CT Chargen attempts thoughts

[Golan2072]

CT Chargen attempts and comments

It has been a while since I've last used the "vanilla" CT-LBB1 chargen system. In order to get a better idea of where to go in my next CharGen house-rules attempt, I've decided to roll 24 CT-LBB1 characters (four for each career) and see what this system produces and how it works. A secondary advantage, of course, would be me having 24 more NPCs (or potential pre-generated PCs) to mess around with.

All of these have been generated using CT-LBB1 "as-is", with a single optional rule (used in order to save me some time by not wasting time on KIA characters): failed survival rolls don't kill the character but rather force him to end the career. The last term is only 2 years long, though it is recorded as a full term for the sake of resume' tidiness; no mustering-out benefits are given for that term. I was also using only one house-rule, granting one skill roll for such half-terms (plus any automatic skill if the failure was in the first term of service).

I've also recorded the time it took me to generate these characters (with minor interruptions).

All characters, of course, are free for your taking

So, let's start with the characters.

1) 8D6868 Navy Sailor, 1 term, age 22, Cr500 (generation time 2:48 min)
Vacc-Suit-1

2) 8755B9 Navy Lieutenant, 1 term, age 22, Cr10,000 (generation time 3:43 min)
Ship's Boat-1, Engineering-1, Pilot-1

3) 854B8B Navy Lieutenant, 2 terms, age 26, Cr20,000, Blade, Traveller's (generation time 5:34 min)
Ship's Boat-1, Medical-2, Forward Obs-1, Mechanical-1, Blade-0

4) 73998A Navy Ensign, 2 terms, age 26, Cr5,000, Mid Psg, High Psg (generation time 4:25 min)
Forward Obs-1, Gunnery-1, Engineering-2

5) 774767 Marines Trooper, 1 term, age 20 (generation time 2:00 min)
Cutlass-1, Rifle-1

6) D4759C Marines Trooper, 1 term, age 22, Cr30,000 (generation time 2:36 min)
Cutlass-1, Ground Car-1

7) A489A3 Marines Trooper, 1 term, age 22, Cr5,000 (generation time 2:20 min)
Cutlass-2, Ground Car-1

8) CBA386 Marines Captain, 3 terms, age 30, Cr5,000 2xHigh Psg (generation time 4:10 min)
Cutlass-1, Rifle-2, Laser Rifle-2, Revolver-1, Admin-1

9) 878783 Army Major, 3 terms, age 28, Cr10,000, Low Psg, Mid Psg (generation time 8:28 min)
Rifle-3, SMG-1, Gambling-1, Forward Obs-2, Ground Car-1, Leader-1

10) 86766A Army Major, 2 terms, age 26, Cr5,000, Mid Psg, High Psg (generation time 5:28 min)
Rifle-3, SMG-1, Electronic-1, Air/Raft-1, Tactics-1

11) 346475 Army General, 5 terms, age 38, Cr50,000, Shotgun, Retirement pay Cr4,000/year (generation time 10:19 min)
Rifle-2, SMG-2, Gambling-2, Forward Obs-2, Sword-1, Ground Car-1, Tactics-1, Mechanical-1, Electronics-1, Shotgun-2

12) 845987 Army Captain, 1 term, age 22, Cr10,000 (generation time 4:18 min)
Rifle-1, SMG-1, Gambling-1, Brawling-1, Computer-1, Admin-1

13) 7C8BA4 Scout, 6 terms, age 40, Cr30,000 Scout Ship, Low Psg, Blade (generation time 7:50 min)
Pilot-1, J-o-T-2, Mechanical-2, Ground Car-2, Vacc Suit-1, Electronic-1, Blade-0

14) 6496BA Scout, 1 term, age 20 (generation time 1:24 min)
Pilot-1, J-o-T-1

15) 597477 Scout, 1 term, age 20 (generation time 1:26 min)
Pilot-1, Hovercraft-1

16) 789789 Scout, 1 term, age 20 (generation time 1:57 min)
Pilot-1, Mechanical-1

17) 4A7FBA Merchant 1st Officer, 7 terms, age 46, Cr7,000, Low Psg, Dagger, Retirement pay Cr8,000/year (generation time 7:33 min)
Vacc Suit-1, Mechanical-1, Admin-2, Navigation-2, J-o-T-1, Pilot-2, Medical-3, Dagger-1

