A Criticism of the Bell Curve

[Anthony]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Doesn't seem like much of a difference to me. Should *anything* be automatic in RPGs?

Yes. How often do you have characters roll to walk successfully? If they're walking on ice or something sure, but there are lots of rolls one doesn't make because there's no reasonable chance of failure (I will note that walking is a learned skill; young children can't do it reliably).

To give an RPG-relevant example, if Commander A, who has been navigating for twenty years, plots a jump, I won't make him roll. If Ensign B, who recently passed his qualification but has no practical experience, is forced to do the same thing, he gets to roll.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Doesn't seem like much of a difference to me. Should *anything* be automatic in RPGs?

Yes. How often do you have characters roll to walk successfully? If they're walking on ice or something sure, but there are lots of rolls one doesn't make because there's no reasonable chance of failure (I will note that walking is a learned skill; young children can't do it reliably).

To give an RPG-relevant example, if Commander A, who has been navigating for twenty years, plots a jump, I won't make him roll. If Ensign B, who recently passed his qualification but has no practical experience, is forced to do the same thing, he gets to roll. </font>[/QUOTE]I excluded routine tasks from my question. I regret that this was apparently not obvious from the context of the discussion (i.e., task rolls). And since your examples are of tasks that require no task roll in the rules (a person walking, a trained navigator plotting a normal jump), then I agree that simple tasks like this ordinarily should be automatic.

I do not, however, think that tasks that ordinarily require a task roll should *ever* be automatic. Extremely likely to succeed in the case of an expert perhaps, but never automatic. YMMV.

In any case, I don't see much *real* difference between our positions.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Doesn't seem like much of a difference to me. Should *anything* be automatic in RPGs?

Yes. How often do you have characters roll to walk successfully? If they're walking on ice or something sure, but there are lots of rolls one doesn't make because there's no reasonable chance of failure (I will note that walking is a learned skill; young children can't do it reliably).

To give an RPG-relevant example, if Commander A, who has been navigating for twenty years, plots a jump, I won't make him roll. If Ensign B, who recently passed his qualification but has no practical experience, is forced to do the same thing, he gets to roll. </font>[/QUOTE]I excluded routine tasks from my question. I regret that this was apparently not obvious from the context of the discussion (i.e., task rolls). And since your examples are of tasks that require no task roll in the rules (a person walking, a trained navigator plotting a normal jump), then I agree that simple tasks like this ordinarily should be automatic.

I do not, however, think that tasks that ordinarily require a task roll should *ever* be automatic. Extremely likely to succeed in the case of an expert perhaps, but never automatic. YMMV.

In any case, I don't see much *real* difference between our positions.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I find it hard to imagine that even adventurers can maintain expert levels of competency in more than a few fields, at the same time.

Here's an interesting thought...

(And, it's suggested by the CT experience rules, too.)

What if the INT + EDU ceiling was all that a character could have at one time.

The catch is...skills may shift during a character's lifetime.

As you age and not use your AutoRifle skill, that skill goes down. But, you gain a new skill called Admin. Maybe it raises a couple of levels.

I love this idea...

Gonna explore it some more....

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I find it hard to imagine that even adventurers can maintain expert levels of competency in more than a few fields, at the same time.

Here's an interesting thought...

(And, it's suggested by the CT experience rules, too.)

What if the INT + EDU ceiling was all that a character could have at one time.

The catch is...skills may shift during a character's lifetime.

As you age and not use your AutoRifle skill, that skill goes down. But, you gain a new skill called Admin. Maybe it raises a couple of levels.

I love this idea...

Gonna explore it some more....

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Regarding your combat system, the problem is that I have a specific goal in this exercise -- to *fix* the problems in CT, and to avoid wholesale replacement of entire systems. Your combat system (and my Striker derived one) would violate that goal.

How does my system violate that goal?

I add one circumstantial DM (Speed).

And, I simply move (not change the DMs) a DM that originally modifies the attack roll to modifying the damage roll.

That's pretty clean, if you ask me. I'm not changing dice, the to hit number of 8+, skills, or even the DMs. All that's original.

I'm just re-arranging stuff. You still pluck the DMs out of your official Traveller Book.

