number of character skills
- Thread starter flykiller
- Start date
The answer is It Depends.
It depends on the player, the referee, the group, the campaign, the session, the version, the expectations, and a couple hundred other things.
Some people want more skills. Some people need more skills. Some people don't care either way. In some games you need more skills. In some games you don't. In some games it doesn't matter.
Look at this character from S:4. It's the first Belter listed in that section.
47B745 Age 22 Term 1 Cr 0
Vacc Suit-1, Prospecting-1 Seeker
That's a GREAT character for CT with it's "Role-ing over Roll-ing" focus and the often forgotten "PCs have a skill level 0 in all weapons" rule. The character has a ship and - most importantly - a reason why he needs to be working with the other characters.
Sadly, that same character would be a cripple in any other Traveller system and any player who rolled him up would quickly thumb the replay button.
Last edited:
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
You could look at it through the GURPS point lens- are the characters supposed to be Lensman/Heinlein uberhero do anything and everything well, highly functional within a particular setting without being thrown into places they are unequipped for, or a mixed bag of joes up for anything that might come their way?
Usually there is going to be a central character the starting story at least coalesce around, who has the ship, the skills, the org, the money and/or the org/contacts to work within a milieu. It could be that young belter with a ship, a grizzled merchant/scout/pirate operator, a scientist/hunter, or a merc/rebel leader.
Get that character set with skills/resources to at least be logically operating in the kind of adventures people want to start with, and then at least that character is 'right'.
As to 'too many', my last run-through was with mixed CT/LBB4-5 characters, and I won't do that again. At least be consistent.
The classic INT/EDU limit should handle most 'Monty Haul' chargens/skill buffs.
Usually there is going to be a central character the starting story at least coalesce around, who has the ship, the skills, the org, the money and/or the org/contacts to work within a milieu. It could be that young belter with a ship, a grizzled merchant/scout/pirate operator, a scientist/hunter, or a merc/rebel leader.
Get that character set with skills/resources to at least be logically operating in the kind of adventures people want to start with, and then at least that character is 'right'.
As to 'too many', my last run-through was with mixed CT/LBB4-5 characters, and I won't do that again. At least be consistent.
The classic INT/EDU limit should handle most 'Monty Haul' chargens/skill buffs.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Have you noticed that the ages of all the Belters in S4 are wrong by the rules as written? Belter starting age is 14...
But the point of the post:
there is a great disparity in skills in basic CT.
Some skills are very technical and could end up being used a lot. Other skills are almost so niche that actually using them in a game is a rarity.
Some careers get more automatic skills than others.
Some careers have no commission or promotion roll and so are disadvantaged in number of skills (the 81 solution was to grant Scouts two skills per term, something that should have been applied to every career with no com.pro roll).
By the time you add all the level 0 skills a character has access to, and all the skills that can be used with 'no skill' a character looks a lot more playable.
But the point of the post:
there is a great disparity in skills in basic CT.
Some skills are very technical and could end up being used a lot. Other skills are almost so niche that actually using them in a game is a rarity.
Some careers get more automatic skills than others.
Some careers have no commission or promotion roll and so are disadvantaged in number of skills (the 81 solution was to grant Scouts two skills per term, something that should have been applied to every career with no com.pro roll).
By the time you add all the level 0 skills a character has access to, and all the skills that can be used with 'no skill' a character looks a lot more playable.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Pretty much.
This fact also muddies the waters, since expectations vary so much.
I'm halfway through a big blog post on skills in original Traveller, so here are some things I've been thinking about lately:
I've been running a Lamentations of the Flame Princess game for months (a re-worked version of B/X D&D). There are skills in the system, but a limited list. In general, it is up to the Players to sort out how the will solve problems by poking and prodding circumstances verbally, and the Referee provides responses and information and results simply through conversation.
We took a hiatus from my game, and another player ran Cyberpunk 2020. A LONG LIST OF SKILLS. And what happened was this: when we had to solve a problem, we looked down at the long list (which covers pretty much any situation one might find oneself in) and rolled a die to see "if we did it or not."
