T5 Task System Observations

[aramis]

I think, in the UTP, the task names refer to the average human (Stat-7, Skill-2) attempting the task.

More like skill 1 and taking "extra time", but yeah.

See, impossible is impossible for stat 5-9, skill 1 under the 2d6 flavor of the UTP... 19+ becomes 15+ with extra time, and the stat 5-9 is DM+1 (for 14+) then the skill is a DM +1 (for 13+). You have to be exceptional (skill 2+ or stat 10+) to "do the impossible"... and if unskilled, you cannot succeed.

Using the extra time, DM+2 total...
Impossible: Can't be done
Formidable: 9+
Difficult: 5+
Routine: 1+ (auto)
Simple: (–3)+ (auto exceptional)

 

[daltoncalford]

This is funny, I put together a roll high system over lunch (actually not mine, I was going to do a exploding 2d6 system ala T&T instead of 3d6) but, overall everyone is posting their own instead of defending the current system.

So, from what I can see, don't we have enough to try to get someone who is far more elegant with words than myself to speak to Marc and perhaps get this changed for the players guide?

 

[Licheking]

The roll under mechanic works fine. I have been running T5 for several months now and have had no problems with the task system as is. Since players don't make their own tasks, i assign them based on what they want to do they don't need to know all the ins and outs of DM, TN's and other mods, i just tell them how many dice to roll and they either succeed or not. And i keep hearing about a cultural bias to roll high, what utter rot! Yes you might be able to prove someone has done a study to prove it, but come on, we are supposed to be intelligent people here, are you telling me that you can't get over that rolling a low number is a success instead of rolling a high number meaning the same thing. You can also say that all we are biologically inclined to do is eat, and reproduce, but we all go against that programming easily enough why not something as simple as rolling high. Most of you don't like the roll under system because its different from CT, well get over it, it works many like it and its just as valid as any other system.

 

[daltoncalford]

Well Licheking,

This is not the first time Marc used this mechanic. The first time, he had better art, better editing, more materials spread across multiple books. T4 was in gaming stores.

T4 failed.

How many of your players, never played a rpg before?

Roll high is only one of the many failings of the current mechanic. One problem can be overlooked, two, worked around but when you have a system that needs more pages to explain and use than the entire first book of classic traveller, then the problem becomes obvious. Percentile systems take just a paragraph to explain, they are roll under but still fun. Inomina's D6 roll under system took half a page including examples.

As for detail and gear-headedness, Gurps is awash with extreme detail and options while still using a d6 roll high mechanic that works (although it is not fun and only established players seem to buy the books - most game stores up here won't carry it while they will carry MGT).

In my heart, I want T5 to be just as successful as MGT, but, I think everyone on this list knows that the current mechanic will keep T5 as just another failed version of T4.

 

[Supplement Four]

So, from what I can see, don't we have enough to try to get someone who is far more elegant with words than myself to speak to Marc and perhaps get this changed for the players guide?

From what I understand, people have been complaining about the T5 task system from day one, all through the open test.

And, Marc is quite firm on keeping it.

The roll under mechanic works fine.

Statistically, the main mechanic, yes. The Spectacular Success aspect of the system, not so much.

 

[HG_B]

And i keep hearing about a cultural bias to roll high, what utter rot! Yes you might be able to prove someone has done a study to prove it, but come on, we are supposed to be intelligent people here, are you telling me that you can't get over that rolling a low number is a success instead of rolling a high number meaning the same thing.

In marketing it is called friction. Those who haven't successfully marketed on a very large scale call it "rot". Kinda what happens to their sales and market share. :rofl:

 

[Supplement Four]

Yes you might be able to prove someone has done a study to prove it, but come on, we are supposed to be intelligent people here, are you telling me that you can't get over that rolling a low number is a success instead of rolling a high number meaning the same thing.

I could easily get over it, but for two things: First, it's easier not to change from something I really like (Classic Traveller).

