Running CT with just LBB 1-3
- Thread starter Takei
- Start date
Little or nothing has so far been said of Book 0 the Introduction to Traveller. Datewise it came out with DEluxe Traveller I believe, along with the introductory Spinward Marches adventure and that glorious colour map. But, as far as I remember there are no references to the IMperium at all in that lovely book. In fact it tells you exactly how to use Book 1-3, practicing with the subsystems, playing solo, then going for a subsector creation session - the example is called the Molodon Federation IIRC.
Since my friend bought the game, but me and my other buddy REALLY wanted to play and run it, he let us borrow the books to read, one by one, starting with Book 0. We swapped this book between us for a month, reading it cover to cover several times. And it was fantastic, it was a blueprint for 'building your own universe', and set us up royally when I eventually bought Traveller Deluxe from my mate who couldn't get his head around it!!
For me, the 3i was always a giant 'look at this as an example', but I always, always, considered that building your own universe was the way to go.
Am I misremembering Book 0?? I see it was first published in 1981, along with Deluxe TRaveller - but it really is setting neutral. I highly recommend it to anyone using Books 1-3 to build their own single subsector universe.
Since my friend bought the game, but me and my other buddy REALLY wanted to play and run it, he let us borrow the books to read, one by one, starting with Book 0. We swapped this book between us for a month, reading it cover to cover several times. And it was fantastic, it was a blueprint for 'building your own universe', and set us up royally when I eventually bought Traveller Deluxe from my mate who couldn't get his head around it!!
For me, the 3i was always a giant 'look at this as an example', but I always, always, considered that building your own universe was the way to go.
Am I misremembering Book 0?? I see it was first published in 1981, along with Deluxe TRaveller - but it really is setting neutral. I highly recommend it to anyone using Books 1-3 to build their own single subsector universe.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Still posting my posts in the Traveller: Out of the Box series.
Today's post, I finally made my peace with the Classic Traveller skill system. I did this by seeing it not as a "skill system" or a "task system" but as a Saving Throw system... which seems to be exactly what it was designed to be.
A previous post was about the importance of an actual threat of death in OSR games. (I put original Traveller squarely in the OSR tradition.)
Today's post, I finally made my peace with the Classic Traveller skill system. I did this by seeing it not as a "skill system" or a "task system" but as a Saving Throw system... which seems to be exactly what it was designed to be.
A previous post was about the importance of an actual threat of death in OSR games. (I put original Traveller squarely in the OSR tradition.)
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Hmmm, having been an OD&D AND CT AND AD&D ref, I know where you are coming from here, and in many respects we should be putting the game into Role Playing rather then Roll Playing.
Don't knock the secret ref roll though, ofttimes it can do the same thing in a gaming session that those odd Traveller UWP rolls do, cause a surprise and creativity on the part of refs to handle an unusual result and go 'the road less traveled'.
In a similar vein, rolling for routine tasks sometimes can create a situation on it's own just like the UWP and secret ref rolls can.
As to hard knocks and death, I am all in favor.
I did back off the autokill weapons a bit, but that's my sense that high tech medicine will be able to do a lot more then even today to bring back someone and some silly 'fusion gun hits thumb and causes disintegration' aspects of the combat systems.
But to compensate, I am strongly considering a rule that if you are knocked to two out of three characteristics at 0 that you have to go through aging rolls (and for INT and EDU if you go to potential brain damage close to death).
Just all part of the Space Hurts ethos.
If you think about it though, it's easier for CT players to get back in the saddle due to chargen.
An OD&D player that nursed a character up to level 15 in the old days put years of effort and play to get there. We can get a 'better' character re: capabilities in 30 minutes.
Finally, if one is out to foster Role Playing instead of Roll Playing, then the way to go is DMs off the player's actions, plans and acting.
Got clued to this when we were playing a Star Trek game, and a friend of mine was the captain in the part of the episode having to persuade the locals of doing things for truth justice and the Federation Way.
He wanted to just roll the persuasion check, but the ref disallowed it, said he would get negative DMs and the captain player had to actually make a Kirk Speech.
This was NOT in his comfort zone, which made for high comedy for most of us, he did reasonably well, got positive DMs and made the roll.
A great session on many levels too, the ref played various 60s TV ads during the 'commercial breaks', and I was disallowed from beaming in some hazardous material into the secured and 'ready to vent to space' cargo transporter room because there was no budget to build a separate set.
Get the players up, taking cover behind the furniture and shooting, making their pitch to persuade, and in general acting out to generate DMs for the rolls, and you've got some interested role players rather then having to reward through Monty Haul type gold/credit/XP systems.
Don't knock the secret ref roll though, ofttimes it can do the same thing in a gaming session that those odd Traveller UWP rolls do, cause a surprise and creativity on the part of refs to handle an unusual result and go 'the road less traveled'.
In a similar vein, rolling for routine tasks sometimes can create a situation on it's own just like the UWP and secret ref rolls can.
As to hard knocks and death, I am all in favor.
I did back off the autokill weapons a bit, but that's my sense that high tech medicine will be able to do a lot more then even today to bring back someone and some silly 'fusion gun hits thumb and causes disintegration' aspects of the combat systems.
But to compensate, I am strongly considering a rule that if you are knocked to two out of three characteristics at 0 that you have to go through aging rolls (and for INT and EDU if you go to potential brain damage close to death).
Just all part of the Space Hurts ethos.
If you think about it though, it's easier for CT players to get back in the saddle due to chargen.
An OD&D player that nursed a character up to level 15 in the old days put years of effort and play to get there. We can get a 'better' character re: capabilities in 30 minutes.
