Skill training and term lengths

[FallingPhoenix]

So, this would certainly be a large change, and might be completely crazy, but...

We've heard and seen many complaints about the 1e skill training system being long enough that your characters never really feel like they get better at anything, but the current new system gives new skills too fast, especially in comparison to the character generation system.

What if term lengths for character generation were only 2 years instead of 4? You'd probably have to explicitly state that the GM should give a term limit to his players when they generate characters, as the aging thing would be less of a hindrance, but then you could have a reasonable 'in-play' skill advancement time that matched up better with the character generation. You could also have useful characters who were only in their late 20s...

Or, (maybe even crazier), what if the first 2 or 4 terms were only 2 years long, and then subsequent terms were 4 years? There seems to be some indication that we learn things more easily when we're younger, and this would match that... You could even extend it and say that your first 2 terms are 2 years each, then you get 4ish terms at 4 years each, and if you want more, they're 6 years... So, by the time you reach Admiral, you're pretty set in your ways and spend a lot of time just "filling the chair"?

 

[Belisknar]

I like where you are going with this. I have some thoughts on it but I need to look into how skill progression has fallen with the updated rules though, from my first glance I think it's even more unfair than MGT1 was... and I liked how MGT1 did it.

 

[Kaelic]

I must be the only GM around here that doesn't have their players go through years of in-universe time for adventures. Everyone seems happy to limit training to years and years. In my current game, 1.5 years of REAL playing time was about 1 month in game. At this rate with the grognard training system my players will be allowed a 40% chance to train a skill to 0 in 18 years real-life.

This is because we value role-play and narrative of events way more than zipping around the galaxy rolling on tables. Each to their own, but it's sad there is no middle ground, or at least options here. Fact is I'll have to roll my own progression system.

 

[-Daniel-]

I must be the only GM around here that doesn't have their players go through years of in-universe time for adventures. Everyone seems happy to limit training to years and years. In my current game, 1.5 years of REAL playing time was about 1 month in game. At this rate with the grognard training system my players will be allowed a 40% chance to train a skill to 0 in 18 years real-life.

This is because we value role-play and narrative of events way more than zipping around the galaxy rolling on tables. Each to their own, but it's sad there is no middle ground, or at least options here. Fact is I'll have to roll my own progression system.

While I empathies with your concern, I also don't fit the situation you are in. Most of my games, the players jump about every two to three game sessions. I would also say that we also value role-play and to say different is just wrong. We enjoy role playing just as much as those who elect to play at the pace your game follows.

Using these games as an examples, the characters could earn a new skill at level zero each month of Real Game Play time. Now do I believe all players would abuse that? No, but still it means I understand those who do not want training at weeks as well.

So what do we need to do to find a middle ground? Not sure but I keep thinking about it. :mrgreen:

 

[OculusMortis]

I find the entire training system to be a failure when compared to other RPG's advancement systems, this system for advancement has no variability without house ruling it, while most RPG's that have character progression allow the GM to vary the rate (XP/karma whatever awarded, or even a check for something like Cthulu) to better suit the campaign and players. With a system with a year of training time minimum and an above average chance of failure (for people who didn't pile into EDU) there may as well not be an advancement system.

This is also ignoring the training systems other failings; such as a professor of literature being more likely to advance in the art of shooting people in the face than someone who has done nothing but shoot people in the face for about 30 years of their life, or that going from untrained to zero also takes a at least a year which is frankly insane, if anyone here has taken first aid training I think that alone proves my point.

I honestly think at this point the training should be abandoned and re-evaluated once the designers have decided what it is they actually want from the system, perhaps a modular one, so that the super-grognards can have their players getting 1 skill point by the time they hit 80 IRL, and those GM's who want progression to feel constant can have that as well.

 

[-Daniel-]

I honestly think at this point the training should be abandoned and re-evaluated once the designers have decided what it is they actually want from the system, perhaps a modular one, so that the super-grognards can have their players getting 1 skill point by the time they hit 80 IRL, and those GM's who want progression to feel constant can have that as well.

