The CT Universal Task Unsystem

[mike wightman]

The real oddity of the CT system for me is the value of a skill level.
Depending on the skill in question a level 1 skill can be a +1,+2,+3,+4 DM.
There's even a case of a DM of +2 per level of skill above 1 (for Ship's boat attempting to land in bad weather, target number 9+).

Unskilled penalties are also varied, from -2 to -5.

And attributes rarely contribute a bonus to a skill check.

 

[mike wightman]

The real oddity of the CT system for me is the value of a skill level.
Depending on the skill in question a level 1 skill can be a +1,+2,+3,+4 DM.
There's even a case of a DM of +2 per level of skill above 1 (for Ship's boat attempting to land in bad weather, target number 9+).

Unskilled penalties are also varied, from -2 to -5.

And attributes rarely contribute a bonus to a skill check.

 

[Jeffr0]

Some of the Major types of Rolls in CT:

Skill rolls: Roll equal to or _over_ a target number; DM + appropriate skill level(s). If skill can be particularly effective, double the skill DM.

Attribute rolls: Roll equal to or _under_ a target attribute; DM - appropriate skill levels.

Law Level rolls: Roll equal to or _over_ the world's law level to determine that the PC's have been stopped for a routine search by the authorities.


Roleplaying modifiers: Apply appropriate modifiers if the PC is doing something particularly clever or stupid.

Min/Max Attribute bonuses: For a given task, apply a penalty DM if a key attribute is below a certain number, Apply a bonus DM if the attribute is above a certain number. (This approach is illustrated in the combat rules and CT suggests using a similar approach in the application of the Mechanic skill.)


This is essentially a sort of proto-GURPS. In GURPS you always roll low for instance. GURPS also adds the concept of a "contest of skills"-- very handy, and also very easy to steal! GURPS skills have their difficulty modifiers built into them, classing skills as being easy, hard, very hard, and so forth. GURPS also classes skills as being either physical or mental, and uses the appropriate attribute score as base target for the roll with certain advantages yielding a bonus. Finally GURPS specifies defaults for most skills so that skills can be attempted even if you don't have then by rolling against other skills and attributes at a penalty.

CT works around its lack of default system by generously handing out level zero skills typically for weapons, vacc suit, and steward. CT works around its relatively small list of skills by lumping many different actions together and by encouraging referees to make new skills as they need them.

CT surpassess GURPS in its options: Sometimes skill is primary in resolving a task and attributes are irrelevant, sometimes a skill of 2 will practically ensure success, sometimes attributes can be very significant to a skill roll, applying additional bonuses or penalties.... GURPS probably overemphasizes the roll of intelligence and dexterity. (GURPS munchkins have high attributes and low skill levels.)

GURPS has significantly more work to do in order to determine a character's skills, but most of the calculations are done before play begins. CT players will be calculating and improvising die modifiers much more often in their games than their GURPS counterparts. GURPS also has a truly intimidating list of advantages and skills. (I still have no clue how to apply the "Traffic Analysis" skill to my game...!)

Which is better? That depends. CT is, first and foremost, an accessible _game_. If you want new referees to be able to pick up and play quickly, CT is probably superior. If you want to make it easy for new inexperienced players to join in and begin playing, CT is probably superior. If you want to do certain things in CT and you just don't find it easy to accomplish them, it is rather easy to upsize everything to GURPS if you find you really do need a gigantic integrated rpg power tool. (And if your gaming group has disbanded and you really never played much to begin with, the GURPS books can provide you with lots of stuff to tinker with between those campaigns you dream of running but never get around to playing.)

 

[Jeffr0]

Some of the Major types of Rolls in CT:

Skill rolls: Roll equal to or _over_ a target number; DM + appropriate skill level(s). If skill can be particularly effective, double the skill DM.

Attribute rolls: Roll equal to or _under_ a target attribute; DM - appropriate skill levels.

Law Level rolls: Roll equal to or _over_ the world's law level to determine that the PC's have been stopped for a routine search by the authorities.


Roleplaying modifiers: Apply appropriate modifiers if the PC is doing something particularly clever or stupid.

Min/Max Attribute bonuses: For a given task, apply a penalty DM if a key attribute is below a certain number, Apply a bonus DM if the attribute is above a certain number. (This approach is illustrated in the combat rules and CT suggests using a similar approach in the application of the Mechanic skill.)