That is, in the first case, it is up to the Players to sort out what their characters are doing and how they'll do it. In the second, the Players check a list of options, pick one, and make a roll to determine the result.
I would say that original Traveller is in the first case, and not the second. (See Bill Cameron's smart observations about this point in early Traveller play here.)
***
Although many people see Classic Traveller as the first skill-based RPG, I think its very different than the skill based systems that came after it.
In particular, in CT, I don't think the list of skills on a character sheet should be seen as any kind of limit on what they character can do. Instead, the list of skills represent what the PC is proficient at. In other words, the skill list is what the character is SKILLED at. A skill level-1 is a big deal in ability. It means you can get hired off that skill. But lots of people can do lots of things without being skilled at something. So it is with CT.
If one reads the rules holistically, one sees that in many situation, the Referee will be applying DMs based on Characteristics, not just skills. Skills levels are just one part of the basic Throw system.
As many have noted, CT did not have a "Skill System." It did have a "Throw System" (2D6 +/- DM ≥ Throw). That was the core mechanic when the Referee did not have an answer for the result of a situation. And those DMs could come from many places (Characteristics, Circumstances of the fictional situation, Skills, Tools, and so on.) Skills are part of that mechanic, not the focus of it. (Once one see the game this way, the whole game shifts. That isn't to say its for everyone. But once I saw it that way, it was impossible for me to un-see it!)
***
As for the skills:
As others have noted above, PCs begin with many skills at 0. Here's the breakdown.
CT has only 24 skills, including the combat and broad Vehicle skills.
All PCs have these skills at 0. This means that the PCs suffer no -DMs if caught up in situations of regular use of these skills. For the non-combat skills, the skill-0 only applies to non-crisis application.
- Air/Raft-0
- ATV-0
- Blade Combat-0
- Forward Observer-0
- Gun Combat
- Steward-0
- Vacc Suit-0
Anyone can use the following skills, but at the -DMs noted. Note that this means one does not need to "have" the skills to use it. It simply means one must be SKILLED to use it well.
- Administration (DM -3 )
- Blade Combat (DM -5)*
- Brawling (DM -5)*
- Bribery (DM -5)
- Forgery (DM -5)
- Gun Combat (DM -5)*
- Streetwise (DM -5)
Jack of all Trades-1 is a special case. It confers a skill-0 to any skill when used in a crisis. It can't imply training in the skill. It can't cover someone for employment level proficiency. Simply, the PC can at least try a roll that in a situation what would require a roll with a skill level-0
The Remaining Skills
- Computer
- Electronics
- Engineering
- Gambling
- Leader
- Mechanical
- Medical
- Navigation
- Pilot
- Tactics
- Vehicle
Presumably one need to at least be a level-1 or above to use these skills. But jack of all trades-1 provides a level-0 in any of them in a crisis. (He can at least give it a shot.) And remember that Book 1 provides details (along with Book 2) on hiring NPCs. I don't think this is a haphazard addition to the rules. If a crew wants to make sure they have a mechanic or engineer onboard and none of the PCs have skills qualifying them as such, they will need to spend Credits to make this happen. This is all part of the "limited resources" part of the game, the "play the hand your dealt" part of the game I discuss below. You never have everything you want in Traveller... but there are always ways of pushing forward.
But, again, these are for when expertise is required. I can handle a lot of household plumbing problems with a full Saturday and several trips to the Home Depot. I have no plumbing skill. But a good "Education" and "Intelligence." But give me a real emergency, and I need to get a guy with Plumbing-1.
***
The limited skill list is there not to cover all situations... because it CT it was assumed not all situations would be covered by the skill list. It was up to the Players, via the limited abilities of the PCs, to solve the problems that came along. The skills were just one tool in the arsenal of how to deal with problems. (And, in fact, I see the Throw system of 2D6 +/- DM ≥ Throw as being more of a Saving Throw system. That is, when things are already going south and a crisis point is reached and the Referee needs to get a ruling he or she doesn't know for sure with way things will go.)
