The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
OMG, WTF is CTI and UGM? I need answers PDQ, FYI.
UGM vs. CTI vs. MT/DGP
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
OMG, WTF is CTI and UGM? I need answers PDQ, FYI.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
RTFF, Baron! (That's Read The Full Forum, DYK!)
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
RTFF, Baron! (That's Read The Full Forum, DYK!)
I still like the MT/DGP task system, mostly because I honestly am a creature of habit and I've liked it since I first saw it back in the late 80's.
I don't have a problem with people using other systems, though, so long as it encourages people to play Traveller, so more power to you.
For me, though, when it's 2d6, it's MT/DGP that has my preference. I may be the minority voice here, but I'm okay with that.
As always, it's MTU vs YTU, and YMMV.
Keep On Travellin',
Flynn
I don't have a problem with people using other systems, though, so long as it encourages people to play Traveller, so more power to you.
For me, though, when it's 2d6, it's MT/DGP that has my preference. I may be the minority voice here, but I'm okay with that.
As always, it's MTU vs YTU, and YMMV.
Keep On Travellin',
Flynn
I still like the MT/DGP task system, mostly because I honestly am a creature of habit and I've liked it since I first saw it back in the late 80's.
I don't have a problem with people using other systems, though, so long as it encourages people to play Traveller, so more power to you.
For me, though, when it's 2d6, it's MT/DGP that has my preference. I may be the minority voice here, but I'm okay with that.
As always, it's MTU vs YTU, and YMMV.
Keep On Travellin',
Flynn
I don't have a problem with people using other systems, though, so long as it encourages people to play Traveller, so more power to you.
For me, though, when it's 2d6, it's MT/DGP that has my preference. I may be the minority voice here, but I'm okay with that.
As always, it's MTU vs YTU, and YMMV.
Keep On Travellin',
Flynn
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Absolutely, Flynn. You gotta go with what blows your hair back.
If I didn't like something, I sure as heck wouldn't use it.
But, like you say, I do find that the affinity to the MT/DGP system is linked with the fact that the sucker has been around for twenty years. People are used to it.
And, when CT didn't have a task system, the MT/DGP system was like seeing that sliced bread was available at the store--you don't have to cut it yourself anymore.
But, let's face it. The MT/DGP system has some problems.
For example, a DEX-10 guy shoots better than a DEX-9 guy.
DEX-10 guy: 2D +2
DEX-9 guy: 2D +1
I'm OK with that. It looks good.
The problem is that the DEX-9 guy doesn't shoot any better than the DEX-8 guy...or the DEX-7 guy...or the DEX-6 guy...or even the DEX-5 guys.
So, let's look at this distribution.
DEX-15: 2D +3
DEX-14: 2D +2
DEX-13: 2D +2
DEX-12: 2D +2
DEX-11: 2D +2
DEX-10: 2D +2
DEX-9: 2D +1
DEX-8: 2D +1
DEX-7: 2D +1
DEX-6: 2D +1
DEX-5: 2D +1
DEX-4: 2D
DEX-3: 2D
DEX-2: 2D
DEX-1: 2D
See that distrubution? Why does it makes sense that between some stat levels the benefit is increased, yet in others, it's the same?
Here's another humdinger for you....look at the DEX-1 guy and the DEX-4 guy! BOTH shoot the SAME!
Both CTI and UGM will correct this problem, very easily, with a 2D task roll. And that task roll will fit very easily into your game.
I mean, I think the benefits of using CTI or UGM over DGP/MT are immense.
But, Brother Flynn, if you're OK with those discrepencies, and want to stay with MT/DGP because that's what you know and are comfortable with, then that's OK by me. Play some Traveller, brother, just like you said, play some Traveller.
Me, I'm going to use one of these systems that makes a little more sense--I mean you're getting a lot of benefit without changing the game a whole lot at all.
We're still talking 2D rolls. We're still talking CT characters with skills and stat levels remaining unchanged. We're still talking a 8+ roll in combat.
Everything is the same except for how you perform the 2D task roll.
For me, changing over to UGM or CTI is a no brainer.
But, believe me, I understand if you don't want to leave the comfort zone of the MT/DGP task system.
I like that task system too--it's just now, there are better options available.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Absolutely, Flynn. You gotta go with what blows your hair back.
If I didn't like something, I sure as heck wouldn't use it.
But, like you say, I do find that the affinity to the MT/DGP system is linked with the fact that the sucker has been around for twenty years. People are used to it.
And, when CT didn't have a task system, the MT/DGP system was like seeing that sliced bread was available at the store--you don't have to cut it yourself anymore.
But, let's face it. The MT/DGP system has some problems.
For example, a DEX-10 guy shoots better than a DEX-9 guy.
DEX-10 guy: 2D +2
DEX-9 guy: 2D +1
I'm OK with that. It looks good.
The problem is that the DEX-9 guy doesn't shoot any better than the DEX-8 guy...or the DEX-7 guy...or the DEX-6 guy...or even the DEX-5 guys.
