Subdermal Armor too strong

[Luckmann]

That's just an assumption. It may be true. It might not be, as we don't know anything about the technology involved. There could be nano or biotech components that allow for some degree of growth over time. There might not.

Subdermal armor seems unlikely to be the sort of thing you'd implant in a child for a variety of reasons. But we are talking about wholly imaginary technologies and cultures.

I do think that there's probably age restrictions on a lot of different implants and augments in most jurisdictions, but specifically talking about Subdermal Armor, I think it would depend a lot on the tech-level. Low-TL Subdermal Armor might cause issue, but nothing short of a hostile GM fiat can convince me that, based on how Subdermal Armor is described, TL-15 (for example) Subdermal Armor isn't going to stretch alongside the body. High-TL SA even has lightweight alloys and polymers coat the organs. Given how many of our organs tend to slosh around a bit and distend and deform, or grow bigger or smaller depending on age, diet, and training, I don't think we can assume anything other than at least high-TL SA having a high degree of plasticity.

If it was up to me, I'd rewrite the entry slightly to go into the different TLs, because I do think that lower-TL SA should be something more like rigid polymers or plates under the skin, while the higher-TL SA's should be something like self-perpetuating high-tensile polycarbons that naturally replicate and act as non-newtonian organ cushioning. The steps between TL-10 and TL-15 are enormous; There are two steps between our own Information Age (TL-8) and Basic Fusion Age (TL-10), and getting to TL-15 plows straight through Fusion, Positronics, Cloning, full Geneering, and into physical immortality, bordering on technologies capable of artificial personhood and the at-will creation of life.

I think this begs a question that I think could use some clarification in multiple entries, though, and that's which implants/augments/etc., require extra attention when damage and which doesn't. While RAW is arguably clear in that unless you have Self-Repairing the answer is "all of them, always", many are certainly written in a way that makes it sound like they are fully integrated improvements upon biological functions that would naturally heal along with the body, like the Genetic Adaptations, the Physical Augmentation/Muscular Bridging, and maybe(?) Subdermal Armor? Again this makes no sense at TL-11, but makes perfect sense at TL-15.

Anyhow, I long ago house-ruled around the quirky 'armor layering' rules from RAW; so I have to agree that the way RAW armor layering works with subdermal armor is silly.

Out of curiosity, what is your houserule? I do think that the armour-layering rules are silly because they result in so many cases where things don't make any sense, and there are so many cases where it feels like the exception to the rule is just missing. I feel like a "Highest counts unless things say that they stack" would be better, because at least then you could always wear whatever you feel makes sense together, and the idea isn't entirely without merit; anything that can punch through cloth is unlikely to be stopped by more cloth, but may be stopped by carapace. Generally speaking we're not dealing with musket balls in Traveller.

 

[Condottiere]

As regards the gig economy, that's a little too wide to narrow down.

Obvious recipients would be the gophers, whether midshipmen or ensigns

Try as I might to finagle the numbers, no delivery driver is going to be able to afford a spacecraft, let alone an air/raft.

 

[Vormaerin]

My experience has been that a much lower percentage mishap out. I tended to assume that the majority of Navy personnel spent their time in the line/crew assignment. I also assumed that people of less than average intelligence are not even applying for or getting into the Navy. The chance of a person of average intelligence not surviving a line/crew assignment each term is 1 in 6. That equates to 60% making to 5 terms.

Even those that mishap out have a 50:50 chance of an outcome that may allow them to retain their benefit for the term so even a first term washouts has a not insignificant chance of a boat (and will have the skills to use it).

I should also clarify that I am talking career ex-Navy not single term draftees. I have no good way to determine what percentage in the Navy are drafted - I tend to put them into the colonial Navies instead. Many will also be coming from the academies and whilst they might have less terms to accumulate benefits, their chance of promotion is significantly higher and it likely averages out in the end.

If YTU has a Navy populated by random draftees and poorly educated low intelligence people who for some reason didn't apply for careers where they were more suited but still managed to spoof the navy board, your outcomes may be different.

Ultimately, there's no actual answer to this because we don't have any facts about future society or the actually specialties the Imperial Navy would be organized around. So consider this to be heavily salted.

