Traveller-digest       Sunday, June 22 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1461



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

A Simple Task System Suggestion
Re: Minimum TL for...
Task System: Compromise Solution
An Easy Task System
Minimum TL for...
Re: Task System 4.1...
Re: T4 Task Rationale
MT Task system problems
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Re: Young Turks vs Old Fossils
Re: Task System: Four Simple Proposals
Task System: Compromise Solution
Re: anomalies stuff
Re: Yet more task stuff
Re:T4 Task rationale (LONG)
Deckplans
Re: T4.1 tasks

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 11:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: A Simple Task System Suggestion

One of the main objections to task systems where stats are divided by some
number is the difficulty and trouble of doing so during combat as the PC
is injured.  Given that the stat could have up to 3 or 4 values during the
combat if the PC is hit several times this may be a valid argument. 

How about this rule: The contribution of statistics to tasks is not
refigured until after the combat where the statistic was lowered is over.
(ie if Maya has a Dex of 8, and takes 4 points to her Dex, reducing it to
4, she is still rolling vs. a Dex of 8 until the combat is over.  Once
that combat is over, she is using her current Dex of 4 until she has had a
chance to heal. 

Reasons: 

1) Ease of play, no math is needed until the players have a chance to
relax and refigure things, after combat is over. 

2) Realism:  Your first thought may be "Sure this system is easy, but it's
totally unrealistic."  I disagree, given what I've heard about the affects
of adrenaline during combat this rule seems *very* realistic.  There are
many stories of folks in combat running on broken legs, and even fighting
(for a short time) while riddled with bullets.  However, once the combat
is over they realize how badly they are hurt and suddenly feel the pain
and injury their bodies have been blocking. 

So, how about making divided stat task systems much easier to use.

Comments, Marc?


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:29:39 +0100 (BST)
From: "mark.wilkin" <aa4mwi@zen.sunderland.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Minimum TL for...

> 
> 
>     Question for the engineers on the list.  What's the absolute minimum level
> of technology required to get airships able to carry a crew and some cargo into
> the air?  I'm thinking of putting together an adventure on a world where below
> a certain altitude the oxygen toxicity kills you.  This would restrict the
> population to the mountain tops and I want to make the tech level as low as
> possible.
>     So what's required to get an airship off the ground and keep it moving
> through the air?  Thoughts, comments, suggestions and References all welcome!
If I remember from FFS version 1.1 some of these developments also depend 
on the gravity and air pressure that the aircraft/airships will be 
working in, lower air pressure than earth means larger props ergo larger 
engines, however lower gravity means its easier to get up into the air.

mark wilkin

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 97 13:47:17 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Task System: Compromise Solution

Ken and Marc,

Don't shoot me for a traitor, because I'm trying for a compromise position
on TML, but please don't ignore me either.

Ken, as you know, I thought the tripling of skills by KB2 was too much, and
I didn't like going halfway on the Skill Levels vs Skill Points.  I was for
ditching Levels entirely and just giving 2 or 3 experience points for each
gain, if we were going that route, remember?  ;->

Marc, as you know, I don't like the 1/2 die..never have, but I got used to
them in T4.  However, with only a *single* 1/2 in T41 the system just
*grates*, it's inelegant and it's not as simple as it *could* be.  Yes, I
know the jump from Average/Routine to Difficult is big, but that's as it
should be...and actually encourages the player to look for aids to provide
DM's as tasks get harder faster.

Well, I *think* my proposal will combine the realism of KB2 and the
simplicity of T41, and with a few changes to character generation give us a
set of Target Numbers and a Task System we'll like.