This is essentially a sort of proto-GURPS. In GURPS you always roll low for instance. GURPS also adds the concept of a "contest of skills"-- very handy, and also very easy to steal! GURPS skills have their difficulty modifiers built into them, classing skills as being easy, hard, very hard, and so forth. GURPS also classes skills as being either physical or mental, and uses the appropriate attribute score as base target for the roll with certain advantages yielding a bonus. Finally GURPS specifies defaults for most skills so that skills can be attempted even if you don't have then by rolling against other skills and attributes at a penalty.

CT works around its lack of default system by generously handing out level zero skills typically for weapons, vacc suit, and steward. CT works around its relatively small list of skills by lumping many different actions together and by encouraging referees to make new skills as they need them.

CT surpassess GURPS in its options: Sometimes skill is primary in resolving a task and attributes are irrelevant, sometimes a skill of 2 will practically ensure success, sometimes attributes can be very significant to a skill roll, applying additional bonuses or penalties.... GURPS probably overemphasizes the roll of intelligence and dexterity. (GURPS munchkins have high attributes and low skill levels.)

GURPS has significantly more work to do in order to determine a character's skills, but most of the calculations are done before play begins. CT players will be calculating and improvising die modifiers much more often in their games than their GURPS counterparts. GURPS also has a truly intimidating list of advantages and skills. (I still have no clue how to apply the "Traffic Analysis" skill to my game...!)

Which is better? That depends. CT is, first and foremost, an accessible _game_. If you want new referees to be able to pick up and play quickly, CT is probably superior. If you want to make it easy for new inexperienced players to join in and begin playing, CT is probably superior. If you want to do certain things in CT and you just don't find it easy to accomplish them, it is rather easy to upsize everything to GURPS if you find you really do need a gigantic integrated rpg power tool. (And if your gaming group has disbanded and you really never played much to begin with, the GURPS books can provide you with lots of stuff to tinker with between those campaigns you dream of running but never get around to playing.)

 

[Jeffr0]

PS I really like how attributes and skills interact in CT. In some games, attributes are irrelevent except for a few odd bonuses they provide. In others, attributes overshadow skills. CT is just right.

Example: Fixing a '64 Comet has a base target of 9. **DM -5 if strength is less than 8. Add double Mechanic skill to the roll. DM -1 if unfamiliar with the technology level. DM +1 if owner's manual is available.

If target is missed by one, then the vehicle may break down again in 1d6 days...

Simple!

Of course, just as CT players can steal the Contest of Skills concept, GURPS players can steal this one from CT....


PPS Probably my four most favorite words in gaming are "Requires only Basic Traveller."

 

[Jeffr0]

PS I really like how attributes and skills interact in CT. In some games, attributes are irrelevent except for a few odd bonuses they provide. In others, attributes overshadow skills. CT is just right.

Example: Fixing a '64 Comet has a base target of 9. **DM -5 if strength is less than 8. Add double Mechanic skill to the roll. DM -1 if unfamiliar with the technology level. DM +1 if owner's manual is available.

If target is missed by one, then the vehicle may break down again in 1d6 days...

Simple!

Of course, just as CT players can steal the Contest of Skills concept, GURPS players can steal this one from CT....


PPS Probably my four most favorite words in gaming are "Requires only Basic Traveller."

 

[robject]

A very telling remark about GURPS munchkinism from Jeffr0 (high stats and low skills).

MT solved this problem reasonably well.

T5 takes the T4 route and tries to avoid this by having skill levels range up to a max of 15. Plus it adds in the "This Is Hard!" penalty. It remains to be seen if this is an improvement or not.

 

[robject]

A very telling remark about GURPS munchkinism from Jeffr0 (high stats and low skills).

MT solved this problem reasonably well.

T5 takes the T4 route and tries to avoid this by having skill levels range up to a max of 15. Plus it adds in the "This Is Hard!" penalty. It remains to be seen if this is an improvement or not.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Jeffr0:
In others, attributes overshadow skills. CT is just right.

Example: Fixing a '64 Comet has a base target of 9. **DM -5 if strength is less than 8. Add double Mechanic skill to the roll. DM -1 if unfamiliar with the technology level. DM +1 if owner's manual is available.

