2d6? Why oh why?

[far-trader]

...Finally, let us remember that the characters generated in the system are not meant to be "normal." They're so-called Travellers, and are a touch more special than normal folks.

Ah, but are they? Does it specifically say that anywhere? How are NPCs generated? The basic presumption in Traveller has long been (or appeared to be) that of ordinary people doing extraordinary things. Not extraordinary people doing ordinary things. Not that you couldn't play it either way of course.

The biggest thing "special" about Traveller characters if one is to judge by past canon adventures is they aren't afraid to skirt the boundary of the law for a just cause. And if one were to go by some games, well, let's say they should all be locked up as either criminals or lunatics, maybe both (and the ref's NPC as the criminal mastermind setting it all up :devil: ).

 

[MongooseMatt]

Ah, but are they? Does it specifically say that anywhere? How are NPCs generated?

I think it is a fair statement of just about every RPG (maybe not Paranoia - but even then. . .).

Travellers, by their chosen path in (later) life _are_ exceptional. I would say that most of the NPCs created by the same system (rather than just having skills assigned by the GM) are also exceptional.

Nothing wrong with either. After all, who wants to roleplay an average person?

they should all be locked up as either criminals

One reason that Prison Planet was so early in the schedule

 

[Poppyseed45]

I was also going to add that the default carerr, that is, the one you can always choose is the Drifter (aka the Traveller). Or that's my impression.

What Mongoose Matt said.

P.S. - Far-Trader, I wouldn't say criminal. Questionable, for sure. Perhaps roguish (which is a cop-out, I know). Okay, they're scum, we know it. But so useful and entertaining...

 

[tbeard1999]

What bothers me more is the very nimble (+3 Dex) amateur (Medic-0) who has a better chance to operate on that chest wound than the young Doctor (Medic-2) … and amateur (Mechanic-0) … and amateur (Electronic-0) … and amateur (Engineer-0) … and amateur (Rilfe-0) …

… and heaven forbid he actually has skill in something like a very nimble (+3 Dex) competent (Pilot-2) who rolls a 3 and gets an 8. That’s a 1 in 36 chance of failure with only a skill-2. Pilot-3 grants automatic success (100%) most of the time (roll 8+), nearly automatic success (92%) on really hard tasks (10+), and frequent success (72%) on nearly impossible tasks (12+).

Granted, an ability bonus of +3 is hard to get (but not that hard), but an ability bonus of +2 and a skill-2 are not hard at all … +4 goes a long way on 2D6.

FWIW, I think that attribute bonuses in most games that have them are WAY overstated. At least with regards to non-athletic skills. In athletics, natural talent can provide a significant enhancement to capability (particularly when paired with extensive training).

An easy fix might be to disallow attribute bonuses on non-athletic skills (or limit them to +1 if the attribute is very high).

In my own Traveller variant, I generally allow an attribute roll *or* a skill roll. In some cases, I'll allow a +1 if an appropriate attribute is exceptional (an exceptional attribute is 10+ IMHO).

A less drastic approach might be to limit the attribute bonus to the skill level (again, for non-athletic skills). So no bonus if you have skill level-0...

 

[rust]

For simplicity in the game though, there doesn't really appear to be any real distinction between a famous surgeon or a famous toxicologist when it comes to tring to treat your character's battle wounds (I believe that they both get the same bonuses for having a Medic 4 skill rating).

What bothers me more is the very nimble (+3 Dex) amateur (Medic-0) who has a better chance to operate on that chest wound than the young Doctor (Medic-2) … and amateur (Mechanic-0) … and amateur (Electronic-0) … and amateur (Engineer-0) … and amateur (Rilfe-0) …

These are just the kind of cases where in my opinion the task difficulty comes
in.

For the famous surgeon, it is an easy task to treat a battle wound, but for
the famous toxicologist it is a difficult task, with a high negative modifier.

For the very nimble amateur it is a very difficult task, and for those without
medical training it is an almost impossible task (in fact, in our campaign the
modifiers would make it impossible for them).

 

[tbeard1999]

These are just the kind of cases where in my opinion the task difficulty comes
in.

For the famous surgeon, it is an easy task to treat a battle wound, but for
the famous toxicologist it is a difficult task, with a high negative modifier.

Maybe so, but the complaint is that the attribute bonus can make an amateur unreasonably competent; even exceeding a trained professional. Your solution does not seem to address this.

IOW, someone with Medic-0 and a very high DEX can be as effective as a professional doctor (Medic-3) with average DEX.

Your solution requires changing the MGT system, it seems to me (adding distinctions that do not currently exist in the rules and/or changing the task system to make task difficulty vary with the exact skill possessed).

For the very nimble amateur it is a very difficult task, and for those without
medical training it is an almost impossible task (in fact, in our campaign the
modifiers would make it impossible for them).

But the complaint is that the system allows an amateur with a high attribute to exceed a trained professional. If the system imposes the same difficulty modifier, and if an attribute bonus effectively gives 2-3 levels of skill in an area, then the complaint seems valid to me.

 

[rust]

Your solution requires changing the MGT system, it seems to me (adding distinctions that do not currently exist in the rules and/or changing the task system to make task difficulty vary with the exact skill possessed).

I do not think so, in my opinion I am still very much within the framework
of the task difficulty descriptions within the MGT core rulebook.

Unfortunately I cannot quote it here, because I use the German edition,
but I can try to give a translation of one of the descriptions. It says:

"A routine action is no problem for a trained expert and can be done com-
paratively easily by an amateur."

I understand this as a distinction in difficulty levels based upon the skill le-
vel of the character attempting the task, and this is how I treat it.

But the complaint is that the system allows an amateur with a high attribute to exceed a trained professional. If the system imposes the same difficulty modifier, and if an attribute bonus effectively gives 2-3 levels of skill in an area, then the complaint seems valid to me.

In my opinion - see above - the system does not impose the same difficulty
modifier.

 

[tbeard1999]

I do not think so, in my opinion I am still very much within the framework
of the task difficulty descriptions within the MGT core rulebook.

Unfortunately I cannot quote it here, because I use the German edition,
but I can try to give a translation of one of the descriptions. It says:

"A routine action is no problem for a trained expert and can be done com-
paratively easily by an amateur."

It isn't necessary to have different difficulty levels to render this statement accurate.

A trained expert is probably skill level ~3. That means he will succeed almost all the time -- 83%. An amateur is probably skill level 0 and will succeed 42% of the time.

And that assumes that a routine task has no positive modifier (I don't have my copy of MGT at the office so I can't check). If it has (say) a +1, then the expert succeeds 92% of the time and the amateur succeeds 58% of the time.

Same task difficulty (routine) for both skill levels.

And it still seems to me that varying task difficulty with skill level nullifies most of the advantages of a universal task system. Note that I do not necessarily object to varying task difficulty with skill levels -- I think it allows for a far more nuanced approach to skills. I just think that doing so makes a universal task system even more trouble than it's worth.

 

[rust]

It isn't necessary to have different difficulty levels to render this statement accurate.

Perhaps not necessary, but also not forbidden, I think.

And it still seems to me that varying task difficulty with skill level nullifies most of the advantages of a universal task system. Note that I do not necessarily object to varying task difficulty with skill levels -- I think it allows for a far more nuanced approach to skills. I just think that doing so makes a universal task system even more trouble than it's worth.

Since the system I use most often is BRP, where it is quite common to han-
dle task difficulties this way, I have no problems at all with this approach.
In fact, I do not even see where the trouble you mentioned could arise, for
me this works perfectly well.

But in the end it probably is a matter of the preferred style of roleplaying,
the way one sees the task of the GM and thelike - a matter of a group's
taste.

 

[tbeard1999]

Perhaps not necessary, but also not forbidden, I think.



Since the system I use most often is BRP, where it is quite common to han-
dle task difficulties this way, I have no problems at all with this approach.
In fact, I do not even see where the trouble you mentioned could arise, for
me this works perfectly well.

But in the end it probably is a matter of the preferred style of roleplaying,
the way one sees the task of the GM and thelike - a matter of a group's
taste.

IIRC, the classic BRP skill system was a very sparse universal task system. Basically, normal tasks required a skill roll or less on a d100. GMs were then told to apply whatever modifiers seem appropriate.

This isn't much different conceptually than the 2d/8+ task system implied by CT, and seems far closer to CT than to the modern universal task systems.

 

[rust]

This isn't much different conceptually than the 2d/8+ task system implied by CT, and seems far closer to CT than to the modern universal task systems.

This may well be. It may even well be that my "old school" way of playing
MGT is not the way the author of the game intended it to be played.

But to me this way of handling skills and difficulty levels just seems logical,
and without your interesting comments I really would not have realized that
it could also be done in another, in my opinion implausibly stereotyped and
somewhat dull way.

