Mongoose Traveller Stats Are Too Powerful

[Supplement Four]

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...

But, there is an easy way to model it. I'm not suggesting a vast change to the task system. Nor am I suggesting that stats be taken out of the equation.

I'm simply saying that stats are overweighted in the current system. Skills should be more important than what they are.

I've suggested a few fixes earlier in the thread. Also, there's the way I handled stats in the UGM when I wrote it a couple of years ago.

There are ways to fix it. The system should stay the way it is, except some tweak should be implemented so that Stat-12, Skill-1 isn't the same thing as Stat-8, Skill-3.

One idea I had was to never allow a Stat bonus that is higher than your skill level.

Another idea was to assign a competency level to each task, and if the character didn't have the skill of the competency level, then a -3 DM is assigned.

Then, there's the way the UGM does it, where your original throw is compared to your stat, and if your throw is equal to or lower than your stat, you get a +1 DM on the task.

Another idea would be to kill the Stat bonuses and have Stats influence the task throw in another fashion.

Yet another idea would be to leave the system as it is, but allow Skills additional influence over the task roll some how.

The answer is out there. We just have to find the right one for this task system.

 

[Supplement Four]

BTW, I think the competentcy level idea is the best fix I've come up with so far. To elaborate on it, the fix would work like this...

Competentcy Level

The task system remains unchanged. But, each task is assigned a competency level by the GM. A "competency level" is the level of expertise needed to perform the task without penalty.

For most tasks, the competency level is Skill-0. If the character attempting the task doesn't have at least a Skill-0 (required skill for the task), then a -3 DM is applied to the throw (note that this is already in the rules as the unskilled penalty).

Tasks that require a greater level of competency will have that -3 DM penalty kick in at higher skill levels.

The task statement might look like this: Medical-2, EDU, +0

What that says is that Medical skill at Level-2 is required to perform this task. EDU is used to govern the throw. And the difficulty modifier is +0 (an 8+ is needed for success).

If the character has Medical-1, then he doesn't meet the competency requirement, and the -3 DM is imposed on the task.

Using this idea, what you get is this (solving the problem):

Kid with EDU-12, Medic-1, throws 2D for 8+.

Doctor with EDU-8, Medic-3, throws 2D +3 for 8+.

This fixes the problem.



During the game, the GM will use the default Skill-0 as competency most of the time (the unskilled penalty). But, he may also set competencies for tasks as appropriate.

Engineer for a particular cranky jump drive on a tramp freighter ight require an Engineer-2 as compentency, whereas most other J-Drive require an Engineer-1.

Certainly, when something like performing surgery comes up, the GM will assign a competency to the task other than the default.

Normal surgery on a gun shot victim might look like this: Medical-3, EDU, -2. Showing that Skill-3 is required and lesser skille medics will suffer the -3 DM.

Brain surgery, on the other hand, is a specialized type of surgery, so it might warrant a task like this: Medical-4, DEX, -4



Consider this easy fix. It goes a long way to giving clout back to skills. And, it's totally GM controlled (though I'd expect examples in the Mongoose rule book to give GMs a rule-of-thumb).

 

[docrailgun]

Certainly all these are good ideas. I think what others have been suggesting (and I'm suggesting here) is that there's no need to make them.
The scenario you're suggesting is an extreme example caused by a pc gaining too high of a stat... who has EDU 15 in any Traveller game? In a "Classic" mode game (regular folk going about their day-to-day business), that would have to be gained during play over a long period of time (and thus the player deserved the bonus for his character) or the pc has put all of their term adds into their stats... in which case they deserve the bonus to the character's skills.
Extreme stats in any game system allow for what seem to be outrageous exploits. That does not mean that the game is broken, or the rule is broken... it's just part of the system. RL Physics isn't broken just because "the system" allows for outrageous exploits such as the "spooky action at a distance" that Einstein loathed or "entanglement". If the game system models what the designers want pcs to be able to do from all the way from low to high level, it's good enough. What munchkins do with HHHHHH stats is not really my concern. It's going to happen anyway... someone WILL find some silly rules loophole eventually anyway.