18) 543BC9 Merchant 4th Officer, 2 terms, age 24, Cr20,000 (generation time 3:14 min)
Blade-1, Electronic-1, Admin-1, Steward-1

19) 674887 Merchant 4th Officer, 5 terms, age 38, Cr60,000, Blade, 2xLow Psg, Retirement pay Cr4,000/year (generation time 6:54 min)
Mechanical-1, Gunnery-1, Medical-2, Streetwise-1, Steward-1, Navigation-1, Blade-0

20) 595888 Merchant 4th Officer, 2 terms, age 26, Cr45,000 (generation time 4:21 min)
Steward-1, Ground Car-1, Navigation-1, Electronic-1

21) 445378 Other, 4 terms, age 34, Cr15,000, Shotgun (generation time 4:51 min)
Blade Combat-1, Shotgun-2, Streetwise-1, Ground Car-1

22) 475736 Other, 4 terms, age 34, Cr56,000, High Psg (generation time 4:57 min)
Pistol-2, Streetwise-1, Blade-1, Electronic-1

23) 76258B Other, 1 term, age 20 (generation time 1:26 min)
Bribery-1

24) 85649B Other, 1 term, age 20 (generation time: 1:26)
Gambling-1

Statistics:
- Average generation time 4:19 min.
- Average number of terms: 2.4.
- Average age: 26.9.
- Average number of skill points: 4.7.
- Average number of distinct skills: 3.8.
- Average number of ranks in a particular skill: 1.3.

The statistics without the failed-survival characters are:
- Average generation time 4:55 min.
- Average number of terms: 2.7.
- Average age: 28.9.
- Average number of skill points: 5.8.
- Average number of distinct skills: 4.5.
- Average number of ranks in a particular skill: 1.3 (just like the general statistic).

Notes and Thoughts:

1) If I hadn't used the optional Survival rule, 9 of these attempts (37.5%) would've been wasted.

2) High skills are, predictably, rare in CT; Skill-4 or more is extremely scarce. This is a good thing considering the fact that high modifiers break the 2d6 curve. This also means that, under CT-LBB1 assumptions, each skill rank represents quite a lot of learning: Skill-1 should be enough to hold a job, Skill-3 gives you a highly competent professional, and Skill-4 and more would be the rare expert.

3) 3.8 distinct skills in average seem a bit limited, but remember that CT-LBB1 has 27 skills in total (including Brawling the Gun Combat and Blade Combat cascade groups but not the cascade sub-skills themselves). This means that the average character has serious training in 14% of all available fields of expertise. Also, remember that CT skills are very broad rather than covering specific actions alone; combat skills are an exception to this and are over-detailed. The bottom line: CT works well with a small number of broad skills - this is how a character with 4 distinct skills could still be very useful game-wise. Anyone designing custom character generation systems should keep this in mind - having more skill point available might break the system (especially the 2d6 curve), though there should be a ratio of 1 average character skill per 7 available skills in total.

4) Almost all characters generated here are quite useful in game terms; the exceptions are only characters who've failed survival in the first term in careers without automatic skills, and even these could become perfectly useful with the addition of a few Skill-0's. Also, most CT-LBB1 skills are going to see serious and frequent use in the course of a typical adventure (so that all players get a similar share of the spotlight), with the exception of the poorly-defined Leader and tactics (and even those are used in the surprise rules, which are frequently used).

5) Be warned that the expanded character generation systems (LBBs 4-7) give a much higher number of skills and skill points; they also contain some narrow skills (such as recruiting) as opposed to LBB1's broad skills. On the other hand, they add more interesting character options and some crucial skills (survival, combat rifleman, prospecting, survey, recon and so on).

6) The best way to have a long career is to join the Merchants, but advancement is very slow in this career. The Army offers very fast advancement but retention times are short and you're very likely to find yourself unemployed at the age of 26-30. Of course, with all these skilled ex-Army ranking officers running around with nothing better to do, I'm not surprised that the OTU has so many mercs...

7) If you aren't hardy enough (END 9+), don't join the Scouts or you'll end up either in a hospital or in a grave. The Marines are also a risky place though must safer than the Scouts; the Navy is safe but retention is LOW.

8) Aging is painful in CT as it is in RL (or even more?). Go for more than 4 terms and you're likely to end up a weak, clumsy old man without much fitness.

