Mongoose Traveller Stats Are Too Powerful

[Takei]

Personally, I don't see a problem with the system as it stands today.

If Mongoose do see it as a problem then I think the easiest solution is to just not include stat bonuses (as has been suggested by a couple of posters).

Pete Nash's idea of stat bonuses giving you bonus skill levels is one I've not heard before and certainly has merit.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Pete Nash's idea of stat bonuses giving you bonus skill levels is one I've not heard before and certainly has merit.

Its a nice, simple house rule, which provides a middle ground between the two opposite entrenchments.

Conceived and written for all those who wanted a new perspective on the issue...

 

[Nellkyn]

I'm another 'it's not broken' voice here. If you make stats much lest relevant to task rolls you can reach the stage were the question comes along of 'why have stats at all?'

Andrew Whincup explanation that stats are natural aptitude and skills are application of practise feels just about right to me.

 

[wargamer66]

Supplement Four, in regards to FUDGE, generally, your skills and stats are described on a scale of terrible to superb, and there are lots of opposed actions used to determine what happens.

Here is the link where he talks about attributes and skills (scroll about half-way down):

http://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/fudlatest.html

 

[Dyrewulf]

I really don't see a problem with the way the stat bonuses work, if you are lucky enough to have high stats with your rolls, and then on top of that, get the stat increases through the chargen charts, have fun with it. We did character generation the other day for our group, we each rolled two characters, trying as many possible outcomes as we could...some people had high stats...but it was pretty well mixed. In the end, we were all happy with our characters. Something many games loose sight of during character generation that Travelller captured, the experienced character.
This world is filled with people that have raw, natural, unskilled talent that can out weigh those that have been trained...case in point...
I have had no medical training other than basic CPR...other than what I have seen on TV. I ran into a situation where I needed stitches and had no access to medical care, I stitched myself...well enough that when I was able to get to a doctor, they were impressed with my skill, even more so that I had done it without any training...so yes, people are capable of completing tasks without formal training and can even do things better than those with training and schooling. So how do you chalk that up?

If peple are against the combination of the stat bonus with the skill, why not do this, unskilled checks you can apply your modifier to reduce the negative "unskilled" modifier. So those with a Dex of 12, but no gun combat skill at all can fire guns at a -1 instead of a -3. Just a thought.

 

[AKAramis]

WJP: in an open playtest by a company not previously affiliated with Traveller, it is no assurance that the others present have years of experience. Some of the posters have no Traveller experience.

TO answer you query about FUDGE: attributes there are treated as totally disconnected from skills; if a skill can do it, a skill must do it. Only things which skill can not cover are covered in attributes. There isn't even a connection between stat and maximum skill level.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Actually, I'd like to see more differentiation in stats. As it stands, a 0-15 scale is kinda redundant when there's only 6 mods to go round.

Now, if I was MWM, I'd have put stats on the same scale as skills, ie: 1-6, with normal folk on a 2 or 3. It would be possible to come up with another chargen minigame that developed stats as if they were skills in a set of childhood tables, based on background and homeworld.

But, the decision has been taken to mirror the CT notation, to ensure some kind of backwards compatibility, and rightly so. It's a perfectly valid way to go, and this Mongoose system is the most robust, and subtle version of Traveller I've seen

Now in the ad hoc methods of CT, stats gave a variable bonus based on whatever the task was, up to the game designer or ref. So it might be if +1 Dex 9+, or +1 if Soc 5+, etc.

In my houserule, which ironically is a counterpart to the UGM (parallel evolution, sir! ), I decided that there'd be a +1 bonus if the task diff was equal or less than the required stat, and another +1 if the stat was 13 or higher. In this way every point of stat was worth something. However, this only works if the number to roll against is also the difficulty.

The system here use an 8+ threshold with difficulty as a modifier. It's nice and straightforward for play, leaving any slightly onerous calculations up to the ref alone. But my houserule doesn't fit the concept. Sup4's roll under stat to get bonus doesn't either, as you're wanting to roll both high and low at the same time, which feels too untidy.

