<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darium:
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 . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In a roundabout sort of way I agree with you. 'Systemless' CT was simple and worked great; every time a roll was needed the rules tell what you need to roll and what modifies it (skill, situation, etc.): on an average task, usually roll 8+, if you've got an appropriate skill, use it as a +DM; a harder task might need 10+ or 11+, and if it's dark or you're in a hurry or something that's usually a -1 or -2 DM. Everything you need to know is spelled out right there in front of you, on a situation by situation basis.
But all the DGP/MT system really does is systematize and regularize what the rules were already doing ad hoc: an average task is always 7+, a harder one 11+; you know what effect appropriate skills have, and what modifiers various situations give. All this is pre-figured as part of the system, so instead of the GM fumbling around to make up numbers mid-game or search through books for how a similar situation was handled elsewhere, all he has to do is pick a difficulty level, a couple of helpful skills, and decide if there are any special circumstances - the number-crunching and rule-tweaking has already been done.
That's why a task system is a Good Idea - it cuts out the in-game calculations and spot-judgments and frees everybody up to carry on with playing, not worrying about rules.
What's difficult about a task system is that you have to learn the format: "roll 10+, allowing a +1 DM for each point of Recon skill" is a lot easier to understand up-front than "Difficult, Int, Recon (unskilled OK)" even though both give the same information. You're trading extra effort up-front to learn the format and system for saved time and effort later on. It's a great bargain, as the effort saved will surely outweigh the effort spent, but it can definitely be confusing and overwhelming for those just starting out, especially if (as in MT) the explanation of the system is none-too-clear.
That's why I wouldn't be opposed to a 'starter edition' of Traveller (a la the old D&D Basic Set) that didn't include the actual task system and just had numbers already-figured, CT style - another form of the same 'optional modular complexity' I also favor in char-gen, craft design, combat, etc. Let fledgling players (and, even more importantly, GMs) get used to the feel of the rules, with skills and DMs and so forth, and then, when they're ready, reveal the 'logic behind the numbers' of the actual task system. Show them that "roll a 10+, allowing a +1 DM for each point of Recon" wasn't pulled from thin air but was actually the end result of a simple and consistent System, and that by learning approx. 2-3 pages of format and rules, any referee can create appropriate and consistent die-rolling conventions for any situation which may arise during play without having to stop mid-game.
So, we may dwell on nitty-gritty details of balances and percentage-points and so forth here, but it's for a good cause. The more effort made to 'get the system right' before it's released to the buying public, the better results the individual players will end up with without having to stop and think about it in-game. Joe Shmoe GM trying to decide on a die-roll for the PCs to spot that ambush doesn't need to worry about odds and percentages and balances and so forth, because we (i.e. the designers/playtesters/troubleshooters/kibbitzers) already did.
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 . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In a roundabout sort of way I agree with you. 'Systemless' CT was simple and worked great; every time a roll was needed the rules tell what you need to roll and what modifies it (skill, situation, etc.): on an average task, usually roll 8+, if you've got an appropriate skill, use it as a +DM; a harder task might need 10+ or 11+, and if it's dark or you're in a hurry or something that's usually a -1 or -2 DM. Everything you need to know is spelled out right there in front of you, on a situation by situation basis.
But all the DGP/MT system really does is systematize and regularize what the rules were already doing ad hoc: an average task is always 7+, a harder one 11+; you know what effect appropriate skills have, and what modifiers various situations give. All this is pre-figured as part of the system, so instead of the GM fumbling around to make up numbers mid-game or search through books for how a similar situation was handled elsewhere, all he has to do is pick a difficulty level, a couple of helpful skills, and decide if there are any special circumstances - the number-crunching and rule-tweaking has already been done.
That's why a task system is a Good Idea - it cuts out the in-game calculations and spot-judgments and frees everybody up to carry on with playing, not worrying about rules.
What's difficult about a task system is that you have to learn the format: "roll 10+, allowing a +1 DM for each point of Recon skill" is a lot easier to understand up-front than "Difficult, Int, Recon (unskilled OK)" even though both give the same information. You're trading extra effort up-front to learn the format and system for saved time and effort later on. It's a great bargain, as the effort saved will surely outweigh the effort spent, but it can definitely be confusing and overwhelming for those just starting out, especially if (as in MT) the explanation of the system is none-too-clear.
That's why I wouldn't be opposed to a 'starter edition' of Traveller (a la the old D&D Basic Set) that didn't include the actual task system and just had numbers already-figured, CT style - another form of the same 'optional modular complexity' I also favor in char-gen, craft design, combat, etc. Let fledgling players (and, even more importantly, GMs) get used to the feel of the rules, with skills and DMs and so forth, and then, when they're ready, reveal the 'logic behind the numbers' of the actual task system. Show them that "roll a 10+, allowing a +1 DM for each point of Recon" wasn't pulled from thin air but was actually the end result of a simple and consistent System, and that by learning approx. 2-3 pages of format and rules, any referee can create appropriate and consistent die-rolling conventions for any situation which may arise during play without having to stop mid-game.
So, we may dwell on nitty-gritty details of balances and percentage-points and so forth here, but it's for a good cause. The more effort made to 'get the system right' before it's released to the buying public, the better results the individual players will end up with without having to stop and think about it in-game. Joe Shmoe GM trying to decide on a die-roll for the PCs to spot that ambush doesn't need to worry about odds and percentages and balances and so forth, because we (i.e. the designers/playtesters/troubleshooters/kibbitzers) already did.
