2d6? Why oh why?

[King of Old School]

Which of those do you find damages your feelings so bad that you feel insulted and compelled to report them?

I'm not allensh, but I think if you are seriously arguing that this:

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

is not a personal insult as defined by the forum rules, then you seriously need to take a breather.

And seriously, if your argument is that the statement "roll dice" constitutes a system, your definition of "system" is sufficiently idiosyncratic that it renders discussion in mixed company pointless.

KoOS

 

[Colin]

Which of those do you find damages your feelings so bad that you feel insulted and compelled to report them?

Dude, you really don't want to keep going up this road, do you? If so, be prepared for the consequences.

 

[Supplement Four]

And seriously, if your argument is that the statement "roll dice" constitutes a system, your definition of "system" is sufficiently idiosyncratic that it renders discussion in mixed company pointless.

According to dictionary.com, a "System", in this context, means:

8. An organized and coordinated method; a procedure.

Is the CT task sysem organized and coordinated? Yes. Only D6 are used. Examples are provided on how certain skills are to be used, and the GM is given guidlines on how to create throws (tasks).

It isn't "roll dice". If you're in a CT game, and you pick up a handfull of d4's, throw 'em, and then say, "That's your target number...throw two d12's to beat it", chances are your CT players will look at you funny before they start arguing with you.

Why?

Because you violated the game's task system.



You, Colin, and Allensh seem to be thinking that a task system needs to be reconized as the MT or MGT task system. This isn't the case. I know task systems. Heck, I've written more task systems than you have fingers on your hands.

By your definition, the espionage game, Agent X, has no task system. But, it does, and it doesn't even use dice. It uses a standard deck of playing cards.

CT has its guidelines too, with regard to the task system. And, some tasks are even spelled out for you (as in combat, or reviving a patient form low berth).

Nevertheless, Classic Traveller has a system to resolve tasks (or a task system, in other words).

 

[tbeard1999]

Irrespective of the combat system, a CT, MT, and MgT character will have the same six attributes (with the same range of values), the skills are generally similar and tend towards the 0-3 range of values, and they are all based on a 2d6 mechanic. If I decided that I simply could not get enough of ‘Exit Visa’, it would be a simple matter to play it using the MgT rules.

Good point -- clearly it would be easier to translate a character from MGT to CT and vice versa, if only because the attributes are the same and are roughly on the same scale (I suspect that MGT gives more attribute bonuses along with more skills, but I haven't verified that).

Comparing MgT Character skill levels to CT LBB 1-3 is invalid since LBB 4-7 would fail the same test and everything published after LBB 4 can hardly be thought of as incompatible with CT. I agree with your analysis about too many skill levels and modifiers, but the MgT skill levels are no worse than the LBB 4-7 and MT skill levels.

Point conceded. If you review my posts, you'll see that I am very skeptical of skills inflation in LBB4+ (awhile back, I even ran an analysis that seems to show that many LBB4+ careers generate significantly more skills than CT LBB1/COI.

However, it isn't much of a defense IMHO for MGT fans to point to 30 year old supplements. At the end of the day, MGT stands on its own -- that's how I evaluate it anyhow. (The one caveat is that I do compare it with CT when deciding whether to switch games. That seems fair to me.)

And I'd add that this is a pretty easy problem (if you agree it's a problem) to fix, so it doesn't overly trouble me. Simply limit the total skill levels to X or whatever. (Level 0 skills are statistically worth about 2/3 of a skill level).

I just wish MGT would have done it right in the first place

The topic was comparing 2D6 to other mechanics. I was simply commenting on the fact that a 2D6 mechanic inherently has less room for modifiers than a D100 system would. As a rule of thumb, fewer modifiers means quicker than more modifiers. That was all that was meant by my comment. CT and MgT are both 2D6 systems, so I was not comparing them to each other in terms of fast or slow playing.

Ironically, I made the same point

However, the fact that a 2d6 system allows for few useful modifiers does not mean that a game designer will actually take this into account. See LBB4 for a plethora of weapons that hit on 2d6 rolls of 0 (or even negative numbers).

Speaking of dice, D6 ARE far easier to find than other dice.

Yeah. And due to pattern recognition, its faster to sort a handful of d6's than any other die in my experience. My own rules, A Fistful of TOWs use d6's in all three editions. And we cover combined arms combat for nearly the entire 20th century, so the right d6 mechanics can go a long way.

Still, if I were gonna design an RPG and chose to use a target number system, I'd go with d10s over 2d6.

 

[Supplement Four]

Dude, you really don't want to keep going up this road, do you? If so, be prepared for the consequences.

