Not all skills are equal

[Supplement Four]

When I first laid eyes on the UTP, I fell in love. A task system for Classic Traveller. So elegant. So intuitive.

For years, I used it, on into my MT and T4 days.

Today, though, I'm not as big a fan for a task system in Classic Traveller as I once was. Yep, that is coming from the guy who designed the UGM. Even in my campaign now, I use a combination of the UGM and the good old CT "make it up as you go" system.

Way back when, the UTP, I think today, actually did some damage to Traveller. It "homogenized" skills.

I mean, sure, the UTP (or any good task system) is a fine tool for a GM to use to keep things consistent and to come up with consistent results when throws are made up on the fly during a game.

But, what's been lost, has just come flying back into my perception as I scan through the Traveller Book tonight.

What's been lost is the "flavor" of Classic Traveller skills.

Look at the rule books. A Level-1 skill really isn't always the same as a Level-1 skill of a different nature.

Take the Admin skill, for instance. Reading its description, a typical DM if you have no expertise in Admin is a -3 DM to your roll. If you do have Admin as a skill, you should get +2 per level of Admin expertise.

What the UTP and other task systems have programmed us CT players into thinking is that all skills levels are the same. Skill-1 = Skill-1 = Skill-1 = Skill-1.

Well, what I've just shown you proves that's not the case, at least with Classic Traveller.

Have we forgotten that?

Weapon expertise will typically give you a +1 DM per level when making an attack roll. But, if you're talking about Bribery, the penalty for no skill when making a Bribe is suggested at +5 DM, while the benefit from having expertise within the area is a bonus of -1 DM per level.

Different skills are handled differently. They're not all "one size fits all".

You have a an Electronics problem? Well, then, you'll get a +1 DM per level of skill. But, if you have a typical Engineering problem, then you'll get a +2 DM per level of skills.

What does that mean? That means that Engineering-1 is roughly equivalent to Electronics-2. Engineering-2 is roughly equivalent to Electronics-4. (We're talking about the benefit of a skill level.)

I think the UTP, and all the task systems that have come after, have encouraged us to forget the quick-n-easy, GM controlled, free-form flow of Classic Traveller.

It has standardized things, to the point where we always think of a Level-1 skill as a beneficial +1 DM.

We read, in the LBBs, that Vacc Suit-1 allows for a +2 DM for our zero g throws, and we scratch our heads. "Why isn't it just a +1 DM?"

We need to get back to basics and remember: The beauty of Classic Traveller is that it doesn't have all those restrictions of later incarnations of the game.

It's a free-flow system, and in the hands of a great GM, it's some of the best gaming you'll ever experience in your life.

S4

 

[Supplement Four]

When I first laid eyes on the UTP, I fell in love. A task system for Classic Traveller. So elegant. So intuitive.

For years, I used it, on into my MT and T4 days.

Today, though, I'm not as big a fan for a task system in Classic Traveller as I once was. Yep, that is coming from the guy who designed the UGM. Even in my campaign now, I use a combination of the UGM and the good old CT "make it up as you go" system.

Way back when, the UTP, I think today, actually did some damage to Traveller. It "homogenized" skills.

I mean, sure, the UTP (or any good task system) is a fine tool for a GM to use to keep things consistent and to come up with consistent results when throws are made up on the fly during a game.

But, what's been lost, has just come flying back into my perception as I scan through the Traveller Book tonight.

What's been lost is the "flavor" of Classic Traveller skills.

Look at the rule books. A Level-1 skill really isn't always the same as a Level-1 skill of a different nature.

Take the Admin skill, for instance. Reading its description, a typical DM if you have no expertise in Admin is a -3 DM to your roll. If you do have Admin as a skill, you should get +2 per level of Admin expertise.

What the UTP and other task systems have programmed us CT players into thinking is that all skills levels are the same. Skill-1 = Skill-1 = Skill-1 = Skill-1.

Well, what I've just shown you proves that's not the case, at least with Classic Traveller.

Have we forgotten that?

Weapon expertise will typically give you a +1 DM per level when making an attack roll. But, if you're talking about Bribery, the penalty for no skill when making a Bribe is suggested at +5 DM, while the benefit from having expertise within the area is a bonus of -1 DM per level.

Different skills are handled differently. They're not all "one size fits all".

