Traveller-digest      Thursday, June 19 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1446



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

T4 Task Rationale
PBEM
Re: Task System Revision
Freedom of Choice {Long and somewhat rantish....}
RE: A plea to Marc Miller
Re: Roll for Skills (was Re: Marc Miller--Please.)
Re: Task Systems
Re: Re Combat Lethality
Re: MT Task System
Re: We've Reached 50!!!!
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Re: Pocket Empires Technology
Re: Task System Revision
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Skills v. Attributes
Re: Hardware, firmware, software

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:54:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: T4 Task Rationale

A character=92s six characteristics are a measure of that character=92s a=
bility
in a certain area. For example, Strength (Str) is a measure of that
character=92s strength: someone with Strength 2 is very weak; someone wit=
h
Strength 12 is very strong. At the same time, the characteristic is a mea=
sure
of that character=92s aptitude or potential to perform tasks which requir=
e
strength: someone with a high Strength is much more likely to succeed whe=
n
attempting a task which requires Strength.

Demolitions is a skill governing the use of explosives; it is associated =
with
Dexterity. A character with low dexterity has a low aptitude for demoliti=
ons
work; a character with high dexterity has a high aptitude for demolitions
work. When a character contemplates career skills, a low dexterity charac=
ter
would rightly decide to avoid learning that skill.=20

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; a=
ll
three successfully complete the training, and all three receive
Demolitions-1.

Consider three tasks involving explosives: Easy (the character must roll
equal to or less than Dex + Demolitions on 1D; Average (roll equal to or =
less
than Dex + Demolitions on 2D), and Difficult (roll equal to or less than =
Dex
+ Demolitions on 2.5D). Tasks are more fully explained in the chapter on
Tasks.

Easy Tasks. When Eleven tries the Easy task, he automatically succeeds (s=
ince
Dex 11 plus Demolitions-1 =3D 12, and the worst roll possible on 1D is on=
ly 6).
When Seven tries the Easy task, she automatically succeeds (since Dex 7 p=
lus
Demolitions-1 =3D 8, and the worst roll possible on 1D is only 6). Three,
however is at a disadvantage: his low Dexterity 3 plus Demolitions-1 =3D =
4
means that even on this Easy task, he has a 33% chance of failure.

Average Tasks. When Eleven tries the Average task, he automatically succe=
eds
(since Dex 11 plus Demolitions-1 =3D 12, and the worst roll possible on 2=
D is
still 12). When Seven tries the Average task, she succeeds 72% of the tim=
e
and fails 28% of the time (since Dex 7 plus Demolitions-1 =3D 8, and the
possible rolls extend up to 12). Three knows (or should know) better than=
 to
try an Average task (his low Dexterity 3 plus Demolitions-1 =3D 4 means t=
hat on
this Average task, he has an 83% chance of failure).

Difficult Tasks. When Eleven tries the Difficult task, he succeeds 91% of=
 the
time (since Dex 11 plus Demolitions-1 =3D 12 and the highest roll possibl=
e is
15). When Seven tries the Difficult task, she succeeds 43% of the time an=
d
fails 57% of the time (since Dex 7 plus Demolitions-1 =3D 8). Three knows=
 (or
should know) better than to try an Difficult task (his low Dexterity 3 pl=
us
Demolitions-1 =3D 4 means that on this Difficult task, he has an 96% chan=
ce of
failure). Spectacular Failure happens if the roll is three 1=92s. There i=
s, for
each of these characters, a 1% chance of Spectacular Failure; and a 1% ch=
ance
of Spectacular Success regardless of skill.

More Training. Three may decide that regardless of his aptitude, he wants=
 to
be a Demolitions Expert and he pursues nine years of study and practice a=
nd
eventually reaches the same level of achievement as Eleven (since Dex 3+
Demolitions-9 is the same as Dex 11 and Demolitions-9 when we consider
Demolitions as a Dexterity based activity). If Eleven made no improvement=
s in
his skill, and Three made these major improvements, than Three would
certainly be more of an expert, with more knowledge, theoretical experien=
ce,
and even practical experience; but when it came to defusing bombs, the El=
even
(with Demolitions-1) and Three (with Demolitions-9) would be about equal.
They might make a good team: Three giving instructions and advice and Ele=
ven
doing the actual nimble finger work.

