2d6? Why oh why?

[Klaus]

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.

So me some proof and I'll change my mind. But you do not have any - just a bare, unsupported assertion. Those examples are just random speculation.

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."

4 inches more like. It's not worth the effort because you don't have any proofs at all.

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.

I'll grant that, by using Connections, a player can guarantee a level 3 skill, but, by my reckoning, based on multiple chargen processes, only about 10% get there by random rolling, even using my method which tends to increase specialisation in particular skills. I suppose you could say 10% was regular, but too much? Not in the slightest.

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?

Magnificent cop-out. Are you really going to change any minds by making up a problem and then refusing to prove how it is a problem?

Either show how you are right or shut up about it. Constant repetiton does not make you correct.

 

[RixRacer]

2D6 Why?

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.

That nearly perfectly details what my discussion point was--ans well executed, I might add!! I do think there should be some real provision in the rules for it in T5. I am waiting for the CDROM...should get it in a couple of days (Hopefully)

Thanks for you comments on that...I feel like I just achieved Gameplayer-1 and I don't feel like an idiot anymore!!! Ha Ha!!

 

[MongooseMatt]

I
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".

Bingo!

They are different games

 

[Allensh]

Bingo!

They are different games

That is very true. There is a certain portability between the systems but they are not the same game. and this seems to be part of the issue for some.

Allen

 

[King of Old School]

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."

The problem here is that what you've claimed as a cliff has been experienced by others here as merely a molehill, and you saying over and over again "but it's a cliff! a cliff I tell you!" isn't convincing anybody. If you say characters with a single level-3 skill are a problem to the extent that MGT is "broken," then please tell us why.

First of all, the skill equivalencies in CT are irrelevant to a discussion of MGT, they are different games and MGT clearly states that skills of 2-3 are equivalent to professional level. I honestly don't care what the skill equivalencies in CT are unless I'm playing CT. They're a strawman in this discussion.

As for the versimilitude of PCs with 1 or 2 skills at level-3, I'd argue that PCs with 4+ terms should have level-3 skills in their core competency to be considered remotely reasonable... and yes, that's taking the probability curve of 2d6 vs TN 8 into account. I'm not interested in playing Three Stooges in Spaaace!, after all.

In play, the experience of many is that MGT chargen does not produce overpowered PCs that "break" the task system, and I agree. If you disagree, I think we'd like to see an actual argument -- something that lies between a rigid mathematical proof (which is overkill) and a bald assertion (which is all you've made thus far) -- to that effect. As to the question of why you'd want to bother? Well, it would convince many of us that you're not just in this particular section of the forums to troll, for starters.

KoOS

 

[tbeard1999]

I'd also add that medical skill is highly dependent on germ theory. If he knows about germs, santitation and disease vectors, a TL0 witchdoctor with Medic-3 can be far more effective than a TL4 physician with Medic-3 who lacks such knowledge. Give him a localized knowledge base of natural drugs and he'd be infinitely more effective than witchdoctors were on Earth circa TL0.

The referee must take that into account as well, seems to me.

Indeed, it may be that the widespread distribution of germ/sanitation theory may cause numerous famines anmd wars in preindustrial societies. Agriculture cannot be improved as dramatically as health in such places. Talk about unintended consequences...

 

[tbeard1999]

That is very true. There is a certain portability between the systems but they are not the same game. and this seems to be part of the issue for some.

Allen

Uh, not really. They use the same mechanic for task resolution -- 2d6 + mods; 8+ to succeed. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to compare MGT and CT on this point.

And as an aside, I'd point out that MGT goes out of its way to advertise its similarity to CT:

...Based on the 'Classic Traveller' rules set, streamlined and updated for the 21st Century...

Based on the Classic Traveller rules set, this book has been streamlined for modern roleplaying...Traveller has come back. Discover what is out there.

Mercenary

High Guard

760 Patrons

Traders and Gunboats

Beltstrike

Given that Mongoose has expended considerable effort to publicly link MGT with CT and invite favorable comparisons, it seems a bit lame to assert that "it's a different game" when the comparisons turn unfavorable. (Not to mention that this point, while true, is seldom relevant to the issue at hand).