9) CT-LBB1 cascades are problematic. The ATV skill is redundant (it is 100% equivalent to the Ground Car option in the Vehicle cascade) while one of the most important vehicle skills, Air/Raft (which controls all other grav vehicles as well) is not in the common Vehicle cascade and is quite rare. Also, the weapon skills are over-specialized, and for example a character could be proficient in Autopistol yet get the no-skill penalty when using a revolver.

 

[BlackBat242]

Actually, if you consider ATV as "off-road wheeled vehicle" skill, then there is a significant difference from the normal "on-road wheeled vehicle" skill.

Anyone who has done both can testify to that.

 

[Supplement Four]

9) CT-LBB1 cascades are problematic. The ATV skill is redundant (it is 100% equivalent to the Ground Car option in the Vehicle cascade) while one of the most important vehicle skills, Air/Raft (which controls all other grav vehicles as well) is not in the common Vehicle cascade and is quite rare. Also, the weapon skills are over-specialized, and for example a character could be proficient in Autopistol yet get the no-skill penalty when using a revolver.

Omer,

Some of your thoughts here are actually answered in CT...just later on in the LBB's.

I don't have my stuff in front of me, or I'd give you specific references. But, later on, ATV skill is said to be used, at the same level, as Wheeled Vehicle or Tracked Vehicle. So, ATV includes both.

The Air/Raft, although not popping up in the skills lists that often, as you cite, can be used in place of the Grav Vehicle skill (which includes grav belts too).

And, the no skill penalty is not applied to any of the weapons in LBB 1-3. Characters from careers* in LBB 1-3 are proficient in all weapons listed in LBB 1-3 (I think the archaic weapons are excluded, but I'd have to check on that) at a level-0.

So, your person with AutoPistol-2 would use Revolver at Skill-0. There is no penalty.

On top of this, GMs are encouraged to make logical choices with respect to skills, and although not specifically specified in the CT rules, it is encouraged that GMs say, "Oh, you've got an AutoPistol-2 skill? Well, then, you can use any pistol then at one level lower."



*Note that this rule does not apply to careers from Supp 4. Characters from some of those careers do suffer the non-skill penalty. It's the characters from careers in LBB 1 that don't.

 

[PFVA63]

Interesting Stuff

Hi,

Thanks for posting that stuff, its really interesting. Although I haven't messed around with Traveller for years one of the big issues I always had was since I kept trying for alot of skills (or more importantly alot of mustering out benefits) I often ended up with long-term aging Merchant characters in their mid-40's.

It also kind of confused me how different characters generated with Books 4 to 7 differed from those generated with Books 1 to 3.

With respect to skills like ATV and Ground car, I too can see some differences. Similarly, I would suspect that although there may be alot of similarities between using an auto-pistol and a revolver, I would suspect that there may be some subtle differences in use and perhaps more noticeable differences in maintaining them in working order (though having never really used a hand gun before, I'm really just guessing).

Anyway, I guess it depends alot on how the game referee chooses to handle things.

Regards

PF

 

[Supplement Four]

Although I haven't messed around with Traveller for years one of the big issues I always had was since I kept trying for alot of skills (or more importantly alot of mustering out benefits) I often ended up with long-term aging Merchant characters in their mid-40's.

Heck, I think we all did that when we first played Traveller.

It's extremely important, though, to enforce the survival rule in CT. And, the optional survival rule is fine (where your character doesn't "die" but is forced by some circumstance to leave character generation and begin the game).

Now, sometimes this means you've got a character with two skills, both at level one. but, in this game, those characters are extremely playable. Many skills, a character has them at skill-0 anyway (meaning no penalty but no bonus either), as in the weapons from LBB 1-3, which I mention above.

If you allow players to ignore the survival rule, it leads to a broken game because of the 2D6 dice mechanic. A +2 on a 2D6 roll is a pretty signifcant bonus. Ignoring the survival rule means characters will more than likely have some skills at a very high level (which may not seem high to our jaded eyes...but AutoPistol-4 is HUGE in this game), and they will succeed each and every time they roll the dice. Enforcing the survival rule means keeping the game balanced.

I think that we get jaded by other games where a character has tons of skills and skill increases come almost every game session that we forget (or never learned) how to play "The Traveller Way."

 

[Golan2072]

Actually, if you consider ATV as "off-road wheeled vehicle" skill, then there is a significant difference from the normal "on-road wheeled vehicle" skill.

