Traveller-digest      Wednesday, June 18 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1437



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
RE:YATI (Yet Another Task Idea)
Re: Captive Governments
Re: Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and TL14 gear
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Who the heck is Glhop?
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re:  Traveller-digest V1997 #1436
T4 M:0 World Write Up--Kain
Re: Marc Miller--Please.
Re: Marc Miller--Please.
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and TL14 gear
[none]
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

In a message dated 97-06-18 10:41:25 EDT, you write:

<< 
 Given that, I am forced, out of my devotion to the game, to make one 
 final plea for you to reconsider the task system.
 
 I will detail here everything that I can see wrong with your T4 fix 
 in support of my case.
 
 Please, please consider what I have to say.
>>

I understand you have strong feelings about the task system. But out of
perhaps 300 people on this list, no one is championing the cause except you.
Assume half don't care about tasks anyway. Assume many others don't care
enough to comment. Are there 50 people on this list who will echo your
concerns and, having seen my post of the task system and your post of the
task system, WANT T41 to reflect yours?

Your plea needs to have some backing.

Marc

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:18:56 -0500
From: "Joul, Christopher" <JOUC1@Aerial1.com>
Subject: RE:YATI (Yet Another Task Idea)

Andy Lilley wrote:-

>I see the revised skill debates are still going on. Has anyone considered
>the following system (apologies if it's already been suggested):
>
>Roll 1D for each skill level, then add the appropriate attribute.
>
>e.g. Computer-3 using Intelligence of 8 would give a 3D6+8 roll.
>
>(This should drastically re-balance the attribute-vs.-skill imbalance of the
>current system)

This is similar to an Idea I had, which I gave up on, when I failed to
suitably work out a mechanism for JOT and default skill usage.

Chris.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@*teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Captive Governments

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Carlos Alos-Ferrer wrote:

[snip]

>         And, so, the question: Which kind of Gov=6 planets have people
> detailed? I.e., which kind of explanations have been made when the "neighbor
> owner" does not work? In Milieu 1100, I've recurrently used the
> Megacorporations, but for a world deep into the Gashda in M:0, it does not
> look good.
>         Explanations such as little corporations, military/merc units, etc,
> do not seem to give Gov=6. If a Corporation owns the planet but is of small
> size, i.e., the planet is its main asset, the Gov=1. If a Merc unit goes
> rogue and takes the planet, well, they are there and they are the
> government, so Gov=B, or F, or whatever, but not 6.
> 

It seems to me that -way back when, possibly CT era- a captive government
was defined as a planet that was being administered by another planet (as
you described) _OR_ directly by Imperial Forces (usually the Navy).

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP
- --------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 97 20:11 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and TL14 gear

In-Reply-To: <33A7B3E8.260D@brokersys.com>

Kenneth,

> What I like about the higher tech gear in the EA is that it can be used
> by people like me who are running their campaign in the 1100's.
>  
> Maybe IG should still include these higher tech things in their
> products, but put them in a 1100's appendix.

This is exactly what they should do. Actually, how about a date/TL chart 
at the start of the book showing when the Imperium reached each TL? That 
way, if you were running a game in, say, 950, you could see that the 
Imperium was TL14, but rapidly approaching 15, so there would probably be 
quite a few TL15 prototypes floating around.
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:11:41 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

At 01:43 PM 6/18/97 -0400, Marc Miller wrote:
>In a message dated 97-06-18 10:41:25 EDT, KB write:
><< 
> Given that, I am forced, out of my devotion to the game, to make one 
> final plea for you to reconsider the task system.
>>>

>I understand you have strong feelings about the task system. But out of
>perhaps 300 people on this list, no one is championing the cause except you.
>Assume half don't care about tasks anyway. Assume many others don't care
>enough to comment. Are there 50 people on this list who will echo your
>concerns and, having seen my post of the task system and your post of the
>task system, WANT T41 to reflect yours?

Marc!  Before I throw in a few thoughts, thanks for responding on the issue!

Here is a bit of backing for considering the issue and making skill a bit
more important.  (I do not care how, and there are a number of ways.)
Perhaps more, here is a push for you to include real world descriptions of
what levels of stat and levels of skill mean in the books explicitly.

I have stopped using tasks in general during play, but we find them very
handy to have written out.  Every player knows the target numbers they get,
and I made up a probability card showing the odds of success at a given
task.  The odds were made up out of the whole cloth, BTW, but give the
players a good idea of what works.