 

[Allensh]

Uh, not really. They use the same mechanic for task resolution -- 2d6 + mods; 8+ to succeed. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to compare MGT and CT on this point.

And as an aside, I'd point out that MGT goes out of its way to advertise its similarity to CT:

...Based on the 'Classic Traveller' rules set, streamlined and updated for the 21st Century...

Based on the Classic Traveller rules set, this book has been streamlined for modern roleplaying...Traveller has come back. Discover what is out there.

Mercenary

High Guard

760 Patrons

Traders and Gunboats

Beltstrike

Given that Mongoose has expended considerable effort to publicly link MGT with CT and invite favorable comparisons, it seems a bit lame to assert that "it's a different game" when the comparisons turn unfavorable. (Not to mention that this point, while true, is seldom relevant to the issue at hand).

Comparisons aren't the problem in this thread...long drawn out arguments over the CT die rolling system are.

Be that as it may, "based on" does not mean "the same game as". Yes, MGT is based on CT, as opposed to being some radical departure from the system such as TNE and T4/T5. But that does not mean it is the same game.

And I would take issue with the statement you made about what the CT task system is. CT actually had no task system; the "target number 8+ with modifiers" was for combat only. Mongoose has formalized what a lot of people were doing anyway but as written in the original LBB's, there was no overall task system.

Allen

 

[tbeard1999]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RixRacer
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.

This will be an issue with *any* task resolution system, regardless of how many/what kind of dice it uses.

And not to pick nits, but I'm not so sure that McCoy would be a Medic-5 in the early 21st century -- unless he has access to his 23rd century medical tricorder, assorted humming salt shakers and (especially) 23rd century wonder drugs. How would he do with a 1930s era X-Ray? Or a blood pressure cuff and stethoscope? Would he even know how to stitch a wound with needle and suture or give an injection with a needle? (Based on his delirious ranting in "The City on the Edge of Forever", the answer may be "no"...)

In any case, it seems to me that most technical skills assume an assortment of appropriate tools, at least for all but the simplest of tasks. The referee should design the task accordingly (i.e., give McCoy his Medic-3, but penalize him if he lacks his medical tricorder or humming salt shakers).

In the case of medicine, it can get complex indeed. McCoy may be Medic-3 when it comes to diagnosing cancer, but without 23rd century anti-cancer drugs, he's very unlikely to be able to cure it. A lot of diseases will be like that. Medical skill may help diagnose them, and depending on the transmission vector, Medical skill may help prevent infection. But without hi tech drugs, Medical skill may not help at all in curing the disease.

For an adventuring RPG like Traveller, I'd submit that the skill descriptions work well enough for typical situations ("typical" to Traveller adventures) and leave it to the referee to adjudicate atypical situations.

 

[tbeard1999]

Comparisons aren't the problem in this thread...long drawn out arguments over the CT die rolling system are.

<shrug> Eye of the beholder and all that...

Be that as it may, "based on" does not mean "the same game as". Yes, MGT is based on CT, as opposed to being some radical departure from the system such as TNE and T4/T5. But that does not mean it is the same game.

And as far as I can tell, no one has said that it is. All anyone has said is that they use the same basic mechanic -- "roll 2d6, add modifiers, equal or exceed a target number to succeed".

So your assertion, while true, really doesn't mean much, seems to me.

My point was that Mongoose spent a lot of effort to convince everyone that MGT is extremely similar to CT. Seems lame to try to deny this similarity if comparisons turn unfavorable to MGT.

And I would take issue with the statement you made about what the CT task system is. CT actually had no task system; the "target number 8+ with modifiers" was for combat only.

Actually, CT explicitely used 8+ as the success number on Gambling and Ship's Boat skills. For most other skills, the success number differed -- usually from 5+ to 9+. In most cases, the skill level was added to the roll. So mechanically, it's effectively identical to the MGT task system for purposes of this discussion.

Technically, the range of useful modifiers changes as the target number changes. So, if the "useful net modifier range" is -3 to +4 for a target number of 8+, it is -5 to +2 for a target number of 6+. But the number of "slots" -- eight -- doesn't change, regardless of the target number. So the systems are functionally identical for purposes of this discussion.

