T4 Only: Suggestions for a "points based" system of character generation.

[ManOfGrey]

One of the ironies of T4 also serves as its strongest criticism. It has been said T4 has a great character creation system, and a great task resolution system. But the two don't mesh well together. It has been suggested that when a character's statistics, as generated in the character creation system, is applied to the task resolution system, the character can hardly ever fail. Like so many others, I too have put some thought into how to "tweak" the system in order to present the players more of a challenge as they travel across the universe.

To begin with, I'm not the biggest fan of games that generate characteristics randomly. I enjoy games that allow players to determine their own character's strength and weaknesses. Seeing as T4 uses a character's characteristics so intimately in the task resolution system, perhaps there is a way to allow player's some freedom of choice, while, at the same time, maintain some sort of balance in the task resolution system.

Suggested Tweak #1: Player's buy their characteristics up using a point system. (Instead of characteristics being determined by rolling dice randomly.)

To begin, each character starts with a base UPP of 555555. Each character is given 80 points to buy their characteristics up. But the progression is not linear. (For math gurus, it's actually a geometric summation.) To buy a characteristic up, a character must "invest" the number of points equal to the next level they are trying to attain. For example, to buy Strength from 5 to 6, it costs 6 points. To buy Strength again from 6 to 7, it costs 7 points. And to buy Strength from 7 to 8, it costs 8 points. So, to buy Strength from level 5 to level 8 it costs 6+7+8 = 21 points of the 80 they are initially given. In this example that would leave 80-21=59 points to buy the rest of their characteristics up. This would be repeated for each characteristic.

So, for example, to obtain a UPP of 887766 from the base characteristics of 555555, a player would have to spend:

Strength: 6+7+8 = 21 points
Dexterity: 6+7+8 = 21 points
Endurance: 6+7 = 13 points
Intelligence: 6+7 = 13 points
Education: 6 = 6 points
Social Standing 6 = 6 points

For a total of: 80 points

A few of the unused points may be held to buy skills with in the next section. But only 5 points maximum. If a character has more than 5 points left over from buying characteristics, the difference is lost.

This, of course, can be abused somewhat by "Min/Maxers," players who try to take advantage of a system by maximizing the characteristics they feel they should have, by minimizing the ones they don't care about. But, I would think, the geometric progression presented here will discourage that practice a bit. After all, if someone put ALL their points in one characteristic, say Dexterity for example, the best they could hope to achieve would be 6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13 = 76 points, with 4 points left over. Which would give a character a UPP of 5D5555. This may be great for Dexterity based skill rolls, but what about Intelligence based skill rolls? In my games, at least, that would seriously limit how much that character could contribute to one of our role-playing sessions.

Interestingly, using this system, the example character outlined on page 25, Merchant Captain Alexander L. Jamison's UPP of 688C89 is unobtainable.

I will get to "Tweak #2," buying skills, in the next reply. And everyone is welcome to comment below. But the main reason I started this thread is because they say "no plan survives contact with the enemy." Similarly, no RPG system may survive contact with players. I have made these notes, in part, to present them in written form to a number of players that I would like to try to run a game with using these suggestions. I am curious what they might do with these "rules," and see what they come up with. :rant:

 

[ManOfGrey]

A few things that are not changed...

As I make these suggestions, perhaps I should mention the thinking behind them. Overall, these changes are based around two criteria. 1) To allow a player freedom of choice in picking skills and characteristic values. 2) But by doing so, limit a character's abilities to reasonable odds when their skills and characteristics are used to determine success or failure when using T4's task system.

With that said, please allow me a moment to mention the things that I suggest don't change. Specifically, how a character's background is generated using the careers as presented in the T4 rulebook. The rolls required to attend College, or Graduate School, a Military Academy, Commando School, the Naval or Merchant Academies, Flight or Medical School, remain unchanged. Rolls for Enlistment into a career, Injury, Commission, Promotion, or Continuance also remain the same. (As does the Draft, for that matter.)

(With one possible exception. I do not believe it actually says in the rulebook a character may only obtain one Commission. But it should. Once Commissioned, that character is now an officer, and that's it. No more commissions. That character may still be promoted. It's just now on the Commissioned table of ranks, instead of the Non-Commissioned table.)

 

[ManOfGrey]

"Tweak" #2 -- A characters must buy skills like they do characteristics.

