2d6? Why oh why?

[Allensh]

Wow, sounded like fun. You should right that up as short introduction story for how to recurit armies.



My apologize for going to far off topic. It is hard not to at times with MgT because it and CT are so close.

:devil:

Dave Chase

I wasn't referring to comparative posts, because you're right, the games are similar and in fact more compatible than say T4 was. I just wanted to suggest that we focus on the 2d6 system as presented in MGT.

Really, maybe its because I spend time playing these games rather than theorize about them, but all these "problems" people refer to just aren't issues for me. I jst don't see that many characters with mods of +2 and skills of +3, maybe two in my present group of 7 players.

Allen

 

[Supplement Four]

I've read your posts closely, and there's nothing that is not either just opinion or disputable (as in claiming MGT chargen is broken).

I've given some simple examples, no mathematical proofs, if that's what you're looking for. But, I suspect, no matter what I provided as proof, you'd be saying the same thing.

BTW, this makes skill 3 even more likely than pure random, but it still has only produced a couple of dozen characters with 3's or higher out of 200 or so (before Connections are applied).

I don't object to a character obtaining Skill-3. I object to the regularity with which characters obtain Skill-3 if the MGT rules are used by the book.

 

[vertigo25]

I've given some simple examples, no mathematical proofs, if that's what you're looking for. But, I suspect, no matter what I provided as proof, you'd be saying the same thing.




I don't object to a character obtaining Skill-3. I object to the regularity with which characters obtain Skill-3 if the MGT rules are used by the book.

Actually, I'd say that with your repeated assertions that +3 happens too often, you haven't even provided examples.

First, define "too often," then show how the system makes it happen that often. If it's through mathematical proofs, then all the better. If you can give "some simple examples" of how it happens, then that's fine, too. So far you haven't.

You've found a nit to pick, and have convinced yourself that your *opinion* is correct. If it's more than opinion, then it should be a simple enough thing to clearly state how frequent is *too* frequent, and why (and how) that's actually going to cause a problem in game play.

Tbeard did an excellent job showing (without heavy mathematical proofs) how tenuous the bonus can be. What I've taken away from your posts is this: "As far as I can tell, a +3 is very likely to happen in chargen. +3 is bad because the characters will succeed to often. The game is broken." Basically speculation, opinion, and non sequitur. Have you considered running for president on the GOP ticket?

 

[Psion]

"easily" = common

You exaggerated as much or nearly so as you were accusing.

I don't know what you're out to prove, but:

Sorry, no. You are damning me by inserting your own context.

I can only speak in terms of relatives. What's "common"? S4 seems to be speaking from the vantage point that CT is correct and all others in error. S4 is damning the supposed ease of coming up with high modifiers under MongT, when my respective experiences are that MongT does not produce higher peak skills than I recall under CT w/supplements. The relative condition here was my only intent.

QED.

 

[Supplement Four]

S4 is damning the supposed ease of coming up with high modifiers under MongT, when my respective experiences are that MongT does not produce higher peak skills than I recall under CT w/supplements.

Did you use the Survival Rule the way it was meant to be used? The way it's written?

 

[Psion]

Then we disagree. Nor do I find your rationale convincing. Or even relevant to my argument.

Your assertion--or the part of it with which I take issue--is:

In the case of CT, that range is -4 to +3. In other words, net modifiers greater than +3 do not materially improve the chance of success; net modifiers of -4 do not materially reduce the chance of success. Systems that fail to heed this reality will produce a lot of rolls that are effectively automatic successes or automatic failures. This is one of the definitions of a "broken system" IMHO.

The fact that there are different tasks a character can and will attempt given their skill means that it's not quite so simple. That a character will find automatic successes to a fixed TN is pretty meaningless when the character with a higher mod will be attempting more difficult tasks. For this reason, I find your definition of "broken" to have no meaningful correlation to the way that play with a 2d6 based skill system actually proceeds.

