Traveller-digest      Thursday, June 19 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1439



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Roll for Skills (was Re: Marc Miller--Please.)
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Traveller Chat - PE Walkthrough
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Please please please!
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Task Vote Quorum Call So Far
Re: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far
Task Systems
Reply to Marc Miller
TML--Stand Up and Be Counted
Stuff..
Skills and Attributes - A CT Hang up?
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: T4.1 Char gen system
Re: T4.1 Char gen system
Re: Anyone in Costa Rica who plays Traveller?

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 97 22:03:10 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Roll for Skills (was Re: Marc Miller--Please.)

On 06/18/97 at 07:39 PM,  "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net> said:

>> 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?  

Yes! You are right! These should be tasks.

>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

Oh man, oh MAN!  This is great!  This is absolutely marvalous!  Marc,
regardless what you do about the task system JUMP ON THIS!

>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.

Everything you have like this I would LOVE to see.  This is exactly HOW
character generation *should* be done! I LOVE IT!

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:58:01 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

At 01:43 pm 06/18/97 -0400, CardSharks@aol.com 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.

	I think part of the reason is we kind of burned out on "task wars" a while
back, and people just don't want to get involved in this But I do think
there is a significant sentiment that _skills_ should still outweight
_statistics_ regardless of how. No, not everybody wants to see KBv2 instead
of the current system. But there are many people still using it; others
still using MegaTraveller's (my personal favorite for its simplicity);
still others using homebrewed kludges to get that effect.

	Perhaps we should ask a simple yes/no question of the list: Do you believe
skills should count more than attributes? I think the answer will come down
heavily on the "YES" side.

	My personal vote is YES, with preferences for a simple, 2D
MegaTraveller-style system.
- -- 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 20:30:50 -0700 (MST)
From: Jerry Sanders <kalin@bambam.swlink.net>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

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!

Paul Sanders

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:29:05 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Traveller Chat - PE Walkthrough

Greetings!

Don't forget, tomorrow night is the Pocket Empires walkthrough 
presented by Stu Dollar!

#Traveller
Imperium Games IRC Server
www.imperiumgames.com
ports 6665 & 6666
10pm EDT (9pm CDT, 8pm MDT, 7pm PDT & AZ)

You won't see me online this week, but I'll be peeking over Stu's 
shoulder from time to time. Of course we'll log the session. I 
already have a few requests for the log, if anyone else wants one, 
please email me.

Also, as always, if you need help getting online, or have any other 
questions or suggestions, please email me!  

Suz

Suzette C. Dollar
#Traveller Channel Manager
suzd@goodnet.com

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:43:26 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

At 03:29 PM 18/06/97 -0600, you wrote:
>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

Err... I hope we are not being too presumptious about this!!!???

Still, let me add y voice to the general claomour... Marc.. please
reconsider your task system. The rest of the product is impressive, but my
players refuse to use it because of the way the task system makes their
characters perform. At the moment we are using the MT task system. 


Harry...

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Please please please!

Marc,

Please add me to the list of those seriously unhappy with the T4.0
stat-dominated task system, and pushing strongly for KBB2.1 or any
equivalently skill-valuing system.

Are we getting near 50 yet?

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:12:52 +0000
From: "Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

>Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net> wrote:
> 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.
> 
Can I vote on both 2 and 3?  I think a new task system is needed.  I 
would really prefer that it involve only two dice, but am persuaded 
by the math that more dice could give a better distribution of 
results.  The important thing is that high skills should contribute 
significantly more than high stats to achieving success and that 
pesky half die should be gotten rid of.

KB v2.0, although not perfect, seems to be the best option 
at this point.  

