Traveller-digest      Wednesday, June 18 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1434



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: T4.1 Chargen: Increasing Skill points
Re: T4.1 Chargen: Increasing Skill points
Re: Marc Miller--Please.
Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs 
CharGen Fixes (Suggestions)
T4.1 character generation
Re: Game Design
Re: Game Design
Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs 
Re: Alien Races (was Pocket Empires)
Re: T4.1 Chargen/skill value notes
Re: Marc Miller--Please.
Re: Tech levels and shipyards
RE: Game Design
Re: T4.1 Chargen/skill value notes

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:14:45 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Chargen: Increasing Skill points

At 08:03 am 06/17/97 -0700, you wrote:

>Can you say *Wesley Crusher*.  Now there was a popular character, surely
an inspiration to all Traveller Players.

	God, I hope you were being sarcastic ... PLEASE God, let that be sarcasm.
I stopped watching the show for a long time because of him. My favorite
episode from the first or second season was the one he got killed. The
entire dorm TV lounge erupted in cheers ... too bad he had to be revived.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 02:08:53 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Chargen: Increasing Skill points

At 14:18 17/06/97 -0400, CardSharks@aol.com wrote:
>So, does Int also start as 2D-5 at age 13 and increase +1 every year until
>18? Imagine a kid who is Int 3 who gradually gets smarter as he gets closer
>to adulthood (I think I've meet some of them).
>
	Some people tend to have the same level of intelligence throughout their
entire life, while others will increase it from the lower level as they get
older.

	Much of the increase I think is due to education, and so maybe EDU could
influence increases in a character's intelligence over the course of
reaching 18.

	Also, how about a separate rating for intelligence potential? This way, if
someone started off with a low INT score, then there is a possibility of it
increasing over time in a natural way. Maybe have a reverse of the aging
table for INT up to age 18, or roll below say INT minus age / 3 or some
other exotic formula to increase INT by a point. Or roll INT against
Difficult to increase, or something along these lines anyway.

	See ya...


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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:46:01 -0400
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Marc Miller--Please.

Chris Griffen wrote:

>
>Kenneth Bearden wrote:
>
>>Marc, please fix the task system before T4.1 comes out.  You're
>>doing such a fine job on the new book.  Let's make it perfect by
>>fixing this glaring flaw in the most basic game mechanic in T4.
>
>Hear! Hear!
>
>This is a key point that keeps me from converting to the new rules and
>buying rule-based (rather than background-based) products from IG.
>
>Please, Marc and IG, don't waste this opportunity. At least take a look at
>Kenneth's KBv2.0 for an example and then make your own if necessary, but
>don't pave the road for an eventual T4.2. Take care of business now and fix
>the task system instead of presenting us with another broken one.
>
>I know you're getting darn close to printing time on this, so don't waste a
>minute!!!
>
>Best,
>
>Chris Griffen

	Marc:

	I have to agree with Kenneth and Chris on this one.  I've GM'ed
games using both the stock T4 system and Kenneth's system, and Kenneth's
wins hands down.  It presents major advantages over the T4 system in 2 main
areas: 1) it strikes a far better balance between skills and attributes,
and 2) it makes success at Impossible tasks much more improbable.

	This translates into a) more credible, fully fleshed characters, b)
a system that emphasizes roleplaying and not rollplaying, and c) more
credible event outcomes.  This makes for better games.

	I would strongly recommend Kenneth's system and hope that you'll
give it  the consideration it deserves for the fixed T4.

R.D. Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:07:57 -7
From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs 

On 17 Jun 97 at 17:46, Joseph E. Walsh wrote:

> those things so many times...yeesh.  When we were designing Economics and 
> Planetary Development (our two chapters for PE), we spent all night every 
> night, and all day every weekend, working on it; about half the time 
> together on IRC, and half the time alone, writing and coming up with 
> possible solutions to the many issues.  We argued things back 

Joe understates things.  We spent approximately 25 hours a 
weekend for about 5 consecutive weekends on IRC hashing out all of 
it.  Not to mention the 20 hours or so a week revising and updating 
various draft versions of the rules in response to requests from the 
playtesters, and our own extensive testing.  Add in the usual 50 or 
so hours of work at our regular gig, and you have a formula for 
exhaustion.