Second, there are a lot of problems with T5 besides the typos and the silly Spectacular Success rule. Have you seen the combat rules? They're a mess! The entire chapter needs to be totally re-written and cleaned up.

 

[pendragonman]

Actually, the whole roll low thing is no big deal for those of us with Avalon Hill/Squad Leader/Panzer Leader/Panzer Blitz etc kind of board game experience.

Especially so for those of us with Star Fleet experience.

(Salvoing 40 standard photon torpedoes from range 30- come on 1s!!!!!)

 

[Supplement Four]

It's not just the roll low aspect of the T5 system that I don't like. If that were it, I think I'd barely mention it.

It's all the other things associated with it. SS doesn't work. SF works but is impractical. I can't keep the difficulty of the throw secret when I want to.

Stuff like that.

 

[HG_B]

Actually, the whole roll low thing is no big deal for those of us with Avalon Hill/Squad Leader/Panzer Leader/Panzer Blitz etc kind of board game experience.

True dat. But, 99.9% of us with that experience are 45+ years old. We aren't a GROWING demo for Traveller to market to in order to gain market share...

 

[lspitz]

I had a feeling that the buckets-o-dice task system wouldn't be a hit with a significant proportion of the players. TBH, I never looked at the Spectacular Success rule that closely, and I've got to say I'm surprised by its effects. I wish rushing my way through things increased my chances of success in real life.

I generally stay out of the roll low/roll high holy wars. My personal preference is for systems that roll high for success because it feels more intuitive to me, but I've used systems where rolling low was the mechanic and they were quite playable. It might not be my favorite way of doing things, but it alone is not cause for criticism. Any argument for one or the other is really an argument for imposing one's personal tastes on everybody else.

 

[HG_B]

Any argument for one or the other is really an argument for imposing one's personal tastes on everybody else.

Ummmmmmm, no. I can use either and don't care. BUT, more people think that more is better. So an argument for one that is more popular has ZERO to do with personal taste. Where did you dream that up?

 

[lspitz]

Ummmmmmm, no. I can use either and don't care. BUT, more people think that more is better. So an argument for one that is more popular has ZERO to do with personal taste. Where did you dream that up?

I don't know of any data gathered by a properly designed and executed survey that demonstrate a preference among RPG gamers. I'm willing to change my mind if such data exist. Can you point me at a source?

 

[HG_B]

I don't know of any data gathered by a properly designed and executed survey that demonstrate a preference among RPG gamers. I'm willing to change my mind if such data exist. Can you point me at a source?

I didn't say anything about RPG players. aramis read a GENERAL (homo sapien) study that pointed up a bias. So, if I say (which I do) that it would be a better marketing idea to go that route (when I personally don't care) HOW is that imposing "personal taste" on anyone?

Do you have an answer?

 

[lspitz]

I didn't say anything about RPG players. aramis read a GENERAL (homo sapien) study that pointed up a bias. So, if I say (which I do) that it would be a better marketing idea to go that route (when I personally don't care) HOW is that imposing "personal taste" on anyone?

Do you have an answer?

If that is true, then no, it would not be imposing a personal taste on anyone. You can't argue with the data if it's been properly gathered and analyzed.


Aramis: I don't see any reference by you to this study on this thread. Do you have a link?

 

[HG_B]

If that is true, then no, it would not be imposing a personal taste on anyone.

Even if the study were flawed you STILL couldn't accuse someone of imposing personal taste if they weren't.

Wise up

 

[Supplement Four]

Just for grins, I typed in "prefer roll high or low" into google. This discussion pops up on other forums. By just scanning through a few of the earliest hits, it seems the majority prefers roll high.

When a player prefers roll low, it's mostly a case of "I don't care" rather than "I really like rolling low".




Personally, I generally prefer roll high over roll low, especially for a main mechanic. But, I like a mix, too. I like how, in AD&D you rolled high in combat, but you rolled percentage dice low for Thief skills.

