Skills that feel redundant?

JustEastOfTheEdge

Cosmic Mongoose
What character skills do you consider not very useful, and are there any that you think should have been included?

For me, I cannot see why a person would need ASTROGATION as they could ever complete with a computer to plot a course.

I think ENGINEERING shouldn't just have specialities that focus on bits of starships.
 
I agree with the engineering. There is precedence for other engineering skills. Engineer (Psionics) is part of the Psion section. My group have added Engineer (Electronic), but I would be happy to add others if they wanted.

One that I repeatedly look for is Insight (yes, I play other RPGs) somehow Recon/Investigate doesn't feel right.
 
There's an infinite number of ways you can divide human knowledge into discrete bits. Certainly, you could split Mechanics, Electronics, and Engineering skills up in different slices than the game does. I'm not sure what you gain. Imho, most of what those skills don't cover are both pretty unlikely to matter in a game and capable of being handled by Profession or Science if someone does want something not covered.

Computerized astrogation is certainly one route to go, though you could replace the entire ship's crew by the same argument. One of the conceits of the setting is that jump space plots require a degree of intelligence to navigate, which is why jump tapes and other computer aids are just bonuses or enablers rather than the end result itself. The game is based on sci fi that still considers humans skill relevant, which is probably not a "realistic" concept. But it makes for a better game.
 
You could argue that most crew roles would be automated, and we're welcome to put that into play if we like, but Traveller is very much about a 40s through 70s style of sci-fi in which individuals control the technology, not the other way around. So we have to sort of get out of our simulationist heads a bit when it comes to how things might work.

As for astrogation, there is text in multiple books (High Guard among them) that hints that astrogation requires a sophont operator, and that a computer cannot do it alone. It requires biological creativity. The exact reason? Not explained, it simply is that way.
 
And another bit of fanon attempts to get in under the radar, or is it yet more Mongoose retcon?

No original Traveller source - ie the writings of GDW - even hints of this blatant rip off from Larry Niven. It appears in one MgT supplement, and should have been edited out during production as it has no place in the OTU.
 
Well, between the Robot Handbook and the Hiver Starships section in the Aliens of Charted Space Volume 2, a nearly completely automated ship can be designed with the RAW. I haven't looked at all the numbers, but I suspect that such a ship would be a little less economical to run and probably not quite as space-efficient inside (which would likely translate to less cargo room), but it could definitely be done. The question should be, what would the effect be? Personally, I would expect that in an Imperium-centric game, many possible passengers would be put off by the notion, what with the Imperium's nearly institutionalized distrust of highly autonomous robots. They want the human (or at least sophont) touch in customer service. (As a game effect, I'd probably impose a penalty on rolls to find passengers as word about the "droid ship" got around - likely not enough to completely dry up demand, but business would be dampened some. This wouldn't apply unless passengers got the impression that "there aren't enough crew members to keep things safe.") Other settings might or might not have the same bias, and other referees might handle things differently - that's just my off-the-cuff response to the idea.
 
Wait, there's source that it requires *biological* creativity? I just thought the point was that computers weren't allowed to get intelligent enough to be trusted to do it on their own. The Jump program and/or Jump tape did the majority of the work and the astrogator fine tuned it and confirmed it was a good solution.

That's definitely new, if true. The Annic Nova didn't have this restriction.
 
Astrogation appears to be partially a spiritual journey, and maybe requires some meditation.

Skill sets should be viewed from a fifty seventh century perspective - it's the reason I decided you don't need an engineering degree to supervise and maintain rockets and chemical power plants.
 
What character skills do you consider not very useful, and are there any that you think should have been included?

For me, I cannot see why a person would need ASTROGATION as they could ever complete with a computer to plot a course.

I think ENGINEERING shouldn't just have specialities that focus on bits of starships.
Out of curiousity, what do you think Engineering should cover that's going to come up in a game?

Mechanics covers pretty much all repairs that aren't major starship sytems. Engineering covers use and repair of starship systems. Nothing currently covers building and designing systems, but then doing that isn't a game mechanic anyway. Things like an Electrical Engineer or Civil Engineer are Profession skills.

Many more skills are certainly distinct than reflected in game, but the more you create sub skills and separate skills, the more likely no one in the party will actually have any particular skill.

I remember when the thief was first introduced into D&D in the late 70s. There was a lot of grousing about how giving the thief abilities like hide in shadows implied that other characters couldn't, which they previously had been able to do by saying they were doing so. Anytime you add a skill to a game, it needs to serve a purpose in the game and you need to think about who it is now excluding (especially in a game. "Background skills" or stuff unlikely to matter to gameplay can usually be lumped into catch all categories like Profession, Science, etc.
 
