2d6? Why oh why?

[rust]

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.

Let us take a look at your examples.

The guy who was a very good banker (Banker-3) also fully restored at least
two cars. However, this does not necessarily make him a competent enough
mechanic to work at a garage (I think this is what it is called ...) and repair
each and every car put in front of him, as a master mechanic (Mechanic-3)
should be able to do.

The female engineer (Engineer-3) also was an Olympic level sailor. However,
this does not prove that she would have been able to work in all positions on
all types of sailing vessels, as I think a master sailor (Sailor-3) should be able
to do.

In general, "hobby skills" are very specialized, they give a very high level of
competence in a very narrow part of a professional field, but the amateurs
usually lack the broad knowledge to cover all of the entire field of a profes-
sion, which is what makes a master of a profession.

Of course, there are some amateurs who are competent enough to be consi-
dered masters of level 3, but I really think they are exceptional.

 

[rust]

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.

Yep, but remember that these people need quite a lot of other skills, too.

They need at least Vacc Suit, Survival and a Vehicle skill to get around on
the planet, Computer is a must and Admin most useful, Medic and at least
one Tech skill would be fine, there are the different Languages from the co-
lonists' (previous) homeworlds, and then we have Social skills, and some of
the players demand that their characters have Combat skills, and ...

We can do this with, for example, the careers from the MGT core rules or
Career Book 1 (and some careers we wrote for the setting), but it is near-
ly impossible to create CT careers that would give the players all the skills
they consider necessary for the characters in our setting.

In my opinion CT is best when played "old school", with few broad skills and
little detailed rules, but it does not really "wrap around" a game with a much
higher level of detail. TNE does somewhat better in this, but for our purpose
MGT's character generation with its comparatively high number of level 0
and level 1 skills really is the most comfortable choice.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yep, but remember that these people need quite a lot of other skills, too.

Well, don't forget that, in CT, many characters can use many skills not on their sheet.

There may be a penalty DM, and there may not be, depending on the skill description and the GM. But, the vast majority of skills can be used by CT characters even if they don't have it on their character sheets.

You see, CT takes the position that only the areas where characters excell are listed on the character's sheet. Just because the character doesn't have Broker on his sheet doesn't mean he can't attempt to broker a deal. Just because the character doesn't have Streetwise on his sheet doesn't mean he can't attempt to find a contact to the black market.

It just depends on the situation. The GM, in CT style, decides on the required throw.

I think people who came to Traveller post CT (MT+) have the idea that, if the skill is not owned by the character, then the charcter has no idea how to complete a task using the skill.

CT doesn't work that way.



CT skills are, indeed, broad. And, I see why, in your campaign, knowing specialties is important. My point is, CT can be played with broad definitions, or those definitions can be narrowed.

Remember, the GM designs the throw specifically for a circumstance.

So, let's say a biology based throw is needed--one where a character is looking through a microscope trying to determine what the mold is that was scraped off the ship's central conditioning filter. The GM could just allow this to be a Medical throw. Or, if you wanted to get more specific, the GM might require a biology throw.

Knowing that a character's background had him working in a genetics lab, then the GM just might call for some throw based on the character's INT.

The specialization needed can be included with CT, is all I'm saying.

 

[vertigo25]

Well, don't forget that, in CT, many characters can use many skills not on their sheet.

There may be a penalty DM, and there may not be, depending on the skill description and the GM. But, the vast majority of skills can be used by CT characters even if they don't have it on their character sheets.

You see, CT takes the position that only the areas where characters excell are listed on the character's sheet. Just because the character doesn't have Broker on his sheet doesn't mean he can't attempt to broker a deal. Just because the character doesn't have Streetwise on his sheet doesn't mean he can't attempt to find a contact to the black market.

It just depends on the situation. The GM, in CT style, decides on the required throw.

I think people who came to Traveller post CT (MT+) have the idea that, if the skill is not owned by the character, then the charcter has no idea how to complete a task using the skill.

CT doesn't work that way.

Neither does MgT. In fact, it works very much like CT, just kind of swapping some maths around.

Let's use one of your examples to show what I mean:

A character is trying to pick up some contraband for a Patron, but he has no levels in Streetwise. He could attempt to use the skill anyway with a -3 penalty.

Now, here's where it gets fun…

You've seemed to imply in a few statements that MgT has somehow arrested arbitration of this kind of thing from the GM. But, the difficulty mods are the *for* arbitration.

