Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;264406Sure, for some weird reason the skill is increased provisionally right at the start of the program. But that's just it. Advancement is either a dead giveaway, or, if the GM takes it seriously, 8 years game time spent exercising on the side.

I'm sorry, but I disagree.

First, I don't find anything "weird" about how advancement is handled. Skills increase provisionally because of the extra attention they receive from the character: my character is more skilled as a pilot because he's running intensive computer simulations in his downtime, or she's a better medic because of the time spent studying Growfrowf's Manual of Vargr Diseases of the Urinary Tract.

If my characters are dilligent in their studies and practice, then the abilities and knowledge gained result in a higher rating; if not, then the extra work just didn't stick enough to make a long-term difference in the characters' skills.

Second, the character can learn new non-weapon skills via trade school or the aforementioned Instruction skill. (As a house rule I allow characters to advance a non-weapon [skill]-0 to [skill]-1, in the same fashion as weapon skills.)

Third, success in training means the character advances one skill level per term, same as the rate of advancement in basic chargen.

Quote from: StormBringer;264409What it boils down to (with thanks to Pierce Inverarity for the confirm) is that the advancement in Traveller was sparse and barely worth the effort, unless you were in dire need of a certain skill four to eight years down the road . . .

No, once again you've got it wrong: the skill advanced increases immediately on a successful dedication roll, which means your character's two skills are each a level higher for at least the next four years in the game. With a 2d6 system and modifiers for skill levels of +2 or more in some cases (e.g., Admin, Forgery, Vacc Suit), that can be a significant improvement.

In BH the experience difference between no gunfights and 11+ gunfights is an increase of 20% in accuracy. I wouldn't call that a negligible change, but your mileage may vary.

I'm not asking you to embrace how advancement is handled in either of these systems, but saying there's no meaningful character advancement in either game is just demonstrably wrong. There's a big difference between saying, "I don't like the rules as written," and, "There are no rules."

Quote from: The Shaman;264418First, I don't find anything "weird" about how advancement is handled. Skills increase provisionally because of the extra attention they receive from the character: my character is more skilled as a pilot because he's running intensive computer simulations in his downtime, or she's a better medic because of the time spent studying Growfrowf's Manual of Vargr Diseases of the Urinary Tract.

If my characters are dilligent in their studies and practice, then the abilities and knowledge gained result in a higher rating; if not, then the extra work just didn't stick enough to make a long-term difference in the characters' skills.

Which is rather tricky to adjudicate.  "Hey, the last three sessions, I don't recall you mentioning that Susan was studying that Vargr urine book.  I guess you will have to start over when you get a chance."

And it doesn't really say how this training regimen is to be undertaken, except in the case of the Education boost, which quite specifically states it is a correspondence course, or tutoring.  I have serious doubts that a tutor is going to wander the galaxy with a group of mercenaries/merchants, but it is possible.

QuoteSecond, the character can learn new non-weapon skills via trade school or the aforementioned Instruction skill. (As a house rule I allow characters to advance a non-weapon [skill]-0 to [skill]-1, in the same fashion as weapon skills.)

No, a character can learn a new skill once in their lifetime, specifically by taking a sabbatical.  Meaning, they are not doing normal character stuff for four years.  Essentially, they are going to college or tech school, exclusively.

Personally, I don't think you need an entire four years to get one 'level' better at using most weapons, so I would probably allow two blade and several gun weapons to be increased over the four years, but that depends on the availability of practice space.  I suppose that would be a large reason for the four year blocks, however.  A hour or two here and there stretched out over four years.

QuoteThird, success in training means the character advances one skill level per term, same as the rate of advancement in basic chargen.No, once again you've got it wrong: the skill advanced increases immediately on a successful dedication roll, which means your character's two skills are each a level higher for at least the next four years in the game. With a 2d6 system and modifiers for skill levels of +2 or more in some cases (e.g., Admin, Forgery, Vacc Suit), that can be a significant improvement.

That is the 'throwaway' mentioned.  What imposes the further training on the character at that point?  Immediate loss of skill?  What kind of logistical nightmare would it be to continually have the player scheduling their Imperium Wide Web sessions in the middle of a game?  Admittedly, it could add some tension to a particular session, if the computer communications went down in the middle of a lesson or something; but other than an occasional story related glitch, who wants to track that kind of thing?  

The non-weapon skills also directly state that they work in a manner similar to the weapon skills increases.  Four years of personal study for a temp boost, followed by four more years of study, or in a formal program.  "Formal program" is not the same as "I'll hit the books on the weekend".