> PE!).  Finally, we came up with something worth playtesting.
> We brought the playtesters in, and things changed again and again.  Those 

We found one universal theme amongst the playtesters: there wasn't 
consensus on much more than that most of them thought it too complex, 
and esoteric.  

> I don't really recall the reason for not having a Resources DM for Ni.  

I wish I could tell you the reason myself.  We tore our hair out on 
it.  I believe we came to the conclusion that Ni didn' thin it 
necessarily have to mean that a world had no resources, just that 
they might have been untapped.  Ni means a world has moderate to low 
pop, amongst other things.  We also found our original table was 
unbalanced, and tweaked a few of the numbers to create balance.

Anyways, as a long answer to a short question, it is not an error.

Stu
Stuart L. Dollar                sdollar@goodnet.com
- ---------------------------------------------------
Co-Designer of Products for Marc Miller's Traveller
Including the upcoming release:  Psionics Institutes 
- ----------------------------------------------------
"Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
- -Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:55:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: CharGen Fixes (Suggestions)

I have two suggestions on how you can "fix" character generation sa as to
avoid excessive skill levels.  


1)  During CharGen, any skill level awarded *beyond* level 4 counts for
only *half* a level.  For example, a character with Rifle-4 who receives
another level for Rifle goes to Rifle-4.5.  At the end of CharGen, any
"half" levels remaining are lost (i.e., if the character with Rifle-4.5
didn't get another level, bringing it up to Rifle-5, he'd start play with
Rifle-4).  

(FWIW, this is the "house rule" I use in my TNE campaign.)  


2)  During CharGen, *double* the skill levels awarded, but record these as
"skill *points*" (not "skill *levels*").  At the end of CharGen, assign a
skill *level* for each skill based on the accumulated number of skill
*points* for that skill, as follows: 

        # of Skill      Actual Skill
        Points          Level
        1-2             1
        3-5             2
        6-9             3
        10-14           4
        15-20           5
        21-27           6
        28-35           7
        36-44           8
        45-54           9
        55+             10

(FWIW, anyone who plays TNE should recognize this as the number of
*experience* points needed to acquire the skill level in question.)


Anyway, these are just two possible "fixes."  :-)

Franklin

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:46:04 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: T4.1 character generation

I think I missed somewhere in all the backlog of digests I recently had to
wade through how to get a hold of the new character generation data.
I'm working on a character generation program (that will probably be
finished just about the time T4.1 comes out to invalidate it <g>), and
would like to see what is going to have to be changed in version 2.

Just a few observations about T4 generation that have been noticed
while running the program several million times in delousing:

It is extremely rare to come from a planet that does not have a B port
or better;

It is nearly impossible to come from a planet below TL 8 or so;

It is interesting the number of folks who aren't smart enough for college
but can get in the Naval or Military Academies;

With the given background skills, there are a &#!+load of Equestrians
in the future... <g> Very interesting, considering the high TLs...


**********************************************************
Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:43:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Game Design

On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Scott Ellsworth wrote:

> Joe, I am going to jump down your throat for a bit.  In theory, this is
> meant as friendly.  We will see how I come across.

Scott,

I don't think you jumped down my throat.  That was a very well thought 
out response.  Thank you.


> Fair enough.  I will state mine as an avid customer.  I also will try to
> present a case for why IG needs to commit to errata and fixups.  Commit in
> terms of actual money and contracts with designers AFTER the products ship.

That would be cool.  Hey, I can always use more money. <grin>  It'd be 
really neat if they paid me for each item I fixed.  =)   But seriously, 
yeah, that'd be great.  Say, 10% of the original design fee for a 
follow-up bug-fix, to be completed within, oh, a quarter after the 
product ships (to give time for the bugs to be found, collated, and fixes 
created).


[Things we've both already agreed on snipped.]

[Definition of scope of tweaks snipped.]

> Yes and no - whiny complaints about "shoulda done it that way" are of
> little use, but there are only two groups out there we can talk to that
> influence future products - designers and IG.  Designers listen, and also
> often remember.  Designers are also the people who should be tapped to fix
> anything, so it is our interest to get buy-in from the designer.

