Confused

[aramis]

What type of tasks would GMs see as requiring an unknown Difficulty?

Perception/notice/awareness, failure analysis, tactical planning, opposed tasks, general knowledge, Data Interpretation, Clue explanation.

Revealing how hard a perception test is tells players the nature of the concealment/obfuscation.

For a failure analysis, it tells them the level of damage straight-up, so the players truly know, even if the characters don't.

It is a style many GMs don't use often; for those who use it, however, it's a wonderful tool for letting players know how well they did, but not letting them know if they succeeded... yet.

 

[Supplement Four]

What type of tasks would GMs see as requiring an unknown Difficulty?

It's not so much players knowing the difficulty as players knowing the outcome of a throw immediately.

They already know their target number. Their target is skill + stat. As soon as they roll, they know the outcome.

Compare two rpg throws:



Player doesn't know target:

Like back in the old D&D days. Player rolled. Added modifiers. Then, looked at the GM. "What happened? Did I hit?"

A good GM wouldn't just answer with a "yes" or a "no". He'd add to the game, making the players live through the moment.

"You swing your longsword with all your might. At the last second, the Orc throws up his club to block. But, his timing is off. Your blade slips under his club, biting deep into the Orc's side. You can feel ribs crack, transmitted up the length of your blade."



Player knows target:

Player rolls, looks at dice. "Hey, I hit! I'm rolling damage."



The first is much, much, much more desireable in an rpg.







NOTE: CT suffers from the player knowing the target, too, but only in combat. And, I would find ways around this, like keeping Range secret, or the target's armor modifier.

Of course, with CT, you've got a lot of other types of throws, too, since it is an open, non-structured, task system. It's easy to put this type of stuff into the game with those other rolls.



ALSO NOTE: That it's much harder to do this with T4. Range isn't an option to keep secret because it defines difficulty. Modifiers typically don't have the same weight in T4 due to the variable dice. (For example, a +1 DM when rolling 2D is a much bigger modifier than a +1 DM when rolling 4D.)

The T4 system is just not a good system to use.

 

[saundby]

My group is largely casual gamers. They like consistency for what they roll, they don't like having to stop and ask what to roll. We've changed game systems in mid-campaign because of this. They definitely prefer roll high. MGT and CT are both successes thanks in large part to 2d6 RH. Percentile or d20 RH would work just as well. Buckets of Dice systems are roundly reviled by both the casual gamers and the hard-core in my group, I wouldn't be able to get them to play such a system, no matter its other values.

What is rolled needs to be the same for all task rolls and all combat attack rolls, preferably the same for both.

Higher means closer to success.

2d6, d20, and percentile are all good, any other decent 1-3 die system would probably work as well. d6 is associated with Traveller, but if we went to 2d16 and got some black and red dice numbered 0-F or any other such thing it'd be "Traveller" within a gaming session or two.

 

[Supplement Four]

The smartest move Marc could make would be to match T5's task system with that of Mongoose's. And, this is coming from someone that's not a big fan of MGT.

But, MGT is selling. There are several supplements coming out. And, I think the smartest thing to do is to have T5 match MGT, be a more "in-depth" MGT, as was originally advertised.

I'm not saying that T5 and MGT have to have the exact same task system. But, they need to be close. They need to be inter-changeable.

The rules used in T5 should be just as easily used with MGT without conversion.

MGT was supposed to unite the Traveller line. And, here, T5 comes and makes yet another rule system.

Put them together. Have more sales. Please more Traveller players.

 

[far-trader]

...MGT was supposed to unite the Traveller line. And, here, T5 comes and makes yet another rule system.

Except that you have it backwards there I agree.

Originally, as I recall it, the stated goal was that Mongoose was given the license and (most) others were to be sunset because Mongoose was going to create T5 Lite as it were. A less complicated version of T5 but completely cross compatible version as an introduction to T5. I had my doubts about that being possible right from the start for a number of reasons. But that is how it was sold.

Now for whatever reasons that is apparently not the way it is going. And I'm not surprised.