But this *does* require notes. In that I, if it is a task ever to be repeated and I hope to be consistent, I have to have some record of all of this marvelous stuff... you've got a particular target number, a particular DM applied at a particular strength (like Str 7 is somehow a watermarkedly different value than 8?), and some other sundry DMs to recall to boot.

In MT, I would simply say:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Repair a TL-7 Ground Car, Difficult, Str, Mechanic. Note: The task is one level easier if you have the owner's manual.</pre>[/QUOTE]I don't have to recall particular DMs for Str since I know the general formula for applying stats. I don't have to remember the particular DM for a manual, it just makes things one level easier. I don't have to remember a base roll - I know what simple/routine/difficult/etc. are.

CT is fine if you are totally willing to wing it or are willing to frequently dig through the text looking for the actual DMs and target numbers. MT's system was better for running off the cuff, IMO.

Note also that the later skill systems seemed (to me) to give attributes too much input. CT's were better that way, but treated attribute DMs in very inconsistent ways and attribute breakpoints were established that were far more pronounced than (IMO) thye should be.

In MT, Str 7 gets you a +1. So does skill 1. Str 10, gets you +2. So does skill 2. That's about the level I like skills to play.

Anyway, we obviously agree that playing with some kind of skill system (implicit or explicit) and managing the game with minimal book-looking is a good thing.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Jeffr0:
In others, attributes overshadow skills. CT is just right.

Example: Fixing a '64 Comet has a base target of 9. **DM -5 if strength is less than 8. Add double Mechanic skill to the roll. DM -1 if unfamiliar with the technology level. DM +1 if owner's manual is available.

But this *does* require notes. In that I, if it is a task ever to be repeated and I hope to be consistent, I have to have some record of all of this marvelous stuff... you've got a particular target number, a particular DM applied at a particular strength (like Str 7 is somehow a watermarkedly different value than 8?), and some other sundry DMs to recall to boot.

In MT, I would simply say:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Repair a TL-7 Ground Car, Difficult, Str, Mechanic. Note: The task is one level easier if you have the owner's manual.</pre>[/QUOTE]I don't have to recall particular DMs for Str since I know the general formula for applying stats. I don't have to remember the particular DM for a manual, it just makes things one level easier. I don't have to remember a base roll - I know what simple/routine/difficult/etc. are.

CT is fine if you are totally willing to wing it or are willing to frequently dig through the text looking for the actual DMs and target numbers. MT's system was better for running off the cuff, IMO.

Note also that the later skill systems seemed (to me) to give attributes too much input. CT's were better that way, but treated attribute DMs in very inconsistent ways and attribute breakpoints were established that were far more pronounced than (IMO) thye should be.

In MT, Str 7 gets you a +1. So does skill 1. Str 10, gets you +2. So does skill 2. That's about the level I like skills to play.

Anyway, we obviously agree that playing with some kind of skill system (implicit or explicit) and managing the game with minimal book-looking is a good thing.

 

[aramis]

Something which is not laid out as a coherent and interactive whole is hardly a "system"; at best, Ct was a collection of interrelated systems.

 

[aramis]

Something which is not laid out as a coherent and interactive whole is hardly a "system"; at best, Ct was a collection of interrelated systems.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
[...]
Anyway, we obviously agree that playing with some kind of skill system (implicit or explicit) and managing the game with minimal book-looking is a good thing.

Your post seems to me to pinpoint the fundamental difference between tasks in CT vs MT.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
[...]
Anyway, we obviously agree that playing with some kind of skill system (implicit or explicit) and managing the game with minimal book-looking is a good thing.

Your post seems to me to pinpoint the fundamental difference between tasks in CT vs MT.

 

[Jeffr0]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Anyway, we obviously agree that playing with some kind of skill system (implicit or explicit) and managing the game with minimal book-looking is a good thing.

Yes. Yes. Exactly.

But I wonder what problem most of the Systems really solve. Being cynical I presume that half the reason they exist is merely to make previous editions obsolete.

I will say this about GURPS skills and characters. I have not played GURPS heavily, but I find myself (almost irresistably) thinking in terms of it. For example, I look at my CT characters and assume they have 10 points or so of background skills based on their life growing up on their homeworld. GURPS is fairly good a model of everything that goes into a character. If you can think it, you can get stats for it that more or less make sense.