Finally, if one is out to foster Role Playing instead of Roll Playing, then the way to go is DMs off the player's actions, plans and acting.
Got clued to this when we were playing a Star Trek game, and a friend of mine was the captain in the part of the episode having to persuade the locals of doing things for truth justice and the Federation Way.
He wanted to just roll the persuasion check, but the ref disallowed it, said he would get negative DMs and the captain player had to actually make a Kirk Speech.
This was NOT in his comfort zone, which made for high comedy for most of us, he did reasonably well, got positive DMs and made the roll.
A great session on many levels too, the ref played various 60s TV ads during the 'commercial breaks', and I was disallowed from beaming in some hazardous material into the secured and 'ready to vent to space' cargo transporter room because there was no budget to build a separate set.
Get the players up, taking cover behind the furniture and shooting, making their pitch to persuade, and in general acting out to generate DMs for the rolls, and you've got some interested role players rather then having to reward through Monty Haul type gold/credit/XP systems.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Oh, and with the original bell curve DM to characteristics roll, I come down firmly on the side of characteristics. Really makes the character pop, otherwise you might as well have
STR LOW
DEX MEDIUM
END HIGH
INT VERY HIGH
EDU VERY LOW
SOC MEDIUM
Also, really makes some situational rolls very compelling, such as attacking after taken DEX hits or trying an intellect skill roll while drunk/drugged, and Personal Development is an equal choice to a skill only table.
STR LOW
DEX MEDIUM
END HIGH
INT VERY HIGH
EDU VERY LOW
SOC MEDIUM
Also, really makes some situational rolls very compelling, such as attacking after taken DEX hits or trying an intellect skill roll while drunk/drugged, and Personal Development is an equal choice to a skill only table.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I find myself agreeing with you yet again
Thinking of the skills as situation dependant saving throws makes a lot of sense. It also makes a lot of sense to not require a throw for every routine thing a skilled character does.
You only use the skill (saving) throw at critical moments during the game and the player has the responsibility to describe and attempt to roll play the skill use.
Look what I found:
This is from the Die rolling conventions section at the start of CT A1:Kinunir.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Hi Mike,
I mentioned the Characteristic Throws in the post, saying they appeared in The Traveller Adventure and "other adventures. I simply didn't have time for a deeper search. But knew they were out there.
So, this:
I'm simply not a big fan of Characteristic Throws for Traveller, even if the were introduced in adventures. Here are some of the reasons why:
1. Inelegance. When I first dug up a copy of the LBBs a few years ago and ran a convention game (which turned into all this writing I've been doing about Traveller) we used the Characteristic Throws. What happened was every time I asked for a Throw, the Players had to stop and remember whether they were rolling over or under. Because, of course, with some Throws you are rolling over, and some you are rolling under, and there's nothing intuitive about the difference. And then, god help us, if you need to add modifiers, you have switch the -DMs to +DMs and the +DMs to -DMs, on the fly, always focusing on which direction was up.
Because here's the thing: At it's core, this is the basic instruction for determine if things go south in Traveller: 2D6 +/- DM ≥ Saving Throw
With that, you can determine almost anything you need to determine. The thing is, that's all very flexible already. What the DMs are and what the Throw number is all get to be determined on the fly, with guidelines already suggested, but made concrete in the moment.
Adding Characteristic Throws makes the system more flexible, yes. But in my experience, it made it so flexible it was like a wet strand of spaghetti. And we didn't enjoy it as we had to remind ourselves whether we were going up or down each time, which slowed the handling time. It's a small thing, to be sure. But it did bump us every time.
I'd rather stay focused on the core formula and build from that.
2. Easy Odds. In the example given from the text quoted above, let's assume that the PC has an INT of 9 or 10. We'll call it 9. Something high enough to assume he makes the cut. This means that when the PC make the Throw he will succeed 72% of the time (if I've done my math right). That's a really big chance for success on something that's supposed to be a problem. But it really isn't much of a problem because the Player, without doing much but rolling dice.
We might as well be saying, "Throw 6+" (same odds as Throw 9-) but that sounds less interesting, I suppose. But the key is, anyone with a high Characteristic has very, very good odds on something that, within the fiction, at least, is supposed to be a challenge.
The way the odds of Characteristic Throws like up then seem off to me. They are independent of the situation Is solving the problem difficult or hard? Who knows? If you have an INT of 9+ you'll be solving anywhere from 72-100% of the time.
I'm not saying this should bump everyone else. But it bumps me.
3. Static Odds. Using Characteristic Throws means everyone knows how easy or hard it is to solve the problem even before a problem arrives. The odds of the Throw are baked into their Characteristic. Touching off the previous point, I want some mystery and some fictional details of the circumstances to set the Throw. That's how I like to play. But I do think something is lost without the ability of the Referee and the Players to sort out the details of the world beyond the PC -- which doesn't happen when the problem can be solved within the PC's characteristic alone.
4. I don't want dice rolls to solve everything.. I don't like Players to be able to solve problems with a roll.
I've been running a Lamentations of the Flame Princess for months now, and it's going gangbusters. It's an OSR style game based on the B/X Dungeons & Dragons rules. I'm learning a lot about how I would run Classic Traveller from the game, as I consider Classic Traveller squarely in the Old School tradition.
One of the things I'm seeing that works so well is limited mechanical options to solve problems. The Players have the ability to fight, to do a limited set of skills (climb walls, check for traps, and so on), and cast magical spells (which, like _Traveller_, provide a broad range of unique skills the Players can use to solve problems). In the rules there are no Attribute Rolls. (They appear in later editions of Dungeons & Dragons.)
