The Universal Game Mechanic and MegaTraveller

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
But I would like to ask to check the charts.
E.g. a difficult task in UGM requires a 10+ (Skill-2/Stat-7). Any throw 7+ would succeed here resulting in a probabilty of 58% (not 42%). Or am I wrong here ?

You're right, on that account. I nabbed that chart from a discussion about UGM, and I had posted stats without the influence of the Natural Ability mod, which you have used here.

I probably should have used a chart that includes the mod (increase by one point every value that is equal to stat or below).

As I've said before, UGM provides numbers that are very close to MT, and in some cases exactly--but not always. If they're off, they're usually only off by one point (depending on the huge impact MT gives to high level stats).

It took a while, but I put together another chart to compare probabilities, resulting in some general statements:

Cool, love to see it. You're comparing against plain vanilla MT?

- for low stat characters (below 5) life is a little more easy with UGM
- for mid stat characters (5-9) life is more easy in UGM (routine things) and just the same as MT for more difficult ones
- for high stat characters (A-F) life is pretty similar in MT and UGM in the whole range

That's great--I designed UGM to give approx. numbers that MT gives. I didn't want those probabilities changed too much.

I only wanted to add the differences between stat.

Looks like your numbers are saying the same thing mine are saying--I guess we're just looking at them differently.

I think the fixes to MT (the Stat/5 groups....the slightly lower probs at the higher levels of stat...things I've been talking about) that UGM provides are completely worth it.

Otherwise, I'd just use MT.

Well, here taste thing becomes obvious.
To me "lessen stat impact" is also represented by generalizing the stat boni over stat ranges. This is done via the stat DIV 5 rule and results into the thing, that a skill-2/stat-5 person is just as good as a skill-2/stat-9 person

Absolutely. You've just touched on one of the biggest problems with MT.

A Stat-9 person has the same exact roll as a Stat-5 person.

If we're talking about INT, then we're saying that a INT-9, with almost twice the IQ, has the same chance of figuring a problem as a INT-5 person (given that all other factors are equal...like skill).

If we're taking about STR, then we're saying that a STR-9 character, who is strong enough to carry almost twice as much weight as a STR-5 character, has the exact same chance of success as the STR-5 character in breaking down a door.

That's crazy.

A SOC-9 character, obviously upper middle class or lower upper class, has the eact same chance of success at making (insert roll based on Social Standing) than a SOC-5 character, who is lower middle class or upper lower class.

Again, there's a problem with that.

Somebody who has almost twice the education, EDU-9 vs. somebody EDU-5, has the exact same eduction based roll eventhough, clearly, one is superior in the education department.


This is what I've been talking about.

This is UGM "competitive advantage" over MT (to reference your suggestion that UGM be "marketed" by showing it's strengths over MT).

UGM provides a DIFFERENCE between these characters.

That's what UGM "fixes" about MT.

That's why UGM is a superior system.

Yep. UGM differentiates stat values, but as I described only in a narrow band.

Which is the strongest argument "for" UGM. It's just as easy to use as MT, and it provides more benefit without extra fuss.

If you go to the store, and a PIII computer and a PIV computer are there for the same price, why buy the PIII?

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Well spoken WJP..

The chart compares UGM to "vanilla" MT.

O.k. UGMs it does not differ between different stats in all consequences, but only in special cases.
I do not understand, why this is an argument for UGM

In many other the differences are just neglegted as in MT.
It just depends on the actual stat values and the task difficulties to be done.
In UGM certain task difficulty ranges do not take account to stat diffs, whereas in MT this depends on the stat values, but if stats belongs to different "slots" (low, average, high, extraordinary) this applies to the whole task range.
So catching up our heros Domingo (Stat-3 Skill-2) and Jynx (Stat-6 Skill-2):
UGM would just differ on a routine task. MT would differ on any task difficulty.
I am pretty sure, that MT and a MT with a modified stat-boni rule=UGM deal with those "differences" in the same amount, just at different sets of situations.
EDITED:
I just created another spreadsheet for that, listing all the possible stat-stat combinations, as well as MT DM differences and UGM modifiers related to defined task difficulties.
Guess there is no other way to get a reliable overview.
Well, I am a bit surprised, but MT handles around 66% of these combinations with different modifiers (naturally for any task difficulty).
Now UGM - to my surprise - only treats about 37% of routine tasks or 47% of difficult tasks as different based on the stat combinations and a skill level of 1. This gets even worse if the skill level increases.

Statistics is a bitch ...

If any weird soul is interested in the sheet (OpenOffice 2.0) give me a sign.

