No, it doesn't... because CT's one task system has DM-1 for low stats, as well as DM+1 for high. That 3 step modifier range.
MegaTraveller vs. TNE vs. T4 vs. T5 mechanics
- Thread starter OjnoTheRed
- Start date
No, it doesn't... because CT's one task system has DM-1 for low stats, as well as DM+1 for high. That 3 step modifier range.
I can only speak for our group, but the 8+ magic "to hit" number was for combat only. At least that's how we interpreted the rule. Largely because it was in the combat section of the book.
We weren't the only ones with that interpretation either, so it wasn't just an isolated screw-up from a single group (though I must admit, we were probably in the minority).
We weren't the only ones with that interpretation either, so it wasn't just an isolated screw-up from a single group (though I must admit, we were probably in the minority).
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
If you go by the rules strictly, I believe it says to drop fractions, doesn't it?
Wow! You think stats are "undervalued" in MT?!!
o:You'd like the Avenger task system, then, if it ever sees light again. Mucho stat creep in that one.
The problem is that having a good education is not going to make you a doctor if that education was as a construction engineer.
For example, if you've got a Traveller character with EDU 9 who works as a nurse at the local planetary starport hospital while going to college and taking normal, general courses, when she graduates at ends up getting a +1 EDU, it has the same effect of turning her Medical-2 nurse skill into a Medical-3 Medical Doctor...even though she studied nothing about medicine.
Classic Traveller has it right in how it applies stats--based on the situation. Some skills have little stat influence, while others have an enormous stat influence.
MT came along and standardized everything. When you do that, you loose granularity, and have things like a plus in general education providing specific experience in a various number of skills.
Just because a character goes up a point in DEX doesn't mean that all of his DEX based skills should go up--yet, that's how MT has it.
If you go up in DEX, your shooting goes up, your dancing goes up, your ability with the starship stick goes up, and your ability to balance on a wall goes up.
This stuff should be Skill based. Sitting at a pilot's station, manning controls, using the stick on manual (a DEX based task) has little to do with your ability to shoot a gun or balance on a board.
This is another reason I play CT. CT only applies stats when it makes sense--not in a blanket fashion.
I wrote the UGM to emulate that.
Wrong.
(And, CT has a task system that's not the combat system. It's unstructured, customized by the GM for each appropriate situation.)
Ah...I see what you've done
You chose your example to exploit a break-point in the rules to illustrate your point... that's just like Munchkinism.
By your estimation, there is no differences between a low stat character and a high stats character then? MT's stat 'bloat' dares to say a stat of 10 is better than a stat of 5 by giving a concrete and consistent dm for such differences.
From looking at the UGM quickly, it appears to be very similar to MT except that the stat dm's are applied in a random fashion based on the stat's value, and that dm can range as high as in MT.
That's where skill level-0 comes in. That gives your indication of what was studied. In general, having NO skill ( not even skill-o ) automatically increases the difficulty of the task which in CT terms would be a dm of -4.
And again, your example exploits a breakpoint to illustrate your point while ignoring non-break points.
You make it sound as if any addition to a stat increases skills by a like amount and that's not true.
The ugm applies natural ability randomly...how does that make sense?
When a stat changes, it SHOULD cause a change to any task that might use that stat.
Shooting, dancing, balancing, using a joystick ALL benefit from deft, precise and steady actions.
Deftness, precision and steadiness are all part of what the necessarily abstract stat of dex relates to. Its natural ability.
And such natural ability should be applied consistently rather than randomly.
Its the differences in experience..hands-on know-how added to that that gives the final skill.
And again, you imply that the stat dm and a skill increase occurs on a one-to-one basis..it does not.
we disagree on exactly what stats and skills actually mean and thus how they should be applied.
Lets just agree to disagree.
You think I'm wrong...and I think you're wrong
Nothing will be accomplished by arguing further
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Actually, I chose the example to show one aspect of the MT system that could be improved upon.
Another aspect is that there is no difference in having a DEX 6 or a DEX 7 (or a DEX 5, 8, or 9).