However, I do think that a very significant share of personnel would be non crew/line. If you look at the naval vessels in High Guard, the Engineering/Mechanics/Gunners are a very large share of the crew. Even if you put "Maintenance" personnel into Crew, they are dwarfed by the weapons specs and engineering specs, which is the 6+ survival career line I used.

The CT High Guard chart for crew branch assignment was 1/8 Technical Services, 1/4 Crew, 1/4 Engineering, 1/4 Gunnery, 1/8 Medical for Enlisted, who are generally about 80% of a ship's complement IRL (unclear what it is in Traveller). Officers were 3/8 for Line, with 1/8 each for Technical Services, Medical, Flight, Engineering, and Gunnery. CT assumed that ship pilots were officers like aircraft pilots are, so there was no "flight" for Enlisted. MgT seems to accept that on ships, most of the helmsmen and navigators are enlisted personnel, so there is Enlisted flight personnel, but there's hardly any flight jobs so kind of irrelevant.

Again, we don't know how it would work in the Imperium, but the average enlisted person in the US Navy serves the equivalent of 2 terms. About 1 in 6 serves 5 terms. Officers it's about 1/3 reach the 20 year mark. Remember, it's not just the survival roll, but also low advancement rolls that can kick you out. That's not a high %, but it shifts the numbers downward.

I would tend not to expect the Naval Academy to provide a meaningful distortion to the numbers, but it's not actually clear what MgT2e military academies are modelling. It's not Annapolis, at any rate. Mongoose Traveller's Military Academies don't actually guarantee you a commission, they just give you a bonus chance at one. It's 8+ to enroll to get a 6+ chance at a commission vs a 6+ to Enlist with a 8+ to get a commission (with Graduation being a bit more difficult than the survival roll). But if it works you do get a commission and an promotion roll instead of only the commission roll. But I wouldn't say that improves on the one less benefit roll for terms served.

CT's Naval Academy was substantially more restrictive (can't apply unless SOC 8 or higher, Admission is a 10+ (+2 if SOC 10+), but it guaranteed commission if you graduated.


Amusing as that speculation is, I will say that I simply don't believe that the chances of ending up with a spacecraft as a mustering out benefit is in any way intended to be extrapolated out to the broader population. Likewise certain generally restrictive rewards like TAS membership. So I think you have to take the chart with a large grain of salt when it comes to non player characters. IMHO.

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, with an extended lifespan, a navy could afford to invest in officers, let them have an occasional sabbatical, or half pay, and recall them to service on a rotational basis.

Psychologically, most humans have had a enough with eighteen months of actual combat, so for the ground forces, turnover for actively deployed army troops might be greater.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Out of curiosity, what is your houserule? I do think that the armour-layering rules are silly because they result in so many cases where things don't make any sense, and there are so many cases where it feels like the exception to the rule is just missing.

Broad outline: Armor buys 'total armor protection' on a sliding scale, each new point of 'total armor protection' costs more than the last -- the points used are 'armor factors'. When someone layers armor, the layer with the most 'factors' is the principle layer and contributes all of its factors. The second most protective layer is 'secondary' and only contributes half of its factors; the third most protective layer is 'tertiary' & contributes a quarter of its factors; and so on. Every point of factor contributes to price and bulk of the armor, and TL limits the maximum number of factors a layer can have.

Penetrating attacks damages (temporarily removes until repaired) some of the factors in the penetrated layer(s).

 

[swordtart]

Ultimately, there's no actual answer to this because we don't have any facts about future society or the actually specialties the Imperial Navy would be organized around. So consider this to be heavily salted.

However, I do think that a very significant share of personnel would be non crew/line. If you look at the naval vessels in High Guard, the Engineering/Mechanics/Gunners are a very large share of the crew. Even if you put "Maintenance" personnel into Crew, they are dwarfed by the weapons specs and engineering specs, which is the 6+ survival career line I used.

The CT High Guard chart for crew branch assignment was 1/8 Technical Services, 1/4 Crew, 1/4 Engineering, 1/4 Gunnery, 1/8 Medical for Enlisted, who are generally about 80% of a ship's complement IRL (unclear what it is in Traveller). Officers were 3/8 for Line, with 1/8 each for Technical Services, Medical, Flight, Engineering, and Gunnery. CT assumed that ship pilots were officers like aircraft pilots are, so there was no "flight" for Enlisted. MgT seems to accept that on ships, most of the helmsmen and navigators are enlisted personnel, so there is Enlisted flight personnel, but there's hardly any flight jobs so kind of irrelevant.