So, how does that violate your "fix"?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Regarding your combat system, the problem is that I have a specific goal in this exercise -- to *fix* the problems in CT, and to avoid wholesale replacement of entire systems. Your combat system (and my Striker derived one) would violate that goal.

How does my system violate that goal?

I add one circumstantial DM (Speed).

And, I simply move (not change the DMs) a DM that originally modifies the attack roll to modifying the damage roll.

That's pretty clean, if you ask me. I'm not changing dice, the to hit number of 8+, skills, or even the DMs. All that's original.

I'm just re-arranging stuff. You still pluck the DMs out of your official Traveller Book.

So, how does that violate your "fix"?

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I find it hard to imagine that even adventurers can maintain expert levels of competency in more than a few fields, at the same time.

Here's an interesting thought...

(And, it's suggested by the CT experience rules, too.)

What if the INT + EDU ceiling was all that a character could have at one time.

The catch is...skills may shift during a character's lifetime.

As you age and not use your AutoRifle skill, that skill goes down. But, you gain a new skill called Admin. Maybe it raises a couple of levels.

I love this idea...

Gonna explore it some more.... </font>[/QUOTE]Funny...I was thinking something similar. My idea was to let you get whatever skills you roll, but place a parenthetical value indicating your current competence. And your current competence would be limited to (say) 2 skills per term served + 1. Characters could adjust 2 skills per X months. This would also give players something new to do...tinker with the skill mix.

It would also account for the fact that it's probably easier to renew a skill than to learn it from scratch.

Or, as I think you're suggesting, just allow the character to add a new skill level every X months, but only if he reduces another skill level. Only so many hours in the day, after all.

Would you disallow elimination of a skill? Seems unlikely to me that someone would lose all familiarity with a skill just through disuse.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I find it hard to imagine that even adventurers can maintain expert levels of competency in more than a few fields, at the same time.

Here's an interesting thought...

(And, it's suggested by the CT experience rules, too.)

What if the INT + EDU ceiling was all that a character could have at one time.

The catch is...skills may shift during a character's lifetime.

As you age and not use your AutoRifle skill, that skill goes down. But, you gain a new skill called Admin. Maybe it raises a couple of levels.

I love this idea...

Gonna explore it some more.... </font>[/QUOTE]Funny...I was thinking something similar. My idea was to let you get whatever skills you roll, but place a parenthetical value indicating your current competence. And your current competence would be limited to (say) 2 skills per term served + 1. Characters could adjust 2 skills per X months. This would also give players something new to do...tinker with the skill mix.

It would also account for the fact that it's probably easier to renew a skill than to learn it from scratch.

Or, as I think you're suggesting, just allow the character to add a new skill level every X months, but only if he reduces another skill level. Only so many hours in the day, after all.

Would you disallow elimination of a skill? Seems unlikely to me that someone would lose all familiarity with a skill just through disuse.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I find it hard to imagine that even adventurers can maintain expert levels of competency in more than a few fields, at the same time.

Here's an interesting thought...

(And, it's suggested by the CT experience rules, too.)

What if the INT + EDU ceiling was all that a character could have at one time.

The catch is...skills may shift during a character's lifetime.

As you age and not use your AutoRifle skill, that skill goes down. But, you gain a new skill called Admin. Maybe it raises a couple of levels.

I love this idea...

Gonna explore it some more.... </font>[/QUOTE]Funny...I was thinking something similar. My idea was to let you get whatever skills you roll, but place a parenthetical value indicating your current competence. And your current competence would be limited to (say) 2 skills per term served + 1.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm thinking of going a little less persnickety than that. Simpler. No bookkeeping.

Still germinating...

But...I'll tell you this. I think I like this idea so much that I think I've found the missing piece of my experience system.

I'm going to allow characters to reach their "max skills" of INT + EDU, but that's it. After that, it's all about shifting skills.

I might just do something simple like stick a hash mark next to the skill whenever a Critical Success is thrown with the skill.

Then, once a year, on the character's birthday, we can check to see if a skill went down or has a chance to increase, based on the hash marks.

I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do at this point, but I'm going to use this idea.

