T5 Question/Observation

[OjnoTheRed]

... back to the TIH! rule

I started thinking about this today as I was having fun generating characters with my two kids. I had a bit of a guiding hand, being more familiar with the rulebook and specifically how task resolution works.

If you are aware of the TIH! rule during character generation, it promotes specialisation to a large degree in key skills, with the ability to carry out easy or day-to-day tasks in a variety of other areas. In the four characters we generated, they tended to have one skill in the 5-7 range (or knowledge plus general skill in that range), and possibly a second in the 3-4 range, a couple at 2 and a string at level 1.

To my mind, the "level-0" skill from Classic Traveller is kind of roughly equivalent to both level-0 and level-1 in T5. This is reflected in default skills from homeworld trade classifications: generally level-0 in MT and CT where they even apply at all but at level-1 in T5. Level-0 skills have a bit of different meaning in T5 to Classic or MT.

Just on the other issues in discussion: I think I'll have to Referee a bit more before deciding on my taste for hidden target numbers vs. hidden dice for uncertain tasks. On task libraries - I like a few examples as a guide, but I agree with others about making them up on the fly; the task system helps by translating situations spoken out loud into game mechanics. About the only exception is for specific procedures like combat or interpersonal interactions.

 

[DonM]

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.

Just look at the player and tell him to roll four dice, and don't tell him a target, characteristic or skill. Known in my game as the "Oh My God, what did you do now?" roll... They do know they need to roll low.

And sometimes I have them roll for me, and not even tell them what the roll was for.

What? Am I the last jerk referee on Terra?

 

[Licheking]

I still don't see what the problem is for a player knowing what the difficulty of a roll or even what C+S+K is required, if they are good roleplayers it shouldn't influence their actions knowing they failed a roll while realizing what that means. (eg:- failed perception means they missed something).

And for the record i wasn't specifically aiming my comments at anyone, they were meant as an observation of the general trend on the forums as a whole. If you look at the various comments on the boards you can actually see there are many different styles of play, i was over generalizing into two main camps and meant no offense to anyone.

 

[whulorigan]

Whoa! I'm feeling like either people didn't read my post, or are grossly misinterpreting it or something!
.
.
.

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.

I apologize for contributing to steering thread in this direction. I was not attempting to suggest that established tasks or task libraries lend themselves to creating an "adversarial" environment (nor was I suggesting that anyone else had made this assertion); I was merely engaging the talking points raised by Licheking and Original_Carl concerning "play-style".

As I noted in my post, I realize they are somewhat "off-topic".

Again, sorry.

 

[Original_Carl]

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

I don't see why this is a problem. They don't know the outcome ahead of time, and that's plenty of mystery for me. It's likely that our play styles differ.

The main reason I would want to hide task difficulty from a player is to discourage metagaming. However, in my own game I stopped discouraging metagaming years ago. I think allowing the players to discuss ideas with each other out of character during the play session and as a group analyze problems to come up with a solution makes for a superior play experience.

 

[robject]

One element of a referee's toolbox is the ability to hide the difficulty of a task.

When all tasks are 2D, the players don't know what they're up against, and sometimes that sort of unknown is reasonable. If it wasn't, T5 wouldn't have uncertain dice.

If unknown difficulty is the norm, then it's more convenient for the number of dice rolled by players to be fixed. If known difficulty is the norm, however, then it's not important for the players to roll a fixed number of dice.

 

[Original_Carl]

One element of a referee's toolbox is the ability to hide the difficulty of a task.

On this note, I think the uncertainty die or dice is a superior tool to hiding the difficulty entirely.

Sometimes success can't be known, but the result must be determined.

 

[aramis]

One element of a referee's toolbox is the ability to hide the difficulty of a task.

When all tasks are 2D, the players don't know what they're up against, and sometimes that sort of unknown is reasonable. If it wasn't, T5 wouldn't have uncertain dice.

If unknown difficulty is the norm, then it's more convenient for the number of dice rolled by players to be fixed. If known difficulty is the norm, however, then it's not important for the players to roll a fixed number of dice.