Flat Stat+Skill *does* weight the skill more heavily than I thought it did
due to the nature of the bell curves.  So, for simplicity I'd like to find
a way to make it flat Stat+Skill work.  It *will* work, as long as the Stat
forming the flat base isn't too high, and too high looks like 13+ to me and
it's worse with lower numbers of dice (at 13, the Stat contributes 83% on
3d and 44% on 4d..we aren't going to do much about the 3d, but for 4d and
above I'd like to keep the base below 1/3). The best way to do this is to
keep Stat levels from commonly inflating into double digits.  Put a cap of
12 on them, and make it much harder to increase a high Stat than a low
Stat.  Let the player and GM negotiate the "purchase" or "award" of
temporary or artificially created Stat DM's to raise them (even above 12)
in game play, but don't hand out 11's and 12's like candy to
everybody...and T4/T41 does that.  Marc, your experience might not indicate
that, but mine does.

I also want to get rid of the 1/2 die..this ones for ME.  ;-> The half die
doesn't seem to ring other people's bells like it does mine, but the
majority of people have said they'd *like* to see it gone.  The game is
simpler without it, more elegant, and the numbers actually work better,
IMO.  Using whole dice gives us one more die..6 rather than 5..that's not
so bad, and it also makes Impossible/Hopeless tasks *virtually*
impossible..that's not so bad either.  However, Hopeless tasks might be a
little *too* impossible so let's increase the Skill Levels..at little, but
not too much.

We could use some technique to double the skills (not triple..that's too
much for Staggering and *really* Hopeless tasks) or increase the number of
skills players get during CharGen. For simplicity, I'm for increasing the
number of skills.  If we don't increase the Target Number's to *quite* the
number as might seem right, it also encourages the addition of DM's for
Tools, Teams, and so on...and Marc it seems you *like* that.

This means changing CharGen in two ways:  putting the Cap on Stats (I
suggest rolling above your current Stat on a 2d6 to improve..and if the
player wastes a skill roll trying, then tough...life's tough.  Instead of
giving automatic EDU bonuses for completing advanced schooling give some
additional skill rolls or maybe automatic increases in skills like
Research, Perception, or Instruction.), and increasing the number of Skills
(I suggest increasing the number of "childhood/background" skills by 3 or 4
and giving 6 skills/term rather than 4.  The 6 could be 4 career oriented
and 2 free choice.)

These changes are minimal, easy to implement, don't violate the feel of
Traveller, and give Target Numbers I think can live with.

Comments?


Eris,
    I didn't *once* bring up Aptitude...aren't you surprised? ;-> -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: An Easy Task System

OK, here's my entry into the fray.  It has the advantage of being *very*
simple and requires a minimum of die rolling. 

All rolls are on 2D6, with the goal being to roll high.  Statistic
modifiers to the tasks are given below. 

Note: For simplicity I'm using the old MT task divisions which eliminate
Staggering tasks

Skill	Tasks Performed Automatically	Rolls for other Tasks

0	None				Easy 9+, Average 13+
1	Easy Tasks			Average 9+, Difficult 13+
2	Easy & Average Tasks 		Difficult 9+, Formidable 13+
3	Easy & Average Tasks		Difficult 9+, Formidable 13+
4	Easy, Avg., & Difficult Tasks	Formidable 9+, Impossible 13+
5	Easy, Avg., & Difficult Tasks   Formidable 9+, Impossible 13+
6	E, A, Diff & Formidable Tasks	Impossible 9+

This system is not designed to work with Task levels above 7, but it's
easy to make 6 or 7 the maximum possible skill level (Six makes the most
sense in Traveller).  You simply state "all Skill levels go from 1
(novice) to 6 (world class expert)

You subtract Stat/3 from the difficulty of all tasks and then roll.

Stat	Modifier
0-2	0
3-5	-1
6-8	-2
9-11	-3
12-14	-4
15+	-5

For example, if a PC with a skill level of 2 and a stat of 10 is
attempting a Difficult Task you look at the two tables and add -3 (the
stat modifier) to 9 (the task difficulty).  The PC must roll 6+ (9-3) to
succeed at a Difficult task.  The same PC, using the same skill, would 
need to roll a 10+ (13-3) to succeed at a Formidable Task. 