It's got great implications...

Like...you can now allow characters to change careers in Classic Traveller chargen without being afraid that they'll get so many skills that it will unbalance the 2D6 based game.

I like this idea.

I like it a lot.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I find it hard to imagine that even adventurers can maintain expert levels of competency in more than a few fields, at the same time.

Here's an interesting thought...

(And, it's suggested by the CT experience rules, too.)

What if the INT + EDU ceiling was all that a character could have at one time.

The catch is...skills may shift during a character's lifetime.

As you age and not use your AutoRifle skill, that skill goes down. But, you gain a new skill called Admin. Maybe it raises a couple of levels.

I love this idea...

Gonna explore it some more.... </font>[/QUOTE]Funny...I was thinking something similar. My idea was to let you get whatever skills you roll, but place a parenthetical value indicating your current competence. And your current competence would be limited to (say) 2 skills per term served + 1.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm thinking of going a little less persnickety than that. Simpler. No bookkeeping.

Still germinating...

But...I'll tell you this. I think I like this idea so much that I think I've found the missing piece of my experience system.

I'm going to allow characters to reach their "max skills" of INT + EDU, but that's it. After that, it's all about shifting skills.

I might just do something simple like stick a hash mark next to the skill whenever a Critical Success is thrown with the skill.

Then, once a year, on the character's birthday, we can check to see if a skill went down or has a chance to increase, based on the hash marks.

I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do at this point, but I'm going to use this idea.

It's got great implications...

Like...you can now allow characters to change careers in Classic Traveller chargen without being afraid that they'll get so many skills that it will unbalance the 2D6 based game.

I like this idea.

I like it a lot.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Regarding your combat system, the problem is that I have a specific goal in this exercise -- to *fix* the problems in CT, and to avoid wholesale replacement of entire systems. Your combat system (and my Striker derived one) would violate that goal.

How does my system violate that goal?

I add one circumstantial DM (Speed).

And, I simply move (not change the DMs) a DM that originally modifies the attack roll to modifying the damage roll.

That's pretty clean, if you ask me. I'm not changing dice, the to hit number of 8+, skills, or even the DMs. All that's original.

I'm just re-arranging stuff. You still pluck the DMs out of your official Traveller Book.

So, how does that violate your "fix"? </font>[/QUOTE]By fundamentally changing how armor works in Classic Traveller. It now absorbs damage (using two ratings, one from Striker and one from the CT armor modifier chart). And in the latter case, does a weapon do extra damage if the chart lists a positive modifier?

You also added a hit location roll if I recall correctly. In my opinion, the result of these changes is a "new system". Perhaps a better system, but it is "new".

Or at least it constitutes pretty serious surgery on the CT combat system. But most fatally, it will feel substantially different than CT. (And I'm not at all sure that you've really solved the "easy to get automatic hits" problem, although you do mitigate it by having the "to hit" roll only act as a "to hit" roll).

Understand that I'm not criticizing your system. I just think that it deviates "too much"* from CT to meet my goals here. As does my own Striker derived system -- which I am otherwise quite happy with.

The system I've proposed in the "Fixing CT Combat Yet Keeping It Intact" is a mechanical near-twin to the CT system. The modifiers change, but the mechanics don't. And that's the difference. You kept the modifiers (though you did import new data from Striker) and changed the mechanics. My system should feel like CT combat. Yours will feel different.

And many of the "changes" are really not changes; they just present the same CT data in a (hopefully) better way. For instance, the elimination of Jack and Reflect from the gun chart and providing that lasers treat reflect as no armor -8.

*An admittedly subjective standard...

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Regarding your combat system, the problem is that I have a specific goal in this exercise -- to *fix* the problems in CT, and to avoid wholesale replacement of entire systems. Your combat system (and my Striker derived one) would violate that goal.

How does my system violate that goal?

I add one circumstantial DM (Speed).

And, I simply move (not change the DMs) a DM that originally modifies the attack roll to modifying the damage roll.

That's pretty clean, if you ask me. I'm not changing dice, the to hit number of 8+, skills, or even the DMs. All that's original.