I like CT where the throw is customized to the situation. Roll high is used for combat, but anything goes for many other types of rolls.

I'd say I prefer a Mixed Persepctive, with a bias towards roll high.



But, also like I've said before, arguing about T5's mechanic being a roll low method shouldn't be the point. There's a lot of other things wrong with T5--bigger issues with the game.

I think we'd be better served discussing those...and possibly suggesting ways to fix it.

 

[Supplement Four]

I designed a Traveller system one time where the best throw was neither roll high or roll low. The best throw was the one closest to the target number--a Sweet Spot system. (And, yes, I did get some flack by some Traveller players who wanted roll high only.)





But....let's not forget one major plus of the T5 task system. It uses every level of characteristic. There is a difference between the success chance of a DEX-9, Skill-2 character and another character with DEX-6, Skill-2. And, sometimes, this difference is quite a lot.

For example....

Under T5, a DEX-9, Skill-2 character has a 97% chance of making an Average task.

The DEX-6, Skill-2 character has only a 72% chance of making the same task.




To compare, under MegaTraveller...

A character with DEX-9, Skill-2 has the exact same chance to make a Routine task, which is 92%.







The Importance of Natural Aptitude vs. Experience (Learned Ability)

What's more important? Natural aptitude or Learned Ability?

My opinon: While natural aptitude is important, cold, hard, experience makes a person better at his job.

Both are important. I think Skill is more important, though, than Stat.

The T5 task system, as long as the This Is Hard rule is used, does a pretty good job, statistically, of representing the importance of both.

 

[lspitz]

Just for grins, I typed in "prefer roll high or low" into google. This discussion pops up on other forums. By just scanning through a few of the earliest hits, it seems the majority prefers roll high.

When a player prefers roll low, it's mostly a case of "I don't care" rather than "I really like rolling low".

Personally, I generally prefer roll high over roll low, especially for a main mechanic. But, I like a mix, too. I like how, in AD&D you rolled high in combat, but you rolled percentage dice low for Thief skills.

I like CT where the throw is customized to the situation. Roll high is used for combat, but anything goes for many other types of rolls.

I'd say I prefer a Mixed Persepctive, with a bias towards roll high.



But, also like I've said before, arguing about T5's mechanic being a roll low method shouldn't be the point. There's a lot of other things wrong with T5--bigger issues with the game.

I think we'd be better served discussing those...and possibly suggesting ways to fix it.

A lot of systems end up mixed, with at least some peripheral, specialized rolls going against the direction of the main task resolution mechanic. I'm good with that. I never had a problem with the eclecticism of the CT system. Well, it was less a coherent task system in CT than a series of "serving suggestions" defined by example. Sure, it might have been nice to have it all neat and tidy and all the rolls going in the same direction, but it never impeded play for me.

I guess I'm not understanding the design philosophy behind the Spectacular Success mechanic. Since you need to roll 3 ones, it's impossible to have a Spectacular Success with 1d or 2d tasks (the easy and average ones), and your chances of Spectacular Success *increase* as the task gets more difficult. This feels totally counter-intuitive to me.

Wouldn't it make more sense to define the SS as some variable number of ones that you have to roll, a number which goes up as the total number of dice increases? I'll have to crunch some numbers to see how rapidly the probability fall off with increasing numbers of dice, but that is my first reaction when considering the existing mechanic and what it does.

 

[Supplement Four]

I guess I'm not understanding the design philosophy behind the Spectacular Success mechanic. Since you need to roll 3 ones, it's impossible to have a Spectacular Success with 1d or 2d tasks (the easy and average ones), and your chances of Spectacular Success *increase* as the task gets more difficult. This feels totally counter-intuitive to me.

SS in T5 is flat-out broken, as I've demonstrated in several examples.

I know Don M. has spoken to Marc about this a couple of times, and Marc, flat-out, doesn't see anything wrong with the SS mechanic.