Anyone who has done both can testify to that.

The thing is that the rules state that "ground car" and "ATV" are interchangeable skills.

 

[Golan2072]

I don't have my stuff in front of me, or I'd give you specific references. But, later on, ATV skill is said to be used, at the same level, as Wheeled Vehicle or Tracked Vehicle. So, ATV includes both.

LBB1 does not make a distinction between wheeled and tracked vehicle skills; it also states that the ATV and Vehicle (Ground Car) are interchangeable.

The Air/Raft, although not popping up in the skills lists that often, as you cite, can be used in place of the Grav Vehicle skill (which includes grav belts too).

The thing here is that the Vehicle skill lists "Grav Belt" rather than "Grav Vehicle". Ofcourse, it is very easy to house-rule otherwise.

And, the no skill penalty is not applied to any of the weapons in LBB 1-3. Characters from careers* in LBB 1-3 are proficient in all weapons listed in LBB 1-3 (I think the archaic weapons are excluded, but I'd have to check on that) at a level-0.

The problem here is: why is the "no skill" penalty in the LBB1 combat system when all LBB1-generated characters are skilled in all LBB1 weapons (archaic polearms included!)? Furthermore, a Merchant should have far less weapon Skill-0's than a soldier (unless he doubles as a Pyrate, that is, Arrrr!).

On top of this, GMs are encouraged to make logical choices with respect to skills, and although not specifically specified in the CT rules, it is encouraged that GMs say, "Oh, you've got an AutoPistol-2 skill? Well, then, you can use any pistol then at one level lower.

Yet another way to mitigate the problems arising from too few skills. CT characters are rarely useless if this option and the Skill-0's are used liberally.

 

[Golan2072]

It also kind of confused me how different characters generated with Books 4 to 7 differed from those generated with Books 1 to 3.

LBBs 4-7 use an expanded system, making some of the throws once per year rather than once per 4 years; they also add new skills, Enlisted ranks, decorations, ranks above Rank 6, and branches-of-service. The bottom line is that a lucky LBBs 4-7 character might end up with far, far more skills than his LBB1 counterpart.

And LBBs 4-7 take far more time to generate a character in comparison to LBB1.

But I'm speaking from memory here; I'll generate 12 Soldiers (LBB4) soon to have some hard data to think about

 

[Supplement Four]

LBB1 does not make a distinction between wheeled and tracked vehicle skills; it also states that the ATV and Vehicle (Ground Car) are interchangeable.

Sure, it's redundant. Many skills in CT are redundant. Take the Vacc Suit skill. If you've got Vacc Suit then you can also operate BattleDress in a limited way (no weapons).

I actually think that makes a lot of sense in CT. Many skills overlap. If you get the AutoPistol skill, then that skill is only for autopistols. If you get the Pistol skill, that skill is for autopistols and revolvers but not snubs. If you get the Handgun skill, that skill includes all three.

I think this is a brilliant way of handling skills in CT. No only do the game designers show you, "Yeah, skills are flexible and they overlap." But, they give you examples of how to expand and make new skills on your own.

Also, don't forget, that LBB1-3 focused on (1) adventurers and (2) just those six careers from LBB 1. So, when you see the "ATV" skill, they're figuring that skill is more useful to an adventuring character than a Ground Car would be. And, they go so far to say that, if a character has ATV, then he can drive a ground car as well.

Makes sense to me.

The thing here is that the Vehicle skill lists "Grav Belt" rather than "Grav Vehicle". Ofcourse, it is very easy to house-rule otherwise.

Don't forget I'm also including rules from LBB 4+. In a later book, "Grav Vehicle" does include "Grav Belt".

The problem here is: why is the "no skill" penalty in the LBB1 combat system when all LBB1-generated characters are skilled in all LBB1 weapons (archaic polearms included!)? Furthermore, a Merchant should have far less weapon Skill-0's than a soldier (unless he doubles as a Pyrate, that is, Arrrr!).

It's not a problem in my view. That rule applies to characters that have been in the Army, Navy, Scouts, Merchants, Marines, or Other careers only.

What that rule is saying is that, "Characters from these types of backgrounds will have a working knowledge of how to use normal weapons...and thus will not get the penalty."

Compare this to Doctors in Sup 4. If those characters don't have a skill, then they do suffer the penalty.

LBB 1-3 only focus on those 6 careers.

