Spectacular Failure is broken

[Supplement Four]

While statistically, from a strictly dice-pool analysis, your position is correct. Unfortunately, you have left out a basic tenet of the analysis of the issue.

You can check the Difficult chance using the charts in the T5 Core rulebook. Don't forget that the TIH rule is in play, as it usually is with T5 throws.

As for the 12.8% on the Beyond Impossible check, I'm using Draconian's numbers published earlier in the thread.

But, think about it. You've got 8D. You only need three of them to be ones. Upon quick inpspection, Draconian's numbers look correct.




The problem, stated from a different point of view, is that you've got the chance of success on a throw going down with each successive difficulty. It's harder to succeed on 3D than it is on 2D, and it's harder on 4D than 3D, and so on.

Then, this wonky SS rule gets throne in the mix, and it works backwards: as difficulty gets harder, success gets easier. 4D is easier than 3D, 5D is easier than 4D, 6D is easier than 5D, and so on.

At some point, these two lines cross, and you've got harder tasks with higher probability than easier tasks.

 

[Supplement Four]

Two Red Dice

OK, here's another attempt to fix the problem.


- TWO RED DICE METHOD -

When you roll a task, use two different colored dice from the rest. For example, if making a 4D check, use two red dice and two white dice.

Throw the task normally, but notice the result on just the two red dice. If snake-eyes appear on these dice, then Spectacular Success has been achieved.




Notes--

1. No math! Just check the two red dice. Are they snake eyes? If yes, you've got SS. If no, then you can ignore the color and count all the dice nomrally for the task.

2. This ensures that the probability of SS is 2.7% no matter the difficulty.

3. Refs can allow SS on Average (2D) tasks using this method, as both dice will be red.

4. If the Ref wants a lower probability of SS, use three red dice. But, also be aware that this lowers the chance of SS to lower than half a percent (one-in-two hundred).

5. If the Ref wants a chance of SS on Easy tasks, then only use one red die. Know that the chance of SS will be 16.67%.

6. Not every task needs to be elligible for SS. A Ref can indicated if a task is a "Spectacular" task by indicated if the red dice are used. If SS is not possible, then the red dice are not used on the task throw.

 

[robject]

I haven't seen anyone yet, including you, Marc, or Don, defend why it's OK to have a better chance of success on Beyond Impossible tasks than on Difficult tasks.

Think about it. By the time you're attempting the Impossible, it's all chaos anyway. In other words, what are we really trying to model at this point?

 

[robject]

- TWO RED DICE METHOD -

Yep, that's what I proposed. An easy house rule to implement, no fuss.

Also, for combat tasks, it's handy to use two white dice (or whatever) to use for hit location determination.

 

[daltoncalford]

All I can say is that I don't see a worthwhile defence of the current mechanic.

I don't see a sudden uptake on the number of players of Traveller. At the local game stores, traveller is an unknown and when I brought in the t4/t5 rule books, more people where interested in playing t4 then even opened the pages to t5. The store owner had no interest in getting t5 into his store as he said that it looked as a more complex but less appealing version of gurps without any of the artwork. He also added that gurps was a rare seller.

T5 is less appealing than T4 to new players. T4 died in the marketplace, even when it had more books and supporting material than t5. People just did not like how it played or how the game felt. The game mechanics killed it.

T5's die mechanic is based upon T4 and it was argued against and had it's own thread as a response from Marc during the playtest.

Unfortunately, the play-testers where not vocal enough when complaining about the mechanic and I doubt Marc would have listened even if they where.

So, now we have a game mechanic that is disliked, which has many little grafted on modifiers such as this is hard due to the way that the mechanic has undervalued skills in comparison to attributes.

The whole t5 task mechanic with its attempt to put a value to a descriptive word - ie easy tasks are 1d unless hasty etc is more confusing to players than saying roll 8+

From my experience over the past decades (been playing since 79)
CT was easy to learn and play. New players who never met a current traveller player where common.
MT was similar, but new players came more from existing player evangelism than by people just picking up the books, although that still happened.
TNE was intimidating to new and old players alike, I am doubtful that any sales went to anyone other than an existing traveller player.
T4 looked good on the surface and I am sure some people picked it up out of curiosity, but the mechanics killed the game and now...................