Page 20 in the T4 rulebook reads (partly) as follows:

Skills and Training:

Skills are acquired by rolling on the acquired skills tables, once for each skill allowed, using one die. There are six tables for each career, each containing different general types of skills. Players may determine skills on these tables in one of four ways:

Roll one die for the table number, then one die for the specific skill.
Roll one die for the table number, then select the skill from the designated table.
Select one table, then roll one die for the specific skill.
Select one table, then select one skill from that table.

If case you're wondering, I'm a big fan of that last option. I believe, if a skill is listed on any of the skill tables of the character's chosen career, it's fair game.

Only... you don't just get the skill, you have to pay for it with skill points you accumulate. Skills are bought just like characteristics. To start with a skill level 1, it costs 1 point. To raise that skill to a skill level 2, it costs two additional points. To raise that skill to a skill level 3, it costs three additional points, and so on.

For example, to buy Pilot-1, costs 1 point. To raise it to Pilot-2 costs 2 additional points. To raise it further to Pilot-3, it costs 3 additional points. So, to go from unskilled, to Pilot-3, costs a character 6 points total.

Characters accumulate 1 skill point for every year of their careers.

And to this mix, a character can add the few skill points they had left over from buying characteristics before. These points are spent in the exact same manner.

Characters don't get extra skills, or skill points, because of receiving either a commission or promotion. They just get either commissioned, or promoted, as part of their backstory. (For what it's worth, I know lots of ex-military personnel who would make the argument someone doesn't necessarily get any smarter, just because they were promoted!)

Furthermore, if a characteristic is listed on the skill table of a particular career, it too may be raised by accumulating points during a career. But they are raised at the exact same cost as before. In our earlier example, to raise a character's Strength from 8 to 9, it takes 9 skill points, or nine years of training, in order to accomplish this feat.

For those Min/Maxers and Power Gamers out there, you might take note of this... there are 92 skills listed in the skills list on page 38. If a character has a career of, say, 30 years... they could accumulate a skill list of their own of about thirty level-1 skills. Or ten level-2 skills. Or five level-3 skills. Or three level-4 skills. Or some combination thereof. Regardless, the geometric progression catches up quick. (And that's assuming a character doesn't use the points accumulated during a career to buy characteristics, which tend to be even more expensive!)

Even the "skills" acquired because of background, homeworld, or college and the like, are skill POINTS. For example, if a character gets "Computer" because they grew up on a Tech Level 5+ world, that just one skill POINT towards Computer. If it's the first computer skill they get, then one point can become Computer-1. But a character doesn't get Computer-2, until they accumulate 2 more points towards raising that skill.

Any leftover skill points from character creation may be saved as experience points, to be spent later.

 

[ManOfGrey]

Some suggested skill levels.

To give an idea of how high a level someone needs to attain, here are some suggested skill levels for certain career paths:

Language:
Language-1 (1 skill point/1 year of study) A character knows basic phrases, can say "Thank you," and ask where the bathrooms are.
Language-2 (3 skill points/3 years of study) A character can hold conversations in a foreign language. There are lots of "aaaahs," and a lot of hunting for the right words.
Language-3 (6 skill points/6 years study) The character is fluent in the language, but speaks with a noticeable accent.
Language-4 (10 skill points/10 years study) The character speaks a foreign language as well as a native.

Science: (Any Science skill)
Science-1 (1 skill point/1 year of study) Technician
Science-2 (3 skill points/3 years of study) Bachelors' Degree
Science-3 (6 skill points/6 years of study) Masters' Degree
Science-4 (10 skill points/10 years of study) Ph.D.

Medic:
Medic-1 (1 skill point/1 year of study) The character is an Emergency Medical Technician, (EMT.) (And with Ground Vehicle-1, can drive the ambulance.)
Medic-2 (3 skill points/3 years of study) The character is a trained Paramedic.
Medic-3 (6 skill points/6 years of study) The character is a Registered Nurse, (RN,) or a Physician's Assistant, (PA.)
Medic-4 (10 skill points/10 years of study) The character is a Medical Doctor, (MD.)