I disagree - The use of fixed numbers of dice isn't just about knowing the difficulty; if it were, the few games to use prior it would likely have been bigger commercial successes - Alternity, Tales from the Floating Vagabond, and The Fantasy Trip. In all three cases, amongst the biggest complaints were variable dice by difficulty.

Further, like the other poster, you seem to conflate undisclosed difficulty with undisclosed success. They are not axiomatically linked, and are definitiely NOT the same.

The mutliple reasons dice by difficulty are bad:
1) it slows down task rolling by requiring it wait upon the GM to select a difficulty
2) it prevents undisclosed difficulty tasks
3) It creates breakpoints that cannot be easily subdivided
4) it goes against the rather inborn "more is better" paradigm (one of the reasons that percentile systems have issues is that many people don't like low rolls being better than high ones)
5) it makes uncertainty of results harder to implement

 

[robject]

Further, like the other poster, you seem to conflate undisclosed difficulty with undisclosed success. They are not axiomatically linked, and are definitiely NOT the same.

The mutliple reasons dice by difficulty are bad:
1) it slows down task rolling by requiring it wait upon the GM to select a difficulty
2) it prevents undisclosed difficulty tasks
3) It creates breakpoints that cannot be easily subdivided
4) it goes against the rather inborn "more is better" paradigm (one of the reasons that percentile systems have issues is that many people don't like low rolls being better than high ones)
5) it makes uncertainty of results harder to implement

I understand that the players ought not to know every time they succeed. As far as drawbacks from multiple dice, of course every system has drawbacks, but I think these are sufficiently manageable.

 

[Licheking]

4) it goes against the rather inborn "more is better" paradigm (one of the reasons that percentile systems have issues is that many people don't like low rolls being better than high ones)

I think you will find that statement 4 is erroneous, my groups and I have no inborn 'more is better' paradigm and i have yet to meet any gamer that has had a problem with a low roll approach. I have had players who have had a problem with roll low and high in the same system, but never one or the other.

I know you probably don't mean too, but you make roleplayers sound like they are OCD about having more or high results being good, i think we roleplayers are way more adaptable than you give us credit for.

 

[aramis]

I think you will find that statement 4 is erroneous, my groups and I have no inborn 'more is better' paradigm and i have yet to meet any gamer that has had a problem with a low roll approach. I have had players who have had a problem with roll low and high in the same system, but never one or the other.

I know you probably don't mean too, but you make roleplayers sound like they are OCD about having more or high results being good, i think we roleplayers are way more adaptable than you give us credit for.

It's based upon TSR's study of the early 1990s, as well as several educational studies published in various journals; don't have cites to hand.

There IS a bias against low roll - it's weak, but in child studies, low score and low-roll systems have to be strongly rewarded.

More is better also shows up strongly in primate research.

 

[simonh]

There IS a bias against low roll - it's weak, but in child studies, low score and low-roll systems have to be strongly rewarded.

More is better also shows up strongly in primate research.

It doesn't seem to have hurt Call of Cthulhu.

But then maybe for a system like Call of Cthulhu it makes sense to have a roll-low system. After all, the premise is that the character gradually discover humanity is an irrelevant footnote in an implacably alien and nihilistic universe, in which our eventual extinction is just a matter of time. In that context, maybe rolling low to succeed subliminally reinforces the background sense of futility.

Simon Hibbs

 

[robject]

Wil's not saying it cripples an RPG (I *think* that's not what he's saying anyhow); I think he's pointing out that there's a hard-coded human bias towards "more is better", so there's some level of resistance, small or large, against using roll-low.

Game mechanics are tradeoffs. The benefits have to outweigh the costs, and you pick your battles.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

I found the "roll-low vs. roll-high" cultural bias fairly easy to get over with my players. For us the key has been to understand that a "higher is better" characteristic or C+S is most easily tested by rolling dice to compare with and try to roll under that characteristic. That is, once we kept it in our head that a higher target = easier, it helped us get used to a roll-low.

