Survival Rolls

[swordtart]

One of my players is concerned that survival rolls are too harsh and that it will be hard to stay in one career rather than constantly changing career and wasting a lot of terms getting a zero level skill in basic training.

I have decided to allow players to take a boon on the Survival roll in exchange for a bane on the advancement roll to represent a cautious / unambitious approach to their career (never volunteer). I will also allow the converse to show a more ambitious / reckless approach (buckle up buttercup) as well as allowing the normal approach.

This is clearly not the way Traveller was first envisaged but other than it being heresy and a house rule, does it seem reasonable from a game balance perspective?

 

[Condottiere]

Option: desk jockey.

 

[Limpin Legin]

One of my players is concerned that survival rolls are too harsh and that it will be hard to stay in one career rather than constantly changing career and wasting a lot of terms getting a zero level skill in basic training.

Boon is often too easy. Particularly when a player only needs 4+ to 7+ on 2D.

Could introduce a LCK roll to help would-be 'heroes' scrape through Survival Checks.

And don't forget you've got Dice Modifier for the specific Survival Characteristic (STR, INT, EDU, etc). Yes, without the DM, Traveller Survival rolls would be harsh.

 

[Arkathan]

How many people retire from the military versus the number joined? How many only have one career? The survival roll is not unreasonable, you just don't always get the superhero you wanted.
But Traveller is about average Joe's in space, and average Joe's are not min-maxed.

 

[Saladman]

.. boon on the Survival roll in exchange for a bane on the advancement roll ... also allow the converse to show a more ambitious / reckless approach (buckle up buttercup) as well as allowing the normal approach.

There's nothing too wrong with this, but if it were my table I'd want to see rolls in the open in person/use a dice roller online, or it would incentivize and reward nudging dice for a small number of players.

One of my players is concerned that survival rolls are too harsh and that it will be hard to stay in one career rather than constantly changing career and wasting a lot of terms getting a zero level skill in basic training.

Sometimes you fail a survival roll and it's annoying, but the more usual problem is that risking a new qualification roll channels people into one career. And since I like well rounded characters, failing out is an acceptable part of the meta-game for me. Boon would channel players into single careers even more strongly than normal, but if you like stronger specialization that may be a non-issue.

Other house rules to soften the blow from Survival rolls would be to put Events before Survival (since some events give a shot at an extra skill), to make a failed career term take 1d3 or 1d4 years instead of 4 (chance of an extra career term before taking aging rolls for characters failing survival), or "0+0=1" for skills, so basic training stacks on background skills or previous basic. I'm not saying to use all those together with your house rule and each other, but they are options.

 

[Bense]

Having a failed survival roll mean your term only lasted 2 years was the rule in MegaTraveller.

 

[NOLATrav]

I use 1D3 years for failed Terms.

 

[agentwigggles]

One of my players is concerned that survival rolls are too harsh and that it will be hard to stay in one career rather than constantly changing career and wasting a lot of terms getting a zero level skill in basic training.

I have decided to allow players to take a boon on the Survival roll in exchange for a bane on the advancement roll to represent a cautious / unambitious approach to their career (never volunteer). I will also allow the converse to show a more ambitious / reckless approach (buckle up buttercup) as well as allowing the normal approach.

This is clearly not the way Traveller was first envisaged but other than it being heresy and a house rule, does it seem reasonable from a game balance perspective?

This is system mastery. You arrange the stats (as best as you can) for the primary career you want.
And this is also putting to much into staying in a singular career.

I think taking a bane roll on the adv is way worse than taking a boon roll on survival. You're locking yourself out of second skill gain and possibly a 3rd skill, if the rank grants one.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

How many people retire from the military versus the number joined? How many only have one career? The survival roll is not unreasonable, you just don't always get the superhero you wanted.

And that makes for a more interesting character. Player ideas for the character tend to be more simplistic than they would admit (including mine) but their history forcing career changes adds breadth and depth to the character.

 

[CordwainerFish]

And that makes for a more interesting character. Player ideas for the character tend to be more simplistic than they would admit (including mine) but their history forcing career changes adds breadth and depth to the character.

My favorite character's career path went nothing like what I had in mind.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

My favorite D&D character played with a deck of many things and ended up with a sword that totally twisted his life. Which was rather appropriate as I had named him after the central character in the book "The Misenchanted Sword" by Lawrence Watt-Evans and it was further changed when he was confronted over the other PCs deduction that he had cast a spell when they weren't looking and in spite of my plans he to my shock claimed to be a Bard (2nd edition) which he was forbidden to be by the rules as a full elf. I had no intention of saying that but out it came. I had more fun playing him than all the other characters put together even though at times he "insisted" on doing things I never planned.

