Mongoose Traveller Stats Are Too Powerful

[Supplement Four]

The stat-not-adding-to-effect rule was in V1, isn't in V2. I'm flip-flopping on it.

Gar, what do you think? Do I have a point? I'm sure you've read my examples above (not just skimmed them).

Am I making sense?

If you disagree with the position, I'll just drop it.

If you agree that I have a point, then I'll keep trying to figure a good solution for it.

No use working on this if the designers aren't convinced of the problem.

So, it's up to you...is this a problem that needs addressing (as I think it is)?

Or, is it something worth ignoring, as Trippy thinks it is?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Oooh...that's gonna put him on the spot! :wink:

 

[Mongoose Gar]

I think I'm currently in the 'not convinced it's a problem' category.

I do see where you're coming from, and I can see some of the simpler fixes (like the stat bonus capped by your skill) being used as optional rules.

*writes a bit*
*deletes it*
*writes a bit*
*deletes it again*

Actually, I'm too tired after Dragonmeet (BITS rock!) to give your posts the attention they deserve right now. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

 

[SableWyvern]

A lot of discussion while I slept, so please forgive me for going back several pages with these quotes...

I must say, Sable, we're polar opposites with this discussion, but debating it with you has been a pleasure. You've kept your points logical and concise, and you've avoided blowing this up into a heated discussion.

I wish all posters could disagree with me the way you have. :lol:

Cheers. 8)

And, although it took me four different tries, from four different angles, I'm glad you see that there is a problem.

You state, though, that it's a problem we can live with because a lot of rpgs have the same problem (Let me remind you that Classic Traveller didn't have this problem...it appeared when the UTP appeared).

I think there are ways to fix it. I know there are ways to fix it.

I fixed it with the Universal Game Mechanic. And, I know there are other ways to fix it.

I think you've actually missed my point.

What is your fix for the fact that End covers basic fitness, resilience to disease and poison, self-discipline, ability to withstand interrogation?

Why does Dex represent basic hand-eye co-ordination, fine manipulation, reaction time, litheness, and a range of abilties that are arguable tied into strength (muscle development and training).

How do you model a sprinter with leg strenght but a relatively weak upper-body vs some guy that just works out on his arms vs somebody who's not exceptionally strong but know how to lift things efficiently?

Either attributes measure a range of talents that do not necessarily have any relationship to each other, or they each measure one, discrete thing. If the former, there is a problem (not necessarily one worth worrying about); if the latter, then they're not stats, they're skills.

Finally, some people are forgetting that there are additional rules for rolling characteristics on 3d6, and picking the best two. Which not only skews Char Gen, but will certainly lead to players gaining 15's... and thus undermining the value of actual skill levels

I was wondering if someone would bring this up. IMO, anyone that uses the optional stat generation method that gives extremely high stats is in no position to complain that stats dominate the game. :wink:

Personally, I've got no issue with leaving the rule in there; if a group wants to play "munchkins" and have fun with it, more power to them. That attributes will dominate and effective skill levels be very high should be made clear, though.

What if your Stat bonus could only be applied to a certain number of skills of your choosing? Stats would have bonuses, as-is, but a limit to the number of skills those bonuses could be attached to.

Ok, that goes some way to resolving the issue I mention above, although it doesn't alter the way things work when defaulting to a stat. I think that this idea is a workable house-rule, but I still believe it's yet another "fix" that devalues stats such that you're better off just ditching them altogether.

Let's say that Stat bonuses can never been higher than your skill level.

I was almost sold on this as feasible. However, again, it ultimately devalues stats too much for my liking. I'm mainly opposed to the idea that bonuses can't be added to 0-level or untrained skills, which would be a big negative in my book.


On the matter of dropping stat bonuses from Effect -- while I believe the effect of this on actual results will be positive, it does add another mathematical step into the process (take your DMs, subtract your stat bonus, add to effect). For some people, this extra subtraction will slow them down significantly.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

I think the V1 time/effect die thingy is nicely nuanced.

A gifted amateur can succeed as many times as a trained professional, but never as well nor as quickly.

