Mongoose Traveller Stats Are Too Powerful

[Supplement Four]

Let's just agree that while UGM seems nice, some of us prefer UTP; that doesn't make one wrong or the other wrong, it just means we disagree about what is the problem and what fixes it.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the UGM "fix" should be used with the Mongoose system.

I'm pointing out the problem with the overweighted stats.






HERE'S AN IDEA FOR A FIX.

The problem is that the Stat bonuses outweigh trained experience. Why not keep the task system the way it is, except that a tweak is made to where Stat bonuses are only applicable when the character is skilled at Skill-1 or better?

With no skill, the character is subject to the -3 DM penalty.

At Skill-0, the character isn't penalized, but the character doesn't benefit from stat either.

At Skill-1 or better, all beneficial DM's apply.

That would improve the task system and tackle the problem.

 

[SableWyvern]

Because the level-0 Gun Combat skill that gives him this ability represents professional, military-level training?

If a character goes into the Merchants and gets Gun Combat (Slug Rifle)-1, is that skill any different from the Gun Combat (Slug Rilfe)-1 skill that a soldier in the Imperial Army gets?

If that's true, why would you say that Gun Combat-0 for the character described above is different from the skill used by the professional military character?

Why would you have to be in the military to get professional, military-level training or the equivalent? Law enforcement agencies, mercenaries, security firms, private contractors and ex-military folks can all impart their knowledge on others. If someone has Gun Combat-0, then I assume they've been in contact with such people.

Again, I suggest you look at what a skill actually does for you, and use that as a basis for rating it's usefulness. Any other methodology will give you nonsensical results.

 

[Supplement Four]

And to be honest, you've complained (Recently, as in last 72 hours) that there really shouldn't be a formal task system. Kind of shoots your credibility on the "Perfectness" of the UGM in the foot, from where I sit.

I did not "complain". I said I "prefer". That the CT structureless task system has a real appeal.

And, if the UGM is so bad, then it's kinda strange that it's the basis for the Mongoose system, isn't it?

 

[AKAramis]

And to be honest, you've complained (Recently, as in last 72 hours) that there really shouldn't be a formal task system. Kind of shoots your credibility on the "Perfectness" of the UGM in the foot, from where I sit.

I did not "complain". I said I "prefer". That the CT structureless task system has a real appeal.

And, if the UGM is so bad, then it's kinda strange that it's the basis for the Mongoose system, isn't it?

I doubt it is. Its most likely parallel evolution.

 

[Supplement Four]

I doubt it is. Its most likely parallel evolution.

Whatever. It doesn't matter. Whether it's based on my system or minds thinking alike, the mechanic is solid. I seem to remember you railing on it when I first released it. Now, you've embraced it. Strange.

Back on topic...

What about the fix I posted above? I'm thinking that would satisfy both camps.

 

[SableWyvern]

Providing a potentially huge jump in real ability going from Skill-0 to Skill-1 under your suggested system is aesthetically displeasing at best; given that it introduces it's own problems to fix something I don't believe is broken, it's not a rule I'd like to see introduced.

 

[Supplement Four]

Providing a potentially huge jump in real ability going from Skill-0 to Skill-1 under your suggested system is aesthetically displeasing at best; given that it introduces it's own problems to fix something I don't believe is broken, it's not a rule I'd like to see introduced.

Alright then. I do see your point. I'm not sure I'm crazy about the fix either. I was just trying to suggest a fix for the problem instead of harping over and over about what the problem is.



Let me try one more pass at illuminating the problem, and if this doesn't click, I think I'm just going to forget it and stop making waves.



I didn't see any characteristic improvement rules in the V2 playtest, but I assume there will be some method implemented whereby a character can increase some of his stats--a workout program to improve STR, and the like.

Consider this...



There are two pals. Riki and Casey.

Riki: 786787 Pilot-2, Medic-3, Engineer-1

Casey: 668788 Pilot-1, Medic-2, Engineer-0

Riki has taught Casey all he knows. They serve together on a tramp freighter.

Well, on one of their stops, Casey tells Riki that he's leaving. He's going to college, finally. Casey leaves for 4 years, goes to college, and gets a boost to his EDU score. (I have no idea what the Mongosse system will be, so I'll go with what has been done in Traveller before. College has typically meant 1D -2 improvement to EDU in previous Traveller editions, so I'll go with that.) He does not learn any more skills than he already has. His degree is in Business.

