Not if you're doing other stuff with the Characteristic, like using it as your damage capacity.
1st Preview up for Mongoose Traveller
- Thread starter Echo
- Start date
Not if you're doing other stuff with the Characteristic, like using it as your damage capacity.
P
Pickles
Guest
Characteristic bonuses have been tried and tested for 30 years and no-one ever got their character sheets in a twist because they had to write +2 next to a stat.
Just because something is old doesn't mean it's useless - unlike a lot of the new-fangled RPG fashions out there ... :nonono:
Just because something is old doesn't mean it's useless - unlike a lot of the new-fangled RPG fashions out there ... :nonono:
The only problem with a Char-7 is that the characteristic gain then has identical weight to skill weight.
I'd much prefer truncate((char-7)/2))
Which tables out to
15-16 +4
13-14 +3
11-12 +2
9-10 +1
6-8 +0
4-5 (-1)
2-3 (-2)
1 (-3)
This makes stats gain half as valuable as skill gains, and thus gives a reason to actually bother with skill gains.
Even with a listed bonus, if damage still is done to stats, the physicals (at least) are non-redundant.
I'd much prefer truncate((char-7)/2))
Which tables out to
15-16 +4
13-14 +3
11-12 +2
9-10 +1
6-8 +0
4-5 (-1)
2-3 (-2)
1 (-3)
This makes stats gain half as valuable as skill gains, and thus gives a reason to actually bother with skill gains.
Even with a listed bonus, if damage still is done to stats, the physicals (at least) are non-redundant.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
True, but it still needs to be removed from the mechanic and simply found as a characteristic mod. It's gonna be precalc'd anyway.
That said, I have issues with skills running 0-15 on a 2d6 system.
Does seem outta wack...
Aramis' solution sounds interesting...*
*Hope the powers that be are watching
They didn't use this approach in Classic Traveller. In Classic Traveller, they didn't have a stated core system, but used a non-fixed Characteristic bonus in all of the sub-systems, similar to the one outlined above.
The fixed Characteristic bonus concept only came in with Mega-Traveller.
Hunter said:
I'm not sure that a complex task of TN 7 or more should be able to get a higher Characteristic bonus than +1 - the more technical the task, the more important it should be to get a good skill level.
You could easily expand the system to also state:
Thus: you would get a range from -2 to +2 in Characteristic penalties/bonuses; it would directly tie in the TN range to be on the same scale as the Characteristic scores, and you wouldn't need a secondary line of calculated penalties/bonuses.
Last edited:
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
My math is slightly more complicated than aramis': truncate((Char+1)/2)-4
The "+1" makes the middle of the range at 7 instead of 8, and makes it run -3 to +3 (instead of -3 to +4). The only way to get the -3 is with a 1, and the only way to get a +3 is with 12 or better. (I had trouble with the +4 at the top end of aramis' scale. )
Echo, the only thing with your system is that 7+ is not a complex task, but an average one. Unless of course they change it to go higher with a skill range of 0-15.
Actually, in some ways, I can see the balance of skill=0-15 (vs stat). But, it doesn't work in a 2d6 environment (as Hunter notes). It also doesn't "scale" to the stats properly, as the skills start at 0, where the stats "start" at 7. Having the two be identical (in range) might confuse folks on that concept.
And, I'm with aramis on the idea of a non-lover of SF writing a SF game - even if he is a professional writer. That's a lot like the idea that anyone with a teaching certificate can teach any subject. In the RW, you have to know the subject, too.
The "+1" makes the middle of the range at 7 instead of 8, and makes it run -3 to +3 (instead of -3 to +4). The only way to get the -3 is with a 1, and the only way to get a +3 is with 12 or better. (I had trouble with the +4 at the top end of aramis' scale.
)Echo, the only thing with your system is that 7+ is not a complex task, but an average one. Unless of course they change it to go higher with a skill range of 0-15.
