Here are my thoughts. Let's look at something modular -- i.e., transferable across sources. Say feats in D&D, although GURPS advantages/disadvantages, Storyteller merits/flaws, etc, also apply.
Let's say that the designers try to make all of the feats balanced, but in reality they create a sort of bell curve: ten average feats, six above average and below average feats, three really good and really bad feats, etc.
Now, when you play a character with just those twenty-eight feats, you can take some of the really good ones, but you're limited by what's available that advances the abilities of the character you're playing.
Let's say that the designers then make a splatbook. They try to make it balanced with core, and once again the feats they create fall along a bell curve.
The materials in the supplement aren't, per se, more powerful than the core, but by combining the best of the supplement with the best of core, you end up with something more powerful.
The only way to avoid this, unless you can make all modular pieces of a character creation system valued identically rightly compared to cost, is to make supplements uniformly underpowered so that the right of the bell curve of the supplment's power level is around the middle of the core's power level.
However, this is rather disappointing. Who wants to buy a bunch of supplements full of material that is generally weaker than core stuff and is, at its most powerful, about average?
The only real way around this that I see is to get rid of modularity, and make the supplements quarantined from each other -- bits from core don't mix with splatbook A, which don't mix with splatbook B, etc.
Even there, the fact remains that any change in power is unidirectional: the maximum power level available to players can increase, but it cannot decline, unless supplements include modifications of the core or each other. However, quarantining would at least mean that power creep wouldn't be cumulative.
However, some forms of modularity seem to have so many advantages that quarantining the supplements from each other would inflict unacceptable damage on the enjoyment and playability of the game.
Is there a solution?
-Cherubaddon
http://www.hackslash.net/?p=220
He tested a level 1 fighter vs. a goblin and discovered that over all, power of a level 1 fighter has increased dramatically throughout the various editions.
He tested a level 1 fighter vs. a goblin and discovered that over all, power of a level 1 fighter has increased dramatically throughout the various editions.
Good link.
I really wish the guy wouldn't just compare DnD4.0 to various versions of Dungeons and Dragons, as it rather skews the results. For example, how well does a basic fighter do against basic Tunnels and Trolls goblins? Or in Warhammer Fantasy Role-play? GURPS? (excuse me).
Simply saying "DnD4.0 fighters can slaughter 20+ goblins, unlike in Dungeons and Dragons, where it maxes out at around 10" isn't exactly meaningful in this context, it needs to be compared to other RPGs. At least, in my opinion.
it needs to be compared to other RPGs. At least, in my opinion.
Not really. How many goblins can a basic equipped Traveller Marine char take out? 100's?
Not really. How many goblins can a basic equipped Traveller Marine char take out? 100's?
Heh, I didn't say EVERY RPG.
Does Traveller have goblins? I didn't even know that, nor did I know the entry-level characters start with brutally effective mass attack weaponry like that.
Might have to check that game out.
Heh, I didn't say EVERY RPG.
Does Traveller have goblins? I didn't even know that, nor did I know the entry-level characters start with brutally effective mass attack weaponry like that.
Might have to check that game out.
Traveller can definitely have goblins and anythink else as you have a whole universe to explor. Yes, new characters can even have a star ship
Anyway, maybe not every RPG should be checked for comparison's sake.
Anyway, maybe not every RPG should be checked for comparison's sake.
Right. Best to stick to the same game, comparing different versions.
As it is, a claim of bias could be made, is all I'm saying.
Heh, too late for that, unfortunately. And, seeing how the cat is out of the bag, we're back where we started, a comparison using several other RPGs (I'm still not sure an armed starship is standard equipment for a typical Traveller character, though, or that goblins are typical in the Traveller universe...do you have a link, it's been a while since I played), instead of just one, would put things in better context.
An armed starship can indeed be starting equip. The GM alone determines the type of creatures encountered. You must have played it very briefly a long time ago. These are questions that are answered when you 1st start playing.
Perhaps Warhammer 40k might be a better comparison, assuming there's an RPG out there for it.
Ah...yeah, it's been a long while. Still, this sounds more like a "GM can do anything he wants", which is a caveat for most other RPGs as well.
Nope. It is part of the char generation process. Nothing to do with the GM.
The GM creates the "monsters" & NPCs.
