The Universal Game Mechanic

[aramis]

Precisely why UGM Is broken, Ken.

UGM provides NO benefit for extremely high atts that differs from what it provides for low atts.

Att 15 under my house rules provides the equivalent of 5 levels of skill, provided you have at least one level of skill AS WELL.

UGM is broken in different ways. You're fixated on fixing things that are not only not broken, but you are misperceiving as broken because you misunderstand the rules and their inherent alignments.

You're also fixating upon my MT house rules, which are an MT/T4 hybrid (1 skill per year, no Int+Edu), out of context. I've generally been arguing from Pure-MT stands, here. Figure it out.

Inherent to Bk1 is a 3 point range (-1 to +1). MT has a 4 point range (0 to +3).

UGM has a 2 point range (0-+1), which is irregular in application.

What you've done is DEVALUE atts, even tho they are more often used.

It says that there is no difference in the value of a 12 versus a 5 on the final task; either will provide +0 or +1. TO THROW YOUR OWN LOGIC BACK, Why should a 12 NOT provide a bigger bonus that a 5?

I'm done here, Ken. You're still as unreasonable as you were on the TML, arguing with random stray shots, piss-poor logic.

Some excellent ideas, but an irrational approach to presenting them, and to criticism.

 

[aramis]

Precisely why UGM Is broken, Ken.

UGM provides NO benefit for extremely high atts that differs from what it provides for low atts.

Att 15 under my house rules provides the equivalent of 5 levels of skill, provided you have at least one level of skill AS WELL.

UGM is broken in different ways. You're fixated on fixing things that are not only not broken, but you are misperceiving as broken because you misunderstand the rules and their inherent alignments.

You're also fixating upon my MT house rules, which are an MT/T4 hybrid (1 skill per year, no Int+Edu), out of context. I've generally been arguing from Pure-MT stands, here. Figure it out.

Inherent to Bk1 is a 3 point range (-1 to +1). MT has a 4 point range (0 to +3).

UGM has a 2 point range (0-+1), which is irregular in application.

What you've done is DEVALUE atts, even tho they are more often used.

It says that there is no difference in the value of a 12 versus a 5 on the final task; either will provide +0 or +1. TO THROW YOUR OWN LOGIC BACK, Why should a 12 NOT provide a bigger bonus that a 5?

I'm done here, Ken. You're still as unreasonable as you were on the TML, arguing with random stray shots, piss-poor logic.

Some excellent ideas, but an irrational approach to presenting them, and to criticism.

 

[Berg]

So, what I did in designing UGM was operate from a base of logic that says that natural ability--ANY natural ability--can give you, at most, equivalent proficiency as a Level-1 skill.

How about if you roll under your stat but above your skill you get a +2...

 

[Berg]

So, what I did in designing UGM was operate from a base of logic that says that natural ability--ANY natural ability--can give you, at most, equivalent proficiency as a Level-1 skill.

How about if you roll under your stat but above your skill you get a +2...

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Precisely why UGM Is broken, Ken.

You need to get your goggles checked, Wil. There's nothing broken about UGM.

UGM provides NO benefit for extremely high atts that differs from what it provides for low atts.

Again, have those goggles looked at. I hear there's a hiver that does good work on goggles if you can communicate with him.

You say UGM provides no benefit for high attributes.

What slipped by in the crack of your goggles was...

Stat-11...receives the +1DM benefit 97% of the time, which will be helpful on Challenging (and lower) tasks.

Stat-12...receive the +1DM benefit 100% of the time (I don't want you missing that in your goggles...see how the Stat-12 gets the benefit more often?, which is also helpful on Challenging and lower difficulty tasks.

Did you see that benefit increase?

We're moving on.

Stat-13...receives a +2DM benefit 3% of the time, and the rest of the time receives the +1DM. (Don't want you to miss that one either...yep, the Stat-13 is better to have than the Stat-12 or the Stat-11)

Moving on...

Stat-14...recevies a +2DM 8% of the time (Did you see that? We just more than doubled the chance that a +2DM will be achieved for a Stat-14 character over a Stat-13 character...didn't miss that, did you?), and receives the +1DM the rest of the time. AND this is helpful to the Stat-14 character on higher level difficulites (Formidable and lower instead of Challenging and lower).

Stat-15...receives the +2DM 17% of the time (we almost doubled the chance again), and receives the +1DM the rest of the time. And, these are helpful on Challenging and lower difficulties).

Att 15 under my house rules provides the equivalent of 5 levels of skill, provided you have at least one level of skill AS WELL.

