Exwrestler
Mongoose
Pete Nash said:Is that so bad?
Maybe not "so bad" just not the game I want to play. I feel like this type of character generation is already being covered by the point buy option (and done to death in any number of other rpgs).
v2.0 Promotions and Skills
- Thread starter Mongoose Pete
- Start date
Maybe not "so bad" just not the game I want to play. I feel like this type of character generation is already being covered by the point buy option (and done to death in any number of other rpgs).
Exwrestler said:Pete Nash said:Is that so bad?
Maybe not "so bad" just not the game I want to play. I feel like this type of character generation is already being covered by the point buy option (and done to death in any number of other rpgs).
AMEN!
Seriously, that's one contention with the point buy... you trade skills for half-skills at the same points....
SableWyvern
Mongoose
If this thread is any indication, both sides of this argument hold their positions with some degree of passion.
The obvious and simple solution seems to be, to me, to keep a second skill check tied to promotion as was traditionally the case, and include a short sentence or two separating that second roll from promotions, as an optional rule.
Both positions satisfied, and negligible addition to the word count.
The obvious and simple solution seems to be, to me, to keep a second skill check tied to promotion as was traditionally the case, and include a short sentence or two separating that second roll from promotions, as an optional rule.
Both positions satisfied, and negligible addition to the word count.
Mongoose Gar
Mongoose
Yeah, I was thinking that it could be folded into an optional rule. I'm loathe to put too much stuff out to optional rules, but it's an easy change in this case.
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
I'd be happy with that.Mongoose Gar said:
Andrew Whincup
Mongoose
Sounds like a good fix.
Are we to have an optional "special duty roll" kind of thing for those who want to separate out skills from promotion?
Andy
Are we to have an optional "special duty roll" kind of thing for those who want to separate out skills from promotion?
Andy
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
Yes, but all careers have an equal chance of receiving these. The point is still that those careers with better promotion chances have a bias towards gaining more skills.AKAramis said:
Theoretically, careers with easy promotion rolls have correspondingly more difficult survival rolls.
If you say that you get an extra skill roll for surviving the term, instead of for being promoted, then in careers that are easy to survive (noble, scholar) you're virtually guaranteed to receive at least two skills/term.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that characters who survive more dangerous careers ought to end up more skilled (on average) than characters who pursue safe careers for the same amount of time. It's a risk/reward thing. The dangerous careers also tend to have more injurious mishaps.
I'm actually in favor of significantly reducing the Drifter promotion roll for this reason. The odds that someone is going to survive multiple terms in the career already mean that it's unlikely anyone is going to climb very high on the rank chart. If you do make it through unscathed, there ought to be a reward.
I don't have all the numbers in front of me at the moment, but it ought to be pretty simple to crunch the probabilities of survival+promotion for each career to see if there are any "sweet spots" for skill gain.
Tychus said:
IMHO, this is the balancing factor in the CharGen mini game. Do I go for the career with high rewards and correspondingly higher risks, or do I play it safe?
I ran some numbers through a spreadsheet to compare 2 careers Navy Flight (8+ survival, 4+ promotion) vs. Scholar Doctor (4+ survival, 8+ promotion)
Assuming no characteristic mods, the Doctor has about a 25% chance of serving at least 5 terms, guaranteeing 5 skill rolls. The Navy man has only about a 7% chance of serving 3 terms, so even with an ~84% chance of getting 2 promotions he is far less likely to gain 5 skill rolls.
It's been a long time since my probability classes, so I'm not 100% confident in these numbers, but I believe they are in the right ballpark.
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
However, after failing his survival roll there is nothing to prevent the navy man from joining a safer career and serving out the same number of terms. In which case he will end up with more skills overall.JimG said:
Oh, and there's a 78% chance that starting characters will be rolled with at least a +1 characteristic mod... and a 17% chance that they will start with a +2.
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
WARNING! Statistically heavy post follows...
Since 4 in 5 characters will have at least one characteristic bonus of +1, and 1 in 3 will have two, the best plan of action is to place these in the characteristic pertaining to Survival first, and (if fortunate enough to have two) Advancement second.
This gives a survival chance of...
83% of surviving 1 term
69% of surviving 2 terms
57% of surviving 3 terms
48% of surviving 4 terms
40% of surviving 5 terms
33% of surviving 6 terms
The chances of Advancement are the same as above if there is a second characteristic bonus of +1, or the following with no bonus...
72% of gaining 1 promotion
52% of gaining 2 promotions
38% of gaining 3 promotions
27% of gaining 4 promotions
20% of gaining 5 promotions
14% of gaining 6 promotions
So assuming an average character with a single characteristic bonus of +1 in a career with 6+ S&A, they could with an evens chance survive four terms and gain Rank 2. If this is a Military man, it produces a character with 6 rolls on the skills table and 2 bonus skills attached to Rank.
