Core Rules 5.09

[rancke]

The intent, sort of like the difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder.

"The same as it was before you thought to do trick shots. So, are you engaging in combat shooting or trick shooting? Choose one and then we'll see what the Difficulty is. Also, quit being a dick, player." Or even, "You don't know, since there are some Uncertain Dice that I will be rolling since all combat is Uncertain. You just roll nD6 and we'll see if your fancy trick shot hits, shall we?"

You're still missing the point. Sure, I'd do the same thing myself if I was reffing. That is to say, I'd change the rule to enforce proper roleplaying. But the point is that it's a bad rule that has to be changed to enforce good roleplaying.

Again, I am not a Maths guy so frankly, I am not really bothered by the rule and again I see it as a chance for the players to really shine, or get shined. So I don't think it is either broken or wrong.

So are you saying that if it doesn't bother you, it ought not to bother anyone? Not even math guys?

As I see it, it's not really a question of what does and does not bother you or me or anyone else. It's a question of whether using the rule as written has undesirable results. Such as someone deliberately making an already difficult shot more difficult in order to obtain an advantage.


Hans

 

[rancke]

As well, my dear Hans, I think you overrate consitency. Seriously, I look at the world we live in and I see tons of stuff that makes no damned sense, but then I remember that the real world is not a nice tidy rule book for a made up world. I like a bit of weirdness in my universes, a bit of inconsitenty, a lot of complexity and some down right confusion. To me that makes them far more realistic than excessive order or consistency.

So what's wrong with your players deliberately making their shots more difficult to get a better chance of a critical success? Isn't that just such a desirable inconsistency too?


Hans

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

I have returned.

You're still missing the point. Sure, I'd do the same thing myself if I was reffing. That is to say, I'd change the rule to enforce proper roleplaying. But the point is that it's a bad rule that has to be changed to enforce good roleplaying.


So are you saying that if it doesn't bother you, it ought not to bother anyone? Not even math guys?

As I see it, it's not really a question of what does and does not bother you or me or anyone else. It's a question of whether using the rule as written has undesirable results. Such as someone deliberately making an already difficult shot more difficult in order to obtain an advantage.


Hans

Thing is it only is susceptible to cheaters, if the players aren't scum sucking cheaters then I don't think the problems you and Supp4 are miffed about are a problem. In fact, I say again, the point of a game is to have fun, not perfect maths, but that point seems to get missed by you when you respond. And again, it is only "broken" to you because you are hung up on the maths and you keep forgetting the Crit Fail is just a possible as a Crit Success, so in truth the player who thinks they are oh so very clever has just as much chance to get supremely boned as getting supremely lucky. You seem miffed about Crit Success, but give zero damns about the Crit Failure rate. Seems a lot like cherry picking to me.

EDIT: Also, I am not changing the rules in my examples. Just how they are applied when someone tries to cheat. Otherwise they just get the TN/Difficulty and a fair shot. In truth, I might even let Trixy the Shooter take all the cheesy, cheating additions they want and then apply the Chuck Rule: He who cheats catches the first enemy Crit Success. Hells, I might even be fair and wait till one pops up on a legit roll, or maybe I use one of my 3 GM Fiats and just plain hose them, but as I said I am a mean Referee. :devil:

So what's wrong with your players deliberately making their shots more difficult to get a better chance of a critical success? Isn't that just such a desirable inconsistency too?


Hans

No, that is cheesing the rules with premeditation, and thus is not inconsitenty, but overt cheating.

In the end, if this is the worst of your complaints (you and Supp4) then actually that is a bit of progress. (Or at least for Supp4 who pretty much declared he hated the whole damned edition, I don't recall you ever being that much of a hater.)

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

A clarification.

Oh, and just in case it is not known, I am a follower of Timmii the Exploiter and I would not just start adding ridiculous actions just to try and get a Crit Success.

Even Timmiis have some standards, they are low but we do have them...okay I have them, but my friend Terrence may not. In which case I would ding him for such actions and that dude is one of my oldest and best friends.

So, for the sake of discussion, assuming that you had to run T5 RAW and that happened in your game, how would you handle it (without altering the rules)?

 

[DonM]

Someone asked so I figured I'd post some additional details...