Capping stat bonus at skill level removes the gifted amateur entirely, and things like raw ability will do you no good if you're unskilled, or at 0 level. The stats get devalued. There's no point having a high stat unless you're skills are also highish. It will make 1 or 2 termers with few or no developed skills less playable.

But that is just my humble opinion.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

On the matter of dropping stat bonuses from Effect -- while I believe the effect of this on actual results will be positive, it does add another mathematical step into the process (take your DMs, subtract your stat bonus, add to effect). For some people, this extra subtraction will slow them down significantly.

You don't really need to subtract. Total bonus with the same skill, and even stat, is going to be different each time it's used. For instance, in combat range is another variable.

So in essence you're always just totalling a 2 or 3 factors and then subtracting difficulty. In most cases the mods to effect are then just +skill -difficulty. I don't see how that adds complexity. you could say in many cases it reduces it.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm not quite sure what your getting at there. You seem to be suggesting that to find a modifier to Effect, players will usually add up all relevant bonuses and penalties. If that were the case, removing stat bonuses from Effect would have no impact, or a positive one. However, it would seem more logical to me that when determining Effect people will in fact just be taking the value they've already calculated before making their skill roll.

Frex:

When using a skill, players will total up all relevant bonuses, then add them to their roll.

Currently, the next step is to select a die for Effect, and then just add the previously calculated value. If we are to take stat bonuses from the equasion, the next step is to take the previously calculated value, remove the stat bonus from it, and add that new number to the Effect die.

For a lot of people, it won't be an issue. For those who go blank when trying to do maths, it's an extra, time-consuming step.

 

[jlcatch]

I don't know if this is the right place to bring it up, but all this discussion about stats devaluing skills echoes concerns I have about the current computer rules. As the rules stand, there is a strong in-setting incentive for employers not to waste money training people in high-tech cultures and for people to not bother learning professional skills. Why ? Well, with a hand computer, Intelligent Interface and an appropriate Expert program anyone off the street can perform the job competently. At TL13, skill-0, TL14, skill-1, TL15, skill-2. So, as an employer, you supply them as needed to whoever is doing the job today, no need to worry about getting properly trained employees or paying for training. What's more, since these things are so small, I would see a booming export trade for high-tech worlds shipping them to lower tech ones. Result, nobody learns professional skills since these would only be useful with one type of job and they take *years* to acquire. They spend the time and energy saved on hobbies instead. ;-)

Worse still if the employer pays out a little more for expert systems, then all you need is someone to give the orders! This applies particularly well to starships - all the control systems are in place, so integrating these programs would be simple and would result in no need for pilots, navigators, engineers, etc. Just a watch officer to give orders and maybe an independent robot with engineering Expert and Intellect in case something needs repairing.

This would be fine for some settings (Iain Bank's Culture or Jack McDevitt's 'Hutch' books to name but two), but I don't see this as the OTU.

When I get round to writing up some feedback, I'm probably going to include a couple of suggestions for a Traveller type setting. Firstly, a character cannot get a greater bonus from using Expert & Intelligent Interface than their skill level (the better you are, the more you can get out of the system). Secondly, that there should be a task to give useful orders to a system running Intellect & Expert which uses the same skill as the expert program - assuming that since they don't have reliable AI, computers and robots won't do anything on their own initiative (if you don't know what a system can do or what the technical terms used in a skillset are, it may misunderstand or simply ignore your instructions).

What do you all think ?

 

[captainjack23]

I don't know if this is the right place to bring it up, but all this discussion about stats devaluing skills echoes concerns I have about the current computer rules.

>excellent discussion of issues I agree with snipped>

This would be fine for some settings (Iain Bank's Culture or Jack McDevitt's 'Hutch' books to name but two), but I don't see this as the OTU.

When I get round to writing up some feedback, I'm probably going to include a couple of suggestions for a Traveller type setting. Firstly, a character cannot get a greater bonus from using Expert & Intelligent Interface than their skill level (the better you are, the more you can get out of the system). Secondly, that there should be a task to give useful orders to a system running Intellect & Expert which uses the same skill as the expert program

I think I agree, in principle, and want to thank you for an excellent and logical reason to tone down the rules rather than my rather feeble - "it isn't ... well...it doesn't feel right"

Me, I made similar suggestions as I also hate the idea of buying skills off the rack, and then plugging them into your head.

