The Universal Game Mechanic

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Aramis:
1) Please, do not call me "Bill;" Wil is fine; Bill is Either My Grandfather or the Other Chap (formerly known as Whipsnade).

Alrightey, I'll call you Riker, after the first officer of the Enterprise-D.

Just kiddin'

I'll just call you Aramis, then.

(2) On topic:
I have noticed a serious preference amongst players for additive-only systems; While it should not, subtraction takes players more effort than addition.

I can buy that.

It would be easy, then, if one wanted to use UGM or CTI and not have to subract, to just use target numbers like this--

Easy 4+
Routine 6+
Standard 8+
Challenging 10+
Formidable 12+
Insane 14+
Impossible 16+

Walaaa....no more subtraction.


I understand what you're saying though. But, since both UGM and CTI were written for Classic Traveler, and there are negative dice modifier all over the place, I don't really think using a negative DM in the difficulty modifier is really that big of an issue.

But, if it is, the system (UGM) remains unchanged if you use those targets above.

By upping the difficulty numbers by 1, I've balanced the expected 1 with an expected 2 from average attribute; I've upped the max from +3 to +5; a net gain of only 1 over MT in probabilities. Since no stats ever go negative, a 0-based system provides positive only mods.

(snipety)

If it were me, and I had a choice between these two systems, though, I'd still go with MT unmodified. I don't see the reasoning for monkeying with things like this if there is no benefit.

What benefit do you see in going Stat/3 instead of Stat/5?

You're getting five breakpoints (3, 6, 9, 12, 15) instead of three (5, 10, 15).

You've had to change the official target numbers by one point, so that's two changes to the official rules that is netting you very little benefit.

I'm a firm believer in not monkeying with official rules unless (1) a rule change is very desireable, and (2) the rule change greatly improves the original.

I do see that a rule change for stats in MT is desireable (of course I do), but I don't see that the Stat/3 change, coupled with the +1 to target numbers nets you any real beneift.

I'd argue that, choosing between the two, the official MT rules are better.

There is no need for a "every point of stat is important in every instance" correspondence.

That's were I completely disagree with you.

Under your system, a guy making a roll based on his STR-3 makes the exact same roll as a guy making a STR-5 roll.

If these two guys are trying to force open the same stuck hatch, then the STR-5 guy should have a little bit of an edge on the STR-3 guy.

Or--

Let's put it this way.

Three party members walk into a bar, and the fat one walks over to a dwarf and says, "...

(Just making a little joke there...back to seriousness).

Three party members are exploring a huge derelict space ship. One is STR-3. One is STR-5. One is STR-12.

The STR-12 guy gets popped in the face from some alien beastie. The thing attaches itself, Alien-style. The STR-12 guy goes limp.

Now, this dead weight of an unconcious crewmember has to be carried up a ladder--straight up to the catwalk above where the airlock to the players' ship is.

Shouldn't the STR-5 guy have a little bit of an edge in towing that body up the ladder--just a little bit of an edge over the STR-3 guy?

Under your system, he doesn't.

It absolutely is important that "every point of stat" corresponds to some benefit when making task rolls.

It's modern game mechanics. Most newer games (the ones that have come out in the last ten years) show that correspondence. D&D now shows it. Traveller showed it in T4 and probably will show it in T5. Star Wars, both d20 and D6, show it.

I'm not saying all games show that correspondence, but the better ones (in terms of game mechanics) do.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Aramis:
1) Please, do not call me "Bill;" Wil is fine; Bill is Either My Grandfather or the Other Chap (formerly known as Whipsnade).

Alrightey, I'll call you Riker, after the first officer of the Enterprise-D.

Just kiddin'

I'll just call you Aramis, then.

(2) On topic:
I have noticed a serious preference amongst players for additive-only systems; While it should not, subtraction takes players more effort than addition.

I can buy that.

It would be easy, then, if one wanted to use UGM or CTI and not have to subract, to just use target numbers like this--

Easy 4+
Routine 6+
Standard 8+
Challenging 10+
Formidable 12+
Insane 14+
Impossible 16+

Walaaa....no more subtraction.