Modifications:  With minor modifications this system could include 
Staggering tasks too.  Also, the numbers could be modified so that
you could use Stat/4 or Stat/5 instead of Stat/3

For example, if you want to use Stat/5 you simply lower the Task 
difficulties from 9+ & 13+ to 8+ & 12+ then you subtract Stat/3

Stat	Modifier
0-4	0
5-9	-1
10-14	-2
15+	-3

Note that this system does have one obvious consequence, any character 
needs a minimum skill level to attempt certain tasks.  If you only have a 
skill level of 1 you can't even attempt Formidable or harder tasks.  This 
does not seem at all unreasonable to me.  A rank novice simply can't 
climb Mount Everest or perform open heart surgery with any chance of success.

However, some will see this as unfair.  To help reduce this unfairness I
suggest we use the old MT rule that Marc Miller mentioned that he might
include in T4.1:  Every task takes X amount of time.  If the PC is
especially careful and spends twice this amount of time slowly and
methodically going through the task, then the difficulty of the task is
lowered by one level (ie a Formidable Task becomes a Difficult Task). 

Using this rule only Impossible (and Stagering if they are used) are
entirely beyond characters with a Skill level of 1, and this does not seem
at all unreasonable to me. 

Also, as I posted earlier, in this system stats are not refigure until
after the combat where they were lowered. 

Everyone has been talking about how most of the task systems being
proposed are too complex.  Well, this one is *very* simple, one sheet of
paper explains it all, the only number to remember are 9, 13, and the
modifiers for stats.  Does this satisfy most folks? 

Comments?

Marc?


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Minimum TL for...

I remember an old Poul Andersen story (I think it was a Dominic Flandry
story) where the native of a planet had dirigibles which used hot air and
where the propulsion was pedal power using a bicycle-like arrangement to
allow many pedalers to power the air screws.  I'd give this one a TL of 2. 
That type of craft would sure surprise most PCs...


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:07:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Task System 4.1...

 
> I agree a Dex 7 Med-4 Doctor should beat a Dex-11 Med-1 EMT. But at what?
> Suturing?... must doctors use the Med-1's or so to do that anyway. Open Heart
> Surgery?... aside from the legal ramifications, what difference is there
> between using the Dex-11 guy for the very steady work (which is why doctors
> tried out a robot something or other a few years ago... to get that Dex-11
> they didn't personally have).(or why there is a team in the operating room).

That's why I go for a system where the skill determines the
diff_level of the task (suturing a lac is Easy for a Med-2, but my
med-0 would make it a harder diff_level, not just leas likely on an
easy task).  The trick is assigning task levels, not the task
system, per se.

Also, using that as a suggestion (I posted it before) target numbers
tend to be low for tasks like surgery---a good reason to have a team
of surgeons!  Surgeon (Int/Dex 9 Med-5) tries a Difficult Surgery
(meaning the diff_level is Difficult for a *surgeon* (med-5+).  The
base level task is Difficult, but the surgeon doesn exceed the min,
so it stays Difficult. His TN is 9 on the 3d6 roll.  Use the team
rules to increase the TN (that number is if he does it *alone*).

> What if the Characteristic for the task is Int? Then you have the classic
> conflict that we see in ER every week... Int-7 Med-4 Doctor argues with
> Int-11 Med-1 EMT. The doctor knows he's right because he's a doctor... the
> EMT just knows the answer. Make than an opposed task and they can argue about
> which treatment to give the patient.

Yeah, but those are ER docs, not surgeons (3 year residency vs. 5-8
years residency) ;-)  Besides, either the EMT or the ER doc can
probably remember the pager number for the service that will
actually do more than triage the patient :-)

- -Merrick

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:27:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

 
> IMHO, the measurable difference between two individuals with
> drastically different aptitudes (such as Three and Eleven) is no where
> near the difference between, say, a veteran surgeon and someone that
> just completed a rudimentary industrial first-aid course.
 
