Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Nice.
Not necessarrily. Five ones on 5D would qualify for SS if we only need four ones.
Absolutely. And, obviously, T5 did not benefit from such anaylsis.
Spectacular Failure is broken
- Thread starter mvdwege
- Start date
Nice.
Not necessarrily. Five ones on 5D would qualify for SS if we only need four ones.
Absolutely. And, obviously, T5 did not benefit from such anaylsis.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I get that and even agree with it. There should be a slight chance of success pull off the impossible.
What I think is amazing is that you and Marc find it acctable that the chance of success at Beyond Impossible is even close to that of Difficult, much less higher.
I'd have no problem if there were some chance of success at Beyond Impossible that was significantly lower than Difficult.
But, a better chance at Beyond Impossible than at Difficult?
C'mon. I think most gamers would find flaw with that.
EDIT: I guess I'll bow out of this thread as it's got me scratching my head in wonder. I feel like the conversation has been going like this...
Your screwdriver is worn down. You're not getting traction on the screw. Here, use this better screwdriver.
- I don't want a new screwdriver. The one I have is fine.
But, you're not getting any bite? It's not performing for you. It wasn't designed well. See, all the flanges have worn down. If you use something else, you'll have a better tool.
- Nope. I'm sticking with this one.
Look at the screwdriver! It's worn down to a nub! It doesn't work well at all!
- I don't see it. Looks OK to me. Don't want to change.
Well...OK. I tried.
Last edited:
FWIW, I think the thread (and both your and others analyses of the issue) have been very helpful, both in fleshing out exactly what the intent of the rule is (i.e. what "spectacular" means in the T5 RAW and what it is supposed to represent in game terms), as well as providing a number of alternative House-Rules for those who would like a slightly different mechanic for their play-style.
If it weren't for this thread, I probably would never have picked up on the "cinematic" intent of the mechanic, or (based on this) that "spectacular" success is a slightly different concept from "critical" success as it is in most other games.
I think the "fix" (or fixes) that you and Draconian worked out below is/are a rather elegant "simple solution" to those who want a slightly more "realistic" feel to the mechanic.
Regarding your quote below about Draconian's method:
You could use Draconian's idea as-is, but rule that if all 1's come up, then you get spectacular success regardless of simple success or failure on the task-roll.
[FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]
Last edited:
Ackehece
SOC-13
I see it more as a situation of - "I don't like Robertson screwdrivers. Maybe it would be better to use a Phillips in this case as it has a different feel."
We are fine with the Robertson - feel free to use other screws if you so desire but the one we are using is just fine.
Last edited:
Ackehece
SOC-13
you obviously were not part of the beta.... ever wondered why there are so many pages at the front of T5 looking at probability?
While I am glad to see you interested now... where were you years ago while we discussed such things???
I think three things happened.
1) Marc's been using it for his own games. He likes it.
2) Consciously or not, the other task systems suffer "not invented here" syndrome, and so he's resistant to their use as reference
3) Marc's terminology has not been subjected to Loren and Frank - and so some "common meanings" are not shared.
Marc has been adamant about this task system since before T20 shipped. For good or bad, it's Traveller to him.
I can't stand it. Between it and the character generation issues, T5 is, for me, nothing but a resource volume illuminating some elements of jumpspace and the OTU.
The thing is, Marc is willing to let people continue to get (in pdf) their favorite versions.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
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.
All I've seen in response is, "Yeah, it's not broken. Works just fine. We like it that way."
I think that, no matter what I say, or how many ways I prove it, some are just going to shake their heads and say the problems I've pointed out are not only OK, but a design feature!
I guess a task difficulty labeled "Beyond Impossible" is supposed to be more likely than a task christened "Difficult"?
I don't think it would have made any difference back then, as it doesn't seem to now.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I think my favorite rule for SS at this time is the first one I suggested. It's easy, and it's skill based. Those will higher skill will score SS more often. The rule is also similar, in nature, to the TIH rule.
