• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

The CT Universal Task Unsystem

Ok, let me clarify my earlier post. I think CT does have an implied task system, it is just missing a table like the one I posted to give GM's and players a basic framework. I’d say that since Striker increases difficulty by 2 for each range increase that it makes sense to set the gradation of difficulty at 2 and use separate target numbers and keep 2d6.

It might make sense to add an extra die for extra characters assisting, since how much help someone may actually be is hard to predict (in fact, in some cases it might be negative, but that’s a totally different issue).

It makes sense to have some common tasks mapped out ahead of time, like combat, which is in CT, or even the interpersonal tasks in MT, but my experience is that most things that have to be resolved are going to come up on the fly, at least initially. Part of my problem with a more elaborate task system is the “task catalog” that it implies. The impression I’ve always had is that the task catalog gets people into the mindset of “this is what you can do.”

I think CT was always about flexibility and creativity on that part of the GM and players. They even encouraged people to design their own skills and provided templates to design your own prior service careers. The person who said that the kind of CT task system people we’re talking about requires a lot of note taking is absolutely correct, but I don’t see that as a bad thing. The players are going to develop a repertoire of things they are comfortable with, then, return to it. Each group will be different, and each campaign may have a different feel, requiring a different way of dealing with the same “tasks”, so it makes sense to me develop your task catalog as the campaign progresses.

There will also be a lot of other tasks in a game that will be one time deals based on the situation. Some are adventure specific, like the ones already mentioned in the specific adventures. The rest are going to get worked out as they come along.

Here’s an example of what I mean. You have a party that is doing a “job” for a patron of somewhat questionable legality to make some cash before lifting off. Maybe they accepted the job because they were short and needed the money, or maybe this group is just living on the edge, but anyways, they are going to do this job. Since it’s illegal, they decide to do it at night. IMTU they would have to rent a vehicle, since all off world vehicles are restricted to the space port and the star town unless you want to pay a local licensing fee to get a local plate (which most people won’t do unless they are running a regular rout and know they will be on this particular world often. Even if they took their own air raft though, they wouldn’t want to fly to the meeting, as leaving street level would activate their transponder and result in their movements being logged on the local air traffic control system, and they are trying to stay under the radar (literally and figuratively).

So, they are doing the job at night in a rented vehicle. Due to some difficulties doing the job they fall behind and are running very late. They are going to have to go really fast to get to the link up with the patron to get paid. Now, here is the impromptu task, make it to the meeting without incident. Normally this would be a routine task (2+) but they now have some adverse conditions, so let’s see what the new target is. It’s night, so that’s a -1, and they are in a relatively unfamiliar place, so that’s another -1. That’s essentially the same as increasing the difficulty level to easy (4+). Now they have some choices to make. Do they want to drive fast? If so, that would be another -1. What about weather, if you wanted to add another wrinkle the GM could make it start to rain, so another -1. Now our intrepid adventurers are facing a 6+ to get to the meeting without any problems. Now the characters get to plead for their bonuses. The driver has a skill level of 1 in ground vehicle, to that’s a +1, then, they argue that he has a high Dex let’s say 9, so that’s another +1. If one of the players had Tactics as a skill I would give them another bonus because a sound plan would have factored in this contingency or they might have rehearsed the rout back to the link up the night before so they would have eliminated the penalty for an unfamiliar place. If the GM didn’t want to mess with the players, he wouldn’t add the dramatic flair of the rain, but you could have another -1 for unfamiliar vehicle (the rental car).

So, the driver has to roll a 4+ to avoid some complication on the way to the meeting. If he fails the roll, the GM has to figure out what the problem is. I’d say, off the top of my head, probably three possible issues: Some kind of accident (maybe not even them, just an accident along the rout that slows them down), they attract police attention (probably from the speeding) or the get lost. If they fail the task roll, then roll one die, 1-vehicle accident for the group, 2-accident on the road stops traffic, 3- police stop for speeding, 4-6 lost. Any of these results in them missing the meeting with the patron, which may or may not be a big deal depending on who the patron is.

That’s the kind of situation you’re not going to find in a task catalog, but that’s really how I see the CT task system working in the game. And, in that sense, it is a system. It has a logic, and can easily be applied to any situation, it just isn't expressly explained that way in the rules.