I do take your point about EDU bonuses providing more or less free skill levels... I also don't see this as a game-breaking problem.

Again, your ideas and the UGM were (and are) fine. I just feel that you're working from a series of assumptions that most of the people that had been writing in this thread aren't. Nothing wrong with that, but if there's no middle ground there's no room for discussion. I simply disagree that attributes are overweighted at levels that normal pcs will have. I do however agree that at very high stats some odd things happen... but in games where those very high stats are common, the tasks that pcs will be expected to do will be difficult enough to challenge those attempts.

I'm simply saying that stats are overweighted in the current system. Skills should be more important than what they are.

I've suggested a few fixes earlier in the thread. Also, there's the way I handled stats in the UGM when I wrote it a couple of years ago.

There are ways to fix it. The system should stay the way it is, except some tweak should be implemented so that Stat-12, Skill-1 isn't the same thing as Stat-8, Skill-3.

One idea I had was to never allow a Stat bonus that is higher than your skill level.

Another idea was to assign a competency level to each task, and if the character didn't have the skill of the competency level, then a -3 DM is assigned.

Then, there's the way the UGM does it, where your original throw is compared to your stat, and if your throw is equal to or lower than your stat, you get a +1 DM on the task.

Another idea would be to kill the Stat bonuses and have Stats influence the task throw in another fashion.

Yet another idea would be to leave the system as it is, but allow Skills additional influence over the task roll some how.

The answer is out there. We just have to find the right one for this task system.

 

[Supplement Four]

The scenario you're suggesting is an extreme example caused by a pc gaining too high of a stat... who has EDU 15 in any Traveller game?

Not really. There are plenty of examples above where the stat is much lower...as in EDU-12.

Any time the Stat bonus is higher than skill bonus, the problem occurs.

 

[Deniable]

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?

You're the one that claims he's an expert. He's talented with some skill. Look at how expertise and experience is measured. It is measured solely on skill. Certainly, in the Mongoose model, he has the same chance of success in some tasks as other people with less talent and more skill, but nobody said he was an expert. It's just that some of the so-called experts don't have the raw talent to begin with.

Now, I've seen a lot of people use multiple well reasoned arguments in this thread, but this is getting old. I'm done.

Last one out, turn off the lights.

 

[anselyn]

BTW, I think the competentcy level idea is the best fix I've come up with so far. To elaborate on it, the fix would work like this...

Competentcy Level

I've always thought that it was a strength of CT that adventures (right back to Annic Nova IIRC) would have comments along the lines of "Any character with Engineering 2+ will recognise that ..."

This is a form of pasive skill use w/o the need for a roll at all but suggests the idea of a threshold knowledge to defintely know something. I particulary like this idea and recommend it.

BTW, I think Supplement Four is wrong on this point of discussion - but I would like to encouage the general use of "you've got the skill - get on with the game" points in handling skill usage.

In fact, I'd say that a trained doctor (for example ...) will find so many things routine that he won't need to roll at all (unless under critical stress etc.) whereas the talented amateur would need to because he's working out how to do it for the first or second time.

Perhaps another analogy is the dextrous (?) learner driver compared to the experienced driver. Who has to roll for clutch use and for parallel parking? That's the difference between Skill 3: "Get on and do it". Skill 2-: "Roll 8+ using skill and ability DMs.

PAS
[Edited for spelling]

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Sup4, I think you missed a point though.

One Characteristic and one skill does not a career make.

A stage magician in Star Vegas will need more than just his DEX skill when he is performing. He will need EDU: Does he KNOW the trick? He will need INT: Can he keep fast talking the audience to distract them? He will need END: Can he hold his breath long enough to escape the water tank?

His skill level will help him in all of those things, but his characteristic will only help him in some of the things his skill lets him do.

