CT+ task system
- Thread starter mike wightman
- Start date
OK, I think I'm on board with Sigg's reasoning. And thank Zakrol for expressing the problem (and someone on page 1) the stats vs. skills issue so succinctly.
Zakrol, consider me persuaded that stat/5 is too much.
My view on skill levels is much like Sigg's and fly's, and ties in well with CT concepts like "anyone with Medical-3 or higher is a doctor".
Looking at this, I think I prefer Sigg's now, with the same dilemna as him about the stat modifier. Either mechanism should work easily in play, though it took me a bit to grok the whole "stat>difficulty" thing. "Stat/4, fractions rounded down (FRD)" is easy to understand immediately. < shrug >
- John
Zakrol, consider me persuaded that stat/5 is too much.
My view on skill levels is much like Sigg's and fly's, and ties in well with CT concepts like "anyone with Medical-3 or higher is a doctor".
Looking at this, I think I prefer Sigg's now, with the same dilemna as him about the stat modifier. Either mechanism should work easily in play, though it took me a bit to grok the whole "stat>difficulty" thing. "Stat/4, fractions rounded down (FRD)" is easy to understand immediately. < shrug >
- John
May I suggest the Task system developed by Carlos. As it seems to be the most efficient.
The 3-Task System
This is a modification of the MegaTraveller Task system, whose one and only requisite is to remember the multiples of three: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21.
Character actions are evaluated through check rolls and Tasks. Check rolls are simply rolls against a given attribute, e.g. Dexterity. Tasks involve generally one skill and one attribute.
Tasks:
Difficulty, Skill, Attribute, (Time increment)
2D6+Skill+(Attribute/3) >= (Difficulty)
(Round fractions down)
Maximum allowed DM: +10
Time: (3D-DMs) x (Time increment)
Difficulty Code Roll
Easy 6+
Average 9+
Difficult 12+
Formidable 15+
Staggering 18+
Impossible 21+
There is a 3:1 relation ship between skills and attributes, which gives more DMs than in other systems, but the difficulty levels are consequently a bit higher. Average and Difficult tasks are roughly equivalent to Routine and Difficult tasks in MT, while an MT formidable Task would be between Formidable and Staggering in this system.
Since the difficulties advance in +3 increments, it does not make much sense under this system to give special DMs in excess of +1. Anything yielding a DM in excess of +1/-1 should be better thought as decreasing or increasing the difficulty level.
Note: Average characters have a DM of +2 from a level-7 attribute, which explains Average being 9+.
Spectacular Success: When the actual roll makes the next difficulty level (i.e. exceeds the required level by 3+). Example: Rolling 12+ in an Average task.
Spectacular Failure: When the actual roll does NOT make the previous difficulty level (i.e. fails by 4+). Can give rise to a 2D mishap. Example: Not rolling 6+ in an Average task.
Marginal success: If the roll equals the required level exactly. Example: Rolling exactly 9 in an Average task.
Fumble: An exact roll of 2 is always a failure, regardless of DMs. Can give rise to a 3D mishap.
Hazardous tasks: Failure implies automatic 3D mishap.
Uncertain tasks: Both the referee and the player roll the task. Total Truth: Both succeed. Some Truth: One succeeds. No truth: None succeeds. On PBEM: Uncertain means purely In-Character results, no rules explanation.
Hasty tasks: Halve the time increment, increase difficulty one level.
Cautious tasks: Double the time increment, decrease difficulty one level.
Confrontation tasks: The acting character provides positive ("offensive") DMs, the reacting one provides negative ("defensive") ones.
Retrying failed tasks: If a second try is possible, difficulty is increase one level. If the character has JOT, difficulty remains the same. Each level of JOT allows one retry without increase in the difficulty level. Sometimes, a Determination roll is required before retrying.
Determination roll: Roll against (End+Int)/2. Alternative: Treat as a task of the appropriate difficulty, DMs (End+Int)/3.