The thing is, the list of things they can do with die rolls is really limited. If, for example, they want to figure out what the strange planetarium they find the wizard's keep is for (let alone use it) they can't just make a roll to get an answer or mastery of it. (Some magic spells will provide veiled and incomplete information, but that's it).
Instead, to solve problems and deal with crisis, what must the Players do? They must interact with the fictional world.
They talk to me. I talk to them. We build details. They have their characters poke and prod the fictional elements of the game. I give responses as to what the effects are.
Let me lay this down clearly: This is why I play the games. When I play, I want to create fictional details and moments with my friends, imaginatively and in the moment. I want an accretion of details. I want us building up images and pictures as we discover what the Characters do, and the Characters discover the strange world around them and the effects of their actions.
If the PCs come upon the wizard's strange device and make an Intelligence rolls and succeed, well, that removes the need to poke and prod and the sense of actual discovery and the risk they'll blow themselves up. And I don't want to lose any of that.
I understand that for some folks getting on with it is part of the charm of using skill rolls. But I've discovered that's not my thing.
So, in the example above: A character is faced with a very unusual navigational problem hitherto un-encountered.
Awesome. It's a space game, and there's a problem involving navigation. In my game, it's a game about adventure and stuff, so we need to solve the problem not with an Intelligence roll (because wheres' the adventure in that) but with adventure...
a) First, I want the the Players to come up with their own ideas of how to solve the problem. They might not work, but I do want to here them. I want them to try them. If they make sense, sure! They work! Because that's the fun of it. But as opposed to the INT roll, the solution will be specific and imaginative -- and that's the stuff my game play thrives on.
But they might not. Or the solution might be more complicated. Here are some ideas:
b) The Player Characters might have to travel somewhere to triangulate the information they already have an produce the results they need. The problem can then be solved. But getting to that point might create problems. There might be obstacles or dangers.
c) Or the PCs might need to find someone to talk to give them what they need. Once they do this, they can reduce the Throw number and see if they can now accomplish what they could not before (more on this below).
d) Of the PCs might sit around the ship and solve the problem. They describe what they're doing, what plans or machinery they are bringing to bear. We are building a world with detail. As they build the detail, I, as the Referee, set the Throw and offer the +DMs for the details they're adding. Again, this back and forth, for me, is the source of fun in play.
[CONT'D in next post]
I mentioned the Characteristic Throws in the post, saying they appeared in The Traveller Adventure and "other adventures. I simply didn't have time for a deeper search. But knew they were out there.
So, this:
I'm simply not a big fan of Characteristic Throws for Traveller, even if the were introduced in adventures. Here are some of the reasons why:
1. Inelegance. When I first dug up a copy of the LBBs a few years ago and ran a convention game (which turned into all this writing I've been doing about Traveller) we used the Characteristic Throws. What happened was every time I asked for a Throw, the Players had to stop and remember whether they were rolling over or under. Because, of course, with some Throws you are rolling over, and some you are rolling under, and there's nothing intuitive about the difference. And then, god help us, if you need to add modifiers, you have switch the -DMs to +DMs and the +DMs to -DMs, on the fly, always focusing on which direction was up.
Because here's the thing: At it's core, this is the basic instruction for determine if things go south in Traveller: 2D6 +/- DM ≥ Saving Throw
With that, you can determine almost anything you need to determine. The thing is, that's all very flexible already. What the DMs are and what the Throw number is all get to be determined on the fly, with guidelines already suggested, but made concrete in the moment.
Adding Characteristic Throws makes the system more flexible, yes. But in my experience, it made it so flexible it was like a wet strand of spaghetti. And we didn't enjoy it as we had to remind ourselves whether we were going up or down each time, which slowed the handling time. It's a small thing, to be sure. But it did bump us every time.
I'd rather stay focused on the core formula and build from that.
2. Easy Odds. In the example given from the text quoted above, let's assume that the PC has an INT of 9 or 10. We'll call it 9. Something high enough to assume he makes the cut. This means that when the PC make the Throw he will succeed 72% of the time (if I've done my math right). That's a really big chance for success on something that's supposed to be a problem. But it really isn't much of a problem because the Player, without doing much but rolling dice.
We might as well be saying, "Throw 6+" (same odds as Throw 9-) but that sounds less interesting, I suppose. But the key is, anyone with a high Characteristic has very, very good odds on something that, within the fiction, at least, is supposed to be a challenge.
The way the odds of Characteristic Throws like up then seem off to me. They are independent of the situation Is solving the problem difficult or hard? Who knows? If you have an INT of 9+ you'll be solving anywhere from 72-100% of the time.
I'm not saying this should bump everyone else. But it bumps me.
3. Static Odds. Using Characteristic Throws means everyone knows how easy or hard it is to solve the problem even before a problem arrives. The odds of the Throw are baked into their Characteristic. Touching off the previous point, I want some mystery and some fictional details of the circumstances to set the Throw. That's how I like to play. But I do think something is lost without the ability of the Referee and the Players to sort out the details of the world beyond the PC -- which doesn't happen when the problem can be solved within the PC's characteristic alone.
4. I don't want dice rolls to solve everything.. I don't like Players to be able to solve problems with a roll.
I've been running a Lamentations of the Flame Princess for months now, and it's going gangbusters. It's an OSR style game based on the B/X Dungeons & Dragons rules. I'm learning a lot about how I would run Classic Traveller from the game, as I consider Classic Traveller squarely in the Old School tradition.
