Difficulty, Boon/Bane, and DMs

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I have to admit that as I go through this Playtest, I am liking the Boon/Bane rules more and more.

I find myself thinking "that's a Bane" rather than DM-1 more and more often.

The fact that the Boon/Bane doesn't change the total EFFECT, just the CHANCE of the EFFECT is very powerful. Especially in a game like Traveller, where Effect is so important in so many ways.

As in the last example, by using a Bane instead of a DM-, I basically affect that chance of the Traveller hitting without affecting the maximum damage that he can do.

I REALLY LIKE THIS RULE!

 

[-Daniel-]

I have to admit that as I go through this Playtest, I am liking the Boon/Bane rules more and more.

I find myself thinking "that's a Bane" rather than DM-1 more and more often.

The fact that the Boon/Bane doesn't change the total EFFECT, just the CHANCE of the EFFECT is very powerful. Especially in a game like Traveller, where Effect is so important in so many ways.

As in the last example, by using a Bane instead of a DM-, I basically affect that chance of the Traveller hitting without affecting the maximum damage that he can do.

I REALLY LIKE THIS RULE!

I agree, I like the ability to offer a positive or negative to the roll while allowing the player to still have the same effect possibility.

 

[vladthemad]

I am actually with you on this (!).

However, one of the internal playtesters made a very good point. By changing the target number, a ref can more easily hide the roll needed from the players - a useful tool for the ref to have.

I could see the point, so went ahead and made the change. After all, as far as the dice rolls themselves are concerned, there is no change. And it gives the ref some flexibility.

Just wanted you to know that if you had been part of the internal playtest, I would have sided with you

It's not my fault you didn't invite me to the internal playtest

I assume that your internal playtester was saying that by not telling the player the difficulty, they wouldn't know what his target number was?

I would have explained to that playtester that was true for the old system too. In the old system if the player doesn't know what the difficulty is, he doesn't know what the DM would be. Using this in both the new and the old rules result in the ref basically saying "Give me a roll." and secretly calculating what the result would be. This is an age old trick, and no rule change was required to accommodate it.

Actually, sometimes I just call for random die rolls or roll dice myself for no other reason than to keep the players on edge. :twisted: Anyway, if that was the only reason that difficulty became a hard target number, I'd like to see it changed back. One less thing we'd have to deal with when using first edition materials.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Actually, sometimes I just call for random die rolls or roll dice myself for no other reason than to keep the players on edge. :twisted: Anyway, if that was the only reason that difficulty became a hard target number, I'd like to see it changed back. One less thing we'd have to deal with when using first edition materials.

I don't feel like doing extra math in my head. So I much prefer difficulties having their own target humbers. Either the player rolled a 10+ or not, whether they knew the task was difficult or not. Also, I don't have to get asked again what the difficulty is because they're rolling for 8+ all the time and doing math. So no more extra +/- math for them to do either, which is nice. It's where RPGs are now these days mechanic-wise.

 

[-Daniel-]

To be honest, at this point it feels more like we are arguing over a semantical difference rather than a real mechanical difference.

Average 8+ so Difficult is a +2 or 10+ is the same from a functional point of view, right? Both mean you need two more pips on the dice to make it.

And to be honest, either I have to do the math or I have to memorize a chart, either does not feel that hard.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

To be honest, at this point it feels more like we are arguing over a semantical difference rather than a real mechanical difference.

Average 8+ so Difficult is a +2 or 10+ is the same from a functional point of view, right? Both mean you need two more pips on the dice to make it.

And to be honest, either I have to do the math or I have to memorize a chart, either does not feel that hard.

You're not rolling for Average (8+) anymore if you're now rolling for Difficult (10+). The old 8+ is no longer part of the math. The die mechanic is no longer 8+ centric. The roaming target number is a much nicer mechanic. I'm always looking for ways to cut out the "+/-" speak from my games. And this new method is one of those ways.

I was worried I might have to memorize a difficulty chart, too. Technically, in 1st edition, I had to remember "+" and "-" values for difficulty before. Anyway, I have the new (2+) to (14+) values written down in case I forget. But I forgot that I have it because I ended up not needing it.

 

[vladthemad]

I don't feel like doing extra math in my head. So I much prefer difficulties having their own target humbers. Either the player rolled a 10+ or not, whether they knew the task was difficult or not. Also, I don't have to get asked again what the difficulty is because they're rolling for 8+ all the time and doing math. So no more extra +/- math for them to do either, which is nice. It's where RPGs are now these days mechanic-wise.

