Traveller-digest      Saturday, June 21 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1457



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: T4.1 tasks
Re: Birthdays
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: Tasks and Spec Succ
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: In PE where is...?
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: Yet more task stuff.
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Re: Tasks (again), a solution.
Re: Task System Revision Poll Results So Far
Re: A Task Idea (Long)
Re: Task System Revision
Re: Anomalies stuff
Re: Yet more task stuff.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:58:12 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

>Demolitions is a skill governing the use of explosives; it is associated  with
>Dexterity. A character with low dexterity has a low aptitude for demolitions
>work; a character with high dexterity has a high aptitude for demolitions
>work. When a character contemplates career skills, a low dexterity character
>would rightly decide to avoid learning that skill.

I have no arguement with this, in fact I would like it if the T4 task
system worked this way. It does not. A character with a low dexterity does
not have "a low aptitude" for demolitions, he or she is fundamentally
incapable of ever becoming a demolitons expert. While a low-Dex character
may "decide to avoid learning that skill", he or she has no greater
difficulty in learning than a high-Dex character; they both learn
Demolitions at the same rate and difficulty.

>Consider three characters: Three (with Dex 3); Seven (with an average Dex 7),
>and Eleven (with Dex 11). Eleven has the best aptitude for the skill, but
>without training is unable to safely interact with explosives; Three has the
>worst aptitude. All three are selected to attend a class on explosives; all
>three successfully complete the training, and all three receive
>Demolitions-1.

One would assume that learning a skill like Demolitions would involve
actually involve preparing and defusing actual (or simulated) explosive,
this is apparently not the case because the effort to learn is the same for
high and low-Dex characters even though the low-Dex character has
effectively zero chance to complete an exercise correctly. This is because
when you learn a skill you will have a skill level of zero. A low-Dex
character with skill zero can succeed most task rolls only with a
spectacular success. The high-Dex character can only fail even a Difficult
task with a spectacular failure. This leads me to believe that the totally
dominant effect of a controlling characteristic conflicts with the
character generation system.

>If Eleven made no improvements in
>his skill, and Three made these major improvements, than Three would
>certainly be more of an expert, with more knowledge, theoretical experience,
>and even practical experience; but when it came to defusing bombs, then Eleven
>(with Demolitions-1) and Three (with Demolitions-9) would be about equal.
>They might make a good team: Three giving instructions and advice and Eleven
>doing the actual nimble finger work.

This sounds fine, and has a lot of play potential. But this is not how the
existing task system works. There are not separate target numbers for
theoretical experience, practical experience, instructions, and "nimble
finger work". There is a single target number for a task, if the task is
based on Dex then Three and Eleven have the same effectiveness.

I believe this is example of the gross imbalance between skills and
characteristics. A skill level of 9 is extremely high in Traveller. No
characters given in the rules, in any of the CT adventures I own, or
players in my campaign have any skill levels even close to 9. The
description of a skill level 6 at Douglas Barry's "Traveller: The Silly
Era" page describes physically impossible abilities. I know the page is a
gag, but the convention seems to be that skill 6 is extremely high. A skill
of 9 would be almost indescribable. A character defending with Brawling-9
can give a mediocre fighter a negative task number. None of the tables
which use skill as a DM are capable of handling a skill of 9 unless you
arbitrarily cut off the DM allowed. The Actual Value table does this at
Broker-4, which means a skill level of 4 acts the same as one of 9 for
determing value. This makes high skills even less worthwhile.

Moreover, a characteristic of 11 is not extremely high in Traveller. The
sample character in the rules has a characteristic above 11 and so do my
players, in many cases considerably higher.