Riki comes to Casey graduation. Casey is now...

Casey: 6687C8 Pilot-1, Medic-2, Engineer-0

Casey is now a passenger on Riki's ship. During the four years, Riki learned a couple new skills, but his expertise in the skills featured here remain the same.

On the journey to Casey's homeworld (he didn't go to school on his homeworld), who is the better Pilot? Riki, who's been piloting the ship with his Pilot-2, or Casey, who has Pilot-1 but recently got a degree in Business?

According to the task system as it stands now, the better choice is Casey.

The ship's Engineer becomes ill during the flight. Who is the better Medic? It used to be Riki, but now that Casey has a business degree and his EDU has been increased, Casey is now the better choice.

And, just as the ship is about to tumble out of J-Space, there is a problem in engineering. Since the Engineer is down sick, the job is now up to another member of the crew. But, who is the better engineer? Riki or Casey? It's Casey, buy a long shot...all because he went to business school.



See what I'm getting at here?

Increases to EDU makes the character much, much better in many different areas of expertise...in ALL areas that are governed by EDU task rolls.

What does college have to do with making Casey a better Pilot?

What does college have to do with making Casey a better Medic?

What does college have to do with making Casey a better Engineer?

If Casey was better in just one of these areas, it would be easier to swallow. But, you take Casey, who is inferior to Riki in all three areas, have Casey go to college and increase his EDU, and ALL OF A SUDDEN CASEY IS A BETTER PROFESSIONAL IN A MULTITUDE OF FIELDS!

There's something really wrong about that.

Therein lies the problem. Before college, Casey is the inferior character. After college, Casey is the better character...all because of the Stat bonuses.

The stat bonsuses fall too far outside of reality for my tastes.

Here's to hoping others will see the point, and a fix is implemented.

 

[SableWyvern]

The problem as you're presenting it now is common to every system I've ever played that uses attributes -- they cover a range of skills, abilities and natural talents that are far too broad to ever really be represented by any single rating. If you're going to use an attribute system, they come with this limitation built in, and you live with the consequences.

We can make some rationalistions for things like the example you present -- Casey learnt more than just business in his course, he studied other subjects, he learned reasoning and comprehension skills and better ways of applying knowledge. But, in the end, any system that applies a base set of characteristics as bonuses to a diverse range of skills is going to present situations such as the one in your example, that don't really make a lot of sense.

The thing is, as long as characters in Mongoose Traveller can apply stat bonuses to skills, and increase their stats (something we don't know for sure, nor the method used if they can), you will get some situations where characters will get higher bonuses, and be able to apply them a range of essentially unrelated skills. Shifting the bar higher just makes it less common, it doesn't stop it.

It really does seem to me that only a stat-free system will really meet your design goals -- which is a perfectly legitimate position to hold, there are plenty of gamers out there who don't like the artificial skill/stat divide, and prefer games without such a distinction.

Traveller, OTOH, does traditionally make that distinction, and I can't see it changing. Thus, you are going to get the problems you're seeing.

For those of us that don't see attributes as overpowering under the current system, there's no need for a fix. For those that do, I really don't see much point in reducing their effect, as there's really not much room to do so without rendering them little more than wasted space. If you rarely get a bonus, or rarely get to apply it, why bother with it at all? Better to sever stats from skills entirely -- keep SOC, give everyone a fixed amount of HP/Vitality/Health/What-have-you, use Athletics (everyone gets it at 0, or maybe give it an unskilled penalty of only -1) as a stand in for Str-Dex-End, and use raw skill values to represent other abilities.

Edit to point out: I shifted between personal "you" and generic "you" a bit in this post. Assume that anything that shouldn't be directed personally at you, Supplement Four, isn't.

 

[TrippyHippy]

We did have a bit of a debate about the +3 bonus in the last playtest, where I felt it was unbalancing at Attributes higher than 12. But 15 is about right - you have to remember that most characters are not going to get Characteristics at levels higher than 12, and those that do need to get there by earning career bonuses at the expense of selecting skills, and need to do so multiple times.....and resist the effects of aging as they try to accumulate them. Most characters won't ever get a characteristic bonus of greater than +1 - which is what I'd hope for.

Characteristics of 15, in reality, are going to be pretty much exclusive to NPCs, and are going to reflect the maximum limits of human ability. An Intelligence score of 15, for example is going to be the equivalent of an IQ way above 200, for example. On this basis, a +3 bonus (effectively the same scale bonus as a D20 Attribute value of about 25-26), is about right.