My suggestion was a bit harsher: An expert system gives a user a +1, but only if they have an existing skill of at least 0; and the final adjusted skill level cannot exceed the expert system's plus/level.
My theory is that the better you are, the less you need an expert system, but the help that you do need would be more complex than at at lower level; plus, and I know this is true from working in decision support, one can easily swamp the user with either too much help, or too sophisticated help. And you need SOME basis to understand the help provided.

Cap

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

I don't know if this is the right place to bring it up, but all this discussion about stats devaluing skills echoes concerns I have about the current computer rules. As the rules stand, there is a strong in-setting incentive for employers not to waste money training people in high-tech cultures and for people to not bother learning professional skills. Why ? Well, with a hand computer, Intelligent Interface and an appropriate Expert program anyone off the street can perform the job competently. At TL13, skill-0, TL14, skill-1, TL15, skill-2. So, as an employer, you supply them as needed to whoever is doing the job today, no need to worry about getting properly trained employees or paying for training. What's more, since these things are so small, I would see a booming export trade for high-tech worlds shipping them to lower tech ones. Result, nobody learns professional skills since these would only be useful with one type of job and they take *years* to acquire. They spend the time and energy saved on hobbies instead. ;-)

Worse still if the employer pays out a little more for expert systems, then all you need is someone to give the orders! This applies particularly well to starships - all the control systems are in place, so integrating these programs would be simple and would result in no need for pilots, navigators, engineers, etc. Just a watch officer to give orders and maybe an independent robot with engineering Expert and Intellect in case something needs repairing.

This would be fine for some settings (Iain Bank's Culture or Jack McDevitt's 'Hutch' books to name but two), but I don't see this as the OTU.

When I get round to writing up some feedback, I'm probably going to include a couple of suggestions for a Traveller type setting. Firstly, a character cannot get a greater bonus from using Expert & Intelligent Interface than their skill level (the better you are, the more you can get out of the system). Secondly, that there should be a task to give useful orders to a system running Intellect & Expert which uses the same skill as the expert program - assuming that since they don't have reliable AI, computers and robots won't do anything on their own initiative (if you don't know what a system can do or what the technical terms used in a skillset are, it may misunderstand or simply ignore your instructions).

What do you all think ?

This is the kind of thing people were bringing up in the computing and cybernetics thread. That degree of expert system, especially if it can be done as implant tech does bring the game into Culture-level territory, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - check out a lot of modern British Space Opera like Alastair Reynolds and Peter Hamilton for settings which combine modern SF attitudes on computers and post/transhumanism with more traditional SF settings.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Ok, finally caught up on this thread, LOTS of activity for a 3 day old thread.

Back to the Medic example.

Lets define our two characters now:

"DOC" UPP: 777777, Medical-2

"KID" UPP: 7777C7, Medical-0

Now, here's the scenario:

Patient walks up to each and says, "It hurts when I do THIS."

GO....

Well the patient needs an examination and some tests run. Nurses run the tests, so all our character has to do is decide what tests to run. Sounds like an EDU based skill check to me:

DOC: 2d6+2 (Medical skill and EDU DM of 0)
KID: 2d6+2 (Medical skill and EDU DM of +2)

So, both are the same here and they correctly call out the same tests and find out the patient has Vilis Cystofibritis which requires surgery to remove the Vilis Cysts that have grown against the patient's spinal cord.

So, time for the surgery, which is a DEX based check since you don't want to damage the spinal column while removing those cysts:

DOC: 2d6+2 (Medical Skill and DEX DM of 0)
KID: 2d6+0 (Medical Skill and DEX DM of 0)

Gee, who do I want operating on the patient now?

Characteristics can really help in a lot of areas, but skills can use more than one characteristic. So in some ways they even out.

