try to reduce arbitrary GM decisions in order to give the
players the opportunity to let their characters act according to clear
rules that enable them to judge their probable chances of success,
so too much "leeway" in deciding the meaning of the JoT skill in a
case by case way would run against our style of gaming.
So, in the end, while JoT as written may be fine for your setting and
campaign, it is definitely not useful for mine.
alex_greene
Guest
No. You don't.Oaty_bars said:
If you have a set number of skills at level 0, that's because you grew up with them. Belters get Vacc Suit-0 from being born in a vacc suit environment, a Marine might get Zero-G Combat-0 by dint of having been to Zero-G training, and a waterworld native could get Seafarer-0 by dint of having been brought up on board a ship with his family.
These are level-0 skills one gains from direct, living experience to those skills. Other level-0 skills one would acquire during basic training, such as Admin-0, Computers-0 or Gun Combat (rifle)-0. These skills mean that you have been given the basic grounding in how to point and shoot a rifle without killing some passing small furry animal, yourself or your own side, or that you have been given enough knowledge of a computer to be able to turn it on and run it without wiping its contents.
And if a character finds herself in a situation where those skills are called for, they are used in preference to J-o-T. Specific experience trumps winging it every time; you don't have to impriovise a dance step for a dance you already know.
J-o-T skill, on the other hand, is a codification of personal life experience and an ability to think on one's feet. J-o-T-3 means that you have acquired such a depth of all-round experience that whatever you turn your hand to no longer incurs an untrained penalty: like MacGyver (there! I've invoked his name!) you too could apply what you know about the world to solve the most implausible problems, such as using bubble gum and battery acid to plug a leak in a nuclear reactor.
J-o-T is only useful for those circumstances where the character does not have the requisite skill,e.g. attempting Deception if he doesn't even have Deception-0. It doesn't mean that he has Deception-0 skill; and in fact, if he was to learn Deception, he would have to learn Deception-0 to begin with before learning Deception-1. When the J-o-T character walks away from the situation where he has used his skill to substitute for a missing skil in which he has not been trained, e.g. Seafarer or Interrogation, it doesn't mean that he walks away with Seafarer-0 or Interrogation-0 already in his pocket. He still has neither skill, and will have to rely upon J-o-T each time until he does gain specific competence in those missing skills - which requires that he actually sit down and at least take a beginner's course, or spend quality time with skilled experts learning the basics, so next time he goes out in a dinghy, having learned Seafarer, he will know enough knotwork to be able to hold that boom in place and stop it from swinging around and crowning him like last time.
"zero in everything" is still a limit, now do you see why you keep getting contradicted?
Technically it is what? The core rules certainly do not say you can write a Nuclear Physics treatise with j-o-a-t, if you trying to argue the "anything not explicitly ruled out is in the rules" tack I can see why you have a problem running games, to be honest, also look up "rules lawyer" and then try "Referee call is final in all cases and only the Referee calls for rolls and decides what can be rolled".
As for my perception, without getting into a dick-measuring contest here, the rules work fine for me and I have never had players run all over me in any of my games, though I have occasionally allowed them to achieve things that radically alter the background in the long run.
Now, they don't get a zero-level skill, in reality, they get to roll, at best, as if they had a zero-level skill, on this occasion, with your permission. That is all. It's handy, but it is not 'every skill at zero level' at all.
It's not what "the book" says and even if it were, you are the Referee and you interpret the book, not the players on a case by case basis. I say again, though, what the core rules say is not what you're trying to torture it into, for all that I can see your concern.
Technically it is what? The core rules certainly do not say you can write a Nuclear Physics treatise with j-o-a-t, if you trying to argue the "anything not explicitly ruled out is in the rules" tack I can see why you have a problem running games, to be honest, also look up "rules lawyer" and then try "Referee call is final in all cases and only the Referee calls for rolls and decides what can be rolled".
As for my perception, without getting into a dick-measuring contest here, the rules work fine for me and I have never had players run all over me in any of my games, though I have occasionally allowed them to achieve things that radically alter the background in the long run.
Now, they don't get a zero-level skill, in reality, they get to roll, at best, as if they had a zero-level skill, on this occasion, with your permission. That is all. It's handy, but it is not 'every skill at zero level' at all.
It's not what "the book" says and even if it were, you are the Referee and you interpret the book, not the players on a case by case basis. I say again, though, what the core rules say is not what you're trying to torture it into, for all that I can see your concern.
I think one of the reasons why we see the JoT skill differently may be
that we have very much different ways to play the game, and the JoT
skill has different consequences depending on the way the game is play-
ed.
In our group I am not a powerful referee, but a co-player with a speci-
fic additional task (providing the setting), and in doing so I have to ad-
here to exactly the same rules that the players have to observe - there
is no "Referee call is final in all cases and only the Referee calls for rolls
and decides what can be rolled", because the rules decide that, not a
referee.
This may seem somewhat strange to you, but it has worked quite well
for three decades now.
that we have very much different ways to play the game, and the JoT
skill has different consequences depending on the way the game is play-
ed.
In our group I am not a powerful referee, but a co-player with a speci-
fic additional task (providing the setting), and in doing so I have to ad-
here to exactly the same rules that the players have to observe - there
is no "Referee call is final in all cases and only the Referee calls for rolls
and decides what can be rolled", because the rules decide that, not a
referee.
This may seem somewhat strange to you, but it has worked quite well
for three decades now.
Dave Chase
Mongoose
Gaidheal said:
Hmm, You might be correct but I sure as don't want to see this thread turn into one of those other threads found as found on that other Traveller website.
Please don't get into a flame, pointed finger action here.
Just asking.
Thanks.
Dave Chase
Aye, game running technique would be off-topic, so fair point and I did say I was avoiding the measuring of members. ;¬)
Rust - I've done that and I've also done the "round-robin" thing but to be fair, my present group is very much the "GMs take turns to run games" kind of group and each game is typically a different system and setting each time (though obviously we go back to favourites if a GM is willing).
Oaty - I do get it, you don't and you do seem to have a habit of arguing endlessly even when you're utterly wrong (and I am not saying that's necessarily the case in this thread...).
Rust - I've done that and I've also done the "round-robin" thing but to be fair, my present group is very much the "GMs take turns to run games" kind of group and each game is typically a different system and setting each time (though obviously we go back to favourites if a GM is willing).
Oaty - I do get it, you don't and you do seem to have a habit of arguing endlessly even when you're utterly wrong (and I am not saying that's necessarily the case in this thread...).
Then you will probably understand why I would dislike to use a rule thatGaidheal said:
gives a lucky player a 42 % success chance in too many situations in a
"sandbox" setting where the players decide what their characters will do
next.
Exchanging the JoT skill for any one other skill of the player's choice
simply is much easier to handle under these specific circumstances.
Similar threads