You have a an Electronics problem? Well, then, you'll get a +1 DM per level of skill. But, if you have a typical Engineering problem, then you'll get a +2 DM per level of skills.

What does that mean? That means that Engineering-1 is roughly equivalent to Electronics-2. Engineering-2 is roughly equivalent to Electronics-4. (We're talking about the benefit of a skill level.)

I think the UTP, and all the task systems that have come after, have encouraged us to forget the quick-n-easy, GM controlled, free-form flow of Classic Traveller.

It has standardized things, to the point where we always think of a Level-1 skill as a beneficial +1 DM.

We read, in the LBBs, that Vacc Suit-1 allows for a +2 DM for our zero g throws, and we scratch our heads. "Why isn't it just a +1 DM?"

We need to get back to basics and remember: The beauty of Classic Traveller is that it doesn't have all those restrictions of later incarnations of the game.

It's a free-flow system, and in the hands of a great GM, it's some of the best gaming you'll ever experience in your life.

S4

 

[aramis]

I found that the variety of independent skill rules was more confusing, and I prefer the approach of MT, where, 1 level of skill usually is 1 level of skill, but a few (e.g. Liaison) at levels 2+ are not equal to one level, but one level in each of two skills for a total of +2...

You're dead right, CT skill levels vary in DM's and even methods of resolution.

I still prefer task systems in my gaming, and ones with relatively clear difficulties.

(Battlestations, for example, a Board game, uses a 2d6+skill vs 8/11/14/17 for most things, and others by formula... but it is very UTP like despite not having labels...)

 

[aramis]

I found that the variety of independent skill rules was more confusing, and I prefer the approach of MT, where, 1 level of skill usually is 1 level of skill, but a few (e.g. Liaison) at levels 2+ are not equal to one level, but one level in each of two skills for a total of +2...

You're dead right, CT skill levels vary in DM's and even methods of resolution.

I still prefer task systems in my gaming, and ones with relatively clear difficulties.

(Battlestations, for example, a Board game, uses a 2d6+skill vs 8/11/14/17 for most things, and others by formula... but it is very UTP like despite not having labels...)

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
When I first laid eyes on the UTP, I fell in love. A task system for Classic Traveller. So elegant. So intuitive.

...

Today, though, I'm not as big a fan for a task system in Classic Traveller as I once was. Yep, that is coming from the guy who designed the UGM. Even in my campaign now, I use a combination of the UGM and the good old CT "make it up as you go" system.

Way back when, the UTP, I think today, actually did some damage to Traveller. It "homogenized" skills.

...

But, what's been lost, has just come flying back into my perception as I scan through the Traveller Book tonight.

What's been lost is the "flavor" of Classic Traveller skills.

Look at the rule books. A Level-1 skill really isn't always the same as a Level-1 skill of a different nature.

...

Well, what I've just shown you proves that's not the case, at least with Classic Traveller.

...

Different skills are handled differently. They're not all "one size fits all".

...

I think the UTP, and all the task systems that have come after, have encouraged us to forget the quick-n-easy, GM controlled, free-form flow of Classic Traveller.

It has standardized things, to the point where we always think of a Level-1 skill as a beneficial +1 DM.

We read, in the LBBs, that Vacc Suit-1 allows for a +2 DM for our zero g throws, and we scratch our heads. "Why isn't it just a +1 DM?"

We need to get back to basics and remember: The beauty of Classic Traveller is that it doesn't have all those restrictions of later incarnations of the game.

It's a free-flow system, and in the hands of a great GM, it's some of the best gaming you'll ever experience in your life.

S4

At the risk of engaging in heresy, I have never cared for any of the task systems, especially the DGP one in MegaTraveller. Of course, I started roleplaying in the heydey of the First Expansion (late 1970s) where game masters were *expected* to make things up on the fly. And so I did. I've done so since then and have run campaigns with nearly the same group of players for 25+ years.

Unfortunately, my experience indicates that the population of referees that can effectively run this kind of game is limited. Nor are there courses that folks can take -- "how to be an excellent GM" (hey, now that's an idea for an adult extension course...). So the rules have evolved over the years to try and cover every possible situation. The cost of this is exactly what you note -- a certain homogenization of mechanics and skills.

