Mongoose Traveller Stats Are Too Powerful

[Supplement Four]

Gee, last i checked, copyright violation and plagiarism are two different things. And you keep claiming they used your idea (without credit). Which is plagiarism. Not copyright infringement.

This, I know. This, isn't worth talking about. I'm not planning any legal action.

It does, however, provide a good argument for your non-credibility.

So, you're saying that the UGM didn't come first? Heck, I posted my development of it on the CotI. The last version I posted (not the first), was posted in September of '06, close to a year before MGT was created.

Now, let's look at the comparisons:

UGM is 2D for 8+ for success.

MGT is 2D for 8+ for success.

UGM Difficulties are:

Easy +4
Routine +2
Standard +0
Difficult -2
Challenging -4
Formidable -6
Insane -8
Impossible -10


MGT Difficulties are:

Simple +6
Easy +4
Routine +2
Average +0
Difficult -2
Very Difficult -4
Formidable -6


Looks like basically the same mechanic to me (the same one you panned, over and over. Remember? The UTP was so superior to what I had come up with?)

I'd say that's fairly credible.

 

[EDG]

Look, bluntly - nobody here gives a damn about your UGM. Nobody is here to playtest your UGM rules, or to pat you on the back because you had similar ideas to Mongoose, and your constant ego-stroking is getting tiresome. All you seem to be doing is getting in everyone's faces and saying "hah! Look, I'm right, I'm right, see, my system is validated, I'm awesome!", when the reality is that nobody cares.

The fact that you came up with your system before they did also doesn't matter, since they didn't plagiarise it from you and in all honestly had probably never even heard of the UGM or you beforehand. Fact is, they're both derived from the same source - CT (which funnily enough is based on 2d6 and has to beat 8+) - so of course they're going to be similar. But Aramis is right - you have basically accused Mongoose of copying your system when there's no evidence that they did that at all.

As I said - you've made your point, now stop going on about it.

 

[Supplement Four]

Did it ever occur to you that one of the reasons they panned the UGM because of the way it was presented?

Possibly. I mean, many people love the UGM and still use it. So, maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. I dunno.

I think it's more likely that people will embrace a so called "official" source than what they perceive is just some guy writing Traveller rules on the internet.

I have noticed that, for many who didn't use the UGM before, now look at it as a more viable task system now that Mongoose's system is so similar. That "official" source has given it credibility.

At best, it's parallel evolution.

You don't know that. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not.

Heck, maybe someone saw the UGM and said, "Hey, this is pretty good. We're going to release our open source anyway. Let's take that UGM-thingy as a base and move forward."

I don't have solid evidence either way.

Honestly S4, you've made your points a thousand times. And as I said and as allensh points out, what you see as a major problem doesn't turn up in actual play... so it's not a major problem.

Any time the stat bonus is higher than the skill bonus, chances are the problem is popping up in actual play.

Stat-12, Skill-1 vs. Stat-8, Skill-3 can easily pop up in actual play.

Now, some people don't think the T4 task system doesn't have problems either. But, many do. And, just because the gamers don't recongize the problem doesn't mean its not there.

By default, though, you seem to be acknowledging that there is a problem, but that it's too trivial to do anything about.

And if that's the case, then that's it, end of story, you have once again failed to convince people who are paid to design games that your house rules are superior to what they come up with.

Not that it matters, but the gaming industry really isn't populated by uber professionals who always understand what they write. I'm sure you've seen that in some rpgs you've opened. Many just write and design "on the side". It's not their day jobs.

Also, not that it matters, but I've been asked to write and design for three companies in the past. Unsolicited. I declined because there's just no money in game design. It's a lot of effort for little gain.

But, I love role playing, so I do it as a hobby (which is a much different monster than doing it as a "job").

 

[Supplement Four]

As I said - you've made your point, now stop going on about it.

The best way to have someone "stop going on about it" is to stop posting messages for which to respond.

I'd much rather talk about the stat bloat fixes. Hear some fresh ideas from other people. Talk pros and cons of proposed fixes.

 

[captainjack23]

Look, bluntly - nobody here gives a damn about your UGM. Nobody is here to playtest your UGM rules, or to pat you on the back because you had similar ideas to Mongoose, and your constant ego-stroking is getting tiresome. All you seem to be doing is getting in everyone's faces and saying "hah! Look, I'm right, I'm right, see, my system is validated, I'm awesome!", when the reality is that nobody cares.