Pilots need DEX and INT based skill checks in addition to EDU based checks to do their job. Engineers (like me) also use INT and DEX, not just EDU and some times SOC...

There are LOTS of examples of college graduates that are really good at book learning but make lousy workers; because they have a high EDU, but not enough INT or DEX or (Common Sense which isn't really a characterstic, but if it was would fall under INT, not EDU).

I can see both sides of this on-going argument and I LOVE WJP's UGM system, but there is more to it than just 1 characteristic per skill.

(Just hoping to muddy the waters a bit more). :wink:

 

[Supplement Four]

I can see both sides of this on-going argument and I LOVE WJP's UGM system, but there is more to it than just 1 characteristic per skill.

(Just hoping to muddy the waters a bit more). :wink:

Well, it does cloud the issue a bit.

I just use EDU and Medical skill because it's easiest to debate. But the problem rears its head anytime stat bonus is higher than Skill (which is why I suggested one of my fixes above).

How you muddied the waters was this: You took the issue of high stat/low skill (EDU-12/Med-0) and then changed the parameters.

There is no issue when the stat is the same (as with your second exampe, DEX-7/Med-0).



As I said, the problem exists, and Medical/EDU is just a good way to illuminate the problem. It's easier to think of a "doctor" at Med-3 than it is a Mechanic-3. We get a better understand of what a Skill-3 skill is when put in medical terms vs. "Mechanic" terms.

Consider a kid with DEX-12 and no Deception skill who wants to be a magician. He's got 5 skills, and then spends 5 months going to a "magicians' school".

Does the kid, DEX-12/Deception-0, now have enough experience to perform in Vegas as a professional magician?

He must, because he's as good as the DEX-8, Deception-2 magician. (Remember, Skill-2 is akin to a critical care nurse or doctor doing his residency...which is why the medical profession lends itself well to the discussion.).

Or...

How about the same kid, DEX-12, taking a 7 month course in shooting rifles. All of a sudden, he can shoot as well as the DEX-8, Slug Rifle-2 combat soldier in Iraq.

You see, the problem remains. Stats are too overweighted in the current system. Some "limit" needs to be implemented to keep broad-based natural ability from having more impact on task throws than actual experience does.

 

[SableWyvern]

Supplement Four, your examples keep presupposing that a level-0 only represents rudimentary knowledge, when the mechanics make it quite clear that level-0 is a competent, employable level.

Level-0, without stat mods, means that you have enough training to provide an average person with about a 42% chance of overcoming a problem that would present "a moderate obstacle to a trained professional", and to do so in hazardous or other stressful conditions. That's a fairly high degree of competence.

If you have that competence, and are also in the top few percentiles of humanity with respect to your coordination, why couldn't you be a successful Vegas magician? Maybe because you lack the ability to actually keep the crowd involved and interested and your jokes are poor, but certainly not because your basic sleight of hand skills are inadequate.

The same goes with your shooting example. Over the seven months you suggest as a training period, your Dex 12 kid has received the same level of firearms training as your typical, competent, single term Marine.

 

[Supplement Four]

Supplement Four, your examples keep presupposing that a level-0 only represents rudimentary knowledge, when the mechanics make it quite clear that level-0 is a competent, employable level.

The 7 mos. training came out of the rules. Actually, that's not quite true. If the character had 6 total skills, then it would take 7 mos to get Skill-1, rather than Skill-0.

I'm not missing the fact that the rules state Skill-0 is an employable level of expertise. See the skill definitions earlier in the thread. That's what I'm going by (that and the rules).

What you (and most on this thread) keep presupposing is that general, natural ability is the same as trained experience.

It isn't. Not in real life.

If you've got an MBA from Harvard, you've got a high EDU. EDU-12.

If you are then a first year medical school student, and earn a Medical-1 skill, THERE IS NO WAY you're as skilled and competent as a practicing doctor who has years of exeprience.

That's the problem with these stats in this task system. The character's high EDU does not mean he has specific training in the medical field so that it's equivalent to a critical care nurse. Heck, with the MBA, it could be no specific medical training at all, ever.