Worse, I noticed a regrettable trend to extoll "universal" systems and to applaude shoehorning them into everything. What seems to have been missed is the fact that the more "universal" something is, the less effective it tends to be modelling specific circumstances. Another example of this trend are the so-called "universal" rpg systems that either (a) model nothing particularly well; or (b) model one genre (fantasy typically) reasonably well and other genres poorly. But that's a different rant.

As an aside, I do not necessarily object to such attempts. However, my own game design experience has taught me that there's a serious law of diminishing returns at work here. At some point, the rules start increasing geometrically to handle ever less likely or relevant occurences.

And as a game designer, I can understand the temptation to try to base your game on one single mechanic, the reality is that you'll (a) have to have a lot of special rules, which makes the single mechanic really not so single; or (b) accept some potentially serious compromises in the system's ability to model occurences in the game.

What I'd like would be a system to handle the relatively small population of things that account for 95% of the in-game action. And those things -- especially important things like combat -- should have mechanics crafted to respresent them.

I don't object to the mechanics being *similar* to other systems. However, note that similarity can cause confusion. "I get a +1 for my INT score" "No, that's in combat, not when using Gravitics skills"

My own approach in designing games is to define the most important things I want to model and rank them (usually only about 3-4 things make this list). I write appropriately detailed (though fast moving -- I have a fetish about that) rules for those things, with higher ranked items getting more detail. Then, I ruthlessly abstract the rest.

That methodology was developed for my modern miniature wargame rules "A Fistful of TOWs" but it should work for any kind of game design. Applied to Traveller, I'd rank the following things as "important":

1. Combat (individuals)
2. Character Generation
3. Noncombat Skills and Their Use
4. Combat (vehicles)
5. Starship design
6. World design/special rules
7. Starship design

So my combat system would get the most attention (and would probably have the most rules). Character generation would get the next most attention. Skills and their use after that. And so on, with each category receiving more abstracted treatment.

This approach helps limit "Rules Bloat" in my experience.

I don't really have a problem with Classic Traveller giving each skill special rules. However, as "Skills bloat" increases, it does become difficult to remember all the special cases. Even there, it shouldn't be any big deal to create a quick reference chart for skills that would concisely summarize special cases.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
When I first laid eyes on the UTP, I fell in love. A task system for Classic Traveller. So elegant. So intuitive.

...

Today, though, I'm not as big a fan for a task system in Classic Traveller as I once was. Yep, that is coming from the guy who designed the UGM. Even in my campaign now, I use a combination of the UGM and the good old CT "make it up as you go" system.

Way back when, the UTP, I think today, actually did some damage to Traveller. It "homogenized" skills.

...

But, what's been lost, has just come flying back into my perception as I scan through the Traveller Book tonight.

What's been lost is the "flavor" of Classic Traveller skills.

Look at the rule books. A Level-1 skill really isn't always the same as a Level-1 skill of a different nature.

...

Well, what I've just shown you proves that's not the case, at least with Classic Traveller.

...

Different skills are handled differently. They're not all "one size fits all".

...

I think the UTP, and all the task systems that have come after, have encouraged us to forget the quick-n-easy, GM controlled, free-form flow of Classic Traveller.

It has standardized things, to the point where we always think of a Level-1 skill as a beneficial +1 DM.

We read, in the LBBs, that Vacc Suit-1 allows for a +2 DM for our zero g throws, and we scratch our heads. "Why isn't it just a +1 DM?"

We need to get back to basics and remember: The beauty of Classic Traveller is that it doesn't have all those restrictions of later incarnations of the game.

It's a free-flow system, and in the hands of a great GM, it's some of the best gaming you'll ever experience in your life.

S4

At the risk of engaging in heresy, I have never cared for any of the task systems, especially the DGP one in MegaTraveller. Of course, I started roleplaying in the heydey of the First Expansion (late 1970s) where game masters were *expected* to make things up on the fly. And so I did. I've done so since then and have run campaigns with nearly the same group of players for 25+ years.

Unfortunately, my experience indicates that the population of referees that can effectively run this kind of game is limited. Nor are there courses that folks can take -- "how to be an excellent GM" (hey, now that's an idea for an adult extension course...). So the rules have evolved over the years to try and cover every possible situation. The cost of this is exactly what you note -- a certain homogenization of mechanics and skills.