One of the things I'm seeing that works so well is limited mechanical options to solve problems. The Players have the ability to fight, to do a limited set of skills (climb walls, check for traps, and so on), and cast magical spells (which, like _Traveller_, provide a broad range of unique skills the Players can use to solve problems). In the rules there are no Attribute Rolls. (They appear in later editions of Dungeons & Dragons.)
The thing is, the list of things they can do with die rolls is really limited. If, for example, they want to figure out what the strange planetarium they find the wizard's keep is for (let alone use it) they can't just make a roll to get an answer or mastery of it. (Some magic spells will provide veiled and incomplete information, but that's it).
Instead, to solve problems and deal with crisis, what must the Players do? They must interact with the fictional world.
They talk to me. I talk to them. We build details. They have their characters poke and prod the fictional elements of the game. I give responses as to what the effects are.
Let me lay this down clearly: This is why I play the games. When I play, I want to create fictional details and moments with my friends, imaginatively and in the moment. I want an accretion of details. I want us building up images and pictures as we discover what the Characters do, and the Characters discover the strange world around them and the effects of their actions.
If the PCs come upon the wizard's strange device and make an Intelligence rolls and succeed, well, that removes the need to poke and prod and the sense of actual discovery and the risk they'll blow themselves up. And I don't want to lose any of that.
I understand that for some folks getting on with it is part of the charm of using skill rolls. But I've discovered that's not my thing.
So, in the example above: A character is faced with a very unusual navigational problem hitherto un-encountered.
Awesome. It's a space game, and there's a problem involving navigation. In my game, it's a game about adventure and stuff, so we need to solve the problem not with an Intelligence roll (because wheres' the adventure in that) but with adventure...
a) First, I want the the Players to come up with their own ideas of how to solve the problem. They might not work, but I do want to here them. I want them to try them. If they make sense, sure! They work! Because that's the fun of it. But as opposed to the INT roll, the solution will be specific and imaginative -- and that's the stuff my game play thrives on.
But they might not. Or the solution might be more complicated. Here are some ideas:
b) The Player Characters might have to travel somewhere to triangulate the information they already have an produce the results they need. The problem can then be solved. But getting to that point might create problems. There might be obstacles or dangers.
c) Or the PCs might need to find someone to talk to give them what they need. Once they do this, they can reduce the Throw number and see if they can now accomplish what they could not before (more on this below).
d) Of the PCs might sit around the ship and solve the problem. They describe what they're doing, what plans or machinery they are bringing to bear. We are building a world with detail. As they build the detail, I, as the Referee, set the Throw and offer the +DMs for the details they're adding. Again, this back and forth, for me, is the source of fun in play.
[CONT'D in next post]
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
[CONT'D from previous post]
5. Why Are We Rolling? The thing about Characteristic rolls is that, because they are easy, they encourage lots of rolling. And lots of rolling is not, in my observation, a good thing.
Again, this comes down to personal preferences and style of play. And I'm being upfront about this: This is my personal preferences and the style of play is Old School. So all I can ask is that folks keep that in mind.
But from what I've seen in the LotFP game, there's lots and lots of fun to be had with the Players poking and prodding and testing and checking and not having mechanical gears and levers that solve every problem for them via some sort of die roll baked into the rules.
As I stated in the last linked post to my blog above, I'm coming down squarely on the notion that for the most part, skills in OSR games seem to work best when used when everything is going wrong, and before that, the game is just talking between the Referee and the Players: Exploring, building details, examining things. There's no need to make rolls most of the time. The Referee is giving out information based on what the Players have their characters do, rather than handed out because of mechanics. This encourages the Players to poke and prod more. But because they can't use mechanics to solve the problem, there's an element of danger and risk: "If we poke and prod too much, what bad thing might happen?"
And so I turn to the example from the quote above: Why the heck are we rolling anyway? Are the Players in any sort of danger? Are they just curious about something? Do they have all the time in the world? Do they need to solve the problem in thirty minutes?
All those questions are valid possibilities for excellent play in a session of Classic Traveller. But each one will be handled differently. And I don't think any of them are helped by having an Intelligence roll solve the problem for the Players.
If they are in danger, that means there's a lot going on. There number of responses are varied, and the fun is seeing which paths of problems solving they decide to pursue. I don't want them to solve the anomaly problem with a single die roll. I want to know how they shore up their defenses, or delay the danger while they work on solving the problem, or seek the answer to the problem while the danger is after them.
If it's a problem of a ticking clock, each roll is now interesting. But it would be more interesting if the Throw is very difficult at first. Not a 72% chance of success, but 11+ or even 15+. And then for every hour or day (or whatever unit of time is required for the Throw) the Throw number is reduced as the research is conducted. But this means the Players must make decisions: "Is the risk the time spent on the research worth it if we might be attacked at any moment? Do we abandon ship now?" And so on. Because the circumstances are part of the Throw now, not just the character's INT. (Note that, as stated in the blog post, I would be offering a +DM for a high INT in such cases. The point is, I'm not making the PC's INT the sum total of the Throw.)
If the situation is casual, and the PCs are curious about the anomaly, what I really want to know is why are the Players curious? What do they want from this? How do they want to explore this? I'll let them describe the process of the PCs to me so I can learn what interests them, and then feed them more along these lines. A straightforward INT Throw cuts all this short. In other words, it is possible the Players might solve the problem without ever having made a Throw. There is a power and fun to this that I don't think a Characteristic Throw, which cuts short all mystery and exploration in an instant, can ever match.