So, let's look at this distribution.
DEX-15: 2D +3
DEX-14: 2D +2
DEX-13: 2D +2
DEX-12: 2D +2
DEX-11: 2D +2
DEX-10: 2D +2
DEX-9: 2D +1
DEX-8: 2D +1
DEX-7: 2D +1
DEX-6: 2D +1
DEX-5: 2D +1
DEX-4: 2D
DEX-3: 2D
DEX-2: 2D
DEX-1: 2D
See that distrubution? Why does it makes sense that between some stat levels the benefit is increased, yet in others, it's the same?
Here's another humdinger for you....look at the DEX-1 guy and the DEX-4 guy! BOTH shoot the SAME!
Both CTI and UGM will correct this problem, very easily, with a 2D task roll. And that task roll will fit very easily into your game.
I mean, I think the benefits of using CTI or UGM over DGP/MT are immense.
But, Brother Flynn, if you're OK with those discrepencies, and want to stay with MT/DGP because that's what you know and are comfortable with, then that's OK by me. Play some Traveller, brother, just like you said, play some Traveller.
Me, I'm going to use one of these systems that makes a little more sense--I mean you're getting a lot of benefit without changing the game a whole lot at all.
We're still talking 2D rolls. We're still talking CT characters with skills and stat levels remaining unchanged. We're still talking a 8+ roll in combat.
Everything is the same except for how you perform the 2D task roll.
For me, changing over to UGM or CTI is a no brainer.
But, believe me, I understand if you don't want to leave the comfort zone of the MT/DGP task system.
I like that task system too--it's just now, there are better options available.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
The Case for CTI....(comparison to MT/DGP and UGM).
I've said, several times throughout this discussion of UGM and MT/DGP and CTI, and in other threads, that CTI has "more under the hood".
I was doing an example in another thread in which CTI really shined.
I'll share a version of it with you here.
We're going to look at two characters--
Delz INT-4 Electronics-0
Gamm INT-1 Electronics-0
Both of these characters are attempting the same task--they're attempting to figure a re-route of power via a circuit board in the ship's engineering compartment. Both have some rudimentary knowledge of electronics, yet they're of different capability in the natural intelligence department (they have different IQ's).
Delz, obviously, isn't the shapest tool in the shed, but he's functional. There are many Traveller characters out there with Stat-4.
On the other hand, Gamm is a bloomin' idiot. Something happened to him--maybe somebody cut off his air when he was a little kid, and he suffered some brain damage. An INT-1 should be almost unplayable as a character in Traveller. I mean, I could see a player playing him--but it would be a heck of a role playing challenge.
Yet...
BOTH of these characters would roll the SAME THING under the MT/DGP rules.
I will use the same dice roll on each of the examples so that you can see the difference in the systems.
The 2D dice roll results: 2, 2
=======================
The MT/DGP Task system
=======================
Delz rolls 4
Gamm rolls 4
Does that seem right to you? That both of these characters should end up with the same total?
Shouldn't the INT-1 guy be handicapped?
Hmmm.....
Let's see if we get a better outcome with UGM and CTI...
=======================
The UGM Task system
=======================
Delz rolls 4 +1 = 5
Gamm rolls 4
Ah...we've got some differentation. Delz gets his Natural Ability bonus, which raises his score a point over Gamm.
That makes a lot of sense. Delz, with four times the IQ, should be better at this task than Gamm.
So, UGM is doing it's job.
But, I keep saying that CTI can do this job better.
Here's how....
=======================
The CTI Task system
=======================
Under CTI, the first die is the Skill Die, and the second die is the Task Die. Since neither Delz or Gamm has a skill, the only result on the Skill die that will help either of them is if a "6" is rolled.
A "6" didn't occur on the 2D roll above. A "2" did. So, that die is ignored.
Delz rolls 2 +1D
Gamm rolls 2
OK, now we're starting to see why CTI does it's job better.
You see, a "2" resulted on the Task die. Under CTI, if your total is less than your governor stat, you get to re-roll it once.
With Delz, you're going to keep the total of 2 and add another 1D roll to it (for a result of 3-7 or higher....I say higher because 6's are always re-rolled on the Task die).
Gamm, with his INT-1, is always going to roll low. The only way he can get higher than 1D for a task roll is to roll a 1 (which would equal his stat) or a 6 (which are always re-rolled in CTI) or some skill to add to his total.
So, Gamm is not useless. There are means for him to roll higher on tasks (as noted in the preceeding paragrpah). But, the guy is handicapped...as he should be...with his INT-1.
Delz, on the other hand, is consistently going to roll higher than Gamm...and the spread is going to be a lot more than just one point. Delz is probably going to average at least 4 points higher than Gamm.
Isn't that more in-line with their different INT scores?
What was the end result above?
