t5 Task System converted to Roll-High

[Jerub]

Reading this board, it seems that people don't like the t5 task system for two reasons - roll low, and fists of dice.

I don't mind fists of dice, but roll-low is quite vexing, so here's a solution.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">The t5 task roll
D6 <= attribute + skill
becomes
D6 + attribute + skill > *6 </pre>[/QUOTE]For instance:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">A staggering task against Edu-10+Comp-4
4D6 <= 14
becomes
4D6 + 14 > 24 </pre>[/QUOTE]Thats it. The probabilities are identical

Disadvantage:
A multiplication and an addition are added.
The numbers are higher.

Advantage:
Players much prefer roll high.

ACK suggested possibly doing almost the same as above but with
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> D6 > 24 - (attribute + skill)
which would be
4D6 > 10 </pre>[/QUOTE]but I dislike subtractions far more than I dislike roll low. THAC0 still makes me wake up screaming.

 

[Wayne67]

I like it, and will use it when next I use the T5 task system (most likely this weekend when my son and I start a new game)

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Stephen Thorne:
Reading this board, it seems that people don't like the t5 task system for two reasons - roll low, and fists of dice.

I don't mind fists of dice, but roll-low is quite vexing, so here's a solution.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">The t5 task roll
D6 <= attribute + skill
becomes
D6 + attribute + skill > *6 </pre>

For instance:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">A staggering task against Edu-10+Comp-4
4D6 <= 14
becomes
4D6 + 14 > 24 </pre>[/QUOTE]Thats it. The probabilities are identical

.... [/quote]I really like this and I am beginning to lean toward it despite my love for Aramis's system that is much DGP/UTP-like.

Why? It does not necessarily change the system. It just converts it.

This means that the only thing so far I would change is the experience rules. The once a year progression of skills based on birthdate just seems limiting and rigid, though it does tie chargen skill progression with in-game progression.

Now, besides the roll-under aspects of the system what do people hate about T5's Task System?

The emphasis of atts in relation to skills. First and Foremost, remember the "This is Hard" rule. If player has skill of 1, for example, and attempts a skill which has a die difficulty higher than his skill level Formidable for example then the difficulty goes up by one to Staggering.

Later in the Skills pdf in the Universal Task Format section he actually said Diff + 2. I asked Marc Miller if he meant that the difficulty should be raised by two points (too lite IMO) or if he meant the difficulty was two levels higher (perhaps too steep a penalty). All Marc said was that there was a typo but did not clarify if the text or the UTF synopsis was wrong.

Also, keep in mind skill levels correlate closer to Atts with some of the sample characters having skills of 6 and other skills 4+.

 

[mike wightman]

My two pet hates about the T5 task system are the bucket-o-dice mechanic and the munchkin pleasing importance of high stats.
The target number being roll high or roll low doesn't bother me (long time RQ/HM GM- roll under % is good, roll over % is bad ).
I'm sticking with Aramis's excellent(IMHO) system.

 

[aramis]

Wow. Thanks for the complements, guys. Word of warning, tho: I've been playing with the nummbers for a long time, BUT, as yet, I've not RUN the 3d6 task system.

Remember also, the more dice thrown, the STRONGER the central tendency. (Also, the wider the over all range, but the tails get THIN.)

Oh, BTW, I like the 2 levels per year experience system.

Not certain it should be the only one there, but yeah, it works for "Long Term" campaigning at a non-character level (IE, Merc Games, some merchant games, run the line games) AND it aligns to the CG system.

 

[RobertFisher]

Roll low doesn't really bother me that much. I prefer roll low to putting the difficulty number on both sides of the formula.

The variable number of dice I have mixed feelings about. (1) I've never been comfortable with the shift in probabilities when using variable numbers of dice. (2) When using a fixed number of dice you almost always end up being annoyed by weirdness at the extremes. You can patch this with open ended rolls, but that's a whole 'nother subject...

The biggest problem I have with the T5 task system is the 1 point of attribute = 1 point of skill.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by RobertFisher:
Roll low doesn't really bother me that much. I prefer roll low to putting the difficulty number on both sides of the formula.

The variable number of dice I have mixed feelings about. (1) I've never been comfortable with the shift in probabilities when using variable numbers of dice. (2) When using a fixed number of dice you almost always end up being annoyed by weirdness at the extremes. You can patch this with open ended rolls, but that's a whole 'nother subject...

