Critical Look Needed at a Mongoose Houserule

[Sturn]

I have read literally hundreds of posts here and at Mongoose regarding debate over the MGT task system including the Timing/Effect gimic. I have noticed the following gripes and praises in regards to the task system as is, and towards any new proposals:

1. I like the idea of the T/E gimic, but it is statistically broken.
2. I want a roll high system, not roll low.
3. I like the T/E gimic, but I want to keep it simple.
4. I should have to choose whether I am "hasty" or "cautious" before I roll the task, not after.
5. The better I succeed, the better my Effect should be.
6. The worse I fail, the worse my Effect should be.
7. I like the idea that T/E is part of the roll, not an additional step.

I may have left something out. I think the system below accounts for all of these. I'm not proposing anything that will make it into MGT, it's too late, but would like a critical eye to possible problems using this as a house rule. You will need to know the current MGT task system to understand what I am trying to to do:

• Roll two task dice (as usual), but roll a different colored timing die with it if time is important. I roll a 5, 4, and 3 on the timing die. My task roll is 9, with a timing of 3.
• Timing range is capped 1-6, as per MGT.
• Effect is uncapped at the difference between the task number of 8. If my total is 11, I rolled +3 Effect, over the universal task number of 8. If my total is 5, I rolled a -3 for Effect. This may work nicely with MGT's latest news of an uncapped Effect. A new uncapped Effect table would be needed, along with changes to damage, as MGT has already proposed. They may even work as is with this new MGT system.
• Cautious Rolls: Declaring cautious before the roll requires the timing die to be swapped with any task die that it is higher then (a.i. pick the best 2 of 3 dice for the task dice). I roll 2, 4, and 5 for timing. Since I delcared cautious, my task roll is a 9, while my timing is reduced to only 2, instead of a 5. I have not looked at how much of an affect this will have on task success, this is important since often time will not be a factor. This could be abused?
• Hasty Rolls: Declaring hasty before the roll requires the timing die to be swapped with any task die that it is lower then (a.i. pick the best of the 3 dice to be the timing die). I roll 3, 5, and 2 for timing. Since I declared hasty, my timing die must be the 5 (instead of 2), but my hasty task roll total is 5, instead of 8 for a normal task.
• Open-Ended: An open-ended system allows for very skilled or very poor task rolls to have a chance, even if it's very slight - If double 6's are rolled, add the timing die to the task total. If double 1's are rolled, subtract the timing die from the task total. Double 6's could be ruined by a hasty attempt, while double 1's could be prevented by a cautious attempt.

Thought's please. It might take another reading of the bullets above and some knowledge of the MGT task system to understand my reasonings.

 

[Foxroe]

If you’re going to go through all of that work, why not just roll another 2D6: one D6 for Effect, and another for Timing? It really won’t bog down play. It takes an instant to roll/read the new die result and look at the chart (and after a few rolls, you’ll have the charts memorized). You won’t have to think about which die is which, which roll is capped/uncapped, what rolls are modified, etc.

That being said, it’s YTU. If you and your players are comfortable with this system, then I say run with it. It’s better than the T/E rule as-is (IMHO of course).

-Fox

 

[tbeard1999]

If you must have timing and effect, why not simply arbitrarily set timing at effect at 4. Then make the normal 2d6+modifiers roll. For every point you exceed 8, you can adjust either timing of effect by 1. Thus, the better you are, the better you succeed.

If you fail, you must adjust timing and effect by -1 for every number you roll under 7. Thus the worse you are, the worse you fail.

In the combat system, replace the idiotic x2+y damage mechanic with damage dice. I'd convert each x to 1 die. So a x2+2 mechanic becomes 2d6+2.

Idiocy solved.

 

[Sturn]

If you’re going to go through all of that work, why not just roll another 2D6: one D6 for Effect, and another for Timing?

Because of points 5 and 6 in my post. I wanted the better/worse I roll to affect the Effect (affect the Effect ). I don't think its a complex system, still pretty simple and easier to grasp then current MGT rules in my opinion. It may look large, because I explained it in detail with examples, and several points are kinda addons, but important (hasty, cautious, open-ended parts).