In general, CT has what I call a "play the hand you're dealt" philosophy: You won't ever have all the skills, all the money, all the tools you want to get the job done. If one looks at the CT character generation system, one sees that this attitude is built into the game from the start. Limited choices and an limited odds to get exactly the character you want are part and parcel of the game.
This is why, I think, the Other service is so limited. It doesn't give out lots of skills. But if you have a high INT and not much else, its mostly likely where you will turn. But it's also where you go to get some of the more technical (and colorful) skills.
The game is not "balanced" -- but it was never designed to be balanced. The game was designed to be: "This is the situation, and what you have is what you have on hand. Now what?"
CT was never about having the "right" skill to move forward with the game. It was about exploration and problem solving... and whatever the situation, the Players could figure out a next step... which led to the next situation. The skills on the character sheets might or might not be a part of that. Because the skills were not the focus of the game.
So, how many is the right number of skills?
In Classic Traveller the right number was an irrelevant question. The characters was skilled in a few areas... and then, by definition, decided to travel to exotic and unique worlds and try his hand at making a fortune. His proficiencies would be lacking in some areas, and helpful in others. But all in all, he would make his way or die trying. Because even if you didn't have all the resources you wanted, there was always a way forward by gumption and grit.
That's how the game was set up.
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
When you can default to associated attributes or connected skills, you don't need to have a complete inventory.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Nothing personal Creative, but I don't accept your whole 0 skill list.
[FONT=arial,helvetica]
Air/raft and ATV are largely mutually exclusive (one is high tech planets, the other is frontier/weather situations).
[/FONT]
Forward Observer is noted as specifically a military service skill for calling artillery/air attack/ortillery, and not a common skill.
Vacc Suit has a specific DM for having no skill, implying you either have it or you don't.
Assuming one accepts S4/COTI as part of CT, it clearly states that people are assumed to have Gun and Blade-0 with the exception of specific careers, so you can assume that for most characters.
Original CT has multiple explicit roll DMs defined for no skill and the JOAT skill is aimed at eliminating that negative, so clearly no-skill minuses are 'a thing' from the first edition on.
I think you are projecting things you want to see in the game, when a dispassionate reading of the CT rules shows a different direction.
Not to say that the philosophy of role playing not roll playing should not have primacy, but that what a character cannot do is as defining as what they can do.
And, I certainly don't want a no-Medical person doing elective surgery on me, in RL or in game. I'm bleeding to death, take a shot at it, but not by choice or likely good results, and any game predicated on at least common sense rather then 'magic' should skew results towards ability.
The point about 'not having it all' is ingrained into the system is well taken, with science fiction a lot of the abilities are tied into the tools/gizmos and it will be a quest to get the more useful ones, and they may not be available at all.
And therein lies a game with teamwork and having to hire or do without- but not neutering the character definition to no consequence.
I see you are referencing the default skills section- that whole discussion is about equipping the characters for a specific situation, and runs counter in the noted cases of the actual skills.
I think it's much more reasonable to have a skill-0 package set for childhood (the homeworld ones) and then service skills.
So Marines are not likely to have Steward or ATV, but definitely Air/Raft, Weapons, Forward Observer and Vacc Suit. Merchies will have Vacc Suit and Steward and the Weps, possibly both vehicles but not Forward Observer. Scouts would have everything BUT Forward Observer/Steward, etc. etc.
For low tech planets I will typically give them Equestrian-0 skill in lieu of other 'vehicles', Hydro-9 or A gets Watercraft-0, and a spacer/belter kid might get Ship's Boat-0 instead of air/raft/ATV.
High Law Level homeworlders get Bribery-0 possibly Brawling-0, low SOC kids get Streetwise-0, frontier kids might get Recon-0, Hunting-0, or Survival-0.
Finally, I'll usually give them a choice of a 'fixit/operateit' skill like Electronics, Mechanical, Medical etc. as personal interests/exposure to.
So I'm not against 0 skills and can be quite liberal with those, but they should be in service of defining the character, and not neglect what the character cannot do in addition to what they can.
