A Criticism of the Bell Curve

[tbeard1999]

I dunno if this is the right place for this post, but I do play classic Traveller, so here goes.

Over the years, numerous game designers have extolled the bell curve generated by rolling multiple dice and adding them together. The Traveller/MT 2d6 roll and the T4 2-5d6 roll are examples. At one time, I bought into the idea that the bell curve is A Good Thing. However, I have come to dislike the bell curve for the following reasons:

1. Relatively modest modifiers can have disproportionate effects, particularly with average die rolls. This means that there are relatively few "slots" available for meaningful results. With the 2d6 roll, a roll of 5+ succeeds the vast majority of the time and a roll of 9+ fails the vast majority of the time (91% in each case). This means that a cumulative modifier of +/-4 can convert virtually assured success into virtually assured failure. In my opinion, this is too small a range to work in -- and CT demonstrates this quite clearly. For instance, consider the factors that go into determining success in shooting a gun:

Skill Level - +0 to +5, average probably +2

DEX advantage - -2 to +2, average in my opinion is probably +1 (the humble assault rifle gets a +2 at DEX 8+).

Range

Armor (not applicable to Striker/AHL)

Autofire Bonus (not applicable to CT combat)

Environmental modifiers

With 5 sets of modifiers, it is extremely easy for player characters to produce a total modifier of 4+ or -4 or less. This results in guns that always hit (or miss, though this is less of a problem in my experience).

This is really a game design issue, since it should have been obvious that there were too many modifiers for a 2d6 curve. However, each of the above factors are extremely relevant to determining if a gun hits, so leaving them out (or limiting each category to a range of -1 to +1) would have been unsatisfactory to players.

The same is true of skill rolls. Again, we have too many modifiers for the curve:

Skill Level - 0 to 5+, average probably of +2

Attribute - -2 to +2, average probably of 0, but I notice that players often align their skills with their attributes.

Difficulty, time - -2? to +2?

Equipment Used - 0 to +2

Same problem -- it becomes quite easy to produce a system-breaking modifier of 4+ or -4 or less. The problem is exacerbated by the standard CT notion of adding the skill level to the task roll. Yet, each of these factors are relevant and failure to allow for them would annoy players.

So at the end of the day, it seems clear to me that the 2d6 system (or t4's multiple d6 system) is too granular to handle even a modest number of modifiers.

2. Rolling several dice and adding the results makes it effectively impossible to "batch process" -- i.e., resolve several tasks with simultaneous die rolls. For instance, in Striker, you roll 2d6 to hit, with each success possibly resulting in several hits. Then you roll 2d6 to wound. Each wound must be rolled separately, since you have to add 2 dice together.

In my opinion, there is an easy solution to the problem -- use a single polyhedral die. Using a d10 would double the number of "slots" -- 2+ and 9+ on a d10 correspond roughly to 5+ and 9+. And the average probability shift of a +X modifier to a d10 is roughly equivalent to the average probability shift to 2d6 (8.8% with 2d6 vs 10% with 1d6). In other words, a +1 is about the same *on average" in either system. A d12 would produce a nearly exact fit -- and provide 2.5 times the number of "slots". However, d12s have always seemed cludgy to me. With a d10, a roll of 7+ replaces the 2d6 success roll of 8+. With a d12, the success roll is still 8+.

Of course, the ultimate solution is to use a d20. Some revisions of the modifiers would be necessary, but a simple rule of thumb would be +2 for a CT +1
+3 for a CT +2
+5 for a CT +3
+6 for a CT +4
+8 for a CT +5

Even simpler, you could just use the CT modifiers "as is".

In addition, a single die would allow for easier resolution of certain tasks, like scoring multiple hits.

 

[tbeard1999]

I dunno if this is the right place for this post, but I do play classic Traveller, so here goes.

Over the years, numerous game designers have extolled the bell curve generated by rolling multiple dice and adding them together. The Traveller/MT 2d6 roll and the T4 2-5d6 roll are examples. At one time, I bought into the idea that the bell curve is A Good Thing. However, I have come to dislike the bell curve for the following reasons:

1. Relatively modest modifiers can have disproportionate effects, particularly with average die rolls. This means that there are relatively few "slots" available for meaningful results. With the 2d6 roll, a roll of 5+ succeeds the vast majority of the time and a roll of 9+ fails the vast majority of the time (91% in each case). This means that a cumulative modifier of +/-4 can convert virtually assured success into virtually assured failure. In my opinion, this is too small a range to work in -- and CT demonstrates this quite clearly. For instance, consider the factors that go into determining success in shooting a gun:

Skill Level - +0 to +5, average probably +2

DEX advantage - -2 to +2, average in my opinion is probably +1 (the humble assault rifle gets a +2 at DEX 8+).

Range

Armor (not applicable to Striker/AHL)

Autofire Bonus (not applicable to CT combat)

Environmental modifiers

With 5 sets of modifiers, it is extremely easy for player characters to produce a total modifier of 4+ or -4 or less. This results in guns that always hit (or miss, though this is less of a problem in my experience).

