Underwhelmed

[tbeard1999]

Well...it DOES look A LOT like the UGM... (Except they changed my Stat mods...)

Virtually any task roll system that uses an 8+ to succeed on 2d6 would resemble the UGM, seems to me. If you start with 2d6 and 8+ as your base resolution mechanic, the population of effective mechanics becomes rather small.

However, the "roll 8+ to succeed on 2d" mechanic was not the mechanism that was supposed to be so wonderful. The wonderous mechanic was to be the timing and effect die mechanic.

And it's the timing and effect mechanic that's broken.

 

[Supplement Four]

Virtually any task roll system that uses an 8+ to succeed on 2d6 would resemble the UGM, seems to me. If you start with 2d6 and 8+ as your base resolution mechanic, the population of effective mechanics becomes rather small.

Yep. That's how the UGM started out. I wanted all tasks successful on 8+. I wanted to use 2D6.

And, I wanted to use CT chargen, which meant characters had few skills. You would come up with different modifiers (for success chance reasons) if a character had more skills. With few skills, as what happens in CT, you're right--there isn't a lot of choice if you want your tasks to fall in a certain successchance percentage category.

This is, in a way, a complement to Mongoose for using few skills. They could have gone hog wild, like later Traveller has been leaning, giving characters more and more skills, breaking a 2D6 system.

 

[travlar]

It would probably be better to use the amount past 8 instead of using an effect die.

 

[Zparkz]

Riiiiight.

UGM is 2D for 8+ for success.

UGM's difficulty numbers are:

Easy +4
Routine +2
Standard +0
Difficult -2
Challenging -4
Formidable -6
Insane -8
Impossible -10

Now, what about that is closer to the UTP than the UGM? What, the UTP and the Mongoose system both use 2D6?

The Mongoose system IS the UGM except for how they implement stats (which, under their method, overweights stats at the sufferance of skills).

Sure, the UTP is closer to the Mongoose system than the UGM (facetious).

In what way?

Now I haven't read up on UGM, but the task system of Mt seems easier to remember. Rather than having all the math and remembering DMs I prefer to have the difficulties a number you need to beat than having a long list of DMs I need to remember to adjust for difficulty.

The task system in MGT seems to be equally cumbersome.

 

[Supplement Four]

Now I haven't read up on UGM, but the task system of Mt seems easier to remember.

The UGM is quite easy to remember.

All tasks succeed on a roll of 8+.

Average difficulty is a +0 DM modifier. Harder difficulties move down in two's (-2, -4, -6...etc). Easier difficulties move up in two's (+2, +4, +6...etc).

I, personally, think that's much easier to remember than the UTP's non-intuitive 3+, 7+, 11+, 15+ difficulty numbers.

 

[aramis]

Ah, but MT's 3/7/11/15/19 progression is used for both difficulties and mishaps, and is readily memorable in use. It steps by 4 each step.

 

[scout_harris]

I, personally, think that's much easier to remember than the UTP's non-intuitive 3+, 7+, 11+, 15+ difficulty numbers.

Start at 3 and go up by 4 is way easier for me to remember.

 

[jcrocker]

Ah, but MT's 3/7/11/15/19 progression is used for both difficulties and mishaps, and is readily memorable in use. It steps by 4 each step.

MT's task rolls were good. I've got those rules still. And the TNE rules. And some LBBs. So I can pick what rules I want to use.

Last thing I need is a new rules set. If Mongoose puts out some other stuff, I'd have a look at that, but I can guarantee I will not be buying their rule set.

 

[beeber]

thanks tbeard, for running those numbers on the timing/effect system. i know that if i had used it, it would probably have taken a while before i clicked on that oddity.

 

[Allensh]

version 3 of the playtest doc is up. Weapon damage is now a base amount added to a multiplier of the effect die. Not sure if I like that or not, but I'll try it out and see.

