2d6? Why oh why?

[Wraithcat]

I've been a Traveller player since CT 1980 and have played every edition of Traveller except for GURPS and 4th and I can't believe that everything is still revolving around 2d6.

I don't understand it. 2d6 just doesn't give the variability that this sort of game needs. It makes it far to easy for an extra skill point or DM to radically upset the balance of the game.

A total DM of 4+ doesn't seem to be very hard to get, but can totally warp the results. Each +1 beyond this only makes it worse. The jump from needing to get 4 on 2d6 to 3 on a 2d6 is much greater than that from 8 to 7.

However, I haven't had the joy of playing this new system yet, as I live in the bush. My fears are based on experiences with the players using the original Mercenary and High Guard rules to get stupidly high skills in things like Combat Rifleman.

So what are people's experiences in game like? Does 2d6 work?

 

[aramis]

It's worked since 1977.

It works rather well, especially given the labels (if one presumes the labels are for Skill 1 Att 7).

DM+4 other than for difficulty shifts is not that easy to acquire.

 

[far-trader]

I wonder if the point build system in MGT is behind these concerns expressed by some? It seems, unless there are some proscriptions applied (which would defeat the purpose in some player's minds) that it would be very easy to specialize to the point of upsetting the 2d6 mechanic in an area or more. The reason it worked for Book 1-3 CT (and not too badly even in the advanced LBBs) was the random factor of chargen not producing many experts. As soon as one introduces too much control over skill and attribute generation/improvement it can be easy to upset the 2d6 mechanic. So there's nothing wrong with the mechanic, it's the meddling with the root of it without thinking through the consequences that seems to cause problems.

 

[Supplement Four]

So what are people's experiences in game like? Does 2d6 work?

It more than works. There have been revolts from people refusing to play a specific edition because it wasn't 2d6. When TNE came out, many people screamed about the mechanics (not just about the entire re-imagining of the OTU).

People's mechanic sensitivity varies. Some don't care. Some care a great deal.

The 2d6 mechanic does work, if you keep the modifiers low and understand the mechanic's limitations. Classic Traveller is a perfect use of the 2d6 mechanic. Character creation often turns out characters with few skills. And, stat modifiers aren't as high as they are in later Traveller games. This keeps the 2d6 mechanic in ballance.

MegaTraveller is an OK example, but the stat modiers will tend to stretch the 2d6 mechanic sometimes.

With Mongoose Traveller, I believe that the mechanic is stretched to its limit too often because of the stat modifiers coupled with the game's other modifiers.

 

[Klaus]

A Stat modifier of +2 is generally quite rare, but most characters would probably end up with a +1 or two.

With Connections and skill packages it is possible for any character to get a skill level 3 in one skill or so.

So I reckon characters will commonly achieve a +4, but only in one skill area and only using a particular attribute.

And yes, it will make them pass routine skill rolls easily, but then again, they should be passing those easily. It also gives them a reasonable chance of passing a very difficult task, but that is all for the good too.

Characters should be good at something, just not good at everything.

As an aside, using point buy, it is possible to build a character with 9's on all stats and JoT 3, meaning they get +1 on any task roll. Pretty dull character, though.

 

[Supplement Four]

A Stat modifier of +2 is generally quite rare, but most characters would probably end up with a +1 or two.

With Connections and skill packages it is possible for any character to get a skill level 3 in one skill or so.

This is my point. It's quite easy with Mongoose Traveller to get +2 for stat and +3 for a skill. That's +5, which is a hell of a modifier, and will typically ace most throws.

This is one of my complaints about Mongoose Traveller--that characters are almost guarranteed a single skill of this magnatude.

With Classic Traveller, it could happen, but it doesn't happen near as often. It's certainly not virutally guarranteed.

First off, with CT, a character doesn't reach Skill-3 as often as he does with MGT.

Second, most CT throws do not reference stat, and when they do, the modifier is typically +1. So, with CT, we're looking at a +3 modifer, and a +4 modifier sometimes versus the all-the-time MGT +5 modifer.

In some circumstances, the CT modifier can be +2 or even higher. The sky's the limit. But, these are isolated examples, specific to a certain task--not broad modifiers applied to every skill throw.


It's not an easy point to explain, but it's viable nonetheless. And, it's an example of where MGT isn't as good as what we've had before in CT.

 

[rust]

This is one of my complaints about Mongoose Traveller--that characters are almost guarranteed a single skill of this magnatude.

I see this as a very minor problem only.

The advantage is cancelled out by the difficulty modifiers, which go up to a
DM of -6 (and more, if the GM so decides).

