Looking for a T5 Review.

[Shonner]

Using a higher target (like 14+) with roll+stat also works. Just add 7 to normal 2d6 target, use DMs as normal, and no roll-under.

Adding +7 to every roll is just more unnecssary math to do.

 

[Supplement Four]

I let the players railroad themselves.

Yes. That's what I was trying to say. I do this, too.

But, as you say, it's not railroading. I don't sit down and discuss with players their goals. I can derive that by what they talk about. Plus, I know what my players enjoy.

In my Conan game, one of my players is really into his character--his background and the NPCs that have grown up around that character.

So, I design situations that involve the stuff he's interested in: I created a story--a mystery--about who his father really was. I gave him a dirk that his father had left him (and the player uses that weapon in fights, regardless if another woud do more damage--he fights two handed, always with that dirk in one of his hands). And, in one adventure, a little girl NPC was captured by a rival Cimmerian clan--since the player really liked that NPC, the player was determined to stop at nothing to get her back and make the bad guys pay.

Another player I have isn't as into the story and background. He likes the action, and he likes the toys. So, to give him the type of game he wants, I put into the game this lost temple that the PCs found, and secreted therein was an ancient weapon--an axe--from a bygone era. He's not sure, but the axe may date back to ancient Atlantis. The player loves this axe, and he uses it to slice his enemies to his fun every game session.

As GM, it's my job to figure what type of game the players enjoy and then try to give that experience to them.

Sometimes, the players find great enjoyment in a type of game that they never knew that they'd like. For example, in a long-running CT game, I had a player who was a bit of a munchkin and only liked to play characters with high stats and skills.

Well, he didn't do so well rolling with Traveller's random character generation. He wanted to kill the character and roll up a new one.

But, I worked with him, and we developed a pretty cool background for this character and, slowly, I saw a transformation take place. The player was actually getting attached to the character, even though the character was weak in combat situations. I showed the player how to appreciate the character in other ways--through roleplaying.

To this day, that character is one of that player's favorite ones he's ever played. I work with this player, and from time to time, he'll bring him up, just out of the blue, "Hey, I wonder what Preygor would do in this situation." We'd both laugh becuase the character, Preygor, had such a distinct personality.

I never like creating massive, planned out adventures...

I usualy have a spine--a general direction, of what I think the story will be. It, invaribly, becomes something different by the time we get down the road, because of the players' actions.

I use the spine, but I don't put a lot of work into it, and I don't flesh it out until I learn the player's direction.

In my current Conan campaign, I created a large sandbox--a village and the surrounding area--then plopped my PCs down in the middle of it and watched to see what interested them.

At first, my "spine" included a few adventures around the village, then having an outside force come in and wipe out the village, pushing the PCs to become traditional traveling adventurers, out explorign the world, like Conan.

But, my game has not gone that direction at all. The players like the village, and they're real attached to the NPCs that have grown up around them as we've played. I don't feel it would be a good thing, at this point, to have the Vanir or a rival clan come in and wipe these people out, given the way the campaign as developed. My sense of story tells me that wouldn't go over as a good tragedy.

Instead, the players do adventures but keep coming back to the village, and every time they do, more depth is created with the NPCs that inhabit the place.

Now, instead of destroying the village, I'm thinking of maybe expanding the clan territory and establishing a second village--with the PCs in charge, of course. But, I'm not sure of that, yet. I'm not convinced that the way the players want to go.

I take my lead from them, then try to flesh that out.

 

[Shonner]

I can understand where some players might not like the GM that says roll X dice and tell me what you got.

Using the word "roll" or "dice" can ruin immersion if used throughout a game on every turn. In Mongoose, I only say it maybe two or three times for a new player learning the game mechanic. Then it becomes automatic for them, and they focus more on role-play.

I use that often times when they ask if they notice something or
I have a list of their skills (on a GM character card) and I as them to roll for them to notice something that their character would know but the player might not think of.

Bordering on Hand of God there. But can be great for storytelling events that happen while playes are lost/wandering in a desert. Players aren't doing recon checks every hour or whatever, wondering if they will spot something.