And why, in this scenario, would the GM pit the player against sword-wielding goblins?
So, does he roll on a table to get the starship (sort of how I remember, with there being a chance the character could die before entering the campaign), or is the orbital bombing deathmachine handed to him? I'm still a little confused, sorry.
And why, in this scenario, would the GM pit the player against sword-wielding goblins?
For scouts, pirates, belters, nobles & a couple of others its part of the char generation process.
As far as sword wielding creatures, just go to a planet of that tech level.
Heh, nice one!
Perhaps Warhammer 40k might be a better comparison, assuming there's an RPG out there for it.
Several, actually:
Necromunda, which is mostly a skirmish version of the old 40k versions, with heavy RPG elements.
Inquisitor, more of a tabletop game than D&D, but still one of the RPGs with the IMO best - if bulkiest - combat systems.
Dark Heresy, a classical P&P RPG much like D&D (except for the race/class thing), VERY weak as far as the characters' power goes, and I believe in need of some more playtesting, but a good, solid system overall.
-Cherubaddon
Ah, you had me going. According to the folks that currently play Traveller, your scenario of a rolled up character getting planetary bombardment capable starships going over to fight goblins is, um, 'not standard'. Actually, phrases like "bizarro fiction" and "coloring way outside the lines" came up.
Heh, nice one!
Actually, whoever you talked to don't know the game rules at all.
Well, go over to the Traveller forums and correct them, then.
I tutor for a fee.
I tutor for a fee.
Is the next statement and you got schooled because that would be cliche but still funny.
@ Doomboy, yes you can get a starship, in fact in the rules set you played you could get a starship, newer rules make that a bit more difficult, but still plausible. Problem is that probability of that occurring through rules is somewhere in the 1:1,986,999,999 range in the old rules set (OK a bit exaggerated but it is somewhere in the trillions 1/100, 1/100, 1/100, 1/100, 1/100, 5/30). I can't imagine it has changed that much since the first edition if they even said they made it more difficult to achieve. Just a guess. And even the starship in the old one did not carry weaponry to carry off planetary bombardment. Since I played multiple versions I can say that not one of the versions I played ever had that. But if the newest version does, then there is an argument for power creep there
@ both- goblins are in a supplement for traveler and are not low tech, however the average standard equipment package for a traveller is not powerful enough to mow down hundreds of goblins. Survival rates in gun fights for travellers tended to be low in older versions so even if they got into a firefight they barely lived long enough to make a point of comparing to d20. However seeing as how we are comparing, the low tech gobs vs high tech travs would be overrun if the fighter were in a group but less likely if he were by himself. Melee tended to support low tech.
Is the next statement and you got schooled because that would be cliche but still funny.
@ Doomboy, yes you can get a starship, in fact in the rules set you played you could get a starship, newer rules make that a bit more difficult, but still plausible. Problem is that probability of that occurring through rules is somewhere in the 1:1,986,999,999 range in the old rules set (OK a bit exaggerated but it is somewhere in the trillions 1/100, 1/100, 1/100, 1/100, 1/100, 5/30). I can't imagine it has changed that much since the first edition if they even said they made it more difficult to achieve. Just a guess. And even the starship in the old one did not carry weaponry to carry off planetary bombardment. Since I played multiple versions I can say that not one of the versions I played ever had that. But if the newest version does, then there is an argument for power creep there
@ both- goblins are in a supplement for traveler and are not low tech, however the average standard equipment package for a traveller is not powerful enough to mow down hundreds of goblins. Survival rates in gun fights for travellers tended to be low in older versions so even if they got into a firefight they barely lived long enough to make a point of comparing to d20. However seeing as how we are comparing, the low tech gobs vs high tech travs would be overrun if the fighter were in a group but less likely if he were by himself. Melee tended to support low tech.
See, that's pretty much how I remember it, some small piffling chance, but only for a lucky player who happened from the get-go to make all the right choices. And got lucky again. And got lucky again.
Is the next statement and you got schooled because that would be cliche but still funny.
@ Doomboy, yes you can get a starship, in fact in the rules set you played you could get a starship, newer rules make that a bit more difficult, but still plausible. Problem is that probability of that occurring through rules is somewhere in the 1:1,986,999,999 range in the old rules set (OK a bit exaggerated but it is somewhere in the trillions 1/100, 1/100, 1/100, 1/100, 1/100, 5/30).