As such I dont think we are speaking about a PIII and a PIV, but merely about PIII and another PIII (or just taste)

Anyway its much fun to dig thru this


regards,

Mert

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
O.k. UGMs it does not differ between different stats in all consequences, but only in special cases.
I do not understand, why this is an argument for UGM

Here's why it is an argument for UGM.

Biirt is Stat-9 Skill-1
Franke is Stat-5 Skill-1

Under MT, both of these characters make the exact same roll. 2D +2. They make this roll for all occassions--even though Biirt has almost twice the natural ability that Franke has.

Under UGM, Biirt's roll will be 2D +2 83% of the time. 17% of the time, Biirt will only roll 2D +1.

Compare this to Franke. He rolls 2D +2 28% of the time. And, 73% of the time, he's only rolling 2D +1.

You see. Under UGM, Biirt is rolling higher (2D +2) mucy more often than Franke is.

Biirt's better natural ability is kicking in.

EDITED:
I just created another spreadsheet for that, listing all the possible stat-stat combinations, as well as MT DM differences and UGM modifiers related to defined task difficulties.

You might want to compare your chart with the one I created a few days ago here:

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

I did every stat, so I had to break the chart up into three posts. There's a chart for low stats, average stats, and high stats.

This gets even worse if the skill level increases.

What you're seeing is a benefit of UGM. Remember, one of my complaints about MT was that high skill and high stat blows away the top end of the difficulty scale. UGM keeps those hard--which means there is little change in the higher categories.

Click on the link above to check out my charts on this.

As such I dont think we are speaking about a PIII and a PIV, but merely about PIII and another PIII (or just taste)

Ok, Ok. Not a PIII and a PIV. MT is more like a PIV 1.2 GHz, and UGM is more like a PIV 4.8 GHz.

Anyway its much fun to dig thru this


regards,

Mert

Absolutely, Mert. Man, wouldn't this be such a better place (and I mean the entire internet, not just this forum) if all disagreements online were conducted the way you and I have been conducting this one?

Again, it's a pleasure to disagree with you.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Keeping to disagree..

Well, to be more specific:
One main argument is, that UGM differs better between stats as MT does.
As I tried to express in my last post, this is just not the case.
MT catches many more possible stat variations as UGM does. In other words, UGM incorporates many more stat-stat combinations, where these differences are neglegted.

Heres an extract from the chart:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Stat 1 Stat 2 MT Diff UGM R1 UGM R2 UGM Diff
1 5 -1 5 4 1
2 5 -1 5 4 1
3 5 -1 5 4 1
4 5 -1 5 4 1
5 5 0 4 4 0
6 5 0 4 4 0
7 5 0 4 4 0
8 5 0 4 4 0
9 5 0 4 4 0
10 5 1 4 4 0
11 5 1 4 4 0
12 5 1 4 4 0
13 5 1 4 4 0
14 5 1 4 4 0
15 5 2 4 4 0</pre>[/QUOTE]This extract shows a set of stat combinations and the resulting modifier differences, in MT and regarding a routine task using UGM (skill level is assumed 1 here).
(the complete chart is available at:
UGM and stats)


And catching the Biirt and Frank example again. Both will succeed on a UGM routine task on a 4+. UGM just not differs here, too.
It would do on a difficult task, but at any combinations from 1-5 to 8-5 UGM will neglegt any differences here, too.
This effect moves thru all possible combinations and usual task difficulties.
A naughty person might tell, this is a serious bug.

Its just, that the "coverage" of stat differences is essentially higher in MT than in UGM. The numbers tell that.
And You should check that.

IMHO it is important to notice that it is statistically worthless to take a separated look at "the chance to get a bonus".
You always have to look at the effective chance to manage a task.

Any questions ?

Best regards,

Mert

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
A naughty person might tell, this is a serious bug.

Its just, that the "coverage" of stat differences is essentially higher in MT than in UGM. The numbers tell that.
And You should check that.

I see your chart, Mert. And, when it comes down to it, the differences in UGM are typically just 1 point (unless very gifted in the stat department, and the roll is real high).


But we've got Biirt and Eneri.

Birrt is INT-9 Computer-2

Eneri is INT-5 Computer-2


Under MT, Eneri attemps a task roll, any task roll, he'll roll 2D +3 in his attempt to succeed.

That's 2D for--

(1+)..Easy (will always succeed)
4+....Routine
8+....Difficult
12....Formidable
(16+).Impossible (will always fail)

Eneri will succeed...