Oh, and it does work to a formula too, which is important. As is the fact that characters will get a -3 penalty on any unskilled task they choose to undertake anyway. Skills are still vital for most characters. In effect, having a 15 characteristic just means that your caharcter automatically learned everything in their field at a level 0 equivalent. So an EDU of 15, means that the character knows a little bit about everything - which for a world (universal) class academic, is what you'd expect.

 

[Supplement Four]

The problem as you're presenting it now is common to every system I've ever played that uses attributes -- they cover a range of skills, abilities and natural talents that are far too broad to ever really be represented by any single rating. If you're going to use an attribute system, they come with this limitation built in, and you live with the consequences.

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:

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.



Ways to Fix the Problem.

If we want to fix this, and not just put up with it "because it's apparent in other rpgs", then we've got to either (1) put some limits on when the Stat bonuses are used, or (2) use Stats for something different in the task roll besides success (not unlike what Mongoose is doing with the optional task roll rules).

I haven't worked out the exact mechanic, but what if Stats, for example, allowed you to re-roll (sometimes) low dice?

For example, you have Stat-X. And, you roll your 2D, getting a result of: 1, 4.

Your stat, in certain situations, allows you to re-roll dice that result in 1 or 2. So, you can re-roll, one time, the "1" die, getting a "3" on the roll.

As I said, I'm not sure how to implement this (and you certainly wouldn't want to do it on every task roll...it would only happen on certain types of task rolls)...but an idea like that might just fix this problem and make stats more interesting.

Thoughts?

 

[Supplement Four]

We did have a bit of a debate about the +3 bonus in the last playtest, where I felt it was unbalancing at Attributes higher than 12. But 15 is about right - you have to remember that most characters are not going to get Characteristics at levels higher than 12...

I started off the thread with an example about a Stat-15 character to illuminate the problem in it's most gross existence.

But, I've also expressed the problem in other terms, using other stats. Read the example above with Casey and Riki. I show Casey at EDU-8 and EDU-12. Casey goes to business school, and all of sudden he's a better pilot, a better engineer, and a better medic.

That example shows us that the bonuses being applied for EDU are too broad.

We've got to either (1) tone down those bonuses or (2) use the characters stats in a different fasion on the task throw as I've suggested in the post immediately above this one.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, the example given in the original post was erroneous. It doesn't take into account that the character with EDU 15 also has a -3 penalty for failing to have a medical skill.

That is, he can attempt first aid effectively as a basically trained character (Medic 0) but no more. For the exceptionally world class educated scholar, it wouldn't be so far fetched to assume that he may have read up on such matters in his/her studies. If he actually takes time to study it, he can become an expert very quickly in effect, however. That is the gift of having an exceptional education, I guess.

A trained expert doctor (Medic-3), however, with even a bit of talent (EDU 9, +1), would be able to perform the same task at +4. Which is massively significant.

In the Riki and Casey example, again you are assuming that there will be a 1d6-2 EDU rise for going to college in the new rules. There isn't - what you get are possible +1 bonuses per term (instead of rolling a skill), which raises EDU much more slowly and is the same for any character. I mean, if Riki doesn't take the opportunity to improve himself while Casey is busy boosting his EDU, then it stands to rights that he'd be overtaken in ability. A more likely scenario is where Casey would spend a term developing his Education score, while Riki would spend a similar amount of time boosting some other characteristic/skill of his own.

Your example wouldn't ever happen in the new rules - and the chances of a PC obtaining a 15 in any characteristic is pretty negligeable, as it stands - particularly with ageing rules for more experienced characters. Your conflating an old rule-set with the new rules.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

you have to remember that most characters are not going to get Characteristics at levels higher than 12, and those that do need to get there by earning career bonuses at the expense of selecting skills, and need to do so multiple times.....and resist the effects of aging as they try to accumulate them. Most characters won't ever get a characteristic bonus of greater than +1 - which is what I'd hope for.

This is not quite true. Firstly, by the law of simple averages, 1 in 6 PC's should have a 12 in their starting characteristics. Secondly you can usually build up a significant bonus to a character's INT and/or EDU from mustering out benefits. And thirdly, until you have served 8 terms, there is no chance of aging affecting mental characteristics.

