The UNIVERSAL GAME MECHANIC - better than ever edition

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
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?

Omer, we had a discussion on this not too long ago...it might have been in the UGM thread that was deleted (and I think that took place when you have moved because of the rocket attacks in Israel).

What was discussed, though, was that the UGM task system (in my game) is only used for skill-based throws. When a task/throw is attribute based (like forcing open a stuck hatch), I default to the original CT method of doing it...and that is rolling stat checks (2D for STR or less and the like...).

So, in my game, I run two methods for rolling things: UGM for tasks that are obviously skill based and plain old CT stat checks for tasks that are attribute based.

I think the MT task system has so heavily influenced Traveller gamers that it is sometimes forgotten that there are other ways to accomplish things.

I, for one, really like the free-for-all, easy CT method of roll stat or less on a die or three...the GM deciding on the spot what's most appropriate for the situation.

Yeah, it's not as structured (it could be, if someone would make up some stat-check rules), but if flows, baby, it flows. The game rolls.

So, in my game, if a character is trying to repair an old, ancient computer, this is obviously a skill based UGM task (using the character's computer skill).

Maybe something like this: Computer/EDU/-4

But....let's say ancient computer is acutally encased in stone, and the GM wants to know if the character working on repairing the computer has noticed the uniform notches that have been carved in the computer's stone-box rim (the PC may think it's just chips from age...or scratches from wear).

This is more of an attribute based task. This really isn't skill based (it isn't the character's computer skill that will make him more able to notice the scratches...it's his INT score).

So, while the character performs the computer repair task (UGM task using computer skill and EDU), the GM secretly rolls an INT check for the character.

He rolls" 2D for INT + Computer Skill or less.

The "+ Computer skill" on the check is because the scratches on the stone work of the ancient computer are actually in binary code. INT is the most important aspect of this check, but the character's computer skill is added in there to boost up the character's INT due to his computer skill and possible recognition of binary code.

2D are thrown, and if the check is successful, the character, while performing the computer repair, will also notice the binary scratches on the computer's stone case.




Long story short: I choose which method is most appropriate. If the task is attribute based then I roll a generic CT check. If the task is skill based, then I'm using the UGM method.

 

[Golan2072]

Once again, I like your approach: roll 2D for the characteristic or less, with DMs affecting the characteristic itself rather than the roll. So an END/-2 roll for a character with END 7 will succeed on 5-.

This will be added to the renewed UGM summery, to be uploaded thsi weekend.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Once again, I like your approach: roll 2D for the characteristic or less, with DMs affecting the characteristic itself rather than the roll. So an END/-2 roll for a character with END 7 will succeed on 5-.

I just picked what made sense for the scenario I made up above. If the scratches weren't in binary, then, in a game, I might have just used an straight INT check to see if the scratches were "noticed" with any significance.

Typically, I use a standard "2D for Stat or less" type of roll, but I'll "eyeball" the situation and change this up some during a game--whatever makes sense to me and feels right at the time...sorta some of the less structured, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants type of GMing that gaming used to see back with RPGing was in its infancy.

If I think everybody should easily pass the check, then I'll roll using 1D. If I think it's harder than "average", I'll make the check using 3D...or even 4D or more (based on the situation).

Sometimes skill has a part to play, modifying the stat, and sometimes it doesn't...it all depends on the GM's interpretation of the situation. Players have to trust their GM .

Any type of check that is based on a character's innate perception or memory, I'll use INT: "Does the PC notice the alien spider clinging to the ceiling? Roll INT or less." "Does the PC remember seeing this exact same homeless person the last time he was on this planet? INT or less."

When the issue is learned knowledge, I use EDU: "The PC wants to evaluate the quality of an autorifle of local manufacture he finds at a bazaar...roll 2D for EDU + AutoRifle Skill or less."

STR, DEX, and END checks are made for obvious reaons. And, sometimes SOC checks come into play: "Your character is attempting to mimic local custom? It's quite different from what you're used to. Roll SOC or less on 4D, but you can add any appropriate skill to your SOC stat...like carousing, possibly streetwise...and maybe even administration, given the nature of this local vilani custom."

The best write up I've seen on CT checks and rolls is detailed in The Traveller Adventure, page 28, under the heading "THE USES OF DIE ROLLS". Good stuff for a Traveller GM to read, there. There are (sometimes) discussions of CT die rolls in other CT adventures, but they're not as extensive (or as well written, imo) as the several paragraphs that appear in TTA. There's a small write-up in the Traveller Book, on page 16, that discusses die rolling conventions in CT, but, again, that write-up is no where near as "creative" as the write up in TTA.