Actually, in the Scout mustering out table (1st Ed) you had about 1:6 chance for each term enlisted...
The T20 rules on mustering out:
Scouts
Material Benefits
1 Low Passage
2 +2 Intelligence
3 +2 Education
4 High Passage
5 Weapon
6 Scout Ship
One D6 roll per term served. For a 4 term player = 66% of a star ship.
Your odds listed are off by too much to list...
One D6 roll per term served. For a 4 term player = 66% of a star ship
First off let's take the assumption that you are correct that this is a way to get a Starship. I have to correct your probability. On the outset it looks to be correct. It's a 1/6 chance to get a star ship. 4 x 1/6 means that it's a 4/6 chance to get a ship which means that you have 66.6% chance of getting a starship. Why stop there? If 4 means you increase the chances then 6 means you have a 100% chance and 7 terms means you have a 7/6 chance to get a starship. This is a mistake people often make about probability. Here's a nice web page to explain why it's not 66%
http://www.edcollins.com/backgammon/diceprob.htm
Simple explanation: roll one dice you have a 5/6 chance you won't get a 6, that's 16.xx% chance of rolling a six. Rolling 4d6 your chance of rolling a six is 100 - 5d6 x 5d6 x 5d6 x 5d6 which equals out to be 48.22% which means you have a chance of rolling a 6 little over 51% of the time not 66%. Equiprobability fields and random incrementation outcomes suggest a further decrease but we'll ignore those completely. Probability is often tricky and I have had math instructors tell me they get it wrong 1/4 times in 1/20 classes which I think is their attempt to be funny.
The roll you made at mustering out does not come automatically. Mustering is not by the players choice, and how their career path evolves is also not their choice. It is often the luck of the dice
T1 had an interesting habit of killing off characters during creation. And that carried over from several charts. Each time you served a term you increased those chances. I am going to be lazy (or a physicist) and pretend that they are 1/100 per term (I don't intend to open the book for this one so it may be more but it is not less) right around 1% per term, 4% over four terms. Your chances of mustering out with a scout ship and also not dieing =
100-5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 - (100-5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6 x 5/6).04 = to about 50%
Considering that the changes in traveller have come in almost ten sets over 30 years, depending on which set you played you could argue that there is still a good chance that you would arrive with a scout ship assuming that you did not die, were not removed from duty or all the other pratfalls that prevent you from getting your ship. I'll even allow for the 50% because I am being lazy.
Setting aside probability for a second Let's look at the term starship too. Now in Sci-fi the term starship implies interstellar travel, literally a ship that can travel to stars (or just one, travel times were notoriously bad in classic). In t20 a scout ship could very much be a Star ship, however, in classic it was a stretch since the definition of a scout ship was based off a 30 ton boat, it was an interpanetary space ship or rig or boat, not star ship. That does not mean there were not interstellar capable star ships like the s type, but the players were not able to get that one.
When you put this all together there was only one chance after a series of rolls to get a ship that travelled beyond a system, a starship, without GM caveat. That probability still stands at ...well it's weird because you create an equiprobability space, by the rule of counting there are [(20 x 5) ^5] x 6 possible outcomes of those rolls. Only one outcome produces a starship which is equal to 1: 60,000,000,000 well below my figure of 1 trillion it is only 60 billion, I think I added two zeroes to my final multiplication the other night.
Anyways. I promised myself that I would stop wresting forum control to plug math pages and I keep on breaking my promise.
I have to correct your probability. On the outset it looks to be correct. It's a 1/6 chance to get a star ship.
Yes, I know my example wasn't totally accurate. I wanted to simply show how far off YOU were.
The roll you made at mustering out does not come automatically. Mustering is not by the players choice, and how their career path evolves is also not their choice. It is often the luck of the dice
Wrong. At the end of a 4 year term you can choose to muster out.
T1 had an interesting habit of killing off characters during creation. And that carried over from several charts. Each time you served a term you increased those chances.
Yes, if you got killed you just started a new char. So, didn't impact your chances. Each term had the same chance of being killed.
(or just one, travel times were notoriously bad in classic).
