RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Don't forget, at TL-15, there are going to be *plenty* of technological means of enhancing/adding skills. Book 2 even mentions that such exist, and can be added to any campaign.
Experience/skill advancement in old school Traveller
- Thread starter icewall
- Start date
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Don't forget, at TL-15, there are going to be *plenty* of technological means of enhancing/adding skills. Book 2 even mentions that such exist, and can be added to any campaign.
I distribute experience points just like in most other roleplaying games. Usually one, two or three points per adventure.
Raising a skill to Level-0 (getting basic understanding) costs 2 points.
Raising a skill from Level-0 to Level-1 costs 1 point.
Raising it from Level-1 to Level-2 costs 2 points.
And so on...
Advancement may seem too quick and a little bit powergamerish, but who cares...
Raising a skill to Level-0 (getting basic understanding) costs 2 points.
Raising a skill from Level-0 to Level-1 costs 1 point.
Raising it from Level-1 to Level-2 costs 2 points.
And so on...
Advancement may seem too quick and a little bit powergamerish, but who cares...
I distribute experience points just like in most other roleplaying games. Usually one, two or three points per adventure.
Raising a skill to Level-0 (getting basic understanding) costs 2 points.
Raising a skill from Level-0 to Level-1 costs 1 point.
Raising it from Level-1 to Level-2 costs 2 points.
And so on...
Advancement may seem too quick and a little bit powergamerish, but who cares...
Raising a skill to Level-0 (getting basic understanding) costs 2 points.
Raising a skill from Level-0 to Level-1 costs 1 point.
Raising it from Level-1 to Level-2 costs 2 points.
And so on...
Advancement may seem too quick and a little bit powergamerish, but who cares...
Thanks for the comments guys. Nice catch rain, how did I ever miss that character advancement was in Starships: Book 2. 
Anyways, now I understand why people were so ready to abuse the instruction skill. Those rules are pretty spartan.
It isn't really that I have a problem with character advancement being slow, I just think it sets a bad precedent for advancement to focus so much on money and off duty time. The reason I don't really like it is that there ends up being no real reason to adventure if cash and time are in abundance. Characters sit around "training" and making "dedication" rolls in outside pursuits. Unless your going to run out of money, there's no real reason to go adventuring. When adventures are afoot, the focus becomes "shoot your way in as fast as you can and get the money." High tech solutions end up being an even worse cop out, as they usually end up being some formula of "spend X credits and Y amount of time at the 'total recall' facility and get your +stats or skills; lather rise repeat.
I would much rather the characters felt motivated to use their skills, whether that is simply putting themselves in situations where the skills are going to be used or finding creative uses for their existing skills. Get more skill rolls in - get more experience and thus more proficiency.
I think the rules as written really tends to screw characters who get denied early for reenlistment in the proir services also. Take for example a guy that has a few bad rolls and gets drafted in the Army. No commission, 2 measly skills and an unlikely chance to reenlist. Still just a kid at 22, but he is expected to survive off virtually no cash, 2 skills and no chance for self improvement in game. I understand that part of the fun of Traveller is making characters that are random so as not to be cookie cutter, but I don't want to have to make a career out of rolling up characters to get a playable one.
That's sorta my rationale for Traveller needing an on the fly experience system, like my tickmark one above.
BTW, excellent suggestion robject. I think scaling the tickmarks is a potentially a good idea.
Anyways thanks for the suggestions guys.
Anyways, now I understand why people were so ready to abuse the instruction skill. Those rules are pretty spartan.
It isn't really that I have a problem with character advancement being slow, I just think it sets a bad precedent for advancement to focus so much on money and off duty time. The reason I don't really like it is that there ends up being no real reason to adventure if cash and time are in abundance. Characters sit around "training" and making "dedication" rolls in outside pursuits. Unless your going to run out of money, there's no real reason to go adventuring. When adventures are afoot, the focus becomes "shoot your way in as fast as you can and get the money." High tech solutions end up being an even worse cop out, as they usually end up being some formula of "spend X credits and Y amount of time at the 'total recall' facility and get your +stats or skills; lather rise repeat.
I would much rather the characters felt motivated to use their skills, whether that is simply putting themselves in situations where the skills are going to be used or finding creative uses for their existing skills. Get more skill rolls in - get more experience and thus more proficiency.
