Creating a Navy Officer

[siefertma2]

OK, here's a sticky wicket. I'm helping a buddy put together a character for the ISS Ursula campaign and I'm having a little trouble. After rolling up the basic stats, my friend says he wants to create an Vargr who is an officer in the Imperial Navy.

OK, chances are he's going to start with at the University on a 4 year program. Here's where it gets tricky. How do I determine his starting skill points? Does he take them from the Navy stats found in the Errata, or does he have to start under another class then switch to level 1 Navy after he graduates?

Also does his education count as his first term, or does his first term start when he graduates.... GAHHHHH! T20 is so bloody complex!!!

<The Fly> Heeeelllp Meeeee! HEEEELLLP MEEEEEEE!</The Fly>

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
OK, here's a sticky wicket. I'm helping a buddy put together a character for the ISS Ursula campaign and I'm having a little trouble. After rolling up the basic stats, my friend says he wants to create an Vargr who is an officer in the Imperial Navy.

OK, chances are he's going to start with at the University on a 4 year program. Here's where it gets tricky. How do I determine his starting skill points? Does he take them from the Navy stats found in the Errata, or does he have to start under another class then switch to level 1 Navy after he graduates?

Also does his education count as his first term, or does his first term start when he graduates.... GAHHHHH! T20 is so bloody complex!!!

<The Fly> Heeeelllp Meeeee! HEEEELLLP MEEEEEEE!</The Fly>

Really there's no need to panic, Mark...
<take deep breaths, deep breaths>
from the department of the evil GM Rat bastiids of ISS URSULA

Have him use the navy Skill points (heck, he's goin navy right? Say his University is the space equiv of Annapolis, kkay?) There's 4 years , with a mandatory Term of 4 afterwards!

Liam Devlin/GMDaniel/
ISS URSULA,
Rat bastiid evil GM
Site manager.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Yes, the Academy would be term 1!

Rat bastiid evil GM #1,
ISS URSULA
Liam/Daniel/Mike Rourke
Site Manager

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
GAHHHHH! T20 is so bloody complex!!!

<The Fly> Heeeelllp Meeeee! HEEEELLLP MEEEEEEE!</The Fly>

Take it easy Mark, calmly now, count to 10, er better make it 20

Well, even though Liam has answered and it is his call for this case as "Rat bastiid evil GM #1" for the game mentioned I'll throw in a few more guidelines...

T20 character creation really isn't so complex, the important thing to remember is that "class" is distinct from "prior history".

So in the case of the young Vargr with dreams of an Imperial Navy career his best bet would be University and OTC. University is best treated as a special prior history. The way I work prior history is to make all the required rolls for success and experience for each "term" then total the xp and level up.

Eg. The Vargr successfully enters University, gets into OTC, and graduates with honors no less for a total 5,000xp. The character is 3rd level with class(es) to be determined and 2,000xp to carry over to the next prior history term. The carry over is any xp that are left after reaching the highest character level possible with the current xp total. In MTU the OTC will allow 1 level of Navy class as multiclass, or if the player is really keen on creating a Navy Brat they could take Navy as their initial class if they meet the requirements. This would be, like Liam said above, the equivalent of an Anapolis and a family Navy background. If they take Navy as the initial class they use that for the 4x skill award and other 1st level choices and may take some, all or none of the other 2 levels in Navy class. Any class(es) the character can qualify for multiclass in is fine.

The Vargr is now on his way to active service in the Navy prior history for at least one term, begining as an Ensign and skipping basic training. While in the Navy prior history the Vargr may gain experience in a wide variety of areas, remember just because the prior history term is Navy doesn't mean the player has to spend all the xp on Navy class levels. In fact a character could be created that went their whole career in Navy prior history and never picked up a single level of Navy class.

Clear as dark matter? Good

As for the "does his education count as his first term" question, that depends on what you mean. I don't think it counts for mustering out benefits, retirement or other class and/or prior history awards, the only thing it does count for is character age.

