A Criticism of the Bell Curve

[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

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
So changing the modifiers is even less of a disruption than it might seem.

I understand that you're just trying to make a CT that looks and smells like CT with different modifiers.

My thought is: If you're going to update the mechanics probabilities, why not update the system a bit so that armor absorbs damage.

It never made sense to me, back in the day, or today, even in D&D, that a guy standing right in front of me wearing plate mail is harder to hit than the guy standing in front of me wearing studded leather armor.

It would probably help if it wasn't called a to-hit roll.

I think the roll needed to damage your opponent is a better description.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
So changing the modifiers is even less of a disruption than it might seem.

I understand that you're just trying to make a CT that looks and smells like CT with different modifiers.

My thought is: If you're going to update the mechanics probabilities, why not update the system a bit so that armor absorbs damage.

It never made sense to me, back in the day, or today, even in D&D, that a guy standing right in front of me wearing plate mail is harder to hit than the guy standing in front of me wearing studded leather armor.

It would probably help if it wasn't called a to-hit roll.

I think the roll needed to damage your opponent is a better description.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
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).

If you're planning on keeping true to vanilla CT, then you're going to be using the autofire rule that states two attack throws are used.

That tells me that you're going to have a hard time dealing with "easy to get automatic hits" problem in just adjusting modifiers too. (You'll probably need to add to the system with a recoil DM or something).

Two attack rolls increases the percentage chance of a hit tremendously.

What I did was allow those hits to occur (less often, but still quite often) but lower the damage.

For example, let's say a fully automatic SMG burst is fired at a target in Cloth Armor.

The target will take 3D -8 damage if hit.

That means that there's a 26% chance on each hit that no damage will be applied to the target (in other words, the target was hit, but the armor was not penetrated--it absorbed the impact of the entire hit).

So, under my system, a fully auto bust is fired. Two attack throws are thrown. But, if a hit is scored, the armor will protect the target, allowing no damage to the target or greatly reduced damage to the target (max 10 pts of damage on 3D).

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
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).

If you're planning on keeping true to vanilla CT, then you're going to be using the autofire rule that states two attack throws are used.

That tells me that you're going to have a hard time dealing with "easy to get automatic hits" problem in just adjusting modifiers too. (You'll probably need to add to the system with a recoil DM or something).

Two attack rolls increases the percentage chance of a hit tremendously.

What I did was allow those hits to occur (less often, but still quite often) but lower the damage.

For example, let's say a fully automatic SMG burst is fired at a target in Cloth Armor.

The target will take 3D -8 damage if hit.

That means that there's a 26% chance on each hit that no damage will be applied to the target (in other words, the target was hit, but the armor was not penetrated--it absorbed the impact of the entire hit).

So, under my system, a fully auto bust is fired. Two attack throws are thrown. But, if a hit is scored, the armor will protect the target, allowing no damage to the target or greatly reduced damage to the target (max 10 pts of damage on 3D).

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
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).

If you're planning on keeping true to vanilla CT, then you're going to be using the autofire rule that states two attack throws are used.

That tells me that you're going to have a hard time dealing with "easy to get automatic hits" problem in just adjusting modifiers too. (You'll probably need to add to the system with a recoil DM or something).

Two attack rolls increases the percentage chance of a hit tremendously.

What I did was allow those hits to occur (less often, but still quite often) but lower the damage.

For example, let's say a fully automatic SMG burst is fired at a target in Cloth Armor.

The target will take 3D -8 damage if hit.

That means that there's a 26% chance on each hit that no damage will be applied to the target (in other words, the target was hit, but the armor was not penetrated--it absorbed the impact of the entire hit).

So, under my system, a fully auto bust is fired. Two attack throws are thrown. But, if a hit is scored, the armor will protect the target, allowing no damage to the target or greatly reduced damage to the target (max 10 pts of damage on 3D). </font>[/QUOTE]Yep, the roll twice rule is an example of what I'd call "quadruple dipping". Auto weapons get a bonus at every range. And aganst every armor type. And they shoot twice. And they get group hits. Result -- SMGs and the like hit 3-4 times with every 4 shot burst. SMGs, for instance hit unarmored targets on a roll of 0+ in CT. This means 2 hits on the target and 93% of hitting each adjacent target.