Worse, I noticed a regrettable trend to extoll "universal" systems and to applaude shoehorning them into everything. What seems to have been missed is the fact that the more "universal" something is, the less effective it tends to be modelling specific circumstances. Another example of this trend are the so-called "universal" rpg systems that either (a) model nothing particularly well; or (b) model one genre (fantasy typically) reasonably well and other genres poorly. But that's a different rant.

As an aside, I do not necessarily object to such attempts. However, my own game design experience has taught me that there's a serious law of diminishing returns at work here. At some point, the rules start increasing geometrically to handle ever less likely or relevant occurences.

And as a game designer, I can understand the temptation to try to base your game on one single mechanic, the reality is that you'll (a) have to have a lot of special rules, which makes the single mechanic really not so single; or (b) accept some potentially serious compromises in the system's ability to model occurences in the game.

What I'd like would be a system to handle the relatively small population of things that account for 95% of the in-game action. And those things -- especially important things like combat -- should have mechanics crafted to respresent them.

I don't object to the mechanics being *similar* to other systems. However, note that similarity can cause confusion. "I get a +1 for my INT score" "No, that's in combat, not when using Gravitics skills"

My own approach in designing games is to define the most important things I want to model and rank them (usually only about 3-4 things make this list). I write appropriately detailed (though fast moving -- I have a fetish about that) rules for those things, with higher ranked items getting more detail. Then, I ruthlessly abstract the rest.

That methodology was developed for my modern miniature wargame rules "A Fistful of TOWs" but it should work for any kind of game design. Applied to Traveller, I'd rank the following things as "important":

1. Combat (individuals)
2. Character Generation
3. Noncombat Skills and Their Use
4. Combat (vehicles)
5. Starship design
6. World design/special rules
7. Starship design

So my combat system would get the most attention (and would probably have the most rules). Character generation would get the next most attention. Skills and their use after that. And so on, with each category receiving more abstracted treatment.

This approach helps limit "Rules Bloat" in my experience.

I don't really have a problem with Classic Traveller giving each skill special rules. However, as "Skills bloat" increases, it does become difficult to remember all the special cases. Even there, it shouldn't be any big deal to create a quick reference chart for skills that would concisely summarize special cases.

 

[flykiller]

What I'd like would be a system to handle the relatively small population of things that account for 95% of the in-game action. And those things -- especially important things like combat -- should have mechanics crafted to respresent them.

...

My own approach in designing games is to define the most important things I want to model and rank them (usually only about 3-4 things make this list). I write appropriately detailed (though fast moving -- I have a fetish about that) rules for those things, with higher ranked items getting more detail. Then, I ruthlessly abstract the rest.

sounds great, but not everyone will have the same priorities you do, and game designers have to try to please as many people as possible. "rules bloat" may not be bloat, but an attempt to satisfy a divergent customer base.

 

[flykiller]

What I'd like would be a system to handle the relatively small population of things that account for 95% of the in-game action. And those things -- especially important things like combat -- should have mechanics crafted to respresent them.

...

My own approach in designing games is to define the most important things I want to model and rank them (usually only about 3-4 things make this list). I write appropriately detailed (though fast moving -- I have a fetish about that) rules for those things, with higher ranked items getting more detail. Then, I ruthlessly abstract the rest.

sounds great, but not everyone will have the same priorities you do, and game designers have to try to please as many people as possible. "rules bloat" may not be bloat, but an attempt to satisfy a divergent customer base.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What I'd like would be a system to handle the relatively small population of things that account for 95% of the in-game action. And those things -- especially important things like combat -- should have mechanics crafted to respresent them.

...

My own approach in designing games is to define the most important things I want to model and rank them (usually only about 3-4 things make this list). I write appropriately detailed (though fast moving -- I have a fetish about that) rules for those things, with higher ranked items getting more detail. Then, I ruthlessly abstract the rest.

sounds great, but not everyone will have the same priorities you do, and game designers have to try to please as many people as possible. "rules bloat" may not be bloat, but an attempt to satisfy a divergent customer base. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I'm sure that's a big part of the reason. However, bloat is bloat, no matter what the motivation.

IMHO no rules set can address everything -- or even a large number of things -- effectively, so the designer has an obligation to decide what's important and write his rules accordingly. At least I think that I do...

