Simple Task System

[Takei]

The T5 task system discussion seems to have drifted into a CT one so I thought I'd start a thread over here in the correct forum

Here's a suggestion gleaned from posts from Bromgrev, Sigg Oddra and myself. My opinion is heavily influenced by the ease of use of the d20 and CODA systems - especially of writing them down. The difficulty levels changing by 2 each step I got from Striker (8+ to hit at effective range, 10+ and long, 12+ at extreme). This can just as easily be handled by applying DMs as per the BITS Task System.

Roll 2d6 + skill + ability mod to equal or beat the target number.

Laughable / 4+
Simple / 6+
Everyday / 8+
Difficult / 10+
Impossible /12+

Sigg's suggestion of using 5+, 8+ and 12+ simplifies it even more.

One thing I like to do is handle stat mods in a more ven fashion. Working on the premise that average (and just below and just above average) shouldn't get a positive or negative stat modifier we get;

Stat Modifier
1-2 -2
3-5 -1
6-8 0
9-11 +1
12-14 +2
15-17 +3

 

[Takei]

The T5 task system discussion seems to have drifted into a CT one so I thought I'd start a thread over here in the correct forum

Here's a suggestion gleaned from posts from Bromgrev, Sigg Oddra and myself. My opinion is heavily influenced by the ease of use of the d20 and CODA systems - especially of writing them down. The difficulty levels changing by 2 each step I got from Striker (8+ to hit at effective range, 10+ and long, 12+ at extreme). This can just as easily be handled by applying DMs as per the BITS Task System.

Roll 2d6 + skill + ability mod to equal or beat the target number.

Laughable / 4+
Simple / 6+
Everyday / 8+
Difficult / 10+
Impossible /12+

Sigg's suggestion of using 5+, 8+ and 12+ simplifies it even more.

One thing I like to do is handle stat mods in a more ven fashion. Working on the premise that average (and just below and just above average) shouldn't get a positive or negative stat modifier we get;

Stat Modifier
1-2 -2
3-5 -1
6-8 0
9-11 +1
12-14 +2
15-17 +3

 

[mike wightman]

I suggested 5+, 8+, and 12+ because the chance of success for each works out as 83%, 42%, and 3%.
Which is close enough to 80%, 40% and no chance
Easy to remember.

As a very rough rule of thumb:
a +/-1 DM is approximately a 15% average bonus/penalty;
a +/-2 DM is approximately a 25% average bonus/penalty;
a +/-3 DM is approximately a 35% average bonus/penalty.

I like the stat modifiers Paul. CT had penalties for low stats, an idea that MT dumped; unfortunately so IMHO

 

[mike wightman]

I suggested 5+, 8+, and 12+ because the chance of success for each works out as 83%, 42%, and 3%.
Which is close enough to 80%, 40% and no chance
Easy to remember.

As a very rough rule of thumb:
a +/-1 DM is approximately a 15% average bonus/penalty;
a +/-2 DM is approximately a 25% average bonus/penalty;
a +/-3 DM is approximately a 35% average bonus/penalty.

I like the stat modifiers Paul. CT had penalties for low stats, an idea that MT dumped; unfortunately so IMHO

 

[flykiller]

CT perspective, 2d6

base required rolls
-------------------
routine 3+
unusual 6+
difficult 9+
very difficult 12+
extraordinary 15+
incredible 18+

skill modifiers
-------------------
skill level 1, +1
skill level 2, +3
skill level 3, +5
skill level 4, +7
skill level 5, +9
etc

stat modifiers (if desired)
-------------------
relevant stat 2, -2
relevant stat 3-4, -1
relevant stat 5-9, 0
relevant stat A-B, +1
relevant stat C, +2

a minimally-trained person should be able to accomplish routine tasks without undue risk. a highly-skilled person should be remarkable but still capable of failing high-difficulty tasks.

"impossible" should mean impossible.