The problem with just having the stat bonus giving extra skills is that once chargen is finished, stats are only used for recording wounds. Aging has no effect, and there is no place for natural talent whatsoever in play. It makes stats fairly pointless.

And capping stat bonus by skill bonus again removes untrained talent, and a competency limit seems a bit arbitrary and another unnecessary calculation.

My personal opinion is, as things stand, if stat has no effect on timing/effect, and if the difficulty mod can never go above 0, then a high stat is not a reliable substitute for a skill. If stats get pared down further, and for Strephon's sake a 15 should get a pretty exceptional bonus! and so should a 12 be better than a 10, they become very devalued.

The Mongoose system offers so many advantages that it would be a shame to rip it apart to fix an issue that is mostly theological (we are essentially just arguing the nature/nurture debate in Traveller terms). If Gar makes it so those 15's are very rare then this will barely affect any campaign at all.

There, I didn't intend to write up a complete summary of my views but it's been a vexing day at work and it's nice to be able to make a position clear! :lol:

 

[JimG]

There, I didn't intend to write up a complete summary of my views but it's been a vexing day at work and it's nice to be able to make a position clear! :lol:

Thanks, Klaus. Your views seem to closely match mine... and your summary is written much better than any of the attempts that I've made (and discarded.)

 

[Supplement Four]

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.

I am soooo glad to hear this, Gar! Excellent news!

For those of you who remain unconvinced about the point I've been making in this thread, here is a link to an article in Scientific American called "The Expert Mind."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-expert-mind

The article recalls studies that have been done on this very issue: Are experts Made (skill) or born (natural ability)?

The overwhelming evidence, in the article (and elsewhere I've read) is that experts are made, not born.

In other words, it's skill that leads to success, not natural ability (stats).

Someone brought up Einstein earlier, said he had a high EDU.

Actually, Einstein's EDU was probably average. I'd argue his INT was high. But, I'd also argue it wasn't his INT that made him a genius in the physics field. In Traveller terms, Einstein had a very high Physics skill.

Einstein might have looked like this: INT-15, EDU-8, Physics-7.

The remarkable thing about Einstein is that his knowledge of physics was mostly self taught. But, it wasn't only natural ability that made him such a unique human being. It was his expertise in the area of Physics.

The article above backs me up on this.[/url]

 

[Supplement Four]

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.

I am soooo glad to hear this, Gar! Excellent news!

For those of you who remain unconvinced about the point I've been making in this thread, here is a link to an article in Scientific American called "The Expert Mind."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-expert-mind

The article recalls studies that have been done on this very issue: Are experts Made (skill) or born (natural ability)?

The overwhelming evidence, in the article (and elsewhere I've read) is that experts are made, not born.

In other words, it's skill that leads to success, not natural ability (stats).

Someone brought up Einstein earlier, said he had a high EDU.

Actually, Einstein's EDU was probably average. I'd argue his INT was high. But, I'd also argue it wasn't his INT that made him a genius in the physics field. In Traveller terms, Einstein had a very high Physics skill.

Einstein might have looked like this: INT-15, EDU-8, Physics-7.

The remarkable thing about Einstein is that his knowledge of physics was mostly self taught. But, it wasn't only natural ability that made him such a unique human being. It was his expertise in the area of Physics.

The article above backs me up on this.

 

[Supplement Four]

Sup4's roll under stat to get bonus doesn't either, as you're wanting to roll both high and low at the same time, which feels too untidy.

Many people have expressed that feeling, at first, with the UGM. Then, I tell them about how much easier it is than adding in negative modifiers and explain some other things about the system, and then a light bulb seems to go off.

I can defend the roll high/roll low concept of the UGM if needed...I just don't think it would be helpful since Mongoose isn't going that way.

My answer to your statement, though, might just change your mind on the issue.

 

[captainjack23]

The article above backs me up on this.

Without taking sides in this issue, OR weighing in on either side of what is a bread and butter issue for my particular science, let me just say that

1. Scientific american, while good, and well informed, is still not an acceptable reference if one were to be presenting this to an audience of (say) neuropsychologists and neurologists. And as it isn't a gjournal of game design theory, it's more than a little inappropriate to this discussion.

