The problem with T5

[aramis]

Because that would result in 15 units of difficulty. The Task system is a way of having only 5 (6 in T4) discrete levels.

Task systems are a tool for faster and more cross-campaign similar play. A shorthand. To reproduce the same range at, say 2 point intervals, one winds up with 8 difficulties. 3 point difficulties gives 6 levels.

The labels are very descriptive of a Skill 1, total asset 2 character's chances.

I sometimes use half-levels... 2 point shifts... but have found that the descriptive power of the labels makes up for the reduced number of steps in play.

 

[Klaus]

But that's just terminology.

People mark stuff out of 10 all the time. (Areyouhotornot?)

Player 1: "How dificult is this piloting roll, Ref?"

Ref: "7, mr Hotshot pilot."

Player 1: "Fairly hard then."

Player 2: "How tricky is fixing this stuck bulkhead? I need to get to the bridge?"

Ref: "A difficulty of 1; it's only slightly jammed."

Player 2: "Hey, piece of cake."

A difficulty rating of 1 - 10 is dead easy to understand. Difficulties over 10 reflect those staggeringly hard or near impossible tasks. And it matches the UPP and UWP formats.

 

[aramis]

Most games now are using 5-7 step task systems, if they use a task system at all.

The 5 or 6 step task systems are, in many ways, far superior to the more nuanced but unlabeled system of which you are apparently fond, Klaus.

Not for mathematical precision, but for the ability to not make mention of mechanics any more than casual.

The biggest benefit can be seen in the following examples (with identical math):

Ex1: MT Tasks
Joe: I'm going to override the computer's security.
Ref: That's a formidable task, and you're going to need a knowledge of computers and your extensive education to make it happen, and is fateful, too... don't mess up!
Joe: I'll take my time, and (clatter of dice) gee, looks like I made it.

Ex 2: No Task system terms
Joe: I'm going to override the computer's security.
Ref: That's preety tough. Say, 15 plus. You've got edu 10+?
Joe: yup
Ref:knock that down to a 13 plus. Add computer to 2d6. By the way, if you miss, it will cause problems.
Joe: Can I take extra time to be extra cautious?
Ref: Sure... double the time and drop it to 9+.
Joe: Ok, doing that... (Clatter of Dice) 10! Looks like I made it.

The biggest advantage is in not disrupting narrative flow.
The labels need consistent pattern, and consistent steps.

For example, adding intermediate steps to MT's labels:
1+ Auto
3+ Simple
5+ Casual
7+ Routine
9+ Challenging
11+ Difficult
13+ Trying
15+ Formidable
17+ Staggering
19+ Near Impossible
21+ Truly impossible (due to the +8 DM)

Most people have a problem once you cross a list of 6 or 7 keeping the list straight.

Going to 17 steps (3+ to 19+ (1 point increments) means people can't use labels... and thus the narrative flow is compromised.

Task systems are far superior for that purpose; and I don't know about you, but narrative flow is far more important than "the beauty of the bell curve" (which, by the way, 2d does not approximate well; 3d are needed to really get in to bells).

 

[Anthony]

I've never seen the virtue of named task levels. A lookup table which suggests what level of skill can accomplish what task is useful, but actually naming task levels means you just have to translate the named task level into game mechanics. Might as well just tell them it's target 15.

 

[Klaus]

Rating a difficulty out of 10 or 15 is not that much different from saying Routine, Casual, Challenging, which are just arbitrary labels.

The ref can do most of the bookkeeping in his head, like with everything else; it doesn't have to disrupt the narrative. You could still label difficultues with easy, routine, etc, if you wanted to. Only the ref would know the actuall number.

I just don't like a system that goes from dead easy to near impossbile in one easy step.

Anyway in Traveller the numbers are already embedded in the narrative. The UPP? And skill levels are also levels of certification. Earthquakes and hurricanes are rated numerically. Using numbers may not sound right with a fantasy game, but with Traveller it makes no odds.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Aramis:
The biggest benefit can be seen in the following examples (with identical math):

Lemme rephrase this for how it would actually play.

Ex1: MT Tasks
Joe: I'm going to override the computer's security.
Ref: That's a formidable task, and you're going to need a knowledge of computers and your extensive education to make it happen, and is fateful, too... don't mess up!
Joe: I'll take my time, and (clatter of dice) gee, looks like I made it.

Ex 2: No Task system terms
Joe: 'I'm going to override the computer's security'.
Ref: 'Roll computer with education.' (depending on the situation, the Ref may or may not actually announce the difficulty, and whether or not there are consequences for failure. If computer normally uses education, he'll probably just say 'roll computer').
Joe: I'm taking extra time.
<roll dice, comes up 8>
Joe adds up 8 +4(computer) +2(edu/5) +1(extra time), and announces "I got a 15"
GM compares 15 to his predecided difficulty, and says, 'You succeed'.

 

[aramis]

Extra Time, under MT is a DM+4 on task, and double the time roll before subtraction... because it is a -1 Diff Mod shift.

But the point is that I and the other GM's I've personally known use the task labels a lot... specifically to keep the descriptive qualities rather than game mechanics at the forefront.

 

[Klaus]

I guess it's just a matter of taste really. I've checked out properly the MT rules (printed so it could be read!) and it is pretty good. The only thing I'd change is is the numbers in the task system and the number of skills.

That is, I'd use Attribute/3 - 3 as the modifier (from -2 to +2), rather than Attribute/5 (again, too big a jump for my taste), and then the standard task roll is 3+, modified by the difficulty (0 to 15, but max 10 in normal circumstances). Probably need to tweak some other numbers somewhere.