 

[tbeard1999]

This may well be. It may even well be that my "old school" way of playing
MGT is not the way the author of the game intended it to be played.

But to me this way of handling skills and difficulty levels just seems logical,
and without your interesting comments I really would not have realized that
it could also be done in another, in my opinion implausibly stereotyped and
somewhat dull way.

Glad to be of service

Seriously, you have explicitely identified one of the major limits of most universal task systems -- if they're used as intended. A limit that often goes unremarked. My own distaste for universal task systems stems from this (although I did not really articulate it before now).

I guess that my opinion is that *every* meaningful task in an RPG should be handled on a case by case basis by the game master. I have no problem with offering a resolution mechanic -- i.e., roll 2D + mods; 8+ succeeds. But beyond that, it's mostly wasted effort IMHO.

 

[aramis]

IIRC, the classic BRP skill system was a very sparse universal task system. Basically, normal tasks required a skill roll or less on a d100. GMs were then told to apply whatever modifiers seem appropriate.

This isn't much different conceptually than the 2d/8+ task system implied by CT, and seems far closer to CT than to the modern universal task systems.

Most BRP derived games had a table of difficulty labels with modifiers.

Plus the resistance roll system.

They were more towards a task system rather than the collected skill-specific systems of CT.

My working definition of a task system (they are inherently universal or near universal; if not universal, they are skill systems):

1. has a consistent mechanic
2. has a system of difficulties
3. has a system of modifications for conditions
4. has a means of interpreting results consistently
5. has a shorthand for recording the abilities and difficulty

This definition is derived from the definition given in one of the games using the term in the 1980's. (I don't recall which one.)

The earliest true task systems IMO are:
FASA-Trek (IIRC)
2300
Star Wars (WEG D6)
BRP derivatives (CoC, RQ3, EQ)
Pendragon (Even tho' it doesn't call it that)

A Skill Resolution System might not be consistent/universal (CT, Space Opera, Space: 1889), might not have labeled difficulties (CT core, original BRP, Space Opera), might not be universal through the game (CT, T&T), Doesn't Include Combat (Palladium, D&D, T&T), no consistent reference mode (Space Opera, Space 1889).

CT has at least 3 separate resolution mechanics through the various books, 2d for 8+, Xd for stat or less, and "if skill X+ may do Y". 2 of these are in the core rules, and the third is in one of the editions core rules.

Whether or not one LIKES task systems is another matter. I think them the most useful mechanic.

 

[Tysis]

I have not looked at Mongoose but I assume that it is really close to CT.

The 2D6 mechanism may be old but it is simple and easy to learn. Perhaps when Traveller was originally designed the focus was more on the RP side than the game mechanics? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[rust]

Perhaps when Traveller was originally designed the focus was more on the RP side than the game mechanics? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

In my opinion this was the case with almost all of the early / "old school"
roleplaying games: D&D, Runequest, Traveller ... were all quite slim with
few basic rules, and the GM was expected to fill in all the gaps.

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

Yes and no. The absence of a large number of skills and a comprehensive task resolution means that tasks are resolved through active description by the players, adjudicated by the GM, rather than through die rolls.

That's not quite the same thing as the GM filling in the gaps. There are no gaps. It's a whole different game.

Hence the ten-foot-pole in early D&D. Because you could try to do so much stuff with it--stuff that wasn't covered in the rules.

For all this and more see this free Lulu DL:

http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374

and Robert Fisher's site (especially "I used to think..." and the section on Thief skills):

http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/Classic_D&D

 

[rust]

The absence of a large number of skills and a comprehensive task resolution means that tasks are resolved through active description by the players, adjudicated by the GM, rather than through die rolls.

This is what I did mean, but failed to express properly.

 

[aramis]

In those pre 1979 games, Traveller and Runquest had skill lists... most games didn't.

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

It makes sense that skill lists should first have appeared in a scifi game... where PCs live in a game world with a) massive division/specialization of labor, b) complex machinery everywhere; c) a million ways to die while mishandling the latter.

RQ, not so much... but then I never played RQ. I did play the hell out of CoC, and that's a game where skill list fits gameworld hand in glove (investigations, car chases, library use, academic disciplines...).

 

[rust]

I did play the hell out of CoC, and that's a game where skill list fits gameworld hand in glove (investigations, car chases, library use, academic disciplines...).

Yep, this the best part of the BRP system, the skill list (and other parts of it)
can easily be modified to fit a specific setting perfectly.