T5 Question/Observation

[Supplement Four]

I've been writing a couple of T5 task examples lately, and having not played T5, it has dawned on me through writing the examples that the This Is Hard Rule will kick in A LOT during a game.

This Is Hard says to add 1D to your task throw if the character's skill is not equal to or greater than the task's difficulty die code. For example, a character with Skill-2 will suffer the TIH penalty on Difficulty 3D tasks or harder ones.



So, my next thought would be: What kind of skill levels is a character likely to have when the character is fresh from character generation?

Isn't it a bunch of Skill-1 and Skill-2, with a few higher level skills mixed in?

If it is, then this means the TIH rule kicks in a great proportion of the time.


Let's hear from some people who've been playing T5. What has your experience with this been?

 

[DonM]

I would agree... but I don't see it as a problem... :devil:

However, as my own house rule, I don't apply TIH! to default skills. YMMV...

I've also experimented with limiting TIH! to adding 1D only if the character is lacking the skill (rather than applying it when a character has Broker-2 on a 3D task, applying TIH! only when a character doesn't have Broker), but was unsatisfied with the results, which has made me rethink my house rule above.

The NICE thing about the the TIH rule as written is that players quickly know the task will be harder to do. :smirk:

 

[DonM]

I re-read your first post...

You write task examples? o:

Can you explain the need for that?

When we're playing, I tell players that they can do anything, with any characteristic, and suggest a skill they have. If I look at the skill list and think another skill is better, I'll add another die to difficulty and they don't get to add in the skill they wanted. But I come up with all that on the fly...

 

[aramis]

Task systems are there to create a "Creative Void" - to provide enough structure that more people can easily make use of the systems.

Most people need a framework within which to roleplay. The ones who don't, we call improvistation theater actors. The question is, where is the void small enough for people to fill it with their creativity, and yet large enough to encourage variety.

I found CT too open for many players. I found MT, by having a consistent terminology and resolution, took away the block of time needed for both deciding how to roll it and telling the player what to roll. It also allowed me as a GM to focus more on the story. Part of my issues with T5 and MGT are that their task systems are more intrusive while also being less flexible - they constrain too tightly - and with MGT, it further has too many defined levels for almost no added benefit, and the labels don't match my expectations for the probabilities.

 

[Supplement Four]

I would agree... but I don't see it as a problem... :devil:

I wasn't citing a problem. I was just making an observation.

Really, I was wondering how many people use the rule by the book as it seems that many, many tasks in a T5 game will be increased 1D difficulty because of it.

I'm thinking that more task rolls in a T5 game are subject to the TIH rule than task rolls without it.

I'm wondering if the exception is when the rule is not applied.

However, as my own house rule, I don't apply TIH! to default skills. YMMV...

Interesting. What's your reasoning for this?

I've also experimented with limiting TIH! to adding 1D only if the character is lacking the skill (rather than applying it when a character has Broker-2 on a 3D task, applying TIH! only when a character doesn't have Broker), but was unsatisfied with the results, which has made me rethink my house rule above.

Yeah, the TIH rule came into existence because skills become devalued without it. I remember when it was hashed out on the TML for T4.

The argument is that, without it, you've got Medic-1 EDU-8 (TN 9) characters having a greater success chance on tasks than your Medic-3 EDU-5 (TN 8)characters. Without the TIH rule, paramedics are a better choice to perform medical tasks than full-fledged medical doctors.

I think it's an important rule.

I was just thinking that it would be an exception--something that would be applied to tasks every once in a while.

If I'm correct about my assumptions I list above, then the TIH rule is coming into play much more often than I expected it would.

I re-read your first post...

You write task examples? o:

Can you explain the need for that?

I was referring to the examples I've written recently in THIS THREAD.

 

[DonM]

1. My rationale for not using TIH! for default skills: characters "know" something about those tasks. Also, I thought that TIH! was coming up too much -- but my players didn't see that problem.

2. Because my players didn't see it as a problem, I'm thinking my problem with TIH! coming up ALL THE TIME was just me.

Aramis: I have to ask: how is the T5 task system more intrusive/less flexible than MT? Although I did MT tasks freeform as well... I used to have a whole collection of MT tasks I painstakingly collected from every MT published work, but dropped it after I couldn't find it one day during a game, and just did my own based on the rules. Much more fun. Those pre-written tasks were getting in the way of the game.

Do people actually want task libraries?

 

[Supplement Four]

1. My rationale for not using TIH! for default skills: characters "know" something about those tasks.

I don't understand. Don't characters with Engineering-3 "know" something about Engineering? Yet, the TIH rule would apply since Engineering is not a default skill.

I'm not seeing the distinction.

