The Universal Game Mechanic (revised)

[Fritz_Brown]

WJP, for some, that defeats that snake-eyes/boxcars concept. For some (and I see where you are taking a different approach) those rolls would be for the "anybody could get lucky once in a while" idea. I like your idea, though, as it's similar to the open-ended roll in RoleMaster. (Though, really, CTI was much more that way....)

Boy, your system is really non-traditional in one sense, but it does bear some consideration.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

WJP, for some, that defeats that snake-eyes/boxcars concept. For some (and I see where you are taking a different approach) those rolls would be for the "anybody could get lucky once in a while" idea. I like your idea, though, as it's similar to the open-ended roll in RoleMaster. (Though, really, CTI was much more that way....)

Boy, your system is really non-traditional in one sense, but it does bear some consideration.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
WJP, for some, that defeats that snake-eyes/boxcars concept.

Fritz, I'm not sure I follow...the fact that there's a check involved defeats the snake-eyes/boxcars concept? That snake-eyes is not an automatic failure and boxcars is not an automatic success?

For some (and I see where you are taking a different approach) those rolls would be for the "anybody could get lucky once in a while" idea.

Yeah, I never liked the "roll 2 points over" bit in MT. I don't hate it, but I never really liked it. I think there should be at lease a very small percentage that someone could get lucky with a stray shot.

Or the code numbers inserted into a computer lock...or whatever. Not a big percentage--just a small chance at hope that everybody has.

(Though, really, CTI was much more that way....)

Which is probably why there's a big part of me that likes CTI better than UGM.

I'm still sticking with UGM for my game, though.

Boy, your system is really non-traditional in one sense, but it does bear some consideration.

What do you find about it that is non-traditional? Are we talking non-Traveller-traditional, or non-traditional in the standard RPG sense of the word?

UGM is a bit different than any other Traveller task system out there, yet like Flynn has pointed out, the 8+ target number with DMs has been used a long time--since the creation of Traveller. And the check for Stat or less has been used a long time too.

Combining the two seems very traditional-Traveller to me.

Or, are you referring to the SS/SF check?

I mean, it's still a Stat-or-less type of check.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
WJP, for some, that defeats that snake-eyes/boxcars concept.

Fritz, I'm not sure I follow...the fact that there's a check involved defeats the snake-eyes/boxcars concept? That snake-eyes is not an automatic failure and boxcars is not an automatic success?

For some (and I see where you are taking a different approach) those rolls would be for the "anybody could get lucky once in a while" idea.

Yeah, I never liked the "roll 2 points over" bit in MT. I don't hate it, but I never really liked it. I think there should be at lease a very small percentage that someone could get lucky with a stray shot.

Or the code numbers inserted into a computer lock...or whatever. Not a big percentage--just a small chance at hope that everybody has.

(Though, really, CTI was much more that way....)

Which is probably why there's a big part of me that likes CTI better than UGM.

I'm still sticking with UGM for my game, though.

Boy, your system is really non-traditional in one sense, but it does bear some consideration.

What do you find about it that is non-traditional? Are we talking non-Traveller-traditional, or non-traditional in the standard RPG sense of the word?

UGM is a bit different than any other Traveller task system out there, yet like Flynn has pointed out, the 8+ target number with DMs has been used a long time--since the creation of Traveller. And the check for Stat or less has been used a long time too.

Combining the two seems very traditional-Traveller to me.

Or, are you referring to the SS/SF check?

I mean, it's still a Stat-or-less type of check.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, your combination is somewhat non-traditional - so many systems treat the roll-under-stat and 8+ as mutually exclusive.

By "defeating the concept" I mean the difference between the auto-success/failure idea and the almost "second chance" philosophy you're using. You're handing them four nickels (you broke their "pair o' dimes"...

). The "proper" way to implement it IMTU will bear some thought if I go with UGM.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, your combination is somewhat non-traditional - so many systems treat the roll-under-stat and 8+ as mutually exclusive.

