Timing/Effect System Broken on Failures As Well

[Sturn]

Actually, there's an easier way of handling Timing in combat with this system -- just reverse all the Initiative values (so, you act on initiative of 1, and spending ticks adds to your iniative value).

In Mongoose you already had to reverse values during the task roll for timing out-of-combat. I understand it may make more sense not to do this during combat (where things should flow more quickly). But, it may also be more intuitive to reverse both rolls during combat (effect and timing). No, "wait, which die do I reverse?" You reverse both die (timing for initiative and effect for damage).

I think most players, even after only a few rounds of combat, would find this quite simple. There are only 3 combinations to recall: 1-6, 2-5, and 4-3. No actual math (7-die) will be needed.

 

[Sturn]

My first reaction is that it looks like it might work, but it feels counter-intuative (roll low is good sometimes and bad other times).

There is already such a system in the Mongoose rules as is. You must reverse the score when determining your time increment when out-of-combat, but you don't reverse the timing die during combat. My proposal (based upon Sable's basic idea) is to leave it as is out-of-combat but reverse both dice during combat. That's almost more easy to recall then the current Mongoose reversal of only the timing die out-of-combat.

I'm not sure, but perhaps this is what Mongoose intended in the first place. They just didn't like reversing the dice DURING combat. The unforseen consequences they had was that difficult tasks have better results when they do succeed. Perhaps they thought no one would notice? The system seems to work and make sense with this simple reversal.

 

[tbeard1999]

Best of luck getting Mongoose to adapt any changes to the T/E system. When I last looked at this idea, it failed to impress me. My enthusiasm for analyzing further fixes (that in my opinion have no chance of being adapted by Mongoose) is seriously waning. If Mongoose adapts it, I'll spend some time analysing it in detail.

Like Michael Corleone in Godfather Part 3, every time I try to get out, they pull me back in...

I dug up the statistics I ran on your idea of reversing the order of results. Assuming that 2- is an exceptional success and that 5+ is a marginal success, here are the numbers for successful task rolls (not applying modifiers to timing or effect die):

-2 Modifier
1-2: 0%
3-4: 17%
5-6: 83%

-1 Modifier
1-2: 0%
3-4: 30%
5-6: 70%

0 Modifier
1-2: 6%
3-4: 33%
5-6: 60%

+1 Modifier
1-2: 14%
3-4: 34%
5-6: 52%

+2 Modifier
1-2: 19%
3-4: 34%
5-6: 46%

So, the better you are, the higher the chance of getting an exceptional success (and the lower the chance of a marginal success).

Here's how it behaves with failed rolls:

-2 Modifier
1-2: 40%
3-4: 36%
5-6: 23%

-1 Modifier
1-2: 46%
3-4: 34%
5-6: 19%

0 Modifier
1-2: 52%
3-4: 33%
5-6: 14%

+1 Modifier
1-2: 60%
3-4: 33%
5-6: 6%

+2 Modifier
1-2: 70%
3-4: 30%
5-6: 0%

So, the better you are, the higher the chance of getting a maginal failure (and the lower the chance of an abject failure).

Advantages

1. Overall, the system behaves far better than the current one, statistically.

2. Dispenses with the need to apply modifiers to the effect roll (and to the timing roll, which is currently *not* being done).

3. Somewhat less fussy, since you don't have to fiddle with applying modifiers directly to effect and timing die.

Disadvantages

1. Does not directly work with combat system, which is where the timing/effect silliness is worst. As you may have suggested, you could subtract the effect roll from damage, which is somehwat clumsy but would work without having to alter the system. Base damage would have to be adjusted accordingly.

2. Excellent successes happen far more often than marginal successes. Marginal successes happen far more often than abject failures.

3. The system is extremely unintuitive. Now, high rolls are good, but really high rolls are bad. Since so much of the attraction of the T/E system seems based on the players' emotional response, I don't think that your system will have much traction. Personally, I like game systems to be designed so that either "high is good" or "low is good"; I've never cared for this type of blended system.

Conclusion

In my opinion, this system goes a long way towards solving the most glaring statistical problems with the T/E mechanic. But it remains fussy and is now unintuitive to boot. At the end of the day, I think that there are far easier and more intuitive ways to produce the same information. Nor do I think that the designer is likely to make what he'll see as a fundamental change to his precious system. So good luck on that; maybe I'll be wrong.