Shouldn't there be a difference between the DEX 5 dude and the DEX 9 dude, especially on a 1-15 scale? Heck, that's a third of the entire continuum.
Stat Bloat in MT is the fact that stats are too powerful. The one thing that helps keep them in check is the rule for having no skill and raising difficulty (that's a good rule).
The Stat Bloat shows itself with Skill-0 skills the most. The problem with stat, in MT, is that, if you raise a stat so that it provides a better modifier, then you're raising the character's chance on a lot of un-related skills.
Skills = Experience and trained ability.
Stats = Natural ability.
Here's an example of how Stat Bloat shows itself in MT: You've got a character who took a first aid course that gained him Medical-0. At Medical-0, the character doesn't know that much about medicine. He knows just enough to get buy. He knows first aid.
Now, bring in his EDU score, of, say, 11. All of a sudden, this Medical-0 character has the equivalent of Medical-2, which is equivalent to a specialized nurse or paramedic.
And, not only that, but every skill the character has, no matter how unrelated, goes up 2 whole points (which is HUGE on a 2-12 scale).
These are big, Big, BIG bonuses when throwing 2d6.
The EDU score should not influence learned experience so heavily to where it increases expertise, though knowledge, in so many unrelated areas of experience.
What, for example, do you find similar? That's it's a task system? That I included the MT task difficulty descriptors on purpose to make the UGM compatible with MT materials?
The UTP uses varied target numbers; The UGM uses one (8+ always succeeds).
The UTP lumps stats into groups and does not provide the character a difference between each and every level of stat; The UGM does do this.
The UTP can't exactly replicate throws shown in the CT Book; The UGM can.
The UTP is "hard structured", meaning its rules aren't meant to be broken; The UGM was designed as a rule of thumb.
I could go on...
Using the MT system, having DEX go from 6 to 7, how does that change the task?
You think being able to blance on a narrow ledge is the same ability as being quick with the joystick?
What about the guy with no legs who's hell with the joystick but can't walk, much less balance on a board?
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I see I missed this one...
The UGM does not apply stat randomly. Look closer. There are several instances where there is nothing random at all. Stat 12 means a +1 DM across the board. When the task is hard, natural ability won't help you at all--there's nothing random about that, either.
The UGM is designed for Classic Traveller. If you look at Classic Traveller, hard, earned experience is usually what counts. Natural ability is secondary on many task throws provide as example. In fact, many times in CT, stats are not even referenced.
This is because the design philosophy of CT (which I agree whole heartedly with) is that its usually specific experience that makes a person succeed. It's not natural ability.
A Harvard graduate, for example, may have a very high EDU but make a poor doctor. CT and the UGM models this type of thinking.
With MT, the Harvard graduate with the high EDU score will always make a superb doctor.
Likewise, with the UGM, natural ability will only help you on the easier tasks. For normal people, the harder tasks rely on skill only (it's the surgeons skill that counts--a surgeon that graduated in the middle of his class but as been doing the same type of surgery for 30 years is pretty damn good at it. The UGM models that. The MT system says that the newbie doctor who graduated at the top of his class could possibly be better than the doctor that's been doing the proceedure for 30 years--which is ludicrous).
Hence the idea that the stat dm should be (stat/3)-1
little or no change from the 'standard rules' dm yet differentiates abilities better. It's not perfect, but its the best that can be done without going crazy and truly having stats overwhelm skills ala T4. The KB 2.0 task system helped by turning to the same relationship of 3 stat points for each skill.
Yes, a very good rule. It exists for the exact reason I mentioned. The fact that skill-0 is still a skill that must be learned using advancement rules forces players to choose what they learn and the rest can only be muddled through. Advancing a skill to even 0 AND advancing a stat is time consuming. Another rule that is meant to work with this is the skill=< Edu+Int.
Here's the point where we disagree.
