Post Career Education/Training - End of October draft

[Belisknar]

Hi guys,

Okay, this is obviously something that needs looking at

I will start with the caveat that the Companion will have a chapter on training/character progression and that this will be the place we can add all sorts of exceptions, different methods and all the rest.

For the Core Book, however, we need something that is simple and works, so long as we do not dig under too many stones. Fitting it onto one page is a must (any longer and it will be too complicated), and it should not accelerate characters past what is achievable under the career system. I also don't want to mess around with advancement points or XP in the Core Book - that is very much something for the Companion.

So, with all that in mind, what is the one critical change you chaps would like to see? A shortening of the Study Period? EDU rolls every week? A DM applied to the next roll if you fail the last?

As I said before I'd prefer something more akin to the MGT 1 system where your pregression was directly related to your current skill...

But if I had to chose only One thing change.

- Not having a study period completely wiped out if you fail the Check at the end.

It can put a level of "Why even bother" that poor rolls could cause you to loose out on multiple 'years' of training and that's not taking into account a poor EDU score.

 

[Loconius]

My table doesn't seem to mind wasted effort if it's all within the game fiction and makes sense. They would feel like they shouldn't bother if they had to spend actual game resources and then failed the learning check. They would understand that they "just haven't figured it out yet", though they might want a reduced "retry time" like half the amount or something... But I don't think this is necessary in the base rules

 

[Belisknar]

My table doesn't seem to mind wasted effort if it's all within the game fiction and makes sense. They would feel like they shouldn't bother if they had to spend actual game resources and then failed the learning check. They would understand that they "just haven't figured it out yet", though they might want a reduced "retry time" like half the amount or something... But I don't think this is necessary in the base rules

A reduced retry time is what I'm talking about with my 'One change'. Naratively speaking 6 months worth of training is quite a while espeically when you spent 8 hours a day for a week at a time learning about it.

I suggested this, a few posts back.

Failure means you're heart isn't in it. You are not fully invested in your training and must wait for the effect of your failure +1D weeks before you can Retry the Edu check for the current Study Period.

This doesn't change the pace of training or make it any faster than career based progression, it doesn't discount the training that you have done over the study period and it still makes it so that you have to wait before you can retry to advance.

 

[Nerhesi]

And a massive shortening of the study period. Massive.

I'd say 6 week period to be honest, now that library isn't doubling the time anymore... we need to realise that means taking a non-existant skill to a 2, is still 6+6+(6+6) 24 weeks! A 6 month, 8 hours a day, dedicated to one subject.. which can be as simple as driving a car.. or shooting a gun.

If we're keeping study time to be Upcoming Skill level x Study Periods, then I think anything over 6 weeks may be a pushing it.

Yes I know we may have some small percentage of skills that are a bit more involved than that (the professional skills, and perhaps Medic or Engineer), but the vast majority of skills do not need 6 months of full time training to attain a working competency.

 

[Belisknar]

And a massive shortening of the study period. Massive.

I'd say 6 week period to be honest, now that library isn't doubling the time anymore... we need to realise that means taking a non-existant skill to a 2, is still 6+6+(6+6) 24 weeks! A 6 month, 8 hours a day, dedicated to one subject.. which can be as simple as driving a car.. or shooting a gun.

If we're keeping study time to be Upcoming Skill level x Study Periods, then I think anything over 6 weeks may be a pushing it.

Yes I know we may have some small percentage of skills that are a bit more involved than that (the professional skills, and perhaps Medic or Engineer), but the vast majority of skills do not need 6 months of full time training to attain a working competency.

Putting the study period at 6 weeks actively goes against Matt's note of keeping it at least somewhat in line with career progression.

But that being said. 6 Weeks is way too short. Though that paired with the study period being wiped out by a failure and a limit of how often you can train a skil or how many skills you can train in a given time could work. However, that puts low EDU characters at a disadvantage for pregression and we open up that can of worms all over again. so let's not.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I was leaning towards the idea of a bonus DM on the next roll if you failed the first, but I think the 6 week option is cleaner - once linked to the (existing) principle of failure wiping out success. If you start looking at total average time taken, it should start to balance out, but leave prodigies the chance to surge ahead. They are prodigies, after all...

 

[MongooseMatt]

Edit: Going to make it 8 weeks, for no other reason, really, than it makes for a neat 2 months.

