You have a point there yes. It would not do to have a system that is simple but without any real mathematical value. I was just refering to a choice between; a simple sytem with a minor glitch, or a sound but too complex system. But its only my personal opinion and i wouldn't want to force it on anyone. Thanks for the response.
Task system
- Thread starter DrSkull
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darium:
You have a point there yes. It would not do to have a system that is simple but without any real mathematical value. I was just refering to a choice between; a simple sytem with a minor glitch, or a sound but too complex system. But its only my personal opinion and i wouldn't want to force it on anyone. Thanks for the response. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, I don't want to force my opinions on anyone either - 'strenuously advocate,' but never force
If you've read my past rants (both here and on the TML) you'll know that I'm no fan of the T4.1 task system either and would greatly prefer something simpler and less complex. In fact, as it currently stands I don't plan to ever use the arcane patched-together T4.1 task system.
What it really comes down to is one's definition of 'minor glitches' - IMO D20/D100 systems have a minor glitch because they don't give a bell-curve distribution, but it's worth overlooking* because they're so darn simple and intuitive. The statistical glitch of original T4, though, (where moderate- to highly-skilled characters routinely succeed at 'Impossible' tasks) wasn't 'minor' at all. I don't have any first-hand experience using the 'whole-die' T4 variant, but the fact that Marc Miller and other powers-that-be wrote it off immediately as statistically unsound leads me to suspect it gives equally wacky results.
So I agree that simple-with-minor-glitch is better than sound-but-too-complex, but in T4.x systems we're stuck with sound-but-too-complex vs. simple-with-Major-glitch. There is (AFAICT) no middle ground. Which is why IMO the T4.x system is a turkey and should be dropped altogether. QED.
*For RuneQuest/D&D but not for Traveller; Traveller's all about cubes and bell-curves, and that's the way I like it!
You have a point there yes. It would not do to have a system that is simple but without any real mathematical value. I was just refering to a choice between; a simple sytem with a minor glitch, or a sound but too complex system. But its only my personal opinion and i wouldn't want to force it on anyone. Thanks for the response. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, I don't want to force my opinions on anyone either - 'strenuously advocate,' but never force
What it really comes down to is one's definition of 'minor glitches' - IMO D20/D100 systems have a minor glitch because they don't give a bell-curve distribution, but it's worth overlooking* because they're so darn simple and intuitive. The statistical glitch of original T4, though, (where moderate- to highly-skilled characters routinely succeed at 'Impossible' tasks) wasn't 'minor' at all. I don't have any first-hand experience using the 'whole-die' T4 variant, but the fact that Marc Miller and other powers-that-be wrote it off immediately as statistically unsound leads me to suspect it gives equally wacky results.
So I agree that simple-with-minor-glitch is better than sound-but-too-complex, but in T4.x systems we're stuck with sound-but-too-complex vs. simple-with-Major-glitch. There is (AFAICT) no middle ground. Which is why IMO the T4.x system is a turkey and should be dropped altogether. QED.
*For RuneQuest/D&D but not for Traveller; Traveller's all about cubes and bell-curves, and that's the way I like it!
I value the esoteric feel of a system over the math. Traveller for me is simple d6 use and I don't worry about the %'s as long as the group is having fun. I prefer to have the system represent the spirit of the game and let the GM decide how finicky they want to get with the odds. Besides there is always good ideas on the web for costumizing games to suit your tastes.
halofgazal
SOC-5
I am happy to learn that Avery is now developing a task system for T5 that does not involve the use of half dice. I would be interested to know if the system will involve modifying the number of dice rolled as task levels change or if the target number will be modified as task difficulties change. If the system is compatible with T4 I would like to know how the system works.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MJD:
They feel like CT, yet are infinitely flexible to cover any skill/stat combination.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hrmph. Any skill/stat combination, sure, but skill/skill or stat/stat (including about half of the published MT tasks) and you're SOL. Flexible, yeah. But 'infinitely' flexible?
That said, I'm still eager to see the new half-die-less system. I'll probably still have grumbles and 'issues,' but getting rid of that lone straggling D3 is a HUGE step in the right direction.
They feel like CT, yet are infinitely flexible to cover any skill/stat combination.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hrmph. Any skill/stat combination, sure, but skill/skill or stat/stat (including about half of the published MT tasks) and you're SOL. Flexible, yeah. But 'infinitely' flexible?
That said, I'm still eager to see the new half-die-less system. I'll probably still have grumbles and 'issues,' but getting rid of that lone straggling D3 is a HUGE step in the right direction.
lucasdigital
SOC-12
Somebody buy HUNTER membership to the Traveller's Aid Society!!