Raising a stat enough to gain a better dm does raise the chance of success in many seeming unrelated areas. But in my opinion, thats the way it is in real life. As per the Dex example before, many different skills will benefit from being more dexterous. The problem is that Dex is an abstraction that covers many differing aspects of dexterity which is why I combine it with other stats to differentiate balance from quickness from steady-handedness, etc.
Other stats, including Int and Edu can be combined in similar fashion to differentiate various aspects of those as well.
Stats=ability
Skill = hands-on experience
As I've said before, I feel that skill-0 and the no-skill rule work to determine what and education is focused on.
In the Edu-11, medical-0 example, yes he would be the same as a Edu-4, medical-2 character.
The Edu-11, med-0 might very well be a newly graduated medical student ready for his internship whereas the Edu-4, medical-2 character might be a high-school drop-out who learned his craft as a medic or EMT.
An Edu-11 mechanical-0 might be an engineering student fresh out of college.
Keep in mind that Edu does not mean formal classroom learning, but rather, the entire sum of knowledge gathered throughout life. Thus when his Edu goes up, it might be true that many different abilities increase as the character now has a wider pool of knowledge to work with; a broader range of information even from reading and watching vids. Or just listening to other people. This seems quite normal to me. It is the skill-0 or greater that indicates a specialized education in a specific field. Skill levels that increase as hands-on experience is gained. This matches a good portion of the advancement rules in MT as well.
To illustrate my position using Dex-11 and gun skill, compare a young man with steady hands and sharp eyes with very good hand-eye coordination who has been shown how to shoot a little bit; skill-0. He has the same chance of hitting his target as an old timer Dex-4 skill-2. The old timing may have poor eye-sight or shaky hands but can overcome that to some degree purely by his greater experience in handling guns. This Dex stat dm carries over to fencing and gives the younger, more dexterous man the advantage. Both these skills require good balance to be effective, so balancing on a ledge would be easier for the more dexterous man....dancing too. But the older more skilled man can do some gun-smithing and knows what mods will make the gun better and will have a better chance of clearing a jam.
the ugm has a single task number but dm's for each level of difficulty
the utp's differing target number are from pre-adding those dm's
If you pre-add the ugm's difficulty dms to the +8, then it too would have varied target numbers. The UTP removes that step from game-play.
The UTP lumps stats into groups...yes this is true. But I prefer that to the UGM method of determining any stat dm through random rolls and can make a stat-4 character have the same natural ability dm as a stat-10 character. ( assuming I do understand how the UGM works )
Giving each task roll a chance for a +1 dm if the attempt roll is right doesn't differentiate the various ability levels, imho. I would choose the UTP method instead for consistency and reproducability.
I don't care if the UTP can or cannot reproduce the rolls from the CT book...its not the same game.
So what?..That's like saying the UGM can't reproduce the rolls from Advanced Squad Leader tables
No rule in any RPG is hard structured to the extend that it MUST be followed.
But at least it has structure which makes for consistent and reproducible effects.
As I said before...its all a matter of taste.
Last edited:
Stat 12 and above automatically gets a +1 dm from stats PLUS has the chance to get higher dm's putting it in the range of MT's stat 'bloat', but only if you get lucky. Otherwise a high stat character will have the same ability as a low stat character who gets lucky and rolls so low that it wouldn't matter. This is unrealistic to me in addition to adding a step during play.
And the UTP was designed for MT. I feel that MT models reality better in that it is BOTH hard earned experience AND natural ability together that wins the day. Both are present at all times; natural ability, if it exists, is present all the time and not just when the character is 'lucky'.
It may be a design philosophy with which you agree, but I do not and thus do not play CT and haven't since the late 80's ( a bit over 2 decades!...sheesh.). I feel natural ability can spill over to many seemingly unrelated areas, especially when abstracted to the level that it is in an RPG. I feel natural ability is always present and not just when the dice say so. I feel hands-on skill is more important but is definitely NOT the only factor in success. All other things being equal, it IS natural abilities that determine the chance for success.