WKH

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:17:51 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far

Backing For Change(s) are:
- ---------------------------------
Brody  Dunn   <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Anders Backman   <anders.backman@aniware.se>
Scott Ellsworth   <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Sam Thomas   <sinbad@dfw.net>
Alex Rebsch   <grazzit@flash.net>
Erwin Fritz   <efritz@glja.com>
Douglas E. Berry   <dberry@hooked.net>
P. ENGEBOS   <pengebos@NMSU.Edu>
Scott Ellsworth   <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Steve Brengard   <maverick@castlegate.net>
Jason Anderson   <midnight@kagi.com>
vanya   <vanya@partyline.net>
David P. Summers   <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Bruce Alan Macintosh   <bmac@astro.ucla.edu>
SD Mooney   <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
John R. Snead   <jsnead@netcom.com>
Roderick Darroch Elliott   <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Don McKinney   <dmckinne@csci.csc.com>
Eris Reddoch   <eris@pen.net>
David J. Golden   <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Jerry Sanders   <kalin@bambam.swlink.net>


Against For Change(s) are:
- ---------------------------------
Allen Shock   <34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu>

AS of this moment the vote is:
21 For Change(s)
1  Against Change(s)

Please let me know if I have placed you vote under the wrong category or
miscounted, the above list.
- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(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: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:14:06 -0500
From: Alex Rebsch <grazzit@flash.net>
Subject: Re: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far

At 12:17 AM 6/19/97 -0500, you wrote:

>Backing For Change(s) are:

>---------------------------------
>Brody  Dunn   <<brody@intersol.co.nz>
>Anders Backman   <<anders.backman@aniware.se>
>Scott Ellsworth   <<Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
>Sam Thomas   <<sinbad@dfw.net>
>Alex Rebsch   <<grazzit@flash.net>
>Erwin Fritz   <<efritz@glja.com>
>Douglas E. Berry   <<dberry@hooked.net>
>P. ENGEBOS   <<pengebos@NMSU.Edu>
>Scott Ellsworth   <<Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
>Steve Brengard   <<maverick@castlegate.net>
>Jason Anderson   <<midnight@kagi.com>
>vanya   <<vanya@partyline.net>
>David P. Summers   <<summers@alum.mit.edu>
>Bruce Alan Macintosh   <<bmac@astro.ucla.edu>
>SD Mooney   <<dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
>John R. Snead   <<jsnead@netcom.com>
>Roderick Darroch Elliott   <<rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
>Don McKinney   <<dmckinne@csci.csc.com>
>Eris Reddoch   <<eris@pen.net>
>David J. Golden   <<goldendj@pcisys.net>
>Jerry Sanders   <<kalin@bambam.swlink.net>
>
>
>Against For Change(s) are:

>---------------------------------

>Allen Shock   <<34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu>

>

>AS of this moment the vote is:

>21 For Change(s)
>1  Against Change(s)
>
>Please let me know if I have placed you vote under the wrong category or
>miscounted, the above list.


You counted Scott Elsworth twice???


Alex

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, 01 Jan 1997 03:54:45 -0800
From: Evyn MacDude <wmacdude@concentric.net>
Subject: Task Systems

Ok, here is my buck fifty...

Marc, I agree with Ken on the point that Stats and skills should 
be closer to equel. But I do not like his task system. Nor am I
overly fond of the increasing the number of dice thrown for 
increased dificulty. 

I am a heretic. I use a much modified CT/MT system with the d6s
replaced with d10s. The 12 or better is the base task roll. 
Skill rolls are 2d10+skill+(attribute-7)/2+gm mod. Attribute DMs 
range from -3 to +4. The gm mod being based of a chart built
from the Mt dificulty system, very simular to the gurps range/
size/speed chart. And for combat I use a fusion of Snapshot/AHL/TNE

Evyn

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 07:05:35 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Reply to Marc Miller

Hi, Marc,

Wow!  I guess there are a lot of us out there who have problems with 
the task system.  Not everybody agrees on KBv2.0, but this is totally 
fine with me.

I just want to see a task system in T4.1 that is not broken.  I will 
abolish KBv2.0 in favor of an "official" system, if it is a good 
system.

There are many out there who do like KBv2.0, as well.  I invite 
you to take a good look at it.  If you would like, I will call you on 
my nickel to answer any questions you have about it.

I will work on a new system--if you will give me some guidelines.

