Yearly Archives: 2012

False TPKs

6 Replies
Revisitation: a series of posts that each feature a quote from a classic source along with a short discussion. Quotes that make me question some previous assumption I had about the game or that seem to lead to otherwise unexpected consequences will be preferred.

This selection comes from B2 The Keep on the Borderlands by Gary Gygax (page 14):

RANSOMING PRISONERS: Organized tribes can optionally be allowed to take player characters prisoner, freeing one to return to the KEEP in order to bring a ransom back to free the captives. Set the sums low – 10 to 100 gold pieces (or a magic item which the ransoming monsters would find useful) per prisoner. If the ransom is paid, allow the characters to go free. Then, without telling the players, assume that this success brought fame to the capturing monsters, so their numbers will be increased by 2-12 additional members, and the tribe will also be very careful to watch for a return of the adventurers seeking revenge for their humiliating captivity. The period of extra alertness will last for 1-4 weeks; the increase in numbers is permanent.

I am not in favor of all combats being deadly, even when the conflict is with agents of chaos. Cultists need live sacrifices, brigands need information about future targets, and everyone could reasonably desire gold from ransoms. Maybe live human is a goblin delicacy. But more important than narrative or naturalistic justifications, games where loosing a fight does not always mean a total party kill are more interesting and varied.

However, this must be handled carefully. I strive to be an impartial referee, so unless there has been some very dramatic development during the course of a fight, I default to assuming that monsters are using deadly force. In other words, the key to fair play is deciding beforehand what the priorities of the opponents are. I also try to seed the environment with clues where appropriate so that skillful play and engagement with the setting can be rewarded. I never want “waking up captured” to be used to save a party of adventurers. The monsters are either seeking to kill or capture, and I will try to play them appropriately based on their priorities. Some way of tying this to the encounter reaction roll might be reasonable too, for cases where preplanning (random encounters, limited time) are not possible.

Because I believe in giving players information about the consequences of their actions, I would also try to make sure that the players understand what was going on. Otherwise, how can they make informed decisions in the future? Perhaps the tribe starts putting up recruiting posters advertising the fact that they defeated the fearsome adventuring party. Much referee advice suggests that players should learn from their experiences, but if there is no way for the players to connect cause to effect, they are more likely to just assume that developments are by referee fiat or based on dice. Many players by default assume that the referee just does whatever they hell they feel like at any given time (“rocks fall, everyone dies”), so I believe it is worthwhile to spend extra effort countering this assumption.

Season of the Witch

12 Replies

Playing tabletop RPGs again has started to change, or maybe widen, what I look for in movies. Specifically, ideas and inspiration for my games are beginning to be just as important as other more common measures of quality in film. By this measure, Season of the Witch was a great success (and was not a bad movie apart from that either).

I would highly recommend it especially to fantasy game players. In fact, in some ways this story is a model for how to run a weird fantasy scenario. It is set during the Crusades. Right from the very beginning, it is clear everything is not quite right, but the day to day existence is still mundane. And I think every D&D player will recognize the small troupe of main characters as an adventuring party.

There were a number of small touches that I greatly appreciated. For example, everyone doesn’t speak in a British accent just because the movie is set during medieval times. A standard American accent was used by most actors throughout, which I enjoyed. More period movies should take this approach. Accurately representing accents is impossible, so why not make it feel natural?

Once the movie decided what kind of story it was going to tell, it didn’t dick around with you and keep making you second guess what was going on. It just went for it, and didn’t make any apologies.

Dungeon Crawl #1

4 Replies

My copy of Dungeon Crawl #1 arrived today. The format is newsletter, not booklet, as you can probably see from the photo above. It’s full of original material: monsters, spells, traps, etc. The theme of the material is “classical alchemy” (earth, fire, water, air) and all of it is concisely written with an eye to use at the table.

The last page is a dungeon. The meaning of the dungeon is mostly left to the ref. What was it built for? Why are these creatures here? These questions are not answered. This absence is not a problem, it is a prompt for creativity. My one criticism is that I would like the level entrances to be marked more clearly on the map (for example, the well entrance to location 17 is not indicated on the map at all). Also, I gather than there will be more levels in future issues, but I can’t see any exits leading down. These minor shortcomings aside, it looks like a fun adventure.

What appears minimal and elegant to me may look sparse to others, so I would say this is not for everyone. In summary: lots of good ideas tied to a theme, very little fat. I’m glad to support it.