 

[flykiller]

CT perspective, 2d6

base required rolls
-------------------
routine 3+
unusual 6+
difficult 9+
very difficult 12+
extraordinary 15+
incredible 18+

skill modifiers
-------------------
skill level 1, +1
skill level 2, +3
skill level 3, +5
skill level 4, +7
skill level 5, +9
etc

stat modifiers (if desired)
-------------------
relevant stat 2, -2
relevant stat 3-4, -1
relevant stat 5-9, 0
relevant stat A-B, +1
relevant stat C, +2

a minimally-trained person should be able to accomplish routine tasks without undue risk. a highly-skilled person should be remarkable but still capable of failing high-difficulty tasks.

"impossible" should mean impossible.

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I like the stat modifiers Paul. CT had penalties for low stats, an idea that MT dumped; unfortunately so IMHO

Thanks. I never liked the idea in MT that a stat of 4 was enough to give a positive modifier to skill checks.

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I like the stat modifiers Paul. CT had penalties for low stats, an idea that MT dumped; unfortunately so IMHO

Thanks. I never liked the idea in MT that a stat of 4 was enough to give a positive modifier to skill checks.

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by flykiller:
"impossible" should mean impossible.

This is why I've started preferring the d20/CODA method of stating, as an example, a DC10 or TN10 Pilot check. Whilst d20 does have names for each DC level I've never seen them used. I think they're more for eyeballing difficulty levels for newbies.

As far as your numbers go, I prefer to keep mine more intuitive; a skill level of 3 should add 3 to the dice roll. I know my players would Give Me A Look if I said that a level 3 skill added 5 to the dice roll

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by flykiller:
"impossible" should mean impossible.

This is why I've started preferring the d20/CODA method of stating, as an example, a DC10 or TN10 Pilot check. Whilst d20 does have names for each DC level I've never seen them used. I think they're more for eyeballing difficulty levels for newbies.

As far as your numbers go, I prefer to keep mine more intuitive; a skill level of 3 should add 3 to the dice roll. I know my players would Give Me A Look if I said that a level 3 skill added 5 to the dice roll

 

[flykiller]

As far as your numbers go, I prefer to keep mine more intuitive; a skill level of 3 should add 3 to the dice roll. I know my players would Give Me A Look if I said that a level 3 skill added 5 to the dice roll

a small hurdle. tell them to multiply the skill level by two and subtract one. the look may be one of "hey! double skill!"

I too intuitively prefer modifiers equal to skill levels, but this makes it difficult to generate both routine accomplishment of routine tasks and balanced accomplishment/failure of very difficult tasks. the above system does both, at very small cost in "intuition".

 

[flykiller]

As far as your numbers go, I prefer to keep mine more intuitive; a skill level of 3 should add 3 to the dice roll. I know my players would Give Me A Look if I said that a level 3 skill added 5 to the dice roll

a small hurdle. tell them to multiply the skill level by two and subtract one. the look may be one of "hey! double skill!"

I too intuitively prefer modifiers equal to skill levels, but this makes it difficult to generate both routine accomplishment of routine tasks and balanced accomplishment/failure of very difficult tasks. the above system does both, at very small cost in "intuition".

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

An "impossible as in impossible" task is sort of an oxymoron, no? If you can't do it (eg "To compose an epic poem about ducks, while naked on the surface of the sun: Impossible.") then there's no point in coming up with a task for it, is there?

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

An "impossible as in impossible" task is sort of an oxymoron, no? If you can't do it (eg "To compose an epic poem about ducks, while naked on the surface of the sun: Impossible.") then there's no point in coming up with a task for it, is there?

 

[mike wightman]

Using 5+ for routine tasks, if you have a +1 DM due to skill, attribute, tool, or situation then you succeed 92% of the time.

We used to have a "don't roll a 2 rule" and a ok "you can try if you roll a 12" first rule.

If you rolled a 2 on an "automatic" task then you'd have to roll a 5+ to succeed, normal skill etc. DMs apply.

If a task was considered highly improbable then you had to roll a natural 12, and then treat the task as a target number of 12.

 

[mike wightman]

Using 5+ for routine tasks, if you have a +1 DM due to skill, attribute, tool, or situation then you succeed 92% of the time.

We used to have a "don't roll a 2 rule" and a ok "you can try if you roll a 12" first rule.

If you rolled a 2 on an "automatic" task then you'd have to roll a 5+ to succeed, normal skill etc. DMs apply.