On the other hand, a model only has so much utility in a game. You might have the most detailed blueprints of the USS Enterprise ever made, but you can't play "Star Fleet Battles" with them! And GURPS doesn't even give you the blueprints-- just the tools so that _you_ can make them yourself!! (That's an exaggeration to make a point, of course.)

At the end of the day, no matter how elaborate the system is, it's "the referee that determines the course of subsequent events." No matter what, you will have to wing it and improvise. No matter what, the players will try to see how much they can get away with. If that is the case, then an "unsystem" is as about good as anything else. At some point all that the extra detail accomplishes is to increase the climb of the learning curve and create an unnecessary barrier to new players. The more stats you have, the more everyone has to keep up with. Why not just use stats for the major stuff and then use a combination of a few paragraphs, roleplaying, and common sense to handle the rest?

The reason, I suspect, is that the Systems are probably something that emerge naturally after playing bunches and bunches of games. My hypothesis is that even if you don't use one, over time you'll begin to use something very similar to them anyway in spite of yourself-- not matter how intent on "keeping it simple" you are.

(Ah well... I can't quite grasp all that you say about the MT task system due to my unfamiliarity with it.... I'll probably check that out sometime after I run a few of Marc Miller's classic adventures....)

 

[Jeffr0]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Anyway, we obviously agree that playing with some kind of skill system (implicit or explicit) and managing the game with minimal book-looking is a good thing.

Yes. Yes. Exactly.

But I wonder what problem most of the Systems really solve. Being cynical I presume that half the reason they exist is merely to make previous editions obsolete.

I will say this about GURPS skills and characters. I have not played GURPS heavily, but I find myself (almost irresistably) thinking in terms of it. For example, I look at my CT characters and assume they have 10 points or so of background skills based on their life growing up on their homeworld. GURPS is fairly good a model of everything that goes into a character. If you can think it, you can get stats for it that more or less make sense.

On the other hand, a model only has so much utility in a game. You might have the most detailed blueprints of the USS Enterprise ever made, but you can't play "Star Fleet Battles" with them! And GURPS doesn't even give you the blueprints-- just the tools so that _you_ can make them yourself!! (That's an exaggeration to make a point, of course.)

At the end of the day, no matter how elaborate the system is, it's "the referee that determines the course of subsequent events." No matter what, you will have to wing it and improvise. No matter what, the players will try to see how much they can get away with. If that is the case, then an "unsystem" is as about good as anything else. At some point all that the extra detail accomplishes is to increase the climb of the learning curve and create an unnecessary barrier to new players. The more stats you have, the more everyone has to keep up with. Why not just use stats for the major stuff and then use a combination of a few paragraphs, roleplaying, and common sense to handle the rest?

The reason, I suspect, is that the Systems are probably something that emerge naturally after playing bunches and bunches of games. My hypothesis is that even if you don't use one, over time you'll begin to use something very similar to them anyway in spite of yourself-- not matter how intent on "keeping it simple" you are.

(Ah well... I can't quite grasp all that you say about the MT task system due to my unfamiliarity with it.... I'll probably check that out sometime after I run a few of Marc Miller's classic adventures....)

 

[kaladorn]

CT and MT aren't that different, MT just quantifies a lot of what might have been behind CT (unconciously).

My players, for the record, don't try to get away with much (nice to play with 35+ year old guys!). They do like to see consistency though. And if I played CT, I'd either spend time looking up mods and breakpoint values, or I'd make some up and from time to time the same task wouldn't be the same (and my players DO have a long memory). So, a system where I can consistently evaluate/describe tasks and rolls without book references has proven an asset.

At the end of the day, it falls to the ref and his players, whatever they are like, to sort out what they need. I just found CT meant more book-looking than MT for me in order to maintain consistency for common tasks.

Anyway, either are a lot preferable to some of the other options I've seen. I own GURPS. Great reference. Unplayable if you tack on too many of the expansions. And it loses one of CT and MT's virtues - the somewhat randomness of prior life. I've never liked 'build a microengineered character' because that hasn't matched my own experience of life - I've changed careers, I've done things I'd never have envisioned 10 years ago, nor would have conciously chosen. So having a character generation system that throws real-life curves at you (failing to remuster, being injured, having a job go south, etc) just maps more closely to my experience of reality.