Death Frost Doom

5 Replies

I’m surprised it has taken me so long to get around to reading this. I’ve had a copy for a while, and Death Frost Doom is one of the best known and most talked about OSR modules. I know it has been used in many campaigns (just off the top of my head: Maliszewski’s Dwimmermount, Beedo’s Gothic Greyhawk, FrDave’s Lost Colonies). What can I say? I am overwhelmed by quality content, both new and old. Be warned, this post contains spoilers. I want to discuss the module in detail, and there is no way to do that without revealing some secrets.

Unlike many modules, this was a quick and engaging read. Everything feels like it belongs, and I already feel familiar enough with the map and framework to almost be able to referee DFD from memory after one read-through. The location, details, and monsters are that memorable.

I do have a number of concerns regarding the module though. I’m somewhat surprised about this actually. DFD seems to have more “problem” areas for me than other LotFP modules (even compared to the thematically much weaker Weird New World). I’m going to discuss what I don’t like (it might even end up being the bulk of the post) but I don’t want that to overshadow my final impression, which is that this is a fantastic scenario. It has one of the most compelling NPC antagonists (Cyrus the vampire) that I have seen in any module, and smart players will likely be forced to work with Cyrus to survive. PCs can truly leave their mark on the campaign world via the module endgame. How many modules playable by first level characters can make that claim? Because of the lack of reliance on simple fight encounters, this module should also be easily convertible to the rule set of your choice (even something dramatically different than traditional D&D). The only major changes needed would be stats for some of the monsters in zone 3. Many of the magic items that can be found in the module have both powers and drawbacks (without being just “screw you” cursed items). More magic items should be like this.

I’ve been in the process of seeding my current Nalfeshnee Hack campaign world (unfortunately, I don’t really have an evocative campaign name yet) with LotFP modules for a while now, and plan to use all of them, even Carcosa (I had previously placed a huge wasteland to the east called Urndach; this will use the Carcosa hex map). That’s right, all the Raggi modules and LotFP releases are going to be played (assuming we get to them) using a 4E-derived ruleset.

The PCs have already found a number of the Dwarven stone books from Hammers of the God (I created a set of 3 x 3 pages containing all the books so that I could shuffle them and give them as individual handouts) and a magically obscured treasure map leading to that module’s dungeon. I think foreshadowing in adventures is a valuable technique that really builds the sense of a living world, and there’s really no excuse not to do it in a sandbox world where you are likely to have a number of different locations prepared anyways. For another example, the PCs came across the fabled Pilz brew in a tavern, but the highly regarded beer was strangely flat and disappointing. (That one is not about a Raggi module, but you get the idea.)

On to Death Frost Doom. The first problem I noticed was a number of “site only” magic items. By site only, I mean items that might cause problems in a long-running campaign, either because they are too powerful or might otherwise upset some aspect of game balance. I detest this practice. It reminds me of using thieves to steal magic items back from PCs. One room in the cabin has two examples of this (page 8 in the print copy). The first is a mirror that doesn’t show chaotic (or evil) characters:

The mirror looses its magic if it is moved, but will regain its power if replaced in this spot.

The second is a clock that can stop time:

Removing the clock from the wall or damaging it in any way permanently removes its magic (even placing it back on the wall will not restore it).

There is not really any narrative grounding why either of these items work this way, and certainly nothing that the PCs could discover (without resorting to DM improvisation). If the mirror was used to detect spies, why would that only be useful in one location? If you’re going to put something interesting into a module, and PCs are creative enough to liberate it, they should be able to use it. If it is of a nature that would be problematic in a campaign, then it should not be included at all. There are much better ways to handle this, such having a limited number of uses. Or, in the case of the mirror, why not have a pond, or a fountain, that only reflects lawful and neutral characters? How do you move a pond? And yet, the restriction does not feel contrived (it doesn’t even feel like a restriction).

I plan to leave the mirror in, but it will work anywhere. The mirror itself will be a full size heavily gilded standing mirror, so it will be difficult to transport. This might end up becoming an interesting campaign item if the players are able to recover it. And it might also prompt me to think more about how alignment works in this particular campaign. I will probably just remove the magic properties from the clock. I need to think about this a bit more, because there may be ways that enterprising PCs could use the clock to forestall the the module endgame, and I don’t think there is any need to make this module harder.

