Simple Fix to the Timing/Effect Debate?

[Sturn]

My little brain has been pondering SableWyvern's and Tbeard's posts and have come up with a possible easy fix to Mongoose's Timing/Effect problems. I don't take credit for this (well I will if it horribly fails), since this is derived from their work.

In a nutshell, reverse the scores of the dice for the task system, but reverse it back for combat so no major changes must be made to the rules. This keeps the favorable intention of the Mongoose rules without the unfavorable circumstance of difficult but successful task rolls having better results then easy ones.

In more detail:

1. Reverse the Fail/Success Effect charts (a.i. 1-2 is Exceptional while 5-6 is Marginal). I actually prefer 1 for Exceptional and 6 for Marginal, for more Average results, but that is a personal preference.

2. Multiply the Timing die by the increment out-of-combat (as SableWyvern has suggested). No need for the 7-die adjustment at this time.

3. Do NOT apply DMs to the Effect die (more skilled tasks already give better Effect results without the additional math).

4. During combat, use the 7-die adjustment on both dice for determining Initiative and weapon damage multipliers (a.i. a 1 timing die results in a 6 Initiative or a 6 effect die results in x1 damage).

That's it.

Why make these simple changes? Because it results in very hard tasks taking more time and being accomplished with less favorable successes. Easier tasks will tend to be done more quickly and with better results then difficult ones. The problem with the current Mongoose rules is the reverse is more often true! (as Tbeard has been attempting to point out).

Below I crunched some numbers to show some results of these simple changes. I have shown the percentages of the varying degrees of success (Marginal / Average / Exceptional) if a roll actually succeeds. To make the number crunching simpler and to make a point, I have only shown what happens if the roller always picks the best result for his Effect die:

DM     Roll to Succeed             Marginal - Average - Exceptional

-4             12+                  100%        na             na
-3             11+                  100%        na             na
-2             10+                   66%        33%           na
-1              9+                    40%        60%           na
 0              8+                    27%        60%           13%
+1             7+                    19%        52%           29%
+2             6+                    15%        46%           39%
+3             5+                    13%        40%           47%
+4             4+                    12%        36%           52%
+5             3+                    12%        34%           54%
+6             2+                    11%        33%           56%

Note: There is another post further down in this thread that gives stats for a 1 and 6 system for exceptional/marginal results (as opposed to 1-2, 5-6) that some like myself may prefer. Average % is greatly increased.

The percentages worked out great in my opinion. Difficult tasks tend to have marginal results, average tasks tend to have average results, and easy tasks tend to have exceptional results. At the extremes, a -4 DM task (that only succeeds by rolling two 6's), only succeeds with marginal results and the maximum time taken. At the other end, high +DM tasks will have a much larger chance to complete the task with good timing and effect results. Even when "min/maxing" the Mogoose system doesn't break after this simple change.

Comments please! Hopefully there is not a glaring problem I have not considered.

Notes: There are some other minor changes to be made such as editing some Mongoose rules text to use "highest" instead of "lowest" since the polarity has changed. For example, the multiple action rules currently state the lowest die must be used for timing; this would need to be changed to "highest" (this could result in better results then wanted for multiple actions and I have a simple fix for this but didn't want to get into it here in this first post).

 

[Sturn]

No replies in 3 days? At least tell me you hate it! :lol:

 

[Klaus Kipling]

The probability spread is good, I just don't like all the flip-flopping with the numbers.

What initially attracted me to T/E was the simple truth that 1s are bad and 6s good, with the results plain to see on the 'gaming surface'. Well it turns out there's a bit of fuss with mods, but I can live with that, and simply uncapping Effect and using a different scale to measure bad/norm/good fixes the probabilities (close enough to your spread).

I just like rolling high, all the time.

 

[Sturn]

...and simply uncapping Effect and using a different scale to measure bad/norm/good fixes the probabilities...

What do you mean by uncapping the Effect?

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Allowing the modifiers to take the effect value above 6 or below 1.

