The Universal Game Mechanic (revised)

[Golan2072]

I've re-formatted the material posted by WJP on this thread into a 6-page MS-Word-2000 document. To use the system, all you'll need is to print Page 2 (the Task Resolution Procedure) - it has everything nescery to use it. Get it here.

It is a good task resolution system - it is easy to use, similar to the CT logic, covers most of the task-use situations that arise in the typical game and fits into one page.

 

[Golan2072]

I've re-formatted the material posted by WJP on this thread into a 6-page MS-Word-2000 document. To use the system, all you'll need is to print Page 2 (the Task Resolution Procedure) - it has everything nescery to use it. Get it here.

It is a good task resolution system - it is easy to use, similar to the CT logic, covers most of the task-use situations that arise in the typical game and fits into one page.

 

[mike wightman]

Thanks for that Employee

 

[mike wightman]

Thanks for that Employee

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Why apply both the +1 Natural Ability DM and the DEX DM at the same time? I think that the UGM should replace the (slightly cumbersome) CT DEX/STR weapon DMs with the UGM-standard Natural Ability DM procedure. No need for double procedures here.

You could certainly ignore the Natural Ability mod in this circumstance, arguing that DEX is already addressed in Classic Trav combat.

And, I think that would be a fair argument.

But, I would leave it in.

Why?

I look at it like this.

I look at the Natural Ability mod as a base to start from. The DEX mod for weapons in CT are specific to those weapons, so, what we're basically doing is taking what a character would do all of the time (the Natural Ability mod) and then fine tuning that by the weapon being used (the different DEX mods on each weapon).

In the end, we're talking about a +1DM some of the time.

I don't feel strongly about this, though. If a GM rules that the Natural Ability mod, while using UGM, is superceded by a stat being address in official CT...I have no problem with that at all. I think that's a fair thing to do.

Also, if you do it my way, and you play CT combat straight, you may be unbalancing the game a bit.

If I played CT combat as officially written, I probably wouldn't address the Natural Ability mod because it monkey's with the CT to-hit probability.

But, I don't use the CT armor mods on the to-hit roll (I use them to modify the damage roll--see the CTI thread for a discussion of this). So, for me, using the Natural Ability mod makes sense.

In the end, I think it's up to the GM.

My advice on this is: If you're using CT straight, as written, skip the Natural Ability step if a stat is already referenced in official CT rules.

Otherwise, if you're doing something non-CT-standard, like I am, you'll have to use your judgement on whether you think the Natural Ability mod is called for.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Why apply both the +1 Natural Ability DM and the DEX DM at the same time? I think that the UGM should replace the (slightly cumbersome) CT DEX/STR weapon DMs with the UGM-standard Natural Ability DM procedure. No need for double procedures here.

You could certainly ignore the Natural Ability mod in this circumstance, arguing that DEX is already addressed in Classic Trav combat.

And, I think that would be a fair argument.

But, I would leave it in.

Why?

I look at it like this.

I look at the Natural Ability mod as a base to start from. The DEX mod for weapons in CT are specific to those weapons, so, what we're basically doing is taking what a character would do all of the time (the Natural Ability mod) and then fine tuning that by the weapon being used (the different DEX mods on each weapon).

In the end, we're talking about a +1DM some of the time.

I don't feel strongly about this, though. If a GM rules that the Natural Ability mod, while using UGM, is superceded by a stat being address in official CT...I have no problem with that at all. I think that's a fair thing to do.

Also, if you do it my way, and you play CT combat straight, you may be unbalancing the game a bit.

If I played CT combat as officially written, I probably wouldn't address the Natural Ability mod because it monkey's with the CT to-hit probability.

But, I don't use the CT armor mods on the to-hit roll (I use them to modify the damage roll--see the CTI thread for a discussion of this). So, for me, using the Natural Ability mod makes sense.

In the end, I think it's up to the GM.

My advice on this is: If you're using CT straight, as written, skip the Natural Ability step if a stat is already referenced in official CT rules.

Otherwise, if you're doing something non-CT-standard, like I am, you'll have to use your judgement on whether you think the Natural Ability mod is called for.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Oh, and how would a character with Skill-0 be different under that system from a character without Skill-0?

I was wondering when that question would come up.

What is Skill-0? It's a minimum amount of expertise in an area--an introductory amount of knowlege in that area.