Just my thoughts...
 
Ok, let me clarify my earlier post. I think CT does have an implied task system, it is just missing a table like the one I posted to give GM's and players a basic framework. I’d say that since Striker increases difficulty by 2 for each range increase that it makes sense to set the gradation of difficulty at 2 and use separate target numbers and keep 2d6.

It might make sense to add an extra die for extra characters assisting, since how much help someone may actually be is hard to predict (in fact, in some cases it might be negative, but that’s a totally different issue).

It makes sense to have some common tasks mapped out ahead of time, like combat, which is in CT, or even the interpersonal tasks in MT, but my experience is that most things that have to be resolved are going to come up on the fly, at least initially. Part of my problem with a more elaborate task system is the “task catalog” that it implies. The impression I’ve always had is that the task catalog gets people into the mindset of “this is what you can do.”

I think CT was always about flexibility and creativity on that part of the GM and players. They even encouraged people to design their own skills and provided templates to design your own prior service careers. The person who said that the kind of CT task system people we’re talking about requires a lot of note taking is absolutely correct, but I don’t see that as a bad thing. The players are going to develop a repertoire of things they are comfortable with, then, return to it. Each group will be different, and each campaign may have a different feel, requiring a different way of dealing with the same “tasks”, so it makes sense to me develop your task catalog as the campaign progresses.

There will also be a lot of other tasks in a game that will be one time deals based on the situation. Some are adventure specific, like the ones already mentioned in the specific adventures. The rest are going to get worked out as they come along.

Here’s an example of what I mean. You have a party that is doing a “job” for a patron of somewhat questionable legality to make some cash before lifting off. Maybe they accepted the job because they were short and needed the money, or maybe this group is just living on the edge, but anyways, they are going to do this job. Since it’s illegal, they decide to do it at night. IMTU they would have to rent a vehicle, since all off world vehicles are restricted to the space port and the star town unless you want to pay a local licensing fee to get a local plate (which most people won’t do unless they are running a regular rout and know they will be on this particular world often. Even if they took their own air raft though, they wouldn’t want to fly to the meeting, as leaving street level would activate their transponder and result in their movements being logged on the local air traffic control system, and they are trying to stay under the radar (literally and figuratively).

So, they are doing the job at night in a rented vehicle. Due to some difficulties doing the job they fall behind and are running very late. They are going to have to go really fast to get to the link up with the patron to get paid. Now, here is the impromptu task, make it to the meeting without incident. Normally this would be a routine task (2+) but they now have some adverse conditions, so let’s see what the new target is. It’s night, so that’s a -1, and they are in a relatively unfamiliar place, so that’s another -1. That’s essentially the same as increasing the difficulty level to easy (4+). Now they have some choices to make. Do they want to drive fast? If so, that would be another -1. What about weather, if you wanted to add another wrinkle the GM could make it start to rain, so another -1. Now our intrepid adventurers are facing a 6+ to get to the meeting without any problems. Now the characters get to plead for their bonuses. The driver has a skill level of 1 in ground vehicle, to that’s a +1, then, they argue that he has a high Dex let’s say 9, so that’s another +1. If one of the players had Tactics as a skill I would give them another bonus because a sound plan would have factored in this contingency or they might have rehearsed the rout back to the link up the night before so they would have eliminated the penalty for an unfamiliar place. If the GM didn’t want to mess with the players, he wouldn’t add the dramatic flair of the rain, but you could have another -1 for unfamiliar vehicle (the rental car).

So, the driver has to roll a 4+ to avoid some complication on the way to the meeting. If he fails the roll, the GM has to figure out what the problem is. I’d say, off the top of my head, probably three possible issues: Some kind of accident (maybe not even them, just an accident along the rout that slows them down), they attract police attention (probably from the speeding) or the get lost. If they fail the task roll, then roll one die, 1-vehicle accident for the group, 2-accident on the road stops traffic, 3- police stop for speeding, 4-6 lost. Any of these results in them missing the meeting with the patron, which may or may not be a big deal depending on who the patron is.

That’s the kind of situation you’re not going to find in a task catalog, but that’s really how I see the CT task system working in the game. And, in that sense, it is a system. It has a logic, and can easily be applied to any situation, it just isn't expressly explained that way in the rules.