Yet this merely above-average characteristic matches a skill level which is
so high the rules break down in trying to describe it. Not only this one
skill, but every skill Dex applies to, and there are a lot. A character
with a 9 in every Dex-based skill would require hundreds of years of career
rolls to do this, assuming that such a character could pass all the injury
and continuance rolls and still be learning even at these skill levels. And
after all this, the low-Dex character would still be outclassed by a
14-year-old with no training whatsoever who rolled a Dex of 12. From
character generation, about 3% of 14-year-old kids will start with a Dex
12, and players tend to increase characteristics in character generation; I
have characters with a Dex of 15. Actually, such characters are still
stronger that characters with any level of skill because Dex is used for
other things beside task rolls.

>The purpose of the Traveller task system and its mix of characteristics and
>skills is provide a means of resolving situations; the details of those
>situations in light of the tasks, skills, and characteristics become the
>basis for the story-telling aspects of Traveller adventures.

I agree the task system is just a mechanic for story-telling. But it is a
mechanic that harms the game and turns the stories into farces. It is a
loophole that rewards abusive players who make most of their generation
rolls on the physical and mental development tables. It unbalances the game
by making characters' performance almost totally dependent on a random die
roll at the beginning of character generation instead of the choices the
player makes. It harms role-playing by making all high-Dex (or whatever)
characters effectively identical. It cheats players who made a few bad die
rolls at character generation out of ever contributing meaningfully to the
game. It makes "specialist" characters who are superb at one skill and poor
at others impossible.

Someone proposed that the task system be left as is, that all the
obssessives here on the TML will use whatever task system they want and
that new players won't care. I disagree. It is new players that will be
punished by doing this, since they won't be exposed to the task system
alternates. They will eventually notice that characters with high
characteristics have superhuman abilities and assume Traveller is a
Lensman-like space opera and play accordingly. Or switch to the other, more
high-profile space opera science fiction RPG.


- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:09:47 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: T4.1 tasks

> Now I know I am not going to change everyones' minds to one of the several
> possible systems, but I am looking very deeply into this matter (which all of
> your votes have encouraged me to do).
> 
> Marc


Thank you;  thank you;  thank you;  thank you.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:09:57 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Birthdays

> For most (or many, or some) of you on the list, you know how to do birthdays,
> and do them or don't as you feel at the moment. The Birthday table is for the
> 12-16 year olds new to the game who don't know what to do. It's my job as
> game designer to give some direction to the new players. For a while my draft
> said "pick a birthday" and they floundered about how to do it, or they just
> didn't.

I like the birthday table, and I'm much older than 12-16.

As a matter of fact, it was a pleasant surprise to see it included.  
I support it's inclusion.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:09:53 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

> In a message dated 97-06-21 00:15:36 EDT, you write:
> 
> <<  I would recommend that you at least strongly
>    consider it (KB systm) and its goals as a starting point for a system
>    that you feel more comfortable with. >>
> 
> It should be clear that I am CONSIDERING everyting and anything,including
> abandoning tasks altogether, reverting to MT, using KB, using the posted
> system, using a hybrid, and just throwing up my hands in frustration.


Yes, Marc, it is completely clear that you are considering every 
option.

I very much appreciate this, as does many here on the list.  This is 
a definte problem, and you are clearly considering the list's 
overwhelming opinion that things should be changed.

You should be commended for that.  I know it can be frustrating, but 
I for one, will try to keep the frustration to a minimum.

Thank you for your concern.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:09:56 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Tasks and Spec Succ

Marc Miller writes:

> >  3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.
> 
> The T41 task system I posted called for SS if the dice came out all 1's and
> SF if the dice came out all 6's.
> 
> That was criticized, and I changed to to SS if 3 1's and SF if 3 3's. Its
> going to be one or the other. Frankly, 3 1's makes the game more exciting,
> with about a 1% chance at 2.5D and 0.5% at 3D 4D and 5D.


If you go with KBv2.0, you could have your cake and eat it too.

In KBv2.0, a character's SS chance is based on how skilled he is.  
That Rifle-5 character has a much better chance of rolling SS than a 
character using gun combat as a default skill.

It makes sense to me that characters with higher skill levels are 
better at a task and therefore can achieve SS more often than 
characters with lower skills.