So should the "new" Character Advancement system track in any way to the Life Path system or should they be different just because you left the career and are now a PC? Two or three skills every four years before you began playing as just a PC, but once you are a PC should you be allowed to get skills at a pace of 10 to 12 a year of game time? Is the real problem the number of skills you could train for or the number you get in the life path generation system? Does the two need to match at all in pace?

I am not saying I have the answers, but to me, the real problem is the disparity of the two. And to me that has nothing to do with grognard or not. Your sarcasm aside, I do not think anyone is asking for a Character to not get to improve. I think we are all just asking what the right pace is and how should, if at all, it should track to the life path system used in character generation.

 

[Kaelic]

I don't think the life path system is relevant to compare to PC development. You're now a Traveller, living a life of extreme danger. Saving space princesses, starting wars, robbing shadow vaults, etc. Comparing it really is a little too much worrying about realism.

 

[-Daniel-]

I don't think the life path system is relevant to compare to PC development. You're now a Traveller, living a life of extreme danger. Saving space princesses, starting wars, robbing shadow vaults, etc. Comparing it really is a little too much worrying about realism.

Trust me, I am not calling for realism. I am only thinking game mechanic here. Quite frankly, the whole skill system by it's very nature is an abstraction and therefor not reflecting reality.

And in some ways I am ok with the two not tracking the same pace, I am just not sure I like the degree of difference. I would prefer if there was some sort of correlation between the two systems. But in this case, I will go with what ever they put in the rules and just house rule if it does not fit my tables vision. :mrgreen:

 

[Garran]

Given that we're dealing with the Space Opera genre it's perfectly normal for main/major/player characters - even those with a long life behind them - to gain skills at a remarkable rate compared to ordinary people and compared to their earlier selves. Once you become a protagonist, you operate at the speed of Plot.

 

[hdan]

The crux of the problem is this: if you make it very easy to get skill levels, then there is no point whatsoever to having a lifepath background system.

Just take your Homeworld skills and tell the GM you're taking a year off to study. Then emerge from your cocoon a 19yo with whatever skills you want.

There are games where 20yo protagonists are the grand masters of their crafts. Those games are not Traveller.

 

[Loconius]

I find the entire training system to be a failure when compared to other RPG's advancement systems, this system for advancement has no variability without house ruling it, while most RPG's that have character progression allow the GM to vary the rate (XP/karma whatever awarded, or even a check for something like Cthulu) to better suit the campaign and players. With a system with a year of training time minimum and an above average chance of failure (for people who didn't pile into EDU) there may as well not be an advancement system.

This is also ignoring the training systems other failings; such as a professor of literature being more likely to advance in the art of shooting people in the face than someone who has done nothing but shoot people in the face for about 30 years of their life, or that going from untrained to zero also takes a at least a year which is frankly insane, if anyone here has taken first aid training I think that alone proves my point.

I honestly think at this point the training should be abandoned and re-evaluated once the designers have decided what it is they actually want from the system, perhaps a modular one, so that the super-grognards can have their players getting 1 skill point by the time they hit 80 IRL, and those GM's who want progression to feel constant can have that as well.

First aid is not the same as Medic 0.

Medic 0 means you have a broad familiarity with diagnosing illnesses, performing surgery and implanting cybernetic technology as well as performing first aid. All those tasks you can perform without a -3 untrained DM, but still not particularly well (and not professionally or qualified) I think learning all that in a year is not a far stretch.

I think EDU should be the go to for learning a zero skill, but maybe other characteristics above that, since the ability to learn is key to learning something new, but mastery comes from practice and talent.

 

[hdan]

I think EDU should be the go to for learning a zero skill, but maybe other characteristics above that, since the ability to learn is key to learning something new, but mastery comes from practice and talent.

Now THAT is a very interesting idea....

 

[OculusMortis]

You may wish to read the core rulebook Loconius, the example for a nurse or paramedic is Medic 1, so are we to expect student nurses are capable of surgery and installing cybernetics? To also futher my point on a year being an excessive period to go from untrained to trained: EMT-Basic is 180 hours, first responder is between 24 and 60 hours depending on the country etc; which based on the core rulebook example probably fits for Medic 0, both are far less than 20 weeks in a year.