That's my thoughts on Characteristic Throws. Not expecting to win anyone over or say anyone is wrong. Just saying what I like and why.
5. Why Are We Rolling? The thing about Characteristic rolls is that, because they are easy, they encourage lots of rolling. And lots of rolling is not, in my observation, a good thing.
Again, this comes down to personal preferences and style of play. And I'm being upfront about this: This is my personal preferences and the style of play is Old School. So all I can ask is that folks keep that in mind.
But from what I've seen in the LotFP game, there's lots and lots of fun to be had with the Players poking and prodding and testing and checking and not having mechanical gears and levers that solve every problem for them via some sort of die roll baked into the rules.
As I stated in the last linked post to my blog above, I'm coming down squarely on the notion that for the most part, skills in OSR games seem to work best when used when everything is going wrong, and before that, the game is just talking between the Referee and the Players: Exploring, building details, examining things. There's no need to make rolls most of the time. The Referee is giving out information based on what the Players have their characters do, rather than handed out because of mechanics. This encourages the Players to poke and prod more. But because they can't use mechanics to solve the problem, there's an element of danger and risk: "If we poke and prod too much, what bad thing might happen?"
And so I turn to the example from the quote above: Why the heck are we rolling anyway? Are the Players in any sort of danger? Are they just curious about something? Do they have all the time in the world? Do they need to solve the problem in thirty minutes?
All those questions are valid possibilities for excellent play in a session of Classic Traveller. But each one will be handled differently. And I don't think any of them are helped by having an Intelligence roll solve the problem for the Players.
If they are in danger, that means there's a lot going on. There number of responses are varied, and the fun is seeing which paths of problems solving they decide to pursue. I don't want them to solve the anomaly problem with a single die roll. I want to know how they shore up their defenses, or delay the danger while they work on solving the problem, or seek the answer to the problem while the danger is after them.
If it's a problem of a ticking clock, each roll is now interesting. But it would be more interesting if the Throw is very difficult at first. Not a 72% chance of success, but 11+ or even 15+. And then for every hour or day (or whatever unit of time is required for the Throw) the Throw number is reduced as the research is conducted. But this means the Players must make decisions: "Is the risk the time spent on the research worth it if we might be attacked at any moment? Do we abandon ship now?" And so on. Because the circumstances are part of the Throw now, not just the character's INT. (Note that, as stated in the blog post, I would be offering a +DM for a high INT in such cases. The point is, I'm not making the PC's INT the sum total of the Throw.)
If the situation is casual, and the PCs are curious about the anomaly, what I really want to know is why are the Players curious? What do they want from this? How do they want to explore this? I'll let them describe the process of the PCs to me so I can learn what interests them, and then feed them more along these lines. A straightforward INT Throw cuts all this short. In other words, it is possible the Players might solve the problem without ever having made a Throw. There is a power and fun to this that I don't think a Characteristic Throw, which cuts short all mystery and exploration in an instant, can ever match.
That's my thoughts on Characteristic Throws. Not expecting to win anyone over or say anyone is wrong. Just saying what I like and why.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
As you can see from above, I rest easily with with not using Characteristic Throws.
Your points about the lowering of Characteristics for various reasons mattering is sound. I can only say that I think this still stands. A character whose INT or DEX or whatever is reduced will lose whatever +DMs were once available to him. This is, of course, exactly what happens to weapon +DMs when STR and DEX are reduced in combat. It's there in the rules as is. I'm more than content to extrapolate that as the rules to use in play across the board.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Just curious if you have reviewed my use of them, I won't mess up your ur-thread on 'back to the basics' by reposting them here without your interest, but I think I have a solid system to use characteristics and skill.
Only four reversal/unique DMs situations I use, three of which are about SOC (in which case you roll a reverse task, try to hit below the task result with stat modifying up and skill mods down).
About the only time I use a unique DM is with one of the above, the reaction roll, and it's a modifier off SOC comparison, so sort of opposed roll.
I actually ditch all the equipment mod DMs which makes combat easier, once the player knows it's an 8AC type system for combat hits by Striker range all they need to know is their stat+skill mod for their weapon and the range.
But more importantly, that character is really different and can do amazing things when they have a combination of 'talent' re: stat AND skill. And not so when they are average or below.
Only four reversal/unique DMs situations I use, three of which are about SOC (in which case you roll a reverse task, try to hit below the task result with stat modifying up and skill mods down).
About the only time I use a unique DM is with one of the above, the reaction roll, and it's a modifier off SOC comparison, so sort of opposed roll.
I actually ditch all the equipment mod DMs which makes combat easier, once the player knows it's an 8AC type system for combat hits by Striker range all they need to know is their stat+skill mod for their weapon and the range.
But more importantly, that character is really different and can do amazing things when they have a combination of 'talent' re: stat AND skill. And not so when they are average or below.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
If you can point me toward them in another thread that would be fantastic. I know I've read it, and just did a google search. But failed.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
These three cover the current 'state of the art'-
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=526832&postcount=95
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=526832&postcount=96
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=526832&postcount=99
I have a simple explanation I worked up to handle the task severity determination, using an example of 'using a computer'-
Simple- turn it on
Easy- surf, shop, email/IM
Routine- write a document, query database using UI
Challenging- programming/hacking, professional database mining
Difficult- programming an OS/compiler, hacking against an AI
Impossible- hack an alien ship system to shut down fleet shields
+1 difficulty level for every halving of time pressure.