We have T5 where we paid to play-test it, paid to get it published and even now, spend time to fix the errata,

But Marc is absent from the boards, does not listen to those who helped support him and has a group of t5 apologisers who defend the system even when obviously broken.

So, the big question is, given the current situation, what can we do?

A new t5 mechanic would need to address the issues and be compatible with the t5 character generation.

Any takers? Suggestions? I have my own but, I am wondering if there is any chance of people working together to create a system that works or if we are just going to continue to beat a dead horse.

 

[Vladika]

From my experience over the past decades (been playing since 79)
CT was easy to learn and play. New players who never met a current traveller player where common.

CT, for many reasons, IS Traveller

A new t5 mechanic would need to address the issues and be compatible with the t5 character generation.

Any takers? Suggestions? I have my own but, I am wondering if there is any chance of people working together to create a system that works or if we are just going to continue to beat a dead horse.

I hear what you are saying. My biggest fear is that with ALL of us having to "house rule" Traveller to near death over the years that it is no longer a seamless transition to play with an old hand Traveller GM/player. So many "house rules" are in use it's almost a different game everywhere you go.

All I can say is that I don't see a worthwhile defence of the current mechanic.

There isn't one.

But Marc is absent from the boards, does not listen to those who helped support him and has a group of t5 apologisers who defend the system even when obviously broken.

Marc is, and has been, from the beginning, his own worst enemy.

 

[aramis]

Marc is not entirely absent. True, he doesn't post. But he does read. Both Cryton and I can attest to (in the admin's list of who's doing what) him reading various OTU and T5 sections.

 

[pendragonman]

You can check the Difficult chance using the charts in the T5 Core rulebook. Don't forget that the TIH rule is in play, as it usually is with T5 throws.

As for the 12.8% on the Beyond Impossible check, I'm using Draconian's numbers published earlier in the thread.

But, think about it. You've got 8D. You only need three of them to be ones. Upon quick inpspection, Draconian's numbers look correct.




The problem, stated from a different point of view, is that you've got the chance of success on a throw going down with each successive difficulty. It's harder to succeed on 3D than it is on 2D, and it's harder on 4D than 3D, and so on.

Then, this wonky SS rule gets throne in the mix, and it works backwards: as difficulty gets harder, success gets easier. 4D is easier than 3D, 5D is easier than 4D, 6D is easier than 5D, and so on.

At some point, these two lines cross, and you've got harder tasks with higher probability than easier tasks.

Ok, Draconian's numbers. Fine. I still stipulate to them. You still don't refute my argument. There are far fewer opportunities to attempt a Beyond Impossible roll than there are opportunities to attempt a difficult roll. This clearly deadens the issue of a less than 3% improvement in success rate as it takes far less actual tick tocks of a clock to reach a hundred difficult rolls as it does to find a hundred rolls at beyond impossible. I propose you play the game for as long as it takes to get enough of the beyond impossible opportunities as it takes to come to acceptance.

Again, this is not Spreadsheets and Sliderules. Statistical perfection is not called for.

 

[robject]

CT, for many reasons, IS Traveller

More correctly, some abstract visions imparted by various aspects of CT is what many of us like about Traveller.

CT itself is a wide, messy, fun river.

I hear what you are saying. My biggest fear is that with ALL of us having to "house rule" Traveller to near death over the years that it is no longer a seamless transition to play with an old hand Traveller GM/player. So many "house rules" are in use it's almost a different game everywhere you go.

Ask the D&D community about the OSR. It's how experience works: draw from the past to inform your present and plan your future.

 

[daltoncalford]

Robert, what is being posted here is not a lets go back to {inject version here} of traveller.
What is being discussed is a series of valid complaints about the current task system and a wish for a fixed system to be put forward.

In other words, T5 is close to what we want, but, in this one area, it is broken. The only proponent I have seen for the current task system has been Marcs based upon his thread on the task system in the playtest materials.

