Commander Drax
SOC-12
what was wrong with MT's task system, why cant that be used or at least a derivative of it...
The problem with T5
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
Based upon Marc's comments back in 1996, it came across more like "Not Invented Here" syndrome, than any real probabilities issue.
It's actually quite amazing how the polls of the players show a consistant majority in favor of the MT task system, or something rather close.
It's actually quite amazing how the polls of the players show a consistant majority in favor of the MT task system, or something rather close.
Moreover, RObject, TNE isn't d6's only.
Therefore, Marc will throw it right out the window. It never was, and never will be a consideration, as Marc has stated a strong commitment to d6-only mechanics.
Marc has appeared openly hostile to MT's task system in the past, as well; I've seen nothing that changes that impression. Have you?
Therefore, Marc will throw it right out the window. It never was, and never will be a consideration, as Marc has stated a strong commitment to d6-only mechanics.
Marc has appeared openly hostile to MT's task system in the past, as well; I've seen nothing that changes that impression. Have you?
Commander Drax
SOC-12
Yeah that's true however the TNE task system was more or less the same as the T4 one, i.e. stat+Skill = ability, though it could be divided in half or a quarter etc for harder difficulties.
I didn't really like the TNE task System, and oddly enough the rules whilst they were good in many respects created a game, set in the Traveller universe that somehow didn't feel like traveller. in comparison T20 does feel like traveller, so work that one out...
Perhaps we should look at the automatic success for routine tasks in routine circumstances, then add dice for additional difficulties...
I didn't really like the TNE task System, and oddly enough the rules whilst they were good in many respects created a game, set in the Traveller universe that somehow didn't feel like traveller. in comparison T20 does feel like traveller, so work that one out...
Perhaps we should look at the automatic success for routine tasks in routine circumstances, then add dice for additional difficulties...
Actually, T4 task system looks like an adaption of TNE task system to d6 only. In addition to the mentioned stat+skill (a poor idea as they are in diffrent scales), TNE's halves and quarters for harder difficulties are adapted in multiple d6s in T4 to the same effect. It's basically the same idea.
Ron:
TNE has a flat probability curve.
T4's Xd6 does not, since rolls are only required at 2d6+
Yes there are superficial similarities.
Now, a d6 adaptation of TNE would be a flat 3d6 vs TN, TN's as per TNE. (Yes, I've tried that. It worked alright... provided 17 fails and 18 fumbles.)
Heck GURPS is closer to TNE than is T4....
TNE has a flat probability curve.
T4's Xd6 does not, since rolls are only required at 2d6+
Yes there are superficial similarities.
Now, a d6 adaptation of TNE would be a flat 3d6 vs TN, TN's as per TNE. (Yes, I've tried that. It worked alright... provided 17 fails and 18 fumbles.)
Heck GURPS is closer to TNE than is T4....
The problem with MT's Task system is that it simplifies even further the probabilty distribution you get on 2d6, to the point where you might as well roll just 1d6. There's a hell of alot of difference between rolling 3 on 2d6 and 6 on 2d6, but the task system doesn't take that into account, meaning there's a pretty limited distribution of success and failiure.
I like d6's for difficulty - it's nice and obvious what's going on to players. The player asks "How hard?" and the Ref shows him 4 dice, rather than "How hard is Very Difficult?" However, I prefer rolling high to rolling low, so I'd propose opposed rolls.
That is Attribute + (Skill level x dice) vs difficulty dice, highest wins. Several advantages to this:
It scales to skills to CT, so you could just run a CT character without fiddling his skill levels (handy for running the classic adventures), though you'd have to adjust the skill titles still;
You avoid the straight random chance opposed roll in, say, a grapple btween 2 characters (currently, someone with very very high skill has an equal chance against someone with just a high skill, eg: Max has STR 10 and Grapple 9 for 19 total, Bob has STR 8 and Grapple 4, for 12 total. The task is average (2D). Lowest roll wins, and it makes no difference how skilled each protagonist is).
Every task is an opposed roll between player and ref, adding drama to proceedings.
There's always a chance, however small, that the low skilled might succed, or the highly skilled fail.
You could judge fumbles by how many 1's are rolled. It's more likely a low skill person will fumble than a high skill will. Number of 6's rolled could indicate greater successes
... my two penneth anyway
I like d6's for difficulty - it's nice and obvious what's going on to players. The player asks "How hard?" and the Ref shows him 4 dice, rather than "How hard is Very Difficult?" However, I prefer rolling high to rolling low, so I'd propose opposed rolls.
That is Attribute + (Skill level x dice) vs difficulty dice, highest wins. Several advantages to this:
It scales to skills to CT, so you could just run a CT character without fiddling his skill levels (handy for running the classic adventures), though you'd have to adjust the skill titles still;
You avoid the straight random chance opposed roll in, say, a grapple btween 2 characters (currently, someone with very very high skill has an equal chance against someone with just a high skill, eg: Max has STR 10 and Grapple 9 for 19 total, Bob has STR 8 and Grapple 4, for 12 total. The task is average (2D). Lowest roll wins, and it makes no difference how skilled each protagonist is).
Every task is an opposed roll between player and ref, adding drama to proceedings.
There's always a chance, however small, that the low skilled might succed, or the highly skilled fail.
You could judge fumbles by how many 1's are rolled. It's more likely a low skill person will fumble than a high skill will. Number of 6's rolled could indicate greater successes
... my two penneth anyway
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi Klaus !
(Perhaps I'm in a mind sink right now..)
regards,
Mert
Would You explain that a bit more detailed ?
(Perhaps I'm in a mind sink right now..)
regards,
Mert
Yeah it's a bit garbled.
Basically 2d6 gives 11 probability divisions. By using fixed thresholds like 3 and 7 and 11 etc, you've only got 3.