I've been pushing Marc to take everything he's done up to now and go public with it just to get much better feedback, and.. to be honest, I'd lost track of what had changed where. :nonono:

So, Marc put everything together, posted it to DriveThru, sent out the coupons, and went on vacation for two weeks.

Seriously, while he is on vacation and away from his computer, I've got notes, and we're to put things together... The errata threads are setup and open, and I've put on my asbestos suit.

 

[Spartan159]

*goes and gets the barbecue ready*

*Grinning ducking and running a zig-zag pattern*

 

[pendragonman]

Someone asked so I figured I'd post some additional details...

I've been pushing Marc to take everything he's done up to now and go public with it just to get much better feedback, and.. to be honest, I'd lost track of what had changed where. :nonono:

So, Marc put everything together, posted it to DriveThru, sent out the coupons, and went on vacation for two weeks.

Seriously, while he is on vacation and away from his computer, I've got notes, and we're to put things together... The errata threads are setup and open, and I've put on my asbestos suit.

What about the Nomex small clothes?

 

[pendragonman]

Oh, and just in case it is not known, I am a follower of Timmii the Exploiter and I would not just start adding ridiculous actions just to try and get a Crit Success.

Even Timmiis have some standards, they are low but we do have them...okay I have them, but my friend Terrence may not. In which case I would ding him for such actions and that dude is one of my oldest and best friends.

So, for the sake of discussion, assuming that you had to run T5 RAW and that happened in your game, how would you handle it (without altering the rules)?

Yes, I can attest that as a player, Mags is unabashedly a follower of Timmi.

On the other hand, he is not a mean ref, regardless of what he thinks. He runs under "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" which doesn't make you mean. It makes you fair, or more accurately, equally unfair.

S4 and Hans want the math to work out perfectly and it is never, ever, going to. See, what is a perfect fix to S4, Hans will find a hole in and vise versa. It's just how they are. If they were Star Fleet players they would have been the source of the never ending rules addenda that drove me away from my beloved D-7Ls...Some people are never happy. Or more accurately, are at their happiest looking for addenda that is perhaps needed perhaps not.

The game needs them just as much as it needs people like Mags and I. The game won't evolve without all kinds of players.

Just my Cr2.


EDIT: Personally I like the idea that someone attempting a 6 dice difficulty can get an epic successful fail. The character succeeds, in a cinematic epic fashion, but dies in the attempt. Nice.

 

[Supplement Four]

S4 and Hans want the math to work out perfectly and it is never, ever, going to.

That's defeatist.

People said the same thing when I brought up the Experience/Natural Ability (Skill vs Stat) imbalance with T4.

But, because I did, we have the It's Hard! rule (which has been called a few different things, like, It's Harder Than I Thought, but works the same mechanically) today, in T5.

T5 is a better game because of it.




Logically, a perfect success should be harder to obtain on harder tasks. Perfect failures, should be easier to obtain on easier tasks.

If you try to dismantle that nuclear warhead without any training, then you are likely to blow us all to smithereens.

 

[aramis]

The simple solution to Critfail vs Crit Success would be:

half or more 1's is crit success.
fail by double or fail with 3x 6's showing is crit fail.

 

[Hal]

I took the plunge and picked this up and I have to say I'm impressed! After the bad reviews of the initial release I'm finding this one really readable. Really love the way the fluff section at the beginning is written.

A little disappointed about the ToC page number issues (and the missing PDF ToC) but minor quibbles in the grand scheme of things.

Thanks to Marc and everyone involved in getting this version out - looking forward to the 5.1 release!

I hope you enjoy the purchase.

I've had an off again, on again love affair with Traveller since 1979 when I was introduced to it at the UB Wargames club by a gentleman named Richard Ess. I still remember with slight embarrassment, being hoisted by my own petard in the literal sense when I rigged a deadman switch on a bomb in an effort to stave off the pirates attacking the ship we owned. My character went unconscious, and it could be said that my character's last act made him a blast *cough*

In any event, the story's the thing, and if T5 is the vehicle that works - may you have many good journeys' and memories that last you a long long time. Let's see... 1978 to 2008 is 30 years. Add another 7 years to make it 2015. Dang, 37 years of memories and that one is still strong!