By "defeating the concept" I mean the difference between the auto-success/failure idea and the almost "second chance" philosophy you're using. You're handing them four nickels (you broke their "pair o' dimes"...

). The "proper" way to implement it IMTU will bear some thought if I go with UGM.

 

[aramis]

Note that, under DGPCT/MT/2300, the labels appear to be based upon skill-1 att DM +1; impossible remains so even taking extra time (droping a level to a TN of 15, it requires higher skill or attribute to succeed, and unskilled can not be done due to MT's DM+8 limit on non-psionic tasks.)

edit: corrected att-1 to att dm +1

 

[aramis]

Note that, under DGPCT/MT/2300, the labels appear to be based upon skill-1 att DM +1; impossible remains so even taking extra time (droping a level to a TN of 15, it requires higher skill or attribute to succeed, and unskilled can not be done due to MT's DM+8 limit on non-psionic tasks.)

edit: corrected att-1 to att dm +1

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
By "defeating the concept" I mean the difference between the auto-success/failure idea and the almost "second chance" philosophy you're using.

Gotcha.

BTW, I never suggested an auto-success/failure by natural two or natural twelve. Those have always been checks with UGM from moment one.

The "proper" way to implement it IMTU will bear some thought if I go with UGM.

LOL.

I will be interested in seeing how you implement SS of SF with UGM....if you use it, that is.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
By "defeating the concept" I mean the difference between the auto-success/failure idea and the almost "second chance" philosophy you're using.

Gotcha.

BTW, I never suggested an auto-success/failure by natural two or natural twelve. Those have always been checks with UGM from moment one.

The "proper" way to implement it IMTU will bear some thought if I go with UGM.

LOL.

I will be interested in seeing how you implement SS of SF with UGM....if you use it, that is.

 

[Supplement Four]

As I've been play-testing UGM, I'm considering a tweak.

I've run into a person or two who is not comfortable with the Stat-comparison and "roll under" aspect of adding in the natural ability mod. Also, one person said they like to know all DMs up-front, before the roll is made.

Everybody's got their tastes, and these may be isolated comments from just a couple of people, but, tell me what you think of this....

................................................

ALL DMs ARE APPLIED TO THE DIFFICULTY ONLY

The 2D roll is never "adjusted" with DMs--only the difficulty.

So, your Difficulty DMs are added to the base difficulty of 8. Your skill is subtracted from your target number.

Your difficulty categories would have to be inverted to this--

-4....Easy
-2....Routine
+0....Standard
+2....Difficult
+4....Challenging
+6....Formidable
+8....Insane
+10...Impossible


Why do this?

Here's why: We can make stats a little more powerful in UGM doing things this way, because we'll also apply the natural ability modifier differently.

The last step you take, before you roll, is to compare your adjusted target number to your stat. If your stat is equal to or higher than your target number, then you get the +1 DM.


Example:

Stat-7 Skill-2 makes a Routine roll.

2D for 3+

(-2 for difficulty, -2 for skill, -1 for stat).


Stat-5 Skill-0 Makes a Difficult roll.

2D for 10+

(+2 for difficulty)


Stat-10 Skill-3 makes a Difficult roll.

2D for 6+

(+2 for difficulty, -3 for skill, -1 for Stat)


Stat-4 Skill-1 makes a Routine roll.

2D for 5+

(-2 for difficulty, -1 for skill)


................................................

Thoughts on this?

I'm thinking this might be a little more intuitive for GMs to "hide" the difficulty and just describe what happens--where a player will have to listen and get into the game to hear the outcome of his roll (instead of instantly knowing if the roll passes/fails seeing a 8+ roll). (Not that this can't be done with UGM the way it already is.)


Also note that doing stats this way makes them a bit more powerful than what they are with UGM as it stands right now. (Because the Stat +1 will kick in any time the Stat is higher than the target number, not just on certain rolled numbers.)


And...the effect of high stats will have to be considered if this method of UGM is used. What I've proposed here only consideres stats 1-12. There would need to be a different benefit for stats 13-15.