Other Skills; Other Aptitudes
Two medically trained individuals are in an operating room involved in op=
en
heart surgery. Three (remember that he has Dex 3) has Medical-6; Eleven (=
Dex
11) has Medical-1. A basic task involving surgery (Average difficulty; no
other modifiers) indicates that Three has an 83% chance of success; Eleve=
n
has a 100% chance of success. The task is probably suturing up after the
operation. A different task might be Fixing the Defective Valve (Difficul=
t,
with modifiers +2 for Good Facilities; +2 for Good Support Team; +2 for G=
ood
Instruments, and +1 for Experience and Training in this specific procedur=
e):
Three has 100% chance of success and So does Eleven. More than that, each=
 has
a 1% chance of Spectacular Success, and each has a 1% chance of Spectacul=
ar
Failure. Eleven, not being a doctor, would probably never attempt the tas=
k
for fear of prosecution (unlicensed practice of medicine) or lawsuits (fo=
r
negligence). If Three dropped over from heart attack himself, then the
emergency could well dictate that Eleven step in and save the patient=92s=
 life.
If that 1% chance of Spectacular Failure doesn=92t come up, then Eleven l=
ooks
like a hero (and probably gets sent to Medical School).

The purpose of the Traveller task system and its mix of characteristics a=
nd
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.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:12:57 -0700
From: Brad Urwiller <ravyn@ptw.com>
Subject: PBEM

I'm seeking information on HOW to host a PBEM.  While I'm willing to
join a campaign to learn I was hoping the list could help.  How do you
deal with tasks and combat when there is long delays between each
mesage.  (Combat if done by per turn could take weeks!)
- --=20
 _
 \\=20
)=3DO-8>
 //
 =AF

Brad Urwiller
ravyn@ptw.com

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:41:24 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

> From: CardSharks@aol.com

On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being most important, 5 being least);

>  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.  Skills should be weighted more than stats.  A task should be about 2/3
skill and 1/3 stat.

>  2. Spectacular Success and Spectacular Failure are hard to do at easy
and
> average, and easier at harder levels.
>  3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.
>  4.  Replace SS with SF in 3.

2,3,4 are all rated at the same level.  There is an inverse relation
between SS and SF at any particular difficulty rating.  As the difficulty
increases from Easy to Impossible, the chance of SS should drop, while the
chance of SF should rise.

>  5. I don't like the half-die. Get rid of it.
5. This is the least important fix.  A 1/2die is merely an annoyance, but a
well designed task system should see to it that they are not needed. 
Traveller's roots is in the d6s.  Keep 'em.


Thanks for all the time and effort you have put into Traveller, and all the
flak you've taken from us jerks on the TML.  Thanks for the chance to do
this right.  Hope we don't blow it!

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:40:20 -0700
From: Brad Urwiller <ravyn@ptw.com>
Subject: Freedom of Choice {Long and somewhat rantish....}

To Marc and the rest of the list:
Concerning the tasklist.  While I agree that skills should play a bigger
roll in determining success, I can't say that I've found any better
solutions.  KBv2 is radically different from the existing system.  If
the T4 system is be officially changed I would hope that access to this
information would be made available to everyone who has purchased T4
with no further cost. =20

In here I think is the problem.  So far only a few select Internet
user's have expressed an interest in changing the T4 rules.  How is
Imperium Games supposed to gauge the wishes of players worldwide in this
issue?  Further more in order to make the suggested changes many people
will have to put long hard work into making the new rules, playtesting,
writing, publishing and distributing the alterations.  That's a lot of
work to go into a product that may not be will received.  Even if it is
well recieved what about users of the original T4.  Few I would think
would want to continue repurchasing the rules time and time again. =20