And, we're talking about Skill-0. So, it does makes sense to me that Merchants will have a passing familiarity with even the polearms because they travel to a lot of distant, low tech planets (more low tech than high tech), and they've been in a lot of bar fights.

I see your point. Merchants aren't a military force. But, at the same time, they are Travellers. The fact that you travel from one world to another frequently...in fact, mostly...means that you're probably able to pick up a club, or a spear, or a dagger, or a revolver and use the weapon with the comfort that you know the basics of using that weapon (Skill-0).

Yet another way to mitigate the problems arising from too few skills. CT characters are rarely useless if this option and the Skill-0's are used liberally.

Completely disagree with this. All over CT, GMs are encouraged to use the game rules as a model and make up their own rules. There's a section in LBB 1-3 that talks about this. Remember, there is no task system--the ref is called to adjucated each and ever throw a character makes. There's a section in LBB 1-3 on designing new skills.

So, if one has a skill in Communications, and the microwave oven breaks down in the ship's mess, the GM has a call to make. The character with the Electronics skill is not aboard, and the character with the Communications skill wants to give the microwave oven a go, citing that if he can fix the insides of the ship's comm, then he should have a decent chance at fixing the microwave oven.

Skill over lap. CT makes the skills flexible enough (and CT give the GM enough power without hamstringing him with tons of rules) for the GM to make this call.

In that situation, as GM, I'd let the Comm officer make the roll without penalty.

I could also see a GM who insisted on the Comm skill being reduced by one level, to a minimum of skill-0, when making the roll.

The point is, CT encourages this.

What would you do in this situation? Certainly not say the Comm officer can't even attempt to fix the microwave, right? Because he doesn't have Electronics skill?

 

[Supplement Four]

CT is about big, broad skill definitions. And, when you have big, broad skills, they tend to overlap.

But, isn't this how real life is as well?

If my character is the ship's engineer, with Engineering-2, and the ship gets hit in combat to where the gravitics are out, the lights are out, and there's a big whole in the compartment from where the laser blast hit.

Shouldn't the engineer be able to make a roll to bring the gravitics back on?

Shouldn't the engineer be able to do damage control and get the light back on?

Shoudn't the enginner be able to make a roll to patch the compartment?

"Yes" is the answer to each of these three questions.

Now, let's say the enginner has two crewers to help him. One has Electronics-2 and one has Mechanical-1.

A good engineer will set the electronics character off to fix the lights, while the mechanical character will go off to patch the hole, leaving the engineer to fix the ship's gravitics.

See the overlap? The Engineering skill is used for all three situations, whereas the Mechanical and Electronics skill are used or some of the same things.

Certainly, a character with Electronics skill will have a hard time patching the hole. But, I'd certainly give the electronics character a roll, with a negative, to be able to fix the gravitics.

What if the gravitics issue is not hard-wire related, but software related? What if it can be fixed just by sitting at the engineering terminal?

Certainly, the Engineer with just his engineering skill should be able to attempt to fix the problem...and this implies that the Engineering skill has some Computer-skill overlap.

And, the character with Computer skill could probably attempt to fix the Gravitics if it were a software probelm too...the computer skilled character would certainly know how to operate the computer...what he lacks is the know-how of the gravitics system (which is why the Engineer should do it).



My point here is simple: Skills in CT are broadbased and open to GM interpretation. As a GM, don't look to narrowly on their uses. And, if you have broad based skills you're going to have overlap. Different skills can be used for tasks that are not immediately apparent.

And, this is how CT should be.

This is what makes a CT character, with only two level-1 skills coming out of a failed survival roll in CT playable.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, Golan, this discussion certainly makes me want to go back and cut down my skill list some. 'Cause you and WJP make such good arguments, and I love CT so much. My only problem is with the limited distribution of skills - it's impossible to be really good at more than one thing, even though I know lots of folks who are "experts" in two spots.

And, of course, once you start wanting more skills, where do you draw the line?

So, it does makes sense to me that Merchants will have a passing familiarity ... because ... they've been in a lot of bar fights.

Now, my Merchant engineer resents the implications here. She has never been in a bar fight in her life. She might have caused a couple to start, but she's never been actually involved in one.

