New Rule (possibly): Group Narrative Checks

[Tforbes]

Personally, I'm a big fan of the new Trivial character system. While counterintuitive, I find that its generality in stats actually provides more specific information than just the skills themselves.

How is AOC (Gang Life) any more useful or informative than Streetwise 2?

Firstly, if they gave the NPC Streetwise 2 then you would NEED to know all 6 stats to determine the total bonus. By giving you AOC 2 you know that the total is 2 without having to worry about how they came to that answer. You can represent a crowd of gang members with disparate stats but with the understanding that they end up the same. (Gang member 1 might have a SOC +5 but actually be untrained in Streetwise giving them a -3, gang member 2 might have Streetwise 1 but a +1 somewhere) that way the referee can describe them differently but be confident that they all basically average out in the event the Travellers interact with 1 rather than the other.

How is AOC (Noble Social Climber) better than Carouse, Persuade, Art, Diplomat, Language (Any)? The Referee still has to decipher what skill to use for a check, and we don't even have a SOC stat to work with.

You're not supposed to take their AOC and then attempt to map it onto an existing skill. The GM just has to ask themselves "Does this task in any way relate to their AOC: yes or no?" If yes, they roll with +2. If not, straight roll.

What specific skill the character WOULD have rolled against if they were fully built is irrelevant, the Referee doesn't have to decipher anything beyond the simple yes / no.

By bypassing the traditional skills, we actually know more about the NPCs specialization than we would if we built him normally. Give them carouse 2 and that means they have Carouse 2. give them a Gang life AOC of 2 and you know that if they're at a gang party they have the equivalent of Carouse 2 but maybe would be equivalent of untrained -3 at carouse in a backyard BBQ. And this level of specialization can be applied to every skill in the game.

Advocate? - They know a few phrases and legal defenses against common gang related charges but would be unable to argue against starport fines or infractions.
Medic? - They can treat common bullet wounds but are woefully out of their depth with even the simplest case of food poisoning.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

I like these "quicky" NPCs as you can use them without real prep whenever the PCs "go off script" in a way you didn't allow for and do so pretty seamlessly. If the NPC becomes important (the PCs press gang them to serve on ship for example) you can flesh them out between sessions based on notes of what he actually has done so far.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Personally, I'm a big fan of the new Trivial character system. While counterintuitive, I find that its generality in stats actually provides more specific information than just the skills themselves.

Firstly, if they gave the NPC Streetwise 2 then you would NEED to know all 6 stats to determine the total bonus. By giving you AOC 2 you know that the total is 2 without having to worry about how they came to that answer. You can represent a crowd of gang members with disparate stats but with the understanding that they end up the same. (Gang member 1 might have a SOC +5 but actually be untrained in Streetwise giving them a -3, gang member 2 might have Streetwise 1 but a +1 somewhere) that way the referee can describe them differently but be confident that they all basically average out in the event the Travellers interact with 1 rather than the other.

You're not supposed to take their AOC and then attempt to map it onto an existing skill. The GM just has to ask themselves "Does this task in any way relate to their AOC: yes or no?" If yes, they roll with +2. If not, straight roll.

What specific skill the character WOULD have rolled against if they were fully built is irrelevant, the Referee doesn't have to decipher anything beyond the simple yes / no.

By bypassing the traditional skills, we actually know more about the NPCs specialization than we would if we built him normally. Give them carouse 2 and that means they have Carouse 2. give them a Gang life AOC of 2 and you know that if they're at a gang party they have the equivalent of Carouse 2 but maybe would be equivalent of untrained -3 at carouse in a backyard BBQ. And this level of specialization can be applied to every skill in the game.

Advocate? - They know a few phrases and legal defenses against common gang related charges but would be unable to argue against starport fines or infractions.
Medic? - They can treat common bullet wounds but are woefully out of their depth with even the simplest case of food poisoning.

Now what happens when you need to make a Characteristic Check? What happens when you want to change the Characteristic such as Pilot(INT) versus Pilot(DEX)?

 

[Tforbes]

Now what happens when you need to make a Characteristic Check? What happens when you want to change the Characteristic such as Pilot(INT) versus Pilot(DEX)?

For a trivial character, there would be never BE a characteristic check. You would ONLY do an AOC check based on the specific task being done.

For example, a historian could be considered to be competent in a Pilot (EDU) task to identify a type of ship but be untrained in Pilot (Dex) to actually fly one. Or, to be more specific, they could be competent in identifying a class of ship 1000+ years or older but would be untrained in identifying a newer class. (Both would be Pilot (edu) checks)

This kind of specialization isn't reflected in traditional skill ranks where being trained in one facet of a skill makes you trained in all facets.

the ONLY exceptions as far as I could see would be with regards to physical Characteristic checks not associated with a given skill. But that's why the physical Characteristics are present.

 

[Tforbes]

Now what happens when you need to make a Characteristic Check?

I realize that my previous answer actually fundamentally missed the foundation of your hypothetical.

If you NEED to make a Characteristic Check then you would fully stat up the NPC. Pretty easy to gradually evolve and NPC from Trivial character to Companion package recipient to full traveller character.

Trivial characters and AOCs are a method for quick generation when you don't need the whole thing. And, I suspect that the instances where a referee truly NEEDS their Mooks to be fully stated up are fewer and more far between than you may expect.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I usually generate mooks this way.

Choose how experienced they are and use the skill from the Experience Table on page 92 of the CRB.
Then I roll 1d6. 1,2, and 3 are lower than average stats. 4, 5, and 6 are higher than average stats.
Then I roll another 1d6. 1, 2, 3, and 4 is + or -1, 5 and 6 are + or -2.

Mook completed. Add equipment.

 

[swordtart]

I am finding the alternate backgrounds and careers very useful for NPCs. Very little work required but still providing over a hundred unique combinations (and even more if you count the finalising rules on p22 or consider alternate races).

For NPCs I assume sevens in all stats unless it becomes important (as adding in stat modifiers to skill rolls is an extra step I can do without). Where the background or career provides a stat modifier it only rarely makes enough difference to provide a modifier to a skill roll (e.g. Belter/Corsair will get their +1 to DEX based skill checks as the combined modifiers take their DEX from 7 to 9).

The number of skills gained is impressive.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Quick NPC generation as used for CT and every Traveller game I run...
Roll on encounter table for NPC "profession"
Roll 12d - pair them up, takes seconds
Roll1d for terms served
Number of skills is 2 x terms served.
Allocate skills suitable to "profession"