How is this done?  It's pretty easy, really.  Instead of having a set 
target number for SS (i.e. your 3 one's roll), the target number is 
variable and based on a characte's skills.

SS in KBv2.0 is:

SS Target Number = Skill Level + Dice Code.


This is how easy it is...
For example, an average character (Stat-7;  Skill-2), throws for a 
difficult task.  He throws his 4 dice (KBv2.0 Difficult dice code).  
If he rolls below 13 (KBv2.0 target number), he has a regular 
success.  But, if the result of that one roll is below 6 (Level 2 + 
Dice Code 4), he has rolled SS.

I think that in this way, the game could be made more exciting rather 
than using the notes you used above.

And, buy using KBv2.0's SS system, the chance to roll SS is harder 
the harder the task becomes, so that problem is solved.

And, with KBv2.0, SS is possible at all difficulty levels.  Your 
system is broken in that SS is possible only at Difficult and higher 
difficulty levels (besides being easier to achieve at the higher 
levels).

Clearly, we need a SS system that can (a) be rolled at all difficulty 
levels--especially the lower ones because with easier tasks, it 
should be easier to roll SS, and (b) it should be harder to roll SS 
the harder the task becomes.

KBv2.0 answers both of these requirements with flying colors, and it 
has the added benefit of being sensitive to a character's skill 
level.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:09:58 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

> << examples.  But here's the problem with this system:  there are only 6
>  characteristics.  So someone can hit grad school, crank up the EDU, and
>  suddenly he's Too Good at Too Many skills.  
>  
>  Now maybe if you had 12 or 15 characteristics and you evenly distributed
>  the skills out over all of them, that problem would go away.  But I'm not
>  sure folks want that many characteristics (though I've seen other systems
>  with them).  So the next best solution is to decrease the value of
>  characteristic compared to the skill.  That's what folks (myself included)
>  would like to see.
>  
>  Make sense?
> 
> >>
> 
> Sure it makes sense, but Traveller just isn't going to adopt D100's, or 12
> characteristics versus the current 6, or etc.

I agree.  Traveller is D6's.

> So then, you say decrease trhe value of characteristic versus skill. What is
> the current value (in terms of percentage chance of success) for one level of
> characteristic? Quantify it.

We should increase skill level--not decrease attribute--because of 
the combat issue.

KBv2.0 handles this nicely....

Target Number = Attribute + Experience

where     Experience = Skill x 3


The multiplication is only done once.  You write a character's 
experience score next to the skill name, level, and base 
characteristics on the character sheet.

The only time this is changed is when a skill is improved--which 
won't be that often.

In combat, KBv2.0 works just like (and just as simple) as T4 and T4.1 
do.  When a target number is needed, the player adds his current 
attribute to the experience score (instead of the level).

Walaa.  Instant target number through simple addition--and we still 
see an increase in the contribution of the skill to the character's 
success.


> But right now, we're just saying characteristics range from 1 to 15 and
> skills range from 1 to 6 (and we don't agree on that).

Yes.  Skill do range from 1-6.  This is why is should be damn hard 
for a character, straight out of chargen, to get level-9 skill.  But, 
that's another issue.

KBv2.0 puts the skill level and attribute on the same scale.  3 x 
skill level = approximate corresponding attribute level.

Average skill = 2

Average stat = 7

KBv2.0 Exerience for skill level 2 = 6

7 and 6 are approximate.



> I've run mountains of spreadsheets on the probabilities, and it just doesn't
> seem to me to be worth the effort of dividing characteristics by something,
> or multiplying skills by something to get different, but not too much
> different range ofprobabilities.

I agree with 50% of this.  We should leave attributes alone because 
they will change value due to wounds in combat.

Let's keep math to a minimum.  KBv2.0 does that by multiplying skill 
by 3.   This makes the scale of skills vs stats approximately the 
same.



Whatever the spreadsheets tell you, this example is why we should 
multiply skills to bring them up on par with stats.