I do think that a medic-5 is going to be a better surgeon, regardless of
dexterity, than any medic-1, and a gun-4 should always dominate a gun-0
regardless of stat.  Exactly how that is expressed in the game is not
important to me.

Here, BTW, are the general rules I am using.

1.  High skill, high stat beat low skill, low stat every time.

2.  Some things are easy enough to not need rolling.

(these, BTW, have been satsfied by every contender so far.)

3.  High stat, low skill and low stat, high skill are not quite the same.
In the end, both contribute, but skills are somewhat more important than
stats on extreme cases.  (I want people to take skills over stats given the
choice.)

Here is how I make that happen:

Stat - 1-15, ave 8

Stats: 1-
1:  Extremely lacking, often to the point of special care
2-3:  Lacking significantly enough to have it be character defining
4-5:  Lacking in a noteworthy manner, but only enough to be a problem
6-8:  Average, give or take
9-10: Noteworthy superiority.  Can show off in most bars
11-12: Character defining superiority.
13-14: A superior specimen who then trained beyond any reasonable level.
Will excite comment, and will be famous for it
15: May well be famous off planet for the high stat, and will certainly
excite comment.  Should be a bit disconnected from normal mortals.

Skill 1-6 - ave 2

0: novice who can find the trigger
1: someone who had a few courses, or spent some serious time working at it.
 Could be employed, but will be considered entry level
2: someone who minored, perhaps majored in the topic, or who has some solid
experience.  Can be employed easily in the field.
3: A senior person, with either an advanced degree, or enough experience
that they are often the most skilled person in a work group.  They are not
going to be known outside of their own coworkers.  This is a level that
will excite some comment.
4:  A person considered excellent by senior people.  This person will often
have some degree of fame or notoriety in the field, though not to anyone
outside it.  Alternatively, a PhD with a bit of experience as well.
5:  A known expert, often consulted by others outside the field.  A very
senior faculty member whose work is considered important.
6:  Someone far beyond the usual pale.  Once again, groupies.  Usually
famous on their home planet, and often beyond.

I would really like to see some progression like this in the rules, just so
players know how good a 2 skill and a 13 stat is without having to do
probabilities.

(FWIW, I create target numbers to compare chances by tripling skill and
adding stat.  I am not wedded to that, but it seems to work out about right.)

>Your plea needs to have some backing.

There is my limited backing.  I do not use dice during play, and special
success/failure are on a different scale, but I do like the idea of
canonizing the tripled skill+stat, or skill+stat/2, or some other setup
where skill and stat balance out a bit more.

It is not a make or break thing, I just think it adds to the enjoyment if
some progression like the above were in the rule books, and then if the
system matched it.  If you do not do it, I will likely continue using my
system, and ignoring the actual mechanics.

Scott

Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:49:55 -0700
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Who the heck is Glhop?

An apology:

Being bored, I waded into a Flamewar on USENET last week. I changed my
sender address for a modicum of flame protection. I neglected to change
my Mail settings back to their correct values.

Any mail sent from "Glhop" nowhere@man.ca was sent by me. Again, my
apologies...

In a similar vein, my work email address has changed:
<starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>

Anybody with my old work address in their address books should change
<starcity@eagle.wbm.ca> to the new address.

As usual, my personal geocities address, <jumpspace@geocities.com> is
still valid...

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:49:09 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

>Your plea needs to have some backing.
>
>Marc

Please fix the task system for T4.1 as the published one has soo serious
faults. Getting rid of the halfdice and the characteristics overimportance
makes it playable again. Nobody of my group that has tried it said they
would ever consider using it as is (I got my own system right now).

I hereby officially and pompously declare my backing for a tasksystem
rewrite and in particular make it Kv2.0 as it works and has been thoroughly
playtested.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:21:16 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

At 01:43 PM 6/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-06-18 10:41:25 EDT, you write:
>
><< 
> Given that, I am forced, out of my devotion to the game, to make one 
> final plea for you to reconsider the task system.
> 
> I will detail here everything that I can see wrong with your T4 fix 
> in support of my case.
> 
> Please, please consider what I have to say.
>>>
>
>I understand you have strong feelings about the task system. But out of
>perhaps 300 people on this list, no one is championing the cause except you.
>Assume half don't care about tasks anyway. Assume many others don't care
>enough to comment. Are there 50 people on this list who will echo your
>concerns and, having seen my post of the task system and your post of the
>task system, WANT T41 to reflect yours?
>
>Your plea needs to have some backing.
>
Marc,

I agree with his points and would like to see a system like his
implemented. I cast my vote for Kenneth's task system.