Hope that helped a bit.

 

[siefertma2]

OK, Let's see how I did. Seeing that' Tim's Vargr is going to be navy we figured he'd be getting 28 skill points to start with.

First Term: Academy: he graduates (3000 xp)and makes it through OTC (1000 xp) for a total of 4000 XP. This puts him at level 3 and he gets a new Feat. (We'll ingore his skill points and stamina increases.)

Second Term. With his shiny new rank of Ensign, Tim's 22-year-old character rolls a Patrol for his first asignment. He survives (4000 XP), is promoted to Lt. (1000 xp)and even gets an XP bonus (2000 xp). This brings his running total to 11,000 xp and puts him at level 5 were he earns an ability increase.

Third Term. By some twist of fate, Tim's Luitenant ends up on shore duty. He survives (4000 xp) and is promoted (1000 xp) and even manages a 3000 xp bouns for four years of paper jokeying. He now has a total of 19,000 xp, putting him at level 6 and receiving a new feat.

Fourth Term: Tim's Lt. Commander hits the big time: he rolls a Strike mission. He surives (4000) gets a promotion (1000) and even get a MCUF decoration for another 2000 xp. He's now up to 26,000 xp and is at level 7. No goodies for him at that point.

Soooo... At this point, Tim feels his character is ready for the game. His Vargr is now age 34 and is a Commander in his Emporer's navy with 26,000 xp and a level of 7. He got two new feats (besides the one at level one) and an ability increase.

Did we do this right? Or did I miss someting?

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
<snip>
Did we do this right? Or did I miss someting?

Looks like you covered it all from here, as far as you were willing to share (understandably not wanting erveyone to know the character's details). And it only gets easier the more you do

 

[siefertma2]

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
<snip>
Did we do this right? Or did I miss someting?

Looks like you covered it all from here, as far as you were willing to share (understandably not wanting erveyone to know the character's details). And it only gets easier the more you do

</font>[/QUOTE]It especially helps to have the THB errata. Also, weren't they going to come out with a "Players Guide" for folks who want the T20 experience without all the GM specific info?

 

[Liam Devlin]

Looks good. Thanks to Ensign Burrunsu/Dan"Far trader" Burns,! Tim's vargr officer "LCDR" oughta be near finished.
Mark-Remember to watch those feats- they can make or break ya depending what he wants to do with the PC..

As fer the THB errata, yep saves ya some time.
Last question: Dunno, ask the ancients round here..!

 

[Polaris]

Guys,

That brings up another interesting question:

If you wished to be a human character, is there any reason not to be Villani?

Unlike Sollies or Mixed Humans (and presumably Zhos), a Villani PC can start with 10 terms. True, your character would start out as being middle-aged, but that is actually not a big deal in T-20 (you lose one in Str, Dex, and Con....easily made up for in stat-gains by level while you gain one in Int, Edu, and Wis which helps you considerably in background generation).

A Villani Naval Officer can easily start the game with the Rank of Admiral (or at least Captain) as a fourteenth level character. That blows everyone else away except Aslan (who have other problems).

-Polaris

 

[far-trader]

Yes a good question, one of my D&D buds says the same thing about elves. As in why would anyone play anything but an elf because of all the goodies you get?

For me it comes down to role-playing choices, usually, I have my min-max moments like any other rpg'er

Actually I was thinking of this just the other night as an in game reason for Ensign Burrunsu's long recovery.* I think I made him Vilani or not too diluted at least. Could be Vilani take longer to heal and many modern meds that would speed healing may not work as well or even be hazardous, as in toxic. Part of the Ancients old tinkering to keep them from getting too bold perhaps? Seems a reasonable way to balance the long life span if you need to.