From my "plea to Marc Miller", we have a Medical-1, Edu-A character 
and we have a Medical-4, Edu-6 character.

In your system, the target numbers are:

Med-1 guy:  TN 11
Med-4 guy:  TN 10

The inequity shows it self.

Now, in KBv2.0, the target numbers are:

Med-1 guy:  TN 13
Med-4 guy:  TN 18

We can see that skill counts for something--it's not all attribute 
dominated.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:51:21 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:39:03 +0000, "Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com>
>In the medical example (quoted above), you
>say that a Dex 11 Skill 1 character and a Dex 3 Skill 6 character
>should be able to Fix the Defective Valve equally as well.  I think
>that's crazy! :)  IMO, the skill 1 character should not even be able
>to _find_ the Defective Valve.

OTOH, a lot of people think that Dex 3 should never be a doctor
in the first place (no matter how much he tried to train his inept
hands so he wouldn't kill his patients), let along be as good as
someone who has some actualy ability....

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:07:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: In PE where is...?

On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 s.johnson107@genie.com wrote:

> Okay, I must be blind.
>     I've seen some references here on the list that it's possible to change the
> Law Level, Resources and other planetary Stats in Pocket Empires.
> Unfortunately I can't find the tasks for doing those I mentioned.  Therefore
> since I'm obviously blind... can someone tell me where they are?  The
> implications of NOT being able to change the Resources score are too scary to
> contemplate. ;)

Hmmm.  I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with David's sections to tell 
you what was done about changing law levels and so on, you might want to 
email him about that.  (Hey, we wrote this thing months ago.:)

As far as Resources, there is no way to change them.  They're an 
absolute.  Resources is the amount of material available on the planet 
(and, if you have sufficient tech, in the system itself - planetary 
belts, gas giants, etc.).  It's modified in the GWP calcs to end up with 
what you can get at, thus the .1*TL part of the equasion.

So, Resources is an absolute, like Size.  You can import Resources and 
use them in addition to the ones you can get at on your planet with your 
own technology.  You can get better at extracting the resources you have.  
You can use resources you never thought about using before.  (both of the 
preceding ones being a function of tech and infrastructure.)  But you can't 
change the amount of Resources native to the system.


- -Joe
______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph E. Walsh  |  Game Designer for Marc Miller's Traveller
_________________|  Atari 1200XL and Apple IIGS User and Programmer

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:36:52 -0400
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

At 01:19 AM 6/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-06-21 00:15:36 EDT, you write:
>
><<  I would recommend that you at least strongly
>   consider it (KB systm) and its goals as a starting point for a system
>   that you feel more comfortable with. >>
>
>It should be clear that I am CONSIDERING everyting and anything,including
>abandoning tasks altogether, reverting to MT, using KB, using the posted
>system, using a hybrid, and just throwing up my hands in frustration.

	Please don't do the last! Take what input you feel is relevant and useful,
and come up with what you, as the designer, decide is the best. We're all
going to take the parts we like, and change the ones we don't, anyway ...

	Ideally, the first step would be to define the terms, and then present one
possible system. By getting some agreement on the basics, you allow people
to graft their own task system in fairly easily. Here's what I mean:

	Routine Task: This is the reference point for everything else. A person
with average characteristics and some training will usually be able to do
this. (translation: characteristic 7, skill 1 will succeed about
three-quarters of the time).

	Impossible Task: Success at an impossible task is a near-superhuman
occurrence, requiring either an incredibly lucky or extremely talented
individual (characteristic 11, skill 5 might have about 15-20% chance).

	Etc.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:16:44 -0400
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Yet more task stuff.

At 11:16 PM 6/20/97 +0100, you wrote:
>2. Can the *whole* system exist on a one page reference sheet or better
still,
>the back of a postcard. Lookup tables should be restricted to one and at
>most two.