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=526832&postcount=95
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=526832&postcount=96
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=526832&postcount=99
I have a simple explanation I worked up to handle the task severity determination, using an example of 'using a computer'-
Simple- turn it on
Easy- surf, shop, email/IM
Routine- write a document, query database using UI
Challenging- programming/hacking, professional database mining
Difficult- programming an OS/compiler, hacking against an AI
Impossible- hack an alien ship system to shut down fleet shields
+1 difficulty level for every halving of time pressure.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Thinking of skills as saving throws means you are in the mind set of only using a roll as a last resort or in a critical situation.
As soon as you start using skill rolls for easy, routine, normal you are reducing the game to a roll playing game rather than a role playing game.
There is also the law of unintended consequence - roll that routine task for opening the computer locked door to continue the adventure - ooops you failed adventure is over, what do you want to do now...
I have two target numbers for skill saving throws (nice term that) 8+ or 12+, you can earn DMs by having a stat high enough (in my opinion) to give you a bonus of 1, you can add a relevant skill, you can get a +1 for role playing the situation well and there may be a +1 for specialist tools. There are - DMs if it is hasty, specialist tools required and you don't have them, that sort of thing.
If I think the skill attempt has a moderate chance to succeed they get to roll vs 8+, if I think the task is hard/difficult/challenging (they all mean the same thing) its a 12+
Lately I have been experimenting with the boon/bane system from MgT (which reminds me a lot of the 5E D&D advantage/disadvantage) - if the universe favours you (good role playing) you roll three dice and keep the higher two, if the universe is out to get you then you keep the lowest two of the three.
My players like this.
As soon as you start using skill rolls for easy, routine, normal you are reducing the game to a roll playing game rather than a role playing game.
There is also the law of unintended consequence - roll that routine task for opening the computer locked door to continue the adventure - ooops you failed adventure is over, what do you want to do now...
I have two target numbers for skill saving throws (nice term that) 8+ or 12+, you can earn DMs by having a stat high enough (in my opinion) to give you a bonus of 1, you can add a relevant skill, you can get a +1 for role playing the situation well and there may be a +1 for specialist tools. There are - DMs if it is hasty, specialist tools required and you don't have them, that sort of thing.
If I think the skill attempt has a moderate chance to succeed they get to roll vs 8+, if I think the task is hard/difficult/challenging (they all mean the same thing) its a 12+
Lately I have been experimenting with the boon/bane system from MgT (which reminds me a lot of the 5E D&D advantage/disadvantage) - if the universe favours you (good role playing) you roll three dice and keep the higher two, if the universe is out to get you then you keep the lowest two of the three.
My players like this.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Hi there creativehum,
I too dislike direct attribute throws, and I especially dislike the Traveller (and other games) skill/task systems that are based on stat+skill - it gives too much emphasis to having high characteristics and unbalances the game.
I agree, I like to have one resolution system rather than several (there was an edition of D&D where you resolved stuff on the roll of a d20, or used % roll over for some skills, roll under % for other skills, 1d6 checks for some tasks ...).
That said I was never fond of looking up every skill description to work out how to apply the skill, so when Andy Slack suggested the 8+ resolution method, in a White Dwarf article I think it was, it wa a game writer confirming something we had been doing for months - I often wonder how many groups invented that one for themselves.
I still have my notebook where I calculated the odds for success or failure for a 2d6 distribution (if it has been set as maths homework I would never have done it).
It's why I decided I needed 8+ as one target number and 12+ for the higher.
I think this is a problem too.
I also think it is a problem for systems based on characteristic + skill target numbers - you know the odds beforehand and the stat has more weighting than the skill
I agree, the dice rolling should be a minimum for the players - and that includes during combat for me.
I am reminded of a game I played in, Harnmaster.
There were some rock formations that we had to climb to get to the 'clue'. The GM ruled that you had to make five consecutive climb rolls to get to the top. The GM - who had no idea about probability was using skill throws to accomplish something - if he had known the laws of probability he wouldn't have been surprised by the total part kill that resulted.
Hmm, should we think of Traveller skills as saving throws or 'casting magic spells'? Or are the technological items in Traveller the equivalent of the spells?
Just a thought as I read this.
Reminds me of Shadows, Annic Nova, exploring the wreck of the Kinunir, checking the labs of RSG and the ancient base in Twilight's Peak...
or my favourite of the lot - Death Station.
There is a danger that the session boils down to players rolling dice and shouting out numbers rather than interacting with each other and the world.
So basically we are saying to the player, you have the navigation skill, you should be able to figure this out, tell me how you are using your skill to solve the problem rather than just
'it's a difficult task, target number 10+, roll and tell me what you got'...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Once again I agree completely.
I think this sentence sums it all up perfectly - it should be the players' actions and choices that solves (and create
) problems, not the random roll of a dice.Keep posting your insights - your blog is an excellent read and the points you raise on these boards are thought provoking.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Mike-
<Shrug> firing your weapon is a routine task by most systems, are you seriously suggesting role playing that out as default?
Yes of course you can go nuts roll playing, it's a matter of judgement as to when to apply them. I don't make people roll to turn on the room lights, but it's there mostly for engineering drama (sometimes what got damaged is a tripped breaker- 5 seconds off/on, and that laser is back online- impossible usually means a trip to the shipyard, unless you are Scotty).
An INT 3 character is going to be challenged to do most anything intellectual, and that is something that should be enforced with rolls if the player is not up to role playing it out.
The critical success and failure bits I'm using means a standard takeoff can turn into a disaster. It's the adventure equivalent of the UWP, unexpected twists and turns. As ref you can skip the roll if you intend that ship to get to the adventure in one piece.