Basically, I'll do whatever it takes to fix the T4.1 task system.

Let me help.  It won't cost you anything, and I want to do it.  I'm a 
fanatic about Traveller.  I want to do what I can for it to be the 
best it can.

Your post is now just over 12 hours old.  27 people have written to 
the list backing what I have had to say about the task system.  There 
have been 2 that like T4.1 the way it is.

This should be enough to convince you that I am not the lone champion 
for this cause--just the most vocal.  They say if you get one 
complaint in business, there are 10 more out there who hold the 
same sentiments but won't say anything.  In this case, you've have 
one dissenter and 26 (so far) others who agree.

Please listen to us.  Please let me help.  All of us--you, me, 
them--we all want the best for Traveller.

Sincerely,

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 07:23:52 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: TML--Stand Up and Be Counted

The TML has exploded with Marc's request for backing to my comments 
about the broken T4.1 task system.

You may not like KBv2.0 as an alternative, but it is clear that many 
on the list want a better system.

It is time for you to stand up and be counted.  State whether you 
like T4.1 the way it is, or if you back a change to a better 
system--no matter what that system is.

So far, there have been 27 TMLers that have voted for a new task 
system since Marc posted the challenge less than 13 hours ago.  There 
have been 2 people that think T4.1 is fine as it is.

Stand up and be counted!  What do you prefer?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 06:14:53 -0800
From: Evyn MacDude <wmacdude@concentric.net>
Subject: Stuff..

OOOoohhh, I was going to go to bed, But the kid wants to see what 
dad does late at night.

Heres some random bits from the 587 bits of paper that I call my
notes. (yes, I counted them. I have the bad habit of getting way
too cool ideas at work and then scriblling on what ever is handy)

Things I would like to see in T4:

 1. Port over the wear values from TNE. they worked reasonable 
well and are great plot hooks.

2. Traders and Gunboats, Need I say more. Well I will, Starships
was a dismal failure. I liked some of the ship drawing, BUT the
Deckplan sucked major rocks. 
Whooaa, Just had an IDEA. We've been having Thudd going on since the 
first of the year, why not put together a web sight devoted to ships
and deck plans? 

3. Careers, I miss belters.

4. Skills, I like the medical cascade from TNE, it made more sense
than a single skill. I would really like to see it come back.

5. PE, for the true masocist, how bouts rules combining PE and
Worldtamers. No, I don't want that job, but it seems like a good
idea.

Arugauh!! Dive!! Dive!! Arugauh!!

Evyn
- -- 
Buddas Palm met Rilley's Oak,
The Tibetian mugger met
the Louisville slugger.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:38:40 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Skills and Attributes - A CT Hang up?

This posting isn't supposed to start a flamewar, particularly not with
Kenneth, whom I've offended before by not thinking through my posts
carefully enough. Plus, I'm sure I'll be repeating some people's posts, but
given that I don't receive all the TMLs, I apologise in advance. So, bearing
that all in mind...

QUESTION:

Can I ask how many players any of you have inflicted the original, or
proposed T4.1 task systems upon?

ANSWER:

At a rough guess I can vouch for round about 60, the majority being people
new to the game (at Traveller events I've run around the UK), but including
my own two established gaming groups.

RESULT:

For new players, the system is exceptionally easy to learn and understand.
They have little or no problem with D3s after you've taken then through a
few example tasks, and they understand the stat+skill target number and the
principle that the more dice they have to roll, the harder the task.

DISCUSSION:

I feel that a lot of the arguments about stats biasing tasks too much is
simply because the CT and MT task systems (which everyone with a long
standing in Traveller seems to hark back to) placed the greatest emphasis on
skills - i.e. it's a system that we're all familiar with.

Many people have quoted the low stat requiring a huge skill input to
compensate for it. My view is simply that this is what happens in real life.
Sorry to say it, but Mr. DEX 2 just isn't cut out to be any good as a
sharp-shooter unless he spends many a year practicing. Similarly, Mr. EDU 2
might be ok at First Aid if he has a high INT, but otherwise no one is going
to let him near them with a scalpel unless he's acquired at least skill 8+
in Medic!