100% of the time on an Easy task.
92% of the time on a Routine task.
42% of the time on a Difficult task.
3% of the time on a Formidable task.
0% of the time on an Impossible task.

And Biirt, who has almost twice the IQ that Eneri does, will succeed on the same tasks the exact same--Biirt and Eneri have the exact same chance of success in spite of their IQ scores.


Now, using UGM...

Eneri will roll 2D for..

2+....Easy (will always succeed)
4+....Routine
6+....Standard
8+....Difficult
10+...Challenging
12....Formidable
(14+)..Insane (will always fail)
(16+)..Impossible (will always fail)


Eneri will succeed...

100% of the time on an Easy task.
97% of the time on a Routine task.
83% of the time on a Standard task.
42% of the time on a Difficult task.
17% of the time on a Challenging task.
3% of the time on a Formidable task.
0% of the time on an Insane task.
0% of the time on an Impossible task.


But Biirt, Birrt's a smarter guy. He's got twice the IQ that Eneri does, and he can use his intellect to help him figure out harder problems that might stump Eneri.

So, Biirt has the exact same percentages as Eneri EXCEPT that Biirt's higher natural ability--his higher stat--affords these better percentages...

58%...on a Difficult task.
28%...on a Challenging task.


Given that, isn't it completely clear that...

--(A)-- UGM provides better differentation between stats than MT does, and...

--(B)-- It is clearly more advantageous to the character to have a higher stat rather than a lower stat (where MT makes no distinction between Stat-9 and Stat-5).

Looks to me that UGM is doing its job, and there aren't any "serious bugs" that need to be worked out.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi Houston !

You are still tied to the stat-9 stat-5 example.
Choose other ones and you will discover different results.
In order to compare the systems as whole, you have to check the complete set of possible stat stat combinations.
Check UGM for 7-5 and stats diffs will be neglegted as well as for 6-5,5-5,4-5,3-5,2-1,1-1 combinations on a 10+ task and a given skill of 2. Around 53% of all possible combinations are treated that way.

You might have to take a view on the complete UGM picture to give general hints about its behaviour.
I really would suggest to use the chart to get a deeper impression of what happens while using the natural ability feature.

Guess, its a matter of fact, that MT is more sensible to stat differences even more than UGM does. Statement --A-- simply is not true. Anybody looking at the chart might see that (ok, I should include a bit more descriptive information).
But I agree, that this fact wasn't very obvious.

And "serious bug" perhaps isnt the correct word here. Its just a special system behaviour.

Anyway I am really thinking about some way to increase UGM coverage...

Regards,

Mert

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Statement --A-- simply is not true.

Statement --A-- was that UGM provides a better differentation between different stats, and that is absolutely true.

I've already proven that.

Look at the charts I posted for stats (the link I provided above).


=================================
Stat-1 vs. Stat-2

Stat-2 provides the same exact chance of success except when the target number is 3.

What's better to have? Stat-1 or Stat-2?

UGM provides a teeny-weeny bonus to have Stat-2 over Stat-1.

Is there any difference in the chance of success using a Stat-1 or a Stat-2 character using MT?

No.

Is it better to have Stat-2 over Stat-1 using UGM?

Yes.

============================================
Stat-1 vs. Stat-3

Stat-3 gets a bonus Stat-1 when the target number is either 3 or 4.

(Stat-3 provides a benefit over Stat-2 when the target number is 4).

Does this happen when these two characters are compared using MT?

No.

Is is advantageous to have Stat-3 rather than Stat-1 using UGM?

Yes.

========================================
Stat-1 vs Stat-4

Stat-4 gets a bonus over Stat-1 when the target number is 3, 4, or 5.

(Stat-4 provides a benefit over Stat-3 when the target number is 5. Stat-4 provides a benefit over Stat-2 when the target number is 4 or 5.)

Is Stat-4 differinitiated in any way over Stat-1 using MT?

No.

Is it advantageous to have Stat-4 over Stat-1 using UGM?

Yes.

==============================================


I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

MT provides benefit at Stat-5, Stat-10, and Stat-15 only.

UGM provides some benefit to having a higher stat at EACH level.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
You are still tied to the stat-9 stat-5 example.

I use that a lot because it's a nice, middle of the road, example.

What I've been expressing is true for any stats.

In order to compare the systems as whole, you have to check the complete set of possible stat stat combinations.

I've already posted charts on this.

Stat-2 is better than Stat-1 when the target number is: 3.

Stat-3 is better than Stat-1 when the target number is: 3, 4.

Stat-4 is better than Stat-1 when the target number is: 3, 4, 5.