Even if a player is not actively looking for things, but happens to be a computer expert, they might notice in the bar/store/etc, that someone has new/outdated/etc laptop, or a mechanic might notice that the vehicle driving by does not sound quite right, or a combat expert might notice that someone is carrying something like a weapon concealed.

Yep.

 

[Shonner]

Players: "We're going to run for the hills!"

GM: "OK. You start running across the plains. Your goal, the foothills are in the distance. But, you're being chased. A helo flys overhead and begins to drop gas bombs. These things explode, releasing a heavy gas that float like fog on the ground. It's like tear gas. If you get into the cloud, you can't see, you can't stop coughing, and the stuff contains a skin-contact paralyzer that will cause you to temporarlily lose control of your muscle function. Damage is done to your END at 1D per round, and once that stat reaches zero, you'll be immobilized."

Players:" We're stuck on these plains with no cover, sandwiched between the forces following us and the gas cloud. We could fight, but we think the helo will just drop a gas cannister right in the middle of our defensive positon. We've got no choice. We're going to throw down arms and stick our hands in the air. Live to fight another day."

It was painful reading this. Where is the role-play? The GM telling players how their characters feel - ouch. "END at 1D per round" is spoken by the GM - painful. The player's say "we" - to who? Their god?

You and I totally do not RPG the same way. So I will stop in this thread, unless we talk about Traveller 5 some more.

 

[Supplement Four]

Adding +7 to every roll is just more unnecssary math to do.

You're taking these comments to universal conclusions, Shonner. He wasn't suggesting to add +7 to EVERY roll in the game. He was just suggesting another option to be used, when the GM deems it necessary.

For example, there's a vacuum sealed hatch on a space craft, and two PCs are attempting to shove against it to force it open.

The GM figures that two average men have about a 50% chance of shoving it open when working together. So, he sets the target number at 25, but allows both characters to use their full STR scores as DMs. The character with the higher STR actually makes the roll.

Target is 25.

Frank has STR 10.

Babbs has STR 6.

That's a +16 modifier, so Frank is going to have to roll 9+ on 2D6 to get this hatch open.



Would you call for that type of roll every time for every situation? No. But, it's a nice mechanic for this specific situation (and shows one of the strengths of the free-form Classic Traveller system...a customized throw for one particular situation).

(@Aramis - I'm well aware that you would total disagree with that last point...you, you, you UTP lover, you! ).





To bring this discussion back around to what the thread is really about....

As a GM, I may not want the players to know if its even possible to force open that vacuum sealed hatch. The characters see the hatch, and two of them shove against it.

I may tell them to roll 2D and add their STR ratings to it, but I don't have to tell them that 25 is the magic number.

I might do this because I think it plays out better...

The roll is made, and it's a total of five (missing the target by 4 points).

"You, Babbs, and Frank shove has hard as you can. It doesn't budge. Doesn't look like it's going anywhere."

The players are still free to try again. I just told them what their characters experienced. They shoved, and the door didn't budge.

This is A LOT DIFFERENT than the players knowing that they missed the roll only by 4 points--they may start thinking about how to conquer that 4 points in a different way.

I don't want my players thinking that way. Not about rules.

I like them thinking, "Damn. That's a stuck hatch." And, they can move on, or get resourceful and try another method, WITHOUT THE INFLUENCE of knowing the roll outcome.

It's more "in the moment". It aids the experience of "being there", living in that character's shoes.





Let's say that the roll turned out to a result of 8...only missing it by one point. I might say, "You, Babbs, and Frank strain. Both of you have your shoulders into it. And, just as the two of you give up trying, you feel the hatch give a little. Just a little. It moved a micro inch. But it moved."

This makes the players play off the situation, not the dice.

Which is, I believe, a more immersive playstyle.

 

[Supplement Four]

It was painful reading this. Where is the role-play? The GM telling players how their characters feel - ouch. "END at 1D per round" is spoken by the GM - painful. The player's say "we" - to who? Their god?

Are you for real? Or just trolling? Why do you have to get all snarky? "It was painful reading this." We can't talk about this like gaming adults?

If you think my games aren't about roleplaying, then you certainly haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing. Why do you think hidden targets are important to me? For the roleplaying experience and to keep the focus OFF the mechanics. Sheesh.

