Task system

[DrSkull]

Is the T5 task system likely to be similar to the T4 system? Or will it be something new? I liked T4 quite a bit (when it wasn't completely fouled by editing and when it didn't contradict itself) but I hate the whole 1/2 die business. A 1d, 2d, 3d progression would be more elegant, or if the probablities don't work out why pretend that other types of dice don't exist?

I know the players in my T4 games really disliked the 1/2 die in practice.

------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[lucasdigital]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrSkull:
<SNIP>the whole 1/2 die business. A 1d, 2d, 3d progression would be more elegant, or if the probablities don't work out why pretend that other types of dice don't exist?

I know the players in my T4 games really disliked the 1/2 die in practice.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Amen to that DrSkull.

I would prefer to see a system that avoids both fractional die handling and wide area saturatuion dice rolling that some games force on you.

There really shouldn't be any need for such clumsy probability mechanics. D20's and D100 Rule!




------------------
Mark Lucas
Lucas-digital.com

 

[T. Foster]

I've said before and I'll continue to say that the Megatraveller task system (or, rather, some slightly modified version thereof) is far and away the best task system yet proposed for Traveller. This is a recurring thread on the TML, but no one ever convinces me -- in fact, with each new iteration of elaborate T4 'fixes' and arcane 'new' systems, I just become more and more convinced that MT is the way to go.

The MT task system is simple. The MT task system is intuitive. The MT task system is flexible. The MT task system does not require a multitude of fixes and special cases to work within the framework of the game system.

As far as I've been able to tell, there are only 2, possibly 3, necessary improvements: 1) clearer explanation, with examples. 2) some mechanic allowing highly skilled characters to automatically succeed at easy tasks without risk of Mishap. 3) (perhaps) redistribution of stat DMs from stat/5 to (stat/3)-2. The last is a popular variant for folks who don't like the idea of stat 5 and stat 9 (or stat 10 and stat 14) having the same DM, but I'm not entirely convinced it's necessary (or even necessarily works).

I can't stress enough how much I hope that T5 doesn't try to drag out that wobbly, patched-together T4 task system. It might've looked nice on paper and matched someone's notion of a gaming 'state of the art' for the mid-90s, but not only was it inconsistent with the rest of the game system, it didn't even work! All the ad-hoc fixes and special cases that have been proposed to prop it up (the new difficulty charts, 'It's harder than I thought,' etc.) only serve to compound the obvious -- that the system is and always was broken, and should be buried and forgotten about. If T5 aims to be taken seriously by anyone other than a handful of grognards, it cannot afford to have *as its core mechanic* something so fundamentally flawed and misguided.

 

[DrSkull]

I do remember liking the MT task system too, now that you mention it. I thought the combat tasks got a little too bogged down (making the hit exactly, by 1 or by 2 producing widely different results). But outside of combat the flow was pretty clear, and it was easy to call a skill roll on the fly.

------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[Ron]

MT task system was pretty good. I've no problems with T4 system, although I don't particulary like the idea of half dices. This task system is cleary based on TNE system, using multiples d6 instead of multiples of the base number (I also enjoyed the new college education rules taken from TNE -- good move). Even so, I am more used with the old 2d6 system. This system generates numbers in a distribution close to the normal distribution -- a desirable trait over the simplistic d20 system of TNE or D&D. This also means that the skill levels are much more valuable, as higher numbers are much harder to achieve. I haven't gave much thought at the T4 system, but probabilities will vary with the number of dice, in such way that the skill level will became less important as the task difficult level increase. I don't think this is a desirable feature.

Best wishes,
Ron

 

[T. Foster]

A couple things:

1) Don't mistake the MT combat system (which confused the heck out of me!) for the task system as a whole. There are rules and complications (Interrupts, marginal and multiple-exceptional successes, etc.) in MT combat that appear nowhere else in the task system. While I don't think we can do much better than the MT task system, I do think (or at least hope!) that we can do better than MT combat.

2) Probabilities: I don't know about most folks, but I like being able to mentally estimate probabilities on a task. This is very easy with a D20/D100 system, which is why I still use those even though they don't give proper bell-curve distribution. It's also pretty easy with 2D (or at least I've done it enough that I've got it memorized). But with T4-style shifting dice-numbers it becomes very hard very quickly. I can tell with only a couple seconds' delay my chance of rolling any given number-or-better on 2D, but to figure out, for instance, how much better my chances would be by making a Cautious attempt under T4 (odds of rolling, say, 9 or less on 3D vs. 2.5D) I've gotta get out a calculator. Is it wrong (or retro, or unsophisticated, or whatever) to prefer a system simple enough that I can actually estimate probabilities on-the-fly?