The same time in all editions.
in classic it was a stretch since the definition of a scout ship was based off a 30 ton boat, it was an interpanetary space ship or rig or boat, not star ship.
Umm, no. It was a Jump-2 100 Ton Star Ship.
That does not mean there were not interstellar capable star ships like the s type, but the players were not able to get that one.
The Type S 100 ton J-2 ship was the ONLY one a Scout player could get.
When you put this all together
When one reads your post it is obvious that you are totally unfamiliar with any version of Traveller. If you ever learn the rules you can PM me and I'll be happy to discuss the game.
I'm wondering whether there's any real way to avoid power creep?
Yes
Let's say that the designers try to make all of the feats balanced, but in reality they create a sort of bell curve: ten average feats, six above average and below average feats, three really good and really bad feats, etc.
Subjective reasoning. Some people consider various feats better than others. One example of this is any of the buff feats to your saves. Some people hated them but others loved them. Assuming we took a look at this on an economics of desire scale, maybe applying an equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlated_equilibrium
with all NPC's as the opponent. Certain feats would recieve a better leveraged payout while the remaining feats would either be average or just slightly below with a couple being stellar and a couple being completely useless. But some of them would be so beneficial in certain cases that they overcome their own shortcomings.
Let's say that the designers then make a splatbook. They try to make it balanced with core, and once again the feats they create fall along a bell curve.
The materials in the supplement aren't, per se, more powerful than the core, but by combining the best of the supplement with the best of core, you end up with something more powerful.
Assuming that in this rulebook all things being the same there are greater number of available feats which produce better results for the player. Go back to the correlated equilibrium consider the implication f changing rules in the game cited in the explanation. This is effectively what we have done in D&D we have provided one side with a change of rules but not the other side.
Take a look at it from a blackjack perspective. We play each other from two different decks. The NPC's have the standard 52, the dealer adds 20 cards to my deck, 2 2's 4 8's and the rest are face cards (or tens) and aces originally I had a 16/52 chance of getting a face or ten and a 4/52 in getting an Ace. When cards were added to my deck but not the NPC I now have a 38/72 chance of not getting an ACE or face and a 34/72 or 221/468 to get one of those. The NPC has 20/52 0r 180/468 chance of getting an ace or face.
Essentially what occurs, is if the NPC's are still being played with the old rules pre-splat then they are going to appear less powerful because they often have fewer choices. Take a Monster like an orc, as it was they gave them rather bizarre feats like alertness instead of power attack or increased HP. Something that has the similar sturcture and build to an orc may still have alertness and probably added one or two other beneficial feats but nothing great. It's a static build Monster manual creature which does not change with the addition of newer splat books. However new splat MM's mean some monsters will actual have the better feats. The problem of course is that 100% of the PC's have 100% general feats available while only 20% of the monsters were made with 100% of the available feats. Meaning while players got better monsters did not.
there were also cases where the splat revised feats and either nerfed them or shell shocked them, making certain feat choices a bonus sell.
The only way to avoid this, unless you can make all modular pieces of a character creation system valued identically rightly compared to cost, is to make supplements uniformly underpowered so that the right of the bell curve of the supplment's power level is around the middle of the core's power level.
That's just a bad idea because that won't sell. Stay tuned for more
Even there, the fact remains that any change in power is unidirectional: the maximum power level available to players can increase, but it cannot decline, unless supplements include modifications of the core or each other. However, quarantining would at least mean that power creep wouldn't be cumulative.
Again this really goes back to who you compare this to. In this comparison the unspoken comparison again is the NPC. Power level suggests power to do something and ultimately power to do is really power against. Players gain power but opponents do not match in power gains. This can be rectified and is rectified in a limited way in the new edition. They give you levels of Monsters with variations of certain powers changing the dynamics of the creatures. However the more they introduce splat books, you are correct, the more they will let power creep exist because even with the slight corrections in existence there is no true correction.
Is there a solution?
There was a fix previously suggested and in a way 4th goes into that but very few game guides really spend the time to fix the power creep problem. One it's upwardly complex, two it makes lower level characters less fun to play (and that is traditionally where RPG's are the most fun to play) and three many games down have upwardly changing motif's without some semblance of cutoff point (like 2nd ed's level limits).