This is really a game design issue, since it should have been obvious that there were too many modifiers for a 2d6 curve. However, each of the above factors are extremely relevant to determining if a gun hits, so leaving them out (or limiting each category to a range of -1 to +1) would have been unsatisfactory to players.

The same is true of skill rolls. Again, we have too many modifiers for the curve:

Skill Level - 0 to 5+, average probably of +2

Attribute - -2 to +2, average probably of 0, but I notice that players often align their skills with their attributes.

Difficulty, time - -2? to +2?

Equipment Used - 0 to +2

Same problem -- it becomes quite easy to produce a system-breaking modifier of 4+ or -4 or less. The problem is exacerbated by the standard CT notion of adding the skill level to the task roll. Yet, each of these factors are relevant and failure to allow for them would annoy players.

So at the end of the day, it seems clear to me that the 2d6 system (or t4's multiple d6 system) is too granular to handle even a modest number of modifiers.

2. Rolling several dice and adding the results makes it effectively impossible to "batch process" -- i.e., resolve several tasks with simultaneous die rolls. For instance, in Striker, you roll 2d6 to hit, with each success possibly resulting in several hits. Then you roll 2d6 to wound. Each wound must be rolled separately, since you have to add 2 dice together.

In my opinion, there is an easy solution to the problem -- use a single polyhedral die. Using a d10 would double the number of "slots" -- 2+ and 9+ on a d10 correspond roughly to 5+ and 9+. And the average probability shift of a +X modifier to a d10 is roughly equivalent to the average probability shift to 2d6 (8.8% with 2d6 vs 10% with 1d6). In other words, a +1 is about the same *on average" in either system. A d12 would produce a nearly exact fit -- and provide 2.5 times the number of "slots". However, d12s have always seemed cludgy to me. With a d10, a roll of 7+ replaces the 2d6 success roll of 8+. With a d12, the success roll is still 8+.

Of course, the ultimate solution is to use a d20. Some revisions of the modifiers would be necessary, but a simple rule of thumb would be +2 for a CT +1
+3 for a CT +2
+5 for a CT +3
+6 for a CT +4
+8 for a CT +5

Even simpler, you could just use the CT modifiers "as is".

In addition, a single die would allow for easier resolution of certain tasks, like scoring multiple hits.

 

[robject]

...or you could use a percentile system. Like Translight will.

...or you could use 2d12. Nicer bell curves there?

With multiple dice, like 4D6 and up, you get big flat zones in the middle, where a couple points either way aren't so disproportional. Some people dislike that (aside from having to roll a variable number of dice).

I suspect, in the case of CT, that too many rules will break the model. As you show, 2D6 is best when you've only got a couple of DMs. This tends to force the rules to be simple if they're to be playable, I think.

 

[robject]

...or you could use a percentile system. Like Translight will.

...or you could use 2d12. Nicer bell curves there?

With multiple dice, like 4D6 and up, you get big flat zones in the middle, where a couple points either way aren't so disproportional. Some people dislike that (aside from having to roll a variable number of dice).

I suspect, in the case of CT, that too many rules will break the model. As you show, 2D6 is best when you've only got a couple of DMs. This tends to force the rules to be simple if they're to be playable, I think.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Over the years, numerous game designers have extolled the bell curve generated by rolling multiple dice and adding them together. The Traveller/MT 2d6 roll and the T4 2-5d6 roll are examples. At one time, I bought into the idea that the bell curve is A Good Thing.

Just a little note: 2D6 in actuality doesn't produce a bell curve. It produces a pyramid distribution (also called other things). It's two slanting straight lines rather than the "curve" of the bell curve.

Someone once corrected me, and I thought I'd pass along the favor.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Over the years, numerous game designers have extolled the bell curve generated by rolling multiple dice and adding them together. The Traveller/MT 2d6 roll and the T4 2-5d6 roll are examples. At one time, I bought into the idea that the bell curve is A Good Thing.

Just a little note: 2D6 in actuality doesn't produce a bell curve. It produces a pyramid distribution (also called other things). It's two slanting straight lines rather than the "curve" of the bell curve.

Someone once corrected me, and I thought I'd pass along the favor.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by robject:
As you show, 2D6 is best when you've only got a couple of DMs.

Just another little persnickety detail: Actually what matters is the "net" DM. You can have all sorts of modifiers for all sorts of things, but what you're interested in, with respect to 2D6, is to end up with a net modifier somewhere in the range of 0 to -2 (for one std. deviation), 0 to -4 (for two std. deviations), and 0 to -6 (for three std. deviations).

So, a net -6 is really all you want to be capable of having, with rolls typically using a max of -2 or +2 to the roll.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by robject:
As you show, 2D6 is best when you've only got a couple of DMs.

Just another little persnickety detail: Actually what matters is the "net" DM. You can have all sorts of modifiers for all sorts of things, but what you're interested in, with respect to 2D6, is to end up with a net modifier somewhere in the range of 0 to -2 (for one std. deviation), 0 to -4 (for two std. deviations), and 0 to -6 (for three std. deviations).

So, a net -6 is really all you want to be capable of having, with rolls typically using a max of -2 or +2 to the roll.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
As you show, 2D6 is best when you've only got a couple of DMs.