Again, we don't know how it would work in the Imperium, but the average enlisted person in the US Navy serves the equivalent of 2 terms. About 1 in 6 serves 5 terms. Officers it's about 1/3 reach the 20 year mark. Remember, it's not just the survival roll, but also low advancement rolls that can kick you out. That's not a high %, but it shifts the numbers downward.

I would tend not to expect the Naval Academy to provide a meaningful distortion to the numbers, but it's not actually clear what MgT2e military academies are modelling. It's not Annapolis, at any rate. Mongoose Traveller's Military Academies don't actually guarantee you a commission, they just give you a bonus chance at one. It's 8+ to enroll to get a 6+ chance at a commission vs a 6+ to Enlist with a 8+ to get a commission (with Graduation being a bit more difficult than the survival roll). But if it works you do get a commission and an promotion roll instead of only the commission roll. But I wouldn't say that improves on the one less benefit roll for terms served.

CT's Naval Academy was substantially more restrictive (can't apply unless SOC 8 or higher, Admission is a 10+ (+2 if SOC 10+), but it guaranteed commission if you graduated.

Amusing as that speculation is, I will say that I simply don't believe that the chances of ending up with a spacecraft as a mustering out benefit is in any way intended to be extrapolated out to the broader population. Likewise certain generally restrictive rewards like TAS membership. So I think you have to take the chart with a large grain of salt when it comes to non player characters. IMHO.

My alternative take is to assume the make up of the Navy is exactly what you would get if every Navy person followed the Navy Career set out in the CRB. Your model counts ships compliments, but that is only part of Navy staffing requirements. There are those who work in depots, shore stations, pay clerks, mailmen, intelligence officers, technical staff, recruiters, planners etc. for which the line/crew skills list are entirely adequate. Ships troops and base security are aligned with that assignment as they get gun combat and it is the only way to get melee from the enlisted skill tables. The only skill unique to Engineering is... Engineering. Any of the other skills are available on either Line/Crew or Service that tells me there is a lot of overlap. The only difference other than the Engineering skill between Engineering/Gunner and Line/Crew is you are trading safety for advancement. The chief in an engineering section might be a specialist but his team might just be be crew "I will fix the Life Support, you mop up the spillage".

We can make up whatever justification we like for that or any other model, as you say we don't know. However with any other model we have to make up the demographics as well, I prefer an easier model.

Players muster out early and take the cash as they want to go adventuring. I am choosing to believe that those that are genuinely career Navy stay in far longer and only leave when they are booted out, trigger a mandated retirement (during the advancement roll), or start to actually suffer aging effects. On average you start rolling less than 1 after 6 terms but there are a few that will start to feel their age and get itch feet after 4 terms and a tiny minority might get as far as 11 terms before age creeps up on them but the advancement check will likely get them out first. The pension table starts at 5 terms but accommodates beyond 9. Many military operate on an up or out policy so stagnating at a rank for more than two terms might also be grounds for retirement. Missing promotion might be unlucky, twice looks like you are being passed over for a reason.

Another aspect is that the career will show survivor bias. Those with lower stats won't even pass recruitment and so never become ex-Navy. That makes the survivor pool a little more able to survive than simple distributions might suggest. If we assume the expected distribution of INT, 1/36 people will have DM-2 and the same number will have DM+2. Of the DM-2 people only 15/36 will qualify whereas 33/36 of the DM+2 people will. Of 1296 perfectly distributed entrants 923 will qualify, 15 are DM-2, 189 are DM-1, 416 are DM0, 270 are DM+1 and 33 are DM+2.

The same characteristic that advantages qualification also advantages line/crew and specialists in survival (though less specialists will survive further biasing the pool against them). The flight branch has a different characteristic with an even lower survival chance.

Of the 15/1296 DM-2 that qualify only 8 will survive line/crew basic training. Of the 33/129 DM+2 who qualify, 30 will survive basic. As the terms add up proportionally more lower INT people will be weeded out than higher INT people and if the intake each year is perfectly distributed the average INT of the Navy will tend to increase over time and your chance of survival gets better until hight INT people drop out the end of their careers.