I think the rules as written really tends to screw characters who get denied early for reenlistment in the proir services also. Take for example a guy that has a few bad rolls and gets drafted in the Army. No commission, 2 measly skills and an unlikely chance to reenlist. Still just a kid at 22, but he is expected to survive off virtually no cash, 2 skills and no chance for self improvement in game. I understand that part of the fun of Traveller is making characters that are random so as not to be cookie cutter, but I don't want to have to make a career out of rolling up characters to get a playable one.
That's sorta my rationale for Traveller needing an on the fly experience system, like my tickmark one above.
BTW, excellent suggestion robject. I think scaling the tickmarks is a potentially a good idea.
Anyways thanks for the suggestions guys.
Thanks for the comments guys. Nice catch rain, how did I ever miss that character advancement was in Starships: Book 2.
Anyways, now I understand why people were so ready to abuse the instruction skill. Those rules are pretty spartan.
It isn't really that I have a problem with character advancement being slow, I just think it sets a bad precedent for advancement to focus so much on money and off duty time. The reason I don't really like it is that there ends up being no real reason to adventure if cash and time are in abundance. Characters sit around "training" and making "dedication" rolls in outside pursuits. Unless your going to run out of money, there's no real reason to go adventuring. When adventures are afoot, the focus becomes "shoot your way in as fast as you can and get the money." High tech solutions end up being an even worse cop out, as they usually end up being some formula of "spend X credits and Y amount of time at the 'total recall' facility and get your +stats or skills; lather rise repeat.
I would much rather the characters felt motivated to use their skills, whether that is simply putting themselves in situations where the skills are going to be used or finding creative uses for their existing skills. Get more skill rolls in - get more experience and thus more proficiency.
I think the rules as written really tends to screw characters who get denied early for reenlistment in the proir services also. Take for example a guy that has a few bad rolls and gets drafted in the Army. No commission, 2 measly skills and an unlikely chance to reenlist. Still just a kid at 22, but he is expected to survive off virtually no cash, 2 skills and no chance for self improvement in game. I understand that part of the fun of Traveller is making characters that are random so as not to be cookie cutter, but I don't want to have to make a career out of rolling up characters to get a playable one.
That's sorta my rationale for Traveller needing an on the fly experience system, like my tickmark one above.
BTW, excellent suggestion robject. I think scaling the tickmarks is a potentially a good idea.
Anyways thanks for the suggestions guys.
Anyways, now I understand why people were so ready to abuse the instruction skill. Those rules are pretty spartan.
It isn't really that I have a problem with character advancement being slow, I just think it sets a bad precedent for advancement to focus so much on money and off duty time. The reason I don't really like it is that there ends up being no real reason to adventure if cash and time are in abundance. Characters sit around "training" and making "dedication" rolls in outside pursuits. Unless your going to run out of money, there's no real reason to go adventuring. When adventures are afoot, the focus becomes "shoot your way in as fast as you can and get the money." High tech solutions end up being an even worse cop out, as they usually end up being some formula of "spend X credits and Y amount of time at the 'total recall' facility and get your +stats or skills; lather rise repeat.
I would much rather the characters felt motivated to use their skills, whether that is simply putting themselves in situations where the skills are going to be used or finding creative uses for their existing skills. Get more skill rolls in - get more experience and thus more proficiency.
I think the rules as written really tends to screw characters who get denied early for reenlistment in the proir services also. Take for example a guy that has a few bad rolls and gets drafted in the Army. No commission, 2 measly skills and an unlikely chance to reenlist. Still just a kid at 22, but he is expected to survive off virtually no cash, 2 skills and no chance for self improvement in game. I understand that part of the fun of Traveller is making characters that are random so as not to be cookie cutter, but I don't want to have to make a career out of rolling up characters to get a playable one.
That's sorta my rationale for Traveller needing an on the fly experience system, like my tickmark one above.
BTW, excellent suggestion robject. I think scaling the tickmarks is a potentially a good idea.
Anyways thanks for the suggestions guys.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Well, I hardly ever rolled Army characters. Mostly it was Marine, Navy, and Scouts, Book 7 came along only much, much later, after I had stopped playing much. Using Books 4-6 meant even a one term character didn't turn out too badly.
I remember a Dragon article from way back that gave an enhanced Pirate/Rogue class.
Somewhere, also Dragon, I think, though I can't remember for sure, I saw an article about enhanced ruled for Nobles, too.
I remember a Dragon article from way back that gave an enhanced Pirate/Rogue class.