Very true, indeed.  That's why, IMHO, skills determine Difficulty
Level, not Target Number (er, or should :-)  Then within a given
skill level they guy with the better attribute will do better (the
Int 14 Med-3 beats a Int 7 Med-3).  That said, it still is possible
for the Med-1 Int 14 guy to beat better trained people from time to
time.

I think for many tasks in traveller timing is also an issue.  Give a
med-1 person 3 or 4 years, and they'll be able to do a surgery, too
(even if they'd never seen it before the task started---or course
those years working towards the task would end up giving them a
med-4 or 5 skill :-)

Seriously, though, it might take a skill-1 person an hour to do
something (sucessfully) that a skill-4 person would do in a few
minutes.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 97 21:56:23 +0100
From: David Scott <Snail@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: MT Task system problems

As I only joined this list recently, I missed out on all of the stuff as 
to why the MT task system had problems, mentioned on this list recently. 
Could someone kindly summarise then in one paragraph what the problems 
are.

This is not intended to errupt into a "the problem with MT was" session, 
it's only to fill me in (and perhaps some others) as to the problems.

It's getting a bit muddy with all this T4 vs KB2 vs etc. Also if TNE task 
system was cited as having problems could someone do a paragraph on that.

I'd rather have the lesser of all evils...

David

mailto:Snail@dircon.co.uk
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~snail/

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:03:26 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

At 08:50 PM 6/21/97 -0400, Ethan wrote:

>If I had to pick a house rule, I'd say that no skill can 
>ever be higher than half or two-thirds (or something) of
>the skill's controlling stat. ie. Someone with Edu-6 could
>get a maximum of Law-3. I mean, you could be less educated 
>than average and still be a professional lawyer. To be
>a real crack lawyer, you'd need a higher EDU. So, someone
>who had been to college, Edu-A or B, could, if they
>studied law a lot, have Law-5.

I like this!  It makes stats important without being overwhelming, and
helps focus characters.  If I might add an idea, to raise a skill above the
Char/2 limit costs two skill choices.  The above EDU-6 lawyer could still
rise to Law-6, but it would cost him *9* skill choices in the end.  This
would define the driven men, who overcome their own limitations to acheive
greatness.

- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry         dberry@hooked.net   |
| Gearhead & Planetologist, Traveller since 1977 |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|    "Traveller assumes a remote centralized     |
|   government (referred to in this volume as    |
|    the Imperium)...                            |
|       -Introduction, Book 4: Mercenary (1978)  |
+------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 17:12:46 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

>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.

Win95/Dos


Paul Darius Owensby
pauld@athens.net
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:41:26 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Young Turks vs Old Fossils

Sun, 22 Jun 97 00:20:58 -0500
>It isn't that the "new people" are more talented or better trained, it's
>just that they are more *recently* trained and MUCH hungrier.  The "old
>boys" have already made their waves, secured their positions and don't want
>these kids rocking their boats.  The "Turks" just *know* how much better
>they are, and they are only too willing to show it, and they have to or
>they won't ever get one of this comfortable positions.  They better be
>careful though, because if they push the "fossils" hard enough they might
>rouse from their comfortable slumber and kick the "whippersnapper's" butts.
>;->

Except it isn't unusual for them if they were never that talented
in the first place, to rouse themselves and still loose out.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:37:38 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Task System: Four Simple Proposals

Sat, 21 Jun 97 23:05:17 -0500, eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
>Proposal 1:  No Characterictic can be advanced beyond 12.  Additionally, to
>advance a Characteristic requires successfully completing a roll on 2d6
>equal or higher than your current level

Reasonable if you want to retain a variable dice system.

>Proposal 2:  Change the Task Difficulty Levels to the following...

Ditto.
>
>Proposal 3: Base the Target Number on Char+Skill+DM's.

I would not combine DM's and variable dice.  I would either
go with one system or the other.

>Proposal 4:  Change Character Generation to increase the number of skills
>earned each term.