This compared easily to, say, morale in Squad Leader or Warhammer 40k where you have a roll-low target. And multiple-dice are not a problem in 40k - it's an attraction! But YMMV.

 

[robject]

I find that "many dice" gives the game a rather fateful, visceral feel, especially when rolling for damage (regardless of the rule system).

 

[Supplement Four]

I think you will find that statement 4 is erroneous, my groups and I have no inborn 'more is better' paradigm and i have yet to meet any gamer that has had a problem with a low roll approach.

I know several.

I will and have played games where roll low is the main mechanic. And, I don't mind rolling low as one of the many choices, as with AD&D or Classic Trav.

But, my preference is always for the main mechanic to be a roll high system.

Intuitively, experiencing a roll of 20 on a d20 is a heck of a lot more fun than rolling a 1.

 

[aramis]

There are around 10 basic ways to have target numbers...
(in all cases, whether the TN is inclusive or exclusive of the success range is a triviality)
Higher than TN, amount over matters not
Higher than TN, more over is better
Higher than TN, less over is better
Lower than TN, amount under matters not
Lower than TN, less under is better
Lower than TN, further under is better.
Lower than TN, higher roll under TN is better.
Lower than TN, lower roll under TN is better.

TN centered - closer to TN is better
TN centered - further from TN is better
Hit only specific numbers (as in Craps or Shut the Box.)

Minor differentiations within all the higher and lower include:
TN included or not included.

These two are very similar, but not the same.
Lower than TN, less under is better
Lower than TN, higher roll under TN is better.

With lower than TN, less under is better, A roll of 11 for a TN of 12 is better than a roll of 15 on a TN of 18.
With lower than TN, but higher roll is better, a roll of 11 for a TN of 12 is worse than a roll of 15 on a TN of 18. This, by the way, is the "Pendragon Method".

I've seen most of these of these used in play in at least two RPGs.

Higher, no matter: D&D,
Higher, More better: Palladium. (To hit has to be beaten by Parry or Dodge for Parry or Dodge to succeed. Also used in Rolemaster.
Higher than TN, Less Better: a couple board games.
Lower than TN, no matter: D&D thief skills, D&D General skills, AD&D proficiencies
Lower than TN, less under better: Pendragon, AD&D2 Psionics (Power Score=Crit)
Lower than TN, more under better: GURPS†, BRP*
Lower than TN, higher roll better: Pendragon
Lower than TN, lower roll under TN is better: Hero Wars, BRP*, GURPS†
TN Centered, closer is better: Pendragon Aging saves
TN Centered, further is better: a couple of small press games.
Hit only specific numbers: Armor mechanic in Orkworld. (what numbers is determined by the armor roll; each armor die cancels all matching damage dice; highest remaining die is "damage" done.) Fumbles in WFRP 1E as expanded by the GM Screen (doubles that fail are fumbles. Specific fumbles get worse the lower the rolled doubles).

* different BRP games have treated it differently. Special and Exceptional success are based upon lowest roll.
† GURPS has special beneficial results on the lowest 3 result values, and special harmful on the highest 2-3 (depending upon skill level). Opposed, barring rolls of 3,4,5,17 or 18, is who was most below their TN.


The ones easiest to understand are Higher, more over is better, and lower, more under is better (but it's mathy), and Lower, Lowest roll is better.
That said, I did a bit of a study during my MA-Ed program - asked about 60 5th graders which was better: Rolling higher on dice or rolling lower on dice. It was about 60% who said higher.
(It was a free extra credit point for answering. 5 didn't answer...)

The higher roll is better is a weak factor, but a very present one in most people. It's not enough to kill a game by itself... but dice by difficulty is one of those cases where it just adds more fuel to the already burning pyre.

 

[Original_Carl]

I think people like to roll big handfuls of dice. I know I do.

 

[aramis]

I think people like to roll big handfuls of dice. I know I do.

