Question on characteristics rolling

[ShawnDriscoll]

So no matter how you want it worded, there are people out there who do role play.

Yes, there are some. There are more metagamers though by far.

 

[ScottyG]

For my penny's worth; my group of players roll 3 sets of 2d6 for characteristics, at least one player always takes his stats in the order they roll i.e should he end with a set reading 738495 that's how he will keep them, and develop a character from that- allowing the 'character' to grow as he generates the path. Another player tends to have an 'idea' of the type of character he fancies playing, and will place the stats so as to represent that concept.. say he wants a rugged ex marine, he may assign his stats 879543.
Other players vary in their approaches.
Personally as a GM I think the goal of an RPG is for the players to enjoy themselves. To which end think it is irrelevant how or what people wish to play.
One of the saddest things about the player culture around traveller is the 'comic book guy' attitude of some forum posters.
We are all gamers, and Traveller is an awesome game and hobby, and like most hobbies egos really don't belong.

ScottyG

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

One of the saddest things about the player culture around traveller is the 'comic book guy' attitude of some forum posters.
We are all gamers, and Traveller is an awesome game and hobby, and like most hobbies egos really don't belong.

It's weird how the mass majority, who don't role-play and say they are happy playing that way, don't like that there are but a few people, in comparison, who actually do role-play.

 

[dragoner]

The one true way.

 

[ScottyG]

It's weird how the mass majority, who don't role-play and say they are happy playing that way, don't like that there are but a few people, in comparison, who actually do role-play...

Wow. What are you going on about? I'm sure you are a lovely guy. But... what ARE you going on about?

I'm sure you role play beautifully. I'm equally sure other RPG players also role play in the ways which they enjoy. I'm not sure who you think gets upset by this. But, the 'elitism' which some convey in forums is, in my simple opinion, harmful to the popularity and accessibility of the hobby.

Its ok not to hold a masters in maths, physics and military science and to still play Traveller.

No one plays RPG's to marvel at the incredible intellects and critical faculties of other players. It is a fun, social and creative activity. No less, no more. I would beseech any truly gifted minds on this forum to turn their focus to far more significant issues and enrich either the world or themselves by so doing....

 

[Infojunky]

The only consistent rule I have found in describing Traveller Games is that "No two games are the same". While we play under the umbrella of Traveller every game is different, every group is different.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

I let them roll 3 dice, drop the lowest dice, 7 times, dropping the lowest roll, placing them where they want. Making what kind of character they want. This gives a slight bump in stats. But I also limit them to no more than 4 terms. I want my players to be relatively young with above normal stats, but not a whole lot of skills, so they can strike out on their own learning and training as they progress.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Just re-visiting to see what corner I painted myself into if any before doing a video on post-dieroll characterizing.

 

[-Daniel-]

Just re-visiting to see what corner I painted myself into if any before doing a video on post-dieroll characterizing.

No corner I know of. I think the answer ended up being that you select the system that best fits the feel of the table/game you are running. At least that is what I got from all of the various answers I read. :mrgreen:

 

[vladthemad]

I was asked by my players about using a "3d6 drop the lowest" process rather than the standard 2d6. If we do, I realize it will skew the average higher. Before I allow it, I was looking for input from anyone who has already done so.

Did it have a major or minor impact on the game? Did it even matter in the end? Is this more a "feel good" move?

I suspect the real impact is more one of perception rather than real impact, but I would like to hear from others.

That would make them pretty powerful, I'd suggest against it. Remember, for every positive DM they gain from a high stat, it affects ALL skills when combined with that stat. At first glance it doesn't seem like it would affect much, in actual play they will be succeeding a lot more than typical. It's your campaign obviously, just be aware that 3d6 and drop the lowest is actually a pretty significant boost.

That said, I did see that my players were making characters that for one reason or another were turning out below average. Let's just say that the RNG gods don't favor them. On top of that, they had an issue with survival and qualification rolls which resulted in too many preplay problems.