Just another little persnickety detail: Actually what matters is the "net" DM. You can have all sorts of modifiers for all sorts of things, but what you're interested in, with respect to 2D6, is to end up with a net modifier somewhere in the range of 0 to -2 (for one std. deviation), 0 to -4 (for two std. deviations), and 0 to -6 (for three std. deviations).

So, a net -6 is really all you want to be capable of having, with rolls typically using a max of -2 or +2 to the roll. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, although there usually isn't a very meaningful difference between +4 or +5 or +6 in a 2d6 system.

This fact is important because the *theoretical* relevance of modifiers totalling 5 or 6 makes the 2d6 spread seem to be larger and more capable than it really is.

In the case of CT, the spread of *useful* modifiers is even smaller. If an 8+ is a success, then a -2 cumulative modifier will make you very unlikely to succeed (83% chance of failure). A +3 will make you very unlikely to fail (83% chance of success).

Such a system will be easily broken when there are up to 5 modifiers, each ranging from -2 to +5 (or even higher).

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
As you show, 2D6 is best when you've only got a couple of DMs.

Just another little persnickety detail: Actually what matters is the "net" DM. You can have all sorts of modifiers for all sorts of things, but what you're interested in, with respect to 2D6, is to end up with a net modifier somewhere in the range of 0 to -2 (for one std. deviation), 0 to -4 (for two std. deviations), and 0 to -6 (for three std. deviations).

So, a net -6 is really all you want to be capable of having, with rolls typically using a max of -2 or +2 to the roll. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, although there usually isn't a very meaningful difference between +4 or +5 or +6 in a 2d6 system.

This fact is important because the *theoretical* relevance of modifiers totalling 5 or 6 makes the 2d6 spread seem to be larger and more capable than it really is.

In the case of CT, the spread of *useful* modifiers is even smaller. If an 8+ is a success, then a -2 cumulative modifier will make you very unlikely to succeed (83% chance of failure). A +3 will make you very unlikely to fail (83% chance of success).

Such a system will be easily broken when there are up to 5 modifiers, each ranging from -2 to +5 (or even higher).

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Skill Level - +0 to +5, average probably +2

DEX advantage - -2 to +2, average in my opinion is probably +1 (the humble assault rifle gets a +2 at DEX 8+).

Range

Armor (not applicable to Striker/AHL)

Autofire Bonus (not applicable to CT combat)

Environmental modifiers

With 5 sets of modifiers, it is extremely easy for player characters to produce a total modifier of 4+ or -4 or less.

You're making some good points, and this is a good grey matter discussion (especially for someone like me who considers things like this and makes a lot of rule changes).

Many GMs will just make a rule change and not consider this kind of stuff.

But..

Let's test your comments here with an average Joe and my (almost vanilla) attack roll from the rules I posted a few days ago:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Gun Combat Attack: 2D for 8+ needed to hit
-------------------------------------------
+ Attacker's Skill
+/- Weapon's DEX Modifier
+/- Weapon's Range Modifier
- Target's Speed Rating (if moving)
- Cover/Concealment Modifier (if appropriate)
- Evasion Modifier (if appropriate)</pre>[/QUOTE]Avi Joe is an average character. Stats: 777777. Rifle-2.

Let's have him take a shot at Medium Range with the Rifle.

He needs 8+ to hit.

+2 for skill
+0 for DEX mod
+0 for Medium Range
---
+2

OK, that's a +2 DM straight, if the target is just standing there. That's a 6+ needed to hit.

I'd say that's not too bad. About right, for a person with Skill-2 expertise.

But...other modifiers might apply as well.

If he aims, he can get another +2 to hit, making the roll 4+, almost an automatic hit.

Let's say Avi Joe is doing that. He's taking aim and trying to hit his target. Right now, he needs a 4+ to hit (he'll most likely hit).

But, the target isn't doing anything yet but standing there.

Now, if the target moves, he can get -1 or -2 to the roll, depending on whether the target walks or runs. That'll pretty much cancel out the aim bonus, and Joe is back to hitting with a 5+ or 6+.

That's just walking or running normally. If the target knows he's being fired at, he'll evade. At Medium Range, that's another -2 DM. So, the walking-evading target is -3 to hit, and the running-evading target is -4 to hit.

That brings Joe, even with an aimed shot, to a 7+ or 8+ to hit, walking/running.

We're back where we started.

If the target finds cover behind a rock, he'll probably get a -4 DM to hit, making Joe's roll an 8+ to hit.

If the target lies flat on his stomach, presenting a small target, then that's a -6 DM to hit, making Joe's roll a 10+ needed to hit...not so easy, that.

My point being this...

I do understand and respect what you're saying, but I don't think you're considering all the factors associated with the 2D6 system.

Besides being easy to use, I've just shown you several different ways to handle the shot (and neglected to mention panic fire or full auto) where the 2D6 system handles all the instances beautifully.

The problem to watch out for (and what I think some GMs don't consider) is that for the CT 2D6 system to work (or even my modded version I've shown here), then it is beyond imperative that skill levels be kept down, in the typcal 0-5 range with the occasional Skill-6 popping up.

