The Universal Game Mechanic

[mike wightman]

In CT there wasn't even a 1:1 correspondence between skills

Some provided a DM of +1 per level, some +2, even +4. Others were -1 or -2 per level because those skills were roll low

Very few skills were modified by any characteristic at all - mechanical and electronic IIRC.

Bonuses and penalties for characteristics were only really used for weapon skills - and they could be pretty harsh even for average characters.

WJP, I think I like this one better than your CTI because it is much easier to understand - roll 2d, compare with stat, add mods.

Personally I'd not use the special case rules, and I'd probably go for two target numbers - 8+ for most tasks, 12+ for difficult tasks (I usually default to my old CT rules of don't roll a 2, roll 8+, roll 12+, you'll have to roll a 12 ).

 

[mike wightman]

In CT there wasn't even a 1:1 correspondence between skills

Some provided a DM of +1 per level, some +2, even +4. Others were -1 or -2 per level because those skills were roll low

Very few skills were modified by any characteristic at all - mechanical and electronic IIRC.

Bonuses and penalties for characteristics were only really used for weapon skills - and they could be pretty harsh even for average characters.

WJP, I think I like this one better than your CTI because it is much easier to understand - roll 2d, compare with stat, add mods.

Personally I'd not use the special case rules, and I'd probably go for two target numbers - 8+ for most tasks, 12+ for difficult tasks (I usually default to my old CT rules of don't roll a 2, roll 8+, roll 12+, you'll have to roll a 12 ).

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Flynn:
Your system is very similar to the BITS task resolution system, CT Version, which you can find here:

Howdy,

Yep, I'm familiar with BITS' conversion rules among the systems. They did a good job on that. But, they didn't invent the wheel with their CT modifiers--that's just statistical analysis and comparison among the systems. Anybody who studies CT correctly will come up with those numbers--or close to 'em.

You have added the effects of high stats, which is a good thing. However, it does require a second roll, and I'm not too keen on that.

(We're just brainstorming here on this--I'm not defending. Call it intellectual task-debate.)

It's not a second roll, though.

When you make a task, you roll 2D, then compare to your stat (to see if the stat mod applies), then apply any other modifiers (for skill, for difficulty...whatever) to the outcome.

It's all one roll.

You could roll two sets of d6 at the same time, each of a different color, to speed up die rolling.

Again, you read that wrong above. It's all one roll. There isn't a check for stat DM then a task roll...it's all built into the same roll.

You may never find the Ultimate CT system, but you're getting close.

Good, gawd, brother, I'm trying!

For me, I'd simply add an ability modifier equal to the Stat divided by three, round down, then subtract two.

If I did that, I might as well use the MT task system (which was originally designed, by DGP, for Classic Trav anyway).

One of my objectives in a perfect CT task system is that every Stat be differintiated from other levels. I want there to be a difference between Stat-9 and Stat-8. MT, and the system you propose (with Stat/3) lumps Stats into groups.

We've got Stats that range from 1-15 in CT. Each level should indicated a different level of ability in a character.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Flynn:
Your system is very similar to the BITS task resolution system, CT Version, which you can find here:

Howdy,

Yep, I'm familiar with BITS' conversion rules among the systems. They did a good job on that. But, they didn't invent the wheel with their CT modifiers--that's just statistical analysis and comparison among the systems. Anybody who studies CT correctly will come up with those numbers--or close to 'em.

You have added the effects of high stats, which is a good thing. However, it does require a second roll, and I'm not too keen on that.

(We're just brainstorming here on this--I'm not defending. Call it intellectual task-debate.)

It's not a second roll, though.

When you make a task, you roll 2D, then compare to your stat (to see if the stat mod applies), then apply any other modifiers (for skill, for difficulty...whatever) to the outcome.

It's all one roll.

You could roll two sets of d6 at the same time, each of a different color, to speed up die rolling.

Again, you read that wrong above. It's all one roll. There isn't a check for stat DM then a task roll...it's all built into the same roll.

You may never find the Ultimate CT system, but you're getting close.

Good, gawd, brother, I'm trying!

For me, I'd simply add an ability modifier equal to the Stat divided by three, round down, then subtract two.

If I did that, I might as well use the MT task system (which was originally designed, by DGP, for Classic Trav anyway).

One of my objectives in a perfect CT task system is that every Stat be differintiated from other levels. I want there to be a difference between Stat-9 and Stat-8. MT, and the system you propose (with Stat/3) lumps Stats into groups.

We've got Stats that range from 1-15 in CT. Each level should indicated a different level of ability in a character.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
It takes into account a bonus from high stats, but ignores penalties from low stats.

