The Universal Game Mechanic and MegaTraveller

[Supplement Four]

FYI - there's a new task system available that, although designed for use with CT, is 100% compatible with MT.

It's a simple mechanic to use in your game:

-------------------------------------------

TASK THROW

2D +mods for 8+

-------------------------------------------


All task throws that total 8+ succeed. All task throws that result in 7- fail.

You can learn about the UGM here:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000277


Some people perceive that the venerable workhorse that is he DGP/MT task system has some flaws (it's not broken--it's just got some flaws that are easily fixed with UGM). For example, DGP/MT provides for irratic benefit due to a character's stats (Stat-10 gets a bonus over Stat-9, but there is no difference between Stat-9 and Stat-5...etc.).

Many people love the old DGP/MT task system and are loathe to try something different. I understand that.

But, if you're willing to look at something new, and you're interested in a task system for your game that will provide your characters a different benefit for each and every level of natural ability (instead of the four "groups" that are lumped in the DGP/MT system), then you are invited to come take a look.

Employee 2-4601 has been hard at work creating a task library for UGM. You can come check out his tasks (and add your own!) here:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000289

Also, if you look on this page:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000277;p=3

You will see a link that Employee 2-4601 provides where you can download a single-page synopsis of the UGM task system, hole punch it, and keep it in your GM notebook during a game.


Finally, there is a thread that starts here:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000278

This thread discusses probability among three different task systems (UGM and MT being two of them).

You'll notice that the UGM probabilities are almost exactly the same as what you get with standard DGP/MT.

That's right, you get almost the same output with UGM as you do with DGP/MT with the exception that every stat value is differintiated from the other.

For example, in DGP/MT, an EDU-9 Pilot-2 makes the exact same roll as an EDU-5 Pilot-2...a weakling STR-1 Brawling-1 character makes the same task roll as a STR-4 Brawling-1 character...etc.

UGM will fix this.

(Also, UGM doesn't use division! No more Stat/5. UGM uses only addition and subtraction!)

All this, and you will get about the same probability of success you got when using DGP/MT.

If this interests you, then, please, come check out the Universal Game Mechanic.

Best,

W.

 

[Border Reiver]

The reason as many people have said that they are loathe to try something different is that the MT/DGP system ain't that badly broke. It works fine without fixes, it works better with a small tweak like Aramis uses or my own minor tweak.

I haven't playtested UGM so I can't comment on it fully but without getting into a HuffyPuff about it, it does feel that the boards are being spammed with UGM/CTI posts. Does this really warrant yet another thread?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Border Reiver:
The reason as many people have said that they are loathe to try something different is that the MT/DGP system ain't that badly broke. It works fine without fixes, it works better with a small tweak like Aramis uses or my own minor tweak.

I respect the point of your post, Border, but I guess the point of me posting here is that I'm putting the word out that an alternative to the MT/DGP system (that, in your own words, "ain't that badly broke") is available. And, this new system ain't broke at all!

I mean, why use a system that's "pretty good" when a system that is "great" is available?

Again, no disrepect intended (I don't want to get into a HuffyPuff either), but Aramis' tweak is badly broken. Standard DGP/MT is better than what he uses (and I don't think standard DGP/MT is broken--as I indicated above. It's merely bent.).

But, you're right. Let's not get into that.

UGM is available for people want to try it. If a Traveller GM doesn't want to, there's no task police that's going to go to their house and force them to use it.

It's just available if they want to try it.

That's all.

I haven't playtested UGM so I can't comment on it fully but without getting into a HuffyPuff about it, it does feel that the boards are being spammed with UGM/CTI posts. Does this really warrant yet another thread?

The UGM threads have been contained to the CT boards. I was just getting the word out to MT players.

I mean, I don't usually follow anything but the CT boards--just occassionally slipping into another area.

So, that's why I posted it here.

Just gettin' the word out--letting people know that it's available.

 

[Border Reiver]

The UGM threads have been contained to the CT boards. I was just getting the word out to MT players.

I know but they have also been dominating the COTI front page (where there is no indication of a thread's location on a particular board)for several weeks and have been easy to spot on the main forums page. If a MT player has missed them they've either been blind or plain just uninterested.

 

[aramis]

I side with BR; this doesn't belong here.

