CT+ task system

[mike wightman]

Another idea.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> 2d6 roll required
Easy/routine task 4+
Typical challenge 8+
Difficult 12+
Extreme challenge 16+
.
DMs + relevent skill
+ attribute derived bonus
+/- equipment derived midifier
+/- environmental/situational derived modifier</pre>[/QUOTE]The attribute derived bonus is +1 if your characteristic is equal or greater than the set task difficulty, +2 if your characteristic is equal or greater than the next higher task difficulty.

 

[mike wightman]

Alternatively the attribute bonus could be based on characteristic/4, keeping the multiples of 4 motif.

 

[Golan2072]

My variation on Paul Elliott's task system is available here; most of Sigg Oddra's modifiers will apply to it as well.

 

[robject]

Most of the people who have voiced an opinion (am I right?) favor Aramis' task system... of which Sigg's looks to be a simplified variant.

 

[mike wightman]

Yep, simple is good IMHO...

 

[flykiller]

(jumping in like an idiot)

why would equipment and environment be modifiers rather than just adjustments to the difficulty rating?

in my opinion, a skill level of 1 (as per CT) should enable routine accomplishment of routine tasks. is there any reason why this shouldn't be so? or are the skill levels here expanded such that skill level 1 represents bare acquaintance etc?

 

[robject]

OK Sigg, I'll toady up and say I prefer your variant.

To date, here's the task system vote:


Aramis' system: 2 (Aramis, Zakrol)
Employee's system: 1 (Employee)
Sigg's "Aramis Variant": 4? (Sigg, robject, jappel?, flykiller?)


Sigg's is in the lead (go team!), but seven votes is hardly a groundswell of support.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by flykiller:
(jumping in like an idiot)

why would equipment and environment be modifiers rather than just adjustments to the difficulty rating?

They are there as place holders in case the referee wants to make a task slightly easier or more difficult due to the use or lack of specialist tools/equipment etc.

The ususal method would be for the referee to decide how difficult is the task being attempted.
If environmental/situational factors are greatly against you, raise the difficulty level; if they stack in your favour reduce the difficulty level.
But then the odd +/-1 can tweek things upon occasion...

in my opinion, a skill level of 1 (as per CT) should enable routine accomplishment of routine tasks. is there any reason why this shouldn't be so? or are the skill levels here expanded such that skill level 1 represents bare acquaintance etc?

That's how I'd want it too, but the easy/routine becomes 4+, i.e. don't roll a 2

 

[zakrol]

In Aramis' system with characteristic/3 being applied as a bonus - an average 7 will gain +2, with +1 from skill this reduces the routine target of 8 to a 5. So, pretty much routine success (5/6) with a 1/6 chance of messing up.

My vote goes for Aramis' system at the minute.

 

[mike wightman]

An average characteristic getting such a high bonus is one of my concerns.

Here are the probabilities of success for different total task DMs (skill + characteristic only):
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">difficulty +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8
4+ 97% 100%
8+ 58% 72% 83% 92% 97% 100%
12+ 8% 17% 28% 42% 58% 72% 83% 92%
16+ - - - 3% 8% 17% 28% 42%</pre>[/QUOTE]A typically competent person should have task asset of about +3 IMHO, +1 from characteristic +2 from skill.

 

[mike wightman]

I find games run more smoothly when the players usually succeed at the tasks they attempt, and if they know something is going to be hard or of critical importance they do everything they can to mitigate the adversity.

Sometimes they just have to try that extreme challenge though.

 

[jappel]

Hmm. I could go with either Sigg's version, or with the attribute modifier being attribute/5 as in MT. I could be convinced that /4 could work. I share Sigg's concerns about the /3 yielding very high modifiers with very little effort.

- John

 

[flykiller]

a 1/6 chance of an average qualified person failing a routine task seems high.

so, someone with a skill level of 2 and a stat of 9 has a 1/36 chance of failing a routine task? seems way too high. 'course that's assuming ct, where medical 3 is a full doctor.

why are stats more valuable than skills? sorry for the stupid questions, just trying to orient.

 

[mike wightman]

There's something elegant about a +1 bonus if your characteristic is equal or higher than the task difficulty etc. IMHO, but then the characteristic/4 method fits the pattern as well.

I can't make my own mind up on this one...

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by flykiller:
a 1/6 chance of an average qualified person failing a routine task seems high.

A routine/easy task is +4, a typical challenge is +8 - in fact I've edited the original post now to hopefully dispel some confusion.

why are stats more valuable than skills? sorry for the stupid questions, just trying to orient.

I'm trying to strike a balance, or if anything to make high skills worth more than high stats for task resolution.

 

[mike wightman]

This is how I interpret skill levels, for what it's worth.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">skill level
0 - some training
1 - trained
2 - highly skilled
3 - professional
4 - expert in field
5 - genius
6 - one in a billion</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[flykiller]

ok, got it. similar to my view. and you're right, the +1 if stat exceeds task is alluringly elegant.

what is a typical challenge? is the 8+ there meant to line up with ct's 8+ standard success roll?

 

[mike wightman]

Yep, most everyday challenges should be 8+, and if it's difficult 12+, and if it's really really hard 16+.

It boils down to:

don't roll a 2

8+

12+

roll a natural 12 or forget it

 

[flykiller]

hm. so, it's ct with an extra 12+ category and auto-success / auto-fail tacked on.

2 - fails
8+ - standard success roll
12+ - high difficulty success roll
12 - succeeds

task systems seem to be such matters of taste. I wouldn't use this, but it's very succinct and straight-forward and certainly warrants being described as ct+.

 

[zakrol]

Originally posted by jappel:
Hmm. I could go with either Sigg's version, or with the attribute modifier being attribute/5 as in MT. I could be convinced that /4 could work. I share Sigg's concerns about the /3 yielding very high modifiers with very little effort.

There is a balance to be had between making characteristics too powerful and not worth the bother. MT's straight attribute/5 leans too far in my opinion, it means that somebody with a characteristic of 5 is just as naturally adept as somebody with 9. Given the natural distribtion of 2d6 it means virtually everybody gets +1.

Doing as Aramis did and raising the target by one and then using characteristic/3 has the following effects:

characteristic 2, you are 1 worse off
3-4 = no change
5 = 1 worse off
6-8 = no change
9 = 1 better off
10-11 = no change
12-15 = 1 better off

So Aramis' system is more a fine tuning to prevent characteristics being a very minor factor.

characteristic/4 is an intersting question, but do you make the target 7 or 8 for an average task?