Low stats are penalized in not having the +1DM applied to their task rolls.

Also, with most low stats, even if the +1DM is attained, it won't help 'em succeed on the task roll.

So, low stats are penalized.

Example--

Jym has STR-4 and no skill to help him shove open a stuck hatch.

The GM determines that forcing the stuck hatch open is a Difficult task.

Jym will have to roll 8+ to succeed on a Difficult task. There is no DM for difficulty (+0DM for Difficult tasks). And, there is not DM for skill, since Jym doesn't have a skill to use.

If Jym rolls 5- on his roll, he'll get the +1DM as a stat bonus, but the best he'll do, if he gets the bonus, is a roll of 6. That' won't cut a Difficult roll of 8+.

On the other hand, his stat bonus would probably help him achieve Very Easy, Easy, and maybe even Average task rolls.

The higher your stat is, the more likely you'll get a stat bonus--the more likely you'll be able to use it on higher difficulty levels.

Even with Medical-4, I'm going to be failing difficult tasks on rolls of 2 or 3. I hope my heart surgery patients (always a difficult task, at the least) don't mind that a large percentage (from the standpoint of how often doctors succeed in the RW) of my previous operations have ended in failure.

This is exactly the type of feedback I'm looking to hear on this, BTW.

But, I'm not so sure that's a bad number.

Follow this line of thought....


-----------------------
DMs to the medical roll
-----------------------

First off, I've read Trav rules (I'm thinking of a JTAS article in particular here) where there are bonuses to doctors based on the TL of the medical facility being used to operate in...and for assisting doctors and nurses.

So, in your example, the Medical-4 guy making a Difficult task roll for an operation would be making it without the DMs provided by a hospital and assisting physicians.

This guy is operating in the field (or maybe with limited facilities aboard a ship).


A +1DM or a +2DM would go a long way to making that roll easier.

----------------
Stat bonus
----------------

Also, since you didn't take into accout a +1DM that many doctors (high EDU) would get on the roll. A doctor with a EDU-10 is going to get that bonus 92% of the time.

So, any doctor worth his salt will be rolling that Difficult task (using your example)and failing only only on a result of 2 (which is 3% of the time).

And, that's without any DMs listed above.

Doctors with low EDU probably won't get the stat bonus--but shouldn't these barely educated doctors have a higher chance of failure than a doctor that's studied and degreed in the field?


------------------
Comparison to MT
------------------

Also note that, under the DGP/MT system, a Medical-4 doctor (we'll call him EDU-4, since you didn't include a stat bonus above) will succeed on this example task throw 58% of the time!

Heck, if you through in a +1DM for a EDU-5/6/7/8/9, that doctor would still only make the Difficult roll 72% of the time.

How's that for comparison to reality.

Note that this system is much more forgiving with your example.

Without a Stat bonus, a Medical-4 doctor will make a Difficult operation roll 92% of the time.

Under your example, here, I'd say the 92% chance of success on the operation is a much more desireable comparison to real life than the 72% or the 58% provided under the MT system.


-----------------------
Non-medical skills
-----------------------

But, I do see the point you are trying to make. Maybe a better example would be to say something like this--

Frissi is the engineer on a ship, and he's trying to reroute power from one section of the ship to another. The GM rules this is a Difficult task, given the condition of the ship after the battle. Frissi is INT-5 Engineering-4

Frissi will roll 2D for 8+ to accomplish this task.

DM's are +4 for skill.

Frissi rolls a 3.

He gets his stat bonus: +1DM

Then, we add in his skill: +4DM

Frissi makes the roll.


The only way Frissi would miss this roll is if he rolled a 2 on the task, which would still put him at 7 for the task--just one point shy of making the Difficult task.


Given this, I'd say it's a pretty fair system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
It takes into account a bonus from high stats, but ignores penalties from low stats.

Low stats are penalized in not having the +1DM applied to their task rolls.

Also, with most low stats, even if the +1DM is attained, it won't help 'em succeed on the task roll.

So, low stats are penalized.

Example--

Jym has STR-4 and no skill to help him shove open a stuck hatch.

The GM determines that forcing the stuck hatch open is a Difficult task.

Jym will have to roll 8+ to succeed on a Difficult task. There is no DM for difficulty (+0DM for Difficult tasks). And, there is not DM for skill, since Jym doesn't have a skill to use.

If Jym rolls 5- on his roll, he'll get the +1DM as a stat bonus, but the best he'll do, if he gets the bonus, is a roll of 6. That' won't cut a Difficult roll of 8+.

On the other hand, his stat bonus would probably help him achieve Very Easy, Easy, and maybe even Average task rolls.