[FONT=arial,helvetica]
- Air/Raft-0
- ATV-0
- Blade Combat-0
- Forward Observer-0
- Gun Combat-0
- Steward-0
- Vacc Suit-0
Air/raft and ATV are largely mutually exclusive (one is high tech planets, the other is frontier/weather situations).
[/FONT]
Forward Observer is noted as specifically a military service skill for calling artillery/air attack/ortillery, and not a common skill.
Vacc Suit has a specific DM for having no skill, implying you either have it or you don't.
Assuming one accepts S4/COTI as part of CT, it clearly states that people are assumed to have Gun and Blade-0 with the exception of specific careers, so you can assume that for most characters.
Original CT has multiple explicit roll DMs defined for no skill and the JOAT skill is aimed at eliminating that negative, so clearly no-skill minuses are 'a thing' from the first edition on.
I think you are projecting things you want to see in the game, when a dispassionate reading of the CT rules shows a different direction.
Not to say that the philosophy of role playing not roll playing should not have primacy, but that what a character cannot do is as defining as what they can do.
And, I certainly don't want a no-Medical person doing elective surgery on me, in RL or in game. I'm bleeding to death, take a shot at it, but not by choice or likely good results, and any game predicated on at least common sense rather then 'magic' should skew results towards ability.
The point about 'not having it all' is ingrained into the system is well taken, with science fiction a lot of the abilities are tied into the tools/gizmos and it will be a quest to get the more useful ones, and they may not be available at all.
And therein lies a game with teamwork and having to hire or do without- but not neutering the character definition to no consequence.
I see you are referencing the default skills section- that whole discussion is about equipping the characters for a specific situation, and runs counter in the noted cases of the actual skills.
I think it's much more reasonable to have a skill-0 package set for childhood (the homeworld ones) and then service skills.
So Marines are not likely to have Steward or ATV, but definitely Air/Raft, Weapons, Forward Observer and Vacc Suit. Merchies will have Vacc Suit and Steward and the Weps, possibly both vehicles but not Forward Observer. Scouts would have everything BUT Forward Observer/Steward, etc. etc.
For low tech planets I will typically give them Equestrian-0 skill in lieu of other 'vehicles', Hydro-9 or A gets Watercraft-0, and a spacer/belter kid might get Ship's Boat-0 instead of air/raft/ATV.
High Law Level homeworlders get Bribery-0 possibly Brawling-0, low SOC kids get Streetwise-0, frontier kids might get Recon-0, Hunting-0, or Survival-0.
Finally, I'll usually give them a choice of a 'fixit/operateit' skill like Electronics, Mechanical, Medical etc. as personal interests/exposure to.
So I'm not against 0 skills and can be quite liberal with those, but they should be in service of defining the character, and not neglect what the character cannot do in addition to what they can.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I use the personal development and service skills tables as guides to the level 0 skills a character from a particular career will have access to.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
I'll take no offense. But I also don't know how to respond.
As you note, I was referencing a section from the rules, as printed. I'm not imposing anything. Not my philosophy, or anything.
I'm not concerned that ATVs and Air/Rafts used on different kinds of worlds. It's quite possible that anyone in a service spent some time shutting someone around and picked up the basics of the vehicle. He got the basics down, but didn't become skilled.
I'm not concerned about home worlds at all. Again, I'm not imposing anything. I'm reading the rules. There's nothing about home worlds in them.
All that we're talking about is this passage in Book 1 of the 1981 rules:
Now, re-reading that passage I will readily admit I read them much more liberally than they were written. The list is not a default, but can be introduced in an ad hoc basis per a specific adventure.
That said, that seems really wishy-washy to me. When can the level-0 be applied, when not? Honestly, it seems just as easy to make it level-0 across the board. But I can understand taking the time to justify them with more detail as you suggest.
But other than that? All the stuff about "Original CT has multiple explicit roll DMs defined for no skill and the JOAT skill is aimed at eliminating that negative, so clearly no-skill minuses are 'a thing' from the first edition on" is something I specifically discussed in the post.