This is true.  And, as I said at the release of PE, I do want to know 
what I did wrong.

But, personally, it does bug me when, after the designer (whether that be 
me or someone else) has explained why something was done a certain way, 
it's brought up again and again by the same person or group who were  
just answered.  That's really what I'm objecting to.

That sort of behavior serves to drive designers away from the list, 
which is completely counter-productive for everyone involved.  I'm not 
saying we should all drop down and worship the ground that Marc walks on, 
let alone show any deference to lesser mortals like me <grin>.  But, 
truly, when one's posts are greeted with negativity, it just makes one want 
to post less.  Conversely, when a response like yours comes 
along, it encourages conversation.  As a result of your well-thought-out 
and well-presented post, I've taken what you've said to heart.

In a sense, you're treating me like an equal, and that works very well.  
When I'm treated like a parent who hasn't given his children what they 
want, or like a servant who hasn't performed to the master's 
specification, it doesn't work very well.  It just serves to distance 
designer from audience.


> It is too late for the designer to do anything about it for this release of
> this product, but I have to hope that there will be other releases, columns
> in JTAS, and re-releases of products with bits fixed up.  If IG products
> are buy and forget, or only sell to someone who has not seen them, then
> they are doomed.  

Definitely.  If that were the case, they wouldn't sell much beyond the 
main rulebook itself.  They - really, we; all of us - depend on repeat 
sales.  Thus, the ramped up quality of art, design, writing, and so on.  
It's clear that IG knows which side of the bread is buttered.  But, 
perhaps they haven't thought it out as fully as you have - I know I 
hadn't. 


> Instead, IG needs products to be so good that after my
> players read them, they want their own copy.  Pocket Empires, BTW had that
> happen, as did Psi Institutes and Central Supply.  I expect the M0 campaign
> will as well.

That's great to hear.  In the end, game design doesn't come down to much 
when compared to a million other pursuits.  But it does make me very 
happy to know that I'm making at least a few people happier, at least for 
a little while. That's something I do not get in my day job.  I've always 
wanted to make something I could point to, and now I am.  That part is 
really, really great.


> One way to do that is product iteration.  The publisher has to be willing
> to contract after the fact for fixups, errata, and so on.  Assuming IG
> wants to do this, then it is very important for us to make sure the
> designers are willing to make the minor changes talked about, or at least
> agree with what needs alteration.

It sounds like a good idea.  Of course, I don't know all the particulars 
of publishing games, but I do have occasional contact with those who do.  
I'll try to bring it up sometime, when it's politic to do so.


> The whys do matter, though.  If Marc feels that stat dominates skill, or
> you feel that a class A starport costs a gazzilion CR for a pop 3 world,
> then you have a reason, and if we know the reason, we still may disagree,
> but at least then, it is in black and white.  

Setting aside for the moment the question of whether these things matter, 
I am struck once again by the difference email makes.  Most of us played 
for years and years and years, without have any clue about the why's of 
the various design decisions.  Either they worked for us or they didn't, 
and that was all.  Truly, we live in an amazing age.

To return to your point, it would be nice to be able to explain why 
decisions were made, but I can't say that every designer will have the 
time to do so in all instances.  Even given that every time such a post 
were made, the responses were well worded, most designers spend all their 
time designing.  Again, we get back to the limits on resources.  

Heck, some days I run through TML, deleting messages like mad, because I 
know: 1) I don't have the time to read any message that's not of prime 
importance, and 2) Even if I let them pile up from day to day, I'm never 
going to have time to go through them all.  Some days I can read every 
message, other days I can't.  If I respond to every inquery on my work, 
I'd never meet a deadline.  (Although, you'll note that I'm pretty poor 
at ignoring messages that are important to me; I've sworn off TML three 
times to day, promising myself to do nothing but design; yet here I am.  
I'm on vacation from my day job, and had hoped to get a ton of design 
work in, but I keep straying<G>.)


> Further, if it is a
> contentious issue, like stat-skill tradeoffs, you can toss in a sidebar in
> some revision that says "Stats are more important.", and then we have games
> filled with wunderkids, or house rules, but at least then people do not
> think the designers are doofuses.  They know you considered the issue, and
> rejected it for a reason.

