The CT Universal Task Unsystem

[RobertFisher]

I touched on this is a thread in the T5 forum once, but recent conversations have got be thinking about it again. Some quotes from the I'm playing Traveller again! thread to spingboard off of:

Originally posted by RobertFisher:
My goal is to emulate the style of the "task" rolls in the skill section of Book 1. The style that causes people to say that Book 1 lacks a task system & that the DGP/MT task system was a necessary innovation.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
My only comment about CT skills is that 8+ was nice, but there were too many per-skill-unique modifiers that you had to know or look up, which is why I prefer MT's system.

It's always odd to me that people site "8+" as the canonical CT target number. There's only about three examples in Book 1 (counting combat but not counting chargen) of 2D throws with a target of 8+. The targets for example "tasks" in CT vary.

While 2D is the "basic throw", it was never meant to be the only one.

In my view, the "tasks" in Book 1 aren't really meant as rules to look up during play. Instead, they are examples of how to make up rules on the fly.

Looking back on CT in the light of the task systems that followed, I posit that CT had an implicit universal task system. Although, since it is implicit & awfully loose, maybe I should call it an "unsystem".

The CT universal task unsystem is:
</font>

1. Figure out the basic probability of success.</font>
2. Look at the probability tables in Book 0 & chose a number of dice & target number compatible with the basic probability of success.</font>
3. Decide on DMs that are compatible with the number of dice used.</font>

This is the impression I get today when I read the CT books. The "tasks" in Book 1 are merely examples of applying this.

I realize these days that this is how my ref ran CT back before any of us had seen the DGP task system.

This is what I'm trying to do myself.

Now, let me be clear I that I don't mean to be arguing about how the game should be played. Merely wishing to discuss the topic.

Comments?

 

[RobertFisher]

I touched on this is a thread in the T5 forum once, but recent conversations have got be thinking about it again. Some quotes from the I'm playing Traveller again! thread to spingboard off of:

Originally posted by RobertFisher:
My goal is to emulate the style of the "task" rolls in the skill section of Book 1. The style that causes people to say that Book 1 lacks a task system & that the DGP/MT task system was a necessary innovation.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
My only comment about CT skills is that 8+ was nice, but there were too many per-skill-unique modifiers that you had to know or look up, which is why I prefer MT's system.

It's always odd to me that people site "8+" as the canonical CT target number. There's only about three examples in Book 1 (counting combat but not counting chargen) of 2D throws with a target of 8+. The targets for example "tasks" in CT vary.

While 2D is the "basic throw", it was never meant to be the only one.

In my view, the "tasks" in Book 1 aren't really meant as rules to look up during play. Instead, they are examples of how to make up rules on the fly.

Looking back on CT in the light of the task systems that followed, I posit that CT had an implicit universal task system. Although, since it is implicit & awfully loose, maybe I should call it an "unsystem".

The CT universal task unsystem is:
</font>

1. Figure out the basic probability of success.</font>
2. Look at the probability tables in Book 0 & chose a number of dice & target number compatible with the basic probability of success.</font>
3. Decide on DMs that are compatible with the number of dice used.</font>

This is the impression I get today when I read the CT books. The "tasks" in Book 1 are merely examples of applying this.

I realize these days that this is how my ref ran CT back before any of us had seen the DGP task system.

This is what I'm trying to do myself.

Now, let me be clear I that I don't mean to be arguing about how the game should be played. Merely wishing to discuss the topic.

Comments?

 

[mike wightman]

If you have to calculate the percentage chance and then convert to a target number for an Nd6 roll would it not be a better system to just roll %dice to decide success or failure?

The CT "system" to me has always shown its wargaming routes because of the use of a "pseudo" bell curve mechanic that makes it more probable that you will roll the average number.

 

[mike wightman]

If you have to calculate the percentage chance and then convert to a target number for an Nd6 roll would it not be a better system to just roll %dice to decide success or failure?

The CT "system" to me has always shown its wargaming routes because of the use of a "pseudo" bell curve mechanic that makes it more probable that you will roll the average number.

 

[clementk]

Interesting thread.

FWIW the name "Unisystem" is already used (and I presumed owned) by Eden Studios for most of their RPGs. Very good and simple system it is too.

http://edenstudios.net/unisystem/
A free example of it can be found in the core Witchcraft pdf book (link).

As for whether or not CT had a task system before the DGP one, why was it never incorporated into 2nd edition, Starter, Deluxe, or the Traveller Book? Book 0 wasn't in any of the above aside from Deluxe Traveller IIRC so it can hardly be seen as a standard book.

