Task Resolution

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ranger:
As a general game design principle, it's best to pick one direction or the other and use it consistently in the game system.

Not sure I agree with that. I mean, Classic Traveller has several "roll low" and "roll high" examples mixed into the rules.

You roll high for combat, for example, but a throw to indicate that police harrasment on a world occurs if a throw of the world's law level or less is rolled on two dice.

I draw your attention to pg. 16 of the Traveller Book. Check out what is described there in the Die Rolling Conventions section under the title Throw. Both higher-than and lower-than throws are discussed.

This shows up in other games too. I haven't played much 3rd Edition of D&D, having abandoned that game long ago, but, heck, it sure had no problem rolling high for something and then turning around to roll low for something else later on (...and it'd probably be with a different die too!)

Besides, with the "givens" in Classic Traveller, the roll-high/roll-low switch works well.

If someone wants to write a computer program, a computer-based task to roll high is logical. But, if someone wants to force open a stuck hatch, rolling STR or less on 2D makes a lot of sense too.

To illustrate my point a little more clearly, consider the DGP/MT/UTP task system (which we all know was originally written for CT).

Under that system, maybe forcing a stuck hatch open is an Average task. STR based.

Which skill do you use?

Or...do you use another stat as the second modifier? Maybe END?

So, let's say a character with STR-5 END-7 tries to force open the stuck hatch. He has the same chance as the much stronger character next to him with STR-9 END-7.

This is a clear example of why I stick with CT's "roll lower" stat check mechanic when it comes to attribute-based rolls.

First off, you only have to pick one stat (not "dig" for another appropriate stat), and the dude with STR-9 has a heck of a lot better chance for forcing the stuck hatch open than his weaker buddy with STR-5 (2D for 9- vs. 2D for 5-).

It just makes more sense.

It really doesn't matter if the players and the GM have no problem with it, but it is easier for new players learning a game system if they just have to remember roll high or roll low.

Again, not sure I agree here (although I do see where you're coming from).

I would argue that new players are easier to accept something like that--because they don't know any different. They're new to the game. The GM is teaching them.

You want to drag that injured comrade into the airlock? OK, there's three of you, so average your STR scores then roll that number or less on 2D.

Done.

Oh, you want to jump from the outside hull of your ship to the floating derelict? No problem, roll 10+ on 2D and add +4 for each level of Vacc Suit you have.

CT is flexible that way. I like it a lot. Makes for fast, non-generic gameplay.

One of the things I didn't like about MT was how many things got homogenized.

In MT, a revolver and an autopistol and a body pistol all have the same chance of success to hit a enemy target.

In CT, each of those weapons provides different modifiers.

That kind of detail is something that you give up if you use a one-size-fits-all mechanic.

I like how CT still "keeps it simple" and provides that distinction.

And, in a way, the roll-high or roll-low switch makes CT capable of cleanly, easily handling any situation, on the fly.

CT is flexible because the mechanics are flexible.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ranger:
As a general game design principle, it's best to pick one direction or the other and use it consistently in the game system.

Not sure I agree with that. I mean, Classic Traveller has several "roll low" and "roll high" examples mixed into the rules.

You roll high for combat, for example, but a throw to indicate that police harrasment on a world occurs if a throw of the world's law level or less is rolled on two dice.

I draw your attention to pg. 16 of the Traveller Book. Check out what is described there in the Die Rolling Conventions section under the title Throw. Both higher-than and lower-than throws are discussed.

This shows up in other games too. I haven't played much 3rd Edition of D&D, having abandoned that game long ago, but, heck, it sure had no problem rolling high for something and then turning around to roll low for something else later on (...and it'd probably be with a different die too!)

Besides, with the "givens" in Classic Traveller, the roll-high/roll-low switch works well.

If someone wants to write a computer program, a computer-based task to roll high is logical. But, if someone wants to force open a stuck hatch, rolling STR or less on 2D makes a lot of sense too.

To illustrate my point a little more clearly, consider the DGP/MT/UTP task system (which we all know was originally written for CT).

Under that system, maybe forcing a stuck hatch open is an Average task. STR based.

Which skill do you use?

Or...do you use another stat as the second modifier? Maybe END?

So, let's say a character with STR-5 END-7 tries to force open the stuck hatch. He has the same chance as the much stronger character next to him with STR-9 END-7.

This is a clear example of why I stick with CT's "roll lower" stat check mechanic when it comes to attribute-based rolls.

First off, you only have to pick one stat (not "dig" for another appropriate stat), and the dude with STR-9 has a heck of a lot better chance for forcing the stuck hatch open than his weaker buddy with STR-5 (2D for 9- vs. 2D for 5-).

It just makes more sense.

It really doesn't matter if the players and the GM have no problem with it, but it is easier for new players learning a game system if they just have to remember roll high or roll low.

Again, not sure I agree here (although I do see where you're coming from).

I would argue that new players are easier to accept something like that--because they don't know any different. They're new to the game. The GM is teaching them.

You want to drag that injured comrade into the airlock? OK, there's three of you, so average your STR scores then roll that number or less on 2D.

Done.

Oh, you want to jump from the outside hull of your ship to the floating derelict? No problem, roll 10+ on 2D and add +4 for each level of Vacc Suit you have.

CT is flexible that way. I like it a lot. Makes for fast, non-generic gameplay.

One of the things I didn't like about MT was how many things got homogenized.

In MT, a revolver and an autopistol and a body pistol all have the same chance of success to hit a enemy target.

In CT, each of those weapons provides different modifiers.

That kind of detail is something that you give up if you use a one-size-fits-all mechanic.

I like how CT still "keeps it simple" and provides that distinction.