Ship's Boat:
Ship's Boat-1 (1 skill point/1 year of study) Can pilot a small craft (under 100 tons) with a Maneuver Drive of 1G.
Ship's Boat-2 (3 skill points/3 years of study) Can pilot a small craft (under 100 tons) with a Maneuver Drive of 2Gs.
Ship's Boat-3 (6 skill points/6 years of study) Can pilot a small craft (under 100 tons) with a Maneuver Drive of 3Gs.
Ship's Boat-4 (10 skill points/10 years of study) Can pilot a small craft (under 100 tons) with a Maneuver Drive of 4Gs.
Ship's Boat-5 (15 skill points/15 years of study) Can pilot a small craft (under 100 tons) with a Maneuver Drive of 5Gs.
Ship's Boat-6 (21 skill points/21 years of study) Can pilot a small craft (under 100 tons) with a Maneuver Drive of 6Gs.

Pilot:
Pilot-1 (1 skill point/1 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Maneuver Drive of 1G.
Pilot-2 (3 skill points/3 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Maneuver Drive of 2Gs.
Pilot-3 (6 skill points/6 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Maneuver Drive of 3Gs.
Pilot-4 (10 skill points/10 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Maneuver Drive of 4Gs.
Pilot-5 (15 skill points/15 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Maneuver Drive of 5Gs.
Pilot-6 (21 skill points/21 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Maneuver Drive of 6GS.

Astrogation:
Astrogation-1 (1 skill point/1 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Jump Drive of 1.
Astrogation-2 (3 skill points/3 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Jump Drive of 2.
Astrogation-3 (6 skill points/6 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Jump Drive of 3.
Astrogation-4 (10 skill points/10 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Jump Drive of 4.
Astrogation-5 (15 skill points/15 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Jump Drive of 5.
Astrogation-6 (21 skill points/21 years of study) Can pilot a starship (100 tons or greater) with a Jump Drive of 6.

Bodybuilder example:
If someone wanted their character to be the strongest person in the universe, with a Strength of F, using this system, this would be a something they would have to dedicate their life to.
It would take all their characteristic points to get to a Strength of D, (with 4 character points left over.) And after a thirty year career of nothing but strength training, they would spend 29 of their 30 skill points to bring their Strength to F, with 5 skill points left over, (including the 4 left over from buying characteristics,) to spend on, perhaps, five level-1 skills, and have a final UPP of F55555. Assuming, of course, they lost no characteristics due to aging.

 

[Timerover51]

I can see why you might like this system, as I am not a complete fan of random die rolling either. I tend to use either a 3D6 and drop the lowest roll, a D6 + 6, or either of the previous and the player assigns the rolls to the characteristic that they want.

With respect to the skills idea, I like the idea of getting 1 skill point per year of service to spend as the player wants, as people over a period of years will tend to pick up miscellaneous skills simply in the course of life. They aslo may improve skill that they already have without necessarily working hard at it. I might go with maybe as an alternative choosing one skill per term, over and above any skills rolled, allowing the player to have some control over how his character is developing.

I do think that your requirement for a specific skill level for performance of certain tasks it taking it a bit too far. That may force the players into becoming too specialized for overall play. Traveller tends to favor the more generalized character, rather than the extreme specialist.

 

[ManOfGrey]

Aging, and negative characteristics.

The character generation rules in T4 do account for aging, (p. 22.) If the character should happen to suffer a negative characteristic due to aging, at least those characteristic points are not lost. They may be spent elsewhere, with limitations. If a physical characteristic, (i.e. Strength, Dexterity, or Endurance,) was decreased, those character points may only be spent in mental/social characteristics and/or skills. Similarly, if a mental characteristic, (i.e. Intelligence,) was decreased, those character points may only be spent in physical characteristics and/or skills.

For example, if a character had their Strength reduced from 9 to 8 due to aging, then that character has 9 points they may spend elsewhere in mental/social characteristics and/or skills. (But not the other physical characteristics.)

Aging may reduce a characteristic to 0, as per the rules as written.

Also, during character creation there are several options on the career tables that include the "option" of taking negative characteristics. (A Scholar may take a negative on Strength or Dexterity, for example.) If a player chooses to take a negative characteristic that is listed on their chosen career's skills list, the same game mechanic applies. In our example, say someone making a Scholar, chooses to reduce their Dexterity from 6 to 5. They now have 6 points they may spend in physical characteristics and/or skills.

A player may not optionally choose to reduce a characteristic below 2, (the minimum possible if rolling two dice.)