If it is easy, through your modded chargen, to get Skill-6+ often, then the system breaks.

The CT 2D6 system works--it just works when skill levels are kept to "CT levels".

S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Skill Level - +0 to +5, average probably +2

DEX advantage - -2 to +2, average in my opinion is probably +1 (the humble assault rifle gets a +2 at DEX 8+).

Range

Armor (not applicable to Striker/AHL)

Autofire Bonus (not applicable to CT combat)

Environmental modifiers

With 5 sets of modifiers, it is extremely easy for player characters to produce a total modifier of 4+ or -4 or less.

You're making some good points, and this is a good grey matter discussion (especially for someone like me who considers things like this and makes a lot of rule changes).

Many GMs will just make a rule change and not consider this kind of stuff.

But..

Let's test your comments here with an average Joe and my (almost vanilla) attack roll from the rules I posted a few days ago:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Gun Combat Attack: 2D for 8+ needed to hit
-------------------------------------------
+ Attacker's Skill
+/- Weapon's DEX Modifier
+/- Weapon's Range Modifier
- Target's Speed Rating (if moving)
- Cover/Concealment Modifier (if appropriate)
- Evasion Modifier (if appropriate)</pre>[/QUOTE]Avi Joe is an average character. Stats: 777777. Rifle-2.

Let's have him take a shot at Medium Range with the Rifle.

He needs 8+ to hit.

+2 for skill
+0 for DEX mod
+0 for Medium Range
---
+2

OK, that's a +2 DM straight, if the target is just standing there. That's a 6+ needed to hit.

I'd say that's not too bad. About right, for a person with Skill-2 expertise.

But...other modifiers might apply as well.

If he aims, he can get another +2 to hit, making the roll 4+, almost an automatic hit.

Let's say Avi Joe is doing that. He's taking aim and trying to hit his target. Right now, he needs a 4+ to hit (he'll most likely hit).

But, the target isn't doing anything yet but standing there.

Now, if the target moves, he can get -1 or -2 to the roll, depending on whether the target walks or runs. That'll pretty much cancel out the aim bonus, and Joe is back to hitting with a 5+ or 6+.

That's just walking or running normally. If the target knows he's being fired at, he'll evade. At Medium Range, that's another -2 DM. So, the walking-evading target is -3 to hit, and the running-evading target is -4 to hit.

That brings Joe, even with an aimed shot, to a 7+ or 8+ to hit, walking/running.

We're back where we started.

If the target finds cover behind a rock, he'll probably get a -4 DM to hit, making Joe's roll an 8+ to hit.

If the target lies flat on his stomach, presenting a small target, then that's a -6 DM to hit, making Joe's roll a 10+ needed to hit...not so easy, that.

My point being this...

I do understand and respect what you're saying, but I don't think you're considering all the factors associated with the 2D6 system.

Besides being easy to use, I've just shown you several different ways to handle the shot (and neglected to mention panic fire or full auto) where the 2D6 system handles all the instances beautifully.

The problem to watch out for (and what I think some GMs don't consider) is that for the CT 2D6 system to work (or even my modded version I've shown here), then it is beyond imperative that skill levels be kept down, in the typcal 0-5 range with the occasional Skill-6 popping up.

If it is easy, through your modded chargen, to get Skill-6+ often, then the system breaks.

The CT 2D6 system works--it just works when skill levels are kept to "CT levels".

S4

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Skill Level - +0 to +5, average probably +2

With 5 sets of modifiers, it is extremely easy for player characters to produce a total modifier of 4+ or -4 or less.

You're making some good points, and this is a good grey matter discussion (especially for someone like me who considers things like this and makes a lot of rule changes).

Many GMs will just make a rule change and not consider this kind of stuff.

But..

Let's test your comments here with an average Joe and my (almost vanilla) attack roll from the rules I posted a few days ago:

...

If it is easy, through your modded chargen, to get Skill-6+ often, then the system breaks.

The CT 2D6 system works--it just works when skill levels are kept to "CT levels".

S4 </font>[/QUOTE]The problem with your suggestion is that Traveller characters are NOT particularly "average". Slightly fewer than half of the characters -- and perhaps more player characters -- will have a DEX of 8+, which gives a +2 to hit with an assault rifle. At that point, someone with Combat Rifleman-2 (remember that level 1 is automatic for anyone in the Army) can hit virtually all the time if no modifiers apply. Assuming the remaining modifiers cancel out, Joe hits >90% of the time. As a GM, I tire of making up particularly high modifiers to keep things interesting.

The problem is that it is just too easy to stack up net modifiers of +3 or more in CT.

Traveller, by the way, isn't the only game with this problem. In GURPS, for instance, it is trivially simple to get a skill level of 13 (83% chance of success). This is why GURPS *had* to have a separate defense roll, by the way. In a great example of unintended consequences, the original defense roll, since it was also on 3d6, made things worse -- it was pretty easy to get a very high defense roll number as well. Ultimately, the system was modified so that you had to make your defense roll by more than the attacker made his attack rolle. Clumsy, but necessary.