Mishaps: Whenever a Mishap occurs, the player rolls in the following table:
Mishap table (2D or 3D)
2 Reroll
3+ No damage
6+ Superficial (e.g. 1 hit)
9+ Minor (e.g. 2 hits)
12+ Major (e.g. 4 hits)
15+ Really serious (e.g. 8 hits)
18+ Destroyed (e.g. 16 hits)
The 3-Task System
This is a modification of the MegaTraveller Task system, whose one and only requisite is to remember the multiples of three: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21.
Character actions are evaluated through check rolls and Tasks. Check rolls are simply rolls against a given attribute, e.g. Dexterity. Tasks involve generally one skill and one attribute.
Tasks:
Difficulty, Skill, Attribute, (Time increment)
2D6+Skill+(Attribute/3) >= (Difficulty)
(Round fractions down)
Maximum allowed DM: +10
Time: (3D-DMs) x (Time increment)
Difficulty Code Roll
Easy 6+
Average 9+
Difficult 12+
Formidable 15+
Staggering 18+
Impossible 21+
There is a 3:1 relation ship between skills and attributes, which gives more DMs than in other systems, but the difficulty levels are consequently a bit higher. Average and Difficult tasks are roughly equivalent to Routine and Difficult tasks in MT, while an MT formidable Task would be between Formidable and Staggering in this system.
Since the difficulties advance in +3 increments, it does not make much sense under this system to give special DMs in excess of +1. Anything yielding a DM in excess of +1/-1 should be better thought as decreasing or increasing the difficulty level.
Note: Average characters have a DM of +2 from a level-7 attribute, which explains Average being 9+.
Spectacular Success: When the actual roll makes the next difficulty level (i.e. exceeds the required level by 3+). Example: Rolling 12+ in an Average task.
Spectacular Failure: When the actual roll does NOT make the previous difficulty level (i.e. fails by 4+). Can give rise to a 2D mishap. Example: Not rolling 6+ in an Average task.
Marginal success: If the roll equals the required level exactly. Example: Rolling exactly 9 in an Average task.
Fumble: An exact roll of 2 is always a failure, regardless of DMs. Can give rise to a 3D mishap.
Hazardous tasks: Failure implies automatic 3D mishap.
Uncertain tasks: Both the referee and the player roll the task. Total Truth: Both succeed. Some Truth: One succeeds. No truth: None succeeds. On PBEM: Uncertain means purely In-Character results, no rules explanation.
Hasty tasks: Halve the time increment, increase difficulty one level.
Cautious tasks: Double the time increment, decrease difficulty one level.
Confrontation tasks: The acting character provides positive ("offensive") DMs, the reacting one provides negative ("defensive") ones.
Retrying failed tasks: If a second try is possible, difficulty is increase one level. If the character has JOT, difficulty remains the same. Each level of JOT allows one retry without increase in the difficulty level. Sometimes, a Determination roll is required before retrying.
Determination roll: Roll against (End+Int)/2. Alternative: Treat as a task of the appropriate difficulty, DMs (End+Int)/3.
Mishaps: Whenever a Mishap occurs, the player rolls in the following table:
Mishap table (2D or 3D)
2 Reroll
3+ No damage
6+ Superficial (e.g. 1 hit)
9+ Minor (e.g. 2 hits)
12+ Major (e.g. 4 hits)
15+ Really serious (e.g. 8 hits)
18+ Destroyed (e.g. 16 hits)
It still has the large area of no effect in the middle - a bit like the D&D needing 15+ on 3d6 to get bonuses in the older editions.
A different view of the Aramis system would be lower the target to 6 from 8 and use:
2: -2
3-5: -1
6-8: 0
9-B: +1
C-E : +2
F: +3
which is basically what you are suggesting except for values 5, 9 and F. To me, the plus is that it narrows the middle plateau a bit.
A different view of the Aramis system would be lower the target to 6 from 8 and use:
2: -2
3-5: -1
6-8: 0
9-B: +1
C-E : +2
F: +3
which is basically what you are suggesting except for values 5, 9 and F. To me, the plus is that it narrows the middle plateau a bit.