That example is not about rolepaying--it's about railroading. Thus the focus. o:

You and I totally do not RPG the same way. So I will stop in this thread...

That sounds like a good plan.

 

[Supplement Four]

In sum, the point is simple...

As GM, I try to make each gaming situation as interesting, exciting, or as intriguing as possible. Sometimes that means keeping target numbers hidden.

And, the T4 task system makes it hard for me to do that.

 

[Dragoner]

In sum, the point is simple...

As GM, I try to make each gaming situation as interesting, exciting, or as intriguing as possible. Sometimes that means keeping target numbers hidden.

And, the T4 task system makes it hard for me to do that.

Not too long yet until T5 goes live, then we can talk about it up a storm.


I'll say also that much of these conversations outside the private forum, we have had thread after thread inside the private forum.

 

[Supplement Four]

Not too long yet until T5 goes live, then we can talk about it up a storm.

I hope there's a good answer to what I'm looking for. The only thing I can think of is uncertainty dice, where the GM rolls a die for the players and a die for the NPCs and uses that as a secret modifer to raise or lower the player's known target.

It's not a good fix for what I'm looking for, and it doesn't solve all of the issues I've presented.

 

[lordmalachdrim]

I hope there's a good answer to what I'm looking for.

I for one hope there is not such thing since I still fail to see the issue you and some of the others keep going on and on about. Now how about we try and get this thread back on track and post any reviews we find of T5 that start to appear in the next few weeks.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Really?

I hope there's a good answer to what I'm looking for. The only thing I can think of is uncertainty dice, where the GM rolls a die for the players and a die for the NPCs and uses that as a secret modifer to raise or lower the player's known target.

It's not a good fix for what I'm looking for, and it doesn't solve all of the issues I've presented.

Why wouldn't it work? It seems like that would do the trick to me.

 

[Supplement Four]

Why wouldn't it work? It seems like that would do the trick to me.

It's a persnickety system. More dice rolling. More focus on the mechanics. Unwieldy. And, it doesn't hide the difficulty of the throw in question, nor the skill used.

Remember the alien biomechanical diagnostics bed? The player rolls 2D and doesn't know a thing if he fails the throw. The GM can easily take his secret 10+ target down to accomodate the players +3 DM for skill and stat.

Doing the same thing using uncertainty dice means rolling dice, summing the two sides, then subtracting the totals, then adding that modifier to the sum of the PCs Stat + Skill. And, the player still knows both the difficulty (because of the number of dice he threw) and the major skill used.

Even if the PC fails the attempt, he now knows to think of the alien bed in terms of the Medical skill.

The former is elegant and easy. The latter (T4 with uncertainty dice) is fussy and full of meta-game information for the player/character.

The former is definitely the superior choice (and better game design, imo).

 

[CosmicGamer]

I agree that the players should not know
1) I rolled low so that means characters should try again or
2) I rolled high and still failed so characters might as well try something else and not waste time trying again.

Just roll GM. Use dice, prerolled sheets, a random # generator, whatever, and don't let players see the results. Problem solved.

Yes, I know the objection.

Personally I think people are way too hung up on rolling the dice for themselves. It should be a totally random roll and shouldn't matter who rolls. If the player objects to the GM rolling, accuse them of cheating and kick them from your game!

Ok, maybe I'm a bit harsh. (and being a bit silly)

A compromise?
1) Player rolls one die and GM one?
2) Make a dice cup from a clear glass and tape paper (Traveller art or charts?) over 1/2 to 2/3rds of it. Player rolls with paper towards them and uncovered part towards the GM. After the scene plays out the player can then take a look at the results.

 

[Supplement Four]

Personally I think people are way too hung up on rolling the dice for themselves. It should be a totally random roll and shouldn't matter who rolls.

Players LOVE to roll their own dice. It makes them feel more in charge of their own destiny--less the pawns of luck and the GM.

The problem is game design. I've got other problems with the T4 system. For example, consider the impact of skill on a throw and the impact of a characters raw natural ability. It's very overweighted with the T4 system (but, I understand there are safeguards put into play with the T5 system for this--I'm waiting to see what those are. I remember bits and pieces about T4.1 and other versions of the system from way back.).