 

[Nerhesi]

6/8 weeks is very closely linked with career progression.

Career progression isn't using every week of those 4 years to study for 8 hours. Not even university is like that.

Your year riddled with vacation, actual "work", other activities and breaks. It is probably a liberal estimate to even assume that you for every 2 weeks of elapsed time, you have 1 week of time to actually commit to improvement. I'm more tempted to even say 1 in 3 weeks

So 6/8 week is perfectly fine imho

 

[Wizard]

Lets apply this 8 weeks with failure wiping out success to a typical Science degree in Australia. It goes for 3 years. I have repeated some of this info from a previous post to keep this in one place.

The first semester goes for 6 months. It consists of one each the maths, biology, chemistry and physics subjects. Even though a semester is 6 months, it's actually 12 weeks of intensive work (at least 40 hours of study a week) followed by say 3 weeks for exams. So we can say it is 15 weeks. At the end of this first semester we could say the student would have Science 0.

In the last 5 semesters of the degree, the student must take a major (ie, specialize). Say they take a chemistry major. So in each semester they will do 4 subjects, most of them focused on chemistry with a couple general electives.

• Year 1, Semester 1: 15 weeks = Science 0 (15 weeks in total)
  Year 1, Semester 2: 15 weeks
  Year 2, Semester 1: 15 weeks = Chemistry 1 (45 weeks in total)
  Year 2, Semester 2: 15 weeks
  Year 3, Semester 1: 15 weeks
  Year 3, Semester 2: 15 weeks = Chemistry 2 (90 weeks in total)

With the new ruling an average Traveller needs a 8+ (42%) on their EDU check.

So that calculates to 8 weeks / 0.42 = 19 weeks on average to pass a successful Study Period.

• 
  19 weeks = Science 0
  38 weeks = Chemistry 1
  76 weeks = Chemistry 2
  133 weeks = Chemistry 3
  209 weeks = Chemistry 4
  304 weeks = Chemistry 5

When this new ruling is compared to an example from the current day academic world they are very close. And as Nerhesi mentioned it also lines up with career progression. So I see this ruling as a win-win .

 

[Loconius]

Lets apply this 8 weeks with failure wiping out success to a typical Science degree in Australia. It goes for 3 years. I have repeated some of this info from a previous post to keep this in one place.

The first semester goes for 6 months. It consists of one each the maths, biology, chemistry and physics subjects. Even though a semester is 6 months, it's actually 12 weeks of intensive work (at least 40 hours of study a week) followed by say 3 weeks for exams. So we can say it is 15 weeks. At the end of this first semester we could say the student would have Science 0.

In the last 5 semesters of the degree, the student must take a major (ie, specialize). Say they take a chemistry major. So in each semester they will do 4 subjects, most of them focused on chemistry with a couple general electives.

• Year 1, Semester 1: 15 weeks = Science 0 (15 weeks in total)
  Year 1, Semester 2: 15 weeks
  Year 2, Semester 1: 15 weeks = Chemistry 1 (45 weeks in total)
  Year 2, Semester 2: 15 weeks
  Year 3, Semester 1: 15 weeks
  Year 3, Semester 2: 15 weeks = Chemistry 2 (90 weeks in total)

With the new ruling an average Traveller needs a 8+ (42%) on their EDU check.

So that calculates to 8 weeks / 0.42 = 19 weeks on average to pass a successful Study Period.

• 
  19 weeks = Science 0
  38 weeks = Chemistry 1
  76 weeks = Chemistry 2
  133 weeks = Chemistry 3
  209 weeks = Chemistry 4
  304 weeks = Chemistry 5

When this new ruling is compared to an example from the current day academic world they are very close. And as Nerhesi mentioned it also lines up with career progression. So I see this ruling as a win-win .

I like it!! It's similar to today's educational regime, and is close to character ten too! 8 weeks/2 months is a nice even number too!

 

[Kaelic]

So far my players have found roll failures to be really frustrating for advancement. Even if the numbers work out, it's pretty counter to fun. A stacking bonus on this until they eventually do pass is a good middle ground.

 

[CosmicGamer]

For Mark,
If you keep the training on the longer side, then I think a DM and/or reduced training time for retries is warranted.

If the training time is on the shorter side, then there is less of an issue as the rolls and retries help keep training from being too quick.

