Scaling Traveller Characteristics.

[TrippyHippy]

The Human range of each Characteristic stands at 0-15 with DM modifiers based on these levels alone.

It may be more the remit of the Traveller Companion book, but is it possible to produce DM modifiers for scales above (or below) this range - to account for a true universal range?

I was trying to think of ways of introducing logarithm to each hexadecimal scale?

 

[-Daniel-]

... but is it possible to produce DM modifiers for scales above (or below) this range - to account for a true universal range?

Can there be a negative characteristic? I thought zero meant there was nothing. A Rock has an INT of zero was how I thought of it. I never thought of something having a negative characteristic.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

... but is it possible to produce DM modifiers for scales above (or below) this range - to account for a true universal range?

Can there be a negative characteristic? I thought zero meant there was nothing. A Rock has an INT of zero was how I thought of it. I never thought of something having a negative characteristic.

Negative characteristics are for destroyed things that have nothing left. See Star Trek hand phasers.

 

[vladthemad]

Apart from 1-2, it seems you gain a +1 every 3 points, I'd assume that would continue beyond 15. It does state in the new rules "There are exceptions to this, but they will be covered later for specific rules and circumstances."

I looked in the alien area and didn't see any "exceptions". Has anyone else spotted any?

 

[TrippyHippy]

... but is it possible to produce DM modifiers for scales above (or below) this range - to account for a true universal range?

Can there be a negative characteristic? I thought zero meant there was nothing. A Rock has an INT of zero was how I thought of it. I never thought of something having a negative characteristic.

Not negative as such, but scaled down to microscopic levels.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

For like intelligent germ viruses, or nano-bots? Divide their UPP numbers by 10? And big giant monsters from the deep do a x 10 to their UPP numbers?

 

[TrippyHippy]

For like intelligent germ viruses, or nano-bots? Divide their UPP numbers by 10? And big giant monsters from the deep do a x 10 to their UPP numbers?

Yep. That sort of thing. Like I say, not really something for the Core Rules, but maybe something for the Companion to include?

 

[-Daniel-]

... but is it possible to produce DM modifiers for scales above (or below) this range - to account for a true universal range?

Can there be a negative characteristic? I thought zero meant there was nothing. A Rock has an INT of zero was how I thought of it. I never thought of something having a negative characteristic.

Not negative as such, but scaled down to microscopic levels.

Ok, greater than zero but less than 1. Got it.

As for larger, I would imagine it could be calculated until the point the "animal" is so large it is no longer at Personal scale and needs to move to ship or planet scale.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

For like intelligent germ viruses, or nano-bots? Divide their UPP numbers by 10? And big giant monsters from the deep do a x 10 to their UPP numbers?

Yep. That sort of thing. Like I say, not really something for the Core Rules, but maybe something for the Companion to include?

I like your idea. I'm curious, did you think of doing this for large ships using Hull, Structure, and Armor scales? Or did they continue to have large numbers for that?

 

[TrippyHippy]

For like intelligent germ viruses, or nano-bots? Divide their UPP numbers by 10? And big giant monsters from the deep do a x 10 to their UPP numbers?

Yep. That sort of thing. Like I say, not really something for the Core Rules, but maybe something for the Companion to include?

I like your idea. I'm curious, did you think of doing this for large ships using Hull, Structure, and Armor scales? Or did they continue to have large numbers for that?

I think it could apply to all measurable aspects of the universe, really. Like I say, it's something to think about if you want to create a true set of universal representations.

 

[MongooseMatt]

The Companion would indeed be the place for this - however, I have started to question whether we need modifiers above +3 on a 2D system...

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The Companion would indeed be the place for this - however, I have started to question whether we need modifiers above +3 on a 2D system...

Some Traveller editions stayed at +3, while some kept on going up.

In my games, in theory because it almost rarely happens, I continue on with the mod pattern of +4, +5, +6. I have superhuman characters sometimes. Or huge monsters. But monsters can now use just hit points and traits.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The Companion would indeed be the place for this - however, I have started to question whether we need modifiers above +3 on a 2D system...

I think, in a way, that is sort of the point I'm making. The system of bonuses only works with a very limited, human based scale.

However, if we look at that scale as being hexadecimal with a base 16, it could be increased or decreased on an exponential scale. It's a bit like the damage rules for destructive weapons going up in factors of 10 too. It could be represented in a similar way, possibly (like the 'DD' scores I mean) or just in scientific notation 8[*]102

 

[TrippyHippy]

The Companion would indeed be the place for this - however, I have started to question whether we need modifiers above +3 on a 2D system...

I think, in a way, that is sort of the point I'm making. The system of bonuses only works with a very limited, human based scale.

However, if we look at putting that scale back as being hexadecimal with a base 16, it could be increased or decreased on an exponential scale. It's a bit like the damage rules for destructive weapons going up in factors of 10 too. It could be represented in a similar way, possibly (like the 'DD' scores I mean) or just in scientific notation. eg: 8.1 x 102....the superscript for the 'square' number is hard to do on this forum!

Anyway, the key point is that you can present decimals after the single unit as a second significant figure - which could be hexadecimal too. So the range could be standard 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E as usual, but continued after the decimal point too. So you could have a 7.A or a B.4 for example as two significant figures that could be multiplied by the indicies (which could be negative for microscopic levels).

On this basis each task could still be rolled on 2D6 with a maximum of +3/-3 DMs, but the scale applied could be universal and measured exponentially.