This will be added to the renewed UGM summery, to be uploaded thsi weekend.

What about the new way high natural ability is dealt with...is that something you're changing? Or, do you like the old way better?

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
What about the new way high natural ability is dealt with...is that something you're changing? Or, do you like the old way better?

I've already changed it to fit the new one.

 

[Golan2072]

I've uploaded the updated version of the one-page UGM system. You could get it here.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
I've uploaded the updated version of the one-page UGM system. You could get it here.

Hey Omer,

As always, nice work.

One suggestion: UGM newbies won't have a grasp for difficulty levels. They'll wonder, "How much harder is it for a -6 than a -4?"

This chart helps them with that.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Difficulty DM
---------- --
Easy +4
Routine +2
Standard +0
Difficult -2
Challenging -4
Formidable -6
Insane -8
Impossible -10</pre>[/QUOTE]I suggest using the chart in one of your boxes on the sheet (maybe replace either the cooperative or opposed tasks--people tend to figure that out on their own...or maybe combine those two into one box).

But, there should be line that these difficulty levels are only recommendations--not written in stone.

If some reads in a MT module that an Difficult task is called for, it'll be easy for a UGM newbie to look on the chart and say to himself, "Oh, that's a UGM difficulty of -2."

My guess is that many, unfamiliar with the UGM, when looking at a "Difficult" task, will pick a harder number than just a -2.

It's a scale for GMs to "eyeball" things.

This also helps when converting from a different SciFi RPG. Say you pick up an old Space Opera adventure module and start to run it for your Traveller group. A GM will be better preparted to convert task rolls from Space Opera to UGM using the chart...

...which is why I think it's fairly important that it appears on your sheet.

I mean, it's your sheet--I'm just suggesting.

-S4

 

[Golan2072]

The problem is that I don't find a good way to squeeze this into the sheet; or perhaps we should have a two-sided sheet with some sample (common) tasks on the backside as well as the more complex mechanics (cooperative/opposed tasks)?

 

[Supplement Four]

You can't just stick it in one of those boxes?

Is the Opposed Task and Cooperative Task info more important than the Difficulty List?

Maybe it is, in your estimation. If it were me, I'd drop the Opposed Task and Cooperative Task stuff in favor of the difficulty list.

How often do Cooperative Tasks come up in a Trav game? When they do, can't a GM just make a decision on this and roll with it?

Those two boxes just seem unnecessary to me, while I think the Difficulty List is needed.

But, like I said before, I'm just making suggestions here. That page is your creation--make it to your own tastes.

-S4

 

[Golan2072]

A new version is up here.

 

[Supplement Four]

Lookin' good, Daddy-O. And, saved to the hard drive.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

NOTE TO THOSE USING EMPLOYEE 2-4601's UGM ONE-SHEET...

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
A new version is up here.

Just FYI to UGM users using Omer's nice and slick UGM one-pager...

Omer (Employee 2-4601) has a few things he uses in his game that aren't part of my "official" UGM write-up. The UGM, of course, lends itself to particular GM tastes and customization. You can see what Omer has done with the UGM on his one-sheet (a few minor things). Sigg Oddra, on the other hand, changed the UGM considerably when he based his task system on it.

Brothers, the UGM is there for you to use as you see fit.

But, just to clarify about Omer's couple of tweaks...

He added the penalty where, if a character doesn't have a skill, then there's a -4DM penalty. I typically don't use this, and I didn't include it in the official "write-up" at the beginning of this thread.

In my game, if a character doesn't have a skill, it's typically no problem because many skills are default skills (like Bribery...I'm not going to penalize a character -4 on a bribery attempt just because he doesn't have the skill. Everyone has Bribery-0, and thus the penalty to them is that they don't get the +Skill DM on the throw...which, on a 2D6 system, is a decent enough penalty.) And, if the skill in question is not a default skill, then I'll typically not even allow the task to be attempted (like fixing the ship's busted fusion drive without Engineering skill....good luck without any training or know-how at all).