In fact, it really doesn't look to me like you gain all that much by adding additional dice. In GURPS, a skill of 7- means you miss most of the time (83%). A skill of 13- means you hit most of the time. So a +6 modifier will take you from one end of the scale to another. In a 2d6 system, a +4 would do it.

If you simply *had* to have a bell curve, I suggest 2d10. Using the "high is good" approach, a 7+ will succeed most of the time (85%) and a 16+ will fail most of the time (85%). So a net modifier of 9 is needed to move you from one end to the other. A 6+ and 17+ will succeed or fail 90% of the time, so a net modifier of 11 would be needed to move you from one end to the other.

Of course, a d20 gives you plenty of room for modifiers -- 4+ succeeds 85% of the time and 18+ fails 85% of the time. A net modifier of 14 would be needed to move you from one end to the other. (16 with success rolls of 3+ and 19+ (90& chance of failure or success).

And a d20 gives you plenty of room for 5 categories of modifiers.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Skill Level - +0 to +5, average probably +2

With 5 sets of modifiers, it is extremely easy for player characters to produce a total modifier of 4+ or -4 or less.

You're making some good points, and this is a good grey matter discussion (especially for someone like me who considers things like this and makes a lot of rule changes).

Many GMs will just make a rule change and not consider this kind of stuff.

But..

Let's test your comments here with an average Joe and my (almost vanilla) attack roll from the rules I posted a few days ago:

...

If it is easy, through your modded chargen, to get Skill-6+ often, then the system breaks.

The CT 2D6 system works--it just works when skill levels are kept to "CT levels".

S4 </font>[/QUOTE]The problem with your suggestion is that Traveller characters are NOT particularly "average". Slightly fewer than half of the characters -- and perhaps more player characters -- will have a DEX of 8+, which gives a +2 to hit with an assault rifle. At that point, someone with Combat Rifleman-2 (remember that level 1 is automatic for anyone in the Army) can hit virtually all the time if no modifiers apply. Assuming the remaining modifiers cancel out, Joe hits >90% of the time. As a GM, I tire of making up particularly high modifiers to keep things interesting.

The problem is that it is just too easy to stack up net modifiers of +3 or more in CT.

Traveller, by the way, isn't the only game with this problem. In GURPS, for instance, it is trivially simple to get a skill level of 13 (83% chance of success). This is why GURPS *had* to have a separate defense roll, by the way. In a great example of unintended consequences, the original defense roll, since it was also on 3d6, made things worse -- it was pretty easy to get a very high defense roll number as well. Ultimately, the system was modified so that you had to make your defense roll by more than the attacker made his attack rolle. Clumsy, but necessary.

In fact, it really doesn't look to me like you gain all that much by adding additional dice. In GURPS, a skill of 7- means you miss most of the time (83%). A skill of 13- means you hit most of the time. So a +6 modifier will take you from one end of the scale to another. In a 2d6 system, a +4 would do it.

If you simply *had* to have a bell curve, I suggest 2d10. Using the "high is good" approach, a 7+ will succeed most of the time (85%) and a 16+ will fail most of the time (85%). So a net modifier of 9 is needed to move you from one end to the other. A 6+ and 17+ will succeed or fail 90% of the time, so a net modifier of 11 would be needed to move you from one end to the other.

Of course, a d20 gives you plenty of room for modifiers -- 4+ succeeds 85% of the time and 18+ fails 85% of the time. A net modifier of 14 would be needed to move you from one end to the other. (16 with success rolls of 3+ and 19+ (90& chance of failure or success).

And a d20 gives you plenty of room for 5 categories of modifiers.

 

[tbeard1999]

I'd add that if I were gonna stay with the 2d6 system (I'm not), I'd perform some serious surgery on it. In another thread, I suggested how to handle modifiers, but the bottom line is that the range of modifiers needs to be dramatically reduced so that the net modifiers in *typical* game situations will usually range from -3 to +3. A simple (but probably simplistic) approach is to consider each type of modifier and only apply a -1, 0, or +1 modifier )with a few exceptions).

So, for gun combat, the system might work thusly:

8+ to hit and penetrate.

1. Skill -- if weapon skill is less than 0, -1. If skill is 0 or 1, +0. If skill is 2+, +1.

2. DEX -- -1, 0 or +1.

3. Range -- If weapon is very ineffective at a certain range, shot automatically misses. At impaired range for weapon, -1. At effective range for weapon, 0. At optimum range for weapon, +1.

4. Armor -- if weapon cannot normally penetrate the armor type, -2. If weapon has trouble with the armor type, -1. If the weapon can usually penetrate the armor type, +0.

5. Autofire or shotgun -- +1.

6. Target obscured or evading -1.

7. Scope +1 at long range.

This system would seldom produce net modifiers greater than 4. However, it loses a *lot* of flavor (or does it really?). For instance, what is the benefit of level 3+ in a weapon? (Maybe the character can take extra shots with the weapon? Say, 1 for each skill level >2). Battledress would be no better protection against a pistol than cloth armor (the pistol cannot normally penetrate either). Etc.

With skills, a similar mechanic would apply, though range can be increased slightly as there are usually fewer classes of modifiers.

8+ to succeed.