As noted 3 of the Navy mishaps allow at least a chance to stay in*. Several of the events significantly increase the chance of advancement.

Naval Academy front-loads the probabilities. Again if you fail to graduate you don't automatically become ex-Navy (and joining as enlisted to go through basic again is sub-optimal). If you graduate you might join the Navy as the enhanced advancement prospects due to your EDU+1. For 1/3 graduates it will bump them up to the next EDU DM modifier - those who are 2 or 3 away from that might not consider the Academy to be worth the loss of the benefit (they might be better served by conventional University as you get EDU+2).

If you get the commission before the first term you effectively earn back your benefit by dint of the rank bonus and the chance to jump to rank 2 in your first term.

I don't expect to convince anyone that this is how the Navy operates, there is doubtless plenty of cannon information that indicates otherwise. Sadly most Naval stuff focusses on the ships and battles, not the crews.

*EDIT.
I misread this. Number 2 allows you to stay in (Frozen watch) but I am presuming you lose the benefit anyway (since that is the outcome of a mishap). You can still get advancement and an event though. Number 3 gives a chance to keep your benefit (but still leave). 4 allows you to chose to keep your benefit.

 

[Vormaerin]

As I said, we don't know. But since the original sub topic was using the chart as written to assert that lots of Naval personnel muster out with a ship's boat, turning around and saying that the chart doesn't actually cover all the Naval personnel doesn't work for me. You can't have it both ways.

As it happens, I fully agree that the ship crew rules are kind of nonsense and that the "Navy career" only covers a fraction of the actual Navy careers that would exist. But I also think that trying to imply anything about ex-Navy personnel based on the mustering out charts is also nonsense for the same reason. It's a very "going to be a PC" focused slice of naval life.

 

[swordtart]

As I said, we don't know. But since the original sub topic was using the chart as written to assert that lots of Naval personnel muster out with a ship's boat, turning around and saying that the chart doesn't actually cover all the Naval personnel doesn't work for me. You can't have it both ways.

As it happens, I fully agree that the ship crew rules are kind of nonsense and that the "Navy career" only covers a fraction of the actual Navy careers that would exist. But I also think that trying to imply anything about ex-Navy personnel based on the mustering out charts is also nonsense for the same reason. It's a very "going to be a PC" focused slice of naval life.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I think those other roles ARE Line/Crew. I think the propensity for only counting Engineering and Gunnery and Flight because they have jobs on ships is the error.

I am using the career to cover everyone. It is not written that any particular term served in the Navy was ship based. Even where the event could only be ship based, that might have been 6 month tour out of the 4 years. You are only getting a few skills and you could get electronics working on a sensor station on a ship on ops, working the sensors on a base or working as technician diagnosing LRU faults in a depot.

 

[Vormaerin]

Yes, but the vast majority of base operations are not using any of the skills given by the naval career. Unless you assume everyone has access to advanced education, where you can at least have a chance of Admin.

The Service/Crew skills are: Gun Combat x 2, Vacc Suit x 2, Mechanics x 2, Electronics, Athletics, Melee Combat, Pilot, Gunner, Flyer.

All the Intel, logistics, crew support, corpsmen (medics), and so on are Admin, Medic, Steward, or other skills not available or extremely limited access. Traditionally the shipyard workers are not considered "line" (they are staff) and would probably be Engineering in Traveller's breakdown.

Who knows, maybe in the future all that is handled by government contractors and you don't have enlisted specialties in supply and crew support or perhaps "staff" specialties aren't distinguished from "line" specialties.

A lot depends on how space navies work. Star Trek has all the officers actually doing work instead of telling people to do work. Which is great for TV, but isn't how things work in surface navies. But games also rely heavily on fictional tropes that are familiar to the players, many of whom have never been anywhere near the real military. So you get lots of people who think "Sir" is the correct address for a Master Chief and that the Chief Engineering Officer is actually be the best wrench on the ship, rather than being the guy whose job is to know who the best wrench is and make sure they are on the most important task.