Mongoose has formalized what a lot of people were doing anyway but as written in the original LBB's, there was no overall task system.

(a) Never said or intended to imply that there was; and (b) I consider that a good thing, since I am generally bemused by the Traveller task system fetish...

In any case, "roll 2D, add modifiers, equal or exceed a target number" is an accurate description of task resolution mechanics of CT and MGT. The same limits apply to both game, therefore, there's nothing sinister or dubious in discussing/comparing them both. (So long as relevant differences are noted, of course.)

 

[Allensh]

Comparisons aren't the problem in this thread...long drawn out arguments over the CT die rolling system are./quote]

<shrug> Eye of the beholder and all that...



And as far as I can tell, no one has said that it is.

So your assertion, while true, really doesn't mean much, seems to me.

My only point is that Mongoose spent a lot of effort to convince everyone that MGT is extremely similar to CT. Seems lame to try to deny this similarity if comparisons turn unfavorable to MGT.



Actually, CT explicitely used 8+ as the success number on Gambling and Ship's Boat skills. For most other skills, the success number differed -- usually from 5+ to 9+. In most cases, the skill level was added to the roll. So mechanically, it's effectively identical to the MGT task system for purposes of this discussion.



(a) Never said or intended to imply that there was; and (b) I consider that a good thing, since I am generally amused by the widespread task system fetish among Traveller players.

In any case, "roll 2D, add modifiers, equal or exceed a target number" is an accurate description of task resolution mechanics of CT and MGT. The same limits apply to both game, therefore, there's nothing sinister or dubious in discussing/comparing them both.

I don't recall saying that there was.

Matt was the one who said it was a different game. I agreed with that because it is; MGT is not CT, as I'm sure Supplement Four will happily tell you.

as for comparisons being unfavorable...eye of the beholder

Allen

 

[King of Old School]

And as far as I can tell, no one has said that it is. All anyone has said is that they use the same basic mechanic -- "roll 2d6, add modifiers, equal or exceed a target number to succeed".

Quoting skill level equivalencies from CT in a discussion on whether skill levels in MGT chargen are too high comes a little closer to conflating CT and MGT as a single game than is reasonable, IMO.

If you're talking about the mathematics then absolutely, it's a valid point of comparison. So, since I haven't seen you say so explicitly (and I'm curious in light of your excellent post discussing the fundamentals of the 2d6 mechanic), do you think MGT chargen creates PCs with unworkably high skill levels?

KoOS

 

[King of Old School]

Also: if not 2d6 roll-over, what mechanic would you use?

KoOS

 

[Poppyseed45]

Quoting skill level equivalencies from CT in a discussion on whether skill levels in MGT chargen are too high comes a little closer to conflating CT and MGT as a single game than is reasonable, IMO.

If you're talking about the mathematics then absolutely, it's a valid point of comparison. So, since I haven't seen you say so explicitly (and I'm curious in light of your excellent post discussing the fundamentals of the 2d6 mechanic), do you think MGT chargen creates PCs with unworkably high skill levels?

KoOS

Could we also define the term "unworkable," in this context? Specifically, as described, MGT task difficulty modifiers represent levels of achievement for professionals in the skill. As I posted, a straight 8+ (average) roll assumes that the PC has a +2 modifier of some sort to be able to make that (to enable the average 2d6 roll of 6-7 to be a success), which would generally translate into a 2 in whatever skill we mean (could be also a +2 with mods, like for attribute, etc).

Within the system, then, based on the listed difficulties, what would be "breaking the system?" What I mean is, what challenge level in a task would a GM throw at the players and justifiably expect them to fail, and then to have, say, more than 30% of characters with, say, three skills at the point where they could actually make it? Is this a good way to define it?

I guess what I mean is, where exactly are "high-level" skills undesirable? How many skills need to be at this level with one character to break things? In a party? Why are 12-20 year veterans of certain jobs expected not to be competent in their jobs? Or at what level is it "beyond" that 12-20 year competency?

 

[tbeard1999]

Also: if not 2d6 roll-over, what mechanic would you use?

KoOS

Depends on how much minutae I wanted to model. If I wanted 5 different modifiers to apply to a task, each ranging from (say) -3 to +3, I'd use a d20. Maybe a d30 if I could get my players to accept it.