Well, I guess not. It seems that I am out-numbered (and I've read Sun Tzu).

But, it's obvious to me that Allensh doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to Classic Traveller. And, I fail to see how stating that is an insult. I did't call him a moron or use curse him. I simply let him know that he was incorrect--as anyone is who thinks Classic Travellerdoesn't have a task system.

Here's a question: I saw Aramis post a while back telling how to block view of a poster. How can I block Allensh's posts?

Tell me how to do that, and I will. That way, I'll never see his posts and never be tempted to respond to him, and he won't get his poor wittle feelings hurt when I look at him funny.

So, if you'll give me those instructions, I'll promptly block Allensh from my view (and, if I'm lucky, he'll do the same of me). And, no more will there be a problem.

Instructions please?

 

[tbeard1999]

There is nothing wrong with comparing one game to another, even when such criticisms turn unflattering. I have not for example objected to anything you have said in this thread, even though parts of it I disagree with. This is because you generally limit your comments to the GAME. It is when someone starts insulting a person rather than the game that I take issue with it.

I will also add that Hunter himself SAID that such things were also to be reported. He also questioned why people who dislike Mongoose Traveller keep posting in this section, but that apparently has been forgotten.

So if I'm "tattling"...so be it. All that has to be done for this to stop is for comments to be directed solely at the game and no personal insults whatsoever, however mild, to be launched at me or anyone else.

Fair enough. Have you always acted in a manner consistent with that? (I'm not sandbagging you; I really don't know).

I know that I have not; therefore I am extremely reluctant to report others for insulting behavior.

It really isn't that hard to do. I personally think it would be more productive to whatever "cause" the CT fans have to spend their time on the CT section extoling the virtues of their chosen system than in this section slagging on MGT.

With all due respect, I detect more than a hint of condescension here. I'm willing to accept that it's unintentional, of course, but it's there. You (and others) seem to be insinuating that MGT critics are motivated by a blind, emotional desire to slag the game.

As someone who puts a fair amount into game system critiques, I find that a little insulting.

I'm pretty sure that you'd object if I dismissed your support of MGT as empty headed fanboyism.

And to answer the unspoken question of why someone would criticize MGT, here are some "legitimate" reasons (IMHO):

1. I'm a systems wonk. I love to chew the fat about game mechanisms. I'm an amateur game designer and really do find it interesting.

2. I'm a Traveller wonk. Since MGT is likely the final commercial edition of Traveller, I want it to be right. By exposing flaws in the game and making the case that they are flaws, I do my part in assuring that the next printing will be a better product.

3. Sometimes, I'm in a bad mood and have to hate on something

 

[tbeard1999]

So, if you'll give me those instructions, I'll promptly block Allensh from my view (and, if I'm lucky, he'll do the same of me). And, no more will there be a problem.

Instructions please?

User Control Panel. Select "Ignore List". Type in Allensh.

You can see that an ignored person has posted, but you can't read the post.

 

[Supplement Four]

User Control Panel. Select "Ignore List". Type in Allensh.

You can see that an ignored person has posted, but you can't read the post.

Thank you, sir. Done.

 

[Colin]

Hmm, this argument looks guaranteed to go nowhere. The horse might not be dead yet...

The Task System, as you put it, in CT is qualitatively different than what practically every other game qualifies as a Task System, especially anything newer than, say, 15-20 years ago.

A skilled referee can make the CT method work. An unskilled one would get lost, then not bother. MgT, good or bad, is easier to get into than CT, due in no small part to the use of a unified, consistent Task system.

 

[tbeard1999]

I'm afraid you are not correct either, Colin. You're just as wrong as Allensh is on this point.

If CT has no task system, then how are tasks handled? ...
These are all methods of resolving tasks withing the game.

Or, in otherwords, these are all task systems.

I think that nomenclature is the problem here. CT definitely has task system(s). It does not have a "universal task system", although the combat system has what could be called a "regional task system".

 

[tbeard1999]

Hmm, this argument looks guaranteed to go nowhere. The horse might not be dead yet...

The Task System, as you put it, in CT is qualitatively different than what practically every other game qualifies as a Task System, especially anything newer than, say, 15-20 years ago.

Actually, the first "universal task system" was the "saving throw system" of Tunnels and Trolls (the second RPG evuh, 1975). Runequest followed with its percentile system in 1979. Melee and Wizard (1977 and 1978 respectively) had a task system that became the basis for In The Labyrinth (1980) and GURPS (1984?) and heavily influenced Champions (1980?).