Stat-5 is better than Stat-1 when the target number is: 3, 4, 5, 6.

Stat-6 is better than Stat-1 when the target number is: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Stat-7 is better than Stat-1 when the target number is: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Stat-8 is better than Stat-1 when the target number is: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Stat-9 is better than Stat-1 when the target number is: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

etc....

The differences between stats are slight when the stats are close together. For example, Stat-9 is better than Stat-8 when the target number is 10.

Stat-9 is better than Stat-7 when the target number is 10 or 9.

Stat-9 is better than Stat-6 when the target number is 10, 9, or 8.

etc.


There is absolutely, 100%, a difference between each stat when using UGM.

When using MT, those differences only show up at the Stat-5, Stat-10, and Stat-15 levels.

 

[TheEngineer]

Ok. Thats the right way to analyse the problem.
Now, if You do that for all stat-stat combinations, and sum up results, you will discover that overall UGM is less sensible to stat differences than MT.

Thats just a mathematical fact.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Ok. Thats the right way to analyse the problem.
Now, if You do that for all stat-stat combinations, and sum up results, you will discover that overall UGM is less sensible to stat differences than MT.

Thats just a mathematical fact.

What you're seeing, Mert, is the bigger difference MT puts on stats. Stat-15 is +3. Stat-10 is +2. Stat-5 is +1.

That's skewing your results a bit. With UGM, the difference is either +0 or +1 (with a very, very small proportion of time being +2).

So, yeah, there's greater difference between stats, point-wise, with MT. I mean, if I changed UGM to be +2 if you roll higher than stat, +4 if you roll lower than stat, and +6 on the high ones, you'd see UGM gain favor on your chart.

You're measuring the wrong thing.

The point of UGM is to give a difference between each and every stat level--to break away from the MT groupings that are created by the Stat/5 mechanic.

A character with INT-14 has a higher IQ than a character with INT-10.

A character with STR-9 is stronger than a character with STR-5.

UGM reflects this difference.

MT does not.

 

[aramis]

MT does, but only as a resistance to fatigue.
A 14 is a +2 for End+4 hours, while a 10 is only a +2 for End hours... (I may have the exact rate wrong, but the fatigue penalty reuduces attributes).

UGM is a more fuzzy system; gaining the +3 bonus would easily be managed with a staged check.

The UGM mechanic is essentially one where low rolls are partially offset by attribute; the higher the stat, the better the rolls which gain the bonus.

To offset it so Stat 15 still can get a +3 is doable; it requires 3 comparisons, rather than one, each progressively subtracting... say under by 6 grants a +2, under by 12 grants +3, and under by 18 gets +3, it would still be essentially "negation of low rolls only".

The following shows an "expanded UGM Stat Mod" "effective roll" by attribute through Att 24
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Natural Attribute
Roll 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6
3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7
4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8
5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9
6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 15</pre>[/QUOTE]Note that this pprovides a smoother transition for super-C attrbutes (sorry, baaad pun, couldn't resist) than WJP's current mechanic, and accounts for the very high portential of races like the Virush.

Doing it this way is starting to make me think more of it...

But it still doesn't do dual skill/no att tasks, nor dual att tasks.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi again !

I created this tiny chart in order to make visible, when UGM differs and when its does not.
Its sorted by the stat difference and shows, what DM diffs MT would give (on any task throw) and what UGM would do.

So, if you pick the INT 14-10 example, its just true that MT ignores the difference here, because the values are in the same stat "league".
But You might also see, that even UGM catches the difference only on a required throw of 13+.
Thats a typical UGM system behaviour: it only catches stat diff for a group of task difficulties, but ignores the rest.
This results into the situation, that considering stat differences of 4+ the 14-10 and 9-5 combinations are the ONLY ones which are neglegted in a MT system, in contrast to many more "use cases", which are neglegted in UGM (represented by a "-" in the chart).

WJP, hope you dont get me wrong. I am not picking on UGM. I just trying to understand it.