The guy with the INT-1 rolled a lousy total of "2". While the roll by the guy with four times the IQ, the INT-4 guy, ended up with a total that was probably much higher (Delz ended up with 1D +2, and if the 1D was a 6, it will be re-rolled).
The MINIMUM Delz would have ended up with is a 3, which puts him one point above Gamm as in the UGM system--the point being is that CTI will probably let Delz roll A LOT higher than Gamm most of the time.
THAT'S why CTI is a superior task system. It will produce results for you like this in your game consistently.
I like UGM. I do. I think it does it's job well, and it's a much better choice than the DGP/MT task system.
But, if you want the hot-rod, muscle car of these three task systems, then clearly it's CTI.
I've said, several times throughout this discussion of UGM and MT/DGP and CTI, and in other threads, that CTI has "more under the hood".
I was doing an example in another thread in which CTI really shined.
I'll share a version of it with you here.
We're going to look at two characters--
Delz INT-4 Electronics-0
Gamm INT-1 Electronics-0
Both of these characters are attempting the same task--they're attempting to figure a re-route of power via a circuit board in the ship's engineering compartment. Both have some rudimentary knowledge of electronics, yet they're of different capability in the natural intelligence department (they have different IQ's).
Delz, obviously, isn't the shapest tool in the shed, but he's functional. There are many Traveller characters out there with Stat-4.
On the other hand, Gamm is a bloomin' idiot. Something happened to him--maybe somebody cut off his air when he was a little kid, and he suffered some brain damage. An INT-1 should be almost unplayable as a character in Traveller. I mean, I could see a player playing him--but it would be a heck of a role playing challenge.
Yet...
BOTH of these characters would roll the SAME THING under the MT/DGP rules.
I will use the same dice roll on each of the examples so that you can see the difference in the systems.
The 2D dice roll results: 2, 2
=======================
The MT/DGP Task system
=======================
Delz rolls 4
Gamm rolls 4
Does that seem right to you? That both of these characters should end up with the same total?
Shouldn't the INT-1 guy be handicapped?
Hmmm.....
Let's see if we get a better outcome with UGM and CTI...
=======================
The UGM Task system
=======================
Delz rolls 4 +1 = 5
Gamm rolls 4
Ah...we've got some differentation. Delz gets his Natural Ability bonus, which raises his score a point over Gamm.
That makes a lot of sense. Delz, with four times the IQ, should be better at this task than Gamm.
So, UGM is doing it's job.
But, I keep saying that CTI can do this job better.
Here's how....
=======================
The CTI Task system
=======================
Under CTI, the first die is the Skill Die, and the second die is the Task Die. Since neither Delz or Gamm has a skill, the only result on the Skill die that will help either of them is if a "6" is rolled.
A "6" didn't occur on the 2D roll above. A "2" did. So, that die is ignored.
Delz rolls 2 +1D
Gamm rolls 2
OK, now we're starting to see why CTI does it's job better.
You see, a "2" resulted on the Task die. Under CTI, if your total is less than your governor stat, you get to re-roll it once.
With Delz, you're going to keep the total of 2 and add another 1D roll to it (for a result of 3-7 or higher....I say higher because 6's are always re-rolled on the Task die).
Gamm, with his INT-1, is always going to roll low. The only way he can get higher than 1D for a task roll is to roll a 1 (which would equal his stat) or a 6 (which are always re-rolled in CTI) or some skill to add to his total.
So, Gamm is not useless. There are means for him to roll higher on tasks (as noted in the preceeding paragrpah). But, the guy is handicapped...as he should be...with his INT-1.
Delz, on the other hand, is consistently going to roll higher than Gamm...and the spread is going to be a lot more than just one point. Delz is probably going to average at least 4 points higher than Gamm.
Isn't that more in-line with their different INT scores?
What was the end result above?
The guy with the INT-1 rolled a lousy total of "2". While the roll by the guy with four times the IQ, the INT-4 guy, ended up with a total that was probably much higher (Delz ended up with 1D +2, and if the 1D was a 6, it will be re-rolled).
The MINIMUM Delz would have ended up with is a 3, which puts him one point above Gamm as in the UGM system--the point being is that CTI will probably let Delz roll A LOT higher than Gamm most of the time.
THAT'S why CTI is a superior task system. It will produce results for you like this in your game consistently.
I like UGM. I do. I think it does it's job well, and it's a much better choice than the DGP/MT task system.
But, if you want the hot-rod, muscle car of these three task systems, then clearly it's CTI.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
The Case for CTI....(comparison to MT/DGP and UGM).
I've said, several times throughout this discussion of UGM and MT/DGP and CTI, and in other threads, that CTI has "more under the hood".
I was doing an example in another thread in which CTI really shined.
I'll share a version of it with you here.
We're going to look at two characters--
Delz INT-4 Electronics-0
Gamm INT-1 Electronics-0
Both of these characters are attempting the same task--they're attempting to figure a re-route of power via a circuit board in the ship's engineering compartment. Both have some rudimentary knowledge of electronics, yet they're of different capability in the natural intelligence department (they have different IQ's).