Everyone else either says they can work with it (warts and all), house rule it or avoid it.

No one is saying how great it is.

So this is not the same as the OSR movement or the difficulties therein. This is more about fixing the current edition and moving forward.

It should be put forward in a manner that a player can play t5, cross town (let alone the country) and join a different group without having a totally different house rule task system. This is assuming that groups are going to be playing T5 which is in severe doubt with the current task system.

 

[robject]

Robert, what is being posted here is not a lets go back to {inject version here} of traveller.
What is being discussed is a series of valid complaints about the current task system and a wish for a fixed system to be put forward.

My apologies, Dalton. Forum threads typically wind a little, easy to get sidetracked.

I would like to know how the written mechanic worked out in actual gameplay. Did your players deliberately attempt impossible tasks in hopes of gaming the system?

 

[daltoncalford]

To answer you properly, lets review the state of T5

Character Generation - It works, it is missing some details as per higher education examples etc, but, it works. The characters generated are not comparable to the earilier editions with the way skills, knowledges and attributes work out, but, hey, every version of traveller needed a method of converting characters so that is a moot point.

World Generation - It is compatible with what has been in the past, but has alot more added onto it. I would have liked biomass/biocomplexity/biodiversity values that affected trade as well as creatures, but, that is a nitpik and not a problem for most.

Equipment - QREBS and the various builders all cover equipment and other than more solid designs being available, it is a working system.

Same goes for starships, genetics, even psi. Everything has been solidly built and although it may be more abstract than earlier math heavy versions, it is consistent and solid.

BUT intertwined through characters, equipment, worlds, trade etc are assumptions that are based upon the task system. The task system is broken. That has been shown from both a mathematical as well as a user preference standpoint.

So, although it is close, the broken task system makes the rest of the system broken.

T5 has built itself on a foundation of loose sand.

So, to answer your question, no, the system is not playable enjoyably as written.

If you have a group of traveller players, or old school role players, you can adapt and house rule with the experienced players making allowances for the system.

But, put the system in front of totally new players, even if it is in a format that is better laid out, such as the T4 books. You will find the system does not encourage new players and that the old players will have the T5 book in their collection gathering dust.

Buckets of dice systems never become overwhelming successes - TnT, the first buckets of dice system is a testament to that and it is far easier to learn/play than Traveller is.

Roll under systems only appeal to players who have encountered the concept in other roll over systems. Even then, they are not the most popular games, regardless of how good and efficient the game mechanics are. BRP/Runequest/COC is a perfect example of popular roll-under systems that still do not sell as well as Roll over systems, while the number of roll under percentile systems that have been lost and forgotten over the years seems beyond number.

Attribute Pip=Skill Pip is a new one on me. Most systems make skills far more important than attributes on a value for value basis, but even the this is hard rule only adds one die to the roll regardless of how outclassed the characters skill level is. Hasty tasks have the same sort of impact. If you add a die per die the skill is exceeded by, only makes it more likely to succeed (more dice = higher chance of success).

I have been experimenting with task difficulties being numbers instead of descriptive words ie instead of automatic, easy, average, hard etc, I use level 0 task, level 1 task etc.

Each level of a task represents the number you need to beat based upon core attribute+flux.

The target number is difficulty level * 5 so, 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 etc.

Skills lower the difficulty level on a 1:1 basis

Equipment gives a bonus based upon its min:max skill ie, if the equipment is skill 0:4 then you get a +1 to your flux roll for every skill point to a maximum of 4. If the minimum skill is higher than your skill level, you don't know how to use it. Equipment can have a further modifier to the flux roll depending upon quality, computer assistance etc.

Modifiers make the level higher/lower etc and there is no reason to tell the player the final target number, just ask them to roll and give the result. Modifiers could adjust the difficulty level or act as a flux modifier.

Extraordinary Success is a natural flux of 5 while critical failure is a natural flux of -5.

You can not have a Extraordinary success if the difficulty number is greater than your skill, while you can not have a critical failure if your difficulty number is less than your skill.