* the real life reason being a curse on me using anything PC/Windows related is keeping me from joining the fun yet. My Mac's, happily, treat me a little better

 

[Polaris]

Far-trader,

I hear you about elves in DnD....especially ADnD 2E. In that edition of DnD, if you weren't an Elf, you were missing a serious trick. In 3E, humans get more skill points and an extra feat....and elves have truely rotten Con which is more important in 3E...so elves are no longer the automatic "uber" choice.

Your thoughts about Vilani are interesting, but it really comes down to a fundamental problem with character generation:

The more terms you are allowed to have in background (based on lifetime), the higher level you can be when play begins.....and a Military Vilani with a full ten terms of service can quite easily be 13th level or even more.

I think it is fundamentally unfair for 13th level characters to adventure with 7th level characters (typical for a 7 Term Solamani) which is why I bring this up....and all the disadvantages you mention IMHO do not make up the 5-6 level difference.

-Polaris

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Far-trader,
The more terms you are allowed to have in background (based on lifetime), the higher level you can be when play begins.....and a Military Vilani with a full ten terms of service can quite easily be 13th level or even more.

But then, the slower you'll advance in levels, etc. It really comes down to "Are you Munchkin or Not". If you want to be 15th level just do it. Sure you're got lots of skills and feats, but You'll end up with a pretty much static character stats-wise. You'll only get up a single level while the others will go up two, three or even four if they're younger.

That being said, you still have the problem of Single Bullet Easy Kill, meaning you die just as easily in combat. Then, you have the Vilani Description: Most tend to stay at their place, being rather... boring in character. They don't really like big changes and are really nit-picking on details just because they *LIKE* keeping things their way.

For a good roleplayer, the level isn't important, it's how much fun you get by playing your character. They'll get as much fun by playing a brash young Barbarian Noble as by playing a Graying Old Navy dog.

I think it is fundamentally unfair for 13th level characters to adventure with 7th level characters (typical for a 7 Term Solamani) which is why I bring this up....and all the disadvantages you mention IMHO do not make up the 5-6 level difference.

This is quite true in DnD.

But in traveller, levels brings more knowledge (skills/feats). Players who like having heavily skilled character will be put out by having to wait an eternity compared to the others just to have a single Skill Point.

Also, just the fact that you DON'T go up in Lifeblood is enough to stop many munchkins. While in DnD your Fighter can go through platoons of orcs at level 15th, your 15th level Army Colonel won't make a move when being held at Gunpoints.

 

[Polaris]

Sandman,

Have you played d20?!

I can't believe that you have and you can attempt to tell me with a straight face that levels don't matter....because they do!

1. A higher level character has more stamina. True that is less of an advantage than in DnD, but it is still a very sizable advantage.

1.a. Higher level characters will also have better gear because of more (and better) muster rolls. That makes them better than lower level characters all over again.

2. I agree that Traveller is about skills and feats. A 14th level character will have much more skill points than a 7th level character. Even worse, he is going to be better at those skills because the 14th level character can buy up to 17 ranks in a skill vice 10 for the 7th level character....victimizing the lower level character all over again.

Even worse, the higher level character is going to have more feats.....with judicious MCing, he will have as many as twice as many feats. That ain't fair and that is the long and the short of it.

3. The higher level character is going to have (much) better saving throws. That does matter in Traveller no matter how you slice it.

4. Player Characters are exceptional. While it is true that most Villani are reactionary boobs, there is no reason why a Villani PC must be held to this. In fact, PCs (of Villani origin) would likely be less so....and that provides a good reason to adventure.

Finally, let's look at the myth of the high level characters being "stationary" in advancement.

A 7th level character needs 7000 XP to advance. A 14th level character needs 14000 XP to advance. That means it takes twice as long for the higher level character to advance. That is not standing still by any stretch of the imagination!! Why?

When the 14th level character becomes 15th, the 7th level character is still only 8th (although approaching 9th). So for the price of advancing in the remaining levels only half as fast (and that advantage will go down as both characters advance), the high level character gets 7 more stamina dice, 7 levels worth of skill points and feats, two more attribute gains, and 3-5(!!) more rolls on the muster table. That is such a high price (sic). Where do I sign up?