If the task was so routine no one can fail, don't roll. eg: walking across a lobby floor. If the task has a tiny chance of failure, 3+; the average unskilled will fail on snake-eyes. eg: walking across a lobby floor that has just been mopped without slipping > Class 0 difficulty. Doing it after Neo has blown up the lift and is shoorting at you, Diff Class 4. That requires an 7+, the equivalent of an average task. I just think doing things that way is more flexible and only takes the game into mechanics if you let it, which can happen under any system. (Players with bad memories: "what's a Formidable roll again?")

 

[aramis]

I use att/3, and +1 TN's... Due to practical issues, subtractions take people longer than additions. Very slight, but still, noticeable.

But, given the rough limit of 7 discrete labels, that limits any task system quite a bit.

I do agree that the 4 point shifts are often a bit severe.

MT's 2d+0 to 2d+8 range gives us 2-20, range of 18. which gives us 7 discrete levels at 3 point gaps:
0: auto
3:Simple
6: routine
9: Difficult
12: Formidable
15: Staggering
18: Improbable

Substituting this in with no other changes drastically alters the odds, making the labels inappropriate.

0: auto
3:Simple
6: routine
9: challenging
12: Difficult
15: Formidable
18: Improbable


Now, given that levels to be expected in T5 are about 1.75x that of CT, a 3d task system makes plenty of sense.

Att/3 gives a range of 0-5; Skills range reasonably from 1-6.
Typical post CG atts average 6-9, median about 8., for an expected 2 point modifier for Joe Normal. Typical skills in field are about 2-3, we'll use 2 for figuring the task system proposal; this gives an exected DM+4

The range is 3-18+mods; if we cap mods at +12, then we get a range of 27. 4 point bands, working from top...

move special success/fail to 4 points from needed.
System presumes autofail on nat 3; if nat4+ required, nat three auto mishap; if nat 8+ needed, nat 3 is aggrivated mishap
28: Improbable (Joe can't do it even with ex
24: staggering (Joe needs Nat 20+; with extra time 16+)
20: Formidable (joe needs Nat 16+; unskilled needs DM+2 and extra time)
16: Difficult (Joe needs nat 12+)
12: Routine (Joe needs nat 8+)
8: Simple (Joe needs nat 4+
4: Trivial (joe needs nat 4+)
0: Automatic

I instead proposed 5 point bands and att/4 att mods:
29: Improbable
24: Staggering
19: Formidable
14: Difficult
9: Routine
4: Simple
0: Auto

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Aramis:
But the point is that I and the other GM's I've personally known use the task labels a lot... specifically to keep the descriptive qualities rather than game mechanics at the forefront.

As a GM, I generally don't tell players the exact difficulty. I will describe the task, but they usually don't know the exact difficulty until they try.

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by Anthony:
I've never seen the virtue of named task levels. A lookup table which suggests what level of skill can accomplish what task is useful, but actually naming task levels means you just have to translate the named task level into game mechanics. Might as well just tell them it's target 15.

Although I played a complete campaign with MegaTraveller rules, I never learned the labels. It appears that, in this particular case, my brain refused to spend resources to memorize redundant information. It's more a matter of taste. While running the game, I don't worry much about labels and concentrate in the probabilities.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by Aramis:
MT's 2d+0 to 2d+8 range gives us 2-20, range of 18.

Actually, it gives a range of 19 numbers.

Originally posted by Aramis:
Now, given that levels to be expected in T5 are about 1.75x that of CT, a 3d task system makes plenty of sense.

I think levels in T5 are currently in flux. Marc seems to think maxing them at the same level as stats is a good thing. I don't.

 

[Klaus]

It would be nice if T5 could scale back to CT and MT somehow. ATM Attributes are very powerful - a player would be better off rolling on the Personal Development table in order to get increased Attributes than skills, as Attributes cross-over lots of skills.

I'd like to see skill levels back in the CT range (which seems 1 to 6), but each skill level represents a die to add to attribute vs difficulty level....

 

[aramis]

Klaus:
That's not a bad way to go, but it still makes the atts fairly powerful.

Of course, getting MWM to go to a roll-high again might be nigh on impossible.

Ron/Anthony: you're more the exception than the rule. My homegrown character sheets include the lookup table.

Not that that is terribly hard:
4+ Simple
8+ Routine
12+ Difficult
16+ Formidable
20+ Impossible

(note the numbers listed are due to using +1 Diff, and att/3; maintains the same average chances, and benefits only particularly high atts.)

 

[Klaus]

Actually, if you consider that 7 is average, and everyone has higher than 0, then it scales back somewhat.

eg:

Rod fires snub pistol at Fred, rolls (pistol 3) 3D + (DEX 9) 9 for 11-27

Fred dives for cover, rolls 2D (Tactics 3 but only 2 levels of cover available) + (DEX 7) 7 for 9-17.

Rod has a +2 bonus over Fred with Dex, so it kinda balances

note, this last bit using Tactics and cover and using opposed rolls I guess would be a house rule...

 

[sithknight]

QUOTE:
I actually really like the Star Wars D6 system (albeit, it's not Traveller). I think it's one of the best I've ever seen.

A player rolls his task, knowing his difficulty (we used the random difficulty option). Then, the GM rolls the difficulty roll.

This back-and-forth dicing...We had some bad-ass games using this method.

But, it's definitley not Traveller, and I wouldn't advocate its use with Traveller.

Like you, Traveller needs to be some sort of 2D6 system--maybe something like CTI or a version of the DGP/MT task system.
************

Honestly - being a HUGE D6 System fan, I have run many Traveller scenarios. You simply strip out the cinematic bits - Dodge as a skill, Fate/Force Points and other fiddly things. Once that's done, you have a super-clean system easy to use with Traveller.

Hell - VEHICLES even work and don't require a !@#% physics degree to stat up!

Now - I just need to buy a couple game system licenses...