One way to fix the problem is to institute chain mechanics. A power/attack/feat requires a chain of events or mechanics to use. For instance in certain video games they use simplex chains like fighting moves A+B+semicircle= frost attack. You can use more complex chains here. The chain has to be greater than the sum of its parts and doesn't always work. Here's an example
Chain 1 requires Feat A, B, C, D By themselves they add a decreasing amount of damage. Feat A +5 B +4 and so on. If taken together successive attacks they do: A,+5;B,+2;C, x2; D, x2+2. So separate in 4 turns you can do your normal attack or benefit and then either receive +5-+2 or you use these tactics in one turn and do much greater damage. In order to be successful a chain has to succeed at every step, and therefore has to have the same potential except whatever the chain modifies. But the benefits change depending on if you are chaining or not. Normally if you attack with b you'd gain +4 but in the chain it lowers to +2. Maybe by using a chain overall you decrease your chances to hit. Whatever. It's a modified version of the prisoners dilemma. you get greater rewards by increasing risk, but may be in terms of probability better off not to choose the chain. The reason you do it is the potential to increase the destruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
In this way you can add complexity to a game while still having a justifible mechanic and it reduces power creep. Each new splat book adds a new chain, a way to replace links in a previous chain without making serious changes, or it introduces chain capstones. Then you can take those chains back to your level 1 orc who started with alertness and either replace alertness with another potential chain starter, or add to alertness (and their level) to set them up as a newer more powerful opponent. As long as you keep relinking splat books to the original powers you have a better chance of keeping power creep down, as long as you decrease benefits unless you increase risks. (most poker games use chain mechanics because in order to have the best set of cards you need to link certain cards together)
Here's an example of a chain mechanic in D&D Each group feat down the list requires the previous group or part of the group. (these are not all real feats so I have just added my own bonuses to how the potential)
Starter Group (Need Two of these feats to complete chain)
Iron Will (will bonus)
Weapon Focus (attack bonus)
Deft Attack (my version adds half your dex bonus to damage)
Alertness
Group 2 (Need 2)
Power Attack
Recovery (Allows an extra action if will unsuccessfully attacked)
Hard pressed (requires martial skill in shield) Use shield to hinder opponents movement)
Extra HP (whatever feat gives you this, one of these is required)
Sure footed (allows you to keep your feet even if tripped)
Group 3 Need 1
Hammer Head (automatic headbutt as part of attack extra 3 damage)
Improved Shield bash
Needle (Ignore AC bonus from armor provided you have used 1 each of previous feats in previous rounds or attacks)
Group 4 (have to have all previous chain feats to take these feats)
Take down (all hits do double damage and knock opponent prone provided 1 feat from each previous group is used successfully in current or immediate previous round (s) (this one is the easiest to complete because it only requires passive feat use and does not require any special bonuses)
Deaths Bargain ( Provided PC has completed one effect from each previous group during fight, PC can choose to ignore the effects of his death for 3 rounds during which he can attack doing damage equal to regular damage, plus damage taken beyond death, raise dead impossible due to deaths bargain but ressurect works for character
Creature Climb (a feat of strength will and dexterity) You climb a creature and can attack from it's shoulders, every attack it makes against you and misses does full damage to itself.
Although here the benefits of each feat are terrific, they cannot be had without completing the feat list from below and require what are sometimes considered dull feats like alertness. Now in a splat book you can add another single use feat that has limited benefits but has a great payoff. Don't be surprised if you add something like this to a game, players will be really creative and role play more because the final payoff is fun and adventurous.
Also by adding chain feats you lose some of the problems games tend to have which is a high payoff at the beginning of a fight and then significantly lower payoff at the end. Instead the payoff requires a buildup to an event. The longer you are in battle the crazier and more deadly the battle becomes.
Well those are my thoughts
If you disagree with them that's fine. I am not going to try to defend them in any way
[HTML]
Yes, I know my example wasn't totally accurate. I wanted to simply show how far off YOU were.
Respectfully, Trying to justify poor math just demonstrates that you are either making fallacious statements or you do not know understand probability. Either way this implies that any argument you make is suspect. Which you will see later that I partially concur that your argument is salable but not 100% true. I will make some points concerning traveller and at the end demonstrate how the math is applied, both should make it obvious that I was mostly correct in my math and correct in my assessment.
Wrong. At the end of a 4 year term you can choose to muster out.
