Mongoose - traveller returns

[Mytholder]

Bah. I'll have to be more careful.

The confusion arose when I quoted too much of Vegeta2300's post.

He wrote:

I don't know, but I do know that a 2d6 rollover system does not work very well with such a stat and skill range - especially not if stats and skills are going to be both influential in normal task rolls.
Of course, technically, you could have a skill level of 15 in CT (technically, even higher), but then again we all know that in practice they were restricted to a rarely exceeded maximum of about 5.

My "quoted for truth" bit was referring to his second sentence, about skill levels in CT. I should have cut the previous bit.

The current resolution system being toyed with is 2d6+Skill+(Stat-7), roll-over a difficulty, which is a suggested alternate system to the multiple-d6 rollunder system in the T5 docs I've seen. While it may not stay as exactly that, the resolution system in RTT is planned to be:
* roll 2d6
* add your skill
* add (something derived from your stat, but it'll be less important than the skill in most rolls)

As for skill ranges - again, early days yet. While the range of skills will probably be 1-15, that doesn't mean that your average character will be running around with Gun Combat 13 or whatever. An RTT character will probably have more skills than a CT character, but I don't think they'll have significantly higher skills.

All the above is subject to change, but part of my design brief is "keep close to CT where possible".

 

[aramis]

MT had a skill cap of 8 (While higher levels were possible, no level higher than 8 had any effect).

 

[Tobias]

The current resolution system being toyed with is 2d6+Skill+(Stat-7), roll-over a difficulty, which is a suggested alternate system to the multiple-d6 rollunder system in the T5 docs I've seen. While it may not stay as exactly that, the resolution system in RTT is planned to be:

You can just as well use 2d6+Skill+Stat then, and begin the difficulty scale at 7 points higher. It makes exactly zero difference and is easier because you have to do one less conversion.

As for skill ranges - again, early days yet. While the range of skills will probably be 1-15, that doesn't mean that your average character will be running around with Gun Combat 13 or whatever. An RTT character will probably have more skills than a CT character, but I don't think they'll have significantly higher skills.

An average skill level in CT or MT was something about 2, if even that much.

 

[Echo]

Well, that sounds a bit more hopeful.

On that basis, I'll keep listening, certainly. I do want to support the new Traveller, and honestly do think that the MRQ (eventually) and Paranoia were good updates.

I'm not a complete bigot when it comes to the system, but if the game ends up being far removed from Classic Traveller then it tends to make me want to rush off to a galaxy far, far away...

 

[hunter]

You can just as well use 2d6+Skill+Stat then, and begin the difficulty scale at 7 points higher. It makes exactly zero difference and is easier because you have to do one less conversion.

It makes a huge difference in that stats means as much as experience and training. I don't believe someone with a stat score of 7 is a good at a skill as someone with a skill rank (experience/training) of 7.

 

[Tobias]

It makes a huge difference in that stats means as much as experience and training. I don't believe someone with a stat score of 7 is a good at a skill as someone with a skill rank (experience/training) of 7.

No, mechanically it makes zero difference.
(Stat-7)+Skill+2d6 > TN
... is the same as...
Stat+Skill+2d6 > TN+7
No difference at all.

 

[Echo]

Well, my prefered approach is to have a range of Difficulty target numbers being between 1-15 also, and then having stat bonuses/penalties if your Characteristic score is either above or below this value.

+1 if your stat is higher than the difficulty target.
+2 if your stat is double the difficulty target.
+3 if your stat is treble the difficulty target.
-1 if your stat is less than the difficulty target.
-2 if your stat it is only half the difficulty target.
-3 if your stat is only 1/3 the difficulty target.

So you'd roll 2D6 + Skill + (stat bonus/penalty) vs Target difficulty (1-15).

Still, I'm happy to wait and see now.