Taking the 1 in 3 characters with two characteristic bonuses of +1, they will on an evens chance survive four terms and be promoted four times. Granting them (if military) 8 rolls on the skill table, 3 bonus skills attached to Rank, and an extra roll on the mustering out table.
Using the same characteristics for a doctor with a 4+/8+ S&A, would produce on an evens chance a character with 8 terms service, who'd never be promoted (if only one bonus characteristic) or once (if two bonus characteristics). However, since the Advancement roll also hides the 'roll more than number of terms served or leave the service' rule, the doctor would actually on average only serve 6 of those 8 terms.
Therefore the doctor with one +1 characteristic bonus would have 6 rolls on the skills table and none from promotion. Whereas the doctor with two +1 characteristic bonuses would have 7 skill rolls, and 1 bonus skill attached to Rank. Neither would receive an extra mustering out benefit. Academics, Entertainers, Drifters and X-Boat pilots will be even more heavily penalised, since they have significantly less chance of ever being promoted.
Thus the 6+ S&A careers usually give an extra two or three skills - which is a considerable advantage. Of course, this is only taking average rolls into consideration. Characters with 6+ S&A who possess even better characteristic bonuses, or who roll only slightly above average for their survival and advancement, or (cringe) both, will gain disproportionately more skills and benefits than those with a 4+/8+ (or worse) S&A!
The probabilities are primarily skewed because of the 2 point steps between different career's survival and advancement target numbers. Changing them from 4+, 6+ and 8+, to 4+, 5+ and 6+ instead would reduce (but not eliminate) that bias.
I hope this helps!
It looks like the careers with 6+ Survival and Advancement targets are the best "sweet spots".Tychus said:
Since 4 in 5 characters will have at least one characteristic bonus of +1, and 1 in 3 will have two, the best plan of action is to place these in the characteristic pertaining to Survival first, and (if fortunate enough to have two) Advancement second.
This gives a survival chance of...
83% of surviving 1 term
69% of surviving 2 terms
57% of surviving 3 terms
48% of surviving 4 terms
40% of surviving 5 terms
33% of surviving 6 terms
The chances of Advancement are the same as above if there is a second characteristic bonus of +1, or the following with no bonus...
72% of gaining 1 promotion
52% of gaining 2 promotions
38% of gaining 3 promotions
27% of gaining 4 promotions
20% of gaining 5 promotions
14% of gaining 6 promotions
So assuming an average character with a single characteristic bonus of +1 in a career with 6+ S&A, they could with an evens chance survive four terms and gain Rank 2. If this is a Military man, it produces a character with 6 rolls on the skills table and 2 bonus skills attached to Rank.
Taking the 1 in 3 characters with two characteristic bonuses of +1, they will on an evens chance survive four terms and be promoted four times. Granting them (if military) 8 rolls on the skill table, 3 bonus skills attached to Rank, and an extra roll on the mustering out table.
Using the same characteristics for a doctor with a 4+/8+ S&A, would produce on an evens chance a character with 8 terms service, who'd never be promoted (if only one bonus characteristic) or once (if two bonus characteristics). However, since the Advancement roll also hides the 'roll more than number of terms served or leave the service' rule, the doctor would actually on average only serve 6 of those 8 terms.
Therefore the doctor with one +1 characteristic bonus would have 6 rolls on the skills table and none from promotion. Whereas the doctor with two +1 characteristic bonuses would have 7 skill rolls, and 1 bonus skill attached to Rank. Neither would receive an extra mustering out benefit. Academics, Entertainers, Drifters and X-Boat pilots will be even more heavily penalised, since they have significantly less chance of ever being promoted.
Thus the 6+ S&A careers usually give an extra two or three skills - which is a considerable advantage. Of course, this is only taking average rolls into consideration. Characters with 6+ S&A who possess even better characteristic bonuses, or who roll only slightly above average for their survival and advancement, or (cringe) both, will gain disproportionately more skills and benefits than those with a 4+/8+ (or worse) S&A!
The probabilities are primarily skewed because of the 2 point steps between different career's survival and advancement target numbers. Changing them from 4+, 6+ and 8+, to 4+, 5+ and 6+ instead would reduce (but not eliminate) that bias.
I hope this helps!
Analyzing these things using "average" rolls is very risky and can lead to some very faulty conclusions.
The 8+ promotion doctor has a ~42% chance of getting promoted each term. If he rolls the average of 7, he'll never get promoted. However, his chance of not getting promoted in one term is 58%. His chance of not getting promoted in two terms is .58 * .58, or 33%. In 6 terms, his chances of not getting promoted at all are less than 4%, meaning that he has a 96% chance of getting at least one promotion in that career.