*****I think the following might be a solution:
If it is we the TML that wish the changes to be made then let us be the
ones to do it.  With Marc's permission I should think that the list can
develope and post on the Internet its own HOUSE RULES variant.  Gamer's
outside the internet could continue to use the established system
without any BUMPS that we might cause by changing the whole system.=20
Since it is posted on the internet and we are the ones wanting it WE can
play HOWEVER WE LIKE. =20

Let us be considerate of ALL gamers not just us.  While we would like to
make changes to our own games, Marc is not hindering anyone of us from
doing so.  We all make our own house rules all the time.  Why must we
FORCE our house rules on all gamers everywhere?  Let it be a matter of
choice....
- --=20
 _
 \\=20
)=3DO-8>
 //
 =AF

Brad Urwiller
ravyn@ptw.com

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

Date: 19 Jun 97 20:48:28 EDT
From: Jeff & Michelle Norton <103010.212@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: RE: A plea to Marc Miller

	<lurk mode off>

	I cast my hat into the circle with Ken. I've had some time at work (the
Army, you know, hurry up and wait...) to look it over. I read through his
KBBv2.0 (I think...); it seems sound, and, can be a fine base to build from. At
least to look at...

	The current system is an improvement over the 'several' versions (heck, I
like the GURPS Traveller stuff), and, another one could, maybe, should be
concidered.
	
	Hope this helps Ken and Marc. Good job, Ken BTW. (Oh, one question: You
do something becides write to this list? ;-> )

	Jeff Norton

	Life is a minefield...

	<Lurk mode on. Fade to black....>

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:48:41 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: Roll for Skills (was Re: Marc Miller--Please.)

> From: Eris Reddoch <eris@pen.net>
> >Instead of The normal:
> 
> >Enlistment: Throw 7+ to enlist in Scouts, DM +1 if Int 6+, DM +2 if Str
> >8+.
> 
> >I've used this:
> 
> >To Enlist in the Scouts:
> >	Routine, (Linguistics or Space),(INT or STR), 5min Unskilled OK
> >	Referee:  Character may choose which skill and which stat to use on
this
> >             task.
> 
> >To Survive a Year in the Administration Office:
> >	Simple, (Admin or Liason), INT, Fateful
> >	Referee: If Training, Base, or Routine assignment, automatic success.
> 
> >To gain a skill for one Year in the Exploration Branch:
> >	<Difficulty>, Admin,(INT or EDU), Unskilled OK
> >	Referee: If Training, Base or Routine assignment Difficulty = Simple
> >	if Mission, Spl Mission, or War Man, Difficulty = Routine
> 
> Oh man, oh MAN!  This is great!  This is absolutely marvalous!  Marc,
> regardless what you do about the task system JUMP ON THIS!

Well, Thank you.  My players have always liked it.

I was thinking of using this as a basis of a T4.1 Advanced CharGen system,
maybe as a new _B4:Citizens of the Imperium_, but I would like to call it
_Subjects of the Emperor_.

> Everything you have like this I would LOVE to see.  This is exactly HOW
> character generation *should* be done! I LOVE IT!

I just got then T4.1 chargen sheets from MM.  I shall be converting them to
Task-Based chargen, and posting parts of them to the TML during this
weekend. 


- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:03:33 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: Task Systems

> From: Rob Dean <robdean@access.digex.net>
> To: traveller@MPGN.COM
> Subject: Task Systems
> Date: Thursday, June 19, 1997 6:08 AM
> 
> Like Vanya, I have been satisfied with the task system from MegaTraveller
> for many years.
> 
> It certainly "feels" better to me to have skill count for more than
> stats...

Although I have tinkered with the MT system over those years.  One of the
most satisfying change is the Stat Mods:

Stat	Mod
0	-3
1-2	-2
3-5	-1
6-8	+0
9-11	+1
12-14	+2
15+	+3

This normalizes the stat mod around 7-Human normal.  It gives a bonus for
higher than average, while it penalizes for lower than averege.  Most
characters (people) fall into the -1 to +1 range  This table is on a margin
at the side of the charsheet for easy reference during play.