Also, although no longer on the sheet, he uses a rule for cooperative tasks that I think it a bit much (granting a +1DM per additional person working on a task). I'll typically wing something in a game--whatever seems appropriate to me at the time--when governing this type of thing. I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule for it (because five mechanics working on a car together really shouldn't get a +4DM to the task at hand...that's a bit much).

Also, in my game, along with the UGM, I also use plain old, everyday, Classic Traveller, make-it-up-on-the-fly, dice checks. The best write-up I've ever seen on these types of rolls is included in the first pages of The Traveller Adventure (Good stuff...you should read that couple of pages if you have access to the TTA.).

If a task involves a skill, then typically I'll use the UGM. If a task is more attribute oriented, then I'll use a CT check.

I flip-flop back and forth between the UGM and standard on-the-fly CT checks throughout my game, and I suggest it for yours. It makes for some fun, fast-paced gaming.

Examples, off the top of my head...

"You want to plant a tracking program inside that ship's computer network? That's a skill-based task, so roll me a UGM task of Computer/EDU/-3."

"You want to force open that stuck hatch? I'll let you give it a try. That's an attribute check. Roll STR or less on 3D. If someone helps you push, then roll your STR or less on 2D."

"I want to see if you notice that alien spider-looking thing when you walk into the hut. Since it's clinging to the ceiling and not moving, roll INT or less on 2D."

"You're trying to manually maneuver your ship to dock with that rapidly spinning derelict? That's skill based. Roll a UGM task of Pilot/DEX/-4."

You get the idea.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
A new version is up here.

Omer...caught something else..

In the box on Natural Ability, it should probably be stated that the step is skipped when CT already addresses stat.

For example, in Brawling Combat, STR is addressed already, and we shouldn't address it twice.

I mean, if a character is already getting a +1DM because of his high STR, then we should give him another +1 via the UGM.

The Natural Ability check is there in the UGM to help GMs grant a plus or two to tasks when appropriate--not add to bonuses a character might already be getting due to a stat.

Besides, granting double stat bonuses like this throw the percentages off a bit. I've tried to keep UGM probabilities exactly as you see them in CT rules (and even MT rules)...a task that wasn't as easy as it seems when I first set out to do it.

Bottom line: The UGM Natural Ability check is only used when a character's attributes aren't already being addressed.

-S4

 

[Golan2072]

New version uploded here.

 

[Jeffr0]

Employee 2-4601...

Is there a mistake?

"Characteristic + Skill ± Difficulty DM >= 3D6"

Shouldn't that read less than or equal in order to be consistent with the text?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Jeffr0:
"Characteristic + Skill ± Difficulty DM >= 3D6"

Shouldn't that read less than or equal in order to be consistent with the text?

He got it right, Jefr0. It's "Roll Stat + Skill + Difficulty or less on 3D."

You're rolling 3D for a number or less. The number is Stat + Skill + Difficulty. This is the check to see if you made a Critical Success...or a check to see if you avoide a Critical Failure.

For some reason, people's brains "get it" better if you list the dice first.

UGM CRITICAL SUCCESS / FAILURE CHECK:

3D < or = Stat + Skill + Difficulty

Maybe it has something to do with reading from left to right...and that we start with the dice in our hands and then think of what we have to beat.

Strange, that, huh?

-S4

 

[Jeffr0]

Rats!

Err... umm. Yes, I second the motion to list it as 3D <= Stat + Skill + Difficulty.

It needs to read "your die roll should be less than this target," not "your target needs to be greater than this die roll."

The "roll low" combined with ">=" shortcircuited my brain.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Jeffr0:
The "roll low" combined with ">=" shortcircuited my brain.

The "roll low" natural ability check should be an after thought. Don't focus on it.

See, CT rarely addresses stat. This "roll low" natural ability check is a simple mechanic designed to address a CT character's stats using an easy method (just check to see if your roll is equal or lower than your stat...if so, you get a +1).

The natural ability check is even skipped when CT addresses stat in another way (like the typical +1 if STAT-9 and -1 if STAT-5 rules you'll see in CT from time to time).

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Comparing the UGM to the MT system (and Stat/4 or Stat/3 modifications of the UTP)...


FYI, UGM users: I just wrote a post in ANOTHER THREAD that discusses the overweighting of stats that occurs with the MT task system and MT variants.

Some of you might find that interesting reading (because there's a lot under the UGM hood that may not be readily apparent to the casual eye).

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Better Idea...

Instead of having someone click on the new thread in the post immediately above, here is the entire post I wrote on the UGM/UTP comparison.

