After the MGT debacle, T5 may not look so bad...

[tbeard1999]

No one is arguing that your methodology doesn't do what you think it does.

What we're saying is we don't feel that what it does is accurate.

Many of us really would rather have that Dex 15 Navy Corpsman cutting the bullet out than the dex 3 skill 4 fumbling old GP with 40 years of practice, and quite possibly a case of parkinsons... But when it comes to which drugs, I'd rather have the medical 2 intern...

Medical practice is one area where most games ARE unrealistic, and it is so for reasons of playability.

Which would you rather have shooting at you: Dex 3 ACR 4, or Dex15 ACR 2.
I want Mr. Parkinsons shooting... he's more likely to miss on the first shot.

And yes, I do equate Dex 3 with early onset parkinsons, or mild Muscular Dystrophy, or cerebral palsy. Dex 2 is noticeable, and dex 1 is barely functioning, stumbling as he walks, and barely able to hold onto the walker....

Yes, but this is a bit of a straw man, isn't it? I don't think that anyone seriously argues that someone with cerebral palsy or MD or Parkinson's would have a hard time shooting a gun, whatever his skill.

The question is whether you'd prefer a DEX 4 doctor with Medical-5 over a DEX 10 corpsman with Medical-1.

Admittedly, the optimum ratio of attributes to skills is subjective. But Supp 4 is correct that relatively low net modifiers will "break" the 2d6 system by making actions effectively impossible or effectively automatic. This is a fact that the designer needs to take into account when designing modifiers regimes for any game.

But I do notice that the US Army (for instance) has a training program that turns out highly capable snipers in a relatively short period of time and as far as I know, the program works with soldiers of average ability (for soldiers that it). James Dunnigan says that a highly capable sniper can be produced after firing about 500-600 rounds on the range.

The key seems to be discipline and systematic training, not hand-eye coordination.

So I'd submit that the attribute component in shooting a gun is minimal.

Indeed, I think that most non-physical activities have a relatively minimal attribute component, when we start talking about professional levels of competence (level-3 in CT).

As a lawyer, I've found that an extremely high IQ has little to do with competence. An above average IQ is arguably required to get through law school and handle the amount of reading required in practice. But successful lawyers win by hard work, superior experience, and overconfidence of their opponents. I suspect that the same is true of most professions. That seems to me to be the real world definition of a purely skill-based activity, rather than a blended (skills and attributes) activity.

Now, truly gifted people do seem to be able to master a skill quicker. And they can more or less fake a low level of competence in the absence of real training. But in a modern society, expertise is what you usually get paid for, not raw intelligence, strength, coordination, etc. This seems to me to argue rather strongly for minimal attibute influence on most skill checks.

That said, from personal experience, I believe that physical qualities like size, reach and stamina have a profound effect on physical talents like boxing, judo and tae kwon do. So I wouldn't object to a system that weighs physical attributes heavily in a melee system. In my personal experience, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" is pure BS.

 

[tbeard1999]

There's something strange a-happen' insida me...

I wasn't excited about T5 at all. I felt, from what I'd seen, it was based "too much" on T4. But, now, MGT has exploded, with all its not-so-greatness into my view, and I don't like it. I don't like it at all.

The "strange change" a-happen' insida me is that--now, stop the presses and hold the phone--I'm actually looking forward to see what T5 has to offer.

Me too. You know everything's relative. I don't care for broccoli, but if faced with the choice of broccoli or fried chitterlings, I'd yum broccoli up.

You're probably just recognizing that you're unlikely to be as dissatisfied with T5.

And really...the T4 damage system is excellent and easily adaptable to CT. If you can (as I did) make your peace with the fact that the players have to knwo what the target's armor is. The combat rules are pretty good as well. One could do FAR worse.

 

[Foxroe]

I think that so long as people buy the CD, read through the material, dissect it, and offer up their suggestions (with some implementation) and errata (with complete implementation), then the potential for T5 to be the "Ultimate Traveller" is great.

That is what I'm looking forward to.

If all else fails, I'll still have my LBB's.

-Fox

 

[tbeard1999]

If the task statement says:

To repair jump drive coil.
(Dex + Engineering) > Difficult (3D)

and:

Character A has Dex-9 and Engineering-2
Character B has Dex-7 and Engineering-3
Character C has Dex-5 and Engineering-4

Character A only has a 23.9% chance of success. He should leave it to characters B & C because the repair is just too risky (in fact the chances that a failure will be catastrophic for A are much better than B & C's chances considering the "56" rule).

