2d6? Why oh why?

[tbeard1999]

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

Yes, that's true. To put it in "universal task system du jure" lingo, many routine Medical tasks are easier for a Medic than routine Gun Combat tasks are for a sniper. And in many cases, CT skill levels do not add to the roll, point for point. CT skill use is far more nuanced than MGT skill use -- which is what you get when you eschew a universal task system. Given the relatively small number of skills in CT, I've never found the lack of a universal task system to be a problem. Indeed, I've found the opposite -- shoehorning a purportedly "universal" task system is almost always more trouble than it's worth. I see game mechanics as tools. And while a multitool may be convenient, it seldom replaces dedicated tools.

What I meant in my post is that the CT and MGT systems "charge" the same for 1 level of Medical as for 1 level of Gun Combat. But, as you point out, the *value* received by a player may differ in CT, since Medical has routine tasks (waking from Low Berth; allowing wounded characters to recover; proper use of drugs) that are easier (or at least different) than routine Gun tasks.

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).

Yup. I prefer the more nuanced view of skills provided by CT and (as my posts should make clear) find universal task systems to be overrated.

As always, YMMV.

I would note, in defense of MGT and other systems, that the hassle factor increases precipitously as you add more skills. IMHO, a universal task system becomes desirable when the number of skills reaches a certain point. Of course, I favor systems will smaller numbers of broad skills, so this is a non-issue for me.

 

[rust]

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.

Yep, I agree with this.

To be competent in one profession is what I expect of most characters, but
an unusual number of characters with competence in two or more professions
would ruin my suspension of disbelief.
Such "renaissance man" characters should exist in a setting, but they should
be rare enough to be the famous exceptions to the background universe's ru-
les.

 

[rust]

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.

Well, telling the GM to make things up on the spot does not exactly fit the
average definition of "system".

 

[tbeard1999]

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.

Yup. As I noted, it's a *very* dubious assumption that 1 skill = 1 profession. But IMHO the game would be a damnsight easier to play and design if it were...

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?

Yes, I think that follows. In my own experience, I once had a high level of skill in a field of athletics. I spent 8 years honing my skills (although I doubt I got a whole lot better after the first 5 years). 20 years and 30 pounds later, I clearly do not have that same level. But I suspect I could recover it within 2 years if I devoted the same time to it as I did back then.

But that time and energy would have to come at the cost of some other activity (like RPG design theory ) that I currently engage in.

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?

<shrug>

Maybe. Depends on the game design. I think that MGT and CT are schizophrenic on the question. (Most RPGs are, IMHO).

I see what you mean with the skill cost thing. Maybe a GURPS-like costing system for skills would be good in your opinion?

I loathe GURPS, but some kind of costing system might make sense.

Or -- I prefer this approach -- define the skills so that they are roughly comparable in benefit. And try to make skills inclusive of a profession. Maybe have an overall Gun Combat skill, rather than Pistol, Rifle, SMG, etc. Medical includes every competency that an EMT (if level-1), RN (if level-2) or doctor (if level 3+) requires. Etc.

Not saying it would be easy. But it might well be worth doing.

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!).

Given the number of bilingual/trilingual folks out there, it seems clear to me that learning one foreign language is not as hard for most folks as becoming a doctor, engineer or lawyer. Of course, being a linguist probably is a "profession", in the sense of "requiring a significant investment of time to learn and to maintain a high level of competence".

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?

<makes a crucifix>

Nooooooooooooo!!!!!

 

[tbeard1999]

Well, telling the GM to make things up on the spot does not exactly fit the
average definition of "system".

Agreed. But that is not what CT does. CT says to "make it up on the spot" and provides numerous guidelines in the form of examples.

That makes it a system IMHO.

Not that I'd care if it wasn't a "system" whatevertheheck that means.

But it isn't fair to characterize CT as saying that most things should be made up on the spot by the referee. In my opinion, when it comes to detailing a skill's uses, CT compares very favorably with RPGs that have universal task systems.

I'd add that *every* rpg worth playing eventually tells the referee to "make it up". No RPG can be completely inclusive. The question is where to draw the line. As an Old School game master, I am utterly comfortable with making up a lot of things on the fly. For someone like me, universal task systems are not only useless, but they actually get in my way.