If you don't like the designer's priorities, either don't play his game or change them to suit your preferences. (I like to provide a number of optional and advanced rules and suggestions on how to tailor my game to fit the tastes of the players. I also disclose the methodologies I use to derive game ratings [sorta like FFS, but simpler] so that players who want to tinker can add stuff).

At the end of the day, I think that a game that tries to do everything will do nothing particularly well.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What I'd like would be a system to handle the relatively small population of things that account for 95% of the in-game action. And those things -- especially important things like combat -- should have mechanics crafted to respresent them.

...

My own approach in designing games is to define the most important things I want to model and rank them (usually only about 3-4 things make this list). I write appropriately detailed (though fast moving -- I have a fetish about that) rules for those things, with higher ranked items getting more detail. Then, I ruthlessly abstract the rest.

sounds great, but not everyone will have the same priorities you do, and game designers have to try to please as many people as possible. "rules bloat" may not be bloat, but an attempt to satisfy a divergent customer base. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I'm sure that's a big part of the reason. However, bloat is bloat, no matter what the motivation.

IMHO no rules set can address everything -- or even a large number of things -- effectively, so the designer has an obligation to decide what's important and write his rules accordingly. At least I think that I do...

If you don't like the designer's priorities, either don't play his game or change them to suit your preferences. (I like to provide a number of optional and advanced rules and suggestions on how to tailor my game to fit the tastes of the players. I also disclose the methodologies I use to derive game ratings [sorta like FFS, but simpler] so that players who want to tinker can add stuff).

At the end of the day, I think that a game that tries to do everything will do nothing particularly well.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
This approach helps limit "Rules Bloat" in my experience.

I believe that sometimes "Rules Bloat" occurs by design.

Why?

It sells books.

It's not a secret that background material sells better than adventure modules, and rule books sell better than background material.

So, if you're designing an rpg, looking to sell books, do you design a simple mechanics system that is easy to use and can be described in its entirety in just a few pages? Or do you create a behemoth rules-spewer, like the d20 system, that not only takes pages and pages to explain (Skills, Feats, Combat, Modifying combat, etc) and can be continually added-to in rule books to come?

I think at least part of the reason (or maybe it's just "gravy" to their meat & potatoes)so many publishers embrace d20 is for this reason: They can publish more and more rule books along with a few background material supplements and one or two adventures.

Thus, simple, easy-to-use game mechanics have not been the norm. And, when we see that type of system, the game fails.

Look at Top Secret/SI. Simple, easy to use rules, explained in just a few pages of the already thin rule book. All the supplements were adventures. TSR dropped it.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
This approach helps limit "Rules Bloat" in my experience.

I believe that sometimes "Rules Bloat" occurs by design.

Why?

It sells books.

It's not a secret that background material sells better than adventure modules, and rule books sell better than background material.

So, if you're designing an rpg, looking to sell books, do you design a simple mechanics system that is easy to use and can be described in its entirety in just a few pages? Or do you create a behemoth rules-spewer, like the d20 system, that not only takes pages and pages to explain (Skills, Feats, Combat, Modifying combat, etc) and can be continually added-to in rule books to come?

I think at least part of the reason (or maybe it's just "gravy" to their meat & potatoes)so many publishers embrace d20 is for this reason: They can publish more and more rule books along with a few background material supplements and one or two adventures.

Thus, simple, easy-to-use game mechanics have not been the norm. And, when we see that type of system, the game fails.

Look at Top Secret/SI. Simple, easy to use rules, explained in just a few pages of the already thin rule book. All the supplements were adventures. TSR dropped it.

 

[jrmapes]

I hate to admit it since I have been a proselytizer for your UGM since I got my hands on the first draft, but I was recently re-reading the Traveller Book as well as the MT Books and T4 book over the past couple days and It really didn't dawn on me how much of a difference there was between skill levels. Sure I read the definitions in the Traveller Book and the LBBs but not until I looked at the other books again did I realize that the rules were making a very clear reference and specifically calling out skill to show how a Level X skill in basketweaving may be equal to a Level Y skill in strawhat making.

If we take these equivalence's into account as the rules state, then a cut and dried task system does take away from the game and yes, I agree that this does translate to "flavor".

Now I have to wonder if it is time to do some un-learning. It's a tough call. I can see why the original system worked so well and do remember those pre-UTP days and yes they were fun. However, is it worth trying to get back to basics when the system you use and that system your players are all used to, is working well and fun level and game expectation level are both on the high side of the nominal range?