Delz, obviously, isn't the shapest tool in the shed, but he's functional. There are many Traveller characters out there with Stat-4.
On the other hand, Gamm is a bloomin' idiot. Something happened to him--maybe somebody cut off his air when he was a little kid, and he suffered some brain damage. An INT-1 should be almost unplayable as a character in Traveller. I mean, I could see a player playing him--but it would be a heck of a role playing challenge.
Yet...
BOTH of these characters would roll the SAME THING under the MT/DGP rules.
I will use the same dice roll on each of the examples so that you can see the difference in the systems.
The 2D dice roll results: 2, 2
=======================
The MT/DGP Task system
=======================
Delz rolls 4
Gamm rolls 4
Does that seem right to you? That both of these characters should end up with the same total?
Shouldn't the INT-1 guy be handicapped?
Hmmm.....
Let's see if we get a better outcome with UGM and CTI...
=======================
The UGM Task system
=======================
Delz rolls 4 +1 = 5
Gamm rolls 4
Ah...we've got some differentation. Delz gets his Natural Ability bonus, which raises his score a point over Gamm.
That makes a lot of sense. Delz, with four times the IQ, should be better at this task than Gamm.
So, UGM is doing it's job.
But, I keep saying that CTI can do this job better.
Here's how....
=======================
The CTI Task system
=======================
Under CTI, the first die is the Skill Die, and the second die is the Task Die. Since neither Delz or Gamm has a skill, the only result on the Skill die that will help either of them is if a "6" is rolled.
A "6" didn't occur on the 2D roll above. A "2" did. So, that die is ignored.
Delz rolls 2 +1D
Gamm rolls 2
OK, now we're starting to see why CTI does it's job better.
You see, a "2" resulted on the Task die. Under CTI, if your total is less than your governor stat, you get to re-roll it once.
With Delz, you're going to keep the total of 2 and add another 1D roll to it (for a result of 3-7 or higher....I say higher because 6's are always re-rolled on the Task die).
Gamm, with his INT-1, is always going to roll low. The only way he can get higher than 1D for a task roll is to roll a 1 (which would equal his stat) or a 6 (which are always re-rolled in CTI) or some skill to add to his total.
So, Gamm is not useless. There are means for him to roll higher on tasks (as noted in the preceeding paragrpah). But, the guy is handicapped...as he should be...with his INT-1.
Delz, on the other hand, is consistently going to roll higher than Gamm...and the spread is going to be a lot more than just one point. Delz is probably going to average at least 4 points higher than Gamm.
Isn't that more in-line with their different INT scores?
What was the end result above?
The guy with the INT-1 rolled a lousy total of "2". While the roll by the guy with four times the IQ, the INT-4 guy, ended up with a total that was probably much higher (Delz ended up with 1D +2, and if the 1D was a 6, it will be re-rolled).
The MINIMUM Delz would have ended up with is a 3, which puts him one point above Gamm as in the UGM system--the point being is that CTI will probably let Delz roll A LOT higher than Gamm most of the time.
THAT'S why CTI is a superior task system. It will produce results for you like this in your game consistently.
I like UGM. I do. I think it does it's job well, and it's a much better choice than the DGP/MT task system.
But, if you want the hot-rod, muscle car of these three task systems, then clearly it's CTI.
I've said, several times throughout this discussion of UGM and MT/DGP and CTI, and in other threads, that CTI has "more under the hood".
I was doing an example in another thread in which CTI really shined.
I'll share a version of it with you here.
We're going to look at two characters--
Delz INT-4 Electronics-0
Gamm INT-1 Electronics-0
Both of these characters are attempting the same task--they're attempting to figure a re-route of power via a circuit board in the ship's engineering compartment. Both have some rudimentary knowledge of electronics, yet they're of different capability in the natural intelligence department (they have different IQ's).
Delz, obviously, isn't the shapest tool in the shed, but he's functional. There are many Traveller characters out there with Stat-4.
On the other hand, Gamm is a bloomin' idiot. Something happened to him--maybe somebody cut off his air when he was a little kid, and he suffered some brain damage. An INT-1 should be almost unplayable as a character in Traveller. I mean, I could see a player playing him--but it would be a heck of a role playing challenge.
Yet...
BOTH of these characters would roll the SAME THING under the MT/DGP rules.
I will use the same dice roll on each of the examples so that you can see the difference in the systems.
The 2D dice roll results: 2, 2
=======================
The MT/DGP Task system
=======================
Delz rolls 4
Gamm rolls 4
Does that seem right to you? That both of these characters should end up with the same total?
Shouldn't the INT-1 guy be handicapped?
Hmmm.....
Let's see if we get a better outcome with UGM and CTI...
=======================
The UGM Task system
=======================
Delz rolls 4 +1 = 5
Gamm rolls 4
Ah...we've got some differentation. Delz gets his Natural Ability bonus, which raises his score a point over Gamm.