Make sure one doesn't over do this.  Maybe 1 _or_ 4.  Maybe, instead
of not being sure of getting stat increase, you need to save up
2 or 3 chances at the table to roll for a stat once....

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 97 17:31:43 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Task System: Compromise Solution

Ken and Marc,

Don't shoot me for a traitor, because I'm trying for a compromise position
on TML, but please don't ignore me either.

Ken, as you know, I thought the tripling of skills by KB2 was too much, and
I didn't like going halfway on the Skill Levels vs Skill Points.  I was for
ditching Levels entirely and just giving 2 or 3 experience points for each
gain, if we were going that route, remember?  ;->

Marc, as you know, I don't like the 1/2 die..never have, but I got used to
them in T4.  However, with only a *single* 1/2 in T41 the system just
*grates*, it's inelegant and it's not as simple as it *could* be.  Yes, I
know the jump from Average/Routine to Difficult is big, but that's as it
should be...and actually encourages the player to look for aids to provide
DM's as tasks get harder faster.

Well, I *think* my proposal will combine the realism of KB2 and the
simplicity of T41, and with a few changes to character generation give us a
set of Target Numbers and a Task System we'll like.

Flat Stat+Skill *does* weight the skill more heavily than I thought it did
due to the nature of the bell curves.  So, for simplicity I'd like to find
a way to make it flat Stat+Skill work.  It *will* work, as long as the Stat
forming the flat base isn't too high, and too high looks like 13+ to me and
it's worse with lower numbers of dice (at 13, the Stat contributes 83% on
3d and 44% on 4d..we aren't going to do much about the 3d, but for 4d and
above I'd like to keep the base below 1/3). The best way to do this is to
keep Stat levels from commonly inflating into double digits.  Put a cap of
12 on them, and make it much harder to increase a high Stat than a low
Stat.  Let the player and GM negotiate the "purchase" or "award" of
temporary or artificially created Stat DM's to raise them (even above 12)
in game play, but don't hand out 11's and 12's like candy to
everybody...and T4/T41 does that.  Marc, your experience might not indicate
that, but mine does.

I also want to get rid of the 1/2 die..this ones for ME.  ;-> The half die
doesn't seem to ring other people's bells like it does mine, but the
majority of people have said they'd *like* to see it gone.  The game is
simpler without it, more elegant, and the numbers actually work better,
IMO.  Using whole dice gives us one more die..6 rather than 5..that's not
so bad, and it also makes Impossible/Hopeless tasks *virtually*
impossible..that's not so bad either.  However, Hopeless tasks might be a
little *too* impossible so let's increase the Skill Levels..at little, but
not too much.

We could use some technique to double the skills (not triple..that's too
much for Staggering and *really* Hopeless tasks) or increase the number of
skills players get during CharGen. For simplicity, I'm for increasing the
number of skills.  If we don't increase the Target Number's to *quite* the
number as might seem right, it also encourages the addition of DM's for
Tools, Teams, and so on...and Marc it seems you *like* that.

This means changing CharGen in two ways:  putting the Cap on Stats (I
suggest rolling above your current Stat on a 2d6 to improve..and if the
player wastes a skill roll trying, then tough...life's tough.  Instead of
giving automatic EDU bonuses for completing advanced schooling give some
additional skill rolls or maybe automatic increases in skills like
Research, Perception, or Instruction.), and increasing the number of Skills
(I suggest increasing the number of "childhood/background" skills by 3 or 4
and giving 6 skills/term rather than 4.  The 6 could be 4 career oriented
and 2 free choice.)

These changes are minimal, easy to implement, don't violate the feel of
Traveller, and give Target Numbers I think can live with.

Comments?


Eris,
    I didn't *once* bring up Aptitude...aren't you surprised? ;-> -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:31:36 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: anomalies stuff

Bruce wrote:

>
>Because, #$@%^!$@ IT, finding a few TL-14 relics does _not_ mean that you
>can take them and press on to TL-14 right away. Finding a TL-14 Vaccsuit
>isn't going to help you make TL-14 computers, or Jump 4, or a lighter
>Gauss rifle, or a PGMP, after all.


