Who PLAYED IT but doesn't like it. (Classic Traveller)

[Supplement Four]

Why not just use STR as the second characteristic too? I don't know if the UTP allows that, but it certainly ought to. Every so often you run into a problem that only one attribute influences.

It seems "wrong" double referencing a single stat, but, hey if it works for you...

The results are the same in the example, btw, even though both characters are different physically.

Which is one of the reasons I stick with the CT task system over a structured one.





And...here's something else that neat about the CT task system that structured systems don't model as well.

Let's say you've got a gunshot wound to the head, but the patient ain't tits-up yet.

On hand, you've got the Ship's doctor (EDU-A, Medic-3), and, one of the passengers happens to be a specialist (EDU-A, Medic-5).

The specialist works on these types of wounds all the time. The ship's doctor doesn't.

The GM decides it's a Impossible difficulty throw to save the patient. To keep it consistent, the CT GM calls for a 19+ throw, DM +2 if EDU 9+.

So, the throw is the same for each version of the game--the only different factor is the medical training of the doctors.

In MT, with it's structured task system, each of the two will do these throws...



MT Structured Task System....

Ship's Doctor: 2D for 19+; DM +2 EDU, DM +3 Skill. Throw Not Possible.

Passenger Specialist: 2D for 19+; DM +2 EDU, DM +5 Skill. 2D for 12+.



Shouldn't the Ship's Doctor at least have a chance of saving the patient, however small? Can't he get lucky?

With the CT Task System...he can...



CT Non-Structured Task System...

Where, the GM calls for a throw to save the patient of: 2D for 19+; DM +2 if EDU 9+; DM +2 per level of Medical Skill.

So, now you have...

Ship's Doctor: 2D for 19+; DM +2 EDU, DM +6 Skill. 2D for 11+.

Now, the Ship's Doctor has a chance, although it is a very, very low one.

As for the specialist that deals with these types of wounds all the time...

Passenger Specialist: 2D for 19+; DM +2 EDU, DM +10 Skill. 2D for 7+.




Conclusion...

Under the structured task system used in MT, the Ship's Doctor, even though a full MD with Medic-3, has zero chance saving the patient.

He should have a small, fractional chance.

Under the customized CT system, the Ship Doc does get a very small chance to save the patient.





Under the structured task system used in MT, the Passenger Specialist who sees these types of wounds all the time has a very small chance of saving the patient.

Under the customized CT system, the Specialist has about a 50% chance, which is more to what one would expect in the situation (depending on the patient's condidtion, of course, but the GM controls that with difficulty and modifiers for enviornment and such).



I know why people like the MT system. It's easy. It's a good system. And, you don't have to remember much.

But, the CT system offers so much more to the game. Customized results, created specifically for the situation at hand--not one-size-fits-all mechanics.

 

[tbeard1999]

Then you doubt that I exist.

I absolutely loath every task system I have ever seen... why would I pollute a game I like with one?

Hail, fellow Traveller. I too have little use for all "universal" task systems. I've generally found that, like in the real world, something that tries to do everything usually can't do anything particularly well. So I've been ambivalent about the Traveller universal task system fetish for decades.

 

[mike wightman]

The ref makes it up - the only one true task system

 

[aramis]

S4: there are a great many things that SHOULD be impossible. Solid task systems make it clear where the boundary is. And your MT example is wrong. asset 5 (Stat 2 skill 3) can make a 19+ "impossible" task... by taking extra time, and reducing it to Formidable 15.

Your dislike of MT frequently seems to cause you to misrepresent it in examples by ignoring parts of it.

The DGPCT, 2300, & MT task system seems to be built upon labels for Skill 1 (DM+1) and Stat 5-9 (DM+1). Automatic no roll. Simple 3+; only a nat 2 fails no matter what. Average 7+, this means a n5+ makes, n3+ if extra time, n9+ if hasty. Difficult is 11+, meaning a n9+ is needed, n5+ on extra time. Formidable is doable with skill 1 stat 5-9... 15+ means it can't be done without extra time, but then extra time is 11+. Impossible tasks are 19+ base, even with extra time (15+ needed), no natural roll will make for Skill 1 stat 1 (needs a n13+, not possible on 2d); an extra skill level or a stat 10+ makes the task possible on a n12+. Many GM's allow a nat 12 to always succeed. The labels are sensible given the CT/MT definition of Skill 1 as employable.
(The n#+ means natural roll of # or higher.)