 

[ManOfGrey]

Suggested "tweak" #3 -- Increase range difficulty, (and half dice aren't that bad.)

For a game that is as popular as Dungeons & Dragons with its multitude of polyhedral dice, frankly I really don't understand why the half dice in T4 was such an issue. I felt the idea of increasing the number of dice one rolled as either a task became more difficult, or the range increased, was truly innovative. And it's not like the math is hard. In fact, they even make six-sided dice that are printed 1 thru 3 twice. Just roll those, and count the dots.

What I felt was truly innovative was, unlike earlier editions where they added to the difficulty with some number as the difficulty increased, in T4 they added to the average you could roll. The dice did the math for you! And, by the way, that average, with each half dice, was two greater for every difficulty increase.

Which is perhaps why this idea of buying skills and characteristics using the geometric increase of skill/characteristic points has a hidden benefit. As difficulty increases, it actually becomes a geometric progression itself. To compensate for that difficulty increase, the character would have had to spend, not a proportional increase, but a geometric increase in abilities and skills.

The only thing that I noticed that seemed a little odd, was how shooting someone at Contact range only required a roll on 1.5 dice, and punching them in the face at the same range required a roll on 2 dice. Now admittedly, having never shot anyone at point-blank range, maybe I'm not one to talk, but I would think that wouldn't be any easier than trying to punch them out. So, I think, that is a tweak that is probably worth doing -- increase the range table by one difficulty level. Which would make it something like the following:

Contact -- Average -- 2D6
Very Short -- Difficult -- 2.5d6
Short -- Formidable -- 3d6
Medium -- Stagering -- 3.5d6
Long -- Impossible -- 4d6
Very Long -- Even More Impossible -- 4.5d6

 

[flykiller]

stat skill points: doing it that way, I'd start the player at 777777 - average across the board.

skill points: int + edu / 4, per term. +2 / school for a school-obtained skill.

skills: pilot 1 is not the same as sidearm 1 is not the same as electronics 1. I'd say 1 skill point for sidearm 1, 2 for sidearm 2, etc. 2 skill points for electronics 1, 3 skill points for electronics 2, etc. 3 skill points for pilot 1, 4 skill points for pilot 2, etc.

 

[aramis]

For a game that is as popular as Dungeons & Dragons with its multitude of polyhedral dice, frankly I really don't understand why the half dice in T4 was such an issue. I felt the idea of increasing the number of dice one rolled as either a task became more difficult, or the range increased, was truly innovative. And it's not like the math is hard. In fact, they even make six-sided dice that are printed 1 thru 3 twice. Just roll those, and count the dots.

I'll list the reasons I disliked it...

1) it gives away the difficulty immediately
2) it makes uncertain tasks harder to do.
3) roll low is less satisfying than roll high for the majority of people¹
4) as implemented in T4.0, the value of a point of attribute was way more than that of a skill, so astute players took most rolls on the PDT², rather than skills
4a) once the TIH rule was added, it curbed it slightly, but once the desired skills hit 3 or 4, back to the PDT
5) as implemented in T4, it forces all tasks to be attribute + skill³, rather than the far more flexible mode of the DGPCT/MT/2300 system, where it could be two skills, two attributes, one each, terms, special duties, rank...
6) no direct mechanics relied upon the roll-low dice by difficulty.⁴
7) a 3d variant of the DGPCT/MT/2300 task system with 5 point steps works just as well, but allows hidden difficulty, uncertain tasks, uses roll high, and can still benefit from TIH...

¹ I have done surveys of students in grades 2-8; about 60% of them prefer roll high even when the odds are identical and they know it. about 10% preferred keep low. TSR's early 90's survey came with a similar result.
² PDT: Personal Development Table. The one that's mostly attribute gains.
³ One could theoretically use rank, terms, or special duties received in lieu of the skill component... but the scaling is less valuable than it was in CT/MT.
⁴ Essentially, T4, you can readily replace the task system with another one, and nothing changes, except what and how one rolls, and the specific odds. T4 merely requires determining 1 of 4 levels of success by interatio

 

[ManOfGrey]

Actually, in the end, we're shooting for the average.

stat skill points: doing it that way, I'd start the player at 777777 - average across the board.

I believe the task system in T4 depends on average characteristics to obtain average rolls.