Wrong. Death can occur before term ending. In most game versions death can either be optioned to injury no muster or in Mega Traveller in particular it becomes automatic that you are released from duties without the benefit of muster items if injured. That would make mustering out at 1 term not entirely 100% assured. Some rolls of survival are much higher than others in the options sections as well as the side books, making surviving more difficult. In the scout book you have to roll 3 times to determine if you survive in one term. Moreover, the reenlistment roll is a requirement of T1 and if I remember correctly of every Traveller I played, if you roll a twelve on that you are required to reenlist. Mustering is not always by choice.
Yes, if you got killed you just started a new char. So, didn't impact your chances. Each term had the same chance of being killed.
From what I understand this was not true in d20 and it was definitely not true in Megatraveller where it explicitly states
"Failure to successfully achieve the survival throw forces the character to leave the service after having only served two years of the four year term. The short term is not counted for mustering out benefits" --Megatraveller, Player's Manual Page 14 column B paragraph 8 (by tabs).
Also in every Traveller I have played a player does not have the same chance of being killed in every term. Specifically T1 a scout was killed (or injured as the GM option suggested) when he rolled a 6 or less for survivability unless he had good endurance, which gave him a DM (a bonus) of +2. But if you played with the later books in the same series, depending on job your survival could be limited. The fact that you have to roll multiple times in case you have to reenlist means there is a slight boost in chance of each subsequent term that you will die. Probability of death in 1st term = 1.00-5/6. Possibility of death in second term is 1.00-5/6*5/6. Your chances increase each term because the terms are successive making the rolls successive.
The same time in all editions.
In some editions the flight time between worlds is differentiated because of the technology availibility or slight changes in calculations
Umm, no. It was a Jump-2 100 Ton Star Ship.
Which edition? I only ask because there were changes in a couple of editions that changed that. An addendum to this, when we used to play first edition, we were not allowed this aprticular ship we were given choices of interplanetary. I had forgotten about the availibility for scouts. So I was wrong about the jump capabilities of the scout ship. Although I'd like to point out the fuel capabilities of one scout ship make it impossible to complete a full circuit jump unless the two star systems are within 3 light years of each other (3 there and 3 back equals 2 parsecs which equals jump drive 2)
The original statements made concerning traveller and statements afterwards are easily refuted in multiple editions
Kursk said
An armed starship can indeed be starting equip
While the scout vehicle does have jump drives, it is not armed again I quote from T1 discussing this ship "One double turret with its fire control is installed on the ship's hardpoint, but no weaponry is mounted"
Kursk said:
Nope. It is part of the char generation process. Nothing to do with the GM
the GM and the player determine whether or not a characters death makes him start a new character, the GM also determines whether or not a scout ship is truly available So yes there is some caveat here.
You also tacitly said when you answered in affirmative doomboy's question specifically about planetary bombardment
players receive planetary bobardment starships when they generate a character
That is absolutely not true. Of the two auto available, neither have enough hardports available for such equipment, and to buy a hardpoint and then the equipment would not be cost effective
Kursk also said
How many goblins can a basic equipped Traveller Marine char take out? 100's?
With their standard retirement equipment from t1 they could take out 1 before they'd have a tough time (remember combat rules make some explicit definitions for weapons vs armor, most combatants are not equipped with the tip top armor and if they get hit by one primitive weapon like a broadsword they may be in a world of hurt. Plus combat only reflects a 1 to 1 number of hits in a round. So no matter how well equipped and death dealing, a character could kill off 1 the first round but be attacked by 99 during that round. Megatraveller increases his chances of killing multiples but at no point can a marine kill off "100" low tech goblins with basic equipment without either dieing or getting taken out of the firefight
Yes, new characters can even have a star ship
Here is where one part of your statement is falsified, the scout ship is made available but is not owned by the Scout. To me it sounds like you are suggesting ownership which never occurs for the scout. As the book says "It is the policy of the scout service to make available such surplus scout ships to selected individuals on a reserve basis" If you are saying the scout ship is available at GM's caveat which is true then fine but to say that the scout wholly owns a ship is false. However the ship to which I referred in my posts was the merchant ship which is available without such strings or caveats despite the price tag
When one reads your post it is obvious that you are totally unfamiliar with any version of Traveller. If you ever learn the rules you can PM me and I'll be happy to discuss the game.