Since you seem to think this is irrelevant, let me turn the discussion around and ask: given that a character will remain meaningfully challenged by tougher tasks in a 2d6 based game, how is exceeding your range "broken" in any meaningful way?

 

[Psion]

Did you use the Survival Rule the way it was meant to be used? The way it's written?

Yes, we did.

In fact, it made the situation worse, because if the players got a character that wasn't panning out, they would do suicidal things (like using the bravado rule) so they could start from scratch.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yes, we did.

In fact, it made the situation worse, because if the players got a character that wasn't panning out, they would do suicidal things (like using the bravado rule) so they could start from scratch.

They've still got to roll things. Shouldn't have made anything "worse", and it's CT's limited tip o' the hat to "what a player wants".

 

[Supplement Four]

Actually, I'd say that with your repeated assertions that +3 happens too often, you haven't even provided examples.

First, define "too often," then show how the system makes it happen that often. If it's through mathematical proofs, then all the better. If you can give "some simple examples" of how it happens, then that's fine, too. So far you haven't.

You've found a nit to pick, and have convinced yourself that your *opinion* is correct. If it's more than opinion, then it should be a simple enough thing to clearly state how frequent is *too* frequent, and why (and how) that's actually going to cause a problem in game play.

Tbeard did an excellent job showing (without heavy mathematical proofs) how tenuous the bonus can be. What I've taken away from your posts is this: "As far as I can tell, a +3 is very likely to happen in chargen. +3 is bad because the characters will succeed to often. The game is broken." Basically speculation, opinion, and non sequitur. Have you considered running for president on the GOP ticket?

TBeard is good at that sort of thing. I just don't think its worth the effort. It's as if I'm sitting here and telling you that it will hurt if you jump off a cliff, but you keep saying, "That's just your opinion. Forty feet doesn't bother me that much."

In other words, if I take the time to write out a long proof of what I'm saying, proving that I am correct, chances are it won't be read. And, even if it was, it wouldn't change anything.

So why go to the trouble?



(And...we even haven't starting talking about MGT's arrange-to-taste stat method. Make that "Fifty feet" in the sentence above.)

 

[Psion]

They've still got to roll things. Shouldn't have made anything "worse", and it's CT's limited tip o' the hat to "what a player wants".

Um, okay. When I say "worse", I simply mean "was a factor in producing characters with higher skill totals". Not saying it was objectively wrong.

 

[aramis]

I think you're right, aramis. They seem to rely on a pretty weird example, there, rather than specifically say "Things outside of specialties are at +0."

It's more clear from the second example (of having two specialties), but still…

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

It was easily overlooked. but it is a key rule.

But that leads me to question multiple specialties in a skill.

If the first time I get the skill, I'm at 0, and the second time I get it am at +1 (specialty), the next time I get it I can pick (new specialty +1)? Then the character would be Specialty A+1 and Specialty B+1…? Is that right?

Given that skill foo has specialties A, B and C, if you have Foo (A) 1, and gain Foo, you can get:

• Foo (A) 2
  Foo (B) 0
  Foo (C) 0
  ——or——
  [*]Foo (A) 1
  Foo (B) 1
  Foo (C)0
  ——or——
  [*]Foo (A) 1
  Foo (B) 0
  Foo (C) 1

but if you have Foo (A) 1 get Foo 1, you can only get

• [*]Foo (A) 1
  Foo (B) 1
  Foo (C) 0
  ——or——
  [*]Foo (A) 1
  Foo (B) 0
  Foo (C) 1

and if you have Foo (A) 1 and Foo (B) 1, and get Foo, you can get

• Foo (A) 2
  Foo (B) 1
  Foo (C) 0
  ——or——
• Foo (A) 1
  Foo (B) 2
  Foo (C) 0
  ——or——
• Foo (A) 1
  Foo (B) 1
  Foo (C) 1

And if you have Foo (a), Foo (B) 1, and and Foo (C) 1, and get Foo 1, you either talk your GM into creating Foo (D) or you loose the receipt.