1. Skill -- if skill level is less than 0, -2 (or not allowed, referee decides). If skill is 0 or 1, +0. If skill is 2, +1. If skill 3+, +2.

2. Applicable Attribute -- If high enough, +1. If low enough -1.

3. Difficulty -- If hard -1. If easy +1. If not enough time to do it right, -1.

4. Tools -- If improvised -1 (referee's discretion). If excellent +1 (referee's discretion).

5. Supplies -- If lacking critical supplies -1. If lavishly supplied with critical supplies (referee's discretion) +1.

This system should keep the net modifiers within a reasonable range, but also suffers from some of the same problems with the combat system. One idea to allow higher skill levels to do something would be to allow them to eliminate negative modifiers for lack of time or poor tools or limited supplies. Skill 4 could eliminate one of these modifiers. Skill 5 could eliminate two of them. So higher skill levels would be more useful in typical adventure situations, but not so useful when there's plenty of time and adequate tools/supplies, etc.

 

[tbeard1999]

I'd add that if I were gonna stay with the 2d6 system (I'm not), I'd perform some serious surgery on it. In another thread, I suggested how to handle modifiers, but the bottom line is that the range of modifiers needs to be dramatically reduced so that the net modifiers in *typical* game situations will usually range from -3 to +3. A simple (but probably simplistic) approach is to consider each type of modifier and only apply a -1, 0, or +1 modifier )with a few exceptions).

So, for gun combat, the system might work thusly:

8+ to hit and penetrate.

1. Skill -- if weapon skill is less than 0, -1. If skill is 0 or 1, +0. If skill is 2+, +1.

2. DEX -- -1, 0 or +1.

3. Range -- If weapon is very ineffective at a certain range, shot automatically misses. At impaired range for weapon, -1. At effective range for weapon, 0. At optimum range for weapon, +1.

4. Armor -- if weapon cannot normally penetrate the armor type, -2. If weapon has trouble with the armor type, -1. If the weapon can usually penetrate the armor type, +0.

5. Autofire or shotgun -- +1.

6. Target obscured or evading -1.

7. Scope +1 at long range.

This system would seldom produce net modifiers greater than 4. However, it loses a *lot* of flavor (or does it really?). For instance, what is the benefit of level 3+ in a weapon? (Maybe the character can take extra shots with the weapon? Say, 1 for each skill level >2). Battledress would be no better protection against a pistol than cloth armor (the pistol cannot normally penetrate either). Etc.

With skills, a similar mechanic would apply, though range can be increased slightly as there are usually fewer classes of modifiers.

8+ to succeed.

1. Skill -- if skill level is less than 0, -2 (or not allowed, referee decides). If skill is 0 or 1, +0. If skill is 2, +1. If skill 3+, +2.

2. Applicable Attribute -- If high enough, +1. If low enough -1.

3. Difficulty -- If hard -1. If easy +1. If not enough time to do it right, -1.

4. Tools -- If improvised -1 (referee's discretion). If excellent +1 (referee's discretion).

5. Supplies -- If lacking critical supplies -1. If lavishly supplied with critical supplies (referee's discretion) +1.

This system should keep the net modifiers within a reasonable range, but also suffers from some of the same problems with the combat system. One idea to allow higher skill levels to do something would be to allow them to eliminate negative modifiers for lack of time or poor tools or limited supplies. Skill 4 could eliminate one of these modifiers. Skill 5 could eliminate two of them. So higher skill levels would be more useful in typical adventure situations, but not so useful when there's plenty of time and adequate tools/supplies, etc.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
The problem with your suggestion is that Traveller characters are NOT particularly "average". Slightly fewer than half of the characters -- and perhaps more player characters -- will have a DEX of 8+, which gives a +2 to hit with an assault rifle. At that point, someone with Combat Rifleman-2 (remember that level 1 is automatic for anyone in the Army) can hit virtually all the time if no modifiers apply.

Remember, we are talking about effective range with the Rifle. That's why I picked that range. Effective range for pistols is Short. Effective range with Rifles is Medium.

Curious about my own group. Let me examine the characters and their primary weapons at effective range.

We've got 11 player characters, each from a wide variety of Traveller backgrounds. Since I modded chargen, their stats may be higher than if I went with straight CT rules (because I allowed them to go into another career if they bricked a survival roll). But, I should also note that many of the players didn't do this for fear of declining stats in older age.

Full stats for all of these characters can be seen in the other thread.

Don't forget I'm only showing Skill, Range, and DEX adjustment. Several other factors can bring the to-hit DM down (cover, target speed, evasion, light, drawing a weapon, ect.)