Book 1 tells us that every character has every regular type of weapon in that book at a minimum of expertise (Skill-0), but it's not necessary to write it on the character sheet.

What I'm referencing in your question above is that definition of Skill-0.

Therefore, one aspect of Skill-0 is any area where a person needs no formal training.

Anything that you can do, without any training, is Skill-0. There is probably a Running skill for some people (some people know the ins and outs of Running....see making new skills in Book 1), but everybody, unless physically handicapped, can run a little bit.

So, everybody has Running-0.

We don't write that on our character sheets because it's not important to adventuring in Traveller (if the character had Runnin-1, we would write that on the character's sheet so we wouldn't forget that he's got better than Skill-0).


So, when making attribute checks, the person is considered as having some skill (whatever it is, isn't important) in attempting what he's doing.

If I try to force a locked door down in my house, I'm using some skill I have (Skill-0). A trained FBI agent that's been on many raids (or maybe even a burgler) would have better than Skill-0 in this area.

So, I've always defined every task to include the use of a skill and a governor stat. I argue against "attribute-only" rolls. To me, they are Skill-0 rolls with a governor stat, just like every other task.

If you don't agree with that, it will make no difference in your use of UGM. A Skill-0 task roll is the exact same roll as a task roll where no skill was used.

For me, it's just defintion.

So, if you like the definition of attribute only task rolls, then the actual mechanics of dice rolling is exactly the same as what I'm calling a Skill-0 task roll.

(For me, attribute checks are done the old fashioned CT way of rolling Stat or less on 2D or 3D...whatever the situation calls for.)

Your original question was...

QUOTE]Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Oh, and how would a character with Skill-0 be different under that system from a character without Skill-0? [/QUOTE]

Given that explanation above, I would say, in my game, there are no characters who have no skill. If a character can attempt a task, he's got at least Skill-0 automatically.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Oh, and how would a character with Skill-0 be different under that system from a character without Skill-0?

I was wondering when that question would come up.

What is Skill-0? It's a minimum amount of expertise in an area--an introductory amount of knowlege in that area.

Book 1 tells us that every character has every regular type of weapon in that book at a minimum of expertise (Skill-0), but it's not necessary to write it on the character sheet.

What I'm referencing in your question above is that definition of Skill-0.

Therefore, one aspect of Skill-0 is any area where a person needs no formal training.

Anything that you can do, without any training, is Skill-0. There is probably a Running skill for some people (some people know the ins and outs of Running....see making new skills in Book 1), but everybody, unless physically handicapped, can run a little bit.

So, everybody has Running-0.

We don't write that on our character sheets because it's not important to adventuring in Traveller (if the character had Runnin-1, we would write that on the character's sheet so we wouldn't forget that he's got better than Skill-0).


So, when making attribute checks, the person is considered as having some skill (whatever it is, isn't important) in attempting what he's doing.

If I try to force a locked door down in my house, I'm using some skill I have (Skill-0). A trained FBI agent that's been on many raids (or maybe even a burgler) would have better than Skill-0 in this area.

So, I've always defined every task to include the use of a skill and a governor stat. I argue against "attribute-only" rolls. To me, they are Skill-0 rolls with a governor stat, just like every other task.

If you don't agree with that, it will make no difference in your use of UGM. A Skill-0 task roll is the exact same roll as a task roll where no skill was used.

For me, it's just defintion.

So, if you like the definition of attribute only task rolls, then the actual mechanics of dice rolling is exactly the same as what I'm calling a Skill-0 task roll.

(For me, attribute checks are done the old fashioned CT way of rolling Stat or less on 2D or 3D...whatever the situation calls for.)

Your original question was...

QUOTE]Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Oh, and how would a character with Skill-0 be different under that system from a character without Skill-0? [/QUOTE]

Given that explanation above, I would say, in my game, there are no characters who have no skill. If a character can attempt a task, he's got at least Skill-0 automatically.

 

[Supplement Four]

Further to my answer to Emp's Skill-0 question...


I should also comment that I do make a distinction if a skill requires trained knowledge to perform.

Swimming is a good example. People have to learn to swim, or else they drown. Not everyone is considered to have Swimming-0 (like thay are considered to have Running-0).

Driving is another good example. Ever seen anybody who doesn't know how to drive attempt to drive a car with a standard transmission?

Enginnering. Pilot. Electronics. Navigation.

These are all skills that do not have a default Level-0 version. A character is never assumed to have any of these types of skills at Skill-0 because it takes some trained knowledge to even attempt these rolls.