Skills should be a superior influence on a task throw than stats. Natural ability is important, but experience and training mean a lot more than natural talent. Ask any employer looking at a new hire--he'll typically hire the skilled, experienced candidate rather than the fresh college graduate who shows a lot of promise but has no actual experience.

A person may be highly educated (EDU stat), but it takes going to medical school (EDU stat and Skill) plus experience (skill) to be a good doctor.

A character's EDU stat is his general education. Skills are the measure of that person's knowledge, training, and experience in a specific area.

The T4 system has it backwards. If anything, it's the Skills that should be the bigger number (thus contributing more to the character's task number) and the stats the smaller number.

If you've got a character with EDU-A and Medic-3, this dude is a doctor. His base target number is 13. But 10 points of that target are made up from his general education and only 3 points are made up of the character's experience and specific training.

That means that on tasks, this character's general education is more than three times as important as his medical school training and experience.

That's not good game design--doesn't reflect the importance of experience as it should.

Marc had it more "right" with CT. Have you noticed how often stats are referenced in CT tasks? Not that often.

Oh, there's a few: the Advantaged/Disadvantaged modifiers for combat and the use of entire DEX as a modifier on the 18+ throw needed to throw a weapon. But, for the most part, the influence of skill is superior to CT task throws than the influence of stats.

Many throws in CT don't reference stat at all. With the 5+ lowberth throw, it's only the patients stat that can influence the roll with a max of -1 modifier on the throw. Otherwise, stats don't affec that throw.

This is much better game design and a better reflection of real life.



EDIT: A 19 year old kid could be an award winning gymnast, unbeatable raquetball player, mesmerizing dancer, fantastic juggler, and the highest scoring first person shooter twitch gamer the video game industry has ever seen. But, does this also make him a superstar Army sharpshooter?

Heck no.

The character's got high DEX, and he's probably got a great aptitude to be a marskman, but it's going to take training and experience to get him there.

In other words, high DEX aside, his skill is more important to him being a sniper than his raw, general ability. Thus, the T4 task system is backwards and non-intuitive.

 

[aramis]

Personally I think people are way too hung up on rolling the dice for themselves. It should be a totally random roll and shouldn't matter who rolls. If the player objects to the GM rolling, accuse them of cheating and kick them from your game!

Ok, maybe I'm a bit harsh. (and being a bit silly)

If I saw you do that in a game I was in, I'd leave right then and there. Violation of Wheaton's Rule.

 

[mechascorpio]

If you've got a character with EDU-A and Medic-3, this dude is a doctor. His base target number is 13. But 10 points of that target are made up from his general education and only 3 points are made up of the character's experience and specific training.

That means that on tasks, this character's general education is more than three times as important as his medical school training and experience.

That's not good game design--doesn't reflect the importance of experience as it should.

Although I can see what you're saying, I don't look at it the same way. You're really focused on that 10+3, and I just focus on the number that matters, 13. In most ways, I see the characteristics as just a way to get through character generation to the numbers that truly define the character. And they exist as a "backup", something inherent in the character, to allow them to attempt some things they might not necessarily be trained in.

I don't really have a strong preference towards roll over vs roll under, so I do find the T4 system intuitive for the most part. It provides for improvement through enhancing skills over characteristics, and provides a common sense system for both level-0 skill attempts, or tasks that are obviously dependent on characteristic alone (the "open a rusted door roll against Str" example).

I really don't find this system inherently better or worse than others, and T4 isn't the only game to take this general approach. My issue was with the half-die nuisance, and what I saw as uncertainty about Task Difficulties and Difficulty Modifiers. It all just seemed like a little too much work to come up with the TN.

One other thing, the T4 rules do explicitly give an example of how to preserve some mystery in a situation (p. 50, player using Intimidation to convince an NPC to give him information, with a secret ref die roll along with the player's roll involved). It may not be to the liking of some, but a method is presented.

 

[Supplement Four]

Tasks are made up of three components: Destiny (Luck), which is provided by the dice. The effect that the character's natural ability and general learning has on the task, which is provided by attributes. And, the effect that the character's specific training and experience has on the task's outcome, which is provided by the character's skills.