If you must have timing and effect, why not simply arbitrarily set timing at effect at 4.......For every point you exceed 8, you can adjust either timing of effect by 1. Thus, the better you are, the better you succeed.

Because of point 4 in my post. I do want how well I fail/succeed to affect the Effect (I need to copyright that), but I don't want it to affect timing due to point 4 - not wanting a player to be able to determine how fast or cautious he was after seeing the results. Also, because I think the current MGT system within combat (does fine out of combat) becomes more about numbers then "role-playing". I don't want my players constantly analyzing the numbers during combat to get the exact best result (a.i. lets see, I have a 3 and 5 to work with, which is better for timing, which for effect). That is too much of a distraction from what is actually going on; it becomes a strategy of picking the best numbers instead of a battle between a player and a vargr pirate.

In the combat system, replace the idiotic x2+y damage mechanic with damage dice. I'd convert each x to 1 die. So a x2+2 mechanic becomes 2d6+2.

But I still want how well I succeed to affect how much damage I did. Some, including myself, always disliked systems where I barely hit, but end up doing max. damage, or roll a 20! (old D&D) only to roll a 1 for damage. Removing the damage roll also removes another step (another roll). I, like you, don't like how MGT skews towards the higher end of damage for everyone. I'm waiting to see if the "new damage charts" with uncapped affect will work (with MGT rules or my own). Or, I will have to build my own damage charts, yet another house rule.

 

[tbeard1999]

Because of point 4 in my post. I do want how well I fail/succeed to affect the Effect (I need to copyright that), but I don't want it to affect timing due to point 4 - not wanting a player to be able to determine how fast or cautious he was after seeing the results.

I know that you weren't asking for alternate systems, but your idea does not really solve the problem that the effect die will skew high and will usually be a 5 or 6.

If I were gonna design a system to do this -- randomize timing, but make effect a function of how well you succeed, here's what I'd start with:

1. As you started out -- 2d6 roll to succeed + colored d6 for timing. Advantage is that you only have to diddle with the third die if timing is important.

2. Effect is determined by how well you exceed the task roll. I'd start with an effect of 4 and adjust that by 1 for every *two* points above 8 you roll. (Some testing might be in order to calibrate this ratio).

3. I prefer to roll damage separately. If I decided to allow a bonus for damage based on how well you do on the task, I'd still roll damage separately but give a +1 for every two points (or whatever) you exceed 8+. Personally, I don't think that the multiplication idea is any faster than a separate damage roll.

4. If you insist on using the multiple for damage mechanic (despite my threats, pleading and cajoling), assume a x1 and shift that by 1 for every point above 8 you roll. This will at least give you a reasonable range of multiples. But rolling separately is better...I promise

 

[Sturn]

I know that you weren't asking for alternate systems, but your idea does not really solve the problem that the effect die will skew high and will usually be a 5 or 6.

I was going to use an uncapped Effect, not a 1-6 limit. It still could skew towards higher vs. lower results, haven't begun to look at the stats yet, since I haven't figured exactly the ratio yet (see below).

Effect is determined by how well you exceed the task roll. I'd start with an effect of 4 and adjust that by 1 for every *two* points above 8 you roll. (Some testing might be in order to calibrate this ratio).

I didn't specify in my post, but this is almost what I was planning. I wasn't going to start with 4, since I would be using a completely different table then 3.2 MGT for Effect (I don't necessarily need an Effect range of 1-6). I was considering either 1 per point over/above 8 or 1 per 2 points over/above 8 just as you stated (except not starting with a base 4). This would then be applied to a new Effect chart for abject failures, exceptional successes, etc.

This would also greatly affect what damage system I used. I would prefer to use 1 point of Effect per point above/below, since its slightly simpler then 1 per 2. My range would be up to 12 points below for failed tasks, while up to 10 points above for completed tasks, for a +0 DM task roll. The range becomes even larger for highly -/+ task DMs. This is a very large range, which could cause havoc when trying to develop a simple damage system based on Effect success.

I'll have to wait until I go to work to drive around and consider this issue (currently night shift, I'm a popo shift supervisor and so it can get boring during week nights, leaves me lots of time to think over these important issues while I do randomn circles around the city:rofl.