The biggest problem I have with the T5 task system is the 1 point of attribute = 1 point of skill.

Looking at the probability breakdown Marc Miller provided I do not mind the shifts that much. Sometimes you need the shift to make up for the extremes of a fixed dice system.

But I do not mind a true 1 to 1 correlation. That is not exactly what T5 feels like. It is close but not there. Some of the example characters have skill levels of 4 to 6 but not much above that. If you keep the skill progression = chargen progression in terms of skills then the base amount of skills per term need to bumped slightly along with the difficulty a bit to truly make the system 1 for 1.

Hence, the whole reason the "This is Hard" Rule exists.

 

[Jerub]

Also bear in mind that during chargen, a character gets potentially 4 times the number of skills in t5 as in classic traveller. 4 skills per term instead of 1 (for a non-commission, non-promotion, non-first) term.

I dislike roll low and subtraction, but I'd rather go back to +5 vorpal longswords than use division.

 

[aramis]

My 3d suggestion was based upon the T5 rates... and uses att/2.

I've been thinking of a 1d20 task system... This is first draft... it's inspired by Pendragon, In Nomine, and Hero Wars...
Roll 1d20
Add DM of player choice. compare to Att+ Skill.
If less than Skill+DM, roll is result points. If higher than skill, but less than att+ skill, result points = skill+DM.
Natural one: roll again and double result points.
if result more than double (att+skill), fumble.
Nat 20 always generates no result points; if a 19 would fail, then a 20 results in a fumble.

Auto: 1 result point
Easy: 2 result points
Moderate: 4 result points
Hard: 6 result points needed
Formidable: 8 result points needed
Staggering: 10 result points needed
Absurd: 12 result points
impossible: 14 result points.

I'm fairly certain a d16 would be a better alignment to extant probabilities.... but with the openending possibilities of the natural one (roll again at x2, second nat one gets you x4...) an impossible is able to be achieved by a skill level 2 character at 1:80000 half that of a skill 1....

just another wild hair mode result from Aramis...

 

[StarBegotten]

Hi there, my first post here (but been playing Trav since LBB).

Since people are discussing high rolling alternatives to the T5 task system, I just had a thought (probably a bad one but, hey)

How about rolling against a fixed target number (as discussed by most), as so;

Easy: 10+
Average: 14+
Difficult: 18+
Formidable: 22+
Staggering: 26+
Hopeless: 30+
Impossible: 34+

Rolling a number of dice equal to your skill rating and adding the appropriate attribute.

Eg. Bob with Diplomacy-3 and Soc 9 trying to negiotiate a troublesome treaty (Formidable) rolls his 3 dice for his skill, getting 4,5 and 2, and adds his Soc of 9 to get 11+9=20. Opps, not this time Bob...

This way you would roll high (good), the increasing number of dice reduce the influence of attributes (good), but buckets-o-dice (bad).

Hmmm, I dont like it already...

 

[Jerub]

Rolling a number of dice equal to your skill rating and adding the appropriate attribute.

Its an interesting suggestion, but it would have to be analysed critically, with respect to reletive probabilities, and the bell curve.

It definately makes skills more important than attributes.

I'll see about running the figures on it sometime today, doing comparisons between t5 and this.

 

[aramis]

dice equal to skill, plus attribute? Not a bad solution, but the target nummber range starts high and goes highher...

It also suffers from "Can't Do This" syndrome: if the difficulties provide limit chance for max att and skill, say 6, then skill one characters with midling atts will be compromised.

 

[StarBegotten]

Originally posted by Aramis:
dice equal to skill, plus attribute? Not a bad solution, but the target nummber range starts high and goes highher...

It also suffers from "Can't Do This" syndrome: if the difficulties provide limit chance for max att and skill, say 6, then skill one characters with midling atts will be compromised.

Thanks, it was just an off the cuff idea. The difficulty numbers were just examples, they would have to be properly worked out of course.

As for the "cant do this" syndrome, well pointed out - I hadn't considered it... I suppose you could add open-ended rolls, but I think thats starting to get messy.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Aramis:
dice equal to skill, plus attribute? Not a bad solution, but the target nummber range starts high and goes highher...