Even worse in a d20 system, the correct measure of how effective your character is, is total experience and the high level character will have a 30-50 thousand XP lead that never goes away.

Nah....this part of character creation is unfair and unfun....and there is no reason to play anything /but/ a Villani or Aslan in it just going by the mechanics. Sane GMs (like mine) force party members to stop (or enhance) their backgrounds so we all start within one level of each other....but that is not in the core T-20 ruleset.

-Polaris

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Sandman,

Have you played d20?!

Believe it or not, I've played some. not a lot, but some.

I have to say for my defence that we ostracize players who do munchkin characters or mess too much with the game's balance.

We get along to have fun while playing RPGs, we're not getting along to Ruleplay nor Rollplay, but to Roleplay.

Meaning that we *DO* have 5th level characters and 13th level characters in the group. As long as the player is comfortable with his character and has a rational for being xth level, we accept the player's choice. That *DOESN'T* mean we allow the player to multiclass "Just to get that feat", it has to actually fit his background and must be explained logically.

Even if the rules allow it, I won't let a player put together a character that is say, 14th level Marines/1st level Academic just for the fun of having "knowledge specialty" as a feat. If he can convince me and the other players with his background that it's "in character" then fine!

We've forsaken DnD a long time ago, and were used to playing MAGE games, where a single idea can be more powerfull than how much melee combat you had, just because the player had a *VERY* good one

Nah....this part of character creation is unfair and unfun....and there is no reason to play anything /but/ a Villani or Aslan in it just going by the mechanics. Sane GMs (like mine) force party members to stop (or enhance) their backgrounds so we all start within one level of each other....but that is not in the core T-20 ruleset.

That's Min-Maxing, and going down the Dark Path of Munchkining or PowerGaming.

A Powerfull Character doesn't mean an Interesting Character. At least Roleplaying-wise. I've seen many high-level character without any "meat" on them, only being a Collection of Statistics. those are usually short lived with our group. They usually drift away themselves because since they're less developped on the Background side, the GM doesn't spend a lot of time weaving stories around them and they grow less and less interesting for the other players to have around.

I agree that with groups that has too many Munchkins, you're screwed if you let them all be Vilani going to their 10 terms. But then, there is always a fix nearby. High Reflex save doesn't helps against Misjumps or having to battle in a lousy, crummy old ship. Since you're the GM you can always decide the maximum terms they could have: "7 terms max, even for Aslan or Vilani". It's your game, they're your players. If their fun is to munchkin around, munchkin around yourself.

So, in retrospect, for our group levels doesn't mean jack. For others, well it depends on the GM and the Players.

 

[Polaris]

Sandman,

At the risk of being ostracized myself, I am not going to be very polite.

I despise GMs that are stuck up, pretentious, egoistical, snobs who pretend that the entire solution to bad rules is "good roleplaying". Such people can be identified by labling anyone that points out a legitamate and serious balance problems in the ruleset as a "munchkin".

Such a person can also be identified by a refusal to deal with said problems and instead engages in ad hominem attacks against the person in question....and lables all those that disagree as "vile munchkins" which neither promotes good dialog nor solves the real and obvious mechanical issue.

Please note that to this point I have named no names...staying just inside the CoC. However, Sandman, I would not-so-respectfully suggest that if the above shoe fits, you should wear it.

'nuff said.

-Polaris

Edit: I would also add that a high percentage of the "Real RP Nazis" (which I described above) also tend to be WWGS gamers (but the reverse it not true....however IMHO WWGS promotes that very attitude). Again, the comment about shoes and fitting applies.

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Sandman,

At the risk of being ostracized myself, I am not going to be very polite.

At least you were wrong with that assumption I've found your reply very polite

Some have started flamewars for much less.

