The UNIVERSAL GAME MECHANIC - better than ever edition

[Supplement Four]

Remember that I use both the UGM as a task system in my game as well as good, old fashioned CT stat checks.

If the task at hand is experienced based, I'll use a UGM task roll, even if the skill involved is Skill-0.

e.g. A character is trying to figure out a the workings of an alien computer. That would be a UGM task roll using the character's EDU stat and Computer skill.

If the task at hand is based on natural ability, I'll use a regular, everyday, CT stat check.

e.g. I want to see if a character notices the giant spider clinging to the top of the cave when the character enters. I might roll 2D for INT or less. Or, if the cave is dark and the spider is harder to see, I might roll 3D for INT or less.

Same thing when trying to force open a stuck hatch. This isn't a UGM task roll. This is a stat check--something that's already in CT. I'll roll STR or less on a number of dice. If the character has Recon skill, I might roll STR + Recon or less on a number of dice. But, this is a stat check--a different mechanic than the UGM.

I don't use the UGM for everything in a CT game. I view the UGM as a needed plug for something that was missing in CT (CT needs a task system). But, I don't use the UGM to replace CT mechanics that work well...and I think the GM created checks and throws in a CT game work well.

I use both.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
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).

BTW, I'm not sure I follow completely what you're saying.

You're saying a character with INT-12 and Computer-0 will always succeed on a Standard UGM task of Computer/INT/+0 ?

That's not the case, of course. UGM tasks always succeed on a roll of 8+. Characters with High Natural Ability of 12 always get a +1 DM on all tasks.

This means that this character will succeed on a roll of 7+ and fail on a roll of 6-.

Or...

Are you saying that a character with a 12 stat will always get his +1 High Natural Ability modifier? If that's what you mean, then, yes, that's true. By design.

Characters with a 10 stat get the modifier when the natural roll is 10-. Stat-11 when the roll is 11-. And, stat-12 characters get the +1 DM on all task throws.

Characters with stat-13 get a +1 DM on every task roll...and in addition get a total of +2 on task rolls when the roll is 3-. Characters with stat-14 get +1 all the time and the additional +1 (for a total of +2) when the roll is 4-. And stat-15 characters get the +1 all the time with the additional +1 coming when the roll is 5-.

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.

Like I said, I'm not quite sure why you're looking at changing the UGM task roll when only a stat is involved (and Skill is Skill-0).

Please explain.

 

[Supplement Four]

Omer, BTW,

There's another way to dice Opposed Rolls. I use it in my game for the initiative throw (basically an Opposed Roll with everyone rolling 2D for Morale or less...lower is better).

Take a look at that example I posted in the Re-Thinking Gun Combat thread.

In the example, Salmon attempts to brawl Jenn, but Jenn has a gun, trying to shoot Salmon. I did that just to show aspects of those combat mechanics.

In a real game, I'm betting the Salmon player would try to grab the gun, in effect wrestling with Jenn, on the first round he acts after Jenn comes into the airlock and shoots at him. Any sane person wouldn't stand there and try to box an opponent weilding a gun, no matter how bad a shot they were (and Salmon ended up sorry he did, didn't he?).

So, in a real game, if the player playing Salmon said he wanted to grapple with Jenn, attempting to snatch the gun out of her hands, I'd do a simple STR based opposed roll.

I'd have each character roll 2D for STR or less. I'd add a penalty of +10 to the total if the roll resulted in a number than the character's STR. Then, I'd simply see who won.

During that part of the combat, both characters had STR 8. Jenn, though, also has Brawling-1 (where as Salmon has Brawling-0).

I'd allow Jenn to enhance her STR by her Brawling skill, then roll the opposed roll.

I'd also probably roll 1D and say, if either roll is within that amount, the two are locked in a westling struggle.

Let me play this out for you so that I can explain better what I'm talking about.

I'll roll real dice (like I did in the example) and just discover the outcome, as you do, as I write this...

First, I'll roll 1D for the "Wrestling Margin".

Roll 1D: 6

Wow. OK. If the two character's rolls are within 6 points of each other, they're grappling together the whole round.

Let's see what happens.

Opposed Roll for Salmon is 8-.

Roll 2D: 4, 6

Salmon's Opposed Roll Total is: 20. (Remember, it's +10 if the roll is greater than STR.)

Opposed Roll for Jenn is 9-. (Remember, Jenn gets to add her Brawling skill to her STR since that expertise will help her when Salmon attempts to grab her gun. She's STR-8 and Brawling-, so her Opposed Roll number is 9-.)

Roll 2D: 1, 3

Jenn's Opposed Roll Total is: 4.

Since 20-4 is much more than 6, the two of them aren't grappling.

In fact, what happened was that Salmon made a grab for the gun and Jenn quickly batted it away.




Consider, though, that Salmon's Opposed roll totaled to 8. Since "4" and "8" are within 6 points of each other, the round would have been taken up by the two of them grappling over the weapon, wrestling. We'd check anew for the Opposed roll next round, where the same rules apply.

-S4

 

[Golan2072]

The kind of Characteristic-only test I was talking about was the one resolved by rolling 2D for the characteristic or less; I understand completely that when skills are involved (i.e. rolling 2D for 8+ with a natural ability DM and a skill DM) the two problems I've presented do not exist.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
The kind of Characteristic-only test I was talking about was the one resolved by rolling 2D for the characteristic or less;

I call those "checks" or "stat checks". And, as I state above, I definitely use them in my game.

As for using 2D or 3D (or even more die), it depends on the situation. It depends on what is called for, and what I judge the circumstance to be.

Many times, I'll use Stat or less on 2D, especially if I want to give a bonus to those with high stat (since 12+ will always succeed). I roll 3D for stat or less when I think everyone should have a chance of failure.