 

[MJD]

I like the 1D/2D/3D etc system from T4. Not keen on half dice though.

Traveller is famous for its D6 system - we should stay with that.

MJD

 

[Ron]

MJD is right, I particulary don't like systems using multiples dice types as I think it is just an unecessary complication. I also strongly adovacates the use of multiple dies in a roll to obtain results distributed close to a bell curve. Finally, I don't think one should waste time calculating probabilities before a dice roll. Usually, it's pretty easy to find if the necessary roll would be tough or a piece of cake. What else you need to know?

Best wishes,
Ronaldo

 

[AndreaV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MJD:
I like the 1D/2D/3D etc system from T4. Not keen on half dice though.

Traveller is famous for its D6 system - we should stay with that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like the T4 system too. I've never had a novice take more than a couple of minutes to totally master it, and thats not something you can say for MT. Its just so intuitive, Whats my target? How many dice am I rolling? is the total equal of less than the target? Add in the Its Harder Than I Thought rule and its a joy to use.

True the half die are a bit of a pain, but I solved that by adding in *more* half die (my progression goes 0.5D, 1D, 1.5D, 2D, 2.5D, 3D, 3.5D...6D) and just describing the difficulty in terms of the number of dice (ie its not a staggering task, its a 4D task).

 

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrewmv:
I like the T4 system too. I've never had a novice take more than a couple of minutes to totally master it, and thats not something you can say for MT. Its just so intuitive, Whats my target? How many dice am I rolling? is the total equal of less than the target? Add in the Its Harder Than I Thought rule and its a joy to use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid I just don't see it. To my mind there's no way that (1) adding 2 numbers, (2) checking a table to see how many dice to roll, (3) comparing that number with one of the numbers from step 1 and, if greater, adding 2 to it, (4) rolling and adding up the number of dice determined in step 3, (4a) if necessary, dividing the value of one of the dice rolled in step 4 in half before adding it to the others, and (5) comparing the value in step 4/4a to the value from step 1; is simpler or more intuitive than (1) rolling and adding 2D, (2) adding 2 numbers to the value from step 1, and (3) comparing the value from step 2 to a difficulty chart.

Assuming that both charts will sooner or later be memorized, we're left with a 4 (occasionally 5) step process vs. a 2 step process. Admittedly, there are extra steps involving exceptional successes and failures, hasty vs cautious, and all that, but those are part of both systems (and besides, I don't really remember the exceptional success/failure rules for T4 -- success is all 1's, but what's failure? 3 or more 6's?. At least in MT the rule is consistent at both ends: difficulty +/- 2).

 

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:
I don't think one should waste time calculating probabilities before a dice roll. Usually, it's pretty easy to find if the necessary roll would be tough or a piece of cake. What else you need to know?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume this is in response to my whining, but it slightly obscures my point -- I don't want to actually calculate probabilities, I just like being able to compare relative difficulties in a meaningful manner *without having to* do calculations.

Look at my original example: is it worthwhile to make a Cautious attempt (i.e. lowering difficulty by one step by doubling time spent)?

In MT this lowers the target by 4, presumably moving it from the edge to the middle of the bell-curve, significantly improving your chances. Thus, except for tasks that are already easy, the answer is 'yes, a Cautious attmept is (at least statistically) worthwhile.'

In T4 you keep the same target number, but take away a die, or maybe half-a-die. Obviously the chance is going to be better, but is it a lot better or just a little better? That depends on where the target number lies on each of the bell-curves -- you might be improving your chances quite a bit, or the effect might be largely insignificant, depending on both the target number and which difficuly shift you're making (2.5D to 2D, 4D to 3D, etc.).

Of course I'm not going to stop the game to actually calculate these out. I'll go on blind instinct like everybody else (and not make many Cautious attempts -- unless doing it to circumvent It's Harder Than I Thought, I suspect the difference usually isn't all that great).

But wouldn't it be nice to be able to be have something to go on besides blind (and possibly mistaken) instinct? Or maybe I'm just an anal-retentive control freak. Whatever; I promise not to belabor any longer.

