number of character skills

[creativehum]

"Some kind"? Absolutely.

The issue is whether the list of skills on a character sheet forms the list of things a PC can do. According the rules in Classic Traveller, the answer is no.

That's why there are -DMs if a character tries to do something in which he does not have the appropriate skill. Note, please, that the PC can still try even without the skill. That's the point.

And that's why there is a Jack of all Trades... because in many situations the lack of a skill, as the rules state, will prevent anyone from starting a project.

But note that the rules are clear that in any situation the Referee and Players can negotiate a Throw based on a variety of circumstances. It is up to the common sense, the fiction at hand, the "reality" established by past experiences of the Player Characters to determine if a Throw is allowed and what the Throw is and the DMs might be.

As I stated in the first post that seems to be causing all the confusion

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.

Is there anything in those statements that truly runs counter to the concerns you have?

 

[mike wightman]

If you read every skill you will find that many of them can be attempted with no penalty. It is the action that is being attempted you are rolling a saving throw for, having the relevant skill makes it easier. The odd thing is skills may grant a variable bonus DM - sometimes +1 per skill level sometimes higher.

I think the key phrase in the default skills section is indeed:

A level of 0 for a skill indicates that the individual can undertake ordinary activities, but is not experienced enough to try dangerous
activities or fancy actions. Level-0 indicates an orientation to the skill by an experienced person

The first bit in bold means that a character with those level 0 skills can attempt mundane tasks - the sort that don't warrant a roll at all. They are for fluff. The players need to move a parked ATV to block an exit, you need to wear a vac suit to walk from an airlock to an airlock, that sort of thing.
Level 0 encourages players to have their characters do stuff rather than sitting there saying oh well, no one can try that.
As a referee you can always add a situational DM to represent unskilled attempting at a more dangerous task - the -4DM is a default for me or I just raise the difficulty from 8+ to 12+.
The second bit in bold is the bit that intrigues me.
When did the character receive the basic instruction from the experienced person? Was is a few minutes before they put on the vac suit or was it something they were shown during their prior history? A character from the navy, merchants, marines, scouts, even the army may have had instruction in using a basic vac suit - enough for level 0 but not enough to try and do 'fancy actions'.

 

[creativehum]

What Mike said.

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...

I see flykiler's point. I simply don't see it as an issue.

It's the same way PCs stuck together as a group in OD&D. The PCs need each other to compliment skills and hire on NCPs to have the skills they need. It builds cohesion and interdependence.

A lot of this does come down, as Whipsnade said at the top, so many factors. What is the game about? What are the challenges, opportunities. The character in question might never even get around to using his prospect skills. But with his Vacc Suit skill-1 he will be able to use Battle Dress -- which many other characters in the group won't be able to use.

For the record, my style of campaign would be about adventure and exploration. The day to day operations of a Seeker might provide a backdrop to the campaign, but not the focus. It would be about the ancient artifacts floating around in the steroid belt (which his Prospecting-1 might help find) and the clan turf wars in the belt that go back a full century.

So, for me, limited skill sets are fine because a) as some of us keep pointing out, the characters can do things not listed on their character sheet; and b) working together as a team is awesome in RPGs.

 

[flykiller]

I simply don't see it as an issue ... It would be about the ancient artifacts floating around in the steroid belt (which his Prospecting-1 might help find) and the clan turf wars in the belt that go back a full century.

so, you'd be the game master with a story. the player/characters are characters in the story and their skills are accessories for the story. that's why character skills aren't an issue.

 

[creativehum]

so, you'd be the game master with a story. the player/characters are characters in the story and their skills are accessories for the story. that's why character skills aren't an issue.

No. Where the ▮▮▮▮ did that come from?

That's the opposite of how I play. What are you on? How are you making these assumptions? How did you possibly draw that conclusion? What are you smoking?

I'd build an environment (an asteroid belt, if running a seeker was the premise the gang wanted, as assumed in posts above).

Or, a full subsector of dozens of worlds if they wanted to go wider.

The PCs would go wherever they wanted, do whatever the wanted. They drive the play.

They make choices about what they want to risk, how far they'll go, which direction to take.

What are you talking about?

 

[mike wightman]

According to CT 81 the following skills can be used with no expertise but with a penalty:
Admin(-3), Bribery(+5), (Forgery I'm not to sure about), Fwd Obs(-4), Streetwise(-5), Vacc Suit(-4) - so stick the lot on the character sheet to remind the player that when stuff involving those areas of expertise crop up they can attempt to do something.
Then there is Gambling and Steward skills that you can use with no expertise and no penalty, so add those on too.