I did an analysis of it here,

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=33185

and tbeard looked it over on COTI and didn't find the probabilities offensive (his words ).

It seems T/E is a real taste test.

 

[AKAramis]

Sturn: Simpler fix yet:

make success 6-, but keep the original 6-good timing/effect dice read, and do not add mods to the timing/effect dice.

 

[tbeard1999]

Sturn: Simpler fix yet:

make success 6-, but keep the original 6-good timing/effect dice read, and do not add mods to the timing/effect dice.

It's hard to decipher what you're suggesting, but if you do not apply modifiers to the T/E dice, then each die will skew high as negative modifiers increase. This is due to the fact that as you increase negative modifiers, the 2d6 success roll increases, which reduces the population of lower individual die roll. An extreme example would be a task roll with a -4 net modifier. In that case, *both* timing and effect dies will be excellent.

So unless your fix addresses this, it's worse than the original system.

And if you are suggesting a "roll low" task resolution system, then all you've done (I think) is replicate a roll high system where you read low T/E dice as good (i.e., sablewyvern's system). I'd prefer sablewyvern's system in that case, since on the main roll, high is good. And except for combat, you don't actually have to jack with the T/E system. So sablewyvern's system does not require us to change the way the base task roll system works.

 

[AKAramis]

It's really quite simple, ty, and it eliminates all modifiers to the timeing and effect dice.

All mods simply become adjustments to the 6- target for both dice. SO DM+3 means roll 9- on the 2d to succeed, and read the timing and effect dice as written.

1+1: succeeds unless -5 shift. Maximum time, minimum success.
3+3: moderate success, moderate time, succeeds if modifiers positive.

It has the same net effect as reversing the reading of the timing and effect dice, but without screwing up combat (not that you seem to really care anyway, Ty).

It means marginal attempts can only generate marginal results, and yet marginal results can still be possible on massively easy tasks.

(If I were writing it up myself for publication, I'd add a caveat that a TN shift above 12 instead ups the timing and effect dice readings)

 

[SableWyvern]

If I'm reading correctly, it is indeed a reversal of my system.

The disadvantage seems to be that there is some opposition in the Traveller community to the roll under system, although I'm not sure how widespread that is.

The main advantage is that, as pointed out, there are fewer ripple-effects through the rest of the system, since you continue to prefer high T/E results.

The other benefit is that it becomes a true blackjack system, which helps deal with some people's concern that the system is unintuitive. If "Roll as high a possible without exceeding the target number" is simple enough for an afternoon game-show, it should be acceptable for an RPG. Certainly, it is a mechanic that has been used successfully in a number of systems.

 

[Sturn]

In my stats at the start of this post, I completely left out the adjustment of the DM on the Effect die. It appears though that this could be a good thing. The statistics make sense WITHOUT applying the task DM to the Effect die. It's simpler and still gives results that make more sense.

I did another run of the stats while using only 1's and 6's for exceptional/abject results (instead of 1-2 and 5-6). For those who prefer a larger rate of average results, the stats worked out quite well:

(again this table only shows results when the player always chooses the best die for Effect).

DM     Marg  / Average/Except
-4      100% /     -      /     -
-3       33% /    60%   /     -
-2       17% /    83%   /     -
-1       10% /    90%   /     -
 0        7%  /    93%   /     -
+1       5%  /    86%   /     9%
+2       4%  /    81%   /    15%
+3       3%  /    77%   /    20%
+4       3%  /    73%   /    24%
+5       3%  /    68%   /    29%
+6       3%  /    67%   /    30%

Note on personal preferance only: Unless the final product has something new that corrects the problem with the T/E math, I will be using what has been posted at the start of this thread with 1 and 6 for extreme failures/successes (as opposed to 1-2 and 5-6), PLUS an open-ended aspect to the TASK roll only...a.i. if double 6's are rolled, roll another D6 for the task only (doesn't affect T/E), if double 1's are rolled, subtract another D6. I've looked at the results and it makes me warm and fuzzy.