Hmm. Much the same as trying to reverse engineer a TL8 1990's
microprocessor back with that TL5 1940's technology....you'd probably break
it as you did it.

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"You may not recall the moment you asked me, but your
invitation was clear. You'll pretend you never met me,
but it's far too late now I'm here." Hogarth/Helmer

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:36:47 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Yet more task stuff

Bruce wrote:

>I also think, to a great extent, we're underestimating these hypothetical
>14-year olds who are buying these hypothetical RPG's...they're not, as a
>rule stupid or unable to grasp complex rules...if they were, they wouldn't
>be buying RPG's in the first place...

Agree. At 14 I'd been gaming 3 years and was into quite a few games more
complicated than T4. We can't make the mistake of patronising younger
players about their ability. In some ways, the mechanics mattered *more*
then, as the roleplaying element hadn't gripped me or my players that much..


- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"You may not recall the moment you asked me, but your
invitation was clear. You'll pretend you never met me,
but it's far too late now I'm here." Hogarth/Helmer

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 00:29:22 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re:T4 Task rationale (LONG)

David,

The following outlines why I think that T4's system is broken for me - I
believe that we are playing different styles of game, which outlines our
fundamental differences in opinion. I don't think we'll ever agree due to
these different styles - feel free to ignore this if you want!

Dom
__________
David P. Summers wrote:
>>
>>>And a lot of people would say that someone who is that stupid, clutzy
>>>will never even go into the field and if they do, they will never
>>>amount to anything.
>
>>IIRC attributes influence the entry into certain careers. If you don't have
>>the skill for the job, you get unemployed. Natural aptitude does help, but
>>raw talent will not overcome training and skill in most cases.
>
>Well, I guess I simply don't agree.  I'm a scientist and I've seen
>new people with talent upstage people who have been in the field
>for years.

I still disagree - I'm an engineer, and I've seen new people with talent
come up with a brilliant idea or solution, but the actual implementation of
the solution has required the advice or guidance of someone older/more
experienced. Experience wins in the long game. I agree that in pure science
the upstaging is more likely to happen.

>>Effectively, the spread in the target number due to attribute means that a
>>skill-3, stat 10 character is twice as good as a skill 3 stat 7, because
>>their attribute difference accounts for a 100% of the skill value.
>
>I'm not sure you you come to a target number of 13 being "twice"
>as good as a 10.

Let me explain - I said that the 3 extra points of attribute on the stat 10
character accounts for a 100% of the skill value (3 in the example). In
other words, the Stat 7 character would need a skill of 6 to match the Stat
10 character. That means that the 3 points of attribute = skill level 3 =
skill/experience of a MD/professional. IMO the difference that the
attribute causes is *much* too great. (I agree that I may have said this a
little unclearly, and the 'twice' may have caused problems in
understanding.)

>In any case, Dex 7 is such a clutz I wouldn't
>be suprised if he didn't mess up most of the time.

Dex 7 is *average* on 2D6. Yes, you can augment it with character
generation. But I've yet to see players doing that heavily. Skills always
seem to be what the players want out of generation, in my games anyway. If
Dex 7 is a clutz in your game you're playing space opera IMO. I'm not.
Maybe that's where we *really* differ.


>>Skills cease to be absolutes
>>and the GM has to generate high stat NPCs to oppose the players. The whole
>>generation process looses it's attraction.
>
>I don't see how.  If you make skills high the GM needs to generate
>high skill NPC's.  The opposition always has to be consistent
>with how the PC's are made up.