 

[AndrewW]

My favorite D&D character played with a deck of many things and ended up with a sword that totally twisted his life. Which was rather appropriate as I had named him after the central character in the book "The Misenchanted Sword" by Lawrence Watt-Evans and it was further changed when he was confronted over the other PCs deduction that he had cast a spell when they weren't looking and in spite of my plans he to my shock claimed to be a Bard (2nd edition) which he was forbidden to be by the rules as a full elf. I had no intention of saying that but out it came. I had more fun playing him than all the other characters put together even though at times he "insisted" on doing things I never planned.

But does Valder's sword have to kill him in the end?

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

But does Valder's sword have to kill him in the end?

No. It merely makes him kill evil wizards.

In his early days the group was down to 3 survivors. They were walking side by side with the wizard in the middle. The wizard knew of Valders sword and that it could detect evil wizards. He also knew that the 3rd character had a sword that insisted on killing evil people of the wizards race and could also detect them. He announced that his character was dedicating himself to evil. The other sword wielder and I exchanged confused looks with each other and the DM after all NO ONE could be that stupid right? The DM reminded him that there were consequences to changing alignment that he might not like. Three times the DM tried to talk him out of it and tried to hint without right out telling him that he was being an idiot. Finally he told the guy all right your character is now evil and he slumped back in his chair and looked at the other player and myself. The Wizard player had a smug look on his face right up to the moment the other PC and Valder yelled out DIE EVIL ....! He never came back to play and I never saw him again.

The other PC got greedy and claimed the wizards ring of regeneration. He himself was desperately in need of a spell book so Valder claimed the spell book. I kept negotiations going for weeks while copying all the spells from that book into Valders and then traded it for the Ring. The other player then found out he had no way to cast read magic on the spells in the book and since he had never read them he couldn't use the book. Valder of course knew that all along. Eventually Valder assisted him (for a price) in reading the read magic spell and he was finally able to read the spells. He then complained that Valder had not copied his own spells into the book as well. He was reminded that all that he traded for was the book and he was lucky Valder didn't erase it and give him the blank book as spells were never mentioned just the book and at no point had either of us mentioned Valder ADDING to the book. He was very unhappy

It wasn't until long after the group broke up that I realized why Valder was so effective and that was because given all his weaknesses I played him the same way I played Kobolds. My kobolds were played very much like the now legendary Tuckers Kobolds but I was playing them that way BEFORE that letter was published.


Hmm. My kobolds would make an excellent alien race now that I think of it.

 

[AndrewW]

No. It merely makes him kill evil wizards.

In his early days the group was down to 3 survivors. They were walking side by side with the wizard in the middle. The wizard knew of Valders sword and that it could detect evil wizards. He also knew that the 3rd character had a sword that insisted on killing evil people of the wizards race and could also detect them. He announced that his character was dedicating himself to evil. The other sword wielder and I exchanged confused looks with each other and the DM after all NO ONE could be that stupid right? The DM reminded him that there were consequences to changing alignment that he might not like. Three times the DM tried to talk him out of it and tried to hint without right out telling him that he was being an idiot. Finally he told the guy all right your character is now evil and he slumped back in his chair and looked at the other player and myself. The Wizard player had a smug look on his face right up to the moment the other PC and Valder yelled out DIE EVIL ....! He never came back to play and I never saw him again.

Sounds like a fun game.

Though Valder's namesake was an army scout later inkeeper, never a wizard (he only married one). But sounds good to me.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

This one was a multiclassed character and spent most of his career as the party scout. Late in his career he saved the entire party and instead of getting the promised reward (the next cloak and ring of protection and the next bracers of defense they got) the group tried to give him the worst of each they already had as it never occurred to them that they were finding higher powered items while fighting higher powered opponents and for some reason they had a policy of ALWAYS making sure that any protective magic never went to him. They wanted to keep the best ones in their own hands and give him items with the lowest bonuses. Every other character had at least one of those 3 items some had one of each. Valder had no protective magic and as scout really needed it most especially since he had the worst hit points of the group and the worst fighting ability (that sword was +1/+2 vs magic using/enchanted) and he had no strength bonus. Somehow items for strength always went to characters who had strength bonuses already.

He then resigned as scout and told them that any attempt to force him to scout would have him circle behind them and be following not going first into danger. The alternate scout while on paper as good as him and much better at fighting couldn't interpret what he saw to recognize ambush points or other dangers AND was greedy which did such things as cause him to try and steal the gem eyes of a statue without wondering if it was a stone golem (it was). Even though they all ASSUMED Valder was just better at stealing things he never did steal from the group. They even searched him a couple times and found nothing as there was nothing to find. In the end his blackmail caused them to cave and live up to the deal.