 

[Supplement Four]

S4: there are a great many things that SHOULD be impossible. Solid task systems make it clear where the boundary is.

Um...the GM can decide that. And, I don't buy your assertion that the task presented in my example cannot be even done by an Medical-3. The MD should have a chance...while the task system says there is no chance.

And your MT example is wrong. asset 5 (Stat 2 skill 3) can make a 19+ "impossible" task... by taking extra time, and reducing it to Formidable 15.

This is a side track comment. It doesn't address my point above at all. It's an attempt to confuse the issue.

I was keeping the example simple.

We're talking about a long operation here, so either the +4 bonus you're giving is already factore into the task (i.e. he's already taking extra time), or extra time cannot be taken because they can't keep the patient under that long.

Your dislike of MT frequently seems to cause you to misrepresent it in examples by ignoring parts of it.

My dislike? Did you miss my recent post where I said MT was one of the best Traveller systems produced to date, even with all the errata?

Prolly so.

I know the MT task system quite well, having used it for years (albeit I'm rusty, because it has been a while).

Again, though, you're just clouding the issue.

Which is...

CT encourages the GM to create a specific throw, tuned to the situation at hand, where as that just can't be done with MT's one-size-fits-all task system.

CT is quite superior in this regard. Even you should admit that (by saying something like, "What you gain in customization with CT is not worth all the extra info you have to learn with skills being treated differently").

 

[aramis]

No, S4, it's an apparent attempt on your part to keep the issue from being accurately portrayed. You set a base task, of 19+, and under the stock MT task rules, you have the option to double the time taken and take a 4 point reduction in difficulty.

I'm NOT saying it's a better system than yours, I'm saying you're misrepresenting MT.

 

[Supplement Four]

No, S4, it's an apparent attempt on your part to keep the issue from being accurately portrayed. You set a base task, of 19+, and under the stock MT task rules, you have the option to double the time taken and take a 4 point reduction in difficulty.

I'm NOT saying it's a better system than yours, I'm saying you're misrepresenting MT.

This is nit-picking the example, and taking it off the point. So add to my example the sentence: Extra time cannot be taken on this task because the patient cannot be kept under for the extra time needed without risking brain damage.

Now...the example goes back to where I set it originally, and the UTP is represented accurately.

So, the example stands.

(Geez!)

 

[aramis]

No, S4, it doesn't. Without the specified time increment for the MT task, and a deadline for when the patient dies, it's still possible that a lucky time roll could result in beating the limit... unless the limit is short enough that it might not permit even a full difficulty roll.

 

[Supplement Four]

No, S4, it doesn't. Without the specified time increment for the MT task, and a deadline for when the patient dies, it's still possible that a lucky time roll could result in beating the limit... unless the limit is short enough that it might not permit even a full difficulty roll.

What-ev-er.

 

[beowulf2044]

On the topic of 'who played it but didn't like it', I started out when there was only one Traveller. Over time, it became more clunky, with new systems introduced that gave you choices, but were seldom any improvement (Classic-Azhanti-Striker combat systems, etc). Bits and pieces came from all directions, with many disparate sources being 'Approved for use with Traveller'. And no one I'd ever met had ever played Traveller straight out of the box; everyone house-ruled-home-brewed their own little universes.

Mega Traveller was reported to be a consolidation of the Traveller universe. I really didn't like it or the way it was poorly put together.

Now, I look back 30+ years ago and see Traveller as a a nacent effort back when role playing was new. But as a rule system, I didn't find it all that great then, and I certainly don't think so now. But we really had far fewer choices availible to us.

Happily for me, I found a system that I find superior that works quite well for me.