 

[tbeard1999]

Then why bother? Seriously - just take some time out.

That fact that I'm tired of re-explaining things to one person does not mean I'm tired of discussing problems in the system.

If you keep talking yourself into an aggrieved (and somewhat aggressive) state, all you are going to do is turn people off from what you've got to say.

<shrug>

Facts are facts. I do not trouble myself worrying that some folks may be so foolish as to ignore facts because they don't like the messenger.

And I am not losing sleep over this. The market will make the final judgment on MGT, and I am willing to abide by its judgment. I'm fairly confident that the game will ultimately crash and burn if it goes out with the current task and combat systems. As a Traveller fan, I'd hate for that to happen. But life goes on. On the other hand, I feel sufficient regard for Traveller and MWM to at least attempt to identify serious flaws in the game before it goes out. And for all the reasons I noted earlier, I do not think that it's wise to risk a lot of money on uncritical feedback from the Mongoose Traveller forum. So I'll continue making noise as long as I think there's a reason to do so.

What I will not do is waste time re-explaining points that I feel I've covered in sufficient detail.

 

[Echo]

Why do you think this is helping anybody? Like I say, if you happy to stand by your 'facts' then just do so.

No need for all the hostility.

 

[Klaus]

Facts are facts. I do not trouble myself worrying that some folks may be so foolish as to ignore facts because they don't like the messenger.

Would you mind looking at my alternative analysis and suggested fix that's posted over on the Mongoose boards, then?

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=33185

I would welcome a rigorous critique.

 

[Foxroe]

As a Traveller fan, I'd hate for that to happen. But life goes on. On the other hand, I feel sufficient regard for Traveller and MWM to at least attempt to identify serious flaws in the game before it goes out.

How much say/pull does MWM actually have with the mechanical aspects of RTT? Anyone know? I only ask because I find it odd that his T5 task system (whether you like it or not) seems to be very well thought out and statistically analyzed. I'm surprised that the same treatment hasn't been given to the Mongoose Traveller task system.

-Fox

 

[hunter]

Why do you think this is helping anybody? Like I say, if you happy to stand by your 'facts' then just do so.

No need for all the hostility.

Echo you are borderline trolling and thread crapping. Stop.

 

[tbeard1999]

Would you mind looking at my alternative analysis and suggested fix that's posted over on the Mongoose boards, then?

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=33185

I would welcome a rigorous critique.

As I read it, your idea would be to uncap the effect die (i.e., the maximum roll can now exceed 6 or be lower than 1, depending on modifiers). Then a 4- is defined as a bad result and a 9+ is defined as a great result).

Statistically, these are the outcomes for successes:

-2 Modifier
Poor (4-): 100%
Average (5-8): 0%
Excellent (9+): 0%

-1 Modifier
Poor (4-): 60%
Average (5-8): 40% EDIT: Note the big jump from -2 to -1 here
Excellent (9+): 0%

No Modifier
Poor (4-): 40%
Average (5-8): 60%
Excellent (9+): 0%

+1 Modifier
Poor (4-): 29%
Average (5-8): 71%
Excellent (9+): 0%

+2 Modifier
Poor (4-): 19%
Average (5-8): 81%
Excellent (9+): 0%

+3 Modifier
Poor (4-): 10%
Average (5-8): 70%
Excellent (9+): 20%

+4 Modifier
Poor (4-): 0%
Average (5-8): 64%
Excellent (9+): 36%

+5 Modifier
Poor (4-): 0%
Average (5-8): 49%
Excellent (9+): 51%

+6 Modifier
Poor (4-): 0%
Average (5-8): 31%
Excellent (9+): 69%

Comments:

As you noted in your explanation, a +3 is necessary for an excellent result. So on an unmodified roll, the player will get either a poor result or an average result. Don't know how much players are gonna care for this. Further, most of the time, the system will yield 2 possible results. Is it really worth the trouble of fiddling with it to get one of two results? Also, I do not like the fact that there are different effect break points on failures and successes. That seems to be way too fussy to me. ON the positive side, the better you are, the better you tend to do, so the statistics don't deeply offend me.