Fly,
I think for ease & speed of play we want to stick with something formulaic (like stat/X) or Sigg's solution. I'm afraid your proposal is one of those "Argh, gotta look at the chart" kind of things.
Keep in mind I'm an ASL grognard, so I'm *used* to looking at charts all the time. (Though I still have some memorized.) It's OK in a wargame, but IMHO in an RPG session we want to keep the chart look-ups and arcane modifiers to a minimum, in order to keep play flowing smoothly.
No flame intended, sir! Just pointing out what I feel is problematic about that particular approach.
- John
I think for ease & speed of play we want to stick with something formulaic (like stat/X) or Sigg's solution. I'm afraid your proposal is one of those "Argh, gotta look at the chart" kind of things.
Keep in mind I'm an ASL grognard, so I'm *used* to looking at charts all the time. (Though I still have some memorized.) It's OK in a wargame, but IMHO in an RPG session we want to keep the chart look-ups and arcane modifiers to a minimum, in order to keep play flowing smoothly.
No flame intended, sir! Just pointing out what I feel is problematic about that particular approach.
- John
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
8+, without a doubt if it's to be CT+.
understand and agree completely. but I'd like to say this.
1) it's not much of a chart. after being used to get the idea I don't think anyone will need to look at it again. "what's your dex?" "eleven." "hey, you get a +1." seems about as fast as "what's your dex?" "eleven." "you get ... +3."
2) it keeps the skill modifier constant. it doesn't apply or not apply according to the task difficulty (elegant as that is). it's just there.
3) it avoids the "do we divide by three, or four, or five?" question.
4) it ameliorates the "stat modifier being so much greater than the skill modifier" difficulty.
5) it rewards/penalizes exceptional people in a rational manner. there's no "average stat gets +1 or +2". it seems more intuitive than charty.
arcane is not always bad.
no flame taken, your response was entirely civil. disagreement is not flame.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
DMs! DMs! DMs!
8+ +/- DMs is the way to go.
But make it 7+ just to mess with 'em!
8+ +/- DMs is the way to go.
But make it 7+ just to mess with 'em!
My system and Siggs system are quite the same - roll 2d6 above a target number with modifiers. The only real difference is in determining a +2 attribute DM - which I'll simply integrate as I like it better than mine. </font>[/QUOTE]Holy crap, Mr. Employee 2-4601. With your unexpected and gracious offer of truce and compromise, I think you've brought us to critical mass.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Aramis' system: 2 (Aramis, Zakrol)
Sigg's "Aramis Variant": 5? (Sigg, robject, jappel, flykiller?, Employee 2-4601)</pre>[/QUOTE]Zakrol, it may be that Aramis' and Sigg's systems are very, very similar. Would you be offended by Sigg's task system being in CT+?
(I'm reminded of linguists working on dialects of the Dyirbal language in the Australian outback; when they found slight variances in local dialects, their first reaction was to pick the 'best' one as the official one. But the locals of the other dialect insisted that it was those very differences in language which made their tribe distinct. Language is a very personal thing.)
Granted, we will each use whatever task system we like best.
Fly,
OK, I see your points. I'm going to let that simmer a bit. I'm not sure if the constant modifier (whether yours or stat/X) is superior to Sigg's "modify if stat>difficulty" approach; I suspect this is something that might take some playtesting to nail down. Or at least a close examination of what it really means for a couple of "average" PCs.
Another item to look into tonight.
- John
OK, I see your points. I'm going to let that simmer a bit. I'm not sure if the constant modifier (whether yours or stat/X) is superior to Sigg's "modify if stat>difficulty" approach; I suspect this is something that might take some playtesting to nail down. Or at least a close examination of what it really means for a couple of "average" PCs.
Another item to look into tonight.
- John
I hope the dust is settling down a bit now.
Looks like the front runner is:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">2d6 roll required
Easy/routine task 4+
Typical challenge 8+
Difficult 12+
Extreme challenge 16+.