I despise GMs that are stuck up, pretentious, egoistical, snobs who pretend that the entire solution to bad rules is "good roleplaying". Such people can be identified by labling anyone that points out a legitamate and serious balance problems in the ruleset as a "munchkin".

Good Roleplaying isn't the solution to Bad Rules, it's just that in that particular case I don't find it a "Bad Rule". Pointing out balance problems doesn't mark oneself a Munchkin/PowerGamer. Using that balance problem to have the most powerfull character available just because you have to is. It's the Systematic Rule Loopholes Exploitation that is the hallmark of Munchkins. Having Good Roleplayer doesn't make the loophole go away, but it makes the problem much less present. Those who speaks of their characters in game terms and statistics will always makes such rule problems more apparent that those who speaks of their characters in terms of background, history and story.

I'm not saying one is wrong and the other's right, but that they both rarely go together for a long time.

If it's the group's style to be more rule-centric, then it's fine with me, it's their game after all. They have every right to have fun!

Such a person can also be identified by a refusal to deal with said problems and instead engages in ad hominem attacks against the person in question....and lables all those that disagree as "vile munchkins" which neither promotes good dialog nor solves the real and obvious mechanical issue.

Spotting broken rules is a Good Thing(TM), but that particular rule on handling different maximum Terms of Prior History is or isn't broken depending on your style of play. The possibility to have a very wide Character Level range in the player's group may or may not be a problem for a particular group. Even if we "Fix it up" so Vilanis are given less advantages, the other faction of players will then say that *THAT* rule is now broken.

IMHO, Every rules that makes the roleplaying experience drop in fun should be bent. What constitute fun is different for each group, so the rules that doesn't cut it for the groups are differents. I readily admit that with some other groups I've played with, I'd be quite annoyed with that loophole. I've known groups/GM that would bend every rules almost to the breaking points just to have the biggest PC/Villain possible. I've known GM that barely used any rules at all too. Different groups, group dinamics and rule problems.

Please note that to this point I have named no names...staying just inside the CoC. However, Sandman, I would not-so-respectfully suggest that if the above shoe fits, you should wear it.

For what it's worth, I've had my PowerGaming phase too

It comes around from time to time, but not for long. Now, I'd rather have a fun character than a Powerfull one. If I can get both it's great, but I won't take every little extra steps/calculations to have one. I'm not a number-cruncher. I've played GURPS and didn't like that the GM was fiddling with the characters to min-max points usage. I've played BubbleGum Crisis games where we had to desing our "Suits" using Mekton Zeta-Plus systems... could have tweaked it to death, but just didn't want to spend the time to. Ended the mecha generation when I had a suit I liked and found cool, not when I had the best.

Edit: I would also add that a high percentage of the "Real RP Nazis" (which I described above) also tend to be WWGS gamers (but the reverse it not true....however IMHO WWGS promotes that very attitude). Again, the comment about shoes and fitting applies.

WWGS? as in WhiteWolf Game System?

Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that after over 15 years of playing many games/genre, I've found that I prefer not bothering too closely with the rules. Since normally an RPG group is thinking a bit alike, our group doesn't like to be bogged down with every tiny bitsy rules. Normally that is (yeah, even for a pseudo-real-roleplaying group, we have our "Munchkin Element" that we have to keep in check else we'll get a Godly Character while the rest of the group is rather average or just above average).


I guess we could just Agree to Disagree on what's broken or not and call it even.

PS: I must congratulate you for an interesting discussion

I see that you're rather new here, so Welcome Aboard! There is always room for Citizens who can argue without resorting to Flamewars

 

[Polaris]

Sandman,

Well, thanks for the welcome anyway...and your response is a bit of a suprise....because I did let go with both rhetorical barrels.

The thing is that I am a physicist by training and an engineering consultant by trade. That means that it is my job to analyze systems and ferret out problems....and say so in no uncertain terms.