2. I can absolutely guarantee that this issue is far less clear cut and more contentuous in the professional "brain and learning" literature . point two sub a: there are good reasons from the same literature to doubt the broad applicability of chessplaying to other forms of expert knowlege. Point two sub b. the papers premise is based on an unsupported leap, both point a, and the statement that the overwhelming body of evidence supports either side.

3. You have a fine point with regard to simple game mechanics; bringing in medical/psychological science to back it up is a waste of time, and will only muddy your point.

4. Nature versus nurture is a false dichotomy. What this paper is in fact adressing is the difference between procedural and heuristic learning; if you dont know what that means, you'll need a good neuroscience book, I'm afraid. (ie not a long-winded OT forum post from me, as I have no desire to be boredom-banned)

5. :!: Again, you have a very good point with regards to traveller. :!: However, it isn't a scientific hypothesis, so don't try and wave the science flag unless you want to either open the door to the whole simulation being torn down* , or lots of specuous arguing more appropriate to a professional journal or a snarky dissertation committe.

Some people disagree, some agree. In this case the author seems to agree somewhat; congrats. That's all the proof that you're right that you need, or can reasonably expect.

-Cap

*Department chair and Commitee head looks over glasses at candidate: "Mr Supplimentfour, we have reviewed your manuscript and have noted a series of serious flaws you will need to address: your proposed 15 levels of rating physical or mental attributes ? Utterly absurd; It in no way reflects the population as whole. Further, he differentiations between the attributes are clearly arbitrary and ill informed; we are also curious as to why no rules for state dependencies or attentional issues are included? And what about motor procedural ratings and effects ? As regards the extremely poorly differentiated and monstrously large grained skill level differentiating, the less said the better; further, your use of non-professional popular magazines as a reference suggests....yaddayadda yah."

I'm not kidding about this. :roll:

 

[Klaus Kipling]

My answer to your statement, though, might just change your mind on the issue.

No, I'm quite happy with my own house rule for good 'ol CT; much simpler, no subtraction required, or flip flopping on the die roll.

But I'm quite happy to shift to the Mongoose system, because neither my houserule nor the UGM can do as much. MongT is nicely none-boolean, and it achieves that without lookup tables or finnickity mathematics. And it gives the player some agency over what otherwise would be just a random number generator. It manages to be bold and still be compatible with CT, more or less. That's quite an achievement.

 

[Allensh]

I guess I don't understand, when we are using DM's based on stats rather than the stats themselves, such as in T4, why stats supposedly are too much of an influence. And I like the character generation tables the way they are, including the available stat increases. I really don't think reflecting reality (and an arguable "reality" at that) is really all that needed for this game. Its just a game. None of my players have ever pointed out that stats have too much influence. They don't care. They want to make their rolls (and they miss their share) and play the game and that is really the extent of it.

Allen

 

[Supplement Four]

1. Scientific american, while good, and well informed, is still not an acceptable reference if one were to be presenting this to an audience of (say) neuropsychologists and neurologists. And as it isn't a gjournal of game design theory, it's more than a little inappropriate to this discussion.

I'm glad you agree that I have a point in stats being overweighted, but just to address what you've said here: I have to disagree.

Traveller, more than any rpg really, models the common man. That's what makes it unique. Classic Traveller was about normal people getting caught up in extraordinary events, not super heroes saving the day, as in most rpgs.

Sure, it's a game, and liberties and abstractions are par for the course. But, Traveller is space opera slapped on a hard science slice of bread.

Translation: A Traveller game designer should try to keep the game as "realistic" and therefore "believeable" as possible while also balancing fun and exciting game play.

Traveller is going to be just as fun to play with the more realistic treatment of stats.

Why I think an article like that is appropriate is because it's a real-world study that focuses on expertise and innate ability.

Expertise and innate ability is the root of the discussion on this thread. Skills = Expertise. Stats = Innate Ability.

So, as the article in Scientific American concludes, Skill is the determinate of success, not innate ability. Therefore, stats should not have a huge influence on the outcome of a Traveller task throw.