So, the character can handle all routine tasks of his field without any prob-
lems (which is just realistic), but there will still be more than enough truly dif-
ficult or even impossible tasks for that character to make the game challen-
ging for the player.

 

[Supplement Four]

I see this as a very minor problem only.

Nevertheless, it is a problem.

The advantage is cancelled out by the difficulty modifiers, which go up to a
DM of -6 (and more, if the GM so decides).

That's no different than CT, with the lower modifiers. Throwing a spear, for example, has a target number of 18 (the character is allowed to add his full DEX as a modifier).

The target number (and the modifiers, for that matter) can be anything the GM thinks is fair, in CT.

So, the character can handle all routine tasks of his field without any prob-
lems (which is just realistic)...

But, is it realistic that every character have a field? That was one of my points above. In MGT, every character is almost guarranteed to be very good with at least one skill. You won't find that guarrantee in CT. (Which, is more realistic.)

 

[Klaus]

But, is it realistic that every character have a field? That was one of my points above. In MGT, every character is almost guarranteed to be very good with at least one skill. You won't find that guarrantee in CT. (Which, is more realistic.)

Yes, it is realistic (as far as the term 'realistic' applies to a speculative sf rpg). CT tends to produce amateurish dilettantes, often completely unqualified for the career they've been in, whereas MGT produces professionals. I know which I (and my players) prefer.

 

[rust]

But, is it realistic that every character have a field? That was one of my points above. In MGT, every character is almost guarranteed to be very good with at least one skill. You won't find that guarrantee in CT. (Which, is more realistic.)

Considering the education and training methods that should be available in a
plausible science fiction setting, I really think that a character should be qui-
te good in at least one of his career's skills after serving in that career for 4
years.

In fact, I would even expect this of someone who worked four years in the
same career in the real world.

 

[Psion]

I see this as a very minor problem only.

I'd call it a non-problem. A boon even.

The advantage is cancelled out by the difficulty modifiers, which go up to a
DM of -6 (and more, if the GM so decides).

Exactly. By objecting to mods above +3, you are really limiting the scope of the game.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Considering the education and training methods that should be available in a
plausible science fiction setting, I really think that a character should be qui-
te good in at least one of his career's skills after serving in that career for 4
years.

In fact, I would even expect this of someone who worked four years in the
same career in the real world.

Which is why I've come to prefer MGT overall compared with other versions I have owned (or still have).

According to the rules, you generally need to throw 8+ to succeed. The Task Difficulty system (since the mechanics are unified) allows a GM to modify tasks that should feel a certain way. The descriptions for each level are, to me, pretty clear. Combined with a skill level of 2 or 3, that means simple and easy tasks are...wait for it...simple or easy (modifier +6 and +4 respectively).

According to the description, and average task, then, is average for a trained professional with a modest obstacle to his goal (repair the damaged whatsit, find a buyer for questionable items, whatever.

And this works numbers-wise. A trained professional is skill level 2 (so, a doctoer is Medic 2). An average task (as described above) has a +0 modifier. An average person (6-8 in stats, which means no plus or minus modifiers) mean that, rolling 2d6, he'll probably roll a 6 or 7. Add +2 for his skill and he succeeds. Just. Which is about right since the average task is one considered to have some sort of obstacle to the character's goal.

Which is also why I like the way Traveller handles 2d6 rolls. BESM, a game I like, handled them...oddly, in it's first two incarnations. I haven't seen the third so I don't know about it.

CT had its variable sliding scale of individual rolls based on skill, no modifier from stats. Which means it's very hard to say what a 2 or 3 meant in any particular skill. In one skill you need 4s to succeed. In another, 7s or 9s or whatever, which could even be different depending on WHAT you're rolling for within that skill. So what did your skill level mean?

So, I like Mongoose's 2d6 scale with the way it describes tasks, and the way modifiers work. They even suggest to the GM when NOT to roll as when to roll, making task checks more special (this seems to follow modern game theory a la Nobilis, Dogs in the Vineyard and Burning Wheel - I'm sure I'm missing some games there).

Anyway, that's my thinking. I hope with the numbers above one may see what I mean.

 

[IronCzar]

But, is it realistic that every character have a field? That was one of my points above. In MGT, every character is almost guarranteed to be very good with at least one skill. You won't find that guarrantee in CT. (Which, is more realistic.)

It may or may not be realistic that every person has a field in which they are a competent professional. It's highly desirable that every player character have one, especially in a system like Traveller in which post-chargen skill advancement is de-emphasized at best.

