Pilot vs Ship's Boat skill

[Supplement Four]

It actually matches the CT experience system fairly well by creating a chance for a 'no-penalty' Pilot-0 skill - like an abandoned weapon skill.

Two problems I see with this: (1) is that, as we've said, there's typically no penalty DM in CT tasks (although I'd probably impose one for a non-Pilot attempting to fly); and (2) CT encourages handing out Level-0 skills when backgrounds demand it.

Especially given the latter, I'd think the Skill-0 expertise is informal and not necessarily a formal step to Skill-1.

 

[aramis]

Since, per Bk 4, level 0 is an available training step, I disagree with Level 0 not being a trained step.

 

[Supplement Four]

Since, per Bk 4, level 0 is an available training step, I disagree with Level 0 not being a trained step.

I'm willing to be elightened. Where does it speak to that in Book 4? Are you referring to the Basic Training rules on pgs. 26-27?

If so, I disagree. Typical skill progression is Skill-1, Skill-2, Skill-3, etc. It's not: Skill-0, Skill-1, Skill-2, Skill-3, etc.

The skill training rules on pg. 27 don't take you to Skill-0 before going to Skill-1. You go straight to Skill-1.

All the "small arms familiarization" does is the same thing as any other Skill-0 that is awarded under the rules. If a character is from a homeworld made up of an asteroid ring, then it makes sense to give that character Vacc Suit-0 if the character doesn't already have the skill. Same thing with Basic Training above. It makes sense to give Skill-0 proficiency with small arms after basic training is completed.

This is not a step in getting Skill-1.

 

[aramis]

Basic Training, Page 27. Weapon Familiarization.

Further, page 13-14 says you can train to the lower of skill level -1 of the skill or of instruction. It also says instruction 1 is the minimum to conduct any training at all.

The math this produces is 1-1=0, thus Instructor 1's can only teach level 0. But the fact that they can teach level 0 in firearms is explicit on page 27, tho' not worded as such.

Therefore, level 0 skills, at least in firearms, may be taught. Given the rules, there is no benefit to teaching level 0 instead of level 1 IF the isntructor is capable, and the student is not maxed out on skill levels.

TTB page 29 states several skills are appropriate for level 0 use (See default skills); the limit on skills (Maximum Skills, ibid.) states level 0 skills don't count against the limit.

Note that Bk1, printing 12, lacks the limit on skills, and reference to level 0, and calls basic weapons expertise a level of "1/2"...

It's tenuous, but present, that based upon TTB and Bk4, one can use instruction to train level 0 skills, and possible that it includes skills other than weapons.

Further, the implication of the section on default skills on page 29 of the Traveller Book implies the unskilled penalty is automatic failure.

 

[Supplement Four]

It's tenuous, but present, that based upon TTB and Bk4, one can use instruction to train level 0 skills, and possible that it includes skills other than weapons.

Yes, it is tenuous. It's also what I thought you'd say.

I still disagree. Skill-0 is not a normal stepping stone to Skill-1. If it were, then Skill-0 would be awarded in chargen. Skill-0 would be the first stopping point after training in either Book 2 or Book 4.

 

[aramis]

Yes, it is tenuous. It's also what I thought you'd say.

I still disagree. Skill-0 is not a normal stepping stone to Skill-1. If it were, then Skill-0 would be awarded in chargen. Skill-0 would be the first stopping point after training in either Book 2 or Book 4.

It doesn't need to be normative, just possible. I never said it was a stepping stone to level 1, just a possible level taught.
It's also what you wind up with if you have too many skills!

 

[BlackBat242]

I always applied either a -4 or "no chance" for non-skilled actions except where the rules note otherwise for that specific skill.

The "Pre-enlistment skills" article in The Space Gamer # 73 (Mar/Apr 1985) allowed {skills = [int+edu]/4}, with any .5/.75 allowing one skill at 0.

If a character later got the same skill, I had them roll 2d vs Int. If successful, they got it at 2, if they failed, at 1.



Yes, I do think that certification for Navigation/Pilot by tonnage group is a good idea.

Not for the skill listing, just for practical use, port clearances, etc. Applying a -1 penalty for working outside your certified size class(es) seems good. Certification only needs be gained once to apply for multiple levels of pilot skills.

Certification would be chosen during skills acquisition, but new size classes could be certified after playing starts through OJT (each Ref determines local procedures). This should be easier than learning a normal skill level, and would not count against skill totals.

 

[Supplement Four]

I always applied either a -4 or "no chance" for non-skilled actions except where the rules note otherwise for that specific skill.

FWIW, I think that's more "MT thinking" than it is "CT thinking".

A CT character can be generated with just one or two skills. Traditionally, in CT, this character is very playable. He just doesn't usually get a beneficial DM on most throws.

If you start imposing a -4 DM on most of the throws this person does, then I think you're doing the character a disservice. He won't be a "useable" character at all.

This guy could have great stats--just few skills. And, he's handicapped on everything he does with a -4 DM. I don't think that's in the spirit of CT at all.

 

[BlackBat242]

Sez you... I have never actually played anything other than CT, nor have I read the other rules-sets since I looked at MT when it first came out.

This is what we had come up with in the mid-1980s, as having nearly everyone be able to muddle through doing nearly anything they don't have a skill in seemed ridiculous.

In compensation, we began using the "Pre-enlistment skills" article in The Space Gamer #73 (Mar/Apr 1985), and exempted those from the max for skills/levels.

 

[aramis]

As I pointed out in another thread, the section on Default Skills (The Traveller Book, page 29) implies that the penalty for being unskilled is failure.