In the process of rolling up PC's for playtesting the Char Gen rules, I have actually managed to create several PC's (none of whom served longer than six terms) with EDU's of 15, and even an ex-army Colonel with an END of 15 too..! and all from mustering out benefits affecting one of the PC's two primary characteristics (EDU being the most common characteristic used for Advancement in military careers).

So...

Characteristics of 15, in reality, are going to be pretty much exclusive to NPCs

...I'm afraid not!

Not only is it quite possible to generate PC's with a mental characteristic of 15, but it's actually not that difficult to generate one with a mental attribute of 12+. Thus +2 bonuses could be reasonably common. 'Supplement Four' has indicated a valid problem, especially when you consider that the majority of Traveller skills will use INT or EDU as the bonus modifier.

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.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Albert Einstein...

Almost self taught, did get a degree but was publishing physics papers before that. Exceptionally well read, but revolutionised physics while working at a patent office, not as a professional physicist, coming up with theories that blew the others out of the water.

Albert, EDU 15, Sci: Physics 1.

Could easily outperfrom trained, working physicists.

I routinely see natural talent outperforming years of training in the real world.

This is a none-issue.

 

[Supplement Four]

Albert, EDU 15, Sci: Physics 1.

Could easily outperfrom trained, working physicists.

You're only speaking to part of the problem, though.

No doubt, Albert was a genius. A prodigy. (And, I'd argue he had an INT-15, and not an EDU-15, judging by his background, but that's moot.)

What you're missing in the problem (let's work with the stats you provide above), is that his EDU-15 WOULD GIVE HIM PRODIGY STATUS IN ALL SKILLS GOVERNED BY EDU.

So, let's say Albert's total character looked like this:

Albert, EDU-15, Physics-1, Archeology-1, Biology-1, History-1, Philosophy-1, Psychology-1.

See where I'm getting at? The game rules not only make Albert a prodigy in Physics (which he was), but a prodigy in Archeology, Biology, History, Philosophy, and Psychology (which he wasn't).

I've said this earlier: It's easy to swallow when we're talking about one area of expertise being effected. The problem is that ALL areas of expertise governed by the Stat in question is effected.





Another Idea for a Fix:

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.

That would make Albert, above, a more realistic, vialable character because he would choose to apply his EDU stat bonus to his Physics skill and not his other skills.

The higher the stat, then the more skills it could be attached to, but there is a limit.

What about this: Full Stat bonus is given to a number of skills equal to the bonus, at the player's choosing. Half Stat bonus (drop fractions) is given to all other task rolls involving that Stat.

So...

EDU-15 means that you get a +3 DM on 3 skills of your choosing. These are your specialties. For all other task rolls using EDU, you use a blanket +1 DM.

INT-12/13/14 means that you get a +2 DM on 2 skills of your choosing and a +1 DM on all other tasks governed by the task.

END-9/10/11 means that you get a +1 DM on 1 skill of your choosing but no bonus to any other task governed by END.

STR-6/7/8 means no bonus and no penalty.

We'll have to decide on how to handle the penalty DMs for low stat.

Characters with more than one stat at 9+ will have several skills as specialities. Specialties will be denoted next to the skill somehow.

It's a rough idea. Needs more thinking. Might work, though.

Thoughts on that idea?

(I'm trying to come up with ideas to fix it, folks...not just point out the problem.)

 

[TrippyHippy]

This is not quite true. Firstly, by the law of simple averages, 1 in 6 PC's should have a 12 in their starting characteristics.

You could also, just as frequently roll a 2 in the starting characteristics
Them's the perks and quirks of a dice-rolling chargen....

Secondly you can usually build up a significant bonus to a character's INT and/or EDU from mustering out benefits. And thirdly, until you have served 8 terms, there is no chance of aging affecting mental characteristics.

You still have to roll the dice to score a +1 EDU or INT bonus, same as trying to roll it during a normal term of service. The chances of a player exclusively trying to just boost characteristics, rather than getting more direct skill bonuses, and rolling EDU (or INT) each time, on top of rolling a 12 to begin with are pretty slim, I think, although you claimed to have done it several times.

I could see the argument of removing Characteristic bonuses from Mustering out benefits tables through. I mean - why have them there anyway? Shouldn't these tables be about providing actual tangible benefits?
Anyway....

Not only is it quite possible to generate PC's with a mental characteristic of 15, but it's actually not that difficult to generate one with a mental attribute of 12+. Thus +2 bonuses could be reasonably common. 'Supplement Four' has indicated a valid problem, especially when you consider that the majority of Traveller skills will use INT or EDU as the bonus modifier.