Changing boats in mid-stream tends to cause more problems than make things better. I wouldn't make the decesion unilaterally, but I have a sneaking suspicion that we won't try the original system till it is time to start a new chapter in the game. I'd personally like to try running a game again without a UTP, but its been a whole lotta years and if you don't have the flow down cold, nothing will turn a group off faster.


Jerry

 

[jrmapes]

I hate to admit it since I have been a proselytizer for your UGM since I got my hands on the first draft, but I was recently re-reading the Traveller Book as well as the MT Books and T4 book over the past couple days and It really didn't dawn on me how much of a difference there was between skill levels. Sure I read the definitions in the Traveller Book and the LBBs but not until I looked at the other books again did I realize that the rules were making a very clear reference and specifically calling out skill to show how a Level X skill in basketweaving may be equal to a Level Y skill in strawhat making.

If we take these equivalence's into account as the rules state, then a cut and dried task system does take away from the game and yes, I agree that this does translate to "flavor".

Now I have to wonder if it is time to do some un-learning. It's a tough call. I can see why the original system worked so well and do remember those pre-UTP days and yes they were fun. However, is it worth trying to get back to basics when the system you use and that system your players are all used to, is working well and fun level and game expectation level are both on the high side of the nominal range?

Changing boats in mid-stream tends to cause more problems than make things better. I wouldn't make the decesion unilaterally, but I have a sneaking suspicion that we won't try the original system till it is time to start a new chapter in the game. I'd personally like to try running a game again without a UTP, but its been a whole lotta years and if you don't have the flow down cold, nothing will turn a group off faster.


Jerry

 

[flykiller]

Look at Top Secret/SI. Simple, easy to use rules, explained in just a few pages of the already thin rule book. All the supplements were adventures. TSR dropped it.

do people play rules, or the game?

 

[flykiller]

Look at Top Secret/SI. Simple, easy to use rules, explained in just a few pages of the already thin rule book. All the supplements were adventures. TSR dropped it.

do people play rules, or the game?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by JR Mapes - Citizen # 5964/BB8CA8:
If we take these equivalence's into account as the rules state, then a cut and dried task system does take away from the game and yes, I agree that this does translate to "flavor".

Now I have to wonder if it is time to do some un-learning. It's a tough call. I can see why the original system worked so well and do remember those pre-UTP days and yes they were fun.

You're completely understanding what I was trying to say at the beginning of this thread.

Many times, in speaking about the UGM, I would have to defend the Classic Traveller way of "making it up as you go". I would always point people to the great write-up in the Traveller Adventure (the best write up I've seen on this) that discusses how to handle die rolls in a game.

I think too many CT players have gotten away from that style of play. Even though I created the UGM, I completely believe that we don't NEED task libraries for every conceivable dice roll.

Does that mean that I don't think there's a place for the UGM with Classic Traveller?

HECK NO!!!

It just means that the UGM shouldn't be used for every dice roll a CT character makes.

There's a place for the UGM. There's a place for "stat checks" (where you roll lower than your stat or stat + skill or whatever the GM makes up). And, there's a place for GM's totally making up what they think appropriate for thier games.

I've said, over and over, that I don't use the UGM for everything. I use other rolls too. I use stat checks. I make up stuff.

What's the UGM's place? It's got a HUGE place with CT. You're in the middle of a game and someone wants to analyze a damaged computer hard drive. The UGM will help you, as GM, manage that quickly and efficently.

Or, you look at the Air/Raft description in Classic Traveller, and you wonder why DEX wasn't addressed with that 5+ throw? That's where the UGM comes in. Make that 5+ throw a DEX based UGM throw, and, wa-laa, no worries. You're done.

But, use the UGM for every stinkin' throw your character ever makes?

Nope.

That's not why I created the UGM. I never meant for it to be used as the UTP (and most other task systems are used).

The UGM is just a tool, among other tools, that the GM has at his disposal in telling a good story and guiding his players on to a good game.

I will continue to use the UGM in my game. Why? Well, because there are too many instances where vanilla Classic Traveller doesn't address character's stat. And, the UGM is a great tool to use in coming up with a throw needed for a specific example.

But, I won't use (and never have) the UGM for everything my players do. Other tools are important as well.