The character has a -3 penalty because he doesn't have the skill; but as GM, I decide that, since they're in a particularly nasty starport, it will be easier to find someone who will deal with them. I give him a +2. Now, he'll effectively suffer a -1 to his roll. But it could go even further. If he takes his time doing it (say, trying to get a feel for the lay of the land or researching the Library Data for the port), for example, he could gain a further benefit.

And as GM, I get to decide what can benefit him or penalize him… or not. Setting the Mods is the same as the difficulty for a throw in CT. MgT just gives you more detail on how you can adjust stuff.

The thing that I don't understand is why you seem to think this approach to task resolution is so "wrong," but it's perfectly ok to do the *exact same thing* in CT combat.

And FWIW, until MgT, I never played anything *but* CT (I played a lot of GURPS, but never for Traveller… hell… never for any sci-fi come to think of it).

 

[Supplement Four]

You've seemed to imply in a few statements that MgT has somehow arrested arbitration of this kind of thing from the GM.

No, you're quoting me out of context. You quoted a conversation I was having with Rust about his game. We weren't talking about MGT.

 

[Allensh]

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.



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.







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".

I own the game and have played and run it many times. In the sense of a task system similar to that of Megatraveller or TNE, CT does not have one. The "throw" is a game mechanic. The difficulty levels are not set out like they are in MT or later.

Oh, and since you object to anonymous reporting...I plan to report your insult. If you want to talk about the game, fine. You make ANY kind of personal comment directed at me, and I will be complaining about it.

 

[Colin]

It's Rude, but Not Insulting

Not far enough for me to issue a formal warning, but far enough to issue an informal warning. It is difficult, especially in written formats such as BBS posts, to determine mood, and many posts often come about sounding ruder than they were meant. Re-read what you wrote, and if you have any doubts, change it. We're all expressing our fondness for the same game here, no matter the flavour.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Well, don't forget that, in CT, many characters can use many skills not on their sheet.

There may be a penalty DM, and there may not be, depending on the skill description and the GM. But, the vast majority of skills can be used by CT characters even if they don't have it on their character sheets.

That's also true in MGT (the game we're supposed to be discussing). The difference is, MGT has a unified way of dealing with it (-3 to the roll without some basic 0-level competency) rather than CT's per skill way (which only defined it in a blanket way for combat skills, and put the penalty at -3, then says that all PCs have 0-level competency in all weapons so as to avoid the issue of PCs not being useful in combat...).

In MGT, that's why character have 0-level competencies. We can see, easily, where a character has had some tiny bit of training, and where they haven't. As the book says (p51) Levels 2-3 represents deeper training and skilled professionalism. Medic 2 is a doctor. Medic 4 is a famous surgeon or specialist.

With these small scales, I think the MGT 2d6 task system works just fine. As I mentioned before, individual bonuses or minuses mean something since the scale is small, and because the task system is unified, players can know better how to dramatically alter their rolls (or understand when they are penalized).

For example, if I'm the ship mechanic and we need to fix the air/raft fast to escape, I know as a player that I can take a penalty to my roll and get the thing done fast, if I'm lucky. Because the task system is unified, and there are not many modifiers, I can come up with myself the odds for success, and decide if I want to take them, or to mitigate them in some way.

For, the easiness of MGT's system for this kind of eyeballing is its prime strength.

 

[rust]

The specialization needed can be included with CT, is all I'm saying.

True, it could be done with CT.

However, the players of my campaign prefer to know exactly what detailed
skills their characters have, because in their view this also helps to make
characters different and to give them more individuality and depth.

In CT, with its comparatively broad skills, it happens quite often that charac-
ters of the same career or profession also have the same set of skills (albeit
with different levels), and everything beyond those skills is left to the play-
ers' imagination.

In MGT, the characters have more and more diverse skill sets, which gives
the players a more detailed idea of their characters, and makes it easier to
"get into" the characters, which is also supported by the lifepath events of
the MGT character generation.

So, while it could be done with CT, MGT is just the better fitting system for
our purposes - not necessarily for other people's campaigns, of course.

 

[atpollard]

I like 2D6. It works for me.

The great choice is between a flat ‘curve’ (like D100 or D20 systems) or a ‘bell’ curve (like 2D6 or 3D6 systems).

Had MgT gone with a 3D6 system, the broader bell curve would have allowed finer gradation and more modifiers, but the odds of rolling the ‘tails’ (like 3 or 18) would become almost meaninglessly small.

Had MgT gone with a D100 system, it would require either many very small modifiers (which implies a need for lots of rules and lots of tables) that would slow down play, or it would need large modifiers (like 5% or 10% increments) that renders the fine gradation pointless.

