Thoughts...Is the MT task system compatible with T4?

[Supplement Four]

What's the concensus? Obviously, a character will get more skill levels using T4 CharGen.

If a GM didn't like the T4 task system, do you think there would be a problem substituting the MT task system in its place?

I'm of the opinion (without having done any statistical analysis) that one could use the MT system with T4 because, although T4 characters get more skills, they're not typically skills of higher level (i.e. you get many more Level-1's and Level-2's, but you're not ending up with too many, if any, over Level-5).

Therefore, I think the MT task system would be fine with T4.

Thoughts?

 

[Supplement Four]

What's the concensus? Obviously, a character will get more skill levels using T4 CharGen.

If a GM didn't like the T4 task system, do you think there would be a problem substituting the MT task system in its place?

I'm of the opinion (without having done any statistical analysis) that one could use the MT system with T4 because, although T4 characters get more skills, they're not typically skills of higher level (i.e. you get many more Level-1's and Level-2's, but you're not ending up with too many, if any, over Level-5).

Therefore, I think the MT task system would be fine with T4.

Thoughts?

 

[Border Reiver]

I've always felt that CT, MT and T4 were fairly interchangable. The attributes are identical, chargen is the same though different rulesets produce differing levels of skills, combat is derivative of each other (and striker/ahl/snapshot). Analyse it too much and you'll just upset yourself

 

[Border Reiver]

I've always felt that CT, MT and T4 were fairly interchangable. The attributes are identical, chargen is the same though different rulesets produce differing levels of skills, combat is derivative of each other (and striker/ahl/snapshot). Analyse it too much and you'll just upset yourself

 

[aramis]

I'd suggest the folllowing changes to it:
1) Att/2 or Att/3 instead of Att/5
2) Different steps on task target numbers 4/9/14/19/24 for MT-style labels, 4/8/12/16/20/24 for T4 style
3) DM Limit +12

OR
use an alternate 3D version, specifically for T4.
Att/2
Max DM+12
Auto: 0+
Easy 4+
Average: 9+
Difficult: 14+
Formidable: 19+
Staggering: 24+
Impossible: 29+
this puts Impossible at 4/216=1/54

T4 combat bears little resemblance to Striker nor MT... IMNSHO, and MT is the most flexible of them. If only by putting ALL items on the same armor and damage scales, using the same methodologies at all scales and allowing for conglomerate units.

 

[aramis]

I'd suggest the folllowing changes to it:
1) Att/2 or Att/3 instead of Att/5
2) Different steps on task target numbers 4/9/14/19/24 for MT-style labels, 4/8/12/16/20/24 for T4 style
3) DM Limit +12

OR
use an alternate 3D version, specifically for T4.
Att/2
Max DM+12
Auto: 0+
Easy 4+
Average: 9+
Difficult: 14+
Formidable: 19+
Staggering: 24+
Impossible: 29+
this puts Impossible at 4/216=1/54

T4 combat bears little resemblance to Striker nor MT... IMNSHO, and MT is the most flexible of them. If only by putting ALL items on the same armor and damage scales, using the same methodologies at all scales and allowing for conglomerate units.

 

[Border Reiver]

My take;

CT the original, fastest and most arguments over rules.

MT the real CT plus/improved. Fatally flawed by endless errata and a lack of examples.

TNE T2K with bells on. A real paradigm buster with FFS2 but let down by slow combat (unless you were a real combat phreak which we were)

T4 an honest attempt to return CT/MT/DGP roots. Had some fantastic elements but numerous flaws and poor editing/proofing let it down.


What do I want from T5? Leave that to a relevant place on these boards

 

[Border Reiver]

My take;

CT the original, fastest and most arguments over rules.

MT the real CT plus/improved. Fatally flawed by endless errata and a lack of examples.

TNE T2K with bells on. A real paradigm buster with FFS2 but let down by slow combat (unless you were a real combat phreak which we were)

T4 an honest attempt to return CT/MT/DGP roots. Had some fantastic elements but numerous flaws and poor editing/proofing let it down.


What do I want from T5? Leave that to a relevant place on these boards

 

[Merxiless]

I concur in all respects with Border Reiver's last post.

But I still play T4, as the best overall mix of elements I like, with advenced long-term Traveller Players.

New players to Traveller, we use The Traveller Book, and it's real sloppy and fun.

In answer to your question:

I'd go with using T4 to gen the characters, and then use MT / DGP's Task System, as seen in Grand Survey, Page 2
3+
7+
11+
15+
Governing Stat /5, Down, As a DM

I know there is a whole other thread arguing that Stat 15 and skill 1, are not Equal to Stat 7 and Skill 3. If you are going to use MT, many years of game play tells me that DGP got it right, revolutionizing skill use in MT with this simple, groundbreaking mechanic.