 

[rust]

In our BRP-Traveller crossover system a skill level of 3 translates into an au-
tomatic success with easy tasks, a success chance of about 80 % with ave-
rage tasks and about 40 % with difficult tasks.

This seemed quite reasonable to me, but I prefer to avoid potential problems,
so I sent an E-Mail to the players of our group and asked them for their opi-
nions on the frequency of level 3 skills and possible problems caused by this,
both in Mongoose Traveller and in our crossover system.

None of them did consider level 3 skills too common or did see any problems
with them, neither within the framework of Mongoose Traveller nor within the
framework of our own system.
For me, this means "systems work fine, players happy, case closed".

By the way, perhaps it would be easier to discuss Mongoose Traveller if we
would discuss it within its own framework, without continually comparing it
to Classic Traveller.
Since these are different systems, it would otherwise be too easy to misin-
terpret Mongoose Traveller as a "broken CT" or Classic Traveller as a "primiti-
ve forerunner of MGT".

 

[Poppyseed45]

By the way, perhaps it would be easier to discuss Mongoose Traveller if we
would discuss it within its own framework, without continually comparing it
to Classic Traveller.

Since these are different systems, it would otherwise be too easy to misin-
terpret Mongoose Traveller as a "broken CT" or Classic Traveller as a "primiti-
ve forerunner of MGT".

I second your suggestion and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Also, I like 2d6 in Traveller (Mongoose). I already explained why up-thread. It gives a good spread for a system where modifiers matter, and most PCs seem to end up in the range of +0 - +3, tops, unless especially lucky. Heck, usingthe rolling method, PCs are almost as likely to have minuses to their rolls because of low-rolled stats (if they survive aging and injuries, that is - or take LOTS of medical debt).

The basic assumptions explained in the text assume that tasks for for certain kinds of people, and that character will fall into that range, which means the dice spread sort of HAS to be tight - one of my many laments about GURPS (which I love, don't get me wrong) is the wide spread of ability - once you hit certain numbers (easy to do with a point-buy system like GURPS without GM intervention) you get a very low chance to fail. On 3d6, all you need is a 13 or 14 to be uber competent and rarely fail. Hit 16 and so on and you even increase your chance for criticals. Which can fit, but I like the 2d6 spread better. Tighter range and all.

 

[atpollard]

That would be an interesting thing to see results from. A program that is used not to generate a NPC but one to generate 1,000+ of NPC. Your own personal Imperial Data Base of who's who. Neat idea.

So, when are one of you going to get it done?
:rofl:
Dave Chase

What's the point. Even if you wrote one, people would just complain that it wasn't CT/MT/MgT or whatever other version was their favorite.

... And how do you 'accurately' simulate a Player selecting which table to roll on? (accurately=100% per the rules)

 

[Psion]

... And how do you 'accurately' simulate a Player selecting which table to roll on? (accurately=100% per the rules)

That could be an AI project in and of itself. But with sufficiently clever programming, you could even make such a program find new ways to munchkinize the system (anyone else remember the bit about how old Trillion Credit Squadron tourneys became dominated by someone who had created an application to run simulations and then make automated design tweaks to come up with the best results? )

At any rate, table selection, cascade/specialty selection, "connection rule" selection, and heck, career selection are all highly influenced by player choice.

 

[rust]

I figured that some should just create the ultimate program...

Yep, the ultimate program: It creates a setting and campaign, all plots,
locations, PCs and NPCs, and plays the entire campaign while I am doing
something useful - and with an optional add-on it can playtest RPGs and
even complain about them.

 

[RixRacer]

2d6 Why?

I don't have a problem, per se, with the 2D6 mechanics. What I have a problem with is relativity. Why should a medical-3 character from a low tech level world have the same odds on a task as a medical-3 character from a higher tech level world.

For example: And I hate to use Star Trek as an example, but McCoy as a medic-3 (let's say) would have some challenges in his current time but when he went back to earth in the 21st century (when the tech level of that world was lower) he was a medic-5. He could cure just about any modern day disease extremely easy.