The second problem that I noticed was the “read aloud curse” mechanic. Basically, the referee is instructed to write down an inscription on a piece of paper and hand it over to the person controlling the reading character. If the player reads the inscription out loud, bad things happen. (Generally, you go around the table making saving throws until someone fails and then the bad stuff happens.) This doesn’t work for me because I am not strict about in character and out of character speech. I suspect many campaigns are like this. Generally, if something is not clear, I will clarify: is your character saying that? I do this often enough that (I think) it is not a flag for the players (they certainly don’t seem to make wiser decisions). In this case, such clarification totally would not work. On top of the note it would give away the trap. I either need to work this mechanic in beforehand using less deadly situations, or redesign these traps.

Like other Raggi maps, the DFD dungeon consists of several zones (3) connected linearly by choke points. There are several different entrances from the surface to the different zones, but they are designed in a way that makes it highly unlikely that any other than the cabin trap door (which is obvious) will be used for anything other than exits. This is not a problem; I just want to make the structure clear.

There is a trick that must be figured out to move from zone 1 (temple quarters) to zone 2 (the crypts). Zone 2 is connected to zone 3 by secret doors. I am ambivalent about the secret door choke point design. It is also used in Hammers of the God. In a small dungeon, I think this has the potential to needlessly limit the play experience. These areas which are access-controlled by secret doors are not megadungeon sublevels or areas with special treasures. They are integral parts of the location. I’m not convinced that making access to core parts of the location a reward for exceptional play is good design. I will not change the secret doors in location 22, but I have decided to describe them in a way which will likely stand out and prompt further investigation. Specifically, they are going to be bricked-up archways that use bricks of a different color. In other words, I’m making them easy to locate secret doors. Players don’t always catch things that seem like obvious tells to me, so I don’t think this completely gives the secret doors away. This also seems to fit the location better.

Despite these issues, I’m greatly looking forward to running DFD. It fits nicely with a number of background elements that I have already worked into my campaign, specifically several dread lich gods which used to rule as sorcerer kings in the distant past. I’m curious to know whether others have adjusted any of the module aspects that I mentioned.

The Luck Throw

2 Replies

Fourth Edition does not have a real saving throw mechanic. The narrative concept represented by the saving throw has mostly been replaced by the three extra defenses: fortitude, reflex, and will. For example, rather than rolling a save vs. poison when a poisonous attack hits a character, instead a monster would roll an attack against the character’s fortitude defense.

There is something called a saving throw in Fourth Edition, but it does not have the same game role (4E PHB page 279). Instead, it is a way to throw off a status effect (and thus support temporary effects that do not require bookkeeping). It’s a clever innovation, but it’s not a saving throw as traditionally understood. A 4E save has a 55% chance of success (10 or higher on a d20), unaffected by level or ability scores (a strange choice for a game that supports such heavy character optimization, but there it is). There are a few ways that an attacker can make saves against their status effects more difficult (like the orb of imposition wizard implement effect), but they don’t seem to be very common. And again, they are on the side of the attacker (condition becomes harder to shake off) rather than on the side of the defender.
This is unfortunate, because I like the level-dependent saving throw mechanic. It is impervious to PC build optimization. It rewards smart play by making characters that are able to survive harder to kill. I could just import the saving throw tables from a previous edition, but that would be confusing to my players and would overload the meaning of saving throw. So I decided to create a new mechanic for the Nalfeshnee Hack that serves the same function. It is called the luck throw.
The luck throw is a DC 16 check with a one-half level bonus. A roll of 1 is always a failure. Thus, at first level, there is a 25% chance of success (16, 17, 18, 19, 20). Chance of success increases with level, until at level 28 (+14), failure only occurs on a 1.
The luck throw is appropriate for any last chance escape possibility where you don’t want to base success on an ability score. Abilities in 4E tend to extremes (lots of 18s and 10s, because of their effect on powers), making them a bad fit for last chance mechanics (some PCs are almost always going to make an ability check while others are only going to make it sometimes). I imagine this problem is true for any version of the game that overemphasizes ability scores (really, AD&D on). (See here for more discussion about using ability scores for saving throws.)
This seems to be a reasonable approximation of the traditional saving throw mechanic. It is a simple formula, so it is easy to remember, and it also fits the feel of other Fourth Edition rules. It is similar to the Swords & Wizardry single saving throw, though it does not vary by class.

A Debt to Orcus

12 Replies
Illustration by Harry Clarke for Goethe's Faust

Illustration by Harry Clarke for Goethe’s Faust

Of all the ways people report handling raise read, my favorite response came from Gavin over at The City of Iron:

Courtesy of your friendly local Temple of Orcus.