And, as to the 1-term, 2-skill level PC being playable? Sorta. If, however, you have 10 characters (all LBB1), and almost all of them are retirees, that 1-termer is gonna be a bit outclassed. His 2 skill levels aren't going to mean much unless they are skills that nobody else has - and with 10 LBB1 PCs, that's not likely. o:

 

[chrisr]

I think you also need to consider the maximum skill rule, INT+EDUC.
Character 11, the army general, isn't the brightest with an INT of 4 and has almost certainly forgotten many of those skills.

This is the 'advantage' available to those 1 termers. They have the flexibility to learn the skills they want, rather than those 'forced' upon them during service. The universe is their oyster!!!

 

[Supplement Four]

And, as to the 1-term, 2-skill level PC being playable? Sorta. If, however, you have 10 characters (all LBB1), and almost all of them are retirees, that 1-termer is gonna be a bit outclassed. His 2 skill levels aren't going to mean much unless they are skills that nobody else has - and with 10 LBB1 PCs, that's not likely. o:

But...are those 10 characters created with the survival (or the optional survival) rule enforced? Are they created with the Max Skill level rule enforced?

If so, you probably won't have 10 characters with butt loads of skills. If you follow the CT chargen rules, as written, it's tough to consistently spit out characters with many skills.

Which makes seeing that character with Skill-4 really somethin' ta see!

And, the character, who failed his first survival role, and ended up with two skills...is not a power house of a character by no means.

But, yes, he's playable.

It's because of the way the throws are made in CT. Each skill sometimes has some direction on how to use it in a throw. But, I suggest reading the section in the Traveller Adventure about GMs governing task throws.

That's great reading. And, in practice, a character like this:

457866
AutoPistol-1, Vacc Suit-1

Is more than playable.

He can't do things he's not trained to do very well (like pilot a startship or fix the jump drive). But, he can do many, many things...because skills under the CT task system are not required for evey type of roll. That decision is up to the GM, of course.

I spoke of being jaded above. We get jaded by other games where there is a skill for everything...and having at least a minimal level of skill is a requirement to make a task roll.

No so in Classic Traveller.

The character above can easily make a roll for first aid even though he's not skilled with the Medical skill.

He might be able to fix the busted radio, throwing at maybe a -2 DM, even though he has no skill in Communications or Electronics.

CT GMs will start looking at a character's stats if no skill applies (and because CT is a skill-lite game, many situations arise where the character has no skill).

Most times, in CT, no skill means "no bonus" on a throw, but the throw can still be made. Not all the time, but most times (it's up to the GM).

So, when a CT character is created, and he looks like this:

749554
Electronics-1, ATV-1, Navigation-1

This guy is a very, very playable character. He's pretty good at things electronic. He can drive. And, his profession is probably that of a navigator on a ship.

There's so much implied about this guy, though...

Navigation skill means he's fairly familiar with computers. At least from the aspect of starship navigation.

Navigation skill means he knows something about sensors, too. So, this skill should be used at no penalty when any type of sensor operation is needed.

Electronics leads him into a wide variety of skill rolls...because so many things are electronic. He might have a shot at fixing the ship's busted gravitics. He might be able to fix a busted comm. He might be able to repair the electrical mechanisms of a laser rifle. He might be used to make sure the electronic lock on a hatch keeps it sealed in place...

And, if this guy is from one of the careers in LBB 1, then he's got skill in every weapon from LBB 1-3 at skill level 0. So, he has no penalty when using a dagger or an autopistol or even a shotgun.

On top of this, the CT GM is encouraged to award zero level skills to characters when appropriate. If this character's homeworld is a space station, then the GM may see fit to award the character with Vacc Suit-0.



I could go on, but I think you see the point.

The character above has middle-of-the-road stats and only three skills.

But, he's HUGELY playable in a Traveller game.

And, he'll be in awe when he meets an engineer on another vessel with Electronics-3.

And...rightly so. (Just think of the HUGE bonus a +3 DM is on a 2D6 throw...)

 

[Golan2072]

I think you also need to consider the maximum skill rule, INT+EDUC.
Character 11, the army general, isn't the brightest with an INT of 4 and has almost certainly forgotten many of those skills.

This is the 'advantage' available to those 1 termers. They have the flexibility to learn the skills they want, rather than those 'forced' upon them during service. The universe is their oyster!!!

This is a very late rule, first seen in LBB7 I think, and way out of vanilla CT, so I didn't use it in my examples, which are supposed to be a test of LBB1. A reasonable rule, nonetheless.