IRL, the helmsmen, navigators, engineers, etc on naval vessels are enlisted personnel with Surface Warfare/Line Officers supervising them (except on nuclear vessels like submarines where the engineering officer will have a lot more engineering training, but even then they aren't the best hands on engineer).

Anyway, the point is that Traveller's character generation is designed to create characters suitable for mid life crisis adventuring. So the skills (and the mustering out benefits) are targeted towards that. That's why 1/4 of the results for Service + Crew are personal combat skills and barely half are "job skills" (Vacc Suit, Mechanics, Electronics, Pilot, Gunner). And two of those job skills are actually for other branches (Gunner & Pilot) and only show up because the same service skills feed all three branches.

No one designed the rules to model society at large. You can obviously use it for that, but its going to give weird arse results. Just like having your village parish priest in fantasy worlds ends up being a warrior-mage because "Cleric" (a specifically adventuring class modelled on holy warriors) is the only game mechanic for priest in D&D.

 

[swordtart]

Yes, but the vast majority of base operations are not using any of the skills given by the naval career. Unless you assume everyone has access to advanced education, where you can at least have a chance of Admin.

I see no reason why you would not limit the hard admin to officers and specialist staff who are educated. You don't need the Admin skill to fill in forms you need it to circumvent bureaucracy. If you are the bureaucracy you just follow the tram lines. "Sorry Sir, I can't issue anything without the correct authorisation." and the time honoured "I don't care if you can see it on the shelf, the computer says we don't have any."

The Service/Crew skills are: Gun Combat x 2, Vacc Suit x 2, Mechanics x 2, Electronics, Athletics, Melee Combat, Pilot, Gunner, Flyer.

All the Intel, logistics, crew support, corpsmen (medics), and so on are Admin, Medic, Steward, or other skills not available or extremely limited access.

Many of those skills are available as background skills. Unlike adventurers most peoples day job consists of Routine tasks and they have the right tools for the job and much of it will be automated. If you need specialists then it tends to be an officer leading or you get a genuine specialist. Many corpsmen will be stretcher bearers.

Where is it written that naval ratings need Steward skill? They don't deal with high class passengers or nobles. Cooks will put things in the auto chef and the majority of their time will be refilling and operating machines. The rare time Steward in necessary you will get specialist training (as a result of Event 8) or they might draft in a Steward droid who will do a far better job of it.

The Imperial Navy Handbook p69 seems to disagree with you.

"Deck Personnel: Deck includes a number of nonspecialist personnel who carry out whatever tasks are required, typically general maintenance and security of the vessel, but Deck personnel can be loaned to other branches whenever needed. In addition, Deck includes a number of specialists including stewards and medical assistants."

That section also covers medical officers, chaplains, logisitcs officers, operations officers and the crew that support them. All are Line/Crew.

Traditionally the shipyard workers are not considered "line" (they are staff) and would probably be Engineering in Traveller's breakdown.

Most shipyard roles are logistics roles. The building and maintenance of ships will probably not be by Navy personnel (unless it is part of their training), that will be done by contractors. Most shipyard duties in my experience are logistics, movements and security. Some Engineering will be needed to conduct repairs to vessels (and these might be Navy personnel in forward bases). The specific equipment that need Engineering are called out in that skill, but the majority of repairs and maintenance use the Mechanic skill, one of the main skills of Line/Crew and Service. This might also be a punishment detail or a backwater posting for "difficult" personnel.

Some personnel might have had a near miss in their career (or got into a relationship) and switched to Line/Crew at a shore base as a softer option where they can spend weekends in a safer environment (possibly with their partner close by).

Who knows, maybe in the future all that is handled by government contractors and you don't have enlisted specialties in supply and crew support or perhaps "staff" specialties aren't distinguished from "line" specialties.

A lot depends on how space navies work. Star Trek has all the officers actually doing work instead of telling people to do work. Which is great for TV, but isn't how things work in surface navies. But games also rely heavily on fictional tropes that are familiar to the players, many of whom have never been anywhere near the real military. So you get lots of people who think "Sir" is the correct address for a Master Chief and that the Chief Engineering Officer is actually be the best wrench on the ship, rather than being the guy whose job is to know who the best wrench is and make sure they are on the most important task.