For easy reference...
SS < (Skill + Difficulty)
So...whenever the result of the throw is equal to or less than the sum of the character's skill plus the number of difficulty dice being thrown, a Spectacular Success has occurred.
For example: EDU-7 Computer-3
The character makes a Difficult (3D) task roll.
He rolls 3D, looking for 10 or less. (Target Number = Skill-3 + Stat-7)
If the score is 6 or less, then he rolls SS. (SS Number = Skill-3 + 3 Dice).
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Exactly. As I see it, you are wanting the Designer to defend his decisions, like he reports to you. Hence the answers you are getting.
As usual, if you don't like a rule as written, house rule it the way you want.
Ackehece
SOC-13
exactly.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I'll take a coherent defense from anyone. I'm not hearing anything but crickets because there is no defense.
C'mon. We all know that something is wrong with the system when I point to this one example...
Joe Traveller 788779 Computer-2
Chance of success on Difficult (3D) task: 10%
Chance of succes on Beyond Impossible (8D) task: 12.8%
And, it isn't like T5 isn't already riddled with problems, mistakes, typos, and conflicting rules.
This is just one of the many.
I mean, holy smokes! Have you tried to make sense of the combat system?! LOL!
Look, I don't even play this game. I've already been turned off by all of T5's problems. When I post about it, it's been in an effort to make T5 better. I haven't been just illuminating problems with the rule set since it came out, I've been offering suggestions on how to fix things.
Some of you T5 guys come across like you're insulted when someone points out yet another problem with the game.
No, and if there's something that annoys me in a game I just house rule it. Been doing that with Traveller for years, and T5 isn't going to break me of it.
Doesn't the increased risk of Spectacular Failure and Spectacularly Interesting balance it all out?
No, I guess it probably doesn't for you.
Doesn't the increased risk of Spectacular Failure and Spectacularly Interesting balance it all out?
No, I guess it probably doesn't for you.
Original_Carl
SOC-12
This is taunting and I don't like it. Fol de ol rol.
I've been willing to engage you and answer your questions on T5 because I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are at least well-meaning. Also, you have an order of magnitude more posts than I do, and you appear to have some math skills. So there's that.
In that spirit, and using Graham's Heirarchy of Disagreement, I'm going to refute your central point.
You'll need the rate of occurrence of tasks by difficulty in a game to judge the true impact. Without that data all you're proving is that Traveller isn't a very good casino game.
S4: For what it's worth, your nuclear bomb example convinced me that the rule is indeed broken. I wonder if people are missing your point that it does indeed give incentive to the player to make the task as difficult as possible, if their chances are already lower than say 10%. That is why we have to watch this stuff, for how it can affect player behaviour/decisions.
The problem of what to do about it is another matter. I've been just quietly watching and not seeing anything that completely satisfies me. Your solution indeed works well from a probability standpoint, but for my tastes (and likely the tastes of my players), it seems a bit mathy. That is not saying the "math" is hard at all, just that it incorporates more mental steps involved into every roll to account for something that doesn't really happen very often. This I am comparing to say "roll natural 20" or "boxcars", which is more what players are used to. Again, I'm not saying that it's hard, just harder, and introduces more latency or lag into the game. Not to mention it is different from the SF rule, meaning players have to remember 2 different rules now (as opposed to two very similar ones, like rolling a natural 1 or 20). Too much work for too little benefit.
The closest I've seen that I like is the "if you roll three 1s and succeed at the task". It's basically like rolling a natural 20, it's consistent, easy to remember, and basically the same as rolling a natural 1 (or three 6s in this case). Of course, I guess to keep that last one I'd need to change SF to three 6s and failing. I'll ask my players which way they prefer next time we game.
In any case thanks for bringing this to my attention.