There is a Pilot-0 skill, but it's a skill that is earned after some initial expertise and knowlege is gained. Characters aren't assumed to have Pilot-0 right off the bat the way they are considered to have Climbing-0.

I've discussed most of this elsewhere in another thread. Click on this link and look for my post on Skill-0 and Default Skills.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000271;p=1


I guess a better answer to your question above, Emp, is that, when an attribute-only task is called for, the character is considered as using some Default Level-0 skill. What that skill is is not important, and it's not written on the character's sheet. But, some skill the character has is being referenced (I don't consider it a "no-skill" situation).

But, as I said above, this is all just "definition".

The mechanics of a Skill-0 UGM task throw are the exact same as for a task throw with no skill referenced.

If you like, you can assign some penalty DM (I would just make the difficulty harder and leave the task roll the way it is) to characters attempting tasks in which they have no skill.

Was that confusing?

I feel like I've been very long-winded and unfocused on this.

Did I explain myself to your satisfaction?

 

[Supplement Four]

Further to my answer to Emp's Skill-0 question...


I should also comment that I do make a distinction if a skill requires trained knowledge to perform.

Swimming is a good example. People have to learn to swim, or else they drown. Not everyone is considered to have Swimming-0 (like thay are considered to have Running-0).

Driving is another good example. Ever seen anybody who doesn't know how to drive attempt to drive a car with a standard transmission?

Enginnering. Pilot. Electronics. Navigation.

These are all skills that do not have a default Level-0 version. A character is never assumed to have any of these types of skills at Skill-0 because it takes some trained knowledge to even attempt these rolls.

There is a Pilot-0 skill, but it's a skill that is earned after some initial expertise and knowlege is gained. Characters aren't assumed to have Pilot-0 right off the bat the way they are considered to have Climbing-0.

I've discussed most of this elsewhere in another thread. Click on this link and look for my post on Skill-0 and Default Skills.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000271;p=1


I guess a better answer to your question above, Emp, is that, when an attribute-only task is called for, the character is considered as using some Default Level-0 skill. What that skill is is not important, and it's not written on the character's sheet. But, some skill the character has is being referenced (I don't consider it a "no-skill" situation).

But, as I said above, this is all just "definition".

The mechanics of a Skill-0 UGM task throw are the exact same as for a task throw with no skill referenced.

If you like, you can assign some penalty DM (I would just make the difficulty harder and leave the task roll the way it is) to characters attempting tasks in which they have no skill.

Was that confusing?

I feel like I've been very long-winded and unfocused on this.

Did I explain myself to your satisfaction?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
I've re-formatted the material posted by WJP on this thread into a 6-page MS-Word-2000 document. To use the system, all you'll need is to print Page 2 (the Task Resolution Procedure) - it has everything nescery to use it. Get it here.

It is a good task resolution system - it is easy to use, similar to the CT logic, covers most of the task-use situations that arise in the typical game and fits into one page.

Very, very nice job, Emp!

Heck, I ought to tap you to write the Freelance Traveller article! (Just kiddin').

I like how you laid out page 2. Very nice.

One little change--you credited me as WJP. On my FLT articles and stuff like this, I usually use my real name. If you want, change "WJP" to "Kenneth Bearden".

Other than that, it looks awesome. I've already downloaded it into my Traveller save files.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
I've re-formatted the material posted by WJP on this thread into a 6-page MS-Word-2000 document. To use the system, all you'll need is to print Page 2 (the Task Resolution Procedure) - it has everything nescery to use it. Get it here.

It is a good task resolution system - it is easy to use, similar to the CT logic, covers most of the task-use situations that arise in the typical game and fits into one page.

Very, very nice job, Emp!

Heck, I ought to tap you to write the Freelance Traveller article! (Just kiddin').

I like how you laid out page 2. Very nice.

One little change--you credited me as WJP. On my FLT articles and stuff like this, I usually use my real name. If you want, change "WJP" to "Kenneth Bearden".

Other than that, it looks awesome. I've already downloaded it into my Traveller save files.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by WJP:

One little change--you credited me as WJP. On my FLT articles and stuff like this, I usually use my real name. If you want, change "WJP" to "Kenneth Bearden".

File corrected.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by WJP:

One little change--you credited me as WJP. On my FLT articles and stuff like this, I usually use my real name. If you want, change "WJP" to "Kenneth Bearden".

