Not all skills are equal

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by flykiller:
do people play rules, or the game?

The game, of course. But, let's not ignore that rules are important to rpg'ers.

If you picked up a damn cool game (genre) but it's mechanics sucked, that'd be a concern to you, wouldn't it?

If the mechanics were "broken" and provided unbelieveable results.

Or, maybe the mechanics were something you didn't like--like maybe a diceless game that used a normal pack of playing cards to settle tasks.

I wouldn't like that or buy a game like that.

"Rules" are an important part of an rpg...but only a part. YMMV.

S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by flykiller:
do people play rules, or the game?

The game, of course. But, let's not ignore that rules are important to rpg'ers.

If you picked up a damn cool game (genre) but it's mechanics sucked, that'd be a concern to you, wouldn't it?

If the mechanics were "broken" and provided unbelieveable results.

Or, maybe the mechanics were something you didn't like--like maybe a diceless game that used a normal pack of playing cards to settle tasks.

I wouldn't like that or buy a game like that.

"Rules" are an important part of an rpg...but only a part. YMMV.

S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
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.

I hate to agree, but I do. I've seen it.

Heck, I've seen it recently a Traveller writer that comes to mind. A 2D6 system where it's possible to get +4 just from your stat, then compensating for that error by raising the difficulty level.

I also see it in GMs doing various off-the-handle mods of the UTP, where Stat /2, Stat /3, Stat /4 gets you a DM on your throw.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
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.

I hate to agree, but I do. I've seen it.

Heck, I've seen it recently a Traveller writer that comes to mind. A 2D6 system where it's possible to get +4 just from your stat, then compensating for that error by raising the difficulty level.

I also see it in GMs doing various off-the-handle mods of the UTP, where Stat /2, Stat /3, Stat /4 gets you a DM on your throw.

 

[Whipsnade]

S4,

I think you've overlooked one very important reason for the unequal skill 'strengths' in CT; the game didn't have a task system originally.

When everything is decided by a throw of 8+ with only skill levels and DMs effecting it, you'll get some wierd skill applications. Look again at your excellent bribery example.

Attempting to bribe someone without a skill level in bribery should be very hard, but how can you model that in the original CT system? You can't adjust the dificulty level for the throw because there isn't a difficulty level. Instead, you use the only thing available to model how hard the attempt should be, a negative DM, and end up with the -5 DM from your example. What's more, the DMs derived from skill levels are going to vary because you're hanging all of your die throw adjustments on one factor, thus creating all the +2 for one level, +1 for two levels, and the other head scratchers.

In CT without a task system, our bribery throw is written as something like Throw 8+ to succeed, +DM per level of bribery skill, -5 DM for bribery-0.

In CT with a task system, our bribery throw is written as something like Bribery, Difficult, +DM per level of bribery skill (Task becomes Impossible if unskilled.)

Because CT could only adjust throws through a single mechanism, the DM, that use of that single mechanism created odd skill 'strengths'. A task system can be adjusted in a more flexible manner thus allowing a more seemless "skill-1 = skill-1 = skill-1" system.

As for rules bloat, several mechanisms are responsible for it. One is that rules sell books. Another is the relative laziness and lack of imagination among latter day RPG GMs and players, or game players of all sorts.

In 1977, GMs and players had to use D&D and Traveller as kits to create their own RPG settings. In 2007, settings and all the trimmings are handed to players on a platter. This means that GMs and players are far less likely to adjust or modify the rules for their own needs. Most don't even try or even think to try.

While you and I can make up die throws or tasks on the spot because we learned to play RPGs that way, latter day GMs and players need everything written out for them in the rules. They cannot improvise and they don't even feel comfortable improvising. Because they can't or won't think out of the box, the box must contain more information covering more and more of the trivial situations that may occur in the game.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

S4,

I think you've overlooked one very important reason for the unequal skill 'strengths' in CT; the game didn't have a task system originally.