I think much of the stat/skill incompatibility arises because of people
still using random generation of skills (from the career tables). Referees
should be able to guide their players through this process, from choice of
career ("Well, your Mr. DEX 2 perhaps should not consider piloting or
sharpshooting, but if you really want to...") to skill acquisition ("Let's
face it, there's little point in your Mr. DEX 2 acquiring that skill unless
he's willing to spend a lot of his future skill gains on raising it to a
reasonable level..."), etc.

Look around you. See the divisions in real life, between the Dogbert New
Ruling Class and the InDUHviduals (I hope I just scrape into the former
category). Ever tried watching people of relative DEX 2 and 12 try picking
up a new sport such as badminton? Mr. DEX 12 will (assuming DEX reflects
hand-eye coordination et al.) pick it up pretty quickly. Mr. DEX 2 will be
lucky to hit the shuttle-cock back once in several hours of playing.

Likewise we've all seen those INT 2 and INT 12 people at school - the ones
whose brain acted like a huge sieve, vs. those whose acted as a giant sponge
for information. This makes a *real* difference to how those people will be
able to pick up intellectual/cognitive/etc. skills in later life.

(Ok, so I'm sure everyone can quote one high INT person who was a drop-out) :-)

QUESTION:

So, why is the current task system considered inadequate?

ANSWER:

I think it's because we still have this built-in feeling that Medic-1 means
Nurse, Medic-2 means Paramedic, Medic-3 means Doctor, Medic-4 means Surgeon
(with the right DEX, remember!), i.e. this is a throw-back to the CT days.

Now let's think this through again - the CT days used a different task
system, which didn't include attributes...

...so, why are we still assuming that there has to be a one-to-one
relationship between skill level and absolute knowledge in T4, which uses a
DIFFERENT task system?

So, Mr. DEX 2 can go down the firing range and practise with his rifle for
year after year until he acquires Rifles-9 and starts being regarded as a
moderately good rifleman. One might say, but he doesn't really have Rifles-9
skill with regard to technical knowledge, but we're talking about someone
who for several years has breathed, eaten, and slept with his rifle - his
effective knowledge is definitely better than someone with DEX 10 who just
joined the army and got Rifle-1. Likewise Mr. EDU 2 spends 10 years at
medical school having enough stuff drummed into him to make him a reasonable
doctor (Medic-10 giving a target of 12, vs. Mr. Average with EDU 7 who's
spent 5 years and got Medic-5).

Do these two have the equivalent ability to perform a medical operation?
Clearly Mr. EDU 2 appears to have double the skill - but why are we thinking
like this? Because of the CT/MT hang-up. His skill of 10 just reflects the
fact he had to work for so long to get his ability up to the equivalent of
Mr. Average. If you, as referee, had to work out whether one or the other
was more likely to be able to do a brain transplant, would you honestly
decide (under CT) that it would simply be whoever had skill 5+? Is this
really anywhere near reality? Surgery (IIRC) is a highly specialist field
with techniques peculiar to each branch. So why should we (under CT) have
assumed that anyone with skill 5+ could do heart surgery, any more than we
should now (under T4) consider that the skill level is the absolute arbiter
of a person's ability?

QUESTION:

How does T4 compare with other systems?

ANSWER:

From my minimal knowledge, some games such as CT, Star Wars and Call of
Chthulu are primarily skill based, while others including TNE and Ars Magica
are biased towards the attributes. T4 is not standing alone as the only RPG
to use attributes as a primary ability rating. Is it any more realistic to
have a game where a level of skill can outweight 1/5 or 1/3 or whatever of
one's associated attribute?

CONCLUSIONS:

* Plenty of people, particularly new players, can use the current system
once it's been explained to them (the only qualifier is that I've not stuck
strictly to the T4 difficulty levels - I use whatever number of D6 and D3 I
think appropriate to reflect the difficulty of a task).

* Skill levels should not be considered absolute with regard to capability,
but only with regard to the amount (and to some degree the level) of
training. It's the absolute target level of skill + attribute that matters.

SUMMARY:

After all, unless someone can prove that T4 is bad for new players (which
I've not found to be the case) then why are we trying to change it? Why
change T4.1 so much from T4 that anyone who bought the T4 book will *really*
be pissed off to find that all subsequent products are totally incompatible
- - remember, we (CORE) were asked to use T4.1-ish task rules for PE, TLWH,
Gateway, etc. Given the investment already put into T4.1, is it really
absolutely *critical* to change it?

DISCLAIMER:

If you don't like anything said here, just ignore it. If you agree with
anything, then perhaps the outcry against the T4/T4.1 system should be
moderated somehow?

My own opinion is that there will always be people on the TML who will
disagree with the 'canon' products and suggest new alternatives - this has
been the case with M0 and particularly PE. I'm always open to such ideas and
regularly integrate them into my games. On the task system front, though,
I've just not found any reason to do this...

I must have had too much spare time sitting at my computer, having got into
work too early this morning... 8-)

Andy

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:03:33 +0100
From: Timothy.Collinson@solent.ac.uk
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

Marc bravely 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.

Possibly because he's doing such a good job of 'championing' we don't all
feel the need to jump in.

[champion, n. one who fights in single combat, one who defends a cause]



> having seen my post of the task system and your post of the
>task system, WANT T41 to reflect yours?

To be fair to Ken he's always wanted the *fix* more than he's demanded it
be *his*.  My understanding of his position is that he'd drop his system
immediately for a better one that everyone's pleased with.  Yes, he's been
vocal in his recommendation of KB2.0 but with the bandwidth on TML you need
to shout to be heard!

IIRC several people have picked up on ongoing comments about his task
system, asked to have a look at it, and gone on to use it.  Had he simply
posted it once and shut up, I doubt so many would have been converted.


>Your plea needs to have some backing.

Whatever system you plump for, I would like to vote for more skill
emphasis.

Many thanks for asking what we think.

tc
timothy.collinson@solent.ac.uk

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 05:16:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char gen system

In a message dated 97-06-17 03:08:34 EDT, you write:

<< >However Schoars are cheated out of this by only receiving 1 skill/year +
 >one skill for raising their Edu to B or C.  Why not simply give them
 >+ 1/term.  Otherwise, in 4 terms they have 18 skills, rather than the
 >20 any other non-ranked profession would have.
 
Bad wording. They get 1 skill WHEN they advance to Edu B.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 05:16:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char gen system

In a message dated 97-06-17 03:08:34 EDT, you write:

<< 
 It does take up a lot of space, doesn't it? I think it could be done
 better, perhaps with a description. Something like:
 
 1st digit: 1d6 - 1, reroll 5s and 6s.
 2nd diget: 2d6 - 2
 3rd diget: 2d6 - 2
 
 and then a brief example.
 
 
  >>
You're right. I originally had a brief example which said "randomly generate
a birthdate" and some of the younger players couldn't reliably or accurately
do that. So I made a table and they really liked it.

Marc Miller

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 05:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Anyone in Costa Rica who plays Traveller?

In a message dated 97-06-16 23:47:48 EDT, you write:

<< Here's an oddball question...
 
 Anybody out there who plays or knows of someone that plays Traveller in
 Costa Rica?
 
 I knew someone who did about fifteen years (Craig Lowen - if you're out
 there pls write) but that was a little while ago.
 
 This goes for any of the versions of the game. (I don't have much choice at
 this point :-)
 
 Thanks in advance for any help.
 
 Daniel
>>

I don't know specifically of anyone playing Traveller in Costa Rica (though I
do get a lot of calls from there... my son is spending the summer on a
research project [Why Costa Rica has no military] there).

Meanwhile, did everyone know there is a Spanish version (hardcover) of
Classic Traveller?

Marc Miller

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1439
***********************************