As for the part about non-elective surgeries, I don't know what you're talking about since I made it clear Medical was a proficiency required to attempt anything in that arena.
i understand you only realized what rules I was referencing half-way through writing your post. Yet you left odd and strange first half of your post intact and published it. Which is strange, since apart from how to interpret the default level-0 skills I quoted above, I'm not sure at all what I said that you disagree with.
All in all, that was a weird post.
But you've given me points to clarify in the post I'm working on, so thank you.
As you note, I was referencing a section from the rules, as printed. I'm not imposing anything. Not my philosophy, or anything.
I'm not concerned that ATVs and Air/Rafts used on different kinds of worlds. It's quite possible that anyone in a service spent some time shutting someone around and picked up the basics of the vehicle. He got the basics down, but didn't become skilled.
I'm not concerned about home worlds at all. Again, I'm not imposing anything. I'm reading the rules. There's nothing about home worlds in them.
All that we're talking about is this passage in Book 1 of the 1981 rules:
Now, re-reading that passage I will readily admit I read them much more liberally than they were written. The list is not a default, but can be introduced in an ad hoc basis per a specific adventure.
That said, that seems really wishy-washy to me. When can the level-0 be applied, when not? Honestly, it seems just as easy to make it level-0 across the board. But I can understand taking the time to justify them with more detail as you suggest.
But other than that? All the stuff about "Original CT has multiple explicit roll DMs defined for no skill and the JOAT skill is aimed at eliminating that negative, so clearly no-skill minuses are 'a thing' from the first edition on" is something I specifically discussed in the post.
As for the part about non-elective surgeries, I don't know what you're talking about since I made it clear Medical was a proficiency required to attempt anything in that arena.
i understand you only realized what rules I was referencing half-way through writing your post. Yet you left odd and strange first half of your post intact and published it. Which is strange, since apart from how to interpret the default level-0 skills I quoted above, I'm not sure at all what I said that you disagree with.
All in all, that was a weird post.
But you've given me points to clarify in the post I'm working on, so thank you.
Last edited:
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
No.
If someone doesn't have Medical-1, but a companion is choking on an alien life form that has gotten into his throat, he might still attempt an emergency tracheotomy.
The referee sets the difficulty at 12+ (or more) to successfully keep the companion breathing and not bleed out. No DMs for skill. The Referee might offer a DM for a high EDU or INT if other facts have been established about the PC that such DMS might be warranted.
How this is too difficult to comprehend, I don't understand.
I'm pointing out how people often interpret a lack of a skill as an absolute lack of ability to perform any actions within that arena. And reading the rules carefully, that is clearly not the case.
If people want to interpret my statement to mean the characters can do anything -- which would defeat the purpose of any text about rules or even writing a post online about the mater at all -- then I don't know what to say. "God bless 'em," I suppose.
Last edited:
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Creativehum, here are a couple of things to keep in mind.
On page 16 in the 1981 edition of Book 1 of the LBBs, the following statement appears.
Second, in the 1977 edition of Book 1 of the LBBs, the statement on default skills does not appear, at all. What does appear on page 12 is the following.
Depending on what edition of the LBBs you have, you are going to get two different takes on default skills.
In both editions, all PC have a default skill in all weapons of either "zero" or "one-half", depending on which edition you are using.
In the 1981 edition, you have some other possible default skills, but the wording is
It does not imply that all PC have these default skills, just that they may be appropriate. I would restrict the "Forward Observer" skill to a PC that has had some military experience. I have had some training in that area, probably to Skill-0 level, but would be very hesitant to try to do it unless there is a severe emergency. I would give any PC in Traveller Vacc Suit-0 based on the high probability of any person traveling on a spaceship or starship receiving an orientation and short period of training on the use of a Vacc Suit in an emergency, and argue that both Marine and Navy PC should get Vacc Suit-1 as a default skill. Steward is one of those skills that I might look hard at a PC Intelligence, Education, and Social Standing before giving, and also background. Service on a Free Trader would probably get the skill, as would someone with a Navy or Scout background. The rest, have to look at the character data.