Heck, most of the skills in CT are defined by allowing you do do something specific. Given the wording, I'd never considered allowing Joe Schlubotski (777777 Brawling 1) any chance at all of repairing an engine or flying a ship. He tries, he fails... no quarter given. Many skills list an unskilled penalty, often in the -3 to -5 range, so for those skills, I'd allowed it. I ran CT with a cheat sheet showing the various stock "tasks" (some of which are Roll > X, some are Roll < X)...

That is, right up until I got Traveller's Digest #8. The DGP Task system made the game much more cinematic (and for me, much more fun), and provided a default -4 for unskilled (by a difficulty shift; mathematically the same, but a world of difference psychologically).

I'd been using the DGP CT task system for a while before I got 2300, and about a year before MT was available.

 

[Icosahedron]

Personally, I'd agree with giving someone a finite chance of splitting a wand - that's more about sheer luck than skill (unless your character is Robin Hood), but luck is no substitute for knowledge and artistry. I'd say that 'Knuckles' Malarkey's chance of performing successful brain surgery is about the same as his chance of motorcycling into orbit.

The best he is likely to do (and he'd probably need boxcars just for this) is to stem the bloodflow and leave the patient in a vegetative state.

Whether that state is permanent / the degree of irreparable disability is a matter for the Referee and the Skill-6 brain surgeon following the airlift to a TL15 hospital.

 

[atpollard]

Whether that state is permanent / the degree of irreparable disability is a matter for the Referee and the Skill-6 brain surgeon following the airlift to a TL15 hospital.

Pshaw. The Aztec were performing Brain surgery at TL 0.

 

[boomslang]

What is "BT"?

Basic Traveller, i.e. Classic Traveller but from just Books 1-3.

 

[Icosahedron]

Pshaw. The Aztec were performing Brain surgery at TL 0.

Yeah, and all the failed attempts were sacrificed to the gods.

Unless, of course, the gods helped them via Daniken's Chariot?

No TL-0, Skill-0 brain surgery IMTU, thanks.

 

[Plankowner]

Well, you could let them TRY.

After all, it isn't THAT hard to roll a natural 13 on 2D...

 

[atpollard]

Well, you could let them TRY.
After all, it isn't THAT hard to roll a natural 13 on 2D...

I believe in giving any task a player can convince me is possible, no matter how unlikely, a chance at success.

Would the game world come to an end if a character attempting to stabilize a fatal wound under battlefield conditions (which is what any 'emergency surgery' is in Traveller) was allowed to attempt to roll a natural 12 on 2D6 (medic-2) or a natural 18 on 3D6 (medic-1) or a natural 24 on 4D6 (medic-0) or a natural 30 on 5D6 (the Character saw a 3D-Video about this once)?

The alternative is to just say "No, you cannot do that. Your character has Medic-1 and surgery requires Medic-3 plus high Dex plus a hospital. The Character dies while the group watches, helpless." Where is the fun in that? Give the guy a chance to try.

[After explaining why billions of people live on an airless rock ball at pre-stellar TLs for the third time/world, how hard can it be to rationalize a 1 in 216 chance of success at reviving a dead man?]

 

[Supplement Four]

...or a natural 18 on 3D6 (medic-1) or a natural 24 on 4D6 (medic-0) or a natural 30 on 5D6 (the Character saw a 3D-Video about this once)?

Give it to 'em. The chance of rolling those numbers are so incredibly low that you probably won't see it in your gaming career.

The alternative is to just say "No, you cannot do that. Your character has Medic-1 and surgery requires Medic-3 plus high Dex plus a hospital. The Character dies while the group watches, helpless." Where is the fun in that?

Understood. Makes sense. I'm with ya.

But, the chance of rolling 30 on 5D6 is 0.0129%. Just understand that the difference between giving the player the roll and saying "No, you cannot do that." is only that the player feels better about it.

For all practical purposes, you're saying, "No, you cannot do that." whether he rolls or not.

 

[atpollard]

But, the chance of rolling 30 on 5D6 is 0.0129%. Just understand that the difference between giving the player the roll and saying "No, you cannot do that." is only that the player feels better about it.

For all practical purposes, you're saying, "No, you cannot do that." whether he rolls or not.

... if the best excuse for a chance of success that the player can come up with is "his character saw it on TV", he doesn't deserve a better than a 1 in 7776 chance!

Most players can make up a story worthy of at least a 1 in 36 chance and some characters should be awarded a 1 in 6 chance based on the creativity and entertainment value of their story alone.

Even at 1 in 6, the task will probably fail.

 

[Supplement Four]

Most players can make up a story worthy of at least a 1 in 36 chance and some characters should be awarded a 1 in 6 chance based on the creativity and entertainment value of their story alone.

That's called "good role playing". As I said, I'm with ya. Great gaming should be rewarded at all costs.

I do that kind of thing often, and I thank the gawds I'm able to play with high caliber players who can deliver.

Still, the role-play would have to be pretty damn strong for me to give a chance to someone with no experience how to follow through on a brain surgery operation. Stopping blood flow and vegetatitive state (as was discussed earlier) might be something I'd give a chance to.

But, completing the entire operation is just not something I would see a person without skill even have a chance at being successful.

 

[Icosahedron]

I agree with what you guys are saying, to a point - hell, if a player comes up with a convincing rationale for getting his Harley into orbit, I'll listen.

But I think S4 has it in a nutshell there - the player may, with an extremely good roll, achieve some measure of success; postponing an otherwise certain death for a possible future intervention, perhaps.

But complete success comparable with a highly skilled character? No way.

My players are warned from the start that 'This ain't the movies - characters die IMTU'.
It makes them careful. And thoughtful. And resourceful. And just maybe, improves the game.