Quote for quote, you made rash statements that I simply refuted by taking two seconds to look through a couple of traveller books. Anyone who had the rules in front of them could have refuted your statements regardless of their time playing. The statement trying to claim that I had never played traveller could neither be proved true or false if you consider that any dummy could read a book and find out if the information is true. You in fact could be talking from knowledge about the scout ship but never played an actual game because you took the time to read a part of one chapter. While I don't doubt the knowledge you have of multiple formats of Traveller is large much of what was said in your previous post and the posts leading up to it were incorrect.
The last time I had made statements I did not have my books available. Now I do. Let's try this again. I don't have t20 so I cannot quote their rules but this shall do.
Your chances of joining the scouts a roll of 7+ on 2d6 with a little leverage from your abilities, your roll of succeeding a draft in case you missed it the first time roll a 4 on a 1d6, your chances of having a free ship as a scout 0, it is not your own, the ship is property of the military and only made available to you if they deem it right (read if the the GM believes you need a personal transport. The only way to get YOUR OWN SHIP in Traveller T1 from your mustering package is to join the merchants and that is only if you reenlist a minimum of 4 times to get to captain which gives you a chance to roll a 7 on a 1d6 and even then you still have to pay a monthly fee of 50,000 credits which most characters cannot afford, not to mention the fact that you are starting to get into age crisis
Explanation
Most rolls are 2d6 unless stipulated. Your chances of joining the merchants 7+ same as scouts. Draft again is 1/6. Commision 4+ (so you are almost always commisioned unless drafted a roll of 3 or 2 is a fail) A roll on the first commision to get a rank above 1 10+ (probability on this one) is 6 out of 36. You have to succeed on each additional promotion at each new term. Survivability roll each term 5+, your roll for reenlistment 4+, and don't forget when you finally reach captain you still have to roll a 6 on a 1d6.
Here is an example of how this could play out
PC 1
Term 1: enlistment 2, draft 6, can't commision first year because of draft so I have to go an extra term to even try this, survive10, reenlist 4,
Term 2: commission 9, promotion 7 requires another term, survive 9, reenlist 7Term 3: promotion 11, I am rank 2, survive 9,reenlist 11,
Term 4: Promotion 6, survive 4 I am either dead or I am forced to retire, I get three retirment benefits but no ship
PC 2
Term 1 Enlist 9, no draft, commision 5, promotion 5 Survive 9, reenlist 4
Term 2 Promotion 6, survive 9 reenlist 7 Rank 1
Term 3 Promotion 10, survive 9 R:6 Rank 2
Term 4 P:4, S:10 R:2 I am booted from service
Realistically this is the ideal set of rolls
Term 1: Enlist 9, Commision 5, Promotion 10, Survive 5 Reenlist 4 rank 2
Term 2 Promotion:10, Survive 5, reenlist 4 rank 3
Term 3 Promotion 10 S:5 R:4 rank 4
Term 4 P:10 S:5 R: not twelve rank 5 One succesful roll on this chart (8 available) gets a 6 (77% chance with the eight rolls)
I am not sure If I did this one right but I think it ends up being a .002%chance of success. or 1/100000 lower than my original assessment but there is good reason for this. My original asessment used Megatraveller. Your chances of dieing once are greater than your chances of getting a boat. Here is a step by step proof. Enjoy
Step Step name Success Fail % 100000people
Step 1 enlist 21 15 58% 58000
Step 2 Commission 33 3 92% 53360
Step 3 Promotion 6 30 16.70% 8537
Step 4 Survive 30 6 83.30% 7086
Step 5 Reenlist 33 3 91.70% 6519
Step 6 Promotion 6 30 16.70% 1088
Step 7 Survive 30 6 83.30% 903
Step 8 Reenlist 33 3 91.70% 822
Step 9 Promotion 6 30 16.70% 131
Step 10 Survive 30 6 83.30% 109
Step 11 Reenlist 33 3 91.70% 99
Step 12 Promotion 6 30 16.70% 16
Step 13 Survive 30 6 83.30% 13
Step 14 Reenlist 33 3 91.70% 12
Step 15 Muster out 1 6 16.70% 1
Using Megatraveller we could go into advanced character generation (my preferred version) however this is probably enough to digest..[/HTML]
Speaking of which to bring this all back to our topic, concerning power creep. As I was floating these probabilities and chances to get certain items and to become a little more enhanced I noticed that with each successive version of Traveller they increased the power availibility but also increased your chance of failing to a point. So as they increased the final payoff for your early career they also increased risk, and it almost had a 1:1 relationship. exception to this was some items weren't as powerful and had a much greater risk. Which made me think perhaps power creep can be avoided if you increase risk.