As for Air/Raft and ATV, again, drawing on my personal experience, I would be a bit cautious. Having driven an M113, that is not something which is intuitive to driving. I have several hours of flight time in friends small planes, and figure maybe Skill-0 in small aircraft, but I have never tried to land one. Air/Rafts are expensive pieces of equipment, and may not be readily available to the average PC. Scout and Merchant, probably, but for the rest, again, caution would be in order. As for ATV, I would look for that more in the Army and Scouts than anywhere else.
Lastly, I would not be so cavalier at ignoring the home world of the PC, as that might lead to other default skills being possible. I would also be willing to give any PC from a Tech Level 8 World on up a Computer-0 skill level, and include the Navy, Scouts, and Merchant in that, as any service in those organizations is going to require some Computer knowledge.
On page 16 in the 1981 edition of Book 1 of the LBBs, the following statement appears.
Second, in the 1977 edition of Book 1 of the LBBs, the statement on default skills does not appear, at all. What does appear on page 12 is the following.
Depending on what edition of the LBBs you have, you are going to get two different takes on default skills.
In both editions, all PC have a default skill in all weapons of either "zero" or "one-half", depending on which edition you are using.
In the 1981 edition, you have some other possible default skills, but the wording is
It does not imply that all PC have these default skills, just that they may be appropriate. I would restrict the "Forward Observer" skill to a PC that has had some military experience. I have had some training in that area, probably to Skill-0 level, but would be very hesitant to try to do it unless there is a severe emergency. I would give any PC in Traveller Vacc Suit-0 based on the high probability of any person traveling on a spaceship or starship receiving an orientation and short period of training on the use of a Vacc Suit in an emergency, and argue that both Marine and Navy PC should get Vacc Suit-1 as a default skill. Steward is one of those skills that I might look hard at a PC Intelligence, Education, and Social Standing before giving, and also background. Service on a Free Trader would probably get the skill, as would someone with a Navy or Scout background. The rest, have to look at the character data.
As for Air/Raft and ATV, again, drawing on my personal experience, I would be a bit cautious. Having driven an M113, that is not something which is intuitive to driving. I have several hours of flight time in friends small planes, and figure maybe Skill-0 in small aircraft, but I have never tried to land one. Air/Rafts are expensive pieces of equipment, and may not be readily available to the average PC. Scout and Merchant, probably, but for the rest, again, caution would be in order. As for ATV, I would look for that more in the Army and Scouts than anywhere else.
Lastly, I would not be so cavalier at ignoring the home world of the PC, as that might lead to other default skills being possible. I would also be willing to give any PC from a Tech Level 8 World on up a Computer-0 skill level, and include the Navy, Scouts, and Merchant in that, as any service in those organizations is going to require some Computer knowledge.
I've added as a modifier is the terms of service as a skill to cover those small things the characters would know. A three term Scout, a three term Merchant, and a three term Navy person would perceive and probably approach a new world situation differently. They would pick up details the others would miss, and see options the others wouldn't.
It also provides data when observing people or events in your career field.
It also provides data when observing people or events in your career field.
I think what this thread is missing so far is that the existing skill descriptions in CT are replete with examples of skills being worth more or less than +1 per level to a throw. Sometimes no penalty is specified for unskilled; sometimes it is as large as 5 (e.g. Bribery), which is massive on a 2D throw. On the other hand, for low berth revival, Med-2 or better gets you a +1 (and Med-3 or above confers no extra benefit). Sometimes skills confer benefits outside of throws, e.g. med-3 or better lets you be called "doctor"; Gunnery-1 lets you get hired as a gunner.
I view the skill descriptions in the rules, including for throws (e.g. low berth revival), as examples that we are probably supposed to extrapolate from and build on as players and referees, although as a referee, it's fair to say I would feel obliged to have a good reason for departing from a task write-up in the RAW because it will upset players' calculations in a way that could be seen as unfair.
e.g. "the low berth unit on this derelict ship is old and on the brink of failure. You need Mechanical-1 in addition to Medic-2 or better to get a benefit to the throw" would seem perfectly reasonable to me as a player or as a ref. That kind of thing.