I am not trying to start any argument, just stating my own preference for Stat/5, and the Original DGP numbers, as an improvement over CT, which was really totally Ref's interpretation, until Specified Tasks were invented.

I've always been a believer that Skill Training counts more than Raw Ability, but I also think if you got someone who is Metahuman (Attribute 15), there's something to be said for that, too.

In the end, it's a game, and we can't exactly model reality, without making it too complicated to resolve rapidly in the process.

 

[Merxiless]

I concur in all respects with Border Reiver's last post.

But I still play T4, as the best overall mix of elements I like, with advenced long-term Traveller Players.

New players to Traveller, we use The Traveller Book, and it's real sloppy and fun.

In answer to your question:

I'd go with using T4 to gen the characters, and then use MT / DGP's Task System, as seen in Grand Survey, Page 2
3+
7+
11+
15+
Governing Stat /5, Down, As a DM

I know there is a whole other thread arguing that Stat 15 and skill 1, are not Equal to Stat 7 and Skill 3. If you are going to use MT, many years of game play tells me that DGP got it right, revolutionizing skill use in MT with this simple, groundbreaking mechanic.

I am not trying to start any argument, just stating my own preference for Stat/5, and the Original DGP numbers, as an improvement over CT, which was really totally Ref's interpretation, until Specified Tasks were invented.

I've always been a believer that Skill Training counts more than Raw Ability, but I also think if you got someone who is Metahuman (Attribute 15), there's something to be said for that, too.

In the end, it's a game, and we can't exactly model reality, without making it too complicated to resolve rapidly in the process.

 

[robject]

Not to toot the T5 horn too much (?), check out the 2003-version of the T5 chargen material. It's T4-compatible, with some nifty stuff added.

 

[robject]

Not to toot the T5 horn too much (?), check out the 2003-version of the T5 chargen material. It's T4-compatible, with some nifty stuff added.

 

[Flynn]

It's my thought (based on studying the character generation processes) that T4 skills equal approximately one year's worth of study in a particular area, while MT/CT skills equal approximately two year's worth of study.

Barring that difference, I don't see a problem using the MT/DGP system for task resolution, even as it stands, with T4 characters. Most people stop earlier in a character's career and have the same skill levels you see in the old 7-term characters of systems past, so the effects are roughly the same.

You can also use the BITS system to convert back and forth between the various rules editions and task systems.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

It's my thought (based on studying the character generation processes) that T4 skills equal approximately one year's worth of study in a particular area, while MT/CT skills equal approximately two year's worth of study.

Barring that difference, I don't see a problem using the MT/DGP system for task resolution, even as it stands, with T4 characters. Most people stop earlier in a character's career and have the same skill levels you see in the old 7-term characters of systems past, so the effects are roughly the same.

You can also use the BITS system to convert back and forth between the various rules editions and task systems.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Flynn:
You can also use the BITS system to convert back and forth between the various rules editions and task systems.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

Why is the BITS system called a task system? It seems more like a conversion system to me.

I guess you could, when writing an adventure, use the BITS difficulty levels. And then, when playing the adventure, you cross-reference the BITS difficulty level with whatever system you are using to find out what you have to throw.

But, I don't see BITS as a task system because it can't exist without reference to other systems.


Just curious why people call it a task system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Flynn:
You can also use the BITS system to convert back and forth between the various rules editions and task systems.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

Why is the BITS system called a task system? It seems more like a conversion system to me.

I guess you could, when writing an adventure, use the BITS difficulty levels. And then, when playing the adventure, you cross-reference the BITS difficulty level with whatever system you are using to find out what you have to throw.

But, I don't see BITS as a task system because it can't exist without reference to other systems.


Just curious why people call it a task system.

 

[Flynn]

BTW, BITS does provide a CT task system that didn't exist before. It should look familiar to you: 2d6 + Skill Level, roll 8+ to succeed, modified by difficulty level.

It's UGM without the extra stat roll, released some 7 or 8 years ago.

As for why it's called a task system, well, there you go. Oh, and because it's labelled that way.

Enjoy,
Flynn

(Yeah, I knew I'd seen UGM before, and reviewing the BITS Task System for the CT DMs, now I know exactly where. It's simply BITS combined with a post off of the COTI boards from about three years back regarding rolling 2d6 under a stat to get modifiers for a skill check. I still like MT/DGP, but I don't have anything against the system itself, just the repetitive presentation and resulting arguments... er, uh, I mean... debates.)

 

[Flynn]

BTW, BITS does provide a CT task system that didn't exist before. It should look familiar to you: 2d6 + Skill Level, roll 8+ to succeed, modified by difficulty level.

It's UGM without the extra stat roll, released some 7 or 8 years ago.

As for why it's called a task system, well, there you go. Oh, and because it's labelled that way.