Using your medical example:

Sure the guy with Medical-0 and EDU 15 gets the +3 Bonus same as the Medical-3, EDU-8 guy does. But medical skill is more than knowing what the problem is. He might be able to diagnose the problem just as well, but he will not be as good at the surgery, or the First Aid, or any of the other things that a Medical-3 person can do very well that the Medical-0 guy only read about in a book.

The TV show ER is a good example right now. There is a character on the show right now who is a genius, he graduated Medical School at age 19. He is VERY book smart, but he still has to be taught how to intebate a patient. He knows how to do it from a book, but he still has to practice doing it with his hands.

In the analysis of stats being too powerful, BOTH sides of the story have to be looked at: (Skill + Stat) and (Skill + Other Stat) and then on the Gripping Hand look at (No Skill + Stat).

 

[Klaus Kipling]

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 not unrealistic whatsoever for them to succeed as often at a task as a professional, but anyway, they can't act as professionals because they don't have the necessary qualifications, so no one would employ them in those roles.

Basically because they don't have the wider knowledge gained from having the skill - and therefore when they need to do something none Edu based they come unstuck.

And, as an art teacher, I see natural talent out-perform learned skill every day. The advanced second year might produce more polished work, but the talented intro student can produce a better life drawing, for example, than they could.

Raw talent will always outstrip learned experience. Otherwise, every one of my animation students would get distinctions all the time, rather than a range of abilities.

A 12 score is exceptional talent; a 15 is almost unique. They deserve the mods they get.

If we take the sporting example (I'll use soccer this time), the 25 year old midfielder in League Division 2 (Accrington Stanley) may have a skill level of 1 or 2, but he will be outperformed routinely by the young 18 year old whipper-snapper who's just come out of the Man Utd Academy who only has skill 0 but has high Dex and End (12+).

And another point, Dex 12 + Skill 2 is not equivalent to Skill 4 (Master). They will not be considered a Master by their peers, merely as a talented up and coming journeyman. In terms of shooting, yes, he'll hit as often as the master, but he's not as good at maintaining his weapon (Int), not as hot at recognising what weapons his opponents are using (Edu), and, if it reverts to the V1 system here, will not achieve an exceptional success anywhere near as often. Also, when he fails, his failures would be worse. And if we add in the convention where "if you have Eng 2+ you can see the problem; otherwise make a task roll" for more marginal or routine activities.

This is a non-issue. All the fixes suggested above just make the game more complex, or create more problems than the non-existent one they're there to solve.

 

[Kilgs]

And, as an art teacher, I see natural talent out-perform learned skill every day. The advanced second year might produce more polished work, but the talented intro student can produce a better life drawing, for example, than they could.

That's a physical and creative discipline. I think you could make a strong argument for physical/creative disciplines.

I think the most telling point here is that there are two sides. And like the man said, we've reached the point where everyone just needs to agree to disagree and see what Mongoose does.

Besides... we're all gonna houserule the hell out of the thing when it comes out anyway. I mean whose heard of a working decahedral system anyways :wink:

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Kilgs, I agree to a point.

While we are at the "agree to disagree" point for most people, the discussion and exploring the implications might just help GAR figure out what he wants to do in the final version.

I think both sides have presented their arguements fairly clearly (and in some cases repeatedly). From now on, can we agree to look at OTHER angles on this issue to give GAR all sides of the arguement and let him make up his mind.

If you want to give alternate suggestions to the current system, go for it, but arguing back and forth over IF stats are overpowered is getting pointless. IF you think stats are too powerful and you come up with a new idea or way to look at the problem, bring it on. If you think stats are Underpowered and want to give arguements for making them worth more and it hasn't been mentioned before, go for it.

This arguement is what 6 pages long now, most of the major points have been made by BOTH sides. Time to move on and let Gar make the decision.

And I agree, those that think Stats are too powerful will house rule it.

I do want to compliment both sides of the arguement for keeping this thing a DISCUSSION and not decending into personal attacks and flamewars. Good Job!

 

[Supplement Four]

If you want to give alternate suggestions to the current system, go for it...

I like the competency idea above is a pretty good idea, but another way to handle this is to do what is done in the UGM.