 

[BlackBat242]

S-4... you and I are among those that really believe in K.I.S.S.!

Others have a compulsive, near-religious belief that complicated automatically means better.

Many of those also need the security that confining, straight-jacketing rules provide, and cannot tolerate free-flowing "Ref decides" game systems.

After all, the ref might rule differently this time than he did last session... and if he does the universe will end!!

The perfect example is the Rulemaster... er... the Rollmaster... I mean Rolemaster system (Spacemaster in its Sci-Fi incarnation). A rule (actually 4 or 5) for each possible situation, and 2 or 3 tables for each action/result.

Which means that a combat that takes 3-4 minutes in a CT game (or AD&D 1E) takes 10-15 minutes in Spacemaster (or the Fantasy variant of the RM system).


And woe betide the Ref who says "ok, you look up the business name and address in the phone book, look at the map in front and go to the business"... as the "task system junkie" will demand that the character check his info systems skill vs his Edu to see if he can use the local phone book system, then verify that his land navigation skill vs his Int allows him to make effective use of the map... followed by an orienteering skill vs Int check to insure the character doesn't get confused and lost en-route.

Meanwhile, the CT player & ref have already played out the character getting to the business, dealing with the proprietor, and has him well on the way back to his ship... all before the "task system junkie" has gotten his character to the front door of the business.

 

[mike wightman]

What-ev-er.

Careful S4 - all Aramis is doing is showing you how the MT task system would really handle your medic scenario since you got it a little bit wrong.

Changing the scenario so you can't use the 'take more time' part of the task system? Shame on you

That said I agree with you completely but for a slightly different reason.

Looking up all the ramifications of the MT task system takes time, looking up every skill in the CT book to make sure you are doing it right also takes time.

Ignore both - ref makes it up is the best 'system' there is.

When I am running a game and the players are trying to do stuff they always suceed at tasks that further the plot in some way, randomly succeed at other stuff that may lead to plot developments and I never let them get away with stupid stuff.

The dice are there to give the illusion that the players have a choice in this lol.

 

[aramis]

Mike:
The time roll and the difference with hasty and cautious attemps are in the player's guide to tasks. It's part of the first things I teach a new player. I hand them a photocopy of the Player's Guide to tasks, because, as a GM, it means I don't HAVE to look in the book. I think and label the task based upon skill 1 stat 7, and a median time, and let them decide to take the risk or not. If they have the skill, I don't even make them commit until after the base task is announced.

Knowing about time rolls is part of knowing how to play T2300/2300AD and MT, and using the DGP-CT addon. It's like knowing Take-10/Take-20 in d20, or KO'd when 2 stats are at 0 for CT/MT/T4/MGT.

 

[Icosahedron]

S-4... you and I are among those that really believe in K.I.S.S.!

Me too, to a point.

After all, the ref might rule differently this time than he did last session... and if he does the universe will end!!

The universe won't end, but it will be inconsistent - which IMHO is almost as bad, and if it gets too inconsistent, the universe might really end - when the players walk out. I like a few guidelines, but Rule 68A is about as far as I'd want to go.

The perfect example is the Rulemaster... er... the Rollmaster... I mean Rolemaster system (Spacemaster in its Sci-Fi incarnation). A rule (actually 4 or 5) for each possible situation, and 2 or 3 tables for each action/result.

Which means that a combat that takes 3-4 minutes in a CT game (or AD&D 1E) takes 10-15 minutes in Spacemaster (or the Fantasy variant of the RM system).

Now the desirability of this depends on how important combat is to your game. If you wanted the ultimate in simplicity you could just compare one roll and the winner wins the fight, but there's not much drama in it. Sometimes you might want to figure the exact details of injuries, etc.

Ignore both - ref makes it up is the best 'system' there is.

When I am running a game and the players are trying to do stuff they always suceed at tasks that further the plot in some way, randomly succeed at other stuff that may lead to plot developments and I never let them get away with stupid stuff.

The dice are there to give the illusion that the players have a choice in this lol.