You're not rolling for Average (8+) anymore if you're now rolling for Difficult (10+). The old 8+ is no longer part of the math. The die mechanic is no longer 8+ centric. The roaming target number is a much nicer mechanic. I'm always looking for ways to cut out the "+/-" speak from my games. And this new method is one of those ways.

I wasn't aware this was Shawn's Traveller, and that your problems with math or desire to cut DMs out of the game were the driving force behind rules revisions. I also wasn't aware that Mongoose was trying to make Traveller more like other RPGs. There's already GURPS Traveller and T20 for that. I would say changing Mongoose Traveller to be more like other RPGs is a big mistake, but it would explain the bane/boon rule addition.

So are you seriously trying to suggest that adding two numbers (skill & characteristic) and remembering the different specific target numbers for each difficulty versus adding three numbers (skill, characteristic, and difficulty DM) is where it breaks for you? You have an issue with players asking you what the DM is, but you're ok if players ask "What's the target number for that difficulty again"?


My group has tried both systems at the table now, and the 8+ target number system just flows better. It's faster and easier at the table. Besides, if the math makes your brain hurt, you can always use rule zero.

 

[UbiquitousRat]

Peripherally related to this discussion, I find the text as written contradictory:

A Difficult task is difficult even for a trained professional. Examples might be making an accurate shot in the middle of a ferocious storm, defending a client in court when he is clearly guilty, hacking into a secure computer network, or spotting the flash of sunlight reflecting off a sniper's scope. Difficult tasks require a 10 or more to be rolled for the check.

p.58

The task difficulty levels allow a referee to pre-plan the skill and characteristic checks Travellers will need to succeed in during an adventure. However, there will likely be situations that arise that will make things either easier or harder for the Travellers. This is where Boons and Banes come in.

p.59

Which is it? Surely the "making an accurate shot in the middle of a storm" example is a Bane?

As for the technicality and value of Boon/Bane, it's a simpler rule to remember - is some factor helping/hindering? Apply extra die.

Can't it be, simply, roll 8+ but add Boon/Bane for circumstance?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The task difficulty levels allow a referee to pre-plan the skill and characteristic checks Travellers will need to succeed in during an adventure. However, there will likely be situations that arise that will make things either easier or harder for the Travellers. This is where Boons and Banes come in.

p.59

Which is it? Surely the "making an accurate shot in the middle of a storm" example is a Bane?

As for the technicality and value of Boon/Bane, it's a simpler rule to remember - is some factor helping/hindering? Apply extra die.

Can't it be, simply, roll 8+ but add Boon/Bane for circumstance?

Boon/Bane is just a boon or bane is all. They are not a replacement for a +/-DM or for a difficulty level.

Say a character is performing some sort of medical aid to a horrifically disfigured/dismembered person. The referee can just say to do a Medic skill check, and that would be it. But it's far more interesting when a referee describes the severity of the victim's wounds in detail, and the player then describes how their Traveller is "dealing with all the blood and guts everywhere" for example. So the referee at the moment decides to make the player's skill check a Bane roll instead of a 2D roll, because looking at the victim is so upsetting to their character.

Boon and Bane rolls help set (or agree with) the tone of the game that the referee and players are going for in their session and/or campaign.

 

[Kaelic]

Boon/Bane is just a boon or bane is all. They are not a replacement for a +/-DM or for a difficulty level.

Doesn't the book specifically state you no longer put incidental +/- DMs on rolls, and you replace them with Boon/Bane?

pg 61
Before any other factors are taken into account,
the referee should set the difficulty of a task, based on
how hard he believes the task should be without any
exterior effects.

If an exterior factor is influencing the
task, for better or worse, then a Boon or Bane is applied
to the check.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Boon/Bane is just a boon or bane is all. They are not a replacement for a +/-DM or for a difficulty level.

Doesn't the book specifically state you no longer put incidental +/- DMs on rolls, and you replace them with Boon/Bane?

pg 61
Before any other factors are taken into account,
the referee should set the difficulty of a task, based on
how hard he believes the task should be without any
exterior effects.

If an exterior factor is influencing the
task, for better or worse, then a Boon or Bane is applied
to the check.

No. Boon/Bane are their own deal. They have nothing to do with Difficulty or with hard-wired DMs.

Bad condition tools still do their +/- DM job, but with a Bane roll instead of a 2D roll. That is, if a referee is into using Boon/Bane. Most CT players are not into it. I am a MgT2 player. So I'm into using Boon/Bane. It's one of Matthew's best inventions since nano-sliced bread for Traveller. A "I've been playing Classic Traveller for 30 years" player will be against such game mechanics. I don't know what Traveller player you consider yourself to be. But it does influence how you see Boon/Bane working in a game.