It's absolutely true, of course, that one can have quite a lot of fun playing a party of bumbling knuckleheads, and equally true that the MgT character creation tends not to produce such characters. But referees are always free to put some kind of cap on terms (say two,) or eliminate the party skill package, and thus greatly increase the incidence of non-experts in the party. This isn't part of the process in the book, of course, and one is equally free to modify the CT or MT chargen systems, but for my money the MgT system is easier to tweak in this way.

In other words, I see this as a non-issue except in cases where the GM is unwilling to tweak the process and unwilling to properly apply difficulty DMs.

For my money,

 

[Supplement Four]

Considering the education and training methods that should be available in a
plausible science fiction setting, I really think that a character should be qui-
te good in at least one of his career's skills after serving in that career for 4
years.

That's a fallacy to think that, about the education system. It depends on where you set your campaign, of course. Take a look at the popular Aramis subector of the Spinward Marches, setting of the great Traveller Adventure.

Look at the tech levels of those worlds.

We have higher tech in the real world today than most of the worlds in that subsector. Only a couple of high tech.

So, chances are, the education system won't be too much different than what our real life system is like today (or it may be like in our past...the World of Aramanx is TL 6, which is Vietnam Era. Pysadi is TL 4, which is farther in our past.)

 

[Supplement Four]

Exactly. By objecting to mods above +3, you are really limiting the scope of the game.

I didn't question the mods. I objected to the high skill level one is likely to get in a MGT career plus the high stat mods that are used on every task.

MGT is broken in this area, imo.

 

[Supplement Four]

So, you are saying that all Travellers are individuals who couldn't cut in the professional world and hold a steady, 8to5 job for 20 years. :rofl:

It is not necessary to have a Skill-3 to be considered a professional.

In CT, a Medic-1 is equivalent to a paramedic or a floor nurse at a hospital.

That's a professional.

Medic-2 is equivalent to a critical care nurse or a specialized physician's assistant.

Again, both are professions with the appropriate skill level.

Medic-3 is equivalent to an Medical Doctor.

So, it is incorrect to describe a character with Engineer-1 as being a non-professional.

The problem with MGT is that it is much too likely that a character will have at least one Skill-3 when he finishes chargen. The system doesn't produce firemen, paramedics, nurses, assistant drive techs, and the like. MGT produces full blown doctors, lawyers, and other ultra-competent professionals.

That's a problem whether Mongoose lovers want to admit it or not.

 

[vertigo25]

I totally get what Sup4 is saying…

I mean, when I was reading Dune, I hated it because it was so unrealistic. I didn't want to hear about the boy prince who was a master at shield combat or an expert on his religion. I didn't want to read about the noble warrior who was unparalleled in combat and also happened to be damn fine musician.

I wanted to read about the guys who fixed the leaks on the ornithopters.

And when I watched Star Trek, I hated how I had to watch the heroic actions of Captain Kirk. His amazing leadership abilities and martial training were just entirely unbelievable. Spock, with his "amazing" mind, and Scotty with his expansive knowledge of warp technology. *Please*

The *real* story would have been about the guys who built the Enterprise and the people who programmed the computers.

And NASA… with their mission "specialists." Pshaw. No one excels at specific things. And if they did, I know *I* certainly wouldn't want to hear about it.

So why would I want to play a game where my characters did extraordinary things? I got in to roleplaying to play the mundane things you never see in sci-fi and fantasy.

In my next campaign, I think we'll all play desk clerks at a star port. Now *that's* some damn fine gaming.

 

[vertigo25]

And FWIW, the only character I've made so far does have *one* level 3 skill. And that was after 2 terms as a Scholar, 1 term as a drifter, and 2 terms as a Scout.

I really don't think it's as easy to get all those +2s and +3s as you seem to think it is.

 

[mike wightman]

So long as those deck clarks have the one thing all your book, TV and movie main characters have - luck.

Book and film plots are full of instances where it is luck that decides the outcome.

Which brings us back to the matter of the roll of 2d6.

How many people, when they are running games, set the players with impossible situations that the luck of the dice would get them killed - or at least bring the plot to a grinding halt? Or how many players manage to find themselves in such situations because of their actions?

The dice roll to me is an illusion of free will for the players. About the only time I don't fudge stuff it's in combat.

 

[rust]

That's a fallacy to think that, about the education system. It depends on where you set your campaign, of course.

Just take a look at the skill lists of the various careers. With the exception
of the Barbarian, the characters obviously do not come from low tech worlds,
because otherwise they would have quite different sets of career skills.