I haven't seen the character rules, so I may be missing something. If the roll is DEX+Engineering, then Character A has to roll 11- on 3d6, yes? Character B has to roll 10- on 3d6 and Character C has to roll 9-.

But that can't be right, because you just indicated that A only has a 23.9% chance of success. Does A's lower engineering skill independently make the task harder?

 

[Lizard_SF]

I haven't seen the character rules, so I may be missing something. If the roll is DEX+Engineering, then Character A has to roll 11- on 3d6, yes? Character B has to roll 10- on 3d6 and Character C has to roll 9-.

But that can't be right, because you just indicated that A only has a 23.9% chance of success. Does A's lower engineering skill independently make the task harder?

I believe that if difficulty>skill level, you add 2 dice.

So if you have engineering-1 and need to do a 2d task, you actually roll FOUR dice. This makes skill level more important than stats in all but extreme cases.

So, Dex 9, Engineering-1=10 total. Against even a 2D task, you'd need to roll <10 on 4D. On a 1D task, you can't fail. If you had engineering 2, you'd roll 2d and would fail only on an 11 or 12. Etc.

(I could see modifying this so that you add dice equal to difference between the difficulty and your skill level, so skill 2 trying task 3 is +1D, skill 2 trying task 4 is +2D, and so on...)

 

[aramis]

I haven't seen the character rules, so I may be missing something. If the roll is DEX+Engineering, then Character A has to roll 11- on 3d6, yes? Character B has to roll 10- on 3d6 and Character C has to roll 9-.

But that can't be right, because you just indicated that A only has a 23.9% chance of success. Does A's lower engineering skill independently make the task harder?

Depending upon which draft, you add extra dice for having a base difficulty that exceeds skill level.

So, for a 1d task, it's (draft dependent) 2d or 3d vs Stat+skill if skill level is 0.
For a 2d task, its either 3 or 4d vs stat +skill if level is 0 or 1
for 3d, it's either 4d or 5d vs stat + skill if leve is 0-2
etc.

several drafts added 1d, and at least one draft added 2d for missing skill. Fundamentally, the only difference between the T4.1 task system and the T5 drafts is the labels for the mechanics, and going to +2d for insufficient skill.

It still makes skills higher than level 6 pretty much a waste.

 

[Lizard_SF]

It still makes skills higher than level 6 pretty much a waste.

I rarely saw skills higher than 5 back when I played CT, so I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Given what even a single rank of a skill in Traveller represents, 6 ranks is probably among the best in a subsector.

 

[Renaissance Man]

Indeed, I think that most non-physical activities have a relatively minimal attribute component, when we start talking about professional levels of competence (level-3 in CT).

In the real world, there is no skill vs. attribute dichotomy. As a person develops a skill through practice and study, they are adapting their nervous system (or brain) to the key requirements of the task. This could be considered "raising" an attribute or "raising" a skill. I suppose it depends on how transferable the adaptations in ones nervous are to other challenges or environments. But as far as a person in RL is concerned there is no difference between skill and attribute.

Indeed, a person who is pretty much a complete moron in other areas of his or her life could do really well in law school purely due to good memorization skills or verbal reasoning skills, but couldn't figure out a mechanical schematic if their life depended on it. Is that INT or EDU? Or is it law school skill 3?

 

[aramis]

I rarely saw skills higher than 5 back when I played CT, so I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Given what even a single rank of a skill in Traveller represents, 6 ranks is probably among the best in a subsector.

Except that Marc's stated goal is skills of up to 15, on the same scale as attributes, and also, T5 drafts have shown a T4-like 1 skill per year, plus one per special duty, and one per promotion (enlisted or officer), plus one for position/commission.

Under that paradigm, most characters have several skills at 2, and one at 4+.

One can, typically, get most "Single-Shipboard-Job" concept characters to level 4 in 2 terms, and then simply switch to stat rolls thereafter and become quite impressive, simply by taking half one's skill rolls on the PDT, and the rest on various skill tables. You wind up with McGuyver...

 

[atpollard]

And yes, I do equate Dex 3 with early onset parkinsons, or mild Muscular Dystrophy, or cerebral palsy. Dex 2 is noticeable, and dex 1 is barely functioning, stumbling as he walks, and barely able to hold onto the walker....