I understand what you're saying though. But, since both UGM and CTI were written for Classic Traveler, and there are negative dice modifier all over the place, I don't really think using a negative DM in the difficulty modifier is really that big of an issue.

But, if it is, the system (UGM) remains unchanged if you use those targets above.

By upping the difficulty numbers by 1, I've balanced the expected 1 with an expected 2 from average attribute; I've upped the max from +3 to +5; a net gain of only 1 over MT in probabilities. Since no stats ever go negative, a 0-based system provides positive only mods.

(snipety)

If it were me, and I had a choice between these two systems, though, I'd still go with MT unmodified. I don't see the reasoning for monkeying with things like this if there is no benefit.

What benefit do you see in going Stat/3 instead of Stat/5?

You're getting five breakpoints (3, 6, 9, 12, 15) instead of three (5, 10, 15).

You've had to change the official target numbers by one point, so that's two changes to the official rules that is netting you very little benefit.

I'm a firm believer in not monkeying with official rules unless (1) a rule change is very desireable, and (2) the rule change greatly improves the original.

I do see that a rule change for stats in MT is desireable (of course I do), but I don't see that the Stat/3 change, coupled with the +1 to target numbers nets you any real beneift.

I'd argue that, choosing between the two, the official MT rules are better.

There is no need for a "every point of stat is important in every instance" correspondence.

That's were I completely disagree with you.

Under your system, a guy making a roll based on his STR-3 makes the exact same roll as a guy making a STR-5 roll.

If these two guys are trying to force open the same stuck hatch, then the STR-5 guy should have a little bit of an edge on the STR-3 guy.

Or--

Let's put it this way.

Three party members walk into a bar, and the fat one walks over to a dwarf and says, "...

(Just making a little joke there...back to seriousness).

Three party members are exploring a huge derelict space ship. One is STR-3. One is STR-5. One is STR-12.

The STR-12 guy gets popped in the face from some alien beastie. The thing attaches itself, Alien-style. The STR-12 guy goes limp.

Now, this dead weight of an unconcious crewmember has to be carried up a ladder--straight up to the catwalk above where the airlock to the players' ship is.

Shouldn't the STR-5 guy have a little bit of an edge in towing that body up the ladder--just a little bit of an edge over the STR-3 guy?

Under your system, he doesn't.

It absolutely is important that "every point of stat" corresponds to some benefit when making task rolls.

It's modern game mechanics. Most newer games (the ones that have come out in the last ten years) show that correspondence. D&D now shows it. Traveller showed it in T4 and probably will show it in T5. Star Wars, both d20 and D6, show it.

I'm not saying all games show that correspondence, but the better ones (in terms of game mechanics) do.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I've never read the WEGs Star Wars game, or any of the other d6 games that are out there at the moment.

It's an incredible game system, Sig. Just incredible.

It's got to be, hands down, the best out-of-the-box game system I've ever seen.

Just incredible.

I don't know that it would fit every game well--I've never tried to do a D6 Traveller game (don't need to, with a few tweaks, Traveller is fine...and I don't like to mess with official rules unless it's really, really necessary).

But, for the STAR WARS game, D6 is fan-freakin'-tastic.

I can't say enough about that game system.

It would probably make a good fantasy system, too.

I also like the EABA system.

That acronym is not registering, Sig. Which game?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I've never read the WEGs Star Wars game, or any of the other d6 games that are out there at the moment.

It's an incredible game system, Sig. Just incredible.

It's got to be, hands down, the best out-of-the-box game system I've ever seen.

Just incredible.

I don't know that it would fit every game well--I've never tried to do a D6 Traveller game (don't need to, with a few tweaks, Traveller is fine...and I don't like to mess with official rules unless it's really, really necessary).

But, for the STAR WARS game, D6 is fan-freakin'-tastic.

I can't say enough about that game system.

It would probably make a good fantasy system, too.

I also like the EABA system.

That acronym is not registering, Sig. Which game?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by jdrakeh1:
Not really on topic, but I've also re-tooled the basic task resolution system, although I went in a different direction. You can find a link to my own solution here (the word "this" in the indicated post).

I tried to look at your system, James, but it came up as "page not available".