 

[kaladorn]

CT and MT aren't that different, MT just quantifies a lot of what might have been behind CT (unconciously).

My players, for the record, don't try to get away with much (nice to play with 35+ year old guys!). They do like to see consistency though. And if I played CT, I'd either spend time looking up mods and breakpoint values, or I'd make some up and from time to time the same task wouldn't be the same (and my players DO have a long memory). So, a system where I can consistently evaluate/describe tasks and rolls without book references has proven an asset.

At the end of the day, it falls to the ref and his players, whatever they are like, to sort out what they need. I just found CT meant more book-looking than MT for me in order to maintain consistency for common tasks.

Anyway, either are a lot preferable to some of the other options I've seen. I own GURPS. Great reference. Unplayable if you tack on too many of the expansions. And it loses one of CT and MT's virtues - the somewhat randomness of prior life. I've never liked 'build a microengineered character' because that hasn't matched my own experience of life - I've changed careers, I've done things I'd never have envisioned 10 years ago, nor would have conciously chosen. So having a character generation system that throws real-life curves at you (failing to remuster, being injured, having a job go south, etc) just maps more closely to my experience of reality.

 

[Jeffr0]

"Unplayable if you tack on too many of the expansions."

Agreed. Vehicles and the Compendiums have hurt the system IMHO. (I like the original idea of just needing Basic Set + One Worldbook.)


"So having a character generation system that throws real-life curves at you (failing to remuster, being injured, having a job go south, etc) just maps more closely to my experience of reality."

Having just missed being accepted into a graduate program due to a technicality that isn't on the web pages or brochures, I can relate to this at the moment. Requiring a "perserverence" roll to see if the character actually followed through with physical fitness programs and so forth is also realistic.


Here's some application's of CT's unsystem from the Double Adventure modules:

Miscellaneous Task Rolls from Shadows--

Search rolls typically have a difficulty followed by a single major DM:

9 + per five minutes, DM +3 if Intelligence B+
6+, DM +3 for electric torches
6+, DN + 1 for mechanical skill of any degree


Climbing down the pendulum is more involved:

Leaping to the cable: throw Dexterity to succeed, DM+ vacc suit skill, DM -3 if 0 or non-existent. (I think Marc has the DM's signs reversed here.)

Slow Descent (do three times): throw Strength or less to succeed, DM + vacc suit skill and + endurance, DM -4 if vacc 0 or less

Fall "saving throw" to preserve vacc suit integrity: throw 10+, DM + vacc suit skill


A complicated one from Accross the Bright Face:

Drive accross a shaky natural bridge: 10+ to success, DM + 1 if material has been discarded, DM + ATV skill, DM + 1 if crossing at high speed

 

[Jeffr0]

"Unplayable if you tack on too many of the expansions."

Agreed. Vehicles and the Compendiums have hurt the system IMHO. (I like the original idea of just needing Basic Set + One Worldbook.)


"So having a character generation system that throws real-life curves at you (failing to remuster, being injured, having a job go south, etc) just maps more closely to my experience of reality."

Having just missed being accepted into a graduate program due to a technicality that isn't on the web pages or brochures, I can relate to this at the moment. Requiring a "perserverence" roll to see if the character actually followed through with physical fitness programs and so forth is also realistic.


Here's some application's of CT's unsystem from the Double Adventure modules:

Miscellaneous Task Rolls from Shadows--

Search rolls typically have a difficulty followed by a single major DM:

9 + per five minutes, DM +3 if Intelligence B+
6+, DM +3 for electric torches
6+, DN + 1 for mechanical skill of any degree


Climbing down the pendulum is more involved:

Leaping to the cable: throw Dexterity to succeed, DM+ vacc suit skill, DM -3 if 0 or non-existent. (I think Marc has the DM's signs reversed here.)

Slow Descent (do three times): throw Strength or less to succeed, DM + vacc suit skill and + endurance, DM -4 if vacc 0 or less

Fall "saving throw" to preserve vacc suit integrity: throw 10+, DM + vacc suit skill


A complicated one from Accross the Bright Face:

Drive accross a shaky natural bridge: 10+ to success, DM + 1 if material has been discarded, DM + ATV skill, DM + 1 if crossing at high speed