Power creep is solved simply by PC death, whether by old age force-via-chart, infirmity, or combat.
no matter how powerful, death as the final ending ends the power creep.
Otherwise you've got everyone walking aeround with godlike powers and abilities i.e. an epic level 3.5 game.
Which in itself is not bad, if that's what you are into. It makes for a good story if everyone is willing.
Also, yes scouts could get a type S, that could handle one mount of ship-size weapons, think: a bit smaller than the millenium falcon.
As to slaying 100 goblins.. perhaps. but since the average hit point range of any traveller PC is about 21 total over their career, or less as they age out past 35+, fighting anything more than a few goblins gets really tricky in melee.
With a nice marine weapon, or something with 100 goblins at range, you could do it.
If it was you in a dungeon with 3 or 4 goblins, all armed with melee weapons, and some kind of light chain, or something similar, well, there is not a lot of "Wade in to combat" in traveller. Such people get killed in short order, or .. just a bit longer than that.
The only way to prevent Option Creep is to not release more information.
I was a little confused byy what you were saying so I tried to simplify it for myself. This is essentially what I think you were saying: Core books have a median distribution of power. All splat books add optional feats. Splat book feats tend to have a median distribution compared to other feats within the book, and that median is the same as the core books.
Each set that comes out ideally uses the same bell curve
The core books provide a certain number of choices, the same number at the top power tier as there are at the bottom tier. We assume the player has a finite number of choices, they will always choose to max, and before the addition of new books made choices that had a certain number of top tier mixed with a certain number of middle tier choices. When you add options, that allows them to replace middle tier choices with top tier choices, they will and will therefore have a more powerful character.
Options are power, and the more options you have access to, the more power is available.
If this is the problem with power creep then what is the problem? Or more importantly why is this a problem? So you gain more options and therefore more power. And....?
In magic it's only a problem because new players tend to buy more of the newer sets while older players tend to have older sets and find it less easy to invest more money. if the newer sets have more options, which allow for a more powerful deck, then older sets tend to be weaker. But this is a true opposition game (more like cmpetition). Your opponent is the other player, so having a more powerful deck available to you does tend to favor the person with the better, newer or more expensive cards.
Saying that players will choose better options because they are there doesn't seem like an issue unless the players competes against other players that are not allowed newer options
@ Crazysamaritan, Somehow I don't think you want to use the term "bell curve" since that is not entirely collusive with your statement.
Bell curve was what the OP used. Instead of making up my own explanation, I was using his. To clarify:
On a scale of 1-10, where the goal is to make each feat a 6, 90% of feats are about a 6. (ignore fact, and use these numbers for illustration) 5% are going to be less than 5, and 5% are going to be more than 7. If each new book follows this spectrum perfectly, power does not ever increase, because there is 90% of the feats still rate a 5-7.
This is essentially what I think you were saying: Core books have a median distribution of power. All splat books add optional feats. Splat book feats tend to have a median distribution compared to other feats within the book, and that median is the same as the core books.
The core books provide a certain number of choices, the same number at the top power tier as there are at the bottom tier. We assume the player has a finite number of choices, they will always choose to max, and before the addition of new books made choices that had a certain number of top tier mixed with a certain number of middle tier choices. When you add options, that allows them to replace middle tier choices with top tier choices, they [will] therefore have a more powerful character.
This is NOT power creep, as defined by the OP. This is Option Creep, as used by magic players.
The different formats prevent Option Creep from being a problem in magic.
There is no such format in DnD. To keep a certain power level, let's say, five books, it doesn't matter which five books you allow, the first five, or the last five, if they all have the same power distribution.
(btw, newer magic players tend to have fewer sets, and therefore have less options in casual magic, because they're newer.)
I'm getting my threads mixed up.http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1122783