I disagree. Looking back at CT/MT a high skill was 3 or 4. The attributes
were in the same range. The range of effect of the attributes was less. To
give effective opposition in T4 the referee has to intervence in the NPC's
generation more often. High attributes and low skills in T4 give high
overall ability in many skills. Lower attribute influence and the same
skills give you professionals in a few skills. You play Skywalker, I'll
play Deckard. Difference in emphasis again.

>>In addition, the attraction is to power game the stats and fiddle the
>>rolls.
>
>I don't see this at all.  If you make skills more important, then
>powergamers will just go that way.  And I have yet to see anything
>about how the current task system makes players fiddle the rolls.

Making skills more important by making attributes less important, and
keeping the current generation system (bugfixed, naturally) means that
power gamers can only really be good in 1 or 2 areas. In T4 high stats make
you a superhero and IMO encourage power gaming.

>Well, the problem is that stats are randomly generated.  I prefer
>pointed based system for this reason.  I just don't see randomly
>generating a number and then having to demphasis it because it
>is random as the best way to go.  But then some people prefer
>a measure of radomness in character creation and it is Traveller's
>historic approach.

Hmm. I'm not so much de-emphasising attributes as looking for a return to
equilibrium/perhaps a slight skill bias. Fundamentally, I don't think that
the range of the attribute generates playable target numbers in the T4 task
system. Increasing skill generation to supply 2 or 3 times higher amounts
would solve the problem, but I like the link with CT/MT levels.

I don't think we are going to agree on this one - if you are arguing for T4
as it stands you are arguing for larger than life Star Wars/Space Opera
style characters who are good at everything. I am arguing for more of a
'slightly heroic professionals in space', as seen in at least 2 of the last
three Traveller editions, and films like Blade Runner. I like space opera,
but why have Traveller's hard science ethos when you throw all away with
super human characters *because of the way the task system works*.

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"You may not recall the moment you asked me, but your
invitation was clear. You'll pretend you never met me,
but it's far too late now I'm here." Hogarth/Helmer

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 02:37:13 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Deckplans

Hi,

	Just picked up Anomalies from my local store in Finchley, London.

	Noticed a minor inconsistency straight away; on the back it says there are
nine adventures when I found ten inside.

	But again I find myself with another Traveller book missing a starship
deckplan. There was a deckplan missing from Milieu 0, and now it's happened
again. In Anomolies, the players' ship is the Raptor, and a quick glance
doesn't even give me the ship type so I can look it up in Starships, unless
I missed it then sorry. In the end I have to ask why do I find myself
buying incomplete products? 

	So, do my players get to walk round these ships or what?

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 02:37:12 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Re: T4.1 tasks

At 00:32 21/06/97 -0400, CardSharks@aol.com wrote:
>Try running a Marine with Dex less than 6 and you have a clumsy Marine.
>
	What if some skills had restrictions, like, you can't wield a rifle if
your DEX is less than 5, or you can't attempt any skill that uses a
characteristic that you have less than six on.

	E.g. Geri has Int of 4, so he can't attempt things like Disguise, Gunnery,
Investigation and Sensors as they all rely on intelligence. Geri just isn't
smart enough to pursue these things.

	Then take Al, he can't attempt Survey, Comms, History and Law as he isn't
educated enough - they all require EDUcation.

	Different skills could have different levels, say, Law could have a
minimum of 7 EDU, Comms could have a minimum of 5 EDU.

	So, this would prevent low characteristic characters with high skill
levels outdoing high characteristic-low skill level characters. Only
characters with mid-range characteristics and high skill levels would be
able to compete with high characteristic-low skill level characters.

	This rule would stop weedy (STR), clumsy (DEX), unfit (END), stupid (INT),
ignorant (EDU), common (SOC) people from achieving too much, if you're that
way inclined of course...

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

	From Barkingside, within the London home county of Essex, E N G L A N D

Spurs Ticket Info can be found at - http://web.ftech.net/~legend/fixtures.htm

	Tottenham Hotspur - "Everybody will be singing..."
	Paxton Road Stand - Block R, Row 14, Seat 58

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1461
***********************************