Personally, I don't have any rules-mechanical reason why a sophont intelligence (as opposed to an electronic intelligence) is required to use the Astrogation skill. On the other hand, every polity in my game requires sophont oversight for starship operation to be legal and license-able - getting caught running without suitable oversight could mean hefty fines, impoundment/confiscation of the ship, possibly criminal endangerment charges - having someone with a valid (or at least passable) Astrogation certification/license is pretty much an economic necessity, but there's no reason why a group couldn't use a robotic astrogator in practice. Just make sure the paper/electronic trail is taken care of, in case that next naval/customs inspection team is run by a particularly hard-case martinet...

I like the idea of high-automation ships, though, and I'm toying with the idea of a new campaign setting. Current idea is a drastically misjumped colonization effort from the Long Night era which wound up a long way rimward from the Solomani Confederation. I'm thinking about waiting for the new World Builder's Handbook, but I'm also sketching down several ideas. Probably looking at a two-to-three sector space several sectors outside of Charted Space, so that recontact is going to involve a mission somewhat on par with Deepnight Revelation. The misjump occurred far enough in the pass that the stranded colony has now become the core of its own pocket empire, and there are probably going to be a few other races with their own empires. More or less, the idea is to use the rules of Traveller, but to take the various empires of Charted Space off the table. (Yes, humanity is genetically Solomani, but that's mainly an academic concept, of no real importance to the average person.) But anyway, the anti-robotics trope which runs through almost all of Charted Space is one of the things I'll be filtering out.

(Edited to correct a horrid directional confusion.)
 
Last edited:
I think some skills could use some specializations but I dont think there are any redunant skills.
Steward could use the speicialization of Butler, Conscierge, and Chef. Butler, is ship consumable, and supplies mangament. Conscierege is taking care of passengers. And Chef, is cooking.
Recon could use specialization of local, pattern and broad. Local is your spot check. Pattern is scoping out a place for secruity cameras and broad, is overlooking an area for information.
Astrogation beside the LORE reason needed a sophont operator, isnt just that plotting jumps, its spess version of the navigation skill. It goes hand in hand with pilot.
 
My thing with creating specializations where they aren't now is that it essentially nerfs characters. And I am not seeing that Traveller is generally a game where characters get overly skilled and super powered. Now that Steward 3 in my campaign is Concierge 3, Butler 0 Chef 0. And what do we gain from that?

And recon is hard enough for characters to get in chargen without making it less effective.
 
For me, the starship engineering specialisations are a yawn. Are you really excited to run a character who knows about Power Plants? Some amazing engineer that knows about all Power Plants but comparatively little about the engines they power...? yes I know you can choose points in each specialisation...

I would have done it something like this:

Engineering (Ships), Engineering (Vehicles), Engineering (Weapons)
 
I'm fine with Engineering just being ship's Engineering and leaving the other stuff to Mechanics. But I do agree that I don't see any value in the Engineer subcategories. IMHO, subskills should just be for very broad skills like Electronics, Gun Combat, and Flyer.

IMHO, a specialization should be something that would be a fun skill to have all on its own. I can see a player being happy to have their character skilled a Remote Ops of drones and another player happy to have their character really good at Computer hacking. I don't really see anyone going "I'm great at Life Support". I'm undecided about the value of Athletics being specialized. In the real world, it clearly is, but I don't know that it has gameplay value, especially with "Dex" Athletics being a combat useful skill (via dodging) and the other two not.

Gunnery specializations have no value in my campaigns, because players will only ever have turrets since I'm not running a Navy game. Even if it was a Navy campaign, I don't know that ortillery or spinal mounts were fun skills.
 
You could argue that most crew roles would be automated, and we're welcome to put that into play if we like, but Traveller is very much about a 40s through 70s style of sci-fi in which individuals control the technology, not the other way around. So we have to sort of get out of our simulationist heads a bit when it comes to how things might work.

As for astrogation, there is text in multiple books (High Guard among them) that hints that astrogation requires a sophont operator, and that a computer cannot do it alone. It requires biological creativity. The exact reason? Not explained, it simply is that way.
Legitimately, there is a very Heinlein-esque aspect of this. Nothing amused me more than rereading "Starman Jones" or "Space Cadet" with all of the discussion about slide rules and mathematic tables.
I have also noticed that automation and virtual crew members are a great idea, but as 2001: Space Odyssey, Battlestar Galactica, Andromeda, and Star Trek: Picard have shown, too much automation can be a bad and unreliable thing.
 
Legitimately, there is a very Heinlein-esque aspect of this. Nothing amused me more than rereading "Starman Jones" or "Space Cadet" with all of the discussion about slide rules and mathematic tables.
I have also noticed that automation and virtual crew members are a great idea, but as 2001: Space Odyssey, Battlestar Galactica, Andromeda, and Star Trek: Picard have shown, too much automation can be a bad and unreliable thing.
Of course, I am the same person who added "cyberpsychosis" rules to Sanity checks (and to any sentient AI or brain box)
 
Back
Top