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by jdrakeh1:
Not really on topic, but I've also re-tooled the basic task resolution system, although I went in a different direction. You can find a link to my own solution here (the word "this" in the indicated post).

I tried to look at your system, James, but it came up as "page not available".

 

[jdrakeh1]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jdrakeh1:
Not really on topic, but I've also re-tooled the basic task resolution system, although I went in a different direction. You can find a link to my own solution here (the word "this" in the indicated post).

I tried to look at your system, James, but it came up as "page not available". </font>[/QUOTE]Weird. The server must be down for service. Thanks for letting me know about that! Try this link instead:

Emergency Mirror

 

[jdrakeh1]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jdrakeh1:
Not really on topic, but I've also re-tooled the basic task resolution system, although I went in a different direction. You can find a link to my own solution here (the word "this" in the indicated post).

I tried to look at your system, James, but it came up as "page not available". </font>[/QUOTE]Weird. The server must be down for service. Thanks for letting me know about that! Try this link instead:

Emergency Mirror

 

[Flynn]

Ken,

The D6 System is now available in generic books for Adventure, Fantasy and Space, so you might get your wish, at that.

Enjoy,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

Ken,

The D6 System is now available in generic books for Adventure, Fantasy and Space, so you might get your wish, at that.

Enjoy,
Flynn

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Flynn:
The D6 System is now available in generic books for Adventure, Fantasy and Space, so you might get your wish, at that.

Enjoy,
Flynn

It's been out for a long time--at least a decade. I think recently, in light of the success of everything d20, that they've re-packaged and re-merchandised D6.

It's not going to take off, though. d20 had the powerhouse of D&D behind it, which mean a lot of gamers know it, which means there enough of a market to sell d20 spin-offs.

I don't see D6 going that way, even though it's a superior system to d20.

It's kinda like the Beta vs. VHS wars in the early 80's. Beta was a superior (in both picture quality and sound) medium, but it just plain got out-marketed by Panasonic's VHS system. Simple as that.

The only who knew Beta was superior were the people "in the biz", and so Beta went on to become the professional video tape of choice--just about all news cameras in most of the world switched to the professional version of Beta.

The consumers, though, knowing nothing, bought what was most advertised to them--the VHS tape.

And, the rest is history.

d20 is the VHS tape to D6's Beta.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Flynn:
The D6 System is now available in generic books for Adventure, Fantasy and Space, so you might get your wish, at that.

Enjoy,
Flynn

It's been out for a long time--at least a decade. I think recently, in light of the success of everything d20, that they've re-packaged and re-merchandised D6.

It's not going to take off, though. d20 had the powerhouse of D&D behind it, which mean a lot of gamers know it, which means there enough of a market to sell d20 spin-offs.

I don't see D6 going that way, even though it's a superior system to d20.

It's kinda like the Beta vs. VHS wars in the early 80's. Beta was a superior (in both picture quality and sound) medium, but it just plain got out-marketed by Panasonic's VHS system. Simple as that.

The only who knew Beta was superior were the people "in the biz", and so Beta went on to become the professional video tape of choice--just about all news cameras in most of the world switched to the professional version of Beta.

The consumers, though, knowing nothing, bought what was most advertised to them--the VHS tape.

And, the rest is history.

d20 is the VHS tape to D6's Beta.

 

[Supplement Four]

Flynn,

You gotta mailing list of some sort that you use to annouce new issues of Stellar Reaches?

If so, put me on it.

If not, you might consider keep a list of "subscribers".

 

[Supplement Four]

Flynn,

You gotta mailing list of some sort that you use to annouce new issues of Stellar Reaches?

If so, put me on it.

If not, you might consider keep a list of "subscribers".

 

[mike wightman]

What's EABA?

http://www.btrc.net/html/eaba.html

note the lite version of the rules is free:

http://www.btrc.net/files/eabafree/eabanywherev10.pdf

and if you want to have a look inside, take a look at the preview here:

http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=BTR6101

 

[mike wightman]

What's EABA?

http://www.btrc.net/html/eaba.html

note the lite version of the rules is free:

http://www.btrc.net/files/eabafree/eabanywherev10.pdf

and if you want to have a look inside, take a look at the preview here:

http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=BTR6101

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
1) Please, do not call me "Bill;" Wil is fine; Bill is Either My Grandfather or the Other Chap (formerly known as Whipsnade).