Half dies would be like wearing tungsten clogs!
Mark Lucas www.lucas-digital.com
Half dies would be like wearing tungsten clogs!
Mark Lucas www.lucas-digital.com
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Avery:
Following a rousing discussion with Hunter at RPGRealms, there is now a non-1/2-die version of the T5 task system in the draft stage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's great!
Can you offer a 2d6 task system as well?
Please? Very few people are clamouring for a multi-dice system. As long as the difficulty level names are all the same it will keep more people happy than it will confuse.
That multi-dice system looks awfully vtacked on compared to the survival, promotion, encounter, reaction, etc. rolls that all use 2d6.
Following a rousing discussion with Hunter at RPGRealms, there is now a non-1/2-die version of the T5 task system in the draft stage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's great!
Can you offer a 2d6 task system as well?
Please? Very few people are clamouring for a multi-dice system. As long as the difficulty level names are all the same it will keep more people happy than it will confuse.
That multi-dice system looks awfully vtacked on compared to the survival, promotion, encounter, reaction, etc. rolls that all use 2d6.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robmyers:
That multi-dice system looks awfully vtacked on compared to the survival, promotion, encounter, reaction, etc. rolls that all use 2d6.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
... and characteristic determination, trade/commerce, World creation, etc. In fact, pretty much EVERY aspect of Traveller that requires a random element uses a 2D6 roll. That's why the original DGP task system was based on 2D6 - because they adapted it from the existing rules, all of which used 2D6 as the core mechanic. Which is why, even if they get the bugs worked out (half-die, IHTIT, spectacular success & failure, etc.) I'll still say that the multi-dice roll-low task system is tacked-on and a bad fit with the Traveller core system; hardly better than TNE's D20 system.
That multi-dice system looks awfully vtacked on compared to the survival, promotion, encounter, reaction, etc. rolls that all use 2d6.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
... and characteristic determination, trade/commerce, World creation, etc. In fact, pretty much EVERY aspect of Traveller that requires a random element uses a 2D6 roll. That's why the original DGP task system was based on 2D6 - because they adapted it from the existing rules, all of which used 2D6 as the core mechanic. Which is why, even if they get the bugs worked out (half-die, IHTIT, spectacular success & failure, etc.) I'll still say that the multi-dice roll-low task system is tacked-on and a bad fit with the Traveller core system; hardly better than TNE's D20 system.
Doctor Rob
SOC-6
Although I've not played the game for some time, I recall being very impressed with the Traveller 2300 task and combat system. No one seems to have mentioned this - any reason? I recall the game did not use D6's but used d10's instead. Note that on multiple roles, "bigger" dice have more graduated distribution curves due to their greater variability - which IMHO is a good thing.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doctor Rob:
Although I've not played the game for some time, I recall being very impressed with the Traveller 2300 task and combat system. No one seems to have mentioned this - any reason? I recall the game did not use D6's but used d10's instead. Note that on multiple roles, "bigger" dice have more graduated distribution curves due to their greater variability - which IMHO is a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My copy of Traveller:2300 (actually, it's a 2nd edition - 2300AD) is in storage very far away from me, and although I read it at the time I never played it, honestly remember nothing about the system, and therefore can't comment one way or the other on it - all I can recall is the cool star-map.
However, wasn't the T:2300 system (loosely?) based on the same DGP system that later became the MT system? If so I'd probably react pretty positively to it, but OTOH I have a deeply ingrained, verging on psychotic, attachment to Traveller as a D6-only system which would be very hard to overcome. And besides, D10s are funny-looking; Platonic solids all the way!
Although I've not played the game for some time, I recall being very impressed with the Traveller 2300 task and combat system. No one seems to have mentioned this - any reason? I recall the game did not use D6's but used d10's instead. Note that on multiple roles, "bigger" dice have more graduated distribution curves due to their greater variability - which IMHO is a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My copy of Traveller:2300 (actually, it's a 2nd edition - 2300AD) is in storage very far away from me, and although I read it at the time I never played it, honestly remember nothing about the system, and therefore can't comment one way or the other on it - all I can recall is the cool star-map.