Opposed tests have the target number of your opponents roll.

People assisting with a task get a reduced benefit ie 2nd person lowers the difficulty by one for every 2 levels of skill. The 3rd person lowers the difficulty by 1 for every 3 levels etc.

So, T5 flux mechanic. No buckets of dice, similar to roll high. Attributes are important but skills are more important. No upper or lower limit on difficulty levels.

It is far from perfect, but it is something I came up with in about 10 minutes.

It is simpler than T5 and can handle the same range of things.

I am sure that the players on this list could come up with something better and have it work with everything else in T5.

 

[daltoncalford]

My apologies, Dalton. Forum threads typically wind a little, easy to get sidetracked.

I would like to know how the written mechanic worked out in actual gameplay. Did your players deliberately attempt impossible tasks in hopes of gaming the system?

My Problem Robert, is that although my players where using pregenerated characters, pre-selected equipment etc., after 2 hours of play, they did not want to use the T5 rules anymore and wanted to go back to MGT rules. They where even willing to spend the time generating characters for MGT to avoid the T5 system.

T5 roll under just does not feel right to players. They don't get excited to roll the dice. They don't add up bonuses or do little mental math games hoping that the situation lets them get one more modifier. The system with its changing numbers of dice just does not feel like fun. The changing number of dice takes away the feeling of control from the players due to the way it works. Once you loose the feeling of control, it just feels random and players loose interest.

They where experienced players who play D&D (since the mid 80's) TnT, Traveller and a bunch of other games. When I tried to get my daughters to play, they wanted to try it but soon wanted to play serenity as they understood how that works easier, and that is a bucket of different types of dice system.

 

[robject]

Dalton, if I am correct, I think Wil Hostman has that problem, as well. His players will play MT, but intensely dislike multi-dice roll-low systems (T4, and therefore T5). One of my players has a related issue, in that if he cannot know the exact percentages of success, he cannot feel he truly has a handle on the situation. That includes 2d6 task systems, even though the bell curve is relatively accessible. So he only really likes percentile roll low. But he tolerates Traveller (in any form) because he likes a good story and we're all friends and I'm a Traveller nerd.

Easy call: I can't see any sort of fix to T5 that will remedy your situation, so y'all did the right thing. The referee has to gauge his players' willingness to use a ruleset. If I had one player refuse to play because I used T5, I would accommodate him because I wanted him to play with us -- probably by switching to MgT or CT. But if he insisted that only percentile were acceptable, then that would be a whole different ball of wax.

 

[Supplement Four]

You still don't refute my argument. There are far fewer opportunities to attempt a Beyond Impossible roll than there are opportunities to attempt a difficult roll.

I didn't address it because I didn't want to sidetrack the issue. Saying that T5 players don't roll Beyond Impossible tasks that often, so it's OK that a Beyond Impossible task success chance is better than a Difficult task success chance isn't a very good argument.

Even if you never throw a Beyond Impossible task, the fact remains that the chance of success for it can be higher (sometimes quite higher) than tasks thrown at easier difficulty levels.

Most gamers agree, I think, that a Beyond Impossible task SC should not even be close to the SC of a Difficult task.

To answer you properly, lets review the state of T5

Character Generation - It works, it is missing some details as per higher education examples etc, but, it works. The characters generated are not comparable to the earilier editions with the way skills, knowledges and attributes work out, but, hey, every version of traveller needed a method of converting characters so that is a moot point.

World Generation - It is compatible with what has been in the past, but has alot more added onto it. I would have liked biomass/biocomplexity/biodiversity values that affected trade as well as creatures, but, that is a nitpik and not a problem for most.

Equipment - QREBS and the various builders all cover equipment and other than more solid designs being available, it is a working system.

Same goes for starships, genetics, even psi. Everything has been solidly built and although it may be more abstract than earlier math heavy versions, it is consistent and solid.

BUT intertwined through characters, equipment, worlds, trade etc are assumptions that are based upon the task system. The task system is broken. That has been shown from both a mathematical as well as a user preference standpoint.

So, although it is close, the broken task system makes the rest of the system broken.