Also, I've changed the difficulty levels to match T4's terminology:

DifLevel		Roll 2d
- --------------	----------
Easy		3+
Average		7+
Difficult		11+
Formidable	15+
Staggering	19+
Impossible	23+

MaxDM +10

And, due to the higher levels of skills in T4, I've modified the skill
aquisition in T4.  In chargen, instead of skill levels, you recieve skill
points.  These points are then convereted to skill levels.

Level	Points
- ---------	-------
1	1
2	2
3	4
4	6
5	9
6	12
7	16

The points then become a way of increasing your skill levels during
adventuring.  A character may recieve 2-4 points a year adventuring.  When
recieved, they are assigned to *specific skills*.  It costs 1 to go from no
skill to level-0 only after chargen due to the time/difficult of obtaining
materials, instructors, time away from work, etc.
 
To go from Skill Level	To Level		Costs 
none			0		1	
0			1		1
1			2		1
2			3		2
3			4		2
4			5		3
5			6		3
6			7		4
etc

I really need to write this up in a neater format one of these days.

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:07:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Re Combat Lethality

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, SD Mooney wrote:


> I really like the T4 combat system. It is quick, easy and lethal. I've
> played CT/MT and T4, and test run TNE (before abandoning it for MT). T4 is
> the best version by far.

I think so, too.  If we had a task system everyone could agree on (me, I 
don't care; I'll come up with something that works for me, no matter 
which system is published.  I think everyone else here will, too.  The 
primary concern should, IMO, be publishing a system that *new players* 
can quickly grasp and which they will enjoy.), I think more folks would be 
finding that the combat system works well.  Turns out Les did a good job 
on it.


> No doubt my players will try the aimed fire/pinpoint fire type rules!

:)  If so, please let me know how it goes.


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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:18:44 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: MT Task System

> From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
> One of the problems with the MT task system was that if you were good
> enough, you could actually wound a guy in assault battledress with an ACR
> or Gauss rifle, if I recall correctly. This simply should not be
possible.
> The skills must weigh into the equation, but the mechanics must make
> certain that physical impossibilities are accounted for.

Hmm...
OK- lets see what is needed for a person with a Gauss Rifle to wound a guy
in BattleDress.

Weapons Statistics:	Gauss(4mm):		Pen:7/4 Dmg:4
Armour Statistics:	BattledressTL14:	18

Max roll allowed under MT Task system: 20
Max level of success: +16

Assume that the guy shooting rolls a 20, and rolls 16 over what he needs to
hit. (he needed an Easy(3+) to hit)
According to the MT Refs Screen, this would deliver an 8pt wound to the guy
in battledress.
If the shooter rolled a 18, he would inflict only 4pts.

While this may sound ridiculous, the chances of it happening are incredibly
small.  But, for a good marksman with a good rifle, it is *possible*
(although very unlikely) that he may hit the BattleDress at a vulnerable
point -  a joint, the helmet seal, etc.

However, this is an artifact of the MT combat system, not the task system. 
T4 uses a different combat system.  Grafting the MT task system onto the T4
system would not carry over that above problem.

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: 20 Jun 1997 01:25:17 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: We've Reached 50!!!!

>There are 50 people on this list who have indicated that they would 
>like to see the T4.1 task system changed to reflect more power for 
>the skills.

Just figure someone should point out that reducing attributes would also
work.

What about simply dividing attributes by a fixed number (unless you like my
suggestion for dividing by number of simultaneous tasks/distractions)? 
Dividing by 5 gives you MegaTraveller.  This would be simple to do.  (So
would another number.)  Dividing by 4 would also be easy.  Whatever you pick,
adjust the number of dice to fit with this.

Very simple, minimal change.

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

Date: 20 Jun 1997 01:18:50 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

>I was wondering what computers/operating systems people here use?  

Macintosh LC III at teh moment.  I have access to PowerMacs at work, as well
as some Windows NT boxes (which I can't install software on, though).  Also
some SGI Indy workstations running IRIX 5.3


>My second question is more Traveller-related.  What would you want
>Pocket Empires software to do?  