Terran Tukera
1 term Imperial Army; 1 term Imperial Marines; 2 terms Noble

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Dagger-1
-2 STR-4
+2 Short Range
---
+1

Best Gun Combat
+3 SMG-3
+2 DEX-C
+3 Medium Range
---
+8




Klue Gagarrin
2 terms Merchant; 2 terms Bureaucrat

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Brawling-1
+0 STR-6
+1 Short Range
---
+2

Best Gun Combat
+0 AutoRifle-0
+2 DEX-A
+2 Medium Range
---
+4




Idumin Li
2 terms Imperial Scout; 2 terms Other

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Blade-1
+0 STR-6
+1 Short Range
---
+2

Best Gun Combat
+0 AutoRifle-0
+2 DEX-B
+2 Medium Range
---
+4




Luukhan Pershiire
5 terms Merchant

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Blade-1
+1 STR-A
+1 Short Range
---
+3

Best Gun Combat
+3 Shotgun-3
+1 DEX-A
+3 Medium Range
---
+7




Dexter Bryte
1 term Imperial Army; 5 terms Imperial Marines; 5 terms Merchant

Best Blade/Brawling
+5 Blade-5
+1 STR-E
+1 Short Range
---
+7

Best Gun Combat
+2 SMG-2
+0 DEX-6
+3 Medium Range
---
+5




Russlin Suvarrii
1 term Imperial Scout; 1 term Merchant; 6 terms Bureaucrat

Best Blade/Brawling
+6 Brawling-6
-2 STR-3
+1 Short Range
---
+5

Best Gun Combat
+0 Shotgun-0
-1 DEX-2
+3 Medium Range
---
+2




Jenn Thurgood-Bastion
3 terms Imperial Army

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Brawling-1
+0 STR-8
+1 Short Range
---
+2

Best Gun Combat
+1 SMG-1
-2 DEX-5
+3 Medium Range
---
+2




Salmon Jones
2 terms Scout; 1 term Rogue; 1 term Army

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Dagger-1
+2 STR-8
+2 Short Range
---
+5

Best Gun Combat
+3 Rifle-3
+1 DEX-8
+0 Medium Range
---
+4




Da Bien-Ha
3 terms Merchant

Best Blade/Brawling
+0 Club-0
+2 STR-9
+2 Short Range
---
+4

Best Gun Combat
+0 AutoRifle-0
+2 DEX-A
+2 Medium Range
---
+5




Bromley Riieve
5 terms Scientist; 2 terms Noble

Best Blade/Brawling
+2 Dagger-2
+2 STR-8
+2 Short Range
---
+6

Best Gun Combat
+2 AutoPistol-2
+0 DEX-8
+2 Short Range
---
+4




Now, remember, this is the best the character can do...best range...best weapon...best conditions. The highest DM I have in that group is a +8 DM.

Given the very best conditions, these people will hit, almost all of them, 100% of the time.

But...

Change the range. Throw in a DM for bad lighting conditions. DM for cover or for speed and evasion. A target parrying a blow. Things like that...

All of a sudden, these DMs come back down to much less than 100%.

Also remember that in Brawling combat, it should be easy to hit someone.

Again, I don't think the system is so bad.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
The problem with your suggestion is that Traveller characters are NOT particularly "average". Slightly fewer than half of the characters -- and perhaps more player characters -- will have a DEX of 8+, which gives a +2 to hit with an assault rifle. At that point, someone with Combat Rifleman-2 (remember that level 1 is automatic for anyone in the Army) can hit virtually all the time if no modifiers apply.

Remember, we are talking about effective range with the Rifle. That's why I picked that range. Effective range for pistols is Short. Effective range with Rifles is Medium.

Curious about my own group. Let me examine the characters and their primary weapons at effective range.

We've got 11 player characters, each from a wide variety of Traveller backgrounds. Since I modded chargen, their stats may be higher than if I went with straight CT rules (because I allowed them to go into another career if they bricked a survival roll). But, I should also note that many of the players didn't do this for fear of declining stats in older age.

Full stats for all of these characters can be seen in the other thread.

Don't forget I'm only showing Skill, Range, and DEX adjustment. Several other factors can bring the to-hit DM down (cover, target speed, evasion, light, drawing a weapon, ect.)

Terran Tukera
1 term Imperial Army; 1 term Imperial Marines; 2 terms Noble

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Dagger-1
-2 STR-4
+2 Short Range
---
+1

Best Gun Combat
+3 SMG-3
+2 DEX-C
+3 Medium Range
---
+8




Klue Gagarrin
2 terms Merchant; 2 terms Bureaucrat

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Brawling-1
+0 STR-6
+1 Short Range
---
+2

Best Gun Combat
+0 AutoRifle-0
+2 DEX-A
+2 Medium Range
---
+4




Idumin Li
2 terms Imperial Scout; 2 terms Other

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Blade-1
+0 STR-6
+1 Short Range
---
+2

Best Gun Combat
+0 AutoRifle-0
+2 DEX-B
+2 Medium Range
---
+4




Luukhan Pershiire
5 terms Merchant

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Blade-1
+1 STR-A
+1 Short Range
---
+3

Best Gun Combat
+3 Shotgun-3
+1 DEX-A
+3 Medium Range
---
+7




Dexter Bryte
1 term Imperial Army; 5 terms Imperial Marines; 5 terms Merchant

Best Blade/Brawling
+5 Blade-5
+1 STR-E
+1 Short Range
---
+7

Best Gun Combat
+2 SMG-2
+0 DEX-6
+3 Medium Range
---
+5




Russlin Suvarrii
1 term Imperial Scout; 1 term Merchant; 6 terms Bureaucrat

Best Blade/Brawling
+6 Brawling-6
-2 STR-3
+1 Short Range
---
+5

Best Gun Combat
+0 Shotgun-0
-1 DEX-2
+3 Medium Range
---
+2




Jenn Thurgood-Bastion
3 terms Imperial Army

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Brawling-1
+0 STR-8
+1 Short Range
---
+2