 

[lucasdigital]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MJD:
I like the 1D/2D/3D etc system from T4. Not keen on half dice though.

Traveller is famous for its D6 system - we should stay with that.

MJD

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmm And Venezia is famous for its bad drains..

While rolling D6's gives a better distribution you can accomodate for this in the mechanics.

I don't want a pile of dice to role for every task or pages of cummulative multipliers...

Otherwise sure lets keep the D6's....not the smelly drains though!



------------------
Mark Lucas
Lucas-digital.com

 

[Avery]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrSkull:
Is the T5 task system likely to be similar to the T4 system? Or will it be something new? I liked T4 quite a bit (when it wasn't completely fouled by editing and when it didn't contradict itself) but I hate the whole 1/2 die business. A 1d, 2d, 3d progression would be more elegant, or if the probablities don't work out why pretend that other types of dice don't exist?

I know the players in my T4 games really disliked the 1/2 die in practice.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that a 1D 2D 3D progression would be more elegant. That is what the proposed T5 Task System uses. But since the percentages don't quite work out, it requires the use of a D3 on some rolls.

(The half-die being a D3. I don't object if someone elects to pull a D3 out their D&D bag and use it).

 

[Avery]

2) Probabilities: I don't know about most folks, but I like being able to mentally estimate probabilities on a task. This is very easy with a D20/D100 system, which is why I still use those even though they don't give proper bell-curve distribution. [/B][/QUOTE]

One of the draft T5 chapters circulating is called Dice and Dice Rolls. It details the probabilities of rolls for 1D 2D 3D 3.5D, etc etc. The idea being to educate both the players and the game master on what the probabilities are.

 

[PVernon]

[/B][/QUOTE]
One of the draft T5 chapters circulating is called Dice and Dice Rolls. It details the probabilities of rolls for 1D 2D 3D 3.5D, etc etc. The idea being to educate both the players and the game master on what the probabilities are.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Please, where can I find this?

------------------
Peter Vernon

 

[DrSkull]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Avery:
I agree that a 1D 2D 3D progression would be more elegant. That is what the proposed T5 Task System uses. But since the percentages don't quite work out, it requires the use of a D3 on some rolls.

(The half-die being a D3. I don't object if someone elects to pull a D3 out their D&D bag and use it).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that if the d3 were only used occasionally it might be alright, but the biggest beef with the T4 task system was that the single most commonly used task roll seemed to be the 2.5 d6, and that was clunky and less than smooth in play.



------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[halofgazal]

In my experience players have responded most favorably to the D20 system in TNE. They find that system easy to use and like the ease with which they can estimate what their chance of success is. Also, the system uses no DMs to modify die rolls, so it is very straightforward.

Every player I have presented the T4 system to has rejected out of hand the use of half dice. Even the argument that half dice allow a better distribution of probabilities has not worked.

The second problem with the T4 task system is the excessive use of DMs. Not only are we required to change the number of dice rolled to account for the difficulty of the task, we are also required to modify the target number repeatedly.

That having been said, I would still like to see an explantion of the probabilities involved in the half-dice system.

 

[lamar]

Avery,

Am I understanding correctly? Are you saying that T5 is going to use virtually the same task resolution system as T4?

With all due respect, I believe that would be a mistake. Any task resolution system that requires the use of fractional die rolls, ever, for any reason, is, IMHO, unplayably flawed. There are lots of ways to do what you want to do without resorting to that.

L.

 

[Darium]

Given the choice between a smooth progression or simple system , go for the later because not everyone bothers to check the numbers.

 

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darium:
Given the choice between a smooth progression or simple system , go for the later because not everyone bothers to check the numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not a choice I'm comfortable with. Of course not everyone bothers to check the numbers - but that's why we HAVE to. Knowingly designing a system that's mathematically 'broken' - either making hard tasks too easy (original T4) or moderate tasks too hard ('whole-die' T4 variant) - just because it's simple and looks nice is extremely lazy and, I daresay, serves nobody's real interests. Sooner or later even the most mathematically unattuned will begin to notice that results under such a system aren't turning out the way they 'should,' and since those types will be the least willing or able to crunch the numbers to figure out what's wrong with the system, much less fix it, they'll probably just switch to a different game.

That said, however, I (once again!) point out that it's not a choice we're necessarily stuck with. It is entirely possible to have systems that are elegant and mathematically sound at the same time - Traveller had one 15 years ago...