I'm mean, it's your House Rule. Play as you like, of course. I was just curious as to your rationale.

Also, I thought that TIH! was coming up too much -- but my players didn't see that problem.

2. Because my players didn't see it as a problem, I'm thinking my problem with TIH! coming up ALL THE TIME was just me.

That answers my observation question in the OP. As it stands, the TIH rule does come up quite a bit--probably very, very often, with the rules as written.

Aramis: I have to ask: how is the T5 task system more intrusive/less flexible than MT?

I know you directed this at Wil, and I'm sure he's got his own thoughts. But one aspect that springs immediately to my mind is that it's easy to hide the difficulty with the UTP and not so much with the T5 system.

Most of the time, Refs allow players to know the difficulty of a throw before the throw is made, but there are times when players shouldn't know the difficulty.

For example, let's say a character is moving stealthly through a wooded area outside an enemy compound, and the enemy has place camoflaged optical sensors on the trees. The Ref may not want to alert the player that there is something hard about sneaking through this area--and the Player's curiosity will be aroused when the Ref tells him the difficulty.

The Ref rules that, whenever a Stealth check is made, players will never know difficulty. The GM knows if the Stealth attempt is automatic, Easy, Routine, Difficult, whatever, and simply looks at the player's throw to see if the target number was achieved.

With the T5 system, hidden difficulty is removed from the Ref's bag of tricks because the difficulty is the character's Stat + Skill.

The Ref can simply roll the dice himself for the character's Stealth check, but I find that players like to make their own throws. And, since the GM has so much to do already, I don't like adding more work in the game.

In this one aspect (and I believe that there are others), the UTP is a superior task system to T5's method.

Do people actually want task libraries?

I don't think so. Examples are good, but I don't think entire libraries of task statements are that helpful.

Some Refs will take the task libraries as gospel and try to memorize them instead of using their own opinion of a situation.

And, players will use the task libraries as argument points when the Ref's ruleing does not match up with the printed task profile.

I think games need examples of tasks, to get players and Refs on the same page, but as far as extended task libraries? No, not needed.

 

[Murdoc]

I actually like published/established tasks. One thing they provide is consistency, which is good for tasks that come up often, so the ref doesn't have to decide every time what they are, if they don't remember what they chose previously yes. It also adds a bit of fairness to the game, so the players aren't left wondering why the ref chose that difficulty level, or second guessing them. How often this happens can depend on your group, but I find it happens more when any of the players ref the game as well (heck, I even find myself doing it, though I try not to say anything). And then there are times I just don't want to decide on another task, trying to balance realism with how successful I would like the players to be for the sake of plot. Sure, there are times I do, and in those cases I wing it; I always have that option. If I don't have established tasks however, I'm limited to that option. IMO.

 

[robject]

Our group has players with key skills at levels 4 and 5. TIH! only kicks in when they do things they're not as skilled at.

 

[Supplement Four]

Our group has players with key skills at levels 4 and 5. TIH! only kicks in when they do things they're not as skilled at.

Would you mind posting the T5 characters in your group? Just the name, stats, and skills. One line each.

I'd like to look at them.

You followed standard T5 character generation, yes?

 

[Draconian]

For example, let's say a character is moving stealthly through a wooded area outside an enemy compound, and the enemy has place camoflaged optical sensors on the trees. The Ref may not want to alert the player that there is something hard about sneaking through this area--and the Player's curiosity will be aroused when the Ref tells him the difficulty.

The Ref rules that, whenever a Stealth check is made, players will never know difficulty. The GM knows if the Stealth attempt is automatic, Easy, Routine, Difficult, whatever, and simply looks at the player's throw to see if the target number was achieved.

With the T5 system, hidden difficulty is removed from the Ref's bag of tricks because the difficulty is the character's Stat + Skill.

The Ref can simply roll the dice himself for the character's Stealth check, but I find that players like to make their own throws. And, since the GM has so much to do already, I don't like adding more work in the game.

In this one aspect (and I believe that there are others), the UTP is a superior task system to T5's method.

There is a mechanic for Uncertain dice-rolls in T5, page 135, right column. It in fact has a Stealth example. So the Referee is rolling 1 or 2 of the dice themselves. Players are led to assume the average roll of each of these dice is 3, so an "announced" result is given based on that, but the Referee notes the true result for reference. Any roll where the characters would not immediately be sure of success applies this method.

 

[aramis]

There is a mechanic for Uncertain dice-rolls in T5, page 135, right column. It in fact has a Stealth example. So the Referee is rolling 1 or 2 of the dice themselves. Players are led to assume the average roll of each of these dice is 3, so an "announced" result is given based on that, but the Referee notes the true result for reference. Any roll where the characters would not immediately be sure of success applies this method.