Of all the editions, the one with the least task-angst is either MT or 2300. Which, aside from choice of die, are identical.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Aramis:
I side with BR; this doesn't belong here.

Sure it does, Wil. The UGM is 100% compatible with an MT game. UGM is an improvement over the MT task system (which was originally designed for CT).

Now, I wouldn't post the UGM in the T20 or the GT forums, but it sure as heck deserves to be here.

 

[mctesla]

I have to side with BR and Aramis. I'm glad that you've created something that works for you, however, whether it is an improvement over the existing system is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

I agree that UGM threads have been dominating the board, and it isn't neccessary to spam it to each sub-catagory. Not to be rude (too late?), but everyone who is interested in it has most assuredly seen it, and can post replies in the CT threads.

 

[Supplement Four]

You're not being rude, Loyal. At least, I didn't take it that way.

I disagree with you, though--for the plain reason that I, myself, don't notice any other threads outside of CT threads. I don't really look at what's been posted outside of CT because I figure I can't really use it in CT.

I haven't even been through the MT threads (but I'm thinking I should check 'em out).

So, I can't be the only one who focusses on a particular section of the forums only.

I mean, I've never even poked my head into the T20 threads--and just barely, once, looked at the GT threads.

So, UGM may have gotten a lot of attention on the CT boards, but if I was strickly a MT player, I wouldn't have caught it.

So, I posted it here too.

It's not a big deal to ignore a thread if you don't want to or have already seen it, is it?

 

[mctesla]

Good to hear that no offense was taken.

No-- it's generally not a problem to ignore a single thread--- my concern is that the six CTI/UGM threads over in the CT forum are going to be reshashed endlessly here in the MT forum as well as in CT.

This thread is already here, I'm more concerned about expansion.

I understand your position-- it would be interesting to see how everyone navigates/uses the site, from a statistical point of view.

 

[aramis]

Ken: It is incompatible with the extant MT task library, as it can't handle dual attribute nor dual skill tasks.

Thus it can't be used without replacing a significant chunk of the task library.

Hence, yet another reason it doesn't belong here.

For CT, yes, it produces a result you see as decent.
For me, it fails on several counts:
1) Maximum 1 skill-level equivalent effect, and then only on otherwise poor rolls.
2) can't do dual stat tasks
3) can't do dual skill tasks
4) no time result subsystem

Since these last three are, effectively, purely MT & 2300 artifacts...

Your enthusiasm is admirable; your "preaching" it isn't. It does appear you're looking for applause rather than criticism (constructive or otherwise). Branching out into other fora, where it is obviously inferior (items 2 and 3 being outside the realm of the system) to the extant system for integration.

As a potential T5 system, perhaps it might be worthy. For T4, or CT, or TNE, it's very workable; CT has no task system, T4 and TNE's is always skill and attribute. But For MT, it requires not just trashing a number of very useful subsets of the task system, but many of the tasks themselves. (about 5-7% of the tasks.)

MT is, task-wise, the most flexible, most universal, and easiest to tweak task systems in the Traveller panoply; changing the nature of the task system rips chunks out of numerous places in the system.

This flexibility is what keeps me coming back to MT, or MT-T4 hybrids...

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Your enthusiasm is admirable; your "preaching" it isn't. It does appear you're looking for applause rather than criticism (constructive or otherwise).

I've just been letting people know it's available. That's all.

Pats on the back are nice, but not required.

Ciriticism that *is* constructive is always welcome. (Mean spirited blather isn't.)

I've noticed that many of your posts tend to start bad feelings/flame wars with many people, and that's probobably because you try to come across like you know everything about Traveller (and, well, everything in general) and talk down to them. You typically don't try to come across constructive in your posts--and many times you're not even polite.

So, if you've received a bad reception from me (and many others I see), it's because the tone of your posts "ask for it".

As for me, I really don't have an emotional investment in whether people like CTI or UGM or not. I always create things like this for my game--I'm only looking to please me an mine.

I post it here as a courtesy to other Traveller gamers out there. Some people do like (really like) UGM.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------


Now, as few people on the CotI forums seem to think the focus on UGM has been a bit much.

I guess a lot of people in my position would dig in their heels, start yelling, and say, "Don't read my posts then! I'll post as much as I want!"


I'm not going to do that.

