Something new with T5 release ?!?!?!

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Roll D100 +27, break 100. Simple. Taken straight from rolemaster.

a few points on the overall discussion:
1) roll under does not always mean "Flat distribution" rolling (EG: Hero System uses a roll-under, rolling on 3d6)
2) Successful multi-dice task systems have been dice based upon character abilities, not dice based upon difficulty. Of the latter, only two marginally succesfull ones come to mind: Tales from the Floating Vagabond, and Alternity.
3) Psychology of the players tends to be more in favor of roll high systems. (TSR did a survey on that...)
4) Most linear Roll low systems can be converted to roll high systems by a break x, roll dice and add skill

For example, converting TNE to a Roll high:
Target 21+ to succeed. Roll 1d20 + Asset. Crit is 31+.
VERY simple.

With Marc Miller's T5 system there is a pretty simple way to convert to roll high system.

If that is your major concern..

I have mentioned it before.

Currently, you have a Formidable task = 3D6 based on Intelligence (10) and Steward (4). That translates out in the roll down to

(Int+Steward) > 3D6

That means to have to roll under a 14 on a 3D6 to succeed.

How do you translate that to a roll-high?

The max of a 3D6 or 3x6 = 18.

Your constant (Int+Steward) = 14.

Take away the constant from the max possible number possible from the die difficulty.
18 - 14 = 4

Roll over a 4 on a 3D6 for the roll high.

My problem is that it does not feel the same as a MT or CT+DGP system.

The reliance on attrbutes is still too high even with the "This is Hard" rules.

 

[aramis]

The problem with attribute being too high is that atts and skills DO NOT SCALE to the same range.

In WW/Storyteller, typical atts are 3 and typical professional skills are 3... so counting them equally is fine.

In t4/t5, typcial skills are in the 1-6 range, while typical atts are 4-10. centered around 8 due to CG gains. So a conversion fator is needed. I'd rather divide an attribute than multiply a skill (6 calcs and 6 extra spaces on the CS vs a multiplication for every skill, and an extra space for every skill).

I've felt for a long time that the divide by 5 method was too narrow a field, and have used divide by 3... but the CT/MT task system is excellent. (BTW, the divide by 5 worked fine in T2300.... where atts were scaled 1-20, rather than 2-12, with gains allowing up to 15...)

 

[kaladorn]

Good point Aramis. Which is why dividing CT attribs by 5 in MT made sense. With attribute divisors, you can just put an extra column on the PC sheet for each attrib: Skill Mod. Then you do this once, and unless they are wounded (even then, it ain't hard), you just use this figure.

I don't mind divide by 5, as most skills in my game tended to be 2-3 (some 4, some 1). So consequently, since most attribs were 8-12, it was about an even balance.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Aramis:
...

In t4/t5, typcial skills are in the 1-6 range, while typical atts are 4-10. centered around 8 due to CG gains. So a conversion fator is needed. I'd rather divide an attribute than multiply a skill (6 calcs and 6 extra spaces on the CS vs a multiplication for every skill, and an extra space for every skill).

...

I agree that attributes are weighed in too heavy in this system.

I just took the current system and put a little extra basic math to make it roll-over.

Honestly, I can live with this if I make the "This is Hard" rule a little tougher and up the difficulty of some tasks for the low skill level set.

But it is not the best system I have ever seen either.

What is the solution?

Taking into account the almost irrational love some people including myself have for basic D6 dice mechanics.

Taking into account the fact that skill levels will be higher in T5 than in a typical CT or even MT universe.

Taking into account the love for the DGP Universal Task Profile.

Taking all these things into account what is a good task system for T5?


_

 

[Jame]

Originally posted by Kafka47:

First, to understand how TL have to broken down to cover different aspects of the overall Technological Level.

This would allow one to see that perhaps Earth is on the cusp of TL 9, as I have always taken the TL A to mean once we have made it to the stars.

Agreed that GURPS have had a more thought out spread for TLs but remember Traveller hadn't changed much since 1977. So therefore, suffers from more than a little utopianism. To completely revise the charts would make large sections of past Traveller very confusing to the newbie therefore, as much as one wants to reflect the real world, I would be prepared to sacriface realism for consistancy.

Lastly, it ought to be remembered the whole issue TLs is that it is heuristic device and never meant as the final comment of the Technological progress or late of it in a civilization just an indicator what type of tools might be found in the hands of the locals.

Okay, so the TLs might be, for the game, a device to keep track of neat toys for NPCs. So I'll say that it's up to MM, though he never did respond to the single email I sent him. I'm still gonna use the GTLs up to 7 and the TTLs from there.

 

[aramis]

Well, the solution:

knowing that CT skilsl ranged 1-4, typically, and 1 was employable, 2 was experienced, and 3 professional... 5-8 occurred rarely, and usually as a glitch or a vilani character...

