Traveller-digest       Friday, June 20 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1448



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)
Re: Anomalies stuff
Anwser
RE: A plea to Marc Miller
Re: We've Reached 50!!!!
Traveller USR Pilot owners
Re: T4 Task Rationale
MT or KBv2.0????
Task System Revision
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
RE:A plea to Marc Miller
Re: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Two Delta
Re: Please please please!
Re: Marc Miller--Please.
Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist
Re: Spanish version of CT
Re: Task System Revision
Lurkers (Was: RE: A plea to Marc Miller)
Re: MT or KBv2.0????
Re: T4 Task Rationale

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:59:33 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)

My friends on TML.  I am sorry that I was not here before to "weigh-in"
on the issue of the RoM tech level.  Here are some comments I have from
the perspective of researching "just what exactly is in print" on the
subject at hand.

These came from the Anomalies thread, but I wanted to post under the topic
of "Rule of Man TL" to catch any specific comments from you all about this
very specific subject, in which I have a great deal of interest. _Anomalies_
is not the only place in the record of T4 where this arises, and I don't
think it will be the last.


Leroy
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Science Adventure
                                                        in the Far Future

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:44:21 +1200
Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz> writes:
>Subject: Re: Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and TL14 gear
>
>[snips throughout]
>
>This adventure is a major revision of history. I can live with a
>TL 13 RoM, hey I even like the idea; but I just can't live with a TL 14
>one. It just violates too much previous history. For 'Lock and Loot' to
>work, a major portion of the RoM would have had to achieved a
>consistant TL 14. This just doesn't fit with previously published
>material.

I'm sorry, but "previously published material" has _numerous_ references
to rather _extreme_ tech for the Rule of Man.  Now mind you, I am not
advocating a uniformly high tech, but I could accept a rather high one
on the Rimward end (mainly limited to the area of the old TC), and
occasional disemenation into the coreward areas.  Tech 14 anywhere
coreward of the line between the "thumb" of the Great Rift and the Delphi
Rift, in the form of relics/artifacts/what-have-you, does not strike me
as unreasonable.

References are scattered throughout CT and MT (of which I have everything
major that was ever printed) and having them in T4 _is_ consistent, and
IMO shows just how well these guys are doing their homework.

>An impassoned plea to IG and all T4 game designers:
>Please please please don't do this. It just doesn't work. If the Terran
>Confederation was TL 12 when they took over the Ziru Sirka they
>could have reached TL 13, but they just couldn't have reached TL 14.

Actually, this rationale is purely based upon the comparatively scant
references to TC/RoM tech that we have, and is mostly an extrapolation
upon jump number available to the TC Navy.  That is not necessarily
the case for a full spread (breakdown ala MT) of the Tech in several
categories.

>They would not have been able to spare the resources. They were
>trying to hold together a collasping Empire with a massive and
>overwhelming technological inertia. I don't think anyone who plays
>Traveller wants to see the RoM turned into some great treasure hunt.

I don't see this as a treasure hunt.  If anyone researches the published
record, the precedent (avoiding the 'c' word :) is one clear case of the
table that Carlos refers to (below).  Versus numerous (and I do not
exaggerate, here numerous being an order of magnitude higher :) references
that confirm very clearly that the RoM tech was as high as the TI in
M1100, and even higher.

>  Andrew etc.
>    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz
>

And then,

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:12:04 +0200
Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es> writes:
>Subject: Re: Anomolies stuff...
>
>[no snips, just insertions I think :-) ]
>
>        This has been a major thread in this list some time ago. Check MT
>Referee's Companion, right after the TL table. It states the dates in which
>each empire reached the TLs. Maximum stated TL for the RoM is 12. I

Thank you.  We've been researching this issue particularly knowing that it
is a thorn in the side of a lot of people.  Unfortunately, I think this is
a case of cognitive dissonance on the part of those who don't want to think
of the RoM tech as high, even by TI standards.