As I show in the example above, sometimes the encounter might call for a DM to the check. Sometimes I'll use a skill. Sometimes I might do something different.

I keep these types of rolls very "CT-like". Very unstructured. I don't have any ingraved in stone rules about them, and I like it that way. It keeps the game fresh, quick, on-the-fly.

If characters come up to a stuck hatch, for instance, I might say, "Roll STR or less on 3D to force it open. You get a -1 DM for everybody pushing, but a max of 3 people can help push the hatch (for a max -3 DM)."

And someone in the game might say, "Hey! Last time we came across a stuck hatch, you made use roll STR or less on 2D! What's up with that?"

And, I won't blink, and I'll reply, "Sure, that one was just bent a little. This one looks like its rusted as well."

That settles it, and we're done. On with the game.

 

[Supplement Four]

Looks like the UGM is getting another web page. Just found THIS today.

The page's author didn't spell my name correctly, and the page looks like its a work in progress. But, cool nonetheless.

S4

 

[Supplement Four]

The Roll Low/Roll High "Thing"

Just a quick note before I go off to dinner...

For many people, it's not an issue, but for some, the "roll under stat" for a +1 DM but "roll high" to succeed bothers a minority of the people trying the UGM.

That "roll under stat" thing is just a simple mechanic to allow a typical +1 DM bonus for a stat as you would normally see in Classic Traveller.

In many instances, stats aren't addressed on throws. This is a simple system to include them.

Consider the Air/Raft description on page 22 of the Traveller Book. There, it says a basic roll of 5+ is needed to avoid an accident or mishap when piloting it in bad weather. You get a +1 DM per skill level when attempting this throw.

See...no mention of the pilot's DEX is indicated.

The UGM addresses DEX on this throw.

If your character has Air/Raft-1, it's like saying, "Allow a +1 DM if DEX 3 or greater."

Or, consider the Foward Observer rules discussed under that skill. A roll of 11+ is required to call in artillery correctly and hit the target. You get a +4 DM per skill level.

The GM may say this roll is governed by the character's INT (because no mention of stat is made in the description).

If the character has Foward Observer-1, then using the UGM is like saying, "Allow a +1 DM if INT 6+."

If the character has Foward Observer-2, then it's akin to saying, "Allow a +1 DM if INT 3+".

See, the DM is dependent on the character's level of expertise. The more skilled he is, the more useful his ability scores. The less skilled, the less useful his ability scores.

The Roll Low/Roll High thing really makes a lot of sense if you consider it in those terms.

And, the "benefit" of a DM is kept in line with usual CT DMs. Many times, in CT, you'll see, "Allow a +1 DM if Stat 5+".

OK, that's it. Going to dinner now.

S4

 

[Hobilar]

Sorry to necro this a bit, but is there another spot where I can get the "one page" version of the UGM? The links earlier in this thread are dead.

Thanks!

 

[far-trader]

Sorry to necro this a bit, but is there another spot where I can get the "one page" version of the UGM? The links earlier in this thread are dead.

Thanks!

Would it be in one of the links in S4's signature at the bottom of his posts?

 

[Hobilar]

Would it be in one of the links in S4's signature at the bottom of his posts?

nope - they both link to threads - including this one.

 

[far-trader]

nope - they both link to threads - including this one.

Huh

That's silly of S4

If he doesn't see this and add a link in his sig (or if you don't want to wait) drop him a PM and bug him until he does.

Tell him I said so (as if that'll help :rofl.

 

[Supplement Four]

I never did get around to making a pdf of the UGM. Golan made one, and he used to have it in his sig. But, I see it's not there anymore. He was using UGM and then switched to MGT when it came out (and, MGT is basically UGM anyway, without the bells and whistles and a little stat bloat).

So, the best source for the UGM is right here on this thread (though, it could do with some cleaning up).

 

[Icosahedron]

I'm sure I downloaded a copy of the single page UGM, but I can't find it now. With the relevant author permissions, it could be uploaded to the File Library. Mind you, Omer could do that direct.

I really must tidy my filing 'system'.

 

[Hobilar]

Ok, no problem guys.

If it turns up somewhere, great! Otherwise I will just cut n paste whats on the thread here onto my own cheat sheet sometime.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yeah, besides the double posting, the charts in the front of the thread didn't jump servers very well. They're just a jumble of numbers.

 

[aramis]

S4: thread purged of duplicates... AGAIN. (i've done this thread before; apparently a failure occurred.)

I've edited a couple tables to show how; go back and add the relevant code tags on the rest yourself.

 

[Supplement Four]

I've edited a couple tables to show how; go back and add the relevant code tags on the rest yourself.

Says the man with the sweaty brow.

Thanks for your work, Wil.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

My take on a formatted supplement-like version of the UGM (in PDF):

http://www.box.net/shared/ljorzbm2m1

Enjoy! Constructive feedback welcome. I have edited the text for length and clarity, but the creative work is all Supplement Four's!

Additionally, here's a reference-sheet version: http://www.box.net/shared/y5tb7t7tif

 

[Signal]

Brilliant ideas but I have no problems using the rules suggestions in TTB - I don't feel the need for a uniform rule. But that's just me.

 

[Supplement Four]

Brilliant ideas but I have no problems using the rules suggestions in TTB - I don't feel the need for a uniform rule. But that's just me.

Thanks for the words!

Many gamers, these days, insist on a task system, no matter which game they are playing. I wrote the UGM specifically for Classic Traveller players who want to use a task system. I set out to design one that works better than the UTP used in MT. What you see here is the result.

Truth be told, though, I feel the same way you do. When I run Classic Traveller, I don't use the UGM. I use the Classic Traveller non-structured system--I customize throws on the spot given a situation.

Sometimes, I throw the UGM into the mix, but I don't use it exclusively. See the other link in my sig.