Example: on 2d6 with no bonuses, a character will achieve a 3 (35/36), a 7 (21/36), and 11 (3/36). Converted into percentages it is:
3 = 97%
7= 58%
11 = 8%
By lumping difficulty classes by units of 4 the MT task system removes all the nuances from a 2 dice system. Difficulty should have just been a negative numberapplied to the roll with a default threshold of 7+ or 8+, as each step on the 2d bell curve is quite a jump.
2 = 100%
3 = 97%
4 = 91%
5 = 83%
6 = 72%
7 = 58%
8 = 41%
9 = 28%
10 = 17%
11 = 8%
12 = 3%
See how the MT task system is a bit like 50/50? You go from being able to succeed more than half the time to very rarely in 1 difficulty jump. Not very subtle; 1d6 would be fairer to players: 1 is a fail, 4 a success, 6 a great success, or some such like.
Basically 2d6 gives 11 probability divisions. By using fixed thresholds like 3 and 7 and 11 etc, you've only got 3.
Example: on 2d6 with no bonuses, a character will achieve a 3 (35/36), a 7 (21/36), and 11 (3/36). Converted into percentages it is:
3 = 97%
7= 58%
11 = 8%
By lumping difficulty classes by units of 4 the MT task system removes all the nuances from a 2 dice system. Difficulty should have just been a negative numberapplied to the roll with a default threshold of 7+ or 8+, as each step on the 2d bell curve is quite a jump.
2 = 100%
3 = 97%
4 = 91%
5 = 83%
6 = 72%
7 = 58%
8 = 41%
9 = 28%
10 = 17%
11 = 8%
12 = 3%
See how the MT task system is a bit like 50/50? You go from being able to succeed more than half the time to very rarely in 1 difficulty jump. Not very subtle; 1d6 would be fairer to players: 1 is a fail, 4 a success, 6 a great success, or some such like.
Klaus: in practice the average task has a DM+2. (1 from skill 1 from att).
Making that 7 a 5=83% and the 11 a 9=28%
Also, under MT, it's pretty easy to shift a difficulty; effectively a +4 DM. Smaller increments requires more steps.
Formidable means it is impossible without extra time for "Joe Normal 777777 with skill 1", and difficult is pretty rough without extra time. Routine is something Joe should be able to accomplish most of the time, and almost all the time if not in a hurry.
Now, i've advocated for a 3D task system with 5 point steps.
Of course, an easier "fix" would be DARO (Doubles add a roll over) but restrict that to skilled characters and only doubles below skill level. (EG, Skill 1 can only reroll and add on a pair of 1's, Skill three on 1's, 2's and 3's; Etc.)
or borrow from DecipherTrek/LOTR: on a 12, roll 1d and add.
Both produce cinematic results.
Making that 7 a 5=83% and the 11 a 9=28%
Also, under MT, it's pretty easy to shift a difficulty; effectively a +4 DM. Smaller increments requires more steps.
Formidable means it is impossible without extra time for "Joe Normal 777777 with skill 1", and difficult is pretty rough without extra time. Routine is something Joe should be able to accomplish most of the time, and almost all the time if not in a hurry.
Now, i've advocated for a 3D task system with 5 point steps.
Of course, an easier "fix" would be DARO (Doubles add a roll over) but restrict that to skilled characters and only doubles below skill level. (EG, Skill 1 can only reroll and add on a pair of 1's, Skill three on 1's, 2's and 3's; Etc.)
or borrow from DecipherTrek/LOTR: on a 12, roll 1d and add.
Both produce cinematic results.
If you take in account the bell curve from multiple dices (T4 and GURPS) and the flat distribution of TNE's d20 system, then the systems are very different. Indeed, I would say that the probability curves are probably the greatest difference between the systems. In that case, a better match to TNE with d6 would use T4 system but replacing multiple dices with a multiplier to the result of a single die. So, instead of rolling, lets say, 4d6, one should roll 1d6 and multiply the result by 4.
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Klaus, thanks for the details.
Perhaps I got it now
The difficulty steps are quite notable, indeed.
But I guess, the "nuances" come back by the combination of various skill and attribute levels and the extension of possible results with a exceptional failure/success concept as well as the use of mishap tables...
This usually transfers the pretty behaviour of a bell curve quite well into gameplay.
Perhaps I got it now
The difficulty steps are quite notable, indeed.
But I guess, the "nuances" come back by the combination of various skill and attribute levels and the extension of possible results with a exceptional failure/success concept as well as the use of mishap tables...
This usually transfers the pretty behaviour of a bell curve quite well into gameplay.
Ron: T4 has 7 distinct and different curves. 1 flat, the rest varying bells.
TNE has one (a flat distro, expanded or contracted from 0)
GURPS has one (A pretty close to Standard bell, shifted)
MT has one (A flat distro, shifted by skill)
Consistently, something approaching MT, be it 2 or 3d, has been the predominant request.
TNE has one (a flat distro, expanded or contracted from 0)
GURPS has one (A pretty close to Standard bell, shifted)
MT has one (A flat distro, shifted by skill)
Consistently, something approaching MT, be it 2 or 3d, has been the predominant request.
The bell curve doesn't change no matter what modifiers you put on it.
A 4 point shift in either direction counts, usually, for a massive shift in probability. Far too much to be fair or meaningful. And arbitrarily and unneccessarily so. On a distribution of 11, 4 increments is a huge amount. Why so large? With only 11 results, why not describe difficulty on a 1 by 1 basis? Eg, roll 8+ with the difficulty numer, 0 to -10, as a modifier to the roll (or, to avoid untidy minus symbols, add difficulty 0 to 10 to the target). A 4 step system is like jumping everywhere instead of just walking.
Every step on the 2D bell curve is precious.
Similar threads