Ok you other lurkers and lurker wanna be's Marc has let his self open for a
public quorum on this issue. Cast your vote on the following

1. Task system don't care

2. Task system something other than the one in T4 at present.

3. Kenneth's task system will do for a start.

Come lets get those 50 people.

A Doubting Thomas

- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:10:57 -0500
From: Alex Rebsch <grazzit@flash.net>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

At 06:26 AM 6/15/97 +0000, you wrote:

>Dear Marc,


>snip<<


>First off,  the attribute vs skill issue:  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.


This sounds right to me. The way it is stated now is illogical.


>snip<<


>I just want to see T4.1 be the best--not broken again.  You've got a 

>golden opportunity here to fix these problems before it is too late 

>and T4.1 is published.


AGREED!!!!!!


>That's one of the functions of this list, isn't it?  To point out 

>what can be done better?


AGREED again!!!!!!


Another point that I would like to add to this plea is something I brought up a while back but didn't get to much of a response to was the issues of Tech levels and skills. 


What represents a techlevel? I would say the knowledge to build and repair items of a certain TL. This means that the TL of a world is relevant to the Skills of the people that live there! If a world is TL10 then the general level of knowledge and skills is at TL10. 


But as it is now (if I understand the rules correctly and please let me know if I don't!) a TL10 ships engineer could get on a TL15 ship and be able to perform lets say an easy task without any difficulty despite the fact that the engineer probably has never in his life seen a TL15 powerplant, maneuver drive or jump drive.


To me there is something wrong here! The last time I brought this up only one of the suggestions really made any sense (Richard Hough's). What I'd like to know is does the rest of the list think this is irrelevant? If so then what is the difference between TLs, just equipment? 


This has been something that I've been thinking about for a while now. Please let me know of any ideas that you can come up with.


Thanks


Alex Rebsch



E=Mail:	grazzit @flash.net


Home
Page:<underline><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>	http://www.flash.net/~grazzit/traveller.html</color></underline>

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:24:31 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re:  Traveller-digest V1997 #1436

>I think it's showing. This was one of the worst problems with the first
>printing. IG was obviously so rushed that they did not have time to
>playtest most of the rules. The task system was one of the worst examples
>of this. Products like PEs are apparently rebuilding IG's reputation
>largely because they have been playtested.

Unfortunately, things haven't changed completely; it still looks like FFS2
is going to ship with completely inadequate playtesting.

Bruce

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:10:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: T4 M:0 World Write Up--Kain

This is something I have been working on, something akin to RICE papers for 
T4/M:0.  What I am doing is trying to come up with write ups for worlds that 
were within the Sylean Federation.

Disclaimer:  This was developed using the updated M:0 data for core Sector 
recieved from MM, what is already in the M:0 Book, and my own personal 
assumptions.  This write up is by no ways canon.

And Now i give to you, the World of Kain

Kain (Core/Core 2017) E576244-4 S Lo  821 Im M7V

The Kain system has been used for centuries by the Sylean Federation for the 
miming of metals from its 2 planetoid belts.  Many resources were mined, 
particulary lanthanum, that helped the Federation maintain its integrety as 
an interstellar society.  Belting still continues in the system, but most of 
the planetoids have been abandoned, long since depleated of useable 
materials.  However the Scouts use the belts as a pilot training ground.

Kain itself is a moon of the sole gas giant in system.  The Gas Giant gives 
off some heat, a bit more than what the Red M7V star gives.  The tainted 
atmosphere is full of greenhouse gases such as sulfur, and carbon dioxide 
due to vulcanism.  These factors help to warm the world, otherwise it would 
be a frozen wasteland.  Still, Kain can be a cold and harsh world.

It could be this "untaimed wilderness" that has caused the Scout Service to 
maintain its infamous "Survival Boot Camp".  Usualy, scout bases don't exist 
without at least a class D port to fuel its ships.  But this is a training 
facility, so the bedrock stays.  A Scout Courier full of new recruits come 
every 2 weeks.  The recruits are processed at the Scout Facilities and then 
transported somewhere on the planet to survive 2 weeks.  The only contact 
with civilzation is a small falre gun to only be used in emergency 
situations.