 

[rancke]

Thing is it only is susceptible to cheaters...

Who says it's cheating? You do, but that's just an opinion. I happen to agree with you, but I've known people who believed that if the rules allowed it, it wasn't cheating.

And now we've reached the point where I can respond by cutting and pasting from previous posts:

"You're still missing the point. Sure, I'd do the same thing myself if I was reffing. That is to say, I'd change the rule to enforce proper roleplaying. But the point is that it's a bad rule that has to be changed to enforce good roleplaying."​

...if the players aren't scum sucking cheaters then I don't think the problems you and Supp4 are miffed about are a problem.

I'm not miffed about the problem. I'm miffed that you are miffed about S4 being miffed about the problem. I think that you're being unfair to him.

In fact, I say again, the point of a game is to have fun, not perfect maths, but that point seems to get missed by you when you respond.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my response to that was clear enough. To elucidate, your gaming style isn't the only valid one and thus not the only one the rules ought to support.

And again, it is only "broken" to you because you are hung up on the maths and you keep forgetting the Crit Fail is just a possible as a Crit Success, so in truth the player who thinks they are oh so very clever has just as much chance to get supremely boned as getting supremely lucky. You seem miffed about Crit Success, but give zero damns about the Crit Failure rate. Seems a lot like cherry picking to me.

Now, that's a cogent argument. I wonder what S4 will have to say about that?

EDIT: Also, I am not changing the rules in my examples.

Yes, you are. The rules allow a player to have his character increase the difficulty of his task in order to increase his chance of getting a critical success. You would prevent a player from doing so in the name of what you consider good roleplaying.

And, once again, I repeat that I agree with you that such an action would be justified. That's the point. A good rule doesn't need to be changed, whatever the justification. If it needs to be changed, however justified the change, it's a bad, or at least wonky, rule.


Hans

 

[Daddicus]

Guys, please stop nit-picking specific rules.

A), it's not done yet.

B), let's put our efforts into figuring out what works and what is typographically incorrect.

Marc isn't going to want to go to print if it's still broken. But, no game of this magnitude is ever going to be perfect. Can we just try to get it playable and high-quality, but avoid striving for perfect?

I've only read a few dozen pages, but my gut says this thing is almost there. The organization is already worlds ahead of the previous version. Tables are far superior as far as I've read. The index is, well, indexed. This thing is looking much better than I ever expected.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Back again.

The simple solution to Critfail vs Crit Success would be:

half or more 1's is crit success.
fail by double or fail with 3x 6's showing is crit fail.

Now that is interesting. Not sure if the math is good, but it is interesting.

Who says it's cheating? You do, but that's just an opinion. I happen to agree with you, but I've known people who believed that if the rules allowed it, it wasn't cheating.

And now we've reached the point where I can respond by cutting and pasting from previous posts:

"You're still missing the point. Sure, I'd do the same thing myself if I was reffing. That is to say, I'd change the rule to enforce proper roleplaying. But the point is that it's a bad rule that has to be changed to enforce good roleplaying."​

I'm not miffed about the problem. I'm miffed that you are miffed about S4 being miffed about the problem. I think that you're being unfair to him.

Sorry about the lumping of you with Supp4. I am trying to be cool here and avoid my former screaming, ranting, mads of earlier. Damn having tin someways really is annoying, having to be all right and proper. :devil: Also, not miffed, just mildly annoyed, but even that is nowhere near as bad as it was. I lost my real baby and that helped me calm down about this one. Things just don't seem that important now, got other things to be upset at now. Though this did put a bit of fire back in me belly.

Another thing, regarding some people exploiting the hell out of the rules, oh yes I know they exist, as I mentioned I would keep an eye on Tee since he is even more an exploiter than I am. So, I know they exist, I game with one of them.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my response to that was clear enough. To elucidate, your gaming style isn't the only valid one and thus not the only one the rules ought to support.

I never said mine was the only way. Honestly the most difficult thing about T5 for me is that as a content creator I have to use the rules, whereas when I run mostly I wing a lot. So, I have learn to be more rules strict than I normally am, which is why I am discussing this.

Now, that's a cogent argument. I wonder what S4 will have to say about that?