Now that may be how GDW themselves picked some of the DMs but why not put such a simple one or two table conversion chart in the actual rule books then with rules on its use? <shrugs> Then again GDW never did fold the newer skills back into the basic CT rules. >.<

I'm sure someone's done an analysis of the various DMs but there seems little consistency in them to me.

If your theory on multiple d6s is correct we may have the origins of the dreaded T4 task system about 20 years before it saw print.

Casey

 

[clementk]

Interesting thread.

FWIW the name "Unisystem" is already used (and I presumed owned) by Eden Studios for most of their RPGs. Very good and simple system it is too.

http://edenstudios.net/unisystem/
A free example of it can be found in the core Witchcraft pdf book (link).

As for whether or not CT had a task system before the DGP one, why was it never incorporated into 2nd edition, Starter, Deluxe, or the Traveller Book? Book 0 wasn't in any of the above aside from Deluxe Traveller IIRC so it can hardly be seen as a standard book.

Now that may be how GDW themselves picked some of the DMs but why not put such a simple one or two table conversion chart in the actual rule books then with rules on its use? <shrugs> Then again GDW never did fold the newer skills back into the basic CT rules. >.<

I'm sure someone's done an analysis of the various DMs but there seems little consistency in them to me.

If your theory on multiple d6s is correct we may have the origins of the dreaded T4 task system about 20 years before it saw print.

Casey

 

[hirch duckfinder]

it always seemed obvious to me-

take 8 as basic , add skill level , apply any other situational dms the ref considers appropriate.

tell the player what they need to roll.
if they feel strongly , they haggle.

ref listens and either takes into account or not , depending on whether they have a good point or not.

tell the final goal .

let them roll.

adjust outcome accounting for differnce between target and result.

override and interpret to serve the narrative.

why did it ever need changing??????

 

[hirch duckfinder]

it always seemed obvious to me-

take 8 as basic , add skill level , apply any other situational dms the ref considers appropriate.

tell the player what they need to roll.
if they feel strongly , they haggle.

ref listens and either takes into account or not , depending on whether they have a good point or not.

tell the final goal .

let them roll.

adjust outcome accounting for differnce between target and result.

override and interpret to serve the narrative.

why did it ever need changing??????

 

[robject]

The task resolution method in CT is not a well-developed system, since it requires a lot of effort by the referee to decide how to roll the dice. That can be too much freedom, although it works for general gaming!

The rule if RPGs is if it's useful and well-developed, people will use it. Developing a core idea into something useful is the game designer's job. Having a task system in place is not only for the benefit of the players, but also for the consistency of all of the game designers who work on the product.

Blah blah. But I admit that I decide when to use the task system and when to ignore it.

 

[robject]

The task resolution method in CT is not a well-developed system, since it requires a lot of effort by the referee to decide how to roll the dice. That can be too much freedom, although it works for general gaming!

The rule if RPGs is if it's useful and well-developed, people will use it. Developing a core idea into something useful is the game designer's job. Having a task system in place is not only for the benefit of the players, but also for the consistency of all of the game designers who work on the product.

Blah blah. But I admit that I decide when to use the task system and when to ignore it.

 

[aramis]

Almost all examples in CT are "Roll 2D6 and pray", with DM's for a variety of things.

Combat is 8+. ALL combat is 8+. Starships, and personal.

The vast majority of tabular uses are roll 2d6.

The vast majority of paragraph calls are 2d.

Striker was 2d for 8+, 10+, or 12+.

Changing the DM's was more clasically GDW than changing the dice.

I'd much rather roll 1d6 per skill level than roll variable dice by difficulty.

CT specifically lacks uniformity of difficulties, and involved a lot of rules references for special cases, which only some groups would not use as hard and fast rules rather than suggestions to the ref.

EVERY Ref I knew pre-MT used 2d6+mods (including DM-x for difficulty) for 8+. ALL 8 of them.

That DGP came up with a better way, well, it was a better way. It make sense of the seemingly random DM's. It rationalizaed exceptional success and failure. It allowed direct comparison of stats and skills.

 

[aramis]

Almost all examples in CT are "Roll 2D6 and pray", with DM's for a variety of things.

Combat is 8+. ALL combat is 8+. Starships, and personal.

The vast majority of tabular uses are roll 2d6.

The vast majority of paragraph calls are 2d.

Striker was 2d for 8+, 10+, or 12+.

Changing the DM's was more clasically GDW than changing the dice.