That makes a lot of sense. Delz, with four times the IQ, should be better at this task than Gamm.
So, UGM is doing it's job.
But, I keep saying that CTI can do this job better.
Here's how....
=======================
The CTI Task system
=======================
Under CTI, the first die is the Skill Die, and the second die is the Task Die. Since neither Delz or Gamm has a skill, the only result on the Skill die that will help either of them is if a "6" is rolled.
A "6" didn't occur on the 2D roll above. A "2" did. So, that die is ignored.
Delz rolls 2 +1D
Gamm rolls 2
OK, now we're starting to see why CTI does it's job better.
You see, a "2" resulted on the Task die. Under CTI, if your total is less than your governor stat, you get to re-roll it once.
With Delz, you're going to keep the total of 2 and add another 1D roll to it (for a result of 3-7 or higher....I say higher because 6's are always re-rolled on the Task die).
Gamm, with his INT-1, is always going to roll low. The only way he can get higher than 1D for a task roll is to roll a 1 (which would equal his stat) or a 6 (which are always re-rolled in CTI) or some skill to add to his total.
So, Gamm is not useless. There are means for him to roll higher on tasks (as noted in the preceeding paragrpah). But, the guy is handicapped...as he should be...with his INT-1.
Delz, on the other hand, is consistently going to roll higher than Gamm...and the spread is going to be a lot more than just one point. Delz is probably going to average at least 4 points higher than Gamm.
Isn't that more in-line with their different INT scores?
What was the end result above?
The guy with the INT-1 rolled a lousy total of "2". While the roll by the guy with four times the IQ, the INT-4 guy, ended up with a total that was probably much higher (Delz ended up with 1D +2, and if the 1D was a 6, it will be re-rolled).
The MINIMUM Delz would have ended up with is a 3, which puts him one point above Gamm as in the UGM system--the point being is that CTI will probably let Delz roll A LOT higher than Gamm most of the time.
THAT'S why CTI is a superior task system. It will produce results for you like this in your game consistently.
I like UGM. I do. I think it does it's job well, and it's a much better choice than the DGP/MT task system.
But, if you want the hot-rod, muscle car of these three task systems, then clearly it's CTI.
I acknowledge that you like CTI better than UGM and DGP/MT. I acknowledge that you feel that it addresses an area of the rules that you feel is lacking. As it's creator, you should like it better. Duh.
I also agree that we can disagree on this matter, and life is still going to be okay at our different gaming tables.
All I ask is that you please don't feel that you have to somehow attack my reason for enjoying the DGP/MT task system (that I'm used to it because it's been around for a while), just to make a case for your own. It's not appreciated, and it doesn't convince me. You essentially appear to be insinuating that I'm an idiot because I like another task resolution system that has a hole you don't like, and using my simple statement of preference without prejudice to make two rather condescending posts to back up your claims that you have a better task system.
You asked for an opinion. I gave it, and I hopefully gave it without being negative to you or anyone else in the process. Can I receive the same respect in turn?
With Respect,
Flynn
I also agree that we can disagree on this matter, and life is still going to be okay at our different gaming tables.
All I ask is that you please don't feel that you have to somehow attack my reason for enjoying the DGP/MT task system (that I'm used to it because it's been around for a while), just to make a case for your own. It's not appreciated, and it doesn't convince me. You essentially appear to be insinuating that I'm an idiot because I like another task resolution system that has a hole you don't like, and using my simple statement of preference without prejudice to make two rather condescending posts to back up your claims that you have a better task system.
You asked for an opinion. I gave it, and I hopefully gave it without being negative to you or anyone else in the process. Can I receive the same respect in turn?
With Respect,
Flynn
I acknowledge that you like CTI better than UGM and DGP/MT. I acknowledge that you feel that it addresses an area of the rules that you feel is lacking. As it's creator, you should like it better. Duh.
I also agree that we can disagree on this matter, and life is still going to be okay at our different gaming tables.
All I ask is that you please don't feel that you have to somehow attack my reason for enjoying the DGP/MT task system (that I'm used to it because it's been around for a while), just to make a case for your own. It's not appreciated, and it doesn't convince me. You essentially appear to be insinuating that I'm an idiot because I like another task resolution system that has a hole you don't like, and using my simple statement of preference without prejudice to make two rather condescending posts to back up your claims that you have a better task system.
You asked for an opinion. I gave it, and I hopefully gave it without being negative to you or anyone else in the process. Can I receive the same respect in turn?
With Respect,
Flynn
I also agree that we can disagree on this matter, and life is still going to be okay at our different gaming tables.
All I ask is that you please don't feel that you have to somehow attack my reason for enjoying the DGP/MT task system (that I'm used to it because it's been around for a while), just to make a case for your own. It's not appreciated, and it doesn't convince me. You essentially appear to be insinuating that I'm an idiot because I like another task resolution system that has a hole you don't like, and using my simple statement of preference without prejudice to make two rather condescending posts to back up your claims that you have a better task system.