Now, the last section in there is titled 'Alternatives'.  This alternative consists of 'whatever the referee wants'.  In other words, you can certainly have a given group of players attend the Imperium version of the Univeristy of Phoenix and get new skills or increases to skills in any manner they wish.  But that isn't the standard method.

QuoteIn BH the experience difference between no gunfights and 11+ gunfights is an increase of 20% in accuracy. I wouldn't call that a negligible change, but your mileage may vary.

So, something like 2% per gunfight.  Fighters in AD&D go up in their 'accuracy' by over twice that at each level.

QuoteI'm not asking you to embrace how advancement is handled in either of these systems, but saying there's no meaningful character advancement in either game is just demonstrably wrong. There's a big difference between saying, "I don't like the rules as written," and, "There are no rules."

I didn't say there weren't any rules, just that they were nigh useless.  Advancement in Traveller has less to do with improving your character as it does improving their means or standard of living.  A better ship, a better cargo run, and so forth.

There plainly is a degree of character improvement in Traveller, but I would disagree that it is 'meaningful'.  You are almost always going to be better off hiring someone with the skill level you want than going through the trouble of increasing a skill you have one or two points.

Quote from: The Shaman;264418I'm sorry, but I disagree.

First, I don't find anything "weird" about how advancement is handled. Skills increase provisionally because of the extra attention they receive from the character: my character is more skilled as a pilot because he's running intensive computer simulations in his downtime, or she's a better medic because of the time spent studying Growfrowf's Manual of Vargr Diseases of the Urinary Tract.

What I find weird is that the skill level improves on the very first day. You open the manual on page 1, and whammo, you're an MD. Makes the following 3 years and 363 days somewhat anticlimactic.

QuoteSecond, the character can learn new non-weapon skills via trade school or the aforementioned Instruction skill. (As a house rule I allow characters to advance a non-weapon [skill]-0 to [skill]-1, in the same fashion as weapon skills.)

Right now we're debating whether the rules as written are good or not. The very existence of house rules is often an implicit proof that they aren't.

In order to receive skills through Instruction three things need to happen, none of which is a done deal at all:

a) The party must contain a PC with the Instruction skill;

b) The PC with the Instruction skill must have skills other PCs consider worth learning from him;

c) We are playing Traveller using LBBs 4 to 6, rather than just LBBs 1-3.

Quote from: StormBringer;264424I didn't say there weren't any rules, just that they were nigh useless.

Considering how poorly you understand the either system, your pronouncement that the rules are "nigh useless" really doesn't carry much weight.

However, I'm done dragging this thread further off topic with Traveller and Boot Hill minutiae. If you want to start a separate discussion of either game, I'll be happy to continue shooting down your mistakes, but until then, I leave you to your misapprehensions.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;264495Right now we're debating whether the rules as written are good or not. The very existence of house rules is often an implicit proof that they aren't.

I'm sorry, PI, but you're assuming facts not in evidence. My house rule is a function of how I handle [skill]-0 in my game, not a reflection on the utility (or lack thereof) of the advancement rules as written.

As far as instruction goes, it's my experience that our characters tend to recruit instructors to learn certain skills as needed. The recruitment and merc ticket rules work just fine for this.

As I said above, I'm done here. If you want to discuss this further, please by all means feel free to start another thread and I'll be happy to join in.

Quote from: The Shaman;264560Considering how poorly you understand the either system, your pronouncement that the rules are "nigh useless" really doesn't carry much weight.

However, I'm done dragging this thread further off topic with Traveller and Boot Hill minutiae. If you want to start a separate discussion of either game, I'll be happy to continue shooting down your mistakes, but until then, I leave you to your misapprehensions.

Are you fucking serious?  You have several people here telling you the same thing, that the advancement rules are negligible at best, and you think other people don't know what they are talking about?  Pierce even mentioned that you are houseruling the system, which is the surest sign there is something less than ideal about it, and you think you have the 100% correct position?

You are a douchebag of the highest order.  You can't possibly shoot down anyone's mistakes, because you are clearly unfamiliar with the rules.  Go read the books a couple of times, take your anti-jackass pills, and head on back when you are ready to discuss things.

Quote from: The Shaman;264569I'm sorry, PI, but you're assuming facts not in evidence. My house rule is a function of how I handle [skill]-0 in my game, not a reflection on the utility (or lack thereof) of the advancement rules as written.

And what do the rules as written say about advancing non-weapon 0 level skills?
EDIT:  Book 4 has a section on Recruiting, with some rules about training recruits.  It is fairly clear that those training rules are intended for the NPC recruits that make up your mercenary group.  If you are using those for training PCs, that is another houserule that demonstrates the lack of significant PC advancement in the rules as presented.