I know a lot of people who don't. Many people start to complain at repeated 5D rolls. It was a common enough criticism of the d6 system (especially WEG's Star Wars, where it was possible for characters to start with an 8D skill), of Shadowrun (I've had rolls of up to 20d6), White Wolf (system caps at 10D10), WFRP 3E (up to 6 attribute d8s, up to 5 of those replaced instead with stance d10's; up to 5 skill d6's, up to 5 difficulty d8's, up to 6+ bonus and 6+ penalty dice {no actual cap} means up to 28 dice in a pool), and Edge of the Empire (Up to 6 dice for Stat & Skill combined, up to 5 from difficulty, up to 3 from Force, and up to 6 each blue bonus and black penalty dice, for up to 21 dice). I've had rolls of 60d6 in T&T....

Also note: Many people can't handle more than about 7 dice of 16mm, or 10-12 dice of about 10mm.

 

[daltoncalford]

It is not just the number of dice involved.

For example, with many wargames, you may easily find your self rolling over a hundred dice in a turn. This is comparable to TnT 7.5 edition when you have 4-6 combatants per side.
With the wargames, like shadowrun, the die results are simple comparisons. So, rolling 40 dice and pulling out the misses is fast and the positive or negative results felt and expressed immediately. With TnT, rolling 40 dice, getting a total, adding values for attributes, equipment etc and then performing comparisons of each sides results to get the level of benefit, once you have also taken into consideration the number of natural sixes rolled......the simple TnT system soon blossomed into a operational nightmare and makes the game great for solo play but in many ways useless as written for larger groups.

So, with any game, it is the number of steps involved before you know if it is a reward or not.

With CT, roll two dice, add them together, add modifiers (the total effect of the modifiers are known before the roll) and if you where 8+, you succeeded. So, this is a add three numbers and compare situation with the numbers being small in value. This is fast, simple to explain and understand while having a great deal of depth once you consider the bell curve. It is a little too simplistic for some simulations, but, it does work.

With Traveller 5, you first figure out your skill/knowledge/attribute combination and your situational modifiers - so far, exactly the same as CT.
Next, you figure out the difficulty, modifiers due to it being hard, how fast you are acting etc. This is an extra calculation but could be considered the referees part of determining die modifiers as per CT.
Then, roll the ever changing number of dice, so the player needs to ask how many dice are involved, while not knowing if the referee is also rolling dice that come into play. (first level of players feeling they have no control)
Next, you are checking for extraordinary success or failure, just before counting up the dice.
Then you get to perform the comparison.

So, the player wants to roll low (natural bias against)
The player does not have an exact idea of how many dice they need to roll until it comes time to roll (no preplanning on the players side, needing referee input) combine this with possible hidden die rolls by the referee, the player can not get a firm idea of how likely something is until it is already in play. This makes many role players anxious as they like to have some level of tactical/strategic thinking when their characters may be in danger.
The changing number of dice makes the statistical probabilities change preventing anyone who is not proficient with math (or the pages of die probability charts) from getting a gut feel idea of how likely a roll is.

So, we are looking at, a system that goes against a natural bias, has multiple steps to perform in order to succeed (thus delaying gratification to the players) requires math to master (how many times has your play group sat down to perform repetitive math functions for fun) while not presenting any real benefit over other simpler methods.

Key to a good system -

• fixed number of dice,
• modifiers can be worked out simply without referee involvement
• target numbers are either fixed or based upon an easy natural scale (steps of 5, 10 etc)
• follows natural and cultural bias
• simple math so that young children or drunk adults can still enjoy it.

T5's task system does not conform to any of the above, so, what exactly was the problem it was trying to fix that we need a chapter of probability tables in the game in order to appreciate it?

I see more tweaks/fudges and requirements for referee modification/house rules due to the system than was found in CT or MT combined. Those system where far from perfect, but, they did work better and they increased the total number of Traveller players.

I want traveller to succeed, but, it has an anchor around it's neck that will kill it.

Perhaps a T6 version with a different mechanic is called for, or a new universal game mechanic that can be published on the web as a plug in replacement for the T5 system.

As it is, more people say they are mining T5 for ideas vs saying they want to play it. That means it is just a supplement for an earlier version of Traveller instead of being traveller.