While the system is mostly a Scout Training facility, visitors are always 
welcome.  As the first J-1 stop on the Coreward part of the Sylean Main, 
many a Free Trader come by.  As long as the visitor remains at the Scout 
Instalation, and not interfere with the trainees, all is fine.  The Scouts 
at Kain welcome traders loaded with "Real Food" and alcoholic beverages. 
 These are given during the "Graduation Feast" when the cold, tired and 
hungry trainees return from the field.

Well thats a wrap for this world. :)

Comments?

Commander X

 

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:16:34 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Marc Miller--Please.

>You are doing such a fine job on the T4.1 revised book (I mean 
>that--an incredible job that is much more than I expected), it pains 
>me to think about you going ahead with the broken task system that is 
>supposed to be an improvement over the official one we have now.

Well, I don't see the task system as that broken.  I do 
personally think the idea that a task system would change
the number of dice with the difficulty of the task is
a poor one (because it narrows the distibution of results, 
with more dice small changes in your target number give you
bigger and bigger changes in your odds so that you tend
to simply succeed or fail depending on who you are.  This
is why it is so hard to do come up with an "impossible"
task that most people can do on a long shot but
nobody has a good chance at).  But this is a personal
opinion.  I wouldn't use it to call the system "broken"

>First off,  the attribute vs skill issue:  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.

As I pointed out in my other post. They are equally weighted.
Its not the size of the numbers that shows how much its
weighted, its the variation.

[Example of an EMT vs a doctor deleted.]

This is actually a bad example.  An EMT is trained different
things than a doctor.  If you put someone through 2 years
of training to be a doctor and 2 years training to be
an EMT they will each be better at different things.
(Either you want to seperate the skills into separate
skills, if you really want to be realistic, or you
just decide that the difference in training isn't
worth complicating the game with a new skill).

A better example is a person who is a naturally gifted
surgeon trying his first bypass vs a mediocre hack who
has don't hundreds.  I certainly wouldn't say that
the later is clearly a better choice.

The idea that skills should count more than
attributes is one that has been kicked around in a
lot of game systems.  It is an example of personal
preference that different systems take different
spins on.

>The problem is that we are dealing with two different scales.  Stats 
>range from 1-15 with 7 being average human ability.  Skills range 
>from 0-6 with 2 being an average skill.

Well, stats don't start at 1, they start at 2.  More
importantly, stats are rolled on a bell curve that makes
stats at either end harder to get.  Now I do agree that
handing out stat increases like skill increases is
a mistake. 
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 97 16:14:20 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Marc Miller--Please.

First, I agree that the task system should put more emphasis on skill than it currently does. Personally, I think skill is more important than stat, but just getting closer to equal would be an improvement.

Now, on a slightly different subject...

On 06/18/97 at 11:56 AM,  "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net> said:

>And then we come to the bit that sticks in *my* craw <g>. I LOATH the 
>"one skill per year, guaranteed" system in T4, and would love to see the
>return of the skill rolls. Yeah, I've seen characters go through 7 terms
>of service and have fewer skills than another who only served 2, but I've
>seen that in Real Life(tm) too, and it feels realistic to me. The
>"everyone ends up with the same number of skills" hits me in the same spot
>as the Objectives Based Education system's concern for self-realization
>and touchy-feely "let's do away with grades and instill self-worth"
>concepts that just make me want to get a hold of the GREAT BIG "Life Ain't
>Fair" stick and  START WHAPPIN' HEADS!! AND THEN...

Calm down there, Paul! ;->

I agree with you that people will advance at different rates, BUT NOT AT RANDOM or at least not at the same random frequency as everyone else! That's why I don't like  the "roll +7 on 2d6 for a skill" system for CT, everybody has the same 58% chance of success in that situation.

If the stat is the *aptitude* for a set of skills, then you should use the stat as the basis for increasing skills. High controlling stats should make it easier to increase skills, and make the increases bigger. Low controlling stats should make it harder to increase skill, and make the increases smaller. Right?

This isn't anything like I'm using, but maybe something simple like this would appeal to people....

To raise skill level: (Controlling Stat + Current Skill - 2d6), positive number means a skill increase.

