T4 Only: What was best about T4?

[Cryton]

Perhaps I should elaborate.

In reading McPerth’s reply above, perhaps I am assuming too much. Please forgive me for taking a moment to elaborate on T4’s task and combat system, for those who may not be as familiar with it.

In earlier Traveller products, to succeed at a skill, or task, (including to succeed in a “to hit” roll in combat,) a player would have to roll dice, (typically 2d6,) and achieve a pre-determined number, or greater. In T4, by contrast, to succeed in a skill, or task, (including a “to hit” roll,) the player would have to roll dice and achieve a pre-determined number, or lower.

For example, if you wanted to break into a computer system, had a skill of computer-2, and an intelligence of 8, in T4 you would have to roll a (8+2) = 10 or less. If it was a “normal” computer system, you might have to roll 2d6. If the computer system you were trying to break into was more formidable, the referee might have the player roll 3d6 instead, because the task is more difficult. Obviously it’s far easier to roll 10 or less on 2d6, (with an average of 7,) than it is on 3d6, (with an average of 11.) In T4, this is how the skill system simulated easier and more difficult tasks – instead of adding modifiers to the number you rolled, they added, (or subtracted,) dice to make the outcome less, (or more,) likely.

Combat in T4 was handled in a similar fashion. To achieve a successful hit, a player had to roll a target number or less. But instead of subtracting a modifier from a roll due to range, in T4 the longer the range, the more dice were required for the roll, thus making the outcome less likely at longer ranges.

In the poll above, more people seem to like the concept of how the task system worked in T4 better than how the same system was applied to combat. I’m just curious if anyone had any insight as to why.

One of the issues with the system of Attribute derived task numbers, at least for me, was when my players would get a great dexterity or really, any great attribute that wasn't Endurance. What I mean by that is: "hey look, I have a base of 10 + skill level that I have to roll under". With the average skill level on the characters being 3 to 6 levels in their chosen specialty, unless the task was 5 or more dice, there was no challenge for them, especially in their chosen roles.

Did I mention, my players like the Iron Man option for character generation? It ensured that no one survives without good stats. Despite that, they made me switch to a MT/CT hybrid after a few sessions because they didn't like the whole roll-low mechanic, despite how easy it was for me as a GM. T4 tasks were way to easy for them, and they like a challenge in their Sci-fi.

A few things they did love, and they mirrored my own likes of T4, the Psionics system, Pocket Empires, and the Milieu 0 setting.

 

[robject]

"hey look, I have a base of 10 + skill level that I have to roll under".

This is what broke T4 for me: I usually used 2 dice with tasks. Maybe I didn't read the rules closely enough. Anyway, it put too much power in characteristics, and characters didn't get enough levels in skills to counterbalance that. So a 1 in each skill was all you needed -- after that focus on Dexterity and Intelligence.

...come to think of it, that's sort of like how Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 worked...

 

[Cryton]

...come to think of it, that's sort of like how Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 worked...

Well, It was the way 1st and 2nd ed proficiency's worked. 3.5 was much more like MgT1's stat mod + skill level vs a difficulty number.

 

[robject]

Well, It was the way 1st and 2nd ed proficiency's worked. 3.5 was much more like MgT1's stat mod + skill level vs a difficulty number.

Ah, ok.

<genx>Meh, whatever.</genx>

 

[aramis]

Did I mention, my players like the Iron Man option for character generation? It ensured that no one survives without good stats. Despite that, they made me switch to a MT/CT hybrid after a few sessions because they didn't like the whole roll-low mechanic, despite how easy it was for me as a GM. T4 tasks were way to easy for them, and they like a challenge in their Sci-fi.

A few things they did love, and they mirrored my own likes of T4, the Psionics system, Pocket Empires, and the Milieu 0 setting.

I'll note that, around the same time, I was running MT &/or TNE, with a significant overlap of players. (Cryton and I lived a block apart at the time.) in my games, they didn't take the ironman option, instead using MT/TNE's stock "short term and out", but at the same time, several picked Vilani characters... some with esoteric focuses. (The General focused on brawling, for example.)

If a game was too easy as written, given the stock tasks (and they WOULD inquire as to whether it was stock or GM set), AND the stock labels, if it felt wrong, they'd complain. I had a second game, and it changed about monthly as to what it was, and would gleefully do a one-shot or two-shot of various other games. Lots of complaints about T4. Both as Cryton ran it, and as I did.

In salvaging the wreck of the T4 campaign, I switched to a 3d6+Asset 1 + Asset 2 for 5/10/15/20/25/30, with Asset either being a skill's level, or 1/2 an attribute (rounded down). Max DM +15.

I've not run T4 since. (Next main game was Cyclopedia D&D, then D&D 3.0, then T20 playtest, then EABA playtest...)

