Border Reiver
SOC-14 1K
Tell me more.
The UNIVERSAL GAME MECHANIC - better than ever edition
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I originally posted them in July, it was going to be a summer project for me, but I was distracted by Mongoose RuneQuest.
Here's the link to the original idea.
Here's the link to the original idea.
Border Reiver
SOC-14 1K
I remember.
Yeah a simplified UGM would fit nicely with the task/combat system. Knock out a few difficulty levels and it's perfect.
Any more work done?
Yeah a simplified UGM would fit nicely with the task/combat system. Knock out a few difficulty levels and it's perfect.
Any more work done?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Not much 
I added the Agent career, but I really need to playtest it all for a few sessions to see what needs fixing.
I was thinking of having weapon ranges based on multiples of character Dex.
Oh, and there's some stuff about End checks to resist unconsciousness that crept in from another thread...
I added the Agent career, but I really need to playtest it all for a few sessions to see what needs fixing.
I was thinking of having weapon ranges based on multiples of character Dex.
Oh, and there's some stuff about End checks to resist unconsciousness that crept in from another thread...
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Couple of thoughts on that...
As is stands now, the UGM suggests a GM to pick a difficulty level, and then move it up or down a point if the GM feels that's necessary.
If you knock out a couple of difficulty levels, two things will occur: (1) You'll loose 100% compatibility with original CT published throws; and (2) You'll loose the differentation between each stat.
See, Sig's mod of UGM uses (correct me if I'm wrong, Sig) three difficulty numbers: 8+, 10+, and 12+.
Well, if your characteristic is Stat-5, with just those three difficulty numbers, it will be moot wither your are Stat-5, Stat-4, Stat-3, or many other stats. What you'll get is the "grouping" of stat benefit you see in other Traveller systems.
Now, I'm not suggesting, either way, which way to mod UGM. Do it to best suit your tastes (Sig likes those three targets, and I do understand his affection for them).
But, changing the UGM like, as with changing any system, comes with some cost.
I just wanted to make you aware of that.
Border Reiver
SOC-14 1K
But it does fit in with the overall simplification made across the board.
CharGen is much simpler and I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong Sigg) his starship combat will use a variant on Starter Traveller's range band system.
CT Lite looks to be making some sacrifices to simplicity and playability. UGM is relatively simple and much more playable than most alternatives but to fit in with the lite proposal needs streamlining. But using a simplified UGM means that moving up from CT Lite makes adopting UGM much easier.
CharGen is much simpler and I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong Sigg) his starship combat will use a variant on Starter Traveller's range band system.
CT Lite looks to be making some sacrifices to simplicity and playability. UGM is relatively simple and much more playable than most alternatives but to fit in with the lite proposal needs streamlining. But using a simplified UGM means that moving up from CT Lite makes adopting UGM much easier.
bryan gibson
Absent Friend
how will ypou be handling Psionics? ( if at all)
in a skill based way, or a more general effects based way?
in a skill based way, or a more general effects based way?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
CT-L has 4+, 8+, 12+, and yes, this simplification:
"+1 if the referee decides you can apply an attribute and it is at least equal to the target number"
doesn't give the full benefit of the UGM.
I would prefer to use the UGM mechanic and say:
"+1 if your dice roll is less than or equal to the characteristic the referee decides applies to the task"
but I'd need your permission for that since it is obviously UGM inspired.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Yep, range band based ship combat.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
C'mon, Sig. Like I'd care if you modded UGM in your system. I mean, you're not looking to sell it right? We're just all playing Traveller here, right?
Sig, you're one of the most level headed, Traveller-knowlegable, and nicest people I've met my short time on this board (well, there are A LOT of cool people on this board, now that I think about it).
If you want to mod UGM, knock it out of the park, brother.
If you want to put a little line in there that says "inspired by Kenneth Bearden's Universal Game Mechanic", that would be cool. But, if you didn't, to be honest, I wouldn't mind one way or the other.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I went to the casino last night to play a little poker, and on my drive back (as a co-inky-dink), I was thinking about this very same topic.
Not a mutliple of DEX, mind you, but the "playability" of CT range system.
More realism is added to a system when range is counted. Like in Starship combat. If you have to count hexes to a target, and each hex makes your shot that much harder (doesn't Mayday imply a -1DM penalty for each hex of range?).
It's more realistic because, say, 7 units to a target is an easier to-hit task than, say, 10 units to a target.
But...
Playability raises it's ugly head.
You know as well as I, Sig, that "good" rpg rules have a "quick and easy" component to them. Sometimes we give up some realism for ease and speed of play.
As I was driving today, thinking about this, I came to the conclusion that CT range "bands" are quite good just the way they are.
Sure, there's the non-realism a person being at 50 meters, considered Medium range, and someone right behind him, at 51 meters, being a Long range.
But...
Those range bands make the game easy to play.
If we had to count range each and every time a Traveller character fired a shot, it wouldn't be as playable.
I remember this with TNE. Weapons were a bit more realistic in that each weapon's "Short Range" limit was different.
But, although that TNE rule was more realistic, it sure made combat a lot slower..."OK, the target has moved around the corner now...let's count range to him again...".
I fear, if your CT-Lite rules, which are very simpistic in parts, adopt a combat range system based on a character's DEX, that CT-L will run into the same problem.