 

[aramis]

I use the Edu limit, with failed survival=short term, in both CT and MT. In MT, it is even the standard rules!

 

[Jame]

I tend not to use the INT+EDU rule, precisely because of Character 11.

I also tend to do per-year rolling, with rolling for officer promotion once every four years (if you don't get it immediately, you can roll every year until you get it) and disallow characters with stats under 4 (5 in the case of EDU).

 

[Supplement Four]

This is a very late rule, first seen in LBB7 I think, and way out of vanilla CT, so I didn't use it in my examples, which are supposed to be a test of LBB1. A reasonable rule, nonetheless.

Um...it's in The Traveller Book, pg. 29.

It's also a very necessary rule enacted for game balance (another "limiter" that keeps the 2D6 scale viable).

Don't forget the max terms rule, too. Even if a character is super, super lucky, and makes all those survival throws, there's a max to the number of terms he can spend (7 terms, I think).

But...

Also consider pg 23 of LBB1, under Default skills. It is there that a GM is encouraged to hand out level-0 skills to characters when appropriate, giving a CT character a broader number of skills to rely on.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, WJP, The Traveller Book is very late - compared to LBB1-3.

Also, the 10 old farts are all generated by different players, and they may have thrown out characters who didn't become old farts....

I'll read the rest of your post later, and get back to this. (I gotta go to work.)

 

[far-trader]

...All characters, of course, are free for your taking

Thanks And the notes are helpful, especially the gen time, never thought to do that 8)

Late to this party but some comments...

Notes and Thoughts:

1) If I hadn't used the optional Survival rule, 9 of these attempts (37.5%) would've been wasted.

Except that had you not been using the optional survival rule how many of those attempts would have never reached the failed survival for the "chicken factor" and voluntary muster out?

And presumably you simply rolled the careers in order for the characters as generated, rather than choosing appropriate careers based on suitability towards survival, another thing most players (and characters) would do if the result of failed survival were death of the character.

So, while your 37.5% is interesting, it's not the probable percentage of dead characters. And I wouldn't call them wasted even if generated without the optional rule. They'd still serve as pre-gen npcs fine.

2) High skills are, predictably, rare in CT; Skill-4 or more is extremely scarce. This is a good thing considering the fact that high modifiers break the 2d6 curve. This also means that, under CT-LBB1 assumptions, each skill rank represents quite a lot of learning: Skill-1 should be enough to hold a job, Skill-3 gives you a highly competent professional, and Skill-4 and more would be the rare expert.

Quite right, which changed significantly later though with enhanced char gen. The two do not play nice together. Ah, you do address that below, good But also note that skill-1 in different skills applies in different ways in CT-LBB1 so there is no direct correlation in every case.

3) 3.8 distinct skills in average seem a bit limited, but remember that CT-LBB1 has 27 skills in total (including Brawling the Gun Combat and Blade Combat cascade groups but not the cascade sub-skills themselves). This means that the average character has serious training in 14% of all available fields of expertise. Also, remember that CT skills are very broad rather than covering specific actions alone; combat skills are an exception to this and are over-detailed. The bottom line: CT works well with a small number of broad skills - this is how a character with 4 distinct skills could still be very useful game-wise. Anyone designing custom character generation systems should keep this in mind - having more skill point available might break the system (especially the 2d6 curve), though there should be a ratio of 1 average character skill per 7 available skills in total.

Excellently put and reasoned.

8) Aging is painful in CT as it is in RL (or even more?). Go for more than 4 terms and you're likely to end up a weak, clumsy old man without much fitness.

I usually note this as the Indy Maxim, "[SIZE=-1]Its not the years, its the mileage." That is, the characters aren't showing aging damage (despite the title of the table) but damage from exposure to the hazards of working in dangerous careers.[/SIZE]

9)...the weapon skills are over-specialized, and for example a character could be proficient in Autopistol yet get the no-skill penalty when using a revolver.

Nope, pretty sure the standard rule is all player characters are granted zero level skill in all LBB1 weapon skills specifically to avoid the non-skilled penalty. Not that I've ever really agreed with this rule myself EDIT: Ah, and already addressed in the first reply.

 

[far-trader]

...the 10 old farts are all generated by different players, and they may have thrown out characters who didn't become old farts....

Now I have to finish reading through the posts and see if this is what I think it is And I have to hit the road in an hour