I'm just re-arranging stuff. You still pluck the DMs out of your official Traveller Book.

So, how does that violate your "fix"? </font>[/QUOTE]By fundamentally changing how armor works in Classic Traveller. It now absorbs damage (using two ratings, one from Striker and one from the CT armor modifier chart). And in the latter case, does a weapon do extra damage if the chart lists a positive modifier?

You also added a hit location roll if I recall correctly. In my opinion, the result of these changes is a "new system". Perhaps a better system, but it is "new".

Or at least it constitutes pretty serious surgery on the CT combat system. But most fatally, it will feel substantially different than CT. (And I'm not at all sure that you've really solved the "easy to get automatic hits" problem, although you do mitigate it by having the "to hit" roll only act as a "to hit" roll).

Understand that I'm not criticizing your system. I just think that it deviates "too much"* from CT to meet my goals here. As does my own Striker derived system -- which I am otherwise quite happy with.

The system I've proposed in the "Fixing CT Combat Yet Keeping It Intact" is a mechanical near-twin to the CT system. The modifiers change, but the mechanics don't. And that's the difference. You kept the modifiers (though you did import new data from Striker) and changed the mechanics. My system should feel like CT combat. Yours will feel different.

And many of the "changes" are really not changes; they just present the same CT data in a (hopefully) better way. For instance, the elimination of Jack and Reflect from the gun chart and providing that lasers treat reflect as no armor -8.

*An admittedly subjective standard...

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Would you disallow elimination of a skill? Seems unlikely to me that someone would lose all familiarity with a skill just through disuse.

This is still germinating...

But, is Skill-0 really an "elimination" of that skill?

Let's say you've got AutoRifle-3 from your two terms in the Army.

Years go by. In four years, because you never fire your weapon or keep that skill up, your skill drops to AutoRifle-2.

Four more years, it's AutoRifle-1.

Four more years....You're now 38 years old, and you haven't fired your weapon since you got out of the Army. You haven't taken a shot in 12 years. Your skills aren't what they once were. It's AutoRifle-0

Something like that....

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Would you disallow elimination of a skill? Seems unlikely to me that someone would lose all familiarity with a skill just through disuse.

This is still germinating...

But, is Skill-0 really an "elimination" of that skill?

Let's say you've got AutoRifle-3 from your two terms in the Army.

Years go by. In four years, because you never fire your weapon or keep that skill up, your skill drops to AutoRifle-2.

Four more years, it's AutoRifle-1.

Four more years....You're now 38 years old, and you haven't fired your weapon since you got out of the Army. You haven't taken a shot in 12 years. Your skills aren't what they once were. It's AutoRifle-0

Something like that....

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And in the latter case, does a weapon do extra damage if the chart lists a positive modifier?

Yes it does.

AutoPistol fired at target with no armor does 3D +1 damage.

AutoPistol fired at target wearing cloth armor does 3D -8 damage.

AutoPistol fired at target wearing combat armor does 3D -13 damage.

You also added a hit location roll if I recall correctly.

The hit location is optional--not needed if you don't want to mess with it.

I just like the "reality" of hitting an unprotected arm or a cloth protected chest with the same shot.

The system I've proposed in the "Fixing CT Combat Yet Keeping It Intact" is a mechanical near-twin to the CT system. The modifiers change, but the mechanics don't.

You're saying that coming up with all new modifiers is less of a disruption to vanilla CT mechanics than just moving the same mods around a bit?

I guess that's an arguable point.

I'll take a look at it when you're done.

My question: Why would you "want" to keep the penetration roll and the to-hit roll all in the same roll?

--> Armor shouldn't make targets "harder" to hit.

--> It should absorb damage when the target IS hit.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And in the latter case, does a weapon do extra damage if the chart lists a positive modifier?

Yes it does.

AutoPistol fired at target with no armor does 3D +1 damage.

AutoPistol fired at target wearing cloth armor does 3D -8 damage.

AutoPistol fired at target wearing combat armor does 3D -13 damage.

You also added a hit location roll if I recall correctly.

The hit location is optional--not needed if you don't want to mess with it.

I just like the "reality" of hitting an unprotected arm or a cloth protected chest with the same shot.