IRL, the helmsmen, navigators, engineers, etc on naval vessels are enlisted personnel with Surface Warfare/Line Officers supervising them (except on nuclear vessels like submarines where the engineering officer will have a lot more engineering training, but even then they aren't the best hands on engineer).

In my experience most maintenance is conducted in accordance with approved maintenance documents where procedures are clearly documented (i.e. you follow the recipe). Deviation from those procedures needs to be authorised by senior engineering officers. When you are at sea (in space) you may have more latitude and require more experienced people to make a judgement on the fly, and that is why ships have Engineers aboard. Ashore you need people who follow the procedures.

Anyway, the point is that Traveller's character generation is designed to create characters suitable for mid life crisis adventuring. So the skills (and the mustering out benefits) are targeted towards that.

The character generation mechanism was also supposed to be the way you generated NPCs. Everyone you met in traveller was expressed as <X> terms in <Service>. If you don't have that mid-life crisis you can stay in and what falls out is a "normal" navy career path. If you are angling to maximise your pension (a not uncommon driver later in life) and have already made Captain, Line/Crew is a safer option without sacrificing anything significant,

That's why 1/4 of the results for Service + Crew are personal combat skills and barely half are "job skills" (Vacc Suit, Mechanics, Electronics, Pilot, Gunner). And two of those job skills are actually for other branches (Gunner & Pilot) and only show up because the same service skills feed all three branches.

Flyer, not Pilot. Flyer covers Grav and that would be every piece of MHE in a shipyard, most shoreside movement roles and armoured vehicles. It could also cover air superiority fighters and patrol craft to protect a base. Combat skills could equally be there for guard duty and Gunner for ground defence batteries.

No one designed the rules to model society at large. You can obviously use it for that, but its going to give weird arse results. Just like having your village parish priest in fantasy worlds ends up being a warrior-mage because "Cleric" (a specifically adventuring class modelled on holy warriors) is the only game mechanic for priest in D&D.

You could expect the rules for a Navy career to reflect the Navy though. Ultimately it is your choice and you can read into it what you want. Your interpretation is not "wrong", but that doesn't mean mine is either.

We are not going to agree and we don't need to.

 

[Condottiere]

The Navy probably needs some modernization, and specialization.

Unless they're tagged as cannon fodder, even the infantry needs skillz.

 

[swordtart]

As regards the gig economy, that's a little too wide to narrow down.

Obvious recipients would be the gophers, whether midshipmen or ensigns

Try as I might to finagle the numbers, no delivery driver is going to be able to afford a spacecraft, let alone an air/raft.

You are as likely to muster out with a vehicle as a ship's boat, so an air raft is equally possible. Unless you spent your career in Line/Crew though you are unlikely to get the skill required from your service. You can always rely on the auto pilot (and as you have KCr50 left over from your KCr300 budget you could upgrade it and several other systems).

I am curious as to why you cannot make a spacecraft affordable - do you mean running costs vs profits? It is a little over 1KCr per month in maintenance and fuel. With 13.5 DTons cargo you could run goods from one side of the planet to the other on a ballistic path or from the low port to high port in an hour or less (6 return trips a day at least). At a delivery charge of only Cr1 per Dton (which is probably far too cheap) that is Cr50-100per day (depending on if you can get a return cargo). That should easily cover your expenses and allow a small profit.

If you charge a little more, get the occasional passenger or have a different small craft optimised for the task e.g. modular skiff (with staterooms or barracks in the module you can live out of instead of renting accommodation) and buy unrefined or use ocean scooped fuel you can easily make a decent return.

 

[Condottiere]

Capital outlay.

Running costs tend to come down to fuel and life support, so controllable for lunar and near orbit.

Maintenance is close to utopic ideal.

But, if you have to purchase one, then it's hard to do it by pawning your Pokémon collection.

I'm rather sceptical that mortgage works as described in the rules, though at five percent, I think, over forty years, seems rather moderate; the difference between the family home and a working vehicle, is going to be depreciation.

The obvious answer is getting one as a mustering out benefit, since the mortgage, if any, is already negotiated.

Lease or rent, seems more likely.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Traveller character generation tables are only indicative of what happens to those rare individuals that go on to become player characters (or die in the process and become NPCs).