The 2D6 of CT/Mt/MgT allows MgT to be fast playing and to use existing resources as a base to build upon. Any other system would cost MgT one or both of those benefits. There are plenty of detailed game mechanics out there, MgT just chose not to be one of them – and sales appear to support that decision.

If you really want an xD6 system, then get involved in T5 (or wait for it to be published).

 

[RixRacer]

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.

Not to continue picking....But I am anyway...lol!! I couldn't more whole-heartedly disagree that in the example of McCoy, he would be penalized without his humming devices. And to continue to use Star Trek IV as an example...Scotty created transparent aluminum by talking into a PC Mouse (ha ha) in the 21st century. That is a perfect example of melding tech-levels and accomplishing at a "probable level" where it would be impossible with the knowledge and training of a lower tech-level.

McCoy's knowledge of physiology in the 23rd century would increase his chances solving complex and near impossible tasks in the 21st century with or without his technology. Howelse did we (in real world) get to where we are now without the knowledge past on from doctor to doctor. You honestly don't think McCoy could go back to the archaic practice of stitching a wound? Besides, what doctor would be without his doctor bag!!! LOL

 

[Supplement Four]

I own the game and have played and run it many times. In the sense of a task system similar to that of Megatraveller or TNE, CT does not have one.

Again, if you think CT doesn't have a task system, then you just plain don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't matter how many times you've run CT if you don't realize that.

The "throw" is a game mechanic. The difficulty levels are not set out like they are in MT or later.

A task system is a game mechanic. And, the difficulty levels in CT are set by the GM. It's called an unstructured task system.

Oh, and since you object to anonymous reporting...I plan to report your insult. If you want to talk about the game, fine. You make ANY kind of personal comment directed at me, and I will be complaining about it.

Of course you will. You're the complainer.

Tell me, which of the statements in my post you quote above hurt your feelings?



And...I'd like to point out that only the bottom part of that post above that you quote was directed at you. Three-quarters of the post was my response to Klaus, not you.

Maybe I should report you for insulting me and mis-representing your grievance?

 

[rust]

Had MgT gone with a D100 system, it would require either many very small modifiers (which implies a need for lots of rules and lots of tables) that would slow down play, or it would need large modifiers (like 5% or 10% increments) that renders the fine gradation pointless.

Lots of rules and lots of tables are not necessary, one only has to trust
the GM to come up with a plausible success chance, which is not diffi-
cult to do in a percentile system.

Supplement Four wrote some very interesting posts on the role of the
GM in this ("old school") style of roleplaying here in this thread, and this
is one of the points where a fully agree with him.

 

[IronCzar]

Again, if you think CT doesn't have a task system, then you just plain don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't matter how many times you've run CT if you don't realize that.

Y'know, I kind of agree on this particular point, but it seems to me that you're taking a weirdly strident approach to an argument over semantics. You're pushing a reasonable argument so far and into such a tight corner that it's become wrong.

A task system is a game mechanic. And, the difficluty levels in CT are set by the GM. It's called an unstructed task system.

Actually, it's called 'a different rule for every little thing', an approach well-loved by various editions of D&D, but rather different from any reasonable definition of 'task system' as we would define it in the modern sense. There's nothing inherently wrong with this approach, of course, as long as it's kept manageable. One might say, in an argument surely familiar to many in this community, that CT has an implied task system, and certainly something more formal can be extracted from the rules with minimal effort.

In other words, there's a lot more nuance to this point than you're implying there is.

 

[vertigo25]

Sup4, if you don't mind my asking, why did you create the UGM (which is *very* similar to the task resolution in MgT) if the throw system in CT works so well? Is the system you created broken? Because it has at least one thing you've already complained about in here (that being gaining bonuses to rolls based on high attribute scores).

I honestly don't understand what your motivation or endgame is in these posts. You've said you're not trying to convert anyone and you don't want to attempt to "prove" your point. You've said if people want to play and the enjoy what you think of as a broken system than that's fine by you.

But you just keep going.

To be honest, I'm not even sure what your actual point is anymore.

When I said "You've seemed to imply in a few statements that MgT has somehow arrested arbitration of this kind of thing from the GM," I wasn't referring to the quoted text I had posted. I was referring to previous posts you've made in this thread.

I'm just trying to get at exactly what your point is, because I've seemed to have lost it. And I can't for the life of me understand why you're still arguing given that you seem to think those of us who enjoy the system are doomed to have it blow up in our face or something, but don't want to "convert" us.

 

[tbeard1999]

I like 2D6. It works for me.

The great choice is between a flat ‘curve’ (like D100 or D20 systems) or a ‘bell’ curve (like 2D6 or 3D6 systems).