A skilled referee can make the CT method work. An unskilled one would get lost, then not bother. MgT, good or bad, is easier to get into than CT, due in no small part to the use of a unified, consistent Task system.

I don't agree with you on this. Someone that can't handle CT's task mechanics and small number of skills probably shouldn't be running Traveller. IMHO, of course.

What a universal task system offers is familiarity, though IMHO at the cost of flexibility and nuance. <shrug> Nothing is free and there's always a tension between these things.

I would agree that CT requires more from the referee. But I think that it returns more to the referee (I suspect S4 agrees with me on this).

As always YMMV.

 

[Colin]

Good Bye

Tell me how to do that, and I will. That way, I'll never see his posts and never be tempted to respond to him, and he won't get his poor wittle feelings hurt when I look at him funny.

That's quite enough. Come back in a day, when you can be civil.

 

[tbeard1999]

I absolutely, totally agree that criticism is a healthy, necessary thing. OTOH, there's a world of difference between constructive criticism (even harsh criticism) for a game which genuinely interests you, and doing nothing but slagging a game whose only interest for you* is... well, the opportunity to slag the game. I think it's reasonable to suggest that if the only genuine interest one has for a game is slagging it, one should not expect a welcome from a community of people who are interested in actually playing it. That's not the same as saying you should only praise the game, but 837 variations of "this game is irredeemable crap" aren't terribly useful either.

(* That's "you" as in the impersonal, universal you, not you TBeard. I'm quite enjoying your critique of the game, personally.)

KoOS

Yeah, I use the impersonal "you" in my writing as well.

I'm going to ditto this. Constructive is one thing. Slagging the game in nearly ANY thread where something positive is said is another.

BTW, TBeard, I'm also enjoying our discussion.

Appreciate it, gents. I really just like to wonk game mechanics. I have no real anti-MGT agenda here -- you can find complimentary comments about MGT in my posts (it's really true!). Though I suspect that the majority are unflattering. In my defense, many of my critical posts are in response to supporters.

Of course, in the playtest days, I definitely hated on MGT, particularly the timing/effect system and the combat system. However, I did support my slagging with considerable number crunching. And apparently I was not alone, because both systems were absent from the finished product.

But as noted in my response to Allensh, I do react poorly to insinuations that critics of MGT are just irrational haters of the game (not that you guys have done that).

 

[rust]

What a universal task system offers is familiarity, though IMHO at the cost of flexibility and nuance.

I do not quite see where, for example, the task system of BRP would offer
familiarity at the cost of flexibility and nuance ?

 

[tbeard1999]

I do not quite see where, for example, the task system of BRP would offer
familiarity at the cost of flexibility and nuance ?

Well it seems clear to me that a system that provides for specialized task mechanics on a "per skill" basis (like CT does) will be more nuanced than one that provides a generic, universal task resolution system for all skills.

And in fact, the excessive fiddliness I perceive in many Traveller universal task systems seems to me to be an artifact of trying to make the universal task system more nuanced. Which, if taken to extremes, can result in a more complex system than would be the case if you just used the CT approach.

I probably need to think harder about it, but that's what comes to mind.

 

[rust]

Well it seems clear to me that a system that provides for specialized task mechanics on a "per skill" basis (like CT does) will be more nuanced than one that provides a generic, universal task resolution system for all skills.

Within the framework of the BRP system I can just as well modify the diffi-
culty of a task, either through a list of modifiers, purely by GM fiat, or - as
I handle it - through a combination of both, basic modifiers known to the
players plus my personal interpretation of a specific situation.

So, while the skills all work the same way, the nuances are introduced via
the difficulty of a specific task in a specific situation, and with a percenti-
le system I can introduce many more nuances in the task difficulties than
with a 2d6 system, no matter how "open" it is.

At least this is how I do see it.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

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.

Hi,

I guess I'm just interpreting things a little different than you. To me it would seem that if someone is skilled enough to compete and win at the national level or compete at an international level I'd consider them above a 'journeyman' level ability in that skill.

As far as breadth of skills goes, in looking through the Core Mongoose Rulebook, one thing I notce is that in their example on skill levels they suggest that a Medic 2 or 3 might be considered a Doctor (I suspect with the level 2 character perhaps being relatively new in his or her profession, but the level 3 character being a bit more experienced) however the book suggests that a character with a level 4 medical skill might be a "famous surgeon or specialist".

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

Similarly, with regards to the Mechanic skill, the game doesn't really appear to differentiate between an all around general Mechanic 3 or someone who specialises only in automobiles (or for that matter someone who only specialises only in say diesel engines or automatic transmissions in an automobile etc). However, just like with the Medical skill I would suspect that it would be possible for each of these characters to be considered a Mechanical skill level 3, if they spent enough time working and training at that profession.