I don't mind simply dropping rules that badly warp the system, so I'll almost certainly delete the "roll twice" rule. I might keep the group hits rule for weapons firing a 4 shot burst. With the revised system, such attacks will miss most of the time unless you have a very high gun combat skill.

I think that Traveller has always overrated the effectiveness of automatic small arms. A +1 or +2 "to hit" bonus is sufficient benefit for such a weapon in my opinion.

I might keep both rules for heavy weapons like LMGs, autocannon and VRF gauss guns. Or not. Characters facing such weapons are in deep trouble anyway.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
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).

If you're planning on keeping true to vanilla CT, then you're going to be using the autofire rule that states two attack throws are used.

That tells me that you're going to have a hard time dealing with "easy to get automatic hits" problem in just adjusting modifiers too. (You'll probably need to add to the system with a recoil DM or something).

Two attack rolls increases the percentage chance of a hit tremendously.

What I did was allow those hits to occur (less often, but still quite often) but lower the damage.

For example, let's say a fully automatic SMG burst is fired at a target in Cloth Armor.

The target will take 3D -8 damage if hit.

That means that there's a 26% chance on each hit that no damage will be applied to the target (in other words, the target was hit, but the armor was not penetrated--it absorbed the impact of the entire hit).

So, under my system, a fully auto bust is fired. Two attack throws are thrown. But, if a hit is scored, the armor will protect the target, allowing no damage to the target or greatly reduced damage to the target (max 10 pts of damage on 3D). </font>[/QUOTE]Yep, the roll twice rule is an example of what I'd call "quadruple dipping". Auto weapons get a bonus at every range. And aganst every armor type. And they shoot twice. And they get group hits. Result -- SMGs and the like hit 3-4 times with every 4 shot burst. SMGs, for instance hit unarmored targets on a roll of 0+ in CT. This means 2 hits on the target and 93% of hitting each adjacent target.

I don't mind simply dropping rules that badly warp the system, so I'll almost certainly delete the "roll twice" rule. I might keep the group hits rule for weapons firing a 4 shot burst. With the revised system, such attacks will miss most of the time unless you have a very high gun combat skill.

I think that Traveller has always overrated the effectiveness of automatic small arms. A +1 or +2 "to hit" bonus is sufficient benefit for such a weapon in my opinion.

I might keep both rules for heavy weapons like LMGs, autocannon and VRF gauss guns. Or not. Characters facing such weapons are in deep trouble anyway.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
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.

Other than 'I see nothing wrong with automatic skill rolls'?

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
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.

Other than 'I see nothing wrong with automatic skill rolls'?

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
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.

Other than 'I see nothing wrong with automatic skill rolls'? </font>[/QUOTE]Correct.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
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.

Other than 'I see nothing wrong with automatic skill rolls'? </font>[/QUOTE]Correct.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
So changing the modifiers is even less of a disruption than it might seem.

I understand that you're just trying to make a CT that looks and smells like CT with different modifiers.

My thought is: If you're going to update the mechanics probabilities, why not update the system a bit so that armor absorbs damage.

It never made sense to me, back in the day, or today, even in D&D, that a guy standing right in front of me wearing plate mail is harder to hit than the guy standing in front of me wearing studded leather armor.

It would probably help if it wasn't called a to-hit roll.

I think the roll needed to damage your opponent is a better description. </font>[/QUOTE]Probably so, although it's certainly possible to reasonably model the situation with one die roll. I think that the problem arises when you have lots of modifiers. At that point, certain modifiers can have effects that are not reasonable against the particulr armor, range or weapon. For instance a very high level of pistol skill will help you hit and penetrate Battle Dress. But even then, it can be rationalized as shooting a weak spot, I guess.

Of course, it's awful crowded making hitting and penetration on a single 2d6 roll. Only the most important modifiers can be used or you'll break the system.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
So changing the modifiers is even less of a disruption than it might seem.

I understand that you're just trying to make a CT that looks and smells like CT with different modifiers.

My thought is: If you're going to update the mechanics probabilities, why not update the system a bit so that armor absorbs damage.