When everything is decided by a throw of 8+ with only skill levels and DMs effecting it, you'll get some wierd skill applications. Look again at your excellent bribery example.

Attempting to bribe someone without a skill level in bribery should be very hard, but how can you model that in the original CT system? You can't adjust the dificulty level for the throw because there isn't a difficulty level. Instead, you use the only thing available to model how hard the attempt should be, a negative DM, and end up with the -5 DM from your example. What's more, the DMs derived from skill levels are going to vary because you're hanging all of your die throw adjustments on one factor, thus creating all the +2 for one level, +1 for two levels, and the other head scratchers.

In CT without a task system, our bribery throw is written as something like Throw 8+ to succeed, +DM per level of bribery skill, -5 DM for bribery-0.

In CT with a task system, our bribery throw is written as something like Bribery, Difficult, +DM per level of bribery skill (Task becomes Impossible if unskilled.)

Because CT could only adjust throws through a single mechanism, the DM, that use of that single mechanism created odd skill 'strengths'. A task system can be adjusted in a more flexible manner thus allowing a more seemless "skill-1 = skill-1 = skill-1" system.

As for rules bloat, several mechanisms are responsible for it. One is that rules sell books. Another is the relative laziness and lack of imagination among latter day RPG GMs and players, or game players of all sorts.

In 1977, GMs and players had to use D&D and Traveller as kits to create their own RPG settings. In 2007, settings and all the trimmings are handed to players on a platter. This means that GMs and players are far less likely to adjust or modify the rules for their own needs. Most don't even try or even think to try.

While you and I can make up die throws or tasks on the spot because we learned to play RPGs that way, latter day GMs and players need everything written out for them in the rules. They cannot improvise and they don't even feel comfortable improvising. Because they can't or won't think out of the box, the box must contain more information covering more and more of the trivial situations that may occur in the game.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
When everything is decided by a throw of 8+ with only skill levels and DMs effecting it, you'll get some wierd skill applications. Look again at your excellent bribery example.

Couple things, Bill: First, I've never seen it stated in CT that every throw is a base 8+. That's a UGM thing, but not a vanilla CT thing. The target number in CT is whatever the GM deems it to be. Examples are given in the rule books to guide the GM.

8+ for combat.
5+ for piloting an air/raft in bad weather.
11+ for calling in artillery.
5+ for reviving a passenger from low berth.
10+ for non-ordinary maneuvers in zero G.
etc.

The Bribery example doesn't use a target number of 8+. It uses a throw of the planet's Law Level or less, with the DMs I mention in the first post.

But, I do understand your points: Classic Traveller had no task system but used DMs on throws as "diffculty levels".

And that the original task system, the UTP, was created in order to help GMs govern situations. Those who's grasp of 2D6 mechanics and probablity is lacking can easily use a task sytem to help them govern situations that pop up in a game.

Which is why I still use the UGM. As noted above, I just don't think it's necessary to use a task system for every instance.

Good, creative GMs can come up with rolls on thier own and keep the flow of the game moving.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
When everything is decided by a throw of 8+ with only skill levels and DMs effecting it, you'll get some wierd skill applications. Look again at your excellent bribery example.

Couple things, Bill: First, I've never seen it stated in CT that every throw is a base 8+. That's a UGM thing, but not a vanilla CT thing. The target number in CT is whatever the GM deems it to be. Examples are given in the rule books to guide the GM.

8+ for combat.
5+ for piloting an air/raft in bad weather.
11+ for calling in artillery.
5+ for reviving a passenger from low berth.
10+ for non-ordinary maneuvers in zero G.
etc.

The Bribery example doesn't use a target number of 8+. It uses a throw of the planet's Law Level or less, with the DMs I mention in the first post.

But, I do understand your points: Classic Traveller had no task system but used DMs on throws as "diffculty levels".

And that the original task system, the UTP, was created in order to help GMs govern situations. Those who's grasp of 2D6 mechanics and probablity is lacking can easily use a task sytem to help them govern situations that pop up in a game.