That said, I've noticed that about 90% of the times I've asked for such answers, I haven't received any, from Marc or anyone else. And I think that this, as much as the actual problems with T5 has contributed to so many people staying away from it. I forget who it was, but there was another person who was a game designer on this forum, board and war games IIRC, and he talked about the importance of communicating these reasons with your customers, both in the published rules, and as an ongoing dialogue with them. It was really inspiring to me and almost made me want to try his games (that I was otherwise not really that interested in). So even though I am not a game designer per-se, T5 has pushed me into making tons of house-rules (for being both so great and so problematic). And in those house rules I try to be very clear as to why I made the changes I have, and am very open to other people's feedback on them. I don't assume I know everything, or can make the perfect rules. I welcome feedback as potential to make the rules even better. That doesn't mean I accept all ideas regardless of merit, but it is a dialogue I am willing and interested in having. And I wish that Marc was more involved in such because I think T5 could be vastly improved by it. I know, there was the beta, but I think that it is pretty clear (if by nothing else than the errata) that it wasn't long enough. And maybe some people (like me) weren't motivated enough during the beta like we are now that it is published. I wish I had put in more time during the beta, but that can't be changed now. But there is the opportunity to continue to improve T5, and we should be more supportive of those willing to help out, like S4 here.
The problem of what to do about it is another matter. I've been just quietly watching and not seeing anything that completely satisfies me. Your solution indeed works well from a probability standpoint, but for my tastes (and likely the tastes of my players), it seems a bit mathy. That is not saying the "math" is hard at all, just that it incorporates more mental steps involved into every roll to account for something that doesn't really happen very often. This I am comparing to say "roll natural 20" or "boxcars", which is more what players are used to. Again, I'm not saying that it's hard, just harder, and introduces more latency or lag into the game. Not to mention it is different from the SF rule, meaning players have to remember 2 different rules now (as opposed to two very similar ones, like rolling a natural 1 or 20). Too much work for too little benefit.
The closest I've seen that I like is the "if you roll three 1s and succeed at the task". It's basically like rolling a natural 20, it's consistent, easy to remember, and basically the same as rolling a natural 1 (or three 6s in this case). Of course, I guess to keep that last one I'd need to change SF to three 6s and failing. I'll ask my players which way they prefer next time we game.
In any case thanks for bringing this to my attention.
So just to clarify, this makes it an issue of whether a rule is objectively broken, or just a matter of subjective preference. The way I see it, it is an objective problem. S4 clearly made his case and it indeed would likely influence player behaviour once they found this out. A key difference I also see is that there are two type of objective problems with rules: those that are show-stoppers, that make it impossible to play without changing or house-ruling them, and those that can be ignored, because they only add to the game (add good or bad). It's like the difference between there being a problem with your steering in a car, and the radio. You don't need the radio to drive the car, but it does make it nicer when it works. It seems like because this problem is of the second type of objective problem, most people aren't as concerned about bothering to fix it. But I do think that it is important to try and clarify what kind of problem we are talking about before seeking a solution. After all, if it was just a matter of being purely subjective, then there'd be no point in trying to change/fix anything. You can state why you like it that way, but that's all. Other people have their preferences.Ackehece said:
What's wrong with this? S4 is hardly the first or will be the last to ask for such justifications. Many people, including myself have asked similar questions in the past. It is something that many players want. And this is the reason: Because if something looks broken, maybe there is a good reason for it. We realize that there are compromises that need to be made when making a game, so if there is a good reason for something that looks wrong, and we are missing it, if we know what the reason is, that makes it much easier to live with. This is basically true of all of life actually, so I don't think it is an invalid thing to ask. And yeah, Marc does answer to us, his customers. Without which, he'd be out of business. That's how it works. We don't like it, we don't buy it. If Marc wants to sell more books, he needs a better product. We're telling him, for free, what we want. It's up to him whether he heeds that advice. Most companies pay a lot of money for that kind of marketing information.