Me too.

Yes, you are. The rules allow a player to have his character increase the difficulty of his task in order to increase his chance of getting a critical success. You would prevent a player from doing so in the name of what you consider good roleplaying.

And, once again, I repeat that I agree with you that such an action would be justified. That's the point. A good rule doesn't need to be changed, whatever the justification. If it needs to be changed, however justified the change, it's a bad, or at least wonky, rule.


Hans

See again, you keep saying that the rules allow this conduct of adding ridiculous hardships to an action, yet I have read the rules and I don't see that mentioned anywhere, so while the maths may have such an effect, the rules do not say boo-diddly about it. Or I missed that paragraph, in which please point out where they advocate that sort of behavior. Also, how many other Referee's (not exposed to this board and argument) will actually have this issue? I suspect not that many to maybe even zero.

Of course, I have been wrong before...

 

[robject]

So what's wrong with your players deliberately making their shots more difficult to get a better chance of a critical success? Isn't that just such a desirable inconsistency too?


Hans

That IS cinematic, but frankly if that is the only cinematic bit of Traveller, then it's welcome. The last seven games I've played have not suffered from cinema. (And no, you don't get to take a crack at the games I play -- heh!)

Cinematic or not, I haven't seen this work to the players' favor yet. This might just mean they are all cautious players. And well they should be, because Traveller is deadly.

 

[robject]

The simple solution to Critfail vs Crit Success would be:

half or more 1's is crit success.
fail by double or fail with 3x 6's showing is crit fail.

Yup, very nice, Wil. I like it.

 

[Epee]

Just brainstorming, and this might be too drastic, but how about allowing Task specific skills to reduce the difficulty one level per level of skill? Heck, you could even go farther and say skill reduces difficulty while knowlege is a die modifier.

Spectacular success happens when all the dice are ones and spectacular failure occurs when three or more sixes are rolled. Roll all sixes on a one of two dice roll, you toss additional dice to see if the "fatal three" show up.:devil:

My only means of justifying this is that real skill in a field not only drastically reduces the difficulty of a task but it also reduces the chances of deadly failure; think electrician or demolition expert.

 

[rancke]

See again, you keep saying that the rules allow this conduct of adding ridiculous hardships to an action, yet I have read the rules and I don't see that mentioned anywhere...

I didn't say the rules specifically mentioned it. I said the rules allowed it. You're not going to suggest that in an RPG, anything that isn't expressly allowed is forbidden?


Hans

 

[Ackehece]

Just brainstorming, and this might be too drastic, but how about allowing Task specific skills to reduce the difficulty one level per level of skill? Heck, you could even go farther and say skill reduces difficulty while knowlege is a die modifier.

Spectacular success happens when all the dice are ones and spectacular failure occurs when three or more sixes are rolled. Roll all sixes on a one of two dice roll, you toss additional dice to see if the "fatal three" show up.:devil:

My only means of justifying this is that real skill in a field not only drastically reduces the difficulty of a task but it also reduces the chances of deadly failure; think electrician or demolition expert.

Skill already works as a modifer toward increasing the target number. No need to drop the difficult die. A skill 6 player with knowledge 1 would have his target raised by 7 already, then adding characteristic would be on average 7. So target of 14 pre mods.
Skill 1 +7average characteristic would be 8 pre mods..
Roll 3d6. The skilled player makes it most of the time the unskilled fails most of the time. Cautious it and the skill player can't fail and the unskilled player will still fail slightly less than half the time.

 

[oldgamergeek]

Guys, please stop nit-picking specific rules.

A), it's not done yet.

B), let's put our efforts into figuring out what works and what is typographically incorrect.

Marc isn't going to want to go to print if it's still broken. But, no game of this magnitude is ever going to be perfect. Can we just try to get it playable and high-quality, but avoid striving for perfect?

I've only read a few dozen pages, but my gut says this thing is almost there. The organization is already worlds ahead of the previous version. Tables are far superior as far as I've read. The index is, well, indexed. This thing is looking much better than I ever expected.

Huzzah! If we do this right T-5 could be the "best Traveller ever." If we nit pic this will be remembered in the same pile as 4th edition of another RPG.