I'd much rather roll 1d6 per skill level than roll variable dice by difficulty.

CT specifically lacks uniformity of difficulties, and involved a lot of rules references for special cases, which only some groups would not use as hard and fast rules rather than suggestions to the ref.

EVERY Ref I knew pre-MT used 2d6+mods (including DM-x for difficulty) for 8+. ALL 8 of them.

That DGP came up with a better way, well, it was a better way. It make sense of the seemingly random DM's. It rationalizaed exceptional success and failure. It allowed direct comparison of stats and skills.

 

[Ranger]

Well, here is my take on a CT task system:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Difficulty Tgt Description
Routine 2 So easy it is automatic unless adverse conditions are present
Easy 4 Generally automatic, but the slight chance of mishap exists
Average 6 Not automatic, unless the person has a high level of skill
Difficult 8 Highly skilled people will still face the risk of failure
Formidable 10 Success is not guarantied even for the most skilled
Staggering 12 Difficult for experts to successfully complete
Impossible 14 Difficult for masters at a skill to successfully complete
Hopeless 16 Only the most skilled have any chance of success
Based on the BITS task system</pre>[/QUOTE]I came up with this because I thought the MT system was to wide a range between levels of dificulty. I think this system stays close the the 'feel' of CT. Of couse, it's up the GM to decide on the dificulty level, but this gives the GM and the players a framework to work with when resolving a task.

 

[Ranger]

Well, here is my take on a CT task system:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Difficulty Tgt Description
Routine 2 So easy it is automatic unless adverse conditions are present
Easy 4 Generally automatic, but the slight chance of mishap exists
Average 6 Not automatic, unless the person has a high level of skill
Difficult 8 Highly skilled people will still face the risk of failure
Formidable 10 Success is not guarantied even for the most skilled
Staggering 12 Difficult for experts to successfully complete
Impossible 14 Difficult for masters at a skill to successfully complete
Hopeless 16 Only the most skilled have any chance of success
Based on the BITS task system</pre>[/QUOTE]I came up with this because I thought the MT system was to wide a range between levels of dificulty. I think this system stays close the the 'feel' of CT. Of couse, it's up the GM to decide on the dificulty level, but this gives the GM and the players a framework to work with when resolving a task.

 

[kaladorn]

Joe Fugate is out there, so he might have something to say to this, but I think that MT task difficulties tried to balance off skill level size vs. number of them. It gave you 3/7/11/15/19. That's 5 levels. That really should (most times) be enough to describe things, but I have occasionally had the same thought as the last poster, that you should have a few more levels. Mostly you notice it in the 7 to 11 transition.

But MT gave you a uniform way to treat assets (be they skills or abilities) and some uniform terminology to discuss things.

Make it up on the fly might suit some players and GMs, but if you've got a bunch of gearheads, mil-geeks, or the like, you'll find they often are system geeks - that is to say they thrive on systemic stuff and prize consistency and a clear ability to see what assets they should muster and to estimate probabilities. If the GM always off-the-cuffs it, he opens himself to more chances of being inconsistent and getting noticed being so. Some groups this wouldn't matter, others it might.

I think that MT gave you a vernacular to discuss tasks, to specify them, and to quantify hazards, time spent, etc. in a compact efficient form. You don't have to use them, but they were nice....

 

[kaladorn]

Joe Fugate is out there, so he might have something to say to this, but I think that MT task difficulties tried to balance off skill level size vs. number of them. It gave you 3/7/11/15/19. That's 5 levels. That really should (most times) be enough to describe things, but I have occasionally had the same thought as the last poster, that you should have a few more levels. Mostly you notice it in the 7 to 11 transition.

But MT gave you a uniform way to treat assets (be they skills or abilities) and some uniform terminology to discuss things.

Make it up on the fly might suit some players and GMs, but if you've got a bunch of gearheads, mil-geeks, or the like, you'll find they often are system geeks - that is to say they thrive on systemic stuff and prize consistency and a clear ability to see what assets they should muster and to estimate probabilities. If the GM always off-the-cuffs it, he opens himself to more chances of being inconsistent and getting noticed being so. Some groups this wouldn't matter, others it might.

I think that MT gave you a vernacular to discuss tasks, to specify them, and to quantify hazards, time spent, etc. in a compact efficient form. You don't have to use them, but they were nice....

 

[RobertFisher]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
If you have to calculate the percentage chance and then convert to a target number for an Nd6 roll would it not be a better system to just roll %dice to decide success or failure?