File corrected.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
I've re-formatted the material posted by WJP on this thread into a 6-page MS-Word-2000 document. To use the system, all you'll need is to print Page 2 (the Task Resolution Procedure) - it has everything nescery to use it. Get it here.

It is a good task resolution system - it is easy to use, similar to the CT logic, covers most of the task-use situations that arise in the typical game and fits into one page.

Hey Emp,

One other thing you might want to include in your document--

Some people don't grasp the idea of the Natural Ability check, and I wrote a detailed example of this on page 2 of this thread. It's fairly short and could fit in the appendix of your document--probably next to the examples you've included.

Look on pg. 2 of this thread for my reply to Free-Trader Dan where I discussed the END-5 and END-9 characters who run a mile.

I think that post goes a long way in describing the thinking behind the Natural Ability check in UGM--probably be something good to keep together with the other rules.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
I've re-formatted the material posted by WJP on this thread into a 6-page MS-Word-2000 document. To use the system, all you'll need is to print Page 2 (the Task Resolution Procedure) - it has everything nescery to use it. Get it here.

It is a good task resolution system - it is easy to use, similar to the CT logic, covers most of the task-use situations that arise in the typical game and fits into one page.

Hey Emp,

One other thing you might want to include in your document--

Some people don't grasp the idea of the Natural Ability check, and I wrote a detailed example of this on page 2 of this thread. It's fairly short and could fit in the appendix of your document--probably next to the examples you've included.

Look on pg. 2 of this thread for my reply to Free-Trader Dan where I discussed the END-5 and END-9 characters who run a mile.

I think that post goes a long way in describing the thinking behind the Natural Ability check in UGM--probably be something good to keep together with the other rules.

 

[Supplement Four]

REQUEST to all UGM players!


If you're using UGM in your game, post your experience here. I'd like to hear how it's going--feedback is welcome.

Especially, especially if you find a better way to do something.

As UGM is play tested, in the event a better way to do something about the system is discovered, post that change here. If it's a good change, we all may benefit from it.

 

[Supplement Four]

REQUEST to all UGM players!


If you're using UGM in your game, post your experience here. I'd like to hear how it's going--feedback is welcome.

Especially, especially if you find a better way to do something.

As UGM is play tested, in the event a better way to do something about the system is discovered, post that change here. If it's a good change, we all may benefit from it.

 

[Supplement Four]

CTI and UGM difficulty


I've been deciding between UGM and CTI for my own game. CTI has won out (for various reasons).

BUT, I am going to make one change to CTI. I'm going to change the difficulty categories to reflect that used in UGM.

So, the old CTI difficulty categories are:

4+ Easy
6+ Routine
8+ Difficult
10+ Challenging
12+ Formidable
14+ Staggering
16+ Impossible


Now, I'm going to merge CTI and UGM a bit to where CTI will be a 2D +mods for 8+ system.

The difference in UGM and CTI is that the 2D roll in UGM will be a plain 2D roll. In CTI, this will be a Skill Die and a Task Die that is used in that system.

(Also, the UGM Natural Ability mod will not be used in CTI as that is already "built into" the system.)

So, my new CTI is going to look like this--

2D + mods for 8+

+4DM Easy
+2DM Routine
+0DM Difficult
-2DM Challenging
-4DM Formidable
-6DM Insane
-8DM Impossible

Everything else about CTI will stay the same.

 

[Supplement Four]

CTI and UGM difficulty


I've been deciding between UGM and CTI for my own game. CTI has won out (for various reasons).

BUT, I am going to make one change to CTI. I'm going to change the difficulty categories to reflect that used in UGM.

So, the old CTI difficulty categories are:

4+ Easy
6+ Routine
8+ Difficult
10+ Challenging
12+ Formidable
14+ Staggering
16+ Impossible


Now, I'm going to merge CTI and UGM a bit to where CTI will be a 2D +mods for 8+ system.

The difference in UGM and CTI is that the 2D roll in UGM will be a plain 2D roll. In CTI, this will be a Skill Die and a Task Die that is used in that system.

(Also, the UGM Natural Ability mod will not be used in CTI as that is already "built into" the system.)

So, my new CTI is going to look like this--

2D + mods for 8+

+4DM Easy
+2DM Routine
+0DM Difficult
-2DM Challenging
-4DM Formidable
-6DM Insane
-8DM Impossible

Everything else about CTI will stay the same.