And, in a way, the roll-high or roll-low switch makes CT capable of cleanly, easily handling any situation, on the fly.

CT is flexible because the mechanics are flexible.

 

[Ranger]

Ok, first I think I should make clear that what I think we are talking about here are preferences, not absolutes.

My preference is for a system where there is one basic principle governing rolls, “high it good” or “low is good” (and from what I've read about game design, everyone pretty much agrees on that too). No system is perfect, and the various versions of Traveller's task systems makes it pretty clear that people have been trying to figure out the "right" way to do this for a long time and people still aren’t completely happy with it.

Sigg says that the system he is proposing is elegant, and I agree, but it still puts you in a position of having a game mechanic that has roll high for one set of things (tasks) and roll low for others (attribute checks). You could build an entire task system around this elegant mechanism (and they did in T4), I just prefer a different one.

And, yes, CT has a lot of “roll low is good” situations. My preference is to minimize that as much as possible. So, there are situations (like the one presented here) where rather than do an attribute check, I'd make it a task check. That's because it allows you to adjust the difficulty of the task to the situation (climbing a chain link fence is a lot easier than climbing a masonry wall). Now, Sigg is right, you can do that by adjusting the number of dice rolled too, but then you are moving away from the 2d6 paradigm, which I also really like as far as CT goes. I also don't personally see any difference between choosing a target number based on difficulty vs. deciding how many dice the player has to roll for this particular attribute check. Other people see it differently.

My personal experience is that using task checks leads to more roleplaying because players want to plead their case for mods, so they have to look at their characters and their equipment and use what they have to maximum advantage. My experience is also that players are happier, regardless of if they succeed or not, if they have that kind of input. Now, other GMs may have other experiences and their groups may enjoy playing differently.

 

[Ranger]

Ok, first I think I should make clear that what I think we are talking about here are preferences, not absolutes.

My preference is for a system where there is one basic principle governing rolls, “high it good” or “low is good” (and from what I've read about game design, everyone pretty much agrees on that too). No system is perfect, and the various versions of Traveller's task systems makes it pretty clear that people have been trying to figure out the "right" way to do this for a long time and people still aren’t completely happy with it.

Sigg says that the system he is proposing is elegant, and I agree, but it still puts you in a position of having a game mechanic that has roll high for one set of things (tasks) and roll low for others (attribute checks). You could build an entire task system around this elegant mechanism (and they did in T4), I just prefer a different one.

And, yes, CT has a lot of “roll low is good” situations. My preference is to minimize that as much as possible. So, there are situations (like the one presented here) where rather than do an attribute check, I'd make it a task check. That's because it allows you to adjust the difficulty of the task to the situation (climbing a chain link fence is a lot easier than climbing a masonry wall). Now, Sigg is right, you can do that by adjusting the number of dice rolled too, but then you are moving away from the 2d6 paradigm, which I also really like as far as CT goes. I also don't personally see any difference between choosing a target number based on difficulty vs. deciding how many dice the player has to roll for this particular attribute check. Other people see it differently.

My personal experience is that using task checks leads to more roleplaying because players want to plead their case for mods, so they have to look at their characters and their equipment and use what they have to maximum advantage. My experience is also that players are happier, regardless of if they succeed or not, if they have that kind of input. Now, other GMs may have other experiences and their groups may enjoy playing differently.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ranger:
You could build an entire task system around this elegant mechanism (and they did in T4), I just prefer a different one.

Well, there's no argument against preference. And, I know what you mean. When they changed Traveller to the GDW house system with TNE, rolling those two d10's, I hated it. I mean, HATED, it.

And, for no other reason than, to me, Traveller needs to be d6 only. Strictly preference.

So, I know exactly where you're coming from.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ranger:
You could build an entire task system around this elegant mechanism (and they did in T4), I just prefer a different one.

Well, there's no argument against preference. And, I know what you mean. When they changed Traveller to the GDW house system with TNE, rolling those two d10's, I hated it. I mean, HATED, it.

And, for no other reason than, to me, Traveller needs to be d6 only. Strictly preference.

So, I know exactly where you're coming from.

 

[Melkor]

Forgive the naivete, but what is the UGM, and where can I find it ?

In addition, when using these varying task mechanics mentioned above, do you still resolve combat with the roll + DM (including skill) vs. 8+ ?

 

[Melkor]

Forgive the naivete, but what is the UGM, and where can I find it ?

In addition, when using these varying task mechanics mentioned above, do you still resolve combat with the roll + DM (including skill) vs. 8+ ?

 

[mike wightman]

Here's the link:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000457

 

[mike wightman]

Here's the link:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000457

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Melkor:
In addition, when using these varying task mechanics mentioned above, do you still resolve combat with the roll + DM (including skill) vs. 8+ ?

I think you're asking me that question...or maybe it's just a general question to nobody in particular.

I absolutely use the 8+ CT combat method. I've tweaked it a bit (see the Updated Classic Traveller Combat sequence here. ). When you see the UGM, you'll notice that all official rules from CT can be used with the UGM, so, in my game, I make the 8+ CT combat roll a UGM task (it's a simple UGM task of Standard Difficulty).

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Melkor:
In addition, when using these varying task mechanics mentioned above, do you still resolve combat with the roll + DM (including skill) vs. 8+ ?

I think you're asking me that question...or maybe it's just a general question to nobody in particular.

I absolutely use the 8+ CT combat method. I've tweaked it a bit (see the Updated Classic Traveller Combat sequence here. ). When you see the UGM, you'll notice that all official rules from CT can be used with the UGM, so, in my game, I make the 8+ CT combat roll a UGM task (it's a simple UGM task of Standard Difficulty).