Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Twowolves" data-source="post: 3683494" data-attributes="member: 18093">No, I was pretty much right, but feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and cry "nuh-uh!"Classic Traveller had rolld 2d7, beat a 7, maybe add 1 or 2 to the roll. That's it exactly. Getting a +2 in any skill in CT was pure luck, and pretty rare. MegaTraveller was roll 2d6 and beat a 4, 7, 11 or 15, and maybe add 3 or 4 to the roll. I might have been off a bit, but I was more right than I was wrong, despite your attempts at picking nits.Optional in MT, maybe, but it sure set up the rules to have death as a result on the term of service tables. And skill aquisition STILL had a random factor as to which list/skill you got to choose from. Maybe not 100% random like in CT (where, I believe, it WAS 100% random), but still a far cry from spending your character generation points wherever you darn well please. Or was it not you who said this: This is a bit more helpful. In your MegaTraveller game, the average skill was a bit over +2. So unless stats were routinely over 10, characters averaged a +3 to skill checks. Now one could figure in exact odds of success at typical tasks in that game. If I were so inclined to run those numbers, that is. I don't have to do so, because I already know that I don't like bell curve task resolution when it's 3d6 (Hero/GURPS) and the odds are even more exaggerated with only 2d6. You are correct. I thought about the actual numbers after I posted, while I was out running errands. I have done a more in-depth asessment for 3d6 < 10 systems long ago and was drawing from my memory of those numbers. But my basic point is the same, in that a +1 to a skill check is worth as little as 1 in 18 chance of success to as much as 1 in 6, depending upon where your target numbers are falling on the bell curve. That is granular in my book.Four pages of guidelines. Well, I guess that completely negates any complaint about the sharply delineated task summaries being scattered through multiple rulebooks, sourcebooks and adventures. I remember reading those rules, pretty thoroughly, and wondering how they came up with those target numbers and time factors, and in the end the answer was "just make it up yourself" in many cases. No thanks. If I had that level of comfort running that system, I wouldn't have needed any "guidelines" in the first place.I can give pretty definative statements about several games I've never played. In fact, I don't see where I was so horribly wrong in this instance. The only thing I see I got 100% wrong was matching the TN still being a success. Everything else I was still right on the money, even if off by a digit or two. I have pretty good reading comprehension skills, and I have played or seen being played dozens of games over 20+ years of gaming. I don't have to eat a crap sandwich to know I won't like it. But you feel free to take a bite and confirm it for the rest of us ignorant peons.</blockquote>

Verification