 

[anselyn]

I am a MgT2 player. So I'm into using Boon/Bane. It's one of Matthew's best inventions since nano-sliced bread for Traveller. A "I've been playing Classic Traveller for 30 years" player will be against such game mechanics. I don't know what Traveller player you consider yourself to be. But it does influence how you see Boon/Bane working in a game.

Your allegiance to a yet unfinished game is nice (and perhaps prescient) but if you'll take MgT2 whatever it is then I think you needn't be bothering to hang around perturbing the discussion of people trying to improve the game. Plus, putting an Edition Wars spin on any dissidence from your view really isn't helpful.

As a Traveller Player, I just want a clearly explained consistent game. Am I allowed here, Shawn? What box do you want to put me in?

 

[Kaelic]

Shawn we're discussing the rules as written, that is the point of a playtest. I don't really understand what you're saying most of the time.

 

[paulsnow]

(many of those in the Vehicle Critical Hits Effect table - so probably waiting to be taken out?)

Just removed!

 

[Stainless]

But it's not something to be written into the rules. That's the whole point of the mechanic. It's for use at the GM's discretion for the types of things the rules can't foresee or for which there shouldn't be formal rules because of unwieldiness. The low citation of the mechanic in the rules is not prima facie evidence that it's not useful.

 

[-Daniel-]

But it's not something to be written into the rules. That's the whole point of the mechanic.

It is now, but in the first document it was hard wired into the rules quite a bit. This shift is happening because a review of the role this mechanic should have in the overall rule set.

The low citation of the mechanic in the rules is not prima facie evidence that it's not useful.

I do not believe the question is if it is useful, rather what I see the conversation being is: Does the core rules need this mechanic or should it be an optional rule option?

 

[amerginsrd]

[/quote] I do not believe the question is if it is useful, rather what I see the conversation being is: Does the core rules need this mechanic or should it be an optional rule option?[/quote]

IMO the core rules needs bane and boon. The biggest weakness a 2d6 core mechanic is "die modifier fatigue". Each +/- 1 can impact results very strongly especially in rolls near the center of the bell curve. In the abstract the impact is worth the color it provides but in reality most critical rolls are made by characters using their best skills often backed by their strongest characteristics (say a +1 Slug skill and +1 Dexterity) now add to that a gear buff (+1 laser sight) and the player chooses to aim (+1). This nets them a total bonus of +4 without taking into account range, weather, or anything else which could rightfully be argued should effect the outcome. This is a 30% hard increase in the roll result or more depending where on the bell curve it falls. (A +6 in d20 terms). The shooter will hit nearly every time and usually quite hard.

Enter boon and bane. The rules state that no matter how many boon or bane die the player will only ever roll one. If they end up with more than one after all the boons and banes cancel each other out they still only roll one. And your back to the primary core mechanic and range of results.

I realize that in my example I am using what are considered "hard wired" DMs but the problem rest just as much with the ones in the book as the ones we might feel the need to add in a situation. I suggest that all DMs become boon or bane aspects leaving only skill levels and characteristics as mathematical modifiers to the roll. This would make them the primary force behind the success and failure of tasks as opposed to a string of smaller elements (+1s) which, when added to gather, can make skill irrelevant.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I realize that in my example I am using what are considered "hard wired" DMs but the problem rest just as much with the ones in the book as the ones we might feel the need to add in a situation. I suggest that all DMs become boon or bane aspects leaving only skill levels and characteristics as mathematical modifiers to the roll. This would make them the primary force behind the success and failure of tasks as opposed to a string of smaller elements (+1s) which, when added to gather, can make skill irrelevant.

Referees need to unlearn the bad habit of adding their own +/- DMs to players rolls. I'm not a fan of Bane/Boon pools. Just pick which roll to make (a 2D, a Bane, or a Boon roll).

 

[TrippyHippy]

Referees need to unlearn the bad habit of adding their own +/- DMs to players rolls. I'm not a fan of Bane/Boon pools. Just pick which roll to make (a 2D, a Bane, or a Boon roll).

It doesn't help when the rules themselves present some situation modifiers as +/- DMs eg: moving faster or slower, or cover rules.

 

[-Daniel-]

Without more explanation, I will just add Boon/Bane to my GM toolbox and use it where I want.

And to be honest, I do like it in that way. It allows me to use it when I want to increase the chance without increases the effect on the roll. 8)