I view the skill descriptions in the rules, including for throws (e.g. low berth revival), as examples that we are probably supposed to extrapolate from and build on as players and referees, although as a referee, it's fair to say I would feel obliged to have a good reason for departing from a task write-up in the RAW because it will upset players' calculations in a way that could be seen as unfair.
e.g. "the low berth unit on this derelict ship is old and on the brink of failure. You need Mechanical-1 in addition to Medic-2 or better to get a benefit to the throw" would seem perfectly reasonable to me as a player or as a ref. That kind of thing.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Quick note for anyone jumping on: I am only referring to the Classic Traveller rules. Different editions of Traveller use skill rules in very different ways. Moreover, different styles of play use rules in different ways. (I can imagine someone only familiar with MgT being very confused by what is being discussed here!)
Hello timerover,
You are absolutely correct that the 1981 edition of the game introduced a broader range of default skills. I am sorry I did not note this.
And you, and kilemall have both pointed out I misread the text of the Default Skills rules. The skill are to be applied on an ad hoc basis, if the Referee so chooses. (I made the mistake of applying the same generous default skill level-0 as found for combat skills, which is not the case.)
I still find myself perplexed as to how or why the Referee gives out the skills. The rules state:
There are a gazillion ways to sort it out. But my own inclination was to distribute the skills so as not to have to worry about the method. But I am now reconsidering that.
***
As for the special cases you illustrate from your own experiences in your life, I believe the are examples of how the rules are supposed to be used:
So, it is always preferable for a character with a level-0 skill not to be responsible for using a piece of equipment or out in the field practicing a skill if he or she only has a level-0... because they are beginners, with only a rudimentary ability. The moment anything gets tricky, the negative modifiers will kick in. And lacking even a basic skill level-1, the odds will drop fast.
***
As for distributing them, I'm with you and kilemall. I think considering the total sense of the character is important (as it is of DMs based off of INT and EDU).
I think points about which branch of service are crucial in the matter. My own inclination is to offer the Player Characters a liberal sprinkling of Vacc Suit, ATV, and Air/Raft... if only because they are Player Characters, a cut above most, in my view. But I am reconsidered all of that.
In my new thinking, made up while typing, I'm focusing on this sentence from the rules: "Level-0 indicates an orientation to the skill by an experienced person..."
What I'm seeing is the PC is literally given the information in play, so we (the Referee and Players) have a sense of how much information was given and not given, so we know where to draw the line on when the PC is covered with skill level-0, and when he has fallen into an area where he won't know what to do or will suffer -DMs.
***
As for home worlds, I don't use them. I understand many people do. But the are not in the rules I use. Moreover, and this is a play style issue, I'm more concerned with who the PC is moving forward from character creation. The Classic Traveller system is simple fora a variety of good reasons, and I like to keep it that way.
***
As for my overall thesis, what I'm trying to avoid is this:
A Player looks down at Classic Traveller sheet and sees two skills and thinks, "Huh. That's all I can do?" Which is not the case at all. (Though it is how we've been trained to see how skill based games work in the years since Traveller was first published.)
Does this mean the Player Character can accomplish any action he declares? No.
Does this mean that the Referee cannot say, "Ummm... no. There's no way you guys can do open heart surgery on your friend. Your dudes have no training in that." No.
But can the Player Character come up with a half-baked scheme involving medical treatment with horrible odds in an effort to forestall his friend's death until better treatment can be made? Sure. Can a roll be made to determine if the half-baked scheme works? Sure. Are these the kind of moments that make playing RPGs fun? Absolutely.
I'll be going back to work on that blog post to sort it out.
Hello timerover,
You are absolutely correct that the 1981 edition of the game introduced a broader range of default skills. I am sorry I did not note this.
And you, and kilemall have both pointed out I misread the text of the Default Skills rules. The skill are to be applied on an ad hoc basis, if the Referee so chooses. (I made the mistake of applying the same generous default skill level-0 as found for combat skills, which is not the case.)
I still find myself perplexed as to how or why the Referee gives out the skills. The rules state:
There are a gazillion ways to sort it out. But my own inclination was to distribute the skills so as not to have to worry about the method. But I am now reconsidering that.