The following skills are eligible for receiving as level 0:
Air/raft, ATV, Fwd Obs, Steward, Vacc Suit

You are only adding Air/raft and ATV

 

[flykiller]

Where did that come from?

"For the record, my style of campaign would be about adventure and exploration. The day to day operations of a Seeker might provide a backdrop to the campaign, but not the focus. It would be about the ancient artifacts floating around in the steroid belt (which his Prospecting-1 might help find) and the clan turf wars in the belt that go back a full century.

So, for me, limited skill sets are fine ...."

That's the opposite of how I play.

(shrug) ok.

 

[creativehum]

"(shrug) ok.

So, when you set up to play Traveller, you don't establish environments of any kind?

Please explain. I'm honestly curious.

If we've got an environment in an asteroid belt, and I as the Referee make it clear to the players we're playing a game of pulp SF with exploration and adventure, and I set up an environment in which they can poke, prod, ignore, or engage with whatever they want, that means I have "a story"?

Also, you're doing a very strange thing of assuming (I finally figured out) that limited skills per Classic Traveller rules means that the Referee has "a story."

Since I don't think anyone else would instantly draw that conclusion, could you please explain? Since you're using my words to prove a point based on logic that only you, at this point, posses, could you please explain it.

How does lots of skills while playing Classic Traveller mean the Players can make choices about what their character can do, and limited, trained skills mean they're on a railroad?

I'm wiling to listen. But you are obliged to explain since there's nothing obviously true about this assumption.

 

[kilemall]

According to CT 81 the following skills can be used with no expertise but with a penalty:
Admin(-3), Bribery(+5), (Forgery I'm not to sure about), Fwd Obs(-4), Streetwise(-5), Vacc Suit(-4) - so stick the lot on the character sheet to remind the player that when stuff involving those areas of expertise crop up they can attempt to do something.
Then there is Gambling and Steward skills that you can use with no expertise and no penalty, so add those on too.

The following skills are eligible for receiving as level 0:
Air/raft, ATV, Fwd Obs, Steward, Vacc Suit

You are only adding Air/raft and ATV

Hmm, I'm assuming this response is about comments by me about what a character 'can't' do.

I don't disallow throws based on no skill. I just make it an act of god/fabulous luck that it works.

When performing surgery or landing a crippled starship, there will likely be consequences for putting an unskilled person in the position of attempting it- probably fatal in these examples.

But even something as routine as vacc suit ops gets downright dangerous when the 0 skill isn't there.

And for a lot of people, Vacc Suit SHOULDN'T be there.

I also respect the JOAT skill, so the default should be negative DMs for no skill, period. Otherwise JOAT has no meaning.

 

[creativehum]

When performing surgery or landing a crippled starship, there will likely be consequences for putting an unskilled person in the position of attempting it- probably fatal in these examples.

But even something as routine as vacc suit ops gets downright dangerous when the 0 skill isn't there.

I just want to check one thing:

You are aware that the Classic Traveller Default Skills rules agree with you on these points. That this is how they are written.

I want to check this, because no one saying anyone with a Vacc Suit-0 should be doing anything but the simplest of maneuvers, per the rules.

Further, I want to check to see if anyone is suggesting that someone try to perform surgery without a medical training of some kind or landing a crippled starship without any training of some kind. Because no one has suggested that. No one.

Just to be sure where we are in the conversation.

 

[kilemall]

I just want to check one thing:

You are aware that the Classic Traveller Default Skills rules agree with you on these points. That this is how they are written.

I want to check this, because no one saying anyone with a Vacc Suit-0 should be doing anything but the simplest of maneuvers, per the rules.

Further, I want to check to see if anyone is suggesting that someone try to perform surgery without a medical training of some kind or landing a crippled starship without any training of some kind. Because no one has suggested that. No one.

Just to be sure where we are in the conversation.

I don't believe our point of contention is on the above, but rather how severely one is constrained when the character does not have the skill, and how many people have that vacc suit-0 skill.

 

[creativehum]

I don't believe our point of contention is on the above, but rather how severely one is constrained when the character does not have the skill, and how many people have that vacc suit-0 skill.

I still don't even know that the contention is, really, but cool. Let's figure it out.

As for people, I assume most PCs, of not all, have Vacc Suit-0. But that's for my setting. It just feels right that the PC who are destined to adventure through the stars have picked up at least a basic orientation along the way. But most people don't. (In this regard, as with level-0 combat skills across the board, I assume PCs are just a little bit special.

What's your take? How many people do you think have Vac Suit-0?

As for he constraints, I'm not sure how to check that without specifically illustrated examples.