You're missing the point. The player STILL knows the difficulty ahead of time.

This is part of why MT has a better task system than MGT - MGT, because difficulty adjusts roll, rather than target number, the player has an expectation, and (if you will pardon the term) a strongly implied right, of knowing the difficulty and thus the outcome on its face.

THe nutshell for MGT: 2d6+(AttDM)+(Skill)+DifficultyMod for a fixed 8+

Whereas, in MT, the difficulty sets the TN (from 3-19), but the player is always rolling 2d6+(Asset 1)+(Asset 2)...

UGM is, IIRC, 2d6+(Skill)+(1 if die<Att) for TN+. Like

UGM has a different roll mechanic, but like MT, the TN need not be revealed, because it doesn't affect the player's reporting.

TNE, because it's 1d20 for TN- of (Stat+Skill)x(difficulty mod from x1/4 to x4), you can ask the player to tell you which difficulty they hit; because of only 5 levels, and the att is fixed by skill, many players prefigured all 5 levels. So they roll, and tell you the hardest level that they made.

T4/T5, you can do unrevealed difficulty, but it's BLOODY cumbersome... you roll 1d at a time (2d if TN 7 or more, 3d if 12 or more, 4d if 18 or more; after the initial number of dice, switch to 1d), adding it to the prior, and see if you've failed yet. My players absolutely detested it as too much fiddly ....

You're also comparing the wrong mechanic. Partly becase S4's use of the term uncertain is not in line with DGP-CT, 2300, MT, TNE, T4, nor T5 use of the term. In DGP-CT, 2300, MGT, and TNE, an "Uncertain task" requires two rolls. The GM's roll determines the actual success or failure. The Player's determines if they know whether or not they succeeded. (In 2300 and MT, it can be some, no, or total truth revealed).

T5's uncertain task is only concealing some of the difficulty, doesn't work for 1d tasks (which may be failures due to stat ≤5 and no skill/knowledge), has to be 1d for 2d tasks.

While I'm not fond of the UGM, It's superior to both the MGT and T4/T5 mechanics by a large margin.

 

[Licheking]

Do people actually want task libraries?

No definitely not! Like DonM i make the tasks up on the fly, there is no need to write out every task that the players might need to make, since if they have skills high enough they don't need to roll on many. This is my experience from a campaign I'm running at the moment. Plus the players are more than likely to do something you haven't planned for so you will either have to make a task up then or railroad your players into the plot/tasks you have already prepared, and in my opinion that's not roleplaying that's a fighting fantasy book.

Inn my group i have a doctor with Medicine-15, plus a bunch of science skills at 3 and 4, a Marine with Gunnery-7, fighting-8 and some other skills around 2 to 3 and a Navy man (Spacer) with Astrogation-7 and some 2 and 3 starship skills. So the TiH rule only really comes up when they are using their secondary skills or they are trying something outside of their main field of experience which is logical. And yes i do apply the TiH rule to automatic skills since every check they make will be beyond the 0 difficulty level.

It seems to me that we have 2 main styles of play represented here, the use the rules to play a game taking things as they come and adapting to them, and the write everything down including the pimples on peoples faces high detail gameplay. Both are valid, and i have to admit i used to play in the latter style, but as i get older the need for flexibility has thrown that out the window. I only ever write down equipment and worlds and some basic plot notes after that its all about the players and where they want to go and how they want to do it.

 

[Original_Carl]

No definitely not! Like DonM i make the tasks up on the fly, there is no need to write out every task that the players might need to make, since if they have skills high enough they don't need to roll on many.

Yes, this. +1. Like.

I only ever write down equipment and worlds and some basic plot notes after that its all about the players and where they want to go and how they want to do it.

This is where I've ended up, too. I like to think of our games as a cooperative exercise with me as the facilitator, rather than the player's adversary.

 

[Licheking]

Yeah, and really that's where the hobby should be going and trying to promote, that ok Game is in the title but its not competitive its cooperative.

 

[whulorigan]

I like to think of our games as a cooperative exercise with me as the facilitator, rather than the player's adversary.

Yeah, and really that's where the hobby should be going and trying to promote, that ok Game is in the title but its not competitive its cooperative.

100% agreement. This is the way we have played for a very long time, and produces a superior gaming experience, IMO. I find that when players are forced to play adversarially against a GM, it changes the way the players make decisions concerning what their characters will or will not do, not based on what their character would do in the situation/environment, but rather on what the players think the GM may or may not try to pull on them.

Nobody wants a character that they have put time, effort, and thought into to be messed-up or killed-off because a GM figured out something that he could do to "get" the player(s). When I know a GM is merely being impartial and facilitating a story in a given situation (and trying to be realistic about the campaign environment), it frees me up to play a character the way I want to play him, as opposed to how I have to play him in order to keep him alive at that hands of a (potentially) malicious GM.

