My CT House Rules

[Ptah]

A quick qualitative thoughts on probabilities.

Just watched Serenity last night and it got me thinking about the probability of Impossible acts. In addition, many seem to find it a nice representation of a Traveller-esque style of adventure.

Mini-spoiler

If you've seen it, there is a scene where Mal needs to shoot a rope while standing on a speeding and swerving "air-raft," it takes him a couple of shots. This is certainly a very Impossible task, yet since he is most likely a skill-5 or 6 in his weapon and has good stats he gets it done.

This is a long way of saying that for game-play IMO a chance to succeed at Impossible tasks for the highly skilled and stated should not be much less than 40-50%. The chance of failing at three rolls at 50%, is about 12%. If the chance of success is say around 10% that means on average 10 tries before succeeding, or the chance of failing on three rolls is still about 70%.

I would say that if a 40%-50% chance seems too high (even for character's with the pinnacle of skill and stats) then make success dependent on two Impossible roles, this reduces the odds dramatically but still gives the character the feel they are doing something heroic (adventuresome) if they make one.

On the flip side, of a doctor with medical-4 still having a 1 in 36, or what have you, of failing, allow such doctors a second roll to recover from the goof, and maybe even a third. Their are many emergency room medical dramas that can provide an image of what these "recovery rolls" might entail.

now back to the numbers....

btw, I think the "mule" needs to become the OTU air-raft .

 

[Ptah]

A quick qualitative thoughts on probabilities.

Just watched Serenity last night and it got me thinking about the probability of Impossible acts. In addition, many seem to find it a nice representation of a Traveller-esque style of adventure.

Mini-spoiler

If you've seen it, there is a scene where Mal needs to shoot a rope while standing on a speeding and swerving "air-raft," it takes him a couple of shots. This is certainly a very Impossible task, yet since he is most likely a skill-5 or 6 in his weapon and has good stats he gets it done.

This is a long way of saying that for game-play IMO a chance to succeed at Impossible tasks for the highly skilled and stated should not be much less than 40-50%. The chance of failing at three rolls at 50%, is about 12%. If the chance of success is say around 10% that means on average 10 tries before succeeding, or the chance of failing on three rolls is still about 70%.

I would say that if a 40%-50% chance seems too high (even for character's with the pinnacle of skill and stats) then make success dependent on two Impossible roles, this reduces the odds dramatically but still gives the character the feel they are doing something heroic (adventuresome) if they make one.

On the flip side, of a doctor with medical-4 still having a 1 in 36, or what have you, of failing, allow such doctors a second roll to recover from the goof, and maybe even a third. Their are many emergency room medical dramas that can provide an image of what these "recovery rolls" might entail.

now back to the numbers....

btw, I think the "mule" needs to become the OTU air-raft .

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
This is a long way of saying that for game-play IMO a chance to succeed at Impossible tasks for the highly skilled and stated should not be much less than 40-50%.

I gotta disagree with you here, Ptah. If you are succeeding on Impossible tasks 40-50% of the time, then you're suceeding on other difficulty levels close to 100% of the time.

There's no challenge.

I'd say that the reason that Mal's shot was cool was that he made the roll, eventhough the roll was hard to make.

Otherwise, the game is boring. Why roll dice anyway? Just roll on the impossible tasks and forget about it any other time--just say he automatically makes it.

It'd be more like a diceless system.

BTW, the standard MT/DGP task system provides numbers closer to what you are proposing (although still not a whoppoing 40-50% on Impossible tasks).

Stat-15 Skill-6

100% MT Easy
100% MT Routine
100% MT Difficult
72% MT Formidable
17% MT Impossible

This guy only needs to roll for Formidable and Impossible tasks.

Fritz just sent me the numbers for CTI, and I'm very pleased with them.

I posted some examples on that thread.

The CTI numbers are a lot "smoother", and they also leave a little room for failure.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
This is a long way of saying that for game-play IMO a chance to succeed at Impossible tasks for the highly skilled and stated should not be much less than 40-50%.