So... just to let you know, 777777 is the targeted final result. The purpose of the system is to try to "force" the player into making an average character. They can still buy better-than-average characteristics, but they have to sacrifice something in return. Plus the geometric progression of the system "forces" players who want to buy extremely high characteristics into a situation of increasingly diminishing returns. For example take the average of 777777 = 42/6 = an average base sill roll of 7 across all 6 characteristics. But compare this to the extreme example of 5D5555. Its average will be 38/6 = 6.3. By throwing all their eggs in one basket, they are extremely good at one thing, but it hurts their chances at being as successful at everything else. And, on top of that, (on average!), they are worse at everything overall.

That's really where the 80 characteristic points come from. To raise 555555 to 777777 using the method described above costs 78 characteristic points with 2 left over.

If a player ends up with an average characteristic of 7, with, say, an average skill level of 2, that would give them a target roll of 9. Which is right at a 50/50 chance on 2.5d6.

 

[flykiller]

"777777 is the targeted final result"

well, if the ruleset wants a targeted result and penalizes other results, them might as well just run the target. "777777" it is. though I don't think such a person would qualify for flight school or marine graduation. "we're looking for a few average men."

 

[ManOfGrey]

Getting into Flight School.

"777777 is the targeted final result"

well, if the ruleset wants a targeted result and penalizes other results, them might as well just run the target. "777777" it is. though I don't think such a person would qualify for flight school or marine graduation. "we're looking for a few average men."

Perfect example! Let's look at that.

In T4, to get into Flight School, it's required a candidate must either attend college, or better yet, the Naval Academy.

To get into the Naval Academy, you must have a Social Standing of 6+.
You get bonuses for Admission for an Education 9+, and Social Standing A+
You get bonuses for Perseverance if Endurance is 9+, and Intelligence is 9+.
You get bonuses for Honors if Intelligence is 9+, and Endurance is B+.

Flight School gives bonuses for Admission if Dexterity is 9+.
You get bonuses Perseverance if Endurance is 9+, and Intelligence is 9+.

So how can you tailor your character to give you some good odds? How can your character prepare himself for Flight School?

I might go at it like this:
Social Standing of 6+ is required. Intelligence of 9+ comes up a lot. And looking at the chart, if he misses being an honers graduate from the Naval Academy, he's probably going to need that Dexterity of 9+.

A Social Standing of 6 costs 6 points.
An Intelligence of 9 costs 6+7+8+9 = 30 points.
A Dexterity of 9 costs 6+7+8+9 = 30 points.

Thats 66 points out of 80, with 14 points left over.

So far, we have a UPP of 595956. With the remaining points left over, you could either bring two of the 5s up to 6s, or one of the 5s to a 7. Just in this example I'll say I bring up Strength and Endurance to 6s.

Final UPP: 696956 (with 2 points left over for later.)

You're not perfect, granted. And you don't get everything. But you have a shot. And probably just as good a shot if you rolled dice and left it to random chance instead. Isn't that better than leaving it to the whim of the dice and dumb luck?

Should I grab some dice and see how far I get?

Admission to the Naval Academy: 4 or less, (which stinks no matter who you are.) DM +1, if Edu 9+, DM +2 if Soc A+. For this character, the roll is 4 or less. Come on dice, treat me right... I rolled a 9. I would have failed no matter what my stats are.

Let's try college. Prerequisite: Edu 4+
Admission: 5 or less, DM +1 if Int 8+, DM +1 if Soc 9+, DM +2 if Edu 9+. For this character, the roll is 6 or less. I rolled an 8. With this roll, I would have had to have above average stats to succeed. An Edu of 9+ and either an Int of 8+, or Soc 9+.

I don't remember this being too much different in any of the versions of Traveller I've played.

(What if I just enlisted in the Navy? Enlistment 6 or less, DM +1 if Int 8+, DM +2 if Edu 9+. For this character the roll is 7 or less. HA! I rolled a 6. I'm in!)

 

[aramis]

It's worth noting that the sum of attributes of the average generated PC by experienced players are going to be well above 42 total points. In my campaigns, typical was closer to 60.

This is a side effect of the task system valuing skill and attribute the same, but attributes applying far more widely.

 

[McPerth]

Perfect example! Let's look at that.

In T4, to get into Flight School, it's required a candidate must either attend college, or better yet, the Naval Academy.