The table below considers a skill (Sk) of 1. Table content shifts one to the right, if the skill is increase one level.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Stat 1 Stat 2 Diff MT Diff Sk 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
2 1 1 0 1 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - x x x x x x x x
3 2 1 0 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - x x x x x x x x
4 3 1 0 1 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - x x x x x x x x
5 4 1 1 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - x x x x x x x x
6 5 1 0 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - x x x x x x x x
7 6 1 0 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - x x x x x x x x
8 7 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - x x x x x x x x
9 8 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - - x x x x x x x x
10 9 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - x x x x x x x x
11 10 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 x x x x x x x x
12 11 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 x x x x x x x
13 12 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 x x x x x x
14 13 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - x x x x x x
15 14 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - x x x x x x
3 1 2 0 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - x x x x x x x x
4 2 2 0 1 - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - x x x x x x x x
5 3 2 1 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - x x x x x x x x
6 4 2 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - x x x x x x x x
7 5 2 0 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - x x x x x x x x
8 6 2 0 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - x x x x x x x x
9 7 2 0 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - x x x x x x x x
10 8 2 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - x x x x x x x x
11 9 2 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 x x x x x x x x
12 10 2 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 x x x x x x x
13 11 2 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 x x x x x x
14 12 2 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 x x x x x x
15 13 2 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - x x x x x x
4 1 3 0 1 - - 1 1 1 - - - - - - - x x x x x x x x
5 2 3 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 - - - - - - x x x x x x x x
6 3 3 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 - - - - - x x x x x x x x
7 4 3 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 - - - - x x x x x x x x
8 5 3 0 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 - - - x x x x x x x x
9 6 3 0 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 1 - - x x x x x x x x
10 7 3 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 - x x x x x x x x
11 8 3 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x
12 9 3 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 x x x x x x x
13 10 3 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 2 x x x x x x
14 11 3 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 2 x x x x x x
15 12 3 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 2 x x x x x x
5 1 4 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - x x x x x x x x
6 2 4 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - - x x x x x x x x
7 3 4 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - x x x x x x x x
8 4 4 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - x x x x x x x x
9 5 4 0 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - x x x x x x x x
10 6 4 1 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - x x x x x x x x
11 7 4 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x
12 8 4 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x
13 9 4 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 2 x x x x x x
14 10 4 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 2 x x x x x x
15 11 4 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 2 x x x x x x
6 1 5 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - x x x x x x x x
7 2 5 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - x x x x x x x x
8 3 5 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 - - - x x x x x x x x
9 4 5 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 - - x x x x x x x x
10 5 5 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 - x x x x x x x x
11 6 5 1 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x
12 7 5 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x
13 8 5 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 2 x x x x x x
14 9 5 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 2 2 x x x x x x
15 10 5 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 2 2 x x x x x x
7 1 6 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - x x x x x x x x
8 2 6 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - x x x x x x x x
9 3 6 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - x x x x x x x x
10 4 6 2 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - x x x x x x x x
11 5 6 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x
12 6 6 1 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x
13 7 6 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 2 x x x x x x
14 8 6 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 2 2 x x x x x x
15 9 6 2 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 2 2 x x x x x x
8 1 7 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - x x x x x x x x
9 2 7 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - x x x x x x x x
10 3 7 2 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - x x x x x x x x
11 4 7 2 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x
12 5 7 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x
13 6 7 1 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 x x x x x x
14 7 7 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 2 2 x x x x x x
15 8 7 2 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 2 2 2 x x x x x x
9 1 8 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - x x x x x x x x
10 2 8 2 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - x x x x x x x x
11 3 8 2 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x
12 4 8 2 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x
13 5 8 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 x x x x x x
14 6 8 1 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 x x x x x x
15 7 8 2 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 2 2 2 x x x x x x
10 1 9 2 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - x x x x x x x x
11 2 9 2 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x
12 3 9 2 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x
13 4 9 2 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 x x x x x x
14 5 9 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 x x x x x x
15 6 9 2 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 x x x x x x
11 1 10 2 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x x
12 2 10 2 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x
13 3 10 2 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 x x x x x x
14 4 10 2 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 x x x x x x
15 5 10 2 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 x x x x x x
12 1 11 2 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x x x x x x x
13 2 11 2 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 x x x x x x
14 3 11 2 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 x x x x x x
15 4 11 3 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 x x x x x x
13 1 12 2 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 x x x x x x
14 2 12 2 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 x x x x x x
15 3 12 3 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 x x x x x x
14 1 13 2 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 x x x x x x
15 2 13 3 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 x x x x x x
15 1 14 3 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 x x x x x x
120 No Diff 41 120 120 106 94 84 76 70 66 64 64 66 66
Diff 79 0 0 14 26 36 44 50 54 56 56 54 54
%Diff 66% 0% 0% 12% 22% 30% 37% 42% 45% 47% 47% 45% 45% </pre>[/QUOTE]Regards,

Mert
Tablesmith

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
So, if you pick the INT 14-10 example, its just true that MT ignores the difference here, because the values are in the same stat "league".