Alrightey, I'll call you Riker, after the first officer of the Enterprise-D.

Just kiddin'

</font>[/QUOTE] If you're gonna call me Riker, make certain it's Tomas Riker, 'cause he's at least got a pair...

I understand what you're saying though. But, since both UGM and CTI were written for Classic Traveler, and there are negative dice modifier all over the place, I don't really think using a negative DM in the difficulty modifier is really that big of an issue.

But, if it is, the system (UGM) remains unchanged if you use those targets above.

Agreed, the additive version is better.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />By upping the difficulty numbers by 1, I've balanced the expected 1 with an expected 2 from average attribute; I've upped the max from +3 to +5; a net gain of only 1 over MT in probabilities. Since no stats ever go negative, a 0-based system provides positive only mods.

(snipety)

If it were me, and I had a choice between these two systems, though, I'd still go with MT unmodified. I don't see the reasoning for monkeying with things like this if there is no benefit.

What benefit do you see in going Stat/3 instead of Stat/5?

You're getting five breakpoints (3, 6, 9, 12, 15) instead of three (5, 10, 15).

You've had to change the official target numbers by one point, so that's two changes to the official rules that is netting you very little benefit.

I'm a firm believer in not monkeying with official rules unless (1) a rule change is very desireable, and (2) the rule change greatly improves the original.

I do see that a rule change for stats in MT is desireable (of course I do), but I don't see that the Stat/3 change, coupled with the +1 to target numbers nets you any real beneift.
</font>[/QUOTE]a 3:1 effect ratio feels more correct for MT than a 5:1 for task purposes. the 5:1 ratio is from the 1-20 stat range 2300... a 0-4 mod range.

What I gained most from the dual switch is two trivial changes to explain, that make for a slightly more epic style of play, yet leave all the extant task mechanics of CT/DGP in tact. Includinng the oft overlooked extensions thereto: the Uncertain tasks (which bear no relation to the undisclosed difficulty issue, and are not therefore related to T4 Uncertain tasks), the research methodology, the time system.

The other side effect of the att/3 is that it reduces times on average by 10%. This is useful to be aware of.

I'd argue that, choosing between the two, the official MT rules are better.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There is no need for a "every point of stat is important in every instance" correspondence.

That's were I completely disagree with you.

Under your system, a guy making a roll based on his STR-3 makes the exact same roll as a guy making a STR-5 roll.

If these two guys are trying to force open the same stuck hatch, then the STR-5 guy should have a little bit of an edge on the STR-3 guy.
</font>[/QUOTE]WRONG!!!

I set a STR requirement to force a hatch. I set a pushing strength DETERMINATION task (Or End and Weightlifting), +1: Routine, +2= Diff, +4 = Form, +8=Imp.

Or--

Let's put it this way.

Three party members walk into a bar, and the fat one walks over to a dwarf and says, "...

(Just making a little joke there...back to seriousness).

Three party members are exploring a huge derelict space ship. One is STR-3. One is STR-5. One is STR-12.

The STR-12 guy gets popped in the face from some alien beastie. The thing attaches itself, Alien-style. The STR-12 guy goes limp.

Now, this dead weight of an unconcious crewmember has to be carried up a ladder--straight up to the catwalk above where the airlock to the players' ship is.

Shouldn't the STR-5 guy have a little bit of an edge in towing that body up the ladder--just a little bit of an edge over the STR-3 guy?

Under your system, he doesn't.

Neither of them can. Per the rules, neither is capable. I allow pushing; to lift said 65kg weight buddy, they need to obtain a STR of

It absolutely is important that "every point of stat" corresponds to some benefit when making task rolls.

It's modern game mechanics. Most newer games (the ones that have come out in the last ten years) show that correspondence. D&D now shows it. Traveller showed it in T4 and probably will show it in T5. Star Wars, both d20 and D6, show it.

I'm not saying all games show that correspondence, but the better ones (in terms of game mechanics) do.