If a character has a Skill-5, he adds what to your task roll? +5DM right?

If a character has a Stat-15, he adds what to your task roll? +5DM right?

Looks the same to me.

You're fixated on fixing things that are not only not broken, but you are misperceiving as broken because you misunderstand the rules and their inherent alignments.

Right back at you...you obvioulsy don't grasp UGM.

You're also fixating upon my MT house rules, which are an MT/T4 hybrid (1 skill per year, no Int+Edu), out of context. I've generally been arguing from Pure-MT stands, here. Figure it out.

I'm not trying to be rude here (I'm really not). But, I've focused on your house rules because they indicate what kind of logic you are operating from.

Your house rules are a very broken. They're a MT tweak that makes MT worse, not better.

So, judging from what you're using in your own game, it's hard for me to take seriously your comment that UGM is broken.

Wil, you just plain don't know what you're talking about.

Again...I'm not attempting to be snotty at all. Don't take it that way. I'm just being honest with you.

Inherent to Bk1 is a 3 point range (-1 to +1). MT has a 4 point range (0 to +3).

UGM has a 2 point range (0-+1), which is irregular in application/


What you've done is DEVALUE atts, even tho they are more often used.

Absolutley wrong.

(Again, this is hard for me to take seriously coming from someone who uses Stat/3.)

In CT, STATS are HARDLY EVER referenced in task rolls. DEX and END is referenced in combat, but most other task rolls in CT are 2D +Skill +other mods for some target number.

Rarely (but sometimes) are stats referenced.

Obviously if I've referenced every stat to a different degree using UGM, then stats are valued more highly using UGM rather than being devalued as you claim.

I'm done here, Ken. You're still as unreasonable as you were on the TML, arguing with random stray shots, piss-poor logic.

I'm not the guy using a system that rewards lowly Stat-3 characters with a +1DM, rewards Stat-15 characters with a whopping +5, and relies on a system that provides erratic benefit to different stat levels by using division!

Good gawd, brother. I'm not really trying to be mean here, but you're using that broken tweak of MT and saying that I've got piss-poor logic!

Incredible.

What I think you're "done" with is that I've shown you how your own system is really broken--and you don't like that criticism...weren't you just saying that I didn't take criticim well?

Tell ya what, Wil. I'll put some probability numbers together for Stats in the UGM, and we'll see just how devalued they are.

I'll post 'em in a short while.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Precisely why UGM Is broken, Ken.

You need to get your goggles checked, Wil. There's nothing broken about UGM.

UGM provides NO benefit for extremely high atts that differs from what it provides for low atts.

Again, have those goggles looked at. I hear there's a hiver that does good work on goggles if you can communicate with him.

You say UGM provides no benefit for high attributes.

What slipped by in the crack of your goggles was...

Stat-11...receives the +1DM benefit 97% of the time, which will be helpful on Challenging (and lower) tasks.

Stat-12...receive the +1DM benefit 100% of the time (I don't want you missing that in your goggles...see how the Stat-12 gets the benefit more often?, which is also helpful on Challenging and lower difficulty tasks.

Did you see that benefit increase?

We're moving on.

Stat-13...receives a +2DM benefit 3% of the time, and the rest of the time receives the +1DM. (Don't want you to miss that one either...yep, the Stat-13 is better to have than the Stat-12 or the Stat-11)

Moving on...

Stat-14...recevies a +2DM 8% of the time (Did you see that? We just more than doubled the chance that a +2DM will be achieved for a Stat-14 character over a Stat-13 character...didn't miss that, did you?), and receives the +1DM the rest of the time. AND this is helpful to the Stat-14 character on higher level difficulites (Formidable and lower instead of Challenging and lower).

Stat-15...receives the +2DM 17% of the time (we almost doubled the chance again), and receives the +1DM the rest of the time. And, these are helpful on Challenging and lower difficulties).

Att 15 under my house rules provides the equivalent of 5 levels of skill, provided you have at least one level of skill AS WELL.

If a character has a Skill-5, he adds what to your task roll? +5DM right?

If a character has a Stat-15, he adds what to your task roll? +5DM right?

Looks the same to me.

You're fixated on fixing things that are not only not broken, but you are misperceiving as broken because you misunderstand the rules and their inherent alignments.

Right back at you...you obvioulsy don't grasp UGM.

You're also fixating upon my MT house rules, which are an MT/T4 hybrid (1 skill per year, no Int+Edu), out of context. I've generally been arguing from Pure-MT stands, here. Figure it out.

I'm not trying to be rude here (I'm really not). But, I've focused on your house rules because they indicate what kind of logic you are operating from.