For reasons explained below, I tend to favor single die systems over summed dice systems.

But *if* I were gonna use a 2d6 system, I'd make sure that only the most important modifiers are modeled so that the "useful range of net modifiers" isn't exceeded regularly.

Personally, I'd use a d10 instead of a 2d6 system. "Roll 1d10, add modifiers, target number 6+" would give you a -4 to +4 "useful range". A d10 is pretty much a "drop in" replacement for 2d6. A d12 (target 7+) is even better -- the useful range is -5 to +5. However, my players don't care for d12s.

Note that on average, a +1 on 2d6 will make success 9.09% more likely.

On 1d10, a +1 will make success 10% more likely.

On 1d12, a +1 will make success 8.3% more likely.

So the average effect of the modifiers are about the same. However, with 2d6, a +1 modifier's effect varies significantly with the target number. If the target number is 8, a +1 changes the chance of success from 42% to 58%. If the target number is 12, a +1 changes the chance of success from 5.5% to 8.3%.

Using a single die would also allow you to batch process tasks -- you could roll 5d10 as quickly as 1d10. The archetypal system I developed for 1d10 was my Traveller Combat System B. Basically, it went like this:

1. Roll to hit. 1d10+mods; need 7+ to hit. Weapons with higher rates of fire get more dice. An ACR, firing a 5 shot burst gets 2 dice. If it empties the 30 round clip, it gets 6 dice.

2. Each hit rolls to penetrate. 1d10+weapon penetration; need to equal/exceed target's armor rating.

3. Each hit rolls for effect. 1d10+weapon damage. (Several variants exist. The first system generated a "wound class" -- light, severe, mortal, graveyard dead. The second system generated points of damage.)

Note that each step can be rolled in one batch, so the system plays *very* fast.

 

[tbeard1999]

I guess what I mean is, where exactly are "high-level" skills undesirable? How many skills need to be at this level with one character to break things? In a party? Why are 12-20 year veterans of certain jobs expected not to be competent in their jobs? Or at what level is it "beyond" that 12-20 year competency?

My $.02--

In Real Life, I've found that most folks can maintain professional level competency in one profession at a time. And I think that a professional would be expected to succeed virtually all the time at average difficulty tasks. (I'd agree that most folks can also maintain a high, but sub-professional level of competence at a less demanding field).

And while I know a few folks who are both Doctors and Lawyers, none of them practice medicine now. They are Lawyers now, and I think that they would agree that their medical skills have atropied somewhat.

So, assuming a 2d6, target number 8 task system...

*If* -- a big *if* -- a single game skill includes all important competencies for a single profession, then the character generation system should not generate more than one skill at 3+, most of the time.

The problem is that the MGT (and CT) skill systems are inconsistent. Fields with literally years of training and education are lumped under 1 skill ("Medic" or "Engineer"). Other fields that can be mastered with far less time devoted to intensive training ("Gun Combat") receive their own skill. (To quote James Dunnigan, "With a $400 dollar .223caliber, bolt action rifle (and scope), a shooter with a few hundred rounds of practice shots should be able to his the target 90 percent of the time, which is what the DC sniper has done. ...")

Based on the military's experience in turning out effective snipers, becoming a qualified sniper does not take anything like the time it takes to become a qualified physician. Though, it does require maintenance (a Marine sniper I know stated that he averaged 1 hour per day on the shooting range).

Yet Rifle-3 "costs" the same as "Medic-3".

But to answer your question -- I'd say a chargen system is broken if it routinely turns out characters who are experts in 2+ professions.

 

[Supplement Four]

So me some proof and I'll change my mind.

Somehow, I doubt it. Others "see" what I've had to say about MGT (I know, because they've told me), and you sound like you need a long, drawn out, discussion.

It's not my job to convince you. I don't have a mission to convert people away from MGT. If you don't "get" what I'm saying, then, good for you. If you're enjoying MGT, that's great.

4 inches more like. It's not worth the effort because you don't have any proofs at all.

Just more "proof" that you don't understand. And, that's OK.