 

[hunter]

No, mechanically it makes zero difference.
(Stat-7)+Skill+2d6 > TN
... is the same as...
Stat+Skill+2d6 > TN+7
No difference at all.

Yes there is. Stats are of equal value to Skill ranks. Changing the target number doesn't fix this. And why is adding +7 to the TN easier than reducing the stat by -7?

 

[Tobias]

Yes there is. Stats are of equal value to Skill ranks.

That is exactly the same in both cases. To think that Skill is more important just because the number you add is higher is an illusion. As long as the range of numbers that are added for a) Stat and b) Skill is the same, they are equally important.

And why is adding +7 to the TN easier than reducing the stat by -7?

Because the +7 on the TN is going to be worked into the base table of difficulties, while the -7 to the stat obviously isn't worked into the stat values.

 

[hunter]

That is exactly the same in both cases. To think that Skill is more important just because the number you add is higher is an illusion. As long as the range of numbers that are added for a) Stat and b) Skill is the same, they are equally important.

A person with a stat of 7 isn't going to be as capable as a person with a skill rank of 7 in that skill. Changing the TN doesn't change this. You are equalizing the value of one vs. the other.

Because the +7 on the TN is going to be worked into the base table of difficulties, while the -7 to the stat obviously isn't worked into the stat values.

But you were saying to remove the -7 because it was an extra step but you just reversed it an tacked it onto the TN which is an extra step...

 

[Andrew Boulton]

While it may not stay as exactly that, the resolution system in RTT is planned to be:
* roll 2d6
* add your skill
* add (something derived from your stat, but it'll be less important than the skill in most rolls)

So, MegaTraveller, basically. I can live with that

 

[Takei]

The current resolution system being toyed with is 2d6+Skill+(Stat-7), roll-over a difficulty, which is a suggested alternate system to the multiple-d6 rollunder system in the T5 docs I've seen. While it may not stay as exactly that, the resolution system in RTT is planned to be:
* roll 2d6
* add your skill
* add (something derived from your stat, but it'll be less important than the skill in most rolls)

Whilst Stat -7 is quite easy to use, it then (as Hunter seems to be saying) makes high stats as relevant as high skill. I happen to agree with Hunter that a highly skilled character should be better than a highly talented one.
One way around this is to use the stat modifiers mentioned elswhere in this and other threads;

2 = -2
3-5 = -1
6-8 = 0
9-11 = +1
12-14 = +2
15-17 = +3

This has the advantages of highly talented characters getting a bonus, but that bonus does not overshadow training. It also has the advantage of being more familiar to d20 players.

As for skill ranges - again, early days yet. While the range of skills will probably be 1-15, that doesn't mean that your average character will be running around with Gun Combat 13 or whatever. An RTT character will probably have more skills than a CT character, but I don't think they'll have significantly higher skills.

All the above is subject to change, but part of my design brief is "keep close to CT where possible".

I think that stating skill levels of 1-15 is what's throwing people. Whenever we start thinking of the chances of doing things we tend to think of the extremes to see if we can break the system, when we should really be thinking of average skill levels

What might be useful is a table showing what different skill levels equate to; an average character earning a living through that skill would have a level of say 3. It would give players some idead of what level their character was in relation to other users. IIRC in CT it was 2?
A table similar to the d20 DCs table might also be useful, explaining what different DCs mean (Easy, Average, Hard etc.)

 

[hunter]

Whilst Stat -7 is quite easy to use, it then (as Hunter seems to be saying) makes high stats as relevant as high skill. I happen to agree with Hunter that a highly skilled character should be better than a highly talented one.

Actually I was commenting on the person who said to use the full stat value rather than stat - 7, though even stat - 7 still gives too much to those who have very high stats. On a range of 1-15 on stats I think +3 maybe +4 is the highest stat bonus that should be allowed.