Failures work out like this:

-2 Modifier
Bad (0-) 60%
Regular (1-4) 40%
Marginal (5+) 0%

-1 Modifier
Bad (0-) 29%
Regular (1-4) 67%
Marginal (5+) 5%

No Modifier
Bad (0-) 0%
Regular (1-4) 81%
Marginal (5+) 19%

+1 Modifier
Bad (0-) 0%
Regular (1-4) 60%
Marginal (5+) 40%

+2 Modifier
Bad (0-) 0%
Regular (1-4) 36%
Marginal (5+) 64%

+3 Modifier
Bad (0-) 0%
Regular (1-4) 34%
Marginal (5+) 83%

The statistics look better than the current system, with my caveats and reservations noted above.

I think that your system will have similar challenges as sablewyvern's system -- it won't "feel" right to players, despite its statistical superiority to the current system. And I'm not sure that the additional fussiness is really worth the effort.

If I had to choose, I'd very marginally prefer sablewyvern's system. But I'll try them both out in some sample gaming situations, so my opinion could change.

 

[tbeard1999]

How much say/pull does MWM actually have with the mechanical aspects of RTT? Anyone know? I only ask because I find it odd that his T5 task system (whether you like it or not) seems to be very well thought out and statistically analyzed. I'm surprised that the same treatment hasn't been given to the Mongoose Traveller task system.
-Fox

Just my opinion, but I doubt seriously that he's involved at all. I don't think that a designer of MWM's experience and accomplishments would make the kinds of basic errors that are found in the MGT task system. He was first and foremost a wargame designer and wargames force you to look more carefully at mechanics than RPGs typically do. (Wargamers are much harder to please in my experience and far more likely to be critical of design decisions). I'm an old school wargamer, in case it isn't obvious...

I also think that he understands that the RPG trend is away from fiddly combat systems and task systems. Even if he disagrees with this statement, I think he is astute enough to recognize that GURPS Traveller and to a lesser extent T20 have this space already covered.

So, he's probably taking a hands off approach. That would be my strategy if I were a licensor. Let them do it their way (as long as they make their license payments on time). It's their money. Of course, if I read a draft of the proposed rules, I'd try to get as much up front as possible...

All IMHO, of course.

 

[Klaus]

Thankyou, sir.

I'm quite happy with those stats. The rest is more a matter of taste, I guess. Personally I don't see it as any more fussy, as for in it's probably most common incarnation, combat, you're just taking the number as is. For the other tasks, the Ref is going to interpret what the result actually looks like. Atm, the ref is looking at a number threshold. All I'm doing is substituting '1-2' with '4 or less', and '5-6' with '9 or more'.

(And it is the point of T/E that the player gets a choice over whether the result is better but slower or faster but not as good.)

I think it all depends on the stakes. The ref should make the player aware what the possible outcomes might be. It won't take long for them to realise the general rule that the better the mod the more likely the better results occur, success or fail.

ref: "The net modifier is +2. The max possible Effect is 8, the minimum is 3. Roll..."

 

[tbeard1999]

Thankyou, sir.

I'm quite happy with those stats. The rest is more a matter of taste, I guess. Personally I don't see it as any more fussy, as for in it's probably most common incarnation, combat, you're just taking the number as is.

I should've been clear on what I meant. In most respects, your system seems about as fussy as the original system. However, since you break differently depending on success or failure (ie, on a failure, the break points are 0-, 1-4, 5+; while on a success the break points are 4-, 5-8, 9+), your system is marginally more fussy. If you don't mind the current system's fussiness, I don't think your system will alter that. So I wouldn't make too much of my assertion that it's more fussy.

 

[Klaus]

I should've been clear on what I meant. In most respects, your system seems about as fussy as the original system. However, since you break differently depending on success or failure (ie, on a failure, the break points are 0-, 1-4, 5+; while on a success the break points are 4-, 5-8, 9+), your system is marginally more fussy. If you don't mind the current system's fussiness, I don't think your system will alter that. So I wouldn't make too much of my assertion that it's more fussy.

Well, that's the taste test, innit?

Given that Timing is already making the execution of a task fussier (ie: can only act when Timing is 6), a lil' bit more for effect doesn't hurt me. I like the added detail and grit it gives me. But that's just me.

Having said that, in a way it reduces fussiness, as you don't have to roll damage. 2 rolls become 1.