I will certainly agree with you on one issue: A good GM and a tolerant group can counter almost any bad rule. In fact that is what our group has done (the GM imposes a +/- one level delta unless the player really wants to play something else....under not over either). Having said that, I have played enough d20 games to know that in general having a wide level variation is a bad thing....a very bad thing just due to the structure of the system itself.

Does that mean it is equally bad for all groups? No. But it does mean that for your average or even mediocre group with an average to mediocre GM, it is a disaster waiting to happen IMHO. Good GMs can make even bad rules and bad systems sing....and bad GMs will make even the best system stink. The real test is for the novice and/or mediocre GM.

I think this issue (why be any human other than Villani) is serious enough for the designers to take another hard look at (in character creation). I stand by that.

FWIW, the core group playing T-20 is also the core group that I played Mage with for almost two years....so I am quite familiar with MageTA. Off-Topic Rant: I really dislike the Revised Version...all of us were strict 2E players of that system.

-Polaris

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Polaris:
Having said that, I have played enough d20 games to know that in general having a wide level variation is a bad thing....a very bad thing just due to the structure of the system itself.

D20 isn't so special, as this is a problem with every systems that uses levels or "terms" (Mechwarrior 3rd Ed uses "Terms" the more your do, the better you are, but the more your are susceptible to roll something nasty too)

Even with point based system, when it's badly designed you have abilities that are lousy and cost a lot, others that are awesom but cost nothing.

Does that mean it is equally bad for all groups? No. But it does mean that for your average or even mediocre group with an average to mediocre GM, it is a disaster waiting to happen IMHO. Good GMs can make even bad rules and bad systems sing....and bad GMs will make even the best system stink. The real test is for the novice and/or mediocre GM.

I think this issue (why be any human other than Villani) is serious enough for the designers to take another hard look at (in character creation). I stand by that.

I agree with you. It means problem with fledgling Roleplayers and GM that can't (or won't) control powergamers. I've read the racial terms limit after rolling up a few characters, so I didn't really thought it that broken. I think you could just use those racial terms limit for NPCs and keep the 7 terms limit for everyone else.

Simple fix to eliminate 10 terms characters.

As for the Vilani living longer, a few XP penalty (say 1000 or 2000) could make up for that. Explaining that as their reluctance to "learn something new" wouldn't break things too much either.

Off-Topic Rant: I really dislike the Revised Version...all of us were strict 2E players of that system.

Aye aye... Some things were more simples, others more complicated. We switched to Revised and didn't have that much trouble, except with the new combat system (multiple actions, leathal, etc)

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Polaris:

<SNIP>
Even worse in a d20 system, the correct measure of how effective your character is, is total experience and the high level character will have a 30-50 thousand XP lead that never goes away.

Nah....this part of character creation is unfair and unfun....and there is no reason to play anything /but/ a Villani or Aslan in it just going by the mechanics. Sane GMs (like mine) force party members to stop (or enhance) their backgrounds so we all start within one level of each other....but that is not in the core T-20 ruleset.

-Polaris

Polaris,

Let me start by saying that I have played a lot of d20, and a lot of other games too (most of the major ones from the last 20 years), and I think I understand where you're coming from.

Balancing the abilities of the PCs is a very popular game system idea, but it can also be one that leads to all sorts of weird roleplaying situations. Why should the PCs all be the same age and have the same experience? Why can't one be a 40 year expert in archaeology, and another a 10 year marine veteran?

Sure, if you want to play a game where the PCs are all similar in skills/focus (e.g. a squadron of pilots) then having similar experience levels will help avoid the 'hero syndrome', where one PC gets all the credit by being able to do everything. But how many Traveller campaigns are really like that? Very few (actually none) in my experience.

In fact, because of T20's emphasis on deadly combat, I find that the usual 'combat ability' measures used to compare characters in D&D and other d20 combat-heavy games to be irrelevant - more stamina? Great for you, one critical hit will still wipe your dial. Better BAB than anyone else? Great for you, can you survive an ambush longer than anyone else? T20's prior history is designed to penalise continued experience growth through increasing age (and more chances to fail survival rolls) - most of my players will pick an age they want to roleplay and continue developing the character until they get there. That might make them more 'experienced' than their fellow PCs, but that doesn't have to be bad.

