mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
OK, so the starmunchkin's dream is to play a T4 character with 10+ in all stats and as many level 1 skills as possible
T4 task debate resurrected ;)
- Thread starter taishon
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
OK, so the starmunchkin's dream is to play a T4 character with 10+ in all stats and as many level 1 skills as possible
No, Granpa, I didn't remember that. I imagine we didn't really play the rules right anyway. Plus, for formidable and tougher tasks, the stat + skill becomes more significant.
If my players didn't prefer heroic characters, the problem would also fade a bit. And yes, Sigg, it was important to get as many Level 1 skills as possible: with a high stat, every related average task was low-risk.
And yes, Granpa, using the T5 system with T4 would fix that problem once for all. In fact, the T5 task system could seamlessly replace the one in T4. That's one reason I'm keeping some T4 books.
If my players didn't prefer heroic characters, the problem would also fade a bit. And yes, Sigg, it was important to get as many Level 1 skills as possible: with a high stat, every related average task was low-risk.
And yes, Granpa, using the T5 system with T4 would fix that problem once for all. In fact, the T5 task system could seamlessly replace the one in T4. That's one reason I'm keeping some T4 books.
No, Granpa, I didn't remember that. I imagine we didn't really play the rules right anyway. Plus, for formidable and tougher tasks, the stat + skill becomes more significant.
If my players didn't prefer heroic characters, the problem would also fade a bit. And yes, Sigg, it was important to get as many Level 1 skills as possible: with a high stat, every related average task was low-risk.
And yes, Granpa, using the T5 system with T4 would fix that problem once for all. In fact, the T5 task system could seamlessly replace the one in T4. That's one reason I'm keeping some T4 books.
If my players didn't prefer heroic characters, the problem would also fade a bit. And yes, Sigg, it was important to get as many Level 1 skills as possible: with a high stat, every related average task was low-risk.
And yes, Granpa, using the T5 system with T4 would fix that problem once for all. In fact, the T5 task system could seamlessly replace the one in T4. That's one reason I'm keeping some T4 books.
Granpafishy
SOC-12
I do appologize for the tone that I had used. There were a lot of things going on yesterday, and I shouldn't have vented here.
But as I said in the other active T4 topic, I don't have the other books except for the original 3 CT, just T4/T5. And it is one of the best, IMHO, task systems out there. But that is my opinion. My game group didn't mind the multiple dice. As a matter of fact, when the pilot had to make a piloting roll to avoid crashing, and he had to roll 6 dice, nearly every player started sweating. His stat was 7 and his skill was 5. A 13s not bad for you targget number but when the dice can go to 36...
But as I said in the other active T4 topic, I don't have the other books except for the original 3 CT, just T4/T5. And it is one of the best, IMHO, task systems out there. But that is my opinion. My game group didn't mind the multiple dice. As a matter of fact, when the pilot had to make a piloting roll to avoid crashing, and he had to roll 6 dice, nearly every player started sweating. His stat was 7 and his skill was 5. A 13s not bad for you targget number but when the dice can go to 36...
Granpafishy
SOC-12
I do appologize for the tone that I had used. There were a lot of things going on yesterday, and I shouldn't have vented here.
But as I said in the other active T4 topic, I don't have the other books except for the original 3 CT, just T4/T5. And it is one of the best, IMHO, task systems out there. But that is my opinion. My game group didn't mind the multiple dice. As a matter of fact, when the pilot had to make a piloting roll to avoid crashing, and he had to roll 6 dice, nearly every player started sweating. His stat was 7 and his skill was 5. A 13s not bad for you targget number but when the dice can go to 36...
But as I said in the other active T4 topic, I don't have the other books except for the original 3 CT, just T4/T5. And it is one of the best, IMHO, task systems out there. But that is my opinion. My game group didn't mind the multiple dice. As a matter of fact, when the pilot had to make a piloting roll to avoid crashing, and he had to roll 6 dice, nearly every player started sweating. His stat was 7 and his skill was 5. A 13s not bad for you targget number but when the dice can go to 36...