1) Generate the setting for a pocket empire (WBN)

2) Import existing settings, using HIWG-standard text files (ESS)

3) Create the background data for me to run the empire campaign (ESS)

4) Manage all the number-crunching when my players run a PE campaign (ESS)

5) Let me play a PE campaign solo (WBN)

Note: WBN=would be nice, ESS=essential

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:23:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Pocket Empires Technology

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, John Wood wrote:

> Kudos to everyone involved in PE!  If we pick nits, it's because PE is a
> product well worth our attention - note that everybody is talking about
> "improving" it, not "replacing" it (unlike FS).

Yup.  That's really a high compliment.  Extensions, variants, expansions 
- - all these things take time.  If someone is willing to spend his or her 
most precious resource (namely, time) on making something I wrote his or 
her own, that's a high compliment indeed.

The tone of the email containing those expansions, extensions, or 
variants makes all the difference in the world, though.  The two-edged 
sword of having instant communications with your customers. :)


> It seems to me that *for a Pocket Empires game*, there is no reason to
> divide TL unless it has some game effect.  From a "colour" POV, I'm all
> in favour of expansions like the WBH tech profile, but that particular
> set doesn't mesh well with PE rules - hence my suggestion above.

Makes sense to me; and I wrote the particular sidebar under 
consideration. :)  More or less, it was just a color thing.  We wanted to 
have a bit more information on a lot of the basic topics, and we wanted 
to make the sidebars that contained that information provide usable rules at 
the same time.  Thus, you get the little rules tacked on to the end of 
some (i.e., how to integrate supply and demand into your regular 
Traveller campaign at the end of the Supply and Demand sidebar), and 
rules integrated into others (such as the Technology one you're referring 
to; instead of explaining what technology was comprised of, then offering 
a little rule at the end, I wrote a little rule that did the explaining 
for me).

But, if I'd had the time to think about it, I like to believe I would 
have come up with something very like what you have posted.


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

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

Date: 20 Jun 1997 01:30:06 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

 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.
 =============================================================
 2. Spectacular Success and Spectacular Failure are hard to do at easy and
average, and easier at harder levels.
 =============================================================
 3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.
 =============================================================
 4.  Replace SS with SF in 3.
 =============================================================
 5. I don't like the half-die. Get rid of it.
 =============================================================

My ratings:

1. 1
2. 0
3. 3
4. It should be _easier_ to SF on a hard task! 3
5. 0

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:41:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

In a message dated 97-06-19 05:13:04 EDT, you write:

<< I understand you have strong feelings about the task system. But out of
 perhaps 300 people on this list, no one is championing the cause except you.
 Assume half don't care about tasks anyway. Assume many others don't care
 enough to comment. Are there 50 people on this list who will echo your
 concerns and, having seen my post of the task system and your post of the
 task system, WANT T41 to reflect yours?
 
 Your plea needs to have some backing.
  >>
Perhaps many are just using KB 2.0 and haven't seen a need to comment,
knowing that Kenneth has a much better ability to describe it than the rest
of us. Know realizing that you want to see some backing for this I will offer
mine.  If we are voting you can count me on Kenneth's side.

BTW Marc, I think its absolutely FANTASTIC that you are willing to take the
time for personal attention to this issue (that I know Kenneth has secretly
wanted), and many of the others as well.  

Here here!

Regards

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 20:09:36 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

On 1997-06-19 17:01 thus spake Douglas E. Berry:

>>If you *do* answer this, can we please be careful to avoid any OS wars.
>
>Macolytes are Evveeelll!!!  They must be made to embrace the Way of Bill!
>Just send your paychecks to Redmond WA!!!!

M$ Windoze sucks!!!! Bill Gates is the Antichrist!!!! Microsloth Orafice 
is the work of the devil!!!! Macs RULE!!!!!!

:)

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 20:09:41 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Skills v. Attributes

On 1997-06-19 17:00 thus spake Bruce Johnson:

>Hmmm...I've not weighed in on the task resolution debate, though I do
>think that skill is more important than attributes...no way is some with a
>high dexterity going to be equally good at surgery and fencing...it'll
>help them attain the skills, and natural ability certainly affects one's
>ability to learn and use a skill, but the skill, the learning, the muscle
>training that goes on is the thing that makes a difference.