***
As for the special cases you illustrate from your own experiences in your life, I believe the are examples of how the rules are supposed to be used:
So, it is always preferable for a character with a level-0 skill not to be responsible for using a piece of equipment or out in the field practicing a skill if he or she only has a level-0... because they are beginners, with only a rudimentary ability. The moment anything gets tricky, the negative modifiers will kick in. And lacking even a basic skill level-1, the odds will drop fast.
***
As for distributing them, I'm with you and kilemall. I think considering the total sense of the character is important (as it is of DMs based off of INT and EDU).
I think points about which branch of service are crucial in the matter. My own inclination is to offer the Player Characters a liberal sprinkling of Vacc Suit, ATV, and Air/Raft... if only because they are Player Characters, a cut above most, in my view. But I am reconsidered all of that.
In my new thinking, made up while typing, I'm focusing on this sentence from the rules: "Level-0 indicates an orientation to the skill by an experienced person..."
What I'm seeing is the PC is literally given the information in play, so we (the Referee and Players) have a sense of how much information was given and not given, so we know where to draw the line on when the PC is covered with skill level-0, and when he has fallen into an area where he won't know what to do or will suffer -DMs.
***
As for home worlds, I don't use them. I understand many people do. But the are not in the rules I use. Moreover, and this is a play style issue, I'm more concerned with who the PC is moving forward from character creation. The Classic Traveller system is simple fora a variety of good reasons, and I like to keep it that way.
***
As for my overall thesis, what I'm trying to avoid is this:
A Player looks down at Classic Traveller sheet and sees two skills and thinks, "Huh. That's all I can do?" Which is not the case at all. (Though it is how we've been trained to see how skill based games work in the years since Traveller was first published.)
Does this mean the Player Character can accomplish any action he declares? No.
Does this mean that the Referee cannot say, "Ummm... no. There's no way you guys can do open heart surgery on your friend. Your dudes have no training in that." No.
But can the Player Character come up with a half-baked scheme involving medical treatment with horrible odds in an effort to forestall his friend's death until better treatment can be made? Sure. Can a roll be made to determine if the half-baked scheme works? Sure. Are these the kind of moments that make playing RPGs fun? Absolutely.
I'll be going back to work on that blog post to sort it out.
Last edited:
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Yes. I do this, too.
Agreed. I think there are tons of ways off creating throws on a case-by-case basis.
All I would add is that the Players (in my game at least) are also allowed to come up with new ideas to figure out how to improve their odds in new ways. I'd really rather have the Players describing what they are having their Characters do and then seeing if a roll is required, than always leaning the Throw first. The first creates color, decisions, action. The second can fall into a rut of one roll after another for a binary result of "Yes" or "No." For example, in the situation you offer, if the PCs declare, "Okay, we're going to spend a month refurbishing the low passage unit," I would declare that the the Mechanical-1 is no longer a requirement. That kind of thing.
yeah, me too. but hey, you can always pick up a crescent hammer and have at it, who knows you just might get it right ....
it's the difference between "do" meaning "guess with no training or knowledge or reasonable hope of success" and "do" meaning "apply appropriate training and experience with some expectation of success". of course random flailing may succeed by sheer luck and the grace of god, but the word "do" does not normally include such possibilities.
Last edited:
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
So, Throws should only be made if training, knowledge, or a reasonable hope of success can be brought to bear.
It's an obvious point, but I'm glad you made it, in case anyone was a dunderhead of some sort and didn't think things through.
Thank you.
I dunno. most people want to have a character capable of controlling their role in the game. a character with just those two skills and a seeker he can neither operate nor maintain is going to be pretty much just baggage to the rest of the group necessary to operate the seeker. can it be played? sure, especially with a good ref. but it's not what most people want, so yeah they hit the respawn button.
I see a divide between characters that control a game the referee merely referees, players that are along for the ride provided by the game master, and players/characters that work with the referee to build the game together. I think this has something to do with how many skills are necessary for a character.
Similar threads