This used to be a topic of argument years ago.

Bottom line - you can not use the character generation tables as any indication of the demographics of the society as a whole.

 

[swordtart]

Traveller character generation tables are only indicative of what happens to those rare individuals that go on to become player characters (or die in the process and become NPCs).

Is that an assertion or has it been published somewhere?

CT LBB3 p13 seems to disagree.

"Sometimes (often) player-characters will encounter people not actually manipulated by a player. They may be thugs or assailants; they may be potential hirelings or patrons. In any case, their skills and abilities should be determined by the referee using the character generation procedure."

There was even the "Other" career to represent the everyman. Later supplements and editions expanded the careers table.

This used to be a topic of argument years ago.

So not just me then. For an argument there needs to be some people who hold the other opinion. If this was just in a discussion forums then it is just people's opinion. Forums do not always come to the truth (the facts as accepted by the majority" as only a minority participate. Some discussions become toxic to the point where serious discussion ends and just the people who shout loudest are left. That does not mean their conclusions are correct.

Bottom line - you can not use the character generation tables as any indication of the demographics of the society as a whole.

This mis-represents my argument. I did not say that all society is represented by the few careers set out in the character generation section (as those careers have been chosen as the most likely to produce characters that people want to play). There may well be sophonts in the universe who have not followed any of those careers and so we do not have a mechanism to determine their skills or possessions. Otehr supplements have however added extra careers that fill some of those gaps.

It does not hold however that where a specific career is in the character generation section that is not representative the generally experienced outcomes for that specific career.

Bottom line - you absolutely can use character generation as a basis for the full demographics of that specific career. There is nothing in RAW AFAIK saying that is not the case.

You may not want to do this for a variety of reasons, but that is a YTU decision.

 

[swordtart]

Capital outlay.

Fair enough, everything I have been saying is predicated on receiving one as a benefit.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Is that an assertion or has it been published somewhere?

Yes. By the game authors no less.

CT LBB3 p13 seems to disagree.

"Sometimes (often) player-characters will encounter people not actually manipulated by a player. They may be thugs or assailants; they may be potential hirelings or patrons. In any case, their skills and abilities should be determined by the referee using the character generation procedure."

And then you open LBB:3 and look at the NPCs, or go to S:1 and read what they say for Other characters, then you can go to S:4...

There was even the "Other" career to represent the everyman. Later supplements and editions expanded the careers table.

Precisely so, so how does the entire universe function when only 1/6 of the population that goes through draft enters the Other career and can become all those character types encountered in LBB:3? Or How does the draft function once S:4 hits the table?

These arguments are old and settled. The character generation tables are for character generation, not the demographics of empire.

So not just me then. For an argument there needs to be some people who hold the other opinion. If this was just in a discussion forums then it is just people's opinion. Forums do not always come to the truth (the facts as accepted by the majority" as only a minority participate. Some discussions become toxic to the point where serious discussion ends and just the people who shout loudest are left. That does not mean their conclusions are correct.

The argument and the pont that the game authors said what I am saying several decades ago. It has been discussed, argued, flamewarred and the outcome is always the same:

The character generation tables are for character generation, not the demographics of empire.

This mis-represents my argument. I did not say that all society is represented by the few careers set out in the character generation section (as those careers have been chosen as the most likely to produce characters that people want to play).

I wasn't arguing with you, or discussing your argument. But I would say you are now contradiction the argument you made in this post a couple of sentences ago

There may well be sophonts in the universe who have not followed any of those careers and so we do not have a mechanism to determine their skills or possessions. Otehr supplements have however added extra careers that fill some of those gaps.

In your opinion are 1/6 of the Imperial population ex Army, 1/6 ex Navy, 1/6 ex Marine, 1/6 ex merchant, 1/6 ex scout and 1/6 ex Other as the draft dictates? How do you know the percentage of the population that volunteers rather than gets drafted? That is why you can not use the character generation demographics to describe the empire...

It does not hold however that where a specific career is in the character generation section that is not representative the generally experienced outcomes for that specific career.

Well for one thing you can go advanced and get different skill availability, so which version of the career is more indicative of the general population, basic or advanced?

Bottom line - you absolutely can use character generation as a basis for the full demographics of that specific career.