Somewhere, also Dragon, I think, though I can't remember for sure, I saw an article about enhanced ruled for Nobles, too.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Well, I hardly ever rolled Army characters. Mostly it was Marine, Navy, and Scouts, Book 7 came along only much, much later, after I had stopped playing much. Using Books 4-6 meant even a one term character didn't turn out too badly.
I remember a Dragon article from way back that gave an enhanced Pirate/Rogue class.
Somewhere, also Dragon, I think, though I can't remember for sure, I saw an article about enhanced ruled for Nobles, too.
I remember a Dragon article from way back that gave an enhanced Pirate/Rogue class.
Somewhere, also Dragon, I think, though I can't remember for sure, I saw an article about enhanced ruled for Nobles, too.
Spiderfish
SOC-12
I never liked playing Army either. You tended to kick booted out after one term.
A Marine got a better chance of hanging around till 34 and getting a good range of skills.
A Marine got a better chance of hanging around till 34 and getting a good range of skills.
Spiderfish
SOC-12
I never liked playing Army either. You tended to kick booted out after one term.
A Marine got a better chance of hanging around till 34 and getting a good range of skills.
A Marine got a better chance of hanging around till 34 and getting a good range of skills.
Glen Allen Mcinnes
SOC-12
Book 4 Mercenarys has a training systom as part of the "instruction" skill and repeated in the "Recruiting" section under training the recruit, this option would encrouge a more dervice set of career backgrounds as players scramble to get intersting and usefull skills to "trade" in game play insted of just a croud of combat wombats and their are lots of adventure hooks to be had with characters looking for somewhere quite to go about some weapon & survival training or leting a ground pounder take the stick wile lerning to fly the ship.
an other option is to use the advancement rules from MegaTraveller as it covers training, formal education and practicle experance.
an other option is to use the advancement rules from MegaTraveller as it covers training, formal education and practicle experance.
Glen Allen Mcinnes
SOC-12
Book 4 Mercenarys has a training systom as part of the "instruction" skill and repeated in the "Recruiting" section under training the recruit, this option would encrouge a more dervice set of career backgrounds as players scramble to get intersting and usefull skills to "trade" in game play insted of just a croud of combat wombats and their are lots of adventure hooks to be had with characters looking for somewhere quite to go about some weapon & survival training or leting a ground pounder take the stick wile lerning to fly the ship.
an other option is to use the advancement rules from MegaTraveller as it covers training, formal education and practicle experance.
an other option is to use the advancement rules from MegaTraveller as it covers training, formal education and practicle experance.
I used the MT rules on training, i.e. the AT points, and my own GURPS version of the formal training rules.
I use GURPS point values of 200 hours per point, use GURPS point values for skills, and start at skill-0 up to skill-4,the limit for formal training, and use GURPS' every 8 hours of on-the-job as 1 hour of training. It has some flaws, but works overall. I intend to try the quick learning rules in GURPS Compendium, along with its' skill degradation over time rules to see how that works long term.
I never liked the idea of all skills being equal in Traveller, i.e. Physics being as easy to learn as, say, Steward or Vehicle driving.
I use GURPS point values of 200 hours per point, use GURPS point values for skills, and start at skill-0 up to skill-4,the limit for formal training, and use GURPS' every 8 hours of on-the-job as 1 hour of training. It has some flaws, but works overall. I intend to try the quick learning rules in GURPS Compendium, along with its' skill degradation over time rules to see how that works long term.
I never liked the idea of all skills being equal in Traveller, i.e. Physics being as easy to learn as, say, Steward or Vehicle driving.
I used the MT rules on training, i.e. the AT points, and my own GURPS version of the formal training rules.
I use GURPS point values of 200 hours per point, use GURPS point values for skills, and start at skill-0 up to skill-4,the limit for formal training, and use GURPS' every 8 hours of on-the-job as 1 hour of training. It has some flaws, but works overall. I intend to try the quick learning rules in GURPS Compendium, along with its' skill degradation over time rules to see how that works long term.
I never liked the idea of all skills being equal in Traveller, i.e. Physics being as easy to learn as, say, Steward or Vehicle driving.
I use GURPS point values of 200 hours per point, use GURPS point values for skills, and start at skill-0 up to skill-4,the limit for formal training, and use GURPS' every 8 hours of on-the-job as 1 hour of training. It has some flaws, but works overall. I intend to try the quick learning rules in GURPS Compendium, along with its' skill degradation over time rules to see how that works long term.