I still hate the whole

A Traveller failing their EDU check
while studying Science (physics) during jump travel, for
example, might find the Captain of the ship is constantly
ordering them to clean the cargo deck, they might be
distracted by a hobby or new vid show, or they might
just be spending their time sitting in their bunk eating
Sugary Puff sandwiches while reading What Space Bike?
Magazine when they really should be studying…

Again, what if you role play your character being diligent about study every day for 14 weeks? Also the rules state any interruptions during a week means you learn nothing for that week - so every week you count toward the 24 was committed learning and practice for at least eight hours per day. Yet a failed random roll somehow negates 24 weeks of roll playing? How do you suggest we retcon being lazy and/or distracted during that time instead?

This blathering about a failed die roll makes no sense and takes up valuable book space.

Yes I know we may have some small percentage of skills that are a bit more involved than that (the professional skills, and perhaps Medic or Engineer), but the vast majority of skills do not need 6 months of full time training to attain a working competency.

If you please could elaborate.

To you, what is the Traveller skill level for a "working competency"?

The rules vary quite a bit in regards to what "working competency" might be.

On one hand, we have the Profession skill. You can get level 0 in a profession and the rules state "has a general grasp of working for a living but little experience". But I don't think you were referring to this.

On the other hand we have the rules stating "each level represents several years of experience using that skill" and "A Traveller with level 2-3 in a skill is a skilled professional in that field." This type of "working competency" could take many years to achieve. Doesn't matter what the skill. Vacc Suit, Gambler, Pilot, Drive, Steward, Engineer... "each level represents several years of experience using that skill"

Overall, I think the length of training from the current training system does a decent balancing act to fit the "skilled professional in that field" description in the book as well as shorter "working for a living" professional skills.

There is some variation in chargen and training due to random rolls, but I think the length of training from the current training system is not too far from the possibilities of a 4 year chargen term. If anything, it probably leans toward faster skill gain unless you have a horrid EDU.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I'd like to add that I think the difficulty of the roll should be lowered because needing an 8+ EDU means average people (EDU in the range 6-8 with 0 DM) fail over 50% of the time.

 

[Nerhesi]

By working competency I mean a skill level of 2. As in - past amateur, and able to generally succeed in that skill/career field.

If it says that each level represents several years then I believe that needs to change. It would not be a correct statement, for possibly half or more of the skills in Traveller. As indicated in the more action oriented skills, you would not need several years per level (examples here are Gun Combat, Gunnery, Pilot, Drive, Melee, etc etc).

So saying I need several years per level is simply not in-line with real word examples. Now I'm sure the argument exists vice-versa for saying that you need years per level for the more professional skills (sciences, tactics, advocate, diplomat, etc etc).

That means, realism aside (as it both supports and counters the training rules), what makes sense from a game-play perspective. Zero/near-zero character progression (months per single skill raise), or something with a bit more enjoyment/character growth at a noticeable level?

 

[-Daniel-]

By working competency I mean a skill level of 2. As in - past amateur, and able to generally succeed in that skill/career field.

I read this and it made me wonder, why the assumption that level 2 is "competent" and not am armature? Why not 1? I mean a Routine skill check is a 6+. So for a non-armature you are rolling a success at least 50% without any skill bonus and at skill level 1 you beat the odds. Is some of the issue with the skill levels also tied to the "average" roll of 8+. Average is above the average for a skill 1 so we assume a level 2 means you are average in the skill? You have made me question why I think of the skill levels the way I do.

That means, realism aside (as it both supports and counters the training rules), what makes sense from a game-play perspective. Zero/near-zero character progression (months per single skill raise), or something with a bit more enjoyment/character growth at a noticeable level?

This also raises an interesting thought, why the assumption that if the skills are not "leveling" there is zero character progression or growth? If my character finds ways to buy a second or third merchant ship and is headed toward being the owner of a large merchant company is that character growth? If the characters start their own Mercenary company and get several nice tickets that allow them to expand or improve the company, is that progression? Again, you have raised some interesting issues. Is the only way to really measure character growth through leveling of skills? If it is, then how often in real time do I need to see a skill level up in order to feel like I am progressing? Once a session, once ever three, five, nine?

I need to be honest with myself about these two questions in order to really know how come I am reacting to this training issue the way I am. Because I still keep going back, in my mind, to the idea of disengaging the skill training from hard time and leave the core system to the GMs call. Break the time frame in game out and allow the GM to pace it to match their table's needs.