It's obsessive die rolling in service of itself, not the die rolls themselves that are 'the enemy' of role playing.
I greatly disagree with the balancing assertion re: skills and stats- among other things, the NPCs have these advantages and disadvantages, and the process of 'things going wrong' can just as easily incapacitate the highpowered.
Also, let's look at the range- average 7, ultimate in most cases is 12, that's a +5 range as opposed to +2 to +4 attribute mods, mostly tending to +1/+2. Given the rarity of a B+, most mods will fall into the -3 to +3 range. Move up the target rolls as I have and yes the talented AND well trained can do amazing things, but talent (characteristic) alone will not save the day.
Which is where the unskilled part comes in, effectively if you do not have any requisite skill for the task it's a -4, which can be mitigated by Education rolls to a -2 or JOAT to a 0 and then high INT or other characteristic will help, but it's not a sure thing like high stat AND skill.
And of course, if you have a low characteristic you are hamstrung doing anything related to that stat. But with education/routine rolls, my equivalent of the kskills and JOAT, there are several ways to achieve success or at least escape disaster.
Or vice versa, even Scotty can roll a 2 and have a Big Problem.
Yes talented and skilled lethal people are more truly lethal, but that puts a premium now on players to ensure they have their own 'hired guns' (and that may mean brawlers and melee weapon specialists too for high law levels). Or not getting in the way of the killers, or having a plan for them that does not involve risking a straight up shootout.
You have to be able to get and manage teams of people to get things done, and that puts an emphasis on role playing for persuasion, interaction, team building/loyalty, etc. etc.
The other part that bothers me is effectively making everyone have JOAT skill and high intelligence and education, which is what the 90% role playing resolutions sounds like- heck, let's not bother with even having characters defined then if they have no meaning advantages or limits, all mods based on what the player can think up and describe, and the players essentially play 'themselves in space'.
Which can be a valid mechanism, several modern systems operate on this principle (I was just reading up on Story Engine for instance), but it isn't Traveller at that point, other then potentially the setting and plot drivers.
And, I'm NOT changing roll systems for this or that, very much tied into the combat and starship rules and a consistent system.
Heck, the LBBs are RIFE with alternative die rolling for this or that, ignoring any sort of single convention in favor of what makes sense for that specific situation. Lots of people like that about CT, others don't, but you certainly cannot claim consistency as a hallmark of LBB resolution.
By comparison, task systems like mine and various predecessors are far more consistent, if that is important to you.
It is to me, just for fast gen of a task and appropriate modifiers as opposed to someone pulling out an obscure note in a skill paragraph that is unlike any other roll.
<Shrug> firing your weapon is a routine task by most systems, are you seriously suggesting role playing that out as default?
Yes of course you can go nuts roll playing, it's a matter of judgement as to when to apply them. I don't make people roll to turn on the room lights, but it's there mostly for engineering drama (sometimes what got damaged is a tripped breaker- 5 seconds off/on, and that laser is back online- impossible usually means a trip to the shipyard, unless you are Scotty).
An INT 3 character is going to be challenged to do most anything intellectual, and that is something that should be enforced with rolls if the player is not up to role playing it out.
The critical success and failure bits I'm using means a standard takeoff can turn into a disaster. It's the adventure equivalent of the UWP, unexpected twists and turns. As ref you can skip the roll if you intend that ship to get to the adventure in one piece.
It's obsessive die rolling in service of itself, not the die rolls themselves that are 'the enemy' of role playing.
I greatly disagree with the balancing assertion re: skills and stats- among other things, the NPCs have these advantages and disadvantages, and the process of 'things going wrong' can just as easily incapacitate the highpowered.
Also, let's look at the range- average 7, ultimate in most cases is 12, that's a +5 range as opposed to +2 to +4 attribute mods, mostly tending to +1/+2. Given the rarity of a B+, most mods will fall into the -3 to +3 range. Move up the target rolls as I have and yes the talented AND well trained can do amazing things, but talent (characteristic) alone will not save the day.
Which is where the unskilled part comes in, effectively if you do not have any requisite skill for the task it's a -4, which can be mitigated by Education rolls to a -2 or JOAT to a 0 and then high INT or other characteristic will help, but it's not a sure thing like high stat AND skill.
And of course, if you have a low characteristic you are hamstrung doing anything related to that stat. But with education/routine rolls, my equivalent of the kskills and JOAT, there are several ways to achieve success or at least escape disaster.
Or vice versa, even Scotty can roll a 2 and have a Big Problem.
Yes talented and skilled lethal people are more truly lethal, but that puts a premium now on players to ensure they have their own 'hired guns' (and that may mean brawlers and melee weapon specialists too for high law levels). Or not getting in the way of the killers, or having a plan for them that does not involve risking a straight up shootout.
You have to be able to get and manage teams of people to get things done, and that puts an emphasis on role playing for persuasion, interaction, team building/loyalty, etc. etc.
The other part that bothers me is effectively making everyone have JOAT skill and high intelligence and education, which is what the 90% role playing resolutions sounds like- heck, let's not bother with even having characters defined then if they have no meaning advantages or limits, all mods based on what the player can think up and describe, and the players essentially play 'themselves in space'.
Which can be a valid mechanism, several modern systems operate on this principle (I was just reading up on Story Engine for instance), but it isn't Traveller at that point, other then potentially the setting and plot drivers.
And, I'm NOT changing roll systems for this or that, very much tied into the combat and starship rules and a consistent system.
