Help with interpreting rules

[Hyphen]

As Wil pointed out, one of Joe Fugate's tips is to not bother with the time increment unless it's crucial, such as in a chase scene, or if you're trying to repair the maneuver drive while falling into a gas giant...

It's actually a really easy mechanic: roll, then add stat and skill bonuses - that's it!

The ref has the hardest job, coming up with the target difficultly level. Even then, it's pretty easy: just decide how easy you want to make it for the players. The secret is in it's "tweakability". I know someone once cobbled together a complete list of all the task statements from across all the MT books & Digests, etc (just like someone did recently for CT). But Joe pointed out that this kinda missed the point! Once you use it for a while, as a ref you get to now how hard to pitch a particular task. And if you have a rules munchkin who says "hey, that's not how you did it last time!" you have a few choices: (a) get THEM to document the task statements (both relieving you of any onerous bookkeeping AND shutting them up!), (b) you get to point out that certain circumstances are different this time, therefore justifying your "mistake" with having to admit to it...



The important point (again from Joe) was that you could make up a task statement really quickly, then roll against it, and keep the flow of play going. (It should relieve you of the burden of having to crack open a book and pore over charts, tables and rules).

BTW, for MT grognards (such as myself), I really appreciate Wil's mods for the system. I was never happy with the Stat/5 rule; it wasn't granular enough for my liking. If you have an Int 12 it is no better than an Int 10, yet it is really a lot further out on the bell curve. And anything above 12 has to have been earned in chargen; it's not "natural". In comparison to skills (that can go up to Ridiculous, i.e. 5 or 6) the basic rules don't give you enough (IMNSHO). So using Stat/3 gives it a much better feel.

Anyway, that's my Cr0.02.

 

[jaz0nj4ckal]

Another question has come up.

How is combat handled when a character wants to attack a ground car or armored vehicle? What books or resources do I need? I am thinking about purchasing the CD-ROMs from www.farfuture.net, but I am unsure.

 

[McPerth]

BTW, for MT grognards (such as myself), I really appreciate Wil's mods for the system. I was never happy with the Stat/5 rule; it wasn't granular enough for my liking. If you have an Int 12 it is no better than an Int 10, yet it is really a lot further out on the bell curve. And anything above 12 has to have been earned in chargen; it's not "natural". In comparison to skills (that can go up to Ridiculous, i.e. 5 or 6) the basic rules don't give you enough (IMNSHO). So using Stat/3 gives it a much better feel.

As most of my player mates would say I'm also a MT grognard, I must state here I disagree with you in this point.

If I was already complaining an average task done by a minimally skilled average worker (stat 7 skill 1) was quite easier that in CT (5+ in MT vs 7+ in CT), if you change the stat bonus divisor to 3, the task becomes even easier (4+), and even someone with a stat of 3 (quite low) will have a +1 DM. As I see it, in CT, MT and MGT the most important part of a task is the skill, not the stat (unlike TNE and T4, IDK about T20).

If someone with a stat of 9 (above average, but not oustanding) has a +3, just skill 1 makes him quite good, offseting (IMHO) the skill modifiers too often, and changing the game mechanics too much for my (personal) liking.

Of course, that's just my opinion, as good or bad as everyone's, and maybe here's not the thread to discuss it...

 

[Bob Weaver]

Another question has come up.

How is combat handled when a character wants to attack a ground car or armored vehicle? What books or resources do I need? I am thinking about purchasing the CD-ROMs from www.farfuture.net, but I am unsure.

Well, you can always purchase Striker. If you don't want to get that detailed, there are other options. Andy Slack wrote an article for White Dwarf magazine a while back that gave good streamlined suggestions for handling vehicle combat. It's in a collection that is available here in the File Library. I've done a house-ruled system, and I bet there's lots of others here who have done the same. I'd be happy to share if you'd like.

Cheers,

Bob W.

 

[Dragoner]

Another question has come up.

How is combat handled when a character wants to attack a ground car or armored vehicle? What books or resources do I need? I am thinking about purchasing the CD-ROMs from www.farfuture.net, but I am unsure.

I always used Book 2 starship combat, using the non-starship damage table.

 

[jaz0nj4ckal]

I always used Book 2 starship combat, using the non-starship damage table.

I will have to check that out - I ordered the CD-ROM, so I should be set to go with all the books.

 

[aramis]

As most of my player mates would say I'm also a MT grognard, I must state here I disagree with you in this point.

If I was already complaining an average task done by a minimally skilled average worker (stat 7 skill 1) was quite easier that in CT (5+ in MT vs 7+ in CT), if you change the stat bonus divisor to 3, the task becomes even easier (4+), and even someone with a stat of 3 (quite low) will have a +1 DM. As I see it, in CT, MT and MGT the most important part of a task is the skill, not the stat (unlike TNE and T4, IDK about T20).

If someone with a stat of 9 (above average, but not oustanding) has a +3, just skill 1 makes him quite good, offseting (IMHO) the skill modifiers too often, and changing the game mechanics too much for my (personal) liking.

Of course, that's just my opinion, as good or bad as everyone's, and maybe here's not the thread to discuss it...

What you're not seeing is that I don't use att/3 without increasing all TN's by 1, so Sim=4, Rout=8, Diff=12, Form=16, Imp=20. In other words, for stats 6-8, it's no change at all in odds, one point worse for stat 1-2 and 5, and better for stat's 9 and 12+ (10 isn't changed; +2 vs 3/7/11/15/19 or +3 vs 4/8/12/16/20).

It makes the progression more memorable (mult by 4's).
It makes the stat progression more granular.
It gives more benefit to high stats.
It doesn't change the odds for the default assumption of skill 1 stat 7

 

[Dragoner]

I will have to check that out - I ordered the CD-ROM, so I should be set to go with all the books.

The CT disk is a good deal.

The only thing I would add to a vehicle hit is a survival roll for those inside, such 8+ for a car and say 5+ for a tank or APC. It is simple and realistic because most hits on a vehicle are either no effect or it would disable or destroy it.

 

[Hyphen]

Dear Folks -

>What you're not seeing is that I don't use att/3 without increasing all TN's by 1...

Thanks, Wil, I was going to point that out too.

Instead, I can move on to another Joe gem: he suggested that if you are not happy with the Diff progression, feel free to add "half-difficulties"; i,e, Task Diff + 2.

Not that I've ever felt I had to push to that level of granularity, BUT it does furter illustrate that the system is designed to be flexible. Remembering (IMHO) that what you are trying to do, as a DM, is to allow the players to feel like they are in control, and have a fighting chance. You are not there, I suggest, to "fight" against the PC's. If that's your aim, it's laughably easy to put insurmaountable obstacles in their way, or even kill off the PC's. It's the classic:
Player: "We boldly step forth onto the new world!"
GM: "Well, since it's a vacc world, and none of you said you were donning vacc suits, you're all dead. Roll up some new character"s, please".
Who would want to play in a campaign like that? And yet there's anecdotal evidence that these sorts of referees used to exist (they don't now, of course - no players).

If you need them to fail, for example, in order for them to seek out the new, skilled NPC you want them to meet (who also has other info to drive the game forward), then make the task so difficult that they try but fail. If they need to succeed, but fail, it's OK to retroactively declare the task a "safe" task and allow a re-roll (so that you're not seen as soft, 'natch, force a Determination roll and/or up the diff of the retry...)

Glass wall, not stonewall.

Of course, if they do something deliberately stupid, then let the fusion gun fire fall where it may.