If you do some browsing on the internet, you'll find more studies that say the same thing. Take a brilliant and naturally gifted individual without any training and compare him to a person with average natural ability but high expertise, and the person with expertise will be more successful.

Skills should influence tasks more than stats.

To give you another source, I just googled another web site that supports the Scientific American position. This, from Cogprints.com:

(abstract of an article on the site) Talents that selectively facilitate the acquisition of high levels of skill are said to be present in some children but not others. The evidence for this includes biological correlates of specific abilities, certain rare abilities in autistic savants, and the seemingly spontaneous emergence of exceptional abilities in young children, but there is also contrary evidence indicating an absence of early precursors for high skill levels in young people. An analysis of positive and negative evidence and arguments suggests that differences in early experiences, preferences, opportunities, habits, training and practice are the real determinants of excellence.

Which is another way of saying expertise is more important than innate ability for success.

An article on FastCompany.com says:

Ericsson has spent 25 years interviewing and analyzing high-flying professionals. He's the coeditor of the recent 918-page book Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (Cambridge University Press, 2006), in which he says elite performers aren't genetically superior.

Which is saying that elite performers don't always have the highest stats...in Traveller terms, they have more skill.

 

[AKAramis]

I guess I don't understand, when we are using DM's based on stats rather than the stats themselves, such as in T4, why stats supposedly are too much of an influence. And I like the character generation tables the way they are, including the available stat increases. I really don't think reflecting reality (and an arguable "reality" at that) is really all that needed for this game. Its just a game. None of my players have ever pointed out that stats have too much influence. They don't care. They want to make their rolls (and they miss their share) and play the game and that is really the extent of it.

Allen

Part of it is certain people dislike any "Stats can do the same stuff as skills" mechanics. Others dislike stats outweighing skill levels, in a few cases, ever. A few dislike not having a task-system effect for every level.

"Supplement 4" (WJP on COTI) is notorious for all of the above points of veiw; his UGM is a means for playing uber-light-rules with CT stats, where every point of attribute has a task effect, no stat ever outweighs levels of skill, and stats and skills do different things. It works quite well.

I don't like UGM, since I disagree with several points it is based upon. I disagree that one level is a good limit. I disagree that skill and stat shouldn't do the same thing. I disagree that every point of stat needs to have a task system effect.

Different strokes....

The one thing he and I do agree on is that all stats should have some differential effect in the overall system; I just don't feel it vital (or even useful) in the task system to have every point of attribute having some difference in task effect.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

The problem with just having the stat bonus giving extra skills is that once chargen is finished, stats are only used for recording wounds. Aging has no effect, and there is no place for natural talent whatsoever in play. It makes stats fairly pointless.

Hmm, like Call of Cthuhlu or MRQ for example? And just like those games, Traveller stats could/would still be used for extra melee damage and initiative for example.

Aging can easily be incorporated by reducing a physical skill by one level whenever a STR, DEX or END develops a negative bonus, and a mental skill when its INT or EDU... A good model of why the Athletics skill of most middle aged role-players is sadly lacking!

But anyway, I only suggested it as a house rule.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I'd like to throw another issue into this debate, but this one based on good game design theory.

There is a potential problem with adding characteristic bonuses to skill checks, in that the characteristic used is somewhat arbitrary, and open to possible disagreement.

Example 1. A player wants his Marine character to sneak past some patrolling guards. The GM looks up the example in the rule book and says that the stat used is DEX. The player, lacking any DEX bonus disagrees and suggests that he should be using INT (for which he has a bonus) instead since this is a problem which can be solved with extrapolation (predicting the guards movements), psychology (observing their alertness) and deduction (calculating the right time to move).

Example 2. The same character later on arrives at an automated infra-red sensor. Again he wishes to sneak past. The GM reiterates that DEX should be used. The player again demurs, this time claiming that EDU should be used since after 5 terms as a marine, he was specifically trained to bypass these types of automated device using a handful of technical tricks... such as using an insulated pressurized of liquid nitrogen to spray a thermal shielding cloud between himself and the sensor. DEX should have nothing to do with it.