My players don't mind multiple dice, either, but they did, and still do, object to the number of dice being the difficulty. (Hence why my own RPG engine has sat in crates for 8 years....)
Players like to know how many dice they are rolling. It's part of the psychology of risks... a person is more likely to take a known risk over an unknown risk, even if the know risk is higher threat... Knowing the odds tends to bring out the gambler.
It was a big complaint about my own engine when I playtested it. Other than that, they loved it. I never found a way to make it run without the multi-die tasks... at least not without changin everything else... <G>
30 playtesters, and the one common complaint was difficulty derived numbers of dice.
There are many d6-only viable task systems out there... many of which could easily be cribed. Which put the nuber of dice thrown either fixed or determined by the character sheet.
And as for the Att/skill issue: Att points cost the same as skill levels in (T4) CG, but have 4 or more times the effectiveness. That was my beef with TNE as well as T4 (although TNE it was cost twice for at least 4 times the effect...)
THAT (att/skill ballance) is why I dislike the att/skill ballance thing. At div/3 it tends to work all right for a 2d/3d task system derived from DGP/MT. (Att/5 worked for T2300, but 2300 had 1-20 ranged atts... for normal people range! and Certain stats could hit 24+...)
Players like to know how many dice they are rolling. It's part of the psychology of risks... a person is more likely to take a known risk over an unknown risk, even if the know risk is higher threat... Knowing the odds tends to bring out the gambler.
It was a big complaint about my own engine when I playtested it. Other than that, they loved it. I never found a way to make it run without the multi-die tasks... at least not without changin everything else... <G>
30 playtesters, and the one common complaint was difficulty derived numbers of dice.
There are many d6-only viable task systems out there... many of which could easily be cribed. Which put the nuber of dice thrown either fixed or determined by the character sheet.
And as for the Att/skill issue: Att points cost the same as skill levels in (T4) CG, but have 4 or more times the effectiveness. That was my beef with TNE as well as T4 (although TNE it was cost twice for at least 4 times the effect...)
THAT (att/skill ballance) is why I dislike the att/skill ballance thing. At div/3 it tends to work all right for a 2d/3d task system derived from DGP/MT. (Att/5 worked for T2300, but 2300 had 1-20 ranged atts... for normal people range! and Certain stats could hit 24+...)
My players don't mind multiple dice, either, but they did, and still do, object to the number of dice being the difficulty. (Hence why my own RPG engine has sat in crates for 8 years....)
Players like to know how many dice they are rolling. It's part of the psychology of risks... a person is more likely to take a known risk over an unknown risk, even if the know risk is higher threat... Knowing the odds tends to bring out the gambler.
It was a big complaint about my own engine when I playtested it. Other than that, they loved it. I never found a way to make it run without the multi-die tasks... at least not without changin everything else... <G>
30 playtesters, and the one common complaint was difficulty derived numbers of dice.
There are many d6-only viable task systems out there... many of which could easily be cribed. Which put the nuber of dice thrown either fixed or determined by the character sheet.
And as for the Att/skill issue: Att points cost the same as skill levels in (T4) CG, but have 4 or more times the effectiveness. That was my beef with TNE as well as T4 (although TNE it was cost twice for at least 4 times the effect...)
THAT (att/skill ballance) is why I dislike the att/skill ballance thing. At div/3 it tends to work all right for a 2d/3d task system derived from DGP/MT. (Att/5 worked for T2300, but 2300 had 1-20 ranged atts... for normal people range! and Certain stats could hit 24+...)
Players like to know how many dice they are rolling. It's part of the psychology of risks... a person is more likely to take a known risk over an unknown risk, even if the know risk is higher threat... Knowing the odds tends to bring out the gambler.