As a rule of thumb, if a roll is skill based, I'll typically use the UGM.

If a throw is stat based, I'll typically use the CT make-it-up-as-you-go method.

Two quick examples to illustrate this rule of thumb:

Example 1: A character goes EVA to a derelict spacecraft. Inside, he needs to re-wire blown fuses and circuits to get the lights on.

This is a skill-based task. I'd use the UGM. I call it something like Electronics/INT/-2, with the modifier depending on the extent of the damage.

Example 2: The same character, attempting to open the access hatch in order to get to the electrical circuits, finds that the panel is flash frozen due to exposure to vaccuum.

Well, this isn't a skill-based task. This is more stat-based, and I wouldn't use the UGM in this type of scenario. What I'd do is use the good old CT method of making something up. I might say, "The panel is only frozen on one third of the lip, allowing you to get your fingers under some of it. Roll 2D for STR or less to force it open. If you fail, I'll let you re-roll, but each successive roll means you add 1D to your roll. So, roll #2 will be 3D for STR or less, and so on."

See...I'd go with the flow of my imagination and intuition there.

The UGM is a damn good tool. I'm glad I wrote it. I love it. I think it's perfect for Classic Traveller.

But, I think there's a place for "back to basics" Classic Traveller die rolls too.

S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by JR Mapes - Citizen # 5964/BB8CA8:
If we take these equivalence's into account as the rules state, then a cut and dried task system does take away from the game and yes, I agree that this does translate to "flavor".

Now I have to wonder if it is time to do some un-learning. It's a tough call. I can see why the original system worked so well and do remember those pre-UTP days and yes they were fun.

You're completely understanding what I was trying to say at the beginning of this thread.

Many times, in speaking about the UGM, I would have to defend the Classic Traveller way of "making it up as you go". I would always point people to the great write-up in the Traveller Adventure (the best write up I've seen on this) that discusses how to handle die rolls in a game.

I think too many CT players have gotten away from that style of play. Even though I created the UGM, I completely believe that we don't NEED task libraries for every conceivable dice roll.

Does that mean that I don't think there's a place for the UGM with Classic Traveller?

HECK NO!!!

It just means that the UGM shouldn't be used for every dice roll a CT character makes.

There's a place for the UGM. There's a place for "stat checks" (where you roll lower than your stat or stat + skill or whatever the GM makes up). And, there's a place for GM's totally making up what they think appropriate for thier games.

I've said, over and over, that I don't use the UGM for everything. I use other rolls too. I use stat checks. I make up stuff.

What's the UGM's place? It's got a HUGE place with CT. You're in the middle of a game and someone wants to analyze a damaged computer hard drive. The UGM will help you, as GM, manage that quickly and efficently.

Or, you look at the Air/Raft description in Classic Traveller, and you wonder why DEX wasn't addressed with that 5+ throw? That's where the UGM comes in. Make that 5+ throw a DEX based UGM throw, and, wa-laa, no worries. You're done.

But, use the UGM for every stinkin' throw your character ever makes?

Nope.

That's not why I created the UGM. I never meant for it to be used as the UTP (and most other task systems are used).

The UGM is just a tool, among other tools, that the GM has at his disposal in telling a good story and guiding his players on to a good game.

I will continue to use the UGM in my game. Why? Well, because there are too many instances where vanilla Classic Traveller doesn't address character's stat. And, the UGM is a great tool to use in coming up with a throw needed for a specific example.

But, I won't use (and never have) the UGM for everything my players do. Other tools are important as well.

As a rule of thumb, if a roll is skill based, I'll typically use the UGM.

If a throw is stat based, I'll typically use the CT make-it-up-as-you-go method.

Two quick examples to illustrate this rule of thumb:

Example 1: A character goes EVA to a derelict spacecraft. Inside, he needs to re-wire blown fuses and circuits to get the lights on.

This is a skill-based task. I'd use the UGM. I call it something like Electronics/INT/-2, with the modifier depending on the extent of the damage.

Example 2: The same character, attempting to open the access hatch in order to get to the electrical circuits, finds that the panel is flash frozen due to exposure to vaccuum.