	MegaTraveller's can. No real lookup tables at all, once you realize that
each difficulty level is exactly four away from other.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:46:28 -0400
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

At 05:03 PM 6/19/97 +0100, you wrote:
>[If this has been discussed before, can some just tell me the results?
> Thanks.]
>
>I was wondering what computers/operating systems people here use?  I've
>seen quite a few mentions of Macs and only a few Unix/Windows/Dos.

	Or perhaps the Mac folks talk more about their computers? Just count the
number of winmail.dat gripes a while back to get an idea of the
proliferation of MickeySquish ...

	At any rate, I've used both, and prefer Windows. Although sometimes I'd
like to see a small sub-c asteroid strike Redmond ...

>If you *do* answer this, can we please be careful to avoid any OS wars.

	No need. We all know what's better <G>.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:41:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Tasks (again), a solution.

On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, SD Mooney wrote:

> Put the T4.1 system in the rulebook. But put KBv2 in too as a sidebar,
> keeping the descriptions of task difficulty the same (eg 'average), as an
> official alternative system that isn't stats dominated.

That may very well be the best solution that is possible under the 
circumstances.  Not all problems have neat solutions.  And there is long 
precedent in the wargaming and RPG industries for "beginner" and 
"advanced" rules.  Heck, CT itself was rife with them.

Are we ready to call of the search for the perfect solution to this 
problem?

Are we ready to agree that this is the best solution that can be found?


- -Joe
______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph E. Walsh  |  Game Designer for Marc Miller's Traveller
_________________|  Atari 1200XL and Apple IIGS User and Programmer

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:23:38 -0400
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Task System Revision Poll Results So Far

At 12:26 PM 6/20/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Below is restatement of Marc Miller's poll request, Please give each rating
>of 1,2,3,4, or 5.
>
>1 Most Important
>5 Least Important
>0 Don't Care
>
>============================================================= 
>1. T4 is weighted too heavily against stats.  Skills have a minor part in a
>character's success at a task throw.  These should be equally weighted.

	1 for the SECOND sentence, not the first (the two are mutually exclusive)

>=============================================================
>2. Spectacular Success and Spectacular Failure are hard to do at easy and
>average, and easier at harder levels.

	If you mean, is this a problem, then I agree: 1.
>=============================================================
>3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.

	3
>=============================================================
>4.  Replace SS with SF in 3.

	I say the opposite: it should be EASIER to roll a spectacular failure at
harder tasks.

>=============================================================
>5. I don't like the half-die. Get rid of it.

	Only because I'm an anal-retentive purist. On the big scale, 4.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:30:55 -0400
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: A Task Idea (Long)

At 05:02 AM 6/21/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Everybody, 
>
>I created CTS as a compromise proposal between T41 and KB2 for folks to
>look at.  It doubles skill values, while using all of the
>characteristic.  This goes a long way toward closing the gap between stat
>and skill.  Look at the numbers and see what you think.  It also uses whole
>dice as for the following task difficulties:

> Skill-4                                                                
>   T41  Char+4    4d6     CTS  Char+(4*2)  5d6    CTS  Char+(4*3)  5d6  
>   Char Target  Percent   Char Target    Percent  Char Target    Percent
>   --------------------   ----------------------  ----------------------
>    2      6       1%      2     10        3%      2     14       22%   
>    4      8       5%      4     12       10%      4     16       40%   
>    5      9      10%      5     13       15%      5     17       50%   
>    7     11      24%      7     15       31%      7     19       69%   
>    9     13      44%      9     17       50%      9     21       85%   
>   12     16      76%     12     20       78%     12     24       97%   
> 
>Ok, which numbers do you like better?

	I still think the probabilities of success for a "staggering" task are too
high ...

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:45:56 -0400
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

Sorry I took so long to respond; I wound up rushing my dad to the hospital
Thursday night. He's home now, and this is the first chance I had to check
my email since Wednesday.

At 04:25 PM 6/19/97 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-06-18 02:16:23 EDT, Dreamer details the following
>problems with the task system:
>
> 1. T4 is weighted too heavily against stats.  Skills have a minor part in a
>character's 
> success at a task throw.  These should be equally weighted.