There are times when natural ability (attributes) should influence the outcome of a task more than any skill. Forcing open the stuck hatch is a good example (unless the character has some skills where he's learned to shove things properly). But, most of the time, a character's experience and training should be a much bigger influence on the outcome of the roll than attributes.

With Classic Traveller, and the various throws given as examples in the game, skill level is, by far, addressed more often, and has a bigger influence on task throws, than attributes.



With MegaTraveller and the UTP, it looks as if the effect of stats dominate the effect of skills, but this isn't true. Unless a task is marked "Unskilled OK", the task is usually increased in difficulty by 4 points.

Thus, the effect of stats is 0-3 points. The effect of skills is 0-3+ points, plus 4, for a total of 0-7 points or more.

So, MegaTraveller, like Classic Traveller before it, aheres to the common sense rule that specific training and experience in the form of skills should have more influence on the outcome of a task than the skew created by natural ability and general learned knowledge in the form of the attribute modifier.




With Marc Miller's Traveller and the T4 task system, we see the flip-flop of common sense occur. The task roll is dominated by the influence of natural ability (stats) over specific trained experience (skills).

I do remember an attempt to correct this, a bit, with the T4.1 task system by using the This Is Hard rule, which said: If a task requires more dice than than the Skill modifier being applied to the throw, then increase difficulty one level.

Increasing difficulty is equivalent to adding the average of 1d6 to the throw. So, Skills contribute a base of 3 or 4 points to the task throw plus whatever the amount of the character's skill level. Let's call this 0-3+ skill points plus 4, for a number (the same as MegaTraveller), 0-7+ points for skills.

Even doing this, the T4.1 task system is dwarfed by the influence of a character's attributes, because those run 2-15.

Thus, it's a fundamental problem with the design of the task system.




But, let me say that, although I don't prefer it, this doesn't bother me that much. I can definitely live with it. I can look at the T4 task system and say: OK, my character has EDU-7 and Medic-2. With pure EDU tasks, I'm a 7-. With Medic tasks, I'm a 9-. My skill outshines my ability without the skill.

D6 Star Wars, a system I love, is similar: DEX 3D and Blaster 5D.



I might be able to also live with the mystery, hidden number issue. I guess no game is perfect. I'll have to check it out and see how much I like the rest of the game. We'll see when the book arrives.

Who knows. I may become T5's biggest fan. It's certainly possible.

 

[BytePro]

Players LOVE to roll their own dice.

Yeah - this is pretty much my take. Much like roll-under is counter-intuitive to most. Personally, I'm good with both and technically ditching player rolls and using roll-under has advantages, but practically I won't subject my players to such.

... for the most part, the influence of skill is superior to CT task throws than the influence of stats.
...
The character's got high DEX, and he's probably got a great aptitude to be a marskman, but it's going to take training and experience to get him there.

In other words, high DEX aside, his skill is more important to him being a sniper than his raw, general ability. Thus, the T4 task system is backwards and non-intuitive.

Yeah, I feel the same way. Chargen, through the career path DMs, abstractly factors in, to some limited extent, innate ability when it comes to getting skills. Rating a skill level already should abstractly account for differences in ability to a greater extent (i.e. a skill-2 ~ skill-2). Characteristics are useful for non-skill and opposed checks. All the DEX in the world should make no difference in performing surgery if one has no Medic skill... likewise, if the task is more about training than ability. But, occasionally innate ability is handy in figuring success/failure in certain situations...

 

[SmilingKnight]

Why wouldn't you just add an extra die to any roll that involves a skill you're not trained in? I may have way more dexterous fingers than you, but if you know how to pick a lock, and I don't, well target numbers aside, for me it's more difficult task. And difficulty is what the number of dice used represents right?

 

[BytePro]

Adding another die shifts the result curve (impacting DM value) and increases the lowest and highest possible values.

Whether useful to represent difficulty depends on the mechanic. Sure, T4/T5 using a roll under mechanic - adding dice decreases odds of success. In CT this would increase the odds. In MgT this would not work well because if would impact the Effect...