To get into the Naval Academy, you must have a Social Standing of 6+.
You get bonuses for Admission for an Education 9+, and Social Standing A+
You get bonuses for Perseverance if Endurance is 9+, and Intelligence is 9+.
You get bonuses for Honors if Intelligence is 9+, and Endurance is B+.

Flight School gives bonuses for Admission if Dexterity is 9+.
You get bonuses Perseverance if Endurance is 9+, and Intelligence is 9+.

So how can you tailor your character to give you some good odds? How can your character prepare himself for Flight School?

I might go at it like this:
Social Standing of 6+ is required. Intelligence of 9+ comes up a lot. And looking at the chart, if he misses being an honers graduate from the Naval Academy, he's probably going to need that Dexterity of 9+.

A Social Standing of 6 costs 6 points.
An Intelligence of 9 costs 6+7+8+9 = 30 points.
A Dexterity of 9 costs 6+7+8+9 = 30 points.

Thats 66 points out of 80, with 14 points left over.

So far, we have a UPP of 595956. With the remaining points left over, you could either bring two of the 5s up to 6s, or one of the 5s to a 7. Just in this example I'll say I bring up Strength and Endurance to 6s.

Final UPP: 696956 (with 2 points left over for later.)

You're not perfect, granted. And you don't get everything. But you have a shot. And probably just as good a shot if you rolled dice and left it to random chance instead. Isn't that better than leaving it to the whim of the dice and dumb luck?

Should I grab some dice and see how far I get?

Admission to the Naval Academy: 4 or less, (which stinks no matter who you are.) DM +1, if Edu 9+, DM +2 if Soc A+. For this character, the roll is 4 or less. Come on dice, treat me right... I rolled a 9. I would have failed no matter what my stats are.

Let's try college. Prerequisite: Edu 4+
Admission: 5 or less, DM +1 if Int 8+, DM +1 if Soc 9+, DM +2 if Edu 9+. For this character, the roll is 6 or less. I rolled an 8. With this roll, I would have had to have above average stats to succeed. An Edu of 9+ and either an Int of 8+, or Soc 9+.

I don't remember this being too much different in any of the versions of Traveller I've played.

(What if I just enlisted in the Navy? Enlistment 6 or less, DM +1 if Int 8+, DM +2 if Edu 9+. For this character the roll is 7 or less. HA! I rolled a 6. I'm in!)

Better to invest your points in INT 8 and SOC 9 (total 51 points, leaving you 29 more of other stats (hint: don't use any in EDU)).

This would make College admission 7- (so over 50% probablilty ot enter it), and if he's sucessful on it, He will raise his education by 4 (so becoming EDU 9), aside from earning 4 skill levels (1/6 of wich wil lbe JOT). Even if he fails, he'll spend 1d3 years on it, earing so many EDU + skill levels...

If he is also successful in NOTC, the will earn 2 more skill levels. If he's successful at honors (7-, so again over 50%), he'll earn +1 more to EDU and can apply for Medical School, where, if successful, he'd earn +6 to edu (1 per year on academic career, as per page 19 , +2 specifically for the Medical School), 4 more skills (if they don't reach Medic 3, as many more as to have it), and if honors is achieved 2 more ones, aside from Rank 3 in the Navy...

So, any character finishing the Medical school will have EDU 13+ (as he would have earned +11 to edu in the process), at least 8 skil llevels (and as many as 15, if he's lucky) and Rank 3 in two terms...

And as stats are the decisive factor in T4, he will be outstanding in any EDU based task, even if he has a tiny skill level 1.

Time ago, I already made a similar comparative (more detailed , and comparing it with MT too) about the enourmous benefit College is in T4 in this old post.

 

[ManOfGrey]

That's the spirit!

Better to invest your points in INT 8 and SOC 9 (total 51 points, leaving you 29 more of other stats (hint: don't use any in EDU)).

Wonderful! That's the point. You have another idea on how to tackle your character's statistics? Great! A system like this allows for variations.

 

[ManOfGrey]

A choice of evils...

As I sit here at the computer, I am trying to put into words the thoughts that are going through my head regarding the character generation system, and task system, of T4. Quite a few people on this web-site have said the system could stand improvement. And, frankly, I agree. As I said before, "no plan survives contact with the enemy." And similarly, no RPG system survives contact with players.

I see a few ways one can try to "fix" the system.