However, wasn't the T:2300 system (loosely?) based on the same DGP system that later became the MT system? If so I'd probably react pretty positively to it, but OTOH I have a deeply ingrained, verging on psychotic, attachment to Traveller as a D6-only system which would be very hard to overcome. And besides, D10s are funny-looking; Platonic solids all the way!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doctor Rob:
Although I've not played the game for some time, I recall being very impressed with the Traveller 2300 task and combat system. No one seems to have mentioned this - any reason? I recall the game did not use D6's but used d10's instead. Note that on multiple roles, "bigger" dice have more graduated distribution curves due to their greater variability - which IMHO is a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just had a glance at the 2300AD. The task difficulty sets the target number that you need to roll over on a single d10 + mods.
Not entirely unlike the CT system of "it's a bit harder than normal so I'll give you a -2DM." Which means roll 10+
I've never really understood why people go on about task systems like they were some kind of Holy Grail. CT had a task system, albeit not a well defined one. What's the real difference between saying that a task is Hard so roll 10+ or it's hard so have a -2DM? Characteristics mods only came into it in combat IIRC, which was a shortcoming.
IMTU I still use 2d6 and the BITS Task chart.
Although I've not played the game for some time, I recall being very impressed with the Traveller 2300 task and combat system. No one seems to have mentioned this - any reason? I recall the game did not use D6's but used d10's instead. Note that on multiple roles, "bigger" dice have more graduated distribution curves due to their greater variability - which IMHO is a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just had a glance at the 2300AD. The task difficulty sets the target number that you need to roll over on a single d10 + mods.
Not entirely unlike the CT system of "it's a bit harder than normal so I'll give you a -2DM." Which means roll 10+
I've never really understood why people go on about task systems like they were some kind of Holy Grail. CT had a task system, albeit not a well defined one. What's the real difference between saying that a task is Hard so roll 10+ or it's hard so have a -2DM? Characteristics mods only came into it in combat IIRC, which was a shortcoming.
IMTU I still use 2d6 and the BITS Task chart.
Doctor Rob
SOC-6
The type and number of dice used is critical for an effective task system. I think one reason I liked the 2300AD system was the that it used a (single) D10 as opposed to 2D6. The advantage of a single d10 is that you are as likely to roll a 1 as you are a 10. The problem with 2D6 is that it become increasingly difficult to roll numbers further away from the mean (i.e. 7). Nevertheless, the more dice you throw, the more graduated the points on the normal distribution curve and thus the wider the range of probable points around the mean. So, in order to have an effective task system, either roll more dice or roll a single "big" die. Although 2D6 is nice for historic (and sentimental) reasons, the success of a game is not helped by an ineffective task system. Therefore, I would recommend either changing the basic die used or using more D6's
However, one can argue that, as long as we know the parameters of a randomization system with 2d6, one can evaluate a task about as accurately as a straight-line 1d10. If you know that 'upping' a 2d6 (bell-curve)target number from 7+ to 9+ is NOT the same as upping it from 9+ to 11+, then you can accurately describe the effects of difficulty.
It just falls, again, into detail and math. If you want to be able to have a straight line probability, then go with 1d10 or 1d6 with 16% increments. If you want a curve, use 2d6. (The only thing with a curve is that a 80% chance of success and a 90% chance of success falls into the same '2d6: 11+' range as opposed to an '1d10:8+ or a 9+'. Admittedly, there are some funky probabilites in adding dice-modifiers, as +1 is not the same for a target number of 7+ and a target number of 10+..
'Do you want a bell-curve?' is more the question. IMHO, I think there are some unique features to a bell-curve that I don't want to discard on the bassis of utilizing the newer technology of a d10.
Gats'
It just falls, again, into detail and math. If you want to be able to have a straight line probability, then go with 1d10 or 1d6 with 16% increments. If you want a curve, use 2d6. (The only thing with a curve is that a 80% chance of success and a 90% chance of success falls into the same '2d6: 11+' range as opposed to an '1d10:8+ or a 9+'. Admittedly, there are some funky probabilites in adding dice-modifiers, as +1 is not the same for a target number of 7+ and a target number of 10+..
'Do you want a bell-curve?' is more the question. IMHO, I think there are some unique features to a bell-curve that I don't want to discard on the bassis of utilizing the newer technology of a d10.