Attributes still range 1-15, normalizing about 8

T4/t5 skills run 1-6 for typical PC's, with the range of 1-4 being replaced by 2-6...

CT divided by 5 for att conversion: 1-3 points.

A good t4/t5 way of handling it needs be developed respecting the needs of

1) D6 based.
2) using the T5 skill levels.
3) routine should be about 65% for joe average with level 0

Here is my suggestion: Att/3 (frd), or skill level for each of the components. 2 components per task. 3d6 for target number or more.
Auto: 2+
Simple: 6+
Routine: 10+
Difficult: 14+
staggering: 18+
formidable: 22+
Improbable: 26+

add a max DM +10 restriction, rather than MT's +8.

Why's:
•"Average Skill" for T4/T5 is really about 2 IN YOUR FIELD.
•Att/3 gives a good range (0-5), and puts the peak att about the same as the peak skill range for normal PC's.
•att/3 produces Joe Average (7 or 8 stat) with a +2, about the same as secondary skills in field.
• 3die rolls produce a real "Bell" curve, rather than a bilinear "carat"; the anglees change...
• Loss of granularity of attributes is accounted for by some other aspects. STR affects carry capacity. Dex provides dodge pool. END limits combat swings and hours marching. INT and EDU lost their roles, but Determination could resurrect one of them; Aging also uses the granularity.
• routine centers on 10+ base; since this is hit with a 3 or 4 point shift, its really a 6+ or 7+... around 80%.
• Improbable requires either Great skills, Great atts and decent skills., or lots of modifiers from extra time, excessive tools, etc.


Options: If you got to Att/2, it ups joe normal 18 to +3 from att, and his experienced older brother to +4... and the peak for humans to 7. If using this, adjust needed rolls up by point.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Well, the solution:


...

3D6 huh?

Very elegant solution.

Have you ever thought about emailing Marc Miller and suggesting it at the very least as a "optional" rule?

It is very nice and something I might take later when Marc Miller posts more T5 material, if you don't mind.

Is it possible to make a Skill x Dice + att or att bonus version vs. Diff schema that fits the T5 model? I have read some of your posts saying that such task systems are also very good.

Modular systems can offer a great deal of flexibility in my mind. Optional rules are not confusing for me I see them as better than putting out a product people will just house rule to death immediately.

Of course, I am a different in the fact that I can take the "This is Hard" Rule harden it up a bit and reverse the polarity of Marc Miller's Task System to a roll over and be happy.

I understand why you feel the way you do and agree to a point. Its just not the deal-breaker for me.
_

 

[mike wightman]

I'll second Ack's praise for this task system, Aramis.
In fact I'm going to use it (if you don't mind) and see how it plays out.

 

[robject]

I don't remember if I read it right, but I thought T4 (and therefore T5) used skill ranges from 0 to 15 -- in other words, att and skill now have the same weight. Makes me wonder how someone can get up to that level if they only get four skills per term, though. I suppose players ought to have some measure of control over picking skills, eh?

Until far-trader mentioned it, I didn't realize that "This Is Hard!" was intended to weight the skills more appropriately. Is it possible that TIH was originally intended for CT-ranged skills levels (1-6)? If so, then it might need to scale up, with the corresponding "This Is Easy!" rules for the expert specialist veterans.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Aramis:
..
A good t4/t5 way of handling it needs be developed respecting the needs of

1) D6 based.
2) using the T5 skill levels.
3) routine should be about 65% for joe average with level 0

Here is my suggestion: Att/3 (frd), or skill level for each of the components. 2 components per task. 3d6 for target number or more.
Auto: 2+
Simple: 6+
Routine: 10+
Difficult: 14+
staggering: 18+
formidable: 22+
Improbable: 26+

add a max DM +10 restriction, rather than MT's +8.

...

BTW, I looked Marc Miller's T5 Task Matrix for his Universal Task Format.

This is how his codes lay out:

TASK DIFFICULTIES
Difficulty Level Dice Code
Easy --usually automatic--
Easy --with S+C < 6-- 1D
Average 2D
Difficult 3D
Formidable 3D
Staggering 4D
Hopeless 5D
Impossible 6D

Ok this is how I see them corresponding to Aramis's matrix:

Easy --with S+C < 6--: 2+
Average: 6+
Difficult: 10+
Formidable: 14+
Staggering: 18+
Hopeless: 22+
Impossible: 26+

These are all just labels mind you but if you are going to use adventures made for T5, if they ever come out, with the difficulty labels on Tasks or try to convert sample tasks included in the Skills and Tasks pdf this might be nice.

 

[mike wightman]

Aramis, would you still use the MT exceptional success rules or raise the roll over number from 2+ (and 4+, 8+ for damage)???
I was thinking of exceptional success if you roll 4+ more than your target number, and in combat 4+, 8+, and 16+ over for the MT damage multipliers.
Are these too high?