It's funny how that works...the assumption of, er, doofushood. <G>  
Guilty until proven innocent?  Hmmm.  I'm not pointing any fingers; heck, 
I know that's my reaction as well, most of the time.  It's just 
interesting how our minds work.


> A system that fulfills the designer's goals is better than one that does
> not.  A comment that the PE system does not work for more than a hundred
> worlds because certain costs should be nonlinear, but are expressed
> linearly for play purposes is enough to keep some of the wolves at bay, and
> to encourage a JTAS article on nonlinear starports costs.

I agree.


> This, of course, assumes that what is written will become canonical.  That
> people will refer to it in future products.  I think that should always be
> the goal, and as designers, you need to have that goal.  You can only
> really have it, though, if IG _also_ has it.  If they are committed to
> always having the document for PE, second printing with folded in errata,
> plus the errata itself, all contracted for from the designer, then you can
> afford consistency.  If they do not, then it costs you money to be worried
> about consistency.

Again, I agree.


> It is never final, though.  If I do not like the skill system, and whine
> about stat vs. skill, then there is a chance that a future product may be
> designed taking my comments into account.  Further, future designers are
> going to have at least heard my take on various issues.  They may not
> agree, but they will certainly not be ignorant of it.

True; again, mostly what I intended to object to was the attitude. Not 
the fact of criticism, but the way in which it is expressed.


> Agreed.  It is nice, though, if we feel that the fixes have a chance of
> legitimacy, which JTAS and other IG organs should exist for.  For example,
> if IG says straight out to you, the designer, that they are going to hire
> you for a day, or a week, two months after the product ships for whatever
> errata and changes you want to make, then it will make you that much more
> likely to make use of some of these suggestions.  It also makes people
> experiment with the system, if they know they might see the fixes they
> liked in print, and perhaps got a mention.

In essence, I agree with you; but I do have doubts about people failing 
to test things just because they think no one else will ever know about 
it.  I think we gamers are terminal fiddlers. <G>  But, yeah, knowing 
that one's work has a chance of being ...er... canonized <shudder> would 
tend to make one go the extra mile.


> Agreed, save for one point.  We are not consulted when the rules are coming
> up for a revision, and it seems like they do not allot significant post
> production time to the products for testing, and I believe that all
> products do need testing.  This is not the designer's responsibility - they
> have presumably already playtested what they can, and now it needs a
> slightly larger test group that is not in direct contact with the designer.

This is true, and I'd like to point out that IG has made great strides in 
this area.  The first products either got no or seemingly no 
playtesting.  Later products had hurried playtesting, due to the scramble 
for getting the schedule caught up.  Current products are undergoing lots 
and lots of playtesting.  All in contact with the designers, of course, 
so that does fall short of your suggestion.  But, at least things are 
improving.  And your suggestion is another one I can try to mention to 
The Powers That Be, when opportunity presents itself.


> Hopefully, the above was not seen as a flame, just a suggestion about how
> IG could improve the lives of players, designers, and themselves.

I saw it as you intended it.  Again, well done.  And thank you.


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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 97 21:58:26 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Game Design

On 1997-06-17 18:00 thus spake Scott Ellsworth:

>>  By the time the product is released, it's too 
>>late for the designer to do anything about it.
>
>It is too late for the designer to do anything about it for this release of
>this product, but I have to hope that there will be other releases, columns
>in JTAS, and re-releases of products with bits fixed up.  If IG products
>are buy and forget, or only sell to someone who has not seen them, then
>they are doomed.  Instead, IG needs products to be so good that after my
>players read them, they want their own copy.  Pocket Empires, BTW had that
>happen, as did Psi Institutes and Central Supply.  I expect the M0 campaign
>will as well.
>
>One way to do that is product iteration.  The publisher has to be willing
>to contract after the fact for fixups, errata, and so on.  Assuming IG
>wants to do this, then it is very important for us to make sure the
>designers are willing to make the minor changes talked about, or at least
>agree with what needs alteration.

An excellent point has been made here, and I'd like to add my Cr 0.02

In the old days, few roleplaying products were re-released or revised 
with regularity. Sure, you'd have new editions, with different mechanics 
after a few years, but the only "tweaking" that was done was done in the 
gaming mags - JTAS, Dragon, Challenge, et al. And most of the mags 
countained adventures or source material (which is good).