>**could** agree with your version, but, in the recent IG material, it seems
>that EVERY RoM facility that is discovered is at TL 14-15, and that's a
>problem. Some, very scarce, high tech facilities, OK. Every single one, no
>way.

Not really.  See my comments to Andrew Vallance's words above.

>        Anyway, I just wanted to point out that there were some recurring
>things that can reasonably be considered as errors, being poublished by IG.
>The TL14/15 for the RoM is definitely one of those.

I have to disagree.  Furthermore, the contention that RoM was NOT of the
TL that has been purported here has far more dire consequences for the
published record of CT, MT, and T4.  TNE doesn't care because everything
(well almost) is relic tech. :-)

>        Best,
>
>        Carlos
>Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
>

Something I said above, bears repeating.  These guys _are_ doing their
homework (though you may have them on the Grandfather's offspring and their
offspring, I still have to read that).  I don't think we should be pounding
on them for that.  Let them work on fixing other things that there are to
complain about, and not spend an excessive amount of time fixing things
that have been established across several eras.

Leroy Guatney
lwlg@usa.net
lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:19:01 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Re: Anomalies stuff

Steve,

  Having followed some of this Anomalies thread and not having had a
chance to give it a thorough look-over, it strikes me that your Droyne
grandchild/child of Grandfather could have cloned himself, so well,
that it would have been impossible for GF to have known the difference.

  An interesting twist to this idea is:  which one is in the pocket? :-)


Leroy
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Science Adventure
                                                        in the Far Future

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 09:16:23 -0800
From: Evyn MacDude <wmacdude@concentric.net>
Subject: Anwser

Marc, here is mine,

>  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.
>  =============================================================

ONE

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

Two

>  =============================================================
>  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.
>  =============================================================
 
Zero

Evyn

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 06:07:03 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: RE: A plea to Marc Miller

> 	Hope this helps Ken and Marc. Good job, Ken BTW. (Oh, one question: You
> do something becides write to this list? ;-> )
>
I have a home based business.  The temptation is too great to check 
the TML two or three times a day.

Thanks for the words,

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 06:07:10 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
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.

Not as well.  Attributes should be left alone to reduce math--because 
attributes decrease when  character is wounded.

The only thing we should do with an attribute is add it to something 
else.

Let's keep it simple.

Kenneth.

>

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:53:04 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: Traveller USR Pilot owners

>Now, how many of you TML:izens are proud owners of a USR Pilot or the
>PalmPilot 5000? If there are enough I MIGHT make my apps compatible with
>KBv2.0 and other rules I deem worthy despite that I don't use them myself.

I got one of them. I love this little toy, it would be great if you could
make some Traveller software for it! It would be so handy for situations
like generating characters or playing in places like a coffee shop.

Software I would like to see is a 'quickie' character generator for NPCs, a
character name and foreign word generator, starship and personal combat
assistants. The assistant software would do things like track ranges,
damage, initiative, and pool totals for all combatants, and provide a
checklist of DMs and steps.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 06:59:47 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

> Firstly, I great big thank you for allowing us to participate in the 
> creative process, and welcoming debate. No matter what decision you make 
> with respect to the task system, I'm glad you're willing to discuss the 
> reasons behind the decisions -- even if in the end I disagree with them, 
> at least I will be aware of the rationale and adjust things in the game I 
> run accordingly.

Hear, hear, Glenn.  I second your comments to Marc.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 06:54:17 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: MT or KBv2.0????

While I really liked the MT task system, I do not think it was as 
good as the T4 task system.

I think that T4 was a great idea that has had a bad implementation.  
I'll show you why MT's system may not be the best choice for change 
(everybody knows that game mechanics are my thing), but I'll post on 
that later.

Right now, I was just curious about where everybody's thoughts were 
standing on the task system.  I've collected 68 messages from people 
advocating change in the T4 task system.

I've seen a lot of support for the MT task system lately, and I went 
through those 68 posts to see who wanted what. 