Gats'
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T. Foster:
... and characteristic determination, trade/commerce, World creation, etc. In fact, pretty much EVERY aspect of Traveller that requires a random element uses a 2D6 roll. That's why the original DGP task system was based on 2D6 - because they adapted it from the existing rules, all of which used 2D6 as the core mechanic. Which is why, even if they get the bugs worked out (half-die, IHTIT, spectacular success & failure, etc.) I'll still say that the multi-dice roll-low task system is tacked-on and a bad fit with the Traveller core system; hardly better than TNE's D20 system.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll admit I'm a fan of the T4/5 multi dice system. Its just so much easier and faster to explain and understand. I'll illustrate
MT (which seems to be the most popular 2d system)
1) determine target
2) roll dice
3) Add skill(s)
4) Add stat(s)/4
5) Subtract target from roll
6) Determine level of success based on result
T5 (with IHTIT)
1) Add skill and stat to determine target
2) If skill + JoT less than number of dice add two dice
3) Roll dice
4) Compare roll with target
5) look for three 1's or three 6's
Its clear to me that the T5 system is much easier to explain and understand; and involves far less calculation.
... and characteristic determination, trade/commerce, World creation, etc. In fact, pretty much EVERY aspect of Traveller that requires a random element uses a 2D6 roll. That's why the original DGP task system was based on 2D6 - because they adapted it from the existing rules, all of which used 2D6 as the core mechanic. Which is why, even if they get the bugs worked out (half-die, IHTIT, spectacular success & failure, etc.) I'll still say that the multi-dice roll-low task system is tacked-on and a bad fit with the Traveller core system; hardly better than TNE's D20 system.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll admit I'm a fan of the T4/5 multi dice system. Its just so much easier and faster to explain and understand. I'll illustrate
MT (which seems to be the most popular 2d system)
1) determine target
2) roll dice
3) Add skill(s)
4) Add stat(s)/4
5) Subtract target from roll
6) Determine level of success based on result
T5 (with IHTIT)
1) Add skill and stat to determine target
2) If skill + JoT less than number of dice add two dice
3) Roll dice
4) Compare roll with target
5) look for three 1's or three 6's
Its clear to me that the T5 system is much easier to explain and understand; and involves far less calculation.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrewmv:
I'll admit I'm a fan of the T4/5 multi dice system. Its just so much easier and faster to explain and understand. I'll illustrate
<snip list, see above>
Its clear to me that the T5 system is much easier to explain and understand; and involves far less calculation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Somewhere earlier in this thread I posted a similar step-by-step list to 'prove' exactly the opposite, which shows that the listor's bias definitely affects the results. The differences:
1) the T5 list could include a step 'determine number of dice to be rolled from difficulty chart.' If this step is simple enough to be overlooked, then step 1 on the MT list is to, since both involve looking at a chart which will sooner or later be memorized.
2) step 2 under MT could say 'roll and add 2 dice' while step 3 under T5 would say 'roll and add 1-8 dice.' Adding 2 numbers is (at least slightly) easier than adding 3+ (not to even mention the hopefully-doomed half-die!)
3) steps 3&4 under MT could be combined, since there will be a max of 2 DMs between them. Also, anyone with any sense will have stat DMs pre-figured and noted on the character sheet, so 'stat/4' (sic) is somewhat misleading
4) step 5 under MT has been made to sound a lot more onerous than it really is. Determining if a roll is +/- 2 from the target is very easy; I don't know of anyone who's ever had to subtract the roll from the target to figure this
5) it could be worth pointing out that T5 also allows 'miscellaneous DMs' to affect the target number, which MT forbids (or at least strongly discourages), modifying task difficulty instead
Not wanting to drag this out even further, I'll declare it a tie; the MT 2D and T4/5 multi-D systems are equivalently user-friendly, based on the preferences of individual players and GMs. I don't really believe it, and Andrew probably doesn't either, but I'm willing to compromise.
Which is why I've recently moved on to bigger and better issues with the T4/5 system, such as: "In situations where 2 skills, or 2 stats, might be better than skill+stat to model a task, how would those tasks be handled in T4/5?" or, "Is it possible under T4/5 to achieve exceptional success or failure at a Simple or Routine task? If not, shouldn't it be?" As far as I'm concerned, both of those cases point out significant flaws, at least in comparison with MT, where both are fundamental to the system (at least half the published tasks are based on stat-stat or skill-skill; and the only reason it's usually even worth rolling Simple and Routine tasks is for the possibility of exceptional success or failure).
So, in light of these two IMO significant deficiencies of the T4/5 system vis-a-vis the MT system, what clear and unambiguous benefits does it offer? In what ways (other than the vague (and not necessarily true) 'easier to explain and understand') does the T4/5 system provide a clearly superior result to the MT system? IMO a system which has equivalent (at best) ease-of-use but trades inferior versatility for no tangible benefit, as well as being inconsistent with the remainder of the existing game system, is the wrong system to be staking the future of the game (as a game, not a background/milieu) on.