With some, all I have to do is mention, "MGT allows a player to arrange stats to taste," and they immediately "get" where I'm coming from. They see the problem in that.

What you're saying is, "But, why is arranging to taste not a good thing?"

I don't have the passion for explaining it to you. If you think it's a good thing, then, that's great for you.

And I would take issue with the statement you made about what the CT task system is. CT actually had no task system; the "target number 8+ with modifiers" was for combat only. Mongoose has formalized what a lot of people were doing anyway but as written in the original LBB's, there was no overall task system.

You really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Classic Traveller, do you?

Of course CT has a task system. It's called a "throw". And, it's not structured. The GM is trusted with making an appropriate throw required for a specific situation.

Read The Traveller Adventure. You'll find information about GM's creating throws all over CT, from the main rule books to the JTAS and adventures and such. But, the TA has one of the best write-ups on CT's "task system".

 

[Supplement Four]

Yet Rifle-3 "costs" the same as "Medic-3".

Don't forget, though, TBeard, that CT does show differences in Skills unlike MGT.

In MGT, Rifle-3 and Medic-3 are indeed used the same.

But, in CT, that's not the case at all.

In CT, a combat throw may be needed, and a Rifle-3 may be used allowing +3 on the throw.

Yet, if a Medic-3 revivies a low berth passenger, all that is allowed on the throw for the skill is +1.



This is one of the beautiful things about CT. This is one of the things that got "lost" when Traveller moved to a one-size-fits-all task system in MT (followed by MGT recently).

A GM may call for a +2 DM if the character has Admin-3 or higher.

Or, a character with Vacc Suit-2 is considered to be an expert as the throw uses +4 DM per level of skill vs. a 10+ target number.


You see, the GM, and the Traveller examples in the book, apply a task and a skill based on the situation. A skill does not always give a +1 per level DM. The weight of skill changes, based on the throw....based on the situation.


Medic-3 might get you a +3 on one throw, a +6 on another, and yet, again, a +1 on another task.

It just depends on the situation.

MGT doesn't have this beautiful implementation of skills.

 

[King of Old School]

Why are 12-20 year veterans of certain jobs expected not to be competent in their jobs?

This is my big problem with S4's critique of MGT. It smacks of the "your PCs should be incompetent schlubs or else you're a munchkin" attitude that plagues fan communities for certain older games.

OTOH, if we're to assume that levels 1-2 in a skill represent professional-grade competency, then we're left with (a) PCs with no secondary competencies at all, or (b) PCs that are very bland and "samey." Neither would make the game "broken" but both are suboptimal next to MGT, IMO.

KoOS

 

[Poppyseed45]

super-snipped

I see. Interesting. One thing however, though this will wander a bit. Basically, to be a successful doctor, one must not only have the medic skill. As a doctor moves up the line, he seems to need some Life Science and Social Science as well. Also, 4 out of 6 skills on the Physician line are not Medic, which means that a number of skills are needed to be an actually competent physician. But Medic 2 grants the title of doctor - what you get at whatever analog of medical school.

As you say, in RL, the doctor/lawyers are losing their doctoring skills. But they still retain something, right? And if they took refresher courses, they could get back to their old comptency maybe? Mind you, I have no idea about how to represent this in-game. My point being, more than one skill is involved in each profession. For example, a good miner for Traveller must know the Trade (Miner) skill AND Vacc Suit probably, and maybe mechanic or something, to be considered "competent," no?

That said...

I see what you mean with the skill cost thing. Maybe a GURPS-like costing system for skills would be good in your opinion? Though again, with the given character generation system, I have no idea how to implement it (or how to decide how to weigh things). Based on background and competencies, some skills may be easier for others to learn. Like, I'm okay at languages (I speak 3 foreign languages). But my wife? Learns them faster and easier than I do (and at higher levels, in the same 3). But in terms of understanding science or mathematics, I do better. Both involve intelligence and education, we both have master's degrees (interesting - she in agricultural engineering, me in applied linguistics!).

I think the given system and distribution is fine - just enough detail without weighing the "what-ifs" too much for playability. IMO. But there is at least one system (GURPS) that does some of what you describe and I'm a big fan of it. Maybe port over the GURPS dice system and skill system?