With the communication powerhouse we see today (the 'net), the temptation 
is there to change the gaming cycle to more of a software programming 
one, with regular updates and bug fixes. (the 'iterative' cycle you speak 
of)

I'm of two minds on this, I'm happy that IG had the good sense to fix 
things that are clearly broken, ie. get a revised Deluxe rulebook out, 
and that Marc's been kind enough to let us in on all the good stuff he's 
doing. I'm excited that quality products such as PE can be tweaked 
"officially" with the original designer's input, and these tweaks and 
optional rules can be distrubuted on the web. 

OTOH, if Joe, Stu, et al. spend all there time tweaking and explaining 
themselves, they'll never get any new projects done and out the door!

In the end, it's a juggling act. I think with clearly innovative and 
popular products such as PE, time *should* be spent hashing out those 
fixes and rules options we crave. Input from the designers is desirable.

Patience is key, though, let's give these guys time to make new stuff too!

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:13:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs 

On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Stuart L. Dollar wrote:

[Re: no DM for Ni]

> I wish I could tell you the reason myself.  We tore our hair out on 
> it.  

<shaking my head sadly>  That part I remember well - tearing our hair out 
over that table.  And I can remember, each time we completed the danged 
thing, asking you to repeat our reasoning on one or more of the items to 
make sure we were staying consistent, and hadn't drifted in our reasoning 
as we went down the table (at the time, I was using a computer without a 
scroll-back buffer, so couldn't refer back, and I was too danged tired 
to remember everything).

And I remember changing our criteria serveral times.  I also remember, 
near the end, making a few little changes to the table in response to 
Twolf's suggestion - although I can't remember that suggestion or what 
we changed as a result of it.  Yeesh.

I guess the final reasoning will remain a mystery, a victim of burned out 
synapses. <G>  If I think of it, though, I'll post it.

As an aside, one of my favorite authors once mentioned that he would 
spend a day or so researching a particular subject for his novel, write 
what was necessary, then be shocked later on to realize that a day's 
worth of research resulted in only a paragraph or two.  I now know how he 
felt.


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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:15:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: John H Bogan Jr <jbogan@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Alien Races (was Pocket Empires)

At 04:48 PM 6/14/97 -0400, Paul D. Owensby wrote:

>So hands up, folks. How do y'all use minor aliens in your games and
>what impact have they had on the way you and your players game?

I've actually made pretty extensive use of them. 
In my particular version of the Imperium, Bwaps are
quite widespread, possibly even edging out Vargr
for "Most Populous and Extensive Nonhumans in
Imperial Space." They tended to get bit-NPC
parts (warehouse staff, brokers, traders, 
low-level officials, the odd ship crew), but
they were a regular part of the landscape my
players had to deal with.

Ael Yael, Virushi, and others show up, about
one in ten NPCs is a minor race alien.
For the most part the play the same roles
as any other NPCs -- patrons, informants, 
red herrings, obstcles, etc. -- but my players 
have commented that they liked the way it added
to the "atmosphere" and helped keep them guessing.

Example: the players are having a "meet" with
someone in a public park. Two large creatures
are flying nearby, doing acrobatics and catching
thermals from a small escarpment. At one point one
of them passes overhead and the players can make out
that it's wearing some variant of an IISS uniform:
they finally recognize the creatures are not local
fauna but a minor race from towards the Imperial core
- -- the Ael Yael, they think.  Whoever they are, 
will their presence spoil the meet? And the Scouts 
could be interested in this -- what if they're here
to spy, or distract (players look around suspiciously)...


JB 

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 05:32:00
From: Paolo Marino <marino@inrete.it>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Chargen/skill value notes

I agree with the opinion that current T4 chargen may give
characters excessively high levels in skills.

I suggest the following tweak: during chargen, whenever a
character gains a skills, make him/her roll the current skill
level or more on a D6. Failure means that skill level remains
the same.