Following that link (and continuing to quote Gavin):

As luck would have it, following a recent suggestion from Alex, I’d decided several days previously that Orcus is the main cosmic power to whom adventurers may turn when seeking to raise a dead companion.

So, on the spur of the moment I was presented with the task of deciding how that works. Visiting the temple of Orcus in S’raka, here are the choices the PCs were presented:

  1. Pay 5,000gp for the ritual.
  2. Pay 2,000gp and provide a bunch of live sacrifices to “butter up” the lord of the dead. A total of 17 humans or 32 “little people” were the figures recommended.
  3. Accept a group quest to return the favour.

I really like the feeling of dark gods being accepted as part of the world, though still feared. There is a danger here of domesticating the darkness, so setting details like this should be handled carefully. Perhaps cultists of Orcus could be major campaign antagonists as well. Perhaps being raised brands one as an untouchable or immune to normal curative magic.

The monotheistic tradition has to some degree done away with the ambiguity of scary-but-cosmically-necessary (present, for example, in the Greek fates or the fickleness of Poseidon). Monotheism does, however, has an analogue that could potentially be leveraged, which is a deal with the devil (see the Faust legend for some inspiration, though it does not involve the desire for a second chance).

Some Rules Clarifications

20 Replies

Here is an index of the answers people have given to 20 Quick Questions: Rules.

Apologies if I have missed you. Leave a comment and I’ll add your link.

Helmets

18 Replies

Recently I posted this set of rules clarification questions and a number of people explained how they do things. I had no idea this would turn into a survey, but now that we have some data, why not make use of it? Many people discuss rules prescriptively or theoretically, but this is a measure (at least partially) of what people do. Thus, these approaches are actually working for people at the table (as opposed to just looking good on paper).

Of all the questions, the one that seems to have generated the greatest variation is how people handle helmets. Here are some of the answers, organized roughly by popularity. I tried to group similar answers and in the process I may have lost some minor details.

The most common option (though not a majority) was to have no mechanical benefit or ignore the issue:

(Regarding looking awesome, everyone should check out JB’s B/X headgear table.)

Some people give penalties for not wearing a helmet:

  • Penalty for not wearing a helmet (1d30, DuBeers, Reign of Jotuns, rpgist, Gordon Cooper)
  • “No, but not wearing one makes your head AC9, and I understand you keep important stuff in there…” (Beedo, Chris Hogan)
  • AD&D (DMG page 28):

    It is assumed that an appropriate type of head armoring will be added to the suit of armor in order to allow uniform protection of the wearer. Wearing of a “great helm” odds the appropriate weight and restricts vision to the front 60″ only, but it gives the head AC 1. If a helmet is not worn, 1 blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponent is intelligent, in which case 1 blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head (d6, 1-3 = head blow).

    (James Mishler)

  • Labyrinth Lord (AEC page 142):

    Generally characters are assumed to be wearing a helmet with their armor. However, if for some reason a character is not wearing a helmet an opponent of no intelligence or relatively low intelligence will strike at a character’s AC 9 head on a roll of 1 on 1d6. Intelligent opponents will attempt to strike the head on a roll of 1-2 on 1d6.

    (Bob, scadgrad)

A few people allow helmets to function like shields (presumably stacking the bonus):

Another somewhat common approach is to grant some level of protection against critical hits or detailed injuries:

  • Can save you from a head crit (Jeff Rients, Niccodaemus, Zzarchov, Catacomb librarian, Grognardling, Johnathan Bingham, Dak)
  • Protects against some death & dismemberment results (The Bane, Mike D.)
  • “Only if a critical pushes a system shock check … Critical Hits that require a system shock roll have a chane at serious scaring or dismemberment.” (ERIC!)
  • “A adjusted roll of 17 or better that hits on a helmless target is a successful head short and cause the target to make a saving throw at +2 or fall unconcious. A adjusted roll of 20 or better is a faceshot and will cause the target to make a saving throw or fall unconcious unless they are wearing a greathelm.” (Rob Conley)

Or defense against stuff from above:

  • Protection from falling objects (Lasgunpacker, Stuart Robertson, Timrod)
  • “Only if something falls on their head, in which case the helmet gives the same AC value as the armour worn. A helmetless head is unarmoured.” (David Macauley)
  • AC 2 if attack from above, otherwise AC 9 (Ian)
  • “Anti-critical hits + possible damage reduction for stone blocks hitting one’s head.” (Omlet)

Bonus against head shots:

And finally, some miscellaneous approaches:

(Please forgive me if I missed your answers.)