That said, I've noticed that about 90% of the times I've asked for such answers, I haven't received any, from Marc or anyone else. And I think that this, as much as the actual problems with T5 has contributed to so many people staying away from it. I forget who it was, but there was another person who was a game designer on this forum, board and war games IIRC, and he talked about the importance of communicating these reasons with your customers, both in the published rules, and as an ongoing dialogue with them. It was really inspiring to me and almost made me want to try his games (that I was otherwise not really that interested in). So even though I am not a game designer per-se, T5 has pushed me into making tons of house-rules (for being both so great and so problematic). And in those house rules I try to be very clear as to why I made the changes I have, and am very open to other people's feedback on them. I don't assume I know everything, or can make the perfect rules. I welcome feedback as potential to make the rules even better. That doesn't mean I accept all ideas regardless of merit, but it is a dialogue I am willing and interested in having. And I wish that Marc was more involved in such because I think T5 could be vastly improved by it. I know, there was the beta, but I think that it is pretty clear (if by nothing else than the errata) that it wasn't long enough. And maybe some people (like me) weren't motivated enough during the beta like we are now that it is published. I wish I had put in more time during the beta, but that can't be changed now. But there is the opportunity to continue to improve T5, and we should be more supportive of those willing to help out, like S4 here.
The more houseruling needed to make sense of the rules, the worse the rules are.
There is a huge difference between houseruling to change the tone (as I do with Att/3 instead of Att/5 in MT) or fit the setting (as many do for non-OTU settings), and houseruling to fix what should have been corrected by the designer because it doesn't make sense.
I agree with S4 this far: I've seen no honest attempts to defend the choice.
I have seen a lot of half-hearted "Marc Likes It and I houserule it" — but having to houserule it renders the claim that it ain't broken somewhere from disingenuous to outright falacious.
Indeed. The fact that a good referee can fix a broken rule doesn't mean that the rule isn't broken nor absolve the publisher of publishing it.
Hans
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Thank you aramis for the honesty and integrity of your answer! S4 has put up with a lot of crap over this and I, for one, find his position entirely correct.
Don, we've all been doing that sine 1977 in the case of Traveller. We will continue because we love the game.
Yes, we love the game, but, loving the game, and being loyal fans from the inception, is no excuse for the perpetuation of its consistent problems. Those problems have plagued the game from the beginning and no adequate attempt to resolve them has ever been done.
I'll leave it there, unless invited to innumerate them by anyone who holds moderator status, or better...
P.S. There needs to be an emoticon for "CAN OF WORMS"
Another House-Rule / Fix to explore
Here's another fix I just thought about that might be worth exploring, for those so inclined:
This would also implicitly take into account the character's skill and controlling-characteristic in the task profile.
Thoughts?
Here's another fix I just thought about that might be worth exploring, for those so inclined:
1) Role for Task Success as normal;
2) If the roll is successful, then roll 1 (or more) extra dice {# of additional dice is a topic for thread discussion} *
3) If after adding these additional dice into the pool the task still would have been a success, then it is a spectacular success.
2) If the roll is successful, then roll 1 (or more) extra dice {# of additional dice is a topic for thread discussion} *
3) If after adding these additional dice into the pool the task still would have been a success, then it is a spectacular success.
* - The discussion point is how many additional dice are needed to get desirable probabilities.
The philosophy here is that adding in the extra dice after the successful task roll simulates that the task even would have succeeded had the task been more difficult, thus justifying a special success condition on the basic task roll.
This would also implicitly take into account the character's skill and controlling-characteristic in the task profile.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Ok. You want a defense, here is one.
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.
I stipulate to your statistics. I don't have the time or patience to check your numbers, and am going to assume you are proficient.
It is not a single-source probability. What I mean is that it isn't just a matter of a dice pool. It is a matter of how often the dice pool comes up to matter combined with the outcomes of the dice pool.
From your perspective, moving a task from six or seven dice to seven or eight dice to give the player a ~2% edge in success is seemingly an easy prospect. I suppose it is if the opportunity to do so comes up as often as necessary to make this an issue.