When a GM plays "adversarially" against the players, he creates a gaming environment in which the "Universe" (personified by the GM) is "out to get them", and the players make decisions and respond accordingly.

(Please excuse the rant. I know I have gotten a little off-topic from the OP).

 

[DonM]

Ahh... Now I see the issue...

It's not that the player knows the difficulty (which in my mind is total # of dice being thrown) -- you are uncomfortable because the target number is always known by the player.

I often keep one or two dice out of the player throw -- even if it is a 1D or 2D task -- usually items the character has everything right to think should be automatic -- but that's because I allow spectacular results on 1D/2D as a house rule (not going to give that up) and I want those results.

 

[Supplement Four]

Ahh... Now I see the issue...

I like being able to tell a player to roll some dice and not tell them what they are rolling for.

I don't want to give them any information about the throw.

With T5, not only do they know target, but they know what skill and what stat is being used. That defeats the purpose of the blind throw.

 

[Murdoc]

No definitely not! Like DonM i make the tasks up on the fly, there is no need to write out every task that the players might need to make, since if they have skills high enough they don't need to roll on many. This is my experience from a campaign I'm running at the moment. Plus the players are more than likely to do something you haven't planned for so you will either have to make a task up then or railroad your players into the plot/tasks you have already prepared, and in my opinion that's not roleplaying that's a fighting fantasy book.

Inn my group i have a doctor with Medicine-15, plus a bunch of science skills at 3 and 4, a Marine with Gunnery-7, fighting-8 and some other skills around 2 to 3 and a Navy man (Spacer) with Astrogation-7 and some 2 and 3 starship skills. So the TiH rule only really comes up when they are using their secondary skills or they are trying something outside of their main field of experience which is logical. And yes i do apply the TiH rule to automatic skills since every check they make will be beyond the 0 difficulty level.

It seems to me that we have 2 main styles of play represented here, the use the rules to play a game taking things as they come and adapting to them, and the write everything down including the pimples on peoples faces high detail gameplay. Both are valid, and i have to admit i used to play in the latter style, but as i get older the need for flexibility has thrown that out the window. I only ever write down equipment and worlds and some basic plot notes after that its all about the players and where they want to go and how they want to do it.

Yes, this. +1. Like.



This is where I've ended up, too. I like to think of our games as a cooperative exercise with me as the facilitator, rather than the player's adversary.

Yeah, and really that's where the hobby should be going and trying to promote, that ok Game is in the title but its not competitive its cooperative.

100% agreement. This is the way we have played for a very long time, and produces a superior gaming experience, IMO. I find that when players are forced to play adversarially against a GM, it changes the way the players make decisions concerning what their characters will or will not do, not based on what their character would do in the situation/environment, but rather on what the players think the GM may or may not try to pull on them.

Nobody wants a character that they have put time, effort, and thought into to be messed-up or killed-off because a GM figured out something that he could do to "get" the player(s). When I know a GM is merely being impartial and facilitating a story in a given situation (and trying to be realistic about the campaign environment), it frees me up to play a character the way I want to play him, as opposed to how I have to play him in order to keep him alive at that hands of a (potentially) malicious GM.

When a GM plays "adversarially" against the players, he creates a gaming environment in which the "Universe" (personified by the GM) is "out to get them", and the players make decisions and respond accordingly.

(Please excuse the rant. I know I have gotten a little off-topic from the OP).

Whoa! I'm feeling like either people didn't read my post, or are grossly misinterpreting it or something! First of all, it is not a matter of if there is any need for established tasks, it's a matter of if there is any benefit or not. The benefits, as I see them anyway, I have listed in my previous post. Second, I was not describing a style of play where everything has to be pre-determined, with no flexibility, and the players getting railroaded into anything. I did say that if I need a new task on the fly I can make one up. Yes, that is a nice feature of the system. I use both new tasks and established ones because obviously you can't anticipate every action requiring a roll in the game. It's almost insulting to think that anyone would think otherwise. As for how this makes a game "adversarial", I have no idea. My point was that, if anything, it makes it less. The whole point of having rules in an RPG is to avoid the whole "I shot you!" "Did not!" "Did too!" style of argument. I was saying that having pre-established tasks helps with that. I'm also in agreement that the GM should not play adversarialy. Unless they are playing Paranoia, where they are supposed to.

I don't mind at all if other people prefer not to have prepared tasks and like to do everything on the fly, but somewhere along the way this thread went very wrong.

 

[Supplement Four]

Example tasks here and there, maybe one per skill description? Yes.

Large task libraries? No.