You asked for an opinion. I gave it, and I hopefully gave it without being negative to you or anyone else in the process. Can I receive the same respect in turn?
With Respect,
Flynn
Border Reiver
SOC-14 1K
I will also have to disagree with WJP, the stats flaw in MT is well known but not crippling in play. It is a graceful and fluid system that is both player and ref friendly.
CTI on the otherhand makes impossible tasks by unskilled individuals statistically relatively easy. It removes the sense of risk.
My gaming group have all looked at CTI and think it is definitely inferior in playability to Megatraveller.
You want the perfect guy to screw up and the moron to succeed at the impossible task, fine it's your game but not in mine thanks. And I really dislike assigned dice, rerolls and the whole clunkiness of the system for a few minor statistical tweaks.
So to sum up.
If I play MT, I'll play MT
If I play CT, I'll play CT
If I play TNE, I'll play TNE
And CTI can be left to those that are so really, really, really annoyed with available rules they find them unplayable.
CTI on the otherhand makes impossible tasks by unskilled individuals statistically relatively easy. It removes the sense of risk.
My gaming group have all looked at CTI and think it is definitely inferior in playability to Megatraveller.
You want the perfect guy to screw up and the moron to succeed at the impossible task, fine it's your game but not in mine thanks. And I really dislike assigned dice, rerolls and the whole clunkiness of the system for a few minor statistical tweaks.
So to sum up.
If I play MT, I'll play MT
If I play CT, I'll play CT
If I play TNE, I'll play TNE
And CTI can be left to those that are so really, really, really annoyed with available rules they find them unplayable.
Border Reiver
SOC-14 1K
I will also have to disagree with WJP, the stats flaw in MT is well known but not crippling in play. It is a graceful and fluid system that is both player and ref friendly.
CTI on the otherhand makes impossible tasks by unskilled individuals statistically relatively easy. It removes the sense of risk.
My gaming group have all looked at CTI and think it is definitely inferior in playability to Megatraveller.
You want the perfect guy to screw up and the moron to succeed at the impossible task, fine it's your game but not in mine thanks. And I really dislike assigned dice, rerolls and the whole clunkiness of the system for a few minor statistical tweaks.
So to sum up.
If I play MT, I'll play MT
If I play CT, I'll play CT
If I play TNE, I'll play TNE
And CTI can be left to those that are so really, really, really annoyed with available rules they find them unplayable.
CTI on the otherhand makes impossible tasks by unskilled individuals statistically relatively easy. It removes the sense of risk.
My gaming group have all looked at CTI and think it is definitely inferior in playability to Megatraveller.
You want the perfect guy to screw up and the moron to succeed at the impossible task, fine it's your game but not in mine thanks. And I really dislike assigned dice, rerolls and the whole clunkiness of the system for a few minor statistical tweaks.
So to sum up.
If I play MT, I'll play MT
If I play CT, I'll play CT
If I play TNE, I'll play TNE
And CTI can be left to those that are so really, really, really annoyed with available rules they find them unplayable.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Brother Flynn, whoa there big tiger. You obviously read my "tone" wrong.
I started off my reply to you with--
---------------
Absolutely, Flynn. You gotta go with what blows your hair back.
If I didn't like something, I sure as heck wouldn't use it.
---------------
I wasn't lying about not using something if I didn't like it.
I'm not about forcing an idea down somebody else's throat--which is how it seems you took my replies to you.
I was just trying to make a strong argument for something I believe in, game-wise.
If you don't use it, that's great by me.
If you do use it, then that's great by me too.
I mean, Brother Flynn, I don't get paid anything if you use it or if you don't.
I created it. I like it. I think it works wells, and it does its job.
It's there if you want to use it.
I welcome input.
And, I wasn't trying to be a prick.
I apologize if you took me that way, but no slight was intended.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Brother Flynn, whoa there big tiger. You obviously read my "tone" wrong.
I started off my reply to you with--
---------------
Absolutely, Flynn. You gotta go with what blows your hair back.
If I didn't like something, I sure as heck wouldn't use it.
---------------
I wasn't lying about not using something if I didn't like it.
I'm not about forcing an idea down somebody else's throat--which is how it seems you took my replies to you.
I was just trying to make a strong argument for something I believe in, game-wise.
If you don't use it, that's great by me.
If you do use it, then that's great by me too.
I mean, Brother Flynn, I don't get paid anything if you use it or if you don't.
I created it. I like it. I think it works wells, and it does its job.
It's there if you want to use it.
I welcome input.
And, I wasn't trying to be a prick.
I apologize if you took me that way, but no slight was intended.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I like MT. I've said it a few times in these task discussions. I'd probably still use it if there wasn't a better system to use.
MT is a "graceful, fluid system that is both player and ref friendly".
I agree.
CTI provides a probability of 2.55% for a Stat-7 Skill-0 character of rolling an Impossible task.