The higher your stat is, the more likely you'll get a stat bonus--the more likely you'll be able to use it on higher difficulty levels.

Even with Medical-4, I'm going to be failing difficult tasks on rolls of 2 or 3. I hope my heart surgery patients (always a difficult task, at the least) don't mind that a large percentage (from the standpoint of how often doctors succeed in the RW) of my previous operations have ended in failure.

This is exactly the type of feedback I'm looking to hear on this, BTW.

But, I'm not so sure that's a bad number.

Follow this line of thought....


-----------------------
DMs to the medical roll
-----------------------

First off, I've read Trav rules (I'm thinking of a JTAS article in particular here) where there are bonuses to doctors based on the TL of the medical facility being used to operate in...and for assisting doctors and nurses.

So, in your example, the Medical-4 guy making a Difficult task roll for an operation would be making it without the DMs provided by a hospital and assisting physicians.

This guy is operating in the field (or maybe with limited facilities aboard a ship).


A +1DM or a +2DM would go a long way to making that roll easier.

----------------
Stat bonus
----------------

Also, since you didn't take into accout a +1DM that many doctors (high EDU) would get on the roll. A doctor with a EDU-10 is going to get that bonus 92% of the time.

So, any doctor worth his salt will be rolling that Difficult task (using your example)and failing only only on a result of 2 (which is 3% of the time).

And, that's without any DMs listed above.

Doctors with low EDU probably won't get the stat bonus--but shouldn't these barely educated doctors have a higher chance of failure than a doctor that's studied and degreed in the field?


------------------
Comparison to MT
------------------

Also note that, under the DGP/MT system, a Medical-4 doctor (we'll call him EDU-4, since you didn't include a stat bonus above) will succeed on this example task throw 58% of the time!

Heck, if you through in a +1DM for a EDU-5/6/7/8/9, that doctor would still only make the Difficult roll 72% of the time.

How's that for comparison to reality.

Note that this system is much more forgiving with your example.

Without a Stat bonus, a Medical-4 doctor will make a Difficult operation roll 92% of the time.

Under your example, here, I'd say the 92% chance of success on the operation is a much more desireable comparison to real life than the 72% or the 58% provided under the MT system.


-----------------------
Non-medical skills
-----------------------

But, I do see the point you are trying to make. Maybe a better example would be to say something like this--

Frissi is the engineer on a ship, and he's trying to reroute power from one section of the ship to another. The GM rules this is a Difficult task, given the condition of the ship after the battle. Frissi is INT-5 Engineering-4

Frissi will roll 2D for 8+ to accomplish this task.

DM's are +4 for skill.

Frissi rolls a 3.

He gets his stat bonus: +1DM

Then, we add in his skill: +4DM

Frissi makes the roll.


The only way Frissi would miss this roll is if he rolled a 2 on the task, which would still put him at 7 for the task--just one point shy of making the Difficult task.


Given this, I'd say it's a pretty fair system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
I am not sure that I think stats should affect many rolls. I think the stats should affect the level of skill attained.

Interesting thought. And, I could see an argument for what you propose.

But, the UGM is designed to fit plug-n-play with CT. We're just looking for something good to use with Classic Trav.

If we go your route, we'll be messing with the entire CT system--not something I want to do.

CT is a good system--it just needs a good task system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
I am not sure that I think stats should affect many rolls. I think the stats should affect the level of skill attained.

Interesting thought. And, I could see an argument for what you propose.

But, the UGM is designed to fit plug-n-play with CT. We're just looking for something good to use with Classic Trav.

If we go your route, we'll be messing with the entire CT system--not something I want to do.

CT is a good system--it just needs a good task system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
WJP, I think I like this one better than your CTI because it is much easier to understand - roll 2d, compare with stat, add mods.

I'm starting to dig it too.

CTI has a lot going for it. It's a bit "grittier" than this system. This system results in higher probabilities of success with high skill level than CTI does (and I like that steep drop off in CTI, keeping the really hard difficulty levels HARD!).

Personally I'd not use the special case rules...

I put those special case rules in there to provide benefit to really high stats (and keep a different benefit for each level of stat).

The UGM isn't a finished rules system--I posted here to work out the bugs.

If you've got some good suggestions on how to handle stats 13+, then I'd be happy to entertain them.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
WJP, I think I like this one better than your CTI because it is much easier to understand - roll 2d, compare with stat, add mods.

I'm starting to dig it too.

CTI has a lot going for it. It's a bit "grittier" than this system. This system results in higher probabilities of success with high skill level than CTI does (and I like that steep drop off in CTI, keeping the really hard difficulty levels HARD!).

Personally I'd not use the special case rules...