But I'll offer up now that there are the -DMs for lack of skill already mentioned if no skill level-0. And that with skill level-0 one cannot try "dangerous
activities or fancy actions."

That's enough for me for a frame of reference, but it might not be for you.

Is there something specific you can point to for the point of contention?

 

[mike wightman]

Of the basic character careers navy, marines, merchants and scouts would definitely have vac suit training. Army may or may not grant it depend on how high tech the army is and if it routinely trains troops for hazardous environments and or battledress.
Other is the only one that you could make a case for not granting it - but there could easily be a backstory invented to explain it.

 

[creativehum]

Other is the only one that you could make a case for not granting it - but there could easily be a backstory invented to explain it.

Not only for Other, but really all the level-0 defaults are built off of agreed backstory, incident, and decisions about the structure for the game.

There aren't hard and fast rules about this stuff. Classic Traveller was designed so the Referee and Players could determine many aspects of the game's logic on the fly and detained by circumstance, situation, and agreed on framework.

Does this mean illogical agreements? Nope!

 

[welsh]

I wouldn't expect that merchants would necessarily have vacc suit training. The average merchant crewman's career simply wouldn't call for it.

Scouts and Navy, I would think so.

For my part, I think the rule that PCs ought to have gun combat and blade combat at level 0 is kind of silly also. Those can be obtained during the course of an adventure, so the character doesn't suffer a negative DM, but to assume them as defaults?

 

[creativehum]

For my part, I think the rule that PCs ought to have gun combat and blade combat at level 0 is kind of silly also. Those can be obtained during the course of an adventure, so the character doesn't suffer a negative DM, but to assume them as defaults?

Welsh, which rules system are you using?

 

[mike wightman]

I wouldn't expect that merchants would necessarily have vacc suit training. The average merchant crewman's career simply wouldn't call for it.

The average cabin crew on an airliner will have no need of emergency evacuation drills during their career - they still train for it.
The crew of cruise liners practice lifeboat drill, again they are unlikely to ever need it.

I would imagine a typical merchant in a typical traveller setting would receive emergency vac suit training - just in case.

 

[flykiller]

I don't disallow throws based on no skill. I just make it an act of god/fabulous luck that it works.

When performing surgery or landing a crippled starship, there will likely be consequences for putting an unskilled person in the position of attempting it- probably fatal in these examples.

if you have a task system that can handle such rolls. that's another factor affecting number of character skills, the task system being used.

 

[kilemall]

What's your take? How many people do you think have Vac Suit-0?

CT LBB1, Navy Marines Scouts Merchants yes, Army Others no (unless the setting has vac/thin atmo armies).

COTI S4, Pirate/Belter/Flyer/Scientist/Hunter, all others no. The last two because they can have ships and obviously do a lot of work around ships.

Is there something specific you can point to for the point of contention?

I could live with the 'cannot do difficult tasks' limit of skill-0, it sounded like you would allow them to describe a 'MacGyver' resolution, which perhaps they could personally do but the character could not.

Put it another way, I could live with your role play it first and foremost ethos BUT if the player cannot truly stay within the capabilities and limits of the character, die rolls ensue.

A typical way I would handle it is if there isn't an applicable skill, check against EDU to see if the character 'knows' what the player is trying to do.

The way you express it otherwise, sounds like they could talk their way into DMs the character does not support.

 

[aramis]

As far as "McGuyverisms"... that's firmly in the realm of "gotta have jack"...

Level 1/2 or 0, that's basic routine stuff.

some examples remembered from my CT days (in the 80's):

• Diving-0: The diver putting the wetsuit on correctly, including the tanks, and know the safe depths for no decompression.
  • Turning the spare cylinder into a dartgun? Better have Jack.
• Gunnery-0: routine maintenance using the manual. Can shoot the guns.
  • Rigging a missile as a probe mounting your hand scanner? That's Jack.
• Pilot-0: Dock, undock, plug in the jump cassette, pull the trigger. Fly to 100 diam.
  • Plot an efficient hohman transfer without computer assistance? Pilot 1.
  • Plot a 3 body slingshot course? Pilot 2+.
  • Rig a remote control from your hand scanner? Jack time.
• Gravitics: Routine inspections with the manual.
  • Turning the entry airlock into a fire sculpture display to impress your Darrian passenger? Jack AND Gravitics 1.
  • Bouncing the ZTM off all four walls? Jack or Gravitics 1.
• Medical-0: First aid.
  • Make a dialysis machine from kitchen contents? Jack 2 and Medical 1.
  • Make a gravity suction system (ala MASH)? Jack 1
  • Improvise a new specialized retractor? Jack 1, Mechanical 1, Medical 1.