On EDU being used to go to trained, why would this be useful for Gun Combat for example? Gun Combat 0 is likely to be basic safety, handling and maintenance, far less than 20 weeks in a year and also not something that requires one to be well educated, one only needs to look at basic army training (now and in the past) to see this.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Given that we're dealing with the Space Opera genre it's perfectly normal for main/major/player characters - even those with a long life behind them - to gain skills at a remarkable rate compared to ordinary people and compared to their earlier selves. Once you become a protagonist, you operate at the speed of Plot.

Space Opera is an optional rule in my games.

I find the entire training system to be a failure when compared to other RPG's advancement systems, this system for advancement has no variability without house ruling it, while most RPG's that have character progression allow the GM to vary the rate (XP/karma whatever awarded, or even a check for something like Cthulu) to better suit the campaign and players. With a system with a year of training time minimum and an above average chance of failure (for people who didn't pile into EDU) there may as well not be an advancement system.

Someone new to what Traveller is about.

This is also ignoring the training systems other failings; such as a professor of literature being more likely to advance in the art of shooting people in the face than someone who has done nothing but shoot people in the face for about 30 years of their life, or that going from untrained to zero also takes a at least a year which is frankly insane, if anyone here has taken first aid training I think that alone proves my point.

Someone new to what role-playing a character is about.

I honestly think at this point the training should be abandoned and re-evaluated once the designers have decided what it is they actually want from the system, perhaps a modular one, so that the super-grognards can have their players getting 1 skill point by the time they hit 80 IRL, and those GM's who want progression to feel constant can have that as well.

There are Traveller games that do this already.

You may wish to read the core rulebook Loconius, the example for a nurse or paramedic is Medic 1, so are we to expect student nurses are capable of surgery and installing cybernetics? To also futher my point on a year being an excessive period to go from untrained to trained: EMT-Basic is 180 hours, first responder is between 24 and 60 hours depending on the country etc; which based on the core rulebook example probably fits for Medic 0, both are far less than 20 weeks in a year.

On EDU being used to go to trained, why would this be useful for Gun Combat for example? Gun Combat 0 is likely to be basic safety, handling and maintenance, far less than 20 weeks in a year and also not something that requires one to be well educated, one only needs to look at basic army training (now and in the past) to see this.

I don't think anyone is looking to simulate a real-life with these rules. Too dicey.

 

[Kaelic]

Space Opera is an optional rule in my games.

Irrelevant.

Someone new to what Traveller is about.

This is a non-reply. Are you intentionally trolling?

Someone new to what role-playing a character is about.

He's answering a specific point raised in this thread. Are you new to communicating in English?

There are Traveller games that do this already.

I don't even understand what point you're making here. I'm in this board because I play Mongoose Traveller, and I want to give feedback on the new in-progress version. Other versions of Traveller are entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't think anyone is looking to simulate a real-life with these rules. Too dicey.

You need to read this thread then, because it seems you missed a lot of posts that reference real-life as a justification for very slow skill progression.

 

[CosmicGamer]

In my current game, 1.5 years of REAL playing time was about 1 month in game. At this rate with the grognard training system my players will be allowed a 40% chance to train a skill to 0 in 18 years real-life.

This is because we value role-play and narrative of events way more than zipping around the galaxy rolling on tables. Each to their own, but it's sad there is no middle ground, or at least options here. Fact is I'll have to roll my own progression system.

If you are really into role playing and game time is moving so slow, it sounds like the characters are too busy for training, even with shorter requirements. Having super fast (in game time) progression forced into the game seams counter to the way you say you play. Personally I would have no problem playing an entertaining game with no skill progression because it does not fit the role playing.

I'm not sure if intended, but I'm a little offended by what I perceive as a derogatory use of the term "grognard".

If you are not specifically looking for skill increases and are just wanting players to have some type of game mechanic reward that affects the characters, you might want to think about one of the many systems out there - which may make their way into the Traveller Companion. Something like a reward that lets you do a re roll or whatnot. A more behind the scenes type reward that won't throw off the realism of your role playing.