The system I've proposed in the "Fixing CT Combat Yet Keeping It Intact" is a mechanical near-twin to the CT system. The modifiers change, but the mechanics don't.

You're saying that coming up with all new modifiers is less of a disruption to vanilla CT mechanics than just moving the same mods around a bit?

I guess that's an arguable point.

I'll take a look at it when you're done.

My question: Why would you "want" to keep the penetration roll and the to-hit roll all in the same roll?

--> Armor shouldn't make targets "harder" to hit.

--> It should absorb damage when the target IS hit.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And in the latter case, does a weapon do extra damage if the chart lists a positive modifier?

Yes it does.

AutoPistol fired at target with no armor does 3D +1 damage.

AutoPistol fired at target wearing cloth armor does 3D -8 damage.

AutoPistol fired at target wearing combat armor does 3D -13 damage.

You also added a hit location roll if I recall correctly.

The hit location is optional--not needed if you don't want to mess with it.

I just like the "reality" of hitting an unprotected arm or a cloth protected chest with the same shot.

The system I've proposed in the "Fixing CT Combat Yet Keeping It Intact" is a mechanical near-twin to the CT system. The modifiers change, but the mechanics don't.

You're saying that coming up with all new modifiers is less of a disruption to vanilla CT mechanics than just moving the same mods around a bit?

I guess that's an arguable point.

I'll take a look at it when you're done.

My question: Why would you "want" to keep the penetration roll and the to-hit roll all in the same roll?

--> Armor shouldn't make targets "harder" to hit.

--> It should absorb damage when the target IS hit. </font>[/QUOTE]No disagreement there...my own Striker derived system uses separate to hit and penetration rolls.

So I don't exactly *want* to keep the all in one roll. But that's the way CT did it, and I'm trying to be faithful.

And yes, I think that changing the modifiers is less of a disruption than changing the mechanics. As a player, I remember the game mechanics for more readily than specific modifiers -- especially in a game where a gun has 12 modifiers.

And it's relatively easy to create a consolidated to hit chart ala Snapshot, which relieves players of the need to even mess with modifiers. So changing the modifiers is even less of a disruption than it might seem.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And in the latter case, does a weapon do extra damage if the chart lists a positive modifier?

Yes it does.

AutoPistol fired at target with no armor does 3D +1 damage.

AutoPistol fired at target wearing cloth armor does 3D -8 damage.

AutoPistol fired at target wearing combat armor does 3D -13 damage.

You also added a hit location roll if I recall correctly.

The hit location is optional--not needed if you don't want to mess with it.

I just like the "reality" of hitting an unprotected arm or a cloth protected chest with the same shot.

The system I've proposed in the "Fixing CT Combat Yet Keeping It Intact" is a mechanical near-twin to the CT system. The modifiers change, but the mechanics don't.

You're saying that coming up with all new modifiers is less of a disruption to vanilla CT mechanics than just moving the same mods around a bit?

I guess that's an arguable point.

I'll take a look at it when you're done.

My question: Why would you "want" to keep the penetration roll and the to-hit roll all in the same roll?

--> Armor shouldn't make targets "harder" to hit.

--> It should absorb damage when the target IS hit. </font>[/QUOTE]No disagreement there...my own Striker derived system uses separate to hit and penetration rolls.

So I don't exactly *want* to keep the all in one roll. But that's the way CT did it, and I'm trying to be faithful.

And yes, I think that changing the modifiers is less of a disruption than changing the mechanics. As a player, I remember the game mechanics for more readily than specific modifiers -- especially in a game where a gun has 12 modifiers.

And it's relatively easy to create a consolidated to hit chart ala Snapshot, which relieves players of the need to even mess with modifiers. So changing the modifiers is even less of a disruption than it might seem.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Would you disallow elimination of a skill? Seems unlikely to me that someone would lose all familiarity with a skill just through disuse.

This is still germinating...

But, is Skill-0 really an "elimination" of that skill?</font>[/QUOTE]I guess not. And I suppose that you could easily rationalize level 0 in skills that aren't usually allowed at level 0... It's only possible if you once had level 1+ in that skill.

--Ty