It never made sense to me, back in the day, or today, even in D&D, that a guy standing right in front of me wearing plate mail is harder to hit than the guy standing in front of me wearing studded leather armor.

It would probably help if it wasn't called a to-hit roll.

I think the roll needed to damage your opponent is a better description. </font>[/QUOTE]Probably so, although it's certainly possible to reasonably model the situation with one die roll. I think that the problem arises when you have lots of modifiers. At that point, certain modifiers can have effects that are not reasonable against the particulr armor, range or weapon. For instance a very high level of pistol skill will help you hit and penetrate Battle Dress. But even then, it can be rationalized as shooting a weak spot, I guess.

Of course, it's awful crowded making hitting and penetration on a single 2d6 roll. Only the most important modifiers can be used or you'll break the system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I don't mind simply dropping rules that badly warp the system, so I'll almost certainly delete the "roll twice" rule.

But...it seems you're deviating from your goal, now.

I think it sets up a Catch 22.

Now, you're dropping rules, and the same criticism you laid against my system not fitting your goal can be applied when you drop the autofire rule.

Maybe your goal is unattainable.

In the end, I fear you will have changed vanilla CT at least as much, if not more, than I have with my system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I don't mind simply dropping rules that badly warp the system, so I'll almost certainly delete the "roll twice" rule.

But...it seems you're deviating from your goal, now.

I think it sets up a Catch 22.

Now, you're dropping rules, and the same criticism you laid against my system not fitting your goal can be applied when you drop the autofire rule.

Maybe your goal is unattainable.

In the end, I fear you will have changed vanilla CT at least as much, if not more, than I have with my system.

 

[avi.hecht]

The analysis of 2D6 and DMs in the thread has been very interesting, but as it seems to focus on combat I think it is lacking.

Any RPG will make compromises on accuracy vs. playability and it is just a matter of where do we draw the line. The main test should be - do the DMs predict (within reasonable accuracy) real life.

Here I am with S4 (He mentioned it on pg.2 or 3 of this thread); Use realistic modifiers - a competent soldier (at rest and aiming) handling the weapon of his choice shooting at an exposed stationary target at medium range WILL HIT.

But in real life the shooter is dodging bullets (i.e. moving and not aiming) and the target should be doing the same. If the DMs for all these are calculated correctly it should bring us back to reasonable hit chances (very very low chances on the combat field - low chances in the gangster shoot up).

One problem with RPG's is that most players are not really scared for their life when entering a combat situation - and too many 'Hollywood' movie stereotypes show them the correct way is to rush in shoot all over the place and kill the baddies.
Real war footage looks more like lots of soldiers barely moving or hopping from cover to cover while they and their friends shoot a lot of bullets into empty spaces...

I am sure someone on the list can qoute the kill ration from the Vietnam conflict (Hundreds or thousands of bullets per enemy casualty)

 

[avi.hecht]

The analysis of 2D6 and DMs in the thread has been very interesting, but as it seems to focus on combat I think it is lacking.

Any RPG will make compromises on accuracy vs. playability and it is just a matter of where do we draw the line. The main test should be - do the DMs predict (within reasonable accuracy) real life.

Here I am with S4 (He mentioned it on pg.2 or 3 of this thread); Use realistic modifiers - a competent soldier (at rest and aiming) handling the weapon of his choice shooting at an exposed stationary target at medium range WILL HIT.

But in real life the shooter is dodging bullets (i.e. moving and not aiming) and the target should be doing the same. If the DMs for all these are calculated correctly it should bring us back to reasonable hit chances (very very low chances on the combat field - low chances in the gangster shoot up).

One problem with RPG's is that most players are not really scared for their life when entering a combat situation - and too many 'Hollywood' movie stereotypes show them the correct way is to rush in shoot all over the place and kill the baddies.
Real war footage looks more like lots of soldiers barely moving or hopping from cover to cover while they and their friends shoot a lot of bullets into empty spaces...

I am sure someone on the list can qoute the kill ration from the Vietnam conflict (Hundreds or thousands of bullets per enemy casualty)

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I don't mind simply dropping rules that badly warp the system, so I'll almost certainly delete the "roll twice" rule.