T5 has built itself on a foundation of loose sand.

One system that you didn't mention is the combat system. I've written quite a lot about it.

And, man, is that one screwed up system. It's got loads of problems, not just one or two.

One of my players has a related issue, in that if he cannot know the exact percentages of success, he cannot feel he truly has a handle on the situation.

I don't think I'd do it or like it as a Ref, but you could always let that player use the charts at the beginning of T5. He can use them to look up his SC on tasks easily.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yep, that's what I proposed. An easy house rule to implement, no fuss.

Where as my first suggestions with the SS Target Number is akin to the This Is Hard rule, the Two Red Dice rule is more akin to the T5 Flux rule.

 

[pendragonman]

Ok S4. I have seen thread after thread from you complaining about T5. I have to ask, is there any part of it that you like, or is your purpose in continued complaining about separate parts is to get it completely rewritten to your vision?

 

[daltoncalford]

Dalton, if I am correct, I think Wil Hostman has that problem, as well.

I am not surprised, I have heard many others say the same thing in regards to T5.

Unfortunately, by dropping the core mechanic, due to the way it is integrated into the system, forces me to drop the whole system, unless I am willing to rewrite everything without Marc's permission. Even then, if I share it with my own gaming group, it is still copyright infringement unless I change everything.

I am not the only one in this boat. I am here trying to address an issue that is shared by many on these forums. This is a last ditch effort before T5 goes onto the shelf to collect dust with T4.

About the best I could hope for is either Marc changing the mechanic to something new (unlikely) or his making the T5 Mechanics OGL, letting players use and alter the game mechanics as we wish without infringing his IP.

 

[daltoncalford]

One system that you didn't mention is the combat system. I've written quite a lot about it.

And, man, is that one screwed up system. It's got loads of problems, not just one or two.

The combat system reminds me alot of the Tunnels and Trolls system and in many ways, it is close to the original LBB version of combat. Very abstract and nothing like the systems in later versions of Traveller - many people think of Snapshot style combat when thinking of CT, but range bands and other abstractions where the norm in the original CT.

So, I have less problems with it than I do with the basic task mechanic.

I would not say it is a great system, but, in the overall scope of things, it is still workable and can be easily upgraded with a more tactical system just as Snapshot and AHL did with CT.

 

[Supplement Four]

Ok S4. I have seen thread after thread from you complaining about T5. I have to ask, is there any part of it that you like, or is your purpose in continued complaining about separate parts is to get it completely rewritten to your vision?

You haven't read my posts on T5 too closely if you haven't seen the positive things I've written.

For example, I've described some aspects of combat as "brilliant".

Since we're talking about the task system in this thread, the Spectacular Failure method is a pretty good rule. It's not possible to roll SF on the easiest of tasks, Easy and Average, and SF gets easier to achieve the harder a task becomes. I could gripe a bit about the early chance of SF. I mean, half a percent chance of a Difficult throw is probably a bit low, I think. But, it's OK. I can live with it. And, I like how a character's chance for SF grows with the difficulty of the task--tasks are hard and the chance that it will result in a royal screw up grows along with the increase in difficulty. Not perfect, but it works pretty well.

As a whole, though, T5 is a mess, with many illogical or ugly rules, tons of typos, few examples, and some ommissions.

I believe that T5 requires a GM to House Rule it in order to be desirable to play.

...it is close to the original LBB version of combat. Very abstract and nothing like the systems in later versions of Traveller - many people think of Snapshot style combat when thinking of CT, but range bands and other abstractions where the norm in the original CT.

In CT, two methods were presented. Range Band combat was one. And, a Ref could run combat using the Range Bands, if he liked, without consulting a grid.

But, CT was also easily played on a grid for standard tactical combat. Speed-1, human walking speed allowed, allowed a character to move 17 squares per 15 second combat round. Speed-2, which is human running speed, allowed a character to move 33 squares. Each square represented 1.5 meters on a side.

In the personal combat section, a chart is provided for Range Bands, and a separate chart is provided for Range Bands and Squares of movement.