I never liked the idea of all skills being equal in Traveller, i.e. Physics being as easy to learn as, say, Steward or Vehicle driving.
Theo D Lite
SOC-11
Way back when I was actively playing CT we had a similar problem and overcame it by awarding INT skill points per use of a skill.
Thresholds for advancement were 1000 * skill level. Thus to go from 2 - 3 took 3000 points whilst 3000 points would also take you from 0 to 2.
This allowed bright people to learn faster, and also took account of the bell curve where by the improvement from 2 to 3 is more significant than the improvement from 1 to 2. It also slowed down learning and created a skills plateau.
It wasn't absolutly accurate but it sufficed. In a campaign one character went from 0 to 2 in Combat Rifleman whilst I didn't go from 2 to 3 in the same skill despite:
(a) Being the one who was militarily trained
(b) Being in the same firefights.
Essentially this was because I used my skill more surgically so to some extent actually shot less but with better effect! The system needed a bit of work to counter this effect but it worked for us most of the time.
Thresholds for advancement were 1000 * skill level. Thus to go from 2 - 3 took 3000 points whilst 3000 points would also take you from 0 to 2.
This allowed bright people to learn faster, and also took account of the bell curve where by the improvement from 2 to 3 is more significant than the improvement from 1 to 2. It also slowed down learning and created a skills plateau.
It wasn't absolutly accurate but it sufficed. In a campaign one character went from 0 to 2 in Combat Rifleman whilst I didn't go from 2 to 3 in the same skill despite:
(a) Being the one who was militarily trained
(b) Being in the same firefights.
Essentially this was because I used my skill more surgically so to some extent actually shot less but with better effect! The system needed a bit of work to counter this effect but it worked for us most of the time.
Theo D Lite
SOC-11
Way back when I was actively playing CT we had a similar problem and overcame it by awarding INT skill points per use of a skill.
Thresholds for advancement were 1000 * skill level. Thus to go from 2 - 3 took 3000 points whilst 3000 points would also take you from 0 to 2.
This allowed bright people to learn faster, and also took account of the bell curve where by the improvement from 2 to 3 is more significant than the improvement from 1 to 2. It also slowed down learning and created a skills plateau.
It wasn't absolutly accurate but it sufficed. In a campaign one character went from 0 to 2 in Combat Rifleman whilst I didn't go from 2 to 3 in the same skill despite:
(a) Being the one who was militarily trained
(b) Being in the same firefights.
Essentially this was because I used my skill more surgically so to some extent actually shot less but with better effect! The system needed a bit of work to counter this effect but it worked for us most of the time.
Thresholds for advancement were 1000 * skill level. Thus to go from 2 - 3 took 3000 points whilst 3000 points would also take you from 0 to 2.
This allowed bright people to learn faster, and also took account of the bell curve where by the improvement from 2 to 3 is more significant than the improvement from 1 to 2. It also slowed down learning and created a skills plateau.
It wasn't absolutly accurate but it sufficed. In a campaign one character went from 0 to 2 in Combat Rifleman whilst I didn't go from 2 to 3 in the same skill despite:
(a) Being the one who was militarily trained
(b) Being in the same firefights.
Essentially this was because I used my skill more surgically so to some extent actually shot less but with better effect! The system needed a bit of work to counter this effect but it worked for us most of the time.
Since I have the MT PDF from the DriveThruRPG (?) legal free download period, I think I'll print out the experience rules (3 pages) and use them; anyway, there's my take on CT-only advancement:
1) Remember that the possible one skill per year in the Expanded chargen systems (LBBs 4-7) reflects training and practical experience earned while doing a job rather than extensive training. So, it should be paulsible for characters to gain one skill per year of active adventuring on a throw of 7+ (DM +1 for INT 7+); the player chooses the skill as he/she desires.
2) On the other hand, 6 months in active learning and active learning alone (such as taking a course) gives the character 1 skill point automatically; throw 9+ (DM +1 for INT 9+) to reciecve another skill point in the same skill.
3) I think that the times described for the Instruction skills are quite short for a long campaign, though they fit well for a short-time (especially military) campaign. For a long-term campaign, use a time of 12 weeks (3 months approximately) instead of 6 weeks to learn a skill.
4) General education (university, college, etc) improves EDU over 4 years in the way described in the College pre-enlistment option (LBB5 p.15).
5) An advanced degree (for characters who've graduated from College/a military/naval/merchant Academy) takes 4 years to complete, gives the character 2 points on the skill it focuses on (and another point on a throw of 9+ (DM +1 for INT 9+) as well as 1d2 (just flip a coin) EDU.
