Training new skills after chargen

[Garran]

I realize that this is contrary to what most people have said in this thread, but I feel that the approach presented in the playtest makes skill training a practical option - finally.

Yes, you can quibble about "but this thing should take longer because I think..." for this or that (though it's up against the "advanced methods/technologies" stipulation that the book itself makes - to say nothing of there being a world of difference between individual tutoring and classroom approaches), and yes this means that characters may gain skill ranks far faster than during chargen, although it could just as easily be pointed out that chargen rates of skill training are inordinately slow, even compared to the much less technologically sophisticated real world.

And if a character is shuttering themselves away for a year to do nothing but skill training, they've arguably retired - the game is clearly written around the idea that the PCs spend most of their time doing stuff and the rules (not just the training rules) are structured to support that.

That said, if you happen to be playing one of those campaigns that lasts for years of real-world time and in which you can reasonably expect many months or years of in-game time to pass, great - feel free to change "weeks" to "months/years" accordingly.

However, tabletop RPG campaigns usually don't last that long, and a few months or even a few weeks of in-game time (considering that the active events - aka "doing stuff" - rather than downtime will occupy most of the play sessions) may be all you get, in which case year-long - or otherwise extremely restrictive - skill training rules as the default mean that the section may as well not exist.

 

[-Daniel-]

I realize that this is contrary to what most people have said in this thread, but I feel that the approach presented in the playtest makes skill training a practical option - finally.

Yes, you can quibble about "but this thing should take longer because I think..." for this or that (though it's up against the "advanced methods/technologies" stipulation that the book itself makes - to say nothing of there being a world of difference between individual tutoring and classroom approaches), and yes this means that characters may gain skill ranks far faster than during chargen, although it could just as easily be pointed out that chargen rates of skill training are inordinately slow, even compared to the much less technologically sophisticated real world.

And if a character is shuttering themselves away for a year to do nothing but skill training, they've arguably retired - the game is clearly written around the idea that the PCs spend most of their time doing stuff and the rules (not just the training rules) are structured to support that.

That said, if you happen to be playing one of those campaigns that lasts for years of real-world time and in which you can reasonably expect many months or years of in-game time to pass, great - feel free to change "weeks" to "months/years" accordingly.

However, tabletop RPG campaigns usually don't last that long, and a few months or even a few weeks of in-game time (considering that the active events - aka "doing stuff" - rather than downtime will occupy most of the play sessions) may be all you get, in which case year-long - or otherwise extremely restrictive - skill training rules as the default mean that the section may as well not exist.

Fair point. Is the game aimed at those who have very short game campaigns and thus short Character life spans? (I mean in real life time) or for those with longer extended games?

If we assume the shorter is the normal path, then would you agree to counting zero level skills toward the cap of total skill levels? Maybe as a .5 for example? Or do you feel the idea of a Character with dozens of skills added during the game is not an issue because of the short Character use life span?

 

[grauenwolf]

However, tabletop RPG campaigns usually don't last that long, and a few months or even a few weeks of in-game time (considering that the active events - aka "doing stuff" - rather than downtime will occupy most of the play sessions) may be all you get, in which case year-long - or otherwise extremely restrictive - skill training rules as the default mean that the section may as well not exist.

I've been noticing that too. At the rate we're going, it may be another real-world month before the players even make their second hyperspace jump. So giving them a training roll wouldn't lead to any major imbalances.

 

[-Daniel-]

So is this one of those times we just "hand wave" the difference between learning on your own in a ship during jump and learning in a four year term? In other words do it just for the game mechanic sake and write off the logical oddity the two rates of learning creates?

Leave it at weeks and have the GM control those few times it begins to feel silly?

I could live with that, but I would really want to see zero level skills count toward the maximum levels then. Just my preference given the reality of the situation. 8)

 

[Kautsu]

Am I correct that all one needs is two weeks training with successful EDU checks to go from a level 1 to level 2 in a skill?

If so, this seams way to fast and I think this section needs some changes.

Also I think there should be some requirements to training.
What I suggest is a mentor/trainer (a professional instructor could give a boon) with the appropriate skill and/or the appropriate expert program (in training mode).

I think the current rate is way too fast. I like the description "skill level takes years of practice". The mechanics of weeks as units if study is good, but I think a smaller quantum than 1 level should be needed.

Am I wrong, if I assume basic training of first term is 1 year of dedicated study giving you 6 skills at rank 0? Or lets assume it is 5 skills as you get 1 at rank 0 after first career. In this case the study time for rank 0 should be 1/5th of a year, thus 10 weeks per skill. If we want random element, assume 50% success rate, thus 5 weeks per roll. Then I assume rank 0 is quarter point between unskilled and rank 1 as it was in Megatraveller. Thus rank 1 would require 40 weeks of training.