1. Most refs are going to be pretty comfortable with the probabilities for 1D & 2D pretty quick. As other people have said, many refs get by fine with no more than 2D. In any case, the "choose the probability, look at Book 0, & pick the number of dice" bit was more by way of explaination than practical method. Most experienced refs are going to collapse that to one step: Pick the number of dice to roll.

2. If you roll d%, then applying modifiers on a curved scale is more difficult. By mapping the % to nd6, your DMs work on the curved scale effortlessly. Again, though, an experienced ref isn't necessarily thinking in % but in the probabilities for nd6 rolls.

Originally posted by Casey:
FWIW the name "Unisystem" is already used (and I presumed owned) by Eden Studios for most of their RPGs. Very good and simple system it is too.

Yeah, but I called it an "unsystem", not "unisystem".

As for whether or not CT had a task system before the DGP one, why was it never incorporated into 2nd edition, Starter, Deluxe, or the Traveller Book? Book 0 wasn't in any of the above aside from Deluxe Traveller IIRC so it can hardly be seen as a standard book.

It was! It just wasn't broken out & specifically named a "task system".

Now that may be how GDW themselves picked some of the DMs but why not put such a simple one or two table conversion chart in the actual rule books then with rules on its use? <shrugs> Then again GDW never did fold the newer skills back into the basic CT rules. >.<

I'm sure someone's done an analysis of the various DMs but there seems little consistency in them to me.

It's a very unstructured system. (An "unsystem".) The fact that there is little consistency in the DMs is part of the point. The ref takes all the factors of the specific situation into account. A structured system to do likewise would be unweildy & unplayable.

(Of course, the ref doesn't literally take all factors into account. He filters out the factors that he thinks should have a significant effect given the specific situation.)

If your theory on multiple d6s is correct we may have the origins of the dreaded T4 task system about 20 years before it saw print.

Yeah. I look at the T4 & T5 task systems, & I look at Book 0 with it's tables of probability for 3D & 4D. I think: "Marc's been using nD all along."

Of course, the tables in Book 0 aren't "required". Anyone can figure out the probabilities themselves. Someone, however, thought it was worthwhile to put them in Book 0.

On the other hand, my Starter Traveller box came with only 2D...

Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
if they feel strongly , they haggle.

ref listens and either takes into account or not , depending on whether they have a good point or not.

Oh, yeah! This is my favorite part. This was something I learned from my first Traveller ref. Let the players help you make your decisions.

Originally posted by robject:
The task resolution method in CT is not a well-developed system, since it requires a lot of effort by the referee to decide how to roll the dice. That can be too much freedom, although it works for general gaming!

The rule if RPGs is if it's useful and well-developed, people will use it. Developing a core idea into something useful is the game designer's job. Having a task system in place is not only for the benefit of the players, but also for the consistency of all of the game designers who work on the product.

Blah blah. But I admit that I decide when to use the task system and when to ignore it.

Yes. That's the essense of it. The task systems provide a structure that's very, very useful. They can be explained relatively susinctly. They can handle nearly any situation in a manner good enough for a game. UTPs are also pretty handy for expressing examples susinctly in a standard manner.

Ideally, for me, the ref considers breaking all the rules of the task system when the specific situation calls for it. Sometimes 2D isn't enough resolution. Sometimes its too much. Sometimes skill should count for more. Sometimes it should count for less.

The problem with the unsystem is that it doesn't give you much of a foundation to launch from: Pick a number of dice; pick a target; pick DMs. Oh, & here are a few examples to get you started.

The designer could then expound on the thinking behind those examples, but it would take up a lot of valuable (in 1977 print) paper & not necessarily leave the ref greatly better prepared. I guess.

I can't disagree that CT could have given referee's a better foundation to stand on, whether it was a structured task system or not.

 

[RobertFisher]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
If you have to calculate the percentage chance and then convert to a target number for an Nd6 roll would it not be a better system to just roll %dice to decide success or failure?

1. Most refs are going to be pretty comfortable with the probabilities for 1D & 2D pretty quick. As other people have said, many refs get by fine with no more than 2D. In any case, the "choose the probability, look at Book 0, & pick the number of dice" bit was more by way of explaination than practical method. Most experienced refs are going to collapse that to one step: Pick the number of dice to roll.

2. If you roll d%, then applying modifiers on a curved scale is more difficult. By mapping the % to nd6, your DMs work on the curved scale effortlessly. Again, though, an experienced ref isn't necessarily thinking in % but in the probabilities for nd6 rolls.