6) Improving attributes other than EDU is difficult but possible; use the LBB2 procedure for these. Oh, and since the times are long, many people will want to "cheat life" and take combat drugs, or, worse, implant cybertech.
1) Remember that the possible one skill per year in the Expanded chargen systems (LBBs 4-7) reflects training and practical experience earned while doing a job rather than extensive training. So, it should be paulsible for characters to gain one skill per year of active adventuring on a throw of 7+ (DM +1 for INT 7+); the player chooses the skill as he/she desires.
2) On the other hand, 6 months in active learning and active learning alone (such as taking a course) gives the character 1 skill point automatically; throw 9+ (DM +1 for INT 9+) to reciecve another skill point in the same skill.
3) I think that the times described for the Instruction skills are quite short for a long campaign, though they fit well for a short-time (especially military) campaign. For a long-term campaign, use a time of 12 weeks (3 months approximately) instead of 6 weeks to learn a skill.
4) General education (university, college, etc) improves EDU over 4 years in the way described in the College pre-enlistment option (LBB5 p.15).
5) An advanced degree (for characters who've graduated from College/a military/naval/merchant Academy) takes 4 years to complete, gives the character 2 points on the skill it focuses on (and another point on a throw of 9+ (DM +1 for INT 9+) as well as 1d2 (just flip a coin) EDU.
6) Improving attributes other than EDU is difficult but possible; use the LBB2 procedure for these. Oh, and since the times are long, many people will want to "cheat life" and take combat drugs, or, worse, implant cybertech.
Since I have the MT PDF from the DriveThruRPG (?) legal free download period, I think I'll print out the experience rules (3 pages) and use them; anyway, there's my take on CT-only advancement:
1) Remember that the possible one skill per year in the Expanded chargen systems (LBBs 4-7) reflects training and practical experience earned while doing a job rather than extensive training. So, it should be paulsible for characters to gain one skill per year of active adventuring on a throw of 7+ (DM +1 for INT 7+); the player chooses the skill as he/she desires.
2) On the other hand, 6 months in active learning and active learning alone (such as taking a course) gives the character 1 skill point automatically; throw 9+ (DM +1 for INT 9+) to reciecve another skill point in the same skill.
3) I think that the times described for the Instruction skills are quite short for a long campaign, though they fit well for a short-time (especially military) campaign. For a long-term campaign, use a time of 12 weeks (3 months approximately) instead of 6 weeks to learn a skill.
4) General education (university, college, etc) improves EDU over 4 years in the way described in the College pre-enlistment option (LBB5 p.15).
5) An advanced degree (for characters who've graduated from College/a military/naval/merchant Academy) takes 4 years to complete, gives the character 2 points on the skill it focuses on (and another point on a throw of 9+ (DM +1 for INT 9+) as well as 1d2 (just flip a coin) EDU.
6) Improving attributes other than EDU is difficult but possible; use the LBB2 procedure for these. Oh, and since the times are long, many people will want to "cheat life" and take combat drugs, or, worse, implant cybertech.
1) Remember that the possible one skill per year in the Expanded chargen systems (LBBs 4-7) reflects training and practical experience earned while doing a job rather than extensive training. So, it should be paulsible for characters to gain one skill per year of active adventuring on a throw of 7+ (DM +1 for INT 7+); the player chooses the skill as he/she desires.
2) On the other hand, 6 months in active learning and active learning alone (such as taking a course) gives the character 1 skill point automatically; throw 9+ (DM +1 for INT 9+) to reciecve another skill point in the same skill.
3) I think that the times described for the Instruction skills are quite short for a long campaign, though they fit well for a short-time (especially military) campaign. For a long-term campaign, use a time of 12 weeks (3 months approximately) instead of 6 weeks to learn a skill.
4) General education (university, college, etc) improves EDU over 4 years in the way described in the College pre-enlistment option (LBB5 p.15).
5) An advanced degree (for characters who've graduated from College/a military/naval/merchant Academy) takes 4 years to complete, gives the character 2 points on the skill it focuses on (and another point on a throw of 9+ (DM +1 for INT 9+) as well as 1d2 (just flip a coin) EDU.
6) Improving attributes other than EDU is difficult but possible; use the LBB2 procedure for these. Oh, and since the times are long, many people will want to "cheat life" and take combat drugs, or, worse, implant cybertech.