Well, this isn't a skill-based task. This is more stat-based, and I wouldn't use the UGM in this type of scenario. What I'd do is use the good old CT method of making something up. I might say, "The panel is only frozen on one third of the lip, allowing you to get your fingers under some of it. Roll 2D for STR or less to force it open. If you fail, I'll let you re-roll, but each successive roll means you add 1D to your roll. So, roll #2 will be 3D for STR or less, and so on."

See...I'd go with the flow of my imagination and intuition there.

The UGM is a damn good tool. I'm glad I wrote it. I love it. I think it's perfect for Classic Traveller.

But, I think there's a place for "back to basics" Classic Traveller die rolls too.

S4

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
This approach helps limit "Rules Bloat" in my experience.

I believe that sometimes "Rules Bloat" occurs by design.

Why?

It sells books.

</font>[/QUOTE]Could be, although that would require a degree of competence not usually found in their rules.

My own pet theory is that rules bloat occurs for a number of reasons such as this one. However, a major (dunno if it's THE major) reason is unintended consequences and attempts to remedy such.

It works like this. The rules are broken in some way, due to sloppy/incompetent game design. Or the rules don't cover something as thoroughly as someone else thinks they should. So, a supplement comes along with new rules, that either purportedly fix the problem or cover areas that the rules purportedly didn't cover adequately. Problem is, the new rule creates a number of unintended consequences that cause problems with the rules. So supplement 2 comes out with a modification or replacement of the rule (or additional changes to the underlying system). These things create their own unintended consequences, which creates a need for supplement 3. And on and on.

The fundamental problems, it seems to me, are design incompetence -- a lot of games make it out that I'd be embarrassed to say I designed* - or a lack of appreciation for the capabilities of the base game system.

Many game designers seem shockingly unaware of the limitations of a particular mechanic or system. They then add rules that stress or break it entirely. For instance, if your base success roll is 8+ on 2d6, then the system cannot accomodate hordes of modifiers that routinely total 4 or more (or -2 or less). If you ignore this mathematical fact and produce supplements that add many additional bonuses (or penalties) you just about guarantee that the base system will fail. See Mercenary, with its chargen system that often results in skill levels of 4+ for an example. (Of course, I can forgive a game designed in 1977 far more easily than I can a game designed in 2007).

Or, if your base success roll is a 10+ on 1d20, then your modifiers list should seldom produce a net modifier greater than about 8 (or -8). And even if the system is calibrated to not break this rule, a supplement can break the system by providing a new, additional modifier that makes it far more common to get net modifiers of 8+ (or -8 or less).

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
This approach helps limit "Rules Bloat" in my experience.

I believe that sometimes "Rules Bloat" occurs by design.

Why?

It sells books.

</font>[/QUOTE]Could be, although that would require a degree of competence not usually found in their rules.

My own pet theory is that rules bloat occurs for a number of reasons such as this one. However, a major (dunno if it's THE major) reason is unintended consequences and attempts to remedy such.

It works like this. The rules are broken in some way, due to sloppy/incompetent game design. Or the rules don't cover something as thoroughly as someone else thinks they should. So, a supplement comes along with new rules, that either purportedly fix the problem or cover areas that the rules purportedly didn't cover adequately. Problem is, the new rule creates a number of unintended consequences that cause problems with the rules. So supplement 2 comes out with a modification or replacement of the rule (or additional changes to the underlying system). These things create their own unintended consequences, which creates a need for supplement 3. And on and on.

The fundamental problems, it seems to me, are design incompetence -- a lot of games make it out that I'd be embarrassed to say I designed* - or a lack of appreciation for the capabilities of the base game system.

Many game designers seem shockingly unaware of the limitations of a particular mechanic or system. They then add rules that stress or break it entirely. For instance, if your base success roll is 8+ on 2d6, then the system cannot accomodate hordes of modifiers that routinely total 4 or more (or -2 or less). If you ignore this mathematical fact and produce supplements that add many additional bonuses (or penalties) you just about guarantee that the base system will fail. See Mercenary, with its chargen system that often results in skill levels of 4+ for an example. (Of course, I can forgive a game designed in 1977 far more easily than I can a game designed in 2007).

Or, if your base success roll is a 10+ on 1d20, then your modifiers list should seldom produce a net modifier greater than about 8 (or -8). And even if the system is calibrated to not break this rule, a supplement can break the system by providing a new, additional modifier that makes it far more common to get net modifiers of 8+ (or -8 or less).