    Wilderness Movement Costs

    8 Replies

    Earlier this month, Delta wrote a post about wilderness movement rules in AD&D. I like the idea of modelling wilderness movements in terms of a budget (based on mode of locomotion) that can be “spent” to enter adjacent hexes. (This is also the way Fourth Edition does tactical movement.) The important conceptual work is all in Delta’s post, but I want an easily gameable set of rules that I can apply to my 6 mile hex maps based on the B/X wilderness movement rules (the relevant references are Labyrinth Lord page 45, the Expert rulebook page X19, and the Rules Cyclopedia page 88).

    The base budget is calculated by doubling the normal “inches per turn” movement rate. So a standard human movement rate of 12 translates to 120 feet per turn and 24 miles (or 4 hexes) per day of clear ground. Each movement point ends up being worth one mile of travel on clear ground, which is nice.

    Locomotion Mode Movement Budget
    Human, unencumbered 24
    Human, lightly encumbered 18
    Human, heavily encumbered 12
    Riding horse, unencumbered 48
    Riding horse, lightly encumbered 36
    Riding horse, heavily encumbered 24

    (See the LotFP encumbrance rules for what it means to be encumbered.)

    Terrain Examples Movement Cost Becoming Lost
    Easy road
    4
    0 in 6
    Average clear, city, grasslands, trail *
    6
    1 in 6
    Moderate forest, hills, desert, badlands
    9
    2 in 6
    Difficult mountains, jungle, swamp
    12
    3 in 6

    * There is no chance of getting lost when following a trail if the trail is well-known.

    Delta suggests that for added realism different modes of transport might have modifiers when moving over some terrain types (he gave the example of cavalry over mountains). I agree, but I’m not going to systematize that. I think individual rulings for specific situations will be good enough. These calculations are all behind the screen, so players will not be thinking in terms of movement budgets. At least, that’s how I foresee this. We’ll see how it works in practice.

    Traveller: Characters & Combat

    18 Replies

    I have been slowing making my way through classic Traveller. Though I’m not speeding through the text, I am enjoying it, particularly the sober approach to character power. What follows are my impressions of Book 1: Characters & Combat. All dice in Traveller are d6s.

    The life path character generation system is the primary reason I became interested in classic Traveller (the secondary reason is for historical knowledge of RPGs: Traveller is one of the first sci-fi games, maybe second after Metamorphosis Alpha). I gather there is something similar to the life path system in Warhammer Fantasy but I haven’t gotten around to reading that yet.

    Character skills are selected by choosing a career and then rolling for what happens during that career before play starts. The career options are almost all military: navy, marines, army, scouts, merchants, and other. This also gives all characters the framework of a backstory with no work required. Famously, one can die during character creation in Traveller (or take significant penalties due to aging). This is not as silly as it sounds. Once you have used the system, you will realize that danger is required to balance the utility gained from accumulating skills.

    The analogue to D&D’s ability scores are called characteristics. The characteristics are strength, dexterity, endurance, intelligence, education, and social standing. They are generated using 2d6 in order but then are modified by life experiences and aging. The max score for any ability is 15, or F in hexadecimal. Using hexadecimal makes possible the universal personality profile (or UPP) which uses a simple string of characters, one per characteristic, to represent a character. You have to memorize the standard order of characteristics to understand UPPs, but that should be easy for anyone who has played D&D. For example, a very strong but otherwise average character might be represented as B77777. That’s pretty slick.

    The combat system is very simple and has some interesting aspects. To attack, you roll 2d6, add bonuses for characteristics and skills, apply penalties based on the opponent’s armor, and if your result is 8+ you hit. Damage is applied to physical characteristics; there doesn’t seem to be a separate health score or hit point total. This also means that as you take damage in combat, your combat effectiveness decreases (which is realistic, but seems like it might lead to death spiral situations). When one characteristic is reduced to 0, a character is incapacitated. Two characteristics at 0 results in a wound. Three at 0 and the character is dead. (This sounds like it could be used as an interesting set of house rules for D&D using strength, dexterity, and constitution.)

    Most weapons do several dice of damage, so like in OD&D a single average hit is likely to incapacitate an average character. There is armor, and it makes characters harder to hit rather than absorbing damage. High-tech weapons can do significantly more damage (for example, a laser carbine does four dice of damage).