Actually, in some ways, I can see the balance of skill=0-15 (vs stat). But, it doesn't work in a 2d6 environment (as Hunter notes). It also doesn't "scale" to the stats properly, as the skills start at 0, where the stats "start" at 7. Having the two be identical (in range) might confuse folks on that concept.
And, I'm with aramis on the idea of a non-lover of SF writing a SF game - even if he is a professional writer. That's a lot like the idea that anyone with a teaching certificate can teach any subject.
In the RW, you have to know the subject, too.Well, for example, what other stuff would you do with the Intelligence stat?
Echo, the only thing with your system is that 7+ is not a complex task, but an average one. Unless of course they change it to go higher with a skill range of 0-15.
Actually, in some ways, I can see the balance of skill=0-15 (vs stat). But, it doesn't work in a 2d6 environment (as Hunter notes). It also doesn't "scale" to the stats properly, as the skills start at 0, where the stats "start" at 7. Having the two be identical (in range) might confuse folks on that concept.
The way I see it:
A person with a Good Characteristic (10+) would find simple tasks (1-5) very easy to succeed - sometimes without even trying (Automatic success TN:1-4). They would find some aptitude in most other tasks to (6+), but still need some skill to achieve success regularly, and find very complex tasks (11+) very unreliable without training or luck.
A person with an Average Characteristic (6-9), would still find simple tasks (1-5) easy enough (but would still need to roll at TN: 4-5). They would probably get no other bonuses for more complex tasks, but may actually find that very complex tasks are difficult (-1).
A person with a Poor Characteristic (2-5) would sometimes struggle with even simple tasks (1-5), and would find more complex tasks (6-10) very challenging (-1 or -2), and highly complex tasks (11-15), practically impossible without a lot of training.
The Characteristic scores scales perfectly to the TN range, in this system, which is why I am arguing for it.
Last edited:
P
Pickles
Guest
Just adjusting that slightly, for clarity:
So....
A Weak Characteristic (2-5) - where Simple Tasks are challenging (0/-1), Standard Tasks are difficult (-1/-2), and Complex Tasks are near impossible (-2/Automatic Failure).
An Average Characteristic (6-9) - where Simple Tasks are easy (+1), Standard Tasks are challenging (0/-1/+1), and Complex Tasks are Difficult (-1), particularly without a skill.
A Strong Characteristic (10-12) - where Simple Tasks are very easy (Automatic/+2), Standard Tasks are Easy (+1), especially with a skill, and Complex Tasks are Challenging (0/+1/-1), but easier with a skill.
So....
A Weak Characteristic (2-5) - where Simple Tasks are challenging (0/-1), Standard Tasks are difficult (-1/-2), and Complex Tasks are near impossible (-2/Automatic Failure).
An Average Characteristic (6-9) - where Simple Tasks are easy (+1), Standard Tasks are challenging (0/-1/+1), and Complex Tasks are Difficult (-1), particularly without a skill.
A Strong Characteristic (10-12) - where Simple Tasks are very easy (Automatic/+2), Standard Tasks are Easy (+1), especially with a skill, and Complex Tasks are Challenging (0/+1/-1), but easier with a skill.
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
I was just going to recommend this. We really need to keep the stress on skill level advancement.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Something like (char-7)/2 has always been my preference.
Mine too. I would like to see Aramis' suggestion used instead of stat-7.
Otherwise the preview looked good to me - apart from death in chargen. In 27 years of playing I've never known a GM apply that rule. The nearest we had was being forced to muster out and start playing the character.
You can leave out the "minus 7" and adjust the default TN(s) and have the same mechanic with less hassle and without a need to add negative numbers. That is fundamentally the same as with the projected RTT solution.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
It's no hassle, and I'm sure you can make the maths work either way, but it *feels* better this way. The numbers are "nicer". You can instantly see that, say, your STR 5 cancels out your Brawling-1, but your DEX 13 will make you a crack shot with most guns.
