Packages Questions

[calguard66]

My understanding of Character Creation Packages is that they are merely suggestions on how points might be spent, and skills/advantages/disadvantages aquired, to reflect a characters history and experiences.

There seems to be nothing, other than a narrator, to say that a given character must spend his poinsts in a certain way... the only certain rule is that a character gets a certain NUMBER of points at each phase of his development.

My question then is this: At certain points in a character's development, if the given tables are followed, points may be spent in efficiently... particularly when a character is re-given a skill he has already aquired. Is there any reason that a player couldn't take those points and spend them as points, rather than as the specific skill?

I've seen cases where, when given a 1/2 skill added to a 1/2 skill to get either a 1/3 skill or a 2/2 skill, the player could take the 3 points represented by that skill spend one to raise the possesed skill to 1/3 and still have 2 left over.

It seems that characters created with the templates could be at a disadvantage over characters created from scratch.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[Keny Suda]

Exactly!

The only times our player group takes the packages as they are (and uses the 1(2) + 1(2) => 2(2) or 1(3) rule) when the advanced training packages from the Player's Guide are taken, because they also give you some kind of "status/expertise".
Building a character by only taking packages is somewhat boring, because you dont have all the freedom for creating your characters background.

The only thing a narrator might ask you for, that you only spend points for skills or advantages your character would be able to have at the time he gets these points (e.g. Early Life) One couldnt have learned StarshipTactics(Dominion) at 2(4) during his childhood or at a time when the Federation wasnt even aware of the Bajoran wormhole.


(sloppy English today, sorry)

[Tas]

I've gotta second Keny here. Our group noticed this anomaly very quickly, and we came up with similar rules regarding the spending of DPs.

In the end, you end up with characters that can have all sorts of hobbies, and several specialisations in there area of expertise. The only downside is that it encourages too many specialisations and not enough development of the skill itself, unless one is using the advanced training Keny mentions.

[Dan Gurden]

The main difference I have found is one of separation between experiences roleplayers and newbies...

A newbie faced with all the maths concerned with individual DP's is likely to opt for the packages, and according to the rules end up quite a bit weaker than an experienced player that can sit on his own and write up the character in minutes...

Personally my way around this is to use the packages... Thus putting everyone on an equal level... I do allow alternate (but suitable) skills to be chosen instead.

ie: If the species has athletics in their background, they may choose a hobby or acrobatics (or even unarmed combat) during the academy...

I also allow points adjustment. If a skill is gained twice once at 2 (3) and again at 1 (2), then the player gets a choice to hold that skill at either 2 (4) or 3 (3)... If they take the point in specialisastion they re-coup the lost 2DP.

It takes a little work but helps to give a structured background, and if a new idea is created on the spot, its usually not that difficult to create a suitable package...


------------------
Dan.

"A couple of thoughts froma random mind!"

[Liquidator Queeg]

Well, the DP "loss" can be considered a "problem" with the character creation system. However, I can't say that I've ever had one of my players complain about it. In our group we usually have pretty solid character concepts before any templates, overlays and such are chosen, so the nitty-gritty of the math seldom has an effect on what packages are chosen. The packages are--when you get right down to it--merely a simple means of "substantiating" a character's experiences. If a character winds up being two or three points "off" in the end, will it really affect how that character is played and enjoyed, or prevent him from "doing what he does best" in game play? I doubt it.

To be completely honest in this respect, I usually assign a character one or two "hobby skills" appropriate for his or her background once the character is finished. I've done this in just about every roleplaying game I've ever GMed, not just LUG Trek. So, when all is said and done, the characters don't really "lose" any Development Points as a result. If anything, they probably "gain" a few.

But that's just my style. YMMV.

LQ

------------------
"No one controls me. I'm uncontrollable. The only one who can control me is me... and that's just barely possible!" -John Lennon

[This message has been edited by Liquidator Queeg (edited 12-12-2000).]

[CmdrBluejeans]

Originally posted by Dan Gurden:
Personally my way around this is to use the packages... Thus putting everyone on an equal level... I do allow alternate (but suitable) skills to be chosen instead.

ie: If the species has athletics in their background, they may choose a hobby or acrobatics (or even unarmed combat) during the academy...

I also allow points adjustment. If a skill is gained twice once at 2 (3) and again at 1 (2), then the player gets a choice to hold that skill at either 2 (4) or 3 (3)... If they take the point in specialisastion they re-coup the lost 2DP.

That's rather the way I do it, reflecting the fact that if a PC already has suitable skills during a particular stage of development, he or she would be given advanced opportunities to roam a bit and branch outwards.

So, to use the example: You already have Space Science (Stellar Cartography) 1(2) and take an Uncharted Space Exploration Tour of Duty. One of the things this provides is Space Science (Stellar Cartography) 1(2), which would be a loss of 1 or 2 pts to you depending on whether you combined as 1(3) or 2(2) ... instead, noting your prior experience in this, your Section Chief puts you to work filing the reports that get sent back to Starfleet, allowing you to spend a point on a Specialization in Communications for Shipboard Systems, and then also puts you to work learning the sector in more detail, putting a point in World Knowledge (X Sector).