Yes, a Harvard graduate might very well be a poor doctor for any number of reasons, but all other things being equal, he'll make a far better doctor than a high-school drop-out. MT models this. A Harvard graduate will make a fine doctor once he gets hands-on experience ( skill-levels ) during his internship.
It entirely possible that the newbie doctor is better than the 30-yr doctor, assuming the 30-yr doctor does not keep up with medical practices and continues to use a 30-yr old procedure ( not increasing his own Edu stat or Med skill level) as the newbie doctor may by better trained and will surpass the 30-yr doc once the newbie has the same experience under his belt. The 30-yr doc may age and other stats, that are important to surgery ( Dex ), may go down and prevent the 30-yr doctor from operating effectively. This situation can and does occur in real life. Mt models this.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
(Shakes head)
Well, maybe we will have to agree to disagree.
As much as I've been harping on the UTP, I do believe that it's a good task system--one of the best ever developed for Traveller.
I think the UGM is better, of course. But, truth be told, I don't even use the UGM. It's not needed. The best task system is the one included in CT. A couple of rules-o-thumb is all you need, and, viola and boom, you've got a customized roll for the situation at hand devised by the GM on the spot.
That's probably enough of this "task" type talk. I think, as you said, we're getting nowhere with each other.
Bygones.
Well, maybe we will have to agree to disagree.
As much as I've been harping on the UTP, I do believe that it's a good task system--one of the best ever developed for Traveller.
I think the UGM is better, of course. But, truth be told, I don't even use the UGM. It's not needed. The best task system is the one included in CT. A couple of rules-o-thumb is all you need, and, viola and boom, you've got a customized roll for the situation at hand devised by the GM on the spot.
That's probably enough of this "task" type talk. I think, as you said, we're getting nowhere with each other.
Bygones.
Supplement Four, I have consolidated the UGM thread into a PDF file which can be accessed here:
http://www.box.net/shared/ljorzbm2m1
I have also posted this link on the UGM thread. I hope you like the lay-out please let me know if anything needs looking at!
Reference Sheet version: http://www.box.net/shared/y5tb7t7tif
http://www.box.net/shared/ljorzbm2m1
I have also posted this link on the UGM thread. I hope you like the lay-out please let me know if anything needs looking at!
Reference Sheet version: http://www.box.net/shared/y5tb7t7tif
Last edited:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Looks good! My only comment would be: Should you skip a line between paragraphs since each one is left justified?
I have updated the layout of the LBB version of the UGM.
It is at the same link as before, but for simplicity's sake:
http://www.box.net/shared/ljorzbm2m1
I had a hard look at the justification, margins and font. I just wasn't seeing the obvious, Supplement Four, as to why it looked like and yet not like my LBB's. It was simply: justify the margins, get rid of the space between paragraphs and indent the first line.
I also did another edit of the text to get the whole thing inside 14 pages. That means that with adding a cover, the whole thing is 16 pages - i.e. if you use "booklet printing" it will print neatly on 4 x A4 pages and fold to a nice LBB. In A5, of course, rather than the original measurements used, but I'm sure we'll all cope with that.
I'd be interested in a more critical eye for layout especially the ideas around tables and charts that I've used and how content is laid out. Are the Example headings too much? Is anything badly orphaned or widowed? Let me know!
It is at the same link as before, but for simplicity's sake:
http://www.box.net/shared/ljorzbm2m1
I had a hard look at the justification, margins and font. I just wasn't seeing the obvious, Supplement Four, as to why it looked like and yet not like my LBB's. It was simply: justify the margins, get rid of the space between paragraphs and indent the first line.
I also did another edit of the text to get the whole thing inside 14 pages. That means that with adding a cover, the whole thing is 16 pages - i.e. if you use "booklet printing" it will print neatly on 4 x A4 pages and fold to a nice LBB. In A5, of course, rather than the original measurements used, but I'm sure we'll all cope with that.
I'd be interested in a more critical eye for layout especially the ideas around tables and charts that I've used and how content is laid out. Are the Example headings too much? Is anything badly orphaned or widowed? Let me know!