As for the "unite" the game (I think the exact words used involved "fractured fanbase") I've said before how it seems to have at the least not accomplished that, and at the worst has simple added yet one more division. And I really don't see how it ever possibly could have. Never did. But it was a nice idea.

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

You know... nothing I have read online about MGT has appealed to me in the least.

That said, give me anything, anything at all, other than the T4 task system.

I understand the MGT task system is simple and serviceable. If T5 could be a revved up version of that, fine. Question for those who are familiar with it: Is it revvable? And would it interact well with other T5 subsystems?

 

[robject]

(Sorry, Rob, but you having been the "voice" of T5 was an issue... I always got the sense that you were filtering feedback towards your own vision...)

I didn't filter feedback. Chalk that up to me being a horrible moderator. Don's mentioned this to me as well (the lack of moderator ability part). Anyway, it took a long time to understand what it takes to be a moderator, and that I haven't got the temperament for it.

 

[aramis]

Mongoose specifically said they were going to unite the fanbase in their blog.

that they set out with this unrealistic and nigh-impossible goal shows their short-sightedness.

That they managed to talk Marc into a near-exclusive deal shows that they have some business sense, but no gamer-sense. Business-wise, it looks like a good idea. they did not, however, coerce Marc into pulling the DTRPG nor BFB sales, nor were they able to get Marc to hose his buddy Loren by killing SJG's cash-cow, GT. Further, pulling a gamer's favorite system doesn't usually get them to buy the new one; it causes them to quit buying and/or switch games.

That they have released books with more significant errata issues than MT shows they lack editing skills. They have, however, got customer service down well, replacing books that either fell apart or had major usability issues in printing.

Errata issues with the core:
1) 4 pages of tables & rules errata (in the so called Player's Guide)
2) Every ship deckplan was provably wrong
3) several of the ship designs had non-sensical elements, like 20 weeks op fuel.

They have some good ideas. But they have damaged their own credibility with how they have handled both Traveller and RuneQuest... and my concerns with quality have been shown to be general to Mongoose, not just RQ.

I snapped up T4 products while in more tight finances... Mongoose I'm waiting on... in order to get errata free PDFs.

 

[Supplement Four]

Question for those who are familiar with it: Is it revvable? And would it interact well with other T5 subsystems?

If you're familiar with the UGM, Rhialto, then you're familiar with the MGT task system. It's the same thing sans how it handles stats.

It's: 2D +mods for 8+.

Mongoose specifically said they were going to unite the fanbase in their blog.

that they set out with this unrealistic and nigh-impossible goal shows their short-sightedness.

Difficult? Sure. Impossible? Not-so-sure.

They might have been able to meet that goal had they tried. From what I saw on the playtest, they didn't even try.

When I set out to make a task system, I set up parameters. For the UGM, I wanted to (1) use only 2D6; (2) have the system reflect CT and fit seemlessly within that rules set; (3) have stat modifiers with lowered impact on the throw outcome to match CT; (4) etc...

I had a few good ideas I didn't use because those ideas didn't fit within my stated objectives.

One of Mongooses' stated objectives should have been: that the task system fits seemlessly with T5.

There was absolutely no thought or effort given to that objective from any of the evidence I saw.

 

[aramis]

If you're familiar with the UGM, Rhialto, then you're familiar with the MGT task system. It's the same thing sans how it handles stats.

Then it isn't the same thing, because of the bolded text. Changing how stats work between UGM and MGT is a major change +0 to +1 for UGM vs -2 to +3 for MGT... huge impact.

There are similarities.

Mongoose has a history of slipshod work. Marc's choice of them was, shall we say, questionable.

In the playtest, rather than fix and retest, they simply replaced with internally-tested-only materials.

Further, much fun as they are fully-open playtests are a bad idea; open recruitment playtests work better. Fully internal playtests are the least stable. I've done all three, and the best product is produced by open recruitment for closed playtest. Fully-open playtests have this problem of whackos providing feedback that is irrelevant or damaging, and for established systems, of "enemies" of the system trying to delete those elements that are defining to the system. (WFRP2 had one guy arguing for deleting insanity points. He got punted, IIRC.)