It was a big complaint about my own engine when I playtested it. Other than that, they loved it. I never found a way to make it run without the multi-die tasks... at least not without changin everything else... <G>
30 playtesters, and the one common complaint was difficulty derived numbers of dice.
There are many d6-only viable task systems out there... many of which could easily be cribed. Which put the nuber of dice thrown either fixed or determined by the character sheet.
And as for the Att/skill issue: Att points cost the same as skill levels in (T4) CG, but have 4 or more times the effectiveness. That was my beef with TNE as well as T4 (although TNE it was cost twice for at least 4 times the effect...)
THAT (att/skill ballance) is why I dislike the att/skill ballance thing. At div/3 it tends to work all right for a 2d/3d task system derived from DGP/MT. (Att/5 worked for T2300, but 2300 had 1-20 ranged atts... for normal people range! and Certain stats could hit 24+...)
If you ignore most of the description in the T5 skill/task pdf you will see how that is going to be LESS of a problem.Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
OK, so the starmunchkin's dream is to play a T4 character with 10+ in all stats and as many level 1 skills as possible
Any task over an easy task would instantly increase in difficulty two levels with the "This is hard Rule".
Plus, screw the munchkins. The first player that came to me with all A's across their UPP or the fav munchkin tactic of A's and above except two really, really low stats.
"Look ref," the munchkin says, "I am playing it real."
Whatever.
T5 will not be great but the one advantage of Stephen Thorne's roll high conversion of T5 is that is an adjustment of his current ruleset as opposed to a total re-write.
T4 is very interesting.
Because every person that ever looked at the system admires some parts of it.
T4 psionics are widely lauded.
Some people like the T4 chargen.
The personal combat system sounds like a great mix of CT simplicity with the MT idea that armor absorbs damage and is not die modifier.
Every I think hated the documentation of techniques in FF&S for T4 but there are some whu actually like that book.
If you ignore most of the description in the T5 skill/task pdf you will see how that is going to be LESS of a problem.Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
OK, so the starmunchkin's dream is to play a T4 character with 10+ in all stats and as many level 1 skills as possible
Any task over an easy task would instantly increase in difficulty two levels with the "This is hard Rule".
Plus, screw the munchkins. The first player that came to me with all A's across their UPP or the fav munchkin tactic of A's and above except two really, really low stats.
"Look ref," the munchkin says, "I am playing it real."
Whatever.
T5 will not be great but the one advantage of Stephen Thorne's roll high conversion of T5 is that is an adjustment of his current ruleset as opposed to a total re-write.
T4 is very interesting.
Because every person that ever looked at the system admires some parts of it.
T4 psionics are widely lauded.
Some people like the T4 chargen.
The personal combat system sounds like a great mix of CT simplicity with the MT idea that armor absorbs damage and is not die modifier.
Every I think hated the documentation of techniques in FF&S for T4 but there are some whu actually like that book.
If we're not supposed to WIN, then why is it called a GAME? I think Munchkins deserve a little more respect (just a little). Who else was going to find out that lasers were all-powerful in FFS? Who else is going to point out that battleships are worthless in T20? Who would have thought to pack more and more gunpowder into a hollow metal tube until we turned it into a cannon than a Munchkin? It is human nature to find the limits. Without Munchkins, we would never find the limits nearly as quickly as we do. There should be an International Munchkin Appreciation Day!
If we're not supposed to WIN, then why is it called a GAME? I think Munchkins deserve a little more respect (just a little). Who else was going to find out that lasers were all-powerful in FFS? Who else is going to point out that battleships are worthless in T20? Who would have thought to pack more and more gunpowder into a hollow metal tube until we turned it into a cannon than a Munchkin? It is human nature to find the limits. Without Munchkins, we would never find the limits nearly as quickly as we do. There should be an International Munchkin Appreciation Day!
T4 is definitely an improvement on many fronts. Chargen is richer. The task system is broad-based. Combat is a good compromise. Psionics documentation is the best so far.