DMs + relevent skill
+ attribute derived bonus (characteristic / 4)
+/- equipment derived midifier
+/- environmental/situational derived modifier</pre>[/QUOTE]I understand that the sample size is very low, and the vote is highly unscientific, and maybe not even representative.
Looks like the front runner is:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">2d6 roll required
Easy/routine task 4+
Typical challenge 8+
Difficult 12+
Extreme challenge 16+.
DMs + relevent skill
+ attribute derived bonus (characteristic / 4)
+/- equipment derived midifier
+/- environmental/situational derived modifier</pre>[/QUOTE]I understand that the sample size is very low, and the vote is highly unscientific, and maybe not even representative.
The attribute derived bonus is +1 if your characteristic is equal or greater than the set task difficulty, +2 if your characteristic is equal or greater than the next higher task difficulty. [/quote]Okay, that's fine! BUT...the Char/4 is going to be easier on everyone's brain, I think...AND...would you consider?
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> 4+ Easy
8+ Average/Typical Challenge
12+ Formidable Challenge
16+ Incredible Challenge
20+ Hopeless Challenge</pre>[/QUOTE]That would allow folks, like me, that want more grandularity to include 6+ ROUTINE, 10+ DIFFICULT, and 14+ STAGGERING to the scale as an option.
Would 'extreme' be okay? I don't mind adding Hopeless, and Formidable is a good choice too.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> 2d6 roll required
Easy 4+
Average 8+
Formidable 12+
Extreme 16+
Hopeless 20+
.
DMs + relevent skill
+ attribute derived bonus (characteristic / 4)
+/- equipment derived midifier
+/- environmental/situational derived modifier</pre>[/QUOTE]
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> 2d6 roll required
Easy 4+
Average 8+
Formidable 12+
Extreme 16+
Hopeless 20+
.
DMs + relevent skill
+ attribute derived bonus (characteristic / 4)
+/- equipment derived midifier
+/- environmental/situational derived modifier</pre>[/QUOTE]
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
With a task system like this you have to decide who the descriptors are aimed at.
A 12+ task is formidable to someone with a very low attribute and limited skill. If they have a bonus of +1 they have an 8% chance of success.
A trained character with an average stat - DM total +2 - succeeds on a 12+ task 17% of the time.
I'm assuming a typical character will have a DM of 3+ - either skill +2. attribute +1 or vice versa - so a 12+ task is achieved 29% of the time. If you can pick up a bonus of +1 somehow that 12+ task becomes 42% likely.
A 12+ task is formidable to someone with a very low attribute and limited skill. If they have a bonus of +1 they have an 8% chance of success.
A trained character with an average stat - DM total +2 - succeeds on a 12+ task 17% of the time.
I'm assuming a typical character will have a DM of 3+ - either skill +2. attribute +1 or vice versa - so a 12+ task is achieved 29% of the time. If you can pick up a bonus of +1 somehow that 12+ task becomes 42% likely.
I think the differences are fairly minimal, the debate seems to be on detail now.
I can live with the latest proposal from robject so will now vote for this to push for consensus.
One side issue is how much of the MT task system addons we want to use - things like not even having a zero level in the skill raises the difficulty level by one?
Also - do we want to poach a couple of d20 concepts, namely the idea of 'take 7' to reflect a calm unpressured task attempt and 'take 12' to reflect unlimited attempts?
I can live with the latest proposal from robject so will now vote for this to push for consensus.
One side issue is how much of the MT task system addons we want to use - things like not even having a zero level in the skill raises the difficulty level by one?
Also - do we want to poach a couple of d20 concepts, namely the idea of 'take 7' to reflect a calm unpressured task attempt and 'take 12' to reflect unlimited attempts?
This is pretty much what was discussed a few months back and I really like it. 6,7,8 are average stats and should give no skill bonus, change the DCs (did I really write that?
) to 3,6,9,12,18. The 4,8,12,16 spread feels just a bit too coarse, but 4,6,8,10,12,14,16 feels too fine.3,6,9,12,18 also maps nicely to T20's task descriptions for DCs 5,10,15,20,25.