That's just a hair less of a chance than rolling snakes eyes on 2D.
You think that removes the risk?
You think that's relatively easy?
Just curious, from a constructive criticism point of view, what do and your group think is playably inferior to MT?
I don't want to make the same mistake Flynn did in reading my tone wrong, but you're definitley coming across to me with a bit of anger.
Did I do something to upset you?
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I like MT. I've said it a few times in these task discussions. I'd probably still use it if there wasn't a better system to use.
MT is a "graceful, fluid system that is both player and ref friendly".
I agree.
CTI provides a probability of 2.55% for a Stat-7 Skill-0 character of rolling an Impossible task.
That's just a hair less of a chance than rolling snakes eyes on 2D.
You think that removes the risk?
You think that's relatively easy?
Just curious, from a constructive criticism point of view, what do and your group think is playably inferior to MT?
I don't want to make the same mistake Flynn did in reading my tone wrong, but you're definitley coming across to me with a bit of anger.
Did I do something to upset you?
Border Reiver
SOC-14 1K
My bad, forgot to put the smileys in, meant that the game is there, the rules aren't that bad.
2.55% doesn't seem great probability but seems quite high for an unskilled person at an impossible task. More than one in a hundred chance and they crop up nine times out of ten.
We playtested CTI with two seperate adventures. Played F2F, on one day. The first adventure was Twilights Peak. Everyone knew the adventure, no mystery involved, everyone of us a 20 plus year Traveller vet. It was being used to adjust to the ruleset. Already the first arguments began, "so the red is skill and white the task or the other way round? Wait look I rolled a double five and I fail? No I want to keep rolling because I want to see how many more sixes I can hit." Seems childish but manging change at an RP session makes restructuring a multi-national company look easy.
Second session we used Rapid Repo from MT Journal. CTI fitted in nicely with the Megatraveller ruleset but colour confusion continued (idiots but they'll not mind me saying, we had by this time added alcohol to the equation). So we tried 1D rolled twice, skill then task. This slowed things down. Additional rolls added to the general clunkiness but I can honestly say that what annoyed most was the skill roll. Those with level 3 & 4 skills were annoyed that a second roll of 1 or two was less than previous skill DMs and a high roll of 5 was a fail.
Just to add we have our own house fix for MT attribute failings we have used for years and years.
ATT 2-4 gives -1DM
ATT 5-7 no DM
ATT 8-A gives +1DM
ATT B-E gives +2DM
ATT F gives +3DM
Not much difference really but we're all quite happy with it.
As far as snake eyes is concerned as someone that plays Traveller and rolls as many dice a you have done you must know that probability never seems to equate with what is actually rolled.
Keep with it, it works for you and it will work for others. I think it is a good system otherwise we wouldn't have tested it but not for our group. We are going to give it one more chance though, this time there will be a brainstorming beforehand to see if there are any modifications we can think of ( and not just let's stick with MT
).
But it will be at least another week before the next shot and we will let you know how it goes. Remember we are all open to change, we played CT and loved it, we went with MT and adored it and took on TNE because we knew T2000 well and loved it too. Quite frankly if this became an official task system I think that no-one would blink at it, it is good. It just needs time. I don't know how much playtesting it has actually underwent but we will test to destruction.
Gotta call, gotta go
2.55% doesn't seem great probability but seems quite high for an unskilled person at an impossible task. More than one in a hundred chance and they crop up nine times out of ten.
We playtested CTI with two seperate adventures. Played F2F, on one day. The first adventure was Twilights Peak. Everyone knew the adventure, no mystery involved, everyone of us a 20 plus year Traveller vet. It was being used to adjust to the ruleset. Already the first arguments began, "so the red is skill and white the task or the other way round? Wait look I rolled a double five and I fail? No I want to keep rolling because I want to see how many more sixes I can hit." Seems childish but manging change at an RP session makes restructuring a multi-national company look easy.
Second session we used Rapid Repo from MT Journal. CTI fitted in nicely with the Megatraveller ruleset but colour confusion continued (idiots but they'll not mind me saying, we had by this time added alcohol to the equation). So we tried 1D rolled twice, skill then task. This slowed things down. Additional rolls added to the general clunkiness but I can honestly say that what annoyed most was the skill roll. Those with level 3 & 4 skills were annoyed that a second roll of 1 or two was less than previous skill DMs and a high roll of 5 was a fail.
Just to add we have our own house fix for MT attribute failings we have used for years and years.
ATT 2-4 gives -1DM
ATT 5-7 no DM
ATT 8-A gives +1DM
ATT B-E gives +2DM
ATT F gives +3DM
Not much difference really but we're all quite happy with it.
As far as snake eyes is concerned as someone that plays Traveller and rolls as many dice a you have done you must know that probability never seems to equate with what is actually rolled.