Starship design in T4 is... detailed. It's on par with MT, except with a FFS2 baseline (which is an improvement over MT). But even MT is too detailed for me. And by that I mean there are too many significant digits. Kiloliters and megawatts aren't my thing. But the accessorizing is
Starship design in T4 is... detailed. It's on par with MT, except with a FFS2 baseline (which is an improvement over MT). But even MT is too detailed for me. And by that I mean there are too many significant digits. Kiloliters and megawatts aren't my thing. But the accessorizing is
T4 is definitely an improvement on many fronts. Chargen is richer. The task system is broad-based. Combat is a good compromise. Psionics documentation is the best so far.
Starship design in T4 is... detailed. It's on par with MT, except with a FFS2 baseline (which is an improvement over MT). But even MT is too detailed for me. And by that I mean there are too many significant digits. Kiloliters and megawatts aren't my thing. But the accessorizing is
Starship design in T4 is... detailed. It's on par with MT, except with a FFS2 baseline (which is an improvement over MT). But even MT is too detailed for me. And by that I mean there are too many significant digits. Kiloliters and megawatts aren't my thing. But the accessorizing is
There are many ways to "win" in a RPG and the point IMO is to have fun. If the only way you can have fun in an RPG is for you alone to come in first place and at all costs...well I grew out of that in the 80's.
You're describing qualitys of good playtesters not munchkins. There is quite a difference between good analysis of rules to improve them and purposely trying to bend / break them just because you can and for your own maximum gain.
In your above examples, a munchkin knowing that lasers are all powerful in FF&S would exclusively use them. In T20 a munchkin would go up again battleships in an uber-maxed out ship knowing the battleship was "worthless" and at the same time a Monty Haul prize.
So a T4 munchkin (assuming I'm reading this thread correctly) would knowlingly max out ability scores, gaining few skills, serving only a few terms so as not to worry about aging, etc. . Sure said player might "win" easily...but anyone could win with a character like that since it's optimized to succeed in almost every condition the player willingly undertakes.
(what the GM does with such an optimized and often tunnel-vision character is another matter)
No comment on the rest of the post.
Casey
There are many ways to "win" in a RPG and the point IMO is to have fun. If the only way you can have fun in an RPG is for you alone to come in first place and at all costs...well I grew out of that in the 80's.
You're describing qualitys of good playtesters not munchkins. There is quite a difference between good analysis of rules to improve them and purposely trying to bend / break them just because you can and for your own maximum gain.
In your above examples, a munchkin knowing that lasers are all powerful in FF&S would exclusively use them. In T20 a munchkin would go up again battleships in an uber-maxed out ship knowing the battleship was "worthless" and at the same time a Monty Haul prize.
So a T4 munchkin (assuming I'm reading this thread correctly) would knowlingly max out ability scores, gaining few skills, serving only a few terms so as not to worry about aging, etc. . Sure said player might "win" easily...but anyone could win with a character like that since it's optimized to succeed in almost every condition the player willingly undertakes.
(what the GM does with such an optimized and often tunnel-vision character is another matter)
No comment on the rest of the post.
Casey
Half of my gaming group likes to play epic-sized characters. A fouth likes to play the Paladin, galloping to the rescue against any odds. And I like to play the ordinary Joe caught in extraordinary circumstances, with the opportunity to grow with an unfolding story arc. 'Munchkin' doesn't apply to any of us; however, stats will distribute unevenly due to our playing preferences. The trick is in how to give each person some fun out of the gaming session.
Half of my gaming group likes to play epic-sized characters. A fouth likes to play the Paladin, galloping to the rescue against any odds. And I like to play the ordinary Joe caught in extraordinary circumstances, with the opportunity to grow with an unfolding story arc. 'Munchkin' doesn't apply to any of us; however, stats will distribute unevenly due to our playing preferences. The trick is in how to give each person some fun out of the gaming session.
Similar threads