Given the recent posts, I was surprised at what I found.

Here's the results:

Total number of people who posted advocating a task system change to 
date:  68

Total number of people who did not advocate a system, but just want 
the thing changed to emphasize skills more:  35

Now, here's where it gets interesting--

Total number of people (out of the 33 remaining) who advocate using 
the MT system or some variant of it:  7

And...

Total number of people who endorse KBv2.0:  26

I just thought that it was interesting, given the traffic lately on 
the MT task system, that KBv2.0 is endorsed by a 3:1 margin over the 
MT task system.

Like I said--MT was a good system, but T4's is better if we fix it.

We might need to come up with some other tweak (besides KBv2.0), but 
I definitely think we should stay along T4 lines over MT.

I'll post why MT is probably not a good choice for the T4 task system 
later--after I've collected all of my support and data.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 02:45:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Task System Revision

   Hi.
   
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
> From: CardSharks@aol.com
> Subject: Task System Revision
   
   [snip]
   
> 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.
   
   1: rated-0
   2: rated-2
   3: rated-0
   4: rated-0
   5: rated-1
   
   -Rob
   

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:40:10 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:30:50 -0700 (MST), Jerry Sanders wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, P. ENGEBOS wrote:
> > I too think that skills should be more heavily weighted in task resolution
> > than attributes.  I would also like to see the disappearance of the
> > half-die.
> > 
> > 
> > Peter Engebos				<pengebos@nmsu.edu>
> 
> And I second it! Fix it and ditch the damn half-die!

Wow!  Spend nearly a week straight working on the car and suddenly I
have 444 TML messages!  This thread caught my attention immediately,
however, and merited a quick response.

I, too, believe that stat points and skill points do not translate
well in a 1:1 ratio.  I believe that makes me #41 in this thread.

Kenneth states his point *so well* that I don't think I have anything
to add.  His reasons are my reasons... he just voices his opinion
stronger than most of us :)

As for the half-die, I couldn't care less.  It is of trivial concern
compared to the current task system.  KBv2.0 works well... just
because it does away with d3's is purely a trivial bonus.  If I were
currently reffing a game of Traveller, I would use KBv2.0-- not
because it does away with the half-die, but because it more accurately
(IMHO) depicts the effect of stat points vs. skill points.

James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:43:29 +0100
From: Simon Turner <madgamer@mistral.co.uk>
Subject: RE:A plea to Marc Miller

On 19 Jun 1997 21:20:32 Rob Prior Wrote:

> ...(for simplicity) to use my own (very simple) modification of T4 - assuming
> that I play T4 rather than Milieu 0 with TNE or Babylon Project rules.  (Not
> trying to devalue my vote here - just pointing out that for me Traveller is a
> background more than a ruleset.)

I also like the Babylon project rules. The use of specialisation in skills
(With a bonus to your roll)
and the different approach in the random factor ( A plus dice and minus
dice) deserve to be emulated.
Esp. the specialisation - i.e. You are a scout who has pilot-3 and you
decide to specialise in the scout ship
you have always flown. This is just so intuitive. Anyone want a stab at some
house rules.

Best of all is the combat system with the dinky picture of your opponant ("
Wow, I shoot him in the head!...")

Culture and science advances by the synthesis of ideas. Look over some other
gamers shoulders 
and synthesise today.

BTW When I told my friend who plays Champions about the number of dice
debate...he laughed.

"Seven dice, you call that a lot? Thats a minor flesh wound."  
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Simon W. Turner     madgamer@mistral.co.uk

"Do not fear going foward slowly, fear only to stand still"

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:19:05 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Two Delta

Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:14:51 -0500, Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
>Backing For Change(s) are:
>David P. Summers          <summers@alum.mit.edu>

Note: If you include me as a pro vote, you have to make it
clear that you are only counting votes for _any_ changes.
(which might even include Marc Miller since he will problably
tinker with the system even if he keeps the same basic system).
In fact, while I would go with a MT type system, I disagree
with a lot of the proposed changes....