Less times you have to roll the dice, the less times you drop one on the floor and have to scrabble around on the carpet looking for it.

 

[Sturn]

Thanks for the analysis Tbeard.

The system is extremely unintuitive. Now, high rolls are good, but really high rolls are bad.....

What you end up wanting is the lowest possible roll that still succeeds. I agree this is different then what most players expect. This is counter to most game systems and would take a game session to get a hang of.

At the end of the day, I think that there are far easier and more intuitive ways to produce the same information...

I agree. I prefer a system where the higher I roll over a target number, the more successful I am.

But, Mogoose is not going to totally revamp its system. They are going to stay with 2D6 with timing/effect no matter what happens. I don't want to house-rule an entire NEW system when I'm playing Mongoose Traveller. What I was hoping for is a tweak to the system that could be accepted by some who feel the current rules are broken.

 

[tbeard1999]

But, Mogoose is not going to totally revamp its system. They are going to stay with 2D6 with timing/effect no matter what happens. I don't want to house-rule an entire NEW system when I'm playing Mongoose Traveller. What I was hoping for is a tweak to the system that could be accepted by some who feel the current rules are broken.

I guess it will depend on why someone feels the current rules are broken. I can see two major objections to the system:

If you (like me) dislike the current system because it yields dubious results then you will find much to like in either of the alternative systems proposed here.

If you (like me) dislike the current system because you consider it to be too fussy -- i.e., the information produced is not worth the hassle -- you won't be happy with the new systems either.

Although, one out of two is better than none out of two.

My problem is that I can easily conceive of alternative systems that will provide the same information as the T/E system with a lot less trouble. I've been candid throughout the discussion -- I don't like the T/E system because I don't think its fun. The statistical absurdities just added insult to injury (and, I think, raised legitimate questions about the competence of the designers).

That said, I have no problem agreeing that either of these solutions appears to resolve the most glaring statistical issues. It's a tough call; sablewyvern's system seems less fiddly than klaus's system, but klaus's system seems more intuitive than sablewyvern's system.

I'll be very curious to see if either system gains any traction with current fans of the system. For grins, I predict that they'll be more likely to go for klaus's system just because high rolls in his system are unambiguously good. However, I'm skeptical that either one will attract much attention. A shame, since both are markedly superior to the current system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Along with this I've offered a suggested way to fix the skewing of results, one that fits exactly with the concept in the playtest doc. (And in fact 'fixes' another issue too, weapon damage).

I have added a rational that IMHO makes sense and is reasonable.

Now, it just needs to be tested to destruction.

One of the aggrevating problems, though, for us Traveller GMs who can plainly see that the MGT system is broken is that Mongoose is not listening.

So, MGT will be published with the flaws, and GMs who recognize the flaw, post publication, will have to make their own fixes.

I object to the milktoast game system being published in the first place.

Why not publish a good game system?

 

[Klaus]

While I have no expectations whatsoever that my or anyone else's fix is going to be adopted by MGT, it is probably incorrect to assume that the current playtest doc is going to be the same as the published one.

They may have already fixed it to their and statistical satisfaction. Just because they haven't shared it with a public playtest forum does not mean it is not happening.

There have been the odd comments from Mongoose Control saying they are looking at some issues that have been raised, but so far these have not appeared in the latest playtest doc. This doesn't necessarily mean they are ignoring them.

In fact, it does not make good business sense to reveal your 95% ready product in a public place that is mainly populated by your first customers.

So even if you are skeptical it's still worth waiting and seeing.

But I'm an optimist at heart...

 

[tbeard1999]

While I have no expectations whatsoever that my or anyone else's fix is going to be adopted by MGT, it is probably incorrect to assume that the current playtest doc is going to be the same as the published one.

I've been told that this is what happened with Runequest. But Runequest still wound up with some pretty dubious changes.

Personally, I can't see the benefit in playing Hide the Ball with your playtesters. If they do this, I'll be even less impressed with their business acumen... (Unless, of course, they do exactly what I personally want and ditch both the initiative system and the damage system... )

 

[Supplement Four]

They may have already fixed it to their and statistical satisfaction.

What TBeard said immediately above.

Plus: From what I've seen of the previous work, Mongoose isn't doing a lot of statistical analysis to begin with.

 

[casquilho]

I can only hope and wait.

Daniel