Hmm, maybe the dice are there to prevent players from becoming puppets in your story? A structure helps prevent the GM from inadvertently railroading a game.

However, I like a fast-flowing free-form system myself. The rules are there to support the GM, not the other way around.

 

[Supplement Four]

S-4... you and I are among those that really believe in K.I.S.S.!

Yessir, you are correct. When I create House Rules, I always strive for the most simple rule that specifically addresses the issue.

I used to be one of those players who saw a complicated system and said, "Wow! It covers EVERYTHING!! If I swing to the right, I use this modifier, but if my character swings to the left, this modifier is used because he's right handed and swinging against the side he's weakest!"

Then, I played a couple of games like that...and it took FOREVER.

Viola. I became a KISS player.



True story: My group and I love the D6 Star Wars system. It's one of the best systems ever written. But, it does have a flaw. It's a simple system in most aspects, but when it comes to actions, the game plays like this...

Roll initiative.

Person with initiative goes, but only does first action.

Then everybody goes, in initiative order, only doing first action.

Then the person with initiative goes and does second action.

Then everybody else goes, in initiative order, doing section actions.

Then third actions.

Then fourth actions.

etc.

Plus, you have to declare all of your actions BEFORE YOU make your first action, in the old style way.



Let me tell you something. This is BORING! Actual play runs like this:

Hey, it's your turn. You've got initiative.

Me? Cool. My character peeks around the corner, blasts at the stormtroopers, takes two steps to the other side of the door and fires a second shot from cover on the right side of the door....oh, and I'll flip off the stormtroopers as I take my two or three steps across the doorway.

Fine. But, that's four actions (doable in Star Wars). I'll give you the bird you shoot at the stormtroopers as a free action. But, you can only do one action.

So, you peek around the corner...

Next player.



This segmented type of game IS NOT FUN. We play Star Wars pretty much as written, but we couldn't abide by this round sequence. So, we House Ruled the combat round more like Traveller and other games. Everybody does all of their actions in initiative order.

And, when a player does what he does described above (really had a player do that...we all laughed when he shot the bird), it's smooth and fits better. Makes the game more interesting.

Steve, it's your turn to go. What does Alternon do?

He peeks around the corner.

Ok, he sees some of the men in white rounding the bend in the corridor. Four of them. Walking in formation like the four corners of a box. They don't react to you, so they probably don't see you.

Well, I'm going to blast them. (He rolls to-hit. He scores. He takes one out.)

Whoooo-hoooo! Alternon screams. He moves across the doorway, flipping off the remaining three troopers as he changes corners, and I'll use my last action to blast 'em one more time.

Fine, that will be your fourth action. You're -3D on the dice. Take a shot...



This is so much more fun, to run the game like this, than it is to only allow the player a segment of his turn.

KISS is correct, sir.

Careful S4 - all Aramis is doing is showing you how the MT task system would really handle your medic scenario since you got it a little bit wrong.

No sir. I was well aware of the Hasty and Cautious aspects of the UTP when I wrote the scenario. I did not include them because they would only complicate the point I was trying to make.

Discussing the ins-and-outs of the UTP is not the point. It's obvious that I could have made the scenario impossible for the Ship's Doctor.

Aramis insisting that I "don't like" or "ignored" all the aspects of the UTP is incorrect. I do like the system very much, and I did consider Hasty and Cautious when I wrote the scenario (skipping, them, as I just said, in the interest of example brevity and clarity).

Araims going on about is an effort to pull the focus away from the point, which is: The CT system's strength is that the GM can match a throw specifically with the situation, and MT's UTP can't do that.

Looking up all the ramifications of the MT task system takes time, looking up every skill in the CT book to make sure you are doing it right also takes time.

Ignore both - ref makes it up is the best 'system' there is.

Essentially, that's what CT's system is (as I'm sure you know, Sigg).

The examples in the CT skill descriptions are just that...examples.

If a CT GM calls for a 2D for INT or less check for a charcter to notice an alien spider on the ceiling of the old ruin on one game session, an then calls for a 2D for 8+ throw usings DMs +2 if INT 9+, + Recon skill. That's OK!