Best Gun Combat
+1 SMG-1
-2 DEX-5
+3 Medium Range
---
+2




Salmon Jones
2 terms Scout; 1 term Rogue; 1 term Army

Best Blade/Brawling
+1 Dagger-1
+2 STR-8
+2 Short Range
---
+5

Best Gun Combat
+3 Rifle-3
+1 DEX-8
+0 Medium Range
---
+4




Da Bien-Ha
3 terms Merchant

Best Blade/Brawling
+0 Club-0
+2 STR-9
+2 Short Range
---
+4

Best Gun Combat
+0 AutoRifle-0
+2 DEX-A
+2 Medium Range
---
+5




Bromley Riieve
5 terms Scientist; 2 terms Noble

Best Blade/Brawling
+2 Dagger-2
+2 STR-8
+2 Short Range
---
+6

Best Gun Combat
+2 AutoPistol-2
+0 DEX-8
+2 Short Range
---
+4




Now, remember, this is the best the character can do...best range...best weapon...best conditions. The highest DM I have in that group is a +8 DM.

Given the very best conditions, these people will hit, almost all of them, 100% of the time.

But...

Change the range. Throw in a DM for bad lighting conditions. DM for cover or for speed and evasion. A target parrying a blow. Things like that...

All of a sudden, these DMs come back down to much less than 100%.

Also remember that in Brawling combat, it should be easy to hit someone.

Again, I don't think the system is so bad.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
The problem with your suggestion is that Traveller characters are NOT particularly "average". Slightly fewer than half of the characters -- and perhaps more player characters -- will have a DEX of 8+, which gives a +2 to hit with an assault rifle. At that point, someone with Combat Rifleman-2 (remember that level 1 is automatic for anyone in the Army) can hit virtually all the time if no modifiers apply.

Remember, we are talking about effective range with the Rifle. That's why I picked that range. Effective range for pistols is Short. Effective range with Rifles is Medium.

Curious about my own group. Let me examine the characters and their primary weapons at effective range.
Now, remember, this is the best the character can do...best range...best weapon...best conditions. The highest DM I have in that group is a +8 DM.

Given the very best conditions, these people will hit, almost all of them, 100% of the time.

But...

Change the range. Throw in a DM for bad lighting conditions. DM for cover or for speed and evasion. A target parrying a blow. Things like that...

All of a sudden, these DMs come back down to much less than 100%.

Also remember that in Brawling combat, it should be easy to hit someone.

Again, I don't think the system is so bad. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, if I counted correctly, 9 of the eleven characters had at least a +4 to hit modifier, which means they'll hit at least 91% of the time. And 4 of them -- more than a third -- had modifiers of +5 or better, which means they hit virtually all the time. And this, presumably, was using CT chargen. I kinda think you made my point for me.

Now I agree that a resourceful referee can apply enough modifiers to reduce this certainty. However, a well-designed system shouldn't *require* the referee to do so.

And I don't think the question is whether the system works well on occasion. Rather, I think the question is whether the system works poorly a significant amount of the time.

The problem is simple -- too many modifiers for too small of a range. More accurately, it's too many *substantial* modifiers that are relatively common in Traveller game play.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
The problem with your suggestion is that Traveller characters are NOT particularly "average". Slightly fewer than half of the characters -- and perhaps more player characters -- will have a DEX of 8+, which gives a +2 to hit with an assault rifle. At that point, someone with Combat Rifleman-2 (remember that level 1 is automatic for anyone in the Army) can hit virtually all the time if no modifiers apply.

Remember, we are talking about effective range with the Rifle. That's why I picked that range. Effective range for pistols is Short. Effective range with Rifles is Medium.

Curious about my own group. Let me examine the characters and their primary weapons at effective range.
Now, remember, this is the best the character can do...best range...best weapon...best conditions. The highest DM I have in that group is a +8 DM.

Given the very best conditions, these people will hit, almost all of them, 100% of the time.

But...

Change the range. Throw in a DM for bad lighting conditions. DM for cover or for speed and evasion. A target parrying a blow. Things like that...

All of a sudden, these DMs come back down to much less than 100%.

Also remember that in Brawling combat, it should be easy to hit someone.

Again, I don't think the system is so bad. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, if I counted correctly, 9 of the eleven characters had at least a +4 to hit modifier, which means they'll hit at least 91% of the time. And 4 of them -- more than a third -- had modifiers of +5 or better, which means they hit virtually all the time. And this, presumably, was using CT chargen. I kinda think you made my point for me.

Now I agree that a resourceful referee can apply enough modifiers to reduce this certainty. However, a well-designed system shouldn't *require* the referee to do so.

And I don't think the question is whether the system works well on occasion. Rather, I think the question is whether the system works poorly a significant amount of the time.

The problem is simple -- too many modifiers for too small of a range. More accurately, it's too many *substantial* modifiers that are relatively common in Traveller game play.