Well, I'm less woriied about the effects of a +2 bonus, because the net effect on unskilled characters will still be a -1, while most expert (Skill-3) characters will frequently have a +1 bonus too (for a standard net of +3/or+4 for specialist experts). If they get an additional +1 onto this, then it just represents a clear aptitude for those skills (and there is a good mix, incidently, of Social and Dexterity based skills too, I have to say). That is as it should be - and it's crucially the advantage of having a very high intelligence or education in the real world that you can grasp skills and knowledge much quicker than other less gifted people can.

I agree that a +3 Characteristic bonus is too coarse in most normal gameplay respects (and is why it should be out of reach, generally), but +2 for very high characteristics (12+) seems fair to me. Moreover, how else can you differentiate scores higher than 12. If you just get a flat bonus of +1 at some interval, then what is the point of advancing any further? Where is the advantage of having a 12 INT, over somebody with a 9 INT say? There does need to be a step up.

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.

Yeah, I think that the roll 3d6 method should be scrapped. Players have a points allocation system already, if they don't like random rolls. The 3D6 method isn't necessary and is overpowering for such a tight range of scores.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

If Albert had had those skills then possibly we would have heard his theories and conclusions in those areas too.

If a character had those skills and a high Education then he would be a polymath and rightly so. They do exist, and are not exceptionally rare. Under the chargen system it would be very difficult to get master level aptitude in 4 or 5 skills in a normal lifespan. I know that this is not only possible in real life but not especially uncommon, too.

There is absolutely nothing unusual about folk with high aptitude but little training outperforming those with lots of training but only average talent.

As for it being applicable to several skills, only under certain circumstances. Abilities are not tied to skills under this system. Which stat you use depends on the situation.

Anyway, it's appropriate that a high education gives you a lot of benefits.

 

[Supplement Four]

You guys were posting as I was editing. You're too fast for me!

Just so it won't get lost in the shuffle, here's my edit...and idea to fix the problem? I dunno. Maybe. Needs to be thought about longer than what I have thought about it. But, it may be a starting point to fix this "Stat Bloat" problem.

---------------------


Another Idea for a Fix:

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.

That would make Albert, above, a more realistic, vialable character because he would choose to apply his EDU stat bonus to his Physics skill and not his other skills.

The higher the stat, then the more skills it could be attached to, but there is a limit.

What about this: Full Stat bonus is given to a number of skills equal to the bonus, at the player's choosing. Half Stat bonus (drop fractions) is given to all other task rolls involving that Stat.

So...

EDU-15 means that you get a +3 DM on 3 skills of your choosing. These are your specialties. For all other task rolls using EDU, you use a blanket +1 DM.

INT-12/13/14 means that you get a +2 DM on 2 skills of your choosing and a +1 DM on all other tasks governed by the task.

END-9/10/11 means that you get a +1 DM on 1 skill of your choosing but no bonus to any other task governed by END.

STR-6/7/8 means no bonus and no penalty.

We'll have to decide on how to handle the penalty DMs for low stat.

Characters with more than one stat at 9+ will have several skills as specialities. Specialties will be denoted next to the skill somehow.

It's a rough idea. Needs more thinking. Might work, though.

Thoughts on that idea?

(I'm trying to come up with ideas to fix it, folks...not just point out the problem.)

 

[TrippyHippy]

Having a broad, intensive Education (or a genius level Intelligence) does give you universal benefits in skills and knowledge though.

Point of experience:

When I did my second degree, I went on an elective course - doing ecological reseach in South Africa. Now, this meant that I was doing work with a mixed group of post- and under-graduates. When it came to compiling reports on our projects, the post graduates, like myself were much quicker and much more skilled at getting them completed with high grades than the undergraduates. Yet, the actual concepts and topics were were studying were totally new to all of us.

This is the value of having a higher level of education, though. Effectively, the postgraduates had an additional +1 bonus, which is pretty much how it works in Traveller.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Having a broad, intensive Education (or a genius level Intelligence) does give you universal benefits in skills and knowedge though.

This is the value of having a higher level of education, though. Effectively, the postgraduates had an additional +1 bonus, which is pretty much how it works in Traveller.

Yup, this tallies with my experience too. A 15 Edu should give you lots of benefits over any area where education might be helpful. Similarly, so should a high Intelligence or Dexterity.