I'd like to try and avoid becoming caught in another deleted thread fiasco, but I would ask you to please speak for yourself in this matter, unless you have some kind of polling information I was unaware of.

I quite like the UGM, and use it. It's important to present alternatives to advance a play test, and the stat issue is real. In my opinion, it's real, but not a big deal;however, since my opinion is not that of a rpg design expert, I'll consider the possibility that I'm wrong.

Perhaps I could politely suggest that you consider ignoring him, as has been suggested as a solution to other posts and opinions in other threads.



Cap out.

 

[Takei]

Are you even familiar with the UGM? The only real difference between the UGM and MGT's system is the way stats are handled.

Both systems are 2D6.

Both have tasks that achieve success on a roll of 8+.

Both have difficulty mods that are 2 points apart.

The two have nearly the exact same difficulty DMs.

I'd call that a bit more than "vaguely" similar.

Sounds like CT Striker to me.

2d6

8+ to succeed

Difficulty steps of 2 (8/10/12+ to hit) Not too much of a jump to extrapolate the other way to get 4+ and 6+

And that was back in what, 1980?

There is one very unique quality of the UGM - it is both a roll-over AND roll-under task stystem at the same time. That's something I've never seen before and the biggest problem I have with it. Take that aspect away and it's basically CT Striker.

 

[anselyn]

And, just because the gamers don't recongize the problem doesn't mean its not there.

I think you've summed the situation up perfectly.

Some gamers are getting on with having fun by playing a game blissfully unaware that the rules that they are using may not simulate "reality" in the way that you prefer.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

You are on a quest for perfection while we are satisfied with a skill system that is good.

Isn't it time to move on to rules for ships, combat, trade.... Anything else that might not yet be good - rather stay here looking for your perception of perfection.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

And now, after 14 pages of clinical discussion, it becomes a flame war.

PLEASE CHILDREN, discuss, do not fight.

We were doing so good for so long...

 

[Supplement Four]

There is one very unique quality of the UGM - it is both a roll-over AND roll-under task stystem at the same time. That's something I've never seen before and the biggest problem I have with it.

In CT, it's not uncommon to see a throw like this: Throw 8+ to succeed, and get a +1 DM if Stat is 9+.

The roll under/roll over mechanism is an economical way to approximate Classic Traveller throws. I've found that people who aren't very familiar with CT (or haven't used it in a while) don't understand it sometimes. The UGM is designed as a task system specifically for use with Classic Traveller. It's made to immulate throws found in that edition of the game.

Thus, take the roll I mention above. With the UGM, there would be no mention of Stat, as that is built into the task throw.

So, the roll is 8+ for success.

Let's And, let's say you've got a character that is Stat-5, Skill-1.

See...that Stat will never be beneficial to you on that roll. If you roll a 5 (the highest number you can get and still recieve a +1 DM), then add your skill, your total will be 7.

There's no difference in that than there is to say (as in the first version of the throw I mention) the character's Stat is not high enough to gain him a bonus.

There's more to it, but that should show you that the roll under/roll higher mechanism works rather nicely.

A UGM roll of Stat-5, Skill-1 for 8+ is the same thing as a Classic Traveller roll where the Stat was not high enough to gain the character a bonus.

I've found that once people "get" that, then they understand the system. People who play Classic Traveller (for which the task system was designed) seem to understand and embrace it fairly quickly.

 

[Allensh]

So...how about those grav ball champs? <g>

Did anyone notice in version 3 that hexadecimal notation is back?

Allen

 

[Takei]

In CT, it's not uncommon to see a throw like this: Throw 8+ to succeed, and get a +1 DM if Stat is 9+.

The roll under/roll over mechanism is an economical way to approximate Classic Traveller throws. I've found that people who aren't very familiar with CT (or haven't used it in a while) don't understand it sometimes. The UGM is designed as a task system specifically for use with Classic Traveller. It's made to immulate throws found in that edition of the game.

Thus, take the roll I mention above. With the UGM, there would be no mention of Stat, as that is built into the task throw.

So, the roll is 8+ for success.

Let's And, let's say you've got a character that is Stat-5, Skill-1.