It also suffers from "Can't Do This" syndrome: if the difficulties provide limit chance for max att and skill, say 6, then skill one characters with midling atts will be compromised.

Well one possibility for the "It Kinna Be Don Cap'n" crowd is any sixes rolled allow adding another roll (perhaps limited to no more than 1 extra roll for any single die). This also means higer skills allow for more miracle work as the more dice have a higher probability of adding dice. Though figuring out fair difficulty numbers gets a little trickier since its not a simple probability equation.

Hmm, maybe that's what StarBegotten means by messy open ended rolls

Och, an welcome aboard

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by StarBegotten:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
dice equal to skill, plus attribute? Not a bad solution, but the target nummber range starts high and goes highher...

It also suffers from "Can't Do This" syndrome: if the difficulties provide limit chance for max att and skill, say 6, then skill one characters with midling atts will be compromised.

Thanks, it was just an off the cuff idea. The difficulty numbers were just examples, they would have to be properly worked out of course.

As for the "cant do this" syndrome, well pointed out - I hadn't considered it... I suppose you could add open-ended rolls, but I think thats starting to get messy. </font>[/QUOTE]Can't do this syndrom isn't a truly bad thing. (MT, in order to hit formidable, yyou needed a +3 DM to have a chance... typically skill 2 and an Att DM of +1. Or, you took extra time, and made it doable with a net -1... (level 0 skill and att under 5, and a -1 from intoxiccation or somesuch)
Impossible, if extra tie was taken, only required journeyman skill level (level 2) and a decent att.

T4, adding in another difficulty level, and going to the multi-die task system, really changed things It has Cant Do This, plus harder difficulties are more likely to be predicted by the averages.

TNE, however, lacked "Can't Do This". IMO, it was one of the few things TNE got right, right next to intitative, contacts, and including weapons design. Now, they messed up combat, and the results, in small arms at least, were so meaninglessly similaar, that the design sequence wound up being wasted space....

T5 has the multi-die, and att levels are numerically equivalent to skill levels, so given the choice, take the atts...

Now, my 3d6 tasks sytem proposal also has "Can't Do This" in it (due to target numbers in excess of 18).

 

[StarBegotten]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Hmm, maybe that's what StarBegotten means by messy open ended rolls

Och, an welcome aboard

Yeah, adding the open ended thing spoils the simplicity, which I think Trav should retain, plus its getting dangerously close to WEG's d6 system (which had one of the dice rolled a "wild" die which if came up a 6 got rolled agian and added to the total).

Not that I am dissing WEG's d6 system, I much prefered its Star Wars to the d20 version. Indeed you could also nick its skill progression idea, i.e. going from 1d to 1d+1 then 1d+2 (or 1.5d if you prefer) and then 2d, etc.

But perhaps thats ripping it off just a bit to much...

Oh and thanks for the welcome.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by StarBegotten:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
Hmm, maybe that's what StarBegotten means by messy open ended rolls

Och, an welcome aboard

Yeah, adding the open ended thing spoils the simplicity, which I think Trav should retain, plus its getting dangerously close to WEG's d6 system (which had one of the dice rolled a "wild" die which if came up a 6 got rolled agian and added to the total).

Not that I am dissing WEG's d6 system, I much prefered its Star Wars to the d20 version. Indeed you could also nick its skill progression idea, i.e. going from 1d to 1d+1 then 1d+2 (or 1.5d if you prefer) and then 2d, etc.

But perhaps thats ripping it off just a bit to much...

Oh and thanks for the welcome. </font>[/QUOTE]A definite welcome!

The idea of skill by dice is interesting but the lack of a complete "Can't do it" syndrome is one advantage to the Dice by difficulty system. I would assert that I have been basing my criticism of Marc Miller's skill/task system in the wrong direction.

1. A Roll-High conversion is pretty easy and should be included as a brief paragraph or an inherent part of the task system.

2. Fistfull of Dice. Don't mind it and honestly I do not understand why this is such a major deal for some but I am also old enough to recognize that is completely IMHO only and if other people cannot stand it I must recognize this. Even if I do not understand it. Aramis's 3d6 model kind of takes care of this but that is a complete re-write of the core of the Task System.