Now open-minded GMs will probably have no problem with these sort of on-the-fly re-interpretations, save that they could eat up gaming time. On the other hand it is a potential source of aggravation between the player and the GM - "Why can I never use my +2 EDU bonus, you always pick INT instead!?!" This becomes doubly so, when a GM becomes inconsistent with the stat he choses for a particular type of skill check.

Also, some players and GMs have problems handling in-game situations which are not specifically covered by examples in the rule book. I know when I started out as a GM I hated to make impromptu rules decisions, since I had no idea if I was doing the right thing!

I know most of you will laugh this off. Overall its a lesser issue for experienced GMs with submissive players... But it is still a flaw in the overall game design, and can lead to abuse of the rules by people with dominating personalities or superior technical knowledge.

 

[anselyn]

Ultimately, this discussion comes down to whether the rules should be "simulationist" or "gamist" in their approach.

Supp4 clearly believes that they should be simulationist which is why the comparison to"real world" ER rooms and examples has been made- especially for the case of technical skills that are very knowledge-based.

I am happy to take a more "gamist" approach and make sure that the game works well as a game- especially for a small group of characters whose joint skills and stats have to cope with a lot of problems and situations.

BTW, I suppose that the Mongoose group skill packages acknowledge, perhaps demonstrate, that properly equipping a group of Travellers is an important part of the game.

Traveller, more than any rpg really, models the common man. That's what makes it unique. Classic Traveller was about normal people getting caught up in extraordinary events, not super heroes saving the day, as in most rpgs.

This is also a key assumption by Supp4. I think it's wrong and not supported by any Traveller material: CT or otherwise. Can you give any quote that implies that was an assumption of the original rules. I think you have inferred this flavour.

What the population of an average subsector in Traveller? 1E8 or 1E9? What the number of "Travellers" be they mercenaries, freetraders or whatever? - a few hundred - at most!

I suggest that "Travellers" are the one in a million characters in the universe.

Another comment on simulation-ism. There is/was another discussion in the forum about enlisted/offcier ranks in character generation and Traveller. It seems to me that this is another simulationist-driven discussion. The past practice with CT had to be that the details of the OTU were inferred from the rules and so it was important when the rules included these details so that the OTU simulation could be understood. Personally, I think those fleshed out details should go into source books. The game works fine with just officer ranks.

Also, if I want the rules to simulate something (in a moment of weakness ...) it's the feel of the adventure fiction that may lead someone into playing Traveller or understanding Traveller. It seems to me that "military" SciFi has boomed since 1977 and if you look those books (Honor Harrington books, Ender's Game, Vatta's War series) then they are about officers not the enlisted ranks.

To summarise,

I. For gamist reasons I don't agree with Supp-4's point.

II. Mongoose/Gar need to decide what feel for Trav they are aiming for and should probably spell that out in the introduction to the rules.

III. Universe details should live sourcebooks not be dervied from the rules.

PAS
{Apologies for mixing thread topics - but it seemed to be covered by one meta-issue about rules design}

 

[docrailgun]

I respectfully have to disagree. Einstein may well have had a high Physics skill, but it was his creativity and a different way of looking at the world that made him a brilliant mind. He was in fact "brilliant" (as in being intelligent and being able to extrapolate new ideas from existing data), rather than simply well-educated. He mighy have had a high EDU and a high skill, but his genius must come from his high INT. Even more interesting, being able to understand his revolutionary ideas doesn't require having a high Physics skill either.
Sorry for being semi off-topic.

[Someone brought up Einstein earlier, said he had a high EDU.

Actually, Einstein's EDU was probably average. I'd argue his INT was high. But, I'd also argue it wasn't his INT that made him a genius in the physics field. In Traveller terms, Einstein had a very high Physics skill.

Einstein might have looked like this: INT-15, EDU-8, Physics-7.

The remarkable thing about Einstein is that his knowledge of physics was mostly self taught. But, it wasn't only natural ability that made him such a unique human being. It was his expertise in the area of Physics.

The article above backs me up on this.[/url]