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:21:25 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Please please please!

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:07:43 -0400 (EDT), Matrixs@aol.com wrote:

>      Look you sqirrely chipmunk, I kept the list.  It says I now have an
> invalid address and does'nt provide a solution.  Im going away for a few
> months and I dont want 2 billion trav. list mailings to come back to.  So you
> can either help me out by leading me in the right direction or providing a
> solution, or you can scamper back up your little tree and keep your
> critisism's to yourself.

Or you could:

a) ask nicely,
b) post your message with its own unique Subject header, and
c) include some information regarding *why* you can't seem to
   unsubscribe after following list instructions.

Works every time and it doesn't generate hostility.

James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:21:25 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Marc Miller--Please.

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:28:33 +0000, Kenneth Bearden wrote:

> John R. Snead wrote:
> > 
> > I'm with most everyone else about changing the task system.  Stats are
> > overvalued wrt skills.  However, Ken's current task revisions IMHO
> > involves far too many dice. 
> 
> Do you think that the current system involves too many more dice?  Let's
> do a comparison.
> 
> Difficulty	T4.1's Dice	KBv2.0's Dice	Increase
> ==========	===========	=============	=========
> Easy		1		2		1
> Average		2		3		1
> Difficult	3		4		1
> Formidable	3		5		2
> Staggering	4		6		2
> Impossible	5		7		2
> 
> 
> So, you see, with KBv2.0, you are only adding 1 or 2 dice to the task
> throw.  That doesn't seem to be a significant amount to me--especially
> when you see all of the benefits associated with using this system (see
> my plea to Marc Miller).

I second this statement.  Besides, the extra time it takes to add up
on or two more dice (specifically, for the more difficult levels)
merely adds to the suspense.

Player: "Did I make it?"

Ref: "Hold on.  I'm still counting."

Player: "The roof-top was only 60 feet away and I had a good running
	start.  Hurry up."

Ref: "Shut up.  I told you it was an Impossible task.  You *knew* how
	many dice were involved.  Now look what you've done.  I'm gonna
	have to start over..."

Player: "Argh!"

James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:21:25 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist

On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 17:40:33 -0400 (EDT), CardSharks@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 97-06-12 12:49:00 EDT, you write:
> 
> >  How exactly will characters increase Education level during character
> >  generation? The current system of adding 1 to Edu every year is far too
> >  generous and unbalances the game. In my campaign I add 1 to education only
> >  if the character gets honors. This does not seem to unbalance things too
> >  much, and does give an education advantage to characters who have
> > schooling.
> 
> Pursuing an ED8 certificate increases your Edu to 8.
> Going to an Academy will increase it to 9.
> Going to Univeristy gets you an A.
> Grad School gets you a B.
> Honors gets you+1 Edu.

Another *gold star* for Marc Miller!  This is great!  And it makes
perfect sense!

James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 06:36:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Re: Spanish version of CT

>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:53:08 MET
>From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
>Subject: Re: Spanish version of CT

>- -> >Meanwhile, did everyone know there is a Spanish version (hardcover) 
of
>- -> >Classic Traveller?
>- ->
>- ->         Hardcover, and softcover, and B4: Mercenary, and Adv.1: 
Kinunir, and
>- -> Sup.1:1001 characters, but that's all. The company went out of 
business many
>- -> years ago. Then, we spaniards bought MT ;-)
>Any lying arount in some stores, gathering dust, perchance???
>Ad Astra,
>V.A.G.

As a matter of fact, yes.  There's a Spanish CT boxed set still looking for 
a home at my FLGS! :)

Commander X

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:42:29 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

CardSharks@aol.com himself writes:

> In a message dated 97-06-18 02:16:23 EDT, Dreamer details the following
> problems with the task system:

Ratings are 0 unimportant, 1-5 most to least important:

>  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

Given the way characters are generated, low stats are a killer 
(literally) under T4.x

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

This is true... not sure it deserves a rating.