 

[RandyT0001]

One way around this is to use the stat modifiers mentioned elswhere in this and other threads;

2 = -2
3-5 = -1
6-8 = 0
9-11 = +1
12-14 = +2
15-17 = +3

This has the advantages of highly talented characters getting a bonus, but that bonus does not overshadow training. It also has the advantage of being more familiar to d20 players.

The stat modifiers I'd argue for would be:
St / Mod
0-1=-2
2-4=-1
5-9=0
10-12=+1
13-15=+2

Why, because I think that stat mods should have a very small impact on the throw and that expectional stats (like being in the top 16% of general population) is what gives you an equivelent to a trained skill level. But I personally believe that Traveller shouldn't have any stat modifiers to task rolls anyway, I'm very old school.

 

[Tobias]

A person with a stat of 7 isn't going to be as capable as a person with a skill rank of 7 in that skill.

That is what you can write in the fluff text, but the cold, hard, mathmatical fact is: Someone with a stat of, say, 10 is as superior in any relevant task to someone with a stat of 5 as somebody with a skill of 10 is superior to someone with a skill of 5.

But you were saying to remove the -7 because it was an extra step but you just reversed it an tacked it onto the TN which is an extra step...

For players. The table with standard TNs will be adjusted during game design. Deriving a value from a characteristic by subtracting 7 will have to be done by players during character generation or during play.

 

[Tobias]

The stat modifiers I'd argue for would be:
St / Mod
0-1=-2
2-4=-1
5-9=0
10-12=+1
13-15=+2

I again pitch my "Reduce the stat range to 1-5" idea!

Why, because I think that stat mods should have a very small impact on the throw and that expectional stats (like being in the top 16% of general population) is what gives you an equivelent to a trained skill level. But I personally believe that Traveller shouldn't have any stat modifiers to task rolls anyway, I'm very old school.

Well, you need some kind of task modifier derived from (or directly expressed by) stats, because there are some tasks that depend on stats alone.
Furthermore, if stats do not normally add to task rolls, they need some other advantage to make an impact on the game (or they are just a fancy decoration of your character sheet.)

 

[hemulen]

I again pitch my "Reduce the stat range to 1-5" idea!

Well, if they are keeping compatibility with CT, then you need to keep the stats as 1-15, because they are basically your hit points (for STR,END,DEX anyway), unless you want to start rejigging all the weapon stats as well.

The MT version was 3+/7+/11+/15+ with each 5 points of stat giving +1, I've seen the alternative suggestion here somewhere of 4+/8+/12+/16+ with each 3 points of stat giving +1.

Mark.

 

[hunter]

That is what you can write in the fluff text, but the cold, hard, mathmatical fact is: Someone with a stat of, say, 10 is as superior in any relevant task to someone with a stat of 5 as somebody with a skill of 10 is superior to someone with a skill of 5.

Yes but someone with a stat of 10 isn't necessarily superior to someone with a skill of 5. That is the problem with using the stat as equal in effect to the skill.

 

[Echo]

The problems I have with doing D&Desque +/- modifiers associated with the Characteristic scores are that they aren't especially intuitive, they require that you need to recorda seperate column of data, and they kinda make the actual Characteristic scores themselves redundant.

Why don't people like the non-fixed, comparitive bonus criteria I outlined before: where you must compare your characteristic with the difficulty itself to determine if you get a bonus or penalty?

 

[hunter]

The problems I have with doing D&Desque +/- modifiers associated with the Characteristic scores are that they aren't especially intuitive, they require that you need to recorda seperate column of data, and they kinda make the actual Characteristic scores themselves redundant.

I tend to agree honestly, it's one of the gripes I have with T20 :devil:

Why don't people like the non-fixed, comparitive bonus criteria I outlined before: where you must compare your characteristic with the difficulty itself to determine if you get a bonus or penalty?

It's not a bad mechanic, but it's an all or nothing proposition. You either get the bonus or you do not. I will give that it actually is similar to how many skills were handled in CT, in which you only got a modifier if your skill rank was X+.