I put those special case rules in there to provide benefit to really high stats (and keep a different benefit for each level of stat).

The UGM isn't a finished rules system--I posted here to work out the bugs.

If you've got some good suggestions on how to handle stats 13+, then I'd be happy to entertain them.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Personally I'd not use the special case rules...

One thought I had, but decided against, was this...

Stat
12 +1DM
13 +2DM
14 +3DM
15 +4DM


I'm going to have to do some number crunching. I like how that looks better, but, sheesh...a +4DM to all tasks! Not sure if that's "unbalancing" or not.

Yet...MT uses a whopping +3DM.

I'll look at it and get back to you.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Personally I'd not use the special case rules...

One thought I had, but decided against, was this...

Stat
12 +1DM
13 +2DM
14 +3DM
15 +4DM


I'm going to have to do some number crunching. I like how that looks better, but, sheesh...a +4DM to all tasks! Not sure if that's "unbalancing" or not.

Yet...MT uses a whopping +3DM.

I'll look at it and get back to you.

 

[far-trader]

Umm, universal system for CT? Would that be Basic characater generation or Advanced character generation? I seem to recall getting much more skills (or higher levels) in the Advanced than the Basic which is going to play havoc with applying the same rules to each. So maybe a general modifier to even the playing field. A penalty for Advanced generated characters and/or a bonus for Basic generated characters.

A whole new game within the game To go for Basic generation and the general bonus, or go for Advanced generation and suffer with the general penalty

 

[far-trader]

Umm, universal system for CT? Would that be Basic characater generation or Advanced character generation? I seem to recall getting much more skills (or higher levels) in the Advanced than the Basic which is going to play havoc with applying the same rules to each. So maybe a general modifier to even the playing field. A penalty for Advanced generated characters and/or a bonus for Basic generated characters.

A whole new game within the game To go for Basic generation and the general bonus, or go for Advanced generation and suffer with the general penalty

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Umm, universal system for CT?

It's a Traveller theme...UPP - Universal Personality Profile....UWP - Universal World Profile...USP - Universal Ship Profile....

Heck, even the MT task system, which was originally created by DGP for Classic Trav, was called the UTP - Universal Task Profile.

Thus, I called this system the UGM - Universal Game Mechanic.

Which is: 2D +mods for 8+.

Would that be Basic characater generation or Advanced character generation?

Either. This system would work well with MT or T4 chargen as well.

I seem to recall getting much more skills (or higher levels) in the Advanced than the Basic which is going to play havoc with applying the same rules to each.

Absolutely not. For example, as I mention above, the MT task system was originally created for Classic Trav - and it didn't matter which chargen system you used (basic or advanced).

In MT, you use the same task system for either basic or advanced chargen. (And that chargen is almost exactly like CT chargen.)

Heck, you could even get away with using T4 characters.

The reason for this--

A character does receive more skills under Advanced Chargen rather than those character created using Basic chargen, but the skill levels tend to remain the same.

What I mean is this: If you create a character using Basic chargen, you'll get a few skills.

If you create a character under Advanced chargen, you'll get more skills--but any one skill won't typically be higher than what you see in Basic chargen.

Both systems (and MT and T4) develop characters with skills that range in the Level 1-5 range, or so.

It's possible, but difficult, to get a skill over Level-6. Only happens every so often.

So maybe a general modifier to even the playing field. A penalty for Advanced generated characters and/or a bonus for Basic generated characters.

I don't think that's necessary, given that there are no problems using either chargen system. I'd have to leave that up to a GM to decide if he wants to implement something like that in his personal game.

A whole new game within the game To go for Basic generation and the general bonus, or go for Advanced generation and suffer with the general penalty

Interesting idea. Thanks for posting it. But, I really don't think that's necessary for the reasons I list above.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Umm, universal system for CT?

It's a Traveller theme...UPP - Universal Personality Profile....UWP - Universal World Profile...USP - Universal Ship Profile....

Heck, even the MT task system, which was originally created by DGP for Classic Trav, was called the UTP - Universal Task Profile.

Thus, I called this system the UGM - Universal Game Mechanic.

Which is: 2D +mods for 8+.

Would that be Basic characater generation or Advanced character generation?

Either. This system would work well with MT or T4 chargen as well.

I seem to recall getting much more skills (or higher levels) in the Advanced than the Basic which is going to play havoc with applying the same rules to each.

Absolutely not. For example, as I mention above, the MT task system was originally created for Classic Trav - and it didn't matter which chargen system you used (basic or advanced).

In MT, you use the same task system for either basic or advanced chargen. (And that chargen is almost exactly like CT chargen.)