UGM Stats

Throw your 2D throw, then look at your natural throw, before adding in the mods, and compare it to your stat. If your throw is equal to or less than your Stat, then you get a +1 DM on the throw.

Natural ability is the most useful when task difficulty is low.

Low Stats will hardly ever provide a DM to help the task succeed, thus low stats are penalized in that fashion.

At Stat-12, the character receives a +1 DM on all task throws.

At Stat-13, the character receives a +1 DM on all task throws AND may receive a +2 DM if the throw is equal to or less than the Stat minus 10. Thus, if Stat-15 is involved, than the character receives a +1 DM for all task throws, and that natural ability bonus becomes a +2 DM if the natural roll is 5-.

This system (the UGM) has been thoroughly play-tested by mucho Traveller gamers around the world. It works very well.

Two "Pluses" to the "UGM-Way"

(1) Stats are not overweighted at the expense of skills. Instead of allowing higher and higher benefits in terms of task DMs, Stats, under the UGM, provide a +1 DM bonus, on average, and the frequency that the bonus appears increases as the stat gets higher and higher.

(2) Also, the UGM method provides a benefit for each and every level of Stat. Thus, under Mongoose, there is no difference between Stat-10 and Stat-11, but there is a difference between Stat-11 and Stat-12. This leads to "benefit" groupings. With the UGM, there is a difference between Stat-9 and Stat-10 and Stat-11 and Stat-12 etc. All of them give you a progressively higher chance of gaining more stat benefit.

.... but arguing back and forth over IF stats are overpowered is getting pointless.

A comment on this. The majority of the Traveller gamers out there may agree with me. There's only a few people posting on this thread...not enough to represent "What most people want."

But, the same goes for me as well. Only a couple of people have agreed with me (that I've seen) on this thread, and it's just as likely that most see the distinction I'm making as pointless.

I will tell you this, though. If you go back to the old TML archive around the time T4 was introduced, you'll see that I was the one who discovered and explained how the T4 task system was broken.

I got all sorts of hell for that. Most people agreed with the T4 designers in that discussion. I was clearly in the minoriy.

Yet, here we are, years later, and T4's task system is regarded as one of the worst ever devised by a majority of Traveller players.

Point is: The current negativity to my ideas I've posted here on this thread could be viewed much differently by the Traveller gaming community as a hole after time has passed and people have become comfortable with the system.

I vote the system is made the best it can be now.

I do want to compliment both sides of the arguement for keeping this thing a DISCUSSION and not decending into personal attacks and flamewars. Good Job!

I'd like to second that comment. It's nice to disagree with adults who seem to respect each other. This discussion could have been a flame fest, and it isn't.

I smile at that.

 

[wargamer66]

Supplement Four is correct on this issue, I think.

The design issue of having stats distort a skill system was handled quite elegantly by the designer of FUDGE by simply eliminating the linkage totally. He felt that the biggest balance problems in RPG design flowed from this very problem of stats modifying skills.

It's just too easy to get a big modifier (EDU 12+) and the payoff in ability is too high. This system isn't granular enough to go throwing in huge ability modifiers and have skills be the focus.

 

[AKAramis]

Having played a lot of traveller over a lot of years, it's not that big a deal.

In fact, I find the high stats, which given the rolled generation rules, require a character to be aged at least 22 to have a 15 stat (1 for term, 1 for advancement, one for commission) to have a 15 stat. THat presumes a 1/216 chance of rolling the 12 stat 3 times, times the 1/36 of a given stat being a 12, times the usually about .06 for making all three needed rolls (survival, commission, promotion).

So the "Stat 15 skill 0 punk of 18 years age" is a statistical impossibility, and the 22 year old St15 sk0 is less than 1/10000 chance.

Oh, and as an aside, the lack of linkage in FUDGE is why I don't/won't play FUDGE.

 

[Supplement Four]

Having played a lot of traveller over a lot of years, it's not that big a deal.

I think most of us here have years, if not decades of playing Traveller under out belts, Wil.