Thoughts?

 

[Supplement Four]

As I've been play-testing UGM, I'm considering a tweak.

I've run into a person or two who is not comfortable with the Stat-comparison and "roll under" aspect of adding in the natural ability mod. Also, one person said they like to know all DMs up-front, before the roll is made.

Everybody's got their tastes, and these may be isolated comments from just a couple of people, but, tell me what you think of this....

................................................

ALL DMs ARE APPLIED TO THE DIFFICULTY ONLY

The 2D roll is never "adjusted" with DMs--only the difficulty.

So, your Difficulty DMs are added to the base difficulty of 8. Your skill is subtracted from your target number.

Your difficulty categories would have to be inverted to this--

-4....Easy
-2....Routine
+0....Standard
+2....Difficult
+4....Challenging
+6....Formidable
+8....Insane
+10...Impossible


Why do this?

Here's why: We can make stats a little more powerful in UGM doing things this way, because we'll also apply the natural ability modifier differently.

The last step you take, before you roll, is to compare your adjusted target number to your stat. If your stat is equal to or higher than your target number, then you get the +1 DM.


Example:

Stat-7 Skill-2 makes a Routine roll.

2D for 3+

(-2 for difficulty, -2 for skill, -1 for stat).


Stat-5 Skill-0 Makes a Difficult roll.

2D for 10+

(+2 for difficulty)


Stat-10 Skill-3 makes a Difficult roll.

2D for 6+

(+2 for difficulty, -3 for skill, -1 for Stat)


Stat-4 Skill-1 makes a Routine roll.

2D for 5+

(-2 for difficulty, -1 for skill)


................................................

Thoughts on this?

I'm thinking this might be a little more intuitive for GMs to "hide" the difficulty and just describe what happens--where a player will have to listen and get into the game to hear the outcome of his roll (instead of instantly knowing if the roll passes/fails seeing a 8+ roll). (Not that this can't be done with UGM the way it already is.)


Also note that doing stats this way makes them a bit more powerful than what they are with UGM as it stands right now. (Because the Stat +1 will kick in any time the Stat is higher than the target number, not just on certain rolled numbers.)


And...the effect of high stats will have to be considered if this method of UGM is used. What I've proposed here only consideres stats 1-12. There would need to be a different benefit for stats 13-15.

Thoughts?

 

[Fritz_Brown]

WJP, why would this only work for stats up to 12? It seems your difficulty mods would bump some for some of the highest difficulties, and then you might still get the +1.

This is an interesting variation. Now, I guess I have to go make another worksheet in Excel....

 

[Fritz_Brown]

WJP, why would this only work for stats up to 12? It seems your difficulty mods would bump some for some of the highest difficulties, and then you might still get the +1.

This is an interesting variation. Now, I guess I have to go make another worksheet in Excel....

 

[Supplement Four]

Yeah, you're right. Obviously, I haven't thought this through completely.

So, the stats would all be taken care of with the simple +1 DM when Stat is higher than the target number.

I'm not sure I like having to figure the DMs on the target. I mean, it's easy enough, but it just doesn't seem to flow as good as rolling dice and adding.

What I do like about it is that stats will get the +1 much more often--so Stats will have a bigger influence on the task roll than UGM as it stands now.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yeah, you're right. Obviously, I haven't thought this through completely.

So, the stats would all be taken care of with the simple +1 DM when Stat is higher than the target number.

I'm not sure I like having to figure the DMs on the target. I mean, it's easy enough, but it just doesn't seem to flow as good as rolling dice and adding.

What I do like about it is that stats will get the +1 much more often--so Stats will have a bigger influence on the task roll than UGM as it stands now.

 

[Golan2072]

New version uploaded; get it here.

 

[Golan2072]

New version uploaded; get it here.

 

[Berg]

I converted the Doc to PDF
I can send it to you if you want to host it...
Just PM me

 

[Berg]

I converted the Doc to PDF
I can send it to you if you want to host it...
Just PM me