But...it seems you're deviating from your goal, now.

I think it sets up a Catch 22.

Now, you're dropping rules, and the same criticism you laid against my system not fitting your goal can be applied when you drop the autofire rule.

Maybe your goal is unattainable.

In the end, I fear you will have changed vanilla CT at least as much, if not more, than I have with my system. </font>[/QUOTE]It's hard for me to see how eliminating a single rule and changing modifiers that players probably won't commit to memory constitutes as significant a change as completely changing the combat sequence and substantially altering how damage is done. If I thought your combat system was an acceptable change (considering my goals here), I'd have adopted my own Striker derived system, which I'm quite happy about. In any case, I've admitted that this is a rather subjective affair.

And I'm no longer so sure that CT can't be fixed, yet keep its flavor.

I'd also note that GDW apparently agreed that the "shoot twice" rule was a bit much. In Snapshot, they dropped it. And they modified the group hits rule -- for every 2 rounds fired in a burst, the firer gets to fire at one adjacent target at -3. Effectively, this eliminates the "shoot twice" rule.

The issue that I'm grappling with here is "what is Traveller?" In my case, the core answer seems to be "the game system created by GDW in 1977." After coming that (admittedly arguable) conclusion, here are the (admittedly arguable and even vague) rules that I'm using to guide me (they are similar to the rules that courts are supposed to apply when confronted with ambiguous, defective or contradictory law):

1. Philosophy --

A. Rules Changes. Change no more than absolutely necessary to fix major problems. Rationale -- the goal is to preserve the "look and feel" of CT while fixing its serious mechanical flaws. Look and feel is intimately tied to game mechanics, because players use them all the time.

B. Rules Additions. CT places a large burden on the referee to "fill in the blanks", like most 1st generation RPGs do. Honor that philosophy if at all possible. It would be redundant to try to fill in the blanks in CT -- that's been done for 30 years now, with varying degrees of success.

C. Remember -- it has to feel like Classic Traveller. Make no changes that are inconsistent with this.

2. Prefer changes to data or modifiers over changes to the actual mechanics. Rationale -- I think players usually identify with the mechanics more than the modifiers and data, therefore changing the system is more intrusive.

3. Truly obnoxious rules can be dropped, especially if they are self-contained rules. But if a modest alteration will fix the problem, that's to be preferred. But it's okay to simply ditch the rule -- especially if the *legitimate* effect can be easily modeled in nonintrusive ways (data, modifiers, etc.). Fixes in other Traveller related products are not binding, but they are persuasive evidence that the rule is unsatisfactory as written.

4. It may be necessary to deviate from these rules to fix a particularly obnoxious problem (none come to mind), but it should be my last resort.

5. When resolving contradictions between two rules, prefer the interpretation that leaves both rules intact.

6. When considering ambiguous rules, understand the difference between an ambiguity and an omission. An ambiguity is capable of being reasonably understood in several ways. This is not the same as being dubious. A clearly stated rule is not ambiguous, though it may be ill-conceived. Resolve ambiguities using #4 if possible. Failing that, make the smallest change possible to reasonably resolve the situation.

7. An omission is the failure to cover what happens in a certain situation. Be careful. As a 1st generation design, Traveller puts a huge burden on the referee. That philosophy is to be honored. So only write a new rule if the omitted rules are likely to come up in Traveller games and only if existing general mechanics ("make an Admin roll") fail to handle it.

8. Books 4+ and the supplements are persuasive authority; they are not binding. But if they fix a CT problem acceptably well, try to use it.

9. Be reasonable. Don't waste time addressing theoretical problems that will seldom, if ever, come up. At the end of the day, it's a game.

10. Understand the law of unintended consequences and consider the implications on the game and other mechanics when making changes.

This is the framework that constrains my efforts. Virtually every significant CT mod I've seen -- including my own -- violate the framework. This is why I'm reinventing the wheel. Well, that, and the fact that I'm an egomaniac.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I don't mind simply dropping rules that badly warp the system, so I'll almost certainly delete the "roll twice" rule.

But...it seems you're deviating from your goal, now.

I think it sets up a Catch 22.

Now, you're dropping rules, and the same criticism you laid against my system not fitting your goal can be applied when you drop the autofire rule.