There have been countless times, as I've tinkered with rules here on this board, that you (Sig) have reigned me back in, always reminding me to "keep it simple!".
Well, now it's my turn to return the favor.
I was thinking that you should make the natural ability modifier applicable only if the die-roll is less than the characteristic rather than less than or equal to the characteristic.
The reason I propose this modification is because a character with a 7 characteristic will effectively succeed on standard tasks on a roll of 7+ rather than an 8+.
Thoughts?
The reason I propose this modification is because a character with a 7 characteristic will effectively succeed on standard tasks on a roll of 7+ rather than an 8+.
Thoughts?
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I actually considered that very same idea when UGM was first being designed. My take on it was that an average citizen should get a +1 on Easy, Routine, and Standard tasks. It's at the difficulty level of Difficult, Challenging, Formidable, and higher that the average person's natural ability is no help.
My thought is that Very Low stats typically don't benefit from natural ability (and thus don't get a +1DM that is useful to the task at hand most of the time)....which is, I think, I better mechanic than imposing a penalty for a low stat (no positive benefit vs. a DM penalty that must be figured into the task roll...I played with having -1DM for low stats at one time, but this playability option was taken instead).
Low stats get a benefit with just Easy and Routine tasks.
And, average stats typically get a benefit with Easy, Routine, and Standard tasks.
Also, the way the natural ability mod is now, with the "equal to or less", keeps the UGM very compatible with the MT task system (if you see a Routine MT task, you can feel comfortable know that, if you use the UGM Routine task, your probability for success is about the same--and usually the exact same).
If we change the natural ability mod to "less than stat" rather than "less than or equal to stat", we'll loose some of that compatibility with the MT task system (which makes official MT printed products very useful to the UGM GameMaster).
But...I'm always willing to look at new ideas for the UGM.
If you've got some more thoughts on changing the natural ability mod to just "lower than", let's hear 'em. Border R. made a constructive criticism of the UGM recently (in the deleted UGM thread), and the UGM is better for it today (the fix was better than the original).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Can you remember what it was, or if is it included in this new version?
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Absolutely, I remember. His criticism ended up changing the way the high natural ability check is done.
Remember how it used to be (in the older version) throw 10+, 11+, 12+ for the High Nat Abil +2DM. Well, I changed that, and it didn't work (I changed it to a check after modifiers). Border caught it. After his criticism, I put on my thinking cap, and now UGM is better for it. We've got the High Nat Abil check (-10 to Stat) the way it is now--which is much, much better than what I had before. It just flows.
And, to answer your question, yep, this newest posting of the UGM contains the change.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Percentage-wise, the success numbers for the UGM look damn good (like I said, the UGM closely parallels the MT system at success rate, but the UGM, with it's larger number of difficulty categories, gives a much smoother curve). I've run all the numbers on the UGM (and, another poster, way back with the first version of the UGM, ran them too), and they come out looking exceptional (imo).
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I notice your version doesn't have the improvements included in the latest edition of UGM.
The biggest of these is how the High Natural Ability modifier is determined. It's much improved in the new version of UGM.
And, for me, I don't use the "cooperative tasks" nor the "opposed tasks" in my game, although I do come up with similar things on the fly sometimes.
Here is a list of changes from your version of the UGM and the better-than-ever version:
1. ... The biggest change is how high level stats (attribute level 13, 14, and 15) are handled when governing UGM tasks.
2. ... Next, I've made it more clear that the UGM difficulty levels are not "written in stone" and that GMs are encouraged to adjust the difficulty up a point or down a point if they feel the situation deserves it.
For example, the DGP/MT system is rigid in that all SIMPLE tasks are 3+, all ROUTINE tasks are 7+, all DIFFICULT tasks are 11+, etc.
The UGM encourages the GM to pick a starting point and use that difficulty DM OR adjust that DM up or down a point should the situation warrant. This way, a STANDARD UGM task could be -1DM, +0DM, or +1DM. A DIFFICULT task could be a -1DM, -2DM, or -3DM. And so on.
This type of thing is much more "playable" with CT (for which the UGM was designed) allowing for a 5+ throw (CT's roll for pulling people out of low berth) or a 9+ roll (CT's throw for repairing a starship system during Book 2 space combat)...things like that. (the 5+ roll, in UGM terms, is a corresponding +3DM Difficulty...the 9+ throw corresponds to a -1DM Difficulty).
3. ... And, there's the small tweak where the UGM Natural Ability check is not made if the governor stat is referenced in another way (usually by a possible DM provided in official CT rules). I wanted to avoid double benefit (or possible benefit, if the character doesn't qualify) for a stat (and this has the side benefit of making the game that much quicker).
4. ... Finally, the last change was the "official" introduction (finally) of the task descriptors: easy to understand and remember, simple to use.
Hmmm... My version of the UGM summery says that "each task has a Difficulty DM, either chosen by the Referee or provided beforehand by the adventure. Difficulty DMs range from -8 to +8, with most being between -2 to +2" - is that sufficient to make it clear that Difficulty DMs are not fixed in stone?
Another point: Under the current UGM rules I use, attribute-only tasks (e.g. using Strength to batter down a door) are treated as Skill-0 tasks, and thus recieve only a +1 (or +2 in the case of high attributes) Natural Ability DM if the throw is below the attribute. That would mean that attribute-only tasks will have a lower positive DM than most normal (i.e. based on a skill) tasks. Any way to remedy this?