	1. Most Important, but it's written kind of confusing--the first sentence
implies skills weight too much ("too heavily *against* STATS"), but the
second states it correctly--skills need to count for more, or Traveller
degenerates into D&D, where you have the high-strength character (fighter),
the high-dex character (thief), the high-int character (mage), etc. Just
because a person has high dexterity DOESN'T mean he/she should be good at
all dexterity-related tasks, because the training isn't necessarily there.

> =============================================================
> 2. Spectacular Success and Spectacular Failure are hard to do at easy and
>average, and easier at harder levels.

	2. Second most important--it ought to be a lot easier to screw up
spectacularly on an inherently difficult activity like walking a tightrope,
than on walking down to the mailbox.

> =============================================================
> 3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.

	3.
	
> =============================================================
> 4.  Replace SS with SF in 3.

	No. It should be easier to roll spectacular failure the harder a task
becomes.

> =============================================================
> 5. I don't like the half-die. Get rid of it.
> =============================================================

	3. It's not, objectively speaking, a big deal, but it really bugs me for
some reason.

>
>Since you have voted for a change in the task system to fix it, rate each of
>these items inorder of importance (1=most important) and don't be afraid to
>put a zero if you think it isn't important.

	One additional comment--a task labelled "incredible" or "impossible" or
the like truly should be near-impossible for an "average" joe
(characteristic 7, skill-1) to accomplish. Succeeding at something
superhuman should require outstanding skill AND ability.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:34:47 -0400
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Anomalies stuff

At 10:15 AM 6/19/97 +0000, you wrote:
>On 18 Jun 97 at 23:06,: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
>> > From: NUELOW@aol.com
>> > And as far as canon goes, where is it we get the fact
>> > that Grandfather successfully killed all his
>> > offspring? Who is it that's giving us these reliable
>> > facts about the Ancients? (That's not an excuse for my
>> overlooking
>> > anything in research... is just a comment on how I
>> > view some of the
>> "facts"
>> > I've been finding in "Traveller" material.
>> 
>> Actually, Yaskodray killing off all his young'uns is a
>> 'meta-fact' of Traveller.  This is information that is
>> completely true, given through the game to the referee
>> (usually in 'Referee's sections' of adventures), and not
>> through any 'library data' entries.  We know of
>> Yaskodray's pocket universe through this data, not
>> through TNS or lib data entries.
>
>But who is to say that the adventure cannot be reinterpreted?  I tend 

	I'll have to vehemently disagree with you on this one.

>to share Steve's view on the "facts" of Traveller.  I like a more 
>flexible take on facts that allows room for ambiguity and differing 
>inerpretations.  The idea of the secret of the ancients as being 
>revealed and carved in stone was a big let-down for me, and one of 
>the reasons why I preferred TNE to MegaTraveller.  At least they 
>reintroduced the unkonwn and ambiguity into the known universe.  

	The "meta-facts" were not presented as something the players discovered,
but were given to the referee as the "absolute truth." And, as a _referee_,
having the "true underlying facts" of a universe are important if I'm going
to run adventures in that universe. I HAVE to know the facts around which
future adventures are going to be run, so that I can stay consistent.
Otherwise, I won't waste my time and money on the standard
universe--instead I'll either take the time to create my own or, more
likely given my lack of time, give up Traveller. That's what I hated about
the proposed fix to FS.

	Again, if something is being presented to me as Referee's Info, that info
must be rock solid. If I can't depend on it, it's worthless. The ambiguity
and differing interpretations can come in in the player's information, or
by leaving information out. But once you've told me "Mr. Referee, this is
the real info you can use as needed to guide the adventure" don't change it.

	Whether you like the past information or not, and there are parts I'm not
thrilled with, if you want my business, stay consistent with it.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:38:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Yet more task stuff.

On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, John R. Snead wrote:

> If T4.1 uses KB 1.1 then the number of dice being rolled is just the same
> as in the system used in the Game Screen.  The *only* difference between
> the two systems is that the KB 1.1 uses 1/2 Stat + 2*Skill instead of Stat
> + Skill.  I'd still prefer the MT, but KB 1.1 may be the best option given
> the current situation. 

I see where you're coming from, and that method does solve some 
problems. In my view, though, that's not the best solution.  And for two 
reasons:

1)  It makes the system less simple (figuring division and multiplication 
is bad enough, but figuring and refiguring on the fly during a fight as 
your stats decrease slows up the game too much, IMO).

2)  It changes the task statement as given in the Game Screen.

It solves the problem of stat and skill weighting, as so many other 
solutions do, but it introduces new problems.  I don't see it as a more 
ideal solution than the Game Screen system.

Just my opinion, mind, but that does reflect the terms I set up in the 
post to which you were responding.


Please allow me to wax philosophical for a moment.

The big leap that we all need to make, IMO, is keeping in mind that we're a 
tiny, tiny minority of the current Traveller players, and an even more 
miniscule minority of the universe of players Traveller must reach if it 
is to be the success it deserves to be.  We have a great amount of 
knowledge, and a great capacity for accepting hairy, complex systems.  
The customers that must be reached do not share that knowledge 
or capacity.  I don't think we will find the right system unless we keep 
that in mind.

The sad truth is, the RPG industry is suffering under a depression that 
has continued for many years, but it's a strange depression.  The 
audience is shrinking, but the purveyors of role-playing material are 
increasing.

The reason is that barriers to entry have fallen greatly over the last 
decade, with the availability of relatively inexpensive computers and 
programs that can yield professional pre-publishing results.  At the same 
time, the number and quality of substitute entertainments (computer 
games, video games, and even the Internet itself) have increased 
dramatically.  So, as the old-guard ages and moves on to other pursuits, 
such as full time jobs and family life, there aren't that many new 
players to replace them.  Thus, more RPG products and fewer to buy them.

If the industry doesn't reach out to people much better than it has, 
it'll all go the way of the wargame.  We have to rise above the other 
systems, show that Traveller is clearly the best choice...while keeping 
it simple enough to draw in every possible customer.

There's not a whole lot a tiny company like Imperium Games can do to 
reverse the downward trend in the RPG industry.  But three of the things 
they /can/ do are: have splashy covers (like T4 already has), keep the 
core rules simple enough for beginners to teach themselves how to play, 
and make the game fun enough that they'll want to continue playing.  
Well, there's a fourth, and that's distribution - distributing to book 
stores as well as game stores.  Perhaps someday Traveller will have the 
clout for that once again.  But first, it has to show that it is worthy.

As I explained in my previous post, the Task System will dictate the 
quality of Traveller to a very great degree.  If it's too difficult, no 
matter how well it models the real world, Traveller will fail.  If it is 
like T4's original system, with a very small chance of PC's failing tasks, 
it will fail as well - there will be no challenge to the game outside of 
the challenge of role-playing itself (which, of course, isn't something 
someone new to the hobby is going to be most interested in; that takes 
time). 

A balance has to be struck.  I think _we_ _can_ find that balance....but 
only if we keep in mind that we're not the ones this part of the product 
line should be aiming at.  Our products include Pocket Empires; Fire, 
Fusion, and Steel; and other, future products that will be as hairy as 
we want them to be. :)  The core system is for the beginners..so we can 
hook them and get them interested in the larger, more complex (and 
ultimately more enjoyable), universe of Traveller products and activities.

The Task System must be kept simple and robust, over all else, or we may 
as well admit defeat and go back to CT, MT, and TNE.

My last words of advice:  Keep the typical 14-year-old in mind as we go 
about finding solutions to the Great Task System Crisis of 1997.


- -Joe
______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph E. Walsh  |  Game Designer for Marc Miller's Traveller
_________________|  Atari 1200XL and Apple IIGS User and Programmer

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1457
***********************************
