Skill System weirdness

[strategoi_nikolai]

Am I alone in finding the specialization methodology in skills to be--well--really bad?

It seems to me that if I have Engineer (Jump Drive) 4, I should sure as heck have a better general Engineer skill level than 0.

Am I misreading the skill system?

I'd much rather see the system used in Ars Magica utilized here: if you have Engineer (Jump Drive) 4, you get +4 on all Engineer rolls. You get +5 if you are working on Jump Drives.

Also do you REALLY want to address multiple specialties the way the example says?

Engineer (Jump Drive) 3 and Engineer Power Plant (2), but I *still* get my general Engineer skill DM as ZERO? I think not!

Anyway, has this been addressed/corrected/changed?

Thanks!

Kevin
Quincy, IL

 

[rust]

A characters basic chance to achieve a success with a level 0 skill by
rolling 8+ on 2D6 is slightly better than 41 %.

In my opinion a real world engineer does not have a much better ave-
rage chance to operate or repair a device outside of his specialization.
Think of a mining engineer trying to work on a ship's diesel engine or
an aerospace engineer attempting to build a bridge - I am not convin-
ced that their success chance would really be better than those 41 %.

And if it is a simple task, something each type of engineer should nor-
mally be able to handle, there is the modifier of +6 for simple actions.
The target number is then 4+ on 2D6, which gives the character a suc-
cess chance of about 91 %.

So, every type of engineer can solve every type of simple engineering
problem easily, but still has a chance of 41 % to solve average prob-
lems from other fields of engineering outside of his specialization.
In my opinion this is both realistic and playable.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Just spead out your specialities as you get 'em, if you want broad knowledge. Rather than getting Engineer (Jump Drive) 4, get Engineer - (Jump Drive) 2, Engineer (Power + Manoeuvre) 1

 

[cbrunish]

The only way I like the specializations is with weapons. It makes sense that if you learn how to shoot a rife (say an m16) then you would have some familiarity with firing a pistol (say a Ruger 9mm). Obviously won't be the same but you have the dynamics down pat.

 

[rust]

I also use the specializations as a kind of "xenology modifier".

For example, a Diplomat has a default skill of Diplomat (Humans), but
he can also specialize as a Diplomat (Zuun) or, for the OTU, Diplomat
(Vargr).
And an Engineer who has learned to handle the technology of the Pashi
can choose to become an Engineer (Pashi Technology) in my setting.

 

[Takei]

My group has just done characters for an upcoming game and I must admit that I've not used skill specialisation very much at all. When things are VERY different (like Drive, Flyer or Gun Combat for instance), yes, but skills like Athletics and Engineer, no. Partly because we don't want that much detail and partly because of the generally lower skill levels in Mong Trav. Why should a Pilot be able to pump all of their Pilot skill into one choice but an Engineer has to spread their's out? Yes I know that Pilot can can also specialise but my experience is that most players stick to Smallcraft or Spacecraft.

 

[cbrunish]

My group has just done characters for an upcoming game and I must admit that I've not used skill specialisation very much at all. When things are VERY different (like Drive, Flyer or Gun Combat for instance), yes, but skills like Athletics and Engineer, no. Partly because we don't want that much detail and partly because of the generally lower skill levels in Mong Trav. Why should a Pilot be able to pump all of their Pilot skill into one choice but an Engineer has to spread their's out? Yes I know that Pilot can can also specialise but my experience is that most players stick to Smallcraft or Spacecraft.

Which also brings up a good point. Why would any character have skills such as Pilot (Capital Ships) or Gunner (and anything but Turrets). Neither skill is really usefully while playing a Traveller game. And since the skill base is low, why waste a skill on either.

 

[Infojunky]

In my opinion a real world engineer does not have a much better ave-
rage chance to operate or repair a device outside of his specialization.
Think of a mining engineer trying to work on a ship's diesel engine or
an aerospace engineer attempting to build a bridge - I am not convin-
ced that their success chance would really be better than those 41 %.

You are confusing your types of "engineer" here.

A starship's engineer is a mechanic.

Mining and aerospace engineers are both specialized sub-categories of Mechanical engineering and civil engineering disciplines.

the first fixes things the second designs them.

 

[rust]

You are confusing your types of "engineer" here.
A starship's engineer is a mechanic.

Then this seems to be a "cultural" problem.

Over here an "engineer" has studied engineering at the equivalent
of a university, so a starship engineer would be the counterpart of
an aerospace engineer of today.

A "mechanic" or "technician" is a craftsman or artisan over here, he
would not be allowed to call himself an "engineer", just like a para-
medic would not be alowed to call himself a medical doctor.

Well, and since we are talking about someone able to repair jump
drives, fusion reactors and densitometers, I think this person would
have to be an "engineer" over here, not just a "mechanic".

 

[Shiloh]

You are confusing your types of "engineer" here.
A starship's engineer is a mechanic.

Then this seems to be a "cultural" problem.

Over here an "engineer" has studied engineering at the equivalent
of a university, so a starship engineer would be the counterpart of
an aerospace engineer of today.

[/quote]

On this side of the pond, historically, a skilled operator of a machine could be called an engineer: train (engine) drivers; hand controlled machine tool operator, for example. Not that I think this is precisely what was meant when calling a stardrive engineer a "mechanic". That was, I feel, more of an analogy than a direct equivalency being drawn.

The OP has something of a point: an Engineer(J-Drive) would have more chance of fixing a Maneuver drive than an Engineer(Life Support), I think. But it's not as simple as "+1 on your specialism" either. Ideally, I suppose, the skill resolution system would be somewhat more complex, so you'd start with a Science skill (post-Einsteinian physics for the Drives, and Life Sciences for the Life Support) and then have Engineering see if it can produce a fix once the problem is understood.

Maybe this could be fixed (IYTU) by changing the specialisms.