I figure I'll just err on the side of being polite and back off. I'll probably just go back to ignoring the CotI forums and not participate here. Hassels like this aren't worth it.

 

[Flynn]

Originally posted by WJP:
I've just been letting people know it's available. That's all.

It has been my experience and my perception that you are doing more than just letting people know it's available. It is something you believe in passionately, and you've told me on these fora that you like to argue as a means of convincing people about it, because it is something you feel strongly about. That's a bit more than just letting people know it's available.

For support of the above, I'd like to refer you to your own post here:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000278;p=2#000017

Originally posted by WJP:
I was just trying to make a strong argument for something I believe in, game-wise.

I'm not saying that UGM or any of your other task systems are good or bad, as I'm not posting comments on their content anymore, but I am clarifying that in my perception of your words, you are doing more than just letting people know it's available. Ten-plus threads with a majority of them being your posts is much more than enough to tell people that something is available and that's all.

Just Making Sure There Aren't Any Illusions Being Painted Here,
Flynn

 

[Elliot]

er.. how is roll 8+ plus mods particularly different to original CT in any event? - the whole point of the MT task system is that it has a staggered difficulty level rather than a uniform roll. OK there's a few oddities like the stat bonus, but the MT system is infinitely more flexible to a ref actually playing the game than the old 8+ dinosaur.

Sorry dude, to me its a retrograde step (sort of back to 1979) not a way forward.

 

[Spud]

WJP; I think the UGM is a good thing, I like it; and I certainly don't see any harm in publicising it. As to 'preaching' or trying to convert, check out the First Amendment. He's free to say, I'm free to disagree. God, I love this country.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Your enthusiasm is admirable; your "preaching" it isn't. It does appear you're looking for applause rather than criticism (constructive or otherwise).

I've just been letting people know it's available. That's all.

Pats on the back are nice, but not required.

Ciriticism that *is* constructive is always welcome. (Mean spirited blather isn't.)
</font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't appear that way in three of the 10 threads you've started on your recent task systems.

I've noticed that many of your posts tend to start bad feelings/flame wars with many people, and that's probobably because you try to come across like you know everything about Traveller (and, well, everything in general) and talk down to them. You typically don't try to come across constructive in your posts--and many times you're not even polite.

So, if you've received a bad reception from me (and many others I see), it's because the tone of your posts "ask for it".

can't fight, with logic, so on to the ad hominem attacks, again? Ken, this is an irrational low, even for you. I've only found issue with a few posters, and, quite honestly, I've seldom been their sole target. Even they have been kind enough to reply on point...

As for me, I really don't have an emotional investment in whether people like CTI or UGM or not. I always create things like this for my game--I'm only looking to please me an mine.

Really? Could have fooled me (and others). You've dug in against the few of use who stated what we see as broken within it.

I post it here as a courtesy to other Traveller gamers out there. Some people do like (really like) UGM.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------


Now, as few people on the CotI forums seem to think the focus on UGM has been a bit much.

I guess a lot of people in my position would dig in their heels, start yelling, and say, "Don't read my posts then! I'll post as much as I want!"


I'm not going to do that.

I figure I'll just err on the side of being polite and back off. I'll probably just go back to ignoring the CotI forums and not participate here. Hassels like this aren't worth it.

That would be a minor loss for the community as a whole; no major loss for me, either. No one wants you to go away, we just want you to back off a bit; not blather on with the same question repeated after a half dozen people have come up with answers you don't like. Keep a topic in one thread, not half a dozen.

And you didn't reply to the main point of the post... WHY it is not up to par with MT. Item 1 you'll apparently never agree with; Items 2-4 haven't been addressed in the CT Forum.

 

[Supplement Four]

I hope this isn't going to be more trouble than it's worth, but I'll respond to each of you.

Here we go.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Flynn:
It has been my experience and my perception that you are doing more than just letting people know it's available.

(snip, snip)


I'm not saying that UGM or any of your other task systems are good or bad, as I'm not posting comments on their content anymore, but I am clarifying that in my perception of your words, you are doing more than just letting people know it's available.

(more snip, snip)

Just Making Sure There Aren't Any Illusions Being Painted Here,
Flynn

Flynn, as I responded to you before, you obviously read my original reply to you wrong.