No you can't because you don't know how many volunteer, you only know 1/6 get drafted into that career.

There is nothing in RAW AFAIK saying that is not the case.

There is nothing in the RAW that the character generation is the demographic description of the empire.

You may not want to do this for a variety of reasons, but that is a YTU decision.

As is yours. At least mine has been thoroughly discussed and the authors have commented on it.

 

[swordtart]

Yes. By the game authors no less.

It would have shortcut this somewhat had you just cited this.

And then you open LBB:3 and look at the NPCs, or go to A:1 and read what they say for Other characters, then you can go to S:4...
Precisely so, so how does the entire universe function when only 1/6 of the population that goes through draft enters the Other career and can become all those character types encountered in LBB:3? Or How does the draft function once S:4 hits the table?
These arguments are old and settled. The character generation tables are for character generation, not the demographics of empire.
The argument and the pont that the game authors said what I am saying several decades ago. It has been discussed, argued, flamewarred and the outcome is always the same:
The character generation tables are for character generation, not the demographics of empire.

So we are in agreement that the character tables do not permit you to calculate the demographics of the empire (or whatever other game setting you favour).

I wasn't arguing with you, or discussing your argument. But I would say you are now contradiction the argument you made in this post a couple of sentences ago

I merely cited where the author of LBB3 appeared to disagree with your argument. A citation that refutes an argument is not required to support the other side of the argument. There are more than two possible positions.

In your opinion are 1/6 of the Imperial population ex Army, 1/6 ex Navy, 1/6 ex Marine, 1/6 ex merchant, 1/6 ex scout and 1/6 ex Other as the draft dictates? How do you know the percentage of the population that volunteers rather than gets drafted? That is why you can not use the character generation demographics to describe the empire...

No. I am not saying that. I don't think it makes any credible sense. I don't think LBB3 says that the only way characters can be generated is via the draft. It simply says that if you want to generate an ex-Navy character that is an NPC you should use the character generation rules for the Navy career. If you want someone who has not been in the military then Other is a suitable career to use.

Well for one thing you can go advanced and get different skill availability, so which version of the career is more indicative of the general population, basic or advanced?

Neither they are both subsets of the whole gamut of possibilities.

No you can't because you don't know how many volunteer, you only know 1/6 get drafted into that career.

Either you are not bothering to read my points or you are just trying to set up a straw man.

There is nothing in the RAW that the character generation is the demographic description of the empire.

Never said there was.

As is yours. At least mine has been thoroughly discussed and the authors have commented on it.

Since you are not refuting my argument then we are free to disengage.

 

[Sigtrygg]

It would have shortcut this somewhat had you just cited this.

I don't know the exact quote off the top of my head, but I can find several given time. Pretty sure there was a JTAS article all about it.

So we are in agreement that the character tables do not permit you to calculate the demographics of the empire (or whatever other game setting you favour).

Yup, that is pretty much my only point.

I merely cited where the author of LBB3 appeared to disagree with your argument. A citation that refutes an argument is not required to support the other side of the argument. There are more than two possible positions.

LBB:3 grants options, but then there are other options in other rules books and supplements.

No. I am not saying that. I don't think it makes any credible sense. I don't think LBB3 says that the only way characters can be generated is via the draft. It simply says that if you want to generate an ex-Navy character that is an NPC you should use the character generation rules for the Navy career. If you want someone who has not been in the military then Other is a suitable career to use.

Fair enough I think I may have misunderstood you r earlier point. Apologies.

Neither they are both subsets of the whole gamut of possibilities.

Agreed, but PCs are limited to the tables and rules as written, a referee if free to give any NPC any skill they need to for the scenario.

Either you are not bothering to read my points or you are just trying to set up a straw man.

No need to get personal, I could have accused you of the same but chose not to. Discuss in good faith.

Never said there was.

Then why are you arguing with me when you are agreeing with me?

Since you are not refuting my argument then we are free to disengage.

I am now completely confused by your argument here.

 

[Condottiere]

One issue regarding whether you can use character generation for non player characters, is that basic training imposes six zero skills onto anyone choosing that career, including ye mooks, is that they now have a particular set of skillz everyone else would be blessed with.

Other than that, accumulating one or two skill levels every four years sounds plausible.