Just my thoughts...
 
Ranger,

It isn't that I don't see where you're coming from. But for every time I've got a one-off task like this, I've got a lot of frequently repeated ones (combat, ship related tasks, common interpersonal tasks like bribing customs officials or admin tasks to get permits). For those tasks, standardization that doesn't require lookups is pretty nice.

Let's also look at how I would have handled your example:

---

Party is running behind.... so, what do they do? You point out it is nighttime and raining.

Normally operating a ground vehicle is an easy task with DMs for Ground Vehicles and Dex. Rain and nightime conditions combine to make it one task level harder (Target 7 instead of 3). So, players must roll 7+, modified by Dex (typical driver gets +1) and by 1 for every level of Ground Vehicle (typically 1). So they need a 5+. If they screw up, we roll a mishap. It might be minor (a close call, some body damage to the rental, a flat tire) or major (a big crash, a pedestrian 'incident', cops). Then they roll the 3d6 for time and if it is over some number I choose (say a 12), then they're late.

I didn't need a task catalog because I intuitively know operating a ground car routinely is Easy. I know night + rain = 'bad driving conditions' therefore +1 difficulty level (3 -> 7). I know DMs are likely to be driver skill and Dex, but applied in the standard way (Stat/5 round nearest) so I don't have to guess at what stat level gives you an arbitrary DM.

It really isn't all that different, just more systemic. Some of us *like* more consistency. Some people like more artistic freedom. To each his own.
 
Ranger,

It isn't that I don't see where you're coming from. But for every time I've got a one-off task like this, I've got a lot of frequently repeated ones (combat, ship related tasks, common interpersonal tasks like bribing customs officials or admin tasks to get permits). For those tasks, standardization that doesn't require lookups is pretty nice.

Let's also look at how I would have handled your example:

---

Party is running behind.... so, what do they do? You point out it is nighttime and raining.

Normally operating a ground vehicle is an easy task with DMs for Ground Vehicles and Dex. Rain and nightime conditions combine to make it one task level harder (Target 7 instead of 3). So, players must roll 7+, modified by Dex (typical driver gets +1) and by 1 for every level of Ground Vehicle (typically 1). So they need a 5+. If they screw up, we roll a mishap. It might be minor (a close call, some body damage to the rental, a flat tire) or major (a big crash, a pedestrian 'incident', cops). Then they roll the 3d6 for time and if it is over some number I choose (say a 12), then they're late.

I didn't need a task catalog because I intuitively know operating a ground car routinely is Easy. I know night + rain = 'bad driving conditions' therefore +1 difficulty level (3 -> 7). I know DMs are likely to be driver skill and Dex, but applied in the standard way (Stat/5 round nearest) so I don't have to guess at what stat level gives you an arbitrary DM.

It really isn't all that different, just more systemic. Some of us *like* more consistency. Some people like more artistic freedom. To each his own.
 
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
[QB]
Search rolls typically have a difficulty followed by a single major DM:

9 + per five minutes, DM +3 if Intelligence B+
[QB]
I dislike this. Why? Because the implication here is that there is only one contributory attribute or skill (single major DM) and in this *particular* case, that an Int of A or less is of no benefit. That's why I like MT's way of Stat/5, round nearest. It treats stats on a flat (or stepped if you prefer) scale - there is no single magical breakpoint - 0 to +3 in one stat point? OUCH.
 
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
[QB]
Search rolls typically have a difficulty followed by a single major DM:

9 + per five minutes, DM +3 if Intelligence B+
[QB]
I dislike this. Why? Because the implication here is that there is only one contributory attribute or skill (single major DM) and in this *particular* case, that an Int of A or less is of no benefit. That's why I like MT's way of Stat/5, round nearest. It treats stats on a flat (or stepped if you prefer) scale - there is no single magical breakpoint - 0 to +3 in one stat point? OUCH.
 
Originally posted by Ranger:
[QB] Well, here is my take on a CT task system:

<snip>
Except for the names, that's pretty much what I use too.