 

[CosmicGamer]

By working competency I mean a skill level of 2.

If it says that each level represents several years then I believe that needs to change. It would not be a correct statement, for possibly half or more of the skills in Traveller. As indicated in the more action oriented skills, you would not need several years per level (examples here are Gun Combat, Gunnery, Pilot, Drive, Melee, etc etc).

So saying I need several years per level is simply not in-line with real word examples.

Perhaps you need to think in reverse. Instead of looking at your own personal view of real life and what a "level" in the real world is and trying to force that over the game system do the opposite.

The game system describes it as "each level represents several years of experience using that skill". Doesn't matter what the skill. Vacc Suit, Gambler, Pilot, Drive, Steward, Engineer...

So when playing the game,
A person in the game has skill (any) 1. Now think of someone in real life with "several years of experience using that skill". Skill (any) 2 is someone with several more years of experience using that skill.

What likely you are thinking of as skill differentiation in real life is more like skill levels 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and so. Yes, one is better than another, but not enough to give a +1 bonus in game mechanics. If you did give +1's for small increments in real life skill the games skill levels would go up into the double digits and we'd likely need a percentile game mechanic instead of 2d6.

Yes, in real life one could practice shooting a gun a couple days or so each week for a couple months and improve their capability. Do they go from level 1 to level 2 in game terms? Perhaps not as they don't have "several years of experience using that skill". In game terms maybe they are 1.4? Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on ones views, having something like 0.6 through 1.4 "real life" skill gets lumped together as skill 1 in game terms.

Next, lets take some real life "Melee" skill.
Maybe some Melee(unarmed) karate? In real life acquiring skill varies based on peoples ability and commitment, the instructors ability to teach, and so on. But in general, with 2-3 classes a week and practice at home too, some people can move up a belt at the lower levels in about 3 months. Even in real life some schools have more belts than others before you reach black belt and thus there can be a bit of variation between different peoples real life perception of moving up a "level". In general there are 9 common belts. Black belts are not that uncommon. Probably severl in every training studio and several training studios in every large city and then there are high level Melee(unarmed) judo, taekwondo, boxers and so on in every city so do you think "level 9" black belt in real life is similar to the level 4 or 5 "renowned" in Traveller?

So it's a matter of perception perhaps. Even in real life some people lump the first few belts as beginners and the next as intermediate then advanced... Now maybe you are talking 9 months or more per some peoples perception of real life level?

Look at it the other way. Instead of starting with a real life perception of what a level is: a yellow belt = level 1 in Traveller and a blue belt is level 2 and a purple belt is... Start with what a level is in Traveller "several years of experience using that skill". Now if you must associate that with a color, what color belt would one have after "several years of experience using that skill? What is the belt color after several more years of experience using that skill?

Last, a pet peeve of mine. Learning Karate is a sport with structure and rules for competition. Melee and Gun are "Combat" skills and not sports. If I were to make Karate a career specialty it would be Entertainer Specialist: Athlete and not under any combat career like Army or Marines. The Karate specialist table would have things like Athletics(str), (end) and (dex), perhaps Trade(Karate)?, yes some Melee(unarmed) too. I grant that at higher levels there are some moves that they are taught - but they are never practiced or used because they are so dangerous so do you have the same level of skill as someone who actually uses these skills? To me, in Traveller, by the time someone gets to level 2 in a combat skill they have been in real life or death situations and perhaps killed someone. To my perception of reality, no matter how much Karate one knows, without some other training or experience you likely don't get high Melee skill. Just my view. Just like I don't think one gets Gun Combat 2 by shooting at paper targets at a gun range or by hunting Bambi. That can help with the marksmanship part of it, but I think there should be more intensity and time put into training a wider variety of combat oriented specifics - for one example: the type of range where you move through a simulated environment with friend and foe targets moving and popping up so you have to make fast accurate decisions.

 

[hdan]

I don't know about other martial arts traditions, but in Kung Fu at least, "Black Belt" is the equivalent of a Level-1 skill.

All other belts count as KungFu-0. You know some stuff, but aren't really that proficient yet.

It takes years to attain a Black Belt, and means that you have command of the basics, and are ready to start mastering the art of Kung Fu.

Your degree of Black Belt would be equivalent to your skill level at that point, where each degree can take years of practice to attain.