The draft includes starship construction for ships up to 2,000 tons. Looks like an updated Book 2 system. They were smart and don't even address the size of the computers, just what they do. (There are rules for computers in the equipment section; they just imply that the computers for ships are the same but with increased capacity).

Also has rules for making critters, and various additions and tweaks. The whole NCO-Officer rank things seems better explained.

Allen

 

[tbeard1999]

version 3 of the playtest doc is up. Weapon damage is now a base amount added to a multiplier of the effect die. Not sure if I like that or not, but I'll try it out and see.

It won't work any better than the other system. In some ways, it will be worse, in others a little better, but it will still stink up the joint.

The problem is that basing damage on the effect die is defective because the whole timing/effect die system is statistically absurd. Until the designer gets this through his head, the system will stink.

And using multiples for damage will significantly reduce the game's ability to make meaningful distinctions between weapons. And damage will *still* be very predictable because the statistical qualities of the timing/effect mechanic tend to yield highly predictable results (see my previous posts on this).

Also, it adds yet more fiddliness -- now the players have to do multiplication and addition (i.e., a Rifle multiplies the effect die by 2, then adds two to damage), in addition to subtraction due to armor.

All this effort is there to try to salvage a clearly defective mechanic that the designer should have caught at the beginning.

I am less impressed, if that is possible. It appears clear to me that the designer has no intention of (a) fixing the obvious defects in the core mechanic (though candidly, I don't think they can be fixed); or (b) replacing the obviously defective mechanic with a mechanic that actually works.

I doubt I'd buy a software package I *knew* wouldn't run. Hard to see how I'd see a game any differently.

 

[atpollard]

Hard to see how I'd see a game any differently.

Perhaps the dead tree version will have lots of pretty pictures that you might like.

atpollard
eternal optimist

 

[Supplement Four]

Also, it adds yet more fiddliness -- now the players have to do multiplication and addition (i.e., a Rifle multiplies the effect die by 2, then adds two to damage), in addition to subtraction due to armor.

I agree. This is one of the things that is turning me off of MGT.

I spoke with MWM once, just after T4 came out. We were discussing a "fix" I did for T4 called KB2.0. I had some multiplcation in that task system (you had to do it one time only, though, for each character. Multiply one time and forget.), and he said, "I don't like players having to multiply or divide things. Summing is so much easier."

Although KB2.0 had a one-time multiplcation thingy, I completely understood what Marc said. He made a lot of sense. And, no task system I've designed has used multiplication since.

I don't think it's a good idea to require multiplication every time damage is rolled at all.

 

[tbeard1999]

I agree. This is one of the things that is turning me off of MGT.

I spoke with MWM once, just after T4 came out. We were discussing a "fix" I did for T4 called KB2.0. I had some multiplcation in that task system (you had to do it one time only, though, for each character. Multiply one time and forget.), and he said, "I don't like players having to multiply or divide things. Summing is so much easier."

Although KB2.0 had a one-time multiplcation thingy, I completely understood what Marc said. He made a lot of sense. And, no task system I've designed has used multiplication since.

I don't think it's a good idea to require multiplication every time damage is rolled at all.

Oh, and going to multiples will also dramatically increase the extra damage caused by modifiers to the effect die, in the case of larger weapons. In other words a +2 to hit modifier will now add 2 points of damage to a pistol, 4 points of damage to a rifle and 6 points of damage to a laser rifle. Ick.

 

[tbeard1999]

They have fixed (or attempted to fix) some things that annoyed me:

1. The reenlistment rolls have been reworked, but it's still far too difficult to last 4 terms in action-oriented careers. A character will survive 4 terms in the Marine Ground Assault career about 6.8% of the time. In Support, he'll survive 4 terms about 57% of the time. So the system is still defective in my opinion, but not as badly. The problem is that the 2d6 system is too granular to reasonably model the survival differences between a "risky" job and a non-Risky job, especially if the designer wants modifiers to be available for high attributes. Here's the evidence -- if the survival roll is 3+, a character has a 92% chance of lasting 4 terms. If the survival roll is 4+, a character has a 77% chance of lasting 4 terms. If the survival roll is 5+, a character has a 58% chance of lasting 4 terms. If the survival roll is 6+, a character has a 38% chance of lasting 4 terms. If the survival roll is 7+, a character has a 7% chance of lasting 4 terms.