    The tactical relationship between combatants is tracked by a distance system using range bands, which is sort of halfway between imagining everything and using a full two dimensional combat grid. It’s an elegant compromise, and I can easily see using this in D&D for some situations (especially in the wilderness) though it does not support things like flanking and area of effect very well. Morale applies to PCs too, which is one mechanical use for social skills like leadership.

    There’s really not much sci-fi in book 1. The play example could just as easily be set in modern day New York (there’s a bar, and some taxis). Even the equipment list is pretty low-tech. Sure, there are a couple of laser weapons, and a few space ships (along with mortgages!) that you can begin with but the weapons list is dominated by entries like cutlasses, halberds, and normal firearms.

    This is a sci-fi game?

    I don’t think I have read much of the inspirational literature behind Traveller, because this sort of equipment does not seem to fit any science fiction I am familiar with (though it looks like fun; pirates in space). Maliszewski’s Thousand Suns, which is supposed to model “imperial science fiction” has an Appendix N which may be applicable. I have read Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy, and I’m pretty sure there are no swords (though it has been a while). I haven’t read many of the books on that list though. Somewhere (probably also Grognardia) I picked up the idea that Anderson’s Ensign Flandry series (which I have not read) is one of the major influences. This cover illustration does seem to bear that out (man, that is one bad moustache):

    Possible Inspiration

    Book 2 is on starships. Presumably there will be more sci-fi there. It will probably be a while before I get around to finishing it, but that will be the focus of my next Traveller post.

    This is my first classic Traveller character. He survived character creation! The process took me about 30 minutes (not counting making it pretty with HTML for public consumption), though it would probably be quicker the second time around. I would also probably need to buy some more equipment before playing if this was a character for an actual game.

    Ex-army Lt. Colonel UPP: 6A449C Age 34 4 terms Cr20,000

    Skills: Rifle-1, SMG-1, Forward Observer-1, Auto Pistol-1, Electronic-1, Admin-1, Laser Carbine-1, Vehicle-1 (winged craft)

    Equipment: auto pistol

    Additional benefits: 1 high passage, 1 middle passage, 1 low passage

    Characteristic Start Mods Final
    Strength
    6
    6
    Dexterity
    9
    +1
    10
    Endurance
    5
    -1
    4
    Intelligence
    4
    4
    Education
    7
    		 +1 +1
    9
    Social Standing
    12
    12

    Social Standing of 12 means he is a baron.

    Enlist army
    9 +1 (Dex 6+) +2 (End 5+) = 12 >= 5 (accepted)
    Default army skill: Rifle-1
    First term
    Survival: 3 +2 (Edu 6+) = 5 >= 5 (barely survived)

    Commission: 4 (no)
    +1 Edu, Forward Observer
    Second term
    Survival: 10 +2 = 12 (yes)
    Commission: 6 (yes); rank 1 (Lieutenant)
    Promotion: 7 +1 = 8 (yes); rank 2 (Captain)
    +1 Dex, Gun Combat (auto pistol), Electronic, SMG-1 (Lieutenant)
    Third term
    Survival: 8 +2 = 10 (survived)
    Promotion: 7 +1 = 8 (yes); rank 3 (Major)
    Admin, Gun Combat (laser carbine)
    Fourth term
    survival: 7 +2 = 9 (survived)
    Promotion: 7 +1 = 8 (yes); rank 4 (Lt. Colonel)
    Edu +1, vehicle
    Fifth term
    Reenlistment denied
    Mustering out benefits
    4 (terms) + 2 (rank 4) = 6
    Benefits: 10000 Cr, 10000 Cr, gun (auto pistol), high psg, mid psg, low psg
    Age
    18 + 16 (4 terms * 4 years each) = 34 (Endurance -1 from aging)
    Based on these scores and experiences, I think he is not terribly bright or strong, but is a hard worker. His one outstanding quality is his agility. Because of those scores, I see him as thin and lithe (perhaps even athletic) but not very tough. He’s a good shot.

    Most of what he has achieved through life so far is most likely based on his social station (his family probably pulled strings to get him into the army and fast-track his promotions, even though he didn’t want special treatment), so he is quite sensitive to implications that he didn’t earn his advancement. Thus, he has turned into something of a risk taker in order to prove people wrong (and this is probably responsible for his close brush with death during his first term in the army).