 

[Straybow]

Staggering is definitely tougher than Formidable.

That ought to be a law!

Hmmmm, both Difficult and Formidible are the same (3D). Is there something else that distinguishes between them in T5??

With +4 for an Average Joe (with some skill) and up to +10 max I don't think that translation from T5 is quite right. Difficult (for "Joe") then translates to 6+ on 3d6, which is 95%!

Easy: 6+
Average: 10+
Difficult: 14+
Formidable: 17+
Staggering: 20+
Hopeless: 23+
Impossible: 26+

 

[far-trader]

Pet Peeve:

Using "Difficult" as a label for task 'difficulty'

Why confuse the issue unnecessarily? Just pick a different adjective. Not that I imagine anyone else feels the same way about it

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Aramis, would you still use the MT exceptional success rules or raise the roll over number from 2+ (and 4+, 8+ for damage)???
I was thinking of exceptional success if you roll 4+ more than your target number, and in combat 4+, 8+, and 16+ over for the MT damage multipliers.
Are these too high?

Naw. I often forget that tthe official MT Exceptional Success is only 2 over... I use 4 over...

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Straybow:
Staggering is definitely tougher than Formidable.

That ought to be a law!

Hmmmm, both Difficult and Formidible are the same (3D). Is there something else that distinguishes between them in T5??

With +4 for an Average Joe (with some skill) and up to +10 max I don't think that translation from T5 is quite right. Difficult (for "Joe") then translates to 6+ on 3d6, which is 95%!

Easy: 6+
Average: 10+
Difficult: 14+
Formidable: 17+
Staggering: 20+
Hopeless: 23+
Impossible: 26+

Thanks man your matrix aligned with T5 task labels are much better than the 1 for 1 alignment I attempted.

What do you think Aramis?

Just trying to align the difficulty labels from T5 to your system.

If the ref is going to use the sample skill diffs from the Skills and Tasks section of the playtest then making the labels correspond helps in my mind.

_

 

[Straybow]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Pet Peeve:

Using "Difficult" as a label for task 'difficulty'

Errrr, yeah, that could be corrected as well. It just doesn't quite rise to Pet Peeve level for me.

It's nothing like the troglodytes who use biweekly [-monthly, -annually, etc.] to mean twice per week [mo, yr]!

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by ACK:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Straybow:
[qb] Staggering is definitely tougher than Formidable.

Formidable: 17+
Staggering: 20+

Thanks man your matrix aligned with T5 task labels are much better than the 1 for 1 alignment I attempted.

What do you think Aramis?
/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I was tired while writing that; I'll edit it to correct later. Go to the open forums on T5.com to see a revised (and fumble roll included) and more fully fleshed out version.

BTW, something I did for MT: in one campaign, I allowed players to make a "Casual" attempt at a task. No mods to difficulty, and one extra die on a mishap, but on the task roll, all ones and 6's were re-roilled on the first throw.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Aramis:
I was tired while writing that; I'll edit it to correct later. Go to the open forums on T5.com to see a revised (and fumble roll included) and more fully fleshed out version.

BTW, something I did for MT: in one campaign, I allowed players to make a "Casual" attempt at a task. No mods to difficulty, and one extra die on a mishap, but on the task roll, all ones and 6's were re-roilled on the first throw.

Well, that looks very good but the original exchange between Straybow and I concerned trying to take matrix and align it against the difficulty levels mapped out by Marc Miller for his system.

By using the same T5 labels but aligned to your task system it becomes easy to use the system as-is simply dropping the new task system in as opposed to translating tasks as you go which can be difficult and problematic for a fresh referee.

Any thought on that?

_

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Aramis:
BTW, something I did for MT: in one campaign, I allowed players to make a "Casual" attempt at a task. No mods to difficulty, and one extra die on a mishap, but on the task roll, all ones and 6's were re-roilled on the first throw.

"I don't know!..... Fly Casual!"

-- Han Solo

 

[aramis]

As I said before, albeit les clearly, the mislabelling was a typo caused by exhaustion and homelife stress (my wife faces losing her vision... we found out this week).

On the T5.com boards is a fuller version. Including mishaps.

Yes. It was intended to re4vise to align with T4 and T5 tasks. THat's the whole point.

By putting a DM + 10 limit, and renaming the erroneous impossible to improbable, it makes it much better.

I add two levels past in my own games, tho: Ridiculous (You WILL fail, since it requires a further 4 past improbable, unles you are incredible, you will exceptional fail) and Absurd (Any attempt is a guaranteed exceptional fail).

I suggested a 3d6 task system years ago. Shortly after MWM "Previewed" the xd6 task mechanic on the TML.

Oh, if only Marc hadn't left in (Disgust/lack of time/;acl of interest) the TML during the T4.1 Task Wars... they drove me off!