That's why I've decided that in my campaign, all task rolls will be 
against the skill only. Attribute comes into play in the development of 
skills, or in special Attribute "tasks" such as Endurance rolls to avoid 
passing out, or strength rolls to lift things.

Here's the way it's going to work for me (using FUDGE nomenclature, since 
that's what I've decided upon)

Characters begin by rolling their attributes. Then they enter careers as 
per normal Traveller generation. When the player has a chance to choose a 
skill table, they get 4 Experience Points towards their rolled skill or 
attribute. Skills and Attributes can only be raised one level at a time, 
excess EP are set aside for use during the game as "FUDGE" points

Default skills start at a level of "Poor". Non-default skills are 
nonexistant and must be raised to the minimum "Terrible" level.

                  "rolls" req'd to reach level
To Raise    Cost   (assuming no "surcharge")*      Cost if 
Skill to     is     Default Skills  Other       Attribute=Fair  
- --------    -----    --------------  -----      --------------
Terrible     1 EP          0           1            1 EP
Poor         1 EP          0           2            1 EP
Mediocre     1 EP          1           3            1 EP
Fair         1 EP          2           4            1 EP
Good         2 EP          3           5            4 EP
Excellent    4 EP          4           6            6 EP
Superb       8 EP          6           8           10 EP
Legendary   16 EP         10          12           18 EP

*This would be the Traveller Level equivalent, assuming maximum 
controlling attribute. eg Pilot-6 would be Excellent Pilot skill.

Attributes require 3x the EP of Skills

If the desired skill level is greater than the skill's controlling 
attribute, there is a "surcharge" of 2 EP

So, if my Dexterity is Fair, and I wish to raise my Gun Combat skill from 
Good to Excellent, I need to pay 6 EP (4 + 2 low attr. surcharge)

I'm going to modify my FUDGE docs this weekend to reflect my decision to 
make all Task Rolls skill based. (Like vanilla FUDGE)

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 20:09:26 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

On 1997-06-19 10:03 thus spake John Wood:

>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.

I own a Mac. I use a PC at work. Just installed Win95 there. Was a little 
rough going when my mouse ceased working after installation. But I'm not 
spineless or dumb, I mucked with the hardware configs through keyboard 
control and got it working...

I'm happy to finally trash the Windows 3.11 though, I will admit Win95 to 
be superior to that dog. (It better be superior, since it swiped the 
remaining things to swipe from the MacOS UI ;)

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

I'm always careful to avoid insulting honest, hard-working, intelligent 
users of other operating systems. Its the weenie horde that knows 
absolutely zip about Mac, swallows all the tripe fed to us by the mass 
media, and runs through Usenet screaming "MACS SUCK! Macs are toys! 
Apple's dead!" that gets me rankled.

>My second question is more Traveller-related.  What would you want
>Pocket Empires software to do?  This is a deliberately vague question to
>avoid biasing the response.

If I understand the question and the context in which you've placed it, 
you're asking "How much of Pocket Empires would you like to see simulated 
in software?"

At a bare minimum, world resource data and development, how many Resource 
Units and so forth, that are produced by the empire needs to be tracked. 
I think I could whip up a program to track world development, RU 
allocation, and so forth, given a couple free saturday afternoons.

My utopian answer is "Everything". I'd like to see the whole book 
transformed into a "server" program, which players all over the world can 
each control a world, build families, form alliances, send their commands 
and build empires!

It would be not unlike those old text-based BBS games, except with more 
detail and a Traveller feel. Or similar to those Empire building games 
such as Nobunaga's Ambition. Ahhh... I still remember TW2002, Operation 
Overkill, Stellar Empires... that was cool.

<crusty codger mode ON>

In my day, we didn't need NO fancy-shmancy blood and gore graphics, 
mul-TIE-media exploshuns,  ISDN connection to internet with Kali or all 
that Doom, Warcraft, and Command and Conquer bullcrap to WHUP some ASS!

We played Trade Wars 2002 over 1200 baud modems. AND WE LIKED IT!

<crusty codger mode OFF>

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1446
***********************************