As a house rule, I allowed seven 2d6 rolls. Six of those were used for attributes, and the seventh was used as a roving DM pool to be used during the career path. It was up to the player which one to use for this, but obviously the lowest one was always used. The rule as stated was "These points can be used on a one for one basis to create dice modifiers to rolls for qualification and survival rolls, as well as any roll that is required due to the result of mishaps or events." They were allowed to use them retroactively after the roll. It seemed to prevent a lot of problems when something was missed by one point and resulted in catastrophe during character creation. It took some of the risk out of it, but not too much.

Originally we had a character that only knew how to drive vehicles and handle animals thanks to the RNG gods. Granted, he was great at both, but not a lot of use on a spaceship. So I also allow them to pick any *skill* on the career skill charts they don't already have at 1 instead of randomly rolling if they wish. This seemed to help a bit too, as the randomness again didn't seem to favor them very much. It didn't break the feel of character creation though, as things were still pretty random...it just allows them to get a minimum of 1 skill point in skills they will need.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Remember, for every positive DM they gain from a high stat, it affects ALL skills when combined with that stat. At first glance it doesn't seem like it would affect much, in actual play they will be succeeding a lot more than typical. It's your campaign obviously, just be aware that 3d6 and drop the lowest is actually a pretty significant boost.

It's only the difference between being an average 7 character and an average 9 character at 18 years of age.

That said, I did see that my players were making characters that for one reason or another were turning out below average. Let's just say that the RNG gods don't favor them. On top of that, they had an issue with survival and qualification rolls which resulted in too many preplay problems.

Interesting, how you call those problems.

As a house rule, I allowed seven 2d6 rolls. Six of those were used for attributes, and the seventh was used as a roving DM pool to be used during the career path. It was up to the player which one to use for this, but obviously the lowest one was always used. The rule as stated was "These points can be used on a one for one basis to create dice modifiers to rolls for qualification and survival rolls, as well as any roll that is required due to the result of mishaps or events." They were allowed to use them retroactively after the roll. It seemed to prevent a lot of problems when something was missed by one point and resulted in catastrophe during character creation. It took some of the risk out of it, but not too much.

A much more simpler house rule would be to just let players auto qualify for the career they want.

Originally we had a character that only knew how to drive vehicles and handle animals thanks to the RNG gods. Granted, he was great at both, but not a lot of use on a spaceship. So I also allow them to pick any *skill* on the career skill charts they don't already have at 1 instead of randomly rolling if they wish. This seemed to help a bit too, as the randomness again didn't seem to favor them very much. It didn't break the feel of character creation though, as things were still pretty random...it just allows them to get a minimum of 1 skill point in skills they will need.

Point-bought characters solves most problems.

ADDED:
I guess your main point is that you're against INCing characteristic values. But you're for INCing skill levels.

 

[dragoner]

So I also allow them to pick any *skill* on the career skill charts they don't already have at 1 instead of randomly rolling if they wish. This seemed to help a bit too, as the randomness again didn't seem to favor them very much. It didn't break the feel of character creation though, as things were still pretty random...it just allows them to get a minimum of 1 skill point in skills they will need.

There are also connections and the skill package that can add up to 3 skills/levels, plus connections are good for forming bonds with the other characters and creating backstory.

 

[vladthemad]

It's only the difference between being an average 7 character and an average 9 character at 18 years of age.

Yep, and that's a pretty significant increase. That difference equates to a +1 DM to all skills rolled across the board, which is pretty significant.

Interesting, how you call those problems.

Let's just say in our first run they were...unlucky...during character creation. I was trying to come up with some house rules that didn't overpower the system. As noted, we had a character that could only drive and handle animals. I swear, he had a drive skill of five. Every time he rolled, he gained more drive skill. There were three other skills on that table he wanted, that's why he kept rolling on it. We also had a character that just could NOT qualify to save his life. Was a drifter for four terms before giving up. We also had a medic would took three or four terms to pass through the higher education system available in High Guard and Mercenary. I think he had a medical skill of 2 or 3, and not much else. He did muster out with two combat implant rolls though, so I talked him into getting the next higher level of wafer jack so he could buy software skills.