Yet, the rules have this character, after the first year of medical school, being able to perform as well as a fully licensed and experienced doctor.

There's a real problem there.

EDU-12, Medical-1 should not equal EDU-8, Medical-3.

But, it does in these rules.



If you're walking down the street and suddenly fall to your knees, gripping your chest, having a heart attack, who do you want to come help you?

The Harvard MBA just starting his first year of medical school? Or, the experienced doctor?

It's a no brainer. In real life, you'd want the doctor. Not the medical student who's only had one year of school.

What I'm trying to correct is that problem in the rules.

I can't believe it so hard for everyone to see.

 

[Supplement Four]

One more thing...

If Skill-4 is an expert in the field (as we defined earlier in the thread), then every character who has a Stat-12 will become an expert in the field as soon as he reaches Skill-2.

Think about that. Do you want that in your games?

If Skill-5 is world class, then every character with Stat-15 is considered world class in every skill for which he uses that stat and has a Level-2 skill rating.

This task system should not build up stats that way--in such a way that the stat overpowers training and experience in other characters with higher skill but lower stat.

Stat-12, Skill-1 should not be the same thing as Stat-8, Skill-3.

Real, learned experience should count for more.



Take the best Basketball player who ever lived. High DEX, right? should he become a professional level marksman as soon as he learns how to shoot?

How this should work is that the Basketball player had a high skill in Basketball and a high DEX. When he picks up the Slug Rifle-1 skill, his DEX should help him be a better shooter, but that alone shouldn't make the character equivalent to a professional sniper.

Skill. Expertise. Learned knowledge and experience. This should count for more than natural ability.

I'm not saying natural ability doesn't count for anything, because it surely does. But, it doesn't count as much as this task system is giving it credit for.

 

[SableWyvern]

I do not believe that level-0 represents a student who's had a year at medical school. It represents a qualified medical professional.

This contradicts the experience/learning new skills in play rules because those rules are an abstraction designed to balance the desires of players to learn skills in a reasonable time with the desire to avoid a D&D style level-a-game-week syndrome.

The things you want me to consider as terrible flaws I do not see as such. I am happy for a stat-12 skill-2 character to be as talented in some endeavours as a stat-8 skill-4 expert. It's a perfectly reasonable way for things to be, as far as I'm concerned. It isn't a problem, flaw or issue.

In any event, this conversation is on about it's twentieth circuit of the same never-ending circle, so I shall refrain from further comment.

 

[Deniable]

I can't believe it so hard for everyone to see.

I see your point. I just don't see a problem. As I've said before, I've worked with people with natural talent. I've also worked with the opposite. Same degree, same courses, very different result.

You assert that Medical-0 is a fixed level of training and experience, and that the following levels proceed accordingly. Do you absolutely deny that some people may be able to do more with that training than others? How would you model this?

As for experienced doctors you should try some Australian country hospitals. We get some highly trained, experienced doctors that make it safer to be treated by the town vet.[/quote]

 

[Supplement Four]

In any event, this conversation is on about it's twentieth circuit of the same never-ending circle, so I shall refrain from further comment.

Your choice. But, I'll leave you with this: It's all about what the DM represent. They represent expertise. If you give a +1 DM for a stat to a character, you're saying that his natural ability is equivalent to Skill-1.

When you give a +3 DM to a character, you're saying his natural ablility, in many, many fields, is equivalent experience to what a doctor has to have to gain Medical-3.

It is unrealistic, and a flaw in the task system, to allow INT-15 characters to act as professionals in every skill check they make that uses INT as a governor.

It's just not realistic. It's a flaw in the system. If this were another rpg, I wouldn't be point this out (because other rpgs typically focus on "heroes"). But, Traveller is about the common man. It's more about realism that not.

As such, some tweak should be made so that natural ability is not inflated at the expense of trained experience.