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

2

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

0

Surely spectacular failure is easier for more difficult tasks?

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

3

It's inelegant, but it's hardly a fatal flaw.


Nick

Dr. Nick Munn, Dept. of Information Studies, University of Sheffield
Tel. (0)114 222 2673, email n.s.munn@sheffield.ac.uk

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:51:03 +0100 (BST)
From: Alan Huscroft <A.A.F.Huscroft@reading.ac.uk>
Subject: Lurkers (Was: RE: A plea to Marc Miller)

Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> Another thing that's astonishing me is the number of hitherto unheard from
> lurkers popping out to cast their votes on the issue...
> 
> Where are you people the rest of the time?? Sometimes it feels like
> there's only about 30 people on this whole list...not bitching, just
> wondering...

Well, I used to be a little more vocal on the list years ago when I first
joined back around 1990.  In those days people were still bemoaning the
errata in MegaTraveller and debating the shortcomings of the MT task
system.  (*sigh*, nostalgia).

Generally, I prefer to leave the cut-and-thrust of discussion to those who
hold more passionate opinions than me.  Also, I don't have a great deal of
time to spare.  But I'll still be around, lurking...

- -- 
Alan Huscroft     A.A.F.Huscroft@reading.ac.uk

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:16:21 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: MT or KBv2.0????

- -> Total number of people (out of the 33 remaining) who advocate using 
- -> the MT system or some variant of it:  7
- -> 
- -> And...
- -> 
- -> Total number of people who endorse KBv2.0:  26
- -> 
- -> I just thought that it was interesting, given the traffic lately on 
- -> the MT task system, that KBv2.0 is endorsed by a 3:1 margin over the 
- -> MT task system.
- -> 
- -> Like I said--MT was a good system, but T4's is better if we fix it.
Problem is: Many people on the list don't know the MT system yet as 
they started with T4 or TNE or with CT, bypassing MT.
Maybe we should first post the MT- System to give them opportunity to 
review it!

BTW: My current stats for the vote are:
T4.1 or variant:
- -4
KWv2.0 (or variant)
- -8. 
MT or variant:
- -9
Undecided, other, unclear:
- -8
I started counting yetserday morning!



Ad Astra,
V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ------- check out: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061 --------
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --

- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:36:08 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

Thanks Glenn, your post took the letters from my keyboard!

- -> 1. There are more only 6 characteristics, and many skills, therefore high 
- -> characteristics encourage "munchkinism" where characters with high 
- -> characteristics take lots of low level skills and are good at everything, 
- -> from ballet to demolitions to piloting an aircraft.
And with the type of players i know, i know this is going to be 
noticed sooner rather than later!

- -> The great tragedy, imho, is that the jewel of the traveller game, 
- -> character generation, is tarnished by a task system that lessens the 
- -> value of skills gained during generation.
My feeling exactly. I have always loved Traveller Chargen as i 
thought it was something special. Nothing i've seen since matched the 
detail of Traveller Chargen (Gurps is interesting but not as much!).
The Task system should always work together with the Chargen 
procedure. MT does that, T4 does not!
- -> 
- -> Right. I think though, that a certain debate has ensued over what kind of 
- -> story-telling Traveller is. Is it a space-opera style of storytelling, 
- -> where Flash Gordon is good at many different skills by virtue of high 
- -> attributes? Or is it a science-fiction style, where training is paramount 
- -> to success, and young-bucks can only match their elders by years of 
- -> training, not some 4 week correspondence course.
- -> 
- -> This is where many disagree. I prefer to play a science-fiction style, 
- -> and my view is that characteristics limit skill advancement, they do not 
- -> contribute directly to the success of a task.
Right. Traveller has always been to me more hard SciFi (asimov, niven 
style) than Space Opera!
Ad Astra,
V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ------- check out: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061 --------
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --

- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1448
***********************************