A much more simpler house rule would be to just let players auto qualify for the career they want.

I thought about that, but I liked it to still be a bit random. If you roll a 2, a few extra points isn't going to help. But if you miss that qualification roll or survival roll by one point, it's nice to be able to use some 'influence' to still get the job or not have your leg blown off and lose your job. In practice, they usually only had a 3 or 4 points to spend on these, so it didn't influence the system too greatly while giving the players a sense of some control over it.

Point-bought characters solves most problems.

Yes, but we liked the randomness...it just turned out to be a bit too random at times!

ADDED:
I guess your main point is that you're against INCing characteristic values. But you're for INCing skill levels.

Increasing attributes has a big affect, as any bonus from an attribute can pertain to ALL skills. Granted, there isn't going to be too many calls for Soc + Gun Combat, but it's possible...and I even think it was in the example given in the skills section. If you increase attributes without that knowledge you might be giving them a much bigger bonus than you realize.

I'm not really for increasing skill levels either. What those house rules really are about is giving the players some control over the randomness of character generation, without taking it away completely.

So I also allow them to pick any *skill* on the career skill charts they don't already have at 1 instead of randomly rolling if they wish. This seemed to help a bit too, as the randomness again didn't seem to favor them very much. It didn't break the feel of character creation though, as things were still pretty random...it just allows them to get a minimum of 1 skill point in skills they will need.

There are also connections and the skill package that can add up to 3 skills/levels, plus connections are good for forming bonds with the other characters and creating backstory.

Granted, sadly my players aren't the best at coming up with a realistic connection. Things like "We met in a bar and I learned how to shoot turrets and he learned how to run the drives" have been put forward. *Sigh* Coming from fantasy-centric role playing, it's taking some adjusting for them.

Also the skills package system is nice, but has a few short comings. As I intemperate the rules, when a skill listed as Sensors 0 or Medic 1, that's the level you get it at. All the skill package skills are listed Skill 1, meaning that it's only useful if you don't already have the skill. On top of that, each skill can only be taken by one player in a round robin until they are all gone. It helps round them out in case there are any glaring weaknesses, but doesn't really diversify their skill set much.

The reason I allow my players to pick a skill from the service skills/advanced education/specialist tables is it helps them spread their skills a bit across their career set, helps them make a character in the direction the envision him, but it doesn't give them the ability to automatically focus their character so he gets skills like Pilot 4, or Gun Combat 5. It also creates more choices. Do I take Recon at 1, or chance a roll this term to bring some of the skills I already have at 1 higher?

 

[-Daniel-]

That would make them pretty powerful, I'd suggest against it.

Not to worry, I went with the guys rolling 2d6 6 times and allowing them to order them as they wished. That way the average and randomness stayed while they did have some impact on their characters as well.

Thanks for your thoughts though.

 

[dragoner]

The reason I allow my players to pick a skill from the service skills/advanced education/specialist tables is it helps them spread their skills a bit across their career set, helps them make a character in the direction the envision him, but it doesn't give them the ability to automatically focus their character so he gets skills like Pilot 4, or Gun Combat 5. It also creates more choices. Do I take Recon at 1, or chance a roll this term to bring some of the skills I already have at 1 higher?

If it makes everyone happy, then it isn't wrong; page 59 also has education where the characters can increase their skills. I find skills above three (like you wrote with someone having Pilot 4 or Gun Combat 5), esp when adding in the stat bonuses, can really make characters a ringer.

Usually if they have 3 or so point of DM's spread across their stats, and about 2 levels/skills per term, they are good to go. It gives a lot of leeway to how they want to make a character too.

Backstories and connections can be rough, getting people to get creative, I try to get them to work them into the life events.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Backstories and connections can be rough, getting people to get creative, I try to get them to work them into the life events.

As per the rules, I've always used events - life or any other events - and required a story for the connection. Usually the players quite enjoy creating these back stories. They also can be quite creative in describing how a seemingly unlikely skill was obtained from the event.