So there just isn't that much room for distinctions to be made in a 2d6 system.

2. They have dramatically increased the cost of Jack of All Trades in the point based chargen system. Good, but it's still too easy to create min-maxed characters. I'd require that at least 40% of points be spent on attributes and 40% on skills.

3. The starship design system looks okay, though ships only go to 2000 tons. I'd like a system allowing ships to range to 5000 tons (and drives to let me get them to Jump-4).

Unfortunately, these modest improvements are greatly offset by the designer's continuing insistence on using the badly defective Timing/Effect mechanic, the baroque, gamey and annoying combat sequence, and the fussy and pointless damage system.

 

[tbeard1999]

Oh, and the awful initiative die system will also be used for starship combat with even more absurd results. Traveller assumes reaction drives, which means that ships behave realistically (i.e., they don’t stop moving when thrust is no longer applied, etc.). The initiative system is strikingly inappropriate for such a situation. Sigh.

 

[tbeard1999]

I just worked thru the damage resolution system. Here are the discreet steps:

1. Determine effect die.
2. Add modifiers to effect die.
3. Multiply modified effect die total by 1-4 depending on weapon.
4. Add damage bonus of weapon.
5. Subtract armor from damage.

Huh.

Add/subtract, multiply, add then subtract.

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how a reasonable game designer could conclude that this is a good way to do things...

 

[Al_Beddow]

1. Determine effect die.
2. Add modifiers to effect die.
3. Multiply modified effect die total by 1-4 depending on weapon.
4. Add damage bonus of weapon.
5. Subtract armor from damage.
...
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how a reasonable game designer could conclude that this is a good way to do things...

mmm... d20...
Roll damage
- if crit roll extra damage
Roll damage for special attacks (sneak attack doesn't get crit multiplier)
apply bonuses
subtract DR
Apply to hit points..

GURPS...
roll damage
subtract dr

Ok, two different systems, two different ways...

Personally, I prefer armor reducing the damage as it goes through. It doesn't make you any harder to BE hit, but keeps damage from going through.

The multiplying thing can be obnoxious

 

[tbeard1999]

I figured out a better way to churn the numbers, and here are the results:

Here are the odds of rolling a success and rolling the indicated result on each die (percentages rounded to nearest 1%):

No Modifier
2-: 7%
3-4: 33%
5+: 60%

+1 Modifier
2-: 5%
3-4: 24%
5+: 71%

+2 Modifier
2-: 0%
3-4: 20%
5+: 81%

-1 Modifier
2-: 10%
3-4: 50%
5+: 40%

-2 Modifier
2-: 17%
3-4: 83%
5+: 0%

So...if I make an unmodified roll, and it succeeds, each die has a 60% chance of being a 5 or higher. The chance of both dice being 5+ is 36%. The chance of neither dice being 5+ is 16%.

Note the tremendous difference between a -1 and a -2. A roll at -1 has a 40% chance of being an exceptional success. A roll at -2 has NO chance of being an exceptional success.

In fact, the exceptional success is the most likely possibility for any roll with a modifier of 0 or more and a 40% chance for a roll at -1. But at -2, an exceptional success is impossible.

And here are the chances of rolling at least one 5+:

No modifier: 84%
+1: 91%
+2: 96%
-1: 64%
-2: 0%

Does this look like a good distribution of results for an RPG?

 

[sablewyvern]

I may have a possible solution to your concerns, tbeard, that maintains Timing/Effect, but skews the odds in favour of better results on easier tasks, and worse results on harder tasks. As a bonus, it also removes the need to ever apply modifiers to Effect -- you just read the natural value.

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=469247#469247