If we're going to bring characteristic mods into the argument things get more complicated, but I believe the doctor is better served by applying his highest bonus to Advancement, since his survival odds are pretty good already. In any case, the characteristic mods will help both low and high risk careers.
All that being said, I think you're right the sweet spot looks to be the 6+/6+ careers.
Which actually seems to argue *for* including safer careers. Yes there is a bias towards serving some time in the high-risk/high-reward careers. One middling roll can end that career before your first chance of getting promoted, giving you no benefits and a chance for some medical debt, but you a balance those risks against the chance for promotions and extra skills.
I'm hoping this doesn't come across as too argumentative. I personally like the system as it is presented (for the most part). Adjusting the numbers so that they are more uniform would just seem to homogenize the character generation and dilute the "traveller" flavor of the whole thing for me.
The 8+ promotion doctor has a ~42% chance of getting promoted each term. If he rolls the average of 7, he'll never get promoted. However, his chance of not getting promoted in one term is 58%. His chance of not getting promoted in two terms is .58 * .58, or 33%. In 6 terms, his chances of not getting promoted at all are less than 4%, meaning that he has a 96% chance of getting at least one promotion in that career.
If we're going to bring characteristic mods into the argument things get more complicated, but I believe the doctor is better served by applying his highest bonus to Advancement, since his survival odds are pretty good already. In any case, the characteristic mods will help both low and high risk careers.
All that being said, I think you're right the sweet spot looks to be the 6+/6+ careers.
Which actually seems to argue *for* including safer careers. Yes there is a bias towards serving some time in the high-risk/high-reward careers. One middling roll can end that career before your first chance of getting promoted, giving you no benefits and a chance for some medical debt, but you a balance those risks against the chance for promotions and extra skills.
I'm hoping this doesn't come across as too argumentative. I personally like the system as it is presented (for the most part). Adjusting the numbers so that they are more uniform would just seem to homogenize the character generation and dilute the "traveller" flavor of the whole thing for me.
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
Opps, my previous conclusion was seriously flawed!Pete Nash said:
The military guy with the 6+ S&A had 6+2 skills or 8+3 skills (depending on whether they have 1 or 2 bonus characteristics) after 4 terms!!!. The doctor has served 6 terms and ended up with 2 or 3 less skills! If the military officer made up his remaining terms in another 6+ S&A career, the disparity in final numbers of skills would be even more.
Klaus Kipling
Mongoose
I would have plumped for payer choice and min ability scores of whether someone is an officer or enlisted.
This is only an issue with the military careers anyway.
One of the reasons I'd suggest this is because nobiltiy is exceedingly important in the Imperium (and, indeed, in any culture in our history that has been run by an aristocracy), so that I would assume that all nobles can become officers.
I can't really see a duke being an NCO rather than an officer, under most circumstances.
Therefore, whether someone is a naval officer or naval crewman, for example:
Can start as an officer if SOC 10+ or EDU 8+
If these abilities ever reach the required level during service then the character can plump for OCS and get O1.
In the marines, where nobility is possibly less valued:
Can start as an officer if INT 9+ or EDU 9+, or some such.
etc, etc
That does away with the commission roll, allows the player more choice over the concept, and stops the unrealistic situation where Imperial Barons are only Corporals (though if that baron really wanted not to be an officer, he could obviously choose not to).
As for the variation in rank designations, surely the default should be the Imperial forces from the OTU, with perhaps a paragraph outlining other options for handling ranks (perhaps using certain nameless tv shows for comparison), and then in a later military type supplement (Mercenary??) having a deeper discussion of how to apply different ranking regimes.
This is only an issue with the military careers anyway.
One of the reasons I'd suggest this is because nobiltiy is exceedingly important in the Imperium (and, indeed, in any culture in our history that has been run by an aristocracy), so that I would assume that all nobles can become officers.
I can't really see a duke being an NCO rather than an officer, under most circumstances.
Therefore, whether someone is a naval officer or naval crewman, for example:
Can start as an officer if SOC 10+ or EDU 8+
If these abilities ever reach the required level during service then the character can plump for OCS and get O1.
In the marines, where nobility is possibly less valued:
Can start as an officer if INT 9+ or EDU 9+, or some such.
etc, etc
That does away with the commission roll, allows the player more choice over the concept, and stops the unrealistic situation where Imperial Barons are only Corporals (though if that baron really wanted not to be an officer, he could obviously choose not to).
As for the variation in rank designations, surely the default should be the Imperial forces from the OTU, with perhaps a paragraph outlining other options for handling ranks (perhaps using certain nameless tv shows for comparison), and then in a later military type supplement (Mercenary??) having a deeper discussion of how to apply different ranking regimes.
SableWyvern
Mongoose
Since I have withdrawn from discussions involving the merits of NCOs, I give Klaus my proxy for any further opinions on the matter. 8)