Had MgT gone with a 3D6 system, the broader bell curve would have allowed finer gradation and more modifiers, but the odds of rolling the ‘tails’ (like 3 or 18) would become almost meaninglessly small.

Had MgT gone with a D100 system, it would require either many very small modifiers (which implies a need for lots of rules and lots of tables) that would slow down play, or it would need large modifiers (like 5% or 10% increments) that renders the fine gradation pointless.

If modifiers are limited to 5% increments, then a d100 system in effect becomes a d20 system. And the "useful range" of a d20 is about 3 times the size as the useful range of a 2d6 system.

For players and referees who want lots of modifiers, this would be a good system IMHO.

As noted before, I have no complaint with 2d6 systems, but they impose severe limitations that many game designers do not perceive. A d20 system would be far more forgiving.

The 2D6 of CT/Mt/MgT allows MgT to be fast playing and to use existing resources as a base to build upon. Any other system would cost MgT one or both of those benefits.

I'm not sold on this purported benefit. The combat system is completely different than any other version of Traveller. MGT characters receive 2-3 times as many skill levels (counting 0 level skills as about equal to 2/3 of a level) as LBB1 CT characters, so characters would require very serious revision going between systems. Skills have been renamed in some cases, merged in others, and eliminated in some cases. And of course, MGT is pretty much incompatible with TNE or T4.

At the end of the day, MGT is a different game system that uses a 2d6 mechanic. There's little real world interoperability IMHO.

Nor am I sold on the notion that it's particularly fast-playing. When I ran through the combat system, it was adequate...but that's about it. It did not strike me as particularly quick playing (but nor was it agonizingly slow).

As an aside, that would pretty much sum up my opinion of MGT. Adequate, overall. It has some inspired parts like parts of the chargen system. But these are easily offset by less inspired parts. To analogize, I think it's like a consistent 7-9 football team. It has a few good players, and isn't Detroit Lions awful. But it isn't a great team either.

Thus, I am bemused by the amount of vitriol flung at its critics. It's like someone aggressively defending the honor of a 7-9 football team.

I can more easily understand the vitriol flung at MGT by some critics. Many of them feel that MGT is not a worthy successor (this is exacerbated by the fact that MGT is likely the last major version of the game). Perhaps this is unfair, but MGT chose to aim itself at the CT market. My own opinion FWIW, is that it is not meaningfully superior to CT (at least CT enhanced by supplements like Striker, AHL or Snapshot). This alone makes me unwilling to switch over. I'd expect a game to be materially superior to its 30 year old ancestor. CT at least has the virtues of (a) familiarity; and (b) a body of house rules that fix most of the glaring problems.

And candidly, I find MGT strikingly inferior to Megatraveller in most respects (other than organization). (I don't play Megatraveller because I don't care for its combat system; yet I think that Megatraveller's combat system is superior to MGT). Again, I expect more from a new game design (perhaps unfairly).

If I were the designer of MGT, I'd either (a) replicate CT and change only those things that clearly need to be changed*; or (b) design a new game system. MGT's designer failed to do either and has produced a mediocre game (IMHO) as a result. Just my US$0.02.

*Of course, you'd then wind up with Megatraveller, which (IMHO) whiffed it on the combat system, but got most of the other things correct. Had the organization been better, Megatraveller could've been a star...

There are plenty of detailed game mechanics out there, MgT just chose not to be one of them – and sales appear to support that decision.

Well, first, popularity is seldom an indicator of quality. If it was, then D&D would be the ultimate RPG and we'd all be wasting our time playing anything else.

Second, the sales *and* profit figures for Mongoose are not publicly available. A game can "sell out" for reasons other than massive demand. Indeed, all that is required for a game to "sell out" is for demand to exceed the number of copies printed. The smaller the print run, the more likely the game will be sold out. A company can also spend a financially absurd amount of money on marketing, which can temporarily pump up sales of a mediocre product. Nostalgia, rather than game play, can motivate a decision to buy a game. None of these factors are related to the quality of the game design. (Of course, a product can sell out because it really is popular and high quality; I'm only pointing out that we do not have any way to verify MGT's performance or the reasons underlying it).

Third, you seem to imply that as the number of faces on a die increase, so does "detail". I see no reason that this is necessarily true, if by detail you mean "complexity". I've designed several d20 based mechanics that are as simple as any 2d6 mechanic. Simpler, technically, because there's no need to add the dice. (I say "technically" because I think that experienced gamers recognize patterns and do not really add the values on 2d6). And is there anything conceptually simpler than the BRP percentile system?