I started playing Traveller in 1982, and I actually do think it's a fairly big deal. I was just hoping to get a game system that gets it "right" for once, not requireming me to "fix" it in my home games.

 

[Supplement Four]

The design issue of having stats distort a skill system was handled quite elegantly by the designer of FUDGE by simply eliminating the linkage totally. He felt that the biggest balance problems in RPG design flowed from this very problem of stats modifying skills.

Question: I've never used FUDGE. How are stats regarded in that system?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I also am a believer that characteristics have no real bearing on actual skill, save that they help people learn faster. Personal experience of armed combat have repeatedly shown that experience trumps physical advantages - yet a well co-ordinated fighter, advances quicker than someone with less control over their body. In real life, people have affinities which allow them to master some skills faster than others.

I personally like the idea of setting some challenges for a particular skill level. In real life there are problems which can only be solved by experience and focussed depth of knowledge. Thus performing open heart surgery should be restricted to Medic-3 for example - in Sweden you'd need to be a qualified doctor (7 years) and a heart specialist (a further 10 years) before you'd be allowed to perform one without supervision from a senior doctor. Its a simple, elegant idea which prevents PC's from attempting patently impossible (or suicidal) tasks. Of course, it does place the onus on scenario writers to set 'skill challenge levels' in their adventures.

As to characteristic bonuses, I'd personally just drop them from skill resolution rolls entirely. However, to reflect their 'affinity' for certain skills, I'd instead allow the PC at the end of Char Gen to select an extra number of 'free' skill level increases equal to the appropriate characteristic bonus.

For example - Captain Jameson has a DEX bonus of +1, and an EDU bonus of +2. At the end of character generation he decides that he is a superior pilot because of his innate spacial orientation. Thus he uses the DEX bonus to increase his Pilot 2 skill to Pilot 3. His ability to concentrate grants him a superior education, thus he increases his Broker skill from 1 to 2, and his Electronics from 2 to 3. However, if he'd had a SOC penalty he might have been forced to reduce his Carousing skill by 1 for his obnoxious drunkenness...

With this house rule, players can still gain a benefit from high characteristics, but the bonuses are now 'invested' in a specific skill and are no longer unbalancing by generic application.

Thoughts?

 

[Andrew Whincup]

I suppose it's time to weigh in on the side of the "It's not broken" brigade.

For me the stat represents far more than natural ability, it also represents aptitude. I think it is the interplay between aptitude and application that are important.

For those characters with a high aptitude in a field they are likely to pick things up far more quickly and get more out of any training than someone with a more mediocre aptitude.

In the medical example, the character with medical-0 but very high edu is probably someone who wizzed through medical college and graduated very young (Dougie howser anyone?), the one with medical-2 and high stat is probably someone who took all their exams very quickly and progressed onto being a consultant at an unusually young age.

I also think that the notion of the skill-3 edu-8 doctor is a nsonsense. A character with that education score is likely to be a highly skilled paramedic or nurse. Only with both the high edu and the high skill would they be a doctor.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the skill can be very broad just like the stat. The Medic skill covers much more than just being able to patch people up, there's a whole bunch of other things like dealing with people which would leave the high edu low skill medic stranded.

I doin't know if I'm expressing myself clearly here but I'm basically fine with the way that skill and stat interact.

stat: Natural aptitude
Skill: application of practice.

They represent different things, and you need both to be regarded as "good".

Andy

 

[Mongoose Gar]

I said I'd reply, but most of my points have been made by other posters. I have been convinced, though, that stat inflation needs to be kept under tight control, so expect to see fewer stat increases in the chargen tables in v3.

 

[Poi]

Glad to hear it. Hopefully Marc Miller will take similar notice for T5, which has the same problem at the moment.

Having seen both versions of character creation I can tell you now these two sets of products will NOT be compatible.

The rules are moving apart at an ever increasing rate, so only background will be portable.

 

[SableWyvern]

...so expect to see fewer stat increases in the chargen tables in v3.

So, when exactly should we be expecting to see these fewer stat increases? :wink: