Consulting UGM task profiles isn't that difficult - you could even select one on the fly; simply pick a skill, a characteristic and a difficulty DM; roll 2D plus/minus the DM and plus the skill; if the 2D roll (before any modifications) is below the characteristic or equal to it, add another +1 DM; if the new total is 8+, you succeed; if the new total is 7-, you fail. That's the UGM. Hell, you could even forget about difficulty names (routine, standard etc) and write your "task profile" as a skill, attribute and difficulty DM, i.e. Computer/INT/-2.
R.I.P. Task System Concept!
- Thread starter The Hinterworlds Rambler
- Start date
The nice thing about ANY of Traveller's defined task profiles is that you can just pick and choose with difficulties, skills and characteristics (if they are used in that particular system), and just go with it.
Just because a task system exists doesn't mean it has to be used for every single action. I prefer having a task system as a framework for consistency once I decide to call for a task check, but it is a matter of individual style as to when those checks are called for when playing at the table (or online, for that matter.)
Rules do not necessarily predicate Refereeing style.
-Flynn
Just because a task system exists doesn't mean it has to be used for every single action. I prefer having a task system as a framework for consistency once I decide to call for a task check, but it is a matter of individual style as to when those checks are called for when playing at the table (or online, for that matter.)
Rules do not necessarily predicate Refereeing style.
-Flynn
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Traveller 5 has 10 pages devoted to Task Systems at this point. If Tasks is not intended to be so impoertant to the game, why is it not an appendix? It is one of the first things in the boook with MT...
BSG, this is where you and I part company. For me the Task system is greatest innovation of Traveller game system as it focuses action. As I have said before, I have used coloured cards to represent different task rolls, I always expect players to roll the dice and role play the action and because we share a vocabulary (eg. Simple, Difficult, etc.)
B
Black Globe Generator
Guest
I apologize in advance if this doesn't go to the heart of the subject, but a thought occured to me as I was re-reading some of the posts in this thread.
I can understand the appeal of the UTP - certainly being able to tell a player, "This will be a difficult task," and allowing the player to decide to go forward or not is a helpful shorthand for both the player and the referee. However, as I noted earlier, my main objections are that CT skill levels are devalued by the DGP system and the gradient-dependent skills require that either the task or the system be tweaked to accomodate the different target values.
So, rather than set target rolls, what about using standard modifiers for routine, difficult, and formidable tasks? A Routine task is +/-0, a Difficult task is +/-3 (depending on whether or not the objective is to roll high (e.g., Admin) or low (e.g., Bribery), and a Formidable task is +/-5. This allows the referee to simply note the relative difficulty of the task in the notes and communicate the results to the players in ways that they will understand exactly what they are facing, while preserving the CT skill checks largely as written.
In the past I would simply note any modifiers that I wanted to apply to a skill check in my encounter notes, but I think this simplifies that by a step by standardizing the values.
I can understand the appeal of the UTP - certainly being able to tell a player, "This will be a difficult task," and allowing the player to decide to go forward or not is a helpful shorthand for both the player and the referee. However, as I noted earlier, my main objections are that CT skill levels are devalued by the DGP system and the gradient-dependent skills require that either the task or the system be tweaked to accomodate the different target values.
So, rather than set target rolls, what about using standard modifiers for routine, difficult, and formidable tasks? A Routine task is +/-0, a Difficult task is +/-3 (depending on whether or not the objective is to roll high (e.g., Admin) or low (e.g., Bribery), and a Formidable task is +/-5. This allows the referee to simply note the relative difficulty of the task in the notes and communicate the results to the players in ways that they will understand exactly what they are facing, while preserving the CT skill checks largely as written.
In the past I would simply note any modifiers that I wanted to apply to a skill check in my encounter notes, but I think this simplifies that by a step by standardizing the values.
A good task system (i.e. simple and fluid, such as the UGM, and, to a lesser degree, the MT system if you ignore its over-complex mishap and time systems) IS an important part of the game - it helps the Referee resolve actions using dice when nescery (which is typically during important and difficult scenes, such as combat, chases, harsh-weather landings etc). It also makes the game mechanics easier to remember - remembering the single paragraph of UGM is easier than remembering a different resolution system for every action (as CT has). It is a very useful tool - but a tool, not the goal of the game, and thus must be used with discretion.
A task system is simply a way to consolidate and simplify the game mechanics; when game mechanics are called for, they should follow a certain pattern to make them easy to lean and to implement.
Yer all looney... bonkers... Barmey, the whole lot...
...Say, who let the good baron out of that nice white coat with the extra long sleeves???
The MT task system is the ultimate GM's toolkit for implying non-extant rules as being in the books!
More over, it provides by use of discrete labels a smoother method of working rolls into a narrative when needed. Saying "It's a difficult task, but with your engineering and education, you have a good chance" is less disruptive to narrative than "Roll 2d, add Engineering; Your edu is high enough for a plus 1."
'Course, Flaming eye did go a bit overboard, and MT was missing an autosuccess protocol...
[smarmy announcer voice begins]
But No Longer!!!
The New Aramis' Designs Autosuccess Graft-On:
RSL Difficulty
0 Auto
1 Easy
2 Routine
4 Difficult
8 Formidable
16 Impossible
Yes, if you have the RSL in the skill, you succeed, no roll needed... some exceptions apply. Time is a flat 10x the time increment. No deductions.
Exceptions: Not valid in any combat zone, nor where prohibited by God, G.O.D., Referee, GM, Narrator, nor other omnipotent being. RSL may not be reachable in CG for many tasks. Note that Certain Scottish Engineers can add Jack of All Trades to Engineering for calculating things in an ATU...
...Say, who let the good baron out of that nice white coat with the extra long sleeves???
The MT task system is the ultimate GM's toolkit for implying non-extant rules as being in the books!
More over, it provides by use of discrete labels a smoother method of working rolls into a narrative when needed. Saying "It's a difficult task, but with your engineering and education, you have a good chance" is less disruptive to narrative than "Roll 2d, add Engineering; Your edu is high enough for a plus 1."
'Course, Flaming eye did go a bit overboard, and MT was missing an autosuccess protocol...
[smarmy announcer voice begins]
But No Longer!!!
The New Aramis' Designs Autosuccess Graft-On:
RSL Difficulty
0 Auto
1 Easy
2 Routine
4 Difficult
8 Formidable
16 Impossible
Yes, if you have the RSL in the skill, you succeed, no roll needed... some exceptions apply. Time is a flat 10x the time increment. No deductions.
Exceptions: Not valid in any combat zone, nor where prohibited by God, G.O.D., Referee, GM, Narrator, nor other omnipotent being. RSL may not be reachable in CG for many tasks. Note that Certain Scottish Engineers can add Jack of All Trades to Engineering for calculating things in an ATU...
Jim, E2-4601:
The Time system isn't terribly complex. Easily ignored, yes. Having it in the rules allows for doing things like countdowns to a bomb and not having it all feel like GM fiat.
Likewise, Mishaps are not terribly complex either, save that they're poorly tied in to many of the other sub-systems of the MT and 2300 rules.
Both are excellent tools to have WHEN YOU NEED THEM. When you don't, any part of a task system is readily deletable.
Even given the research extensions, MT is only about 6 pages of tasks, and is about the most flexible one out there.
Sure, it lessened the perceived value of skill for some; for others it increased it. Until I got MT, players generally disliked non-combat skills above level 1 in my games, level 2 if they needed to wear two hats aboard ship... since they didn't matter until I had the task system.
Task systems are a framework. Which is why most every modern game has either a comprehensive skill system or a task system (they're not the same... a task system is a broader thing). A framework that protects players from random GM's...
The Time system isn't terribly complex. Easily ignored, yes. Having it in the rules allows for doing things like countdowns to a bomb and not having it all feel like GM fiat.
Likewise, Mishaps are not terribly complex either, save that they're poorly tied in to many of the other sub-systems of the MT and 2300 rules.
Both are excellent tools to have WHEN YOU NEED THEM. When you don't, any part of a task system is readily deletable.
Even given the research extensions, MT is only about 6 pages of tasks, and is about the most flexible one out there.
Sure, it lessened the perceived value of skill for some; for others it increased it. Until I got MT, players generally disliked non-combat skills above level 1 in my games, level 2 if they needed to wear two hats aboard ship... since they didn't matter until I had the task system.
Task systems are a framework. Which is why most every modern game has either a comprehensive skill system or a task system (they're not the same... a task system is a broader thing). A framework that protects players from random GM's...
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
A good ref knows when to be random. I used to use a Timer from Boggle for bombs. Now I have a digital one, which is much scarier and adds a real sense of Urgency.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Boggle is the cube full of dice with letters on them. I think the game you are thinking of is "Perfection" a rather terrifying game with an evil sounding timer for sure.
It also is the only game I know that can scare the shit out of child and adult alike by "exploding" when time is up, spraying players with sharp plastic bits... I think THAT is one for the game table... perhaps filled with styrofoan peanuts when the players fail and die...
Though the digital timer has a sense of evil, as it is a red led "big digit" one, and is ominously silent. I wish I could find a scary mechanical one, with old style "flipping card" digital readout. THAT would be terrifying especially if geared to move very fast....
It also is the only game I know that can scare the shit out of child and adult alike by "exploding" when time is up, spraying players with sharp plastic bits... I think THAT is one for the game table... perhaps filled with styrofoan peanuts when the players fail and die...
Though the digital timer has a sense of evil, as it is a red led "big digit" one, and is ominously silent. I wish I could find a scary mechanical one, with old style "flipping card" digital readout. THAT would be terrifying especially if geared to move very fast....
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
And, Baron, it would be even scarier if it operated like the bridge chronometer from ST:TOS. You know, the one that counts down 08:01 - 07:00 - 07:59......
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
There is something inherently terrifying about that I agree... old digital numbers got a lot of punch!
THe Half Dice example from T4 is what I mean. It seems like making rules because you like to make rules, not in any sort of goal to produce something playable! I still say BAH! Task systems are one step closer to a Collectable Card Game (barf.) or some goofy "diceless" game.
THe Half Dice example from T4 is what I mean. It seems like making rules because you like to make rules, not in any sort of goal to produce something playable! I still say BAH! Task systems are one step closer to a Collectable Card Game (barf.) or some goofy "diceless" game.
princelian
SOC-12
My Traveller GM at the time (one of the rare periods when I regularly got to *play* instead of GM) converted part of our heavily-modified CT game over to a heavily-modified MT game, because he loved the MT task system. It quantified all of the tasks into a definable system. (The fact that he's a computer programmer probably contributed to his affinity for the system.)
As a *player*, at first I kind of liked the task system, because I knew what I needed to roll to succeed. The GM no longer needed to improvise numbers - and, frankly, he was inconsistent from session to session on what those numbers *were* - and everyone was "happy."
He also modified the system for "middle" difficulties, which was nice, and it went something like:
3 = Easy
5 = Simple
7 = Routine
9 = Hard
11 = Difficult
13 = Very Difficult (hey, we didn't have online thesauri in those days)
15 = Formidable
17 = Very Formidable
19 = Incredible
21 = Stupendous
23 = Stupid Player Don't Even Try It
Anyhow, as time went on, I found myself becoming.... je ne sais pas.... nostalgic I guess for the non-task system, and that's because the "mystery" of a really good roll [or a really bad one] was gone.
You roll, you compare to the target number, you succeed, fail, or have a mishap. Period.
In the pre-task system, if we rolled a really good number (say, an 11 or 12), the GM would usually have it mean something "extra." An 11 with Engineering-3 and an Int of B is a 16, and if you're shooting for a Very Formidable task, you missed. Nothing special here, move along.
Over the years, though, as I ran various Traveller campaigns, I saw the task system as a very helpful tool. However, I stopped sharing that tool with the players. They might know, if they had read the books, what the general difficulty classifications were, but they didn't get to see them.
Oh, I'd let them know ahead of time if the task was (Fateful) or (Hazardous), but if the consequences were hidden (the alien device was just *waiting* to explode) I might not. And if they were in a position to judge difficulty, I'd certainly give them an idea. They also knew that to shave time raised the difficulty and taking longer lowered it (usually), but the specifics remained behind the screen.
That's how I run D&D and how I'll *be* running T20 - I don't tell them what they need in more than general terms.
This allows for several controls, as the Game Master, that I lose if I use a straight-up task system that's "public" information. First, I can fudge. Yes, yes, I know, that's a sin against humanity, but as the GM I'm interested in moving the story along, not in killing someone just because the dice say so.
Now, as some of my players could attest, if it's important for someone to die - or be made an example of - they die. But I digress, so back to fudging rolls (or target numbers). By modifying the result, I get to have things happen the way I want them, and that builds a good campaign story arc. If the players are constantly rerolling characters [exaggeration], that's not good for the arc.
The second control I gain is uncertainty. The players are more wary of a task - which heightens tension - than if they know what the difficulty is.
What you, as a GM, ***DON'T*** want to do if you're working like I do, is create a feeling in the players that they have no control whatsoever. They should be confident that their highly skilled character knows what he's doing and won't step on the twig right before he clobbers the Stormtrooper. It still might happen - everyone flubs a roll sooner or later - but they shouldn't expect it to happen. The bad result - just like the spectacular result - should be a surprise when it comes, and create an emotional response.
"Oh, crud muffins!" instead of "Well, it happened again; I hate this character, he's so pathetic."
To sum up: The task system (UTP or otherwise) is a useful guide and tool, and I am generally using it behind the screen, but it stays there. More important is to create a believable pseudoreality that makes it fun for the players, and doesn't drag them into the game mechanics.
As a *player*, at first I kind of liked the task system, because I knew what I needed to roll to succeed. The GM no longer needed to improvise numbers - and, frankly, he was inconsistent from session to session on what those numbers *were* - and everyone was "happy."
He also modified the system for "middle" difficulties, which was nice, and it went something like:
3 = Easy
5 = Simple
7 = Routine
9 = Hard
11 = Difficult
13 = Very Difficult (hey, we didn't have online thesauri in those days)
15 = Formidable
17 = Very Formidable
19 = Incredible
21 = Stupendous
23 = Stupid Player Don't Even Try It
Anyhow, as time went on, I found myself becoming.... je ne sais pas.... nostalgic I guess for the non-task system, and that's because the "mystery" of a really good roll [or a really bad one] was gone.
You roll, you compare to the target number, you succeed, fail, or have a mishap. Period.
In the pre-task system, if we rolled a really good number (say, an 11 or 12), the GM would usually have it mean something "extra." An 11 with Engineering-3 and an Int of B is a 16, and if you're shooting for a Very Formidable task, you missed. Nothing special here, move along.
Over the years, though, as I ran various Traveller campaigns, I saw the task system as a very helpful tool. However, I stopped sharing that tool with the players. They might know, if they had read the books, what the general difficulty classifications were, but they didn't get to see them.
Oh, I'd let them know ahead of time if the task was (Fateful) or (Hazardous), but if the consequences were hidden (the alien device was just *waiting* to explode) I might not. And if they were in a position to judge difficulty, I'd certainly give them an idea. They also knew that to shave time raised the difficulty and taking longer lowered it (usually), but the specifics remained behind the screen.
That's how I run D&D and how I'll *be* running T20 - I don't tell them what they need in more than general terms.
This allows for several controls, as the Game Master, that I lose if I use a straight-up task system that's "public" information. First, I can fudge. Yes, yes, I know, that's a sin against humanity, but as the GM I'm interested in moving the story along, not in killing someone just because the dice say so.
Now, as some of my players could attest, if it's important for someone to die - or be made an example of - they die. But I digress, so back to fudging rolls (or target numbers). By modifying the result, I get to have things happen the way I want them, and that builds a good campaign story arc. If the players are constantly rerolling characters [exaggeration], that's not good for the arc.
The second control I gain is uncertainty. The players are more wary of a task - which heightens tension - than if they know what the difficulty is.
What you, as a GM, ***DON'T*** want to do if you're working like I do, is create a feeling in the players that they have no control whatsoever. They should be confident that their highly skilled character knows what he's doing and won't step on the twig right before he clobbers the Stormtrooper. It still might happen - everyone flubs a roll sooner or later - but they shouldn't expect it to happen. The bad result - just like the spectacular result - should be a surprise when it comes, and create an emotional response.
"Oh, crud muffins!" instead of "Well, it happened again; I hate this character, he's so pathetic."
To sum up: The task system (UTP or otherwise) is a useful guide and tool, and I am generally using it behind the screen, but it stays there. More important is to create a believable pseudoreality that makes it fun for the players, and doesn't drag them into the game mechanics.
Similar threads