Heck, you could even get away with using T4 characters.

The reason for this--

A character does receive more skills under Advanced Chargen rather than those character created using Basic chargen, but the skill levels tend to remain the same.

What I mean is this: If you create a character using Basic chargen, you'll get a few skills.

If you create a character under Advanced chargen, you'll get more skills--but any one skill won't typically be higher than what you see in Basic chargen.

Both systems (and MT and T4) develop characters with skills that range in the Level 1-5 range, or so.

It's possible, but difficult, to get a skill over Level-6. Only happens every so often.

So maybe a general modifier to even the playing field. A penalty for Advanced generated characters and/or a bonus for Basic generated characters.

I don't think that's necessary, given that there are no problems using either chargen system. I'd have to leave that up to a GM to decide if he wants to implement something like that in his personal game.

A whole new game within the game To go for Basic generation and the general bonus, or go for Advanced generation and suffer with the general penalty

Interesting idea. Thanks for posting it. But, I really don't think that's necessary for the reasons I list above.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Personally I'd not use the special case rules...

I'll look at it and get back to you. </font>[/QUOTE]Alright-ey, Sigg. I've done some number crunchin', and I've looked this thing up one side and down the other.

I've played with the numbers, tried different difficulty sets...

...and the bottom line is that this system doesn't come close to producing the results the CTI gives us.

I really stumbled onto something with CTI. That system balances Stat and Skill, fits in with official CT game mechanics, and still produces good numbers when you run 'em.

Like you, I like the "look" of UGM, but as it turns out, highly skilled characters will have too much of a cake walk through most of the difficulty levels.

There's realy no way, that I can see right now, in balancing that.

On top of this, you've got the inelegant "Special Cases" for Stats 13+.

Yet, CTI balances all of this perfectly.

I guess I'm going to stick with CTI. I mean, it's a damn good "wheel", and it ain't broke.

This UGM idea is a good idea that was worthy of investigation, but when I've got the results of CTI staring at me--and then I look at the results of UGM--there's just no contest.

If you want a good system that incorporates the value of a character's natural ability (stats), balances that with his learned experience (skills), and does all this within the context of official Classic Trav rules, then CTI is your task system.

I'm looking at the numbers right now, and UGM just doesn't hold a candle to what CTI can do for a CT game.

Yep, I'm sticking with CTI.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Personally I'd not use the special case rules...

I'll look at it and get back to you. </font>[/QUOTE]Alright-ey, Sigg. I've done some number crunchin', and I've looked this thing up one side and down the other.

I've played with the numbers, tried different difficulty sets...

...and the bottom line is that this system doesn't come close to producing the results the CTI gives us.

I really stumbled onto something with CTI. That system balances Stat and Skill, fits in with official CT game mechanics, and still produces good numbers when you run 'em.

Like you, I like the "look" of UGM, but as it turns out, highly skilled characters will have too much of a cake walk through most of the difficulty levels.

There's realy no way, that I can see right now, in balancing that.

On top of this, you've got the inelegant "Special Cases" for Stats 13+.

Yet, CTI balances all of this perfectly.

I guess I'm going to stick with CTI. I mean, it's a damn good "wheel", and it ain't broke.

This UGM idea is a good idea that was worthy of investigation, but when I've got the results of CTI staring at me--and then I look at the results of UGM--there's just no contest.

If you want a good system that incorporates the value of a character's natural ability (stats), balances that with his learned experience (skills), and does all this within the context of official Classic Trav rules, then CTI is your task system.

I'm looking at the numbers right now, and UGM just doesn't hold a candle to what CTI can do for a CT game.

Yep, I'm sticking with CTI.

 

[Ptah]

Well that was quick. Looked at the UGM this morning and now its already passe. You kids these days.

WJP, I'll read the thread more closely but if not there would you be willing to throw up some statistical numbers comparing CTI and UGM.

I'm certainly not one for buckets o' dice or dice pool mechanics, but something about the extra dice for 14+ intrigues me. These, I'm thinking, would be very rare cases. And for the player who gets there the special of having the extra dice is a nice reward. That being said, if your stats show it unbalances things to much then I guess I'll just have to move on.

 

[Ptah]

Well that was quick. Looked at the UGM this morning and now its already passe. You kids these days.

WJP, I'll read the thread more closely but if not there would you be willing to throw up some statistical numbers comparing CTI and UGM.

I'm certainly not one for buckets o' dice or dice pool mechanics, but something about the extra dice for 14+ intrigues me. These, I'm thinking, would be very rare cases. And for the player who gets there the special of having the extra dice is a nice reward. That being said, if your stats show it unbalances things to much then I guess I'll just have to move on.