My thougths on character generation

[ShawnDriscoll]

1st edition *had* rules for points buy, allocated scores and other options. It was a very successful, popular edition of Traveller that sold well. Do you want to take the risk?

So how do you please those that are only looking for reasons/excuses to hate the game?

 

[TrippyHippy]

1st edition *had* rules for points buy, allocated scores and other options. It was a very successful, popular edition of Traveller that sold well. Do you want to take the risk?

So how do you please those that are only looking for reasons/excuses to hate the game?

You can't write off people as being 'haters' simply because they want to choose their rolls for characteristics. Sheesh!

Whether it's accepted or not, this is an honest, ground level observation - if Traveller ends up with entirely randomised characteristics, gamers who would otherwise be happy to give it a bash will simply put it back on the shelf and find another game instead.

That 'disappointed' comment above is the normal reaction these days, not the exception. It's up to Matt, but the point has been made.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

1st edition *had* rules for points buy, allocated scores and other options. It was a very successful, popular edition of Traveller that sold well. Do you want to take the risk?

So how do you please those that are only looking for reasons/excuses to hate the game?

You can't write off people as being 'haters' simply because they want to choose their rolls for characteristics. Sheesh!

Just asking a general question is all. I didn't say anything about writing off people. How much of Traveller do you think needs "modernizing" to be appealing to new players and D&D players?

Whether it's accepted or not, this is an honest, ground level observation - if Traveller ends up with entirely randomised characteristics, gamers who would otherwise be happy to give it a bash will simply put it back on the shelf and find another game instead.

I don't think players can make entirely random characters.

That 'disappointed' comment above is the normal reaction these days, not the exception.

Normal reaction from which players? Which kind of players are they? Other than the ones that can be counted in the playtest as disappointed? Would such players ever play Classic Traveller, do you think?

 

[Major Tom]

I did, as I have mentioned, play classic (Mega)Travller. The world has moved on from those days however and you will attract more new players to a great game with a proud history if you recognise that and move with the times. Nobody is asking for changes to core stuff like life path and events rolls, nor are people suggesting level based advancement, alignment, class based characters or any of that guff (frankly you'd have to pay me to get me to play D&D again in any edition). What we are advocating is at very least the option of assigning rolled characteristics and points based characteristics be included as an option in the MRB. As has been pointed out, roll and allocate was the first edition's default after all.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

What we are advocating is at very least the option of assigning rolled characteristics and points based characteristics be included as an option in the MRB. As has been pointed out, roll and allocate was the first edition's default after all.

"roll and allocate was the first edition's default after all"

Ok. You convinced me.

 

[-Daniel-]

What we are advocating is at very least the option of assigning rolled characteristics and points based characteristics be included as an option in the MRB. As has been pointed out, roll and allocate was the first edition's default after all.

"roll and allocate was the first edition's default after all"

Ok. You convinced me.

But can we convince Mathew? He seemed very clear in his rejection of the suggestion. Like I said above, I can shepherd new players long enough to get a character made and a game played. So I am less worried about doing my missionary work. I just believe it is the right thing to do for the game is all.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

But can we convince Mathew?

Let me ask you something first.

Traveller Rule Zero. What is your take on that, as it is written in the beta rules?

 

[-Daniel-]

But can we convince Mathew?

Let me ask you something first.

Traveller Rule Zero. What is your take on that, as it is written in the beta rules?

Ok Shawn, I'll take the bait right after I say this; The fact I can ignore anything I want or change what ever I want should NEVER be used as an excuse not to build the best rule set you can and to offer clear and clean rules with examples that make sure the original intent is understood.

For me, the ability to house rule is a powerful tool. I can destroy a game with the wrong changes and ruin the fun at the table for all. Or I can help bring the experience to a greater level by tailoring things to my players and to the type of game we desire. But in order to know for sure, I need to have a good understanding of the rules and why they are what they are. They often interlink. For example a change to how skills are learned and you could devalue the level 2 or 3 skills. This devaluation then drives a need for greater change to bring back that "awe" level of skill. Or it could break the task system if now everyone has level three skills. But be that as it may, on to the question.