There may be different conditions that calls for the different throws!

Heck, the GM could call for a 2D for INT or less check using Recon to increase INT for that throw....or whatever throw the GM thinks fits the situations.

That's the beauty of the CT system. It's not meant to be consistent. It's meant to be specific to the situation.

And...

The CT GM can call for whatever throw he thinks is needed, so, sometimes the GM may even use the MT UTP task system!

Or the T4 system...or MGT's system...or the UGM...Rule 68A.

Heck, sky's the limit.

Whatever fits the situation is what's appropriate for CT.

The dice are there to give the illusion that the players have a choice in this lol.

Spoken like a true GM. I often strive to give my players the illusion that things are random or not pre-ordained, too.

That illusion of free-will is very important in a game.

 

[Supplement Four]

...it means I don't HAVE to look in the book.

I have to agree with Wil, here. If you play something enough--anything--you just memorize things like this. AD&D was much more complicated than the UTP, and back in the day, we all knew by heart when STR damage bonuses started kicking in...that a +4 attack bonus was given to the back, +2 to the sides....free attack if one disengaged from combat...etc.

It's nothing to memorize the UTP and it's various "what if" contengencies if you use the system a lot.

Of course, the same goes for the rules listed in the Traveller Book, especially in the skill description section. I rarely have to look them up because I've memorized many of the rules for each skill. It's not daunting to me to look at, say, Vacc Suit, and see the DMs suggested for a particular roll.

It's all about familiarity.

 

[aramis]

Due to the disparate methodologies, inconsistent DM's, etc, I was never able to get that level of familiarity with CT.

I was able to hit the closed-book GMing in a couple sessions with MT. 's why I won't go back.

 

[Whipsnade]

Due to the disparate methodologies, inconsistent DM's, etc, I was never able to get that level of familiarity with CT.

Aramis,

Let me ditto that. All those DMs in CT and all scattered about too. It was nearly impossible to locate and collate them. MT's task system isn't perfect, none are, but it was an immediate and substantial improvement over the "fistful of DMs" method in CT.

I was able to hit the closed-book GMing in a couple sessions with MT. 's why I won't go back.

Same here. We didn't and I won't. A task system lets me simply "slide" the difficulty rating back and forth without dealing with a dozen or more DMs. Sliding the difficulty rating was faster and my players felt it was fairer too.


Regards,
Bill

 

[atpollard]

Let's say you've got a gunshot wound to the head, but the patient ain't [DEAD] yet.

On hand, you've got the Ship's doctor (EDU-A, Medic-3), and, one of the passengers happens to be a specialist (EDU-A, Medic-5).

The specialist works on these types of wounds all the time. The ship's doctor doesn't.

In MTU, I would look at the above situation and say to the ship's doctor: "A gunshot to the head is pretty final, so no real chance to fix that, but since you are on the scene and have both good skill and good education, I'll give you a small chance - roll a 12 to save 'em."

And to the specialist: "Did you really roll Medic-5?" (in CT) followed by "since you are even better, Wonder doc can roll an 11+ to save 'em." If you both work together, I'll give you one roll of 10+."

[All of those numbers were pulled out of thin air and based on gut guestimates of what feels right and would be fun in the game. I don't need a Universal system more complex than 'roll 8+ on 2D6 and adjust it based on relative dificulty'.] (which is basicly the 68A system)

 

[tbeard1999]

I don't need a Universal system more complex than 'roll 8+ on 2D6 and adjust it based on relative dificulty'.][/I] (which is basicly the 68A system)

Agreed. I don't particularly object to universal task systems, but I don't consider them particularly valuable either. I am pretty certain I won't buy a game mainly because of its task system.

I do, however, object to fiddly task systems for the same reasons I object to fiddly rules -- they often suck both the enjoyment and the "realism" out of a game.

Here is a diagram that expresses my opinion on the interaction of complexity and realism. It was originally done for players of my miniature wargame rules, but I think it applies equally well to RPGs. (Thanks to Justin for reminding me of it.)