Another consideration might also be a military Sniper (which I think may have been mentioned in passing by another poster). Unfortunately, I do not have my copy of Mercenary handy right now, so I don't know if there have been changes from the Core rulebook, but using the Core rulebook as a guide, for a character that has been militarily trained to be a sniper I would expect him or her to not only be skilled above a 'journeyman' level in Slug Rifle or Energy Rifle, but I would also expect them to be highly trained in either Survival or Stealth as well.

Another example to maybe consider is Professional Poker. Here in the US, if you have basic cable TV its hard not to stumble across a Professional Poker game on some channel or another. One thing I've noticed from watching is that for the people that make it to the final table, alot of them claim to have spent extreme amounts of time practicing to have gotten that far, and as such because of their success in getting that far and the amount of time they have spent practicing, in Traveller terms I wouldn't be surprised if they would be considered to have a Gambling skill of level 3 or more.

However, many of these people either have a day job or at least started out with a day job that supported them while they were practicing, and some of them apparently were quite successful in those jobs. As such, if any of these people were Traveller characters it may well be possible that some of them might be considered to have both Gambling 3 (or more) as well as a high rating in some other skill related to their original profession.

Because of stuff like this I'm not necessarily turned off by the thought of some characters having a skill rating of 3 in two different areas. Anyway, just some thoughts.

Regards

PF

 

[Allensh]

With all due respect, I detect more than a hint of condescension here. I'm willing to accept that it's unintentional, of course, but it's there. You (and others) seem to be insinuating that MGT critics are motivated by a blind
emotional desire to slag the game.

I do not feel that way about all critics of MGT. I do feel that way about particular ones..more accurately one particular one. And it isn't you.

Be that as it may, I still question why people who don't like this version of the game come here rather than spending their time promoting the version they DO like in its section.

This is wildly off-topic for this thread though, so I am going to drop this discussion and try to be more on topic.

Allen

 

[atpollard]

As far as breadth of skills goes, in looking through the Core Mongoose Rulebook, one thing I notice is that in their example on skill levels they suggest that a Medic 2 or 3 might be considered a Doctor (I suspect with the level 2 character perhaps being relatively new in his or her profession, but the level 3 character being a bit more experienced) however the book suggests that a character with a level 4 medical skill might be a "famous surgeon or specialist".

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

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

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

 

[Poppyseed45]

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

But why SHOULDN'T that be? To get a +2 characteristic bonus means the character has to have a stat 12+, which means they either get super-lucky (getting that elusive 12 at chargen) or they get it during their career through rolls on the development tables (which means they are sacrificing a skill chance). It would be likely then that said stat was already at 10 or 11, since it won't be often (baring lots of luck) that the PC will get lots of stat bonuses in the same stat (and with the injury rules what they are, I've had at least 2 of the 15 or so characters I've rolled up so far be near cripples thanks to those rules).

At the same time, they are spending 4-24 years in various careers. Again, why shouldn't they become competent? Getting a 2 or 3 skill should be normal, if it is one of the skills needed for the career, to me, and sacrificing a skill level for a stat advance balances out.

To have a different die type would just dilute the effect of being older and experienced, which I suppose would fit into certain genres (like Japanese-style mecha stories) but otherwise what do you gain by diluting character ability? I mean, for the player and the story happening, what's gained by, say, it being virtually impossible to get a +4 bonus? Or having higher probability of failure?

Finally, let us remember that the characters generated in the system are not meant to be "normal." They're so-called Travellers, and are a touch more special than normal folks. I still don't see why it's bad that they're good at one or two or even THREE things - there are plenty of examples in RL where folks are competent at more than one thing.

I think the 2d6 dice are a good reflection of the randomness needed to make things fun (I mean, deep down, who wants to always succeed) while at the same time acknowledging the players' luck or investment. Nothing is worse that getting a cool skill and then never succeeding with it. How many complaints of "I can't DO anything" pop up now and then with mention to certain games which had 1st level characters who could be beaten up by housecats?

One more thing - I hear you about the old stat vs. skill debate, to which I can only say, that is an ancient debate in these circles. We can talk endlessly about how much my native intelligence effects my ability to do the things I do, or if my clumsiness should really make me a bad marksman, etc etc. I think what we have is a good middle ground. Otherwise, we'd have to use d1000s and have 400 or more skills. Even my beloved GURPS doesn't do that (and note that GURPS strengthens its own 3d6 system by saying that a 3 always succeeds, 17 and 18 always fail, and critical success can be increased by skill level).