Dex 3 is the bottom 8% of the population.
That sounds a little high for parkinsons or MD.

Dex 2 is just under 2.8% of the population.

 

[Supplement Four]

Dex 3 is the bottom 8% of the population.
That sounds a little high for parkinsons or MD.

Dex 2 is just under 2.8% of the population.

I agree with you, atpollard, and I was just about to make the same comment to Aramis.

Although, I do see where Aramis is "coming from", the game doesn't support his definition of a Stat-3.

There are no penalties for having a Stat-3, or even a Stat-2 (I'm speaking of CT and MT here). In 1001 Characters, there are some characters in there from military backgrounds with Stat-2 or Stat-3. (There are penalties in CT combat, of course, but those can happen at Stat-6! as well--which means those penalities can't be considered as proof that Stat-2 or Stat-3 is one that is handicapped.)

So, obviously, Stat-2 or Stat-3 is just low on the scale but not hindered or hampered in any way. Since the game allows a 22 year old to exit four years in the Marines with a Stat-2 and be a totally playable character, it's not correct to consider such a character as one with Parkinson's or some other debilitating disease.

 

[hot dog vendor]

T-5

is on my purchase list or my players will hold my dice hostage .

 

[aramis]

No penalties? Dex 2-3 takes a penalty on just about EVERY ranged weapon. Doesn't move fast, either.

Stats are what you make of them... since there is no way to model parkinsonian or CP in Traveller other than a low dex...

 

[Sturn]

Pre-ordered T5 two days ago. Got an e-mail from M.Miller the next day. That was nice. It didn't appear automated, makes me think he isn't getting many pre-orders? I hope for Traveller's sake, and one of the true Grandfathers of the RPG industry, that T5 will do well.

 

[robject]

I rarely saw skills higher than 5 back when I played CT, so I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Given what even a single rank of a skill in Traveller represents, 6 ranks is probably among the best in a subsector.

Skill levels range higher than CT. An approximation might be had by taking a Mongoose Traveller character and doubling the levels of his skills. I think this is probably more than twice that of CT skill levels.

 

[Supplement Four]

No penalties? Dex 2-3 takes a penalty on just about EVERY ranged weapon. Doesn't move fast, either.

You didn't read my post thoroughly. I mentioned that. But, you can't count those weapon penalties to something akin to Parkinsons because DEX 6 receives a penalty on some weapons too.

And movement? Dex doesn't effect movement in CT (nor in MT, IIRC). Every character is allowed to move X, no matter his stats.

Stats are what you make of them... since there is no way to model parkinsonian or CP in Traveller other than a low dex...

Incorrect.

One would apply a disease to the character, providing the required effect (penalties, etc.).

So, you see, a DEX 2 character, at least in CT and MT, is a viable character. He's not sick or crippled. He's just not very dextrous.

 

[aramis]

Technically, Parkinson's isn't a disease, either, but a genetic disorder.

The net effect of it is to make one REALLY clumsy and uncoordinated. Much the same as lowering dex.

 

[aramis]

Technically, Parkinson's isn't a disease, either, but a genetic disorder.

The net effect of it is to make one REALLY clumsy and uncoordinated. Much the same as lowering dex.

 

[Supplement Four]

Technically, Parkinson's isn't a disease, either, but a genetic disorder.

The net effect of it is to make one REALLY clumsy and uncoordinated. Much the same as lowering dex.

We're getting off the beaten path here, and you're clouding the issue. A disease-like effect is how you would handle it in a game (at least in CT...probably MT too).

The JTAS article on diseases would be helpful.

And, back to the original point, a DEX-2 character is completely playable and is much more functional and adept than a character inflicted with Parkinson's.

 

[jrmapes]

I really hope T5 is good and even if the mechanic is not to my taste, coming from Marc I expect that most everything will be CT compatible ( I really really hope so anyway).

I wanted to pre-order when it was announced but that has been delayed to at least early March. We were hit with two very outrageous propane gas bills that has really put a bite on my gaming funds. I had to dip into the last of my play money to supplement valentines day activities for SWMBO. Sorry bout the money rant but it has become rather frustrating lately when I have even had to put off doctor appointments till after payday just so we could afford the gasoline for the trip there and back (unfortunately our doctor visits are 2 hr drives each way). Sometimes living out in the middle of nowhere isn't an advantage.

Jerry