Heck, the LBBs are RIFE with alternative die rolling for this or that, ignoring any sort of single convention in favor of what makes sense for that specific situation. Lots of people like that about CT, others don't, but you certainly cannot claim consistency as a hallmark of LBB resolution.
By comparison, task systems like mine and various predecessors are far more consistent, if that is important to you.
It is to me, just for fast gen of a task and appropriate modifiers as opposed to someone pulling out an obscure note in a skill paragraph that is unlike any other roll.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
I'm not going to get too hung up on the specifics of the analogy.
But when I wrote that passage it did strike me, for the first time, that so many spells are like specific Skills for the Players to pry out information and solve problems in unexpected ways... much like _Traveller_ skills. The spells are, in application, unique and rare and used not with any particular situation in mind, but as the Players decide in order to progress through complications.
Comprehend Langauges, Speak to the Dead, Unseen Servant all pull off interesting effects in terms of solving problems, and essentially Clerics and Magic-Users are imbued with "skills" that work for a moment and then vanish again.
That's all I've got.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Just a thought:
There's not "right" way to do any of this, nor any "logical" or "realistic" way.
What matters, as far as I can tell, is the effect the Referee and Players want from play, and what techniques and rules produce that kind of play.
The starkest example is the real possibility of Player Character death in play. Either a gaming group wants this... or they do not. Depending on this desire, the an RPG group will be using rules and techniques that encourage one result or another. (Using a Lethal Combat system, fudging dice, offering Bennie Points of some kind that can be cashed in to prevent death, and so on.)
This is the stark example. There are many, many other results that matter to a playing group that are much more subtle, but no less important.
For example, what do I want as a Referee? I want the players to talk to me to solve their problems. I loved details. I love the accretion of fictional elements. I want the specifics of images and actions -- often building on them and calling them back later.
All of this is the pleasure I get from the games. And so I want to utilize rules and techniques that encourage this. So, for example, I'm using a broad spread for the Throw numbers (much like Mike's) but ranging 7/11/15. The broad range is to determine the circumstances. Which is why it goes up to 15.
But... if the Players have their Characters change the circumstances in a clever way (adding details, building on what has come before to make a new possibility), clever enough to alter the difficulty, then I'll bump that difficulty down.
This method might not make sense to some. But I would offer each person check their ambitions for play, look at what their expectations for fun are, and take a look at why they are playing the way they are playing. Tools and techniques are good. But they aren't the place to start. It's the expectations that drive those tools and techniques. Without examining this, all sorts of arguments can occur about the "right" way to do things... that ultimately miss the vital element of personal pleasure that really drive these things.
There's not "right" way to do any of this, nor any "logical" or "realistic" way.
What matters, as far as I can tell, is the effect the Referee and Players want from play, and what techniques and rules produce that kind of play.
The starkest example is the real possibility of Player Character death in play. Either a gaming group wants this... or they do not. Depending on this desire, the an RPG group will be using rules and techniques that encourage one result or another. (Using a Lethal Combat system, fudging dice, offering Bennie Points of some kind that can be cashed in to prevent death, and so on.)
This is the stark example. There are many, many other results that matter to a playing group that are much more subtle, but no less important.
For example, what do I want as a Referee? I want the players to talk to me to solve their problems. I loved details. I love the accretion of fictional elements. I want the specifics of images and actions -- often building on them and calling them back later.
All of this is the pleasure I get from the games. And so I want to utilize rules and techniques that encourage this. So, for example, I'm using a broad spread for the Throw numbers (much like Mike's) but ranging 7/11/15. The broad range is to determine the circumstances. Which is why it goes up to 15.
But... if the Players have their Characters change the circumstances in a clever way (adding details, building on what has come before to make a new possibility), clever enough to alter the difficulty, then I'll bump that difficulty down.
This method might not make sense to some. But I would offer each person check their ambitions for play, look at what their expectations for fun are, and take a look at why they are playing the way they are playing. Tools and techniques are good. But they aren't the place to start. It's the expectations that drive those tools and techniques. Without examining this, all sorts of arguments can occur about the "right" way to do things... that ultimately miss the vital element of personal pleasure that really drive these things.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Fair enough statement Hum.
The tools are the means to serve the goal, not vice versa, and it's a tool/philosophy discussion about entertainment, not existential or theocratic wars.
One thought on the skill bit re: spells and other D&D-isms- may I point out that D&D charisma is essentially the persuade skill, that many D&D saving throws are predicated on Constitution, and Wisdom or Intelligence drives the number and power of spells that can be used.
Characteristics are not the enemy.
Speaking of which, IMO you may find the other parts of my IMTU thread interesting, since I go into the characteristics in detail for unique things that I think have been overlooked about them, or can be used for similar effects on the player's world as say wisdom or charisma.
The tools are the means to serve the goal, not vice versa, and it's a tool/philosophy discussion about entertainment, not existential or theocratic wars.
One thought on the skill bit re: spells and other D&D-isms- may I point out that D&D charisma is essentially the persuade skill, that many D&D saving throws are predicated on Constitution, and Wisdom or Intelligence drives the number and power of spells that can be used.
Characteristics are not the enemy.
Speaking of which, IMO you may find the other parts of my IMTU thread interesting, since I go into the characteristics in detail for unique things that I think have been overlooked about them, or can be used for similar effects on the player's world as say wisdom or charisma.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Thanks!
I've never said Characteristics in Traveller are the enemy, or that Abilities are the enemy in Dungeons & Dragons. I even posted sample charts from Basic D&D in the post to make it clear how Abilities influence rolls in D&D in the exact same way Characteristics influence rolls in the original Traveller rules.
So... yeah, I agree.