Funny note: Looked at your career tbeard, might explain some of why we knocked heads at first, it might come natural, like cats and dogs.

 

[tbeard1999]

Funny note: Looked at your career tbeard, might explain some of why we knocked heads at first, it might come natural, like cats and dogs.

<chuckle> Well, I don't do criminal defense work and I'm a conservative. So I actually get along with law enforcement pretty well, at least in these parts.

 

[Sturn]

I've adjusted what I had above. I didn't like the large range of numbers I had for Effect. This I believe corrects the same issues as above, but is simpler. It also can be plugged in to MGT as is, no adjustments needed to other MGT rules.

• Roll two task dice (as usual), but also roll two different colored dice for timing and effect if needed. I roll a 5, 4 on my white task dice. I roll a 3 on my black timing die, 4 on my red effect die. My task roll is 9, with a timing of 3 and effect of 4.
• Timing range is 1-6 with 6 being quicker, as per MGT 3.2.
• Effect range is 1-6 as per MGT 3.2 A score of 5,6 is considered exceptional for a success, but abject for a failure (this is a change to MGT, where failures are abject on a 1,2).
• Effect limited by the task result: Maximum Effect is limited to the amount under or over 8 the task total was. This needs an example. Ex1: I roll task dice for a 9 and apply a +1 DM for a total of 10. I succeed. This is only 2 over the target number of 8. If my Effect die was over 2, I must reduce it to 2. Ex 2: I roll 5 on the task dice and apply a +0 DM for a total of 5. I fail, 3 under the target number of 8. If my Effect die is more then 3, I must reduce it to 3.

That's it. The next two bullets are optional.

• Optional Cautious / Hasty Rolls: A player may declare a task Cautious or Hasty before rolling. Declaring Cautious means I must use the best of the T/E dice for my Effect die (a.i. I must pick the best of the 2 non-task dice for the Effect dice). I roll 2 for effect and 5 for timing. Since I delcared cautious, I must switch out the scores, making my effect 5 and my timing only 2. Declaring Hasty before the roll is the opposite - I must use the best of the T/E dice for my Timing die. This optional rule results in Hasty tasks skewing towards less time, but worse effect....Cautious tasks skew towards more time, but better effect. Sounds good to me, and it also allows even a chance of a Hasty task to have the best Effect - if two 6's are rolled for T/E.
• Optional Critical Rolls: An open-ended system allows for very skilled or very poor task rolls to have a chance, even if it's very slight - If double 6's are rolled on the task dice, add the lower of the T/E dice to the task total as a bonus. If double 1's are rolled on the task dice, subtract the higher? of the T/E dice from the task total.

No other changes need to be made to MGT 3.2 for this to be plugged in. I think this is fairly simple in my opinion, the last two bullets are just add ons to the system if you prefer them.

 

[tbeard1999]

I've adjusted what I had above. I didn't like the large range of numbers I had for Effect. This I believe corrects the same issues as above, but is simpler. It also can be plugged in to MGT as is, no adjustments needed to other MGT rules.

• Roll two task dice (as usual), but also roll two different colored dice for timing and effect if needed. I roll a 5, 4 on my white task dice. I roll a 3 on my black timing die, 4 on my red effect die. My task roll is 9, with a timing of 3 and effect of 4.

• 
  
  Comments --
  
  1. You have replicated what the designer apparently thought his system generated.
  
  2. You have decoupled the degree of success on the task roll from the timing/effect roll. Not necessarily a bad thing, but this does differ from what you orginally wanted. (Of course, you indirectly recouple it with the mechanic below).
  
  3. If you want to give the player more control, you could let him choose which die is timing and which is effect. This would have the mechanical advantage of requiring only two colors of d6 rather than 3.
  
  

  [*]Effect limited by the task result: Maximum Effect is limited to the amount under or over 8 the task total was.

  
  I have two objections to this mechanic:
  
  1. Personally, I think it's pretty fiddly. That said, anyone who insists on using the T/E mechanism has to be pretty tolerant of fiddliness, so it may not matter. And maybe it would become second nature pretty quickly.
  
  2. Most rolls will skew towards mediocre results (on an unmodified roll, an 11+ [8% chance] would be required for an average success and it's impossible to get an excellent success. So perhaps you might limit the effect roll to double the amount rolled over 8 or 3+the amount rolled over 8.