 

[David Johansen]

I liked the streamlined and efficient integrated system they attempted to create, oh there were loads of problems but the alternative is T5. I really wish T5 was more like T4 in this regard.

So, I don't mind the dice as difficulty levels but I feel you really need half dice to make it work. T5 is proof enough with its endless use of modifiers because the whole die is too large to represent every circumstance that might bear on the task. If you don't like the half dice count two half dice as a whole die and one as +/-2.

I liked character creation very much but the 4 skills per term when taken in context with +1 attribute personal development modifiers makes aging too weak. T4 characters needed to suffer more from aging.

Combat was okay in principle except that there is no chance of penetrating superior armor. There isn't even a range where there's a chance. Armor 6 will always stop damage 6, plain and simple. I like the idea of resolving penetration before rolling damage but I think the attack roll needs to figure into it. Possibly just adding 1 damage for every 3 points below the margin of success would work or setting some damage rating related margin. You wouldn't want it to be too complex but the attack roll shouldn't be more important than the damage rating.

The dice pools in combat were just poorly thought out and out of place.

Starship combat and QSDS were okay but it would have been nice if QSDS was built using Fire Fusion and Steel.

Pocket Empires is neat as a concept but terrible in practice. The last thing Traveller needs are extensions to the UPP code.

 

[robject]

In salvaging the wreck of the T4 campaign, I switched to a 3d6+Asset 1 + Asset 2 for 5/10/15/20/25/30, with Asset either being a skill's level, or 1/2 an attribute (rounded down). Max DM +15.

I switched to percentile-roll-low, with the target percentage equal to characteristic x skill level, and difficulty a percentage penalty.

Unsatisfying and inelegant.

 

[aramis]

I switched to percentile-roll-low, with the target percentage equal to characteristic x skill level, and difficulty a percentage penalty.

Unsatisfying and inelegant.

My 3D variation of MT's worked rather well... not enough to make the rest of the T4 system (which I also disliked) worth the effort; the one thing I really felt worthwhile (psionics) imported easily into MT.

 

[mike wightman]

How to fix T4/5 task system part 57

Fixed target numbers - I suggest 8 and 12

Roll 2d

For everything that makes the task harder add an extra die and take lowest 2 dice.

Skill, equipment, sufficiently high characteristic add +DM

 

[Jame]

I liked the character generation system, and with a bit of tweaking the task mechanic was neat.

 

[ManOfGrey]

Penetrating armor in T4.

Combat was okay in principle except that there is no chance of penetrating superior armor. There isn't even a range where there's a chance. Armor 6 will always stop damage 6, plain and simple.

I don't know if this is going off subject just a little, but there is a way around your "conundrum" about penetrating superior armor in the T4 rules set. You may make a called shot. In fact, you can make two different types of called shots. The theory is you are taking a penalty "to hit" in order to do extra damage by aiming at a vital area.

Taking a -5 penalty "to hit" results in x2 damage.
Taking a -9 penalty "to hit" results in x3 damage.

It is my understanding of the rules that these multipliers are applied to the damage rating before armor values are applied. So, in your example, if you scored a hit with a -5 penalty, your 6d6 weapon would do 12d6 damage. Against rigid armor, you would subtract the 6 armor value of your example, leaving 6d6 of damage to be applied to the character. I assume the 3d6 maximum damage rule would come into play at this point.

Is this mechanism something along the lines of what you were suggesting? Regardless, I hope you can find the information useful and it makes the game more enjoyable.

PS Ooops...I lied.

"Attacks to cause double damage suffer a -5 DM, but if successful, they double the damage rating of the attack. Attacks to cause triple damage suffer a -9 DM, but if successful, they triple the damage rating of the attack. The referee will decide if armor protects the targeted area. If so, the armor rating is subtracted from the normal dice code before the doubling or tripling occurs." -- p. 58

You told me so. Sorry.

PPS If this helps...if the target was wearing flexible armor, then 6 points (not dice) of damage would get through, and that would double to 12 points.

 

[David Johansen]

My understanding was that it only applies to partial armor.

 

[mike wightman]

Wrong interpretation I'm afraid.
Page 59:

The referee will decide if armor protects the targeted area. If so, the armor rating is subtracted from the normal dice code before the doubling or tripling occurs.

 

[David Johansen]

Okay, you are right and I am wrong.

 

[McPerth]

My understanding was that it only applies to partial armor.

Wrong interpretation I'm afraid.
Page 59:

Okay, you are right and I am wrong.

As I see it, both of you can be right. If the armor is partial, then is where the first part (bold) applies. If the armor is not partial, it should always apply.

The referee will decide if armor protects the targeted area. If so, the armor rating is subtracted from the normal dice code before the doubling or tripling occurs.

(bold is mine)