Without adding Stat and Skill I go up by 2's.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Automatic 2
Simple 4
Routine 6
Average 8
Difficult 10
Formidable 12
Staggering 14
Hopeless 16
Impossible 18</pre>[/QUOTE]If I'm feeling MT'ish and add Skill + (Stat/5) I use go by 3's and use fewer levels.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Simple 3
Routine 6
Average 9
Difficult 12
Formidable 15
Staggering 18
Hopeless 21
Impossible 24</pre>[/QUOTE]
 
Originally posted by Ranger:
[QB] Well, here is my take on a CT task system:

<snip>
Except for the names, that's pretty much what I use too.

Without adding Stat and Skill I go up by 2's.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Automatic 2
Simple 4
Routine 6
Average 8
Difficult 10
Formidable 12
Staggering 14
Hopeless 16
Impossible 18</pre>[/QUOTE]If I'm feeling MT'ish and add Skill + (Stat/5) I use go by 3's and use fewer levels.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Simple 3
Routine 6
Average 9
Difficult 12
Formidable 15
Staggering 18
Hopeless 21
Impossible 24</pre>[/QUOTE]
 
Hmmm. 3 Actually looks like a better number than 4. 2 Seems a bit too close to me, but 3 means you get an extra task in the 3-15 range (5 levels, vs. 4 for MT) and that might be about right. That's almost tempting!
 
Hmmm. 3 Actually looks like a better number than 4. 2 Seems a bit too close to me, but 3 means you get an extra task in the 3-15 range (5 levels, vs. 4 for MT) and that might be about right. That's almost tempting!
 
Originally posted by robject:
T5 takes the T4 route and tries to avoid this by having skill levels range up to a max of 15.
Hmm. I hadn't noticed that before. Scaling skills up to roughly the same scale as characteristics could make the characteristic+skill system work.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
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...
No two situations are 100% the same. It's OK if you handle two similar situations in different manners because they are different situations.

Besides, if your players have long memories for such details, don't bother making notes. Just ask them how you handled it last time.


Originally posted by Aramis:
Something which is not laid out as a coherent and interactive whole is hardly a "system";
Yeah. Which is the reason for me using the ugly coinage: "unsystem".


Originally posted by Jeffr0:
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?
Yes. That's more or less the conclusion I've come to over the past decade or so.

That's one of the reasons I've come back to basic CT with its few broad skills & broad skill levels.

Originally posted by Ranger:
That’s the kind of situation you’re not going to find in a task catalog, but that’s really how I see the CT task system working in the game. And, in that sense, it is a system. It has a logic, and can easily be applied to any situation, it just isn't expressly explained that way in the rules.
Nice example.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
It really isn't all that different, just more systemic. Some of us *like* more consistency. Some people like more artistic freedom. To each his own.
Yes. Do you find yourself breaking out of the task system at least a little on occasion though?

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I dislike this. Why? Because the implication here is that there is only one contributory attribute or skill (single major DM) and in this *particular* case, that an Int of A or less is of no benefit.
Of course, if this were something I was just coming up with on-the-fly (or even if it wasn't), I'll ask the players to make the case for why an assest of their character's should give a DM.

That's why I like MT's way of Stat/5, round nearest. It treats stats on a flat (or stepped if you prefer) scale - there is no single magical breakpoint - 0 to +3 in one stat point? OUCH.
Divide by 5 is only marginally better, IMHO, than giving a DM for only B+.

That's what made me come up with the characteristic or less on 2D for a +1, characteristic-10 or less on 2D for a +2 system. (In another thread.) It keeps a lot of the feel of the CT unsystem without the ref having to pick the break point & without the static break points of the MT system.

[Edit] & I just want to add a word of thanks for everyone who has contributed to this discussion.
 
Originally posted by robject:
T5 takes the T4 route and tries to avoid this by having skill levels range up to a max of 15.
Hmm. I hadn't noticed that before. Scaling skills up to roughly the same scale as characteristics could make the characteristic+skill system work.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
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...
No two situations are 100% the same. It's OK if you handle two similar situations in different manners because they are different situations.

Besides, if your players have long memories for such details, don't bother making notes. Just ask them how you handled it last time.


Originally posted by Aramis:
Something which is not laid out as a coherent and interactive whole is hardly a "system";
Yeah. Which is the reason for me using the ugly coinage: "unsystem".


Originally posted by Jeffr0:
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?
Yes. That's more or less the conclusion I've come to over the past decade or so.

That's one of the reasons I've come back to basic CT with its few broad skills & broad skill levels.