 

[docrailgun]

I would just like to weigh in here. I don't have a huge amount of rules input to add here, other than to suggest that there's not really a good way to model what Supplement Four wants (or even match Classic Traveler's flavor of 'mostly average guys tramping around the galaxy in their Far Trader') with an attribute system at all (IMHO). I don't even think that any version of Traveller did that well. That should be done with skills... increasing what we think of as attributes can be skills too: "coordination", or "wits" and so on. The removal of attributes wouldn't even change chargen much, just the addition of more skills per term (and maybe not even that). (Note: I am not suggesting that anything be changed, I am just musing.)

In any case, back to the issue at hand. Yes, a talented person with less skill can easily do a task (even one requiring training) better than someone with more skill but with lower attributes. My example is of an NHL hockey game I watched this evening, between the Carolina Hurricanes and the New York Rangers.
Brendan Shanhan is a forward for the Rangers and has been in the league for 19 years. He has 9 goals and 9 assists in 26 games this year. I doubt many people would suggest that a 19 year veteran of a profession has a low skill level.
Eric Staal is a center for the Hurricanes. He has been in the NHL for 4 years. He has 14 goals and 10 assists in 27 games.
Jaromir Jagr (the Ranger's Captain - also a forward) has been in the league for 16 years and has 7 goals and 14 assists in his 26 games.
Surely noone would suggest that Jagr or Shanhan are poor players or have low skill levels in their professional skill. Certainly their attributes may have eroded, but that helps carry the point that ability attributes may be at least as important as a skill. Experience is necessary, but I would rather have a hockey player (or a doctor) with a balance of experience and ability... what passes for "experience" is usually outmoded and hidebound ways of doing things. "We've always done it this way" is only useful when noone has time to think.
An extra example to pile on here: Sidney Crosby (who plays for the Pittsburg Penguins) has been in the league for 3 years, and has 14 goals and 22 assists in 25 games this season. He's been playing professionally 1/5 the time of Jagr and 1/6 of Shanahan, but has twice as many goals as the great Jagr for the season. Surely Crosby doesn't have Hockey-3 or 4, but Jagr must (by now). How is it that Crosby (or Staal) is doing so much better than these highly-skilled veterans if he doesn't have the equivelent of Supplement Four's "Edu-15" mentioned above?
I understand that it's more or less silly to try to model real-world performance with game stats, but in this case it does seem to work... so why not?

Another thing that must be understood here is that Mongoose is trying to make a game that will sell. That means appealing to a younger crowd that has cut its proverbial teeth on d20 games. d20 games are about action, and more or less superhuman heroes. Playing a realistically-statted Deckard (from Blade Runner) isn't likely to appeal to a large subset of d20 players, though he would fit in quite well in the Traveller universe. He doesn't show any amazing abilities, and is in way over his head with the combat replicants he is tasked to retire. So, though it looks like the Mongoose designers are trying their best to stay true to the Traveller universe and its game mechanic roots as much as possible, I don't fault them for changing things a little. Of course there will be people rolling 3d6 for stats, or even 3d6 (rerolls 1s and 2s), but that's because they will want to use MoTraveller to have their characters shoot at xenomorphs rather than worry about what the profit margin will be if they take plastic squeaky toys from Planet X to Planet Y. Some people play a game, mechanics and setting; some use a system and tack on their own setting; and some people use a setting and use their own rules. I personally don't think that any version of Traveller's rules (even the version which will not be named) is that great for the "action movie" style of game, or even to use for other settings (well... possibly a few). I'd rather Mongoose make money with a system that people will buy to use the setting or to tack on their own setting (Colonial Marines, Stargate, Firefly/Serenity) rather than only being bought by we old grognards. Maybe that's not their intention (maybe it should be?), but if they get more sales by having a more exciting system... so be it!

 

[Supplement Four]

I see your point. I just don't see a problem.

Jorg is EDU-12 with Admin-1, Flute-1, Astrogation-1, Comms-1, Explosives-1, Medic-1.

You don't believe it is a stretch to believe that Jorg, even though his actual experience is of the lowest level in every field, he's an expert administrator, a symphony-class flautist, a professonal starship navigator, an expert communications specialist, an expert with explosives, and a doctor....he doesn't have the experience, but his education is so strong that he can peform as an expert in an field he's familiar with?

It's certainly a stretch for me.