EVENT: You gain experience in a technical field as a computer operator or surveyor. Increase Comms, Computers, Engineer(any) or Sensors by one level.

The Merchant character might say they gain pilot skill flying the science geeks around. Another player chimes in and says they manned the turret and got gunner skill. The egghead says they learn basic combat skill so as to be able to defend themselves from dangerous wildlife while out surveying.

Things like "We met in a bar and I learned how to shoot turrets and he learned how to run the drives" have been put forward.

Got in a bar brawl with the wrong person and had to leave town quick on a merchant ship which had to make some hasty repairs to the drives and shoot it's way past the offended locals ship trying to prevent your departure.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

It's only the difference between being an average 7 character and an average 9 character at 18 years of age.

Yep, and that's a pretty significant increase. That difference equates to a +1 DM to all skills rolled across the board, which is pretty significant.

Characters won't have all skills though. And the skills they do have won't apply in every situation. Your players are ok with making skill checks for skills they don't have, right?

Granted, sadly my players aren't the best at coming up with a realistic connection. Things like "We met in a bar and I learned how to shoot turrets and he learned how to run the drives" have been put forward. *Sigh* Coming from fantasy-centric role playing, it's taking some adjusting for them.

Don't they watch sci-fi movies?

The reason I allow my players to pick a skill from the service skills/advanced education/specialist tables is it helps them spread their skills a bit across their career set, helps them make a character in the direction the envision him, but it doesn't give them the ability to automatically focus their character so he gets skills like Pilot 4, or Gun Combat 5. It also creates more choices. Do I take Recon at 1, or chance a roll this term to bring some of the skills I already have at 1 higher?

In the official rules, I don't think Gun Combat 5 is possible. It's been awhile since I used that skill though in games.

 

[dragoner]

Backstories and connections can be rough, getting people to get creative, I try to get them to work them into the life events.

As per the rules, I've always used events - life or any other events - and required a story for the connection. Usually the players quite enjoy creating these back stories. They also can be quite creative in describing how a seemingly unlikely skill was obtained from the event.

EVENT: You gain experience in a technical field as a computer operator or surveyor. Increase Comms, Computers, Engineer(any) or Sensors by one level.

The Merchant character might say they gain pilot skill flying the science geeks around. Another player chimes in and says they manned the turret and got gunner skill. The egghead says they learn basic combat skill so as to be able to defend themselves from dangerous wildlife while out surveying.

I'll try to help as well, it can add flavor to the setting, plus it fleshes out the primary relationship to others in the party, such as why are you here? Or why they are together as a group. Which really makes a huge amount of sense over 'you meet in a tavern', a trope that is way over done.

Though I have also seen players who are sort of restricted or bound mentally by 'rules lawyer' types, and just used to being passive observers in the universe. The connection rules can be good to draw them out, for the player to say what their own motivation for their character is, and not be told by the GM.

 

[-Daniel-]

In the official rules, I don't think Gun Combat 5 is possible. It's been awhile since I used that skill though in games.

Are you sure? I mean, not that I want my players to have any skills at 5 per say, but if they rolled and received "Gun Combat" and selected the same weapon type then why couldn't they get to 5?

I admit I am curious if I missed a rule about max skill levels or something. 8)

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

In the official rules, I don't think Gun Combat 5 is possible. It's been awhile since I used that skill though in games.

Are you sure? I mean, not that I want my players to have any skills at 5 per say, but if they rolled and received "Gun Combat" and selected the same weapon type then why couldn't they get to 5?

I admit I am curious if I missed a rule about max skill levels or something. 8)

I'll assume that level 5 skills are common. So... what would that mean here? I don't use the cascade rules at all. But if I did... There'd be some level 0 gun skills, I'm guessing (been awhile since I've done it that way). And if a player chose not to specialize (the referee insisted on using only the generic skills from the list), Gun Combat 5 would definitely be a thing.

Or... Gun Combat is 1? With some 0 zero levels for some guns skills. And then a level 5 in one (or more) gun skills. But that is extreme. Character would be in his 90s.

Better if I just don't use Gun Combat. Or any of the generics.