Enjoy,
Flynn

(Yeah, I knew I'd seen UGM before, and reviewing the BITS Task System for the CT DMs, now I know exactly where. It's simply BITS combined with a post off of the COTI boards from about three years back regarding rolling 2d6 under a stat to get modifiers for a skill check. I still like MT/DGP, but I don't have anything against the system itself, just the repetitive presentation and resulting arguments... er, uh, I mean... debates.)

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Flynn:
It's UGM without the extra stat roll, released some 7 or 8 years ago.

Just to be clear, UGM doesn't use an "extra stat roll". It's all combined into a single task roll.

And, the 2D for 8+ thing has been around a lot longer than either me or BITS can take credit for.

I mean--it's friggin' CT combat!

Many CT GMs were using 2D for 8+ for a long time (years, decades probably) before either UGM or BITS came along.

I simply combined existing CT mechanics, did some statistical analysis, and presented it as a unique task system that has never been presented in such a way before.

I guess you could consider it a CT tweak (not unlike the many existing MT tweaks out there).

(Yeah, I knew I'd seen UGM before, and reviewing the BITS Task System for the CT DMs, now I know exactly where. It's simply BITS combined with a post off of the COTI boards from about three years back regarding rolling 2d6 under a stat to get modifiers for a skill check.

I'm not sure what CotI post you're talking about, but, again, Stat or lower on 2D or 3D has been around (in official CT products) for years.

Check out the Traveller Adventure. There's a section that discusses doing "tasks" by rolling Stat or less on 2D or 3D. Sometimes, it's Stat + Skill, as in T4.

Again, all I did was take these two ideas, merge them so that they'd work, to create the Universal Game Mechanic.

All UGM is...is a 2D +mods for 8+ roll combined with a Stat or less on 2D roll.

It's all one roll, providing more detail on a task throw than MT/DGP gives you.

I still like MT/DGP, but I don't have anything against the system itself, just the repetitive presentation and resulting arguments... er, uh, I mean... debates.)

I hear you on that. I don't like arguments either. But, it's the nature of the best with forums, e-mail lists, and newsgroups. They always happen no matter how polite you are or how well thought out and though provoking your posts are.

There's always some idiot out there who's going to disagree with you.

(That last part, BTW, is a joke!)


As far as the ongoing discussion about UGM...I've just answered posts about it and posted new things about it.

It's a good system, and I wanted to spread the word.

In the bottom of your posts, you've got a sig that advertises your Stellar Reaches fanzine.

You don't hear me complaining that everytime I see one of your posts, I see that advertisement for your mag.

In fact, I'm glad I saw it, because I went to your site and downloaded the mags.

At least some of the posts for UGM were no more than that--just advertising. Getting the word out that UGM exists.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Flynn:
It's UGM without the extra stat roll, released some 7 or 8 years ago.

Just to be clear, UGM doesn't use an "extra stat roll". It's all combined into a single task roll.

And, the 2D for 8+ thing has been around a lot longer than either me or BITS can take credit for.

I mean--it's friggin' CT combat!

Many CT GMs were using 2D for 8+ for a long time (years, decades probably) before either UGM or BITS came along.

I simply combined existing CT mechanics, did some statistical analysis, and presented it as a unique task system that has never been presented in such a way before.

I guess you could consider it a CT tweak (not unlike the many existing MT tweaks out there).

(Yeah, I knew I'd seen UGM before, and reviewing the BITS Task System for the CT DMs, now I know exactly where. It's simply BITS combined with a post off of the COTI boards from about three years back regarding rolling 2d6 under a stat to get modifiers for a skill check.

I'm not sure what CotI post you're talking about, but, again, Stat or lower on 2D or 3D has been around (in official CT products) for years.

Check out the Traveller Adventure. There's a section that discusses doing "tasks" by rolling Stat or less on 2D or 3D. Sometimes, it's Stat + Skill, as in T4.

Again, all I did was take these two ideas, merge them so that they'd work, to create the Universal Game Mechanic.

All UGM is...is a 2D +mods for 8+ roll combined with a Stat or less on 2D roll.

It's all one roll, providing more detail on a task throw than MT/DGP gives you.

I still like MT/DGP, but I don't have anything against the system itself, just the repetitive presentation and resulting arguments... er, uh, I mean... debates.)

I hear you on that. I don't like arguments either. But, it's the nature of the best with forums, e-mail lists, and newsgroups. They always happen no matter how polite you are or how well thought out and though provoking your posts are.

There's always some idiot out there who's going to disagree with you.

(That last part, BTW, is a joke!)


As far as the ongoing discussion about UGM...I've just answered posts about it and posted new things about it.

It's a good system, and I wanted to spread the word.

In the bottom of your posts, you've got a sig that advertises your Stellar Reaches fanzine.

You don't hear me complaining that everytime I see one of your posts, I see that advertisement for your mag.

In fact, I'm glad I saw it, because I went to your site and downloaded the mags.

At least some of the posts for UGM were no more than that--just advertising. Getting the word out that UGM exists.