You stated that you were a creature of habit and that you've always liked the MT/DGP task system.

I replied that I could see your attraction to MT/DGP, but UGM provides benefits over MT/DGP. And, then I proceeded to back that up.

I never meant to be snotty to you--and I told you that in another post.

Here's the complete text of that original reply of mine to you.

It's not being snotty or defensive--it's just support for UGM.

I wasn't taking your criticism badly (and, it wasn't really criticism, but your opinion of preference) at all. I replied with support of the new system.


=================================================
Complete reply to Flynn's original post
=================================================

Originally posted by Flynn:
I still like the MT/DGP task system, mostly because I honestly am a creature of habit and I've liked it since I first saw it back in the late 80's.

Absolutely, Flynn. You gotta go with what blows your hair back.

If I didn't like something, I sure as heck wouldn't use it.

But, like you say, I do find that the affinity to the MT/DGP system is linked with the fact that the sucker has been around for twenty years. People are used to it.

And, when CT didn't have a task system, the MT/DGP system was like seeing that sliced bread was available at the store--you don't have to cut it yourself anymore.

But, let's face it. The MT/DGP system has some problems.

For example, a DEX-10 guy shoots better than a DEX-9 guy.

DEX-10 guy: 2D +2
DEX-9 guy: 2D +1

I'm OK with that. It looks good.

The problem is that the DEX-9 guy doesn't shoot any better than the DEX-8 guy...or the DEX-7 guy...or the DEX-6 guy...or even the DEX-5 guys.

So, let's look at this distribution.

DEX-15: 2D +3
DEX-14: 2D +2
DEX-13: 2D +2
DEX-12: 2D +2
DEX-11: 2D +2
DEX-10: 2D +2
DEX-9: 2D +1
DEX-8: 2D +1
DEX-7: 2D +1
DEX-6: 2D +1
DEX-5: 2D +1
DEX-4: 2D
DEX-3: 2D
DEX-2: 2D
DEX-1: 2D


See that distrubution? Why does it makes sense that between some stat levels the benefit is increased, yet in others, it's the same?

Here's another humdinger for you....look at the DEX-1 guy and the DEX-4 guy! BOTH shoot the SAME!


Both CTI and UGM will correct this problem, very easily, with a 2D task roll. And that task roll will fit very easily into your game.

I mean, I think the benefits of using CTI or UGM over DGP/MT are immense.

But, Brother Flynn, if you're OK with those discrepencies, and want to stay with MT/DGP because that's what you know and are comfortable with, then that's OK by me. Play some Traveller, brother, just like you said, play some Traveller.

Me, I'm going to use one of these systems that makes a little more sense--I mean you're getting a lot of benefit without changing the game a whole lot at all.

We're still talking 2D rolls. We're still talking CT characters with skills and stat levels remaining unchanged. We're still talking a 8+ roll in combat.

Everything is the same except for how you perform the 2D task roll.

For me, changing over to UGM or CTI is a no brainer.

But, believe me, I understand if you don't want to leave the comfort zone of the MT/DGP task system.

I like that task system too--it's just now, there are better options available.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Elliot:
er.. how is roll 8+ plus mods particularly different to original CT in any event? - the whole point of the MT task system is that it has a staggered difficulty level rather than a uniform roll. OK there's a few oddities like the stat bonus, but the MT system is infinitely more flexible to a ref actually playing the game than the old 8+ dinosaur.

Sorry dude, to me its a retrograde step (sort of back to 1979) not a way forward.

Elliot,

Not to be snotty to you either (although you're a bit snotty with your words above), but you're obvioulsy not familiar with UGM.

If you were, you'd know that UGM uses difficulty levels too.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Spud:
WJP; I think the UGM is a good thing, I like it; and I certainly don't see any harm in publicising it. As to 'preaching' or trying to convert, check out the First Amendment. He's free to say, I'm free to disagree. God, I love this country.

Thank you, brother Spud. I do appreciate the support.

Newsgroups, forums, and mailing lists tend to bring out the "bitch" in people. Hell, I've done it myself. You get a few people bitchin' about ya, and all of a sudden, you're a pariah.

Nature of the best, I guess.

Thanks for the words, though.

 

[Border Reiver]

Careful now Ken, UGM didn't have difficulty levels until a later edit, if I'm not mistaken.