Ok, "Traveller Rule Zero. What is your take on that, as it is written in the beta rules"? I think it is half awesome and half BS. It is awesome in that it does acknowledge the role a GM must play and that at times they have to make choices for the good of their table over the written word. I think it is BS in that it creates an obligation without regard for the skill level or experience of the person acting as GM. Many players and GMs do not know enough about game design to understand what will happen when they pull on particular strings. Of course we all think we do, but the fact is, game design is hard. Those who do it well are not as common as Rule Zero suggests. So I call BS on that level.

Now, back to the subject at hand, I believe the game is served by having an ability to help drive a character towards a particular type/path. How does this impact the rules, I am not sure to be honest. I know I am not as good at game design as I wish I was. But I do know how it impacts the play. I believe that the hard line "roll six an live with it" also has an impact, a potential negative one. And that I have seen in play. Players end up with a character they can't use to play even close to what they were thinking about. They can't get to the vision they had at the start.

A Scholar with an INT of 3 and an EDU of 4. Or a Marine with a DEX of 3 and a END of 5. Could you use them? Of course you could. Given the rules could I play a Character that was 333333? Of course. It just would not be fun. And what is the point of playing a game? To do drudgery and work? No, it is to have fun.

I do not care if it is Traveller or D&D or Pathfinder or Morrow Project, if a player does not care about their Character, the game suffers. And often that first step toward loving your character is the attributes. Right or wrong, they begin to develop the vision of the character.

Shawn, you and I have already agreed that we both enjoy the fun of the total random attribute generation. We don't mind developing a vision for the character after those six numbers are rolled. Maybe even not until the first three terms are rolled out. But based on my experience we are not the norm. We are far from the norm. Most of the players I have ran games for or played with had visions in mind before Character generation started. They want to plan an old Navy vet pilot etc. Giving them a running start by allowing them to arrange the attribute numbers they rolled, as used in the First Edition Mongoose Traveller, just does not seem that bad to me.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

5 years ago, if I had seen that "Traveller Rule Zero", I would not know what it was in reference to. I was never much of a home-brew person, so I had no experience with changing or adding rules. So I don't think TRZ would be satisfactory at all for changing rules that I would probably feel should have been better written to begin with. I know 5 years ago I would not be able to referee a game with second edition the way it is written so far. I would be looking for someone to try refereeing the rules with me as a player. I've only been a GM/referee for almost 5 years now. I was always a player before doing my youtube stuff.

I've given it some thought. And I think I'd be concerned, about some of the rules changing from 1st edition. Seeing it with how experienced I was 5 years ago with tabletop RPGs in general.

Most of the players I have ran games for or played with had visions in mind before Character generation started. They want to plan an old Navy vet pilot etc. Giving them a running start by allowing them to arrange the attribute numbers they rolled, as used in the First Edition Mongoose Traveller, just does not seem that bad to me.

Knowing what I know now about refereeing, I have a method I use (home-brewed, I guess) for such players to use so that they do start with the character they have in mind very quickly. Primarily, I want to teach them how skill checks work in the game. It's what I get asked the most about the game. And players catch on with that game mechanic quick.

5 years ago, I would not know what to say to a player that had visions of what their character would look like and it's what they insisted on playing. Because otherwise, the deal was off with starting a game. Thank goodness 1st edition had the point-buy rules.

 

[anselyn]

TravellerRule Zero. What is your take on that, as it is written in the beta rules?

We are on very well known ground here: The Oberoni Fallacy
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

Summary:The Oberoni Fallacy (also called the Rule 0 Fallacy) is the erroneous argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions.
The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed.

 

[Cugel]

TravellerRule Zero. What is your take on that, as it is written in the beta rules?

We are on very well known ground here: The Oberoni Fallacy
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

Summary:The Oberoni Fallacy (also called the Rule 0 Fallacy) is the erroneous argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions.
The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed.