Example:  Joe has EDU of 8. He earns an attempt to develop Astrogation skill. He rolls 7 on 2d6...8+0-7=1..success he increases his skill by 1. Next time he rolls 9 on 2d6..8+1-8=0..failure, he fails to increase his skill. Next time he rolls 6..8+1-6=3..success he gets the increase. <---Now the question is does he get a 1 point skill increase or a *3* point increase? ;->

========

Now, for an "off-the wall" suggestion about stats vs skill levels. Has anybody thought about using 2d3 on the Attribute rolls? ;-> Don't use the dreaded d3's anywhere else, just for the generation of Attributes during CharGen.  You'd get a range of 2 to 6 with an EV of 4. Now, the stats are *more* in line with the skill ,and we have to use fewer dice for task resolution. <gd&r>

Eris,
    who is always willing to provide heretical suggestions
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:34:21 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

At 01:43 PM 6/18/97 -0400, you wrote:

>I understand you have strong feelings about the task system. But out of
>perhaps 300 people on this list, no one is championing the cause except you.
>Assume half don't care about tasks anyway. Assume many others don't care
>enough to comment. Are there 50 people on this list who will echo your
>concerns and, having seen my post of the task system and your post of the
>task system, WANT T41 to reflect yours?
>
>Your plea needs to have some backing.

Marc, I have to agree with Kenneth, even if I do get tired of his methods..
please take a look at KB2.0.. it is a good system.

- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   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: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:29:04 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

Sam Thomas wrote:
> 
> Ok you other lurkers and lurker wanna be's Marc has let his self open for a
> public quorum on this issue. Cast your vote on the following

Okay, I'm (mostly) a lurker. I vote for a task system that considers
skills more important than attributes. Kenneth's will do for a start,
since it's the best one I've seen since the MT system.

So, how many is that? Four or five by now, at least!

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:58:47 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and TL14 gear

> Kenneth,
> 
> > What I like about the higher tech gear in the EA is that it can be used
> > by people like me who are running their campaign in the 1100's.
> >
> > Maybe IG should still include these higher tech things in their
> > products, but put them in a 1100's appendix.
> 
> This is exactly what they should do. Actually, how about a date/TL chart
> at the start of the book showing when the Imperium reached each TL? That
> way, if you were running a game in, say, 950, you could see that the
> Imperium was TL14, but rapidly approaching 15, so there would probably be
> quite a few TL15 prototypes floating around.


Excellent, excellent, excellent idea.  This way, people can pinpoint
exactly what is available in their campaign.

I'd like to see this.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:16:13 +1200
From: Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: [none]

I'm reluctant to add more to the general clamour, but I have to admit
that I would like to see Stats take a bit of a back seat to Skills in
terms of task resolution.

I guess this is some more backing for a change.

Brody Dunn
brody@intersol.co.nz

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:54:50 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

At 03:10 PM 6/18/97 -0500, Alex Rebsch wrote:

>>>> 

<excerpt>Another point that I would like to add to this plea is something
I brought up a while back but didn't get to much of a response to was the
issues of Tech levels and skills. 

</excerpt><<<<<<<<


The way I read it, skills should be tech level based, in much the same
way that a present day pilot has equipment that they are qualified on. 
Old Mercenary even had you note the specific equipment that your
character had qualified on in your service jacket.  If you have a decent
skill, then you can probably jump a few tech levels with minimal
retraining.  Once you hit a certain point, though, your life gets harder.
 Imagine a TL3 Physicist today trying to make it in a research lab.


>>>>

<excerpt>...

But as it is now (if I understand the rules correctly and please let me
know if I don't!) a TL10 ships engineer could get on a TL15 ship and be
able to perform lets say an easy task without any difficulty despite the
fact that the engineer probably has never in his life seen a TL15
powerplant, maneuver drive or jump drive.

</excerpt><<<<<<<<


This is certainly how it is written in the present rules.  I solve this
by making it virtually impossible to use a piece of equipment you have
never worked with until you have bee qualified on it.  This can be a
formal checkride, or just days of puzzling out the buttons in your cabin.
 This is usually a difficult task, assisted by EDU, INT, and training
materials.


I drop the nasty negative modifier (about one difficulty per two tech
levels) once you have been properly trained.  I also make it harder to
qualify if the equipment is based on a different tech base than you are
used to, so someone from pre-thruster days trying to be a maneuver drive
engineer is going to have a rough time qualifying.


Scott



Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz

"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 

results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))

"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:19:32 -0600 (MDT)
From: "P. ENGEBOS" <pengebos@NMSU.Edu>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

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>
T'Sarith, Lord deGaalth			<tsarith@io.com>
		http://web.nmsu.edu/~pengebos/

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1437
***********************************