You may be different, of course, and see more utility in a universal task system.

 

[tbeard1999]

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.

I think you're doing S4 a disservice. Certainly, one of CT's defining characteristics is that PCs start out (a) competent; (b) older; and (c) often with considerable economic resources.

No one could be as loyal to CT as S4 is and reject this defining characteristic.

What I think he objects to -- I know that I certainly object to it -- is that MGT's character generation system tends to generate individual characters with implausible levels of competency in multiple fields. And it tends to create too much overlap in competencies by lavishly handing out level 0 and level 1 skills. MGT characters are too deep and too broad, you might say.

When I last looked at this, this seemed to me to be the case with MGT's chargen system. (The system did do a fair job of limiting high skill levels, but the total skill levels [and huge number of level 0 and level 1 skills] seemed way too excessive for my tastes.)

And note that I also object to these kinds of characters for purely dramatic reasons. IMHO, the best games happen when every character has at least one useful thing that he's better than anyone else at. And ideally, that no one else can do very well. "Swiss Army Knife" characters frustrate this. (They also make individual characters less valuable to the party; in my experience if 4 characters have Admin skill, no one is gonna be too upset if the Admin-3 guy is unavailable).

Of course, this can be a problem with small groups of players. As a referee, I often give skill bonuses (usually level 1 or 0) to smaller parties.

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, telling the GM to make things up on the spot does not exactly fit the
average definition of "system".

Why not?

Heck, that type of "system" was used in D&D for years, from original D&D, through Advanced, even into 2nd Edition (where "non-weapon-proficiences" were the beginnings of a one-size-fits-all task system).

 

[tbeard1999]

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

Out of curiousity, what do you want him to prove, exactly?

 

[rust]

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?

I have used GURPS for quite a long time, and I still use several GURPS systems
(e.g. the excellent world building system from GURPS Space 4e and some of
the technology) for the background of our setting and campaign, but I grew
tired of the overall complexity of GURPS, it just gets in the way of my idea of
playability.

My idea of roleplaying has developed more towards simplicity and towards mo-
re roleplaying and less rules. As someone put it on another forum: A system
is perfect if you cannot take away any more parts of it without ruining your
setting and campaign.

This is the main reason why we use the basically very simple percentile sys-
tem of BRP for the actual roleplaying. Percentages are very easy to under-
stand, both the GM and the players can see without any calculations what a
specific chance of success means.
Moreover, as the GM I can also easily differentiate between skills with diffe-
rent "costs" by making their tasks more easy or more difficult.

To give an example: Both the sniper and the surgeon of the examples above
have skill level 3 / a basic success chance of about 80 %.
All the sniper needs to get his 80 % chance for a task of average difficulty is
a good position, a line of sight to his target, his rifle and ammunition.
The surgeon, however, needs a room with an operating table (I hope this is
the right word), surgical instruments, assorted drugs, preferably someone to
assist him, and so on - and each of the things on the list which he lacks gi-
ves him a negative modifier.

Likewise the engineer, the scientist, and so on. They all need some special
equipment for their jobs, and knowing which equipment to use, and how to
use it, is a major part of what makes them professionals and their training
so time consuming.

 

[rust]

Heck, that type of "system" was used in D&D for years, from original D&D, through Advanced, even into 2nd Edition (where "non-weapon-proficiences" were the beginnings of a one-size-fits-all task system).

As long as you write it "system", I do agree.

 

[rancke]

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

3D, target number 12+. .


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

As long as you write it "system", I do agree.

Well, it's definitely a system, even without the quotes.

As TBeard mentioned, there are several guidlines within the CT rule books and supplements that show a GM how to run a game and design throws to fit specific situations.

Think of it like this:

MGT's task system, like all formalized task systems, is generic. There is one way to do things---one way to roll.

CT's task system isn't generic. CT's task system is specific. There is a specific throw for a specific circumstance, and shoving open a stuck hatch is different from picking up a heavy tree log. Because it is impossible to write a throw for every specific situation that can ever occur in a role playing game (though they do show some specific throws as examples), the CT designers decided to leave it to the man in charge--the man in the know--the Game Master. It's up to him to decide how the dice should be applied to a specific situation.