See...that Stat will never be beneficial to you on that roll. If you roll a 5 (the highest number you can get and still recieve a +1 DM), then add your skill, your total will be 7.

There's no difference in that than there is to say (as in the first version of the throw I mention) the character's Stat is not high enough to gain him a bonus.

There's more to it, but that should show you that the roll under/roll higher mechanism works rather nicely.

A UGM roll of Stat-5, Skill-1 for 8+ is the same thing as a Classic Traveller roll where the Stat was not high enough to gain the character a bonus.

I've found that once people "get" that, then they understand the system. People who play Classic Traveller (for which the task system was designed) seem to understand and embrace it fairly quickly.

I do understand what you're saying, and will admit there is a certain elegance to it, but when I'm playing and I make a skill check I like to see high numbers on those dice. Also, from a gaming perspective, I like to see my stat mod being applied to all rolls that use that stat. I appreciate that the UGM models the fact (?) that harder tasks require a higher stat to effect their outcome, but I'm more interested in play than realism.
In real life if I shot an Olympic athelete (high physical stats) in the head with a 9mm there's a very good chance of them dying. Traveller does a God awful job of modelling that, which I'm happy with as my games are more cinematic. (In CT an autopistol does 2D (?) damage and in RTT it does x1+3)

One question about the UGM though; how does it handle low stats that would give a minus to task checks?

 

[Supplement Four]

I do understand what you're saying, and will admit there is a certain elegance to it, but when I'm playing and I make a skill check I like to see high numbers on those dice.

I'm a "higher is better" fan too. There was something not "right" about rolling low in TNE and T4. Simply taste, I know, but like many gamers, higher-is-better is where it's at.

Kinda like Craps. Most betters are "Come and Pass" betters rather than "Don't Come and Don't Pass" betters.

Also, from a gaming perspective, I like to see my stat mod being applied to all rolls that use that stat.

Ah, but that's not really a CT thing. Most times, stats aren't even referenced in CT. When they are, usually it's something like: If you have Stat-9 or better, then you get a +1 DM on the roll.

Of course, with CT, anything goes. Sometimes, different stat requirements would show up. But, in designing the UGM, I went with what happens most commonly in CT, where a +1 DM is given for a particular stat.

I appreciate that the UGM models the fact (?) that harder tasks require a higher stat to effect their outcome, but I'm more interested in play than realism.
In real life if I shot an Olympic athelete (high physical stats) in the head with a 9mm there's a very good chance of them dying. Traveller does a God awful job of modelling that, which I'm happy with as my games are more cinematic. (In CT an autopistol does 2D (?) damage and in RTT it does x1+3)

In CT, an autopistol does 3D damage. But, there's also the First Blood rule, which says that the first time a character is hit, the total amount of damage is taken from a random physical stat--making combat rather scary. Easily, it could be a one-shot, one-kill proposition. More likely, with the high stats of the athelete (if all three physicals were high), he could survive the shot with just a graze, or maybe be rendered unconscious.

One question about the UGM though; how does it handle low stats that would give a minus to task checks?

I never designed it to handle negative modifiers for low stats...because a negative modifer for a stat rarely shows up in CT.

In CT, typically if Stat is referenced, it referenced with something like what I said above: If you've got Stat-9 or better, you get a +1 DM. If you have Stat-8 or less, you don't get a modifier.

So, the UGM models that.

Low Stats hardly ever provide a benefit on throws, just like in normal CT. If they do provide a bonus, it'll be on an easier difficulty throw.

Mid-Range Stats, you can count on them helping you on the easier tasks and stats of average/standard difficulty. They probably won't help you with the harder tasks.

With the Higher Stats, you can pretty much count on them helping you all the time.

Keep in mind that the UGM is designed specifically for use with Classic Traveller.

BTW, not too many Traveller systems have integrated -DMs for low stats on tasks. CT hardly ever had it (but since anything goes in CT, it did do it rarely). MT didn't do it. TNE didn't do it. T4 didn't do it. GT didn't do it. (I can't comment on HERO Traveller because I haven't seen it.)

I know ACT had something like this (and, you talking about stat bloat! Sheeesh! Just try ACT. MGT is a dream compared to the stat bloat in ACT), and MGT now has it.