I would take GURPS approach for those who do not have spare time: learning while working with lesser efficiency. I would say working would give you 1 week of training for 2 weeks of work (which is really generous.. 1 week for 3 weeks might be more appropriate for realistic approach).

Thus my suggestion for advancement times: (weeks is rank * 40, rank 0 being exception)
Rank 0: 10 weeks
Rank 1. 40 weeks from unskilled, 30 weeks from Rank 0
Rank 2: 80 weeks from rank 1
Rank 3: 120 weeks from rank 2
Rank 4: 160 weeks from rank 3
Rank 5: 200 weeks from rank 4

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Are referees really that afraid of their players knowing about the training rules?

 

[Kautsu]

So is this one of those times we just "hand wave" the difference between learning on your own in a ship during jump and learning in a four year term? In other words do it just for the game mechanic sake and write off the logical oddity the two rates of learning creates?

Leave it at weeks and have the GM control those few times it begins to feel silly?

I could live with that, but I would really want to see zero level skills count toward the maximum levels then. Just my preference given the reality of the situation. 8)

I completely agree with you. I would like to see system which is consistent in character development and in game advancement. The idea is that characters are more skilled than average fantasy rpg 16 years old farmers when game begins, thus there is less need for statistical character advancement.

I would call current character advancement: "Wesley Crusher Generation". The most effective way to create character would be 0 or 1 terms, and then becoming best on any field within half year.

 

[-Daniel-]

Are referees really that afraid of their players knowing about the training rules?

For me, players knowing about them? No, they will because I have never ran a game that the players didn't own their own books and read them. Knowing about them is not the issue. Abuse of the complete system. No "per skill level cap", no limit to zero level skills, and the ability to add new skills in 1 week. First, I really think a zero level skill needs to count toward the overall total skills cap of 3(INT+EDU). I also still am uncomfortable with the speed of skill advancement. But to be fair, it might not be as big an issue if the opportunity to train is kept to a minimum.

 

[Kautsu]

Are referees really that afraid of their players knowing about the training rules?

For me, players knowing about them? No, they will because I have never ran a game that the players didn't own their own books and read them. Knowing about them is not the issue. Abuse of the complete system. No "per skill level cap", no limit to zero level skills, and the ability to add new skills in 1 week. First, I really think a zero level skill needs to count toward the overall total skills cap of 3(INT+EDU). I also still am uncomfortable with the speed of skill advancement. But to be fair, it might not be as big an issue if the opportunity to train is kept to a minimum.

Looking how University seems to work compared to MIlitary Academy: Level 0 skill seems to be assumed to be 1/5th of Level 1 skills. University gets level +0 and +1 while academy gets 3 level +1, and one at +1. Okay on my scaling, this is almost on balance. Academy gives you 3/5th less skills, but +2 on one stat instead of +1 to one stat (+2 with high honors). Other benefits are hard to evaluate, but seems to be a bit in favor of Military Academy. This could be simply fixed by giving graduating University student to choose 3 skills at +0 from the list.

 

[FallingPhoenix]

So is this one of those times we just "hand wave" the difference between learning on your own in a ship during jump and learning in a four year term? In other words do it just for the game mechanic sake and write off the logical oddity the two rates of learning creates?

This is actually the sort of question that inspired this, which I think I may have put in the wrong thread...

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=132&t=114469

 

[Kaelic]

I'll repost this, which I posted in the other thread.

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.

Frankly, I think training should be removed from the core and a serious effort to give optional training rules, for long and short games, put into another book (Player Companion?). This way you can satisfy everyone from their uber-realistic games where you learn one skill a year just like in real-life (sarcasm hur hur) or one where players need to see progression in short campaigns because it's a game.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Just put "OPTIONAL RULE:" in front of the paragraph. That way, anyone who doesn't like the training rule will see it's just an option anyway.

 

[NOLATrav]

I'll repost this, which I posted in the other thread.

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.

Frankly, I think training should be removed from the core and a serious effort to give optional training rules, for long and short games, put into another book (Player Companion?). This way you can satisfy everyone from their uber-realistic games where you learn one skill a year just like in real-life (sarcasm hur hur) or one where players need to see progression in short campaigns because it's a game.

Seems to me it's not the specific rate of post-career training gains that's bothering most people. It's the fact that the skill system appears internally inconsistent. Level 4 in char gen is a well known, renowned and respected individual in that field who spent years acquiring knowledge and experience. But Level 4 in an adventurer's life is merely a few weeks of study during ho-hum jumps between worlds.

I suggested months instead of weeks as a sort of middle ground but whatevs.