 

[Sturn]

Error in my post, deleted it, going to look over my stats and repost.

 

[Smiling DM]

Sturn - in general I was already heading down this same path for houseruling MGT for myself. I like your bullet summary. One thing I had considered was reversing the timing range:

[*]Timing range is 1-6 with 6 being quicker, as per MGT 3.2.

Instead of having 6 be fast and 1 mean slow, what if this was reversed? Then a 1 means "you accomplished the task in the minimum time" and 6 means "you took a very long time, like 6 times the minimum time).

The positive of this is then someone who is highly skilled or in an enabling situation (positive DM) has a better chance of succeeding in less time. If someone is not skilled, or the overall DM is negative, then they can only succeed if their timing die is high. I also think it becomes more intuitive - no need to consult a table or memorize a result - the die gives you the time factor.

The one downside I see is reconciling it with the initiative system in combat. I'd ponder reversing that too - reversing initiative count so it is a count down, not up. Haven't given this as much thought, so it could be fraught with issues.

 

[Smiling DM]

[*]Optional Cautious / Hasty Rolls: A player may declare a task Cautious or Hasty before rolling. Declaring Cautious means I must use the best of the T/E dice for my Effect die (a.i. I must pick the best of the 2 non-task dice for the Effect dice). I roll 2 for effect and 5 for timing. Since I delcared cautious, I must switch out the scores, making my effect 5 and my timing only 2. Declaring Hasty before the roll is the opposite - I must use the best of the T/E dice for my Timing die. This optional rule results in Hasty tasks skewing towards less time, but worse effect....Cautious tasks skew towards more time, but better effect. Sounds good to me, and it also allows even a chance of a Hasty task to have the best Effect - if two 6's are rolled for T/E.

Instead of switching the dice, how about just a declaration prior to the roll of cautious/haste. Then modify the Timing up or down and have a corresponding bonus or penalty to the Effect. A 1:1 ratio is probably too generous for Cautious. My first thought is a cautious act allows for a +1 DM to the success roll (making it easier) but adds a -2 to timing (still assuming that low timing is bad). Conversely, a hasty action would result in a -1DM to the roll, but a +2 to the final Timing

I like the Cautious ratio, but am not happy with the Hasty, especially since any successful roll with a negative DM has to have a generally higher timing effect. I think a +1/-1 ratio is better for Hasty, but then it isn't consistent with the Cautious, which earns it a fiddly point.

Thoughts?

 

[sablewyvern]

The one downside I see is reconciling it with the initiative system in combat. I'd ponder reversing that too - reversing initiative count so it is a count down, not up. Haven't given this as much thought, so it could be fraught with issues.

If you invert the Timing die and reverse the initiative system comprehensively (Act on Initiative 1, change every + to a - and every - to a +), then the system is statistically identical.

 

[Sturn]

Thanks for all of the input. I think the bullets below describe what I will probably be "play-testing" in my next Traveller campaign. The key adjustments to this latest version are that I went back to just a timing die like I orginally intended (no effect die). After running some numbers, the "limiting effect die by task roll" just didn't work. So, I went back to a simpler effect with it being determined directly by how much over/under 8 the task roll was. I ran some numbers, and they seem ok for me (see tables at the bottom).

• Roll two task dice (as usual), but also roll a different colored die for timing if needed. I roll a 5, 4 on my white task dice. I roll a 3 on my red timing die. My task roll is 9, with a timing of 3.
• Timing range is 1-6 with 6 being quicker, as per MGT 3.2. Note that like MGT, during non-combat tasks, you reverse the 1-6 range before multiplying by the timing increment. No change to MGT.
• Effect is capped at 1-6 as MGT 3.2. A score of 5+ is considered exceptional for a success, but abject for a failure (this is a change to MGT, where failures are abject on a 1 or 2).
• Effect determned by the task result: Effect is determined by how much under or over 8 the task total was. The Effect is capped at 6. This needs examples. Ex1: I roll task dice for a 9 and apply a +1 DM for a total of 10. I succeed. This is 2 over the target number of 8, so my Effect is 2. Ex 2: I roll 5 on the task dice and apply a +0 DM for a total of 5. I fail, 3 under the target number of 8, so my Effect is 3. A roll of 8 exactly is a 1 for Effect.