If a task was considered highly improbable then you had to roll a natural 12, and then treat the task as a target number of 12.

 

[kaladorn]

I vastly dislike doubling skill levels. I can't quite express how vastly!

But trust me, it is a lot. So do my players, to the point where we'd never use a system like that. 1 Skill level = +1 on a key die roll is simple and offers an intuitive feel.

Names should be indicative. I agree with the criticisms of impossible.

I also disagree with 5/8/12. I have played a lot of MT (and run a lot of it). It's single failure point is that there isn't enough granularity. I spoke with Joe Fugate about this and he indicated that at one point, they had considered 3 point skill levels. That would have been better than 4 point levels. It might not be necessary to go to 2 point levels, but I could live with that.

4 Point levels mean routine at 7 and difficult at 11 were just too far apart. Typically, characters got +1 from stats and +1 from skill, so that meant a routine (7+) only needed 5, and a Difficult still needed a 9+ which was a bit too tough.

If the mean on two dice is 7, then that makes a good place to position one skill test point. But doing so in awareness of the modifiers that will likely be applied.

Let us assume that we went with MT's theme of keeping stat impact to a max of 3 points positive (that's about right in weighting raw talent to skills IMO), but instead used (stat - 7)/3 as the actual formula. Thus we'd have:

Stat/Mod
0/ -2
1/ -2
2/ -2
3/ -1
4/ -1
5/ -1
6/ 0
7/ 0
8/ 0
9/ +1
10/ +1
11/ +1
12/ +2
13/ +2
15/ +2

We then setup the difficulty levels for tasks as

Very Easy 1+
Easy 4+
Average 7+
Difficult 10+
Very Difficult 13+
Formidable 16+
Herculean 19+

So, how does this work out in play? Simple case:

Bob the Scout, with Pilot 1 and Dex 7, has to make a Routine Piloting roll to avoid a mishap docking. 7 Gives him no bonuses, 1 Pilot gives him a 1 point bonus. He must roll a 6+.

Bob tries to perform that same manouver under fire and at higher-than-safe speed, a very difficult task (each of the two modifiers moves it up a level) meaning he needs 13+, modified by 1 by his skill. He needs a 12+, but he knew the risks.

Then we contemplate Maverick the Pilot, with Dex 10 and Pilot 3 in the same 2 cases. In the first case, the routine task (7+) actually requires a 3+ is his hands and the very difficult (13+) task requires a 9+ in his hands. Tough, but doable with some luck. He's certainly less likely to botch it catastrophically.

And for failures:
I think having 2+ below the target on your roll as a failure then having to roll again to see how bad is an extra roll that may be dispensable. Why not marry that to the roll itself?

Failed by:
1-2: Superficial Failure
3-4: Minor Failure
5-6: Moderate Failure
7-8: Serious Failure
9-10: Catastrophic Failure

So, taking our two example cases of Bob and Maverick.

Bob needed a 6+ for the routine docking. He's most likely to only generate a minor failure if he fails, but the worst failure he would get would be a moderate failure. Attempting the same task under combat conditions and overspeed, he's kind of likely to fail into the moderate+ range, with catastrophic failure being entirely conceivable. If Maverick attempts the same two actions, his failure in the first case won't be more than superficial (he's a darn good pilot), and in the second case, his likely failures won't be worse than minor, and the maximum possibility is serious.

This means:
Stat 7 characters have no mods to chance to succeed.
Granularity of 3 on the skill levels gives more control to the GM of the resulting target numbers.
Stats straight up (1 stat = 1 skill) is intuitive.
Matching failure to the die roll means that the better you are, not only the more likely to succeed you are, but correspondingly you'll tend to mitigate failure results. And you don't have to have a second die roll.

Anyway, that's my kick at the can.

 

[kaladorn]

I vastly dislike doubling skill levels. I can't quite express how vastly!

But trust me, it is a lot. So do my players, to the point where we'd never use a system like that. 1 Skill level = +1 on a key die roll is simple and offers an intuitive feel.

Names should be indicative. I agree with the criticisms of impossible.