=================================================
(from the other thread)

Originally posted by weasel fierce:
I may end up using the task system from MT, but possibly making the stat bonus +1 per 4 points instead of 5.

You may or may not know that DGP wrote the MT task system (called the UTP: Universal Task Profile) originally for CT. Then, it was imported into MT when GDW hired DGP to write the MT rules.

The UTP is a good task system. It's a very good, old work horse. Many people love it.

The UGM is a better task system for CT, for many reasons (and I'm not just saying that because I wrote it...I actually believe it.).

Look at the chart in the UGM thread. If you have a Stat-5, you're rolling with different results than if you have a Stat-9. That gives an edge to the guy with the Stat that is 4 points higher.

The UTP, of course, doesn't give you this. A character with Stat-5 gets the same benefit as a character with Stat-9. Under the UGM, each and every stat provides a different benefit--you don't get those "benefit lumps" like you with with the UTP (or any Stat/X system).

Also, the UGM can exactly replicate throws written in Classic Traveller publications. The UTP can't do that.

The UGM skews Critical Success so that CS is easier to achieve on easier tasks--harder to achieve on harder tasks. Also, CS is easier the more skilled a character is. The reverse is true for Critical Failure. The UGM skews CF so that it is easier to avoid when the task difficulty is easy, and harder to avoid as the task difficulty gets harder. Higher expertise (skill) will also help a character avoid a Critical Failure.

Under the UTP (MT system), CS and CF are a blanket percentage for everyone, regardless of task difficulty or how skilled a person is.

BTW, the UGM provides (in most cases) the exact same percentage chance of success as the UTP when the task difficulty is the same (EASY, ROUTINE, DIFFICULT, FORMIDABLE, and IMPOSSIBLE tasks will give you the same chance of success whether you use the UTP or the UGM). I wrote the UGM this way so that it can be easily used with a MT supplement.

Also, in CT, typically, a character will get a +1DM for making a stat requirement for a task roll. The UGM is written to mirror this (like I said, the UGM is specifically designed for CT), where as the UTP can provide up to a +3DM (Stat-15/5) for stats.

If you go with the Stat/4 idea, you'll make this problem even worse. Many people who've modded the UTP go with a Stat/3 system, which, again, allows for up to a whopping +5DM. Doing this greatly overweights stats, because were're talking about a 2D6 system. +5 is incredible. Heck, +3 is a pretty amazing DM. That's why you see CT, most of the time, providing only a +1.

Those Stat/5, Stat/4, Stat/3 systems tend to give more punch to a character's stat at the expense of the punch provided by skill and expertise (meaning, stats are overweighted).

For example, let's say you've got Skill-2 and Stat-12.

Under each system, you'll get a +2 for skill.

Under CT, you might get a +1 if your Stat is 9+ (and a -1 if your Stat is 5-). So, you're rolling 2D +3. (+2 for Skill, +1 for Stat).

Under the UTP, you'll get a +2 with Stat-12. So, you're rolling 2D +4. (And here, the weight of the skill no longer dominates. The stat is equalized, with both providing +2 each to the roll.)

Under UTP with Stat/4, you'll get a +3 with Stat-12. Now, you're rolling 2D +5. (More weight to the stats: +2 for skill, and +3 for stat.)

Under the UTP with Stat/3, it's even worse with a +4 for a Stat-12. You're rolling 2D +6. (Skill still gives you +2, but stat gives you twice as much benefit with +4. Stat is getting out of hand.)

The UGM, though, provides a task system that weights stats as they are typically weighted in CT. Under the UGM, if you have Skill-2 and Stat-12, you'll be rolling 2D +3, just like you would under standard CT rules.

Give the UGM a good, hard looksee. There's a lot there under the hood that may not be evident to the casual eye.

-S4
(helping Weasel grok)

 

[Golan2072]

Concerning characteristic-only tasks, I am thinking of using 3D instead of 2D - otherwise characters with a characteristic of 12+ will allways succeed in an average task (DM +0). The downside of this would be that there will be a significant chance of faiure even for high characteristics.

An alternative is to ALWAYS consider a natural 12 as a failure and a natural 2 as a success in Characteristic-only rolls.

Also, it should be noted that in a Characteristic-only roll, Spectacular results will be reversed - that is, a natural 2 would be a possible Spectacular Success and a natural 12 would be a possible Spectacuar Failure.