If your character has Medical-3, he might...


...get a +1 DM when throwing 5+ to revive a low berth passenger.

...get a +3 DM when throwing 6+ to stitch up a nasty wound.

...have to roll 1 die for 3- in order to work out some alien medical techniques once they have been translated.

...get a +2 DM per level of skill (+6 DM) on a throw of 10+ to diagnose a non-humanoid alien.

...etc.


That's a brilliant way of running a game, imo, making the task specfic to the chore. It's much better, and more interesting, than using a standard, one-size-fits-all task system.

The devil is in the details.

 

[Klaus]

Out of curiousity, what do you want him to prove, exactly?

Well 'proof' isn't exactly the right word, but some evidence that MGT chargen churns out too many skill 3's.

I have made a lot of characters, and I just haven't seen all that many skill level 3 or higher.

I suppose the only way to "prove" either way is to run through loads of npcs and post in detail, but I'm not expecting anyone to do that!

It's the emphatic certainty that it-does-produce-lots-of-skill-3 that I disagree with, as that goes against all my observations so far. I made 6 characters last night and none of them achieved skill 3 before connections, and 2 didn't even do that. They were 3-5 termers.

The only time I've seen characters with multiple skill 3's is when I've heavily fudged it in order to achieve a desired major npc.

And partly it is taste. I prefer characters with some developed competencies over the often haphazardly multiple skill 1's that pure random can produce in either CT or MGT.

Sorry, a bit rambly, but I only got 2 hours sleep last night.

 

[rust]

That's a brilliant way of running a game, imo, making the task specfic to the chore. It's much better, and more interesting, than using a standard, one-size-fits-all task system.

In the end - see my post on GURPS etc. above - we are not very far apart, I
think, we just come from different directions.

 

[Supplement Four]

In the end - see my post on GURPS etc. above - we are not very far apart, I
think, we just come from different directions.

I'll read it.

I'm remembering a throw I used in a game not too long ago. I think it shows the versatility and brilliance of the CT task system.

The players were exploring an Ancient site. They were in a room that they had already deduced was an Ancient medical facility.

It was a large, square, open room. Instruments along each of the four walls, broken twice, on opposite walls, by openings.

In the center of the room, in a "cross" or "plus" formation, stood nine crystalline structures. Pods. The base was like rock, gradually softening around the equator of the pod until at the top, the material was moist and leathery.

The pods weren't big enough for a large human male to get into, but a teenager could fit comfortably within.

The players, of course, asked for throw for a clue to what these pods did--what was their function. One of the three characters inside this room has Medic-2, and they had already correctly deduced that the room was a medical facility. Plus, the medic character moved closer to the pods. I described how each of them were "wet" inside, but each liquid seemed to have a different consistency. No two were alike. One had a thick, sticky consistency to it, while the one next to it was slick and oily, smooth, and seemed to evaporate in the air.

So, I had to come up with a roll. The players were doing well on their own, so I wanted the roll to be somewhat easy--tipping my hat to their excellent play.

That's a cool thing about the Classic Traveller system. Not only does the GM create the throw with the specific task in mind, but he also creates it based on the players' progress and level of play in the game. Had they been doing not-so-good, I would have made the throw harder.

Well, I didn't want to spend a lot of time on each of the nine pods, making a throw for each one (that would be boring).

So, what I did was have the Medic-2 character, who was inspecting the pods, throw 9 dice. Each one that resulted in a 2 or less indicated that he knew what that particular pod did.

The throw went well for him, and he figured out almost half the pods (and was able to use the pod to help heal a comrade later in the game...all because of this throw).

Isn't that a neat way to handle the situation? It fit the skill of the character. It fit the situation. It was quick and not boring. And, most of all, it worked.

One of my gripes with MGT (or any Traveller game that uses a formal task system), is that this type of thing just isn't possible.

Classic Traveller's way of doing things is liberating. You're not hemmed in using specific rules. You can adapt, customize and specialize to the situation at hand.

You can adjust to fit the quality of your players' level of play.