Incidentally, the useful range on 3d6 isn't much bigger than 2d6 -- 10 "slots" vs. 8 "slots".

 

[Colin]

Again, if you think CT doesn't have a task system, then you just plain don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't matter how many times you've run CT if you don't realize that.


A task system is a game mechanic. And, the difficulty levels in CT are set by the GM. It's called an unstructured task system.

I started Traveller with Classic, and have owned every version since, and played all but T4. Classic Traveller doesn't have a "system". Unstructured is not a system. System implies regularity and consistency. There's nothing wrong with CT, I guess, but neither I nor my players liked the unstructured nature of the system.

I suggest that you stop using this topic as a polemic against MgT, and stick to the actual discussion at hand.

 

[Allensh]

I started Traveller with Classic, and have owned every version since, and played all but T4. Classic Traveller doesn't have a "system". Unstructured is not a system. System implies regularity and consistency. There's nothing wrong with CT, I guess, but neither I nor my players liked the unstructured nature of the system.

I suggest that you stop using this topic as a polemic against MgT, and stick to the actual discussion at hand.

That was my point. I think there may be a definition issue regarding a task system. CT most definitley has a way of resolving skill rolls; every skill contains the guidelines for how to do this. I suppsoe that is a "method of resolving tasks".

when I say task system, I mean something where there are defined levels of difficulty (Easy, Routine, Difficult etc.) with target numbers and/or DM's associated with that level. That is what I was saying that CT does not have and I believe the text supports that. Now, having said that, I must add that that task system for CT does exist...as created by DGP and later adapted to Megatraveller. It does not appear in the baseline CT rules as written by GDW.

I also meant in no way to imply that CT not having such a system was a negative thing. It runs just fine as written and as aptly pointed out, D&D never had such a system (or indeed initially ANY skill system) and we did fine without it. A game that has a "task system" is easier in some ways to run than one that doesn't, but CT is pretty easy to run anyway, which is why I chose Traveller over other games like Space Opera...

Allen

 

[King of Old School]

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.

On the point of levels 0-1 skills, I can't disagree with you. It's a matter of taste, and while it doesn't bother me as is I can certainly see where one might reasonably differ. It's probably less of a problem for me than for you because my experiences tend towards smaller groups and therefore less skill overlap.

On the first point: my own experience and observation is that using the primary chargen system as written (i.e. the rolled one, not point-buy), it's unlikely to create PCs with level 3 skills in more than a couple of closely related (as in, on the same career tables) skills, which to me would seem to be the whole point. While you can somewhat more easily generate PCs with level 2 skills in a number of more diverse fields, I'm not sure this breaks suspension of disbelief at all if you accept that level-2 skills represent a "journeyman" level of competency. Jack of all trades, master of none. It's a valid approach to character building, so long as you're willing to forego true professional mastery.

KoOS

 

[CosmicGamer]

Here is the original post for this thread

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?

Does it work? Yes.
My experience? It certainly isn't perfect.

As pointed out, it is often the role of the GM to assign modifiers or difficulty to nudge the outcome of the dice roll in the direction that fits the characters skills and the situation at hand. In my head I think "An average character with the right skill would have a 60% chance of success at this task. Since the character trying this is unskilled and uneducated they only have a 20% chance." Personally, I do not have all the percentages for 2d6 in my head. What would the target be for 20%? Hmm, is it 3 or 4? Maybe you know; I would have to look it up - I do have it written down on one of my GM pages.

I dislike that the 2d6 system is not linear. I very well might prefer a d100, d20, or d10 system. I, however, only own 2d6 versions of Traveller and work within it - after all, the game is about role playing, not dice rolling.

2d6 Result / Cumulative probability
2 / 2.78%
3 / 8.33%
4 / 16.67%
5 / 27.78%
6 / 41.67%
7 / 58.33%
8 / 72.22%
9 / 83.33%
10 / 91.67%
11 / 97.22%
12 / 100.00%

Next, variability, I think 2d6 allows plenty of it. I don't believe a single point difference in DM is all that powerful. As mentioned, the 2d6 chances are not linear, so I can't tell you exactly how much it effects the outcome each time, but it is about 5-15%. It is still mostly up to the dice. You can roll anything from a 2 to a 12 - That is a large variation that is totally random chance having nothing to do with the character.

Often, behind the scenes, I use a single d6 to determine non traveller defined outcomes. I do this because 1) It is linear and 2) For me, it allows enough variability for most instances (16.66% or approx 15%)

The original posters comments about high levels of skills creating problems might be justified, but, IMO, if this occurs, it would be a problem with character generation not what dice are used.