Which is why I still use the UGM. As noted above, I just don't think it's necessary to use a task system for every instance.

Good, creative GMs can come up with rolls on thier own and keep the flow of the game moving.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Couple things, Bill: First, I've never seen it stated in CT that every throw is a base 8+.

S4,

I never meant to imply you did. My post was rather rambling though.

The target number in CT is whatever the GM deems it to be. Examples are given in the rule books to guide the GM.

Yup, that's where the idea for the task system cam from. CT had lots of different target numbers for lots of different tasks but it didn't have a formulaic system the GM could use to come up with those target numbers. It was suggested that the GM should adjust target numbers; I know I did and I know you did, but there wasn't any system presented that showed you how to do it. All there were was scattered and unexplained examples.

Good, creative GMs can come up with rolls on thier own and keep the flow of the game moving.

Exactly. And, as you pointed out, not evry throw needs to be a task system throw. Hell, many times there probably shouldn't even be a throw!

The task system simply explained and codified CT's suggestion regarding modified target numbers. It presented a system GMs could use easily and, more importantly, a system that GMs could explain easily and intuitively to their players.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Couple things, Bill: First, I've never seen it stated in CT that every throw is a base 8+.

S4,

I never meant to imply you did. My post was rather rambling though.

The target number in CT is whatever the GM deems it to be. Examples are given in the rule books to guide the GM.

Yup, that's where the idea for the task system cam from. CT had lots of different target numbers for lots of different tasks but it didn't have a formulaic system the GM could use to come up with those target numbers. It was suggested that the GM should adjust target numbers; I know I did and I know you did, but there wasn't any system presented that showed you how to do it. All there were was scattered and unexplained examples.

Good, creative GMs can come up with rolls on thier own and keep the flow of the game moving.

Exactly. And, as you pointed out, not evry throw needs to be a task system throw. Hell, many times there probably shouldn't even be a throw!

The task system simply explained and codified CT's suggestion regarding modified target numbers. It presented a system GMs could use easily and, more importantly, a system that GMs could explain easily and intuitively to their players.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[aramis]

Consistency is the most important thing in a good ruleset, as far as I care...

D20 isn't bad as a system... it's very consistent.

the UTP was very consistent; players could just roll 5 dice, and even if they didn't do the math, they could let the GM do the math. It opened traveller up to less math-comfortable gamers, and to more GM's, by having a framework that was consistent.

TNE was likewise consistent... Roll 1d20 for all actions that needed a roll. Further, it had a consistent method for difficulty, and it was not mechanically the same as die-roll mods. (Combat was somewhat busted, but...)

Many of the "90's Powerhouses" are simple and consistent. WWG's WoD had one mechanic, applied to nearly everything. The second edition simplified it much. New WoD uses the same base mechanics, simplified again... It's awesome, and it's still making money... or so the "goths" keep telling me.

There is money being made in Rules-light. Just not in the stores. EABA, Sorcerer, Elfs...

 

[aramis]

Consistency is the most important thing in a good ruleset, as far as I care...

D20 isn't bad as a system... it's very consistent.

the UTP was very consistent; players could just roll 5 dice, and even if they didn't do the math, they could let the GM do the math. It opened traveller up to less math-comfortable gamers, and to more GM's, by having a framework that was consistent.

TNE was likewise consistent... Roll 1d20 for all actions that needed a roll. Further, it had a consistent method for difficulty, and it was not mechanically the same as die-roll mods. (Combat was somewhat busted, but...)

Many of the "90's Powerhouses" are simple and consistent. WWG's WoD had one mechanic, applied to nearly everything. The second edition simplified it much. New WoD uses the same base mechanics, simplified again... It's awesome, and it's still making money... or so the "goths" keep telling me.

There is money being made in Rules-light. Just not in the stores. EABA, Sorcerer, Elfs...