Keep with it, it works for you and it will work for others. I think it is a good system otherwise we wouldn't have tested it but not for our group. We are going to give it one more chance though, this time there will be a brainstorming beforehand to see if there are any modifications we can think of ( and not just let's stick with MT
). But it will be at least another week before the next shot and we will let you know how it goes. Remember we are all open to change, we played CT and loved it, we went with MT and adored it and took on TNE because we knew T2000 well and loved it too. Quite frankly if this became an official task system I think that no-one would blink at it, it is good. It just needs time. I don't know how much playtesting it has actually underwent but we will test to destruction.
Gotta call, gotta go
Border Reiver
SOC-14 1K
My bad, forgot to put the smileys in, meant that the game is there, the rules aren't that bad.
2.55% doesn't seem great probability but seems quite high for an unskilled person at an impossible task. More than one in a hundred chance and they crop up nine times out of ten.
We playtested CTI with two seperate adventures. Played F2F, on one day. The first adventure was Twilights Peak. Everyone knew the adventure, no mystery involved, everyone of us a 20 plus year Traveller vet. It was being used to adjust to the ruleset. Already the first arguments began, "so the red is skill and white the task or the other way round? Wait look I rolled a double five and I fail? No I want to keep rolling because I want to see how many more sixes I can hit." Seems childish but manging change at an RP session makes restructuring a multi-national company look easy.
Second session we used Rapid Repo from MT Journal. CTI fitted in nicely with the Megatraveller ruleset but colour confusion continued (idiots but they'll not mind me saying, we had by this time added alcohol to the equation). So we tried 1D rolled twice, skill then task. This slowed things down. Additional rolls added to the general clunkiness but I can honestly say that what annoyed most was the skill roll. Those with level 3 & 4 skills were annoyed that a second roll of 1 or two was less than previous skill DMs and a high roll of 5 was a fail.
Just to add we have our own house fix for MT attribute failings we have used for years and years.
ATT 2-4 gives -1DM
ATT 5-7 no DM
ATT 8-A gives +1DM
ATT B-E gives +2DM
ATT F gives +3DM
Not much difference really but we're all quite happy with it.
As far as snake eyes is concerned as someone that plays Traveller and rolls as many dice a you have done you must know that probability never seems to equate with what is actually rolled.
Keep with it, it works for you and it will work for others. I think it is a good system otherwise we wouldn't have tested it but not for our group. We are going to give it one more chance though, this time there will be a brainstorming beforehand to see if there are any modifications we can think of ( and not just let's stick with MT ).
But it will be at least another week before the next shot and we will let you know how it goes. Remember we are all open to change, we played CT and loved it, we went with MT and adored it and took on TNE because we knew T2000 well and loved it too. Quite frankly if this became an official task system I think that no-one would blink at it, it is good. It just needs time. I don't know how much playtesting it has actually underwent but we will test to destruction.
Gotta call, gotta go
2.55% doesn't seem great probability but seems quite high for an unskilled person at an impossible task. More than one in a hundred chance and they crop up nine times out of ten.
We playtested CTI with two seperate adventures. Played F2F, on one day. The first adventure was Twilights Peak. Everyone knew the adventure, no mystery involved, everyone of us a 20 plus year Traveller vet. It was being used to adjust to the ruleset. Already the first arguments began, "so the red is skill and white the task or the other way round? Wait look I rolled a double five and I fail? No I want to keep rolling because I want to see how many more sixes I can hit." Seems childish but manging change at an RP session makes restructuring a multi-national company look easy.
Second session we used Rapid Repo from MT Journal. CTI fitted in nicely with the Megatraveller ruleset but colour confusion continued (idiots but they'll not mind me saying, we had by this time added alcohol to the equation). So we tried 1D rolled twice, skill then task. This slowed things down. Additional rolls added to the general clunkiness but I can honestly say that what annoyed most was the skill roll. Those with level 3 & 4 skills were annoyed that a second roll of 1 or two was less than previous skill DMs and a high roll of 5 was a fail.
Just to add we have our own house fix for MT attribute failings we have used for years and years.
ATT 2-4 gives -1DM
ATT 5-7 no DM
ATT 8-A gives +1DM
ATT B-E gives +2DM
ATT F gives +3DM
Not much difference really but we're all quite happy with it.
As far as snake eyes is concerned as someone that plays Traveller and rolls as many dice a you have done you must know that probability never seems to equate with what is actually rolled.
Keep with it, it works for you and it will work for others. I think it is a good system otherwise we wouldn't have tested it but not for our group. We are going to give it one more chance though, this time there will be a brainstorming beforehand to see if there are any modifications we can think of ( and not just let's stick with MT
). But it will be at least another week before the next shot and we will let you know how it goes. Remember we are all open to change, we played CT and loved it, we went with MT and adored it and took on TNE because we knew T2000 well and loved it too. Quite frankly if this became an official task system I think that no-one would blink at it, it is good. It just needs time. I don't know how much playtesting it has actually underwent but we will test to destruction.
Gotta call, gotta go