In short, as long as it fits the theme of that stage of development, there's no reason not to use the packages as a baseline, and allow wiggle room.


BJ

[Keny Suda]

Queeg:
But you have to admit that in LUG it is a very difficult to succeed in a more than average test without a certain skill level or at least an appropriate skill. Everything depends on one little f*@#~sh#*@ (sorry, but this had to be said at last) drama die.

Anyone familiar with "Fading Suns"? I wouldnt say that it makes it all to easy for the players, but the system gives you a reasonable chance to succeed.

[Don Mappin]

Heh, don’t get me started on the Drama Die. (Or, as I like to call it, the “Hey, I’ve got a one-in-six chance of succeeding on any given Test!” Die.)

Anyway, the original observation is spot on – judicious spending of points from each stage will yield a “better” character that does not suffer from wasted points versus one that uses Background Packages exclusively. Packages are intended, as you might guess, to allow a player with little familiarity with role-playing, or Star Trek, to “build” a character quickly. (Since the RPG was designed to appeal to even casual Trek gamers, this was VERY important.)

So, does it work? Yes. Does it waste points? Honestly, yes. But, this is one of those areas where ease-of-use was more important than counting numbers.

LUG designers recognized this fact, and that’s why the Icon Link from the “Players’ Guide” (written by yours truly) specifically speaks to the use of Packages, spending Development Points, and “going outside the box” when designing a character with the Icon System. This is also the genesis of where the Zero Level Skills rule came from (also designed by yours truly).

I’d also like to point out that the 2nd Edition of Fading Suns uses the Template/Overlay/Package system, as admitted by Bill Bridges and Andrew Greenberg – an idea taken from the Icon System.

As always, check with your Narrator prior to spending points like a madman. Most Narrators don’t approve of 1st tour Ensigns starting the game with Energy Weapon (Phaser) 5 (6). (And Packages prevent this.)

You really want to talk about wasted points? Ask me about building those Packages in the “Players’ Guide”...oy!

Don


[This message has been edited by Don (edited 12-12-2000).]

[Liquidator Queeg]

Originally posted by Keny Suda:
Queeg:
But you have to admit that in LUG it is a very difficult to succeed in a more than average test without a certain skill level or at least an appropriate skill. Everything depends on one little f*@#~sh#*@ (sorry, but this had to be said at last) drama die.

First off, Keny... LOL! I've heard that expression during the game numerous times.

However, I will offer a retort (no, not the stand in science class... aw, nevermind ).

Let's apply some "horizontal" logic. I'll use the Attribute Scale Table to illustrate the "meaning" of Skill Levels--or, at least, this is the way I interpret them.

Skill Level/Meaning
0/Nonexistent
1/Weak
2/Average
3/Good
4/Excellent
5/Legendary
6/Holy Jumpin' Jack Flash! (my addition)

Thus, if a character has Shipboard Systems (Sensors) at 1(2) he is considered "Weak" at using the Shipboard Systems in general, but "Average" when using the Sensors specifically.

So with the above in mind--and to address your comment directly, Keny--why should LUG make it easier to succeed at a "more than average test without [my emphasis] a certain skill level or at least an appropriate skill".

The answer is, obviously, it shouldn't be easy at all. It should be very difficult. In fact, it should be damn hard!

Or, at least I think so.

But I will say this: I do understand your frustration. I just happen to have a little different take on the skill levels than perhaps you do. No biggie. If we all played the same, we'd have nothing to talk about, right?

Besides, it's your game (you did pay for it after all!), if you think the Difficulty Numbers are too high, then lower 'em. Nothing prevents you from doing some simple adjustments, such as:

Difficulty Number/Description
0/Automatic Action (no roll required)
1,2,3/Routine
4,5,6/Moderate
7,8,9/Challenging
10,11,12/Difficult
13+/Nearly Impossible

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

LQ

------------------
"No one controls me. I'm uncontrollable. The only one who can control me is me... and that's just barely possible!" -John Lennon

[SIR SIG]

I'd pretty much agree with everyone here. As long as the points stay the same then my all means spend them on alternate but related to the situation; skill.
Of course like Don said an experiend player can spend their dp's more wisely then a package ever would, just use them as a balance guide to keep your character in check.

------------------
SIR SIG a Aussie TREK Narrator

[CaptainGonzalez]

Originally posted by Liquidator Queeg:
To be completely honest in this respect, I usually assign a character one or two "hobby skills" appropriate for his or her background once the character is finished.

This is something that has bothered me about the LUG rules. They turn out great Starfleet officers but not well rounded ones. In the old FASA Star Trek game you always had the option of picking up a few "extra-curricular" skills that reflected the character's hobbies and interests in addition to the standard officer skills. I've tried to balance out a couple of players by granting them extra points to spend during the Academy Life History stage that could only be used on non-Starfleet skills. I've been thinking of giving players double the usual DP in the Early Life, Academy Life and Tours of Duty but only if these extra points are spent on skills or advantages such as gaming, artistic expression, Contacts and Allies outside of Starfleet.

Does anyone else do something similar? If so has it unbalanced your game?