Current  | You need 
Level    | a D6 of
- ----------------------
   0     |   0+ (Auto)
   1     |   1+ (Auto)
   2     |   2+ (83%)
   3     |   3+ (67%)
   4     |   4+ (50%)
   5     |   5+ (33%)
   6     |   6+ (16%)
   7     |   7+ (Impossible)

So gaining Lev 1 or 2 in a skill is still automatic, but from
Lev 3 onward chances get lower and lower.

This is similar to the current Experience system, but less prone
to abuse and reasonably fast for use during chargen.

It is still possible (but less probable) to gain an high
proficience in a given skill, but I think that players would try
to gain more skills at 2-3 instead that a few 5+ skills.

This is still largely untested (I don't need to roll up new
chars, for now), but I'd like to hear your comments.

BTW, sorry if this has already been suggested by someone else. I'm a little
late in readung the digests.


__  Paolo Marino  __          |Inrete Games Page: www.inrete.it/games/gms.html
 mc4799@mclink.it (Preferred)  | marino@inrete.it (Best for MIME/BinHex)

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:49:44 +0000
From: "Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Marc Miller--Please.

"Kenneth Bearden" wrote:
> Marc, please fix the task system before T4.1 comes out.  You're 
> doing such a fine job on the new book.  Let's make it perfect by 
> fixing this glaring flaw in the most basic game mechanic in T4.

I have to agree with Kenneth.  I started playing CT, and I liked the 
way that skills were more important to success at tasks than 
attributes were, once the skill got above 3 or so.  And the higher 
the skill was, the more heavily it weighed in the success 
equation.(e.g. A character with a high attribute might have a +2 die 
modifier.  With a skill of 2, the attribute contributed 1/2 of the 
total die modifier.  But with a skill of 4, the attribute 
contributed only 1/3 of the total modifier.)

IMHO, the emphasis on skills gave CT a flavor which seems absent from 
T4.  Emphasis on skills gives more of a science-_fiction_ feel to the 
game.  Emphasis on attributes gives more of a feel of 
science-_fantasy_ or space opera, where the heroic character with 
high enough stats can do _everything_ well.  I play Traveller because 
I want to play science-fiction, not science-fantasy.

Please consider reworking the T4.1 task rules to give greater 
emphasis to skills rather than attributes.

Just my cr.02.  YMMV.
WKH

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:09:58 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Tech levels and shipyards

>Also, can a TL12 world perform the annual maintenance on a TL13+ ship?

Not in my campaign. First of all, it doesn't seem realistic to me. Second,
I like to have ships of different tech levels and lower-tech ships are just
not practical unless you use this rule.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:28:01 +1200
From: Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Game Design

On Wednesday, June 18, 1997 5:27 AM, Joseph E. Walsh
[SMTP:ransom@connect.iconnect.net] wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Regarding all the discussions of various rules that are "broken," from

> task systems to design systems to Infrastructure costs, to everything 
> else, I don't quite know how to respond without further inflaming the 
> issue.  I've stated the reasoning for the stuff I was involved in, so 
> I'll just speak my peace here and leave it at that.

I've just started in on Pocket Empires (delivered to New Zealand in just
two weeks or so) and I think that a very good job has been done.

I look forward to any other modified rules that may be suggested but it
is just a game and if it models sufficiently well (and it appears to)
then I will be happy.

To all designers (and potential designers) on this list - Thank You.

Brody Dunn
brody@intersol.co.nz

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 06:26:49 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Chargen/skill value notes

> 
> I agree with the opinion that current T4 chargen may give
> characters excessively high levels in skills.
> 
> I suggest the following tweak: during chargen, whenever a
> character gains a skills, make him/her roll the current skill
> level or more on a D6. Failure means that skill level remains
> the same.

I've seen a couple of ideas to limit the number of skills awarded in 
T4 and T4.1.

The best way to handle this is also the simplist.  Up in the box on 
the character-gen page where continuance and injury rolls are 
indicated, put in one simple roll--

- --a roll for a skill that the player rolls each year.

No other changes are necessary.  This is exactly like the rolls 
required in the advanced chargen systems in CT and MT.

"You want a skill this year, make your roll of 5-".

It's a simple as that.  Different careers could have different skill 
target numbers--adding to the player's decision on which career he 
would like his character to go.

Just one line detailing a skill roll is all that is needed for each 
of the careers in T4.1.

Kenneth.

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1434
***********************************