But, I think many gamers are "used" to that idea because of the proliferation of the d20 system (T20 has it).

In my opinion, the d20 system is an overly complex system (a task system doesn't need to be that doggone complex--it would be "more playable" if it were simpler).

 

[Supplement Four]

Oh yeah, Paul, there's another aspect of the UGM that's quite nice. That's the Critical Success/Critical Failure rules.

With most games, Crits have the same percentage chance of occuring for all characters, regardless of skill or ability or task difficulty.

With the UGM, Critical Successes are harder to achieve the harder tasks become. Crit Successes are also easier to achieve the more skilled a character is, or the more natural ability he has.

The opposite is true for Critical Failures. Crit Failures are easier to avoid when the task is easy (so, it's harder to avoid a Crit Failure on Formidable Task than it is for an Average Task). Besides task difficulty, the character's skill level and Stat will help him avoid Crit Failures more often than characters with lower skills and lower stats.

In other words, with the UGM, the chance of achieving a Critical Success or avoiding a Critical Failure is weighted to advantage easier tasks, characters with higher skill, and characters with higher stat.

 

[Allensh]

I highly suspect that Mongoose has no plans to use the UGM. I would suggest that they are other places -say, the TML, or the CotI boards, or private e-mail - where the virtues of the UGM (such as they are) can be extolled, rather than muddying up this playtest board any further with irrelevant matters.

Allen

 

[Deniable]

BTW, not too many Traveller systems have integrated -DMs for low stats on tasks. CT hardly ever had it (but since anything goes in CT, it did do it rarely). MT didn't do it. TNE didn't do it. T4 didn't do it. GT didn't do it. (I can't comment on HERO Traveller because I haven't seen it.)

Come again. TNE, T4 and GURPS builds the attribute into the target number in a one-for one fashion, noting that they are roll low systems. Low attributes reduce the target number. This is effectively the same as a negative DM in a roll high system.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

So...how about those grav ball champs? <g>

Did anyone notice in version 3 that hexadecimal notation is back?

Allen

DUDE! Did you see the game last night????

McLuski was AWESOME! I have never seen anyone go through the defense the way he did, and that double flip off the wall just made that play!!!!

Too bad they lost in the last seconds though... The Regina Bashers were never my team, even when they were winning the league every year and everyone kept saying they were "The Sector's Team". Me, I like the Kinorb Blue Bombers, but since they got relegated, so no one talks about them anymore.

 

[anselyn]

DUDE! Did you see the game last night????
[...]
Too bad they lost in the last seconds though... The Regina Bashers were never my team, even when they were winning the league every year and everyone kept saying they were "The Sector's Team". Me, I like the Kinorb Blue Bombers, but since they got relegated, so no one talks about them anymore.

And it takes them a month to get home after a match too ....

 

[Supplement Four]

Come again. TNE, T4 and GURPS builds the attribute into the target number in a one-for one fashion, noting that they are roll low systems. Low attributes reduce the target number. This is effectively the same as a negative DM in a roll high system.

Not really. It's more (exactly) like having a lower number to roll under. There's no "chart" that provides negative DMs for stats.

 

[Supplement Four]

I highly suspect that Mongoose has no plans to use the UGM. I would suggest that they are other places -say, the TML, or the CotI boards, or private e-mail - where the virtues of the UGM (such as they are) can be extolled, rather than muddying up this playtest board any further with irrelevant matters.

I don't think Mongoose would use the stat mechanic of the UGM either, but I was answering a question.

BTW, I didn't see your post about "irrelevant matters" when other people went off-topic on this thread...say when Aramis wanted to talk about plagiarism.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

This is getting a little tiresome. It's Groundhog Day. We're not meant to be debating the UGM. I could bring up detailed explanations of my own CT fix too, which somewhat resembles the UGM (as any system based on CT would!), but which was not influenced by it at all, as I hadn't seen it before I designed my system. But I won't, cuz it's pointless in a playtest of MGT.

This thread was to discuss the any potential issue with stats vs skills; that has been discussed and argued and counter-argued ad nauseam, and now we're just repeating ourselves.

The fact is that banging a drum constantly does not an argument make. The fact is it seems most playtesters seem to be happy with the status quo when it comes to the mechanics, so this is turning into so much hot air.

And I know I want to save my hot air for arguments yet to be won or lost!