Your house rules are a very broken. They're a MT tweak that makes MT worse, not better.

So, judging from what you're using in your own game, it's hard for me to take seriously your comment that UGM is broken.

Wil, you just plain don't know what you're talking about.

Again...I'm not attempting to be snotty at all. Don't take it that way. I'm just being honest with you.

Inherent to Bk1 is a 3 point range (-1 to +1). MT has a 4 point range (0 to +3).

UGM has a 2 point range (0-+1), which is irregular in application/


What you've done is DEVALUE atts, even tho they are more often used.

Absolutley wrong.

(Again, this is hard for me to take seriously coming from someone who uses Stat/3.)

In CT, STATS are HARDLY EVER referenced in task rolls. DEX and END is referenced in combat, but most other task rolls in CT are 2D +Skill +other mods for some target number.

Rarely (but sometimes) are stats referenced.

Obviously if I've referenced every stat to a different degree using UGM, then stats are valued more highly using UGM rather than being devalued as you claim.

I'm done here, Ken. You're still as unreasonable as you were on the TML, arguing with random stray shots, piss-poor logic.

I'm not the guy using a system that rewards lowly Stat-3 characters with a +1DM, rewards Stat-15 characters with a whopping +5, and relies on a system that provides erratic benefit to different stat levels by using division!

Good gawd, brother. I'm not really trying to be mean here, but you're using that broken tweak of MT and saying that I've got piss-poor logic!

Incredible.

What I think you're "done" with is that I've shown you how your own system is really broken--and you don't like that criticism...weren't you just saying that I didn't take criticim well?

Tell ya what, Wil. I'll put some probability numbers together for Stats in the UGM, and we'll see just how devalued they are.

I'll post 'em in a short while.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Berg:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> So, what I did in designing UGM was operate from a base of logic that says that natural ability--ANY natural ability--can give you, at most, equivalent proficiency as a Level-1 skill.

How about if you roll under your stat but above your skill you get a +2... </font>[/QUOTE]You'd end up with this...

Stat-7 Skill-2

2D
2 +2 +2 = 6
3 +2 +2 = 7
4 +2 +2 = 8
5 +2 +2 = 9
6 +2 +2 = 10
7 +2 +2 = 11
8 +2 = 10
9 +2 = 11
10 +2 = 12
11 +2 = 13
12 +2 = 14


You could account for the higher numbers being thrown (but I like to keep the 8+ in the Routine/Standard/Difficult range for CT's sake...wouldn't make a good system if 8+ was Easy), but see that quirky thing that happens between rolling 5 and rolling 9?

+2 Wouldn't work.


What you could do is this--

-1DM unless roll Stat or lower.

(you could reward Stats 13-15 with a +1 the way I rewarded them with a +2).


What this would do is make the lower stats take a penalty more often, and average and high stats wouldn't bother with a DM.

The net effect will be the same (you might have to adjust target numbers a hair) as UGM is currently written.

And, you'd have to deal with subraction rather than addition.

I'd rather add a +1 when I roll under than have to deal with a -1 when I roll over, so I wrote UGM to deal with the addition instead of the subtraction.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Berg:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> So, what I did in designing UGM was operate from a base of logic that says that natural ability--ANY natural ability--can give you, at most, equivalent proficiency as a Level-1 skill.

How about if you roll under your stat but above your skill you get a +2... </font>[/QUOTE]You'd end up with this...

Stat-7 Skill-2

2D
2 +2 +2 = 6
3 +2 +2 = 7
4 +2 +2 = 8
5 +2 +2 = 9
6 +2 +2 = 10
7 +2 +2 = 11
8 +2 = 10
9 +2 = 11
10 +2 = 12
11 +2 = 13
12 +2 = 14


You could account for the higher numbers being thrown (but I like to keep the 8+ in the Routine/Standard/Difficult range for CT's sake...wouldn't make a good system if 8+ was Easy), but see that quirky thing that happens between rolling 5 and rolling 9?

+2 Wouldn't work.


What you could do is this--

-1DM unless roll Stat or lower.

(you could reward Stats 13-15 with a +1 the way I rewarded them with a +2).


What this would do is make the lower stats take a penalty more often, and average and high stats wouldn't bother with a DM.

The net effect will be the same (you might have to adjust target numbers a hair) as UGM is currently written.

And, you'd have to deal with subraction rather than addition.

I'd rather add a +1 when I roll under than have to deal with a -1 when I roll over, so I wrote UGM to deal with the addition instead of the subtraction.