I gotta disagree with you here, Ptah. If you are succeeding on Impossible tasks 40-50% of the time, then you're suceeding on other difficulty levels close to 100% of the time.

There's no challenge.

I'd say that the reason that Mal's shot was cool was that he made the roll, eventhough the roll was hard to make.

Otherwise, the game is boring. Why roll dice anyway? Just roll on the impossible tasks and forget about it any other time--just say he automatically makes it.

It'd be more like a diceless system.

BTW, the standard MT/DGP task system provides numbers closer to what you are proposing (although still not a whoppoing 40-50% on Impossible tasks).

Stat-15 Skill-6

100% MT Easy
100% MT Routine
100% MT Difficult
72% MT Formidable
17% MT Impossible

This guy only needs to roll for Formidable and Impossible tasks.

Fritz just sent me the numbers for CTI, and I'm very pleased with them.

I posted some examples on that thread.

The CTI numbers are a lot "smoother", and they also leave a little room for failure.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
The problem with att/4 is that it gives a bonus for less than average (4-7) attributes.

Very good point, Fritz.

Many people use an MT variant where target numbers are one higher than standard MT, but stats are stat/3.

I have that exact same argument (besides the fact that every stat is not differientiated)--under that system, a STAT-3 guy gets a 100% bonus!

Doesn't make sense to me.

I mean, I could see if the poor bastard with the DEX-3 got a bonus every once in a blue moon--everybody gets lucky and deserves a break sometimes. But, I can't see giving somebody with a DEX-3 a +1 bonus all the doggone time.

That just really doesn't feel right to me.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
The problem with att/4 is that it gives a bonus for less than average (4-7) attributes.

Very good point, Fritz.

Many people use an MT variant where target numbers are one higher than standard MT, but stats are stat/3.

I have that exact same argument (besides the fact that every stat is not differientiated)--under that system, a STAT-3 guy gets a 100% bonus!

Doesn't make sense to me.

I mean, I could see if the poor bastard with the DEX-3 got a bonus every once in a blue moon--everybody gets lucky and deserves a break sometimes. But, I can't see giving somebody with a DEX-3 a +1 bonus all the doggone time.

That just really doesn't feel right to me.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
2-4601, I will (sometime soon) add your bit to the spreadsheet I am doing for WJPs system. Then we can compare everybody's stuff.

Awesome!

I've extremely happy with the way CTI turned out. It's producing some of the best probabilities I've ever seen for a Traveller game. I really like that system.

I've got some final touches on UGM--you might want to add that to the list too (if you're going to compare 'em all).

UGM is a system more akin to MT/DGP, but it will provide different results for different stats.

UGM is still going to be "top heavy" for characters who have high stat/skill, but I've minimized this so that it's not as bad as what shows up in standard MT/DGP.

I'm getting ready to post the revised UGM here pretty quickly.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
2-4601, I will (sometime soon) add your bit to the spreadsheet I am doing for WJPs system. Then we can compare everybody's stuff.

Awesome!

I've extremely happy with the way CTI turned out. It's producing some of the best probabilities I've ever seen for a Traveller game. I really like that system.

I've got some final touches on UGM--you might want to add that to the list too (if you're going to compare 'em all).

UGM is a system more akin to MT/DGP, but it will provide different results for different stats.

UGM is still going to be "top heavy" for characters who have high stat/skill, but I've minimized this so that it's not as bad as what shows up in standard MT/DGP.

I'm getting ready to post the revised UGM here pretty quickly.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by WJP:

I gotta disagree with you here, Ptah. If you are succeeding on Impossible tasks 40-50% of the time, then you're suceeding on other difficulty levels close to 100% of the time.

There's no challenge.