(Whew, that was a long 'un. But I think I've finally got the task-system thing out of my blood; at least for awhile)
I'll admit I'm a fan of the T4/5 multi dice system. Its just so much easier and faster to explain and understand. I'll illustrate
<snip list, see above>
Its clear to me that the T5 system is much easier to explain and understand; and involves far less calculation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Somewhere earlier in this thread I posted a similar step-by-step list to 'prove' exactly the opposite, which shows that the listor's bias definitely affects the results. The differences:
1) the T5 list could include a step 'determine number of dice to be rolled from difficulty chart.' If this step is simple enough to be overlooked, then step 1 on the MT list is to, since both involve looking at a chart which will sooner or later be memorized.
2) step 2 under MT could say 'roll and add 2 dice' while step 3 under T5 would say 'roll and add 1-8 dice.' Adding 2 numbers is (at least slightly) easier than adding 3+ (not to even mention the hopefully-doomed half-die!)
3) steps 3&4 under MT could be combined, since there will be a max of 2 DMs between them. Also, anyone with any sense will have stat DMs pre-figured and noted on the character sheet, so 'stat/4' (sic) is somewhat misleading
4) step 5 under MT has been made to sound a lot more onerous than it really is. Determining if a roll is +/- 2 from the target is very easy; I don't know of anyone who's ever had to subtract the roll from the target to figure this
5) it could be worth pointing out that T5 also allows 'miscellaneous DMs' to affect the target number, which MT forbids (or at least strongly discourages), modifying task difficulty instead
Not wanting to drag this out even further, I'll declare it a tie; the MT 2D and T4/5 multi-D systems are equivalently user-friendly, based on the preferences of individual players and GMs. I don't really believe it, and Andrew probably doesn't either, but I'm willing to compromise.
Which is why I've recently moved on to bigger and better issues with the T4/5 system, such as: "In situations where 2 skills, or 2 stats, might be better than skill+stat to model a task, how would those tasks be handled in T4/5?" or, "Is it possible under T4/5 to achieve exceptional success or failure at a Simple or Routine task? If not, shouldn't it be?" As far as I'm concerned, both of those cases point out significant flaws, at least in comparison with MT, where both are fundamental to the system (at least half the published tasks are based on stat-stat or skill-skill; and the only reason it's usually even worth rolling Simple and Routine tasks is for the possibility of exceptional success or failure).
So, in light of these two IMO significant deficiencies of the T4/5 system vis-a-vis the MT system, what clear and unambiguous benefits does it offer? In what ways (other than the vague (and not necessarily true) 'easier to explain and understand') does the T4/5 system provide a clearly superior result to the MT system? IMO a system which has equivalent (at best) ease-of-use but trades inferior versatility for no tangible benefit, as well as being inconsistent with the remainder of the existing game system, is the wrong system to be staking the future of the game (as a game, not a background/milieu) on.
(Whew, that was a long 'un. But I think I've finally got the task-system thing out of my blood; at least for awhile)
Doctor Rob
SOC-6
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gatsby:
Admittedly, there are some funky probabilites in adding dice-modifiers, as +1 is not the same for a target number of 7+ and a target number of 10+.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This expresses my concern with the 2D6 system very eloquently. The effect of midifiers will not be the same as they accumulate. That is, a +1 DM on a target of 7+ is not the asme as a +1 DM on a target of 10+ (the 10+ being arrived at due to other modifiers). This is a significant problem given the ease with which midifiers accumulate.
The only real solutions are to a) use more than two D6's (to increase the number of possible increments above and below the mean) or b) use a "big" dice such as a D10 or D20. Either solution will minimise the impact of accumulating roll modifiers.
Rob
Admittedly, there are some funky probabilites in adding dice-modifiers, as +1 is not the same for a target number of 7+ and a target number of 10+.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This expresses my concern with the 2D6 system very eloquently. The effect of midifiers will not be the same as they accumulate. That is, a +1 DM on a target of 7+ is not the asme as a +1 DM on a target of 10+ (the 10+ being arrived at due to other modifiers). This is a significant problem given the ease with which midifiers accumulate.
The only real solutions are to a) use more than two D6's (to increase the number of possible increments above and below the mean) or b) use a "big" dice such as a D10 or D20. Either solution will minimise the impact of accumulating roll modifiers.
Rob
Oh boy you guys must be really fun at parties . Let me guess , all of you got A's in algebra right . All kidding aside though , splitting hairs over the %'s is not very productive . Look at the record , the most popular version of the game had the simplest mechanics . I my own opinion T5 should publish with the simplest system , everyone can fiddle with it later .