 

[-Daniel-]

Seems to me it's not the specific rate of post-career training gains that's bothering most people. It's the fact that the skill system appears internally inconsistent. Level 4 in char gen is a well known, renowned and respected individual in that field who spent years acquiring knowledge and experience. But Level 4 in an adventurer's life is merely a few weeks of study during ho-hum jumps between worlds.

This is very true for me. It is the large inconsistency between the life path term skill rate, the training rate, and the skill level descriptions given in the core rules. You clearly articulated what bothers me for sure. 8)

 

[Kaelic]

Just put "OPTIONAL RULE:" in front of the paragraph. That way, anyone who doesn't like the training rule will see it's just an option anyway.

I don't think you understand the concerns people have expressed at all.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Just put "OPTIONAL RULE:" in front of the paragraph. That way, anyone who doesn't like the training rule will see it's just an option anyway.

I don't think you understand the concerns people have expressed at all.

I say take out the rule entirely then, and see if the problem goes away. Then we'll know for sure what optional rule the game needs if any. And if the rule is liked by everyone, make it unoptional.

For now, the rule is seen as either a "how to win" or a "how to cheat" rule by most players, rather than a training rule.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Comments on the revised Post Career Education and Training section, page 51.

Perhaps my biggest issue is not the actual time required but the writeup and the rolls.

Writeup Post Career Education
My points
- Skills vary in regards to how much you can learn from a book vs how much lab work and/or hands on training one needs. For example Astrogation verses a Melee Skill.
- Skills vary in regards to what resources one needs available to help one learn. A flight simulator for a pilot, a sword, holographic sparing partner, and room to practice safely for Melee skill and so on.

A better description that makes it clear skill learning has various requirements determined by the GM and that you don't just read a book on horseback riding and somehow you can jump on a horse and ride it.

A writeup that encourages role playing the variety of ways one gains different skills instead of training being a "week in jump space" game mechanic and record keeping.

Writeup Training and the roll
First, I do like that it says "study and practice".

1) The rules already state one needs 8 hours a day training and any interuption means you don't learn anything that week. You are now in the role playing portion of the game. A player role plays their character being diligent about their studies. Now it is time for a roll. They fail. The writeup says the following about a failed roll "might find the Captain of the ship is constantly ordering them to clean the cargo deck, they might be distracted by a hobby or new vid show, or they might just be spending their time sitting in their bunk eating Sugary Puff sandwiches".

To me, this just doesn't fit your own description of what one must do to be eligible for a roll as well as what characters may actually be role playing.

2) The rules are unclear what happens if a roll is failed. Start over as if you learned absolutely nothing in 20 weeks? Does one need to wait until the end of the next year to try another roll? What about those higher skill levels - maybe you fail the first roll or maybe you pass two rolls but fail the last when trying for a level 3 skill.

3) Training time is 20 weeks but the roll is "at the end of a year". This obvious leads to confusion.

Personally I don't think any roll should be required, especially with the uncertain impact that a failed roll imparts. Just make ones EDU DM vary the time required to learn. If you are committed to using those dice, have the effect alter training time.

I suggest if you have a roll for success, make it clear what to do after failure. Maybe 2x the negative effect determines how many more weeks of learning one needs before attempting another roll? +1DM for each additional attempt?

 

[MongooseMatt]

My thoughts here...

I don't really want optional rules in the Core Book - it is messy and just looks like we cannot make our minds. And besides, that is exactly what the Companion is for.

So...

Would anyone have any issues if we kept the training rules in the Core book as is _if_ we also had more detailed optional systems in the Companion that offer a choice of mechanics, different difficulties as to what skills you are learning, etc..?

 

[-Daniel-]

Would anyone have any issues if we kept the training rules in the Core book as is _if_ we also had more detailed optional systems in the Companion that offer a choice of mechanics, different difficulties as to what skills you are learning, etc..?

I can only speak for myself, I do not have any problem with having a single option in the CRB and other variations in the Companion.

I have a feeling this is one of those rules mechanics that will never satisfy everyone no matter what you did to it. So picking one and moving forward does seem like something that needs to happen. 8)

 

[CosmicGamer]

Would anyone have any issues if we kept the training rules in the Core book as is

Yes.

There are problems that should be fixed and not left as is. See 2) and 3) from my upstream post. I really think this is a problem with the rules that needs to be fixed and not a matter of personal preference.

At this point I would rather see it removed and left for the companion rather than kept entirely as is.

Here, I'll author this for you

Keep the first two paragraphs in the section "POST CAREER EDUCATION" on page 51.

Change the 3rd paragraph to

"The GM can give a Traveller the opportunity to increase existing skills and learn new ones through role playing. Role playing should include having the study and practice time as well as educational resources and tools the GM feels are necessary to increase an existing skill or learn a new one. New skills a Traveller acquires should start at level 0."

And remove the whole "TRAINING" section.

You could mention that detailed training rules are in the TC.