Yes, that's one of the problems (the main problem, imo) with MT. You get those stat "groupings" or "leagues" as you call them when using the Stat/5 mechanic.

UGM will provide a difference between each and every stat.

BTW, it's easy to figure what the difference is, using UGM (with stats 12 and below. Just subtract the two stats. Between Stat-9 and Stat-8, there's only one target number that is different. Between Stat-9 and Stat-5, there are four target numbers that are different.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">2D Stat-9 Stat-8
12 12 12
11 11 11
10 10 10
9 10 9
8 9 9
7 8 8
6 7 7
5 6 6
4 5 5
3 4 4
2 3 3</pre>[/QUOTE]See, the difference is only when a 9 is rolled.

The Stat-8 guy gets a bonus all the way up to rolling a 8, while the Stat-9 guy gets one more place--he gets a bonus rolling all the way out to a 9.

MT places no benefit difference between these two stats. UGM provides a difference--it's better to have Stat-9 because you have one extra point where you can get that +1 DM.

Here's the Stat-9 and Stat-5 guys.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">2D Stat-9 Stat-5
12 12 12
11 11 11
10 10 10
9 10 9
8 9 8
7 8 7
6 7 6
5 6 6
4 5 5
3 4 4
2 3 3</pre>[/QUOTE]See, there are four target numbers that are different between these two characters.

The separation between stats (typically--unless we're talking about very high stats..and those guys get bigger benefits) dictates how many different 2D roll totals will net a different result.

Between Stat-4 and Stat-2, there are two target numbers where Stat-4 is a better stat to have.

Between Stat-6 and Stat-3, there are 3 targets.

etc.


What UGM is does, as I've been saying, is provide a difference between each and every stat.

------------------------------------------------
When using UGM, it's always better to have a higher stat.

There are no occurrences where "it doesn't matter if you have a higher stat or not" as there is with MT.

There is separation between each one, and the higher stat always has some chance at rolling better than the lower stat. When the separation between these stats is slight, then the difference between them isn't very much. But, if you're talking a lot of seperation between the stats, there it is much more likely that the higher stat will be better to have (gaining the +1 DM).


When the stats go above 12, the occurrence isn't as easy to figure out, but the benefit is doubled.

You mention Stat-14 and Stat-10.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">2D Stat-14 Stat-10
12 14 12
11 13 11
10 11 11
9 10 10
8 9 9
7 8 8
6 7 7
5 6 6
4 5 5
3 4 4
2 3 3</pre>[/QUOTE]See, the difference is only when an 11 or 12 is rolled, but the difference is greater. If you've got a Stat-14, you can achieve a total roll of 14. But, if you've got Stat-10, you can only roll a max of 12.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
This results into the situation, that considering stat differences of 4+ the 14-10 and 9-5 combinations are the ONLY ones which are neglegted in a MT system...

Do you realize you just said that, out of 15 stat levels, two thirds of them (10 of them) are the ONLY ones that are neglected by the MT system?


============================================
============================================


Let's look at this another way.

Under MT:

Stat-15 is better than any other stat.
Better than 14 lower stat levels.

Stat-14 is only better to have than Stat-9 or below.
Better than 9 stat levels.

Stat-13 is only better to have than Stat-9 or below.
Better than 9 stat levels.

Stat-12 is only better to have than Stat-9 or below.
Better than 9 stat levels.

Stat-11 is only better to have than Stat-9 or below.
Better than 9 stat levels.

Stat-10 is only better to have than Stat-9 or below.
Better than 9 stat levels.

Stat-9 is only better to have than Stat-4 or below.
Better than 4 stat levels.

Stat-8 is only better to have than Stat-4 or below.
Better than 4 stat levels.

Stat-7 is only better to have than Stat-4 or below.
Better than 4 stat levels.

Stat-6 is only better to have than Stat-4 or below.
Better than 4 stat levels.

Stat-5 is only better to have than Stat-4 or below.
Better than 4 stat levels.

Stat-4 is not better to have any any other stat level.
Better than 0 stat levels.

Stat-3 is not better to have any any other stat level.
Better than 0 stat levels.

Stat-2 is not better to have any any other stat level.
Better than 0 stat levels.


============================================
============================================

Now, let's compare that to UGM.

Under UGM:

Stat-15 is better than any other stat.
Better than 14 lower stat levels.

Stat-14 is only better to have than Stat-13 or below.
Better than 13 stat levels.

Stat-13 is only better to have than Stat-12 or below.
Better than 12 stat levels.

Stat-12 is only better to have than Stat-11 or below.
Better than 11 stat levels.