D20/D&D3.x does NOT use a 1:1 correspondence, but a 2:1 for skills, attacks, etc. Decipher's excellent systems also use a 2:1. Hero still uses 9+(att/5), as do many Fusion systems. Even T&T 7 (2005) still uses Att/2 correspondence.

I'd argue not "better" but "Newer", and not even most. SInce the majority are D20 variants... thus they use a 2:1 stat to skill correspondence.

Many systems which have no use for direct linear non-task elements have a non-1:1 Experience ratio and CGP Ratio.

Take WEG-D6... Stats and skills are experientially different costs (x10 vs x1). In CG, they come from different pools.

Or, L5R: Atts are NewLevel x4, while skills are NewLevel x1, in all the above cases for +1.

Traveller, however, treats 1 level of stat and one level of skill as equally valuable in terms of character generation (exception: TNE, where it's 2 skill levels = 1 att level). In CT Experience, atts are EASIER to raise than skills (IE, it's possible to do it in play, while skills can't be done in play). In MT, they are identical. In T4, they are more expensive to raise in play, despite being no more difficult to raise in CG than skills.

Since MWM is less likely to change the rate of skill receipts to att levels received, the potential for non-1:1 stat application in tasks is more likely. You yourself provided a non-1:1 ratio with KB2.0; it essentially is a negative image of MT... multiply skill rather than divide att; net mathematical effect is identical. I've even known people who use MT TN+2 and Att/2... Divide skill is fewer operations, less confusion for players of other games, which also use att/x ±y-offset.

Of the "new" games with linear stat-skill 1:1 relationships, all that I've seen were in fact, new editions of old systems: L5R, WOD, d6, Shadowrun...

Your assertions of "modernity" don't match the shelves... not the games.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
1) Please, do not call me "Bill;" Wil is fine; Bill is Either My Grandfather or the Other Chap (formerly known as Whipsnade).

Alrightey, I'll call you Riker, after the first officer of the Enterprise-D.

Just kiddin'

</font>[/QUOTE] If you're gonna call me Riker, make certain it's Tomas Riker, 'cause he's at least got a pair...

I understand what you're saying though. But, since both UGM and CTI were written for Classic Traveler, and there are negative dice modifier all over the place, I don't really think using a negative DM in the difficulty modifier is really that big of an issue.

But, if it is, the system (UGM) remains unchanged if you use those targets above.

Agreed, the additive version is better.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />By upping the difficulty numbers by 1, I've balanced the expected 1 with an expected 2 from average attribute; I've upped the max from +3 to +5; a net gain of only 1 over MT in probabilities. Since no stats ever go negative, a 0-based system provides positive only mods.

(snipety)

If it were me, and I had a choice between these two systems, though, I'd still go with MT unmodified. I don't see the reasoning for monkeying with things like this if there is no benefit.

What benefit do you see in going Stat/3 instead of Stat/5?

You're getting five breakpoints (3, 6, 9, 12, 15) instead of three (5, 10, 15).

You've had to change the official target numbers by one point, so that's two changes to the official rules that is netting you very little benefit.

I'm a firm believer in not monkeying with official rules unless (1) a rule change is very desireable, and (2) the rule change greatly improves the original.

I do see that a rule change for stats in MT is desireable (of course I do), but I don't see that the Stat/3 change, coupled with the +1 to target numbers nets you any real beneift.
</font>[/QUOTE]a 3:1 effect ratio feels more correct for MT than a 5:1 for task purposes. the 5:1 ratio is from the 1-20 stat range 2300... a 0-4 mod range.

What I gained most from the dual switch is two trivial changes to explain, that make for a slightly more epic style of play, yet leave all the extant task mechanics of CT/DGP in tact. Includinng the oft overlooked extensions thereto: the Uncertain tasks (which bear no relation to the undisclosed difficulty issue, and are not therefore related to T4 Uncertain tasks), the research methodology, the time system.

The other side effect of the att/3 is that it reduces times on average by 10%. This is useful to be aware of.

I'd argue that, choosing between the two, the official MT rules are better.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There is no need for a "every point of stat is important in every instance" correspondence.

That's were I completely disagree with you.