That's it. The next two bullets are optional, but greatly add to the system.

• Optional Cautious / Hasty Rolls: Declaring Cautious before the roll requires the timing die to be swapped with any task die that it is higher then (a.i. pick the best 2 of 3 dice for the task dice). I roll 2, 4, and 5 for timing. Since I delcared cautious, my task roll is a 9, while my timing is reduced to only 2, instead of a 5. Declaring hasty before the roll requires the timing die to be swapped with any task die that it is lower then (a.i. pick the best of the 3 dice to be the timing die). I roll 3, 5, and 2 for timing. Since I declared hasty, my timing die must be the 5 (instead of 2), but my hasty task roll total is 5, instead of 8 for a normal task.
• Open-Ended: An open-ended system allows for very skilled or very poor task rolls to have a chance, even if it's very slight - If double 6's are rolled, add the timing die to the task total. If double 1's are rolled, subtract the timing die from the task total. Note that double 6's could be ruined by a hasty attempt, while double 1's could be prevented by a cautious attempt (which makes sense to me).

Damage for weapons is unchanged from MGT 3.2, using the 1-6 Effect multiplier. I may have to use the original MGT 3.2 damage tables for weapons, because I think they will be changing in the final release due to an "uncapped" effect.

I have 3 tables below which describe three different options for the Effect range. You could adjust the Effect range to tweak the stats (a little bit) which are more to your liking. For examle, MGT 3.2 has the Effect ranges at 1,2 / 3,4 / 5,6 (for Marginal / Average / Exceptional effects). A significant change occurs with my system if you make the Effect ranges 1 / 2-5 / 6, for example. These tables only express the chances for each type of success Effect:

[B][COLOR=black]1,2 Marginal   3,4 Average   5,6 Exceptional[/COLOR][/B]
 
[COLOR=black]DM   Marginal   Average   Exceptional[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]-4      2%       1%       1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]-2      14%      2%       1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]0       33%      6%       3%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]+2      44%      19%      8%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]+4      33%      30%      28%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]+6      17%      25%      58%[/COLOR]
 
[COLOR=black]This is the standard MGT 3.2 table.  It skews greatly towards marginal [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]until you are highly skilled. [/COLOR][COLOR=black]If you actually like these stats, it may be more [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]acceptable if you just rename [/COLOR][COLOR=black]the titles - something such as "Barely", [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]"Good", and "Great" for example might [/COLOR][COLOR=black]make more sense with these stats.[/COLOR]

[B][COLOR=black]1 Marginal   2-4 Average   5,6 Exceptional[/COLOR][/B]
 
[COLOR=black]DM   Marginal   Average   Exceptional[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]-4      2%       1%       1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]-2      14%      2%       1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]0       25%      14%      3%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]+2      31%      33%      8%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]+4      19%      44%      28%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]+6      8%       33%      58%[/COLOR]
 
[COLOR=black]Why only 1 for Marginal, but 5 or 6 for Exceptional?  Because a result of 8 [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]also results in a 1, just like a 9 (one over).  One of the problems with the [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]first (top) table is that a Marginal 1-2 actually has 3 different die results [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]that [/COLOR][COLOR=black]leads to it, not just 2 as it would seem.  I was trying to see what [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]happened [/COLOR][COLOR=black]if I tried to skew it back to the Exceptional side.[/COLOR]

[B][COLOR=black]1 Marginal   2-5 Average   6 Exceptional[/COLOR][/B]
 
[COLOR=black]DM   Marginal   Average   Exceptional[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]-4      2%        1%      <1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]-2      14%       2%      1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]0       25%      16%      1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]+2      31%      39%      3%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]+4      19%      56%      17%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]+6      8%       50%      42%[/COLOR]

The bottom two tables are my favorites. They skew towards marginal results for -DMs, but begin to skew towards Exceptional results as DMs get more positive. Personal preference, but I like that (I just wish they skewed more greatly towards Exceptional for lower positive DMs). There are also many more Average results in these two tables then the standard MGT one, which I think most would prefer.