Look, I've been a (software) systems analyst and I also like analysing systems for logical flaws (I hate accounting for this reason, too illogical because the rules have accreted to the point where they slow everything down). But you've got to start from a point where you understand what the system is trying to do before you can analyse it properly. One of the things T20 does quite well IMHO is to mimic the way Classic Traveller would let PCs have wildly varying backgrounds and experience - that was one of its aims.

If you want to criticise that, then you should address the key issue - should PCs' experience be balanced? Obviously T20 doesn't propose this, unlike supers games like Mutants & Masterminds where that is a core part of the genre. If you want to have this balance then you need to add it in as a house-rule, as you've noted.

In terms of novice players/GMs, I'd rather they play with a system like T20 as their first system than anything else. They will only have problems with it if they approach the game with powergaming in mind, which it does not encourage - after all there is little point in beating your breast and pointing to how powerful your PC is, when everyone knows it was because you decided to stay in the Navy for 4 more terms than anyone else ... they might still have problems, just because one PC is a 50 year old sector admiral whilst another is a 22 year old navy rating, and those sorts of characters might have little reason to stick together (or then again, might be related and have great reasons for being together!).

My suggestion is to try playing some T20 with wildly varying characters in a non-military situation and see how much fun it can be.

 

[Polaris]

Falkayn,

I strongly disagree with your assertion that balance is not important in traveller. While I will agree that the system attempted to recreate the feel of generating your character background from C-T, I also feel that that was one part of C-T that they probably should have kept buried in the gaming graveyard where it belongs.

I mean....really..... In CT, you could have characters die in character creation which meant there was no reason not to be as heroic as possible. After all, if your character died, then you started over.

In addition, in CT, you would easily have a Sector Admiral who was a Medical Doctor (Medical Branch) without any ranks in medicine! Also having played CT from very long ago, I distinctly remember that gross imbalances in skill and mustering made for some very bad games with a lot of rancor between players right from character creation which is not fun.

Finally, I note that in CT you paid a price if you wanted to take those 8th, 9th, and 10th level terms as a Vilani character. The aging rules pretty much assured that your character would be gutted by stat-loss before you entered play which is why nobody did it and no-so-coincidentally balanced out Vilani and Aslan characters. This is not true in T-20. In T-20, you pay the price once for your age and every character pays it if they wish to take their full terms (which of course they will).

I also want to point out that in my T-20 group (which is a fine group that I just got back from a short while ago), all of us are 12th level (see above house-rule) which means that in our "tag skills" all of us can expect to roll in the mid-thirties or so. In addition, all of us have about the same number of feats as well. This allows the GM to scale the encounters and NPCs to our abilities without making anyone feel useless or overpowered. That would not be true if one of us was 3rd level, one 7th, and the other 15th (which can happen).

In short, Falkayn, character balance matters and it matters a great deal. It isn't some passing fancy that some game designers liked. Instead it reflects an underlying principle in games in general (and 'G' in RPG stands for game): The rules should be fair for all players which means that all players should have the potential to build equally potent characters in their own specialties.

This is true for 99% of all game systems out there (even WW games!). The fact that T-20 doesn't hold itself to that standard should be a mark of shame in T-20 and be considered a flaw not the feature that you are attempting to make it.

-Polaris

Edit: One more difference I just remembered. In C-T, once you failed a reenlistment check or mustered out, you were done regardless of how many terms you served. In T-20, this is not true. You are free to MC and enter careers if you qualify which means that even if you don't make a reenlistment roll for say the Navy doesn't prevent you from taking your next several terms as Merc, Scout, or even Traveller. That makes it dead easy to get your maximum terms in and also not so conincidentally encourages multiclassing.