Here comes the real problem, the core problem that is difficult to get around:

3. Att are weighed to heavily in comparison to skills. If you read the Default Skills versus Standard skills portion of the Universal Task Format in Marc Miller's skill/task pdf and use the shift two difficulty for the "This is Hard Rule" the it reads like this:

If the skill level being used is less than the
number of dice required (treat 3D as 2D) then increase difficulty level by +2.

This helps a lot. However, I have focused my criticism at the Task System when it is really chargen and skill allotment that is the issue. The only way this system works well is in a system where Atts/Skills are weighed evenly on a 1 for 1 basis. Average skill 6 or 7 but you get 4 skills per term one per year and unless you specialize heavily the very highest skill you have will only meet the bottom average at 6 as indicated by the sample characters Marc included in the chargen pdf.

An adjustment of difficulties and higher numbers in terms of skill levels by term along with a guideline for conversion to roll-high is the combination of things needed for the T5 skill/task system to work well.

On the other hand, using a conversion to roll-high and having strict enforcement of the "This is Hard" rule is a combination I can certainly live with.

Still think the birthday present experience system could be tweaked for more flexibility but that is another discussion.
_

 

[Straybow]

I think the birthday fairy idea is handy. See, maybe you were born on an impoverished, backwards planet and don't know your birthday. You just start studying a new skill when you sign on with that wandering merchant. Then, when your birthday rolls around, *poof* your skill goes up, and now you know your birthday!

 

[robject]

Thanks Ack, you're doing a great job keeping the issues coherent and relevant to the problem of atts vs skills! You da man.

My group played so little of T4 that we never learned if T4's skill system is bulky or not. Our experience in the main fell in CT and MT, so we usually defaulted to the DGP task system. Thus when I think of tasks I think in 2d6, because it's the groove I started in.

I also played with variants. Sometimes they involved using (stat x skill), which would create a nice shape and works best when skill and stat are balanced. A very low skill means a dismally low attribute, even if the stat is supernaturally high. Likewise for the aging specialist, who loses his ability to perform tasks in a serious way when his stats degrade.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Skill x Stat 2 6 8 10 12 15
-------------------------------------
1 2 6 8 10 12 15
4 8 24 32 40 48 60
7 14 42 56 70 84 105
10 20 60 80 100 120 150
15 30 80 110 150 180 225</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[TheDS]

I like StarBegotten's idea a lot, because it allows every value for an attribute to mean something, and makes skills worth about 3x their value... or about equal to the value of a stat. It becomes important to improve BOTH skill and stat.

An additional benefit is that, as your skill goes up, your performance becomes more regular. As was pointed out by Aramis (I think it was him), more dice means the average is rolled far more often and the extremes are far less frequent. Some one with a skill of 4 is much more likely to roll average over extreme, whereas the skill 1 guy is going to be all over the place.

The thing that needs to be worked out most is the levels of success; he enthusiastically acknowledges that the numbers he chose are first draft. Bring them down a notch and they're not bad. Some study is required, of course. If the average stat is 7, then we want our easy task to be for a skill 1 stat 5 person, and the average sum for that person is 8, so the success level should be a 9+. Some one who is skill 5 and stat 10 is going to be very good at his game, and as such, the 5th level of difficulty (Staggering) should be 28+, which is successful half the time.

Let us not get too carried away with task difficulties. 5 levels ought to be enough. Most "Hard" rolls (aka Difficult) should be for a skill 3 stat 7 person to succeed half the time, so that will be 17+. Something not so hard is one level less, something really simple is 2 levels less, and something blindingly easy, like walking, should be automatic (unless there are exceptional circumstances. Likewise, there shouldn't be too many higher difficulties: any level above Staggering (the 5th level) should be reserved for the truly unlikely successes, and really, if you aren't applying big -DMs when called for, well, there's just no need for 20 task levels when we have -DMs.

The "Impossible" task level should be reserved for things that are impossible, or close enough to it that no roll is necessary: failure is automatic, you can't even attempt it. "I concentrate on this bar of lead and turn it into gold." "You fail." "I do it again." "You fail again. It's impossible. All the DMs in the world won't help you. You need something besides wishing to make it so."

I also like Far-Trader's idea of boosting dice rolls. Most of my players like getting to roll more dice. Buckets-o-dice is fun for them, especially if it's bonus dice. While it does skew the results a little, the bonus dice can spice up the game a little, adding a bit of a sub-game for those who like it.