Unless I missed someone's post here, I don't think anyone is arguing that the rule is broken, just constrained to a particular style of play. The argument distills to "Do you want Traveller to have a broader or narrower appeal with respect to play styles?" As a "roll 2d in order" guy I completely endorse the simple addendum of adding a few sentences with options such as "roll 2d, assign", "split 49 points among the seven characteristics", etc. Especially easy if the flowchart is abandoned or simplified. 8)

 

[paulsnow]

TravellerRule Zero. What is your take on that, as it is written in the beta rules?

We are on very well known ground here: The Oberoni Fallacy
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

Summary:The Oberoni Fallacy (also called the Rule 0 Fallacy) is the erroneous argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions.
The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed.

Unless I missed someone's post here, I don't think anyone is arguing that the rule is broken, just constrained to a particular style of play. The argument distills to "Do you want Traveller to have a broader or narrower appeal with respect to play styles?" As a "roll 2d in order" guy I completely endorse the simple addendum of adding a few sentences with options such as "roll 2d, assign", "split 49 points among the seven characteristics", etc. Especially easy if the flowchart is abandoned or simplified. 8)

Agreed. Anselyn has missed the point - or it's possibly a post about the fallaciousness of appeal to Rule Zero.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Unless I missed someone's post here, I don't think anyone is arguing that the rule is broken, just constrained to a particular style of play. The argument distills to "Do you want Traveller to have a broader or narrower appeal with respect to play styles?" As a "roll 2d in order" guy I completely endorse the simple addendum of adding a few sentences with options such as "roll 2d, assign", "split 49 points among the seven characteristics", etc. Especially easy if the flowchart is abandoned or simplified. 8)

That's my view too. It's not going to be adding much to the text to simply give a few options that are pretty much the norm in every other RPG around these days. And to be blunt, if all we can expect from the Companion is a bunch of obvious rules that were deliberately left out of the core (but were present in the last edition)....well, it's not going to go down well with the masses.....

 

[MongooseMatt]

After reading everyone's comments and spending time in a locked room listening to Thus Spake Zarathustra on continuous loop while meditating, I have decided to go with allocation.

Shawn, you and I will automatically do roll in order anyway - let's give everyone else the game they want

 

[heron61]

After reading everyone's comments and spending time in a locked room listening to Thus Spake Zarathustra on continuous loop while meditating, I have decided to go with allocation.

Shawn, you and I will automatically do roll in order anyway - let's give everyone else the game they want

Is there any chance of including some sort of simple and short point-buy chargen system in the core rulebook? I dearly love Traveller, but I last used rolled characteristics in the early 90s and have no interest in ever doing so again.

 

[-Daniel-]

After reading everyone's comments and spending time in a locked room listening to Thus Spake Zarathustra on continuous loop while meditating, I have decided to go with allocation.

Shawn, you and I will automatically do roll in order anyway - let's give everyone else the game they want

I believe that will be the best overall. It is a good middle ground between the total random and total build methods.

 

[TrippyHippy]

After reading everyone's comments and spending time in a locked room listening to Thus Spake Zarathustra on continuous loop while meditating, I have decided to go with allocation.

Shawn, you and I will automatically do roll in order anyway - let's give everyone else the game they want

Yay!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Is there any chance of including some sort of simple and short point-buy chargen system in the core rulebook? I dearly love Traveller, but I last used rolled characteristics in the early 90s and have no interest in ever doing so again.[/quote]

Understood - however, we are going to have several alternate creation system in the Companion, so this is the logical place for it (you'll get to see it as a Beta playtester).

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

After reading everyone's comments and spending time in a locked room listening to Thus Spake Zarathustra on continuous loop while meditating, I have decided to go with allocation.

Shawn, you and I will automatically do roll in order anyway - let's give everyone else the game they want

Sounds good. I was listening to Dune on infinite loop, by the way.

 

[-Daniel-]

Sounds good. I was listening to Dune on infinite loop, by the way.

Not Flash Gordon? :wink: