Traveller-digest      Wednesday, June 18 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1438



(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: A Plea to Marc Miller
Combat Lethality
T4.1 tasks
Anomolies stuff...
Roll for Skills (was Re: Marc Miller--Please.)
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: T4.1 Task System - Plea and Suggestion
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1437
Technology demonstrators
Re: Anomolies stuff...
Re: Combat Lethality
Re:  Traveller-digest V1997 #1437
Task System Changes (was A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
re - plea to Marc Miller
Re: Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and TL14 gear
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:17:28 -0400
From: maverick@castlegate.net (Steve Brengard)
Subject: RE: A Plea to Marc Miller

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC7C1C.A73DB960
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I hereby vote to have the Task system changed to a system that skills =
weigh heavier that attributes.=20

I don't care which system is used (although Ken's system seems to be up =
to the task [just alot to dice evolved]) I just want it to work and =
reflect real life (not simulating real life)

- -----Original Message-----
From:	CardSharks@aol.com [SMTP:CardSharks@aol.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, June 18, 1997 1:44 PM
To:	traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject:	Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

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

<<=20
 Given that, I am forced, out of my devotion to the game, to make one=20
 final plea for you to reconsider the task system.
=20
 I will detail here everything that I can see wrong with your T4 fix=20
 in support of my case.
=20
 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


- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC7C1C.A73DB960
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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=

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC7C1C.A73DB960--

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:25:37 +1000
From: Jason Anderson <midnight@kagi.com>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

>Your plea needs to have some backing.


Marc,

Consider this my backing for Ken's thoughts on the task system. I too feel
that stats have much too much importance in determining the outcomes of
tasks. While I'm not saying that KBv2 is the answer, I feel that at the
moment it is a better choice than the new system currently planned for
T4.1. I hope you reconsider your thoughts.

Regards,
Jason

- -------
Beyond Midnight Software                               <midnight@kagi.com>
                                      <http://www.vision.net.au/~midnight>

             If it's not on fire then it's a software problem.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:30:10 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Combat Lethality

I just ran an ad-hoc scenario for a couple of players based on the 76
patrons style adventure where the Solomani party member wants evidence of
her Vilani past quashed.

The party comprised an ex-marine and an ex-army Lt Col. They were equiped
with Flex armour, and one had a snub SMG, the other a gauss rifle/ACR.

Combat duly ensued when they raided the location were the blackmail
material was stored - the opponents wearing flex and carrying SMGs and
grenades. I played them moderately intelligently.

The armour made the difference - although I ruled a hit put my players down
for a turn, they tended to have very small injuries. Conversely, the
explosives in the snub HEAP rounds, and the auto and burst fire
capabilities of the gauss rifle put down there targets quickly (not to
mention fatally). Of the three opponents, two died, and one was seriously
wounded.

I then allowed the players to escape, and had them encounter a squad in
Battledress and carrying RF Gauss Guns and a PCMP12. The effect was
electrifying - the PCMP lit up the night, blinded a character, and
destroying the surroundings. If I hadn;t been nice, they would have been
very dead.

My conclusion is that (i) combat is very lethal if run correctly, (ii) it's
smoother than MT or TNE and (iii) armour levels are very very stepped in
effect - Cloth did make a slight difference for survival.


I don't usually run combat fests, but this leads me to conclude that the
system isn't broke, and that players need to be careful!


- ------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: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:32:50 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: T4.1 tasks

I agree with Kenneth and the other posters - I am increasingly uneasy about
the dominance of attributes in the task roll. Try running a marine with a
dex <6 and you'll see what I mean! Skills should be a way to counteract
natural inabilities in an area.

- ------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: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:44:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: NUELOW@aol.com
Subject: Anomolies stuff...

I'm probably inviting trouble here, but, hey, I've never been smart enough to
keep my big mouth shut...

Scott Ellsworth wrote:

>> 
On another note, I seem to recall running across the term Starbase in

Anomalies, much like an official adventure in JTAS. <<

In "Anomolies"?! I hope it wasn't in any of my adventures... I was being very
concious about keeping game systems seperate. (I was writing stuff for two
other game systems while doing "Anomolies," including another sci-fi system,
so I had to pay very close attention to terminology.)

Andrew Vallance wrote:

>> 
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. <<

I agree, to a point. The Ramshackle Empire as a whole probably did not move
too far beyond the tech level of the Ziru Sirka, but I think progress could
have been made in certain pockets... a series of systems with extra resources
and dedicated scientists might have come up with all kinds of innovations.
(How did the systems come by these extra resources/innovations? They didn't
share them with anyone else except their closest allies.)

Plus, I don't think TL14 & TL15 relics being discovered here and there means
*every* world in the Second Imperium had reached those heights, or even most
of them, or even a significant percentage of them.

>> But this is not the Traveller I know and love. This is a dungeon crawl. <<

Sorry 'bout that. But, as far as dungeon crawls go... one of the things I was
emulating while writing the "Anomolies" material was what I saw in JTAS. That
and the "push-pull" stuff in the rulebook... it's entirely possible I wasn't
up to the challenge. I will say, though, that I made an effort to infuse the
adventures with more characters then I'd put in a dungeon crawl.

Carlos Alos-Ferrer wrote:

>> TWO adventures in Anomalies use TL 14-15 from the RoM. The two are

from Steve Miller. In another adventure of Steve Miller, he confuses the

Droyne with the Draysaskin, seeming to imply that there are no Droyne in the

universe... moreover, he postulates a surviving Draysaskin, but ***canon***

(flame retardant suit on) state that Grandfather killed them all (he kept

careful count). The confusion makes me think he is new to Traveller...<<

Hmm... I've run a TNE campaign, I've read all the T4 material published up to
the point I started work on the "Anomolies" adventures--"Emperor's Arsenal"
and the "Game Master's Screen" came out as I was wrapping up and moving on to
other things--and I've read the "MegaTraveller" boxed set and "Referee's
Guide" (I think that's what it was called... I don't presently have access to
any of my "Traveller" material, as it's in storage back in WI.) While reading
that material, I don't recall seeing references to "Drayaskin." Where did I
miss that reference? All I recall are Droyne and Chirpers.

And, no, I haven't read every "Traveller" supplement. Duane Maxwell was the
only contributor to "Anomolies" who can lay claim to owning every single
"Traveller" item ever published.

BTW, I'm not sure how I imply there are no Droyne in the universe. Could you
enlighten me w/o touching off a flame-war? 

And as far as canon goes, where is it we get the fact that Grandfather
successfully killed all his offspring? Who is it that's giving us these
reliable facts about the Ancients? (That's not an excuse for my overlooking
anything in research... is just a comment on how I view some of the "facts"
I've been finding in "Traveller" material.

>> Obviously, Steve Miller was just given EA and CSC, and he based his

adevntures on that material, which leads to the errors. I cannot blame him,

but... <<

Well, I *did* check other core material, from the discontinued editions. I
didn't see anything that limited the entire Ramschackle Empire to TL12. It
seems to me that there would have been widely varying tech levels in the
Second Imperium... which would further lend reason to historians labeling it
the "Ramshackle Empire."

Oh, and *please* ignore me if I'm putting forth opinions already expressed in
the "shouting match" that Scott Ellsworth referred to. I don't want to revive
any old flamewars.

I have say this, though... I'm glad I didn't introduce the non-interstellar
human spin-off race I was *originally* going to put in "The Ancients"
adventure. What a mess that would have been... :)

Steve Miller

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:39:48 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Roll for Skills (was Re: Marc Miller--Please.)

> From: Eris Reddoch <eris@pen.net>
> 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 

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


I've always wondered why such rolls in chargen (like enlistment, college
graduation, etc) arent handled as tasks?  I've done some work like this on
the MT advanced Naval and Scout systems.  

Instead of The normal:

Enlistment: Throw 7+ to enlist in Scouts, DM +1 if Int 6+, DM +2 if Str 8+.

I've used this:

To Enlist in the Scouts:
	Routine, (Linguistics or Space),(INT or STR), 5min Unskilled OK
	Referee:  Character may choose which skill and which stat to use on this
task.

To Survive a Year in the Administration Office:
	Simple, (Admin or Liason), INT, Fateful
	Referee: If Training, Base, or Routine assignment, automatic success.

To gain a skill for one Year in the Exploration Branch:
	<Difficulty>, Admin,(INT or EDU), Unskilled OK
	Referee: If Training, Base or Routine assignment Difficulty = Simple
	if Mission, Spl Mission, or War Man, Difficulty = Routine


The actual chances to enlist/survive, gain a skill are not the same, but it
changes chargen from something that it done *to* a character, to something
that is done *by* a character.

Im waiting for the T4.1 charagen sheets from MM so that I'll be able to do
similar things to them. 

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:54:53 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

> From: CardSharks@aol.com
> 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?

Some of us *do* care about the task system.  However, we have been using
one system since 87, and have been so disappointed with some of what has
been published lately,  that we were resigned to use our system regardless
of what you did.

However, I do agree with all of Kenneth's points regarding the T4.1 task
system.  Its flaws are noticeable and apparent.


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

Here's some more.  While I believe Kenneth's system is *very* good, I do
not like it solely on the basis that I don't like rolling handfuls of dice
while playing Traveller (its OK with Star Wars though).  Traveller is and
always will be, in my mind, a 2d6 system.

(Why d6's?  There are Six major races, right?  Six sides to a hex, right? 
Yaskodray had 420 kids and grandkids, right?  Number of pips on a pair of
d6's?  42!  Highest jump number: 6!  Highest Misjump number:36 [6*6], etc,
etc.The Traveller universe is built on sixes!)

Please, though, weather you use a fixed T4.1 task system, adopt KBv2, or
come up with another system entirely,  Make it right.  The flaws in the
original T4 and current T4.1 system are well known and agreed upon by many
on the list.

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:01:39 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Task System - Plea and Suggestion

> From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
> Anytime you have to do a calculation with the stat, it becomes
> cumbersome during combat.  I learned this the hard way with KBv1.1.

I wouldn't say it was cumbersome.  One small division isn't that hard to
do, especially when the numbers are all under 20, and you can write down
the 'wounded' value of your stat on your char sheet.

> You get wounded, and then you have to recalculate the stat.  That's why
> I designed KBv2.0 to adjust the skill instead of the stat.

And leave you with handfuls of dice to roll.  I wouldn't doubt that the
savings in time/effort from not having to make a division when wounded in
combat are lost by the need to add up many more dice when you roll.

> What you are left with is the simple addition of two factors--in KBv2.0
> you're adding stat + experience score, just like in T4/4.1.

Then add up add the d6s you just rolled.  That can be quite cumbersome. :-)

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

.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:58:15 -0400
From: 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1437

>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.

My vote is for the task system as published in the Traveller Game Screen. It
is easy to use, and works better than the original one. My players like it
better, as do I.

Allen Shock

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:09:07 -0700
From: JayStr <jaystr@best.com>
Subject: Technology demonstrators

Perhaps this is already addressed somewhere in the length and breadth of
the reams of rules that exist for the Trav universe, and I just missed
it... but is it possible to hand-build items one TL higher than the
predominant one in that field? and do it at a greater cost multiplier?

One of my long-term adventure ideas has to do with several prototype
(TL11; predominant TL in the campaign is 9 & 10) suits of battle dress.
They can be dropped from orbit (built-in oxygen supply & AG), plus
Stealth capability (EMS + a very small jammer, if I can make it fit). Of
course, all this will have to wait for the new FF&S, but I'd like to get
an answer before that so I know what I'm doing.

Is this possible? And what multipliers in terms of cost and construction
time would you suggest? (What if a TL16 civilization wants to build a
prototype antimatter reactor? What if a TL8 civilization wants to build
its first jump drive, or even hand-build several jump-capable
exploration ships, if their manufacturing technology isn't quite mature
enough to manufacture them wholesale? What if a Pocket Empire
desperately needs a crucial piece of technology that will give them a
decisive edge in battle, like a more advanced jump engine or power
plant, and is willing to foot the bill to build a few?)

Please give me your thoughts and advice on this.

- -- Jay Stranahan

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:16:37 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: Anomolies stuff...

> From: NUELOW@aol.com
> In "Anomolies"?! I hope it wasn't in any of my adventures... I was being
very
> concious about keeping game systems seperate. (I was writing stuff for
two
> other game systems while doing "Anomolies," including another sci-fi
system,
> so I had to pay very close attention to terminology.)

Yikes!  I've had enough trouble *running* games in separate SF settings.  I
wouldn't even attempt to *write* for 'em.

> Plus, I don't think TL14 & TL15 relics being discovered here and there
means
> *every* world in the Second Imperium had reached those heights, or even
most
> of them, or even a significant percentage of them.

Exactly.  Any ROM artifacts above TL 12 have to be very few and very far
between.  Using them in one adventure is more than OK, but they should not
turn up in another for a long, long time.

> And as far as canon goes, where is it we get the fact that Grandfather
> successfully killed all his offspring? Who is it that's giving us these
> reliable facts about the Ancients? (That's not an excuse for my
overlooking
> anything in research... is just a comment on how I view some of the
"facts"
> I've been finding in "Traveller" material.

Actually, Yaskodray killing off all his young'uns is a 'meta-fact' of
Traveller.  This is information that is completely true, given through the
game to the referee (usually in 'Referee's sections' of adventures), and
not through any 'library data' entries.  We know of Yaskodray's pocket
universe through this data, not through TNS or lib data entries.

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:29:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Combat Lethality

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, SD Mooney wrote:

> The party comprised an ex-marine and an ex-army Lt Col. They were equiped
> with Flex armour, and one had a snub SMG, the other a gauss rifle/ACR.

[details of fun-sounding combat fest snipped for brevity]

Out of curiosity, did anyone try firing on the unarmored parts of the 
PC's or NPC's bodies (you mentioned the first group of NPCs were wearing 
Flex, as were the PCs)?  For instance, a Decreased Damage Attack at DM 
- -3, on an unarmored body part (such as arm or leg) allows for half-dice 
damage, rather than the 1 point per die that gets through the Flex.  If 
the character has the skill, that seems a good way to go.

If they're really good, they can try for a head shot, and do a double or 
triple damage attack on that unarmored body part (at DM -5 or -9, 
respectively).  

I really, really like these rules, when coupled with the torso-covering 
armor that T4 offers.  Mabye I'm interpreting them liberally, but it 
works for me. :)

Did your group try it?  If so, how did it work out for them?


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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:15:01 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re:  Traveller-digest V1997 #1437

>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.
>Your plea needs to have some backing.

Lots of people on the list are complaining about the skill system and task
system - maybe not precisely echoing K's comments but pretty close. I would
say at least 33% of those who actually play T4 think it weights abilities
too highly...I'm not necessarily a vote for kbv2 as such, but certainly a voete
for a (attribute/2+skill) or (attr/3+skill) system to redduce the weight of
attributes.

Bruce

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Task System Changes (was A Plea to Marc Miller

I'm with Ken and the others here, the current stat+skill system needs to
be changed.  I'd prefer Ken's original system KB 1.1 to his current one,
but either one is notably better than the current system. 

My Vote: Change it


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 97 21:20:28 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

On 06/18/97 at 01:43 PM,  CardSharks@aol.com said:

>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,

A bunch of us have been kicking task systems around since T4 came
out.  Well actually we were kicking them around long before that weren't
we?  I've championed the more radical changes, specifically aptitudes,
bringing FUDGE style techniques into the game, and throwing away the old
Skill-# qualification system for a skill points based.  Ken has been
*much* more conservative pushing for the most minor changes possible to
make things work.

The relative weights of characteristics vs skills has been a hot topic
in the discussions from time to time.  Most of us agree that skills are
underrated in T4 and in your proposed T4.1.  Ken's method *does* produce
results that I like better.

Doing my best to be conservative tonight, here are my comments.

1.  Skills should be weighted more heavily than they are now.  You don't
    even have to make it equal weighting just get them closer than the
    current 4 to 1 it averages out to now.  Average Characteristic
    after CharGen is 8, Average Skill is now 2, they should be closer.
    Personally, I'd like to get to 2 to 1 with *skills* weighting most,
    but I'm probably a minority on that.  I really, don't see any way to
    do this without either significant increases in target numbers or
    calculations involving multiplication and/or division.  I vote for
    increased target numbers.
    
2.  With the increased target numbers we need to make the task
    difficulties harder.  This actually *helps* because it allows you to
    get rid of the single 1/2 die.  Ok, I never liked them, but even if
    you loved them having only ONE is...well, inelegant to say the
    least. 
    
3.  Ken is right about the SS and SF problems with your proposal.
    Regardless of what you do about the rest of the task system,
    spectacular success and failure need to be fixed.  SS should be less
    and less and SF more and more possible as tasks become more
    difficult.
    
Marc, I can't say I'm in love with KB2.0, as Ken knows, but from
tinkering with both I think it works better than your proposed system.

Please, take a good look at it and *improve* on it. 


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:39:10 CDT
From: Don McKinney <dmckinne@csci.csc.com>
Subject: re - plea to Marc Miller

I am going to have to de-lurk here (I'm desparately trying to get another
revision of the Intergrated Timeline ready for the web)...

Marc - PLEASE consider KBv2.0, and in at least the issues Kenneth raises;
I don't always agree with his methods, but he has a point!


DonM.
- --
============================================================================
= Donald E. McKinney, Senior CM Specialist,           (217) 351-8250 x2365 = 
= Computer Sciences Corporation, Champaign, IL       dmckinne@csci.csc.com =
= Winter War XXV Convention Chairman, Champaign, IL, February 6-8, 1998    =
= dmckinne@prairienet.org or winterwar@prairienet.org       (217) 469-9917 = 
============================================================================

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 97 21:38:44 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and TL14 gear

>> 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.

What they *should* do is include higher tech gear, but include "standard" dates of introduction..perhaps as prototypes, as production items, and perhaps even reintroductions after the Long Night. This would give people a guide as to when along the traditional timeline items could be brought into game senarios.  

Everybody knows I'm not big on adherance to a fixed published history, but I know a lot of people are, and this would be useful for them.  For heretics like me they would be relative guidelines...but guidelines *are* good. 

Eris,
    who will NOT say the "c" word ;->

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:49:56 -0400
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

Marc Miller wrote:

>
>In a message dated 97-06-18 10:41:25 EDT, you write:
[snip of KB quote]
>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

	Marc, count me as backing Ken.  As I mentioned in a previous post,
I played 1 campaign using the T4 task system, was extremely unimpressed,
and seriously considered running my next campaign using White Wolf's
Storyteller system.  However, I decided to go with Ken's system instead.  I
am completely satisfied with it.  Ken's system is simple and fixes
everything that I felt was wrong with the T4 system.  I'm going to continue
to use KB v.2 until something better comes along.

	Spend some time playtesting it... it's really worth a look.  Don't
get put off by Ken's vehemence; it really is a good task system.

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1438
***********************************