/

I wouldn't say there is no challenge in the hypothetical case of the extreme of skill-6, stat-15. Not that I've ever had a game with characters like this, but someone at this height of skill and natural ability, which most of us can only dream of, should find the merely difficult a piece of cake. I'd say that serious adventures for these guys are going to involve alot of the impossible, but that's just my approach to play and I'll be the first to admit I don't mind a bit of the cinematic.

I'll also admit a stat-15, skill-6 is the outlier. More of the exception that proves the rule. The statistics of greater interest to me are the stat 5-10, skill 0-4 range. A smoother distribution is of definite interest and I'll follow up on that CTI link.

As long as you don't disagree with me on the "mule" being the next OTU air-raft I think we're good.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by WJP:

I gotta disagree with you here, Ptah. If you are succeeding on Impossible tasks 40-50% of the time, then you're suceeding on other difficulty levels close to 100% of the time.

There's no challenge.

/

I wouldn't say there is no challenge in the hypothetical case of the extreme of skill-6, stat-15. Not that I've ever had a game with characters like this, but someone at this height of skill and natural ability, which most of us can only dream of, should find the merely difficult a piece of cake. I'd say that serious adventures for these guys are going to involve alot of the impossible, but that's just my approach to play and I'll be the first to admit I don't mind a bit of the cinematic.

I'll also admit a stat-15, skill-6 is the outlier. More of the exception that proves the rule. The statistics of greater interest to me are the stat 5-10, skill 0-4 range. A smoother distribution is of definite interest and I'll follow up on that CTI link.

As long as you don't disagree with me on the "mule" being the next OTU air-raft I think we're good.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
...I'll be the first to admit I don't mind a bit of the cinematic.

Hell no, brother! As much as I seem like I'm a numbers and rules and "roll" playing kind of guy, I'm probably 10 fold a "role" playing kind of guy.

I'm all about the story. I'm all about my players playing in character.

THAT'S what gaming is all about (to me, anyway).

I like my rules clean and easy and simple, but that's only because I want those rules to support and not overshadow a fantastic time gaming.

I have very few fond memories of games in the past where a particular die roll was needed, and then the player, against all odds, rolled it.

I've got a few memories like that, but only a few.

I have many, many more memories of just pure role playing. I don't even remember what the rolls were--just the actual story telling and role playing that went on.

That's what you keep. That's what you take with you.

You say you're a cinematic kind of GM.

Hell, well, so am I.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
...I'll be the first to admit I don't mind a bit of the cinematic.

Hell no, brother! As much as I seem like I'm a numbers and rules and "roll" playing kind of guy, I'm probably 10 fold a "role" playing kind of guy.

I'm all about the story. I'm all about my players playing in character.

THAT'S what gaming is all about (to me, anyway).

I like my rules clean and easy and simple, but that's only because I want those rules to support and not overshadow a fantastic time gaming.

I have very few fond memories of games in the past where a particular die roll was needed, and then the player, against all odds, rolled it.

I've got a few memories like that, but only a few.

I have many, many more memories of just pure role playing. I don't even remember what the rolls were--just the actual story telling and role playing that went on.

That's what you keep. That's what you take with you.

You say you're a cinematic kind of GM.

Hell, well, so am I.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
The statistics of greater interest to me are the stat 5-10, skill 0-4 range. A smoother distribution is of definite interest and I'll follow up on that CTI link.

Well, you'll be happy to know that I just created two more topics.

One is for the revised (and now official) UGM task system. I, personally, still like CTI better, but the UGM has a lot of merit.

The second topic I created is all about stats and these two systems compared to the MT task system.

That topic will show you what's under the hood of both CTI and UGM.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
The statistics of greater interest to me are the stat 5-10, skill 0-4 range. A smoother distribution is of definite interest and I'll follow up on that CTI link.

Well, you'll be happy to know that I just created two more topics.

One is for the revised (and now official) UGM task system. I, personally, still like CTI better, but the UGM has a lot of merit.

The second topic I created is all about stats and these two systems compared to the MT task system.

That topic will show you what's under the hood of both CTI and UGM.