Stat-11 is only better to have than Stat-10 or below.
Better than 10 stat levels.

Stat-10 is only better to have than Stat-9 or below.
Better than 9 stat levels.

Stat-9 is only better to have than Stat-8 or below.
Better than 8 stat levels.

Stat-8 is only better to have than Stat-7 or below.
Better than 7 stat levels.

Stat-7 is only better to have than Stat-6 or below.
Better than 6 stat levels.

Stat-6 is only better to have than Stat-5 or below.
Better than 5 stat levels.

Stat-5 is only better to have than Stat-4 or below.
Better than 4 stat levels.

Stat-4 is only better to have than Stat-3 or below.
Better than 3 stat levels.

Stat-3 is only better to have than Stat-2 or below.
Better than 2 stat levels.

Stat-2 is only better to have than Stat-1.
Better than 1 stat level.

============================================
============================================


So, you see, UGM does a much better job of separating the stats than MT does. In almost every case, the UGM stat is better than a much higher number of stats below it.

Stat-9, under MT, is only better than 4 other stat levels.

But, Stat-9, under UGM, is better to have than 8 other stat levels.


etc.

WJP, hope you dont get me wrong. I am not picking on UGM. I just trying to understand it.

Your comments are welcome, Enginner. Don't worry about that.

And, I'm trying to help you understand it.

It's a very simple system.

Bottom line is that UGM provides a different benefit for each stat level.

MT just plain doesn't do this.

You've been focussing on the greater benefit that MT provides with it's stat-grouping benefit jumps. +0/+1/+2/+3.

That's the wrong thing to look at. I could program bigger jumps into UGM. I DON'T program bigger jumps into UGM (keep the +0, +1 most of the time) because I disagree that an untrained character should get a +3 benefit (the same as a Skill-3) just for using his natural ability.

I don't even think that natural ability should provide a +2 (which is why it only happens a small percentage of the time with UGM, and then only with the very high stats).

Specialized training is much more important to the success of a task than natural ability. I disagree with how much benefit is gained using MT.

So, that's why I made UGM have smaller benefit from stats.

BUT, the I do believe that there should be a difference between each and every stat.

That's why there are 15 levels. Having a higher stat should provide some benefit or some chance at a benefit over the next lower leve.

MT just doesn't do this.

UGM does do it.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Guess, the chart I presented in the last post says it all, so anybody could compare the gaps of both systems. The chart just represents a list of all possible "use case" of a gameplay.

IMHO you still miss to consider the effects of task difficulty into your comparison.
The are many many cases, where UGM complete ignores high stat level differences, where MT simply does not.
E.g.,ist kind of weird to ignore a diff of 10 level ona stat 15-10 combination for task of 6-, or a diff of 9 on 8- for 15-6 combination etc.
Those I would consider to be real non-logical gaps.
Just take a look at all the "-" marks in the chart....

But as I said before, its all a taste thing.

Anyway, I really like the UGM variant, you presented in the other UGM thread...

Regards,

Mert

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
The are many many cases, where UGM complete ignores high stat level differences, where MT simply does not.

Give me a gameplay example. Where do you think UGM ignores stat level differences.

E.g.,ist kind of weird to ignore a diff of 10 level ona stat 15-10 combination for task of 6-, or a diff of 9 on 8- for 15-6 combination etc.
Those I would consider to be real non-logical gaps.

Not at all.

What you're saying is this: We've got two characters, one Stat-15 and on Stat-10.

They're both making a Routine roll (which turns out to be 6+ on 2D).

A Routine roll is so easy (it's Routine) that it is made just about 83% of the time by anybody with a stat that is Stat-5 or higher.

Once you get to Stat-5, your character is just as good as the big guys (Stat-6 to Stat-15) on Routine rolls.

The higher the difficulty, the higher the stat required to be "competent" at that difficulty level.

So, the logic behind UGM is that the difficulty levels each have a minimum stat required to be "proficient" at that difficulty level.

Here is the comparison between Stat-15 and Stat-10

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">2D Stat-10 Stat-15
2 3 3
3 4 4
4 5 5
5 6 6
6 7 7
7 8 8
8 9 9
9 10 10
10 11 12
11 11 13
12 12 14</pre>[/QUOTE]Notice that Stat-10 is just as "proficient" with difficulty categories as a Stat-15 until you get to the Difficult difficulty category.

In other words, Easy tasks are so easy, that a Stat-10 character can make them just as well as a Stat-15 character. Routine tasks--the same thing. And, Standard tasks--the same thing.