I also disagree with 5/8/12. I have played a lot of MT (and run a lot of it). It's single failure point is that there isn't enough granularity. I spoke with Joe Fugate about this and he indicated that at one point, they had considered 3 point skill levels. That would have been better than 4 point levels. It might not be necessary to go to 2 point levels, but I could live with that.

4 Point levels mean routine at 7 and difficult at 11 were just too far apart. Typically, characters got +1 from stats and +1 from skill, so that meant a routine (7+) only needed 5, and a Difficult still needed a 9+ which was a bit too tough.

If the mean on two dice is 7, then that makes a good place to position one skill test point. But doing so in awareness of the modifiers that will likely be applied.

Let us assume that we went with MT's theme of keeping stat impact to a max of 3 points positive (that's about right in weighting raw talent to skills IMO), but instead used (stat - 7)/3 as the actual formula. Thus we'd have:

Stat/Mod
0/ -2
1/ -2
2/ -2
3/ -1
4/ -1
5/ -1
6/ 0
7/ 0
8/ 0
9/ +1
10/ +1
11/ +1
12/ +2
13/ +2
15/ +2

We then setup the difficulty levels for tasks as

Very Easy 1+
Easy 4+
Average 7+
Difficult 10+
Very Difficult 13+
Formidable 16+
Herculean 19+

So, how does this work out in play? Simple case:

Bob the Scout, with Pilot 1 and Dex 7, has to make a Routine Piloting roll to avoid a mishap docking. 7 Gives him no bonuses, 1 Pilot gives him a 1 point bonus. He must roll a 6+.

Bob tries to perform that same manouver under fire and at higher-than-safe speed, a very difficult task (each of the two modifiers moves it up a level) meaning he needs 13+, modified by 1 by his skill. He needs a 12+, but he knew the risks.

Then we contemplate Maverick the Pilot, with Dex 10 and Pilot 3 in the same 2 cases. In the first case, the routine task (7+) actually requires a 3+ is his hands and the very difficult (13+) task requires a 9+ in his hands. Tough, but doable with some luck. He's certainly less likely to botch it catastrophically.

And for failures:
I think having 2+ below the target on your roll as a failure then having to roll again to see how bad is an extra roll that may be dispensable. Why not marry that to the roll itself?

Failed by:
1-2: Superficial Failure
3-4: Minor Failure
5-6: Moderate Failure
7-8: Serious Failure
9-10: Catastrophic Failure

So, taking our two example cases of Bob and Maverick.

Bob needed a 6+ for the routine docking. He's most likely to only generate a minor failure if he fails, but the worst failure he would get would be a moderate failure. Attempting the same task under combat conditions and overspeed, he's kind of likely to fail into the moderate+ range, with catastrophic failure being entirely conceivable. If Maverick attempts the same two actions, his failure in the first case won't be more than superficial (he's a darn good pilot), and in the second case, his likely failures won't be worse than minor, and the maximum possibility is serious.

This means:
Stat 7 characters have no mods to chance to succeed.
Granularity of 3 on the skill levels gives more control to the GM of the resulting target numbers.
Stats straight up (1 stat = 1 skill) is intuitive.
Matching failure to the die roll means that the better you are, not only the more likely to succeed you are, but correspondingly you'll tend to mitigate failure results. And you don't have to have a second die roll.

Anyway, that's my kick at the can.

 

[flykiller]

I vastly dislike doubling skill levels.

'sjust a mod.

I can't quite express how vastly!

But trust me, it is a lot. So do my players, to the point where we'd never use a system like that.

I'm detecting an underlying issue.

'f I understand your system correctly, you give a pilot 1 with average dexterity attempting an average task a 10/36 chance of failure. seems a bit high - 'ssuming CT of course, which I always do. if this is for MT where pilot 1 means "I know where the bridge is" it would make good sense.

 

[flykiller]

I vastly dislike doubling skill levels.

'sjust a mod.

I can't quite express how vastly!

But trust me, it is a lot. So do my players, to the point where we'd never use a system like that.

I'm detecting an underlying issue.

'f I understand your system correctly, you give a pilot 1 with average dexterity attempting an average task a 10/36 chance of failure. seems a bit high - 'ssuming CT of course, which I always do. if this is for MT where pilot 1 means "I know where the bridge is" it would make good sense.