With that, Should a Tech level be associated with each skill. So that, depending on you upbringing and technology around you when you become a professional, would make any specialty modifier different on visiting worlds. I realize that this is the job of the GM or Ref, but I think statistically this type of attribute added to the skill.

Furthermore, is the case of "Bones", he would be a medic-3 TL-5 and while visiting earth in present day (at TL-2, the difference in tech level being 2) would make him seem like a medic-5 TL-2.

I guess there could be some sort of provision of being able to increase the Tech level of a given skill having successfully performed tasks at the higher tech level world or situation.

And remember he's a doctor, not a game player!!!

Just my .02cr

 

[Allensh]

I don't have a problem, per se, with the 2D6 mechanics. What I have a problem with is relativity. Why should a medical-3 character from a low tech level world have the same odds on a task as a medical-3 character from a higher tech level world.

For example: And I hate to use Star Trek as an example, but McCoy as a medic-3 (let's say) would have some challenges in his current time but when he went back to earth in the 21st century (when the tech level of that world was lower) he was a medic-5. He could cure just about any modern day disease extremely easy.

With that, Should a Tech level be associated with each skill. So that, depending on you upbringing and technology around you when you become a professional, would make any specialty modifier different on visiting worlds. I realize that this is the job of the GM or Ref, but I think statistically this type of attribute added to the skill.

Furthermore, is the case of "Bones", he would be a medic-3 TL-5 and while visiting earth in present day (at TL-2, the difference in tech level being 2) would make him seem like a medic-5 TL-2.

I guess there could be some sort of provision of being able to increase the Tech level of a given skill having successfully performed tasks at the higher tech level world or situation.

And remember he's a doctor, not a game player!!!

Just my .02cr

While there are no official rules per se I see nothing wrong with increasing the task difficulty for a character who is "out of his element" tech level-wise. It depends on what kind of trainign he receives. If a guy from a low tech world gets all his training on that low tech world, sure, he wouldn't know how to handle high-tech stuff. If, on the other hand, he joins the Imperial Navy and becomes a doctor there, he'd get training (possibly even things like "remedial" tech level training) that would get him up to speed. Trying to simulate all of that would make the game a bit unwieldy, I think. Also, MGT uses a system where you basically choose the characteristics of your homeworld, so unless someone really wants to play Ugh The Space Barbarian, most likely they won't choose a low-tech homeworld.

Allen

 

[RixRacer]

2D6 Why?

Also, MGT uses a system where you basically choose the characteristics of your homeworld, so unless someone really wants to play Ugh The Space Barbarian, most likely they won't choose a low-tech homeworld.

Allen

That's why I stated that I know it is GM/Ref's job to take those things into consideration. I also have to admit that I was basing it on the homeworld generation set in TNE. But adding a Tech Level to any skill, IMO, wouldn't be unwieldy and it would paint a much better picture of what a characters "Real" skill level is.

And who would want a thriving character that came from humble beginnings? How about luke skywalker, the guy from "the last starfighter", etc... Ha ha!

I agree, however, that the provision for figuring out when a TL of a given skill could be raised might be a difficult task--which lends it self to the experience points type calculation of dungeons and dragons--don't really want to go there!!!

 

[rust]

I guess there could be some sort of provision of being able to increase the Tech level of a given skill having successfully performed tasks at the higher tech level world or situation.

In our campaign we use an idea borrowed from GURPS Traveller and modified
to fit our setting:

A character gets a DM of -1 per 3 technology levels below his own technolo-
gy level or per each technology level above his own technology level,
up to the maximum level of the setting. This DM is applied whenever a cha-
racter tries to use a device or comprehend a method of a "foreign" technolo-
gy level.

Since the average technology level of our setting is 9, the character gets a
DM - 1 for working with TL 6-4, DM -2 for TL 3-1, DM - 1 for TL 10 and DM
-2 for TL 11 (the current maximum in our setting).

If the character undergoes some "TL training", or after he has used the devi-
ce or method at least once successfully, the relevant DM disappears.