Now, where the difference between Stat-15 and Stat-10 kicks in is at the Difficult level. When things get Difficult or Challenging (or even harder), it's better to have Stat-15.

See the chart above? The difference between the two stats starts to occur when the target number is 10.


What's the difference between this and MT?

Well, in MT, Stat-15 is better than all other stats, as I demostrated in the previous post.

But, Stat-10 is no better than Stat-11, or Stat-12, or Stat-13, or Stat-14.


In the comparison, if you used MT, you could compare Stat-15 to all those stats and come up with the same answer.

If you use UGM, you'll get a different answer.

For example, Stat-15 and Stat-14. With MT, this is the same as for Stat-15 vs Stat-10.

But, with UGM, there is a lot of difference between what I posted above (Stat-15 vs Stat-10) and Stat-15 vs Stat-14.

Here's the chart:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">2D Stat-10 Stat-15 Stat-14
2 3 3 3
3 4 4 4
4 5 5 5
5 6 6 6
6 7 7 7
7 8 8 8
8 9 9 9
9 10 10 10
10 11 12 11
11 11 13 13
12 12 14 14</pre>[/QUOTE]As with Stat-10, the difference still occurs at the Difficult category, but now, we're talking two points different with Stat-14 over Stat-10.

And, comparing Stat-15 to Stat-14, they're exactly the same (they are close together), so Stat-15 takes it at the Difficult category.

See all this separation between stats? Each one is different?

MT does not provide that.

Whether you compare Stat-15 to Stat-14 or Stat-10 (or any in-between), you get the same answer.

UGM provides a different answer for each combination.

t as I said before, its all a taste thing.

Yep. If the differences between stat levels don't bother you, then MT is a good system.

They bother me enough that I created (more than one) task system to try to fix it.

Anyway, I really like the UGM variant, you presented in the other UGM thread...

Yeah, it's an interesting idea. I don't like how it is not as "simple" as UGM is now.

I created CTI as well--I don't know if you looked at that one.

CTI blows both UGM and MT away in the stat comparison department.

But, I settled on UGM as my task system of choice because I believe simple, easy to use rules are the best. UGM doesn't perform as well as CTI, but it's a bit easier to use.

And, I kinda feel the same way with the UGM variant I proposed in the other thread. I think I'm going to stick with UGM the way it is unless I can come up with a way to easily implement the change I proposed.

Quick, fast, rules--rules that don't take the focus away from role playing the game, is what I think make good RPG rules.

I think UGM is the best compromise to get what I want.

Regards,

Mert [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[daltoncalford]

Hey Mert,

I have read your system, have your read the THE mechanics?

There is a sampling in the 'IMTU Reference Charts' in the 'IMTU' section of this board.

Look at the example of use.

Although I have a formalized task descriptor block, we rarely use them since we can usually determine the task requirements during play.

The scale system allows us to use the same mechanics to compare the strength of a microbe to a battle cruiser. All while keeping the 0-15 range of traveller.

Take a look. I won't be around for most of the day to answer questions, but I will pop by tommorow and try to help if you need/want it.

Best regards

Dalton

 

[Supplement Four]

I saw your system, Dalton, and it' a little too complicated, a little too far from official Classic Traveller for my tastes.

I'm into simple rules that get the job done. Your system tends to change a lot of existing mechanics.

I like UGM because it is "more" Classic Traveller than even MT is....UGM is a stat check (stat or less on 2D) and a standard 2D, plus mods, for 8+ roll combined into one.

I can explain UGM to a player in about five seconds--which is part of it's appeal to me (and one of the reason I went with UGM instead of another one of my systems--CTI).

 

[daltoncalford]

Hi,

I guess that is why I am always asking for help when it comes to describing things. The players who have picked up on it (more than I can count now that the local teenage D&D'ers are using it) learn it in about a minute. The biggest thing they say is that it 'feels' right. I have a hard time not making the description sound like it is coming from a really boring text book.

I never claimed to be a writer or game designer.

I would suggest you try a few sample rolls or even a test game. It is addictive.

best regards

Dalton

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Dalton:

I would suggest you try a few sample rolls or even a test game. It is addictive.

Alright, I'll give you a shot.

I want to roll three tasks:

(1) A STR-8 Skill-0 character wants to force open a stuck hatch on a ship.


(2) An EDU-10 Pilot-2 wants to dock with a spinning, derelict spacecraft.


(3) A DEX-5 AutoPistol-1 character wants to fire at a target at medium range.


Show me how those three tasks are done using your system.