 

[Nerhesi]

I think we're conflating two things here.

a) Ability/Capability
b) The methods by which we improve (a)

A lot of the arguments above are regarding (b). Whether learning/reading something for years really puts you at skill level 2 or 3 for example, versus someone who has lived and breathed it for half the time? And how about learning on the job through experience, not 8-hours a day study? Or what does 8-hour per day study entail?

To me, (b) is completely out of scope. What concerns me is the time spent getting there. Lets explore this quote from Page 56 of the Core Rulebook, MGT2:

"For example, a Traveller with Medic 1 may be a paramedic or nurse, while another Traveller with Medic 2 might be a doctor. If a Traveller had Medic 3, they would likely be a very well-regarded doctor with many years of practice under their belt. A Traveller with Medic 4 or 5 would be at least world-renowned, and may well be known across several star systems for his expertise."

Now, for a doctor, does it make sense does it make sense that on average, it would take years of experience/learning for each skill level? Sure. Perhaps. Maybe.

Now, for a fighter pilot, marksmen, athlete, gambler, turret gunner, swordsman, etc - does it make sense that it takes years of experience/learning for each skill level? Nope. Evidence points to the fact that these skills are not directly linked to time spent at all.

So with realism not driving the time-required (nor should it, as this is a game first and foremost - case in point, combat system vs realism there), we look at the traditionally fun aspect of RPGs, that being character progression. Does it exist? Is it painfully slow? does it work? So that drives the shorter more manageable timelines for learning and improving skills as well.

Lets steer away from character progression not having to be measured by actual skill/stat progression arguments. That is really a non-sequitur that can be extended to saying we should be playing diceless, stat-less RPGs and relying just on mind's eye.

 

[-Daniel-]

Lets steer away from character progression not having to be measured by actual skill/stat progression arguments. That is really a non-sequitur that can be extended to saying we should be playing diceless, stat-less RPGs and relying just on mind's eye.

If you are unwilling to discuss progression as anything other than skill leveling, then I can not see how we will ever get to a point of agreement for all those involved in the conversation about character growth and progression. Traveller has always had more than skill levels as the "rewards" for playing. The characters were always given other paths to progression and development along with skill leveling. To ignore that and call it a non-sequitur to wave it away just seems odd based on the total history of the game. People are saying there needs to be a "better" training system for skills or characters are not growing and developing. But we shouldn't discuss character growth and development unless it is only focused on skill progression?

Right now, we are circling around and around the same arguments and in the end it is not gotten us any closer to a real solution all can agree with. You shouldn't be able to become a doctor in six weeks but it shouldn't take two years to gain a level 1 or 2 in gun combat. Got it. We can't even seem to agree on what makes a competent level of skill. Some say level 1 others 2 some even say 2 is just "average". We quote one or two small fluff lines over and over. It just feels like this is a hamster wheel conversation now. Around and around. Skills need to level faster, no slower, no faster....

In light of that, I am going to add my voice to keeping the latest 8 week solution and move away from trying to change the training aspect any more. It will be what it is in the core rule book and each GM will be free to either use it or not. Offer other options and ideas later.

I wish you the best of luck though, maybe you can find a balanced time frame that all will agree with. 8)

 

[Nerhesi]

Hey Daniel,

Yes there are other "tangible" progression options, historically available in traveller and other games as well (items, gear, vehicles etc). If that what you meant then I apologise for misunderstanding!

What I didn't want to get into is some sort of fluffy definition of character improvement that bordered on life-coaching. Such as "but your character is maturing in-game! They're making connections!".

Regardless, even with both the above avenue of "progression", I don't think that it is reason enough to slow actual skill progression to a crawl.

As for skill levels - I'm simply goin by what I see in the book, and what seems to make sense based on t fact that 4 is max at chargen. If atfter 20 years I can have a 4, and I start at a 0, logically a 2 seems in the middle!

I have been focusing my discussion on strictly "how to deal with the time issue". Are there bigger holistic issues?

A) what defines training/time spent learning?
B) should all skills be equal? What about profession skills?
C) why can't I raise stats?
D) evidence has show us that experience is the best teacher, how can we simulate that?

I just didn't think to revisit mgt2 training as a whole, rather than addressing 1 symptom. If we want to do that though, I have no problem! I thought it was something for the companion though... upt to Matt!