It's really brilliant. And, in my opinion, it's the only way to go when playing Traveller.

 

[rust]

It's really brilliant. And, in my opinion, it's the only way to go when playing Traveller.

While I would not choose Classic Traveller for the kind of playing you descri-
be, mainly because our type of setting and campaign needs a lot of very de-
tailed science and engineering skills and the technology to go with them, I
use the BRP system for basically the same reasons.

 

[Supplement Four]

While I would not choose Classic Traveller for the kind of playing you descri-
be, mainly because our type of setting and campaign needs a lot of very de-
tailed science and engineering skills and the technology to go with them, I
use the BRP system for basically the same reasons.

I'm not trying to convert ya...just interested: Why wouldn't CT do for your detailed science and engineering throws?

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

Hi,

In some previous post someone mentioned that a possible rule of thumb might be that:

skill-1 as amateur/'apprentice',
skill-2 as 'journeyman', and
skill-3 as 'master'

And someone else noted that maybe a chargen system might be considered broken if it routinely turns out characters who are experts in 2+ professions.

I don't know that I fully subscibe to this.

Specifically, when I was growing up my next door neighbor not only was good enough of a business man to be a vice president of the largest bank in town but he was also a good enough mechanic that he and his son fully restored at least two classic sports cars. To me that would suggest he had more than a 'journeyman' level ability in each field.

Similarly, later in life I worked with a woman who was not only considered a very well respected engineer/program manager but who was also an 'Olympic' level sailor. Once again both seeming to be more than just 'journeyman' level abilities.

When you think about it, I'd suspect that there are probably a fair number of people who have real passions for certain things/hobbies but are also very capable at their day jobs.

My ex-brother-in-law was not only a successful general contractor but he also hunted regularly and I suspect that he was quite good at it. Likewise my father's best friend not only was the regional manager of the company he worked for but was also an avid fisherman who regularly competed in (and sometimes won) Bass fishing contests.

Along a different vein, my current boss not only is a well respected engineer in his field, but also (when I first worked for this company many years ago) he was also the resident computer guru/IT guy (long before the term IT came into regular usage). He not only ran one of the marine engineering/naval architecture branches of the company but he personally installed and set-up the mini-mainframe (?) computer system the company had bought.

As such, I'm not so turned off by the thought of a character having a level 3 ability in more than one field.

Regards

PF

 

[rust]

I'm not trying to convert ya...just interested: Why wouldn't CT do for your detailed science and engineering throws?

The throws would do, although I prefer percentages (more intuitive, at least
for me and the players of our group).

The main problem would be the very high number of different skills required by
the setting and campaign.

A possible example would be the terraforming of the setting's main planet. The
terraformer who creates the cyanobacteria to transform the exotic atmosphe-
re into a breathable one needs both Biology with a specialty of Genetics to be
able to "geneer" the bacteria and Planetology to know how to adapt them to
the environment and where and how to deploy them. The terraformer who has
the task to build canals to transport the water from the polar ice caps to the
colony region needs Planetology with the specialty Geology and Planetary En-
gineering - and so on.

While we could use CT with a single skill of Terraforming, the players prefer to
know more precisely whether their terraformer character is a biologist or a ge-
ologist, and what his secondary / complementary skills are.

In the end this means that we need a lot more skills, especially science and
engineering skills (never ask a life support systems engineer to repair the hy-
perdrive ...), than the CT system can create with its character generation or
otherwise can handle well.

So, while CT may do very well with other settings and campaigns (and it did,
I played it for almost thirty years), it would be a bad choice for these ones.
The character generation system of MGT just fits much better in this case or
other similar cases - and after the character generation we switch to BRP.

 

[Supplement Four]

In the end this means that we need a lot more skills, especially science and
engineering skills (never ask a life support systems engineer to repair the hy-
perdrive ...), than the CT system can create with its character generation or
otherwise can handle well.

All of those skills are available in CT. You've got to go beyond the main rule book, though. But, there's a lot of very good rules added to the game in other supplements.

For example, JTAS has a Scientist career with the skills you are looking for. Description. Etc.

Not that you need it in print. Simply make up your own skills and even careers, if need be (also in a JTAS article).