Originally posted by Ranger:
That’s the kind of situation you’re not going to find in a task catalog, but that’s really how I see the CT task system working in the game. And, in that sense, it is a system. It has a logic, and can easily be applied to any situation, it just isn't expressly explained that way in the rules.
Nice example.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
It really isn't all that different, just more systemic. Some of us *like* more consistency. Some people like more artistic freedom. To each his own.
Yes. Do you find yourself breaking out of the task system at least a little on occasion though?

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I dislike this. Why? Because the implication here is that there is only one contributory attribute or skill (single major DM) and in this *particular* case, that an Int of A or less is of no benefit.
Of course, if this were something I was just coming up with on-the-fly (or even if it wasn't), I'll ask the players to make the case for why an assest of their character's should give a DM.

That's why I like MT's way of Stat/5, round nearest. It treats stats on a flat (or stepped if you prefer) scale - there is no single magical breakpoint - 0 to +3 in one stat point? OUCH.
Divide by 5 is only marginally better, IMHO, than giving a DM for only B+.

That's what made me come up with the characteristic or less on 2D for a +1, characteristic-10 or less on 2D for a +2 system. (In another thread.) It keeps a lot of the feel of the CT unsystem without the ref having to pick the break point & without the static break points of the MT system.

[Edit] & I just want to add a word of thanks for everyone who has contributed to this discussion.
 
Originally posted by RobertFisher:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
T5 takes the T4 route and tries to avoid this by having skill levels range up to a max of 15.
Hmm. I hadn't noticed that before. Scaling skills up to roughly the same scale as characteristics could make the characteristic+skill system work.

</font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't close the gap, so to speak, but it goes partway. The system still has to tack on an additional rule to penalize those who attempt a task by using a "too-low" skill level. Not so elegant, but it might be 'reasonable'.
 
Originally posted by RobertFisher:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
T5 takes the T4 route and tries to avoid this by having skill levels range up to a max of 15.
Hmm. I hadn't noticed that before. Scaling skills up to roughly the same scale as characteristics could make the characteristic+skill system work.

</font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't close the gap, so to speak, but it goes partway. The system still has to tack on an additional rule to penalize those who attempt a task by using a "too-low" skill level. Not so elegant, but it might be 'reasonable'.
 
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
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...!)
Q: Why did the Chicken get run over?

A: The Traffic Analysis skill has no default in GURPS. ;)

-HJC
 
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
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...!)
Q: Why did the Chicken get run over?

A: The Traffic Analysis skill has no default in GURPS. ;)

-HJC
 
Scaling them to be equal only works if you feel skills should be on the same scale. I don't.

Under MT, max DM allowed on non-psionic task rolls was DM+8. Max DM from skill was D+8, but max DM from Att was DM+5 (for Virush and MT, not canon to MT, but useable), for humas max Att DM was +3.

Now, mind you, I upped the diffs by 1point, and used Att/3, rather than att/5. this gave a far better spread.

But, truth be told, the "15 point scale" for skills in T4 is BOGUS. Few players will ever go for more than the requisite skill 6 or so to avoid insufficient skill penalties.
 
Scaling them to be equal only works if you feel skills should be on the same scale. I don't.

Under MT, max DM allowed on non-psionic task rolls was DM+8. Max DM from skill was D+8, but max DM from Att was DM+5 (for Virush and MT, not canon to MT, but useable), for humas max Att DM was +3.

Now, mind you, I upped the diffs by 1point, and used Att/3, rather than att/5. this gave a far better spread.

But, truth be told, the "15 point scale" for skills in T4 is BOGUS. Few players will ever go for more than the requisite skill 6 or so to avoid insufficient skill penalties.
 
I'm in favour of keeping skill levels low, and attributes having a small effect on most task rolls, although there are situations were ability bonuses may be more important and could thus be doubled for those situations.
Attributes have more uses than just providing a bonus to a task roll, they determine your damage capacity, number of turns of combat, encumberance, etc.
 
I'm in favour of keeping skill levels low, and attributes having a small effect on most task rolls, although there are situations were ability bonuses may be more important and could thus be doubled for those situations.
Attributes have more uses than just providing a bonus to a task roll, they determine your damage capacity, number of turns of combat, encumberance, etc.
 
Back
Top