 

[Supplement Four]

Then it isn't the same thing, because of the bolded text. Changing how stats work between UGM and MGT is a major change +0 to +1 for UGM vs -2 to +3 for MGT... huge impact.

You keep saying that, but it's no more a mutation of my original system than d20 Conan is from d20 3.5E, or even T20 is from d20 3.5E.

Same basic system with changes.

It's not the same as, say, D6 Star Wars and d20 Star Wars. Those are two completely different systems.

MGT is definitely sprouted from the UGM root. Whether they arrived at that independently or just copied my system is the question.

As for the MGT stat modifiers, those aren't anything new either. It's similar to d20 and MT. The UGM provided stat modifiers that aren't that different from what one normally gets in CT ("Get +1 DM if Stat 9+").

In fact, one of the earliers versions of the UGM, while it was being developed, used DMs not unlike what MGT is using.

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

Sometimes I should think before I post.

Using MGT for T5 is a pipe dream (if dream is the right word), for at least two reasons:

Legal: Marc is not going to work under some license from the guys to whom he licensed Traveller to begin with.

Psychological: T5 is his legacy, and he's not going to borrow its core rule element from another source.

In any case, a more logical and probably more popular step would be for Marc to finally share *his* idea of CT+.

I'm sure he's tinkered with CT in the past two decades. Let him revisit those notes.

 

[far-trader]

In any case, a more logical and probably more popular step would be for Marc to finally share *his* idea of CT+.

I'm sure he's tinkered with CT in the past two decades. Let him revisit those notes.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what T5 is coming from

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

F-T, no but that's the thing: As far as task resolution, T5 is coming from T4 not from CT.

 

[aramis]

You keep saying that, but it's no more a mutation of my original system than d20 Conan is from d20 3.5E, or even T20 is from d20 3.5E.

Same basic system with changes.

Not really.

UGM as it exists, with a +1 limit, uses stats in a totally different way: to determine whether or not inherent ability matters on a given action.

MGT says it always matters... and sometimes hinders.

MGT is definitely sprouted from the UGM root. Whether they arrived at that independently or just copied my system is the question.

I disagree. MGT is obviously sprouted from CT. UGM is sprouted, so you claim, from CT.

Quit slandering them with accusations of plagiarism.

 

[robject]

In any case, a more logical and probably more popular step would be for Marc to finally share *his* idea of CT+.

I'm sure he's tinkered with CT in the past two decades. Let him revisit those notes.

Far Trader is more correct in this case, I believe. MGT is similar to CT for a reason, and is dissimilar for a reason. And where T5 breaks from CT, it also does so for a reason...

 

[Supplement Four]

Quit slandering them with accusations of plagiarism.

It's not slander if its true. Mine was completed first. The documentation is right there on these boards.

Dice mechanics cannot be copyrighted, so MGT was free to use it. They could have come up with the same ideas as I did. Or, they could have seen the UGM and said, "Hmm. This looks good."

If the UGM were a d20 system with a lot of the elements, but not all, used in d20 D&D 3.5E, I'm sure people would accuse me of copying that mechanic.

Where's there's smoke...

 

[Supplement Four]

Far Trader is more correct in this case, I believe. MGT is similar to CT for a reason, and is dissimilar for a reason. And where T5 breaks from CT, it also does so for a reason...

It is my understanding that Marc didn't come up with that mechanic--the skill + stat, roll multiple dice or less.

Is that Marc's baby?

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, Rob, but to break away from CT's task resolution is to break away from CT, as opposed to produce a version of CT.

Task resolution is the center of a role-playing game's rules set because it defines how the game gets played as opposed to merely read. Just look at people's strong responses in this thread.

 

[DonM]

I didn't filter feedback. Chalk that up to me being a horrible moderator. Don's mentioned this to me as well (the lack of moderator ability part). Anyway, it took a long time to understand what it takes to be a moderator, and that I haven't got the temperament for it.

Hey... I said nothing about your ability to be a moderator. I said a lot about your ability to be a jerk. I'm a paid professional in the field (seriously: it's my real life job), and you are way too nice a guy.