Maybe your goal is unattainable.

In the end, I fear you will have changed vanilla CT at least as much, if not more, than I have with my system. </font>[/QUOTE]It's hard for me to see how eliminating a single rule and changing modifiers that players probably won't commit to memory constitutes as significant a change as completely changing the combat sequence and substantially altering how damage is done. If I thought your combat system was an acceptable change (considering my goals here), I'd have adopted my own Striker derived system, which I'm quite happy about. In any case, I've admitted that this is a rather subjective affair.

And I'm no longer so sure that CT can't be fixed, yet keep its flavor.

I'd also note that GDW apparently agreed that the "shoot twice" rule was a bit much. In Snapshot, they dropped it. And they modified the group hits rule -- for every 2 rounds fired in a burst, the firer gets to fire at one adjacent target at -3. Effectively, this eliminates the "shoot twice" rule.

The issue that I'm grappling with here is "what is Traveller?" In my case, the core answer seems to be "the game system created by GDW in 1977." After coming that (admittedly arguable) conclusion, here are the (admittedly arguable and even vague) rules that I'm using to guide me (they are similar to the rules that courts are supposed to apply when confronted with ambiguous, defective or contradictory law):

1. Philosophy --

A. Rules Changes. Change no more than absolutely necessary to fix major problems. Rationale -- the goal is to preserve the "look and feel" of CT while fixing its serious mechanical flaws. Look and feel is intimately tied to game mechanics, because players use them all the time.

B. Rules Additions. CT places a large burden on the referee to "fill in the blanks", like most 1st generation RPGs do. Honor that philosophy if at all possible. It would be redundant to try to fill in the blanks in CT -- that's been done for 30 years now, with varying degrees of success.

C. Remember -- it has to feel like Classic Traveller. Make no changes that are inconsistent with this.

2. Prefer changes to data or modifiers over changes to the actual mechanics. Rationale -- I think players usually identify with the mechanics more than the modifiers and data, therefore changing the system is more intrusive.

3. Truly obnoxious rules can be dropped, especially if they are self-contained rules. But if a modest alteration will fix the problem, that's to be preferred. But it's okay to simply ditch the rule -- especially if the *legitimate* effect can be easily modeled in nonintrusive ways (data, modifiers, etc.). Fixes in other Traveller related products are not binding, but they are persuasive evidence that the rule is unsatisfactory as written.

4. It may be necessary to deviate from these rules to fix a particularly obnoxious problem (none come to mind), but it should be my last resort.

5. When resolving contradictions between two rules, prefer the interpretation that leaves both rules intact.

6. When considering ambiguous rules, understand the difference between an ambiguity and an omission. An ambiguity is capable of being reasonably understood in several ways. This is not the same as being dubious. A clearly stated rule is not ambiguous, though it may be ill-conceived. Resolve ambiguities using #4 if possible. Failing that, make the smallest change possible to reasonably resolve the situation.

7. An omission is the failure to cover what happens in a certain situation. Be careful. As a 1st generation design, Traveller puts a huge burden on the referee. That philosophy is to be honored. So only write a new rule if the omitted rules are likely to come up in Traveller games and only if existing general mechanics ("make an Admin roll") fail to handle it.

8. Books 4+ and the supplements are persuasive authority; they are not binding. But if they fix a CT problem acceptably well, try to use it.

9. Be reasonable. Don't waste time addressing theoretical problems that will seldom, if ever, come up. At the end of the day, it's a game.

10. Understand the law of unintended consequences and consider the implications on the game and other mechanics when making changes.

This is the framework that constrains my efforts. Virtually every significant CT mod I've seen -- including my own -- violate the framework. This is why I'm reinventing the wheel. Well, that, and the fact that I'm an egomaniac.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:

And I'm no longer so sure that CT can't be fixed, yet keep its flavor.

Bottom line, it's your game. You need to do what you're comfortable with.

I don't agree with you on many of your assumptions and points of view, but I'm very glad you started this thread. As you can see, it's made me re-think the INT + EDU rule to the point that I am retro-actively implementing it in my game.

Maybe that's a symptom of the Law of Unintended Thread Consequences?