See, what your saying is that it is always more beneficial for a player to work tasks that they have little or no skill in so that they can bend the rolling rules to their favor. This is just not the case. Let's look at Joe Traveller again:
Joe Traveller 788779 Computer-2
Chance of success on Difficult (3D) task: 10%
Chance of succes on Beyond Impossible (8D) task: 12.8%
So, how often does a Difficult task come up for said computer-jock? You tell me so that you won't argue the margins. Now how often does a Beyond Impossible (or "just" Impossible) task come up? Does Difficult appear 10 times as often? Five times? Three times as often? Or do they come up equally often?
If Difficult tasks come up just as often as Beyond Impossible, that is a Referee issue. The Ref needs to redefine what is Difficult and what is Impossible. Not a Design flaw.
Let's take my most conservative estimate of 3 difficults for one beyond impossible. Consider that. Three ten percent shots for each ~13% shot. Seems a bit high to me but ok. I would think that it would be closer to ten difficults to one beyond impossible myself, but I have been reffing a long time and know when and where I want a beyond impossible task.
Now consider just what is a Beyond Impossible task. Those tasks are literally last minute-life saving-hero making-free drink inducing when we retell it moments. If they are not, your ref is weak or Monte Haul. As a ref, I like the idea that players have a slightly better chance than difficult resolution as these make for memorable game nights for the players.
Yes, players can bump up the dice pool with TIH, but they can't add more than a die or two to their existing pool. I can't find your research right now, what is the difference in chance between 3 dice and 5?
On the other hand, if you want this to be a strictly perfect mathematical enterprise you shouldn't be "playing" Traveller in any form as it has never been mathematically perfect. You should be playing Spreadsheets and Slide Rules-err, I mean Starfire Campaign rules.
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.
I stipulate to your statistics. I don't have the time or patience to check your numbers, and am going to assume you are proficient.
It is not a single-source probability. What I mean is that it isn't just a matter of a dice pool. It is a matter of how often the dice pool comes up to matter combined with the outcomes of the dice pool.
From your perspective, moving a task from six or seven dice to seven or eight dice to give the player a ~2% edge in success is seemingly an easy prospect. I suppose it is if the opportunity to do so comes up as often as necessary to make this an issue.
See, what your saying is that it is always more beneficial for a player to work tasks that they have little or no skill in so that they can bend the rolling rules to their favor. This is just not the case. Let's look at Joe Traveller again:
Joe Traveller 788779 Computer-2
Chance of success on Difficult (3D) task: 10%
Chance of succes on Beyond Impossible (8D) task: 12.8%
So, how often does a Difficult task come up for said computer-jock? You tell me so that you won't argue the margins. Now how often does a Beyond Impossible (or "just" Impossible) task come up? Does Difficult appear 10 times as often? Five times? Three times as often? Or do they come up equally often?
If Difficult tasks come up just as often as Beyond Impossible, that is a Referee issue. The Ref needs to redefine what is Difficult and what is Impossible. Not a Design flaw.
Let's take my most conservative estimate of 3 difficults for one beyond impossible. Consider that. Three ten percent shots for each ~13% shot. Seems a bit high to me but ok. I would think that it would be closer to ten difficults to one beyond impossible myself, but I have been reffing a long time and know when and where I want a beyond impossible task.
Now consider just what is a Beyond Impossible task. Those tasks are literally last minute-life saving-hero making-free drink inducing when we retell it moments. If they are not, your ref is weak or Monte Haul. As a ref, I like the idea that players have a slightly better chance than difficult resolution as these make for memorable game nights for the players.
Yes, players can bump up the dice pool with TIH, but they can't add more than a die or two to their existing pool. I can't find your research right now, what is the difference in chance between 3 dice and 5?
On the other hand, if you want this to be a strictly perfect mathematical enterprise you shouldn't be "playing" Traveller in any form as it has never been mathematically perfect. You should be playing Spreadsheets and Slide Rules-err, I mean Starfire Campaign rules.