The first solution is simple: Everyone is assigned a perfect set of characteristics, UPP FFFFFF, and has every skill in the book. Whenever anyone needs to make a task roll, don't bother to roll dice, just assume they are successful. If this is how people want to play Traveller, then more power to them. But I, personally, don't think that like sounds fun. Success is meaningless if there is no chance of failure.

The second solution that is often bantered about is to increase the odds of success to pander to monster characters with perfect stats, usually by increasing the number of dice, or doing away with the half dice, and substituting a whole dice in its place. But this creates a world where monster characters are the norm. Everyone must have perfect stats in order to have even a chance of success.

Another popular solution is to do away with task rolls based on the character's characteristics, and just assign some number to roll against, which increases with difficultly. But this means if two characters have Computer-1, both have the same chance to hack into a computer, even if one of them is a grade A moron with an Intelligence of 2, or a super-genius with an Intelligence of F. Shouldn't the super-genius have a better chance of succeeding at an Intelligence based task than the moron? Shouldn't a stronger character have a better chance of success at a Strength check than a weaker one?

The little talked-about solution is the one I present here. Find a way in character creation to limit the characteristics, and skills, to more average rolls. Frankly, Dungeons & Dragons suffered from this same problem. (Back in the day, I personally saw a lot of characters with an 18/00 Strength.) Now, in Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition, they've implemented a system of "buying" characteristics not too different than this one. It too requires a player, if they want to have an unusually good characteristic, give up something else in return. You don't get perfect stats. You have to accept a poor stat in order to get a good one.

Ironically, I just had a Dungeons & Dragons player choose to roll dice instead of using this point buy system to determine his characteristics... and the next day ask if he could use the point buy system because the dice were unkind.

It is my opinion you do not need perfect stats to enjoy Dungeons & Dragons... or even unusually high ones. And I believe the same holds for Traveller as well.

 

[whartung]

3) roll low is less satisfying than roll high for the majority of people¹

It's funny. As a general theme I agree with this. Boxcars is always more exciting that snake-eyes.

But that seems to only happen on sums of dices, vs individual dice.

With individual dice, it didn't much matter -- whether it was a handful of dice representing a salvo of Photon torpedoes rolling up a bunch of 1's and 2's or that stubborn, last, RISK army that seems to roll nothing but 6's.

Both of those are satisfying.

But add them up, and I was never fond of rolling low to hit in Squad leader. If I punch a hole in a tank and make it catch fire, it's more fun with a 12 than a 2.

As I said before, "no plan survives contact with the enemy." And similarly, no RPG system survives contact with players.

That's why it's called play testing - it's supposed to have been through a few rounds with actual players before it goes to print, particularly those not familiar with it.

 

[McPerth]

Wonderful! That's the point. You have another idea on how to tackle your character's statistics? Great! A system like this allows for variations.

I hope you're ironic here, as othrewise I'd failed miserably in shwoing my point of view...

I don't believe there's a way to make T4 to be my cup of tea. That deos not mean it's no good, of course, just it does not match my tastes (but then, I don't like any seafood, despite being seen as delicacies for most people, so it may just be a matter of my tastes).

The main problem I have with it (and extendible to T5) is the (IMHO) too high importance given to sats. I agree with your latter post that they should have some importance, but not as much. The stats DMs used in MT or MgT are good for me, but 1 skill level should, again IMHO, be stronger than 1 stat point, and in T4 (or T5) a stat point is quite more important, as it affects as much as a skill level, but to many more tasks (and the effect of academic terms in EDU makes any so educated person far too outstanding in any EDU based task for my taste).

3) roll low is less satisfying than roll high for the majority of people

Then I'm sorry for them, as they will never enjoy SL/ASL...

 

[aramis]

Then I'm sorry for them, as they will never enjoy SL/ASL...

It's the least of the issues with SL & ASL. That ASL's rulebook needs multiple binders has as much to do with it.

 

[flykiller]

... oh. don't know t4, had no idea stats were so prominent. sounds like edu is effectively jack-of-all-trades. can't see it, no amount of education is going to cover all the details necessary to be successful at a tasking. and having a high stat necessarily requiring a low stat elsewhere is unrealistic - would a physically fit marine necessarily be poorly educated and/or of low social standing? that's kind of like saying your character can have a right hand or a left, but not both.