Under your system, a guy making a roll based on his STR-3 makes the exact same roll as a guy making a STR-5 roll.

If these two guys are trying to force open the same stuck hatch, then the STR-5 guy should have a little bit of an edge on the STR-3 guy.
</font>[/QUOTE]WRONG!!!

I set a STR requirement to force a hatch. I set a pushing strength DETERMINATION task (Or End and Weightlifting), +1: Routine, +2= Diff, +4 = Form, +8=Imp.

Or--

Let's put it this way.

Three party members walk into a bar, and the fat one walks over to a dwarf and says, "...

(Just making a little joke there...back to seriousness).

Three party members are exploring a huge derelict space ship. One is STR-3. One is STR-5. One is STR-12.

The STR-12 guy gets popped in the face from some alien beastie. The thing attaches itself, Alien-style. The STR-12 guy goes limp.

Now, this dead weight of an unconcious crewmember has to be carried up a ladder--straight up to the catwalk above where the airlock to the players' ship is.

Shouldn't the STR-5 guy have a little bit of an edge in towing that body up the ladder--just a little bit of an edge over the STR-3 guy?

Under your system, he doesn't.

Neither of them can. Per the rules, neither is capable. I allow pushing; to lift said 65kg weight buddy, they need to obtain a STR of

It absolutely is important that "every point of stat" corresponds to some benefit when making task rolls.

It's modern game mechanics. Most newer games (the ones that have come out in the last ten years) show that correspondence. D&D now shows it. Traveller showed it in T4 and probably will show it in T5. Star Wars, both d20 and D6, show it.

I'm not saying all games show that correspondence, but the better ones (in terms of game mechanics) do.

D20/D&D3.x does NOT use a 1:1 correspondence, but a 2:1 for skills, attacks, etc. Decipher's excellent systems also use a 2:1. Hero still uses 9+(att/5), as do many Fusion systems. Even T&T 7 (2005) still uses Att/2 correspondence.

I'd argue not "better" but "Newer", and not even most. SInce the majority are D20 variants... thus they use a 2:1 stat to skill correspondence.

Many systems which have no use for direct linear non-task elements have a non-1:1 Experience ratio and CGP Ratio.

Take WEG-D6... Stats and skills are experientially different costs (x10 vs x1). In CG, they come from different pools.

Or, L5R: Atts are NewLevel x4, while skills are NewLevel x1, in all the above cases for +1.

Traveller, however, treats 1 level of stat and one level of skill as equally valuable in terms of character generation (exception: TNE, where it's 2 skill levels = 1 att level). In CT Experience, atts are EASIER to raise than skills (IE, it's possible to do it in play, while skills can't be done in play). In MT, they are identical. In T4, they are more expensive to raise in play, despite being no more difficult to raise in CG than skills.

Since MWM is less likely to change the rate of skill receipts to att levels received, the potential for non-1:1 stat application in tasks is more likely. You yourself provided a non-1:1 ratio with KB2.0; it essentially is a negative image of MT... multiply skill rather than divide att; net mathematical effect is identical. I've even known people who use MT TN+2 and Att/2... Divide skill is fewer operations, less confusion for players of other games, which also use att/x ±y-offset.

Of the "new" games with linear stat-skill 1:1 relationships, all that I've seen were in fact, new editions of old systems: L5R, WOD, d6, Shadowrun...

Your assertions of "modernity" don't match the shelves... not the games.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Personally, I prefer a 2:1 skill:attribute ratio. I like the idea that skill outweighs raw power (muscle or brain).

Similarly, I think not every attribute level will reflect in a skill-based task. If you are talking a pure attribute-based task (as many of your examples are), then I would make the roll directly against the attribute. (Mind you, your system provides a more universal way to do this, possibly.) If you make the roll against the attributes, then every attribute level matters.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Personally, I prefer a 2:1 skill:attribute ratio. I like the idea that skill outweighs raw power (muscle or brain).

Similarly, I think not every attribute level will reflect in a skill-based task. If you are talking a pure attribute-based task (as many of your examples are), then I would make the roll directly against the attribute. (Mind you, your system provides a more universal way to do this, possibly.) If you make the roll against the attributes, then every attribute level matters.