Originally posted by Casey:
FWIW the name "Unisystem" is already used (and I presumed owned) by Eden Studios for most of their RPGs. Very good and simple system it is too.

Yeah, but I called it an "unsystem", not "unisystem".

As for whether or not CT had a task system before the DGP one, why was it never incorporated into 2nd edition, Starter, Deluxe, or the Traveller Book? Book 0 wasn't in any of the above aside from Deluxe Traveller IIRC so it can hardly be seen as a standard book.

It was! It just wasn't broken out & specifically named a "task system".

Now that may be how GDW themselves picked some of the DMs but why not put such a simple one or two table conversion chart in the actual rule books then with rules on its use? <shrugs> Then again GDW never did fold the newer skills back into the basic CT rules. >.<

I'm sure someone's done an analysis of the various DMs but there seems little consistency in them to me.

It's a very unstructured system. (An "unsystem".) The fact that there is little consistency in the DMs is part of the point. The ref takes all the factors of the specific situation into account. A structured system to do likewise would be unweildy & unplayable.

(Of course, the ref doesn't literally take all factors into account. He filters out the factors that he thinks should have a significant effect given the specific situation.)

If your theory on multiple d6s is correct we may have the origins of the dreaded T4 task system about 20 years before it saw print.

Yeah. I look at the T4 & T5 task systems, & I look at Book 0 with it's tables of probability for 3D & 4D. I think: "Marc's been using nD all along."

Of course, the tables in Book 0 aren't "required". Anyone can figure out the probabilities themselves. Someone, however, thought it was worthwhile to put them in Book 0.

On the other hand, my Starter Traveller box came with only 2D...

Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
if they feel strongly , they haggle.

ref listens and either takes into account or not , depending on whether they have a good point or not.

Oh, yeah! This is my favorite part. This was something I learned from my first Traveller ref. Let the players help you make your decisions.

Originally posted by robject:
The task resolution method in CT is not a well-developed system, since it requires a lot of effort by the referee to decide how to roll the dice. That can be too much freedom, although it works for general gaming!

The rule if RPGs is if it's useful and well-developed, people will use it. Developing a core idea into something useful is the game designer's job. Having a task system in place is not only for the benefit of the players, but also for the consistency of all of the game designers who work on the product.

Blah blah. But I admit that I decide when to use the task system and when to ignore it.

Yes. That's the essense of it. The task systems provide a structure that's very, very useful. They can be explained relatively susinctly. They can handle nearly any situation in a manner good enough for a game. UTPs are also pretty handy for expressing examples susinctly in a standard manner.

Ideally, for me, the ref considers breaking all the rules of the task system when the specific situation calls for it. Sometimes 2D isn't enough resolution. Sometimes its too much. Sometimes skill should count for more. Sometimes it should count for less.

The problem with the unsystem is that it doesn't give you much of a foundation to launch from: Pick a number of dice; pick a target; pick DMs. Oh, & here are a few examples to get you started.

The designer could then expound on the thinking behind those examples, but it would take up a lot of valuable (in 1977 print) paper & not necessarily leave the ref greatly better prepared. I guess.

I can't disagree that CT could have given referee's a better foundation to stand on, whether it was a structured task system or not.

 

[robject]

Well, according to the Chief Shugilii, the formalized task system was unknown to GDW until DGP came along. (I believe the term he used was "d'oh!" with a corresponding smack to the forehead). Until then, they did the best they could with what they knew and within their deadlines.

I was surprised to hear that CT actually had 3d6 and 4d6 buried in its rules system. Though I don't remember much about our T4 games (except for that abominable half die), I do notice that most T5 tasks are average (2d6) or difficult (3d6), neither of which fall in the "fistful of dice" category. I also notice that there's a nice psychological effect going on when someone attempts a task at an impossible difficulty -- a pawful of dice clatter chaotically upon the table. Better get a box lid to contain all them dice...

 

[robject]

Well, according to the Chief Shugilii, the formalized task system was unknown to GDW until DGP came along. (I believe the term he used was "d'oh!" with a corresponding smack to the forehead). Until then, they did the best they could with what they knew and within their deadlines.

I was surprised to hear that CT actually had 3d6 and 4d6 buried in its rules system. Though I don't remember much about our T4 games (except for that abominable half die), I do notice that most T5 tasks are average (2d6) or difficult (3d6), neither of which fall in the "fistful of dice" category. I also notice that there's a nice psychological effect going on when someone attempts a task at an impossible difficulty -- a pawful of dice clatter chaotically upon the table. Better get a box lid to contain all them dice...